Analysis of General and Specific Standardization Developments in Additive Manufacturing From A Materials and Technological Approach

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/342458531
Analysis of General and Speciﬁc Standardization Developments in Additive

Manufacturing From a Materials and Technological Approach
Article in IEEE Access · June 2020

DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3005021
CITATIONS READS
3 704
4 authors:
Amabel García Domínguez Juan Claver Gil
19 PUBLICATIONS 76 CITATIONS
National Distance Education University
72 PUBLICATIONS 232 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Ana María Camacho Miguel A. Sebastián

National Distance Education University National Distance Education University
148 PUBLICATIONS 690 CITATIONS 391 PUBLICATIONS 1,386 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Innovation in Materials Selection and Evaluation for Mechanical Equipment Manufacturing View project
New developments in Dimensional and Mechanical Metrology View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Juan Claver Gil on 28 July 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received June 2, 2020, accepted June 16, 2020, date of publication June 25, 2020, date of current version July 20, 2020.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3005021
Analysis of General and Specific Standardization

Developments in Additive Manufacturing From
a Materials and Technological Approach
AMABEL GARCÍA-DOMÍNGUEZ , JUAN CLAVER , ANA MARÍA CAMACHO ,
AND MIGUEL A. SEBASTIÁN
Department of Manufacturing Engineering, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), 28040 Madrid, Spain
Corresponding author: Amabel García-Domínguez (amabel.garcia@invi.uned.es)
This work was supported in part by the Doctorate Program in Industrial Technologies of the Universidad Nacional de Educación a
Distancia (UNED) and in the context of the Project DPI2016–81943–REDT of the Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Competitiveness,
in part by the Research Group of the UNED Industrial Production and Manufacturing Engineering (IPME), in part by the Annual Grants
Call of the Escuela Técnica Superior (E. T. S.) Ingenieros Industriales of UNED under Project 2020–ICF04/C and Project 2020–ICF09/B,
and in part by the Innovation Project of the GID2016-28 on additive manufacturing.
ABSTRACT Additive manufacturing processes and products are very present in the current productive
landscape, and in fact these technologies have been one of the most intensively studied and improved during
the last years; however, there is still no defined and homogeneous regulatory context for this field. In this
work, a thorough review of the main general and specific regulatory developments in design, materials
and processes standards for additive manufacturing has been carried out, with special attention to the
standards for mechanical characterization of polymer-based products. In many cases standards developed
for other productive contexts are identified as recommended references, and some contradictory trends
can be identified when different documents and previous experiences are consulted. Thus, as it is logical
considering that all these technologies are involved in an intensive and continuous evolution process, there
is a certain lack of clarity regarding the standards to be considered. This work aims to contribute to clarify the
current standardization context in additive manufacturing and provide some guidelines for the identification
of appropriate standards. The paper also emphasizes that the key for next regulatory developments in
mechanical testing is to develop standards that consider particular AM processes along with materials.
Moreover, a great gap between available standard about additive technologies based on metallic materials
and polymer materials during the last years has been detected. Finally, the provided overview is considered
of interest as support for research and practice in additive manufacturing, and both in intensive productive
scenarios and for particular users and makers.
INDEX TERMS Standardization, additive manufacturing, ASTM, ISO.
I. INTRODUCTION as economic [11], [12], sustainability [13] or even security

Nowadays additive manufacturing is a consolidated reality. issues [14]. Additive manufacturing technologies are widely
A significant number of very different technological alter- established both in our industries and in the collective knowl-
natives are included under this category [1]; the materials edge of society. This special social acceptation of additive
used [2]–[4], the applications [5], [6], benefits and challenges manufacturing, especially in regard to 3D printing with poly-
are constantly increasing [7]–[9] and the corresponding pro- mer materials, has also contributed to the significant rise of
cesses are being deeply studied, not only from technolog- these technologies during last years, and today the inclusion
ical approaches, but also in relation to their role in future of additive manufacturing issues in educational scenarios
productive scenarios [10] and considering other aspects such have been also strongly promoted [15], [16].
The validation of the products obtained through certain
The associate editor coordinating the review of this manuscript and production processes represents their final adequacy and inte-
approving it for publication was Chi-Tsun Cheng . gration in the industrial field, in which the quality assurance
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
125056 VOLUME 8, 2020
A. García-Domínguez et al.: Analysis of General and Specific Standardization Developments in Additive Manufacturing
of the products is both a need and an objective. In that sense, Identification of the specific testing standards referred
it is worth asking whether products obtained through additive to in the general standards on additive manufacturing for tests
manufacturing can offer these guarantees today. The results with this type of products, paying special attention to tensile
obtained through these additive technologies are of great and compression tests.
interest because of their new possibilities compared to tradi- Review of the existing scientific literature in this field
tional productive technologies and also the properties of their to verify the coincidence or not of the standards used as
products demonstrate functional capacity in service; but it is a reference in those works with the ones identified in the
necessary to demonstrate the real capacity to produce robust previous step.
products of sufficient quality [7], [17] and standardization is
the way to go [18].
However, the incorporation of these technologies into the
productive field is still incipient and these technologies them-
selves are in constant evolution. In that context, and although
great efforts are being made, the current standards to guide
the standardization of these processes and their products is
still scarce and insufficient. A clear example of this situation
is the lack of standards for the mechanical characterization
of the parts obtained with these technologies [19], [20].
For different materials, main general standards on additive
manufacturing identify previous standards on test methods; FIGURE 1. Work methodology.
but there is not always consensus on what those references
should be and furthermore their applicability is relative in Through these three successive steps the standards most
practice [21]. commonly used for compression and tensile tests with plastic
The great increase in access to additive technologies, espe- parts obtained by additive manufacturing are identified.
cially the ones based on polymers and concretely FDM, Additionally, other considerations and approaches are
means that a large volume of products outside the indus- commented. Firstly, the anisotropic nature of additive man-
trial framework are being used. Currently, polymer 3D print- ufacturing parts is analyzed, since their fabrication layer
ers are no longer strange items even in a home. And the by layer carries a great influence of the manufacturing ori-
parts produced in these domestic scenarios will be used entation. Moreover, the deposition of the material in each
exactly the same than those bought in a shop. Therefore, layer and the existing gaps between the beads are aspects
the ability of standards to validate products obtained with which make the standards previously identified difficult to
additive technologies must also be able to reach these par- apply [19], [21], [31].
ticular contexts. Special situations, such as those experi- Secondly, cellular and lattice structures, as design strate-
enced during the COVID-19 crisis [22], [23], and the urgent gies highly powered by additive manufacturing, are identified
needs of certain devices have defined scenarios in which as scenarios of great interest on the field of additive man-
the productive capacity of the traditional industries is not ufacturing, but which are far from the standards identified
flexible enough and these individual or domestic produc- as references for the mechanical characterization of these
tive centers can have a key role. In that context, the agility products in the standards of additive manufacturing [21],
and adaptability of additive manufacturing technologies and [32]–[34].
also the collective productive capacity of 3D printers has Finally, much more specific standardization initiatives are
been proved [24]–[30], and the importance of guaranteeing identified as the probably most viable approach for the
the appropriate quality of the obtained products has been development of standards on additive manufacturing issues,
revealed. as opposed to the general standards on additive manufactur-
Thus, in this work, a review of the currently available ing identified, which applicability proves to be too relative
standards applicable to additive manufacturing technologies and often limited. All these specific standards are analyzed
is carried out, with special attention to design and materi- and compared from different approaches. Their importance
als, identifying the appropriate test methods for the char- for different materials and processes is commented, and an
acterization of the pieces obtained through these processes. overview of current standardization for additive manufactur-
A characterization that, although it takes into account aspects ing products and processes is proposed.
of diverse nature, in practice focuses the development of
regulations in the mechanical behavior of the pieces and II. ABOUT THE GENERIC STANDARDS ON ADDITIVE
in the appropriate tests to determine the associated values. MANUFACTURING
To achieve this goal, an approach to the problem is made in 3 A. INITIAL APPROACH TO THE REGULATIONS ON
successive steps. ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
Analysis of the general standards on additive When talking about the reference standards for the perfor-
manufacturing. mance of mechanical tests, the two obligatory references are
VOLUME 8, 2020 125057

the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and TABLE 1. Classification of the standards identified on additive
manufacturing according to their approach and the type of materials
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). considered.
These organizations elaborate the standards commonly used
in this type of tests for the characterization of materials and
parts. Within the families of standards that both organizations
offer, regulations regarding additive manufacturing can be
found.
In this sense, it is possible to make a first differentiation
regarding the approach of these documents since in their con-
tents, aspects of a very different nature are addressed. Thus,
in this work an initial differentiation is made, identifying
those standards, or parts, related to the contextual and the-
oretical framework of additive manufacturing, that includes
the terminology, definitions, technologies and processes of
this type of manufacturing; and those ones related to the
standardization of the tests to be performed for the character-
ization of the pieces obtained as a result of these processes.
The second part of the ISO 17296:2015 entitled ‘‘Overview
of process categories and raw materials’’ is an example of
the first of these situations, while the third part of the same
standard, entitled ‘‘Main characteristics and corresponding
test methods’’, exemplifies the second situation [35], [36].
Sometimes, in addition to the main standards developed
by these international organizations, it is possible to identify
standards developed by national organizations. The Spanish
Association for Standardization (UNE), publishes the Span-
ish version of the standards developed by the ISO and it
also develops its own standards. That is the case of the UNE
116005:2012, focused on tensile tests of specimens obtained
by additive manufacturing with polymer materials [37].
Thus, in Table 1 the standards for additive manufacturing
identified are grouped into two families of standards; the
different parts of the ISO 17296 [35], [36], [38] and the
ISO/ASTM standards on additive manufacturing [39]–[43].
It can also be seen that in the case of the ISO 17296 the
first part of this standard is pending publication, and as other
works have pointed out, it is expected that this new document
clarifies some aspects regarding terminology [20].
From that first distinction, in the columns on the right
the focus of the content of each of the standards identified,
or of each of the parties in the case of ISO 17296, has been
indicated. On the one hand, the contents more oriented to
the description of this type of technologies and processes,
which contribute to defining what could be called the the-
oretical framework of reference for additive manufacturing,
are distinguished. On the other hand, the contents aimed at
conducting tests on the pieces obtained are indicated.
Table 1 shows how through the standards grouped within
these two blocks both approaches are covered, the one related
to the theoretical framework and the one related to the devel- also be made. As the three columns to the right of the table
opment of tests. On the other hand, previously mentioned show, ISO 17296 considers the three categories of materi-
UNE 116005:2012 is fully oriented to the performance of als; polymers, metals and ceramic materials. On the other
mechanical tests, specifically tensile tests, and only with hand, ISO/ASTM standards are oriented to polymeric and
polymeric materials. metallic materials, but they do not consider ceramic materials.
With regard to the work materials considered in each of Unlike these multimaterial approaches, the mentioned UNE
the standards identified in Table 1, some observations may 116005:2012 is exclusively oriented to polymeric parts.
125058 VOLUME 8, 2020

Of the standards identified, this work pays special attention made to define and describe the specific characteristics of
to the ones oriented to the development of mechanical tests. the products obtained by additive manufacturing, and that
The mechanical testing of parts obtained by additive manu- the standards indicated are temporary recommendations until
facturing is an unclear aspect today and it is a hot topic of specific standards are available [36]. This way, the applica-
debate among the scientific community. bility of all these recommended standards is limited in the
In that sense, as indicated in Table 1, two documents should context of additive manufacturing, and it depends largely on
be highlighted. The ISO 17296-3:2014 [36], which corre- the way in which the infill of the piece is conceived [21].
sponds to the third part of this regulation for additive man- The standard ISO/ASTM 52921:2013 is focused mainly
ufacturing and which identifies the test methods to be used on standardizing the terminology for the test results reports
for different materials. And the ISO/ASTM 52921:2013 [43] and defining the correct location and orientation of the pieces
developed by the ASTM. However, different authors have in the construction volume. It does not include such a com-
indicated in their work that specific regulation about testing prehensive review of the possible consultation regulations
for mechanical characterization of parts in additive manu- for testing. But in its second section, called Norms for con-
facturing [19], [31] is currently not sufficient enough. Thus, sultation, several standards specific to other productive and
the standards presented in Table 1 refer to other standards of technological contexts and which are considered useful for
conventional testing methods that may be of application, but additive processes are identified. Table 3 shows the regula-
which in no case have been specifically developed for these tions referred for consultation in the ISO/ASTM 52921:2013.
technologies.
As noted above, in general, these standards on additive TABLE 3. Standards referred to by ISO/ASTM 52921:2013.
manufacturing identify others that may be applicable to addi-

tive manufacturing parts, but which really correspond to reg-
ulatory developments which are specific to other productive
and technological contexts. The clearest example of this cir-
cumstance is found in the case of the ISO 17296-3:2014. That
standard includes a table identified as Table 4 in which a wide
number of consultation standards are identified according to
the material and the type of test. Thus, as shown in Table 2,
a total of 139 standards are identified by the ISO 17296-
3:2014 as references for testing parts obtained by additive
manufacturing with different materials and in order to deter-
mine their quality in relation to different characteristics or
requirements. However, it should be noted that this number
is reduced to 92 when matches are considered. For example,
for surface and geometric requirements the same standards
are indicated for metallic materials, as plastics and ceramics. The smaller amount of references in comparison to the
On the contrary, in the case of the mechanical requirements information shown in Table 2 for the case of ISO 17296-3 can
different standards are identified for each type of material. be clearly seen. In this regard, it is especially noteworthy that
in this case ceramic materials are not considered, as already
TABLE 2. Classification of the standards identified in the ISO
indicated in Table 1. In addition, for the materials consid-
17296-3:2014 for carrying out tests associated with different quality ered, this is plastics and metals, the type of test considered
requirements in parts obtained by additive manufacturing. when identifying consultation standards is only tensile tests.
Different from ISO 17296, ISO/ASTM 52921:2013 does not
identify consultation standards for any other mechanical test,
not even for compression tests.
As a summary, Table 4 shows the different approaches
to the problem that are made from the identified standards
for additive manufacturing. On the one hand, it is clear
that the only standard that really offers a complete selec-
tion of standards to be taken into account for tests on parts
obtained by additive manufacturing is the ISO 17296-3: 2017,
both in relation to work materials and types of tests. And,
As can be seen when consulting the standards identified on the other hand, it can be seen that the tensile tests on
by ISO 17296-3:2014, all these mechanical test standards plastic materials have focused the most attention in these
are characteristic of other productive and technological con- documents.
texts, which are different from additive manufacturing. In that Thus, the current state of the regulations in the field of
sense, ISO 17296-3:2014 itself indicates that efforts are being mechanical characterization of additively manufactured parts
VOLUME 8, 2020 125059

TABLE 4. Mechanical tests for which consultation standards are in general, this study is focused on the standards related to
identified in the standards ISO 17296-3:2017 and ISO/ASTM 52921:2013.
the mechanical testing of parts, and concretely parts made of
plastic materials. As exposed before, it is precisely in the field
of polymeric materials that there is a greater documentary
reference for the mechanical testing of parts obtained by addi-
tive manufacturing, which represents a starting advantage.
Moreover, plastics were the first materials used in additive
manufacturing, and the only ones for a long time, so more
expertise and tradition are expected.
The most common or basic mechanical tests in order
to obtain resistance values for the materials considered are
the tensile and the compression tests. Bending stresses are
also of great interest because of their usual presence in ser-
vice conditions. However, in these tests, breakage occurs in
the tensile zone and provide values normally higher than
those of the single tensile test for the same material; so
usually the tensile test can be considered the main ref-
erence since it represents the most unfavorable situation.
Thus, focusing the analysis on tensile and compression tests,
Table 5 reflects how the ISO 17296-3:2014 identifies con-
sultation standards for both types of tests, while ISO/ASTM
is still precarious and provisional, especially as regards the 52921:2013 only refers to tensile tests, not compression
testing of parts. On the one hand, there are identified and tests.
referred standards developed for productive contexts very dif-
ferent from that of additive manufacturing [21]. And, on the
TABLE 5. Standards for tensile and compression tests for plastic materials
other hand, in regard to these standards that could be con- identified in the international standards on additive manufacturing.
sidered as ‘‘framework’’, it is the tensile tests in polymeric
materials that have the most normative basis at present, while
for other materials and for other types of tests the normative
references are significantly lower. Fig. 2 proposes a graphic
and schematic representation of this situation as a summary
of the analysis carried out in this section.
From the ISO 17296-3:2014, ISO 527 [44]–[48] and ISO
604 [49] are the standards identified for tensile and com-
pression tests, respectively. ISO 527 is also the standard that
identifies the standard UNE 116005:2012 as reference for
tensile test. In the case of ISO/ASTM 52921:2013, two stan-
dards for tensile testing are identified, ISO 527 and ASTM
D638 and no standard is identified for the compression
test.
1) REGULATIONS RELATING TO TENSILE TESTS

As can be seen in Table 5, the standard ISO 527, which is
oriented to the determination of tensile properties in plastic
materials, is considered in the three standards on additive
manufacturing. In turn, this standard has five different parts
(Table 6). The first one addresses the general principles [44],
and the following four establish the conditions to determine
FIGURE 2. Contributions of current regulations on mechanical the tensile properties in molding and extrusion plastics, films
characterization of parts produced by additive manufacturing. and sheets, and isotropic and orthotropic fiber-reinforced
plastic composites, respectively [45]–[48]. Thus, the second
B. SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR TESTING POLYMERIC part, ISO 527-2:2012, is oriented to the testing of plastics for
PARTS OBTAINED BY ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING molding and extrusion, and that case is understood as the one
After the initial approximation made to the current develop- closer to FDM manufacturing process, as already identified
ment of the standards in the field of additive manufacturing in other works [31]. However, the layer by layer morphology
125060 VOLUME 8, 2020

TABLE 6. Parts of the standard ISO 527 for tensile tests of plastics. cases the same geometric parameters for the definition of the
specimens are considered.
TABLE 7. Comparison of geometric specifications for type 1A specimens

according to ISO 527-2:2012 and UNE 116005:2012.
FIGURE 3. Representation of possible orientations in parts obtained by

additive manufacturing based on UNE 116005:2012.
Thus, Table 7 compares the values established in both stan-

dards for the geometric parameters identified. Only the values
of the pieces obtained does not really correspond to the ones included in each standard for type 1A specimens are col-
obtained through those processes, so this approach must be lected. Type 1AV of standard UNE 116005:2012 is discarded
understood as temporary, and be used while developing spe- due to its vertical orientation, which has already identified as
cific standards, as indeed the standard UNE-EN ISO 17296- nor appropriate for this test in other works [31]. And neither
3:2014 already indicates [36]. the type 1B of standard ISO 527-2:2012 is considered, since
Previously mentioned UNE 116005:2012 also refers to it considers mechanized specimens.
ISO 527 for tensile testing of parts obtained by addi- Using a solid background, the fields for which the values
tive manufacturing with plastics. However, with regard to associated with the parameters considered coincide in both
the description and identification of the specimens, UNE standards are identified. The rest of the situations do not
116005:2012 includes some aspects that are considered note- represent contradictions, although, as a general conclusion,
worthy against the information provided in part 1 and part it can be said that in those cases the values provided by the
2 of ISO 527. Thus, three test tube orientations are explicitly ISO 527 standard are more restrictive or they are limited to
distinguished. First, from a general approach to any piece smaller ranges of values.
obtained by additive manufacturing, by identifying three axes In any case, they are small deviations. But, perhaps the
associated with three possible orientations or positions of the approach to the problem of UNE 116005:2012 and the geo-
specimen. Subsequently, representations of the three orienta- metric specifications that establish have an added interest in
tions for the tensile specimens are included [37]. the context of additive manufacturing, at least as a particular
The standard referred for tensile tests in both UNE experience in this field, UNE 1160005:2012 is developed
116005:2012 and ISO 17296-3:2014 is ISO 527. But, regard- since the beginning for additive manufacturing processes,
ing the geometric specifications of the specimens, although and the characterization of the specimens is made from that
the standard UNE 116005:2012 includes tables of specifi- perspective and considering key aspects for these processes,
cations in which it is possible to identify some small differ- such as the possible orientations of the specimen according
ences with the information included in ISO 527-2. Comparing to the orientation of the layers. On the other hand, the type
the graphical representations of the specimens that both 1A specimen described by ISO 527-2:2012 is presented as
standards include, it is possible to appreciate that in both the typology to be used when the specimens are molded by
VOLUME 8, 2020 125061

