NISTIR 8100

Supplementary information for an

interlaboratory study of additively 

manufactured nickel alloy (IN625) 

tensile specimens

Christopher U. Brown

Gregor Jacob

Mark Stoudt

Antonio Possolo

Shawn Moylan

Alkan Donmez

This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8100
NISTIR 8100 

Supplementary information for an

interlaboratory study of additively 

manufactured nickel alloy (IN625) 

tensile specimens

Christopher U. Brown

Systems Integration Division

Engineering Laboratory

Gregor Jacob

Intelligent Systems Division

Engineering Laboratory

Mark Stoudt

Materials Science and Engineering Division

Material Measurement Laboratory

Antonio Possolo

Statistical Engineering Division

Information Technology Laboratory

Shawn Moylan

Intelligent Systems Division

Engineering Laboratory

Alkan Donmez

Intelligent Systems Division

Engineering Laboratory

This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8100

March 2016

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Willie May, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director 
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. MANUFACTURING PLAN AND BLANK PROCESS CONTROL DOCUMENT SENT TO PARTICIPANTS

3. BUILD FILES SENT TO THE PARTICIPANTS

4. ENGINEERING DRAWINGS WITH BUILD INSTRUCTIONS SENT TO PARTICIPANTS

5. ANALYSIS OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF THE POWDERS SENT TO PARTICIPANTS

6. TENSION SPECIMENS FABRICATED ON A DIFFERENT LPBF MACHINE

7. SUMMARY

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

9. REFERENCES

10. APPENDIX - COPY OF THE 7 PROCESS CONTROL DOCUMENTS RETURNED BY THE 

PARTICIPANTS
ii
1

1. INTRODUCTION

In fiscal year 2014, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted a round 

robin study to investigate the variation of mechanical properties of nickel alloy (IN 625) tensile 

specimens fabricated on six different laser-based powder bed fusion (LPBF) machines from the same 

machine vendor by six different institutions. The study results were summarized in a journal paper [1]. 

This report provides the supplementary information generated during planning and execution of the 

study. This supplementary information includes: (1) the manufacturing plan and blank process control 

document sent to the participants, (2) a description of the build programs sent to the participants, (3) 

engineering drawings with build instructions, (4) powder size distribution analysis of the powder sent to

the participants, and (5) results obtained from a different LPBF machine. Copies of the process control 

documents received from the participants are provided in the Appendix.

During this study, the round robin coordinator identified a willing participant who had a LPBF 

machine from a different vendor. To obtain an additional data point for future comparative studies, this 

participant was invited to fabricate tensile specimens using the same powder and manufacturing plan 

with the process settings provided to the other participants. This participant was also sent the same 

individual tessellated and slice files to duplicate the process and fabricate the tensile bars. Upon 

receiving the build platform with the tensile specimens attached, NIST followed the same post 

processing procedures to heat treat them, extract the specimens, and prepare the specimens for the 

tension tests. This report1 also provides a comparison of tension test results and fracture analysis 

 

1 Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an 

experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or 

endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, 

materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
2

between the results obtained from the main group of participants and the participant with a different 

LPBF machine (section 6).

2. MANUFACTURING PLAN AND BLANK PROCESS CONTROL DOCUMENT SENT TO PARTICIPANTS

NIST sent the following manufacturing plan and blank Process Control Document (PCD) to each 

participant before fabricating the specimens. The manufacturing plan consists of a detailed list of steps 

for each participant to follow in order to fabricate the build. NIST requested that the participants track 

the machine parameters used for the build in the Process Control Document (PCD). Participants 

returned the completed process control document back to NIST.

Manufacturing Plan, NIST IN625 RR

The Manufacturing Plan defines the requirements to complete the desired work that is agreed upon by 

the supplier and purchaser. The Process Control Document is a procedure to ensure the requirements 

of the Manufacturing Plan are met. Together, the Manufacturing Plan and PCD tightly control and fully 

document the fabrication of test coupons for generating material property data.

0. Scope and Purpose of Study

Starting in May of 2014, NIST will conduct a round robin test to 1) further refine test protocols and 

analysis methods that will be used in future, more extensive round robin tests that will result in 

certification of AM materials, and 2) assess the variability in the tensile properties of additively 

made nickel alloy (Inconel 625) tension specimens from different institutions. The focus will be the 

Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) EOS M270/M280 process.

NIST will distribute virgin nickel chrome (IN625) powder and build plates for the participants. Before 

distribution, NIST will sample the various powder lots for subsequent powder analysis. Each 

participant will follow a NIST-provided manufacturing plan to make one single build of eight (8) 

tensile bars, using a NIST-provided build file. (In the cases where the NIST-provided EOS job file is 

not compatible, NIST will provide the necessary information for the participant to construct the job 

file.) . Inability to comply with the manufacturing plan should be raised by the participant and 

approved by the study coordinator.
3

Each participant will send the tensile bars, still on the NIST-provided build plate, to NIST. NIST will 

coordinate the heat treatment, removal from the build plates, and testing the bars. NIST statistical 

experts will then perform the data analysis and make recommendations for test protocols and 

analysis methods for future round robins that lead to certification of AM materials. All results will be 

shared with the participants and may be published as well. The specific results from individual 

participants will not be publically attributed. All participants may keep any unused powder for their 

own future use.

1. Part Description

1.1. Engineering Drawing (the final geometry of the tensile specimen conforms to ASTM 

E8/E8M [2], dimensions are in mm’s) : 

Please note – the following revised drawing sent to the participants by email within the build files 

reflects the actual build design in the study. The original image in the manufacturing plan was an earlier 

version of the build design which was modified slightly. Dimensions are in mm’s.
4

1.2. STL file: to be sent by email from study coordinator

1.3. EOSJOB file: to be sent by email from study coordinator

2. Machine Requirements

2.1. System

2.1.1.Process: Laser Powder Bed Fusion

2.1.2.Manufacturer: EOS

2.1.3.Model: EOSINT M270

2.1.4.Laser System: 200 W maximum power, 1060 nm - 1100 nm wavelength (preferred IPG YLRSM-200)

2.2. Software: EOS M270 Operating Software Version: PSW 3.5 rev 71 or newer preferred, not 

required.

2.3. Maintenance: All maintenance of the system must be current and documented. 

Preventative maintenance must have been completed within 6 months of building the test 

specimens.

2.4. System Calibrations: All system calibrations shall be current and documented. Some of 

these calibrations should be completed as part of regular preventative maintenance (e.g., 

laser power, skywriting, etc.). Others should be performed by the individual users (e.g., 

beam offset, x and y scaling).

3. Powder Requirements

3.1. Powder shall be supplied to the participants by the study coordinator for use in this study. 

The subsections below document the powder as procured by the study coordinator. 

Samples have been extracted from each powder container for further evaluation.

3.2. Chemistry (mass fraction): 

Ni (balance ≥ 58.00 wt - %)

Cr (20.00 - 23.00 wt - %)
5

Mo (8.00 - 10.00 wt - %)

Nb (3.15 - 4.15 wt - %)

Fe (≤ 5.00 wt - %)

Ti (≤ 0.40 wt - %)

Al (≤ 0.40 wt - %)

Co (≤ 1.0 wt - %)

C (≤ 0.10 wt - %)

Ta (≤ 0.05 wt - %)

Si, Mn (each ≤ 0.50 wt - %)

P, S (each ≤ 0.015 wt - %)

3.3. Powder Size and Distribution: mean diameter = 37.8 μm ± 12.4 μm. D(0.7) = 40 μm.

3.4. Recycling of Powder: Only virgin (per ASTM 2924) powder may be used to produce the 

components.

4. Process Set-Up Requirements

4.1. Platform: Build platforms can be provided to participants upon request. If a participant 

would prefer to use their own build platform, it should conform to the specifications 

below. An individual participant’s build plate will be returned upon completion of the 

study.

4.1.1.Material: Platform must be AISI 1045 steel.

4.1.2.Thickness: Platform must be 20 mm ± 2 mm thick.

4.1.3.Condition: Platform should be ground flat to a roughness of Rz = 10 μm or better. The 

platform demagnetized after grinding. The platform shall be thoroughly cleaned of 

machining lubricants prior to installation into the system. Once installed, the build 

platform surface shall be cleaned with alcohol using a lint free cloth and gloved hands. 

4.1.4.Preheat: Platform shall be preheated to a temperature of 80 °C. 

4.2. Recoater Blade: The blade shall be ceramic (EOS part HSS 2200-4073) and within the 

manufacturers specified useful lifetime and or original specification. The blade shall be 

maintained and cleaned according to manufacturer’s guidelines.

4.3. Process Parameters: The study coordinator will provide, via email, an EOSJOB file with 

process parameters preset. Participants should check and document correct settings of all 

process parameters. All process parameters below are to be explicitly followed and 

reported. The process parameters are to be defined in the default job file and held 

constant throughout all builds unless otherwise agreed upon. Any changes in the default 

parameter set from build to build must be documented and carried forward in all 

reporting. All parameter sets are to be disclosed. Each job file will be saved and archived 

upon completion of the build for each and every build. All parameters that are unique to 

each system and that are not saved in the job file shall also be documented. A list of all 

process parameters shall be created and reported. The process parameter list shall 
6

include all key parameters, system settings and machine conditions including but not 

limited to: 

4.3.1.Base Parameter Set: The EOS MP1 (Cobalt-Chrome) parameter set for an EOS M270 with

200W laser machine using the layer thickness in 4.3.2 shall be used.

4.3.2.Layer Thickness: 20 μm layers

4.3.3.Material Specific Settings

4.3.3.1. Material Dependent Scaling Factors (to be set at each machine for each 

machine). Scaling Factors may be determined from the EOS certification part and 

fine tuning spreadsheet

X Y Z(0) Z(200)

TBD by 

participant

TBD by 

participant

TBD by 

participant

TBD by 

participant

4.3.3.2. Beam Offset (mm): May be determined from EOS certification part

4.3.3.3. Beam Expander Setting: 1

4.3.4.Adjust Tab

4.3.4.1. Groups: All individual parts shall be contained in their own group with the same 

exposure setting (4.3.5). The position and rotation of the group shall not be 

modified from 2.1. 

