Go to the content
PROFECTRONICS
Technical article · Materials and production

High-temperature materials in 3D printing for fluid-carrying components

Documented values for temperature, strength, leak tightness and media resistance of printed components that contain a medium under pressure. The article also gives the applicable standards and the Pressure Equipment Directive.

Context

Content and validity

In test bench construction, additive manufacturing (AM) is common: for fixtures, adapters and flow straighteners. If a printed part contains a medium under pressure, the question changes fundamentally. Then the important items are leak tightness, reproducibility and the characteristic value that a design calculation can use. Design freedom becomes less important.

This article summarises the data that sources confirm. The important numbers are frequently not the advertised values, but the values one line below in the same table. A data sheet with 238 °C can mean 101 °C. For vertical PA12 walls, the pressure to the first leak decreases by more than 2 orders of magnitude between 0.6 and 0.4 mm. All values come from material data sheets, standards or peer-reviewed publications. If the research did not find a source for a frequently used number, the number is not in this article.

01

Heat deflection temperature on the data sheet

The heat deflection temperature (HDT) to ASTM D648 or ISO 75 always applies to one load case. The test applies a defined outer fibre stress to a flexural test bar. The measured quantity is the temperature at which a specified deflection occurs. There are usually 2 load cases: 0.45 MPa and 1.8 MPa. For some materials, the difference between the two is negligible. For other materials, it is large.

The data sheet of a high-temperature resin for stereolithography gives a heat deflection temperature of 238 °C. This value applies at 0.45 MPa. The specimen had a post-cure and an additional oven anneal at 160 °C for 180 min. The same material, the same specimen, measured at 1.8 MPa: 101 °C. The elongation at break is 2.3 %[16].

0 50 100 150 200 250 HEAT DEFLECTION TEMPERATURE · °C ULTEM 1010 · FDM 214.1 212.2 PPSU Radel R-5000 · IM 207.0 0.45 MPa not given in the data sheet ULTEM 9085 · FDM 178.2 172.6 PSU Udel P-1700 · IM 174.0 0.45 MPa not given in the data sheet PEEK 450G · IM 152.0 0.45 MPa not given in the data sheet PEKK Kepstan 6000 · IM 139.0 0.45 MPa not given in the data sheet PPS-CF · FFF 245.0 1.8 MPa not given in the data sheet High-temperature resin · SLA 238.0 101.0 PAHT CF15 · FFF 145.0 92.0 137 K difference from the load case alone AT 0.45 MPa AT 1.8 MPa IM = INJECTION-MOULDED VALUE, NOT PRINTED
Fig. 1 · Heat deflection temperature to ASTM D648 or ISO 75, at both load cases where the data sheet gives them. Values with “IM” come from data sheets for injection-moulded material and do not apply to printed material. Sources in sequence: ULTEM 1010[2] · PPSU[11] · ULTEM 9085[1] · PSU[12] · PEEK 450G[6] · PEKK[10] · PPS-CF[13] · High-temperature resin[16] · PAHT CF15[14]

For a component under pressure, the value at 1.8 MPa is the stricter reference. For some materials, this value is more than 100 K below the value on the product page.

A second source of error is the origin of the number. Data sheets of polymer manufacturers give values from injection-moulded specimens. Data sheets of machine and filament manufacturers give values of printed specimens and also state the part orientation. Both sets of numbers have the same units and standard numbers, but they mean different things. A data sheet for PEEK filament states this explicitly: only density and diameter apply to the filament itself. The mechanical values are polymer values and not values of the printed part[9].

02

Comparison of materials

The overview gives only values from the data sheet for the related row. The entry “not specified” means: the data sheet does not give the value. The entry does not mean that the value is zero.

Characteristic values from the manufacturer data sheets
MaterialProcessGlass transitionHDT at 1.8 MPaTensile strengthRemark
ULTEM 1010 (PEI)FDM209 °C212.2 °C79.2 MPa (XZ)Z value only 28.2 MPa with ± 31 % scatter[2]
ULTEM 9085 (PEI)FDM177 °C172.6 °C69.2 MPa (XZ)UL 94 V-0 from 0.508 mm[1]
PPSU Radel R-5000Injection moulded220 °C207 °C69.6 MPaNotched impact strength 690 J/m, highest value in this list[11]
PSU Udel P-1700Injection mouldednot specified174 °C70.3 MPaFDA 21 CFR 177.1655, NSF only for specific grades[12]
PEEK 450GInjection moulded150 °C152 °C98.0 MPaUL-RTI 260 °C electrical, 240 °C strength[6], [8]
PEEK VESTAKEEP i4 3DFFFF filament152 °C150 °C94 MPaUSP Class VI compliant, tested to ISO 10993-1[9]
PEKK Kepstan 6000Injection moulded158 °C139 °C88 to 89 MPapseudo-amorphous, slowest crystallisation in the list[10]
PPS-CFFFF filamentnot specifiednot specified95 to 105 MPa (XY)HDT 245 °C at 0.455 MPa, continuous use 220 °C[13]
PAHT CF15FFF filament70 °C92 °C (dry)103.2 MPa (XY)Z only 18.2 MPa, conditioned: XY decreases to 62.9 MPa[14]
PA 12MJFnot specified95 to 106 °C48 MPa (XY and Z)strength almost isotropic[15]

