Next Article in Journal
Energy Consumption for Furniture Joints during Drilling in Birch Plywood
Next Article in Special Issue
Organic Nanoparticles in Progressing Cardiovascular Disease Treatment and Diagnosis
Previous Article in Journal
Three-Dimensional Cross-Linking Network Coating for the Flame Retardant of Bio-Based Polyamide 56 Fabric by Weak Bonds
Previous Article in Special Issue
Hybrid-Aligned Fibers of Electrospun Gelatin with Antibiotic and Polycaprolactone Composite Membranes as an In Vitro Drug Delivery System to Assess the Potential Repair Capacity of Damaged Cornea
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Investigation of the Effectiveness of Silicon Nitride as a Reinforcement Agent for Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol in Material Extrusion 3D Printing

by
Nikolaos Michailidis
1,2,
Markos Petousis
3,
Vassilis Saltas
4,
Vassilis Papadakis
5,6,
Mariza Spiridaki
3,
Nikolaos Mountakis
3,
Apostolos Argyros
1,2,
John Valsamos
3,
Nektarios K. Nasikas
7 and
Nectarios Vidakis
3,*
1
Physical Metallurgy Laboratory, Mechanical Engineering Department, School of Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
2
Centre for Research & Development of Advanced Materials (CERDAM), Centre for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation, Balkan Centre, Building B’, 10th Km Thessaloniki-Thermi Road, 57001 Thessaloniki, Greece
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Hellenic Mediterranean University, 71410 Heraklion, Greece
4
Department of Electronic Engineering, Hellenic Mediterranean University, 73133 Chania, Greece
5
Institute of Electronic Structure and Laser of the Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas (IESL-FORTH)—Hellas, N. Plastira 100m, 70013 Heraklion, Greece
6
Department of Industrial Design and Production Engineering, University of West Attica, 12243 Athens, Greece
7
Division of Mathematics and Engineering Sciences, Department of Military Sciences, Hellenic Army Academy, 16673 Vari, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2024, 16(8), 1043; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16081043
Submission received: 21 March 2024 / Revised: 7 April 2024 / Accepted: 8 April 2024 / Published: 10 April 2024

Abstract

:
Polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG) and silicon nitride (Si3N4) were combined to create five composite materials with Si3N4 loadings ranging from 2.0 wt.% to 10.0 wt.%. The goal was to improve the mechanical properties of PETG in material extrusion (MEX) additive manufacturing (AM) and assess the effectiveness of Si3N4 as a reinforcing agent for this particular polymer. The process began with the production of filaments, which were subsequently fed into a 3D printer to create various specimens. The specimens were manufactured according to international standards to ensure their suitability for various tests. The thermal, rheological, mechanical, electrical, and morphological properties of the prepared samples were evaluated. The mechanical performance investigations performed included tensile, flexural, Charpy impact, and microhardness tests. Scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy mapping were performed to investigate the structures and morphologies of the samples, respectively. Among all the composites tested, the PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4 showed the greatest improvement in mechanical properties (with a 24.5% increase in tensile strength compared to unfilled PETG polymer), indicating its potential for use in MEX 3D printing when enhanced mechanical performance is required from the PETG polymer.

1. Introduction

Additive manufacturing (AM) technology has been the subject of intense research and development for over 30 years, resulting in constant progress and innovative techniques that constitute a true revolution in manufacturing. AM processes include most notably stereolithography (SLA) [1], fused deposition modeling (FDM) [2], three-dimensional printing (3DP) [3], selective laser sintering (SLS) [4], laminated objective manufacturing (LOM) [5], and laser metal deposition (LMD) [6]. AM provides the opportunity to create parts with complex geometries in a shorter period of time and at a significantly lower cost [7] than traditional manufacturing techniques [8]. AM has important and innovative applications in a variety of fields, such as engineering [9], aerospace [10,11,12,13,14,15], the automotive industry [11,12,16,17], energy [18], the use of ceramic materials [19], electronics [20,21], defense [22,23], and medicine [24,25,26,27,28,29].
Fused filament fabrication (FFF) or material extrusion (MEX) can easily be utilized for the processing of polymers and reinforced polymers because it is a simple procedure that involves feeding an extrusion-suitable thermoplastic filament into a nozzle and fabricating the desired 3D sample [30,31]. It should be mentioned that some settings must be properly and carefully set during each FFF procedure because they can influence the mechanical performance of the 3D-printed sample [32,33]. Those could be, among others, the printing speed, the layer thickness, the temperature of the nozzle, the bed, and the chamber, etc. [34,35].
Polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG) is the most common thermoplastic polymer resin among polyesters. It is a modified polyethylene terephthalate (PET) polymer filled with glycol that provides better processability in the FFF technique [36,37]. It possesses some advanced properties compared to PET, such as chemical alkali resistance, high shrinkage, transparency, gloss, low haze, good printability [38], and processability, along with the ability to be easily mixed with blends [39]. It can be useful in applications that require more enhanced mechanical properties than PET; moreover, its 3D-printing FFF process is easy to use, and it can be utilized for food packaging [38], engineering [40], and medical applications [41], among others.
Many industries tend to choose ceramics for specific applications owing to their advanced properties [42] such as high hardness and high melting temperature (Tm). Such quantities are utilized in applications featuring high loads, such as in cutting tools [43,44]. Silicon nitride (Si3N4) is a ceramic material that exhibits extraordinary properties, such as high durability, potency, crack-withstanding ability, and resistance to sudden temperature changes [45,46,47]. Therefore, such ceramics and analogous materials are suitable for specific applications that require optimal operation under harsh working conditions, such as bearings [48], hard coatings, cutting tools [49], spark plugs [50,51], and engine parts that operate at high temperatures [52]. According to many studies, the presence of nitride nanoparticles can be beneficial to the characteristics and behavior of polymer nanocomposites with regard to their thermomechanical properties [47,53,54]. In addition to its excellent mechanical properties as a ceramic material, Si3N4 is considered a bioceramic that can be useful for medical or healthcare applications. It is a subject of interest in the field of biomedicine because of its biocompatibility and superior chemical, physical, and mechanical properties, which are necessary for applications such as implants [55,56] and scaffolds [57,58]. Si3N4 ceramics are also characterized by their bacteriostatic properties, which can be useful in a variety of biomedical applications [45,46]. Recently, they have been used in biomedical applications such as in 3D printing using material extrusion (MEX) [59,60] and vat photopolymerization (VPP) [61,62] methods.
In this research endeavor, various composites were developed by blending PETG as the matrix material with Si3N4 ceramic as the filler, with the aim of evaluating their performance in a range of tests. This study examined the impact of Si3N4 nanoparticles as reinforcing agents for PETG thermoplastic. The objective was to enhance the mechanical properties of PETG thermoplastic in MEX 3D printing, with an emphasis on developing a process that could be scaled up for industrial production. This enhancement is intended to improve the durability of components, particularly in applications where PETG thermoplastic is the preferred polymer, thus potentially expanding its range of use. It is worth noting that this investigation into PETG/Si3N4 nanocomposites, especially in terms of their mechanical properties, is novel in the literature, particularly within the realm of additive manufacturing (AM) or MEX 3D printing technologies.
In this study, PETG was used in conjunction with Si3N4 to create composites with five filler percentages (2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%). The corresponding mixtures were created and used to fabricate filaments via material extrusion (MEX). The produced filaments were later fed into a three-dimensional printer (3D-P) to fabricate the desired specimens in accordance with the respective international standards, for which the specimens subsequently underwent a variety of tests. The same settings were applied for the fabrication of all the samples so that the results would be comparable. The samples were subjected to a series of mechanical tests, including tensile, flexural, impact, and microhardness tests. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and Raman spectroscopy were used to determine the thermal properties of the composites. Their electrical/dielectric properties over a broad frequency range were examined, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) were employed to reveal the structural characteristics and chemical compositions of the samples. Micro-CT (μ-CT) was used to determine the dimensional accuracy and internal structure of the fabricated samples. A significant enhancement in the mechanical properties was exhibited by the 6.0 wt.% composite made of Si3N4, which led to this specific filler percentage composite being considered suitable for providing the nanocomposites with reinforced mechanical properties. However, the electrical/dielectric response of PETG/Si3N4 composites is mainly dependent on the electrical behavior of the polymer matrix. This study aims to achieve the following:
  • Examine the ability of Si3N4 to enhance the mechanical properties and reinforce the performance of the PETG polymer.
  • Determine the contribution of Si3N4 to the electrical/dielectric properties of the PETG polymer.
  • Investigate and provide evidence for the suitability of PETG/Si3N4 composites for use as 3D printable materials for the fabrication of various parts that can serve a constantly increasing variety of applications in demanding and extreme environments.

2. Materials and Methods

The present work involved a series of steps, summarized in Figure 1, regarding the preparation of the raw materials, filaments, and specimens as well as the tests conducted on them. Figure 1A,B display the raw materials prepared and dried in an oven to remove any absorbed moisture. As shown in Figure 1C,D, the filaments were extruded and allowed to dry in an oven, while Figure 1E,F show their quality inspection and mechanical testing. Figure 1G,H show the material extrusion 3D-P of the corresponding specimens and their quality control. Figure 1I,J concern the mechanical testing and evaluation of the specimens, while their rheological and morphological characteristics are shown in Figure 1K,L.

2.1. Materials

Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol (PETG) was supplied by Felfil Srl (Torino, Italy) in pellet form. Nanographi (Ankara, Turkey) was used as the source of silicon nitride (Si3N4) nanoparticles (Ankara, Turkey).

2.2. Preparation of the PETG/Si3N4 Filament and 3D Printing

Preparation of PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 filaments began by measuring the correct quantities of both materials and then using them to synthesize the desired compounds. As to the definition of the filler percentage limit, it was set according to the results of preliminary tests conducted on the samples, while gradually increasing the filler quantity. Increasing the amount of additive was discontinued when the performance of the samples ceased to provide useful results and information. Apart from the pure PETG quantity, which was prepared, five different mixtures of PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 were also compounded, namely, PETG/2.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/4.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/8.0 wt.% Si3N4, and PETG/10.0 wt.% Si3N4. After being left in the oven overnight at 80 °C to dry, the filaments were fed onto a 3D Evo Composer single-screw 450 extruder supplied by 3devo (3devo B. V., Utrecht, The Netherlands). It should be noted that the diameter of the filaments was monitored during extrusion using a filament diameter sensor with the ability to make micro-adjustments, if needed, to the extrusion speed. The available literature provided this study with the necessary information about the extrusion parameters. The diameter for all filaments remained almost steady at a range between 1.65 mm and 1.85 mm, which is considered suitable for the 3D-P of the specimens. The filaments, which were dried overnight at 80 °C, were subsequently supplied to an FFF Intamsys Funmat HT 3D printer purchased from Intamsys Technology Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China) for the production of 3D-P specimens. They were designed using 3D Autodesk® Fusion 360™ software (Autodesk®, Inc, San Francisco, CA, USA, https://www.autodesk.com/campaigns/education/fusion-360, accessed on 20 November 2023) and exported into Standard Tesselation Language (STL) format files.

2.3. SEM of Si3N4 and EDS Analysis

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis was conducted by capturing fracture and side surface images of the specimens using an electron Jeol JSM-IT700HR (Jeol Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) field-emission scanning electron microscope. The chemical elements of the samples were detected via EDS analysis using the same device employed for SEM. The chemical composition of Si3N4 was investigated using the same procedure. The scanning electron microscope was operated in high-vacuum mode with a 5 kV acceleration voltage, and the samples were gold-sputtered during the SEM and EDS analyses.
In Figure 2A, an SEM image of Si3N4 at 10,000× magnification is presented, and the highlighted square area is shown in Figure 2B at 20,000× magnification. The highlighted square area in Figure 2B is magnified 50,000× (Figure 2C). The EDS mapping results for Si3N4 are shown in Figure 2D, and Figure 2C shows the chemical composition analysis derived from the EDS. As can be observed, high levels of Si were detected, which was an expected phenomenon.

2.4. Mechanical Tests

The various mechanical tests conducted on the specimens included tensile, flexural, Charpy impact, and microhardness (MH) tests. Several 3.2 mm thick V-type tensile specimens were created and tested according to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard D638-02a [63]. The specimens were placed between the standardized grips of an Imada MX2 (Imada Inc., Northbrook, IL, USA) tension/flexure test device in tensile mode for the tensile tests. The same machine but in flexural mode was used for flexural 3-point bending tests based on ASTM D790-10 [64] (3-point bending test with a 52.0 mm support span). ASTM D6110-04 [65] was used for impact testing, which was conducted using a Charpy impact apparatus (Terco MT 220, Terco, Sweden). ASTM E384-17 [66] was used for M–H measurements, and a Vickers apparatus, Innova Test 300 (Europe BV, Maastricht, The Netherlands), was used on specimens whose surfaces were preliminarily fully polished under a force of 100 gF and for an indentation duration of 10 s.
On the left side of Figure 3, the set 3D-P parameters are presented, along with some samples from the actual 3D-printed tensile, flexural, and impact specimens. The nozzle temperature was set to 240 °C, the bed temperature was 80 °C, the thickness of the layers was 0.2 mm, and the travel speed was 40 mm/s. On the right side of Figure 3, the initially designed models of the tensile, flexural, and impact specimens are presented along with their dimensions and related ASTM standards.

2.5. Raman Spectroscopy

A confocal LabRAM HR Raman spectrometer (HORIBA Scientific, Kyoto, Japan) was employed to obtain Raman Spectroscopy measurements under laboratory conditions. A 532 nm laser line was used for Raman signal excitation with a power of 90 mW. To help control the laser power applied to the sample, a 5% neutral-density filter was placed in the optical path of the laser beam. The laser was focused on the sample with a 50× microscope Olympus objective lens (LMPlanFL N) with a Numerical Aperture (NA) and a 10.6 mm working distance. The Raman signal was collected using the same objective lens and visualization of the sample area. The acquisition settings used in this study were as follows:
  • Measurement spectral sensitivity range (50 up to 3900 cm−1);
  • Spectral resolution (2 cm−1);
  • Spectrometer grating (600 grooves/mm);
  • Exposure time at each measurement point (10 s);
  • Measurement accumulations per point (5);
  • Measurement point dimensions (1.7 μm laterally and 2 μm axially).
The laser power resulting from the surface of the sample was 2 mW.
Following each measurement, any possible discoloration or degradation caused by laser irradiation was detected by visually inspecting the irradiated areas. No such events were detected in the Raman spectroscopy measurements, as described above, ensuring that the parameters for obtaining various Raman spectra were optimal.

2.6. Thermogravimetric and Differential Scanning Calorimetry Analyses

The thermal behaviors of the samples derived from the PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 composites and the pure PETG were examined by means of thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The apparatus used was a Diamond Perkin Elmer (Waltham, MA, USA) with a 40–550 °C temperature cycle at an increase rate of 10 °C/min. A Discovery Series DSC-25 DSC calorimeter (TA Instruments, New Castle, DE, USA) was used to obtain DSC measurements, along with an RSC-90 Refrigerated Cooling System. The TGA and DSC analyses were conducted in an inert environment in the presence of high-purity N2 (nitrogen gas).

2.7. Investigation of the Rheometric Behavior

A DHR-20 Discovery Hybrid Rotational Rheometer (TA Instruments, DE, USA) was used to record rheological measurements, according to ASTM D1238-13 [67], for the melt flow rate (MFR). An Environmental Test Chamber with a parallel-plate setup was used for temperature regulation, and the duration of the acquisition was set to 10 s at every measurement point, with the aim of preventing excessive heating and decomposition. Melt flow rate (MFR) and rotational rheometric tests were used to assess the flow rates of the materials at certain temperatures and previously determined pressures.

2.8. Broadband Dielectric Spectroscopy (BDS) Examination

Dielectric spectroscopy measurements of PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 composites were performed using an Alpha-ANB high-resolution dielectric analyzer combined with a ZGS Alpha Active sample holder and BDS 1100 module (Novocontrol Technologies GmbH & Co., Montabaur, Germany). Measurements were performed in the frequency range of 10−2 Hz–4 MHz at room temperature. Disk-shaped specimens with a diameter of 40 mm and a thickness of 4 mm were prepared via thermal pressing to form the dielectric material of the sandwich-structured capacitor in a two-electrode configuration. A conductive paste was applied to both sides of the specimens to ensure proper electrical contact with the gold-plated electrodes of the sample holder. The applied ac voltage was set to Vrms = 1 V. WinDeta software, developed by Novocontrol Technologies (Novocontrol Technologies GmbH & Co., Montabaur, Germany, https://www.novocontrol.de/php/windeta.php, accessed on 20 December 2023), was used to control the experiments and acquire data.
The dielectric results are presented as the complex dielectric permittivity ε*(ω), dissipation factor tan(δ), and complex AC conductivity σ*(ω) according to the following equations:
ε ω = ε i ε = C ω C o i 1 ω · C o · R ω
tan δ = ε ε
and
σ ω = σ i σ = i ω ε ο ε ω 1 = ω ε ο ε i ω ε ο ε 1
where R(ω) and C(ω) are the resistance and capacitance of the equivalent circuit in parallel connection measured using the dielectric analyzer, C o = ε ο · π · r 2 / d is the capacitance of the empty cylindrical sample cell with radius r and distance d between the electrodes, ω = 2 π f is the angular frequency, and ε ο is the permittivity of the vacuum. The real part of the dielectric permittivity (ε′) measures the energy storage under the effect of an applied electric field, whereas the dissipation factor tan(δ) ε is related to the energy loss within the material.

2.9. Micro-Computed Tomography

The porosity and dimensional deviation of the manufactured 3D-P specimens were examined using micro-CT (μ-CT). A CT scanner, namely, a Tomoscope HV Compact 225 kV Micro Focus (Werth Messtechnik GmbH, Giessen, Germany), with a 1024 × 1024-pixel sensor was employed along with VG Studio MAX 2.2 software (Volume Graphics GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany) for data processing. Through these examinations, the effects of additives on the 3D-P structure were evaluated. A 75 L setup (72.58 μm resolution on the X-axis and 72.65 μm resolution on the Y-axis) was used to examine dimensional accuracy. A 16 L setup (15.46 μm resolution on the X-axis and 15.49 μm resolution on the Y-axis) was used to examine porosity. A total of 1600 sections per revolution were acquired for both cases.

3. Results

3.1. Raman Results for PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 Composites

Figure 4a shows the Raman spectra of the pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 composites, while in Figure 4b, the results obtained by subtracting pure PETG from all the spectra of Figure 4a are presented.
In Table 1, the related Raman peaks from the pure PETG sample are presented as extracted from the literature, along with their references in brackets, indicating the work(s) from whence the data originated.
As shown in Figure 4a, as the concentration of Si3N4 increased in the PETG composite, the related Raman lines of the pure PETG differentiated in intensity. Furthermore, broad photoluminescence appeared to increase as the Si3N4 concentration increased in the spectral region from 800 to 1800 cm−1.
The addition of Si3N4 to PETG resulted in an increase in the intensity of the phenyl ring bond at 631 cm−1 and a gradual increase in the intensity of the C–O–C bonds at 1616 cm−1. A significant decrease in intensity was also observed in the Raman peaks at 2955 cm−1 and 3081 cm−1, corresponding to the C-H2 and C-H bond stretching modes, respectively. A somewhat inconsistent behavior was observed in the 1716–1741 cm−1 spectral range, where C=O bonds were present. In low-concentration Si3N4 composites with compositions bearing 2 wt.%, 4 wt.%, and 6 wt.% Si3N4, respectively, an intensity decrease was found. In contrast, for the 8 wt.% and 10 wt.% Si3N4 composites, the intensity increased. This information is presented in Table 2.

3.2. Thermogravimetric and Differential Scanning Calorimetry Analysis

Figure 5a shows the weights of the temperature curves of PETG/2.0% Si3N4, PETG/4.0% Si3N4, PETG/6.0% Si3N4, PETG/8.0% Si3N4, PETG/10.0% Si3N4, and pure PETG as well as an inset graph of their weight loss values depending on the filler percentage. Figure 5b shows the heat flow as temperature curves for the PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 with x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%, respectively, and pure PETG, along with the glass transition (Tg) temperatures for each filler percentage included in the inserted graph.

3.3. Viscosity and MFR Analysis

The solid lines in Figure 6a represent the viscosity values of all the PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 composites and pure PETG, whereas the dotted lines indicate their stress values at 240 °C. It can be observed that as the filler percentage increased, the viscosity increased, whereas the stress was not significantly influenced. Moreover, the viscosity decreased as the stress increased. Figure 6b shows the MFR values with respect to the Si3N4 filler percentage for the PETG/x wt.% Si3N4, x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.% composites and pure PETG at 250 °C, at which point it is evident that PETG/4.0% Si3N4 has the highest value.

3.4. Monitoring of the Filament

The extrusions of the pure PETG and PETG/4.0 wt.% Si3N4 filaments were monitored in order to observe the quality and diameter of the extruded material, and the results are shown in Figure 7a and Figure 7b, respectively, along with pictures of the materials. The filaments seem to have a high-quality surface, without defects, while also being able to maintain an almost steady diameter ranging between 1.65 mm and 1.85 mm. The ultimate strength and Young’s modulus results corresponding to those of the PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 with x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%, respectively, and pure PETG filaments are contained in Figure 7c and Figure 7d respectively. The recorded values for PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4 were higher than those of the other composites with other filler percentages, revealing an 18.8% increase with respect to pure PETG in the case of ultimate strength and a 19.0% increase with respect to pure PETG in the case of Young’s modulus.

3.5. Mechanical Tests

The prepared composites, namely, PETG/2.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/4.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/8.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/10.0 wt.% Si3N4, and pure PETG, were all tested for their tensile mechanical responses, and the results are presented in Figure 8. In Figure 8a, the tensile stress curves are shown for all the prepared composites, and in Figure 8b,c, the ultimate strength and Young’s modulus values are presented. The PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4 composite exhibited the highest values, with a 24.5% ultimate strength and an 18.3% Young’s modulus, higher than those of pure PETG.
All the prepared composites, namely, PETG/2.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/4.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/8.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/10.0 wt.% Si3N4, and pure PETG were also tested for their flexural mechanical responses, and the results are shown in Figure 9. Figure 9a shows the flexural stress curves, while Figure 9b and Figure 9c present the bending strength and bending modulus values, respectively. PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4 showed the highest values, with a 16.6% bending strength and a 16.8% bending modulus, constituting higher values than those of neat PETG.
The results for the pure PETG, PETG/2.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/4.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/8.0 wt.% Si3N4, and PETG/10.0 wt.% Si3N4 specimens are shown in Figure 10. Information regarding tensile toughness, Charpy impact strength, and M–H is shown in Figure 10a, Figure 10b, and Figure 10c, respectively. In relation to the pure PETG results, the composites with the highest values were PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4, exhibiting a 15.6% increase for tensile toughness; PETG/8.0 wt.% Si3N4, exhibiting an increase of 20.9% with respect to the Charpy impact strength; and the PETG/10.0 wt.% Si3N4, exhibiting an increase of 18.8% as to the M-H.

3.6. Electrical/Dielectric Characterization

The real part of the dielectric permittivity (ε′), the dissipation factor tan(δ), and the real part of ac conductivity (σ′) as a function of the frequency of the PETG/Si3N4 nanocomposites with different filler content (0–10 wt.% Si3N4) are shown in Figure 11a–c. The dielectric permittivity of pure PETG showed no considerable frequency dispersion over the measured frequency range; that is, ε’ increases gradually from a value of 2.8 at 4 MHz to 3.3 at low frequencies, in accordance with reported values in the literature [77]. The corresponding dissipation factor exhibits values lower than 0.04 over almost the entire measured frequency range. A broad relaxation peak in the tan(δ) spectra was observed at high frequencies, located at approximately 10 kHz. This high-f feature remained unaffected by the addition of Si3N4 nanoparticles and can be attributed to the relaxation polarization of the polymer matrix [78]. Furthermore, an additional feature developed at low frequencies of approximately 2 Hz, which increased in intensity with an increasing filler content. This low-f feature can be attributed to the interfacial polarization caused by the interaction between the polymer matrix and conductive filler particles.
When the Si3N4 content was increased to 10 wt.%, we did not observe any significant spectral changes in either the dielectric permittivity or the ac-conductivity representation (Figure 11a,c). The permittivity values at high frequencies ( ε ) exhibited insignificant changes, varying from 2.8. to 3.4, as shown in Figure 11d. The AC conductivity spectra of the pure PETG and PETG/x wt.%Si3N4 nanocomposites show the characteristic behavior of insulating materials such as polymers; that is, ac-conductivity scales with ω at high frequencies. In the low-frequency range, a DC plateau began to develop, corresponding to the DC conductivity values of the composites varying from 5 × 10−16 S/cm to 6 × 10−15 S/cm. The variation in conductivity values measured at 1 Hz (dc-conductivity) with an increasing filler content is shown separately in Figure 11d. The above observations suggest that the overall electrical/dielectric behaviors of the PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 composites are mainly determined by the properties of the polymer matrix.

3.7. Analysis of Specimens through Micro Computed Tomography (μ-CT) Scanning

In Figure 12a, the dimensional deviation graphs of pure PETG, PETG/2.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/4.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/8.0 wt.% Si3N4, and PETG/10.0 wt.% Si3N4 are presented. Figure 12b,c depict color-coded tensile stress test results for PETG/2.0 wt.% Si3N4 regarding its dimensional deviation. Figure 12d shows A2N at a 95% dimensional deviation for PETG/2.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/4.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4, PETG/8.0 wt.% Si3N4, and PETG/10.0 wt.% Si3N4 and pure PETG, among which the value of PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4 was found to be 62.1% below the one corresponding to pure PETG.
Relevant information regarding the void compactness, sphericity, and diameter of such characteristics for the various specimens is shown in Figure 13a for the pure PETG and all PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 composites. The results for the PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4 composite are illustrated in Figure 13b and Figure 13c, respectively, in which they are color-coded regarding voids, while the porosity percentages of pure PETG and the PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 with x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.% composites are presented in Figure 13d. It can be observed that the x = 4.0 wt.% Si3N4 composite presented the most promising results, being 48.5% lower than the value corresponding to pure PETG.

3.8. Analysis of Specimens through Scanning Electron Microscopy

The mechanically tested specimens were subjected to SEM analysis, and relevant images of their sides and fracture surfaces are shown in Figure 14. Figure 14a,d,g depict the side surfaces of the pure PETG, PETG/4.0 wt.% Si3N4, and PETG/8.0 wt.% Si3N4, respectively, magnified 150×, indicating good layering of the material without defects. Figure 14b,e,h show the fracture surfaces of the pure PETG, PETG/4.0 wt.% Si3N4, and PETG/8.0 wt.% Si3N4 specimens, respectively, magnified 30×, presenting a solid layering with some voids. The same samples are presented in Figure 14c,f,i, where the fractured surfaces are magnified 1000×, and their high quality can be observed and confirmed, as no defects appear to be present.
Side surface images of a PETG/10.0 wt.% Si3N4 specimen can be observed in Figure 15a,b, magnified at 30× and at 150× respectively, indicating great layer fusion. Figure 15c shows an EDS mapping image, while Figure 15d–f present the fracture surface images of PETG/10.0 wt.% Si3N4 at 30×, 1000×, and 30,000× magnifications, respectively. The revealed structure was determined to be of high quality because the defects and voids were minimal, except in the case of Figure 15f, where some areas showed uneven pieces of material.

4. Discussion

The authors used a typical thermomechanical process for filament preparation, constituting the standard in the industry for both pure polymeric materials and composites. They chose to use this approach as it can easily be scaled up and industrialized. The drying process was used to remove any remaining moisture from the atmosphere first from the raw materials and the filament afterward. This is also a typical method and entails removing moisture from the atmosphere. The production of the filament did not include any solutions or other liquids that would need to be removed using filtration processes afterward. Additionally, a thorough process was followed to ensure the quality of the produced filament, as presented in this manuscript. This included inspection of random parts of the filament under a microscope to locate possible defects and qualitatively evaluate its surface roughness, measuring its diameter, and finally conducting tensile tests to assess its strength. In the mechanical tests, no high deviations were found between the samples, indicating a similar composition and structure between the filament samples. The tensile test results are comparable to those of the respective 3D printed samples, although such a comparison cannot be considered reliable. The filaments were not tested according to a standard, as the authors are not aware of such a standard for filament tensile testing.
The findings on the mechanical properties revealed reinforcement in relation to the behavior of pure PETG, especially for a 6.0 wt.% Si3N4 filler percentage, which presented the most enhanced properties among all the various composites synthesized. The dielectric properties were examined, and the results suggested that the polymer matrix mainly affected overall electrical behavior. The structures of the specimens were observed using an electron microscope (SEM) at various magnifications. These SEM images show the very good layering and inner structures of the various specimens, which were not negatively affected by the addition of different filler percentages of Si3N4. The dimensional deviation results were significant in the case of the 6.0 wt.% Si3N4 composite, while in the case of 4.0 wt.% Si3N4, the porosity percentage was the lowest among all the different composites synthesized. The EDS analysis showed a relatively good dispersion of the additive, which verified the excellent results for sample structure derived from the rest of the tests. On the left side of Figure 16, the spider graph shows all the mechanical properties of the PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 and pure PETG samples, whereas on the right side of Figure 16, the mechanical properties are matched with the composites in which their greatest values were detected. This enhancement in the mechanical properties can be attributed to the interactions between the nanoparticles and the matrix as well as the restriction of polymer chain mobility resulting from the nanoparticles occupying the spaces between them [79,80,81].
Regarding the physical properties, rheology was affected, as discussed. This has an effect on the 3D-printed structure, which provides information for the optimization of the 3D-printing settings for each composite to maximize mechanical performance. For comparison purposes, this optimization was not performed in this study. Regarding the brittleness of the samples, no large differences were found between the unfilled PETG and the nanocomposites. The inspection of the fracture surfaces showed minimum deformation in both the pure PETG and the nanocomposites. At the same time, the 3D-printed samples failed at similar strain values for tensile strength. Only the higher-loaded samples failed at lower strain values, revealing inferior mechanical strength. This can be attributed to the saturation of the filler in the matrix, which negatively affects mechanical performance [79,82].
It is important to highlight that the scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images displayed finely crafted surfaces and a uniformly distributed layering of the materials, even after the addition of fillers. A few voids were detected, and any defects observed were minimal in size. The incorporation of Si3N4 nanoparticles influenced the rheological behavior of the PETG polymer, resulting in an overall increase in viscosity. The MFR increased to 4 wt.% Si3N4 content in the composites and drastically reduced at higher loadings. Despite these changes, there were no significant disparities in the quality of the 3D-printed parts. The fusion of layers, as evidenced by the images of the lateral surfaces, appeared to remain intact, even for the higher-loaded nanocomposites, indicating a consistent layer thickness.
Inspection of the internal structure via micro-computed tomography (μ-CT) corroborated these findings. The addition of Si3N4 enhanced dimensional accuracy and reduced the number of voids in the internal structure. Notably, nanocomposites with superior mechanical performance exhibited fewer voids and better dimensional accuracy, implying a correlation between printing quality and mechanical strength. This is in agreement with the literature, which indicates that increased porosity negatively affects the mechanical performance of 3D-printed parts [83,84]. In contrast, the addition of 4 wt.% composite showed the minimum porosity among the samples tested, showing that other factors affected the mechanical strength of the samples besides porosity. The 6 wt.% composite showed the best dimensional accuracy among the samples assessed, which is an indication of good 3D-printing quality as well, showing that good 3D-printing quality positively affects the mechanical performance of the 3D-printed parts.
The thermal property analysis indicated that there was a negligible impact of Si3N4 addition on the PETG response to high temperatures, confirming the safety of the temperature levels used and the absence of thermal degradation. Tg increased only slightly in the composites with higher filler loadings. SEM and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) did not reveal major particle clustering in the fracture surfaces, even in the higher-loaded composites. No agglomerations were located in the nanocomposites with lower Si3N4 content. Moreover, the mechanical tests revealed that the deviation in results remained within acceptable limits, which suggests that the composition of the nanocompounds was consistent across all the examined samples. Therefore, it is safe to assume that a good dispersion of Si3N4 nanoparticles in the PETG matrix was achieved using the process followed for the preparation of the nanocomposites. The raw material mixing process and the filament extruder used, the latter of which is specially optimized for material mixing, contributed to this result. Even the highest-loaded samples exhibited slightly superior mechanical performance compared to pure PETG. A decreasing trend was found, indicating possible saturation of the filler, although the saturation threshold of the Si3N4 filler in the matrix was not precisely determined, as such information fell outside the scope of this study.
After reviewing the related literature, similar investigations were performed to examine Si3N4 as a filler and its reinforcing properties in nanocomposites. In ref. [85], Si3N4 was employed as an additive in the matrix material of polypropylene (PP) to investigate its effect on the mechanical and electrical properties of PP, as also observed in this study, in which PETG was used as the matrix material. The results indicate an increase in impact strength and a decrease in tensile strength, which is in disagreement with the tensile strength results of the study. This behavior may be attributed to the different matrix materials used in each study.
In another study [60], Si3N4 was added to two polymer matrix materials: high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polypropylene. The 3D-printed parts of the polymer–ceramic material presented smooth surfaces without ledges or discontinuous areas, a result that was also observed in the samples in this study. Moreover, the filler content of 10 wt.% did not cause any remarkable reinforcement of the elastic modulus, and the critical strain decreased. In ref. [42], biomedical-grade PLA with various filler loadings was employed as a matrix material for Si3N4. A series of tests were conducted on the composites, indicating an increase in flexural and tensile strength, as also observed in the present work. In Table 3 below, a comparison of the effects of Si3N4 as a reinforcement agent on different polymeric matrices is presented. As shown, there are differences in the performance of Si3N4 as a reinforcement agent between the polymeric matrices, but overall, the results can be considered comparable. Any differences can be attributed to the different polymeric matrices used and the differences in the preparation process of the composites.

