Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

A review on design and removal of support structures in metal additive

manufacturing
Jiong Zhang a,⇑, Qiqiang Cao a, Wen Feng Lu a,b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Design and Engineering, National University of Singapore, 9 Engineering Drive 1, Singapore 117575, Singapore
b
NUS Centre for Additive Manufacturing, 2 Engineering Drive 3, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117581, Singapore

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Additive manufacturing (AM) enables the rapid fabrication of complex metallic components via a layer-
Available online xxxx by-layer method. Support structures are essential to ensure the successful printing of overhang features,
and they have to be removed after printing. However, the usage of a support structure increases the
Keywords: material waste, printing time, and cost for post-removal. Hence, some studies are conducted to reduce
Support structure the use of support structures by optimizing their design and by changing the build orientations. Some
Design researchers managed to develop novel techniques for support structure removal to replace the current
Removal
labor-intensive methods. So far, however, there is little comprehensive review focusing on both the
Additive manufacturing
design and removal aspects of support structures in metallic additive manufacturing (MAM). In this
review, the design methodology and the state-of-the-art removal techniques of support structures are
reviewed and discussed. The advantages and disadvantages of topology optimization and build orienta-
tion selection in reducing the volume of support structures are analyzed. The support removal methods
are summarized in terms of the material difference between the workpiece and the support structure. It
is concluded that more efforts need to be rallied towards the effective removal of the support structure in
MAM.
Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The International Confer-
ence on Additive Manufacturing for a Better World.

1. Introduction support overhangs to prevent collapse due to gravity, maintain the

Metallic additive manufacturing (MAM) is the technology that
produces components via a layer-by-layer fabrication method.
Powder bed fusion (PBF) [1,2] and direct energy deposition (DED)
[3] are the most commonly used MAM techniques. Due to its
unique manufacturing principle, MAM can be employed to gener-
ate complex or unprecedented products which cannot be fabri-
cated by conventional manufacturing technology. Nowadays,
MAM has been applied in medical [4,5], aerospace [6], automobile
[7], mould & die [8], and other industries. Typical examples are
dental implants, turbine blades, water connectors, and conformal
cooling channels, to name a few. The process chain of MAM prod-
ucts includes design, pre-processing, printing, and post-processing
[9–13]. In the design phase, additional support structures are usu-
ally required to assist printability, and they play a vital role in suc-
cessful printing. These additional support structures are needed to
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jiongz@u.nus.edu (J. Zhang).
stress balance to avoid distortion, and assist in heat dissipation
during production [14–18]. To make printing successful, different
printing parts require different amounts of support structures.
Hence, it may cause two problems. One is the extra cost and build
time; the second is the additional work of manual support removal
after printing. According to the literature review, most research on
MAM supports has focused on design and optimization to reduce
supports. The design is mainly focused on reducing raw materials,
build time, and cost, or facilitating manual removal by designing
diverse support structures. Optimization includes using topology
optimization on the design of original parts or changing the build
orientation to reduce the use of supports. However, there has been
little research on the efficient removal of metal-based support
structures, which is one of the most important and challenging
tasks in the post-processing phase.
Aiming at providing a guideline for both researchers and prac-
titioners in the design and removal of the support structure in
MAM, and at calling attention to the development of novel tech-
niques for support removal, this paper reviews the general

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.09.277
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The International Conference on Additive Manufacturing for a Better World.

Please cite this article as: J. Zhang, Q. Cao and W.F. Lu, A review on design and removal of support structures in metal additive manufacturing, Materials
Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.09.277
J. Zhang, Q. Cao and W.F. Lu
approaches and principles of support design, and techniques in
removing support structures.
2. Design of support structures
2.1. Design methodology
At present, the design of support structures is mainly focused
on reducing the support volume to save materials, build time,
and cost. In addition, only a few papers have considered the sup-
port removability. Hussein et al. [19] presented a novel design of
lattice support structures with extremely low volume fractions
for selective laser melting (SLM) parts. The suitability of diamond
and gyroid lattice structures as support structures is studied. How-
ever, the authors also found that the support structures were too
fragile to be printed consistently, and there was excessive unsup-
ported material that distorted the workpiece due to thermal stress.
