## 3 Results
After repeatability analysis, Gaussian plots (See Appendix A) were made for each dimension, which determines the frequency of x-values among the results. In the central place at the extreme of the graph, there is the average value of the measurement results. The place with the nominal value is marked with a vertical blue line (See Appendix A). The first dimension analyzed was the internal linear dimension defined in the x-axis direction with a nominal value of 5 mm. The distribution of measurement values was presented on a graph by reducing the area of the graph on the y-axis to the values appearing in the data (Figure 9). It can be observed that the difference between the extreme measurement values of 4.95 and 5.01 mm is 0.06 mm. However, the average value of the measurement results is 4.99 mm and the median of the measurements is also 4.99 mm. You will also notice that the graph changes depending on the location of the sample on the build platform. Samples 2, 6, and 10, which are second from the left in each row, have a nominal size or larger. The first templates on the left sides, 1 and 9, also have a nominal size or larger, while the middle template has a smaller size than the nominal one. Apart from the last 12 th sample, all models on the right have dimensions smaller than the nominal ones. Subsequent analyses included detailed examinations of cylindricity deviations, shape deviations, and positional deviations for the 12 developed templates. Figures 10-13 present selected analyses. The angular dimensions of the templates produced were analyzed based on the nominal 3D CAD model (Figure 10). Dimensions were extracted from the scanned data using ZEISS Inspect software(Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik GmbH, Oberkochen, Germany, Version: 2023.2.0.71). The dimensions were obtained using the median function, which determines the distance between the surfaces by calculating the median. Table 2 provides a detailed analysis of the angular dimensions. From the data presented, it can be inferred that most of the measured angular dimension values are less than the nominal value. The exception is the 60\({}^{\circ}\) dimension, where most measurements exceed the nominal value. In particular, the last of these dimensions shows a significant difference of 0.70\({}^{\circ}\), which stands out compared to previous results, where the differences ranged from 0.1\({}^{\circ}\) to 0.2\({}^{\circ}\). Figure 9: Comparison of the results with the nominal value. Figure 11: Obtained measurement data. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Test Pattern No.** & **15 (C)** & **30 (C)** & **45 (C)** & **60 (C)** & **75 (C)** & **90 (C)** \\ \hline
1 & 14.83 & 29.75 & 44.87 & 59.96 & 74.93 & 89.77 \\
2 & 14.85 & 29.87 & 44.95 & 60.02 & 75.04 & 90 \\
3 & 14.62 & 29.77 & 44.91 & 60.04 & 74.98 & 89.84 \\
4 & 14.69 & 29.72 & 44.87 & 59.94 & 75.03 & 89.74 \\
5 & 15 & 30.07 & 45.12 & 60.05 & 74.96 & 89.9 \\
6 & 14.89 & 29.91 & 44.95 & 59.95 & 74.99 & 89.82 \\
7 & 14.92 & 29.89 & 45.05 & 60.15 & 75.18 & 89.94 \\
8 & 14.65 & 29.63 & 44.90 & 59.86 & 74.82 & 89.74 \\
9 & 14.83 & 29.92 & 45.01 & 60.01 & 74.96 & 89.78 \\
10 & 14.87 & 29.93 & 44.93 & 60.06 & 75.13 & 89.96 \\
11 & 14.87 & 29.91 & 45.05 & 60.14 & 75.16 & 89.8 \\
12 & 14.82 & 29.81 & 44.98 & 60.70 & 74.93 & 89.8 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Analysis of angular dimensions of test patterns. Figure 10: Nominal dimensions of the 3D CAD model of the analyzed feature. In the next phase of the investigation, the selected geometric tolerances of the patterns were analyzed (Figure 12). Figure 13 shows three-dimensional deviation maps obtained from the measurements. Figure 12: Analyzed geometric tolerances. Figure 13: Analysis of shape and positional tolerances. Analyzing the data in Table 3, it can be seen that the smallest deviation values were found in the cylindricity measurements, while the largest were found in the coaxial measurements.