See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305317402

Additive Manufacturing Using Metal Powder – An Insight

Article · June 2016

CITATIONS READS
2 4,178

2 authors:

Vipin Shukla Sriram Vadlamannati

Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) 2 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS
11 PUBLICATIONS 79 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sriram Vadlamannati on 28 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Additive Manufacturing Using Metal Powder – An Insight
V Sriram* and Vipin Shukla
Technology Information Forecasting & Assessment Council (TIFAC)
4th Floor, ‘A’ Wing, Vishwakarma Bhavan
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi – 110 016

Abstract
Rapid prototyping has been the genesis for Additive Manufacturing (AM) technique. AM has been defined as the
process of laying down material in successive layers to form a desired 3D object using computer integrated
manufacturing technology. It is the most effective way of fabricating prototypes with great savings in time and cost
with high level of flexibility in making a product with intricate and complex design. The technique can also provide
in-built functionality as an added feature. With the increased demand for catering to customer needs in terms of
product variety and quality, AM technology got upgraded from rapid prototyping to rapid manufacturing. Metals
have been traditional materials being used in many ways industrially and domestically for centuries. The enhanced
properties and advanced capabilities of metallic materials have been significantly increasing their application in
bio-medical, aerospace, automotive and tooling industries. Metal additive manufacturing has been a disruptive
technology gaining global interest from the researchers and industrial experts for their applications and product
potentiality.
The review article attempts to perceive the benefits and applications of metal additive manufacturing over the
conventional methods of subtractive manufacturing with a comparison between these two in technology, finished
part properties, cost, time etc. The article also describes the existing challenges, risks and uncertainties associated
with AM technology and its future trends.

Key words: additive manufacturing, metal powder, comparative study, patent analysis

Introduction
Additive manufacturing (AM) is also known as 3D printing/ layer based manufacturing. It is an unconventional
Computer Aided Manufacturing technique reducing product development time and material requirement. AM
machine builds parts automatically by adding raw material layer wise according to CAD geometry (Prashant K
Jain, et.al. 2006). Figure 1.0 represents six stages of AM process. It has the capability of processing complex
designs and can be adapted for both metallic and non metallic materials using optimal resources (J-P Kruth et.al
2010). AM permits marginal changes in design and functionality at any stage of the process to serve the needs of
end-users. 3R, the all important tenets of AM will guarantee profits through Repair, Reuse and Recycle of
processed material and products for the industry. AM also helps in reducing carbon footprint.

Figure 1.0 AM process

* Corresponding author; e-mail: [email protected]

1|P a g e
Photo sculpture (in the 1860’s) and topography (1890’s) are the fundamental and early technologies that paved the
way for additive manufacturing (AM) (M. John, 1956) and took nearly a century for the next major technological
invention, stereo lithography (SLA). SLA machine brought rapid prototype as a proof of concept. Since then rapid
prototyping has been an important application area that helped many industries and researchers in trying new
designs at the pre production stage, minimizing the mistakes and for having a better idea to demonstrate the
product. Rapid prototyping played a crucial role in the development and progress of AM technologies, AM
materials and AM applications. Table 1.0 shows various chronological milestones for AM and likely future
applications.
Table 1.0 Additive Manufacturing – Technology Milestones (Terry Wohlers et.al. 2014), (Nainsi Rastogi, 2014)

Year Milestone Application

1986 First patent on SLA technology (expired in 2004) by Rapid prototyping
Charles Hull
1989 FDM Patents by Scrott crump (Stratasys), MIT students
(expired in 2009)
1990- Laser Sintering (LS ) machine from DTM corporation, Rapid prototyping with different types of polymers,
1994 Material extrusion technology, 3D system produced SLA rapid Casting - end product manufacturing using
equipment , EOS sold its first SLA machine, LOM machine SLA (1994)
from Helisys
1995 LENS technology (Sandia national lab), Wax 3D printer by Rapid Tooling
Model maker

1997 Laser additive manufacturing from AeroMet High power laser and Ti alloy powder for
aerospace parts
1998 EBM patented Ralf Larsen
2000 LM, first 3D inkjet printer, Precision optical Metal alloy application in regenerative medicine,
manufacturing(POM) announced DMD technology prosthetic implants
2001 SLM patented by Meiner (US6215093), Desktop 3D AM for automotive, usage of stainless steel
printer(solids men) powders started
2002 Production of EBM equipment started, Envisiontec GmbH Working 3D printed kidney, various bio materials
began to sell Bioplotter machines for tissue engineering
2003- EOS introduced EOSINT M 270 DMLS machine AM used in aerospace(polymers)
2004
2005 Dr Adrian Boyer founded Reprap project Organization Medical application(polymer jigs and guides)
2006- 3D system introduced InVision 3D printer and scanner Dental applications, real time spare parts
2007 manufacture
2008 Many companies started providing services through AM -- First 3D printed prosthetic leg
Shape ways, Materialise
2009 Establishment of F42 committee on additive manufacturing Medical implants (metals), first 3d printed blood
by ASTM vessel
2010 Polyjet printing, multi colour printing technologies More materials and AM software improvements
introduced
2011 Several Industries adopted AM as their main method of 3D printed car (KCR ecologic) and aircraft
manufacturing and Standard approval titled - Specifications (University of Southampton, Aerospace metal parts,
Data Exchange for AM made by ASTM F42 manufacturing of custom fitted ear-hearing aids
2012- Many company acquisitions and partnership agreements, Nano manufacturing, Biomedical, Architecture,
2015 more commercialization and development of metallic
materials
2016- Development of composite materials for AM , mass production , LEAP engine parts, Biomedical application,
2023 Personal 3D printing, demand drop printing, food printing technologies and artificial organs

Why Additive Manufacturing?

