## 2 Industrial Demand and Qualifying Challenges  
Additively manufactured materials have potential applications in oil, gas, and petrochemical industries as pressure envelopes, functional components, or structural parts. These components and structures suffer from damages induced by severe environmental conditions, especially in North Sea platforms. In this regard, jackets, pipeline end terminations (PLETs), and drilling support modules are example components that may indicate intermittent failures during their life cycle. Besides, there are many fluid-carrying components that can be repaired or replaced by additively manufactured components. However, there is still no long-term field experience in using AM components in the offshore industry. Accordingly, our information about the potential active damage mechanisms for these material types is limited and less reliable. Additive manufacturing is a de-centralized manufacturing process that makes the tracing of the material production difficult for qualification purposes. In addition, this process is not a mature manufacturing process and still suffers a lack of reproducibility and uncertainty of quality control [14]. It is notable that AM technologies were perceived as immature by nearly 50% of security and defense organizations by 2018 [15]. In addition, the business models for additive manufacturing technology are still immature for large-scale adoption [16; 17]. The certifying procedures for AM require continuous work to better adaptation of the technology in various industrial fields [12].  
To convince customers from the oil and gas industry to shift from conventional manufacturing techniques to additive technology, they need to be assured that additively manufactured components satisfy minimum requirements imposed by codes, standards, and regulations. It means that uncertainties induced by mechanical strength or corrosion resistance for additively manufactured materials should fall within the pre-specified ranges. The fundamental problem is that the additive manufacturing supply chain is less understood than conventional processes. Many defects and characteristics of the additively manufactured parts are still under investigation [18]. X-ray diffraction [19], laser diffraction [20], digital imaging [21], in-situ AM process monitoring [22], ultrasonics [23] are some examples of non-destructive testing in additive manufacturing process. At the moment, additively manufactured components are qualified based on a one-by-one evaluation process. This procedure is neither economic nor effective. In this study, the aim of developing a qualifying procedure is to define a process to systematically identify relationships between the manufacturing process-microstructure product performance of the additively manufactured materials. Table 1 compares the qualification challenges for additively manufactured and conventional spare parts. Risk-based inspection is one of the cost-effective methods for defining the scopes of different non-destructive testing methods and developing inspection and test plans [24]. This study suggests a qualifying procedure and helps to develop an inspection and test plan for metallic AM components based on a risk assessment concept.  
Another major challenge and concern about additive manufacturing is the protection of intellectual property (IP) [25]. These concerns include questions around the ownership of geometry and designs, the probability of copying parts by scanning and then printing them, and concerns about the production of fake components. Fortunately, some of these concerns have been resolved or even addressed by current legal provisions [26; 27].