Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 89:2165–2173
DOI 10.1007/s00170-016-9256-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The effect of sintering parameters on diffusion bonding of 316L
stainless steel in inserted metal injection molding
Asghar Safarian 1 & Mehmet Subaşi 2 & Çetin Karataş 3
Received: 22 February 2016 / Accepted: 1 August 2016 / Published online: 9 August 2016
# Springer-Verlag London 2016
Abstract Inserted metal injection molding is a unique and
new method to produce large-sectioned components.
However, what should be taken into consideration in this
method is that the bonding of wrought insert to injected outer
section is a challenging task. In this study, the effect of
sintering temperature, dwell time, and heating rate on diffu-
sion bonding of the insert and injected area, made of 316L
stainless steel, has been investigated. Twenty-millimeter com-
ponents consisting of 60, 70, and 80 % insert/part diameter
ratios were fabricated, and the sintering response was investi-
gated by evaluating the shear strength of the bonding zone
under varying sintering conditions: sintering temperature
ranging from 1260 to 1340 °C; dwell time of 30, 60, and
90 min; and heating rates of 1.5, 3, and 4.5°K min−1. It was
shown that shear strength of the bonding zone could be up to
342 MPa depending on insert/part diameter ratio and sintering
condition. It was also proven by ANOVA that among sintering
parameters, sintering temperature is the most effective one
compared with dwell time and heating rate. In addition to
* Asghar Safarian
asgharsafarian@iau-maragheh.ac.ir
Mehmet Subaşi
msubasi@gazi.edu.tr
Çetin Karataş
cetink@gazi.edu.tr
1
Young Researchers and Elite Club, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Maragheh, Iran
2
Technical Sciences Vocational School of Higher Education, Gazi
University, Ankara, Turkey
3
Department of Manufacturing Engineering, Faculty of Technology,
Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
shear-punch test, microhardness as well as SEM views were
carried out to study the bonding zone with more details.
Keywords Inserted metal injection molding . Sintering .
Diffusion bonding
1 Introduction
Metal injection molding (MIM) refers to a combination of
powder metallurgy and plastic injection molding technolo-
gies. The given process is comprised of four main steps: feed-
stock preparation, injection molding, debinding, and sintering
[1]. In MIM, the binder is added to powder to provide a feed-
stock that can be easily injected inside the preformed molds as
thermoplastics. To have a metal or ceramic component,
extracting the binder from the injected specimen is a necessity.
This is carried out in the debinding stage. Because the length
of mass transfer path for binder removal is proportional to the
cross-section size, fabricating large-sectioned components is
difficult and time-consuming. In the literature, it has been
suggested that the thickness of components not be thicker than
10 mm [2]. Inserted metal injection molding (IMIM, patent
pending) is a novel method introduced to solve this problem
[3–5]. The principle of IMIM is to inject the feedstock on a
wrought insert. Therefore, the section to be debound is de-
creased. There are some advantages in using insert in IMIM,
which results in injecting only a thin layer of feedstock: (a)
decreasing the debinding time and therefore total production
time, (b) decreasing material cost by using cheaper material
(powders are normally expensive regarding their production
methods compared with wrought materials), (c) decreasing the
amount of chemical use needed for debinding, and (d) pro-
ducing a multi-functional component encompassing an insert
whose material is different from that of feedstock. We have
2166
introduced this new method, IMIM, studying the benefit of
using insert in eliminating porosity in thick components fab-
ricated by metal injection molding [4], and also in the amount
of reduction of debinding time [3]. We showed that debinding
time could be decreased by 90 % in the components with
insert/part diameter ratio as high as 80 %. In another work,
we studied the effect of sintering atmosphere on shear strength
of the bonding zone at the insert and injected area interface
[5]. It was revealed that shear strength of the bonding zone
could be almost as high as the base material, depending on the
insert/part diameter ratio and sintering atmosphere. However,
in our previous works, sintering parameters were not studied.
It also should be mentioned that co-powder injection mold-
ing is a potential manufacturing route for the fabrication of
two-component parts, in which bonding of different materials
should be considered. In the co-injection process, different
feedstocks are injected either simultaneously or subsequently
to have two-color components [6]. However, the aim is to
have multi-functional components, not to decrease the
