AMSC Gaps Portal

Design Section


Currently there is no standard that helps users understand the advantages/disadvantages of AM processes versus traditional manufacturing processes while also providing decision criteria so informed design/manufacturing decisions can be made.

R&D Needed: TBD

Recommendation: Develop a guideline that helps understand trade-offs between AM processes and traditional processes (e.g., sacrifice design freedom for greater certainty of established processes in terms of material properties, reliability, etc.).

Priority: Medium

Organization: ISO/ASTM, AWS, SAE, SME

Status of Progress: Green (SME) in terms of a tool providing general guidance, though not a standard

Update: No standards are planned or in development. Commercial tools are available. SME and its ITEAM (Independent Technical Evaluation of Additive Manufacturing) are developing the RAPID Additive Manufacturing Platform (RAMP). The Additive Manufacturing Equipment and Materials Repository, a core aspect of RAMP, was released in beta, with beta testing continuing during the summer of 2018. The SAM-CT demo evaluation application will utilize RAMP. Application providers are being encouraged to develop additional additive manufacturing evaluation applications.

Gap D2: Decision Support: Additive Processes. The version 1.0 gap stated that there is no standard that normalizes the characteristics of the general AM process and ranks the pros/cons or strengths/weaknesses of each process, allowing users to make informed decisions about which AM process best suits their need. In 2017, ISO/ASTM published ISO/ASTM 52910-17, Standard Guidelines for Design for Additive Manufacturing (work item previously known as ASTM WK38342). The standard briefly addresses AM process selection, providing an example of a high-level diagram and with section 6.8.2, specific process considerations. However, additional standards may be needed to address trade-off criteria between processes.

R&D Needed: Yes. R&D is needed to identify trade-off criteria.

Recommendation: Continue work to complement what has been published in ISO/ASTM 52910:2017. Focus on identification of trade-off criteria between processes. There is still a need to develop a standard for reporting process inputs and capabilities.

Priority: Medium

Organization: National labs and government agencies for the R&D. ISO/TC 261 & ASTM F42 for the standards work.

Status of Progress: Green Gap partially closed in relation to standards with the publication of ISO/ASTM 52910-17.

Update: The gap statement and recommendation have been updated in light of the publication of ISO/ASTM 52910-17.

10/17/2019, LY: Updated release of ISO/ASTM 52910-18, Additive manufacturing — Design — Requirements, guidelines and recommendations.
ISO TC261/ASTM F42 JG54 is in development of PWI 52923 Additive Manufacturing - Design Decision Support to provide support for process selection, including the identification of trade-off criteria.

There are no available AM process-specific design guidelines. The design guidelines currently being developed by JG 57 are process-specific design guidelines under joint development by ASTM F42 and ISO/TC 261. ASTM and ISO identify 7 types of AM processes, meaning that 6 AM processes do not have guidelines under development.

R&D Needed: No, for the guidelines on PBF. Not yet determined for the other six processes.

Recommendation: Complete work on the ISO/ASTM JG 57 design guidelines for PBF. Develop guidelines for the six other AM processes defined in ISO/ASTM 52900:2015, Additive manufacturing -- General principles – Terminology.

Priority: Medium

Organization: insert text editable by staff only

Status of Progress: Green (ISO/ASTM) for PBF. Green (AWS) for PBF and DED. Not Started for the other processes defined in ISO/ASTM 52900.

Update: As noted in the text, ISO/ASTM JG 57 design guidelines are being developed for PBF-L for metals and polymers. Work on electron beam continues. AWS D20.1 will address PBF and DED, as noted in the text.

10/17/2019, LY: JG57 standards have been published as:
ISO/ASTM 52911-1-19, Additive manufacturing — Design — Part 1: Laser-based powder bed fusion of metals has been published.
ISO/ASTM 52911-2-19, Additive manufacturing — Design — Part 2: Laser-based powder bed fusion of polymers has been published.