injection or compression. UNE 116005:2012 does not really makes the resistant sections quite similar, with 40.0 mm2 and
provide many new aspects or considerations compared to ISO 41.6 mm2 respectively.
17296-3. In both cases ISO 527 is the main reference. But
this standard has interest since it concentrates in a single 2) REGULATIONS RELATING TO COMPRESSION TESTS
document, aspects which appear dispersed in different stan- Similarly, a search for regulations for compression tests was
dards when main standards on additive manufacturing are carried out. The first step is to consult the call to test stan-
considered. And it also provides a presentation focused on dards that are made from the regulations on additive man-
additive manufacturing scenarios since the beginning. Thus, ufacturing. In that sense, Table 5 showed that only the ISO
consulting this kind of document can provide complementary 17296-3:2014 standard on additive manufacturing identifies
information with practical application. a reference standard for the compression test with plastic
As indicated in Table 5, the standard ISO/ASTM materials, the ISO 604:2002 [49]. The other standards on
52921:2013 identifies, in addition to the already mentioned additive manufacturing, that means UNE 116005:2012 and
ISO 527, the ASTM D638-14 standard as a reference for ISO/ASTM 52921:2013, do not identify consultation stan-
tensile tests [50]. In the sixth point of this standard five types dards for compression test.
of test specimens are identified, being Type I, which corre- In this way, the ISO 604:2002 standard remains the only
sponds to rigid or semi-rigid plastics with thicknesses of 7 regulation for these tests that is referred to in the current spe-
mm or less, the one that fits the context of this work. Type II cific regulations for additive manufacturing. However, taking
will only be considered if the test specimens of Type I do into account the usual practice in the scientific literature on
not fracture in the part corresponding to the narrow section. these topics, the use of ASTM D695-15 [51] is obvious when
The rest of typologies respond to other contexts that are not carrying out this type of tests on these pieces. This situation
of interest for this work; thus, Type III will be used when is addressed in the following section, which completes the
the thicknesses must be greater than 7 mm without exceeding exposed revision of the existing regulations through experi-
14 mm, while Type V will be used when the thicknesses must ences in this field.
be 4 mm or less. On the other hand, Type IV will be applied
when it is required to make direct comparisons between C. APPROACH TO USUAL PRACTICES WHEN TESTING
materials with different stiffness, that is to say semi-rigid and PARTS OBTAINED BY ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
not rigid. The analysis exposed so far on the general standards on
additive manufacturing and the specific standards that from
them are referenced for the performance of different kinds of
tests has served to identify certain deficiencies. For example,
not for all materials and types of test the standards identified
on additive manufacturing propose sufficient consultation
standards. In that context it is necessary to fill these deficien-
cies through the review of scientific production in this field,
identifying the usual practices on mechanical testing of parts
obtained by additive manufacturing. And in fact, this infor-
mation can be considered itself as a reference sufficiently
contrasted and as a starting point to raise similar experiences.
Two trends or work lines can be distinguished in this
regard:
In some works, the authors consider standards for
mechanical testing for parts obtained by other manufacturing
processes, executed with polymers as well as with ceramic
or metallic materials, and then they apply these standards to
FIGURE 4. Fundamental dimensions of the specimens considered for
tensile tests according to ISO 527-2and ASTM D638-14.
similar testing of parts obtained by additive manufacturing.
Other works discard these standards due to the nature
of the pieces obtained by additive processes, whose struc-
Fig. 4 shows the specimens considered by ISO 527-2 and ture does not conform to that continuous and isotropic
ASTM D638-14. It can be seen that there are some dif- behavior, quite the opposite, due to characteristic aspects
ferences between both geometries. Perhaps the most strik- of additive processes, such as layered construction and its
ing aspect is the greater slenderness of the fracture zone orientation, or the filling patterns applicable to parts in some
in the case of the test specimen defined by the UNE processes [1], [19], [21].
116005:2012 and ISO 527-2 standards compared to the test Tables 1, 2 and 4 allow to appreciate the complete com-
specimen defined by ASTM D638-14, with widths of 10 and pilation of ISO standards that ISO 17296-3:2014 includes.
13 mm, respectively. Nevertheless, the thickness of 4 mm To get a similar list for the standards developed by ASTM
versus the 3.2 mm established by the ASTM D638 standard International it is necessary a revision of previous experiences
125062 VOLUME 8, 2020

about different types of tests carried out with 3D printed parts, and really appropriate standards to perform these mechanical
such as compression, flexion or others, and also for different tests on parts obtained through additive technologies.
materials, such as plastics, metals or composites. An in-depth To incorporate the commented aspects of Forster’s work
review was made, and different works were identified. The into the proposed analysis, the comparison shown in Table 4 is
works of Brischetto et al. [52] and Banjanin et al. [53] are completed in Table 8 including an icon or box to identify
examples of this type of studies in this case both oriented the contributions of Forster’s work, and a column related
to compression tests. In the work of Brischetto et al. a thor- to composite materials. Obviously, the standards initially
ough study of the compression properties of ABS specimens identified but then rejected in Forster’s work has not been
obtained by FDM is carried out. The reference taken as a included in Table 8. Thus, in cases such as compression tests,
reference in that study is ASTM 695-15, but it is indicated Table 8 does not reflect regulations for composite materials
that technically this standard is equivalent to ISO 604:2002, based on Forster’s work, because although standards for this
which is the one identified by 17296-3:2014. In the same way, type of test and that type of material are identified, specif-
ASTM 695-15 is also identified as the reference for this essay ically ISO 14126:1999 [54] and ASTM D3410/D3410M-
in the work of Banjanin et al. 03 [55], both are discarded for application in the field of
In this sense, and in relation to plastic materials, of special additive manufacturing.
interest in the framework of this work, the authors consider
that the work developed by Forster in 2015 [19] is still the TABLE 8. Mechanical tests for which consultation standards are
identified in the standards ISO 17296-3:2017, ISO/ASTM 52921:2013 and
reference of most interest and usefulness. The main quality of UNE 116005:2012, as well as in the work of Forster [15].
this work compared to others is that it is not a study focused
on a specific test, but a compilation of the regulations of
interest for a wide variety of mechanical tests applicable to
these materials. The summary tables included in section 8 of
said document are of special interest. In them, the standards
of potential interest are identified for each test, indicating and
justifying in each case the applicability or not in the case of
parts obtained by additive manufacturing.
Thus, the work developed by Forster can be highlighted
firstly by its usefulness in order to identify standards that
can serve as a reference when carrying out tests of very
different types on parts obtained by additive manufacturing.
This aspect turns this work into a cross reference to a certain
variety of mechanical tests. And from that point of view, it
also establishes a certain similarity with ISO 17296-3:2014.
But it should be noted that not all the types of tests identified
in ISO 17296-3:2014 are considered in Forster’s work, and
similarly, Forster’s work includes tests not referred in ISO
17296-3:2014, such as the torsion test.
Secondly, it should be noted that Forster’s work only refers
to polymeric materials, and it does not include a similar
revision for metallic and ceramic materials, what ISO 17296-
3:2014 includes. On the other hand, Forster’s work includes
standards for reinforced plastic materials. The authors of The analysis of Table 8 shows interesting situations. For
the present work consider appropriate to distinguish both example, for the shear test it can be seen how Forster’s
situations as different realities, that is, polymeric materials work identifies standards applicable to the field of additive
and polymer matrix composites. manufacturing, but related to composite materials, not to
A third aspect to comment on the identification of stan- non-reinforced plastic materials. And, on the other hand,
dards carried out by Forster is the acceptance or not that the table shows that ISO 17296-3:2014 provides a reference
after the initial identification is carried out. Three scenarios standard for this type of test and that type of material, the stan-
regarding the applicability in the field of additive manufac- dard ISO 14129:1997 [56].
turing of the standards are identified: yes, yes with guidance It can also be seen how ISO 17296-3 identifies consultation
and no [19]. None of the standards that Forster identifies in standards for composite materials for tensile, fatigue and
its work is validated with a yes, what would mean the total shear tests. This is relevant since at first it only considers
acceptance or an acceptance free of considerations and/or metallic, polymeric and ceramic materials. As in the case of
modifications. Thus, the standards identified are accepted Forster’s work which refers to polymeric materials, polymer
with objections or directly rejected for use in additive con- matrix composite materials are considered in the aforemen-
texts, what reinforces the idea that there is a need of specific tioned documents as a type of plastic materials, while in the
VOLUME 8, 2020 125063

TABLE 9. Comparative summary of the consultation standards identified by ISO 17296-3:2014, ISO/ASTM 52921:2013 and Forster’s work.
present work the authors have preferred to differentiate both corresponding consultation regulations in each case. In addi-
types of material, that is polymeric materials and polymer tion, three situations of special interest are identified using
matrix composites, or what is the same, non-reinforced and arrows of different colors.
reinforced polymeric materials. • Green arrows: they draw attention to situations in
As indicated above, Table 8 does not reflect the standards which the same consultation standard is referred to
that, although identified in Forster’s work, are ruled out as in different standards on additive manufacturing or in
not applicable in the field of additive manufacturing. This is Forster’s work. Thus, standards that have a certain
the case of ISO 14129:1997, which although it is identified in consensus regarding the four sources considered are
Forster’s work, is considered not suitable for this manufactur- identified.
ing technology, in contrast to what is indicated in ISO 17296- • Red arrows: they identify situations in which a standard,
3:2014, which identifies it as a standard for consultation. identified as a valid reference in one of the sources,
Therefore, there are coincidences but also contradictions is rejected in another. This situation is consequence of
in the identification of consultation standards that the three Forster’s work, which discards some standards that in
standards consider and Forster’s work offer. This way, a first approach can be defined as appropriate for the
Table 9 completes the information shown in Table 8, citing the context of additive manufacturing.
125064 VOLUME 8, 2020

TABLE 10. Identification of the regulations used for tensile testing in the
main works consulted in this regard [53], [57], [61]–[77].
FIGURE 5. Identification of the standards for tensile and compression

testing on plastic printed parts through the general standards on additive
manufacturing and the scientific literature review carried out.
527 in the call for consultation by the three generic stan-

dards on additive manufacturing identified. However, Table
• Discontinuous black arrows: they identify standards 10 shows the preference that in practice most authors have by
applicable in different types of materials. ASTM D638. This preference is also identified in previous
The third of these scenarios, is due in the case of ASTM review works [58], [59]. It is also possible to identify works of
6272-10 and ASTM D790-10 standards to the already dis- great interest in which similar studies are carried out without
cussed consideration of polymer matrix composite materi- using any of these standards. For example, in the work devel-
als as a type of polymeric materials or as an independent oped by Webbe Kerekes et al. [60] a total of 30 dog-bone
group. It draws much more attention in this regard that ISO specimens were tested, bur their dimensions did not corre-
14129:1997, for shear test in fiber-reinforced plastic compos- spond to the ones defined in ISO 527 or ASTM D638-14.
ites, is identified as a reference standard for ceramic materials Fig. 5 resumes graphically the contribution of the standards
in the field of additive manufacturing. on additive manufacturing and the scientific works consulted,
Table 9 is considered an interesting result of this work, as it in relation to the identification of standards that can serve as
constitutes a reference or guide to the relationship between a reference for the mechanical test, specifically of traction
the consultation standards called from the main general addi- and compression of polymeric parts obtained by additive
tive manufacturing standards, an also from Forster’s work, manufacturing.
which is considered another important reference in this field. It can be seen that some of the standards on additive manu-
Many other works focused on the mechanical charac- facturing considered contribute to the theoretical framework,
terization of plastic parts obtained by additive processes this is the establishment of terms, definitions, etc.; and others
were consulted, with special attention to FDM processes and to the identification of standards of application when different
tensile test, which are the most frequently used. As seen mechanical tests are carried out. As in the generic standards
in Tables 4 and 8, polymers tensile test represents the only on additive manufacturing, the work developed by Forster
test for which the three additive manufacturing regulations consider these two standards as well as ISO 527 [44]–[48] and
identified call for consultation standards, and also the only ISO 604 [49], for tensile and compression test respectively.
test for which there is more than one reference in this regard, So, research works identified in the review of the scien-
specifically two, ISO 527 and ASTM D638-14, as shown tific production in this field are the ones which really allow
in Table 5. to identify the standards ASTM D638-14 [50] and ASTM
Table 10 shows some of the main works consulted in this D695-15 [51], for tensile and compression test respectively,
line, indicating the standards used in each case. A clear pre- as the most used references.
dominance of ASTM D638 can be observed as the reference Considering all of the above, the identification of ASTM
chosen by the authors, except in the case of the work of D638 and ASTM D695 standards is considered justified as
Ćwikła et al. [57], In which the ISO 527 standard was used. the main references to be taken into account in terms of
This corrects the possible initial conclusion derived from the tensile and compression tests of polymer parts obtained by
content of Table 5, which shows the identification of ISO additive manufacturing. The review carried out in this regard
VOLUME 8, 2020 125065

