Journal Pre-proof

Thermomechanical simulation and experimental

validation of distortion and residual stress for LPBF
additive manufactured Inconel 718

S Dinesh, Jambeswar Sahu

PII: S2352-4928(25)00024-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2025.111512
Reference: MTCOMM111512

To appear in: Materials Today Communications

Received date: 23 September 2024
Revised date: 13 December 2024
Accepted date: 3 January 2025
Please cite this article as: S Dinesh and Jambeswar Sahu, Thermomechanical
simulation and experimental validation of distortion and residual stress for LPBF
additive manufactured Inconel 718, Materials Today Communications, (2025)
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2025.111512
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance,
such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability,
but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo
additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final
form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article.
Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2025 Published by Elsevier.
Thermomechanical simulation and experimental validation of distortion and residual stress
for LPBF additive manufactured Inconel 718

Dinesh S1 and Jambeswar Sahu2

1,2
School of Mechanical Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore Campus,
Vellore, 632014, Tamilnadu, India.

1
Author. E-mail: [email protected].
2
Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected].
Abstract:

f
oo
Distortion and residual stress are the major concerns in the laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) additive
manufacturing (AM) process due to the melting and solidification of metallic powder. The AM component was
distorted in the removal process from the base plate. The part dimension or assembly of the items is significantly

pr
impacted by the distortion. An effort has been made to calibrate the thermo-mechanical AM simulation in SIMUFACT
software and predict residual stress and distortion. The dimensional correctness, residual stress, and distortion analysis
e-
were validated by printing the cantilever beam in LBPF. Inconel 718 was considered a working material due to
growing demand in various low- to high-temperature applications and was printed in the EOS M290 additive
Pr
manufacturing machine. The simulation and printing parameters were kept similar for the investigation. Initially, the
simulation parameter range was narrowed down to compare the result with experimental measurements. Then the
simulation model was calibrated with the optimized simulation parameters. The 3D element size (voxel size) was
al

observed to be the most significant parameter for simulation. The optimized voxel size of 0.35 mm, surface element
size of 0.5 mm and volumetric expansion factor of 0.519756 were considered for the validation of AM-printed
n

samples. The validation was conducted for the LPBF-printed part in both heat-treated and non-heat-treated conditions.
The heat treatment of the AM part reduces the residual stress, leading to a reduction in distortion. The simulation
ur

model works in a significant way to predict results for both heat-treated and untreated conditions. The calibration error
was achieved at 8 to 10 % and the validation error was achieved at 3 to 10 %.
Jo

Keywords: LPBF, Simulation, Distortion, Residual Stress, SIMUFACT.

1.Introduction

Additive Manufacturing (AM) draws the attention of researchers and industry due to its design freedom, part
consolidation and manufacturing of complex parts. AM can be used for manufacturing models, prototypes, and
finished goods. AM is categorised into seven types, such as sheet lamination, VAT polymerization, binder jetting,
material jetting, material extrusion, laser powder bed fusion, and direct energy deposition [1–6]. An AM process is
selected for producing a part based on material, product shape, size and complexity. Additive manufacturing is used
in a variety of industrial sectors, like architecture to create models and structures; the medical sector to create
prosthetics, support plates, screws, and nuts; the manufacturing sector to create moulds, dies, and equipment parts; the
electrical sector to print circuit boards and aerospace components; and the biomedical sector to print human organs
and tissues [7]. Laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) or selective laser melting (SLM) can fulfil the requirements of metal
products in these industries [8]. In LPBF, achieving good accuracy and tolerance is challenging due to the melting of
powder and solidification. The heating and cooling give rise to residual stress and distortion in the AM part, which
impact the product quality.

LPBF AM of Inconel 718 material is considered for the investigation of distortion and residual stress. Inconel 718
material have high strength to weight ratio and used in various low to high temperature applications. AM of Inconel
718 draws attention due to its weldability nature. Martinez et al. investigated the distortion of AM parts considering
different thickness of base plate for printing [9]. They observed that the 30mm thickness of base plate having less
distortion in XZ and YZ planes. They conclude that the laser scan strategy and base plate thickness play an important

f
role in printing AM parts. The results are also aligned with the investigation carried out by Uhlmann et al. They used

oo
steel 1.0570 grade, H13 steel and Rene 80 as base materials to build coupons followed by laser metal deposition
(LMD) process on coupons [10]. They found less distortion in 1.0570 steel and more distortion with longitudinal scan
strategy compared to transverse and bidirectional scan. The distortion and residual stress were investigated on arch-

pr
shaped part by Sirin et al. They observed that the increasing the support thickness, laser power and speed lead to an
increase in the distortion in upward direction. Whereas after heat treatment at 970℃ the distortion reduced by 70%
e-
[11]. The distortion and heat treatment results with bulk support structure are in line with the investigation carried by
Mishurova et al. and Ananda et al. [12] [13]. They observed that the distortion reduced with lattice structure support
Pr
compared to solid support. Wang et al. used online monitoring system to observe the distortion and thermal behaviour
during the printing of two conical square part. They found the abnormal thermal deviations affect the part model after
the post processing [14]. The effect of cooling rate (function of dwell time of two consecutive layers) and thermal
al

gradient was investigated by Chang et al. They use an artificial neural network ISM model to predict the distortion on
part. They found that the solid cooling rate and thermal gradient created have the major impact on the part distortion.
n

Comparable results are observed with numerical simulation [15]. The part distortion was reduced by increasing dwell
ur

time and they observed that the longitudinal and thin components are prone to higher distortion [16].

Since distortion is a major issue in LBPF AM process; prediction of distortion, residual stress and printing approaches
Jo

will be helpful to overcome the distortions issue. Afazov et al. investigation explains the distortion prediction and
compensation approach [17]. They printed a thin manifold structure using Inconel 718 and measured the distortion on
the thin manifold. The results were compared with distortion predictions from ABAQUS and ANSYS software. The
elemental distortion was measured and applied to the entire model to compensate for the distortion. Finally, they
printed parts with and without compensation. A similar kind of investigation was conducted by He et al. to print PEM
fuel cell component. They used SS316 and Inconel 718 to build the component. The distortion was observed in the
vertical wall. A simulation was conducted for the same component using ANSYS additive suit software for FEM
analysis. They observed the similar distortion in simulation i.e. distortion in the middle to the tube components, but
little bit higher distortion was observed in Inconel 718 sample [18]. The distortion was investigated with re-entrant,
anti-tetrahedral, and honeycomb lattice structures by Gulcan et al. [19]. They scanned the 3D-printed structure using
a blue-light scanner and measured the distortion of the part both before and after part removal. They compared all the
samples with the original design and found that the honeycomb structure exhibited the least deviation [19]. The
distortion was investigated in SS316L material with different build orientations by Taufek et al. The horizontal build
components having more distortion to compare vertical build (perpendicular to the build plate) [20]. Pagac et al.
optimized the orientations and predict the distortion using Autodesk Netfabb and SIMUFACT software. They were
optimized the minimum build time and minimum support structure for printing the part. Finally, distortion was
predicted for the same orientation and support structure [21].