4/4/2019, LY: The AWS recently published a new standard on AM, AWS D20.1/D20.1M:2019 Specification for Fabrication of Metal Components using Additive Manufacturing

As industry fields mature in particular AM applications, best practices should be recorded.

R&D Needed: TBD

Recommendation: It is recommended that any application-specific design guides extend available process-independent and process-specific design guides. However, application-specific design guidelines may also need to be developed by their respective communities, and in such cases these guidelines may fall under respective societies or SDOs. For instance, a design guideline for printed electronics may be best suited for an organization such as IEEE or IPC.

Priority: High.

Organization: ASME, SAE, ASTM F42/ISO TC 261, and potentially other SDOs et al. (e.g., manufacturers, industry consortia)

Status of Progress: Green

Update: ASME is working on design guides for pressure retaining equipment (e.g., pressure vessels). Other SDOs need to consult with their committees. Some of the SAE process specifications may address this.

10/17/2019, LY: ASTM F42.07 Applications has been formed to begin to address application-specific needs, including design.

Producing the same part on different machines from different manufacturers and often the same manufacturer will return different results. While process and application guidelines will provide meaningful insight, additional tailoring may be needed for specific instantiations. Guidelines on how to extend process and application guidelines would allow users to further adapt and specify to fit individual needs.

R&D Needed: Yes. Customizable guidelines require understanding process/machine/design characteristics and subsequent tradeoffs.

Recommendation: As machines are benchmarked and calibrated (see Gap PC2), designers should have mechanisms available to them that will provide operational constraints on their available AM processes. Designers should understand what geometric and process liberties might be taken for their particular implementation.

Priority: Medium

Organization: ISO/ASTM

Status of Progress: Green

Update: ASTM WK54856, New Guide for Principles of Design Rules in Additive Manufacturing, has an expected release date of late 2018/early 2019.

10/17/2019, LY: Expected release date of Early 2020.

In addition to design guidelines, complementary efforts have been initiated under ASTM Committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing Technologies (F42) to support the development of standardized design rules. Guidelines that are in development rely heavily on graphics/drawings and narrative through natural language, leaving often subjective interpretations. ASTM WK54856, New Guide for Principles of Design Rules in Additive Manufacturing, under development in ASTM F42, aims to provide explicit constructs from which explicit design rules can be developed and customized. These constructs will also provide a machine interpretable language that will support software implementation. The standard has an expected release date of late 2018/early 2019.

R&D Needed: Yes. The identification of fundamental constructs should mirror key characteristics and decision criteria for designs, materials, and processes.

Recommendation: Standardize a language that can be interpreted by both humans and machines so that design for AM can be simplified and communicated across platforms, and constraints can be encoded into design software.

Priority: Medium

Organization: ASTM, ISO, ASME, IEEE-ISTO PWG

Status of Progress: Green

Update: This gap is being addressed by ASTM WK54856.

There is a need for a design guide for post-processing.

R&D Needed: Yes.

Recommendation: Develop a design guide for post processing

Priority: Medium

Organization: ASME B46, ASTM F42/ISO TC 261

Status of Progress: Not Started

Update: ASME is not working on a design guide but ASME B46 Committee is working on measurement and characterization methods for AM surface finish. ISO/ASTM 52910-17, Standard Guidelines for Design for Additive Manufacturing has been published and includes a high-level discussion of design considerations for post-processing but more detailed design guides addressing specific AM processes, materials, and applications are needed.

A standard for reporting machine input requirements and the associated AM machine capabilities is required to support new design tools which will be able to determine manufacturing feasibility, optimize manufacturing solutions, and identify AM equipment which would be able to manufacture the part.