debinding time. The possibility of bonding of two materials
of feedstocks in co-injection and insert to material of feedstock
in IMIM is a key issue that should be considered.
The sintering response and diffusion bonding of different
materials have been the scope of various studies. Firouzdor
et al. have investigated densification and microstructure evo-
lution of M2/316L during co-sintering [7]. They utilized shear
strength and microhardness measurement methods to evaluate
the bonding area. They showed that sintering incompatibility
between two steels enhanced densification in the composite
layers. In other works, Simchi et al. studied co-sintering of
17–4PH/316L stainless steels [8]. They carried out the
sintering process at temperatures ranging from 1100 to
1340 °C, investigating the strain rates and mismatch stresses
of alloys, and their effect on sintering. Dourandish et al. fab-
ricated stepwise graded composite layers using Co-Cr-Mo
(F-75) alloy with different particle sizes [9]. It was found that
intermediate sintering temperature affects the structure poros-
ity. In their work, an intermediate sintering temperature of
1280 °C in argon was presented to be used for manufacturing
of the porosity-graded composite layers (a relatively dense
core with 5 % porosity, and a porous outer layer with 33 %
porosity). Dourandish et al. investigated sinter-joining of 3Y-
TZP and Cr [10]. Microstructural evaluation, phase formation,
and bonding strength were examined by scanning electron
microscopy, electron probe micro-analysis, micro-focused
X-ray diffraction, and shear-punch method. An improved joint
shear-strength was obtained after sintering in vacuum
(74 MPa) compared with argon (41 MPa). No reaction be-
tween Cr and zirconia to form a new phase was noticed. In
another work, Dourandish et al. [11] studied the sinter-joining
of 3Y-TZP and 430L stainless steel. Their work revealed that
the shear strength of the ceramic/metal joint depends on the
sintering atmosphere and varied in the range of 47–66 MPa.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 89:2165–2173
Imgrund et al. investigated the production of magnetic/non-
magnetic microcomponents by co-injection molding of 17–
4PH, Fe, and 316L [6, 12]. Proper co-sintering compatibility
was obtained for the 316L/17–4PH combination. The magnet-
ic properties of the co-injection molded parts were shown to
be adjustable by controlling the co-sintering route. Besides the
porosity content, the amount of magnetic phase in the 17–4PH
stainless steel depended on the sintering temperature. The
compatibility between Fe and prealloyed 316L stainless steel
for the co-injection molding process was not adequate, i.e., the
maximum mismatch strain was 12.7 %. However, the com-
patibility was improved by using a master alloy for prepara-
tion of the stainless steel counterpart. In this case, the maxi-
mum mismatch strain reduced to 1.6 %, which was good
enough for fabrication of very small parts. Heaney et al. have
reported the co-sintering of M2 tool steel and 4340, Fe–10Cr,
Fe2Ni, and 316L steels [13]. They fabricated two material
specimens by co-injection using powder injection molding.
They studied the shrinkage behavior of individual materials.
Their results revealed that an extensive difference in sintering
shrinkage, especially during the initial stage of sintering,
could cause defects such as cracks and delamination.
Simchi and Petzolt have worked on bonding of WC-Co
and 316L stainless steel components [14]. They showed that
during co-sintering a significant mismatch strain (>4 pct) is
developed in the temperature range of 1080 to 1350 °C. This
mismatch strain induces biaxial stresses at the interface, lead-
ing to interface delamination. Their experimental results re-
vealed that sintering at a heating rate of 20 K/min could be
used to decrease the mismatch strain to <2 pct. It was also
shown that the deposition of a thin Ni layer after thermal
debinding decreases the mismatch stresses through melt for-
mation, although interlayer diffusion causes pore-band forma-
tion close to the steel part. Ruh et al. used this procedure to
fabricate microassemblies from zirconia (gearwheel) and alu-
mina (shaft) [15]. Dourandish and Simchi evaluated the mis-
match strain development during the co-sintering of 3Y-TZP
and 430L stainless steel [16]. They studied the isothermal and
non-isothermal behaviors of the ceramic and metal powders. It
was shown that the amount of mismatch sintering shrinkage
between the zirconia ceramic and SS powder during sintering
can be as high as 9.7 %. Meanwhile, sintering in vacuum
induced lower mismatch strain compared to argon sintering.
They also reported that the formation of a liquid phase by
boron addition to the SS layer could assist bonding. The liquid
phase accommodates the mismatch sintering shrinkage and
the ease of the transfer of materials at the interface. Fillabi
et al. studied diffusion bonding of Fe–5%Cu powder compact
