Missouri University of Science and Technology

Scholars' Mine

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Faculty Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Research & Creative Works

10 Aug 2016

Powders for Additive Manufacturing Processes: Characterization

Techniques and Effects on Part Properties
Austin T. Sutton

Caitlin S. Kriewall

Ming-Chuan Leu
Missouri University of Science and Technology, [email protected]

Joseph William Newkirk

Missouri University of Science and Technology, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/mec_aereng_facwork

Part of the Manufacturing Commons, and the Materials Science and Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation
A. T. Sutton et al., "Powders for Additive Manufacturing Processes: Characterization Techniques and
Effects on Part Properties," Proceedings of the 27th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium (2016, Austin, TX), pp. 1004-1030, University of Texas at Austin, Aug 2016.

This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Faculty Research & Creative Works by an
authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use
including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information,
please contact [email protected].
 Solid Freeform Fabrication 2016: Proceedings of the 27th
26th Annual International
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium – An Additive Manufacturing Conference
Reviewed Paper

POWDERS FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES:

CHARACTERIZATION TECHNIQUES AND EFFECTS ON PART PROPERTIES

Austin T. Sutton1, Caitlin S. Kriewall2, Ming C. Leu1, Joseph W. Newkirk2

1
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology,
Rolla, MO 65409
2
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology,
Rolla, MO 65409

Abstract

Powder-bed based Additive Manufacturing is a class of Additive Manufacturing (AM)

processes that bond successive layers of powder by laser melting to facilitate the creation of parts
with complex geometries. As AM technology transitions from the fabrication of prototypes to
end-use parts, the understanding of the powder properties needed to reliably produce parts of
acceptable quality becomes critical. Consequently, this has led to the use of powder
characterization techniques such as scanning electron microscopy (SEM), laser light diffraction,
x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and differential thermal analysis (DTA) to both
qualitatively and quantitatively study the effect of powder characteristics on part properties.
Utilization of these powder characterization methods to study particle size and morphology,
chemical composition, and microstructure of powder has resulted in significant strides being
made towards the optimization of powder properties for powder-bed based AM processes. This
paper reviews methods commonly used in characterizing metallic AM powders, and the effects
of powder characteristics on the part properties in these AM processes.

1 Introduction
Additive manufacturing (AM) is a layer-based approach used for the creation of parts
directly from Computer-Aided Design (CAD) files. Rather than utilize subtractive methods to
remove material from a larger piece, parts are built by bonding successive layers of material
typically through heat input, a binder, or by chemical means [1–3]. This new approach facilitates
the production of components with high geometrical complexity that would otherwise be
impossible to create through conventional manufacturing processes [4,5]. Although many
different AM process variations exist [6–10], it is important to realize that all can be categorized
according to the state of the starting material: liquid, solid, and powder [3]. Yet, the existing
literature indicates that many of the successful attempts to produce functional AM components
stem from using powder as the raw input material [11].

This is due to the advantages that powdered material has when compared to liquid and
solid starting materials. One of the major benefits is its ability to serve as a support structure [1],
as is the case in the Selective Laser Sintering/Selective Laser Melting (SLS/SLM) and Electron
Beam Melting (EBM) processes. Other reasons stem from its flexibility in powder mixing to
produce parts of various chemical composition [12], and the potential for direct recycling to
yield little to no waste material [13].
©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1004
 Powder
Properties

Figure 1: Classification of Powder Properties

Due to these reasons as well as the overwhelming desire to produce functional

components, a great deal of focus has been centered on the use of metallic powders in the
SLS/SLM, EBM, and Direct Metal Deposition (DMD) processes. Among others, Ti-6Al-4V
[17–19], 316L stainless steel [20–22], 17-4 PH stainless steel [23–25], IN625 [26–28], and
IN718 [29–31] are some of the most commonly studied materials. The use of Ti-6Al-4V is
prominent in aerospace and medical applications where the combination of its strength and
lightweight properties prove extremely attractive for components such as gas turbines and
airfoils [32] as well as hip joints and bone plates [33]. IN718 is also used in aerospace
applications in addition to pumps and tooling where high temperatures and fatigue are often
encountered [29]. Due to its versatility, 316L stainless steel is used in a large variety of areas
including aircraft, automotive, and medical industries [20].

Although the use of powder in AM is quite common, optimization of powder properties

(such as those shown Figure 1) to yield desired performance characteristics has posed a serious
challenge to researchers. This complication not only stems from the dependence of powder
behavior on both the bulk solid properties and their interaction with the AM system during the
build process [31], but also the underlying physics of particle to particle consolidation [2]. The
impact of particle size, shape, and surface roughness in powder-bed fusion processes has been
observed in several studies [11,32–36] to conclude that morphological properties of powder
influence the density of powder after deposition onto the build platform, sintering kinetics
between particles, and the surface roughness and density of manufactured parts. Thus, it is
critical that powder properties be studied and controlled to ensure reliability and repeatability of
the components that are produced. Although many studies have been conducted, a lack of
understanding regarding the effects of initial particle characteristics on the properties of built
parts still exists. As the AM industry matures and the desire to produce functional AM
components increases, the need to close this knowledge gap becomes clear [2,37–39].

Accomplishing this task warrants the use of powder characterization techniques. Table 1
gives a listing of commonly used powder characterization methods in AM, and organizes each
into three categories: particle morphology, particle chemistry, and particle microstructure. When
selecting and/or optimizing a powder for any given process, it is imperative that each is
considered. In AM, this approach is rarely ever taken. Instead, a powder that is deemed suitable

©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1005
in terms of size and chemistry is chosen whereby the process parameters are then optimized to
yield parts of acceptable quality. However, it must be realized that if AM processes are ever to
rival traditional manufacturing methods, tuning of powder properties must also be regarded as
necessary. This can only be accomplished through the use of powder characterization methods to
correlate powder characteristics to material properties. In this paper, an overview of the powder
characterization efforts in AM of metallic components aimed at understanding the effect of
material characteristics on part properties is given, as well as pertinent research needs regarding
future characterization of powders

2 Powder Morphology

Particle morphology refers to the size, shape, and surface roughness of particles. In AM,
it is well known that all of these characteristics play a significant role in powder performance
including flowability and packing efficiency, and thus impact the final component properties.
The focus of this section is to discuss the most commonly used powder characterization
techniques used in the morphological characterization of powders in AM, and to highlight the
research that has been performed which utilizes these methods to quantify and predict powder
performance characteristics in powder-bed fusion processes.

2.1 Sieve Analysis

Size determination by sieving is one of the oldest methods to measure particle size, albeit
it is one of the most widely used due to its simplicity and low cost. In practice, a stack of sieves
with decreasing mesh size from top to bottom is shook or mechanically vibrated. Depending on
the size of the particles, each mesh will retain powder comprised of particles larger than the
mesh size. In order to extract particle size distribution data, the mass of powder on each mesh is
measured and reported corresponding to the size range, or bin size, in which it was found [40].

Although this method is simple requiring minimal sample preparation, it is important to

note that there are inherent drawbacks with the overall approach. First and foremost, the
resolution of the particle size distribution curves generated is determined by the differences
between adjacent mesh sizes. Therefore, if it is desired to increase the accuracy of particle size
distribution data obtained through sieving, the bin size must be decreased. This will not only
increase the cost of the measurement process, but also the time necessary to perform the size
analysis. Exacerbation of this problem also occurs when particle size ranges are below 50 µm
where meshes become considerably more expensive and the propensity for particles to
agglomerate drastically increases yielding inaccurate results [41]. The problem of agglomeration
can cause blinding of mesh apertures where particles smaller than a given mesh size are no
longer able to pass through due to clogging of the mesh. If this problem persists unbeknownst to

©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1006
 Table 1: Common Powder Characterization Techniques used in Additive Manufacturing

©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1007
the operator, a large quantity of powder can be collected on a single mesh where its weight can
potentially increase the size of the mesh openings thereby causing erroneous results [42].

Due to these limitations coupled with the common use of fine powder in powder-bed
fusion processes, sieve analysis is not as commonly used as other size determination methods,
such as microscopy and laser diffraction. However, it is more likely to be utilized in EBM and
SLS with typical particle size ranges of 45 µm - 106 µm and 20 µm - 150 µm, respectively,
rather than SLM (15 µm – 80 µm) since the particle size ranges are typically more coarse.