R&D Needed: No

Recommendation: Develop a standard for reporting machine inputs such as printing parameters, laser track, etc. and machine capabilities such as dimensional accuracy, surface finish, material properties, geometry constraints (over hang angle requirements), size, porosity, etc. These reports would be used by software to accomplish the following:

  • Topology Optimization
  • Optimize manufacturing solutions
  • Identification of suitable AM equipment
  • Build Simulation
  • Lattice structure generation
  • Spatial comparisons (e.g., common standard grid)

See also Gap D20 on neutral build format.

Priority: Medium

Organization: Consortium of industry, ISO/ASTM, IEEE-ISTO PWG

Status of Progress: Not Started

Update: ASTM has a guide for storage of technical build cycle data which may address some of this.

A standard for a process-specific AM benchmark model/part is needed to enable verification and validation (V&V) of applicable process simulation tools.

R&D Needed: Yes. R&D is needed for characterizing processes using consistent, measurable and precise techniques.

Recommendation: Develop a standardized design for AM process chain that specifies and integrates the key AM considerations and suggested design tools in each generic design stage. The process chain can be expanded from ISO/ASTM 52910-2017, Standard Guidelines for Design for Additive Manufacturing stages and complimented with design tools to address specific AM needs for each task within the stages. The standardized design for AM process chain can be used by various industries to roll out site-specific DFAM process and digitalization implementation.

Priority: Low

Organization: NIST, America Makes, ASME V&V, ISO/ASTM

Status of Progress: Yellow

Update: An AM Bench Consortium led by NIST has been started.

10/17/2019, LY: AM Bench 2018 was hosted by NIST. All related data used for testing models and simulation tools can be found here: https://www.nist.gov/ambench and here: https://ammd.nist.gov. A future AM Bench is in planning.

Guidelines do not exist for AM design for as-built assembly which is the ability of an AM process to create an assembly with multiple parts with relative motion capabilities in a single build. Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA) practices do not account for considerations of single build AM assemblies and assemblies constructed from individual AM parts. Design approaches may need to account for complexity of support structures, removal times, post-processing complexity, and manufacturing time/quality using different parameter sets. In regard to parameters sets, factors of interest could include feed rate and diameters for Directed Energy Deposition (DED), layer thickness and laser scan speed for PBF. Furthermore, how these all factors interact must also be considered.

R&D Needed: Yes. Additional research is needed related to individual AM part definition, including tolerances, and non-contact measurement and inspection methods for AM assemblies. If AM design for as-built assembly is to become a viable alternative for creating functioning assemblies, there needs to be rigorous academic research, practical pilot projects, and real industry use cases. These are critical elements in identifying the gaps that will result in the tailoring of existing standards and the development of new standards for AM design for as-built assembly.

Recommendation: ISO 8887-1:2017 and other DFMA standards can be reviewed and further developed to address AM related issues.

Priority: Medium

Organization: Organization: R&D: Academia, industry, national laboratories. Standards: ISO, ASTM, AAMI, NEMA/MITA

Status of Progress: New

Update: None provided

There is a need to develop standards on design for 3D printed electronics.

R&D Needed: No

Recommendation: Complete work on IPC-2292, Design Standard for Printed Electronics on Flexible Substrates.

Priority: Medium

Organization: IPC

Status of Progress: Closed, with the publication of IPC 2292

Update: IPC 2292 was published in March 2018. The IPC D-66A, 3D Printed Electronics Processes Task Group is in the early stages of developing a table of contents for a process guideline standard. This activity will take a considerable amount of time because there are so many processes, variables, materials, technologies, equipment, process environments, etc., to consider. With respect to the development of a design standard like IPC-2292, the group is of the view that it is far too early in the maturation of this technology to develop design requirements, but they will revisit this topic at future meetings. See also Gap D4.

7/15/2019, LY: Updated link for IPC D-66A: IPC D-66A, 3D Printed Electronics Processes Task Group [Note: link is correct, but takes a long time to load]

There are currently no standard best practices for creation of protocols and validation procedures to ensure that medical imaging data can be consistently and accurately transformed into a 3D printed object. Individual companies have developed internal best practices, training programs and site qualification procedures. The details of a device’s individual imaging and validation plan is developed specifically for each process or product. However, a set of consensus best practices for developing these plans and key validation metrics could reduce the overhead in developing them and reduce the burden on imaging sites. This framework should rely on input from clinical experts to ensure that it accounts for and defers to clinical best practices where appropriate.

