http://dx.doi.org/10.
1595/205651315X688686 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3), 243–256
JOHNSON MATTHEY
TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
Introduction to the Additive Manufacturing Powder
Metallurgy Supply Chain
Exploring the production and supply of metal powders for AM processes
By Jason Dawes*, Robert Bowerman and
Ross Trepleton
Component Technologies, Manufacturing Technology
Centre, Pilot Way, Ansty Business Park, Coventry,
CV7 9JU, UK
*Email: jason.dawes@the-mtc.org
The supply chain for metal powders used in additive
manufacturing (AM) is currently experiencing
exponential growth and with this growth come
new powder suppliers, new powder manufacturing
methods and increased competition. The high
number of potential supply chain options provides
AM service providers with a significant challenge
when making decisions on powder procurement.
This paper provides an overview of the metal powder
supply chain for the AM market and aims to give AM
service providers the information necessary to make
informed decisions when procuring metal powders.
The procurement options are categorised into three
main groups, namely: procuring powders from AM
equipment suppliers, procuring powders from third
party suppliers and procuring powders directly from
powder atomisers. Each of the procurement options
has its own unique advantages and disadvantages.
The relative importance of these will depend on what
the AM equipment is being used for, for example
research, rapid prototyping or productionisation.
The future of the metal AM powder market is also
discussed.
243 © 2015 Johnson Matthey
www.technology.matthey.com
1. Introduction
A component fabricated using powder bed may consist
of many thousands of finely spread powder layers. The
uniformity of these layers can affect the properties of the
final component. The way in which a powder ‘spreads’
during AM depends on the properties of the powder
used. As will be discussed in this paper, even when
chemically equivalent, the properties of metal powders
vary widely depending on both the atomisation method
used and the manufacturing process conditions. To
obtain a greater degree of control over AM processes
service providers must be able to control the quality of
the raw powder feedstock.
The overall AM market has seen exponential growth
over the last five years and during this time the sale
of powder bed metal AM equipment, services and
products has also followed an exponential trend (1)
due to increased adoption from the aerospace, oil
and gas, marine, automobile and medical sectors. As
the benefits of using AM to manufacture functional
metallic components start to outweigh the blockers,
more component manufacturers are looking towards
metal powder bed technologies to allow them to realise
their next generation of innovatively and functionally
designed products.
Research has shown that metal powder costs will be
the biggest continuous expense through the life of an
AM machine (1). The quality and consistency of the AM
components depends, in part, on the characteristics
of the starting powder feedstock. Hence, controlling
and understanding the quality of the powder both in
http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688686 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)

its as-supplied and reused condition is essential in
order to achieve the desired mechanical properties of
the laser melted components. Given the significance
of the metal powder feedstock it is important that AM
users make informed decisions when procuring the
raw metal powder. The current state of the AM metal
powder supply chain is that there are multiple possible
methods for the manufacture of metal powders and
many times as many potential suppliers. Furthermore
not all metal powders are equal in terms of their
fundamental properties even when manufactured via
the same technique (when procured from different
vendors). This presents quite a challenge to beginners
in AM technology when deciding on a powder supplier.
However, some AM equipment suppliers, such as EOS,
sell ‘validated powder’. ‘Validated powder’ is a powder
which has been identified as suitable for use in AM.
Whilst validated powder can de-risk procuring powders
for AM it does limit users to a single source supplier
and inhibits the development of in-house expertise.
Given the complexity of the AM metal powder supply
chain this review article aims to resolve some of the
confusion involved and address some of the frequently
asked questions by users. Additionally, the article will
highlight key issues that the market needs to address,
and make potential users aware of some of the key
factors to consider when selecting the most appropriate
powder supplier.
2. Overview of the Powder Bed AM Market
Over the last 20 year period the AM market has grown
rapidly from an industry worth <US$100 million in 1993
to around US$3000 million in 2013, see Figure 1.
Current predictions forecast that this rapid growth
will continue and that there will be a five-fold market
value increase by 2021 (1). This growth trend in AM
technology is also reflected in global raw materials
(powder) sales. Powder sales in the AM sector over the
past decade are shown in Figure 2. After a decline in
sales in 2009, due to market reaction at the beginning
of the fiscal crisis, both the AM sector value and AM
material sales have seen rapid growth since 2010.
Specific to metal powder AM, the sale of powder for
metal processes is also shown in Figure 2. It can be
seen that metal sales have followed the market trend
since 2010, with sales more than doubling in a three
year period. However, the value of the metal powder
AM market is a relatively small proportion of the whole
market. This highlights the opportunity for growth for
powder suppliers offering products into the metals AM
market.
Based on data from 2013 there are 855 powder
manufacturers worldwide (425 located in North
America, 205 in Europe and 225 in the Asia-Pacific
region) capable of producing an estimated 1.12
million metric tonnes, to a value of approximately
US$6.9 billion (2). The top six powder manufacturers
have a combined market share of 44% and generally
serve the press and sinter market. The remaining
market share is made up of small businesses, likely
producing powder for a specific purpose or application.
When the metal powder market is evaluated, only
US$32.6 million was sold for AM usage (0.0047%).
This shows that despite the enormous anticipation of
the impact of AM, traditional powder processes such
528.80
600
417.00

