PROPOSAL FOR A STANDARDIZED TEST ARTIFACT FOR ADDITIVE 

MANUFACTURING MACHINES AND PROCESSES

Shawn Moylan, John Slotwinski, April Cooke, Kevin Jurrens, and M. Alkan Donmez

Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology1, Gaithersburg, MD

20899

Abstract

Historically, standardized test parts are used to quantitatively evaluate the performance of a 

machine or process. While several different additive manufacturing (AM) test parts have been 

developed in the past, there are no current standard test parts. This paper reviews existing AM 

test parts, discusses the purposes of the studies, and describes important features and 

characteristics found in these test parts. A new test part intended for standardization is proposed. 

This part incorporates the most useful features seen in previous test parts. These features are 

designed to highlight process capabilities and test machine accuracy. The design has been 

validated through builds by several AM processes.

1. Introduction

Additive manufacturing (AM)—also known as additive fabrication, additive processes, 

additive techniques, additive layer manufacturing, layered manufacturing, and freeform 

fabrication—is defined as the process of joining materials to make objects from threedimensional (3D) model data, usually layer upon layer, as opposed to subtractive manufacturing 

methodologies such as machining [1]. Using AM to make functional components has grown

from the initial applications in rapid prototyping (RP), where the resulting part was used for 

form, fit, and/or functional testing. Additive manufacturing processes demonstrate significant 

potential for a revolutionary, rapid, art-to-part capability for making high-value, complex, and 

individually-customized parts. Additive processes promise the ability to manufacture parts that 

are difficult or impossible to make with conventional manufacturing techniques, e.g., parts with 

complex geometries, engineered porosity, or lattice structures. However, widespread adoption of 

additive processes is currently hindered by deficiencies in part accuracy, surface finish, materials 

and material properties, process speed, and standards.

The goal of the AM projects at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

2

 

1 Official contribution of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); not subject to copyright in the 

United States. The full descriptions of the procedures used in this paper require the identification of certain 

commercial products. The inclusion of such information should in no way be construed as indicating that such 

products are endorsed by NIST or are recommended by NIST or that they are necessarily the best materials, 

instruments, software or suppliers for the purposes described.

is 

to facilitate the widespread adoption of metal-based additive processes. This will be 

accomplished through a better science-based understanding of the process via improved 

measurements, test methods, and standards. The work focuses on metal-based processes because 

parts produced by these processes are likely to be used as functional components, have a higher 

inherent value than other materials, and require further improvements (compared to, for example, 

2 http://www.nist.gov/el/isd/sbm/matstandaddmanu.cfm; http://www.nist.gov/el/isd/sbm/fundmeasursci.cfm
polymer-based AM processes) before widespread acceptance can be achieved. The NIST 

projects address measurements and standards for the characterization of AM processes and 

equipment, as well as characterization of the materials used in and resulting from AM processes. 

NIST’s expertise and established presence in metrology methods and standards for traditional 

metal removal processes offer a unique perspective to the AM community.

In manufacturing metrology, two primary methodologies are used to evaluate the 

performance of a machine and/or a process: (1) through a series of direct measurements of 

machine and process characteristics, and (2) through measurements of manufactured test 

artifacts. The former requires positioning and/or control of individual machine components (e.g.,

an axis) and measuring instruments mounted in and around the machine’s work volume to 

measure relative position, orientation, and velocities of these machine components. This is often 

difficult or impossible with AM machines, either because the moving components are not 

accessible to the end user or safety controls for potential hazards (e.g., high power lasers) prevent 

the user from operating the machine with the measuring instruments in the way. As such, test 

artifacts play a larger role in diagnosing and characterizing AM machines and processes, and 

clever design of test artifacts can allow performance assessment of individual machine 

components.

Manufacturing a test artifact enables a composite test since most errors present in the 

machine and the process contribute to errors in the part. The disadvantage of composite tests is 

that linking specific part errors to specific machine or process error sources is often difficult. 

However, the advantages of test artifacts are that producing parts is directly aligned with the 

actual purpose of the machine and specialized measuring equipment is typically not necessary 

since the required equipment is already commonly available in discrete part manufacturing

environments.

A standardized test part can be used to quantitatively evaluate the performance of a machine 

or process. The clear benefit of a standardized part is that different machines or processes that 

produce the same standardized part can be easily compared. Additionally, if designed properly, 

the standard test part can test the limitations of the machine or process and be used to identify

areas for improvement. The standardized test part can serve as a method for performance 

verification between users and vendors, as well as provide a platform for vendors to demonstrate 

improvements in their machines.

This document reviews existing test artifacts used to characterize AM processes that are 

reported in the literature, discusses important criteria for designing a test artifact for AM, and 

proposes a test artifact for AM intended for standardization. Several aspects of test artifacts and 

their use for performance characterization are discussed, including the purposes of prior studies, 

important features found in various test artifacts, and characteristics that are desirable in test 

artifacts. 

2. Prior Work

Based on a substantial review of the available literature, the following sub-sections briefly 

discuss many of the test artifacts used to characterize different aspects of the performance of 
additive processes. The resulting works are described in four categories: test artifacts for 

comparing processes for decision making, test artifacts for evaluating individual processes, test 

artifacts for evaluating metal-based processes, and test artifacts for other uses. This discussion is 

by no means exhaustive, nor is it unique.

