The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Influence of Layer Thickness and Raster Angle on the Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed PEEK and a Comparative Mechanical Study between PEEK and ABS
Open accessAbstract
Fused deposition modeling (FDM) is a rapidly growing 3D printing technology. However, printing materials are restricted to acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) or poly (lactic acid) (PLA) in most Fused deposition modeling (FDM) equipment. Here, we report on a new high-performance printing material, polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK), which could surmount these shortcomings. This paper is devoted to studying the influence of layer thickness and raster angle on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed PEEK. Samples with three different layer thicknesses (200, 300 and 400 μm) and raster angles (0°, 30° and 45°) were built using a polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) 3D printing system and their tensile, compressive and bending strengths were tested. The optimal mechanical properties of polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) samples were found at a layer thickness of 300 μm and a raster angle of 0°. To evaluate the printing performance of polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) samples, a comparison was made between the mechanical properties of 3D-printed polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) parts. The results suggest that the average tensile strengths of polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) parts were 108% higher than those for acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), and compressive strengths were 114% and bending strengths were 115%. However, the modulus of elasticity for both materials was similar. These results indicate that the mechanical properties of 3D-printed polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) are superior to 3D-printed ABS.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Recent Developments in Fused Deposition Modeling-Based 3D Printing of Polymers and Their Composites
Rahim, T. N. A. T., Abdullah, A. M., & Md Akil, H. (2019) · Polymer Reviews · doi:10.1080/15583724.2019.1597883 · Cited by 452
Fused filament fabrication of polymer materials: A review of interlayer bond
Gao, X., Qi, S., Kuang, X., Su, Y., Li, J., & Wang, D. (2021) · Additive Manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.addma.2020.101658 · Cited by 418
A Multimaterial Scaffold With Tunable Properties: Toward Bone Tissue Repair
Feng, P., Wu, P., Gao, C., Yang, Y., Guo, W., Yang, W., & Shuai, C. (2018) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.201700817 · Cited by 365
Ding, S., Zou, B., Wang, P., & Ding, H. (2019) · Polymer Testing · doi:10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.105948 · Cited by 351
Effects of extrusion speed and printing speed on the 3D printing stability of extruded PEEK filament
Geng, P., Zhao, J., Wu, W., Ye, W., Wang, Y., Wang, S., & Zhang, S. (2019) · Journal of Manufacturing Processes · doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.11.023 · Cited by 321
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Wu, W., Geng, P., Li, G., Zhao, D., Zhang, H., & Zhao, J.
- Venue
- Materials
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2015-09-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 5834-5846
- ISSN
- 1996-1944 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2168265923
- Cited by
- 881
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 35.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Influence of Layer Thickness and Raster Angle on the Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed PEEK and a Comparative Mechanical Study between PEEK and ABS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/ma8095271
- The paper
- Wu, W., Geng, P., Li, G., Zhao, D., Zhang, H., & Zhao, J. (2015). Influence of Layer Thickness and Raster Angle on the Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed PEEK and a Comparative Mechanical Study between PEEK and ABS. Materials. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma8095271
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.