Peter, et al. studied the distortion using different simulation packages and compensated the distortion by modifying
the part to get minimum deviation [22]. Numerical investigation was conducted using inherent stain technique to
predict distortion in three distinct angles (0°, 45°, and 90°) of scan pattern. They found that, the 45° scan pattern have
less distortion compared to 0° and 90° [23]. Additive printing was carried out by changing scan pattern strategy and

f
observed that the short bi-linear and transverse stripes scanning gives least distortion. [24–26]. Siewert et al. observed

oo
that long bi-linear scan pattern has two times distortion compared to short bilinear scan pattern distortion [24]. The
distortion simulation results are also in line with the experimental distortion. Setien et al. found the transverse strip
position with no rotation shows lowest distortion [25]. Li et al. have investigated the distortion and residual stress

pr
prediction on customized iron powder in LPBF process. They simulated the distortion and residual stress in ABAQUS
software using stress thread and temperature thread methods [27]. Both methods predict comparable results which is
e-
close to the experimental values. The effect of voxel size and laser power on distortion was investigated using
SIMUFACT software package by Celebi et al. The larger voxel size reduces the simulation time and amount of
Pr
distortion [28]. The distortion also decreases with different thickness of printing specimen for Khosravani et al. work.
They conclude that the laser power range of 200 to 300 Watt with scanning speed of 600 to 900 mm/s gives less
distortion and residual stress [29].
al

Buchbinder et al. work investigated effect of AlSi10Mg printing bed preheating process. The pre-heating of AM
printing bed reduces the distortion while printing double cantilever beams with various thicknesses [30]. Abhishek et
n

al. were investigated the effect of different process parameter on distortion and residual stress through experimental
ur

and thermomechanical simulation of Inconel 718. They found less distortion with low energy density, more hatch
spacing and at higher scan speed [31]. S et al. investigated the residual stress and distortion of Ti6Al4V components.
Jo

They identified the distortion on cantilever structures. Which is scanned by the longitudinal having more distortion
and transverse getting less and they found the lower energy density getting the very less residual stresses on the
material [32]. Zhang et al. were investigated modified ISM (inherent strain method) for predicting the deformation.
They found that the corrected inherent strain method gives the less error compared to the traditional method [33].
Singh et al. were investigated the residual stress by printing specimen in different build positions. They found that the
residual stress was very less in the horizonal build up direction compared to the vertical and inclined build samples.
ANSYS AAP was used for simulation and results were followed with the experimental results [34]. Wang et al.
investigated the lattice structure residual deformation on SS316. They are changing the lattice shape and investigated
with different lattice density. They observed the FCC and diamond lattice was observed very less distortion. If the
lattice density increased, the distortion was reduced. Among all the lattice structure the less maximum distortion was
observed in diamond centred lattice structures [35]. Ananda et al. varied the volumetric rate (VR) of lattice structure
and done the distortion simulation. They found the 0.3 VR provides less distortion to compare homogenized solid
support. at the same time the homogenized support increased the simulation time 6-7 times. BCC with Z strut (BCCZ)
generates the less distortion to compare BCC, Octahedron, Dodecahedron and homogenized solid support. The solid
supports are having more heat accumulation during the printing process. So, the thermal stresses are also impacting
the part distortion [13]. The simulation of residual stress was investigated by Bruggeman et al. with different lattice
structure on LPBF process using SIMUFACT Additive software. It is observed that the primitive type of lattice
structure having least residual stress [36]. Dilawar et al. designed the experiment using response surface methodology
design to optimize the parameters followed by the thermomechanical simulation in Netfabb AM software. They
observed that hatch spacing of 100 mm, beam diameter of 90 mm, laser power of 220 W and scanning speed of 1050
mm/s minimizes the distortion for SS316 [37]. The effect of heat treatment on residual stress was investigated by
Barros et al. for AM Inconel 718 material. They conducted solution annealing (SA) and solution annealing plus double

f
oo
ageing (SA+DA) per SAE AMS 5662 STANDARD to measure the residual stress. They observed that the residual
stress decreases about with both type of annealing and SA+DA have least residual stress in a depth of 1 mm. The
residual stress was reduced near to neutral stress or compressive stresses [38].

pr
The extensive literature survey shows the experimental investigation of residual stress and distortion of AM
component followed by simulation work. Calibration is necessary to train the simulation software for prediction of
e-
distortion and other properties. The simulations were conducted by different researchers using different packages gives
comparable results to experimental investigation. The mechanical simulation in additive manufacturing process was
Pr
explained by researchers [20,28,33,39]. But the thermomechanical simulation is required to explain the details
behaviour of additive printing as well as stress reliving process. In LPBF AM process the stress relieving heat
treatment or precipitation heat treatment process usually adopted to remove residual stresses and gets distortion free
al

part. This investigation full fills entire LPBF AM process simulation including heat treatment process. Therefore, an
effort is made to calibrate the SIMUFACT software and prediction of distortion in AM of Inconel 718 material. In
n

this research work, residual stress and distortion are investigated for LPBF AM process. Cantilever beams are printed
ur

in the base plate, 2 samples with 45° and another 2 samples with 135° orientation to recoater direction for calibration.
The distortion of different samples are measured and the data is utilized to do the dimension accuracy and distortion
analysis by the SIMUFACT software using inherent strain method [40]. Thermomechanical simulations are conducted
Jo

for those samples to predict distortion and residual stress with and without heat treatment. The distortion validation
process was conducted by comparing micro-X-ray CT scan data with simulation data in a CloudCompare_v2.12.4
software. The comparisons were conducted between experimental results and simulation results for various voxel and
element sizes. The thermomechanical calibration approach and the additive simulation process gives better prediction
of distortion and residual stress for both as- build and heat-treated conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

Commercially available Inconel 718 powder is considered for printing specimen and for further investigation. The
powder is characterised and utilized in EOS M290 Selective Laser Melting (SLM) printer to print cantilever specimen.
Residual stress and distortion are investigated in the cantilever specimen. The printed specimens are used for
calibration of SIMUFACT Additive 4.0 AM software and optimize the simulation parameters to predict residual stress
and distortion in the samples. The simulation results are validated with the experimental measurements after part
removal and heat-treated specimens.

2.1 Characterization of Metal Powder

An energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometer (ED-XRF) was used to evaluate the chemical composition of
the commercially available EOS Inconel 718. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 1. The composition
of powder is compared with AMS as shown in Table 1. The particle size distribution of the powder was examined by
ImageJ software using the (SEM - FEI QUANTA 250 FEG) Scanning electron microscope image. The size
distribution of the powder particles ranged from 5 to 48 µm, as shown in Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 1(b). The powder
morphology examination reveals that the powder has a spherical form absence of any satellite particle in the powder.

f
oo
The particle size distribution was observed as D90-30µm i.e. 90% of the powder particle sizes are under 30 microns.

Table 1 Chemical composition of IN718 metal powder

pr
Si Mn Cr Mo Cu Fe Al Co Nb Ti Ni
ED-XRF 0.32 <0.058 18.8 3.15 <0.037 18.6 <0.35 <0.051 5.34 1.03 52.8

UNS
±0.08
<0.35 <0.35
±0.2
17-
±0.05
2.8-
e-
<0.3
±0.2
Bal. 0.2- <1
±0.07
4.75-
±0.05
0.65-
±0.3
50-55
N07718 21 3.3 0.8 5.5 1.15
Pr
n al
ur
Jo

Fig. 1 a) Powder particle morphology SEM image b) Particle size distribution

2.2 Sample preparation in LPBF additive manufacturing process

Additive manufacturing LPBF process was starts with the part design. Four cantilever beams were designed by using
SolidWorks CAD software Fig. 2(b). The cantilever beams were imported to Materialise Magics 24 software and base
is extruded up to the base plate (2 mm). Then the models were converted to .stl format. These cantilever beam models
were import into the EOS PRINT software and cantilever beams were oriented in 45° and 135° to recoater direction.
Finally, the file was converted into .openjz format and send to the EOS SLM machine for printing. The orientation
and position of the sample after printing is shown in Fig. 2(a). the samples were printed using an EOS M290 machine
with base plate size of 250 x 250 x 22 mm. The short stripes scanning pattern with 67° of rotation is adopted for the
printing of different layers [25]. The machine specified controlling parameters (EOS IN718 Material specification)

f
are used for the printing of specimens including. The detailed printing parameters are shown in Table 2. The bed was

oo
preheated to 80℃ and printing was conducted in argon atmosphere with an oxygen content of about 1%.

pr
e-
Pr
n al
ur
Jo

Fig. 2 a) Build plate with part positions. b) Cantilever Beam, dimensions (mm) c) Displacement measurement
d) Residual Stress Measurement

Table 2 Laser Process Parameters

Process Parameter
Laser Power 285W
Scanning Speed 960mm/s
Hatch distance 0.11mm
Layer thickness 0.04mm
Scanning Pattern (Stripe) Width 10mm
Overlap distance 0.12
Stripe Rotation 67°
Laser diameter 0.08mm
The cantilever samples (A, B, C&D) are positioned at a horizontal orientation of 45° (B&D and 135°(A&C) (Fig.
2(b)). The cantilever has been extruded 2 mm for solid support. The use of a strong support enhances the structural
integrity of the object, hence preventing delamination during the metal printing process [41].