2.1 Test Artifacts for Comparing Processes for Decision Making

Additive manufacturing gained prominence in the late 1980s and early 1990s as layered

manufacturing or rapid prototyping (RP). Over this time period, various additive processes were 

developed and marketed by different vendors. Stereolithography (SLA) was the first additive RP 

process, followed closely by fused deposition modeling (FDM), laminated object manufacturing 

(LOM), and selective laser sintering (SLS). As AM matured, many more processes, such as

three-dimensional printing (3D printing) and polyjet, entered the market. Users wanting to 

benefit from the advantages of RP had to choose which of the processes best fit their application. 

Many researchers proposed the use of test artifacts, often called benchmarking parts, to 

quantitatively compare the capabilities of the various processes [2-16]. Kruth was the first to

mention a test artifact for comparing AM processes, citing a study done by two Dutch companies 

using a U-shaped artifact with various geometric features such as circular holes (in various 

orientations), circular bosses, square holes, and angled surfaces [2]. Other researchers built upon 

these results, adding more or different features, including overhangs and freeform features, to 

demonstrate some of the advantages of additive processes (see Figure 1) [4, 12]. Still more 

researchers followed, investigating the surface roughness of test parts in addition to geometric 

accuracy as a means to compare AM processes [6, 7]. As additional AM processes gained

prominence, researchers added these to the comparative studies. For example, Byun added 3D

printing [9] and Kim added polyjet [14]. Ultimately, specific AM processes gained sufficient 

capability and acceptance to support multiple machine platforms and manufacturers, leading to 

comparative studies of systems within a process family, e.g., seven types of 3D printing

machines produced by six different manufacturers [10, 11].

Figure 1. Solid model of the test artifact used by Mahesh [12].

2.2 Test Artifacts for Evaluating Individual Processes

Artifacts are also used to evaluate individual processes, either when a new process or 

material emerges in the market [17-24] or when process optimization is the goal of the study [25, 

26]. The so-called “user part” is one of the first test artifacts designed to quantitatively assess the 
accuracy of SLA systems (see Figure 2) [17]. This part was designed in 1990 by an SLA user 

group and focuses on assessing the machine accuracy in the x-y plane. This same part or slight 

variations of it have been used by many other studies to characterize other additive processes, 

including evaluation of SLS for indirect manufacturing of metallic components (i.e., using SLS 

to create an intermediate, “green” part that must undergo subsequent post processing to become 

fully dense) [19]. Additionally, when new material options are introduced into an established 

process, it is important to quantify the accuracy of parts made with this new material [22, 24].

Figure 2. Solid model of the “user part.”

Development of new materials led to the first test artifacts dedicated to process improvement

and optimization. During SLA’s first years, newer, stronger materials were being quickly 

developed and introduced into user systems. The “windowpane” and “Christmas tree” test 

artifacts were used at this time to quantify the effects of changing various process settings, 

leading to iterative optimization of process design [25].

Examining the literature for use of test artifacts to evaluate individual processes may lead to 

the incorrect conclusion that using a test artifact to optimize process parameters is uncommon. 

In reality, most AM system manufacturers and users working on process development typically 

have their own internal test artifacts for this purpose, though their designs remain largely 

proprietary.

2.3 Test Artifacts for Evaluating Metal-Based Processes

In recent years, the capabilities of metal-based AM processes have grown tremendously and 

these systems have emerged as viable methods for the direct manufacturing of metallic parts

(i.e., using an energy source to melt and bond metal raw materials, creating a fully-dense part 

without the need for substantial post-processing). Numerous studies have concentrated on 

benchmark parts to evaluate metal-based AM processes [27-34]. The various processes that have 

been studied include selective laser sintering (SLS), selective laser melting (SLM), direct metal 

laser sintering (DMLS), electron beam melting (EBM), and micro-welding technologies. Kruth 

took a traditional approach by creating a test artifact with characteristic features to determine and 

analyze geometric errors and surface roughness (see Figure 3) [27]. Additionally, this artifact 
included features to be extracted for mechanical testing to provide information about mechanical 

properties. He used other features of the artifact to determine the capabilities and limitations of 

the different AM processes used for fabrication [27]. Castillo provided a similar comparison, 

though with an innovative test artifact that characterized the system’s accuracy and capability to 

build at various angles using an “open book” feature (see Figure 4) [28]. Ning investigated the 

process characteristics of DMLS using test artifacts to highlight the effects of part shrinkage

during the build process, which is minimized through a shrinkage compensation function [29]. 

Ghany used a “real-world” test part as the reference (instead of fabricating an arbitrary design)

and compared the visual appearance, mechanical properties, chemical composition, 

microstructure, and processing costs of the components made by different metal-based AM 

processes [30]. Hanumaiah manufactured numerous benchmark parts to assess geometric errors 

of the various features incorporated in the designs [31]. Similarly, Pessard created a test part 

used to evaluate the dimensional accuracy of embedded features [32]. Delgado followed with 

another test part used to assess geometric accuracy, and this part was fabricated many times to 

evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of position [33]. Finally, Cooke used a common 

machining test artifact to assess the geometric accuracy of its features when built using two 

different metal-based additive processes [34]. Differences in the process parameters for building 

this test part, however, prevented comparative conclusions from being drawn.

