6

Standards in Additive Manufacturing

David Butler and Peter Woolliams

CONTENTS
6.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 134
6.2 AM Standards Roadmaps................................................................................................. 138
6.2.1 America Makes....................................................................................................... 138
6.2.2 Identified Gaps in the Roadmaps......................................................................... 138
6.3 AM Powder Feedstock Characterisation Standards...................................................... 138
6.3.1 Feedstock Sampling Strategy................................................................................ 139
6.3.2 Particle Size Determination and Distribution.................................................... 141
6.3.3 Morphology Characterisation Methods.............................................................. 142
6.3.4 Flow Characteristics............................................................................................... 143
6.3.5 Thermal Characterisation...................................................................................... 143
6.3.6 Density Determination.......................................................................................... 144
6.3.7 Chemical Composition........................................................................................... 145
6.4 Processes ............................................................................................................................. 145
6.5 Part Verification................................................................................................................... 145
6.5.1 Tensile Properties.................................................................................................... 146
6.5.2 Compressive Properties ........................................................................................ 146
6.5.3 Hardness Measurement......................................................................................... 146
6.5.4 Fatigue Measurement Methods............................................................................ 147
6.5.5 Fracture Toughness................................................................................................ 147
6.5.6 Other Properties...................................................................................................... 147
6.6 Surface Standards............................................................................................................... 147
6.6.1 Profile and Areal Surfaces..................................................................................... 148
6.7 Dimensional Standards..................................................................................................... 148
6.7.1 Performance Verification of Coordinate Measuring Machines....................... 148
6.8 Non-Destructive Evaluation Standards........................................................................... 148
6.8.1 Current Standards.................................................................................................. 148
6.8.2 Welding Standards................................................................................................. 149
6.8.3 Casting Standards .................................................................................................. 150
6.9 Future and Planned Standards Activities....................................................................... 151
References...................................................................................................................................... 152

133
134 Precision Metal Additive Manufacturing

6.1 Introduction
As metal-based additive manufacturing (AM) adoption increases, there is a rush to catch
up by various standards and industry bodies to develop relevant specification standards
to ensure conformity across various platforms. Among the key players are the American
Standards and Testing of Materials (ASTM), who have been leading the drive for specifica-
tion standards through the F42 subcommittee and, more recently, with the establishment
of International Centres of Excellence located in the USA, UK and Singapore, to lead the
research and validation aspects. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
has also published a number of standards in conjunction with ASTM ensuring greater
adoption and reducing the amount of duplication. Specifically, ISO Technical Committee
261 has been tasked with developing these standards. Table 6.1 provides a list of current
ISO standards while Table 6.2 lists those under development. A recent overview of metal
AM standards development is given elsewhere (Leach et al. 2019).
In addition to ASTM and ISO, other organisations involved in developing stan-
dards include the National Aerospace and Defense Contractors Accreditation Program
(NADCAP), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the American
Welding Society (AWS) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International.
Table 6.3 and Table 6.4 provide an overview of the current and draft SAE AM standards.
NADCAP is an industry-managed programme that is focused on improving quality
and reducing costs of special process accreditations throughout the aerospace and defence
industries. In 2013, its Welding Task Group was assigned responsibility to assess the indus-
try needs and develop audit criteria capable of assessing suppliers utilising AM technol-
ogy. In early 2017, they released for industry usage the checklist AC7110/14 Nadcap Audit
Criteria for Laser and Electron Beam Metallic Powder Bed Additive Manufacturing (2017).
NASA has been one of the early adopters of AM in relation to design flexibility, cost and
schedule challenges of system development, and manufacture. Each of NASA’s current

TABLE 6.1
Current ISO AM Standards
Standard Title

ISO 17296-2:2015 Additive manufacturing – General principles – Part 2: Overview of process

categories and feedstock
ISO 17296-3:2014 Additive manufacturing – General principles – Part 3: Main characteristics and
corresponding test methods
ISO 17296-4:2014 Additive manufacturing – General principles – Part 4: Overview of data
processing
ISO/ASTM 52900:2015 Additive manufacturing – General principles – Terminology
ISO/ASTM 52901:2017 Additive manufacturing – General principles – Requirements for purchased
AM parts
ISO/ASTM 52910:2018 Additive manufacturing – Design – Requirements, guidelines and
recommendations
ISO/ASTM 52915:2016 Specification for additive manufacturing file format (AMF) Version 1.2
ISO/ASTM 52921:2013 Standard terminology for additive manufacturing – Coordinate systems and
test methodologies
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 Additive manufacturing – Test artefacts – Standard guideline for geometric
capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems
Standards in Additive Manufacturing 135

TABLE 6.2
ISO AM Standards under Development
Standard Title

ISO/DIS 14649-17 Industrial automation systems and integration – Physical device control – Data
model for computerized numerical controllers – Part 17: Process data for additive
manufacturing
ISO/ASTM DIS 52900 Additive manufacturing – General principles – Fundamentals and vocabulary
ISO/ASTM DIS 52903-1 Additive manufacturing – Standard specification for material Extrusion based
additive manufacturing of plastic materials – Part 1: Feedstock materials
ISO/ASTM DIS 52903-2 Additive manufacturing – Standard specification for material extrusion based
additive manufacturing of plastic materials – Part 2: Process – Equipment
ISO/ASTM FDIS 52904 Additive manufacturing – Process characteristics and performance – Practice for
metal powder bed fusion process to meet critical applications
ISO/ASTM DTR 52905 Additive manufacturing – General principles – Non-destructive testing of additive
manufactured products
ISO/ASTM CD TR 52906 Additive manufacturing – Non-destructive testing and evaluation – Standard
guideline for intentionally seeding flaws in additively manufactured (AM) parts
ISO/ASTM DIS 52907 Additive manufacturing – Technical specifications on metal powders
ISO/ASTM AWI 52908 Additive manufacturing – Post-processing methods – Standard specification for
quality assurance and post processing of powder bed fusion metallic parts
ISO/ASTM AWI 52909 Additive manufacturing – Finished part properties – Orientation and location
dependence of mechanical properties for metal powder bed fusion
ISO/ASTM DIS 52911-1 Additive manufacturing – Technical design guideline for powder bed fusion –
Part 1: Laser-based powder bed fusion of metals
ISO/ASTM DIS 52911-2 Additive manufacturing – Technical design guideline for powder bed fusion –
Part 2: Laser-based powder bed fusion of polymers
ISO/ASTM PWI 52911-3 Additive manufacturing – Technical design guideline for powder bed fusion –
Part 3: Standard guideline for electron-based powder bed fusion of metals
ISO/ASTM CD TR 52912 Additive manufacturing – Design – Functionally graded additive manufacturing
ISO/ASTM PWI 52913 Additive manufacturing – Process characteristics and performance – Standard test
methods for characterization of powder flow properties
ISO/ASTM PWI 52914 Additive manufacturing – Design – Standard guide for material extrusion
processes
ISO/ASTM WD 52916 Additive manufacturing – Data formats – Standard specification for optimized
medical image data
ISO/ASTM NP 52917 Additive manufacturing – Round Robin Testing – Guidance for conducting Round
Robin studies
ISO/ASTM CD TR 52918 Additive manufacturing – Data formats – File format support, ecosystem and
evolutions
ISO/ASTM NP 52919-1 Additive manufacturing – Test method of sand mold for metalcasting – Part 1:
Mechanical properties
ISO/ASTM NP 52919-2 Additive manufacturing – Test method of sand mold for metalcasting – Part 2:
Physical properties
ISO/ASTM PWI 52920-1 Additive manufacturing – Qualification principles – Part 1: Conformity assessment
for AM System in industrial use
ISO/ASTM PWI 52920-2 Additive manufacturing – Qualification principles – Part 2: Conformity assessment
at Industrial additive manufacturing centers
ISO/ASTM DIS 52921 Additive manufacturing – General principles – Standard practice for part
positioning, coordinates and orientation
ISO/ASTM PWI 52922 Additive manufacturing – Design – Directed energy deposition
(Continued)
136 Precision Metal Additive Manufacturing

TABLE 6.2 (CONTINUED)

ISO AM Standards under Development
Standard Title
ISO/ASTM PWI 52923 Additive manufacturing – Design decision support
ISO/ASTM CD 52924 Additive manufacturing – Qualification principles – Quality grades for additive
manufacturing of polymer parts
ISO/ASTM WD 52925 Additive manufacturing – Qualification principles – Qualification of polymer
materials for powder bed fusion using a laser
ISO/ASTM PWI 52926-1 Additive manufacturing – Qualification principles – Part 1: Qualification of
machine operators for metallic parts production
ISO/ASTM PWI 52926-2 Additive manufacturing – Qualification principles – Part 2: Qualification of
machine operators for metallic parts production for PBF-LB
ISO/ASTM PWI 52926-3 Additive manufacturing – Qualification principles – Part 3: Qualification of
machine operators for metallic parts production for PBF-EB
ISO/ASTM PWI 52926-4 Additive manufacturing – Qualification principles – Part 4: Qualification of
machine operators for metallic parts production for DED-LB
ISO/ASTM PWI 52926-5 Additive manufacturing – Qualification principles – Part 5: Qualification of
machine operators for metallic parts production for DED-Arc
ISO/ASTM PWI 52927 Additive manufacturing – Process characteristics and performance – Test methods
ISO/ASTM PWI 52928 Powder life cycle management
ISO/ASTM PWI TR Guideline for installation/operation/performance qualification (IQ/OQ/PQ) of
52929 laser-beam powder bed fusion equipment for production manufacturing
ISO/ASTM AWI 52931 Additive manufacturing – Environmental health and safety – Standard guideline
for use of metallic materials
ISO/ASTM WD 52932 Additive manufacturing – Environmental health and safety – Standard test
method for determination of particle emission rates from desktop 3D printers
using material extrusion
ISO/ASTM PWI 52933 Additive manufacturing – Environment, health and safety – Consideration for the
reduction of hazardous substances emitted during the operation of the non-
industrial ME type 3D printer in workplaces, and corresponding test method
ISO/ASTM PWI 52934 Additive manufacturing – Environmental health and safety – Standard guideline
for hazard risk ranking and safety defence
ISO/ASTM CD 52941 Additive manufacturing – System performance and reliability – Standard test
method for acceptance of powder-bed fusion machines for metallic materials for
aerospace application
ISO/ASTM CD 52942 Additive manufacturing – Qualification principles – Qualifying machine operators
of metal powder bed fusion machines and equipment used in aerospace
applications
ISO/ASTM CD 52950 Additive manufacturing – General principles – Overview of data processing

human spaceflight programmes – the Space Launch System, Orion Spacecraft and the
Commercial Crew Programme – is developing AM hardware and establishing a signifi-
cant future role for AM in these systems. In many cases, the timeline for qualification of
this early AM hardware and certification of its associated systems has been condensed,
compared to that for the typical introduction of new manufacturing technologies. Two
documents developed by the NASA Marshall Space Flight Centre (MSFC) were published
in 2017 and provide an overarching framework of methodologies to meet the intent of
existing requirements for spaceflight hardware. The two documents consist of MSFC-
STD-3716, Standard for Additively Manufactured Spaceflight Hardware by Laser Powder Bed
Fusion in Metals (2017), and an associated specification MSFC-SPEC-3717, Specification for
Control and Qualification of Laser Powder Bed Fusion Metallurgical Processes (2017).
Standards in Additive Manufacturing 137

TABLE 6.3
Current SAE International AM Standards
Standard Title

AMS7000 (2018) Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) Produced Parts, Nickel Alloy, Corrosion and
Heat-Resistant, 62Ni -21.5Cr - 9.0Mo - 3.65Nb Stress Relieved, Hot Isostatic Pressed
and Solution Annealed
AMS7001 (2018) Nickel Alloy, Corrosion and Heat-Resistant, Powder for Additive Manufacturing, 62Ni
- 21.5Cr - 9.0Mo - 3.65 Nb
AMS7002 (2018) Process Requirements for Production of Powder Feedstock for Use in Laser Powder Bed
Additive Manufacturing of Aerospace Parts
AMS7003 (2018) Laser Powder Bed Fusion Process
AMS7004 (2019) Titanium Alloy Preforms from Plasma Arc Directed Energy Deposition Additive
Manufacturing on Substrate – Ti6Al4V – Stress Relieved
AMS7005 (2019) Plasma Arc Directed Energy Deposition Additive Manufacturing Process

TABLE 6.4
SAE International AM Standards under Development
Standard Title

AMS7006 Alloy 718 Powder

AMS7007 Electron Beam Powder Bed Fusion Process
AMS7008 Nickel Alloy, Corrosion and Heat-Resistant, Powder for Additive Manufacturing,
Ni-Cr22-Fe18-Mo9–Co
AMS7009 Additive Manufacturing of Titanium 6Al4V with Laser-Wire Deposition – Annealed and Aged
AMS7010 Laser-Wire Directed Energy Deposition Additive Manufacturing Process
AMS7011 Additive Manufacture of Aerospace Parts from T-6Al-4V using the Electron Beam Powder Bed
Fusion (EB-PBF) Process
AMS7012 17-4PH Powder for Additive Manufacturing
AMS7015 Ti-6Al-4V, Powder for Additive Manufacturing
AMS7016 Laser-Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) Produced Parts, 17-4PH H1025 Alloy
AMS7017 Titanium 6-Aluminum 4-Vanadium Powder for Additive Manufacturing, ELI Grade
AMS7018 Aluminium Alloy Powder 10.0Si – 0.35Mg (Compositions similar to UNS A03600)
AMS7020 Aluminium Alloy Powder, F357 Alloy
AMS7021 Stainless Steel Powder, 15-5PH Alloy
AMS7022 Binder Jetting Process
AMS7023 Gamma Titanium Aluminide Powder for Additive Manufacturing, Ti-48Al-2Nb-2Cr
AMS7024 Inconel 718 L-PBF Material specification
AMS7025 Metal Powder Feedstock Size Classifications for Additive Manufacturing

SAE International is a global association of engineers and technical experts focusing

on mobility engineering. In 2015, the SAE AMS-AM, Additive Manufacturing, a technical
committee in SAE International’s Aerospace Materials Systems Group, was established
with responsibility for developing and maintaining aerospace material and process speci-
fications. The committee is also responsible for other SAE technical reports for AM, includ-
ing precursor materials, additive processes, system requirements and post-build materials,
pre-processing and post-processing, non-destructive testing and quality assurance. Over
300 global participants from more than fifteen countries representing aircraft, spacecraft,
engine original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), material suppliers, operators, equip-
ment/system suppliers, service providers, regulatory authorities and defence agencies
138 Precision Metal Additive Manufacturing

are active in the committee. There are currently six subcommittees: Metals, Polymers,
Non-destructive Inspection, General, Data Management and Regulatory Coordination. In
addition to standards development, SAE’s AMS-AM Data Management subcommittee is
preparing data submission guidelines describing the minimum data requirements neces-
sary to generate specification minimum values for both metals and polymers.
In 2019, the AWS released its D20.1:2019, Specification for Fabrication of Metal Components
using Additive Manufacturing. This is an all-encompassing standard covering process quali-
fication, validation, operator training and part traceability for both powder bed and directed
energy deposition (DED) processes. D20.1 provides detail on the setup and acceptance of
machines, operator training and the determination of material data. It covers geometries
and numbers of material test specimens, machine key performance variables, includes
testing and acceptance criteria for different criticality classes of components being made
and feedstock material being used. D20.1 provides extensive checklists to enable audit-
ing to the standard and additional guidance information for validation, key performance
variable checking, design and production process control as well as a number of suggested
recording forms for many aspects of the process.

