Why Repeated Thermal History During Printing Changes Conductive Network Integrity in graphene nanoplatelet systems

Introduction

Repeated thermal history during printing changes conductive network integrity of Graphene nanoplatelets because thermal cycling and dwell at printing temperatures alter particle contacts, interfacial adhesion, and local solvent/volatile migration, which together break or reconfigure percolating paths. Mechanistically, conductive percolation depends on plate-to-plate contact area, tunneling gaps, and polymer interphase; heating events cause polymer relaxation, differential thermal expansion, and possible nanoplatelet reorientation that increase tunneling resistance or disconnect pathways. Boundary: this explanation assumes polymer matrices processed by layerwise thermal exposure typical of extrusion- or fused-deposition printing (matrix Tg or melt temperature near the printing regime). Evidence on layer adhesion, oxidation onset (which depends on defect structure and thickness), and GNP surface chemistry (edge defects, moisture sensitivity) supports why repeated heating cycles tend to produce progressive network change. Consequently, network integrity typically evolves over successive passes rather than remaining static, with the largest changes where dwell times are long, thermal gradients are high, or moisture/oxygen access is present; the specific rate and magnitude depend on formulation and process. Unknowns: the precise cycle count to measurable conductivity loss depends on matrix chemistry, GNP aspect ratio, and additive loading, and must be determined experimentally for each formulation.

Read more on the material page: https://www.greatkela.com/en/product/Carbon_Allotropes/242.html

Common Failure Modes

Primary Failure Modes

• Failure: Increasing bulk resistivity after repeated print passes. Mechanism mismatch: percolation requires stable contacts, but polymer relaxation and thermal expansion increase interparticle gaps and dielectric tunneling barriers; boundary: occurs when print temperature repeatedly approaches matrix flow or Tg and interparticle van der Waals contact area is reduced. See also: GNP/FLG vs Carbon Black: Mechanisms for increased brittleness and reduced layer adhesion in conductive FDM filaments.
• Failure: Localized loss of conductivity at layer interfaces (interlayer discontinuities). Mechanism mismatch: layerwise cooling and reheating create differential shrinkage and limited interdiffusion, therefore contacts formed in one pass can be mechanically separated in later passes; boundary: prominent in polymers with limited chain mobility or short print-dwell windows. See also: Why CNT additives can destabilize melt flow and increase processing variability in filament extrusion (context: CNTs, GNPs/FLG in ESD polymers).
• Failure: Irreversible network degradation after high-temperature excursions. Mechanism mismatch: oxidation or defect formation at platelet edges increases contact resistance and reduces in-plane conductivity; boundary: oxidation risk increases with exposure to air at elevated temperatures and is highly sensitive to defect density, thickness, and heating rate, therefore edge-rich or highly defective platelets often oxidize at lower temperatures than low-defect, thicker platelets.

Secondary Failure Modes

• Failure: Heterogeneous conductivity (percolation islands). Mechanism mismatch: aggregation or restacking during thermal cycling concentrates platelets into islands, therefore long-range percolation breaks down; boundary: occurs when dispersion stability is marginal and thermal cycles enable capillary or diffusion-driven migration of platelets.
• Failure: Mechanical delamination under cyclic thermal stress. Mechanism mismatch: weak interfacial bonding between GNP and matrix causes debonding under repeated expansion/contraction, therefore conductive bridges that relied on intimate interfacial contact are lost; boundary: amplified for hydrophobic platelets in polar matrices without coupling agents.

Conditions That Change the Outcome

Primary Drivers

• Variable: Polymer glass transition or melting temperature relative to printing temperature. Why it matters: if printing repeatedly takes the matrix above Tg or into melt, chain mobility enables relaxation and interfacial rearrangement, therefore contacts between GNPs can form or break depending on local flow and cooling rate.
• Variable: GNP aspect ratio and lateral size distribution. Why it matters: higher aspect ratio increases probability of multi-point contacts and robust percolation networks, therefore shorter platelets or fractured platelets from prior processing make networks more sensitive to thermal-induced separation (see S1, S6).
• Variable: Filler loading vs. percolation threshold. Why it matters: formulations near percolation are nonlinearly sensitive because small increases in tunneling gap or loss of a few contacts convert a connected network into sub-percolation; therefore thermal history has outsized effect when loading is marginal.

Secondary Drivers

• Variable: Presence of moisture, solvents, or volatiles during printing. Why it matters: volatiles migrate or evaporate during heating, generating capillary forces or plasticization that cause platelet movement or re-aggregation, therefore drying protocol and in-process atmosphere change network outcomes (see S8).
• Variable: Thermal gradient and dwell time per layer. Why it matters: steep gradients produce differential expansion and localized stress, while long dwell promotes polymer relaxation and platelet reorientation, therefore both parameters change whether contacts recover or degrade after each pass.
• Variable: Surface functionalization or coupling agents. Why it matters: chemistry at platelet edges controls interfacial bonding and susceptibility to oxidation, therefore functional groups that promote strong chemical or physical adhesion reduce progressive contact loss because they resist debonding under thermal cycling.

