J. Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol.24 No.

2, 2008 227

A Comparison between Direct and Indirect Laser Sintering of Metals

Montasser M.Dewidar1,2)† , Jae-Kyoo LIM3) and K.W.Dalgarno4)
1) Department of Mechanical Design and Materials, High Institute of Energy, South Valley University, Aswan, Egypt
2) Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chonbuk National University, Chonju, Korea
3) Automobile Hi-Technology Research Institute, Faculty of Mechanical & Aerospace System Engineering, Chonbuk
National University, Duckjin 1-664-14, Jeonju, JB 561-756, South Korea
4) School of Mechanical and Systems Engineering, Stephenson Building, Claremont Road, Newcastle University,
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, United Kingdom
[Manuscript received August 16, 2006, in revised form January 28, 2007]

Layer manufacture technologies are gaining increasing attention in the manufacturing for the production of
polymer mould tooling. Layer manufacture techniques can be used in this potential manufacturing area to
produce tooling either indirectly or directly, and powder metal based layer manufacture systems are considered
as an effective way of producing rapid tooling. Mechanical properties and accuracy are critical for tooling. This
paper reports the results of an experimental study examining the potential of layer manufacturing processes to
deliver production tooling for polymer manufacture. A comparison between indirectly selective laser sintering
and directly selective laser sintering to provide the tooling was reported. Three main areas were addressed
during the study: mechanical strength, accuracy, and build rate. Overviews of the results from the studies
were presented.
KEY WORDS: Selective laser sintering; Layer manufacture; Mould tooling; Rapid tooling