FDM: Fused Deposition Modeling · FFF: Fused Filament Fabrication · MJF: Multi Jet Fusion · PEI: polyetherimide · HDT: heat deflection temperature · XY: in the build plane · Z: in the build direction

Notes on 2 rows of the table: PAHT CF15 has a glass transition at 70 °C[14]. A water-glycol circuit with 80 °C supply operates this material above the glass transition, although the HDT is 92 °C. PA 12 from the multi jet fusion process has 48 MPa in both directions. Thus PA 12 is the only polymer material in the list for which the build direction does not determine the strength[15]. But for PA 12, the build direction determines the leak tightness (see section 04).

Metals

Of the AM processes in this article, only metal powder bed fusion is suitable for components with permanent pressure load. The data for metals is more robust because the data sheets give the as-built condition and the heat-treated condition separately.

Metal materials from laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF), values in the as-built condition
MaterialDensityRp0.2 vertical / horizontalRm vertical / horizontalRemark
316L≥ 7.97 g/cm³480 / 540 MPa560 / 645 MPaReference ASTM F138 and AISI 316L, roughness typically 5 to 25 µm[17]
IN718≥ 8.15 g/cm³650 / 800 MPa970 / 1 090 MPausable up to 700 °C, after heat treatment 1 145 / 1 240 MPa[18]
AlSi10Mg≥ 2.67 g/cm³230 / 270 MPa460 / 450 MPaThermal conductivity 100 W/(m·K), after T6 165 W/(m·K)[19]

Material designation 316L. The data sheet for 316L refers to ASTM F138 and AISI 316L[17]. It does not state that the material is equal to the European material number 1.4404. For material evidence to the Pressure Equipment Directive, this point is decisive (see section 08).

03

Strength in build direction

Each component that a printer builds layer by layer is anisotropic. In a layer, the material is continuous and fully melted. Between 2 layers, there is an interface. Its strength depends on the degree of fusion between the layers.

In a pipe under pressure, the hoop stress is the largest principal stress. The axial stress of a closed pipe is half of the hoop stress. For the interface, the important stress is the stress across the layer.

The data sheets give the numbers:

  • ULTEM 9085: XZ 69.2 MPa against ZX 39.4 MPa. The Z strength is 57 % of the strength in the plane. The elongation at break decreases from 5.4 % to 1.9 %[1].
  • ULTEM 1010: XZ 79.2 ± 4.9 MPa against ZX 28.2 ± 8.8 MPa. This is 36 %. The standard deviation is 31 % of the mean value[2].
  • PAHT CF15: XY 103.2 MPa against Z 18.2 MPa in the dry condition. This is 17.6 %[14].

For ULTEM 1010, the mean value minus 2 standard deviations in Z gives approximately 10.6 MPa. This is approximately 38 % of the mean value. 2 measures are effective: a batch test, or a part orientation in which the interface carries as little load as possible.

Calculation by Profectronics on build orientation, not a statement of the sources. For a thin-walled, closed pipe, Barlow's formula gives 2 cases:

  • Built upright (pipe axis in build direction): the hoop stress acts in the layer plane. Across the layer, only the axial stress acts. This is half of the hoop stress.
  • Built horizontal (pipe axis in the build plane): at the flanks of the pipe, the full hoop stress acts across the layer.

For ULTEM 1010 with 79.2 MPa in the plane and 28.2 MPa in Z[2], the result is as follows. Upright, the Z strength limits the hoop stress to 2 × 28.2 = 56.4 MPa. Horizontal, it limits the hoop stress to 28.2 MPa. Thus the upright orientation holds approximately 2 times the internal pressure. Also, a vertical channel needs no support structures.

Thus, for a straight pipe with internal pressure from an FFF material, the upright orientation is better. A manifold usually has channels in more than one direction. For each channel across the build direction, the horizontal case applies. For these channels, support structures and the surface quality of the channel wall that points down are additional factors (see section 05).

