SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023
(Main)Additive manufacturing - Test artefacts - Geometric capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)
Additive manufacturing - Test artefacts - Geometric capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)
This document covers the general description of benchmarking test piece geometries, i.e. artefacts, 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 build(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.
Additive Fertigung - Testkörper - Geometrische Leistungsbewertung additiver Fertigungssysteme (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)
Dieses Dokument enthält die allgemeine Beschreibung von Prüfkörpergeometrien, d. h. Testkörper, 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, en: additive manufacturing).
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. Dieses Dokument beschreibt einen Satz von Prüfgeometrien, die jeweils für die Untersuchung einer oder mehrerer Leistungsmetriken ausgelegt sind, sowie mehrere Beispielkonfigurationen dieser Geometrien im/in Prüfaufbau(ten). Es gibt zu messende Quantitäten und Qualitäten der Prüfgeometrien vor, schreibt aber keine spezifischen Messverfahren vor. Verschiedene Anwendungen 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.
Fabrication additive - Pièces types d'essais - Évaluation de la capacité géométrique des systèmes de fabrication additive (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)
Le présent document couvre la description générale du benchmarking de géométries d’éprouvette, c’est-à-dire des pièces types, 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 mode opératoire ou de réglages de machine spécifiques pour la fabrication d’une éprouvette.
Dodajalna izdelava - Preskusna telesa - Ocenjevanje geometrijske zmogljivosti sistemov dodajalne izdelave (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)
Ta dokument zajema splošen opis geometrij primerjalnih preskušancev, tj. artefaktov, skupaj s kvantitativnimi in kvalitativnimi meritvami, ki jih je treba opraviti na primerjalnih preskušancih za oceno zmogljivosti aditivnih proizvodnih (AM) sistemov.
Ta ocena zmogljivost se lahko uporablja za naslednje namene:
– ocena zmogljivosti aditivnega proizvodnega sistema;
– umerjanje aditivnega proizvodnega sistema.
Primerjalni preskušanci se v osnovi uporabljajo za kvantitativno ocenjevanje geometrijske zmogljivosti aditivnega proizvodnega sistema. Ta dokument 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. 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 dokument predstavlja primere konfiguracij značilnosti in tudi zahteve glede merilne negotovosti za prikaz preskusov ter zmogljivosti nizkega in visokega razreda. Ta dokument ne obravnava določenega postopka ali nastavitev stroja za proizvodnjo preskušanca.
General Information
Relations
Overview
EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 - Additive manufacturing - Test artefacts - Geometric capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems - is a CEN-adopted, international benchmark for evaluating the geometric performance of AM (3D printing) systems. Updated in 2023 and superseding the 2019 edition, this standard describes a suite of benchmark test artefact geometries and prescribes the quantitative and qualitative measurements to assess AM system capability and to support system calibration. It defines what to measure and how to report results, but does not mandate specific measurement methods or machine process settings.
Key topics and requirements
- Test artefact suite: A range of geometries (linear, circular, z-axis, resolution features, texture and labeling) designed to isolate specific geometric performance metrics.
- Measurement scope: Specifies the quantities and qualities to be measured on artefacts (dimensional accuracy, resolution features, surface texture, labelling readability), and gives examples of feature configurations for different assessment grades.
- Purpose-driven assessment: Supports two main uses - AM system capability evaluation and AM system calibration - allowing users to select artefacts relevant to their performance targets.
- Production guidance: General principles on producing artefacts: feedstock conformity, process documentation, file formats and preparation (AMF preferred with conversion guidance), orientation, part consolidation, arrays, labeling, supports and post-processing considerations.
- Measurement principles: Emphasizes measuring parts “as built,” developing a measurement strategy, and documenting measurement uncertainty and reporting requirements. Annexes provide informative guidance on measurement techniques and procedures.
- Reporting and comparability: Guidance to help compare results from one machine or across systems while accounting for uncertainty and differing measurement grades (low/high).
Applications
- Benchmarking and validating geometric accuracy of printers across technologies (metal, polymer, powder bed, material extrusion).
- Calibrating AM systems to improve dimensional fidelity and repeatability.
- Supplier qualification, acceptance testing, and process validation in production environments.
- R&D and process development to quantify limits of resolution, feature fidelity, and surface texture.
Who should use this standard
- AM system manufacturers and integrators
- Quality engineers and metrology labs
- Additive manufacturing service providers and production shops
- R&D teams developing AM processes and design-for-additive-manufacturing (DfAM) practices
Related standards
EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 complements the wider ISO/ASTM additive manufacturing standards series (material specifications, process guides and terminology). Users should pair artefact-based geometric assessment with relevant material and process standards for full process qualification and conformity.
Standards Content (Sample)
SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-november-2023
Nadomešča:
SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019
Dodajalna izdelava - Preskusna telesa - Ocenjevanje geometrijske zmogljivosti
sistemov dodajalne izdelave (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)
Additive manufacturing - Test artefacts - Geometric capability assessment of additive
manufacturing systems (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)
Additive Fertigung - Testkörper - Geometrische Leistungsbewertung additiver
Fertigungssysteme (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)
Fabrication additive - Pièces types d'essais - Évaluation de la capacité géométrique des
systèmes de fabrication additive (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023
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
August 2023
EUROPÄISCHE NORM
ICS 25.030 Supersedes EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019
English Version
Additive manufacturing - Test artefacts - Geometric
capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems
(ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)
Fabrication additive - Pièces types d'essais - Évaluation Additive Fertigung - Testkörper - Geometrische
de la capacité géométrique des systèmes de fabrication Leistungsbewertung additiver Fertigungssysteme
additive (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023) (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)
This European Standard was approved by CEN on 12 August 2023.
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, Türkiye 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
© 2023 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.
Contents Page
European foreword . 3
European foreword
This document (EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023) 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 February 2024, and conflicting national standards
shall be withdrawn at the latest by February 2024.
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.
This document supersedes EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019.
Any feedback and questions on this document should be directed to the users’ national standards
body/national committee. A complete listing of these bodies can be found on the CEN website.
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, Türkiye and the
United Kingdom.
Endorsement notice
The text of ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 has been approved by CEN as EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 without
any modification.
INTERNATIONAL ISO/ASTM
STANDARD 52902
Second edition
2023-08
Additive manufacturing — Test
artefacts — 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 52902:2023(E)
© ISO/ASTM International 2023
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
© ISO/ASTM International 2023
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: +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 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
Contents Page
Foreword .v
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions . 1
4 Significance and use .1
4.1 General . 1
4.2 Comparing results from one machine . 2
5 General principles for producing test artefacts . 2
5.1 General . 2
5.2 Need to use feedstock conforming to a material specification . 2
5.3 Need to undertake artefact 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 artefacts . 3
5.10 Position and orientation of test artefacts . 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 artefacts . 5
6.1 General . 5
6.2 Measure parts as built . 5
6.3 Measurement strategy . 5
6.4 Measurement uncertainty . 6
7 Artefact geometries . 6
7.1 General . 6
7.2 Accuracy . 6
7.2.1 Linear artefact . 6
7.2.2 Circular artefact . 8
7.2.3 Z-axis artefact . 10
7.3 Resolution . 13
7.3.1 Resolution pins. 13
7.3.2 Resolution holes . 14
7.3.3 Resolution rib . 16
7.3.4 Resolution slot . 18
7.4 Surface texture . 20
7.4.1 Purpose . 20
7.4.2 Geometry . 20
7.4.3 Measurement . 21
7.4.4 Reporting .22
7.4.5 Considerations . 22
7.5 Labelling . 23
7.5.1 Purpose .23
7.5.2 Geometry . 23
7.5.3 Considerations . 24
Annex A (informative) Example artefact configurations .25
iii
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
Annex B (informative) Measurement techniques.27
Annex C (informative) Measurement procedures .31
Annex D (informative) List of specimen names and sizes .38
Bibliography .40
iv
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(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, and in collaboration with the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) Technical
Committee CEN/TC 438, Additive manufacturing, in accordance with the Agreement on technical
cooperation between ISO and CEN (Vienna Agreement).
This second edition cancels and replaces the first edition (ISO/ASTM 52902:2019), which has been
technically revised.
The main changes are as follows:
— addition of a test artefact for testing the performance of the Z-axis in an AM system.
— changed dimensions in text and in drawing (see Figure 3) of medium circular artefact such that the
description in the text matches the dimensions in the downloadable STEP file; Figure 3 was also re-
drawn to better depict the circular artefact geometry.
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.
v
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
Additive manufacturing — Test artefacts — Geometric
capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems
1 Scope
This document covers the general description of benchmarking test piece geometries, i.e. artefacts,
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 build(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.
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
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 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 https:// www .electropedia .org/
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.
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
The primary characterization of the AM system obtained by applying 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) can be used to periodically evaluate the performance or diagnose a fault in one AM system, for
example, after system maintenance or as specified by the requirements of a quality system.
The test piece(s) described in this test method can 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 can be included with every build on a particular AM system to help establish
performance traceability. Depending on the needs of the user, not all test artefacts need to be built, and
individual test artefacts can be built separately if required.
5 General principles for producing test artefacts
5.1 General
This clause outlines principles applicable for producing all of the test artefact 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 artefact
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. Clear definition
of the material specification is important. Often a standard specification is preferred, but specifications
do not need to be limited to standards and can be defined by the user. A feedstock material specification
should be selected or required by the user and the feedstock used for test artefact trials should match
said specification. For example, the specification can 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 buyer and seller),
it should be documented by the producer and reported with a unique alphanumeric designation as
specified by ASTM F2971 -13: 2021, 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 artefact 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 -13: 2021, Annex A1, element “C”.
This can be a proprietary internal standard or external standard (subject to buyer/seller negotiations),
but the producer should document the exact values of user-specifiable settings and conditions
surrounding the building of parts. For example, it should document the layer thickness, build strategies
(e.g. scan path, tool path, and/or scan parameters), temperatures, etc. used during the build. This
process should be consistent for all test artefacts produced within one build. These recommendations
can be different for each use, so the parameters in the process specification should be agreed between
the buyer and seller.
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
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 artefacts and for this reason, good practice for the control of the file formats and preparation is
discussed here.
5.5 Download files
The 3D digital models for standard test artefact geometries can be downloaded in *.step format at
https:// standards .iso .org/ iso/ 52902/ ed -2/ 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 artefact 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 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 specified by ISO/ASTM 52915 is the preferred model format for test artefact
geometry representation due to its ability to store high fidelity geometry with embedded units in an
intermediate file format, and for its ability to accurately orient an array of parts within a single AMF
file.
5.8 Need for test specification and test process
This document forms the basis for the general Test Plan/Specification described in ASTM F2971 -13: 2021,
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 7.
5.9 Quantity of test artefacts
For a complete test of machine performance, at least two things dictate the quantity of the test artefacts
produced. First, the test specification/test process shall ensure a quantity of samples, typically no
less than five per build, so that statistically significant measurements can be made. Second, sufficient
coverage (see 5.13) of the build platform needs to be made to account for variations in performance
between build locations. Repeated builds can also be completed to test the repeatability of the process.
Fewer test artefacts with less complete coverage may be used for spot checks or limited demonstrations,
such as the example detailed in Annex A. The number of artefacts shall be agreed upon between the
buyer and seller and shall permit to perform at least 5 measurements.
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
5.10 Position and orientation of test artefacts
As per ASTM F2971 -13: 2021, Annex A1, element “F”, it is recommended to report results in combination
with the test artefacts’ build position and orientations according to the convention set forth in
ISO 17295.
5.11 Considerations for orientation
Since these test artefacts 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 positions or orient them at angles that minimize the risk that this leads to an outright
failure of the features/parts/artefacts 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 to identify respective artefact orientations and positions in the
build. Labelling is summarized in 7.5.
5.13 Coverage
It is important that test artefacts 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 good 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 artefact distribution should span at least 80 %
of the machine’s build platform area, with the intent that the artefacts are built at different locations
based on the applications of the user and where components will be built on the machine in production.
For machines with large build platform areas, artefacts could be placed at the outer ends of the build
platform area and at the centre of the build platform area to provide some coverage of the entire build
area. If build location effects are known or deemed irrelevant for the trial being performed, then a
single build location may be selected and used, as agreed between buyer and seller.
Long artefacts, which reach across the extents of the build volume, can be necessary to detect
corrections that are not linear or are periodic in nature.
5.14 Arrays
Geometry should not be scaled to accommodate different sizes of build volumes (since this affects the
measurement outputs) but can be patterned in an array to give larger coverage areas. See an example in
Figure 2. Scaling of artefact geometry to accommodate shrinkage, such as in applications using binder
jetting AM, should be clearly documented by users.
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. Arrays of parts can be
accurately positioned relative to each other in a single AMF file by use the “constellation” element.
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
artefacts 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 into the working area in the machine. Results should be
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
reported in combination with the test artefacts’ build orientations according to the convention set forth
in ISO 17295.
With certain AM processes (especially with metals), heat build-up from processing large cross-sectional
areas near the test artefacts can affect their geometrical accuracy. Therefore, it is advised that the
manufacturer ensure compliance with specified distances between parts.
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 shall be reported as part of the process specification.
The reporting should include a description of any used abrasive media and how it was applied to the
surface of the artefacts. 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. In the case of sinter-based processes, users shall report the condition of
the part used for testing, such as stating “measurements were taken on the sintered body with scaling
applied to account for shrinkage,” “measurements were taken on the green body with (or without)
scaling applied.”
6 General principles for measuring artefacts
6.1 General
This clause outlines principles applicable for measuring all the test artefact geometries in this document.
The specific measurements are specified in Clause 7 describing the individual artefact 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/ASTM 52927
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 artefact 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 user can
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, first perform the measurements
without removing the part from the platform. (Removal from a build platform can affect the shapes of
the artefacts, 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
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
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
is a complicated subject and is often very specific to the part or feature being measured. As such,
there is no general “good 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.
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 (commonly referred to as the Guide
to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, or GUM);
— 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.
Measurement system analysis (MSA) and Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility (R&R) are also
acceptable approaches to perform measurement uncertainty evaluation. See ASTM E2782.
7 Artefact geometries
7.1 General
Eight types of artefacts are described in the following subclauses. Each artefact is intended to test a
different aspect of a system’s performance or capability.
7.2 Accuracy
7.2.1 Linear artefact
7.2.1.1 Purpose
This artefact tests the linear positioning accuracy along a specific machine direction. Depending on
artefact orientation and machine configuration, errors in the artefact can 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 artefact. The artefact comprises 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 artefact from 5 mm to 7,5 mm, 10 mm, and 12,5 mm.
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
Dimensions in millimetres
Figure 1 — Engineering drawing of linear test artefacts
If a longer test of linear accuracy is desired, multiple linear artefacts can be appended to one another.
The 2,5 mm length of the end protrusions means that when two or more linear artefacts are appended,
the central protrusions will all be 5 mm cubes. Figure 2 shows an example. If this option is chosen, see
5.15.
Figure 2 — Two linear accuracy test artefacts appended to each other
If a shorter test of linear accuracy is required, the geometry of an alternative test artefact shall be agreed
upon by the buyer and seller and shall follow similar design principles to the part shown in Figure 1.
The alternative artefact should have non-equally spaced features and should test both protrusions and
gaps (i.e. distances with material in between features and distances with space in between features).
7.2.1.3 Measurement
The primary measurement for the linear artefact is the position of the cube faces relative to the
primary datum at the end of the artefact (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 artefact, parallelism of each side of the
base along the length of the artefact 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
artefact 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 17295. An
alternative can be to align one linear artefact with the motion of one of the machine’s positioning axes
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
(for example the X-axis slide in a gantry system). This alternative orientation can 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 artefacts through the middle of the build area as well as near
the ends of travel.
In the case of a vertically oriented linear artefact, 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.
In cases where a face of a protrusion falls in between planned layer heights, the user is encouraged
to inspect the slice file to learn how the system will handle these cases (e.g. will the system plan to
over-build the part by en
...
SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-november-2023
Nadomešča:
SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019
Aditivna proizvodnja - Preskusna telesa - Geometrijske zmogljivosti aditivnih
proizvodnih sistemov (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)
Additive manufacturing - Test artefacts - Geometric capability assessment of additive
manufacturing systems (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)
Additive Fertigung - Testkörper - Geometrische Leistungsbewertung additiver
Fertigungssysteme (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)
Fabrication additive - Pièces types d'essais - Évaluation de la capacité géométrique des
systèmes de fabrication additive (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023
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
August 2023
EUROPÄISCHE NORM
ICS 25.030 Supersedes EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019
English Version
Additive manufacturing - Test artefacts - Geometric
capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems
(ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)
Fabrication additive - Pièces types d'essais - Évaluation Additive Fertigung - Testkörper - Geometrische
de la capacité géométrique des systèmes de fabrication Leistungsbewertung additiver Fertigungssysteme
additive (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023) (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)
This European Standard was approved by CEN on 12 August 2023.
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, Türkiye 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
© 2023 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.
Contents Page
European foreword . 3
European foreword
This document (EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023) 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 February 2024, and conflicting national standards
shall be withdrawn at the latest by February 2024.
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.
This document supersedes EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019.
Any feedback and questions on this document should be directed to the users’ national standards
body/national committee. A complete listing of these bodies can be found on the CEN website.
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, Türkiye and the
United Kingdom.
Endorsement notice
The text of ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 has been approved by CEN as EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 without
any modification.
INTERNATIONAL ISO/ASTM
STANDARD 52902
Second edition
2023-08
Additive manufacturing — Test
artefacts — 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 52902:2023(E)
© ISO/ASTM International 2023
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
© ISO/ASTM International 2023
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: +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 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
Contents Page
Foreword .v
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions . 1
4 Significance and use .1
4.1 General . 1
4.2 Comparing results from one machine . 2
5 General principles for producing test artefacts . 2
5.1 General . 2
5.2 Need to use feedstock conforming to a material specification . 2
5.3 Need to undertake artefact 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 artefacts . 3
5.10 Position and orientation of test artefacts . 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 artefacts . 5
6.1 General . 5
6.2 Measure parts as built . 5
6.3 Measurement strategy . 5
6.4 Measurement uncertainty . 6
7 Artefact geometries . 6
7.1 General . 6
7.2 Accuracy . 6
7.2.1 Linear artefact . 6
7.2.2 Circular artefact . 8
7.2.3 Z-axis artefact . 10
7.3 Resolution . 13
7.3.1 Resolution pins. 13
7.3.2 Resolution holes . 14
7.3.3 Resolution rib . 16
7.3.4 Resolution slot . 18
7.4 Surface texture . 20
7.4.1 Purpose . 20
7.4.2 Geometry . 20
7.4.3 Measurement . 21
7.4.4 Reporting .22
7.4.5 Considerations . 22
7.5 Labelling . 23
7.5.1 Purpose .23
7.5.2 Geometry . 23
7.5.3 Considerations . 24
Annex A (informative) Example artefact configurations .25
iii
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
Annex B (informative) Measurement techniques.27
Annex C (informative) Measurement procedures .31
Annex D (informative) List of specimen names and sizes .38
Bibliography .40
iv
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(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, and in collaboration with the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) Technical
Committee CEN/TC 438, Additive manufacturing, in accordance with the Agreement on technical
cooperation between ISO and CEN (Vienna Agreement).
This second edition cancels and replaces the first edition (ISO/ASTM 52902:2019), which has been
technically revised.
The main changes are as follows:
— addition of a test artefact for testing the performance of the Z-axis in an AM system.
— changed dimensions in text and in drawing (see Figure 3) of medium circular artefact such that the
description in the text matches the dimensions in the downloadable STEP file; Figure 3 was also re-
drawn to better depict the circular artefact geometry.
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.
v
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
Additive manufacturing — Test artefacts — Geometric
capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems
1 Scope
This document covers the general description of benchmarking test piece geometries, i.e. artefacts,
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 build(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.
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
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 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 https:// www .electropedia .org/
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.
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
The primary characterization of the AM system obtained by applying 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) can be used to periodically evaluate the performance or diagnose a fault in one AM system, for
example, after system maintenance or as specified by the requirements of a quality system.
The test piece(s) described in this test method can 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 can be included with every build on a particular AM system to help establish
performance traceability. Depending on the needs of the user, not all test artefacts need to be built, and
individual test artefacts can be built separately if required.
5 General principles for producing test artefacts
5.1 General
This clause outlines principles applicable for producing all of the test artefact 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 artefact
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. Clear definition
of the material specification is important. Often a standard specification is preferred, but specifications
do not need to be limited to standards and can be defined by the user. A feedstock material specification
should be selected or required by the user and the feedstock used for test artefact trials should match
said specification. For example, the specification can 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 buyer and seller),
it should be documented by the producer and reported with a unique alphanumeric designation as
specified by ASTM F2971 -13: 2021, 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 artefact 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 -13: 2021, Annex A1, element “C”.
This can be a proprietary internal standard or external standard (subject to buyer/seller negotiations),
but the producer should document the exact values of user-specifiable settings and conditions
surrounding the building of parts. For example, it should document the layer thickness, build strategies
(e.g. scan path, tool path, and/or scan parameters), temperatures, etc. used during the build. This
process should be consistent for all test artefacts produced within one build. These recommendations
can be different for each use, so the parameters in the process specification should be agreed between
the buyer and seller.
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
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 artefacts and for this reason, good practice for the control of the file formats and preparation is
discussed here.
5.5 Download files
The 3D digital models for standard test artefact geometries can be downloaded in *.step format at
https:// standards .iso .org/ iso/ 52902/ ed -2/ 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 artefact 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 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 specified by ISO/ASTM 52915 is the preferred model format for test artefact
geometry representation due to its ability to store high fidelity geometry with embedded units in an
intermediate file format, and for its ability to accurately orient an array of parts within a single AMF
file.
5.8 Need for test specification and test process
This document forms the basis for the general Test Plan/Specification described in ASTM F2971 -13: 2021,
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 7.
5.9 Quantity of test artefacts
For a complete test of machine performance, at least two things dictate the quantity of the test artefacts
produced. First, the test specification/test process shall ensure a quantity of samples, typically no
less than five per build, so that statistically significant measurements can be made. Second, sufficient
coverage (see 5.13) of the build platform needs to be made to account for variations in performance
between build locations. Repeated builds can also be completed to test the repeatability of the process.
Fewer test artefacts with less complete coverage may be used for spot checks or limited demonstrations,
such as the example detailed in Annex A. The number of artefacts shall be agreed upon between the
buyer and seller and shall permit to perform at least 5 measurements.
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
5.10 Position and orientation of test artefacts
As per ASTM F2971 -13: 2021, Annex A1, element “F”, it is recommended to report results in combination
with the test artefacts’ build position and orientations according to the convention set forth in
ISO 17295.
5.11 Considerations for orientation
Since these test artefacts 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 positions or orient them at angles that minimize the risk that this leads to an outright
failure of the features/parts/artefacts 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 to identify respective artefact orientations and positions in the
build. Labelling is summarized in 7.5.
5.13 Coverage
It is important that test artefacts 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 good 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 artefact distribution should span at least 80 %
of the machine’s build platform area, with the intent that the artefacts are built at different locations
based on the applications of the user and where components will be built on the machine in production.
For machines with large build platform areas, artefacts could be placed at the outer ends of the build
platform area and at the centre of the build platform area to provide some coverage of the entire build
area. If build location effects are known or deemed irrelevant for the trial being performed, then a
single build location may be selected and used, as agreed between buyer and seller.
Long artefacts, which reach across the extents of the build volume, can be necessary to detect
corrections that are not linear or are periodic in nature.
5.14 Arrays
Geometry should not be scaled to accommodate different sizes of build volumes (since this affects the
measurement outputs) but can be patterned in an array to give larger coverage areas. See an example in
Figure 2. Scaling of artefact geometry to accommodate shrinkage, such as in applications using binder
jetting AM, should be clearly documented by users.
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. Arrays of parts can be
accurately positioned relative to each other in a single AMF file by use the “constellation” element.
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
artefacts 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 into the working area in the machine. Results should be
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
reported in combination with the test artefacts’ build orientations according to the convention set forth
in ISO 17295.
With certain AM processes (especially with metals), heat build-up from processing large cross-sectional
areas near the test artefacts can affect their geometrical accuracy. Therefore, it is advised that the
manufacturer ensure compliance with specified distances between parts.
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 shall be reported as part of the process specification.
The reporting should include a description of any used abrasive media and how it was applied to the
surface of the artefacts. 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. In the case of sinter-based processes, users shall report the condition of
the part used for testing, such as stating “measurements were taken on the sintered body with scaling
applied to account for shrinkage,” “measurements were taken on the green body with (or without)
scaling applied.”
6 General principles for measuring artefacts
6.1 General
This clause outlines principles applicable for measuring all the test artefact geometries in this document.
The specific measurements are specified in Clause 7 describing the individual artefact 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/ASTM 52927
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 artefact 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 user can
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, first perform the measurements
without removing the part from the platform. (Removal from a build platform can affect the shapes of
the artefacts, 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
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
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
is a complicated subject and is often very specific to the part or feature being measured. As such,
there is no general “good 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.
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 (commonly referred to as the Guide
to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, or GUM);
— 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.
Measurement system analysis (MSA) and Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility (R&R) are also
acceptable approaches to perform measurement uncertainty evaluation. See ASTM E2782.
7 Artefact geometries
7.1 General
Eight types of artefacts are described in the following subclauses. Each artefact is intended to test a
different aspect of a system’s performance or capability.
7.2 Accuracy
7.2.1 Linear artefact
7.2.1.1 Purpose
This artefact tests the linear positioning accuracy along a specific machine direction. Depending on
artefact orientation and machine configuration, errors in the artefact can 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 artefact. The artefact comprises 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 artefact from 5 mm to 7,5 mm, 10 mm, and 12,5 mm.
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
Dimensions in millimetres
Figure 1 — Engineering drawing of linear test artefacts
If a longer test of linear accuracy is desired, multiple linear artefacts can be appended to one another.
The 2,5 mm length of the end protrusions means that when two or more linear artefacts are appended,
the central protrusions will all be 5 mm cubes. Figure 2 shows an example. If this option is chosen, see
5.15.
Figure 2 — Two linear accuracy test artefacts appended to each other
If a shorter test of linear accuracy is required, the geometry of an alternative test artefact shall be agreed
upon by the buyer and seller and shall follow similar design principles to the part shown in Figure 1.
The alternative artefact should have non-equally spaced features and should test both protrusions and
gaps (i.e. distances with material in between features and distances with space in between features).
7.2.1.3 Measurement
The primary measurement for the linear artefact is the position of the cube faces relative to the
primary datum at the end of the artefact (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 artefact, parallelism of each side of the
base along the length of the artefact 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
artefact 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 17295. An
alternative can be to align one linear artefact with the motion of one of the machine’s positioning axes
© ISO/ASTM International 2023 – All rights reserved
ISO/ASTM 52902:2023(E)
(for example the X-axis slide in a gantry system). This alternative orientation can 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 artefacts through the middle of the build area as well as near
the ends of travel.
In the case of a vertically oriented linear artefact, 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.
In cases where a face of a protrusion falls in between planned layer heights, the user is encouraged
to inspect the slice file to learn how the system will handle these cases (e.g. will the system plan to
over-build the part by ending th
...
