Process Fit
Compare casting routes based on geometry, alloy, tolerances, surface finish and production volume.
Casting Process Selection for Industrial Metal Components
EDS helps industrial buyers compare casting routes by reviewing geometry, alloy, production volume, tooling cost, tolerances, surface finish, machining needs and supplier capability before production starts.
Casting Matrix
A practical decision tool for selecting the right casting process
Selecting a casting process is not only a matter of price. The correct route depends on the component geometry, required alloy, wall thickness, expected tolerances, surface finish, machining allowance, tooling strategy, production volume and quality documentation requirements.
The EDS Casting Matrix gives engineers and buyers a structured way to compare the most relevant casting processes before committing to tooling, supplier selection or production. It helps identify which route is technically realistic and commercially sensible for a specific industrial component.
EDS operates as an engineering and trading partner. We do not operate our own foundry; instead, we support process selection, supplier alignment, technical follow-up, documentation control and logistics coordination through qualified external production partners.
Total Cost View
Balance tooling cost, machining needs, quality requirements and long-term production efficiency.
Supplier Alignment
Connect the component requirements with suppliers capable of meeting technical and delivery expectations.
Process Selection
How EDS evaluates casting feasibility before sourcing
Each casting process has different strengths and limitations. EDS reviews the complete project context so that the selected route fits the component function, manufacturing constraints and commercial objectives.
Geometry and wall thickness
Complex shapes, ribs, bosses, internal cavities, draft angles, minimum wall thickness and machining allowance influence whether sand casting, investment casting, die casting or another route is suitable.
Material and performance
Cast iron, steel, stainless steel, aluminium, bronze and powder metal routes each require different process assumptions, supplier experience and quality controls.
Volume and tooling strategy
Prototype, low-volume and high-volume programs have different tooling economics. The best process must balance upfront tooling cost with repeatability and unit cost.
Technical Matrix
Side-by-side comparison of casting processes
The values below are intended as a practical engineering guide. Final feasibility must always be checked against the drawing, alloy, tolerances, inspection requirements, production quantity and supplier capability.
| Property | Sand Casting | Investment Casting Water Glass |
Investment Casting Silica Sol |
Shell Moulding | Gravity Die Casting | High-Pressure Die Casting | Lost Foam Casting | Sintering |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metals | Ferrous & non-ferrous | Most ferrous alloys | Most ferrous alloys | Most ferrous alloys | Non-ferrous alloys | Non-ferrous alloys | Most ferrous alloys | Ferrous & non-ferrous powders |
| Component size | Small to very large | Small to medium | Small to medium | Small to medium | Small to large | Small to medium | Medium | Very small to small |
| Typical weight range | 0.01 kg to many tonnes | 0.01–20 kg, max. around 50 kg | 0.01–10 kg, max. around 50 kg | 0.01–10+ kg | 0.01–75 kg, max. around 300 kg | 0.01–10 kg, max. around 40 kg | 1–200 kg | 0.05–1 kg |
| Design flexibility | High | Very high | High | High | Moderate | Relatively high | High | Moderate |
| Typical production volume | 1–1,000 pcs | 10–500 pcs | 10–500 pcs | 100+ pcs | 1,000+ pcs | 10,000+ pcs | 500–1,000 pcs | 10,000+ pcs |
| Tooling cost | $ | $ | $ | $$ | $$ | $$$ | $$$ | $$$$ |
| Secondary machining need | High | Moderate | Low | Low | Moderate | Very low | Low | None to low |
| Manufacturing cost | Low | Low | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium to high | High |
| Dimensional tolerance | ISO 8062 CT10–CT12 | ISO 8062 CT7–CT9 | ISO 8062 CT4–CT6 | ISO 8062 CT7–CT8 | ISO 8062 CT7–CT8 | ISO 8062 CT4–CT5 | ISO 8062 CT7–CT8 | ISO 8062 CT1–CT2 |
| Minimum wall thickness | 6–8 mm | 4–5 mm | 2 mm | 5 mm | 4 mm | 2.5 mm | 3 mm | 3–4 mm |
| Draft angle | ±2.0° | ±1.0° | ±0.5° | ±1.0° | ±0.5° | ±1.5° | Reduced parting limitation | ±0.1° |
| Surface finish | Ra 50 µm | Ra 25 µm | Ra 3.2 µm | Ra 25 µm | Ra 12.5 µm | Ra 3.2 µm | Ra 25 µm | Ra 3.2 µm |
Important: Values are indicative and based on practical engineering ranges. Exact limits depend on supplier capability, alloy selection, component design, quality level and final application requirements.
Visual Comparison
Normalized comparison of casting process capabilities
The chart provides a quick visual comparison of process characteristics. It should be used as a decision support tool, not as a replacement for a technical drawing review.
Scale: 1 = limited capability or higher constraint, 5 = strong capability or favorable condition. Cost-related values are normalized for comparison.
Quality & Documentation
Casting process selection must include quality control from the beginning
A casting route is only reliable when the supplier, inspection plan and documentation package match the customer’s requirements. EDS helps connect process selection with quality follow-up and supplier communication.
Supplier capability review
We align the casting route with suppliers capable of meeting material, geometry, quality and delivery expectations.
Inspection planning
We coordinate dimensional checks, material certificates, chemical analysis, testing and reporting requirements.
Production follow-up
We support communication during tooling, sampling, casting, machining, finishing, inspection and delivery.
Start a Casting Project
Need help choosing the right casting process for your component?
Send us your drawing, material specification, expected quantity or application requirements. EDS can help compare process options, review supplier feasibility and coordinate the next steps.