EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019
(Main)Additive manufacturing - Test artifacts - Geometric capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems (ISO/ASTM 52902:2019)
Additive manufacturing - Test artifacts - Geometric capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems (ISO/ASTM 52902:2019)
This document covers the general description of benchmarking test piece geometries along with quantitative and qualitative measurements to be taken on the benchmarking test piece(s) to assess the performance of additive manufacturing (AM) systems.
This performance assessment can serve the following two purposes:
— AM system capability evaluation;
— AM system calibration.
The benchmarking test piece(s) is (are) primarily used to quantitatively assess the geometric performance of an AM system. This document describes a suite of test geometries, each designed to investigate one or more specific performance metrics and several example configurations of these geometries into test piece(s). It prescribes quantities and qualities of the test geometries to be measured but does not dictate specific measurement methods. Various user applications can require various grades of performance. This document discusses examples of feature configurations, as well as measurement uncertainty requirements, to demonstrate low and high grade examination and performance. This document does not discuss a specific procedure or machine settings for manufacturing a test piece, which are covered by ASTM F 2971 and other relevant process specific specifications.
Additive Fertigung - Testkörper - Allgemeine Leitlinie für die Bewertung der geometrischen Leistung additiver Fertigungssysteme (AM-Systeme) (ISO/ASTM 52902:2019)
Dieses Dokument enthält die allgemeine Beschreibung von Prüfkörpergeometrien mit dem Ziel des Benchmarkings, gemeinsam mit an dem/den Benchmarking-Prüfkörper(n) vorzunehmenden quantitativen und qualitativen Messungen zur Bewertung der Leistung additiver Fertigungssysteme (AM Systeme).
Diese Leistungsbewertung kann den beiden folgenden Zwecken dienen:
— der Fähigkeitsbewertung des AM-Systems;
— der Kalibrierung des AM-Systems.
Der Hauptverwendungszweck der/des Benchmarking-Prüfkörper(s) ist die quantitative Bewertung der geometrischen Leistungsfähigkeit eines AM-Systems. Das Dokument beschreibt einen Satz von Prüfgeometrien, die jeweils für die Untersuchung einer oder mehrerer Leistungsmetriken ausgelegt sind, sowie mehrere Beispielkonfigurationen dieser Geometrien im/in Prüfkörper(n). Es gibt zu messende Quantitäten und Qualitäten der Prüfgeometrien vor, schreibt aber keine spezifischen Messverfahren vor. Verschiedene Nutzeranwendungen können verschiedene Leistungsniveaus erfordern. Zur Veranschaulichung von Untersuchungen und für den Nachweis der Leistungsfähigkeit auf niedrigem und hohem Niveau erörtert dieses Dokument Beispiele für Merkmalskonfigurationen sowie Anforderungen an die Messunsicherheit. Dieses Dokument behandelt keine spezifischen Verfahrensweisen oder Maschineneinstellungen für die Prüfkörperherstellung, die durch ASTM F 2971 und andere maßgebende prozessbezogene Spezifikationen abgedeckt werden.
Fabrication additive - Pièces types d'essai - Évaluation de la capacité géométrique des systèmes de fabrication additive (ISO/ASTM 52902:2019)
Le présent document couvre la description générale du benchmarking de géométries d'éprouvette ainsi que les mesures quantitatives et qualitatives à appliquer à la ou aux éprouvettes de benchmarking afin d'évaluer les performances de systèmes de fabrication additive (FA).
Cette évaluation de performances peut servir aux deux fins suivantes:
— Évaluation de la capacité du système FA;
— Étalonnage du système FA.
La ou les éprouvettes de benchmarking sont utilisées principalement pour évaluer quantitativement les performances géométriques d'un système FA. Le présent document décrit une suite de géométries d'essai, chacune conçue pour examiner une ou plusieurs mesures de performances spécifiques, ainsi que plusieurs configurations d'exemple de ces géométries au sein d'une ou plusieurs éprouvettes. Il prescrit les quantités et qualités des géométries d'essai à mesurer, mais ne stipule pas de méthodes de mesure spécifiques. Différentes applications d'utilisateur peuvent exiger différents niveaux de performances. Le présent document donne des exemples de configurations de forme ainsi que des exigences d'incertitude de mesure afin de faire la démonstration d'un examen et de performances de niveau bas et élevé. Le présent document ne donne pas de procédure ou de réglages de machine spécifiques pour la fabrication d'une éprouvette qui sont couverts par l'ASTM F2971 et à d'autres spécifications de procédé pertinentes.
Aditivna proizvodnja - Preskusna telesa - Geometrijske zmogljivosti aditivnih proizvodnih sistemov (ISO/ASTM 52902:2019)
Ta dokument zajema splošni opis geometrij primerjalnih preskušancev, skupaj s kvantitativnimi in kvalitativnimi meritvami, ki jih je treba opraviti na primerjalnih preskušancih za oceno zmogljivosti aditivnih proizvodnih (AM) sistemov. Primerjalni preskušanci se v osnovi uporabljajo za kvantitativno ocenjevanje geometrijske zmogljivosti aditivnega proizvodnega sistema. Standard opisuje zbirko preskusnih geometrij, od katerih je vsaka zasnovana za preiskavo ene ali več določenih meritev zmogljivosti, in več primerov konfiguracij teh geometrij v preskušancih. Standard predpisuje količine in kakovosti preskusnih geometrij, ki jih je treba izmeriti, ne določa pa posameznih metod meritev. Različni načini uporabe lahko zahtevajo različne razrede zmogljivosti. Ta standard predstavlja primere konfiguracij značilnosti in tudi zahteve glede merilne negotovosti za prikaz preskusov ter zmogljivosti nizkega in visokega razreda. Ta standard ne obravnava določenega postopka ali nastavitev stroja za proizvodnjo preskušanca, čeprav naj se ti zabeležijo v skladu s standardom ASTM F2971 in drugimi ustreznimi specifikacijami, značilnimi za proces.
General Information
Relations
Standards Content (Sample)
SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-december-2019
Aditivna proizvodnja - Preskusni artefakti - Geometrijske zmogljivosti aditivnih
proizvodnih sistemov (ISO/ASTM 52902:2019)
Additive manufacturing - Test artifacts - Geometric capability assessment of additive
manufacturing systems (ISO/ASTM 52902:2019)
Additive Fertigung - Testkörper - Allgemeine Leitlinie für die Bewertung der
geometrischen Leistung additiver Fertigungssysteme (AM-Systeme) (ISO/ASTM
52902:2019)
Fabrication additive - Pièces types d'essai - Ligne directrice standard pour l'évaluation de
la capacité géométrique des systèmes de fabrication additive (ISO/ASTM 52902:2019)
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019
ICS:
25.030 3D-tiskanje Additive manufacturing
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.
EN ISO/ASTM 52902
EUROPEAN STANDARD
NORME EUROPÉENNE
September 2019
EUROPÄISCHE NORM
ICS 25.030
English Version
Additive manufacturing - Test artifacts - Geometric
capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems
(ISO/ASTM 52902:2019)
Fabrication additive - Pièces types d'essai - Évaluation Additive Fertigung - Testkörper - Allgemeine Leitlinie
de la capacité géométrique des systèmes de fabrication für die Bewertung der geometrischen Leistung
additive (ISO/ASTM 52902:2019) additiver Fertigungssysteme (AM-Systeme)
(ISO/ASTM 52902:2019)
This European Standard was approved by CEN on 7 July 2019.
CEN members are bound to comply with the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations which stipulate the conditions for giving this
European Standard the status of a national standard without any alteration. Up-to-date lists and bibliographical references
concerning such national standards may be obtained on application to the CEN-CENELEC Management Centre or to any CEN
member.
This European Standard exists in three official versions (English, French, German). A version in any other language made by
translation under the responsibility of a CEN member into its own language and notified to the CEN-CENELEC Management
Centre has the same status as the official versions.
CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Republic of North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and
United Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION
EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG
CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Rue de la Science 23, B-1040 Brussels
© 2019 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.
Contents Page
European foreword . 3
European foreword
This document (EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019) has been prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 261
"Additive manufacturing" in collaboration with Technical Committee CEN/TC 438 “Additive
Manufacturing” the secretariat of which is held by AFNOR.
This European Standard shall be given the status of a national standard, either by publication of an
identical text or by endorsement, at the latest by March 2020, and conflicting national standards shall
be withdrawn at the latest by March 2020.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. CEN shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
According to the CEN-CENELEC Internal Regulations, the national standards organizations of the
following countries are bound to implement this European Standard: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of
North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the
United Kingdom.
Endorsement notice
The text of ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 has been approved by CEN as EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 without
any modification.
INTERNATIONAL ISO/ASTM
STANDARD 52902
First edition
2019-07
Additive manufacturing —
Test artifacts — Geometric
capability assessment of additive
manufacturing systems
Fabrication additive — Pièces types d'essai — Évaluation de la
capacité géométrique des systèmes de fabrication additive
Reference number
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
©
ISO/ASTM International 2019
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
© ISO/ASTM International 2019
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, or required in the context of its implementation, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on
the internet or an intranet, without prior written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below
or ISO’s member body in the country of the requester. In the United States, such requests should be sent to ASTM International.
ISO copyright office ASTM International
CP 401 • Ch. de Blandonnet 8 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, USA
Phone: +41 22 749 01 11 Phone: +610 832 9634
Fax: +41 22 749 09 47 Fax: +610 832 9635
Email: copyright@iso.org Email: khooper@astm.org
Website: www.iso.org Website: www.astm.org
Published in Switzerland
ii © ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
Contents Page
Foreword .v
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions . 1
4 Significance and use . 2
4.1 General . 2
4.2 Comparing results from one machine . 2
5 General principles for producing artifacts . 2
5.1 General . 2
5.2 Need to use feedstock conforming to a material specification . 2
5.3 Need to undertake artifact building according to a documented process specification . 2
5.4 File formats and preparation . 3
5.5 Download files . 3
5.6 Discussion of file conversion . 3
5.7 AMF preferred (with conversion instructions/ resolutions) . 3
5.8 Need for test specification and test process . 3
5.9 Quantity of test artifacts . 3
5.10 Position and orientation of test artifacts . 4
5.11 Considerations for orientation . 4
5.12 Labelling . 4
5.13 Coverage . 4
5.14 Arrays . 4
5.15 Part consolidation . 4
5.16 Supports and post processing . 5
6 General principles for measuring artifacts . 5
6.1 General . 5
6.2 Measure parts as built . 5
6.3 Measurement strategy . 5
6.4 Measurement uncertainty . 6
7 Artifact geometries . 6
7.1 General . 6
7.2 Accuracy . 6
7.2.1 Linear artifact . 6
7.2.2 Circular artifact . 8
7.3 Resolution .10
7.3.1 Resolution pins .10
7.3.2 Resolution holes .11
7.3.3 Resolution rib .13
7.3.4 Resolution slot .15
7.4 Surface texture .17
7.4.1 Purpose .17
7.4.2 Geometry .17
7.4.3 Measurement .18
7.4.4 Reporting .19
7.4.5 Considerations .19
7.5 Labelling .20
7.5.1 Purpose .20
7.5.2 Geometry .20
7.5.3 Considerations .21
Annex A (informative) Example artifact configurations .22
Annex B (informative) Measurement techniques .25
© ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved iii
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
Annex C (informative) Measurement procedures.28
Annex D (informative) List of specimen names and sizes .34
Bibliography .36
iv © ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out
through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical
committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International
organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.
ISO collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of
electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are
described in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular the different approval criteria needed for the
different types of ISO documents should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the
editorial rules of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www .iso .org/directives).
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Details of
any patent rights identified during the development of the document will be in the Introduction and/or
on the ISO list of patent declarations received (see www .iso .org/patents).
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation of the voluntary nature of standards, the meaning of ISO specific terms and
expressions related to conformity assessment, as well as information about ISO's adherence to the
World Trade Organization (WTO) principles in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) see www .iso
.org/iso/foreword .html.
This document was prepared by ISO/TC 261, Additive manufacturing, in cooperation with
ASTM Committee F42, Additive Manufacturing Technologies, on the basis of a partnership agreement
between ISO and ASTM International with the aim to create a common set of ISO/ASTM standards on
additive manufacturing.
Any feedback or questions on this document should be directed to the user’s national standards body. A
complete listing of these bodies can be found at www .iso .org/members .html.
© ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved v
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
Additive manufacturing — Test artifacts — Geometric
capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems
1 Scope
This document covers the general description of benchmarking test piece geometries along with
quantitative and qualitative measurements to be taken on the benchmarking test piece(s) to assess the
performance of additive manufacturing (AM) systems.
This performance assessment can serve the following two purposes:
— AM system capability evaluation;
— AM system calibration.
The benchmarking test piece(s) is (are) primarily used to quantitatively assess the geometric
performance of an AM system. This document describes a suite of test geometries, each designed to
investigate one or more specific performance metrics and several example configurations of these
geometries into test piece(s). It prescribes quantities and qualities of the test geometries to be measured
but does not dictate specific measurement methods. Various user applications can require various grades
of performance. This document discusses examples of feature configurations, as well as measurement
uncertainty requirements, to demonstrate low and high grade examination and performance. This
document does not discuss a specific procedure or machine settings for manufacturing a test piece,
which are covered by ASTM F 2971 and other relevant process specific specifications.
2 Normative references
The following documents are referred to in the text in such a way that some or all of their content
constitutes requirements of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For
undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
ISO/ASTM 52900, Additive manufacturing — General principles — Fundamentals and vocabulary
ISO/ASTM 52921, Standard terminology for additive manufacturing — Coordinate systems and test
methodologies
ASME B46.1, Surface Texture (Surface Roughness, Waviness and Lay)
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in ISO/ASTM 52900 and
ISO/ASTM 52921 apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at https: //www .iso .org/obp
— IEC Electropedia: available at http: //www .electropedia .org/
© ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved 1
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
4 Significance and use
4.1 General
Measurements and observations described in this document are used to assess the performance of an
AM system with a given system set-up and process parameters, in combination with a specific feedstock
material.
The primary characterization of the AM system obtained by this document is via geometric accuracy,
surface finish and minimum feature sizes of the benchmarking test piece(s).
4.2 Comparing results from one machine
The test piece(s) can be built and measured for example when the new machine is installed. The test
piece(s) may be used to periodically evaluate the performance or diagnose a fault in one AM system, for
example, after system maintenance or as defined by the requirements of a quality system.
The test piece(s) described in this test method may be used as a demonstration of capabilities for a
contract between a buyer and seller of AM parts or AM systems.
Data from the measurements described in this document can be used to gauge the impact of new
process parameters or material on the AM system performance.
Certain test geometries may be included with every build on a particular AM system to help establish
performance traceability. Depending on the needs of the end user, not all test artifacts need to be built,
and individual test artifacts can be built separately if required.
5 General principles for producing artifacts
5.1 General
This clause outlines principles applicable for producing all of the test artifact geometries in this
document. Reporting requirements are previewed in connection with the production steps in this
clause, but more details about recording and reporting can be found with the individual artifact
descriptions given in Clause 7.
5.2 Need to use feedstock conforming to a material specification
In order to ensure repeatable results, the use of a quality feedstock material is needed. A feedstock
material specification should be selected or determined by the end user and the feedstock used for test
artifact trials should match said specification. For example, the specification may include the particulate
properties (particle size, size distribution, morphology) for powder feedstock, bulk properties (such as
flow) and chemical properties (such as chemical composition and level of contamination). Although the
details of the material specification shall not be disclosed (unless otherwise agreed between supplier
and purchaser), it should be documented by the producer and reported with a unique alphanumeric
designation as specified by ASTM F2971: 2013, Annex A1, element “B”. For powder-based processes, the
material specification should specifically address limitations of powder re-use and percent of virgin/
re-used powder.
5.3 Need to undertake artifact building according to a documented process
specification
The processing of the material in the AM system should be undertaken according to a documented
process specification/manufacturing plan, as specified by ASTM F2971: 2013, Annex A1, element “C”.
This may be a proprietary internal standard or external standard (subject to buyer/seller negotiations),
but the producer should document user-definable settings and conditions surrounding the building of
parts. For example, it should document the layer thickness, build strategies (e.g. scan path, tool path,
2 © ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
and/or scan parameters), temperatures, etc. used during the build. This process should be consistent
for all test artifacts produced within one build. These recommendations can be different for each use,
so the parameters in the process specification should be agreed between the vendor and end user.
5.4 File formats and preparation
The file formats used and steps of the digital file preparation including slice parameters should be
included in the process specification. Care shall be taken during the creation and transfer of data files
to avoid degradation of the model. Any discrepancy between these affects the outcome of tests on
the artifacts and for this reason, best practice for the control of the file formats and preparation is
discussed here.
5.5 Download files
The 3D digital models for standard test artifact geometries can be downloaded in *.step format at https:
//standards .iso .org/iso/52902/ed -1/en. For a complete list of available files, please see Annex D.
5.6 Discussion of file conversion
When a CAD model is converted to AMF, STL (or any intermediate file format), sufficient fidelity shall
be maintained to ensure that the test artifact produced from it fairly reflects the capabilities of the
AM system under assessment. The file conversion tolerance selected should ensure that the maximum
deviation of the data from the nominal CAD model is less than one quarter and, based on good
measurement practice, ideally less than one tenth of the expected accuracy of the AM system being
assessed. Currently, most additive manufacturing equipment cannot produce features with a resolution
better than 10 µm, therefore CAD models are saved to STL/AMF ensuring at least a 2,5 µm accuracy
or better. This is only general guidance and should be confirmed for the specific output system. It is
recommended that users check the maximum deviation and record the conversion parameters used, as
well as any maximum deviation (chord height and angular tolerance).
Files should not be scaled up or down either during conversion or afterward. Machine correction
factors (e.g. offsets, axis scaling, etc.) may be used and should be documented as part of the process
specification.
5.7 AMF preferred (with conversion instructions/ resolutions)
The AMF file format as defined by ISO/ASTM 52915 is the preferred model format for test artifact
geometry representation due to its ability to store high fidelity geometry with embedded units in an
intermediate file format.
5.8 Need for test specification and test process
This document forms the basis for the general Test Plan/Specification described in ASTM F2971: 2013,
Annex A1, element “D”, but specifics about its implementation need recording to accurately document
the Test Process (element “E” in Annex A1), used for producing the parts as discussed in Clause 6.
5.9 Quantity of test artifacts
For a complete test of machine performance, two things dictate the quantity of the test artifacts
produced. First, the Test Specification/Test Process shall ensure a quantity of samples, typically no less
than five, so that statistically significant measurements can be made. Second, sufficient coverage (see
5.5) of the build platform needs to be made to account for variations in performance between build
locations. Fewer test artifacts with less complete coverage may be used for spot checks or limited
demonstrations, such as the example detailed in Annex A. The number of artifacts shall be agreed upon
between the buyer and seller and shall permit to perform at least 5 mesurements.
© ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved 3
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
5.10 Position and orientation of test artifacts
As per ASTM F2971: 2013, Annex A1, element “F”, it is recommended to report results in combination
with the test artifacts’ build position and orientations according to the convention set forth in
ISO/ASTM 52921.
5.11 Considerations for orientation
Since these test artifacts are intended to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of additive building
techniques, there will be failed build geometries. It is worth considering which features are likely
to fail and place them in a position that minimizes the risk that this leads to an outright failure of
the features/parts/artifacts in the rest of the build. For example, in a powder bed process, it can be
advisable to position parts that are more likely to fail at a higher level in the overall build to reduce the
risk that failed parts or sections of parts impinge on other components in the build or the AM machine
mechanism.
5.12 Labelling
It can be useful to add labels to parts in order to identify respective artifact orientations and positions
in the build. Labelling is summarised in 7.4.
5.13 Coverage
It is important that test artifacts be made with sufficient coverage of the build volume to get representative
data for where real parts are made. Coverage evaluates variability throughout the build volume. This is
best practice for all AM processes and is especially critical for processes that have a “sweet spot” (for
example, some galvanometric laser beam steering systems give more repeatable results in the centre of
the platform). The artifact distribution should span at least 80 % of the machine’s build platform area.
If build location effects are known or deemed irrelevant for the particular trial being performed, then a
single build location may be selected and used, as agreed between vendor and user.
Long artifacts, which reach across the extents of the build, are necessary to detect corrections that are
not linear or are periodic in nature.
5.14 Arrays
Geometry should not be scaled (since this affects the measurement outputs) but may be patterned in an
array to give larger coverage areas. See an example in Figure 2.
5.15 Part consolidation
When arrays of parts are needed for better coverage, it can be most practical to build a single combined
part instead of trying to build arrays of adjacent individual parts. This can be achieved by consolidating
adjacent AMF or STL files prior to slicing and other file preparation steps.
As AM most commonly is a layered process (in z-direction) and often based on pixels (in x/y-direction),
the exact position of the part in the build can affect the test significantly. This is especially true of
artifacts testing machine resolution. A minor translation of the part can influence rounding off issues
influencing whether a specific layer or pixel will build or not. This can be caused during preparation of
the slice file and during orienting the slice file in to the working area in the machine. Results should be
reported in combination with the test artifacts’ build orientations according to the convention set forth
in ISO/ASTM 52921.
With certain AM processes (especially with metals), heat build-up from processing large cross sectional
areas near the test artifacts can affect their geometrical accuracy. Therefore, it is advised that the
manufacturer ensure compliance with specified distances.
4 © ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
5.16 Supports and post processing
Where possible, supports should be avoided or supports which do not impede or affect in any way the
intended measurement should be employed. Supporting strategy, including, but not limited to material,
geometry, removal technique, etc., shall be fully documented in the process specification.
Data reported from this document shall be in the as-built condition prior to any surface or downstream
processing. In the case of unavoidable post-processing undertaken prior to measurement (e.g. removal
of necessary support material), details of the process should be reported as part of the process
specification. The reporting should include a description of any abrasive media and how it was applied
to the surface of the artifacts. In addition, data after additional post-processing treatments (such as
sand blasting of metal parts for example) may be obtained but only if clearly noted and presented
together with as-built measurements.
6 General principles for measuring artifacts
6.1 General
This clause outlines principles applicable for measuring all of the test artifact geometries in this
document. The specific measurements are specified in Clause 7 describing the individual artifact
geometries. This document does not prescribe any specific measurement methods; the measurements
described below can be accomplished by a variety of techniques and devices (e.g. coordinate measuring
machine, optical scanner, dial indicators with calibrated motion devices, surface profilometers, etc.).
ISO 17296-3 can be used to improve communication between stakeholders concerning test methods.
Reporting requirements are previewed in connection with the measurement steps in this clause but
more details about recording and reporting can be found in Annexes B and C.
6.2 Measure parts as built
The test artifact should be allowed to cool to room temperature and then measured directly after it is
removed from the system used to build it, before any post-processing is performed. The end user may
require that parts be held at a set temperature and humidity prior to measurement. If the parts are
built by a powder bed based process, the parts should be completely separated from the surrounding
powder before measurement. If the parts are built on a build platform, perform the measurements
without removing the part from the platform. (Removal from a build platform can affect the shapes of
the artifacts, thereby influencing the results. If measurement is not possible on the platform, this shall
be explicitly stated in the report.) If post-processing is desired, report all details of each post-processing
step and measure the part before and after each post-processing steps (reporting all measurement
results).
6.3 Measurement strategy
It is well known that measurement strategy affects the overall measurement uncertainty; this is true
for dimensional measurements and surface measurements alike. Measurement strategy, here, involves
the device chosen to perform the measurement along with the number of points selected to represent
the feature or surface and the distribution of points along the feature or surface. For roughness
measurements, the measurement strategy includes any applied filters (e.g. the cut-off length).
Measurement strategy is a complicated subject and is often very specific to the part or feature being
measured. As such, there is no general “best practice” for performing these measurements. However,
some tips are provided in Annexes B and C. The measurement uncertainty is ultimately the important
concept, and, with consideration given to the available measurement devices, using a measurement
strategy that minimizes the measurement uncertainty within any given constraints should be the
primary focus.
Nominally “flat” surfaces may be very uneven or rough. Multiple points sometimes need to be measured
to obtain a mean result.
© ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved 5
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
6.4 Measurement uncertainty
The standard uncertainty of each measurement should be reported along with the measurement.
Guidance on determining measurement uncertainty can be found in the following references:
— ASME B89.7.3.2 for uncertainty in dimensional measurements;
— ASME B46.1 for surface texture measurements;
— JCGM 100 and JCGM 101 for measurement uncertainty in general;
— ISO/IEC Guide 98-1 and related documents.
Users should document any calibration and/or quality maintenance system for the measurement
processes and equipment used. Measurement device and resolution shall be disclosed in the report.
7 Artifact geometries
7.1 General
Seven types of artifacts are described in the following subclauses. Each artifact is intended to test a
different aspect of a system’s performance or capability.
7.2 Accuracy
7.2.1 Linear artifact
7.2.1.1 Purpose
This artifact tests the linear positioning accuracy along a specific machine direction. Depending on
artifact orientation and machine configuration, errors in the artifact may provide a basis for positioning
compensation or diagnosing specific error motions in the system’s positioning system.
7.2.1.2 Geometry
Figure 1 depicts the geometry of the linear artifact. The artifact is comprised of prismatic protrusions
atop a rectangular solid base. A bounding box for the entire feature is 55 mm × 5 mm × 8 mm. The
end protrusions are 2,5 mm × 5 mm × 5 mm. The central protrusions are 5 mm cubes. Spacing of the
protrusions increases along the length of the artifact from 5 mm to 7,5 mm, 10 mm, and 12,5 mm.
Dimensions in mm
Figure 1 — Engineering drawing of linear test artifacts
6 © ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
If a longer test of linear accuracy is desired, multiple linear artifacts can be appended to one another. The
2,5 mm length of the end protrusions means that when two or more linear artifacts are appended, the
central protrusions will all be 5 mm cubes. Figure 2 shows an example. If this option is chosen, see 5.14.
Figure 2 — Two linear accuracy test artifacts appended to each other
If a shorter test of linear accuracy is required, the geometry of an alternative test artifact shall be agreed
upon by the user and supplier, and shall follow similar design principles to the part shown in Figure 1.
The alternative artifact should have non-equally spaced features and should test both protrusions and
gaps (i.e. distances with material in between datum features and distances with space in between
datum features).
7.2.1.3 Measurement
The primary measurement for the linear artifact is the positions of the cube faces relative to the
primary datum at the end of the artifact (see Figure 1). Alternatively, the lengths of each protrusion
can be measured and the spacing between each protrusion can be measured. Optional measurements
available are the straightness of the base along the length of the artifact, parallelism of each side of the
base along the length of the artifact and the heights of each protrusion.
7.2.1.4 Considerations
Default orientations for a thorough overview of linear accuracy should include at least one test artifact
aligned parallel to each axis (x, y, and z) in the machine coordinate system. When this is done, orthogonal
orientation notation should be used to document the orientation as per ISO/ASTM 52921. An alternative
may be to align one linear artifact with the motion of one of the machine’s positioning axes (for example
the x-axis slide in a gantry system). This alternative orientation may better link errors in the part with
error motions in the positioning system.
Orientations that can cause collision or damage from a wiper or recoating blade should be avoided.
It is often desirable to test linear accuracy through the extent of the machine’s positioning capabilities.
Users should consider positioning linear artifacts through the middle of the build area as well as near
the ends of travel.
In the case of a vertically oriented linear artifact, the use of support structures should be avoided if
possible. If support structures are necessary (for example beneath the protrusions), the support
strategy (including geometry, material and removal technique) shall be fully documented. Care should
be taken to select a support strategy that minimizes the adverse impact on the measuring process/
accuracy.
© ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved 7
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
7.2.2 Circular artifact
7.2.2.1 Purpose
These artifacts are intended to test the dynamic accuracy for the projection of the activation energy
(for example a laser-, or an electron beam) or the method of joining material (for example in binder
jetting) onto the build surface in the AM machine.
The basic configuration of these artifacts is created to be able to separate the influence of the material
and external sources of error that can be present in the AM machine.
7.2.2.2 Geometry
7.2.2.2.1 Basic geometry
Figure 3 depicts the basic geometry of the circular accuracy test artifact. The artifact is comprised of
two concentric rings that are closely spaced.
The concentric rings are built centred on a thin circular plate.
The innermost ring is an optional construction.
7.2.2.2.2 Base
The widths of the bases shall have an internal diameter of 20,0 mm for the coarse, 10,0 mm for the medium
and 5,0 mm for the fine and an external diameter of 100,0 mm for the coarse, 50,0 mm for the medium
and 25,0 mm for the fine. The height of the base shall be respectively 12,0 mm, 6,0 mm and 3,0 mm.
An orientation feature shall be placed at one quadrant of the base cylinder and consist of two flat planes
perpendicular to the top plane extending from the centre of the base cylinder, tangential to the external
diameter and intersecting outside the cylinder.
7.2.2.2.3 Outer rings
The outer rings have an external diameter of 94,0 mm for the coarse, 47,0 mm for the medium and
23,5 mm for the fine and an internal diameter of 60,0 mm for the coarse, 30,0 mm for the medium and
15,0 mm for the fine. The heights of the rings are respectively 40,0 mm, 20,0 mm and 10,0 mm above
the top surface of the base.
7.2.2.2.4 Inner rings
The inner rings have an external diameter of 32,0 mm for the coarse, 16,0 mm for the medium and
8,0 mm for the fine and an internal diameter of 28,0 mm for the coarse, 14,0 mm for the medium and
7,0 mm for the fine. The heights of the rings are respectively 40,0 mm, 20,0 mm, 10 mm above the top
surface of the base.
7.2.2.3 Measurement
The primary measurement for this artifact is the roundness (circularity) of the ring faces. Alternatively,
the sizes of the diameters of each inner and outer ring can be measured at multiple (minimum five)
locations, reporting maximum inscribed circle and minimum circumscribed circle diameters. A
second alternative is to measure the wall thickness of each ring at multiple (minimum five) locations.
Optional measurements of this artifact include the concentricity of each face of each ring as well as the
cylindricity of each face of each ring.
8 © ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
7.2.2.4 Considerati
...
SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-december-2019
Aditivna proizvodnja - Preskusna telesa - Geometrijske zmogljivosti aditivnih
proizvodnih sistemov (ISO/ASTM 52902:2019)
Additive manufacturing - Test artifacts - Geometric capability assessment of additive
manufacturing systems (ISO/ASTM 52902:2019)
Additive Fertigung - Testkörper - Allgemeine Leitlinie für die Bewertung der
geometrischen Leistung additiver Fertigungssysteme (AM-Systeme) (ISO/ASTM
52902:2019)
Fabrication additive - Pièces types d'essai - Évaluation de la capacité géométrique des
systèmes de fabrication additive (ISO/ASTM 52902:2019)
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019
ICS:
25.030 3D-tiskanje Additive manufacturing
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.
EN ISO/ASTM 52902
EUROPEAN STANDARD
NORME EUROPÉENNE
September 2019
EUROPÄISCHE NORM
ICS 25.030
English Version
Additive manufacturing - Test artifacts - Geometric
capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems
(ISO/ASTM 52902:2019)
Fabrication additive - Pièces types d'essai - Évaluation Additive Fertigung - Testkörper - Allgemeine Leitlinie
de la capacité géométrique des systèmes de fabrication für die Bewertung der geometrischen Leistung
additive (ISO/ASTM 52902:2019) additiver Fertigungssysteme (AM-Systeme)
(ISO/ASTM 52902:2019)
This European Standard was approved by CEN on 7 July 2019.
CEN members are bound to comply with the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations which stipulate the conditions for giving this
European Standard the status of a national standard without any alteration. Up-to-date lists and bibliographical references
concerning such national standards may be obtained on application to the CEN-CENELEC Management Centre or to any CEN
member.
This European Standard exists in three official versions (English, French, German). A version in any other language made by
translation under the responsibility of a CEN member into its own language and notified to the CEN-CENELEC Management
Centre has the same status as the official versions.
CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Republic of North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and
United Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION
EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG
CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Rue de la Science 23, B-1040 Brussels
© 2019 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.
Contents Page
European foreword . 3
European foreword
This document (EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019) has been prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 261
"Additive manufacturing" in collaboration with Technical Committee CEN/TC 438 “Additive
Manufacturing” the secretariat of which is held by AFNOR.
This European Standard shall be given the status of a national standard, either by publication of an
identical text or by endorsement, at the latest by March 2020, and conflicting national standards shall
be withdrawn at the latest by March 2020.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. CEN shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
According to the CEN-CENELEC Internal Regulations, the national standards organizations of the
following countries are bound to implement this European Standard: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of
North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the
United Kingdom.
Endorsement notice
The text of ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 has been approved by CEN as EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 without
any modification.
INTERNATIONAL ISO/ASTM
STANDARD 52902
First edition
2019-07
Additive manufacturing —
Test artifacts — Geometric
capability assessment of additive
manufacturing systems
Fabrication additive — Pièces types d'essai — Évaluation de la
capacité géométrique des systèmes de fabrication additive
Reference number
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
©
ISO/ASTM International 2019
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
© ISO/ASTM International 2019
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, or required in the context of its implementation, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on
the internet or an intranet, without prior written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below
or ISO’s member body in the country of the requester. In the United States, such requests should be sent to ASTM International.
ISO copyright office ASTM International
CP 401 • Ch. de Blandonnet 8 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, USA
Phone: +41 22 749 01 11 Phone: +610 832 9634
Fax: +41 22 749 09 47 Fax: +610 832 9635
Email: copyright@iso.org Email: khooper@astm.org
Website: www.iso.org Website: www.astm.org
Published in Switzerland
ii © ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
Contents Page
Foreword .v
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions . 1
4 Significance and use . 2
4.1 General . 2
4.2 Comparing results from one machine . 2
5 General principles for producing artifacts . 2
5.1 General . 2
5.2 Need to use feedstock conforming to a material specification . 2
5.3 Need to undertake artifact building according to a documented process specification . 2
5.4 File formats and preparation . 3
5.5 Download files . 3
5.6 Discussion of file conversion . 3
5.7 AMF preferred (with conversion instructions/ resolutions) . 3
5.8 Need for test specification and test process . 3
5.9 Quantity of test artifacts . 3
5.10 Position and orientation of test artifacts . 4
5.11 Considerations for orientation . 4
5.12 Labelling . 4
5.13 Coverage . 4
5.14 Arrays . 4
5.15 Part consolidation . 4
5.16 Supports and post processing . 5
6 General principles for measuring artifacts . 5
6.1 General . 5
6.2 Measure parts as built . 5
6.3 Measurement strategy . 5
6.4 Measurement uncertainty . 6
7 Artifact geometries . 6
7.1 General . 6
7.2 Accuracy . 6
7.2.1 Linear artifact . 6
7.2.2 Circular artifact . 8
7.3 Resolution .10
7.3.1 Resolution pins .10
7.3.2 Resolution holes .11
7.3.3 Resolution rib .13
7.3.4 Resolution slot .15
7.4 Surface texture .17
7.4.1 Purpose .17
7.4.2 Geometry .17
7.4.3 Measurement .18
7.4.4 Reporting .19
7.4.5 Considerations .19
7.5 Labelling .20
7.5.1 Purpose .20
7.5.2 Geometry .20
7.5.3 Considerations .21
Annex A (informative) Example artifact configurations .22
Annex B (informative) Measurement techniques .25
© ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved iii
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
Annex C (informative) Measurement procedures.28
Annex D (informative) List of specimen names and sizes .34
Bibliography .36
iv © ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out
through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical
committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International
organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.
ISO collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of
electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are
described in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular the different approval criteria needed for the
different types of ISO documents should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the
editorial rules of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www .iso .org/directives).
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Details of
any patent rights identified during the development of the document will be in the Introduction and/or
on the ISO list of patent declarations received (see www .iso .org/patents).
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation of the voluntary nature of standards, the meaning of ISO specific terms and
expressions related to conformity assessment, as well as information about ISO's adherence to the
World Trade Organization (WTO) principles in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) see www .iso
.org/iso/foreword .html.
This document was prepared by ISO/TC 261, Additive manufacturing, in cooperation with
ASTM Committee F42, Additive Manufacturing Technologies, on the basis of a partnership agreement
between ISO and ASTM International with the aim to create a common set of ISO/ASTM standards on
additive manufacturing.
Any feedback or questions on this document should be directed to the user’s national standards body. A
complete listing of these bodies can be found at www .iso .org/members .html.
© ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved v
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
Additive manufacturing — Test artifacts — Geometric
capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems
1 Scope
This document covers the general description of benchmarking test piece geometries along with
quantitative and qualitative measurements to be taken on the benchmarking test piece(s) to assess the
performance of additive manufacturing (AM) systems.
This performance assessment can serve the following two purposes:
— AM system capability evaluation;
— AM system calibration.
The benchmarking test piece(s) is (are) primarily used to quantitatively assess the geometric
performance of an AM system. This document describes a suite of test geometries, each designed to
investigate one or more specific performance metrics and several example configurations of these
geometries into test piece(s). It prescribes quantities and qualities of the test geometries to be measured
but does not dictate specific measurement methods. Various user applications can require various grades
of performance. This document discusses examples of feature configurations, as well as measurement
uncertainty requirements, to demonstrate low and high grade examination and performance. This
document does not discuss a specific procedure or machine settings for manufacturing a test piece,
which are covered by ASTM F 2971 and other relevant process specific specifications.
2 Normative references
The following documents are referred to in the text in such a way that some or all of their content
constitutes requirements of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For
undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
ISO/ASTM 52900, Additive manufacturing — General principles — Fundamentals and vocabulary
ISO/ASTM 52921, Standard terminology for additive manufacturing — Coordinate systems and test
methodologies
ASME B46.1, Surface Texture (Surface Roughness, Waviness and Lay)
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in ISO/ASTM 52900 and
ISO/ASTM 52921 apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at https: //www .iso .org/obp
— IEC Electropedia: available at http: //www .electropedia .org/
© ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved 1
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
4 Significance and use
4.1 General
Measurements and observations described in this document are used to assess the performance of an
AM system with a given system set-up and process parameters, in combination with a specific feedstock
material.
The primary characterization of the AM system obtained by this document is via geometric accuracy,
surface finish and minimum feature sizes of the benchmarking test piece(s).
4.2 Comparing results from one machine
The test piece(s) can be built and measured for example when the new machine is installed. The test
piece(s) may be used to periodically evaluate the performance or diagnose a fault in one AM system, for
example, after system maintenance or as defined by the requirements of a quality system.
The test piece(s) described in this test method may be used as a demonstration of capabilities for a
contract between a buyer and seller of AM parts or AM systems.
Data from the measurements described in this document can be used to gauge the impact of new
process parameters or material on the AM system performance.
Certain test geometries may be included with every build on a particular AM system to help establish
performance traceability. Depending on the needs of the end user, not all test artifacts need to be built,
and individual test artifacts can be built separately if required.
5 General principles for producing artifacts
5.1 General
This clause outlines principles applicable for producing all of the test artifact geometries in this
document. Reporting requirements are previewed in connection with the production steps in this
clause, but more details about recording and reporting can be found with the individual artifact
descriptions given in Clause 7.
5.2 Need to use feedstock conforming to a material specification
In order to ensure repeatable results, the use of a quality feedstock material is needed. A feedstock
material specification should be selected or determined by the end user and the feedstock used for test
artifact trials should match said specification. For example, the specification may include the particulate
properties (particle size, size distribution, morphology) for powder feedstock, bulk properties (such as
flow) and chemical properties (such as chemical composition and level of contamination). Although the
details of the material specification shall not be disclosed (unless otherwise agreed between supplier
and purchaser), it should be documented by the producer and reported with a unique alphanumeric
designation as specified by ASTM F2971: 2013, Annex A1, element “B”. For powder-based processes, the
material specification should specifically address limitations of powder re-use and percent of virgin/
re-used powder.
5.3 Need to undertake artifact building according to a documented process
specification
The processing of the material in the AM system should be undertaken according to a documented
process specification/manufacturing plan, as specified by ASTM F2971: 2013, Annex A1, element “C”.
This may be a proprietary internal standard or external standard (subject to buyer/seller negotiations),
but the producer should document user-definable settings and conditions surrounding the building of
parts. For example, it should document the layer thickness, build strategies (e.g. scan path, tool path,
2 © ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
and/or scan parameters), temperatures, etc. used during the build. This process should be consistent
for all test artifacts produced within one build. These recommendations can be different for each use,
so the parameters in the process specification should be agreed between the vendor and end user.
5.4 File formats and preparation
The file formats used and steps of the digital file preparation including slice parameters should be
included in the process specification. Care shall be taken during the creation and transfer of data files
to avoid degradation of the model. Any discrepancy between these affects the outcome of tests on
the artifacts and for this reason, best practice for the control of the file formats and preparation is
discussed here.
5.5 Download files
The 3D digital models for standard test artifact geometries can be downloaded in *.step format at https:
//standards .iso .org/iso/52902/ed -1/en. For a complete list of available files, please see Annex D.
5.6 Discussion of file conversion
When a CAD model is converted to AMF, STL (or any intermediate file format), sufficient fidelity shall
be maintained to ensure that the test artifact produced from it fairly reflects the capabilities of the
AM system under assessment. The file conversion tolerance selected should ensure that the maximum
deviation of the data from the nominal CAD model is less than one quarter and, based on good
measurement practice, ideally less than one tenth of the expected accuracy of the AM system being
assessed. Currently, most additive manufacturing equipment cannot produce features with a resolution
better than 10 µm, therefore CAD models are saved to STL/AMF ensuring at least a 2,5 µm accuracy
or better. This is only general guidance and should be confirmed for the specific output system. It is
recommended that users check the maximum deviation and record the conversion parameters used, as
well as any maximum deviation (chord height and angular tolerance).
Files should not be scaled up or down either during conversion or afterward. Machine correction
factors (e.g. offsets, axis scaling, etc.) may be used and should be documented as part of the process
specification.
5.7 AMF preferred (with conversion instructions/ resolutions)
The AMF file format as defined by ISO/ASTM 52915 is the preferred model format for test artifact
geometry representation due to its ability to store high fidelity geometry with embedded units in an
intermediate file format.
5.8 Need for test specification and test process
This document forms the basis for the general Test Plan/Specification described in ASTM F2971: 2013,
Annex A1, element “D”, but specifics about its implementation need recording to accurately document
the Test Process (element “E” in Annex A1), used for producing the parts as discussed in Clause 6.
5.9 Quantity of test artifacts
For a complete test of machine performance, two things dictate the quantity of the test artifacts
produced. First, the Test Specification/Test Process shall ensure a quantity of samples, typically no less
than five, so that statistically significant measurements can be made. Second, sufficient coverage (see
5.5) of the build platform needs to be made to account for variations in performance between build
locations. Fewer test artifacts with less complete coverage may be used for spot checks or limited
demonstrations, such as the example detailed in Annex A. The number of artifacts shall be agreed upon
between the buyer and seller and shall permit to perform at least 5 mesurements.
© ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved 3
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
5.10 Position and orientation of test artifacts
As per ASTM F2971: 2013, Annex A1, element “F”, it is recommended to report results in combination
with the test artifacts’ build position and orientations according to the convention set forth in
ISO/ASTM 52921.
5.11 Considerations for orientation
Since these test artifacts are intended to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of additive building
techniques, there will be failed build geometries. It is worth considering which features are likely
to fail and place them in a position that minimizes the risk that this leads to an outright failure of
the features/parts/artifacts in the rest of the build. For example, in a powder bed process, it can be
advisable to position parts that are more likely to fail at a higher level in the overall build to reduce the
risk that failed parts or sections of parts impinge on other components in the build or the AM machine
mechanism.
5.12 Labelling
It can be useful to add labels to parts in order to identify respective artifact orientations and positions
in the build. Labelling is summarised in 7.4.
5.13 Coverage
It is important that test artifacts be made with sufficient coverage of the build volume to get representative
data for where real parts are made. Coverage evaluates variability throughout the build volume. This is
best practice for all AM processes and is especially critical for processes that have a “sweet spot” (for
example, some galvanometric laser beam steering systems give more repeatable results in the centre of
the platform). The artifact distribution should span at least 80 % of the machine’s build platform area.
If build location effects are known or deemed irrelevant for the particular trial being performed, then a
single build location may be selected and used, as agreed between vendor and user.
Long artifacts, which reach across the extents of the build, are necessary to detect corrections that are
not linear or are periodic in nature.
5.14 Arrays
Geometry should not be scaled (since this affects the measurement outputs) but may be patterned in an
array to give larger coverage areas. See an example in Figure 2.
5.15 Part consolidation
When arrays of parts are needed for better coverage, it can be most practical to build a single combined
part instead of trying to build arrays of adjacent individual parts. This can be achieved by consolidating
adjacent AMF or STL files prior to slicing and other file preparation steps.
As AM most commonly is a layered process (in z-direction) and often based on pixels (in x/y-direction),
the exact position of the part in the build can affect the test significantly. This is especially true of
artifacts testing machine resolution. A minor translation of the part can influence rounding off issues
influencing whether a specific layer or pixel will build or not. This can be caused during preparation of
the slice file and during orienting the slice file in to the working area in the machine. Results should be
reported in combination with the test artifacts’ build orientations according to the convention set forth
in ISO/ASTM 52921.
With certain AM processes (especially with metals), heat build-up from processing large cross sectional
areas near the test artifacts can affect their geometrical accuracy. Therefore, it is advised that the
manufacturer ensure compliance with specified distances.
4 © ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
5.16 Supports and post processing
Where possible, supports should be avoided or supports which do not impede or affect in any way the
intended measurement should be employed. Supporting strategy, including, but not limited to material,
geometry, removal technique, etc., shall be fully documented in the process specification.
Data reported from this document shall be in the as-built condition prior to any surface or downstream
processing. In the case of unavoidable post-processing undertaken prior to measurement (e.g. removal
of necessary support material), details of the process should be reported as part of the process
specification. The reporting should include a description of any abrasive media and how it was applied
to the surface of the artifacts. In addition, data after additional post-processing treatments (such as
sand blasting of metal parts for example) may be obtained but only if clearly noted and presented
together with as-built measurements.
6 General principles for measuring artifacts
6.1 General
This clause outlines principles applicable for measuring all of the test artifact geometries in this
document. The specific measurements are specified in Clause 7 describing the individual artifact
geometries. This document does not prescribe any specific measurement methods; the measurements
described below can be accomplished by a variety of techniques and devices (e.g. coordinate measuring
machine, optical scanner, dial indicators with calibrated motion devices, surface profilometers, etc.).
ISO 17296-3 can be used to improve communication between stakeholders concerning test methods.
Reporting requirements are previewed in connection with the measurement steps in this clause but
more details about recording and reporting can be found in Annexes B and C.
6.2 Measure parts as built
The test artifact should be allowed to cool to room temperature and then measured directly after it is
removed from the system used to build it, before any post-processing is performed. The end user may
require that parts be held at a set temperature and humidity prior to measurement. If the parts are
built by a powder bed based process, the parts should be completely separated from the surrounding
powder before measurement. If the parts are built on a build platform, perform the measurements
without removing the part from the platform. (Removal from a build platform can affect the shapes of
the artifacts, thereby influencing the results. If measurement is not possible on the platform, this shall
be explicitly stated in the report.) If post-processing is desired, report all details of each post-processing
step and measure the part before and after each post-processing steps (reporting all measurement
results).
6.3 Measurement strategy
It is well known that measurement strategy affects the overall measurement uncertainty; this is true
for dimensional measurements and surface measurements alike. Measurement strategy, here, involves
the device chosen to perform the measurement along with the number of points selected to represent
the feature or surface and the distribution of points along the feature or surface. For roughness
measurements, the measurement strategy includes any applied filters (e.g. the cut-off length).
Measurement strategy is a complicated subject and is often very specific to the part or feature being
measured. As such, there is no general “best practice” for performing these measurements. However,
some tips are provided in Annexes B and C. The measurement uncertainty is ultimately the important
concept, and, with consideration given to the available measurement devices, using a measurement
strategy that minimizes the measurement uncertainty within any given constraints should be the
primary focus.
Nominally “flat” surfaces may be very uneven or rough. Multiple points sometimes need to be measured
to obtain a mean result.
© ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved 5
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
6.4 Measurement uncertainty
The standard uncertainty of each measurement should be reported along with the measurement.
Guidance on determining measurement uncertainty can be found in the following references:
— ASME B89.7.3.2 for uncertainty in dimensional measurements;
— ASME B46.1 for surface texture measurements;
— JCGM 100 and JCGM 101 for measurement uncertainty in general;
— ISO/IEC Guide 98-1 and related documents.
Users should document any calibration and/or quality maintenance system for the measurement
processes and equipment used. Measurement device and resolution shall be disclosed in the report.
7 Artifact geometries
7.1 General
Seven types of artifacts are described in the following subclauses. Each artifact is intended to test a
different aspect of a system’s performance or capability.
7.2 Accuracy
7.2.1 Linear artifact
7.2.1.1 Purpose
This artifact tests the linear positioning accuracy along a specific machine direction. Depending on
artifact orientation and machine configuration, errors in the artifact may provide a basis for positioning
compensation or diagnosing specific error motions in the system’s positioning system.
7.2.1.2 Geometry
Figure 1 depicts the geometry of the linear artifact. The artifact is comprised of prismatic protrusions
atop a rectangular solid base. A bounding box for the entire feature is 55 mm × 5 mm × 8 mm. The
end protrusions are 2,5 mm × 5 mm × 5 mm. The central protrusions are 5 mm cubes. Spacing of the
protrusions increases along the length of the artifact from 5 mm to 7,5 mm, 10 mm, and 12,5 mm.
Dimensions in mm
Figure 1 — Engineering drawing of linear test artifacts
6 © ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
If a longer test of linear accuracy is desired, multiple linear artifacts can be appended to one another. The
2,5 mm length of the end protrusions means that when two or more linear artifacts are appended, the
central protrusions will all be 5 mm cubes. Figure 2 shows an example. If this option is chosen, see 5.14.
Figure 2 — Two linear accuracy test artifacts appended to each other
If a shorter test of linear accuracy is required, the geometry of an alternative test artifact shall be agreed
upon by the user and supplier, and shall follow similar design principles to the part shown in Figure 1.
The alternative artifact should have non-equally spaced features and should test both protrusions and
gaps (i.e. distances with material in between datum features and distances with space in between
datum features).
7.2.1.3 Measurement
The primary measurement for the linear artifact is the positions of the cube faces relative to the
primary datum at the end of the artifact (see Figure 1). Alternatively, the lengths of each protrusion
can be measured and the spacing between each protrusion can be measured. Optional measurements
available are the straightness of the base along the length of the artifact, parallelism of each side of the
base along the length of the artifact and the heights of each protrusion.
7.2.1.4 Considerations
Default orientations for a thorough overview of linear accuracy should include at least one test artifact
aligned parallel to each axis (x, y, and z) in the machine coordinate system. When this is done, orthogonal
orientation notation should be used to document the orientation as per ISO/ASTM 52921. An alternative
may be to align one linear artifact with the motion of one of the machine’s positioning axes (for example
the x-axis slide in a gantry system). This alternative orientation may better link errors in the part with
error motions in the positioning system.
Orientations that can cause collision or damage from a wiper or recoating blade should be avoided.
It is often desirable to test linear accuracy through the extent of the machine’s positioning capabilities.
Users should consider positioning linear artifacts through the middle of the build area as well as near
the ends of travel.
In the case of a vertically oriented linear artifact, the use of support structures should be avoided if
possible. If support structures are necessary (for example beneath the protrusions), the support
strategy (including geometry, material and removal technique) shall be fully documented. Care should
be taken to select a support strategy that minimizes the adverse impact on the measuring process/
accuracy.
© ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved 7
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
7.2.2 Circular artifact
7.2.2.1 Purpose
These artifacts are intended to test the dynamic accuracy for the projection of the activation energy
(for example a laser-, or an electron beam) or the method of joining material (for example in binder
jetting) onto the build surface in the AM machine.
The basic configuration of these artifacts is created to be able to separate the influence of the material
and external sources of error that can be present in the AM machine.
7.2.2.2 Geometry
7.2.2.2.1 Basic geometry
Figure 3 depicts the basic geometry of the circular accuracy test artifact. The artifact is comprised of
two concentric rings that are closely spaced.
The concentric rings are built centred on a thin circular plate.
The innermost ring is an optional construction.
7.2.2.2.2 Base
The widths of the bases shall have an internal diameter of 20,0 mm for the coarse, 10,0 mm for the medium
and 5,0 mm for the fine and an external diameter of 100,0 mm for the coarse, 50,0 mm for the medium
and 25,0 mm for the fine. The height of the base shall be respectively 12,0 mm, 6,0 mm and 3,0 mm.
An orientation feature shall be placed at one quadrant of the base cylinder and consist of two flat planes
perpendicular to the top plane extending from the centre of the base cylinder, tangential to the external
diameter and intersecting outside the cylinder.
7.2.2.2.3 Outer rings
The outer rings have an external diameter of 94,0 mm for the coarse, 47,0 mm for the medium and
23,5 mm for the fine and an internal diameter of 60,0 mm for the coarse, 30,0 mm for the medium and
15,0 mm for the fine. The heights of the rings are respectively 40,0 mm, 20,0 mm and 10,0 mm above
the top surface of the base.
7.2.2.2.4 Inner rings
The inner rings have an external diameter of 32,0 mm for the coarse, 16,0 mm for the medium and
8,0 mm for the fine and an internal diameter of 28,0 mm for the coarse, 14,0 mm for the medium and
7,0 mm for the fine. The heights of the rings are respectively 40,0 mm, 20,0 mm, 10 mm above the top
surface of the base.
7.2.2.3 Measurement
The primary measurement for this artifact is the roundness (circularity) of the ring faces. Alternatively,
the sizes of the diameters of each inner and outer ring can be measured at multiple (minimum five)
locations, reporting maximum inscribed circle and minimum circumscribed circle diameters. A
second alternative is to measure the wall thickness of each ring at multiple (minimum five) locations.
Optional measurements of this artifact include the concentricity of each face of each ring as well as the
cylindricity of each face of each ring.
8 © ISO/ASTM International 2019 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2019(E)
7.2.2.4 Considerations for producing test artifacts
Bui
...
Frequently Asked Questions
EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 is a standard published by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Its full title is "Additive manufacturing - Test artifacts - Geometric capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems (ISO/ASTM 52902:2019)". This standard covers: This document covers the general description of benchmarking test piece geometries along with quantitative and qualitative measurements to be taken on the benchmarking test piece(s) to assess the performance of additive manufacturing (AM) systems. This performance assessment can serve the following two purposes: — AM system capability evaluation; — AM system calibration. The benchmarking test piece(s) is (are) primarily used to quantitatively assess the geometric performance of an AM system. This document describes a suite of test geometries, each designed to investigate one or more specific performance metrics and several example configurations of these geometries into test piece(s). It prescribes quantities and qualities of the test geometries to be measured but does not dictate specific measurement methods. Various user applications can require various grades of performance. This document discusses examples of feature configurations, as well as measurement uncertainty requirements, to demonstrate low and high grade examination and performance. This document does not discuss a specific procedure or machine settings for manufacturing a test piece, which are covered by ASTM F 2971 and other relevant process specific specifications.
This document covers the general description of benchmarking test piece geometries along with quantitative and qualitative measurements to be taken on the benchmarking test piece(s) to assess the performance of additive manufacturing (AM) systems. This performance assessment can serve the following two purposes: — AM system capability evaluation; — AM system calibration. The benchmarking test piece(s) is (are) primarily used to quantitatively assess the geometric performance of an AM system. This document describes a suite of test geometries, each designed to investigate one or more specific performance metrics and several example configurations of these geometries into test piece(s). It prescribes quantities and qualities of the test geometries to be measured but does not dictate specific measurement methods. Various user applications can require various grades of performance. This document discusses examples of feature configurations, as well as measurement uncertainty requirements, to demonstrate low and high grade examination and performance. This document does not discuss a specific procedure or machine settings for manufacturing a test piece, which are covered by ASTM F 2971 and other relevant process specific specifications.
EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 is classified under the following ICS (International Classification for Standards) categories: 25.030 - Additive manufacturing. The ICS classification helps identify the subject area and facilitates finding related standards.
EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 has the following relationships with other standards: It is inter standard links to EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023. Understanding these relationships helps ensure you are using the most current and applicable version of the standard.
You can purchase EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 directly from iTeh Standards. The document is available in PDF format and is delivered instantly after payment. Add the standard to your cart and complete the secure checkout process. iTeh Standards is an authorized distributor of CEN standards.
La norme SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 constitue un document essentiel pour l'évaluation des systèmes de fabrication additive (AM) à travers l'utilisation de pièces d'essai normalisées. Son champ d'application est clair et précis : il fournit une description générale des géométries des pièces de test de référence et les mesures quantitatives et qualitatives à effectuer pour évaluer les performances des systèmes AM. Cela permet un double objectif crucial : l'évaluation des capacités du système AM et la calibration de celui-ci. Parmi les points forts de cette norme, on note la diversité des géométries de test proposées, chacune étant soigneusement conçue pour évaluer différentes métriques de performance. Cela en fait un outil polyvalent adapté à une large gamme d'applications utilisateur. De plus, la norme aborde les exigences relatives à l'incertitude de mesure, ce qui est essentiel pour garantir des résultats fiables, que ce soit pour des exécutions de bas ou haut grade. La pertinence de cette norme devient également évidente à travers sa capacité à ne pas se limiter à des méthodes de mesure spécifiques, offrant ainsi une flexibilité à l'utilisateur dans le choix des techniques d'évaluation. Cela encourage l'innovation et l'adaptabilité dans le domaine de la fabrication additive, un secteur en constante évolution. En résumé, la norme SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 est un document incontournable qui standardise l'évaluation des systèmes de fabrication additive. Elle outille les utilisateurs pour obtenir une compréhension approfondie des capacités géométriques de leurs systèmes, tout en laissant place à une diversité d'applications et d'approches méthodologiques.
SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 표준은 적층 제조(AM) 시스템의 기하학적 성능을 평가하기 위한 benchmarking 테스트 기하학의 일반적인 설명을 포괄적으로 다루고 있습니다. 이 표준은 테스트 기하학 조각에서 수행해야 할 정량적 및 정性 측정을 정의하며, 이러한 성능 평가를 통해 AM 시스템의 기능을 평가하거나 보정할 수 있습니다. 이 표준의 강점 중 하나는 다양한 시험 기하학을 통해 AM 시스템의 기하학적 성능을 정량적으로 평가할 수 있도록 설계된 점입니다. 각 시험 기하학은 특정 성능 지표를 조사하기 위해 마련되어 있으며, 기하학적 구성의 다양한 예시와 이를 테스트 기법으로 구성할 수 있는 방안을 제시하고 있습니다. 이러한 접근 방식은 사용자가 요구하는 성능 등급에 따라 조정될 수 있어 매우 유용합니다. 또한, 이 문서는 측정해야 할 기하학적 특성의 수량과 품질을 규명하지만, 구체적인 측정 방법을 지시하지 않는 점도 특징입니다. 이로 인해 사용자는 다양한 응용 분야에 따라 최적화된 성능 기준을 적용할 수 있는 유연성을 갖게 됩니다. 예를 들어, 낮은 등급 및 높은 등급의 검사를 위한 측정 불확실성 요구 사항을 논의하여 다양한 성능 기준에 맞는 품질 보증을 지원합니다. 마지막으로, 테스트 조각 제조를 위한 특정 절차나 기계 설정은 다루지 않으며, 이는 ASTM F 2971 및 기타 관련 프로세스 특정 사양에서 다루기 때문에 이 문서의 적용 범위가 명확해집니다. 따라서 SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 표준은 적층 제조 시스템의 기하학적 능력을 정확하게 평가하고 보정할 수 있는 필수 도구로 자리 잡을 수 있습니다.
SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019は、アディティブマニュファクチャリング（AM）システムの幾何学的能力評価を目的としたテストアーティファクトに関する標準であり、その範囲はAMシステムの性能を評価するためのベンチマーキングテストピースのジオメトリと、それに対する定量的および定性的測定に関する一般的な説明を含んでいます。この標準は、AMシステムの能力評価およびキャリブレーションに利用できる重要なガイドラインを提供しています。 標準の強みとして、様々なテストジオメトリのスイートを示し、それぞれが特定のパフォーマンスメトリックを調査するために設計されている点が挙げられます。このため、ユーザーは異なるニーズに応じた性能の評価が可能になり、AMシステムの評価がより正確になります。また、測定するジオメトリの量や質が明確に規定されており、測定方法は指定されないため、各ユーザーが自身のプロセスに最適な方法を選択できます。 さらに、性能評価のための具体的な手順や機械設定を扱っていない点も注目すべきです。これは、AMシステムの多様性を考慮し、ASTM F 2971やその他の関連プロセス特定仕様によってカバーされるべき事項であることを示しています。このアプローチにより、さまざまなユーザーアプリケーションが要求する異なる性能レベルに柔軟に対応できるため、非常に有用です。 全体として、SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019は、アディティブマニュファクチャリングシステムにおける幾何学的性能の評価において、包括的で実用的な基準を提供しており、その関連性は今後ますます高まるでしょう。
The EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 standard provides a comprehensive framework for the evaluation of additive manufacturing (AM) systems through geometric capability assessment. Its scope covers the benchmarking of test piece geometries, ensuring that both quantitative and qualitative measurements are systematically applied to gauge the performance of these systems. This is particularly significant for enhancing the reliability and accuracy of AM technologies. One of the key strengths of this standard is its structured approach to performance assessment, allowing for the evaluation of AM system capabilities and calibration processes. By defining a suite of test geometries, the standard empowers users to quantitatively assess geometric performance, a crucial factor in determining the operational readiness and efficiency of AM systems. These test geometries are thoughtfully designed to examine various performance metrics, which can be tailored to specific application needs across different user scenarios. Moreover, the EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 standard notably does not impose specific measurement techniques, providing flexibility for users to adopt measurement methods that best suit their operational needs. This aspect enhances the relevance of the standard, accommodating diverse user applications that may demand varying grades of performance assessment. Additionally, the standard discusses examples of feature configurations and measurement uncertainty requirements, thus supporting a more nuanced understanding of both low and high-grade examinations of AM systems. This level of detail ensures that users can make informed decisions based on the degree of accuracy and precision their specific applications require. In summary, the EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 standard stands out as a vital resource for the additive manufacturing sector, effectively addressing the essential aspects of geometric capability assessment while allowing for the adaptability needed by users in varying contexts. Its clear guidelines on benchmarking test pieces contribute significantly to enhancing the performance evaluation and calibration of AM systems.
Die Norm EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 bietet einen umfassenden Rahmen zur geometrischen Leistungsbewertung von additiven Fertigungssystemen (AM). Ihr Hauptfokus liegt auf der Definition von Benchmark-Teststückgeometrien, die sowohl quantitative als auch qualitative Messungen ermöglichen. Diese Messungen sind entscheidend für die Bewertung der Leistungsfähigkeit von AM-Systemen und dienen sowohl der Evaluierung der Systemeigenschaften als auch deren Kalibrierung. Ein herausragendes Merkmal dieser Norm ist die klare Beschreibung einer Vielzahl von Testgeometrien, die jeweils darauf ausgelegt sind, spezifische Leistungskennzahlen zu untersuchen. Dies erhöht die Anwendbarkeit der Norm in unterschiedlichen industriellen Kontexten, auf die verschiedene Nutzer mit unterschiedlichen Anforderungen an die Leistungsstufen eingehen können. Die Norm bietet somit eine wertvolle Grundlage zur Bewertung der geometrischen Fähigkeiten von AM-Systemen. Darüber hinaus wird in der EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 nicht nur die Art der zu messenden Mengen und Qualitäten der Testgeometrien festgelegt, sondern auch verschiedene Konfigurationen und deren Anpassungen an die Teststücke thematisiert. Dies fördert eine flexible Handhabung und ermöglicht es Anwendern, sich an spezifische Anforderungen ihres Anwendungsbereichs anzupassen. Ein weiterer Vorteil dieser Norm liegt in der Diskussion über die Messunsicherheitsanforderungen, die es den Nutzern ermöglicht, sowohl niedrig- als auch hochgradige Prüfungen und Leistungen zu demonstrieren. Dies unterstützt die Nutzer dabei, geeignete Teststrategien zu entwickeln, die den individuellen Anforderungen gerecht werden. Wichtig zu beachten ist, dass die Norm keine spezifischen Verfahren oder Maschineneinstellungen für die Herstellung der Teststücke behandelt, was jedoch in anderen relevanten Normen wie ASTM F 2971 behandelt wird. Dies gewährleistet, dass sich die EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 auf die geometrische Leistungsbewertung konzentriert, ohne in technische Details der Fertigung einzudringen. Insgesamt trägt die Norm EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 substanziell zur Standardisierung und Verbesserung der Qualität in der additiven Fertigung bei, indem sie ein strukturiertes Vorgehen zur Bewertung und Kalibrierung von AM-Systemen bereitstellt. Ihre Relevanz erstreckt sich über verschiedene Industrien, in denen additive Technologien eingesetzt werden, und ist somit ein unverzichtbares Dokument für Fachleute im Bereich der additiven Fertigung.
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.
Loading comments...