Virtual and Physical Prototyping

ISSN: 1745-2759 (Print) 1745-2767 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nvpp20

Applications of non-destructive testing

techniques for post-process control of additively
manufactured parts

Q. Y. Lu & C. H. Wong

To cite this article: Q. Y. Lu & C. H. Wong (2017): Applications of non-destructive testing

techniques for post-process control of additively manufactured parts, Virtual and Physical
Prototyping, DOI: 10.1080/17452759.2017.1357319

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2017.1357319

Published online: 02 Aug 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 37

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nvpp20

Download by: [University of Connecticut] Date: 31 August 2017, At: 21:56

 VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2017.1357319

Applications of non-destructive testing techniques for post-process control of

additively manufactured parts
Q. Y. Lu and C. H. Wong
Singapore Centre for 3D Printing, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper presents an overview on the principle of operation for post-process inspection non- Received 2 July 2017
destructive testing (NDT) techniques. The techniques include visual inspection, liquid penetrant Accepted 17 July 2017
testing, magnetic particle testing, eddy current testing, ultrasonic testing, and radiography. The
KEYWORDS
applications of these NDT techniques in additive manufacturing (AM) and their suitability for Non-destructive testing
defects detection of additively manufactured parts are reviewed. The sensitivity, and the (NDT); additive
advantages and disadvantages of each technique are evaluated. The types of defect, and the manufacturing (AM)
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017

detectability of these defects by NDT techniques are assessed. The applicability of each NDT
technique for different categories of AM process is discussed. The categories of AM are, namely,
material extrusion, powder bed fusion, vat photopolymerisation, material jetting, binder jetting,
sheet lamination, and directed energy deposition.

1. Introduction Carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP), which has high

specific strength-to-weight ratio is a favoured material
Non-destructive testing (NDT) techniques are used in
for unmanned aerial vehicle applications. Conventional
manufacturing and in-service inspections to ensure the
production entails a complex route and requires a
product’s integrity, quality, and reliability (Boyes 2009).
mould for fabricating CRFP materials. AM technologies
Continual advancements in NDT instruments are driven
including stereolithography (SLA) and fused deposition
by the growing need in establishing control of manufac-
modelling (FDM) can manufacture CFRP with ease (Goh
turing processes and maintaining a uniform quality level
et al. 2017). Titanium cabin bracket connectors produced
of the product. In this review, post-process inspection
by AM are used in Airbus A350 XWB. In comparison to
methods including visual inspection, liquid penetrant
milling and machining of aluminium alloy, the connec-
testing, magnetic particle testing, eddy current testing,
tors are now made of titanium powder material,
ultrasonic testing, and radiography are studied.
leading to more than 30% weight reduction (Kumar
Additive manufacturing (AM) is the process of fabri-
and Krishnadas Nair 2017).
cating objects from a three-dimensional (3D) compu-
Due to the wide range of applications for additively
ter-aided design (CAD) data where materials are laid
manufactured parts, NDT techniques suitable for the
layer-by-layer (Chua et al. 2017). In contrast to conven-
identification of both surface and internal features of a
tional machining methods such as milling and grinding,
part is highly desired for the consistency of its quality.
which are subtractive in nature, AM produces the final
This is due to major concerns regarding the repeatability
shape of the part by the addition of materials (Huang
and reliability of the technology from part-to-part, and
et al. 2013). AM has seven categories of technologies.
machine-to-machine. The applications of NDT tech-
The categories are, namely, material extrusion, powder
niques used in AM industry are discussed. The applica-
bed fusion, vat photopolymerisation, material jetting,
bility of each NDT technique for different categories of
binder jetting, sheet lamination, and directed energy
AM process is examined.
deposition (ASTM International 2015).
AM is suitable for a broad range of applications
(Gibson et al. 2010a). AM is used to fabricate tissue con-
2. Post-process inspection NDT methods
structs for the rectification or replacement of damaged
human tissues and organs in the biomedical field. Traditional NDT techniques can be used as post-process
Material extrusion technology is applied for the printing inspection methods in accordance to existing standards
of tailored breast prostheses (Melchels et al. 2012). on additively manufactured parts. These techniques

CONTACT C. H. Wong chwong@ntu.edu.sg

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2 Q. Y. LU AND C. H. WONG
include visual inspection, liquid penetrant testing, mag-
netic particle testing, eddy current testing, ultrasonic
testing, and radiography. Some of these techniques
including visual inspection, and ultrasonic testing can
also be used as in situ inspection NDT methods.
2.1. Visual inspection
Visual inspection is the most extensively used technique
among all the non-destructive tests (Allgaier et al. 1993).
It can be performed quickly, is simple, applies to most
specimens, and is typically low in cost. Visual inspection
often serves as a pre-inspection technique to ascertain
the accuracy of the component’s fabrication, before it
is examined using other NDT techniques (Craig 2007).
The basic principle governing visual NDT is based on
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
the illumination of the specimen with light, which is
usually in the visible light region of the electromagnetic
spectrum. The specimen is then examined with eye or
light sensitive optical aids. The equipment required for
visual inspection is very simple. However, ample illumi-
nation is critical. The amount of light falling upon the
specimen can be quantified with a light meter. The
surface of the test specimen should be cleaned before
inspection is carried out (Matzkanin 2006).
The eye is the most invaluable NDT tool for visual
inspection due to its exceptional visual perception,
where it can assess visual characteristics and identify
different types of defect. It can also carry out accurate
inspections on the size, shape, colour, depth, brightness,
contrast, and texture of the test specimen. Mechanical
and or optical aids may be required for visual inspection.
Mechanical aids include apparatus such as callipers and
micrometres. Optical aids are used when direct viewing
of the test specimen is not possible. The equipment
ranges from simple mirrors to intricate devices, such as
microscopes and borescopes (Matzkanin 2006).
2.1.1. Types of defect detectable and sensitivity
Cracks, holes, corrosion, blisters, and impact damage are
some of the discontinuities that visual inspection can
detect (Allgaier et al. 1993). Possible sources of mechan-
ical fragility such as sharp notches, and the presence or
absence of oxide film on the specimen’s surface can
also be identified. In general, defects that are surface
breaking or causes deformation at the surface are detect-
able (Matzkanin 2006).
The minimum size of defects that the human eye can
distinguish is approximately 0.25 inches. The permitted
working period for a human inspector should be
limited to two hours on a continuous basis as errors
may arise due to weakened visual discrimination and
reliability. With the use of optical aids, defects smaller
than 0.25 inches can be detected through magnification.
The sensitivity then varies with the type of equipment
used (Matzkanin 2006).
2.1.2. Advantages and disadvantages
Visual inspection can be applied to systems of any size.
From large systems, such as the aircraft skin, to small
electrical circuitries, they can all be examined visually
before deciding if further tests are required. Visual
inspection systems including laptop-based systems and
borescopes are field portable, and suitable for remote
and field inspection applications. The relative cost of
inspection for visual inspection is low as compared to
other methods, ranging from nothing to a moderate
price (Smith 1991, Matzkanin 2006).
Visual inspection is restricted to surface defects detec-
tion. Internal and inaccessible regions of the test speci-
men cannot be visually examined. As this inspection
technique is subjective, and the visual perception
across individuals varies, training for the inspectors is
essential. In addition, vision testing of the inspection
requiring examinations of the eye is compulsory (Smith
1991, Craig 2007).
2.1.3. Applications of visual inspection in AM
Visual inspection has been integrated as part of the
inspection system in some AM technologies. One
example is the Realizer 50, a desktop machine with selec-
tive laser melting (SLM) technology, by ReaLizer GmbH
(ReaLizer GmbH 2012). The device is mainly applied in
the dentistry industry for the manufacturing of crown
and bridge frameworks, and brackets made of cobalt
chrome. The process chamber of the machine is
equipped with a microscope for visual inspection
during the printing of parts (Gebhardt et al. 2010).
CassaMobile has successfully developed a prototype
material extrusion machine for local and versatile pro-
duction of highly customised parts in response to
improve adaptation to customers’ requirements for local
fabrication solutions (CassaMobile 2013). The capability
to identify part failures during the primary phase of man-
ufacturing signifies the possibility to prevent premature
in-service failure of the part. The prototype is based on
an in situ monitoring concept whereby images of the
layers captured by an optical camera during printing are
compared against sliced reference images. The quality
of the printed part is quantified by identifying the pres-
ence of any deviation, if any, within an established toler-
ance between the captured and reference image
(Johnson et al. 2016). After the inspection of a given
layer, the printing process continues before another
inspection is prompted. A live feedback is provided to
the operator regarding the quality of the printed part,

