Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Additive Manufacturing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/addma

Review

An overview of residual stresses in metal powder bed fusion T

⁎
Jamison L. Bartlett, Xiaodong Li
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia, 122 Engineer’s Way Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Metal additive manufacturing (AM) has garnered tremendous research and industrial interest in recent years; in
Additive manufacturing the field, powder bed fusion (PBF) processing is the most common technique, with selective laser melting (SLM)
Residual stress dominating the landscape followed by electron beam melting (EBM). Through continued process improvements,
Powder bed fusion these methods are now often capable of producing high strength parts with static strengths exceeding their
Selective laser melting
conventionally manufactured counterparts. However, PBF processing also results in large and anisotropic re-
Electron beam melting
sidual stresses (RS) that can severely affect fatigue properties and result in geometric distortion. The dependence
of RS formation on processing variables, material properties and part geometry has made it difficult to predict
efficiently and has hindered widespread acceptance of AM techniques. Substantial investigations have been
conducted with regards to RS in PBF processing, which have illuminated a number of important relationships,
yet a review encompassing this information has not been available. In this review, we survey and assemble the
knowledge existing in the literature regarding RS in PBF processes. A discussion of background mechanics for RS
development in AM is provided along with methods of measurement, highlighting the anisotropic nature of the
stress fields. We then review modeling efforts and in-process experimental measurements made to advance
process understanding, followed by a thorough analysis and summary of the known relationships of both ma-
terial properties and processing variables to resulting RS. The current state of knowledge and future research
needs for the field are discussed.

1. Introduction
Additive manufacturing (AM) of metal components has expanded
tremendously since its inception in the 1980’s and has been widely
studied in recent years [1–4]. The allure of a single-step production
process capable of producing complex geometries has spurred growing
(but currently small-scale) adoption in industry and significant research
interest [5–7]. A range of technologies exist capable of producing near
net-shape metal components, including directed energy deposition
(DED) methods, in which powder is fed through a coaxial nozzle and
deposited in the melt pool following the CAD geometry to create
components [8–10], and even the recently investigated friction stir
additive manufacturing (FSAM) technique, which expands friction stir
welding to create layered components [11,12]. However, by far the
most widely utilized and researched method for metal additive manu-
facturing is powder bed fusion (PBF) [13,14]. PBF processing, defined
in the ASTM/ISO 52900 standard, involves selectively melting portions
of a thin flat powder bed (20–100 μm thick) layer-by-layer according to
input CAD geometry using a scanning energy source to build 3-di-
mensional parts (Fig. 1). The source of the melting energy provides the
primary difference between the two most common metal AM methods:
selective laser melting (SLM) and electron beam melting (EBM). These
two methods represent the vast majority of industrial and academic
applications and research initiatives, with SLM processing taking the
largest share (as large as 82% of the PBF market in 2016) [13,15,16].
Metal PBF processing has improved dramatically over the last 20 years
with continued research and is capable of producing high quality parts
with complex geometries that would be difficult or costly to produce
with conventional manufacturing methods [2,5,17,18]. A wide range of
engineering materials are processable including stainless steel, alu-
minum alloys, Ti-6Al-4V, and nickel superalloys (e.g. Inconel 718/625)
[8,19–23]. Materials produced through SLM and EBM processing fre-
quently exhibit excellent static mechanical properties equivalent or
superior to their traditionally manufactured counterparts [24–28].
These methods have therefore presented tremendous promise and
have received a matching amount of interest. However, there remains
two primary hinderances to full-scale adoption of these processes; note
other obstacles remain (e.g. equipment/production expense, lack of
rigorous qualification standards), but these are the largest general
process challenges (applying to all processes, regardless of cost or ap-
plication), in the authors perspective. First, PBF processes are known to
induce a wide range of material defects [29–31]. Gas porosity [32,33],

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xl3p@virginia.edu (X. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.02.020
Received 15 January 2019; Accepted 26 February 2019
Available online 01 March 2019
2214-8604/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li
Fig. 1. Depiction of general PBF processing methodology.
keyhole porosity [34] and large lack-of-fusion (LoF) defects [35,36] all
may result during production, dependent on material properties and
processing parameters. Secondly, and the focus of this review, excessive
and anisotropic residual stresses (RS) are frequently developed in ad-
ditive components [8,20,29]. Residual stresses have frequently been
shown to approach the material’s yield strength [37–39] and can lead to
severe geometric distortion [14,40]. The presence of large RS and
material defects and their inherent dependence on material properties,
process parameters and component geometry have critically prevented
effective part qualification and process adoption [13,14,41]. The RS
that forms during production can severely alter mechanical properties,
especially in cyclic loading, which has largely limited the applications
and acceptance of AM components. Importantly, RS in-process may also
result in severe geometric distortion that may lead to failure of the
production process [42,43]. Even without production failure, in-process
distortion, caused by excessive residual stress development, may even
lead to an increase in defect formation due to part geometry interac-
tions with the powder spreading recoater [44]. Other obstacles to larger
scale adoption of the process stem largely from economic considera-
tions; powder cost, machine cost and part production time currently
limit applications to higher cost fields such as the aerospace and
medical industries where the cost factor is within accepted norms and
where the additional part complexity possibilities bring great benefits
[20,45–47]. Within these industries in which the cost is not the most
significant barrier, residual stress formation and inherent processing
defects currently stymie larger adoption of the process, with un-
certainty in quality and hence material properties arising. A number of
reviews have been published regarding defect formation in AM pro-
cessing [32], in-process monitoring [48–50], modeling efforts [51–53]
as well as excellent all-encompassing reviews of AM processing
[3,8,29]. Yet, to our knowledge, none have been assembled which focus
explicitly and exhaustively on examining the extent of knowledge re-
garding residual stress development in PBF additive processing. Li et al.
[54] recently published a short overview of RS in AM components,
however thorough descriptions of computational and analytical RS
predictions, in-process measurements, and, importantly, relationships
between RS and process parameters and material properties were not
included. There is a critical need for a review paper of this type in the
literature. The research efforts regarding RS in AM in the literature are
vast; a search on Engineering Village of “residual stress additive man-
ufacturing” returns over 300 entries for 2018 alone. This vast amount of
related research makes it difficult to sift through for the most pertinent
information. A review paper which assembles the most critical findings
and can form a consensus of the results would be invaluable to re-
searchers in both academia and industry, assembling the conclusions
from a wide range of works to discuss the most critical factors in RS
development in metal PBF components. While the field will certainly
evolve, and more information will be elucidated in the future, a review
which assembles the current state of the field (in which much has been
132
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149
discovered) is desperately needed to summarize all of these critical
findings into a single reference, such that this information is accessible
to all researchers and practitioners without extensive and time con-
suming literature review of hundreds of papers covering dozens of as-
pects of RS development. Extensive work has been done in this field, yet
no review exists to summarize the knowledge.
This review paper aims to fill this need and to cover the most critical
aspects of residual stress formation in PBF additive manufacturing, as
currently understood. We generally focus our attention on SLM pro-
cessing, as it is the most widely used and researched method in the
community, though a discussion of the differences in EBM manu-
facturing will also be made to understand variations with respect to RS
in each process. The SLM principles and specifics discussed will gen-
erally apply to any PBF processing method. Residual stress basics are
first covered along with common measurement techniques in order to
provide readers with a background on RS mechanics and its develop-
ment. The mechanical background is then extended to explain its for-
mation in additive manufacturing applications and its effects on part
quality and properties. Next, techniques that have been used to estimate
RS in AM will be examined including modeling efforts, both finite
element (FE) and analytical methods, and experimental measurements
used to infer RS in-process. Subsequently, the primary controlling fac-
tors behind RS development in AM (both magnitudes and distributions)
will be discussed thoroughly including an in-depth review of material
property dependence and process parameter dependence. Finally, we
close with a discussion of the current cumulative understanding of RS in
AM applications and a prospective outlook moving forward. The goal of
this review is to provide a succinct and comprehensive resource for
researchers and the AM community to understand what is currently
known in the literature, after more than 20 years of research, regarding
RS development in PBF additive manufacturing and methods for miti-
gation and control, as well as to provide a roadmap for identifying
current and future research needs in the field.
2. Residual stress background
Residual stresses are defined as stresses which remain in a material
at equilibrium after manufacturing, heating, or other alterations and
result whenever a material undergoes non-uniform plastic deformation
[55–60]. These remaining stresses must be considered during the pro-
duction of any component for safe and accurate predictions of final
properties and component life. RS is developed and altered in nearly
every stage of manufacturing and can have a significant impact on
properties and service life; the effects of RS are highly dependent on
orientation and magnitude and may be either detrimental or beneficial
to material performance [58,59]. Furthermore, considering additive
components, while RS may be alleviated by post-process heat treat-
ments, the development of large residual stresses in-process can lead to
excessive distortion which can cause production failure or errors. Ad-
ditional heat treatments also add further production time and expense
to an already high-cost process. Therefore, it is critical to understand RS
in manufactured components and how it develops. The complex nature
of AM processing results in correspondingly complex RS development
in parts; this section provides a background on RS formation in general
and its measurement techniques, along with the basic mechanics and
observations of its formation in additive processes.
2.1. Origins of residual stress and classifications
Residual stresses are usually classified by the length scale in which
they operate [55,59]. Type I residual stresses are macroscopic stresses
that act on the scale of the component geometry and may cause global
distortion. Type I stresses are the stresses that are (almost exclusively)
discussed in the literature with regards to AM. Type II residual stresses
are microstresses acting at the individual grain scale, often called in-
tergranular stresses [58]. These stresses form due to local
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li
Fig. 2. Examples of the typical classification of residual stresses into 3 categories: Type I macro-stresses remaining after plastic bending, Type II intergranular stresses
caused by preferred slip orientation misalignment and Type III lattice stresses from substitutional atoms or vacancies.
microstructural effects, such as grain to grain differences in slip beha-
vior. Type III residual stresses are at the atomic scale; these are the
misfit stresses which occur due to vacancies, the introduction of sub-
stitutional atoms, etc. Fig. 2 demonstrates the scale of each type of
residual stress. Type I RS is typically what is discussed in the literature
with regards to AM components, and therefore is the only type dis-
cussed in the remainder of this review. The large and anisotropic Type I
stresses directly impact fatigue properties in produced materials, result
in distortion during or after production, and hence dominate the dis-
cussion within the literature. These stresses are also what have been
shown to be directly manipulatable via changes in processing condi-
tions; we therefore focus this review on this type of RS. Type II and type
III stresses nearly always exist in polycrystalline materials due to dif-
ferences in thermal and elastic properties between differently oriented
grains [59]. It has also been stated that type I stresses are more im-
portant with regards to mechanical properties, and that additionally
type II and III stresses are more difficult to measure [11,54].
Global residual stresses (Type I) arise from non-uniform plastic
deformation at the part scale; a classic example is of bending a beam
past the elastic limit resulting in permanent deformation, thereby
producing residual stresses after unloading which are a function of
position along the beam cross-section [58,61]. Non-uniform thermal
loads, such as those experienced during quenching, also result in re-
sidual stress development. During quenching the exterior regions of a
material (in contact with the quenchant) are cooled and contract
quicker than the warm interior which restricts the deformation, re-
sulting in a distribution of misfit strain in the material [62,63]. For
these reasons, residual stresses are formed in nearly every manu-
facturing stage of material production, where non-uniform loading
(thermal or mechanical) is frequently applied, such as in rolling,
stamping or quenching.
It is also important to consider that despite the plastic deformation
(inelastic strain) required to produce residual stress, the remaining RS
itself after unloading is generally regarded as purely elastic; the limit to
residual stresses in a body in static equilibrium is the elastic limit of the
material, when the stress surpasses this value it will cause plastic de-
formation until the stress is relieved to below the yield stress [55].
Therefore (for analytical calculations), estimates using elastic solutions
can be used to effectively describe residual stresses [64–67].
133
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149
2.2. Residual stress measurements
There are two main categories of measurements to determine RS in
components: destructive distortion-based measurements and diffraction
techniques. It is important to consider the following: residual stresses
exist at static equilibrium, therefore across any cut plane in the material
the total summation of stresses normal to the plane must be zero. This
understanding is the basis for destructive measurements of RS. When
parts with internal residual stress are cut the new surface must deform
to redistribute the stresses such that the net normal stress at the surface
is zero, so that the component remains at static equilibrium. The de-
formation of the surface to accommodate the stress redistribution is
measured and can be input into finite element (FE) or analytical models
to estimate the original stress state of the component. With these
measurements, the accuracy of the RS estimate is inherently dependent
on the accuracy of the deformation measurements obtained. The two
most common destructive methods are the hole-drilling method [68,69]
and the more recently developed contour method [70,71]. The contour
method is capable of resolving the entire strain distribution on a sec-
tioned plane, using an appropriate method to measure the full-field
deformation such as a coordinate measurement machine [71,72], laser
scanner [70,73] or digital image correlation [74].
Contrastingly, diffraction methods of RS measurement are non-de-
structive and operate on a different principle. The two most commonly
used methods today are X-ray diffraction (XRD) [75–77] and neutron
diffraction (ND) [78,79]. Using Bragg’s law for diffraction these
methods measure the lattice spacing, which can then be compared to
the unstrained lattice parameter thereby determining the lattice strain.
These measurements can be used to determine macroscopic stresses by
using crystallographic information (such as the X-ray elastic constants
for XRD measurements). XRD and ND are often used to infer full-field
strain/stress maps by acquiring diffraction spectra at many positions on
a plane [80,81]. Expectedly, all of these RS measurement methods have
been employed to measure the residual stresses in additively manu-
factured components.
2.3. Residual stress development in AM
With knowledge of how residual stresses develop in materials, we
can now understand how they form during additive manufacturing.
Consider a simplified case of a part during production in PBF processing
wherein entire layers are melted instantaneously (Fig. 3). The portion
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li
Fig. 3. Basic mechanisms of stress and plastic deformation development during
additive manufacturing: a) during heating and thermal expansion of new layer
and b) during cooling and thermal contraction of new layer. Based on [82].
of the part which has been completed to this point is cooling uniformly
with a temperature gradient in the build-direction (z-direction). When a
new layer is added and heated far above the temperature of the un-
derlying part the new layer of material will first expand uniformly. This
expansion will be restricted by the much cooler underlying part, re-
sulting in the development of compressive stresses in the new layer, and
tensile stresses in the underlying part (Fig. 3a). When the heat source is
removed the new layer will cool quickly, contracting at a greater rate
than the cooled part beneath can accommodate, thus resulting in tensile
stresses in the new layer and compressive stresses in the part below
(Fig. 3b). This mechanism by which heterogeneous solidification results
in residual stress development can be better understood by considering
the general physics at hand. During solidification of the liquid melt, the
cooler underlying material restricts contraction of the melt and pulls on
the solidifying region (opposite of the contraction direction); mean-
while, the rapidly solidifying melt tends to pull inward on the under-
lying material during solidification. Since the material is sufficiently
melted into the underlying part, and assuming strong metallurgical
bonding occurs, strain accommodation must take place between these
regions and residual stresses are formed. As described, the stresses in
the new layer are primarily tensile and the resulting RS imposed on the
underlying material is primarily compressive. In general, the sign of the
residual stress developed will be opposite the sign of the plastic strain
which produced the stresses [55]. During solidification, the plastic
strain developed can be thought of as hydrostatic contraction, directing
inward from every point of the liquid melt. Non-uniform melt pool
Fig. 4. Common distribution of in-plane (σxx/ σyy) stresses with respect to the build-direction (z-direction), reported via a) FE modeling [86], b) the contour method
[90] and c) ND [91].
134
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149
geometries and solidification rates, developed due to the inherent
temperature gradient and pool motion during beam rastering, alters the
magnitude of stresses developed in each direction.
Mercelis and Kruth [82] described this mechanism for RS develop-
ment in additive manufacturing (based on Fig. 3). However, this basic
mechanism is further complicated by the fact that new layers are not
instantaneously and uniformly heated/melted. Regions are heated fol-
lowing the “scan/raster strategy”, allowing sections to heat and cool
independently, resulting in more complex residual stress distributions.
By these mechanisms, the in-plane residual stresses are usually larger
than the normal (build-direction) stresses [83,84]. The magnitude of
these stresses resulting from PBF processing are generally large,
sometimes approaching the material’s yield strength, due to the high
and localized energy of the laser/electron beam heating, which results
in steep thermal gradients and enormous cooling rates on the order of
103-108 K/s [85]. The complexity of this layer-by-layer additive process
results in residual stress magnitude and orientation being highly de-
pendent on processing parameters (such as laser power, scan speed,
scan strategy, etc.), material properties and part geometry; the specific
effects of these parameters on RS development in AM parts is the sub-
ject of Section 4.
Before exploring the specifics of RS dependence on AM variables,
several general observations can be made. Owing primarily to the
mechanism discussed above, many researchers have uncovered a si-
milar observation of the residual stress distribution with respect to the
build direction. Namely, many independent researchers have confirmed
that the top and bottom portions of additive parts are generally in
tension, while the middle region experiences compressive stress. This
has been observed in FE models [86–88], analytical estimates [82,89]
and experimental results [90,91]. Each new layer is deposited primarily
in tension while forcing the underlying material into compression, the
addition of many layers ultimately serves to relax underlying tensile
stresses and eventually results in compressive stresses in the underlying
layers [92]. The constraint of the connection to the base plate at the
bottom of the part results in primarily tensile stress again forming in
that region. This generally observed distribution of stresses is shown in
Fig. 4, as reported from several analysis methods.
This general observation of the RS distribution with respect to the
build-direction (vertical/z-direction) has been reported for a wide
range of processing parameters and materials. However, the magnitude
of these stresses and the in-plane (xy plane) distribution of stress varies
dramatically with these variables. We will also mention at this juncture
the anisotropic nature of in-plane stresses which develops in additive
parts. Because layers are not uniformly and instantaneously melted, but
rather melted by discrete tracks of beam motion, significant anisotropy
develops. Specifically, the stresses in the longitudinal direction of the
beam motion are typically far greater than those in the transverse di-
rection due to the non-uniform temperature distribution which follows
the beam path and the resulting non-uniform contraction during soli-
dification/cooling [83,84,87,91,92]. Residual stress magnitudes in the
longitudinal direction have been found experimentally to be as high as
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149