2.3 Distortion (Z-axis displacement) measurements

AM process deals with heating and cooling, which induces residual stress and distortion in the final product. The
height of (perpendicular to base plate) printed part was measured using digital Vernier Caliber (Mitutoyo range 0-
150mm), Dial indicator (Mitutoyo No. 2046-08) and Slip gauge. It shown in Fig. 2(c). The measured points are
mentioned in Fig. 2(b) and measured values are shown in Table 3. The designed height was 11 mm where final
measured height was found about 30 to 200 µm less than the designed height.

f
oo
Table 3 Z- axis Displacement measurement

Points Cantilever A Cantilever B Cantilever C Cantilever D

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

pr
0 10.960 10.940 10.950 10.920
1 10.830 10.850 10.820 10.805
2 10.835 10.870 10.840 e- 10.805
3 10.820 10.850 10.840 10.800
4 10.830 10.850 10.840 10.830
5 10.830 10.860 10.840 10.830
Pr
6 10.830 10.865 10.870 10.820
7 10.930 10.990 10.970 10.970
al

2.4 Residual Stress Measurement

The non-destructive type of residual stresses was measured for printed specimen before part removal, after heat
n

treatment and after part removal from base plate. The residual stress measurement was conducted in PULSTEC-X360n
FULL 2D x-ray diffraction system, it shown in Fig. 2(d) [42].
ur

Table 4 Residual Stress (Experimental)

Points Cantilever A (MPa) Cantilever B (MPa) Cantilever C (MPa) Cantilever D (MPa)
Jo

0 473 874 525 284

1 946 925 651 468
2 861 776 730 537
3 832 826 701 544
4 722 859 760 502
5 776 833 748 622
6 789 892 768 550
7 613 557 562 409

The residual stress of as build condition are shown in Table 4. Similar measuring point are used to measure height and
residual stress (Fig. 2(b)). It is observed from the Table 4 that the residual stresses are different for different
orientations and building positions. The different residual stress is tensile in nature [43]. The tensile and less tensile
of residual stresses are due to the support structure orientation and inert gas flow direction during the process.
2.5 Part removal and Heat treatment

The cantilever beam (C&D) was cut up to a specific distance to measure the displacement and residual stresses as
shown in Fig. 3. EDM wire-cut machine is used for cutting the part. It is observed that, there are distortion on the
cantilever beam C&D (Fig. 3(a) and Fig. 3(b)). After the cutting, the distortion was measured using digital Vernier
Caliber, Dial indicator and Slip gauge. The z- axis displacement is observed from the measurements are 3.29mm
(14.29 - 11 = 3.29mm) and 2.34mm (13.34 -11=2.34mm) cantilever D and C respectively.

f
oo
Fig. 3 (a) Cantilever ‘D’ and (b) Cantilever ‘C’ After cutting displacements.

pr
Heat treatment is crucial for additive manufacturing metal components to remove residual stress. The thin and lengthy
components are susceptible to warpage and distortion due to residual stress. Therefore, stress removal is essential
e-
before removing part from base plate to prevent deformation. Solution-annealing was conducted on cantilevers A and
B based on AMS 5663 standard. In the current work the specimens are kept in muffle furnace for one hour at 980°C
Pr
with argon gas environment [44–46]. The heat treatment approach is shown in Fig. 4(a) and after heat treatment the
base plate with samples shown in Fig. 4(b).
n al
ur
Jo

Fig. 4 (a) Solution Heat Treatment process (b) After heat treatment base plate with samples

2.6 Investigation of physical and Intrinsic property

Additive metal samples are different from traditionally manufactured part. In the laser powder bed fusion process, the
laser weld carries over the entire building process. So, the Printed part density was determined by the process
parameters. The density was measured using METTLER TOLEDO equipment with ISO3369 standards. The average
density of as-build part was found to be 8.18g/cm3 [47]. The laser vector direction also impacts the sample mechanical
properties [23–25,48]. The laser scanning strategy and scanning pattern are impacted by strength and surface
properties. The microstructure of as build samples was captured by Olympus BX61 optical microscope as shown in
Fig. 5. The samples are prepared by mechanical polishing followed by electro etching process. The electro etching
was conducted at 6 V, 0.5A/cm2 for 10 seconds in 80 ml of ethanol and 20 ml of Perchloric acid solution. [49,50]. The
laser tracks conform to the laser parameters that are utilized during printing process Fig. 5. The laser track hatch space
(110 µm), scanning pattern, and rotation angle (stripe rotation angle 67°) conforms the laser beam parameters.

f
oo
pr
e-
Fig. 5. As-build condition optical Microscope images (a) As-built Top (b)As- built Side
Pr
3 Additive Manufacturing Simulation

The AM part was simulated as on experiment using SIMUFACT Additive 4.0 software. The simulation can predict
al

the residual stress, distortion and optimization of support structure [21,28]. The software package needs to be
calibrated for mechanical and thermo-mechanical simulation for precise prediction. In the current work,
n

thermomechanical calibration was conducted using volumetric expansion factor [51]. The calibration mode uses
experimental results and printing parameters to calibrate the process model. After the calibration, the calibration results
ur

such as expansion ratio was included for the manufacturing simulations. Then the simulation and experimental
verification was conducted for two conditions: specimen after removal from the base plate with and without heat
Jo

treatment.

3.1 Thermomechanical – Simulation

The thermomechanical simulation process is based on temperature fields and mechanical simulation. Important
thermal heat flux factors include the volumetric expansion factor (VEF) and the exposure energy fraction (EEF) [51].
The exposure energy fraction is truly dependent on the process parameter. This fraction is divided into two types: a
higher volumetric heat flux and a lower volumetric heat flux. The volumetric expansion factor pertains to both thermal
and mechanical aspects, while the EEF only considers thermal parameters. The temperature fields T(x,y,z,t) uses the
initial layer boundary condition with heat conduction equation applied on the Fourier law. The temperature fields and
the ISM are used the thermomechanical simulation:

𝜕𝑇
ρ.cp = 𝛻. (𝑘. 𝛻𝑇) + 𝑄 (1)
𝜕𝑡
Where Q = ηE , 𝜂 – Laser power efficiency, E – Energy density , ρ – density, k – thermal conductivity and
cp– specific heat capacity.
The volumetric expansion factor describes how much substance volume changes due to temperature. It is also known
as the thermal expansion coefficient.

εthermal = ∆V/V = α (T2-T1) (2)

Where, ΔV – change in volume in each layer, V- original volume, α - expansion coefficient, T2- Final temperature and
T1- Initial temperature. This is applied on every powder layer on the LPBF process.