Figure 3. Approximate re-creation of the test artifact used by Kruth [27].

Figure 4. Approximate re-creation of the test artifact used by Castillo [28].
2.4 Test Artifacts for Other Uses

The primary purpose of most test artifacts previously mentioned was to characterize the 

accuracy of the machines and/or processes under test. Other researchers have used test artifacts 

to examine different aspects of additive processes. The layer-upon-layer nature of AM typically 

leads to stair-stepping on sloped and freeform structures based on the layer thickness. 

Accordingly, several research efforts have focused on the surface roughness of various additive 

processes [8, 35, 36]. Similarly, the layer-upon-layer nature of AM can lead to unique and often 

anisotropic mechanical properties of materials, triggering further investigations of these 

properties through producing test artifacts. [37, 38].

2.5 Summary of Part Designs

While all of the AM test artifacts mentioned in this paper are different, they have many 

commonalities. Common aspects are to be expected because much of the research builds upon

the findings of previous work, and many researchers were influenced by the “rules” (see section 

2.6) put forth by Richter and Jacobs [39]. Most of the test artifact designs have various “real” 

features atop a square or rectangular base (see Figures 1-4). The various features in these 

artifacts are: 

• rectangular holes, bosses, and tubes (in multiple directions),

• round holes, bosses, and tubes (in multiple directions),

• spherical holes and bosses,

• conical bosses,

• L-shaped bosses,

• ramps,

• overhangs,

• angles,

• side notches (such as those seen in Figure 1),

• thin walls and fine features,

• freeform structures, and 

• towers (higher aspect ratio than vertical bosses).

The sizes of the test artifacts varied, but the largest observed dimension was of the square 

base of an artifact that was 240 mm by 240 mm. The smallest features observed were 0.25 mm 

thin walls (for both polymer-based and metal-based AM processes), 0.2 mm diameter holes and 

bosses in polymer-based AM processes, and 0.5 mm diameter holes and bosses in metal-based 

AM processes.

One alternative to the square-base, multiple-feature test artifact is the use of a smaller, 

simpler test artifact that is built at multiple positions and/or multiple orientations throughout the 

work volume (see Figure 5). A second alternative approach is the use of a standard library of 3D 

objects or part features (e.g., spheres, cylinders, prisms, cones, etc.), rather than a single test 

artifact, to evaluate AM system performance. Smith proposes a library of twelve objects to 

benchmark AM systems, with each object designed to demonstrate and evaluate at least one 

important feature of the resulting parts [40]. Jurrens suggests use of a standard library of 3D 
features that would be built and measured in a standard way [41]. The standardized features 

would be built in a variety of sizes, locations, and orientations, and potentially would be 

supplemented with selected “real-world” parts. 

Figure 5. Approximate re-creation of Delgado’s simple artifact 

in eight orientations on an AM build platform [33].

2.6 “Rules” for Test Artifacts

Early in the development of SLA, Richter and Jacobs saw the need for a standard accuracy 

test to help provide quantitative results and noted the qualities of an “ideal accuracy test part” 

[39]. Paraphrasing, the standard test artifact would:

• be large enough to test the performance of the machine near the edges of the platform as 

well as near the center,

• have a substantial number of small, medium, and large features,

• have both holes and bosses to aid in verifying beam width compensation,

• not take too long to build,

• not consume a large quantity of material,

• be easy to measure, and

• have many features of a “real” part (e.g., thin walls, flat surfaces, holes, etc.).

Other researchers [26] have followed these criteria/rules closely. Byun referenced these 

rules, but added that the test part should include features along all axes and should include 

features used to determine the minimum feature size attainable [9].

While many of these qualities are indeed important considerations in designing a test artifact, 

an ideal artifact would not only highlight most errors and limitations of a machine or process, but 

it would also correlate those errors and limitations with specific aspects of the machine or 

process. Kruth moved in this direction, noting that a test artifact should not only evaluate 

process limitations, but should also include features to allow iterative process optimization [27]. 

Scarvetti took this idea a step further, stating that the qualification procedure must make it 

possible to identify and quantify defects, but also determine the sources of the defects [42]. In 

order to do this, the test artifact should:

artifact

build platform
• have simple geometrical shapes, allowing perfect definition and easy control of the 

geometry,

• require no post-treatment or manual intervention (e.g., there should be no support 

structures), and

• allow repeatability measurements [42].

In addition, several researchers state or imply the need for a test artifact to include multiples 

of the same feature to allow repeatability measurements. However, including multiples of the 

same feature merely tests the machine or process capability to produce that same feature at 

different places within the work volume; it does not test the repeatability of the machine or 

process [43]. Various conditions may result in different systematic errors existing at different 

locations in the work volume, leading to differences in the shapes of the features produced in 

these positions. However, if multiple artifacts were produced, every feature produced in the 

same position in the work volume would be ideally the same.

Previously, the concepts of using a test artifact to highlight the capabilities and limitations of

a machine or process or to identify and quantify specific machine defects have remained mostly 

distinct. The current study seeks to combine the concepts into a singular artifact.