Strano et al. [20] proposed the pure mathematical three-
dimensional implicit functions to design and generate cellular sup-
port structures and could save material significantly. However, the
authors only proposed the methods, and further experimental
research is needed to verify the robustness of the support struc-
tures. Gan and Wong [21] developed three types of support struc-
tures ‘‘Y”, ‘‘IY” and ‘‘Pin” supports manufactured by the SLM
process to help design practical support structures. The results
showed that the orientation and distribution of the support struc-
tures affected the levelness of the components. A uniform spaced
vertical strut with only 2.2 % of overhang support contact area,
making it possible to produce relatively leveled thin plates. How-
ever, further research is needed to improve the geometrical accu-
racy and reduce distortion. Vaidya and Anand [22] adopted the
Dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm and used space filling cellular
structures to design the optimized support structures. The results
showed that both the volume and contact area of the supports
are significantly reduced. The authors also proposed a method for
the optimal design of support structures that considered the easy
removal in post-processing. However, experiments are needed to
verify printability and supportability. Järvinen et al. [15] studied
and compared the removability of the web and tube support struc-
tures. The results showed that the removability of web supports
was better than that of tube supports. Although these two supports
waste materials, the study found that the support structures have a
great impact on the manufacturability and end quality of the
printed workpiece. Calignano [17] presented a new approach with
Taguchi L36 design to optimize the support structures. The exper-
imental results showed that such an optimized design could build
a non-assembly mechanism with overhang surfaces. However, if
the tooth pitch is small, the supports will be challenging to
remove; and if the tooth pitch is large, the parts will be deformed.
The author also pointed out that the minimum supports should be
used by optimizing the build orientation to balance the build time,
cost, and accuracy of the printed products.
The above design methods are useful in certain geometric work-
pieces. However, in the actual printing of parts, these methods may
be limited due to the geometry and properties of the printed parts.
The support structure is critical in the metal printing process as it
affects material usage, build time, cost, and print quality. More
importantly, the support structures must be strong enough to
ensure print successfully. The printability, removability, and heat
dissipation rate should also be considered when designing support
structures. As the support structures affect the heat dissipation
rate, residual stress, and microstructure, they affect the print qual-
ity [14,19,22]. Hence, in the design and application of support
structures, the balance between support strategy and print quality
should be considered.
2
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
2.2. Reduction of the support structure by topology optimization
Topology optimization methods solve a material distribution
problem to generate an optimal topology [23]. In additive manu-
facturing (AM), the original part is re-designed based on topology
optimization, while the final part still retains the functionality of
the original part. This method can reduce the use of support struc-
tures. Gaynor and Guest [24] combined a series of local projections
with support area projections to implement the minimum length
range requirement, ensuring that the topology optimization has a
minimum allowable self-supporting angle so that parts can be
printed without support structures. However, the projection
scheme used to determine the topology is usually inefficient, and
topology variables are non-linear functions leading to challenging
design issues. Mirzendehdel and Suresh [25] proposed the concept
of ‘‘support structure topological sensitivity” which is combined
with performance sensitivity to maximize the performance of the
framework with the constraints of support structures. This
approach significantly reduced the requirement for support struc-
tures. However, it is difficult to assess its effectiveness. Cloots et al.
[26] proposed a specific component segmentation strategy to opti-
mize the support strategy by scanning the area of the component.
The results showed that support structures are greatly reduced.
This method is based on energy input and accuracy, which may
affect the density of the printed parts. Mezzadri et al. [27] pro-
posed a topology optimization formulation to produce self-
supporting parts. However, this approach only considers a single
build direction and can be applied in limited parts only.
From the review presented above, topology optimization can
significantly reduce the use of support structures. However, it
not only limits the design freedom but also increases the design
complexity. Although topology optimization maintains the func-
tionality of the original product, it changes the shape of the prod-
uct. In many cases, it is inappropriate and may not be acceptable.
