Materials / Compare
FDM PAHT-CF vs. Stainless 17-4PH
Compare FDM PAHT-CF vs. Stainless 17-4PH strength, stiffness, weight and thermal properties.
| Try it on a partA bracket to run stress or thermal on, free in your browser | Open in LessCAD | Open in LessCAD |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanical | ||
| Yield strength | not given (tensile used) | 1,275MPasourcetypical, transverse, sheet/strip |
| Ultimate tensile strength | 92MPasourcetypical | 1,379MPasourcetypical, transverse, sheet/strip |
| Flexural strength | 125MPasourcetypical | not sourced |
| Elongation at break | 8.4%sourcetypical | 9%sourcetypical, transverse, in 2 in. (50.8 mm) |
| Young's modulus (stiffness) | 3.86GPasourcetypical | 197GPasourceH 900 |
| Density | 1,060kg/m³sourcetypical | 7,800kg/m³sourceH 900 |
| Strength to weight | 86.8kN·m/kg | 163kN·m/kg1.88x higher |
| Stiffness to weight | 3.64MN·m/kg | 25.3MN·m/kg6.94x higher |
| Poisson's ratio | not sourced | 0.272sourceH 900 (column) |
| Shear modulus | not sourced | 77.4GPa |
| Bulk modulus | not sourced | 144GPa |
| Speed of sound | 1,908m/s | 5,026m/s |
| Thermal | ||
| Thermal conductivity | not sourced | 17.9W/m·Ksourceat 149 °C (300 °F), H 900 |
| Thermal expansion | not sourced | 10.8µm/m·Ksourcemean, 21–93 °C (70–200 °F), H 900 |
| 100 mm part over a 50 °C swing | not sourced | 54µm growth |
| Specific heat | not sourced | 460J/kg·Ksourcemean, 0–100 °C, H 900 |
| Heats up and cools (diffusivity) | not sourced | 4.99mm²/s |
| Thermal shock resistance | not sourced | 7,809W/m |
| Melting point | 225°Csourcetypical | not sourced |
| Glass transition | 70°Csourcetypical | not sourced |
| Max service temperature | 170°CsourceHDT 1.8 MPa | 316°Csourcestrength-retention limit (not oxidation) |
| Values for | Bambu Lab PAHT-CF, TDS V3.0, printed specimens X-Y, dry state; nozzle 290 °C, bed 100 °C, 100 mm/s, 100% infill; annealed and dried 80 °C for 12 h before testing. | Cleveland-Cliffs 17-4 PH, Condition H 900, sheet/strip, transverse (Product Data Bulletin, May 2021) |
Every value links to the document that states it. "Not sourced" means no citable source states it (or only a specification minimum); figures computed from it are left out too.
FDM PAHT-CF is 3D printed: its properties depend on build direction and print settings; these are typical values.
Questions
Is FDM PAHT-CF stronger than Stainless 17-4PH?
Stainless 17-4PH is stronger: its yield strength is 1,275 MPa against tensile strength 92 MPa for FDM PAHT-CF (13.9x).
Which is lighter, FDM PAHT-CF or Stainless 17-4PH?
FDM PAHT-CF is lighter: 1,060 kg/m³ against 7,800 kg/m³ for Stainless 17-4PH.
Which is stiffer, FDM PAHT-CF or Stainless 17-4PH?
Stainless 17-4PH is stiffer: Young's modulus 197 GPa against 3.86 GPa for FDM PAHT-CF, so the same part in Stainless 17-4PH deflects less under the same load.
Which is lighter for the same job, FDM PAHT-CF or Stainless 17-4PH?
For the same stiffness or strength: FDM PAHT-CF is lighter for a stiff beam (bending), stiff panel or plate, strong beam, strong panel or plate; Stainless 17-4PH is lighter for a stiff rod or tie (tension), strong rod or tie.
| Part that must be | FDM PAHT-CF | Stainless 17-4PH |
|---|---|---|
| Stiff rod or tie (tension) | 6.94x heavier | lighter |
| Stiff beam (bending) | lighter | 3% heavier |
| Stiff panel or plate | lighter | 1.98x heavier |
| Strong rod or tie | 1.88x heavier | lighter |
| Strong beam | lighter | 28% heavier |
| Strong panel or plate | lighter | 1.98x heavier |
For the same stiffness or strength, mass scales with density over stiffness (or strength) raised to a power set by how the part is loaded: 1 for a rod in tension, 1/2 for a beam in bending, 1/3 for a panel (the standard material-selection indices).