5. Conclusions

Composites consisting of PETG and Si3N4 were synthesized in appropriate mixtures and used to produce filaments suitable for the fabrication of various specimens using MEX 3D-P. Specifically, composites with 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.% Si3N4 filler quantities were shaped into mixtures, filaments, and finally specimens. Samples originating from the raw materials, the filaments, and the final 3D-P specimens underwent specific tests, with the aim of investigating their properties and performance under specific conditions. SEM was used to investigate the structures of all the specimens. An EDS analysis was conducted to examine the chemical compositions of the composites and raw Si3N4 to reveal the expected chemical elements, thus confirming the quality and homogeneity of the prepared materials. The electrical and dielectric properties pertaining to BDS were investigated. Raman spectroscopy, TGA, and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) were performed. The viscosities and MFR were also investigated. The tensile performance of the filaments was tested. A similar experiment was performed on the specimens to determine their flexural properties, Charpy impact strength, and microhardness. The dimensional deviation and void percentages of the various samples were also examined.
The derived results revealed a remarkable enhancement in PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4 performance for the majority of the properties. Additional work could include observing the influence of different 3D-P settings on the performance of the samples. Thus, elucidating the influence of 3D-P settings on the overall performance of the final products can have a tremendous impact on the creation of various parts used in anti-ballistic protection [86], including various armor parts used in personal protective gear, such as helmets, breastplates, or joint protective gear for kneepads and elbows. All of the above can have a significant positive impact on the defense and security industry, revolutionizing applications and reducing manufacturing costs significantly.

