January 2026: New Standard Defines Imperfections in Metal Additive Manufacturing

Metal additive manufacturing continues to revolutionize production, but ensuring consistent quality remains a technical challenge. With the publication of the ISO/ASTM 52948:2026 standard in January 2026, industry professionals now have a comprehensive framework for classifying imperfections found in metal parts produced using powder bed fusion (PBF) technologies. This update is essential for manufacturers, engineers, and quality assurance specialists striving for higher reliability and compliance in advanced manufacturing.

Overview / Introduction

In the fast-evolving field of metal additive manufacturing—commonly known as metal 3D printing—production methods such as powder bed fusion (PBF) with laser or electron beams have enabled the creation of highly complex and functional components. However, the technical sophistication of these processes introduces various types of imperfections that can impact performance, durability, and safety.

Standards play a critical role in this sector by ensuring a common language for quality and testing. They help manufacturers and supply chains identify, understand, and manage process-induced flaws. This article explores the newly released ISO/ASTM 52948:2026 standard, what it covers, and how it supports improved non-destructive testing (NDT), risk management, and compliance.

Readers will discover:

• The classification framework for imperfections in metal additive manufacturing
• Key technical definitions and their implications
• How the standard advances inspection, testing, and quality assurance
• Actionable steps for organizations adopting additive manufacturing

Detailed Standards Coverage

ISO/ASTM 52948:2026 – Classification of Imperfections in Metal Powder Bed Fusion

Additive manufacturing of metals — Powder bed fusion — Classification of imperfections

The newly issued ISO/ASTM 52948:2026 standard establishes a systematic approach to classifying imperfections in metallic parts created using PBF-LB (laser beam powder bed fusion) or PBF-EB (electron beam powder bed fusion). Developed collaboratively by ISO and ASTM and published on January 6, 2026, it gives industry professionals a precise taxonomy to identify, communicate, and address defects during part production and testing.

Scope and Purpose

This standard focuses on categorizing observable imperfections that may arise in the additive manufacturing of metal parts using powder bed fusion techniques. While the classification is tailored to laser and electron beam PBF, many principles can apply to other additive processes. The document delineates types of imperfections, probable causes, and includes illustrative examples. Importantly, it does not set acceptance thresholds or dimensional criteria for imperfections, leaving that determination to application-specific standards or user-defined requirements.

Key Requirements and Specifications

• Imperfection Classes: The standard organizes imperfections into six main categories:
  1. Cracks
  2. Porosity
  3. Inclusions (e.g., foreign materials)
  4. Lack of fusion
  5. Shape, dimensional, and surface imperfections
  6. Other imperfections
• Definitions and Terms: Clear terminologies for terms such as bead, contour, downskin, upskin, and others, referenced against foundational standards (e.g., ISO/ASTM 52900, ASTM B243).
• Designation System: Imperfection codes of the form ISO/ASTM 52948-PBF/M [nnn], where [nnn] is the imperfection index (e.g., 110 for crack, 211 for spheroidal porosity).
• Illustrations and Explanatory Notes: Extensive use of diagrams and tables to show positions, orientations, and likely origins of each imperfection type.

Who Should Comply

This standard is highly relevant for:

• Manufacturers of metal parts via PBF-LB (Laser) or PBF-EB (Electron Beam) technologies
• Quality assurance and NDT professionals in additive manufacturing
• Engineering teams developing or qualifying additively manufactured parts
• Auditors and regulatory bodies overseeing industry-specific additive processes (e.g., aerospace, automotive, medical devices)

Practical Implications

Organizations can utilize the classification:

• As a foundation for non-destructive and destructive testing protocols
• For internal quality documentation, training, and process optimization
• For supplier and customer communication about defect types and mitigation
• When developing acceptance criteria or failure analysis strategies

Rather than prescribing acceptance levels, the standard enables shared understanding and the traceable identification of process issues, supporting better root-cause analysis and corrective actions.

Notable Aspects

• Extensive annexes offering visual and metallographic illustrations
• Guidance on probable causes, supporting continuous improvement
• Flexible applicability across additive manufacturing variants, while focusing on PBF specifics

Key highlights:

• Establishes a robust taxonomy for imperfections in metal PBF
• Improves inspection consistency and inter-organization communication
• Integrates seamlessly with existing NDT and process control frameworks

Access the full standard:View ISO/ASTM 52948:2026 on iTeh Standards

Industry Impact & Compliance

The adoption of ISO/ASTM 52948:2026 can profoundly impact organizations engaged in metal additive manufacturing. By providing a shared vocabulary and structure for imperfections, the standard enables:

• More consistent and efficient training of QA teams and operators
• Enhanced supplier and customer relationships through standardized reporting
• Smoother navigation of regulatory and certification processes, especially in safety-critical sectors (aerospace, medical, automotive)
• Improved root-cause analysis, allowing for focused process improvements

Compliance Considerations & Timelines

• Implementation: The standard’s classification system can be integrated into existing quality management systems, providing a reference point for both internal audits and third-party certification.
• Timelines: While no mandated transition date is set, early adoption positions organizations to meet future regulatory and customer requirements, especially as certification schemes increasingly reference international standards.
• Benefits:
  • Reduced risk of undetected defects, leading to higher part reliability
  • Lower rates of field failures and rework
  • Stronger position for participating in international supply chains

Risks of Non-Compliance

• Miscommunication leading to disputes or quality escapes
• Higher failure rates, with ensuing cost and reputation impacts
• Difficulty gaining or maintaining certifications that depend on standardized NDT practices

Technical Insights

Common Technical Features Across Additive Standards

• Emphasis on Process Control: The recurring theme is that process variables (e.g., laser power, scanning strategy, powder quality) directly influence imperfection occurrence.
• Illustrative Diagnostics: Visual aids and detailed classification tables support both in-situ and post-process inspection.
• Terminology Alignment: The standard references and aligns its definitions with foundational standards, minimizing ambiguity. This ensures that, across facilities and borders, engineers and inspectors speak the same technical language.

Implementation Best Practices

1. Integrate Classification into Inspection Protocols: Use the standard’s taxonomy in NDT (e.g., computed tomography, ultrasonic testing), marking observed imperfections according to the prescribed codes.
2. Training: Provide operations and QA teams with context-driven examples and visual aids derived from the standard’s annexes.
3. Continuous Improvement: Analyze collected imperfection data over time to identify trends and optimize process parameters or machine setups.
4. Collaboration: When working with external vendors or customers, use the standardized terminology to expedite technical discussions and prevent misinterpretation.

Testing & Certification Considerations

• Non-destructive testing (NDT) methods (e.g., X-ray, CT scanning, ultrasonic) should be updated to reference ISO/ASTM 52948:2026 codes during flaw detection and reporting.
• For industry certifications (e.g., ISO 9001, AS9100 in aerospace), citing this standard demonstrates a commitment to internationally recognized quality control.

Conclusion / Next Steps

With the publication of ISO/ASTM 52948:2026, the metal additive manufacturing sector gains a powerful tool for advancing quality, traceability, and technical communication. Now is the time for manufacturers, QA managers, and engineers to:

• Review and incorporate the new imperfection classification into internal documentation and inspection routines
• Train technical and inspection staff on new definitions, codes, and visual diagnostic techniques
• Collaborate with partners in the supply chain to align quality reporting and risk management approaches
• Stay informed by regularly consulting updates and new standards available through trusted platforms

Adopting this standard will support robust non-destructive testing, underpin compliance with customer and regulatory requirements, and position organizations at the forefront of reliable metal additive manufacturing.

Discover the full content and stay updated with leading standards at iTeh Standards.