For PAHT CF15, there is a second effect. In test bench applications, it frequently gets no attention. After only 72 h in a normal room climate, the XY tensile strength decreases from 103.2 to 62.9 MPa. The modulus of elasticity decreases from 8 386 to 5 052 MPa[14]. With direct contact to water-glycol, the moisture uptake is higher than in the standard climate. Thus the conditioned values are still the favourable limit.

04

Leak tightness of printed walls

The central result of this article comes from a paper of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). The paper is about thin-walled fluidic devices from laser powder bed fusion. The title of the paper is also its core statement: Gas-tight means zero defects[23].

The paper uses its own definition of 2 thresholds: gas-tight below 10⁻⁸ mbar·l/s and liquid-tight below 10⁻⁴ mbar·l/s[23]. For 316L, it finds:

  • Reproducibly gas-tight from a wall thickness of approximately 300 µm. At 200 to 216 µm, the reproducibility decreased significantly.
  • Gas-tight specimens needed a line energy above approximately 320 J·m⁻¹.
  • The overlap of the melt tracks of 2 layers must be more than 60 to 70 %. If not, lack-of-fusion defects occur.
  • At 30° inclination to the horizontal, some specimens were still gas-tight, but with a lower probability.
  • The parameter set with the best compromise gave 78 % leak-free specimens (18 of 23). The parameter set for the thinnest walls gave 48 %.

In the optimised process, 78 % of the specimens were leak-free. For a test bench component, this means: each part needs a leak test. With this distribution, a random sample has no significance.

For polymer processes, the threshold is different, but equally sharp. A study on PA12 from the multi jet fusion process tested walls of 0.4 to 0.7 mm for 1 h at 20 ± 2 °C[24]. The result does not show a continuous curve, but a jump. This jump depends on the build orientation.

0.001 0.01 0.1 0.4 TEST PRESSURE · MPa WALL THICKNESS · mm 0.4 0.003 0.052 0.5 0.044 > 0.400 0.6 0.357 > 0.400 0.7 > 0.400 > 0.400 BUILT VERTICAL BUILT HORIZONTAL Built vertical: factor 119 between 0.6 and 0.4 mm wall thickness
Fig. 2 · Test pressure to the first leak for PA12 from the multi jet fusion process, per wall thickness and build orientation. “> 0.400” means: still tight at 0.4 MPa. This test series does not give higher pressures as a limit value. For walls built vertically, the value decreases by more than 2 orders of magnitude between 0.6 and 0.4 mm. Data source: Morales-Planas et al.[24].

Electron microscope images confirm the result in the microstructure: specimens built vertically show significantly more pores. The authors conclude that the orientation has “a great impact on the leak values, with the vertical orientation being the most critical”[24].

Good strength does not mean good leak tightness. Laser-sintered PEEK has a tensile strength of 88.7 MPa, compared with 100 MPa for injection-moulded PEEK. The total porosity is 4.36 %. The fracture surfaces show partially sintered particles[20]. For the strength, distributed porosity is mostly not critical. For the leak tightness, it is critical.

Reproducibility

The important number on process scatter comes from a parameter study on PEEK in the FFF process. Over 16 parameter combinations, the porosity varied from 0.12 % to 10.8 %. The crystallinity varied from 20 % to 27 %. Tensile strength and modulus of elasticity changed by up to 27 %[22]. With the same material and the same machine, the parameter set alone gives a factor of approximately 90 in the porosity.

A review paper on PEEK in FFF gives pore volume fractions of 6.7 % for XY print orientation and 7.6 % for Z print orientation. The individual pores in Z are significantly larger. The paper also shows that these materials need a heated build chamber. The modulus of elasticity was higher than that of the injection-moulded material only at a chamber temperature of 200 °C[21].

05

Flow in the printed channel

Diameter of the printed channel

A printed channel does not have the diameter from the drawing. A non-destructive study on L-PBF channels with 1.5 mm nominal size found a geometric mean diameter of 1.31 mm. This is 190 µm less. The functional equivalent diameter was 1.27 mm. The mean topography height of the channel wall was 23 to 24 µm, almost independent of the channel diameter[26].

Calculation by Profectronics, not a statement of the source. At the same volume flow, the turbulent pressure drop changes with the diameter to the power of −4.75 (Blasius) to −5 (constant friction factor). Thus 1.31 mm instead of 1.5 mm gives a factor of 1.9 to 2.0 in the pressure drop, without the effect of roughness. If the design of a printed channel uses the nominal size of 1.5 mm, the actual pressure drop is approximately 2 times the design value.