Author Contributions

N.M. (Nikolaos Michailidis): validation, visualization, and formal analysis; M.P.: writing—review and editing; V.S.: formal analysis, data curation; V.P.: visualization and validation; M.S.: writing—original draft preparation; N.M. (Nikolaos Mountakis): data curation and visualization; A.A.: formal analysis and data curation; J.V.: formal analysis and data curation; N.K.N.: investigation and writing—original draft preparation; N.V.: conceptualization, methodology, resources, supervision, and project administration. The manuscript was written with contributions from all the authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot be shared because of technical or time limitations.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Institute of Electronic Structure and Laser of the Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas (IESL-FORTH) and, in particular, Aleka Manousaki for taking the SEM images presented in this work, as well as the Photonic Phononic and Meta-Materials Laboratory for sharing the Raman Instrumentation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Jacobs, P.F. Rapid Prototyping & Manufacturing: Fundamentals of Stereolithography; Society of Manufacturing Engineers: Dearborn, MI, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  2. Comb, J.W.; Priedeman, W.R.; Turley, P.W. FDM® Technology Process Improvements. In Proceedings of the 1994 International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, USA; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/2152/68588 (accessed on 20 December 2023).
  3. Sachs, E.M.; Haggerty, J.S.; Cima, M.J.; Williams, P.A. Three-Dimensional Printing Techniques. U.S. Patent 5,204,055, 20 April 1993. [Google Scholar]
  4. Beaman, J.J.; Barlow, J.W.; Bourell, D.L.; Crawford, R.H.; Marcus, H.L.; McAlea, K.P. Solid Freeform Fabrication: A New Direction in Manufacturing; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1997; ISBN 978-0-7923-9834-9. [Google Scholar]
  5. Feygin, M.; Hsieh, B. Laminaled Objecf Manufacturing (Lom): A Simpler Process. In Proceedings of the 1991 International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, USA; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/2152/64325 (accessed on 20 December 2023).
  6. Mazumder, J.; Schifferer, A.; Choi, J. Direct Materials Deposition: Designed Macro and Microstructure. Mater. Res. Innov. 1999, 3, 118–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Guo, N.; Leu, M.C. Additive Manufacturing: Technology, Applications and Research Needs. Front. Mech. Eng. 2013, 8, 215–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Attaran, M. The Rise of 3-D Printing: The Advantages of Additive Manufacturing over Traditional Manufacturing. Bus. Horiz. 2017, 60, 677–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sepasgozar, S.M.E.; Shi, A.; Yang, L.; Shirowzhan, S.; Edwards, D.J. Additive Manufacturing Applications for Industry 4.0: A Systematic Critical Review. Buildings 2020, 10, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Thomas, C.L.; Gaffney, T.M.; Kaza, S.; Lee, C.H. Rapid Prototyping of Large Scale Aerospace Structures. In Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Aerospace Applications Conference, Aspen, CO, USA, 10 February 1996; pp. 219–230. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bacciaglia, A.; Ceruti, A.; Liverani, A. Towards Large Parts Manufacturing in Additive Technologies for Aerospace and Automotive Applications. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2022, 200, 1113–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mohanavel, V.; Ashraff Ali, K.S.; Ranganathan, K.; Allen Jeffrey, J.; Ravikumar, M.M.; Rajkumar, S. The Roles and Applications of Additive Manufacturing in the Aerospace and Automobile Sector. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 47, 405–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Najmon, J.C.; Raeisi, S.; Tovar, A. Review of Additive Manufacturing Technologies and Applications in the Aerospace Industry. In Additive Manufacturing for the Aerospace Industry; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 7–31. [Google Scholar]
  14. Tepylo, N.; Huang, X.; Patnaik, P.C. Laser-Based Additive Manufacturing Technologies for Aerospace Applications. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2019, 21, 1900617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. de Leon, A.C.; Chen, Q.; Palaganas, N.B.; Palaganas, J.O.; Manapat, J.; Advincula, R.C. High Performance Polymer Nanocomposites for Additive Manufacturing Applications. React. Funct. Polym. 2016, 103, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Song, Y.; Yan, Y.; Zhang, R.; Xu, D.; Wang, F. Manufacture of the Die of an Automobile Deck Part Based on Rapid Prototyping and Rapid Tooling Technology. J. Mater. Process Technol. 2002, 120, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vasco, J.C. Additive Manufacturing for the Automotive Industry. In Additive Manufacturing; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 505–530. [Google Scholar]
  18. Sun, C.; Wang, Y.; McMurtrey, M.D.; Jerred, N.D.; Liou, F.; Li, J. Additive Manufacturing for Energy: A Review. Appl. Energy 2021, 282, 116041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cramer, C.L.; Ionescu, E.; Graczyk-Zajac, M.; Nelson, A.T.; Katoh, Y.; Haslam, J.J.; Wondraczek, L.; Aguirre, T.G.; LeBlanc, S.; Wang, H.; et al. Additive Manufacturing of Ceramic Materials for Energy Applications: Road Map and Opportunities. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2022, 42, 3049–3088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Goh, G.L.; Zhang, H.; Chong, T.H.; Yeong, W.Y. 3D Printing of Multilayered and Multimaterial Electronics: A Review. Adv. Electron. Mater. 2021, 7, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, Z.; Yuan, X. Applications and Future of Automated and Additive Manufacturing for Power Electronics Components and Converters. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2022, 10, 4509–4525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Colorado, H.A.; Cardenas, C.A.; Gutierrez-Velazquez, E.I.; Escobedo, J.P.; Monteiro, S.N. Additive Manufacturing in Armor and Military Applications: Research, Materials, Processing Technologies, Perspectives, and Challenges. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023, 27, 3900–3913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Busachi, A.; Erkoyuncu, J.; Colegrove, P.; Martina, F.; Watts, C.; Drake, R. A Review of Additive Manufacturing Technology and Cost Estimation Techniques for the Defence Sector. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2017, 19, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Giannatsis, J.; Dedoussis, V. Additive Fabrication Technologies Applied to Medicine and Health Care: A Review. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2009, 40, 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ovsianikov, A. Additive Manufacturing Technologies for Biomedical Applications. Professorial Dissertation, Technische Universität Wien, Vienna, Austria, 2017. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12708/159459 (accessed on 20 December 2023).
  26. Chauhan, I.; Chattopadhyay, S.; Mohanty, P. Fabrication of Titania Nanowires Incorporated Paper Sheets and Study of Their Optical Properties. Mater. Express 2013, 3, 343–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hwa, L.C.; Uday, M.B.; Ahmad, N.; Noor, A.M.; Rajoo, S.; Zakaria, K. Bin Integration and Fabrication of the Cheap Ceramic Membrane through 3D Printing Technology. Mater. Today Commun. 2018, 15, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fichou, D.; Morlock, G.E. Open-Source-Based 3D Printing of Thin Silica Gel Layers in Planar Chromatography. Anal. Chem. 2017, 89, 2116–2122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Ahmed, W.; Siraj, S.; Al-Marzouqi, A.H. Embracing Additive Manufacturing Technology through Fused Filament Fabrication for Antimicrobial with Enhanced Formulated Materials. Polymers 2021, 13, 1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Velu, R.; Jayashankar, D.K.; Subburaj, K. Additive Processing of Biopolymers for Medical Applications. In Additive Manufacturing; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 635–659. [Google Scholar]
  31. Yasa, E.; Ersoy, K. Dimensional Accuracy and Mechanical Properties of Chopped Carbon Reinforced Polymers Produced by Material Extrusion Additive Manufacturing. Materials 2019, 12, 3885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Vidakis, N.; Mangelis, P.; Petousis, M.; Mountakis, N.; Papadakis, V.; Moutsopoulou, A.; Tsikritzis, D. Mechanical Reinforcement of ABS with Optimized Nano Titanium Nitride Content for Material Extrusion 3D Printing. Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Vidakis, N.; Petousis, M.; Tzounis, L.; Velidakis, E.; Mountakis, N.; Grammatikos, S.A. Polyamide 12/Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube and Carbon Black Nanocomposites Manufactured by 3D Printing Fused Filament Fabrication: A Comparison of the Electrical, Thermoelectric, and Mechanical Properties. C 2021, 7, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. García Plaza, E.; Núñez López, P.; Caminero Torija, M.; Chacón Muñoz, J. Analysis of PLA Geometric Properties Processed by FFF Additive Manufacturing: Effects of Process Parameters and Plate-Extruder Precision Motion. Polymers 2019, 11, 1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Bouzaglou, O.; Golan, O.; Lachman, N. Process Design and Parameters Interaction in Material Extrusion 3D Printing: A Review. Polymers 2023, 15, 2280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Devsingh, D.; Dev, A.D.; Avala, B.; Reddy, R.; Arjula, S. Characterization of Additive Manufactured PETG and Carbon Fiber-PETG. Int. J. Res. Eng. Appl. Manag. (IJREAM) 2018, 4, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Valvez, S.; Silva, A.P.; Reis, P.N.B. Optimization of Printing Parameters to Maximize the Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed PETG-Based Parts. Polymers 2022, 14, 2564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Vidakis, N.; Petousis, M.; Tzounis, L.; Grammatikos, S.A.; Porfyrakis, E.; Maniadi, A.; Mountakis, N. Sustainable Additive Manufacturing: Mechanical Response of Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol over Multiple Recycling Processes. Materials 2021, 14, 1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Latko-Durałek, P.; Dydek, K.; Boczkowska, A. Thermal, Rheological and Mechanical Properties of PETG/RPETG Blends. J. Polym. Env. 2019, 27, 2600–2606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Szykiedans, K.; Credo, W.; Osiński, D. Selected Mechanical Properties of PETG 3-D Prints. Procedia Eng. 2017, 177, 455–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yan, C.; Kleiner, C.; Tabigue, A.; Shah, V.; Sacks, G.; Shah, D.; DeStefano, V. PETG: Applications in Modern Medicine. Eng. Regen. 2024, 5, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Vidakis, N.; Petousis, M.; Michailidis, N.; Papadakis, V.; Mountakis, N.; Argyros, A.; Dimitriou, E.; Charou, C.; Moutsopoulou, A. Polylactic Acid/Silicon Nitride Biodegradable and Biomedical Nanocomposites with Optimized Rheological and Thermomechanical Response for Material Extrusion Additive Manufacturing. Biomed. Eng. Adv. 2023, 6, 100103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Antoniadis, A.; Vidakis, N.; Bilalis, N. Fatigue Fracture Investigation of Cemented Carbide Tools in Gear Hobbing, Part 2: The Effect of Cutting Parameters on the Level of Tool Stresses—A Quantitative Parametric Analysis. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2002, 124, 792–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bouzakis, K.-D.; Vidakis, N.; Kallinikidis, D.; Leyendecker, T.; Erkens, G.; Wenke, R.; Fuss, H.-G. Fatigue Failure Mechanisms of Multi- and Monolayer Physically Vapour-Deposited Coatings in Interrupted Cutting Processes. Surf. Coat. Technol. 