See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358923999

Alumina Manufactured by Fused Filament Fabrication: A Comprehensive

Study of Mechanical Properties and Porosity

Article in Polymers · February 2022

DOI: 10.3390/polym14050991

CITATIONS READS

25 496

5 authors, including:

Veronika Véle Jiří Šafka

Technical University of Liberec Technical University of Liberec
6 PUBLICATIONS 94 CITATIONS 46 PUBLICATIONS 497 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jiří Sobotka Jakub Macháček

Technical University of Liberec Technical University of Liberec
61 PUBLICATIONS 229 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 27 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Veronika Véle on 01 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 polymers
Article
Alumina Manufactured by Fused Filament Fabrication:
A Comprehensive Study of Mechanical Properties and Porosity
Veronika Truxová 1,∗ , Jiří Šafka 1 , Jiří Sobotka 1 , Jakub Macháček 2 and Michal Ackermann 2

1 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Liberec, Studentska 1402/2,

461 17 Liberec, Czech Republic; [email protected] (J.Š.); [email protected] (J.S.)
2 The Institute for Nanomaterials, Advanced Technologies and Innovation, Technical University of Liberec,
Studentska 1402/2, 461 17 Liberec, Czech Republic; [email protected] (J.M.);
[email protected] (M.A.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +420-485-353-801

Abstract: This article deals with a comprehensive study of the processing and mechanical properties
of the ceramic material Al2 O3 on Fused Filament Fabrication technology (FFF). It describes the basic
input analyses of the material, such as TGA, FTIR, and MVR. These analyses enabled the design
and testing of process parameters for the 3D printing of parts. The article also presents the post-
processes, including the technological parameters required to finalize parts made from this material,
i.e., chemical debinding in acetone at elevated temperatures + thermal debinding and sintering.
The microhardness was measured on the processed samples, depending on the density of the inner
filling. The resulting hardness had an almost linear relationship between the percentage of filler
(20–40–60–80–100%) and the resulting microhardness (1382–2428 HV10). Flexural strength was also
measured on the test specimens with different degrees of internal filling (80–90–100%). However,





 inner filling do not affect the flexural strength (316.12–327.84–331.61 MPa). The relative density of the
Citation: Truxová, V.; Šafka, J.; final parts was measured on a ZEISS METROTOM 1500 CT machine and reached 99.54%.
Sobotka, J.; Macháček, J.; Ackermann,
M. Alumina Manufactured by Fused Keywords: ceramics; fused filament fabrication; 3D printing; mechanical properties; relative density;
Filament Fabrication: A shrinkage
Comprehensive Study of Mechanical
Properties and Porosity. Polymers
2021, 14, 991. https://doi.org/
10.3390/polym14050991 1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Alberto Sanz de Additive manufacturing (AM), also known as Three-Dimensional Printing (3D print-
León and Sergio I. Molina ing), is an innovative approach to the production of parts with complex geometry and
Received: 11 February 2022
internal structures. This innovative technology was invented and patented in 1984 by
Accepted: 24 February 2022
Charles Hull in a process known as stereolithography (SLA), the first commercial rapid
Published: 28 February 2022
prototyping technology from 3D Systems [1,2]. SLA technology was followed by subse-
quent developments such as Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), Solid Ground Curing
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
(SGC) from Cubital, and Laminated Object Manufacturing (LOM) from Helisys in 1991.
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) from DTM (now a part of 3D Systems) was developed
published maps and institutional affil-
in 1992 [3]. Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), commercially known as FDM technology
iations.
(trademarked by Stratasys, Ltd., Eden Prairie, MN, USA ), usually uses thermoplastics.
The basic principle of fabrication is to build a model layer by layer to achieve a 3D part.
The raw material in the form of a filament is partially melted, extruded, and deposited
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
onto the previously built model by a numerically controlled heated nozzle [4]. The most
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. used thermoplastic polymers for FFF are acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), poly(lactic
This article is an open access article acid) (PLA), polypropylene (PP), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), and poly(ethylene
distributed under the terms and terephthalate glycol) (PETG).
conditions of the Creative Commons Thermoplastic filaments may be modified by the addition of fibers, powder, and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// other materials into the polymer matrix to form a composite, and increase their mechan-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ ical properties [5]. Fillers made from ceramic materials lead to enhanced mechanical or
4.0/). thermal properties and may be used for biological applications [6]. The AM of ceramics

Polymers 2021, 14, 991. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14050991 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers

Polymers 2021, 14, 991 2 of 13

will complement and extend new possibilities of applications in the ceramics industry.
Compared to conventional technologies such as Ceramic Injection Molding (CIM), AM
offers new opportunities to manufacture ceramic components with a complex geometry
without the need for expensive tooling molds, which leads to a reduction in production
times, and consequently a reduction in costs and design flexibility [7]. The process of AM
has a key advantage in the production of small quantities and customized parts. Functional
prototype parts and tooling are manufactured directly from computer models [8]. CIM
technology usually uses a binder system based on polyolefins and the waxes low density
polyethylene (LDPE), poly(ethylene glycol) 6000 (PEG6000), paraffin wax (PW), carnauba
wax (CW), Acrawax (AW), and stearic acid (SA), and the loading of the binder system
varies from 14.5 to 15.8 wt% [9,10].
To obtain a final dense ceramic part, several steps are required. The 3D printing process
represents only a procedure for the formation of material into the required shape. To achieve
the final parts with the desired properties (such as mechanical properties, microstructure,
geometry, etc.), it is necessary to take into account the chemical composition and ratio (size)
of the ceramic particles, and the polymer matrix. Depending on the material composition
and 3D printing technology used, post-processes such as debinding and sintering are
required and have a fundamental influence on the final part [11].
Ceramic materials may be divided into two main groups: classic ceramics and ad-
vanced ceramics. Advanced ceramics are made by synthetic chemicals of high purity and
organic binders are usually added to assist the shaping process. These specific ceramics are
targeted to industrial applications that require high performance [12].
Alumina is one of the most commonly used and studied advanced ceramic materials
due to the relative abundance and low cost of the material source, as well as the availability
of the material in highly pure grades, which is used for material research [13]. Alumina
is a known ceramic material for high heat resistance and high thermal conductivity, high
tensile and compression strength, high electrical insulation, high corrosion resistance,
chemical and physical stability, and biocompatibility. The material is hard and abrasive,
and is resistant to thermal shock [14] Alumina parts are used in electrical and electronic
applications [15], membrane [16] and filtration products [17], wear-resistant products such
as sand blasting nozzles, seal faces, bearings and piston plungers [18], etc.

2. Materials and Methods

FFF is a process for the extrusion of thermoplastic material [19]. Generally, it is possible
to use single material or composite material for FFF. A wide range of materials may be used
as composite reinforcements (carbon, glass fibers, kevlars, ceramics, carbon nanotubes,
wood, juta, palm, etc.) [20]. In our case, the composite system of the thermoplastics matrix
is filled by ceramic powder (>45 vol%) and may be used to 3D print ceramic parts. In
comparison with Powder Injection Molding technology, the Alumina powder loading is
between 50 and 60 vol% [21]. Fundamental requirements for feedstock filaments are low
viscosity, high strength, high strain, and high modulus [22]. To achieve dense ceramic parts,
it is necessary to remove the binder system during the debinding process (chemical and
thermal). A sintering step is required for the densification of ceramic particles. A schematic
representation of the 3D printing and post-processes required to obtain the final ceramic
part is given in Figure 1.
Polymers 2021, 14, 991 3 of 13

3D modeling 3D printing Chemical debinding

Green body

Drying

Ceramic Brown body

Final, dense part Sintering Thermal debinding

Figure 1. Schematic representation of 3D printing ceramics and post-processes.

2.1. Material
Thermoplastic composite filament alumina used for the preparation of samples was
fabricated by Zetamix (Nanoe, France). The alumina material and SEM pictures of the
filament are shown in Figure 2. Alumina powder (Al2 O3 ) with a ceramic particles size
<1.0 µm and a thermoplastic binder material were processed into a filament with a diameter
1.75 mm [23]. The filament is suitable for a technology FFF. The volume proportion of the
polyolefin based binder system is 48 vol% and the alumina proportion is 52 vol%.Converted
to a weight percentage concentration, the proportion of the binder system is 17 wt% and
the alumina proportion is 83 wt% [23]. The porosity and mechanical properties of alumina
fabricated by additive manufacturing and conventional technologies are compared in
Table 1.

Figure 2. SEM view of the alumina filament and its cross-section.

Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) of the alumina material from Zetamix is shown

in Figure 3, which provides information on the thermal decomposition of the polymer
matrix. Decomposition begins at a temperature of 181 °C. The mean thermal decomposition
temperature of the polymer matrix corresponds to 381 °C and the highest weight loss of
the polymer being recorded at 385 °C. This temperature is an important point in thermal
debinding process. Due to the previous chemical debinding, when a substantial part of
the polymer matrix is removed, only the residual polymer is removed during the thermal
debinding. A temperature of 526 °C indicates the end of thermal decomposition.
Polymers 2021, 14, 991 4 of 13

Table 1. Alumina material fabricated by AM and conventional technologies. Comaprison of porosity

and mechanical properties reached in this study with results of other research teams.

Flexural Strength Relative

Manufacturer Technology Hardness Citation
[MPa] Density [%]
Sumitomo Chemical Co., Fused Filament
200–300 - 80–89 [24]
Ltd., Japan Fabrication
Lithography-based
LithaLox HP 500, Lithoz 427 (4PB) - 99.3 [25]
Ceramics Manufacturing
Kemaus, Australia and Photosensitive Binder
1.04 - 39.49 [26]
A32, Japan Jetting
Taimicron - KRAHN,
Selective Laser Sintering - - 95.66 [27]
Germany
Almatis Inc., Germany Selective Laser Sintering 255 ± 17 (4PB) - 88 [28]
Fenghe Ceramia s Co.,
Tape Casting - 15.91 ± 0.15 GPa 98.1 [29]
Ltd., Shanghai, China
Alcan Chemicals, 1679 HV30
Slip Casting Technique - 98.04 [30]
Stamford, CT, USA (16.46 GPa)
Sumitomo Chemical, 1903 HV200
Powder Injection Molding 264 (3PB) 99.5 [31]
Tokyo, Japan (18.66 GPa)
Zetamix, France - Fused Filament
150–300 19 GPa 98–99 [23]
Datasheet Fabrication
Fused Filament 316.12–331.61
Zetamix, France - Results 13.54–23.81 GPa 99.54 (99.72)
Fabrication (3PB)

Figure 3. The thermogravimetric analysis of alumina material from Zetamix.

Furthermore, the melt volume rate (MVR) was also measured. At a temperature of
150 °C and a total sample load of 2.16 kg, the resulting MVR value was (159 ± 6) cm3 /10 min.
The measurement was performed in accordance with the international standard EN ISO
1133-1:2011. The measurement conditions were used for a polyethylene matrix, which was
previously verified by FTIR spectrometry. Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis (EDX), was
used to verify the composition of the Al2 O3 material on the sample before debinding and
sintering.

2.2. Fabrication and Specimens

The specimens were printed on a FFF printer-Prusa i3 MK3S (Prusa Research, Czech
Republic). Due to the fragility of the material, the pressure spring on the feed mechanism
had to be replaced. The original spring damaged the filament, and this caused printing
problems. A new spring with less pressure force partially grinded the material. The filament
was not interrupted, and the material feeding process was continuous. Easy unwinding of
the material from the spool was ensured using two ball bearings.
Polymers 2021, 14, 991 5 of 13

The z-axis adjustment plays a key role in obtaining a dense and smooth first layer of
the part. A steel printing plate with a smooth polyetherimide (PEI) surface was used. The
plate had to be properly cleaned after each printing to ensure smooth separation of the part.
The printing parameters recommended by the manufacturer (Zetamix by Nanoe)
were optimized with regards to the achieved results and performed tests. The extrusion
temperature was chosen based on a temperature test in the range of 115–190 °C in steps
of 5 °C. At a low temperature of 110 °C, the material was not sufficiently melted and was
not forced through the nozzle. At temperatures above 190 °C, the part warped due to low
viscosity and high temperature.
The best results after the debindig and sintering process were obtained with an
extrusion temperature of 150 °C. The whole test was repeated, and the selected temperature
was confirmed to be optimal. The bed temperature of 25 °C ensured sufficient adhesion
during the printing process, and smooth removal of the part from the build plate when
the printing was completed. Layer height: 0.2 mm, speed: 30 mm/s, overlap: 40%, solid
layers top/bottom: 2/2 (depending on a geometry of parts), perimeters: 2, infill pattern:
rectilinear (Table 2).

Table 2. Printing parameters for alumina material on FFF technology.

Printing temperature 150 °C

Bed temperature 25 °C
Layer height 0.2 mm
Speed 30 mm/s
Solid layers Top/Bottom 2/2
Retraction off
Overlap 40%
Perimeters 2
Infill pattern rectilinear

A flexural strength test was performed according to the EN 843-1:2006 standard for
special technical ceramics. The chosen specimen type A had the following dimensions: 2.5
× 2.0 × ≥25 mm (Figure 4).
2 ± 0.2

z
y
x
.2
≥ 25 ±0
2.5

Figure 4. Flexural strength specimen type A [mm] with ilustration of layers direction.

2.3. Solvent Debinding

The debinding process has two steps: solvent and thermal. It is a crucial process for
removing the a polyolefin-based binder system from the parts Figure 5. A Sonorex Digitec
DT 510 H ultrasonic bath (BANDELIN electronic GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin, Germany) was
used for the solvent debinding process. The “green bodies” were impregnated in an acetone
solvent bath. The time of solvent debinding varied depending on the size and geometry of
the parts. The temperature was set in the range of 30–40 °C. Weight loss after the solvent
debinding process is necessary to determine polymer matrix loss. The average weight loss
value was 11%. In the event of insufficient binder removal, the specimens cracked. To
avoid the cracks, it was necessary to leave the parts in an acetone bath for a sufficiently
long time of 3–24 h (depending on the size of the parts).
Polymers 2021, 14, 991 6 of 13

Printed part

Dissolving binder

Heating

Ceramic particles Binder system Technological pores Debinding solvent (Acetone) Debinding pores

Figure 5. Illustration of solvent debinding process.

2.4. Thermal Debinding and Sintering Process

The thermal debinding and sintering cycle was processed in a Clasic 1017S atmosphere
furnace (CLASIC CZ s.r.o., Řevnice, Czech Republic). During the thermal debinding, the
binder system is eliminated/removed by thermal energy. The sintering step is important
for obtaining the final dense parts of pure alumina. Temperature as a function of time is
show in Figure 6. The parts were re-weighed and measured to determine the percentage
weight loss of all the binders after thermal elimination as well as geometry/dimension
changes due to the sintering of grains. The maximum temperature of the debinding process
reaches 510 °C, and the maximum sintering temperature is 1550 °C. These values, including
the temperature ramp and endurance, were recommended by the manufacturer of the
filament, and proved to be optimal.

Thermal debinding zone Sintering zone

1620

1300
Temperature [°C]

980

660

340

20
3 4 5 8 10 16 24 46 48 64 90
Time [h]

Figure 6. Thermal debinding and sintering cycle.

After the debinding process, the part is called a “brown body”. The subsequent
sintering process is required to achieve the final, densified part. The volume of the part
is reduced. The sintering process may be divided into three categories, depending on
the composition being fired, and in particular on the extent to which a liquid phase is
formed during the heat treatment [32–34]. The mechanisms of sintering include solid state
sintering, liquid-phase sintering, and viscous sintering. In this case, solid state sintering
was used.
During this process, the green or brown body is heated to a temperature that is typically
0.5–0.8 of the melting temperature [35]. The sintering temperature of the Al2 O3 material is
usually between 1400 °C and 1650 °C, which is calculated from the melting point of Al2 O3
of 2072 °C [36]. In solid-state sintering, the powder does not melt, and the composition
and firing temperature are such that no liquid is formed. The particles are joined together
and densification of powder is achieved. Diffusion of atoms is a mechanism forming
Polymers 2021, 14, 991 7 of 13

and reshaping the powder. Energy reduction is achieved by elimination of the solid–gas
interface and its replacement by a solid–solid interface, which causes reshaping [32,34].
Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of a filament, a successfully sintered part, and
an incorrectly sintered part due to low temperature, are shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. SEM images of: (left) the filament, (middle) a sintered part, (right) a part sintered unsuc-
cessfully (sintering process with a low temperature).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Porosity
Porosity was measured on a ZEISS METROTOM 1500 CT machine (Carl Zeiss Indus-
trial Metrology, Maple Grove, MN, USA). The printed parts (10 × 10 × 10 mm) with a
100% rectilinear filling were scanned after the sintering process. Individual CT scans of the
specimen were processed using myVGL software (Volume Graphics GmbH, Heidelberg,
Germany). On the basis of the data, 3D model of the specimen was reconstructed. The
same software is capable of highlighting and evaluating porosity in the whole volume of
the specimen. The largest porosity was in the area of perimeters (two perimeters were
used for the printing). This may also be seen in Figure 8, left. The total porosity was
0.46% in the whole volume of the part. For comparison, the area of the perimeters was
omitted, and the internal porosity was evaluated (Figure 8, right). The total porosity of
the inner part was 0.28% (average porosity in the whole volume). To avoid porosity in the
area of the perimeters, the extrusion width of the perimeters needed to be increased from
0.3 mm to 0.45 mm. The relative density was 99.54% (region of the perimeters included)
and 99.72% (internal volume of the part without the perimeters region). In previous studies,
Lithography-based Ceramics Manufacturing (LCM) technology had one of the highest
relative densities of 99.3%, as reported by Schwentenwein and Homa Schwentenwein and
Homa [25]. SLS technology reached a relative density of 95.66% and 88% according to
Harris et al. [20] and Liu et al. [28], respectfully. In comparison with other AM technologies,
the value of the relative density obtained in this experiment is one of the highest and it is
comparable with conventional technologies.