The thermomechanical simulation consists of two distinct modes: manufacture and calibration. The calibration mode

f
employed an inherent strain technique with thermal field. The inherent strain approach was employed in most of the

oo
research to predict the distortion [23,52–55]. During the LPBF process, thermal cycles were applied at specific
intervals. The continuous process of heating and cooling results in the formation of thermal strains. So, the strain

pr
values have been determined for each printing direction. The total strain comprises elastic, plastic, thermal, phase
change, and creep strains (Eq.3). All of them, except for the elastic strain, fall into the category of inherent strain. So,
the inherent strain was derived as follows: e-
εtotal = εelastic + εthermal + εplastic. It is transformed into εinh = εtotal – εelastic.
Pr
εinh = εthermal + εplastic + εphase + εcreep (3)

Inherent strain of x, y, and z direction on first layer is.

εinh-x = -Wx /Fx ; εinh-y = -Wy /Fy ; εinh-z = -Wz /Fz

al

Wx = ξ. q; Wz =Wy= K. q; q =(Heat source)/(Laser speed)

n

where Wx, Wy and Wz are inherent strain per unit length and Fx, Fy and Fz are cross section area of the zone. q is the
ur

linear energy density, ξ = Longitudinal inherent strain co-efficient, K= Transverse inherent strain co-efficient.
The previous layer has an impact on each subsequent layer. It is shown in Fig.6 [23]. So, the inherent strain
Jo

was carried forward to every layer due to thermal expansion and contraction. The layer-wise inherent strain calculation
starts with Eq. (2) itself. The inherent strain of (Eq. (4-7)) first to nth layers of the inherent strain. It was converted to
n- number of layers on each direction. So, the inherent strain formulae changed into transverse, longitudinal and
𝑖𝑛ℎ−𝑦
buildup direction 𝜀𝑛𝑖𝑛ℎ−𝑥 , 𝜀𝑛 and 𝜀𝑛𝑖𝑛ℎ−𝑧 . It was mentioned in Eq. (8-10).

First layer, ε1 = εinh (4)

𝑑
𝜀11 = εinh – εinh
ℎ

𝑑
Second layer ε2 = 𝜀11 + εinh = 2εinh - εinh (5)
ℎ

𝑑
𝜀21 = ε2 – εinh
ℎ
 2𝑑 inh
Third layer ε3 = 𝜀21 + εinh = 3εinh - ε (6)
ℎ

1 (𝑛−1)𝑑
nth layer εn = 𝜀𝑛−1 + εinh = nεinh - εinh (7)
ℎ

The overall inherent strain formed in x, y and z direction are.

(𝑛−1)𝑑
Inherent strain at x -direction 𝜀𝑛𝑖𝑛ℎ−𝑥 = nεinh-x - εinh-x (8)
ℎ

𝑖𝑛ℎ−𝑦 (𝑛−1)𝑑
Inherent strain at y -direction 𝜀𝑛 = nεinh-y - εinh-y (9)
ℎ

(𝑛−1)𝑑
Inherent strain at z -direction 𝜀𝑛𝑖𝑛ℎ−𝑧 = nεinh-z - εinh-z (10)

f
ℎ

oo
pr
Fig.6. Layer wise Inherent strain formation [23].
e-
To calibrate the VEF, it is necessary to conduct experimental tests using a printed specimen. However, the EEF may
Pr
be calibrated only by numerical methods. The measurement method mirrors the inherent strain calibration method,
aiming for displacement or bending on the z-axis as the desired outcome. The VEF is adjusted iteratively until the
simulated displacement aligns with the experimental displacement. Throughout the entire printing process, thermal
strains are occurring due to the continuous heating and cooling processes. So, the thermal expansion occurs. This kind
al

of expansion may be considered isotropic or anisotropic. The thermomechanical simulation process has been taken
n

into consideration for the isotropic expansion process.

ur

3.3 Simulation Model and Process parameters

The thermomechanical AM simulation commenced by examining the process and determining the appropriate voxel
Jo

and element sizes. The model initiated the thermomechanical process, set the voxel size at 1.5, and proceeded with
the simulation [28,56]. The simulation results are compared with the experimental distortion in as build condition.
After multiple trials the voxel size, surface element, and volumetric element sizes are finalized for simulation.
 f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
n al

Fig. 7. Laser bed powder fusion process Manufacturing, calibration, and prediction Simulation Model
ur

These parameters are used to simulate AM process and distortion values are validated after part removal for with and
without heat treatment. The flow chart of details simulation procedure is presented Fig. 7. The AM simulation model
Jo

was established for EOS M290 with Inconel 718 material. The SIMUFACT Additive 4.0 software default mechanical
and thermal properties are used for the simulation [57,58]. The process parameter details are listed in Table 5.

4. Result and Discussion

In the current investigation, the cantilever samples are printed and cut from the base plate from the direction opposite
to recoater. Cantilever sample C&D (Fig.2(a)) before removing from base plate was used to calibrate the process for
optimizing the simulation parameters for calibration. The C & D cantilever beam were partial cut to certain extend as
shown in Fig 3. It is observed that, the beam was bent towards upward side (Z displacement). The Z displacement was
measured as shown in Fig. 2 (c). The same cutting was replicated in simulation and z displacements are compare at
different corresponding points. Then heat treatment was conducted for cantilever beam A & B. as shown in Fig. 4(b).
In SIMUFACT Additive 4.0 software, the thermomechanical manufacturing process was carried out with different
voxels and elements. There are 18 sets of parameters such as voxel size, element size and volumetric element size are
used to conduct the preliminary manufacturing simulations with volumetric expansion factor of 0.6.

4.1 Preliminary thermomechanical simulation

The preliminary simulations are conducted based on the literature data to decide different simulation parameters [28].
The simulation process parameters are mentioned in Table 5. The voxel size and element sizes are
1.5,1.25,1,0.75,0.5,0.25 mm and 0.5,0.75,1 mm respectively. These voxel size and element sizes are used to conduct
the 18 set of simulation. The manufacturing simulation results (z-axis displacement and residual stress) are shown in
Table 6 and fig.8(d). It is observed that, the voxel sizes have significant effect on displacement and residual stress; but

f
oo
the element sizes have not significant effect on displacement and residual stress. therefore, the finer element size of
0.5 mm was considered for further investigations. The initial investigation results plotted in Fig. 8(a) and Fig. 8(b). It
shows that the voxel sizes ranging from 0.25mm to 0.5mm in line with the experimental results. The measuring

pr
position on samples shown in Fig.2.

Table 5 Manufacturing Simulation Parameters

Numerical Process Parameter

e-
Thermomechanical
Laser Power 285W
Pr
Laser Speed 960mm/s
Hatch Space 0.11mm
Scanning strategy / Strain type Stripe
Scanning overlap 0.12mm
Laser Diameter 0.08mm
al

Stripe width 10mm

Preheat temperature 80℃
Scanning Rotation -
n

Re-coater Time 10s

Voxel size 0.25,0.5,0.75,1,1.25, 1.5 (preliminary) mm
ur

Element Size 0.5mm,0.75mm,1mm

Heat-transfer co-efficient 12 W/mm2 K
Density 8.190g/cm2
Jo

Thermal expansion Coefficient 1.41x 10-5 1/K

Specific heat capacity 0.46 J/(gK)

The experimental and thermomechanical manufacturing simulation results show that the cantilever sample "C"
exhibits more distortion than the cantilever sample "D" as shown in Table 6. The cantilever samples, printed at
different positions and distances, exhibit significant distortion. The simulation clearly shows that the cutting position
and distance cause a remarkable deviation. Not only the position, orientation, distance from the re-coater, and gas flow
direction are important in the distortion analysis [20]. The residual results from the experimental and
thermomechanical simulations are shown in Fig. 9(a) and Fig. 9(b).
 Table 6 Preliminary Simulation Results

