Comparison between microfabrication technologies for metal tooling

Abstract This paper is based on the information gathered within the Multi-Material Micro-Manufacture (4M) Network activities in the Processing of Metals Division (Task 7.2 ‘Tooling’) (www.4m-net.org). The aim of the task involves a systematic analysis of the partners' expertise in different mic...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part C, Journal of mechanical engineering science Journal of mechanical engineering science, 2006-11, Vol.220 (11), p.1665-1676
Main Authors: Uriarte, L, Herrero, A, Ivanov, A, Oosterling, H, Staemmler, L, Tang, P T, Allen, D
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Component parts
Machine tools
Manufacturing
Mechanical engineering
Micromachining
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract This paper is based on the information gathered within the Multi-Material Micro-Manufacture (4M) Network activities in the Processing of Metals Division (Task 7.2 ‘Tooling’) (www.4m-net.org). The aim of the task involves a systematic analysis of the partners' expertise in different microtechnologies for processing tooling inserts made of metal. The following technologies have been analysed: micromilling, micro-electrodischarge machining (EDM, including wire-EDM, sinking-EDM, and EDM-milling), laser micromachining, electroforming, and electrochemical milling (ECF) (an electrochemical machining innovative process proposed by HSG-IMAT). Considered tool-insert materials are nickel for electroforming, stainless steel for ECF, and tool steel (AISI H13) for all other processes. Typical features (ribs, channels, pins, and holes) required by micro-optics, microfluidics, and sensor and actuator applications have been selected to form the benchmark part and to carry out this analysis. The results provide a global comparison between the micromanufacturing processes mentioned earlier in terms of technical capabilities and cost effectiveness of different feature machinings. As a second result, the current limitations of these technologies concerning feature sizes, surface finish, aspect ratios, etc. have been identified. The main conclusion drawn is the absence of a consolidated technology to produce three-dimensional free-form shapes smaller than 100–200 μm to date.
ISSN:0954-4062
2041-2983
DOI:10.1243/09544062JMES220