1. Introduction
Additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, allows users to rapidly create complex parts without the limitations of traditional shaping and forming processes [
1,
2]. It uses computer-aided design (CAD) data to build parts with intricate detail and minimal waste. Extrusion-based additive manufacturing (EAM) is a technique that extrudes material through the nozzle of a toolhead onto a platform to form the desired part [
3,
4,
5]. This technique is seen as a combination of two separate techniques: fused deposition modeling [
6] and metal injection molding [
7]. Fused deposition modeling (FDM) draws a thermoplastic filament through a heated nozzle using a stepper motor to form polymeric 3D parts. Metal injection molding (MIM) mixes fine metal powder with a polymer binder to form a slurry which is then pumped into a mold to form the part [
5,
8]. EAM uses the same equipment as FDM but has a toolhead with a syringe attachment which pumps a metal/binder slurry and deposits strands of the material onto a platform layer by layer to form the final part. Interest in this process stems from its cost efficiency when compared to other AM processes. Metallic additive manufacturing techniques often include high-energy arcs and beams and may also require high-temperature environments. For these reasons, companies would be required to invest large capital to apply this technology. Conversely, the EAM process is commonly printed close to room temperature with much lower equipment costs [
7,
9].
The 316L stainless steel is a common material used for many different applications in medical, construction, automotive and chemical industries. It is valued for maintaining strength and corrosion resistance at elevated temperatures and has shown good performance in a variety of different metal injection molding (MIM) and additive manufacturing (i.e., extrusion additive manufacturing (EAM)) techniques [
7,
8,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17].
The nature and composition of a metal–binder slurry is selected based on interactions between the metal and the binder as well as the effectiveness of the debinding process. Most binders are composed of a primary binder and a secondary binder. The primary binder is easily removed at a low temperature and opens up a large network of pores in the part. The secondary binder remains to help maintain the structure of the part until a final thermal treatment. During this treatment, it escapes using the network left by the primary binder by evaporation or reactions with the atmosphere. The binder commonly used with 316L is a mixture of polypropylene, paraffin wax, and stearic acid [
8,
18,
19]. This system is based on the original binder systems developed in the beginning of MIM. Paraffin wax functions as the primary binder. It helps give the paste good flowability and it can be easily removed with a hexane solvent. The stearic acid functions as a surfactant to improve the effectiveness of the paraffin wax and is also removed by hexane. The secondary binder is the polypropylene. It remains in the part after solvent debinding and helps maintain the structure of the part. It is removed by thermal treatment during an intermediate stage of the final sinter [
19].
The binder used in this study is a water-based methylcellulose gel. In this case, the primary binder is water. Water assists in the flowability and is then readily removed through a drying process via evaporation. The secondary binder, methylcellulose, is then removed using a thermal treatment. Organic water-based systems are seen as simple and cost-effective. Methylcellulose is also an inexpensive, environmentally friendly, safe compound. Studies have found it to be an effective binder for many different AM applications [
20]. Research has not been found using the methylcellulose–316L system, but studies have shown efficacy with the methylcellulose–copper (Cu) system.
To attract companies unequipped for powder metallurgy processing, priority is given to studies that can limit any capital investment. While research has been conducted on printing 316L using EAM and MIM processes [
7,
8,
10], this printing occurs with wax-based binders which involve debinding steps with hazardous hexane or heptane solvents. Traditional sintering temperatures for 316L powder are also high, close to 1400 °C under pure hydrogen atmosphere. This is beyond the capacity of common industrial furnaces, and it requires infrastructure to support a dangerous, flammable gas.
Studying the debinding thermal treatment involves manipulating the temperature, dwell time, heating rate, furnace atmosphere, and gas flow rate. When working with 316L, it is critical to bear in mind that this is a low-carbon (C) austenitic stainless steel with a maximum C content of 0.03 wt.%. For some materials, a small added C content of 0.1 wt.% would be unimportant. With 316L, any C remaining in the material can diffuse and form Cr carbide which will dramatically decrease corrosion resistance. This makes this step particularly important for stainless steel [
21].
