Informing Additive Manufacturing technology adoption: total cost and the impact of capacity utilisation

TL;DR

This paper analyzes how capacity utilization and design adaptation influence the cost-effectiveness of additive manufacturing, showing significant savings and highlighting the importance of efficient capacity use and flexible design in AM adoption.

Contribution

It introduces a cost estimation framework considering fungible build capacity and compares additive manufacturing costs with conventional methods, emphasizing design adaptation benefits.

Findings

Full capacity mixed builds reduce unit costs by 157% compared to single-geometry builds.

AM adoption can lead to manufacturing cost savings of 36% to 46%.

Design adaptation in AM can provide greater operating cost savings than manufacturing cost reductions.

Abstract

Informing Additive Manufacturing (AM) technology adoption decisions, this paper investigates the relationship between build volume capacity utilisation and efficient technology operation in an inter-process comparison of the costs of manufacturing a complex component used in the packaging industry. Confronting the reported costs of a conventional machining and welding pathway with an estimator of the costs incurred through an AM route utilising Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS), we weave together four aspects: optimised capacity utilisation, ancillary process steps, the effect of build failure, and design adaptation. Recognising that AM users can fill unused machine capacity with other, potentially unrelated, geometries, we posit a characteristic of 'fungible' build capacity. This aspect is integrated in the cost estimation framework through computational build volume packing, drawing on a basket of sample geometries. We show that the unit cost in mixed builds at full capacity is lower than in builds limited to a single type of geometry; in our study this results in a mean unit cost overstatement of 157%. The estimated manufacturing costs savings from AM adoption range from 36% to 46%. Additionally, we indicate that operating cost savings resulting from design adaptation are likely to far outweigh the manufacturing cost advantage.