3.2. Hardness
The hardness indicates the resistance to an applied load, which is indicated by a square-
based pyramid [37]. The hardness of the specimens was measured on a Duramin-40 device
(Struers Inc., Cleveland, OH, USA) according to the EN 843-1:2006 standard. The Vickers
test method was chosen, which uses a diamond tip in the shape of a regular quadrilateral
pyramid with a square base with a vertex angle between the opposite sides, alpha = 136
degrees. The penetrating body was pressed perpendicularly into the surface of the test
specimen with a selected load of 10 kg (HV10) and a load time of 10 s. After unloading, the
length of the impression diagonals was measured in two directions perpendicular to each
other. The value of the resulting hardness was then automatically calculated by the software
(the result is affected by the selected load force and the size of the impression diagonals).
The influence of the internal filling of the test specimens on the resulting hardness was also
evaluated. The inner fillings of 20–40–60–80–100% were chosen.
Polymers 2021, 14, 991 8 of 13

Figure 8. Data from CT ZEISS METROTOM 1500 of sample with 100 % infill. Porosity in the area of
perimeters (up). Porosity of the inner area of the part (down).

In order to perform the measurement, all the test specimens were closed with two
solid layers on top. The height of each layer was 0.2 mm. It was not possible to measure
microhardness in a semi-closed shell with zero filling. The diamond tip penetrated through
both solid layers and the measurement was invalid. As may be seen in Table 3, the infill
percentage had a significant effect on the hardness of the material, which increased almost
linearly with increasing infill.

Table 3. Hardness of alumina depending on the infill percentage.

Infill [%] Hardness HV10 Hardness [GPa]

20 1382 ± 191 13.54
40 1521 ± 237 14.91
60 1758 ± 188 17.23
80 2178 ± 340 21.34
100 2428 ± 209 23.81

The hardness values were in the range of 1382 to 2428 HV10 (depending on the internal
infill). The obtained values were recalculated to SI units using Equation (1).
Polymers 2021, 14, 991 9 of 13

( GPa) = 0.009807 · HV (1)

3.3. Flexural Strength

Flexural strength was determined according to the EN 843-1:2006 standard, and
calculated by the standard Equation (2), where F [N] is the load (force) at the fracture
point, L [mm] is the length of the support span, b [mm] is specimen width, h [mm] is
specimen thickness. For each infill, five testing samples were used to obtain relevant data.
The measured values of ranged from 316.12 to 331.61 MPa depending on the inner filling
(Table 4). According to the data obtained, the internal filling in the range of 80–90–100%
had no significant effect on increasing or decreasing the flexural strength. After the test,
the fracture surfaces were analyzed by SEM (Figure 9). It is also possible to see porosity
in the area of perimeters in the images of the fracture surfaces, which confirms the results
from the CT. Therefore, it was necessary to adjust the process parameters of the printing. A
lower porosity in this area may also lead to a higher flexural strength.

Table 4. Flexural strength depending on the internal infill.

Infill [%] Flexural Strength [MPa]

80 316.12 ± 58.77
90 327.84 ± 26.21
100 331.61 ± 53.45

The flexural strength was approximately 30% higher compared to results obtained
by SLS–255 MPa (4PB), reported by Li et al. [38], and 26% higher than conventionally
manufactured alumina by powder injection molding with 264 MPa (3PB) reported by J.
Y. Roh [31]. The results are 21% lower (427 MPa, 4PB) compared to the LCM technology
reported by Schwentenwein and Homa Schwentenwein and Homa [25].

3Fl
σf = (2)
2bh2

Figure 9. Fracture surface analysis with internall infill, left: 80%, 90%, and 100% infill.