ASTM F 42, the ASTM international committee introduced the term, ‘Additive manufacturing’ and clearly
described the process as joining of materials (F42, 2009). In general, the term ‘Additive’ in AM represents that
something is being added in the desired manner instead of removing (‘subtractive’) to manufacture a component.
Subtractive manufacturing methods utilise roughly 5% of the total input materials for production and remaining
95% of the input is removed as waste (Kate Cummins, 2010). The unique characteristics of AM are as follows:
2|P a g e
  Converts the production system from PUSH or capacity driven to PULL or demand driven
 High flexibility towards making design changes, fabricating products with complex designs
 Wide variety of products with desired functionalities
 Customized fabrication catering to individual tastes & choices
 Better dimensional accuracy and surface finish (absence of dies and friction between metals eliminate
mould defects and fixing errors of tool and job)
 Reduces direct and indirect costs effectively with the aforementioned capabilities and special advantage of
3Rs (repair, recycle & reuse)
 Capability for defining ad controlling process parameters such as scan speed, layer thickness and laser
energy resulting in time efficiency

Table 2.0 Manufacturing Comparison (May 2013)

Factor Additive Manufacturing Subtractive Manufacturing

Cost Comparatively low costs, but limited to small and medium batch High costs for small and medium batch
Figure 2 productions for mainly high valued parts production due to multiple production
steps

Time Short cycle time for fulfilling product needs (from CAD model Longer time requirement depending on
Figure 2 to assembly and finishing operations in one step) part variety, number of part operations
and quantity of sub-parts to assemble

Resource Optimally used, almost zero wastages High, depends on number of operations
utilization involved

Design High, no limit Low and limited, can be possible by

complexity assembly
Figure 2

Post processing Depends on the geometrical, material and functional requirement Essentially required
(e.g. removal of supports, additional sintering, surface remelting
etc.)

Standards At initial stage Well established

3|P a g e
 Figure 2.0: AM Comparison (Roland Berger, 2013), (Jonathan Shaffer et.al. 2014), (Joe Bauer et.al. 2015)

In conventional manufacturing processes, material loading & unloading are time consuming tasks thus reducing the
plant efficiency due to machine downtime. AM proves an efficient method of manufacturing as it does not involve
material handling and machine downtimes.

Parts and sub-parts of large production systems for the industries can easily be fabricated by AM within their
premises thus reducing their dependence on service agents. This simultaneously reduces the industry’s need to
maintain an inventory of spares and other parts.

Classification of AM Technologies
Classification organizes various AM technologies according to finished product materials such as metals & non-
metals in addition to machine categorization for better understanding and selection of the process. Non-metals
include thermoplastics, photopolymers, resin, ceramics etc. A whole lot of research efforts has been directed to
processing of these materials, which have acquired prominence in past three decades. In comparison, the
development of metal AM technologies has been more recent and many technological challenges in the area are yet
to be addressed.
Table 3.0 summarizes AM technologies classified as per individual working principle and operating ranges. For
metallic material processing, the working conditions call for high temperatures for achieving the melting points and
desired density compared to non-metal AM.

Table 3.1 categorizes the machines as per their usage. Rapid prototyping is common feature of all three machine
classes. Besides these personal printer machines are suitable to hobbyists for making toys, stationery products and

4|P a g e
 for education purpose. Office printers are viable machines for small scale industries whereas the shop floor printers
are highly sophisticated and costly.
Table 3.0 AM Classification (F42, 2009), (Gao W et.al. 2015)

Non metal Additive Manufacturing Technologies Metal Additive Manufacturing Technologies

Technology Description Pros and Cons Technology Description Pros and Cons

Stereo lithography Uses ultra violet High building Selective laser Uses laser beam/ High accuracy
(SLA) radiation as energy speed, good melting (SLM), electron beam(EBM) and good
source for part resolution Direct metal laser as energy source for mechanical
solidification – liquid sintering (DMLS), full melting of the properties
resin in a vat Electron beam material followed by
Over melting/ melting (EBM) cooling Difficulty in
Material - Photo un-molten removal of
polymers, ceramics, zones, high Material - Metal supports and
and UV curable resins cost powder recycling of
material and
oxidation
problems

Selective laser Uses laser beam as High accuracy Laser engineered net Build parts using Repair of
sintering(SLS) energy source for and detail, full shaping thermal /laser energy damaged parts,
densification of layers dense parts (LENS),Laser by depositing material worn parts &
and high cusing/consolidation layer wise FGM printing
Materials -Polyamides strength to (LC), Direct metal
/polymers and ceramic specific ratio depsoition (DMD), Material - Metal
powder Robocasting powder
Chances for Require post
Balling effect processing
and partial
melting

Fused deposition Thermal energy used Inexpensive Fused deposition Thermal energy used Inexpensive
modelling to melt material machine and modelling to melt material machine and
injected from nozzles - multi material injected from nozzles - multi material
extrusion printing extrusion printing

Materials- Thermo Limited part Materials – Metal in Limited part

plastics,metal pastes, resolution,Poor powder and wire form resolution,Poor
ceramic slurries surface finish surface finish

Poly jet , Ink jet , Build parts by small Multi material Binder jetting Creates objects by Repair of
Thermoeject, droplets of binder printing, high depositing binding substrates,
Material jetting material utilizing surafce finish material on the
thermal energy substrate utilizing
thermal energy
Material - Polymer,
wax Low strength Material – Metal High porosities
powder

Binder jetting Creates objects by Full color Laminated object Laser cuts the cross Large parts can
depositing binding objects manufacturing section of the metal be made, low
material on the printing, wide (LOM) sheets and thermal material and
substrate utilizing material energy helps to glue machine cost
thermal energy selection them

Material – Plastics, Infiltration Low

ceramics required, high dimensional
Materials – Metal and
porosities accuracy
plastics in sheets

5|P a g e
 Table 3.1 AM Machine Categories (Shichen Zhang, 2014)

Class of Operator Application Level Build Vol Printer Dim Weight Prizing
Machine (Inch) (Inch) (kgs)

Personal Every one with Rapid prototyping, 4×4×5 to 10×10×20 to 10 to 60 $1000 to

Printer basic skills, concept modelling, $20,000
operation is typical solid imaging 10×10×10 20×40×30
to a personal
computer

Office Printer People working Rapid prototyping, 10×10×5 to 40×30×50 to 160 to $15,000 to
professionally with functional 900 $140,000
softwares such as prototyping, 20×20×15 70×40×70
3D CAD

Shop Floor Experties and Rapid 10×10×10 40×50×70 to 1500 to $120,000 to

Printer technicians of the manufacturing, to 5000 $800,000
fabrication direct prototyping, 1000×90×100 and up
department direct tooling 60×30×20

Metal Additive Manufacturing

Additive manufacturing using metal powders is the foremost technique towards the replacement of subtractive
manufacturing. Adequate research efforts are called for to improve the technological robustness of metal AM so as
to widen its applications in the foreseeable future. The following sections provide inputs on the metal powder based
AM technology’s attributes, availability of metallic materials and their properties.