and inspection can be activated at different rates. An
appropriate selection of camera, lens, and lighting is
necessary for the visual inspection of the captured
images (Johnson et al. 2016).
Armillotta has employed the use of visual inspection
in the assessment of surface quality on textured FDM
prototypes (Armillotta 2006). As the stair-stepping
effect is ineluctable due to the layered manufacturing
principle in AM, it is a main concern in relation to the
surface quality of textured prototypes. Visual inspection
has been performed at two levels for examination of
the surface quality of FDM prototypes. Firstly, the
texture appearance is verified against the reference
shape. Secondly, optical microscopy provides a more
detailed view for inspection, allowing investigation on
the possible sources of process constraints, and to
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
detect the presence of local defects (Armillotta 2006).
This aids in the investigation on the suitability of FDM
technique to a direct fabrication of rapid prototypes
with textured surfaces.
Visual inspection has also been used as a monitoring
system for powder deposition process in SLM (Craeghs
et al. 2011). A visual camera with focusing lens is
focused to the build platform to ensure an even distri-
bution of the powder particles during each layer depo-
sition. Three light sources were present to provide
sufficient illumination to the powder bed. The reasons
for the degradation in the smoothness of the powder
bed include warping of parts due to high thermal stres-
ses during SLM printing, wear and damage of recoater
blade, and an insufficient amount of feed powder. With
the aid of a visual camera and adequate lighting, these
defects can be detected using simple image processing
algorithms. Craeghs et al. (2011) detected two types of
recoater defects with the visual inspection system. The
first type of defect is due to wear of the recoater blade,
resulting in small scratches distributed across the
powder bed. The second type of defect is caused by
local damage of the recoater blade, leading to local
deep scratches in the powder bed (Craeghs et al. 2011).
2.1.4. Suitability of visual inspection for additively
manufactured parts
Visual inspection is mainly employed during the prelimi-
nary part of the overall quality management system in
AM applications. Cookies printed using solid freeform
fabrication technology were visually inspected for their
geometric fidelity to determine the suitability of the
recipe for thermally stable printable sugar cookies
(Lipton et al. 2010). Benchmarking models produced by
FDM were also visually inspected for uniformity among
features printed. For example, the presence of core
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 3
voids was examined for thin wall features, and
warpage of 45° overhangs (Johnson et al. 2011).
This NDT technique is suitable for the detection of
surface discontinues of additively manufactured parts.
It can be employed during the printing process, and as
a post-process inspection technique for surveying the
quality of parts (Craeghs et al. 2011). There is no limit-
ation on the type of material and the part’s size for
inspection. However, the detection of subsurface
defects is not possible with visual inspection. It can be
used as an inspection technique to assess the extent of
discontinuities formation before further investigation
can be performed using NDT techniques that are
capable of distinguishing subsurface defects.
2.2. Liquid penetrant testing
Liquid penetrant inspection is used to test for defects
present at the surface of parts manufactured from non-
porous materials, as illustrated in Figure 1(a). It employs
the inherent accumulation of a fluid around a discontinu-
ity to create noticeable indication of surface defects.
Capillary effects arising from surface tension due to
cohesive force between the molecules of the liquid,
and wetting properties of the material cause the liquid
to penetrate the openings on the surface (Figure 1(b))
(Boyes 2009).
The penetrating liquid, also known as the dye, is
usually either bright red (colour contrast) or fluorescent
under ultraviolet (UV) light (brightness contrast) to ease
visual inspection of defects. After the dye has penetrated
into the surface cavities of the part, excess penetrant is
removed before a thin layer of developer is applied as
shown in Figure 1(c) and (d) respectively. The main
purpose of the developer is to enhance defect visibility.
Visual inspection of the defect is then performed
(Figure 1(e)).
Penetrant inspection method is applicable on cer-
amics, plastics, moulded rubber, and glass. It is also suit-
able for metals such as titanium, copper, aluminium, and
stainless steel (Federal Aviation Administration 2008).
2.2.1. Types of defect detectable and sensitivity
Penetrant inspection has the capability to detect discon-
tinuities such as fatigue cracks, shrinkage cracks, poros-
ity, laps, and seams. It can also provide indication of a
lack of bonding between joined metals (Federal Aviation
Administration 2008).
Sensitivity can be defined as the ability of the liquid
penetrant to reveal flaws in a material. In general,
cracks with width of approximately 5 µm can be
detected using visible dye penetrant while cracks with
 4 Q. Y. LU AND C. H. WONG
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
Figure 1. Procedure for liquid penetrant test.
width ranging from 1 to 2 µm can be detected using flu-
orescent penetrant (Raj et al. 2002).
2.2.2. Advantages and disadvantages
A part can be inspected over its entire surface in a rela-
tively short period without any restrictions on the
defect’s shape, size, and orientation. Penetrant inspec-
tion is a relatively simple NDT technique in comparison
to other techniques. Test kits are available which
enable inspection to be executed at remote test sites.
In addition, this test is very economical. Reliable results
are obtained when operated by skilled inspectors.
Volume processing is possible as large batches of test
specimens can be immersed in the penetrating liquid
(Shull 2002).
The main disadvantage of this test method is its
incompatibility for porous materials. Cleaning of the
material’s surface before testing is essential, as the pene-
trant cannot enter a cavity that is filled with dirt and
grease. This method only provides indications corre-
sponding to surface discontinuities. Temperature range
limitations would imply that test specimens at low
(below 4°C) or high (49°C) temperatures cannot be
inspected with standard penetrants (Shull 2002, Federal
Aviation Administration 2008). The penetrant’s viscosity
increases with decreasing temperature. When the speci-
men’s temperature is less than 4°C, the penetration dwell
time has to be increased due to an increase in the pene-
trant’s viscosity. If the specimen’s temperature is above
49°C, the loss of volatile components alters the
composition of the penetrant, making indications less
visible (Integrated Publishing 2017).
2.2.3. Applications of liquid penetrant testing in AM
There is a scarce amount of published studies that have
investigated the use of liquid penetrant testing on addi-
tively manufactured parts (Caiazzo et al. 2013, Waller
et al. 2014). The major issue of concern in the application
of this method to additively manufactured parts is the
prerequisite for a relatively smooth examination surface.
One notable feature in additively manufactured parts
is the presence of greater amount of porosities in com-
parison to conventional wrought or moulded parts
(Waller et al. 2014). Based on the non-destructive evalu-
ation data provided by National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), liquid penetrant testing on a fab-
ricated Ti-6Al-4V specimen and a Pogo-Z baffle has high
intensities of background noise due to their inherent
surface roughness. The visuals on the results of this
experiment can found in (Waller et al. 2015).
This has illustrated the incompatibility of employing
liquid penetrant testing on additively manufactured
parts without additional post-process machining and
polishing (Waller et al. 2014). However, many of the
post-processing methods will close up or remove the
surface flaws, hampering inspection without further
processing (ASTM International 2016). Clearly, more
sensitive and non-contact NDT techniques are required
to complement liquid penetrant testing, such as ultra-
sonic testing.

2.2.4. Suitability of liquid penetrant testing for
additively manufactured parts
Without additional post-processing techniques, such as
machining and polishing, it is incompatible to use
liquid penetrant testing on additively manufactured
metal parts for defects detection. This is primarily due
to the mismatch in operation principle of liquid pene-
trant testing and the inherent surface finish of most
additively manufactured metal parts. Liquid penetrant
testing requires a smooth surface for testing, and is
unsuitable with porous materials, while the surface
finish of the additively manufactured metal parts from
powder bed fusion and directed energy deposition pro-
cesses is rough. While it has been discussed that cracks
with width of approximately 5 µm can be detected
using visible dye penetrant, it may be a challenge for
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
additively manufactured parts, considering the rough
surface finish.
Liquid penetrant testing is a surface defect detection
technique; hence embedded defects present below the
surface of the additively manufactured print part, such
as porosities are unidentifiable. Volumetric defects and
delamination beneath the surface, which are the
common defects present in powder bed fusion pro-
cesses, such as SLM and electron beam melting (EBM)
produced parts will not be detected by this technique
(Sames et al. 2016).
2.3. Magnetic particle testing
Magnetic particle testing is used for inspection of ferro-
magnetic materials, which encompass most iron, nickel,
and cobalt alloys. When a specimen is magnetised,
magnetic lines of force, also known as magnetic flux,
are predominately inside the ferromagnetic material.
The presence of a flaw in the specimen disturbs the
flow of magnetic flux, resulting in local magnetic flux
leakage fields. The flaw essentially causes a sudden
local change in permeability, which is the ease with
which a magnetic flux can be established in a mag-
netic circuit (Federal Aviation Administration 2008).
The inspection of flaws in magnetic particle testing is
dependent on the detection of this local magnetic
flux leakage field.
When fine magnetic particles are sprinkled
onto surface of the magnetised specimen, they
accumulate at the flaw sites, creating a visual pattern
estimating the shape and size of the defect
(Halmshaw 1987). In the case of a subsurface defect,
a less sharply defined indication is observed since the
amount of flux leakage is lesser for discontinuities not
open to the surface (Federal Aviation Administration
2008).
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 5
2.3.1. Types of defect detectable and sensitivity
Cracks, laps, inclusions, voids, seams, cold shuts, and
tears are the types of defect usually detected by mag-
netic particle testing (Federal Aviation Administration
2008).
The magnetic flux should be orientated perpendicu-
larly to the defect for maximum sensitivity. Hence, mag-
netic flux must be induced in more than one direction
since defects can exist at any angle to the major axis of
the part. Two magnetising set-ups, namely, longitudinal,
and circular magnetisation should be performed for
defect detection.
In longitudinal magnetisation, the magnetic field
induced is parallel to the long axis of the specimen, as
illustrated in Figure 2(a). Defects that lie approximately
perpendicular to the axis of the part can be detected.
In circular magnetisation, the magnetic field induced is
concentric about and within the part, as illustrated in
Figure 2(b). Defects that lie approximately parallel to
the axis of the part can be detected (Raj et al. 2002,
Federal Aviation Administration 2008).
In general, flaws which lie up to ±45° to the direction
of the magnetic flux can be detected while flaws at less
than ±30° to the direction of the magnetic flux are
undetectable (Halmshaw 1987, Shull 2002). Incipient
fatigue cracks and fine grinding cracks with sizes less
than 0.02 mm deep and surface openings of one tenth
of that or less can be revealed by magnetic particle
testing (Raj et al. 2002). Detectability in magnetic particle
testing is dependent on the relation between the
defect’s surface opening and depth. Generally, a
surface discontinuity with a depth that is at least five
times its width (opening) at the surface is detectable.
2.3.2. Advantages and disadvantages
With almost no restrictions on the size and shape of the
test specimen, magnetic particle testing is the most
reliable technique for detecting surface discontinuities,
in particular, very shallow and fine cracks. In general,
results from magnetic particle testing are easy to inter-
pret and the equipment is simple to operate. This tech-
nique is capable of defect identification even for
defects filled with foreign matter or if the specimen is
coated with nonmagnetic painting and plating. Magnetic
particle testing is a relatively low-cost method and the
test procedures can be fully automated (Shull 2002).
The major disadvantage of magnetic particle testing is
its exclusiveness to ferromagnetic materials. It cannot be
used to test parts of nonferrous materials such as alu-
minium and titanium. In addition, only surface and sub-
surface defects can be identified, providing no
indication on the quality of the bulk or internal attributes
 6 Q. Y. LU AND C. H. WONG
Figure 2. Effect of magnetic flux direction on defect indication in (a) longitudinal and (b) circular magnetisation.
of the part. During testing, local heating and burning
may exist at electrode contact points, damaging the
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
specimen. Demagnetisation of the part, which is required
at the end of the test if it is to be returned to service, is
often time consuming. This is to avoid the accumulation
of filings and grindings in the part during operation
(Sharratt 2015).
2.3.3. Applications of magnetic particle testing in
AM
There is limited research on the direct use of magnetic
particle testing on additively manufactured parts. AM
has been widely adopted in the aerospace industry
throughout all processes and functions; from design con-
ceptualisation to near-end-of-life repairs (Hiemenz 2014).
High-performance titanium alloys, in particular, Ti-6Al-4V,
is favoured for the manufacturing of advanced aerospace
structures such as engine parts (Inagaki et al. 2014,
Uhlmann et al. 2015). As a non-ferromagnetic material,
this restricts the application of magnetic particle testing.
2.3.4. Suitability of magnetic particle testing for
additively manufactured parts
The major drawback of magnetic particle testing is its
applicability to only ferromagnetic materials, which has
accounted for the sparse research of this technique on
additively manufactured parts. The commonly used
materials in AM are categorised in Table 1. As illustrated
in Table 1, only nickel and cobalt based alloys are
Table 1. Commonly used materials in AM.
Types of
material Materials used in AM
Polymers Polylactic acid (PLA), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polyamide (PA),
thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), rigid opaque plastic (Vero)
Ceramics Alumina (Al2O3), silicon carbide (SiC), silicon nitride (Si3N4), zirconia (ZrO2),
lithium aluminosilicate (LAS)
Metals Stainless steel, nickel-based alloys (inconel 625/718), titanium based alloys
(Ti-6Al-4V), aluminium alloys (AlSi10Mg), cobalt chrome
ferromagnetic materials, restricting the breadth of appli-
cability of this testing technique. The suitability of mag-
netic particle testing for ferromagnetic material based
alloys is further complicated by the interaction of
various factors. For instance, the extent of magnetism
of inconel 718 is dependent on the exact nickel and
iron content, the working temperature, and the limit of
magnetic susceptibility permitted for a given application
(Goldberg et al. 1990).
As mentioned in Section 2.3.2, demagnetisation of the
material is required after inspection for safety concerns,
which introduces post cleaning effort and increases the
overall inspection time. Hence, this technique may not
be suitable as a rapid inspection method.
2.4. Eddy current testing
Eddy current testing is based on Faraday’s law of electro-
magnetic induction and defined as oscillating electrical
currents induced in a conductive material due to electro-
magnetic induction, by an alternating magnetic field
(García-Martín et al. 2011). An alternating current,
usually with frequency ranging from 1 to 2 kHz, flows
through a primary (excitation) coil to produce an alter-
nating (primary) magnetic field as shown in Figure 3(a).
When the primary coil is in close proximity to the electri-
cal conducting surface of a metallic material, an eddy
current is induced in the material due to electromagnetic
induction as illustrated in Figure 3(b). The presence of
References
Kruth et al. (2007), Wong and Hernandez (2012), Schmid and
Wegener (2016), Studart (2016), Singh et al. (2017)
Kruth et al. (2007), Travitzky et al. (2014), Gan and Wong (2017),
Singh et al. (2017), Sing et al. (2017)
Kruth et al. (2007), Lewandowski and Seifi (2016), Studart (2016),
Singh et al. (2017)