Fig. 5. In-plane anisotropy which develops in PBF processing due to raster path/temperature field geometry: a) temperature distribution during single track raster
[51] and b–c) anisotropy in FE results of stress distribution after single layer heating using unidirectional scan vectors in the y-direction b) σyy and c) σxx, note the
difference in scale bar magnitudes [93].

1.5–2.5 times the magnitude of the transverse direction stress [93–96].
Fig. 5 illustrates this anisotropy formed within each beam track. The
thermal profile and geometric shape of the beam path results in non-
uniform contraction and hence non-uniform stresses within each beam
path (Fig. 5a). The influence of multiple anisotropic beam paths com-
bines to produce an anisotropic total stress field in each layer
(Fig. 5b–c). Further discussions of this anisotropy are given in Section
4.3.
The importance of residual stress on part quality is well-known
[55,59,60] and is thus important to determine and characterize for AM,
in the face of the challenges which arise due to the process’ complexity.
Fig. 6 demonstrates the primary detrimental effects of residual stress in
additive parts. While the static mechanical properties (i.e. ultimate
tensile strength, yield strength, etc.) of AM components have frequently
been shown to match or exceed that of their conventionally produced
counterparts (owing largely to the fine grain size produced during AM
due to the fast cooling rates) [25–29,97–99], fatigue properties can be
dramatically lower (Fig. 6a) [28,100–103]. Edwards and Ramulu [101]
found the fatigue performance of SLM produced Ti-6Al-4V to be 75%
lower than the wrought material, due to the combined effects of por-
osity, surface finish and residual stress. In a similar study of SLM Ti-6Al-
4V, Leuders et al. [102] concluded that the internal porosity of SLM
materials dramatically affected fatigue strength by altering the crack
initiation phase in HCF testing, while internal residual stresses were
primarily responsible for worsening crack growth during the crack
propagation phase. During cyclic loading the large primarily tensile
stresses act in addition to the applied load to increase crack growth,
thereby raising the crack growth rate (da/dN) and reducing fatigue life.
Mukherjee et al. [104], examining the literature, observed an ap-
proximately linear relationship between reported tensile residual stress
and fatigue crack growth rates in additive parts. The complex dis-
tribution of residual stresses in additive parts has also been found to
result in anisotropy in fatigue properties [90,105,106]. Cain et al.
[100], also working with SLM Ti-6Al-4V, determined that anisotropic
fracture toughness and fatigue crack growth in the material was indeed
caused by the anisotropic RS state by performing testing in the as-built
and stress-relieved (via heat treatment) state. Simultaneously, the lit-
erature indicates the dramatic process parameter and material property
dependence on resulting RS and fatigue properties; Riemer et al. [105]
determined that SLM produced 316 L, while exhibiting significant ani-
sotropy in fatigue properties, performed similarly to conventional 316 L
in the as-built condition. Residual stresses can also reduce part quality
by affecting geometric tolerances; AM parts are produced on a large
metal base plate which constrains part distortion during printing, when
removed from the plate the residual stress in the part will cause a
permanent deformation of the part in order to accommodate the re-
distribution of stresses to maintain equilibrium at the new free surface,
affecting the geometric tolerances of the final part (Fig. 6b) [55,87].
Furthermore, large RS exceeding the yield strength during production
will result in plastic deformation in-process, which may affect the
continuation of the process by interfering with powder spreading
(Fig. 6c). We also note that anisotropy is frequently observed in static

Fig. 6. Primary detrimental effects of residual stress in additive parts: a) reduced fatigue properties due to additional internal tensile residual stress, b) distortion
upon removal from constraining base plate and c) potential for process errors due to plastic deformation caused by excessive residual stresses.

135
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li
mechanical properties in AM parts, but this is typically due to micro-
structural anisotropy as opposed to effects of the residual stress dis-
tribution [97,107,108].
3. Modeling and predicting residual stress in AM
With an understanding of how residual stresses form in additive
manufacturing and why they are of importance, we now examine the
methods that researchers have employed to determine and predict RS in
AM. Of course, researchers have utilized all the common RS measure-
ment techniques discussed in Section 2.2 to measure RS in additive
parts ex situ, which has been the most common strategy to relate RS
development to process parameters and material properties. The results
of these experiments will be discussed in Section 4 without further re-
gards to the physical measurements. This section discusses the methods
used to model and predict RS (Section 3.1) and in situ measurements
which have been performed to infer RS directly during production
(Section 3.2).
3.1. Modeling efforts
Powder bed fusion manufacturing is a complex process with sig-
nificant hurdles to effectively modeling residual stress development.
Components produced via PBF are composed of hundreds (sometimes
thousands) of individually melted layers that are generally only
20–100 μm thick. The layers are melted non-uniformly by a moving
energy source (either laser or electron beam), resulting in a complex
heat transfer problem. The thermal properties of the semi-porous
powder bed further complicate the problem physics. Through sub-
stantial efforts in the field, a range of approaches to modeling the
process have resulted in good comparisons with experimental results
[51–53]. We also note that significant efforts towards validation and
qualification are being made at NIST through the AM-Bench program;
the program seeks to provide robust highly-controlled PBF benchmark
tests replete with in-process collected data and characterization data for
researchers to compare model results with for validation purposes.
Within the framework of this section, we delineate two broad categories
of modeling efforts used to predict residual stresses in AM processing,
which will be discussed in the following subsections: computer models
and analytical models.
3.1.1. Computer models
Finite element modeling is a powerful tool used to predict residual
stress development for many manufacturing processes, and has been
commonly employed for AM. However, complications arise for mod-
eling AM through FE approaches due to the process complexity. The
large number of exceedingly thin material layers in an additive build,
along with the moving energy source and high temperatures, demand
enormous computational expense to model precisely. Furthermore, to
calculate residual stress in AM, simulations must couple transient
thermal analysis (Eq. 1) to elasto-plastic mechanical analysis (Eqs. 2–5)
further increasing computational cost [51,83,93,109,110]. The gen-
eralized thermal and mechanical equations are given by:
dT d dT
ρ (T ) Cp (T ) = (k ) + Q (r , t )
dt dr dr (1)
(2)
∇∙σ = 0
{σ } = [D]{ε } (3)
ε= εe + ε pl + ε th (4)
ε th = α (T − T0) (5)
where ρ, Cp, k and Q (r,t) in Eq. 1 represent the density, specific heat
capacity, conductivity and source term, respectively. The variable r is to
be interchanged with each coordinate as required (i.e. x,y,z in Cartesian
136
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149
coordinates); T is temperature and t is time. In Eqs. 3–5 [D] is the
element stiffness matrix while εe, εpl and εth are the elastic, plastic and
thermal strains, respectively; α is the coefficient of thermal expansion.
Typically, the thermal and mechanical equations are considered to be
weakly-coupled and the transient thermal equation is solved in-
dependently first, the solution is then imported into the mechanical
equations to solve for the stress state [51,83,111]. Considering the
extreme temperatures and melt condition in PBF manufacturing, tem-
perature dependent material properties (coefficient of thermal expan-
sion, conductivity, yield strength, etc.) are also required for accurate
solutions.
To circumvent these computational challenges, several endearing
methods have been developed and scrutinized in the literature. A
common strategy to reduce computational expense has been to group a
large number of thin layers (on the order of ˜50 μm in size) into a small
number of much thicker layers (on the order of ˜1 mm) [87,112–114].
These methods sacrifice a level of precision to allow for expeditious
calculations of stress and distortion but have still allowed for valuable
analyses of processing conditions. Williams et al. [87] found that this
method resulted in distortion calculations within 10% of the experi-
mental case, using layer heights 16 times larger than the true experi-
mental scenario, concluding that reasonably accurate distortion and RS
predictions can be made without modeling every layer of an additive
build. Alternatively, several researchers have focused on modeling a
single layer or a single beam line scan in order to understand residual
stress and distortion with laser/electron beam scanning changes
[84,93,110,115,116]. These methods provide strong insight into re-
sidual stress with regards to scanning orientation, power, speed, etc. but
ignore multilayer effects on the cumulative component level stress
state. Other researchers have used simplified model geometries or few-
layer simulations to understand the multilayer effects [117,118].
Advanced modeling techniques have also been used to reduce
computation time for full simulations. Multilayer parts have been suc-
cessfully modeled with reduced calculation time by using selective
element activation [87,119] or dynamic mesh coarsening/refinement
[86,120,121]. Several researchers have also focused solely on devel-
oping accurate transient thermal models of the process, which may
serve as the basis for future residual stress calculations
[114,115,121–123]. Mukherjee et al. [123] used a 3D transient thermal
model to calculate thermal properties in AM and coupled the calcula-
tions with an analytical “strain-parameter” function, which was related
to thermal distortion in the final component, and hence residual stress.
Several studies have also investigated using a “multiscale” modeling
approach in AM. Li et al. [83,124] detailed a modeling method where
an equivalent body heat flux was derived from a microscale laser
scanning model and input into a mesoscale “layer hatch” model, which
was then used to build up a full macroscale part.
Another approach offered in the literature to model multilayer ef-
fects and final part stresses is to ignore laser motion within layers. In
these models, layers are heated uniformly and simultaneously
[109,113]. These methods may effectively estimate average residual
stress magnitudes and may capture through thickness (build-direction)
stresses well, but will ignore in-plane anisotropy in the resulting stress
field. Fig. 7 summarizes these FE modeling methods used to reduce
computational expense in modeling residual stress in AM components.
As a compromise between methods of full laser scanning and uniform
layer heating, in past work for SLM processing we have also devised a
FE method which modeled individual laser tracks without simulating
actual laser motion [125]. This method reduced computational time
while still allowing for informed multilayer effects and in-plane residual
stress distributions to be estimated (Fig. 8). Finally, we also note that
several commercial FE packages have been developed that are tailored
specifically to AM processes to allow for predictions of resulting RS.
ANSYS, Inc. (Canonsburg, Pennsylvania) has recently developed a si-
mulation tool to predict RS and distortion in additive components,
providing a promising route to supported commercial modeling and
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149

