MIM material options and component
properties
Alloy options
A wide variety of alloys are available in the MIM grade particle sizes. The bulk of the materials
fall into a few categories:
Ferrous alloys: steels, stainless steels, tool steels, iron-nickel magnetic alloys, and
speciality ferrous alloys such as Invar and Kovar
Tungsten alloys: both tungsten heavy alloys and tungsten-copper
Hard materials: cobalt-chromium, cemented carbides (WC-Co), and cermets (Fe-TiC)
Special materials that include aluminum, precious metals, titanium alloys, nickel, nickel-
base superalloys, molybdenum, molybdenum-copper, and particulate composites.
Most of the alloys are copies from standard handbook formulations. However, the long-term
anneal associated with sintering degrades properties, since most of the alloys were developed in
the context of casting technologies. Thus, modified chemistries are emerging that are customised
to MIM technology.
For example, the 316L composition (Fe-19Cr-9Ni-2Mo) is used because of its combined strength
and corrosion resistance. Compositions with extra chromium ease sintering. Although more
expensive, such alloys provide properties superior to that attainable via alternative metal working
approaches.
Custom powders can be fabricated when a composition is not available, but at an additional cost.
With many vendors of small powders, undoubtedly almost any material can be custom fabricated
for MIM, if the price is right. Powder cost impacts final component cost so it is best to use one of
the several common alloys.
Fig. 10 Corrosion pitting in a MIM 17-4 PH
stainless steel that was not properly treated
to homogenise the chromium distribution after
sintering. This problem can be avoided by
post-sintering thermal, chemical, or mechanical
treatments.
Properties
Since MIM products are usually sintered to about 98% density, the densities are slightly below
theoretical, similar to a casting. Accordingly, the chemical, physical, elastic, electrical, and
thermodynamic attributes match the values found in handbooks. For example, Table 2 shows
thermal typical properties of MIM materials used in electronic systems.
MIM testing has emphasised mechanical properties. When sintered, the tensile properties usually
match those obtained using other manufacturing routes [3].
Surgical stainless steel with the 17-4 PH composition (AISI 630) is one of the most widely used
MIM alloys. It consists of iron with 17% Cr, 4% Ni, 4% Cu, and low contents of Mn, Si, and Nb
or Ta. When sintered and heat treated to the H1025 condition, the MIM product typically has a
yield strength of 980 MPa, but ranges between vendors from a low of 965 MPa to a high of 1040
MPa. However, the sintering step used in MIM does induce a coarse grained microstructure that
tends to show up in a lower ductility and tensile strength.
In one study [3], the yield strength was superior by MIM, but 50% of the MIM samples (from a
test lot of 50) fell below the 1070 MPa handbook tensile strength. This is because the residual
pores in the MIM material induced premature fracture during the tensile test, giving less plastic
flow (elongation) prior to failure. Table 3 is only representative of the properties attainable in
MIM, since differences in impurity levels, grain size, porosity, and post-sintering heat treatment
can have dramatic effects.
Fatigue strength and fracture toughness
Sometimes a problem is evident in the dynamic properties such as fatigue strength or fracture
toughness. For high toughness materials this is not an issue. But in other cases testing is
recommended. For the 17-4 PH surgical stainless steel, V-notched impact tests showed the MIM
material had only 15% of the fracture energy of wrought (even when the wrought material was
subjected to the same sintering thermal cycle) [4]. The fatigue strength for MIM 17-4 PH
stainless steel at 10 million cycles is 500 MPa. This is slightly lower than the cast or wrought
product and reflects the larger grain size and residual porosity associated with MIM.
Corrosion resistance
Corrosion resistance of MIM stainless steels can be a problem. The high vapour pressure of
chromium when compared to nickel and iron leads to preferential surface evaporation of the
chromium during sintering, which degrades resistance to corrosion attack. One consequence is
deep pitting corrosion in areas devoid of the proper chromium content, such as seen in Fig. 10.