1. Introduction

Rapid prototyping or layer manufacturing tech-

nologies were first introduced in 1989 as a design vi-
sualization tool and have revolutionized the products
way of designing and manufacturing today. Proto-
typing equipment used to make plastic models for vi-
sualization 10 years ago is now used to make invest-
ment casting patterns, sand casting cores and molds,
patterns for secondary processes, functional proto-
types, and mould inserts for injection molding. Se-
lective laser sintering (SLS) is one of the layer man-
ufacture technology that can produce ceramic and
metallic tools. SLS is an advanced rapid prototyp-
ing technology, which can shorten the manufacturing
time cycle, hence reducing the production cost and
increasing competitiveness[1–5] . In the SLS process,
a three-dimensional object is created layer-by-layer
from the bottom to the top from heat fusible pow-
dered materials with heat generated from a laser. A
thin layer of heat fusible powdered material is deliv-
ered onto the top of the build cylinder by a roller (see
Fig.1). A heat generating laser beam traces across
this layer, sintering specific areas according to the in-
structions of the computer-aided design (CAD) file.
The platform lowers slightly and a new fresh thin layer
of powder is delivered. Then, the laser scans selected
areas of this layer, which bond to the previous layer.
The process continues, layer by layer, until the part
is complete, enabling even highly complex parts and
tools to be built up quickly and fully automatically.
The unsintered powder stays in the container during
the process, serving as a natural support for the part.
SLS of metals is divided into indirect and direct
methods. Indirect SLS involves the use of a poly-
mer binder to produce a green part. The metal pow-
der particles are coated with the polymer and the
action of the laser melts the polymer, bonding the
metal particles together to produce a green part. The
† Ph.D., to whom correspondence should be addressed,
E-mail: dewidar5@hotmail.com.
Fig.1 Schematic of SLS process
green part is subsequently post-processed by sinter-
ing and infiltration to produce a high-density metal
part. Infiltration is a process that wicks a molten
phase into the open pores of porous structure by cy-
cling to a temperature between the melting points of
the infiltrant and the skeleton.
Direct SLS processes use metal powders directly
without any binder. Direct SLS eliminates the need
for post-processing. Ongoing material and process
developments have increased the productivity of the
systems and the quality of the resulting parts. SLS
can be used as a stand-alone production technique,
or combined with conventional toolmaking processes.
Direct SLS of composite metal powder blends can be
used to produce metal parts. In such systems, a low
melting point component is melted and employed as
a matrix in which the higher melting point compo-
nents sit. Typical binary phase systems investigated
include Ni-Cu, Fe-Cu and Cu-Pb/Sn[6,7] . The dis-
advantage of the above processing routes is that the
components produced exhibit the mechanical prop-
erties and characteristics of their weakest composite
phase, thus lacking the full mechanical functionality
required for heavy-duty tasks.
Direct SLS of metals is a promising rapid proto-
typing technique that allows manufacturers to pro-
228 J. Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol.24 No.2, 2008
Fig.2 (a) 80 mm cubic RapidSteel 2.0 block cut into hor-
izontal sections, (b) 80 mm cubic RapidSteel 2.0
block cut into vertical sections, (c) dimensions of
RapidSteel tensile specimens
duce both prototype and production tools. Recently,
new generations of different material systems have
been introduced to improve strength, surface quality,
and tool life[8–15] . The aim of this work is to compare
between direct and indirect SLS of metals in terms of
mechanical properties, accuracy, and rate of building.
2. Experimental
RapidSteel 2.0 process was used to create parts
using indirect SLS. The first step in the process was
to build a green part from coated 316 stainless steel
powders. These were produced through conventional
Fig.3 (a) Test blocks to assess small feature accuracy, (b) dimensions of small features
SLS on a DTM Sinterstation 2000. The fragile green
part produced consists of steel powder held in a poly-
mer matrix. The second step in the process was a
sintering furnace cycle. In this step the green parts
were placed into a furnace and heated to 1120◦ C with
a heating rate of 2◦ C/min. During the heating phase
the polymer was burned away leaving the steel skele-
ton, which was then sintered traditionally to a porous
steel structure at 1120◦ C for 3 h. The sintered parts
were then cooled to room temperature at a cooling
rate of 3◦ C/min. The atmosphere in the furnace was
inert gas with a mix of 30% hydrogen and 70% ni-
trogen recommended[16] . Finally this structure was
infiltrated with molten bronze, which was absorbed
from the base of the parts by a wicking action, which
drew the bronze through the porous matrix resulting
in a near fully dense composite. The furnace was held
at 1050◦ C for 3 h. The heating rate, cooling rate, and
