White Paper Series Part 5: Cost & Production Considerations in Additive Manufacturing

Table of Contents

Introduction

Cost efficiency is a key factor in Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM). While Additive Manufacturing (AM) offers advantages such as low tooling costs, rapid iteration, and on-demand production, it also introduces unique cost considerations. Unlike traditional manufacturing, where economies of scale reduce per-unit costs with higher production volumes, AM costs are largely driven by material usage, build time, and process efficiency.

This white paper explores the economic factors influencing AM costs, including cost-per-part analysis, production scalability, and strategies for optimizing AM workflows.

5.1 Key Cost Drivers in Additive Manufacturing

The total cost of AM production is determined by several factors:

5.1.1 Material Costs

AM materials are typically more expensive per kilogram than traditional manufacturing materials due to specialized formulations and processing requirements. Common material costs include:

Polymers (FDM, SLS, SLA) → $50–$150/kg for engineering-grade thermoplastics.
Metals (DMLS, EBM) → $300–$1,000/kg for titanium, stainless steel, or Inconel powders.
Resins (SLA, DLP) → $100–$500/L depending on mechanical properties.

Unlike injection molding, where bulk raw materials are inexpensive, AM materials must be optimized for layer adhesion, sintering, or photopolymerization, making them inherently more costly.

5.1.2 Machine & Build Time Costs

Unlike traditional machining or molding, AM does not require tooling, but machine time is a major cost factor.

Build time is directly related to layer height, part orientation, and nesting efficiency.
Laser-based metal AM processes (DMLS, EBM) require longer build times than polymer-based methods (SLS, FDM).
Energy consumption for high-power lasers or heating elements increases operating costs.

For example, printing a single metal aerospace bracket might take 10–20 hours, whereas the same part in injection molding could be produced in seconds—but without the same geometric flexibility or material efficiency.

5.1.3 Post-Processing Costs

Post-processing accounts for a significant percentage of total AM costs.

Support removal → Metal AM parts require machining or chemical etching to remove supports.
Surface finishing → Sanding, polishing, or chemical smoothing may be needed for aesthetic or functional reasons.
Heat treatments → Stress relief and annealing for metal parts add cost and lead time.

Minimizing post-processing through smart design choices (reducing supports, optimizing orientation) can significantly impact overall cost efficiency.

5.2 Cost per Part: AM vs. Traditional Manufacturing

AM’s cost per part behaves differently than traditional methods.

Manufacturing Method	Setup Costs	Cost per Unit	Best for
Injection Molding	High ($10,000–$100,000 for tooling)	Low ($0.50–$5 per part) at high volumes	Mass production (10,000+ parts)
CNC Machining	Moderate ($500–$5,000 for setup)	Varies by complexity	Medium-volume precision parts
AM (DMLS, SLS, FDM)	No tooling costs	Higher ($1–$1,000 per part) depending on size	Low-to-medium production, custom or complex parts

For low-to-medium production runs (1–10,000 parts), AM can be more cost-effective than injection molding, particularly for custom or complex designs.

5.3 Production Scalability in Additive Manufacturing

Unlike traditional manufacturing, where production scales efficiently, AM has fixed constraints related to build volume, print speed, and batch size.

5.3.1 Batch Production and Build Density Optimization

AM builds multiple parts in a single cycle to maximize machine utilization.

Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) and Multi Jet Fusion (MJF) → Parts can be densely packed, improving cost efficiency.
FDM and SLA → Build trays are smaller, limiting batch production efficiency.

Optimizing part orientation and nesting within the print bed is crucial for minimizing wasted space and lowering cost-per-part.

5.3.2 Just-in-Time & On-Demand Manufacturing

AM enables on-demand production, reducing inventory costs and waste. Instead of mass-producing thousands of parts, companies can print parts only when needed, reducing:

Warehousing costs.
Lead times for replacement parts.
Obsolescence risks for spare components.

This approach is particularly beneficial for industries like aerospace and medical, where parts are needed in small, custom batches.

5.4 Strategies to Reduce AM Production Costs

Optimizing AM production requires a combination of design, material, and process improvements.

Reducing Material Usage

Lightweighting strategies → Hollow structures, lattice infills, and topology optimization minimize raw material costs.
Choosing cost-effective materials → Using recycled powders and alternative resins can reduce material expenses.

Minimizing Support Structures

Self-supporting designs → Overhangs should be ≤ 45° to eliminate unnecessary supports.
Optimized print orientation → Proper alignment reduces material waste and post-processing labor.

Batching & Nesting Parts

Maximizing build volume → Printing multiple parts in a single cycle improves cost efficiency.
Utilizing modular design → Splitting large parts into smaller, more efficient sections can optimize build space.

Process Selection for Cost Efficiency

Choosing the right AM technology based on production requirements can significantly impact costs.

Process	Best for	Cost Efficiency
FDM	Low-cost prototypes, functional parts	High for single parts, low for mass production
SLS/MJF	Functional prototypes, small-batch production	Moderate, optimized for part nesting
SLA/DLP	High-detail parts, aesthetic models	Moderate, post-processing required
DMLS/EBM	High-strength metal parts	High, best for aerospace and medical

By aligning the design, material, and process with cost efficiency strategies, AM becomes a viable alternative to traditional manufacturing.

Conclusion

Managing costs in Additive Manufacturing (AM) requires careful optimization of material selection, build strategies, and production scalability. Unlike traditional manufacturing, where economies of scale dominate, AM enables cost-effective, small-batch production with unmatched design flexibility.

By implementing DfAM strategies, companies can:

Reduce material and production costs through optimized part orientation and lightweighting strategies.
Improve batch production efficiency by maximizing build volume and minimizing post-processing.
Lower per-unit costs by selecting the most cost-effective AM technology for specific applications.

Call to Action: Optimize Your AM Costs with RapidMade

Additive Manufacturing offers unparalleled design freedom, but optimizing cost and production efficiency is key to achieving maximum value. RapidMade provides DfAM expertise to ensure your designs are cost-effective, manufacturable, and high-performance.