Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:14:38.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tensile Properties of Hydroxyapatite Whisker Reinforced Polyetheretherketone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Gabriel Converse  and
Ryan Roeder
Gabriel Converse
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Notre Dame, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 356 Fitzpatric Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, United States, (574) 631-9122
Ryan Roeder
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Notre Dame, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
Get access

Abstract

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) was reinforced with 0-40 vol% hydroxyapatite (HA) whiskers using a novel powder processing and compression molding technique. A powder mixture was uniaxially pressed into a composite powder compact and compression molded into a flat composite bar using an open-channel die, such that the HA whiskers exhibited a preferred orientation along the length of the bar and tensile specimens. As expected, increased HA whisker reinforcement resulted in increased elastic modulus, but decreased ultimate tensile strength and strain- or work-to-failure. PEEK reinforced with 40 vol% HA whiskers exhibited an elastic modulus of 16-18 GPa. PEEK reinforced with 20 vol% HA whiskers had an ultimate tensile strength of 70-80 MPa. Human cortical bone exhibits an elastic modulus of 17-26 GPa and an ultimate tensile strength of 80-150 MPa in the longitudinal direction (direction of principal stress). Stiffness coefficients measured by ultrasonic wave propagation indicated a level orthotropy also similar to that of human cortical bone tissue.

Keywords

bonecompositepolymer
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 898: Symposium L – Mechanical Behavior of Biological and Biomimetic Materials , 2005 , 0898-L05-07
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Rho, J., et al., Med. Eng. Phys. 20, 92–102 (1998).Google Scholar
2. Cowin, S.C., et al. , in Handbook of Bioengineering, edited by Skalak, R. and Chien, S. (McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, 1987) p. 2.4.Google Scholar
3. Wenk, H.-R. and Heidelbach, F., Bone 24 (4), 361–369 (1999).Google Scholar
4. Turner, C.H., et al., Bone 17 (1), 85–89 (1995).Google Scholar
5. Wang, M., et al., Biomaterials 19, 2357–2366 (1998).Google Scholar
6. Wang, M., et al., J. Mater. Sci. 35, 1023–1030 (2000).Google Scholar
7. Roeder, R.K., et al. , J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 67A (3), 801–812 (2003).Google Scholar
8. Bakar, M.S. Abu, et al. , Compos. Sci. Technol. 63, 421–425 (2003).Google Scholar
9. Tang, S.M., et al. , Int. J. Fatigue 26, 49–57 (2004).Google Scholar
10. Roeder, R.K., et al. , J. Am. Ceram. Soc., submitted.Google Scholar
11. Ashman, R.B., et al., J. Biomechanics 17 (5), 349–361 (1984).Google Scholar
12. Espinoza, A., Renaud, J.E. and Roeder, R.K., unpublished results.Google Scholar
13. Guo, X.E., in Bone Mechanics Handbook, 2nd ed., edited by Cowin, S. C. (CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, 2001) pp. 10.7–10.9.Google Scholar
14. Yaszemski, M.J., et al., Biomaterials 17, 175–185 (1996).Google Scholar
15. Victrex plc, Material Properties Guide, Lancashire, UK.Google Scholar