Attributes for Metal AM part properties

Achieving the desired part properties, their functional requirements and production time by metal AM process are
apparently difficult because the interaction between material and energy source is very intimate. Thus material
design and process modeling are the primary attributes for metal AM technology. The material design involves
making metal powder with desired particle size, shape and distribution, mixing of additives to enhance the AM
process and improve part properties. The process modeling involves calculation of optimized parameters and
controlling them. Material properties and process considerations are mutually dependent and their combination
decides the finished part quality and production time (Ian Gibson et.al. 2015).

The density determines the part’s mechanical properties, which directly influence the component performance. Due
to absence of mechanical pressure here, attaining high density (zero porosity) is difficult. Temperature gradients
during the process cause formation of pores affecting the material density.

Microstructure of the material decides the required part strength and other mechanical properties. The properties
such as yield strength, elongation, ductility and hardness are highly affected by the micro structural features (J-P
Kruth et.al 2010). Finer microstructure may be achieved at sufficiently low cooling rates compared to the
conventional manufacturing methods. In addition, it should be noted that the grain structure is also controlled by
the grain structure of previously solidified layer and the processing parameters. Post processing operations can help
achieve the necessary micro-structural changes.

There are above 100 process parameters which influence the part quality and build speed (Tomsaz Kurzynowski
et.al. 2012). The Table 4.0 and Table 4.1 contain key controllable and pre-defined parameters involved in the
process (Thomas G. Spears et.al., 2016). The process parameters affecting on part properties are explained in detail
in the section below.

6|P a g e
 Table 4.0, AM Process Parameters

Sr Process parameter Description Controlled/pre

no. defined

A Laser parameters

Laser Power Measure of total energy applied Controllable

Scan speed/velocity Speed at which laser scans the material Controllable

Type of laser, wavelength, mode and Gas lasers, Mode – pulsed or continuous Pre defined

Laser spot size Length and width of elliptical spot Controllable

B Geometric parameters

Hatch spacing Distance between two adjacent scans Controllable

Scan strategy Direction in which laser scanning is done on the Controllable

surface ( Zig-Zag, uni-directional, alternating)

Layer thickness Height of one single layer influences the build speed Controllable
and part resolution

Deposition rate Re coater velocity, pressure Controllable

C Process environment

Powder bed temperature Bulk temperature of the bed required in SLS/DMLS Controllable

Type of shield gas and its properties Ar, or N2 are used for preventing unwanted chemical Pre defined
reactions. Flow properties has an impact on the
process

Oxidation level (%O2) Metal oxide formation affecting material Controllable

characteristics

Material reuse time Recycling or directly reusing excessive powder Controllable

A. Laser parameters

 Density
Using optimal laser parameters, relative density of the material obtained is almost equivalent to bulk
material. At higher scan speeds and layer thickness, partial melting between layers causes structural
heterogeneity as shown in Figure 3.0. Lasers having larger wavelength creates more losses due to high
reflectivity in metallic materials [Christopher B. Williams, 2003].
Balling effect is the challenging phenomenon caused due to excessive laser power and laser spot size that
result in over melting of the material and thereby affecting the part’s dimensional accuracy, shrinkage and
poor surface finish. Hence, the laser parameters must be set optimally for proper solidification (J-P Kruth
et.al 2005).

 Microstructure
The interaction between raw material and energy source during the process of layering generates many
thermal non-equilibrium phases causing microstructure transformation, for e.g. Austenite phase to
martensite altering the grain structures and mechanical properties of the part. Cooling rates also affect the
microstructure of the material (Mukesh Agarwala et.al, 1995).

7|P a g e
  Surface Quality
Grain size and shape of material affect the surface morphology. Coarser grains produce rough surface
(higher Ra values) whereas finer grains give smooth surface. It is obvious that the disturbances in
microstructure will affect the surface texture. Normally, good surface finish is not obtained by SLM
process. Some post processing techniques are used to improve the surface quality. One of the important
techniques among them is Laser Surface remelting (J-P Kruth et.al 2010).

B. Geometric parameters

 Density
From the laser energy density formulae [EPMA, 2015] the layer thickness can be increased if the
scan speed is sufficiently lowered to achieve the same density values

Where P = laser power, v = scan velocity, t = layer thickness, h= hatch spacing

Proper hatch spacing is to be ensured for eliminating porosity. Figure 3.0 illustrates the graph
between the density and scanning strategy.
 Surface quality
Effect of hatch spacing, scanning strategy and deposition rate affect the surface texture
C. Process environment and Powder reuse
Atmospheric condition of the process is the important condition to be maintained to get rid of defects in
the parts and for improving the energy intensity. Inert gas must be selected considering the chemical
composition of material and process parameters for eliminating the unwanted chemical reactions
(formation of metal oxides). Improper selection of process atmosphere may cause decarburisation (removal
of carbon from steels) and have a negative impact on mechanical properties (Tomsaz Kurzynowski et.al.
2012).

Powder reuse is the material utilization factor that helps in reducing the cost of the parts. But due to the
lack of repeatability in process and available knowledge on process parameters it is is not so well accepted.

