CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology

jou rnal homep age : ht t p: // ees .e lse vi er . com /ci r p/ def a ult . asp

Geometrical metrology for metal additive manufacturing

R.K. Leach (2)a,*, D. Bourell b, S. Carmignato (2)c, A. Donmez (2)d, N. Senin a,e,
W. Dewulf (2)f
a
Manufacturing Metrology Team, Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, UK
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, USA
c
Department of Management and Engineering, University of Padova, Italy
d
National Institute of Standards and Technology, USA
e
Department of Engineering, University of Perugia, Italy
f
Department of Mechanical Engineering, KU Leuven, Belgium

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The needs, requirements, and on-going and future research issues in geometrical metrology for metal
Available online 11 June 2019 additive manufacturing are addressed. The infrastructure under development for specification standards
in AM is presented, and the research on geometrical dimensioning and tolerancing for AM is reviewed.
Keywords: Post-process metrology is covered, including the measurement of surface form, texture and internal
Additive manufacturing features. In-process requirements and developments in AM are discussed along with the materials
Metrology metrology that is pertinent to geometrical measurement. Issues of traceability, including benchmarking
Surface measurement artefacts, are presented. The information in the review sections is summarized in a synthesis of current
requirements and future research topics.
© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of CIRP.

1. Introduction complexity in geometries to be measured; this is why there are so

There is little doubt that additive manufacturing (AM) will have
a large effect across manufacturing, from the home workshop to
the most technologically advanced digital factories [304]. Recent
review papers describe the state of the art and future trends in the
field of AM, and this will not be repeated in depth here
[36,240,253,273]. In AM, objects are manufactured, not by
removing material, but by generating the desired shape in a
process of adding material layer by layer. This way of producing a
shape has many benefits over the subtractive techniques, but the
biggest benefit is the ability to produce almost any desired shape.
There are some caveats to this (for example, care around
overhanging features), but AM allows almost infinite design
freedom, without the significant constraints on the types of
geometries that can be produced using subtractive techniques.
This design freedom also applies to internal features, allowing
advances in areas such as light-weighting for aerospace, internal
cooling channels for automotive and designed-in porosity for
medical implants. The ability to design with such freedom is a rich
mathematical discipline in itself and can result in complex and
intricate geometries that could not be produced using subtractive
techniques (see for example, Fig. 8) [270,311]. From the metrology
point of view, the extra level of design freedom offered by AM with
respect to subtractive techniques, results in an extra level of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: richard.leach@nottingham.ac.uk (R.K. Leach).
many developments in geometrical metrology for AM and why
there are still unsolved measurement issues. These developments
and issues are the focus of this paper.
AM is still at an early stage of development. There are many
examples of consumer products using AM with plastics, for
example, vacuum cleaner casings and even fashionable clothing.
But, if AM is to be used in earnest in high-value, advanced
manufacturing, for example, in the aerospace or medical indus-
tries, then it will be metals (and ceramics, although not addressed
here) that will be the game-changers. However, right now, the
integrity of metal (or ceramic) parts essentially made of fused
powders, is not equivalent to that achievable using more
traditional subtractive manufacturing techniques [163]. AM parts
made from metal powders are commonly characterised by high
surface roughness values and can suffer from undesired material
characteristics. Also, where a part would not be manufactured with
subtractive techniques without a dimensional tolerance scheme, it
is still not clear exactly how to apply tolerance principles to AM
parts. AM does not currently have the benefit of the over one
hundred years of research into the production of components that
is the hallmark of precision subtractive techniques.
The following reasons to measure part geometry remind us why
so much effort is devoted to measuring manufactured components
– all of these also apply to AM, although in many cases, AM can
avoid assembly processes:
 To know whether a part is fit-for-purpose; for example, to
determine whether or not a shaft will fit within a hole, but still
give enough clearance to allow the flow of lubricating fluids

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2019.05.004
0007-8506/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of CIRP.
678 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700

 To allow assembly of complex components; without under-
standing the dimensions of parts and their associated tolerances,
it becomes almost impossible to determine whether a part will
fit to another – this is an especially relevant point when
assembling parts that have been manufactured at different
companies or different parts of a company.
 To allow control of a manufacturing process; for example, to
change the intensity of a laser depending on the surface texture
that it is producing – the texture (or something from which
texture can be inferred) needs to be measured during the
production process.
 To avoid unnecessary scrap material and redundant processing
time; metrology is essential for quality control which allows
things such as net-shape manufacturing – getting it right first
time.
 To improve energy-efficiency; the fewer repeat manufacturing
processes that are required, the lower the energy required to
produce a product.
 To give customers confidence in a product; “customers” in this
context could be another manufacturing concern that needs to
use your components – without tolerances and quality control,
there will be a lack of confidence in the assembly processes down
the line.
From the metrology standpoint, AM is no different to subtractive
manufacturing. But, a lack of integrated metrology in current AM
machines and processes is hindering the commercialisation of the
resulting products [28,177,246]. The last bullet point above is
especially relevant in this context. For example, an aerospace
manufacturer is not going to “fly” a turbine blade made using AM
without the high degree of confidence that metrology can supply.
The paper will start with a short history of AM. Section 2 will
discuss the infrastructure under development for specification
standards in AM, and Section 3 will review the research and
developments in the geometrical dimensioning and tolerancing for
AM. Section 4 addresses post-process metrology, including the
measurement of surface form, surface texture and internal features.
Section 5 concerns the in-process requirements and developments
in AM and Section 6 reviews the materials metrology that is pertinent
to geometrical measurement concerns. Section 7 discusses issues of
traceability and reviews the various benchmarking artefacts that are
under development. Finally, Section 8 pulls together the information
in the technical review sections into a synthesis of current
requirements and future research topics.
Note that, to keep the size of the paper to a manageable level,
there are some areas of metrology that could arguably be bracketed
in with geometrical metrology, but have not been included. This
includes the dimensional requirements of the powders and a
comprehensive treatment of the multitude of defects found in AM,
but see Refs. [257] and [97] respectively for recent reviews in these
areas. Another important area of AM that will be increasingly
important is the combination of AM with more conventional
processes; so-called “hybrid manufacturing”. Again, for the sake of
brevity, this area has not been covered in detail, but see Ref. [132].
was impeded because computers were not well known or
widespread in society; and modern AM, denoted by the
commercial marketing and sale of AM fabricators.
Two prehistorical approaches for production of metal parts
involve sheet lamination and weld deposition. Blanther in
1890 filed a US patent describing the creation of a mould by
cutting and stacking sheets of wax following topographical
elevations [31]. As shown in Fig. 1, each sheet was cut into at
least two pieces, and by stacking all the pieces separately a full
two-piece mould set could the constructed. The mould was used to
press paper feedstock to create “3D” topography maps.
Sheet lamination of non-metallic feedstock developed over the
next sixty years (for example, [87,213,314]). In 1974, DiMatteo
proposed to form contours in sheets of metal using milling,
followed by stacking to create complex geometric parts [68]. An
example of a part built up by a “cut and stack” method is shown in
Fig. 2. Nakagawa at Tokyo University advanced layered production
of tooling to include blanking, press forming, and injection
moulding tools [153,194,195].
The use of a moving weld head to build up objects was initially
patented by Baker in 1925 [20]. Fig. 3 illustrates a sketch from the
patent. Starting in the 1960s, a number of approaches arose for
producing tooling using a moving weld head, often to build parts
on a moving axis or rotating mandrel [39,40,84,300]. Fig. 4 shows
an embodiment from 1964 for creation of pressure rollers using a
wire-fed welding head.
For precursor processes, the earliest is the 1972 disclosure by
Ciraud in France [56]. As shown in Fig. 5, the process contains many
elements of directed energy deposition, including metal powder,
an energy source (laser, electron beam or plasma beam), a part
built up from a base plate and even powder recycling. The
Housholder patent, issued in 1981, describes laser sintering of
powdered material [111], eight years before Deckard’s patent [61].
Current AM processes for direct metal processing are divided
into three categories according to ISO/ASTM [115]: powder bed
Fig. 1. Blanther layered manufacturing, 1890s. The images are a topographical map
showing iso-elevation lines (left) and a wax toolset and moulded paper 3D map
(right) obtained by a cut-and-stack approach [31] (Source: United States Patent and
Trademark Office, www.uspto.gov).

1.1. History

The triggering event marking the birth of AM is debatable. It is

generally associated with the commercial sale of the first
industrial fabricator, the 3D Systems stereolithography SLA-1,
in 1988 [35], although the issuing of the associated patent two
years earlier may be used [112]. The difficulty of the latter is that
there is actually a fairly lengthy patent history of AM inventions
that predates the 3D Systems founding patent for stereolitho-
graphy. According to Bourell [35], the development of AM is
categorised into three time periods: prehistory, dating to the mid-
1860s, in which objects were created in layerwise fashion without
part specific tooling and without the use of a computer;
precursors, from about 1968 to the mid-1980s, in which a
computer was used to assist in fabrication but commercialisation Fig. 2. Early sheet stacking to create a part [68].
 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
Fig. 3. Weld overlay to create three-dimensional objects from a 1925 patent [20].
Fig. 4. Early wire fed weld deposition for creation of pressure rollers [300].
Fig. 5. Embodiment of additive manufacturing dated 1972. Metal powder (2)
delivery into an energy source/s (7/7a) to create a part (15) built from a baseplate (1)
[56].
fusion (PBF), directed energy deposition (DED), and sheet
lamination.
Modern laser PBF (LPBF) is based on Deckard’s invention [61] in
the late 1980s, leading to the foundation of DTM Corp. in the early
1990s. DTM was acquired by 3D Systems in 2001. The earliest
known metallic parts produced using PBF were copper-tin and
copper-(73 Pb/30Sn) solder elemental powder blends [178]. High-
energy LPBF systems were developed in the mid-1990s in Germany
and Belgium which enabled direct fabrication of parts using metals
of commercial interest [150]. These processes have become known
as “selective laser melting”, a term first used by Meiners at the
Fraunhofer Institute for Laser Technology in 1996. Electron beam-
based PBF was developed in the mid-1990s. Based on initial
development in collaboration with Chalmers University of
Technology in Gothenburg, the company Arcam was founded in
1997 with the first product launched in 2002.
DED was initially developed at Sandia National Laboratories in
the United States in the mid-1990s and was termed “laser
engineered net shaping” [131]. In DED, metal powder is sprayed
into an energy beam, typically a laser.
Modern sheet lamination AM began with Feygin who founded
Helisys in 1985, one year before 3D Systems. The first shipment of a
679
fabricator based on Helisys’ Laminated Object Manufacturing
technology was in 1991 [23] (later known as sheet lamination
[162]). Ultrasonic AM was invented by White and described in a
patent that was issued in 2003 [301]. This “stack and cut” process
uses a cylindrical sonotrode to solid-state weld a metallic foil onto
a previous layer. The layer boundary is machined during the build
to produce the part. The technology was commercialised initially
by Solidica and now through Fabrisonic, a joint venture between
Solidica and the Edison Welding Institute (EWI).
2. Specification standards
2.1. ISO and ASTM specification standards
Advances in metal AM machines and processes in the mid-
1990s led to direct manufacturing of functional components (as
opposed to prototypes for design validation, tooling for other
manufacturing processes, etc.), impacting major industries such as
aerospace, defence, medicine, energy, and automotive. Direct
manufacturing applications, especially for components with
critical functions, created the need for clear communication
between designer, manufacturer and the user of such compo-
nents about: (1) design intent, (2) material specifications, (3)
component test and inspection requirements, and (4) process and
component qualification and certification issues. In the last
decade, several technology roadmaps were developed to identify
the important technological barriers to widespread use of AM
[37,198,202]. A common need identified among these roadmaps is
AM-specific specification standards to introduce uniform and
consistent methods to establish requirements, and test the
resulting components, thereby reducing the risk of adopting this
technology. ASTM International is the first standards developing
organisation (SDO) recognising the need and the potential of AM
standards. The ASTM Committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing
Technologies was established in 2009 with a scope of “The
promotion of knowledge, stimulation of research and implemen-
tation of technology through the development of standards for
additive manufacturing technologies” [18]. The International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) also has a technical
committee (TC 261) with the objectives of standardising “the
process of additive manufacturing, their process chains, test
procedures, quality parameters, supply agreements, fundamen-
tals and vocabularies” [118]. ISO and ASTM signed a Partner
Standards Developing Organization agreement in 2011 to jointly
develop standards related to AM technology to avoid the
development of multiple competing and potentially inconsistent
standards. In 2016, ASTM F42 and ISO TC 261 developed a new
framework for the development of AM standards (see Fig. 6)
[18]. According to this framework, the standards are developed at
three levels:
Fig. 6. Standards framework agreed by ASTM and ISO for future development of
additive manufacturing standards [18].
680 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
 General standards (for example, concepts and requirements
common to all applications).
 Standards for broad categories of materials, processes/equip-
ment, and finished parts.
 Specialised standards for specific material, process or applica-
tion.
Standards for geometric specifications and measurement of AM
parts may belong to all three levels of this structure depending on
their scope. However, to date, there are very few completed
standards addressing this area. This deficit is mostly due to the
more urgent needs of specifying materials and processes related to
this emerging technology.
The most relevant standards and guidelines developed by ISO/
ASTM to date for geometric specifications and metrology are
related to design for AM [116] and some general principles about
quality characteristics of AM parts, with corresponding appropri-
ate test procedures [126].
In the design guidelines for AM, specific references to “part
geometry and characteristics” are made [116]. In particular,
accuracy of part dimensions, surface texture, minimum feature
size, maximum aspect ratio, minimum feature spacing, maximum
part size, and maximum unsupported feature characteristics are
defined. In addition, these guidelines draw attention to the
influences of conversion of solid models into triangular mesh
models on the representation of the part geometry, causing
deviations from design specifications. For example, the effect of the
triangle sizing on surface texture and accuracy and the lack of units
in triangle mesh models potentially causing unit-related size
errors in the parts are mentioned [116]. ISO/ASTM 52,910 also
highlights the challenges of conveying design intent through
triangular mesh models, in terms of feature tolerances, shrink
factors, and clearance requirements. A series of warnings
associated with the effects of build orientation on the tolerances
and surface texture, the effects of overhang features requiring
support structures, thermal distortions caused by abrupt thickness
transitions, and the unused feedstock material trapped in internal
closed features are described to help design engineers.
ISO 17296-3 [126] “specifies main quality characteristics of
parts” fabricated by AM and “specifies appropriate test proce-
dures” for these characteristics. Surface texture, size, dimensional
and geometric tolerances are among the part characteristics
specified. However, ISO 17296-3 does not provide any AM-specific
test procedures; it provides relevant generic standards used for all
manufacturing applications. For example, ISO 1302 [123] and ISO
4288 [121] are referred to for surface texture specification and
measurement, along with ISO 1101 [128] and ISO 2768-2 [119] for
geometrical tolerancing. Recently, ISO/ASTM joint group issued a
draft standard providing general descriptions of benchmarking
test piece geometries along with quantitative and qualitative
measurements to be taken to assess the performance of AM
systems [117].
2.2. Other standardisation activities
Over the last few years, several SDOs in the US have either
initiated efforts or declared interests and plans to develop AM
related standards within their areas of expertise. Among them, the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), SAE Interna-
tional, and the American Welding Society (AWS) are the most
active organisations with working draft standards in progress. The
following ongoing efforts are most relevant to AM geometric
specifications:
 ASME Y14.46 – standard addressing product definition require-
ments specific to AM (including geometric dimensioning and
tolerancing).
 ASME Y14.41 – standard establishing a schema for organising
information in a three dimensional (3D) model within a digital
product definition data set.
 ASME B46 project team on AM – describing surface topography
of AM parts.
 AWS D20 Inspection Task Group – inspection requirements for
AM components based on component classification.
 NASA-MSFC-STD-3716 [196] – accepting X-ray computed to-
mography for internal feature measurements, but requiring a
“part analog reference” to be used to confirm the accuracy and
precision of the measurements and calibration of the system and
data processing methods.
2.3. New efforts to coordinate standardisation activities
In view of emerging multiple AM standards from multiple SDOs,
in 2016 the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) initiated
an effort to coordinate standardisation activities in the US through
the Additive Manufacturing Standardization Collaborative (AMSC).
While this effort is currently ongoing, a standardisation roadmap
has been developed identifying areas for which standards are
needed with associated priority classification [10,11]. According to
this roadmap, the following medium-to-high priority standardisa-
tion gaps related to geometric specifications and metrology were
identified:
 Application specific design rules and guidelines (high).
 Design guide for surface finish capabilities (medium).
 Technical data package addressing form/fit and qualification
requirements (high).
 Dimensioning and tolerancing requirements (high).
 Measurement of AM features such as lattices (medium).
 Protocols for image accuracy (medium).
 Dimensional metrology of internal features (medium).
A recent roadmap published by the European Technology
Platform in Additive Manufacturing [5] also highlighted the needs
for speedy development of harmonised standards, especially
related to AM certification. A working group within this platform,
which consists of many central European industries and academia,
has been established to focus on standardisation efforts [6].
In light of these requirements, and the research and develop-
ment needed to produce related standards, ASTM International
along with Auburn University, EWI, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration and the Manufacturing Technology Centre
(UK) initiated the Additive Manufacturing Center of Excellence in
March 2018 [19]. The National Institute for Aviation Research
(NIAR) and Singapore’s National Additive Manufacturing Innova-
tion Cluster (NAIMC) have recently joined this centre as its
strategic partners. The main functions of this centre will include
conducting AM research for efficient development of industrial AM
standards as well as supporting education, training, proficiency
testing, and certification.
3. Geometrical tolerancing
3.1. AM-specific challenges in geometrical dimensioning and
tolerancing
Determining geometric tolerances by designers and conveying
them to manufacturers is essential to ensure proper functioning of
products. Geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) speci-
fication standards enable the conveying of the design intent to
manufacturing process planners. GD&T is also critical for planning
the final part inspection process. The methods for such communi-
cation are well established for traditional manufacturing processes
[16,120,128]. However, the high degree of influence of AM process
parameters on the final product characteristics and the new
capabilities introduced by these processes create challenges for
conveying design intent using existing standards [8]. In addition,
the new capabilities of AM create further challenges associated
 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
with complex, freeform internal and external features [25,38,90],
lattices, trusses, and cellular materials for generating custom
material properties and light-weighting applications
[176,181,200], customized surface textures [105], and multi-
material or graded-material parts [9].
Since most AM processes are based on adding materials layer by
layer, discrete layer thickness has an effect on the geometry of the
part on sloped or freeform features. This effect is also dependent on
the build direction, as shown in Fig. 7. Although layer thickness
selection is mostly dependent on the machine capability, there are
studies to optimise layers for specified geometry constraints
[54,234]. On the other hand, the differing surface textures of
horizontal and vertical surfaces due to layering may also drive the
selection of build direction. Therefore, layer thickness and build
direction are critical pieces of information that need to be captured
in GD&T.
Fig. 7. The effect of layer thickness and build direction on the geometry of freeform
feature. Discretisations 1 and 2 correspond to build directions 1 and 2,
respectively [8].
The need for structures to support overhang features and
balance the thermal conditions creates additional challenges
when performing GD&T. Removal of support structures by various
post-processing steps influences the final geometry and surface
texture. Therefore, designers should carefully consider and
convey the placement of support structures around the critical
features, as well as the optimal part orientation in build volume
[8,89,302].
The new capabilities of AM processes challenging the
traditional GD&T methods include fabrication of very complex
shapes, internal features with infill patterns (see Fig. 8), lattice
structures, parts with varying material densities or engineered
porosities. Although complex freeform features are currently
handled with existing product specification standards, the shape
complexities resulting from highly flexible topology optimisation
Fig. 8. Example lattice structures in a range of lightweight part designs. (a) shows
a cross-section through an AM part with an internal repeating cellular structure,
(b) shows a tetrahedral lattice conforming to a complex shape (in this case a
component for a commercial airliner), and (c) shows a lattice structure in a
topology optimised part featuring internal routing channels for structural health
monitoring [180].
681
for mass reduction pushes the application of these standards to
their limits.
The introduction of infill patterns with various cell topologies
requires new GD&T symbology, including shape, size and tolerance
of cell patterns, and transitions from infill to solid sections. In the
case of lattice structures, definitions of representative surfaces
created by such structures and associated tolerance zones are
needed.
Similarly, the transition regions for graded materials within the
AM parts have to be clearly specified with associated tolerance
zones. Such tolerance zone specifications should take into account
the available measurement methods and related measurement
uncertainties.
3.2. New developments addressing these challenges
Recent research efforts have focused on addressing many of the
above-mentioned challenges. Rupal and Qureshi categorized
different strategies for geometric deviation control into pre-
process, in-process, and post-process stages and related each
category to GD&T needs [254]. Moylan developed a new Product
and Manufacturing Information (PMI) for AM combining 3D
annotations of GD&T with a voxel-based volumetric representa-
tion, directly linking part design and verification by a volumetric
measuring system, such as X-ray computed tomography (XCT)
[188]. Other researchers addressed the difficulties associated with
rough AM surfaces in establishing datum and resulting geometry
evaluations, highlighting industrial needs and proposing a criteri-
on to estimate their effects [14,28]. Xiao et al. investigated the
application of the skin model concept to represent part tolerances
and tolerance analysis to AM-specific applications [13,306].
ISO, ASTM and ASME standards committees responsible for AM
have been dealing with the above-mentioned challenges for
several years. The first standard establishing the terminology for
coordinate systems and specifying the location and orientation of
parts within the build volume of the AM machine was developed
by ISO/ASTM [114]. ASME standards committee Y14, Engineering
Drawing and Related Documentation Practices, has been active for
the last few years. ASME published a “draft standard for trial use”
(ASME Y14.46) describing product definition practices for AM
[17]. The new ASME standard introduces: unit vectors identifying
gravity and build directions; the concept of “derived surface” from
a functional collection of points, surfaces, or any combination
thereof (see Fig. 9); bounded and transition regions; lattice and
gradient structures; as well as descriptions of fill patterns and
support structures. Ameta et al. demonstrated the use of new
concepts, theoretical supplemental surface (TSS) for geometry
specification and derived supplemental surface (DSS) geometry
verification, in a case study involving a part with a lattice infill
pattern [7].
Fig. 9. Rectangular lattice cuboid with a derived surface on one end with a profile of
surface tolerance of 0.5 [17].
682 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
4. Off-line metrology
4.1. Surface form and coordinate metrology
This section focuses on coordinate measuring systems (CMS) for
off-line measurement of the external shape of metal AM products.
Together with surface texture metrology (see Section 4.2) and
internal feature metrology (see Section 4.3), coordinate metrology
of the external form is fundamental for quality control of metal AM
products, as well as for providing feedback for AM process
optimisation. The eventual form errors of metal AM parts are the
result of complex interactions between the material and the
energy source (see Section 4.2), as well as of warpage due to
thermal gradients and residual stress within the part [22]. The
specific challenges that metal AM brings to coordinate metrology
compared to traditional manufacturing are due to the specific
characteristics of metal AM products, including: (i) complex
freeform shapes, (ii) characteristic surface texture with typically
high roughness, (iii) multiple occlusions and difficult-to-access
features, and (iv) wide material range with different optical and
surface properties. All these challenging characteristics may
contribute to measurement errors and deviations between
different sensors measuring the same AM surface (see Fig. 10).
For example, several studies have demonstrated that AM surfaces
with high surface roughness cause inherent systematic errors
between dimensional measurements obtained from contact and
non-contact measuring systems [3,32,49,170,227]. The above
issues also mean that it is still not clear how to obtain
measurement traceability for CMS measurement (addressed in
Section 7.3).
To select the appropriate coordinate measuring sensor for a
specific metal AM product, the performance of the sensor has to be
compared to the requirements of the specific application. The
requirements in terms of profile tolerance are reported in Fig. 11 for
different industrial applications of freeform shaped parts [236].
Contact probing CMSs, such as tactile coordinate measuring
machines (CMMs), have been used for decades in many different
industrial applications and can measure form and dimensions with
high accuracy – usually better than current non-contact CMSs.
However, they are generally slower and often sample a lower
Fig. 10. Different measurement techniques produce different measurement results:
schematic representation of (a) tactile, (b) optical and (c) X-ray computed
tomography scanning of a surface. Red lines represent extracted points on the
measured surface [52].
Fig. 11. Typical tolerances of freeform parts against part dimension, for various
industrial applications [236].
number of points on the measured surface. Principles and
characteristics of tactile probing systems are reviewed elsewhere
[298], and there has been little development of interest here since
then (mainly probing speed enhancements).
When metal AM parts are produced with rough surface
textures, the highest probing performance offered by the most
precise CMMs is typically not needed [227]. However, when post-
processing steps and conventional subtractive manufacturing
techniques are used to polish AM surfaces (for example, to achieve
tight dimensional tolerances not achievable by AM alone), higher
accuracy contact probes are more frequently needed.
Tactile CMMs are often used for reference measurements to
study metal AM processes and their error sources (see Section 7.3).
Bauza et al. [22], for example, investigated the impact of the
removal of the built part from the build platform. Their
investigation revealed a large change in geometrical characteristics
(for example, flatness, as shown in Fig. 12) due to warpage of the
part after removal from the build platform, caused by residual
stress within the part.
Optical methods for dimensional metrology are reviewed
elsewhere [104,241], which can be referred to for in-depth
explanation of the different measuring principles. According to
Se and Pears [244], optical coordinate measuring techniques can be
grouped into two main types: active and passive, depending on the
use or not of their own source of illumination in addition to
ambient light. While passive sensors are typically cheaper, lighter
and more compact, active sensors are generally offer better
measurement uncertainty and speed [53]. Hence, the most
accurate optical sensors for measuring AM metal parts are
typically active sensors. Se and Pears [244] classify active optical
measuring techniques in five families, based on their accuracy and
operating distance, as reported in Fig. 13.
Stavroulakis and Leach [264] have recently reviewed the optical
measuring systems currently available for post-process form
metrology of metal AM parts. In their review, they concluded that
taking into account the optically rough surfaces of industrial metal
AM parts, the typical object size, the measurement accuracy required
Fig. 12. Comparison of the flatness before (left) and after (right) removal from the
build platform, measured with tactile CMM on the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) AM test artefact (details on the part can be found in Section
7.2) [22].
Fig. 13. Classification of active optical measuring techniques based on their accuracy
and operating distance [244].
 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700 683

