Ceramic 3D printing promises intricate, high-performance parts, but technical hurdles still block its path to industrial scale. Can innovation catch up with ambition?
Image Credit: R_Boe/Shutterstock.com
Ceramics offer a rare combination of hardness, thermal stability, wear resistance, and corrosion resistance, making them indispensable across sectors from aerospace to biomedicine. But manufacturing them is a slow, expensive process prone to defects: Traditional techniques rely on pressing powders into molds, followed by sintering and often labor-intensive machining. The process is wasteful, and manufacturing complex shapes is especially tricky.1, 2
Additive manufacturing offers a cleaner route. Instead of molds and multi-step workflows, ceramic 3D printing promises direct fabrication of intricate shapes with minimal material waste. The appeal is clear, but turning that promise into production reality remains a work in progress.
Ceramic 3D Printing Techniques
Ceramic AM falls broadly into three categories: powder-based deposition, bulk-solid-based deposition, and liquid slurry-based deposition. Each has its own merits and pitfalls.
Powder-based methods include Powder Bed Fusion (PBF), Binder Jetting (BJT), and Directed Energy Deposition (DED). Within PBF, Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) and Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) are particularly active areas for ceramic use.
Bulk-solid based deposition methods can be Sheet Lamination (SHL) and Material Extrusion (MEX), the latter encompassing common techniques like Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM).
Liquid Slurry-Based Deposition includes Material Jetting (MJT) and Vat Photopolymerization (VPP) technologies such as Stereolithography (SLA) and Digital Light Processing (DLP).
Extrusion-based methods are affordable and generate little waste, whilst binder jetting scales well for complex designs and can accommodate a broad range of ceramics. VPP methods, meanwhile, offer smooth surfaces and fine resolution, with less need for post-processing.3
Problems with Printing
Fused Depositon Modeling (FDM)
FDM techniques are essential in ceramic AM; however, the accuracy of complex geometries is lower than that of other methods. The complex ceramic parts manufactured using FDM have been found to have critically low strength with high interfacial porosity, and the printing method has a slow fabrication speed.
Further, when polyamide-6 (PA6) is used for FDM processes, the ceramic products experience severe warping due to PA6 crystallization under certain temperatures and geometries.
Some improvements have come from adding carbon fibres to the mix. These composites show greater toughness, but fibre-matrix interactions during sintering are still an issue.4
Direct Ink Writing (DIW)
DIW processes also play a key role in 3D printing and involve mixing the ceramic powder with organic substances, forming a ceramic ink used to produce ceramic parts using a printer.
But surface quality is typically low, and density suffers. Inks can only take so much solid loading before they become unprintable, and fibre reinforcement is difficult to scale. Curing times are also long, adding further cost and complexity.
Selective Laser Sintering (SLS)
SLS techniques are popular because of their vast variety of ceramic product sizes, which can be produced with a very fast molding rate. However, the process requires the use of substances with exceptionally high organic polymeric binding constituents, resulting in ceramic products of low strength, low density, and high porosity.
This can be resolved by isostatic pressure treatments, which are quite expensive. SLS can also be used to manufacture ceramic silicon carbide (SiC) components. But, the resulting parts are mechanically weak unless carefully heat-treated. Adding reinforcing fibres doesn’t solve the problem: differences in drying rate, thermal expansion, and elasticity between fibre and matrix often lead to cracking or distortion.5
Download your PDF copy now!
Material Issues Hindering AM
Some of the advantages of ceramics can also be their downfall. Extreme melting points, hardness, and brittleness make them difficult to 3D print. To resolve these issues, researchers are experimenting with post-treatment processes for SLS, L-PBF, and DED. However, curing in particular, as well as other treatment processes, leads to thermal stresses, which enhance the crack formation and propagation process in ceramic 3D-printed parts.
Additionally, the low value of thermal expansion coupled with the brittle nature makes it quite hard to implement energy- and cost-efficient large-scale industry-oriented AM processes for mass-producing ceramic parts.
