A quick, cost-effective, and insightful alternative
Meet PIP testing (Profilometry-based Indentation Plastometry), an accurate method for obtaining stress-strain curves non-destructively for AM builds.
How much is tensile
testing costing you?
Tensile testing metal AM parts can quickly drain your time and budget. With significant material requirements and long lead times, a single test can hold up your entire project.
Save time
By avoiding complex sample preparation and delivering results in just a few minutes.
Cut costs
By reducing material requirements by up to 99%
99% less material
By enabling testing on samples as small as a nail head.
.png){kind=logo}
Find out how much
you could be saving.
By testing in-house with PIP on the PLX-Benchtop, a
leading additive manufacturing OEM saves over
$125k annually on testing and material costs alone,
compared with tensile testing.
Fill in the calculator below to see what you could save by
implementing PIP into your workflows.
Calculations are based on a 10 cylinder tensile build using Laser Powder Bed Fusion
PIP Savings Per Test
Money Saved
$1958
Cost Reduction
78%
Time Saved
133 Hours
Time Reduction
96%
Material Saved
240 cm3
Material Reduction
96%
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
This calculator is based on the Renishaw cost model. Depending on your in-house cost model, these numbers could vary. Further, business cases and ROI can vary between companies and across industries. If you would like a customised cost analysis, get in touch for more details.
What drives the high cost of tensile testing?
Material Waste:
Due to the size of tensile samples, large quantities of raw materials are needed for production. If the tensile coupons produced are larger than the components being printed, this can result in even more money lost.
Production Costs:
Machining and testing samples can be costly, particularly if the process is outsourced. Beyond these direct expenses, delays in testing mean AM printers sit unused, resulting in further financial loss for each day they stay idle.
Repeat Testing:
Tensile testing is often an iterative process. Multiple tests mean more samples, more machining, and more money spent. If the first round of results doesn’t offer reliable data, the whole process restarts, extending the project timeline and increasing costs.
Why does tensile testing take so long?
Build Times:
Standard tensile coupons require extended build times, which can tie-up printers for hours. If the tensile sample is larger than the components you’re printing, it monopolises valuable machine time, delaying the production of actual parts.
Machining & Testing:
Serious delays are introduced through long testing and machining queues. If in-house resources are busy or machining has to be outsourced, this step can often take several weeks, adding stress to project timelines.
Waiting for Results:
After testing, the wait isn’t over. Data interpretation can be a slow process if more outsourcing is required for repeat rounds of testing. Each round of testing can add weeks, further slowing down decision-making and project progression.
Next steps
Request a customised cost analysis
Please submit the form and our team will be in touch to start the process.
See what our customers say
“PIP has proved to be a great tool for helping us understand our processes.”
Jed Robinson-Wall
Materials Scientist
at
Renishaw
"Plastometrex addresses the speed of qualification in additive manufacturing. Their novel testing method enables us to accelerate the development of prototypes and initial production parts across multiple industries."
Behrang Poorganji
VP of Materials Technology
at
Nikon AM Synergy
.png)
"We intend to employ PIP on a build-by-build basis to verify that what we are doing is sound, straight off the machine, every time."
Ian Brooks
Technical Director
at
Additure
"The PLX-Benchtop enables us to generate critical material property data far more efficiently than conventional methods. I have been thoroughly impressed by the machine, it is both easy to use and reliable."
Prof. Roger Reed FREng FIMMM
Professor of Materials and Solid Mechanics
at
Oxford University
"The PLX-Benchtop allows us to characterise the properties of finely structured parts in an entirely new way. The data allows us to build up a more comprehensive picture of the properties of parts made via additive manufacturing, deepening our understanding of the process."
Tony Fry
Principal Scientist
at
National Physics Laboratory
"Materials testing and qualification is the bedrock of any robust manufacturing process and new testing tools are needed to support the adoption of AM in industry. We are delighted to be working with Plastometrex, a technology-forward company whose unique technology platform will enable us to assess, improve, and deploy additive parts far more efficiently than previously possible."
Mark Jackson
Research & Innovation
at
Leonardo Helicopters UK
"We can now use cubes built for product development for additional testing, saving us time and money. Additionally, the PLX-Benchtop can generate mechanical data for a wider range of parameters."
Benjamin Haigh
Materials Scientist
at
Renishaw
"Plastometrex’s novel testing technology enables us to optimise our AM materials with much less material and in a fraction of the time required by traditional methods. This transformative testing technology will play an important role in supporting the continued adoption of AM."
Kazuhiro Mizuta
Managing Director
at
Aeroedge
.png)
"The Plastometrex device is a key enabler for new materials discovery and screening particularly in AM."
Dr Calvin Stewart
Innovation Scholar & Associate Professor
at
Ohio State University
See the PLX-Benchtop in action
Join our team of application engineers to get a first-hand look at how PIP can enhance your data and streamline your materials testing workflow.
.avif)
