Case history

Case history
As shown in detail on the dedicated pages of this site, investment casting and MIM technologies allow us to create steel and superalloy pieces even with particular complex shapes. On this page we’ll show you, a short series of interesting cases, an expression of the state of the art in our production processes.
Case history
Weight:
500 gr
Dimensions:
58 mm x 58 mm x 35 mm
Steel:
AISI 310
Chosen process:
Investment casting
Reason of our choice:
Too severe material for machining.
Case history
Weight:
20 gr
Dimensions:
ø 32 mm x h 7 mm
Steel:
AISI 316L
Chosen process:
MIM
Reason of our choice:
Not feasible with other technologies (see sharpened edges and the 0,2 mm fissures).
Case history
Weight:
700 gr
Dimensions:
115 mm x 95 mm x 30 mm
Steel:
18NiCrMo5
Chosen process:
Investment casting
Reason of our choice:
Too expensive geometry for other technologies.
Case history
Weight:
15 gr
Dimensions:
ø 28 mm x h 8 mm
Steel:
AISI 316L
Chosen process:
MIM
Reason of our choice:
Dimensions and geometry details.
Case history
Weight:
270 gr
Dimensions:
100 mm x 65 mm x 20 mm
Steel:
40CrMo4
Chosen process:
Investment casting
Reason of our choice:
Too low quantity to justify the price for a forging mould.
Case history
Weight:
17 gr
Dimensions:
ø 20 mm x h 15 mm
Steel:
FN08
Chosen process:
MIM
Reason of our choice:
Teeth precision, finishing and low weight could not be easily obtain with investment casting. MIM was perfect.
Case history
Weight:
18 gr
Dimensions:
45 mm x 22 mm x 32 mm
Steel:
42CrMo4
Chosen process:
MIM
Reason of our choice:
Only feasible with expensive machining technologies. too low Roughness (Ra: 1,2) for investment casting.
Case history
Weight:
1,2 Kg
Dimensions:
ø 180 mm x h 90 mm
Steel:
AISI 316
Chosen process:
Investment casting
Reason of our choice:
Sand casting unable to reach required roughness (Ra 3,2).
Case history
Weight:
12 gr
Dimensions:
34 mm x 11 mm x 16 mm
Steel:
17-4PH
Chosen process:
MIM
Reason of our choice:
Geometry details and dimensional precision. MIM can guarantee better results than investment casting.
Case history
Weight:
10 gr
Dimensions:
55 mm x 30 mm x 30 mm
Steel:
50CrV4
Chosen process:
Investment casting
Reason of our choice:
If MIM was used, too many deformation could have occurred. Final calibration was due, but starting with investment casting was cheaper.
Case history
Weight:
290 gr
Dimensions:
82 mm x 55 mm x 40 mm
Steel:
AISI 304
Chosen process:
Investment casting
Reason of our choice:
No more welding between flange and pipe required. Casted part is a single part.
Case history
Weight:
2,2 Kg
Dimensions:
ø 150 mm x h 140 mm
Steel:
AISI 420
Chosen process:
Investment casting
Reason of our choice:
Complex geometry and precision could not be achieved with other technologies.