Fig. 7. Reported FE strategies to calculate residual stress in PBF processing while reducing computational expense: a) grouping layers into larger simulated sections
[87], b) single-pass beam scanning models [110], c) uniform heating of layers eliminating beam motion [109], d) simulation of few-layer builds for multilayer effects
[117] and e) multiscale modeling replacing beam motion with equivalent body flux for multilayer builds 83].

validation of AM builds; however, for a high degree of accuracy, si-
mulation time is frequently in excess of 24–48 h. Other commercial
packages, ranging from RS prediction to model optimization, are also
available from Autodesk Inc. (San Rafael, California) and Alphastar
Corporation (Long Beach, California).
3.1.2. Analytical models
In addition to computational modeling, several analytical models
have been proposed for estimating residual stress magnitudes and dis-
tributions in additive manufacturing. The simplest estimations have
been based on the known mechanical requirements of residual stress
discussed in Section 2, namely that residual stresses normal to a plane
must sum to zero for static equilibrium to exist. Mercelis and Kruth [82]
and Shiomi et al. [89] both used this knowledge to estimate residual
stresses through the required force and moment balance:
∫ σxx (z ) dz = 0 (6)
∫ σxx (z ) zdz = 0 (7)
where z is the vertical build-direction and σxx is the in-plane stress. Both
studies assumed linearity in the strain field with respect to layer height
in order to complete the calculations, an assumption which Shiomi
et al. [89] also validated experimentally. Ding et al. [88] also showed
this approximately linear stress profile through FE modeling. These
analyses provide quick estimates of the RS distribution with respect to
the build direction and have been found to be fairly accurate when
compared with computer simulations and experimental measurements
(though RS magnitudes are difficult to assess accurately by this method,
the distributions have frequently been proven accurate). Another po-
tential route to obtaining analytical estimates of residual stress in ad-
ditive processes is to measure out of plane curvature which develops