is considered useful given the lack of definition in some cases, contradictions, were pointed. Then, another review of the
and the contradictions in others, which have been revealed in more common practices in this field was developed and the
relation to the regulations to be applied. results of both are compared and exposed. And during this
Other examples of the lack of consensus can be found con- process a critical aspect has come up several times; the rela-
sulting the information provided by filament manufacturers. tive application that the traditional test standards for different
In that sense, Table 11 shows the differences in the testing materials have in the context of additive manufacturing. Many
standards used by different FDM filament manufacturers works has pointed this aspect [19], [21], [31] and two main
when establishing tensile resistance values. Table 11 reflects approaches to the reasons can be distinguished.
what is stated in the technical data sheets of the products of On the one hand, the layer by layer forming process charac-
three well-known companies that offer filaments for FDM teristic of additive manufacturing involves a lack of continuity
printers. This information is available for download and con- in the material and anisotropic behavior. Thus, the application
sultation on the websites of these companies [78]–[80]. of the standards identified for mechanical testing, although
it is possible, is strongly limited. In that sense, it would not
TABLE 11. Identification of regulations used by different filament be possible to speak of specimens that use filling patterns,
manufacturers for FDM printers for tensile testing.
but of solid specimens, in order to approximate as closely
as possible to the conditions of the standards proposed as
consultation documents. But, even so, the internal structure
of adjacent filaments along successive layers introduces an
evident discontinuity in the material, being able to identify
clearly defined directions in the internal structure of the
piece with different characteristics and mechanical responses.
Fig. 6 and Fig.7 show different images of specimens for ten-
It can be seen that in addition to the standards previously sile test of FDM parts and allow to appreciate the commented
identified as the main references for tensile test, ISO 527 and situations.
ASTM D638-14, other standards appear, such as ISO 37,
typical of vulcanized elastomers, and ASTM D882, for thin
sheets. And it can be observed a higher consideration of
the ISO 527, in line with what is indicated in the general
standards on additive manufacturing, but contrary to the trend
observed in the review of the scientific works in this field.
But also, other situations highlight the lack of heterogene-
ity in the criteria. Aspects such as the orientation of the
specimens during the printing process, the diameter of the FIGURE 6. Unfinished specimen to allow the display of successive layers
with perpendicular filament orientations in solid samples.
nozzle used or the type and percentage of filling, are in some
cases omitted and in others established without justifying
the chosen values. Thus, it is possible to identify multiple
examples that illustrate this lack of unity in the criteria to be
considered. For example, the data sheets provided by BCN3D
Technologies do not refer to the orientation of the specimen
to be manufactured, the thickness of the nozzle or the filling.
On the other hand, the XY orientation, the nozzle diameter
of 0.4 mm and a filling of 90% are identified on the Ultimaker
datasheets, without any of these decisions being justified. FIGURE 7. View of the cross section of two test specimen for tensile
testing with horizontal position (left) and edgewise position (right).
Other manufacturers, such as Ultrafuse [81], provide in their Images obtained by TESA-VISIO Digital Profile Projector.
files a little more information in this regard, distinguishing for
example the values obtained for three different orientations; On the other hand, the nature and the focus of many other
and previously Infill3D offered datasheets considering two works in this field demand approaches to the mechanical
directions and different filling percentages, in this case 50% characterization of the pieces obtained which since the begin-
and 100%, which at least shows the influence of these aspects ning are far from the framework defined by the standards
and makes a call to their consideration by users. on additive manufacturing. The infill structures usually used,
and especially the complex interior structures that additive
III. APPROACHES FAR FROM THE TRADITIONAL manufacturing allows, are examples of situations in which the
TEST STANDARDS materialization of pieces has nothing to do with continuous
In the previous sections a review of the test standards material approaches. And it is important to note that they
referred from the general standards on additive manufac- are these new possibilities allowed by additive manufactur-
turing was made, and main differences and, in some cases ing, and impossible in traditional manufacturing contexts,
125066 VOLUME 8, 2020

which are being most intensively studied and improved by which no correspond with standardized specimens [32],
the scientific community and the industry. So, they are those [85]–[89]. The variety of scenarios opened by additive man-
scenarios in which the applicability of the test standards is ufacturing thanks to the geometric freedom that it allows,
more complicated and relative the ones in which exist more makes necessary much more specific standards in order to
activity and the need of standards is higher. Fig. 8 resumes respond to particular needs of specific productive contexts.
graphically this idea and the lack of applicability of the test Zhang et al. identify some examples of this other group
standards referred to the level of isotropy and continuity of of standards on additive manufacturing, such as ASTM
the material in the piece. F2924-14, ASTM F3001-14, ASTM F3184-16 and ISO
13314:2011 [90]–[93]. The need of specific standards for
particular productive scenarios and the efforts in this direction
will be commented into the next section. In many of these
works the analysis and the characterization of the tested parts
combine the performance of mechanical tests in the labora-
tory and simulation work supported by the Finite Element
Method (FEM). This approach allows to validate the results
obtained in the simulations and characterize the mechanical
behavior of the parts based on this type of structures [83],
[86]–[89].
Some works have a special interest as examples of these
kind of approaches since they address reviews of the state of
the art from different points of view. For example, the work
FIGURE 8. Applicability of the mechanical test standards identified in of Zhang et al. [32] is focused on cell structures for implant
relation to the internal morphology of the parts obtained by additive
manufacturing. application, considering different technologies of additive
manufacturing with metals and applying them in a particular
The use of cellular and lattice structures in the design of material such as Ti-6Al-4V alloy, due to its biocompati-
parts for additive manufacturing represent the most remote bility. The mentioned work also incorporates in its review
scenario in terms of applicability of the identified test stan- the geometry of the cell considered, compiling the results
dards. And in addition, these approaches have a great need obtained by different authors for key parameters, such as
of mechanical characterization, and are often linked to topol- the Elastic Module and the Elastic Limit. The work devel-
ogy optimization analysis, of great importance in design for oped by Sing et al. [33] identifies different works oriented
additive manufacturing. In these cases, the analysis of the to the mechanical characterization of this type of structures
mechanical resistance of the obtained parts can be oriented under compression, traction, fatigue or flexion loads, and in
through the resistance of the cellular filling structures or the this case obtained by SLM with different metallic materials.
optimized structures established in the design rather than In that work cubic and cylindrical geometries are identified as
through the study of the material. These kind of approaches the usual for the samples for compressive tests and also two
and the difficult applicability of testing standards in these standards are identified as possible references, ASTM E9 [94]
contexts were deeply analyzed by the authors in previous and ISO 13314:2011 [93], which determines the compression
works [21], [82]. test conditions for porous or cellular metallic materials.
Usually, the works developed from these kind of Other works, as the one developed by Cooke et al. [34]
approaches, carry out the corresponding mechanical tests identifies standards for different tests. Thus, for the ten-
considering either the unit cells or small structures obtained sile test, considers the ASTM C297 and ASTM C363 stan-
as a sum of a certain number of them, but without referring the dards [95], [96], for compression the ASTM C364 [97], for
study to any testing standards and without using the defined shearing the ASTM C273 [98] and for bending the ASTM
specimens in them. The works developed by Chen et al. [83] C393 [99]. All these standards have been developed by Com-
and Hussein [84] illustrate the preparation of compression mittee D30.09, which is oriented to the study of materials of
tests on cellular structures. In both cases, compression tests sandwich structure. As mentioned before, that type of mate-
are carried out on the pieces considered without referring rials would be closer to the nature of this type of geometries
them to any testing standard and using own designed spec- that additive technologies make possible, but they are not
imens, not standardized ones. identified as references into the general standards on additive
In addition, works in which the designs are based on lat- manufacturing.
tice and cellular structures must consider not only particular
cells in terms of mechanical response, but also the response IV. SPECIFIC REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS.
obtained when the specific geometry of a particular design AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH IN PROCESS
is built by adaptation of that initial and basic structure. So, In this work the main standards on additive manufacturing
it is common to find works that characterize the mechanical have been identified, and from them, standards for mechan-
behavior of the pieces by testing parts of varied geometries ical test methods were identified. In addition, the most
VOLUME 8, 2020 125067