to wrought carbon steel [17]. They investigated the effects of
iron particle size and carbon content of the solid component
on the bond strength. They showed a profound effect of car-
bon content of the solid steel on the diffusion bonding process.
It was also found that there is an optimum iron particle size, in
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 89:2165–2173
which, maximum swelling with narrow carbon diffusion layer
occurs. Antusch et al. investigated the manufacturing of a
tungsten DEMO diverter component by co-powder injection
molding [18, 19]. Zhang et al. investigated bi-layer composite
components with gradient porosity made by powder injection
molding (PIM) [20]. They co-injected ceramic spinel mate-
rials of AR7845 with coarse particle size and AR7820 with
fine particle size. It was shown that AR7820 and AR7845
powders have different sintering behaviors in that the fine
powder shrank faster than coarse powder. Curling or bending
was found in the bi-layer rectangular composite component
fabricated from these two powders. No interfacial debonding
and part cracking were observed in both rectangular and cy-
lindrical composite components. The microstructure showed
continuously straight joining lines along the interfaces formed
in these composite components. They showed that bi-layer
composite components with combined properties of gradient
porosity could be achieved by sintering at different tempera-
tures. Zhang et al. worked on producing two materials com-
ponents by diffusion bonding in powder injection molding
(PIM) [21]. They evaluated the bonding of magnetic Fe2Ni,
non-magnetic and corrosion-resistant 316SS, and high wear-
resistant M2. Their results revealed that defect-free joint cy-
lindrical sintered composite components of Fe2Ni/316SS
could be produced where Fe2Ni can be the inner layer or the
outer layer. Microstructure analysis showed sound bonding
quality represented by a straight continuously joining line.
Diffusion of Cr and Ni elements along the interface has been
verified by energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy quantitative
analysis, and the hardness transition zone was also found for
the sintered Fe2Ni/316SS component. However, crack was
found in the sintered component of M2/Fe2Ni where M2
was the inner layer. Li et al. investigated producing function-
ally graded cemented tungsten carbide (WC-Co) components
with graded cobalt concentrations to offer solutions to the
tradeoff between wear resistance and fracture toughness
[22]. The powder compositions of the outer layer and core
layer of the molded ring were WC–0.5 wt% Co–0.5 wt%
VC–4.5 wt% W and WC–0.6 wt% Co, respectively. The grad-
ed microstructure results in a gradual decrease in hardness
from the outer layer to the core layer.
Kothalkaret al. studied NiTi–Ti3SiC2 solid state diffusion
bonding [23]. Their results revealed that when sintering tem-
perature increases from 800 to 1000 °C, and dwell time in-
creases from 1 to 10 h, the bonding zone thickness increases
significantly (from 0.25 to 7.5 μm), which shows stronger
bonding. Zakipour et al. investigated the bonding of 316L
stainless steel and Ti-6Al-4V using Cu interlayer [24]. They
carried out sinter-bonding at two temperatures of 900 and
960 °C. The research indicated that temperature of 900 °C
illustrated higher shear strength of 220 MPa, compared with
temperature of 960 °C. Simchi studied the bonding behavior
of Inconel 718 and 625 at temperatures of 1260 and 1290 °C
2167
[25]. When the bonding temperature increased, the amount of
porosity decreased, resulting in higher hardness values.
Klimscha et al. utilized the co-sintering method to produce a
special microcheck valve made of 17–4 PH stainless steel,
which is difficult to be produced by normal methods [26].
They injected two parts, and then assembled and sintered them
under two different temperatures of 1245 and 1375 °C. The
results revealed the better sinter-joining of two components at
higher temperature of 1375 °C.
As mentioned above, IMIM has been currently introduced
to produce multi-functional components by metal injection
molding with shortened debinding time. However, sintering
phenomenon as one of the important parameters has not yet
received attention. Hence, in this study, the effect of sintering
parameters on the amount of bonding between 316L stainless
steel wrought insert and injected section has been investigat-
ed. The aim of this work is to investigate sintering response
and bonding quality of insert and sintered feedstock by mea-
suring the shear strength of the bonding zone.
2 Experimental procedure
2.1 Materials and experimental facilities
In the present research, 316L stainless steel was used as the
material for both insert and feedstock. 316L S16 feedstock
was supplied by eMBe Products and Service GmbH
(Germany). Table 1 illustrates the properties of powders used
in the feedstock.
In order to develop an innovative method of fabricating
