Industrial Mold Manufacturing (United States)

NAICS 2022 code 333511

1. Overview

Industrial mold manufacturing is the business of building the tooling — the molds and dies — that other factories use to mass-produce parts. A single steel injection mold can cost anywhere from $15,000 to $8 million, with U.S.-built custom injection molds averaging more than $100,000 according to an August 2025 industry survey (though this is advocacy evidence from trade-association members rather than a representative Census price survey). [1][2][3] Over its life, a mold may stamp out millions of identical plastic, metal, glass, or rubber parts. The industry sits one step upstream of nearly all durable-goods manufacturing: before a car bumper, a detergent bottle, a phone housing, or a medical syringe can be produced in volume, someone has to cut the mold first. [1][2]

Three things define the sector for an investor. First, it is small, fragmented, and almost entirely private — roughly 1,095 firms across about 1,252 establishments, most of them family-owned "job shops" that average around 25 workers each. [4][5] Second, there is essentially no pure-play public company to buy; public-market exposure is indirect, through makers of mold components and molding machinery and through digital-manufacturing services (section 4). Third, it is a cyclical, project-based, engineer-to-order business squeezed between a scarce and aging skilled-labor pool at home and deep price competition from China abroad. [6][7][8]

• Public-market route: oblique only — a handful of adjacent suppliers and service firms carry some mold-tooling exposure inside larger businesses.
• Private route: direct ownership of the underlying job shops, which is how the overwhelming majority of this industry is actually held and how it changes hands.

2. What it is and how it's structured

Scope. NAICS 333511 covers establishments primarily engaged in making industrial molds for casting metals or for forming other materials such as plastics, glass, and rubber. Census includes die-casting dies, foundry casting molds, and molds used to form plastics, rubber, glass, and similar materials; steel-ingot molds are excluded. In practice that means plastic and rubber injection molds, die-casting dies (used to cast metal), metal molds for stamping/forming, and molds for glass and other materials. [1][2] Each tool is bespoke — designed and machined to a specific customer part — so this is engineered, project-based manufacturing rather than a commodity production line.

What it excludes (adjacent NAICS codes an investor should not conflate with it):

• 333514 — Special Die and Tool, Die Set, Jig, and Fixture Manufacturing: cutting dies, jigs, fixtures, and other special tooling that are not molds. [9]
• 333515 — Cutting Tool and Machine Tool Accessory Manufacturing: the cutters and accessories used on machine tools.
• 326 (e.g., 326199 — All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing): the molders — the shops that use molds to actually produce plastic parts. This is a much larger, separate industry; mold makers sell to it. A mold builder produces the tool; an injection molder or foundry uses it repeatedly to manufacture finished parts. Companies may do both, but downstream plastic-part revenue is not automatically revenue of NAICS 333511. [9]
• Metal casting/foundries (331 series): the die-caster or foundry that pours metal into the dies, as opposed to the shop that builds the dies.

Ownership mix. This is a private, owner-operated industry. Concentration is among the lowest of any U.S. manufacturing category: the four largest firms account for just 9.1% of industry receipts, the top 50 firms for only 42.8%, and the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (a standard 0–10,000 concentration score) sits at just 50.4 — a textbook fragmented market. [5] The American Mold Builders Association's 2026 survey of 84 member manufacturers found 54% reported revenue below $5 million, 80% primarily made plastic-injection molds, and 8% primarily made die-cast dies; respondents were 49% S corporations, 27% C corporations, 22% LLCs, and 2% sole proprietorships. [10] Private-equity roll-ups and larger "tool groups" exist, but the median participant is a single-shop, family-owned business.

3. How big it is

Federal statistics (our ground-truth figures) size the core industry as follows:

That works out to average revenue of roughly $5.7 million per firm and about 25 employees per establishment, with average annual pay near $62,000 per worker — reflecting a skilled, machining-heavy workforce (the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a median annual wage of $63,180 for tool and die makers as of May 2024). [4][5][12] The industry's four-firm share of 9.1% underscores how little any single company dominates. [5]

Long-run contraction. For historical context, the 2002 Economic Census reported 2,468 establishments, 46,722 employees, $2.029 billion of payroll, $1.674 billion of material cost, $3.836 billion of value added, and $5.528 billion of shipments. [13] The comparison with the current establishment count of roughly 1,250 shows substantial long-run consolidation in the domestic shop base — roughly half the establishments and two-thirds the employment of two decades ago.

Undercount caveat. These counts capture establishments primarily engaged in mold making. They understate total U.S. mold-building capacity in two ways. Much tooling is captive — built in in-house tool rooms at large molders, appliance makers, and automakers — and is classified under the parent plant's industry code, not under 333511. And many of the smallest one- and two-person shops are easy to miss in business registers. Private trade-group figures give a rough parallel: the American Mold Builders Association (AMBA), a trade body representing more than 200 member companies with an estimated 9,000 employees, associates its members with roughly $2 billion in annual tooling sales — one slice of the same industry. [6][14] Market-research firms that use broader "industrial mold" definitions (bundling machinery, components, and services) publish much larger figures; treat those as a different scope than the federal $6.26 billion. [15]

4. The investable universe

There is no pure-play, publicly traded U.S. industrial mold maker. The core industry is private job shops. Public-market investors get exposure only indirectly, through firms that sit next to mold making — supplying mold components and machinery, or offering mold-building as part of a broader digital-manufacturing service.

Public companies with mold-tooling exposure (all indirect):

Major private and other owners:

• Husky Technologies — owned by private-equity firm Platinum Equity (acquired for $3.85 billion in 2018); now public via GPGI; a global supplier of hot runners, PET and specialty molds, and aftermarket tooling. [16][22]
• Milacron — majority-owned (~51%) by Bain Capital since March 2025, with Hillenbrand retaining ~49%; injection-molding machinery, ~$526 million revenue in fiscal 2024. [17]
• SyBridge Technologies — a private-equity-created tooling platform assembled from 15 acquired manufacturing companies across several countries, illustrating the roll-up model in this space. [23]
• Thousands of private, family-owned job shops — the actual substance of NAICS 333511, generally too small to be individually investable in public markets.

The practical takeaway: to own this industry directly, a private investor buys a shop; a public-market investor buys the pick-and-shovel suppliers around it.

5. How the money works

Mold shops sell projects, not products. Each order is a one-off tool, quoted and engineered to a customer's specific part, then billed — often on a progress schedule (deposit, milestone, delivery) that ties up working capital during a build that can run weeks to months. Revenue is therefore lumpy and largely non-recurring: when a tool ships, that revenue is gone unless the customer comes back for the next program. [7]

The cost stack is dominated by skilled labor (toolmakers, mold designers, CNC and EDM machinists), machine time (multi-axis milling, electrical-discharge machining, grinding), and tool steel and mold-base materials, over a heavy fixed-overhead base of expensive equipment. Proto Labs describes the analogous cost base as raw materials, equipment depreciation, employee compensation, facilities, and manufacturing overhead, and notes that installing capacity ahead of demand produces negative operating leverage when utilization falls. [19] Because the work is custom, pricing power depends on speed, precision, and complexity — not scale — and margins are thin and volatile. AMBA's most recent business-forecast surveys report that a rising share of shops rate their own margins as "unacceptable," with overall business conditions near multi-year lows even as backlog and quoting activity show tentative improvement. [10]

Price trends. Pricing has risen materially without establishing real volume growth: the BLS producer-price index for NAICS 333511 stood at 145.076 in April 2026 (December 2003 = 100). [24]

The operating metrics owners actually watch are the manufacturing equivalents of a services firm's utilization:

• Backlog and quote-to-win rate — the pipeline; tooling orders are a leading indicator of downstream production because the mold is bought before the parts are made.
• Shop / machine (spindle) utilization — capacity is the constraint; idle high-cost machines destroy margin.
• On-time delivery and rework — a late or flawed tool delays the customer's entire product launch.
• Sales per employee — the productivity yardstick in a labor-scarce trade.

Smarter shops soften the project lumpiness by adding recurring streams: mold maintenance, repair, engineering-change work, and spare tooling, and by pairing tool-building with production molding — quoting the tool competitively (sometimes near break-even) to win the higher-margin, multi-year stream of molded parts that follows. Aftermarket work — repairs, refurbishment, replacement cavities and cores, engineering changes, and spare components — can be more recurring than new-tool awards. [19][21]

6. What drives demand

Demand is tied to the capital-spending and new-product cycles of the industries that buy molds, so the business is inherently cyclical. Demand follows product redesign more closely than it follows the simple tonnage of plastic or metal processed — a long production run may reuse an existing mold for years; a change in part geometry, resin, cavity count, labeling, weight, tolerance, or production location may require a new tool or extensive modification.

• New product introductions. A new tool is needed whenever a part's geometry changes. Automotive model changeovers have historically been the single biggest driver, alongside launches in appliances, consumer electronics, packaging, medical devices, and aerospace. More than half of AMBA's 2026 survey respondents served both medical/dental/optical and automotive customers. [1][2][10]
• Durable-goods and manufacturing capex. Because tooling is ordered ahead of production, mold demand rises and falls with — and slightly before — the broader factory capital cycle. Downturns hit hard as customers defer launches.
• Reshoring and trade policy. Tariffs, extended overseas lead times, supply-chain and intellectual-property concerns, and "Buy American" procurement rules have pushed some manufacturers to source tooling (or at least production) domestically. Surveys report a majority of U.S. manufacturers now actively weigh moving work closer to home. [8][25]
• The EV transition. Vehicle electrification is retooling the automotive parts base, adding new tooling programs even as it retires others.

7. Regulation

Mold making is not a heavily licensed or rate-regulated industry; the regulation that matters most is trade policy, because it sets the price of the industry's chief competitor.

• Section 301 China tariffs. U.S. tariffs on Chinese molds, dies, and tooling — generally 25% and, on some plastics-related classifications, higher — are a de facto protective floor for domestic shops. More than 60 U.S. mold manufacturers formally petitioned to keep those tariffs in place. Policy remains in flux: a late-2025 U.S.–China agreement included a partial (~10 percentage-point) rollback of certain Section 301 duties. Tariffs can improve the landed-cost position of domestic molds while simultaneously increasing the cost of imported tool steel and components; the net effect is shop- and sourcing-specific. [7][26]
• Steel and aluminum (Section 232) tariffs cut the other way, raising the cost of tool steel and mold-base material — an input, not a product. [26]
• Defense and IP rules. Tooling for defense programs can fall under export-control regimes (e.g., ITAR — the International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and Buy-American procurement requirements.
• Standard manufacturing oversight. OSHA identifies machine guarding, hazardous-energy control (lockout/tagout), and metalworking-fluid mist and skin exposure as relevant machining hazards. [27][28][29] EPA's Metal Products and Machinery effluent rules may apply to facilities that directly discharge oily machining wastewater, but applicability is process- and facility-specific rather than automatic for every 333511 establishment. [30]

8. Competitive dynamics and consolidation

The domestic market is intensely fragmented and competes on speed, precision, engineering support, and proximity to the customer rather than on price. With a four-firm concentration of 9.1% and an HHI near 50, no U.S. mold maker sets the market. [5]

The dominant competitive fact is import competition. Chinese shops typically quote tooling 40–70% below U.S. prices, and for high-mix, cost-sensitive work a large share of buyers still source molds offshore. [8][31] Tariffs, lead-time risk, and quality/IP concerns partially offset this, producing hybrid strategies — build the tool overseas but run production domestically, or vice versa. [8][25]

Digital quoting is moving closer to the customer. Xometry added automated injection-molding quotes in late 2025; Proto Labs links CAD upload, manufacturability analysis, tooling, and production. [19][20] These models threaten slow quotation processes but may also channel work to qualified suppliers.

Consolidation is more advanced around mold making than within it. The components-and-machinery layer has concentrated into a few large names — Hillenbrand's DME and Mold-Masters, Platinum Equity's Husky, and Bain Capital's Milacron — and those players continue to rationalize plants (Milacron/DME, for instance, consolidated mold-base manufacturing into a single Michigan facility). [17][18][22][32] Among the mold builders themselves, consolidation is slower, driven by private-equity roll-ups (SyBridge's 15-company platform being an example) and by owner retirements creating succession sales. [23]

9. Risks

• Import competition and pricing pressure. The structural China cost gap caps domestic pricing power and margins; tariff relief could re-expose shops overnight. Conversely, domestic sourcing is not automatically superior: underutilized or technologically dated U.S. shops may still be uncompetitive. [8][31]
• Cyclicality and customer concentration. Tooling demand swings with durable-goods capex and product launches, and many shops lean heavily on automotive customers — a lumpy, concentrated end market. AMBA's 2026 survey described shipments, backlog, and quoting as broadly stagnant and identified automotive as a less reliable or stalled source of work for some respondents. [10]
• Aging workforce / skilled-labor shortage. The toolmaking workforce skews older (a majority over 45), with too few apprentices and trained engineers entering to replace retirees; roughly a quarter of moldmakers rank this as their single greatest challenge. AMBA's 2024 analysis found that the median responding shop fell from 36 shop employees and 6 design employees in 2015 to approximately 21 and 4 in 2024, while average shop hours declined only modestly — from 50 to 47 and design hours from 47 to 44. [33][34] Founder succession and dependence on a few senior moldmakers are material private-company risks.
• Thin margins and working-capital strain. Long build cycles, progress billing, and project lumpiness make cash flow uneven; a rising share of shops report unacceptable margins. [10]
• Input-cost volatility. Tool-steel and mold-base prices — pushed by steel tariffs and commodity swings — hit a cost line the shop cannot easily pass through on a fixed-price quote. AMBA's 2025 wage survey covering 88 manufacturers and nearly 3,500 employees found 37 of 53 job categories recorded wage increases. [26][35]
• Technology disruption. Additive manufacturing (3D-printed tooling and conformal-cooling inserts) and AI-assisted quoting/machining are both a threat to slow adopters and an efficiency opportunity for leaders. NIST identifies rapid prototyping that avoids tooling and the production of molds and mold inserts as separate additive-manufacturing applications; Oak Ridge National Laboratory has demonstrated hybrid additive/CNC tooling with conformal cooling that conventional drilling cannot produce economically. [19][36][37]
• Execution risks. Fixed-price quoting errors, late customer design changes, validation failures, warranty claims, work-in-process write-downs, and disputes over ownership of tooling or CAD files. Medical, defense, and aerospace work can introduce quality-system, cybersecurity, export-control, and documentation obligations.
• Indirect demand risks. Regulation or customer rejection of particular single-use plastic formats does not necessarily reduce tooling demand one-for-one: lightweighting, recycled-resin conversion, new closures, and alternative designs can themselves require new molds.

10. How to invest and the outlook

Public-market routes (all indirect). There is no pure-play stock. The available proxies each blend mold exposure with other businesses:

• GPGI / Husky Technologies for integrated systems, molds, hot runners, and a sizable installed-base aftermarket — broader than U.S. NAICS 333511 and economically different from a standalone mold builder. [16]
• Hillenbrand (HI) for mold components and hot runners (DME, Mold-Masters) inside a diversified industrial. [17][18]
• Proto Labs (PRLB) for a digital tooling-plus-molding service — the closest public analog to a modern mold builder. [19]
• Core Molding Technologies (CMT) for a custom molder that also builds tooling. [21]

Standard equity metrics — share price, dividend yield, and valuation multiples such as enterprise value to EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) — apply to these public names, but remember each gives only partial exposure to mold making itself.

Private routes (the direct way in). Because the industry is private, the most direct ownership is buying a job shop — the domain of search funds, "entrepreneurship-through-acquisition" buyers, and small-business private equity, often catalyzed by owner-succession sales. SyBridge demonstrates the roll-up model. [23] The underwriting should separate recurring repair and maintenance from volatile new-tool awards and test customer concentration, quote-to-order conversion, backlog cancellation rights, milestone billing, WIP accounting, machine utilization, deferred capital expenditure, validation performance, and dependence on senior technical personnel. Adjacent private plays include the industry's own suppliers: tool-steel and mold-base makers, CNC/EDM machine-tool builders, and CAD/CAM software. [17][22]

Common misreadings. Two definitional errors are frequent. First, downstream injection-molded products are not the market size of industrial mold manufacturing; counting both can inflate the apparent industry by multiples. Second, additive manufacturing is not simply replacing molds — it substitutes for some low-volume tooling while simultaneously becoming a production technology used inside higher-performance molds.

Near-term outlook (forward-looking). The setup is a tug-of-war. On the supportive side, tariffs and reshoring momentum favor domestic tooling, and the EV and product-launch cycles keep seeding new programs. Against that sit soft cyclical conditions, thin margins, a tightening skilled-labor pool, and the ever-present possibility of tariff rollback re-widening the China price gap. Labor scarcity is accelerating automation, five-axis machining, pallet systems, unattended EDM, standardized components, digital job management, and robotics. [33] The likely winners are shops that automate quoting and machining, add recurring maintenance and production-molding revenue, and serve speed- and IP-sensitive niches (medical, defense, aerospace) where domestic proximity is worth paying for; the likely losers are commodity plastic-tooling shops competing head-on with offshore pricing. For public investors, expect the sector to remain a small, indirect allocation rather than a standalone theme.

---

Sources

1. U.S. Census Bureau. 2022 NAICS Definition — 333511 Industrial Mold Manufacturing. 2022. https://www.census.gov/naics/
2. IBISWorld. NAICS Code 333511 — Industrial Mold Manufacturing. 2025. https://www.ibisworld.com/classifications/naics/333511/industrial-mold-manufacturing/
3. American Mold Builders Association. AMBA Filing re: Section 301 Tariffs (August 2025 member survey; custom injection molds averaging >$100,000, ranging $15,000–$8 million). 2025. https://downloads.regulations.gov/BIS-2025-0023-0644/attachment_1.pdf
4. U.S. Census Bureau. County Business Patterns 2023 — NAICS 333511 (establishments, employment, annual payroll). 2023. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html
5. U.S. Census Bureau. 2022 Economic Census, Concentration by Largest Firms — NAICS 333511 (receipts, firms, CR4/CR8/CR20/CR50, HHI). 2022. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census.html
6. American Mold Builders Association. About AMBA (≈200+ members, ~9,000 employees, ~$2B tooling sales). 2025. https://amba.org/
7. MoldMaking Technology. More Than 60 U.S. Mold Manufacturers Rally to Keep China Tariffs. 2024. https://www.moldmakingtechnology.com/news/more-than-60-us-mold-manufacturers-rally-to-keep-china-tariffs
8. Fictiv. 2025 U.S. Tariff Updates: Key Trade Policy Changes (reshoring, sourcing split). 2025. https://www.fictiv.com/articles/2025-u-s-tariff-updates-key-trade-policy-changes
9. SICCODE. NAICS Code 333511 — Industrial Mold Manufacturing (scope and adjacent codes 333514 / 326199). 2025. https://siccode.com/naics-code/333511/industrial-mold-manufacturing
10. American Mold Builders Association. 2026 Business Forecast Report (84 manufacturers surveyed; revenue distribution, ownership structure, margins, backlog). 2026. https://amba.org/site/assets/files/1639/2026_business_forecast_report_sneak_peek-1.pdf
11. U.S. Small Business Administration. Table of Small Business Size Standards — NAICS 333511 (500 employees). 2023. https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards
12. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Outlook Handbook: Machinists and Tool and Die Makers (median annual wage $63,180, May 2024). 2024. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/production/machinists-and-tool-and-die-makers.htm
13. U.S. Census Bureau. 2002 Economic Census — NAICS 333511 Industry Report (historical baseline: 2,468 establishments, 46,722 employees, $5.528B shipments). 2002. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/economic-census/2002/manufacturing-reports/industry-series/ec0231i333511.pdf
14. American Mold Builders Association. Industry Resources. 2026. https://amba.org/industry-resources/
15. Prophecy Market Insights. U.S. Industrial Mold Market Size, Growth, Forecast 2024–2034. 2024. https://www.prophecymarketinsights.com/market_insight/us-industrial-mold-market-5383
16. U.S. SEC / GPGI (Husky Technologies). Form 10-K (~4,000 customers, ~140 countries, ~13,500 installed systems, ~65% aftermarket revenue). Year-end 2025. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1823144/000162828026017266/R9.htm
17. Hillenbrand, Inc. / Plastics News. Hillenbrand Sells Majority Stake in Milacron to Bain Capital for $287M (retains DME, Mold-Masters and ~49% of Milacron; Milacron FY24 ~$526M revenue). 2025. https://www.plasticsnews.com/news/hillenbrand-sells-majority-stake-milacron-bain-capital-287m
18. U.S. SEC / Hillenbrand, Inc. Form 10-Q, Molding Technology Solutions segment (DME, Mold-Masters, Milacron). FY2024. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1417398/000141739825000063/hi-20241231.htm
19. U.S. SEC / Proto Labs, Inc. Form 10-K (2025 revenue ~$533M; injection molding $191.5M / 35.9% of revenue, down 1.4% YoY). 2025. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1443669/000144366926000010/prlb-20251231.htm
20. U.S. SEC / Xometry, Inc. Form 10-K (automated injection-molding quotes added late 2025; 4,996 active suppliers). 2025. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1657573/000119312526066959/xmtr-20251231.htm
21. Core Molding Technologies, Inc. Full Year and Fourth Quarter 2024 Results (net sales $302.4M; tooling revenue ~$30–40M). 2025. https://coremt.com/core-molding-technologies-reports-full-year-and-fourth-quarter-2024-results/
22. Platinum Equity. Platinum Equity Completes Acquisition of Husky Injection Molding Systems ($3.85B). 2018. https://www.platinumequity.com/news/platinum-equity-completes-acquisition-of-husky-injection/
23. SyBridge Technologies. About: Evolution (15 acquired manufacturing companies). 2026. https://sybridge.com/about/evolution/
24. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED). Producer Price Index — NAICS 333511 (145.076, April 2026; Dec 2003 = 100). 2026. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCU333511333511
25. Cary Products. US vs. China Injection Molding: What Manufacturers Need to Know in 2026 (reshoring drivers). 2026. https://caryproducts.com/us-vs-china-injection-molding/
26. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. China Section 301 Tariff Actions and Exclusion Process. 2025. https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/enforcement/section-301-investigations/tariff-actions
27. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Metalworking Fluids. https://www.osha.gov/metalworking-fluids
28. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Machine Guarding. https://www.osha.gov/machine-guarding/
29. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout). https://www.osha.gov/control-hazardous-energy/
30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Metal Products and Machinery Effluent Guidelines. https://www.epa.gov/eg/metal-products-and-machinery-effluent-guidelines
31. Moldminds. China vs USA Injection Mold Costs 2025 (40–70% cost gap). 2025. https://moldminds.com/china-vs-usa-injection-mold-costs
32. Crain's Grand Rapids Business. Milacron/DME to Consolidate Mold Base Manufacturing to Greenville Plant. 2024. https://www.crainsgrandrapids.com/news/small-business/breaking-news/milacron-dme-to-consolidate-mold-base-manufacturing-to-new-world-class-greenville-plant/
33. American Mold Builder. The State of US Mold Manufacturing: How Mold Builders Are Doing More with Less (median shop employees 36→21; design employees 6→4; 2015–2024). 2024. https://americanmoldbuilder.com/articles/2024/the-state-of-us-mold-manufacturing-how-mold-builders-are-doing-more-with-less/
34. MDPI, Sustainability / MoldMaking Technology. Global Workforce Challenges for the Mold Making and Engineering Industry (aging workforce, skilled-labor shortage). 2024. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/1/346
35. American Mold Builder. Mold Builders Again Experience Wage Growth Slower Than Inflation (2025 wage survey: 88 manufacturers, ~3,500 employees; 37 of 53 job categories with wage increases). 2025. https://americanmoldbuilder.com/articles/2025/mold-builders-again-experience-wage-growth-slower-than-inflation/
36. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Additive Manufacturing / 3D Printing (rapid prototyping, mold inserts as applications). https://www.nist.gov/mep/additive-manufacturing3d-printing
37. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Hybrid Manufacturing of Conformal Cooling Channels for Tooling. https://impact.ornl.gov/en/publications/hybrid-manufacturing-of-conformal-cooling-channels-for-tooling/