ISAM Poster - “Evaluating the Feasibility of Metal Powder 3D Printing in an Academic Makerspace”
Evaluating the Case for Metal Powder 3D Printing in a University Maker Space
by Chris Parsell, Joseph Gottbrath
Abstract
This report is an effort to show the criteria we used for determining the feasibility of adopting Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF), a metal powder-based additive manufacturing technology, in an educational makerspace setting—specifically the Jacobs Institute for Design Innovation at UC Berkeley. Prompted by a growing number of inquiries from students, faculty, and researchers, this evaluation explores the technical, operation, safety, and educational implications of implementing LPBF as well as compares it to a more accessible alternative: Markforged's Atomic Diffusion Additive Manufacturing (ADAM) system, the Metal X.
The process included technical specification reviews, interviews with operators at peer institutions, safety and regulatory audits, and consultations with internal stakeholders. We assessed budgetary needs, infrastructure requirements, regulatory compliance challenges, and educational value. LPBF systems were found to offer superior part performance—achieving higher strength, density, hardness, and surface finish compared to the Metal X—but these benefits come with higher operational complexity and safety risk. LPBF uses combustible, fine metal powders and high-powered lasers, posing hazards such as fire, explosion, toxic exposure, and electrostatic discharge. Proper integration would require a purpose-built facility with dedicated ventilation, inert gas supply, fire suppression, static control, and restricted access. Furthermore, regulatory compliance would necessitate adherence to OSHA, Cal/OSHA, NFPA 484, and other standards, along with specialized training for both staff and users.
In contrast, ADAM systems offer a safer and simpler workflow, requiring less specialized infrastructure and training. However, the mechanical performance of ADAM-printed parts—particularly in strength, density, and isotropy—was insufficient for many of the research and engineering applications presented by stakeholders. While ADAM may serve as a valuable educational tool for introducing metal additive manufacturing, it does not meet the needs of advanced users in areas such as alloy research, structural components, or aerospace prototyping.
Our findings also highlight lessons from peer institutions operating LPBF systems. Operators from these facilities uniformly reported the necessity of full-time technical staff, strict safety protocols, and sustained institutional investment. Even with comprehensive mitigation strategies, baseline risks remain and must be actively managed.
Given the Jacobs Institute’s mission to prepare students for emerging technologies, LPBF holds long-term potential as a transformative tool for interdisciplinary education and research. However, due to the high cost, safety burden, and facility limitations, we deferred adoption until adequate investment of resources can be allocated for this. In the meantime, this report aims to serve as a roadmap for other institutions evaluating metal additive manufacturing technologies.
Introduction
"Do you have metal 3D printers?" This question has been asked regularly by visitors seeing our equipment for the first time. Eventually, inquiries came from faculty, researchers, and students with specific applications that could benefit from metal additive manufacturing.
My supervisor, Joseph Gottbrath, and I were prompted by a request from a UC Berkeley researcher to determine whether a Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF) machine could be housed in the Jacobs Institute maker space. We then decided to find out. This report is an effort to clarify the criteria used in this evaluation and to organize the findings. We have also evaluated Markforged's proprietary bound metal filament system, Atomic Diffusion Additive Manufacturing (ADAM), implemented in their Markforged Metal X. I include details that compare this with LPBF.
Given the Jacobs Institute's mission—"to enable students to encounter, explore, and excel in designing emerging technologies to benefit people and planet" [1]—we felt that the technology would benefit both students and researchers. We then needed to evaluate if and how metal AM could be safely and effectively introduced to our space. As many other academic makerspaces may soon face similar decisions, I hope this report serves as a useful roadmap for others evaluating the adoption of metal 3D printing.
Process
The following outlines the various methods included in this evaluation:
- Discussions about the tool's value to education and research
- Reviewing institutional safety policies (UC EH&S, Cal/OSHA)
- Comparing published mechanical properties of printed parts
- Auditing infrastructure and space requirements
- Consulting vendor technical specifications and scientific literature
- Evaluating use cases from academic and industry settings
- Interviewing shop managers and technical staff at peer institutions operating metal powder 3D printing systems to understand real-world challenges, training needs, and operational considerations.
- Conducting online research using search engines and LLM's (GPT-4o and o3) to identify relevant sources of safety guidance, facility requirements, and material performance
Data collection included manufacturer datasheets, federal and California regulatory standards, safety case studies, and direct consultation with campus stakeholders.