All AM Materials
500 Metallic AM materials only
3500
327.10
Value, US$million

Services 400
265.90

3000
Market value, US$million

Products
238.00
220.90

217.80
189.50

2500 300
151.00
128.90

2000 200
93.40
81.20
71.00

1500
32.60
24.90
18.00
13.50

100
12.00

1000
0
500
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

2012
2013
2011

0
Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

2012
2013
2011

Year Fig. 2. History of materials sales for AM systems worldwide:

(–) all AM materials, (–) metallic AM materials only (metallic
Fig. 1. AM market growth 1991–2013 (1) powder sale data not available prior to 2009) (1)

244 © 2015 Johnson Matthey

http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688686 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)
as press and sinter and metal injection moulding
(MIM) still dominate the marketplace. However, as AM
processes become more established as component
manufacturing routes, rather than rapid prototyping
technologies, the potential for growth in the metal AM
powder supply is considerable.
3. Selection of AM Powder
3.1 The Importance of Powder
The AM process uses powder as its raw material
feedstock, as such the consistency of the powders
used to build AM components will have a critical
influence on the final component properties. During the
build sequence of an AM component, the raw powder
feedstock is stored in a hopper, the design of the hopper
and the method by which powder is introduced into
the build chamber depends entirely on the equipment
manufacturer. A discrete amount of powder from the
hopper is spread (either using a rake or roller system)
across the build chamber to form a thin (no more than
one to two particle diameters) continuous layer of
powder. After spreading it is critical that the layer is
homogenous over the entire area of the build chamber,
any degree of inhomogeneity may result in porosity (in
the absence of powder) or incomplete through-thickness
melting (too much powder pooled up in one area). The
spread layer is selectively fused using either a laser
source or an electron beam based on an input sliced
three-dimensional (3D) computer aided design (CAD)
model. Following selective sintering another layer of
powder is spread over the first. This iterative process
of powder spreading followed by selective melting is
continued until the build is complete. The total number
of powder layers spread will of course depend on the
size of component being built but the number could be
in the region of 7000 layers. Furthermore it is common
to build multiple components during one build event.
The layer spreading, hopper dosing and bulk packing
performance of the AM powder will depend entirely
on the properties of the powder being used. Further
complicating the use of AM powder is that the volume
of the actual component built can be significantly less
than the total volume of powder that has been spread.
As a consequence there is a large amount of unused
powder left over in the build chamber, given the high
cost of metal powders it is essential that the unused
powder is effectively recovered and reused in future
builds. However, the effect of continued recycling of
245 © 2015 Johnson Matthey
the unused powder on the actual powder properties
and hence subsequent component properties has not
been the subject of intensive scientific study. In the few
scientific journals published in the field of metal powder
recycling in AM, it has been observed that recycling
powders in powder bed AM processes results in an
increase in powder particle size distribution (PSD) (2,
3). The thermal effects that result from the process,
such as chamber temperature and the radiation energy
in selective laser melting (SLM) of metal powders,
may cause physical as well as chemical changes to
the recycled powder. Furthermore contamination,
either through impurities, foreign bodies or interstitial
elements may be introduced to the powder as a result
of handling during pre-processing or post-processing
stages.
The first step in understanding powder requirements
for AM processes is to assess the types of metallic
powder that are available. The following sections
provide an overview of the methods of metal powder
production routes.
3.2 Routes of Powder Production
The production of AM metal powder generally consists
of three major stages as outlined in the flow diagram
shown in Figure 3. Briefly, the first stage involves the
mining and extracting of ore to form a pure or alloyed
metal product (ingot, billet and wire) appropriate
for powder production; the second stage is powder
production and the final stage is classification and
validation.
The supply chain of taking ore and extracting a metal
is well established and supplies a vast range of pure
metals and specific alloys to global markets. Once an
ingot of the metal or alloy has been formed a number
of additional processing steps may be required to
make the feedstock suitable for the chosen atomisation
process. For example, plasma atomisation requires the
feedstock material to be either in wire form or powder
form, thus adding additional rolling and drawing work or
a first step powder production route.
Once the first processing form has been obtained
there are a number of methods available to produce
metal powders including, but not limited to: solid-state
reduction, electrolysis, various chemical processes,
atomisation and milling. Historically, for reasons that
will be discussed, atomisation has been identified as
the best way to form metal powders for AM due to the
geometrical properties of the powder it yields.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688686 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)

Stage 1
Ore

Hydrogenation and
Extraction
dehydrogenation

Forming

Forming
Ingot
(billet, wire)