Binder Formulation Limitations for Industrial 3D Ceramic Printing
In Binder Jetting (BJT), getting the right binder level is essential. Too much, and it bleeds into surrounding layers; too little, and parts don’t hold their shape. Tweaking binder content for different ceramic types adds a layer of trial-and-error that makes the process less reliable at an industrial scale.6
It's relatively simple to fine-tune binder formulations at a lab scale, but there is very little flexibility at a production scale. Each binder and its associated saturation level is specific for 3D printing a particular ceramic composition to ensure effective interaction and manufacture a high-quality final part. Achieving the perfect binder saturation level for every distinct ceramic product on an industrial scale is a tedious and costly task.
There is Some Control in Liquid Methods
Ceramic 3D printing processes that use liquid precursors offer improved flow stability compared to fine particle methods. But there are distinct trade-offs involved with switching to liquid techniques.
The use of precursors to implement 3D ceramic printing leads to significant weight loss and shrinkage of the material. In the case of large-scale industrial processing, weight loss severely affects the process's production efficiency. The shrinking of material also limits the maximum thickness of the printed ceramic material and leading to unfavorable volume changes, affecting the product quality.7
Techniques like SLA and FDC that use ceramic-filled slurries or filaments offer good resolution, but demand highly engineered materials. Every ceramic powder needs its own custom surfactants and suspensions to print well. Many are moisture-sensitive, further complicating handling and consistency, especially in fluctuating climates.8
Future Perspective
Despite all of these hiccups and challenges, ceramic additive manufacturing (or 3D printing) is making headway. It is developing especially well in areas where the complexity and performance justify the cost involved.
Biomedically, ceramic 3D-printed products made of Aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and Zirconia are the perfect replacement for metallic dental crowns and dentures. This technology holds immense potential for highly precise orthopedic implant manufacturing. Their compatibility with human tissue, along with AM’s precision, makes them strong candidates for customized, high-performance parts.
In a completely different sector, aerospace researchers are developing complex ceramic cores for engines, using advanced feedstocks and refining post-treatment to meet demanding performance specs.
And in the electronics field, experts are predicting that ceramic 3D printing will be crucial for strengthening 5G mobile communication technology, and leading us into the next era of computing and information technology. AM techniques are currently being optimized to produce microwave dielectric ceramics with customized miniaturized designs to develop high-performance and low-cost communication systems.9
A Long Road To Mass Adoption
In spite of the growing optimism, ceramic 3D printing is not yet ready to replace conventional manufacturing on a wide scale. High material costs, complex processing steps, and inconsistent part quality continue to limit its role.
Still, targeted improvements in feedstock formulation, binder chemistry, and process control are gradually closing the gap. With continued investment and collaboration across industries, ceramics may soon find a permanent place on the factory floor, not just the research lab.
Further Reading
- Abdelkader M. et. al. (2024). Ceramics 3D Printing: A Comprehensive Overview and Applications, with Brief Insights into Industry and Market. Ceramics. 7(1). 68-85. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/ceramics7010006
- Tite, M. S. (2008). Ceramic production, provenance and use—a review. Archaeometry, 50(2), 216-231. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2008.00391.x
- Dadkhah, M. et. al. (2023). Additive manufacturing of ceramics: Advances, challenges, and outlook. Journal of the European Ceramic Society, 43(15), 6635-6664. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2023.07.033
- Huang, Y. et. al. (2023). Progressive concurrent topological optimization with variable fiber orientation and content for 3D printed continuous fiber reinforced polymer composites, Compos. Part B-Eng. 255. 110602. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2023.110602
- Wang, Y. et. al. (2024). State-of-the-art research progress and challenge of the printing techniques, potential applications for advanced ceramic materials 3D printing. Materials Today Communications, 40, 110001. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2024.110001
- Lv X. et. al. (2020). Binder jetting of ceramics: powders, binders, printing parameters, equipment, and post-treatment. Ceram Int. 45:12609–24. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CERAMINT.2019.04.012
- Brodnik, N. et. al. (2020). Analysis of multi-scale mechanical properties of ceramic trusses prepared from preceramic polymers (revision prepared for additive manufacturing). Addit Manuf. 31. 100957. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.100957
- Bose, S. et. al. (2024). 3D printing of ceramics: Advantages, challenges, applications, and perspectives. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 107(12), 7879-7920. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.20043
- Diao, Q. et. al. (2024). The applications and latest progress of ceramic 3D printing. Additive Manufacturing Frontiers. 3(1).200113. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amf.2024.200113
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.