top of page
seurat_page background 2_area-printing.jpg

WHITE PAPER · WITH AMPOWER

NavigatingCover.jpg

Navigating the Landscape of Metal 3D Printing Technologies

How traditional and additive methods compare for metal parts

Published March 2024 · 21 pages

Choosing a metal production method means weighing traditional processes against a growing range of additive technologies. This guide, written with AMPOWER, compares casting, forging and machining with the four main metal additive manufacturing (AM) technologies and Seurat's Area Printing®. It covers where each one fits, what limits it and how they compare on build rate, detail and carbon footprint.​

​

Editor's note: Published March 2024. Figures and forecasts reflect that date. For current information, see Area Printing.

​

This guide was developed in partnership with the experts at AMPOWER

image.png

Matthias Schmidt-Lehr

Managing Partner of AMPOWER

AMPOWER is a strategy consultancy for industrial additive manufacturing, founded in 2017 and based in Hamburg, Germany. It advises investors, start-ups, suppliers and users of 3D printing and publishes the annual AMPOWER Report on the AM market. The guide opens with forewords by Matthias Schmidt-Lehr, Managing Partner of AMPOWER, and James DeMuth, Seurat's co-founder and CEO.

image.png

James DeMuth,

Co-Founder and CEO of Seurat Technologies

Key Findings

  • Cost per part is the main barrier keeping metal additive manufacturing in high-value niches such as medical, energy and aerospace. Additive processing typically makes up more than 70% of each part's cost.

  • Laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) is the most established metal AM technology. Adding lasers raises productivity, but each laser adds cost and complexity, which limits how far cost per part can fall.

  • Directed energy deposition (DED) builds fast but with low detail, so parts are machined from near-net-shape blanks. Binder jetting prints fine detail cheaply but still struggles with shrinkage and part consistency.

  • Area Printing uses a high-power pulsed laser shaped by a blue-light projector and an optically addressable light valve to melt a whole area of powder at once. AMPOWER describes its throughput as similar to DED with resolution comparable to L-PBF.

  • No technology has the lowest carbon footprint for every part. For complex, weight-optimized titanium parts, powder bed AM can produce less CO2 than milling.

Traditional Methods: Strengths and Limits

Method
Strengths
Limits
Machining
Versatile; ideal for precision parts, intricate designs and functional surfaces
Time-consuming and costly; heavy material removal wastes material and adds CO2 emissions
Casting
Cost-effective for complex shapes in large quantities; good accuracy often limits post-processing to machining functional surfaces
High tooling and mold maintenance costs make small runs uneconomical; material waste adds cost and CO2 emissions
Forging
Strong, durable parts with excellent mechanical properties; efficient for simple shapes and high-strength applications
Machine- and energy-intensive, raising cost and CO2 for intricate or custom parts; tool wear and maintenance add expense

Additive Technologies: Strengths and Limits

Technology
Strengths
Limits
Directed energy deposition (DED)
High throughput for repair, large spare parts and near-net-shape blanks in high-value alloys
Low detail and tight design constraints mean the whole part needs machining, which limits it to low-volume series
Electron powder bed fusion (E-PBF)
Potentially lower cost than L-PBF thanks to speed and stackable build jobs; crack-free structures and brittle intermetallic materials
High technology complexity and limited availability keep it to high-value medical and aviation parts
Laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF)
Complex geometries with fine features and high material and part performance requirements
Low productivity and high cost keep it to high-value parts, small series and prototypes
Binder jetting
Limited series of small, complex parts that are expensive to machine or cast; high resolution and fine detail
Sintering deformation limits design freedom; lower mechanical strength is a challenge for high-performance parts
Area Printing
Throughput similar to DED with resolution comparable to L-PBF; suited to high-volume production because of low cost and scalability
Low maturity and few published case studies of finished parts; single source, available only through contract manufacturing

By the Numbers

  • Metal AM market forecast: $10.6 billion by 2027 (AMPOWER Report 2023)

  • Global metal manufacturing market: about $2.85 trillion

  • About 20 technologies qualify as metal additive manufacturing

  • Metal production accounts for 40% of industrial greenhouse gas emissions and 10% of the world's energy use

Related

bottom of page