6.2 AM Standards Roadmaps

6.2.1 America Makes
Aiming to provide a comprehensive and holistic approach to the development of AM stan-
dards, America Makes, a public–private consortium, partnered with the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) to establish the Additive Manufacturing Standardisation
Collaborative (AMSC). While not chartered to draft standards, the AMSC has engaged all
the major stakeholders in AM, including end users, equipment manufacturers, consum-
able suppliers and research institutions, to develop a Standardization Roadmap for Additive
Manufacturing (America Makes and ANSI 2018). Originally published in 2017, an updated
version was published a year later.

6.2.2 Identified Gaps in the Roadmaps

The roadmaps identified a total of ninety-three open gaps and corresponding recommenda-
tions across five topical areas: 1) design; 2) process and materials (precursor materials, process
control, post-processing and finished material properties); 3) qualification and certification; 4)
non-destructive evaluation; and 5) maintenance. Of that total, eighteen gaps/recommenda-
tions were identified as high priority, fifty-one as medium priority and twenty-four as low
priority. A ‘gap’ means that no published standard or specification exists that covers the par-
ticular issue in question. In sixty-five cases, additional research and development was needed.

6.3 AM Powder Feedstock Characterisation Standards

AM metal powder characteristics have a major influence on both how the powder behaves
in the AM process and how it affects the quality and performance of the part. A number
Standards in Additive Manufacturing 139

TABLE 6.5
Powder Features
Powder property Category Parameter

Intrinsic Morphology Particle size distribution

Particle shape
Particle density
Extrinsic Microstructure Internal porosity
Crystal structure
Chemistry

of the current standards are based on what has been carried out in the pharmaceutical
sector, which has a long history of dealing with powders in the micrometre range. For any
particular powder, a number of properties can be measured, which are listed in Table 6.5.
Since 2018, ASTM has run an Additive Manufacturing Powder Proficiency testing pro-
gramme to establish competence in testing metallic AM powders using a range of existing
testing standards, which is shown in Table 6.6. The work is needed to ensure that the meth-
ods can be relied upon to give repeatable and accurate results when used by competent
parties, as many of these standards were not developed for free-flowing metal powders.

6.3.1 Feedstock Sampling Strategy

Prior to any powder analysis, the question needs to be answered as to whether any sample
selected is representative of the bulk powder. Powder sampling is an area of study that
has been well covered by the plastics and pharmaceutical industries (Allen 1990). Allen
identified four stages of sample size reduction from bulk size to measurement sample, as
shown in Table 6.7.
There are a large number of ways in which a gross powder can be sampled, with the
sampling method based upon whether the powder is free flowing or cohesive and whether
the powder is stationary (static) or moving (dynamic).
• Static non-flowing materials – This category is comprised of fine cohesive powders,
sticky materials, moist material or fibrous solids. In AM, factors such as moisture
content could alter flowability results and are, therefore, something that should be
kept in mind (Allen 1990). Provided the powder has been passed through a mixer,
surface sampling using a scoop is generally considered to be an adequately repre-
sentative measure of powder particle size distribution (PSD).
• Static free-flowing materials – Free-flowing powders have a greater tendency than
non-flowing powders to segregate when poured into a heap or into a container.
Fine powders tend to move toward the centre of a powder mass, whilst the larger,
coarser particles tend to roll down to the outside of a pile when being poured.
Furthermore, particle movement can be exacerbated when powder storage con-
tainers are subject to vibration, causing coarse material to migrate towards the
surface. Interestingly, this phenomenon happens even if the larger particles are
denser than their smaller counterparts (Allen 1990). These tendencies make sam-
pling of a free-flowing powder a complex task.
• Dynamic (moving) powders – Dynamic powder sampling refers to sampling which is
carried out when the powder is in motion and can be achieved through continuous
140 Precision Metal Additive Manufacturing

TABLE 6.6
ASTM Proficiency Testing Programme of AM Metal Powders, Tests Covered
ASTM B212-13 Test Method for Apparent Density of Free-Flowing Metal Powders using the Hall
Flowmeter Funnel
ASTM B213-17 Test Methods for Flow Rate of Metal Powders Using the Hall Flowmeter Funnel
ASTM B214 -16 Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Metal Powders
(equivalent to
ISO 4497)
ASTM B215-15 Practices for Sampling Metal Powders
ASTM B417-18 Test Method for Apparent Density of Non-Free-Flowing Metal Powders Using the Carney
Funnel
ASTM B527-16 Test Method for Tap Density of Metal Powders and Compounds
ASTM B822-17 Test Method for Particle Size Distribution of Metal Powders and Related Compounds by
(equivalent to Light Scattering
ISO 13320)
ASTM B855-17 Test Method for Volumetric Flow Rate of Metal Powders Using the Arnold Meter and Hall
Flowmeter Funnel
ASTM B923-16 Test Method for Metal Powder Skeletal Density by Helium or Nitrogen Pycnometry
ASTM B964-16 Test Methods for Flow Rate of Metal Powders Using the Carney Funnel
ASTM E1019-18 Test Methods for Determination of Carbon, Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Oxygen in Steel, Iron,
Nickel, and Cobalt Alloys by Various Combustion and Inert Gas Fusion Techniques
ISO 3923-1 Metallic powders – Determination of apparent Density – Funnel method NOTE: This
method is equivalent to ASTM B212 and ASTM B417
ISO 13322-1 Particle size analysis – Image analysis methods – Static image analysis methods
ISO 13322-2 Particle size analysis – Image analysis methods – Dynamic image analysis methods

Composition can be determined by suitable wet chemical, wavelength dispersive X-ray, atomic emission
techniques such as:
ASTM E539-19 Standard Test Method for Analysis of Titanium Alloys by X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
ASTM E572-13 Standard Test Method for Analysis of Stainless and Alloy Steels by Wavelength Dispersive
X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
ASTM E1834-18 Test Method for Analysis of Nickel Alloys by Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption
Spectrometry
ASTM E2465-19 Standard Test Method for Analysis of Ni-Base Alloys by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray
Fluorescence Spectrometry
ASTM E2594-09 Standard Test Method for Analysis of Nickel Alloys by Inductively Coupled Plasma
Atomic Emission Spectrometry (Performance-Based Method)
ASTM E2823-17 Standard Test Method for Analysis of Nickel Alloys by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass
Spectrometry (Performance-Based)
ASTM E3047-16 Standard Test Method for Analysis of Nickel Alloys by Spark Atomic Emission
Spectrometry

or intermittent methods. While the preferred sampling method is to extract while

the powder is in motion (i.e. being poured between two containers), it may not
always be possible or feasible to do so. For static measurement, a device called a
‘powder thief’ is employed, which consists of a long rod with a sampling chamber
along its length. Using an open-and-shut mechanism, powder can be extracted
which is representative of the bulk powder lot.

In order to make the sample size more manageable, the material needs to be further
sub-divided, and this can be achieved through a variety of methods including cone and
quartering, scoop sampling, table sampling, chute splitting and spin riffling, which are
Standards in Additive Manufacturing 141

TABLE 6.7
Terms Describing Powder Shapes in ASTM B243-19
Term Definition

acicular needle-shaped
flake flat or scale-like; thickness is small compared with other dimensions
granular approximately equidimensional; non-spherical shapes
irregular lacking symmetry
needles elongated and rod-like
nodular irregular, having knotted, rounded or similar shaped
platelet composed of flat particles having considerable thickness
plates flat particles of metal powder having considerable thickness
spherical globular-shaped

described in ASTM B215-15 (2015). Cone and quartering involve mounding a pile of pow-
der into a cone-shaped heap, flattening it with a spatula, dividing it into four sections, and
repeating the process on one of the sections, so that the final sample is one sixteenth the
size of the original sample. Scoop sampling simply involves using a scoop to select a por-
tion of the bulk sample. Table sampling involves pouring the bulk sample of powder down
an inclined plane that has a series of structures and holes used to divide it. Chute splitting
is a process in which samples are divided into two lots, via dispersion, through a series
of chutes. Spin riffling involves pouring the bulk sample into a hopper that empties onto
a vibratory chute that leads to a series of sample containers contained in a rotating ring.
According to Allen (1990), the spin riffler provided statistically significant results which
were superior to other methods and should be the method of choice.
ASTM B215-15 (2015) describes the procedures for sampling metal powders. The stan-
dard focuses on bulk powder sampling from storage tanks or blenders as well as pre-pack-
aged powders in containers such as bags. The standard also provides specific instructions
for the collecting of metal powder from a moving stream.

6.3.2 Particle Size Determination and Distribution

In AM, powder particle size determines the minimum part layer thickness, as well as the
minimum buildable feature sizes on a part. A number of commonly used methods for par-
ticle size determination include sieving, gravitational sedimentation, microscopy-based
techniques and laser light diffraction.
Particle size determination and distribution are addressed by several ASTM standards.
ASTM B214-16 (2016) provides specifications for the sieving process, recommending the
arrangement of sieves in consecutive order by the size of their opening. The coarsest sieve
should be placed at the top with a collection pan placed at the bottom below the finest
sieve. Sieve meshes made from brass, bronze or stainless-steel wires and ranging from
5 µm to 1 mm are used. The sieves and collecting pan are placed and fastened, along
with the powder, into a sieve shaker and agitated for fifteen minutes. While the standard
provides the sieve dimensions to be 200 mm in diameter and either 25.4 mm or 50.8 mm,
ASTM E161-17 (2017) states that a smaller sieve diameter of 76.2 mm can be used, albeit
with the same depth range.
A commonly used technique for measuring the PSD is the use of light scattering, which
is described in ASTM B822-17 (2017). The method can either be used with the powder
142 Precision Metal Additive Manufacturing

dispersed in a liquid or in a carrier gas. The method is suitable for particles in the range of
0.4 µm to 2 mm. By passing the particles through the path of a light beam, light scattering
occurs. Photodetector arrays collect the scattered light and convert it into electrical signals,
which are then analysed. The analysed signal is converted to size distribution through the
theories of Fraunhofer diffraction, Mie scattering or a combination of both (ASTM B822-17
2017, Simmons and Potter 2010).

6.3.3 Morphology Characterisation Methods

The morphology of powder particles determines how well the particles lay or pack together
and thus, in AM powder bed systems, is an important factor in determining the required
part density. Prior to any characterisation technique being employed, it is necessary to
ensure that each powder particle has an equal chance of being selected for analysis, and
this has been discussed in Section 6.3.1.
Particles can be characterised either qualitatively or quantitatively. One method is sin-
gle-number classification, in which a shape is defined by applying one number associated
with a feature of a particle (Hawkins 1993). Single-number classification suffers from two
disadvantages: ambiguity, in that more than one outline shape can have the same resulting
value; and the difficulty in reproducing the shape from a single number. Figure 6.1 illus-
trates the ambiguity with the classification with all the objects (a–h) having the same pro-
jected area but clearly different shapes. Each shape would behave differently with respect
to its flowability and packing, resulting in parts being produced with varying densities.
Qualitative assessment involves imaging the particles against a bright background to
provide a silhouette of each particle (Cox 1927). Each particle shape has, over the years,
been assigned an adjective to describe it, and this has been enshrined in ASTM B243-19
(2019). Table 6.6 lists some of the more common powder shapes. It should be noted that, as
some definitions are similar, the standard does lack some scientific rigour.