Roughness and the pipe friction methods of Moody and Colebrook

A paper examines if the classical pipe friction methods apply to additively manufactured channels. It uses semicircular channels from selective laser melting with relative roughness values of 0.0023 to 0.0044. The results[25]:

  • The transition from laminar to turbulent flow occurs at Reynolds numbers of approximately 1 400 to 1 800, not at approximately 2 300.
  • For the smoother 4 mm channels, the Blasius method was usable. For the rougher 2 mm channels, its error was more than 40 %.
  • A fillet on the channel edges increased the friction factor by approximately 9 % on average.

A second paper uses the Colebrook-White equation in the opposite direction: it calculates the actual hydraulic diameter from flow measurements. The deviation from computed tomography is less than ± 3 %[26]. This method is practical: the characteristic values of the channel come from the flow test and not from the drawing.

Self-supporting cross-sections instead of support structures

It is not possible to remove support structures from internal channels after the build. The solution is the shape of the cross-section. A printer cannot make surfaces with less than 30° inclination to the build plate. A diamond cross-section with 45° profile angle and a teardrop cross-section with 50° are self-supporting[27].

At Re = 8 000, the diamond has 22.5 % more pressure drop than the circular channel. The teardrop has 8.6 % more. The circular channel has the largest shape deviation in the overhang, approximately 300 µm. Its roughness on the lower side (downskin) is also the highest: Ra 5.4 to 40.5 µm, related to the position[27].

Thus the circular internal channel has 2 disadvantages in the overhang: it needs supports or it distorts, and it is roughest on the inner surface. It has no advantage in pressure drop that compensates for this. The teardrop cross-section is self-supporting and has 8.6 % more pressure drop.

Residual powder

In powder bed processes, powder stays in internal channels. A study on channels from 1 mm diameter with helix and U-bend geometries shows the results that follow. Manual ultrasonic polishing clears straight channels in less than 10 s. At sharp U-bends, this method fails. For laser powder bed fusion, the combination of ultrasonic bath and vacuum boiling was the most effective[28].

For the acceptance, the detection limit is decisive. A balance detects approximately 1 mm³ of powder. This is approximately 100 000 particles. X-ray computed tomography detects powder quantities one order of magnitude smaller[28].

Consequence for the acceptance. If a weight measurement finds no powder, it shows only that less than approximately 1 mm³ of powder is in the component. In an oil or fuel circuit with seat valves, nozzles or plate heat exchangers, this is not a release criterion. There, the acceptance plan must include a computed tomography or a flow test with particle count.

06

Media resistance and annealing

For PEEK, the polymer manufacturer gives a detailed resistance matrix. It uses 3 levels (no, slight, strong interaction) and more than one temperature[7]:

PEEK against typical test bench media, to the chemical resistance guide of Victrex
MediumInteraction at 23 °Cat 100 °Cat 200 °C
Ethylene glycolnonenoneslight
Engine oilnonenonenone
Petrolnonenonenot specified
Diesel oil, kerosenenonenot specifiednot specified
Water and steamnonenonenone

For printed materials, there is less data. The resistance comparison of a large FDM supplier rates ULTEM 9085 as “limited” against coolant, engine oil and petroleum fuels. ULTEM 1010 and the PEKK grades have better ratings[4]. This is contrary to the frequent assumption that PEI is chemically resistant in general. The same supplier gives a reservation: the ratings are only comparative and “not based on any specific testing”[4]. Thus the table is for preselection and is not evidence.

Effect of annealing

The test with the most significance comes from a study on printed PEKK to ASTM D543: 168 h immersion, then tensile test to ASTM D638. The specimens had both orientations, each without stress and at less than 1 % strain[5].

Printed PEKK after 168 h immersion, not annealed
MediumMass changeChange of tensile strength
Jet-A (aviation turbine fuel)+1.2 %−3 to −14 %
Hydraulic fluid Skydrol 500B-4+1.7 %−5 to −16 %
Methyl ethyl ketoneless than 1 %−7 to −17 %
Ethyl acetateless than 1 %−4 to −20 %
Dichloromethane+43 to +44.7 %−81 to −88 %

Dichloromethane causes the material without annealing to swell by 30.6 % in thickness and destroys it mechanically. After annealing, the mass change in the same medium decreases to 0.4 to 0.6 %. Then the change of strength is −15 to +1 %. All other media stay between −19 and +19 %. The manufacturer states that annealing removes the chemical sensitivity[5].

For semi-crystalline high-performance polymers from the FFF process, the thermal post-treatment decides the media resistance. Thus annealing is a mandatory step in the production instruction.

For fuel contact, the data is not sufficient. Only a test of your own to ASTM D543, with your part orientation and your annealing condition, gives valid results. Material data sheets give no basis for this.

