Thermal Debinding Process of SS 17-4 PH in Metal Injection Molding Process with Variation of Heating Rates, Temperatures, and Holding Times

Abstract

Generally, metal injection molding (MIM) method utilizes SS 17-4 PH as material for application of orthodontic bracket. One of the process of MIM is thermal debinding, which binder is eliminated by thermal energy. In this study, thermal debinding process is conducted with variation of temperature, i.e. 480, 510, and 540°C, holding time, i.e. 0.5, 1 and 2 hours, heating rate, i.e. 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2°C/min.The effect of temperature shows that the increased temperature will result in the mass reduction percentage due to formation of oxide on the sample, which will be proven through TGA testing. The highest mass reduction was 6.4137 wt% which was obtained at 480°C. For the variation of holding time, the longer the holding time will result in increased mass reduction and the highest mas reduction was 6.255 wt% which was obtained during 2 hours of holding time. For the heating rate, the slower the heating rate will result in increased mass reduction and decreased the presence of crack formation. The best variable was obtained at heating rate of 0.5°C/min, which resulted mass reduction of 6.2488 wt% and less crack formation.

Comparative study on the properties of 17-4 PH stainless steel parts made by metal fused filament fabrication process and atomic diffusion additive manufacturing

“…SEM analysis, on BASF and Markforged, highlights the presence of SiO 2 and MnO inclusions, typical also for a 17-4 PH stainless processed by MIM (Chung and Tzeng, 2019; Supriadi et al , 2017; Wu et al , 2015) and FFF (Suwanpreecha et al , 2021). SiO 2 inclusions have been identified analysing two sections of equal size for Markforged and BASF specimens.…”

“…Suri et al (2006) analysed the influence of δ-ferrite on the mechanical properties through hardness tests and impact tests at different condition of MIM 17-4 PH and evaluated porosity and microstructures. Zhang et al (2018) on a MIM 316 L and Supriadi et al (2017) reported that the D&S process caused variations in microstructure, and consequently in the mechanical properties of materials. German (2010) showed how the main sintering parameters (heating rate, time and temperature) are related to the microstructural aspect (grain and pore size, porosity).…”

Optimizing metal part distortion in the material extrusion-thermal debinding-sintering process: An experimental and numerical study

“…Thermal debinding entails placing the green parts in refractory ballast, which is stable under high temperature and pressure, to maintain the geometry of the parts during the debinding and sintering processes. Unlike catalytic and solvent debinding methods, the thermal process does not require gaseous nitric acid or chemical solvents, with only a kiln and refractory ballasts necessary for the process [ 4 , 9 , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] ], making it an environmentally friendly and cost-effective method for producing metal parts via MEX. Nevertheless, incomplete or unsuccessful debinding can cause distortion or porosity in metal parts, leading to reduced density and tensile stress, as well as changes in shrinkage and surface properties [ [9] , [10] , [11] , 18 , 19 ].…”

Experimental Study on Metal Parts under Variable 3D Printing and Sintering Orientations Using Bronze/PLA Hybrid Filament Coupled with Fused Filament Fabrication

“…It is widely used in many industries, such as mechanical engineering, the automotive industry, aerospace, the electrical industry, etc. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Nevertheless, the process has some disadvantages that stand in the way of economical and agile production.…”

“…Generally, there are three types of debinding processes: catalytic debinding [ 8 , 19 ], solvent debinding [ 8 , 11 , 22 ], and thermal debinding [ 3 , 5 , 8 , 14 , 23 ]. In the catalytic debinding process, the binder polyacetal (POM) is broken down into formaldehyde using gaseous nitric acid.…”