Virtual and Physical Prototyping

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/nvpp20

A review on qualification and certification for

metal additive manufacturing

Ze Chen, Changjun Han, Ming Gao, Sastry Yagnanna Kandukuri & Kun Zhou

To cite this article: Ze Chen, Changjun Han, Ming Gao, Sastry Yagnanna Kandukuri & Kun Zhou
(2022) A review on qualification and certification for metal additive manufacturing, Virtual and
Physical Prototyping, 17:2, 382-405, DOI: 10.1080/17452759.2021.2018938

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2021.2018938

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 29 Dec 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12144

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 26 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nvpp20
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING
2022, VOL. 17, NO. 2, 382–405
https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2021.2018938

A review on qualification and certification for metal additive manufacturing

Ze Chena, Changjun Han b
, Ming Gaoa, Sastry Yagnanna Kandukuric and Kun Zhou a

a
Singapore Centre for 3D Printing, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore,
Singapore; bSchool of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of
China; cDNV Additive Manufacturing Centre of Excellence, Singapore, Singapore

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Metal additive manufacturing (AM) has tremendous potential for manufacturing geometrically Received 13 October 2021
complex metallic products with freedom of design and desirable performance. Qualification and Accepted 13 December 2021
certification are critical to ensuring the successful adoption of metal AM by various sectors and
KEYWORDS
accelerating the standardisation progress. This article provides a comprehensive review on the Additive manufacturing; 3D
status of standardisation and challenges for the qualification and certification of metal AM, printing; qualification;
which is a timely summary to bridge the readiness gap between metal AM technologies certification; standards
developed at academia and industry. It begins with introducing fundamentals of metal AM
qualification and certification. Thereafter, the status of standards, rules, and regulations
developed by international organisations and communities is summarised and discussed. The
challenges are then addressed, including the qualification and certification process, materials,
process reliability and repeatability, post-processing, data, and standards and protocols. Finally,
the conclusion and future outlook are drawn to provide guidance for future research and
development.

1. Introduction
Additive manufacturing or three-dimensional (3D)
printing is a disruptive technology that can provide
freedom of design and enable fabrication of custo-
mised or complex products through a layer-by-layer
fashion (Tian et al. 2017; Han et al. 2020; Li et al.
2021). It has been widely accepted and adopted in
industrial applications of aerospace, automotive, bio-
medical, energy, space, construction, electronics, and
marine and offshore, etc. (Abdulhameed et al. 2019).
According to an industrial insight report on the AM
market, the average annual growth of the AM market
was predicted to be over 20% in the next five years
(Wohler’s Associates 2020). Metal AM, which includes
directed energy deposition (DED), powder bed fusion
(PBF), binder jetting, and sheet lamination techniques,
plays an increasingly critical role in the AM industrial
market due to the superior overall performance of
toughness, strength, hardness, and wear and heat
resistance of metallic products as compared to those
of polymeric and ceramic counterparts (Sames et al.
2016; Lee, An, and Chua 2017; Bandyopadhyay,
Zhang, and Bose 2020).
Qualification and certification are critical steps for
production realisation and popularisation and appli-
cation of products (DebRoy et al. 2018). Qualification
can be defined as a process of evaluating a prototype
design, a material, and a product during their develop-
ment or testing. Items to be qualified can be techniques,
machines, materials, parts, or even suppliers. Certifi-
cation is predominantly established for the satisfaction
of a certification authority or organisation. Items to be
certified can be parts, components, systems, or the pro-
cesses of evaluating a material/product/component
during or at the end of development/production (DNV
GL 2017a; Bae, Diggs, and Ramachandran 2018). Qualifi-
cation and certification can be interchanged in most
cases, as both aim to meet specified requirements.
However, qualification focuses on whether a product is
designed or fabricated according to industrial require-
ments, while certification emphasises more on whether
deliverables (e.g. products) are satisfied by the authority.
There are three pillars under the qualification and cer-
tification scheme: standards, rules, and regulations. Stan-
dards are to satisfy various requirements from industrial,
trade, and consumer groups globally (Monzón et al.

CONTACT Changjun Han cjhan@scut.edu.cn School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou
510641, People’s Republic of China; Kun Zhou kzhou@ntu.edu.sg Singapore Centre for 3D Printing, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built
upon in any way.

2015). Typical organisations, which are working on metal
AM standards covering materials, processes, post-pro-
cesses, and inspections, include the ASTM International,
International Organization for Standardization (ISO),
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Aerospace
Materials Society (AMS), American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME), and American Welding Society (AWS)
(Seifi et al. 2017; Lee, Nagalingam, and Yeo 2021). The
developments of AM standards provide industrial guide-
lines for mutual understanding, clear communication,
accurate measurement, easy commerce, and robust
manufacturing.
Rules can be described as guidelines or industry prac-
tice, while regulations refer to the directives or statutes
enforced by the law. Both are guided by international
organisation standards and developed to fulfil regulat-
ory, technical, and safety requirements in certain
sectors. For example, aviation authorities like the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) developed their rules
and regulations for metal AM parts in the aerospace
sector (Singamneni et al. 2019). Because of the specificity
and complexity of aerospace products, their qualifica-
tion and certification protocols may not be applicable
to other industries. Therefore, some commercial organis-
ations, including the Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Bureau
Veritas (BV), Lloyd’s Register (LR), American Bureau of
Shipping (ABS), Underwriters Laboratories (UL), and
Technischer Überwachungsverein (TÜV SÜD) have
Figure 1. Overview of qualification and certification for metal AM.
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 383
been working on promoting specific standards and
rules and regulations for metal AM.
An overview of the qualification and certification for
metal AM is illustrated in Figure 1. The qualification
process is to demonstrate the ability to fulfil specified
metal AM requirements that may involve specification
review, design verification, feed stock, materials, manu-
facturing process follow-up, product testing and
inspection, and document preparation and review
etc. The certification process is to assure the compli-
ance with qualified parameters, standards, or specific
requirements that may involve unscheduled survey
of the metal AM process, testing and inspection,
verification of traceability, witnessing of test speci-
mens, verification of compliance to requirements, and
documentation of compliance in the form of a
certificate.
The feasibility of metal AM technology for target pro-
ducts should be primarily evaluated and qualified. Metal
AM opportunities may come from existing and new pro-
ducts, which will determine the selection of materials (e.g.
powders, wires, and sheets) and processes (e.g. PBF, DED,
binder jetting, and sheet lamination). The feasibility of the
existing products focuses on the direct printing for both
small batch production and bypassing for long supply
chain/lead time, the structure optimisation on lightweight
and non-assembly through redesign, and repair and rema-
nufacture. The design of the new products should be con-
sidered to achieve multiscale, multifunctional, and
384 Z. CHEN ET AL.
hierarchical structures with remarkable and desired
properties.
Technical specifications (e.g. topological optimis-
ation, part consolidation, part integration, ease to
repair, and material usage and recycle) can be estab-
lished by considering the technology capabilities and
productivities, while product design specifications can
be established according to product application require-
ments (e.g. hardness, toughness, strength, fatigue, cor-
rosion resistance, and wear resistance). The
characterisation and review of the materials should be
utilised for quality control. The operation procedure
and process parameters should be assessed according
to the technical requirements and product manufactur-
ing procedure specification. Then, sample testing for
consistency and robust production performance vali-
dation can be witnessed or proven for serial production
qualification during metal AM processes and post-pro-
cessing. Metal AM certification is a repetitive exercise
to certify the conformity of a single product or series
of product batches. The type of certification often
depends on the criticality of the component, which in
turn defines the involvement of certification require-
ments/activities, and thus building and bringing trust
to the product.
There are gaps in qualification and certification for
metal AM, such as standards that can support qualifying
and certifying various systems (Junghans et al. 2020).
Compared to conventional manufacturing processes,
the unified acceptance criteria for detecting metal AM
defects (e.g. non-destructive testing for cracks and por-
osity) have not been established yet. Particularly, the
metallurgical process complexities of metal AM make it
difficult to establish standards in a systematic and uni-
versal form (Frazier 2014). The American National Stan-
dards Institute (ANSI) and Additive Manufacturing
Standardization Collaborative (AMSC) have been trying
to address the qualification and certification gaps of
metal AM (Russell et al. 2019).
Currently, there are limited research works on the
qualification and certification of metal AM parts, and
most AM standards are still under development.
Several books briefly introduced the qualification of
metal AM from different aspects such as technical and
scientific challenges, materials, and processes (Chua,
Wong, and Yeong 2017; Bae, Diggs, and Ramachandran
2018; Dutta, Babu, and Jared 2019a). Mohsen et al. sys-
tematically reviewed the qualification and certification
of AM parts in the aerospace industry since 2016 (Seifi
et al. 2016; Russell et al. 2019; Singamneni et al. 2019).
In view of the rapid development of metal AM in
various industries and the increasingly significant role
of standardisation in AM, a timely summary of the
insightful works in this field is of great importance to
introduce and broadcast knowledge about qualification
and certification, which will bridge the readiness gap of
metal AM technologies between academia institutes
and industry.
This article aims to provide a comprehensive review
on the status of standardisation and challenges for the
qualification and certification of metal AM, and thus
propose frameworks as the qualification and certifi-
cation pathway for a broad range of industries. After a
brief introduction in Section 1, Section 2 summarises
the status of standards and the developments in rules
and regulations related to metal AM in representative
international organisations and discusses the gaps and
their approaches to fulfil qualification and certification.
Projects and application cases, which have been
qualified and certified by industries, are presented to
assess the benefits from standards, rules, and regu-
lations. In Section 3, qualification and certification frame-
works and cost-effective pathways are proposed to
accelerate the adoption of metal AM and manage
quality risk. Finally, Section 4 concludes with an
outlook on the challenges and opportunities in the
development of a robust qualification and certification
process for metal AM.
2. Qualification and certification
development
2.1. Standards development
ISO and ASTM are the leading developers of voluntary
international standards in the world and have been
playing critical roles in the development of AM stan-
dards. The two organisations established AM Commit-
tees ASTM F42 and ISO/TC 261 in 2009 and 2011,
respectively (ANSI 2011; Monzón et al. 2015). In 2011,
ISO and ASTM signed a cooperative agreement titled
Partner Standards Developing Organization (PSDO) to
eliminate the duplication of standards and maximise
resource allocation within the AM field (ASTM Inter-
national 2011). There are 28 active Joint Groups consist-
ing of experts nominated by the ISO/TC 261 and ASTM
F42 committees to develop international standards for
the AM field globally (Moroni, Petrò, and Shao 2020;
ISO 2021). Prioritised topics on the development of AM
standards by ISO/ASTM include the characterisation of
AM materials, test methods of mechanical properties
of AM parts, qualification principles, design guidelines,
feedstock recycling/reuse guidelines, round-robin
testing protocols, standard test artifacts, AM parts pro-
curement requirements, existing terminology standards
harmonisation, etc.
 VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 385

