Inside Metal Additive Manufacturing
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact

Why is powder feedstock for metal AM so expensive?

27/4/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
Regardless of procurement route, research shows that metal powder costs will be the biggest continuous expense through the life of an AM machine. Let’s have a look at the reasons behind the high-costs of metal powder feedstock.

​Reasons for high-costs

Not the commercial priority, so far

Additive manufacturing (AM) generates an active area of materials development due to its promise to change the manufacturing game.

However, metal-based AM represents only a small fraction of AM applications. Most applications use polymers and this is where financial and commercial incentives have contributed to focus the technological and R&D efforts.

Polymers and polymer-based composites are now widely available as low-cost feedstocks. In addition, flexible AM platform is being quickly expanded and widely deployed with great success for both small and large-scale part builds, such as cars and buildings structures.
​
While the technical barriers for polymeric materials have been mostly overcome, additive manufacturing of metallic alloys remains challenging.

Technical challenges

Different requirements for different technology

One challenge for industrial powder makers desiring to serve the AM market is that there are different optimal powder size distributions for each AM process. Each method requires specific, narrow powder size distributions.
​
This is especially troublesome if the requested powders are of experimental alloys for which no other market exists and oversize/undersize powders might sit in inventory for years. 
​
Picture
Lack of process control and production efficiency

Most AM grade powders are produced using common atomization methods where oversize and undersize powder size fractions of each batch [21], e.g., about 80–90% for free-fall gas atomization (GA), can limit the yield of AM powder and result in increased prices to cover costs from excessive inventory.

In addition, considerable labor is involved in extensive screening of the full powder yield just to capture only a small portion (10–20%) of salable AM powders from a (typical) broad size distribution by ‘‘standard” parameters [3]. Thus, commercial powder makers often have difficulty identifying immediate economic benefit for production of special powders for AM applications and many do not have sufficient in-house process research facilities/staff/time to work on this problem. 
Picture
A lack of production efficiency and process control lie at the heart of gas atomized powder costs. Concentrated research is required to significantly reduce cost, expand the choice of vendors, and promote availability of experimental alloys.

​Current research objectives are to:
  • increase the yield of desired powder in each batch, primarily targeting two size ranges, 45–106 mm for EBM/PBF and 15–45 mm for DLM;
  • integrate a robust process sensor (for instance an in situ particle size distribution analyser);
  • develop a feedback loop with an actuation device (e.g., an automated atomization gas pressure regulator) for active in-process ‘‘fine tuning” optimisation based on the sensor feedback.

Qualification steps and warrantee

Makers of AM equipment for the PBF and DED technology increase pressure on the supply (and cost) by offering ‘‘qualified” feedstock powders. The use of these powder is limited to their own AM machines to enable operation under warrantee [2]. This type of ‘qualification’ limits the variety of powder types available from the AM system providers to a small number of common alloys.
Influence of high-costs:Limit development and testing of more exotic material compositionsSlow down adoption paceLimit range of applicationsLimit material availability 
​As a result of the powder size range and quality requirements, only a limited number of metal alloys have been qualified for processing by AM, significantly limiting the pace of adoption of AM techniques for a variety of metal alloy applications. 
References
[1] I.E. Anderson et al., Feedstock powder processing research needs for additive manufacturing development, Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cossms.2018.01.002
[2] F. Medina, Metal Part Fabrication Using Additive Manufacturing Technologies, workshop presented at RAPID + TCT, organized by Society of Manufacturing Engineers, 2017
[3] A. Lawley, R.D. Doherty, Rapidly solidified powder processes: models and mechanisms for atomization and consolidation, in: S.K. Das, B.H. Kear, C.M. Adam (Eds.), Rapidly Solidified Crystalline Alloys, The Metallurgical Society Inc., Warrendale, PA, 1985, pp. 77–91.

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    We provide practical and actionable info dedicated to additive manufacturing of high-value metal components

    I want to know more about metal AM

    * indicates required

    Categories

    All
    Applications
    Background
    Certification
    Design
    Heat Treatment
    Laser Direct Deposition
    Materials
    Modelling
    NDE
    Parameters
    Post Processing
    Powder
    Production
    R&D
    Review
    SLM
    Surface Roughness
    Surface Treatment
    Technology

© Copyright 2014-2018 InsideMetalAdditiveManufacturing.com - All rights reserved | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Powered by TMS