for top-end industrial 3D measurement applications, and practical

matters such as commercial availability and cost, the most applicable
form measurement principles for metal AM have been found to be
laser triangulation and structured light projection. In the same
review, they go further in the analysis of the optical techniques
available today and suggest that if one technique were to be selected,
sinusoidal fringe projection seems to be the more favourable option
as it operates in a regime where both measurement speed and
accuracy are better suited for industrial AM form metrology. Fig. 15. Dental implant produced by direct metal laser sintering of Ti6Al4V and
Structured light (often called fringe projection) systems rely on measured using XCT: (a) picture of the threaded implant; (b) XCT three-dimensional
diffuse reflectance for their correct operation; hence, they typically reconstruction of the implant; (c) virtual sectioning of the XCT scanned volume
operate best on the optically rough surfaces that are normally [316].
produced on AM metal parts. When the surfaces become smoother
and thus produce specular reflectance, thin powder coatings can be overcome the limitations arising when measuring AM parts with small
used [133], as shown for example in Fig.14. Photogrammetry has also features, large form errors and complex surface texture.
been recently investigated for the measurement of AM components Research efforts are going in the direction of reducing the
and, with the use of suitable lighting methods, can be employed with scanning time. For example, Warnett et al. recently studied fast
both as-built and finished parts [252]. XCT reconstruction of an AM part (see Fig. 16) using a technique
With optical techniques, there can be many issues when called real-time tomography (RTT) originally developed for airport
measuring some of the complex freeform parts produced using baggage inspection [297]. This setup allowed a reduction of
AM. Currently, costly and time-consuming manual methods are scanning time for a single part by a factor of 1500 compared to a
used to determine the scanning path or lighting/sensor positions conventional XCT system. However, the smallest obtainable voxel
around a part to minimise the effects of occlusions and maximise size was 1 mm, which is still too large for conventional use in
object coverage. Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) methods have manufacturing metrology.
been applied to help solve the object coverage issues and allow
sensors to be repositioned without the need for recalibration of the
extrinsic parameters [263,264].
X-ray computed tomography (XCT) is increasingly used for
coordinate measurements of AM products, due to several advantages
with respect to tactile and optical measuring systems [274]. In
addition, XCT can simultaneously provide surface texture measure-
ments (see Section 4.2) and inspection of the geometry of internal
features (see Section 4.3), as well as quality inspection of the material
(for example, detection of undesired porosity common to AM parts). A
number of reviews go through the applications of XCT for AM
[55,214,272]. More details on the state of the art of XCT for AM are given
in Section 4.3, while here in Section 4.1 only specific aspects of XCT
used for form and coordinate metrology of AM parts are covered.
Compared to tactile and optical coordinate measuring techniques, XCT Fig. 16. 3D reconstructed volume of an AM part measured by: (a) reference lab XCT
allows dense coordinate measurements to be obtained from an holistic metrology system and (b) fast method applied to an airport XCT scanner. The
volumetric model of the scanned object. XCTalso offers advantages if a scanning time was 1570s for the first case and only 1 s for the second case. The
part includes complex freeform shapes, surfaces with high roughness, influence on reconstruction accuracy of the fast scan is clearly visible [297].
difficult-to-access features, or parts with different optical and surface
properties [237]. Therefore, for coordinate metrology of AM parts, XCT Uncertainties in XCT coordinate measurements are affected by a
is sometimes preferred to tactile and optical probing methods, even large number of influence factors [51]. In particular, when scanning
when measuring external surfaces only. For example, Fig.15 illustrates metal parts, dimensional and form measurements are strongly
the external thread measurement of a dental implant produced by influenced by the material and its penetrated thickness, which
laser sintering of titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) [316], where XCT was directly affect the X-ray attenuation [51]. To start to address this
preferred to conventional thread measuring techniques [50], to issue when measuring AM parts, Shah et al. [248] designed a test
part for benchmarking different AM processes, choosing a
cylindrical shape to reduce the influence of X-ray imaging artefacts
(see Fig. 17). In addition, other significant influence factors are for