137
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li
Fig. 8. Multilayer FE results using a partial laser rastering model to reduce computational cost: a) each rastered section (rectangular strip) is heated individually, but
local laser motion is ignored, b) the effects of the laser scan strategy through multiple deposited layers are readily apparent.
from layer deposition; this methodology has been used for many years
in other thin film deposition applications via the Stoney equation
[64,126–128] and has been shown effective for AM applications
through a similar method by the authors in past work [125].
Semi-analytical models have also been utilized in conjunction with
computer solvers to determine residual stress in AM. Gusarov et al. [95]
used finite difference methods to solve the force balance equations re-
lative to displacement in a plane. Yang et al. [122] created a thermal
finite difference model to quickly solve for the thermal profile during
full laser scanning of a layer by discretizing the laser scan vectors into
point heat sources; the method was capable of determining the thermal
profile for an additive layer in 16.5 s. These thermal calculations are the
basis for residual stress formation and could be used to estimate RS
when coupled with the appropriate mechanical equations.
3.2. In-process measurements
In addition to the substantial modeling efforts made to predict RS in
AM parts by the research community, there has been interest in de-
vising in situ measurements to measure or infer residual stresses and
distortion during production. Several researchers have integrated strain
gages into the base plate/support structure to directly measure strain
changes with the addition of new layers [89,129]. These studies both
used the calculated strain difference between layers (Δε ) to estimate
residual stress in the parts; the method is computationally similar to the
strain induced by the layer removal/sectioning method as described in
Section 2.2. Van Belle et al. [129] also incorporated a thermocouple
with the strain gage to compensate for thermal strain at the base. Other
studies have aimed for a similar in-process analysis using displacement
sensors in-place of a strain gage, and have coupled the measurements
with thermocouples [40,86,130]. These measurements, using either a
differential variable reluctance transducer (DVRT) [40,86] or a laser
displacement sensor (LDS) [130], directly measured distortion in the
substrate during part production. The in situ distortion and temperature
measurements were used to directly compare to residual stress (mea-
sured via hole-drilling) [130], to use as an analog for residual stress
[40] or to validate computational models [86]. These methods, while
providing valuable in-process measurements, are limited in that they
provide only measurements at the base plate and only at discrete po-
sitions. Craeghs et al. [42] utilized coherent in-line melt pool imaging
with a CMOS camera to observe deformation in-process due to thermal
stress, though the results were only qualitative. Other researchers have
focused on in-process temperature measurements through either pyro-
metry, infrared or optical imaging, primarily for the detection of defects
or other process irregularities while foregoing stress measurements
138
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149
[131–137]; in-process temperature measurements could potentially
also be extended to be used in support of RS modeling efforts [51].
In addition to in situ measurements using embedded sensors in PBF
processing, RS measurements have also been made by use of specialized
part geometries. Kruth et al. [138] designed a bridge geometry (“bridge
curvature method”) to expeditiously (but qualitatively) investigate re-
sidual stresses in AM by measuring the angle of deflection of the part
after removal from the base plate. Le Roux et al. [139] extended this
method further by measuring the surface deformation/curvature using
confocal microscopy. In past work, we have similarly measured surface
curvature of AM parts using three-dimensional digital image correlation
(3D-DIC) to estimate full-field residual stress distributions directly from
the surface curvature [125]. Table 1 summarizes in-process measure-
ment methods used for estimating residual stress in PBF. It is important
to also note that these in-process measurements are, by nature, incap-
able of directly measuring RS. Rather, RS is inferred from other mea-
surements such as distortion, global strain, etc. Though measurements
of plastic distortion are clearly related directly to the RS (as shown in
the hole-drilling methods, contour methods, Stoney’s thin film equa-
tions, etc.) it is important to remember that these are not direct mea-
surements of RS, and error in these measurements has the potential to
propagate to larger error in RS estimates.
4. Additive process dependencies
This section examines the relationships between primary PBF vari-
ables and resulting residual stresses reported in the literature. RS dis-
tributions in PBF parts can be highly anisotropic and magnitudes can
vary drastically; both distribution and magnitude are dependent upon
processing parameters/conditions, material properties and part geo-
metry. This section will analyze the known relationships between these
variables and RS development as determined from both experimental
measurements and theoretical models. From the literature results, we
discuss the most critical variables to RS formation.
Table 1
Summary of in-process measurements used to estimate or infer residual stress
during PBF processing.
Sensor/method Measurement Position References
Strain gage Strain Base plate [89,129]
DVRT/ LDS Distortion Base plate/support [40,86,130]
Optical camera Qualitative distortion Overhead [42]
3D-DIC Curvature/distortion Overhead [125]
Bridge geometry Angle of deflection Total part geometry [138,139]
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li
4.1. SLM vs EBM
While this review is primarily focused on RS development in SLM
processing, it is also important to briefly discuss the differences in re-
sulting RS between SLM and EBM parts. With regards to RS develop-
ment, the most critical difference between the two techniques is that in
EBM processing the build chamber is typically kept at a high tem-
perature (˜500-800 °C) [19,109,140,141]. This results in a reduced
temperature difference during production (Tmelt - Tambient) which, in
general, tends to reduce RS magnitude significantly by lowering the
cooling rate [81,109,142–144]. Sochalski-Kolbus et al. [81] measured
RS in Inconel 718 produced by both EBM and SLM using neutron dif-
fraction and found the RS in EBM specimens to be as much as 400 MPa
less than the stress in the SLM samples, concluding the preheating step
and slow cool-down process in EBM to be the primary contributing
factors. Hrabe et al. [142] measured fatigue properties for EBM pro-
duced Ti-6Al-4V parts and determined the components were essentially
free of RS by measuring fatigue properties in as-built, stress-relieved
and hot isostatic pressed (HIP) conditions. EBM processing also has
potential for high build rates owing to increased beam penetration over
laser systems and high scan speeds [15,109]. Despite this apparent
advantage of lower RS found in EBM parts, SLM processing still largely
dominates throughout the industry [13,15]. The cooling rate con-
siderations are also important for certain material systems, which in
SLM often results in retention of super saturated solid solutions or non-
equilibrium phases, such as in Ti-6Al-4V where the quick cooling pro-
duces generally advantageous (in terms of strength) martensitic α’
microstructures compared to primarily Widmanstatten α + β structures
produced from the slower cooling EBM process
[39,102,119,143,145,146]. SLM microstructures also generally feature
finer grain sizes due to the higher cooling rates [144]. Additionally,
EBM is required to be performed in vacuum conditions, increasing
complexity. During melting, the inherent difference between electron
beam and laser melting is the mode of heating; in SLM metal powders
absorb heat directly through photons delivered by the laser, while in
EBM the kinetic energy of electrons is converted to thermal energy
[145,147]. EBM processing generally exhibits lower quality surface
finishes, likely due to the increased penetration depth of the electron
beam over laser systems, increased layer size and larger beam size
[15,144,145,148]. Furthermore, the increased beam penetration depth
and interactions with powders result in the necessary utilization of
coarser powders in EBM processing to avoid electrostatic charge
buildup which would repel smaller particles, thereby worsening surface
finish and feature tolerances relative to SLM processing [15,147].
Table 2 summarizes some of these key differences between SLM and
EBM processing. Because of these factors, the SLM process leads PBF
methods, and indeed all AM processes, for metal part production de-
spite the large residual stresses which are developed in-process.
Therefore, it is necessary to understand RS development and its de-
pendencies in SLM processing so that we may reduce RS effectively or
even use it advantageously in additive part design.
4.2. Material dependence
It is intuitive to suspect that the magnitude of residual stresses
Table 2
Approximate ranges for key processing conditions in EBM and SLM processing.
Note in EBM the initial cooling rate is relatively high from the melt temperature
to the chamber temperature, however the final cooling rate to room tempera-
ture is far lower.
Cooling rate Scan speed Chamber heating
SLM 103-108 K/s [85] 0.1-1 m/s [148] 100-400 °C [141]
EBM 102-104 K/s [29] 0.5-10 m/s [19,144] 300-1100 °C [141,145,144]
139
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149
formed in PBF processing, considering process conditions to be iden-
tical, would be a strong function of material properties. The mechanism
for RS formation in additive processes is driven by the intense localized
thermal gradients and high cooling rates which result in non-uniform
material expansion/contraction and mismatched strain profiles (Section
2.3). Therefore, the thermal and mechanical properties of the material
being processed would naturally be expected to control the magnitude
of stresses formed. Indeed, from the principles of physical metallurgy,
Dieter [55] stated that low values of thermal diffusivity lead to higher
mismatch strains during quenching. The thermal diffusivity (Dt) can be
expanded as:
k
Dt =
ρc (8)
to infer that high density (ρ), low thermal conductivity (k) and high
specific heat (c) should lead to higher residual strains; a high coefficient
of thermal expansion (α) is also said to lead to high mismatch strains
[55]. Vrancken et al. [149] performed a study of 9 different materials to
examine the relationships between material properties and residual
stress developed during selective laser melting. However, in their study
they found no significant correlation between residual stress magnitude
and any of the examined material properties. They stated that this
observation was likely due to the variation in processing parameters
used between the materials to produce fully-dense parts, which they
concluded was likely the dominant factor in RS development for SLM
processing. It was clear, however, that a wide range of residual stress
was observed in the parts.
To better understand the material property dependence on RS
magnitude in SLM fabrication, we have assembled results from across
the literature and analyzed them against a range of material properties
[37–39,74,81,82,87–92,94,96,101,113,149–153]. Our survey focused
on five commonly studied SLM materials: 316 L stainless steel, Ti-6Al-
4V, Inconel 718, 18Ni300 Maraging steel and commercially pure tita-
nium (Cp Ti). We examined the literature for maximum reported RS
values from each source and took an average of the values for each
material. Note that these values used were not a true maximum (i.e. an
outlier in the data) found in the reported literature, but rather simply
the highest average stress reported in each work, resulting from each
study’s respective examination of various process parameters, different
materials, etc. Fig. 9 shows the results for residual stress reported versus
thermal diffusivity, thermal conductivity, ultimate tensile strength and
yield strength. From our survey we observed a strong linear dependence
of residual stress on thermal diffusivity (Fig. 9a) and thermal con-
ductivity (Fig. 9b), following the expected relationship given by soli-
dification theory [8,55,149]. This observation was also predicted by
Mukherjee et al. [123] in their “strain-parameter” computational ana-
lysis. We also identified weaker linear correlations between RS mag-
nitude and ultimate tensile strength (Fig. 9c) and yield strength
(Fig. 9d), where increasing material strength generally resulted in in-
creasing residual stress. Note the large error bars (95% CI) due to the
wide variance of residual stress magnitudes reported in the literature,
this variation is due to both specimen geometry and processing para-
meter variation between studies, however the mean values still re-
turned strong correlation with the material properties (R2 values given
in plots). Furthermore, Gu et al. [8] stated that a material’s coefficient
of thermal expansion (CTE) and elastic modulus are the two most im-
portant parameters behind residual stress magnitude. These properties
could be expected to be important considering their significance in
elastic thermal stress calculations (Section 3). However, in our litera-
ture survey we observed no significant relationship between RS mag-
nitude and either elastic modulus or CTE for SLM fabricated parts. We
similarly observed no noticeable correlation between RS magnitude and
material density or melting temperature.
Numerous other studies have been reported in the literature which
directly compared RS magnitudes and distortion between 2 or more
material systems produced via SLM [39,86,130,138,152]. These
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li
Fig. 9. Survey of average value of maximum residual stresses reported for various materials versus material properties: a) thermal diffusivity, b) thermal con-
ductivity, c) ultimate tensile strength and d) yield strength. Max values of RS for 5 materials were collected and averaged from
[37–39,74,81,82,87–92,94,96,101,113,149–153]. Material properties from [149,151].
comparisons have shed light on an interesting phenomenon in SLM
processing: the fact that the relationships between certain process
parameters and RS/distortion can be material dependent, and hence is
not always a universal process relationship. For example, Denlinger
et al. [130] studied residual stress in SLM produced Inconel 625 and Ti-
6Al-4V samples as a function of interlayer dwell time. The results
showed that the two materials had completely opposing responses to
increasing the dwell time, where RS decreased in Inconel 625 and in-
creased in Ti-6Al-4V. In a similar study between SLM Ti-6Al-4V and
316 L, Kruth et al. [138] reported that layer post-scanning (the re-
heating of an already melted and solidified layer) was able to reduce
measured distortion by 8% in the titanium alloy while having no ob-
servable effect on the stainless-steel sample. These studies illuminate
the complexity of PBF processing and the complicated material-process
relationships.
Furthermore, material chemistry must be considered in under-
standing residual stress development during SLM or EBM production.
Residual stresses can be affected by phase transformation strains that
occur in certain materials. For example, the martensitic transformation
in steels can result in a 4% volume increase, which can act to counter
the shrinkage and stresses during SLM production [8,154]. Denlinger
and Michaleris [120] developed a FE model for determining residual
stress in Ti-6Al-4V produced via SLM that included the effects of the
material’s solid-state transformation strain. The model was validated
via experimental measurements and showed that the transformation
strain strongly opposed thermal stresses and greatly reduced final RS
magnitude, matching well with experimental data. It has also been
shown that through a priori selection of a eutectic material system for
140
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149
SLM applications, RS can be reduced by keeping the material in a semi
solid state at elevated temperature [155]. These studies make it readily
apparent that material properties play a large role in residual stress
formation in PBF processing. Not only do the material properties affect
the generally expected RS magnitudes but can also alter the effect that
changing process parameters will have.
4.3. Process parameter dependence
We now examine the state of understanding regarding the re-
lationships between individual process parameters in PBF processing
and the resulting residual stresses, irrespective of material. We limit our
scope of analysis to the effects on RS only, though it is clear that pro-
cessing parameters also play a large role in determining mechanical
properties of PBF parts [24–27,115]. A plethora of studies have been
performed utilizing both FE analyses and experimental measurements
to determine the effects of changing process variables on the resulting
residual stress state; it is evident that the processing variables have an
enormous impact on the resulting RS magnitude and distribution. In a
2013 study, Vrancken et al. [149] concluded that the process para-
meters may be the dominant factor in RS development over the material
properties. Through surveying the literature, we highlight a number of
important processing variables that we will detail with regards to RS
formation in this section. Through examination of the literature, the
presented process variables were determined to be the most influential
to RS development, both in terms of magnitude and orientation. These
variables were deemed most impactful, and warranting of discussion,
because of both their clear impact on RS through multiple studies and
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li
Fig. 10. Classification of primary process parameters that affect residual stress
formation in PBF processing.
because of their proliferation throughout the literature. We have
broadly categorized the process parameters of interest into 3 groups, as
illustrated in Fig. 10, which are discussed in the following subsections.
4.3.1. Beam parameters
Considering the known dependence of residual stress formation on
thermal conditions and cooling rates, altering parameters which di-
rectly affect energy/heat input is a logical starting point for analysis.
Beam power and beam scan speed are the primary variables which alter
the energy input in PBF processing. These variables are also frequently
combined into a single measure of volumetric energy input [31,38]:
Pb
EV =
vs h d
where Pb is the beam power, vs is the scan speed, h is the hatch spacing
and d is the layer thickness. This formulation couples the effects of
changing power and scan speed (with layer thickness and hatch spa-
cing) into a direct measurement of energy per unit volume. Though we
note here that this equation is not a true measurement of energy density
applied to the material. The equation estimates volume using hatch
spacing and layer thickness, however no regard to actual beam profile/
spot size is included (it is well known that beam penetration exceeds the
layer thickness), nor is actual energy absorbed (which varies with
Fig. 11. Trends of residual stress magnitude versus: a) laser power [123], b) scan speed [92] and volumetric energy density [38].
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149
material and powder distribution) considered. Thus, the equation is not
a true measure of the actual energy density applied and should be
viewed only as a rough estimate of beam energy assessing the beam
power and scan speed relative to layer thickness and hatch spacing.
Similarly, other researchers have formulated energy per unit area [89]
and energy/heat per unit length [74,123]. Simson et al. [38] reported
significantly higher residual stress in 316 L SLM samples when the vo-
lumetric energy input was increased. Vastola et al. [110] studied the
effects of altering beam parameters through single track finite element
modeling and determined that the heat affected zone (HAZ), in which
the residual stress profile extended into, was increased by lower scan
speeds or increased power (i.e. higher volumetric energy input). Uti-
lizing their analytical strain parameter and thermal simulations, Mu-
kherjee et al. [123] determined that distortion/RS was expected to in-
crease nearly linearly with increasing laser power and decrease
approximately linearly with increasing scan speed. These results sug-
gest that the lowest energy input possible to create fully dense parts
should be used in order to minimize residual stress magnitudes. Shiomi
et al. [89] similarly reported decreasing RS magnitude with increasing
scan speed to a certain maximum speed, at which point RS would again
increase. Representative trends of residual stress magnitudes in SLM
parts versus laser power [123], scan speed [92] and volumetric energy
input [38] are shown in Fig. 11. Hussein et al. [84] performed single
track thermal simulations and determined that melt pool width and
depth decreased with increasing scan speed, while the length increased.
Loh et al. [156] also observed a similar result in simulations. Yadroitsev
et al. [157] reported laser power to be the most important factor with
regards to layer bonding and contact angle in a single-track deposition
study. These results collectively suggest that the penetration of the melt
pool, i.e. HAZ size, plays a large role in determining RS magnitude in
additive parts, in addition to determining if sufficient fusion is achieved
to eliminate porosity; the implication is that the energy input in PBF
processing should be carefully selected to ensure complete fusion and
mitigation of porosity while avoiding excessive energy input which will
raise residual stresses.
4.3.2. Process conditions and geometry considerations
Next, we consider other indirect processing variables that affect RS
magnitude in PBF processes. Having discussed the notion of volumetric
(9)
energy input and the importance of heat transfer conditions, it is logical
to assume that geometry and layer thickness will also affect RS devel-
opment. Through their analytical model, Mercelis and Kruth [82]
concluded that a thicker base plate would reduce RS and distortion,
owing to the increased stiffness of the constraint. With further con-
sideration to base plate stiffness, Casavola et al. [151] determined that
part placement on the base plate had a significant impact on resulting
residual stress, affecting RS magnitude by more than 100 MPa for parts
of the same geometry and parameters. With regards to residual stress
evolution with increasing part size, the literature results are
141
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li
controversial. Yadroitsava et al. [94] reported generally increasing
values of RS, with some variability in the trend, for increasing part
height (number of layers) through ex situ measurements of RS. Mercelis
and Kruth [82] reported dramatically higher residual stress values for
larger samples. Shiomi et al. [89] similarly reported a nearly linear
increase in strain (at the base plate) with increasing number of layers
deposited using in situ strain gage measurements. However, Van Belle
et al. [129] reported a decrease in stress with larger total part height,
though layer thickness was also larger in this sample. Meanwhile, Zaeh
and Branner [113] reported there were no observable trends between
measured distortion and total part height. Layer thickness may also play
an important role in RS development by altering local boundary con-
ditions and thermal gradients. Anderson et al. [91] reported that in-
creasing layer thickness significantly reduced residual stress gradients
determined via neutron diffraction. Zaeh and Branner [113] found a
similarly drastic reduction in distortion with increasing layer thickness.
The processing variables mentioned thus far all play an important
role in mitigating residual stresses in PBF processing, however it is often
reported that these variables are overshadowed by the effect of one
particular variable: base plate preheating. It is widely agreed upon in
the literature, and has been shown through both experimental analysis
and simulations, that increasing the temperature of the base plate
dramatically reduces resulting residual stress magnitudes. Kruth et al.
[139] found a reduction in measured distortion of 10% by heating the
plate to 180 °C. Buchbinder et al. [158] reduced distortion in SLM parts
from ˜10 mm to nearly zero by base plate heating to 250 °C. Shiomi
et al. [89] found that residual stress was reduced by 40% by heating the
plate to 160 °C. These results are repeated in a wide number of studies
and have also been confirmed numerically through FE modeling
[110–112,159]. Hence, base plate preheating is one of the most im-
portant parameters found to reduce residual stress and distortion in PBF
processing. Fig. 12 demonstrates the effectiveness of base plate pre-
heating to reduce RS and distortion as reported in the literature. By
lowering and controlling the thermal gradients and cooling rates in-
process, residual stress is mitigated by a significant degree by reducing
the mismatch in thermal strains (Eq. 5). As noted previously, this
concept of preheating is the primary reason why EBM specimens typi-
cally exhibit much lower RS than SLM specimens, as very high pre-
heating is typically used in EBM production. We also note that base
plate preheating has been shown to improve resulting density and
hence mechanical properties [97,106], suggesting high base plate
heating temperatures should be used in-process whenever possible.
However, it should also be noted that heating the platform and thereby
reducing cooling rates can also result in an increase in grain size, which
can reduce mechanical strength in accordance with the Hall-Petch re-
lationship; the decrease in cooling rate is also likely to alter the dis-
location density in the material. Similar to energy input through beam
parameters (Section 4.3.1), optimal base plate heating is a balancing act
in this case between reducing RS and distortion while maintaining
optimal microstructural growth conditions.
4.3.3. Scanning strategy alterations
Finally, we examine the effects of the scanning/raster strategy on
resulting residual stress. Several scanning changes have been in-
vestigated with regards to RS formation. Many researchers have in-
vestigated using the laser to reheat or preheat the melted layer in SLM
processing to reduce temperature gradients and cooling rates. Kruth
et al. [138] investigated both pre- and re -scanning with regards to part
distortion and found a maximum reduction of 8% for post-scanning and
6% for pre-scanning. In another study, Mercelis and Kruth [82] mea-
sured a 30% reduction in RS using a post-scan with an input energy
50% of the standard melting energy. Aggarangsi and Beuth [160] de-
veloped a FE model to investigate both uniform layer preheating and
localized secondary heating both ahead of and behind the melt pool,
determining that local methods had minimal effect on RS while uniform
layer preheating could reduce RS by 18%. Shiomi et al. [89] reported
142
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149
post-scanning reduced tensile RS by 55%. Through these studies, we
can conclude that layer pre- and post- heating has the potential to re-
duce the magnitude of residual stress in PBF processes when the sec-
ondary scan energy input is chosen appropriately. Again, these methods
function by reducing the thermal gradient and cooling rate present
during solidification/cooling. Another alterable parameter is the in-
terlayer dwell time, i.e. the time elapsed between layer scans, however
limited studies have been performed on the parameter with regards to
RS. Denlinger et al. [130] determined through in situ distortion and ex
situ RS measurements that the dwell time can have a drastic effect on RS
magnitude, with changes of up to 55% when adding a 40 s dwell.
However, this parameter is still not well understood, as it was shown in
their study that the effect was heavily material dependent, producing
opposite results for Inconel 625 and Ti-6Al-4V.
We now turn our attention to another heavily investigated variable:
the primary beam scanning strategy, also referred to as the raster
strategy. The beam scan strategy describes the motion of the beam (and
hence melt pool) over the surface of each layer, and a wide range of
strategies have been investigated. To this point in our discussions, all of
the processing parameters mentioned impact the residual stress mag-
nitude heavily, however none will have had a significant impact on the
residual stress distribution. The beam scan strategy, on the other hand,
largely dictates the stress distribution which will occur in the part, on
both a single-layer and multi-layer basis. The anisotropy discussed in
Section 2.3 is a function of the scan strategy and can be dramatically
affected by altering the scan method. The basic view of RS development
in additive parts mentioned in Section 2.3 does not fully capture the
complex stress state observed on the surface of AM parts. Newly de-
posited layers do not exhibit uniform tensile stresses; because layers are
not melted uniformly and instantaneously, a very complex stress state
emerges within each new layer. Beam melt tracks are required to
overlap to ensure full densification of parts, which introduces further
complexity to the stress state. In fact, regions of both tensile and
compressive stresses have been found within individual layers in AM
parts [84,116,125]. The anisotropy that is present locally between
longitudinal and transverse directions within a single layer track will
not be changed significantly by global scan strategy changes, but the
total resulting stress distribution will be altered. Multilayer effects from
the scan strategy have also been shown to have a significant effect on
the stress field. A wide range of studies have been conducted to in-
vestigate the scan strategy’s effect on resulting RS distribution and
magnitude, both experimentally [38,40,82,91,92,96,138,153] and
through FE simulations [84,93,106,117]. Alterations to the scan
strategy can be designated into three categories: 1) scan vector length,
2) primary scan vector direction relative to the part geometry and 3)
displacement/rotation between layers. Fig. 13 displays common raster
patterns investigated in the literature.
With regards to single layer effects, it has been shown that scan
vector lengths directly affect the residual stress magnitude. Studying RS
at multiple positions on a SLM part using XRD, Liu et al. [92] de-
termined that a scan vector length reduction from 42 mm to 18 mm
reduced RS magnitude by over 50% at certain points. Through FE
modeling, Parry et al. [93] observed a similar result wherein shortening
scan vector length (by changing specimen size) from 3 mm to 1 mm
reduced the Von Mises stress by 28%. Matsumoto et al. [116] similarly
concluded through FE modeling that shortening scan vectors can sig-
nificantly reduce distortion. The anisotropy in the stress field within
individual layers is also affected by altering the scan strategy. Con-
sidering full length scan vectors (which stretch from one side of a part
to the other), the two primary methods are unidirectional and alter-
nating scanning [93,117]. These terms describe the motion of the beam
from track to track, where unidirectional vectors all start at one side
and end at the other and alternating vectors change direction between
each track (Fig. 13a–c). Parry et al. [93] observed that the maximum
stress magnitude was not noticeably affected by using unidirectional
versus alternating scanning, but that the stress distribution was affected,
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149