FIGURE 6.1
Shapes illustrating the ambiguity of a single number classification system.
Standards in Additive Manufacturing 143

6.3.4 Flow Characteristics
How well a powder flows is an important criterion for both powder bed and powder
blown AM processes. Methods of determining the flow rate of powders use two types of
flowmeters, the Carney funnel (ASTM B964-16 2016) and the Hall flowmeter funnel (ASTM
B213-17 2017).
There are two types of methods for determining the flow rate: a static flow method and a
dynamic flow method. The static flow method involves the user covering the funnel open-
ing with their finger and pouring in a pre-determined mass of powder. Once the funnel is
loaded with powder, the finger is removed from the orifice and the timing taken for all the
powder to exit the funnel. The dynamic flow method does not require the covering of the
orifice, and the timing begins as soon as the powder begins flowing out of the funnel and
stops when all the powder has flowed through. The flow rate value, reported in units of
seconds per gram, is determined by dividing the measured time taken for all of the pow-
der to exit the funnel by the mass of the powder sample. The difference between the Hall
flowmeter funnel and the Carney funnel is the size of their orifice, with the Hall flowmeter
having a 2.54 mm opening, and the Carney flowmeter having a 5.08 mm opening. The
Carney flowmeter is used only for powder that will not flow through the Hall flowmeter.
The process of timing powder as it flows through a Hall flowmeter is described in ASTM
B855-17 (2017). However, this standard specifies measuring the flow by volume instead of
by mass, thereby eliminating the variable of powder density. The ability to flow and pack
is a function of interparticle friction, so as the surface area increases, the friction increases,
which gives less efficient flow and packing. The acquisition of the correct volume of pow-
der to use requires the use of an Arnold meter (see Section 6.3.6). Once the volume to be
tested is attained, the process follows that of ASTM B213-17 (2017). This flow rate value is
determined by dividing the measured time taken for all of the powder to exit the funnel
by the volume of the powder sample, and is reported in units of seconds per centimetre
cubed. Care is required to reduce the impact of user repeatability and environmental con-
ditions (for example, moisture) on the final result. Other techniques, such powder rheom-
etry or angle of repose, can provide useful dynamic powder metrics, but they are yet to be
standardised for use with metal AM powders.

6.3.5 Thermal Characterisation
The melting of powder by a high energy source is the essence of many AM processes.
Thus, a good understanding of the thermal properties of powders is highly significant
to AM. A comprehensive summary of techniques used to determine the conductivity of
materials was undertaken by Sih and Barlow (1992) who divided the techniques into two
categories: steady-state and transient. While the techniques focused on solid specimens,
the authors claimed that the methods were also applicable to powders.
A number of steady-state techniques are centred on heating up the specimen in an insu-
lated environment and measuring various parameters, including numerous temperature
readings and input power. The guarded-hot-plate method is the only method described
in an ASTM standard (ASTM C177-19 2019) for steady-state measurements. Other meth-
ods include the cylindrical method and the spherical and ellipsoidal methods, which use
a heater positioned in the centre of a cylindrical, spherical or ellipsoidal specimen such
that heat radiates out from the centre of the sample, with temperatures being measured
at different radii and heat transfer principles being applied to determine the thermal
conductivity.
144 Precision Metal Additive Manufacturing

In all of the steady-state methods, the calculation of the thermal conductivity involves
simple heat-transfer equations, and the heat losses by radiative heat transfer are assumed
to be negligible. However, there is often difficulty in obtaining the required specimen
shape. On the other hand, with transient methods, obtaining the thermal conductivity is
much faster, although the calculations are more involved.
Transient heat techniques typically measure the temperature as a function of time,
allowing for heat transfer principles to be applied to calculate the thermal conductivity.
Two techniques that follow the approach are the transient hot wire method and the ther-
mal probe method (Sih and Barlow 1992). An alternative method is based on measuring
electrical resistance in a metallic strip placed within the specimen. By knowing the input
temperature and output voltage, the thermal conductivity of the surrounding material can
be determined. A fourth method which lends itself to determining the thermal conductiv-
ity of a powder is the flash method (Parker et al. 1961), in which a high-intensity light pulse
is focused onto the surface of the specimen. The temperature of the surface on the oppo-
site side of the specimen is then measured. The thermal diffusivity is determined by the
shape of the curve of temperature versus time at the opposing surface. The heat capacity
is determined by the maximum temperature reached by the opposing surface. Finally, the
thermal conductivity is determined by multiplying the heat capacity, thermal diffusivity
and density.

6.3.6 Density Determination
A number of methods for determining the apparent density of metal powder are con-
tained in ASTM standards. Defined as the ratio of mass to a given volume of powder,
the apparent density can be simply determined using the Hall flowmeter and the Carney
funnel. ASTM B212-13 (2013) describes using the Hall flowmeter, where the powder flows
through the flowmeter into a cup of definite value. The powder should mound over the
cup, and a non-magnetic spatula is used to level off the top surface of the powder flush
with the sides of the cup. The mass is determined using a balance to measure the cup
and powder, and the apparent density is calculated from the measured mass divided by
the volume. The process of determining the apparent density of metal powder through
the use of a Carney funnel is outlined in ASTM B417-18 (2018). This process mirrors that
of the apparent density determination process using the Hall flowmeter funnel, only the
Carney flowmeter funnel is used instead.
The technique of determining the apparent density using the Arnold meter is described
in ASTM B703-17 (2017). An Arnold meter is a steel block with a cavity in the middle and a
powder delivery sleeve. A powder delivery sleeve is placed on either side of the die cavity
and powder is poured into the sleeve, which is slid across the cavity, allowing the powder
to fill the die cavity. The sleeve is then slid back across the cavity to level the amount of
powder flush with the steel block. The amount of powder in the die cavity is placed on a
balance to obtain the mass. The apparent density is the mass divided by the volume of the
die cavity.
ASTM B527-16 (2016) describes the method for determining the tap density of metallic
compounds and powders. Tap density is defined as the density of a powder that has been
tapped to settle the contents in a container. A known mass of powder is poured into a
graduated cylinder. The cylinder is loaded into a tapping apparatus, which taps against
the base of the apparatus at a rate between 100 taps per minute and 300 taps per minute.
When there is no further decrease in volume due to tapping, that volume is used in the
calculation of the tap density, which is the mass divided by the volume.
Standards in Additive Manufacturing 145

One test for internal porosity (as some powder production methods can lead to varying
degrees of trapped gas porosity) is helium pycnometry (ASTM B923-16 2016); this provides
the skeletal density of the powder, which should be equivalent to the expected bulk den-
sity for the alloy.

6.3.7 Chemical Composition
In practice, the metallic feedstock used in AM is not totally pure and contains other mate-
rials. These added materials consist of different elements that, when combined and used
in AM, produce material properties specific to the bulk material type. However, the over-
all chemical composition of the metal powder can have an influence on the final part’s
mechanical properties.
Powder properties can also change over time, or in the case of recycled powder, due to
repeated exposure to the AM build chamber environment. Techniques that are commonly
applied to determine the chemical composition of powder include microanalysis, surface
analysis and bulk analysis methods.
Only bulk analysis methods and, specifically, the inert gas fusion technique, are
described in standards. The inert gas fusion technique is used to determine the oxygen,
nitrogen and hydrogen content in metals, as described by ASTM E1409-13 (2013), ASTM
E1447-09 (2016), and ASTM E2792-16 (2016). In this technique, a sample is held in chamber
directly above a graphite crucible, which is brought up to a temperature of around 3000 ºC.
An inert gas flows over the crucible to remove any contaminants before the crucible
temperature is lowered and the sample is added. As the sample melts, the oxygen pres-
ent reacts with the carbon in the graphite crucible to form carbon monoxide and carbon
dioxide. The nitrogen present is released as molecular nitrogen, and the hydrogen is
released as hydrogen gas. The gases are carried out of the chamber onto a detector by
the inert gas.

6.4 Processes
While the main focus has been on developing standards around the definitions, data for-
mats and design guidelines, there has been interest in developing process standards. In
the ASTM/ISO standards roadmap, standards have been categorised as general top-level
category AM and specialised AM standards. Both categories, AM and specialised AM
standards, have identified processes as an area of interest to develop new standards.

6.5 Part Verification
Part verification can cover a wide range of measurements in order to provide confidence in
the part’s ability to undertake the function for which it is intended. These measurements
can cover areas such as mechanical, dimensional, tribological and thermal properties. EN
ISO 17296-3 (2014) and AWS D20.1 provide lists of recommended material validation tests
and test artefacts.
146 Precision Metal Additive Manufacturing

6.5.1 Tensile Properties
Tensile tests are used to determine the response of a material to withstand tensile loads
until their failure point is reached. ASTM E8/8M-16a (2016) is the standard for tensile test-
ing of metallic materials under standard laboratory conditions, while ASTM E21 (2017)
covers testing at elevated temperatures. In addition to the ASTM standards, ISO 6892 (2019)
covers tensile testing of metallic materials. These tensile testing standards specify differ-
ent coupon types, including flat and cylindrical coupons, as well as loading conditions,
such as strain rates. Work is ongoing to ensure that the coupon geometries can provide
consistent results for AM materials, with proposals for new micro-scale coupons being
developed so that the actual properties can be measured by cutting test specimens from
actual test parts (for instance, to evaluate thin wall or graded property parts).

6.5.2 Compressive Properties
The compressive strength of metals can be measured by following these two ASTM stan-
dards that cover testing at room temperature (ASTM E9-19 2019) and at elevated tem-
peratures (ASTM E209-18 2018). The stress-strain curve, compressive strength and elastic
modulus can be found. Table 6.8 shows typical results for two metals which have been
subjected to compression testing.

6.5.3 Hardness Measurement
Hardness can be defined as a measure of how resistant the metal is to various kinds of
permanent change in shape when subjected to compressive force. A number of different
hardness tests exist which vary according to the type and geometry of the indenter and
the number of indentations.
The Brinell hardness test uses a sphere to indent a hole on the test coupon surface. The
diameter of the indentation is used to calculate the hardness value. ASTM E10-18 (2018)
and ISO 6506 (2014) describe the standard test method for Brinell hardness for metallic
materials.
The Knoop and Vickers hardness test methods are similar to the Brinell hardness test
but employ a pyramid-shaped indenter. The diagonal length of the indentation is used to
determine the hardness. The face angle of the pyramid is different between the Knoop and
Vickers tests. ASTM E384-17 (2017) describes the test methods for Knoop and Vickers and
ISO 4545 (2017) provides the standard for the Knoop hardness test.
The Rockwell hardness of metallic materials is described in ASTM E18-19 (2019). The
standard covers both pyramid and spherical indenters. The test performs indentations
multiple times at a single spot with increasing force. The depth of the indenter is measured
by the machine directly providing the indentation depth. Table 6.9 shows the hardness
results for the same materials deposited using different AM processes.

TABLE 6.8
Compression Test Results for Metallic Samples
Compressive strength/
Process Material Porosity E/GPa MPa References
Laser Powder Titanium 55 0.687 - Sing, et al. (2016a)
Bed Fusion
Ti6Al4V 70 5.1 ± 0.3 15 5 ± 7 Wang, et al. (2016)
Standards in Additive Manufacturing 147

TABLE 6.9
Hardness Test Results for Metallic Samples
Process Material Microhardness/HV References

Laser Powder Bed Fusion Ti6Al4V 479-613 Sing, et al. (2016b)

Electron Beam Powder Bed Ti6Al4V 358-387
Fusion

6.5.4 Fatigue Measurement Methods

Fatigue can be described as the weakening of a material due to repeated applied loads
or cyclic loading. While a number of standards exist to measure the fatigue properties of
conventionally produced metal, little has been published for AM metals.
ASTM E466-15 (2015) and ISO 1099 (2017) are the standards for axial-force fatigue
testing. The test involves a sample being pulled axially with a periodic force function,
which typically takes the form of a sine wave. For notched samples, where information
is required about the material resistance to crack growth, ASTM E647-15e1 (2015) and
ISO 12108 (2018) describe the standard test method. The surface condition of AM-made
parts can have a significant impact on the results obtained, so it should be carefully
considered.
The creep-fatigue test method is similar to the fatigue test but is carried out at elevated
temperatures. The creep-fatigue test method is able to provide both the strain/stress over
time curve and the stress/strain hysteresis curve. ASTM E2714-13 (2013) describes the stan-
dard test method.

6.5.5 Fracture Toughness
Fracture toughness can be described as a material’s ability to contain a crack to resist frac-
ture. Several standards exist, with ASTM E399-19 (2019) measuring the Klc (plane-strain
fracture toughness) while ASTM E1820-18ae1 (2018) gives the fracture toughness from
R-curves (crack resistance). ISO 12737 (2010) describes how to determine the plane-strain
fracture toughness, while ISO 12135 (2016) provides a unified method of test to determine
quasistatic fracture toughness.

6.5.6 Other Properties
In addition to those described above, other standards exist to determine properties, such
as rupture strength (ASTM E292-18 2018), Young’s modulus (ASTM E111-17 2017), Poisson’s
ratio (ASTM E132-17 2017) and shear modulus (ASTM E143-13 2013).

6.6 Surface Standards
A part’s surface can be considered as a fingerprint back to the actual manufacturing pro-
cess and the respective input parameters, while at the same time it can provide informa-
tion about the functional performance of the part (see Chapter 11 for a thorough treatment
on AM surface measurement and characterisation).
148 Precision Metal Additive Manufacturing

6.6.1 Profile and Areal Surfaces

Traditionally, the surface has been characterised by taking a profile measurement to be
representative of the whole surface. While this has been sufficient for many manufactur-
ing processes that generate isotropic surfaces, the same cannot be said for those that have
anisotropic properties. ISO 4287 (1997) is the standard for defining the profile surface
texture parameters. With the interest in providing more representative areal measure-
ments, which can provide more information regarding surface structure, direction and
the relationship between features, a set of standards have been developed as part of the
Geometrical Product Specification (GPS) family. More details of these standards are given
in Chapter 11.

6.7 Dimensional Standards
6.7.1 Performance Verification of Coordinate Measuring Machines
In order to provide a basis of comparison for performance between various coordinate
measuring machine (CMM) manufacturers, a family of standards was established. ISO
10360 (many sub-parts for specific measurement tools) defines the procedure for perfor-
mance verification of CMMs. The standards cover a wide range of configurations includ-
ing contact and non-contact probing systems as well as additional axial stages. While most
parts have been issued, part 11 and part 13 are still under development. These standards
are discussed in detail in Chapter 10.

