Find the most suitable 3D printer for your needs.
We guide you to find the best option according to your needs.
Find the most suitable 3D scanner for your needs.
Contact us and we'll get it for you.
Find the most suitable filament for each application.
Find the most suitable resin for each application.
Find the most suitable powder for each application.
Find the most suitable pellets for each application.
Find the accessory you need for your 3D printer.
Find the ideal accessories for your 3D prints.
In demanding sectors such as aerospace or advanced industry, additive manufacturing or 3D printing has evolved from a prototyping tool to a functional production solution. But with this transition comes an unavoidable requirement: ensuring the quality and reliability of every printed component. How do we ensure that a 3D part meets technical requirements when it is intended to withstand real loads, vibrations, or extreme environmental conditions?
This article thoroughly discusses how components produced by additive manufacturing are tested, focusing especially on polymer-based technologies such as FDM, SLA, and SLS, without losing sight of lessons transferable to the metal domain.
The adoption of 3D printing in industry continues to grow. In sectors such as aeronautics, automotive, and energy, design freedom, structural lightness, and the ability to manufacture on demand are particularly valued. However, unlike traditional methods, layer-by-layer manufacturing introduces specific variables such as internal porosity or poor inter-layer adhesion.
This leads companies to opt for rigorous testing protocols. It's not just about complying with regulations; it's about building trust. In critical sectors, validating a printed part is not an option; it's the only way to turn an innovation into a reliable standard.
Destructive tests allow direct measurement of a part's mechanical and physical limits. Although it involves rendering the component unusable, this data is fundamental for validating materials and processes.
One of the most common tests is tensile testing: a printed part, known as a test specimen (usually with standardized geometry), is subjected to increasing force until it breaks. This yields properties such as ultimate tensile strength, elastic modulus, and elongation.
For parts that support loads or bending, compression and flexion tests are essential. They determine whether an FDM-printed support or an SLS-produced casing will withstand without cracking or deforming.
Particular attention should be paid to inter-layer adhesion tests in FDM prints. Many failures occur between poorly fused layers, so it is common to print samples in different orientations to evaluate their structural anisotropy (how they behave mechanically in different directions).
In environments such as aerospace, parts are subjected to constant cyclic loads. To evaluate the service life, the sample is subjected to thousands or millions of load cycles until failure occurs. This type of test is key for UAV components or mechanical supports in automotive applications.
On the other hand, impact tests — such as the Charpy test — allow us to determine how much energy a part absorbs before fracturing. This is especially relevant for parts manufactured in SLA, where brittleness can be a critical problem if not controlled.
Thermal resistance and humidity stability are other important variables. Parts can be subjected to temperature cycles or controlled environments to detect deformations, softening, or material degradation.
In aerospace applications, vibration tests are also performed. Printed parts are mounted on shaker platforms to simulate flight or launch conditions, validating their structural and functional integrity.
When a part fails any of these tests, a detailed fracture analysis is performed. Studying the broken surface reveals whether the failure was caused by internal porosity, poor layer adhesion, or the inclusion of foreign material. This learning allows for improving the printing process in future iterations.
In many cases, especially when dealing with expensive or unique parts, it is essential to evaluate their integrity without damaging them. This is where non-destructive testing (NDT) comes into play.
The first step is always a detailed visual inspection. Cracks, poorly fused layers, or surface deformations can be indications of internal defects. For high-precision parts, magnifiers or microscopes are used.
To ensure that dimensions conform to the design, calipers, micrometers, or coordinate measuring machines (CMMs) are used. For complex geometries, 3D scanners (laser or structured light) allow direct comparison of the part with its CAD model, detecting millimeter deviations without physical contact.
Using X-rays, it is possible to visualize internal defects such as pores, cracks, or unfused material. This is a common technique for SLS or MJF (Multi Jet Fusion) parts that must guarantee internal homogeneity.
Computed tomography goes a step further: it generates a three-dimensional image of the part's interior. This not only reveals micro-defects but also allows for measuring wall thicknesses and hidden geometries, such as internal lattice structures. In the aerospace sector, it is a standard practice for critical components.
Ultrasonic testing uses high-frequency sound waves to detect internal imperfections. Although more common in metals, it is gaining ground in polymers thanks to techniques like phased array ultrasonics, which improve resolution.
Infrared thermography, on the other hand, allows for identifying internal delaminations by analyzing the cooling patterns of a heated part. And methods like laser shearography detect surface deformations that betray underlying defects.
