How to reduce the cost of 3D-printed metal parts: 8 engineering levers

The most common misconception about AM cost reduction is that it's about negotiating a better machine rate. In reality, the machine rate is a small fraction of total part cost and you can't negotiate it anyway. The real levers are in the geometry, orientation, and production strategy — all of which are under your control before the build starts.

This article covers eight concrete levers, roughly ordered by impact. Each one links to a tool you can use to quantify the effect before committing.

What drives AM cost?

Before tackling reduction strategies, it helps to have a mental model of where the money goes. For a typical LPBF metal part, costs break down roughly as:

The large range reflects the enormous variation in parts. A complex turbine component with extensive post-processing looks completely different from a simple bracket with no heat treatment. Knowing your part's cost split is the prerequisite for choosing which lever to pull.

Use the cost-per-part calculator to build a bottom-up cost model for your specific part. Use the TCO tool if you're evaluating buying a machine.

Lever 1 — Minimise build height (orientation)

Build time in LPBF scales almost linearly with the number of layers, which scales with build height. Reducing build height is the single highest-impact cost lever for most parts.

A part that is 100 mm tall costs roughly twice as much machine time as the same part at 50 mm tall (all else being equal). Reorienting to minimise build height is free in CAD and takes minutes.

The trade-off: Shorter build height often means more overhangs, more support structures, and possibly worse mechanical properties on critical surfaces. You need to balance height against support volume and property requirements.

The orientation advisor tool shows build height for any bounding box orientation across all 26 axis directions simultaneously — it takes 30 seconds to find the minimum.

Typical saving: 15–35% of machine time cost for parts that have a clearly short axis.

Lever 2 — Reduce support volume

Support structures add directly to:

• Material cost (support powder consumed)
• Machine time (support hatching, extra exposure)
• Post-processing labour (the most variable and expensive part)
• Surface quality issues at support contact points

How to reduce support volume:

1. Reorient to eliminate overhangs. Rotate until all faces are >45° from horizontal. Often possible with 10–20° of orientation adjustment.
2. Chamfer horizontal shelves. Replace flat horizontal faces with 45° chamfers. Same function, no support.
3. Use self-supporting channel cross-sections. Teardrop, diamond, or gothic arch instead of circular bores.
4. Add drainage holes to internal pockets. A 2 mm drainage hole at the bottom of a pocket allows liquid support material to drain in processes that use it, and allows laser access to eliminate support in LPBF.

The support volume estimator quantifies support volume versus orientation — you can see exactly how much you save by tilting the part.

Typical saving: 10–25% of post-processing cost for support-heavy parts.

Lever 3 — Nest multiple parts per build

Build time in LPBF is dominated by the number of layers, not the number of parts on the plate. Adding more parts to a build plate — within the same height — has near-zero marginal layer cost. For SLS and MJF, chamber utilisation (packing density) also drives powder refresh cost — use the packing density tool to quantify it.

Full-plate nesting strategy:

• If you're building a single part that uses 10% of the plate area, you're paying for 90% of wasted capacity
• Adding 9 more parts to fill the plate spreads the machine time across all of them — reducing per-part machine cost by up to 80%

Constraints on nesting:

• Parts at different build heights can co-exist, but the machine completes all layers up to the tallest part — short parts absorb the "dead time" of the extra layers
• Thermal interaction between adjacent parts can affect properties — maintain ≥ 3 mm spacing between parts
• Support structures from adjacent parts must not clash

When you can't fill a plate yourself, explore:

• Shared builds (gang builds) through your service bureau — most offer this
• Reducing part size through topology optimisation to fit more per plate (see Lever 6)

Typical saving: 30–70% per-part machine cost reduction going from 1 to 10+ parts per build.

Lever 4 — Choose the right material and process

Material cost varies by an order of magnitude across common AM metals:

If your application is non-structural or low-temperature, a switch from Ti-6Al-4V to 316L or 17-4PH can cut material cost by 60–70%. This is a design decision, not a purchasing decision.

Similarly, if your part does not require high density or isotropic properties, SLS polymer may be cheaper than LPBF metal — and the process selector tool can guide that decision.

Lever 5 — Parameter tuning to reduce porosity risk

Over-cautious parameter sets (low scan speed, high power, heavy overlap) produce dense parts but at significantly higher build time cost. Conservative VED (volumetric energy density) settings of 80–120 J/mm³ are common defaults; many materials print reliably at 40–65 J/mm³ with optimised parameters.

If your machine is not at capacity: This lever is not relevant — you're not paying marginal costs for extra laser time.

If your machine runs continuously: Optimising parameters to increase scan speed by 20–30% while maintaining density >99.5% can substantially improve throughput. Use the volumetric energy density tool to explore parameter space.

Caution: Parameter changes require re-qualification. Do not change parameters on qualified aerospace or medical parts without a formal change control process.

Lever 6 — Topology optimisation to reduce part volume

Topology optimisation (TO) removes material from regions that carry little load. For metal AM, this can reduce part volume — and therefore material and build time — by 30–60% while meeting the same structural requirements.

TO cost reduction mechanism:

• Less material = lower powder cost
• Lower mass = potentially lower build height if the removed material was near the top
• More parts per plate (smaller envelope)
• Less post-processing mass (less to machine, less to HIP if required)

When TO delivers the best ROI:

• High material cost (titanium, Inconel)
• High volume parts (cost-per-part savings multiply)
• Weight-driven applications (aerospace, motorsport) — AM cost reduction aligns with the functional goal

When TO is not worth it:

• Low-cost materials (AlSi10Mg brackets where material cost is minimal)
• Parts that are already hollow or lattice-filled
• One-off prototypes (TO time may exceed build cost)

Lever 7 — Reduce post-processing requirements by design

Post-processing (heat treatment, machining, HIP) is the most variable cost element. Reducing its scope is a design decision:

Avoid HIP when density is achievable by process control. LPBF with optimised parameters consistently achieves >99.7% relative density without HIP in 316L, IN718, and AlSi10Mg. HIP adds significant cost and is only mandatory for fracture-critical aerospace and medical applications. Design and qualify to eliminate it for non-critical parts.

Limit CNC machining to functional surfaces only. Machining the entire part because it's easier than masking wastes money. Specify tolerance zones and surface finish requirements surface-by-surface. As-built ±0.1–0.2 mm is acceptable for most non-mating surfaces.

Design for stress relief without distortion. Parts that spring back during build plate removal may need expensive re-fixturing and re-machining. Following DfAM rules for wall thickness and aspect ratio reduces residual stress accumulation — see the thermal distortion calculator.

Typical saving: 15–40% of post-processing cost by eliminating unnecessary steps.

Lever 8 — Make vs. buy: evaluate the volume crossover

At some production volume, it becomes cheaper to invest in an in-house machine than to pay service bureau rates. At other volumes (or part complexities), outsourcing is always cheaper.

The crossover point depends on:

• Machine purchase price and running costs
• Your production volume and part variety
• Whether you have the operator and quality infrastructure
• Whether utilisation can be maintained above ~40%

The make vs. buy tool calculates the volume crossover point for your specific cost inputs — it takes 5 minutes and will tell you if owning a machine makes financial sense.

Quick reference: which lever for which scenario

Related tools

• Cost per part calculator — full bottom-up cost model
• TCO tool — total cost of machine ownership for buy vs. build decisions
• Make vs. buy tool — volume crossover analysis
• Orientation advisor — find minimum build height orientation
• Support volume estimator — quantify support cost vs. orientation
• Volumetric energy density tool — explore parameter space for throughput optimisation
• Thermal distortion calculator — predict residual stress and distortion risk