6.8 Non-Destructive Evaluation Standards

6.8.1 Current Standards
Non-destructive evaluation (NDE) is primarily used in AM to detect and characterise
defects (for more information on defects, their sources and control, see Chapters 9 and 13).
Defects found in direct energy deposition (DED) systems are similar to those detected in
welding. Common defects for DED are:

1. Poor surface finish.

2. Porosity.
3. Incomplete fusion.
4. Lack of geometrical accuracy.
5. Undercuts at the toe of welds between adjoining weld beads.
6. Non-uniform well beads.
7. Holes or voids.
8. Non-metallic inclusions.
9. Cracking.
Standards in Additive Manufacturing 149

For powder bed fusion (PBF), the common defects are:

1. Unconsolidated powder.
2. Lack of geometrical accuracy.
3. Reduced mechanical properties.
4. Inclusions.
5. Voids.
6. Layer voids or porosity.
7. Cross-layer.
8. Porosity.
9. Poor surface finish.
10. Trapped powder.

In DED, material is fused together by melting as it is being deposited. DED processes are
primarily used to either add features to an existing structure or to repair worn parts. In PBF,
powder is deposited onto a build platform and, using a localised energy source, is fused to
form a section through the component. PBF, unlike DED, does not exhibit similarities to weld-
ing; however, common defects, such as porosity and voids, are similar to welding defects.
In addition to welding, some common casting defects – gas porosity, cracking and inclu-
sions – are similar to DED and PBF defects. Hence, NDE standards for casting will also be
described and their suitability to AM defects discussed.

6.8.2 Welding Standards
A number of NDE standards exist which cover various aspects of inspection in welding.
ISO 5817 (2014) and ISO 10042 (2018) specify the welding quality requirements; both these
standards feed into ISO 17635 (2016), which acts as the bridge between quality levels and
the acceptance levels for indications. ISO 17635 also describes the method selection pro-
cess, which is split into six method-specific standards:

1. Radiographic.
2. Magnetic particle.
3. Eddy current.
4. Penetrant.
5. Ultrasonic.
6. Visual examination.

The respective method-specific standard describes the test procedure and characterisation
acceptance levels (see also Chapter 9). As each method has its own inherent errors based
on material properties, component or target defect, a combination of methods is normally
applied. In the case of radiography and ultrasonic, a number of sub-method standards
exist as shown in Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3. Currently, there a number of advanced NDE
methods which lack any standard; these include ultrasonic phased array, thermography
and X-ray computed tomography. A number of these methods offer great potential for AM
applications (see, for example, Chapters 9 and 12).
150 Precision Metal Additive Manufacturing

FIGURE 6.2
Diagram showing the current structure of NDE standards (radiography only) for welding. (Adapted from
ISO17635 [2016].)

FIGURE 6.3
Diagram showing the current structure of NDE standards (ultrasonic only) for welding. (Adapted from
ISO17635 [2016].)

6.8.3 Casting Standards
ISO 4990 (2015) provides an overarching guide for casting NDE standards. It categorises
casting flaws into surface discontinuity and internal discontinuity. Each of the five main
conventional NDE methods has its own standard as follows:
Standards in Additive Manufacturing 151

1. Visual examination ISO 11971 (2008) (surface).

2. Magnetic particle inspection ISO 4986 (2010) (surface).
3. Liquid particle inspection ISO 4987 (2010) (surface).
4. Ultrasonic examination ISO 4992 (2006) (internal).
5. Radiographic testing ISO 4993 (2015) (internal).

The case for advanced NDE methods for castings is the same as that for welding, with no
standards for X-ray computed tomography, phased array ultrasonic and thermography.

6.9 Future and Planned Standards Activities

The development of AM specific standards and those that provide guidance for the most
appropriate use of other existing standards is still in the early stages (Leach et al. 2019).
Table 6.10 is a list of standards currently in draft. It is envisaged that, in addition to the activ-
ities listed in the table, other areas of focus for the AM community include the following:

• Continual updating of the terminology as new AM processes (for example, print

and sinter or material jetting) become more industrially relevant.
TABLE 6.10
Areas for Potential New AM Standards
Area Topic

AM Facility Requirements for Metal Powder Bed Fusion

machines Initial Qualification, Operational Qualification and Part Qualification of Metal Powder Bed
Fusion Machines
Acceptance Testing of Powder-Bed Fusion AM Machines for Metallic Materials for Aerospace
Application
Specifying Gases and Nitrogen Generators Used with Metal Powder Bed Fusion Machines
Cleaning Metal Powder Bed Fusion Machines
Creating Maintenance Schedules and Maintaining Metal Powder Bed Fusion Machines
Calibration of Metal Powder Bed Fusion Machines and Subsystems
Establishing a Personnel Training Program for Metal Powder Bed Fusion Part Production
Qualification of operators for additive manufacturing equipment used in aerospace applications
Feedstock Creating Feedstock Specifications for Metal Powder Bed Fusion
Receiving and Storing of Metal Powders Used in Powder Bed Fusion
Metal Powder Reuse in the Powder Bed Fusion Process
Disposal of Metal Powders Used for Powder Bed Fusion
Process Digital Workflow Control for the Metal Powder Bed Fusion Process
Establishing Manufacturing Plan and Sequence of Operation Work Flow for Metal Powder Bed
Fusion Part production
Storage of Technical Build Cycle Data
Others Post Thermal Processing of Metal Powder Bed Fusion Parts
Metallographic Evaluation of Metal Powder Bed Fusion Test Specimens and Parts
Process Specification for Directed Energy Deposition (Wire+Arc, Wire+Beam, Laser Blown
Powder) Used in Aerospace Application
152 Precision Metal Additive Manufacturing

• More detailed guidance of NDE to enable faster, more cost-effective quality assur-
ance of parts (see Chapter 9).
• Specific guidance for testing, specification, safety and recycling of powder feed-
stock for AM.
• Standards for control and specification of the process and feedstock for various
DED and polymer extrusion processes.
• The training and assessment of trained personnel for specific roles, for example,
machine operator and AM designer, so that end-users know that staff have the
right level of knowledge and understanding to undertake their work.
• More detailed standards outlining the installation, commissioning, maintenance
and ongoing validation of machines.
• Guidance on the assessment and use of in-process sensing and feedback sensing,
which are getting added to new AM commercial platforms.
• Round robin testing – to help provide assured data that can be re-used and added
to the required materials databases.
• Health and safety – powder (and other feedstock) hazards, for personal and envi-
ronmental impact.
• Standards looking at data transfer, medical imaging and specifically for high-
technology sectors such as aerospace.

References
AC7110/14. 2017. Nadcap Audit Criteria for Laser and Electron Beam Metallic Powder Bed Additive
Manufacturing, NADCAP.
Allen, T. 1990. Particle Size Measurement. 4th ed. London: Chapman and Hall.
America Makes and ANSI. 2018 Standardization Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing (Version 2.0)
Available at https​:/​/ww​​w​.ans​​i​.org​​/stan​​dards​​_acti​​vitie​​s​/sta​​ndard​​s​_boa​​rds​_p​​anels​​/amsc​​/
Amer​​ica​-M​​akes-​​and​-​A​​NSI​-A​​MSC​-O​​vervi​​ew.
ASTM B212-13. 2013. Standard Test Method for Apparent Density of Free-Flowing Metal Powders
Using the Hall Flowmeter Funnel, ASTM International.
ASTM B213-17. 2017. Standard Test Methods for Flow Rate of Metal Powders Using the Hall
Flowmeter Funnel, ASTM International.
ASTM B214-16. 2016. Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Metal Powders, ASTM International.
ASTM B215-15. 2015. Standard Practices for Sampling Metal Powders, ASTM International.
ASTM B243-19. 2019. Standard Terminology of Powder Metallurgy, ASTM International.
ASTM B417-18. 2018. Standard Test Method for Apparent Density of Non-Free-Flowing Metal
Powders Using the Carney Funnel, ASTM International.
ASTM B527-16. 2016. Standard Test Method for Determination of Tap Density of Metallic Powders
and Compounds, ASTM International.
ASTM B703-17. 2017. Standard Test Method for Apparent Density of Metal Powders and Related
Compounds Using the Arnold Meter, ASTM International.
ASTM B822-17. 2017. Standard Test Method for Particle Size Distribution of Metal Powders and
Related Compounds by Light Scattering, ASTM International.
ASTM B855-17. 2017. Standard Test Method for Volumetric Flow Rate of Metal Powders Using the
Arnold Meter and Hall Flowmeter Funnel, ASTM International.
Standards in Additive Manufacturing 153

ASTM B923-16. 2016. Standard Test Method for Metal Powder Skeletal Density by Helium or
Nitrogen Pycnometry, ASTM International.
ASTM B964-016. 2016. Standard Test Methods for Flow Rate of Metal Powders Using the Carney
Funnel, ASTM International.
ASTM C177-19. 2019. Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal
Transmission Properties by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus, ASTM International.
ASTM E8/E8M-16a. 2016. Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials, ASTM
International.
ASTM E9–19. 2019. Standard Test Methods of Compression Testing of Metallic Materials at Room
Temperature, ASTM International.
ASTM E10-18. 2018. Standard Test Method for Brinell Hardness of Metallic Materials, ASTM
International.
ASTM E18–19. 2019. Standard Test Methods for Rockwell Hardness of Metallic Materials, ASTM
International.
ASTM E21-17. 2017. Standard Test Methods for Elevated Temperature Tension Tests of Metallic
Materials, ASTM International.
ASTM E111–17. 2017. Standard Test Method for Young’s Modulus, Tangent Modulus, and Chord
Modulus, ASTM International.
ASTM E132–17. 2017. Standard Test Method for Poisson’s Ratio at Room Temperature, ASTM
International.
ASTM E143–13. 2013. Standard Test Method for Shear Modulus at Room Temperature, ASTM
International.
ASTM E161-17. 2017. Standard Specification for Precision Electroformed Sieves, ASTM International.
ASTM E209-18. 2018. Standard Practice for Compression Tests of Metallic Materials at Elevated
Temperatures with Conventional or Rapid Heating Rates and Strain Rates, ASTM International.
ASTM E292-18. 2018. Standard Test Methods for Conducting Time-for-Rupture Notch Tension Tests
of Materials, ASTM International.
ASTM E384-17. 2017. Standard Test Method for Microindentation Hardness of Materials, ASTM
International.
ASTM E399-19. 2019. Standard Test Method for Linear-Elastic Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness,
ASTM International.
ASTM E466-15. 2015. Standard Practice for Conducting Force Controlled Constant Amplitude Axial
Fatigue Tests of Metallic Materials, ASTM International.
ASTM E647-15e1. 2015. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fatigue Crack Growth Rates,
ASTM International.
ASTM E1409-13. 2013. Standard Test Method for Determination of Oxygen and Nitrogen in Titanium
and Titanium Alloys by Inert Gas Fusion, ASTM International.
ASTM E1447-09. 2016. Standard Test Method for Determination of Hydrogen in Titanium and
Titanium Alloys by Inert Gas Fusion Thermal Conductivity/Infrared Detection Method, ASTM
International.
ASTM E1820–18ae1. 2018. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness, ASTM
International.
ASTM E2714–13. 2013. Standard Test Method for Creep-Fatigue Testing KIc of Metallic Materials,
ASTM International.
ASTM E2792-16. 2016. Standard Test Method for Determination of Hydrogen in Aluminum and
Aluminum Alloys by Inert Gas Fusion, ASTM International.
AWS D20.1. 2019. Specification for Fabrication of Metal Components using Additive Manufacturing,
American Welding Society.
Carson, J. W., Pittenger, B. H. 1998. Bulk Properties of Powders. ASM International.
Cox, P. 1927. A method of assigning numerical and percentage values to the degree of roundness of
sand grains. Journal of Paleontology 1:179–183.
Hawkins, A. E. 1993. The Shape of Powder-Particle Outlines. Baldock, UK, Research Studies Press Ltd.
154 Precision Metal Additive Manufacturing

ISO 1099. 2017. Metallic Materials – Fatigue Testing – Axial Force-Controlled Method, International
Organization for Standardization.
ISO 4287. 1997. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) – Surface Texture: Profile Method
– Terms, Definitions and Surface Texture Parameters, International Organization for
Standardization.
ISO 4545-1. 2017. Metallic Materials – Knoop Hardness Test – Part 1: Test Method, International
Organization for Standardization.
ISO 4986. 2010. Steel Castings – Magnetic Particle Inspection, International Organization for
Standardization.
ISO 4987. 2010. Steel Castings – Liquid Penetrant Inspection, International Organization for
Standardization.
ISO 4990 (2015), Steel Castings – General Technical Delivery Requirements, International Organization
for Standardization.
ISO 4992-1. 2006. Steel Castings – Ultrasonic Examination – Part 1: Steel Castings for General
Purposes, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 4993. 2015. Steel and Iron Castings – Radiographic Testing, International Organization for
Standardization.
ISO 5817. 2014. Welding – Fusion-Welded Joints in Steel, Nickel, Titanium and their Alloys (Beam
Welding Excluded) – Quality Levels for Imperfections, International Organization for
Standardization.
ISO 6506-1. 2014. Metallic Materials – Brinell Hardness Test – Part 1: Test Method, International
Organization for Standardization.
ISO 6892-2. 2018; Metallic Materials – Tensile Testing – Part 2. Method of Test at Elevated Temperature,
International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 10042. 2018. Welding – Arc-Welded Joints in Aluminium and Its Alloys – Quality Levels for
Imperfections, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 10360 part 1. 2000. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) – Acceptance and Reverification Tests
for Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) – Part 1: Vocabulary, International Organization
for Standardization.
ISO 10360 part 2. 2009. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) – Acceptance and Reverification
Tests for Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) – Part 2: CMMs Used for Measuring Size,
International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 10360 part 3. 2000. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) – Acceptance and Reverification
Tests for Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) – Part 3: CMMs with the Axis of a Rotary
Table as the Fourth Axis, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 10360 part 4. 2000. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) – Acceptance and Reverification
Tests for Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) – Part 4: CMMs Used in Scanning Measuring
Mode, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 10360 part 5. 2010. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) – Acceptance and Reverification
Tests for Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) – Part 5: CMMs Using Single and Multiple-
Stylus Contacting Probing Systems, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 10360 part 6. 2001. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) – Acceptance and Reverification
Tests for Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) – Part 6: Estimation of Errors in Computing
Gaussian Associated Features, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 10360 part 7. 2011. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) – Acceptance and Reverification
Tests for Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) – Part 7: CMMs Equipped with Imaging
Probing Systems, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 10360 part 8. 2013. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) – Acceptance and Reverification
Tests for Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) – Part 8: CMMs with Optical Distance
Sensors, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 10360 part 9. 2013. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) – Acceptance and Reverification
Tests for Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) – Part 9: CMMs with Multiple Probing
Systems, International Organization for Standardization.
Standards in Additive Manufacturing 155

