CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 240Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 120 of the 123 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fused Filament Fabrication of PEEK: A Review of Process-Structure-Property Relationships

Open access
Zanjanijam, Ali Reza, Major, Ian, Lyons, John G., Lafont, Ugo, Devine, Declan M.·2020·Polymers
DOI 10.3390/polym12081665PMC PMC7465918
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Poly (ether ether ketone) (PEEK) is a high-performance engineering thermoplastic polymer with potential for use in a variety of metal replacement applications due to its high strength to weight ratio. This combination of properties makes it an ideal material for use in the production of bespoke replacement parts for out-of-earth manufacturing purposes, in particular on the International Space Station (ISS). Additive manufacturing (AM) may be employed for the production of these parts, as it has enabled new fabrication pathways for articles with complex design considerations. However, AM of PEEK via fused filament fabrication (FFF) encounters significant challenges, mostly stemming from the semi crystalline nature of PEEK and its associated high melting temperature. This makes PEEK highly susceptible to changes in processing conditions which leads to a large reported variation in the literature on the final performance of PEEK. This has limited the adaption of FFF printing of PEEK in space applications where quality assurance and reproducibility are paramount. In recent years, several research studies have examined the effect of printing parameters on the performance of the 3D-printed PEEK parts. The aim of the current review is to provide comprehensive information in relation to the process-structure-property relationships in FFF 3D-printing of PEEK to provide a clear baseline to the research community and assesses its potential for space applications, including out-of-earth manufacturing.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/polym12081665

