Metal 3D printing is advancing rapidly—with faster build speeds, better material performance, and wider application areas. This guide will show you how to get the most out of metal additive manufacturing(AM): we will talk about the main types of metal 3D printing technologies, the common materials, and what it all costs. We will also compare metal AM with subtractive (CNC machining) and formative (metal casting) methods so you can choose the right process for your part, your budget, and your timeline.
Similar to all other 3D printing processes (such as polymer 3D printing), metal 3D printers build parts by adding material a layer at a time based on a digital 3D design — hence the term additive manufacturing. Only this time, the process uses metal powder, wire, or polymer bound filament instead of plastics.
This way, parts can be built with geometries that are impossible to manufacture with traditional methods and without the need for specialized tooling such as molds or cutting tools. Just as important, increasing geometric complexity has little impact on build cost, so organic, topology optimized structures are practical. The resulting parts are lighter (typically a 25%–50% weight reduction) and often stiffer, which is critical for aerospace and other high performance fields.
This design freedom also enables assembly consolidation: multiple components,and all their fasteners, joints, and leak paths,can become a single printed part that performs several functions at once. Labor drops, lead times shrink, and maintenance is simpler because there is less to assemble, align, or service. That said, metal 3D printing is still expensive compared to many traditional methods, and it doesn’t yet compete on unit cost at higher volumes.
In the late 1980s, Dr. Carl Deckard at the University of Texas developed the first laser sintering 3D printer, initially designed for plastics. This technology became the basis for Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), a method that would later extend to metal 3D printing.
In 1991, Dr. Ely Sachs from MIT introduced a 3D printing process now known as binder jetting. This method of metal binder jetting was licensed to ExOne in 1995.
In 1995, the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany filed the first patent for laser melting of metals, which laid the foundation for Selective Laser Melting (SLM), one of the most widely used methods for metal 3D printing today. During this period, companies like EOS and various universities played key roles in further developing the technology.
Metal 3D printing grew slowly in the early 2000s due to the high cost of equipment and materials. However, around 2012, as the patents for key technologies like SLM, DMLS, and EBM began to expire, licensing fees dropped, opening the door for new competitors. This shift sparked innovation and attracted major investments from companies like GE, HP, and DMG Mori, lowering costs and accelerating adoption across various industries.
Today, according to the Precedence Research report, the global metal 3D printing market was valued at USD 9.66 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow from USD 12.04 billion in 2025 to USD 87.33 billion by 2034, with a CAGR of 24.63%. The market is driven by demand for rapid prototyping, customized and complex components, and growing usage in aerospace and automotive sectors.
There are many metal 3D printing technologies on the market, but four of the most widely used are Powder Bed Fusion (PBF), Binder Jetting, Metal Fused Deposition Modeling (Metal FDM), and Directed Energy Deposition (DED). Broadly, they fall into two mechanisms: melting and sintering.
PBF and DED melt metal feedstock (powder or wire) with high energy sources，like lasers, electron beams, or arcs, to produce near fully dense parts. By contrast, Metal FDM and Binder Jetting first create a “green” part with a polymer binder, then debind and sinter it below the melting point. Final density is typically lower than fully melted processes, and additional post processing is almost always required.
Powder Bed Fusion (PBF) is widely regarded as the most commonly used metal 3D printing family. Among these, Selective Laser Melting (SLM) and Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS), which have been in use for over 20 years, are the most technologically mature metal 3D printing processes today, followed by Electron Beam Melting (EBM), another key method, particularly used for titanium alloys in aerospace and medical applications.
The PBF process begins by preheating the build chamber, which is first filled with an inert gas, to an optimal temperature. A thin layer of metal powder is then spread across the build platform. The laser (in SLM and DMLS) or electron beam (in EBM) is directed at the powder bed, selectively melting or fusing the powder particles according to the part's design. The particles fuse together to form the first layer, and the platform is then lowered slightly. A new layer of powder is spread over the previous one, and the process is repeated layer by layer until the part is fully built.
Since build temperatures are very high (often >1000 °C for many alloys), supports are usually required to hold the part in place and prevent warping from thermal stress. After cooling, the excess unmelted powder is removed (brushed, blasted, or vacuumed off), and the supports are removed by cutting or wire EDM. The part is then heat treated to relieve residual stresses and enhance material properties. Finally, depending on requirements, the part may need additional finishing such as CNC machining, polishing, or other surface treatments to achieve the desired surface quality and dimensional accuracy.