R&D Needed: No. The information is housed within individual institutions and could be combined through participation in clinical associations, consortiums or standards development organizations.

Recommendation: Develop a set of best practices for the development and qualification of imaging protocols and imaging sites that provide inputs to patient-matched devices. The focus should be on validation metrics and standard reference parts (phantoms) that can either be simple geometric patterns, or more appropriately designed to mimic the shape and density of natural anatomy so that the fidelity of an imaging sequence can be measured and calibrated.

Priority: Medium

Organization: RSNA (Radiological Society of North America), ASTM F42/ISO TC 261 JG 70, DICOM

Status of Progress: Green

Update: An RSNA 3D Special Interest Group (SIG) is working on best practices, not a standard. ISO/ASTM NP 52916, Additive manufacturing -- Data formats -- Standard specification for optimized medical image data from ISO/TC 261 JG 70 deals with imaging quality. This is a secondary priority for the DICOM WG.

10/17/2019, LY: ISO/IEC JTC1 WG12 for “3D Printing and Scanning” has been established. The WG is developing a work item “Information Technology— Requirements of Image Processing for covering cranial defect” to address medical image processing.

Data acquired as a stack of 2D images is converted to a 3D model that could be a device by itself or be a template to build the device on. Tissues such as bone, soft tissue and vascular structures are isolated by the process of segmentation. Variability of the output depends on factors such as spatial and grey scale resolution of the images which in turn are driven by other factors such as the x-ray dosage, MRI protocol, operator capability, and reconstruction algorithms. Computational modeling groups, software developers, research laboratories, and the FDA have investigated methods of validating segmentation processes. However, the wide variety of patient geometries, frequent inability to identify a ground truth due to imaging constraints, and variability in the manual aspects of imaging have caused validation procedures to be developed by individual entities.

R&D Needed: Yes. Data to develop protocols exists but there is still a need for standardized, physiologically relevant imaging phantoms that can be used to challenge many segmentation techniques.

Recommendation: 1) Develop a standard test method to use biomimetic imaging phantoms to validate a segmentation technique. Round robin testing of this type of test method is highly recommended. Best practices may include capturing enough information to set accurate threshold values and understand geometric norms for a data set of interest. 2) Develop training standards that operators must meet to ensure that they are able to adequately reproduce a validated image processing pipeline.

Priority: Medium

Organization: Methods: NEMA/MITA, ASME V&V 40, ASTM F4, ASTM F42/ISO TC 261. Phantoms: NIST, FDA, RSNA

Status of Progress: Green

Update: On the R&D side, FDA research groups are developing phantoms but haven't yet interfaced with SDOs. On the standards side, ISO/ASTM NP 52916, Additive manufacturing -- Data formats -- Standard specification for optimized medical image data from ISO/TC 261 JG 70 covers this gap. An RSNA SIG is also looking at this.

10/17/2019, LY: ISO/IEC JTC1 WG12 for “3D Printing and Scanning” has been established. The WG is developing a work item “Information Technology— Requirements of Image Processing for covering cranial defect” to address medical image processing.

Currently there are no design guidelines for medical devices to assure cleanability after production. When designing a medical device, cleanability must be evaluated at different stages for a number of reasons:

  • To ensure manufacturing residues/contact materials encountered during the manufacturing process can be removed
  • To ensure that unmelted/unsintered AM material from the manufacturing process can be removed
  • For devices that are to be sterilized prior to use, to ensure that a sterilization test soil can be placed at the most difficult location to sterilize so that the validation will accurately show if foreign bodies picked up during the manufacturing process can either be killed or removed from the device prior to sterilization
  • For reusable devices, to ensure the device can be adequately cleaned and sterilized prior to subsequent uses
  • For reusable devices, to ensure that the device materials can be maintained for the specified number of cleaning cycles

R&D Needed: Yes, in terms of ways to determine what parts are likely to be cleanable before they are made

Recommendation: Develop design guidelines to provide general design limits and recommendations that achieve both needed surface structure and allow adequate cleaning. See also Gap FMP3 and Gap QC15.