inserted components, an injection mold with cylindrical cavity
with a diameter of 20 mm was made; also, cylindrical inserts
were machined at three levels of diameters, 12, 14, and
16 mm, by CNC machine at a constant cutting speed to avoid
any variation in dimension and surface roughness. This pro-
cedure resulted in insert/part diameter ratios of 60, 70, and
80 %, respectively. Inserts were located inside the mold cav-
ities, and feedstock was injected by ARBURG 220S injection
machine to shape the inserted metal injection molding
components.
The injection process was followed by the components
being solvent debound in pure ethanol at 60 °C for differing
times regarding insert/part diameter ratios. Debound inserted
components were then pre-sintered and sintered inside a tube
furnace under an atmosphere of N2 + H2(95 % + 5 %).
Table 1 Properties of powders used in feedstock
Production method Size Powder loading
Water atomization D50: 7 μm, D90: 13 μm 92.5–93.1 wt%
2168
Fig. 1 Injected (above) and
sintered (below) inserted
specimens with a diameter of
20 mm, and the insert/part
diameter ratios of 60, 70, and
80 % Insert
Figure 1 illustrates the injected and sintered inserted speci-
mens, with insert/part diameter ratios of 60, 70, and 80 %.
In this research, a shear-punch method was employed since
shear testing is a common method to evaluate the strength of
dissimilar joints [5, 10, 17, 27]. Figure 2 shows a schematic
representation of the shear-punch mold, which was assembled
on an Instron tensile machine. The sintered components were
cut into disk-shaped specimens (Fig. 2) with a thickness of
almost about 1.5 mm to facilitate the evaluation process of
sintering and diffusion welding at the interface of inserts and
injected section. These specimens were put inside the shear-
punch die and were subjected to compression loading at a
cross-head speed of 5 mm.min−1. The rationale behind this
was to determine the bond strength on the premise of the
applied load and the area of interface. The specimen was sub-
jected to compressive loading; therefore, the insert was
punched to be separated from the injected section. The shear
tests, carried out on the specimens with 60, 70, and 80 %
diameter ratios in the Instron tensile machine, produced com-
pressive stress and strain graphs and yielded the ultimate shear
strength. Three samples were tested for each condition, and
the average was reported as the shear strength.
2.2 Taguchi experiments
Figure 3 illustrates the cause and effect diagram, and the pa-
rameters affecting the shear strength of the bonding area at
interface of insert and injected section.
As mentioned before, the aim of this work was to study the
sintering conditions, among which the sintering temperature,
dwell time, and heating rate were selected to be investigated.
Fig. 2 Schematic representation Tensile Machine
of the shear-punch mold Heads
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 89:2165–2173
Injected Section
60% 70% 80%
As we were not sure if the effect of parameters would be linear
or not, three levels were selected to run for every parameter
[28]. For sintering temperature, the ultimate value, suggested
by feedstock supplier, was 1340 °C; as sintering temperature
is a significant factor in sintering phenomenon, we selected
narrow intervals of 40 °C to set two other levels to be 1300
and 1260 °C. Regarding the heating rate, there is a limitation
of 5 K min−1 as upper level for ceramic tubes used in tube
furnaces in order not to get the tube broken under high thermal
stresses at high temperatures, which resulted in 1.5, 3, and
4.5 K min−1 as parameter levels. For these experiments, we
decided to keep samples for at least 30 min to a maximum
90 min to see if there is any effect regarding the dwell time of
sintering.
In order to avoid any possible uncontrollable effect of inert
gas as sintering atmosphere, it was decided to run the Taguchi
method as a fractional factorial design rather than full factorial
design, to have fewer trials using just one gas cylinder which
was enough for almost 10 runs of our experiments (some pre-
experiments revealed that sintering atmosphere has significant
effect on the result [5]).
The Taguchi method, employed to arrange an orthogonal
array experiment and to reduce the numbers of experiments, is
always used to identify the significant factors which charac-
terize the quality of compacts [29]. The orthogonal array for a
three-leveled parameter could be one of the followings: 3
(=31), 9 (32), 27 (=33), and so on. Besides, the number of
experiments should be larger than the experiments’ degree
of freedom, which is 6 (=9–3) for our study [28]. Therefore,
in this study, the experiments are arranged in the light of L9
(33) orthogonal array (fractional factorial design), rather than
Upper Punch
1.5 mm Thick Specimen
Lower Die
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 89:2165–2173 2169