D. Material characteristics and properties

Material characteristics such as energy absorption coefficient, thermal conductivity, melting point and
others as shown in Table 4.1 are independent and pre-defined factors. Based on the available data sheets,
published results, and the ongoing research (Thomas G. Spears et.al. 2016),(Mukesh Agarwala et.al, 1995).
it can be concluded that mechanical properties of SLM parts are comparable to those of bulk materials.
SLM part mechanical properties depend on raw material composition and presence of structural defects.
In addition, frequent thermal expansion and contraction of the previously solidified layers during the
process generate considerable thermal stresses and stress gradients that can exceed the yield strength of the
material. These stresses can lead to part distortion, initiate fracture, and unwanted decrease in strength of
the part. Although residual stresses in laser material processing have been studied for many years, accurate
calculation and measurements of these stresses still remain a main concern (J-P Kruth et.al 2005).

Powder particle size distribution is an index indicating what sizes of particle are present and in what
proportions this parameter helps in knowing about the material characteristics such as powder flowability.
Recommended particle sizes for metal process is 50 to 150 micron with spherical in shape (EPMA, 2015).

8|P a g e
 Table 4.1, AM Process Parameters

Sr Process parameter Description Controlled/pre

no. defined

D Material Characteristics and properties

Bulk Density Material density Pre defined
Thermal Conductivity Ability of material to pass Pre defined
through heat
Melting point of material Temperature at which material Pre defined
melts
Coefficient of thermal expansion Measurement of deformation in Pre defined
volume due to heat supply
Material absorptivity Amount of laser energy Pre defined
absorbed or reflected by the
material
Particle morphology Includes individual particle size Pre defined
and shape distributions
Material viscosity and surface tension Helps in attaining powder flow Pre defined
ability

Figure 3.0, Effect of Process Parameters (J-P Kruth et.al 2005), (EPMA, 2015)

Metal AM - Comparative study

Data collected from various published articles is tabulated in different tables. Table 5.0 compares different AM
metal materials and their benefits. Table 5.1 differentiates respective part features (physical and mechanical
properties) and operating ranges of metal AM technologies. Further comparison is made among additive,
subtractive and traditional (bulk forming) manufacturing technologies in Table 6.0 & 6.1.

9|P a g e
Figure 4 illustrates specific energy consumption of the process. Processing pure metals using AM technology is
difficult because pure metals have positive affinity in forming metal oxide and these oxides try to escape at high
temperatures leaving inter particle distances (porosity). Purest form of Aluminum has more laser reflectivity than
absorptive and this material characteristic restricts densification. For improving the process efficacy and the
advancement in the part application requirements, metal alloys are developed and experimented as working
materials with AM have gained success.
Table 5.0, Metal AM Materials (EPMA, 2015 - case studies)

Material AM process Application sector Benefits over conventional Manufacturing

Inconel and Nickel SLM, LMD Aerospace and energy  Difficult to machine nickel
alloys industries
 Cost saving up to 60% and material savings

 Extended lifetime, and short repairing time

Ti alloy EBM, SLM Aerospace, biomedical,  High flexibility of manufacturing

Ti-6Al-4V mold-making
industries and  Functional requirement – in –built cooling channel
automotive
 Weight reduction : 55% of the material

Stainless steel SLM Energy industries,  Reduced customer downtime and costs (17% cut in cycle
(316L) and medical instruments, time)
Maraging steel die casting, Tooling
 All multiple machining and assembly operations eliminated

 Due to uniform cooling, tool maintenances are reduced

Co-Cr alloy SLM Dental prosthetics  Reduces labour and machine time

Al alloy SLM Automotive  Compact and scalable design

(Al Si 10Mg)
 Weight and production time saving
Precious metals SLM Consumer goods  Production of hollow parts – low weight jewellery

 Possibility of maximum customization

Table 5.1 Metal AM Technologies Comparison (D. D. Gu et.al. 2012), (Andreas Gebhardt, 2011), (Hae-Sung Yoon et.al. 2014)

Process Deposition Layer Deposition Dimensional Surface Specific Energy

mode thickness rate* accuracy roughness Consumption (kWh/kg)**
µm** mm µm**
DMLS Laser 20-100 13.5-20 cm3/hr High,±0.05 14-16 24.2 - 94.17
sintering
SLM Laser melting 20-200 20-70 cm3/hr High, ±0.04 30-50 27-163.33
EBM Full melting 70 55-80 cm3/hr ±0.3mm 60-100 17- 49.17
DMD Laser 254 6-246 cm3/hr ±0.127mm ~40
cladding
3D Binder jetting 150-500 25 to 150 micron ±0.13mm 14.7-17.4
printing dia. Droplets
*Range of deposition rate values indicated in different publications. The variance in the ranges due to machine to machine
specifications (laser spot dia, re-coater velocity, scan speed, powder chamber volume. etc.)
**Ranges for the consumption and other features mentioned are varied according to the working material

10 | P a g e
Additive Vs Bulk Forming Vs Subtractive Manufacturing

Comparison in this section describes broadly on the tolerance levels and achievable product properties (density,
Tensile strength and hardness) for the manufacturing technologies, providing simplest way of understanding and in
making choice of technique.

Ti manufactured parts using layered manufacturing technique has high tensile strength and low ductility compared
to hot worked parts. Post processing (cooling –at low rate) enhances ductility. Ni alloys has high cracking tendency
under temperature gradients that can be repaired by performing post processing operations, necessary mechanical
properties can be attained. Fe powders fabricated using AM have less density due to the chemical reaction between
inert gas and Fe powder which forms metal oxide resulting in porosity (D. D. Gu et.al. 2012).
Table 6.0, Metal Properties Comparison

Process* Additive Manufacturing Metal Injection Moulding Forging Casting

Material properties :Ti 6Al4V (Ben Vandenbroucke et.al, 2006 ), (Randall M German, 2013), (Muziwenhlanhla
Arnold Masikane, 2015)

Density 0.5-2 % porosity 99.5% density achievable ~100% Density 100% Density
achieved achieved

Tensile strength (Mpa) 1163-1250 ~1000 ~925 930

Vickers Hardness ~410( micro), ~400(Macro) 344-382 341 353

Inconel 718 (D. D. Gu et.al. 2012) ,(Paul A Davies et.al, Inconel ),(S Chenna Krishna et.al, 2014), (Christopher A, 2001)