Characteristics of Common Powder Bed Fusion Methods
Here’s a detailed comparison table for the three main PBF metal 3D printing technologies:
| Property | Selective Laser Melting (SLM) | Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) | Electron Beam Melting (EBM) |
| Energy Source | Laser | Laser | Electron Beam |
| Materials Used | Spherical metal powders with a single melting temperature; include aluminum alloys, titanium, stainless steel, tool steel, and certain alloys | Spherical metal powders with variable melting points; include stainless steel, titanium alloys, nickel alloys, precious metals, and tool steels | Spherical metal powders such as titanium alloys, cobalt-chromium alloys, nickel superalloys, and other high-performance materials |
| Process | Laser fully melts the powder to create dense parts | Laser sintering (melts powder but does not fully liquefy it) | Electron beam melts powder in a vacuum environment |
| Build Volume | Typically small to medium (varies by machine) | Typically small to medium (varies by machine) | Typically larger build volumes available compared to SLM/DMLS |
| Build Speed | Moderate (depends on laser power and part complexity) | Moderate (varies with material and part size) | Slower (due to the use of electron beam and vacuum environment) |
| Printed Part Properties | Internal porosity, less than 0.2 - 0.5%; high density and excellent mechanical strength | The part properties are similar to SLM, but slight porosity may be more noticeable due to the sintering process | The porosity is generally low, but it can be slightly higher than SLM due to the slower build speed and larger layer thickness in the process |
| Dimensional Accuracy | ± 0.1 mm | ± 0.1 mm | ± 0.1 mm |
| Typical Build Size | 250 x 150 x 150 mm ( up to 500 x 280 x 360 mm) | 250 x 150 x 150 mm ( up to 500 x 280 x 360 mm) | 500 x 500 x 380 mm or larger |
| Common Layer Thickness | 20-50μm | 20-50μm | 50-150 μm |
| Support | Always required | Always required | Always required |
| Typical Surface Roughness | Ra 8 - 10μm | Ra 8 - 10μm | Ra 20-60 μm |
| Cost Per Part | $$$$$ | $$$$$ | $$$$$$ |
| Key Applications | Parts with high geometric complexity (organic, topology optimized structures) that require excellent material properties for increasing the efficiency of the most demanding applications | Similar to SLM | High-performance applications that require strong, resilient parts, particularly in aerospace and medical implants, where titanium alloys and other high-strength materials are needed |
Binder Jetting was originally used to create full-color prototypes and models from sandstone. Over time, it has gained popularity for manufacturing metal parts, particularly due to its batch production capabilities. During the metal binder jetting process, a thin layer of metal powder is spread across the build platform. A carriage equipped with inkjet nozzles then passes over the powder bed, depositing droplets of a binding agent (typically a mixture of polymer and wax) to bond the metal particles together. Once a layer is completed, the build platform moves down, and a new layer of powder is applied. This process repeats until the entire part is built.
The printing step in metal binder jetting occurs at room temperature, eliminating issues like thermal effects such as warping and internal stresses that can occur in processes like DMLS and SLM. Support structures are not required. However, the printed part remains in a "green" state, meaning it is still fragile and requires further processing.
There are two common post-processing steps used to transform the "green" part into a fully solid metal component:
Characteristics of Metal Binder Jetting
| Property | Metal Binder Jetting |
| Materials Used | Currently limited to stainless steels (e.g. 316L, 17 4PH), tool steels (e.g. H13), bronze/copper alloys, and Inconel 625 |
| Build Speed | Fastest among all the metal 3D printing technologies;beds are typically densely packed with many small parts per cycle |
| Printed Part Properties | ~1–2% residual porosity after sintering; tensile strength comparable to cast metal, but fatigue life is significantly lower due to internal voids |
| Dimensional Accuracy | ± 0.2 mm (± 0.1 after trials) |
| Typical Build Size | 250 × 175 × 200 mm (up to 400 × 300 × 200 mm) |
| Common Layer Thickness | Early systems ran 35–50 µm, high throughput systems up to 100 µm) |
| Support | Not required |
| Typical Surface Roughness | Ra 10–15 µm on as sintered parts |
| Cost per Part | $$$(faster builds, and no support waste） |
| Key Applications | Low to medium runs of functional prototypes and complex components where throughput and unit cost matter more than maximum mechanical performance |
Metal Extrusion is a variation of the classic FDM process for plastics, but instead of thermoplastics, it uses metal filaments or rods that typically consist of metal particles bound together by polymer and/or wax, so it is sometimes called Filament Material Extrusion.
