Methodology for Cost Estimation Using Characteristic Factors in Additive Manufacturing

The cost of additive manufacturing (AM) processes is today typically higher than traditional manufacturing processes such as casting or machining for series production, particularly of medium and large batches. A fair comparison is often complex, since the true costs of the AM part become only visible after leveraging the design freedom through a Design-for-AM process. Thus, for the analysis of the manufacturing costs of additively manufactured parts versus conventional production methods a simplified cost estimation model based on component volume is introduced. Considering at first the same volume as in the conventional part design, the price for the component using powder bed fusion and sinter-based AM methods is approximated. The resulting, typically higher costs are then transduced into a weight saving requirement for matching the costs of the conventional process. Finally, this requirement is assessed against the typical weight saving potentials of each technology to predict the economic feasibility.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the Japan Society of Powder and Powder Metallurgy
Published
2025-03-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2497/jjspm.14b-t6-02
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.73
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Methodology for Cost Estimation Using Characteristic Factors in Additive Manufacturing

Karim Asami, Claus Emmelmann, Dirk Herzog, Tim Röver et al.
4 citations
Journal of the Japan Society of Powder and Powder Metallurgy
Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
2.73
article

Methodology for Cost Estimation Using Characteristic Factors in Additive Manufacturing

Karim Asami, Claus Emmelmann, Dirk Herzog, Tim Röver, Ingomar Kelbassa, Torben Deutschmann
article en
4 citations

Abstract

The cost of additive manufacturing (AM) processes is today typically higher than traditional manufacturing processes such as casting or machining for series production, particularly of medium and large batches. A fair comparison is often complex, since the true costs of the AM part become only visible after leveraging the design freedom through a Design-for-AM process. Thus, for the analysis of the manufacturing costs of additively manufactured parts versus conventional production methods a simplified cost estimation model based on component volume is introduced. Considering at first the same volume as in the conventional part design, the price for the component using powder bed fusion and sinter-based AM methods is approximated. The resulting, typically higher costs are then transduced into a weight saving requirement for matching the costs of the conventional process. Finally, this requirement is assessed against the typical weight saving potentials of each technology to predict the economic feasibility.

Journal of the Japan Society of Powder and Powder MetallurgyVol. 72(Supplement)
Universität Hamburg (DE), Smart Material (Germany) (DE), Mechanical Design (Czechia) (CZ), Systems Technology (United States) (US), Hamburg University of Technology (DE)
Decent work and economic growth
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
2.73
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.