| Literature DB >> 31978973 |
Fei Li1, Jingyu Sun2, Hualong Xie2, Kun Yang2, Xiaofei Zhao2.
Abstract
Polyamide 66 (PA66) is a material with high wear resistance, toughness, and heat resistance. However, low stiffness and thermal deformation during thermal processes define applications in many conditions. Carbon powder efficiently enhances stiffness and reduces thermal deformation, which makes up defects of plastic materials. However, forming a composite with fused deposition modeling (FDM) that accumulates material to a specified location by melting plastic filaments is limited, including fluidity and viscosity to form normally. In this paper, filaments of polyamide 66 (PA66) reinforced with carbon powder were produced. Digimat was used to analyze the composite material properties of different carbon contents and predict the proper carbon content. Then, the material properties were imported to ANSYS software to simulate the thermal deformation of the workpieces during processing. It was verified that adding carbon powder is helpful in decreasing thermal deformation. Comparing experiments and simulations, we found that 20% carbon mass fraction was best, and that thermal deformation was minimal at 240 °C nozzle temperature while hot bed temperature was 90 °C. The optimal ratio of extrusion speed to filling speed was 0.87, and the best aspect ratio was 0.25.Entities:
Keywords: CPRP; material modeling; max thermal deformation; processing parameters; warp
Year: 2020 PMID: 31978973 PMCID: PMC7040800 DOI: 10.3390/ma13030519
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Elastoplastic curve of polyamide 66 (PA66).
Physical properties of raw materials.
| Material | Unit | PA66 | Carbon Powder |
|---|---|---|---|
| Density |
| 1150 | 1750 |
| Thermal conductivity |
| 0.35 | 10 |
| Thermal expansion coefficient ( |
| 7.2 | –3.8 |
| Elastic modulus ( | Pa | 1200 | 228,000 |
| Poisson’s ratio | 0.4 | 0.307 |
Specific heat at different temperatures of PA66 and carbon powder.
| Temperature (°C) | PA66’s Specific Heat Capacity
| Carbon’s Specific Heat Capacity
|
|---|---|---|
| 15 | 681 | 7531 |
| 50 | 1849 | 7531 |
| 75 | 2029 | 7531 |
| 100 | 2171 | 7531 |
| 125 | 2468 | 7531 |
| 150 | 2795 | 7531 |
| 175 | 3186 | 7531 |
| 191 | 4499 | 7531 |
| 200 | 2595 | 7531 |
| 220 | 2429 | 7531 |
| 240 | 2412 | 7531 |
| 260 | 2428 | 7531 |
Figure 2Numerical mesh in ANSYS.
Figure 3Warp model.
Numerical physical-property composite parameters with different carbon contents.
| wt % | CTE (×10−5) | E (109) | ν | ρ | λ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/°C | Pa |
| W/m·°C | ||
| 20 | 5.8892 | 1.7632 | 0.3879 | 1234.7 | 0.508 |
| 15 | 6.2244 | 1.6275 | 0.391 | 1212.3 | 0.46 |
| 10 | 6.5545 | 1.5065 | 0.394 | 1190.8 | 0.42 |
| 5 | 6.8797 | 1.39702 | 0.397 | 1170.1 | 0.38 |
Specific heat capacity of composite materials with different carbon contents.
| Temperature (°C) | 15 | 50 | 75 | 100 | 125 | 150 | 175 | 191 | 200 | 220 | 240 | 260 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| wt % | |||||||||||||
| 5 | 1518 | 3708 | 4014 | 4189 | 4648 | 5259 | 6570 | 7815 | 6068 | 4670 | 4582 | 4626 | |
| 10 | 1835 | 3868 | 4220 | 4448 | 4862 | 5358 | 6724 | 7842 | 6207 | 4820 | 4758 | 4794 | |
| 15 | 2151 | 4052 | 4345 | 4580 | 4971 | 5440 | 6632 | 7864 | 6261 | 4971 | 4932 | 4946 | |
| 20 | 2467 | 4275 | 4533 | 4790 | 5195 | 5618 | 6888 | 7886 | 6372 | 5140 | 5125 | 5085 | |
Figure 4Composite specimen processed by fused deposition modeling (FDM).
Workpiece warp with different carbon contents.
| wt % | Warp 1 (%) | Warp 2 (%) | Warp 3 (%) | Mean (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.2013 | 0.1934 | 0.1911 | 0.1953 |
| 20 | 0.1028 | 0.0925 | 0.0994 | 0.0982 |
Maximal displacement of workpiece thermal deformation with different carbon contents.
| wt % | Maxd1 (μm) | Maxd2 (μm) | Maxd3 (μm) | Mean (μm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 90.77 | 90.98 | 89.63 | 90.46 |
| 20 | 80.54 | 80.30 | 79.66 | 80.17 |
Figure 5Numerical and experiment workpiece warpage at different hot-bed temperatures.
Figure 6Maximal workpiece thermal-deformation displacement at different hot-bed temperatures.
Figure 7The ratios of extrusion velocity to filling velocity at different temperatures.
Figure 8Optimal ratio of extrusion velocity to filling velocity at different temperatures.
Figure 9Warp in different model aspect ratios (numerical and experiment results).
Figure 10Maximal thermal-deformation displacement in different model aspect ratios.