Density 100% achievable 90% achievable 100% achievable No data

Tensile strength (Mpa) 1137-1148 936- 1211 1359-1385 1090

Vickers Hardness ~420 ~327 266-436

Stainless steel (316L) (D. D. Gu et.al. 2012) , (Paul A Davies et.al, ),(E. Prototappas et.al, 1992) , (Dynacast)

Density 99.5% achievable 95- 99.8 achievable 100% achievable No data

Tensile strength (Mpa) 480 450-520 400 483-586

Hardness ~250 ~122 213 184

Tool steels (D. D. Gu et.al. 2012), (Dynacast), (Alexander Gratton, 2012)

Density 84% achievable 100% achievable 100% achievable No data

Tensile strength (Mpa) 1050 900-1190 827 1034-1241

Vickers Hardness ~230 ~279 230-253 353-436

Al Si 10Mg (D. D. Gu et.al. 2012), (EPMA, 2015 ), (Dynacast)

Density 100% achievable No Data available 3% porosity

Tensile strength (Mpa) 280 – 355 317

Vickers Hardness ~150 136

Co alloy (D. D. Gu et.al. 2012), (EPMA, 2015 ),(Atsuhi Takaichi et.al, 2013), (Kenta Yamnaka et.al, 2011)

Density 100% achievable No Data available 100% achievable No data

Tensile strength 949 980-1450 620

Vickers Hardness ~436 344 344

11 | P a g e
Table 6.1 Tolerances comparison, (M. Baumers et.al, 2011), (Hae-Sung Yoon et.al. 2014), (Dynacast),(S Anderberg et.al, 2011)

Process Avg. Ra Dimensional Material rate Specific energy

Value (µm) accuracy (mm) (mm3/s) consumption **

Turning 4.0 – 40 ± 0.025-0.13 5-11 2.7-36.2 J/mm3

Milling 10- 25 ± 0.013-0.025 5-5000 6.8-151.8 J/mm3

Polishing 0.4- 0.63 - 15-4000 -

SLM 25-40 ±0.04 20,000-70,000 27-163.33 kWh/kg

SLM + Polishing 0.16- 0.4

MIM 10 ±0.1 - -

CNC 0.41- 3.17 ±0.025 75-100 8.54-55.84 J/mm3

Forging 3.2-12.5 -(0.15 to 0.74) Varying**

+(0.46 to2.21)
**Ranges for the consumption and other features mentioned are varied according to the working material

Figure 4.0, Specific Energy Consumption Comparison (Hae-Sung Yoon et.al. 2014)

Table 6.0 reveals that the difference in density and mechanical properties between additive and other technologies
for stainless steel and tool steel has no such difference, whereas costly materials Ti and Inconel have considerable
benefits in material savings during the AM process. MIM process is a competitive process to AM but post
processing (sintering/HIP) is mandatory here to achieve the desired mechanical properties. Also the oxygen and
12 | P a g e
carbon content (Wt %) are important factors which will affect the porosity in casting and MIM; These also affect
porosity in AM products if inert gas is chosen improperly.
Table 6.1 explains the comparison between the above said technologies in terms of surface and dimensional
tolerances achieved. Dimensional accuracy comparatively for AM is not promisingly accurate with subtractive
techniques (conventional machining, CNC) while the surface roughness achieved in SLM +polished is finer than
these. MIM and forging may have process difficulties such as maintaining the pressure to inject metal or forge the
material to the desired shape, thus complex shapes with variable thickness may be impossible to produce. Also
these processes may damage the die on repetitive usage incurring maintenance costs and affecting the product
accuracy.

Figure 4.0 shows the energy consumption parameter for the conventional bulk forming, subtractive and additive
technologies. Utilization of energy consumption in AM is more with less productivity. Conventional bulk forming
is an efficient technology in this scenario. However, if we consider energy distribution of the processes, AM has
got advantage in having only two important power utilization stages which are process and warming up of material
(melting). Energy for such process involves material feed, laser optics, motion mechanism and other tasks.
Whereas in other two processes in the figure have several factors/stages involved in distributing the power.

Metal AM challenges and opportunities

a. Process challenges (William E. Frazier, 2014)

i. Speed of the process
ii. Repeatability and inconsistency -Variation in final product from one machine to other
machine
iii. Unavailability of AM software package for design, simulation and machine
programming
iv. Controlling of molten pool size during laser sintering/melting
v. Oxidation of part during the process (maintaining inert environment)
vi. Poor part accuracy caused by stair stepping effect
vii. Implementation of feedback devices for process sensing and monitoring
viii. Lack of qualification and certification of process and materials
b. Material challenges (William E. Frazier, 2014)
i. Metal powder particle size and particle size distribution.
ii. Variation in metal-mechanical properties due to the thermal interaction between the
energy source and metal powder
iii. Inter layer bonding deficiencies
iv. Post processing effects on part strength and other important properties
v. Limited AM alloys – commercialized

Metal AM opportunities (Darmstadt, 2013)

Existing

 3D printing has shortened the manufacturing process of hearing aid shells and can print 65 hearing aid
shells within 60 to 90 minutes also enabling suppliers to model and fabricate the custom fit product

 BMW started producing metallic prototypes and engine parts for racing cars using DMLS technology

 Tesla, the manufacturer of electric cars also uses 3D printing for their automobile components

 European Aeronautic Defence and Space company made a statement that “AM produced parts are
comparatively 65% lighter in weight and equally strong as those parts produced from traditional
machining”. Since 2002 SLS technology is widely used in production by Airbus

 3D printing is widely used in dental labs and adopted to process Ti alloys, Co-Cr alloys
13 | P a g e
  Other application includes jewellery and consumer products

Future

 Cost of the printers and increase in material suppliers. Figure 5.0 explains the market predictions on AM –
processing time, machine and materials price. In 2018 we can observe that the build speed increased by 4
times compared to 2013 and price of the metal powder is almost reduced to 65%

Figure 5.0(Roland Berger, 2013)

 Technology transformation will be like - 3D printing at shops, manufacturing at factories, Mobile

manufacturing

 Benefits for producers producing high valued products such as turbine blades and luxurious automotive
parts

