Cited by 1,469Additive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesNon-Destructive Testing Techniques

Review of in-situ process monitoring and in-situ metrology for metal additive manufacturing

Open access
Everton, Sarah K., Hirsch, Matthias, Stravroulakis, Petros, Leach, Richard K., Clare, Adam T.·2016·Materials & Design

Abstract

Lack of assurance of quality with additively manufactured (AM) parts is a key technological barrier that prevents manufacturers from adopting AM technologies, especially for high-value applications where component failure cannot be tolerated. Developments in process control have allowed significant enhancement of AM techniques and marked improvements in surface roughness and material properties, along with a reduction in inter-build variation and the occurrence of embedded material discontinuities. As a result, the exploitation of AM processes continues to accelerate. Unlike established subtractive processes, where in-process monitoring is now commonplace, factory-ready AM processes have not yet incorporated monitoring technologies that allow discontinuities to be detected in process. Researchers have investigated new forms of instrumentation and adaptive approaches which, when integrated, will allow further enhancement to the assurance that can be offered when producing AM components. The state-of-the-art with respect to inspection methodologies compatible with AM processes is explored here. Their suitability for the inspection and identification of typical material discontinuities and failure modes is discussed with the intention of identifying new avenues for research and proposing approaches to integration into future generations of AM systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.matdes.2016.01.099

Cites

102 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Powder-based processes are prone to issues of porosity, lack-of-fusion, balling, and cracks, while geometry deviation, shape shrinkage, surface imperfections, layer misalignment, and adhesion issues are the main concerns in the FFF processes.

    “Powder-based processes are prone to issues of porosity, lackof-fusion, balling, and cracks [428,430,431], while geometry deviation, shape shrinkage, surface imperfections, layer misalignment, and adhesion issues [432-435] are the main concerns in the FFF processes.”

    From A comprehensive review of lunar-based manufacturing and construction (2024) · cites this paper as [428]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Efficient quality assurance and monitoring technologies to detect the onset of defects and control the printing process are also crucial.

    “Efficient quality assurance and monitoring technologies to detect the onset of defects and control the printing process are also crucial [428,429].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. AM Special Interest Group, in: T.S. Board (Ed.), Shaping our national competency in additive manufacturing, Online: UK Government, 2012.
  2. G.T. Loughnane, S.L. Kuntz, N. Klingbeil, J.M. Sosa, J. Irwin, A.R. Nassar, et al., Appli- cation of a microstructural characterization uncertainty quantification framework to Widmanstätten alpha-laths in additive manufactured Ti-6Al-4V, 26th Interna- tional Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium; Austin, TX, 2015.
  3. M. Klein, T. Sienicki, J. Eichenbergeer, Inventor slaser-ultrasonic detection of sub- surface defects in processed metals, United States 2007 4th October, 2005.
  4. H. Reider, A. Dillhöfer, M. Spies, J. Bamberg, T. Hess, Online Monitoring of Additive Manufacturing Processes Using Ultrasound 11th European Conference on Non- Destructive Testing, Czech Republic, Prague, 2014.
  5. S. Naito, S. Yamamoto, S. Yamamoto, Novel X-ray backscatter technique for detect- ing crack below deposit, 7th International Conference on NDE in Relation to Struc- tural Integrity for Nuclear and Pressurized Components; 12th-15th May 2009; Yokohama, Japan, 2010.
  6. M. Abolbashhari, A.S. Gerges, A. Davies, Dual Moiré and laser interferometry as a metrology tool, 27th ASPE Annual Meeting; San Diego, CA: Conference Proceed- ings 2012, pp. 256-259.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Everton, S. K., Hirsch, M., Stravroulakis, P., Leach, R. K., & Clare, A. T.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Everton, Sarah K.
Venue
Materials & Design
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-04
Volume
95
Pages
431-445
ISSN
0264-1275 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2250894080
Cited by
1,469
References
102
Citations by year
2026: 134 · 2025: 133 · 2024: 125 · 2023: 152 · 2022: 192 · 2021: 204 · 2020: 181 · 2019: 155 · 2018: 128 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 17
FWCI
102.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Materials & Design (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • UK Research Centre in Non-Destructive Evaluation (EP/L022125/1)
  • In-situ monitoring of component integrity during additive manufacturing using optical coherence tomography (EP/L01713X/1)
  • Metrology for precision and additive manufacturing (EP/M008983/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Non-Destructive Testing Techniques
Keywords
metal additive manufacturing, in-situ process monitoring, in-situ metrology, process control, quality assurance, material discontinuities, failure modes, inspection methods, embedded discontinuities, adaptive process control

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review