Results and Discussion
Budget and Funding Considerations
Initial investment: Powder bed fusion systems are expensive, with purchase and installation costs seem to range $150K-$750K (a rough figure). Additional costs include inert gas handling systems, fire suppression, HVAC, filtration, and safety certification and compliance costs. Grants and/or special funding sources would be required to offset the capital expense.
Operating Expenses: Operational costs include consumables (metal powders, filters, PPE), energy, and maintenance contracts. Staffing costs would include at least one full-time technician. Maintenance contracts are also critical to uptime and reliability.
Educational and Research Value
Curriculum Integration: Metal AM would support a range of disciplines, especially in mechanical engineering and student-led organizations (e.g., Formula SAE, Space Enterprise at Berkeley). Students would benefit from experience with industry-standard technology.
Research Opportunities: Applications include alloy development, microstructure studies, and functionally graded materials. A metal AM system could advance materials science research.
Insights from Peer Institutions
To supplement technical evaluations, we interviewed shop managers and technical staff at several universities currently operating LPBF systems. Common themes emerged:
- Strict safety protocols were essential, with challenges in ensuring consistent adherence
- Dedicated, highly trained staff were required to operate and maintain the equipment safely
- Purpose-built facilities were necessary to meet spatial and infrastructure requirements for safe operation
Safety, Compliance, and Risk Management
UC Berkeley EH&S Requirements: Comprehensive hazard assessments and job safety analyses (JSAs) would be required [2]–[4]. Safety data sheets (SDS) must be maintained for all materials, with awareness of toxicological risks.
Hazards in LPBF Facilities:
-
Toxicological Risks: Inhalation of airborne metal powders poses chronic and acute health risks. Nickel, chromium, and cobalt are associated with sensitization, lung damage, and carcinogenicity [5], [20], [30], [32]. Fine powders (<10 μm) can penetrate deep into the lungs.
-
Combustibility: Metal powders used in LPBF—those labeled reactive like aluminum, titanium, magnesium, and zirconium alloys—are classified as combustible and explosive under NFPA 484 [11], [24], [25]. This risk increases in oxygen-enriched or dry environments.
-
Electrostatic Discharge (ESD): Fine powders can accumulate static charge during handling, increasing the risk of ignition without adequate grounding and humidity control. NFPA 77 provides guidelines for static control in powder-handling environments [28]. Additional risk mitigation includes ESD-safe flooring, bonding and grounding of equipment, and antistatic PPE [13], [23], [25].
-
Mechanical Risks: Post-processing tasks (cutting, grinding, HIP, stress relief) require additional training and protective equipment.
-
Waste Hazards: Contaminated powder, used filters, and PPE are regulated as hazardous waste [9], [13].
-
Laser Hazards: LPBF systems use Class 4 lasers capable of causing permanent eye and skin damage. Proper enclosures, interlocks, and signage are mandatory [29] and are standard in these systems.
Regulatory Requirements and Standards:
- OSHA standards for hazardous substances and respiratory protection [6], [7]
- Cal/OSHA-specific limits on airborne contaminants [8]–[10]
- NFPA 484 guidance for combustible metals [11]
- NFPA 77 for ESD risk mitigation in powder environments [28]
- UL 3400: Outline of Investigation for Additive Manufacturing Facility Safety Management provides a framework addressing equipment, materials, and facility safety practices [27]
- Compliance with hazardous waste disposal rules from DTSC and CUPAs [9]
Ethical and Environmental Risks: The potential for misuse (e.g. fabrication of weapon components) is a real concern with this kind of technology and warrants policy development to address and monitor this risk [12]. Access policies should also be designed to promote equitable access, ensuring that advanced fabrication technologies are not limited to a narrow subset of users. The need for responsible waste disposal should be considered [13].
Operational Complexity for Users
Staffing: A dedicated, trained technician would be essential to safely operate and maintain a LPBF system.
Training Requirements: Users would require knowledge in CAD, metallurgy, powder handling, safety protocols, and post-processing techniques [13].
Technical Performance and Capabilities
LPBF offers superior mechanical properties compared to bound powder extrusion alternatives like Markforged Metal X's ADAM process (Table 2), including better part density, surface finish, and strength. ADAM offers a simpler and safer user experience but trades off part performance (Table 1). While both methods can produce corrosion-resistant parts with proper treatment, LPBF is better suited for applications demanding high-performance mechanical properties.