07

Post-treatment of internal channels

The usual method to make internal channels smoother is abrasive flow machining. A study on additively manufactured titanium gives numbers for the benefit and the side effect[29]:

  • For a 10 mm through-hole, Ra decreased over 15 cycles from 10.66 to 6.32 µm. This is 40.7 %. The standard deviation of Ra decreased by 64.2 %.
  • For 4 mm channels with bends, the improvement was 20.4 % (straight) to 38.5 % (with 3 bends).
  • Side effect: After 15 cycles, the radius of the 4 mm channels increased by 6 %. Slot widths increased by up to 0.216 mm.
  • Limit: Walls thinner than 0.4 mm had a permanent deformation after only 5 cycles.

Narrow window for the wall thickness. For 316L, metal powder bed fusion needs approximately 300 µm wall thickness for reproducible gas tightness[23]. Abrasive flow machining deforms titanium walls below 400 µm[29]. The 2 values come from different materials and show only the order of magnitude. Thus the range between “thin enough for the lightweight advantage” and “thick enough for internal machining” is approximately 100 µm.

For both targets, the design must adapt the wall thickness locally. AM gives this freedom.

08

Standards, pressure equipment and approval

Framework of standards

ISO/ASTM 52900 specifies the terminology[30]. For the purchase of AM parts, ISO/ASTM 52901 is the applicable standard[31]. This standard applies to companies that buy AM parts. It specifies the data that the purchaser and the supplier must agree. ISO/ASTM 52920 applies to the process and the production site, not to the individual part[32].

Difference between ISO/ASTM 52930 and ISO/ASTM 52920. ISO/ASTM 52930 is a Technical Specification and not a standard. It applies only to the qualification of PBF-LB machines for installation, operation and performance[33]. ISO/ASTM 52920 qualifies the production site, not the part[32]. Neither of the 2 documents specifies a part release.

For the mechanical evaluation of metal AM materials, ASTM F3122 is available as a guide[34]. DNV-ST-B203, edition 2025-11, is the most complete basis that is publicly available for a continuous qualification path from material through process to part[41]. NASA-STD-6030[35] and MSFC-STD-3716[36] are freely accessible. Although they are for spaceflight, they are usable for part classification.

Pressure retention to ASME

ASME PTB-13-2021 is a criteria document and not a code. It describes the items that a future standard for metal pressure components from powder bed fusion must include[37]. The criteria apply only to low-temperature applications. This means: the design temperature is at least 25 K below the temperature at which time-dependent material properties become decisive[38].

Publications frequently give ASME Code Case 3020 as evidence. But Argonne National Laboratory states that it does not apply to laser powder bed fusion. It applies to the procedure qualification for metal deposition with gas metal arc welding, with approval in 2021-05[38]. The same source states that there is no formal ASME qualification for L-PBF in 316L. A related code case waits for additional fatigue tests on machined and printed specimens[38].

At the research status of August 2026, there is no ASME code path for a pressure component from L-PBF. There is a criteria document and a code case for a different process.

Pressure Equipment Directive

For the European market, Directive 2014/68/EU applies[39]. For test bench construction, Article 4(3) is decisive. It applies to pressure equipment and assemblies that are at or below the limits in Article 4(1) and (2). This equipment “shall be designed and manufactured in accordance with the sound engineering practice of a Member State”[39]. It is not in a category. Thus no conformity assessment procedure to Article 14 applies to it, and it must not bear the CE marking to Article 18[39].

The manufacturer gives the evidence of safe use. An additively manufactured component is acceptable if this evidence is sufficient.

Above the thresholds, Annex I point 4.2 applies. No harmonised material standard includes AM materials. Thus 2 paths remain: a European approval for materials to Article 15 or a particular material appraisal[39]. The manufacturer gives the particular material appraisal in the technical documentation. In categories III and IV, the notified body also assesses the particular material appraisal[39].

For the particular material appraisal, an inspection body describes a certification programme that applies EN 13445-4 section 3.1 by analogy. The inspection body reports a pilot audit for laser powder bed fusion at a pump manufacturer[40]. In the assessment of Profectronics, the work for each path is usually more than the benefit for single parts in test bench construction.

Media contact and drinking water

Some AM materials have documented approvals. But they do not apply to the application that plant engineering most frequently asks for. Documented approvals include:

  • ULTEM 1010 in certified grade: NSF 51 and ISO 10993 or USP Class VI[3]
  • a PEEK filament: USP Class VI compliant, tested to ISO 10993-1[9]
  • PA 12 for multi jet fusion: USP Class I to VI[15]

For drinking water, the situation is different. The German evaluation basis for plastics and other organic materials in contact with drinking water (KTW-BWGL) is available in the 6th amendment of 2025-11-20[42]. In the United Kingdom, material approval is through the Water Regulations Approval Scheme (WRAS) on the basis of BS 6920[43]. The research found no evidence of KTW-BWGL conformity, WRAS approval or certification to NSF/ANSI 61 for any additively manufactured material. The NSF listings in the polymer data sheets apply to injection-moulded grades of specific base resins[11], [12]. They do not apply to the printed form of these resins.

