Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

3D printing of ceramic substrates: a cross-platform comparison between direct ink writing (DIW) and digital light processing (DLP) technologies

  • Setareh Zakeri*
  • , Monika Kus
  • , Matti Järveläinen
  • , Yoran De Vos
  • , Marijn Gysen
  • , Erkki Levänen
  • , Vesna Middelkoop
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This study presents a comparative analysis of ceramic honeycomb substrates fabricated using two additive manufacturing (AM) techniques: Direct Ink Writing (DIW) and Digital Light Processing (DLP). By varying key printing parameters (nozzle diameter for DIW and layer thickness for DLP) and binder formulation, the effect of the manufacturing technique on the microstructure, dimensional stability, and mechanical performance of sintered substrates were systematically investigated. In DIW, reducing the nozzle diameter from 800 to 600 μm led to a consistent increase in compressive strength, attributed to favorable load-bearing distributions. One ink system showed no microstructural variation while the other exhibited phase separation when printed with a smaller nozzle, indicating sensitivity to rheological stability. Nevertheless, compressive strength was primarily influenced by nozzle size, and when the same nozzle size was used, there were negligible differences between the two ink formulations. In DLP, layer thickness strongly influenced both microstructure and mechanical properties. Samples printed with finer layers (25 μm) showed smoother surfaces, reduced stair-stepping, and higher compressive strength in comparison to samples printed with 50 μm layers. These differences were attributed to improved interlayer bonding due to higher vertical overcuring. However, this also led to greater lateral overcuring and strut thickening. Binder composition played a secondary role in DLP but had a more noticeable impact on structures with finer features. Overall, the findings show that even with identical feedstock, the inherent deposition mechanism of each AM technique governs how resolution and geometry translate into strength, revealing clear pathways to tune ceramic substrate performance by aligning process choice with the target mechanical and dimensional requirements.

Original languageEnglish
JournalProgress in Additive Manufacturing
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 2026
Publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed

Funding

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Graduate School of Tampere University (TAU) for funding this research and for support during the DLP processing and characterization work, as well as the Flemish Institute for Technological Research for support during the DIW processing and characterization work. The authors also thank M.Sc. Arnold Ismailov for his valuable assistance with the compression tests. The authors would like to thank Zsofia Kovácska for assistance with the SEM/EDX data collection. Special thanks are extended to Arkema for generously providing the photocurable monomers used in this study.

Keywords

  • Ceramic honeycomb substrates
  • Compressive strength
  • Digital light processing (DLP)
  • Direct ink writing (DIW)
  • Vat photopolymerization (VPP)

Publication forum classification

  • Publication forum level 1

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '3D printing of ceramic substrates: a cross-platform comparison between direct ink writing (DIW) and digital light processing (DLP) technologies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this