ISO/TC 261 and ASTM F42 have co-established a Table 1. Summary of published ISO/ASTM AM standards related
common structure that addresses their perspectives to metal AM (ASTM International 2020; ISO 2020).
and requirements for AM standards. The structure Published active ISO/AM standards
defines three levels of AM standards, Including the Simplified title with reflecting on
Topic Code standard scope
general, category, and specialised standards. The
Terminology ISO/ASTM General principles – Terminology
general standards specify basic concepts and general 52900:2015
requirements (terminology, data formats, qualification ISO/ASTM Coordinate systems and test
52921:2013 methodologies
guidance, system performance and reliability, design General principle ISO 17296- General principles – Part 2: Overview
guides, test methods, test artifacts, safety, inspection 2:2015 of process categories and feedstock
ISO 17296- General principles – Part 3: Main
methods, etc.), which are applicable to commonly used 3:2014 characteristics and corresponding
AM materials and processes and potential applications; test methods
ISO/ASTM General principles – Part 4: Overview
the category standards indicate requirements for a 52950:2021 of data processing
certain material type (e.g. powders, sheets, and wires) ISO/ASTM General principles – Requirements for
or a process category (e.g. PBF, DED, and binder 52901:2017 purchased AM parts
Materials and F2924-14 Ti6Al4V with PBF
jetting); the specialised standards refer to requirements processes F3001-14 Ti6Al4V ELI (Extra Low Interstitial)
for a particular material, process, or application (e.g. with PBF
F3049-14 Guide for characterising properties of
material-specific size/chemical specifications, process- metal powders used for AM
specific performance test methods, and industrial processes
F3055-14a Nickel alloy (UNS N07718) with PBF
sector specifications) (Naden 2016). F3056-14 Nickel alloy (UNS N06625) with PBF
Summaries of 28 published standards and 60 pro- F3184-16 Stainless steel alloy (UNS S31603)
with PBF
posed in-development standards related to metal AM F3187-16 Guide for DED of metals
by ISO/ASTM are listed in Tables 1 and A1, respectively F3213-17 Standard specification for Co28Cr6Mo
(ASTM International 2020). The standards of terminology via PBF
F3301-18a Standard specification for thermal
define and regulate AM terms to eliminate confusing post-processing metal parts made
jargon and allow for efficient and accurate communi- via PBF
F3302-18 Standard specification for titanium
cation globally within the AM ecosystem. The standards alloys via PBF
for general principles mainly cover all the fundamentals F3318-18 Specification for AlSi10Mg with PBF-
LB
of AM and define the minimum acceptance criteria for ISO/ASTM Installation/Operation and
materials and parts. They also guide the perspectives 52930:2021 performance qualification (IQ/OQ/
PQ) of Laser-Beam PBF equipment
of process categories and feedstock, main characteristics for production manufacturing
and test methods, data processing, and procurement. ISO/ Practice for metal PBF process to
Standardisation of materials and process is the priority ASTM52904- meet critical applications
19
to be established in the metal AM field, as indicated by 14 ISO/ASTM Methods to characterise metal
published and 9 proposed standards (Tables 1 and A1). In 52907:2020 powders
Design F3413-19 Guide for design – DED
particular, 11 published and 6 proposed standards are ISO/ Design – Requirements, guidelines
applicable to the PBF process; 1 published and 2 pro- ASTM52910- and recommendations
18
posed standards are applicable for the DED process. ISO/ Design – Part 1: Laser-based PBF of
Regarding AM materials, nickel and titanium alloys are ASTM52911- metals
1-19
the priority in standards development. Test methods F2971-13 Standard practice for reporting data
Standards for design contribute to determining the for test specimens prepared by AM
utilisation of design considerations in a project of F3122-14 Guide for evaluating mechanical
properties of metal AM materials
various metal AM processes. The design freedom of ISO/ASTM Test artifacts – Geometric capability
metal AM is subjected to the understanding of the limit- 52902-19 assessment of AM systems
Qualification ISO/ASTM Qualifying machine operators of laser
ations of materials and processes engaged. The stan- principle 52942:2020 metal PBF machines and
dards of design contain general principles and equipment used in aerospace
applications
recommendations of design, guidance for a specific Data ISO/ASTM Specification for AM file format (AMF)
printing process, AM file support for modeling, and 52915:2020 version 1.2
post-processing. These standards aim to provide gui-
dance for metal AM parts in the design of devices, com-
ponents, systems, products, etc.
Test methods are of great importance in the stan- assess the required incoming and unique deliverable
dards development of ISO/ASTM with 20 standards pub- features (e.g. feedstock powder/wire characterisation,
lished and under development for metal AM. They printed specimen location and orientation, test artifacts
386 Z. CHEN ET AL.
of geometric capability, non-destructive testing, and
evaluation of post-processing). Test method standards
define the minimum requirements specified in the
general principles and build the foundation of inspec-
tion for qualification, which are used to validate the per-
formance of AM products for assuring their quality
reliability and consistency.
There are a limited number of published standards on
the topics of qualification principle and data, as shown in
Table 1. The first qualification principle standard (ISO/
ASTM 52942:2020) regarding laser PBF machine oper-
ators for aerospace applications was published in 2020,
which opens the door to a healthy and robust ecosystem
of metal AM by the fulfilment of necessary industrial
requirements and evaluations. A total of seven qualifica-
tion-related standards are proposed and under develop-
ment, as depicted in Table A1, which cover the fields of
industrial AM sites and machine operators for specific
processes and applications.
The data-driven approach is promising for the metal
AM industrialisation due to digital 3D files and other
input data such as the control programme for printing.
Meanwhile, various measurements and sensing equip-
ment that are used for machines generate output data
as a record for quality control and further optimisation
feedback. The standardisation of the metal AM data eco-
system has attracted attention from industries. For
example, ISO/ASTM 52915 defines a specification for the
AM file format, which provides guidance on the prep-
aration, display, and transmission of files. Moreover,
other aspects of AM data, such as data formats, data regis-
tration, data pedigree, and data processing, are regulated
under six proposed standards listed in Table A1, by which
various huge volume data can be collected via a common
method. The proposed standards related to data topics
also provide guidance to process and organise different
AM data types, which enable their identification and
usage in downstream applications, including qualifica-
tion, certification, and analytics.
There is an increasing number of government insti-
tutes and commercial companies in collaboration with
ASTM and ISO for the development of metal AM stan-
dards. For example, ASTM and the British Standards Insti-
tution (BSI) collaborated to develop standards for DED
with the support from Innovate UK. Private companies
including Airbus, General Electric, Guest, Keen and Net-
tlefolds, British Aerospace Systems, and Rolls-Royce
have been participating in this collaboration to acceler-
ate the development of the standards (Rapid News Pub-
lications 2019). The three standards include a
specification for using wires as the feedstock for addres-
sing the key requirements of material chemistry, toler-
ance, contamination, packaging, handling, and storage;
a non-destructive testing standard, which aims to
address the common causes and nature of defects
during the DED process and the applicability of tra-
ditional test methods for DED; a wire arc additive manu-
facturing (WAAM) standard that covers terminology,
opportunities and restrictions of materials, geometry
constraints, inspection, and finishing requirements.
Some international and national/regional institutes
also devote themselves to the development of the stan-
dards for metal AM. In 2013, the Association of German
Engineers, also known as Verein Deutscher Ingenieure
(VDI) introduced one of the first standards for metal
AM, VDI 3405-2, with the scope of qualification, quality
assurance, and post-processing of laser beam melting
parts. Standards developed by VDI include some printa-
ble material datasheets (e.g. AlSi10Mg, Ti6Al4V, Inconel
718), printing processes, design recommendations, etc.
The German Institute for Standardization (DIN) is
actively promoting metal AM standardisation. There
are two joint working committees that have been devel-
oping metal AM standards under the DIN standards AM
section (NA 145-04 FB), i.e. interdisciplinary topics and
digitalisation (NA 145-04-01 AA) and joint working com-
mittee for metals (NA 145-04-02 GA). Being the German
mirror committee to the European Technical Commit-
tees CEN/TC 438 and ISO/TC 261, NA 145-04-01 AA
deals with terminology, testing, and related information
technology (e.g. data formats, digital data interfaces,
software architectures, and domain-specific digital tech-
nologies requirements) in metal AM (DIN 2021). NA 145-
04-02 GA is the German mirror committee to the inter-
national working group ISO/TC 261/JWG 5, which
focuses on the application of PBF, DED, and sheet lami-
nation (DIN 2021). DIN has published DIN SPEC 17071
which defines the requirements for AM manufacturing
centres (DIN 2019).
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Aerospace
Materials Specification Additive Manufacturing (AMS-
AM), a technical committee in SAE’s aerospace materials
system group, aims to develop and maintain aerospace
specifications and AM technical reports. The AM reports
include the precursor materials, printing processes, sys-
tematic demands, pre- and post-processing, quality
assurance, and non-destructive testing. The specifica-
tions for metal precursor materials and printed com-
ponents as well as processes with sufficient controls
and traceability for safety-critical parts are under devel-
opment (SAE International 2018). Figure 2 lists the stan-
dards published and under development by SAE AMS-
AM, and materials and processes are the priority in
their standardisation. Materials such as titanium alloy,
nickel alloy, and precipitation-hardening steel are tar-
geted for standardisation; laser PBF, electron beam

Figure 2. Standards published and under development by SAE AMS-AM (SAE International 2021).
PBF, laser wire DED, plasma arc DED, and post-proces-
sing are the focused processes of the committee. With
emphasis on consistency and reliability, SAE AMS has
established a comprehensive database on materials
and processes for conventional manufacturing, which
provides a solid foundation to develop metal AM stan-
dards by SAE AMS-AM.
A centre-level standard (MSFC-STD-3716) was pub-
lished by the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration (NASA) Marshall Space Flight Center in 2017,
which aims to establish the laser PBF process standard
practices. It has been used as the foundation of the
implementation of printing processes for AM parts in
human spaceflight programmes. Based upon the stan-
dard, an agency-level standard has been proposed for
other AM processes and is readily adaptable to all
NASA programmes. Figure 3 exhibits the topical
outline of general AM quality control requirements for
MSFC-STD-3716 (NASA 2017). It shows the general tech-
nical requirements, such as an AM control plan to govern
engineering and production practices from establishing
foundational processes to placing parts into service.
These practices together with an active quality pro-
cedure provide quality assurance. The control require-
ments of the foundational process for laser PBF
provide the benchmark for realising part design and pro-
duction reliability, including the qualification of pro-
cesses, equipment controls, personnel competency,
and material properties. The control requirements for
part production, which are representative in aerospace
industry operations, include controls for design and
assessment, part production plan, first article processes,
and production controls.
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 387
A subsequent specification, MSFC-SPEC-3717 pro-
vides a consistent framework for evaluating AM parts
during their development and production for spacefl-
ight applications (Williams and Butler-Jones 2019). It
contains requirements addressing material property
development, part classification, part process control,
part inspection and acceptance, qualification of laser
PBF metallurgical processes, equipment process
control, and personnel training. The two MSFC standards
allow for witness testing schemes based on individual
part acceptance and can be used as an ongoing statisti-
cal process control methodology for continuous oper-
ation paradigm for NASA hardware producers.
NASA recently published another Technical Standard,
NASA-STD-6030, which defines the minimum require-
ments for AM processes used in the design, fabrication,
and testing of spaceflight hardware for NASA (NASA
2021). This standard is applicable to both metals and
polymers, and metal AM technologies covered include
L-PBF and DED.
The standards developed via the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) focus on AM design,
including ASME Y14.46 and ASME Y14.47 (ASME 2017).
The former standard ASME Y14.46, Product Definition
for Additive Manufacturing, covers the features unique
to AM technologies and term definitions and rec-
ommends the unitive specifications for the definition
data sets of products, which involves subjects including
design, manufacturing, and quality engineering; the
latter standard ASME Y14.47 establishes a schema for
regulating 3D models and other associated information
within the context of digital product definition data sets
for the purpose of conveying a product definition, which
388 Z. CHEN ET AL.
Figure 3. Topical outline for MSFC-STD-3716 (NASA 2017).
is the foundation of design development in a model-
based enterprise. Additionally, ASME Y14.47 outlines
model organisation schema practices to support
model-based definitions and provides guidelines for
computer-aided design users. The schema is compliant
with an annotated model, which is defined in another
standard, Digital Product Definition Data Practices
(ASME Y14.41).
The American Welding Society (AWS) initiated the
D20 committee for the development of metal AM stan-
dards. Based on supply chain sectors, several task
groups were set under the committee, i.e. D20A/TG1,
D20B/TG2, D20C/TG3, D20E/TG5, and D20F/TG6 with
the scope of general requirements, material character-
istics, pre-qualification, fabrication, and inspection,
respectively. A published standard (AWS D20.1) has
already been used as an AM vendor qualification tool
by industries (AWS 2020). It provides the general require-
ments for the fabrication of metal components using
AM, which include the design, qualification, fabrication,
inspection, and acceptance of AM components.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) 20S Standard
has been designed to streamline and standardise the
AM qualification process and to create a framework for
the acceptance criteria for metallic materials in the oil
and gas industry (API 2021). The standardisation from
the API 20S task group was initiated by 90 members
from 51 organisations in various countries in the field
of AM, including end-users, original equipment manufac-
turers, AM machine manufacturers, AM feedstock manu-
facturers, and academic institutions. Along the lines of
the well-established and widely used product specifica-
tion levels in the oil and gas industry, a novel tiered
approach was formulated using the Additive Manufactur-
ing Specification Levels (AMSL) to facilitate the matching
of the appropriate qualification rigour to the required
level of application criticality. The tiered approach
covers AM process qualification, as-printed product qua-
lification, and product supplemental requirements. The
AMSL spans from Level 1 (least critical) to Level 3 (most
critical) to signify the increasing level of product techni-
cal, quality, and qualification requirements. In addition,
the API 20S task group has been actively working
towards the alignment with multiple AM standards and
specifications from ABS, DNV, ISO, ASTM, ASME, ANSI,
etc. (De Bernardi and Miller 2020).
 VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 389

Table 2. Testing items in the order of importance levels of AM quality consistency including raw materials, machine,
parts from GB/T 35022 (SAC, 2019). ‘+’, ‘0’, and ‘-’ mean operator, and parts (SSC 2020). Another Technical Refer-
compulsory testing, recommended testing, and unnecessary ence TR 92: 2021 released recently with the focus on
testing, respectively.
design guidelines for AM parts, with PBF for metal
Importance level
parts as the predominant process while including DED
Testing item High Middle Low
for comprehensiveness. TR 92 emphasis risk mitigation
Surface characteristics Appearance 0 0 0
Surface Roughness + 0 0 during design and pre-design stage for parts requires
Geometric Length & Angular + + + safety and reliability considerations (SSC 2021).
characteristics Tolerance
Geometric Tolerance + + + Other organisations are also actively involved in the
Mechanical Properties Hardness + + + development of metal AM standards for commercial
Tension + + +
Impact + + 0 and industrial purposes. For example, the National Addi-
Compression + + 0 tive Manufacturing Innovation Cluster Singapore
Bending + 0 0
Fatigue + 0 -
(NAMIC) supports standardisation activities of the
Creep + 0 - ASTM International through R&D activities to facilitate
Friction + 0 - the commercialisation of AM technologies in frontier
Shear + 0 0
Others Density + + + sectors such as aerospace, maritime and offshore, and
Physicochemical + 0 - logistics and fabrication. NAMIC joined the ASTM Inter-
national’s Global AM Center of Excellence as the first
strategic partner in Asia to address technical and scien-
The National Standardization Administration of China tific needs of qualification (NAMIC.sg 2018). In the elec-
(SAC) Technical Committee has been leading the devel- trical and electronics industry, a few international
opment of national AM standard construction guidelines associations have started to work on the standards and
since 2018. The first national AM standard released in guidelines of electronics made through AM. The Institute
China, GB/T 35022-2018, gives the guidance for test of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) developed
items, test methods, test reports, etc. This national stan- standards for data management, simulation, and test
dard applies to the testing of metal, plastic, and ceramic methods of printed electronics (America Makes and
parts prepared by AM processes as well as powder ANSI AMSC 2018). The Institute of Printed Circuits
materials. Metal AM parts are recommended to be (IPC)–Association Connecting Electronics Industries®
tested according to the importance levels of parts as pre- and the Japan Electronics Packaging and Circuits Associ-
sented in Table 2. High, middle, and low importance ation (JPCA) have collaborated to establish guidelines
levels indicate critical parts with safety priority consider- and standards for the design, material, and test
ation, functional parts without safety priority consider- method of AM electronics (Tan, Chua, and Tran 2016).
ation, and design evaluation prototype parts,
respectively. Parts at the high importance level will be
2.2. Rules and regulations development
tested for surface and geometric characteristics as well
as overall properties to minimise the risk of part usage, Qualification and certification organisations are essential
while parts at the low importance level will be tested in accelerating the commercialisation of metal AM tech-
with specific properties such as tolerance, hardness, niques into industries by providing various types of ser-
tension, and density, according to the effective cost for vices, such as feasibility evaluation, training and
design evaluation and prototypes (SAC 2019). consultancy, quality management system accreditation,
Singapore Standard Council (SSC) Manufacturing testing and audit, and survey. The organisations can
Standards Committee has been leading the develop- safeguard the reliability of the industrial application of
ment of AM guidelines and standards since 2019. The metal AM through releasing rules and regulations to
first Technical Reference TR 70: 2019 was published to qualify or certify materials, structural design, equipment,
provide guidelines for metal product process selection processes, and products. The class programmes, class
between conventional manufacturing and AM, which guidelines, advisory notes, and guidance notes, which
helps the industry to determine the suitability and are typically involved in rules and regulations, are devel-
justify the benefits and limitations of engaging AM for oped and published for elaborating standards to specific
new or redesigned manufacturing process (SSC 2019). industries. Type approval, certificate of conformity, and
The standard SS 666: 2020 for qualification of parts approval of manufacturer are used to describe
printed by metal AM was published to provide a frame- different types of accreditation for qualification and cer-
work with part classification and qualification require- tification under the class scheme, which originated from
ments for metal AM processed part with the aim of marine insurers classifying the conditions of ships (IACS
390 Z. CHEN ET AL.
2011). The type approval or certificate of conformity is
issued to a product that can meet regulatory, technical,
and safety requirements. The approval of manufacturer
confirms that the service providers/suppliers are in com-
pliance with the international standards, regulations, or
recognised rules for proof of high quality and safety
standards.
Being one of the biggest classification and certifi-
cation societies for AM products approval, DNV is
actively providing different services related to the assur-
ance of AM based on their extensive involvement in
energy, marine and offshore, and other allied industries
globally. DNV has conducted feasibility and pilot studies
on metal AM products and established several rules and
regulations, which include two class programmes, one
class guideline, and one specific standard.
The first class programme (DNVGL-CP-0267) includes
the requirements of approval requests, documentation,
approval scope and limitations, approval testing,
quality control, and process verification. This programme
is applicable for the manufacturers and sub-suppliers of
AM materials and products (DNV GL 2017a). The
second class programme (DNVGL-CP-0291) specifies the
requirements that the manufacturers should comply
with to obtain certificates for the manufacture of
Figure 4. DNV AM certification process flow (DNV GL 2017a).
feedstock in the form of powder or wire, including
steel-based materials (e.g. high-strength steel, austenitic
stainless steel, and duplex steel), aluminium, copper,
nickel, and titanium alloys (DNV GL 2019).
The class guideline (DNVGL-CG-0197) offers a frame-
work for the approval and certification of materials, com-
ponents, and products and is relevant to AM materials
suppliers and service providers as well as end-users
adopting AM in the maritime industry.
The specific standard (DNVGL-ST-B203) presents an
internationally acceptable quality management frame-
work for the quality consistency of AM parts for the oil
and gas industry. Furthermore, this standard can be
employed as a guide to establish quality procedures,
identify essential parameters, and specify requirements
and guidance on the qualification of metal AM products.
Figure 4 illustrates the certification pathway devel-
oped under the rules and regulations of DNV for AM pro-
ducts in the energy as well as marine and offshore
industries (DNV GL 2017a). The qualification or certifi-
cation requests may come from AM service providers,
product owners, or end-users. The request evaluation
always starts from the design review of a 3D model
with the approval of design or type approval as the
first deliverable. In most cases, technology assessment

is necessary for AM stakeholders for market access to
identify the potential failure modes. Then, a parallel
activity for the qualification of feedstock can be carried
out to obtain the type approval of feedstock certificate.
AM manufacturers should go through initial qualification
before production, which includes build process qualifi-
cation, printing and post-processing, and evaluation
and testing. The approval of AM manufacture compli-
ance certificate can be obtained based on the assess-
ment of AM workshop during the initial qualification.
For AM with sufficient production readiness, the assess-
ment of AM components or parts should be carried out
by testing of the material and product properties, such
as the functionality test or pressure test. Certificate with
the approval of manufacturer and 3.2 certificate (state-
ment of compliance issued by inspector designated by
the official regulations under European standard EN
10204) for non-class could be obtained based on 3.1 cer-
tificate (statement of compliance issued by authorised
inspection representative by the manufacturer under
European standard EN 10204) and function testing.
There is a systematic pathway for the approval and
certification of AM-related processes and products in
DNV. The latest published service specification (DNVGL-
SE-0568) describes the qualification management
Figure 5. BV certification scheme for products made by WAAM (BV 2018).
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 391
services related to the qualification of AM manufacturers,
service providers, and AM parts specified in DNVGL-ST-
B203 (DNV GL 2021).
BV offers a voluntary certification scheme to address
the challenges of quality, safety, and environmental per-
formance in the AM field. An AM rule published by BV
(NI662 DT R00 E 2019) describes a certification scheme
of WAAM products, including scope, activities, and deli-
verables for the usage of ships and offshore units
(Figure 5) (BV 2019). The scope involves the raw material
suppliers and manufacturers of AM. The certification of
the raw material supplier applies to the type approval
and periodical control tests of wires used in WAAM for
high-strength steel, austenitic and austenitic-ferritic
stainless steel, martensitic stainless steel, and aluminium
bronze. The type approval certificate can be issued when
the raw material supplier completes the approval tests
satisfactorily. The certificate of recognition can be
achieved by review and audit on an organisation’s man-
agement structure, quality system, quality manual, and
documented procedures (BV 2018).
Under NI662 DT R00 E, the documents of product
design, such as design drawings, material technical spe-
cification, part technical specification, and calculation
notes, should be submitted for design review. Process
392 Z. CHEN ET AL.
approval certification starts with a preliminary AM pro-
cedure specification prepared by a manufacturer,
which should be submitted to BV for review and wit-
nessed by the surveyor prior to testing. Thereafter, the
preliminary AM procedure specification is approved as
a final specification of all the parameters that character-
ise the WAAM process. The certification of products
should be carried out individually or per batch according
to the product category pre-defined at the design stage.
For products tested with satisfactory results, a certificate
will be issued with the endorsement from surveyors.
ABS has developed guidance notes for the AM qualifi-
cation process, which can be categorised into the stages
of feasibility, verification, pre-production validation, and
production (ABS 2018). At each stage, ABS reviews a pro-
posed cradle-to-grave file, which is the data package
specifying the entire design, production, inspection,
and testing information for an AM part. The aim of the
feasibility stage is to assess if AM processes can theoreti-
cally produce a part that can meet the design require-
ments. Therefore, the feasibility evaluation focuses on
how the initial cradle-to-grave file is populated and
reviewed at a high level. The verification stage aims to
fulfil a thorough review of the cradle-to-grave file con-
tents, including part design, material properties,
testing and inspection criteria, AM process details,
witness/hold points, and final part applications. The
pre-production validation stage aims to conduct,
monitor, and review the processes stated in the verifica-
tion stage. The printing of production parts, reference
parts, test samples, and test artifacts is performed
according to agreed procedures and monitored to
show repeatability within assigned values and toler-
ances. The adequate completion of testing and inspec-
tion regimen ensures the process qualification. The
cradle-to-grave file will be converted to a qualified
status after satisfactory completion of the manufactur-
ing, testing, and inspection. Finally, the purpose of the
production stage is to set up a robust monitoring and
quality control plan. The maintenance of a qualified
AM process requires gathering and analysing all record-
able parameter data indicated in the qualified cradle-to-
grave file. The whole qualification process is managed
on a project basis with clear deliverable targets in the
predetermined timeline, which is cost-effective for the
emerging metal AM qualification.
LR and The Welding Institute have worked in partner-
ship to update their guidance notes for the certification
of products produced by AM processes and the qualifica-
tion of AM facilities since 2016. The latest guidance notes
for AM certifications developed by the partnership were
published in 2020 (LR and TWI 2020), including the qualifi-
cation of metal AM facilities and processes and the
certification of materials and parts. AM processes
covered by the guidance notes are electron beam PBF,
laser PBF, laser DED, and WAAM. The guidance notes
provide a modular approach for the certification of metal
AM segments (e.g. design, material supply, printing
process, post-processing, and inspection), which can facili-
tate the qualification of each segment. Thereafter, parts are
released with an affirmative certificate (LR and TWI 2020).
TÜV SÜD is a German testing and certification organ-
isation. TÜV SÜD certification framework provides three
types of AM certification, i.e. production workflow certifi-
cation, production facility certification, and product
approval and certification. The production workflow cer-
tification contains design, manufacturing process, and
regulatory conformity to ensure the manufacturability
and reliability of AM products are within defined specifi-
cations. The production facility certification aims to
evaluate and certify industrial production sites that
provide AM services. The product approval and certifi-
cation ensure the AM processes and products to
conform with the industrial standards, rules, and techni-
cal requirements (TÜV SÜD 2018).
UL is a global safety certification company and has
published one specific standard for AM, addressing the
environmental, health, and safety concerns from the
facility and material aspects. One specific standard, UL
3400, aims to provide guidance on the investigation of
AM facility safety management. This standard indicates
the various hazards associated with materials, equip-
ment, and facilities e.g. fire, explosion, and toxic
exposure. It also includes recommendations for the
design, installation, and maintenance of powder-based
AM facilities. This specific standard has been utilised as
the basis of AM testing and certification programmes
for AM facility safety management (UL Standards 2020).
In addition to the publications developed by qualifica-
tion and certification organisations, there are numerous
programmes, codes, practice benchmarks, industrial spe-
cifications, and handbooks under development as sup-
plementary documents that support metal AM rules
and regulations. The qualification and certification organ-
isations not only adopt international standards devel-
oped by ISO/ASTM as references but also develop
further guidelines/specifications for specific products
and the applications in marine & offshore, oil & gas, trans-
portation & mobility, engineering, and healthcare.
3. Current challenges and frameworks
3.1. Challenges
The identified challenges of metal AM progression are in
the aspects of education, design, materials, in-situ

monitoring, post-processing, repeatability, traceability,
standards, etc. (Thomas-Seale et al. 2018). Most of the chal-
lenges, except for education, hinder the qualification and
certification of metal AM. For example, there is no single
software tailored for design, simulation, build preparation,
build process, and final inspection, hence the fragmented
software is one of the biggest obstacles to form an inte-
grated metal AM ecosystem. Table 3 shows the main chal-
lenges of metal AM qualification and certification.
The primary challenge for qualification and certifi-
cation is that the process to qualify and certify various
metal AM applications is not well established. This chal-
lenge burdens commercial organisations with high cost
and prolonged lead time due to inadequate types and
quantity of standards/rules/regulations. For example,
AM projects with a significant amount of testing and
survey for qualification and certification may cost up to
millions of dollars in approximately a two-year time
frame (Tryon et al. 2020). Different industries have
experienced dissimilar stages of challenges in the qualifi-
cation and certification process. For example, the
Table 3. Challenges of metal AM qualification and certification
(NIST 2013; Go et al. 2017; Bae, Diggs, and Ramachandran
2018; Melia et al. 2020; Panwisawas, Tang, and Reed 2020;
Swerim 2020).
Item Description
Qualification and Guidelines currently not standardised (types
certification process and quantity not defined) High cost and
prolonged lead time. Lack of rules and
regulations for wide variation applications.
Materials Lack of standard specifications for material
characterisation: flowability of powders;
particle size distribution of powders; wire
filament requirements; recycling of used
powders criteria; material characteristics,
process printability, and product quality
requirement.
Process reliability and Lack of deep understanding of metallurgical
repeatability physical and chemical reaction basis: heat
source powder interactions; hierarchical
microstructure; heat transfer and
vaporisation; defect formation; quantitative
metallography; in-situ monitoring on real-
time closed-loop process control. Non-
standardised equipment.
Post-processing Lack of technical solutions for inner channels
post-processing. Lack of post-processing
specification requirements (e.g. heat
treatment).
Data Lack of databases for the process–
microstructure–property relationship, open
databases including historical and statistical
performance and developed materials
properties, information to capture printing
process data, and pedigree data including
existing processes and printing history,
process control, and materials.
Standards and protocols Limited available qualification standards; lack
of protocol for round-robin testing on
materials and products; incomplete
inspection and test standards, insufficient
non-destructive evaluation techniques for
complex parts.
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 393
aerospace industry is rapidly growing with early metal
AM adoption, benefiting from existing rigorous quality
frameworks and multiple well-established standards for
AM qualification and certification (Williams and Butler-
Jones 2019); oil & gas and marine industries are still at
an early stage and utilise metal AM as an alternative sol-
ution to fabricate non-critical parts with a few newly
released standards/rules/regulations (Section 2.2) (Siree-
sha et al. 2018); healthcare and biomedical industries are
tightly associated with the physical safety of human
beings, and standards/rules/regulations for commercial
qualification and certification are still under develop-
ment (Yeong and Chua 2013; Javaid and Haleem 2018).
Challenges on the qualification and certification of
materials originate from their development, insufficient
characterisation techniques, and a lack of applicable
standard specifications (NIST 2013). Only a few standard
specifications have been developed for several powder
materials such as Ti6Al4V, Inconel 718, Inconel 625,
and 316L (Table 1 and Figure 2) for the PBF process.
Powder characteristics such as the degree of sphericity,
particle size distribution, chemical composition, and
flowability have a crucial impact on the printability and
the quality of the products. However, there is a lack of
rigorous and comprehensive understanding on the
relationship between material characteristics, printing
processes, and final product quality for the qualification
and certification of materials.
Challenges on the reliability and repeatability of
metal AM processes are ascribed to their point-by-
point, line-by-line, and layer-by-layer fashions to print
a part, which is significantly different from conventional
processes (e.g. casting, powder metallurgy, and forging)
(Feucht et al. 2020). The complicated metallurgical
process with multiple physical and chemical reactions
during the printing of each layer brings great difficulty
in the consistency of each printable layer (DebRoy
et al. 2018; Panwisawas, Tang, and Reed 2020). There-
fore, process control and feedback are crucial to the
reliability and repeatability of metal AM products.
Other factors, such as inadequate in-situ real-time moni-
toring, non-standardised equipment, and the gap of
high-throughput scaled-up manufacture bring greater
challenges for the process control (Go et al. 2017;
Melia et al. 2020). Several challenges have been ident-
ified regarding the implementation of in-situ monitoring
in AM processes. Major challenges include the selection
of the optical and lighting system, the creation of a
speckled pattern, the issue of high radiation especially
in DED and PBF processes, significant particle projection
during DED, the difficulty in camera position in PBF
(Cunha, Santos, and Xavier 2021), and the dynamics of
keyhole pore formation (Huang et al. 2021).
394 Z. CHEN ET AL.
A lack of the specifications of post-processing, includ-
ing heat treatments, surface finish, and the removal of
supporting structures, leads to challenges in the reliable
usage of the final metal AM products. A heat treatment
specification can achieve a stable microstructure that
results in the steady service performance of a product,
which has not been standardised for metal AM products.
The surface finish for complex parts, especially for their
inner surface areas and the removal of supporting struc-
tures on the printed parts are challenging and need
standardised specifications (Williams 2018).
The lack of a valid database for the process-micro-
structure-property relationship burdens the progress of
the qualification and certification. Challenges emerging
within the metal AM ecosystem include the reliability
of open-source data (e.g. the performance of the devel-
oped materials and the statistical and historical perform-
ance records of part service), the collection of non-
standardised process data (e.g. printing and post-pro-
cessing parameters), and the lack of specifications to
establish pedigree database (e.g. materials character-
istics, process control, process and fabrication history,
and part properties) (Swerim 2020).
Standards and protocols are lacking in the qualifica-
tion and certification of printing processes, equipment,
materials, and printed parts. Standards are commonly
taken as reference or guidelines, while protocols set
compulsory requirements. Most metal AM processes
are still at the early stage of development, and inter-
national standards organisations and committees (such
as ISO/ASTM) need a long time to investigate and stan-
dardise the processes with tremendous efforts. The pro-
tocol of round-robin testing (a set of independent tests
to determine the reproducibility of a test method and
the reliability of a product or a process) for metal AM,
which is indispensable for various processes and equip-
ment in the qualification of functional parts, has not
been established. The defects in metal AM parts, such
as cracks, porosity, lack of fusion, inclusions, and residual
stresses, may reduce the mechanical performance of
printed products (e.g. low strength and elongation due
to porosity, inclusions, and cracks as well as distortion
due to residual stresses) (Lewandowski and Seifi 2016;
Sames et al. 2016). Unfortunately, limitations of detec-
tion techniques (e.g. non-destructive testing) for
complex, dense, or large structures hinder the establish-
ment of inspection standards for the defect detectability
of the printed parts (Dutton et al. 2020).
3.2. Quality frameworks
Quality frameworks have been developed by metal AM
communities to mandate a consistent and integrated
approach to guarantee and deliver quality services with
essential requirements by addressing challenges proac-
tively. Well-established frameworks enable various
organisations in the metal AM value chain (e.g. design &
simulation services, materials suppliers, service bureaus
of printing, original equipment manufacturers, post-pro-
cessing providers, sub-suppliers of hardware and soft-
ware) to identify current issues, adopt the best practice,
and implement continuous improvement along with
metal AM technology evolution.
3.2.1. QMS framework
ISO 9001 is the most extensively adopted quality man-
agement system (QMS) for the manufacturing industry,
thus being employed in metal AM for quality assurance
and production consistency. Additionally, there are
some other QMSs to match upstream and downstream
organisations for metal AM particularly in the aerospace
and biomedical industries (e.g. AS 9100 and ISO 13485)
(Gibbons and Van der Merwe 2019). According to the
ISO 9001 standard, there are seven sections to be estab-
lished for a QMS framework of metal AM, i.e. the context
of organisation, leadership and commitment, planning,
support, operation, performance evaluation, and con-
tinuous improvement (ISO 2016; Chua, Wong, and
Yeong 2017).
The context of metal AM organisation consists of
external and internal factors. The external factors
include technology advancements and limitations, the
market of interest, the economy, and existing industry
infrastructure, etc. The internal factors consist of
product and service offering, values, assets (e.g. facilities
and equipment), and resource and knowledge capabili-
ties. For the establishment of the QMS framework for
metal AM in an organisation, there are still abundant
technological challenges on materials, process reliability
and repeatability, post-processing, and data (listed in
Table 3). Thus, innovation and internal research and
development are crucial to the context of the organis-
ation. The internal factors should be seamlessly linked
with the external factors by collaborating with industrial
specification development communities (e.g. NASA,
AMS, AWS, and API) to clarify the challenges in metal
AM production.
Leadership and commitment from the top manage-
ment are critical for metal AM organisations to sustain-
ably invest in the knowledge of machine, process and
materials, design, inspection and testing, product per-
formance analysis along with a continuous funding on
hardware, software, and human resources. The
implementation of metal AM technology requires a
prudent integration of available interdisciplinary collab-
orations and resources to establish the QMS framework