common practices in this field were also analyzed, and this focused on describing good practices to meet critical appli-
allowed to pay special attention to some of them, since they cations in metal powder bed fusion processes such as com-
are the most usually used by researchers. But, in general, mercial aerospace components and medical implants. The
the identification process resulted in very general standards case of ASTM F3303, replaced by ISO/ASTM 52904, illus-
not specific for polymeric materials nor for the corresponding trates one of the reasons why some standards are withdrawn.
manufacturing processes. The only exception in that regard As exposed on ASTM International Web Site, the common
is UNE-EN-ISO 116005:2012. But in any case, all these goal of both organizations, the ISO and ASTM Interna-
standards on additive manufacturing made reference to gen- tional, of approving single standards used by all motivates
eral standards for mechanical testing of polymers. In no case the replacement of documents initially developed by one of
specific standards or methods for mechanical testing of parts the organizations by versions reviewed and approved by both
obtained by additive manufacturing were identified. of them. The case of ASTM F2792-12a is different, since this
In this section the search of standards on additive manu- standard is withdrawn but not replaced.
facturing is expanded and a significant number of specific The rest standards in Table 12 are mainly specific standards
standards, both for particular materials and processes, are of recent development (the oldest one is from 2011) and
included in the review. Table 12 shows the identified stan- they have experience a fast evolution that can be observed
dards on additive manufacturing developed by ASTM Inter- by the number of new versions in a very short period of
national. The information provided in each case includes the time (in some cases such as the ASTM F3055, three ver-
code and full description, the year of publication, the com- sions in the same year). Most of these standards have been
mittee and subcommittee responsible for their development developed for the category powder bed fusion with differ-
and contents. ent metallic alloys such as nickel alloys [102], [103], tita-
Then two different technological approach are differenti- nium alloys [90], [91], [109], cobalt alloy [107], aluminum
ated. On the one hand, standards developed for additive tech- alloy [111], stainless steel [92]; and plastic materials [104];
nologies from a global point of view. And, on the other hand, and more recently specialized in laser - based powder bed
standards focused on particular additive technologies and fusion of metals [117] and polymers [118]. Importance of
processes. And, also the material referred in each standard directed energy deposition category is also shown through the
is considered, differentiating between metals and polymers, standard ASTM F3187-16 [106] and more recently, the publi-
the two most important groups of materials used in AM. cation of the new standard ISO/ASTM 52922 [120] in 2019.
When the standards are not developed for a particular cate- Interest in material extrusion of plastics has arisen as well,
gory of material or for a specific one, no material is indicated. as we can see through the publication of the new standard
In that sense, it must be commented that ceramics are not ISO/ASTM 52903 [114] in 2020.
considered on Table 12, since it was not possible to identify From the information shown in Table 12, different analysis
standards focused in this type of materials, so only the general can be made. Fig. 9 shows the different productivity in terms
standards could be referred to them in the table. In that context of active standards of the different subcommittees within
it was considered more appropriate not to include them in the the ASTM International Committee F42 on Additive Man-
table. ufacturing. Both the number of standards and the percentage
On the left side of the table, the analysis is carried out for that in each case they represent of the total of standards are
all the standards developed over time by ASTM International indicated. In the left side of Fig. 8 the distribution of the
in this field. On the right side, new columns are added, and standards developed over time is shown. The graph on the
the same analysis is shown, but this time considering only right considers only the currently active standards. Thus, as
the active standards. Thus, the columns on the left show the in Table 12, the first information provides an approximation
evolution of these standards, and the ones on the right resume to the activity of these committees in terms of elaboration
the actual context. and promotion of new standards during the last years, and
As can be seen, standards usually evolve through the publi- the second gives a visual of their weight within the actual set
cation of new versions or revisions which replace the previous of active standards on additive manufacturing.
ones, but the main code and basic description remains. In a As it can be seen in the graph, the standards developed by
few cases (mainly related to general approaches) standards subcommittee F42.05 on Materials and Processes represent
are withdrawn. This is the case of ASTM F2915 and ASTM half of the total of standards developed in the graph on the
F2921; the first one was centered in defining the standard left and the 65% in the graph of the right. Thus, it is the
specification for file formats used in AM and the second Subcommittee F42.05 on Materials and Processes the one
one in describing important aspects about the coordinate with the highest number of contributions to the collection
systems and tests methodologies; the new standards replac- of standards developed. And, within that group, it is also
ing those ones are ASTM 52915 (published in 2020) and remarkable the great dominance of standards focused on
ISO/ASTM 52921 (published in 2013) respectively. The metals, in comparison to polymers or ceramics. In fact, it
only standard with a specific approach that has been with- must be noticed that the only item for ceramics corresponds
drawn and replaced is ASTM F3303 [110]; the new stan- in Table 12 to ISO/ASTM 52901-16, which adds an entry for
dard, ISO/ASTM 52904, has been published in 2019 and is each material since it makes a general approach not focused
125068 VOLUME 8, 2020

TABLE 12. Development, evolution and actual context of standards on additive manufacturing by ASTM International in the last decade [39]–[43],
[90]–[92], [100]–[122].
VOLUME 8, 2020 125069

in any material category, so it cannot be ignored, but it must

account for all.
Considering the subcommittees with entries in Fig. 9,
Fig. 10 differentiates in each case the number of standards
developed from general approaches and applicable to any
additive technology and the ones which are specific for any
process. It can be seen a strong trend to specific standards in
the case of subcommittee F42.05 on Materials and Processes,
what is logical and consistent with its own nature.
FIGURE 11. Matrix classification of standards on additive manufacturing

considering both the technological approach and the material.
defined by the characteristics of particular materials and/or

the critical aspects of specific processes. Thus, these specific
approaches represent the main standardization strategy for
additive manufacturing processes and products. In that sense,
as part of the information provided in the website of the
committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing, the schema of
the AM Standards Structure provided is considered specially
interesting and clarifying. Three main groups or levels of
standards are identified based on the degree of specialization
or specificity. Thus, first, a top level of general standards is
identified, focused on aspects such as terminology, data for-
mats, design guidelines, test methods or safety among others,
and all them from general and transversal points of view. Then
FIGURE 9. Standards developed by the different subcommittees within
the committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing Technologies: standards two levels of higher specialization are considered. First in
developed over time (left) and active standards (right). relation to specific categories of materials or processes and
then focused on specific materials or processes. And through
these three levels, three approaches are identified: feedstock
materials, processes/equipment and finished parts. On the
other hand, the schema allows to identify standards about
test methods in two levels within the structure. First, in the
top-level of general standards. And also, in the next level,
relative to categories of materials or processes and referred
to finished parts.
From the mentioned schema, Fig. 12 tries to locate each
currently active standard identified in Table 12 in the corre-
FIGURE 10. General and specific technological approaches for the
standards developed by the different subcommittees. sponding place within the structure. This is interesting since
the structure shows the strategy designed for the development
Fig. 11 tries to show in a matrix classification system the of a collection of standards on additive manufacturing, and
most and the less common approaches within the collec- Fig. 12 provides an image of the current situation. In each
tion of standards on additive manufacturing identified. The case the corresponding subcommittee is also identified. And
intersections between columns and rows groups of standards when it exists an approach to a specific material or material
with similar approaches both from technological and material category, this aspect is included too. Thus, general standards,
perspectives. General standards are represented without back- which are not focused on a particular material or material
ground color and dashed line, since they must be considered category, do not include this information, but in other stan-
in the count of the general standards, but only once, and they dards a P or an M are indicated, as indications of polymer
must be ignored when material is considered, because both and metallic materials.
metals and polymers are referred in them. Not in all cases the location of the standards within
All these graphs show a great effort focused on the develop- the structure was clear. ISO/ASTM 52911-1-19 [117] and
ment of specific standards to be applied to particular contexts ISO/ASTM 52911-2-19 [118] differentiate between polymer
125070 VOLUME 8, 2020

FIGURE 12. Applicability of the mechanical test standards identified in relation to the internal morphology of the parts obtained by additive
manufacturing.
and metallic materials as if it happens in other cases. Thus, layers. So, apart from general aspects as terminology or main
it exists certain level of concretion, but categories are indi- concepts, it is difficult to face aspects such as the mechanical
cated, no specific metals or polymers, so these two standards characterization of the obtained products from perspectives
are shown between two areas. It is also remarkable that the common to different additive technologies.
only standard identified during the review classifiable in
the right column of Fig. 11 referred to applications is the V. CONCLUSIONS
standard ASTM F3335-20 [112], which was not developed In this work, a thorough review of the main general and spe-
by Committee F42. It was developed by Committee F04 on cific regulatory developments in materials and design stan-
Medical and Surgical Materials & Devices, concretely by the dards for additive manufacturing has been carried out, with
subcommittee F04.15 on Material Test Methods. special attention to the standards for mechanical characteri-
The review of all these normative developments also zation of obtained products. One of the main contributions of
reveals a lack of specific references, similar to the ones devel- this work is that the analysis developed allow to identify some
oped for certain metals or for other material categories, such weak points, or at least not defined enough, in the current
as polymers. Considering the recurring applicability prob- additive manufacturing standardization landscape; the iden-
lems identified for the standards used to carry out mechanical tification process of standards for mechanical test methods
tests on parts obtained by additive manufacturing using poly- resulted in very general standards not specific for materials
meric materials, it seems logical to follow a similar strategy nor for the corresponding manufacturing processes.
of specialization for these materials and their processes. The Another important conclusion is that a trend through the
particularities and differences of additive technologies com- development of specific standards for particular additive
pared to other manufacturing processes also exist between processes and materials is identified; so, the key for next
themselves. The construction process layer by layer defines regulatory developments in mechanical testing is to develop
a clear border with other manufacturing technologies. But standards that take into account particular AM processes and
this border only affects transversally all these additive tech- materials, as in the case of regulatory developments for addi-
nologies regarding the geometric freedom they allow. After, tive manufacturing of specific alloys and process categories
it is possible to identify significant differences between them already developed and commented in this work. That spe-
considering the nature and characteristics of the layers they cialization strategy appears probably as the most appropriate
define and also to the relation and cohesion between adjacent alternative to face the identified weakness. So, it could be
VOLUME 8, 2020 125071