This rod or filament is extruded through a heated nozzle and deposited layer-by-layer to build a part based on the CAD model. At the same time, support structures are built if necessary. The interface between the support and the part is printed with a ceramic support material, which is easy to manually remove later. The resulting “green” part needs to be post-processed to become metal using steps similar (but not identical) to Binder Jetting. The “green” part is first soaked or thermally treated to remove most of the polymer/wax binder (debinding), then sintered in a furnace so the metal particles fuse into a dense, fully metallic piece. During sintering the part shrinks roughly 15–20% in each direction, so the CAD model is scaled up in advance and some trial tuning may be needed.
Characteristics of Metal Fused Deposition Modeling
| Property | Metal Fused Deposition Modeling |
| Materials Used | Currently very limited to 316L, 17 4PH, H13, copper/bronze alloys, and Inconel 625 |
| Build Speed | Moderate; slower than Binder Jetting, but setup/iteration is cheaper and simpler than SLM |
| Printed Part Properties | ~90–97% density (up to ~98% with HIP); tensile strength roughly MIM/cast like, typically 20–40% lower than wrought; fatigue strength reduced by residual porosity |
| Dimensional Accuracy | ±0.30 mm typical; ±0.15–0.20 mm achievable after tuning and shrinkage compensation |
| Typical Build Size | 250 × 220 × 200 mm |
| Common Layer Thickness | 100–200 µm |
| Support | Required |
| Typical Surface Roughness | Ra 10–20 µm on as sintered surfaces |
| Cost per Part | $$ (low machine/material cost) |
| Key Applications | Functional metal prototypes, custom tooling, and one off/low volume parts where cost and simplicity matter more than peak performance |
Directed Energy Deposition (DED) uses a focused heat source,typically a laser, electron beam, or electric/plasma arc, to create a melt pool on the workpiece while metal powder or wire is fed into it, building material bead by bead. Because the print head can move freely (often on multi axis gantries or robots) and isn’t confined by a powder bed, DED is well suited to repairing or adding features to existing parts and producing large, near net shape components.The trade offs are coarse bead geometry, rough surfaces, and significant thermal input that can introduce residual stresses, so parts usually require heat treatment and finish machining to meet final tolerances and properties.
Characteristics of Directed Energy Deposition (DED)
| Property | Directed Energy Deposition |
| Energy Source | Focused laser, electron beam, or electric/plasma arc |
| Materials Used | Similar alloy range to SLM; standard welding wires and many weldable powders are usable |
| Build Speed | Comparable to (or below) Binder Jetting |
| Printed Part Properties | ~95–99% density (wire feeds often higher than powder); weld like microstructure with directional properties; tensile strength can approach wrought after proper heat treatment |
| Dimensional Accuracy | ±0.5–1.0 mm typical |
| Typical Build Size | Generally the largest of the four |
| Common Layer Thickness | 0.3–1.5 mm (wire) or 0.2–0.8 mm (powder), depending on nozzle and power |
| Support | Generally not required; overhangs handled via path planning or temporary fixtures |
| Typical Surface Roughness | Ra >20–40 µm |
| Cost per Part | $$–$$$ (equipment is expensive, but high deposition rate lowers cost for large parts/repairs) |
| Key Applications | Repair/refurbishment, feature addition, large structural components, near net shape blanks for subsequent machining |
While widely used engineering metals such as stainless steels, titanium, and aluminum alloys are available for metal 3D printing, many other high performance or custom alloys used in conventional manufacturing are still harder to source or qualify for AM. Because printable powders are typically gas atomized to be spherical, narrowly sized, and low in oxygen, they’re costly to make, available in fewer alloys, and still produced at relatively low yield. That said, the number of metals available for metal 3D printing is growing rapidly. Engineers can today select from alloys including nickel based and cobalt chromium systems—materials that are notoriously difficult to machine traditionally.
Below are some examples of common AM metals, with stainless steels, titanium, and aluminum still among the most widely used:
When you only need a few complex, high performance metal parts, tooling based methods are slow and costly. Metal 3D printing avoids tooling and makes complex geometry straightforward. For simple designs or large quantities, CNC machining or casting is usually cheaper and faster. Below is an overview of how metal 3D printing compares with subtractive (CNC machining) and formative (casting) processes across key aspects.
| Aspect | Metal 3D Printing | CNC Machining | Metal Casting |
| Design Freedom | Excellent for complex/internal channels, lattices, part consolidation | Limited by tool access & cutter geometry | Good for organic external shapes, but needs draft/cores and struggles with fully enclosed channels |
| Tooling / Setup | No molds or cutting tools; slicing/support setup only | No molds, but fixturing & CAM programming needed | Requires molds/dies/cores; high upfront time & cost |
| Lead Time (Prototype) | Hours–days | Days (programming + machining) | Weeks–months (tooling build) |
| Unit Cost vs. Volume | Flat/high per part; scales poorly at high volume | Decreases with volume,but each part still needs machine time. | Very low at high volume; excellent economies of scale after tooling |
| Dimensional Accuracy | Moderate; shrinkage/thermal effects, process dependent (±0.1–0.3 mm typical for PBF). | High; ±0.01–0.05 mm common on precision features | Moderate; ±0.1–0.5 mm typical (investment < sand) |
| Surface Finish (as-made) | Rougher (Ra ~5–20+ µm); finishing often required | Good–excellent | Fair–rough; usually needs machining/polishing |
| Mechanical Properties | Can approach wrought strength after proper HT/HIP, but fatigue often lower due to porosity & surface; stress relief/HIP recommended | Uses wrought stock → predictable, high mechanical performance | Cast microstructure; tensile and fatigue properties generally below wrought but can be improved with heat treatment (and sometimes HIP) |
| Part Size | Limited by build chamber (except DED) | Limited by machine envelope; large mills exist | Very large parts feasible (sand casting, investment casting) |
| Material Range | Growing but still fewer qualified alloys | Almost any machinable metal | Very broad; most alloys castable, though some are difficult |
| Waste / Material Efficiency | Low; unused powder often recycled | High chip waste (unless recycled separately) | Moderate waste (gating/riser scrap) |
| Post processing | Support removal, heat treatment, HIP, machining for tolerance | Deburring, possible heat treatment, finishing | Fettling, heat treatment, machining to final tolerance |
| Best Use Cases | Complex, low volume, high value parts; rapid iteration; internal channels/lattices | Precision parts with tight tolerances, moderate volumes | High volume or very large parts where tooling cost can be amortized |
1. Geometry Drives Performance
Internal channels, lattice infill, conformal cooling paths, and consolidated, one piece assemblies are hard or impossible to machine or cast.
2. Low Quantities
If you need only 1–50 parts such as prototypes, pilot runs, or spares, tooling based methods rarely pay off. Additive manufacturing avoids molds and dies, keeping unit cost relatively flat and reasonable at very low volumes.
3. Fast Design Iteration
Just update the CAD file, re slice, and print—no new fixtures or molds. CNC can be reprogrammed but often still needs fixture/tool changes, while casting almost always demands new or modified tooling.
4. Lead Time Matters More Than Unit Cost
A complex metal part can often be printed in a few days—far quicker than the 6–8 weeks needed to build and prove out casting tools. For AOG (aircraft on ground) situations or urgent tooling, speed trumps per piece price.
5. Tough to machine Alloys
Inconel, Co Cr and other superalloys are expensive to cut: they’re hard, work harden quickly, and destroy tools. Metal 3D printing skips most cutting, avoiding tool wear and heat issues. High energy processes like SLM or EBM can even build components from ultra high melting point metals such as tungsten (3422 °C) that are nearly impossible to machine efficiently.
6. Minimize Material Waste (Buy to Fly Ratio)
Traditional machining can scrap 80–90% of an aerospace billet. With powder bed AM, most unused powder can be sieved and reused, so you’re much closer to near net shape; for example, a titanium bracket might need only ~1.2× its final mass instead of ~6×.
7. On demand or On site Production
Printing spares where you use them slashes inventory and logistics. An offshore rig can print a custom stainless valve handle on site instead of waiting weeks for a machined replacement.
8. Repair or Add Features to Existing Parts
Directed Energy Deposition rebuilds worn turbine blade tips or adds bosses to a costly housing. After deposition, CNC finishing restores exact profiles, often cheaper than remanufacturing the whole part.
9. Topology Optimization and Lightweighting
AM lets you realize organic, optimized geometries that remove non load bearing mass. An aerospace hinge redesigned with lattice infill can reduce weight by about 40% while maintaining strength, a result impractical to mill or cast.
10. Assembly Consolidation
Print one integrated part instead of machining and bolting together many pieces. For example, a 12 piece hydraulic manifold with multiple leak paths can become a single printed block with internal channels. This means fewer fasteners, fewer joints, less assembly time, and higher reliability.
11. Custom or Graded Materials
Need a niche alloy or different properties in different zones? Some AM systems (especially DED) can switch powders or wires during the build to create composition gradients. Research teams print Ti–Nb implants with softer regions for bone integration and stiffer sections for load bearing, all in one build.
Metal 3D printing is generally more expensive than plastic because costs are higher in three areas: equipment, materials, and post processing operations. The sections below discuss each in detail.
Metal printers are far more complex: high power lasers or electron beams, inert gas or vacuum chambers, multi laser scan systems, precision optics, and controlled powder delivery—all far pricier than FDM or photopolymer machines. Typical price ranges by technology:
Metal 3D printing materials also cost more than typical plastics. Among metal feedstocks, atomized powder is the most expensive because it must be produced with high sphericity, a narrow particle-size range, and very low oxygen content. Wire for DED is usually cheaper than powder, while polymer bound metal filament (used in Metal FDM) is cheaper still.
Support removal, stress relief cycles, HIP, CNC finishing, and surface treatments can add hundreds or even thousands of dollars per build or per part. Binder Jetting and Metal FDM also require debinding and sintering, which add furnace time and cost.
The table below is a breakdown of typical DMLS/SLM cost contributors. Note how post processing makes up a significant share of the total.
| Production Step | Operation | Typical Cost* |
| Manufacturing | Metal powder | $200–$500 per kg (material dependent) |
| Machine time (one build plate) | $2,000–$4,000 | |
| Post processing | Stress relief cycle | $500–$600 per build |
| Part/support removal | $100–$200 per part | |
| Heat treatment / HIP | $500–$2,500 per build | |
| CNC machining | $500–$2,000 per part | |
| Surface finishing / coating | $200–$500 per part |
* Actual numbers vary with geometry, batch size, material, region, and how the shop allocates overhead. A single build plate may hold 1–12 parts (or more) depending on part size.
In addition, consumable inert gas, furnace and laser power, powder sieving and testing, dust explosion/oxidation safety measures, and ongoing maintenance and calibration all make the operating cost of metal 3D printing significantly higher than that of plastic printing.
The potential of metal 3D printing goes well beyond today’s aerospace and medical uses. As more alloys, smarter machines, and easier post processing come online, companies across many sectors will use it to validate real world performance and cut costs on customized, complex metal parts. If you’re thinking about expanding your capabilities with metal AM, get in touch. Our team can help you decide when and how it makes sense.
卡扣接头是使用互锁功能连接两个或多个部件的紧固机构。它们是最有效、最简单的零件组装方法之一，常见于我们周围的日常用品中，例如塑料瓶盖、电池盖、智能手机外壳、笔盖、食物储存盖和许多塑料玩具零件。
本文提供了注射成型的实用设计技巧，以帮助减轻常见错误，提高产品质量并通过避免昂贵的模具变化和返工来降低成本。
CNC 加工是一种多功能制造工艺，涉及使用计算机控制的工具用各种材料制造精密零件。这些材料构成了数控加工的基础，直接影响加工效果。因此，对我们来说，认识各种数控加工材料并获得识别适合特定应用的材料的能力非常重要。
عربي
عربي
中国大陆
简体中文
United Kingdom
English
France
Français
Deutschland
Deutsch
नहीं
नहीं
日本
日本語
Português
Português
España
Español