Fig. 12. Demonstrated reduction in RS/distortion by using a preheated base plate: a) distortion observed in experimental cantilever specimens without (left) and
with (right) preheating [158], b) FE model results of residual stress without (left) and with (right) preheating [112] and c) experimental measurements of residual
stress magnitude at top surface versus preheating temperature [89].

where stress and plastic strain was reduced using the alternating
strategy. Given the knowledge that stress magnitude increases with
increasing vector length, another common raster strategy developed is
the “island” scanning method [38,138,153]. This method separates
layers into smaller (generally square) sectors which are melted in-
dividually using shorter vectors (Fig. 13d). The method has generally
been reported to result in significant reductions in RS versus full-length
scans [92,138,153]. However, results are mixed for further reducing the
vector length within the individual islands (i.e. island size). Kruth et al.
[159] found no observable reduction in distortion magnitude when
changing island scan size. Simson et al. [38] found experimentally that
RS magnitude in fact increased with a smaller island size; Robinson
et al. [96] observed similar results. Lu et al. [153] determined that the
smallest island size resulted in the lowest RS magnitude, but further
increases in island size resulted in large variability and no consistent
correlation to RS; this result may also be impacted by the rastering
order of the islands, which will alter the heat transfer in the part.
The interactions of stress fields and continued cooling between
layers in AM parts also dramatically affects the resulting stress dis-
tribution in new layers. In other words, the scan strategy and resulting
stress fields in underlying layers also affect the stress in new layers,
hence the multilayer effects of the scan strategy must be explored.
Several studies have been conducted to investigate the total resulting
stress/distortion fields with respect to scanning strategy. The primary

143
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li
Fig. 13. Common raster patterns investigated in the literature. Note that any of
the methods can be combined to produce additional patterns; e.g. a rotating
island scan pattern with alternating vector directions is also possible.
Translational displacement of the pattern is also often used between layers.
consideration from layer-to-layer is the rotation or displacement of the
scanning strategy between layers (Fig. 13b). Given the significant ani-
sotropy discovered in individual layers, it has been suggested that al-
ternating the scan strategy between layers can homogenize the final
stress distribution [91]. Indeed, Robinson et al. [96] in a study of
multiple scanning strategies, determined that a 90° rotation (of a full-
length scan) between layers resulted in the most uniform stress dis-
tribution and the lowest magnitude of RS for any rotating pattern.
Though it should be noted, that due to the anisotropy in longitudinal
and transverse directions, that stress in a single analyzed geometric
direction can be minimized by using a scan pattern facing the opposite
direction. In a FE study of 8 different scan strategies, Cheng et al. [117]
determined the most uniform and lowest magnitude stress field was
obtained by using a full-length line scanning strategy set at 45° with
respect to one edge of a square specimen; rotation between layers, in
this case, did not reduce RS. Kruth et al. [138] determined distortion
could be minimized by using an island scan strategy which rotated by
45° between layers. Dunbar et al. [40] reported, through in situ
144
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149
distortion measurements, a 37.5% reduction in distortion magnitude by
rotating the (full-length) raster by 67° layer-to-layer.
From these studies, it is clearly evident that the beam scanning
strategy dictates the resulting stress field orientation and homogeneity
while also playing an important role in determining the stress magni-
tude. The scan strategy directly controls in-plane RS anisotropy on a
single layer and a layer-to-layer basis, while having a limited effect on
stress/strain in the build-direction [74]. Fig. 14 demonstrates the re-
ported effects of varying the scan strategy on the residual stress dis-
tribution. It is also important to state that other scan strategies are
possible, and more complex strategies may be developed through fur-
ther investigations. For example, Cheng et al. [117] studied a spiraling
scan pattern working either inward to or outward from the part center.
Other more complex patterns may also be developed taking into ac-
count the formation mechanisms of RS in PBF processing, e.g. new
patterns may seek to minimize thermal gradients and cooling/con-
traction mismatch both intra- and inter- layer, which results in RS
formation. We also point out that some of these scan patterns are not
possible on all PBF machines; in some cases users have limited or no
control over the raster pattern.
From this analysis of the literature, it is clear that selection of
process variables in PBF processing critically affects the resulting re-
sidual stresses. Generally speaking, we observe that direct changes to
the energy input (e.g. beam power, scan speed, scan vector length) and
changes which affect process thermal conditions through either direct
application (e.g. preheating, pre-/re- scanning) or indirect modification
(e.g. geometry, dwell time, layer thickness) result in drastic changes to
RS magnitude by altering heat transfer conditions and cooling rates.
Meanwhile, the strategy in which material is melted (scan pattern) on
both a single layer and layer-to-layer basis drives the resulting dis-
tribution of residual stresses. Table 3 provides a summary of all pro-
cessing parameters discussed and their general observed effect on re-
sidual stress development.
5. Conclusions and outlook
From the tremendous and growing research interest in metal AM it
is evident that the technology will only further expand into new mar-
kets and larger industrial applications in the coming years [2,5]. The
continued growth of the technology is spurred by the potential the
method holds to produce complex parts in new ways and the potential
to change the manufacturing landscape. Wohlers Report 2018 [161]
reported a nearly 80% increase in the sales of metal AM systems from
2016 to 2017, reflecting the growing interest in the method. With in-
creasing adoption of AM processing it is more important now than ever
to fully understand and characterize the process. The complex residual
stresses that develop in these parts must be understood in relation to all
processing and material variables in order to develop high quality parts
with known properties.
The discussions of stresses in PBF parts made within the body of this
review have focused on the resulting stress states in parts as-built.
However, a discussion of RS in additive parts would not be complete
without mentioning the most commonly employed external methods of
mitigation; residual stress is primarily counteracted in additive parts
through post-processing. Stress relieving heat treatments are the most
common approach and can be very effective in reducing RS. Song et al.
[162] found RS in iron SLM parts could be nearly eliminated by vacuum
heat treatment at 640 °C. A 70% reduction in stress was found using a
700 °C heat treatment for Chrome Molybdenum steel [89]. Similar re-
sults have been found for a wide range of materials
[89,99,102,106,138]. However, the temperature for these treatments
must be carefully selected based on material properties to avoid mi-
crostructural changes (e.g. recrystallization, precipitation, grain
growth, etc.) if undesired [163]. Additionally, often tensile residual
stresses developed during manufacturing, which are damaging to fa-
tigue life, can be counteracted by inducing compressive surface RS
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149

Fig. 14. Reported effects of changes in scanning patterns on residual stress magnitude and distribution: a) RS magnitude versus island size [153], b) effect of scan
vector direction on measured distortion angle magnitude [138], c) residual stress magnitude versus three different rotation angles layer-to-layer [91] and d) FE RS
distributions from two different scan strategies [118].

through shot-peening [60,164–166]; this method has been applied and
studied with regards to AM parts as well [150]. However, these
methods to reduce RS post-process add additional time and expense to
an already cost-prohibitive process, which further limits the industrial
adoption of AM. If the need for these additional processing steps can be
eliminated through improved single-step processing changes, accep-
tance of AM techniques may be further increased.
From our survey of the literature we can conclude that a great deal
of knowledge has been established in the field. Residual stress in AM
has been studied with regards to process parameters, material proper-
ties and geometry. Researchers have analyzed RS in AM using ex situ
methods such as hole drilling or XRD, finite element modeling, in situ
strain and distortion measurements and specialized part geometries.
From these investigations, we conclude that the most consistently in-
fluential variables in controlling RS magnitude in PBF processing, re-
gardless of material, are: base plate heating, beam power and beam
scan speed (the latter two can be linked to the notion of “volumetric
energy density”). We also conclude from our review that anisotropy in
the residual stress fields in PBF processing can be most directly con-
trolled by altering the raster pattern of the print, where rotating pat-
terns and the island scan method tended to reduce anisotropy in the
parts.
We have also assembled a large collection of data to analyze ma-
terial property dependence on resulting residual stress magnitude and
can conclude from this unique survey that thermal diffusivity and
thermal conductivity both play a large role in controlling the magnitude
of residual stress developed. Static mechanical properties, namely in-
creasing ultimate tensile strength and yield strength, were found to
weakly correlate with an increase in resulting RS. This analysis suggests
that the thermal material properties play a more dominant role in RS
development than the mechanical properties during PBF processing.
This understanding may aid in efforts to identify unique material che-
mistries more suitable to PBF processing, which has been a topic of
significant interest in the field [166–170].
Thus far, most studies in the literature have linked only single
variables (e.g. beam power, scan speed, etc.) to the resulting RS mag-
nitude or orientation. These studies frequently also focus on a single
material. This approach has resulted in a great deal of general process
knowledge (as summarized in Table 3) yet misses potential coupled
effects of multiple variables and/or material property effects. For ex-
ample, the enormous material dependence that is coupled with inter-
layer dwell time reported by Denlinger et al. [130] demonstrates that

Table 3
Summary of known processing parameter relationships to residual stress development. Note that some parameters have been reported to have different effects
between various studies, in these cases the more commonly observed effect found in the literature is reported and the parameter is indicated by *.
Parameter General effect on RS References

Beam power Higher power results in higher RS [38,110,123]

Scan speed Higher scan speeds result in lower RS [38,84,89,110,123,156]
Scan vector length Longer vectors produce higher RS [92,93,116]
Base plate heating Higher temperature lowers RS [82,84,89,97,111,112,113,129,158]
Layer thickness* Thicker layers lower RS [91,113,129]
Part geometry/size* Increased part size increases RS [82,94,113,118,129]
Interlayer Dwell time Material dependent. Affects RS magnitude [130]
Beam pre-scan/re-scan Reduces RS magnitude when implemented [82,90,138,160]
Scan/raster orientation Controls RS distribution. Also affects RS magnitude [38,40,82,84–91,92,93,96,113,116,117,138,153]