Actual corrosion behaviour depends on the MIM processing conditions and the test conditions.
Collins [5] tested several MIM vendors versus wrought material and concluded '… the
performance of the MIM materials was inferior to wrought in the pitting corrosion tests…'. She
found that as the surface roughness decreased (due to post-sintering polishing) the corrosion
resistance improved. Thus, with proper post-sintering processing and surface treatment she
concluded MIM 316L stainless steel can perform as well as wrought in general corrosion
resistance to a variety of media.
Biocompatibility
As MIM moves into more medical and dental applications, the presumption has been that
biocompatibility will be equivalent to other routes. A few tests with titanium and stainless steels
have shown this is not the case. Accordingly, caution is appropriate since sintering degrades the
surface chemistry and post-sintering polishing or electrochemical treatments are required to re-
establish the uniform surface chemistry required for biocompatibility. In artificial saliva tests
MIM 17-4 PH exhibits pitting corrosion if it was not polished first.
Opportunities for improving wear performance
Wear testing shows MIM has a significant opportunity, since hard phases can be mixed into the
feedstock to improve behaviour. For example, MIM tool steels treated with a low concentration
of calcium difluoride delivers a 30-fold decrease in dry wear rate versus wrought tool steel [6].
Other dramatic improvements in wear resistance are seen by adding titanium nitride or
chromium boride to stainless steels; products that cannot be formed using traditional
metalworking practices.
Tensile Elastic Thermal Thermal
Density
Material Strength Modulus Conductivity W/(m Expansion
g/cm3
Mpa Gpa K) 10-6/k
Aluminum (Al) 2.7 100 70 180 23
Copper (Cu) 8.9 100 130 250 13
Invar (Fe-36ni) 8 300 205 20 5
Kovar Or F15
8 480 200 17 4.9
(Fe-29ni-17co)
Molybdenum-
copper 10 210 280 170 7
(Mo-15cu)
Molybdenum-
copper 9.9 200 280 145 6.5
(Mo-20cu)
Tungsten-copper
17 500 340 209 6
(W-10cu)
Tungsten-copper
16 560 290 247 7
(W-20cu)
Tungsten-copper
14 420 260 260 11
(W-30cu)
Tensile properties of representative MIM
alloys
The following table shows typical room temperature tensile properties of representative metal
injection molding alloys.
Typical room temperature tensile properties of
representative MIM alloys
Yield Tensile
Material Composition Density Elongation Hardness
Strength Strength
(Designation) Wt.% % % Vhn
Mpa Mpa
Aluminium Al-1Cu 93 --- 200 10 25
Cobalt-chromium Co-28Cr-4W-3Ni-
99 550 880 4 265
or f75 1C
Cobalt-chromium Co-28Cr-4W-3Ni-
100 520 1000 40 260
or f75 (HIP) 1C
Ni-22Cr-18.5Fe-
Hastelloy x (HT) 98 303 675 74 300
9Mo-1.5Co-0.6W
Ni-19Cr-18Fe-
Inconel 718 (HIP,
5Nb-3Mo-1Ti- 100 1130 1330 14 390
HT)
0.4Al
Invar Fe-36Ni 98 240 425 40 115