Frequently Asked Questions
SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 is a standard published by the Slovenian Institute for Standardization (SIST). Its full title is "Additive manufacturing - Test artefacts - Geometric capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems (ISO/ASTM 52902:2023)". This standard covers: This document covers the general description of benchmarking test piece geometries, i.e. artefacts, 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 build(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.
This document covers the general description of benchmarking test piece geometries, i.e. artefacts, 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 build(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.
SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 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.
SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 has the following relationships with other standards: It is inter standard links to SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2019. Understanding these relationships helps ensure you are using the most current and applicable version of the standard.
You can purchase SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 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 SIST standards.
La norme SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 représente un pas significatif dans le domaine de la fabrication additive, en fournissant un cadre standardisé pour l'évaluation des capacités géométriques des systèmes de fabrication additive. Cette norme couvre une description générale des géométries des pièces de test de référence, connues sous le nom d'artefacts, ainsi que les mesures quantitatives et qualitatives nécessaires pour évaluer la performance des systèmes de fabrication additive. Un des points forts de cette norme réside dans sa portée qui vise à établir des critères clairs pour l'évaluation des capacités des systèmes AM et leur calibration. Cela permet non seulement de vérifier la performance d'un système, mais aussi d'aligner les attentes des utilisateurs en matière de qualité et précision. Les artefacts de test proposés sont conçus de manière à examiner des metrics spécifiques de performance, offrant ainsi une flexibilité dans l'application à travers divers scénarios d'utilisation. De plus, la norme inclut des exemples de configurations de géométrie et discute des exigences d'incertitude de mesure, ce qui est crucial pour garantir que les évaluations réalisées soient fiables. Cela permet aux utilisateurs de se préparer à des examens de différentes niveaux de qualité, qu'il s'agisse d'examens de bas ou de haut niveau. En ne dictant pas de méthodes de mesure spécifiques, la norme laisse également une marge de manœuvre pour que les professionnels de l'AM puissent s'adapter à leurs besoins et contextes particuliers. En somme, la SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 est une norme pertinente et puissante qui répond aux besoins croissants d'une évaluation rigoureuse des performances géométriques des systèmes de fabrication additive, facilitant ainsi l'innovation et l'amélioration continue dans ce domaine.
SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 표준은 적층 제조(Additive Manufacturing, AM) 시스템의 기하학적 성능 평가를 위한 기준을 규정합니다. 이 문서는 벤치마킹 테스트 조각의 기하학적 구조에 대한 일반적인 설명과 이를 기반으로 한 정량적 및 정성적 측정을 포함하고 있습니다. 이 표준의 저명한 강점 중 하나는 AM 시스템의 성능을 평가하는 데 있어 실용적인 근거를 제공한다는 점입니다. 표준의 적용 범위는 AM 시스템의 능력을 평가하고 보정하는 데 필요한 기하학적 성능을 정량적으로 분석할 수 있는 테스트 조각을 다룹니다. 이는 적층 제조 프로세스의 일관성과 신뢰성을 보장하는 데 기여하며, 다양한 사용자 응용 프로그램이 요구하는 성능 등급에 맞춘 테스트 수행이 가능하다는 점에서 매우 중요한 특징입니다. 또한, SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023은 특정 측정 방법을 강제하지 않고 다양한 기하학적 형상에 대한 예제를 제공함으로써 테스트의 유연성을 높였습니다. 이에 따라 각 문화권의 생산 환경이나 기술 수준에 따라 적합한 방식을 선택할 수 있습니다. 이 표준은 낮은 성능에서 높은 성능 평가에 이르기까지 측정 불확실성 요건에 대해서도 설명하고 있어, 다양한 응용 분야에서 사용될 수 있도록 합니다. 마지막으로, 테스트 조각의 제조를 위한 특정 절차나 기계 설정을 정의하지 않음으로써 사용자들이 자율적으로 최적의 방법을 탐색할 수 있는 기회를 제공합니다. 이러한 점들은 SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023이 적층 제조 시스템의 기하학적 성능 평가는 물론, 산업 전반에 걸쳐 신뢰할 수 있는 벤치마킹 기준으로 자리 잡게 만들 것입니다.
Der Standard SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 bietet eine umfassende Grundlage für die geometrische Bewertung von additiven Fertigungssystemen (AM-Systemen). Der Umfang des Dokuments umfasst die allgemeine Beschreibung von Benchmark-Teststück-Geometrien, auch bekannt als Artefakte, sowie die quantitativen und qualitativen Messungen, die zur Bewertung der Leistungsfähigkeit von AM-Systemen vorgenommen werden müssen. Ein herausragendes Merkmal dieses Standards ist seine Fokussierung auf die Leistungsbewertung von AM-Systemen. Dies erfolgt zum einen durch die Evaluierung der Systemfähigkeit und zum anderen durch die Kalibrierung der Systeme. Die bereitgestellten Benchmark-Teststücke dienen in erster Linie dazu, die geometrische Leistungsfähigkeit von AM-Systemen quantitativ zu bewerten. Diese systematische Herangehensweise ist besonders wertvoll, da sie eine objektive Grundlage für die Beurteilung der Leistungsfähigkeit bietet, die für verschiedene Anwendungen entscheidend sein kann. Der Standard beschreibt eine Vielzahl von Testgeometrien, die darauf ausgelegt sind, spezifische Leistungskennzahlen zu untersuchen. Die unterschiedlichen Konfigurationen dieser Geometrien ermöglichen es, mehrere Prüfungen durchzuführen und verschiedene Leistungsgrade zu ermitteln. Insbesondere die Diskussion über Konfigurationsbeispiele und die Anforderungen an die Messunsicherheit zeigt, dass der Standard sowohl für low-grade als auch high-grade Prüfungen geeignet ist. Ein weiterer Vorteil des Dokumentes ist, dass es nicht nur die Maße und Eigenschaften der Testgeometrien festlegt, sondern keine spezifischen Messmethoden vorschreibt. Dies ermöglicht eine flexible Anwendung des Standards, da verschiedene Benutzer je nach ihren spezifischen Anforderungen unterschiedliche Leistungsniveaus erzielen können. Insgesamt ist der SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 Standard von großer Relevanz für die additive Fertigung, da er eine klare und standardisierte Methode zur Beurteilung der geometrischen Fähigkeiten von AM-Systemen bereitstellt. Dies trägt nicht nur zur Weiterentwicklung der Technologie bei, sondern unterstützt auch Unternehmen dabei, die Qualität und Leistung ihrer additiven Fertigungsprozesse kontinuierlich zu verbessern.
The SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 standard provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating the geometric capabilities of additive manufacturing (AM) systems through the use of benchmarking test artefacts. Its scope includes a detailed description of test geometries designed to quantitatively assess the performance of AM systems, which is crucial for both capability evaluation and calibration of these systems. One of the strengths of this standard lies in its structured approach to benchmarking. It offers a suite of test geometries tailored to investigate various performance metrics, ensuring that users can precisely evaluate their systems against specific geometric performance criteria. This flexibility allows for a more nuanced understanding of an AM system’s capabilities, catering to a broad range of user applications that may demand differing performance grades. Furthermore, the document emphasizes both quantitative and qualitative measurements, affording users a dual perspective on performance assessment. By addressing measurement uncertainty requirements and providing various configurations for test builds, SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 supports thorough examination processes. This ensures that users can achieve reliable results based on their specific performance needs, thereby enhancing the relevance of the standard in real-world applications. However, it is important to note that the standard does not prescribe specific measurement methods nor does it dictate machine settings for the manufacturing of test pieces. This allows for flexibility and adaptability in the application of the standard across diverse AM systems, while still providing necessary guidelines to maintain consistency in assessments. In summary, the SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023 standard stands out due to its detailed exploration of geometric capability assessments in additive manufacturing. Its focus on benchmarking artefacts, diverse metrics, and uncertainty considerations enhances its practical relevance, making it a valuable resource for professionals looking to evaluate and calibrate their additive manufacturing systems effectively.
SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023は、加法製造（AM）システムの幾何学的能力評価に関する重要な標準規格です。この規格は、ベンチマークテストピースの幾何学的特性を評価するための一般的な記述を提供しており、定量的および定性的な測定方法が明確に示されています。特に、標準は加法製造システムの能力評価およびキャリブレーションの目的で使用されることを考慮し、AMシステムのパフォーマンスを定量的に評価するためのテスト幾何形状の一連を示しています。 この文書に含まれるテスト幾何形状は、それぞれ特定のパフォーマンス指標を調査するために設計されており、さまざまなテストビルドに組み込むことができます。測定すべき幾何形状の数量と質についての指針が明確ですが、具体的な測定方法を指示するものではありません。これにより、ユーザーは自らのアプリケーションに応じたパフォーマンスの異なるグレードを求めることができます。 さらに、この文書は、特徴構成の例や測定の不確実性要件についても言及し、低グレードおよび高グレードの試験とパフォーマンスを示すための情報を提供しています。加法製造に関連するさまざまな分野で、製品の品質と性能向上に寄与することが期待されます。 SIST EN ISO/ASTM 52902:2023は、その包括的なアプローチと広範な適用可能性により、加法製造の進展に重要な役割を果たし、技術者や研究者にとって、業界内でのベンチマークとしての価値が高い標準です。
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...