2.2 Microscopy

Microscopy is a powerful tool that is commonly used in AM due to its capability to

quantitatively measure particle size. This is accomplished by the use of microscopy-based
instruments such as optical light microscopes, scanning electron microscopes, and transmission
electron microscopes [42] to directly observe particles. Due to this very reason, this technique is
often treated as a reference method to other size distribution techniques when studying powder
morphology [43].

Typically, the images obtained are post-processed to calculate equivalent diameters of

particles based upon the two-dimensional projected area of the particles in the collected
micrographs (Figure 2). Although a two-dimensional approach to calculate particle size may not
be the most accurate, it is widely accepted in the AM industry because it provides the most
versatile approach in particle analysis. This is due to the ability to study powder particles not
only in terms of size, but shape and surface roughness [44] both qualitatively and quantitatively.
Due to the sizes of particles used and the reliability of the method, analyzing particles from SEM
micrographs is a widely used method in AM to determine particle size distributions, although
post-processing of the images can be very time consuming. SEMs equipped with automated
feature analysis have offered the advantage of reducing the time for analyzing these micrographs.
There is, however, a lack of agreement on the minimum number of particles needed in order for
these results to be acceptable [43].

Figure 2: Method of projected area for particle size determination by microscopy. The
micrographs containing the particles under observation are converted to binary where the
projected area for each particle is measured by the amount of black pixels present.

©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1008
2.3 Laser Light Diffraction

Another widely used particle size determination technique is laser diffraction, which is a
class of non-image based instruments that analyze the diffraction pattern of laser light when
shining through a dispersed medium of particles (Figure 3). In order to process the diffraction
pattern, it is assumed that the scattering pattern on the detectors is comprised of the superposition
of scattering patterns formed by each particle in the sample. Deconvolution of the obtained data
is then performed by various algorithms including Mie Theory, Fraunhofer approximation, and
Rayleigh scattering which are all based on the solution to Maxwell’s equations for
electromagnetic radiation for a perfect sphere. The algorithm utilized depends on the relative size
of the particles in the sample with respect to the wavelength of the incident light [42]. Although
this method provides the ability to measure a large number of particles in a relatively short
amount of time to obtain a statistically significant particle count, it’s assumption of a perfect
sphere can be misleading in the case of highly irregular particles or those with high aspect ratios.
However, this is rarely a problem in powder bed fusion processes since highly spherical particles
are the most commonly used.

Figure 3: Typical Schematic of a Laser Diffraction [42]

2.4 Influence of Particle Size and Size Distribution on Part Properties

In any powder-based manufacturing process, the determination of particle size and size
distribution is essential since these powder characteristics have a large effect on the properties of
the parts built including the mechanical strength, porosity, and surface finish. While the
chemistry and microstructure of powder can influence part quality as well, powder morphology
is typically the most studied in AM when initial input material characteristics are correlated to
the manufactured component properties.

The selection of particle size for any given powder-based manufacturing process stems
from the desired properties of the components that are to be produced. In powder-bed fusion of
metals, some of the most sought after part properties are a near one-hundred percent relative
density and a smooth surface finish, both of which are directly dependent upon the size and size
distribution of the particles used. In turn, the particle size determines the minimum layer
©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1009
 Figure 4: Image reconstructed from Abd-Elghany et al. [47], (a) Layer thickness of 30 µm
corresponding to a high density of powder particles and (b) Layer thickness of 70 µm
corresponding to a low density of powder particles
thickness and the minimal size of the part features that can be built [45]. If the layer thickness is
greater than the maximum particle size, all of the powder particles regardless of size will be
deposited into the build volume. Conversely, a layer thickness that is smaller than the maximum
particle size leads to a preferential deposition of a finer distribution of particles. Therefore, the
desired layer thickness serves as a limit to the maximum particle size that should be specified
within a given powder [46]. Abd-Elghany et al. [47] describes this interaction between the wiper
and powder particles and ultimately its effect on the solid density of 304L stainless steel parts
produced by SLM. The results showed that an increasing layer thickness leads to a decrease in
the density of manufactured parts due to a reduction in density of each powder layer as illustrated
in Figure 4. It was also found that an increased layer thickness led to rougher surfaces on parts
due in part to the larger particles that were located in the powder bed and were unable to be fully
melted.

In order to combat the issues of low density and high surface roughness, fine powders
within the size range of 15 µm to 150 µm are often employed. In addition to there being a limit
to the maximum particle size, constraints should be imposed on the minimum particle size as
well. Although a decreasing particle size can have advantages in regards to increased particle
packing [48,49] and reduced surface roughness [50,51], one of the major drawbacks of fine
powders is its propensity to agglomerate [11,52,53]. This can prove to be detrimental in powder-
bed fusion processes since agglomerates can impede flow behavior [54,55] of powder by
increasing interparticle friction during the recoating process. Both a decreased density and
inhomogeneity in each of the layers can therefore result where more material may be deposited
in one region than others. Such an effect can cause balling in regions where there is locally more
powder leading to an increased likelihood of undesired porosity [56–59]. Since agglomerates can
assume irregular shapes, the laser or electron beam interacts differently when compared to
spherical particles. In fact, it was demonstrated by Olakanmi [33] that pore formation in the SLS
of Al, Al-Mg, and Al-Si powders was increased by the appearance of irregularly shaped particles
in the density of sintered parts in the SLS process as a result of the differences in laser-material
interaction of irregularly shaped particles compared to spherical particles. This difference in
laser-material interaction was also observed by Simchi [11] who found that the gradual
decreasing of particle size does not always lead to higher densification of as-built parts, as what
©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1010
is most commonly believed; in addition to agglomeration of powder, it was apparent that the
reflectivity of the powder bed increases with decreasing particle size causing less absorption of
laser power.

Although small particles can cause problems with flowability of material, they can also
lead to higher packing efficiencies. In powder-based AM, the density of each layer should be as
high as possible to reduce residual stresses in parts. One way to optimize powder bed density is
through tailoring the particle size distribution of a powder so that the smaller particles can fill the
voids between the larger particles. However, optimization of particle size distribution to yield
superior packing characteristics [60] ex-situ of the build environment does not directly translate
to a maximum powder bed density [48]. This is a direct result of the interaction between the
powder and the wiper during the recoating process and is denoted as the flowability of a powder.
Although powders with wide particle size distributions can increase the packing efficiency, it is
known that they also have decreased flowability [61]. Therefore, when compared to conventional
powder metallurgy processes, narrow particle size distributions are used in AM to decrease
interparticle friction and maximize flowability while also retaining high apparent densities [62].

In the SLM process, Bochuan Liu et al. [51] observed the effect of particle size
distribution on the mechanical properties of parts including the following: solid density, surface
roughness, and ultimate tensile strength some of which were created from a narrow (15 – 60 µm)
particle size distribution and others from a wide (1 – 60 µm) particle size distribution. It was
found that parts made from the narrow size distribution have a higher ultimate tensile strength
and hardness while those with the wide size distribution have higher density and less surface
roughness. Similarly, A.B. Spierings et al. [34,50] found that the particle size distribution
ultimately determines the density of the developed parts, and thus has a major impact on the
mechanical properties. In particular, powders containing more fines correlated to smoother part

Figure 5: 304L Stainless Steel Powder, (a) Micrograph of 304L Stainless Steel Powder, (b)
Spherical Particle, and (c) Oddly Shaped Particle
©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1011
surfaces while those with larger particles showed higher elongations during tensile testing.
Simchi [11] also studied the effect of differing particle size distributions of iron powder on the
properties of selectively laser sintered parts. It was found that particle size has a profound effect
on the porosity of SLS manufactured iron parts with their being an optimum mean particle size to
produce parts with the highest fractional density.