Iron-nickel Fe-2Ni 96 190 345 30 95
Iron-nickel Fe-8Ni 95 310 430 21 150
Iron-nickel Fe-42Ni 99 250 490 43 105
Iron-nickel Fe-50Ni 96 170 420 20 80
Iron-silicon Fe-3Si 99 390 530 24 150
Kovar or f15 Fe-29Ni-17Co 98 280 480 42 110
Maraging steel Fe-18Ni-9Co-5Mo-
96 1600 1640 2 470
(HT) 0.5Ti-0.1Si
Nickel-iron Ni-20Fe 91 --- 470 31 90
Niobium
Nb-10W-10Ta 98 315 440 25 240
superalloy
Fe-16Cr-4Ni-4Cu-
Stainless 17-4 ph 96 750 900 10 265
0.3Nb-0.8Si
Stainless 17-4 ph Fe-16Cr-4Ni-4Cu-
96 1090 1185 6 340
(HT) 0.3Nb-0.8Si
Stainless 17-4 ph Fe-16Cr-4Ni-4Cu-
100 1103 1137 13 370
(HIP) 0.3Nb-0.8Si
Stainless 304l Fe-18Cr-8Ni 97 240 480 35 165
Fe-17Cr-12Ni-
Stainless 316l 96 220 510 45 135
2Mo-2Mn
Stainless 410
Fe-11Cr-0.5C 95 1240 1520 5 390
(HT)
Stainless 410l
Fe-11Cr-0.1C 95 410 650 5 240
(HT)
Stainless 420
Fe-13Cr-1Mn-1Si 92 690 1440 6 470
(HT)
Stainless 440c
Fe-17Cr-1Mn-1C 98 1560 1600 <1 655
(HT)
Steel 1060 Fe-0.6C 97 260 580 25 150
Steel 4140 Fe-1Cr-0.4C 97 390 580 15 230
Steel 4140 (HT) Fe-1Cr-0.4C 93 1240 1380 2 390
Fe-2Cr-1Ni-1Mn-
Steel 4340 96 480 620 6 240
0.4C
Fe-2Cr-1Ni-1Mn-
Steel 4340 (HT) 96 1400 1600 2 485
0.4C
Fe-2Ni-0.4Mo-
Steel 4605 (HT) 96 205 440 15 110
0.5C
Fe-2Ni-0.4Mo-
Steel 4605 (HT) 96 1480 1655 2 485
0.5C
Steel 4640 (HT) Fe-2Ni-1Mo-0.4C 97 1400 2000 3 300
Steel iron-nickel
Fe-2Ni-0.5C 94 1230 1230 1 450
(HT)
Steel iron-nickel Fe-2Ni-0.5Mo-
96 1000 1200 2 595
(HT) 0.6C
Steel iron-nickel Fe-2Ni-0.9C 96 450 650 9 185
Steel iron-nickel
Fe-7Ni-0.5C 95 1420 1460 1 460
(HT)
Steel iron-nickel Fe-8Ni-0.5C 97 260 410 25 135
Steel iron-nickel
Fe-8Ni-0.6C 97 1100 1300 2 515
(HT)
Titanium Ti 98 500 580 12 215
Titanium (HIP) Ti 100 --- 800 25 ---
Titanium-5-2.5 Ti-5Al-2.5Fe 95 --- 960 4 380
Titanium-6-4 Ti-6Al-4V 98 800 880 12 350
Tool steel m2 Fe-6W-5Mo-4Cr-
99 1000 1100 1 750
(HT) 2V-1C
Tungsten heavy
W-5Ni-2Cu 98 900 1050 10 345
alloy
Tungsten heavy
W-4Ni-1Fe 99 300 500 15 300
alloy
Tungsten heavy
W-4Ni-1Fe 99 650 1000 20 150
alloy (HT)
Tungsten heavy
W-5Ni-2Fe 100 660 930 30 265
alloy
Tungsten heavy
W-6Ni-2Fe 98 500 800 20 265
alloy
Table 3 Typical room temperature tensile properties of representative MIM alloys
(HT = heat treated, HIP = hot isostatically pressed, density is % alloy theoretical density)
Note that data given is only representative of the properties attainable using MIM, since
differences in impurity levels, grain size, porosity, and post-sintering heat treatment can have
dramatic effects.
Cost, delivery and flexibility
The MIM cost equation involves several factors ranging from alloy to packaging requirements.
Tooling cost
At the beginning, tool cost is a barrier, especially if the design is not fully worked out. In this
regard MIM tends to project an inflexible character. For example, a sophisticated four-cavity
mould used in cell phone production costs more than $30,000 each.
