4.6 Article

Warpage of Powder Injection Molded Copper Structure

期刊

METALS AND MATERIALS INTERNATIONAL
卷 27, 期 5, 页码 1131-1137

出版社

KOREAN INST METALS MATERIALS
DOI: 10.1007/s12540-019-00492-z

关键词

Copper powder injection molding; Warpage; Debinding; Sensitivity analysis

资金

  1. POSCO
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT), Republic of Korea [NRF-2019R1A2C3003129]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2019R1A2C3003129] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study focused on investigating warpage defects in PIM manufacturing, revealing that the debinding heating rate has a dominant effect on structure warping and should be optimized accordingly.
Powder injection molding (PIM) is an advanced manufacturing technology with advantages including shape complexity, high production rate, and high physical/mechanical properties. However, because PIM has many sub-steps, such as mixing, injection molding, debinding, and sintering, the optimization of each process condition is important to avoid defects including warpage, crack, and blister. In this paper, the warpage, one of the most common defects in PIM, is investigated by using thin square copper structures with lengths of 10 mm and thicknesses of 600 and 190 mu m. The warpage of each structure is measured by using a white light interferometric surface profiler. The measured warpage of the structure fabricated by the standard process is 3.771 mu m. When the solvent debinding step is absent, the warpage becomes 8.052 mu m. Additionally, sensitivity analysis determines that the effect of the thermal debinding step's heating rate is dominant to warp the structure. Normalized sensitivities of the debinding heating rates are 0.58 for the structure with a thickness of 600 mu m and 0.63 for the other structure. Finally, how to optimize the processing condition is outlined.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据