Fig. 14. Aluminium alloy (AlSi12) part produced by laser powder bed fusion and
measured by a structured light system. Due to glossy surface, a thin layer of anti-
reflection coating with titanium powder was applied for measuring this part [133].
Fig. 17. XCT measurement results on three parts produced with the same nominal
geometry (test artefact) using three different AM processes. The features of interest
are all accessible by tactile CMM for reference measurements [248]. In this figure,
SLA is stereolithography, SLS is selective laser sintering and FDM is fused deposition
modelling.
684 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
example beam hardening and scattering [147]. Also the methods
used for thresholding and segmentation within the 3D voxel model
(see Section 4.2 and 4.3) have a large influence on the accuracy of
surface determination and geometrical measurements [147]. Fur-
thermore, when using XCT for coordinate metrology of AM parts, it
should be considered that big-data need to be processed, as the
size of typical XCT datasets, including X-ray projections and
reconstructed volumes, can easily exceed several gigabytes
[51]. Further details on capabilities and limitations of XCT for
scanning AM parts are given in Section 4.3.
4.2. Surface texture metrology
Metal AM surfaces are often highly complex and irregular (as
shown in the example scanning electron and optical microscope
images in Fig. 18), and texture measurements can show significant
discrepancies between measurement technologies, as demon-
strated by Thompson et al. [274] for the PBF family of metal
additive processes. In metal PBF, the eventual surface topography
of a part is the result of complex interactions between the
feedstock material and the energy source scanning over the
current build layer (typically a laser or electron beam). This
interaction involves the formation of melt pools, the ejection of
particles and significant thermal gradients [138,183]. Surface
topography is typically dominated by weld tracks, resulting from
the fusion and subsequent solidification of a melt pool [184], which
impart a strong texture directionality indicative of the laser or
electron beam path [206,247]. At smaller scales, weld tracks are
covered by chevron-shaped ripples, indicating the beam scanning
direction, and may feature smaller-scale thermal cracks and areas
of local oxidisation [109]. Throughout weld tracks, high aspect-
ratio singularities are observable, typically consisting of deep
recesses or sphere-like protrusions. Recesses may result from
incomplete seams between weld tracks, balling phenomena (i.e.
discontinuities of the track itself) or, at smaller scales, open micro-
porosity [95,251,278]. Sphere-like protrusions are formed either
from unmelted or partially-melted powder particles (appearing
alone or in clusters), from spatter particles, i.e. molten material
ejected from the melt pool during beam traversal, that impact the
nearby surface during solidification [172,251] or from balling,
especially due to insufficient heat in overhang areas [95]. As the
metal PBF surface is the result of multiple melting and re-melting
phenomena, involving the current layer as well as a variable
number of layers underneath, multiple, larger-scale, wave-like
components affect the final appearance of the top surface [283]
(just the weld tracks are visible in Fig. 18 but there may also be
longer wavelength components due the effects of the recoating
and spreading process). This partially random, partially determin-
istic topography usually forms a recognisable pattern, i.e. the
“fingerprint” of the technology [79]. Such top-layer (topographic)
features are often referred to as “defects” in the literature, and
there are a number of reviews that list and qualify them
[74,97,261].
For the side surfaces produced by metal PBF, the topography is
dominated mostly by the effects of local surface angle, the bonding
between layers and the consolidated part, and the interaction of the
part and surrounding powder bed [102,250,284]. The “stair-case”
Fig. 18. (a) and (c) Optical microscope and (b) scanning electron microscope (SEM)
images of topographic features typical of a Ti6Al4V metal laser PBF surface. Arrows
1a and 1b point to the same example surface recess in optical and SEM images
respectively, while arrow 2 indicates local cracking in a higher resolution image
[247].
effect refers to the presence of visibly offset layers of the build
process that approximate the 3D model which changes with build
orientation, which has been investigated thoroughly in the literature
for metal PBF [34,79,100,250,269,284]. These offset layers are
present as the larger scale wave-like components and are most
visibly offset at lower surface slopes, with the adhered powder
becoming more dominant at steeper slope angles [34]. The surface
topography of side surfaces is mostly dominated by the sphere-like
protrusions made from adhered powder particles from the
surrounding powder bed. These particles are protrusions on the
side surfaces and increase in number as the build angle increases,
with upwards facing surfaces possessing less particle coverage than
downwards facing surfaces, and bottom surfaces consisting almost
completely of particles [79,102,142,143,284]; this is the result of
multiple melting and re-melting phenomena between the build
layer and layers underneath, and energy conducting through the part
into the surrounding powder bed. In LPBF the excess energy from the
scanning strategy acts to sinter loose adjacent powder around the
build geometry [74], whilst for EBPBF the build process pre-sinters a
larger region around the build into a ‘cake’ prior to melting the layer
[97]. Defects that can be present on the surface topography of side
surfaces include pores and thermal cracks found at smaller scale
[280], with large scale defects including large recesses due to de-
lamination [97] and remnants of the build supports that leave large
protrusions [280].
There have been limited attempts to study the deterministic
production of specific topographic features [1,309,310] and
microstructure [231,271], although such studies are problematic
due to the need to effectively gain access to the machine control
software. There have also been some limited studies to try to link
theoretical predictions of topography to experimental trials
[80,285,296], but more research is needed in this area to fully
understand the complex interaction between texture and
processing parameters [59,110,221,222,235]. There has been
some recent research on the development of dedicated ‘home-
made’ AM systems [30,155], but it remains to be proven that such
systems are representative of the types of surfaces being
produced by commercial AM systems, which are being developed
at a rapid pace.
Townsend et al. [282] have produced a comprehensive review
of the measurement of AM surface topography and the key points
are summarised here. Initial research implied the literature is
limited and research is at an early stage; research applied to
process understanding with no introduction of application-specific
requirements. Ti6Al4V was the most studied material, while LPBF
was the most used process. Contact stylus was found to be by far
the most common measurement method, coupled with the use of
profile parameters.
The metal PBF topography is a challenge for topography
measurement. High slopes, variable aspect-ratios, the alternation
of dark (for example, deep recesses) and overly bright (for example,
tops of smoother regions of particles and weld tracks) regions, as
well as non-uniform optical properties caused by local oxidisation
and/or micro-roughness effects, are the main issues for optical
measurement technologies [77,157,247]. It has been recently
demonstrated [45,100,274] that areal topography instruments
quantifiably react differently to metal PBF topographies, leading to
reconstructions of measured surfaces where measurement error is
of the same order of magnitude as the size of localised topographic
features captured by the measurement process. There have been a
number of recent studies to pinpoint the optimum conditions and
setup parameters that should be used for optical instruments, for
example, those based on coherence scanning interferometry (CSI)
[94] and focus variation [199]. XCT measurement is subject to an
equally complex series of non-optical challenges [276], which
affect the spatial resolution of the measurement, as well as
accurate surface determination [279] (see below for more on XCT
surface measurement). Vetterli et al. [290] investigated the use of
an elastomer pad with a reflective coating (‘Gelsight’) combined
with an optical sensor for measuring LPBF surfaces, and obtained
 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
some comparative results with contact and optical methods, albeit
with lateral resolution and surface slope limitations.
Most reported studies focus on exploring how changes in
reconstructed topography ultimately affect the results of the
computation of texture parameters (ISO 4287 [122] profile
parameters and ISO 25,178-2 [125] areal parameters). An approach
dedicated to computing texture parameters is justified as the
majority of surface characterisation tolerances in industrial
applications are currently addressed via texture specifications;
however, when the interest is in localised surface formations
(surface features), then the investigation of how local topography
is reconstructed through different measurement technologies is of
fundamental importance. Senin et al. [247] discuss the require-
ment for an understanding of the manufacturing process finger-
print in metal AM processes. Using a Ti6Al4V test surface, the
authors compare measurements of problematic features on the
metal AM surface, particularly: a large measured area, approxi-
mately spherical particles attached to the surface, surface recesses,
high spatial frequency weld ripples, and weld tracks (encompass-
ing several of the other features). To assess these features, the
authors first measure using a number of optical and non-optical
methods, and then finely align topographic reconstructions in
space, assessing discrepancy between measurements for these
features. Results show high slopes and high aspect ratio features
playing a dominant role in measurement discrepancy, and they
find that quantitative comparison of topography data obtained by
using different measurement technologies shows that disagree-
ment between reconstructions can be significant, and that for
small-scale features (tens of micrometres), local discrepancy
between measurements can be of similar magnitude the size of
the feature (see Fig. 19). For larger-scale features (on the order of
hundreds of micrometres to millimetres), all measurement results
are consistent. Finally, Senin et al. state that no particular
technology should be considered inferior or superior to another,
as results can be heavily dependent on specific instruments and
setups.
There has been relatively little detailed work on the response of
measurement technologies to surface features produced using
EBPBF processes, but Sidambe [250] compared a CSI-based
instrument with a 3D scanning electron microscope and showed
large differences in the results when comparing a range of ISO
25178-2 [125] areal surface texture parameters. Gomez et al. [94]
presented an empirical sensitivity analysis using a different CSI
system for the top and side surfaces made from metal LPBF and
EBPBF processes. In the work of Gomez et al., topographic
measurements were described through the use of ISO 25178-2
[125] areal surface texture parameters Sq and Sdq and were
analysed for data coverage, measurement time, and area. The
results show that modern implementations of the CSI technique
Fig. 19. Reconstruction of large measured areas using four different instruments: (a)
a confocal microscope, (b) a coherence scanning interferometer, (c) a focus variation
microscope, and (d) an XCT system [247].
685
can provide surface topography measurements for metal AM
surfaces with a wide range of surface features, and recommenda-
tions for optimisation of future measurements on metal AM
surfaces.
X-ray computed tomography (XCT) is discussed as a coordinate
measuring tool in Section 4.1 and for measuring internal features in
Section 4.3. Although the spatial resolutions typically achievable
by XCT have not historically been at the level required to capture
the smaller-scale formations of a surface in addition to the overall
shape, advanced systems are approaching these resolutions in
their best-case measurement scenarios, and XCT is becoming a
viable option for measurement of surface topography [272]. When
considering the fact that AM parts commonly feature complex,
internal geometries, the prospect of using XCT for surface
topography measurement appeals further, as a method of
overcoming the access requirement problems intrinsic to contact
and optical measurements. The use of XCT for this purpose is
highlighted in a number of recent studies [135,216,275,279]. Spe-
cifically, Pyka et al. [135,216] performed the first surface
topography measurement using XCT, by extracting profiles from
slice data obtained from XCT measurement of lattice struts.
Townsend et al. [279,280] and Thompson et al. [274] extended this
work by initiating a more extensive examination of XCT
topography measurement performance in comparison to conven-
tional optical surface measurements. It has also been shown that
surface texture analysis for internal surfaces does not differ
significantly from that of external surfaces, at least for the types of
surfaces found in PBF processes [275]. As XCT is a relatively
complex measurement process, it is important to establish the
sensitivity of the various measurement parameters and influence
factors to surface determination (especially sampling and resolu-
tion), and there have been a number of recent studies to establish
these relationships [275,276,318]. The rendered surface topogra-
phy from an XCT measurement is found to be highly dependent on
the surface/edge determination algorithms employed
[49,166,167,227,239] and this is expected to be a major factor
when investigating the types of surfaces found in metal AM. A
number of methods exist for determining surfaces in XCT data (for
example, user-determined thresholding, ISO-50 thresholding
[147], gradient-based [69]). Different methods produce different
results, providing alternative representations of the surface with
respect to the position of all parts of the surface in 3D space. For
example, individual features on the surface as determined using
one method could be eroded or dilated compared to that
determined using another method, or whole surfaces offset from
one another in some way. Lateral and vertical resolution are also
affected by the surface determination method used, with some
methods and implementations of those methods sampling at
higher rates than others.
Artefacts for benchmarking form and dimensional accuracy are
detailed in Section 7, but there have been a small number of
attempts to include surface texture-specific features [192]. An
artefact suite, proposed by the ASTM F42/ISO TC 261 includes user-
selectable application-specific artefacts, which include a series of
patterns to be built over a range of angles to the build plate
[188]. Townsend [281] has developed a range of artefacts that can
be built using any AM technology and which include a significant
range of feature types based on determining the metrological
characteristics under development in ISO TC 213 [158], see
Fig. 20. Such benchmarking artefacts can help the user of an
instrument to elucidate the effect of various AM features and
textures on a measurement result and may in some cases be used
to determine metrological characteristics.
Surface texture characterisation is conventionally carried out
using surface texture parameters. Whilst there are many hundreds
of parameters in use, by far the most common are those from ISO
4287 [122] in the profile case and ISO 25178-2 [125] in the areal
surface case (see Ref. [277] for a recent review of parameter usage).
However, surface texture parameters (at least field parameters)
were originally developed to characterise random or near-random
686 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
Fig. 20. Surface texture artefacts developed by University of Huddersfield [281].
machined surfaces. AM surfaces tend to be nothing like this and are
a mixture of deterministic patterns (for example, weld tracks) and
random features (for example, spattered particles). It is not clear
whether the more conventional parameters can be applied to
typical AM surfaces. However, many groups have investigated the
use of texture parameters and this work is summarised in
Townsend et al. [282] (and see Refs. [45,100,250,274,317]). There
may also be issues when using default ISO filter settings (for
example, to set the cut-off length) with AM surfaces, although it
has been shown that multi-scale approaches can be applied to aid
the selection of filters [171,284].
As may have been expected, Townsend et al. [282] report that
Ra was the most common texture parameter, followed by Rq, Rz,
and Rt. Regarding areal parameters (used in 20% of the examined
literature), Sa was the most common. The authors comment on the
advantages of areal over profile, and mention that NIST recom-
mend the use of Ra/Sa, Rz/Sz, Rsk/Ssk, and Rku/Sku for AM surface
characterisation. The authors note that filtering for parameters is
often not reported in the literature and that measurements are
rarely reproducible as a result. Several people, therefore, prefer to
use the less filtered profile parameters Pa instead of Ra. Parameters
can also be applied to differentiate between top and side/angled
surfaces [100,250,282].
Potentially more fruitful methods to define surface texture
parameters that capture process or function information about AM
processes, may be found from the less conventional approaches,
and there has been limited work on multi-scale analysis
[41,45,217,218]. Quinsat et al. use a multi-scale discriminative
method to analyse the relative area of the pores and pore
distributions.
An alternative set of parameters that can be used for surface
texture characterisation is feature parameters. First introduced by
Scott [243] as a complement to texture field parameters, feature
parameters describe a surface topography in terms of the
properties of the peaks and valleys that populate it (number,
area, height/depth, etc.). A full list of currently recognised feature
parameters is reported in the standard ISO 25178-2 [125]. Current-
ly, a thorough investigation of the potential of using feature
parameters to describe the topography of metal AM surfaces has
not been carried out. A discussion on the subject is reported in the
review on surface texture characterisation for AM surfaces by
Townsend et al. [282]. In recent work by Lou et al. [171] on the
extraction of signature features from a LPBF surface, the use of
feature parameters is not discussed; however, feature identifica-
tion is carried out by using methods prescribed by ISO 25178-2
[125] for the computation of feature parameters, i.e. morphologic
segmentation into hills and dales and change tree pruning
[243]. The authors also report on a method to determine the
nesting indices of filters when using areal parameters to
characterise AM surfaces.
Additional research is needed to mathematically capture the re-
entrant nature of many topographic features that are typically
appearing on AM surfaces. Optical and contact areal topography
measurement technologies have limited possibility of capturing
undercut topography; however, the emerging use of XCT as a viable
option to capture surface topography has shown that more
comprehensive, full-3D measurements of surface topography are
possible [274,279]. In such a scenario, conventional surface texture
parameters may not suffice, as they are limited to the characteri-
sation of height maps (only one z value possible at each x, y
location). Early studies on how to mathematically represent full-
3D topography and how to define new texture parameters based
on such representations are in progress, for example, by using
parametric surfaces and profiles [207].
Research into the functional behaviour of AM surfaces has been
limited due to the frequent requirement for post-process finishing
– in this case it is not the AM surface that is functional, but the
finished surface. There have been some developments in
correlating surface topography to mechanical properties; often
simple texture field parameters are not sufficient and feature
parameters are used, for example, linking topography to strength
and elastic properties [101], fatigue performance [98,144] or bio-
compatibility [299]. Several groups have used topography analysis
to investigate the mechanical properties of lattice structures
[182,216]. The effects on AM surfaces caused by various finishing
processes have also been investigated, using shot-peening [174],
laser polishing and re-melting [4,154,173,286,312], and abrasive
processes [24,169].
4.3. Internal feature metrology
As AM progressively enters the application domain of high-
quality functional components, the metrology challenges related
to internal and inaccessible features are also increasing [55]. Exam-
ples of internal features include conformal cooling channels, for
which traditional GD&T symbology can already be applied, but this
is not the case for the infill patterns and lattice structures for which
new GD&T symbology is still under development (see Section 3.1).
Moreover, since the process variability of AM has not reached the
levels of subtractive techniques, inspection for internal material
defects, such as cracks and pores remains essential [272].
X-ray computed tomography (XCT) is currently the only
available technique that is able to non-destructively inspect both
material and dimensional quality of internal structures [147],
although there has been some research into the measurement of
buried but near-surface defects, for example using ultrasonics [73],
spatially-resolved acoustic spectroscopy [258], and flash thermog-
raphy [320]. XCT relies on the fact that X-rays are only partially
attenuated while traversing a material [48,51] (Fig. 21). Therefore,
a well-selected set of radiographic images taken from multiple
perspectives contain the data necessary to reconstruct a band-
width-limited 3D model of a workpiece, comprising both internal
and external features, and even material defects. Subsequent
thresholding and segmentation within the 3D greyscale voxel
model allows the distinguishing of different materials and surface
determination (see Section 4.2), hence geometrical inspection.
Fig. 21. Principle of X-ray computed tomography [48].
The metrological capabilities of XCT still need to be enhanced,
since a full traceability chain has not yet been established and the
influence of a large number of parameters and settings has not yet
been fully unravelled [66,288]. Nevertheless, significant progress
has been made over the last decade in this respect.
A series of international interlaboratory comparisons have
provided useful insights into the overall performance of XCT
systems, yet have confirmed the difficulty of determining adequate
measurement uncertainties due to the multitude of influence
factors [12,47,268]. Operator settings, such as X-ray source current
and acceleration voltage, number of projections, integration time,
and workpiece orientation, heavily influence XCT measurement
results [12,140,291]. Recently, methods have been proposed to
 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
autonomously optimise settings for a given workpiece geometry
[44] (see also Section 4.2 which refers to optimisation of sampling
and resolution settings for XCT AM surface measurement).
Workpiece dimensions influence the XCT measurement uncer-
tainties by determining the allowable magnification as well as the
penetration lengths, hence device settings. Moreover, surface
texture directly influences surface determination, see Section
4.2. Research has also been dedicated to understanding the effect
of deviations in the XCT instrument kinematics [78]. Kinematic
deviations can be detected by conventional reference measuring
instruments or by analysing radiographs or reconstructions of
dedicated reference objects, followed by physical adjustment or
software compensation [64,140,193]. Over the past few years, a
multitude of artefacts have been proposed for XCT system
verification [51]. They often rely on features that are simple to
measure with low uncertainty, such as spheres, calottes, cylinders
or gauges blocks. It has been argued that standardised artefacts
that are manufacturable by AM and optimised for XCT measure-
ments would be expedient (see Section 7.2) and an example can be
found elsewhere [211]. In addition, the structural resolution of XCT
systems is a key characteristic. The VDI/VDE 2630-1.3 [289]
guideline proposes verification of the structural resolution by
identifying the diameter of the smallest sphere that can be
measured with a deviation compared to the calibrated value that
remains below a specified error. Carmignato et al. [51] propose
alternative ways to determine the “metrological structural
resolution”, which is of particular relevance for porosity measure-
ments and internal feature metrology.
Despite the challenges, the adequacy of XCT for comparative
measurements of AM parts can already be confirmed, as shown by
Bauza et al. [22], who observed that the repeatability of XCT
measurements of AM lattice structures (around 4 mm variability)
was well below the between-parts deviations caused by the AM
and post-processing steps (Fig. 22). Next to dimensional inspec-
tion, recent research efforts are also targeting the use of XCT for
surface topography measurements, as described in Section 4.2. In
addition, XCT can simultaneously provide dimensional and
porosity measurements.
Fig. 22. Octet lattice test artefact with edge length of 14 mm. Between-part
variability of the PBF process determined by the direct comparison of XCT
measurements of two parts [22].
Industry standards for porosity measurements of AM parts
often rely on the Archimedes method, which has been shown to be
reliable, and pycnometry provides an alternative, yet assesses only
one or a few separate cross-cuts. Mercury porosimetry allows
determination of the pore size distribution, but only for open
pores. XCT non-destructively provides additional information,
such as pore size distributions for both open and closed pores, as
well as pore morphologies and local porosity information
throughout the entire volume [137,179].
As with geometric metrology, XCT based porosity measure-
ments are influenced by a number of factors, including the sample
attributes (size, geometry, material, etc.), the XCT scan settings, and
the post processing procedures. The spatial resolution of XCT limits
687
the pore size that can be reliably detected, and is influenced by the
focal spot size, the magnification (hence workpiece size), noise
(hence also by workpiece material), and many other factors
[136,315]. XCT is, therefore, reported to yield slightly lower
porosity values compared with the Archimedes method
[256,262,303]. Moreover, voxel size errors and thresholding both
influence the measured size of the pores, hence of the overall
porosity value. Different authors have tested thresholding
techniques on various porous materials in order to achieve optimal
correspondence with reference techniques [113,134]. Comparison
with references, however, remains challenging, due to the
difficulty for traceability (see Section 7.3). Therefore, Hermanek
et al. have proposed a fully dismountable reference artefact with
small yet well-controlled internal cavities [108].
Although XCT based porosity measurements typically deviate
from other reference methods, a carefully designed XCT measure-
ment protocol can ensure that pore sizes, with a significant
contribution to the overall porosity [210] and which are above the
critical size for fatigue [27,232], exceed the structural resolution,
hence allowing reliable relative measurements.
Several authors have employed XCT to develop an increased
understanding of the influence of AM parameters on the workpiece
quality. Parameters assessed include the employed laser power
and scan speed [65,88,233], scanning strategy [65], build direction
[159], powder properties [71] and powder recycling [88].
5. Materials properties affecting AM part geometry
The main effect of materials on final part shape stems from part
distortion during the build, and, for post-processed parts, after the
build. In both cases, the distortion arises from residual stress
formation and its relief. Residual stress is directly related to the
thermally induced strain, which itself is proportional to a DT,
where a is the coefficient of thermal expansion and DT is the
change in temperature. Excepting tungsten and lead, a is relatively
invariant for metals, changing by only a factor of two for all metals,
and its effect on distortion in AM is small [293]. There are several
materials properties that impact the temperature gradient:
thermal diffusivity and specific volume change on melting.
Excepting precious metals, the thermal diffusivity varies among
metals by a factor of twenty, and it was shown not to correlate
strongly to distortion in metallic AM [293]. Finally, several
mechanical properties have an effect on the residual stress. Low
modulus materials generally exhibit low residual stress, although
the nature of the thermal field and the base plate upon which the
part is built also have an impact on the development of residual
stress [185]. If the residual stress exceeds the yield strength, plastic
deformation will take place. In extreme cases, the part or weaker
supports may fracture.
In a study of the effects of nine different metals on residual
stress development in AM [292,293], it was concluded that internal
cracking at weak interfaces and oxidation affected part residual
stress to a greater degree than the intrinsic material properties.
Residual stress development in metallic AM is characterised by
large, in-build-plane tensile residual stress at the top of the build
and compressive residual stress in the centre of the part
[164,185,219,249,292,293,295], as shown for example in
Fig. 23. Residual stress diminishes as the scan area during the
build increases [308], but it has also been reported that the residual
stress increases with build height for certain alloys; true for
stainless steel 316L but not for Ti-6Al-4V [308]. For thin-walled
parts, residual stress tends to be compressive in the centre and
tensile on the edges [60,165,287,319]. Distortion is manifested by a
buckling phenomenon in which the centre bulges, Fig. 24. In some
cases, the distortion is a unidirectional bowing curvature in the
direction of the scan line [60,292].
Residual stress and distortion effects have been characterised
and in some cases modelled for the following metallic systems: Al
[43,164,293], stainless steel [2,185,287,293,308], low allow steel
[249], maraging steel [293], tool steel [319], Fe–Ni–Cu–P [165], Ni
688 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
Fig. 23. Simulated and measured residual stress (neutron diffraction) as a function
of distance from the build plate for a 7 mm thick walled build in Inconel 625 using
directed energy deposition [295].
Fig. 24. Simulated and measured normalized distortion in a 0.3 mm thin walled
plate built in an Fe-30Ni-10Cu-15 P alloy using powder bed fusion (laser) [165],
showing exaggerated bowing.
[60,219,293–295], refractory metals (Ta and W) [293], and Ti
[160,245,293,294]. The magnitude of the residual stress is also AM
process dependent. In general, residual stress is highest for LPBF
[43,160,308,164,165,185,245,249,292–294], followed in decreasing
order by DED [2,60,219,287,295,319], electron beam PBF [294], and
sheet lamination.
For the most part, distortion in metallic AM is controlled using
process modifications. Residual stress in as-built metallic AM parts
typically ranges from 80% to 100% of the yield strength
[160,249,287,294,308]. Currently, parts are built on rigid base-
plates using extensive support structures to minimise distortion.
The baseplate/support structure/part assemblage is post-pro-
cessed by heat treatment to relieve the stresses prior to removal
of the part from the support structure [148,292]. Preheating the
baseplate [43,83,185,287] or the entire part during the build
[2,43,165] has significant but lesser effects on residual stress
reduction compared to post-process heat treatment. Buchbinder
reported that heating an AlSi10Mg LPBF part to 250  C during the
build eliminated all residual stress [43]. Localised pre- and post-
heating of the melt zone during the build has a limited effect on
reducing part residual stress [2]. Slow cooling [259] and laser shot
peening [245] also reduce the residual stress. Double scanning
each layer without adding feedstock reduces residual stress [249],
but it also increases the build time significantly. Energy beam scan
parameters have an effect on residual stress formation. Velocity,
scan speed, hatch spacing and the scan pattern have been assessed
[2,60,249,259,292]. Beuth concluded that the process effect on
residual stress was universally defined by the effect on the
temperature gradient in the build direction [2]. Spiral and random
scan patterns result in lower residual stress than raster scanning
[60,185]. Kruth’s group has proposed a materials solution which is
to pursue alloy development for AM resulting in tough, crack-
resistant alloys [292], coupled to high heat input, thin layers, slow
scan speed and high power.
Residual stress has been relieved by internal cracking during
AM [228,229,292,293]. While this is not acceptable for structural
parts, it does result in parts with reduced distortion from residual
stress [292,293]. Cracking has multiple origins in metallic AM. Off-
eutectic metals solidify over a large range of temperature with
slushy zones prone to crack. In AM, this effect may be extended
across multiple layers as new feedstock is deposited, Fig. 25,
resulting in directional cracks parallel to the build direction. Prior
particle boundaries weakened, for example, by oxide formation,
are a source of delamination in the presence of residual stress
[228].
Fig. 25. Cracking in laser powder bed fusion processed Al. The build direction is
vertical. 6061 Al prealloyed feedstock, showing vertical cracks formed during
cooling through a large melt range and extended as additional layers were
deposited [229].
The extent of deformation due to process residual stress
development in AM metals has been assessed in a number of
investigations [149,148,164,165,185,201,208,215,313]. There is
presently no standard method for assessing and reporting
distortion in AM metal parts. One “worst case” approach to
assessing distortion is to add one or more layers of metal onto a
thin support-free substrate while monitoring the in-build distor-
tion [165]. A single 0.15 mm layer of 63Fe-20Ni-15Cu 2.3 P powder
was LPBF deposited onto a 1 mm thick rectangular sheet of steel
(22 mm by 45 mm) [165]. The maximum in-build distortion of the
layer-plate assemblage was 0.35 mm, which gave a maximum
distortion of 0.35/22 = 0.016 mm/mm. A “worst case” approach
incorporating support structure is to build a long cantilever using
supports. The distortion of the cantilever is measured after
removing the supports. One example [164] shows a maximum
distortion of 0.038 mm/mm (2.1 mm maximum distortion) for a
55 mm long cantilever (width 6 mm, thickness 4 mm) of LPBF
processed AlSi10Mg.
Distortion is also present in AM parts produced indirectly; that
is, using a transient binder which is removed or transformed in a
post-processing step. Stevinson and Bourell [265,266,267] studied
support-free builds and post-processing of a silicon carbide
material with a phenolic transient binder using LPBF. The binder
was reduced to carbon in a post-processing step, followed by part
infiltration with molten silicon. Green parts immediately after the
build showed uniform linear expansion of 2.4% with slightly less
expansion; 2.0%, along the build direction. The part shrunk as the
 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
binder was dissociated during post-processing, resulting in an
overall slight expansion in the lateral directions, 0.8%, while the
height direction shrunk, -0.2%. All distortions were measured
relative to the computer solid model dimensions. The final part
after silicon infiltration exhibited an overall volume expansion of
less than 2% compared to the computer solid model.
6. On-machine metrology
6.1. Types of metrology solutions and their role in metal AM
On-machine metrology investigates measurement solutions
dedicated to observing the manufacturing process or the part itself
executed within an AM machine (see Ref. [85] for recent definitions
of the terminology associated with on-machine metrology).
Measurement may be used to acquire information while the
process is being executed (in-process metrology) either by
inspecting the part itself as it is being fabricated, or by observing
other process-related variables of interest within the machine. In-
process measurement solutions may be developed with direct
access to where the actual physical phenomena involved in the
transformation process are taking place. For metal AM, except for
those processes operating in an open environment (usually wire-
DED), this type of metrology typically considers events taking
place in the build chamber (LPBF, EBPBF, and powder-DED).
Comprehensive reviews on recent research pertaining to on-
machine and in-process metrology for metal AM can be found in
the works by Everton et al. [74] and Mani et al. [177].
In metal AM, in-process measurement is currently implemen-
ted with two primary purposes: to understand the physics of the
process, and to implement process monitoring. In-process
measurement for process understanding typically requires cus-
tom-built manufacturing stations, designed to accommodate the
sophisticated measurement solutions needed to observe the
physical phenomena that take place during transformation. For
example, high-speed synchrotron X-ray imaging combined to a
custom-built rig for LPBF was used to capture the melt pool shape
and evolution during processing [161,322]. Again, custom-built
additive systems, designed to accommodate high-speed optical
imaging, were used to observe melt pool formation and to capture
the trajectories of ejected spatter [30,155,172]. Similarly, Schlieren
imaging can be used to reconstruct the gaseous flows taking place
during laser processing [30].
Different goals and thus different design criteria typically
characterise in-process measurement solutions dedicated to
process and part quality monitoring, as the primary objective in
this case is to detect out-of-control conditions which may lead to
defective parts being produced [74,97]. Early detection of issues
undermining part quality during fabrication is particularly
important in the manufacture of high value-added AM parts,
where failure to meet specifications at the end of the production
cycle may be unacceptable, because of the costs associated with
discarding or reworking the part [81,91,162]. Fortunately, AM
processes are inherently sequential, because they proceed layer by
layer, and thus are intrinsically slower than other bulk manufactur-
ing processes, such as casting or forging. This makes AM processes
more suitable to in-process monitoring, akin to material removal
processes, the latter sharing many similarities with AM, being also
sequential and layer-based [91].
6.2. Targets for in-process measurement
The choice of what events to observe in-process varies
depending on application requirements. For process understand-
ing, the largest possible coverage is often sought for in terms of
measurement targets and spatial-temporal scales, because of the
relatively recent emergence of many metal AM processes makes
the full breadth of involved physical phenomena still partially
unknown [30,161,172,322]. For process monitoring, the choice of
689
targets and metrological requirements is deeply tied to the current
understanding of what variables are relevant in determining the
insurgence of relevant drifts that ultimately make the fabricated
part non-conforming to the specification requirements [74,97]. Al-
though such knowledge is intimately tied to process understand-
ing, a series of process-related variables is already commonly
accepted as relevant, and is consequently targeted in in-situ
measurement for monitoring. Typical targets considered in all the
major metal AM processes (LPBF, EBPBF, powder-DED and wire-
DED) are:
 the melt pool: properties such as emitted energy (intensity
or frequency spectrum), size and shape
[15,29,33,62,139,141,145,186,260,305];
 the topography of the layer (or individual track) after processing,
or any other information pertaining the state of the layer (for
example, temperature) [21,33,67,82,92,230,307,321].
For LPBF and EBPBF, additional targets pertain to:
 the powder bed before processing [21,58,129,168];
 spatter particles during processing: size, number, trajectories,
temperature, and distance of travel from the ejection point [224].
An increasing number of authors is acknowledging the
importance of acquiring information from multiple targets at
the same time [62,139,307]; several are also considering the sensed
information in combination with additional process parameters
recorded from the AM machines, for example, related to the energy
source or atmosphere in the build chamber [307].
6.3. In-process measurement technologies and strategies
In-process measurement for process understanding often
implies the development of prototype AM rigs explicitly designed
to be compatible with measurement solutions [161]. Open and
custom-built AM machine architectures also favour more control
of the manufacturing process in combination with the adopted
sensing solutions [15,62,96]. Using existing, commercial AM
machines on the contrary provides the advantage of more
consolidated and robust manufacturing processes, but has the
drawback that the in-situ monitoring solution must be designed
around a stricter set of existing constraints [21,92,224,305]. For
example, AM processes based on a closed chamber (LPBF, EBPBF
and powder-DED) offer limited possibilities of installing in-process
sensing equipment within the chamber, because of paucity of
available space, necessity of not colliding or interfering with
elements of the process, and prohibitive operating conditions
(temperature, gas flows, floating particles, etc.) [74].
The most frequently adopted technologies for in-process
measurement include optical and infra-red imaging for the layer
before or after processing, and for the melt pool [21,29,33,62,82
,92,129,141,186,224,230,242,260] (see also Figs. 26–28), and the
use of photodiodes or pyrometry sensors for the melt pool
[29,62,139,212]. The above measurement technologies are suffi-
ciently fast to allow for sampling rates compatible with the melt
pool dynamics and thus also with the layer fabrication cycle. The
region of the melt pool and its immediate surroundings in both
DED and PBF processes are characterised by a wide range of
Fig. 26. Layer imaging with in-situ infra-red camera as proposed by Rodriguez
et al. [230].
690 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
Fig. 27. Monitoring temperature patterns inside the build chamber in PBF by means
of an external sensor; infra-red camera configuration example (adapted from
Krauss et al. [145]).
Fig. 28. Melt pool monitoring solution proposed by Berumen et al. [29]; (a) the
reflected emissions from the melt pool are captured by a photodiode (intensity
monitoring) and a camera system (melt pool shape and size); (b) melt pool image
captured by the camera.
emissions at different wavelengths, thus useful information can be
extracted from both the visible and the infra-red range. For
example, Griffith et al. have used both ranges of wavelengths to
image the shape of the melt pool in powder-DED [99].
Electron imaging solutions have also been recently investigated
for monitoring the current layer in EBPBF, given the availability of
both back scattered and secondary electrons. Arnold et al. [15] have
used a detector to capture back scattered electrons and generate
electron optical images of the layer in a way comparable to
scanning electron microscopy. The solution is used to detect pores.
Wong et al. [305] have developed a custom electron imaging sensor
for capturing both back scattered electrons and secondary
electrons, and have used the solution to detect deviations of the
part contour from nominal via image analysis on the current layer.
The possibility of acquiring areal topography information
(height maps) from the layers is being explored as well: as
opposed to conventional 2D imaging of the layer, a height map
contains quantitative information about the local elevations
(heights) of a surface, providing a 3D model of its reliefs.
However, not many options for acquiring areal topography data
are currently available and capable of achieving sufficiently high
spatial resolution within limited scan times. The most frequent
solutions include the use of fringe projection (which requires one
or two cameras and a pattern projector) [67,168,321], or the use of
laser line scanners [21,307] combined with some type of
mechanical traversal mechanism to implement raster scanning
