Surface Treatment Selector

Set your AM process, material, as-built and target Ra, fatigue criticality, corrosion requirement, and cost ceiling — get a ranked scorecard across 8 post-print surface treatments with achievable Ra, fatigue benefit, dimensional change, and lead time.

Process & material

AM process

Material family

Surface roughness

As-built RaRa_inas-printed surface

µm

Target RaRa_targetdesired finish

µm

As-built Ra defaults: LPBF 12 µm · EBM 25 µm · SLS 14 µm · FDM 20 µm · SLA 2 µm · BINDER 10 µm · DED 20 µm · WAAM 50 µm

Requirements

Fatigue-critical application — weight fatigue improvementHas internal features (channels, lattices) — exclude line-of-sight-only methods

Corrosion protection required

Max cost index3 / 5

1 — Very cheap3 — Medium5 — High-end

All treatments — ranked

Not applicable for this context

Shot PeeningN/A

Ra: 9.6 µm after · Cost index: 2/5 · Lead time: 3d

Laser Shock PeeningN/A

Ra: 10.8 µm after · Cost index: 5/5 · Lead time: 10d

Tumble / Vibratory FinishingN/A

Ra: 4.8 µm after · Cost index: 1/5 · Lead time: 2d

ElectropolishingN/A

Ra: 3.0 µm after · Cost index: 3/5 · Lead time: 5d

Sandblasting / Grit BlastN/A

Ra: 8.4 µm after · Cost index: 1/5 · Lead time: 1d

Chemical EtchingN/A

Ra: 7.2 µm after · Cost index: 2/5 · Lead time: 3d

AnodisingN/A

Ra: 11.4 µm after · Cost index: 2/5 · Lead time: 4d

PVD CoatingN/A

Ra: 10.8 µm after · Cost index: 4/5 · Lead time: 7d

Treatment reference table

Treatment	Ra reduction	Fatigue	Internal	Corrosion	Cost	Lead time
Shot Peening	20%	+20%	—	low	2/5	3d
Laser Shock Peening	10%	+30%	—	low	5/5	10d
Tumble / Vibratory Finishing	60%	+5%	—	none	1/5	2d
Electropolishing	75%	-5%	✓	medium	3/5	5d
Sandblasting / Grit Blast	30%	+5%	—	none	1/5	1d
Chemical Etching	40%	0%	✓	low	2/5	3d
Anodising	5%	-3%	—	high	2/5	4d
PVD Coating	10%	+5%	—	high	4/5	7d

Sources: ISO 4287, SAE AMS 2432, ASTM B912, Metal Finishing Guidebook. Values are indicative — actual results depend on equipment, alloy, and surface preparation.