There is strong demand in the additive manufacturing (AM) community for guidance in conducting round robin studies. This topic was one of the consensus-based priority action items identified in the Measurement Science Roadmap for Metals-Based Additive Manufacturing for accelerating widespread use of AM [1]. Further, ASTM International Committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Technical Committee 261 on Additive Manufacturing identified in their Joint Plan for AM Standards Development the need for high-level round robin standards broadly impacting AM [2]. The desire for round robin studies likely stems from the need for qualification and certification of parts used in critical applications. Qualification and certification of aerospace metallic materials is well defined and very rigorous, often requiring thousands of tests, millions of dollars, and five to fifteen years to complete [3]. Many in the AM community see round robin testing as a way to distribute the burden of qualification by having multiple institutions contribute to the process. However, accomplishing this requires some guidance on conducting the round robin studies as well as an examination of round robin tests themselves.
展开▼