Figure 3. Probe response (a) in the absence of conductive material (b) in the presence of conductive material.
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
defects in the material causes perturbation to the flow of
eddy current, which in turn, produces a secondary mag-
netic field that opposes the primary field. This reduction
in the net magnetic field – primary and secondary, is
tracked by the pickup (receiver) coil (Raj et al. 2002).
The electrical conductivity, magnetic permeability,
and geometry of the material are the main drivers
affecting the magnitude of the eddy currents, and
hence of the secondary field. For an ideal conductor,
there will be a complete cancellation between the
primary and secondary field. Response signals are rep-
resented in a range of formats, all of which indicates
impedance changes in the receiver coil. In many appli-
cation-specific systems, changes in the amplitude of
the electromotive force are computed while the
results reflect the parameters of interest, such as the
thickness of the coating (Shull 2002).
2.4.1. Types of defect detectable and sensitivity
Conductive specimens with defects such as cracks and
inclusions, which cause a change in the output impe-
dance, are detectable by eddy current testing. Surface
and subsurface corrosion can be distinguished. Variation
in the thickness of coating can be investigated based on
the differences in conductivity between the conductive
specimen and the coating. This technique does not
require the removal of surface coatings such as paint
and anodised films for inspection (Federal Aviation
Administration 2008).
The sensitivity of discontinuity detection is dependent
on the material, the type of defect and its orientation, the
depth of the defect, and the surface quality of the
material. Eddy current testing can be used to inspect
conductive parts of thickness up to 6 mm with adequate
sensitivity (Raj et al. 2002).
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 7
2.4.2. Advantages and disadvantages
A major advantage of eddy current testing over liquid
penetrant, ultrasonic and magnetic particle techniques
lies in it being a non-contacting method, which
enables automated high-speed assessment. In addition,
surface preparation of the test specimen is not required
when employing this technique. Eddy current testing is
one of the few inspection techniques that are suitable
for high-temperature applications (Shull 2002). In the air-
craft industry, this technique can be used to measure the
conductivity of heat treated aluminium components in
quantifying the hardness and tensile strength of the
part. Measurements can be taken during heat treatment
instead of after, offering more information about the
process (Jochen et al. 2003).
The main limitation of eddy current testing is that only
electrically conductive materials can be tested (Shull
2002). The probe used in eddy current testing does not
solely respond to the desired material characteristics
such as discontinuities and conductivity, but also
detects unwanted signals related to conductivity and
magnetic permeability, leading to increased complexity
in results interpretation. Hence, sophisticated algorithms
and professional operator trainings are required to segre-
gate the desired and unwanted signals. This technique
can only detect discontinuities that are positioned per-
pendicular to the inspected surface (Shull 2002).
2.4.3. Applications of eddy current testing in AM
AM techniques are capable of printing a wide range of
materials, which include both metallic and non-metallic
materials (Wong and Hernandez 2012). As the inherent
use of eddy current testing is on electrically conductive
materials, parts fabricated from biomaterials, polymeric,
and ceramic materials are not suitable for this NDT
technique.
 8 Q. Y. LU AND C. H. WONG
Multi-layer metallic structures are commonly
inspected by eddy current tests for the detection of
cracks and corrosion. Eddy current testing is able to
examine different levels of material’s depth based on
the frequency of the induction coil. Despite the limited
references of eddy current applied to AM, it is worth
noting the indications to its application in this area.
NASA has been actively engaging in AM activities. At
the Johnson Space Centre, manufacturing and qualifica-
tion of laser engineered net shaping (LENS) and electron
beam freeform (EBF) components for manned space
flight applications, which include in-space manufactur-
ing, have been carried out. NDT methods such as con-
ventional ultrasonic and eddy current testing have
been applied to EBF components (Albakri et al. 2015).
Additively manufactured components are expected to
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
produce similar results to conventional metal com-
ponents in eddy current testing. The success rate of
detecting critical defects is largely dependent on the
surface finish and grain structure of the test component
subjected to eddy current testing. In a study conducted
by Albakri et al. (2015), the inspection of an inconel
Pogo-Z baffle produced a large amount of background
noise, illustrating that the holes were not processed
appropriately. Without post-processing, the surface
finish was not suitable for the test and had to be comple-
tely smoothened to achieve a good baseline signal
(Albakri et al. 2015). Areas of the component that were
machined smoothly had lower degree of background
noise.
Ekrami et al. (2011) employed radiography and sup-
plementary techniques including eddy current testing
to characterise fatigue crack growth, and subsurface
cracks at various angles of EBF produced 316 stainless
steel specimens.
It has also been encouraging to note that eddy
current testing can be integrated into in-process moni-
toring of powder bed fusion processes, as seen from a
patent application by MTU Aerospace (Bamberg et al.
2014). Eddy current testing can potentially be used to
evaluate layer properties of metal printed parts such as
bonding defects within the layer through the use of
eddy current sensors (Satzger et al. 2013).
2.4.4. Suitability of eddy current testing for
additively manufactured parts
The effectiveness and accuracy of eddy current testing
on additively manufactured parts may be reduced as
the surface finish and roughness of the part will cause
unwanted perturbation to the flow of eddy current.
The surface finish of additively manufactured parts is
generally inferior to those produced through conven-
tional processes such as die casting and hot forging.
Additively manufactured parts have surface roughness
in the range of 1.6–25 µm while parts produced from
die casting and hot forging have values between 3.2
and 6.4 µm, and 6.4 and 13 µm, respectively (Ippolito
et al. 1995). The consistently higher surface roughness
values for additively manufactured parts is attributed
to the inherent staircase effect due to layer-by-layer
deposition principle present in most AM processes
(Grimm et al. 2015).
Eddy current testing is valid for only electrically con-
ducting materials, which include metals. The AM tech-
nologies suitable for metal printing are the powder
bed fusion processes which produce parts with inher-
ently higher surface roughness due to the aperiodic
profile caused by random powder distribution (Grimm
et al. 2015). Other testing techniques can be used in
addition to eddy current testing to obtain more accu-
rate results for defects detection in additively manufac-
tured metallic parts.
2.5. Ultrasonic testing
Ultrasonic inspection is one of the most established NDT
techniques as it is applicable to most materials. The fun-
damental understanding of ultrasonic testing is based on
the transformation of a voltage pulse into an ultrasonic
pulse by a transducer. The transducer is positioned on
the specimen and transmitted pulses (ultrasonic waves)
travel through the object. Ultrasonic waves with frequen-
cies ranging from 1 to 10 MHz are usually used. As the
ultrasonic waves are reflected by inhomogeneities,
evaluation of the transmitted and reflected energies
can be used to relate to the material’s integrity
(Schmerr 2016b).
Three basic methods of ultrasonic inspection include
the normal incident pulse-echo, angle beam pulse-
echo and through-transmission method. In all cases,
the signals captured are transformed back into electrical
pulses and are displayed on a cathode ray tube (CRT).
Figure 4 shows the block diagram of a simple normal
incident pulse-echo set-up and the pulse-echo display
associated to flaw detection, respectively. A couplant,
usually grease or oil, is applied to the specimen to
couple the transmission of ultrasonic energy between
the face of the transducer and surface of the specimen
(Schmerr 2016b). When the transmitted ultrasonic
energy encounters a discontinuity in the specimen, a
fraction of the energy will be reflected back and the
remaining fraction propagates through the material.
The reflected ultrasonic energy captured by the probe
is the source of defect detection shown on the CRT, as
illustrated in Figure 4. Regions of the specimen that are
free from defects will allow the complete transmission