Fig. 3 The cause and effect Sintering Condition

diagram of process parameters in
IMIM
Sintering Atmosphere Sintering Temperature

Heating Rate Cooling Rate

Dwell Time Shear Strength of IMIM

Component at Interface of
Insert-Injected Area
Insert/Part
Diameter Ratio Injected Material Insert Material

Component Geometry Material

L27 which is full factorial design, and this needs 27 times of
trial. It should also be mentioned that the Taguchi design is
based on the assumption that interactions are not likely to be
significant; hence, the interactions of the factors are ignored.
The cooling rate was kept constant to be 5°K min−1 for all
experiments. The factors and levels are listed in Table 2.
Shear strength of the bonding zone, obtained in experi-
ments, is used to calculate the signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio striv-
ing for the highest value which is the larger-the-better (LTB).
From the S/N ratio, the best set of combination parameters can
be determined. According to the Taguchi method [29], the S/N
(signal) ratio for LTB, (ηSTB), was defined as: where yi is the
response value of a specific treatment under i replication, n is
the number of replications.
 
 i 1
ηSTB ¼ −10log 1
n
∑ y2
i parameters is A3B3C1 (for insert/part diameter ratio of 60 %)
n
The collected data can also be analyzed using the analysis
of variance (ANOVA) method. From this method, the percent-
age contribution has been calculated to determine which of the
factors will affect the shear strength more significantly.
of parameters using the Taguchi method, average S/N ratios
are calculated based on S/N values in Table 3; the example for
sintering temperature with insert/part diameter ratio of 60 % is
shown below, based on which the response diagram is con-
structed (Fig. 4).
38:38 þ 38:27 þ 39:27
Level 1 ¼ ¼ 38:64ðS=N ratiosin Exp:No:1; 4; and 7Þ
3
39:82 þ 39:08 þ 41:43
Level 2 ¼ ¼ 40:11ðS=N ratiosin Exp:No:2; 5; and 8Þ
3
43:91 þ 44:76 þ 44:34
Level 3 ¼ ¼ 44:34ðS=N ratiosin Exp:No:3; 6; and 9Þ
3
According to the calculated S/Nin Fig. 4 and LTB (the
larger-the-better), the highest values correspond to the optimal
combination of process parameters. The analysis of shear
strength data indicates that the optimal combination of process
and A2B3C3 (for insert/part diameter ratio of 70 and 80 %).
What is clear here is that the increase of the insert/part diam-
eter ratio causes noticeable increase in the amount of shear
strength. Figure 4 shows the Taguchi response curves for

Table 3 The L9 orthogonal array with experimental results

3 Results and discussion Exp. no. Factor Average shear strength (MPa) S/N ratio

Table 3 illustrates the amount of average shear strength and A B C a b c a b c

calculated S/N ratios, regarding the insert/part diameter ratio.
1 1 1 1 83 97 117 38.38 39.73 41.36
In order to obtain the response diagram and optimum setting
2 1 2 2 98 110 164 39.82 40.82 44.29
3 1 3 3 157 159 263 43.91 44.02 48.39
Table 2 Factors and levels, based on Taguchi L9 orthogonal array 4 2 1 2 82 133 135 38.27 42.47 42.60
5 2 2 3 90 145 230 39.08 43.22 47.23
Factors Level
6 2 3 1 173 189 342 44.76 45.52 50.68
1 2 3 7 3 1 3 92 131 128 39.27 42.34 42.14
8 3 2 1 118 133 147 41.43 42.47 43.34
A Heating rate (°K min−1) 1.5 3 4.5
9 3 3 2 165 185 274 44.34 45.34 48.75
B Sintering temperature (°C) 1260 1300 1340
C Dwell time (min) 30 60 90 a insert/part diameter ratio of 60 %, b insert/part diameter ratio of 70 %, c
insert/part diameter ratio of 80 %
2170 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 89:2165–2173

Fig. 4 Response diagram for 46 46 50 Heang Rate

shear strength in the Taguchi 45 48
44

S/N Rao
experiments (insert/part diameter Sintering
ratio of 60, 70, and 80 %, indexed 44 46
42 Temperature
a, b and c, respectively) 43 44
40 Dwell Time
42 42
38 41 40
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
a b c
Factor Levels

4 Injected Area 5 Injected Area 6 Injected Area

Interface Interface Interface

Insert Insert Insert

Fig. 5 SEM views of specimens sintered under conditions of experiments number 4, 5, and 6, with insert/component ratio of 70 %

