Metal Injection Molding
sition are shown in Fig. 2. The metal powder and
Metal injection molding (MIM) is a technology for
manufacturing complex, precision, net-shape com-
ponents for use in medical, automotive, industrial,
firearms, and consumer industries. The potential of
MIM lies in its ability to capture the shaping ad-
vantage offered by injection molding by using a
starting mixture of fine metal powder and organic
binder. The MIM technology provides advantages of
cost reduction at volumes ranging from a few thousand
to over millions of parts per year due to its ability to
hold close tolerances. Typical tolerances achievable
range from p0.3% to p0.5%, making the process
highly cost competitive as compared to machining and
investment casting. Further, MIM overcomes the
dimensional and productivity limits of isostatic press-
ing and slip casting, the defects and tolerance limita-
tions of investment casting, the mechanical strength of
die-cast parts, and the shape limitation of traditional
powder compacts.
The evolution of MIM technology has spanned over
two decades and is an offshoot of ceramic injection
molding (German and Bose 1997, Mutsuddy and Ford
1995). Along its evolution path are rapidly changing
variants, reflecting different combinations of powders,
binders, molding techniques, debinding routes, and
sintering hardware. It is important to understand the
processing steps, design guidelines, and limitations to
fully appreciate the potential of this technology.
1. Processing Steps
There are four primary steps to producing metal
injection molded parts as shown in Fig. 1.
1.1 Feedstock Formulation
The starting material for metal injection molding is a
homogeneous pelletized mixture of metal powder and
organic binder termed feedstock. The binder is simply
a carrier medium for the powder and once a part is
molded, the binder is removed in a subsequent step
(termed debinding). A binder formulation is based on
its ability to provide for a rigid molded part, ease of
removal from a molded part, recyclability, and non-
toxicity. Process considerations usually dictate three
components to a binder system, a backbone that
provides strength, a filler phase that is easily extracted
during initial stages of debinding, and surfactant to
tailor feedstock rheology. Commonly used binder
systems, as listed in Table 1, include thermoplastics,
thermosets, and gelation systems.
Powder selection for the MIM process involves a
combination of tailored particle size distribution to
maximize packing densities, with a mean particle size
5–15 µm to achieve a high sintered density. Examples
of MIM-grade powder morphology using water
atomization, gas atomization and carbonyl-decompo-
binder are hot mixed above the softening point of the
binder constituents to provide for a uniform coating of
the binder on the powder surface. A shearing action
using a continuous extruder or batch mixer aids in
mixture homogeneity. The mixture is pelletized to an
appropriate shape for feeding into the molding mach-
ine. Typical binder volume fraction in feedstock range
from 0.3 to 0.45.
1.2 Molding
The injection molding process is principally identical
to conventional plastic injection molding. However,
some machine hardware changes are usually required
to process specific feedstocks based on compressibility
and viscosity. The relatively high viscosity of feed-
stocks (from 10# to 10$ Pa s at shear rates of 10 to
10$ sV"), coupled with the high thermal conductivity of
a metal filled binder, and a tendency for the powder–
binder mixture to separate at high shear rates defines
the constraints for the molding process. Control of the
molding process is vital for maintaining tight toler-
ances in subsequent steps. Most design advantages of
MIM technology are captured during molding by
relying on the flexibility of incorporating complexities
in the tool. A molded part is called a ‘‘green’’ part
and is oversized to allow for part shrinkage during
sintering.
1.3 Debinding
The debinding step involves the removal of the organic
binder from a molded part using one of three different
methods: thermal, solvent, or catalytic, depending on
the composition and constituent of the binder. Ther-
mal debinding involves application of heat to remove
the binder by degradation, evaporation, or liquid
extraction (wicking) (Angermann and Van Der Biest
1995). Temperatures for thermal debinding can range
from 60 mC to 600 mC with the incorporation of dwell
times at selected temperatures specific to the thermal
decomposition of its binder constituent. The relatively
long debind time associated with thermal debinding is
greatly reduced using a solvent such as heptane or
trichloroethane which can dissolve the soluble binder,
e.g., wax in a wax-polyethylene-polypropylene-based
binder. Some glycol- and polyvinyl alcohol-based
water-soluble feedstocks use water as a solvent, while
gelation-type binders, such as those based on poly-
saccharides plus water, rely on air drying to remove
the water. With acetal-polyolefin-based feedstocks, a
hybrid of thermal and solvent processes, termed
catalytic debinding, uses nitric or oxalic acid vapor at
temperatures between 110 mC and 150 mC to depoly-
merize polyacetal into formaldehyde gas (Krueger et
al. 1993). The solid (acetal) to vapor (formaldehyde)
catalytic degradation results in faster debinding (as
1
Metal Injection Molding