3.4. Shrinkage and Geometry Deformation

The total shrinkage provided by the manufacturer of 21.3% should be obtained after the
sintering step [23]. The values obtained by the experiment indicate the average shrinkage
of 22.5%.
Partial shrinkage of the parts occurs after the debinding process, both chemical and
thermal. There is also a significant weight loss after the chemical debinding process, with
Polymers 2021, 14, 991 10 of 13

an average value of 12.45 wt%. During the thermal debinding process, the rest of the
polymer is removed, and the part is extremely brittle after this step. However, the sintering
process has the greatest influence on volume shrinkage. The high temperature compacts
the ceramic particles and reduces the porosity. This is crucial for the production of high-
precision parts with a defined geometry and dimension accuracy. Analysis of the shrinkage
in all directions (x, y, z) is required. In the z-axis, there is a larger shrinkage due to the
used technology and gravity. The orientation of parts during the printing process and
thermal post-processing also plays a key role in axis shrinkage. The average weight loss
is 22.6 wt%. The whole printing process for obtaining a dense ceramic part is shown in
Figure 10. An example of the weight loss values after each process for parts with an internal
gyroid structure is shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Part with an internal gyroid structure: (a) Printing on FFF technology, (b) Chemical debinding,
(c) Thermal debinding, (d) Sintering process.

3D Chemical Thermal
Units Sintering
Printing Debinding Debinding
Weight g 1.33 1.15 1.05 1.03
Processing
wt% - 13.53 7.55 1.55
shrinkage
Total
wt% - 13.53 21.05 22.56
shrinkage

Figure 10. Part with an internal gyroid structure: (a) Printing on FFF technology, (b) Chemical
debinding, (c) Thermal debinding, (d) Sintering process.

4. Conclusions
This study demonstrated the fabrication of alumina material by FFF technology. The
alumina material was analyzed by thermogravimetric analysis, FTIR spectrometry, EDX
analysis, and MVR was measured. The volume proportion of the binder system was 48 vol%
and the alumina particles was 52 vol%. Decomposition of the polymer matrix begin at
181 °C, point of greatest rate of change on the weight loss is at 381 °C. At temperature 526 °C
thermal decomposition is finished. Due to these information, the thermal debinding process
is under control. The printing parameters recommended by the filament manufacturer
were modified to obtain sufficient results.
Chemical debinding renders the sample sensitive to cracking and delamination. To
prevent damage to the samples, most of the binder must be removed in an acetone bath,
and the process is controlled by the temperature and leaching time. The remaining polymer
was removed during thermal debinding, which was followed by a sintering process. After
the thermal debinding process the parts are extremely brittle.
The relative density was measured at 100% infill and reached 99.54%. The highest
porosity was in the area of the perimeters, which were not completely sintered to each
other. After forced elimination of this area, the relative density was 99.72%. The hardness
was measured as a function of the infill percentage in the range of 20–100% (step 20%)
and confirmed an almost linear increase in hardness with a higher percentage of infill.
The maximum hardness was obtained with 100% infill and reached values of 2428 ± 209
Polymers 2021, 14, 991 11 of 13

HV10 (23.81 GPa). A three-point bending flexural test was performed on the specimens
with internal infill ranges of 80–90–100%. However, the obtained results did not show
any dependence on infill density. Flexural strength was in the range of 316.12–331.61 MPa.
Shrinkage is a significant attribute of a composite system: polymer matrix and ceramic
particles. After the sintering process, loose weight of the part was approximately 22.6 wt%.
The obtained mechanical properties and relative density were comparable with those of
conventionally manufactured parts.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, V.T.; methodology, V.T. and J.M.; formal analysis, V.T.;
investigation, V.T. and M.A.; resources, J.S. (Jiří Šafka); data curation, V.T., M.A., and J.S. (Jiří Sobotka);
writing—original draft preparation, V.T., M.A., and J.S. (Jiří Šafka); theoretical background and
statistics, J.M.; writing—review and editing, V.T.,J.S. (Jiří Šafka), J.S. (Jiří Sobotka), J.M., and M.A.;
visualization, V.T. and M.A.; supervision, J.S. (Jiří Šafka) and J.M.; project administration, J.S. (Jiří
Šafka); funding acquisition, J.S. (Jiří Šafka). All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript
Funding: This work was supported by the H2020-WIDESPREAD programme in the framework of
project “Networking for Research and Development of Human Interactive and Sensitive Robotics
Taking Advantage of Additive Manufacturing” (R2P2, ID: 857061).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: This publication was prepared at the Technical University of Liberec, Faculty
of Mechanical Engineering with the support of the Institutional Endowment for the Long-Term
Conceptual Development of Research Institutes, as provided by the Ministry of Education, Youth
and Sports of the Czech Republic in the year 2021.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
Polymers 2021, 14, 991 12 of 13

