materials

Article
Residual Stress Build-Up in Aluminum Parts Fabricated with
SLM Technology Using the Bridge Curvature Method
Quoc-Phu Ma 1, * , Jakub Mesicek 1 , Frantisek Fojtik 2 , Jiri Hajnys 1 , Pavel Krpec 3 , Marek Pagac 1
and Jana Petru 1

1 Department of Machining, Assembly and Engineering Metrology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,

VSB-Technical University of Ostrava, 70833 Ostrava, Czech Republic
2 Department of Applied Mechanics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, VSB-Technical University of Ostrava,
70833 Ostrava, Czech Republic
3 V-NASS, A.S., Halasova 2938/1a, 70300 Ostrava, Czech Republic
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: In metal 3D printing with Selective Laser Melting (SLM) technology, due to large thermal
gradients, the residual stress (RS) distribution is complicated to predict and control. RS can distort the
shape of the components, causing severe failures in fabrication or functionality. Thus, several research
papers have attempted to quantify the RS by designing geometries that distort in a predictable manner,
including the Bridge Curvature Method (BCM). Being different from the existing literature, this paper
provides a new perspective of the RS build-up in aluminum parts produced with SLM using a
combination of experiments and simulations. In particular, the bridge samples are printed with
AlSi10Mg, of which the printing process and the RS distribution are experimentally assessed with the
Hole Drilling Method (HDM) and simulated using ANSYS and Simufact Additive. Subsequently,
on the basis of the findings, suggestions for improvements to the BCM are made. Throughout
the assessment of BCM, readers can gain insights on how RS is built-up in metallic 3D-printed
Citation: Ma, Q.-P.; Mesicek, J.; Fojtik, components, some available tools, and their suitability for RS prediction. These are essential for
F.; Hajnys, J.; Krpec, P.; Pagac, M.; practitioners to improve the precision and functionality of SLM parts should any post-subtractive or
Petru, J. Residual Stress Build-Up in additive manufacturing processes be employed.
Aluminum Parts Fabricated with
SLM Technology Using the Bridge
Keywords: selective laser melting (SLM); residual stress; hole drilling method (HDM); bridge
Curvature Method. Materials 2022, 15,
curvature method (BCM); finite element analysis (FEA); aluminum alloys
6057. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma15176057

Academic Editor: Ana Paula Piedade

1. Introduction
Received: 28 July 2022
Accepted: 30 August 2022 The complex nature of residual stress (RS) in parts printed with Selective Laser Melting
Published: 1 September 2022 (SLM) technology is caused by the interaction between the mechanical, thermal, and
metallurgical properties of the metals [1]. This stress is self-equilibrium within an elastic
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
component regardless of the external load application, which can either improve or degrade
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
the component strength during operation. By definition, there are three types of RS (type
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
I, type II, and type III) that exist within a body and are classified based on the scale of
stress evaluation [1,2]. Particularly, type I is macroscopic and homogeneous within many
grains of the material. Type I is caused by the production technology, assembly, operation,
transportation, and application of variable loads during testing, etc. Type II, on the other
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. hand, is microscopic and intergranular. It is caused by the inhomogeneous longitudinal
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. thermal expansion of the grains during the phase-changing process. Last, type III is
This article is an open access article submicroscopic and is associated with defects on the subgrain level. RS measurement
distributed under the terms and methods are classified as destructive, non-destructive, and semi-destructive based on their
conditions of the Creative Commons principles and the type of RS to be assessed, as summarized in [3].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// The formation of RS formation in parts produced with SLM shares several similarities
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ with welded parts, however, with a more complex nature due to three distinct characteristics
4.0/).

Materials 2022, 15, 6057. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15176057 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2022, 15, 6057 2 of 16

of its thermal cycle [4]: (1) intensive heating creating large temperature gradients, (2) fast-
paced cooling and solidifying due to the small volume of the melt pool, and (3) melting
of a new consecutive layer while remelting the former solidified layer. The formation of
RS in the SLM process was originally described in [5], whose illustration was corrected
in [4]. Being different from welding, the formation of RS in the SLM process is considerably
more sophisticated, as rapidly heated and cooled layers are stacked, which could lead
to print abortion due to cracking during printing. In addition, after the components are
removed from the base plate, RS is redistributed throughout their bodies, resulting in shape
distortion that could deteriorate their functionality [4]. This predictable behavior has been
used as a simplified approach to quantify RS in SLM components, specifically with two
geometries, the bridge and the cantilever, as reviewed in [6]. The two were designed so that
they allow geometric distortion, or stress release, solely in one direction, thus isolating the
effect of the RS to be assessed. Specifically, the bridge-shaped geometry was first described
in [7], whose piers curl up after being cut from the base plate and the angle between the
two bottom planes of the piers is measured for RS evaluation. Due to the undemanding
requirements in terms of material usage, printing time, and the pre- and post-process, as
well as angle measurement, the Bridge Curvature Method (BCM) has been widely accepted
by the research community as a rapid means to study RS [8–10]. Additionally, as claimed
in [6], the measured angle can then be imported into Finite Element Analysis (FEA) software
as a boundary condition to reversely calculate the releasable RS in the bridge before cutting.
This approach is similar to how the authors in [11] used the results of the contour method
to back-calculate the RS distribution in a component.
There are two FEA methods that are often used to evaluate the shape distortion
and RS of 3D-printed components, i.e., the thermomechanical method and the inherent
strain method. The former is conventionally used to calculate welding distortion and has
been used extensively in 3D-printing simulations by the research community, as reviewed
in [12], and for simple geometries, as in [13–16]. Fundamentally, this approach simulates
the moving heat source and couples the thermal and linear/non-linear properties of the
materials, making it computationally demanding and sensitive to thermal–mechanical
experimental measurement. In contrast, the latter is more efficient in terms of time and
efforts spent on computing and experiments because it only considers the inherent strain
of the materials, which is purely mechanical. Specifically, this method assumes that the
size of the laser seam is negligible compared to the size of the in-built component, and the
thermomechanical history of the laser seams are insignificantly different from one another.
Therefore, only the final geometric distortion of the printed component is needed as input.
Thanks to the advantages that the method offers, it is more suitable for the simulation of
large and complex components in the industry and has been widely adapted in [17–20].
Inspired by the above studies, this paper investigates the accumulation of RS in 3D-
printed metal specimens by means of simulation and physical tests on the macroscopic
level. Specifically, the bridge samples, designed following the BCM, are 3D printed with
AlSi10Mg and investigated. AlSi10Mg was chosen for the study because it is a widely-used
material, besides stainless steel, for printing. The two commercial FEA software, namely
ANSYS and Simufact Additive, are deployed for the numerical study. We use ANSYS
software for conventional elastic simulations with distorted angles as boundary conditions
to reversely calculate the elastic stress distribution of the bridges. Additionally, Simufact
Additive is used to simulate the printing process of the bridges and their corresponding
stress distributions. Bridge samples are divided into two packs for RS examination; one
is kept as-built and the other is heat treated at 170 ◦ C for 6 h. The RS of all the bridges is
examined with the Hole Drilling Method (HDM) according to the ASTM E837-20 standard
and subsequently compared with the simulation results. It should be noted that the
principles for the physical measurement and simulation used herein are the same as those
for different metallic materials, as long as the material properties are known.
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17

that the principles for the physical measurement and simulation used herein are the same
Materials 2022, 15, 6057 3 of 16
as those for different metallic materials, as long as the material properties are known.

2. Materials and Methods

2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample Design and Fabrication
2.1. Sample Design and Fabrication
Unlike the small geometry of the bridge in the original article [7], we redesigned the
bridgeUnlike the small geometry
to approximately twice itsofsize,
the bridge
aiminginfor
the
a original article [7],
larger distorted we redesigned
angle the
at the bottom
bridge to approximately twice its size, aiming for a larger distorted angle at the bottom and
and a larger top surface to facilitate HDM measurement and RS evaluation. The rede-
a larger top surface to facilitate HDM measurement and RS evaluation. The redesigned
signed bridge is shown in Figure 1.
bridge is shown in Figure 1.