through the effective leadership and commitment
within an organisation (Srivatsan and Sudarshan 2015).
For example, in the biomedical industry, a deep under-
standing on intrinsic interactions between materials
and AM processes is essential to bringing about
effective cooperation between engineers and biologists,
which can be realised through strong leadership within
an organisation or between different organisations. In
addition, the top management should satisfy customer
needs while identifying risks and opportunities, as well
as initiate, implement and disseminate quality policies.
The primary purpose of planning is to address risks and
opportunities for metal AM QMS, which are consistent
with the context of organisation and expectations from
customers. Risks are associated with the challenges in
metal AM, such as inaccurate and inefficient design
tools represented via some file formats (e.g. standard tes-
sellation language) and defects derived from insufficient
process control and inspection techniques (Dutta, Babu,
and Jared 2019b). Strategies used to deal with these
risks can include risk avoidance by proper design evalu-
ation, risk elimination by improving the process control,
changing the consequences by developing suitable
inspection techniques, etc. Opportunities in metal AM
come from the desirable potential to address the
demands of organisations and their customers, which
can lead to adopting new practices, launching new pro-
ducts, searching for new customers, establishing partner-
ships, and realising research and development
innovation. Other purposes of planning include establish-
ing quality objectives and proposing changes.
Internal and external resources are determined and
provided by organisations to support the metal AM
QMS with the consideration of capabilities and con-
straints. Internal existing resources (e.g. personal com-
petency and infrastructure) may become constraints in
Figure 6. A PDCA cycle integrated with metal AM.
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 395
most organisations that adopt metal AM as a new
technology, such as the resistance from engineers
and designers who prefer traditional manufacturing
methods. These constraints can be converted to the
capabilities of the organisations by introducing metal
AM as a supplementary technology to overcome the
drawbacks of the traditional methods. External
supporting resources (e.g. hardware and software,
training, and consultancy) can be obtained to establish
personal competency and infrastructure capability pro-
gressively along with organisation development in
different stages.
The plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle is another frame-
work to help an organisation with QMS. Figure 6 depicts
the four stages of ‘plan’, ‘do’, ‘check’, and ‘act’ in the
context of metal AM to maintain the product quality
and customer satisfaction. In the PDCA cycle, the feasi-
bility evaluation of metal AM in the plan stage should
be primarily conducted based on available resources,
existing regulations to fulfil certain specifications (e.g.
technology feasibility, design evaluation, and technical
requirement negotiation). Subsequently, applicable AM
equipment, materials, and post-processing should be
selected with the consideration of the risks and opportu-
nities. Corrective actions (e.g. failure analysis on metal
AM defects) should be taken when nonconformities of
product performance occur, or negative customer feed-
back is received. An integrated PDCA cycle enables the
improvement of metal AM processes with robustness
and the reduction of defects in final products.
3.2.2. Qualification and certification framework
In the field of metal AM, a qualification and certification
framework that is utilised to identify processing factors
and their influences on product performance can be
developed by metal AM experts from external parties
396 Z. CHEN ET AL.
to professionalise the QMS of metal AM and control risks.
The qualification and certification framework that con-
sists of specific standards, rules, and regulations for
industrial applications is essential to ensure that the pro-
ducts can be designed and manufactured according to
the standardised requirements of metal AM. Table 4
summarises the critical aspects (e.g. technology,
design, materials, printing processes, post-processing,
and inspection and testing), which are required to be
established within the qualification and certification fra-
mework of metal AM as well as their scope and activities,
related standards/rules/regulations, and deliverable
documentation. It provides potential practical
approaches to address the challenges of metal AM qua-
lification and certification (shown in Section 3.1).
The technology of metal AM brings uncertainties that
imply risks to developers, manufacturers, vendors, oper-
ators, and end-users (DNV GL 2013). Technology qualifi-
cation provides a systematic approach to ensure
traceability throughout a technology, which is deter-
mined by functions, targets, and expectations of the rel-
evant failure modes, qualification activities, and
evidence; technology assessment is to determine the
elements that require technology qualification and to
identify the key challenges and uncertainties of engaging
metal AM. A fulfilment approach (DNVGL-RP-A203) devel-
oped by DNV for the qualification and assessment of
novel technology can be potentially applied to metal
AM. The approach provides key documentation required
during the qualification of metal AM, including the com-
position of the technology and sub-system, risk assess-
ment with the specification of personnel competence
and failure mode register, qualification evidence, the
description and justification of methods applied in qua-
lification activities, system reliability, etc.
The design for metal AM should fulfil functional, tech-
nical, and quality requirements from customers, as well
as specific statutory and regulatory requirements (Dura-
kovic 2018). Design qualification and approval (e.g.
potential failure modes, consequences, and likelihood)
are required to assess the requirements of specific appli-
cations before finalising the design intent and material
specification (LR and TWI 2020). Standards, rules, or
regulations developed by ISO/ASTM (52910, 52911,
F3413), ASME (Y14.46, Y14.47), DNV (CP-0267), and LR
(TWI Guidance notes) can be used as a benchmark for
the guidance and assessment of the design. The docu-
mentation for the design qualification consists of
defined design requirements, part geometry and calcu-
lations, engineering models, inspection and test plans,
printing layout, and risk analysis.
The materials for metal AM are mainly in the form of
wire, powder, or sheet, which should fulfil the design
specification, properties for functional applications,
and printing process requirements. Material qualification
and certification address the challenge of the character-
isation of feedstocks. There have been a few standards
available for the characterisation of materials in the
aspects of chemistry, morphology, density, particle size
distribution, and flowability (shown in Table 4). A fulfil-
ment approach integrates these existing standards to
aid the qualification and certification of material charac-
terisation for metal AM. For instance, wire feedstock sub-
jected to type approval can be tested according to
manufactures’ specifications for the chemistry, dimen-
sion, and mechanical properties of printed samples (BV
2019). The related documentation includes material spe-
cification and safety data sheets, certification of confor-
mity, and testing reports.
The printing processes focus on operations (e.g.
installation of equipment and accessory facilities, per-
sonal training, and facility control) and printing activities
(e.g. printing parameter setting, sample and part print-
ing, in-process monitoring). The qualification of printing
processes can be divided into two sub-stages, i.e. facility
accreditation and printing activities qualification, which
could be qualified simultaneously or individually. Facility
accreditation is for AM service bureaus, especially new
startups without production orders. The approval of
manufacturers for metal AM production is a kind of
schemes to accredit the facility and printing activities
seamlessly. For instance, the approval of manufacturer
scheme from DNV (CP-0346) is a classification society’s
programme to verify manufacturers’ ability to consist-
ently manufacture materials and products according to
the related specifications and rule requirements (DNV
GL 2016). Typical documentation to support the printing
process qualification includes QMS certificates, materials
stock and handling procedures, manufacturing pro-
cedures, and personal training records.
The post-processing of metal AM products mainly
refers to heat treatment, surface finishing, and perform-
ance improvement (Kumbhar and Mulay 2018). The qua-
lification of post-processing is required to ensure the
final product performance. Only a few existing standards
are available, such as AMS 7000, which focuses on HIP for
L-PBF parts. ISO/ASTM have been developing standards
on methods and requirements of post-processing for L-
PBF parts. The approach for fulfilling the qualification of
post-processing with limited standards is more flexible
as compared to that for fulfilling printing process qualifi-
cation. For instance, end-users can define post-processing
requirements, and suppliers can establish post-processing
methodology for the approval of the end-users.
Inspection and testing are the most important aspect
during the establishment of the qualification and
 VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 397

Table 4. Critical aspects of qualification and certification for metal AM (IACS 2011; DNV GL 2013, 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2021; BV 2019).
Critical
aspects Scope and activities
Technology Technology assessment. Technology
qualification.
Design Statutory and regulatory requirements.
Functional, technical and quality
requirements. Potential failure modes,
consequences and likelihood of failure due
to the application requirements.
Materials Feedstock materials (e.g. powder or wire).
Supporting materials (e.g. base material,
additives for composite alloy, gases).
Printing Facility audit (AM equipment, supporting
process system) and facility control (QMS, facility
procedures, work instructions,
manufacturing control). Personal
competency. Printing parameters.
Qualification sample and part builds. In-
process monitoring. Requalification.
Post- Removal from build space. Heat treatment.
processing Build platform separation. Mechanical
finishing.
Inspection Direct inspection. Process qualification.
and testing Mechanical testing. Metallurgical testing.
Non-destructive examination. Control of
non-conforming items. Acceptance of
deviations. Corrective and preventive
actions.
Standards, rules and regulations
Standards for data (ISO/ASTM 52915).
Recommended practice for technology
assessment and qualification (DNVGL-RP-
A203).
General design principle (ISO/ASTM52910,
ISO/ASTM52911-1, ASME Y14.46, ASME
Y14.47). DED (F3413). DNVGL-CP-0267,
TWI-LR guidance notes.
Apparent density (ISO 3923-1/-2, ASTM B212,
B329, B417). Tap density (ISO 3953, ASTM
B527). Flowability (Hall flowmeter, ISO
4490 or ASTM B213; Carney flowmeter,
ASTM B964; Gustavsson flowmeter, ISO
13517; measuring the angle of repose, ISO
4324). Particle size distribution (ISO 2591-
1, 4497, ASTM B214, B215; laser diffraction,
ISO 13320; light scattering, ISO 22412,
ASTM B822; image analysis ISO 13322-1/2;
Power particle morphology, ISO 3252 or
ASTM B243, ISO 3954).
QMS standard (ISO 9001, AS9100, ISO
13485). Manufacturing control (ISO/ASTM
52904). Process related guidance (ASTM
F2924, F3001, F3049, F3055, F3056, F3184,
F3187, F3213, F3301, F3302, F3318, F3434,
ISO/ASTM52904, ISO/ASTM 52907). Facility
safety management (UL3400). Approval of
manufacturer scheme (DNVGL-CP-0346).
Specification (AMS 7000). End-user technical
requirements.
Test method standards (ASTM F2971, F3122,
ISO/ASTM 52902). Qualification standards
(VDI 3405-2, MSFC-STD-3716/3717, AWS
D20, GB/T 35022-2018). Reference specific
application standards and guidance
(DNVGL-CP-0267, CP-0291, ST-B203, CG-
0197; NI662 DT R00 E). Reference guidance
notes (ABS, TWI LR).
Documentation
Risk assessment (e.g. failure mode register).
System reliability results. Qualification
evidence.
Defined design requirements. Part geometry
and calculations. Build layout and
Engineering drawings/models. Risk analysis
(high level). Inspection and test plan (high
level).
Powder characterisation results. Wire testing
results. Material specification. Material
safety data sheet. Material certification of
conformity.
QMS certificate. Materials stock and handling
procedure. Manufacturing procedures.
Personal training records. Approval of
manufacturer.
Post-processing documentation. Equipment
procedure (e.g. capability, calibration
schedule & records). Personal training
records.
Record of inspection equipment used for
measuring and testing (e.g. calibration
certificate). Testing reports (e.g.
metallographic examinations, mechanical
tests, NDE). Personal training records.

certification framework and should be carried out at all
stages of product development. Test sample locations,
defect mechanisms, acceptance of deviations, and
long-term reliability in metal AM products are different
from those for conventionally manufactured counter-
parts (Vander Voort 2001; Tobar et al. 2010; Keane
2016; Baerwaldt 2018; Bonanno et al. 2018; Masete,
Muchavi, and Chikosha 2018; Smith 2018). The standard-
isation of inspection and testing is the leading work of
international standards and certification organisations.
A number of test methods and qualification standards
have been developed (e.g. ASTM F2971, F3122; ISO/
ASTM 52902; VDI 3405-2; MSFC-STD-3716, 3717, AWS
D20, and GB/T 35022), which can be supplemented
with specific standards and guidance developed by cer-
tification organisations (e.g. DNVGL-CP-0267, CP-0291,
ST-B203, CG-0197, and NI662 DT R00 E). The integration
of the developed standards and state-of-the-art inspec-
tion technologies can be used to fulfil the challenges
raised from metal AM. For instance, computational
modeling can be utilised to investigate the likelihood
of metal powder disturbance by the eddy current
sensor electromagnetic field and real-time data acqui-
sition for in-situ inspections (Zhakeyev et al. 2017;
Todorov 2020).
Some organisations have applied their developed
qualification and certification frameworks to produce
metal AM products in the fields of aerospace, marine
and offshore, etc. A metal fuel nozzle printed by
General Electric (GE) for a leading-edge aviation propul-
sion engine received dual certifications from the FAA
and EASA, which significantly improved aircraft hard-
ware component production and engine shipment
(Russell et al. 2019). Within the certification framework,
a printed T25 sensor housing for compressor inlet temp-
erature monitoring was approved to be applied in the
GE90 jet engine (Russell et al. 2019). NASA has been
actively preparing AM components, such as injectors
and combustion chambers printed and tested by the
Marshall Space Flight Centre with internal qualification
398 Z. CHEN ET AL.
and certification procedures in rocket engines (Gradl
et al. 2018). In the marine and offshore industry,
leading certification organisations (e.g. DNV, BV, and
LR) have qualified and certified industrial functional
parts based on the standards, rules, and regulations
listed in Table 4. Thyssenkrupp Tech Center Additive
Manufacturing received the certificate for the approval
of metal AM production from DNV in 2019 (Tess 2019).
Later, Sembcorp Marine received certifications from
DNV, which qualified its AM procedures and specifica-
tions for products in the field of construction and
repair (Sembcorp Marine 2019). AML Technology and
3D Metalforge received the certification of metal AM
facility from LR (LR 2018; Metal AM 2018). A metal AM
propeller for shipbuilding (WAAMpeller) was developed
by RAMLAB, Promarin, Autodesk, and Damen and is the
world’s first metal AM class approved by BV (Damen
2017).
4. Conclusion and outlook
4.1. Conclusion
A comprehensive review on the status and pathway of
the qualification and certification of metal AM is
carried out. It is a timely summary to provide guidance
for the commercialisation of the scientific and techno-
logical achievements of metal AM. The qualification of
metal AM is to evaluate a prototype design, material,
and product during their development or testing,
which can include a technique, machine, material, part,
or even supplier. Certification of metal AM can be estab-
lished for the satisfaction of authority, which applies to a
part, component, product, and their evaluation process
as well as a system during or at the end of develop-
ment/production. Qualification and certification can be
interchanged in most cases as both are inextricably
interwoven with each other and rely on the standards,
rules, and regulations. International and national stan-
dards organisations are actively involved in the develop-
ment of standards, rules, and regulations for metal AM to
accelerate its standardisation process. Representative
organisations, such as ISO, ASTM, NASA, SAE AMS,
ASME, AWS, API, VDI, IEEE, DNV, BV, LR, ABS, UL, and
TÜV SÜD, have devoted themselves to the qualification
and certification of metal AM. Among these organis-
ations, ISO and ASTM have played a leading role for
the development of metal AM standards through their
collaboration with 28 published and 60 under develop-
ment (Tables 1 and A1). The topics of these standards
include terminology and general principle, materials
and processes, design, test methods, and qualification
principle.
The qualification and certification of metal AM are
hindered by critical challenges in the aspects of
design, materials, in-situ monitoring, post-processing,
repeatability, traceability standards, etc. The primary
challenge is that the qualification and certification
process is underdeveloped for many applications due
to high cost, prolonged lead time, as well as inadequate
types and quantity of standards, rules, and regulations.
Other challenges are mainly due to the lack of in-situ
monitoring on real-time close-loop process control,
insufficient data, and the process reliability and repeat-
ability that result from limited research on heat source-
powder interactions, heat transfer and vaporisation,
defect formation, quantitative metallography, etc.
The qualification and certification framework of metal
AM is proposed and discussed to address challenges
proactively and is utilised to identify processing factors
and their influences on product performance. Compar-
ing with the universal applicability of the QMS frame-
work, the qualification and certification framework
requires more expertise in metal AM technology and
product application specialisation. The framework con-
sists of specific standards, rules and regulations for
industrial applications in several critical aspects (e.g.
technology, design, materials, printing processes, post-
processing, and inspection and testing). Such a frame-
work can mandate a consistent and integrated approach
to guarantee and deliver quality services with essential
requirements for metal AM products. A well-establish
framework not only overcomes the challenges for qua-
lification and certification but also sets benchmarks to
accelerate the metal AM adoption by demonstrating a
cost-effective qualification and certification process.
4.2. Outlook
Current qualification and certification methodologies
are predominantly conveyed from conventional manu-
facturing processes (e.g. casting, forging, and powder
metallurgy), which results in high cost and long lead
time due to a tremendous amount of physical testing
and survey involved (Kandukuri and Chen 2021). More
importantly, qualification and certification method-
ologies in the conventional manufacturing processes
may not be suitable for metal AM. The outlook for the
qualification and certification for metal AM can focus
on a digital methodology, which addresses the features
of metal AM as part of industrial digital transformation. A
perspective pathway of digital qualification and certifi-
cation can be proposed for future research, as shown
in Figure 7.
The digital qualification and certification for metal
AM can be expected from two aspects, i.e. data-

Figure 7. Outlook for digital qualification and certification for metal AM.
based digital process monitoring and digital transform-
ation of processes. The fundamentals of the qualifica-
tion and certification implementation of digital
process monitoring can generate an open-source data-
base (e.g. using cloud technology) of printing process
parameters, material-process-microstructure-property
relationship, and statistical and historical product per-
formance. The qualification and certification of digital
process monitoring can be achieved by data-driven
in-situ process inspection. The process inspection can
assess the geometry and temperature of melt pools,
residual stresses, inclusions, porosity, cracks and
warping in each printing layer, and part shrinkage
during solidification, which can be captured in real
time and then converted into records in a visible and
readable data format. Moreover, the data-driven
process-microstructure-property correlation and
product performance prediction provide another
effective way to monitor product quality proactively.
Based on printing parameters, statistical and historical
data of product performance can be predicted for qua-
lification and certification benchmark reference. Data-
based digital process monitoring can produce reports
of real-time defects and predict failures in printed pro-
ducts, which can be utilised as qualification and certifi-
cation documents.
Integration of digital transformation with metal AM
will magnify the benefits of each, which will be crucial
to the implementation of digital qualification and certifi-
cation. Machine learning can enable the quality control
of metal AM products with successful engagement
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 399
with industrial communication networks. For example,
a tighter processing window and tolerance control can
be achieved by machine learning with the perquisition
of production engineering knowledge, which involves
industrial information technology and artificial neural
networks. Consequently, little human intervention will
be involved for future process modification to prevent
possible faults and deviations. Trust, traceability, and
security are critical aspects in metal AM qualification
and certification, i.e. blockchain technology that can
be utilised to decentralise and distribute the material
moment and status information along the metal AM
supply chain among related stakeholders. Finally,
remote survey based on cyber-physical systems can be
used to make the qualification and certification
process more cost-effective and efficient as future
metal AM ecosystems will be globalised. For example,
a live stream survey can be easily verified by other
parties in case of any dispute, and the digital records
are retrievable.
Metal AM digital transformation is the evolution
version of the data-based digital process monitoring,
rather than recording the defects and predicting the
product performance. The implemented digital trans-
formation will proactively minimise the defects and
improve the product performance with limited human
intervention. Consequently, it will relieve the burden at
the final stage of metal AM qualification and certification
with enhanced efficiency and transparency.
It is hoped that the recent works on the qualification
and certification of metal AM will boost more research
400 Z. CHEN ET AL.
interests and efforts into the topic, and thereby acceler-
ating the standard adoption of metal AM in a broad
range of industries.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by the Economic Development
Board, Singapore and DNV GL Singapore Pte. Ltd through
the Industrial Postgraduate Programme with Nanyang Techno-
logical University, Singapore, and the National Research Foun-
dation, Singapore under its Medium-Sized Centre funding
scheme through the Marine and Offshore Program.
Notes on contributors
Ze Chen is a PhD candidate in the Singapore Centre for 3D
Printing, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He has worked
on projects for metal additive manufacturing industrialization,
commercialization, and qualification & certification globally.
Changjun Han is an Associate Professor in the School of Mech-
anical and Automotive Engineering at the South China Univer-
sity of Technology, People’s Republic of China. His research
interest focuses on additive manufacturing of metals.
Ming Gao is a PhD candidate in the School of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore. Her research interest focuses on additive manufac-
turing of polymers.
Sastry Yagnanna Kandukuri is a Senior Principal Specialist in
Additive Manufacturing Innovation Programs at DNV Global
Additive Manufacturing Technology Centre of Excellence.
Kun Zhou is an Associate Professor in the School of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological Univer-
sity, Singapore. His research interests include mechanics of
materials, modeling and simulation, and additive manufactur-
ing. He has published over 350 papers, and he currently serves
as Editor-in-Chief of Smart Manufacturing and Co-Editor-in-
Chief of Journal of Micromechanics and Molecular Physics.
ORCID
Changjun Han http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7816-932X
Kun Zhou http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7660-2911
References
Abdulhameed, O., A. Al-Ahmari, W. Ameen, and S. H. Mian. 2019.
“Additive Manufacturing: Challenges: Trends, and
Applications.” Advances in Mechanical Engineering 11 (2):
168781401882288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814018822
880.
America Makes and ANSI AMSC. 2018. “Standardization
Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing – Version 2.0.”
America Makes & ANSI Additive Manufacturing
Standardization Collaborative (AMSC), June: 1–269.
Accessed March 2, 2021. https://share.ansi.org/Shared%
20Documents/Standards%20Activities/AMSC/AMSC_Road
map_June_2018.pdf.
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). 2018. “Guidance Notes on
Additive Manufacturing.” Accessed March 2, 2021. https://
ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/
other/299-gn-on-additive-manufacturing-2018/additive-
manufacturing-gn-sept18.pdf.
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 2011. “ISO and
ASTM to Cooperate on International Standards for
Additive Manufacturing.” ANSI News, October 26. Accessed
March 2, 2021. https://www.ansi.org/news/standards-
news/all-news/2011/10/iso-and-astm-to-cooperate-on-inter
national-standards-for-additive-manufacturing-26 ().
American Petroleum Institute (API). 2021. “Standards Plan.”
Accessed March 2, 2021. https://www.api.org/products-
and-services/standards/standards-plan.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). 2017.
“Standard ASME Y14.46. Product Definition for Additive
Manufacturing.” Accessed March 2, 2021. https://www.
asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/y14-46-
product-definition-additive-manufacturing/2017/drm-enabled-
pdf.
American Welding Society (AWS). 2020. “D20 Committee on
Additive Manufacturing.” Accessed September 4, 2020.
https://www.aws.org/standards/committee/d20-committee
-on-additive-manufacturing-2.
ASTM International. 2011. “ASTM and ISO Sign Additive
Manufacturing PSDO Agreement.” ASTM Standardization
News, November/December. http://www.astm.org/standar
dization-news/outreach/astm-and-iso-sign-additive-manufa
cturing-psdo-agreement-nd11.html.
ASTM International. 2020. “Committee F42 on Additive
Manufacturing Technologies.” Accessed August 23, 2020.
www.astm.org/COMMITTEE/F42.htm.
Bae, C. J., A. B. Diggs, and A. Ramachandran. 2018.
“Quantification and Certification of Additive Manufacturing
Materials and Processes.” Additive Manufacturing Materials:
Processes, Quantifications and Applications, 181–213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812155-9.00006-2.
Baerwaldt, C. 2018. “Industrial CT for Use in Additive Manufacturing
Inspection.” Quality Magzine, August 1. Accessed August 1, 2020.
www.qualitymag.com/articles/94884-industrial-ct-for-use-in-
additive-manufacturing-inspection.
Bandyopadhyay, A., Y. Zhang, and S. Bose. 2020. “Recent
Developments in Metal Additive Manufacturing.” Current
Opinion in Chemical Engineering 28: 96–104. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.coche.2020.03.001.
Bonanno, A., V. Crupi, G. Epasto, E. Guglielmino, and G.
Palomba. 2018. “Aluminum Honeycomb Sandwich for
Protective Structures of Earth Moving Machines.” Procedia
Structural Integrity 8: 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
prostr.2017.12.034.
Bureau Veritas (BV). 2018. “Rule Note NR 320 DT R04 E.
Certification Scheme of Materials and Equipment for the
Classification of Marine Units.” Accessed March 2, 2021.
https://erules.veristar.com/dy/data/bv/pdf/320-NR_2018-07.
pdf.
BV. 2019. “Rule Note BV NI 662 DT R00 E. Additive
Manufacturing - Guidelines for Certification of Product

made using Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM)
Process.” Accessed March 2, 2021. https://erules.veristar.
com/dy/data/bv/pdf/662-NI_2019-05.pdf.
Chua, C. K., C. H. Wong, and W. Y. Yeong. 2017. “Quality
Management Framework in Additive Manufacturing.”
Standards, Quality Control, and Measurement Sciences in 3D
Printing and Additive Manufacturing, 213–239. https://doi.
org/10.1016/b978-0-12-813489-4.00009-x.
Cunha, F. G., T. G. Santos, and J. Xavier. 2021. “In Situ
Monitoring of Additive Manufacturing Using Digital Image
Correlation: A Review.” Materials 14 (6): 1511. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ma14061511.
Damen. 2017. “World’s First Class Approved 3D Printed Ship’s
Propeller Unveiled.” Damen News, November 30. Accessed
July 1, 2019. https://archive.damen.com/en/news/2017/11/
worlds_first_class_approved_3d_printed_ships_propeller_
unveiled.
De Bernardi, C., and D. Miller. 2020. “Additive Manufacturing in
the Oil & Gas Industry and Status Update on the New API 20S
Standard Qualification of Additively Manufactured Metallic
Materials for Use in the Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industries.” Proceedings of the annual offshore technology
conference, May. https://doi.org/10.4043/30603-ms.
DebRoy, T., H. L. Wei, J. S. Zuback, T. Mukherjee, J. W. Elmer, J. O.
Milewski, A. M. Beese, A. Wilson-Heid, A. De, and W. Zhang.
2018. “Additive Manufacturing of Metallic Components –
Process: Structure and Properties.” Progress in Materials
Science 92 (C): 112–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.
2017.10.001.
Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN). 2021. “NA 145 – DIN
Standards Committee Technology of Materials.” Accessed
March 2, 2021. www.din.de/en/getting-involved/standards-
committees/nwt/projects.
DIN. 2019. “Standard DIN SPEC 17071:2019. Additive
Manufacturing - Requirements for Quality-Assured
Processes at Additive Manufacturing Centres.” Accessed
March 2, 2021. https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/din/
dinspec170712019.
DNV GL. 2013. “Recommended Practice DNVGL-RP-A203.
Technology Qualification Recommended Practice.”
Accessed March 2, 2021. https://www.dnv.com/oilgas/
download/dnv-rp-a203-technology-qualification.html.
DNV GL. 2016. “Class Programme DNVGL-CP-0346. Approval of
Manufacturer Scheme.” Accessed March 2, 2021. https://rules.
dnv.com/docs/pdf/DNV/CP/2016-05/DNVGL-CP-0346.pdf.
DNV GL. 2017a. “Class Programme DNVGL-CP-0267. Additive
Manufacturing.” Accessed March 2, 2021. https://rules.dnv.
com/docs/pdf/DNV/CP/2018-07/DNVGL-CP-0267.pdf.
DNV GL. 2017b. “Class Guideline DNVGL-CG-0197. Additive
Manufacturing - Qualification and Certification Process for
Materials and Components.” Accessed March 2, 2021.
https://rules.dnv.com/docs/pdf/DNV/CG/2017-11/DNVGL-
CG-0197.pdf.
DNV GL. 2019. “Class Programme DNVGL-CP-0291. Additive
Manufacturing Feedstock.” Accessed March 2, 2021.
https://rules.dnv.com/docs/pdf/DNV/cp/2019-06/dnvgl-cp-
0291.pdf.
DNV GL. 2021. “Service Specification DNVGL-SE-0568.
Qualification of additive manufacturing service providers, man-
ufacturers and parts.” Accessed March 2, 2021. https://rules.
dnv.com/docs/pdf/DNV/SE/2021-09/DNV-SE-0568.pdf?_ga=2.
64955055.16480813.1640676741-463116804.1640676741.
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 401
Durakovic, B. 2018. “Design for Additive Manufacturing:
Benefits: Trends and Challenges.” Periodicals of Engineering
and Natural Sciences 6 (2): 179–191. https://doi.org/10.
21533/pen.v6i2.224.
Dutta, B., S. Babu, and B. Jared. 2019a. “Qualification for Metal
Additive Manufacturing.” Science, Technology and
Applications of Metals in Additive Manufacturing, 245–307.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-816634-5.00008-x.
Dutta, B., S. Babu, and B. Jared. 2019b. “Design for Metal
Additive Manufacturing.” Science, Technology and
Applications of Metals in Additive Manufacturing, 193–244.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-816634-5.00007-8.
Dutton, B., W. Vesga, J. Waller, S. James, and M. Seifi. 2020.
“Metal Additive Manufacturing Defect Formation and
Nondestructive Evaluation Detectability.” Structural
Integrity of Additive Manufactured Parts, https://doi.org/10.
1520/STP162020180136.
Feucht, T., J. Lange, M. Erven, C. B. Costanzi, U. Knaack, and B.
Waldschmitt. 2020. “Additive Manufacturing by Means of
Parametric Robot Programming.” Construction Robotics 4
(1): 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41693-020-00033-w.
Frazier, W. E. 2014. “Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review.”
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance 23 (6):
1917–1928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-014-0958-z.
Gibbons, D. W., and A. F. Van der Merwe. 2019. “Transitioning
from ISO 13485 to AS 9100D for an Additive
Manufacturing Company.” 20th Annual RAPDASA confer-
ence: the future of manufacturing layer by layer, South
Africa, November. 121–28.
Go, J., S. N. Schiffres, A. G. Stevens, and A. J. Hart. 2017. “Rate
Limits of Additive Manufacturing by Fused Filament
Fabrication and Guidelines for High-Throughput System
Design.” Additive Manufacturing 16: 1–11. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.addma.2017.03.007.
Gradl, P. R., S. E. Greene, C. Protz, B. Bullard, J. Buzzell, C. Garcia,
J. Wood, K. Cooper, J. Hulka, and R. Osborne. 2018. “Additive
Manufacturing of Liquid Rocket Engine Combustion
Devices: A Summary of Process Developments and Hot-
Fire Testing Results.” 2018 Joint propulsion conference, 1–
34. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-4625.
Han, C., Q. Fang, Y. Shi, S. B. Tor, C. K. Chua, and K. Zhou. 2020.
“Recent Advances on High-Entropy Alloys for 3D Printing.”
Advanced Materials 32 (26): 1903855. https://doi.org/10.
1002/adma.201903855.
Huang, Y., T. G. Fleming, S. J. Clark, S. Marussi, K. Fezzaa, J.
Thiyagalingam, C. L. A. Leung, and P. D. Lee. 2021.
“Keyhole Fluctuation and Pore Formation Mechanisms
During Laser Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing
(Under Review).” Nature Portfolio Journal. https://doi.org/
10.21203/rs.3.rs-683646/v1.
International Association of Classification Societies (IACS).
2011. “Classification Societies – what: why and how?” IACS
Information paper: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-
075068070-7/50005-0.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2016. “BS EN
ISO 9001:2015 Quality Management Systems – Requirements.”
ISO. 2020. “TECHNICAL COMMITTEES ISO/TC 261 Additive
Manufacturing.” Accessed August 23, 2020. www.iso.org/
committee/629086.html.
ISO. 2021. “ISO/ASTM Additive Manufacturing Standards
Structure.” Accessed September 28, 2021. https://
committee.iso.org/sites/tc261/home/projects.html.
402 Z. CHEN ET AL.
Javaid, M., and A. Haleem. 2018. “Additive Manufacturing
Applications in Medical Cases: A Literature Based Review.”
Alexandria Journal of Medicine 54 (4): 411–422. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ajme.2017.09.003.
Junghans, E., R. B. Govindaraj, I. Andersen, and N. Worm. 2020.
“Certification of Additively Manufactured Materials for
Maritime Application.” Material Design & Processing
Communications 3:e144. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdp2.144.
Kandukuri, S., and Z. Chen. 2021. “Progress of Metal AM and
Certification Pathway.” Transactions of the Indian National
Academy of Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41403-
021-00242-x.
Keane, P. 2016. “What Is Design for Additive Manufacturing?”
Engineersrule, June 14. https://www.engineersrule.com/
design-additive-manufacturing/.
Kumbhar, N. N., and A. V. Mulay. 2018. “Post Processing
Methods Used to Improve Surface Finish of Products
Which Are Manufactured by Additive Manufacturing
Technologies: A Review.” Journal of The Institution of
Engineers (India) Series C 99 (4): 481–487. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40032-016-0340-z.
Lee, J., J. An, and C. K. Chua. 2017. “Fundamentals and
Applications of 3D Printing for Novel Materials.” Applied
Materials Today 7: 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.
2017.02.004.
Lee, J., A. P. Nagalingam, and S. H. Yeo. 2021. “A Review on the
State-of-the-Art of Surface Finishing Processes and Related
ISO/ASTM Standards for Metal Additive Manufactured
Components.” Virtual and Physical Prototyping 16 (1): 68–
96. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2020.1830346.
Lewandowski, J. J., and M. Seifi. 2016. “Metal Additive
Manufacturing: A Review of Mechanical Properties.”
Annual Review of Materials Research 46 (1): 151–186.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-matsci-070115-032024.
Li, B., H. Zheng, C. Han, and K. Zhou. 2021. “Nanotwins-
Containing Microstructure and Superior Mechanical
Strength of a Cu–9Al–5Fe–5Ni Alloy Additively
Manufactured by Laser Metal Deposition.” Additive
Manufacturing 39: 101825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.
2020.101825.
Lloyd’s Register (LR). 2018. “3D Metalforge Now Rst LR-Quali Ed
AM Service Bureau in Singapore.” LR News, September 12.
Accessed June 1, 2020. https://www.lr.org/en/latest-news/
3d-metalforge-additive-manufacturing-singapore/.
Lloyd’s Register (LR) and The Welding Institute (TWI). 2020.
“Guidance Notes for Additive Manufacturing Certification.”
Masete, M. S., N. S. Muchavi, and S. Chikosha. 2018. “The Effect
of Specimen Geometry on Tensile Properties of Titanium
Alloy Metal Sheet.” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science
and Engineering 430 (1), https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-
899X/430/1/012015.
Melia, M. A., S. R. Whetten, R. Puckett, M. Jones, M. J. Heiden, N.
Argibay, and A. B. Kustas. 2020. “High-Throughput Additive
Manufacturing and Characterization of Refractory High
Entropy Alloys.” Applied Materials Today 19: 100560.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2020.100560.
Metal, A. M. 2018. “AML Is the First Wire-Arc Additive
Manufacturing Facility Certified by Lloyd’s.” Metal AM,
August 23. Accessed July 15, 2020. https://www.metal-am.
com/aml-is-the-first-wire-arc-additive-manufacturing-
facility-certified-by-lloyds-register/.
Monzón, M. D., Z. Ortega, A. Martínez, and F. Ortega. 2015.
“Standardization in Additive Manufacturing: Activities Carried
out by International Organizations and Projects.” International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 76 (5-8):
1111–1121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-6334-1.
Moroni, G., S. Petrò, and H. Shao. 2020. “On Standardization
Efforts for Additive Manufacturing.” Proceedings of 5th
international conference on the industry 4.0 model for
advanced manufacturing. 156–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-030-46212-3_11.
Naden, C. 2016. “ISO and ASTM International Unveil Framework
for Creating Global Additive Manufacturing Standards.”
International Organization for Standardization News,
October 7. Accessed March 2, 2021. www.iso.org/news/
2016/10/Ref2124.html.
NAMIC.sg. 2018. “NAMIC Joins ASTM International’s Global
Additive Manufacturing Center of Excellence as Strategic
Partner.” News Release. https://namic.sg/standards-and-
reports/.
NASA. 2021. “NASA-STD-6030 Additive Manufacturing
Requirements for Spaceflight Systems.”
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2017.
“MSFC-STD-3716 Standard for Additively Manufactured
Spaceflight Hardware by Laser Powder Bed Fusion in Metals.”
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 2013.
“Measurement Science Roadmap for Metal-Based Additive
Manufacturing.” https://www.nist.gov/system/files/docume
nts/el/isd/NISTAdd_Mfg_Report_FINAL-2.pdf.
Panwisawas, C., Y. T. Tang, and R. C. Reed. 2020. “Metal 3D
Printing as a Disruptive Technology for Superalloys.”
Nature Communications 11 (1): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.
1038/s41467-020-16188-7.
Rapid News Publications. 2019. “ASTM, Innovate UK, BSI and
the MTC to Develop Additive Manufacturing Standards.”
TCT Magazine, January 9. Accessed March 2, 2021. https://
www.tctmagazine.com/3d-printing-news/astm-mtc-innova
te-uk-additive-manufacturing-standards/.
Russell, R., D. Wells, J. Waller, B. Poorganji, E. Ott, T. Nakagawa, H.
Sandoval, N. Shamsaei, and M. Seifi. 2019. “Qualification and
Certification of Metal Additive Manufactured Hardware for
Aerospace Applications.” In Additive Manufacturing for the
Aerospace Industry, 33–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-
12-814062-8.00003-0.
SAE International. 2018. “Additive Manufacturing Standards
Development.”
SAE International. 2021. “SAE Standards Works AMS Additive
Manufacturing.” Accessed March 2, 2021. www.sae.org/
works/committeeHome.do?comtID=TEAAMSAM.
Sames, W. J., F. A. List, S. Pannala, R. R. Dehoff, and S. S. Babu. 2016.
“The Metallurgy and Processing Science of Metal Additive
Manufacturing.” International Materials Reviews 61 (5): 315–
360. https://doi.org/10.1080/09506608.2015.1116649.
Seifi, M., M. Gorelik, J. Waller, N. Hrabe, N. Shamsaei, S.
Daniewicz, and J. J. Lewandowski. 2017. “Progress Towards
Metal Additive Manufacturing Standardization to Support
Qualification and Certification.” JOM 69 (3): 439–455.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-017-2265-2.
Seifi, M., A. Salem, J. Beuth, O. Harrysson, and J. J. Lewandowski.
2016. “Overview of Materials Qualification Needs for Metal
Additive Manufacturing.” JOM 68 (3): 747–764. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11837-015-1810-0.

Sembcorp Marine. 2019. “Sembcorp Marine Earns 3D Printing Certi
Cations for Parts Used in Construction and Repairs.” Sembcorp
Marine News, October 29. https://www.sembmarine.com/
2019/10/29/sembcorp-marine-earns-3d-printing-certifications
-for-parts-used-in-construction-and-repairs.
Singamneni, S., Y. Lv, A. Hewitt, R. Chalk, W. Thomas, and D. Jordison.
2019. “Additive Manufacturing for the Aircraft Industry: A
Review.” Journal of Aeronautics & Aerospace Engineering 08 (01),
https://doi.org/10.35248/2168-9792.19.8.215.
Singapore Standards Council (SSC). 2019. TR 70: 2019
Guidelines on the selection criteria for metal additive man-
ufacturing processes.
Sireesha, M., J. Lee, A. S. K. Kiran, V. J. Babu, B. B. T. Kee, and S.
Ramakrishna. 2018. “A Review on Additive Manufacturing
and Its Way Into the Oil and Gas Industry.” RSC Advances 8
(40): 22460–22468. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ra03194k.
Smith, M. F. 2018. “Additive Manufacturing at Sandia – New
Opportunities & Technical Challenges.” United States.
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1498204.
Srivatsan, T. S., and T. S. Sudarshan. 2015. Additive
Manufacturing: Innovations, Advances, and Applications.
Boca Raton: CRC Press.
SSC. 2020. “SS 666: 2020 Qualification of Parts Printed by Metal
Additive Manufacturing.”
SSC. 2021. “TR 92: 2021 Design Guidelines for Additive
Manufactured Parts.”
Standardization Administration of China (SAC). 2019. “GB/T 35022-
2018 Additive Manufacturing—Main Characteristics and
Corresponding Test Methods—Parts and Powder Materials.”
Swerim, A. 2020. “Standardization of Metal Additive
Manufacturing – Needs from Swedish Industry.” Report
MEF20127. Accessed March 2, 2021. https://www.swerim.
se/sites/default/files/mef20127_standardization_of_metal_
am.pdf.
Tan, H. W., C. K. Chua, and T. Tran. 2016. “A Study of the State-
of-the-Art Printed Passive Electronic Components Through
Fully Additive Manufacturing Methods.” Proceedings of the
International Conference on Progress in Additive
Manufacturing Part F1 290: 27–32.
Tess, B. 2019. “Thyssenkrupp TechCenter granted first DNV GL
certification for 3D printed maritime parts.” 3D Printing
Media, Aug 28, 2019. Accessed March 2, 2021. https://
www.3dprintingmedia.network/thyssenkrupp-techcenter-
gnv-gl-certification-maritime/.
Thomas-Seale, L. E. J., J. C. Kirkman-Brown, M. M. Attallah, D. M.
Espino, and D. E. T. Shepherd. 2018. “The Barriers to
the Progression of Additive Manufacture: Perspectives from
UK Industry.” International Journal of Production Economics
198: 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.02.003.
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 403
Tian, X., J. Jin, S. Yuan, C. K. Chua, S. B. Tor, and K. Zhou. 2017.
“Emerging 3D-Printed Electrochemical Energy Storage
Devices: A Critical Review.” Advanced Energy Materials 7
(17): 1700127. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.201700127.
Tobar, M. J., J. M. Amado, J. Lamas, and A. Yáñez. 2010. “Effect of
Processing Parameters in Manufacturing of 3D Parts through
Laser Direct Metal Deposition.” Proceedings of the 36th
International MATADOR Conference, January. 451–54.
Todorov, E. I. 2020. “Eddy Current Technologies for Real-Time
Monitoring and Post-Process Examination of Laser Powder
Bed Fusion Process.” Structural Integrity of Additive
Manufactured Parts, 129–164. https://doi.org/10.1520/
stp162020180132.
Tryon, R. G., R. McDaniels, A. Chern, M. Oja, A. Dey, I. Awad, and
C. Duty. 2020. “Probabilistic Computational Fatigue and
Fracture Modeling of Additive Manufactured
Components.” Structural Integrity of Additive Manufactured
Parts, 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1520/stp162020180094.
TÜV SÜD. 2018. “TÜV SÜD Industrial Additive Manufacturing
Quality Program.” https://namic.sg/wp-content/uploads/
2020/06/TUV-SUD-Industrial-Additive-Manufacturing-Qualit
y-Program-v1.3.pdf.
UL Standards. 2020. Accessed September 23, 2020. www.
shopulstandards.com.
Vander Voort, G. F. 2001. “Microstructure of Ferrous Alloys.”
Analytical Characterization of Aluminum Steel and
Superalloys, 157–234. doi:10.1201/9781420030365.ch3.
Williams, N. 2018. “The Challenges of Moving Towards to a True
Industrial Process.” Metal Additive Manufacturing, 4(1): P3.
Accessed March 2, 2021. https://www.metal-am.com/
metal-additive-manufacturing-magazine-archive/metal-
additive-manufacturing-vol-4-no-1-spring-2018/.
Williams, H., and E. Butler-Jones. 2019. “Additive Manufacturing
Standards for Space Resource Utilization.” Additive
Manufacturing 28: 676–681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addma.2019.06.007.
Wohlers Associates. Wohlers Report. 2020. “3D Printing and
Additive Manufacturing Global State of the Industry.”.
Yeong, W. Y., and C. K. Chua. 2013. “A Quality Management
Framework for Implementing Additive Manufacturing
of Medical Devices: This Paper Argues That Establishment
of a Quality Management Framework for Additive
Manufacturing Will Accelerate Its Adoption in High Value
Manufacturing Industrie.” Virtual and Physical Prototyping 8
(3): 193–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2013.838053.
Zhakeyev, A., P. Wang, L. Zhang, W. Shu, H. Wang, and J. Xuan.
2017. “Additive Manufacturing: Unlocking the Evolution of
Energy Materials.” Advanced Science 4 (10), https://doi.org/
10.1002/advs.201700187.
404 Z. CHEN ET AL.

Appendix

Table A1. Summary of proposed ISO/ASTM AM standards related to metal AM (ASTM International 2020; ISO 2020). ‘WK’, ‘WD’, ‘CD’,
and ‘DIS’ are the abbreviations of work items, working drafts, committee drafts, and draft international standards, respectively.
Proposed new ISO/ASTM standards under development
Topic Code Simplified title with reflecting on standard scope
General principle ISO/ASTM DIS 52900 Fundamentals and vocabulary
ISO/ASTM DTR Non-destructive testing of AM products
52905
ISO/ASTM DIS 52921 Standard practice for part positioning, coordinates and orientation
Materials and processes WK65937 Space application-Flight hardware made by PBF-LB process
WK65929 Finished part properties and post-processing spaceflight hardware by PBF-LB in metals
WK62190 AM feedstock materials technical specifications on metal powder
WK65420 Guideline for IQ/OQ/PQ of PBF-LB equipment for production manufacturing
WK69730 Wire for DED processes in AM
WK69732 New Guide Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing
WK72317 PBF – Multiple energy sources
ISO/ASTM AWI Standard specification for quality assurance and post-processing of PBF metallic parts
52908
ISO/ASTM WD TS Guideline for IQ/OQ/PQ of PBF-LB equipment for production manufacturing
52930
Design WK48549 AMF Support for solid modeling: Voxel information, constructive solid geometry representations and
solid texturing
WK62867 Guide for design for material extrusion processes
WK64190 Design – Decision guide
WK71507 General principles – Overview of data processing
WK72938 Design – Part 3: Electron-based PBF of metals
WK73444 Design – Post-processing
WK74006 Data formats – Specification for optimised medical image data
ISO/ASTM WD Design – Part 3: Standard guideline for Electron-based PBF of metals
52911-3
ISO/ASTM TR 52912 Design – Functionally graded AM
Test methods WK66030 Quality assessment of metal powder feedstock characterisation data for AM
WK49229 Orientation and location dependence mechanical properties for metal AM
WK55610 The characterisation of powder flow properties for AM applications
WK70207 Test method of sand mould for metal casting – Part 2: Physical properties
WK56649 Standard practice/guide for intentionally seeding flaws in AM parts
WK66029 Mechanical testing of polymer AM materials
WK70206 Test method of sand mould for metal casting – Part 1: Mechanical properties
WK69371 Standard practice for generating mechanical performance debits
WK69731 NDT for use in DED AM processes
WK71393 Assessment of powder spreadability for PBF processes
WK71395 Accelerated quality inspection of build health for laser beam PBF process
WK66682 Evaluating post-processing and characterisation techniques for AM part surfaces
ISO/ASTM AWI Test artifacts – Geometric capability assessment of AM systems
52902
ISO/ASTM CD TR NDT and evaluation – Standard guideline for intentionally seeding flaws in parts
52906
ISO/ASTM WD Test method of sand mould for metalcasting – Part 1: Mechanical properties
52919-1
ISO/ASTM WD Test method of sand mould for metalcasting – Part 2: Physical properties
52919-2
ISO/ASTM FDIS System performance and reliability – Acceptance tests for laser metal PBF machines for metallic materials
52941 for aerospace application
ISO/ASTM WD Round robin testing – Guidance for conducting round-robin studies
52917
Qualification principle ISO/ASTM WD Requirements for industrial AM sites
52920
ISO/ASTM WD Part 1: Qualification of machine operators for metallic parts production
52926-1
ISO/ASTM WD Part 2: Qualification of machine operators for metallic parts production for PBF-LB
52926-2
ISO/ASTM WD Part 3: Qualification of machine operators for metallic parts production for PBF-EB
52926-3
ISO/ASTM WD Part 4: Qualification of machine operators for metallic parts production for DED-LB
52926-4
ISO/ASTM WD Part 5: Qualification of machine operators for metallic parts production for DED-Arc
52926-5
ISO/ASTM WD Qualification of coordinators for metallic parts production
52935
Data WK73978 Data registration

(Continued)
 VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 405

Table A1. Continued.

Proposed new ISO/ASTM standards under development
Topic Code Simplified title with reflecting on standard scope
WK72172 General principles – Overview of data pedigree
ISO/ASTM WD Data formats – Standard specification for optimised medical image data
52916
ISO/ASTM CD TR Data formats – File format support, ecosystem and evolutions
52918
ISO/ASTM DIS 52950 Overview of data processing
Applications WK66637 4340 Steel via PBF-LB for transportation and heavy equipment industries
WK67583 Powder reuse schema in PBF processes for medical applications
WK70164 Standard practice for assigning part classifications for metallic materials
WK72659 Guideline for material process validation for AM of medical devices
WK71891 AM of Ti6Al4V ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) with PBF for medical devices
WK73231 Acceptance tests for PBF machines for metallic materials for aerospace application
WK73688 Generic machine evaluation and KPI for LPBF-M processes in automotive applications
ISO/ASTM AWI Orientation and location dependence of mechanical properties for metal PBF
52909
Environment, health and WK73227 Investigation for AM facility safety management
safety ISO/ASTM CD 52931 Standard guideline for use of metallic materials