4.3.4.2. Sorting: Sorting of parts by X/Y/Z by smallest point.

4.3.5. Exposure Parameters

4.3.5.1. Pre exposure type: PreContour

4.3.5.1.1. First Contour

Standard OnPart Downskin

Speed (mm/s): 900.0 800.0 1600.0

Power (W): 100.0 100.0 100.0

Beam Offset 

(mm):

0.000 Contour Yes (checked)

Thickness 

(mm):

0.040 Post 

Contour

No 

(unchecked)

Corridor 

(mm):

0.040

4.3.5.1.2. Second Contour (Turned Off)

Standard OnPart Downskin

Speed (mm/s): - - -

Power (W): - - -

Beam Offset 

(mm):

- Contour No 

(unchecked)

Thickness 

(mm):

- Post Contour No 

(unchecked)
7

Corridor 

(mm):

-

4.3.5.1.3. Edges (Turned Off)

Edge factor - Edges No 

(unchecked)

Threshold: - Post Edge No 

(unchecked)

Minimum 

radius factor:

-

Beam offset 

(mm):

-

Speed 

(mm/s):

-

Power (W): -

4.3.5.2. Skin exposure type: OuterSkin

4.3.5.2.1. Stripes

Distance 

(mm):

0.10 Stripe width 

(mm):

4.00

Speed 

(mm/s):

800.0 Stripes overlap 

(mm):

0.10

Power (W): 195.0 Skywriting: Yes (checked)

Beam offset 

(mm)

0.030 Offset: Yes (checked)

Hatching, X Yes (checked) Alternating: Yes (checked)

Hatching, Y Yes (checked) Rotating: Yes (checked)

Rotated Angle 67°*

*may not be available for specification

4.3.5.2.2. UpDown

Upskin Downskin

Distance 

(mm):

0.05 0.05 Overlap 

with inskin 

(mm):

0.10

Speed 

(mm/s):

800.0 3000.0 Min. length 

(mm):

2.00

Power (W): 195.0 195.0

Thickness 

(mm):

0.00 0.04

X: Yes 

(checked)

Yes 

(checked)

Y: Yes 

(checked)

Yes 

(checked)

Alternating No 

(unchecked)

No 

(unchecked)

Skywriting Yes 

(checked)
8

4.3.5.2.3. Skip layer

Skipped layers: 0

Offset layers: 0

Expose first layer: Yes (checked)

4.3.5.3. Core exposure type: InnerSkin

4.3.5.3.1. Chess

Squares Gap

Distance 

(mm):

0.10 0.10 Square 

width (mm):

8.00

Speed 

(mm/s):

800.0 800.0 Gap width

(mm):

0.00

Power (W): 195.0 195.0 Overlap 

(mm):

0.08

Beam 

offset:

-0.050 Alternating: Yes 

(checked)

Hatching: X = Yes 

(checked)

Y = Yes 

(checked)

Rotated: Yes 

(checked)

Skywriting: No 

(unchecked)

Offset: Yes 

(checked)

4.3.5.3.2. Skip layer

Skipped layers: 0

Offset layers: 0

Expose first layer: Yes (checked)

4.3.5.4. Post exposure type: Postcontour

4.3.5.4.1. First Contour

Standard OnPart Downskin

Speed (mm/s): 900.0 800.0 1600.0

Power (W): 120.0 120.0 120.0

Beam Offset 

(mm):

0.015 Contour Yes (checked)

Thickness 

(mm):

0.040 Post Contour Yes (checked)

Corridor 

(mm):

0.040

4.3.5.4.2. Second Contour (Turned Off)

Standard OnPart Downskin

Speed (mm/s): - - -

Power (W): - - -
9

Beam Offset 

(mm):

- Contour No 

(unchecked)

Thickness 

(mm):

- Post Contour No 

(unchecked)

Corridor 

(mm):

-

4.3.5.4.3. Edges

Edge factor 2.00 Edges Yes (checked)

Threshold: 3.0 Post Edge Yes (checked)

Minimum 

radius factor:

0.00

Beam offset 

(mm):

0.000

Speed 

(mm/s):

900.0

Power (W): 100.0

4.3.5.5. Skin Thickness (x/y): 3.00 mm

4.3.5.6. Skin Thickness (z): 3.00 mm

4.3.5.7. Base radius: 0.00 mm

4.3.5.8. Core open to platform: No (unchecked)

4.3.5.9. Skin/Core: Yes (checked)

4.3.6.Setting

4.3.6.1. Part Specific Scaling: 0% in X and Y

4.3.6.2. Material Dependent Scaling 0% in X and Y

4.3.6.3. Part Specific Undersize/Oversize: 0 mm

4.3.7.Building

4.3.7.1. Start Height: 0.02mm

4.3.7.2. Final Height: the height of the tallest part in 1.2 (4.18 mm)

4.3.7.3. Layer Thickness: See 4.3.2

4.3.8.DMLS

4.3.8.1. DMLS: DMLS shall be unchecked

4.3.8.2. Pre-exposure: Pre-exposure shall be set to 0.06 mm (3 layers).

4.3.9.Recoating. 

4.3.9.1. Minimum charge amount: 150 %

4.3.9.2. Maximum charge amount: 200 %

4.3.9.3. Dosing boost amount: 300 %

4.3.9.4. Recoater speed 1: 500 mm/s

4.3.9.5. Recoater speed 2: 80 mm/s

4.3.9.6. Lower dispenser platform: 1.00 mm

4.3.9.7. Contact-free outward travel: yes (checked)
10

4.3.10. Scanner Settings

4.3.10.1. Automatic Calibration: Yes, every 2 layers

4.4. Build Chamber Environment

4.4.1.Purge Gas: For the purpose of this study, nitrogen will be used as the inert gas within the 

process chamber. Nitrogen ‘sourced’ from a nitrogen generator, bottle, or dewar is 

allowable. If the Nitrogen is from a bottle or dewar, user should report the nominal gas 

purity.

4.4.2.Flow Rates: Flow rates set within manufacturers’ specification.

4.4.2.1. Flow Meters set on the front of the machine (5 meters)

4.4.2.2. Flow meter set (voltage) on the filtration unit

4.4.3.Filtration: Filtration must be enabled. Filter maintenance must be current per 

manufacturer guidelines

4.4.4.Oxygen Level: Oxygen level must be less than 1.3 % oxygen (15000 ppm) maximum. 

4.5. Required Quality Control Checks at Build Start

The following Quality Control Checks are required to be performed sequentially before 

beginning the build.

4.5.1.System Maintenance and Cleaning: All system maintenance must be performed and the 

interior of the chamber, including optical components, powder hoppers, recoater blade, 

shall be cleaned per manufacturer guidelines. 

4.5.2.Laser Power: The laser power shall be measured (if possible) using a laser power meter 

within calibration at all power levels prescribed in 4.3 and fall within 10 % of the 

prescribed value. Each measurement is to be reported as setpoint, displayed and 

measured value. If any value is outside the prescribed value, the individual measurement 

shall be repeated and if the average of 3 measurements exceeds the power range, 

corrective action should be taken which includes laser maintenance and adjusting the 

setpoint value to achieve the desired delivered laser power. 

4.5.3.Installation of Platform: Platform may be installed after completion requirements in 4.5.1

and 4.5.2. The build platform shall be parallel to the recoating blade and recoating arm 

motion to within 50 μm. Preferred method of levelling to recoating blade uses feeler 

gage/ shims between build platform and recoating blade. Preferred method of levelling to 

recoating arm motion uses dial indicator mounted to recoating arm. After installation and 

levelling of the platform, it shall be cleaned in a manner described in 4.1.3.

4.5.4.Powder Loading: New powder, directly from containers, must be loaded into the 

dispenser per manufacturer guidelines (sieving not necessary). Sufficient quantities shall 

be loaded to achieve a complete build without the need to refill. Any devices used to 

stab, pack or tamp the powder must be stainless steel and cleaned using acetone and 

wiped with a lint free cloth prior to inserting into the powder. 

4.5.5.First layer: Once the build platform is leveled and the powder is loaded, railed, packed and 

smoothed, the first layer shall be created. The recoating arm should be past the dispenser 

platform. The build platform should be brought up to the level of the recoating blade, 
11

then lowered by the distance equal to one layer thickness. The dispenser platform shall be 

raised to a height to expose enough powder to deposit one layer as well as fill any gaps, 

holes, crevices, etc. between the dispenser platform and the collector bin. The recoating 

arm shall then be moved across the dispenser platform and build platform (to the home 

position) at the speed described in 4.3.9.5.

4.5.6.Platform Temperature: The platform temperature must be within 5 °C of the value 

prescribed in 4.1.4. Record the platform temperature at the start of the build.

4.5.7.Oxygen Level: The oxygen level must be less than the level prescribed in 4.4.4. Record the 

oxygen level at the start of the build process.

5. In Process Requirements

5.1. Limits

5.1.1.Environment: If during processing the oxygen level in the build chamber exceeds the level 

prescribed in 4.4.4, the build shall be stopped.

5.2. Build Pause/Interruption

5.2.1.No planned interruption of the build is required.

5.2.2.Any interruption to the continuous build cycle must be recorded with a description of the 

reason for the interruption and corrective action. 

5.2.3.Prior to opening the build chamber, the oxygen level and platform temperature must be 

recorded. 

5.2.4.Upon continuation of the build, the requirements of 4.5.6 and 4.5.7 must be met and 

preferably be within 10 % of the values recorded in 5.2.3. 

6. Process Completion Requirements

6.1. Removal from System

6.1.1.The build shall be allowed to cool inside the build chamber submerged in powder under 

protective environment until the temperature drops below 30 °C.

6.1.2.The temperature and oxygen level shall be recorded prior to opening the build chamber.

6.1.3.The build and platform shall be removed from the chamber and cleaned of loose powder 

using a non-metallic brush. 

6.1.4.The build and platform may be further cleaned by using a metallic brush or other means to 

remove partially sintered powder particles. 

6.1.5.Laser Power: The laser power shall be measured (if possible) using a laser power meter 

within calibration at all power levels prescribed in 4.3. Each measurement is to be 

reported as setpoint, displayed and measured value. 

6.1.6.Cleaning: The system may be cleaned at this point following manufacturer guidelines. 

6.2. Powder Recovery

6.2.1.Excess, loose powder removed from the build platform through the completion of 6.1.3

shall be collected and stored in appropriately marked containers indicating that it is USED.

6.2.2.Any partially sintered material is not allowable for reuse and should be disposed of 

properly.
12

6.2.3.Participants may keep any unused powder for their own use.

7. Post Process Requirements 

7.1. Heat treat

7.2. Machine samples

7.2.1.Mill top surface

7.2.2.Remove samples by electric discharge machining (EDM)

7.2.3.EDM gage section

7.2.4.Grind remaining surfaces

8. Reporting

8.1. Part Technical Data

8.2. Machine Technical Data

8.3. Powder Technical Data

8.4. Process Setup Technical Data

8.5. In Process Technical Data

8.6. Process Completion Technical Data

8.7. Post Process Technical Data

8.8. Testing Technical Data

Process Control Document

Technical Data (section numbers refer to Manufacturing Plan)

Part Manufacturing Technical Data

Completed by the part manufacturer

Value Requirement 

Section

Approval

Job Number

Build File Name: 1.2

Process 2.1.1

Equipment 

Manufacturer and 

Model:

2.1.2

Equipment Serial 

Number:

Laser Manufacturer 

and Model:

2.1.4

Laser Serial Number:

Software Version: 2.2
13

Date of last 

preventative 

maintenance

2.3

System Calibration 

Current

2.4

Material 

Requirements

Verify Powder 

Heat/Lot Loaded

Matches Feedstock 

Technical Data

Material Condition 

(Virgin/Recycled)

3.4

Process Setup 

Requirements

Build Platform 

Material

4.1.1

Build Platform 

Thickness

4.1.2

Build Platform 

Condition

4.1.3

Build Platform 

Preheat, °C

4.1.4

Recoater Blade 

Material/Part Number

4.2

Process Parameter 

Settings

Base Parameter Set 4.3.1

Base Parameter 

Filename

Layer Thickness, μm 4.3.2

Sort Parts Method: 4.3.4.2

Exposure Parameters Complete Exposure Parameters Table Below 4.3.5

Pre Contour Type 4.3.5.1

Skin Exposure Type 4.3.5.2

Core Exposure Type 4.3.5.3

Post Contour Type 4.3.5.4

Skin Thickness (x/y), 

mm

4.3.5.5

Skin Thickness (z), mm 4.3.5.6

Base Radius: 4.3.5.7

Core open to 

platform?:

4.3.5.8

Skin/Core: 4.3.5.9

Scaling and Offset 
14

Material Specific 

Scaling

X, % Y, %

Part Specific

Undersize/Oversize 

Beam Offset, mm

4.3.6.3 4.3.6.1

4.3.6.2

Building Screen

Start Height (mm): 4.3.7.1

Final Height (mm): 4.3.7.2

Layer Thickness 4.3.2

DMLS Settings

DMLS Off Range, 

(mm)

Pre-exposure On Range, 

(mm)

4.3.8.1

4.3.8.2

Recoating Screen

Minimum Charge, %

Maximum Charge, %

Dosing Boost, %

Recoating Speeds 

(mm/s)

Recoating Speed 1 Recoating 

Speed 2

4.3.9.4, 

4.3.9.5

Dosing Boost, %

Lower Dispenser 

Platform

Contact-free outward 

travel

4.3.9.6

4.3.9.7

Build Time Estimation

Build Chamber 

Environment

4.4

Purge Gas Used 4.4.1

Purge Gas Source 4.4.1

Flow Rates 4.4.2

Filtration 4.4.3

Oxygen Set Point 4.4.4

Quality Control Checks 

at Build Start

System Maintenance 

and Cleaning 

Performed

4.5.1

Pre Build Laser Power 

Measurement

Setpoint Display Measure

d

Pre Contour

Stripes 4.5.2

Up Skin
15

Down Skin

Post Contour

Edges

Build Platform 

Leveling Complete

4.5.3

Platform Temperature 4.5.6

Platform Level

Oxygen Level 4.5.7

In Process 

Requirements

Limits Max Limit Min Limit Max 

Measure

d

Build Start Time

Build Interruptions

(If Yes, Attach 

Documentation per 

5.2)

5.2

Process Completion

Platform Temperature 

at Time of Chamber 

Opening

6.1.1,6.1.2

Chamber Oxygen Prior 

to Opening

6.1.2

Recovered Powder 

Labeling

6.2

Post Build Laser 

Power Measurement

Setpoint Display Measure

d

Pre Contour

Stripes 6.1.5

Up Skin

Down Skin

Post Contour

Edges

Exposure Parameters

Completed by the part manufacturer

Value Requirement 

Section

Approval
16

Job Number

Build File Name:

Pre Exposure

Pre Exposure 

Type

4.3.5.1

First Contour Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.1.1

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

Contour

Thickness 

(mm):

Post 

Contour

Corridor 

(mm):

Second Contour Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.1.2

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

Contour

Thickness 

(mm):

Post 

Contour

Corridor 

(mm):

Edges Edge factor Edges 4.3.5.1.3

Threshold: Post Edge

Minimum 

radius 

factor:

Beam 

offset 

(mm):

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):

Skin Exposure

Skin Exposure 

Type

4.3.5.2

Stripes Distance 

(mm):

Stripe 

width 

(mm):

4.3.5.2.1
17

Speed 

(mm/s):

Stripes 

overlap 

(mm):

Power (W): Skywriting:

Beam 

offset (mm)

Offset:

Hatching, X Alternating:

Hatching, Y Rotating:

UpDown Upskin Downskin 4.3.5.2.2

Distance 

(mm):

Speed 

(mm):

Power (W):

Thickness 

(mm):

X:

Y:

Alternating: Overlap 

with 

inskin(mm):

Skywriting: Min. length 

(mm)

Skip Layer Skipped 

Layers

4.3.5.2.3

Offset 

layers:

Expose first 

layer:

Core Exposure

Core Exposure 

Type

4.3.5.3

Chess Squares Gap

Distance 

(mm):

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):

Width 

(mm):

Beam 

offset (mm)

Overlap:

Hatching, 

X:

Alternating:
18

Hatching, 

Y:

Rotating:

Skywriting: Rotated 

Angle:

Offset:

Post Exposure

Post Exposure 

Type

4.3.5.4

First Contour Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.4.1

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

Contour

Thickness 

(mm):

Post 

Contour

Corridor 

(mm):

Second Contour Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.4.2

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

Contour

Thickness 

(mm):

Post 

Contour

Corridor 

(mm):

Edges Edge factor Edges 4.3.5.4.3

Threshold: Post Edge

Minimum 

radius 

factor:

Beam 

offset 

(mm):

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):
19

3. BUILD FILES SENT TO THE PARTICIPANTS

Figure 1 shows a block diagram of the process of developing build files from the initial computer solid 

models using various software modules. NIST sent the computer files to all the participants. 

Figure 1. Block diagram of the process of developing the build files.

Material setting: "MP1_020_100_Surface" (default)

NIST generated the following build files and distributed them to the participants:

 Six STL files, named: "RR_IN625_tensile_x.stl" where x = 1 to 6 for each of the 6 tensile bars

 Six CLI support structure related files, named: RR_IN625_tensile_x_0m. cli where x = 1 to 6

 One Magics file, named: "AM_Round Robin IN625_tensile specimens.magics"

 six part related slice files named: "RR_IN625_tensile_x_p.sli" where x = 1 to 6
20

 six support structure related slice files named: "RR_IN625_tensile_x_0m.sli" where x = 1 to 6 for 

each of the 6 tensile bars

 One EOS build file, named: "AM_Round Robin_Inconel 625.eosjob"
21

4. ENGINEERING DRAWINGS WITH BUILD INSTRUCTIONS SENT TO PARTICIPANTS

Engineering drawings of the build with post processing directions.
22
23
24
25
26

Engineering drawing of the final tensile specimens:
27

5. ANALYSIS OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF THE POWDERS SENT TO PARTICIPANTS

IN625 powder size distribution as determined using sieves 

ASTM B214 [3] was followed to perform the sieve analysis for each of the 15 buckets of IN625 

powder sent to the participants. Originally two buckets were distributed to each of the 7 participants;

however, one bucket was misplaced and therefore a fifteenth, replacement bucket, was issued. All 15 

buckets were from the same manufacturing lot (M111201). Seven sieves were chosen based on the 

expected maximum size of the powder. The chosen US Standard sieve sizes were: 230 (75 m > 63 m), 

270 (63 m > 53 m), 325 (53 m > 45 m), 400 (45 m > 38 m), 450 (38 m > 32 m), 500 (32 m > 

25 m), 635 (25 m > 20 m), and pan (> 20 m). According to the powder’s mill certificate, 98 % of the 

powder was expected to be 53 m or smaller, therefore one sieve size larger than 53 m was used, 

sieve 230 (US Standard size).

The powder in each sieve was determined using a mass balance and the cumulative mass 

percent was calculated for each sieve. Figure 2 is an example plot from one of the powder samples. The 

data was used to approximate the powder diameter at cumulating mass percentages of 10 % (D10), 50

% (D50), and 90 % (D90). In other words, the D50 for a given powder as determined by sieving indicates 

50% of the powder mass has this diameter size or smaller.
28

Figure 2. Cumulative mass (%) versus powder size (m) versus for one of the IN625 powder samples. The 

data in this plot was used to approximate the powder diameter at the cumulative mass percentages of 

10 %, 50 %, and 90 % for each powder bucket (see ASTM E11 for sieve variation [4]).

A line was chosen to connect the data points however it is possible that the actual powder size 

distribution between the sieves does not follow a straight line. To report the diameter at the cumulative 

mass percent at 10 %, 50 %, and 90 %, linear interpolation was chosen to approximate the powder 

diameter at these percentages. Thus the D50 for the distribution in Figure 2 is 35 μm, or in other words, 

50% of the powder mass has a diameter of 35 μm or smaller. Table 1 lists the powder diameter for each 

bucket as determined by sieving.
29

Table 1. The powder diameter determined by sieving for each of the 15 participant buckets of IN625. 

The 10 %, 50 %, and 90 % cumulative mass percentages are shown along with the average and standard 

deviation.

Bucket # D10 D50 D90

1 20.32 34.85 50.54

2 14.59 34.68 49.82

3 10.59 30.84 48.3

4 22.28 35.4 50.36

5 21.03 36.36 51.5

6 22.15 36.41 51.18

7 16.68 33.29 48.88

8 19.65 33.98 49.33

9 21.14 34.37 49.66

10 14.08 32.28 48.89

11 21.95 36.57 51.48

12 16.12 33.22 48.79

13 13.99 31.79 48.86

14 20.67 35.47 50.98

15 21.69 35.29 50.72

Average = 18.46 34.32 49.95

St D = 3.77 1.74 1.08

IN625 powder size distribution as determined using laser diffraction

Table 2 lists the particle size distribution measured using laser diffraction of the 15 buckets of 

IN625 that were distributed to the participants. The technique involves using isopropanol (IPA) to 

suspend the powder. The D10, D50, and D90 values are based on a cumulative volume percentage, 

rather than a cumulative mass percent as is used for sieve analysis. In other words, the D50 for a given 

powder as determined by laser diffraction indicates 50 % of the powder volume has this diameter size or 
30

smaller. The average powder diameter (m) for D10, D50, and D90 are shown at the bottom along with 

the corresponding standard deviation.

Table 2. Powder distribution as determined using laser diffraction for each of the 15 participant buckets 

of IN625. The diameter at the 10 %, 50 % and 90 % cumulative volume percentages are shown for each 

bucket along with the average and standard deviation.

IN625 

Bucket 

# Label D10 D50 D90

1 A 16.122 28.293 49.243

2 B 14.609 24.723 42.127

3 C 15.752 26.51 44.861

4 D 14.645 25.224 43.875

5 E 14.895 24.908 41.779

6 F 15.321 25.972 43.797

7 G 15.696 27.623 48.657

8 H 15.362 26.554 45.823

9 I 15.642 26.605 45.047

10 J 15.561 27.962 50.103

11 K 17.389 28.396 45.749

12 L 15.39 26.589 45.748

13 M 15.251 26.063 44.773

14 N 15.065 26.152 45.634

15 P 15.336 26.009 44.718

Average 15.469 26.506 45.462

St Dev 0.671 1.146 2.359
31

Figure 3 shows the volume percent versus particle size (m) as determined by laser diffraction for all 15 

powder samples.

Figure 3. Volume percent versus powder diameter for all 15 samples of IN625 powder. The legend 

shows a different symbol for each of the 15 buckets.

Comments on the size distribution results

Although the main goal of this study was not comparing the results of different size distribution 

techniques, we did want to understand the size distribution of our powder used by the participants. The 

vendor powder specification reported 98 % of the powder mass should have a diameter of 53 m or 

smaller. Our sieve results showed that 98 % of the powder mass had a diameter of 58.02 m ± 2.72 m

or smaller.
32

6. TENSION SPECIMENS FABRICATED ON A DIFFERENT LPBF MACHINE

During this study, the round robin coordinator identified a willing participant who had a LPBF 

machine from a different vendor. NIST sent this participant the same powder and the same individual 

tessellated and slice files to fabricate the parts as sent to the other participants. This participant used

the manufacturing plan and the files to duplicate the process parameters in their machine. Upon 

receiving the build platform with the tensile specimens attached, NIST followed the same post 

processing procedures to heat treat, extract the specimens, and prepare the specimens for the tension 

tests. The statistical analysis was conducted on the tension test results, including the specimens from 

the different LPBF machine.

Statistical analysis

The yield strength (YS), ultimate tensile strength (UTS), elongation after fracture (A), and 

Young’s modulus (E), were measured for 6 test specimens produced by each participant. Figure 4 shows 

summaries of these results, in the form of boxplots. Each rectangular box comprises the middlemost 50

% of the data, the thick horizontal line within the box marks the median, and the whiskers, if present, 

extend to the extreme data points. Circles indicate potential outliers: values that lie farther than 1.5 

times the inter-quartile range from either the top or bottom sides of a box. As seen in these plots, the 

tensile properties of the specimens from the last participant (with a different LPBF machine) are clearly 

different than the properties obtained from the specimens fabricated on the other participants' 

machines. Therefore, the results from participant #7 were not included in the following statistical 

analysis.
33

Figure 4. Boxplots of tension test results of the specimens received from all participants. Box plots of 

measured mechanical properties from all participants including Lab 7. The data from Labs 1 through 6 

were used in the statistical analysis. Results from the additional participant, Lab 7, that used a different 

LPBF machine, are also shown.

Values of the following covariates were also reported by almost all participants: energy density, 

volume rate, layer thickness, and skin power. However, these attributes had only two or three different 

values, and their values varied between some of the laboratories, but never within a laboratory. 

The statistical model for the value xi, j of each of the four measurands (YS, UTS, A, and E) 

measured on test coupon i produced by laboratory j expresses it as an additive superposition of three 

different effects, xi, j = μ+α+ bj + ei, j. This is called a mixed effects model [5] because μ and α are treated 
34

as fixed effects, and the bj and ei, j are treated as random effects. For YS, for example, μ denotes the true 

value of the yield strength for this material that results from this manufacturing process, α is the effect 

of a particular covariate (for example, energy density), bj is the effect of laboratory j, and ei, j is the effect 

of this particular coupon, all for j = 1, . . . , n, with n = 6 participants, and i = 1, . . . , mj , where mj = 6

denotes the number of coupons from participant j that were used in the analysis.

The fact that the covariates take constant values within laboratories, and that often they take 

the same values also between laboratories, prevents studying their effects other than one at a time. This 

is an important weakness of the study that should be avoided in future studies. 

The {bj} are modeled as independent, Gaussian random variables with mean of 0 and standard 

deviation τ, which characterizes the between-laboratory dispersion of values; and the {e1, j , . . . , emj , j}

are modeled as independent, Gaussian random variables with mean of 0 and standard deviation σj , 

which characterizes the dispersion of values within laboratory j, and may vary between laboratories. 

These models were fitted using function lme from the package nlme for the R environment for 

statistical computing and graphics [6, 7]. Their fit to the data was evaluated via graphical examination of

the corresponding estimates of the laboratory and coupon effects. The heterogeneity of the results 

from the different laboratories may be evaluated in greater detail by applying Cochran’s Q-test to 

determine whether the standard deviation of the laboratory effects τ is zero [8].

Table 3 summarizes the results that may be relevant to the design of future, more ambitious 

interlaboratory studies of additive manufacturing. The between-laboratory range of values, expressed 

relative to the estimate of the measurand, listed in the column labeled τ̂/μ̂ (%), is a modest 1.3 % to 4.1 

%. The between-laboratory variability is substantially (up to 4 times) larger than the typical withinlaboratory variability, listed in the column labeled τ̂/median({σ̂j}), for all measurands except for 

elongation, whose values are surprisingly uniform across laboratories.
35

Considered one at a time, none of the four covariates (energy density, volume rate, layer 

thickness, and skin power) had effects significantly different from zero, once the differences between 

laboratories were taken into account. An analysis based on summary data (averages and standard 

errors of these averages), where the same mixed effects model was fitted using a different statistical

procedure [9], implemented in function rma defined in R package meta for Viechtbauer [10] revealed 

the following:

 For yield strength (YS), ultimate tensile strength (UTS), and Young’s modulus (E), there is 

significant between-lab heterogeneity (that is, the standard deviation τ of the laboratory effects 

is significantly greater than 0), but not for elongation after fracture (A), as judged by Cochran’s 

Q-test.

 Only for yield strength is there a slight indication of possible significance of energy density upon 

mechanical performance, with higher values of the energy density (coefficient of corresponding 

effect is positive, 0.66, with associated standard uncertainty 0.28) tending to produce greater 

yield strength.
36

Table 3. Selected results from fitting mixed effects models to the experimental data. The values in the 

last two columns are the same for all the covariates (to within the number of significant digits quoted) 

because the variability in the covariates was insufficient to impact the variability of the measured values 

of the mechanical properties.

Estimate Effect τ̂/μ̂ (%) τ̂/median ({σ̂j})

Energy Density

Yield Strength (MPa) 701 0.66 2.4 3.2

Ultimate Tensile Strength (MPa) 1044 0.25 2.0 4.9

Elongation (%) 36.3 -0.01 1.3 0.4

Young's Modulus (GPa) 203 -0.17 3.3 1.5

Volume Rate

Yield Strength (MPa) 802 -13 2.1 3.2

Ultimate Tensile Strength (MPa) 1081 -5 1.9 4.9

Elongation (%) 35.1 0.15 1.4 0.4

Young's Modulus (GPa) 177 3.4 3.8 1.5

Layer Thickness

Yield Strength (MPa) 816 -1.7 2.1 3.2

Ultimate Tensile Strength (MPa) 1086 -0.64 1.9 4.9

Elongation (%) 35 0.02 1.4 0.4

Young's Modulus (GPa) 174 0.44 3.9 1.5

Skin Power

Yield Strength (MPa) 852 -0.36 2.0 3.2

Ultimate Tensile Strength (MPa) 1100 -0.14 1.9 4.9

Elongation (%) 34.6 0.00 1.4 0.4

Young's Modulus (GPa) 164 0.09 4.1 1.5

Fractography analysis

Fractography analysis of these specimens was also carried out to understand the differences 

seen in the tensile test results. A series of scanning electron micrographs were taken of the fracture 

surface from tensile bar 5 from participant 7. The tensile bar in the following images was stress-relief 
37

heat-treated following the same heat treatment followed for the other 6 participants [1]. The build 

platform was heated to 840 C in 6 h and temperature held at 840 C for 1 h. For comparison purposes, 

micrographs from a specimen made on the LPBF machine of the other 6 participants are included at the 

end of this section (Figure 22 to Figure 27).

The nature of the fracture surface morphology in the following images showed significant 

differences compared to a specimen made on the LPBF machine of the other 6 participants [1] (Figure 

22 to Figure 27). The surface shows several secondary cracks, some quite large, that appear to be the 

result of the variability in the LPBF process. The small secondary cracks appear to have initiated near an 

unmelted powder particle (or other microstructural anomaly) and propagated a short distance into the 

bulk of the sample (i.e., perpendicular to the primary fracture plane) and arrested. These cracks may be 

the result of translating a manufacturing plan developed for one LPBF machine for use on a different

vendor's LPBF machine. The translation of the manufacturing plan may have resulted in the suboptimum build producing lower mechanical properties and the observed fracture surface. 

Figure 5 is a low-magnification view of the surface showing a large flaw in the lower left corner 

of the tensile specimen cross-section. This flaw appears to be a pore caused by trapped gas and is the 

most likely initiation point of the primary fracture. At higher magnification (Figure 6 and Figure 7), this 

area shows that the pore may have originated during the solidification process as unmelted and partially 

melted powder are clearly observable within. 

The fracture surface has a number of large secondary cracks aligned in the build direction

(Figure 5). During the build, the powder was applied in layers in a horizontal plane. The horizontal 

secondary cracks may have initiated as interlayer cracks that pulled apart during the tensile loading. 

However since these cracks appear to be open, it may suggest that they are build related rather than the 

result of loading. Higher magnification images also show smaller secondary cracks that are in various 

directions along the surface as well (Figure 8 and Figure 13).
38

Figure 5. Overview of the fracture surface (x23) showing a large flaw in the lower left corner of the specimen 

and large secondary cracks parallel to build layers. The white box is the region magnified in Figure 8. 

Figure 6. A low magnification view (x100) of the lower 

left corner of the specimen showing the flaw (1) and 

what appears to be a short crack that initiated to the 

right of a large particle (2).

Figure 7. A higher magnification image (x250) 

showing unmelted and partially melted particles (1) of 

various sizes trapped within the flaw (2).
39

Figure 8. Higher magnification (x110) of the white box 

in Figure 5 with secondary cracks (1) and dimple-like 

microvoids (2). Some cracks are aligned in the build 

direction while others are not.

Figure 9. Higher magnification (x500) of Figure 8 

showing similar features to Figure 13. Fine dendritic 

segregation (1), microvoids (2), a small secondary 

crack (3), and an unmelted powder particle within the 

crack (4). The white box is the region magnified in 

Figure 10.
40

Figure 10. Higher magnification (x1000) of Figure 9 

showing a portion of the small crack (1) (labeled 3 in 

Figure 9) and a microvoid (2) from Figure 9. The fine 

scaled dendrites can easily be seen across the surface.

Figure 11. Another high magnification image (x1500) 

of the fracture surface showing dendrites. In the 

center of this image there is a cube shaped formation 

(1) that appears to be a different nature then the 

surrounding material and could be crystallographic.

Figure 12. This area of the fracture surface shows 

areas of very consistent dendrite orientation.

Figure 13. A small secondary crack (3) is surrounded 

by fine dendritic segregation (1) and microvoids (2). 

An unmelted particle is within the crack (4). While the 

microvoids reflect the ductility observed in the 

mechanical data, the crack may have contributed to 

lower overall ductility in this specimen as compared to 

the specimen representing the other 6 participants.

Fine-scaled dendrites, resulting from micro-segregation during the solidification process, are 

exhibited at region 1 in Figure 13 and these are the most prevalent features on the fracture surface 
41

overall. Microvoids, or dimple-like features, are also visible on the surface and they are noted in Figure 

13 as region 2. Numerous voids were observed and they ranged in size from extremely fine to quite 

large. Since many of the observed microvoids are smaller than the diameter of an unmelted powder 

particle, it is possible these formed around an unmelted powder or contaminate particle during 

solidification. Microvoids typically form during final fracture (i.e., after necking has initiated in the 

sample) and indicate ductile failure, which is consistent with the mechanical test data for this specimen. 

While lower than the results from the other 6 participants, this specimen did demonstrate significant 

ductility prior to failure. 

Figure 13 also shows a small secondary crack (region 3). Several secondary cracks, also ranging 

in size were observed on the fracture surface of this specimen. Most exhibited small, unmelted powder 

particles near the mouth of the crack, which can be seen in Figure 13 (region 4). These cracks were most 

likely produced by local variability in the layered solidification process and may have contributed to the 

reduced strength. Another example of a secondary crack is shown in Figure 14 through Figure 17.

The powder particles were examined further and Figure 18 and Figure 20 are high magnification 

images of partially melted powder from Figure 17. Some evidence of decohesion can be seen between 

the unmelted powder particle and the surrounding matrix (decohesion at region 2 in Figure 18), which is 

also consistent with the reduced mechanical properties for this specimen. The particle morphology was 

relatively spherical. Some evidence of grain structure and fine-scale dendrites is also observable at 

extremely high magnification (Figure 19 and Figure 21). 
42

Figure 14. Figure 5, a low magnification overview 

(x23) of the fracture surface. The white box is the 

region magnified in Figure 15. Note the area for Figure 

15 with relation to the flaw.

Figure 15. Higher magnification (x85) of Figure 14

showing secondary cracks, one with unmelted or 

partially melted powder particles trapped inside. Note 

the thin horizontal crack passing through the white 

box extends from the flaw across most of this image. 

The white box is the region magnified in Figure 16.

Figure 16. Higher magnification (x200) of Figure 15

showing secondary cracks with unmelted or partially 

Figure 17. A higher magnification view (x400) of the 

mouth of a secondary crack showing unmelted or 
43

melted powder trapped in the mouth of the crack. 

The thin horizontal crack noted in Figure 15 that 

extends from the flaw is easier to see. The white box 

is the region magnified for Figure 17.

partially melted powder particles trapped inside. The 

white box is the region magnified for Figure 18.

Figure 18. Partially melted powder at a higher 

magnification (x2500) from Figure 17. The rough 

texture on the particle surfaces is produced by rapid 

solidification during the atomization process (1). 

There is evidence of decohesion between the 

unmelted powder particle and the surrounding matrix 

(2).

Figure 19. A high magnification image (x15000) of 

Figure 18 showing the surface of an unmelted powder 

particle. The brighter regions are likely second phase 

precipitates (1) decorating extremely fine grain 

boundaries (2).
44

Figure 20. Partially melted powder within the 

secondary crack at a high magnification (x2500) 

from Figure 17. The rough texture on the particles 

surface is produced by rapid solidification during 

the atomization process.

Figure 21. The melted region between two partially 

melted powder particles (x5000) shown in Figure 

18. The brighter regions are likely second phase 

participates decorating extremely fine grain 

boundaries.

The above images represent the microstructure and associated fracture patterns of a specimen 

fabricated on a different LPBF machine then the other 6 participants. The nature of the fracture surface 

morphology in these images showed significant differences compared to a specimen made on the LPBF 

machine of the other 6 participants [1]. The difference in the facture pattern may be the result of 

translating a manufacturing plan developed for one LPBF machine for use on a different vendor's LPBF 

machine. The translation of the manufacturing plan may have resulted in the sub-optimum build results 

exhibited in the above images and in the lower mechanical properties. Figure 22 through Figure 27

show the fractography results from a specimen made using the LPBF machine of the 6 participants.
45

Figure 22. A region of fracture zone (x100) that 

does not appear to have horizontal secondary 

cracks related to the build layer but rather 

localized transgranular cracking in various 

directions. 

Figure 23. A group of facets (x500). The white box 

is the region magnified in Figure 24. These steplike cracks appear to be aligned in the build 

direction, however they do not appear to be as 

open as seen with the other specimen (Figure 8

and Figure 17).

Figure 24. Several transgranular cleave-like (TCL)

facets on the fracture surface (x1000).

Figure 25. A different area of the fracture surface

(x250). Large TCL facet is in the middle of the 
46

image and the top of the facet was chosen to 

magnify in Figure 26.

Figure 26. Dendrites are evident around a

secondary crack (x1500).

Figure 27. A high magnification image (x3000) of 

the fracture surface shows primarily dendrites 

with a transgranular cleavage-like feature.

7. SUMMARY

Conducting a round robin study involving a large number of variables requires significant effort 

to identify and control most, if not all, of these variables. Additive manufacturing processes are 

examples of such processes with very large, on the order of hundred, number of variable process 

parameters. Therefore, careful planning is needed to determine the manufacturing plan and collect all 

necessary information to be able to draw conclusions from the resulting tests.

This report presented all the information and documentation shared between the study 

coordinator (NIST) and each participant during execution of this study. This report also provided an 

example of using some fixed process parameters on different LPBF machines, which are not intended to 

necessarily use the same parameters. The test results from the specimens fabricated on a different 
47

vendor's LPBF machine showed significant differences both in mechanical properties as well as fracture

and microstructure characteristics. These differences are most likely the result of translating a 

manufacturing plan developed for one LPBF machine for use on a different vendor's machine. The 

translation of the manufacturing plan may have resulted in the sub-optimum build results. Future 

studies will take these results into account when setting and applying fixed parameters on different AM 

platforms.

The results indicate that differences between laboratories, even between those that have used 

the very same parent material and manufacturing process (the only ones considered in the analyses that 

produced the results summarized in Table 3), generally are considerably more important than 

differences between coupons manufactured in the same laboratory. This fact suggests that there is 

more to be gained by increasing the number of participating laboratories, than by increasing the number 

of coupons manufactured by each laboratory. 

Future experiments will be designed to enable investigation of the effects that process variables 

(the covariates considered above and others) have upon the mechanical properties of the resulting 

parts. To achieve this goal, settings of key process variables should be varied deliberately, over 

practically significant ranges, both within laboratories and between laboratories, in a suitably designed 

experiment. For example, one may choose at a minimum two different values for the energy density, 

but then ensure that the two levels are used in different runs in each laboratory.

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Stephanie Watson, Max Peltz, and Clarissa Ferraris for their laser 

diffraction powder size analysis. The authors would also like to thank the participants in this study: 
48

 GE Global Research: Prabhjot Singh, John Deaton, Laura Dial

 Honeywell Aerospace: Donald Godfrey, Bob Rasmussen, Brian Baughman

 Arizona Commerce Authority: Dan Franklin

 University of Louisville: Tim Gornet, Brent Stucker, Gary Graf, Matt Taylor

 Western Illinois University-Quad City Manufacturing Lab: Eric Faierson 

 Picatinny Arsenal: Stacey Kerwien, Elias Jelis, Matthew Clemente, Dave Dekmar, Sr.

 Aberdeen Proving Ground: Rick Moore, Lester Hitch

9. REFERENCES

[1] Brown, C.U., Jacob, G., Stoudt, M., Moylan, S., Slotwinski, J., and Donmez, A., “Interlaboratory study 

for nickel alloy 625 made by laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing to assess mechanical 

property variability,” in review.

[2] ASTM Standard E8/E8M-13a, Standard Test Method for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials, ASTM 

International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013.

[3] ASTM Standard B214-15, Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Metal Powders, ASTM 

International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015.

[4] ASTM Standard E11-15, Standard Specification for Woven Wire Test Sieve Cloth and Test Sieves, 

ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015.

[5] Pinheiro, J.C. and Bates, D.M., “Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-Plus”, Springer-Verlag, New York, 

NY, 2000.
49

[6] Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., and R Core Team, “nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed 

Effects Models,” 2015. URL http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme. R package version 3.1-120.

[7] R Core Team, “R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing,” R Foundation for Statistical 

Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2015. URL http://www.R-project.org/.

[8] Hedges, L. V. and Olkin, I, “Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis,” Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 

1985.

[9] DerSimonian, R. and Laird, N, “Meta-analysis in clinical trials,” Controlled Clinical Trials, 7(3):177–188, 

September 1986.

[10] Viechtbauer, W, “Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package,” Journal of Statistical 

Software, 36(3):1–48, 2010. URL http://www.jstatsoft.org/v36/i03/.
50

APPENDIX

COPY OF THE 7 PROCESS CONTROL DOCUMENTS RETURNED BY THE PARTICIPANTS

Participant 1 PCD 

Process Control Document

Technical Data

Part Manufacturing Technical Data

Completed by the part manufacturer

Value Requirement 

Section

Approval

Job Number

Build File Name: AM_Round Robin_Inconel 625 1.2

Process Laser Powder Bed Fusion 2.1.1

Equipment 

Manufacturer and 

Model:

EOS 

EOSINT M270D

2.1.2

Equipment Serial 

Number:

SI978

Laser Manufacturer 

and Model:

H0911286 2.1.4

Laser Serial Number: 1212-0163

Software Version: PSW Version 3.5 (Build 64) 2.2

Date of last 

preventative 

maintenance

02/04/14 2.3

System Calibration 

Current

yes 2.4

Material 

Requirements

Verify Powder 

Heat/Lot Loaded

Matches Feedstock 

Technical Data

Containers #2 and #15

Material Condition 

(Virgin/Recycled)

Virgin 3.4

Process Setup 

Requirements

Build Platform 

Material

New Plate

PN: 2200-4372

4.1.1
51

Build Platform 

Thickness

22.15 mm 4.1.2

Build Platform 

Condition

New Plate

Cleaned

4.1.3

Build Platform 

Preheat, °C

80 C 4.1.4

Recoater Blade 

Material/Part Number

Ceramic, PN: 2200-3013 4.2

Process Parameter 

Settings

Base Parameter Set EOS MP1 4.3.1

Base Parameter 

Filename

MP1_Surface_101

Layer Thickness, μm 20 4.3.2

Sort Parts Method: - 4.3.4.2

Exposure Parameters Complete Exposure Parameters Table Below 4.3.5

Pre Contour Type NIST_RR_IN625_PreContour 4.3.5.1

Skin Exposure Type NIST_RR_IN625_OuterSkin 4.3.5.2

Core Exposure Type NIST_RR_IN625_InnerSkin 4.3.5.3

Post Contour Type NIST_RR_IN625_Postcontour 4.3.5.4

Skin Thickness (x/y), 

mm

3.00 4.3.5.5

Skin Thickness (z), mm 3.00 4.3.5.6

Base Radius: 0.00 4.3.5.7

Core open to 

platform?:

No (unchecked) 4.3.5.8

Skin/Core: Yes (checked) 4.3.5.9

Scaling and Offset 

Material Specific 

Scaling

X, % Y, %

Part Specific 

Undersize/Oversize 

Beam Offset, mm

0 4.3.6.3 0 0 4.3.6.1

0 0 4.3.6.2

Building Screen

Start Height (mm): 0.02 4.3.7.1

Final Height (mm): 9.180 4.3.7.2

Layer Thickness 0.020 mm 4.3.2

DMLS Settings

DMLS Off Range, 

(mm)

Pre-exposure On 0.06 Range, 

(mm)

4.3.8.1

4.3.8.2
52

Recoating Screen

Minimum Charge, % 150

Maximum Charge, % 200

Dosing Boost, % 300

Recoating Speeds 

(mm/s)

Recoating Speed 1 Recoating 

Speed 2

4.3.9.4, 

4.3.9.5

Dosing Boost, % 500 mm/s 80 mm/s

Lower Dispenser 

Platform

Contact-free outward 

travel

1.00 mm 4.3.9.6

Yes, (checked) 4.3.9.7

Build Time Estimation 18:42:36

Build Chamber 

Environment

0

Purge Gas Used Nitrogen 4.4.1

Purge Gas Source Nitrogen Generator 4.4.1

Flow Rates 5.48 bar, 1.50 V 4.4.2

Filtration Enabled 4.4.3

Oxygen Set Point 1.3% 4.4.4

Quality Control Checks 

at Build Start

System Maintenance 

and Cleaning 

Performed

Cleaned 4.5.1

Pre Build Laser Power 

Measurement

Setpoint Display Measure

d

Pre Contour

Stripes 4.5.2

Up Skin

Down Skin

Post Contour

Edges

Build Platform 

Leveling Complete

Yes 4.5.3

Platform Temperature 80.0 C 4.5.6

Platform Level Build Platform Z = 1.190 mm

Oxygen Level 0.88% 4.5.7

In Process 

Requirements

Limits Max Limit Min Limit Max 

Measure

d

Build Start Time 08 04 14 14:30

Build Interruptions None 5.2
53

(If Yes, Attach 

Documentation per 

5.2)

Process Completion

Platform Temperature 

at Time of Chamber 

Opening

28.0 C 6.1.1,6.1.2

Chamber Oxygen Prior 

to Opening

2.00% 6.1.2

Recovered Powder 

Labeling

Yes 6.2

Post Build Laser 

Power Measurement

Setpoint Display Measure

d

Pre Contour

Stripes 6.1.5

Up Skin

Down Skin

Post Contour

Edges

Exposure Parameters

Completed by the part manufacturer

Value Requirement 

Section

Approval

Job 

Number

Build File 

Name:

AM_Round Robin_Inconel 625

Pre Exposure

Pre 

Exposure 

Type

NIST_RR_IN625_PreContour 4.3.5.1

First 

Contour 

Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.1.1

Speed 

(mm/s):

900.0 800.0 1600.0

Power (W): 100.0 100.0 100.0

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

0.000 Contour Yes (checked)
54

Thickness 

(mm):

0.040 Post Contour No 

(unchecked)

Corridor 

(mm):

0.040

Second 

Contour 

Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.1.2

Speed 

(mm/s):

- - -

Power (W): - - -

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

- Contour No 

(unchecked)

Thickness 

(mm):

- Post Contour No 

(unchecked)

Corridor 

(mm):

-

Edges Edge factor - Edges No(unchecked) 4.3.5.1.3

Threshold: - Post Edge No(unchecked)

Minimum 

radius 

factor:

-

Beam 

offset 

(mm):

-

Speed 

(mm/s):

-

Power (W): -

Skin Exposure

Skin 

Exposure 

Type

NIST_RR_IN625_OuterSkin 4.3.5.2

Stripes Distance 

(mm):

0.10 Stripe width 

(mm):

4.00 4.3.5.2.1

Speed 

(mm/s):

800.0 Stripes 

overlap 

(mm):

0.10

Power (W): 195.0 Skywriting: Yes(checked)

Beam 

offset (mm)

0.030 Offset: Yes(checked)

Hatching, X Yes(checked) Alternating: Yes(checked)

Hatching, Y Yes(checked) Rotating: Yes(checked)

UpDown Upskin Downskin 4.3.5.2.2

Distance 

(mm):

0.05 0.05

Speed 

(mm):

800.0 3000.0
55

Power (W): 195.0 195.0

Thickness 

(mm):

0.00 0.04

X: Yes(checked) Yes(checked)

Y: Yes(checked) Yes(checked)

Alternating: No 

(unchecked)

Overlap with 

inskin(mm):

0.10

Skywriting: Yes 

(checked)

Min. length 

(mm)

2.00

Skip Layer Skipped 

Layers

0 4.3.5.2.3

Offset 

layers:

0

Expose first 

layer:

Yes 

(checked)

Core Exposure

Core 

Exposure 

Type

NIST_RR_IN625_InnerSkin 4.3.5.3

Chess Squares Gap

Distance 

(mm):

0.10 0.10

Speed 

(mm/s):

800.0 800.0

Power (W): 195.0 195.0

Width 

(mm):

8.00 0.00

Beam 

offset (mm)

-0.050 Overlap: 0.08

Hatching, 

X:

Yes 

(checked)

Alternating: Yes (checked)

Hatching, 

Y:

Yes 

(checked)

Rotating: Yes (checked)

Skywriting: No 

(unchecked)

Rotated 

Angle:

-

Offset: Yes(checked)

Post Exposure

Post 

Exposure 

Type

NIST_RR_IN625_Postcontour 4.3.5.4

First 

Contour 

Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.4.1

Speed 

(mm/s):

900.0 800.0 1600.0

Power (W): 120.0 120.0 120.0
56

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

0.015 Contour Yes (checked)

Thickness 

(mm):

0.040 Post Contour Yes (checked)

Corridor 

(mm):

0.040

Second 

Contour 

Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.4.2

Speed 

(mm/s):

- - -

Power (W): - - -

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

- Contour No 

(unchecked)

Thickness 

(mm):

- Post Contour No 

(unchecked)

Corridor

(mm):

-

Edges Edge factor 2.00 Edges Yes(checked) 4.3.5.4.3

Threshold: 3.0 Post Edge Yes(checked)

Minimum 

radius 

factor:

0.00

Beam 

offset 

(mm):

0.000

Speed 

(mm/s):

900.0

Power (W): 100.0
57

Participant 2 PCD
58
59
60
61
62
63
64

Participant 3 PCD:
65
66
67
68
69
70
71

Participant 4 PCD:

Process Control Document

Technical Data

Part Manufacturing Technical Data

Completed by the part manufacturer

Value Requirement 

Section

Approval

Job Number 8-11-2014

Build File Name: IN625NISTROUNDROBIN.eosjob 1.2

Process DMLS 2.1.1

Equipment 

Manufacturer and 

Model:

EOSINT M270 2.1.2

Equipment Serial 

Number:

SI 987

Laser Manufacturer 

and Model:

2.1.4

Laser Serial Number:

Software Version: PSW 3.6 2.2

Date of last 

preventative 

maintenance

May 28 2.3

System Calibration 

Current

May 28 2.4

Material 

Requirements

Verify Powder 

Heat/Lot Loaded

Matches Feedstock 

Technical Data

Use SEM with EDS to verify the powder met 

specification

Material Condition 

(Virgin/Recycled)

Virgin 3.4

Process Setup 

Requirements

Build Platform 

Material

1045 steel 4.1.1

Build Platform 

Thickness

~20mm 4.1.2

Build Platform 

Condition

Good 4.1.3
72

Build Platform 

Preheat, °C

80°C 4.1.4

Recoater Blade 

Material/Part Number

EOS ceramic blade 4.2

Process Parameter 

Settings

Base Parameter Set MP1 Performance 4.3.1

Base Parameter 

Filename

MP1_Performance_101.eosjob

Layer Thickness, μm 40 4.3.2

Sort Parts Method: 4.3.4.2

Exposure Parameters Complete Exposure Parameters Table Below 4.3.5

Pre Contour Type 4.3.5.1

Skin Exposure Type 4.3.5.2

Core Exposure Type 4.3.5.3

Post Contour Type 4.3.5.4

Skin Thickness (x/y), 

mm

4.3.5.5

Skin Thickness (z), mm 4.3.5.6

Base Radius: 4.3.5.7

Core open to 

platform?:

4.3.5.8

Skin/Core: 4.3.5.9

Scaling and Offset .032

Material Specific 

Scaling

X, %.19 Y, %.23

Part Specific 

Undersize/Oversize 

Beam Offset, mm

4.3.6.3 4.3.6.1

4.3.6.2

Building Screen

Start Height (mm): 4.3.7.1

Final Height (mm): 4.3.7.2

Layer Thickness 4.3.2

DMLS Settings

DMLS Off Range, 

(mm)

Pre-exposure On Range, 

(mm)

4.3.8.1

4.3.8.2

Recoating Screen

Minimum Charge, % 120

Maximum Charge, % 150

Dosing Boost, % 300
73

Recoating Speeds 

(mm/s)

Recoating Speed 1 Recoating 

Speed 2

4.3.9.4, 

4.3.9.5

Dosing Boost, %

Lower Dispenser 

Platform

Contact-free outward 

travel

4.3.9.6

4.3.9.7

Build Time Estimation ~11 hours

Build Chamber 

Environment

Good 0

Purge Gas Used Nitrogen 4.4.1

Purge Gas Source Compressed Air 4.4.1

Flow Rates 4.4.2

Filtration 1.5setting, not clogged 4.4.3

Oxygen Set Point 1.3wt% 4.4.4

Quality Control Checks 

at Build Start

System Maintenance 

and Cleaning 

Performed

4.5.1

Pre Build Laser Power 

Measurement

Setpoint Display Measure

d

Pre Contour

Stripes 4.5.2

Up Skin

Down Skin

Post Contour

Edges

Build Platform 

Leveling Complete

4.5.3

Platform Temperature 4.5.6

Platform Level

Oxygen Level 4.5.7

In Process 

Requirements

Limits Max Limit Min Limit Max 

Measure

d

Build Start Time 12pm Aug. 11

Build Interruptions

(If Yes, Attach 

Documentation per 

5.2)

No 5.2

Process Completion
74

Platform Temperature 

at Time of Chamber 

Opening

6.1.1,6.1.2

Chamber Oxygen Prior 

to Opening

The chamber was opened several hours after 

build was completed

6.1.2

Recovered Powder 

Labeling

6.2

Post Build Laser 

Power Measurement

Setpoint Display Measure

d

Pre Contour

Stripes 6.1.5

Up Skin

Down Skin

Post Contour

Edges

Exposure Parameters

Completed by the part manufacturer

Value Requirement 

Section

Approval

Job Number

Build File Name:

Pre Exposure

Pre Exposure 

Type

4.3.5.1

First Contour Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.1.1

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

Contour

Thickness 

(mm):

Post 

Contour

Corridor 

(mm):

Second Contour Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.1.2

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):
75

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

Contour

Thickness 

(mm):

Post 

Contour

Corridor 

(mm):

Edges Edge factor Edges 4.3.5.1.3

Threshold: Post Edge

Minimum 

radius 

factor:

Beam 

offset 

(mm):

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):

Skin Exposure

Skin Exposure 

Type

4.3.5.2

Stripes Distance 

(mm):

Stripe 

width 

(mm):

4.3.5.2.1

Speed 

(mm/s):

Stripes 

overlap 

(mm):

Power (W): Skywriting:

Beam 

offset (mm)

Offset:

Hatching, X Alternating:

Hatching, Y Rotating:

UpDown Upskin Downskin 4.3.5.2.2

Distance 

(mm):

Speed 

(mm):

Power (W):

Thickness 

(mm):

X:

Y:

Alternating: Overlap 

with 

inskin(mm):
76

Skywriting: Min. length 

(mm)

Skip Layer Skipped 

Layers

4.3.5.2.3

Offset 

layers:

Expose first 

layer:

Core Exposure

Core Exposure 

Type

4.3.5.3

Chess Squares Gap

Distance 

(mm):

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):

Width 

(mm):

Beam 

offset (mm)

Overlap:

Hatching, 

X:

Alternating:

Hatching, 

Y:

Rotating:

Skywriting: Rotated 

Angle:

Offset:

Post Exposure

Post Exposure 

Type

4.3.5.4

First Contour Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.4.1

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

Contour

Thickness 

(mm):

Post 

Contour

Corridor 

(mm):

Second Contour Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.4.2

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):
77

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

Contour

Thickness 

(mm):

Post 

Contour

Corridor 

(mm):

Edges Edge factor Edges 4.3.5.4.3

Threshold: Post Edge

Minimum 

radius 

factor:

Beam 

offset 

(mm):

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):
78

Participant 5 PCD

Process Control Document

Technical Data

Part Manufacturing Technical Data

Completed by the part manufacturer: September 16th 2014

Value Requirement 

Section Approval

Job Number

Build File Name: AM_Round Robin_Inconel 625 1.2 GJ

Process Laser Powder Bed Fusion 2.1.1 GJ

Equipment 

Manufacturer and 

Model:

EOS M270,

year of production: 2010 2.1.2 GJ

Equipment Serial 

Number: 992 GJ

Laser Manufacturer 

and Model: IPG, YLR-200-SM-EOS 2.1.4 GJ

Laser Serial Number: 10061428 GJ

Software Version: PSW, Version 3.5 (Build 71) 2.2 GJ

Date of last 

preventative 

maintenance

June 2nd unit June 6th 2014

performed by Mr. Jay Thornburg 2.3 GJ

System Calibration 

Current August 22nd 2014 2.4 GJ

Material 

Requirements

Verify Powder 

Heat/Lot Loaded

Matches Feedstock 

Technical Data

EOS_IN625

Lot. No.: 1112012

Buckets: #4 and #12

GJ

Material Condition 

(Virgin/Recycled) virgin 3.4 GJ

Process Setup 

Requirements

Build Platform 

Material AlSi 1045 steel, charge no.: 2200 - 4372 4.1.1 GJ

Build Platform 

Thickness 22.4 mm 4.1.2 GJ

Build Platform 

Condition Virgin, unused 4.1.3 GJ

Build Platform 

Preheat, °C 80 4.1.4 GJ
79

Recoater Blade 

Material/Part Number HSS 2200_3013 4.2 GJ

Process Parameter 

Settings

Base Parameter Set NIST: MP1_020_100_IN625_020_NIST_V1.eosjob 4.3.1 GJ

Base Parameter 

Filename EOS_MP1_020_100_Surface GJ

Layer Thickness, μm 20 4.3.2 GJ

Sort Parts Method: Group: alternating between front to back 4.3.4.2 GJ

Exposure Parameters Complete Exposure Parameters Table Below 4.3.5

Pre Contour Type NIST_PreContour_RR_IN625 4.3.5.1 GJ

Skin Exposure Type NIST_OuterSkin_RR_IN625 4.3.5.2 GJ

Core Exposure Type NIST_InnterSkin_RR_IN625 4.3.5.3 GJ

Post Contour Type NIST_PreContour_RR_IN625 4.3.5.4 GJ

Skin Thickness (x/y), 

mm

3.00 4.3.5.5 GJ

Skin Thickness (z), mm 3.00 4.3.5.6 GJ

Base Radius: 0.00 4.3.5.7 GJ

Core open to 

platform?: No 4.3.5.8 GJ

Skin/Core: Yes 4.3.5.9 GJ

Scaling and Offset 

Material Specific 

Scaling X, 0.209% Y, 0.375% GJ

Part Specific 

Undersize/Oversize 

Beam Offset, mm

0.048 4.3.6.3 0.00 4.3.6.1 GJ

0.00 4.3.6.2 GJ

Building Screen

Start Height (mm): 0.02 4.3.7.1 GJ

Final Height (mm): 9.16 4.3.7.2 GJ

Layer Thickness (mm) 0.02 4.3.2 GJ

DMLS Settings

DMLS Off ---Range, 

(mm)

Pre-exposure On 0.06 Range, 

(mm)

4.3.8.1 GJ

4.3.8.2 GJ

Recoating Screen

Minimum Charge, % 150 GJ

Maximum Charge, % 200 GJ

Dosing Boost, % 300 GJ

Recoating Speeds 

(mm/s)

Recoating Speed 1: 500

Recoating Speed 2: 80

4.3.9.4, 

4.3.9.5
80

Dosing Boost, %

Lower Dispenser 

Platform

Contact-free outward 

travel

1.00 mm 4.3.9.6

GJ

Yes 4.3.9.7

Build Time Estimation 18:47 (hh:mm) GJ

Build Chamber 

Environment 0

Purge Gas Used Nitrogen 4.4.1 GJ

Purge Gas Source Nitrogen generator 4.4.1 GJ

Flow Rates --- 4.4.2

Filtration 1.5 4.4.3 GJ

Oxygen Set Point 1.3 % 4.4.4 GJ

Quality Control Checks 

at Build Start

System Maintenance 

and Cleaning 

Performed

Yes 4.5.1 GJ

Pre Build Laser Power 

Measurement

Not performed before the RR build started.

(But after the build was finished and the lens cleaned) Display Measured

Sep. 18th

Pre Contour 100 20 sec. 101.5 W

Stripes 195 20 sec. 4.5.2 196.8 W

Up Skin 195 20 sec. 197.8 W

Down Skin 195 20 sec. 196.1 W

Post Contour 120 20 sec. 118.7 W

Edges 100 20 sec. 101.9 W

Build Platform 

Leveling Complete Yes 4.5.3 GJ

Platform Temperature 81 °C 4.5.6 GJ

Platform Level ---

Oxygen Level 0.9 % 4.5.7 GJ

In Process 

Requirements

Limits Max Limit Min Limit Max 

Measured

Build Start Time 04:30 PM Sep. 16th 2014

Build Interruptions

(If Yes, Attach 

Documentation per 

5.2)

No interruptions

Successfully finished 5.2 GJ

Process Completion

Platform Temperature 

at Time of Chamber 

Opening

80 6.1.1,6.1.2 GJ

Chamber Oxygen Prior 

to Opening 0.5 6.1.2 GJ
81

Recovered Powder 

Labeling Yes 6.2 GJ

Post Build Laser 

Power Measurement

Setpoint

(After the was finished and the lens untouched) Display Measured

Sep. 18th

Pre Contour 100 20 sec. 100.8 W

Stripes 195 20 sec. 6.1.5 194.4 W

Up Skin 195 20 sec. 195.8 W

Down Skin 195 20 sec. 196.2 W

Post Contour 120 20 sec. 119.4 W

Edges 100 20 sec. 101.5 W

Exposure Parameters

Completed by the part manufacturer: September 16th 2014

Value Requirement 

Section

Approval

Job Number ---

Build File Name: AM_Round Robin_Inconel 625.eosjob

Pre Exposure

Pre Exposure 

Type NIST_PreContour_RR_IN625 4.3.5.1

First Contour Standard OnPart Downskin

4.3.5.1.1

Speed 

(mm/s): 900.0 800.0 1600.0

Power (W): 100.0 100.0 100.0

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

0.000 Contour Yes

Thickness 

(mm): 0.040 Post Contour No

Corridor 

(mm): 0.040

Second Contour Standard OnPart Downskin

4.3.5.1.2

Speed 

(mm/s): 50 50 50

Power (W): 0 0 0

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

0.000 Contour No

Thickness 

(mm): 0.040 Post Contour No
82

Corridor 

(mm): 0.040

Edges Edge factor 2.0 Edges No

4.3.5.1.3

Threshold: 3.0 Post Edge No

Minimum 

radius 

factor:

0.000

Beam 

offset 

(mm):

0.000

Speed 

(mm/s): 50

Power (W): 0

Skin Exposure 

Type NIST_OuterSkin_RR_IN625 4.3.5.2

Stripes Distance 

(mm): 0.10

Stripe 

width 

(mm):

4.00

4.3.5.2.1

Speed 

(mm/s): 800.0

Stripes 

overlap 

(mm):

0.10

Power (W): 195 Skywriting: Yes

Beam 

offset (mm) 0.030 Offset: Yes

Hatching, X Yes Alternating: Yes

Hatching, Y Yes Rotating: Yes

Rot. Angle: 67 °

UpDown Upskin Downskin

4.3.5.2.2

Distance 

(mm): 0.05 0.05

Speed 

(mm): 800.0 3000.0

Power (W): 195.0 195.0

Thickness 

(mm): 0.00 0.04

X: Yes Yes

Y: Yes Yes

Alternating: No

Overlap 

with 

inskin(mm):

0.10

Skywriting: Yes Min. length 

(mm) 2.00

Skip Layer Skipped 

Layers 0 4.3.5.2.3
83

Offset 

layers: 0

Expose first 

layer: Yes

Core Exposure 

Type NIST_InnterSkin_RR_IN625 4.3.5.3

Chess Squares Gap

4.3.5.3.1

Distance 

(mm): 0.10 0.10

Speed 

(mm/s): 800.0 800.0

Power (W): 195.0 195.0

Width 

(mm): 8.00 0.00

Beam 

offset (mm) -0.050 Overlap: 0.08

Hatching, 

X: Yes Alternating: Yes

Hatching, 

Y: Yes Rotating: Yes

Skywriting: No Rotated 

Angle: 67 °

Offset: Yes

Skip Layer Skipped 

Layers 1

4.3.5.3.2 Offset 

layers: 0

Expose first 

layer: Yes

Post Exposure 

Type NIST_PreContour_RR_IN625 4.3.5.4

First Contour Standard OnPart Downskin

4.3.5.4.1

Speed 

(mm/s): 900.0 800.0 1600.0

Power (W): 120.0 120.0 120.0

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

0.015 Contour Yes

Thickness 

(mm): 0.040 Post Contour Yes

Corridor 

(mm): 0.040

Second Contour Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.4.2
84

Speed 

(mm/s): 50 50 50

Power (W): 0 0 0

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

0 Contour No

Thickness

(mm): 0.06 Post Contour No

Corridor 

(mm): 0.04

Edges Edge factor 2.00 Edges Yes

4.3.5.4.3

Threshold: 3.0 Post Edge Yes

Minimum 

radius 

factor:

0.00

Beam 

offset 

(mm):

0.000

Speed 

(mm/s): 900.0

Power (W): 100.0
85

Participant 6 PCD:

Process Control Document

Technical Data

Part Manufacturing Technical Data

Completed by the part manufacturer

Value Requirement 

Section

Approval

Job Number

Build File Name: NIST_RoundRobbin_IN625 1.2

Process 2.1.1

Equipment 

Manufacturer and 

Model:

EOS INT M270D 2.1.2

Equipment Serial 

Number:

1088

Laser Manufacturer 

and Model:

IPG Laser YLR-200-SM 2.1.4

Laser Serial Number:

Software Version: PSW 3.5 (71) 2.2

Date of last 

preventative 

maintenance

September 2014 2.3

System Calibration 

Current

yes 2.4

Material 

Requirements

Verify Powder 

Heat/Lot Loaded 

Matches Feedstock 

Technical Data

EOS Nickel Alloy IN 625

LOT M111201-2 

Bucket #1 and #10

Material Condition 

(Virgin/Recycled)

Virgin 3.4

Process Setup 

Requirements

Build Platform 

Material

NIST provided 4.1.1

Build Platform 

Thickness

4.1.2

Build Platform 

Condition

4.1.3
86

Build Platform 

Preheat, °C

4.1.4

Recoater Blade 

Material/Part Number

4.2

Process Parameter 

Settings

Base Parameter Set 4.3.1

Base Parameter 

Filename

Layer Thickness, μm 20 4.3.2

Sort Parts Method: 4.3.4.2

Exposure Parameters Complete Exposure Parameters Table Below 4.3.5

Pre Contour Type 4.3.5.1

Skin Exposure Type 4.3.5.2

Core Exposure Type 4.3.5.3

Post Contour Type 4.3.5.4

Skin Thickness (x/y), 

mm

4.3.5.5

Skin Thickness (z), mm 4.3.5.6

Base Radius: 4.3.5.7

Core open to 

platform?:

4.3.5.8

Skin/Core: 4.3.5.9

Scaling and Offset 0%

Material Specific 

Scaling

X, 0% Y,0 %

Part Specific 

Undersize/Oversize 

Beam Offset, mm

0 4.3.6.3

0

0 0 4.3.6.1

4.3.6.2

Building Screen

Start Height (mm): .020mm 4.3.7.1

Final Height (mm): 9.180mm 4.3.7.2

Layer Thickness .020mm 4.3.2

DMLS Settings

DMLS Off Range, 

(mm)

Pre-exposure On Range, 

(mm)

4.3.8.1

4.3.8.2

Recoating Screen

Minimum Charge, % 150%

Maximum Charge, % 200%

Dosing Boost, % 300%
87

Recoating Speeds 

(mm/s)

Recoating Speed 1

500 mm/s

Recoating 

Speed 2

80 mm/s

4.3.9.4, 

4.3.9.5

Dosing Boost, %

Lower Dispenser 

Platform

Contact-free outward 

travel

4.3.9.6

4.3.9.7

Build Time Estimation

Build Chamber 

Environment

0

Purge Gas Used nitrogen 4.4.1

Purge Gas Source Internal generator 4.4.1

Flow Rates 4.4.2

Filtration 4.4.3

Oxygen Set Point 4.4.4

Quality Control 

Checks at Build Start

System Maintenance 

and Cleaning 

Performed

4.5.1

Pre Build Laser Power 

Measurement

Setpoint Display Measure

d

Pre Contour

Stripes 4.5.2

Up Skin

Down Skin

Post Contour

Edges

Build Platform 

Leveling Complete

4.5.3

Platform Temperature 4.5.6

Platform Level

Oxygen Level 4.5.7

In Process 

Requirements

Limits Max Limit Min Limit Max 

Measure

d

Build Start Time

Build Interruptions

(If Yes, Attach 

Documentation per 

5.2)

Build stopped numerous times. Once for an early 

blade impact and twice for short feeding. 

Adjustments were made to correct.

5.2
88

Process Completion

Platform Temperature 

at Time of Chamber 

Opening

6.1.1,6.1.2

Chamber Oxygen Prior 

to Opening

6.1.2

Recovered Powder 

Labeling

6.2

Post Build Laser 

Power Measurement

Setpoint Display Measure

d

Pre Contour

Stripes 6.1.5

Up Skin

Down Skin

Post Contour

Edges

Exposure Parameters

Completed by the part manufacturer

Value Requirement 

Section

Approval

Job Number

Build File Name:

Pre Exposure

Pre Exposure 

Type

4.3.5.1

First Contour Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.1.1

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

Contour

Thickness 

(mm):

Post 

Contour

Corridor 

(mm):

Second Contour Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.1.2

Speed 

(mm/s):
89

Power (W):

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

Contour

Thickness 

(mm):

Post 

Contour

Corridor 

(mm):

Edges Edge factor Edges 4.3.5.1.3

Threshold: Post Edge

Minimum 

radius 

factor:

Beam 

offset 

(mm):

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):

Skin Exposure

Skin Exposure 

Type

4.3.5.2

Stripes Distance 

(mm):

Stripe 

width 

(mm):

4.3.5.2.1

Speed 

(mm/s):

Stripes 

overlap 

(mm):

Power (W): Skywriting:

Beam 

offset (mm)

Offset:

Hatching, X Alternating:

Hatching, Y Rotating:

UpDown Upskin Downskin 4.3.5.2.2

Distance 

(mm):

Speed 

(mm):

Power (W):

Thickness 

(mm):

X:

Y:
90

Alternating: Overlap 

with 

inskin(mm):

Skywriting: Min. length 

(mm)

Skip Layer Skipped 

Layers

4.3.5.2.3

Offset 

layers:

Expose first 

layer:

Core Exposure

Core Exposure 

Type

4.3.5.3

Chess Squares Gap

Distance 

(mm):

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):

Width 

(mm):

Beam 

offset (mm)

Overlap:

Hatching, 

X:

Alternating:

Hatching, 

Y:

Rotating:

Skywriting: Rotated 

Angle:

Offset:

Post Exposure

Post Exposure 

Type

4.3.5.4

First Contour Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.4.1

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

Contour

Thickness 

(mm):

Post 

Contour

Corridor 

(mm):

Second Contour Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.4.2
91

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

Contour

Thickness 

(mm):

Post 

Contour

Corridor 

(mm):

Edges Edge factor Edges 4.3.5.4.3

Threshold: Post Edge

Minimum 

radius 

factor:

Beam 

offset 

(mm):

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):
92

Participant 7 PCD

Process Control Document

Technical Data

Part Manufacturing Technical Data

Completed by the part manufacturer

Value Requirement 

Section

Approval

Job Number

Build File Name: 1.2

Process 2.1.1

Equipment 

Manufacturer and 

Model:

2.1.2

Equipment Serial 

Number:

Laser Manufacturer 

and Model:

2.1.4

Laser Serial Number:

Software Version: 2.2

Date of last 

preventative 

maintenance

2.3

System Calibration 

Current

2.4

Material 

Requirements

Verify Powder 

Heat/Lot Loaded

Matches Feedstock 

Technical Data

Material Condition 

(Virgin/Recycled)

3.4

Process Setup 

Requirements

Build Platform 

Material

4.1.1

Build Platform 

Thickness

4.1.2

Build Platform 

Condition

4.1.3
93

Build Platform 

Preheat, °C

4.1.4

Recoater Blade 

Material/Part Number

4.2

Process Parameter 

Settings

Base Parameter Set 4.3.1

Base Parameter 

Filename

Layer Thickness, μm 4.3.2

Sort Parts Method: 4.3.4.2

Exposure Parameters Complete Exposure Parameters Table Below 4.3.5

Pre Contour Type 4.3.5.1

Skin Exposure Type 4.3.5.2

Core Exposure Type 4.3.5.3

Post Contour Type 4.3.5.4

Skin Thickness (x/y), 

mm

4.3.5.5

Skin Thickness (z), mm 4.3.5.6

Base Radius: 4.3.5.7

Core open to 

platform?:

4.3.5.8

Skin/Core: 4.3.5.9

Scaling and Offset 

Material Specific 

Scaling

X, % Y, %

Part Specific

Undersize/Oversize 

Beam Offset, mm

4.3.6.3 4.3.6.1

4.3.6.2

Building Screen

Start Height (mm): 4.3.7.1

Final Height (mm): 4.3.7.2

Layer Thickness 4.3.2

DMLS Settings

DMLS Off Range, 

(mm)

Pre-exposure On Range, 

(mm)

4.3.8.1

4.3.8.2

Recoating Screen

Minimum Charge, %

Maximum Charge, %

Dosing Boost, %
94

Recoating Speeds 

(mm/s)

Recoating Speed 1 Recoating 

Speed 2

4.3.9.4, 

4.3.9.5

Dosing Boost, %

Lower Dispenser 

Platform

Contact-free outward 

travel

4.3.9.6

4.3.9.7

Build Time Estimation

Build Chamber 

Environment

0

Purge Gas Used 4.4.1

Purge Gas Source 4.4.1

Flow Rates 4.4.2

Filtration 4.4.3

Oxygen Set Point 4.4.4

Quality Control Checks 

at Build Start

System Maintenance 

and Cleaning 

Performed

4.5.1

Pre Build Laser Power 

Measurement

Setpoint Display Measure

d

Pre Contour

Stripes 4.5.2

Up Skin

Down Skin

Post Contour

Edges

Build Platform 

Leveling Complete

4.5.3

Platform Temperature 4.5.6

Platform Level

Oxygen Level 4.5.7

In Process 

Requirements

Limits Max Limit Min Limit Max 

Measure

d

Build Start Time

Build Interruptions

(If Yes, Attach 

Documentation per 

5.2)

5.2

Process Completion
95

Platform Temperature 

at Time of Chamber 

Opening

6.1.1,6.1.2

Chamber Oxygen Prior 

to Opening

6.1.2

Recovered Powder 

Labeling

6.2

Post Build Laser 

Power Measurement

Setpoint Display Measure

d

Pre Contour

Stripes 6.1.5

Up Skin

Down Skin

Post Contour

Edges

Exposure Parameters

Completed by the part manufacturer

Value Requirement 

Section

Approval

Job Number

Build File Name: 20140916.SLM

Pre Exposure

Pre Exposure 

Type

4.3.5.1

First Contour

(Volume 

Border) 

Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.1.1

Speed 

(mm/s):

400

Power (W): 125

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

3.0 Contour

Thickness 

(mm):

.05 Post 

Contour

Corridor 

(mm):

Second Contour Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.1.2

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):
96

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

Contour

Thickness 

(mm):

Post 

Contour

Corridor 

(mm):

Edges Edge factor Edges 4.3.5.1.3

Threshold: Post Edge

Minimum 

radius 

factor:

Beam 

offset 

(mm):

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):

Skin Exposure

Skin Exposure 

Type

4.3.5.2

Stripes Distance 

(mm):

Stripe 

width 

(mm):

4.3.5.2.1

Speed 

(mm/s):

Stripes 

overlap 

(mm):

Power (W): Skywriting:

Beam 

offset (mm)

Offset:

Hatching, X Alternating:

Hatching, Y Rotating:

UpDown Upskin Downskin 4.3.5.2.2

Distance 

(mm):

Speed 

(mm):

Power (W):

Thickness 

(mm):

X:

Y:

Alternating: Overlap 

with 

inskin(mm):
97

Skywriting: Min. length 

(mm)

Skip Layer Skipped 

Layers

4.3.5.2.3

Offset 

layers:

Expose first 

layer:

Core Exposure

Core Exposure 

Type

4.3.5.3

Chess

(Volume Area)

Squares Gap

Distance 

(mm):

Speed 

(mm/s):

500

Power (W): 200

Width 

(mm):

Beam 

offset (mm)

3.0 Overlap:

Hatching, 

X:

0.110 Alternating:

Hatching, 

Y:

Rotating:

Skywriting: Rotated 

Angle:

Offset:

Post Exposure

Post Exposure 

Type

4.3.5.4

First Contour 

(Volume Offset)

Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.4.1

Speed 

(mm/s):

400

Power (W): 100

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

4.0 Contour

Thickness 

(mm):

Post 

Contour

Corridor 

(mm):

Second Contour Standard OnPart Downskin 4.3.5.4.2

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):
98

Beam 

Offset 

(mm):

Contour

Thickness 

(mm):

Post 

Contour

Corridor 

(mm):

Edges Edge factor Edges 4.3.5.4.3

Threshold: Post Edge

Minimum 

radius 

factor:

Beam 

offset 

(mm):

Speed 

(mm/s):

Power (W):