4.6 Article

Dual nozzle 3D printing strategy to improve the surface quality of continuous glass fiber reinforced polyamide 6 composites

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED POLYMER SCIENCE
卷 140, 期 33, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/app.54276

关键词

3D printing; glass fibers; mechanical testing; polymer-matrix composites (PMCs)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A dual-nozzle 3D printing technique was developed to fabricate continuous glass fiber reinforced PA6 composites with sandwich structure. The surface layer was printed with short glass fiber reinforced PA6 filament, while the inner part was printed with CGF/PA6 filament to provide high mechanical performance. The optimized printing process parameters resulted in composites with excellent mechanical properties, making them suitable for various industrial applications such as aerospace, automotive, wind turbine blades, and shipbuilding.
A dual-nozzle 3D printing technique was proposed to prepare continuous glass fiber reinforced PA6 (CGF/PA6) composites with sandwich structure. Short glass fiber reinforced PA6 filament was used for printing the surface layer and CGF/PA6 filament was used for inner part to provide high-mechanical performance. Morphology of CGF/PA6 filament and the properties of printed composites samples were investigated. Printing process parameters were systematically optimized. The results showed that when CGF/PA6 part thickness of the composites samples was 2.8 mm, the flexural strength and flexural modulus, notched impact strength and interlaminar shear strength of the printed products can reach 275.4 MPa, 10.8 GPa, 168.2 kJ/m(2), and 26.5 MPa, respectively. The dual-nozzle 3D printing strategy in this work was of great significance for the precision fabrication of continuous fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites (CFRTPC), which can be widely used in aerospace, automotive, wind turbine blades, shipbuilding, and other industrial fields due to their excellent mechanical properties and ability to resist vibration and corrosion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据