Stage 2

Plasma, PREP, REP Water atomisation

or EIGA atomisation
Gas or centrifugal
Atomisation atomisation Atomisation

Drying

Powder

Post
processing

Stage 3
Validation

Fig. 3. From ore to validated AM powder – powder production steps flow chart

None of the powder production routes actually
produce a 100% powder yield in the required size
fractions. Some post processing is therefore necessary.
As a minimum, the as-produced metal powder must be
classified into a well-defined particle size distribution
suitable for the required process: typically 15–45 µm for
SLM and 45–106 µm for electron beam melting (EBM).
3.2.1 Water Atomisation
All atomisation processes begin with melting the
feedstock alloy. The melting process has a number of
variations, but generally when atomising using water,
the feedstock is first melted in a furnace before being
transferred to a tundish (a crucible that regulates the
flow rate of the melt into the atomiser). The liquid alloy
enters the atomisation chamber from above; here
it is free to fall through the chamber. Water jets are
symmetrically positioned around the stream of liquid
metal, atomising and solidifying the particles. The final
powder exits at the bottom of the chamber, where it is
collected. Additional processing steps are then required
to dry the powder. Metal powder produced in this
way is typically highly irregular in morphology which
reduces both packing properties and flow properties.
Water atomisation is the main method of producing iron
and steel powders and typically feeds into the press-
and-sintered industries rather than the specialised AM
industry.
3.2.2 Gas Atomisation
The gas atomisation process mimics water atomisation,
with the differentiator being the use of gas instead
of water during processing. Air can be used as the
atomising media, but it’s more likely that an inert gas
(nitrogen or argon) will be used to reduce the risk of
oxidation and contamination of the metal. The process
of melting the metal ingots can be the same as described
for water atomisation, however for powders produced

246 © 2015 Johnson Matthey

http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688686 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)

for high end applications such as aerospace, the need just before entering the atomisation chamber, as shown
to control interstitial elements has led to increased in Figure 5. This application is used when processing
use of vacuum induction melting (VIM) furnaces. A reactive alloys, such as Ti-6Al-4V, minimising the risk of
VIM furnace is typically installed directly above the contamination from exposure of the molten titanium to
atomisation chamber such that the molten stream of the crucible and the atmosphere (5).
liquid metal enters the atomisation chamber directly
from the furnace rather than through a tundish, similar
to the set-up shown in Figure 4. The stream of liquid
metal is atomised by high pressure jets of gas. Due to
the lower heat capacity of the gas (compared to water)
the metal droplets have an increased solidification time
which results in comparatively more spherical powder
particles (i.e. droplet spheroidisation time is shorter
than the solidification time). Whilst it is not possible
to have complete control over the particle size of as-
atomised powder, the distribution can be influenced by
varying the ratio of the gas to melt flow rate. Research
in the field of gas atomisation has shown that even finer Fig. 5. Schematic of the EIGA process for production of AM
powders (Courtesy of LPW Technology, UK)
particle size distributions can be achieved through the
use of hot gas atomisation (4).
Although interstitial elements can be well controlled
in gas atomised powders, there are still potential
3.2.3 Plasma Atomisation
contamination risks. Contamination most pertinent to Plasma atomisation is a method of producing highly
non-static critical components, such as aero-engine spherical particles. The feedstock used in the process
parts, include refractory materials which can originate can either be in wire form such as the method used by
from the ceramic crucibles and atomising nozzles AP&C Advanced Powders and Coatings Inc, Canada,
used. One solution to this is to use electrode induction or in powder form such as the method used by Tekna
melting gas atomisation (EIGA). EIGA is a variation of Plasma Systems Inc, Canada. The spool of wire or
gas atomisation where the metal is fed into the atomiser powder feedstock is fed into the atomisation chamber,
in the form of a rod that is melted by an induction coil where it is simultaneously melted and atomised by co-
axial plasma torches and gas jets, such as that shown
in Figure 6.
Plasma rotating electrode process (PREP) is a
Melt
variation of plasma atomisation whereby a bar of
rotating feedstock is used instead of a wire feed. As the
Gas source rotating bar enters the atomisation chamber plasma
and pump
torches melt the end of the bar, ejecting material from
its surface. The melt solidifies before hitting the walls of
the chamber.

Fine powder 3.2.4 Hydride-Dehydride Process

The hydride-dehydride (HDH) method (6) of powder
Nozzle production differs from the atomisation processes
described above due to the fact that it does not involve
Collection melting of the metal feedstock. Instead, it involves
chamber
crushing, milling and screening to resize larger lumps
of metal feedstock into finer powder particles. The
Fig. 4. Schematic of the gas atomisation process for HDH process relies on the brittle nature of certain
production of AM powders (Courtesy of LPW Technology, metals, such as titanium, when exposed to hydrogen.
UK)
In the case of titanium, titanium hydrides are formed