Al2 O3 Alumina
FFF Fused Filament Fabrication
TGA Thermogravimetric Analysis
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy
MVR Melt Volume Rate
CT Computed Tomography
AM Additive Manufacturing
3D Three - Dimensional
SLA Stereolithography
FDM Fused Deposition Modeling
LOM Laminated Object Manufacturing
SLS Selective Laser Sintering
ABS Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene
PLA Poly(Lactic Acid)
PP Polypropylene
TPU Thermoplastic Polyurethane
PETG Poly(Ethylene Terephthalate Glycol),
CIM Ceramic Injection Molding
LDPE Low Density Polyethylene
PEG6000 Poly(Ethylene Glycol) 6000
PW Paraffin Wax
CW Carnauba Wax
AW Acrawax
SA Stearic Acid
SEM Scanning Electron Microscope
EDX Energy Dispersive X-Ray
PEI Polyetherimide
LCM Lithography-based Ceramics Manufacturing

References
1. Balletti, C.; Ballarin, M.; Guerra, F. 3D printing. J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 26, 172–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.02.010.
2. Bhatia, A.; Sehgal, A.K.; Imbalzano, G.; Nguyen, K.T.; Hui, D. Additive manufacturing materials, methods and applications.
Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 143, 172–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.04.379.
3. Wohlers, T.; Gornet, T. History of additive manufacturing. Wohlers Rep. 2014, 24, 118.
4. Casavola, C.; Cazzato, A.; Moramarco, V.; Renna, G. Mechanical behaviour of ABS-Fused Filament Fabrication compounds under
impact tensile loadings. Materials 2019, 12, 1295. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12081295.
5. Dickson, A.N.; Abourayana, H.M.; Dowling, D.P.; Nguyen, K.T.; Hui, D. 3D Printing of Fibre-Reinforced Thermoplastic
Composites Using Fused Filament Fabrication—A Review. Polymers 2020, 12, 172–196. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12102188.
6. Nötzel, D.; Eickhoff, R.; Hanemann, T. Fused Filament Fabrication of Small Ceramic Components. Materials 2018, 11, 1463.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11081463.
7. Lakhdar, Y.; Tuck, C.; Binner, J.; Terry, A.; Goodridge, R. Additive manufacturing of advanced ceramic materials. Prog. Mater. Sci.
2021, 116, 100736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2020.100736.
8. Sachs, E.; Cima, M.; Cornie, J. Three-Dimensional Printing. CIRP Ann. 1990, 39, 201–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-
8506(07)61035-X.
9. Bleyan, D.; Hausnerová, B. The Role of Polymer Binder in Ceramic Injection Moulding. Key Eng. Mater. 2013, 581, 82–88.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.581.82.
10. Hausnerova, B.; Bleyan, D.; Kasparkova, V.; Pata, V. Surface adhesion between ceramic injection molding feedstocks and
processing tools. Ceram. Int. 2016, 42, 460–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.08.132.
11. Chen, Z.; Li, Z.; Li, J.; Liu, C.; Lao, C.; Fu, Y.; Liu, C.; Li, Y.; Wang, P.; He, Y. 3D printing of ceramics. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2019,
39, 661–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2018.11.013.
12. Salamon, D. Advanced Ceramics. Adv. Ceram. Dent. 2014, 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394619-5.00006-7.
13. MUNRO, M. Evaluated Material Properties for a Sintered alpha-Alumina. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 1997, 80, 1919–1928.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1997.tb03074.x.
14. Evans, K. The Manufacture of Alumina and its Use in Ceramics and Related Applications. Key Eng. Mater. 1996, 122–124, 489–526.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.122-124.489.
15. Dalvi, P.Y.; Upadhyaya, D.D.; Kulkarni, A.K.; Rao, S.V.K. Alumina Bodies for Electrical Applications. Trans. Indian Ceram. Soc.
2014, 45, 49–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/0371750X.1986.10822784.
16. Hsieh, H.; Bhave, R.; Fleming, H. Microporous alumina membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 1988, 39, 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0
376-7388(00)80931-X.
Polymers 2021, 14, 991 13 of 13

