Short answer

When designing or specifying tooling for low-volume production, perform a comparative cost analysis between additive and subtractive manufacturing methods, considering material options and hybrid approaches.

Field: Commercial Production
Source: Academic Publication (2017)
Method: Comparative economic analysis and case study.
Evidence: Strong effect

Additive manufacturing, specifically selective laser melting, can offer economic advantages over traditional subtractive methods like milling when producing specialized tooling, such as dies for tube bending, especially for low annual production volumes. This commercial production research insight is drawn from a 2017 study published in Academic Publication. Using Comparative economic analysis and case study., researchers explored how this design variable affects real-world outcomes. The key design takeaway: When designing or specifying tooling for low-volume production, perform a comparative cost analysis between additive and subtractive manufacturing methods, considering material options and hybrid approaches.

Study

Commercial ProductionHigh ImpactStrong effect

Additive Manufacturing can be cost-competitive for low-volume tooling production

Academic Publication · 2017

Key Findings

01Additive manufacturing (SLM) can be economically viable for producing forming dies for tube bending, especially when batch sizes are low.
02The cost-effectiveness of SLM is influenced by factors such as material choice (tool steel vs. bronze alloy) and the potential for hybrid manufacturing approaches.
03When considering the total cost of ownership and production, additive manufacturing can compete with or outperform traditional machining for specific tooling applications.

Application

Design takeaway

How to apply

Before committing to traditional machining for low-volume or custom tooling, conduct a detailed cost comparison that includes additive manufacturing options, factoring in material, processing, and post-processing expenses.

Project actions

01When comparing manufacturing methods, ensure you account for all costs, including material, machine time, labor, and finishing.
02Consider hybrid manufacturing (combining additive and subtractive) as a potential cost-saving strategy.

Method & Evidence

AimTo determine the economic feasibility of using selective laser melting (SLM) for producing tube-bending tools compared to traditional milling, considering different materials and hybrid manufacturing approaches.

MethodComparative economic analysis and case study.

ProcedureThe study analyzed the costs associated with producing tube-bending tools using SLM and traditional milling. This included evaluating material costs, processing time, labor, and post-processing for both methods, as well as exploring hybrid manufacturing (combining additive and subtractive techniques) and the use of different tool materials (tool steel and bronze alloy).

ContextManufacturing engineering, specifically the production of tooling for tube bending.

Variables

IV["Manufacturing process (Additive vs. Machining)","Material type (Tool Steel vs. Bronze Alloy)","Hybrid manufacturing approach (Yes/No)"]

DV["Total production cost","Cost per unit"]

CV["Annual production volume","Tool complexity","Specific tool function (tube bending dies)"]

Strengths & Limitations

Strengths

+Direct comparison of AM and traditional methods for a specific tooling application.
+Inclusion of material variations and hybrid manufacturing strategies.

Limitations

The cost savings are highly dependent on the specific part geometry, material, and the current pricing of additive manufacturing services versus traditional machining in your region.

Reliability & validity

The study's validity is strengthened by its focus on a specific industrial case and the inclusion of multiple influencing factors. Reliability would depend on the consistency of cost data and the replicability of the SLM process.

Think critically

Under what specific conditions (e.g., material cost, complexity, volume) would additive manufacturing definitively become more cost-effective than traditional machining for tooling?

Design Principles

"Economic feasibility of additive manufacturing for tooling is dependent on production volume, material selection, and process integration."

This challenges the assumption that additive manufacturing is only cost-effective for highly specialized, high-value components. It suggests that designers and engineers should consider additive processes for tooling in more conventional industries, provided a thorough economic analysis is conducted.

What This Means for Your Design

Making metal parts using 3D printing can sometimes be cheaper than cutting them from a solid block, especially if you only need a few of them, like special tools for bending tubes.

How to use in your project

1.Use this research to justify the selection of a manufacturing process for your design project, especially if you are producing a limited number of components or tooling.

Add to My Project

Quick Cite

Paragraph starter

The economic feasibility of additive manufacturing (AM) for tooling production, as demonstrated by studies on tube-bending dies, suggests that AM can be a competitive alternative to traditional subtractive methods like milling, particularly for low annual batch sizes. Factors such as material choice and the potential for hybrid manufacturing significantly influence cost-effectiveness, indicating that a thorough economic analysis is crucial when selecting a manufacturing process for tooling.

Source

Academic Publication

Comparative Costs of Additive Manufacturing vs. Machining: The Case Study of the Production of Forming Dies for Tube Bending

journal · 2017

View source

Questions About This Research

What does the research say about additive manufacturing can be cost-competitive for low-volume tooling production?: When designing or specifying tooling for low-volume production, perform a comparative cost analysis between additive and subtractive manufacturing methods, considering material options and hybrid approaches. Evidence: Academic Publication (2017).
Why does "Additive Manufacturing can be cost-competitive for low-volume tooling production" matter for design?: This challenges the assumption that additive manufacturing is only cost-effective for highly specialized, high-value components. It suggests that designers and engineers should consider additive processes for tooling in more conventional industries, provided a thorough economic analysis is conducted.
How can designers apply this research?: When designing or specifying tooling for low-volume production, perform a comparative cost analysis between additive and subtractive manufacturing methods, considering material options and hybrid approaches.
What were the main findings?: Additive manufacturing (SLM) can be economically viable for producing forming dies for tube bending, especially when batch sizes are low.. The cost-effectiveness of SLM is influenced by factors such as material choice (tool steel vs. bronze alloy) and the potential for hybrid manufacturing approaches.. When considering the total cost of ownership and production, additive manufacturing can compete with or outperform traditional machining for specific tooling applications.
What research method was used?: Comparative economic analysis and case study..
How strong is the evidence?: Evidence strength is rated Strong effect, based on a 2017 journal from Academic Publication.
What should I do differently in my next project?: Before committing to traditional machining for low-volume or custom tooling, conduct a detailed cost comparison that includes additive manufacturing options, factoring in material, processing, and post-processing expenses.
What are the limitations?: The economic viability is highly dependent on the specific application, scale of production, and regional cost factors. The study focused on a specific case of tube-bending dies, and results may vary for other types of tooling.