247 © 2015 Johnson Matthey

http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688686 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)
Titanium
Plasma spool
torches
Vacuum
pump
Collection
chamber
Fig. 6. Schematic of the plasma atomisation process for
production of AM powders (Courtesy of LPW Technology,
UK)
in a hydride unit by introducing hydrogen and heat.
The brittle lumps can then be crushed and screened
into the required particle size distribution (PSD). The
powder is then returned to the hydride unit to remove
the excess hydrogen from the metal powder particles.
Powder particles produced using HDH are typically
highly irregular. HDH powders are typically used either
in their as-made condition or used as the powder
feedstock for plasma atomisation.
3.2.5 TiROTM Process
The TiROTM process (7, 8) is a relatively new
method for the production of pure titanium powder
developed by CSIRO, Australia. The TiRO TM
process is a two stage continuous production
method in which titanium tetrachloride (TiCl 4) is
first thermally reduced to an MgCl 2/Ti composite
under the presence of magnesium in a fluidised bed
reactor. The MgCl 2/Ti composite is then separated
using vacuum distillation to produce high purity Ti
powder. The as-processed Ti powder is unsuitable
for AM processes due to the particle size range
primarily being 150–600 µm. As such it is necessary
that the powder is modified using a high shear
milling process in a controlled environment to resize
the powder to a range suitable for AM.
248 © 2015 Johnson Matthey
3.2.6 Summary of Powder Production Routes
Each of these processes yields powder with varying
characteristics, a summary of which can be seen
in Table I. A series of micrographs highlighting the
various particle morphologies obtained from each
manufacturing route is shown in Figure 7.
3.3 Powder Key Process Variables
The quality of a component built in an SLM process
is assessed based on part density, dimensional
accuracy, surface finish, build rate and mechanical
properties. In order to achieve predictable and
consistent component qualities it is desirable that
the characteristics of the powder bed and the
parameters of the machine are maintained at a
constant level since the powder bed and machine
parameters are closely correlated. In order to
maintain a constant powder bed during each
SLM build process it is important to understand
and control characteristics such as powder bed
temperature and density. These characteristics are
governed by the KPVs of the starting powder. Due to
the complex nature of powders, characterising their
performance is not a trivial task. A list of variables
(and analysis techniques) that may be considered
to have an impact on performance is provided in
Table II.
3.3.1 Particle Morphology
Particle morphology will have a significant impact on
the bulk packing and flow properties of a powder batch.
Spherical or regular, equiaxed particles are likely to
arrange and pack more efficiently than irregular particles
(9). Research into the effect of particle morphology on
the AM process has shown that morphology can have a
significant influence on the powder bed packing density
and consequently on the final component density
(10–12), where the more irregular the particle
morphology the lower the final density. As a
consequence of this highly spherical particles tend to
be favoured in the AM process. This limits the use of
potentially cheaper powder production routes such as
water atomisation and HDH. Furthermore as can be
observed in Figure 7(b) gas atomised powders are
only nominally spherical. In the case of the titanium
alloy Ti-6Al-4V, this has led to widespread adoption of
plasma atomised powder. Plasma atomised powder is
typically highly spherical, but is currently produced by a
single source – AP&C, Canada.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688686 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)

Table I Summary of Powder Characteristics by Manufacturing Process

Manufacturing
Particle size, µm Advantages Disadvantages Common uses
Process
Water 0–500 High throughput Post processing Non-reactive
atomisation Range of particle required to remove
sizes water
Only requires Irregular particle
feedstock in ingot morphology
form Satellites present
Wide PSD
Low yield of powder
between 20–150 μm
Gas atomisation 0–500 Wide range of alloys Satellites present Ni, Co, Fe, Ti (EIGA),
(inc. EIGA) available Wide PSD Al
Suitable for reactive Low yield of powder
alloys between 20–150 μm
Only requires
feedstock in ingot
form
High throughput
Range of particle
sizes
Use of EIGA allows
for reactive powders
to be processed
Spherical particles
Plasma 0–200 Extremely spherical Requires feedstock to Ti (Ti64 most
atomisation particles either be in wire form or common)
powder form
High cost
Plasma rotating 0–100 High purity powders Low productivity Ti
electrode process Highly spherical High cost Exotics
powder
Centrifugal 0–600 Wide range of particle Difficult to make Solder pastes, Zinc of
atomisation sizes with very narrow extremely fine powder alkaline batteries, Ti
PSD unless very high speed and steel shot
can be achieved
Hydride– 45–500 Low cost option Irregular particle Ti6/4
dehydride morphology Limited to metals
process High interstitial content which form a brittle
(H, O) hydride

3.3.2 Particle Size Distribution
Characterisation of PSD in a batch of powder ensures
that the optimum range of particles, by size, are used
in each process. In general, EBM uses a nominal
PSD between 45–106 µm, whilst SLM uses a finer
PSD between 15–45 µm. PSD will have an obvious
impact on both the minimum layer thickness and
the resolution of the finest detail in the component.
An inappropriate combination of PSD and layer
thickness can potentially lead to in situ segregation
due to the mechanical re-coater pushing coarser
particles away from the bed (13), segregation in this
sense could lead to variation in build quality in the
vertical direction. It is generally well reported that
using powders with a wide PSD and a high fine
content produce components with a higher fractional
density (13, 14). However, the use of fine materials
increases the risk of health and safety issues. This is
particularly true when processing reactive materials
such as titanium where finer particulates are likely to
be more flammable and explosive.
3.3.3 Bulk Packing and Flow Properties
Powder flowability is one of the most important
technological requirements for powders used in AM.
The density homogeneity of the final part depends on
the layer-by-layer melting being performed on thin and
uniform layers that are accurately deposited by the
feeding device. Cohesive powders which exhibit poor