S. Voxel Element Max. Total Cantilever “C” point 0 Cantilever “D” point 0
No. size size displacement (displacement (displacement
(mm) (mm) (mm) ‘mm’/Effective stress ‘mm’/Effective stress
‘MPa’) ‘MPa’)
1 1.5 0.5 2.49 0.235194 (613.307) 0.235194 (613.307)
2 1.5 0.75 2.49 0.235194 (613.307) 0.235194 (613.307)
3 1.5 1 2.49 0.235194 (613.307) 0.235194 (613.307)
4 1.25 0.5 1 0.893592 (488.324) 0.672325 (507.081)

f
5 1.25 0.75 1 0.893592 (488.324) 0.672325 (507.081)

oo
6 1.25 1 1 0.893592 (488.324) 0.672325 (507.081)
7 1 0.5 0.99 0.817129 (504.46) 0.669146 (532.265)
8 1 0.75 0.99 0.817129 (504.46) 0.669146 (532.265)

pr
9 1 1 0.99 0.817129 (504.46) 0.669146 (532.265)
10 0.75 0.5 0.97 0.762152 (565.614)
e- 0.605848 (630.034)
11 0.75 0.75 0.97 0.762152 (565.614) 0.605848 (630.034)
12 0.75 1 0.97 0.762152 (565.614) 0.605848 (630.034)
Pr
13 0.5 0.5 3.27 2.89229 (600.848) 2.7539 (653.111)
14 0.5 0.75 3.27 2.89229 (600.848) 2.7539 (653.111)
15 0.5 1 3.27 2.89229 (600.848) 2.7539 (653.111)
al

16 0.25 0.5 3.86 3.4658 (654.153) 3.00768 (633.359)

17 0.25 0.75 3.83 3.4658 (654.153) 3.00768 (633.359)
n

18 0.25 1 3.86 3.4658 (654.153) 3.00768 (633.359)

ur

The z-axis displacement results conform to the voxel size of 0.5mm to 0.25mm, which is closer to the experimental
Jo

results. The residual stress results (Table 6) also conform that with the voxel size of 0.5mm to 0.25mm gives minimum
difference in simulation and experimental result. The residual stresses on cantilever C’s position 5 and 7 matches the
exact residual stresses and other points also provides closer results to experimental results but the cantilever D having
more difference comparing to the experimental result. Residual stresses are different in different orientation and
location due to isotropic value of volumetric expansion used in simulation. The residual stresses were reduced after
removal from base plate. In experimental work, after cutting, the average residual stresses of cantilevers C and D are
446 MPa and 270.625 MPa, respectively, which is less compared to before removal i.e. 680 MPa and 490MPa
respectively.
 f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
Fig.8. (a) Position wise displacement Cantilever “C” (b) Position wise displacement Cantilever “C
n al
ur
Jo

Fig.9. After cutting (a) Residual Stresses Cantilever “C”. (b) Residual Stresses Cantilever “D”
4.2 Optimization of voxel size

In the initial investigations voxel size shows significant effect on residual stress and distortion. Voxels are the three-
dimensional elements that contains multiple physical layers of powder (40µm). The simulations were conducted by
changing voxel size from 0.25 to 0.5 with a step interval of 0.05. The required format for SIMUFACT software 4.0 is
stereolithography format, which contains triangular mesh. Therefore, the same triangular mesh is used for surface and
volume meshing. The voxel size refers to the bundle of real layers employed in the experimental LPBF procedure[39].
The simulations were conducted using the temperature field and inherent strain parameters. Calibration of the
Volumetric Expansion Factor (VEF) was performed on this process simulation based on the temperature field. Each
simulation was incrementally carried over by 200 simulation steps. However, due to use of parabolic approximation

f
adaptations to rectify the result, the simulation terminates before 200 steps. The decrease of voxel size extremely

oo
increases the simulation time. The elements are modified with uniform element sizes by increasing or decreasing the
surface element size. The calibration simulations were conducted with voxel sizes to 0.25 mm consumed 35 days
whereas, voxel sizes 0.5 mm took 44 hours. The maximum distortion from simulation result is compared with the

pr
corresponding point of experimental result (0-point form Fig. 3) are shown in Table 7.

e-
The VEF was measured to be 0.59303 for voxel size of 0.5 mm. An error of 15.44% was observed in the overall
displacement of the cantilever D sample. The results are failing precisely correspond to the experimental results.
Pr
Therefore, it is necessary to decrease the size of the voxels to get closer result. The results with decreasing voxel size
are presented in Table 7. Finally, the small voxel size of 0.35 mm closely approximated the experimental findings.

Table 7 Calibration Error deviation on Cantilever C and D compared experimental results

al

Total displacement Z-axis displacement Total displacement Z-axis displacement

n
(Volumetric

“C” “D” “C” “D”

Voxel Size

Expansion

“C” “D” “C” “D”

ur Factor)

Error Error Error Error

(mm)

VEF

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

% % % %
Jo

0.5 0.59303 2.91983 2.70149 2.86451 2.66302 11.25 15.44 12.9 13.8
0.45 0.543417 2.98959 2.58012 2.93313 2.5443 9.13 10.26 10.85 8.73
0.4 0.508538 2.97317 2.57974 2.9234 2.54518 9.63 10.24 11.14 8.76
0.35 0.519756 2.99615 2.57508 2.94496 2.54135 8.93 10.04 10.48 8.6
0.3 0.531367 2.9768 2.57194 2.92945 2.54051 9.52 9.91 10.95 8.56
0.25 0.505241 2.97435 2.56991 2.92901 2.54019 9.59 9.82 10.97 8.55

The measurement of z- displacement/distortion and total displacement for 0.35 mm voxel size is shown in Fig.10(a)
and Fig. 10(b) and the error in percentage (between simulation and experiment) for different voxel size is shown in
Fig 10(c). Cantilever C and D samples exhibited total displacements of 2.99615 mm and 2.57508 mm, respectively
and z-displacement of 2.94496 mm and 2.541335 mm, respectively. The investigation is yielding inaccuracies in both
total displacement and Z-displacement measurements. The lowest level of inaccuracy recorded on 0.35mm voxels.
The volumetric expansion factor for this condition is 0.519756 used in the manufacturing simulation.

f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
Fig.10 (a, b) Voxel Size 0.35mm calibration results of Z-displacement and Total Displacement. (c) Total
al

displacement Error Percentage based on Voxel size

4.3 Validation of simulation model for displacement and Residual stress

n

The optimized parameters such as voxel size of 0.35mm, surface element 0.5mm, volume element of 0.5mm and VEF
ur

of 0.519756 along with printing parameters (Table 5) are used for manufacturing process simulation and validation.
The validation process is divided into two stages: as-built condition and Heat-treated condition. Validation 1 compares
Jo

the total displacement and residual stresses for cantilever A & B (Fig.11 and Fig.12) with heat treatment. Validation
2 involves the validation of total displacement and residual stresses for as-built C & D (Fig.13 and Fig.14) samples.