Even with the information generated from the aforementioned research, specification of
an exact particle size distribution for a given material is extremely difficult. Not only does the
optimal size distribution of a powder depend on the machine and process parameters, but also on
the method of size measurement as well. In fact, it is important to realize that measurements of
particle size are highly dependent upon the measurement technique as well as the particle shape
[53]. For instance, consider Figure 5 which shows an SEM image of a 304L stainless steel
powder sample. Most of the particles shown are spherical (5b) with a diameter no greater than 50
µm. The size of spherical particles is rather easy to describe since only the diameter of the
particle is needed. However, deviation from a spherical shape (Figure 5c) immediately
complicates the measurement procedure as no one single dimension can completely describe its
size. To simplify the problem, irregularly shaped particles are either 1) transformed to a sphere
typically by measuring the projected area of particles through microscopy, or 2) assumed to be
spherical so data obtained through laser light diffraction or gravitational sedimentation
techniques can be used to calculate equivalent diameters [42]. Therefore, particle size
determination is subjective thereby making it imperative that the measurement procedure is
explained whenever size information is reported.

2.2 Effect of Particle Shape and Surface Roughness

The size of particles is not the only morphological factor when looking to achieve high
density parts through powder-based AM; rather, it is also a combination of the particle shape and
surface roughness. Describing the shape of particles both qualitatively and quantitatively can be
extremely challenging, especially if the particles are highly irregular and show no resemblance to
primitive shapes. Nevertheless, qualitative descriptions of powder particles have been
standardized [63] and are used as a means to describe the general shape of powder particles. On
the other hand, quantification of particle shape still proves to be a challenge. Many researchers
approach this problem by formulating equations that yield dimensionless ratios, more commonly
known as shape factors. Throughout the literature there exists numerous shape factors [64], some
of which are listed in Table 2.

Although it is common knowledge that particle shape and surface roughness influences
part properties, the exact effects of these initial powder characteristics on additively
manufactured components are still not fully understood. To combat this issue, Strondl et al. [65]
studied the effect of particle shape on the flowability of bulk powder in both the selective laser
melting (SLM) and electron beam melting (EBM) processes. It was determined that a more
spherical particle shape yielded less internal friction in the powder allowing it to be more easily
deposited to obtain higher layer densities. By continuously recycling powder and tracking its
©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1012
 Table 2: Various Shape Factors used for Particle Shape Characterization
Name of Shape Factor Equation Reference
4𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋
Circularity [66]
𝑃𝑃2

𝑙𝑙
Aspect Ratio [67]
𝐿𝐿
𝑎𝑎
Elongation log 2 � � [41]
𝑏𝑏

Dispersion log 2 (𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋) [41]

𝑟𝑟1
Roundness [68]
𝑅𝑅
𝑟𝑟2
Flatness [68]
𝑅𝑅
𝑃𝑃2
Perimeter to Area Ratio [69]
𝐴𝐴

A – Projected area of particle

P – Perimeter of particle
l – Minor axis length perpendicular to major axis
L – Major axis length connecting two most distant point on the projection area A
a – Major axis length of Legendre ellipse of particle
b – Minor axis length of Legendre ellipse of particle perpendicular to a
𝑟𝑟1 – Radius of curvature of sharpest developed edge of particle
𝑟𝑟2 – Radius of curvature of most convex direction of particle
R – Mean radius of particle

evolving shape characteristics after reuse, it was also found that even slight changes in the aspect
ratio of the particles can drastically change the flow behavior and degrade the properties of the
manufactured parts.

Similarly, Sun et al. [31] used the circularity shape factor to study the evolving
morphology characteristics after continual reuse of powder in the EBM process. It was found
that the average circularity of the powder decreased due to the appearance of agglomerates after
successive build iterations. This resulted in more interparticle friction decreasing the flowability
of the recycled titanium powder. Additionally, an external powder deposition system was created
to study the influence of the recycled powder on its deposition in the powder bed; virgin powder

©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1013
was determined to provide the most uniform layers where the recycled powder showed powder
density irregularities in the build area.

The results of the aforementioned studies both imply that powder-bed based AM
processes can be very sensitive to the appearance of irregularly-shaped particles since they
directly affect how the particles interact and flow together as a bulk solid. Therefore, highly
spherical particles with smooth and dry surfaces [48] are desired as these are known to provide
the least amount of interparticle friction equating to the best flowability characteristics [70,71].
Consequently, the circularity and aspect ratio are by far the most commonly used shape factors in
powder-based AM since most of the powder utilized is spherical. Although, it is important to
note that the degree of sphericity depends on the powder manufacturing process (Table 3).

Table 3: Powder Characteristics Observed from Different Manufacturing Processes [72]

Surprisingly, the means by which a powder supplier creates powder for its customers is
not always initially known and may require further inquiry. Since morphological characteristics
of powders differ between manufacturing processes, it is important for quality control purposes
to ensure that the powder ordered with the given specifications is the powder received.

©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1014
3 Powder Chemistry

Powder chemistry refers to the elemental composition of the powder samples.

Characterization of a powder particle’s chemistry is an essential property to study as it can have
a significant effect on the properties of the final part. Powder chemistry can be broken down into
surface chemistry and bulk chemistry. The surface chemistry is seldom the same as the bulk
chemistry, making its accurate determination critical to comprehensive powder characterization.
The surfaces of powder can also differ greatly from the surfaces of the same material in bulk
form. For example, stainless steels are known to have a protective Cr 2 O 3 oxide film of
approximately 1-3 nm thick [73]. However, gas-atomized stainless steels have been shown to
have some Cr 2 O 3 on their surfaces, but mostly manganese oxides and iron oxides [74]. Bulk
chemistry validation is necessary to accurately characterize powder chemistry. This becomes
exceedingly important when undergoing recycling studies or using processes that can change the
bulk chemistry of the powder. Bulk chemistry validation is needed to ensure that the recycled or
tailored powders stay within their alloy designations or have acceptable purity. Many techniques
are available to determine the chemistry of the surface layers as well as the bulk of the powder.
The choice of an appropriate technique is made in regards to the required accuracy of the data as
well as the elements that are present that need to be detected [75].

3.1 X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy

X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), also known as electron spectroscopy for

chemical analysis (ESCA), is a surface elemental analysis spectrographic technique. In an XPS
analysis, a sample is bombarded with x-rays causing K level electrons to be ejected and the
kinetic energy of these resultant photoelectrons are measured. The binding energy of the
photoelectron is determined and it is characteristic of the element, orbital, and chemical
environment that the photoelectron was ejected from [76]. In addition to XPS’s ability to acquire
quantitative information about the elements that are present, it can also give quantitative
information about the oxidation state of those elements. XPS is able to detect all elements except
for hydrogen and helium. Due to the detection of photoelectrons, the depth of analysis is
generally 1-3 nm [75].

XPS has been used to determine the elemental composition and oxidation states of the
surface layers of powder particles [38]. XPS instruments also allow for ion sputtering to a
particular depth for analysis. A depth profile can be constructed where spectra are taken
sequentially after set times of sputtering, yielding a graph of elemental composition versus
sputtering time. The sputtering time can then be correlated to a depth of sputtering and the oxide
layer thickness can be determined. Although this is complicated with the use of alloys and non-
flat surfaces, the method has still seen use with powders [77].

©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1015
3.2 Auger Electron Spectroscopy

Auger electron spectroscopy (AES) is another surface sensitive, quantitative technique

that has been applied to metal samples [78]. In AES, an electron beam is used to probe the
surface of the sample, where a series of electron transitions results in the ejection of an L level
electron, i.e. the Auger electron. Figure 6 shows the difference between the electron that is
analyzed in AES versus XPS. AES is primarily used to determine elemental information about
the sample. AES offers the ability to quantitate all elements apart from hydrogen and helium
where the analysis depths is typically less than 2 nm [75]. Traditionally, both XPS and AES can
be used as a means to determine the thickness of the oxide layer by depth profiling and they are
often used in conjunction [77,79].

Figure 6: The Photoelectron Emission During (a) XPS and an (b) Auger. In XPS (a), the incident
x-rays cause the ejection of a K level electron and the resulting photoelectron is detected. In
Auger (b), an electron is excited (by an electron beam) to a higher energy level and the transition
of the L level electron to the open K level position causes an Auger electron to be emitted.

