Powder Injection Molding of Mullite: The Study of Binder Dissolution Behavior during Debinding Step Using Statistical Methods

Abstract:

The purpose of this work is to use the statistical methods including linear regression and statistical hypothesis test to study the dissolution behavior of polyethylene glycol (PEG), a water-soluble binder, during debinding step of the green specimens of mullite formed by powder injection molding (PIM). Two systems of composite binders were investigated including (A) 80 wt% polyethylene glycol (PEG) and 20 wt% polyvinyl butyral (PVB) and (B) 78 wt% PEG, 20 wt% PVB, and 2 wt% steric acid (SA)The lab-scale plunger type PIM machine was used to prepare the green specimens consisting of mullite powder and the composite binder. The possible solid loadings of the green specimens that could be prepared by this machine were 50, 52, and 54 vol% mullite (50, 48, and 46 vol% binder). The debinding was done by soaking the green specimens in the warm water at 40 or 60 oC to remove PEG. At level of significance 0.05 for statistical analysis, the dissolution behavior of PEG can be fitted with Avarami equation. In addition, from the Avarami equation obtained from each experimental condition, the dissolution rate of PEG was independent of the parameters used in this study including solid loading in the green specimens, water temperatures for debinding, and composite binder systems.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volume 690)
• Pages: 87-91
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.690.87
• Online since: May 2016
• Authors: Parinya Chakartnarodom, Nuntaporn Kongkajun*, Nutthita Chuankrerkkul
• Keywords: Avrami Equation, Debinding, Powder Injection Molding, Statistical Analysis

References

[1] M.P. Groover, Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing: Materials, Processes, and Systems, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, (1996).

[2] R. Asthana, A. Kumar, and N. B. Dahotre, Materials Science in Manufacturing, first ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, (2006).

[3] B.C. Mutsuddy, R.G. Ford, Ceramic Injection Molding, Springer, (1994).

[4] R.V.B. Oliveira, V. Soldi, M.C. Fredel, and A.T.N. Pires, Ceramic injection moulding: influence of specimen dimensions and temperature on solvent debinding kinetics, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 160 (2005) 213–220.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.06.008

[5] H.K. Lin, K.S. Hwang, In Situ Dimensional Changes of Powder Injection-Molded Compacts during Solvent Debinding, Acta Mater 46(1998) 4303-4309.

DOI: 10.1016/s1359-6454(98)00093-7

[6] N. Chuankrerkkul, P. Chakartnarodom, Fabrication of Injection Moulded 304L Stainless Steels Reinforced withTungsten Carbide Particles, Mater Sci Forum 706-709 (2012) 638-642.

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/msf.706-709.638

[7] N. Chuankrerkkul, W. Buggakupta, J. Surawatthana, Role of Tungsten Carbide Reinforcement on Alumina Matrix Composites Fabricated by Powder Injection Moulding, Key Eng Mat 608 (2014) 230-234.

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.608.230

[8] N. Chuankrerkkul, P. Sooksaen, P. Pakunthod, T. Kosalwit, and W. Pinthong, Powder Injection Moulding of Alumina Using PEG/PVB Binder Systems, Key Eng Mat 545 (2013) 173-176.

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.545.173

[9] P. Chakartnarodom, N. Chuankrerkkul, Statistical Analysis of Binder Behavior during Debinding Step in Powder Injection Molding (PIM), Adv Mat Res 970 (2014) 172-176.

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.970.172

[10] D.J. Duval, S.H. Risbud, J.F. Shackelford, Mullite, in: J.F. Shackelford and R.H. Doremus (eds. ), Ceramic and Glass Materials: Structure, Properties and Processing, Springer, 2008, pp.27-39.

DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-73362-3_2

[11] W.D. Callister, D.G. Rethwisch, Materials Science and Engineering, eight ed., Wiley, (2011).

[12] R.E. Walpole, R.H. Myers, Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists, fifth ed., Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey, (1993).