WHITE PAPER Production of PEEK parts with Additive Manufacturing
PEEK part production today PEEK( Polyether Ether Ketone) is a highly useful material in many applications and industries, from aerospace through medical and electronics. Engineers select it for its excellent mechanical and chemical properties (See the Roboze PEEK white paper). Until recently, engineers were limited to producing PEEK parts in traditional methods, namely CNC and molding, each of which with its own purposes and advantages. The major setbacks of these methods are the extensive preparation required for the production and the design limitations these traditional technologies bring. Nowadays, more and more designers and engineers are looking for new, better ways to produce PEEK parts, and they may find the solution with Additive Manufacturing. Not as a replacement, but a complementary method to the traditional ones. Will Additive Manufacturing replace CNC? The trend of complementing the traditional methods with additive manufacturing is growing. Decision makers today see the need to invest in 3D Printers to enhance their capabilities, alongside their CNC machines. The term Hybrid Printing is used for this new concept, and in order to make an educated decision, there are different considerations to take into account. Considerations in choosing between CNC and AM Cost: The total cost of production consists of: machine cost, material cost and cost of labor. Materials vary in prices and there s little difference between CNC and AM, however subtractive manufacturing (like CNC milling) has high percentage of waste, where with AM the material usage is close to 100%. Cost of labor consists of recruiting professional operators, or the time and effort it takes training new ones. In CNC the skills requirements are significantly higher than in operating AM machine. Time: speed of preparation, speed of production. In sum AM is faster for small batches. Output quality: precision and finish of the produced part in normally better in CNC. Design freedom: intricate designs with overhangs, cavities and holes. AM allows significantly more design freedom Usability: High skill requirements in CNC, long training time or high recruiting cost. AM can be operated with little to no training.
Application time 3D printing is cheaper for small batches; machining is cheaper for mass production. Therefore AM is perfect for applications of prototypes, visual justifications, custom-designed products and tooling. Part comparision 3D printing is cheaper for small batches; machining is cheaper for mass production. Therefore AM is perfect for applications of prototypes, visual justifications, custom-designed products and tooling. This application is mostly used in automotive production line and includes different shapes and measures based on the necessities of the line itself. The main requirements from the material this part is made of are electrical insulation and high thermal resistance. The design of this part is quite complex and has small features and several cavities and overhangs.
Results As shown in the table below, for small series production of PEEK parts with intricate designs, AM was preferable in most of the parameters that are considered when comparing production methods. AM production time was shorter, both cost of operation and cost of equipment were lower, and the material waste was significantly lower than in CNC. Human resources, as skill and labor required for the production make the largest difference between CNC and AM. Enjoy the benefits of printing PEEK Imagine lower costs for making parts, cheaper labor, and less training time. Allow your designers and engineers enjoy the design freedom AM is providing. How Roboze helps you get there Roboze now allows printing PEEK parts in excellent quality and with all the advantages that AM is offering. Contact one of our consultants to help you check if your business can benefit from printing PEEK parts in house. Take your production to the next level with Roboze.