(otherwise a line scanner would only acquire a single line profile).
The traversal approach has been so far implemented by mounting
the line scanner on the recoater blade [21], or on the (moving)
processing head (for example, the welder head of a wire-DED
process [307]). Areal topography data from LPBF layers has also
been acquired by means of high-speed spectral-domain optical
coherence tomography [63].
In many cases, measurement systems (for example, based on
optical or infra-red imaging) may be placed outside the build
chamber, accessing the chamber through pre-existing or custom-
designed transparent windows [224,321]. However, in such cases,
all the optical elements must be designed to achieve acceptable
compromises between measurement performance (mainly field of
view and resolution) and bi-directional protection to and from the
process [33], i.e., the process should not damage the measurement
system, and the measurement system should not significantly alter
the process. Observation of the process from outside the chamber
also typically results in a viewpoint not orthogonal to the layer
surface, and not coaxial with the laser/electron beam (for example,
see Fig. 27 [145]). In such cases, data correction to compensate for
the viewpoint may be implemented [260]. Examples of imaging
sensors mounted internally to the chamber can also be found
[82,92], requiring appropriate protection from the harsh environ-
mental conditions. Finally, measurement solutions for the melt
pool, fully co-axial to the energy beam usually require dedicated,
fully integrated architectures (for example, see Fig. 28) [29,62,186].
Additional in-process monitoring solutions are being explored
based on non-destructive testing technologies. For example, Du
et al. [70] have explored the in-process measurement of Eddy
currents for detecting subsurface defects in DED processes. Rieder
et al. [226] have proposed the use of an ultrasonic transducer
mounted under the build platform of a LBPF machine: the
ultrasonic wave generated by the transducer is reflected by the
walls of the part being built and by internal discontinuities, thus
reflection patterns can be analysed to detect defects. As opposed to
generating acoustic signals (active acoustics), existing acoustic
emissions can be captured from the process or workpiece
themselves (passive acoustics). For example, Eschner et al. [72]
have placed a piezoelectric sensor under the base plate of a LPBF
machine to sample structure-borne acoustic signals as the part is
being built. The signals are used to detect pores. Patel et al. [209]
have investigated the use of spatially resolved acoustic spectros-
copy to monitor the state of the current layer in LPBF.
Experimentation so far has focused on off-line measurements,
but investigations are in progress for in-process integration.
Finally, stress-strain information can be collected in-process. Van
Belle et al. [26] have used a strain gauge mounted under the build
plate to monitor the workpiece in LPBF.
6.4. Sensor data analysis and processing
The importance of in-process measurement, in particular for
monitoring the process, is now widely recognised, and even
manufacturers of AM machines have begun equipping their latest
offerings with a wide array of sensors. Since sensor data streams
can be stored, interesting scenarios are beginning to arise. When
any process variable (for example, temperature of the melt pool) is
recorded through time, together with encoder information from
the AM machine axes, then a complete history of that variable in
time and space is available for the complete duration of process
execution. This type of data logging can be found in recent
literature [15,33], but also in commercial AM machines (for
example, see [29] or the InfiniAM Spectral software from Renishaw
[223]). An increasingly popular term in recent literature is also
“optical tomography”, used in the context of in-process monitoring
of AM to refer to digital images collected from the layers of an AM
part and aggregated into a vertical stack. An optical tomography
dataset may offer hints at the spatial localisation of defects and
other singularities detected on individual images of the stack, as
long as local differences in pixel colours or intensities may be
deemed as a reliable indicators of the defect/singularity in the first
place. Camera images may also be used to extract the contour of
the part on the current layer, thus allowing tracking of the vertical
evolution of the contour as new layers are created. Similar results
may be obtained by looking at slices of XCT data (both for contour
tracking and for internal defect identification), however, XCT
measurement can only be done on the final part for the time being,
 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
whilst optical imaging can be implemented in-process. Research
on how optical tomography data correlates with other types of
volumetric datasets, such as that from XCT, is in progress (see for
example [93]). The idea is to see whether a defect visible in the XCT
stack (for example, a pore) is also visible in the optical tomography
stack.
As the amount of stored data increases, new challenges are
beginning to arise, related to how to manage and handle
increasingly larger amounts of information. One of the main
issues at the moment is understanding what pieces of information
are really important to retain within a metal AM process, because
of some proven correlation with final part quality and the
insurgence of defects. Thus on one hand, efforts are being made
to reach a satisfactory classification of defects in metal AM parts
(for example, see Ref. [176] for LPBF). On the other hand,
correlations between sensed variables and part quality are sought
for, for example, by comparing porosity or other internal defects
identified at specific locations in volumetric datasets obtained by
XCT on the final part, with sensor data streams corresponding to
those same locations [92]. An example comparison of volumetric
datasets involving multiple sensors as well as XCT data is shown in
Fig. 29.
Fig. 29. Volumetric datasets from different sensor types and comparison to XCT data
[255]; STL: original geometric model in standard tessellation language (STL) format;
XCT: computed tomography of the final build (grey levels correspond to material
density values); quality management (QM) PHD: melt pool data from the
photodiode (grey levels correspond to melt pool intensity values); QM CAM:
melt pool shape from the camera (grey levels correspond to melt pool area values).
The values stored in the voxels of the CT, QM PHD and QM CAM datasets can be used
to search for correlations amongst the measured variables. Note that grey level
variations are scarcely visible by the naked eye in the figure.
Machine learning solutions are being investigated by several
research groups and commercial machine manufacturers, to
support the development of classifiers/predictors capable of
spotting relevant patterns in sensed data streams; i.e., patterns
most likely leading to defects in the final parts. Examples include
support vector machines [92,139], decision trees, k-nearest
neighbour, discriminant analysis [139], and convolutional neural
networks [242]. Especially for image-like sensor data (for example,
optical or infra-red images), research efforts are also often
dedicated to the algorithmic extraction of relevant features for
use as inputs for predictors/classifiers. For example, the melt pool
presence and position must be automatically identified within the
image field of view, and its boundaries must be accurately isolated
as a means to assess the shape and size of the pool itself. To be
compatible with in-process measurement, algorithmic image
processing must be fast, thus simple solutions are often privileged,
for example, based on thresholding/blob detection or consolidated
edge detection methods [33,46,62,224,305]. A more complex
method of edge detection for melt pool images, based on log-Gabor
filters and phase congruency, can be found in the work by Song
et al. [260]. Areal topography data from fringe projection or line
scanners is similarly processed with simple and fast methods, such
as height thresholding [321]. Interestingly, some authors are also
beginning to apply 3D image processing methods directly on
691
volumetric datasets (XCT data and optical tomography data)
[92]. Instead of trying to detect singularities/regions on layer
images that are representative of defects, an alternative approach
consists of using the entire contents of a series of images
representing "good" layers to create a statistical model to be used
in conjunction with methods from statistical process control.
When new images (new layers) are analysed, they can either be
found consistent with the statistical model representative of the
"in-control" state (i.e. the process is doing well), or they can be
found inconsistent with the model, meaning that an anomaly is
being registered (out of control state). Multiple options are
available to turn the complex content of an image into forms
compatible with statistical modelling and statistical process
control; in the work by Colosimo et al. [57] for example,
statistically weighted T-mode principal component analysis is
used to encode image information.
6.5. In-process quality control for metal additive manufacturing
A final mention should be reserved to in-process control. As
opposed to monitoring, whose goal is only to detect or predict the
insurgence of conditions which will ultimately affect the quality of
the build, control implies the implementation of corrective actions.
A well-known problem that can be approached by implementing
closed-loop feedback architectures is the stabilisation of the melt
pool (for example, see the patent and products by Concept Laser
[151]). The sequential nature of layer-based manufacturing is well
suited to handle approaches where defects detected within a layer
can be compensated by means of modifications of the following
layers. For example, in Ref. [106] the current layer generated by
wire-DED is scanned in 3D, and deviations from intended height
are compensated by controlling the wire feed rate on the next
deposition layer. Nassar [197] changed the scan path of a powder-
DED process in real-time based on the temperature of the previous
layer as measured by a pyrometer. The implementation of in-
process control systems for the continuous quality control and
real-time optimisation of metal AM processes is one of the most
important avenues of investigation for the development of
increasingly advanced AM processes.
7. Traceability and measurement uncertainty
7.1. National measurement institute work
Most of the National Measurement Institutes (NMIs) have
programs of research in AM, focussing on metrology and
standardisation, but the largest program is The Measurement
Science for Additive Manufacturing program at NIST. The NIST
program currently focuses on material characterisation, real-time
monitoring and control of AM processes, qualification methodolo-
gies, and systems integration for the complete AM process chain
[204]. Critical geometric measurements include metal powder
particle size and shape for powder characterisation and determi-
nation of particle size distribution, size and shape of heat affected
zone (melt pool) for process monitoring and control, location, size
and shape of internal features of AM parts, and surface texture
characterisation of AM surfaces to be used for part qualification
used as the process signature for process qualification. Dynamic
imaging techniques [124] are used for particle size and shape
measurements. Establishing uncertainty of these measurements is
currently under investigation. The size and shape measurement of
the heat affected zone relies on infra-red (IR) thermography and
image processing. The uncertainty of temperature measurements
by IR thermography has been established [156]. Size measurement
uncertainty based on image processing is also currently under
investigation. Another ongoing effort is related to internal feature
size and shape measurements using XCT. In order to evaluate the
692 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
performance of XCT instruments and verify the accuracy of the
images obtained from such instruments, NIST scientists are
developing well characterised reference artefacts [203].
The European Metrology Program for Innovation and Research
(EMPIR) has the Metrology for Additively Manufactured Medical
Implants project running to carry out cross-European research to
enable the production, on demand, of customised implants which
match a patient’s anatomy, with grafts that promote bone growth,
as well as surgical guides that help the surgeons. The objective of
this project is to provide a comprehensive basis to enable the safe
use of medical AM products. In-vivo bone characterisation has
been performed after installing lattice structured implants
fabricated by AM [205] and customised dental and spinal implants
that match the patient’s anatomy have been manufactured by AM
and are undergoing geometrical and mechanical testing.
7.2. Transfer artefacts
In recent years, several test artefacts have been developed for
metal AM, with the main purpose of determining a system’s
manufacturing performance. This section primarily discusses
artefacts developed for quantitative evaluation of the performance
of AM systems and technologies. In addition, the last part of the
section briefly introduces artefacts used for performance verifica-
tion of measuring systems and traceability establishment for
specific dimensional measurements of metal AM products.
Manufacturing and measuring a test artefact is one of the two
main approaches for evaluating the performance of manufacturing
systems. The other approach consists of direct measurement of
system components or characteristics, but it is generally more
difficult for end users, as it requires access to positioning and
control of single system’s components, to measure them using
specific instruments mounted in the system’s working volume. The
approach of producing and measuring test artefacts is normally
simpler for end users, as manufacturing parts is the usual function
of AM systems and, in addition, specific measuring instruments are
typically not required, as common manufacturing measuring
equipment for inspection of products can be used. Measuring a test
artefact enables the verification of multiple errors, as most errors
of the manufacturing system combine and contribute to the errors
of the manufactured artefact. The main drawback is that the
correlation of the specific error source to a specific error in the
artefact may be complex [238]. The approach of using test artefacts
is not unique to AM, as for example, it is well known and
established for many years to characterise machining centres
[127]. However, test artefacts for AM require specific character-
istics [152].
One of the first test artefacts developed to quantitatively
evaluate the performance of AM systems is the so-called “user
part” (see Fig. 30 left). The part focuses on determining the
accuracy of the AM machine in the x-y plane [86]. Many
researchers developed test artefacts, often called benchmarking
parts, for comparing the performance of systems and technologies.
A recent review on benchmarking parts for evaluating the
geometrical performance of AM processes was produced by
Rebaioli and Fassi [220]. One of the first authors proposing a test
artefact for comparing AM machines was Kruth [146]. Other
researchers implemented different benchmarking parts, adding
Fig. 30. Examples of geometries of early test artefacts. Left: “user part” focusing on
evaluating the machine accuracy in the x-y plane [86]. Right: artefact including
specific features: overhangs, ramps, cones, hemi-spheres, etc. [175].
other specific features, including overhangs, ramps, cones, hemi-
spheres, etc. An example is shown in Fig. 30 right [175].
A literature review of existing AM test artefacts is given
elsewhere [189]. In this review, the test artefacts are classified in to
four categories: (i) artefacts for comparing systems or technologies
for decision making, (ii) artefacts for evaluating individual systems
for optimisation, (iii) artefacts for evaluating metal-based pro-
cesses, and (iv) artefacts for other uses. The same review points out
the need for a standardised test artefact and builds upon the
findings of previous work by Richter and Jacobs [225], which
identified the following “rules” for test artefacts:
 should be large enough to allow testing of the whole build area,
 should include many small, medium, and large features,
 should include in- and out-wards pointing features,
 should allow a short build time,
 should allow low material consumption,
 should be easy to measure,
 should include “real part” features.
Based on these rules and on rigorous design criteria, NIST
developed a test artefact intended for standardisation (see Fig. 31)
Fig. 31. Geometrical model of the “NIST part” [191].
[191]. The “NIST part” incorporates many of the necessary
structures and features for the evaluation of the process and
machine capabilities, allows the assessment of systematic errors at
the same time, and contains datum features for alignment and
measurement. Despite this and other standardisation efforts, a
large number of different test artefacts exist and still continue to be
developed by individual users to address very specific require-
ments.
For example, the “NIST part” was used by Bauza et. al. to
evaluate a specific AM system, but in addition they produced a
lattice structure test part (see Fig. 22) to evaluate the system’s
capabilities in producing lattice structures and to show common
metrology problems when inspecting AM parts with lattice
structures [22]. Moreover, Bauza et. al. showed that a typical
problem with test artefacts is that their form and dimensions can
change after removal from the machine build plate or after post
treatments, and thus the actual system errors can be masked and
changed by these post-built variations (see Fig. 12) [22].
Fahad and Hopkinson focused on the simplicity of the part and
the possibility to easily measure it using tactile CMM (see Fig. 32a)
[75]. They also showed that the amount of surrounding powder has
a significant influence on the final properties of parts and has to be
accounted for when testing AM machines [76]. A more complex
Fig. 32. (a) Artefact developed by Fahad et. al. [76]. (b) Micro- and meso-scale
artefact developed by Hao et al. [102].
 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
and much smaller artefact (see Fig. 32b) was proposed by Hao et al.
which was especially designed for the evaluation of micro- and
meso-scale production capabilities, as well as process stability and
repeatability [102].
Möhring et al. developed a micro-scale test artefact including
simple geometrical features as well as freeform structures (Fig. 33)
to compare the capabilities of milling and different AM processes
in a CIRP round robin experiment involving different micro-
manufacturing processes. The comparison revealed large form
errors especially for thin walled features, caused by insufficient
resolution of AM processes, but also showed the advantages of
using XCT systems for measuring some of the key features [187].
Following the trend towards XCT inspection, Shah et al.
presented their test artefact especially tailored for inspection
with XCT (see Fig. 17). The part and the features are arranged on a
cylinder to reduce X-ray imaging artefacts and minimise additional
error sources. For reference measurements, the features are also
accessible by tactile CMM probes [248]. Other XCT inspection
artefacts are presented elsewhere [147].
Fig. 33. Micro test artefact for interdisciplinary analyses in micro manufacturing
[187].
To solve the need for standardisation, the ASTM F42/ISO TC
261 Joint Group for standard test artefacts (Joint Group 52) is
proposing a new approach to avoid the problem that one single
artefact might not address the many different needs of different
users. The Joint Group 52 decided that the specification standard
under development will describe a suite of test geometries, each
testing a different characteristic, and users will be allowed to
configure the individual geometries to whatever best fits the specific
needs [188]. Fig. 34 shows the proposed artefact geometries which
are still being debated and subject to change in future reviews.
Examples of artefacts developed to include surface texture specific
features are shown in Fig. 20 (see Section 4.2).
Besides artefacts for testing the performance of AM systems or
XCT measuring systems, in recent years a number of artefacts have
been developed for testing measuring systems and establishing
traceability in specific dimensional measurements of metal AM
products [42,130]. An example of such artefacts, recently proposed
by Hermanek et al. [107], was designed to evaluate the accuracy of
porosity measurements by XCT. The artefact consists of a
dismountable assembly, which includes hemispherical features
of different sizes serving as artificial calibrated pores. The
advantage of this design is the possibility to calibrate all features
using reference measuring systems such as tactile CMMs [107].
There has been recent work to exploit the design freedom
inherent in AM to build specific features into a manufactured
object that allow the object to be measured at a later stage. Rivas
Santos et al. present a benchmarking artefact for a high-speed
sintering system that has specific features that facilitate its
measurement with tactile CMM, optical photogrammetry and
XCT [227].
693
Fig. 34. Artefact geometries proposed for standardization by ASTM F42/ISO TC 261:
(a) linear accuracy, (b) circular accuracy, (c) resolution pins, (d) resolution holes, (e)
resolution slots, (f) resolution ribs, (g) surface texture [188]. Note that the scale is
different for each geometry.
8. Synthesis and future research
In the main body of the paper, the current state of the art,
progress, and requirements in industry for geometrical metrology
for AM have been reviewed. This section will pull out the main
take-home messages and future research topics from each
section.
There are significant gaps between existing AM specification
standards and the industrial needs for widespread use of AM
technology. The most important areas of future AM standards are
summarised in Section 2.3. There are many globally- and
regionally-coordinated research and development efforts to
expedite the standardisation in these areas such as AMSC, ASTM
Centers of Excellence, and AM-Platform. It is expected that due to
such coordinated efforts, resulting regional and international
standards will be consistent and harmonised among each other,
which is a key requirement for smooth transfer of AM parts and
