Additive manufacturing and the PED

The AM route across four pages — what is where

This guide is split over four pages, in the order in which the questions arise in a project. Starting from scratch, work through them top to bottom. Looking for one answer, go straight in.

1. This page — regime and category. The route wizard · what “may I print this” actually consists of · question 1: new product or replacement · question 2: does AM change the category · question 3: the material, in brief
2. Material and PMA — question 3 in full. Which of the three material routes applies, what belongs in a particular material appraisal, test directions and anisotropy, the material manufacturer's quality system, and whether your DNV or API qualification counts.
3. Processes, personnel and NDT — question 4. Which process family you use and what that changes legally, point 3.1.2 on a fully printed part, qualification without a harmonised standard under Guideline F-06, and non-destructive testing.
4. Technical file and sector frameworks. What the notified body wants to see on the table, and how DNV-ST-B203, API 20S and the ISO/ASTM 52926 series relate to the PED.

Two in-depth pages sit alongside that route, for anyone looking beyond one project: European approval for materials and your PMA library — material evidence you reuse · Standards in development — EN 13445-14 and what harmonisation takes.

Then: the feasibility check — your part put through the same route, with the outcome on paper.

What "may I print this" actually consists of

Customers ask one question. It contains four, and they are almost always conflated:

1. Is this a new product or a repair? This decides whether the PED applies at all.
2. Does additive manufacturing change the category? No — and that helps less than you hope.
3. How do you demonstrate the material? This is where the work is, and where projects stall.
4. How do you qualify process, personnel and NDT? This is where the money is that nobody budgets.

Four words that get conflated

A directive, national regulations, guidelines and standards all appear on this page. They do not carry equal weight, and that difference decides how firmly you can make a statement. So, the hierarchy first:

The directive is the European law: Directive 2014/68/EU, the PED. Regulations here means the Dutch track for the in-service phase, the Pressure Equipment Decree and Regulation 2016. A guideline is something else: the interpretation the European Working Group “Pressure” gives at difficult points in the directive. That interpretation is not legally binding — the set says so itself — but notified bodies and market surveillance authorities follow it in practice, so you rarely win an argument by contradicting it. A standard, finally, is always voluntary; only a harmonised standard delivers the presumption of conformity.

Question 1: new product or replacement?

This is the most important split and the most frequently overlooked one. It decides whether you run a full conformity assessment or a considerably lighter route.

The Working Group Pressure answered this explicitly in PED Guideline A-03. Three situations, three outcomes:

Most "our casting is no longer available" questions fall in the second row. Your supplier will not tell you that, because he would rather sell you a new item. Your inspection body will not volunteer it either, because it only receives the question once the decision has been made.

Question 2: does additive manufacturing change the category?

No. Annex II classifies on equipment type, phase, fluid group and the figures PS and V or DN. There is no process parameter in it. An additively manufactured vessel of 11 bar and 500 litres holding compressed air lands in exactly the same category as the same vessel made from plate. You can verify that yourself with the free check.

That is the reassuring part. The difficult part is the sentence behind it: what changes is the burden of proof within that category. For a cast or rolled part you take a harmonised material standard and you are done with Annex I point 4.2. For an additively manufactured part that standard does not exist, and then the work described in the rest of this page begins.

Practical consequence: work out where you sit before you commit to an AM route. If you land in category I there is no notified body and no approval requirement for joining procedures — the route is far shorter than the literature suggests. If you land in III or IV, the specific assessment of the material by the notified body is unavoidable and it sets the lead time of your entire project.

Question 3: the material — in brief

This is the centre of gravity of the whole project and therefore has its own page. The short version: there is no harmonised AM material standard, so the presumption of conformity falls away and the route runs through a particular material appraisal (Annex I point 4.2(b), third indent) or, rarely, a European approval for materials (Article 15). From category III the notified body appraises that document separately (point 4.2(c)).

The four steps are worked out on Material and the particular material appraisal: which route, what you fix, how you test and who appraises.

AM–PED feasibility check — € 450 excl. VAT

The page above answers the general question. The question that costs money is the specific one: will thís part pass, along which route, and what will the testing cost? That is what this is for.

What you get: a memo of four to six pages on one specific part, within five working days of receiving the data. Fixed price, no hourly billing afterwards.

1. Regime determination — new on the market or replacement under Art. 26 WBDA, with the reasoning behind it.
2. Category and module — calculated with the same engine as the free check, with the table and the limit values around it.
3. Material route — which PMA evidence is needed, which tests, in which directions, and which harmonised standard for a similar grade you have to weigh in.
4. Qualification plan — build procedure and operator, who approves what, and from which category that has to be a notified body or a recognised third-party organisation.
5. NDT plan — method per surface, acceptance criterion with justification, and the machining question priced explicitly.
6. File list and bottlenecks — what the technical file must contain, plus a realistic estimate of lead time and where it goes wrong.

What I need: a drawing or 3D model, the intended material and process, PS and V or DN, the medium and operating temperature, and whether the equipment is new or already in service. The request form asks for that in four steps; you receive a file number and a link to come back to it.

Request the feasibility check

The request itself is free and without obligation: within two working days you hear whether the part lends itself to this and what the check would cost in your case. Already have a file? Open it on the file page.

This is advice on the route and the evidence, not a conformity assessment. The assessment itself remains with the manufacturer and, where the directive requires it, with a notified body. The in-service part of the memo covers Dutch law; for equipment operated elsewhere it identifies what to check in the member state of use.

Frequently asked questions

Further reading