said that currently standardization on additive manufactur- [10] M. Pérez-Pérez, E. Gómez, and M. Sebastián, ‘‘Delphi prospection
ing presents an incomplete framework, but one in the right on additive manufacturing in 2030: Implications for education and
employment in spain,’’ Materials, vol. 11, no. 9, p. 1500, Aug. 2018,
direction. doi: 10.3390/ma11091500.
As a practical contribution of the paper, the proposed [11] H.-S. Yoon, J.-Y. Lee, H.-S. Kim, M.-S. Kim, E.-S. Kim, Y.-J. Shin,
approaches and results obtained provide main guidelines for W.-S. Chu, and S.-H. Ahn, ‘‘A comparison of energy consumption in bulk
forming, subtractive, and additive processes: Review and case study,’’ Int.
researchers, engineers, designers and makers to understand J. Precis. Eng. Manufacturing-Green Technol., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 261–279,
and use the current standardization structure on additive man- Jul. 2014, doi: 10.1007/s40684-014-0033-0.
ufacturing within their particular contexts with the current [12] G. Costabile, M. Fera, F. Fruggiero, A. Lambiase, and D. Pham,
‘‘Cost models of additive manufacturing: A literature review,’’
framework. And, also an overview of standardization on Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 263–282, 2016,
additive manufacturing and a prospective interpretation of the doi: 10.5267/j.ijiec.2016.9.001.
faced approaches in this work is presented. [13] S. Ford and M. Despeisse, ‘‘Additive manufacturing and sustainability:
An exploratory study of the advantages and challenges,’’ J. Cleaner Prod.,
And finally, it can be said that, in that sense, a great
vol. 137, pp. 1573–1587, Nov. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.150.
gap between available standard about additive technologies [14] L. M. G. Graves, J. Lubell, W. King, and M. Yampolskiy, ‘‘Charac-
based on metallic materials and polymer materials has raised teristic aspects of additive manufacturing security from security aware-
during the last years. The huge potential of additive manu- ness perspectives,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 103833–103853, 2019,
doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2931738.
facturing with metals in many industrial sectors is an evi- [15] S. Chong, G.-T. Pan, J. Chin, P. Show, T. Yang, and C.-M. Huang, ‘‘Inte-
dence. But it should be noted the importance of the wide gration of 3D printing and industry 4.0 into engineering teaching,’’ Sus-
variety of solutions available for additive manufacturing with tainability, vol. 10, no. 11, p. 3960, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.3390/su10113960.
[16] S. Ford and T. Minshall, ‘‘Invited review article: Where and how 3D
polymeric materials, such as desktop 3D printers. Access to printing is used in teaching and education,’’ Additive Manuf., vol. 25,
this equipment is more and more common. Designer, maker pp. 131–150, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.028.
and consumer can be the same person, and standardization [17] H.-C. Yang, M. Adnan, C.-H. Huang, F.-T. Cheng, Y.-L. Lo, and
C.-H. Hsu, ‘‘An intelligent metrology architecture with AVM for metal
on additive manufacturing must also ensure the quality and additive manufacturing,’’ IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett., vol. 4, no. 3,
safety of the products obtained in those other scenarios. Crisis pp. 2886–2893, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.1109/LRA.2019.2921927.
as the one caused by COVID-19 reveal the potential and [18] A. Rodriguez-Prieto, A. Aragon, A. M. Camacho, and M. Sebastian,
capacity of this alternative productive structure when working ‘‘Analysis of the current scenario of additive manufacturing standard-
ization and certification,’’ in Proc. 22nd Int. Congr. Project Manage.
with a common goal, and also the need of a clear regulatory Eng., Madrid, Spain, Jul. 2018, pp. 1011–1023. [Online]. Available:
framework for the obtained products. So new standardization https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326405459_Analysis_of_
developments with the proposed approach are a challenge to the_current_scenario_of_additive_manufacturing_
standardization_and_certification
face in the next years. [19] A. M. Forster, ‘‘Materials testing standards for additive manufactur-
ing of polymer materials: State of the art and standards applicability,’’
REFERENCES Tech. Rep., May 2015, doi: 10.6028/NIST.IR.8059.
[20] A. Rodríguez-Panes, J. Claver, A. M. Camacho, and M. Sebastián,
[1] I. Gibson, D. W. Rosen, and B. Stucker, Additive Manufacturing Tech-
‘‘Análisis normativo y evaluación geométrica de probetas para la carac-
nologies: Rapid Prototyping to Direct Digital Manufacturing. Boston,
terización mecánica de piezas obtenidas por fabricación aditiva mediante
MA, USA: Springer, 2010.
FDM,’’ in Proc. 22th Nat. Congr. Mech. Eng., Sep. 2018, pp. 1–11.
[2] J.-Y. Lee, J. An, and C. K. Chua, ‘‘Fundamentals and applications of 3D
[21] A. García-Domínguez, J. Claver, A. M. Camacho, and M. A. Sebastián,
printing for novel materials,’’ Appl. Mater. Today, vol. 7, pp. 120–133,
‘‘Considerations on the applicability of test methods for mechanical
Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.apmt.2017.02.004.
characterization of materials manufactured by FDM,’’ Materials, vol. 13,
[3] N. van de Werken, H. Tekinalp, P. Khanbolouki, S. Ozcan, A. Williams,
no. 1, p. 28, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.3390/ma13010028.
and M. Tehrani, ‘‘Additively manufactured carbon fiber-reinforced com-
posites: State of the art and perspective,’’ Additive Manuf., vol. 31, [22] C. Atkinson, ‘‘G20 leaders must answer to COVID-19,’’ Science, vol. 368,
Jan. 2020, Art. no. 100962, doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2019.100962. no. 6487, p. 111, 2020, doi: 10.1126/science.abc1025.
[4] A. Rodríguez-Prieto, A. M. Camacho, A. M. Aragón, M. A. Sebastián, [23] D. Ivanov and A. Dolgui, ‘‘Viability of intertwined supply networks:
and A. Yanguas-Gil, ‘‘Polymers selection for harsh environments to be Extending the supply chain resilience angles towards survivability.
processed using additive manufacturing techniques,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 6, A position paper motivated by COVID-19 outbreak,’’ Int. J. Prod. Res.,
pp. 29899–29911, 2018, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2844360. vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 1–12, 2020, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1750727.
[5] A. Paolini, S. Kollmannsberger, and E. Rank, ‘‘Additive manufacturing [24] L. Cavallo, A. Marcianò, M. Cicciù, and G. Oteri, ‘‘3D printing beyond
in construction: A review on processes, applications, and digital plan- dentistry during COVID 19 epidemic: A technical note for producing
ning methods,’’ Additive Manuf., vol. 30, Dec. 2019, Art. no. 100894, connectors to breathing devices,’’ Prosthesis, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 46–52,
doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2019.100894. Apr. 2020, doi: 10.3390/prosthesis2020005.
[6] K. Johnson, M. Zemba, B. P. Conner, J. Walker, E. Burden, K. Rogers, [25] A. Mostaghimi, M.-J. Antonini, D. Plana, P. D. Anderson, B. Beller,
K. R. Cwiok, E. Macdonald, and P. Cortes, ‘‘Digital manufacturing E. W. Boyer, A. Fannin, J. Freake, R. Oakley, M. S. Sinha, L. Smith,
of pathologically-complex 3D printed antennas,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 7, C. Van, H. Yang, P. Sorger, N. R. LeBoeuf, and S. H. Yu, ‘‘Rapid
pp. 39378–39389, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2906868. prototyping and clinical testing of a reusable face shield for
[7] S. A. M. Tofail, E. P. Koumoulos, A. Bandyopadhyay, S. Bose, health care workers responding to the COVID-19 pandemic,’’
L. O’Donoghue, and C. Charitidis, ‘‘Additive manufacturing: medRxiv:2020.04.11.20061960, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1101/2020.04.11.
Scientific and technological challenges, market uptake and 20061960.
opportunities,’’ Mater. Today, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 22–37, Jan. 2018, [26] A. L. Clarke, ‘‘3D printed circuit splitter and flow restriction devices
doi: 10.1016/j.mattod.2017.07.001. for multiple patient lung ventilation using one anaesthesia workstation
[8] O. Abdulhameed, A. Al-Ahmari, W. Ameen, and S. H. Mian, ‘‘Additive or ventilator,’’ Anaesthesia, vol. 75, no. 6, pp. 819–820, vol. 2020,
manufacturing: Challenges, trends, and applications,’’ Adv. Mech. Eng., doi: 10.1111/anae.15063.
vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1–27, 2019, doi: 10.1177/1687814018822880. [27] J. M. Zuniga and A. Cortes, ‘‘The role of additive manufac-
[9] M. Attaran, ‘‘The rise of 3-D printing: The advantages of additive manu- turing and antimicrobial polymers in the COVID-19 pandemic,’’
facturing over traditional manufacturing,’’ Bus. Horizons, vol. 60, no. 5, Expert Rev. Med. Devices, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 477–481, Jun. 2020,
pp. 677–688, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2017.05.011. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2020.1756771.
125072 VOLUME 8, 2020