shear strength with the data of S/N ratios. It is obvious that
sintering temperature is the most effective parameter; by in-
creasing the temperature, the amount of bonding strength in-
creased significantly, whereas by increasing the amount of
dwell time and heating rate, significant changes were not
observed.
Figure 5 illustrates SEM views of specimens with insert/
component ratio of 70 %, sintered under conditions presented
as experiment numbers 4, 5, and 6. As shown in Fig. 5, the
bonding area between insert and injected section is more in-
tegrated in number 6 compared with that of specimens num-
bered 4 and 5. This is in line with shear strength values shown
at Table 3. The reason for this could be the temperature effect
on bonding. Sintering temperature for number 6 is higher than
the other ones; therefore, better bonding has occurred in the
specimens sintered at this temperature, although the other two
sintering parameters varied between these three specimens.
This also indicates that sintering temperature is the dominant
parameter affecting bonding strength.
Table 4 illustrates the results for analysis of variance,
ANOVA, of S/N ratios on shear strength. These results also
indicate that sintering temperature is the significant and most
effective parameter compared to the other ones, which have
slightly affected the bonding area (for this parameter the
amount of value of Prob > F is lower than 0.05).
According to the results illustrated in Fig. 4 and Table 4, the
sintering temperature is a significant parameter affecting the
shear strength at the bonding area. This result is in line with
previous studies [7, 23, 25, 26]. In all these studies, increasing
sintering temperature results in the increase of shear strength.
However, this finding is not in line with Zakipours’ findings
[24], which indicate that the higher shear strength at interface
of 316L and Ti-6Al-4V with Cu interlayer was achieved at a
lower sintering temperature of 900 °C, compared with a tem-
perature of 960 °C. It was claimed that this was due to the
formation of brittle intermetallic compounds at higher
temperatures. In our work, however, as the material of the
insert and injected area are the same regarding their chemical

Table 4 The ANOVA results of

the Taguchi experiments Factor DF Sum of squares F ratio Prob > F

a b c a b c a b c

Heating rate 2 257 8 5728 2.2 110 3.7 0.30 0.09 0.21
Sintering temperature 2 10,529 20 43,240 92 261 28 0.01 0.00 0.03
Dwell time 2 233 0.5 402 2 7.5 0.2 0.32 0.11 0.79

a insert/part diameter ratio of 60 %, b insert/part diameter ratio of 70 %, c insert/part diameter ratio of 80 %

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 89:2165–2173 2171

longer bonding time, as well as the bonding of two different

Strain Mismatch
Stress, σ
Insert
Injected Area
Fig. 6 Strain mismatch and stress occurring at interface of the insert and
injected area
composition, the formation of new intermetallic structures
were not expected. The other parameter, dwell time, was
shown not to have a significant effect on shear strength. This
result, however, is not in line with the findings of Kothalkar
et.al [23], which concentrated on NiTi–Ti3SiC2 bonding with
dwell times of 1, 5, and 10 h. The reason for this could be the
materials. In bonding of different alloys, diffusion of the ele-
ments is significant, which affects the bonding of mechanism
and is strongly dependent on time [1]. In their research, two
different alloys were bonded at bonding time, almost ten times
longer than sintering dwell time in our experiments, which is
between 30 and 90 min. This indicates that in the forthcoming
studies, the experiments can be carried out with longer dwell
times so that we could analyze the dwell time effect better and
more clearly.
It should also be pointed out that insert/part diameter ratio
is another important parameter affecting the shear strength.
According to Table 3, in all experiments, the values of shear
strength have noticeably increased by utilizing larger inserts.
To have a well-bonded area between the insert and injected
area, not only should sintering condition be in optimum levels,
but also there should be mechanical pressure at the interface
area leading to compressive stresses (Fig. 6). These stresses
occurred by mismatch strain between insert expansion based
on its thermal coefficient of expansion and initial dimension,
as well as injected area shrinkage by starting powders
sintering. Larger inserts exhibit more expansion and stress,
which contributes to the necessary applied pressure for bond-
ing. Also, using large inserts means having injected a section

a Injected Area b Injected Area c Injected Area

Interface Interface Interface

Insert Insert Insert

Fig. 7 SEM views of inserted specimens sintered at 1300 °C, with insert/part diameter ratios of a 60, b 70, and c 80 %