ISO 10360 part 10. 2016. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) – Acceptance and Reverification
Tests for Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) – Part 10: Laser Trackers for Measuring
Point-To-Point Distances, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO/CD 10360 part 11. 2019. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) – Acceptance and
Reverification Tests for Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) – Part 11: CMMs Using the
Principle of Computed Tomography (CT), International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 10360 part 12. 2016. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) – Acceptance and Reverification
Tests for Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) – Part 12: Articulated Arm Coordinate
Measurement Machines (CMM), International Organization for Standardization.
ISO/CD 10360 part 13. 2019. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) – Acceptance and
Reverification Tests for Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) – Part 13: Optical 3D CMS,
International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 10675-1. 2016. Non-Destructive Testing of Welds. Acceptance Levels for Radiographic Testing.
Steel, Nickel, Titanium and Their Alloys, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 10675-2. 2017. Non-Destructive Testing of Welds. Acceptance Levels for Radiographic Testing.
Aluminium and Its Alloys, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 10863. 2011. Non-Destructive Testing of Welds. Ultrasonic Testing. Use of Time-of-Flight
Diffraction Technique (TOFD), International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 11666. 2018. Non-Destructive Testing of Welds. Ultrasonic Testing. Acceptance Levels,
International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 11971. 2008. Steel and Iron Castings – Visual Examination of Surface Quality, International
Organization for Standardization.
ISO 12108. 2018. Metallic Materials – Fatigue Testing – Fatigue Crack Growth Method, International
Organization for Standardization.
ISO 12135. 2016. Metallic Materials – Unified Method of Test for the Determination of Quasistatic
Fracture Toughness, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 12737. 2010. Metallic Materials – Determination of Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness, International
Organization for Standardization.
ISO 15626. 2018, Non-Destructive Testing of Welds. Time-of-Flight Diffraction Technique (TOFD).
Acceptance Levels, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 16371-2. 2017. Non-Destructive Testing. Industrial Computed Radiography with Storage
Phosphor Imaging Plates. General Principles for Testing of Metallic Materials Using X-Rays
and Gamma Rays, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 17296-3. 2014, Additive Manufacturing – General Principles – Part 3: Main Characteristics and
Corresponding Test Methods, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 17635. 2016. Non-Destructive Testing of Welds. General Rules for Metallic Materials, International
Organization for Standardization.
ISO 17636-1. 2013. Non-Destructive Testing of Welds. Radiographic Testing. X- and Gamma-Ray
Techniques with Film, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 17636-2. 2013. Non-Destructive Testing of Welds. Radiographic Testing. X- and Gamma-Ray
Techniques with Digital Detectors, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 17640. 2018. Non-Destructive Testing of Welds. Ultrasonic Testing. Techniques, Testing Levels,
and Assessment, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 23279. 2017. Non-Destructive Testing of Welds. Ultrasonic Testing. Characterization of
Discontinuities in Welds, International Organization for Standardization.
Leach, R. K., Bourell, D., Carmignato, S., Donmez, A., Senin, N., Dewulf, W. 2019. Geometrical
metrology for metal additive manufacturing. CIRP Annals 68:677–700.
NASA – MSFC-STD-3716. 2017. Standard for Additively Manufactured Spaceflight Hardware by
Laser Powder Bed Fusion in Metals, NASA.
NASA – MSFC-SPEC-3717. 2017. Specification for Control and Qualification of Laser Powder Bed
Fusion Metallurgical Processes, NASA.
Parker W. J., Jenkins R. J., Butler C. P., Abbott G. L. 1961. Flash method of determining thermal dif-
fusivity, heat capacity, and thermal conductivity. Journal of Applied Physics 32:1679–1684.
156 Precision Metal Additive Manufacturing

Sih, S. S., Barlow, J. W. 1992. The measurement of the thermal properties and absorptances of pow-
ders near their melting temperatures. Proceedings SFF, Austin, TX, 131–140.
Simmons, J. H., Potter, K. S. 2010. Optical Properties. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Sing, S. L., Yeong, W. Y., Wiria, F. E., Tay, B. Y. 2016b. Characterisation of titanium lattice structures
fabricated by selective laser melting using an adapted compressive test method. Experimental
Mechanics 56:735–748.
Sing, S. L., An, J., Yeong, W. Y., Wiria, F. E. 2016a. Laser and electron-beam powder-bed additive
manufacturing of metallic implants: a review on processes, materials and designs. The Journal
of Orthopaedic Research 34:369–385.
Wang, J., Xie, H., Weng, Z., Senthil, T., Wu, L. 2016. A novel approach to improve mechanical proper-
ties of parts fabricated by fused deposition modelling. Journal Materials and Design 5:152–159.
chapter eight

Operational aspects and regulatory

gaps in additive manufacturing
Adeola Adediran and Akinola Oyedele

Contents
8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 129
8.2 Operational aspects of additive manufacturing ........................................................... 130
8.2.1 3D computer-aided design model ....................................................................... 130
8.2.2 Slicing ...................................................................................................................... 131
8.2.3 Layer-wise assembly ............................................................................................. 132
8.2.4 Finishing ................................................................................................................. 133
8.2.5 Prospects of additive manufacturing technology............................................. 133
8.3 A review on the challenges posed by regulatory gaps in additive manufacturing......133
8.3.1 Safety—Does lighter equal safer?........................................................................ 134
8.3.2 Quality assurance and quality control gaps ...................................................... 134
8.3.3 National security.................................................................................................... 134
8.3.4 Intellectual property and digital piracy ............................................................. 135
8.4 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 135
References..................................................................................................................................... 136

8.1 Introduction
Manufacturing processes have earlier been predominantly subtractive, that is, three-
dimensional objects were created by successively cutting material away from a solid
block of material, either by scraping, machining, turning, or dissolving. Additive manu-
facturing (AM) or three-dimensional (3D) printing, in contrast, is controlled material
addition, implemented by successively depositing layers of material until a predesigned
shape is formed. AM represents an innovative technology in manufacturing and is
certainly set to transform production processes from the design to manufacture and to
eventual distribution to end users. The unique capability of this technology to produce
intricate geometries with customizable material properties has made it a widely interesting
and welcome development among scientists, industry, and the general public. However,
until now, most attention has been focused solely on the ingenuity of this ground-breaking
technology and its wide range of possibilities. Little or no consideration is being given to
the adverse effects of the seemingly unstoppable advancement of AM technology and
unrestricted access to 3D-printing techniques. The wide acceptance and rapid spread
of this technology have made 3D printers increasingly openly accessible, and low-cost
desktop printing, with capability to reproduce 3D objects from medical prostheses to

129
130 Additive Manufacturing Handbook

weapons, is rapidly increasing in availability to the public. This section brings to light
some conceivable downsides and challenges of this impending development. Issues
discussed include regulation gaps in manufacturing, loopholes in safety and national
security, and the need for curbing those problems that can be contained, or otherwise
adapting to the eventualities that lie beyond control.

8.2 Operational aspects of additive manufacturing

AM, which is also known as 3D printing (3DP), uses a systematic, layer-by-layer approach
in fabricating objects of various complexity, size, and material. From the simple, home-built
Legos to an industrial-scale printed car (Local Motors, 2016), almost any design that can be
conceived can be made. This systematic approach allows for rapid prototyping (Campbell
et al., 2012) and mass customization of products, as different designs can be made to meet
individual specifications. Unlike traditional processes like injection molding, milling, and
casting, which use a top-bottom approach, AM such as electron beam melting, selective
laser sintering (SLS), and MultiJet Modeling involves the sequential deposition of individ-
ual layers from the bottom to top. Thus, AM does not require the removal of some parts
of the finished product through tooling in order to conform to initial designs (Huang et al.,
2013). Traditional manufacturing processes on the other hand are subtractive in nature,
which involves the removal of up to 98% of the material depending on the complexity and
geometries of the designs (Allen, 2006; Petrick and Simpson, 2013). This leads to waste,
which has both economic and environmental consequences (Despeisse and Ford, 2015).
The operational process of a typical AM is detailed in Figure 8.1.

8.2.1 3D computer-aided design model

The AM process starts with the design and modeling of the desired finished product. The
time required to complete the design depends on the geometry and the complexity of
the project and the experience of the designer or the design team. Simple geometries like
a water bottle can be designed in less than 10 minutes, while complicated designs such
as a robotic arm used as prosthetics can take up to three days. The design stage is very
crucial to the AM process and the quality of the final product; therefore, adequate plan-
ning is highly recommended when embarking on a new project. Any error will result in
an undesired finished product and as such will render the whole process a waste of time
and resources.
Typically, the design process utilizes computer-aided design (CAD) or 3D modeling
software to create a digitalized version of the product. Examples of software used include

3D CAD model Slicing Layer-wise Complete part

assembly

Figure 8.1 The 3D additive manufacturing process. (Courtesy of European Space Agency.)
Chapter eight: Operational aspects and regulatory gaps in additive manufacturing 131

AutoCAD, TinkerCAD, Repetier, SketchUp, Blender, and MeshLab, all of which are free
and are easy to use depending on the designer’s familiarity. The digital file created can
be easily shared or saved in a repository for future use. Many websites offer a collec-
tion of different designs, contributed by other users in the 3DP community, from which
new designs can be built. Thingiverse, YouMagine, PinShape, GrabCAD, and 3Dagogo are
examples of such repositories. The ubiquitous presence of designs and the relative ease of
reverse engineering of designs present a challenge in intellectual property (IP) protection
(Piller et al., 2014). This is a threat and avenues to mitigate that such must be explored. As it
was the case with the protection of contents in the music industry, this threat could turn
to opportunities.
In this digital age, customization and flexibility are important drivers of current and
future technologies (White and Lynskey, 2013). AM technology is positioned for success,
in that it allows for the design and fabrication of products from the comfort of one’s home
and the relative ease of customizing designs to meet customers’ specifications. Like the
printing technology, the ability to design and print photos from individual homes and
offices opened up the technology to billions of users and changed the whole market para-
digm. Apart from opening up the market to more users, the ability to use AM at home
and in school provides children and students a valuable hands-on familiarization experi-
ence with the technology, thereby raising a generation of early hobbyist and users, who
are important to the future of the technology. Kids and students can play with the design
software, and can be allowed to explore imaginative and creative designs.
During the industrial revolution, mass production was the key to cost reduction and
the ability to reach many consumers. However, in this present age, mass customization
is the driver to derive consumer satisfaction (White and Lynskey, 2013). The ability to
design anything using CAD software allows for ease of customization. For example, in
2014, Local Motors® demonstrated in front of a live audience the printing of a 3D car at the
International Manufacturing Technology Show (IMTS) in Chicago (Ulanoff, 2014). This
accomplishment is an important milestone in the customization of products and the abil-
ity to print locally. Now, companies like Local Motors can set up their factories locally to
meet the customization needs of the local customers. The turnaround time in production
which is around one day will make this technology to have more patronage. Also, with the
increase of wearables through internet of things (IoT), it is now possible to further custom-
ize the electronics of your cars with features that are tailored for your specific needs (IBM,
2016). While customization in traditional manufacturing method only attracted high-end,
deep-pocketed users, with AM it will now be possible to reach both low- and medium-end
customers, hence making the technology more affordable.

8.2.2 Slicing
After the model is designed, the next step is to slice the CAD file in a form that allows for
it to be printed layer-by-layer. This is compatible with the AM technology, since it prints
individual layers in order to fabricate the object. The chosen direction of slice is crucial
as it affects the strength of the object, build time, and the visual quality (Hildebrand
et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2015). For simple 2D objects this is trivial, but with increasing
layer thickness and complexity, the direction at which the model is sliced becomes more
important. Intuitively, a particular slice angle is selected—usually the angle orthogonal to
the direction of print. However, from the works of Kristian Hildebrand et al., slicing in
only one angle might be trivial but does not always give the best results. It was observed
that the optimized direction of slice is not a single, mono direction but a combination of
132 Additive Manufacturing Handbook

Input Fabrication Voxelgrid Error Optimization Optimized stacked

mesh direction computation layers

Figure 8.2 Overview of the slice angle optimization. (From Hildebrand, K. et al., Comput. Graph.,
37, 669–675, 2013.)

different slice angles. The process of optimizing the slice angles is shown in Figure 8.2.
It starts with the model as input mesh, which is then sliced in three different directions,
whose base vectors are perpendicular to one another. A voxelization process is then
performed to determine the slicing error in each direction from which the optimized
slicing angles are selected. Slicing the object in this manner ensured a faster build time
and a reduction in the error of the finished object. It is important to note that if the
directions are not orthogonal to one another, it makes it difficult to fuse the different
parts together. Apart from reducing the geometric errors of the final print, optimizing
slice directions also helps to improve the flexibility of printing to reduce built time,
especially in cases where the shape is larger than the build volume of the printing
instrument. Other slicing optimization work was done by W. Wang et al., in which
they developed a model to reduce manufacturing time. These optimization models are
embedded in software used for developing models in AM applications. Example of
such software includes CADfix.

