How to Reduce
Sheet Metal Part Cost
Without Sacrificing Quality

Where Sheet Metal Cost Actually Comes From

Before optimising, it helps to understand the typical cost breakdown for a fabricated sheet metal part:

Cost Element	Typical Share	Controllable by Design?
Raw material (steel)	30 – 45%	Yes — grade, thickness, blank size
Laser cutting / punching	15 – 25%	Yes — contour complexity, hole count
Bending	10 – 20%	Yes — number of bends, setups required
Powder coating	10 – 20%	Partially — finish spec, part size
Hardware installation (PEM)	5 – 15%	Yes — insert count, placement
Welding / assembly	5 – 20%	Yes — joint count, access, fixturing

The highest-leverage changes are in material selection and cutting complexity. Finishing and assembly are harder to reduce without affecting function or appearance.

Method 1: Optimise Blank Size and Nesting

Material is typically the largest single cost element. Blank size — the rectangle of sheet from which the part is cut — directly drives material cost. Small reductions in blank size compound quickly at volume.

• Review the blank envelope and eliminate any unused margins that are not needed for clamping or part distortion control
• If ordering custom-slit coil, specify the minimum width that accommodates the blank with adequate grain direction allowance
• For high-volume parts, work with your fabricator on common-line cutting — where two identical parts share a single cut line — to eliminate kerf waste between parts

At volume, nesting efficiency (the ratio of part area to sheet area used) has a larger impact on material cost than the sheet price per kilogram. A 5% improvement in nesting efficiency on a 10,000-piece order is significant.

Method 2: Rationalise Material Grade and Thickness

Over-specifying material grade or thickness is one of the most common sources of unnecessary cost, particularly when designs are adapted from previous products without reviewing the original rationale.

• For indoor applications with powder coating, SPCC is almost always the correct choice over SGCC — it is cheaper, welds better, and produces equivalent corrosion resistance with proper coating
• Review whether the specified thickness is driven by structural need or simply copied from a previous part. A 1.5 mm panel that only needs to resist denting, not carry load, may function equally well at 1.2 mm
• Standardise on 2–3 thicknesses across your product range to allow mixed-material nesting and reduce minimum order constraints

Method 3: Reduce Bend Count

Each bend requires a press brake setup, which adds time regardless of batch size. Setups are especially significant at low-to-medium volumes where the setup-to-run ratio is high.

• Review whether flanges serve a structural purpose or are carried over from earlier design iterations. Flanges added for stiffness can sometimes be replaced with embosses or ribs that are formed in a single operation
• Where two adjacent parts have a small number of bends between them, evaluate whether they can be consolidated into a single part with an additional fold — eliminating a component, a weld joint, and the associated assembly time
• Ensure all bends on a part use the same radius and, where possible, the same flange height — allowing the part to be formed in a single setup without tool changes

Method 4: Simplify Cutting Geometry

Laser cutting time is driven by contour length and the number of pierce operations (each hole requires a pierce start). Complex outlines with many small features, notches, and decorative cutouts add cutting time linearly.

• Reduce the number of holes to the functional minimum. Ventilation arrays with 50 small holes cost significantly more to cut than an equivalent open area achieved with fewer larger slots
• Replace complex decorative cutouts with simpler geometry that achieves the same functional result (airflow, weight reduction, access)
• For high-volume parts with many holes, evaluate whether CNC punching is more economical than laser cutting — punching has higher tooling setup cost but faster cycle time for repetitive hole patterns

Method 5: Rationalise Tolerances

Tight tolerances add cost through increased setup time, slower cut/bend speeds, higher inspection overhead, and elevated scrap rates. Most parts have only 2–4 dimensions that genuinely need tight tolerance — everything else can be specified to standard or coarse levels.

• Audit your drawing: for every tight tolerance, ask what fails if that dimension is ±0.3 mm instead of ±0.1 mm. If the answer is "nothing critical," relax it
• Apply ISO 2768-c (coarse) as the general tolerance in the title block, with individual callouts only on mating features and assembly interfaces
• Avoid GD&T (geometric dimensioning and tolerancing) callouts on sheet metal drawings unless the feature genuinely requires positional or flatness control — not because the designer is familiar with GD&T from machined part experience

Method 6: Consolidate Hardware

PEM insert installation is sequential — each insert requires a press stroke. Reducing insert count, standardising insert sizes, and locating inserts on as few faces as possible all reduce assembly time.

• Review whether all specified inserts are populated in the finished product, or whether some positions are used only in certain variants — if so, specify hardware only for common positions
• Standardise on one or two PEM insert types across a product family to allow batch installation without tool changes
• For inserts on multiple faces, check whether redesigning the assembly interface could consolidate them to a single face

Method 7: Specify Finish Correctly — Not Excessively

Powder coating cost scales with surface area and the number of handling operations. Over-specifying gloss level, colour accuracy, or film thickness for parts that are internal or hidden adds cost with no customer-visible benefit.

• For internal structural parts (brackets, frames not visible in the finished product), specify matte black at standard DFT (60 μm) rather than satin or gloss at higher DFT
• If a part has a customer-visible face and a hidden face, consider whether both sides require full coating — internal faces sometimes only need a primer coat for corrosion protection
• Specify RAL colours with a defined tolerance (ΔE ≤ 2 for standard, ΔE ≤ 1 for critical) rather than "match sample" — match-sample specifications require visual comparison at incoming inspection and slow the process

Applying These Methods in Practice

The most effective approach is to submit a drawing for DFM review before finalising the design. At Vu Trinh, our DFM review identifies specific cost drivers in your drawing and returns written recommendations with estimated impact. This is included at no charge as part of the quoting process.

Cost optimisation achieved at the design stage is permanent — it applies to every part in every batch. Cost negotiated through price pressure is fragile and typically recovered through quality or service compromises. The design-stage approach produces better outcomes for both sides.