249 © 2015 Johnson Matthey

http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688686 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 7. Example SEM micrographs of typical particle morphologies obtained using: (a) HDH process; (b) gas atomisation; (c)
plasma atomisation; and (d) plasma rotating electrode process. In all micrographs the powder shown is Ti-6Al-4V and images
were taken using a Hitachi TM3000 SEM

Table II Powder KPVs and Techniques that Could be Used for their Measurement

Particulate properties Bulk properties

Powder property Assessment technique Powder property Assessment technique

Particle shape (morphology) SEM Apparent density Hall flow

Optical microscopy Freeman FT4
Tap density Tapped density tester
Particle size and particle size Sieve Flowability Hall flow
distribution Laser diffraction Dynamic flow testing (e.g.
Optical microscopy revolution, Freeman FT4)
Shear cell
Angle of repose
Cohesiveness Freeman FT4

Particle Porosity Particle polishing and optical Surface Area BET surface area analysis
microscope
Chemical composition ICP-OES
XRD
Inert gas fusion
Combustion infrared
detection

250 © 2015 Johnson Matthey

http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688686 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)
flow properties are likely to be more problematic in terms
of obtaining homogenous density layers throughout
the build than powders which are comparatively more
free flowing. Powder flow is difficult to relate to any
one given parameter of a powder but there are some
general rules which can typically be applied (15, 16):
(a) Spherical particles are generally more free flowing
than irregular or angular particles
(b) Particle size has a significant influence on flow
– larger particles are generally more free flowing
than smaller particles
(c) Moisture content in powders can reduce flow due
to capillary forces acting between particles
(d) Flow properties often show a dependency on the
packing density at the time of measurement –
powders with a higher packing density are less free
flowing than powders with a lower packing density
(e) Short range attractive forces such as van der Waals
forces and electrostatic forces can adversely affect
powder flow and may cause particle agglomeration
(short range forces have a bigger impact on finer
particles).
3.3.4 Chemical Composition
The laser sintering behaviour of a metal powder will
not only depend on the physical properties, it will of
course also depend on the chemical properties.
Powder chemical composition for AM should ideally
be optimised for the machine or application. Validating
chemical composition helps to ensure that the
manufactured component has homogenous material
properties.
As well as the bulk alloying chemistry, it is important to
understand the effect of interstitial elements, such as O
and N, since component properties will depend on the
amount of interstitial elements present. For example,
it is well known that the tensile strength and ductility
properties of Ti-6Al-4V are influenced by O content
whereby an increase in O results in an increase in tensile
strength and a subsequent decrease in elongation (17).
Research has also shown that interstitial elements
can influence the melting kinetics of the powder by
interfering with the surface tension of the melt pool
resulting in Marangoni flow (18). Marangoni flow can
have a negative influence on the porosity of the final
component (11, 19).
3.4 Powder Recycling
It has been mentioned previously that for a powder bed
AM process to be economically viable it is necessary
251 © 2015 Johnson Matthey
to recycle the large amount of unused powder. The
effect of continuous powder reuse on the KPVs is
an area that has up until recently received relatively
little scientific attention. A handful of researchers have
investigated the effect of continuous reuse of powders
(2, 3) for example, however further study is required
to fully understand the impact of recycling on process
performance.
4. Procurement Options
Once a suitable atomisation route has been selected,
the AM user then faces more decisions around
powder supply. The market opportunity for metal AM
powder supply has not gone unnoticed, and three
main options for powder supply have emerged. Firstly,
users can choose to procure powder directly from the
AM machine provider. Secondly, users could choose
to procure powder from third party companies, who
offer AM machine ‘validated’ powders. Finally powder
can be sourced direct from an atomisation company.
Indeed several powder manufacturers are now offering
AM specific powders as part of their product portfolio
(the largest of these, and the alloys they provide are
listed in Table III). A summary of the advantages and
disadvantages of each procurement option is presented
in Table IV.
At present the majority of powder sales are through
AM machine manufacturers or third party suppliers.
The powder provided by these suppliers has been
optimised for each additive process, also known as
being ‘validated’.
By validating a powder, the supplier is ensuring that the
powder given to the customer is of suitable quality so
that, when being processed, it will behave as intended,
leading to a successfully built part that will adhere to the
chemical composition and the mechanical properties of
the given metal or alloy. Simply put, the machine will
successfully build with that material, thus de-risking
powder supply for the end user.
Machine suppliers can validate powder as they will
develop processing parameters on their machines for
each specific material. Once the machine repeatedly
builds reliable, mechanically suitable parts then the
parameters will be stored and sent out with batches
of that material to users. The powder being used
will be characterised using some of the techniques
discussed in Section 3.3 and all subsequent batches
will undertake the same testing to ensure that they
adhere to the same specification. This ensures that the
http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688686 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)

