MECA0139 - Additive manufacturing and 3D Printing

Assignement 1 - Metallic powders for

AM

ARNAUD STRAPART
s2304916

Année académique : 2024-2025

1 Summary
The paper [1] examines the production and procurement of metal powders for additive manufacturing
(AM), emphasizing supplier complexities. The demand for high-quality metal powders is growing across
various industries, including aerospace and automotive. Among the different production methods, ato-
mization techniques (water, gas, plasma) and Hydride-Dehydride (HDH) are particularly effective in
transforming raw metal into powders. A key distinction between these is the shape of their powder par-
ticles : gas and plasma atomization yield spherical, while water atomization results in irregular. These
differences in shape can significantly influence the quality of the final part. Four aspects of metal powders
can be classified as critical : morphology (affecting powder flow and packing density), particle size dis-
tribution (PSD) (affecting layer thickness), bulk properties such as flowability and density (affecting the
uniformity of powder layers), and chemical properties (affecting melting behavior and part properties).

Another important aspect is the recycling of metal powder, which is crucial for economic viability due
to the significant amount of unused powder, leading to high costs. However, recycling can alter the
particle size distribution, chemical composition, and contamination levels, which may, in turn, affect the
mechanical properties of the final part.

The production of metal powder involves three main stages : mining and extraction, powder production
and classification (+ validation). Depending on the specific additive manufacturing process, additional
steps may be required to prepare the feedstock for atomization, as well as post-processing to achieve a
particular particle size distribution. This is especially important for processes like SLM (Selective Laser
Melting) or EBM (Electron Beam Melting), where the particle size directly impacts performance.

The market has expanded significantly, and the sale of power has grown since 2010. However, this still
represents a small fraction of the overall metal powder market, given the great opportunity for the growth
of suppliers. The proportion of powder for AM usage is very small, but the shift from prototyping to
production-oriented applications creates development opportunities.

The paper aims to provide insights for making informed decisions in powder procurement, focusing on
three principal methods. The first option is purchasing directly from AM equipment suppliers, which offer
validated powders and reduce the risk of compatibility issues. This approach also provides support and
pre-established parameters, ensuring consistent build quality, but it restricts users to a single supplier,
which can lead to higher costs. The second method involves sourcing from third-party suppliers, offering
a wider range of material options and batch sizes. However, users may miss out on the support typically
provided by AM equipment manufacturers. This option is well-suited for those who need flexibility in
material choices and for research applications. Lastly, there is the option of buying directly from powder
atomizers, which can result in cost savings and greater control over material properties. However, this
approach requires users to conduct their quality checks, adding complexity. Additionally, atomizers may
not always meet the specific standards as are necessary for AM, as they often cater to broader markets.
We can conclude that each procurement route has distinct advantages and challenges, with users needing
to balance cost, material control, and support.

In the future, the expanding AM market is likely to drive down prices through increased production
and heightened competition among suppliers. Innovations in powder production methods will broaden
material availability. The emergence of third-party suppliers could further intensify competition, resulting
in lower prices for end-users. Establishing AM-specific powder standards will be crucial for maintaining
consistent quality across the industry, significantly enhancing the performance of AM processes.

1
 2 Critical comment
Based on my knowledge of metallic powders for additive manufacturing and the course [2], I believe the
paper offers a comprehensive overview of the key issues and challenges associated with procuring these
materials. It effectively emphasizes critical factors such as chemical composition, contamination, and
internal porosity, which significantly influence the quality and performance of the final parts. Additionally,
it provides a solid foundation for understanding how feedstock materials impact AM processes.

However, the paper falls short in highlighting the correlations between these metrics and AM performance.
While it clearly explains how properties like flowability and particle size distribution affect the final parts,
it would benefit from a more in-depth exploration of the relationship between specific characteristics—such
as oxygen content—and mechanical properties but also how it varies across different AM processes.

Moreover, the paper could provide a more detailed explanation of the importance of powder uniformity
and its effects on various AM techniques, such as laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) and direct energy
deposition (DED). Additionally, it offers minimal insight into how environmental factors, such as humidity
and oxidation during powder storage, can impact the quality of the final parts.

While the paper covers a range of production methods (from mechanical processes to atomization and
chemical methods), it lacks a discussion on their efficiency, scalability, and cost-effectiveness, which are
crucial for industrial adoption. Post-production processes could be more explained as powder sieving
and classification, which are essential for achieving the desired particle size distribution. Furthermore, it
minimally addresses innovative methods (like Metalysis) that could offer significant cost reductions.

Additionally, the paper should address the effects of powder contamination and storage conditions on
quality over time, along with challenges in recycling powders and maintaining properties after multiple
cycles.

The procurement section offers a practical breakdown of options but overlooks the importance of supply
chain reliability, especially with current global challenges. Standardization across powder suppliers could
simplify procurement and mitigate risks associated with quality. More detail on certification and validation
processes in critical industries like aerospace and medical would also be interesting.

In summary, while the paper provides a comprehensive overview of the challenges in procuring metallic
powders for AM, it could improve by addressing these overlooked issues and offering additional insights
on cost efficiency, emerging technologies, and the need for standardization in powder quality and supply
chain reliability.

Références
[1] Dawes, J., Bowerman, R., & Trepleton, R. (2015). Introduction to the additive manufacturing powder
metallurgy supply chain : Exploring the production and supply of metal powders for am processes.
Johnson Matthey Technology Review , 59 (3), 243–256.

[2] Mertens, A. (2024). Meca0139 - additive manufacturing and 3d printing. (Academic Year 2024-2025)