4.3.1 Validation 1 (distortion and residual stress prediction after Heat treatment)

The experimental measurements are performed after the cantilever samples have been removed from the base plate
and compared with simulated results. Solution heat treatment was conducted in cantilever beam A & B with base plate
and removed from the base plate by wire cut EDM. The top surface of both beams were investigated under digital
microscope (Dino Lite) Fig 11. The top surface of cantilevers are flat (Fig.11) unlike part removal before heat
treatment Fig 3. The micro-X-ray computer tomography (CT) technology was utilized to scan the LPBF-printed
component. The printed samples were cut from the baseplate and scanned process completed by using X-ray CT scan
technique and converted the samples in a digital form like .stl format. Then the samples were correlated with the
original design using CloudCompare_v2.12.4. During the digital correlation both the model were picked with different
location and match with the original model. Minimum 10 points are matched with the original model to printed model.
Afterwards the samples deviations were measured. It was shown in Fig.12 and Fig.15.

f
oo
Fig.11. Digital microscope measurement for (a) Cantilever A (b) Cantilever B

pr
The deviated results of cantilever A for simulation and experiment are shown in Fig.12(a) and Fig.12(b). The deviated
results of cantilever B for simulation and experiment are shown in Fig.12(c) and Fig. 12(d). The "Start" location has
e-
large displacement to compare other positions.
Pr
n al
ur
Jo

Fig.12 Solution treatment sample total displacement on cantilever ‘A’ validation 1(a) Total displacement (b)
Experimental results Digital correlation. Solution treatment sample total displacement on cantilever ‘B’ validation 1.
(c) Total displacement (d) Experimental results Digital correlation.
Simulation and experimental measurements of cantilever A “start” position are 0.280959mm and 0.21985mm
respectively and cantilever B “start” position are 0.26959mm and 0.22359mm respectively. This variation does not
affect the part's overall shape because the differences are below 60 µm range only. Therefore, heat treatment reduces
the major distortion due to reliving of residual stresses. The experimental residual stresses were compared to
simulation results (Fig.13(a) and Fig.13(b)). The mean normal stress of cantilevers A & B were compared with the
experimentally measured residual stresses. The sample cantilever 'B' observes mean normal stress is within the range
of experimental data. i.e. the experimentally measured residual stresses and simulation results are matched. However,
sample A simulation shows higher.

f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
Fig. 13 Residual stress comparison experiment and simulation for (a) Cantilever A and (b) Cantilever B
al

4.3.2 Validation 2 (distortion and residual stress prediction as build condition)

n

The displacement and residual stress of as build cantilever beam were measured after removal from base plate. Those
displacement and residual stress measurement shown in Fig.14 and Fig 2(d) respectively. The maximum displacement
ur

was observed in Cantilever sample C is 1.12 mm at middle position of sample Fig 14 (a). This is due to the fact of the
cutting direction, height and distance. Those are contributed significantly to the deviation observed in the cantilever
Jo

samples.

Fig. 14 Microscope measurement (a) Cantilever C and (b) Cantilever D

The cutting direction and height are the same, but the cutting distance is different, which also has a major impact on
the z-axis displacement. The comparison of distortion results was conducted as explained in immediate subsection
(4.3.1 validation 1) by using CT scan data, simulated data. The Experimental and simulation data were measured, it
was shown in Fig. 15(a) & 15(b) and Fig. 15(d) & 15(e) respectively. The measuring points are shown Fig. 2(b).

f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
n al
ur
Jo

Fig. 15. Experimental and Simulation results (a) Cantilever C, (b) Cantilever D, (c) Experimental deviation of C &
D, (d) Cantilever C, (e) Cantilever D, (f) Simulation deviation of cantilever C and D.
The digital correlation of the as-built samples, cantilever C and D, in Fig. 15, clearly demonstrates the deviation that
occurred at the edges of the samples. In the middle, very little deviation is shown in Fig. 15(a) and Fig. 15(b) because
the sample was having a curved distortion. But point 0 is an edge that is only highly deviated. In the point 0 position,
the sample is supported by thin supports. Because the thin supports support the entire cantilever, there is less heat
transfer between the cantilever and the support, resulting in higher residual stresses. Due to the high thermal stresses,
there was more distortion at the edges. Not only the edge some lengthy and horizontal positioned samples were also
getting more distortion in previous research [20,30,32]. The same type of distortion was also observed in this work.
So, the deviation was found in edges. That is the reason for the curved deformation. Through the digital correlation
results, the deviations were measured; those are plotted by using the AutoCAD software. It was shown in Fig. 15(c)
and Fig. 15(f). Those plots are also getting more curved. The curved shape led to the measurement of the maximum
deviation at the middle position. Both experiment and simulation data were used to measure the maximum deviation.
The thermomechanical manufacturing simulation shows a displacement difference of 1.01 mm and 0.96 mm for
cantilever samples C and D respectively (Fig. 15(f)). The maximum difference observed from the digital correlation
technique of as build CT data and original model was observed as 1.12 mm and 0.93 mm for cantilevers C and D
respectively (Fig. 15(c)). The digital microscope measurements (Fig. 14) of distortion have the similar result as in
Digital correlation result analysis i.e. 1.12 mm and 0.95 mm for cantilevers C and D respectively. In both experimental

f
oo
and manufacturing simulations were compared and the total displacement errors were observed to be 9.82% and 3.2%
for cantilevers C and D respectively. From this validation results exhibit the prediction accuracy by using the
optimized simulation parameters. Therefore, this method effectively predicts the distortion of LPBF Inconel 718 parts

pr
with an error rate of less than 10%.

e-
Residual stress is measured on the cantilever sample’s top surface at three positions i.e. starting edge, middle, and end
positions (Fig 12). It is observed that more stresses are acting in the middle of the cantilever samples. Although the
Pr
measured residual stresses are getting close to the simulation results; but residual stresses are not well predicted in
these positions. This may occur due to the residual stress before part removal (Table 4) and alters after removing the
part. In the "End" position, the mean normal stress of the cantilever C sample was closer to the simulation results. The
residual stress difference was shown in Fig. 16(a) and Fig. 16(b). Particularly, the samples have been placed near the
al

gas flow direction. Finally, the distortion was predicted under the desired parameter condition. That distortions are
n

must to remove in the original part manufacturing process. During the manufacturing simulation the distortion
compensation was activated and getting distortion compensated part with the acceptable deviations. This
ur

compensation was applied on each z- layers. End of the simulation the distortion compensated parts were generated.
Jo

Fig. 16 Residual stress comparison experiment and simulation for (a) cantilever C and (b) Cantilever D
5. Conclusion 9600736354 syam

The distortion prediction and residual stress analysis of Inconel 718 components were investigated in the research
work. Initially the simulation model was calibrated and used for prediction of distortion and residual stress followed
by comparison with experimental results. The following conclusions are derived from the thermomechanical
simulation results.

i. The voxel sizes and volumetric expansion factor have significant effect on distortion and residual stress
prediction as compared to element sizes. The smaller voxel sizes take more time but give more accurate
results. The surface elements and volumetric elements sizes did not have significant effect, but the simulation
time was increased by using smaller element size.

f
oo
ii. The simulation parameters for the prediction of distortion and residual stress before and after heat treatment
specimens was found as the volumetric expansion factor 0.519756, voxel size 0.35mm and mesh size 0.5mm.
iii. The distortion of heat-treated cantilever A, B and without heat treatment C, D were well predicted by the

pr
simulation model. The residual stresses are not similar at different positions on base plate, which lead to
distortion in the printed part. The cantilever sample B and C are placed near to the gas flow direction. The

iv.
e-
prediction results in cantilever sample B and C were close to the experimental results.
The prediction model can be utilized to compensate the distortion to achieve close tolerance and accuracy in
Pr
the additive manufacturing product. This simulation process will save the experimental time, cost and
produce a defect free part. The distortion compensated parts are also reduced the post processing work like
stress relieving heat treatments.
al

Credit authorship contribution statement

n

Dinesh S: Data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, software, visualization, writing – original draft,
ur

Jambeswar Sahu: Conceptualization, funding acquisition, supervision, review & editing.