3. Design Intent

The selection and location of features in a test artifact are chosen based on the intent of the 

design. The intent of most designs is to characterize the accuracy of the machine or process or to 

demonstrate the capabilities of the machine or process. We seek to design a test artifact that is 

capable of highlighting the capabilities and limitations of a machine or process, quantifying the 

accuracy of a machine or process, and diagnosing specific defects in the machine. The following 

subsections explain criteria for demonstrating capabilities and limitations of a machine or 

process, criteria for identifying and quantifying machine errors, and some general considerations. 

A summary of the part and machine or process capability we seek to explore is given at the end 

of section 4.

3.1 Criteria for Demonstrating Capabilities and Limitations

To design an artifact that demonstrates capabilities and limitations of a machine or process, 

we must first establish certain “required” AM system capabilities. These capabilities should 

verify that the system is (or is not) capable of producing a desired “real world” part, and should 

also show unique aspects of the process. Eight items are of primary importance. An AM system 

should be able to create: straight features (both paraxial and askew), parallel and perpendicular 

features, circular and arced features, fine features (i.e., minimum feature size attainable), and 

freeform features. The system should be able to produce these features as both holes (cavities)

and bosses (free standing structures). It should be able to create these features not just in the 

horizontal plane (parallel to the build platform, the x-y plane), but also in the vertical planes as 

well (i.e., overhangs). The system should be able to produce these features in the correct 

locations and orientations.
3.2 Criteria for Identifying and Quantifying Machine Errors

Establishing criteria for highlighting capabilities and limitations of AM systems that can be 

generalized for all systems is simplified because the focus is on the final part. Conversely, 

establishing criteria for identifying and quantifying machine errors is complicated because the 

focus is on the machine itself and different AM processes often use dissimilar machine setups. 

For example, processes that rely on laser beams often position the beam spot by deflecting it off 

two mirrors that may be independently rotated, while processes that rely on binder jetting often 

position the binder using a slow carriage, an orthogonal fast carriage, and an array of binder 

nozzles. The structures and movements of these different systems do not bear much resemblance 

to each other. However, a couple general concepts exist that allow for the use of a common 

artifact to test the different processes. First, all systems generally comply to the use of x-, y-, and 

z- coordinate axes as established by international standards [44, 45]. Second, a feature is 

produced by positioning a certain machine component (whether it be an energy beam, nozzle, or 

something else) relative to the build platform.

With these concepts in mind, the primary focus of NIST research is on metal-based additive 

processes, and the primary in-house process is a laser powder bed fusion system. Several 

characteristics in a powder bed fusion system are critical for accurate part production, including: 

errors in positioning of the laser beam (resulting from geometric errors of the two axes of 

rotation holding the laser beam positioning mirrors or form errors in the f-θ lens), geometric 

errors of the axis positioning the build platform, alignment errors between the axes, errors in the

laser beam size and shape, variation in the beam power, irregular powder distribution, and error 

in powder flatness. Of these, powder distribution and flatness, along with beam power and 

shape, cannot be tested through post-process measurement of a test artifact. The other machine 

characteristics can be tested this way, and therefore the test artifact should be designed in a way 

to identify and quantify these characteristics.

3.3 General Considerations

Of course, a test artifact that satisfies the above criteria but is ultimately impractical to build 

and measure will be of no real benefit. As such, we adopt several additional general 

characteristics. First, the test part must be easy to measure with commonly available measuring 

equipment (e.g., coordinate measuring machines (CMMs), 3D scanners, surface profilers, optical 

microscopes, digital cameras, etc.). Second, there is a trade-off between testing the entire build 

volume and not consuming too much time and material in the process. While we try to find a 

balance, we tend to side with faster, smaller builds because of the relatively high cost in both 

time and material of laser powder bed fusion builds. We also strive for a design that minimizes 

other variables such as support structures and post processing, and we would like the test artifact 

to allow for various tests of mechanical and physical properties in addition to geometrical 

accuracy. Finally, the part design should minimize mechanical impact between the recoating 

blade and each layer of the part.

4. The Part

The solid model of the latest version of the test artifact to be proposed for standardization is 

shown in Figure 6 and the engineering diagram is shown in Figure 7. This design is the result of 

several iterations of building, measuring, and modifying artifact designs to alleviate various 
problems. The labels in Figure 6 and the geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) 

symbols in Figure 7 indicate the important features to be evaluated and the post-process 

measurements to be taken. Each of these features and measurements are discussed in detail in 

the following subsections. Table 1 summarizes the features and characteristics investigated by 

the various features of the test artifact.

The part should be built in the center of the building platform with the 4 mm pins and holes 

aligned along the x- and y-axes. It is 17 mm tall and has a volume of approximately 

101 000 mm3

. The diamond shape was chosen because it will minimize the impact between the 

recoating blade and each layer of the part, and it can be easily mounted upright for various 

measurements.

4.1 Top Surface

The top surface of the part is the primary datum feature defining the z-direction and the zorigin of the measurement coordinate system. Several points on the top surface are measured to 

check the flatness. Significant deviation in flatness would likely indicate warping of the part, 

often due to residual stresses from the process.