Table 1: Adoption requirements for ADAM vs LPBF/DMLS
| Category | ADAM 3D Printing (Markforged Metal X, Desktop Metal Studio) | Powder-Based Metal 3D Printing (LPBF/DMLS) |
|---|---|---|
| Space Requirements | Can be placed in standard lab or workshop environments with minimal facility upgrades. | Requires a dedicated, enclosed room with restricted access due to fine powder hazards. |
| Ventilation Needs | Minimal ventilation needed for the printer; exhaust required for debinding station and sintering furnace. | Requires robust local exhaust ventilation (LEV) to control powder and fume emissions. |
| Inert Gas Supply | Requires argon or argon/hydrogen mix for the sintering furnace. | Needs argon or nitrogen gas supply for the printing process. Inert gas also needed for furnaces |
| Fire & Explosion Risk | Low risk; no loose powder, reducing explosion or fire hazards. | High risk due to combustibility of fine metal powder and potential dust explosions. |
| PPE Requirements | Basic PPE: safety glasses, nitrile gloves for handling parts, heat-resistant gloves for sintering. | Extensive PPE: full-face respirator or PAPR, nitrile gloves, fire-resistant clothing, and ESD-safe footwear. |
| Post-Processing Needs | Wash parts in solvent and sintering in a furnace (fewer steps) | Powder handling tools, part separation from build plate (bandsaw/wire EDM), sieving equipment, heat treatment furnace, part cleaning stations. |
| Ease of Use | Simpler, user-friendly workflow; operates similarly to plastic FDM printers. | Complex setup and operation; requires expertise in powder handling and machine calibration. |
| Training Requirements | Minimal training needed; can be operated by general workshop users with basic instruction. | Requires specialized training on powder safety, laser operation, and post-processing. |
| Cost Considerations | Lower overall cost; fewer facility modifications and less expensive consumables. ($100K-$200K) | High upfront and operational costs (printers, facility modifications, PPE, and consumables), ($300K-$1M) |
| Safety Hazards | Primary risks include solvent exposure during washing and high temperatures during sintering. | Exposure risks include metal dust inhalation, and fire/explosion risks, and laser hazards. |
| Regulatory Compliance | Simpler compliance; standard lab safety guidelines, EHS guidelines for inert gas storage | Strict compliance with OSHA, NFPA 484 (combustible metals), ISO/ASTM 52931, and ANSI laser safety standards. |
Table 2: Comparison of 17-4PH Stainless Steel Properties (ADAM vs LPBF, H900 Heat Treatment)
| Property | ADAM (Markforged Metal X) | LPBF (EOS M290) [22] |
|---|---|---|
| Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) | ~1000 MPa [36] | 1100–1250 MPa [22] |
| Yield Strength | 800-900 MPa [36] | ~1200 MPa [22] |
| Elongation at Break | 6-13% [21], [37] | ~13% [22] |
| Hardness (HRC) | 36 HRC | 42 HRC [22] |
| Density | ~90-95% [21], [35] |
97-99% [38]-[39] |
| Surface Roughness (Ra) | Upright: ~7.4 µm On-edge: ~69 µm Flat: ~83 µm [33] |
~3-6 µm [22] |
| Isotropy | Moderate to significant anisotropy [34] | Effectively isotropic after heat treatment |
| Support Removal | Easy (breakaway supports) | Requires cutting/machining |
| Post-Processing | Debinding + sintering (~24–36h) | Stress relief, HIP (optional) |
| Corrosion Resistance | Comparable to wrought (if dense) | Comparable to wrought |
Space and Infrastructure Requirements
LPBF systems demand a dedicated room with controlled access, robust HVAC with HEPA filtration, oxygen sensors, inert gas supplies, fire suppression systems, and static-safe equipment grounding [13], [18], [19].
Support, Ecosystem, and Community Engagement
Institutional support, vendor training, and collaboration with other research labs would be necessary to sustain adoption. The technology would promote interdepartmental projects and student engagement.
Considering Alternative Technologies
We considered Markforged's proprietary ADAM system (Metal X), which offer:
- Lower cost
- Reduced safety risk
- Easier training and maintenance
However, for most high-performance applications, ADAM mechanical properties were not sufficient to meet user needs.
Conclusion
We explored the adoption of both Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF) and Atomic Diffusion Additive Manufacturing (ADAM) systems through discussions and early evaluations. While ADAM systems offer a significantly safer and more accessible introduction to metal 3D printing, the trade-offs were not negligible. Most users expressing interest in metal additive manufacturing required the higher-performance parts that LPBF offers. As a result, ADAM systems were ultimately ruled out due to insufficient material strength and density.