Figure 4. Normal incident pulse-echo inspection system.
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
and reflection of ultrasonic energy, indicating a large
back wall echo sign on the CRT. The amplitude of the
echoes decreases due to continual attenuation of
sound energy in the material.
The pulse-echo test arrangement can also be used to
detect flaws in the specimen that are located at certain
oblique angles to the probe. Angle beam transducers
enable the inspection of flaws in the material that are
undetectable by normal beam probes. The only differ-
ence between the angle beam and normal incident
beam transducer is the fashion in which ultrasonic
waves are transmitted through the test material. A
crystal positioned at an angle is mounted in the angle
beam probe, which will cause the ultrasonic waves to
propagate through the material at an acute angle to
the surface as exemplified in Figure 5 (Raj et al. 2002,
Federal Aviation Administration 2008).
In through-transmission ultrasonic testing, two trans-
ducers are employed. The transmitter transducer gener-
ates the pulse, while the receiver transducer is positioned
on the opposite surface to receive it. Any disturbance to
the sound path signifies the presence of flaws and is
shown on the CRT. Through-transmission method
is usually used when the location of discontinuities is
unsuitable for detection using a single probe (Raj et al.
2002, Federal Aviation Administration 2008).
The results from ultrasonic testing are commonly rep-
resented by either A-, B-, or C-scans. In an A-scan, the
Figure 5. Schematic of angle beam pulse-echo test.
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 9
depth of penetration is shown on the x-axis while the
y-axis represents the amplitude of echoes. As the infor-
mation obtained from an A-scan is one-dimensional,
flaw characterisation requires additional calculations.
Digital imaging systems with automated probe move-
ment control and computerised data analysis capabilities
can be achieved with B- and C-scans. Both types of rep-
resentation will significantly improve the quality of dis-
continuity characterisation and the ease of
communication (Schmerr 2016a).
In B-scan, the specimen is scanned along one axis. The
cross-sectional view of the specimen is displayed, reveal-
ing the length and depth of the flaw in the specimen. In
some investigations, the depth of the defects is periph-
eral, but their distribution parallel to the test surface
is of importance. For this reason, the presentation is
rotated by 90° such that x- and y-axes display the
results in the plane of the scan, also known as a C-scan
(Figure 6) (Shull 2002).
2.5.1. Types of defect detectable and sensitivity
Inclusions, slag, and porosities are some of the defects
detectable in ultrasonic testing. Corrosion can be
detected through thickness measurement.
While there are a few parameters that influence the
flaw sensitivity, the minimum detectable defect size is
highly dependent on the frequency of the probe. The
wavelength, which varies inversely with frequency, is a
direct function to the detectability of a defect. The
most advantageous detection scenario is when the
defect is larger than the wavelength. With an increase
in the wavelength, the possibility of detection decreases
significantly. With the use of a particular frequency
probe, it has been established that defect size of the
order of half the wavelength can be inspected (Raj
et al. 2002).
2.5.2. Advantages and disadvantages
Ultrasonic testing is a very robust and versatile technique
which has been extensively applied in industries for NDT.
Out of all the NDT techniques, only ultrasonic and X-ray
methods are efficient in detecting considerable number
of subsurface defects in materials. Contrary to X-ray
methods, ultrasonic testing does not constitute to
environmental or health risks. Both contact and non-
contact ultrasonic testing approaches are available.
Ultrasonic test probes can be customised for the
testing of complex parts. Ultrasonic inspection is ideal
for testing of all types of materials ranging from biologi-
cal to polymer to ceramic (Shull 2002). Testing can be
performed on specimens with only one accessible
surface, unlike in radiographic techniques, where two
 10 Q. Y. LU AND C. H. WONG
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
Figure 6. (a) A-scan, (b) B-scan and (c) C-scan representations.
opposite sides of the specimen must be accessible (Raj
et al. 2002).
Ultrasonic testing, like other NDT methods, has some
disadvantages. Obtaining quantitative information of the
specimen and the accurate interpretation of results
require a skilled operator. Typically, planar cracks with
length that lie parallel to the direction of ultrasonic
wave travel are not detectable. In addition, ultrasonic
testing equipment can be expensive (Shull 2002).
2.5.3. Applications of ultrasonic testing in AM
Ultrasonic testing has been proven to be an efficient
technique for the detection of discontinuities and
measurement of mechanical properties of material refer-
ences (Lawley 2015, Sharratt 2015). It has the potential
for monitoring and testing of defects present as each
layer is being built during powder bed fusion processes.
The use of ultrasonic testing has been examined sub-
stantially for castings. It has, however, been hindered by
the surface roughness for the detection of defects near
the surface. Palanisamy et al. (2007) tested aluminium
sample castings using ultrasound with frequencies
ranging from 5 to 20 MHz. Results have shown that the
defect signal amplitude decreases drastically when the
surface roughness of the sample castings is above
50 μm. For surface roughness above 150 μm, the
defect signal amplitude becomes negligible for all fre-
quencies (Palanisamy et al. 2007).
Additively manufactured parts have a nominal surface
roughness on the order of 10–20 μm for powder bed
processes and less than 80 μm for powder feed pro-
cesses (Sharratt 2015). Hence, it can be predicted that
parts printed from powder feed processes, such as
LENS, will encounter similar difficulties in ultrasonic
testing as for highly rough castings. Large amount of
noise and appreciable reduction in the defect signal
amplitude will be observed. Generally, ultrasonic
testing is more suitable for parts manufactured from
powder bed processes as they have lower surface
roughness.

Intelligent Optical Systems, Inc. has embarked on
developing an in situ layer-by-layer part qualification
process using laser ultrasonic testing. During the build
process, each layer will be examined in real time and
completed parts will not require any further tests (Navy
STTR 2015a, Navy STTR 2015b).
At NASA’s Johnson Space Centre, ultrasonic testing
has been used for examining embedded porosities and
flawed deposition layers in 2219 aluminium EBF parts.
Illustrations can be found in (Waller et al. 2014).
Lawley (2015) conducted a study on the feature
detection capabilities of ultrasonic testing on additively
manufactured parts. Two separate experiments were
carried out. In the first experiment, 3D printed test speci-
mens were designed with varying thickness and the
same geometrical features such as sunk in square and
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
rectangle shapes in varying sizes, on the back surface.
The smallest surface feature designed had a measure-
ment of 1 mm. Through the use of a C-scan, the effect
of sample thickness on the detection capabilities of ultra-
sonic testing could be validated. C-scan results have
shown that shape features with sizes of 5 mm or greater
are detectable, while parts of the features were detectable
for sizes less than 5 mm (Lawley 2015). The latter is most
likely due to rough, layered surface that is inherent in
additively manufactured specimens. Lawley (2015) has
successfully demonstrated the detection of surface fea-
tures on the back of test specimens using ultrasonic
C-scan. The second experiment involved studying the
internal features of test specimens. Intentional defects of
rectangular boxes with different sizes were introduced
into the test specimens. From the results of the C-scan,
it has been concluded that an internal feature of size
as small as 10.9 mm2 is detectable at a distance of
1.27 mm from the external surface of the specimen.
Cerniglia et al. (2015) explored the use of laser ultra-
sonic for in-line inspection of laser powder deposition
process. A proof-of-concept laser system prototype was
constructed. Intentional defects were fabricated in stan-
dard geometries to evaluate the sensitivity of this tech-
nique for defect identification. Holes with varying
diameters and depths below the surface of inconel speci-
mens were created. Results have confirmed the feasi-
bility of utilising laser ultrasonic for detecting defects of
micro sizes in inconel specimens. Minimum defect size
of 0.1 mm in diameter near the surface and larger
defect of up to 0.8 mm deep can be detected. As addi-
tively manufactured parts can be complicated in geome-
try, it is challenging to use conventional NDT techniques
for flaw detection. The quality of components produced
by laser powder deposition is commonly evaluated by
destructive testing or by X-ray computed tomography
(CT) after fabrication. Successful demonstration of the
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 11
laser ultrasonic system has proven its potential for detec-
tion of flaws during manufacturing (Cerniglia et al. 2015).
2.5.4. Suitability of ultrasonic testing for additively
manufactured parts
One of the main challenges currently faced in the AM
community, is the lack of feedback sensors and measure-
ment techniques for obtaining the necessary data for
qualification and certification of additively manufactured
parts. Developing NDT techniques specialised for in situ
monitoring of the printing process can rectify and
reduce defects produced through feedback control
systems.
Laser ultrasonic testing, being a non-contact measure-
ment technique, is a potential candidate for in situ
process monitoring of metallic AM processes (Bamberg
et al. 2015, Everton et al. 2016). A laser pulse is focused
at the material’s surface and an ultrasonic pulse is gener-
ated to disseminate into the material. Rayleigh wave,
which is a surface wave, is the dominant wave mode pro-
duced. Longitudinal and shear waves are also generated.
In the presence of subsurface defects, diffraction and
scattering of the Rayleigh wave occurs, and when
returned to a receiver, it comprises of shear waves and
mode converted compressional waves. The returned
signal, which is received by the detection laser, is pro-
cessed for further investigation on the details of the
defects (Everton et al. 2015).
This technique allows the inspection of inaccessible
areas and on curved surfaces, and can be applied at elev-
ated temperatures. Everton et al. (2015) have successfully
used laser ultrasonic testing for holes detection with
diameter ranging between 0.563 and 1.265 mm, in tita-
nium alloy Ti-6Al-4V blocks produced by laser-based
powder bed fusion process through B-scans. Future
work in further optimisation of the laser ultrasonic
testing system to significantly reduce the scanning
time will grant in situ process monitoring achievable.
The application of this NDT technique allows the examin-
ation of defect information during each build layer,
which accentuates the processing errors, and enables
real-time alteration of processing parameters. Laser ultra-
sonic testing presents opportunities for the in situ moni-
toring of AM processes with improved part quality.
Rieder et al. (2014) have demonstrated the possibility
of obtaining online ultrasonic measurements by ultra-
sonic testing during the SLM process of cylindrical speci-
mens. The set-up consisted of the ultrasonic probe fixed
to the lower side of the build platform. Acquisition of
data is executed layer-by-layer, and the ultrasonic
signals were stored for further offline processing. The
presence of a void is detected through A- and C-scan.
The current inspection system can acquire data for up
 12 Q. Y. LU AND C. H. WONG
to eight hours. The inspection system can be refined to
examine parts with complex geometries (Rieder et al.
2014).
Both studies have established confidence in the use of
ultrasonic testing as a NDT technique for in situ and post-
process defect inspection of additively manufactured
parts. It should be noted that conventional ultrasonic
testing requires contact between the probe and the
surface of the material. Hence, the surface finish and
roughness of the printed part play an important role in
ensuring the quality of the ultrasonic signals received
for post-process NDT inspection.
2.6. Radiography
The motivation in the employment of radiography is to
demonstrate the presence and nature of flaws in the
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
interior of the material. Radiology is the only technique
that is applicable to all materials. This technique relies
on the aptness of high-energy, short-wavelength
sources of electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays
and gamma rays to penetrate the material. The
shorter the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation,
the higher will be the penetrating power. Part of the
radiation penetrating through the material will be
absorbed into the material itself, which is dependent
on its thickness and density. In the presence of flaws,
the radiation beam will pass through lesser material
as compared to a defect-free solid material. Thus, a vari-
ation in the absorption of radiation by the material in
the flawed area exists. The variation, when documented
on a film sensitive to X-ray or gamma radiation, will
develop a two-dimensional (2D) image indicating the
presence of the flaws. The image is an X-ray shadow
of the material’s interior, also known as a radiograph.
Variations in the darkness may be comprehended to
disclose information regarding the internal structure of
the material (Raj et al. 2002).
The set-up of a radiography test is shown in Figure 7,
which consists of the radiation source, the specimen, and
Figure 7. Schematic of radiography set-up.
a recording medium (film). The specimen is placed
between the radiation source and a film. The projection
of X-rays onto the specimen produces white areas on the
film in regions where the X-ray has high absorption
(without defects), and gray areas in regions where the
X-ray has low absorption (with defects) (Shull 2002).
The detection of defects can then be achieved through
inspection of the film density (darkness).
CT is a way to recover the 3D representation of a com-
ponent. A stack of projection radiographs is captured of
the component at various angles. The reconstruction of
the component from these radiographs is achieved
through computer algorithms. Hundreds to thousands
of digital project radiographs are usually necessary to
obtain a reconstructed component with high fidelity
(Shull 2002).
2.6.1. Types of defect detectable and sensitivity
Flaws including voids and inclusions are detectable by
radiography. Voids and inclusions may be displayed in
various formats ranging from 2D planes to 3D spheres
on the radiograph. For instance, a cold shut, crack or
tear will be seen as a 2D plane, while a cavity will
resemble a 3D sphere. Other types of defect, such as
porosity and shrink, will lie somewhere between these
two endmost form of representations (Federal Aviation
Administration 2008).
The amount of exposure penetrating through the
material is a crucial factor for consideration in radio-
graphic sensitivity. The selected exposure value should
produce X-rays that is simply sufficient to penetrate the
material, that is, to penetrate the material with minimal
exposure. Most standards, such as the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards,
have recommended settings for X-ray voltage and radio-
isotope sources depending on the thickness of the
material.
Sensitivity of radiography refers to its capability in dis-
playing the smallest discontinuity possible on a radio-
graph. On a numerical scale, a smaller sensitivity value
denotes a better detection capability. This value can be
in terms of an absolute value or expressed as a percen-
tage in relation to the thickness of the specimen.
2.6.2. Advantages and disadvantages
With no restrictions on the type of materials inspected,
radiography has a significant comparative advantage
over other NDT techniques. Information on the material’s
elemental composition such as density and thickness
measurement can be acquired through radiography.
This method is often chosen for characterisation of a
part’s internal assembly features.