Acknowledgements
Jo

We are grateful to VIT Vellore for providing the Laboratory activities and Simulation software for our research work.
The authors are grateful to the VIT Vellore and Department of Science and Technology (DST), New Delhi, India for
providing financial support to acquire "Direct Metal Laser Sintering Machine" and “X-ray micro-CT scanner” through
"Promotion of University Research and Scientific Excellence (PURSE)" under Grant No. SR/PURSE/2020/34 (TPN
56960) and carry out the work.”

References

[1] A. Jandyal, I. Chaturvedi, I. Wazir, A. Raina, M.I. Ul Haq, 3D printing – A review of processes, materials and
applications in industry 4.0, Sustainable Operations and Computers 3 (2022) 33–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2021.09.004.
[2] K. V. Wong, A. Hernandez, A Review of Additive Manufacturing, ISRN Mechanical Engineering 2012
(2012) 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/208760.
[3] H. Bikas, P. Stavropoulos, G. Chryssolouris, Additive manufacturing methods and modeling approaches: A
critical review, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 83 (2016) 389–405.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7576-2.
[4] O. Abdulhameed, A. Al-Ahmari, W. Ameen, S.H. Mian, Additive manufacturing: Challenges, trends, and
applications, Advances in Mechanical Engineering 11 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814018822880.
[5] X. Zhai, L. Jin, J. Jiang, A survey of additive manufacturing reviews, Materials Science in Additive
Manufacturing 1 (2022) 21. https://doi.org/10.18063/msam.v1i4.21.
[6] V.J. Kharat, P. Singh, G. Sharath Raju, D. Kumar Yadav, M. Satyanarayana.Gupta, V. Arun, A. Hussein
Majeed, N. Singh, Additive manufacturing (3D printing): A review of materials, methods, applications and

f
challenges, Mater Today Proc (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.11.033.

oo
[7] C. Culmone, G. Smit, P. Breedveld, Additive manufacturing of medical instruments: A state-of-the-art review,
Addit Manuf 27 (2019) 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.03.015.
[8] A.S. Elakkad, 3D Technology in the Automotive Industry, International Journal of Engineering Research &

pr
Technology (IJERT) 8 (2019) 110–122. https://doi.org/10.17577/IJERTV8IS110122.
[9] S. Martínez, N. Ortega, D. Celentano, A.J. Sánchez Egea, E. Ukar, A. Lamikiz, Analysis of the part distortions
for inconel 718 SLM: A case study on the NIST test artifact, Materials 13 (2020) 1–9.
e-
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13225087.
[10] E. Uhlmann, J. Düchting, T. Petrat, E. Krohmer, B. Graf, M. Rethmeier, Effects on the distortion of Inconel
Pr
718 components along a hybrid laser-based additive manufacturing process chain using laser powder bed
fusion and laser metal deposition, Progress in Additive Manufacturing 6 (2021) 385–394.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-021-00171-9.
[11] T.B. Sirin, Y. Kaynak, Prediction of residual stress and distortion in laser powder bed fusion additive
al

manufacturing process of Inconel 718 alloy, in: Procedia CIRP, Elsevier B.V., 2021: pp. 330–335.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.03.102.
[12] T. Mishurova, S. Cabeza, T. Thiede, N. Nadammal, A. Kromm, M. Klaus, C. Genzel, C. Haberland, G. Bruno,
n

The Influence of the Support Structure on Residual Stress and Distortion in SLM Inconel 718 Parts, Metall
Mater Trans A Phys Metall Mater Sci 49 (2018) 3038–3046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-018-4653-9.
ur

[13] V. Ananda, G. Saravana Kumar, R. Jayaganthan, B. Srinivasan, Distortion Prediction in Inconel-718 Part
Fabricated through LPBF by Using Homogenized Support Properties from Experiments and Numerical
Jo

Simulation, Materials 15 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15175909.

[14] Q. Wang, P. Michaleris, M. Pantano, C. Li, Y. Ren, A.R. Nassar, Part-scale thermal evolution and post-process
distortion of Inconel-718 builds fabricated by laser powder bed fusion, J Manuf Process 81 (2022) 865–880.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2022.07.026.
[15] Y.C. Chang, H.C. Tran, Y.L. Lo, Optimization of built-part distortion in laser powder bed fusion processing
of Inconel 718, Rapid Prototyp J 28 (2022) 428–444. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-12-2020-0301.
[16] A. Shrivastava, S. Anand Kumar, S. Rao, A numerical modelling approach for prediction of distortion in
LPBF processed Inconel 718, in: Mater Today Proc, Elsevier Ltd, 2020: pp. 4233–4238.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.538.
[17] S. Afazov, H. Rahman, A. Serjouei, Investigation of the right first-time distortion compensation approach in
laser powder bed fusion of a thin manifold structure made of Inconel 718, J Manuf Process 69 (2021) 621–
629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.08.016.
[18] P. He, C. Sun, Y. Wang, Material distortion in laser-based additive manufacturing of fuel cell component:
Three-dimensional numerical analysis, Addit Manuf 46 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.102188.
[19] O. Gülcan, K. Günaydın, Distortion and dimensional deviation of Inconel 718 auxetic structures produced by
DMLM, Journal of Additive Manufacturing Technologies (2021).
https://doi.org/10.18416/JAMTECH.2111563.
[20] T. Taufek, Y.H.P. Manurung, S. Lüder, M. Graf, F.M. Salleh, Distortion analysis of SLM product of SS316L
using inherent strain method, in: IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng, Institute of Physics Publishing, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/834/1/012011.
[21] M. Pagac, J. Hajnys, R. Halama, T. Aldabash, J. Mesicek, L. Jancar, J. Jansa, Prediction of model distortion
by fem in 3d printing via the selective laser melting of stainless steel aisi 316l, Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
11 (2021) 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041656.
[22] N. Peter, Z. Pitts, S. Thompson, A. Saharan, Benchmarking build simulation software for laser powder bed
fusion of metals, Addit Manuf 36 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101531.

f
[23] H.S. Park, H.S. Shin, N.H. Tran, A new approach for calculating inherent strain and distortion in additive

oo
manufacturing of metal parts, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 121 (2022)
6507–6521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-09766-0.
[24] M. Siewert, F. Neugebauer, J. Epp, V. Ploshikhin, Validation of Mechanical Layer Equivalent Method for
simulation of residual stresses in additive manufactured components, Computers and Mathematics with

pr
Applications 78 (2019) 2407–2416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2018.08.016.
[25] I. Setien, M. Chiumenti, S. van der Veen, M. San Sebastian, F. Garciandía, A. Echeverría, Empirical
e-
methodology to determine inherent strains in additive manufacturing, Computers and Mathematics with
Applications 78 (2019) 2282–2295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2018.05.015.
[26] L. Parimi, M. Attallah, J.-C. Gebelin, R. Reed, Direct Laser Fabrication of INCONEL-718: Effects on
Pr
Distortion and Microstructure, in: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Superalloys, 2012: pp. 509–
519. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118516430.ch56.
[27] C. Li, J.F. Liu, Y.B. Guo, Prediction of Residual Stress and Part Distortion in Selective Laser Melting, in:
Procedia CIRP, Elsevier B.V., 2016: pp. 171–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.02.058.
al

[28] A. ÇELEBİ, E.Z. APPAVURAVTHER, Analyzing the Effect of Voxel Mesh and Surface Mesh Application
on Residual Stress by Simufact Additive Software, Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi 6 (2018)
n

930–940. https://doi.org/10.29130/dubited.426063.
[29] M.R. Khosravani, P. Soltani, T. Reinicke, On the modeling of additive manufacturing: Printing process and
ur

printed structures, Mech Res Commun 131 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechrescom.2023.104144.