fine particle size used in the MIM process results in

high sintered density, which is concomitant with
shrinkage (ranging from 14% to 20%). Therefore,
molded parts are oversized to compensate for the
sintering shrinkage. Sintered density ranges from 95%
to 99% of theoretical, thus providing superior mech-
anical and corrosion properties as compared to press
and sinter technology. Both batch and continuous
sintering is employed for production. The underlying
principles of sintering are discussed in Sintering and
Liquid Phase Sintering: Metals. The sintering time and
temperature uniformity are of paramount importance
in achieving a combination of desired mechanical
properties and dimensional tolerance. Common sint-
ering atmospheres employed for MIM alloys are
reducing (H -based), inert (N - and Ar-based) or
vacuum. # #

2. MIM Alloys
Common MIM alloys include austenitic stainless
steels (304L and 316L), precipitation-hardened mar-
tensitic stainless steel (17-4PH), martensitic steels (420,
440C), alloy steels based on Fe–2%Ni and Fe–8%Ni
(containing up to 0.5% carbon), 4140, 8620, tool steels
including M2, soft magnetic alloys including Fe–
50%Ni, Fe–3%Si, 430L, and alloys for glass-to-metal
sealing applications such as kovar. The mechanical
properties of MIM alloys show a broader range as
Figure 1
compared to the wrought values. These variations
Process schematic of metal injection molding.
result primarily from the differences in commercial
compared to thermal debinding) while offering su- production practices using different binders, debind-
perior handling strength as compared to thermal or ing methods, sintering technology, and powders.
solvent-based feedstocks. However, optimal processing results in mechanical
In all debinding methods, a skeleton of backbone and corrosion properties that are comparable (in some
binder remains to impart adequate strength and shape case superior) to its wrought counterpart.
retention up to the onset of sintering. This remaining
backbone is thermally removed between 200 mC and
600 mC in a presintering step. 3. Design Considerations and Limitations
Parts for metal injection molding are designed based
on shape, size, and geometry, for optimum perform-
1.4 Sintering
ance. A summary of desirable design features is listed
Depending on the alloy, debound parts are sintered at in Table 2. From a tooling perspective, the designed
temperatures ranging from 1200 mC to 1350 mC. The part must incorporate a parting line, gate, and ejector
Table 1
Commonly used binder systems for MIM.
Thermoplastic binders
Wiech-type binders: polyolefin (PE\PP\PS)jwaxes, oiljdispersant (fatty acids\
esters)
Water soluble binders: PEG\PVAjpolyacrylates\polyamides\PVB
Polyacetal binder: POMjpolyolefinjadditives
Thermoset binders
Cross-linking of polymers: epoxy, phenoxy-resins
Gelcasting: methacrylamidejcross-linkers
Gelling\freezing binders
Hot gelling: methylcellulose\boric acidjwater
Cold gelling: polysaccharidesjwater

2
 Metal Injection Molding

Figure 2
Scanning electron micrographs showing the morphology of MIM-grade powder manufactured using (a) water atomization,
(b) gas atomization, and (c) carbonyl decomposition.