I determined that adopting LPBF would require retrofitting a purpose-built facility. This includes specialized ventilation, inert gas handling, HEPA filtration, and strict adherence to OSHA, Cal/OSHA, and NFPA 484 safety standards. These systems require at least one full-time technician with training in metallurgy and additive manufacturing.
Even with best-in-class controls, staff would have to accept baseline exposure risks and remain diligent in using PPE and SOPs. Some metal powders are classified as carcinogens or respiratory hazards under OSHA and Prop 65.
In light of these staffing, safety, and cost challenges—and given our current facility limitations—we recommended that Jacobs Hall defer adoption of LPBF until additional institutional support or demand emerges.
Acknowledgements
The author utilized large language models (LLM) during the writing process for this. Models o3 and GPT-4o were used to find sources of information. An LLM was used for suggestions in editing for clarity. The tables were initially generated by an LLM based on technical information gathered by the author.
References
[1] Jacobs Institute for Design Innovation. "About." [Online]. Available: https://jacobsinstitute.berkeley.edu/about/
[2] UC Berkeley EH&S. "Identifying Hazards and Applying Controls." [Online]. Available: https://ehs.berkeley.edu/workplace-safety/identifying-hazards-and-applying-controls
[3] UC San Diego EH&S. "Hazard Control Plan: Additive Manufacturing." [Online]. Available: https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/uc.makerspace/additive+manufacturing+hcp+ucsd.pdf
[4] UC Berkeley EH&S. "Job Safety Analysis." [Online]. Available: https://ehs.berkeley.edu/workplace-safety/job-safety-analysis
[5] H. L. Karlsson et al., "Health hazards of particles in additive manufacturing: a cross-disciplinary study on reactivity, toxicity and occupational exposure to two nickel-based alloys," Scientific Reports, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 20846, Nov. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10682021/
[6] U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. "29 CFR 1910 Subpart Z – Toxic and Hazardous Substances." [Online]. Available: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1025
[7] U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. "29 CFR 1910.1200 – Hazard Communication." [Online]. Available: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1910/subpart-Z/section-1910.1200?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[8] California Department of Industrial Relations. "5194. Hazard Communication." [Online]. Available: https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5194.html
[9] California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). "Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program." [Online]. Available: https://calepa.ca.gov/hazardous-materials-business-plan-program/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[10] California Department of Industrial Relations. "5155. Airborne Contaminants." [Online]. Available: https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5155.html
[11] National Fire Protection Association. "NFPA 484: Standard for Combustible Metals." [Online]. Available: https://www.nfpa.org/product/nfpa-484-standard/p0484code
[12] Carnegie Mellon University EH&S. "3D Printing Safety - Guideline." [Online]. Available: https://www.cmu.edu/ehs/Guidelines/ehs-guideline---3d-printers1.pdf
[13] SLM Solutions. "Preparing the AM Facility." [Online]. Available: https://www.slm-solutions.com/fileadmin/Content/Additive_Manufacturing/SLMSolutionsWhitePaper_PreparingTheAMFacility.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[14] AP&C. "Advanced Powders & Coatings." [Online]. Available: https://www.advancedpowders.com/
[15] Makerverse. "Choosing the Right LPBF 3D Printing Material." [Online]. Available: https://www.makerverse.com/resources/3d-printing/choose-the-right-lpbf-3d-printing-material/
[16] Prima Additive. "Suitable Materials for Powder Bed Fusion." [Online]. Available: https://www.primaadditive.com/en/materials/powder-bed-fusion
[17] Rosswag Engineering. "What Metal 3D Printing Processes Are There?." [Online]. Available: https://www.rosswag-engineering.de/en/faqs/which-metal-3d-printing-processes-are-available/
[18] NIOSH/CDC. "3D Printing with Metal Powders: Health and Safety Questions to Ask." [Online]. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2020-114/pdfs/2020-114.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB2020114
[19] Michigan State University EH&S. "3D Printing Safety Guidelines." [Online]. Available: https://ehs.msu.edu/_assets/docs/chem/3d-printing-safety.pdf