2.3. Reduction of the support structure by optimizing build orientation
Build orientation is vital in AM because it has a profound impact
on the number of supports needed. Fig. 1 illustrates an example of
a T-shape sample. Fig. 1(a) shows that the to-be-printed part needs
the most supports and Fig. 1(b) shows that it needs fewer supports,
while Fig. 1(c) shows that it does not require any supports [28].
Some studies have been carried out to reduce the usage of support
structures by changing the build orientation of components. Paul
and Anand [29] proposed and verified the optimal orientation algo-
rithm with the minimum error of flatness and cylindricity. How-
ever, choosing the best build orientation to minimize the errors
may lead to an increase in the use of supports and thus to
increased material consumption during the printing process,
which should be avoided. Das et al. [30] presented an approach
for determining the optimal build orientation that optimizes the
support volume. The Siemens PLM NX API was used to extract geo-
metric dimensioning & tolerancing callouts and related CAD model
geometric information. The mathematical relationship between
the build direction and geometric dimensioning & tolerancing
was established to determine the best build direction to meet
design tolerances while minimizing the support structures.
Admittedly, choosing an optimized build orientation will
greatly reduce the number of support structures. However, differ-
ent build orientations will cause the mechanical properties of parts
to be anisotropic and the strength will change accordingly [32,33].
Due to the anisotropy of the material, the formation of the molten
pool and the voids produced in the fabrication process are differ-
ent. Although printed parts have the same appearance, the
mechanical properties of the normal and transverse surfaces of
the workpiece will be different [34–37]. To date, research has
J. Zhang, Q. Cao and W.F. Lu
Fig. 1. An example of support needed: (a) most supports; (b) fewer supports; (c) no supports [28].
mainly focused on reducing support structures and paid little
attention to the influence of the mechanical properties of the
printed part. The MAM process is typically used to produce
industrial-related components that need to maintain a certain
degree of accuracy and good quality. Therefore, the build time
and cost savings due to the usage of supports need to be balanced
against the impact on the mechanical properties of the printed
parts [28]. Besides, the use of support structures in small feature
areas may cause these features to be broken during the support
removal. Therefore, in most MAM processes, the orientation and
location of the supports are critical factors in achieving the desired
characteristics of the finished components [39].
3. Removal of the support structures
The support structure is only employed to assist printing. It is
not part of the printed workpiece and must be removed before
the workpiece prior to its use. Therefore, in MAM processes, the
metallurgical bonding of the supports can be reduced, which
means that the supports do not need to be printed in full density,
and the low-strength support structures make them easier to
remove. The main function of support structures is to ensure that
the workpiece is successfully printed. After meeting the require-
ment, factors such as material and build time reduction, as well
as cost savings need to be considered. Metal-based support mate-
rials are usually divided into two cases: (a) supports and workpiece
are made of the same material, and (b) supports and the workpiece
are made of different materials.
3.1. Support structure with the same material as workpiece
If the support structures have the same material as the work-
piece, the removal of metal-based support structures will mainly
be carried out by manually removing the supports with hand tools
or power tools. However, metal-based supports usually have high
mechanical strength, and manual removal is often time-
consuming and labor-intensive. Besides, the manual removal of
supports will result in poor surfaces, and subsequent machining
and polishing are required. Therefore, metal processing techniques
such as milling and wire-EDM can be employed for metallic sup-
port removal with higher efficiency [39]. To date, there is seldom
research in this field and few studies have been found to reveal
the removability of support structures. Cao et al. [40] presented a
systematic study to unveil the removability of cone and block sup-
ports in milling. The results showed that the cone supports are
subjected to severe collapse and block supports are mainly
removed by localized shearing, as shown in Fig. 2. The authors
developed a finite element method (FEM) model to reveal the
3
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
removal mechanism. They suggested that the machinability and
removability of metal-based support structures are important
and need to be considered during the designing of support struc-
tures. Though the cone support exhibits poor machineability dur-
ing removal, it can reduce printing time owing to short scanning
paths during printing. Besides, cone support can avoid powder
trapping compared with block and web support. To address the
poor machinability of cone support, Cao et al. [41] proposed a
resin-filling assisted milling process, as shown in Fig. 3. By filling
liquid resin into the gaps of cone support structures and curing
it, the stiffness of the cone support structure greatly increased.