Table III Supplier List of Powders Specified for AMa

Manufacturing
Supplier type Material Building process
processes

Manufacturer

Centrifugal
Third party
Company

Co-Based
Cu-Based
Fe-Based
Al-Based

Ni-Based

Precious
Ti-Based
Location

Plasma
metals

Water
EBM

SLM

Gas
Advanced Canada P P P P P
Powders and
Coatings –
AP&C
Carpenter US P P P P P P P
Technology
Corp
GKN US P P P P
Hoeganaes
Corp
H.C. Starck EU P P P P P P P P
GmbH
Höganäs EU P P P P P P P P
Sweden AB
Sandvik EU P P P P P P P P
Materials
Technology
TLS Technik EU P P P P P P P
GmbH & Co.
Spezialpulver
KG
LPW UK P P P P P P P P P P P P
Technology Ltd
a
Information obtained from the supplier websites (Accessed April 2015)

end user is receiving consistent powder across batches it contributes an almost insignificant proportion of the
that has been validated for their specific process. Third income generated by powder producers (i.e. 0.0047%
party suppliers offer a similar service, refining powder of the income generated from metal powders was due
size and morphology to ensure they work in process. to sales into the AM market). Since the AM powder
From this it can be seen that machine manufacturers market is not currently a major source of income for
and third party suppliers undertake a lot of work to powder producers it is likely that powders will not be
ensure the powder they provide is suitable for their AM produced to the strict requirements of AM. A further
process. There are a number of obvious advantages risk with this procurement method is losing the support
from procuring powder through these routes. However, of the AM machine manufacturer. This can be slightly
this increased level of material supply security does de-risked by purchasing material from one of the small
also draw some limitations. number of powder manufacturers who are starting
Alternatively, it is possible to procure powder directly validate their own powder for AM processes.
from the powder manufacturer. There are a range of The major advantage of procuring powder from this
benefits from purchasing powder directly from the route is the increased choice of materials and cheaper
manufacturer; however, there are some underlying procurement costs. To ensure that the specification of
risks that a customer must also be aware of. The most the powder is met, a customer may need to undertake
pertinent of these risks was alluded to in Section 2. The their own characterisation analysis. Further to this a
current state of the metallic AM powder market is that manufacturer may only supply the powder in a wider

252 © 2015 Johnson Matthey

http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688686 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)

Table IV A
 dvantages and Disadvantages of Procuring Powder from Machine Manufacturers, Third Party
Suppliers and Direct from Powder Manufacturers

Supplier type Advantages Disadvantages

Machine manufacturers
Validated third party suppliers
Direct from powder manufacturers
Standard machine parameters are
provided and are ready to use
Powder that has been ‘tried and tested’
Support from the supplier should a build
have issues
Ease of sourcing
Already established procurement routes
Able to select powder from the entire
powder metallurgy industry
A wide range of batch sizes are offered
Powder that has been ‘tried and tested’
Ease of sourcing
Wide range of material choices
Potentially lower cost of powder (highly
dependent of material/process)
Choice of manufacturing process,
allowing a degree of control over powder
characteristics
Can use local manufacturers
An increased level of material traceability
Potentially higher cost of materials
Material options are limited
Experimenting with powder of a
different specification is limited
Lack of traceability of material source
and manufacturing process
Lack of traceability of material source
and manufacturing process
Lack of support from the machine
manufacturer should a build fail
Potentially higher cost of materials
Lack of support from the machine
manufacturer should a build fail
No guarantee that the material will
produce a successful build
Minimum batch orders may apply,
due to minimum powder yields from a
manufacturing process
Will powders be produced to the
exacting standards required for AM?
Lack of powder specification with each
order

PSD than the customer wants, therefore additional
sieving may be required. Both of these add complexity
to the powder supply.
5. Customer Considerations
When deciding where to purchase powder from, a
customer has a number of considerations to make.
Most importantly:
• Can they supply me with the material I require?
• Is the price of the powder competitive?
• Can they provide the batch size I require?
• Is there traceability of the material source? Do I
require traceability?
• Do I require knowledge over the powder
specification? Do I require control over the powder
specification?
Additionally, the customer should always consider
the use of the machine and powder. For instance: is
the machine being used in production or research?
What is the use of the end component? A machine
used purely for production purposes will be required
to make parts of the highest quality, therefore powder
from the AM machine supplier or third party supplier
is likely to be the best procurement route. The added
benefit of this is that the machine manufacturer will
support the customer if there are any build issues.
However, if complete control and traceability of the
powder used for the build is required, then there
may be a lack of transparency from the AM machine
supplier as to the complete history of their powder.
Research-based machines have a different range
of considerations to make. If the primary use of the
machine is to prototype or develop the technology,