A highly experienced operator is required for the
analysis and interpretation of the radiograph. Recog-
nition of flaws, however, can often be achieved with
ease for beginners even without the skills of a trained
specialist. Safety issues are of major concern as the
necessity for a high voltage needed for the generation
of X-rays can be dangerous. In addition, heavy shielding
materials must be used (Shull 2002).
Radiography has its constraint in the detection of
cracks. A crack that is embedded in the material will
not be detected by this technique. For a crack to affect
the transmission of radiation, a local absence of material
resulting from an opening must exist. Furthermore, the
crack must also be parallel to the direction of radiation
travel or be sufficiently large for it to be registered on
the radiograph (Shull 2002). This optimum orientation
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
is contrary to ultrasonic testing where reflections from
a crack positioned perpendicular the wave path will
maximise the signal. In radiography testing, the size of
the discontinuity must be at least 2% of the thickness
of the material for it to be detected (Raj et al. 2002).
X-ray machines, as compared to other NDT techniques,
are very costly. The inspection of thick components is
time consuming. This is predominantly due to the
requirement of heavy shielding to ensure the safety of
the operator.
2.6.3. Applications of radiography in AM
The standard radiography and CT NDT techniques are
both of interest in the AM field, with the latter being
more appealing despite its longer computational and
imaging time.
CT carried out by NASA on adiabatic refrigerator com-
ponent, nozzles, and injectors has exhibited its effective-
ness in the detection of induced internal defects and
internal features that are inaccessible. In addition, CT
can be used to identify high-density inclusions in EBM
as-built Ti-6Al-4V specimens and to validate whether
porosities are closed by hot isostatic pressing (HIP)
post-processing. Hence, the characterisation and qualifi-
cation of as-built additively manufactured components,
detection of internal flaws, examination of unreachable
features, and the affirmation on the effectiveness of
post-processing treatments are achievable by CT
(Waller et al. 2014).
X-ray CT has been employed in the quality control of
AM processes. In order for AM technologies to gain sig-
nificant confidence from the market, parts produced
have to be precise. Hence, production has to be robust
whereby crucial parameters during printing can be con-
trolled, and the production has to be predictable, allow-
ing for effects such as part shrinkage after printing to be
taken into consideration and compensated during the
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 13
design stage (Witvrouw 2017). Results from X-ray CT
are used to compare against the images captured by
an optical system during SLM for process optimisation
(Witvrouw 2017). This aids in improving part precision
and accuracy of the features.
du Plessis et al. (2015) applied the use of X-ray micro
CT to the NDT of an additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V
component with a complex geometry. The illustrations
can be found in du Plessis et al. (2015). Defects formed
between layers of print by direct metal laser sintering
process due to imperfect melting were characterised
by this technique. Results from X-ray micro CT scanning
revealed that the average porosity in the components
decreased from 0.005% to 0.002% before and after HIP
treatment.
Several works have been published on the use of X-
ray CT for quality control and measurement of internal
features and defects of additively manufactured com-
ponents (Palmer and Jones 2016, Pavan et al. 2016).
2.6.4. Suitability of radiography for additively
manufactured parts
One of the underlying reasons for the advent of AM is its
ability to manufacture complex structures in a single
print as compared to conventional methods, which
have limited success. Structures with complex geome-
tries often feature hollow spaces or undercuts (EOS
e-Manufacturing Solutions 2017). Fabrication of parts
by AM technologies provide a designer with the
freedom to create structures with complex geometries
such as hollow metal cellular artefacts, and hip implant
with lattice structures for improved osseointegration
(McCarthy and Williams 2012). X-ray micro CT is a suit-
able NDT technique for defect detection of parts with
complex shapes, without the need for any disassembly.
There are, however, constraints on the use of this tech-
nique. The size of the specimen which can be inspected
is limited by the size of the instrument’s sample holder
which varies among machines (Texas Geosciences 2016).
Attenuation due to the interaction between the X-ray
and the specimen, accounted by photoelectric effect and
Compton scattering, is another issue for consideration.
For low X-ray energies of approximately 50–100 keV,
the photoelectric effect is the dominant attenuation
mechanism. Attenuation is proportional to Z 3, where Z
is the atomic number of an atom in the attenuating
material. At higher X-ray energies ranging from 5–10
MeV, Compton scatter is preeminent. Attenuation is pro-
portional to only Z (Ketcham and Carlson 2001). Hence,
materials with high atomic numbers, such as bone or
metals, have significantly increased attenuation at
lower energies of X-ray which results in beam hardening
effects (Boas and Fleischmann 2012, NDT Resource
 14 Q. Y. LU AND C. H. WONG
Center 2014). CT may not be able to provide accurate
detection of defects in specimens with high atomic
numbers, such as stainless steel. In addition, the selection
of the right combination of parameters during material
scanning, which includes voltage, requires extensive
training to train skilled operators.
CT is applicable to all specimens of any surface, shape,
and material to a certain density and thickness that is
penetrable with X-rays. It is the only NDT technique
that allows the attainment of a complete model with
both the internal and external surface of a specimen.
CT scans are uninfluenced by material characteristics
such as dark, reflective or transparent surfaces, and
shaded areas, which may cause hindrance with other
3D scanning methods (Noel 2008). Another advantage
of applying CT to additively manufactured parts is the
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
available option to directly compare the 3D CT recon-
struction models to CAD models to display any
peculiarities or commonalities in measurements and
densities (Noel 2008).
3. NDT methods for different categories of AM
AM has seven categories of technologies, namely,
material extrusion, powder bed fusion, vat photopoly-
merisation, material jetting, binder jetting, sheet lami-
nation, and directed energy deposition (ASTM
International 2015, Gao et al. 2015).
3.1. Material extrusion
In material extrusion, the material is dispensed through a
nozzle where it will be heated before being deposited in
a layer-by-layer fashion (ASTM International 2015). The
materials used in material extrusion are usually thermo-
plastics such as ABS, and nylon, in a spool of filament
(Stratasys 2017). The resolution of the printed part is
highly dependent on the geometry of the nozzle and
the layer thickness. Typical layer thickness ranges from
0.178 to 0.356 mm (Loughborough University 2017a).
Surface defects including the staircase and chordal
effect often arise in parts fabricated by incremental
addition of material (Van Weeren et al. 1995). The
former is caused by the slicing procedure of fabrication,
which can be minimised by adjusting the thickness of
the slice, reducing the scale of error. The latter is due
to the STL file format usually used in AM. Surfaces are
approximated as a mesh of triangles in the STL file
format. Curvilinear surfaces are approximated as a
chain of linear segments, resulting in a non-smooth
surface of the part (Van Weeren et al. 1995).
Appropriate NDT techniques for the inspection of
parts include visual inspection, laser ultrasonic testing,
radiography, thermography, and acoustic emission
testing. Contact methods may not be efficient in the
detection of surface defects due to the resolution of
parts printed by material extrusion. X-ray CT is one of
the promising techniques to survey microstructural
defects in additively manufactured parts. Precise infor-
mation regarding the porous network induced by pro-
cessing, amount of support material, and surface
roughness can be acquired (Guessasma et al. 2015).
3.2. Powder bed fusion
Powder bed fusion process employs the use of thermal
energy to selectively fuse region of a powder bed
(ASTM International 2015). The thermal source can be
either a laser or an electron beam. Powder is sintered
or melted, layer-by-layer. The resolution of the printed
part is dependent on the powder size. The common
materials used in powder bed fusion include nylon,
316L stainless steel and titanium Ti-6-Al-4V (Loughbor-
ough University 2017c).
Liquid penetrant testing is applicable; given the con-
dition that post-processing is performed before inspec-
tion. Eddy current testing is suitable for parts made
from electrically conductive materials such as 316L stain-
less steel. Radiography is useful in examining the surface
and internal defects after printing of the part. Visual
inspection, laser ultrasonic testing, and thermography
have been discussed as potential candidates for in situ
process monitoring and quality control of parts fabri-
cated by powder bed fusion.
3.3. Vat photopolymerisation
Liquid photopolymer in a vat is selectively cured by light-
activated polymerisation during vat photopolymerisa-
tion. UV light is used to cure the vat of liquid photopoly-
mer resin where required. The build platform lowers
from the top of the resin vat by the layer thickness
after each new layer is cured (Gibson et al. 2015c). Poly-
mers are used as materials for vat photopolymerisation.
Parts produced have high level of accuracy and a good
surface finish as compared other AM technologies.
The surface roughness of the produced part is depen-
dent on the type of technology used. Parts produced
from SLA, under the category of vat photopolymerisa-
tion, have significantly better surface roughness than
those from powder bed fusion processes, such as SLM.
Both techniques use focused laser beams for the solidifi-
cation of the build material (Antu 2015). The laser spot
size used in these techniques is one of the main factors
that define the print resolution (Partanen 1996). SLA,
which employs the use of an UV laser to selectively