145
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li
Fig. 15. Suggested roadmap for past and future research regarding residual
stress development in metal powder bed fusion. In this paradigm, stages I and II
are largely fulfilled; the review covered all of the most pertinent findings from
these two stages of research. Future work is suggested to focus on stage III,
which will lead towards the ultimate goal of stage IV. The natural flow of this
research is the basis for this roadmap.
variables must be understood holistically in AM for effective qualifi-
cation with respect to residual stresses. To better understand residual
stress development during additive manufacturing moving forward, we
conclude that non-invasive in situ monitoring methods are necessary
[6,20]. The ability to monitor and estimate both residual stress mag-
nitudes and distributions during part production will lead to a more
complete understanding of multivariable relationships and will also
lead to more effective part qualification. While significant research has
been conducted on in-process measurements of temperature or irregu-
larities with regards to porosity or microstructure [43,131,171–175],
very little has been reported to measure RS in-process. The in-process
RS/distortion measurements made thus far (Section 3.2) have used
sensors mounted in the base-plate, which have provided valuable data
but do not capture full-field information, and do not assess strain in the
newly deposited layer. The development of effective full-field in-pro-
cess RS measurements may result in achievable real-time control stra-
tegies to either eliminate RS or induce intentional anisotropy and op-
timized properties for specific applications. Fig. 15 provides a roadmap
highlighting both past and future suggested research, as described
above. Stages I and II have been very widely researched and resulted in
the bulk of the current knowledge presented throughout this review;
some work remains to be done within Stage II, to elucidate the potential
for more complex multivariable effects on RS. Stage III (in situ mon-
itoring) has been very limitedly explored thus far, and we suggest
further work be performed in this arena to better understand process
phenomena and stress development in-process. This work will then
provide the fundamental basis for, and will naturally lead towards, the
Stage IV research, which we envision as the ultimate goal of work in
this field: residual stress control and optimization, with direct in-
146
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149
process qualification. An appealing route to achieving this goal is the
utilization of machine learning (ML) techniques. ML has the unique
ability to analyze and interpret data without a priori knowledge of ex-
pected results (i.e. unsupervised learning) [176–178]. ML has garnered
interest recently in the AM field, primarily for detection of process
anomalies, geometric distortion or melt pool track formation (e.g. as
provided by in situ optical/infrared imaging or by ex situ inspection) and
has primarily been used to analyze data post-process or predictively
identify different processing regions [177,179–182]. With further im-
provements in processing speed and methodologies, and when coupled
with appropriate in situ monitoring approaches with high-throughput
data capture, ML may be adapted to analyze conditions in real-time and
provide intelligent, automated, control and optimization in PBF pro-
cessing for both defect detection and RS estimation.
We also feel compelled to shed light on another interesting inter-
action not often discussed with regards to RS in PBF components.
Looking from a wider perspective, defect formation, especially lack of
fusion (LoF) defects, is another important roadblock to process accep-
tance and qualification in PBF processing [6,183]. These LoF defects are
generally large with irregular/sharp geometries, and the question can
then be raised: what is the effect of the stress-field interaction with
these defects during part production? These LoF defects often feature
sharp edges extended along the in-plane direction (parallel to layer
planes) and are the most detrimental defect to fatigue properties
[28,31,102]. During subsequent reheating of the material during the
deposition of following layers, the stress developed around the defect
may lead to material failure and crack formation at these sites where
the stress-field concentrates. This phenomenon has in fact been ob-
served in past characterization of SLM parts, where LoF defects were
observed to feature small crack onset by the end of part production,
with no externally applied mechanical loading. Therefore, there exists a
critical interaction between process defects and the developed stress
states, in which crack initiation can occur during part production, a
debilitating result for mechanical properties. A similar discussion can
be made regarding intermetallic compound formation. Several com-
monly processed PBF alloys can form intermetallics or oxides during
production. Thijs et al. [146], for example, found in SLM processing of
Ti-6Al-4V that with increased energy density the formation of Ti3Al was
exacerbated by the segregation of Al. These brittle intermetallics (or
oxides) may then be subject to failure in the matrix when the stress
fields interact with them during subsequent layer deposition, resulting
in a crack defect in the part. These interactions and relationships be-
tween stress-fields during production and LoF defects or undesirable
precipitates warrant further investigation.
Given the tremendous knowledge base established thus far for in-
dividual variable effects on RS in PBF processing, we conclude that
increased emphasis should now be placed on in-process monitoring and
understanding multivariable relationships with respect to RS develop-
ment, leading towards effective process control and optimization of
residual stresses in additive parts. Improving part properties and re-
ducing necessary processing steps simultaneously by increasing our
holistic understanding of residual stress development in additive man-
ufacturing will lead to lower costs and higher acceptance of PBF pro-
cessing.
References
[1] I. Campbell, D. Bourell, I. Gibson, Additive manufacturing: rapid prototyping
comes of age, Rapid Prototyp. J. 18 (4) (2012) 255–258.
[2] S.H. Huang, P. Liu, A. Mokasdar, L. Hou, Additive manufacturing and its societal
impact: a literature review, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 67 (2013) 1191–1203.
[3] L.E. Murr, S.M. Gaytan, D.A. Ramirez, E. Martinez, J. Hernandez, K.N. Amato,
P.W. Shindo, F.R. Medina, R.B. Wicker, Metal fabrication by additive manu-
facturing using laser and electron beam melting technologies, J. Mater. Sci.
Technol. 28 (1) (2012) 1–14.
[4] J.P. Kruth, L. Froyen, J. Van Vaerenbergh, P. Mercelis, M. Rombouts, B. Lauwers,
Selective laser melting of iron-based powder, J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 149 (2004)
616–622.
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li
[5] B.P. Conner, G.P. Manogharan, A.N. Martof, L.M. Rodomsky, C.M. Rodomsky,
D.C. Jordan, J.W. Limperos, Making sense of 3-D printing: creating a map of ad-
ditive manufacturing products and services, Addit. Manuf. 1–4 (2014) 64–76.
[6] W.E. Frazier, Metal additive manufacturing: a review, JMEPEG 23 (6) (2014)
1917–1928.
[7] K. Wong, A. Hernandez, A review of additive manufacturing, ISRN Mech. Eng.
208760 (2012) (2012) 1–10.
[8] D.D. Gu, W. Meiners, K. Wissenbach, R. Poprawe, Laser additive manufacturing of
metallic components: materials, processes, and mechanisms, Int. Mater. Rev. 57
(3) (2012) 133–164.
[9] Z. Wang, T.A. Palmer, A.M. Beese, Effect of processing parameters on micro-
structure and tensile properties of austenitic stainless steel 304L made by directed
energy deposition additive manufacturing, Acta Mater. 110 (2016) 226–235.
[10] Q. Yang, P. Zhang, L. Cheng, Z. Min, M. Chyu, A.C. To, Finite element modeling
and validation of thermomechanical behavior of Ti-6Al-4V in directed energy
deposition additive manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 12 (2016) 169–177.
[11] S. Palanivel, P. Nelaturu, B. Glass, R.S. Mishra, Friction stir additive manu-
facturing for high structural performance through microstructural control in an
Mg based WE43 alloy, Mater. Des. 65 (2015) 934–952.
[12] S. Palanivel, H. Sidhar, R.S. Mishra, Friction stir additive manufacturing: route to
high structural performance, JOM 67 (3) (2015) 616–621.
[13] M. Seifi, A. Salem, J. Beuth, O. Harrysson, J.J. Lewandowski, Overview of mate-
rials qualification needs for metal additive manufacturing, JOM 68 (3) (2016)
747–764.
[14] W.E. King, A.T. Anderson, R.M. Ferencz, N.E. Hodge, C. Kamath, S.A. Khairallah,
A.M. Rubenchik, Laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing of metals;
physics, computational and materials challenges, Appl. Phys. Rev. 2 (041304)
(2015) 1–26.
[15] M.F. Zah, S. Lutzmann, Modelling and simulation of electron beam melting, Prod.
Eng. Res. Dev. 4 (2010) 15–23.
[16] T. Caffrey, T. Wohlers, Wohlers Report- 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing
State of Industry, Wohlers Associates, 2015.
[17] J.P. Kruth, M.C. Leu, T. Nakagawa, Progress in additive manufacturing and rapid
prototyping, CIRP 47 (2) (1998) 525–540.
[18] M. Agarwala, D. Bourell, J. Beaman, H. Marcus, J. Barlow, Direct selective laser
sintering of Metals, Rapid Prototyp. J. 1 (1) (1995) 26–36.
[19] X. Gong, T. Anderson, K. Chou, Review on powder-based electron beam additive
manufacturing technology, Manuf. Rev. 1 (2) (2014) 1–12.
[20] N. Guo, M.C. Leu, Additive manufacturing: technology, applications and research
needs, Front. Mech, Eng. 8 (3) (2013) 215–243.
[21] E. Louvis, P. Fox, C.J. Sutcliffe, Selective laser melting of aluminum components,
J. Mater. Process. Technol. 211 (2011) 275–284.
[22] C.Y. Yap, C.K. Chua, Z.L. Dong, Z.H. Liu, D.Q. Zhang, L.E. Loh, S.L. Sing, Review of
selective laser melting: materials and applications, Appl. Phys. Rev. 2 (041101)
(2015) 1–21.
[23] J.P. Kruth, M. Badrossamay, E. Yasa, J. Deckers, L. Thijs, J. Van Humbeeck, Part
and material properties in selective laser melting of metals, ISEM XVI (2010) 1–12.
[24] P. Hanzl, M. Zetek, T. Baksa, T. Kroupa, The influence of processing parameters on
the mechanical properties of SLM parts, Procedia Eng. 100 (2015) 1405–1413.
[25] T. Kurzynowski, K. Gruber, W. Stopyra, B. Kuznicka, E. Chlebus, Correlation be-
tween process parameters, microstructure and properties of 316L stainless steel
processed by selective laser melting, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 718 (2018) 64–73.
[26] H. Meier, Ch. Haberland, Experimental studies on selective laser melting of me-
tallic parts, Mat. -wiss. U. Werkstofftech 39 (9) (2008) 665–670.
[27] K. Kempen, L. Thijs, J. Van Humbeeck, J.P. Kruth, Processing AlSi10Mg by se-
lective laser melting: parameter optimization and material characterization,
Mater. Sci. Technol. 31 (8) (2015) 917–923.
[28] E. Wycisk, C. Emmelmann, S. Siddique, F. Walther, High cycle fatigue (HCF)
performance of Ti-6Al-4V alloy processed by selective laser melting, Adv. Mater.
Res. 816–817 (2013) 134–139.
[29] T. Debroy, H.L. Wei, J.S. Zuback, T. Mukherjee, J.W. Elmer, J.O. Milewski,
A.M. Beese, A. Wilson-Heid, A. De, W. Zhang, Additive manufacturing of metallic
components – process, structure and properties, Prog. Mater. Sci. 92 (2018)
112–224.
[30] H. Gong, K. Rafi, T. Starr, B. Stucker, The effects of processing parameters on
defect regularity in Ti-6Al-4V parts fabricated by selective laser melting and
electron beam melting, 24Th Ann. Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, (2013),
pp. 424–439.
[31] H. Gong, K. Rafi, H. Gu, G.D. Janaki Ram, T. Starr, B. Stucker, Influence of defects
on mechanical properties of Ti-6Al-4V components produced by selective laser
melting and electron beam melting, Mater. Des. 86 (2015) 545–554.
[32] B. Zhang, Y. Li, Q. Bai, Defect formation mechanisms in selective laser melting: a
review, Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 30 (2017) 515–527.
[33] S.K. Everton, M. Hirsch, P. Stravroulakis, R.K. Leach, A.T. Clare, Review of in-situ
process monitoring and in-situ metrology for metal additive manufacturing,
Mater. Des. 95 (2016) 431–445.
[34] W.E. King, H.D. Barth, V.M. Castillo, G.F. Gallegos, J.W. Gibbs, D.E. Hahn,
C. Kamath, A.M. Rubenchik, Observation of keyhole-mode laser melting in laser
powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 214 (12)
(2014) 2915–2925.
[35] K. Darvish, Z.W. Chen, T. Pasang, Reducing lack of fusion during selective laser
melting of CoCrMo alloy: effect of laser power on geometrical features of tracks,
Mater. Des. 112 (2016) 357–366.
[36] T. Mukherjee, J.S. Zuback, A. De, T. Debroy, Printability of alloys for additive
manufacturing, Sci. Rep. 6 (19717) (2016) 1–8.
[37] C.R. Knowles, T.H. Becker, R.B. Tait, Residual stress measurements and structural
147
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149
integrity implications for selective laser melted Ti-6Al-4V, S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 23
(2) (2012) 119–129.
[38] T. Simson, A. Emmel, A. Dwars, J. Bohm, Residual stress measurements on AISI
316L samples manufactured by selective laser melting, Addit. Manuf. 17 (2017)
183–189.
[39] I. Yadroitsev, I. Yadroitsava, Evaluation of residual stress in stainless steel 316L
and Ti6Al4V samples produced by selective laser melting, Virtual Phys. Proto. 10
(2) (2015) 67–76.
[40] A.J. Dunbar, E.R. Denlinger, J. Heigel, P. Michaleris, P. Guerrier, R. Martukanitz,
T.W. Simpson, Development of experimental method for in situ distortion and
temperature measurements during the laser powder bed fusion additive manu-
facturing process, Addit. Manuf. 12 (2016) 25–30.
[41] T. Kurzynowski, E. Chlebus, B. Kuznicka, J. Reiner, Parameters in selective laser
melting for processing metallic powders, Proc. SPIE 8239, High Power Laser