Priority: Medium

Organization: AAMI, ASTM F4, ASTM F42/ISO TC 261, ISO/TC 198, ASME (surface metrology), FDA

Status of Progress: Not Started

Update: AAMI and ASTM have an interest and are meeting. FDA is also looking at this.

No standards are available for the design of test coupons for additively-manufactured porous structures.

R&D Needed: Yes. Effects on what is in the build and how well can you replicate your feature of interest.

Recommendation: Standards are needed for the design of test coupons for additively-manufactured porous structures.

Priority: Low

Organization: ASTM F4 and F42

Status of Progress: Green

Update: ASTM F4 is looking at this.

Functionally graded materials are materials with variation in the composition or structure in order to vary the material properties (e.g., stiffness, density, thermal conductivity, etc.). Standard methods of specifying and verifying functionally graded materials currently do not exist. Furthermore, there are no guidelines on considerations when validating their performance.

R&D Needed: Yes

Recommendation: Update existing test guidelines for metals and polymers with considerations for materials that have graded properties. If the grade itself needs to be verified versus only its performance, new test methods may be needed. This is a broad topic however and depends on what is being evaluated.

Priority: Low

Organization: ASTM F4 and F42, SAE AMS-AM, ASME, ISO/TC 261 JG 67

Status of Progress: Not Started

Update: ASME Y14.46 discusses the specification of functionally graded materials. New efforts are focusing on verification of lattice FGM specifications.

10/17/2019, LY: ISO TC261/ASTM F42 JG67 is developing a technical report that addresses design opportunities and challenges of functionally graded materials, ASTM CD TR 52912, Additive manufacturing - Design - Functionally graded additive manufacturing.

The contents of a TDP that is sufficiently complete such that it could be provided to a vendor and result in components that are identical in physical and performance characteristics has not been defined.

R&D Needed: Yes

Recommendation: Develop a standard (or revise MIL-STD-31000A, Technical Data Packages) to describe all required portions of a TDP and adopt them into a formal standard. The standard should address at a minimum:

  • Performance/functional requirements (form, fit assembly)
  • Qualification requirements
  • Definition of “as-designed” part, versus “as-printed” part, versus “finished” part
  • Post-processing requirements (including finishing, removal of parts from AM machine such as separation from build plate)
  • Applicable AM process
  • Tailorable and non-tailorable build parameters
  • Cybersecurity requirements (if necessary)
  • Long term archival and retrieval process (including acquisition)

Priority: High.

Organization: ASME Y14.46, ASME Y14.47, ASTM F2/ISO TC 261, DoD AFRL, NIST, SAE G-33

Status of Progress: Green

Update: NIST has been involved in developing a number of component standards with various SDOs. DoD is pushing for a standard that defines the contents of a TDP to cover DoD products. DoD is in the process of updating 31000A2 revision B. ASME Y14.47, Model Organization Schema Practices, is based on Appendix B of MIL-STD-31000A. It should be available by the second quarter of 2018. DoD representatives are involved in the development of Y14.47 and Y14.46, which has a section specific to AM data packages. SAE G-33’s SAE EIA649C, Configuration Management Standard, targeted for publication in the third quarter of 2018, provides guidance on specification control. There is a joint WG for digital product definition and data management under ASTM/ISO (JG 73).

10/17/2019, LY: ISO TC261/ASTM F42 JG73 is actively developing PWI 52951 “Additive manufacturing — Data packages for AM parts” and has an early draft to be balloted in 2020.