system. The avoidance of sharp corners, thick-to-thin
transitions, and the use of draft angles, and corner
radii provide for optimum moldability. Additional
design restrictions such as the maximum part thickness
are determined by the debinding limitations imposed
by a specific feedstock. Generally, most MIM parts
have a maximum cross-section thickness 7 mm. In
this respect, acetal-based feedstocks (using catalytic
debinding) have proven processing and handling
advantages, and are capable of manufacturing parts
with thicker cross-sections with virtually no debind
constraints. The polysaccharide–water (gelation-type)
system with its air-drying step replacing conventional
debinding also has potential for manufacturing com-
ponents with thick cross-sections.
The relatively high raw-material cost as dictated by
unique powder specification also constraints the MIM
technology to parts weighing 100 g. However, many
heavier components whose complexity overrides the
cost constraints have been produced using MIM. The
best examples for this technology are parts that have
been designed specifically to take advantage of the
ability of the MIM process to capture design com-
plexity as offered during the molding step.
Generally, the MIM process is not competitive as
compared to stamping or screw machining. It com-

Table 2
Typical design guidelines for MIM.
Specifics
Restrictions No undercuts on internal bores
No inside close cavities
Corner radius
0.1 mm
0.5 to 2m draft
Smallest hole diameter l 0.1 mm
Minimum wall thickness l 0.5 mm
Desirable features Gradual section thickness change
Largest dimension 100 mm
Weight 100 g
Wall thickness 6–10 mm
Incorporation of flat surfaces
Allowed design features Holes at angles to one another
Hexagonal, square, blind, D-shaped,
keyed, and flat-bottom holes
Stiffening ribs and knurled features
Protrusions and studs
External threads
Part number, identification logo in die
Reason
Difficult to tool
Impossible to tool
Avoid sharp edges\reduce stress
Facilitate ejection
Poor steel condition
Difficult to fill thinner sections
Ease of fill\reduce stress
Processing difficulty
Material cost\debinding constraints
Facilitate debinding
Provide sintering support
All these features can be easily incorporated
into the part design and can be molded

3
Metal Injection Molding
petes with investment casting by providing better
surface finish, fine-scale homogeneous microstructure,
thinner and more complex wall sections, and better
dimensional tolerances. With respect to machining,
the MIM process results in cost reduction at medium
to high volumes especially if the parts require multiple
machining operations. In cases where superior mech-
anical performance is required, MIM also competes
with press and sinter by providing parts with a higher
density, but at a higher cost.
4. Concluding Remarks
The MIM technology has seen rapid advances in the
1990s and is a strong competitor to machining and
investment casting given the right combination of
complexity and production quantity. Annual world-
wide growth rates for MIM is projected to be between
20% and 30% (German 1999). The ability of the
process to maintain tight tolerance is strongly de-
pendent on several factors ranging from raw material
selection to process control. Commercially available
feedstocks (with rapid debinding) have resulted in
distinct processing advantages such as fabrication of
thicker components, while allowing for standard raw
Copyright ' 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted
in any form or by any means : electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without permission in writing from the publishers.
materials to be available in the market. The MIM
technology continues to penetrate new markets with
the introduction of alloys, including cobalt-based
alloys for wear resistant applications, and titanium-
and nickel-based alloys for medical and aerospace
applications.
Bibliography
Angermann H H, Van Der Biest O 1995 In: Bose A, German
R M, Lawley A (eds.) ReŠiews in Particulate Materials. Metal
Powder Industries Federation, Princeton, NJ
German R M 1999 Wear applications offer further growth for
powder injection molding. Met. Powd. Rep. 54 (6), 24–8
German R M, Bose A 1997 Injection Molding of Metals and
Ceramics. Metal Powder Industries Federation, Princeton, NJ
Krueger D, Blomacher M, Weinand D 1993 Rapid catalytic
debinding MIM feedstock: a new technology grows into a
manufacturing process. In: Gaspervich T, German R M (eds.)
AdŠances in Powder Metallurgy and Particulate Materials.
PMTech93, Tennessee, pp. 165–80
Mutsuddy B C, Ford R G 1995 Ceramic Injection Molding.
Chapman and Hall, London
R. Tandon
Encyclopedia of Materials : Science and Technology
ISBN: 0-08-0431526
pp. 5439–5442