4.2 Center Hole

The center hole in the part is the secondary datum feature defining the x- and y-origin of the 

measurement coordinate system. Measuring the roundness of this hole helps characterize the 

machine’s ability to produce round holes. Additionally, the perpendicularity of this hole relative 

to the top surface indicates the alignment of the z-axis to the x-y plane. The straightness of this 

hole (or cylindricity) can be used to characterize the straightness error of the z-axis motion.

Figure 6. Solid model of the proposed test artifact showing a top view (left) and an oblique 

view (right) with arrows pointing to important features.

4 mm Holes (x4)

4 mm Pins (x16)

Staircases

Vertical Surface of 

Staircase

Ramp

Fine Features:

Negative (x5) 

Holes (x5)

Positive (x5)

Pins (x5)

Lateral Features Center Hole

Central Cylinders

Top Surface

y

x

Outer Edge
Figure 7 (part 1). Engineering drawing of proposed test artifact; all dimensions are in mm.
Figure 7 (part 2). Engineering drawing of proposed test artifact; All dimensions are in mm.

4.3 Pins and Holes

The right-most hole in the top view of the part is the tertiary datum feature defining the xdirection of the measurement coordinate system.

Ideally, only one axis would control the location of the pins and holes aligned with the 

respective axes. This would be the case for machines comprised of orthogonal linear axes (e.g., 

FDM machines). This might also be the case for many energy beam systems utilizing mirrors to 

position the beam if the mirrors are orthogonal to each other and aligned to the machine axes, 

and the part is directly below the beam (i.e., the beam is perpendicular to the part’s top surface at 

the center of the part). This is likely not the case for DMLS machines because they often utilize 

a non-orthogonal mirror orientation. However, even if multiple machine axes need to move to 

locate the positions of the pins and holes, the machines still utilize the concepts of x- and y-axes, 

and the machine is likely compensated using these directions.

With the pins and holes aligned to machine axes, the deviations in the positions of the pins 

and holes correspond to errors in positioning (or geometric errors) of the respective linear axis. 

Deviations in the x-direction of the pins aligned with the x-axis are a result of linear 

displacement error of the x-axis. Deviations in the y-direction of the pins aligned with the x-axis 

are a result of straightness error of the x-axis. Deviations in the y-direction pins lead to similar 

conclusions. The linear displacement errors can be compensated in many machines by changing 

the values of x-scaling and y-scaling.

These pins and holes can also be used to determine the beam spot size in energy beam 

processes. The machine controller positions the beam center. If the controller commanded the 

beam center to the edges of the feature’s geometry, the parts would be too large because the 
beam would fuse a small amount of powder on the free side of the geometry equal to the radius 

of the beam spot. To compensate for this, the controller uses a beam offset that positions the 

beam center toward the material side of the feature by an amount equal to the beam spot size (see 

Figure 8). Therefore, the value used for the beam offset provides a good approximation of the 

beam size, and if this value in the controller is incorrect, feature sizes will likely be incorrect. To 

examine the beam offset, the average diameter of the pins can be compared to the average 

diameter of the holes and to the nominal diameter. If the pins are smaller than nominal and the 

holes are larger than nominal, the beam offset is too large. If the pins are larger than nominal 

and the holes are smaller than nominal, the beam offset is too small.

Users usually have the ability to tune values for beam offset, x-scaling, and y-scaling. Using 

the measured geometry of the 4 mm pins and holes, a user can calculate the changes required for 

the beam offset, x-scaling, and y-scaling. Recalculating the theoretical values of the pin and hole 

diameters based on the new values will show any residual error resulting from the new values. 

Iterating, a user can find values that will minimize the residual errors. Rebuilding the test artifact 

with these new values will result in a part with smaller geometric errors.

Figure 8. Beam offset can give a good approximation of beam spot size.

4.4 Staircases

The staircase features can be used to highlight several characteristics of the machine. The zpositions of the tops of the steps demonstrate the linear displacement errors of the machine’s zaxis (note that shrinkage may also play a role in the features’ deviations in position, but its effect 

on any compensation would be the same as a deviation purely resulting from linear displacement 

error). The selection of layer thickness may influence the z-positions of the tops of the steps, 

especially in cases where the distance between steps (1 mm) is a non-integer multiple of the layer 

thickness. The vertical surfaces of the staircase features are parallel to the machine’s x- and yaxes. Therefore, measuring the straightness of the long surfaces helps to characterize the 

capability of the machine to produce straight features parallel to the machine axes. The shorter 

surfaces are measured to check their parallelism with the corresponding long surfaces to check 

the machine’s capability to produce parallel features.

part geometry

free side material side

beam offset
4.5 Outer Edges

The straightness of the three outer edge features that do not contain lateral features are 

measured to characterize the machine’s capability to produce straight features askew from the 

machine axes.

4.6 Central Cylinders

The roundness values of the central cylinders characterize the ability of the machine to 

produce round or arced bosses, while the concentricity of these two bosses with the central hole 

characterizes the machine’s ability to produce concentric features.