7/18/2019, LY: ASME Y14.47 was published in February 2019.

5/8/2019, LY: SAE’s G-33 Configuration Management Committee released SAE EIA649C, Configuration Management Standard in February 2019.

4/4/2019, LY: MIL-STD-31000A has been revised; MIL-STD-31000B is the latest version and was released on 31 Oct 2018.

Although ASME Y14.41, Digital Product Definition Data Practices and other standards provide some capability in addressing some of the challenges in documenting AM designs, significant gaps still remain. ASME Y14.46 will address these gaps.

&D Needed: No

Recommendation: Complete work on ASME Y14.46. See also Gap D26 on measurement of AM features/verifying the designs of features such as lattices, etc.

Priority: High.

Organization: ASME Y14.46, ASME Y14.48, NIST

Status of Progress: Green

Update: ASME Y14.46-2017, Product Definition for Additive Manufacturing [Draft Standard for Trial Use] has been published and items within the standard related to this gap are still under development pending final approval. ASME Y14.48 on Universal Direction may also be relevant but that will not be available for another year or two. NIST provides a vice chair of the Y14 subcommittee 46.

10/17/2019, LY: ASME Y14.46 is transitioning out of draft status. Use cases have been explored to identify gaps in the standard and new material is being developed for incorporation into future version. See D26

.

AM parts are intrinsically tied to their digital definition. In the event of a design modification, proper methods of configuration and parameter curation are needed for verification. This could include verification of the digital material parameters, process parameters, or software version, if applicable. A comprehensive schema for organizing related information in an AM digital product definition data set will provide traceable, consistent data content and structure to consumers of the data.

R&D Needed: No

Recommendation:ASME Y14.47, Model Organization Schema Practices, formerly known as Y14.41.1 may partially address this gap but AM related aspects need to be further developed. This standard should be available by the second quarter of 2018. ASME Y14.47 is based on Appendix B of MIL-STD-31000A. ASME could also consider multiple schemas (e.g., scan data) that are not currently under consideration within Y14.47. ASME Y14.47 and ISO/TC 10 could incorporate the digital configuration control into their developing standards if they have not already. SAE's G-33 Configuration Management Committee is developing SAE EIA649C, Configuration Management Standard, which is targeted for publication by the third quarter of 2018.

Priority: High.

Organization: ASME Y14.47, ISO/TC 10, ASTM F42/ISO TC 261 JG 73, NIST, SAE G-33

Status of Progress: Green

Update: As noted in the recommendation.

10/17/2019, LY: ISO TC261/ASTM F42 JG73 is actively developing PWI 52951 “Additive manufacturing — Data packages for AM parts” and has an early draft to be balloted in 2020. This effort addresses configuration of data packages to support different levels of control.

7/15/2019, LY: The revision to Technical Data Packages, MIL-STD-31000B, has since been published.

5/23/2019, LY: ASME Y14.47 was published in February 2019.

5/9/2019, LY: SAE’s G-33 Configuration Management Committee released SAE EIA649C, Configuration Management Standard in February 2019.

No published or in development standards or specifications have been identified that incorporate build path or feedstock into a neutral file format. Further, many other parameters remain unsupported. Ideally, the same file could be used as the input into an AM machine regardless of the vendor of the machine and provide for a uniform output. Industry should work to coalesce around one industry standard for AM file format, which will help to better enable qualification of a design. However, the unique technologies of the different vendors could make such an effort challenging.

R&D Needed: Yes

Recommendation: Develop a new standard for the computer-interpretable representation and exchange of additive manufacturing product information that can represent all of the applicable slice files, build path, and feedstock, as well as the other applicable parameters into a single file format. This file would be used to exchange data between AM vendors and have the capability to be used instead of both the job files and material perimeter sets. This file format could make use of standard image formats and capture enough information to facilitate size, orientation and color normalization in post-processing of data. See also Gap D8 on machine input and capability report.