3.3 Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy

Energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS or EDX) is a widely used technique as a

semi-quantitative elemental analysis for a variety of materials and samples, including powders
[79–82]. Commonly, EDS instruments are inside an electron microscope, meaning samples must
be polished and etched prior to the analysis. During an EDS analysis, either an electron beam
(electron microscope) or an x-ray beam (x-ray fluorescence) is used to excite the sample surface.
The resulting ejected x-rays are detected that can be assigned to specific elements. EDS serves as
a qualitative elemental analysis when using the peak locations to determine the elements present.
Semi-quantitative information can be determined by measuring the peak heights while
quantitative information requires the use of a standard of known chemistry. EDS offers several
advantages including their relatively simple construction and ease of use. However, EDS is
generally seen as an estimation tool and more rigorous techniques are required if accurate
elemental analysis is needed. This technique also has been found to work better for flat surfaces,
making accurate chemistry determination on powders difficult to achieve.

©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1016
3.4 Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectroscopy

Inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES, ICP-AES, or ICPS)

is a spectrographic technique that uses plasma as the excitation source. Plasma is used as it offers
significantly better quantitative data compared to other excitation sources, such as arcs or flames.
For an ICPS analysis, metallic samples musts be dissolved in an acid solution and fed into the
plasma where the sample is converted into free atoms [83]. Due to the high temperature of the
plasma, most elements can have good emission spectra under a single set of conditions, offering
simultaneous detection of these elements. ICPS measures the intensity of the emission lines of
the elements in the plasma and is able to produce quantitative elemental data. It can also detect
all metal elements and because elements generally have several emission lines, specific
emissions lines for different elements can be used to avoid overlapping of peaks. ICPS is also
able to concurrently measure major and trace elements. Typically an internal standard is used to
further improve the accuracy of this technique, where concentrations can be determined up to 3
decimal places [76]. However, there are several elements that cannot be accurately detected with
this technique (most notably C, O, N, H, and F) [75]. The ICPS is also a relatively expensive and
complex instrument, requiring a skilled operator to run the instrument and analyze the data.

Many researchers use ICPS to determine the bulk chemistry of their powders [84–86].
Typically these researchers are adding alloying elements to their material (such as bulk metallic
glasses and high entropy alloys) and need to characterize the tailored powders prior to their use
in a particular process. This is in contrast to most work with powders, where the manufacturer
(or an outside testing laboratory) usually performs the bulk chemistry analysis and the consumer
simply confirms that using a less rigorous technique such as EDS. For future recycling studies
however, the verification of the chemistry of the powders at each recycling step will be
necessary, where a more accurate instrument like the ICPS should be employed.

3.5 Inert Gas Fusion

Inert gas fusion is a quantitative technique used to measure the contents of hydrogen,
nitrogen, and oxygen in metal samples [87]. Samples are first weighed and placed in a graphite
crucible where they are heated to a molten state. At this point, molecular hydrogen, nitrogen, and
oxygen are released from the sample. These released gases are separated and analyzed separately
to yield a weight percent of each of the elements. Inert gas fusion is often used in conjunction
with ICPS to get a comprehensive determination of the chemistry of a sample [85]. Again, the
use of an inert gas fusion instrument is often found in studies where new powder chemistries are
being evaluated and their chemistry has to be determined prior to processing.

3.6 Effect of Powder Chemistry

It is well known that different alloying elements can have advantageous or detrimental
effects to a material under certain processes. Consider stainless steel, a steel alloy that was
developed specifically for corrosion resistance. The main alloying elements that are added to

©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1017
stainless steel to improve the corrosion resistance are Cr and Ni. Chromium allows for
passivation, meaning that at certain conditions an oxide layer forms on the surface that inhibits
further corrosion. However, at high temperatures, this chromium can migrate and react with
carbon and have a detrimental effect on the steel, a process known as sensitization. Nickel is
added to stainless steel, among other reasons, in order to combat the sensitization issue by
driving the carbon out of solution.
With any new process, chemistries specifically designed for the particular application are
developed in order to optimize the process. Some work has been done on finding additives that
aid the laser-based additive manufacturing process. Fe 3 P has been found to have
several beneficial effects. Iron phosphide forms a eutectic with iron, so the addition results in a
lower melting point and therefore a lower input energy is required. It has also been shown to
improve the surface finish and density due to the fact that it lowers the surface tension of the
melt pool [58,88,89]. In addition, Averyanova et al. [20] performed a study on 17-4 PH steel
with powder of slightly different chemistry. They showed that this change in chemistry had a
significant difference on the final part's microstructure and therefore their mechanical properties
as well [90].

Another study involving 17-4 PH steel was by Slotwinski et al. [38] who used XPS to
reveal high oxidation on the stainless steel particles being used in various additive manufacturing
processes, although the effects of such were not investigated. In regards to metal powder-based
AM, oxidation is viewed as a contaminant and should be avoided due to its ability to increase
part porosity. Simchi [11] observed this phenomenon by correlating the initial oxygen
concentration in the form of oxides on the powder to the parts that were built. The results
indicated that an increase in the inital oxygen content in the powder led to higher porosity in the
SLS manufactured components. Tang et al. [91] also observed that an increase in the oxygen
content of Ti-6Al-4V in the EBM due to powder reuse can force the material to accrue oxygen to
the point of exceeding the maximum specifications for oxygen content of the material. Due to
this reason, it was found that the increasing oxygen contaminant creates a situation where the
powder cannot be used more than four times.

Ardila et al. [29] used EDS technique to track the evolving chemistry of IN718 powder as
it was recycled in the SLM process. It was concluded that the chemistry of the powder does
change with continual reuse, although only slightly. In the end, no significant change was
observed in the measured fracture toughness of the parts manufactured. However, it is important
to note that care must be taken when using EDS solely to characterize chemical composition of a
material, especially a powder. This technique is often thought to produce quantitative results; yet,
as previously mentioned, it is primarily a qualitative method unless a sample with known
chemistry is used for calibration purposes. This information coupled with only the slight
variation in chemical composition observed points to the fact that the sole use of EDS is not able
to completely detect any minute differences between the virgin and recycled powder. Therefore,
the chemical results produced by Ardila leave the reader without a definitive look at the change

©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1018
in chemical composition as a result of reuse simply because a lack of characterization was
performed.

It is important to note that the chemical composition of metals often includes upper and
lower limits for the amounts of each element that can be present within the bulk material.
Therefore, in order to reduce variability in part properties, powder chemistries must be tailored
specifically for the application. Work in this area is still in its infancy in powder-based AM. It
has been suggested that due to the similarities of AM and welding (intense power source and
high cooling rate) that materials that work well with welding or weld wire chemistries may be a
good place to begin the testing for AM alloys. More studies are necessary to pinpoint these
materials.

4 Powder Microstructure

Powder microstructure corresponds to the phases present in the powder samples and
inevitably effects part characteristics. Since porosity influences crystal structure, it is often
studied in conjunction with microstructure. In AM, porosity in parts is often quantified and
related back to process parameters. However, porosity can also arise as a result of voids within
powder particles. Therefore, it is important to identify if internal particle porosity exists in AM-
ready powder in addition to potential microstructure effects the powder has on the final
component properties. This section highlights various methods that are commonly used to study
the microstructure of powder, and how these techniques have been used in AM for
characterization of input material properties.

4.1 Metallography

Studying the internal microstructure of powder particles can be accomplished using

traditional metallographic techniques, however some adjustments have to be made due to the
small size and circularity of AM powders [62]. A powder sample can be mounted in bakelite or,
preferably, epoxy and subjected to a polishing procedure. The procedure for polishing the
mounted powder particles differs from that for bulk material. In the grinding steps, only 600-
1200 grit SiC paper should be used, as any smaller grits will result in removing the particles from
the mount with little grinding of the actual particles occurring. Fine polishing often results in
edge rounding leading to loss of surface details. This problem can be avoided by using vibratory
polishing. Once a satisfactory polish is achieved, etching of the surface is carried out to reveal
microstructure and potentially enlarge internal pores. Detailed information on the selection of
etchants is provided in reference [92]. It is necessary to use a swab/immersion etchant for the
etching of the mounted powder particles, as electrolytic etching has inherent problems given the
separation of the particles and the conductivity of the mounting material. The cross-sections
obtained by polishing the mounted particles also offers a means to determine the morphology of
the particles as previously described, as you already have a two-dimensional image of the
powder.