 More commercialization in food printing technology

 Bio printers – eventually permit the replacement of organs for transplant

 Using reverse engineering(3D scanners), AM cuts down the product modeling and development time

 Micro machining, 4D printing are the new concepts which will be the next phase of research

AM risks and uncertainties (Darmstadt, 2013)

 It is not sure that who is responsible for the failure of the product because everything is outsourced

 Cost reduction in AM systems and materials will bring rivalry between the competitors regarding the
copyright of the product

 With the development of advanced materials for AM, processing these materials may become unsafe and
environmentally hazardous

 More social and economic impacts

Patent Trends
Patent analysis is one of the considerable factors in making comments on the impact and growth of technology.
These are the rights owned by an inventor on his unique solution to a problem or a new idea. With the increase in
number of researchers, global competitions in industries and demand have also increased. Intellectual property
organizations have tightened the companies/researchers not to infringe inventor claims. In this review we searched
for patents in World Intellectual Property (WIPO) database using the keyword queries and International Patent
Classification (IPC) groups.
Search in the database is done for the key words such as 3D printing, Additive Manufacturing, Selective laser
/Electron beam melting and Binder jetting etc. Further the search is limited to the IPC groups B22F, B41J, B33Y
(CPC, 2015),G06F, B32B, B28B. A patent particularly may not belong to one group because the inventor makes

14 | P a g e
combinations in unique process, unique material and unique methodology. Therefore the patent may fall in more
than one group also.

International Patents
Study on the recent patents assists in reviewing the technology worthiness and in analyzing the status of
advancement in the technology that helps in determining the research areas and competitiveness of the technology.
Patent analysis also evaluates the business trends helping in making forecast and strategy.
Here a few important patents are discussed on the type of invention, however depending up on the product
application, metallurgy and physics of the process, several patents are filed for the AM technology in the class (A-
H).

i. Catalyst manufacturing method (US 20130230721 A1) this patent claims the manufacturing of catalyst to
required shape unit using a layer upon layer binding mechanism, catalyst powder or catalyst support material is
spread to form a layer. The next layer is bound to the previous layer by the means of energy source according to
the geometry. This process is repeated till the finished shape is obtained. These catalyst re used for chemical
reactions, the catalyst may be of metal, metal alloys and metal composites as per the chemical reaction
requirement

ii. Laser deposition of metal foam (US 20150321289 A1) invention in this patent relates generally to the field of
material technology and specifically method for producing metal foam. Description of the invention is about the
process in which a layer of super alloy metal foam is deposited on to a super alloy substrate by laser melting
technology. Metal foam is a mixture of powder metal and foaming agent, this patent also embodies usage of wide
variety of foaming agents and metal powders. Application of this patent is to apply a thermal barrier coating on gas
turbine.

iii. Methods for fabricating gradient alloy articles with multi-functional properties ( US 9101979 B2) provides
a methodology and system for joining two dissimilar metals i.e. gradient alloy which is not possible by
conventional techniques, Systems involve AM technologies that are LENS, Ultrasonic additive manufacturing,
Sintering powder blends, material extrusion. Thus this patent helps in producing articles with multi-functional
properties and applications

iv. 3d printing material encoding (WO 2015185155 A1) this patent is a solution to authenticate a certain object
that is 3D printed have been printed using original and authorized material. It is determined by configuring the
material blending used for the process and additionally sensors are incorporated in 3D printing system for
identifying the material blends. 3D printing material blend comprises of 3D printing material (metal and non
metals) and a magnetic nano-particle portion which is embedded in the main material itself, and this portion is
distributed in a predetermined spatial sequence and /or pattern so that the predetermined code contains unique
identification units to recognize

v. Managing digital rights in 3d printing (US 20150221053) enables smooth functioning between multiple- end
product users and 3D printing service providers. This invention has made a layout for communication and security
of the 3d printing industry by designing a proper system and methodology. System comprises of a memory unit and
at least one module; module is a set of computers for executing the 3D printing process among 3D printing product
user, service provider and owner. Methodology involves proper authorizations and instructions. Memory unit helps
3D printing files for easy retrieval and a protective storage.

vi. Automated metrology and model correction for three dimensional (3d) printability (US 20150269282 A1)
present disclosure details the methodology and an autonomous system for error-corrections occurred during the
process. At least one dedicated processors are configured to perform functions for: receiving/conversion of the 3D
model file into 2D slices and to compute the medial axis, local feature size at any point along a boundary of the
slices. Methodology claims, processor are configures in such a way that it simulates the printing maps and
compares the local feature size with threshold feature size and correction are made accordingly.

vii. Quality control method for printed products using 3d digital proofing (US 20150206020 A1), the present
invention describes inspection procedure for the 3D printed product using computer, camera, light source and

15 | P a g e
sensor. All these components are integrated to record the image of the 3D printed product using camera, computer
compares the recorded image with the digital image data of the printed product and sensors are used to sense the
positions relative to the real printed product and reflections from the light source /angle of vision of the person on
the printed object.

viii. Method of Fabricating Composite Tooling using Closed Loop Direct- Metal – Deposition (US 7139633
B2) mentions the methodology of direct metal deposition technique for manufacturing tools such as stamping dies,
trim steels and die inserts. Composite tooling involves depositing a layer on substrate; deposition material is of
metal alloy to enhance the performance. This patent claims the utilization of closed loop DMD system for having
feedback to control the dimensions and the deposition parameters. On Aluminium substrate, layers of molybdenum
are deposited using the above technique.

ix. Additive manufacturing of titanium article (WO 2015079200 A2) this invention is an acceptable alternative
for fabricating Ti articles (Cp-Ti & Ti alloys) using metal AM techniques which are used in aerospace industries.
Unique methodology in this is providing shielding gas comprising of an inert gas and an oxidant gas, which avoids
the oxidation and does not affect the structural and mechanical properties of the article, shield gas preferably used
are oxidant gases (O2, CO2, N2, NO, N2O and H2) and inert gases (Ar and/or He). Should comprise preferably 150
to 700 vpm oxidant gas.

x. Adaptive Supports for 3D Printing (US 2015/0066178 A1) methods and systems are disclosed for creating
support structures that reduce the contact area between supports and 3D printed object. In this invention a flow
chart is made accordingly the optimized no of supports for a model is generated.