Priority: Low

Organization: ISO/TC 184/SC4, ISO/TC 261/ASTM F42, consortium of industry, IEEE-ISTO PWG

Status of Progress: Not Started, or Unknown

Update: None provided

While some AM terminology standards already exist, they do not include certain terms referred to in design documentation. Terminology in a TDP needs to be clear.

R&D Needed: No

Recommendation: ASME Y14.46 has identified terms for design documentation that are not defined in existing AM terminology standards. Once this work is completed, it should be referred to ISO/TC 261 and ASTM F42 for inclusion in existing standards such as ISO/ASTM 52900:2015, Additive manufacturing -- General principles – Terminology.

Priority: Medium

Organization: ASME, ISO/ASTM

Status of Progress: Green

Update: ASME Y14.46-2017, Product Definition for Additive Manufacturing [Draft Standard for Trial Use] has been published. ASME Y14.46 references ISO/ASTM AM terminology standards (ISO/ASTM 52900 and ISO/ASTM 52921) as much as possible but also had to create new AM terminology specific to AM Product Definition. The ASME Y14.46 AM-related terms were sent to ASTM. Since Y14.46 is a draft standard for trial use, comments are being accepted and there may be significant changes to the draft standard.

10/17/2019, LY: NIST and Pennsylvania State University are leading an AM Data Management working group. This working group is developing a Common Data Dictionary to facilitate the exchange of AM data. ISO TC261/ASTM F42 JG73 efforts with PWI 52951 include the explicit identification of parameters to be controlled in different configurations of the data package.

There is a lack of standards for validated physics - and properties-based predictive models for AM that incorporate geometric accuracy, material properties, defects, surface characteristics, residual stress, microstructure properties, and other characteristics (NIST, 2013). No standardized data models or documentation have been identified for in-process monitoring and analytics. Given the current state of the technology, this is not surprising.

R&D Needed: Yes. R&D is needed to understand what in-process monitoring data is needed for verification and validation of the part. Research efforts have been undertaken that are devoted to the development of predictive computational models and simulations to understand the dynamics and complexity of heat and phase transformations. Although computational models and simulations are promising tools to understand the physics of the process, lack of quantitative representation of their prediction accuracy hinders further application in process control and optimization. Due to this reason, it is very challenging to select suitable models for the intended purpose. Therefore, it is important to study and investigate the degree of accuracy and uncertainty associated with AM models.

Recommendation: Develop standards for predictive computational modeling and simulation tools that link measured in-process monitoring data with product properties, quality, and consistency, as an important aspect of innovative structural design (NIST, 2013). See also Gap PC16 on in-process monitoring to obtain a layer-by-layer (3D) file or quality record showing the as-built part is defect-free or contains no critical flaws, or exhibits an in-family (nominal) response when interrogated during the build.

Priority: Medium

Organization: ASTM F42, ASME, IEEE-ISTO PWG

Status of Progress: Green

Update: Office of Naval Research (ONR) is also researching this through their Quality Made program. NIST is developing a publically available schema for metals that may apply.

10/17/2019, LY: (In addition to ONR Quality Made Program) NIST and Pennsylvania State University are leading an AM Data Management working group. This working group is developing a Common Data Dictionary to facilitate the exchange of AM data, including process monitoring information. Data models for process monitoring and simulation can be found here: https://ammd.nist.gov and here: https://www.nist.gov/ambench.

There is a need for a specification on design documentation for intentionally introducing new bulk or surface geometries which can be created through AM.

R&D Needed: No

Recommendation: ASME Y14.46 should consider an annex describing a method to document functional and complex geometric features.

Priority: Low

Organization: ASME

Status of Progress: Green

Update: As noted in the recommendation. ASME Y14.46-2017, Product Definition for Additive Manufacturing [Draft Standard for Trial Use] has been published.

