Scholarlink

<p>Material extrusion-based fused filament fabrication (FFF) offers a straightforward and cost-effective method for ceramic additive manufacturing (AM) compared to other techniques. It involves FFF printing, de-binding, and sintering to create intricate ceramic components. De-binding is crucial and time-intensive in this process. Various partial de-binding methods remove binders before thermal de-binding (TDB), ensuring defect-free ceramics. This study explores multistage de-binding for three mol% yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramic filaments. Solvent de-binding (SDB) and Wick de-binding (WDB) were tested alongside TDB. Two-stage de-binding methods (SDB + TDB, WDB + TDB) and a three-stage method (SDB + WDB + TDB) were compared. WDB showed cracks and distortion, indicating suboptimal results in WDB + TDB. The three-stage approach (SDB + WDB + TDB) removed 99.52% of polymer binders, 1.93% more than the two-stage (SDB + TDB). Densification was comparable: 99.31% (two-stage) and 99.48% (three-stage), highlighting the three-stage method's potential for superior binder removal without compromising density.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A multistage de-binding approach for material extrusion-based additively manufactured fabricated zirconia ceramics

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月18日

查看全文
  • Subham Kumar Pandey,
  • Amit Rai Dixit

摘要

Material extrusion-based fused filament fabrication (FFF) offers a straightforward and cost-effective method for ceramic additive manufacturing (AM) compared to other techniques. It involves FFF printing, de-binding, and sintering to create intricate ceramic components. De-binding is crucial and time-intensive in this process. Various partial de-binding methods remove binders before thermal de-binding (TDB), ensuring defect-free ceramics. This study explores multistage de-binding for three mol% yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramic filaments. Solvent de-binding (SDB) and Wick de-binding (WDB) were tested alongside TDB. Two-stage de-binding methods (SDB + TDB, WDB + TDB) and a three-stage method (SDB + WDB + TDB) were compared. WDB showed cracks and distortion, indicating suboptimal results in WDB + TDB. The three-stage approach (SDB + WDB + TDB) removed 99.52% of polymer binders, 1.93% more than the two-stage (SDB + TDB). Densification was comparable: 99.31% (two-stage) and 99.48% (three-stage), highlighting the three-stage method's potential for superior binder removal without compromising density.