Fig. 8 Microhardness profile of 300

the bonded area
250
Hardness HV 0.1

200

150

100

50
Insert I njected A rea
0
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Distance from interface (μm)
2172
with large inner diameter, which results in big shrinkage dur-
ing sintering. As a result, utilizing large inserts will result in
big mismatch and stress. Figure 7 illustrates SEM views of
three specimens with varying insert/part diameter ratios,
sintered under the condition of experiment number 2. As
shown in Fig. 7, the specimen with a ratio of 60 %, with lower
strain mismatch, illustrates weak bonding with lots of porosity
at interface. This is while the bonding interface of other spec-
imens with higher insert/part diameter ratios of 70 and 80 %,
which have larger strain mismatch, exhibits strong bonding
with lower porosity. This point is confirmed by the shear
strength values of 98, 110, and 164 MPa (Table 3) obtained
from shear-punch tests of specimens with insert/part diameter
ratios of 60, 70, and 80 %, respectively. In previous studies [7,
14, 16], it has always been mentioned that in order not to have
any defects like cracks at the bonding interface, it is necessary
to have close mismatch strain (shrinkage) of two materials
being bonded. In our research, however, in order to have
stronger bonding between the insert and injected area, it was
necessary to use larger insert/part diameter ratio which result-
ed in high strain and stress mismatch. In the present study, the
strains are at opposite directions (Fig. 6), leading to high me-
chanical stresses which actually guarantee the stronger bond-
ing. The fact that no cracks and delamination were seen at
interface could be due to high in situ strength of the injected
area. Because of using water atomized powders in the present
feedstock (Table 1), the shape of the powder should be irreg-
ular, resulting in high inter-friction and in situ strength of the
injected area before sintering. As we have utilized commercial
feedstock, we do not have more details such as SEM views of
used powders.
Microhardness was also carried out to investigate mechan-
ical properties in more details. Hardness profile was achieved
by measuring on points 50 μm apart, with 100 g loading.
Figure 8 depicts the hardness profile of specimen sintered at
1300 °C. While insert average hardness is around 250 HV, it
drops to around 220 HV in the injected area. This shows the
structural difference between the insert and injected area. The
injected area resulted from sintered powders, therefore, having
some porosity, which compasses lower hardness. In addition,
the hardness profile in the insert section is more constant,
compared to the injected area. This shows more fluctuation,
and highlights the structural differences.
4 Conclusions
In the current investigation, the effects of sintering parameters
on bonding of the insert and injected area in components fab-
ricated by a novel method—inserted metal injection molding
(IMIM)—have been studied. The conclusions can be summa-
rized as:
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 89:2165–2173
& Sintering temperature is the dominant and the most effec-
tive parameter compared to other parameters (dwell time
and heating rate).
& The amount of shear strength could be as high as 342 MPa
for components sintered at optimized condition.
& The insert/part diameter ratio is another parameter having
significant effect on bonding the strength. The higher the
insert/part diameter ratio is, the stronger the bonding
would be.
Acknowledgment This research was sponsored by the Scientific and
Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK), Project No:
113M125 and Gazi University Research Funds, Project No: 07/2013-
03. The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to the
TÜBİTAK organization and Gazi University for their financial supports.
References
1. German RM, Bose A (1997) Injection molding of metals and ce-
ramics. Metal Powder Industries Federation, New Jersey
2. Liu W, Yang X, Xie Z, Jia C (2012) Novel fabrication of injection
moulded ceramic parts with large section via partially water
debinding method. J Eur Ceram Soc 32:2187–2191
3. Safarian A, Subaşi M, Karataş Ç (2015) Reducing debinding time
in thick components fabricated by powder injection molding. Int J
Mater Res 106(5):527–531
4. Safarian A, Karataş Ç (2015) The impact of injection velocity on
the defects in thick components fabricated by inserted metal injec-
tion molding. Internatinal Journal of Materials Research 106(6):
647–650
5. Safarian A, Karataş Ç (2014) Diffusion welding of thick compo-
nents fabricated by inserted powder injection molding. Materials
Testing 56(10):842–846
6. Imgrund P, Rota A, Petzoldt F, Simchi A (2007) Manufacturing of
multi-functional micro parts by two-component metal injection
moulding. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 33(1–2):176–186.
doi:10.1007/s00170-006-0666-4
