Assessment of surface roughness, dimensional accuracy, and hardness in 17-4PH stainless steel standardized artifacts manufactured by atomic diffusion additive manufacturing

The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-026-18416-8 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Assessment of surface roughness, dimensional accuracy, and hardness in 17-4PH stainless steel standardized artifacts manufactured by atomic diffusion additive manufacturing Elena Monzón1 · Pablo Bordón1 · Ricardo Donate2 · Julia Mirza1 · Rubén Paz1 Received: 11 February 2026 / Accepted: 27 May 2026 © The Author(s) 2026 Abstract Additive manufacturing offers significant advantages over conventional technologies and continues to expand in the industrial sector through the incorporation of metallic materials. However, certain aspects, such as surface finish and dimensional accuracy, still lag behind those achieved by CNC subtractive technologies. Several technologies, including material extrusion (MEX) and powder bed fusion (PBF), enable the use of metallic feedstock. Previous studies have analyzed surface finish, mechanical strength, and dimensional accuracy, but they often rely on disparate manufacturing parameters and non-standardized test artifacts. This study presents the characterization of dimensional accuracy, surface roughness, and hardness in parts produced by the material extrusion technology known as Atomic Diffusion Additive Manufacturing (ADAM), using 17-4PH stainless steel as feedstock. The characterization was performed using standardized artifacts in accordance with ISO/ASTM 52902:2019, facilitating effective comparisons between metallic additive manufacturing technologies through a consistent dimensional study. The results revealed absolute dimensional deviations, for various geometric elements ranging from -0.23 to 0.74 mm, and percentage deviations ranging from -4.6% to 1.58%, depending on the geometry. The influence of build orientation on dimensional deviations was also evaluated, along with roughness (3.66 ± 1.23 µm for horizontal geometries) and hardness varied with inclination angle, ranging from 27.6 ± 2.1 HRC to 33.0 ± 1.7 HRC for angles up to approximately 60°. Finally, a concise metallographic analysis is presented to illustrate the internal structure of the parts. Pablo Bordón Rubén Paz 1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Edificio de Ingenierías, Campus de Tafira Baja, 35017 Las Palmas, Spain 2 Department of Process Engineering, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Edificio de Ingenierías, Campus de Tafira Baja, 35017 Las Palmas, Spain The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Graphical Abstract Assessment of surface roughness, dimensional accuracy, and hardness in 17-4PH stainless steel standardized arfacts manufactured by Atomic Diffusion Addive Manufacturing 3.1 Dimensional analysis 3.2 Roughness and hardness 1. ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 Arfacts Lineal arfact (LA) Circular arfact (CA) Resoluon rib (RR) Resoluon slot (RS) Resoluon pin (RP) Resoluon hole (RH) Resoluon slot with angularity (RSA) Surface texture (ST) Final parts 2. Atomic diffusion addive manufacturing Material extrusion Debinding 3.3 Internal structure Sintering Keywords 17-4PH stainless steel material · Atomic diffusion additive manufacturing · Material extrusion · Dimensional characterization · Roughness · Hardness · Metallography 1 Introduction Additive manufacturing (AM) has undergone continuous technological advancement since its conceptual origins in the late nineteenth century and the emergence of key patents in the early twenty-first century [1], and it remains one of the most innovative and cutting-edge manufacturing technologies, with a market size of over €10 billion in 2023 (an increase of 10% compared to 2022) and projected to expand at a similar rate, potentially doubling by 2028 [2, 3]. Although this growth is driven by a wide range of sectors, advanced industries such as aerospace are already forecasting growth exceeding 30% [2] due to the introduction of metallic materials. Alloys such as steel, titanium, and copper have been extensively studied [4, 5], demonstrating the feasibility of achieving full density parts with properties comparable to those produced by conventional manufacturing processes [6, 7]. However, like polymers, these properties are heavily influenced by technology-specific parameters, such as print orientation [8, 9] or layer thickness [10, 11]. Similarly, dimensional control of the produced parts is complex, affected by the variety of defects associated with these manufacturing technologies [12], residual stresses [13, 14], process speed [15], infill type, and layer thickness [16] as well as the significant influence of material type and format [17, 18]. Among the different metallic additive manufacturing technologies, Powder Bed Fusion (PBF) stands out, accounting for 50% of the sector’s revenue, of which 80% corresponds to metal manufacturing [2, 19]. PBF’s consolidation is due 13 to its technological maturity [19], its high accuracy [20, 21], the good mechanical performance of the parts produced [21, 22], the variety of metals available [23], and the cost reduction compared to conventional technologies [24]. However, these technologies still face significant barriers, such as the high cost of the equipment, handling of the powder used as raw material [25], issues with porosity control and surface finishes [26, 27], and the inherent technological complexity and parameterization [28, 29]. As an alternative to metallic PBF, material extrusion-based additive manufacturing (MEX) technologies have emerged, such as Bound Metal Deposition (BMD) developed by Desktop Metal, Inc., or Atomic Diffusion Additive Manufacturing (ADAM) developed by Markforged, Inc. These technologies utilize, in a first stage, the MEX additive manufacturing process to produce parts that are not yet fully consolidated. Subsequently, they must undergo debinding and sintering processes, which allow the metal to be definitively consolidated and achieve optimal densities and mechanical properties. This approach significantly reduces equipment costs [30], ensures more manageable and safer materials [31], and provides acceptable dimensional accuracy [32] despite notable challenges in surface finish and anisotropy [33, 34]. Most studies on MEX underscore that the inherent variability and complexity of dimensional control arise from the interplay of multiple coupled phenomena, with thermal effects—such as shrinkage and warping during cooling—being among the most significant contributors, where crystallization induces residual stresses and non-uniform contraction [35–37]. Furthermore, the layer-wise deposition The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology strategy intrinsically introduces anisotropy, limited resolution along the build direction, and geometric deviations affecting form and orientation tolerances, including flatness, cylindricity, and perpendicularity [38–40]. These issues are exacerbated by machine-dependent facto (...truncated)