©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1019
4.2 X-ray diffraction

X-ray diffraction (XRD) is another x-ray spectrographic technique primarily used in

identification of crystal structures. During an XRD analysis, a sample is bombarded with x-rays
and the intensity of the diffracted x-rays are measured. Constructive interference of the diffracted
x-rays is needed in order to have a distinguishable peak. Constructive interference occurs when
the distance between points A and B in Figure 7 is equal to the distance between B and C.
Trigonometry yields Bragg’s law as the condition for constructive interference:

𝑛𝑛 𝜆𝜆 = 2 𝑑𝑑 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠

where n is an integer, λ is the wavelength of the incident radiation, d is the d-spacing of the
crystal, and θ is the degree between the incident x-rays and the sample surface [76], [93]. All
seven crystallographic systems have expressions for their d-spacings. With this information and
the knowledge of allowed reflections for specific Bravais lattices, the crystal structure can be
determined by indexing the peak positions. XRD can also be used as a means to characterize the
powder chemistry, but only if known diffraction patterns of that same chemistry are in the
powder diffraction library.

Figure 7: Principle of X-Ray Diffraction. The black dots indicate atoms in their lattice
positions, red lines are the x-ray path, and the angle, θ, is shown. In order for constructive
interference, nλ must equal AB + BC, or 2AB. Observing the triangle ABZ shows that AB is
equal to sin(θ)d. Substitution yields Bragg’s Law of nλ=2dsin(θ).

XRD has been extensively used as a characterization method for metal powders [22,94–
97]. Many powder diffraction standards are available that generally enable the use of XRD for
chemical verification. However, advanced materials sometimes have intermetallic compounds
with complex spectra that are not necessarily well known. In these cases, XRD can only be used
as a means to determine the crystal structure of the elements present. XRD has also shown use in
the characterization of amorphous materials where it can be used to semi-quantitatively and
quantitatively determine the amount of crystallinity of materials.

©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1020
4.3 Thermal Analysis Methods

Thermal analysis techniques are primarily described as tracking chemical properties as a

function of temperature. Rather than offer a direct observation of the microstructure, this class of
methods yields information about the exothermic and endothermic events that are occurring in
the sample. This offers the ability to determine events such as glass transition and crystallization
temperatures, therefore giving information about the microstructure. In general, there are three
main techniques that are used: thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), differential thermal analysis
(DTA), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC).

TGA measures the mass of a sample as a function of temperature. Since it is often a

question of how a material behaves under elevated temperatures, this approach allows insight
into loss of volatiles and oxide formation. In many powder-bed fusion processes, the temperature
of the powder bed is often raised. Thus, this technique allows ex-situ analysis of how the powder
responds when subjected to increased temperatures. Differential thermal analysis (DTA) is a
qualitative technique that measures the temperature difference between a sample and a reference
material as a function of temperature. This temperature difference is plotted against time and can
be used to study transitions to different phases. Often, TGA and DTA are often coupled for
simultaneous analysis. DSC is a quantitative technique that measures the difference in energy
between a sample and a reference material as a function of temperature. DSC is a popular
technique in the characterization of metallic glasses [98,99].

4.5 Effect of Powder Microstructure

In powder metallurgy, it is well known that the initial microstructure of powder plays a
key role in the properties of manufactured components. For instance, consider the sintering of a
pressed compact. Not only does internal porosity and the size of the initial grains in the powder
determine the sintering activity of the compact, but also the formation of pores in the final
product. Although the manufacturing processes in press-and-sinter powder metallurgy are
considerably different than those found in AM, the potential impacts of particle microstructure
need to be studied especially since the current AM literature contains very little research in this
particular area.

As mentioned previously, the method of powder manufacture will often determine the
morphological characteristics of particles. However, it is also important to note that the powder
manufacturing process also has a significant impact on the developed particle microstructure
[37]. Starr et al. [100] proved this dependence by performing XRD on two gas-atomized 17-4 PH
powders where one was atomized in a nitrogen atmosphere and the other being argon. It was
shown that the nitrogen-atomized powder contained primarily an austenitic microstructure, while
the other being manufactured under argon contained mostly martensite. In order to observe the
effect of different powder microstructure and build atmosphere on the phase composition of as-
built materials, both powders were used to build tensile specimens where XRD was performed
before tensile testing. The XRD results for the as-built parts showed that the argon-atomized
©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1021
powder produced fully martensitic products regardless of the gas used during the build process.
However, the nitrogen-atomized powder showed a different behavior where the parts built under
a nitrogen atmosphere retained more austenite than those produced in the presence of argon.

Similarly, Murr et al. [22] used XRD to determine a possible dependence of 17-4 PH
powder microstructure on the phases present in parts in both argon and nitrogen atmospheres. In
the end, it was determined that building under an argon atmosphere produces martensitic
products, whereas using nitrogen for gas in the build chamber produced a phase in parts identical
to the precursor powder phase. This major difference was attributed to the large difference in
thermal conductivity of the gas used during the build process.

Internal particle porosity can also have a major effect on the microstructure of powder in
addition to the density achieved by the final part. Therefore, it is necessary to quantify this
powder characteristic as well for quality control purposes. However, this is often not practiced in
many studies warranting further characterization of AM-ready powder to be done in this
particular area.

5. Conclusion

As additive manufacturing reaches a stage of maturity, the realization of these processes

for potential production becomes ever more so apparent. A significant amount of research has
focused on the development of process parameters to manufacture parts having strength
comparable to wrought materials, low surface roughness, and minimal porosity. However, both
intra-build and inter-build part variability are often noticed forcing researchers to now look at the
input material properties and their effects on the build process. This has led to the use of different
powder characterization techniques to quantify and predict the behavior of AM-ready powder.

When characterizing a powder, it is important that the following three main areas are
researched: particle morphology, chemistry, and microstructure. In AM powder-bed fusion
processes, research is primarily focused on the morphological characterization of powders and
their effect on part properties. Techniques that are typically used to perform morphological
characterization of AM powders include microscopy and laser diffraction, although sieve
analysis is occasionally employed as well. Microscopy not only allows the characterization of
particle size and size distribution through micrographs, but also shape and surface roughness.
Therefore, it is an extremely versatile tool making it attractive in powder-based AM.
Unfortunately, the analysis times are long and the amount of particles needed in order to obtain
statistically significant results is still currently under debate warranting further investigation.
Conversely, laser light diffraction is able to measure the size of a very large amount of particles
in a short amount of time. Due to the large particle count and automation of the entire procedure,
particle size distributions are highly repeatable. Yet, particles that deviate from a spherical shape
can give erroneous results.

©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1022
 As a whole, the effect of particle size and size distribution is the most studied when input
material properties are correlated to part quality. From these findings, it is clear that the particle
size and size distribution affect the flowability of the powder thus influencing layer
homogeneity. Moreover, the porosity of as-built parts is also influenced where the use of large
particles and agglomerates can produce undesired voids due to a decreased packing density in the
powder bed. Some of the same phenomena have been noticed when irregular particles are used
as these tend to produce more interparticle friction and impact layer uniformity and density. In
order to maximize flowability while also increase the powder bed density, narrow particle size
distributions that contain spherical particles with little surface deformities are often employed.

Characterization methods to determine the chemical composition of powders fall under

two categories: surface analysis and bulk analysis. XPS is a quantitative surface sensitive
technique that takes advantage of the photoelectron effect to identify percentages of elements
that are present. High-resolution spectra can even be obtained to determine binding information
for each element in a sample. As for bulk chemistry, EDS is commonly utilized; however, it is
important to note that this is only a semi-quantitative technique meaning that the results should
not be interpreted as absolute unless appropriate reference standards are used for machine
calibration. Unfortunately, many studies only use EDS for chemical characterization of powder
and treat it as a quantitative method. ICPS is a much more accurate technique that can be used to
determine the bulk chemistry of a sample. This technique paired with inert gas fusion can give
the concentrations of all metallic elements as well as the oxygen content.

A significant amount of research will need to be performed in order to determine the

effect of chemistry on part properties. A number of studies in this particular area focuses on
powder contaminants, namely, oxides. Few studies discuss the potential of optimizing powder
chemistries to yield desired part properties. This research will inevitably need to be strengthened
in the future as the AM industry grows.

