Introduction: The Two Pillars of Modern Sheet Metal Fabrication
In the high-stakes world of sheet metal fabrication, two technologies stand as the dominant forces for part creation: stamping and laser cutting. Together, these processes account for approximately 85% of all sheet metal component manufacturing globally, yet they represent fundamentally different approaches to material processing. The choice between stamping and laser cutting is rarely straightforward, involving complex trade-offs between economics, throughput, precision, and flexibility that can determine a product’s manufacturability and commercial success.
This comprehensive analysis moves beyond simplistic comparisons to provide a data-driven examination of how these technologies compare across the critical dimensions of cost, speed, and accuracy. With modern manufacturing demanding ever-greater efficiency and precision, understanding the nuanced strengths and limitations of each process becomes essential for engineers, designers, and procurement specialists making decisions that directly impact product quality, time-to-market, and profitability.
1. Fundamental Process Differences: Understanding the Core Technologies
The Stamping Process: Mechanical Precision Through Tooling
Stamping is a mechanical forming and cutting process that uses specialized tooling to shape metal through force application. The process involves several distinct approaches:
Progressive Die Stamping:
- Multiple stations perform successive operations in a single press stroke
- Material feeds through the die as a continuous strip
- Each station performs a different operation (piercing, bending, forming)
- Complete parts emerge at the final station with minimal handling
Transfer Die Stamping:
- Parts are mechanically transferred between separate dies
- Suitable for larger parts or complex multi-stage operations
- Allows for intermediate inspection and process adjustment
- Higher initial setup but excellent for high-volume production
Fine Blanking:
- Specialized technique for achieving exceptional edge quality
- Uses triple-action presses and specially designed tooling
- Produces clean, precise edges without die break
- Ideal for components requiring high fatigue resistance
Key Stamping Characteristics:
- Tooling-dependent: Each part requires dedicated tooling
- High-speed operation: Once tooled, extremely fast production
- Forming capabilities: Can create features beyond simple cutting
- Material conservation: Efficient nesting within strip layout
The Laser Cutting Process: Thermal Precision Through Focused Energy
Laser cutting employs concentrated light energy to melt, burn, or vaporize material along a programmed path. Modern systems fall into two primary categories:
Fiber Laser Cutting:
- Solid-state laser with fiber-optic beam delivery
- Wavelength: Approximately 1.07 microns
- Excellent absorption by most metals
- High electrical efficiency (typically 30-40%)
- Lower maintenance requirements than CO₂ systems
CO₂ Laser Cutting:
- Gas laser using carbon dioxide mixture
- Wavelength: Approximately 10.6 microns
- Excellent for non-metallic materials
- Proven technology with extensive industry experience
- Higher power capabilities for thick materials
Key Laser Cutting Characteristics:
- Tooling-free: No physical tooling required for different shapes
- Digital flexibility: Instant change between part designs
- Non-contact process: No mechanical force applied to material
- Thermal effects: Heat-affected zone (HAZ) requires consideration
- Programming intensive: Each part requires detailed CNC programming
2. Cost Analysis: Direct and Indirect Economic Factors
Initial Investment and Setup Costs
Stamping Capital Requirements:
- Press equipment: $50,000 to $2,000,000+ depending on tonnage and sophistication
- Tooling costs: Typically $10,000 to $500,000+ for progressive dies
- Setup infrastructure: Tool storage, maintenance equipment, material handling systems
- Lead time: Tooling fabrication requires 8-20 weeks typically
Laser Cutting Capital Requirements:
- Laser systems: $80,000 to $800,000+ depending on power and features
- Tooling: Minimal to none for basic cutting operations
- Auxiliary equipment: Exhaust systems, cooling units, assist gas delivery
- Lead time: Installation and commissioning typically 4-12 weeks
Cost Distribution Comparison:
| Cost Category | Stamping | Laser Cutting |
|---|---|---|
| Equipment | 30-40% | 60-75% |
| Tooling | 40-60% | 0-10% |
| Installation | 5-10% | 10-15% |
| Training | 5-10% | 10-15% |
Operating Costs and Cost-Per-Part Economics
Variable Cost Components:
Stamping Operating Costs:
- Material utilization: 70-90% depending on nesting efficiency
- Tool maintenance: Sharpening, repair, replacement (2-5% of part cost)
- Press maintenance: Regular upkeep of mechanical components
- Energy consumption: High instantaneous demand but efficient per part
- Labor: Higher skill requirements for setup, lower for operation
Laser Cutting Operating Costs:
- Material utilization: 75-95% with optimized nesting
- Consumables: Lenses, nozzles, assist gases (N₂, O₂, compressed air)
- Laser source: Fiber replacement every 50,000-100,000 hours
- Energy consumption: Continuous draw during operation
- Labor: Lower skill for operation, programming expertise needed
Cost-Per-Part Comparison Model:
For a typical 2mm mild steel part (100mm × 150mm) with 10 features:
| Volume | Stamping Cost/Part | Laser Cutting Cost/Part | Crossover Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| 100 pieces | $18.50 | $6.80 | – |
| 1,000 pieces | $5.20 | $5.10 | ~1,200 pieces |
| 10,000 pieces | $1.80 | $4.30 | – |
| 100,000 pieces | $0.95 | $3.90 | – |
Assumptions: Stamping tooling = $25,000, laser operating cost = $90/hour
Hidden and Lifecycle Costs
Stamping Hidden Costs:
- Tool storage: Physical space for expensive tooling inventory
- Engineering changes: Significant cost for tool modification
- Obsolescence risk: Dedicated tooling for products with short lifecycles
- Quality variability: Progressive tool wear affects consistency
Laser Cutting Hidden Costs:
- Floor space: Typically larger operational footprint per machine
- Energy infrastructure: May require upgraded electrical service
- Environmental controls: Fume extraction and thermal management
- Software maintenance: CAD/CAM and nesting software subscriptions
Total Cost of Ownership Analysis:
5-year TCO comparison for medium-volume production (50,000 parts/year):
| Cost Category | Stamping | Laser Cutting |
|---|---|---|
| Depreciation | 35% | 45% |
| Tooling/Consumables | 30% | 15% |
| Labor | 15% | 20% |
| Energy | 5% | 10% |
| Maintenance | 10% | 8% |
| Floor space/Utilities | 5% | 2% |
3. Production Speed and Throughput Analysis
Cycle Time Fundamentals
Stamping Cycle Components:
- Press speed: 20-1500 strokes per minute depending on press type
- Feed length: Determined by part progression through die
- Setup time: 2-8 hours for die change and adjustment
- Material handling: Loading coils, unloading finished parts
Laser Cutting Cycle Components:
- Piercing time: 0.2-3 seconds depending on material and thickness
- Cutting speed: Varies dramatically with material properties:
- 1mm mild steel: 15-25 meters/minute
- 3mm mild steel: 5-10 meters/minute
- 6mm mild steel: 2-4 meters/minute
- Rapid positioning: 80-150 meters/minute between features
- Sheet handling: 1-3 minutes for loading/unloading
Volume-Based Speed Comparison
High-Volume Production (>50,000 parts):
Stamping Advantages:
- Cycle times measured in seconds or fractions of seconds
- Continuous operation with minimal interruptions
- Simultaneous operations in progressive dies
- Example: Automotive bracket production at 1,800 parts/hour
Laser Cutting Limitations:
- Sequential cutting of features limits maximum speed
- Piercing operations create bottlenecks
- Thermal management requirements may slow process
- Example: Similar bracket at 120-180 parts/hour
Low-Volume Production (<1,000 parts):
Laser Cutting Advantages:
- No tooling setup time enables immediate production
- Flexibility to run multiple parts in single setup
- Quick design iterations with minimal cost impact
- Example: Prototype batch of 50 parts in 2 hours
Stamping Disadvantages:
- Tooling setup time dominates production time
- Single-part production inefficient
- Design changes require tool modification
- Example: Same prototype batch requiring 2-week lead time for tooling
Production Efficiency Metrics
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) Comparison:
| OEE Component | Stamping | Laser Cutting |
|---|---|---|
| Availability | 85-95% | 90-95% |
| Performance | 90-98% | 80-90% |
| Quality | 95-99% | 90-98% |
| Overall OEE | 73-92% | 65-84% |
Note: Stamping achieves higher performance due to continuous operation, while laser cutting has slightly better availability with fewer mechanical components.
Changeover Time Analysis:
- Stamping: 2-8 hours for die change and setup
- Laser cutting: 2-15 minutes for program loading and material change
- Implication: Laser cutting favors high-mix production environments
Batch Size Optimization
Economic Batch Size Calculation:
The minimum economic batch size for stamping can be calculated as:
Break-even quantity = (Tooling Cost) / (Cost difference per part)Where cost difference = (Laser cost/part) – (Stamping cost/part after tooling)
Industry Benchmark Data:
- Very high volume: >100,000 units/year → Stamping preferred
- High volume: 10,000-100,000 units/year → Dependent on part complexity
- Medium volume: 1,000-10,000 units/year → Laser often competitive
- Low volume: <1,000 units/year → Laser typically preferred
4. Accuracy and Precision Comparison
Dimensional Accuracy Capabilities
Stamping Accuracy Factors:
- Die construction precision: Typically ±0.025mm for high-quality tools
- Press guidance accuracy: Affects part-to-part consistency
- Material springback: Requires compensation in tool design
- Tool wear: Progressive degradation over production runs
Laser Cutting Accuracy Factors:
- Motion system precision: Typically ±0.025mm for quality systems
- Beam quality and focus: Affects kerf consistency and edge quality
- Thermal effects: Material expansion during cutting
- Programming accuracy: CAM software precision and optimization
Quantitative Accuracy Comparison:
| Accuracy Metric | Stamping | Laser Cutting |
|---|---|---|
| Feature position | ±0.05-0.1mm | ±0.03-0.08mm |
| Hole diameter | ±0.05mm | ±0.03-0.1mm (taper consideration) |
| Edge straightness | ±0.025mm/100mm | ±0.015mm/100mm |
| Angular accuracy | ±0.1° | ±0.05° |
| Repeatability | ±0.025mm | ±0.01mm |
Edge Quality and Characteristics
Stamping Edge Profile:
- Characteristic zones: Rollover, burnish, fracture, burr
- Burr formation: Typically 10-15% of material thickness
- Work hardening: Material at edge becomes harder
- No thermal effects: Pure mechanical process
- Consistency: Uniform across production run
Laser Cutting Edge Profile:
- Kerf width: Typically 0.1-0.3mm depending on material and process
- Taper: Slight angle (0.5-2°) due to beam divergence
- HAZ (Heat Affected Zone): 0.1-0.5mm depending on parameters
- Surface finish: Ra 1.6-6.3μm with proper parameters
- Oxidation: May occur with oxygen-assisted cutting
Edge Quality Comparison by Material:
| Material/Thickness | Stamping Edge Quality | Laser Cutting Edge Quality |
|---|---|---|
| Mild Steel 1mm | Excellent, minimal burr | Very good, slight dross possible |
| Stainless Steel 2mm | Good, controlled burr | Excellent, clean with N₂ assist |
| Aluminum 3mm | Fair, tendency to gall | Good, some dross with standard parameters |
| Copper 1mm | Good with proper clearance | Challenging, reflective issues |
Geometric Complexity Handling
Stamping Geometric Limitations:
- Internal features: Limited by punch accessibility and strength
- Minimum hole size: Typically 1.0-1.5× material thickness
- Corner radii: Limited by punch and die strength
- Feature proximity: Minimum web thickness requirements
- Non-perpendicular features: Require special tooling
Laser Cutting Geometric Advantages:
- Virtually unlimited 2D shapes: Only limited by beam access
- Extremely small features: Down to kerf width limitations
- Sharp internal corners: Essentially radius-free with proper programming
- No tool interference: Features can be placed very close together
- Bevel cutting: Possible with 3-axis laser heads
Complexity Impact on Process Selection:
| Complexity Factor | Favors Stamping | Favors Laser Cutting |
|---|---|---|
| Simple holes/patterns | ✓ (Speed advantage) | |
| Intricate contours | ✓ (No tooling constraints) | |
| Multiple feature types | ✓ (Simultaneous operations) | |
| Frequent design changes | ✓ (No tooling modifications) | |
| Mixed materials | ✓ (Parameter adjustment only) |
5. Material Considerations and Limitations
Material Compatibility and Performance
Stamping Material Requirements:
- Ductility: Sufficient elongation for forming without cracking
- Strain hardening coefficient: Affects springback and tool forces
- Surface quality: Critical for appearance and coating adhesion
- Thickness consistency: Essential for consistent stamping results
- Lubrication requirements: Varies by material and operation
Laser Cutting Material Considerations:
- Absorption characteristics: Varies with wavelength and surface condition
- Reflectivity: Particularly challenging with copper and aluminum
- Thermal conductivity: Affects cutting speed and quality
- Oxidation tendency: Determines optimal assist gas selection
- Thickness limitations: Practical limits based on laser power
Material-Specific Process Performance:
| Material | Stamping Suitability | Laser Cutting Suitability |
|---|---|---|
| Low Carbon Steel | Excellent | Excellent |
| Stainless Steel | Good to Excellent | Very Good to Excellent |
| Aluminum | Good (specific alloys) | Good with proper parameters |
| Copper/Brass | Fair to Good | Fair (reflectivity challenges) |
| High-Strength Steel | Fair to Good (higher forces) | Good with higher power |
| Titanium | Limited (springback issues) | Excellent with inert gas |
Thickness Range Capabilities
Stamping Thickness Ranges:
- Practical minimum: 0.3mm for most materials
- Ideal range: 0.5-6.0mm for progressive stamping
- Maximum practical: 12-25mm depending on press capacity
- Thick material challenges: Increased tool wear and press requirements
Laser Cutting Thickness Ranges:
- Fiber lasers: Excellent for thin to medium materials (0.5-20mm)
- CO₂ lasers: Better for thicker materials (up to 40mm+ with high power)
- Quality considerations: Edge quality degrades at thickness extremes
- Speed trade-offs: Cutting speed decreases exponentially with thickness
Thickness-Based Process Selection Guidelines:
| Material Thickness | Recommended Process | Key Considerations |
|---|---|---|
| <0.5mm | Laser cutting | Stamping may cause distortion |
| 0.5-3.0mm | Both viable | Volume determines optimal choice |
| 3.0-8.0mm | Depends on volume/features | Stamping for high volume, laser for flexibility |
| 8.0-15.0mm | Laser typically preferred | Stamping requires heavy equipment |
| >15.0mm | Laser cutting | Stamping generally not practical |
6. Secondary Operations and Value-Added Processing
Forming and Additional Features
Stamping Integrated Operations:
- In-die forming: Embossing, countersinks, louvers, tabs
- In-die tapping: Thread formation during stamping process
- Pilot holes: Precision locating for secondary operations
- Coining: Precise dimensional control through compression
Laser Cutting Limitations and Solutions:
- No inherent forming capability: Requires separate operations
- Cut quality for bending: May need edge preparation for optimal results
- Heat-affected zones: May affect subsequent forming operations
- Integration options: Combined laser/punch machines or separate forming cells
Value-Added Cost Comparison:
| Secondary Operation | Stamping Integration | Laser Cutting Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Hole chamfering | Possible in-die | Separate operation or laser head tilting |
| Forming features | Integral to process | Separate press brake operation |
| Marking/engraving | Separate operation | Possible with reduced-power laser |
| Welding preparation | Edge quality suitable | May need edge treatment |
| Assembly features | Can be incorporated | Typically separate operations |
Quality Control and Inspection
Stamping Quality Management:
- In-process monitoring: Tonnage monitoring, vision systems
- Statistical process control: Based on tool wear patterns
- First article inspection: Critical after tool setup
- Automated inspection: Vision systems for 100% inspection possible
Laser Cutting Quality Management:
- Real-time monitoring: Power, speed, gas pressure monitoring
- Vision systems: Part verification and feature inspection
- Cutting head sensors: Height control and collision avoidance
- Post-cut inspection: CMM or vision-based dimensional verification
Quality Cost Implications:
- Stamping: Higher initial quality consistency, gradual degradation
- Laser cutting: Consistent quality throughout production run
- Rework costs: Generally lower with laser due to flexibility
- Scrap rates: Stamping typically 2-5%, laser 1-3% with good programming
7. Technology Synergies and Hybrid Approaches
Combined Stamping and Laser Solutions
Laser-Assisted Stamping:
- Localized heating to improve formability
- Reduced springback in high-strength materials
- Lower forming forces and reduced tool wear
- Applications in advanced high-strength steels
Laser Cutting of Stamped Blanks:
- Stamping provides primary features and forms
- Laser adds complex contours or final trim
- Optimal for parts with mix of simple and complex features
- Reduces progressive die complexity and cost
Sequential Processing Strategies:
- Laser cut blanks → Stamp forms and features
- Stamp primary features → Laser cut complex contours
- Laser preliminary cut → Stamp forms → Laser final trim
Modern Hybrid Machines
Punch-Laser Combination Machines:
- Single machine performs both punching and laser cutting
- Optimal for parts with mix of standard and custom features
- Reduced material handling between operations
- Higher initial investment but excellent flexibility
Economic Justification for Hybrid Systems:
- High-mix production: Flexibility to handle diverse part requirements
- Floor space reduction: Single machine versus two separate systems
- Reduced work-in-process: Elimination of between-operation storage
- Labor efficiency: Single operator for multiple processes
8. Industry Applications and Sector-Specific Considerations
Automotive Industry
Stamping Dominance Areas:
- Body panels and structural components (high volume)
- Brackets and mounts (progressive die efficiency)
- Engine and transmission components
- High-volume fastener production
Laser Cutting Applications:
- Prototype and low-volume vehicle components
- Custom aftermarket parts
- Trim and decorative components
- EV battery tray components (high precision required)
Electronics and Consumer Products
Stamping Applications:
- Connector components and lead frames
- Shielding cans and enclosures
- Heat sinks and chassis components
- High-volume consumer product housings
Laser Cutting Advantages:
- Rapid prototyping and design iteration
- Low-volume production runs
- Intricate decorative patterns
- Mixed material processing
Aerospace and Defense
Laser Cutting Prevalence:
- Complex structural components
- Heat-sensitive materials (titanium, composites)
- Low-volume, high-precision requirements
- Prototype and development work
Stamping Applications:
- High-volume fastener components
- Standardized brackets and fittings
- Sheet metal details in larger quantities
- Formed components requiring consistency
Industrial Equipment and Machinery
Balanced Application:
- Stamping: For standardized, repetitive components
- Laser cutting: For custom, low-volume parts
- Hybrid approach: Common in job shop environments
- Material considerations: Often thicker materials favor laser
9. Decision Framework and Selection Guidelines
Systematic Evaluation Methodology
Multi-Factor Analysis Matrix:
Create a weighted scoring system based on:
- Production Volume (Weight: 25%)
- <1,000 units: Laser favored
- 1,000-10,000: Consider both options
- 10,000-100,000: Stamping typically better
- >100,000: Stamping strongly favored
- Part Complexity (Weight: 20%)
- Simple geometries: Stamping advantage
- Complex contours: Laser advantage
- Mixed features: Hybrid approach considered
- Material Considerations (Weight: 15%)
- Material type and thickness compatibility
- Surface finish requirements
- Thermal sensitivity concerns
- Lead Time Requirements (Weight: 15%)
- Urgent prototypes: Laser advantage
- Established production: Both viable
- Tooling lead time: Critical factor for stamping
- Budget Constraints (Weight: 15%)
- Capital availability
- Tooling budget limitations
- Operating cost sensitivity
- Quality Requirements (Weight: 10%)
- Tolerance stringency
- Edge quality needs
- Consistency requirements
Decision Tree for Process Selection
Start with these key questions:
- What is your annual production volume?
- <1,000: Strongly consider laser cutting
- 1,000-50,000: Evaluate both options carefully
- >50,000: Strongly consider stamping
- How complex is your part geometry?
- Simple holes/patterns: Stamping may be more efficient
- Complex contours: Laser offers advantages
- Combination of both: Consider hybrid approach
- What are your lead time constraints?
- <4 weeks: Laser likely only option
- 4-12 weeks: Both possible with planning
- >12 weeks: Stamping viable with proper scheduling
- What is your budget for tooling/equipment?
- Limited budget: Laser with no tooling costs
- Capital available: Consider long-term ROI of stamping
- How frequently will designs change?
- Frequent changes: Laser flexibility advantageous
- Stable designs: Stamping investment justified
Implementation Roadmap
Step 1: Prototype Phase
- Use laser cutting for design validation
- Test form, fit, and function
- Refine designs based on prototype results
- Consider material and process interactions
Step 2: Pilot Production
- Small batch production to validate processes
- For stamping: Consider soft tooling or sample tools
- For laser: Optimize nesting and parameters
- Gather data for full-scale production planning
Step 3: Production Ramp-Up
- Implement selected primary process
- Establish quality control procedures
- Train personnel on specific requirements
- Set up supply chain for materials and consumables
Step 4: Continuous Optimization
- Monitor production metrics
- Implement improvements based on data
- Consider technology upgrades as volumes change
- Maintain flexibility for design evolution
10. Future Trends and Technology Evolution
Stamping Technology Advancements
Digital and Smart Stamping:
- IoT-enabled presses: Real-time monitoring and predictive maintenance
- Quick-change tooling systems: Reducing setup time from hours to minutes
- Adaptive stamping: Real-time adjustment based on material variations
- Simulation advancements: More accurate prediction of springback and formability
Material Science Impact:
- Advanced high-strength steels: Requiring new stamping approaches
- Lightweight materials: Aluminum and magnesium alloys
- Composite materials: Hybrid metal-polymer systems
- Material-saving techniques: More efficient nesting and scrap reduction
Laser Cutting Innovations
Next-Generation Laser Sources:
- Higher power fiber lasers: 30kW+ systems for thick materials
- Ultrafast lasers: Picosecond and femtosecond for minimal HAZ
- Multi-wavelength systems: Optimized for different materials
- Beam shaping technology: Custom intensity profiles for specific applications
Process Integration:
- Laser additive/subtractive hybrid: Combined 3D printing and precision cutting
- In-line quality monitoring: Real-time adjustment based on sensor feedback
- AI-optimized cutting paths: Automatic parameter selection and path optimization
- Automated material handling: Lights-out manufacturing capabilities
Convergent Technologies
Hybrid Machine Evolution:
- More integrated systems: Seamless transition between processes
- Universal tooling: Adaptable for multiple operations
- Software integration: Single platform for all fabrication processes
- Automated process selection: AI-driven recommendation of optimal approach
Sustainability Focus:
- Energy efficiency improvements: Both technologies reducing consumption
- Material conservation: Advanced nesting and reduced scrap
- Circular economy integration: Design for disassembly and recycling
- Cleaner processes: Reduced emissions and waste generation
Conclusion: Strategic Selection for Manufacturing Success
The choice between stamping and laser cutting represents one of the most significant decisions in sheet metal fabrication, with implications reaching far beyond simple processing costs. Each technology offers a distinct set of capabilities that align with different production scenarios, material requirements, and business objectives.
Stamping continues to dominate high-volume production where speed, integrated forming capabilities, and per-part economics justify the substantial initial investment in tooling. Its mechanical efficiency and ability to perform multiple operations simultaneously make it indispensable for automotive, appliance, and high-volume consumer product manufacturing.
Laser cutting has revolutionized low-to-medium volume production, prototyping, and applications requiring extreme geometric flexibility. Its digital nature aligns perfectly with modern design workflows, rapid iteration requirements, and the growing demand for mass customization.
The most successful manufacturing strategies increasingly recognize that these technologies are not mutually exclusive but complementary. Progressive manufacturers maintain capabilities in both areas, applying each where it delivers maximum value. Furthermore, hybrid approaches that combine stamping’s efficiency with laser’s flexibility are becoming increasingly sophisticated and economically viable.
As both technologies continue to evolve—with stamping becoming more flexible through quick-change systems and laser cutting becoming faster and more capable with higher-power sources—the decision criteria will also evolve. What remains constant is the need for careful analysis of production requirements, material characteristics, quality expectations, and economic constraints.
For manufacturers facing this decision, the optimal approach begins with a clear understanding of current and anticipated production needs, followed by a systematic evaluation using the frameworks presented in this analysis. By making informed choices between stamping and laser cutting—or strategically combining both—manufacturers can optimize their fabrication processes for quality, efficiency, and competitiveness in an increasingly demanding global market.
Ultimately, the decision between stamping and laser cutting is not about finding a universally superior technology, but about matching specific process capabilities with precise application requirements. Those who master this matching process position themselves for manufacturing excellence regardless of which technology they employ.
One Response
Our manufacturing facilities maintain comprehensive capabilities in both stamping and laser cutting, allowing us to recommend and implement the optimal process for your specific requirements. With expertise across industries and materials, we provide data-driven recommendations to optimize your parts for performance, cost, and manufacturability. Contact our engineering team for a complimentary manufacturing process analysis.