The sintering temperature for 316L powders for optimal densification is between 1250–1380 °C [
22] and is driven by supersolidus liquid phase sintering. The 316L forms a partial liquid phase which assists in the densification of the powder by improving the rate of particle rearrangement and improving the rate of particle distortion through solution–reprecipitation. Conversely, persistent liquid phase sintering is a process that introduces a foreign metal that forms the liquid phase at that metal’s melting point [
23]. It has the same function as the partial 316L liquid phase, but it allows for sintering at lower temperatures and persists in the matrix after cooling. This process has resulted in large decreases in sintering temperatures for systems like Ni–W and WC–Co [
24,
25].
Cu has a melting point of 1083 °C; 8–10 wt.% Cu will diffuse into an FCC Fe matrix at 1200 °C, and beyond this it will form a partial liquid phase to assist with sintering. Cu diffuses up to 8–10 wt.% in an Fe matrix, and it would partially dissolve Fe and Cr. It is also completely soluble in nickel (Ni).
While a good deal of research has been conducted on printing 316L using EAM and MIM processes, most studies involve debinding steps with hazardous hexane or heptane solvents. Sintering temperatures for 316L powder are also above 1200 °C and close to 1400 °C under pure hydrogen atmosphere. In order to undergo those specific conditions, this paper studies variations in the post treatment of 316L extruded parts. It tries to eliminate the need for the solvent debinding step by using methylcellulose as an alternative binder. It also explores sintering 316L at a lower temperature of 1200 °C by adding Cu to function as a persistent liquid phase [
26]. Lastly, it removes pure hydrogen from the debinding and sintering steps to study using safer gases like argon, Ar/5%H
2, and Ar/1%O
2. Argon has been used as an effective debinding gas in various applications while the Ar/5H
2 functions as a reducing gas for oxides, and Ar/1%O
2 can help fully remove C through oxidation.
5. Conclusions
This study investigated the use of methylcellulose–water gel as a binder for 316L powder. It studied effective debinding methods and pursued a low-temperature sintering process. The paste formed with this binder had adequate flow characteristics to successfully print parts that retained their structure. These parts had some difficulty with air pockets which forced the use of a different method for the creation of samples.
The binder was then successfully removed prior to sintering by using a two-step thermal treatment process. The first one used an Ar/5%H2 atmosphere to degrade the methylcellulose to C. The second one was performed under Ar/1%O2, which oxidized the C to decrease C contents down to 0.032 wt.% C. Values under that could not be achieved due to C diffusion into the 316L. This provides a safer, environmentally friendly alternative to wax-based binders and solvent baths.
Cu was introduced as a possible way to reduce the sintering temperature by using the persistent liquid phase sintering mechanism. The 10 and 20 vol.% Cu samples were studied and compared to pure 316L powder under the same conditions. Of the samples studied, 20 vol.% Cu sintered for 10 h showed the highest densification, with 88% relative density.
The 20 vol.% Cu sample showed the highest hardness and yield strength. A mechanical decrease in porosity showed a large increase in hardness, which indicates that a higher density will have a dramatic effect on mechanical properties. The yield strength decreased with longer dwell times, showing that the pursuit of maximum densification will result in the compromise of the mechanical properties. Caution must be taken in the future to minimize dwell times.
Conclusions on the corrosion properties were unable to be determined. Low densification results in a high surface area which will damage corrosion resistance. It is also likely that the addition of Cu harms corrosion resistance, but no clear trends were seen.
Sintering was conducted under Ar/5%H2 instead of pure H2. There was successful reduction of the Cr oxide, but it is unclear if the Si oxide reduced before the Cu melted. Cr oxide was not found within the sample, but silicon oxide was located within the pores of the material. Any unreduced oxide within the liquid can promote the formation of pores upon reduction. These oxides may need to be reduced to obtain adequate densification. Increases in the hydrogen ratio of the Ar/5%H2 gas may also be sufficient to reduce these oxides. Finding and eliminating sources of moisture in the furnace may minimize these oxides as well. During slow cooling, a large layer of Cr and silicon oxides is formed on the surface. The effect of rapid cooling rates on the oxide layer and the corrosion resistance may be significant and is worth studying.
Excessive pores may also be the result of insufficient liquid amounts. One study showed that a content of 25 vol.% Cu was required to obtain adequate densification properties [
16]. It also included an addition of tin, which the study stated improved the mechanical properties. A study of the content and composition of the liquid can be continued.