The most widely used methods to characterize a powder particle’s microstructure are
using XRD and thermal analysis. As seen with particle chemistry, a lack of research is also
noticed in terms of particle microstructure. Currently, most of the work aimed at characterizing
the microstructure of powders uses XRD with cross-sectioned and polished samples. Although
this is a great first step, the exact influence of particle microstructure on as-built parts is
unknown. A few aforementioned cases not only stated the importance of crystal structure, but
also its dependence on the type of gas flow during the build process and its relevance in the
microstructure of parts.

Overall, much research work is still needed in order to fully understand the influences of
powder in AM powder-bed fusion processes. The current approximate knowledge of necessary
morphological powder characteristics coupled with an insufficient understanding of particle
chemistry and microstructure on the manufacturing processes necessitates a significant need
towards a more complete characterization of AM-ready powders. Therefore, the primary focus of
research should be not only on optimizing process parameters, but also on the interplay between
©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1023
these variables and the powder properties. This will result in reducing variability between builds
and parts, and allowing the process to be more controllable. Only then will AM processes be able
to rival traditional manufacturing methods in terms of being recognized as a viable means for the
creation of reliable components.

6. Acknowledgments

This work has been funded by Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies under
Contract No. DE-NA0002839 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The United States
Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges
that the United States Government retains a nonexclusive, paid up, irrevocable, world-wide
license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so,
for the United States Government purposes.