Conclusion
A comprehensive literature review, analysis of published data related to additive and conventional manufacturing
techniques for metals and patent analysis on metal additive manufacturing technologies is carried out to understand
and acknowledge the technical challenges for researchers and market risks & opportunities for industries.

The comparative study reveals that there is no major difference observed in mechanical properties and geometrical
tolerances of the product. Further the techniques consume equal amount of energy. However process durability and
process/product customization in one stage/system could be a prominent advantages in AM over conventional such
as. Besides this, conventional manufacturing need high degree of consumables and require large work force,
machinery and space.
Inconsistency in product quality, lack of repeatability, material heterogeneity and high build times are the existing
challenges for the additive manufacturing technology restricting the level of application. In addition, the
availability of metal powders with desired characteristics and properties for processing are a major concern that is
delaying the adoption of AM technique into industries.
In the view of AM technical challenges, risks and cost considerations, Hybrid layered manufacturing technique is a
recommended technique which satisfies the requirements in achieving dimensional accuracies of the complex
geometries. Hybrid layered manufacturing is an integrated hybrid manufacturing approach to enhance and
accelerate the adoption of metal Additive Manufacturing (AM) by adding a direct digital subtractive process to the
production that is capable of improving the form, location and position tolerance of critical part features as well as
improving surface finish. The hybrid system, AIMS (Additive systems Integrated with subtractive Methods) can be
integrated with existing metal AM systems without any significant modifications (Guha Manogharan et.al, 2015).

Patent analysis indicates more research to be done on software simulation models which will help as a quality
control methodology in reducing development time and material processing. More research and development is to
be contributed to make the products with fewer efforts by placing closed loop systems for process sensing and
regulation.

16 | P a g e
References
Prashant K Jain, K.Senthilkumaran, Pulak M.Pandey, P.V.M. Rao, 2006. Advances in materials for powder based rapid
prototyping In Proceedings of International conference on recent advances in Materials and processing, Dec 15-16, 2006,
PSG-tech Coimbatore, India

J-PKruth M, Badrossamay, E.Yasa, J. Deckers, L.Thijs, J. Van Humbeeck, 2010, Part and material properties in selective
laser melting of metals. In Proceedings of the 16thInternational Symposium on Electro machining (ISEM XVI), Shanghai,
China, April 19th-23rd 2010

M. John, 1956. Photo-glyph recording, US Patent 2,775,758

Terry Wholers and Tim Gornet, 2014. History of additive manufacturing, WOHLERS ASSOCIATES.INC

Nainsi Rastogi, 2014. Project report on Patent Analysis on Three Dimension printing, Patent Facilitating Centre (PFC)
TIFAC, DST New Delhi-16
F42, 2009. Committee on Additive Manufacturing Technologies formed by ASTM International 2009, Website:
http://www.astm.org/COMMITTEE/F42.htm

Kate Cummins, 2010. Article on The rise of additive manufacturing, Web link: http://www.theengineer.co.uk/the-rise-of-
additive-manufacturing/

NIST report, 2013. Workshop summary report on Measurement Science roadmap for Metal-Based Additive
Manufacturing prepared by Energetics Incorporated for the National Institute of Standards and Technology May 2013
Roland Berger, 2013. Report on Additive manufacturing: a game changer for the manufacturing industry?, Munich
November 2013

Jonathan Shaffer, Julian Mitchell, Charles Clarke, 2014. Report on Additive manufacturing .CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES RESEARCH & ANALYTICS 25th July 2014. Link: https://www.credit-suisse.com/who_we_are/en/

Joe Bauer, Patrick Malone, 2015. Cost Estimating Challenges in Additive Manufacturing, work shop papers of
International cost estimating and analysis association, 2015

Gao W, Zhang Y, Ramanujan D, Ramani K, Chen Y, Williams CB, et al.,2015. The status, challenges and future of
additive manufacturing in engineering, Computer aided Design (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2015.04.001

Shichen Zhang, 2014. Thesis: Location Analysis of 3D Printer Manufacturing Industry, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY May
2014

Ian Gibson, David Rosen, Brent Stucker 2015. “Additive Manufacturing Technologies”, Springer, New York, Heidelberg
Dordrecht, London, Second Edition, ISBN 978-1-4939-2113-3(eBook)

Tomsaz Kurzynowski, Edward Chlebus, Bogumila Kuzunicka, Jacek Reiner, 2012. Parameters in Selective Laser Melting
for Processing metallic powders, In Proceedings of SPIE Volume 8239, Feb 9,2012; doi: 10.1117/12.907292

Thomas G. Spears and Scott A. Gold, 2016. In-process sensing in selective laser melting(SLM) additive manufacturing,
Integrating Materials and manufacturing Innovation (2016) 5:2, DOI 10.1186/s40192-016-0045-4

Christopher B. Williams,2003. Report on Rapid prototyping with Metals: A Review oof Technology and Associated
Material properties, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Nov 4,2003

J-P. Kruth, P. Mercelis, J. Van Vaerenbergh, L. Froyen, M. Rombouts, 2005, Binding mechanisms in selective laser
sintering and selective laser melting, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 11 Iss 1 pp. 26 – 36 permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552540510573365

17 | P a g e
Mukesh Agarwala, David Bourell, Joseph Beaman, Harris Marcus, Joel Barlow, 1995."Direct selective laser sintering of
metals", Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 1 Iss 1 pp. 26 – 36 Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552549510078113
EPMA, 2015. Introduction to Additive Manufacturing Technology. A guide for designers and Engineers, European
Additive Manufacturing Group, Copyright © European Powder Metallurgy Association 2015, 1st Edition,
www.epma.com/

Andreas Gebhardt, “Understanding Additive Manufacturing Technologies”, HANSER Publications, Cincinnati, ISBN
978-3-446-43162-1(eBook), 2011

