Stamping and die casting are two foundational metal-forming technologies, but neither is universally “better”—their value depends on your product’s design, Besoins de performance, and production scale. Choosing the wrong process can lead to 30–50% higher costs (Par exemple, using die casting for simple flat parts) or frequent defects (Par exemple, using stamping for complex 3D structures). But how do you decide which fits your project? What key factors tip the balance between efficiency, coût, et la qualité? Cet article répond à ces questions avec des comparaisons côte à côte, Exemples du monde réel, and a actionable decision framework.
1. Core Process Difference: Solid vs. Liquid Forming
The fundamental divide between stamping and die casting lies in how they shape metal—this single difference defines their strengths and limitations.
UN. Estampillage: Déformation plastique à l'état solide
- Principe de travail: Utilise un press and die to apply force (10–2000MPa) à tôles/plaques métalliques solides (Par exemple, aluminium, acier). The metal undergoes plastic deformation (flexion, étirage, coupe) Sans fonte, retaining its solid state throughout.
- Typical Workflow: Coil unrolling → Flattening → Oiling (lubrification) → Stamping (forming/cutting) → Trimming → Finishing.
- Trait clé: Relies on the metal’s ductility, not fluidity. Best for parts with simple, plat, or shallow 3D shapes (Par exemple, computer chassis panels).
B. Moulage: Remplissage de liquide & Solidification
- Principe de travail: Melts metal (Par exemple, aluminium, zinc) into a liquid state (680–720°C for aluminum), then injects it into a closed mold cavity under high pressure (5–150MPa). The liquid metal cools and solidifies into the mold’s shape, forming complex 3D structures in one step.
- Typical Workflow: Metal melting → Slag removal → High-pressure injection → Cooling solidification → Mold opening → Trimming (runner removal) → Surface treatment.
- Trait clé: Leverages liquid metal’s fluidity to fill intricate cavities (Par exemple, engine mounts with internal threads). Ideal for parts with deep cavities, murs fins, or integrated features.
2. Comparaison côte à côte: Performance, Coût & Efficacité
To evaluate which process is better for your project, compare their performance across 8 critical metrics:
| Comparison Metric | Estampillage | Moulage |
| Complexité structurelle | Limited to flat/shallow 3D shapes (profondeur maximale: 5× épaisseur du matériau). Cannot form internal cavities or threads. | Excels at complex 3D structures (Cavités profondes, murs fins, filetages internes, logos). Can integrate 5–10 stamped parts into 1 die-cast part. |
| Précision dimensionnelle | Bien (tolérance: ±0.05–0.1mm for thin parts). Uniform thickness but poor shape flexibility. | Supérieur (tolérance: ±0.05–0.1mm for precision parts). Close to finishing results; surface roughness Ra 1.6–3.2μm. |
| Résistance mécanique | Local strength boosted by cold work hardening (Par exemple, stamped steel’s tensile strength increases by 15–20%). Overall strength limited by raw material. | Uniform strength; aluminum die castings have higher tensile strength (280–350MPa) than sand castings. Can be strengthened via heat treatment (Par exemple, T6 process). |
| Efficacité de production | Rapide (high-speed presses: 100–500 parts/minute for simple parts like washers). No cooling wait time. | Ralentissez (15–60 parts/minute). Requires time for metal melting and cooling solidification. |
| Utilisation des matériaux | Haut (90–95%). Minimal scrap—trimmings are easily recyclable. Ideal for expensive metals (Par exemple, alliages de cuivre). | Modéré (80–85%). Scrap includes runners, portes, and defect parts. Porosity defects may increase waste. |
| Coût par partie (Production de masse) | Inférieur (\(0.05- )0.5/part for small simple parts). Low mold costs and fast cycles reduce expenses. | Plus haut (\(0.3- )2/part for small complex parts). High mold costs and slow cycles drive up costs. |
| Coût de la moisissure & Délai de mise en œuvre | Faible (\(5,000- )50,000 par moisissure). Short lead time (2–4 semaines) for simple dies. | Haut (\(20,000- )200,000 par moisissure). Délai de livraison long (4–8 semaines) for complex molds with cooling channels. |
| Surface Treatment Adaptability | Risk of plating bonding issues—cold work hardening may reduce coating adhesion. Requires grinding pretreatment. | Porosity limits plating (may trap chemicals). Best for anodizing, revêtement en poudre, ou peinture. |
3. Scénarios d'application: Which Process Wins When?
The “better” process depends on your product’s use case. Below are typical scenarios where one clearly outperforms the other:
UN. Choose Stamping If:
- Your part is thin and flat: Examples include computer chassis panels, car door interior panels, or beverage can lids (thickness 0.1–2mm). Stamping’s solid-state forming ensures uniform thickness and high efficiency.
- You need low-cost, flexible production: Petit lot (100–10 000 pièces) or multi-variety projects (Par exemple, new home appliance trial production) benefit from stamping’s low mold costs and quick setup.
- Your part requires welding/riveting: Stamped parts have flat, clean surfaces that are easy to weld, rivet, or bolt together (Par exemple, shelf frames made of multiple stamped brackets).
B. Choose Die Casting If:
- Your part has a complex 3D structure: Examples include automotive wheels, robot joint housings, or gearbox housings (with internal cavities and threads). Die casting forms these in one step, eliminating assembly.
- Precision or lightweight is critical: Precision instrument holders (tolérance ± 0,05 mm) or laptop shells (magnesium alloy die castings for weight reduction) rely on die casting’s accuracy and material flexibility.
- You need high strength and integration: EV battery frames or engine mounts require both structural strength and integrated features (Par exemple, canaux de refroidissement)—die casting delivers this without compromising performance.
4. Special Considerations: Edge Cases & Emerging Trends
In some scenarios, the choice isn’t black-and-white—you may need to weigh tradeoffs or leverage hybrid solutions:
UN. Environnement & Recycling Factors
- Estampillage: Galvanized steel stamped parts require careful waste classification to avoid zinc contamination during recycling.
- Moulage: Aluminum/zinc die castings have low recycling costs (95% Recyclabalité) and consume less energy in remelting than raw material production.
B. Hybrid Technologies
- Moulage sous pression semi-solide: Combines die casting’s fluidity with stamping’s plastic deformation. Injects partially molten metal slurry into molds, reducing shrinkage defects while retaining some ductility. Ideal for high-strength parts like automotive steering knuckles.
- Stamping-Die Casting Combos: Use stamping for flat, composants à grand volume (Par exemple, battery pack covers) and die casting for complex structural cores (Par exemple, battery pack frames)—then assemble them for a balanced solution.
5. Decision Framework: 4 Steps to Choose the Right Process
Follow this step-by-step guide to avoid costly mistakes:
- Analyze Part Design:
- If flat/shallow: Estampillage.
- If complex 3D (internal cavities/threads): Moulage.
- Évaluer le volume de production:
- <10,000 parties: Estampillage (coûts de moulage réduits).
50,000 parties: Moulage (costs spread over high volume).
- Check Performance Needs:
- Need cold work hardening or welding: Estampillage.
- Need precision, léger, ou traitement thermique: Moulage.
- Calculer le coût total de possession:
- Estampillage: Lower upfront costs, higher long-term assembly costs (for multi-part designs).
- Moulage: Higher upfront costs, réduire les coûts à long terme (one-step forming, no assembly).
6. Le point de vue de Yigu Technology sur l'estampage vs. Moulage
À la technologie Yigu, we don’t see stamping and die casting as competitors—we see them as complementary tools. For clients needing high-volume flat parts (Par exemple, automotive door panels), our automated stamping lines (1000-presses en tonne) atteindre 99.8% yield with 0.05mm tolerance. Pour des pièces complexes (Par exemple, Cadres de batterie EV), our die casting solutions (600-ton machines + dégazage sous vide) reduce porosity to <0.5% and cut assembly steps by 70%.
We’re advancing hybrid technologies too: Our semi-solid die casting line for automotive knuckles delivers 20% higher tensile strength than traditional die casting. Our goal is to help clients look beyond “which is better” and focus on “which fits best”—tailoring solutions to product goals, not process limitations.
FAQ
- Can I use die casting for simple flat parts to avoid assembly?
Techniquement oui, but it’s uneconomical. A simple flat bracket made via die casting costs 3–5× more than stamping (due to high mold and cycle time costs). Stamping is better for flat parts unless you need to integrate complex features.
- Is stamping stronger than die casting for metal parts?
Ça dépend: Stamping boosts local strength via cold work hardening (good for parts like springs), but die casting delivers uniform strength (better for load-bearing structures like engine mounts). Heat-treated die cast aluminum can match or exceed stamped steel strength in lightweight designs.
- What if my part has both flat and complex sections?
Use a hybrid approach: Stamp the flat sections (Par exemple, a cover plate) and die cast the complex core (Par exemple, a housing with internal ribs)—then join them via screws or adhesives. This balances efficiency (estampillage) et les performances (moulage) without compromising design.