7. References

[1] N. Guo, M.C. Leu, Additive manufacturing: Technology, applications and research needs,
Front. Mech. Eng. 8 (2013) 215–243. doi:10.1007/s11465-013-0248-8.
[2] J.P. Kruth, G. Levy, F. Klocke, T.H.C. Childs, Consolidation phenomena in laser and
powder-bed based layered manufacturing, CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 56 (2007) 730–
759. doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2007.10.004.
[3] J.P. Kruth, Material Incress Manufacturing by Rapid Prototyping Techniques, CIRP Ann.
- Manuf. Technol. 40 (1991) 603–614. doi:10.1016/S0007-8506(07)61136-6.
[4] T. Wohlers, T. Gornet, History of additive manufacturing Introduction of non-SL systems
Introduction of low-cost 3D printers, Wohlers Rep. 2011. (2011) 1–23.
[5] C.W. Hull, Apparatus for production of threedimensional objects by stereolithography,
U.S. patent no. 4575330, 1986.
[6] D. Espalin, J. Alberto Ramirez, F. Medina, W.M. Johnson, M. Rowell, B. Deason, M.
Eubanks, B.N. Turner, R. Strong, S.A. Gold, Rapid Prototyping Journal A review of melt
extrusion additive manufacturing processes: I. Process design and modeling, Rapid
Prototyp. J. Rapid Prototyp. J. Rapid Prototyp. J. Iss Rapid Prototyp. J. 20 (2014) 192–
204. doi:10.1108/RPJ-01-2013-0012.
[7] K. Karunakaran, Rapid manufacturing of metallic objects, Rapid Prototyp. 18 (2012) 264–
280. doi:10.1108/13552541211231644.
[8] S. Kumar, Selective laser sintering: A qualitative and objective approach, JOM. 55 (2003)
43–47. doi:10.1007/s11837-003-0175-y.
[9] B.-J. de Gans, P.C. Duineveld, U.S. Schubert, Inkjet Printing of Polymers: State of the Art
and Future Developments, Adv. Mater. 16 (2004) 203–213.
doi:10.1002/adma.200300385.
[10] C. Selcuk, Laser metal deposition for powder metallurgy parts, Powder Metall. 54 (2011)
94–99. doi:10.1179/174329011X12977874589924.
[11] A. Simchi, The role of particle size on the laser sintering of iron powder, Metall. Mater.
Trans. B. 35 (2004) 937–948. doi:10.1007/s11663-004-0088-3.
[12] E.O. Olakanmi, K.W. Dalgarno, R.F. Cochrane, Laser sintering of blended Al-Si powders,
Rapid Prototyp. J. 18 (2012) 109–119. doi:10.1108/13552541211212096.
[13] D. Manfredi, F. Calignano, M. Krishnan, R. Canali, E.P. Ambrosio, E. Atzeni, From
©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1024
 powders to dense metal parts: Characterization of a commercial alsimg alloy processed
through direct metal laser sintering, Materials (Basel). 6 (2013) 856–869.
doi:10.3390/ma6030856.
[14] L. Thijs, F. Verhaeghe, T. Craeghs, J. Van Humbeeck, J.P. Kruth, A study of the
microstructural evolution during selective laser melting of Ti-6Al-4V, Acta Mater. 58
(2010) 3303–3312. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2010.02.004.
[15] M.N. Ahsan, A.J. Pinkerton, R.J. Moat, J. Shackleton, A comparative study of laser direct
metal deposition characteristics using gas and plasma-atomized Ti-6Al-4V powders,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 528 (2011) 7648–7657. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2011.06.074.
[16] B. Ahuja, A. Schaub, M. Karg, M. Lechner, M. Merklein, M. Schmidt, Developing LBM
Process Parameters for Ti-6Al-4V Thin Wall Structures and Determining the
Corresponding Mechanical Characteristics, Phys. Procedia. 56 (2014) 90–98.
doi:10.1016/j.phpro.2014.08.102.
[17] I. Tolosa, F. Garciandía, F. Zubiri, F. Zapirain, A. Esnaola, Study of mechanical
properties of AISI 316 stainless steel processed by “selective laser melting”, following
different manufacturing strategies, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 51 (2010) 639–647.
doi:10.1007/s00170-010-2631-5.
[18] M. Simonelli, C. Tuck, N.T. Aboulkhair, I. Maskery, I. Ashcroft, R.D. Wildman, R.
Hague, A Study on the Laser Spatter and the Oxidation Reactions During Selective Laser
Melting of 316L Stainless Steel, Al-Si10-Mg, and Ti-6Al-4V, Metall. Mater. Trans. A.
(2015). doi:10.1007/s11661-015-2882-8.
[19] R. Li, J. Liu, Y. Shi, M. Du, Z. Xie, 316L stainless steel with gradient porosity fabricated
by selective laser melting, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 19 (2010) 666–671.
doi:10.1007/s11665-009-9535-2.
[20] M. Averyanova, E. Cicala, P. Bertrand, D. Grevey, Experimental design approach to
optimize selective laser melting of martensitic 17-4 PH powder: part I – single laser tracks
and first layer, Rapid Prototyp. J. 18 (2012) 28–37. doi:10.1108/13552541211193476.
[21] B.S. H. Gu, H. Gong, D. Pal, K. Rafi, T. Starr, Influences of Energy Density on Porosity
and Microstructure of Selective Laser Melted 17-4PH Stainless Steel, in: Solid Free. Fabr.
Symp., 2013: pp. 474–489.
[22] L.E. Murr, E. Martinez, J. Hernandez, S. Collins, K.N. Amato, S.M. Gaytan, P.W. Shindo,
Microstructures and properties of 17-4 PH stainless steel fabricated by selective laser
melting, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 1 (2012) 167–177. doi:10.1016/S2238-7854(12)70029-7.
[23] F.A. List, R.R. Dehoff, L.E. Lowe, W.J. Sames, Properties of Inconel 625 mesh structures
grown by electron beam additive manufacturing, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 615 (2014) 191–197.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2014.07.051.
[24] G.P. Dinda, a. K. Dasgupta, J. Mazumder, Laser aided direct metal deposition of Inconel
625 superalloy: Microstructural evolution and thermal stability, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 509
(2009) 98–104. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2009.01.009.
[25] C.P. Paul, P. Ganesh, S.K. Mishra, P. Bhargava, J. Negi, A.K. Nath, Investigating laser
rapid manufacturing for Inconel-625 components, Opt. Laser Technol. 39 (2007) 800–
805. doi:10.1016/j.optlastec.2006.01.008.
[26] Z. Wang, K. Guan, M. Gao, X. Li, X. Chen, X. Zeng, The microstructure and mechanical
properties of deposited-IN718 by selective laser melting, J. Alloys Compd. 513 (2012)
518–523. doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2011.10.107.
[27] X. Zhao, J. Chen, X. Lin, W. Huang, Study on microstructure and mechanical properties
©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1025
 of laser rapid forming Inconel 718, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 478 (2008) 119–124.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2007.05.079.
[28] C. Yan, L. Hao, A. Hussein, D. Raymont, Evaluations of cellular lattice structures
manufactured using selective laser melting, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 62 (2012) 32–38.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2012.06.002.
[29] L.C. Ardila, F. Garciandia, J.B. González-Díaz, P. Álvarez, a. Echeverria, M.M. Petite, R.
Deffley, J. Ochoa, Effect of IN718 Recycled Powder Reuse on Properties of Parts
Manufactured by Means of Selective Laser Melting, Phys. Procedia. 56 (2014) 99–107.
doi:10.1016/j.phpro.2014.08.152.
[30] X. Gong, T. Anderson, K. Chou, Review on Powder-Based Electron Beam Additive
Manufacturing Technology, in: Proc. ASME/ISCIE 2012 Int. Symp. Flex. Autom., 2012:
pp. 507–515.
[31] Y.Y. Sun, S. Gulizia, C.H. Oh, C. Doblin, Y.F. Yang, M. Qian, Manipulation and
Characterization of a Novel Titanium Powder Precursor for Additive Manufacturing
Applications, Jom. 67 (2015) 564–572. doi:10.1007/s11837-015-1301-3.
[32] K. Bartkowiak, S. Ullrich, T. Frick, M. Schmidt, New developments of laser processing
aluminium alloys via additive manufacturing technique, Phys. Procedia. 12 (2011) 393–
401. doi:10.1016/j.phpro.2011.03.050.
[33] E.O. Olakanmi, Selective laser sintering/melting (SLS/SLM) of pure Al, Al-Mg, and Al-Si
powders: Effect of processing conditions and powder properties, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 213 (2013) 1387–1405. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2013.03.009.
[34] A.B. Spierings, N. Herres, G. Levy, Influence of the particle size distribution on surface
quality and mechanical properties in additive manufactured stainless steel parts, in: Proc.
Solid Free. Fabr. Symp., 2010.
[35] E.J.R. Parteli, T. Poschel, Particle-based simulation of powder application in additive
manufacturing, Powder Technol. 288 (2016) 96–102. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2015.10.035.
[36] a B. Spierings, N. Herres, G. Levy, C. Buchs, Influence of the particle size distribution on
surface quality and mechanical properties in AM steel parts, Rapid Prototyp. J. 17 (2011)
195–202.
[37] J.A. Slotwinski, E.J. Garboczi, Metrology Needs for Metal Additive Manufacturing
Powders, JOM. 67 (2015) 538–543. doi:10.1007/s11837-014-1290-7.
[38] J.A. Slotwinski, E.J. Garboczi, P.E. Stutzman, C.F. Ferraris, S.S. Watson, M.A. Peltz,
Characterization of metal powders used for additive manufacturing, J. Res. Natl. Inst.
Stand. Technol. 119 (2014) 460–493. doi:10.6028/jres.119.018.
[39] K.J. Prashant, K. Senthilkumaran, P.M. Pandey, P.V.M. Rao, Advances in Materials for
Powder Based Rapid Prototyping, Mech. Eng. (2006) 1–8.
[40] ASTM B214-15: Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Metal Powders, (2014).
doi:10.1520/B0214-07R11.2.
[41] E. Mikli Valdek, Kerdi Helmo Kaerdi, Kulu Pritt. Public, S. Academy, Characterization of
Powder Particle Morhpology, in: Methods, 2001: pp. 22–34.
http://www.kirj.ee/public/va_te/t50-1-2.pdf.
[42] A. Jillavenkatesa, S.J. Dapkunas, L.-S.H. Lum, NIST Recommended Practice Guide -
Particle size Characterization, 2001.
[43] E. Vigneau, C. Loisel, M.F. Devaux, P. Cantoni, Number of particles for the
determination of size distribution from microscopic images, Powder Technol. 107 (2000)
243–250. doi:10.1016/S0032-5910(99)00192-8.
©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1026
[44] C.T. Schade, T.F. Murphy, C. Walton, Development of Atomized Powders for Additive
Manufacturing, (2014). http://www.gkn.com/hoeganaes/media/Tech Library/Schade-
Atomized Powders for Additive Manufacturing (1).pdf.
[45] A. Cooke, J. Slotwinski, Properties of Metal Powders for Additive Manufacturing: A
Review of the State of the Art of Metal Powder Property Testing, (2012).
doi:10.6028/NIST.IR.7873.
[46] A. Simchi, The Role of Particle Size on the Laser Sintering of Iron Powder, October. 35
(2004). doi:10.1007/s11663-004-0088-3.
[47] K. Abd-Elghany, D.L. Bourell, Property evaluation of 304L stainless steel fabricated by
selective laser melting, Rapid Prototyp. J. 18 (2012) 420–428.
doi:10.1108/13552541211250418.
[48] N. Karapatis, G. Egger, Optimization of powder layer density in selective laser sintering,
Proc. 9th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (1999) 255–264.