the atmosphere inside the furnace were the same as
for the sintering cycle.
To measure the strength of the RapidSteel 2.0
material four cubic test blocks with dimensions of
80 mm×80 mm×80 mm were built from RapidSteel
2.0, using Sinterstation 2000. The processing pa-
rameters to manufacture the green parts were the
DTM default setting. Each block was cut into six-
teen 20 mm×20 mm×80 mm slices cut either hori-
zontally, or vertically and were machined to dumb-
bells (see Fig.2).
Tensile testing was conducted using a Dartec Uni-
versal Testing Machine at a fixed crosshead speed
of 0.05 mm/s. Some samples from fractured speci-
mens were further evaluated by scanning electron mi-
croscopy (SEM, JEOL JSM 35CF).
In order to study the bulk accuracy, and manu-
facturability of small features of the RapidSteel 2.0
material, two blocks with small features, as shown
in Fig.3 were built to characterise the ability of the
process to manufacture small negative and positive
(protruded and depressed) features. A family of fea-
tures, fabricated from a number of cylinders and bars
was defined and applied to 80 mm cubic block. The
same features were made for the negative and posi-
tive blocks. Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM)
was used to measure the dimensions of all features
for green parts, brown parts, and infiltrated parts to
determine the effects of SLS process and the furnace
cycles on the accuracy of the small features of parts.
 J. Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol.24 No.2, 2008
Fig.4 Variation in tensile strength of RapidSteel 2.0
sample cut horizontally
Fig.5 Variation in tensile strength of RapidSteel 2.0 sin-
tered samples (brown part)
The direct SLS machine includes a 250 W contin-
uous wave CO2 laser with a minimum beam size of
1.1 mm in diameter at the focal length. Galvanome-
ter controlled mirrors direct the laser beam within a
70.0 mm diameter build area which is housed within a
300 cm3 (L=460 mm, H=260 mm, and D=250 mm,
where L is the length, H the height and D the depth)
process chamber capable of sustaining a variety of at-
mospheric conditions. In this study, the atmosphere
inside the chamber was high purity argon (bottled
argon at 99.9% purity) to minimise oxidation effects.
The material was gas atomised high-speed steel (HSS)
powder. The grade of HSS processed was chosen for
its high solidus-liquidus range, which was considered
to offer the greatest scope for appropriate process con-
trol. The processing conditions for this material were
Fig.6 (a) Variation in hardness with cut horizontally infiltrated RapidSteel 2.0 samples, (b) variation in hardness
with brown block RapidSteel 2.0 samples
229
laser power ranging from 50 to 80 W, scan speed
1 mm/s, and scan spacing 0.682 mm, which recom-
mended from our previous work[8] .
To measure the strength of the parts produced
using direct SLS, many samples were made. Some
samples were further conventionally sintered to in-
crease density. Sintering was performed in a vacuum
(10−3 Pa). Samples were heated at a rate of 10◦ C/min
to sintering temperature (1240◦ C), held for 1 h, then
furnace cooled to room temperature. Other samples
were infiltrated to full density using the same process
as for indirect SLS process. Tensile testing for direct
SLS samples was conducted under the same condi-
tions as RapidSteel 2.0 samples. A surface profilome-
ter Form Talysurf 120L from Taylor Hobson Ltd., was
used to measure surface roughness.
3. Results and Discussion
The resulting variations in the strength for all six-
teen samples in the block, which were cut horizontally
as a function of distance from the place of bronze infil-
tration are plotted in Figure 4. A pattern of degrada-
tion appears with strength with decreasing distance
from the place of bronze infiltration in both the ver-
tical and horizontal directions. Figure 5 shows maxi-
mum strength of brown samples (after sintering cycle
only). It is clear from this figure that the strength
is approximately constant at 33±3 MPa. It is also
clear from the above results shown in Figs.4 and 5
that the infiltration cycle plays an important role in
the indirect SLS process, where the strength of infil-
trated part has been increased to fifteen times higher
than that of the brown part. The variation in hard-
ness with infiltrated samples and brown samples is
shown in Fig.6. It can be clearly seen from this fig-
ure that the hardness of infiltrated samples is lower
than that of brown samples due to the presence of
the bronze. The 0.2% yield strength of RapidSteel
2.0 material varied from 250 to 350 MPa, and the
ultimate strength ranged between 375 to 693 MPa,
with the elastic modulus remaining relatively con-
stant at 256 GPa. Figure 7(a) shows that the den-
sities of brown samples are relatively constant about
4.34 g/cm3 , and Fig.7(b) shows that the densities of
infiltrated samples are about 8 g/cm3 . Also it is no-
ticed from Fig.7(b) that the samples farthest away
from the bronze position are only about 1% less dense
than those close to the bronze position, however, this
230 J. Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol.24 No.2, 2008