D. D. Gu, W. Meiners, K. Wissenbach and R. Poprawe , 2012. Laser additive manufacturing of metallic components:
materials, processes and mechanisms, International Materials Reviews 2012 VOL 57 NO 3, _ 2012 Institute of Materials,
Minerals and Mining and ASM International Published by Maney for the Institute and ASM International DOI
10.1179/1743280411Y.0000000014

Hae-Sung Yoon, Jang-Yeob Lee, Hyung-Soo Kim, Min-Soo Kim, Eun-Seob Kim, Yong-Jun Shin, Won-Shik Chu, and
Sung-Hoon Ahn, 2014. A Comparison of Energy Consumption in Bulk Forming, Subtractive, and Additive Processes:
Review and Case Study, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING-
GREEN TECHNOLOGY Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 261-279, July 2014/261

Wenjin Wu, Shu Beng Tor, Chee Kai Chua, Kah Fai Leong & Aziz, 2015. Investigation on processing of ASTM A131
Eh36 high tensile strength steel using selective laser melting, Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 10:4, 187-193,
DOI:10.1080/17452759.2015.1106091

Ben Vandenbroucke, Jean-Pierre Kruth, 2006. Selective laser melting of biocompatible metals for rapid
manufacturing of medical parts, Division PMA, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven, Belgium 2006

Randall M German, 2013. Review Progress in Titanium Metal Powder Injection Molding, Materials 2013, 6, 3641-
3662; doi:10.3390/ma6083641, ISSN 1996-1944 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials, 20 August 2013

Muziwenhlanhla Arnold Masikane, 2015, MS Thesis: Investigation into the microstructure and tensile properties of
unalloyed titanium and Ti-6Al-4V alloy produced by powder metallurgy, casting and layered manufacturing,
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 2015

Paul A. Davies and G.R. Dunstan , A. C. Hayward and R.I.L. Howells, Metal Injection Moulding of Heat Treated
Alloy 718 Master Alloy, Powder Group Sandvik Osprey Ltd UK., Metal Injection Mouldings Ltd. Davenport Lane,
Altrincham, Cheshire

S Chenna Krishna et.al, 2014, Research Article Closed Die Hammer Forging of Inconel 718, Hindawi Publishing
Corporation , Journal of Metallurgy, Volume 2014, Article ID 972917, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/972917

Christopher A, Borg, Robert W Hatala & John J Schirra, 2001, CHARACTERIZATION OF VACUUM DIE
CAST INCONEL 718 AND DERIVATIVES (PWA 1472/PWA 1473), Super alloys 718, 625, 706 and Various
Derivatives Edited by E.A. Loria TMS (The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society): 2001

Paul A. Davies and G.R. Dunstan, Comparison of Master Alloy and Pre-Alloyed 316L Stainless steel Powders for
Metal Injection Molding (MIM), Powder Group Sandvik Osprey Ltd UK., Centre for Innovative Sintered products
The Pennsylvania State Uniiversity

Dynacast, Values taken from the material data sheets, Global Die casting and Metal Injection Molding Company
Link: https://www.dynacast.com/mim-materials

E. PROTOPAPPAS, C. A. SMAL, and F. G. DE LANGE, 1992. Mechanical Properties of a 316L Forging Material
Modified for Resistance to Sensitization, In Proceedings of the 1st International Chromium Steel and Alloys
Congress, Cape Town. Volume 2. Johannesburg. INFACON 6, SAIMM. 1992. pp. 97-103.

18 | P a g e
 Alexander Gratton, 2012. Comparison of Mechanical, Metallurgical Properties of 17-4PH Stainless Steel between
Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) and Traditional Manufacturing Methods, Proceedings of The National
Conference On Undergraduate Research (NCUR) 2012 Weber State University, Ogden Utah March 29 – 31, 2012

Kenta Yamnaka, Manami Mori, Akihiko Chiba, 2011. Mechanical properties of as-forged Ni-free Co–29Cr–6Mo
alloys with ultrafine-grained microstructure, Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 5961–5966, July
2011.

Atsushi Takaichi, Suyalatu, Takayuki Nakamoto, Natsuka Joko, Naoyuki Nomura, Yusuke Tsutsumi, Satoshi
Migita, Hisashi Doi, Shingo Kurosu, Akihiko Chiba, Noriyuki Wakabayashi, Yoshimasa Igarashi, Takao Hanawa,
2013. Microstructures and mechanical properties of Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy fabricated by selective laser melting
process for dental applications, journal of the mechanical behaviour of bio medical materials 21 (2013) 67 – 76,
Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.021

M. Baumers, C. Tuck, R. Wildman, I. Ashcroft and R. Hague, 2011.Energy Inputs To Additive Manufacturing:
Does Capacity Utilization Matter?, Additive Manufacturing Research Group, Wolfson School of Mechanical and
Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK, August 2011

S Anderberg, T Beno, L Pejryd, 2011, Energy and Cost Efficiency in CNC Machining from a Process Planning
Perspective, The 9th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, held on September 28th – 30th, 2011 At St.
Petersburg State Polytechnical University and St. Petersburg State University of Economics and Finance

William E. Frazier, 2014. Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review, Journal of Materials Engineering and
performance JMEPEG (2014) Volume 23(6):1917-1928(page no’s), published online April8, 2014.
Darmstadt, 2013. 3D Printing – Risks and Opportunities, Oeko-Institut e. V. Germany, mail: [email protected]
www.oeko.de

WIPO, WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organization, https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf

USPTO, USPTO - United States Patent and Trademark Office, http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm

Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/

(CPC, 2015) http://www.cooperativepatentclassification.org/CPCRevisions/NoticeOfChanges/MP0121.pdf

Guha Manogharan, Richard Wysk, Ola Harrysson and Ronald Aman, 2015, “AIMS- a Metal Additive-Hybrid
Manufacturing System: System Architecture and Attributes”, 2351-9789 © 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V.,
Volume 1, 2015, Pages 273–286, 43rd Proceedings of the North American Manufacturing Research Institution of
SME http://www.sme.org/namrc

Other important web links

http://www.meadinfo.org/2009/06/surface-finish-roughness-ra.html

http://www.engineersedge.com/forgings.htm

19 | P a g e

View publication stats