| contents page | news | events | advertisers’ index | contact |
Metal powder removal in AM
The challenges of metal powder removal: Managing risk, productivity and quality One of the goals for the metal Additive Manufacturing industry is the automated series production of components through a streamlined manufacturing process. Such an ambitious goal faces a major obstacle: the challenge of powder removal. Joseph Kowen reviews some of the significant risks facing AM producers at this stage of the process, from health and safety considerations to the impact on quality and productivity, and highlights some of the technologies being developed to address them.
In January 2003 an explosion occurred at a plant in North Carolina, USA, belonging to West Pharmaceutical Services. Six workers at the plant were killed and thirty-eight were injured. Debris from the blast was found up to two miles from the plant, the explosion was felt twenty-five miles away, and the plant suffered significant damages and destruction. The plant manufactured synthetic rubber products for the medical industry and the cause of the blast turned out to be an accumulation of polyethylene dust from powders and fillers that were used in the manufacturing process. Something had disturbed the dust accumulation, resulting in a cloud of particles which ignited. The blast triggered a study by the Chemical Safety Board, a US government agency. Its report in 2006 found that in the twenty–five year period between 1980 and 2005, 281 incidents of chemical dust-related explosions had caused 119 deaths and 718 injuries. Dust has for years presented a recognised hazard in many industries and the metal powder industry has not been immune. In December
Vol. 4 No. 1 © 2018 Inovar Communications Ltd
2010, an explosion at the titanium plant belonging to AL Solutions in New Cumberland, West Virginia, USA, resulted in the deaths of three workers. In January 2011, an explosion at a Hoeganaes iron powder facility in Gallatin, Tennessee,
Technical Considerations for Additive Manufactured Medical Devices Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff Document issued on December 5, 2017. The draft of this document was issued on May 10, 2016. For questions about this document regarding CDRH-regulated devices, contact the Division of Applied Mechanics at (301) 796-2501, the Division of Orthopedic Devices at (301) 796-5650, or Matthew Di Prima, Ph.D. at (301) 796-2507 or by email matthew.diprima@fda.hhs.gov. For questions about this document regarding CBER-regulated devices, contact the Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development (OCOD) at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010.
USA, resulted in fatal injuries to five workers. These are just two examples. There are others from elsewhere in the world. Metal AM is a relatively new industrial endeavour and powder management is a central part of
MEASUREMENT SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION METRIC/SI (ENGLISH) UNITS MSFC-STD-3716 BASELINE EFFECTIVE DATE: October 18, 2017
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
George C. Marshall Space Flight Center Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama 35812
EM20 MSFC TECHNICAL STANDARD
STANDARD FOR ADDITIVELY MANUFACTURED SPACEFLIGHT HARDWARE BY LASER POWDER BED FUSION IN METALS
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited CHECK THE MASTER LIST — VERIFY THAT THIS IS THE CORRECT VERSION BEFORE USE
Fig. 1 Left, the FDA Technical Considerations for Additive Manufactured Medical Devices, published December 5, 2017 and right, NASA Standard MSFC-STD-3716, October 18, 2017
Metal Additive Manufacturing | Spring 2018
113