A Comparative Analysis of the Additive Manufacturing Alternatives for Producing Steel Parts

Companies are increasingly turning to additive manufacturing as the demand for one-off 3D-printed metal parts rises. The differences in available additive manufacturing technologies necessitate considering both cost and externalities to select the most suitable alternative. This study compares some of the most prevalent metal additive manufacturing technologies through a shop floor-level operational analysis. A steel robotic gripper is considered as a case study, based on which of the complex, interconnected operational factors that influence costs over time are analyzed. The developed cost model facilitates the estimation of costs, identification of cost drivers, and analysis of the impact of various operations management decisions on overall costs. We found that cost performance across Powder-Bed Fusion (PBF), Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM), and CNC machining is determined by part design, quantity, and machine utilization. Although producing parts with complex internal features favors additive manufacturing, CNC outperforms in terms of economy of scale. While PBF offers excellent design freedom and parallel production, it incurs high fixed costs per build in under-utilized situations. A rough but fast method, such as Directed-Energy Deposition (DED)-based additive manufacturing, is believed to be more cost-efficient for large, simple shapes, but is not suitable when fine details are required. Laser-based DED approaches address this limitation of WAAM.