# 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.

## Key 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.

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/1706.02090