253 © 2015 Johnson Matthey

http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688686 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)
then the customer will likely want the additional
control over the powder that they are using. The
customer will also likely want to attempt building
with new materials or experiment with machine
parameters. Therefore sourcing material directly
from the powder manufacturer may be best suited
here.
There is no right answer for the procurement route
that customer takes. However, careful consideration
needs to be given to the application and desired
end results of the AM system.
6. Future of Powder Supply Chain
There are a number of theories of how this growing
material market will develop over the next five to ten
years. Here, some ideas are explored.
(a) Increased production and industrialisation of
AM drive the price of powder down: all market
predictions show the continued growth of metal AM
over the coming years. Naturally, as the technology
becomes widely used, the supply chain of
materials will also grow. Factors such as increasing
competition and larger production runs should see
the cost of powder per kilogram be driven down. As
the powder metallurgy supply chain infrastructure is
already well established, the increase in suppliers
of specific AM powders is likely to happen rapidly.
This theory also applies to processes that are
currently expensive to run, for example plasma
atomisation. If, as the market develops, this is seen
as the best atomisation route then the amount of
powder produced by it will significantly increase.
Feedstock for the process will become cheaper
and it is likely that the range of materials available
will increase.
(b) Game changing powder production techniques
emerge: throughout this article only atomisation
as a way of producing powders for AM has been
discussed. However, in the near future, there is the
likelihood that an altogether new manufacturing
method will eclipse atomisation, providing suitable
powder for a fraction of the production cost.
Companies such as Metalysis, UK, are developing
new ways in which powder can be made at a
significantly reduced price.
(c) Introduction of third party suppliers increases
competition: the emergence of third party suppliers
could see the price of powder driven down further.
Purely through competition, suppliers will be able
254 © 2015 Johnson Matthey
to procure large batches of powder and pass the
savings onto the end user.
(d) Will machine and powder supply lock down or open
up? This will be an extremely important moment
for metal AM. Other industries, namely polymer-
based AM, have seen companies use bar-coded
systems on their machines, such that a system will
not physically build unless a bar code of a material
that they supply is scanned. If this is the case with
metal AM machines then it could cause a severe
tightening on the research capabilities of these
machines. However, this is only likely to happen on
the highest value, production use systems. Again,
as seen with polymer-based machines, competitors
with machines of more open architecture are likely
to enter the market. It is highly likely that a lot of
machines of this nature will emerge as patents from
the major machine manufacturers start to expire.
7. Conclusions
The three main options available for the procurement
of AM powders include AM equipment providers, third
party suppliers and directly from powder atomisers.
There is some degree of security in purchasing powder
directly from AM equipment suppliers. This is because
the powder batch they supply will be at least nominally
the same grade as the powder batch used to develop
melt theme parameters. However, the AM equipment
supplier has ownership over the powder source thus
limiting the powder supply chain competiveness. This
results in powder costs which remain the highest of all
procurement options.
Procuring powder directly from the atomisers may
be a cheaper alternative. However, despite the recent
exponential growth, the AM market is currently a
relatively small source of revenue for most powder
atomisers. Furthermore, because of the specific
particle size fractions used in AM, powder atomisers
may not produce powder specifically for AM. Instead
atomisers may obtain the required size fractions from
an atomised powder batch intended for use in other
industries such as powder hot isostatic pressing (PHIP)
or press and sinter. The originally intended process
for these powder batches may not require the same
high quality as powders used in AM and as such their
performance in an AM process may not be adequate or
as expected.
This risk of going direct to atomisers can be limited
by using a third party powder supplier. In this case
http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688686 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)
the third party supplier takes on the associated risks
of procuring powder batches in much higher quantities
than would be needed by any one AM service provider.
This then allows the AM service provider to procure only
the amount they need. The higher powder quantities
procured by a third party supplier potentially provides
them with the necessary influence to demand higher
quality powder batches that are atomised specifically
with AM as the intended end use. The level of pre-
sale powder qualification is also much more detailed
from third party suppliers than from the atomisers
themselves. Even with this option the procurement
costs can be higher than going directly to the atomisers
and less support will be made available from equipment
suppliers should the procured powder be considered a
potential factor for build failures.
What increases the complexity, and indeed
uncertainty, of procuring powders for AM is the lack of
AM specific powder specifications. It is commonplace
to make decisions to accept or reject powder batches
based on specifications used for press and sinter
applications. These specifications would at best include
chemical composition, sizing by sieve analysis and
flow assessment by Hall flow. Such specifications can
be inadequate to use as a benchmark for AM powder
quality. As discussed throughout this article predicting
powder performance is highly complex and can be
difficult to characterise using simple techniques. Future
work needs to be aimed at systematically identifying
the properties of metal powders that have the biggest
influence on the powder performance in terms of
hopper discharge and powder spreading and also how
the powder responds to the AM melting process. Work
in this field will allow the development of specifications
which adequately define and control the key process
variables of powders used in AM.
References
1. ‘Wohlers Report 2014: 3D Printing and Additive
Manufacturing State of the Industry Annual Worldwide
Progress Report’, Wohlers Associates, Inc, Fort
Collins, Colorado, USA, 2014
2. P. A. Carroll, P. Brown, G. Ng, R. Scudamore, A. J.
Pinkerton, W. U. H. Syed, H. K. Sezer, L. Li and J.
Allen, ‘The Effect of Powder Recycling in Direct Metal
Laser Deposition on Powder and Manufactured
Part Characteristics’, in “Proceedings of AVT-139
Specialists Meeting on Cost Effective Manufacture
via Net Shape Processing”, 15th–19th May, 2006,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, NATO Science and
255 © 2015 Johnson Matthey
Technology Organisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2006
3. V. Seyda, N. Kaufmann and C. Emmelmann, Phys.
Proc., 2012, 39, 425
4. J. J. Dunkley, ‘Hot Gas Atomisation – Economic and
Engineering Aspects’, in Proceedings of the World
Congress and Exhibition on Powder Metallurgy,
PM2004, 17th–22nd October, 2004, Vienna, Austria,
The European Powder Metallurgy Association,
Shrewsbury, UK, 2005
5. R. Gerling, H. Clemens and F. P. Schimansky, Adv.
Eng. Mater., 2004, 6, (1–2), 23
6. C. McCracken, Powder Injection Moulding Int., 2008,
2, (2), 55
7. C. Doblin, D. Freeman and M. Richards, Key Eng.
Mater., 2013, 551, 37
8. C. Doblin, A. Chryss and A. Monch, Key Eng. Mater.,
2013, 520, 95
9. N. P. Karapatis, G. Egger, P.-E. Gygax and R.
Glardon, ‘Optimization of Powder Layer Density in
Selective Laser Sintering’, in Proceedings of the 10th
International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium,
The University of Texas at Austin, USA, 9th–11th
August, 1999, pp. 255–264
10. I. Gibson, D. W. Rosen and B. Stucker, “Additive
Manufacturing Technologies: Rapid Prototyping to
Direct Digital Manufacturing”, Springer, New York,
USA, 2010
11. H. J. Niu and I. T. H. Chang, Scripta Mater., 1999, 41,
(1), 25
12. D. Manfredi, F. Calignano, M. Krishnan, R. Canali, E.
P. Ambrosio and E. Atzeni, Materials, 2013, 6, (3), 856
13. A. Simchi, Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2004, 35, (5), 937
14. A. B. Spierings and G. Levy, ‘Comparison of Density of
Stainless Steel 316L Parts Produced with Selective Laser
Melting using Different Powder Grades’, in Proceedings of
the 20th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium, The University of Texas at Austin, USA,
3rd–5th August, 2009, pp. 342–353
15. P. C. Angelo and R. Subramanian, “Powder Metallurgy:
Science, Technology and Applications”, PHI Learning
Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, India, 2008, pp. 76–80
16. R. M. German, “Powder Metallurgy Science”, Metal
Powder Industries Federation, Princeton, New Jersey,
USA, 1994, pp. 9–58
17. J.-M. Oh, B.-G. Lee, S.-W. Cho, S.-W. Lee, G.-S. Choi
and J.-W. Lim, Metal. Mater. Int., 2011, 17, (5), 733
18. M. Rombouts, J. P. Kruth, L. Froyen and P. Mercelis,
CIRP Annals, 2006, 55, (1), 187
19. D. Boisselier and S. Sankaré, Phys. Procedia, 2012, 39,
455
http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688686 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)