Materials Processing: Lasers, Beam Delivery, Diagnostics, and Applications
823914 (2012) 1–7.
[42] T. Craeghs, S. Clijsters, J.P. Kruth, F. Bechmann, M.-C. Ebert, Detection of process
failures in layerwise laser melting with optical process monitoring, Phys. Proc. 39
(2012) 753–759.
[43] S. Clijsters, T. Craeghs, S. Buls, K. Kempen, J.-P. Kruth, In situ quality control of
the selective laser melting process using a high-speed, real-time melt pool mon-
itoring system, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 75 (2014) 1089–1101.
[44] A. Bauereis, T. Scharowsky, C. Korner, Defect generation and propagation me-
chanism during additive manufacturing by selective beam melting, J. Mater. Proc.
Technol. 214 (2014) 2522–2528.
[45] H. Lipson, Frontiers in additive manufacturing: the shape of things to come, Bridge
Front. Eng. 42 (1) (2012) 5–12.
[46] L.E. Murr, S.M. Gaytan, F. Medina, H. Lopez, E. Martinez, B.I. Machado,
D.H. Hernandez, L. Martinez, M.I. Lopez, R.B. Wicker, J. Bracke, Next-generation
biomedical implants using additive manufacturing of complex, cellular and
functional mesh arrays, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 368 (2010) 1999–2032.
[47] A. Uriondo, M. Esperon-Miguez, S. Perinpanayagam, The present and future of
additive manufacturing in the aerospace sector: a review of important aspects, J.
Aerospace Eng. 229 (11) (2015) 2132–2147.
[48] S.K. Everton, M. Hirsch, P. Stravroulakis, R.K. Leach, A.T. Clare, Review of in-situ
process monitoring and in situ metrology for metal additive manufacturing, Mater.
Des. 95 (2016) 431–445.
[49] G. Tapia, A. Elwany, A review on process monitoring and control in metal-based
additive manufacturing, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 136 (060801) (2014) 1–10.
[50] T.G. Spears, S.A. Gold, In-process sensing in selective laser melting (SLM) additive
manufacturing, Int. Mater. Manuf. Innov. 5 (2) (2016) 1–25.
[51] Z. Luo, Y. Zhao, A survey of finite element analysis of temperature and thermal
stress fields in powder bed fusion additive manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 21
(2018) 318–332.
[52] H. Bikas, P. Stavropoulos, G. Chryssolouris, Additive manufacturing methods and
modelling approaches: a critical review, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 83 (2016)
389–405.
[53] K. Zeng, D. Pal, B. Stucker, A review of thermal analysis methods in laser sintering
and selective laser melting, Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, (2012), pp.
796–814.
[54] C. Li, Z.Y. Liu, X.Y. Fang, Y.B. Guo, Residual stress in metal additive manu-
facturing, Proc. CIRP 71 (2018) 348–353.
[55] G.E. Dieter, Mechanical Metallurgy, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1961.
[56] I.C. Noyan, J.B. Cohen, Residual Stress—Measurement by Diffraction and
Interpretation, Springer, New York, 1987.
[57] P.J. Withers, H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia, Residual stress. Part 2 – nature and origins,
Mater. Sci. Technol. 17 (4) (2001) 366–375.
[58] P.J. Withers, Residual stress and its role in failure, Rep. Prog. Phys. 70 (2007)
2211–2264.
[59] P.J. Withers, H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia, Residual stress. Part 1 – measurement techni-
ques, Mater. Sci. Technol. 17 (4) (2001) 355–365.
[60] M. Kobayashi, T. Matsui, Y. Murakami, Mechanism of creation of compressive
residual stress by shot peening, Int. J. Fatigue 20 (5) (1998) 351–357.
[61] L. Pintschovius, V. Jung, E. Macherauch, O. Vohringer, Residual stress measure-
ments by means of neutron diffraction, Mater. Sci. Eng. 61 (1983) 43–50.
[62] C. Simsir, C. Hakan Gur, 3D FEM simulation of steel quenching and investigation
of the effect of asymmetric geometry on residual stress distribution, J. Mater. Proc.
Technol. 207 (2008) 211–221.
[63] V. Schulze, O. Vohringer, E. Macherauch, Theory and technology of quenching: a
handbook, Ch. 9: Residual Stresses After Quenching, 2nd edition, CRC Press, Boca
Baton, 2010, pp. 229–288.
[64] G.G. Stoney, The tension of metallic films deposited by electrolysis, Proc. R. Soc.
Lond. 82 (553) (1909) 172–175.
[65] J.D. Eshelby, The determination of the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion, and
related problems, Proc. R. Soc. London 241 (1226) (1957) 376–396.
[66] A.M. Korsunsky, G.M. Regino, D. Nowell, Variational eigenstrain analysis of re-
sidual stresses in a welded plate, Int. J. Solids Struct. 44 (2007) 4574–4591.
[67] Y. Ueda, M.G. Yuan, Prediction of residual stresses in butt welded plates using
inherent strains, J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 115 (1993) 417–423.
[68] D. Vangi, Residual stress evaluation by the hole-drilling method with off-center
hole: an extension of the integral method, J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 119 (1997)
79–85.
[69] M.T. Flaman, B.H. Manning, Determination of residual-stress variati3on with
depth by the hole-drilling method, Exp. Mech. 25 (3) (1985) 205–207.
[70] P. Pagliaro, M.B. Prime, H. Swenson, B. Zuccarello, Measuring multiple residual-
stress components using the contour method and multiple cuts, Exp. Mech. 50
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li
(187) (2010) 187–194.
[71] M.B. Prime, Cross-sectional mapping of residual stresses by measuring the surface
contour after a cut, J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 123 (2001) 162–168.
[72] Y. Zhang, S. Ganguly, L. Edwards, M.E. Fitzpatrick, Cross-sectional mapping of
residual stresses in a VPPA weld using the contour method, Acta Mater. 52 (2004)
5225–5232.
[73] M.B. Prime, R.J. Sebring, J.M. Edwards, D.J. Hughes, P.J. Webster, Laser surface-
contouring and spline data-smoothing for residual stress measurement, Exp. Mech.
44 (2004) 176–184.
[74] A.S. Wu, D.W. Brown, M. Kumar, G.F. Gallegos, W.E. King, An experimental in-
vestigation into additive manufacturing- induced residual stresses in 316L stain-
less steel, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 45A (2014) 6260–6270.
[75] O. Anderoglu, Residual Stress Measurement Using X-Ray Diffraction, Mech. Eng.
Thesis Texas A&M University, 2004.
[76] M.E. Fitzpatrick, Determination of Residual Stresses by X-Ray Diffraction: Issue 2,
National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, 2005.
[77] P.S. Prevey, X-Ray Diffraction Residual Stress Techniques, Metals Handbook,
American Society for Metals, 1986, pp. 380–392.
[78] K. Van Acker, J. Root, P. Van Houtte, E. Aernoudt, Neutron diffraction measure-
ment of the residual stress in the cementite and ferrite phases of cold-drawn steel
wires, Acta Mater. 44 (10) (1996) 4039–4049.
[79] A. Allen, M. Hutchings, C. Windsor, C. Andreani, Neutron diffraction methods for
the study of residual stress fields, Adv. Phys. 34 (4) (1985) 445–473.
[80] M. Strantza, R.K. Ganeriwala, B. Clausen, T.Q. Phan, L.E. Levine, D. Pagan,
W.E. King, N.E. Hodge, D.W. Brown, Coupled experimental and computational
study of residual stresses in additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V components,
Mater. Lett. 231 (2018) 221–224.
[81] L.M. Sochalski-Kolbus, E.A. Payzant, P.A. Cornwell, T.R. Watkins, S.S. Babu,
R.R. Dehoff, M. Lorenz, O. Ovchinnikova, C. Duty, Comparison of residual stresses
in Inconel 718 simple parts made by electron beam melting and direct laser metal
sintering, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 46A (2015) 1419–1432.
[82] P. Mercelis, J.P. Kruth, Residual stresses in selective laser sintering and selective
laser melting, Rapid Prototyp. 12 (5) (2006) 254–265.
[83] C. Li, J.F. Liu, X.Y. Fang, Y.B. Guo, Efficient predictive model of part distortion and
residual stress in selective laser melting, Addit. Manuf. 17 (2017) 157–168.
[84] A. Hussein, L. Hao, C. Yan, R. Everson, Finite element simulation of the tem-
perature and stress fields in single layers built without-support in selective laser
melting, Mater. Des. 52 (2013) 638–647.
[85] D. Gu, Y.-C. Hagedorn, W. Meiners, G. Meng, R.J.S. Batista, K. Wissenbach,
R. Poprawe, Densification behavior, microstructure evolution, and wear perfor-
mance of selective laser melting processed commercially pure titanium, Acta
Mater. 60 (2012) 3849–3860.
[86] E. Denlinger, M. Gouge, J. Irwin, P. Michaleris, Thermomechanical model devel-
opment and in situ experimental validation of the laser powder-bed fusion process,
Addit. Manuf. 16 (2017) 73–80.
[87] R.J. Williams, C.M. Davies, P.A. Hooper, A pragmatic part scale model for residual
stress and distortion prediction in powder bed fusion, Addit. Manuf. 22 (2018)
416–425.
[88] J. Ding, P. Colegrove, J. Mehnen, S. Ganguly, P.M.S. Almeida, F. Wang,
S. Williams, Thermo-mechanical analysis of wire and arc additive layer manu-
facturing process on large multi-layer parts, Comp. Mater. Sci. 50 (2011)
3315–3322.
[89] M. Shiomi, K. Osakada, K. Nakamura, T. Yamashita, F. Abe, Residual stress within
metallic model made by selective laser melting process, CIRP Ann. 53 (1) (2004)
195–198.
[90] B. Vrancken, V. Cain, R. Knutsen, J. Van Humbeeck, Residual stress via the con-
tour method in compact tension specimens produced via selective laser melting,
Scripta Mater. 87 (2014) 29–32.
[91] L.S. Anderson, A.M. Venter, B. Vrancken, D. Marais, J. Van Humbeeck,
T.H. Becker, Investigating the residual stress distribution in selective laser melting
produced Ti-6Al-4V using neutron diffraction, Mater. Res. Proc. 4 (2018) 73–78.
[92] Y. Liu, Y. Yang, D. Wang, A study on the residual stress during selective laser
melting (SLM) of metallic powder, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 87 (2016)
647–656.
[93] L. Parry, I.A. Ashcroft, R.D. Wildman, Understanding the effect of laser scan
strategy on residual stress in selective laser melting through thermo-mechanical
simulation, Addit. Manuf. 12 (2016) 1–15.
[94] I. Yadroitsava, S. Grewar, D. Hattingh, I. Yadroitsev, Residual stress in SLM
Ti6Al4V alloy specimens, Mater. Sci. Forum 828–829 (2015) 305–310.
[95] A.V. Gusarov, M. Pavlov, I. Smurov, Residual stresses at laser surface remelting
and additive manufacturing, Phys. Proc. 12 (2011) 248–254.
[96] J. Robinson, I. Ashton, P. Fox, E. Jones, C. Sutcliffe, Determination of the effect of
scan strategy on residual stress in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing,
Addit. Manuf. (2018).
[97] B. Zhang, L. Dembinski, C. Coddet, The study of the laser parameters and en-
vironment variables effect on mechanical properties of high compact parts ela-
borated by selective laser melting 316L powder, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 584 (2013)
21–31.
[98] J.H. Rao, Y. Zhang, X. Fang, Y. Chen, X. Wu, C.H.J. Davies, The origins for tensile
properties of selective laser melted aluminum alloy A357, Addit. Manuf. 17 (2017)
113–122.
[99] D. Zhang, W. Niu, X. Cao, Z. Liu, Effect of standard heat treatment on the mi-
crostructure and mechanical properties of selective laser melting manufactured
Inconel 718 superalloy, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 644 (2015) 32–40.
[100] V. Cain, L. Thijs, J. Van Humbeeck, B. Van Hooreweder, R. Knutsen, Crack pro-
pagation and fracture toughness of Ti6Al4V alloy produced by selective laser
148
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149
melting, Addit. Manuf. 5 (2015) 68–76.
[101] P. Edwards, M. Ramulu, Fatigue performance evaluation of selective laser melted
Ti-6Al-4V, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 598 (2014) 327–337.
[102] S. Leuders, M. Thone, A. Riemer, T. Niendorf, T. Troster, H.A. Richard, H.J. Maier,
On the mechanical behaviour of titanium alloy Ti6AlV4 manufactured by selective
laser melting: fatigue resistance and crack growth performance, Int. J. Fatigue 48
(2013) 300–307.
[103] G. Kasperovich, J. Hausmann, Improvement of fatigue resistance and ductility of
TiAl6V4 processed by selective laser melting, J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 220 (2015)
202–214.
[104] T. Mukherjee, W. Zhang, T. Debroy, An improved prediction of residual stresses
and distortion in additive manufacturing, Comp. Mater. Sci. 126 (2017) 360–372.
[105] A. Riemer, S. Leuders, M. Thone, H.A. Richard, T. Troster, T. Niendorf, On the
fatigue crack growth behavior in 316L stainless steel manufactured by selective
laser melting, Eng. Fract. Mech. 120 (2014) 15–25.
[106] E. Brandl, U. Heckenberger, V. Holzinger, D. Buchbinder, Additive manufactured
AlSi10Mg samples using selective laser melting (SLM): microstructure, high cycle
fatigue, and fracture behavior, Mater. Des. 34 (2012) 159–169.
[107] E. Chlebus, B. Kuznicka, T. Kurzynowski, B. Dybala, Microstructure and me-
chanical behaviour of Ti-6Al-7Nb alloy produced by selective laser melting, Mater.
Char. 62 (2011) 488–495.
[108] T. Niendorf, S. Leuders, A. Riemer, H.A. Richard, T. Troster, D. Schwarze, Highly
anisotropic steel processed by selective laser melting, Metall. Mater. Trans. B 44B
(2013) 794–796.
[109] P. Prabhakar, W.J. Sames, R. Dehoff, S.S. Babu, Computational modeling of re-
sidual stress formation during the electron beam melting process for Inconel 718,
Addit. Manuf. 7 (2015) 83–91.
[110] G. Vastola, G. Zhang, Q.X. Pei, Y.-W. Zhang, Controlling of residual stress in ad-
ditive manufacturing of Ti6Al4V by finite element modeling, Addit. Manuf. 12
(2016) 231–239.
[111] X. Zhao, A. Lyer, P. Promoppatum, S.-C. Yao, Numerical modeling of the thermal
behavior and residual stress in the direct metal laser sintering process of titanium
alloy products, Addit. Manuf. 14 (2017) 126–136.
[112] N.E. Hodge, R.M. Ferencz, R.M. Vignes, Experimental comparison of residual
stresses for a thermomechanical model for the simulation of selective laser
melting, Addit. Manuf. 12 (2016) 159–168.
[113] M.F. Zaeh, G. Branner, Investigations on residual stresses and deformations in
selective laser melting, Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. 4 (2010) 35–45.
[114] N. Contuzzi, S.L. Campanelli, A.D. Ludovico, 3D finite element analysis in the