Assessment by Profectronics, not a statement of the sources. This result is technically plausible. Drinking water approvals evaluate migration and extractability for a defined ratio of surface to volume. A printed component has a layer structure, residual porosity and roughness in the range of some tens of micrometres. Thus its real surface is considerably larger and more accessible than the surface of an injection-moulded component.

09

Areas of use at Profectronics

Sections 01 to 08 give a clear division. This division is a conclusion of Profectronics and not of the sources in this article.

Not suitable

  1. Permanent pressure with load in the build direction. ULTEM 1010 in Z: 28.2 MPa with ± 31 % scatter[2]. The mean value minus 2 standard deviations gives approximately 10.6 MPa.
  2. Thin walls below the applicable threshold. Below 300 µm for metal powder bed fusion[23] and below 0.6 mm for MJF PA12 built vertically[24], the leak tightness decreases suddenly.
  3. Permanent load at temperature. The research found no creep data for printed polymers at operating temperature. For PEEK, the manufacturer documents low creep at 23 °C and approximately 60 MPa over 1 000 h[8]. For printed material with 0.12 to 10.8 % porosity[22], there is also no public design basis.
  4. Fuel lines without a test of your own. The manufacturer tables explicitly do not come from tests[4].
  5. Drinking water lines. No AM material has documented conformity to KTW-BWGL, WRAS or NSF/ANSI 61.
  6. Pressure components above the category thresholds of the Pressure Equipment Directive. There, the Directive requires a material approval or a particular material appraisal for AM materials. In categories III and IV, the notified body assesses it[39]. In the assessment of Profectronics, this work is not in proportion to the benefit for single parts.

Suitable

  1. Flow straighteners and manifolds with complex internal geometry below the category thresholds, with teardrop cross-section instead of circular cross-section. A pressure drop that is 8.6 % higher[27] is the trade-off for a smaller number of parts.
  2. Hot air and gas ducts without significant internal pressure. There, ULTEM 1010 uses its 212 °C at 1.8 MPa[2].
  3. Adapters and test fixtures for which the leak test is already part of the acceptance.
  4. Metal components of 316L or IN718 if conventional production cannot make the geometry. Conditions: leak test on each part, documented powder removal and the wall thickness as a separate inspection dimension.

Test chain for printed parts that contain media. Printed parts need the same test chain as welded parts. This chain includes a pressure test, a leak test on each part, and the part orientation and annealing condition in the acceptance report. If a computed tomography is necessary to show that no powder remains, it is part of the acceptance plan.

10

Sources

All references retrieved in August 2026. Material data sheets apply to their revision. Before a design, request the current version from the manufacturer. The article identifies all values from data sheets for injection-moulded material. These values do not apply to printed material.