Adequate densification has not yet been achieved to yield competitive properties. Even so, this first step showed that methylcellulose may be used as an effective binder for 316L. It also showed that after some development and increased densification, Cu additions may be an effective option to apply extrusion additive manufacturing techniques to the creation of competitive 316L parts.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, J.-F.S. and D.L.G.; methodology, J.-F.S., S.F., J.-L.G.-P. and N.T.D.; validation, J.-F.S., D.L.G., C.D.-C. and Y.L.; formal analysis, D.L.G., N.T.D., S.F. and J.-L.G.-P.; investigation, J.-F.S. and D.L.G.; resources, J.-F.S.; writing—original draft preparation, J.-F.S. and D.L.G.; writing—review and editing, J.-F.S., D.L.G., C.D.-C., L.C. and Y.L.; supervision, J.-F.S. and S.F.; project administration, J.-F.S.; funding acquisition, J.-F.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement
All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper. The datasets generated ruing the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
The Institute of Condensed Matter Chemistry of Bordeaux (ICMCB) and Lynxter for the use of their equipment and financial support.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Liu, B.; Wang, Y.X.; Lin, Z.W.; Zhang, T. Creating metal parts by Fused Deposition Modeling and Sintering. Mater. Lett. 2020, 263, 127252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spencer, O.; Yusuf, O.; Tofade, T. Additive Manufacturing Technology Development: A Trajectory Towards Industrial Revolution. Am. J. Mech. Ind. Eng. 2018, 3, 80–90. [Google Scholar]
- Galati, M.; Minetola, P. Analysis of Density, Roughness, and Accuracy of the Atomic Diffusion Additive Manufacturing (ADAM) Process for Metal Parts. Materials 2019, 12, 4122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Godec, D.; Cano, S.; Holzer, C.; Gonzalez-Gutierrez, J. Optimization of the 3D Printing Parameters for Tensile Properties of Specimens Produced by Fused Filament Fabrication of 17-4PH Stainless Steel. Materials 2020, 13, 774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suwanpreecha, C.; Manonukul, A. A Review on Material Extrusion Additive Manufacturing of Metal and How It Compares with Metal Injection Moulding. Metals 2022, 12, 429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tosto, C.; Tirillò, J.; Sarasini, F.; Cicala, G. Hybrid Metal/Polymer Filaments for Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) to Print Metal Parts. Appl. Sci.-Basel 2021, 11, 444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassan, W.; Farid, M.A.; Tosi, A.; Rane, K.; Strano, M. The effect of printing parameters on sintered properties of extrusion-based additively manufactured stainless steel 316L parts. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2021, 114, 3057–3067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banerjee, S.; Joens, C.J. Debinding and sintering of metal injection molding (MIM) components. In Handbook of Metal Injection Molding; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2019; pp. 129–171. [Google Scholar]
- Rane, K.; Strano, M. A comprehensive review of extrusion-based additive manufacturing processes for rapid production of metallic and ceramic parts. Adv. Manuf. 2019, 7, 155–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, Y.; Gonzalez-Gutierrez, J.; Kukla, C.; Felfer, P. Fused filament fabrication, debinding and sintering as a low cost additive manufacturing method of 316L stainless steel. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 30, 861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, H.J.; Snelling, D.; Kardel, K.; Carrano, A. Comparison of Stainless Steel 316L Parts Made by FDM- and SLM-Based Additive Manufacturing Processes. Jom 2019, 71, 880–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurose, T.; Abe, Y.; Santos, M.V.A.; Kanaya, Y.; Ishigami, A.; Tanaka, S.; Ito, H. Influence of the Layer Directions on the Properties of 316L Stainless Steel Parts Fabricated through Fused Deposition of Metals. Materials 2020, 13, 2493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Damon, J.; Dietrich, S.; Gorantla, S.; Popp, U.; Okolo, B.; Schulze, V. Process porosity and mechanical performance of fused filament fabricated 316L stainless steel. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2019, 25, 1319–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkindi, T.; Alyammahi, M.; Susantyoko, R.A.; Atatreh, S. The effect of varying specimens’ printing angles to the bed surface on the tensile strength of 3D-printed 17-4PH stainless-steels via metal FFF additive manufacturing. MRS Commun. 2021, 11, 310–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suwanpreecha, C.; Seensattayawong, P.; Vadhanakovint, V.; Manonukul, A. Influence of Specimen Layout on 17-4PH (AISI 630) Alloys Fabricated by Low-Cost Additive Manufacturing. Metall. Mater. Trans. A-Phys. Metall. Mater. Sci. 2021, 52, 1999–2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henry, T.C.; Morales, M.A.; Cole, D.P.; Shumeyko, C.M.; Riddick, J.C. Mechanical behavior of 17-4 PH stainless steel processed by atomic diffusion additive manufacturing. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2021, 114, 2103–2114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosnitschek, T.; Seefeldt, A.; Alber-Laukant, B.; Neumeyer, T.; Altstädt, V.; Tremmel, S. Correlations of Geometry and Infill Degree of Extrusion Additively Manufactured 316L Stainless Steel Components. Materials 2021, 14, 5173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- German, R.M. Metal powder injection molding (MIM): Key trends and markets. In Handbook of Metal Injection Molding; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2012; pp. 1–25. [Google Scholar]
- Quinard, C.; Barriere, T.; Gelin, J.C. Development and property identification of 316L stainless steel feedstock for PIM and μPIM. Powder Technol. 2009, 190, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, L.; Cheng, T.; Duan, C.; Zhao, W.; Zhang, W.P.; Zou, X.J.; Aspler, J.; Ni, Y.H. 3D printing using plant-derived cellulose and its derivatives: A review. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 203, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heaney, D.F.; Mueller, T.W.; Davies, P.A. Mechanical properties of metal injection moulded 316L stainless steel using both prealloy and master alloy techniques. Powder Metall. 2004, 47, 367–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Müller, L. Powder Metallurgy Data: Chapter 6 Metal Injection Molding; Springer: Thale, Germany, 2003; Volume 2A1. [Google Scholar]
- German, R.; Suri, P.; Park, S. Review: Liquid phase sintering. J. Mater. Sci. 2009, 44, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASM Committee. ASM Handbook; ASM International: Almere, The Netherlands, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Do Kim, Y.; Ryu, S.; Moon, I. Application of Metal Injection Molding to W-Ni-Fe Heavy Alloy. J. Jpn. Soc. Powder Powder Metall. 1999, 46, 893–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamil, S.; Chadwick, G. Investigation and analysis of liquid phase sintering of Fe—Cu and Fe–Cu–C compacts. Powder Metall. 2013, 28, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, Z.; Zheng, R.; Chen, X. Effect of annealing temperature on the microstructure and mechanical properties of high-pressure torsion-produced 316L stainless steel. Materials 2022, 15, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tessier-Doyen, N. Etude Experimentale et Numerique du Comportement Thermomecanique de Materiaux Refractaires Modeles. Ph.D. Thesis, Universite de Limoges, Limoges, France, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Aghaie-Khafri, M.; Honarvar, F.; Zanganeh, S. Characterization of grain size and yield strength in AISI 301 stainless steel using ultrasonic attenaution measurements. J. Non Destruct. Eval. 2012, 31, 191–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, H.; Li, Y.; Li, D. Effect of sintering temperature and atmosphere on corrosion behavior of MIM 316L steel. Adv. Mater. Res. 2011, 239–242, 132–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bedmar, J.; Riquelme, A.; Rodrigo, P.; Torres, B.; Rams, J. Comparison of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods for 316L Stainless Steel. Materials 2021, 14, 6504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kedziora, S.; Decker, T.; Museyibov, E.; Morbach, J.; Hohmann, S.; Huwer, A.; Wahl, M. Strength Properties of 316L and 17-4 PH Stainless Steel Produced with Additive Manufacturing. Materials 2022, 15, 6278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.Y.; Feng, E.S.; Mo, W.; Lv, Y.H.; Ma, R.; Ye, S.L.; Wang, X.G.; Yu, P. On the Microstructures and Fatigue Behaviors of 316L Stainless Steel Metal Injection Molded with Gas- and Water-Atomized Powders. Metals 2018, 8, 893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spiller, S.; Kolstad, S.O.; Razavi, N. Fatigue behavior of 316L stainless steel fabricated via Material Extrusion Additive Manufacturing. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2023, 291, 544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawcock, R.; Davies, D. Effect of carbon on dimensional and microstructural characteristics of Fe–Cu compacts during sintering. Powder Metall. 1990, 33, 147–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, X.; Bai, Y.L.; Xu, M.; Guo, S.J. Effect of Additive Cu-10Sn on Sintering Behavior and Wear Resistance of 316L Stainless Steel. J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 2013, 20, 84–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.T.; Park, Y.S. Effect of copper addition on corrosion behavior of high-performance austenitic stainless steel in highly concentrated sulfuric acid solution-Part 1. Corrosion 2007, 63, 114–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
(a) SEM micrograph of 316L particles formed by gas-atomization. (b) Particle size distribution of those 316L particles.