17. Mouratib, R.; Achiou, B.; Krati, M.E.; Younssi, S.A.; Tahiri, S. Low-cost ceramic membrane made from alumina- and
silica-rich water treatment sludge and its application to wastewater filtration. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2020, 40, 5942–5950.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2020.07.050.
18. Parikh, P.B. Alumina Ceramics. Trans. Indian Ceram. Soc. 1995, 54, 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/0371750X.1995.10804716.
19. Özden, I.; Iveković, A.; Kocjan, A. Additive manufacturing of ceramics from thermoplastic feedstocks. Open Ceram. 2021,
6, 100129. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceram.2021.100129.
20. Harris, M.; Potgieter, J.; Archer, R.; Arif, K.M. Effect of Material and Process Specific Factors on the Strength of Printed Parts in
Fused Filament Fabrication. Materials 2019, 12, 1664. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12101664.
21. Thomas-Vielma, P.; Cervera, A.; Levenfeld, B.; Várez, A. Production of alumina parts by powder injection molding with a binder
system based on high density polyethylene. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2008, 28, 763–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.
2007.08.004.
22. Agarwala, M.; Weeren, R.V.; Bandyopadhyay, A.; Safari, A.; Danforth, S.; Priedeman, W.R. Filament Feed Materials for Fused
Deposition Processing of Ceramics and Metals; 1996.
23. Zetamix. Datasheet Alumina Zetamix Filament; 2021.
24. Orlovska, M.; Chlup, Z.; Baca, L.; Janek, M.; Kitzmantel, M. Fracture and mechanical properties of lightweight alumina ceramics
prepared by fused filament fabrication. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2020, 40, 4837–4843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2020.02.026.
25. Schwentenwein, M.; Homa, J. Additive Manufacturing of Dense Alumina Ceramics. Int. J. Appl. Ceram. Technol. 2015, 12, 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijac.12319.
26. Manotham, S.; Channasanon, S.; Nanthananon, P.; Tanodekaew, S.; Tesavibul, P. Photosensitive binder jetting technique for the
fabrication of alumina ceramic. J. Manuf. Process. 2021, 62, 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2020.12.011.
27. Fayed, E.M.; Elmesalamy, A.S.; Sobih, M.; Elshaer, Y. Characterization of direct selective laser sintering of alumina. Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 2018, 94, 2333–2341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-0981-y.
28. Liu, Z.H.; Nolte, J.J.; Packard, J.I.; Hilmas, G.; Dogan, F.; Leu, M.C. Selective Laser Sintering of High-density Alumina Ceramic
Parts. In Proceedings of the 35th International MATADOR Conference; 2007; pp. 351–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-988-
0_79.
29. Yu, M.; Zhang, J.; Li, X.; Liang, H.; Zhong, H.; Li, Y.; Duan, Y.; Jiang, D.L.; Liu, X.; Huang, Z. Optimization of
the tape casting process for development of high performance alumina ceramics. Ceram. Int. 2015, 41, 14845–14853.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.08.010.
30. Žmak, I.; Ćorić, D.; Mandić, V.; Ćurković, L. Hardness and Indentation Fracture Toughness of Slip Cast Alumina and Alumina-
Zirconia Ceramics. Materials 2020, 13, 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13010122.
31. Roh, J.; Kwon, J.; Lee, C.; Choi, J. Novel fabrication of pressure-less sintering of translucent powder injection molded (PIM)
alumina blocks. Ceram. Int. 2011, 37, 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2010.09.011.
32. Rahaman, M.N. Sintering of Ceramics, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007.
33. Dejonghe, L.; Rahaman, M. 4.1 Sintering of Ceramics. In Handbook of Advanced Ceramics; 2003; pp. 187–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-012654640-8/50006-7.
34. Brook, R. Sintering. In Concise Encyclopedia of Advanced Ceramic Materials; 1991; pp. 438–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-
034720-2.50121-0.
35. Leriche, A.; Cambier, F.; Hampshire, S. Sintering of Ceramics; Reference Module in Materials Science and Materials Engineering;
2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.10288-7.
36. Nanoe. Datasheet Alumina Nanoe; 2021.
37. Kutz, M. Ceramics Testing, Handbook of Measurement in Science and Engineering; 2016; https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118436707.
hmse042.
38. Li, H.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Hu, K.; Lu, Z.; Liang, J. Effects of Solvent Debinding on the Microstructure and Properties of 3D-Printed
Alumina Ceramics. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 27455–27462. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.0c03944.

View publication stats