8.2.3 Layer-wise assembly

The layer-by-layer assembly depends on the type of materials to be printed. For polymers,
MultiJet Modeling is commonly used, whereas metallic objects are printed with electron
beam melting and SLS methods. The printing of transparent materials like glasses can be
printed using a material extrusion printer (Klein et al., 2015). MultiJet Modeling uses an ink-
jet nozzle to print molten polymeric materials. As one layer hardens, the subsequent layer is
deposited such that it forms a fuse and melt together. SLS involves the use of high-power laser
to melt and sinter lasers in order to bind them with subsequent layers. The laser is usually
a carbon dioxide laser beam. Electron beam melting is similar to SLS, however it uses high
electron beam instead of laser beam. The high electron beam is powered by a high voltage,
typically 30–60 kV in a high vacuum chamber. Technologies such as 3DP involve the use of
binders, which are sprayed onto a bed to bind the materials. This is commonly used to handle
a variety of polymers (Halloran et al., 2011). Fused deposition modeling (FDM) works usually
with plastics such as polycarbonates (PC) and styrene. The print head melts the material and
then extrude it in thickness of around 0.25 mm. Usually, this process requires finishing which
may increase the time required to finish the printing (Wong and Hernandez, 2012).
The mechanical, optical, and morphological properties of the printed material are
dependent on the processing conditions such as temperature, pressure, flow rate, viscos-
ity, layer height, and feed rate (Gu et al., 2012). Hence for each project, it is important to
optimize these parameters in order to achieve the best results (Gu, 2015).
Chapter eight: Operational aspects and regulatory gaps in additive manufacturing 133

8.2.4 Finishing
Depending on the accuracy of the slicing and printing processes, an additional finishing
process might be necessary (Wong and Hernandez, 2012). After the printing process, sur-
face roughages are removed for aesthetic purposes. The material removed in this process
is negligible when compared to the amount of materials removed via tooling in traditional
manufacturing systems. Also, at this stage, it is possible to enhance the finish of the object
by the application of paints and coatings.

8.2.5 Prospects of additive manufacturing technology

Additive manufacturing systems have been used by aerospace manufacturers since its
beginnings in the ‘80s. But in the past few years, rapid advancements in AM technology
have brought about a notable rise to applications of the technology in the aerospace indus-
try. AM was formerly one of the prototyping technologies in aerospace manufacturing
(Markets, 2014). However, as recent developments suggest, additive manufacturing has
the potential to transform the production of aerospace and defense components, and its
prospects in these industries are already growing fast. For instance, Airbus is exploring
90 separate cases where AM might be applied on its next generation commercial aircraft.
GE Aviation is also set to manufacture up to 100,000 parts with AM by 2020. (GE, 2016).”
The aerospace industry expects to derive value from additive manufacturing have been
identified, which are: reduction of lead times, reduction of component weight, reduction of
production and operational costs, and reduction of the negative environmental impacts of
production (Markets, 2014).

8.3 A review on the challenges posed by regulatory

gaps in additive manufacturing
AM techniques offer a higher degree of creative flexibility, allowing the use of multiple
materials in the course of construction, as well as the ability to print multiple colors and
color combinations simultaneously. Parts can now be created with complex geometries
and shapes, which in many cases are impossible to create without 3DP. However, these
alluring capabilities also bring with them grave concerns that seem to be going unheeded,
and data suggest that those risks could end up costing several industries billions of dollars
(Brugger, 2014).
3DP has been described as a disruptive technology (Campbell et al., 2011), because, due
to a reduction in cost and the development of direct metal technologies, we are able to
visualize a disruption in the manner in which products are being made in virtually all
industries—architecture, consumer products, construction, industrial design, automo-
tive, aerospace, food, engineering, biotechnology, and fashion. However, the process of
3DP is not the real disruption. It is the fact that anyone is free to own a 3D printer and
create seemingly anything imaginable, from human bones to product parts. Consumers
are now having access to 3D systems at retail stores allowing them to create their own
products. Small, low-cost 3D printers are becoming available to be purchased for home
use (Zurich, 2015).
In essence, anyone today can begin creating and selling a variety of products even
from the comfort of their homes. The introduction of a turnkey solution to manufacturing
coupled with a growing freedom of use forms the basis of the concerns raised.
134 Additive Manufacturing Handbook

8.3.1 Safety—Does lighter equal safer?

In aerospace manufacturing research, there is the desire to drive down the cost and weight
of aircraft and to improve economy and design aesthetics. There also remains a require-
ment to adhere to stringent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulatory and compli-
ance standards. Complex AM processes must therefore be developed to meet the industry’s
stringent requirements and to ensure that products can achieve the robust performance
levels established by traditional manufacturing methods. This could pose a challenge in
that achieving these standards with AM may just be more cumbersome and introduce
more undesirable alterations than with traditional manufacturing. Also, the research into
lighter weight-printed products may require materials such as plastics and nanofibers that
are new to a manufacturer. Contaminated, defective, or incorrect materials may result in
a faulty product. Eventually, the materials used may even create an overall greater failure
risk than those presented by the 3D printer itself (Campbell et al., 2011).
The concern is therefore how printed products will perform over time, the consistency
of their quality, and the types and safety of materials used with this technology, especially
with very large-scale additive-manufactured products. Thus, there is a need for an intro-
duction of government regulation and inspection to launch quality and safety standards.
For its part, the FAA says that it is making efforts to understand the implications of 3DP in
the aerospace industry (Long, 2015).

8.3.2 Quality assurance and quality control gaps

New 3DP design freedoms makes simpler, lower-cost design, and assembly possible, and
this means that many tools can be created with 3DP much faster than with traditional
manufacturing methods. However, a very crucial issue, perhaps the most concerning, with
AM is the lack of regulatory oversight for this process, since much of it takes place outside
of a traditional mass production factory and not subjected to inspection from agencies
(Long, 2015). Even individuals with printers at home can, with relative ease, put a variety
of products in the marketplace, without the standard quality assurance/control regulatory
oversight that is imbedded in traditional manufacturing. Therefore, attention needs to be
paid that the zeal, particularly of unlicensed individuals, to rapidly roll out mass quanti-
ties of a printable part could leave a big gap for production of substandard items, leading
to part failure and endangering the lives/health of end users.
On another note, even while printing under proper licensing and regulatory condi-
tions, a defective product could inevitably come out of a 3D printer. Because of the mul-
tiple contributors to the production process—the printer manufacturer, software designer,
materials supplier, distributor, and retailer—identifying who is liable for the failure will
be a challenge.

8.3.3 National security

Another pressing concern with open access to 3DP technology is the ability for anyone,
anywhere to eventually have the means of creating a weapon such as a firearm. At the
present time, it may be easier for an individual with criminal intentions to obtain a weapon
illegally via other means; however, with the advancement of AM technology, and new
composite materials being fabricated over the next decade, could this issue become more
pronounced? A more troubling prospect involves the technology being used to render
detection of weapons and nuclear proliferation more difficult, which by itself makes the
Chapter eight: Operational aspects and regulatory gaps in additive manufacturing 135

case for understanding the possible uses of the technology. According to New York repre-
sentative Steve Israel in 1988, when the Undetectable Firearms Act was passed, the notion
of a 3D-printed plastic firearm slipped through metal detectors and onto planes in secure
environments was thought fiction. The problem is today a reality.
Currently in some countries like the United States, there are laws requiring a per-
mit in order to purchase a firearm. While this serves to impede unlawful possession
of such weapons, this restriction may lose effectiveness if the freedom of ownership of
a 3D printer is free-for-all. Thus, for instance, a simple CAD file could be downloaded,
and a gun could be fabricated within hours. Such weapons will become cheaply avail-
able nearly to everyone. Therefore, there will be a need in the very near future for
government to come up with means of governing the possession of 3D printers, or
otherwise restricting the kind of items that can be printed, while at the same time
ensuring that citizens are not deprived of fundamental rights to freedom (Freedman
and Lind, 2012).
3DP technology offers the ability to produce a wide range of objects that cannot be con-
trolled yet, and as noted in a white paper released from the National Defense University
(McNulty et al., 2012), there are definitely national security risks that need to be analyzed
in the near future, and addressing criminal and legal concerns will require active coopera-
tion across multiple agencies in the national security community.

8.3.4 Intellectual property and digital piracy

The digitization of physical artifacts allows for global sharing and distribution of designed
solutions. It lowers the barriers to manufacturing and allows everyone to become an entre-
preneur (Campbell et al., 2011). Open-source 3DP technology, however, also increases the
risk of design theft as an original software file could easily be used to produce counterfeit
products. A vast majority of the current digital software recipes are unpatented, allowing
them to be copied and sold by anyone. Expensive designer objects can also be reverse-
engineered and sold at a cheaper price. For product managers, this can mean an increased
opportunity for counterfeit products to enter the marketplace (Long, 2015). While there
have not been a tremendous number of IP issues involving 3DP yet, it could become a
major problem in the near future. As more and more 3D models of products are being sold
online, an entire underground market for these files will certainly emerge, and billions of
dollars will be lost due to file sharing (Krassenstein, 2015).
According to new research from Gartner, the negative ramifications of 3DP to busi-
nesses, particularly those that rely on licensing deals and IP to generate revenue, are going
to become a seriously expensive problem in the next few years (Brugger, 2014).
Gartner has said that companies may lose at least $100 billion in four years to licensing
or IP owners. This potential digital piracy situation is comparable to the way the internet
challenged the movie and music industries for copyrights, trademarks, and illegal down-
loads. Moreover, the current IP legislation does not explicitly regulate 3DP and will have
to rush to catch up with the change in the business market that will be brought about by
this technology.

8.4 Conclusion
AM is a prospective game changer with implications and opportunities that affect not
just the aerospace or Department of Defense (DoD) alone but the economy as a whole.
Some liken it to the next industrial revolution. Its ability to print complex geometries without
136 Additive Manufacturing Handbook

tooling and the flexibility to print structures locally allow for mass customization, which
is a key driver in new and future technologies. For aerospace, 3DP extends beyond aircraft
manufacturing into ground support systems and repair. Original equipment manufactur-
ers (OEMs) and defense contractors are growing their use of 3DP for a wide range of parts,
extending usage into production of airborne parts and complete assemblies.
AM has already impacted a variety of industries and has the potential to present legal
and economic issues with its strong benefits. But as history shows, a rapid introduction
and adoption of a new process like this often bring with it a number of hitches that can
result in grave economic, environmental, and even human loss. Because of its remark-
able ability to produce a wide variety of objects, AM also can have a significant national
security implications and much more complicated production scenario than the business
and manufacturing world typically encounters. Therefore, to fully harness the present-
day benefits and future potential of 3DP technology, it is highly necessary and wise to
carefully assess the multiple potential risks both for today as well as potentially unknown
risks that will continue to evolve, as the technology advances in its strides to revolutionize
the face of manufacturing.

References
Allen, J. (2006). An Investigation into the Comparative Costs of Additive Manufacture vs. Machine from
Solid for Aero Engine Parts. Derby: Rolls-Royce plc., Manufacturing Technology. Retrieved from
http://dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a521730.pdf.
Brugger, T. (2014, February 5). The Dark Side of 3D Printing. Retrieved from AOL news: http://www.
aol.com/article/2014/02/05/the-moral-dilemma-of-3d-printing/20823680/.
Campbell, I., Bourell, D., & Gibson, I. (2012). Additive manufacturing: Rapid prototyping comes of
age. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 18, 255–258.
Campbell, T., Williams, C., Ivanova, O., and Garrett, B. (2011). Could 3D Printing Change the World:
Technologies, Potential, and Implications of Additive Manufacturing. Washington, DC: Atlantic
Council.
Déspeisse, M., and Ford. S. (2015, June). The role of additive manufacturing in improving resource
efficiency and sustainability. Centre for Technology Management working paper series, pp. 1–9.
GE. (2016). Additive Manufacturing. Retrieved from GE Imagination at work: www.ge.com.
Gu, D. (2015). Laser additive manufacturing (AM): Classification, processing philosophy, and metal-
lurgical mechanisms. In D. Gu (Ed.), Laser Additive Manufacturing of High-Performance Materials
(pp. 15–71). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Gu, D. D., Meiners, W., Wissenbach, K., and Poprawe, R. (2012). Laser additive manufacturing of
metallic components: Materials, processes and mechanisms. International Materials Reviews,
3(57), 133–164.
Halloran, J. W., Tomeckova, V., Gentry, S., Das, S., Cilino, P., Yuan, D., Guo, R., et al. (2011).
Photopolymerization of powder suspensions for shaping ceramics. Journal of the European
Ceramic Society, 31, 2613–2619.
Hildebrand, K., Bickel, B., and Alexa, M. (2013). Orthogonal slicing for additive manufacturing.
Computers & Graphics, 37, 669–675.
Huang, S. H., Liu, P., Mokasdar, A., and Hou, L. (2013). Additive manufacturing and its societal
impact: A literature review. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 67,
1191–1203.
IBM. (2016, June 16). Local Motors Debuts “Olli”, the First Self-driving Vehicle to Tap the Power of IBM
Watson. Retrieved from IBM Press Release: http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressre-
lease/49957.wss.
Klein, J., Stern, M., Franchin, G., Kayser, M., Inamura, C., Dave, S., Weaver, J. C., Houk, P., Colombo,
P., Yang, M., and Oxman, N. (2015). Additive manufacturing of optically transparent glass. 3D
Printing and Additive Manufacturing, 2, 92–105.
Chapter eight: Operational aspects and regulatory gaps in additive manufacturing 137