Fig.7 (a) Density measurements for RapidSteel 2.0 samples without infiltration (brown block), (b) density mea-
surements of RapidSteel 2.0 infiltrated material

sintering cycle, is 208 MPa. The benchmark value of

Fig.8 Typical variation in strength of sintered and infil-
trated direct SLS samples
small variation in density appears to weaken the inter-
nal structure. The maximum strength of A1, which is
close to the bronze position is 671.3 MPa, where the
maximum strengths of B3, and C3, which are farthest
away, are 376.25 and 437.16 MPa, respectively.
Figure 8 shows the typical stress-strain curve for
two samples. The first sample was made using the di-
rect SLS process followed by a sintering furnace cycle,
and the second was made using the direct SLS process
followed by an infiltration cycle. The maximum ten-
sile strength of the infiltrated samples is 426.3 MPa,
while the maximum strength of the samples after a
the modulus of elasticity of the infiltrated samples is
130±5 GPa. The low value of modulus of elasticity of
these samples compared with RapidSteel 2.0 material
occurs because the orientation of the agglomerates is
parallel to the direction of scanning. The direction of
the tensile tests is carried out parallel to the sintered
layers in both direct and indirect SLS process.
The density of samples without infiltration was
found to be 5.13±0.2 g/cm3 ; the density of sam-
ples after a furnace sintering cycle was found to
be 5.5±0.1 g/cm3 , while the density of samples af-
ter infiltration was found to be 7.76±0.2 g/cm3 .
The hardness of infiltrated samples was found to be
36.2±0.2 Rc.
Analysis of the RapidSteel 2.0 material under a
microscope reveals spherical metal particles, located
within a bronze matrix. Further detailed etching with
ferric chloride revealed large bronze grains, which de-
crease in size with distance from the bronze infiltra-
tion source. Other analysis results by scanning elec-
tron microscopy (SEM), shown in Fig.9(a), confirm
these findings. Figure 9(b) shows a brown sample,
which reveals spherical metal particles ranging from
34 to 55 µm in diameter. The dark colour shows in-
ternal porosity within the material.
The studies related to accuracy have considered
bulk accuracy and surface finish, and the accuracy
and manufacturability of features. The accuracy of
components manufactured using the indirect and di-