10/17/2019, LY: ASME Y14.46 is transitioning out of draft status. Use cases have been explored to identify gaps in the standard and new material is being developed for incorporation into future version.

A specification is needed to procure AM parts from third parties.

R&D Needed: No

Recommendation: ASTM should complete work on WK51282, New Guide for Additive Manufacturing, General Principles, Requirements for Purchased AM Parts.

Priority: Medium

Organization: ISO/ASME

Status of Progress: Closed

Update: ISO/ASTM 52901, Additive manufacturing - General Principles - Requirements for Purchased AM Parts was published in 2017. WK51282 was the earlier ASTM work item

As noted in Gap D18, working groups are currently developing methods to standardize the geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) of AM parts. As these mature, existing V&V methods of checking part conformance to GD&T specifications must be investigated for their compatibility with AM. As part of the design process for AM, the availability of methods to measure and verify AM-unique features must be considered, especially to meet critical performance requirements. This may result in adapting existing NDE methods or creating new methods. This will likely be relevant when measuring AM features such as helixes or other complex shapes, or internal features that are not compatible with common methods such as Go/NoGo gauges or coordinate measuring machines (CMM). Especially in the case of internal features, assessing the ability of ultrasonic or radiographic methods to validate high tolerances will be required.

R&D Needed: Yes, investigation of high resolution radiographic and ultrasonic methods and the maximum achievable resolution and accuracy for GD&T of complex AM designs.

Recommendation: As GD&T standards continue to develop, perform parallel investigations of validation methods to ensure V&V is possible. See also Gap NDE4, Dimensional Metrology of Internal Features.

Priority: Medium

Organization: ISO/TC 261/ASTM F42, ASTM E07.01, ASTM E07.02, ASME B89, ASME Y14.46, ISO/TC 10

Status of Progress: Not Started

Update: A standard on methods to verify that complex AM parts meet design requirements is needed. ASME Y14.46-2017, Product Definition for Additive Manufacturing [Draft Standard for Trial Use] will address how to document AM-unique design features, but not how to inspect/verify the design. Y14.46 included a non-mandatory appendix with guidance on quality assurance (QA) parameters and references that may be used to develop design validation methods. ASME B89 (dimensional metrology) is working jointly with Y14.46. ISO/ASTM 52910-17, Standard Guidelines for Design for Additive Manufacturing provides guidance for AM designers to “work with their quality groups to ascertain if appropriate inspection and qualification processes are available or need to be developed for the types of parts that they are designing.”

10/17/2019, LY: ASME Y14.46 is transitioning out of draft status. Use cases have been explored to identify gaps in the standard and new material is being developed for incorporation into future version, including challenges with inspection. See D18.

A standardized design is needed for AM process chain integrating key AM considerations/design tools in each design stage.

R&D Needed: Yes

Recommendation: Develop a standardized design for AM process chain that specifies and integrates the key AM considerations and suggested design tools in each generic design stage. The process chain can be expanded from ISO/ASTM 52910-2017, Standard Guidelines for Design for Additive Manufacturing stages and complimented with design tools to address specific AM needs for each task within the stages. The standardized design for AM process chain can be used by various industries to roll out site-specific DFAM process and digitalization implementation.

Priority: Medium

Organization: ASTM F42/ISO TC 261 JG 73, NIST

Status of Progress: New

Update: None provided

10/17/2019, LY: ISO TC261/ASTM F42 JG73 efforts with PWI 52951 will address file formats and the integration and preservation of information across the process chain.

There is a need for a specification on desired surface finishes of AM parts that can later be measured and validated against. Current surface finish metrics, such as Ra, do not adequately specify surface finish requirements.

R&D Needed: Yes

Recommendation: ASME should continue its work to develop ASME B46.1-2009, Surface Texture (Surface Roughness, Waviness, and Lay), to address specification requirements of AM surface finishes.

Priority: Medium

Organization: ASME

Status of Progress: New

Update: None provided