On very smooth surfaces, liquid penetrant inspection can also be applied to identify microscopic cracks. Although less common in rough polymers, it remains a valid tool for SLA parts.
The evolution of additive manufacturing has not only improved printing precision but also monitoring capabilities during the process. Today, many industrial printers incorporate in-situ monitoring systems that allow real-time defect detection, even before the part is finished.
Some high-end FDM and SLS printers are equipped with cameras that visually monitor each layer, or with lasers that measure the thickness and correct fusion of the material. In SLA, there are sensors that control resin curing. In metal printing, these systems analyze the temperature of the fusion chamber or detect anomalous sounds that could indicate pore formation.
This type of control allows identifying failures such as deformations, extruder blockages, or recoater errors. If an anomaly is detected, the system can stop printing or adjust parameters automatically. This prevents the production of defective parts from the outset, reducing the need for subsequent corrective tests.
While this supervision does not replace final tests, it adds an additional layer of security, especially in aeronautical applications. Knowing that each layer has been controlled during manufacturing generates technical traceability of great value in certification processes. For those managing additive production lines, investing in professional printers with advanced monitoring functions not only improves quality but also turns the equipment itself into an assurance tool.
As additive manufacturing consolidates in industrial environments, so do the regulatory frameworks governing the validation of 3D printed materials, processes, and products.
Organizations such as ASTM, ISO, and SAE have already developed specific regulations for testing and certifying additively manufactured parts. In the aerospace sector, for example, there are specifications that define the minimum material properties and required testing methods.
Furthermore, in regulated sectors such as aviation or medicine, not only must the part pass technical tests: the complete manufacturing process must be certified. This involves documenting equipment calibration, material traceability, operator training, and the statistical repeatability of results.
A common practice in production is to include test pieces within the same print job. Thus, for each batch of functional parts, test pieces are manufactured and subjected to destructive tests. Only if these samples meet the established criteria is the rest of the batch validated.
Material and process consistency is key. This involves using certified materials, properly storing filaments and resins to prevent them from being affected by humidity, regularly calibrating printers, and controlling the printing environment.
Many companies collect and analyze all test data, applying statistical process control (SPC) techniques to detect trends. If, for example, a progressive drop in mechanical strength is observed, parameters can be adjusted before it affects mass production.
Best practices from the aerospace sector are being adopted by other industries, such as automotive or medical. While not all require the same level of control, applying validation protocols inspired by the most demanding standards elevates the overall quality of the additive manufacturing ecosystem.
Each material has specific properties that must be known and verified. If a technical filament indicates a tensile strength of 50 MPa, it is advisable to print a test specimen and test it to verify if that value is achieved under your printing conditions. This ensures that the supplier's data is reproducible in your environment.
Furthermore, opting for industrial and certified materials reduces batch-to-batch variability and improves repeatability. Although their price may be higher than basic filaments, their consistency and technical support justify the investment, especially when manufacturing functional parts.
Having in-house testing capability (such as a tensile machine or a precision 3D scanner) allows for rapid validation of results. For more advanced inspections (tomography, vibration, fatigue), it is advisable to outsource to specialized laboratories. This avoids excessive investment in early stages and allows for progressive scaling.
On the other hand, industrial printers themselves can be integrated into the quality strategy: many record key parameters (temperature, humidity, layer images), which can be analyzed to detect deviations.
Not all parts require the same tests. Establishing criticality levels (critical functional part, auxiliary tooling, visual prototype) allows for intelligent resource allocation. A flight part may require tomography and full mechanical testing; a tool housing, only visual inspection.
Additionally, printing extra or duplicate parts for testing allows for validation without compromising functionality, and accelerates iteration cycles when printing parameters need to be adjusted.
The success of additive manufacturing in industrial sectors does not depend solely on design or material: it depends on testing, verifying, and ensuring every step. 3D printing has proven itself capable of meeting critical demands, from aerospace parts to functional components in the factory. But each of those parts literally went through a test bench.
This article aims to demonstrate that any company, from a large manufacturer to an industrial SME, can introduce 3D printing into its processes. Implementing appropriate tests, choosing certified materials, controlling processes, and leveraging modern inspection technologies is the key to doing so successfully.
And for this, having technical suppliers who offer industrial materials, printers with advanced monitoring, and integrated inspection tools, is a strategic advantage. The future of additive manufacturing lies in uniting innovation and control. With each test, not only the part but also confidence in this technology is strengthened.
I have read and accept the privacy policy.