Comparative Evaluation of Characterization Methods for Powders Used in Additive Manufacturing
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, ISSN: 1544-1024, Vol: 30, Issue: 9, Page: 7019-7034
2021
- 11Citations
- 29Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
In recent years, the interest in additive manufacturing technologies has increased significantly, most of them using powders as feedstock material. It is therefore essential to check the quality of the powder before processing in order to ensure the same quality of the printed components at all times. This kind of quality assurance of a powder should be carried out independently of the additive manufacturing technology used. Since there is a lack of standards in this field, various powder analysis methods are available, with which, in principle, the same characteristics can often be measured, at least nominally. To verify the validity of these methods, three different nickel-based powders used for additive manufacturing were examined in the present study using standard methods (apparent density, tap density, Hall flow rate, optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy) and advanced characterization methods (dynamic image analysis, x-ray microcomputed tomography, adsorption measurement by Brunauer–Emmett–Teller method). A special focus has been given on particle size distribution, particle shape, specific surface area, and internal porosity. The results of these measurements were statistically compared. This study therefore provides an insight into the advantages and disadvantages of various optical characterization techniques.
Bibliographic Details
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know