Fig.9 (a) SEM of RapidSteel 2.0 sample (dark colour represents the steel particles, while the bright colour
represents the bronze), (b) SEM of brown RapidSteel 2.0 sample (dark colour represents the pores)
 J. Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol.24 No.2, 2008
Fig.10 Dimensional accuracy of the 80×80×80 block part
rect SLS processes have been assessed through the
manufacture and measurement of a range of com-
ponents and tools. Figure 10 shows the dimen-
sional accuracy of the green, brown and infiltrated
blocks. The nominal dimensions of the blocks are
80 mm×80 mm×80 mm. It is noticed from Fig.10
that the green parts shrink by about 0.1 mm in all di-
rections during the furnace sintering, and swelled by
0.05 mm in the X direction, 0.1 mm in the Y direc-
tion and more shrinkage occurred in the Z direction
through infiltration. Generally, the accuracy of the
block is within ±0.2 mm in all directions. The sur-
face roughness, Ra of RapidSteel 2.0 components after
infiltration is typically in the range 6–10 µm.
The absolute error in both X and Y directions
for the samples produced by direct SLS was found to
be ±0.4 mm. The error of direct SLS parts is bigger
than that of indirect SLS parts, which may be due
to the big size of beam diameter (1.1 mm). There is
no significant variation in dimensions after the infil-
tration cycle. An average roughness Ra in the range
40–50 µm was obtained after sintering, which reduced
to 40–45 µm after infiltration. Many mould tools in-
clude small positive and negative features, and the
degree to which these could be formed with the indi-
rect and direct SLS processes was clearly of interest.
Figure 3 shows the test blocks, which were used to
characterise the ability of the indirect SLS process to
manufacture small positive and negative features. A
family of features, made up of a number of bars and
cylinders, shown in Fig.3(a), was defined and applied
to 80 mm cubic block. The feature set was the same
for the positive and negative feature blocks, and an
example of each is shown in Fig.3(b). The manufac-
tured blocks were then measured to determine what
features the process was capable of manufacturing to
within the ±0.2 mm range identified above as the gen-
eral accuracy figure. For the indirect SLS process the
conclusion was that any feature with a dimension of
less than 2 mm would not generally be accurate to
within ±0.2 mm. Because of the large beam diameter
no attempt has been made to manufacture features
on this scale using direct SLS. For use in production
tooling applications both indirect and direct SLS com-
ponents would require substantial finishing.
The build time of the indirect SLS pro-
cess of RapidSteel 2.0 for a solid block
(80 mm×80 mm×80 mm) is about 21 h, while the
build time for the same block using the direct SLS
process would be about 17 d. The green parts pro-
231
duced by indirect SLS need sintering and infiltrating,
which takes about 2 d. Sintered parts produced by
direct SLS only need infiltrating (about 1 d) to im-
prove the density and the mechanical properties of
the part.
4. Conclusions
(1) Both direct and indirect SLS process can gen-
erate components with sufficient mechanical proper-
ties to act as mould tools.
(2) Neither direct nor indirect SLS is currently ca-
pable of making a net shape component at the accu-
racy and surface roughness levels mould tooling ap-
plications demand.
(3) For the two material systems studied here in-
direct SLS is capable of building components at a sig-
nificantly higher rate than direct SLS. Other work[10]
on direct metal SLS with powder mixes has shown
that some direct metal SLS systems can operate at
more competitive build rates (of the order of to days
manufacture tool), but further assessment of this is
required.
(4) The variation in accuracy caused by furnace
cycles is very limited for both processes, so good sin-
terstation process control is essential to ensure accu-
racy.
(5) With regard to using the indirect SLS pro-
cess to generate full production tooling, it is possible
to generate near net shape tools which require post-
processing (finishing operation) to meet production
specification. There are geometric limitations on this
process with regard to small features (2 mm or less).
REFERENCES
[1 ] C.S.Edson, S.Masanari, O.Kozo and L.Tahar: Int. J.
Mach. Tool. Manuf., 2006, 46, 1459.
[2 ] J.H.Liu, Y.S.Shi, Z.L.Lu, Y.Xu, K.H.Chen and
S.H.Huang: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2007, 444(1), 146.
[3 ] H.Asgharzadeh and A.Simchi: Mater. Sci. Eng. A,
2005, 403(1), 290.
[4 ] L.Hongjun, F.Zitian, H.Naiyu and D.Xuanpu: J.
Mater. Process. Technol., 2003, 142(3), 710.
[5 ] E.Berry, J.M.Brown, M.Connell, C.M.Craven,
N.D.Efford, A.Radjenovic and M.A.Smith: Med. Eng.
Phys., 1997, 19(1), 90.
[6 ] J.P.Kruth, L.Froyen, L.Van Vaerenbergh, P.Mercelis,
M.Rombouts and B.Lauwers: J. Mater. Process.
Technol., 2004, 149, 616.
232 J. Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol.24 No.2, 2008
[7 ] L.Lu, J.Y.H.Fuh and Y.S.Wong: Laser-Induced Ma-
terials and Processes for Rapid Prototyping, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Norwell, USA, 2001.
[8 ] M.Dewidar, K.W.Dalgarno and C.S.Wright: Advances
in Manufacturing Technology XV, John Wiley and
Sons, 2001, 181.
[9 ] A.Simchi: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2006, 428, 148.
[10] S.Kumar and J.P.Kruth: Mater. Design, 2007, 28(2),
400.
[11] A.Simchi, F.Petzoldt and H.Pohl: J. Mater. Process.
Technol., 2003, 141, 319.
[12] D.King and T.Tansey: J. Mater. Process. Technol.,
2003, 132, 42.
[13] D.Gu and Y.Shen: Mater. Lett., 2006, 60(29), 3664.
[14] D.Gu and Y.Shen: J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2007,
182(1), 564.
[15] J.W.Xie, P.Fox, W.O0 Neill and C.J.Sutcliffe: J. Mater.
Process. Technol., 2005, 170(3), 516.
[16] DTM: Guide to materials: rapidSteelTM 2.0 used to
produce rapid tool LR mold inserts0 . DTM Corpora-
tion, DCN: 8002-10001, August, 1998.