cure a vat of liquid photopolymer resin to build a part,
has a minimum laser spot size (diameter) of 75 µm
(Sager et al. 2003, 3D Systems 2017). SLM, which
employs the use of an infrared laser to selectively scan
a powder bed, has a laser spot size typically in the
range of 80–115 µm (Rombouts et al. 2006, SLM Sol-
utions 2017). The smaller laser spot size for lasers used
in SLA in comparison to SLM is one of the main
reasons accounting for the lower surface roughness of
SLA printed parts.
Liquid penetrant testing can be applied as an inspec-
tion technique as the parts have a smooth surface finish.
NDT techniques that are not restricted to ferromagnetic
or electrically conductive materials can be applied as
post-process inspection methods for fabricated parts.
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
3.4. Material jetting
Droplets of build material are selectively deposited in
material jetting (ASTM International 2015). The principle
of operation is similar to a 2D ink jet printer. A nozzle,
which moves horizontally across the build platform,
deposits the material. The material solidifies and the
part is built layer-by-layer. Polymers and waxes are com-
monly used materials due to their viscous nature and
their capability to form droplets (Loughborough Univer-
sity 2017b). All the NDT techniques are applicable for
parts fabricated by material jetting, except liquid pene-
trant testing, magnetic particle testing, and eddy
current testing.
NDT techniques can also be used to characterise the
dimensional accuracy of additively manufactured parts.
Yap et al. (2017) have studied the dimensional accuracy
of designed metrological benchmarking models in
terms of length, width and height using a coordinate
measuring machine, with a resolution of 0.5 µm. The
benchmarking models were printed using Object500
Connecx 3 Polyjet printer with special features such as
thin walls and assembly-free parts with different build
orientations (Yap et al. 2017).
3.5. Binder jetting
A liquid bonding agent is selectively deposited to join
powder materials in binder jetting (ASTM International
2015). Binder droplets form spherical agglomerates of
the binder liquid and powder particles. The droplets
also ensure bonding to the previous printed layer. After
the printing of each layer, the powder bed lowers and
a new layer of powder is coated onto the build platform,
until printing is completed (Gibson et al. 2015a). Metals,
polymers and ceramics powders are the materials that
can be used in binder jetting. Three types of binders
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 15
are commonly used in binder jetting; water-based
binders, phosphoric acid-based and citric acid-based
binders, and polymer solution binders (Shirazi et al.
2015).
Snelling et al. (2014) utilised binder jetting technology
in the direct printing of patternless sand casting moulds.
One of the common issues in such application is the gas
generation when binders are exposed to high tempera-
ture of the molten metal, generating an excessive
amount of gas producing defects in castings (Snelling
et al. 2014). X-ray CT would be particularly useful for
the inspection of internal defects in the printed part.
Other NDT techniques may be applied to defect inspec-
tion of binder jetting printed parts, depending on the
type of material used.
3.6. Sheet lamination
Sheet lamination is an AM process in which sheets of
material are bonded to form an object (ASTM Inter-
national 2015). It includes laminated object manufac-
turing and ultrasonic consolidation (UC). The former
produces parts through layer-by-layer lamination of
paper sheets, cut using a carbon dioxide laser, with
each sheet constituting to one cross-sectional layer of
the CAD model of the part. The latter operates with
a similar layer-by-layer approach but uses metal
sheets as material and ultrasonic welding instead of
adhesive for bonding of the material (Loughborough
University 2017d).
Delamination is the common defect observed in parts
produced from sheet lamination technology due to
incomplete fusion of the material stack (Cawley et al.
1998). Visual inspection, laser ultrasonic testing, X-ray
CT, and thermography are applicable for defects detec-
tion. Voids are usually found in parts made from UC,
which are present along the interfaces between the
layers (Gibson et al. 2010b). Visual inspection can be per-
formed by noticing the presence of oxide layers on the
surfaces of defects in UC-made parts.
3.7. Directed energy deposition
In a directed energy deposition process, thermal energy
is directed into a narrow and focused area to melt the
substrate, and simultaneously melting the material
that is being deposited into the substrate’s melt pool.
This technology is primarily used for metal powders,
although parts can also be fabricated by melting poly-
mers, ceramics, and metal matrix composites (Gibson
et al. 2015b).
Porosities may be formed in the deposit due to gas
evolution during melting caused by excess moisture in

Table 2. Summary on the type of inspection, the sensitivity of the NDT techniques, their applicability to different AM processes, and challenges for the inspection of additively manufactured
parts.
Type of Sensitivity for general applications, not
NDT technique inspection limited to AM
Visual inspection Surface . Minimum size of discontinuities that
human eye can distinguish is
approximately 0.25 inches
. Using optical aids, defects smaller
than 0.25 inches can be detected
through magnification
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
Liquid penetrant testing Surface . Cracks with width of approximately
5 µm can be detected using visible
dye penetrant
. Cracks with width ranging from 1 µm
to 2 µm can be detected using
fluorescent penetrant
Magnetic particle testing Surface . Flaws which lie up to ±45° to the
direction of magnetic flux can be
detected
. Flaws at less than ±30° to the
direction of magnetic flux are
undetectable
. Incipient fatigue cracks and fine
grinding cracks with sizes less than
0.02 mm deep and surface openings
of one tenth of that or less
Eddy current testing Surface . Dependent on material, type of
defect and its orientation, depth of
the defect, and surface quality of
material
Ultrasonic testing Surface / . With the use of a particular frequency
subsurface probe, defect size of the order of half
the wavelength can be inspected
Radiography Surface/ . The amount of exposure penetrating
subsurface through the material is a crucial factor
Applicable AM process
. Material extrusion
. Powder bed fusion
. Vat photopolymerisation
. Material jetting
. Binder jetting
. Sheet lamination
. Directed energy deposition
• Powder bed fusion
• Vat photopolymerisation
. Powder bed fusion
. Directed energy deposition
. Powder bed fusion
. Directed energy deposition
. Material extrusion
. Powder bed fusion
. Vat photopolymerisation
. Material jetting
. Binder jetting
. Sheet lamination
. Directed energy deposition
. Material extrusion
. Powder bed fusion
. Vat photopolymerisation
. Material jetting
16
Q. Y. LU AND C. H. WONG
Challenges for inspecting additively
manufactured parts References related to AM
. The use of optical aids is often required to Armillotta (2006), Gebhardt et al. (2010), Lipton et al.
monitor AM processes (2010), Craeghs et al. (2011), Johnson et al. (2011),
ReaLizer GmbH (2012), CassaMobile (2013), Johnson et al.
(2016)
. Prerequisite for testing is a relatively smooth Caiazzo et al. (2013), Waller et al. (2014), Waller et al.
examination surface (2015)
. Additional post-process machining and
polishing of parts required, which may close
up or remove the surface flaws
. Applicable to only ferromagnetic materials Goldberg et al. (1990), Hiemenz (2014), Inagaki et al.
. Among the commonly used materials in AM, (2014), Uhlmann et al. (2015)
only nickel and cobalt based alloys are
ferromagnetic materials, restricting the
breadth of applicability of this testing
technique
. Surface finish and roughness of the part will Ippolito et al. (1995), Ekrami et al. (2011), Wong and
cause unwanted perturbation to the flow of Hernandez (2012), Satzger et al. (2013), Bamberg et al.
eddy current (2014), Albakri et al. (2015), Grimm et al. (2015)
. Post-processing of part is required to
smoothen the surface, in order to achieve a
good baseline signal
. Large amount of noise and appreciable Palanisamy et al. (2007), Rieder et al. (2014), Waller et al.
reduction in the defect signal amplitude will (2014), Bamberg et al. (2015), Cerniglia et al. (2015),
be observed for parts with rough surface Everton et al. (2015), Lawley (2015), Navy STTR (2015a),
finish Navy STTR (2015b), Sharratt (2015), Everton et al. (2016)
. CT may not be able to provide accurate Ketcham and Carlson (2001), Noel (2008), Boas and
detection of defects in specimens with high Fleischmann (2012), McCarthy and Williams (2012), NDT
atomic numbers Resource Center (2014), Waller et al. (2014), du Plessis
et al. (2015), Palmer and Jones (2016), Pavan et al. (2016),
 VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 17

the powder. Pores can also manifest from entrapped

Runnemalm et al. (2014), Waller et al. (2014), Cheng and

Texas Geosciences (2016), EOS e-Manufacturing Solutions

Ljungblad (2012), Schwerdtfeger et al. (2012), Dinwiddie

Difficulty lies in recognition of the source that Wang et al. (2008), Yoon et al (2014), Everton et al. (2016)
complicates the calibration of infrared camera et al. (2013), Fedala et al. (2014), Krauss et al. (2014),
gases in gas-atomised powders. Lack-of-fusion defects

Bayle and Doubenskaia (2008), Krauss et al. (2012),

can form at layer interfaces if inadequate energy
density is used, or when process parameters are not opti-
mised. Due to the solidification process, residual stresses
are generated, which can result in cracking of the part
(Gibson et al. 2015b). Appropriate post-process inspec-

Chou (2015), Lane et al. (2016)

tion NDT techniques of the part include magnetic par-
(2017), Witvrouw (2017)

ticle testing, eddy current testing, X-ray CT, and

acoustic emission testing. Visual inspection, laser ultra-
sonic testing, and thermography can be applied as in
situ process monitoring techniques for detection of
discontinuities.

4. Conclusion
The broad temperature range of the melt

is causing the change in sound signature

pool for powder bed fusion processes
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017

Post-process inspection NDT techniques, namely, visual

inspection, liquid penetrant testing, magnetic particle
testing, eddy current testing, ultrasonic testing, and radi-
ography were reviewed for their operating principles,
types of defect detectable and their sensitivity, and
their respective advantages and disadvantages.
The applicability of each NDT technique, including
thermography and acoustic emission testing, for differ-
ent categories of AM process was evaluated. Table 2 pro-
vides a summary on the type of inspection, sensitivity for
.