technologies within multi-tiered supply networks. On the other
hand, urgent need for industrial standards and relatively low
maturity level of AM technologies create challenges for standards
developers. The boundaries between pre-normative research and
standardisation efforts are blurred. Therefore, it is foreseen that
the existing AM standards and the ones currently being drafted
may require more frequent revisions than the standards
associated with more mature technologies, as the research
community increases its understanding and improvement of
the various AM technologies.
Coordinate measurements of surface form and dimensions
are complicated by specific characteristics of metal AM
products, including complex shape and surface texture, with
typically high roughness. For example, the roughness of AM
surfaces causes significant deviations between dimensional
measurements performed using different contact or non-
contact coordinate measuring systems. Besides tactile CMMs,
optical methods – such as laser triangulation, photogrammetry,
and fringe projection – as well as X-ray computed tomography
are increasingly used for coordinate measurements of metal AM
parts; however, the use of such non-contact measuring systems
brings new challenges for traceability and comparability of
measurements. Current research efforts are focused on improv-
ing the measurement results in terms of both accuracy and
694 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
measuring time. Research is under way to both maximise object
coverage whilst at the same time minimising both measuring
time and the amount of manual intervention in the measure-
ment planning. Integrating methods from artificial intelligence
into the measurement process is showing promise but requires
much more research into measurement automation, versatility,
and traceability.
AM surfaces challenge existing surface texture measurement
and characterisation techniques. The mix of deterministic and
random surface geometry, high slope angles (including undercut
features), and mixed optical characteristics mean that existing
measurement methods struggle and there needs to be an
international effort to try to develop good practice in how to
optimise a measurement. Also, in many cases, existing surface
texture field parameters do not capture enough information to
allow process or functional improvements, so more advanced,
multi-scale and feature-based approaches need to be developed
and standardised. There probably is not a single “parameter for
AM”, but there will be a suite of potential methods and good
practice guidance is needed to navigate this suite for a given
application. XCT methods are showing promising results for
surface measurement, especially for internal surfaces, but there is
still much research to do to understand the sensitivity of the
various influence factors. There also needs to be a more concerted
effort to try to correlate surface topography (and sub-surface
features) with processing parameters. This information can be
used to inform control strategies and later in-process metrology
developments.
With both coordinate metrology and surface metrology, there
is still an elephant in the room for AM surfaces: traceability.
Whilst there have been significant developments to allow
comparison of various instruments, the “ground truth” is still
missing. The complexity and rough nature of AM surfaces means
that the use of contact systems (stylus instruments and contact
CMMs) is problematic. It is still difficult to provide traceability for
relatively smooth surfaces with optical instruments and the
standards are still to be developed [158]. Once again, whilst an
AM surface is “just another surface”; the added complexity brings
extra challenges when establishing the traceability route. This
traceability issue needs urgent attention as AM processes
establish quality systems and industry compliance with estab-
lished standards.
On-machine metrology for AM, and in particular in-process
metrology, i.e., measurement while the part is being built, is one of
the hottest topics currently being tackled by the manufacturing
community. The appeal of in-process measurement for AM resides
in being able to detect problems early during fabrication, offering
the potential opportunity to salvage defective parts via the
implementation of corrective actions, or at least offering the
chance to discard parts early, avoiding the waste of time and
resources, which could be prohibitively high, especially for low
volume, high value-added parts.
The challenge of in-process metrology for AM pertains to both
making sure the measurement is not disturbed by the process
(taking into consideration temperature, random disturbances due
to volatiles, etc.) and making sure the process itself is not
disturbed by the measurement (least interaction possible, and
least modifications possible to the process in order to accommo-
date the measurement systems). In-process measurement may
often be subjected to severe time constraints, depending on the
physical phenomena that must be monitored. Some measure-
ments may be performed once for each fabricated layer or every
few layers; others multiple times within each layer; others may
be required to operate at much higher sampling frequencies, for
example, to capture the dynamics of the melt pool (Raleigh
instabilities, occurrence of balling). There are evidently signifi-
cant challenges ahead, but also room for growth, for the
measurement technologies and systems dedicated to in-process
metrology for AM.
Probably the biggest challenge for in-process metrology lies
deeper, in the choice of what should be measured. The metal is
undergoing continuous and rapid evolution, yet the knowledge
of process performance and behaviour is lagging behind. As a
result, it is often unclear what process variables should be
preferentially monitored. Because of such a lack of knowledge,
the current tendency is to capture as much information as
possible, by equipping AM machines with an increasing number
of heterogeneous sensors. The amount of information that can
be generated, even during the fabrication of a single part, is
rapidly growing. The identification of what variables should be
monitored and how involves significant research efforts going
ahead, both in terms of process and material understanding, and
data mining.
The principal impact of materials on geometry in metal AM is
distortion of parts produced. Current approaches to control
residual stress include part construction by attachment to a
massive base plate to maintain rigidity coupled with an extensive
support structure connecting the part to the plate. After the build,
the part/base plate assembly is removed and given a stress relief
heat treatment prior to removing the part from the base plate.
Since residual stresses are typically compressive in AM part
interiors and tensile on the part surface [219], parts may distort
sufficiently to tear away from the support structure or base plate
prior to the stress relief heat treatment. Generation of supports
and their subsequent removal is the cause of significant cost
increase for production, loss of material, and energy waste.
Increasing the build temperature has been partially effective.
Indirect metal AM approaches with use of transient binders
largely eliminates distortion during the AM build. Post-processing
heat treatments to remove the binder and densify the metal may,
however, also result in minor distortions. Effective process and
manufacturing developments are needed to eliminate the need
for supports.
Since the dawn of metal AM, several researchers have been
developing test artefacts for studying and comparing systems or
technologies. Today, a large number of different artefacts exist
and still continue to be developed by individual users to address
specific requirements. Current standardisation activities are
carried out by the ASTM F42/ISO TC 261 Joint Group for standard
test artefacts, which is proposing a new approach to avoid the
problem that one single artefact might not address the many
different needs of different users. The specification standard
under development will describe a suite of test geometries, each
testing a different characteristic, and users would configure the
individual geometries to whatever best fits the specific needs.
Close attention needs to be paid to the measurability of such
artefacts. In the same vein, there is an opportunity offered by the
design freedom of AM to incorporate features that make the
measurement of, not only verification artefacts, but also actual
products, simpler, faster and more effective (“design for
metrology”).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following for contribu-
tions to, and in-depth reviews of, the manuscript: Adam
Thompson, Lewis Newton, Ian Maskery, Xiaobing Feng (Universi-
ty of Nottingham); Markus Baier, Filippo Zanini (University of
Padova); Peter de Groot (Zygo); Jean-Pierre Kruth (KU Leuven);
Stephen Newman (University of Bath); and Christopher Evans
(UNCC).
Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be
identified in this document in order to describe an experimental
procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not
intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the
authors, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials,
or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
References
[1] Aboulkhair NT, Maskery I, Tuck C, Ashcroft I, Everitt NM (2016) On The
Formation of AlSi10Mg Single Tracks And Layers In Selective Laser Melting:
Microstructure And Nano-Mechanical Properties. Journal of Materials Proces-
sing Technology 230:88–98.
[2] Aggarangsi P, Beuth JL (2006) Localized Preheating Approaches For Reducing
Residual Stress in Additive Manufacturing. Proceeding of SFF Symposium 709–720.
[3] Aloisi V, Carmignato S (2016) Influence of Surface Roughness on X-Ray
Computed Tomography Dimensional Measurements Of Additive Manufac-
tured Parts. Case Studies in Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation 104–110. 6/B.
[4] Alrbaey K, Wimpenny D, Tosi R, Manning W, Moroz A (2014) On Optimization of
Surface Roughness of Selective Laser Melted Stainless Steel Parts: A Statistical
Study. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance 23:2139–2148.
[5] AM-Motion (2018) A Strategic Approach to Increasing Europe’s Value Proposi-
tion for Additive Manufacturing Technologies and Capabilities – First Draft AM
Roadmapwww.rm-platform.com/images/D5.3_rev_July2018-rev9.pdf.
[6] AM Platform, www.rm-platform.com/.
[7] Ameta G, Fox J, Witherell P (2018) Tolerancing and Verification of Additive
Manufactured Lattice With Supplemental Surfaces. Proc CIRP 75:69–74.
[8] Ameta G, Lipman R, Moylan S, Witherell P (2015) Investigating the Role of
Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing in Additive Manufacturing. The
Journal of Mechanical Design 137:111401–111410.
[9] Ameta G, Witherell P (2019) Representation of Graded Materials and Struc-
tures to Support Tolerance Specification for Additive Manufacturing Appli-
cation. Journal of Information Science and Engineering 19. 21008-1–21008-9.
[10] AMSC (2017) Standardization Roadmap for Additive ManufacturingFebruary
2017 .
[11] AMSC (2018) Standardization Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing v2June 2018 .
[12] Angel J, De Chiffre L (2014) Comparison on Computed Tomography Using
Industrial Items. CIRP Annals 63:473–476.
[13] Anwer N, Ballu A, Mathieu L (2013) The Skin Model, A Comprehensive
Geometric Model for Engineering Design. CIRP Annals 62:143–146.
[14] Armillotta A (2016) Tolerance Analysis Considering Form Errors in Planar
Datum Features. Procedia CIRP 43:64–69.
[15] Arnold C, Pobel C, Osmanlic F, Körner C (2018) Layerwise Monitoring of
Electron Beam Melting via Backscatter Electron Detection. Rapid Prototyping
Journal.
[16] ASME Y14.5 (2009) Dimensioning and Tolerancing, ASME, New York, NY.
[17] ASME Y14.46 (2017) Product Definition Practices for Additive Manufacturing,
ASME, New York, NY.
[18] ASTM (2017) www.astm.org/COMMIT/F42_AMStandardsStructureAndPrimer.
pdf.
[19] ASTM (2018) amcoe.org/about/.
[20] Baker R (1925) Method of Making Decorative Articles. US Patent 1,533,300.
[21] Barrett C, MacDonald E, Conner B, Persi F (2018) Micron-Level Layer-Wise
Surface Profilometry to Detect Porosity Defects In Powder Bed Fusion Of
Inconel 718. JOM 1–9.
[22] Bauza MB, Moylan SP, Panas RM, Burke SC, Martz HE, Taylor JS, Smokovitz JD
(2014) Study of accuracy of parts produced using additive manufacturing.
ASPE Spring Topical 86–91.
[23] Beaman JJ, Barlow JW, Bourell DL, Crawford RH, Marcus HL, McAlea KP (1997)
Solid Freeform Fabrication: A New Direction in Manufacturing, Kluwer Academ-
ic Publishers, Boston35–38.
[24] Beaucamp AT, Namba Y, Charlton P, Jain S, Graziano AA (2015) Finishing of
Additively Manufactured Titanium Alloy By Shape Adaptive Grinding (SAG).
Surface Topography: Metrology and Properties 3024001.
[25] Becker R, Grzesiak A (2009) Rapid Manufacturing in Automation Applica-
tions. Innovative Developments in Design and Manufacturing. 4th Interna-
tional Conference on Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid Prototyping, Leiria,
Portugal, .
[26] van Belle L, Vansteenkiste G, Boyer JC (2013) Investigation of Residual Stresses
Induced During The Selective Laser Melting Process. Key Engineering Materials
554–557:1828–1834.
[27] Benedetti M, Fontanari V, Bandini M, Zanini F, Carmignato S (2018) Low- and
High-cycle Fatigue Resistance Of Ti-6al-4v Eli Additively Manufactured Via
Selective Laser Melting: Mean Stress And Defect Sensitivity. International
Journal of Fatigue 107:96–109.
[28] Berglund J, Söderberg R, Wärmefjord K (2018) Industrial Needs and Available
Techniques for Geometry Assurance for Metal AM Parts with Small Scale
Features and Rough Surfaces. Procedia CIRP 75:131–136.
[29] Berumen S, Bechmann F, Lindner S, Kruth JP, Craeghs T (2010) Quality Control
Of Laser- and Powder Bed-based Additive Manufacturing (AM) technologies.
Physics Procedia 5:617–622.
[30] Bidare P, Maier RRJ, Beck RJ, Shaphard JD, Moore AJ (2017) An open-architec-
ture metal powder bed fusion system for in-situ process measurements.
Additive Manufacturing 16:177–185.
[31] Blanther JE (1892) Manufacture of Contour Relief Maps, US Patent 473,901.
[32] Boeckmans B, Tan Y, Welkenhuyzen Y, Guo F, Dewulf W, Kruth JP (2015)
Roughness offset differences between contact and non-contact measure-
ments. Proceedings - euspen 189–190. June.
[33] Boone N, Zhu C, Smith C, Todd I, Willmott JR (2018) Thermal Near Infrared
Monitoring System for Electron Beam Melting With Emissivity Tracking.
Additive Manufacturing 22:601–605.
[34] Boschetto A, Bottini L, Veniali F (2018) Roughness Modeling of AlSi10Mg Parts
Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting. Journal of Materials Processing Technol-
ogy 241:154–163.
[35] Bourell D (2016) Perspectives in Additive Manufacturing. Annual Review of
Materials Research 46:1–18.
[36] Bourell D, Kruth JP, Leu M, Levy G, Rosen D, Beese AM, Clare A (2017) Materials
for Additive Manufacturing. CIRP Annals 66:659–681.
695
[37] Bourell DL, Leu MC, Rosen DW (2009) Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing –
Identifying the Future of Freeform Processing, The University of Texas at Austin.
[38] Brackett D, Ashcroft I, Hague R (2011) Topology optimization for additive
manufacturing. Proceeding of SFF Symposium.
[39] Brandi HT, Luckow H (1976) Method of Making Large Structural One-Piece
Parts of Metal, Particularly One-Piece Shafts. US Patent 3,985,995.
[40] Brown CO, Breinan EM, Kear BH (1982) Method for Fabricating Articles by
Sequential Layer Deposition. US Patent 4,323,756.
[41] Brown CA, Hansen HN, Jiang X, Blateyron F, Berglund J, Senin N, Bartkowiak T,
Dixon B, Goïc GL, Quinsat Y, Stemp WJ, Thompson MK, Ungar PS, Zahouani H
(2018) Multiscale Analyses and Characterizations of Surface Topographies.
CIRP Annals 67:839–862.
[42] Brown S, Sun W, McCarthy MB, Woolliams P (2016) Assessment of Dimen-
sional Measurement Tools to Measure Additively Manufactured Metallic
Parts. Proceeding of ASPE Summer Topical 200–205. June.
[43] Buchbinder D, Meiners W, Pirch N, Wissenbach K, Schrage J (2014) Investi-
gation on Reducing Distortion by Preheating During Manufacture of Alumi-
num Components Using Selective Laser Melting. Journal of Laser Applications
26:1–10.
[44] Kraemer A, Lanza G (2016) Methodology For The Evaluation of Ct Image
Quality in Dimensional Metrology. Proceeding of WCNDT. June.
[45] Cabanettes F, Joubert A, Chardon G, Dumas V, Rech J, Grosjean C, Dimkovski Z
(2018) Topography of as Built Surfaces Generated in Metal Additive
Manufacturing: A Multi Scale Analysis From Form to Roughness. Precision
Engineering 52:249–265.
[46] Caltanissetta F, Grasso M, Petrò S, Colosimo BM (2018) Characterization of in-
situ Measurements Based on Layerwise Imaging in Laser Powder Bed Fusion.
Additive Manufacturing 24:183–199.
[47] Carmignato S (2012) Accuracy of Industrial Computed Tomography Measure-
ments: Experimental Results From an International Comparison. CIRP Annals
61:491–494.
[48] Carmignato S (2016) Computed Tomography. in Laperrière L, Reinhart G,
(Eds.) CIRP Encyclopedia of Production Engineering, Springer, Berlin, Heidel-
berg.
[49] Carmignato S, Aloisi V, Medeossi F, Zanini F, Savio E (2017) Influence of
Surface Roughness on Computed Tomography Dimensional Measurements.
CIRP Annals 66:499–502.
[50] Carmignato S, De Chiffre L (2003) A New Method for Thread Calibration on
Coordinate Measuring Machines. CIRP Annals 52:447–450.
[51] Carmignato S, Dewulf W, Leach RK (2017) Industrial X-Ray Computed Tomog-
raphy, Springer.
[52] Carmignato S, Savio E (2011) Traceable Volume Measurements Using Coor-
dinate Measuring Systems. CIRP Annals 60:519–522.
[53] Carmignato S, Voltan A, Savio E (2010) Metrological Performance Of Optical
Coordinate Measuring Machines Under Industrial Conditions. CIRP Annals
59:497–500.
[54] Chen JSS, Feng HY (2011) Optimal Layer Setup Generation in Layered
Manufacturing With a Given Eror Constraint. International Journal of Indus-
trial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering 30:165–174.
[55] De Chiffre L, Carmignato S, Kruth JP, Schmitt R, Weckenmann A (2014)
Industrial Applications Of Computed Tomography. CIRP Annals 63:655–677.
[56] Ciraud PA (1972) Process and Device for the Manufacture of any Objects Desired
from any Meltable Material, FRG Disclosure Publication: 2663777.
[57] Colosimo BM, Grasso M (2018) Spatially Weighted Pca for Monitoring Video
Image Data With Application to Additive Manufacturing. International Journal
of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education 50:391–417.
[58] Craeghs T, Clijsters S, Yasa E, Kruth JP (2011) Online Quality Control Of
Selective Laser. Melting Proceeding of SFF Symposium 212–226.
[59] Criales LE, Arisoy YM, Lane B, Moylan S, Donmez A, Özel T (2017) Laser
Powder Bed Fusion Of Nickel Alloy 625: Experimental Investigations Of
Effects of Process Parameters on Melt Pool Size and Shape With Spatter
Analysis. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 121:22–36.
[60] Dai K, Shaw L (2002) Distortion Minimization Of Laser-Processed Compo-
nents Through Control Of Laser Scanning Patterns. Rapid Prototyping Journal
8:270–276.
[61] Deckard C (1989) Method and Apparatus for Producing Parts by Selective
Sintering. US Patent 4,863,538.
[62] Demir AG, De Giorgi C, Previtali B (2018) Design And Implementation of a
Multisensor Coaxial Monitoring System With Correction Strategies For Se-
lective Laser Melting of a Maraging Steel. Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Engineering 140041003.
[63] DePond PJ, Guss G, Ly S, Calta NP, Deane D, Khairallah S, Matthews MJ (2018)
In situ Measurements of Layer Roughness During Laser Powder Bed Fusion
Additive Manufacturing Using Low Coherence Scanning Interferometry.
Materials & Design 154:347–359.
[64] Dewulf W, Ferrucci M, Ametova E, Hermánek P, Probst G, Boeckmans B,
Craeghs T, Carmignato S (2018) Enhanced Dimensional Measurement by Fast
Determination and Compensation of Geometrical Misalignments of X-Ray
Computed Tomography Instruments. CIRP Annals 67:523–526.
[65] Dewulf W, Pavan M, Craeghs T, Kruth JP (2016) Using X-ray Computed
Tomography to Improve the Porosity Level of Polyamide-12 Laser Sintered
Parts. CIRP Annals 65:205–208.
[66] Dewulf W, Tan Y, Kiekens K (2012) Sense and Non-Sense of Beam Hardening
Correction in Ct Metrology. CIRP Annals 61:495–498.
[67] Dickins A, Widjanarko T, Lawes S, Leach RK (2018) Design of a multi-sensor in-
situ inspection system for additive manufacturing. Proceeding of ASPE/euspen
Summer Topical. 248–242.
[68] DiMatteo PL (1976) Method of Generating and Constructing Three-Dimen-
sional Bodies. US Patent 3,932,923.
[69] Ding L, Goshtasby A (2001) On the Canny Edge Detector. Pattern Recognition
34:721–725.
696 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
[70] Du W, Bail Q, Wang Y, Zhang B (2018) Eddy Current Detection of Subsurface
Defects for Additive/Subtractive Hybrid Manufacturing. The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 95:3185–3195.
[71] Dupin S, Lame O, Barrès C, Charmeau JY (2012) Microstructural Origin of
Physical and Mechanical Properties of Polyamide 12 Processed by Laser
Sintering. European Polymer Journal 48:1611–1621.
[72] Eschner N, Weiser L, Häfner B, Lanza G (2018) Development of an acoustic
process monitoring system for selective laser melting (SLM). Proceeding of SFF
Symposium.
[73] Everton S, Dickens P, Tuck C, Dutton B (2018) Using Laser Ultrasound to Detect
Subsurface Defects in Metal Laser Powder Bed Fusion Components. JOM 1–6.
[74] Everton SK, Hirsch M, Stavroulakis P, Leach RK, Clare AT (2016) Review of In-
situ Process Monitoring and In-situ Metrology for Metal Additive
Manufacturing. Materials & Design 95:431–445.
[75] Fahad M, Hopkinson N (2012) A New Benchmarking Part for Evaluating the
Accuracy and Repeatability of Additive Manufacturing (AM) Processes. Pro-
ceeding of 2nd International Conference on Mechanical, Production and Auto-
mobile Engineering, 234–238.
[76] Fahad M, Hopkinson N (2017) Evaluation and Comparison of Geometrical
Accuracy of Parts Produced by Sintering-Based Additive Manufacturing Pro-
cesses. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
88:3389–3394.
[77] Fay MF, Colonna de Lega X, Schmidt M (2014) Measuring high-slope parts
using coherence scanning interferometry. Proc ASPE.
[78] Ferrucci M, Leach RK, Giusca CL, Carmignato S, Dewulf W (2015) Towards
Geometrical Calibration of X-Ray Computed Tomography Systems — A Re-
view. Measurement Science & Technology 26092003.
[79] Fox JC, Moylan SP, Lane BM (2016) Preliminary Study Toward Surface Texture
as a Process Signature in Laser Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing.
Proceeding of ASPE Summer Topical 168–173.