http://utwired.engr.utexas.edu/lff/symposium/proceedingsArchive/pubs/Manuscripts/1999
/1999-029-Karapatis.pdf.
[49] A.C. Hoffmann, H.J. Finkers, A relation for the void fraction of randomly packed particle
beds, Powder Technol. 82 (1995) 197–203. doi:10.1016/0032-5910(94)02910-G.
[50] A.B. Spierings, G. Levy, Comparison of density of stainless steel 316L parts produced
with selective laser melting using different powder grades, in: Proc. Solid Free. Fabr.
Symp., 2009: pp. 342–353.
[51] B. Liu, R. Wildman, C. Tuck, I. Ashcroft, R. Hague, Investigation the Effect of Particle
Size Distribution on Processing Parameters Optimisation in Selective Laser Melting
Process, Sff. (2011) 227–238.
[52] G. Nichols, S. Byard, M.J. Bloxham, J. Botterill, N.J. Dawson, A. Dennis, V. Diart, N.C.
North, J.D. Sherwood, A review of the terms agglomerate and aggregate with a
recommendation for nomenclature used in powder and particle characterization, J. Pharm.
Sci. 91 (2002) 2103–2109. doi:10.1002/jps.10191.
[53] R.M. German, Powder Metallurgy & Particulate Materials Processing, Metal Powder
Industries Foundation, Princeton, New Jersey, 2005.
[54] M. Delancy, Accurately Quantifying Process-Relevant Powder Properties for AM
Applications, in: AMPM Conf. Proc., 2014.
[55] M. Krantz, H. Zhang, J. Zhu, Characterization of powder flow: Static and dynamic testing,
Powder Technol. 194 (2009) 239–245. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2009.05.001.
[56] X. Zhou, X. Liu, D. Zhang, Z. Shen, W. Liu, Balling phenomena in selective laser melted
tungsten, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 222 (2015) 33–42.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.02.032.
[57] N.K. Tolochko, S.E. Mozzharov, I. a. Yadroitsev, T. Laoui, L. Froyen, V.I. Titov, M.B.
Ignatiev, Balling processes during selective laser treatment of powders, Rapid Prototyp. J.
10 (2004) 78–87. doi:10.1108/13552540410526953.
[58] J.P. Kruth, L. Froyen, J. Van Vaerenbergh, P. Mercelis, M. Rombouts, B. Lauwers,
Selective laser melting of iron-based powder, in: J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2004: pp.
616–622. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2003.11.051.
[59] Y.S. Lee, W. Zhang, Mesoscopic Simulation of Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow in Laser
Powder Bed Additive Manufacturing, (2015) 1154–1165.
http://sffsymposium.engr.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/2015/2015-94-Lee.pdf.
[60] G.P. Bierwagen, T.E. Sanders, Studies of the Effects of Particle Size Distribution on the
©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1027
 Packing Efficiency of Particles, Powder Technol. 10 (1974) 111–119. doi:10.1016/0032-
5910(74)80036-7.
[61] A. Bodhmage, Correlation between physical properties and flowability indicators for fine
powders, Univsersity of Saskatchewan, 2006.
[62] T.F. Murphy, Metallographic Testing of Powders Intended for Use in Additive
Manufacturing, Int. J. Powder Metall. 52 (2016) 25–35.
[63] ASTM B243-13: Standard Terminology of Powder Metallurgy, (2014).
doi:10.1520/B0243-13.1.
[64] P.J. Barrett, The shape of rock particles, a critical review, Sedimentology. 27 (1980) 291–
303. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3091.1980.tb01179.x.
[65] A. Strondl, O. Lyckfeldt, H. Brodin, U. Ackelid, Characterization and Control of Powder
Properties for Additive Manufacturing, Jom. 67 (2015) 549–554. doi:10.1007/s11837-
015-1304-0.
[66] E. Cox, A method of assigning numerical and percentage values to the degree of
roundness of sand grains, J. Paleontol. 1 (1927) 179–183.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1298056.
[67] P. Schneiderhöhn, Eine vergleichende Studie über Methoden zur quantitativen
Bestimmung von Abrundung und Form an Sandkörnern, Heidelberger Beiträge Zur
Mineral. Und Petrogr. 4 (1954) 172–191.
[68] C. Wentworth, Method of Measuring and Plotting the Shapes of Pebbles, U.S. Geol. Surv.
Bull. 39 (1922) 91–114. http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/0730c/report.pdf.
[69] V.C. Janoo, Quantification of shape, angularity, and surface texture of base course
materials, Spec. Rep. - Corps Eng. U. S. Army, Cold Reg. Res. Eng. Lab. 98 (1998) 22.
[70] H.H. Hausner, Friction Conditions in a Mass of Metal Powder.pdf, (1967) 7–13.
[71] A. Chi-Ying Wong, Characterisation of the flowability of glass beads by bulk densities
ratio, Chem. Eng. Sci. 55 (2000) 3855–3859. doi:10.1016/S0009-2509(00)00048-8.
[72] B.J. Dawes, R. Bowerman, Introduction to the Additive Manufacturing Powder
Metallurgy Supply Chain, Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev. 59 (2015) 243–256.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688686.
[73] S.J. Kerber, J. Tverberg, Stainless Steel, Adv. Mater. Process. (2000) 33–36.
[74] L. Nyborg, M. Norell, I. Olefjord, Surface studies of powder metallurgical stainless steel,
Surf. Interface Anal. 19 (1992) 607–614. doi:10.1002/sia.7401901113.
[75] P.K. Samal, J.W. Newkirk, Powder Metallurgy, Metal Powder Characterization, Bulk
Properties of Powders, ASM Handb. 7 (2015) 93–168.
[76] D.A. Skoog, H. F.J., S.R. Crouch, Principles of Instrumental Analysis, 6th ed.,
Brooks/Cole, Belmont, 2007.
[77] C. Oikonomou, D. Nikas, E. Hryha, L. Nyborg, Evaluation of the thickness and roughness
of homogeneous surface layers on spherical and irregular powder particles, Surf. Interface
Anal. (2014) 1028–1032. doi:10.1002/sia.5439.
[78] N. Turner, J. Schreifels, Surface analysis: X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and Auger
electron spectroscopy, Anal. Chem. 72 (2000) 99R–110R. doi:10.1021/ac00296a014.
[79] Y. Hedberg, M. Norell, P. Linhardt, H. Bergqvist, I. Odnevall Wallinder, Influence of
surface oxide characteristics and speciation on corrosion, electrochemical properties and
metal release of atomized 316L stainless steel powders, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 7 (2012)
11655–11677.
[80] A.J. Pinkerton, L. Li, Direct additive laser manufacturing using gas- and water-atomised
©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1028
 H13 tool steel powders, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 25 (2005) 471–479.
doi:10.1007/s00170-003-1844-2.
[81] P. Miche, Oxidation of Stainless Steel Powder, (2013) 311–322. doi:10.1007/s11085-013-
9387-x.
[82] N.K. Roy, M.A. Cullinan, μ -SLS of Metals: Design of the powder spreader, powder bed
actuators and optics for the system, Int. Solid Free. Fabr. Symp. (2015) 134–155.
[83] R.N. Kniseley, Inductively Coupled Optical Emission Spectroscopy, Anal. Chem. 46
(1974) 1110–1120.
[84] P.P. Choi, J.S. Kim, O.T.H. Nguyen, D.H. Kwon, Y.S. Kwon, J.C. Kim, Al-La-Ni-Fe bulk
metallic glasses produced by mechanical alloying and spark-plasma sintering, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A. 448-451 (2007) 1119–1122. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2006.02.264.
[85] D.J. Sordelet, E. Rozhkova, P. Huang, P.B. Wheelock, M.F. Besser, M.J. Kramer, U.
Dahlborg, Synthesis of Cu 47 Ti 34 Zr 11 Ni 8 bulk metallic glass by warm extrusion of
gas atomized powders, J. Mater. Res. 17 (2002) 186–198.
[86] K. Kirihara, T. Nakata, M. Takata, Y. Kubota, E. Nishibori, K. Kimura, M. Sakata,
Electron-density distribution of approximants of the icosahedral Al-based alloys by the
maximum-entropy method and the Rietveld refinement, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 294-296
(2000) 492–495. doi:10.1016/S0921-5093(00)01069-8.
[87] B.D. Holt, H.T. Goodspeed, Spectrographic Determination of Oxygen, Nitrogen and
Hydrogen in Metals by Inert Gas Fusion, Anal. Chem. 8 (1959) 1510–1513.
doi:10.2116/bunsekikagaku.8.324.
[88] M. Rombouts, J.P. Kruth, L. Froyen, P. Merce, Fundamentals of Selective Laser Melting
of alloyed steel powders Fundamentals of Selective Laser Melting of alloyed steel
powders, CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 55 (2006) 187–192.
[89] J.P. Kruth, L. Froyen, M. Rombouts, J. Van Vaerenbergh, P. Mercells, New Ferro Powder
for Selective Laser Sintering of Dense Parts, CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 52 (2003)
139–142. doi:10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60550-2.
[90] M. Averyanova, P. Vertrand, B. Verquin, Effect of initial powder properties on final
microstructure and mechanical properties of parts manufactured by selective laser melting,
in: Proc. 21st Int. DAAAM Symp., 2010: pp. 1531–1533.
[91] H.P. Tang, M. Qian, N. Liu, X.Z. Zhang, G.Y. Yang, J. Wang, Effect of Powder Reuse
Times on Additive Manufacturing of Ti-6Al-4V by Selective Electron Beam Melting,
Jom. 67 (2015) 555–563. doi:10.1007/s11837-015-1300-4.
[92] ASTM E407: Standard Practice for Microetching Metals and Alloys 1, (2011) 1–21.
doi:10.1520/E0407-07.2.
[93] A.L. Ryland, X-Ray Diffraction, J. Chem. Educ. 35 (1958) 80–83.
[94] S. Kumar, V. Selvarajan, In-flight formation and characterization of nickel aluminide
powders in a dc thermal plasma jet, Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif. 45 (2006)
1029–1035. doi:10.1016/j.cep.2006.02.007.
[95] S. Kumar, V. Selvarajan, Plasma spheroidization of iron powders in a non-transferred DC
thermal plasma jet, Mater. Charact. 59 (2008) 781–785.
doi:10.1016/j.matchar.2007.06.011.
[96] L.E. Murr, S.M. Gaytan, A. Ceylan, E. Martinez, J.L. Martinez, D.H. Hernandez, B.I.
Machado, D.A. Ramirez, F. Medina, S. Collins, R.B. Wicker, Characterization of titanium
aluminide alloy components fabricated by additive manufacturing using electron beam
melting, Acta Mater. 58 (2010) 1887–1894. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2009.11.032.
©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1029
[97] G. Shanmugavelayutham, V. Selvarajan, Plasma spheroidization of nickel powders in a
plasma reactor, Bull. Mater. Sci. 27 (2004) 453–457. doi:10.1007/BF02708563.
[98] H. Sun, K.M. Flores, Laser deposition of a Cu-based metallic glass powder on a Zr-based
glass substrate, J. Mater. Res. 23 (2008) 2692–2703.
[99] K. Hartwig, I. Karaman, TEES Final Report to ARO (DARPA) on the SAM Project: High
Density Amorphous Metal Matrix Composites for Kinetic Energy Penetrators, 2005.
[100] T. Starr, K. Rafi, B. Stucker, C. Scherzer, Controlling phase composition in selective laser
melted stainless steels, in: Proc. Solid Free. Fabr. Symp., 2012: pp. 439–446.

©2016 The Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell
Federal Manufacturing Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0002839.
1030