The support tilting and collapsing during milling process were
avoided. Experimental results showed that the milling force, tool
wear, and surface damage of the workpiece are significantly
reduced. They also noted that the method can be applied to the
removal of other commonly-used supports.
3.2. Supports structure with different materials as workpiece
In some printing techniques, e.g., Laser Engineering Net Shaping
(LENS), metal deposition can be carried out by the DED system of
dual powder feeders. The support structures can be made of a
material different from the workpiece [42,43]. In this case, the sup-
port material can be dissolved in chemical solutions and electro-
chemical methods, or it can be melted at a lower temperature
than the building materials [39]. Hildreth et al. [44] proposed a sol-
uble sacrificial support structure to avoid additional machining
removal processes by using the difference in chemical composition
between the workpiece metal and the support metal. A stainless-
steel bridge was made by using a carbon steel material as the sup-
port. After printing, the carbon steel support structures were com-
pletely removed by electrochemical etching in 41 wt% nitric acids
with bubbling O2, without any machining processing. However, the
etching process to thoroughly remove the support structure took
more than 10 h. Besides, part of the stainless-steel workpiece
was eroded as well. Lefkey et al. [45] adopted direct dissolution
and self-terminating electrochemical etching methods to selec-
tively remove the metal-based support structures from PBF mate-
rials, such as 17–4 PH and 316L stainless steel. A sensitization
process was integrated into the thermal annealing setup by alter-
ing the composition of the support structures which
were  150 lm thick. Post-etching can selectively remove the sup-
port structures and will terminate once support structures exist.
This method is not limited by the geometry of the workpiece. How-
ever, the disadvantages of using these methods are also obvious.
For example, the removal rate is low, and the electrochemical etch-
ing took more than 30 h for an interlocking stainless-steel ring part
with a 100 mm diameter. The poor surface after removal of support
J. Zhang, Q. Cao and W.F. Lu
Fig. 2. Support removability of cone and block support structures [40].
Fig. 3. Resin-filling assisted milling of cone supports [41].
structures may require secondary processing. Moreover, many
MAM technologies do not support the use of secondary materials.
Hence, how to remove metallic support structures efficiently is still
a challenge to AM and an important topic for future research.
4. Conclusion remarks
The design and removal of support structures in metallic addi-
tive manufacturing (MAM) are critically reviewed. The collective
survey has demonstrated that the importance of support structure
in MAM has been widely acknowledged and that various design
methods have been proposed to minimize the usage of support
structures or optimize the support structure for more efficient
printing. One can also conclude that the investigations in post-
removal of the printed support structures are still inadequate.
With the rapid development and promotion of additive manufac-
turing in industries, it is opportunistic to devote efforts to the effi-
cient removal of support structures. The progress in support
removal will definitely shorten the lead time and boost the wider
applications of MAM technology.
4
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jiong Zhang: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & edit-
ing, Conceptualization. Qiqiang Cao: Writing – original draft, Con-
ceptualization. Wen Feng Lu: Writing – review & editing,
Supervision.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This research is supervised by Dr Hao Wang (email: mpewhao@
nus.edu.sg) and Prof Jerry Ying Hsi Fuh (email: mpefuhyh@nus.
J. Zhang, Q. Cao and W.F. Lu
edu.sg) of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, National
University of Singapore. The authors are grateful for the financial
support from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research,
Singapore (Grant No.: A19E1a0097).
References
[1] S. Sun, M. Brandt, M. Easton, Powder bed fusion processes: an overview, Laser
Addit. Manuf. Mater. Des. Technol. Appl. (2017) 55–77, https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-08-100433-3.00002-6.
[2] Y. Bai, C. Zhao, J. Zhang, H. Wang, Abnormal thermal expansion behaviour and
phase transition of laser powder bed fusion maraging steel with different
thermal histories during continuous heating, Addit. Manuf. 53 (2022), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2022.102712 102712.
[3] Y. Bai, A. Chaudhari, H. Wang, Investigation on the microstructure and
machinability of ASTM A131 steel manufactured by directed energy
deposition, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 276 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmatprotec.2019.116410 116410.