  1. Stratasys · ULTEM™ 9085 Resin — FDM Thermoplastic Filament, Material Data Sheet · 2025 · www.stratasys.com/contentassets/264560ca109a4876a3761fde68c3ab5e/mds_fdm_ultem9085_0525a.pdf · material data sheet
  2. Stratasys · Material Data Sheet FDM — ULTEM™ 1010 Resin · June 2025 · www.stratasys.com/contentassets/cf5233651e104c96a9298560bc831e5a/mds_fdm_ultem-1010-resin_0625a.pdf · material data sheet
  3. Stratasys · Support Center — ULTEM™ 1010 resin (certifications) · retrieved 2026 · support.stratasys.com/en/Materials/FDM/ULTEM%E2%84%A2-1010-resin · manufacturer statement
  4. Stratasys · Chemical Compatibility of Selected FDM Materials — Data Sheet · 2020 · www.stratasys.com/siteassets/materials/materials-catalog/fdm-materials/pc-abs/pc-abs-redesign/chemical-compatibility-of-selected-fdm-materials---en-data-sheet.pdf · manufacturer statement
  5. Stratasys · White Paper: Chemical Resistance of Antero 800NA · 2018 / 2022 · www.stratasys.com/siteassets/resources/white-papers/wp_fdm_anterochemresistance_0622a.pdf · manufacturer test report
  6. Victrex · VICTREX™ PEEK Polymer 450G — Technical Data Sheet · Revision March 2026 · www.victrex.com/-/media/downloads/datasheets/victrex_tds_450g.pdf · material data sheet
  7. Victrex · Material Data — VICTREX™ PEEK Chemical Resistance · March 2016 · www.victrex.com/-/media/downloads/technical-guides/victrex_chemical_resistance_en_us.pdf · chemical resistance guide
  8. Victrex · Materials Properties Guide · 2020 · www.victrex.com/-/media/downloads/materials-properties/material-properties-guide_us-4-20.pdf · material guide
  9. Evonik · Product Information VESTAKEEP® i4 3DF · no year · www.evonik.com/content/dam/evonik/documents/tds-vestakeep-i4-3DF.pdf · material data sheet
  10. Arkema · Technical Data — KEPSTAN® 6000 Series · no year · hpp.arkema.com/assets/arkema/TDS%20ARKEMA%20KEPSTAN%20serie%206000.pdf · material data sheet
  11. Solvay Specialty Polymers · Technical Data Sheet — Radel® R-5000 polyphenylsulfone · rev. 2014-11-18 · www.professionalplastics.com/professionalplastics/content/downloads/RadelR5000.pdf · material data sheet
  12. Solvay Specialty Polymers · Technical Data Sheet — Udel® P-1700 polysulfone · rev. 2017-02-27 · www.nevicolor.it/prodotti/ricerca-polimero/solvay/udel-psu/allegati/udel-p-1700.pdf · material data sheet
  13. Flashforge · Technical Data Sheet PPS-CF Filament · no year · after-support.flashforge.jp/uploads/datasheet/tds/PPS_CF_TDS_EN.pdf · material data sheet
  14. Forward AM / BASF · Ultrafuse® PAHT CF15 — Technical Data Sheet, Version 4.0 · 2023-05-09 · forward-am.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Ultrafuse_PAHT_CF15_TDS_EN_v3.5-1.pdf · material data sheet
  15. HP Inc. · HP 3D High Reusability PA 12 — Data Sheet · November 2017 · cimquest-inc.com/resource-center/HP/Materials/HP-PA12-Datasheet.pdf · material data sheet
  16. Formlabs · Engineering Resin — High Temp Resin for Heat Resistance, Rev. 01 · 2020-07-10 · formlabs-media.formlabs.com/datasheets/1801087-TDS-ENUS-0P.pdf · material data sheet
  17. EOS GmbH · EOS StainlessSteel 316L — Material Data Sheet · 2024-02 · www.eos.info/var/assets/05-datasheet-images/Assets_MDS_Metal/EOS_StainlessSteel_316l/material_datasheet_eos_stainlesssteel_316l_en_web.pdf · material data sheet
  18. EOS GmbH · EOS NickelAlloy IN718 — Material Data Sheet · 2020-02 · www.eos.info/03_system-related-assets/material-related-contents/metal-materials-and-examples/metal-material-datasheet/nickelalloy-inconel/material_datasheet_eos_nickelalloy_in718_m290_premium_en_web.pdf · material data sheet
  19. EOS GmbH · Premium EOS Aluminium AlSi10Mg — Material Data Sheet · 2022-01 · www.eos.info/var/assets/03_system-related-assets/material-related-contents/metal-materials-and-examples/metal-material-datasheet/aluminium/material_datasheet_eos_aluminium-alsi10mg_en_web.pdf · material data sheet
  20. T. Hoskins, K. Dearn, S. Kukureka · Mechanical performance of PEEK produced by additive manufacturing · Polymer Testing 70 (2018) 511–519 · pure-oai.bham.ac.uk/ws/files/54051875/Post_Print_Manuscript_Mech_Performance_of_PEEK_produced_by_additive_manufacturing.pdf · peer-reviewed
  21. A. R. Zanjanijam et al. · Fused Filament Fabrication of PEEK: A Review of Process-Structure-Property Relationships · Polymers 12 (8) 1665, 2020 · www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/12/8/1665 · peer-reviewed
  22. L. Doyle et al. · Unraveling the Print–Structure–Property Relationships in the FFF of PEEK · Polymers 17 (11) 1444, 2025 · www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/17/11/1444 · peer-reviewed
  23. F. Grinschek et al. (KIT) · Gas-tight means zero defects — design considerations for thin-walled fluidic devices with overhanging by laser powder bed fusion · Materials & Design 223 (2022) 111174 · publikationen.bibliothek.kit.edu/1000151121/149375998 · peer-reviewed
