Great question! This is best approached with good CAD and a good drawing:

1. CAD – design your hole or boss feature with the recommended drill diameter for the insert. This will be larger than the tap drill size since it accommodates the insert. Make sure it’s the drill diameter so there is material to cut threads into (I just recently saw someone accidentally design to the major diameter and get surprised when their inserts just fell through the hole)!
   1. Please give extra clearance below the bottoming depth of the threaded insert! Or else you risk installation that is above-flush with the surface.
2. Drawing – this is where you call out the threaded insert (helicoil, KATO, etc.):
   1. Add a BOM or note with the part number of the insert you called out and how many are needed.
   2. If ambiguous, add an isometric view or call out to show the direction of installation (more common in sheet products with a thru-hole).
   3. Minor countersinks are nice on holes with threaded inserts to remove burrs.
   4. On your arrow call out you can say “DRILL AND TAP FOR [SIZE OR P/N] HELICOIL INSERT”
   5. If there is a tang, you should call out in the notes to remove the tang.
   6. I like having a call out on notes to install sub-flush, e.g., [TOP COIL TO BE 0.75 P TO 1.5P BELOW SURFACE]. P is pitch, so imagine you’re installing at least 3/4 threads below flus but no more than 1.5x threads.

For more reading you can look up your helicoil and you can usually find a nice guide like this one: https://www.stanleyengineeredfastening.com/-/media/Web/SEF/Resources/Docs/Heli-Coil/HC-2000_rev11_web.pdf

If the thread is standard, we don’t recommend modeling it in the CAD provided and instead calling it out in a technical drawing. Threads have different sizes and classes, which relate directly to how the thread will be manufactured and inspected. Modeled threads may not fully incorporate the nuances of a manufacturing process; even if we have the right die or tap for the thread, it becomes a mess to chase if already formed.

In your drawing I see no clearance between male and female thread features. That’s not the reality of good thread design, as clearance is always necessary, and features must have tolerances. Again, this is a good reason to call out the thread requirement on a drawing so there is something to inspect against.

If this is a 3D print I would recommend modeling coarse threads, especially if they are custom, but also incorporate adequate surface offset to compensate for the selected process.

FDM, particularly industrial FDM like running on a Stratasys Fortus, will be the best plastic 3D printing process to mitigate warping. I recommend exploring materials like ASA and polycarbonate for large, broad, flat parts. Avoid “warpy” plastics like nylon or ULTEM unless absolutely necessary.

FDM is better than SLS or MJF because the parts are built attached to a flat build plate. SLS and MJF do not have any supporting structures so broad parts can twist or flex during cooling. The sacrifice is in detail resolution. Maybe you could explore a hybrid approach in your design or splitting and assembling to achieve your results.

Hey I want to chime in with an article we wrote on Understanding and Preventing Vapor Smoothing Defects. 1mm is a recommended minimum because you may get some bubbling, bridging, etc. on your features. Another thing to note is that the solvent sticks to parts via condensation. If you have fine/thin features on your part and thicker features elsewhere you may find inconsistent finishes. I recommend trying one part before production to see how you like it.

I’ll answer in the context of Xometry but also give general guidelines as I helped launch the US sheet cutting offerings:

Typically, count out plasma. Between fiber laser and waterjet, there is just so much more repeatability and precision than plasma cutting. There are some super great modern plasmas, but most cutters out there on the network are for fabrication, where the edge condition will require some secondary treatment like cleanup and welding. 

Laser is typically more precise than waterjet, but our manufacturing standards are amicable for both technologies. The thicker the material, the more likely a waterjet will be used (waterjets can cut basically anything). It’s important on your end to specify critical dimensions that are tighter than the manufacturing standards for that process. Edge condition may also be a consideration and there are methods/equipment to taper-correct on deeper cuts. This may require a manual quote review, and in some cases, the tolerances are just not reasonable for “first cut results” with a sheet cutting process and may require machining (e.g., a 2.5-axis mill). Xometry has access to all these abilities, it just may require a manual review if you’re asking for tolerances or feature sets beyond the norm for a sheet cutting process.

Echoing Michael’s post. 0.7 mm is relatively thin, so upping it slightly will help with flow and stability. Strength can be achieved through ribs, which should be about 60% of the outer wall thickness. Warp is something the Xomtery IM team can review as part of their DFM feedback, and there are techniques the team can use to mitigate risk to critical features within tooling design and molding operations. What’s best is that you provide your file for their review along with a technical drawing highlighting critical features for mates and function. 

6061-T6 is an excellent material with a high-performance strength-to-weight ratio, but it’s not ideal for forming because it can crack in that condition and break at the bend. 5052-H32 is better suited for forming because of its higher fatigue strength and malleability. It will have different properties, so you may look into designing other features like gussets or putting a weld in at the joints for additional strength.

Even with a 3x radius to thickness this part may have risk and requires review if you choose to stay with 6061-T6. I recommend speaking with an Xometry team member once you have your quote in place so they can review the design and feedback.