4.7 Ramp

The ramp is designed to slope constantly with a 1 mm rise over a 25 mm run. However, the 

discrete layer thickness of any AM process will result in a stair-step effect on the manufactured 

ramp. The value of the designed slope was chosen so that even machines with small layer 

thicknesses will still produce the ramp feature with visible stair-stepping, allowing measurement 

of individual stair-steps with a stylus profilometer or other device. For example, a process 

utilizing 20 μm layers will produce a ramp with 0.5 mm step landings. The measured profile

will help characterize the machine’s ability to produce 3D contours. Alternatively, the roughness 

of the ramp can be measured with a surface profiler and also give a similar characterization. 

Additionally, the z-positions of individual stair-steps can be examined to give further 

characterization of the machine’s z-axis linear displacement error.

4.8 Fine Features

There are two different sets of fine features. The first set (closer to the outer edge of the part 

and shown in section EE of Figure 7 (part 2)) is of neighboring rectangular bosses or holes. 

These features help to establish the minimum required separation of features as well as the 

minimum size of rectangular holes and bosses. The second set of fine features is comprised of 

the pins and holes shown in section DD of Figure 7 (part 1). These features are intended to 

establish the minimum feature size achievable by the machine. In both sets, the widths of the 

fine features descend from 2 mm to 0.25 mm from the center of the set outward. All features are 

2 mm tall or deep.

The measurement of these fine features is intended to be by optical microscope. The small 

sizes of the features inhibit access by a typical CMM probe. Visual inspection by microscope 

does not provide a value for dimensional accuracy (as in measurement by CMM), but the 

microscope images (usually at no more than 5x magnification) give an adequate indication of 

whether or not the feature was successfully built. The fine features of the first set are located 

close to the edge of the part so that the part can be oriented vertically, and these features can be 

inspected in profile (if the top view of the features is ambiguous). The final result should be a 

successfully built feature of one size and an unsuccessfully built feature at the next smaller size. 

This provides a range within which resides the actual minimum feature size attainable. Note that 

an optical CMM or a calibrated optical microscope could provide dimensional accuracy of the 

features as well.
4.9 Lateral Features

Whenever possible, lateral features in the test artifact should be produced without support 

structures. These features were designed with small lateral depths so that a failure to properly 

build the part would not result in significant damage to the production process. While a lack of 

support may result in poor geometry of these features, their failure often reveals important 

information about the performance of the process. Failure to properly build these features in a 

powder bed fusion process is more often due to poor heat transfer rather than poor structural 

support, evidenced by singeing at the upper surfaces of these features [46]. Further, if some of 

the lateral features are well-built without support structures, and others are poorly built without 

support structures, a user can better understand design rules for when to use supports (e.g., the 

different shaped diamonds can help provide rules for the minimum draft angle requiring 

support).

The intent of the test artifact makes support structures problematic for several reasons. From 

a machine characterization point of view, the requirement for the post-process removal of 

support structures adds ambiguity to the source of deviations in feature geometry, because it may

be difficult to de-couple errors from the AM process and errors from the post-process technique. 

Additionally, from a standardization point of view, a strategy for defining support structures 

would need to be unambiguous and universally available to ensure all users properly employ it.

Lateral features can be examined qualitatively by eye (or digital camera), and they can be 

measured by CMM or other measuring device for dimensional accuracy. The resulting geometry 

of the lateral features combine with the results of the ramp feature to better characterize the 

ability of the machine to produce 3D contours. For example, examining build quality of the 

diamond shaped lateral features and combining the severity of the stair-stepping of the ramp 

feature, a user can make a more informed decision on the ability of the machine to produce a 

“real world” feature like a threaded hole.

4.10 Other Tests

In addition to measuring the test artifact for geometric accuracy, the test artifact can be 

measured to obtain other information about the part and process. Obviously many areas on the 

top surface or sides of the part can be examined by a surface profiler to measure surface 

roughness. The part is intended to be built solid to allow various measurements for physical and 

mechanical properties. Ultrasonic testing (UT) for porosity and measurement of material moduli 

can be performed using a small contact transducer on the top step of the positive staircase 

structure. Samples can be cut off the part and machined into tension testing bars. Small samples 

can be cut off the part (e.g., any of the pins) and measured by x-ray computed tomography (CT) 

or prepared by common metallographic techniques to examine microstructures of the samples.

4.11 Summary

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the machine or process being investigated by the 

various features of the test artifact.
Table 2. The features and characteristics investigated on the test artifact

Characteristics investigated Feature(s) used to demonstrate

Straight features Vertical walls of staircases; outer edges

Parallel or perpendicular features Vertical walls of staircases; outer edges

Circular or arced features Center hole; central cylinders

Concentric circles or arcs Central cylinders

Fine features Fine features, holes, and pins

3D or freeform features Ramp; lateral features

Holes and bosses 4 mm pins and holes; center holes and 

central cylinders; staircases; fine features

Multiple planes Lateral features

Location and orientation 4 mm pins and holes

Geometric errors of mirror positioning axes 4 mm pins and holes

Geometric errors of build platform Staircases; center hole; ramp

Alignment errors between axes Top surface and center hole

Errors in beam size 4 mm holes and pins

5. Preliminary Results and Future Directions

The proposed test artifact has been successfully built in plaster by 3D printing and in 

stainless steel by DMLS (see Figures 9 and 10). The results will be reported later since the focus 

of this paper is on the design of the artifact, not the characterization of various processes. The 

artifact was manufactured by DMLS in approximately 19 hours and by 3D printing in 

approximately one hour (with another hour for drying). Both machines showed the ability to 

produce most of the fine features, but not all of them. Measurement results have been used to 

verify values for beam offset and scaling factors determined by manufacturer recommended 

methods. The test artifact contains many pins and holes and a least-squares fit is used to 

determine the beam offset and scaling values, thus providing a more robust determination than 

the manufacturer specified methods. 