Figure 2.
Photographs of (a) as-printed sample, (b) cross-section of as-printed sample, and (c) cross-section of sample formed using a cylindrical mold.
Figure 3.
Carbon and oxygen contents of 316L materials after Ar/1%O2 debinding stage.
Figure 4.
Relative density as a function of sintering dwell time for 0, 10, and 20 vol.% Cu.
Figure 5.
(a) 10 vol.% Cu BSE micrograph, (b) 10 vol.% Cu EDS map, (c) 20 vol.% Cu BSE micrograph, (d) 20 vol.% Cu EDS map. For EDS maps, Fe is red, Cu is green, and silicon is pink.
Figure 6.
SEM micrographs for (a) 20 vol.% Cu, (b) 0 vol.% Cu.
Figure 7.
Hardness values for different Cu compositions, after sintering for 5 and 10 h.
Figure 8.
Yield strengths for different compositions for two sintering durations.
Table 1.
Chemical composition of the 316L powder.
wt.% | Cr | Ni | C | Mn | Mo | Si | P | S | Fe |
---|
316L spec. | 16–18 | 10–14 | 0.03 max. | 2.00 max. | 2.0–3.0 | 1.00 max. | 0.045 max. | 0.030 max. | Bal. |
Material used | 17.30 | 12.23 | 0.017 | 0.08 | 2.17 | 1.00 | 0.014 | 0.002 | Bal. |
Table 2.
C contents after debinding under various atmospheres, temperatures, and dwell times.
Gas Composition | Temperature (°C) | Dwell Time (min) | Carbon Content (wt.%) |
---|
Argon (%) | H2 (%) |
---|
316L powder (as received) | 0.03 |
100 | 0.0 | 400 | 90 | 0.130 |
100 | 0.0 | 500 | 90 | 0.127 |
100 | 0.0 | 500 | 300 | 0.125 |
95 | 5.0 | 500 | 300 | 0.125 |
95 | 5.0 | 500 | 900 | 0.123 |
100 | 0.0 | 700 | 300 | 0.122 |
95 | 5.0 | 700 | 300 | 0.117 |
Table 3.
Relative density and density of 316L, 316L + 10% Cu, and 316L + 20% Cu samples for three annealing times (0 h, 5 h, and 10 h).
| | 316L | 316L + 10% Cu | 316L + 20% Cu |
---|
0 h | Relative density (%) | 52.17 | 56.10 | 59.57 |
Density (g/cm3) | 4.12 | 4.43 | 4.70 |
5 h | Relative density (%) | 70.40 | 75.65 | 87.40 |
Density (g/cm3) | 5.36 | 6.05 | 6.99 |
10 h | Relative density (%) | 80.00 | 86.10 | 88.70 |
Density (g/cm3) | 6.49 | 6.98 | 7.19 |
Table 4.
Overview of mechanical properties and porosity for 316L and 316L + Cu samples produced using fused filament fabrication (FFF), SLM, and MIM.
Porosity (%) | Hardness | Yield Strength | Method | Reference |
---|
<0.5 | 240 HV | 2200 MPa | DLD | [31] |
380 HV | 2300 MPa | SLM |
- | 213 HB | 375 MPa | SLM EOS | [32] |
- | 217 HB | 533 MPa | SLM Renishaw | [32] |
10 | 126 HB | 153 MPa | FFF BASF | [32] |
4 | - | 170 MPa | MIM | [33] |
1.6 | 200 HV | - | EAM | [34] |
~21 | 65 | 140 MPa | EAM 316L | This work |
~14 | 85 | 150 MPa | EAM 316L + 10% Cu |
~12 | 85 | 150 MPa | EAM 316L + 20% Cu |
| Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).