How This Differs From Other Approaches

• Bulk reorganization mechanism: networks change because particles physically move, reorient, or aggregate due to matrix flow or capillary forces during thermal cycles. This is a mass-transport/kinematic mechanism.
• Interfacial adhesion mechanism: networks change because thermal expansion mismatch and chain mobility alter interphase bonding strength, therefore electrical contact area and tunneling barriers change without large-scale particle translation. This is a chemical/adhesive mechanism.
• Defect/chemistry mechanism: networks change because thermal exposure modifies platelet edge chemistry (oxidation or defect annealing) and thus intrinsic conductivity and contact resistance. This is a chemical transformation mechanism.
• Mechanical fracture mechanism: networks change because repeated shear or thermal stress fractures platelets, reducing aspect ratio and connectivity. This is a structural-damage mechanism.

Scope and Limitations

• Applies to: layerwise printing processes (FDM/FFF, extrusion-based additive manufacturing, multilayer conductive ink deposition) where the polymer matrix experiences repeated thermal cycles near or above its glass transition or melt temperature and Graphene nanoplatelets are the conductive filler. Evidence basis: percolation, interfacial effects, oxidation thresholds from S1, S3, S6.
• Does not apply to: room-temperature curing systems (cold-cure epoxies without thermal post-cure), permanently sintered metallic conductors, or systems where GNPs are permanently immobilized by crosslinking before any thermal cycling because no layerwise thermal reflow occurs.
• When results may not transfer: to formulations where filler is a different class (e.g., metallic nanowires, carbon nanotubes with different flexibility), to composites with radically different matrix thermal expansion coefficients, or to processes with controlled inert atmospheres that prevent oxidation and volatile-driven migration; therefore experimental verification is required before extrapolation.
• Physical/chemical pathway explanation: thermal energy is primarily taken up by the polymer matrix at the macroscale but GNPs, due to their high thermal conductivity, can quickly redistribute heat locally; energy conversion: supplied thermal energy increases polymer chain mobility and may drive volatile desorption or local flow; material response: because polymers relax and expand/contract with heating, plate-to-plate contacts change, tunneling gaps widen or narrow, and interfacial adhesion can debond or anneal, therefore percolation topology evolves. Oxidation or defect chemistry can irreversibly change platelet conductivity under oxidative conditions because edge oxidation increases contact resistance.

Related Links

Application page: Conductive 3D Printing Masterbatch & Filaments

Failure Modes

• GNP/FLG vs Carbon Black: Mechanisms for increased brittleness and reduced layer adhesion in conductive FDM filaments
• Why CNT additives can destabilize melt flow and increase processing variability in filament extrusion (context: CNTs, GNPs/FLG in ESD polymers)
• Why printed parts with Graphene nanoplatelets show weaker interlayer than in-plane conductivity

Mechanism

• How Platelet Orientation Evolves During Filament Extrusion in graphene nanoplatelet systems

Key Takeaways

• Repeated thermal history during printing changes conductive network integrity of Graphene nanoplatelets.
• Failure: Increasing bulk resistivity after repeated print passes.
• Variable: Polymer glass transition or melting temperature relative to printing temperature.

Engineer Questions

Q: What is the most likely cause if conductivity drops gradually after repeated printing passes?

A: Gradual conductivity loss most often indicates increased interparticle tunneling gaps due to polymer relaxation and differential thermal expansion that reduce plate-to-plate contact area; verify by measuring sheet resistance across layers and checking for increased interlayer spacing or microvoids via microscopy.

Q: How does printing above vs. below the polymer Tg change network stability?

A: Printing above Tg increases chain mobility and allows platelet reorientation and possible migration, therefore networks near percolation are more likely to reconfigure (either healing or degrading) compared with printing below Tg where contacts are mechanically frozen and thermal-induced relaxation is limited.

Q: When should I suspect chemical degradation (oxidation) of GNPs rather than mechanical contact loss?

A: Suspect chemical degradation if conductivity loss coincides with high-temperature excursions in air, if Raman or XPS shows increased defect/oxygen signals at edges, or if high-temperature TGA indicates mass loss; oxidation is more likely for edge-rich or high-surface-area GNPs and may be effectively irreversible under typical processing conditions unless reversed by chemical reduction, so confirm with spectroscopic diagnostics (see S3, S6).

Q: What process controls reduce thermal-history-driven network changes?

A: Reduce dwell time at elevated temperature, minimize stepwise reheating of previously printed layers, control atmosphere (use inert gas to limit oxidation), pre-dry materials to remove volatiles, and design filler loading above percolation margin; each control targets a different mechanism (mobility, oxidation, capillary migration, and percolation margin respectively).

Q: How does platelet size distribution affect sensitivity to repeated thermal history?

A: Wider size distributions with a population of long platelets increase redundant contacts and reduce sensitivity because multiple contact points persist; conversely, narrow/smaller platelets make networks fragile because loss of a few contacts severs pathways, therefore control of size distribution matters for robustness.