## 4 Conclusions  
This study focused on the production of specimens using 316 L stainless steel filament in an FDM-type 3D printer, followed by thermal debinding and sintering processes. Key findings from the study are summarized below:  
* The thermal debinding process led to bubble (blister) formations on the specimens, which increased with the debinding rate. These bubbles were likely caused by gases trapped during binder removal. Despite the literature suggesting a binder removal rate of 5 \({}^{\circ}\)C/min, significant bubble formation occurred at this rate. To prevent this, a slower binder removal rate of 0.2 \({}^{\circ}\)C/min was applied, which resulted in no bubble formation and stable part geometry during the subsequent sintering process. * After sintering, densities of 87% and 93% were achieved for 316 LHS and 316 LLS, respectively. The average microhardness values were 148.2 Hv for 316 LHS and 184.25 Hv for 316 LLS. The thermal treatment process had a notable impact on the material's density, hardness, and porosity, which in turn affected the mechanical strength. * Reducing the layer thickness led to an increase in both material strength (432 MPa) and density (94.35% of theoretical density). However, the 316 L material exhibited anisotropic behavior, and the hardness was lower for a 200 \(\upmu\)m layer thickness compared to a 300 \(\upmu\)m layer thickness. * The binder removal rate also significantly influenced the mechanical properties. A rapid binder removal rate resulted in cracking and warping of the material. The optimal conditions for achieving the highest mechanical strength were found to be a layer thickness of 100 \(\upmu\)m combined with a binder removal temperature of 0.2 \({}^{\circ}\)C/min. * The effects of layer thickness on the mechanical properties of 316L austenitic stainless steel produced via additive manufacturing are significant, as they directly influence material strength, ductility, and overall structural integrity. In industrial settings, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Property** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **BASF Company’s** \\ **Data-Sheet Values** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Test Results** \\ **(Current Study)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Tensile Strength & & \\ (MPa) & 521 & 432 \\ \hline Yield Strength & & \\ (MPa) & 234 & 215 \\ \hline Elongation at Break & & \\ (\(\%\)) & 36 & 10 \\ \hline Hardness & & \\ (Hv) & 128 & 184 \\ \hline Density & & \\ (g/cm\({}^{3}\)) & 7.85 & 7.98 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The nominal mechanical and physical properties from the tensile test specimen produced with 316L filament alongside the BASF Company’s data-sheet values [58]. understanding these effects is crucial for optimizing manufacturing processes and ensuring the reliability of components produced through additive manufacturing techniques. For example, variations in layer thickness can affect the microstructure of the material, potentially leading to changes in its fatigue resistance and tensile strength. Consequently, selecting the appropriate layer thickness is essential for balancing material properties with production efficiency. * Practical applications in industries such as aerospace, automotive, and medical device manufacturing could benefit from this knowledge. By tailoring the layer thickness, manufacturers can improve the performance of components subjected to high-stress environments, such as turbine blades or load-bearing parts. Additionally, the ability to optimize these parameters could reduce material waste and production costs, which are critical factors in large-scale industrial applications. Further research into the relationship between layer thickness and mechanical properties will be invaluable in fine-tuning additive manufacturing techniques for specific industrial requirements.