  24. S. Morales-Planas et al. · Multi Jet Fusion PA12 Manufacturing Parameters for Watertightness, Strength and Tolerances · Materials 11 (8) 1472, 2018 · www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/11/8/1472 · peer-reviewed
  25. L. Lam et al. · Experimental Investigation of Friction Factor Performance in Additively Manufactured PCHE-Type Semicircular Channels with Corner Filleting · Fluids 11 (6) 142, 2026 · www.mdpi.com/2311-5521/11/6/142 · peer-reviewed
  26. L. Chandrabalan et al. · Non-Destructive Assessment of the Functional Diameter and Hydrodynamic Roughness of Additively Manufactured Channels · Applied Sciences 13 (10) 5911, 2023 · www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/10/5911 · peer-reviewed
  27. A. Seidler, S. Holtzhausen, K. Paetzold-Byhain · Computational analysis of overhang surface roughness effects on self-supporting channels · Proceedings of the Design Society 5 (ICED25), 2025 · www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/ACCE29B1D7172A67248EAFF8DC84416D/S2732527X25101156a.pdf/computational_analysis_of_overhang_surface_roughness_effects_on_selfsupporting_channels.pdf · peer-reviewed
  28. L. W. Hunter et al. · Assessment of trapped powder removal and inspection strategies for powder bed fusion techniques · Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 106 (2020) 4521–4532 · link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00170-020-04930-w · peer-reviewed
  29. S. S. Jalui et al. · Abrasive Flow Machining of Additively Manufactured Titanium: Thin Walls and Internal Channels · SFF Symposium 2021, pp. 1646–1660 · utw10945.utweb.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/2021/136%20Abrasive%20Flow%20Machining%20of%20Additively%20Manufactured.pdf · conference paper
  30. ISO/ASTM · ISO/ASTM 52900:2021 — Additive manufacturing — General principles — Fundamentals and vocabulary · 2021 · www.iso.org/standard/74514.html · standard
  31. ISO/ASTM · ISO/ASTM 52901:2017 — Additive manufacturing — General principles — Requirements for purchased AM parts · 2017 · www.iso.org/standard/67288.html · standard
  32. ISO/ASTM · ISO/ASTM 52920:2023 — Qualification principles — Requirements for industrial AM processes and production sites · 2023 · www.iso.org/standard/76911.html · standard
  33. ISO/ASTM · ISO/ASTM TS 52930:2021 — Qualification principles — Installation, operation and performance (IQ/OQ/PQ) of PBF-LB equipment · 2021 · www.iso.org/standard/79527.html · Technical Specification
  34. ASTM International · ASTM F3122-14(2022) — Standard Guide for Evaluating Mechanical Properties of Metal Materials Made via Additive Manufacturing Processes · 2014 / 2022 · store.astm.org/f3122-14r22.html · standard
  35. NASA · NASA-STD-6030 — Additive Manufacturing Requirements for Spaceflight Systems · 2021-04-21 · standards.nasa.gov/standard/NASA/NASA-STD-6030 · technical guideline
  36. NASA MSFC · MSFC-STD-3716 — Standard for Additively Manufactured Spaceflight Hardware by Laser Powder Bed Fusion in Metals · 2017-10-18 · standards.nasa.gov/standard/MSFC/MSFC-STD-3716 · technical guideline
  37. ASME · PTB-13-2021 — Criteria for Pressure Retaining Metallic Components Using Additive Manufacturing · 2021 · www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/criteria-for-pressure-retaining-metallic-components-using-additive-manufacturing · criteria document
  38. M. Messner, B. Barua et al. · ANL-AMMT-009 — ASME Code Qualification Plan for LPBF 316 SS · Argonne National Laboratory, September 2023 · publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2023/08/184225.pdf · research report
  39. European Parliament and Council · Directive 2014/68/EU on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pressure equipment (recast) · OJ 2014-06-27 · eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/68/oj?locale=en · legal act
  40. TÜV SÜD · Die europäische Druckgeräterichtlinie für Werkstoffe und Halbzeuge · 2020-09-02 · www.additive-fertigung.com/bericht/allgemeines_3270/die_europaeische_druckgeraeterichtlinie_fuer_werkstoffe_und_halbzeuge-2020-09-02 · technical article of an inspection body
  41. DNV · DNV-ST-B203 — Additive manufacturing of metallic parts, Edition 2025-11 · 2025 · www.dnv.com/energy/standards-guidelines/dnv-st-b203-additive-manufacturing/ · technical guideline
  42. German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) · Anlagen der Bewertungsgrundlage für Kunststoffe und andere organische Materialien im Kontakt mit Trinkwasser (KTW-BWGL), 6. Änderung · 2025-11-20 · www.umweltbundesamt.de/dokument/anlagen-der-bewertungsgrundlage-fuer-kunststoffe · official evaluation basis
  43. Water Regulations Approval Scheme Ltd · Material Approvals — test basis BS 6920 · retrieved 2026 · www.wrasapprovals.co.uk/material-approvals/ · approval body
Enquiry

Printed fluid components

Give the medium, operating pressure, temperature and quantity. We examine the feasibility and give the reasons for the result.

Send an enquiry Focus area media conditioning All technical articles