Binder Jetting Vs. Metal Injection Molding: The Cool Parts Show All Access
Alpha Precision Group, provider of both processes, discusses considerations that go into making this choice.
Binder jet additive manufacturing and metal injection molding (MIM) have elements in common: Both start with powder metal, both require sintering. Because of the need to invest in a mold, MIM favors higher production volumes. Binder jetting makes lower-volume production more cost-effective.
In episode #74 of The Cool Parts Show, we described how capo maker Paige Musical Products made this choice two different ways. Its guitar capos are made via MIM, but banjo capos are made through binder jetting. But there is more than just volume that goes into considering these two processes, according to Alpha Precision Group (APG), a provider of both types of production.
In this companion to our episode on the Paige capo, APG Engineering Director Dave Smith describes other factors that are meaningful in evaluating binder jetting vs. MIM.
Related Content
-
Freeform: Binder Jetting Does Not Change the Basics of Manufacturing
Rather than adapting production methodologies to additive manufacturing, this Pennsylvania contract manufacturer adapts AM to production methodologies. In general, this starts with conversation.
-
Multimodal Powders Bring Uniform Layers, Downstream Benefits for Metal Additive Manufacturing
A blend of particle sizes is the key to Uniformity Labs’ powders for 3D printing. The multimodal materials make greater use of the output from gas atomization while bringing productivity advantages to laser powder bed fusion and, increasingly, binder jetting.
-
AM 101: What Is Binder Jetting? (Includes Video)
Binder jetting requires no support structures, is accurate and repeatable, and is said to eliminate dimensional distortion problems common in some high-heat 3D technologies. Here is a look at how binder jetting works and its benefits for additive manufacturing.