.
Directed energy deposition

Directed energy deposition

Directed energy deposition

the NDT techniques, and their applicability to different

Vat photopolymerisation

AM processes.
Powder bed fusion

Powder bed fusion

Material extrusion

Material extrusion

The applications for each of the above-mentioned

Sheet lamination

Sheet lamination
Material jetting

Material jetting
Binder jetting

Binder jetting

Binder jetting

techniques in the AM industry, and their suitability for

the inspection of additively manufactured parts were dis-
cussed. Visual inspection is mainly used during the pre-
liminary part of the overall quality management system
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

in AM applications. It is suitable for the detection of

defects from the surface to a depth of

Capable of detecting crack growth of

identification and characterisation of

least an order of magnitude smaller

Able to identify growing flaws of at
The selected exposure value should

sufficient to penetrate the material

than those measured by any other

surface discontinues of additively manufactured parts.

Active thermography suitable for

It can be employed during the printing process, and as

produce X-rays that is simply

a post-process inspection technique for surveying the

quality of parts. The use of liquid penetrant testing on
the order of 25 μm

additively manufactured parts without additional post-

NDT techniques

process machining and polishing has proven to be inef-

fective for flaws identification. Post-processing tech-
10 cm

niques can help in improving the surface finish of

metal parts. Magnetic particle testing is commonly
.

applied in the NDT of conventional cast parts. The appli-

cation of this method on additively manufactured parts
Surface

Surface

has been limited. Magnetic particle testing is only appli-

cable for the NDT of ferromagnetic materials. This tech-
nique is not suitable as a rapid detection method as
demagnetisation of the material is required after inspec-
Acoustic emission

tion for safety concerns. There are limited references in

Thermography

the application of eddy current testing to AM as it is

testing

limited to only electrically conducting materials. NASA

has employed this technique to EBF components.
 18 Q. Y. LU AND C. H. WONG
Successful detection of critical defects is highly depen-
dent on the surface finish and grain structure of the
test component subjected to eddy current testing.
Other testing techniques can be used in conjunction
with eddy current testing to obtain more accurate
results for defect detection in additively manufactured
metallic parts. Confidence has been demonstrated for
the use of ultrasonic testing as a NDT technique for in
situ and post-process defect inspection of additively
manufactured parts. Laser ultrasonic testing is a potential
candidate for in situ process monitoring of metallic AM
processes with improved part quality. X-ray CT is a suit-
able NDT technique to detect internal flaws in complex
parts, validate the effectiveness of post-processing
treatments, and characterise additively manufactured
components. It is the only NDT technique that renders
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
a complete model with both the internal and external
surface of a specimen possible.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
3D Systems, 2017. 3D Stereolithography printers [online].
Available from: https://www.3dsystems.com/sites/default/
files/2017-02/3D-Systems_SLA_Tech_Specs_A4_US_2017.
01.30_c_WEB.pdf [Accessed 22 March 2017].
Albakri, M., et al., 2015. Non-destructive evaluation of additively
manufactured parts via impedance-based monitoring. ed.
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, 1475–1490.
Allgaier, M., et al. 1993. Nondestructive testing handbook, volume
8, visual and optical testing. Columbus, OH: ASNT.
Antu, N., 2015. 3D printing technologies: SLS vs. SLA [online].
Available from: https://www.sculpteo.com/blog/2015/12/
09/3d-printing-technologies-sls-sla/ [Accessed 22 March
2017].
Armillotta, A. 2006. Assessment of surface quality on textured
FDM prototypes. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 12 (1), 35–41.
ASTM International, 2015. ASTM ISO/ASTM52900-15 Standard
Terminology for Additive Manufacturing – General
Principles – Terminology. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
ASTM International, 2016. Standard Practice For Liquid
Penetrant Testing. ASTM International.
Bamberg, J., et al., 2015. Overview of additive manufacturing
activities at MTU aero engines. ed. AIP Conference
Proceedings, 156–163.
Bamberg, J., Satzger, W., and Hess, T., 2014. Method and device
for the generative production of a component. Google Patents.
Bayle, F. and Doubenskaia, M., 2008. Selective laser melting
process monitoring with high speed infra-red camera and
pyrometer. ed. Fundamentals of Laser Assisted Micro-and
Nanotechnologies, 698505-698505-698508.
Boas, F.E. and Fleischmann, D., 2012. CT artifacts: causes and
reduction techniques. Imaging in Medicine, 4 (2), 229–240.
Boyes, W., 2009. Instrumentation reference book. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Caiazzo, F., et al., 2013. Experimental analysis of selective laser
melting process for Ti-6Al-4V turbine blade manufacturing.
ed. XIX International Symposium on High-Power Laser
Systems and Applications, 86771H-86771H-86710.
CassaMobile, 2013. Flexible mini-factory for local and
customized production in a container [online]. Available
from: http://cassamobile.eu/index.html [Accessed 27 May
2017].
Cawley, J., et al., 1998. Materials issues in laminated object man-
ufacturing of powder-based systems. ed. Proceedings of the
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin/TX, USA, S,
503–510.
Cerniglia, D., et al., 2015. Inspection of additive-manufactured
layered components. Ultrasonics, 62, 292–298.
Cheng, B. and Chou, K., 2015. Melt pool evolution study in
selective laser melting. ed. 26th Annual International
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium – An Additive
Manufacturing Conference, Austin, TX, USA, 1182–1194.
Chua, C.K., Wong, C.H., and Yeong, W.Y., 2017. Standards, quality
control, and measurement sciences in 3D printing and additive
manufacturing. San Diego: Academic Press.
Craeghs, T., et al., 2011. Online quality control of selective laser
melting. ed. Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium, Austin, TX, 212-226.
Craig, B., 2007. Editorial: the last starlifter [online]. Available
from: http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/41/40921.pdf [Accessed
25 July 2017].
Dinwiddie, R.B., et al., 2013. Thermographic in-situ process
monitoring of the electron-beam melting technology used
in additive manufacturing. ed. SPIE Defense, Security, and
Sensing, 87050K-87050K-87059.
du Plessis, A., et al., 2015. Application of microCT to the non-
destructive testing of an additive manufactured titanium
component. Case Studies in Nondestructive Testing and
Evaluation, 4, 1–7.
Ekrami, Y., Forth, S.C., and Waid, M.C., 2011. Characterization of
electron beam free-form fabricated 2219 aluminum and 316
stainless steel [online]. Available from: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/
archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110008207.pdf [Accessed
25 July 2017].
EOS e-Manufacturing Solutions, 2017. Complex geometries
[online]. Available from: https://www.eos.info/additive_
manufacturing/for_your_business/complex_geometries
[Accessed 24 March 2017].
Everton, S., et al., 2015. Evaluation of laser ultrasonic testing for
inspection of metal additive manufacturing. ed. SPIE LASE,
935316-935316-935318.
Everton, S.K., et al., 2016. Review of in-situ process monitoring
and in-situ metrology for metal additive manufacturing.
Materials & Design, 95, 431–445.
Fedala, Y., et al., 2014. Infrared lock-in thermography crack
localization on metallic surfaces for industrial diagnosis.
Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation, 33 (3), 335–341.
Federal Aviation Administration, 2008. Inspection fundamentals
[online]. Available from: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_
policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_handbook/media
/faa-8083-30_ch08.pdf.
Gan, M.X. and Wong, C.H., 2017. Properties of selective laser
melted spodumene glass-ceramic. Journal of the European
Ceramic Society, 37 (13), 4147–4154.