Cites

120 of 120 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Chemical structure of poly (ether ether ketone) (PEEK) [60].
Figure 1 Chemical structure of poly (ether ether ketone) (PEEK) [60].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Tensile properties values for 3D-printed PEEK reported in the literature.
Figure 2 Tensile properties values for 3D-printed PEEK reported in the literature.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Flexural and compressive properties values for 3D-printed PEEK reported in the literature. Triangle and circle symbols are strength and modulus data, respectively.
Figure 3 Flexural and compressive properties values for 3D-printed PEEK reported in the literature. Triangle and circle symbols are strength and modulus data, respectively.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Configurations of samples fabricated (a) horizontally or (b) vertically. The deposition pattern is (c) 0° beads orientation or (d,e) 90° beads orientation [93].
Figure 4 Configurations of samples fabricated (a) horizontally or (b) vertically. The deposition pattern is (c) 0° beads orientation or (d,e) 90° beads orientation [93].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Storage and loss moduli of PEEK filament and 3D printed samples with a −45/+45 raster layer orientation [112].
Figure 5 Storage and loss moduli of PEEK filament and 3D printed samples with a −45/+45 raster layer orientation [112].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Computed Tomography scans of gauge length of PEEK-XY-100 (left) and PEEK-Z-100 (right) samples before tensile test [85].
Figure 6 Computed Tomography scans of gauge length of PEEK-XY-100 (left) and PEEK-Z-100 (right) samples before tensile test [85].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Void fraction calculated from CT Scan as a function of the printing orientation and scan location [110].
Figure 7 Void fraction calculated from CT Scan as a function of the printing orientation and scan location [110].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 8 Surface morphology of PEEK samples printed in the vertical direction: layer thickness of (a) 0.1 mm, and (b) 0.25 mm [84].
Figure 8 Surface morphology of PEEK samples printed in the vertical direction: layer thickness of (a) 0.1 mm, and (b) 0.25 mm [84].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 9 Ambient temperature dependency of (a) crystallinity and (b) mechanical properties of PEEK samples [88].
Figure 9 Ambient temperature dependency of (a) crystallinity and (b) mechanical properties of PEEK samples [88].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 10 Colour differences in PEEK samples (Hyrel, Intamsys, and Indmatec from top to bottom or from left to right, respectively) [90].
Figure 10 Colour differences in PEEK samples (Hyrel, Intamsys, and Indmatec from top to bottom or from left to right, respectively) [90].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 11 Morphology of the PEEK tensile samples printed at different nozzle temperatures (left), and SEM micrographs of tensile fracture surface of printed PEEK at different printing temperatures: (a) 370 °C, (b) 380 °C, (c) 390 °C, and (d) 420 °C [96].
Figure 11 Morphology of the PEEK tensile samples printed at different nozzle temperatures (left), and SEM micrographs of tensile fracture surface of printed PEEK at different printing temperatures: (a) 370 °C, (b) 380 °C, (c) 390 °C, and (d) 420 °C [96].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 12 Representative SEM micrographs of the fracture surfaces of PEEK parts printed at different printing temperatures (a) at 380 °C (b) at 440 °C. A and B indicate voids between layers and a void between the infill filaments [84].
Figure 12 Representative SEM micrographs of the fracture surfaces of PEEK parts printed at different printing temperatures (a) at 380 °C (b) at 440 °C. A and B indicate voids between layers and a void between the infill filaments [84].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 13 Viscosity of PEEK at various heating temperatures and wire feeding speeds (2, 4 and 6 mm/s) (a) at 320 °C (b) at 380 °C (c) at 400 °C (d) at 420 °C (e) at 440 °C and (f) at 460 °C [84].
Figure 13 Viscosity of PEEK at various heating temperatures and wire feeding speeds (2, 4 and 6 mm/s) (a) at 320 °C (b) at 380 °C (c) at 400 °C (d) at 420 °C (e) at 440 °C and (f) at 460 °C [84].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 14 Surface topography of the printed PEEK parts at bed temperatures of (A) 220 °C, (B) 240 °C, (C) 260 °C, (D) 280 °C (E) 300 °C and (F) experimental results and model results of surface roughness in different platform temperatures [109].
Figure 14 Surface topography of the printed PEEK parts at bed temperatures of (A) 220 °C, (B) 240 °C, (C) 260 °C, (D) 280 °C (E) 300 °C and (F) experimental results and model results of surface roughness in different platform temperatures [109].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 15 SEM micrographs of tensile-fracture surfaces of PEEK samples printed under different speeds (a) at 17 mm/s and (b) at 26 mm/s [84].
Figure 15 SEM micrographs of tensile-fracture surfaces of PEEK samples printed under different speeds (a) at 17 mm/s and (b) at 26 mm/s [84].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 16 Surface topography of the PEEK parts printed under different printing speeds (a) at 17 mm/s (b) at 20 mm/s and (c) at 26 mm/s [84].
Figure 16 Surface topography of the PEEK parts printed under different printing speeds (a) at 17 mm/s (b) at 20 mm/s and (c) at 26 mm/s [84].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 17 Thermal decomposition of PEEK and its glass (GL30) and carbon (CA30) fibre composites under nitrogen (top) and in air (bottom) [119].
Figure 17 Thermal decomposition of PEEK and its glass (GL30) and carbon (CA30) fibre composites under nitrogen (top) and in air (bottom) [119].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 18 Fourier Transform Infrared spectra of PEEK: (a) before start of degradation, and (b) at maximum rate of weight loss.
Figure 18 Fourier Transform Infrared spectra of PEEK: (a) before start of degradation, and (b) at maximum rate of weight loss.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Shahmirzadi, S.R., Yousefi, A.A., and Naderpour, N. (2016, January 2–5). Morphology and rheological properties of copper–polypropylene composite as a candidate for fusion deposition modeling (FDM) filament. Proceedings of the 12th International Seminar on Polymer Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
  2. Rechtenwald, T., Eßer, G., Schmidt, M., and Pohle, D. (2005). Comparison between Laser Sintering of PEEK and PA using design of experiment methods. Virtual Modelling and Rapid Manufacturing: Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid Prototyping, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid Prototyping, Leiria, Portugal, 28 September–1 Octorber 2005, CRC Press.
  3. Daurskikh, A., Sgambati, A., Graça, D., Berg, M., Baptista, A., Angelo, M., and Lafont, U. (2018, January 1–5). Influence of spatial orientation on properties of 3D printed PEEK parts and their design adaptation. Proceedings of the 69th International Astronautical Congress, Bremen, Germany.
  4. Lafont, U., Siarov, S., Egmond, D.A., and van Semprimoschnig, C. (2017, January 17–22). 3D printed PEEK processed by fused filament fabrication: Properties and process relation. Proceedings of the EUROMAT, Thessaloniki, Greece.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 240

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Zanjanijam, A. R., Major, I., Lyons, J. G., Lafont, U., & Devine, D. M.
Affiliations
  • Athlone Institute of Technology (IE)
  • European Space Agency (FR)
Corresponding author
Devine, Declan M.
ORCID
Venue
Polymers
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-07-27
Volume
12
Issue
8
Pages
1665
ISSN
2073-4360 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/polym12081665
PMC
PMC7465918
OpenAlex
W3044352071
Cited by
240
References
123
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 2
FWCI
2.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Polymers (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research@THEA (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
European Space Agency (4000126158/18/NL/FE)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Innovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
Keywords
PEEK, fused deposition modeling, process-structure-property relationships, semicrystalline polymers, printing parameters, polymer 3D printing, space applications, International Space Station, metal substitution

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