The test artifact should be produced using several other AM processes to see if this design is 

appropriate for those processes as well. A full set of results from each process investigated will 

be included in a future report, along with repeatability test results, process improvements, and 

material properties. Feedback from the AM industry and expert users regarding potential 

improvements to the test artifact will be incorporated into the final design. Finally, the test 

artifact design will be proposed for formal standardization through an appropriate standards 

development organization (e.g., ASTM F42 committee on Additive Manufacturing 

Technologies).

6. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Regina Avila of the NIST Information Services Office for 

her assistance in compiling the articles referenced in this report. The authors would also like to 

thank Keith Hebenstreit (State University of New York at Binghamton) who contributed to this 

work at NIST through the Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) program funded 

by the National Science Foundation.
Figure 9. Photographs of the test artifact as built on a 3D printer.

Figure 10. Photographs of the test artifact as built in stainless steel by DMLS.
7. References

[1] ASTM, F2792 - 10e1 Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing Technologies. (2010).

[2] J. P. Kruth, Material Incress Manufacturing by Rapid Prototyping Techniques, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing 

Technology. 40 (2), 603-614 (1991).

[3] G. Lart, Comparison of Rapid Prototyping Systems, Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Rapid 

Prototyping, University of Nottingham, U.K., 243-254.

[4] T. H. C. Childs and N. P. Juster, Linear and Geometric Accuracies from Layer Manufacturing, CIRP Annals -

Manufacturing Technology. 43 (1), 163-166 (1994).

[5] D. Jayaram, A. Bagchi, C. C. Jara-Almonte and S. O'Reilly, Benchmarking of Rapid Prototyping Systems -

Beginning to Set Standards, Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium. 146-153 (1994).

[6] R. Ippolito, L. Iuliano and A. Gatto, Benchmarking of Rapid Prototyping Techniques in Terms of Dimensional 

Accuracy and Surface Finish, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology. 44 (1), 157-160 (1995).

[7] F. Xu, Y. S. Wong and H. T. Loh, Toward generic models for comparative evaluation and process selection in 

rapid prototyping and manufacturing, Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 19 (5), 283-296 (2000).

[8] R. I. Campbell, M. Martorelli and H. S. Lee, Surface roughness visualization for rapid prototyping models, 

Computer-Aided Design. 34 717-725 (2002).

[9] H.-S. Byun and K. Lee, Design of a New Test Part for Benchmarking the Accuracy and Surface Finish of Rapid 

Prototyping Processes

Computational Science and Its Applications — ICCSA 2003, in: V. Kumar, M. Gavrilova, C. Tan and P. L’Ecuyer, 

Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, (2003) 989-989.

[10] T. Grimm, Rapid Prototyping Benchmark: 3D Printers, (2003).

[11] T. Grimm, 3D Printer Benchmark: North American Edition, (2010).

[12] M. Mahesh, Y. Wong, J. Y. H. Fuh and H. T. Loh, Benchmarking for comparative evaluation of RP systems 

and processes, Rapid Prototyping J. 10 (2), 123-135 (2004).

[13] M. Mahesh, Y. S. Wong, J. Y. H. Fuh and H. T. Loh, A six-sigma approach for benchmarking of RP&M 

processes, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 31 (3-4), 374-387 (2006).

[14] G. D. Kim and Y. T. Oh, A benchmark study on rapid prototyping processes and machines: Quantitative 

comparisons of mechanical properties, accuracy, roughness, speed, and material cost Proceedings of the Institution 

of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture. 222 (2), 201-215 (2008).

[15] T. Brajlih, B. Valentan, J. Balic and I. Drstvensek, Speed and accuracy evaluation of additive manufacturing 

machines, Rapid Prototyping J. 17 (1), 64-75 (2011).

[16] C. Robinson, Morris, G., and Brown, R., Rare Parts through RM&R, online: http://www.ncms.org/wpcontent/NCMS_files/CTMA/Symposium2010/Presentations/Wed_manf/O200_RARE_Parts.pdf, (2010). Accessed 

August 2012.

[17] E. P. Gargiulo, Stereolithography process accuracy: user experience, Proceedings of the 1st European 

Conference on Rapid Prototyping, University of Nottingham. 187-207 (1992).

[18] B. Bedal and H. Nguyen, Advances in Part Accuracy, in: Stereolithography and Other RP&M Processes, P. F. 

Jacobs, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, (1996) 149-182.

[19] M. Geiger, A. Coremans, N. Neubauer and F. Niebling, Advanced rapid prototyping by laser beam sintering of 

metal prototypes: design and development of an optimized laser beam delivery system Proc. SPIE 2787. 103-114 

(1996).

