Research Seven families · PBF · DED · binder

Last updated: 2026-07-20

Process landscape

Process landscape factory map

The seven ISO/ASTM categories

Seven AM process families

❓ What are the seven process categories, and which ones drive industrial value in 2025–2026?

ISO/ASTM 52900 groups AM into seven process categories. Brand names proliferate; the categories stay stable. Decision-makers should map vendor claims onto this backbone.

Category Plain mechanism Typical materials 2026 industrial role
Material extrusion Solid feedstock pushed through a nozzle; solidifies on the bed Thermoplastics, filled polymers, continuous fiber, some metal-bound filaments Tooling, jigs, fixtures, composite-like structures, field/spares polymers
Vat photopolymerization Light cures liquid resin in a vat Photopolymers Dental, hearing aids, high-detail models, some tooling inserts
Powder bed fusion (PBF) Energy beam fuses regions of a powder bed layer by layer Metals (laser/EBM), polymers (laser/MJF-class) Aerospace, medical implants, high-value production polymers
Directed energy deposition (DED) Focused energy melts feedstock as it is deposited (powder or wire) Metals Repair, large features, cladding, hybrid near-net shapes
Binder jetting Printhead deposits binder onto powder; later sintering/infiltration Metals, sand, ceramics Speed/volume potential; sand cores mature; metal still qualification-sensitive
Material jetting Droplets of material deposited and cured Photopolymers, some waxes High-detail multi-material prototypes, investment patterns
Sheet lamination Sheets cut and bonded Paper, metal foil, polymers Niche; limited relative share

Industrial value concentration in 2025–2026 is not even. Metal and polymer powder bed fusion, material extrusion (including continuous fiber), vat processes in dental/medical, and DED for repair/large metal carry most of the serious production stories. Binder jetting is the perpetual “next volume metal” candidate. Material jetting and sheet lamination matter in niches.


Powder bed fusion: the qualified workhorse

Powder bed fusion

❓ Why is powder bed fusion the aerospace and implant default?

In metal laser PBF (often marketed as SLM, DMLS, LPBF), a recoater spreads a thin powder layer; one or more lasers melt the cross-section; the bed drops; repeat. Electron-beam PBF runs in vacuum at high temperature and suits certain titanium workflows.

PBF wins qualified work because:

PBF loses when:

Multi-laser machines and larger chambers are the industry’s answer to rate—not a different physics.


Directed energy deposition and hybrids

DED and hybrids

❓ Is DED a production process or a repair specialty?

DED points energy and feedstock at a surface—closer to robotic welding with path control than to a powder “printer.” Wire-arc AM (WAAM) builds large structures quickly with rough surfaces. Laser powder DED clads and adds features.

DED’s honest home is repair, feature addition, large near-net shapes, and hybrid cells where a CNC machine finishes critical surfaces. Comparing mid-size metal parts, literature often finds DED faster and cheaper per deposited kilogram than PBF, with worse as-built surface and geometric precision. Factories that treat DED as “PBF but bigger” fail; factories that treat it as digitally controlled weld deposition + machining succeed.

Hybrid AM + 5-axis CNC is increasingly the real “factory architecture”: add where geometry demands it, cut where tolerance and surface demand it.


Binder jetting’s promise and bruise

Binder jetting

❓ Is metal binder jetting ready to replace laser PBF at volume?

Binder jetting prints binder into a powder bed at inkjet speeds, then sinters the green part—more like metal injection molding’s thermal densification than like melting each voxel with a laser. The pitch is speed and cost at higher volumes, especially automotive-relevant geometries.

The bruise is sintering distortion, density, mechanical property scatter, and qualification time. Industry analyses (including AMPOWER-style comparisons) have long expected binder jetting’s main impact in higher-volume markets while warning that aerospace and implant buyers will stay on melt-based PBF until properties and process control match their risk tolerance. Corporate turmoil around Desktop Metal / ExOne lines in 2025 (acquisition, bankruptcy of core assets, carve-outs) is not proof the physics failed—but it is proof that scaling the business of binder jet metal is harder than scaling the slide deck.


Material extrusion: underestimated industrial workhorse

Material extrusion

❓ Where does “filament printing” still matter professionally?

Commodity FFF for trinkets is a consumer story. Industrial material extrusion matters for:

Stratasys’s agreement (announced May 2026) to buy Markforged from Nano Dimension for about $42.5 million—after Markforged did roughly $70 million revenue in 2025—shows both the strategic value of continuous fiber extrusion and how brutally public markets repriced “industrial FFF” pure-plays. Stratasys is buying capability and channel, not paying 2021 multiples.


Mapping brand soup to decisions

Brand soup to families

❓ How should buyers decode SLM, DMLS, EBM, MJF, PolyJet, SAF, FDM?

Treat brand names as PTCs under LTCs:

Procurement questions that matter more than brand poetry:

  1. Which ISO category and material class?
  2. What build volume, rate, and lag in post-processing?
  3. What parameter sets and allowables exist for our alloy and standard?
  4. What monitoring, software lock-in, and service footprint?
  5. For defense buyers: where was the machine, software, and network stack developed and who can reach it? (See geopolitics section.)
← What AM isMaterials & qualification →