[20] TW Metals. "Stainless Steel SDS." [Online]. Available: https://www.twmetals.com/media/category_pdfs/SDS-StainlessSteel.pdf
[21] Markforged. "17-4PH Stainless Steel Datasheet." [Online]. Available: https://static.markforged.com/downloads/markforged_datasheet_17-4_ph_stainless_steel.pdf
[22] EOS. "StainlessSteel 17-4PH Datasheet." [Online]. Available: https://www.eos.info/03_system-related-assets/material-related-contents/metal-materials-and-examples/metal-material-datasheet/stainlesssteel/material_datasheet_industryline_17-4ph_m290_en_screen.pdf
[23] Prime Process Safety Center. [Online]. Available: https://primeprocesssafety.com/the-most-frequently-asked-questions-about-electrostatic-discharge-ignition-sources/
[24] Prime Process Safety Center. [Online]. Available: https://primeprocesssafety.com/understanding-combustible-dust-hazards-in-the-metal-processing-industry/
[25] Metal AM. [Online]. Available: https://www.metal-am.com/articles/titanium-powder-pyrophoricity-passivation-and-handling-for-safe-production-and-processing/
[26] UL Solutions. "Safety Considerations for Additive Manufacturing and 3-D Printing" [Online]. Available: https://www.ul.com/news/safety-considerations-additive-manufacturing-and-3-d-printing
[27] UL Solutions, "UL 3400, ". [Online]. Available: https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL3400_1_O_20171101
[28] National Fire Protection Association, "NFPA 77: Recommended Practice on Static Electricity", Quincy, MA, USA: NFPA, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/nfpa-77-standard-development/77?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[29] U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Organization, "OSHA Technical Manual (OTM) Section III: Chapter 6 - Laser Hazards". [Online]. Available: https://www.osha.gov/otm/section-3-health-hazards/chapter-6#lhc?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[30] Desktop Metal, "17-4PH Powder Safety Data Sheet". [Online]. Available: https://proto3000.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/MSDS_17-4PH-Powder_EN_USA_-2020-1.pdf
[31] LTS Research Laboratories, Inc., "Material Safety Data Sheet: Titanium Alloy Grade 5". [Online]. Available: https://www.ltschem.com/msds/Ti-6Al4V.pdf
[32] Renishaw, "Inconel 718 Powder Safety Data Sheet". [Online]. Available: https://tech-labs.com/sites/images/renishaw/data-sheets/H-5800-3484-01-A_EN-Safety_Data_Sheet-Inconel_718_Powder-USA.pdf
[33] C. Nguyen Van, A. L. Hoang, C. D. Long, and D. N. Hoang, “Surface Roughness in Metal Material Extrusion 3D Printing: The Influence of Printing Orientation and the Development of a Predictive Model,” Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 11672–11676, 2023, doi: 10.48084/etasr.6162. [Online]. Available: https://etasr.com/index.php/ETASR/article/download/6162/3248/22539?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[34] Todd C. Henry et al., “Mechanical behavior of 17-4 PH stainless steel processed by atomic diffusion additive manufacturing,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 114, pp. 2103–2114, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-06785-1
[35] M. Galati and P. Minetola, “Analysis of Density, Roughness, and Accuracy of the Atomic Diffusion Additive Manufacturing (ADAM) Process for Metal Parts,” Materials, vol. 12, no. 24, p. 4122, Dec. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/12/24/4122
[36] I. Khan, J. E. Dyrstad, and T. S. Durr, "Investigations of the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of 17-4 PH Stainless Steel Printed Using a MarkForged Metal X," Materials, vol. 15, no. 19, p. 6898, Sep. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/15/19/6898
[37] J. Jones, A. Vafadar, and R. Hashemi, "A Review of the Mechanical Properties of 17-4PH Stainless Steel Produced by Bound Powder Extrusion," Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing, vol. 7, no. 5, p. 162, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://researchnow.flinders.edu.au/files/126744892/Jones_Review_P2023.pdf
[38] M. T. D. Popescu, M. C. Popescu, and A. C. Popescu, "Additive Manufacturing of 17-4PH Alloy: Tailoring the Printing Orientation for Enhanced Aerospace Application Performance," Aerospace, vol. 10, no. 7, p. 619, Jul. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/10/7/619
[39]A. Özsoy, E. Aydogan, and A. F. Dericioglu, "High Temperature Tensile Properties of TiN-Reinforced 17-4 PH Stainless Steel Produced by Laser Powder-Bed Fusion," Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A, vol. 56, pp. 1408–1417, Feb. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11661-025-07721-8