The Authors
Jason Dawes is a Senior Research Engineer at the Manufacturing Technology Centre (MTC)
where he leads the Particulate Engineering research group. His role is in the technical
management of highly innovative research projects involving powder based manufacturing
technologies such as additive manufacturing, laser cladding and hot isostatic pressing. He was
awarded EngD from University of Birmingham, UK, in 2014 in the field of Chemical Engineering.

Robert Bowerman is a Research Engineer at MTC where he leads projects within the field of
additive manufacturing. He has experience in the following technologies: electron beam melting
(EBM), selective laser melting (SLM), stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing (DLP) and
fused deposition melting (FDM). His projects focus on innovative research and development
work primarily on the Manufacturing Capability Readiness Levels (MCRLs) 4 to 6. Work carried
out covers all areas of additive manufacturing, including development and productionisation of
technology and designing for AM. He is presently working towards Chartered Engineer status.

Ross Trepleton is the Component Technologies Group Technology Manager at the MTC. He is
responsible for the coordination and management of the MTC Research Programme, in the area
of Component Technology to meet the needs of clients and stakeholders. The aim of this area
of research is to develop new technologies that enable improved component manufacturing. He
was awarded a PhD from University of Birmingham in the field of Metallurgy and Materials.

256 © 2015 Johnson Matthey