1998, 108–109, 526–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, F.; Guo, J.; Li, K.; Sun, J.; Zeng, Y.; Ning, C. High Strength Polymer/Silicon Nitride Composites for Dental Restorations. Dent. Mater. 2019, 35, 1254–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Correa Filho, L.; Fu, L.; Engqvist, H.; Xia, W.; Persson, C. Wear Performance of a Novel Silicon Nitride Ceramic for Biomedical Applications. Biomed. Mater. Devices 2023, 1, 990–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Khan, A.; Puttegowda, M.; Jagadeesh, P.; Marwani, H.M.; Asiri, A.M.; Manikandan, A.; Parwaz Khan, A.A.; Ashraf, G.M.; Rangappa, S.M.; Siengchin, S. Review on Nitride Compounds and Its Polymer Composites: A Multifunctional Material. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2022, 18, 2175–2193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bouzakis, K.-D.; Vidakis, N.; Lontos, A.; Mitsi, S.; David, K. Implementation of Low Temperature-Deposited Coating Fatigue Parameters in Commercial Roller Bearings Catalogues. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2000, 133–134, 489–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bouzakis, K.-D.; Vidakis, N.; Mitsi, S. Fatigue Prediction of Thin Hard Coatings on the Steel Races of Hybrid Bearings Used in High Speed Machine Tool Spindles. J. Tribol. 1998, 120, 835–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Krstic, Z.; Krstic, V.D. Silicon Nitride: The Engineering Material of the Future. J. Mater. Sci. 2012, 47, 535–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Riley, F.L. Silicon Nitride and Related Materials. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2000, 83, 245–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bodišová, K.; Kašiarová, M.; Domanická, M.; Hnatko, M.; Lenčéš, Z.; Nováková, Z.V.; Vojtaššák, J.; Gromošová, S.; Šajgalík, P. Porous Silicon Nitride Ceramics Designed for Bone Substitute Applications. Ceram. Int. 2013, 39, 8355–8362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yan, H.; Tang, Y.; Su, J.; Yang, X. Enhanced Thermal–Mechanical Properties of Polymer Composites with Hybrid Boron Nitride Nanofillers. Appl. Phys. A 2014, 114, 331–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, M.; Wang, M.; Hou, X.; Zhan, Z.; Wang, H.; Fu, H.; Lin, C.-T.; Fu, L.; Jiang, N.; Yu, J. Highly Thermal Conductive and Electrical Insulating Polymer Composites with Boron Nitride. Compos. B Eng. 2020, 184, 107746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Petousis, M.; Michailidis, N.; Papadakis, V.M.; Korlos, A.; Mountakis, N.; Argyros, A.; Dimitriou, E.; Charou, C.; Moutsopoulou, A.; Vidakis, N. Optimizing the Rheological and Thermomechanical Response of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene/Silicon Nitride Nanocomposites in Material Extrusion Additive Manufacturing. Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Badran, Z.; Struillou, X.; Hughes, F.J.; Soueidan, A.; Hoornaert, A.; Ide, M. Silicon Nitride (Si3N4) Implants: The Future of Dental Implantology? J. Oral. Implantol. 2017, 43, 240–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Du, X.; Ronayne, S.; Lee, S.S.; Hendry, J.; Hoxworth, D.; Bock, R.; Ferguson, S.J. 3D-Printed PEEK/Silicon Nitride Scaffolds with a Triply Periodic Minimal Surface Structure for Spinal Fusion Implants. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2023, 6, 3319–3329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Yunsheng, D.; Hui, X.; Jie, W.; Tingting, Y.; Naiqi, K.; Jiaxing, H.; Wei, C.; Yufei, L.; Qiang, Y.; Shufang, W. Sustained Release Silicon from 3D Bioprinting Scaffold Using Silk/Gelatin Inks to Promote Osteogenesis. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2023, 234, 123659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Vidakis, N.; Michailidis, N.; Argyros, A.; Mountakis, N.; Papadakis, V.; Spiridaki, M.; Moutsopoulou, A.; Sfakiotakis, E.; Petousis, M. A Coherent Optimization Course of the Silicon Nitride Nanofiller Load in Medical Grade Isotactic Polypropylene for Material Extrusion Additive Manufacturing: Rheology, Engineering Response, and Cost-Effectiveness. Colloid. Polym. Sci. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zgalat-Lozynskyy, O.B.; Matviichuk, O.O.; Tolochyn, O.I.; Ievdokymova, O.V.; Zgalat-Lozynska, N.O.; Zakiev, V.I. Polymer Materials Reinforced with Silicon Nitride Particles for 3D Printing. Powder Metall. Met. Ceram. 2021, 59, 515–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Vidakis, N.; Petousis, M.; Michailidis, N.; David, C.; Saltas, V.; Sagris, D.; Spiridaki, M.; Argyros, A.; Mountakis, N.; Papadakis, V. Interpretation of the Optimization Course of Silicon Nitride Nano-Powder Content in Biomedical Resins for Vat Photopolymerization Additive Manufacturing. Ceram. Int. 2024, 50, 14919–14935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wang, M.; Xie, C.; He, R.; Ding, G.; Zhang, K.; Wang, G.; Fang, D. Polymer-Derived Silicon Nitride Ceramics by Digital Light Processing Based Additive Manufacturing. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2019, 102, 5117–5126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. ASTM D638-02a; Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties Of Plastics. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International): West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2003.
  64. ASTM D790-10; Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International): West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
  65. ASTM D6110-04; Standard Test Methods for Determining the Charpy Impact Resistance of Notched Specimens of Plastics. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International): West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
  66. ASTM E384-17; Standard Test Method for Microindentation Hardness of Materials. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International): West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2022.
  67. ASTM D1238-13; Standard Test Method for Melt Flow Rates of Thermoplastics by Extrusion Plastometer. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International): West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020.
  68. Zimmerer, C.; Matulaitiene, I.; Niaura, G.; Reuter, U.; Janke, A.; Boldt, R.; Sablinskas, V.; Steiner, G. Nondestructive Characterization of the Polycarbonate–Octadecylamine Interface by Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy. Polym. Test. 2019, 73, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Resta, V.; Quarta, G.; Lomascolo, M.; Maruccio, L.; Calcagnile, L. Raman and Photoluminescence Spectroscopy of Polycarbonate Matrices Irradiated with Different Energy 28Si+ Ions. Vacuum 2015, 116, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bichara, L.C.; Alvarez, P.E.; Fiori Bimbi, M.V.; Vaca, H.; Gervasi, C.; Brandán, S.A. Structural and Spectroscopic Study of a Pectin Isolated from Citrus Peel by Using FTIR and FT-Raman Spectra and DFT Calculations. Infrared Phys. Technol. 2016, 76, 315–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Synytsya, A. Fourier Transform Raman and Infrared Spectroscopy of Pectins. Carbohydr. Polym. 2003, 54, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Makarem, M.; Lee, C.M.; Kafle, K.; Huang, S.; Chae, I.; Yang, H.; Kubicki, J.D.; Kim, S.H. Probing Cellulose Structures with Vibrational Spectroscopy. Cellulose 2019, 26, 35–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Stuart, B.H. Temperature Studies of Polycarbonate Using Fourier Transform Raman Spectroscopy. Polym. Bull. 1996, 36, 341–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lin, Z.; Guo, X.; He, Z.; Liang, X.; Wang, M.; Jin, G. Thermal Degradation Kinetics Study of Molten Polylactide Based on Raman Spectroscopy. Polym. Eng. Sci. 2021, 61, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Badr, Y.A.; Abd El-Kader, K.M.; Khafagy, R.M. Raman Spectroscopic Study of CdS, PVA Composite Films. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2004, 92, 1984–1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Liu, X.; Zou, Y.; Li, W.; Cao, G.; Chen, W. Kinetics of Thermo-Oxidative and Thermal Degradation of Poly(d,l-Lactide) (PDLLA) at Processing Temperature. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2006, 91, 3259–3265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Veselý, P.; Froš, D.; Hudec, T.; Sedláček, J.; Ctibor, P.; Dušek, K. Dielectric Spectroscopy of PETG/TiO2 Composite Intended for 3D Printing. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2023, 18, e2170253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Dhotel, A.; Rijal, B.; Delbreilh, L.; Dargent, E.; Saiter, A. Combining Flash DSC, DSC and Broadband Dielectric Spectroscopy to Determine Fragility. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2015, 121, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Song, Y.; Zheng, Q. Concepts and Conflicts in Nanoparticles Reinforcement to Polymers beyond Hydrodynamics. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2016, 84, 1–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhang, H.; Zhu, H.; Xu, C.; Li, Y.; Liu, Q.; Wang, S.; Yan, S. Effect of Nanoparticle Size on the Mechanical Properties of Polymer Nanocomposites. Polymer 2022, 252, 124944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chang, A.; Babhadiashar, N.; Barrett-Catton, E.; Asuri, P. Role of Nanoparticle–Polymer Interactions on the Development of Double-Network Hydrogel Nanocomposites with High Mechanical Strength. Polymers 2020, 12, 470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zare, Y.; Rhee, K.Y.; Hui, D. Influences of Nanoparticles Aggregation/Agglomeration on the Interfacial/Interphase and Tensile Properties of Nanocomposites. Compos. B Eng. 2017, 122, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Liao, Y.; Liu, C.; Coppola, B.; Barra, G.; Di Maio, L.; Incarnato, L.; Lafdi, K. Effect of Porosity and Crystallinity on 3D Printed PLA Properties. Polymers 2019, 11, 1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Wang, X.; Zhao, L.; Fuh, J.Y.H.; Lee, H.P. Effect of Porosity on Mechanical Properties of 3D Printed Polymers: Experiments and Micromechanical Modeling Based on X-Ray Computed Tomography Analysis. Polymers 2019, 11, 1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Xu, G.C.; Wang, J.; Ji, X.L.; Xiong, J.Y.; Li, F. Effect of Nano-Silicon Nitride on the Mechanical and Electric Properties of Polypropylene Nanocomposite. J. Compos. Mater. 2007, 41, 2213–2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Khan, M.I.; Umair, M.; Nawab, Y. 8—Use of Auxetic Material for Impact/Ballistic Applications. In Composite Solutions for Ballistics; Nawab, Y., Sapuan, S.M., Shaker, K., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Thorston, UK, 2021; pp. 199–228. ISBN 978-0-12-821984-3. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The steps followed in the present study include (A) the preparation of the unprocessed materials and (B) their drying; (C) the production of the filaments through extrusion and (D) their subsequent drying; (E) inspection of quality and (F) mechanical testing; the (G) material extrusion of the three-dimensional specimens and (H) the inspection of their quality; (I,J) examination and evaluation of mechanical properties; and (K) rheological and (L) morphological investigation.
Figure 1. The steps followed in the present study include (A) the preparation of the unprocessed materials and (B) their drying; (C) the production of the filaments through extrusion and (D) their subsequent drying; (E) inspection of quality and (F) mechanical testing; the (G) material extrusion of the three-dimensional specimens and (H) the inspection of their quality; (I,J) examination and evaluation of mechanical properties; and (K) rheological and (L) morphological investigation.
Polymers 16 01043 g001
Figure 2. Analyzation of the unprocessed material of Si3N4 through (A) SEM pictures magnifying specific areas of the material at 10,000×, (B) 20,000×, and (C) 50,000× as well as (D) an EDS mapping image and (E) a chemical composition analysis via EDS.
Figure 2. Analyzation of the unprocessed material of Si3N4 through (A) SEM pictures magnifying specific areas of the material at 10,000×, (B) 20,000×, and (C) 50,000× as well as (D) an EDS mapping image and (E) a chemical composition analysis via EDS.
Polymers 16 01043 g002
Figure 3. (Top left area of the figure) A data board including the printing parameters of the specimens, (bottom left area of the figure) the actual 3D-P specimens, and (right area of the figure) the initially designed models of the specimens. The arrows on the specimens on the right side indicate the built pattern orientation, which is changing by 90 degrees (±45 degrees) between the successive layers.
Figure 3. (Top left area of the figure) A data board including the printing parameters of the specimens, (bottom left area of the figure) the actual 3D-P specimens, and (right area of the figure) the initially designed models of the specimens. The arrows on the specimens on the right side indicate the built pattern orientation, which is changing by 90 degrees (±45 degrees) between the successive layers.
Polymers 16 01043 g003
Figure 4. Representation of (a) the Raman graphs of the neat PETG and the PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%) samples, accompanied by the (b) graphs created by the subtraction of the pure PETG spectral signature.
Figure 4. Representation of (a) the Raman graphs of the neat PETG and the PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%) samples, accompanied by the (b) graphs created by the subtraction of the pure PETG spectral signature.
Polymers 16 01043 g004
Figure 5. Pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%) analyzed (a) thermogravimetrically and through (b) differential scanning calorimetry.
Figure 5. Pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%) analyzed (a) thermogravimetrically and through (b) differential scanning calorimetry.
Polymers 16 01043 g005
Figure 6. Pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%) analyzed for (a) their viscosity properties at 240 °C and (b) their rates of melting flow at 250 °C.
Figure 6. Pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%) analyzed for (a) their viscosity properties at 240 °C and (b) their rates of melting flow at 250 °C.
Polymers 16 01043 g006
Figure 7. (a) Image of pure PETG filament and recorded measurements of its diameter, (b) image of PETG/4.0 wt.% Si3N4 filament and the recorded measurements of its diameter, and (c) tensile strength and (d) tensile modulus of elasticity of the filaments for all the employed filler percentages.
Figure 7. (a) Image of pure PETG filament and recorded measurements of its diameter, (b) image of PETG/4.0 wt.% Si3N4 filament and the recorded measurements of its diameter, and (c) tensile strength and (d) tensile modulus of elasticity of the filaments for all the employed filler percentages.
Polymers 16 01043 g007
Figure 8. Results for pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%) specimens about (a) tensile stress-to-strain graphs, (b) ultimate strength, and (c) Young’s modulus.
Figure 8. Results for pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%) specimens about (a) tensile stress-to-strain graphs, (b) ultimate strength, and (c) Young’s modulus.
Polymers 16 01043 g008
Figure 9. Results for pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%) specimens about (a) flexural stress-to-strain graphs, (b) bending strength, and (c) bending modulus.
Figure 9. Results for pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%) specimens about (a) flexural stress-to-strain graphs, (b) bending strength, and (c) bending modulus.
Polymers 16 01043 g009
Figure 10. Pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%) specimens’ values derived from the (a) tensile toughness, (b) Charpy impact strength, and (c) M-H tests.
Figure 10. Pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%) specimens’ values derived from the (a) tensile toughness, (b) Charpy impact strength, and (c) M-H tests.
Polymers 16 01043 g010
Figure 11. Frequency dependence of (a) the real part of dielectric permittivity (ε′), (b) the dissipation factor tan(δ), and (c) the real part of ac conductivity (σ′) of pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 composites at filler proportions ranging from 2 to 10 wt.%. (d) DC conductivity (σdc) measured at 1 Hz and dielectric permittivity, ε (measured at 1 MHz), as a function of Si3N4 content.
Figure 11. Frequency dependence of (a) the real part of dielectric permittivity (ε′), (b) the dissipation factor tan(δ), and (c) the real part of ac conductivity (σ′) of pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 composites at filler proportions ranging from 2 to 10 wt.%. (d) DC conductivity (σdc) measured at 1 Hz and dielectric permittivity, ε (measured at 1 MHz), as a function of Si3N4 content.
Polymers 16 01043 g011
Figure 12. (a) Pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%) results as to the curves corresponding to the dimensional deviation of the fabricated specimens. (b,c) PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4 tensile stress test results regarding the specimen’s structural deviation and (d) dimensional deviation A2N at 95% regarding pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%).
Figure 12. (a) Pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%) results as to the curves corresponding to the dimensional deviation of the fabricated specimens. (b,c) PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4 tensile stress test results regarding the specimen’s structural deviation and (d) dimensional deviation A2N at 95% regarding pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%).
Polymers 16 01043 g012
Figure 13. (a) Pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%) results regarding void compactness sphericity and diameter of the fabricated specimens. (b,c) PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4 sample porosity in color-coding mapping and (d) porosity percentage regarding pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%).
Figure 13. (a) Pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%) results regarding void compactness sphericity and diameter of the fabricated specimens. (b,c) PETG/6.0 wt.% Si3N4 sample porosity in color-coding mapping and (d) porosity percentage regarding pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%).
Polymers 16 01043 g013
Figure 14. Depiction of the surfaces of the pure PETG, PETG/4.0 wt.% Si3N4, and PETG/8.0 wt.% Si3N4 samples through SEM, namely, (a,d,g) their side surfaces magnified 150×, (b,e,h) their fracture surfaces at 30× magnification, and (c,f,i) their fracture surfaces at 1000× magnification.
Figure 14. Depiction of the surfaces of the pure PETG, PETG/4.0 wt.% Si3N4, and PETG/8.0 wt.% Si3N4 samples through SEM, namely, (a,d,g) their side surfaces magnified 150×, (b,e,h) their fracture surfaces at 30× magnification, and (c,f,i) their fracture surfaces at 1000× magnification.
Polymers 16 01043 g014
Figure 15. (a,b) Depiction of the PETG/10.0 wt.% Si3N4 sample’s side surface via SEM, magnified at 30× and 150×, respectively; (c) EDS mapping picture of a chosen sample; (df) depiction of the PETG/10.0 wt.% Si3N4 sample’s fracture surface via SEM, magnified at 30×, 1000×, and 30,000×, respectively.
Figure 15. (a,b) Depiction of the PETG/10.0 wt.% Si3N4 sample’s side surface via SEM, magnified at 30× and 150×, respectively; (c) EDS mapping picture of a chosen sample; (df) depiction of the PETG/10.0 wt.% Si3N4 sample’s fracture surface via SEM, magnified at 30×, 1000×, and 30,000×, respectively.
Polymers 16 01043 g015
Figure 16. (On the left side of the figure) The examined mechanical properties’ values are summarized in a spider graph regarding pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%). (On the right side of the figure) Data board highlighting the composites wherein each mechanical property presented the greatest result.
Figure 16. (On the left side of the figure) The examined mechanical properties’ values are summarized in a spider graph regarding pure PETG and PETG/x wt.% Si3N4 (x = 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 wt.%). (On the right side of the figure) Data board highlighting the composites wherein each mechanical property presented the greatest result.
Polymers 16 01043 g016
Table 1. Significant Raman peaks and their related assignments from pure PETG.
Table 1. Significant Raman peaks and their related assignments from pure PETG.
Wavenumber (cm−1)IntensityRaman Peak Assignment
631Strongphenyl ring vibration [68,69]
703MediumC-H out-of-plane bending [68]
772SmallO-C(O)-O stretching [69]
793Medium
855Strongγ(C–OH)ring [70,71]
1115StrongSkeletal vibrations, C–O–C bonds [72]
1172StrongSkeletal vibrations, C–O–C bonds [68,72]
1283StrongSkeletal vibrations, C–O–C bonds [68,72]
1369SmallC–C–H, C–O–H, and O–C–H [72]
1409MediumC-H3 deformation [73]
1440–1464MediumC-H3 deformation [68,73]; C-H2 deformation [72]; C-H3 symmetric bending [69,73,74]
1613Very StrongPhenyl ring stretch [69]
1724Very StrongC=O bond [75]
2857MediumC-H2 symmetric stretching [72]
2890MediumCH2 symmetric stretching [72,76]
2955StrongCH2 asymmetric stretching [72]
3081StrongC-H stretching [73]
Table 2. Significant Raman peak differences between the PETG/Si3N4 samples and PETG/pure.
Table 2. Significant Raman peak differences between the PETG/Si3N4 samples and PETG/pure.
631Peak riseSmall increase in phenyl ring bond
1616Gradual increaseSignificant increase in skeletal vibrations or C–O–C bonds
1716–1741Inconsistent behaviorC=O bond [75]
2955Peak dropSignificant decrease
3081Peak dropSignificant decrease
Table 3. Comparison with the literature regarding the findings on the effect of using Si3N4 as an additive in polymeric matrices on mechanical properties.
Table 3. Comparison with the literature regarding the findings on the effect of using Si3N4 as an additive in polymeric matrices on mechanical properties.
Current Study[42] (PLA Matrix)[55] (ABS Matrix)[59] (PP Matrix)[85] (PP Matrix)
Impact strength increase20.9%30.2%Decrease11.1%25%
Tensile strength increase24.5%40.4%25.6%16%Decrease
Flexural strength increase16.6%33.2%30.3%15.7%-
microhardness18.8%20.9%34.9%33.6%-
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Michailidis, N.; Petousis, M.; Saltas, V.; Papadakis, V.; Spiridaki, M.; Mountakis, N.; Argyros, A.; Valsamos, J.; Nasikas, N.K.; Vidakis, N. Investigation of the Effectiveness of Silicon Nitride as a Reinforcement Agent for Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol in Material Extrusion 3D Printing. Polymers 2024, 16, 1043. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16081043

AMA Style

Michailidis N, Petousis M, Saltas V, Papadakis V, Spiridaki M, Mountakis N, Argyros A, Valsamos J, Nasikas NK, Vidakis N. Investigation of the Effectiveness of Silicon Nitride as a Reinforcement Agent for Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol in Material Extrusion 3D Printing. Polymers. 2024; 16(8):1043. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16081043

Chicago/Turabian Style

Michailidis, Nikolaos, Markos Petousis, Vassilis Saltas, Vassilis Papadakis, Mariza Spiridaki, Nikolaos Mountakis, Apostolos Argyros, John Valsamos, Nektarios K. Nasikas, and Nectarios Vidakis. 2024. "Investigation of the Effectiveness of Silicon Nitride as a Reinforcement Agent for Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol in Material Extrusion 3D Printing" Polymers 16, no. 8: 1043. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16081043

APA Style

Michailidis, N., Petousis, M., Saltas, V., Papadakis, V., Spiridaki, M., Mountakis, N., Argyros, A., Valsamos, J., Nasikas, N. K., & Vidakis, N. (2024). Investigation of the Effectiveness of Silicon Nitride as a Reinforcement Agent for Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol in Material Extrusion 3D Printing. Polymers, 16(8), 1043. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16081043

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop