NIST Technical Note 1823 

Additive Manufacturing Technical 

Workshop Summary Report 

Christopher Brown 

Joshua Lubell 

Robert Lipman 
 

 

 

NIST Technical Note 1823 

Additive Manufacturing Technical 

Workshop Summary Report 

Christopher Brown 

Joshua Lubell 

Robert Lipman 

Systems Integration Division 

Engineering Laboratory 

November 2013 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director 
 

 

 

 

 

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. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 1823 

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 1823, 59 pages (November 2013) 

CODEN: NTNOEF 
 

 

 

Abstract 

This report summarizes the presentations, discussions, and recommendations from the Additive 

Manufacturing Technical Workshop held during the PDES, Inc. [1] offsite meeting in 

Gaithersburg, Maryland in March 2013. The purpose of the Workshop was to identify 

challenges, research needs, and issues with the quality of additive manufacturing data. This 

report includes an overview of additive manufacturing, summaries of the Workshop 

presentations, and conclusions based on the presentations and discussions. 

Acknowledgement 

We thank the presenters for their excellent presentations and those that participated in the 

workshop. 

Keywords 

manufacturing, 3D printing, stereolithography, data quality, STL format, AMF format 

Acronym 

AM Additive Manufacturing 

AMF Additive Manufacturing File Format 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

CAD Computer-Aided Drawing 

DMLS Direct Metal Laser Sintering 

EL Engineering Laboratory 

ISO International Organization for Standardization 

LOTAR Long Term Archiving and Retrieval 

LTA Long Term Archiving 

NAMII National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

PICAM Product Information for Composites and Additive Manufacturing 

PDM Product Data Management 

SIMCA Systems Integration for Manufacturing and Construction Applications 

STEP Standard for the Exchange of Product model data 

STL Stereolithography File Format 

UV Ultra-violet 

XML eXtensible Markup Language 

iii
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Introduction 

The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) Engineering Laboratory held a 

technical workshop titled “Exploring Current State-of-the-Art and Issues in Additive 

Manufacturing,” on March 14, 2013 in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The purpose of the workshop 

was to review the state-of-the-art in additive manufacturing (AM), identify technical challenges, 

research issues, and standards’ gaps from a manufacturing information perspective. Participants 

included representatives from Airbus, BAE Systems, Boeing, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, 

NASA, Rockwell Collins, Sandia National Laboratories, US Air Force, US Army Research 

Laboratory, and various government agencies. Table 1 lists the presentations. 

The workshop was held in conjunction with the PDES, Inc. Offsite meeting also hosted by the 

NIST Engineering Laboratory (EL). PDES, Inc. is an industry consortium that supports the 

digital manufacturing enterprise through the development and implementation of information 

standards for engineering and manufacturing. Implementation testing and data exchange using 

ISO 10303 standard for product data exchange are an integral part of PDES, Inc. programs [1]. 

Table 1 Workshop presentations 

Speaker Presentation Title 

Chris Brown, NIST Introduction 

Richard Murrish, Boeing Additive Manufacturing, Where Complexity is Free 

Kevin Jurrens, NIST NIST Measurement Science Research for Additive 

Manufacturing 

Shawn Moylan, NIST Proposed Standardized Test Artifact for Additive 

Manufacturing 

John Slotwinski, NIST Material Standards for Additive Manufacturing 

Hod Lipson, Cornell ASTM file format for 3D printing - AMF 

Douglas Thomas, NIST Economic Trends in US Additive Manufacturing 

Industry interest in AM is growing as the AM industry has matured. Producing products using 

AM processes is now becoming more feasible for the industries of interest to PDES, Inc. 

members. For example, the aerospace industry is interested in using AM processes to make nonstructural components such as radar domes and critical components such as airplane wings. 

PDES, Inc. member companies are either actively engaged in AM or expect to be in the near 

future. Companies including Boeing [3], General Electric [4], and Lockheed Martin [5] have 

active research and development programs investigating AM applications and have identified the 

need for improving information standards and material standards in this area. 

PDES, Inc. is affiliated with Long Term Archiving and Retrieval International (LOTAR). 

LOTAR’s objective is to develop standards for long-term archiving (LTA) of digital data, such 

as 3D CAD (Computer-Aided Drawing) and PDM (Product Data Management) data [2]. An AM 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

data exchange standard suitable for use throughout the product lifecycle would serve the goals of 

both PDES, Inc. and LOTAR member companies. 

This report summarizes presentations, discussions, and recommendations from the AM 

Workshop. Section 2 provides an overview of AM. Section 3 summarizes each of the five 

technical workshop presentations. Section 4 provides conclusions and recommendations. 

2 Additive Manufacturing 

AM has been around for over 40 years and is now becoming more widespread as the cost of 

hardware becomes less expensive and as AM processes improve. An AM process builds parts 

directly from a CAD design file adding material layer-by-layer. There are several different kinds 

of processes (discussed in Richard Murrish’s presentation – see 3.1) that are considered additive 

processes because they all involve adding material to create the desired part rather than 

subtractive processes which involve machining away unnecessary material. 

AM parts may have several advantages over traditional subtractive manufacturing techniques. 

The AM techniques may allow the part to be made with less material for less cost, generating 

less waste material, and possibly weighing less. Parts may be made with increased strength and 

with multiple functions, such as embedding an antenna within a wing. Parts may be designed and 

manufactured in ways that are not possible using traditional subtractive manufacturing 

techniques. 

Modeling and testing approaches are needed to assess the accuracy of AM design models. AM 

processes are susceptible to errors because of the complexity and fault-sensitivity of AM data. 

Even the smallest data error can cause process errors that can lead to part defects that are not 

detectable by visual examination. An AM product is only as good as the data that describes it. 

Accurate models will improve quality and reduce rework. 

3 Workshop Presentation Summaries 

This section provides summaries of the 6 presentations given during the workshop. Subsection 

titles are the presentation titles and the author’s name, title, and organization is provided in 

italics. 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.1 Additive Manufacturing, Where Complexity is Free 

Richard Murrish, Associate Technical Fellow, Boeing 

This presentation gave an overview of the history of AM and discussed current techniques and 

materials used (see Appendix 1). AM processes mentioned include stereolithography, laser 

sintering, fused deposition, direct metal laser sintering, 3D printing, layer object manufacturing, 

and ballistic particle manufacturing. 

In the 1960s Herbert Voelcker considered the possibilities of using computer-aided machine 

control to run machines that built parts from CAD geometry. In the 1970s, he developed the 

mathematical tools to describe 3D parts that resulted in the early algorithms for solid modeling. 

In the 1980s, Carl Deckard formulated the idea of layer based manufacturing. Charles Hull is 

typically given credit for pioneering rapid prototype technology and patented his concept in 1986 

(see Appendix 1). His method, which he called “stereolithography,” involved thin consecutive 

layers of ultraviolet curable liquid photopolymer resin, which was then cured with a concentrated 

ultraviolet (UV) light. A typical stereolithography process consists of a UV laser that moves over 

a vat of liquid photopolymer to solidify the surface layer in the cross-sectional geometry. Final 

curing and some post processing are often required [6]. The layer geometry is extracted from the 

CAD geometry, and a solid object is built layer by layer relatively quickly compared to other 

AM processes. 

Other additive processes have also been developed. Laser sintering is similar to the 

stereolithography process of using UV light to cure plastic; however in this case, a laser is used 

to melt a thermoplastic powder. The powder is spread over the build surface incrementally so 

that only one layer of powder is added at a time [7]. A laser then moves in the X-Y direction to 

fuse the powder layer in the form of the cross section of the object. CAD data is used to generate 

the cross section geometry of the object. Improving the surface finish may require additional 

work. Porosity can be a concern. Selective laser sintering is the same process but with a highpowered laser to make parts that are denser. Direct metal laser sintering involves metal powder 

and a higher powered laser then is used with the laser sintering or the selective laser sintering 

processes. 

Fused deposition modeling is a widely used technique. A plastic filament is unwound from a coil 

and fed into an extrusion nozzle where it is melted. The melted plastic is then directed either by 

motion of the nozzle or by motion of the table. The plastic cools and hardens immediately and 

bonds to the lower layer [8]. This concept is similar to a hot glue gun mounted in place of a 

cutter on a 3-axis numerical control milling machine. The process can be relatively slow and may 

have poor layer to layer adhesion. 

3D printing is a relatively quick process compared to other AM processes with low material 

costs. It is similar to the laser sintering process except that the powder is bonded with liquid 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

adhesive instead of a laser. Liquid adhesive is deposited on a layer of powder material and bonds 

the powder together [9]. A hardener is often added to the part once finished to provide strength 

and overcome fragility. 

Laminated (or layer) object manufacturing involves building layers of an object from paper. 

Paper is pulled across the build surface using a heated roller. The roller melts the plastic coating 

on the underside of the paper so the paper bonds to the previous layer. A carbon dioxide laser 

then cuts the paper cross section. The surface may have a stair-stepping roughness resulting from 

the paper thickness of each layer, but material costs for this process are low [10]. The process is 

relatively fast compared to other AM processes but suffers from the paper absorption of moisture 

which can result in warping. 

Ballistic particle manufacturing is a process that builds models by firing micro-droplets of 

molten wax from a moving nozzle onto a build platform. The platform lowers to allow the wax 

to be added in consecutive layers. Material costs for this process are low but the parts lack 

strength. 

The aerospace and automotive industries currently use AM to make design prototypes and expect 

to soon be making non-critical and critical parts such as engine parts and entire aircraft wings 

[11]. Other industries have also found AM useful. These industries include the construction 

industry where small structures are made from adding layers of concrete [12]. The fashion 

industry has printed shoes, clothing, and jewelry [13]. The medical industry uses AM to scan 

body parts and print replacement structures on which new tissue can grow [14]. Also, printing 

organs from biological tissue is being developed. The food industry is also working on printing 

food products [15]. 

If a user can design a part with CAD software, then it can be “printed.” Unlike subtractive 

manufacturing, the complexity of a designed object does not impact its cost. Additively 

manufacturing a complex geometry costs the same as manufacturing a simple geometry, thus, 

“complexity is free.” However, since there is no subtractive process, the design model fully 

specifies the object to be manufactured and therefore must be very accurate. Any errors in the 

model or loss of integrity of the design information during transfer to an AM machine will 

produce errors in the part which may be difficult to detect. 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.2 NIST Measurement Science for Additive Manufacturing 

Kevin Jurrens, Deputy Division Chief, Intelligent Systems Division, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology 

In 2009, the National Science Foundation and Office of Naval Research sponsored an AM 

roadmap development workshop [16]. Barriers to AM adoption were determined to be 

insufficient understanding of material types and properties, part accuracy, the need for 

qualification and certification, and the lack of AM standards and data formats. NIST proposed a 

suite of AM standards to focus on areas identified as needing attention (see Appendix 2). The 

proposed standards hierarchy has a top level, focusing on fundamental standards defining general 

concepts and common requirements. Below the top level is a tier containing three specialized 

groups of standards specific to machines: raw materials, process/equipment, and finished parts. 

NIST’s current focus is on developing a standardized test artifact to characterize the performance 

of a metal-based AM machine or process, and developing standard test methods for raw metal 

powder characterization and material properties of AM parts. 

NIST is active in ASTM Standards Committee F42. The purpose of F42 is to address high 

priority needs for AM technologies [17]. Subcommittees have been formed for terminology, test 

methods, processes and materials, and design including data formats. NIST’s Intelligent Systems 

Division hosted a requirements-gathering workshop in December 2012 for metal-based additive 

manufacturing, which resulted in a measurement science roadmap [18]. The objectives of the 

workshop were to build on previous AM roadmaps with additional details on barriers, 

challenges, and gaps; provide direction to ASTM F42 planning; and begin coordination with the 

National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (NAMII). 

3.3 Proposed Standardized Test Artifact for Additive Manufacturing 

Shawn Moylan, Mechanical Engineer, Intelligent Systems Division, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology 

NIST developed an AM standardized test artifact to characterize the performance of an AM 

machine or process (see Appendix 3). The focus on developing a standard test artifact addresses 

one of the requirements from the measurement science roadmap mentioned previously in 

Jurrens’ presentation. The test artifact is designed to test the AM machine’s or process’s ability 

to accurately build features such as straight or round features, parallel and perpendicular features, 

holes, and bosses. The artifact then may serve to verify the machine performance for a user or 

vendor. The artifact can also be used to compare the capabilities between machines. It can also 

highlight a specific machine defect and compare the performance of a machine before and after a 

machine or process improvement is made. 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three stainless steel artifacts were built by NIST’s direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) machine 

to determine repeatability. An average repeatability of approximately 30 m was determined 

using several feature measurements such as pin and hole diameters and positions, z-heights on 

staircases, and straightness, roundness, and flatness measurements. Process improvements were 

made with adjusted scaling that resulted in an improved repeatability of pin and hole positions. 

3.4 Material Standards for Additive Manufacturing 

John Slotwinski, Physicist, Intelligent Systems Division, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

The NIST Engineering Laboratory is developing standard test methods for raw metal powder 

characterization, and standard test methods to obtain material properties of AM parts (see 

Appendix 4). The test methods will be part of the proposed suite of standards discussed in 

Jurrens’ presentation. Currently, the AM industry cannot verify that the same type of metal 

powder is identical, resulting in unconfirmed powder properties. Therefore, the parts made from 

these powders may not have the same properties either. Mechanical tests are also being 

conducted to determine properties of test specimens made from different metal powders. 

Additionally, NIST is developing test protocols, procedures, and analysis methods for industry 

round-robin testing of AM materials for contributing to a material property database. A material 

database will assist AM adoption for aerospace components. NIST has been conducting tensile 

tests on stainless steel specimens made using the DMLS process. Results indicate that the stressstrain behavior of the tensile bars is repeatable, and similar to the values reported by vendors. 

Specimens were found to have a slightly different strength depending on the build direction. 

Residual thermal stress is an issue due to the DMLS process involving the rapid melting and 

cooling of the material. Images of test specimens are being examined to view residual thermal 

stress. Porosity hiding within AM parts can also effect their mechanical behavior. A sensor 

system was designed to monitor the porosity during the DMLS process. 

3.5 ASTM File Format for 3D Printing – AMF 

Hod Lipson, Associate Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and Computing and 

Information Science, Cornell University 

ASTM developed a standard specification (F2915-12) for the Additive Manufacturing File 

Format (AMF) [19]. This eXtensible Markup Language (XML) format is intended to replace the 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STL (STereoLithography) file format commonly used for transferring information between 

design programs and additive manufacturing equipment. Although STL is simple to read, write, 

and process, it does have some shortcomings and fails to meet the needs of newer AM equipment 

(see Appendix 5). The STL format allows duplicate information and inconsistencies, and it does 

not scale well to high resolution. STL also does not support color, blending different materials, 

and different build orientations. 

The time is right for the adoption of the AMF format since 3D printers are becoming smaller, 

cheaper, and more commonplace among hobbyists, home users, and small businesses. This 

proliferation of 3D printers is resulting in more users exchanging files with one another. 

Technology independence, ease of understanding and use, and scalability with complex objects 

are key requirements the AMF file format meets. 

AMF is designed to have a manageable file size, efficient read and write time, processing, and 

accurate representation of information to address AM performance needs. Volumes are defined 

using a triangular mesh and materials are defined by properties. Colors and graphics can be 

specified. Materials can be mixed and grading between materials is possible. The format is 

backwards compatible with the STL format and, because of the extensibility of XML, it has the 

potential to include new features in the future. 

3.6 Economic Trends in US Additive Manufacturing 

Doug Thomas, Economist, Applied Economics Office, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

NIST’s Applied Economics Office is investigating AM trends in the US and the AM supply 

chain (see Appendix 6). AM is playing a significant role in global manufacturing including the 

US. In 2011, the US made $246 million in AM shipments which is 38 % of all the global 

shipments made. Based on the research data, it can be more cost effective to manufacture parts 

using AM than traditional manufacturing processes when the number of parts to be manufactured 

is small. However, if a large number of identical parts are needed, traditional manufacturing 

processes are still more cost effective. There are several consistent cost advantages of AM 

including lighter part weight, less transportation costs, and a rapid design-to-product phase. The 

adoption and diffusion of AM may occur at a faster rate as material costs decrease and the 

number of users increases. 

7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Conclusions 

The following conclusions emerged from the Workshop presentations and the discussion among 

PDES, Inc. members that occurred after the presentations. 

4.1 AM is an important industry that is gaining momentum 

The AM industry is expanding and becoming a larger portion of US manufacturing (Thomas 

Appendix 6 slides). It is important that companies consider how their industry will be using AM 

and plan for the future accordingly. AM has the potential to transform various industries with 

innovations such as lighter weight aircraft, more fuel efficient cars, and improved medical 

treatments. Complexity in the AM part design is not more costly than less complex parts 

(Murrish Appendix 1 slides). NIST is playing an important role in standardizing AM raw 

materials and test artifacts, which will in turn help the certification process and acceptance of 

AM parts (Slotwinski Appendix 4 slides). As new materials and AM processes are introduced, 

NIST’s work will continue. 

4.2 Data quality will increase in importance 

Current research appears to be focused on improving the AM machines and processes rather than 

data quality, the development of AMF file format being the exception. This may be because 

currently machine errors more than data errors contribute to part errors. As the AM machines 

improve, data quality will become more important. Conducting research to improve data quality, 

anticipating continued advancement of machine and process technology, could help reduce data 

quality errors in the future. 

4.3 The AMF file format is a step in the right direction 

AMF is an improvement over STL. Although STL remains the dominant AM file format in the 

industry, AMF use could grow as lower cost AM machines, AM manufacturers, and AM users 

become more commonplace (Lipson Appendix 5 slides). Because AMF is extensible, increased 

AMF use would likely drive further improvements in the form of enhancements to the format, 

some of which could appear in new editions of the ASTM AMF standard. 

AMF however does not solve the problem of information exchange pertaining to the slicing of a 

CAD model into layers, nor was long-term archiving of AM information considered as a 

requirement for AMF. These use cases require a far richer information model. Patil et al. [20] 

have demonstrated the feasibility of ISO 10303, an international standard for the exchange of 

8
 
product data in a neutral format among CAD systems, as a basis of transferring slicing 

information in a neutral file format among different AM processes. Since STEP is also suitable 

for long-term archiving [2], additional research building upon the results of Patil et al. could 

contribute to solving problems beyond the scope of AMF and STL. 

9
 
5 References 

[1] PDES, Inc. public webpage, About PDES, Inc., Available: 

http://www.pdesinc.org/index.html. [Accessed: 1-Aug-2013]. 

[2] LOTAR webpage, Why LOTAR? Mission, Objectives and Scope, Available: http://www.lotarinternational.org/why-lotar/mission-objectives-scope.html. [Accessed: 1-Aug-2013]. 

[3] Zelinski, P., Modern Machine Shop, April 16, 2012, Available: 

http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/the-aircraft-imperative. [Accessed: 29-Oct-2013]. 

[4] General Electric webpage, Additive manufacturing is reinventing the way we work, Available: 

http://www.ge.com/stories/additive-manufacturing. [Accessed: 1-Aug-2013]. 

[5] Lockheed Martin webpage, Aeronautics, Laboratories, Rapid Prototyping Center, Available: 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/aeronautics/labs/rapid_prototyping_center.html. [Accessed: 

1-Aug-2013]. 

[6] Worldwide Guide to Rapid Prototyping, stereolithography, Available: 

http://www.additive3d.com/sl.htm. [Accessed: 1-Aug-2013] 

[7] Worldwide Guide to Rapid Prototyping, laser sintering, Available: 

http://www.additive3d.com/sls.htm. [Accessed: 1-Aug-2013]. 

[8] Worldwide Guide to Rapid Prototyping, fused deposition modeling, Available: 

http://www.additive3d.com/fdm.htm. [Accessed: 1-Aug-2013]. 

[9] Worldwide Guide to Rapid Prototyping, 3D printing, Available: 

http://www.additive3d.com/3dp.htm. [Accessed: 1-Aug-2013]. 

[10] Worldwide Guide to Rapid Prototyping, Laminated Object Manufacturing, Available: 

http://www.additive3d.com/lom.htm. [Accessed: 1-Aug-2013]. 

[11] Dillow, C. (2011, Feb, 14). Using 3-D Printing Tech, British Airbus Engineers Aim to Print 

Out an Entire Aircraft Wing. Popular Science. Available: 

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-02/using-3-d-printing-tech-eads-wants-printout-entire-aircraft-wing. [Accessed: 21-Aug-2013]. 

[12] Lim, S., Buswell, R.A., Le, T.T., Austin, S.A., Gibb, A.G.F., and Thorpe, T., 2012, 

Developments in Construction-Scale Additive Manufacturing Processes, Automation in 

Construction, 21, pp. 262-268. 

[13] Craddock, F., 2013, New Technology Opens Horizons at a Lesser Cost, The New York 

Times, published May 15, 2013. 

10
 
 

[14] Melchels, F.P.W., Domingos, M.A.N., Klein, T.J., Malda, J., Bartolo, P.J., and Hutmacher, 

D.W., 2012, Additive Manufacturing of Tissues and Organs, Progress in Polymer Science, 37(8), 

pp. 1079-1104. 

[15] Lipson, H. 2012, Frontiers in Additive Manufacturing: The Shape of Things to Come, 

Spring Issue, The Bridge Linking Engineering and Society, Frontiers of Engineering, National 

Academy of Engineering, 42(1), pp. 5-12. 

[16] Bourell, D.L., Leu, M.C., and Rosen, D.W., ed. 2009, Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing, 

Identifying the Future of Freeform Processing, ed The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. 

[17] ASTM Committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing Technologies, Available: 

http://www.astm.org/COMMITTEE/F42.htm. [Accessed: 1-Aug-2013]. 

[18] Measurement Science Roadmap for Metal-Based Additive Manufacturing Workshop Summary 

Report, May 2013, prepared by Energetics Inc., Columbia MD, Available: 

http://events.energetics.com/NIST-AdditiveMfgWorkshop/. [Accessed: 1-Aug-2013]. 

[19] ASTM F2915-12: F42 Committee, Standard Specification for Additive Manufacturing File 

Format (AMF) Version 1.1, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012. 

[20] Patil, L., Dutta, D., Bhatt, A.D., Jurrens, K., Lyons, K., Pratt, M.J., and Sriram, R.D., 2002, 

A Proposed Standards-Based Approach for Representing Heterogeneous Objects for Layered 

Manufacturing, Rapid Prototyping Journal, 8(3), pp. 134-146. 

11
 
Appendix: Slides 

The following appendices contain the slides from the six presentations during the workshop. 

Some slides were removed if they were determined to be content-free (e.g., ‘Thank you” or “Any 

Questions?”). 

With the exception of the presentations given by NIST staff, inclusion in this Appendix implies 

neither endorsement nor approval by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

12
 
July 2012 – Everett, Renton and 

Portland

EOT_RT 6/

I tr anagem .

ll erv

Class Outline - Agenda

Appendix 1

BOE NG is a ademark of Boeing M Copyright © 2009 Boeing. A rights res 

Introduction to –

Additive Manufacturing

aka – Additive Layer Manufacturing

aka – Rapid Prototyping

aka - Cloning Designs

aka – SteroLithography

aka – 3D Printing

aka – ......

ent Company 

ed. 

Outline 

1.Technology Overview 2.Hardware and Material 3.Applications 4.STL – Creation/Process5.Use Cases 6.Out of the Box 

_Sub_Template.ppt | 1/ 2009 | 1 

Technology Overview - Definitions 

• Additive Manufacturing consists of a class of 

technologies that can automatically construct physical models from Computer-Aided Design files. 

– Improve communication – Improve collaboration – Shorten design cycles – Stretch R&D dollars – Improve accuracy – Eliminate mistakes – Trigger innovation – Accelerate Production– ......– Save your Life? 

Technology Overview - Imp

• Additive manufacturing was nam

one in Aviation Week & Space Tmagazine's May list of "Top TechWatch," is a rapidly growing mantechnology being touted for its coswaste reduction. By 2015, the sale manufacturing products and servicis expected to grow to $3.7 billio

billion in 2011, according to indepconsultants Wohlers Associates. 
Objective -

• Insight into being able to recognize use cases that 

would benefit from the use of Additive Manufacturing

(ADDM) 

• Insight into how to effectively initiate and integrate the 

use ADDM into a standard engineering process. 

• Insight into the benefits and limitations found in each 

of the component disciplines found in the overall the useof ADDM. 

• A perspective on future directions the use of ADDM 

might go 

History -

• The term "stereolithography" was coined by 

Charles W. Hull, in his US Patent 4,575,330, 

entitled "Apparatus for Production of ThreeDimensional Objects by Stereolithography" issued in 1986. 

History -

• In the 60s Herbert Voelcker had th

possibilities of using computer aidto run machines that build parts fr

• In the 70s he developed the math

3D aspects that resulted in the firs

solid modeling 

• in the 80s Carl Deckard came up w

layer based manufacturing 

• And while there are several people 

pioneered the Rapid Prototyping t

industry generally gives credit to C

History -

• Stereolithography was or

defined as a method and making solid objects by s"printing" thin layers of thmaterial, e.g., a UV-curabone on top of the other. 

(Video) 
Processes - Stereolithography Processes - Laser Sinter

Processes – Fused Deposition Processes - Direct Metal Laser S
Technology Overview – 3D Printing Applications – Prototypes 

Physical and Digital Prototyping 

belong TOGETHER – 

By L. Stephen Wolfe, P.E. 

Technology Overview – Layer Object Manufacturing 

A manufacturing process that uses a carbon-dioxide laser to create successive cross-sections of a three-dimensional object from layers of paper with a polyethylene coating on the backside. 

A sheet of paper is fed 

through with the aid of small 

rollers. As the paper is fed 

through, a heated roller is 

used to melt the coating on 

the paper so that each new 

layer will adhere to the 

previous layer. 

SOLIDO 

Processes – Ballistic Particle Manufa

Ballistic Particle Manufacturing utilizes ink jet or dropletechniques, where it builds the models by firing micro-dmaterial from a moving nozzle or jet onto a stationary plowers and the process is repeated for each layer of th

Bill Masters (the BPM inventor) first described BPM as a spit wad. “When you shoot a lot of wads,” he said, “they begin to take shape, and if you can control the direction of the wads and the motion of the device that's shooting them, you can produce any desired shape.” 
STL Creation - CATIA STL - Tessellation

Create a 

CATIA solid of 

part to be 

generated 

using ADDM 

Creation 

STL Creation - Tessellation Technology Overview - Cons

Speed Surface Finish Col

Office Environment 

Flight Certified Setup 

Material Properties 

Post Build Process

Capital Cost Material Cost E

And on and on ... 
Technology Overview - Considerations 

BUT – NOT COMPLEXITY
 

THAT IS FREE
 

Sample - CATIA/Dimension Cata

Sample - CATIA/Dimension CatalystEX Session 
BOEING is a trademark of Boeing Management Company.Copyright © 2009 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Engineering, Operations & Technology | Boeing Research & Technology 

Applications – Large Scale? 

Copyright © 2009 Boeing. All rights reserved. 

BOEING PROPRIETARY – Distribution Limited to Boeing 

Applications - Production 
Printing a Building Printing a Build

Applications – Sales and Marketing Applications – Medical 

3D Printed Jaw Used in Transplant 2/27/2012 A team of doctors in The Netherlands performed successful jaw transplant surgery recently that showcases just how far the power and potential of 3D printing has come as key asset in medical applications, particularly the design and development of custom prosthesis. An 83-year-old woman suffering from a chronic bone infection received a lower jaw transplant of a 3D-printed jaw made out of titanium powder as opposed to undergoing reconstructive surgery, which the medical team deemed too risky because of her age. Using a 3D model of the patient's lower mandible, the medical team, in partnership with metal additive manufacturing provider LayerWise, constructed and 3D-printed a metal jaw implant structure that incorporates articulated joints and dedicated features, becoming one of the first complete patient-specific implants, according to officials. 
Applications – Medical Applications – Medical 

Applications – Medical Applications – FOOD?? 

 ’

NIST Measurement Science for 

Additive Manufacturing 

Engineering Laboratory 

PDES, Inc. Workshop 

March 14, 2013 

Kevin Jurrens 

NIST Intelligent Systems Division 

kevin.jurrens@nist.gov 

Appendix 2

Interest and OpportunitieManufacturing Continue t

• Recent events and media visibility have 

emphasis on AM, including attention at corporate management and the federal 

• Much synergy and momentum – the AM 

for growth, innovations, and advanceme

• Examples: 

– Publicity in mainstream media – AM industry roadmaps – AM industry consortiums and collab– ASTM F42 and ISO TC261 standard– National Additive Manufacturing Inn– Federal emphasis on manufacturing 

Substantial Media Visibility! 

“The Future of America s Manufacturing Sector,” Washington Post, March 6, 2012 

The Economist, April 21, 2012 

Technology Review, Jan/Feb 2012 

Atlantic Council, October 2011 

“The Wow Factor of 3-D Printing,” New York Times, Jan. 12, 2011 

The Economist, Feb 10, 2011 

NPR, Forbes, Motley Fool, BBC News, etc. – the list goes on! 

Manufacturing Engineering, April 2012 

2009 AM Industry Road

• Roadmap Development Workshop s

by National Science Foundation (NSOffice of Naval Research (ONR) 

• Expert participants from AM system 

users, technology suppliers, academ

• Focused on needs, priorities, and a 

AM over next 10-12 years 

• Roadmap recommends several high

developments that are needed to adindustry; grouped in the following ca

• Research • Education and Outreach • Development and Community • National Testbed Centers 
A Sampling of Recommended Developments 

Identified in the AM Industry Roadmap • Process-structure-property relationships for each material and process • Closed-loop and adaptive AM systems with feed-forward and feedback 

capabilities 

• A much better understanding for the basic physics and chemistry of AM 

processes 

• Conceptual design methods to aid designers in defining and exploring design 

spaces enabled by AM 

• A new foundation for CAD systems that overcomes limitations in representing 

very complex geometries and multiple materials 

• Sustainable (green) materials to reduce environmental impact, including 

recyclable, reusable, and biodegradable materials 

• University courses and materials, and training programs for industry practitioners 

• Development and adoption of robust standards for AM 

• Establishment of a national testbed center to leverage equipment and serve as a 

highly visible showcase facility (or network of facilities) 

Additive Manufacturing Consortium (AMC) 

Consortium Priority Needs* • Property Database • Quality Control • Distortion Control • Equipment Development • Feedstock / Input Materials • Design Rules • Standards • Process Modeling / Optimization • AM Knowledge Base 

* Focus: precompetitive technology development 

Barriers to Broad Adop

• Material Types and Properties • Process Understanding and Pe• Part Accuracy • Surface Finish of Contoured Su• Fabrication Speed • Build Volumes / Part Size • Need for Qualification and Cert• Lack of AM Standards • Data Formats 

NIST Focus on Additive Ma

• Major thrust within NIST Smart M

Processes and Equipment (SMP

• Substantial EL expertise in manu

domains is being applied to AM 

– equipment and process metrology, 

and control, remote sensing, mate

data formats, standards developm

• Primary focus is metal-based AM • Improved measurements and st

overcome existing AM limitations 
Part

Unique Role of NIST Laboratory Research Programs - Measurements and Standards 

• Emphasis on infrastructural metrology and non-proprietary, 

standardized metrology methods that address a broad class of measurement challenges 

• Emphasis on rigorous and generic procedures to characterize 

measurement uncertainty that comply with international 

standards 

• Long-term commitment, expertise, and neutrality essential for 

harmonized and unbiased national and international standards 

• Leverage NIST core competences in measurement science, 

rigorous traceability, and development and use of standards --

as well as specific expertise in measurements and standards 

for manufacturing systems, processes, and equipment 

Primary Outputs of NISLaboratories 

• Measurement methods • Performance test methods and • Documentary standards • Standard reference data • Standard reference materials • Calibration services • Technology transfer: technical p

industry workshops, collaborati

NIST Projects in Additive Manufacturing 

Powder Process 

Uncertainties 

in the Input 

Materials 

Uncertainties in 

Equipment and 

Process Performance 

Uncertainties in 

the Final Parts 

1. Fundamental Measurement Science for Additive Processes 2. Materials Standards for Additive Manufacturing 

Technical Focus for NI

Fundamental Measurement Science for 

 Technical Focus: 

• Standard test methods to evaluate and improv• Standard test methods to evaluate fundamenta• Standard test artifacts to determine the accura

processes 

• Physics-based modeling of AM processes and • In-situ measurements of AM parts 

Materials Standards for Additive Manufa

 Technical Focus: 

• Standard test methods for metal powder chara• Standard test methods to obtain material prope• Test protocols, procedures, and analysis metho

testing of AM materials for consensus material 
In-house Metal-Based AM Research Platform 

EOS M270 System 

 Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS)  Standard STL data input from 3D CAD model  Build volume: 250 mm x 250 mm x 215 mm  Metal powders: stainless steel, titanium,

aluminum, Inconel, cobalt-chrome

 Powder size: 5 micron to 60 micron, with 30 

micron median (for stainless steel) 

 Layer thickness: 20 micron (for stainless steel) 

 Laser : Yb-fiber, 200 W, 1060 – 1100 nm 

wavelength 

 Safety interlocks: Class 1 laser while in 

operation Plus: - ZCorp 3D printer  Built-in oxygen sensors and warning system - MakerBot  Dual-mode: nitrogen or argon environments - ExOne M-Lab 

(future) 

NIST Role in ASTM F42 Standards Development 

• Substantial NIST technical presence and 

contributions to ASTM F42 

– Test Methods, U.S. TAG, Terminology, ballot comments 

• Leadership of task groups • Developed and presented “Future Vision of AM 

Standards” at January 2012 meeting 

– Strategic approach and vision; focused on maximizing 

impact of F42 standards 

• NIST now member of F42 Executive Committee, 

and tasked to lead the strategic planning for F42 

ASTM Standards Comm

• Established in January 2009 to address high-p

in Additive Manufacturing Technologies 

• Initiated with Society of Manufacturing Enginee

Technologies & Additive Manufacturing commu

• F42 subcommittees formed for : 

• Terminology • Test Methods • Processes and Materials • Design (including data formats) 

• Many candidate standards identified; multiple 

parallel; rapid pace; much AM system user and 

• Formal agreement with ISO TC261 committee 

Strategic Approach for Deof AM Standards 

• Needed to establish the overall 

guidance to the task teams, helpand prioritization 

– Where do we want to be in 5 years? W

needed to get there? What steps can maximize future impact? 

• Will maximize the impact of the 

– Preventing overlap and contradiction 

– Ensuring that future F42 standards w

integrated and cohesive set 

– Improving usability and acceptance fo

types 
i

-

i

‐

‐

Proposed General Structure

Candidate 

Top-Level 

Standards 

General concepts 

- Common 

requirements 

Metal Powders—Part 1: 

Size, Part 2: Morphology, 

Part 3: v scosity, etc. 

Polymer Powders—Part 1, 

Part2, etc. 

Photopolymer Resin—Part 1, 

Part 2, etc. 

Spherical Powders 

Disk Shaped 

Powders 

etc. 

etc. 

Process-Specific 

Performance Test 

Methods 

Process-Specific Test 

Artifacts 

System Component 

Test Methods 

etc. 

Process Category Process Category 

System 

Components by 

Process Category 

Specific to process or technology 

Raw Process / Finished 

Materials Equipment Parts

Material Test Methods—Part 

1: Tension Testing, Part 2: 

Porosity Testing, Part 3: 

Fracture Toughness, etc. 

Material Specifications—Part 

1: Powder Bed Fusion, Part 2: 

Photopolymer Vat, Part 3: 

B nder Jetting, etc. 

Metals 

Polymers 

Others 

Specific Materials 

by Process 

Category 

etc. 

Fundamental AM Standards 

Terminology Certification Performance 

Test Methods for 

System 

Test Methods for 

Raw Materials 

Procurement 

Requirements 

for AM Parts 

Data Formats Qualification etc. 

Test Artifacts 

Specialized 

AM

Standards

NIST Roadmapping Workshop: Science for Metal-Based Additiv

• Held at NIST on December 4-5, 2012, wit• Workshop objectives: 

1. Build on prior AM roadmaps 

In-depth coverage of measurement sc

and gaps that prevent the broad use o

Create actionable plans: what’s neede

2. Provide direction and input to ASTM 3. Influence and coordinate with NAMII 

national AM roadmap

• Plenary Talks, Industry Panel, Moderated 

AM Materials, AM Processes and Equipment, Qualification and Certification of AM Materials

http://events.energetics.com/NIST-Additive

Workshop Results 

• Workshop Final Report and AM Measurement Science 

Roadmap 

– Summary of results, including recommendations, presentation 

slides, white papers, break-out group results, etc. 

– Actionable plan: beyond a list of research needs – Addresses one slice of overall AM roadmap – To be integrated with NAMII national AM roadmap 

• Foundation for ASTM F42 Strategic Plan • Establish consensus needs and priorities, and influence 

the national research agenda for metal-based additive manufacturing 

Substantial NIST Interactions w

• Additive Manufacturing Consortium (A• National Additive Manufacturing Inno• Interagency Working Group on AM (O

Navy, Air Force, DOE, NIST)

• Federal agencies: DARPA, AFRL, AR

DOE, LLNL, ORNL, FBI, CRS 

• Industry: Morris Technologies (OH), G

Global Research, Pratt & Whitney, Ca

ExOne, others

• Universities: Univ. of Louisville, CMU

• Events: ASTM F42, SME RAPID, SF

Metals AM Roadmap Workshop 
–

National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (NAMII) 

• Public-private partnership launched in August 2012 to 

accelerate AM innovation bridges the critical gap between basic research and widespread industry use 

• Managed and operated by NCDMM, the National Center for 

Defense Manufacturing and Machining 

• 30-month federal award: DOD, DOE, NASA, NSF, NIST • Substantial cost-share by 70+ members: industry users, AM 

vendors, universities 

• Technology Development, Technology Transition, Advanced 

Manufacturing Enterprise, Workforce / Educational Outreach 

• NAMII Innovation Hub located in Youngstown, OH • First project call in December; project kick-off is imminent 

Partnering with NIST 

• NIST partners with industrial 

consortia, individual companies, other government agencies, and universities 

• The NIST stake in partnerships tends 

to focus on issues that can benefit industry sectors in a broad sense 

– typically relating to measurements 

and standards 

• Several mechanisms available: 

– e.g., cooperative agreements, 

contracts, MOUs, guest researchers, letters of agreement, grants, sabbaticals 

Kevin Jurrens Deputy Chief Intelligent Systems Division (301) 975-5486 kevin.jurrens @nist.gov National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8230 Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

www.nist.gov/el/isd 

Contact Info 
Process 

Appendix 3

Engineering Laboratory 

Proposed Standardized Test Artifact 

for Additive Manufacturing 

PDES, Inc. Workshop 

March 14, 2013 

Shawn Moylan, Ph.D. 

NIST Intelligent Systems Division 

shawn.moylan@nist.gov 

NIST Projects in Additive 

Powder 

Purpose—Test Artifact 

• Two primary methodologies of performance 

characterization of a machine or process 

– Series of direct measurements of machine or process 

characteristics 

– Measurement on manufactured test pieces 

• Direct measurement of AM machines difficult 

– Lack of access and control over positioning axes – Sensors interfere with process or safety interlocks 

• Test pieces play a larger role in AM than in 

traditional manufacturing 

• Can demonstrate capabilities a

machine or process 

• Can be used as point of compa

– Between machines or processes – Before and after implementation 

• Can be used as method of perf

verification between machine u

Potential Uses 
i

i

-

Process-Specific Test 

Artifacts

Process Category

Test Artifacts

‐

‐

Suite of Standards 

Raw 

Materials 

Metal Powders—Part 1: 

S ze, Part 2: Morphology, 

Part 3: v scosity, etc. 

Process / 

Equipment 

Finished 

Parts 

Polymer Powders—Part 1, 

Part2, etc. 

Photopolymer Resin—Part 1, 

Part 2, etc. 

Spherical Powders 

Disk Shaped 

Powders 

etc. 

Process-Specific 

Performance Test 

Methods 

System Component 

Test Methods 

Material Test Methods—Part 

1: Tension Testing, Part 2: 

Porosity Testing, Part 3: 

Fracture Toughness, etc. 

Material Specifications—Part 

1: Powder Bed Fusion, Part 2: 

Photopolymer Vat, Part 3: 

Binder Jetting, etc. 

Metals 

Polymers 

Others 

Specific Materials 

by Process 

Category 

etc. etc. etc.

Process Category 

Fundamental AM Standards 

Terminology Certification 

Candidate 

Top-Level 

Standards 

Test Methods for 

System 

Performance 

Test Methods for 

Raw Materials 

Procurement 

Requirements 

for AM Parts 

Data Formats Qualification etc. 

General concepts 

- Common 

requirements 

System 

Components by 

Process Category 

Specialized 

AM 

Standards 

Specific to process or technology 

• 1 top level Test Method, 7 process le

practices (1 for each process catego

• Test Method generally describes 

– potential uses of test artifact – test artifact geometry – measurements to be taken on the test a– reporting of results 

• Standard Practices provide 

– links to download specific test artifact ge

processes may use different size scales

– guidance in preparing a build (not a proc– specific process parameters to be repor

Suite of Standards 

Prior Work 

• Reviewed more than 40 test artifacts previously 

described in literature. 

• Four categories of test artifacts 

– Comparing different processes – Evaluating individual processes – Evaluating metal-based processes – Other uses 

• NISTIR 7858, “A Review of Test Artifacts for 

Additive Manufacturing,” May 2012. 

Prior Work  Design C

• The intent of most test artifacts 

two main categories 

– Intended to demonstrate the capa

machine or process 

– Intended to highlight specific mac

iterative process improvement 

• We seek to design a test artifac

accomplish both. 
Design Criteria 

• Test part should demonstrate machine’s or 

process’s ability to build features with proper form, orientation, size and location 

– Straight features (paraxial and askew) – Parallel and perpendicular features – Round features – Concentric circles or arcs – Fine features 

• Holes and bosses • Features in planes orthogonal to build plane 

Design Criteria 

• Design should link specific part 

specific machine or process er

– Geometric errors of beam positio– Geometric errors of build platform – Alignment errors between axes – Beam size 

Design Criteria 

• General Considerations 

– Easily measurable with low measurement uncertainty – Trade off between testing full work volume and the 

time and material cost. We try to find balance, but side with faster, smaller builds 

– Minimize other variables 

• Support structures • Post processing 

– Minimize impact on recoating arm – Allow testing of surface roughness along with 

mechanical and physical properties 

4 mm Holes (x4) 4 mm Pins (x16) 

Staircases 

Vertical Surface of Staircase 

Ramp 

Fine Features: Negative (x5) Holes (x5) Positive (x5) Pins (x5) 

La

Center Hole 

Central Cylinders 

y 

x 

Description of Propose
Results—Repeatability 

• Multiple builds by DMLS in stainless steel show 

average repeatability of approximately 30 m 

(2x average standard deviation using several feature measurements) 

– Pin and hole diameters – Pin and hole positions – Z-heights on staircases – Straightness measurements – Roundness measurements – Flatness measurements 

Process Improvement 

• Use measured deviations of 

build 1 to calculate improved beam offset and x- and y-scaling 

– Pins and holes were too close to 

center; scaling was too small 

– Scaling = slope of best fit line to 

position deviation of pins and holes (represented as %) 

– Rebuild with adjusted scaling 

produced pins and holes with position deviations no greater than 

52 μm (8 of 10 better than 25 μm) 
Appendix 4

Materials Standards for Additive 

Manufacturing 

John A. Slotwinski, Ph.D. 

PDES, Inc. Workshop 

March 14, 2013 

Engineering Laboratory 

Material Standards for AdManufacturing 

Powder Process 

AM Materials is a top priority... AM#2: Project Overvie

• Materials Properties and Qualification rema

more widespread adoption of AM technolog

• Currently, the additive manufacturing (AM) i

the confidence, and is unable to rigorously v

identical AM powders are in fact identical, re

powder properties. 

• This lack of confidence in material propertie

produced by AM. 

• Need publically available, published propert

and AM materials. 

• Project’s Technical Focus: 

• Standard test methods for metal powder cha• Standard test methods to obtain material pro• Test protocols, procedures, and analysis me

robin testing of AM materials for consensus 
 -

 -

 -

 - 

- 

Collaborators 

• Internal: 

– Engineering Laboratory Materials and Structural Systems 

Division 

– Material Measurement Laboratory Materials Science and 

Engineering Division 

– Information Technology Laboratory Statistical Engineering 

Division 

– Center for Neutron Research 

• External: 

– Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Morris Technologies, U. of 

Louisville, Picatinny Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground, UTEP, 

GE Global Research, Carpenter Powder Products, Oxford 

Performance Materials, ASTM 

Results to Date 

• Background Studies • Powder Characterization • Material Properties • Stress • Porosity for Process Monitoring 

Powder Characterizatio

• Current Foci: 

– Variability of nominally identical powder, effects of recycling 

of powder to multiple builds), documented properties of roun(for potential future correlation with mechanical properties) 

• Characteristics of Interest: 

– Size (and size distribution), morphology, chemical composit

• Measurement Methods: 

– SEM (size, morphology), Quantitative X Ray Diffraction (che

Diffraction (size distribution), X Ray Computed Tomography Photoelectron Spectroscopy (gives photoelectron energy ch

chemical states) 

• Results: 

– Recycling reduces austenite, increases ferrite content in Sta

not change surface chemistry/atomic concentration (XRPS) 

– Nominally identical Stain Steel and Round Robin CoCr pow

chemical composition (QXRD) 

– CoCr and Stainless Steel powder morphology is “quasi-sph

– Laser diffraction measurements and analysis are currently u

Background Studies 

• NISTIR 7847 assessed current state-of-the-art for 

material property testing of bulk metal material 

properties. (Slotwinski, Cooke, Moylan) 

• NISTIR 7873 assessed current state-of-the-art methods 

for characterizing metal powder. (Cooke, Slotwinski) 

• Determined the applicability of current state-of-the-art 

methods for AM parts and AM powder and documented 

conclusions in internal report, results to be published in 2013. (Slotwinski, Moylan, Cooke) 
“Quasi-Spherical” Powder Powder Characterizatio

Laboratory 

• Setting up powder characterization l

– Develop appropriate measurement 

techniques and standards 

– Compare industrially common benchtop 

advanced measurement methods (such 

energy-dispersive X-ray, X-ray compute

• Drafted powder characterization stan

submitted to ASTM (WK40606 – Sta

Characterizing Properties of Metal PAdditive Manufacturing) and chairing 

Future Work on Powder Characterization 

• Finalizing WK40606 into ASTM Standard • Determining effects of customized powder lots 

(e.g., skewed size distributions, controlled morphologies, etc.) on mechanical properties 

• Flow, thermal properties measurements • More specific AM powder characterization 

standards 

Material Properties Ro

• Two NIST-funded round robin tests (on

externally led) 

• Mainly focused on laser-based DMLS 

systems, but internal study also includ

(ARCAM) AM systems for comparison 

• Preparation of test protocols, procedu

powder specifications, and analysis m

• NIST statistical and material science e

of experiments and analysis of interna

• Both have careful controls and proced

build parameters, post processing and 

measurements 

• “Tests to develop the test” 
-

Material Properties Round Robins 

AMC NIST 

Material Inconel 625 Cobalt Chrome (MP1) 

Status Final Planning Underway Process 3x DMLS (M270) 6x DMLS (M270) + 2x ARCAM Types of Specimens Tensile, high-cycle fatigue, low- cycle fatigue (room temperature 

and high temperature) 

Tensile (room temperature) 

Number of Specimens 120 64 Participants 5 8 Goal Establish protocol for making 

and testing material coupons for additive processes; establish protocol for generating and reporting DMLS mechanical property data with the intent of possible inclusion in a design allowables database (such as MMPDS) 

Same; baseline study of material property variability for nominally identical builds 

Tensile Properties: EOStainless Steel (17-4) 

• Stress-strain behavior of NIST-made tensile • Stress-strain behavior qualitatively is very s

reminiscent of cold steel 

• NIST measured Tensile Strength (1000 MPa 

higher than vendor data (930 MPa ± 50 MPElastic Modulus (160 GPa typical) is generavendor data (170 GPa ± 30 GPa) 

• Material exhibits discontinuous yielding, and 

hardening (strengthening of material during 

• Vendor-recommend heat-treatment results 

strength (not decreased!) and decreased du

• Slight directional-dependent anisotropy pres

slightly weaker (7%) when build vertically, hthis slightly (4%). 

900 

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 

Horizontal - Heat 

Treat 

Horizontal - No Heat 

Treat 

Vertical - Heat Treat Vertical - No Heat 

Treat 

Reference 

Tensile Strength (GPa) 

Tensile Strength 

Additional Mechanical Work 

• A variety of other test specimens 

made in three different configurations: 

– As-built – Machined to final shape from similarly size

solids 

– Machined to final shape from large blocks 

• Compression, high-cycle fatigue, charp• Awaiting heat-treatment, removal, and 

testing 

• Results will feed into development of A

mechanical testing standards 
Thermal Stress 

• The extremely rapid and localized 

melting and cooling results in residual thermal stresses 

• Interest in residual thermal stresses present after 

a build, as well as the effects of post-processing 

(shot-peening, heat treatments) and part removal on stress. 

• Working with both ORNL and NCNR for neutron 

imaging of stress (complimentary capabilities) 

• Have delivered test samples to both ORNL and 

NCNR, awaiting results 

AM Thermal Stress CaSignificant... 

Ultrasonic Porosity Sensor: Process Monitoring 

• Ultrasonic velocity in material decreases with increasing porosity 

(models vary, most are linear) 

• Different models all predicted that a 0.2% change in porosity would be 

detectable ultrasonically (  0.02 mm/s) 

• Porosity samples 

– Partnered with Morris Technologies to produce three sets of CoCr 

samples with varying porosity (0% - 72%) 

– Measured ultrasonic velocity with three different techniques – Collaborating with others to determine “final” porosity (Archimedes, X-ray 

computed tomography, Mass/Volume, Optical) as well as porosity morphology 

• Designed sensor system for use in EOS M270 for process monitoring 

Ultrasonic Porosity Se
NIST Journal of Research: Special Issue on 

Additive Manufacturing, Summer 2013 

– J. Slotwinski, Guest Editor 

• Overview of Additive Manufacturing • Test Artifact • Powder Characterization • Mechanical Properties of AM Parts • Sustainability of AM Processes • Theory, laboratory experimentation and 

sensor design for UT porosity sensor 

• Z-Axis Interferometer Measurements 

Summary 

• Additive manufacturing is gaining mo

but there are significant materials-re

overcome before gaining wider adop

• Current methods for mechanical test

characterizatoin assessed, round ro

• Focus on powder metrology, AM ma

data and standardizing AM materials methods 

• Highly inter-disciplinary, with multiple 

partners. 

• Significant publications this year. 
Appendix 5

Additive Manufacturing

File Format

Hod.lipson@cornell.edu

Chair, ASTM F42/Design Task Group on File Formats

Disclaimer: Information in this presentation does not constitute the final standard.

Actual specifications is subject to change until finalized by ASTM

10 principle

1. Manufacturing complexity is 2. Variety is free

3. No lead time4. Zero skill5. Less waste by‐product

6. ...