Gao, W., et al., 2015. The status, challenges, and future of
additive manufacturing in engineering. Computer-Aided
Design, 69, 65–89.
García-Martín, J., Gómez-Gil, J., and Vázquez-Sánchez, E., 2011.
Non-destructive techniques based on eddy current testing.
Sensors, 11 (3), 2525–2565.
Gebhardt, A., et al., 2010. Additive manufacturing by selective
laser melting the realizer desktop machine and its appli-
cation for the dental industry. Physics Procedia, 5, 543–549.
Gibson, I., Rosen, D.W., and Stucker, B., 2010a. Additive manufac-
turing technologies. New York: Springer.
Gibson, I., Rosen, D.W., and Stucker, B., 2010b. Sheet lamination
processes. Additive manufacturing technologies: rapid proto-
typing to direct digital manufacturing. Boston, MA: Springer
US, 223–252.
Gibson, I., Rosen, D., and Stucker, B., 2015a. Binder jetting.
Additive manufacturing technologies: 3D printing, rapid proto-
typing, and direct digital manufacturing. New York: Springer
New York, 205–218.
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
Gibson, I., Rosen, D., and Stucker, B., 2015b. Directed energy
deposition processes. Additive manufacturing technologies:
3D printing, rapid prototyping, and direct digital manufactur-
ing. New York: Springer New York, 245–268.
Gibson, I., Rosen, D., and Stucker, B., 2015c. Vat photopolymeri-
zation processes. Additive manufacturing technologies: 3D
printing, rapid prototyping, and direct digital manufacturing.
New York: Springer New York, 63–106.
Goh, G.D., et al., 2017. Additive manufacturing in unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs): challenges and potential. Aerospace
Science and Technology, 63, 140–151.
Goldberg, I.B., et al., 1990. Magnetic susceptibility of Inconel
alloys 718, 625, and 600 at cryogenic temperatures.
Advances in Cryogenic Engineering Materials. Boston, MA:
Springer, 755–762.
Grimm, T., Wiora, G., and Witt, G., 2015. Characterization of
typical surface effects in additive manufacturing with confo-
cal microscopy. Surface Topography: Metrology and
Properties, 3 (1), 014001.
Guessasma, S., et al., 2015. Challenges of additive manufactur-
ing technologies from an optimisation perspective.
International Journal for Simulation and Multidisciplinary
Design Optimization, 6, A9.
Halmshaw, R., 1987. Non-destructive testing. London: Edward
Arnold.
Hiemenz, J. 2014. Additive manufacturing trends in aerospace.
White Paper, Stratasys, USA, 1-11.
Huang, S.H., et al., 2013. Additive manufacturing and its societal
impact: a literature review. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 67 (5–8), 1191–1203.
Inagaki, I., et al., 2014. Application and features of titanium for
the aerospace industry. Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal
Technical Report, 106, 22–27.
Integrated Publishing, 2017. Nondestructive inspection
methods manual [online]. Available from: http://chemical-
biological.tpub.com/TM-1-1500-335-23/css/TM-1-1500-335-
23_144.htm [Accessed 31 May 2017].
Ippolito, R., Iuliano, L., and Gatto, A., 1995. Benchmarking of
rapid prototyping techniques in terms of dimensional accu-
racy and surface finish. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing
Technology, 44 (1), 157–160.
Jochen, V., et al., 2003. Eddy current testing at high tempera-
tures for controlling heat treatment processes [online].
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 19
Available from: http://www.ndt.net/article/ndtce03/papers/
p022/p022.htm [Accessed 31 May 2017].
Johnson, A., et al., 2016. Establishing in-process inspection
requirements for material extrusion additive manufacturing.
ed. Proceedings of the Fraunhofer Direct Digital Manufacturing
Conference, Berlin, Germany
Johnson, W., et al., 2011. Benchmarking evaluation of an open
source fused deposition modeling additive manufacturing
system. ed. Proceeding of the 22nd Annual International
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, 197–211.
Ketcham, R.A. and Carlson, W.D. 2001. Acquisition, optimization
and interpretation of X-ray computed tomographic imagery:
applications to the geosciences. Computers & Geosciences, 27
(4), 381–400.
Krauss, H., Eschey, C., and Zaeh, M., 2012, Thermography for
monitoring the selective laser melting process. ed.
Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, 6-
8th August, Austin, TX, USA, 999–1014.
Krauss, H., Zeugner, T., and Zaeh, M.F., 2014. Layerwise monitor-
ing of the selective laser melting process by thermography.
Physics Procedia, 56, 64–71.
Kruth, J.-P., et al., 2007. Consolidation phenomena in laser and
powder-bed based layered manufacturing. CIRP Annals –
Manufacturing Technology, 56 (2), 730–759.
Kumar, L.J. and Krishnadas Nair, C.G., 2017. Current trends of
additive manufacturing in the aerospace industry. In: D.I.
Wimpenny, P.M. Pandey, and L.J. Kumar, eds. Advances in
3D printing & additive manufacturing technologies.
Singapore: Springer Singapore, 39–54.
Lane, B., et al. 2016. Thermographic measurements of the com-
mercial laser powder bed fusion process at NIST. Rapid
Prototyping Journal, 22 (5), 778–787.
Lawley, P., 2015. Applications of ultrasonic don-destructive testing
in 3D printing. The Journal of Undergraduate Research, 13 (1), 4.
Lewandowski, J.J. and Seifi, M., 2016. Metal additive manufac-
turing: a review of mechanical properties. Annual Review of
Materials Research, 46, 151–186.
Lipton, J., et al., 2010. Multi-material food printing with complex
internal structure suitable for conventional post-processing.
ed. Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, 809–815.
Ljungblad, U., 2012. Method and apparatus for detecting defects
in freeform fabrication. Google Patents.
Loughborough University, 2017a. Material extrusion [online].
Available from: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/amrg/
about/the7categoriesofadditivemanufacturing/
materialextrusion/ [Accessed 28 May 2017].
Loughborough University, 2017b. Material jetting [online].
Available from: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/amrg/
about/the7categoriesofadditivemanufacturing/
materialjetting/ [Accessed 29 May 2017].
Loughborough University, 2017c. Powder bed fusion [online].
Available from: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/amrg/
about/the7categoriesofadditivemanufacturing/
powderbedfusion/ [Accessed 28 May 2017].
Loughborough University, 2017d. Sheet lamination [online].
Available from: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/amrg/
about/the7categoriesofadditivemanufacturing/
sheetlamination/ [Accessed 29 May 2017].
Matzkanin, G.A., 2006. Selecting a nondestructive testing
method: visual inspection [online]. Available from: https://
app.aws.org/itrends/2007/04/it200704/it0407-15.pdf
[Accessed 25 July 2017].
 20 Q. Y. LU AND C. H. WONG
McCarthy, D. and Williams, C., 2012. Creating complex hollow
metal geometries using additive manufacturing and electro-
forming. ed. International Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium, 108–120.
Melchels, F.P., et al., 2012. Additive manufacturing of tissues
and organs. Progress in Polymer Science, 37 (8), 1079–1104.
Navy STTR, 2015a. In situ inspection of additive manufactured
metallic parts using laser ultrasonics [online]. Navy SBIR.
Available from: http://www.navysbir.com/15_A/4.htm
[Accessed 13 December 2016].
Navy STTR, 2015b. In situ, nondestructive inspection during
additive manufacturing of metallic parts [online]. Navy,
SBIR. Available from: http://www.navysbir.com/n15_a/
N15A-T008.htm.
NDT Resource Center, 2014. Sources of attenuation [online].
Available from: https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResour
ces/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/attenuation.
htm [Accessed 25 March 2017].
Noel, J., 2008. Advantages of CT in 3D scanning of industrial
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
parts. 3D Scanning Technologies Magazine, 1 (3), 18–23.
Palanisamy, S., Nagarajah, C., and Iovenitti, P., 2007. Ultrasonic
inspection of rough surface aluminium die castings. Insight
– Non-Destructive Testing and Condition Monitoring, 49 (3),
160–164.
Palmer, T.A. and Jones, G.T., 2016. Computed tomography as an
enabling technology for additive manufacturing. [online].
Available from: https://www.gemeasurement.com/sites/
gemc.dev/files/palmer_cimp3d_ct_for_additive_manufact
uring_1.pdf.
Partanen, J.P., 1996. Fabrication of parts containing small
features using stereolithography. ed. Proceedings of the 7th
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, USA.
Pavan, M., et al., 2016. CT-based quality control of laser sintering
of polymers. Case Studies in Nondestructive Testing and
Evaluation, 6, 62–68.
Raj, B., Jayakumar, T., and Thavasimuthu, M., 2002. Practical non-
destructive testing. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.
ReaLizer GmbH, 2012. First SLM desktop machine for manufac-
turing metal component [online]. Available from: http://
www.realizer.com/en/wp-content/themes/realizer/SLM-50.
pdf [Accessed 22 May 2017].
Rieder, H., et al., 2014. Online monitoring of additive manufac-
turing processes using ultrasound. ed. Proceedings of the
11th European Conference on Non-Destructive Testing,
October, 6–10.
Rombouts, M., et al., 2006. Fundamentals of selective laser
melting of alloyed steel powders. CIRP Annals –
Manufacturing Technology, 55 (1), 187–192.
Runnemalm, A., et al., 2014. Automatic thermography inspec-
tion of welded components with limited access. ed. 6th
International Symposium on NDT in Aerospace, 12–14th
November 2014, Madrid, Spain, 1–10.
Sager, B., et al., 2003, Experimental studies in stereolithography
resolution. ed. Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium, 70–81.
Sames, W.J., et al., 2016. The metallurgy and processing science
of metal additive manufacturing. International Materials
Reviews, 61 (5), 315–360.
Satzger, W., et al., 2013. Method and device for process monitor-
ing. Google Patents.
Schmerr, L.W., 2016a. Fundamentals of ultrasonic nondestructive
evaluation. Cham: Springer.
Schmerr, L.W., 2016b. An ultrasonic system. In: Fundamentals of
ultrasonic nondestructive evaluation: A modeling approach.
Cham: Springer International, 1–13.
Schmid, M. and Wegener, K., 2016. Additive manufacturing:
polymers applicable for laser sintering (LS). Procedia
Engineering, 149, 457–464.
Schwerdtfeger, J., Singer, R.F., and Körner, C., 2012. In situ flaw
detection by IR-imaging during electron beam melting.
Rapid Prototyping Journal, 18 (4), 259–263.
Sharratt, B.M., 2015. Non-destructive techniques and technologies
for qualification of additive manufactured parts and processes.
Victoria: Atlantic Research Centre.
Shirazi, S.F. S., et al., 2015. A review on powder-based additive
manufacturing for tissue engineering: selective laser sinter-
ing and inkjet 3D printing. Science and Technology of
Advanced Materials, 16 (3), 033502.
Shull, P.J., 2002. Nondestructive evaluation: theory, techniques,
and applications. New York: CRC Press.
Sing, S.L., et al., 2017. Direct selective laser sintering and melting of
ceramics: a review. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 23 (3), 611–623.
Singh, S., Ramakrishna, S., and Singh, R., 2017. Material issues in
additive manufacturing: a review. Journal of Manufacturing
Processes, 25, 185–200.
SLM Solutions, 2017. Selective laser melting machine SLM 280
2.0 [online]. Available from: https://slm-solutions.com/
products/machines/selective-laser-melting-machine-slm-
280-20 [Accessed 22 March 2017].
Smith, C., 1991. Advantages and limitations of an automated
visual inspection system. The South African Journal of
Industrial Engineering, 5 (1), 27–36.
Snelling, D., Williams, C., and Druschitz, A., 2014. A comparison
of binder burnout and mechanical characteristics of printed
and chemically bonded sand molds. ed. SFF Symposium,
Austin, TX.
Stratasys, 2017. FDM thermoplastics 3D print durable parts in
production-grade materials [online]. Available from: http://
www.stratasys.com/materials/fdm [Accessed 28 May 2017].
Studart, A.R., 2016. Additive manufacturing of biologically-
inspired materials. Chemical Society Reviews, 45 (2), 359–376.
Texas Geosciences, 2016. Resolution and size limitations
[online]. Available from: http://www.ctlab.geo.utexas.edu/
about-ct/resolution-and-size-limitations/ [Accessed 25
March 2017].
Travitzky, N., et al., 2014. Additive manufacturing of ceramic-
based materials. Advanced Engineering Materials, 16 (6),
729–754.
Uhlmann, E., et al., 2015. Additive manufacturing of titanium
alloy for aircraft components. Procedia CIRP, 35, 55–60.
Van Weeren, R., et al., 1995. Quality of parts processed by fused
deposition. ed. Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium, 314–321.
Waller, J.M., et al., 2014. Nondestructive evaluation of additive
manufacturing state-of-the-discipline report. Las Cruces, NM:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Waller, J.M., et al., 2015, Summary of NDE of additive manufac-
turing efforts in NASA. ed. AIP Conference Proceedings, 51–62.
Wang, F., et al., 2008. Online study of cracks during laser clad-
ding process based on acoustic emission technique and
finite element analysis. Applied Surface Science, 255 (5),
3267–3275.
Witvrouw, A., 2017. Precision additive metal manufacturing
[online]. Available from: https://www.pam2.eu/qcam.

Wong, K.V. and Hernandez, A. 2012. A review of additive man-
ufacturing. ISRN Mechanical Engineering, 2012, 1–10.
Yap, Y.L., et al., 2017. Material jetting additive manufacturing: an
experimental study using designed metrological bench-
marks. Precision Engineering.
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 21:56 31 August 2017
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 21
Yoon, J., He, D. and Van Hecke, B., 2014. A PHM approach to
additive manufacturing equipment health monitoring, fault
diagnosis, and quality control. ed. Proceedings of the
Prognostics and Health Management Society Conference,
Fort Worth, TX, USA, 1–9.