Any reworking of that mould to change the design is a cost and time barrier. A few vendors have
innovated means to reduce the time and cost for the first mould, including use of polyurethane or
aluminium moulds. Curiously, it appears that only half of the moulds created for MIM ever go
into production.
Mould cost in MIM tends to be highly variable. In one case, eight vendors quoted prices for the
same mould that ranged from $27,000 to $70,000, and delivery times from 8 to 12 weeks. This
says that diligence is required to sort out the various claims and determine the best options when
ordering tooling.
Since many firms formulate their own feedstock to keep down production costs, a mould
customised to that feedstock is not necessarily useable by another firm.
Influence of feedstock price
Part costs are dominated by feedstock price. Table 4 is a contrast of component costs between
two vendors on the same part, where vendor A uses self-mixing and vendor B relies on
purchased premixed feedstock (values are dollars per part). Such a table shows how feedstock
cost goes right to the bottom line. Note, that if vendor A adopted continuous processing in
debinding and sintering (such as used by vendor B), then the potential component cost would
drop to $0.76.
In a sensitivity analysis for MIM part cost [7], it was determine that feedstock cost was the most
important factor. It was followed by component mass, process yield and other production factors.
Clearly, designs that remove mass and ensure high process yields lead to the greatest success.
Factor Vendor A Vendor B Notes
feedstock 0.35 0.67 vendor B purchases pre-mixed feedstock
moulding 0.17 0.37 vendor A is in a lower labor rate area
tooling 0.13 0.13 no difference
debinding 0.11 0.004 vendor A relies on batch processing
sintering 0.34 0.07 vendor B relies on continuous processing
piece cost 1.10 1.28 vendor A gets the job
Table 4 Contrast of component costs between two vendors on the same part, where vendor A uses self-
mixing and vendor B relies on purchased premixed feedstock (values are US$ per part)
Overview: key criteria for selecting MIM
technology
Fig. 11 (a) An example of a PIM component with a
combination of thick and thin sections
(component courtesy of Advanced Materials
Technologies); (b) An example of an undercut
moulded into this PIM cemented carbide nozzle
body (component courtesy of Retco Tool); (c) PIM
pepper grinder that illustrates the use of coring to
reduce mass and decrease wall thickness;
(d) Stiffening ribs on the interior of a housing
(component courtesy of MoldMasters); (e) A simple
web to stiffen and link two regions in a PIM
component
The MIM strengths of complex shapes, smaller sizes, and large production volumes have found
numerous applications in firearms, watches, hand tools, surgical tools, orthodontic brackets,
automotive engine parts, electronic packages, cutting tools, and sporting devices.
Figs. 11 and 12 illustrate a number of MIM examples.
To summarise this quick guide, the criteria for identifying a MIM candidate are captured in a few
key considerations [1, 8]:
Mass/volume
MIM is excellent at reducing fabrication costs for components where much material loss
would occur in machining or grinding
Quantity
Tooling and set-up costs are difficult to justify for low production quantities, so MIM
works best when annual production quantities exceed 20,000 per year
Material
MIM is most attractive for designs that use hard to machine materials such as titanium,
stainless steel, and nickel alloys
Complexity
MIM is best applied to complex geometries, it works best on components that require
multiple axes for indexing in machining
Performance
If performance is important, then the high density in MIM generates properties that
usually are competitive
Surface finish
The surface roughness reflects the initial particle size, yet controlled textures are possible
at almost no cost penalty, unlike competitive processes
Tolerances
MIM tends to have a high cost from secondary operations if tight tolerances are required,
the as-sintered tolerances are probably on ± 0.3%
Assembly
Benefits arise when multiple parts can be consolidated into a single piece to save on
inventory and assembly costs
Blemishes
MIM has inherent blemishes that must be located in noncritical positions or removed
after fabrication; examples include gates marks, ejector pin marks, or parting lines
Novel compositions
MIM can form novel material combinations that are difficult via traditional processes, for
example laminated or two-material structures or mixed metal-ceramic materials for wear
applications.