[30] D. Buchbinder, W. Meiners, N. Pirch, K. Wissenbach, J. Schrage, Investigation on reducing distortion by
Jo

preheating during manufacture of aluminum components using selective laser melting, J Laser Appl 26 (2014).
https://doi.org/10.2351/1.4828755.
[31] S. Abhishek, S. Anand Kumar, S. Rao, Multi-scale modelling for optimization of process parameters of laser
powder bed fusion processed Inconel 718 surrogate part, Eng Fail Anal 155 (2024).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107713.
[32] J. S, R. M, S.P. AVS, N. B K, C. U, Study of residual stresses and distortions from the Ti6Al4V based thin-
walled geometries built using LPBF process, Defence Technology 28 (2023) 33–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2023.01.002.
[33] M. Zhang, C. Ji, Y. Hou, P. Jin, J. He, J. Wu, K. Li, Modified inherent strain method coupled with shear strain
and dynamic mechanical properties for predicting residual deformation of Inconel 738LC part fabricated by
laser powder bed fusion, International Journal of Thermal Sciences 203 (2024).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2024.109163.
[34] U.P. Singh, A. Shukla, S. Swaminathan, G. Phanikumar, Effect of build orientations on residual stress,
microstructure, and mechanical properties of additively manufactured alloy-718 components, J Manuf Process
113 (2024) 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2024.01.047.
[35] Y. Wang, H. Zhu, M. Xiao, C. Chen, Y. Qi, L. Ke, Residual deformation analysis of laser powder bed fusion-
fabricated lattice structures, Virtual Phys Prototyp 19 (2024).
https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2024.2367104.
[36] K. Bruggeman, N. Klingbeil, A. Palazotto, Residual Stress Generation in Additive Manufacturing of Complex
Lattice Geometries, J Mater Eng Perform 33 (2024) 4088–4105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-024-09229-
5.
[37] S. Dilawar, A. Khan, A. Ur Rehman, S.Z. Husain, S.H.I. Jaffery, Breaking the tradeoff: multiscale
optimization for lower cost, lower residual stress LPBF of SS316L, Rapid Prototyp J 30 (2024) 1200–1215.
https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-12-2023-0446.
[38] R. Barros, F.J.G. Silva, R.M. Gouveia, A. Saboori, G. Marchese, S. Biamino, A. Salmi, E. Atzeni, Laser
powder bed fusion of inconel 718: Residual stress analysis before and after heat treatment, Metals (Basel) 9
(2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/met9121290.

f
oo
[39] U.P. Singh, S. Swaminathan, G. Phanikumar, Thermo-mechanical approach to study the residual stress
evolution in part-scale component during laser additive manufacturing of alloy 718, Mater Des 222 (2022).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.111048.
[40] Y.S. Huo, C. Hong, H.X. Li, P. Liu, Influence of different processing parameter on distortion and residual

pr
stress of inconel 718 alloys fabricated by selective laser melting (SLM), Materials Research 23 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-5373-MR-2020-0176.
[41] e-
S.C. Subedi, D.J. Thoma, K. Suresh, Deformation constrained support-structure optimization for laser powder
bed fusion, Addit Manuf 89 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2024.104294.
[42] N. Gautam, S. Anand Kumar, P.R. Mondi, Evaluation methods for residual stress measurement in large
Pr
components, in: Mater Today Proc, Elsevier Ltd, 2020: pp. 4239–4244.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.539.
[43] D. Xie, F. Lv, Y. Yang, L. Shen, Z. Tian, C. Shuai, B. Chen, J. Zhao, A Review on Distortion and Residual
Stress in Additive Manufacturing, Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering: Additive Manufacturing
al

Frontiers 1 (2022) 100039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjmeam.2022.100039.

[44] E. Hosseini, V.A. Popovich, A review of mechanical properties of additively manufactured Inconel 718, Addit
n

Manuf 30 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.100877.

[45] D. Zhang, Z. Feng, C. Wang, W. Wang, Z. Liu, W. Niu, Comparison of microstructures and mechanical
ur

properties of Inconel 718 alloy processed by selective laser melting and casting, Materials Science and
Engineering: A 724 (2018) 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2018.03.073.
Jo

[46] M. Pröbstle, S. Neumeier, J. Hopfenmüller, L.P. Freund, T. Niendorf, D. Schwarze, M. Göken, Superior creep
strength of a nickel-based superalloy produced by selective laser melting, Materials Science and Engineering:
A 674 (2016) 299–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2016.07.061.
[47] P. Akbari, M. Zamani, A. Mostafaei, Machine learning prediction of mechanical properties in metal additive
manufacturing, (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2024.104320.
[48] T. Mayer, G. Brändle, A. Schönenberger, R. Eberlein, Simulation and validation of residual deformations in
additive manufacturing of metal parts, Heliyon 6 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03987.
[49] L. Huang, Y. Cao, G. Li, Y. Wang, Microstructure characteristics and mechanical behaviour of a selective
laser melted Inconel 718 alloy, Journal of Materials Research and Technology 9 (2020) 2440–2454.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.12.075.
[50] M.J. Sohrabi, H. Mirzadeh, M. Rafiei, Solidification behavior and Laves phase dissolution during
homogenization heat treatment of Inconel 718 superalloy, Vacuum 154 (2018) 235–243.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2018.05.019.
[51] M. Sanchez-Poncela, S. Cabeza, J.M. Martinez, A. Cabrera, R. Rementeria, Microstructural and neutron
residual stress characterization of 316L laser-powder bed fusion simplified end-use part: A modelling
benchmark, Mater Des 237 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2023.112526.
[52] M. Pagac, J. Hajnys, R. Halama, T. Aldabash, J. Mesicek, L. Jancar, J. Jansa, Prediction of model distortion
by fem in 3d printing via the selective laser melting of stainless steel aisi 316l, Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
11 (2021) 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041656.
[53] Q. Chen, X. Liang, D. Hayduke, J. Liu, L. Cheng, J. Oskin, R. Whitmore, A.C. To, An inherent strain based
multiscale modeling framework for simulating part-scale residual deformation for direct metal laser sintering,
Addit Manuf 28 (2019) 406–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.05.021.
[54] H. Mohammadtaheri, R. Sedaghati, M. Molavi-Zarandi, Inherent strain approach to estimate residual stress
and deformation in the laser powder bed fusion process for metal additive manufacturing—a state-of-the-art
review, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 122 (2022) 2187–2202.

f
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-10052-2.

oo
[55] B.M. Marques, C.M. Andrade, D.M. Neto, M.C. Oliveira, J.L. Alves, L.F. Menezes, Numerical analysis of
residual stresses in parts produced by selective laser melting process, in: Procedia Manuf, Elsevier B.V., 2020:
pp. 1170–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.04.167.

pr
[56] A. Shaikh, A. Shinde, S. Chinchanikar, T. Deshpande, Effect of Voxel-Based Surface Mesh Size on Process
Simulation for Metal Additive Manufacturing of Ti6Al4V Impeller of Centrifugal Compressor, in: Lecture
Notes in Mechanical Engineering, Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, 2022: pp. 249–

[57]
e-
259. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2890-1_25.
F. Chen, J. Liu, H. Ou, B. Lu, Z. Cui, H. Long, Flow characteristics and intrinsic workability of IN718
superalloy, Materials Science and Engineering: A 642 (2015) 279–287.
Pr
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2015.06.093.
[58] W.S. Lee, C.F. Lin, T.H. Chen, H.W. Chen, Dynamic impact response of inconel 718 alloy under low and
high temperatures, Mater Trans 52 (2011) 1734–1740. https://doi.org/10.2320/matertrans.M2011130.
n al

Graphical abstract:
ur
Jo
Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐ The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:

f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
n al
ur
Jo