[20] D. Dimitrov, W. van Wijck, K. Schrevel, N. de Beer and J. Meijer, An investigation of the capability profile of 

the three dimensional printing process with an emphasis on the achievable accuracy, CIRP Annals. 52 (1), 189-192 

(2003).

[21] D. Dimitrov, W. van Wijck, K. Schreve and N. de Beer, Investigating the achievable accuracy of three 

dimensional printing, Rapid Prototyping J. 12 (1), 42-52 (2006).

[22] N. Hopkinson and T. B. Sercombe, Process repeatability and sources of error in indirect SLS of aluminium, 

Rapid Prototyping J. 14 (2), 108-113 (2008).

[23] W. M. Johnson, M. Rowell, B. Deason and M. Eubanks, Benchmarking Evaluation of an Open Source Fused 

Deposition Modeling Additive Manufacturing System, (2011).

[24] K. Senthilkumaran, P. M. Pandey and P. Rao, Statistical modeling and minimization of form error in SLS 

prototyping, Rapid Prototyping J. 18 (1), (2011).

[25] H. Nguyen, J. Richter and P. Jacobs, On Windowpanes and Christmas-Trees: Diagnostic Techniques for 

Improved Part Accuracy, Third Int. Conf. Rapid Prototyping. 41-62 (1992).
[26] S. L. Campanelli, G. Cardano, R. Giannoccaro, A. D. Ludovico and E. L. J. Bohez, Statistical analysis of the 

stereolithographic process to improve the accuracy, Computer-Aided Design. 39 (1), 80-86 (2007).

[27] J.-P. V. Kruth, B.; Van Vaerenbergh, J.; Mercelis, P. , Benchmarking of different SLS/SLM processes as rapid 

manufacturing techniques, Int. Conf. Polymers & Moulds Innovations (PMI), Gent, Belgium, April 20-23, 2005. 

(2005).

[28] L. Castillo, Study about the rapid manufacturing of complex parts of stainless steel and titanium, (2005).

[29] Y. Ning, Y. S. Wong, J. Y. H. Fuh and H. T. Loh, An approach to minimize build errors in direct metal laser 

sintering, Ieee Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering. 3 (1), 73-80 (2006).

[30] K. A. Ghany and S. F. Moustafa, Comparison between the products of four RPM systems for metals, Rapid 

Prototyping J. 12 (2), 86-94 (2006).

[31] N. Hanumaiah and B. Ravi, Rapid tooling form accuracy estimation using region elimination adaptive search 

based sampling technique, Rapid Prototyping J. 13 (3), 182-190 (2007).

[32] E. Pessard, P. Mognol, J. Y. Hascoet and C. Gerometta, Complex cast parts with rapid tooling: rapid 

manufacturing point of view, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 39 (9-10), 898-904 

(2008).

[33] J. Delgado, J. Ciurana, C. Reguant and B. Cavallini, Studying the repeatability in DMLS technology using a 

complete geometry test part. (2010).

[34] A. L. Cooke and J. A. Soons, Variability in the Geometric Accuracy of Additively Manufactured Test Parts, 

21st Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, Texas, USA, 1-12.

[35] P. M. Pandey, N. V. Reddy and S. G. Dhande, Improvement of surface finish by staircase machining in fused 

deposition modeling, Journal of Materials Processing Technology. 132 (1-3), 323-331 (2003).

[36] A. Armillotta, Assessment of surface quality on textured FDM prototypes, Rapid Prototyping J. 12 (1), 35-41 

(2006).

[37] O. S. Es-Said, J. Foyos, R. Noorani, M. Mendelson, R. Marloth and B. A. Pregger, Effect of layer orientation 

on mechanical properties of rapid prototyped samples, Mater. Manuf. Process. 15 (1), 107-122 (2000).

[38] V. Vega, J. Clements, T. Lam, A. Abad, B. Fritz, N. Ula and O. S. Es-Said, The Effect of Layer Orientation on 

the Mechanical Properties and Microstructure of a Polymer, Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance. 20 

(6), 978-988 (2011).

[39] J. Richter and P. Jacobs, Accuracy, in: Rapid Prototyping & Manufacturing, P. Jacobs, Society of 

Manufacturing Engineers, (1992) 287-315.

[40] R. Smith, Standard Test-Files for Benchmarking RP Systems, Third International Conference on Rapid 

Prototyping. (1992).

[41] K. K. Jurrens, Standards for the Rapid Prototyping Industry, Rapid Prototyping J. 5 (4), 169-178 (1999).

[42] D. Scaravetti, P. Dubois and R. Duchamp, Qualification of rapid prototyping tools: proposition of a procedure 

and a test part, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 38 (7), 683-690 (2008).

[43] M. Shellabear, Model manufacturing processes--State of the art in rapid prototyping, RAPTEC Task 4.2, 

Report 1. (1998).

[44] ISO, 841: Industrial automation systems and integration--Numerical control of machines--Coordinate system 

and motion nomenclature, 

[45] ASTM, F2921-11: Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing--Coordinate Systems and Test 

Methodologies. 

[46] J. P. Kruth, P. Mercelis, J. Van Vaerenbergh and T. Craeghs, Feedback control of selective laser melting, 

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid Prototyping, Leiria, 

Portugal. 521-527 (2008).