Advertisement

Additive Manufacturing: Assessing Metal Powder Quality Through Characterizing Feedstock and Contaminants

  • Stephen K. Kennedy
  • Amber M. DalleyEmail author
  • Gregory J. Kotyk
Article
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

The quality of powder feedstock for additive manufacturing (AM) metal powder bed fusion methods can significantly affect the quality of parts built from it. Particle size distribution (PSD) and shape factors influence flowability as well as the thickness and uniformity of each powder layer in the build box. For high-performance applications such as aerospace, medical, power generation and military, it becomes important to identify critical additional factors: the types, numbers and sizes of particulate contaminants that may be present in the powder. This is true for virgin, used and blended powders. Contaminants may be introduced during powder manufacture (e.g., ceramic insulation fragments from gas atomization equipment), handling (building insulation, talc) or possibly during the build process itself. Contaminants contained within a batch of powder can be physically built into an additive part when they are incorporated into the melt pool, and they can remain as discrete particulates or non-fused interfaces that act as stress concentrators. Their presence may decrease fatigue life by increasing the likelihood of fatigue crack initiation. This article describes three methods to rapidly and quantifiably characterize powder feedstock. (1) Computer-controlled scanning electron microscopy (CCSEM) provides quantitative size and shape parameters, as well as fine surface details from individual images on a particle-by-particle basis in large populations of powder. (2) Energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) can be included, providing insights into variations within a batch of powder, as well as contaminant compositions. (3) For critical applications, the heavy liquid separation (HLS) method physically extracts low-density contaminants from a sample of powder metal down to part-per-billion detection limits to allow direct examination of contaminants and enhance identification and prevention of their sources. Altogether, these methods permit direct comparisons among powder metal samples. Better quantification of powder characteristics aids determination of suitability for end uses.

Keywords

additive manufacturing metal powder characterization computer-controlled SEM CCSEM heavy liquid separation HLS contaminants 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge and remember the valuable, long-term contributions of co-author Mr. Gregory J. Kotyk of RJ Lee Group, who passed away unexpectedly during this manuscript preparation.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Simchi, The Role of Particle Size on the Laser Sintering of Iron Powder, Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2004, 35(5), p 937–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Manfredi, F. Calignano, M. Krishnan, R. Canali, E.P. Ambrosio, and E. Atzeni, From Powders to Dense Metal Parts: Characterization of a Commercial AlSiMg Alloy Processed through Direct Metal Laser Sintering, Materials, 2013, 6(3), p 856–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    E.O. Olakanmi, R.F. Cochrane, and K.W. Dalgarno, A Review on Selective Laser Sintering/Melting (SLS/SLM) of Aluminum Alloy Powders: Processing, Microstructure and Properties, Prog. Mater Sci., 2015, 74, p 401–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.A. Slotwinski, E.J. Garboczi, P.E. Stutzman, C.F. Ferraris, S.S. Watson, and M.A. Peltz, Characterization of Metal Powders Used for Additive Manufacturing, J. Res. Nat. Inst. Stand. Technol., 2014, 119, p 460–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A.T. Sutton, C.S. Kriewall, M.C Leu, and J.W. Newkirk, Powders for additive manufacturing processes: characterization techniques and effects on part properties, in Solid Freeform Fabrication 2016: Proceedings of the 27 th Annual International Solid Freeform Symposium, 2016, p 1004–1030Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Kantzos, P. Bonacuse, J. Telesman, T. Gabb, R. Barrie, and A. Banik, 2004, Effect of Powder Cleanliness on the Fatigue Behavior of Powder Metallurgy Ni-disk Alloy Udimet 720, Superalloys, p 409–417Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ASTM F3001-14, Standard Specification for Additive Manufacturing Titanium-6 Aluminum-4 Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) with Powder Bed Fusion, ASTM International 2017 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 10.04, p 838–843Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G.S. Casuccio, P.B. Janocko, R.J. Lee, J.F. Kelly, S.L. Dattner, and J.S. Mgebroff, The Use of Computer Controlled Scanning Electron Microscopy in Environmental Studies, J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., 1983, 33(10), p 937–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A.J. Schwoeble, A.M. Dalley, B.C. Henderson, and G.S. Casuccio, Computer-Controlled SEM and Microimaging of Fine Particles, J. Met., 1988, 40, p 11Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A.M. Dalley, S.K. Kennedy, and A. Ziegenfuss, The Use of Computer-Controlled Scanning Electron Microscopy for Powder Metal Characterization and Contamination Identification, SAE-RJ Lee Group White Paper (2018). https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/WP-0008/
  11. 11.
    P.G. Roth, J.C. Murray, J.E. Morra, and J.M. Hyzak, Heavy liquid separation: a reliable method to characterize inclusions in metal powder, in Characterization, Testing and Quality Control, Advances in Powder Metallurgy and Particulate Materials, vol 2, Comp. by Chaman Lall (Metal Powder Industries Federation, Princeton, 1994), p 1–12Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Chayes, Petrographic Modal Analysis, Wiley, Hoboken, 1956Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Bono, Additive Manufacturing of Metals, in Course Description, ASM International Short Course, Materials Science and Technology Conference, Pittsburgh, 2017Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen K. Kennedy
    • 1
  • Amber M. Dalley
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gregory J. Kotyk
    • 1
  1. 1.RJ Lee Group, Inc.MonroevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations