Hypertherm_Layout 1 9/5/12 10:55 AM Page 32
Which Metal­Cutting
Process Is Best for
Your Application?
Consider cut quality and
operating costs when choosing
oxyfuel, plasma, and laser
cutting technologies
M
ankind has been taking
raw metal and turning it
into something useful for
centuries. Gold, silver,
and copper were used to
create coins, and iron was shaped to
make tools and crude weapons. Back
then, there weren’t a lot of choices when
it came to working with metal. There was
one choice: Soften the metal over a fire
and then form it into the desired shape.
Fortunately, we have many more choices
today. Some might say too many choices,
which can make it difficult to decide
which metal cutting method to use.
Experts say the cutting method you
choose depends on the type, thickness,
and amount of metal you need to cut as
well as the cut quality you require. This
article examines the advantages and dis-
advantages of three common cutting
processes — oxyfuel, plasma, and laser
— and then explains how to choose the
best one for your needs.
32 OCTOBER 2012
Oxyfuel Cutting
First up is oxyfuel — Fig. 1. Around
since the early 1900s, oxyfuel uses fuel
gases and oxygen to cut metal. It works
by creating a chemical reaction between
the oxygen and steel that is so hot the
metal softens then melts. One of the
great things about oxyfuel is that the
equipment itself does not cost much. In
addition, you do not need compressed air
or access to electricity. A downside is that
the process is only good for cutting car-
bon steel. Oxyfuel is not effective on
other types of metal like stainless steel
or aluminum. The other consideration
with oxyfuel is that the operator learning
curve is relatively high. It takes a lot of
practice, skill, and experience to produce
good cuts. In addition, oxyfuel torches
need to be preheated. Like an oven, the
torch needs time to get up to the right
temperature.
BY MICHELLE AVILA
MICHELLE AVILA (michelle.avila@Hy­
pertherm.com) is public relations man­
ager, Hypertherm, Inc., Hanover, N.H.
Fig. 1 — Oxyfuel systems excel at cutting
thick carbon steel.
Plasma Cutting
Plasma cutting (Fig. 2), which was in-
vented in the 1950s, is a high-speed
process that uses an accurately controlled
electric arc to cut most common metals.
A small nozzle orifice and high-velocity
gas flow generate a very hot, high-energy-
density arc. Plasma cutting and gouging
require a process gas — such as air or ni-
trogen — a power supply, and consum-
ables, including an electrode and nozzle.
This makes plasma a good choice for peo-
ple needing to cut a range of different
metals. In fact, that is one of plasma’s key
selling points: versatility. It can cut most
any type of metal — mild steel, stainless
steel, aluminum, copper, brass, and oth-
ers — even metals that are rusted,
painted, or dirty. Plasma can also cut ex-
panded metal, and is good at cutting both
thick and thin metal. The downside to
plasma is that the equipment costs more
Hypertherm_Layout 1 9/10/12 11:27 AM Page 33
to buy than an oxyfuel system, and while
the cut quality is very good and getting
better all the time, it is not as good as
laser for cutting thinner materials.
Laser Beam Cutting
The third method, laser cutting (Fig.
3), uses a high-power beam of light to
heat, partially melt, and vaporize the
metal. Lasers are known for producing
excellent cut quality on thin metal. There
are two main types of lasers: gas (CO2 )
and solid-state (YAG, disc, and fiber).
Gas lasers can cut most metals except
highly reflective materials. For these, you
need to use a solid-state laser because its
delivery method cuts more materials.
Laser is typically used when fine feature
cutting is required or for very thin plate
(gauge to 1⁄4 in.) where high productivity
is desired. Lasers can cut metal more than
an inch thick, although a higher-powered
laser is required. The disadvantage of
laser is the initial purchase price. While
the total cost of ownership of a laser sys-
tem is comparable to say a higher-qual-
ity plasma system, laser systems are ex-
pensive. A traditional CO 2 system can
cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Fiber lasers are more affordable than
CO2 but are costlier than plasma.
Cut Quality
While the previous explanations help
narrow down your choices (for example,
if you need to cut thin metal or any type
of stainless, you can cross oxyfuel off your
list), they don’t help you determine which
method makes the most sense from a busi-
ness standpoint. For that, you need a more
thorough understanding of the cut qual-
ity and productivity of which each method
is capable. Understanding which method
will cost you the least amount of money
to not only purchase but operate, as well
as understanding which method will en-
able you to produce the most parts per
hour, is critical to remaining competitive.
Let’s begin by defining cut quality.
Generally, the quality of a cut (or lack
Fig. 2 — A plasma system is shown cut­
ting a thick aluminum block .
thereof) is based on the following
properties:
• Angularity, or angle. A perfectly
straight cut, with little to no angle, is con-
sidered best.
• Kerf, or width. A narrower kerf is bet-
ter.
• Heat-affected zone (HAZ). A smaller
HAZ protects the integrity of the metal
better.
• Dross, the amount of dross produced.
• Tolerances. Tighter tolerances require
a more precise cut. In general, lasers can
produce tolerances between ±0.006 to
0.015 of an inch. Plasma tolerances range
from ± 0.015 to 0.030, and oxyfuel toler-
ances range from ± 0.020 to 0.030 in.
If you consider the angularity, kerf,
HAZ, dross, and tolerance of cuts made
by each of the three methods, laser tends
to come out on top. Cuts made with laser
have little to no angularity, a thin kerf,
and a small HAZ. In addition, laser
leaves little dross on the cut, and deliv-
ers tight tolerances. Laser cut quality is
followed by plasma, and lastly by oxyfuel.
WELDING JOURNAL 33
Hypertherm_Layout 1 9/5/12 10:56 AM Page 34

Fig. 3 — A fiber laser makes precision cuts

on thin plate.

Productivity
Cut quality is an important consider-
ation, but so is productivity. After all,
good cut quality doesn’t mean much if
you aren’t able to produce enough parts
to meet demand. When people think of
productivity, they most often think of cut
speed; however, there are other factors
to consider. Those factors include the
amount of time it takes to prepare the
system for cutting, pierce the metal, and
perform secondary operations. Let’s
begin by first examining cut speed. The
speed achieved by each of the three hour. In the following example, it is as- removal. Of the three methods, oxyfuel
methods depends on the thickness of the sumed oxyfuel cuts 20 in./min or 1200 requires the most amount of time be-
metal to be cut. Generally though, oxy- in./h (20 × 60). Step 2 involves dividing cause preheating is required.
fuel produces the slowest cut speeds, the in./h figure by 12 to determine the
plasma is the fastest, and laser falls some- ft/h cutting rate. For the final step, you Operating Costs
where in the middle. simply take the ft/h cut rate (100 in this
Knowing the cutting speed each example) and divide it by the size of the In addition to cut quality and produc-
method produces is half of the informa- part in feet (4 ft). Table 1 shows the tivity, you will want to consider the op-
tion needed to calculate parts/h. The example just described, as well as the erating costs of each method. In other
other half is the linear length of the part calculations for the different cutting words, how much will it cost you to op-
to be cut. For example, the linear length methods. erate whichever system you choose?
of a 12- × 12-in. square is 48 in. (12 in. As you can see from Table 1, HyDefi- Many factors — consumables, power,
× 4 sides) equals 4 ft. Once you have nition plasma produces the greatest num- gas, and the costs associated with re-
these two data, it is easy to figure out ber of parts/h (144 parts). However, as placement parts and maintenance — im-
how many parts you can cut. mentioned earlier, other factors also con- pact the overall operating cost.
The first thing you’ll want to do is take tribute to productivity, such as preheat Consumables make up the largest por-
the in./min figure and multiply it by 60 to and pierce time, and time needed to per- tion of operating costs when cutting with
determine the number of inches cut in an form secondary operations such as dross plasma. However, the advent of longer-

34 OCTOBER 2012
Hypertherm_Layout 1 9/10/12 11:26 AM Page 35

Table 1 — Comparison of Productivity for Several Processes

Speed × 60 = ÷ 12 = Parts/h
(in./min) (linear in.) (ft cut/h) (ft cut/h÷
size of part (ft))
Oxyfuel 20 1200 100 25

Single-gas plasma 80 4800 400 100

(200-A cutting 1⁄2-in. mild steel)

HyDefinition plasma 115 6900 575 144

(200-A cutting 1⁄2-in. mild steel)

Fiber laser 100 6000 500 125

(2-kW system cutting 3⁄16-in. mild steel)

CO2 laser 100 6000 500 125

(4-kW system cutting 3⁄16-in. mild steel)

Table 2 — Hourly Cost of Cutting

Oxyfuel Single-Gas Plasma HyDefinition Plasma Fiber Laser CO2 Laser

Consumables $0.06 $6.60 $9.00 $0.35 $0.70

Power $0.00 $3.00 $2.50 $0.10 $0.50
Gas $6.20 $1.50 $3.90 $0.30 $0.70
Parts and maintenance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $21.00
Operating Cost/h $6.26 $11.10 $15.40 $0.80 $22.90

Note: Cost estimates come from manufacturer specifications. CO2 laser assumes yearly maintenance of $20,000 and turbine replacement every 6000 h.
Actual costs may vary.

Table 3 — Hypothetical Profit/Part total cost/part of 18 cents.

Sales Price
Oxyfuel $1
Single-gas plasma $1
HyDefinition plasma $1
Fiber laser $1
CO2 laser $1
lasting consumables is changing that.
Power costs are negligible for oxyfuel,
higher for plasma, higher yet for fiber
laser, and much higher for CO2 laser.
Gas is the largest cost associated with
CO2 laser due to high flow rates.
Replacement parts are mainly a con-
sideration for CO 2 laser. While items
such as lenses and mirrors are not fre-
quently changed, when they fail they are
costly to replace, in terms of both the cost
to purchase and the downtime involved
to replace them. Therefore, you should
include a portion of this cost when cal-
culating your daily operational expenses.
Table 2 shows the estimated hourly
cost for each cutting method based on
manufacturer specifications.
While the operating cost for oxyfuel
appears quite low at $6.26/h, it isn’t nec-
Cost/Part Profit/Part
$0.25 $0.75
$0.11 $0.89
$0.10 $0.90
$0.005 $0.995
$0.18 $0.82
essarily the most economical system to
operate. This is because the table con-
siders operating cost/h when the cost to
consider is cost/part. A system that costs
$20/h to operate, but only produces a few
parts/h, is not nearly as efficient as one
that costs $20/h but produces 100 parts.
To determine cost/part, divide the op-
erating cost/h (from Table 2) by the num-
ber of parts produced/h (calculated in
Table 1).
Oxyfuel produced 25 parts/h, bring-
ing the cost/part to 25 cents.
Single-gas plasma produced 100
parts/h for a cost of 11 cents/part.
HyDefinition plasma produced 144
parts/h, which equals 10 cents/part.
Fiber laser produced 125 parts for a
total cost/part of about 0.5 cent.
CO 2 laser produced 125 parts for a
The cost/part for both types of plasma
is about equal; however, it is worth not-
ing that high-precision-type plasma pro-
duces better cut quality.
Calculating Investment
Worth
What if you discover that it would
make more sense to use a different cut-
ting method? Should you just go out and
purchase a new cutting system? Not nec-
essarily. You’ll first want to verify the par-
ticular system you are considering is
worth the investment. To do this, deter-
mine the number of parts you expect to
produce/day and multiply this number by
your expected profit/part, which will vary
depending on the method you use. To
keep the math simple, let’s assume the
retail price for the part you are produc-
ing is $1. With fiber laser, you can expect
that part will cost half a cent to make for
a profit of $0.995 ($1 profit/part –
$0.005). Your profit on that same part
using oxyfuel would be about $0.75 ($1
profit/part – $0.25 cost /part).
Now, take the cost of the system you

WELDING JOURNAL 35
Hypertherm_Layout 1 9/5/12 10:57 AM Page 36
are considering and divide it by your ex-
pected daily profit. The capital costs for
these systems are roughly $50,000 for
oxyfuel, $35,000 for single-gas plasma,
$130,000 for HyDefinition plasma,
$400,000 for fiber laser, and $600,000 for
CO2 laser. These estimated capital costs
are based on the following specifications:
Oxyfuel, 5 × 10 cutting machine with
one oxyfuel torch, PC-based control, oxy-
fuel height control, and nesting software.
Single-gas plasma, 5 × 10 cutting ma-
chine with single-side drive, roller ball,
and single-gas plasma system.
HyDefinition plasma, 5 × 10 preci-
sion cutting machine with PC-based con-
trol, arc voltage torch height control,
nesting software, 130-A HyPerformance
class plasma.
Fiber laser, 2-kW system, 5 × 10 pre-
cision cutting machine, CNC, and nest-
ing software.
CO 2 laser, 4-kW system, 5 × 10 pre-
cision cutting machine, CNC, and nest-
ing software.
Based on this example, you would
need to produce 67,000 parts to recoup
Gentec is a total solution provider for your welding, cutting, and gas control needs.
6543214304/./-,2-42+*))(2'/-.&5%-.$2,(,-.3,#2".21%/24++.521*,-43'!.$2,4)*-'4/,2-42 -2
(4*52,0.1' 12/..$,2*52-.%32',2$.$'1%-.$2-42,.5'1'/&2(4*2"'-2./&'/..5'/&2%/$2,*0045-
the $50,000 needed to purchase an oxy-
fuel system, and more than 400,000 parts
to recoup the $400,000 needed to pur-
chase a fiber laser system. Keep in mind
though that we have set the retail
cost/part at $1, thus limiting the poten-
tial profit/part, and have not included
labor and the other costs inherent in every
business. For that reason, real-world sce-
narios are sure to be much different.
Flexibility
The final factor to consider is the
amount of flexibility your particular op-
eration requires. As mentioned earlier,
plasma is considered the most versatile
of the three methods because of its abil-
ity to cut a wide range of metal types and
thicknesses, and its ability to mark and
gouge in addition to cutting. Businesses
requiring even more flexibility may want
to consider using more than one technol-
ogy on a single table. Working together,
oxyfuel and plasma, or plasma and fiber
laser can provide a nearly limitless array
of options.
Summary
Oxyfuel, laser, and plasma cutting are
all well-established thermal processes.
However, each has its benefits and short-
comings that should be considered when
deciding upon a cutting method.
Oxyfuel has the lowest capital invest-
ment and can be a good choice if you
don’t have many parts to cut. Shops need-
ing to cut a lot of parts are almost always
better off using another method.
Plasma provides a good balance in
terms of capital costs and an optimal mix
of cut quality, productivity, and operat-
ing cost. It offers a significant thickness
range and material flexibility and pro-
vides the highest cutting speeds.
Laser provides excellent cut quality,
high productivity, and in the case of fiber
laser, low operating cost on thinner ma-
terials. While capable of cutting thicker
metal (up to 1¼ in.), the number of parts
to be cut, type and thickness of the metal,
and required cut quality all need to be
carefully considered.◆
43.2','-2*,2%-26
 22%,2.&%,224.3.52222244-2

./,-%52.1/4)4&'.,2430%/(2/1
.)$'/&22*--'/&2*-43%-'4/222.)$'/&22*--'/&200%5%-*,222%,2.)'.5(2
(,-.3, 22"""&./,-%5-.1143

See us at FABTECH booth #N2822 For info go to www.aws.org/ad-index

36 OCTOBER 2012
Copyright of Welding Journal is the property of American Welding Society and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.