## 3 Results and Discussion  
The SEM image of the BASF 316L stainless steel filament (BASF, Ludwigshafen, Germany) used in the study is shown in Figure 4. As clearly shown in Figure 4a,b, the metal powders are homogeneously distributed within the multi-component polymer binder. The outer surface of the filament is coated with polymer material, ensuring that no metal particles are present (Figure 4a, white arrows). The size of all visible metal powders is below 50 microns. Furthermore, in the images taken in the xz plane, the vertical lines seen on the filament surface (Figure 4c) should be considered to have formed during the filament's passage through the nozzle. Additionally, in the EDS (energy dispersive spectrum) analysis (Figure 4d, red square), only oxygen (65.61% at.) and carbon (34.38% at.) were detected on the surface of the sample. This is due to the polymer shell surrounding the filament, as mentioned earlier. Since the thickness of the polymer shell surrounding the filament is greater than the measurement depth of the EDS analysis, no elements corresponding to the metal powder were observed in the EDS analysis. The dimensional measurements of 10 produced samples along the \(x\), \(y\), and \(z\) axes were accurately conducted using a digital caliper. The average values measured along the \(x\), \(y\), and \(z\) axes are shown in Figure 5. The target values in the CAD model are indicated by the dashed line. According to the obtained data, the largest deviation from the CAD model occurred along the \(y\)-axis (1.36%). The observed dimensional changes are consistent with previous studies in the literature [23,24]. The changes in the dimensional values were 0.19% larger than the target value along the \(x\)-axis, 1.36% larger along the \(y\)-axis, and 0.52% smaller along the \(z\)-axis. The negative dimensional change along the \(z\)-axis is believed to be due to gravity [25]. Figure 3: Thermal processing procedures. (**a**) Debinding process; (**b**) thermal cycle used in the sintering process. The results of the TGA analysis performed to determine the debinding temperature of the produced samples are shown in Figure 6. It is known that the filament contains approximately 88% metal powder [26; 27]. The TGA analysis indicates that the binder is completely eliminated at around 400 \({}^{\circ}\)C. In many studies from the literature, the debinding temperature has been reported as 600 \({}^{\circ}\)C (refs. [4; 7; 9]). [PERSON] et al., in their study using the same material, determined the debinding temperature to be 315 \({}^{\circ}\)C [28]. In a similar study, [PERSON] et al. observed a TGA curve similar to the one found in this study during their TGA analysis [29]. The temperature at which the binder is completely eliminated in this study is consistent with the values reported in the literature. Performing the debinding process at 400 \({}^{\circ}\)C instead of 600 \({}^{\circ}\)C is expected to result in significant time and energy savings. Figure 4: SEM image of the 316L stainless steel filament used. (**a**) SEM image of the filament cross-section; (**b**) SEM image of the filament surface; (**c.d**) lines formed during the filament’s passage through the nozzle. Figure 5: Average dimensions of the green parts along the \(x\), \(y\), and \(z\) axes. The microstructures of the samples after sintering are shown in Figure 7a,b. In both 316 LLS and 316 LHS (high speed), the samples were observed to consist of equiaxed austenitic grains during the debinding process. The grain size in both samples ranges from 10 to 50 \(\upmu\)m. The disparity in porosity types between the grains is especially evident within the microstructure. It is clearly observed that the porosity is higher and the pore distribution is non-homogeneous in 316 LHS. In contrast, the porosity in 316 LLS is lower and homogeneous. The density measurement results confirm this observation. According to the results, the first sample's theoretical density was measured as 87%, while the second sample's theoretical density was 93%.