[28] J. M. Pearce, ‘‘A review of open source ventilators for COVID- [50] Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics, Standard
19 and future pandemics,’’ FResearch, vol. 9, p. 218, Mar. 2020, ASTM D638-14, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA,
doi: 10.12688/f1000research.22942.1. 2014.
[29] R. Tino, R. Moore, S. Antoline, P. Ravi, N. Wake, C. N. Ionita, [51] Standard Test Method for Compressive Properties of Rigid Plastics,
J. M. Morris, S. J. Decker, A. Sheikh, F. J. Rybicki, and L. L. Chepelev, Standard ASTM D695-15, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
‘‘COVID-19 and the role of 3D printing in medicine,’’ 3D Printing Med., PA, USA, 2015.
vol. 6, pp. 1–8, Apr. 2020. [52] S. Brischetto, C. Ferro, P. Maggiore, and R. Torre, ‘‘Compression tests of
[30] C. Pandemic, S. Pieralli, T. Fretwurst, J. Nold, K. Nelson, ABS specimens for UAV components produced via the FDM technique,’’
R. Schmelzeisen, E. Hellwig, and B. C. Spies, ‘‘3-D printed protective Technologies, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 20, May 2017, doi: 10.3390/technolo-
equipment during COVID-19 pandemic,’’ Materials, vol. 7, no. 8, gies5020020.
p. 1997, Jan. 2020. [53] B. Banjanin, G. Vladic, M. Pál, S. Balos, M. Dramicanin, M. Rackov,
[31] A. Rodríguez-Panes, J. Claver, and A. Camacho, ‘‘The influence of and I. Knezevic, ‘‘Consistency analysis of mechanical properties of ele-
manufacturing parameters on the mechanical behaviour of PLA and ments produced by FDM additive manufacturing technology,’’ Matéria
ABS pieces manufactured by FDM: A comparative analysis,’’ Materials, (Rio de Janeiro), vol. 23, no. 4, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1590/s1517-
vol. 11, no. 8, p. 1333, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.3390/ma11081333. 707620180004.0584.
[32] X.-Y. Zhang, G. Fang, and J. Zhou, ‘‘Additively manufactured scaf- [54] Fibre-Reinforced Plastic Composites—Determination of Compressive
folds for bone tissue engineering and the prediction of their mechan- Properties in the in-Plane Direction, document ISO 14126:1999,
ical behavior: A review,’’ Materials, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 50, Jan. 2017, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland,
doi: 10.3390/ma10010050. 1999.
[33] S. L. Sing, Y. Miao, F. E. Wiria, and W. Y. Yeong, ‘‘Manufacturability and
[55] Standard Test Method for Compressive Properties of Polymer Matrix
mechanical testing considerations of metallic scaffolds fabricated using
Composite Materials with Unsupported Gage Section by Shear
selective laser melting: A review,’’ Biomed. Sci. Eng., vol. 2, May 2016,
Loading, Standard ASTM D3410/D3410M-03, ASTM International,
doi: 10.4081/bse.2016.11.
[34] A. L. Cooke, C. E. Folgar, L. N. Folgar, J. Williams, S. Park, and West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2003.
D. W. Rosen, ‘‘An investigation of the material properties of laser sin- [56] Fibre-Reinforced Plastic Composites—Determination of the in-Plane
tered parts incorporating conformal lattice structure (CLSTM) technol- Shear Stress/Shear Strain Response, Including the in-Plane Shear Mod-
ogy,’’ in Proc. 24th Int. SFF Symp., Additive Manuf. Conf. (SFF), 2013, ulus and Strength, by the Plus or Minus 45 Degree Tension Test Method,
pp. 908–928. document ISO 14129:1997, International Organization for Standardiza-
[35] Additive Manufacturing General Principles. Part 2: Overview of Process tion, Geneva, Switzerland, 1997.
Categories and Raw Materials, document ISO 17296-2:2015, Interna- [57] G. Ćwikła, C. Grabowik, K. Kalinowski, I. Paprocka, and P. Ociepka,
tional Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. ‘‘The influence of printing parameters on selected mechanical proper-
[36] Additive Manufacturing—General Principles—Part 3: Main Character- ties of FDM/FFF 3D-printed parts,’’ IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.,
istics and Corresponding Test Methods, document ISO 17296-3:2014, vol. 227, Aug. 2017, Art. no. 012033, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/227/1/
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 012033.
2014. [58] J. R. C. Dizon, A. H. Espera, Q. Chen, and R. C. Advincula, ‘‘Mechan-
[37] Fabricación Por adición de Capas en Materiales Plásticos. Fabricación ical characterization of 3D-printed polymers,’’ Additive Manuf., vol. 20,
Aditiva. Preparación de Probetas, document AENOR/UNE 116005, pp. 44–67, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2017.12.002.
AENOR, Madrid, Spain, 2012. [59] D. Popescu, A. Zapciu, C. Amza, F. Baciu, and R. Marinescu, ‘‘FDM
[38] Additive Manufacturing General Principles—Part 4: Overview of Data process parameters influence over the mechanical properties of polymer
Exchange, Standard ISO 17296-4:2014, International Organization for specimens: A review,’’ Polym. Test., vol. 69, pp. 157–166, Aug. 2018,
Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.05.020.
[39] Additive Manufacturing—General Principles—Terminology [60] T. Webbe Kerekes, H. Lim, W. Y. Joe, and G. J. Yun, ‘‘Characterization
International Organization for Standardization, document ISO/ASTM of process—Deformation/damage property relationship of fused deposi-
52900:2015, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. tion modeling (FDM) 3D-printed specimens,’’ Additive Manuf., vol. 25,
[40] Additive Manufacturing—General Principles—Requirements for Pur- pp. 532–544, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2018.11.008.
chased AM Parts, document ISO/ASTM 52901:2017, International Orga- [61] R. J. Zaldivar, D. B. Witkin, T. McLouth, D. N. Patel, K. Schmitt,
nization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. and J. P. Nokes, ‘‘Influence of processing and orientation print
[41] Additive Manufacturing—Design—Requirements, Guidelines and Rec- effects on the mechanical and thermal behavior of 3D-printed ULTEM
ommendations, document ISO/ASTM 52910:2018, International Orga- 9085 material,’’ Additive Manuf., vol. 13, pp. 71–80, Jan. 2017,
nization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2016.11.007.
[42] Specification for Additive Manufacturing File Format (AMF), docu- [62] V. Kuznetsov, A. Solonin, O. Urzhumtsev, R. Schilling, and A. Tavi-
ment ISO/ASTM 52915:2016, Version 1.2, International Organization for tov, ‘‘Strength of PLA components fabricated with fused deposition
Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. technology using a desktop 3D printer as a function of geometrical
[43] Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing—Coordinate Systems
parameters of the process,’’ Polymers, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 313, Mar. 2018,
and Test Methodologies, document ISO/ASTM 52921:2013, Interna-
doi: 10.3390/polym10030313.
tional Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
[63] Y. Aw, C. Yeoh, M. Idris, P. Teh, K. Hamzah, and S. Sazali, ‘‘Effect
[44] Plastics—Determination of Tensile Properties—Part 1: General Princi-
of printing parameters on tensile, dynamic mechanical, and thermoelec-
ples, document ISO 527-1:2019, International Organization for Standard-
tric properties of FDM 3D printed CABS/ZnO composites,’’ Materials,
ization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
[45] Plastics—Determination of Tensile Properties—Part 2: Test Conditions vol. 11, no. 4, p. 466, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.3390/ma11040466.
for Moulding and Extrusion Plastics, document ISO 527-2:2012, Inter- [64] Z. Liu, Q. Lei, and S. Xing, ‘‘Mechanical characteristics of wood,
national Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. ceramic, metal and carbon fiber-based PLA composites fabricated by
[46] Plastics—Determination of Tensile Properties—Part 3: Test Conditions FDM,’’ J. Mater. Res. Technol., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 3741–3751, Sep. 2019,
for Films and Sheets, document ISO 527-3:2018, International Organiza- doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.06.034.
tion for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [65] S. R. Rajpurohit and H. K. Dave, ‘‘Analysis of tensile strength of a fused
[47] Plastics—Determination of Tensile Properties—Part 4: Test Conditions filament fabricated PLA part using an open-source 3D printer,’’ Int. J.
for Isotropic and Orthotropic Fibre-Reinforced Plastic Composites, doc- Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 101, nos. 5–8, pp. 1525–1536, Apr. 2019,
ument ISO 527-4:1997, International Organization for Standardization, doi: 10.1007/s00170-018-3047-x.
Geneva, Switzerland, 1997. [66] C. Casavola, A. Cazzato, V. Moramarco, and C. Pappalettere,
[48] Plastics. Determination of Tensile Properties—Part 5: Test Conditions ‘‘Orthotropic mechanical properties of fused deposition modelling
for Unidirectional Fibre-Reinforced Plastic Composites, document ISO parts described by classical laminate theory,’’ Mater. Des., vol. 90,
527-5:2009, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 453–458, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2015.11.009.
Switzerland, 2009. [67] A. Alafaghani, A. Qattawi, B. Alrawi, and A. Guzman, ‘‘Experimen-
[49] Plastics—Determination of Compressive Properties, document ISO tal optimization of fused deposition modelling processing parame-
604:2002, International Organization for Standarization, Geneva, ters: A design-for-manufacturing approach,’’ Procedia Manuf., vol. 10,
Switzerland, 2002. pp. 791–803, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.079.
VOLUME 8, 2020 125073

[68] R. T. L. Ferreira, I. C. Amatte, T. A. Dutra, and D. Bürger, ‘‘Experimental [88] R. Vannutelli, ‘‘Mechanical behavior of 3D printed lattice-structured
characterization and micrography of 3D printed PLA and PLA rein- materials,’’ M.S. thesis, Youngstown State Univ., Youngstown, OH,
forced with short carbon fibers,’’ Compos. B, Eng., vol. 124, pp. 88–100, USA, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?
Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.05.013. accession=ysu1516313745997898&disposition=inline
[69] B. Akhoundi and A. H. Behravesh, ‘‘Effect of filling pattern on [89] O. Weeger, N. Boddeti, S. Yeung, S. Kaijima, and M. L. Dunn, ‘‘Digital
the tensile and flexural mechanical properties of FDM 3D printed design and nonlinear simulation for additive manufacturing of soft lattice
products,’’ Experim. Mech., vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 883–897, Jul. 2019, structures,’’ Additive Manuf., vol. 25, pp. 39–49, Jan. 2019.
doi: 10.1007/s11340-018-00467-y. [90] Standard Specification for Additive Manufacturing Titanium-6
[70] D. Croccolo, M. De Agostinis, and G. Olmi, ‘‘Experimental character- Aluminum-4 Vanadium With Powder Bed Fusion, Standard ASTM
ization and analytical modelling of the mechanical behaviour of fused F2924-14, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA,
deposition processed parts made of ABS-M30,’’ Comput. Mater. Sci., 2014.
vol. 79, pp. 506–518, Nov. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.commatsci.2013.06.041. [91] Standard Specification for Additive Manufacturing Titanium-6
[71] A. R. T. Perez, D. A. Roberson, and R. B. Wicker, ‘‘Fracture surface Aluminum-4 Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) with Powder
analysis of 3D-printed tensile specimens of novel ABS-based materials,’’ Bed Fusion, ASTM International, Standard ASTM F3001-14, West
J. Failure Anal. Prevention, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 343–353, Jun. 2014, Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
doi: 10.1007/s11668-014-9803-9. [92] Standard Specification for Additive Manufacturing Stainless Steel Alloy
[72] B. M. Tymrak, M. Kreiger, and J. M. Pearce, ‘‘Mechanical properties (UNS S31603) With Powder Bed Fusion, ASTM International, Standard
of components fabricated with open-source 3-D printers under realistic ASTM F3184-16, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
environmental conditions,’’ Mater. Des., vol. 58, pp. 242–246, Jun. 2014, [93] Mechanical Testing of Metals—Ductility Testing—Compression Test for
doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.02.038. Porous and Cellular Metals, document ISO 13314:2011, International
[73] B. Rankouhi, S. Javadpour, F. Delfanian, and T. Letcher, ‘‘Failure analysis Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
and mechanical characterization of 3D printed ABS with respect to layer [94] Standard Test Methods of Compression Testing of Metallic Materials at
thickness and orientation,’’ J. Failure Anal. Prevention, vol. 16, no. 3, Room Temperature, Standard ASTM E9-19, ASTM International, West
pp. 467–481, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11668-016-0113-2. Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2019.
[74] J. C. Riddick, M. A. Haile, R. V. Wahlde, D. P. Cole, O. Bamiduro, and [95] Standard Test Method for Flatwise Tensile Strength of Sandwich Con-
T. E. Johnson, ‘‘Fractographic analysis of tensile failure of acrylonitrile- structions, Standard ASTM C297/C297M-16, ASTM International, West
butadiene-styrene fabricated by fused deposition modeling,’’ Additive Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
Manuf., vol. 11, pp. 49–59, Jul. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2016.03.007. [96] Standard Test Method for Node Tensile Strength of Honeycomb Core
[75] Z. Weng, J. Wang, T. Senthil, and L. Wu, ‘‘Mechanical and thermal Materials, Standard ASTM C363/C363M-16, ASTM International, West
properties of ABS/montmorillonite nanocomposites for fused deposition Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
modeling 3D printing,’’ Mater. Des., vol. 102, pp. 276–283, Jul. 2016, [97] Standard Test Method for Edgewise Compressive Strength of Sandwich
doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2016.04.045. Constructions, Standard ASTM C364/C364M-16, ASTM International,
[76] J. M. Chacón, M. A. Caminero, E. García-Plaza, and P. J. Núñez,
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
‘‘Additive manufacturing of PLA structures using fused deposition mod- [98] Standard Test Method for Shear Properties of Sandwich Core Materi-
elling: Effect of process parameters on mechanical properties and their als, Standard ASTM C273/C273M-20, ASTM International, West Con-
optimal selection,’’ Mater. Design, vol. 124, pp. 143–157, Jun. 2017, shohocken, PA, USA, 2020.
doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.065. [99] Standard Test Method for Core Shear Properties of Sandwich Con-
[77] N. G. Tanikella, B. Wittbrodt, and J. M. Pearce, ‘‘Tensile strength structions by Beam Flexure, Standard ASTM C393/C393M-16, ASTM
of commercial polymer materials for fused filament fabrication International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
3D printing,’’ Additive Manuf., vol. 15, pp. 40–47, May 2017, [100] Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing-Coordinate Systems
doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2017.03.005. and Test Methodologies (Withdrawn 2013), Standard ASTM F2921-11e3,
[78] BCN3d Technologies. Technical Safety Datasheets. BCN3D Web
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2011.
Site. Accessed: May 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.bcn3d. [101] Standard Practice for Reporting Data for Test Specimens Prepared by
com/technical-safety-datasheets/ Additive Manufacturing, Standard ASTM F2971-13, ASTM Interna-
[79] Stratasys Ltd. Eden Prairie, MN, USA. Our Materials. Stratasys
tional, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013.
Web Site. Accessed: May 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.
[102] Standard Specification for Additive Manufacturing Nickel Alloy (UNS
stratasys.com/materials/search
[80] Ultimaker BV. Utrecht, The Netherlands. Materials. Ultimaker Web N07718) With Powder Bed Fusion, Standard ASTM F3055-14a, ASTM
Site. Accessed: May 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ultimaker.com/ International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
[103] Standard Specification for Additive Manufacturing Nickel Alloy (UNS
es/materials%0A
[81] BASF Forward AM. Material Data. Ultrafuse Filament Web Site. N06625) With Powder Bed Fusion, Standard NoASTM F3056-14e1,
Accessed: May 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.ultrafusefff. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
com/material-data/ [104] Standard Specification for Powder Bed Fusion of Plastic Materials,
[82] A. García-Domínguez, ‘‘Methodology for the optimization of parts Standard ASTM F3091/F3091M-14, ASTM International, West Con-
obtained by additive manufacturing into mass customization strategies,’’ shohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Manuf. Eng., Universidad Nacional de Edu- [105] Standard Guide for Evaluating Mechanical Properties of Metal Materials
cación a Distancia, Madrid, Spain, Dec. 2019. [Online]. Available: Made Via Additive Manufacturing Processes, Standard ASTM F3122-14,
http://e-spacio.uned.es/fez/view/tesisuned:ED-Pg-TecInd-Agarciad ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
[83] W. Chen, X. Zheng, and S. Liu, ‘‘Finite-element-mesh based method [106] Standard Guide for Directed Energy Deposition of Metals, Standard
for modeling and optimization of lattice structures for additive ASTM F3187-16, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA,
manufacturing,’’ Materials, vol. 11, no. 11, p. 2073, Oct. 2018, 2016.
doi: 10.3390/ma11112073. [107] Standard for Additive Manufacturing—Finished Part Properties—
[84] A. Y. Hussein, ‘‘The development of lightweight cellular struc- Standard Specification for Cobalt-28 Chromium-6 Molybdenum Via Pow-
tures for metal additive manufacturing,’’ Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. der Bed Fusion, Standard ASTM F3213-17, ASTM International, West
Exeter, Exeter, U.K., 2013. [Online]. Available: https://ore.exeter.ac. Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
uk/repository/handle/10871/15023 [108] Standard for Additive Manufacturing—Post Processing Methods—
[85] D. Mahmoud and M. Elbestawi, ‘‘Lattice structures and functionally Standard Specification for Thermal Post-Processing Metal Parts Made
graded materials applications in additive manufacturing of orthopedic Via Powder Bed Fusion1, 2, Standard ASTM F3301-18a, ASTM Interna-
implants: A review,’’ J. Manuf. Mater. Process., vol. 1, no. 2, p. 13, tional, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018.
Oct. 2017, doi: 10.3390/jmmp1020013. [109] Standard for Additive Manufacturing—Finished Part Properties—
[86] G. Maliaris and E. Sarafis, ‘‘Mechanical behavior of 3D printed stochas- Standard Specification for Titanium Alloys via Powder Bed Fusion, Stan-
tic lattice structures,’’ Solid State Phenomena, vol. 258, pp. 225–228, dard ASTM F3302-18, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
Dec. 2016, doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/SSP.258.225. USA, 2018.
[87] B. N. Panda, ‘‘Design and development of cellular structure for addi- [110] Standard for Additive Manufacturing—Process Characteristics and Per-
tive manufacturing,’’ M.S. thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico, Univer- formance: Practice for Metal Powder Bed Fusion Process to Meet Criti-
sidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 2015. [Online]. Available: https:// cal Applications, Standard ASTM F3303-18, ASTM International, West
fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/844820067124811/Thesis.pdf Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018.
125074 VOLUME 8, 2020