[80] Francois MM, Sun A, King WE, Henson NJ, Touret D, Bronkhorst CA, Carloson
NN, Newman CK, Haut T, Gibbs JW, Livescu V, Vanfer Weil SA, Schraad MW,
Blacker T, Lim H, Rodgers T, Walton O (2017) Modeling of Additive
Manufacturing Processes for Metals: Challenges and Opportunities. Current
Opinion in Solid State & Materials Science 21:198–206.
[81] Frazier WE (2014) Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review. Journal of Mate-
rials Engineering and Performance 23:1917–1928.
[82] Furumoto T, Alkahari MR, Ueda T, Aziz MSA, Hosokawa A (2012) Monitoring of
Laser Consolidation Process of Metal Powder With High Speed Video Camera.
Physics Procedia 39:760–766.
[83] Furumoto T, Ueda T, Abdul Aziz MS, Hosokawa A, Tanaka R (2010) Study on
Reduction of Residual Stress Induced During Rapid Tooling Process: Influence
of Heating Conditions on Residual Stress. Key Engineering Materials 447–
448:785–789.
[84] Gale PL, Fair JE (1978) Method of Making Aluminum Piston with Reinforced
Piston Ring Groove. US Patent 4,125,926.
[85] Gao W, Haitjema H, Chenc YL, Fang FZ, Leach RK, Cheung CF, Savio E, Linares
JM (2019) On-machine and in-process Surface Metrology for Precision
Manufacturing. CIRP Annals. in press.
[86] Gargiulo EP (1992) Stereolithography Process Accuracy: User Experience.
Proceeding of 1st European Conference on Rapid Prototyping 187–207.
[87] Gaskin TA (1973) Earth Science Teaching Device, US Patent 3,751,827.
[88] Ghita O, James E, Trimble R, Evans K (2014) Physico-chemical Behaviour of
Poly (Ether ketone) (PEK) in High Temperature Laser Sintering (HT-LS).
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214:969–978.
[89] Ghorpade A, Karunakaran KP, Tiwari MK (2007) Selection of Optimal Part
Orientation in Fused Deposition Modelling Using Swarm Intelligence. Pro-
ceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B 221:1209–1219.
[90] Gibbons GJ, Hansell RG (2005) Direct Tool Steel Injection Mould Inserts
Through the Arcam Ebm Freeform Fabrication Process. Assembly Automation
25(300):305.
[91] Gibson I, Rosen DW, Stucker B (2010) Additive Manufacturing Technologies:
Rapid Prototyping to Direct Digital Manufacturing, Springer.
[92] Gobert C, Reutzel EW, Petrich J, Nassar AR, Phoha S (2018) Application of
supervised machine learning for defect detection during metallic powder bed
fusion additive manufacturing using high resolution imaging. Additive
Manufacturing 21:517–528.
[93] Gögelein A, Ladewig A, Zenzinger G, Bamberg J (2018) Process Monitoring of
Additive Manufacturing by Using Optical Tomography. Proceeding of 14th
Quantitative InfraRed Thermography Conference, 266–272.
[94] Gomez C, Thompson A, Su R, DiSciacca J, Lawes S, Leach RK (2017) Optimisa-
tion of Surface Measurement for Metal Additive Manufacturing Using Coher-
ence Scanning Interferometry. Optical Engineering (Redondo Beach Calif)
56111714.
[95] Gong H, Gu H, Zeng K, Dilip JJS, Pal D, Stucker B, Christiansen D, Beuth J,
Lewandowski JJ (2014) Melt Pool Characterization For Selective Laser Melting
of Ti-6Al-4V Pre-alloyed Powder. Proceeding of SFF Symposium 256–267.
[96] Grantham S, Lane B, Neira J, Mekhontsev S, Vlasea M, Hanssen L (2016)
Optical Design and Initial Results from NIST’s AMMT/TEMPS facility. Proceed-
ing of International Society for Optics and Photonics, . 97380S.
[97] Grasso M, Colosimo BM (2017) Process Defects and in-situ Monitoring
Methods in Metal Powder Bed Fusion: A Review. Measurement Science &
Technology 28044005.
[98] Greitemeier D, Dalle Donne C, Syassen F, Eufinger J, Melz T (2016) Effect of
Surface Roughness on Fatigue Performance of Additive Manufactured Ti-6Al-
4V. Materials Science and Technology 32:629–634.
[99] Griffith ML, Schlienger ME, Harwell LD, Oliver MS, Baldwin MD, Ensz MT,
Essien M, Brooks J, Robino CV, Smugeresky JE, Hofmeister WH, Wert MJ,
Nelson DV (1999) Understanding Thermal Behavior in the LENS Process.
Materials & Design 20:107–113.
[100] Grimm T, Wiora G, Witt G (2015) Characterization of Typical Surface Effects in
Additive Manufacturing With Confocal Microscopy. Surface Topography: Me-
trology and Properties 3014001.
[101] Grimm T, Witt G, Wiora G (2016) Three-Dimensional Surface Measurement
for the Quantification Of Mechanical Properties Of Laser-Sintered Parts.
Materials Testing 58:293–301.
[102] Hao B, Korkmaz E, Bediz B, Ozdoganlar OB (2014) A Novel Test Artifact for
Performance Evaluation of Additive Manufacturing Processes. Using Additive
Manufacturing, ASPE Spring Topical, Berkeley, USA.
[104] Harding K (2013) Handbook of Optical Dimensional Metrology, CRC Press.
[105] Harrison N, McHugh PE, Curtin W, McDonnell P (2013) Micromotion and
Friction Evaluation of a Novel Surface Architecture for Improved Primary
Fixation of Cementless Orthopaedic Implants. Journal of the Mechanical
Behavior of Biomedical Materials 21:37–46.
[106] Heralic A, Christiansson AK, Lennartson B (2012) Height Control of Laser
Metal-wire Deposition Based on Iterative Learning Control and 3D Scanning.
Optics and Lasers in Engineering 50:1230–1241.
[107] Hermanek P, Carmignato S (2016) Reference Object for Evaluating the Accu-
racy of Porosity Measurements by X-Ray Computed Tomography. Case Studies
in Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation 6:122–127.
[108] Hermanek P, Carmignato S (2017) Porosity Measurements by X-Ray Comput-
ed Tomography: Accuracy Evaluation Using a Calibrated Object. Precision
Engineering 49:377–387.
[109] Hirsch M, Catchpole-Smith S, Patel R, Marrow P, Li W, Sharples SD, Clare AT
(2017) Meso-Scale Defect Evaluation of Selective Laser Melting Using Spa-
tially Resolved Acoustic Spectroscopy. Proceedings of the Royal Society A
47320170194.
[110] Hong M-H, Min BK, Kwon T-Y (2016) The Influence of Process Parameters on
the Surface Roughness Of A 3d-Printed co-cr Dental Alloy Produced via
Selective Laser Melting. Applied Sciences (Basel Switzerland) 6:401.
[111] Housholder R (1981) Molding Process. US Patent 4,247,508.
[112] Hull C (1986) Apparatus for Production of Three-dimensional Objects by
Stereolithography. US Patent 4,575,330.
[113] Iassanov P, Gebrenegus T, Tuller M (2009) Segmentation of X-Ray Computed
Tomography Images of Porous Materials - a Crucial Step For Characterization
and Quantitative Analysis of Pore Structures. Water Resources Research 45:9.
[114] ISO/ASTM 52921 (2013) Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing –
Coordinate Systems and Test Methodologies, ASTM, International, West Con-
shohocken, USA.
[115] ISO/ASTM 52900 (2015) Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing –
Generaĺ Principles – Part 1: Terminology, ASTM, West Conshohocken, USA.
[116] ISO/ASTM 52910 (2017) Standard Guide for Design for Additive Manufacturing,
ASTM, West Conshohocken, USA.
[117] ISO/ASTM 52902 (2018) Additive Manufacturing – Test artefacts – Standard
guideline for geometric capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems,
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
[118] ISO/TC261 (2015) Additive Manufacturing, Business Plan, International Orga-
nization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
[119] ISO 2768-2 (1989) General Tolerances – Part 2: Geometrical Tolerances for
Features Without Individual Tolerance Indications, International Organization
for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
[120] ISO 10303-1 (1994) Industrial Automation Systems and Integration – Product
Data Representation and Exchange – Part 1: Overview and Fundamental Prin-
ciples, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
[121] ISO 4288 (1996) Geometric Product Specifications (GPS) – Surface Texture:
Profile Method – Rules and Procedures for the Assessment of Surface Texture,
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
[122] ISO 4287 (1997) Geometrical Product Specification (GPS) – Surface Texture:
Profile Method – Terms, Definitions and Surface Texture Parameters, Interna-
tional Organization of Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
[123] ISO 1302 (2002) Geometric Product Specifications (GPS) – Indication of Surface
Texture in Technical Product Documentation, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
[124] ISO 13322-2 (2006) Particle Size Analysis – Image Analysis Methods – Part 2:
Dynamic Image Analysis Methods, International Organization for Standardi-
zation, Geneva, Switzerland.
[125] ISO 25178 part 2 (2012) Geometrical Product Specification (GPS) – Surface
Texture: Areal – Part 2: Terms, Definitions and Surface Texture Parameters,
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
[126] ISO 17296-3 (2014) Additive Manufacturing – General Principles – Part 3: Main
Characteristics and Corresponding Test Methods, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
[127] ISO IS 10791-7 (2014) Test Conditions for Machining Centers - Part 7. Accuracy
of a Finished Test Piece International Organization for Standardization, Geneva,
Switzerland, .
[128] ISO 1101 (2017) Geometric Product Specifications (GPS) – Geometrical Toleran-
cing — Tolerances of Form, Orientation, Location and Run-out, International
Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
[129] zur Jacobsmühlen J, Kleszczynski S. Witt G, Merhof D (2015) ) Elevated region
area measurement for quantitative analysis of laser beam melting process
stability. Proceeding of SFF Symposium.
[130] Jansson A, Zekavat AR, Pejryd L (2015) Measurement of internal features in
additive manufactured components by the use of computed tomography.
Proceeding of Digital Industrial Radiology and Computed Tomography (DIR
2015).
[131] Jantette FP, Keicher DM, Romero JA, Schanwald LP (2000) Method and System
for Producing Complex-Shape Objects. US Patent 6,046,426.
[132] Joshi PC, Dehoff R, Duty CE, Peter WH, Ott RD, Love LJ, Blue CA (2012) Direct
digital additive manufacturing technologies: path towards hybrid integra-
tion. Proceeding of Future of Instrumentation International Workshop, 1–4.
 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
[133] Keller P, Mendricky R (2015) Parameters Influencing The Precision of slm
Production. MM Science Journal 10.
[134] Kerckhofs G (2009) Morphological and Mechanical Quantification of Porous
Structures by Means of Micro-CT. PhD thesis, KU Leuven.
[135] Kerckhofs G, Pyka G, Moesen M, Van Bael S, Schrooten J, Wevers M (2013)
High-resolution Microfocus X-ray Computed Tomography for 3D Surface
Roughness Measurements of Additive Manufactured Porous Materials. Ad-
vanced Engineering Materials 15:153–158.
[136] Khademzadeh S, Carmignato S, Parvin N, Zanini F, Bariani PF (2016) Micro
Porosity Analysis in Additive Manufactured Niti Parts Using Micro Computed
Tomography and Electron Microscopy. Materials & Design 90:745–752.
[137] Khademzadeh S, Zanini F, Bariani PF, Carmignato S (2018) Precision Additive
Manufacturing of Niti Parts Using Micro Direct Metal Deposition. The Inter-
national Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 96:3729–3736.
[138] Khairallah SA, Anderson AT, Rubenchik King WE (2016) Laser Powder-bed
Fusion Additive Manufacturing: Physics of Complex Melt Flow and Formation
Mechanisms of Pores, Spatter, and Denudation Zones. Acta Materialia 108:36–
45.
[139] Khanzadeh M, Chowdhury S, Marufuzzaman M, Tschopp MA, Bian L (2018)
Porosity Prediction: Supervised-Learning of Thermal History for Direct Laser
Deposition. International Journal of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems
Engineering 47:69–82.
[140] Kiekens K, Welkenhuyzen F, Tan Y, Bleys P, Voet A, Kruth J-P, Dewulf W (2011)
A Test Object With Parallel Grooves for Calibration and Accuracy Assessment
of Industrial Computed Tomography (Ct) Metrology. Measurement Science &
Technology 22115502.
[141] Kleszczynski S, zur Jacobsmühlen J, Sehrt JT, Witt G (2012) Error Detection in
Laser Beam Melting Systems by High Resolution Imaging. Proceeding of SFF
Symposium.
[142] Körner C, Bauerei A, Attar E (2013) Fundamental Consolidation Mechanisms
During Selective Beam Melting of Powders. Modelling and Simulation in
Materials Science and Engineering 21085011.
[143] Körner C (2016) Additive Manufacturing of Metallic Components by Selective
Electron Beam Melting — A Review. International Materials Reviews 61:361–
377.
[144] Koutiri I, Pessard E, Peyre P, Amlou O, Terris TD (2018) Influence of Slm
Process Parameters on The Surface Finish, Porosity Rate and Fatigue Behavior
of As-built inconel 625 Parts. Journal of Materials Processing Technology
255:536–546.
[145] Krauss H, Eschey C, Zaeh MF (2012) Thermography for monitoring the
selective laser melting process. Proceeding of SFF Symposium 999–1014.
[146] Kruth JP (1991) Material Incress Manufacturing by Rapid Prototyping Tech-
niques. CIRP Annals 40:603–614.
[147] Kruth JP, Bartscher M, Carmignato S, Schmitt R, De Chiffre L, Weckenmann A
(2011) Computed Tomography for Dimensional Metrology. CIRP Annals
60:821–842.
[148] Kruth J-P, Deckers J, Yasa E, Wauthle R (2012) Assessing and Comparing
Influencing Factors of Residual Stresses in Selective Laser Melting Using a
Novel Analysis Method. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers
Part B 226:980–991.
[149] Kruth J-P, Froyen L, Van Vaerenbergh J, Mercelis P, Rombouts M, Lauwers B
(2004) Selective Laser Melting of Iron-Based Powder. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology 149:616–622.
[150] Kruth JP, Leu M, Nakagawa T (1998) Progress in Additive Manufacturing and
Rapid Prototyping. CIRP Annals 47:525–540.
[151] Kruth JP, Mercelis P (2009) Procedure and Apparatus For in-situ Monitoring
and Feedback Control of Selective Laser Powder Processing. U.S. Patent
Application 12/308,032.
[152] Kruth JP, Vandenbroucke B, Vaerenbergh JV, Mercelis P (2005) Benchmarking
of different SLS/SLM processes as rapid manufacturing techniques. Interna-
tional Conference on Polymers and Moulds Innovations (PMI) ;(April)20–23.
[153] Kunieda M, Nakagawa T (1984) Development of Laminated Drawing Dies by
Laser Vutting. Bulletin of the Japan Society for Precision Engineering 184:353–
354.
[154] Lamikiz A, Sanchez JA, Lopez de Lacalle L, Arana JL (2007) Laser Polishing of
Parts Built up by Selective Laser Sintering. International Journal of Machine
Tools and Manufacture 47:2040–2050.
[155] Lane B, Mekhontsev S, Grantham S, Vlasea ML, Whiting J, Yeung H, Fox J,
Zarobila C, Neira J, McGlauflin M, Hanssen L (2016) Design, developments,
and results from the NIST additive manufacturing metrology testbed
(AMMT). Proceeding of SFF Symposium 1145–1160.
[156] Lane BM, Whitenton EP, Madhavan V, Donmez MA (2013) Uncertainty of
Temperature Measurements by Infrared Thermography for Metal Cutting
Applications. Metrologia 50:637–653.
[157] Leach RK (2011) Optical Measurement of Surface Topography, Springer, Berlin.
[158] Leach RK, Giusca CL, Haitjema H, Evans C, Jiang X (2015) Calibration and
Verification of Areal Surface Texture Measuring Instruments. CIRP Annals
64:797–813.
[159] Léonard F, Tammas-Williams S, Pragnell PB, Todd I, Withers PJ (2012) Assess-
ment by X-ray CT of the Effects of Geometry and Build Direction on Defects in
Titanium ALM Parts, ICT, Wels, Austria.
[160] Leuders S, Thöne M, Riemer A, Niendorf T, Tröster T, Richard HA, Maier HJ
(2013) On the Mechanical Behaviour of Titanium Alloy Tial6v4 Manufactured
by Selective Laser Melting: Fatigue Resistance and Crack Growth Perfor-
mance. International Journal of Fatigue 48:300–307.
[161] Leung CLA, Marussi S, Atwood RC, Towrie M, Withers PJ, Lee PD (2018) In Situ
X-ray Imaging of Defect and Molten Pool Dynamics in Laser Additive
Manufacturing. Nature Communications 9:1355.
[162] Levy GN, Schindel R, Kruth JP (2003) Rapid Manufacturing and Rapid Tooling
With Layer Manufacturing (lm) Technologies, State Of The Art And Future
Perspectives. CIRP Annals 52:589–609.
697
[163] Lewandowski JJ, Seifi M (2016) Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review Of
Mechanical Properties. Annual Review of Materials Research 46:151–186.
[164] Li C, Liu JF, Guo YB (2016) Efficient multiscale prediction of cantilever
distortion by selective laser melting. Proceeding of SFF Symposium 236–246.
[165] Li C, Liu JF, Guo YB, Li ZY (2015) A Temperature-Thread Multiscale Modeling
Approach for Efficient Prediction of Part Distortion by Selective Laser Melting.
Proceeding of SFF Symposium 1166–1181.
[166] Lifton JJ, Carmignato S (2017) Simulating the Influence of Scatter and Beam
Hardening in Dimensional Computed Tomography. Measurement Science &
Technology 28104001.
[167] Lifton JJ, Malcolm AA, McBride JW (2015) On the Uncertainty of Surface
Determination in X-Ray Computed Tomography For Dimensional Metrology.
Measurement Science & Technology 26035003.
[168] Liu Y, Blunt LA, Gao F, Jiang X, Zhang Z, Saunby G, Dawes J, Blackham B,
Rahman HA, Smith C (2018) In-Situ Areal Inspection of Powder Bed for
Electron Beam Fusion AM System Based on Fringe Projection. Proceeding of
ASPE/euspen Summer Topical Meeting: Advancing Precision in Additive
Manufacturing.
[169] Löber L, Flache C, Petters R, Kühn U, Eckert J (2013) Comparison of Different
Post Processing Technologies for SLM Generated 316l Steel Parts. Rapid
Prototyping Journal 19:173–179.
[170] Lou S, Brown SB, Sun W, Zeng W, Abdul-Rahman HS, Jiang X, Scott PJ (2017)
Use of Morphological Method to Investigate the Influence of Surface Texture
on Dimensional Measurement of Additively Manufactured Parts. Proceeding
of euspen/ASPE Special Interest Group Meeting: Additive Manufacturing.
[171] Lou S, Jiang X, Sun W, Zeng W, Pagani L, Scott PJ (2018) Characterisation
Methods for Powder Bed Fusion Processed Surface Topography. Precision
Engineering. in press.
[172] Ly S, Rubenchik AM, Khairallah SA, Guss G, Matthews MJ (2017) Metal Vapor
Micro-Jet Controls Material Redistribution in Laser Powder Bed Fusion Addi-
tive Manufacturing. Scientific Reports 7:4085.
[173] Ma CP, Guan YC, Zhou W (2017) Laser Polishing of Additive Manufactured Ti
alloys. Optics and Lasers in Engineering 93:171–177.
[174] Maamoun AH, Elbestawi MA, Veldhuis SC (2018) Influence of Shot Peening on
AiSi10Mg parts fabricated by additive manufacturing. Journal of Manufactur-
ing and Materials Processing 2:40.
[175] Mahesh M, Wong Y, Fuh JYH, Loh HT (2004) Benchmarking for Comparative
Evaluation of Rp Systems and Processes. Rapid Prototyping Journal 10:123–
135.
[176] Malekipour E, El-Mounayri H (2018) Common Defects and Contributing
Parameters in Powder Bed Fusion Am Process and Their Classification for
Online Monitoring and Control: A Review. The International Journal of Ad-
vanced Manufacturing Technology 95:527–550.
[177] Mani M, Lane BM, Donmez MA, Feng SC, Moylan SP (2017) A Review on
Measurement Science Needs For Real-Time Control of Additive Manufactur-
ing Metal Powder Bed Fusion Processes. International Journal of Production
Research 55:1400–1418.
[178] Manriquez Frayre JA, Bourell DL (1990) Selective Laser Sintering of Binary
Metallic Powder. Proceeding of SFF Symposium 99–106.
[179] Maskery I, Aboulkhair NT, Corfeld MR, Tuck C, Clare AT, Leach RK, Wildman
RD, Ashcroft IA, Hague RJM (2016) Quantification and Characterisation of
Porosity in Selectively Laser Melted Al-Si10-Mg using X-ray Computed To-
mography. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 111:192–204.
[180] Maskery I, Aremu AO, Tuck C, Wildman RD, Ashcroft IA, Hague RJM (2015)
Mechanical Properties of Ti-6Al-4V Selectively Laser Melted Parts With Body-
centred-Cubic Lattices of Varying Cell Size. Experimental Mechanics 55:1261–
1272.
[181] Maheswaraa U, Burell D, Seeparsad CC (2007) Design and Freeform Fabrica-
tion of Deployable Structures With Lattice Skins. Rapid Prototyping Journal
13:213–225.
[182] Maszybrocka J, Stwora A, Gapinski B, Skrabalak G, Karolus M (2017) Mor-
phology and Surface Topography of Ti6Al4V Lattice Structures Fabricated by
Selective Laser Sintering. Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences Technical
Sciences 65:85–92.
[183] Matthews MJ, Guss G, Khairallah SA, Rubenchik AM, Depond PJ, King WE
(2016) Denudation of Metal Powder Layers in Laser Powder Bed Fusion
Processes. Acta Materialia 114:33–42.
[184] Mazumder J (1991) Overview of Melt Dynamics in Laser Processing. Optical
Engineering (Redondo Beach Calif) 30:1208–1219.
[185] Mercelis P, Kruth JP (2006) Residual Stresses in Selective Laser Sintering and
Selective Laser Melting. Rapid Prototyping Journal 12:254–265.
[186] Mercelis P, Kruth JP, Van Vaerenbergh J (2007) Feedback Control of Selective
Laser Melting. Proceeding of 15th International Symposium on Electromachining
(ISEM-15), 421–426.
[187] Möhring HC, Kersting P, Carmignato S, Yagüe-Fabra JA, Maestro M, Jiménez R,
Ferrarisf E, Tuncg T, Bleicher F, Witsi WW, Walczak K, Hedlind M (2015) A
Testpart for Interdisciplinary Analyses in Micro Production Engineering. CIRP
Annals 28:106–112.
[188] Moylan S (2015) Progress toward standardized additive manufacturing test
artefacts. Proceeding of ASPE Topical Meeting.
[189] Moylan S, Cooke A, Jurrens K, Slotwinski J, Donmez MA (2012) A review of test
artifacts for additive manufacturing. NISTIR 7858.
[191] Moylan S, Slotwinski J, Cooke A, Jurrens K, Donmez MA (2014) An Additive
Manufacturing Test Artefact. Journal of Research of NIST 119:429–459.
[192] Moylan S, Slotwinski J, Cooke A, Jurrens K, Donmez MA (2012) Proposal for a
standardized test artefact for additive manufacturing machines and process-
es. Proceeding of SFF Symposium.
[193] Müller P (2013) Coordinate Metrology by Traceable Computed Tomography. PhD
Thesis, Technical University of Denmark.
[194] Nakagawa T (1979) Blanking Tool by Stacked Bainite Steel Plates. Press
Technique 93–101.
698 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
[195] Nakagawa T, Kunieda M, Liu S-D (1985) Laser Cut Sheet Laminated Forming
Dies by Diffusion Bonding. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International
Machine Tool Design and Research Conference 505–510.
[196] NASA-MSFC-STD 3716 (2017) Standard for Additively Manufactured Spaceflight
Hardware by Laser Powder Bed Fusion in Metals, Marshall Space Flight Center,
Alabama, US.
[197] Nassar AR, Keist JS, Reutzel EW, Spurgeon TJ (2015) Intra-Layer Closed-Loop
Control of Build Plan During Directed Energy Additive Manufacturing of Ti-
6Al-4V. Additive Manufacturing 6:39–52.
[198] NCMS Report 0199RE98 (1998) 1998 Industrial Roadmap for the Rapid Proto-
typing Industry, National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, Michigan, US.
[199] Newton L, Senin N, Gomez C, Blunt LA, Helmli F, Danzl R, Leach RK (2018)
Focus Variation Areal Topography Measurement of Metal Additive Surfaces.
Additive Manufacturing 25:365–389.
[200] Nguyen J, Park SI, Rosen D (2013) Heuristic Optimization Method for Cellular
Structure Design of Light Weight Components. International Journal of Preci-
sion Engineering and Manufacturing 14:1071–1078.
[201] Nickel A, Barnett D, Prinz F (2001) Thermal Stresses and Deposition Patterns
in Layered Manufacturing. Materials Science and Engineering A 317:59–64.
[202] NIST (2013) Measurement Science Roadmap for Metal-Based Additive Manu-
facturingwww.nist.gov/document-3511.
[203] NIST News (2017) Getting the Inside Story on Products with Computed Tomo-
graphywww.nist.gov/news-events/news/2017/02/
getting-inside-story-products-computed-tomography.
[204] NIST Programs (2013) Measurement Science for Additive Manufacturing Pro-
gramwww.nist.gov/programs-projects/
measurement-science-additive-manufacturing-program.
[205] Obaton AF, Fain J, Djemaï M, Meinel D, Léonard F, Mahé E, Lécuelle B, Fouchet
JJ, Bruno G (2017) In vivo XCT bone characterization of lattice structured
implants fabricated by additive manufacturing. Heliyon 3.
[206] Özel T, Altay A, Donmez MA, Leach RK (2017) Surface Topography Investiga-
tions on Nickel Alloy 625 Fabricated Via Laser Powder Bed. Fusion The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 1–8.
[207] Pagani L, Qi Q, Jiang X, Scott PJ (2017) Towards a New Definition of Areal
Surface Texture Parameters On Freeform Surfaces. Measurement 109:281–
291.
[208] Parry LA, Ashcroft IA, Wildman RD (2018) Geometrical Effects on Residual
Stress in Selective Laser Melting. Additive Manufacturing 25:166–175.
[209] Patel R, Hirsch M, Dryburgh P, Pieris D, Achamfuo-Yeboah S, Smith R, Light R,
Sharples S, Clare A, Clark M (2018) Imaging Material Texture of As-Deposited
Selective Laser Melted Parts Using Spatially Resolved Acoustic Spectroscopy.
Applied Sciences (Basel Switzerland) 8:1991.
[210] Pavan M, Craeghs T, Kruth JP, Dewulf W (2018) Investigating the Influence of
X-ray CT Parameters on Porosity Measurement Of Laser Sintered PA12 Parts
Using a Design-of-Experiment Approach. Polymer Testing 66:203–212.
[211] Pavan M, Sinnaeve M, Leyssens S, Craeghs T, Kruth J-P, Dewulf W (2017)
Leuven, BelgiumDetermining the Dimensional Accuracy Limits of Laser Sin-
tered PA12-parts: From Artefact Design to Dimensional Characterization by
X-Ray Computed Tomography Proc. euspen/ASPE Special Interest Group
Meeting2017. Determining the Dimensional Accuracy Limits of Laser Sintered
PA12-parts: From Artefact Design to Dimensional Characterization by X-Ray
Computed Tomography Proc euspen/ASPE Special Interest Group Meeting.
[212] Pavlov M, Doubenskaia M, Smurov I (2010) Pyrometric analysis of thermal
processes in SLM technology. Physics Procedia 5:523–531.
[213] Perera BV (1940) Process of Making Relief Maps. US Patent #2,189,592.
[214] du Plessis A, Yadroitsev I, Yadroitsava I, Le Roux SG (2018) X-ray Microcom-
puted Tomography in Additive Manufacturing: A Review of the Current
Technology And Applications. 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing
5:227–247.
[215] Prabhakar P, Sames WJ, Dehoff R, Babu SS (2015) Computational Modeling Of
Residual Stress Formation During The Electron Beam Melting Process For
Inconel 718. Additive Manufacturing 7:83–91.
[216] Pyka G, Burakowski A, Kerckhofs G, Moesen M, Van Bael S, Schrooten J,
Wevers M (2012) Surface Modification of Ti6Al4V Open Porous Structures
Produced by Additive Manufacturing. Advanced Engineering Materials
14:363–370.
[217] Quinsat Y, Lartigue C, Brown C, Hattali L (2016) Multi-scale Surface Charac-
terization In Additive Manufacturing Using CT. International Joint Conference
on Mechanics Design Engineering and Advanced Manufacturin.
[218] Quinsat Y, Lartigue C, Brown C, Hattali L (2017) Characterization of Surface
Topography of 3D Printed Parts By Multi-scale Analysis. International Journal
on Interactive Design and Manufacturing 1–8.
[219] Rangaswamy P, Griffith ML, Prime MB, Holden TM, Rogge RB, Edwards JM,
Sebring RJ (2005) Residual Stresses in LENS1 Components Using Neutron
Diffraction and Contour Method. Materials Science and Engineering 399:72–
83.
[220] Rebaioli L, Fassi I (2017) A Review on Benchmark Artifacts for Evaluating the
Geometrical Performance of Additive Manufacturing Processes. The Interna-
tional Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 93:2571–2598.
[221] Reese ZC, Fox JC, Kim FH, Taylor J, Evans C (2018) Effect of subsurface defects
on the surface topography of additive manufactured components. Proceeding
of ASPE/euspen Summer Topical Meeting.
[222] Reese ZC, Fox JC, Taylor J, Evans C (2018) Evolution of cooling length in parts
created through laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. ASPE/
euspen Summer Topical Meeting.
[223] Renishaw InfiniAM Spectral (2018) Energy Input and Melt-pool Emissions
Monitoring for AM Systemswww.renishaw.com/en/infiniam-spectral–42310.
[224] Repossini G, Laguzza V, Grasso M, Colosimo BM (2017) On the Use of Spatter
Signature for In-Situ Monitoring of Laser Powder Bed Fusion. Additive
Manufacturing 16:35–48.
[225] Richter J, Jacobs P (1992) Accuracy. in Jacobs P, (Ed.) Rapid Prototyping &
Manufacturing, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, pp. 287–315.
[226] Rieder H, Spies M, Bamberg J, Henkel B (2016) On- and Offline Ultrasonic
Inspection of Additively Manufactured Components. 19th World Conference
on Non-Destructive Testing, 13–17.
[227] Rivas Santos VM, Thompson A, Sims-Waterhouse D, Maskery I, Leach RK,
Woolliams P (2018) Design and Characterisation of an Additive Manufactur-
ing Benchmarking Artefact Following a Metrology Approach. Additive
Manufacturing. in press.
[228] Roberts CE (2018) Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, USA.
[229] Roberts CE, Bourell D, Watt T, Cohen J (2016) A Novel Approach for Additive
Manufacturing of Commercial Aluminum Alloys. Physics Procedia 83:909–
917.
[230] Rodriguez E, Medina F, Espalin D, Terraraz C, Muse D, Henry C, MacDonald E,
Wicker RB (2012) Integration of a thermal imaging feedback control system
in Electron beam melting. Proceeding of SFF Symposium.
[231] Roehling TT, Wu SS, Khairallah SA, Roehling JD, Soezeri SS, Crumb MF,
Matthews MJ (2017) Modulating Laser Intensity Profile Ellipticity for Micro-
structural Control During Metal Additive Manufacturing. Acta Materialia
128:197–206.
[232] Romano S, Brückner-Foit A, Brandão A, Gumpinger J, Ghidini T, Beretta S
(2017) Fatigue Properties of Alsi10mg Obtained by Additive Manufacturing:
Defect-Based Modelling and Prediction of Fatigue Strength. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics 187:165–189.
[233] Rouholamin D, Hopkinson N (2014) An Investigation on The Suitability of
Micro-Computed Tomography as a Non-Destructive Technique to Assess the
Morphology of Laser Sintered Nylon Parts. International Journal of Precision
Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology 228:1529–1542.
[234] Sabourin E, Houser SA, Bohn JH (1996) Adaptive Slicing Using Stepwise
Uniform Refinement. Rapid Prototyping Journal 2:20–26.
[235] Safdar A, He HZ, Wei L-Y (2011) Effect Of Process Parameters Settings And
Thickness On Surface Roughness Of EBM Produced Ti-6Al-4V. Rapid Proto-
typing Journal 18:401–408.
[236] Savio E, De Chiffre L, Schmitt R (2007) Metrology of Freeform Shaped Parts.
CIRP Annals 56:810–835.
[237] Sbettega E, Zanini F, Benedetti M, Savio E, Carmignato S (2018) X-ray
Computed Tomography Dimensional Measurements of Powder Bed Fusion
Cellular Structures. Proceeding of euspen 467–468.
[238] Scaravetti D, Dubois P, Duchamp R (2008) Qualification of Rapid Prototyping
Tools: Proposition of a Procedure and a Test Part. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 38:683–690.
[239] Schild L, Kraemer A, Reiling D, Wu H, Lanza G (2018) Influence of Surface
Roughness on Measurement Uncertainty in Computed Tomography.iCT2018
Wels.
[240] Schmidt M, Merklein M, Bourell D, Dimitrov D, Hausotte T, Wegener K,
Overmeyer L, Vollertsen F, Levy GN (2017) Laser Based Additive Manufactur-
ing in Industry and Academia. CIRP Annals 66:561–583.
[241] Schwenke H, Neuschaefer-Rube U, Pfeifer T, Kunzmann H (2002) Optical
Methods for Dimensional Metrology in Production Engineering. CIRP Annals
51:685–699.
[242] Scime L, Beuth J (2018) A Multi-Scale Convolutional Neural Network for
Autonomous Anomaly Detection and Classification in a Laser Powder Bed
Fusion Additive Manufacturing Process. Additive Manufacturing 24:273–286.
[243] Scott PJ (2004) Pattern Analysis and Metrology: The Extraction of Stable
Features From Observable Measurements. Proceedings of the Royal Society
460:2845–2864.
[244] Se S, Pears N (2012) Passive 3D Imaging. in Pears N, Liu K, Bunting P, (Eds.) 3D
Imaging, Analysis and Applications, Springer.
[245] Sealy MP, Madireddy G, Li C, Guo YB (2016) Finite element modeling of hybrid
additive manufacturing by laser shock peening. Proceeding of SFF Symposium
306–316.
[246] Seifi M, Salem A, Beuth J, Harrysson O, Lewandowski JJ (2016) Overview of
Materials Qualification Needs for Metal Additive Manufacturing. JOM
68:747–764.
[247] Senin N, Thompson A, Leach RK (2017) Characterisation of the Topography of
Metal Additive Surface Features With Different Measurement Technology.
Measurement Science & Technology 28095003.
[248] Shah P, Racasan R, Bills P (2016) Comparison of Different Additive
Manufacturing Methods Using Optimized Computed Tomography. Case Stud-
ies in Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation 6:69–78.
[249] Shiomi M, Osakada K, Nakamura K, Yamashita T, Abe F (2004) Residual Stress
Within Metallic Model Made by Selective Laser Melting Process. CIRP Annals
53:195–198.
[250] Sidambe AT (2017) Three Dimensional Surface Topography Characterisation
of the Electron Beam Melted Ti6Al4V. Metal Powder Report 72:200–205.
[251] Simonelli M, Tuck C, Aboulkhair NT, Maskery I, Ashcroft I, Wildman RD,
Hague R (2015) A Study on the Laser Spatter and the Oxidation Reactions
During Selective Laser Melting of 316L stainless steel, Al-Si10-Mg, and Ti-6Al-
4V. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A 46:3842–3851.
[252] Sims-Waterhouse D, Piano S, Leach RK (2017) Experimental Comparison of
Photogrammetry for Additive Manufactured Parts With and Without Laser
Speckle Projection. Proceedings of SPIE—the International Society for Optical
Engineering 10329. 103290L1-7.
[253] Singh S, Ramakrishna S, Singh R (2017) Material Issues in Additive
Manufacturing: A Review. Journal of Manufacturing Process 25:185–200.
[254] Singh Rupal B, Jawad Qureshi A (2018) Geometric Deviation Modeling and
Tolerancing in Additive Manufacturing: A GD&T Perspective. 1st Conference of
NSERC Network for Holistic Innovation in Additive Manufacturing (HI-AM).
[255] Sintavia (2018) Quality Assurance - Is Data From In-situ Monitoring Similar to a
CT Scan?sintavia.com/ct-vs-qm-meltpool-data-case-study/.
 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700
[256] Slotwinski JA, Garboczi EJ, Hebenstreit KM (2014) Porosity Measurements
and Analysis for Metal Additive Manufacturing. Journal of Research of NIST
119:429–459.
[257] Slotwinski JA, Garboczi EJ, Stutzman PE, Ferraris CF, Watson SS, Peltz MA
(2014) Characterization of Metal Powders Used for Additive Manufacturing.
Journal of Research of NIST 119:460–493.
[258] Smith RJ, Hirsch M, Patel R, Li W, Clare AT, Sharples SD (2016) Spatially
Resolved Acoustic Spectroscopy for Selective Laser Melting. Journal of Mate-
rials Processing Technology 236:93–102.
[259] Sochalski-Kolbus LM, Payzant EA, Cornwell PA, Watkins TR, Babu SS, Dehoff
RR, Lorenz M, Ovchinnikova O, Duty C (2015) Comparison Of Residual
Stresses in Inconel 718 Simple Parts Made by Electron Beam Melting and
Direct Laser Metal Sintering. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A
46:1419–1432.
[260] Song L, Wang F, Li S, Han X (2017) Phase Congruency Melt Pool Edge
Extraction for Laser Additive Manufacturing. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 250:261–269.
[261] Spears TG, Gold SA (2016) In-process Sensing In Selective Laser Melting (SLM)
Additive Manufacturing Integrating Mater. Manufacturing Innovation 5:2.
[262] Spierings A, Schneider M (2010) Comparison of Density Measurement Tech-
niques for Additive Manufactured Metallic Parts. Rapid Prototyping Journal
17:380–386.
[263] Stavroulakis P, Chen S, Derlome C, Bointon P, Tzimiropoulos G, Leach RK
(2018) Rapid Calibration Tracking of Extrinsic Projector Parameters in
Fringe Projection Using Machine Learning. Optics and Lasers in Engineering
114:7–14.
[264] Stavroulakis PI, Leach RK (2016) Review of Post-Process Optical Form Me-
trology for Industrial-Grade Metal Additive Manufactured Parts. The Review
of Scientific Instruments 87041101.
[265] Stevinson B, Bourell DL, Beaman JJ (2006) Dimensional Stability During Post-
Processing of Selective Laser Sintered Ceramic Preforms. Virtual and Rapid
Prototyping 1:209–216.
[266] Stevinson BY, Bourell DL, Beaman JJ (2007) Freeform Fabrication of Non-
Metallic Objects by Selective Laser Sintering And Infiltration. Materials
Science Forum 561–565:817–820.
[267] Stevinson B, Bourell DL, Beaman JJ (2008) Over-Infiltration Mechanisms
in Selective Laser Sintered Si/SiC preforms. Rapid Prototyping Journal
14:149–154.
[268] Stolfi A, De Chiffre L (2018) Interlaboratory Comparison of a Physical and a
Virtual Assembly Measured by CT. Precision Engineering 51:263–270.
[269] Strano G, Hao L, Everson RM, Evans KE (2013) Surface Roughness Analysis,
Modelling and Prediction in Selective Laser Melting. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology 213:589–597.
[270] Tang Y, Zhao YF (2016) A Survey of the Design Methods for Additive
Manufacturing to Improve Functional Performance. Rapid Prototyping Journal
22:569–590.
[271] Thijs L, Verhaeghe F, Craeghs T, Humbeeck JV, Kruth J-P (2010) A Study of the
Microstructural Evolution During Selective Laser Melting of Ti-6Al-4V. Acta
Materialia 58:3303–3312.
[272] Thompson A, Maskery I, Leach RK (2016) X-ray Computed Tomography for
Additive Manufacturing: A Review. Measurement Science & Technology
27:72001.
[273] Thompson MK, Moroni G, Vaneker T, Fadel G, Campbell RI, Gibson I, Bernard
A, Schulz J, Graf P, Ahuja B, Martina F (2016) Design for Additive Manufactur-
ing: Trends, Opportunities, Considerations, and Constraints. CIRP Annals
65:737–760.
[274] Thompson A, Senin N, Giusca CL, Leach RK (2017) Topography of Selectively
Laser Melted Surfaces: a Comparison of Different Measurement Methods.
CIRP Annals 66:543–546.
[275] Thompson A, Senin N, Maskery I, Körner L, Lawes SDA, Leach RK (2018)
Internal Surface Measurement of Metal Powder Bed Fusion Parts. Additive
Manufacturing 20:126–133.
[276] Thompson A, Senin N, Maskery I, Leach RK (2018) Effects of Magnification and
Sampling Resolution in X-Ray Computed Tomography for the Measurement
of Additively Manufactured Metal Surfaces. Precision Engineering 53:54–64.
[277] Todhunter LD, Leach RK, Lawes SDA, Blateyron F (2017) Industrial Survey of
ISO Surface Texture Parameters. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Technology 19:84–92.
[278] Tolochko NK, Mozzharov SE, Yadroitsev IA, Laoui T, Froyen L, Titov VI, Ignatiev
MB (2004) Balling Processes During Selective Laser Treatment of Powders.
Rapid Prototyping Journal 10:78–87.
[279] Townsend A, Pagani L, Blunt LA, Scott PJ, Jiang X (2017) Factors Affecting the
Accuracy of Areal Surface Texture Data Extraction from X-ray CT. CIRP Annals
66:547–550.
[280] Townsend A, Pagani L, Scott P, Blunt LA (2017) Areal Surface Texture Data
Extraction from X-Ray Computed Tomography Reconstructions of Metal
Additively Manufactured Parts. Precision Engineering 48:254–264.
[281] Townsend A, Racasan R, Blunt L (2018) Surface-Specific Additive Manufactur-
ing Test Artefacts. Surface Topography: Metrology and Properties 6024007.
[282] Townsend A, Senin N, Blunt L, Leach RK, Taylor JS (2016) Surface Texture
Metrology for Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review. Precision Engineering
46:34–47.
[283] Trapp J, Rubenchik AM, Guss G, Matthews MJ (2017) In Situ Absorptivity
Measurements of Metallic Powders Dusing Laser Powder-Bed Fusion Addi-
tive Manufacturing. Applied Materials Today 9:341–349.
[284] Triantaphyllou A, Giusca CL, MaCaulay GD, Leach RK, Tomita B, Milne KA
(2015) Surface Texture Measurement For Additive Manufacturing. Surface
Topography: Metrology and Properties 3024002.
[285] Turner BN, Gold SA (2013) A Review of Melt Extrusion Additive Manufactur-
ing Processes: II. Materials, Dimensional Accuracy, and Surface Roughness.
Rapid Prototyping Journal 21:250–261.
699
[286] Vaithilingam J, Goodridge RD, Hague RJM, Christie SDR, Edmondson S (2016)
The Effect of Laser Remelting on the Surface Chemistry of Ti6al4V Compo-
nents Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 232:1–8.
[287] Vasinonta A, Beuth J, Griffith M (2000) Process Maps for Controlling Residual
Stress and Melt Pool Size in Laser-Based SFF Processes. Proceeding of SFF
Symposium 200–208.
[288] VDI/VDE 2630-1.2 (2010) Computed Tomography in Dimensional Metrology:
Influencing Variables on Measurement Results and Recommendations for Com-
puted-Tomography Dimensional Measurements.
[289] VDI/VDE 2630-1.3 (2011) Accuracy of Coordinate Measuring Machines: Com-
puted Tomography in Dimensional Measurement.
[290] Vetterli M, Schmid M, Knapp W, Wegener K (2017) New Horizons in Selective
Laser Sintering Surface Roughness Characterization. Surface Topography:
Metrology and Properties 3045007.
[291] Villarraga-Gómez H, Clark D, Smith ST (2016) Effect of the Number of
Radiographs Taken in CT for Dimensional Metrology. Proceeding of euspen.
[292] Vrancken B (2016) Study of Residual Stresses in Selective Laser Melting. Doctoral
thesis, KU Leuven.
[293] Vrancken B, Wauthle R, Kruth J-P, Van Humbeeck J (2013) Study of The
Influence of Material Properties on Residual Stress in Selective Laser Melting.
Proceeding of SFF Symposium 393–407.
[294] Wang X, Chou K (2015) Residual Stress in Metal Parts Produced by Powder-
Bed Additive Manufacturing Processes. Proceeding of SFF Symposium 1463–
1474.
[295] Wang Z, Denlinger E, Michaleris P, Stoica AD, Ma D, Beese AM (2017) Residual
Stress Mapping in Inconel 625 Fabricated Through Additive Manufacturing:
Method for Neutron Diffraction Measurements to Validate Thermomecha-
nical Model Predictions. Materials & Design 117:169–177.
[296] Wang D, Liu Y, Yang Y (2015) Theoretical and Experimental Study on Surface
Roughness of 316L Stainless Steel Metal Parts Obtained Through Selective
Laser Melting. Rapid Prototyping Journal 22:706–716.
[297] Warnett JM, Titarenko V, Kiraci E, Attridge A, Lionheart WRB, Withers PJ,
Williams MA (2016) Towards In-process X-ray CT for Dimensional Metrology.
Measurement Science & Technology 27:1–14.
[298] Weckenmann A, Estler T, Peggs G, McMurtry D (2004) Probing Systems in
Dimensional Metrology. CIRP Annals 53:657–684.
[299] Weimann V, Drescher P, Seitz H, Hansmann H, Bader R, Seyfarth A, Klinder A,
Jonitz-Heincke A (2018) Effects of Build Orientation on Surface Morphology
and Bone Cell Activity of Additively Manufactured Ti6Al4V Specimens.
Materials 11:915.
[300] White WD (1964) Pressure Roller and Method of Manufacture, US Patent
3,156,968.
[301] White D (2003) Ultrasonic Object Consolidation. US Patent 6,519,500.
[302] Witherell P, Herron J, Ameta G (2016) Towards Annotations and Product
Definitions for Additive Manufacturing. CIRP Annals 43:339–344.
[303] Wits WW, Carmignato S, Zanini F, Veneker THJ (2016) Porosity Testing
Methods for the Quality Assessment of Selective Laser Melted Parts. CIRP
Annals 65:201–204.
[304] Wohlers T (2018) Wohlers Report 2018, Fort Collins: Wohlers Associates.
[305] Wong H, Neary D, Jones E, Fox P, Sutcliffe C (2018) Pilot Capability Evaluation
of a Feedback Electronic Imaging System Prototype for In-process Monitoring
in Electron Beam Additive Manufacturing. The International Journal of Ad-
vanced Manufacturing Technology 1–14.
[306] Xiao J, Anwer N, Durupt A, Le Duigou J, Eynard B (2018) Information Exchange
Standards for Design, Tolerancing and Additive manufacturing: A research
Review. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing 12:495–
504.
[307] Xu F, Dhokia V, Colegrove P, McAndrew A, Williams S, Henstridge A, Newman
ST (2018) Realisation of a Multi-sensor Framework for Process Monitoring of
the Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing in Producing Ti-6Al-4V Parts. Interna-
tional Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 31:785–798.
[308] Yadroitsava I, Yadroitsev I (2015) Residual Stress in Metal Specimens Pro-
duced by Direct Metal Laser Sintering. Proceeding of SFF Symposium 614–625.
[309] Yadroitsev I, Gusarov A, Yadroitsava I, Smurov I (2010) Single Track Formation
in Selective Laser Melting of Metal Powders. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 201:1624–1631.
[310] Yadroitsev I, Surov I (2010) Selective Laser Melting Technology: From the
Single Laser Melted Track Stability to 3D Parts of Complex Shape. Physics
Procedia 5:551–560.
[311] Yang S, Zhao YF (2015) Additive Manufacturing-enabled Design Theory and
Methodology: A Critical Review. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 80:327–342.
[312] Yasa E, Kruth J-P, Deckers J (2011) Manufacturing by Combining Selective
Laser Melting and Selective Laser Erosion/Laser Re-melting. CIRP Annals
60:263–266.
[313] Zaeh MF, Branner G (2010) Investigations on Residual Stresses and Deforma-
tions in Selective Laser Melting. Production Engineering 4:35–45.
[314] Zang EE (1940) Vitavue Relief Model Technique US Patent 3,137,080.
[315] Zanini F, Carmignato S (2017) Two-spheres Method for Evaluating the Met-
rological Structural Resolution in Dimensional Computed Tomography. Mea-
surement Science & Technology 28114002.
[316] Zanini F, Carmignato S (2018) X-ray Computed Tomography for Measurement
of Additively Manufactured Metal Threaded Parts. Proceedinf of ASPE/euspen
Summer Topical Meeting.
[317] Zanini F, Pagani L, Savio E, Carmignato S (2019) Characterisation of Additively
Manufactured Metal Surfaces by Means of X-Ray Computed Tomography And
Generalised Surface Texture Parameters. CIRP Annals. in press.
[318] Zekavat AR, Jansson A, Gundlack C, Pejryd L (2018) Effect of X-Ray Computed
Tomography Magnification on Surface Morphology Investigation of Additive
Manufacturing Surfaces. Proceeding of 8th iCT.
700 R.K. Leach et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 68 (2019) 677–700

[319] Zekovic S, Dwivedi R, Kovacevic R (2005) Thermo-structural Finite Element
Analysis of Direct Laser Metal Deposited Thin-Walled Structures. Proceeding
of SFF Symposium 338–355.
[320] Zhang B, Duemmler M, Sripragash L, Adewumi O, Davies A, Zeigart J, Waters
C, Evans C (2018) Detection of subsurface defects for metal additive
manufacturing using flash thermography. Proceeding of ASPE/euspen);(July).
[321] Zhang B, Ziegert J, Farahi F, Davies A (2016) In Situ Surface Topography of
Laser Powder Bed Fusion Using Fringe Projection. Additive Manufacturing
12:100–107.
[322] Zhao C, Fezzaa K, Cunningham RW, Wen H, De Carlo F, Chen L, Rollett AD, Sun
T (2017) Real-time Monitoring of Laser Powder Bed Fusion Process Using
High-speed X-ray Imaging and Diffraction. Scientific Reports 7:3602.