Fig. 12 Examples of MIM parts showing the geometric attributes
favored in production
Metal injection moulding leads to outstanding success when the design anticipates MIM
fabrication and invites expert participation.
Review by an advisor knowledgeable with MIM invariably leads to lower costs, better quality,
longer mould life, and good reconciliation between intended function and the MIM process
attributes.
Many materials are available via MIM, but a few are dominant. When the material is difficult to
machine, such as tool steels, titanium, nickel alloys, or stainless steel, then the net-shape aspect
of MIM is most beneficial.
Component geometric features need not be sacrificed for MIM, but there are certain geometric
characteristics where the technology is most successful.
The properties attainable via MIM vary between production sites; however, the many properties
converge to the range customarily found in engineering handbooks. Now we are seeing new
MIM materials, custom designed for the process. These include laminated (hard-soft, magnetic-
nonmagnetic, and conductive-insulator) structures, foamed metals, and hollow objects. These
options propel MIM into areas where there are few alternative technologies.
References
Acknowledgements
Thanks go to several individuals who provided data, pictures, and perspectives shared in this
article – John Johnson (ATI Alldyne), Kay Leong Lim (Hi-P Housing Appliance), Seong Jin
Park (Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems), Julian Thomas (Springfield Munitions), Mike
Sherwin (Kennametal), Benjamin Smarslok (University of Florida), Pavan Suri (Heraeus
Materials Technology), and Lye King Tan (Acelent Technologies)
References
[1] R. M. German, Powder Injection Molding – Design and Applications, Innovative Material
Solutions, State College, PA, 2003; available from the Metal Powder Industries Federation
[2] G. M. Brasel and J. A. Sago, “Designed form MIM: An Enabling Technology,” Advances in
Powder Metallurgy and Particulate Materials - 2004, Part 4, Metal Powder Industries Federation,
Princeton, NJ, 2004, pp. 125-141.
[3] B. P. Smarslok and R. M. German, “Identification of Design Parameters in Metal Powder
Injection Molding,” Journal of Advanced Materials, 2005, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 3-11.
[4] P. Suri, B. P. Smarslok, and R. M. German, “Impact Properties of Sintered and Wrought 17-4
PH Stainless Steel,” Powder Metallurgy, 2006, vol. 49, pp. 40-47.
[5] S. R. Collins, “Corrosion Resistance of MIM 316L,” Advances in Powder Metallurgy and
Particulate Materials - 2002, Metal Powder Industries Federation, Princeton, NJ, 2002, pp.
10.240-10.254.
[6] H. Miura, H. Morikawa, Y. Kawakami, and A. Ishibashi, “Development of Self-Lubricating
Wear Resistant Materials Through MIM Process,” Journal of the Japan Society of Powder and
Powder Metallurgy, 1998, vol. 45, pp. 436-441.
[7]R. M. German and D. Blaine, “Production Cost Sensitivity Analysis for Metal Powder
Injection Molding,” Advances in Powder Metallurgy and Particulate Materials - 2004, Part 4,
Metal Powder Industries Federation, Princeton, NJ, 2004, pp. 1-10.
[8] F. Zweig, “Practical Guide to PIM Production – Metals,” Powder Injection Moulding,
Proceedings of the First European Symposium on Powder Injection Moulding, European Powder
Metallurgy Association, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom, 1997, pp. 25-30.
Author
Professor German is the author of 850 articles, 15 books, and 23 patents and has been active in
PIM for over 20 years. He conducts research and consults with firms on issues of customer
development, technology enhancements, new product development, and R&D policy. He
founded and co-chaired the annual PIM Symposium. His has three books on PIM and is a
Consulting Editor of PIM International.
Professor Randall M. German
Associate Dean of Engineering
College of Engineering
San Diego State University
5500 Campanile Drive
San Diego,
California 92182-1326
USA