selective laser melting process, Int. J. Simul. Model. 10 (3) (2013) 113–121.
[115] B. Song, S. Dong, H. Liao, C. Coddet, Process parameter selection for selective laser
melting of Ti6Al4V based on temperature distribution simulation and experi-
mental sintering, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 61 (2012) 967–974.
[116] M. Matsumoto, M. Shiomi, K. Osakada, F. Abe, Finite element analysis of single
layer forming on metallic powder bed in rapid prototyping by selective laser
processing, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 42 (2002) 61–67.
[117] B. Cheng, S. Shrestha, K. Chou, Stress and deformation evaluations of scanning
strategy effect in selective laser melting, Addit. Manuf. 12 (2016) 240–251.
[118] Y. Zhang, J. Zhang, Finite element simulation and experimental validation of
distortion and cracking failure phenomena in direct metal laser sintering fabri-
cated component, Addit. Manuf. 16 (2017) 49–57.
[119] P. Michaleris, Modeling metal deposition in heat transfer analyses of additive
manufacturing processes, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 86 (2014) 51–60.
[120] E. Denlinger, P. Michaleris, Effect of stress relaxation on distortion in additive
manufacturing process modeling, Addit. Manuf. 12 (2016) 51–59.
[121] S. Kolossov, E. Boillat, R. Glardon, P. Fischer, M. Locher, 3D FE simulation for
temperature evolution in the selective laser sintering process, Intl. J. Mach. Tools
Manuf. 44 (2004) 117–123.
[122] Y. Yang, M.F. Knol, F. Van Keulen, C. Ayas, A semi-analytical thermal modeling
approach for selective laser melting, Addit. Manuf. 21 (2018) 284–297.
[123] T. Mukherjee, V. Manvatkar, A. De, T. Debroy, Mitigation of thermal distortion
during additive manufacturing, Scripta Mater. 127 (2017) 79–83.
[124] C. Li, J.F. Liu, Y.B. Guo, Prediction of residual stress and part distortion in selective
laser melting, Procedia CIRP 45 (2016) 171–174.
[125] J.L. Bartlett, B.P. Croom, J. Burdick, D. Henkel, X. Li, Revealing mechanisms of
residual stress development in additive manufacturing via digital image correla-
tion, Addit. Manuf. 22 (2018) 1–12.
[126] M.R. Ardigo, M. Ahmed, A. Besnard, Stoney formula: investigation of curvature
measurements by optical profilometer, Adv. Mater. Res. 996 (IX) (2014) 361–366.
[127] V.A. Sethuraman, M.J. Chon, M. Shimshak, V. Srinivasan, P.R. Guduru, In situ
measurements of stress evolution in silicon thin films during electrochemical li-
thiation and delithiation, J. Power Sources 195 (2010) 5062–5066.
[128] T.M. Shaw, Z. Suo, M. Huang, E. Liniger, R.B. Laibowitz, J.D. Baniecki, The effect
of stress on the dielectric properties of barium strontium titanate thin films, Appl.
Phys. Lett. 75 (14) (1999) 2129–2131.
[129] L. Van Belle, G. Vansteenkiste, J.-C. Boyer, Investigation of residual stresses in-
duced during the selective laser melting process, Key Eng. Mater. 554–557 (2013)
1828–1834.
[130] E.R. Denlinger, J.C. Heigel, P. Michaleris, T.A. Palmer, Effect of inter-layer dwell
time on distortion and residual stress in additive manufacturing of titanium and
nickel alloys, J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 215 (2015) 123–131.
[131] H. Krauss, T. Zeugner, M.F. Zaeh, Layerwise monitoring of the selective laser
melting process by thermography, Phys. Proc. 56 (2014) 64–71.
[132] F. Bayle, M. Doubenskaia, Selective laser melting process monitoring with high
speed infra-red camera and pyrometer, Proc. SPIE 6985 (2008) 1–8.
[133] J. Raplee, A. Plotkowski, M.M. Kirka, R. Dinwiddie, A. Okello, R.R. Dehoff,
J.L. Bartlett and X. Li
S.S. Babu, Thermographic microstructure monitoring in electron beam additive
manufacturing, Sci. Rep. 7 (43554) (2017) 1–16.
[134] E. Rodriguez, J. Mireles, C.A. Terrazas, D. Espalin, M.A. Perez, R.B. Wicker,
Approximation of absolute surface temperature measurements of powder bed fu-
sion additive manufacturing technology using in situ infrared thermography,
Addit. Manuf. 5 (2015) 31–39.
[135] M. Islam, T. Purtonen, H. Piili, A. Salminen, O. Nyrhila, Temperature profile and
imaging analysis of laser additive manufacturing of stainless steel, Phys. Proc. 41
(2013) 835–842.
[136] R.B. Dinwiddie, R.R. Dehoff, P.D. Lloyd, L.E. Lowe, J.B. Ulrich, Thermographic in-
situ process monitoring of the electron-beam melting technology used in additive
manufacturing, Proc. SPIE 8705 (2013) 1–9.
[137] G. Bi, C.N. Sun, A. Gasser, Study on influential factors for process monitoring and
control in laser aided additive manufacturing, J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 213 (2013)
463–468.
[138] J.-P. Kruth, J. Deckers, E. Yasa, R. Wauthle, Assessing and comparing influencing
factors of residual stresses in selective laser melting using a novel analysis method,
Proc. IMechE B: J. Eng. Manuf. 226 (6) (2012) 980–991.
[139] S. Le Roux, M. Salem, A. Hor, Improvement of the bridge curvature method to
assess residual stresses in selective laser melting, Addit. Manuf. 22 (2018)
320–329.
[140] C.J. Smith, F. Derguti, E. Hernandez Nava, M. Thomas, S. Tammas-Williams,
S. Gulizia, D. Fraser, I. Todd, Dimensional accuracy of electron beam melting
(EBM) additive manufacture with regard to weight optimized truss structures, J.
Mater. Proc. Technol. 229 (2016) 128–138.
[141] P. Konda Gokuldoss, S. Kolla, J. Eckert, Additive manufacturing processes: selec-
tive laser melting, electron beam melting and binder jetting – selection guidelines,
Materials 10 (672) (2017) 1–12.
[142] N. Hrabe, T. Gnaupel-Herold, T. Quinn, Fatigue properties of a titanium alloy (Ti-
6Al-4V) fabricated via electron beam melting (EBM): effects of internal defects and
residual stress, Int. J. Fatigue 94 (2017) 202–210.
[143] J.J. Lewandowski, M. Seifi, Metal additive manufacturing: a review of mechanical
properties, Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 46 (2016) 151–186.
[144] C. Korner, Additive manufacturing of metallic components by selective electron
beam melting – a review, Intl. Mater. Rev. 61 (5) (2016) 361–377.
[145] H.K. Rafi, N.V. Karthik, H. Gong, T.L. Starr, B.E. Stucker, Microstructures and
mechanical properties of Ti6Al4V parts fabricated by selective laser melting and
electron beam melting, JMEPEG 22 (12) (2013) 3872–3883.
[146] L. Thijs, F. Verhaeghe, T. Craeghs, J. Van Humbeeck, J.-P. Kruth, A study of the
microstructural evolution during selective laser melting of Ti-6Al-4V, Acta Mater.
58 (2010) 3303–3312.
[147] H. Gong, K. Rafi, H. Gu, T. Starr, B. Stucker, Analysis of defect generation in Ti-
6Al-4V parts made using powder bed fusion additive manufacturing processes,
Addit. Manuf. 1-4 (2014) 87–98.
[148] B. Wysocki, P. Maj, R. Sitek, J. Buhagiar, K. Jan Kurzydlowski, W. Swieszkowski,
Laser and electron beam additive manufacturing methods of fabricating titanium
bone implants, Appl. Sci. 7 (657) (2017) 1–20.
[149] B. Vrancken, R. Wauthle, J.-P. Kruth, J. Van Humbeeck, Study of the influence of
material properties on residual stress in selective laser melting, Solid Freeform
Fabr. Symp. (2013) 393–407.
[150] N. Kalentics, E. Boillat, P. Peyre, S. Ciric-Kostic, N. Bogojevic, R.E. Loge, Tailoring
residual stress profile of selective laser melted parts by laser shock peening, Addit.
Manuf. 16 (2017) 90–97.
[151] C. Casavola, S.L. Campanelli, C. Pappalettere, Experimental analysis of residual
stresses in the selective laser melting process, Proc. XIth Intl. Cong. And Expo.
SEM, (2008), pp. 1–8.
[152] B. Ahmad, S.O. van der Veen, M.E. Fitzpatrick, H. Guo, Residual stress evaluation
in selective-laser-melted additively manufactured titanium (Ti-6Al-4V) and
Inconel 718 using the contour method and numerical simulation, Addit. Manuf. 22
(2018) 571–582.
[153] Y. Lu, S. Wu, Y. Gan, T. Huang, C. Yang, L. Junjie, J. Lin, Study on the micro-
structure, mechanical property and residual stress of SLM Inconel-718 alloy
manufactured by differing island scanning strategy, Optics Laser Technol. 75
(2015) 197–206.
[154] G. Link, T. Huntley, A. Nickel, R. Leitgeb, T. Nguyen, F. Printz, Reducing part
deformation by inducing phase transformation, Solid Freeform Fabr. Symp. (1999)
727–734.
[155] P. Vora, K. Mumtaz, I. Todd, N. Hopkinson, AlSi12 in-situ alloy formation and
residual stress reduction using anchorless selective laser melting, Addit. Manuf. 7
(2015) 12–19.
[156] L.-E. Loh, C.-K. Chuam, W.Y. Yeong, J. Song, M. Mapar, S.-L. Sing, Z.-H. Liu, D.-
Q. Zhang, Numerical investigation and an effective modelling on the selective
laser melting (SLM) process with aluminum alloy 6061, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.
80 (2015) 288–300.
[157] I. Yadroitsev, I. Yadroitsava, P. Bertrand, I. Smurov, Factor analysis of selective
laser melting process parameters and geometrical characteristics of synthesized
149
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 131–149
single tracks, Rapid Prototyp. 18 (3) (2012) 201–208.
[158] D. Buchbinder, W. Meiners, N. Pirch, K. Wissenbach, J. Schrage, Investigation on
reducing distortion by preheating during manufacture of aluminum components
using selective laser melting, J. Laser Appl. 26 (012004) (2014) 1–10.
[159] N.W. Klingbeil, J.L. Beuth, R.K. Chin, C.H. Amon, Residual stress-induced warping
in direct metal solid freeform fabrication, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 44 (2002) 57–77.
[160] P. Aggarangsi, J.L. Beuth, Localized preheating approaches for reducing residual
stress in additive manufacturing, Solid Freeform Fabr. Symp. (2006) 709–720.
[161] T. Caffrey, T. Wohlers, Wohlers report 2018, 3D Printing and Additive
Manufacturing State of the Industry: Annual Worldwide Progress Report, Wohlers
Associates, 2018.
[162] B. Song, S. Dong, Q. Liu, H. Liao, C. Coddet, Vacuum heat treatment of iron parts
produced by selective laser melting: microstructure, residual stress and tensile
behavior, Mater. Des. 54 (2014) 727–733.
[163] T. Vilaro, C. Colin, J.D. Bartout, As-fabricated and heat-treated microstructures of
the Ti-6Al-4V alloy processed by selective laser melting, Metall. Mater. Trans. A
42A (2011) 3190–3199.
[164] M.A.S. Torres, H.J.C. Voorwald, An evaluation of shot peening, residual stress and
stress relaxation on the fatigue life of AISI 4340 steel, Int. J. Fatigue 24 (2002)
877–886.
[165] Y.F. Al-Obaid, Shot peening mechanics: experimental and theoretical analysis,
Mech. Mater. 19 (1995) 251–260.
[166] I.C. Noyan, J.B. Cohen, An x-ray diffraction study of the residual stress-strain
distribution in shot-peened two-phase brass, Mater. Sci. Eng. 75 (1985) 179–193.
[167] K. Schmidtke, F. Palm, A. Hawkins, C. Emmelmann, Process and mechanical
properties: applicability of a scandium modified Al-alloy for laser additive man-
ufacturing, Phys. Proc. 12 (2011) 369–374.
[168] H.P. Tang, G.Y. Yang, W.P. Jia, W.W. He, S.L. Lu, M. Qian, Additive manufacturing
of a high niobium-containing titanium aluminide alloy by selective electron beam
melting, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 636 (2015) 103–107.
[169] Y. Zhu, J. Li, X. Tian, H. Wang, D. Liu, Microstructure and mechanical properties
of hybrid fabricated Ti-6.5-Al-3.5Mo-1.5Zr-0.3Si titanium alloy by laser additive
manufacturing, Mater. Sci. A 607 (2014) 427–434.
[170] Y.-J. Liang, D. Liu, H.-M. Wang, Microstructure and mechanical behavior of
commercial purity Ti/Ti-6Al-2Zr-1Mo-1V structurally graded material fabricated
by laser additive manufacturing, Scr. Mater. 74 (2014) 80–83.
[171] J.A. Kanko, A.P. Sibley, J.M. Fraser, In situ morphology-based defect detection of
selective laser melting through inline coherent imaging, J. Mater. Proc. Technol.
231 (2016) 488–500.
[172] P. Lott, H. Schleifenbaum, W. Meiners, K. Wissenbach, C. Hinke, J. Bultmann,
Design of an optical system for the in situ process monitoring of selective laser
melting (SLM), Phys. Proc. 12 (2011) 683–690.
[173] H. Rieder, A. Dillhofer, M. Spies, J. Bamberg, T. Hess, Ultrasonic online mon-
itoring of additive manufacturing processes based on selective laser melting, AIP
Conf. Proc. 1650, (2015), pp. 184–191.
[174] G. Zenzinger, J. Bamberg, A. Ladewig, T. Hess, B. Henkel, W. Satzger, Process
monitoring of additive manufacturing by using optical tomography, AIP Conf.
Proc. 1650, (2015), pp. 164–170.
[175] I. Yadroitsev, P. Krakhmalev, I. Yadroitsava, Selective laser melting of Ti6Al4V
alloy for biomedical applications: temperature monitoring and microstructural
evolution, J. Alloys Comp. 583 (2014) 404–409.
[176] X. Yao, S.K. Moon, G. Bi, A hybrid machine learning approach for additive man-
ufacturing design feature recommendation, Rapid Proto. J. 23 (6) (2017)
983–997.
[177] M. Khanzadeh, P. Rao, R. Jafari-Marandi, B.K. Smith, M.A. Tschopp, L. Bian,
Quantifying geometric accuracy with unsupervised machine learning: using self-
organizing map on fused filament fabrication additive manufacturing parts, J.
Manuf. Sci. Eng. 140 (031011) (2018) 1–12.
[178] I. Baturynska, O. Semeniuta, K. Martinsen, Optimization of process parameters for
powder bed fusion additive manufacturing by combination of machine learning
and finite element method: a conceptual framework, Proc. CIRP 67 (2018)
227–232.
[179] C. Gobert, E.W. Reutzel, J. Petrich, A.R. Nassar, S. Phoha, Application of su-
pervised machine learning for defect detection during metallic powder bed fusion
additive manufacturing using high resolution imaging, Addit. Manufact. 21 (2018)
517–528.
[180] Z. Zhu, N. Anwer, Q. Huang, L. Mathieu, Machine learning in tolerancing for
additive manufacturing, CIRP Annals- Manufact. Technol. 67 (2018) 157–160.
[181] U. Delli, S. Chang, Automated process monitoring in 3D printing using supervised
machine learning, Proc. Manuf. 26 (2018) 865–870.
[182] B. Yuan, G.M. Guss, A.C. Wilson, S.P. Hau-Riege, P.J. Depond, S. McMains,
M.J. Matthews, B. Giera, Machine-learning-based monitoring of laser powder bed
fusion, Adv. Mater. Technol. 3 (1800136) (2018) 1–6.
[183] J. Mazumder, Design for metallic additive manufacturing machine with capability
for “certify as you build”, Proc. CIRP 36 (2015) 187–192.