[111] Standard for Additive Manufacturing—Finished Part Properties— JUAN CLAVER received the M.Sc. and Ph.D.
Specification for AlSi10Mg With Powder Bed Fusion—Laser Beam, Stan- degrees in advanced manufacturing engineer-
dard ASTM F3318-18, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, ing from National Distance Education University
USA, 2018. (UNED), Spain, in 2012 and 2016, respectively.
[112] Standard Guide for Assessing the Removal of Additive Manufacturing He is currently a Professor with the Department of
Residues in Medical Devices Fabricated by Powder Bed Fusion, Standard Manufacturing Engineering, UNED. His current
ASTM F3335-20, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA,
research interests include the opportunities and
2020.
[113] Additive Manufacturing—Test Artifacts—Geometric Capability new applications of additive manufacturing tech-
Assessment of Additive Manufacturing Systems, document ISO/ASTM nologies in different scenarios and the optimiza-
52902:2019, Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. tion of these processes, and also on the application
[114] Additive Manufacturing—Material Extrusion-Based Additive Manufac- of multi-criteria decision making methods in a very different context, what
turing of Plastic Materials—Part 1: Feedstock Materials, document includes additive manufacturing.
ISO/ASTM 52903-20, ISO/ASTM International, Geneva, Switzerland,
2020.
[115] Additive Manufacturing—Process Characteristics and Performance—
Practice for Metal Powder Bed Fusion Process to Meet Critical Appli-
cations, document ISO/ASTM 52904:2019, ISO/ASTM International,
Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
[116] Additive Manufacturing—Feedstock Materials—Methods to Character-
ize Metal Powders, document ISO/ASTM 52907:2019, ISO/ASTM Inter-
national, Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
[117] Additive Manufacturing—Design—Part 1: Laser-Based Powder Bed
Fusion of Metals, ISO/ASTM 52911-1:2019, ISO/ASTM International, ANA MARÍA CAMACHO received the M.Sc.
Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. degree in industrial engineering from the Univer-
[118] Additive Manufacturing—Design—Part 2: Laser-Based Powder Bed sity of Castilla-La Mancha (UCLM), in 2001, and
Fusion of Polymers, document ISO/ASTM 52911-2:2019, ISO/ASTM the Ph.D. degree in industrial engineering from
International, Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. National Distance Education University (UNED),
[119] Standard Guide for Characterizing Properties of Metal Powders Used for Spain, in 2005. She is currently a Professor
Additive Manufacturing Processes, Standard ASTM F3049-14, ASTM
with the Department of Manufacturing Engineer-
International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
[120] Guide for Additive Manufacturing—Design—Directed Energy Deposi- ing, UNED. Her main research interests include
tion, document ISO/ASTM 52922-19, ISO/ASTM International, Geneva, the innovation in manufacturing engineering and
Switzerland, 2019. materials technology, especially focused in analy-
[121] Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing Technologies (With- sis of metal forming and additive manufacturing techniques through com-
drawn 2015), Standard ASTM F2792-12a, ASTM International, West puter aided engineering tools and experimental testing, and development of
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2009. methodologies for materials selection in demanding applications.
[122] Standard Specification for Additive Manufacturing File Format (AMF)
Version 1.1 (Withdrawn 2013), Standard ASTM F2915-12, ASTM Inter-
national, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2012.
AMABEL GARCÍA-DOMÍNGUEZ received the

M.Sc. degree in architecture from UPM, in 2009, MIGUEL A. SEBASTIÁN received the M.Sc.
and the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in advanced man- degree in industrial engineering and the Ph.D.
ufacturing engineering from National Distance degree from the Technical University of Madrid
Education University (UNED), Spain, in 2015 and (UPM), in 1976 and 1980, respectively. He is
2019, respectively. She is currently a Guest Profes- currently a Full Professor with National Distance
sor with the Department of Manufacturing Engi- Education University (UNED), Spain. He is the
neering, UNED, and an Associate Professor with author of numerous works and scientific-technical
Universidad Nebrija. She also developed her own articles in the areas of industrial production, man-
brand as a Designer. Her main research inter- ufacturing engineering, and industrial heritage.
ests include the optimization of parts produced by additive manufactur- He has participated in Research Projects funding
ing through methodological approaches and within massive customizing by the Department of Science and Innovation of Spanish Government.
strategies.
VOLUME 8, 2020 125075
View publication stats

Analysis of General and Specific Standardization Developments in Additive Manufacturing From A Materials and Technological Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of General and Specific Standardization Developments in Additive Manufacturing From A Materials and Technological Approach

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of General and Specific Standardization Developments in Additive Manufacturing From A Materials and Technological Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Analysis of General and Speciﬁc Standardization Developments in Additive

Article in IEEE Access · June 2020

Amabel García Domínguez Juan Claver Gil

Ana María Camacho Miguel A. Sebastián

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

New developments in Dimensional and Mechanical Metrology View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Analysis of General and Specific Standardization

INDEX TERMS Standardization, additive manufacturing, ASTM, ISO.

I. INTRODUCTION as economic [11], [12], sustainability [13] or even security

VOLUME 8, 2020 125057

125058 VOLUME 8, 2020

manufacturing identify others that may be applicable to addi-

VOLUME 8, 2020 125059

1) REGULATIONS RELATING TO TENSILE TESTS

125060 VOLUME 8, 2020

TABLE 7. Comparison of geometric specifications for type 1A specimens

FIGURE 3. Representation of possible orientations in parts obtained by

Thus, Table 7 compares the values established in both stan-

VOLUME 8, 2020 125061

125062 VOLUME 8, 2020

VOLUME 8, 2020 125063

125064 VOLUME 8, 2020

FIGURE 5. Identification of the standards for tensile and compression

527 in the call for consultation by the three generic stan-

VOLUME 8, 2020 125065

125066 VOLUME 8, 2020

VOLUME 8, 2020 125067

125068 VOLUME 8, 2020

VOLUME 8, 2020 125069

in any material category, so it cannot be ignored, but it must

FIGURE 11. Matrix classification of standards on additive manufacturing

defined by the characteristics of particular materials and/or

125070 VOLUME 8, 2020

VOLUME 8, 2020 125071

125072 VOLUME 8, 2020

VOLUME 8, 2020 125073

125074 VOLUME 8, 2020

AMABEL GARCÍA-DOMÍNGUEZ received the

VOLUME 8, 2020 125075

View publication stats

You might also like