7. Firouzdor V, Simchi A, Kokabi AH (2008) An investigation of the
densification and microstructural evolution of M2/316L stepwise
graded composite during co-sintering. J Mater Sci 43(1):55–63.
doi:10.1007/s10853-007-2077-9
8. Simchi A, Rota A, Imgrund P (2006) An investigation on the
sintering behavior of 316L and 17-4PH stainless steel powders
for graded composites. Mater Sci Eng A 424(1–2):282–289.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2006.03.032
9. Dourandish M, Godlinski D, Simchi A, Firouzdor V (2008)
Sintering of biocompatible P/M Co–Cr–Mo alloy (F-75) for fabri-
cation of porosity-graded composite structures. Mater Sci Eng A
472(1–2):338–346. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2007.03.043
10. Dourandish M, Simchi A, Hokamoto K, Tanaka S (2010) Interface
formation and bond strength in 3Y-TZP/Cr composite bilayers pro-
duced by sinter–joining. Mater Sci Eng A 527(3):449–453.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2009.09.037
11. Dourandish M, Simchi A, Hokamoto K, Tanaka S (2011) Phase
formation during sintering of nanocrystalline zirconia/stainless steel
functionally graded composite layers. Mater Lett 65(3):523–526.
doi:10.1016/j.matlet.2010.10.077
12. Imgrund P, Rota A, Simchi A (2008) Microinjection moulding of
316L/17-4PH and 316L/Fe powders for fabrication of magnetic–
nonmagnetic bimetals. J Mater Process Technol 200(1–3):259–264.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.09.068
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 89:2165–2173
13. Heaney DF, Suri P, German RM (2003) Defect-free sintering of two
material powder injection molded components. J Mater Sci 38:1–6
14. Simchi A, Petzoldt F (2010) Cosintering of powder injection mold-
ing parts made from ultrafine WC-Co and 316L stainless steel pow-
ders for fabrication of novel composite structures. Metall Mater
Trans A 41:233–241
15. Ruh A, Heldele R, Piotter V, Ruprecht R, Munzinger C,
Fleischer J, Haubelt J (2008) Production of two-material mi-
cro-assemblies by two-component powder injection molding
and sinter-joining. Microsyst Technol 14:1805–1811.
doi:10.1007/s00542-008-0646-8
16. Dourandish M, Simchi A (2009) Study the sintering behavior of
nanocrystalline 3Y-TZP/430L stainless-steel composite layers for
co-powder injection molding. J Mater Sci 44(5):1264–1274.
doi:10.1007/s10853-008-3241-6
17. Fillabi MG, Simchi A, Kokabi AH (2008) Effect of iron particle
size on the diffusion bonding of Fe–5%Cu powder compact to
wrought carbon steels. Mater Des 29(2):411–417. doi:10.1016/j.
matdes.2007.01.004
18. Antusch S, Commin L, Heneka J, Piotter V, Plewa K, Walter H
(2013) A new fully automatic PIM tool to replicate two component
tungsten DEMO divertor parts. Fusion Engineering and Design
88(9–10):2461–2465. doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2013.04.037
19. Antusch S, Commin L, Mueller M, Piotter V, Weingaertner T
(2014) Two component tungsten powder injection molding—an
effective mass production process. J Nucl Mater 447(1–3):314–
317. doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2013.11.007
20. Zhang SX, Ong ZY, Li T, Li QF, Pook SF (2010) Ceramic compos-
ite components with gradient porosity by powder injection mould-
ing. Mater Des 31(6):2897–2903. doi:10.1016/j.
matdes.2009.12.030
2173
21. Zhang SX, Li T, Li QF, Pook SF, Goh CW, Hu QJ (2009) Joining of
two materials by powder injection moulding. Sci Technol Weld Join
14(1):11–19
22. Li T, Li Q, Fuh JYH, Yu PC, Lu L (2009) Two-material powder
injection molding of functionally graded WC–Co components. Int J
Refract Met Hard Mater 27(1):95–100. doi:10.1016/j.
ijrmhm.2008.04.005
23. Kothalkar A, Cerit A, Proust G, Basu S, Radovic M, Karaman I
(2015) Interfacial study of NiTi–Ti3SiC2 solid state diffusion bond-
ed joints. Mater Sci Eng A 622:168–177. doi:10.1016/j.
msea.2014.10.033
24. Zakipour S, Halvaee A, Amadeh A, Samavatian M, Khodabandeh
A (2015) An investigation on microstructure evolution and me-
chanical properties during transient liquid phase bonding of stain-
less steel 316 L to Ti–6Al–4V. J Alloys Compd 626:269–276
25. Simchi A (2006) Densification and microstructural evolution dur-
ing co-sintering of Ni-base superalloy powders. Metall Mater Trans
A 37(8):2549–2557. doi:10.1007/bf02586227
26. Klimscha K, Müller T, Fleischer J (2014) Analysis of the influence
of sinter temperature on the joint quality of sinter-joined
microcheck valves made of 17-4 PH stainless steel. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 72(1–4):173–178. doi:10.1007/s00170-013-5580-y
27. Olson DL (1993) ASM handbook, welding, brazing, and soldering,
vol 6. ASM International
28. Roy R (1989) Primer on the Taguchi method. SME, Michigan
29. Xie XC, Lin CG, Jia CC, Cao RJ (2015) Effects of process param-
eters on quality of ultrafine WC/12Co injection molded compacts.
Int J Refract Met Hard Mater 48:305–311. doi:10.1016/j.
ijrmhm.2014.09.022