Krassenstein, B. (2015, July 16). 3 Dangers Society Faces from 3D Printing. Retrieved from 3DPrint.com:
https://3dprint.com/81526/3d-print-dangers/.
Lind, M., and Freedman, J. (2012). Value Added: America’s Manufacturing Future. Washington D.C.:
New American Foundation.
Local Motors. (2016, June 19). Retrieved from local motors: https://localmotors.com/3d-printed-car/.
Long, E. (2015, February 16). Additive Manufacturing Creates Tremendous Opportunities, as well as Risks.
Retrieved from 3D Print.com: https://3dprint.com/44105/3d-printing-risks/.
McNulty, C. M., Arnas, N., and Campbell, T. A. (2012, September). Toward the Printed World: Additive
Manufacturing and Implications for National Security. Washington, DC: National Defense
University, Institute for National Strategic Studies.
Petrick, I. J., and Simpson, T. W. (2013). 3D printing disrupts manufacturing: How economies of one
create new rules of competition. Research-Technology Management, 6, 12–16.
Piller F.T., Weller C., Kleer R. (2015) Business Models with Additive Manufacturing—Opportunities
and Challenges from the Perspective of Economics and Management. In: Brecher C. (Eds.),
Advances in Production Technology. Lecture Notes in Production Engineering. Springer, Cham.
SmarTech Markets. (2014). Additive Manufacturing in Aerospace: Strategic Implications. http://www.
smartechpublishing.com
Ulanoff, L. (2014). World’s First 3D Printed Car Took Years to Design, But Only 44 Hours to Print
[Online]. Mashable: Mashable. Available: http://mashable.com/2014/09/16/first-3dprinted-
car/[Accessed 5 June 2016].
Wang, W., Chao, H., Tong, J., Yang, Z., Tong, X., Li, H., Liu, X., and Liu, L. (2015). Saliency-preserving
slicing optimization for effective 3D printing. Computer Graphics Forum, 34, 148–160.
White, G., and Lynskey, D. (2013). Economic Analysis of Additive Manufacturing for Final Products: An
Industrial Approach. University of Pittsburgh, mimco.
Wong, K. V., and Hernandez, A. (2012). A review of additive manufacturing. International Scholarly
Research Network (ISRN), Mechanical Engineering, 2012, 1–10.
 9 Industrial
Implementation of
Additive Manufacturing
Edward D. Herderick and Clark Patterson

CONTENTS
9.1 Introduction................................................................................................... 317
9.2 Application of Additive Technologies for Industrial Products...................... 317
9.3 Direct Part Fabrication in Engineering Thermoplastics................................ 319
9.4 Approaches to Indirectly Manufacturing Parts............................................. 323
9.5 Direct Part Fabrication in Metals.................................................................. 326
9.6 Summary and Future Trends......................................................................... 331
References............................................................................................................... 332

9.1 INTRODUCTION
Over the past 30 years, AM technology has matured beyond rapid prototyping to
become a viable route to producing industrial parts in high-performance metals and
polymers.
The maturation of AM technologies is accelerating a transition from the tra-
ditional design for manufacturing model to a new paradigm of manufacturing by
design. In this new paradigm, industrial designers are fully enabled to design com-
ponents based on functionality, rather than limits of assembly technologies.
The goal of this chapter is to present the current state of the art, seed ideas for
where the technology can be implemented today, and provide thoughts on where the
technology will be in the future. The scope is for industrial applications using struc-
tural properties of the materials with an emphasis on metal and polymers owing to
their high level of technology readiness.

9.2 APPLICATION OF ADDITIVE TECHNOLOGIES

FOR INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
There are three key tenets for creating an industrial product: design, materials,
and manufacturing processes.1 The shape-making capability of AM technologies
has captured the imagination of the design community since its earliest days for
rapid creation of form, fit, and function prototypes. The key hurdle toward indus-
trial implementation is the availability of engineering materials and corresponding

317
 318

TABLE 9.1
ASTM Defined AM Processes, Example Vendors, and Pros/Cons of Technology Class
ASTM Defined
Technology Example Vendor Advantages for Industrial Parts Challenges for Industrial Parts
Category Description Technology Production Production
Binder jetting Liquid bonding agent is selectively ExOne M-Flex, Voxeljet Broadest range of materials, cost Composite microstructure (usually),
deposited to join powder metal effective intensive post-processing may be
required
Directed energy Focused thermal energy is fuses Optomec LENS, Lincoln In situ alloying, hardfacing, repair Difficult to manufacture direct
deposition materials by melting as material is Electric Hybrid Laser-Arc, parts
deposited Sciaky EBDM
Powder bed fusion Thermal energy selectively fuses EOS DMLS, 3D Systems Engineering materials coupled with high Relatively slow, relatively
regions of powder bed SLS, Arcam EBM resolution, highest density structures expensive, limited build volume
(as printed metals with >99.5% density of parts
achievable)
Material extrusion Material is selectively dispensed Stratasys Fused Deposition Engineering polymers, large builds, fast Surface roughness due to raster,
through a nozzle or orifice Modeling requires support material
Material jetting Droplets of build material are Objet Connex, Optomec Fast, high resolution, multiple materials, Requires materials compatible
selectively deposited Aerosol Jet inexpensive with jetting (stricter for structural
than functional)
Sheet lamination Sheets of material are bonded to Fabrisonic VHP-UAM, Very large builds (6 ft × 6 ft × 6 ft z-Axis strength penalty, maturing
form an object CAM-LEM possible), composites of metal alloys technology
and electronic materials
Vat Liquid photopolymer in vat is 3D Systems Fast, very high resolution, inexpensive Lack of engineering polymers
photopolymerization selectively cured by light-activated Stereolithography
polymerization
Additive Manufacturing
Industrial Implementation of Additive Manufacturing 319

technical data that designers can use to create products. Manufacturing processes
and materials are firmly linked and share a synergistic interaction where innovation
in one leads to further innovation in the other.2 It is this link for innovation that is
driving industrial applications for AM.
Table 9.1 is a brief review of the ASTM designated AM technologies including
advantages and disadvantages with respect to industrial implementation.3 A clear
demarcation can be made between those technologies that are currently able to
manufacture engineering materials. Practically speaking, for engineering classes of
polymers those technologies are material extrusion and powder bed fusion. For met-
als, those processes are binder jetting, powder bed fusion, directed energy deposi-
tion, and sheet lamination.

9.3 DIRECT PART FABRICATION IN ENGINEERING

THERMOPLASTICS
The largest current application set for industrial implementation of AM for direct
parts is for parts manufactured using thermoplastics.4 Polymeric air moving duct
work made of engineering polyamides manufactured using laser powder bed fusion
3D system’s selective laser sintering (3DS SLS) has been implemented by Boeing
for several years.5 That example demonstrated that air moving applications are ideal
candidates for AM implementation. The parts are non-load bearing, limiting their
structural requirements, and include complex shapes that are difficult to machine
or injection mold.
Figures 9.1 through 9.3 show examples of generic ducts made of Ultem 9085 and
manufactured using material extrusion on a Stratasys Fortus fused deposition
modeling (FDM™) industrial grade AM platform. Ultem 9085 made using FDM
has a high tensile strength (10,390 psi), has a high heat deflection temperature
of 333°F, and is flame-smoke-toxicity certified.6 Efforts are underway to provide
designers a statistically significant data set for Ultem 9085 FDM to support further
implementation.7
Figure 9.1 shows an image of a thin-walled hot air moving duct. The wall thick-
ness is only a few tool path passes thick, on the order of 0.050″. Parts can be made
leak tight using post-process vapor smoothing that joins any incongruities and
smooths z-axis roughness. Parts can be made lighter and more complex than those
that could be injection molded. Figure 9.2 shows an air-guiding grate. The vanes in
the center of this duct have internal curvature that could not be machined or would
be die-locked using traditional injection molding. Figure 9.3 is a high temperature
duct attachment interfacing between a round and a flat, rectangular shape. Similar to
Figure 9.2, this part would be difficult to machine or difficult to injection mold and
is enabled by the shape-making capability of AM.
The ability to select and manufacture different materials is key attribute of AM.
Using the same digital file, with modified tool paths, the same part design can be
made more economically using commodity materials or with a higher performance
material in low volumes to serve different markets on an as-needed basis without
dramatic impacts on inventory. Figure 9.4 demonstrates this principle for product
320 Additive Manufacturing

FIGURE 9.1 Thin walled hot air moving duct made from Ultem 9085 using Stratasys
FDM™. (Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing, LLC, Avon Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

FIGURE 9.2 Air guiding grate made from Ultem 9085 using Stratasys FDM™. (Copyright
Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing, LLC, Avon Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

design, in it are three single to four-port nozzles showing shape-making capabil-

ity of AM. On the left is a part made using standard white acrylonitrile butadiene
styrene (ABS), on the center is Ultem 9085, and on the right is carbon fiber filled
poly-ether-imide all manufactured using FDM. In this way, design teams can source
and select properties of components specifically for their application need without
significant manufacturing process changes.
There are other emerging applications for manufacturing polymers using AM for
functional applications. Many of these are in the medical device space, Figures 9.5
Industrial Implementation of Additive Manufacturing 321

FIGURE 9.3 High temperature duct attachment interfacing between a round and a flat, rect-
angular shape made from Ultem 9085 using Stratasys FDM™. (Copyright Rapid Prototype
and Manufacturing, LLC, Avon Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

FIGURE 9.4 Three single- to four-port nozzles showing shape-making capability of addi-
tive manufacturing. On the left is a part made using standard white ABS, center is Ultem
9085, and on the right is carbon-fiber-filled poly ether imide all manufactured using FDM™.
(Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing, LLC, Avon Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

and 9.6 include examples for medical imaging applications. During normal opera-
tion, computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) scanners
emit X-rays used to create images that require shielding and filtering. Historically,
this has been done using lead or other high z metal shielding made using casting or
machining. These applications show a strong value proposition for AM because of
their relatively low volumes and complex geometries. The medical imaging compo-
nents in Figures 9.5 and 9.6 were made from tungsten-loaded poly-carbonate printed
using FDM. Figure 9.5 is a mounting bracket and Figure 9.6 is a mounting cup for
electronics in a CT scanner. In this case, the tungsten metal in the composite shields
322 Additive Manufacturing

FIGURE 9.5 Mounting bracket made from tungsten loaded polycarbonate printed using
FDM™. (Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing, LLC, Avon Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

FIGURE 9.6 Mounting cup for electronics in a CT scanner made from tungsten loaded
polycarbonate printed using FDM™. (Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing, LLC,
Avon Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

the X-rays and the overall material has been tailored to match the shielding charac-
teristics of lead metal castings. AM offers reduced inventory costs, manufacturing
without tooling, and higher shape complexity allowing for reduced footprint in the
medical imaging devices.
Industrial applications for printed thermoplastics will continue to emerge as more
engineering materials are introduced. There are more than 8,000 commercially
Industrial Implementation of Additive Manufacturing 323

FIGURE 9.7 Forming tool set made from chopped carbon fiber loaded poly-ether-imide.
(Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing, LLC, Avon Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

available injection moldable thermoplastics8; however, there are less than 20 com-
mercially available AM polymers. This implementation will be particularly valu-
able for loaded composites and other high-value polymers. An example of an AM
composite material component is shown in Figure 9.7, which is a forming tool set
made from chopped carbon fiber loaded poly-ether-imide. This material has higher
stiffness, a lower CTE (more closely matched to aluminum), and higher thermal
conductivity than the related Ultem 9085 and demonstrates the types of materials
that are in product development now and will be commercially available over the
next 1–3 years.

9.4 APPROACHES TO INDIRECTLY MANUFACTURING PARTS

Applications where AM built parts are indirectly used to manufacture industrial
products, such as injection molding and casting, present ripe areas for implementa-
tion since the new processes themselves do not need to be recertified.
Injection molding is a mature industry that is highly competitive on perfor-
mance, cost, and delivery schedule. The core and cavity tool that provide the
shape-making capability are themselves expensive to manufacture and require
long lead times on the order of months in many cases and therefore require strong
business cases to fulfill orders. This means that in general, injection molding is
only economical for large volumes of parts on the order of 1,000s or more where
the tool cost and schedule can be amortized over many parts. This makes short
runs of parts below 1,000 on quick turnaround timelines a high-value niche market
that innovative businesses are driven to serve. AM has a strong value proposition
for these applications.
324 Additive Manufacturing

FIGURE 9.8 Example of a short-run injection molding tool made from ABS using Objet
material jetting technology. (Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing, LLC, Avon
Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

Figure 9.8 is an example short-run tool made using objet material jetting technol-
ogy. The two pieces form the cavity into which a polymer is injected thereby forming
a component. The material jetting technology uses ABS-like polymers that can be
printed in a few hours and can last for a short run of 100–200 parts. The main chal-
lenge is that the thermal conductivity of the polymer is lower than standard metal
tools increasing cycle times so that the tool is not damaged. For short-run parts,
cycle time is typically not a deciding factor when compared to delivery time. When
higher temperature or chemical resistance is required, Ultem 9085 manufactured
using FDM can be used for higher stress molds and longer part runs. Figure 9.9 is a
core and cavity set for thermoplastic elastomer molding. In this example, there are
rails on the cavity set that allow for changing the tab features on the top and bottom
of the rubber piece.
Although useful, there are many applications where polymer molds will
not effectively meet injection molding requirements. For the right value proposi-
tion, printed metal injection mold tooling, this includes when tooling is not avail-
able quickly enough or with difficult to mold polymers or part geometries.
The cost to manufacture may be higher for the printed tool, but printing the tool
allows integration of cooling channels that speed cycle times and improve quality
leading to holistic life cycle cost reduction. Figure 9.10 shows an example injec-
tion molding tool for a fitting made of maraging steel using laser powder bed
fusion on an EOS DMLS platform.
Another industrial application of AM technology for indirectly making components
is printing of sand molds and cores for metal casting using the binder jetting process.
Industrial Implementation of Additive Manufacturing 325

FIGURE 9.9 Injection mold core and cavity set for thermoplastic elastomer molding made
from Ultem 9085 using Stratasys FDM™. (Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing,
LLC, Avon Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

FIGURE 9.10 Example injection molding tool for a fitting made of maraging steel using
laser powder bed fusion on an EOS DMLS™ platform. (Copyright Rapid Prototype and
Manufacturing, LLC, Avon Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

Figures 9.11 and 9.12 are images of an aluminum sand casting mold made using binder
jetting on a Voxeljet vx200 platform. This application is particularly appealing for
AM implementation as the same materials, that is, foundry sand and foundry resin,
used in the standard process are used in the printing process. Of particular interest are
complex core structures used for casting of aluminum fluid moving pump housings.
326 Additive Manufacturing

FIGURE 9.11 Closed aluminum sand casting mold made using binder jetting on a
Voxeljet vx200 platform. (Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing, LLC, Avon
Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

FIGURE 9.12 Open aluminum sand casting mold made using binder jetting on a
Voxeljet vx200 platform. (Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing, LLC, Avon Lake,
Ohio, 2014.)