Bridgegeometry
Figure1.1.Bridge
Figure geometryand
anddimensions
dimensionsininmm.
mm.

TrumpfTruprint
Trumpf Truprint1000
1000was
wasused
usedtotoprint
print88bridges
bridgesinintotal
totalon
on44base
baseplates
plates(2(2bridges
bridges
on each base plate). The material for the bridges was AlSi10Mg, which had been
on each base plate). The material for the bridges was AlSi10Mg, which had been recycled recycled
30 times. This was done because it is common practice to use recycled powder for printing.
30 times. This was done because it is common practice to use recycled powder for printing.
To investigate the effect of printing direction on the RS, we oriented the bridges in the Ox
To investigate the effect of printing direction on the RS, we oriented the bridges in the Ox
and Oy directions, whereas Oz is the printing direction. Ox is the direction of movement of
and Oy directions, whereas Oz is the printing direction. Ox is the direction of movement
the powder recoater, and Oy is normal to the machine door. The bridges printed in these
of the powder recoater, and Oy is normal to the machine door. The bridges printed in
Ox and Oy were denoted as X and Y bridges. This coordinate system is used henceforth
these Ox and Oy were denoted as X and Y bridges. This coordinate system is used hence-
for both measurement and simulation, as is shown in Figure 2. For printing, the bridges
forth for both measurement and simulation, as is shown in Figure 2. For printing, the
were rotated 5◦ clockwise around the Oz axis to avoid full edge-to-edge collision between
bridges were rotated 5° clockwise around the Oz axis to avoid full edge-to-edge collision
the bridges and the recoater, which may lead to printing failure. The bridges were printed
between the bridges and the recoater, which may lead to printing failure. The bridges
using the printing parameters as shown in Table 1.
were printed using the printing parameters as shown in Table 1.
After printing, the 4 base plates were divided into 2 packs for RS assessment. The
first pack remained as its as-built condition (pack 0 h) and the second was heat treated
Table 1. Printing parameters.
at 170 ◦ C for 6 h (pack 6 h). The heat treatment was carried out using the LH120/12
furnace from Nabertherm GmbH. A temperature
Powder of 170 ◦ C was chosen because it is often
AlSi10Mg
used forparticle
Powder the stress
sizerelaxation of AlSi10Mg 15–45
while µm
ensuring that there are no microstruc-
tural changes
Laser power [21,22]. Furthermore, an internal study
175 W comparing the tensile properties of
AlSi10Mg undergoing heat treatments of 170 ◦ C from 0–7 h proved that the pack that was
Layer thickness 20 µm
aged for 6 h had the best material properties. The comparison of the material properties of
Focus size 55 µm
0 h and 6 h is shown in Table 2.
Printing strategy Chessboard (Zig-Zag)
Laser
Table 1.speed
Printingfor border/following bor-
parameters.
2000/1500/1400 mm.s−1
der/hatching
Powder AlSi10Mg
Powder
Afterparticle 15–45
sizethe 4 base plates were divided into
printing, µm for RS assessment. The
2 packs
first pack
Laser remained as its as-built condition (pack 0 h) and
power the second was heat treated at
175 W
170Layer
°C for 6 h (pack 6 h). The heat treatment was carried
thickness 20 out
µm using the LH120/12 furnace
from Nabertherm GmbH. A temperature of 170 °C was chosen because it is often used for
Focus size 55 µm
the stress relaxation of AlSi10Mg while ensuring that there are no microstructural changes
Printing strategy Chessboard (Zig-Zag)
Laser speed for border/following border/hatching 2000/1500/1400 mm.s−1
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 17

[21,22]. Furthermore, an internal study comparing the tensile properties of AlSi10Mg un-
Materials 2022, 15, 6057
dergoing heat treatments of 170 °C from 0–7 h proved that the pack that was aged for 6h
4 of 16
had the best material properties. The comparison of the material properties of 0 h and 6 h
is shown in Table 2.

Figure 2. Bridges for HDM measurements: (a) front view, (b) bottom view, (c) isometric view, and
Figure 2. Bridges for HDM measurements: (a) front view, (b) bottom view, (c) isometric view, and
(d) bridge with notation, before cutting (left) and after cutting (right).
(d) bridge with notation, before cutting (left) and after cutting (right).
Table 2. Material properties of the heat-treated packs for 0 h and 6 h.
Table 2. Material properties of the heat-treated packs for 0 h and 6 h.
Young’s Poisson’s Yield Ultimate
Time Young’s Poisson’s Yield Ultimate Ductility
Time Modulus Ratio Strength Strength Ductility
[h] Modulus Ratio Strength Strength [-]
[h] [MPa] [-] [MPa] [MPa] [-]
[MPa] [-] [MPa] [MPa]
00 60.3
60.3 0.31
0.31 279
279 409
409 0.032
0.032
6
6
75.9
75.9
0.31
0.31
309
309
448
448
0.030
0.030

2.2. Measurement
2.2. Measurement
For the comparison of RS stress, a base plate was separated from each pack (0 -h pack
For the comparison of RS stress, a base plate was separated from each pack (0-h pack
and 6-h pack) and the bridges were cut from them to measure the distorted angles with
and 6-h pack) and the bridges were cut from them to measure the distorted angles with an
an Alicona Infinite Focus 5G optical microscope from Alicona Imaging GmbH. Subse-
Alicona Infinite Focus 5G optical microscope from Alicona Imaging GmbH. Subsequently,
quently, all the bridges were subjected to RS assessment with HDM (both the ones that
all the bridges were subjected to RS assessment with HDM (both the ones that remained on
remained on the base plates and the cut-off ones). First, referring to [23,24] for HDM meas-
the base plates and the cut-off ones). First, referring to [23,24] for HDM measurement, the
urement, the top surface of the bridge was grinded to obtain a sufficient roughness to glue
top surface of the bridge was grinded to obtain a sufficient roughness to glue the rectangular
the rectangular strain gauge rosette. The surface was treated with fine hand grinding and
strain gauge rosette. The surface was treated with fine hand grinding and etching so that no
etching so that no additional RS was introduced. In the middle of the strain gauge, a 2 mm
additional RS was introduced. In the middle of the strain gauge, a 2 mm diameter hole was
diameter hole
gradually was
drilled togradually
1 mm deep drilled
with atostep
1 mm deepmm.
of 0.05 withThe
a step of 0.05 mm.and
measurement Theevaluation
measure-
ment and evaluation of the results were carried out according to the ASTM E 837-20
of the results were carried out according to the ASTM E 837-20 standard. The evaluation stand-
ard. The evaluation was carried out under the assumption of uniformly-distributed
was carried out under the assumption of uniformly-distributed RS. Due to the fact that RS.
Due to the fact that the RS does not vary much within each 0.1 mm depth increment,
the RS does not vary much within each 0.1 mm depth increment, only stress values per only
0.1 mm (instead of 0.05 mm) were recorded and plotted to compare with the simulation for
a clearer data report. Figure 2 shows the bridges with notation.
The strain gauge rosettes can be seen on the top of the bridges. The in-used coordinate
systems correspond to the descriptions in Section 2.1. It can be noticed that the lack of sup-
ports in the curvature region results in a crack-like pattern that can be up to approximately
Materials 2022, 15, 6057 5 of 16

1 mm high. Additionally, as noted on the base plate, for X bridge, S1 and S3 correspond to
the normal stress in the Ox and Oy directions, respectively, and vice versa for Y bridge. As
previously mentioned, the bridge is designed so that after cutting, only S3 is released in
the direction of the red arrows as the piers distort in the same direction, while S1 is not. It
should be noted as well that the normal stress distribution in the Oz direction cannot be
measured with this experimental setup.

2.3. Numerical Study

2.3.1. Material Properties
Tensile specimens were printed with the same printing parameters and subsequently
heat-treated together with the bridges in this study. Their mechanical properties are re-
ported in Table 2. Remarkably, for the simulation in Simufact, only the material properties of
the 0-h pack were used because it was anticipated that the change in mechanical properties
could be captured with the built-in heat treatment function.

2.3.2. Inherent Strain Method

The total residual strain in a welded or 3D-printed component can be expressed in the
following equation:
εtotal = εe + ε p + εth + ε ph , (1)
where there are the elastic strain (εe ), the plastic strain (ε p ), the thermal strain (εth ), and the
strain induced from the phase transition (ε ph ). Subsequently, the inherent strain is defined
as follows:
ε∗ = εtotal − εe , (2)
The inherent strain governs the complete history of the printing process (ε p , εth , ε ph )
and solely reflects it with the final geometric distortion, after the part is cut out of the base
plate and the elastic strain (εe ) is released [25]. Furthermore, it should be noted that the
εtotal is compatible and the ε∗ is incompatible, as explained and illustrated in [26]. Due
to its definition, the inherent strain method is able to remarkably simplify the simulation
process while delivering a considerably accurate RS prediction.
In ANSYS, after the distorted angle of the bridge is obtained from the physical measure-
ment, it is applied to the unstressed bridge model to reversely calculate the elastic normal
stress that is released during cutting. Referring to Equation (2), it is equal to ε∗ = εtotal − εe ,
or in words, the total RS in the bridge before cutting subtracts the one after cutting.
For the RS results in Simufact Additive, the inherent strain method is used. Specifically,
ε∗ is decomposed into three directions, being εxx , εyy , and εzz , which can be calculated
by means of cantilevers through a process called calibration [27]. First, the cantilevers are
printed with a specific material and a set of printing parameters. Then, they are cut out so
that the elastic strain can be released, resulting in shape distortion. The displacements at
the tip of the cantilevers are measured and entered into Simufact Additive for the inherent
strain calculation. After calibration, a set of three-directional inherent strains is obtained,
which can be used later for the simulation of other components.
Regarding the printing simulation, Simufact Additive uses the deactivate/activate
approach to describe the inherent strain effect, which is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3 helps to explain the simulation in 2D, which can be extended to the 3D case.
First, the geometry is approximated with voxels (hexahedron elements), which are placed
layer by layer on top of each other. Each voxel is filled with material and assigned a volume
fraction (with a 100% volume fraction being the voxel that is fully filled with material).
Stiffness is scaled directly with the volume fraction, which is equal to the percentage of
material filled in a voxel volume. The collection of voxels representing the geometry
is created first in an unactive state. Then, layer upon layer of voxels are consecutively
activated and assigned with the calibrated inherent strain values, making them shrink in
size. This shrinking effect is calibrated so that it is closest to reality using the calibration
process mentioned previously. The shrinkage is summed throughout the layers to yield the
Materials 2022, 15, 6057 6 of 16

final distorted shape of the printed geometry. In particular, if the material or the printing
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6
parameters used to print the components change, the calibration must be performed again
to obtain a new set of inherent strains.

Figure 3. FromFigure
left to 3.right:
From(a)
leftGeometry
to right: (a) Geometry approximated
approximated with blue),
with voxel (light voxel (light blue), (b) consecuti
(b) consecutive
tivation (orange) and application of inherent strain (making part of the printed
activation (orange) and application of inherent strain (making part of the printed component shrink component s
in size, navy blue), and (c) completely printed component.
in size, navy blue), and (c) completely printed component.

Figure
It should be noted 3 helps
that to explain approaches
the simulation the simulation usedin 2D, which
in this study candobenot
extended
employto the 3D
First, the geometry is approximated with voxels (hexahedron
any force or temperature as boundary conditions, but only the final distorted angles (for elements), which are p
layer by layer on top of each other. Each voxel
ANSYS) and inherent strains (for Simufact Additive). Moreover, the two methods areis filled with material and assigned a
purely mechanical and are based solely on the final distorted shape of the printed parts. with m
ume fraction (with a 100% volume fraction being the voxel that is fully filled
rial).
Thus, they serve as Stiffness
quick ways is scaled directly
to quantify thewith the volume
RS inside fraction,
the printed partswhich is equal
without to the perce
the need
of material
for any information relatedfilled in a voxel
to laser volume.
path, laser speed,Theprinting
collection of voxels
strategy, etc.representing the geome
created first in an unactive state. Then, layer upon layer of voxels are consecutively
2.3.3. ANSYS vated
Simulation Setup with the calibrated inherent strain values, making them shrink in
and assigned
This shrinking
As introduced in advance, effect
the is calibrated
BCM so that itapproach
is a simplified is closestto toquantify
reality using
the RSthewithin
calibration pr
the 3D-printedmentioned
components. previously.
After being Theremoved
shrinkage is summed
from the basethroughout the layers
plate, the distorted to yield the
angle
can be utilizeddistorted shape ofcondition
as a boundary the printed geometry.calculate
to reversely In particular, if thedistribution
the stress material or on the printin
the bridge withrameters
ANSYSused to print the
Workbench 2019components
R3. To reduce change, the calibration time,
the computational must half
be performed
of
the bridge was toused
obtain anda new set of in
designed inherent strains.
the default add-in, Design Modeler. The symmetry
boundary conditionIt was should be noted
applied to thethat the simulation
mirror plane of theapproaches used in
bridge geometry. Thethis study do not em
geometry
was meshed withany linear
force or hextemperature
elements ofas upboundary
to 0.4 mmconditions, but only
in size, resulting the final
in 35,100 distorted angle
elements
ANSYS)
and 151,119 nodes. and inherent
A visual probe was strains
created(forat Simufact
the middle Additive).
point on the Moreover,
top plane theoftwo
the method
bridge with a depth
purelyofmechanical
1 mm to measureand arethe RS. The
based material
solely on themodels used were
final distorted 0 h and
shape 6 hprinted p
of the
from Table 2. Thus, they serve as quick ways to quantify the RS inside the printed parts withou
need for any information related to laser path, laser speed, printing strategy, etc.
2.3.4. Simufact Additive Simulation Setup
The material
2.3.3.properties for simulation
ANSYS Simulation Setup in Simufact Additive were edited from the
one available in theAs
database, namely AlSi10Mg_powder, with testedapproach
introduced in advance, the BCM is a simplified data of the 0-h pack the RS w
to quantify
from Table 2. the
Additionally, the flow curves were re-scaled using yield strength, ultimate
3D-printed components. After being removed from the base plate, the distorted
strength, and can
ductility. The calibration
be utilized was carried
as a boundary out to
condition with cantilevers
reversely printed
calculate thefrom
stressthe
distributio
printing parameters shown in Table 1, and the set of inherent strains that was
the bridge with ANSYS Workbench 2019 R3. To reduce the computational time, h obtained
is εxx = −0.00375, εyy = −was
the bridge 0.00337,
used and zz = −0.03.
and εdesigned in Notably, theadd-in,
the default minusDesign
sign indicates
Modeler. theThe symm
shrinkage of the components. Additionally, the bridges were meshed with a voxel
boundary condition was applied to the mirror plane of the bridge geometry. The geomsize
of H0.5 × W0.5 × L0.5 mm. There are 223,768 voxels, 258,179 nodes, and 70 layers. Each
was meshed with linear hex elements of up to 0.4 mm in size, resulting in 35,100 elem
node has three translational degrees-of-freedom (DOF). As for the simulation process, there
and 151,119 nodes. A visual probe was created at the middle point on the top plane o
are two to three consecutive stages, i.e., build, (heat treatment), and immediate release.
bridge with a depth of 1 mm to measure the RS. The material models used were 0 h
For post-processing, interpolation between two nodes of a voxel was done to obtain the
h from Table 2.
stresses, which are 0.1 mm apart and correspond to the measurement with HDM.
2.3.4. Simufact Additive Simulation Setup
The material properties for simulation in Simufact Additive were edited from th
available in the database, namely AlSi10Mg_powder, with tested data of the 0-h pack
Table 2. Additionally, the flow curves were re-scaled using yield strength, ulti
strength, and ductility. The calibration was carried out with cantilevers printed from
printing parameters shown in Table 1, and the set of inherent strains that was obtain
ε = −0.00375, ε = −0.00337, and ε = −0.03. Notably, the minus sign indicate
 H0.5 × W0.5 × L0.5 mm. There are 223,768 voxels, 258,179 nodes, and 70 layers. Each node
has three translational degrees-of-freedom (DOF). As for the simulation process, there are
two to three consecutive stages, i.e., build, (heat treatment), and immediate release. For
post-processing, interpolation between two nodes of a voxel was done to obtain the
stresses, which are 0.1 mm apart and correspond to the measurement with HDM.
Materials 2022, 15, 6057 7 of 16
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Distorted Angles of the Bridges
3. Results
Table 3 showsand
theDiscussion
distorted angles of the X and Y bridges taken from the 0-h and 6-h
packs. 3.1. Distorted Angles of the Bridges
Table 3 shows the distorted angles of the X and Y bridges taken from the 0-h and
Table 3. 6-h
Measured
packs.distorted angles.
Distorted Angle [°]
Table 3. Measured distorted angles.
Sample 0h 6h
X 1.6 [◦ ]
Distorted Angle0.7
Y Sample 2.0 0h 1.1 6h
X 1.6 0.7
The distorted angles are relatively small and, therefore, are not visible in Figure 2a–
Y 2.0 1.1
c. The angles were halved and inserted into the symmetric bridge models in ANSYS as
the boundary condition for the reverse stress calculation. It can be noticed that the 6-h
heat treatmentThecan
distorted
reduceangles are relatively
the distorted anglessmall and,
(or the RS)therefore,
on the X are
andnot visible in
Y bridges toFigure
ap- 2a–c.
The angles
proximately 50%. were halved and inserted into the symmetric bridge models in ANSYS as
the boundary condition for the reverse stress calculation. It can be noticed that the 6-h
heat
3.2. Stress treatmentResults
Distribution can reduce the distorted angles (or the RS) on the X and Y bridges to
in ANSYS
approximately 50%.
Figure 4 shows the reverse stress calculation in ANSYS.
3.2. Stress Distribution Results in ANSYS
Figure 4 shows the reverse stress calculation in ANSYS.

Figure 4. Normal stress distribution on the cut bridges calculated with ANSYS in MPa.

Figure 4. Normal
Thisstress
resultdistribution on the
is equivalent to cut
thebridges calculated
released S3 of thewith ANSYSwhich
X bridge, in MPa.is elastic and in the
reverse direction. Following the setup of the studies, there are four ANSYS results in total,
This result
being is equivalent
that to the in
S3 was released released S3 ofYthe
the X and X bridge,
bridges which
for the 0-h is
andelastic and in the
6-h packs. The stress
reverse distribution
direction. Following theresults
of the four setup ofis the
the studies,
same asthere arepresented
the one four ANSYS results 4,
in Figure in and
total,only the
being that S3 wasresults
numerical released
areindifferent.
the X and Y bridges
Thus, forfigure
only one the 0-h
wasand 6-h packs.
chosen The stresswhereas
for illustration,
distribution of the
accurate four results
numbers is the same
are reported asfollowing
in the the one presented
sections. in Figure 4, and only the
numerical results are different. Thus, only one figure was chosen for illustration, whereas
accurate3.3. Stress Distribution
numbers are reportedResults
in thein Simufact sections.
following Additive
In Simufact Additive, there are two result types, namely a surface and voxel result.
The surface result better represents the geometry of the models; however, it cannot show the
internal stress distribution. Therefore, it is recommended that the model be volume-meshed
with voxels, and clipping should be performed on the voxel result instead. Technically, the
results of the voxels are mapped onto the surfaces for the surface results, which serve as a
basis for the stress assessment henceforth. This notation should be taken into account as
the reader attempts to replicate the simulation. There is no special technique for mapping
or interpolating the numerical results obtained from the simulations.
In the Figures 5–7 below, the stress distribution on the X bridge is shown. It should
be noted that the normal stress distribution in the Ox and Oy directions of the Y bridge is
Materials2022,
Materials 2022,15,
15,6057
x FOR PEER REVIEW 98 of 16
17

reversed from the X one. However, as denoted in Figure 2, S1 and S3 do not depend on
choice of the coordinate system, and only S3 of the cut bridges is released. The normal stress
distribution in the Oz direction is similar in terms of magnitude and direction. Indeed, for
the simulation results in Simufact Additive, the difference in normal stress levels between
the X and Y bridges is less than 1 MPa, which is negligible. Thus, only the results of the
X-bridge are shown in this subsection. Moreover, it has to be kept in mind that in the
figures, there is an imaginary pivot (marked with triangle) on the symmetric plane of the
bridge about which the piers rotate when the RS is released, and direction of the rotation
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17
(marked with arrows).

Figure 5. Normal stress in Oz direction of the bridges in Simufact Additive (a) before cutting and
(b) after cutting.

The bridge is first halved, then the pier is further sectioned to show the internal stress
distribution in different regions. The middle curvature region experiences no considerable
amount of compressive or tensile stress, while the piers do. As the bridge is removed, the
pier will seek its equivalence by deflecting in the direction of the black arrows. This hap-
pens in the same manner as on the other pier, since the bridge is symmetric. The black
triangle is the reference point around which the pier distorts.

3.3.2. 5.
Figure Normal
NormalStress
stress in
in Ox
Oz Direction
direction of the bridges in Simufact Additive (a) before cutting and
Figure 5. Normal stress in Oz direction of the bridges in Simufact Additive (a) before cutting and
The normal stress in Ox direction of the X bridge (S1 of X bridge), corresponding to
(b) after cutting.
(b) after cutting.
S1, is shown in Figure 6.
The bridge is first halved, then the pier is further sectioned to show the internal stress
distribution in different regions. The middle curvature region experiences no considerable
amount of compressive or tensile stress, while the piers do. As the bridge is removed, the
pier will seek its equivalence by deflecting in the direction of the black arrows. This hap-
pens in the same manner as on the other pier, since the bridge is symmetric. The black
triangle is the reference point around which the pier distorts.

3.3.2. Normal Stress in Ox Direction

The normal stress in Ox direction of the X bridge (S1 of X bridge), corresponding to
S1, is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Normal
Normal stress
stress in
in Ox
Ox direction
direction of
of the
the bridges
bridges in
in Simufact
Simufact Additive
Additive (a)
(a) before
before cutting
cutting and
and
(b) after cutting.
(b) after cutting.
 The S1 in the X bridge before and after being cut from the base plate only shows a
slight change in the middle region of the top layers. This is because there is barely any
deformation allowed in the Ox direction for S1 to be released.

3.3.3. Normal Stress in Oy Direction

Materials 2022, 15, 6057 9 of 16
The normal stress in Oy direction of the X bridge (S3 of X bridge), corresponding to
S3, is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7.
Figure 7. Normal
Normal stress
stress in
in Oy
Oy direction
direction of
of the
the bridges
bridges in
in Simufact
Simufact Additive
Additive (a)
(a) before
before cutting
cutting and
and
(b) after cutting.
(b) after cutting.

When
In examining
practice, the thin
the stress section,
results in theitthree
can be observedvary
directions that slightly
the outermost
compared layertoofeach
the
curvature
other because peaktheisbridges
subjectedareto a highatlevel
located of compressive
different positions onS3, thewhile
base the upper
plate. Thislayers are
principle
dominated by tensile S3. After cutting, the tensile stress on the top layers
is called the partial distribution of strain and is expected to be severe for a large base plate, is significantly
reduced,
which causing
is not the piers
applicable for to
thedistort in thesize
base plate direction
of D100 ofmmthe arrows. It should
in this study. be noted that
Additionally, the
all the figures were scaled up 2 times to better illustrate the pier
geometry of the bridge was compared to its undeformed shape (CAD), as represented distortion. From the close-
up the
by view,
greyit can be observed
transparent boxthat the uncut
wrapping bridge
around theisbridge,
smallerwhich
in sizecan in comparison
be observedwith in theits
CAD counterpart
close-up view in Figurebecause 7. of
The the shrinkage
curvature ofthat occurs is
the bridge during the printing.
not fully captured This wasthe
because in-
deed calibrated
geometry to be the closest
is approximated to reality
with voxels. Thebycross
utilizing the of
sections inherent strainare
the bridges method
clipped aswith
pre-
viously
an mentioned.
advanced settingSubsequently, the bottom
to show the remaining close-up
part figure with
of the model illustrates howfor
elements thea bridge
better
deforms as stress is released.
stress assessment at their inner nodes. The bridge solely allows stress release in the Oz and Oy but
not Ox direction due to its specific geometry, which can be observed when we compare
3.3.1. Normal
the stress Stress in Oz
distribution Direction
between Figures 6 and 7 before and after cutting. Additionally,
whatThe cannormal
be drawn is that
stress in Ozthe thin curvature
direction is shownsection
in Figureof the
5. bridge is the main source of
distortion after cutting.
The bridge is first halved, then the pier is further sectioned to show the internal stress
distribution in different regions. The middle curvature region experiences no considerable
3.3.4. Summary
amount of Results
of compressive or tensile stress, while the piers do. As the bridge is removed,
the pier
Thewill seek its
distorted equivalence
angles and normal by deflecting in the
stress results direction
from of the black
the simulations andarrows.
HDM meas- This
happens
urementsinare thesummarized
same manner andascompared
on the other pier,section.
in this since the Asbridge is symmetric.
previously mentioned, Thedueblack to
triangle is the reference point around which the pier distorts.
the lack of supports, the curvature region of the bridge was not fully printed, resulting in
a crack-like pattern, which can be up to approximately 1 mm high (see Figure 2). With
3.3.2. Normal Stress in Ox Direction
regard to Figure 7, this region stores compressive S3, which plays an important role in the
final The normalofstress
distortion in Oxofdirection
the piers of the
the bridge. X bridge
Thus, (S1of
the lack ofpowder
X bridge),
in corresponding to S1,
that region is antici-
is shown in Figure 6.
pated to lead to undesirable distortion results.
The S1 in the X bridge before and after being cut from the base plate only shows a
slight change in the middle region of the top layers. This is because there is barely any
deformation allowed in the Ox direction for S1 to be released.

3.3.3. Normal Stress in Oy Direction

The normal stress in Oy direction of the X bridge (S3 of X bridge), corresponding to S3,
is shown in Figure 7.
Materials 2022, 15, 6057 10 of 16

When examining the thin section, it can be observed that the outermost layer of the
curvature peak is subjected to a high level of compressive S3, while the upper layers are
dominated by tensile S3. After cutting, the tensile stress on the top layers is significantly
reduced, causing the piers to distort in the direction of the arrows. It should be noted
that all the figures were scaled up 2 times to better illustrate the pier distortion. From the
close-up view, it can be observed that the uncut bridge is smaller in size in comparison
with its CAD counterpart because of the shrinkage that occurs during the printing. This
was indeed calibrated to be the closest to reality by utilizing the inherent strain method as
previously mentioned. Subsequently, the bottom close-up figure illustrates how the bridge
deforms as stress is released. The bridge solely allows stress release in the Oz and Oy but
not Ox direction due to its specific geometry, which can be observed when we compare the
stress distribution between Figures 6 and 7 before and after cutting. Additionally, what can
be drawn is that the thin curvature section of the bridge is the main source of distortion
after cutting.

3.3.4. Summary of Results

The distorted angles and normal stress results from the simulations and HDM mea-
surements are summarized and compared in this section. As previously mentioned, due to
the lack of supports, the curvature region of the bridge was not fully printed, resulting in a
crack-like pattern, which can be up to approximately 1 mm high (see Figure 2). With regard
to Figure 7, this region stores compressive S3, which plays an important role in the final
distortion of the piers of the bridge. Thus, the lack of powder in that region is anticipated
to lead to undesirable distortion results.
The results are denoted with a number of symbols to facilitate reporting. For the HDM
measurements, the RS are denoted by X_HDM and Y_HDM. As previously mentioned,
the difference in normal stress levels between the X and Y bridges in Simufact Additive
is insignificant—below 1 MPa. Therefore, they are combined and put under the name,
X/Y_SM. Moreover, the ∆S3 denotes the released elastic stress (εe ), which is equal to the
Uncut S3 that subtracts the Cut S3, (εtotal − ε∗ )—as given in Equation (2). When released,
this elastic component forms a distorted angle between the bridge piers. These angles
were subsequently put into ANSYS to reversely calculate the released elastic stress of the X
and Y bridges, which are denoted as X_ANS and Y_ANS. Remarkably, as opposed to the
simulation, the RS level at 0 mm deep is not measurable in reality; thus, it is not shown in
the figures. Additionally, since the normal stress in the Oz direction cannot be measured
using the HDM setup in this study, only the normal stress in the Ox direction (S1) and the
normal stress in the Oy direction (S3) are presented.
The normal stress distribution in the X and Y bridges obtained from the simulation
and physical tests is compared in Figure 8 (with data from Tables A1 and A2).
It can be observed that for both the simulation and the HDM measurement, S1 and
S3 are below the yield limit of Sy = 279 MPa. This is crucial for HDM measurement,
because according to the ASTM standard, theoretically, satisfactory measurement results
can be achieved given that the RS does not exceed about 80% of the material’s Sy when
HDM is performed on a “thick” material. Additionally, the accuracy of the HDM results
also depends greatly on the skill and experience of the user. The authors have sufficient
expertise to perform the HDM measurement [28–30].
Furthermore, the simulated RS S1 and S3 tend to decrease as the depth increases,
while with HDM, the stress remains almost constant within the 1 mm depth. This could be
because Simufact Additive assumes that the layers are perfectly bounded together without
any porosity in between, which does not hold for the reality. Furthermore, HDM may not
capture the stress distribution of the bridges as the drill tip penetrates the stacked layers.
Moreover, it can be observed that S1 is partially released after cutting (corresponding to
the slighter change in contour plot on the top layers of the bridges in Figure 6), while S3
is entirely released (corresponding to Figure 7). The HDM measurements show that heat
treatment for 6 h can decrease the RS, shown by the overall lower level of S1 and S3 in
Materials 2022, 15, 6057 11 of 16

the 6-h bridges before and after cutting in comparison with the 0-h bridges. Remarkably,
Materials 2022, 15,as AlSi10Mg
x FOR is an
age-hardening material, this heat treatment process can increase the
PEER REVIEW 12 of
mechanical properties of the bridges as well (see Table 2).

Figure 8. Summary of S1
Figure 8. and S3 results
Summary of S1for
and0-h
S3and 6-hfor
results packs from6-h
0-h and measurement and simulation.
packs from measurement and simulation

Comparing theComparing
S1 and S3 of the
the S10-handandS3 6-h
of the bridges,
0-h and it can be observed
6-h bridges, it canthat
be the reduc-that the r
observed
tion in RS by heat treatment is not predictable with the inherent strain approach
duction in RS by heat treatment is not predictable with the inherent strain approach in Simufact
Additive, even Simufact
though the heat treatment
Additive, even thoughprocessthe was
heat involved
treatmentinprocess
the printing simulation.
was involved in the printin
The best prediction
simulation. The best prediction is S3 for both the 0-h and 6-h packs. Thisthe
is S3 for both the 0-h and 6-h packs. This is reasonable because is reasonab
inherent strainsbecause
used for thethe calibration
inherent strainsprocess
used forwere obtained from
the calibration thewere
process cantilevers
obtainedthatfrom the ca
have been cut when the
tilevers RShave
that was been
already
cut released.
when the RS Thewas
RS already
results before
released.cutting
The RS were solely
results before cuttin
calculated fromwere the solely
final stress state;from
calculated thus,
thewith
finalgreat
stresserrors. Additionally,
state; thus, the inherent
with great errors. Additionally, th
strain method mainly
inherentfocuses on obtaining
strain method mainlythe final on
focuses inherent
obtainingstrain, and then
the final the strain,
inherent strain isand then th
back-calculatedstrain
to stress. The implicit way
is back-calculated of calculating
to stress. The implicitstress
waycould contributestress
of calculating to thecould
over- contribu
all error of the to
RStheprediction.
overall error Finally,
of thewhen heat treatment
RS prediction. Finally,iswhen
involved, prediction
heat treatment is errors
involved, predi
tionto
can be greater due errors can be greater
the improper setting due
of to
flowthecurves,
improperwhichsetting of flow
defines curves, which
the dependence ofdefines th
the strength ondependence
the temperature of thechange.
strength on the temperature change.

3.4. Stress Release

3.4.ofStress
The Bridges
Release of The Bridges
The normal stressThe that
normal is released
stress that from the X and
is released fromY bridges
the X and obtained
Y bridges from the simu-
obtained from the sim
lationtests
lation and physical and data
physical tests data in
is compared is compared in Figure
Figure 9 (with data9from
(withTables
data from Tables
A3 and A4).A3 and A4
The change in RS Theischange
denoted in with denoted∆.
RS is symbol with symbol Δ.
It should
It should be noted that bethenoted that thefor
references references for the comparison
the comparison are the
are the stress stresscal-
release release calc
culated from HDM, ∆X_HDM,
lated from and ∆Y_HDM.
HDM, ΔX_HDM, and ΔY_HDM. Thesedo
These curves curves do not
not start at start at a of
a depth depth
0 of 0 m
mm because it is physically impossible to measure the stress at this depth. The change (releas
because it is physically impossible to measure the stress at this depth. The change
(release) in stress ∆S3 isΔS3
in stress is better
better captured captured
in ANSYSin ANSYS in comparison
in comparison withwith Simufact
Simufact Additive. In th
Additive.
reviewed literature, it is appropriate to reversely calculate
In the reviewed literature, it is appropriate to reversely calculate the elastic RS that the elastic RS thatis is release
after cutting using the final geometric distortion of the
released after cutting using the final geometric distortion of the component as a boundary component as a boundary cond
tion for the FEA simulation. However, this approach
condition for the FEA simulation. However, this approach is limited to showing only the is limited to showing only the elast
components of the RS in the components, not the full picture
elastic components of the RS in the components, not the full picture of how the whole RS is of how the whole RS is di
tributed
distributed in the bridges. in the bridges.
Materials 2022, 15, 6057 12 of 16
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of

Figure
Figure 9. Summary 9. Summary
of the of for
∆S3 results the 0-h
ΔS3and
results
6-hfor 0-h and
packs from6-h packs from measurement
measurement and simulation.
and simulation.

From both the From both the

simulation and simulation
physical and physical measurements,
measurements, insights for insights for shape distortio
shape distortion
and RS predictionand are
RS prediction are drawn.for
drawn. Specifically, Specifically,
Simufact for Simufact
Additive, Additive,
since since it approaches
it approaches the th
RS prediction problem with the inherent strain method,
RS prediction problem with the inherent strain method, which is purely mechanical, it which is purely mechanical, it
unablethe
is unable to capture to capture
changes theofchanges
RS with of respect
RS with to respect to temperature.
temperature. However,However, the RS the RS dist
bution on the printed bridges in Simufact Additive
distribution on the printed bridges in Simufact Additive can still serve as references for can still serve as references for th
physical measurements, that is, for identifying the distortion
the physical measurements, that is, for identifying the distortion of the printed parts and of the printed parts and cr
ical areas for RS assessment. On the other hand, the
critical areas for RS assessment. On the other hand, the classical elastic FEA simulation classical elastic FEA simulation wi
angle constraints
with angle constraints in ANSYS in ANSYS can predict
can predict the released
the released elastic
elastic component
component of ofthetheRSRS relative
relatively well. Nevertheless, it does not provide the whole picture of the RS that existsthe printe
well. Nevertheless, it does not provide the whole picture of the RS that exists in
components. These insights are applicable for the shape distortion and RS prediction
in the printed components. These insights are applicable for the shape distortion and RS
other components with different geometries as well. Specifically, the inherent strain a
prediction of other components with different geometries as well. Specifically, the inherent
proach is mostly utilized because it saves computational time and can provide a qui
strain approach is mostly utilized because it saves computational time and can provide a
assessment of the shape distortion and RS hot spots. The error between the predicted r
quick assessment of the shape distortion and RS hot spots. The error between the predicted
sult and reality can be reduced with a better calculation of the inherent strain (better ca
result and reality can be reduced with a better calculation of the inherent strain (better
bration of Simufact Additive with the real printer), but the results cannot be as accura
calibration of Simufact Additive with the real printer), but the results cannot be as accurate
as the thermal–mechanical approach. Additionally, similar to how distorted angles we
as the thermal–mechanical approach. Additionally, similar to how distorted angles were
used as a boundary condition in ANSYS, the final shape distortion of any printed part ca
used as a boundary condition in ANSYS,
be used as a constraint in any thetraditional
final shape FEM distortion
softwareoftoany printed
reversely part canthe release
calculate
be used as a constraint
RS of thatinpart.
any traditional
The four pillows FEM software
of this studyto reversely
with keycalculate
notes arethe released in Figu
summarized
RS of that part. A1,
Thewhich
four pillows of this study with key notes
should serve as an instruction for later replication.are summarized in Figure A1,
which should serve as an instruction for later replication.
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
By and large, BCM has been accepted among the research community as a qui
By and large, BCM for
quantifier hasbuilt-in
been accepted
RS. This studyamongreviewsthe research
and proves community
the accuracyas a quick
of some existin
quantifier for built-in
methodsRS. thatThis
canstudy
be used reviews
to examine and proves
bridge the accuracy
geometry. Theofbridges
some existing
used in BCM ha
methods that can be used
typical to examine
geometric features bridge geometry.parts,
for 3D-printed The bridges used squared
i.e., full solid in BCM column have sectio
typical geometric features for 3D-printed parts, i.e., full solid squared column
printed directly on the base plate (the piers), overhang, and thin sections (the curvature sections
printed directlyAfter
on the base plate (the
understanding howpiers),
the RSoverhang,
is built-upand thin sections
in different sections(theofcurvature).
the bridges and ho
After understanding how the RS is built-up in different sections
they affect the final shape distortion, readers can relate directly of the bridges andto how they
their metallic 3D
affect the final shape distortion, readers can relate directly to their metallic
printed components to make appropriate post-printing adjustments (usage of suppor 3D-printed com-
ponents to make appropriate
part orientation,post-printing
design changes, adjustments
etc.). (usage of supports, part orientation,
design changes, etc.). To improve the BCM, future work can focus more on setting up the flow curves
To improve the BCM,
Simufact futurewhich
Additive, work is can focus more
coupled on setting up thetoflow
thermal–mechanically, better curves in the sim
correlate
Simufact Additive,
lationwhich is coupled
with reality. As forthermal–mechanically,
physical tests, other types to better correlate the can
of RS measurement simu-be applied
lation with reality. As for bridges
investigate physicalfrom tests,different
other types points ofofRSview.
measurement
Taking into canaccount
be applied the printing
bridges, from
to investigate bridges the number
different of points
bridgesof can be increased
view. Taking into so that statistical
account studies can
the printing of be carrie
out. Furthermore,
bridges, the number of bridges can as previously
be increased drawn,
so thatthe thin section
statistical is thecan
studies mainbe source
carriedofout.the distortio
Furthermore, as ofpreviously
the bridge’sdrawn,
piers. Nonetheless,
the thin section as weis can observe
the main fromof
source thethe
printed
distortionbridges,
of the top
the Nonetheless,
the bridge’s piers. curvature cannot as we be can
fullyobserve
printedfrom because of the lack
the printed of supports.
bridges, the topThis results in th
of the
curvature cannot be fully printed because of the lack of supports. This results in the small,
Materials 2022, 15, 6057 13 of 16

Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 17

crack-like area observed from the front view, which is not filled with material and can be up
to 1 mm high. Practically, adding supports for this area is a possible solution to ensure that
the curvature is printed successfully. However, supports lead to a smaller amount of RS in
X/Y_SM
the thin section because261 260 258
they provide more254 251 cooling,
sufficient 243 235 223
as heat 210 197 better
is subsequently 184
Uncut S3
transferred from
X_HDMthe thin section
- to the base plate. Therefore, future
136 134 135 135 135 135 134 133 133 132 works can also consider
[MPa] the geometry of the bridges to make them better RS indicators. In general, given
changing Y_HDM - 144 148 151 151 150 149 147 146 145 144
the complexX/Y_SM
nature of the
-5 properties
0 6 of 3D-printed
13 20 components,
22 24 the
24 purely
23 mechanical
20 18
Cut S3 strain approach in Simufact Additive is more appropriate to rapidly predict the
inherent
X_HDM - 8 10 12 13 13 14 14 14 15 15
[MPa] and RS distribution of the printed components in the industrial application, and
shrinkage
Y_HDM - 3 9 13 15 17 17 18 18 19 19
displacement constraints in classical FEA would be better for the back-calculation of the
elastic part of the RS.
Table A3. ΔS3 on the 0 h bridges from simulations and HDM.

D [mm]Conceptualization,
Author Contributions: 0.0 0.1 0.2J.M.0.3 and F.F.;
0.4 investigation,
0.5 0.6 Q.-P.M.,
0.7 0.8J.M. and
0.9F.F.; 1.0
data
curation, J.H. and P.K.; writing, Q.-P.M. and F.F.; supervision, J.H. and M.P.; project administration,
ΔX/Y_SM 236 234 232 227 221 212 203 192 182 173 164
M.P.ΔS3
and J.P.; funding acquisition, J.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript. ΔX_HDM - 137 137 139 138 136 136 136 136 137 137
(Uncut S3 −
ΔX_ANS 196 189 182 175 168 161 154 148 141 135 129
Cut S3)This paper was completed in association with the project Innovative and additive manufac-
Funding:
ΔY_HDM - 181 177 173 166 160 156 152 150 150 149
[MPa]
turing technology—new technological solutions for 3D printing of metals and composite materials,
ΔY_ANS 244 235 226financed
reg. no. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/17_049/0008407 217 by209 200 Funds
Structural 192 of184 176 168
the European Union160
and
project. The research by František Fojtík was supported by project No. 19-03282S of the Czech Science
Table A4. ΔS3
Foundation, on by
and thespecific
6 h bridges fromproject
research simulations and HDM.
SP2022/66, supported by the Ministry of Education,
Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic.
D [mm] 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Informed Consent 267 Not259
Statement:
ΔX/Y_SM applicable.
252 241 230 220 210 199 188 177 166
ΔS3
ΔX_HDM
Data Availability Statement:- Data128 124 124
are available 122 121
in Appendix A. 121 120 119 118 117
(Uncut S3 −
ΔX_ANS 173 166 160 154 148 142 136 130 124 119 113
Cut S3)of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Conflicts
ΔY_HDM - 141 138 138 135 133 131 129 127 126 125
[MPa]
Appendix A ΔY_ANS 105 101 97 93 90 86 82 79 76 72 69

Figure A1. Notes of the four pillows of the study for replication.

References
1. Kumar, N.; Mishra, R.; Baumann, J. Residual Stresses in Friction Stir Welding; Elsevier Inc: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014.
https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-09884-2.
2. Konings, R.; Stoller, R. Comprehensive Nuclear Materials; Elsevier Inc: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020.
3. Schajer, G. Practical Residual Stress Measurement Methods; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118402832.
4. Li, C.; Liu, Z.; Fang, X.; Guo, Y.B. Residual Stress in Metal Additive Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 2018, 71, 348–353.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.05.039.
5. Mercelis, P.; Kruth, J. Residual stresses in selective laser sintering and selective laser melting. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2006, 12, 254–
265. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552540610707013.
6. Acevedo, R.; Kantarowska, K.; Santos, E.C.; Fredel, M.C. Residual stress measurement techniques for Ti6Al4V parts fabricated
using selective laser melting: State of the art review. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2020, ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/rpj-04-2019-
0097.
Materials 2022, 15, 6057 14 of 16

Table A1. S1 and S3 on the 0 h bridges from Simufact Additive and HDM.

D [mm] 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
X/Y_SM 249 248 247 241 235 225 215 205 195 185 175
Uncut S1
X_HDM - 172 160 160 159 158 158 157 157 156 154
[MPa]
Y_HDM - 180 181 181 176 172 169 166 165 164 163
X/Y_SM 151 147 143 137 130 124 118 111 105 99 93
Cut S1
X_HDM - 80 90 94 94 93 92 91 90 90 87
[MPa]
Y_HDM - 62 72 75 75 75 74 74 74 73 72
X/Y_SM 247 246 245 238 231 220 208 197 186 176 166
Uncut S3
X_HDM - 160 158 161 160 158 158 158 158 158 157
[MPa]
Y_HDM - 183 185 184 179 174 170 167 166 166 164
X/Y_SM 11 12 13 11 10 8 6 5 5 3 2
Cut S3
X_HDM - 23 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 21 20
[MPa]
Y_HDM - 2 8 12 13 14 14 15 16 16 15

Table A2. S1 and S3 on the 6 h bridges from Simufact Additive and HDM.

D [mm] 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
X/Y_SM 238 237 237 235 232 227 222 212 203 192 182
Uncut S1
X_HDM - 147 141 139 137 136 134 133 132 131 130
[MPa]
Y_HDM - 141 146 149 149 148 146 144 142 141 139
X/Y_SM 110 111 112 114 117 116 115 110 105 99 93
Cut S1
X_HDM - 50 51 52 52 52 52 51 51 51 52
[MPa]
Y_HDM - 69 72 73 72 71 70 69 68 68 67
X/Y_SM 261 260 258 254 251 243 235 223 210 197 184
Uncut S3
X_HDM - 136 134 135 135 135 135 134 133 133 132
[MPa]
Y_HDM - 144 148 151 151 150 149 147 146 145 144
X/Y_SM −5 0 6 13 20 22 24 24 23 20 18
Cut S3
X_HDM - 8 10 12 13 13 14 14 14 15 15
[MPa]
Y_HDM - 3 9 13 15 17 17 18 18 19 19

Table A3. ∆S3 on the 0 h bridges from simulations and HDM.

D [mm] 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
∆X/Y_SM 236 234 232 227 221 212 203 192 182 173 164
∆S3 ∆X_HDM - 137 137 139 138 136 136 136 136 137 137
(Uncut S3
− Cut S3) ∆X_ANS 196 189 182 175 168 161 154 148 141 135 129
[MPa] ∆Y_HDM - 181 177 173 166 160 156 152 150 150 149
∆Y_ANS 244 235 226 217 209 200 192 184 176 168 160
Materials 2022, 15, 6057 15 of 16

Table A4. ∆S3 on the 6 h bridges from simulations and HDM.

D [mm] 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
∆X/Y_SM 267 259 252 241 230 220 210 199 188 177 166
∆S3 ∆X_HDM - 128 124 124 122 121 121 120 119 118 117
(Uncut S3
− Cut S3) ∆X_ANS 173 166 160 154 148 142 136 130 124 119 113
[MPa] ∆Y_HDM - 141 138 138 135 133 131 129 127 126 125
∆Y_ANS 105 101 97 93 90 86 82 79 76 72 69

References
1. Kumar, N.; Mishra, R.; Baumann, J. Residual Stresses in Friction Stir Welding; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014.
[CrossRef]
2. Konings, R.; Stoller, R. Comprehensive Nuclear Materials; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020.
3. Schajer, G. Practical Residual Stress Measurement Methods; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [CrossRef]
4. Li, C.; Liu, Z.; Fang, X.; Guo, Y.B. Residual Stress in Metal Additive Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 2018, 71, 348–353. [CrossRef]
5. Mercelis, P.; Kruth, J. Residual stresses in selective laser sintering and selective laser melting. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2006, 12, 254–265.
[CrossRef]
6. Acevedo, R.; Kantarowska, K.; Santos, E.C.; Fredel, M.C. Residual stress measurement techniques for Ti6Al4V parts fabricated
using selective laser melting: State of the art review. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2020, ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
7. Kruth, J.; Deckers, J.; Yasa, E.; Wauthlé, R. Assessing and comparing influencing factors of residual stresses in selective laser
melting using a novel analysis method, Proceedings of The Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 2012, 226,
980–991. [CrossRef]
8. Le Roux, S.; Salem, M.; Hor, A. Improvement of the bridge curvature method to assess residual stresses in selective laser melting.
Addit. Manuf. 2018, 22, 320–329. [CrossRef]
9. Wang, D.; Wu, S.; Yang, Y.; Dou, W.; Deng, S.; Wang, Z.; Li, S. The Effect of a Scanning Strategy on the Residual Stress of 316L
Steel Parts Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting (SLM). Materials 2018, 11, 1821. [CrossRef]
10. Salem, M.; Le Roux, S.; Hor, A.; Dour, G. A new insight on the analysis of residual stresses related distortions in selective laser
melting of Ti-6Al-4V using the improved bridge curvature method. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 36, 101586. [CrossRef]
11. Prime, M.; DeWald, A. The Contour Method. In Practical Residual Stress Measurement Methods; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2013;
Chapter 5. [CrossRef]
12. Gouge, M.; Michaleris, P. Thermo-Mechanical Modeling of Additive Manufacturing; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018.
[CrossRef]
13. Lu, X.; Lin, X.; Chiumenti, M.; Cerverac, M.; Hu, Y.; Ji, X.; Ma, L.; Yang, H.; Huang, W. Residual stress and distortion of rectangular
and S-shaped Ti-6Al-4V parts by Directed Energy Deposition: Modelling and experimental calibration. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 26,
166–179. [CrossRef]
14. Panda, B.; Sahoo, S. Thermo-mechanical modeling and validation of stress field during laser powder bed fusion of AlSi10Mg
built part. Results Phys. 2019, 12, 1372–1381. [CrossRef]
15. Ganeriwala, R.K.; Strantza, M.; King, W.E.; Clausen, B.; Phan, T.Q.; Levine, L.E.; Brown, D.W.; Hogge, N.E. Evaluation of a
thermomechanical model for prediction of residual stress during laser powder bed fusion of Ti-6Al-4V. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 27,
489–502. [CrossRef]
16. Promoppatum, P.; Uthaisangsuk, V. Part scale estimation of residual stress development in laser powder bed fusion additive
manufacturing of Inconel 718. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 2021, 189, 103528. [CrossRef]
17. Setien, I.; Chiumenti, M.; van der Veen, S.; Sebastian, M.S.; Garciandía, F.; Echeverría, A. Empirical methodology to determine
inherent strains in additive manufacturing. Comput. Math. Appl. 2019, 78, 2282–2295. [CrossRef]
18. Chen, Q.; Liang, X.; Hayduke, D.; Liu, J.; Cheng, L.; Oskin, J.; Whitmore, R.; To, A.C. An inherent strain based multiscale modeling
framework for simulating part-scale residual deformation for direct metal laser sintering. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 28, 406–418.
[CrossRef]
19. Liang, X.; Dong, W.; Hinnebusch, S.; Chen, Q.; Tran, H.T.; Lemon, J.; Cheng, L.; Zhou, Z. Inherent strain homogenization for fast
residual deformation simulation of thin-walled lattice support structures built by laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing.
Addit. Manuf. 2020, 32, 101091. [CrossRef]
20. Dong, W.; Liang, X.; Chen, Q.; Hinnebusch, S.; Zhou, Z.; To, A.C. A new procedure for implementing the modified inherent strain
method with improved accuracy in predicting both residual stress and deformation for laser powder bed fusion. Addit. Manuf.
2021, 47, 102345. [CrossRef]
21. Rubben, T.; Revilla, R.; De Graeve, I. Influence of heat treatments on the corrosion mechanism of additive manufactured AlSi10Mg.
Corros. Sci. 2019, 147, 406–415. [CrossRef]
22. Fite, J.; Eswarappa Prameela, S.; Slotwinski, J.; Weihs, T.P. Evolution of the microstructure and mechanical properties of additively
manufactured AlSi10Mg during room temperature holds and low temperature aging. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 36, 101429. [CrossRef]
Materials 2022, 15, 6057 16 of 16

23. The Measurement of Residual Stresses by the Incremental Hole Drilling Technique. NPL Publications, Eprintspublica-
tions.Npl.Co.Uk. 2006. Available online: https://eprintspublications.npl.co.uk/2517/ (accessed on 14 October 2021).
24. Schajer, G.; Whitehead, P. Hole-Drilling Method for Measuring Residual Stresses. Synth. SEM Lect. Exp. Mech. 2018, 1, 1–186.
[CrossRef]
25. Ma, N.; Nakacho, K.; Ohta, T.; Ogawa, N.; Maekawa, A.; Huang, H.; Murakawa, H. Inherent Strain Method for Residual Stress
Measurement and Welding Distortion Prediction. In Proceedings of the ASME 2016 35th International Conference On Ocean,
Offshore And Arctic Engineering, Busan, Korea, 19–24 June 2016; Volume 9. [CrossRef]
26. Vega Sáenz, A.; Plazaola, C.; Banfield, I.; Rashed, S.; Murakawa, H. Analysis and prediction of welding distortion in complex
structures using elastic finite element method. Cienc. Y Technol. De Buques 2012, 6, 35. [CrossRef]
27. Simufact Engineering GmbH. Simufact Additive Tutorial; Simufact Engineering GmbH: Hamburg, Germany, 2020.
28. Macura, P.; Fojtik, F.; Hrncac, R. Experimental Residual Stress Analysis of Welded Ball Valve. In Proceedings of the 19th IMEKO
World Congress 2009, Lisbon, Portugal, 6−11 September 2009.
29. Kolařík, K.; Pala, Z.; Ganev, N.; Fojtik, F. Combining XRD with Hole-Drilling Method in Residual Stress Gradient Analysis of
Laser Hardened C45 Steel. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 996, 277–282. [CrossRef]
30. Čapek, J.; Pitrmuc, Z.; Kolařík, K.; Beránek, L.; Ganev, N. Comparison of Parameters of Surface Integrity of Machined Duplex and
Austenite Stainless Steels in Relation to Tool Geometry. Acta Polytech. CTU Proc. 2017, 9, 1. [CrossRef]