Chuck Hull

First Printed Part

Fab

Cor

RepRap (2005) 

University of Bath, UK 

Open Source 3D P
$2,000 $15,000 $250,000 > $500,000

Cost of 3D Printers Number of Printers So

STL 

Postscript 

Data Interchange STL

• Benefits

– De‐facto standard– Very simple to read/write/proc

• Challenges

– Duplicate information, leaks, in

– Does not scale well to high reso

– Does not support color, materia

Holding back the industry 
Prioritized features fr

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

n=162 (2010). Error bars = Standa

Key considerations

• Technology independence

– Describes target object, not how to make it

– Every machine can make it to the best of its ability

• Simplicity

– Easy to understand and implement

• Scalability

– Can handle complex objects, microstructures, repetitions

• Performance

– File size, read/write time, processing, accuracy

• Backwards compatible

– Can covert to/from STL without additional info

• Forward compatible

– Easy to extend new features in the future

XML

• Meta‐format: Format of form

– Text based– Easy to read/write/parse– Existing editing tools

– Extensible– Highly compressible
General Concept

• Objects (parts) defined by volumes and materials

– Volumes defined by triangular mesh

– Materials defined by properties/names

• Color properties can be specified

– Color– Texture mapping

• Materials can be combined

– Graded materials– Lattice/Mesostructure

• Constellations of Objects can be defined

– Repeated instances, packing, orientation

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <amf units="mm"> 

<object id="0"> 

<mesh> 

<vertices> 

<vertex> 

<coordinates>

<x>0</x><y>1.32</y>

<z>3.715</z>

</coordinates>

</vertex><vertex>

<coordinates> 

<x>0</x> <y>1.269</y> <z>2.45354</z> 

</coordinates> 

</vertex> ... 

</vertices> <volume> 

<triangle> 

<v1>0</v1> <v2>1</v2> <v3>3</v3> 

</triangle> <triangle> 

<v1>1</v1> <v2>0</v2> <v3>4</v3> 

</triangle> ... 

</volume> 

</mesh> 

</object> Addresses vertex duplication and 

</amf> 

Compressibility

Comparison for 32‐bit Floats; need to look at double precision

Number of

Triangles

Binary STL

(uncompressed)

Binary STL

(compressed)

(u

1,016,388 49.6 Mb 25.3 Mb 

100,536 4.9 Mb 2.3 Mb 

10,592 518 K 249 K 

1,036 51 K 20 K 

File Size

• Stored either as text or compr

• Both versions have AMF exten

• Reader can determine which 

during read
Read/Write/Parse time

Number of

Triangles

Binary STL

(uncompressed)

Binary STL

(compressed)

AMF

(uncompressed)

AMF

(compressed)

1,016,388 0.372 ~3.4 6.8 15.5

100,536 0.038 0.038 0.79 1.78

10,592 0.005 0.005 0.11 0.21

1,036 0.001 0.001 0.06 0.06

Number of

Triangles

Binary STL

(uncompressed)

Binary STL

(compressed)

AMF

(uncompressed)

AMF

(compressed)

1,016,388 0.384 ~1.3 6.447 6.447

100,536 0.043 0.043 0.669 0.687

10,592 0.005 0.005 0.107 0.107

1,036 0.001 0.001 0.056 0.056

Write (seconds) 

Read + parse + construct data structure (seconds) 

Still negligible compared to slicing/processing time 

Increasing Geometric 

• Flat triangles do not scale we

geometry, esepcially:

– Curved surfaces– Microstructures

• Typical objects require millio

– 10M triangles not uncommon

• Likely to get worse with incre

resolution

– 10cm sphere at 10m requires 

Curved patches (Curve

(or curv

Optionally add normal/tangent vectors to so

allow for more accurate ge

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Geometric fidelity is a high priority

Must be addressed

PLANNAR PATCH
Recursive Triangle Su

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <amf units="mm"> 

<object id="0"> 

<mesh> 

<vertices> 

<vertex> 

<coordinates > 

... 

</coordinates > 

Only needed for curved surfaces 

<normal> 

<nx>0</nx> <ny>0.707</ny> <nz>0.707</nz> 

</normal> 

</vertex>...<edge>

<v1>0</v1> <dx1>0.577</dx1> <dy1>0.577</dy1> <dz1>0.577</dz1><v2>1</v2> curved edges <dx2>0.707</dx2>

(rare)Only needed for 

<dy2>0</dy2> <dz2>0.707</dz2> 

</edge> ... 

</vertices> <region materialid="0"> 

<triangle> 

... 

</triangle> ... 

</region> 

</mesh> 

</object> 

</amf> 

Importer temporarily subdivides each curved triangle 

then uses those to calculate 

Icosahedrons (20 Triangles)

Error 

Flat triangles, error = 10.26% of diameter 

Icosahedrons (still 20 

One subdivision, error 
Icosahedrons (20 Triangles)

Three-fold subdivisions, error = 0.84% 

Icosahedrons (still 20 

Five-fold subdivisions, err

Icosahedrons (still 20 triangles)

Six-fold subdivisions, error = 0.625% 

Curving the triangle pa

surface normal redu

0

0.020.040.060.08

0.1

0.12

0 1 2 3 4 

Error on units sphere 

#-fold subdivisio
Double Icosahedrons (n=80)

Flat triangles, error = 3.29% 

Double Icosahedron

One subdivision, error 

Double Icosahedrons (n=80)

Three-fold subdivision, error = 0.121% 

Double Icosahedron

Five-fold subdivision, err
Curving the triangle pa

surface normal redu

Double Icosahedrons (n=80)

Six-fold subdivision, error = 0.065% 

#-fold subdivisio

Error on units sphere 

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0 1 2 3 

Curved Triangles

10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000

Number of Triangles 

Error on unit sphere 

1E‐101E‐091E‐08

0000001

.000001

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

STL AMF curved AMF curved 2-fold AMF curved 3-fold AMF curved 4-fold AMF curved 5-fold AMF curved 6-fold 

x4 error reduction with every subdivision 

Curved Triang

10 100 1,000 10,000 

Number of Triangles 

Error on unit sphere 

1E‐101E‐091E‐08

0000001

.000001

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

Three orders of magnitude improvement in accuracy 
Curved Triangles

10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000

Number of Triangles 

Error on unit sphere 

1E‐101E‐091E‐08

0000001

.000001

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

STL AMF curved AMF curved 2-fold AMF curved 3-fold AMF curved 4-fold AMF curved 5-fold AMF curved 6-fold 

Three orders of magnitude reduction in number of triangles for same accuracy 

Accuracy

Number of

Triangles

STL 

(w

80 0.032914 

320 0.008877 

1,280 0.001893 5,120 0.000455 

20,480 1.13E‐04 81,920 2.81E‐05 

327,680 7.03E‐06 

1,310,720 1.76E‐06 

20 0.102673 

Simple to imple

Examples

• Fabricate 10cm diameter sphere

• with 10μm Precision

– STL: 20,480 Flat Triangles

• 500K Compressed Binary STL

– AMF: 320 Curved Triangles

• 10K Compressed AMF

• Fabricate 1m Sphere with 1nm precision

– AMF: 1M Triangles– STL: !?

v0

dv01

t01

n n01 0

t0

1. If tangents t0 or t1 not specified, compute tang

n0  d n0 n1  d n1 t0  d , t1  d n0  d n0 n1  d n1 

2. Compute center point v01=h(0.5) and center ta

h(s)=(2s3‐3s2+1)v0+(s3‐2s2+s)t0+(‐2s3+3s2)v1+(s3‐s2)t1

3. Repeat for three triangle edges, then split tria

4. Recurse as much as possible (diminishing retu

5. No ambiguities. Detailed procedure in specific
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> 

<amf units="mm"> 

<material id="1"> 

<metadata type="Name">StiffMaterial</metadata> Multiple

</material> <material id="2"> 

</material> 

<metadata type="Name">FlexibleMaterial</metadata> Materials

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <amf units="mm"> 

<material id="1"> 

<metadata type="Name">StiffMaterial</metadata> 

</material> <material id="2"> </material> 

<metadata type="Name">FlexibleMaterial</metadata> 

<material id="3"> 

<metadata type="Name">MediumMaterial</metadata> <composite materialid="1">0.4</composite> <composite materialid="2">0.6</composite> 

</material> <material id="4"> 

<metadata type="Name">VerticallyGraded</metadata> <composite materialid="1">z</composite> <composite materialid="2">10-z</composite> 

</material> <material id="5"> 

<metadata type="Name">Checkerboard</metadata > <composite materialid="1"> 

floor(x+y+z%1)+0.5) </composite>

<composite materialid="2"> 

1-floor(x+y+z%1)+0.5) </composite> 

</material> <object id="0"> 

<mesh>

<vertices>

...

</vertices><region materialid="1">

...

</region><region materialid="2">

...