9.5 DIRECT PART FABRICATION IN METALS

The ability to directly produce metal alloy parts using AM is among the fastest
growing sectors for the technology and has captured the popular imagination.9 As
the technology has matured, industrial manufacturers have developed a series of use
cases where metal parts are difficult or expensive to source with long lead times due
to complex castings, machining costs, and diminished supply chain capacity. AM
enables turnaround times on the order of weeks without several months long wait for
tooling. Furthermore, part consolidation provides a huge benefit as metal assemblies
Industrial Implementation of Additive Manufacturing 327

FIGURE 9.13 Stainless steel PH1 (15-5 Cr-Ni) impeller prototypes bonded to the build plate
in an EOS DMLS™ M280 build chamber. (Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing,
LLC, Avon Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

FIGURE 9.14 High-performance automotive rocker arm made from maraging steel MS1 on
an EOS DMLS™ platform. (Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing, LLC, Avon
Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

that were originally brazed or joined together can be made in a single piece allowing
for greater design flexibility.
In the laser powder bed fusion process for manufacturing metal parts, the use of
support materials and structures relative to part orientation is a key determinant of
part manufacturability. Figure 9.13 shows several stainless steel PH1 (15-5 Cr-Ni)
impeller prototypes bonded to the build plate in the build chamber. The parts are
welded to the build plate and support materials are used to promote thermal conduc-
tion of heat away from the build layer and prevent warping due to residual stresses.
Figure 9.14 is a high-performance automotive rocker arm made from maraging steel
328 Additive Manufacturing

MS1 (a Ni precipitation hardened tool steel alloy). The lighter areas are support mate-
rial left on the part to demonstrate how supports are required to manufacture open
areas in the z direction. The value proposition for this particular application is rapid
turnaround time to meet race deadlines and design freedom for new and spare parts.
Figure 9.15 is a functional gear prototype made from PH1 stainless steel. This appli-
cation use case for laser powder bed fusion is driven by the ability to print a build plate
with varying parts for rapid testing of different designs. The conventional method
would require machining each design from rod stock. Furthermore, initial production
runs could be completed using AM prior to full-scale tooling implementation.
Metal AM parts are also finding strong use cases for fluid moving applications
for similar reasons as engineered polymers as discussed in the previous section.
Figure 9.16 is a pair of water cooling channels in MS1 using laser powder bed fusion.

FIGURE 9.15 Functional gear prototype made from PH1 stainless steel on an EOS DMLS™
platform. (Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing, LLC, Avon Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

FIGURE 9.16 Pair of water cooling channels made from MS1 on an EOS DMLS™ plat-
form. (Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing, LLC, Avon Lake, Ohio, 2014.)
Industrial Implementation of Additive Manufacturing 329

FIGURE 9.17 Complex water cooling assembly made from MS1 on an EOS DMLS™ plat-
form. (Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing, LLC, Avon Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

The original part design was cast in three separate components and brazed together,
where this is printed in a single part. Special considerations like chamfers on edges
and part orientation are required to print with open cooling channels inside the
part for water flow because of support material considerations as demonstrated in
Figures 9.13 and 9.14. Figure 9.17 is another more complex water cooling assembly
that was printed in a single part using laser powder bed fusion. The original design
called for six cast components that were then welded together, which was cost pro-
hibitive. In this case, using AM to eliminate the joining steps to make a single part
actually made the part cost effective in a way that conventional processes could not.
Another fluid moving application for metal AM parts is high-performance
impellers in industrial pumping systems. Figure 9.18 shows an example PH1 impel-
ler from Figure 9.13 after removal of support material and finishing steps. AM
allows mechanical designers to select the number and shape of individual impel-
ler vanes with more extreme angles that conventional casting or joining techniques
do not allow, which enable higher performance, lighter weight pumping systems.
In cases of higher volume, lower margin markets like automotive and heavy truck
applications, impellers can be built using stainless steel–bronze composite materials
using binder jetting. Where these metal–metal composites are appropriate materials,
the binder jetting approach is appealing as it can make larger parts than laser powder
bed fusion roughly 10x faster and 1/10th the cost. Figure 9.19 shows an example of
a hydraulic fluid moving impeller for a heavy truck application manufactured using
binder jetting on an ExOne M-Flex platform.
For materials that are difficult to process using fusion techniques, binder jet-
ting AM offers the capability to make parts that could not be easily printed. One
example of this capability is for tungsten polymer composites for medical imaging
330 Additive Manufacturing

FIGURE 9.18 Example of a fluid moving impeller made from PH1 on an EOS DMLS™
platform. (Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing, LLC, Avon Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

FIGURE 9.19 Example of a hydraulic fluid moving impeller for a heavy truck application
made from 410 stainless steel–bronze composite using binder jetting on an ExOne M-Flex
platform. (Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing, LLC, Avon Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

applications. Figure 9.20 shows an X-ray shielding bracket and Figure 9.21 an
X-ray collimator, both printed using binder jetting on an ExOne M-Flex platform.
These materials are being used to replace lead components that shield and direct
radiation to reduce patient dose and improve resolution and clarity of imaging
techniques. The AM use case is focused on the reduction of costly materials like
tungsten polymer, while managing inventory and producing precision parts on an
as-needed basis.
Industrial Implementation of Additive Manufacturing 331

FIGURE 9.20 X-ray shielding bracket made from tungsten—polymer using binder jetting
on an ExOne M-Flex platform. (Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing, LLC, Avon
Lake, Ohio, 2014.)

FIGURE 9.21 X-ray collimator made from tungsten—polymer using binder jetting on an
ExOne M-Flex platform. (Copyright Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing, LLC, Avon Lake,
Ohio, 2014.)

9.6 SUMMARY AND FUTURE TRENDS

AM is perhaps the disruptive manufacturing technology being implemented by
industrial manufacturers today. As more engineering materials are introduced, the
supply chain will continue to develop use cases to provide greater value to clients.
There are still key needs to improve quality and capability of technologies, and cor-
responding needs for standards development, accreditation, and certification by rel-
evant bodies.10
332 Additive Manufacturing

As the suite of AM technologies continues to mature, it is breaking the traditional

design for manufacturing model and providing the foundation for a new paradigm
of manufacturing by design. In this new paradigm, industrial designers are fully
enabled to design components based on functionality, rather than limits of assembly
technologies. In this future paradigm, integrated computational materials engineer-
ing will be leveraged to develop new materials for these new processes in parallel
to their development and for specific applications. Similarly, the fine line between
structural and functional AM will be merged and new devices that support custom-
ized medicine and the Internet of things will begin to emerge.

REFERENCES
1. National Research Council. Retooling Manufacturing: Bridging Design, Materials,
and Production. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004.
2. Schafrik, R. and Sprague, R. Superalloy technology: A perspective on critical innova-
tions for turbine engines. Key Engineering Materials, 380, 113, 2008.
3. ASTM Standard F2792, Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing
Technologies. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012, www.astm.org.
4. Wohlers Report. 3D printing and additive manufacturing state of the industry. Annual
Worldwide Progress Report, 2014.
5. Lyons, B., Deck, E., and Bartel, A. Commercial aircraft applications for laser sintered
poly-amides, SAE Technical Paper ATC-0387, Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive
Engineers International, 2009. doi:10.4271/2009-01-3266.
6. Stratasys. Ultem 9085 FDM™ data sheet, Stratasys, http://www.stratasys.com/~/
media/Main/Secure/Material%20Specs%20MS/Fortus-Material-Specs/Fortus-MS-
ULTEM9085-01-13-web.ashx, accessed January 7, 2014.
7. Maturation of fused depositing modeling (FDM™) component manufacturing, https://
americamakes.us/engage/projects/item/455-maturation-of-fused-depositing-modeling-
fdm-component-manufacturing, accessed January 7, 2014.
8. Rosato, D.V. et al. Injection Molding Handbook, 3rd edition. Norwell, MA: Kluwer
Academic Partners, 2000.
9. The Economist. Print me a jet engine. The Economist, November 22, 2012. http://www.
economist.com/node/21567145, accessed January 7, 2014.
10. Energetics Incorporated. Measurement Science Roadmap for Metal-Based Additive
Manufacturing Workshop Summary Report. Columbia, MA: National Institute of
Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2013.
chapter ten

Cultural adoption of change

There is no doubt that additive manufacturing (AM) inherently is a catalyst
for change within organizations. At the highest level, AM change affects
almost all aspects in a modern manufacturing company. AM change
comes in the form of radical design practices, changes in organizational
­structuring based on departmental functional integration, changes in pro-
curement strategies and inventory control, changes in quality and inspec-
tion, changes in material development, changes in repair and overhaul
tactics, and changes in production line tooling. This is only a partial list
of the types of changes that can occur within an organization due to AM.
Change management has been a topic of interest by organizational
behaviorists for a number of years. Some of the pioneers in this field
include Kurt Lewin, Rich Beckhard, and Willian Bridges. During the
1990s, businesses started to adopt “change management” within the busi-
ness common language. Modern-day researchers in the area of change
management include John Kotter, Daryl Conner, Spenser Johnson, and
Jeanenne LaMarsh.
To give a quick synopsis of the research in the field of change manage-
ment in the last half century, there are a number of factors that provide
a resistance to change within organizations. These factors are listed in
Figure 10.1.

Absence of a Timing Surprise Peer

major crisis
pressure
Kill the
Low overall messenger,
performance low
standards confrontation
culture
Complacency
Resistance to
change
Narrow Misaligned
functional goal internal
based org measurement
structures systems
Too much
filtering and
happy Self- Mgmt
Confusion
messaging interests tactics

Figure 10.1 Resistance to change.

93
94 Additive Manufacturing Change Management

Timing, surprise, and peer pressure represent general resistance to

change by employees. Not specific to AM necessarily, the squared boxes
of bad management tactics, confusion, and self-interests are change spe-
cific reasons for resistance. These are often exhibited due to poor commu-
nications strategies rolling out new technology within companies.
Perhaps common across the aerospace industry, one of the most
common AM functions to resist change is industrial complacency. The
authors have personally witnessed this behavior on a number of occa-
sions throughout their careers. If you look at the specific reasons why an
overall sense of complacency exists within industry, there can be a collec-
tion of root causes.
Because the authors have personally witnessed these root causes
throughout our careers with respect to AM, it is critical to focus more
on these topics. The first of these root causes of industrial complacency
would include “too much filtering among layers of management” creat-
ing a sense of happy messaging to the highest-level executive. You can
almost picture in your mind an executive briefing by 25 middle- to upper-
level managers in a conference room. After receiving glorious praise from
the managers on the state of the company, the executive asks “Why do
we need to implement AM, when we aren’t experiencing any issues with
our current manufacturing strategy?” Knowing that perhaps the execu-
tive has a “Kill the Messenger” type of attitude toward negative news,
this creates a low confrontation culture. Despite management seeing how
competitors are using AM to take weight out, costs out, and lead time out
of new product introductions, often management will bury their head in
the sand and keep the messaging positive.
Another root cause for industrial complacency resides in “narrow
functional goals based on restrictive organizational structures.” One
author personally witnessed AM goals and objectives squashed within
a company because they weren’t specifically aligned to the performance
metrics of a particular department within the organization. For example,
perhaps the advanced manufacturing engineering team traditionally
has received the lion share of funding related to AM. A design engineer-
ing organization needs to bolster its use of AM-specific software tools
to advance the technology. Because the design-engineering group has
never been a large AM organization, its request for new design software
to leverage DfAM is denied because the advanced manufacturing engi-
neering team will not be using the software. Executive leadership needs
to be aware that AM is cross functionally transformative; meaning that
budget should be equitably spread through different factions of the com-
pany to be culturally adopted, if not, industrial complacency will grow
and become resistance to change of AM.
Referring back to Figure 10.1, “misaligned internal measurement
systems” are also predominately found within the aerospace industry,
Chapter ten: Cultural adoption of change 95

which leads to more industrial complacency. As companies are acquired,

merged, or divested, the cultures within these sub companies become
small microcosms of culture that differs from the mother company. As
such, misaligned internal measurement systems create confusion and
inefficient use of resources. For example, the advanced manufacturing
engineering team mentioned above may have goals to directly convert
a specific number of existing conventionally manufactured parts to AM
parts. This goal may be completely different than the design engineering
teams goals of creating a specific number of new products solely designed
for AM. These differing priorities create internal confusion, and ulti-
mately, industrial complacency.
Think of an example when you may have a specific site within your
business that has historically underperformed for many years because the
product is now basically a commodity. It is not hard to imagine that “low
overall performance standards” can be set by management for that site.
This will lead to industrial complacency with no attention given to new
and emerging technologies, such as AM, to overhaul and rescue the com-
modity product line. Once a product line reaches this status, it is very
difficult to reenergize the team and turn it around effectively. A major
contributor to this is that many of the leaders that originally developed
the technology will have already left or be at a career stage where such
innovation is personally undesirable, given that it is much simpler and
less risky to do things the same, safe and proven way.
In our opinion, the largest root cause of industrial complacency resides
in the “absence of a major crisis.” A common question arises often among
AM practitioners at AM conferences; how did your company implement
AM into production? On many occasions, the answer has been, “we were
stuck and we had no other way of manufacturing this product.” If you
read between the lines of this statement, basically, there was a major crisis
that had befallen our company and we had to act. It is well known that
with AM parts come exhaustive testing, exhaustive investments, and a lot
of effort. So, an executive leader must ask his or herself, if your company
has an “absence of a major crisis” what motivation does your company
have to move from industrial complacency to implementing AM? This is
why the next chapter is titled, “Establish a Sense of Urgency.”
In addition, this brief chapter only skims the surface on cultural adop-
tion of change. Much has been written by a vast number of organizational
behaviorists over the past 60 years or so. To gain a broader picture on
this topic, we encourage the reader to dig through some terrific papers
on workplace change management and new technology insertion. These
research data seem to age quite well with little noticeable differences from
the 1960s to present day on the topic.