</region>

</mesh>

<material id="3"> 

<metadata type="Name">MediumMaterial</metadata> <composite materialid="1">0.4</composite> <composite materialid="2">0.6</composite> 

</material> <material id="4"> 

<metadata type="Name">VerticallyGraded</metadata> <composite materialid="1">z</composite> <composite materialid="2">10-z</composite> 

</material> <material id="5"> 

<metadata type="Name">Checkerboard</metadata > <composite materialid="1"> 

floor(x+y+z%1)+0.5) </composite>

<composite materialid="2"> 

1-floor(x+y+z%1)+0.5) </composite> 

</material> <object id="0"> 

<mesh>

<vertices>

...

</vertices><region materialid="1">

...

</region><region materialid="2">

...

</region>

</mesh>

</object> 

</amf> 

</object> 

</amf> 

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <amf units="mm"> 

<material id="1"> 

<metadata type="Name">StiffMaterial</metadata> 

</material> 

<material id="2"> Microstructure

<metadata type="Name">FlexibleMaterial</metadata>

</material><material id="3">

<metadata type="Name">MediumMaterial</metadata><composite materialid="1">0.4</composite><composite materialid="2">0.6</composite>

</material> <material id="4">

<metadata type="Name">VerticallyGraded</metadata><composite materialid="1">z</composite><composite materialid="2">10-z</composite>

</material> 

<mesh>

<vertices>

...

</vertices><region materialid="1">

<material id="5"> 

<metadata type="Name">Checkerboard</metadata > <composite materialid="1"> 

floor(x+y+z%1)+0.5) </composite> 

<composite materialid="2"> 

1-floor(x+y+z%1)+0.5) </composite> 

</material> <object id="0"> 

... Can also 

</region><region materialid="2"> reference a 

... texture map </region> 

Periodic functions can be used to describe linear an

</mesh> 

</object> 

</amf> 
Material properties Color and Grap

• By name

– <metatdata type=“Name”> ABS </metadata>

– <metatdata type=“Name”> Nylon 1234</metadata>

• By physical property

– <metatdata type=“Elastic Modulus”> 2GPa</metadata>

• Can be assigned to

– A material– A region– A vertex

• Specified

– Fixed RGBA values– By formula

– By reference to an image

Print Constellation

• Print orientation

• Duplicated objects

• Sets of different

objects

• Efficient packing

• Hierarchical

Metadata

<metadata type=“Author”>John Doe”></me<metadata type=“Software”>SolidX 2.3”></

<metadata type=“Name”>Product 1></met

<metadata type=“Revision”>12A”></metad

<object id=“1”>

<metadata type=“Name”>Part A ></

</object id=“1”>
Future plans

• Tolerances• Surface/depth textures• Data encryption, copyright

• External references and subassemblies

• Process control• Non‐volumetric support structures

• Non mesh geometry specification methods

– Voxel, FRep

Current Statu

• AMF approved May 2011 as A

• Revision 1.1 in 2012

• Now: The test of adoption
Wikipedia provides an overview of key 

concepts Refers to ASTM for formal spec 

STL2.org 

Full open-source referenSample files 

Join The Discussion

http://groups.google.com/group/stl2
 Output (shipments)

◦ Net selling value

 Value added

◦ Value added is the

difference between anindustry’s or anestablishment's totaloutput and the cost of itsintermediate inputs

Appendix 6

Douglas Thomas, Economist 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

 The U.S. produced approxima

world’s manufactured goods 

 The industry impacted 23 % o

2009 

 After controlling for price cha

industry grew 26% between 1

 Medium and high technology 

accounted for 56 % of U.S. mavalue added in 2003 
Census Bureau. “Annual Survey of Manufactures.” < http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/asm/> 

 Wohlers estimates $1.714 

billion in revenue generated

◦ $642.6 million from the sale 

of parts produced 

◦ $834.0 million for systems

and materials 

◦ $236.9 for maintenance 

contracts, training, seminars, conferences, and other items 

 The $1.714 billion is not 

comparable to traditional estimates (i.e., shipments or value added) for manufacturing activity 

Data Source: Wohlers, Terry. “Wohlers Report 2012: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing State of the Industry.” Wohlers Associates, Inc. 2012. 

 Wohlers estimates $1.714 

billion in revenue generated

◦ $642.6 million from the sale 

of parts produced 

◦ $834.0 million for systems

and materials 

◦ $236.9 for maintenance 

contracts, training, seminars, conferences, and other items 

 The $1.714 billion is not 

comparable to traditional estimates (i.e., shipments or value added) for manufacturing activity 

Data Source: Wohlers, Terry. “Wohlers Report 2012: Additive Manufacturing and Wohlers Associates, Inc. 2012. 

Shipments of Percent of Total

US Made AM AMShare Total AM Shipments Category Relevant NAICS Codes Products of Industry Made ($millions, ($millions, Shipments Products 2011)  $642.6 million in 2011)*

global revenue 

 US revenue is 

approximately 72.9%of global revenue or$468.9 million 

Motor vehicles NAICS 3361, 3362, 3363 19.5% 91.3 445 289.4 0.02%

Aerospace NAICS 336411, 336412, 12.1% 56.7 157 700.7 0.04%

336413

Industrial/business machines NAICS 333 10.8% 50.6 365 734.8 0.01%

Medical/dental NAICS 3391 15.1% 70.7 89 519.5 0.08%

Government/military NAICS 336414, 336415, 6.0% 28.1 32 784.4 0.09%

336419, 336992

Architectural NAICS 3323 3.0% 14.1 72 186.9 0.02%

Consumer products/electronics, All other within NAICS 33.6% 157.4 895 709.8 0.02%

academic institutions, and other 332 through 339

TOTAL NAICS 332 through 339 100.0% 468.9 2 058 925.5 0.02%

* These values are calculated assuming that the percent of total additive manufacturing made products for each industry is the

same for the US as it is globally. It is also assumed that the US share of AM systems sold is equal to the share of revenue for

AM products

Data Sources: Wohlers, Terry. “Wohlers Report 2012: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing State of the Industry.” Wohlers Associates, Inc. 2012.
-

 A case study of a 

fluorescent lampholder 

 Machine and 

material costs are significantcost drivers 

machine 

cost per part 

59% 

Machine 

operator 

cost per part 

10% 

Material cost 

per part 

30% 

Assembly 

cost 

1% 

Source: Atzeni, Eleonora, Luca Iuliano, Paolo Minetola, and Alessandro Salmi. (2010)“Redesign and Cost Estimation of Rapid Manufactured Plastic Parts.” Rapid PrototypingJournal. 16(5): 308-317. 

 Additive 

manufacturing is, typically, competitive for low to medium volume production 

 Case study of the landing gear assembly for a model 1:5 scale of the P180 

Avant II by Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. 

 Below a lot size of 41 

additive manufacturing is more cost effective 

Material cost per part Mould cost per part Pre processing cost per pProcessing cost per part Post-processing cost per Linkages and assembly TOTAL COST PER ASSEMB

Source: Atzeni, Eleonora, LuCompetitiveness of Additive Proceedings of the 9th Interand Technology. 

I. Perceived 

Attributes of Innovations 

i. Relative 

advantage

ii. Compatibilityiii. Complexityiv. Trialability v. Observability

II. Type of

InnovationDecision 

i. Optional ii. Collective iii. Authority

III. Communication 

Channels 

IV. Nature of the 

Social System 

V. Extent of Change

Agents’ PromotionEfforts 

Rate of 

Adoption of 

Innovations 

 Relative Advantage 

◦ Per-unit cost ◦ End-user benefits 

 Lighter transport. equip.  New products 

◦ Complex geometry ◦ Rapid design to product 

 Compatibility 

◦ Limited size 

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusionof Innovations, Fourth Edition (New York: The 

Free Press, 2003), p. 111-114. 

 Fitting data to Rogers Logistic S-Curve of diffusion (simple model)

◦ Cumulative number of industrial 

AM sales 

◦ 8% market penetration ◦ Fitted using least squares regression to an exponential 

curve 

 R-squared = 0.9519  Market penetration

◦ 50% around 2018 ◦ 100% around 2046 

 $5.9 billion in market 

opportunity 

0.0% 

10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 

100.0% 

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

2006

2009

2012

0 

10000 20000 30000 40000 

1988

1993

1998

2003

Cumulative AM

Systems 
Images were used with permission from Microsoft

 The impact of an industry change

agent is a net increase in the return on investment for stakeholders 

◦ Decrease costs ◦ Accelerate the 

realization of benefits 

◦ Increase the net 

benefits 

 AM system

utilization cost (50%-75% of total) 

 Material cost (20%-

40% of total) 

 Cost categorization  Size matters  Product quality and 

Reliability 

 $468.9 million in AM 

shipments in the US (2011) 

 $243.1 million in AM value 

added in the US (2011) 

 8% market penetration with the US maybe reaching 50% in 2018 and 100% in 2046  Change agent opportunities

◦ AM system utilization cost (50%-75% of total) ◦ Material cost (20%-40% of

total)

◦ Cost categorization ◦ Size matters ◦ Product quality and Reliability