[4] R. Wadia, Fabrication of dental implants by the additive method, Br. Dent. J.
226 (2019) 575. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-019-0267-x.
[5] J. Zhang, Micro-blasting of 316L tubular lattice manufactured by laser powder
bed fusion, in: Eur. Soc. Precis. Eng. Nanotechnology, Conf. Proc. - 19th Int.
Conf. Exhib. EUSPEN 2019, Bilbao, ES, 2019: pp. 254–255. https://www.
euspen.eu/knowledge-base/ICE19107.pdf.
[6] R. Liu, Z. Wang, T. Sparks, F. Liou, J. Newkirk, in: Laser Additive Manufacturing,
Elsevier, 2017, pp. 351–371.
[7] S. Ganesh Sarvankar, S.N. Yewale, Additive manufacturing in automobile
industry, Int. J. Res. Aeronaut. Echanical Eng. 7 (2019) 1–10.
[8] J. Zhang, A.Y. Xiang Toh, H. Wang, W.F. Lu, J.Y.H. Fuh, Vibration-assisted
conformal polishing of additively manufactured structured surface, Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 233 (12) (2019) 4154–4164, https://doi.org/
10.1177/0954406218811359.
[9] J. Zhang, Y.J. Lee, H. Wang, A Brief Review on the Enhancement of Surface
Finish for Metal Additive Manufacturing, (n.d.).
[10] J. Zhang, H. Wang, Magnetically driven internal finishing of AISI 316L stainless
steel tubes generated by laser powder bed fusion, J. Manuf. Process. 76 (2022)
155–166, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2022.02.009.
[11] X. Peng, L. Kong, J.Y.H. Fuh, H. Wang, A review of post-processing technologies
in additive manufacturing, J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 5 (2021) 38, https://doi.
org/10.3390/jmmp5020038.
[12] Y. Bai, C. Zhao, Y. Zhang, J. Chen, H. Wang, Additively manufactured CuCrZr
alloy: microstructure, mechanical properties and machinability, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 819 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2021.141528 141528.
[13] C. Ni, L. Zhu, Z. Zheng, J. Zhang, Y. Yang, R. Hong, Y. Bai, W.F. Lu, H. Wang,
Effects of machining surface and laser beam scanning strategy on
machinability of selective laser melted Ti6Al4V alloy in milling, Mater. Des.
194 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108880 108880.
[14] Q. Cao, J. Zhang, S. Chang, J.Y.H. Fuh, H. Wang, The effect of support structures
on maraging steel MS1 parts fabricated by selective laser melting at different
building angles, Rapid Prototyp. J. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-11-
2019-0287.
[15] J.P. Järvinen, V. Matilainen, X. Li, H. Piili, A. Salminen, I. Mäkelä, O. Nyrhilä,
Characterization of effect of support structures in laser additive manufacturing
of stainless steel, Phys. Procedia, Elsevier (2014) 72–81, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.phpro.2014.08.099.
[16] R. Samant, R. Ranjan, K. Mhapsekar, S. Anand, Octree data structure for support
accessibility and removal analysis in additive manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 22
(2018) 618–633, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.05.031.
[17] F. Calignano, Design optimization of supports for overhanging structures in
aluminum and titanium alloys by selective laser melting, Mater. Des. 64
(2014) 203–213, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.07.043.
[18] A. Khobzi, F. Farhang Mehr, S. Cockcroft, D. Maijer, S.L. Sing, W.Y. Yeong, The
role of block-type support structure design on the thermal field and
deformation in components fabricated by laser powder bed fusion, Addit.
Manuf. 51 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2022.102644 102644.
[19] A. Hussein, L. Hao, C. Yan, R. Everson, P. Young, Advanced lattice support
structures for metal additive manufacturing, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 213
(2013) 1019–1026, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2013.01.020.
[20] G. Strano, L. Hao, R.M. Everson, K.E. Evans, A new approach to the design and
optimisation of support structures in additive manufacturing, Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 66 (2013) 1247–1254, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-
4403-x.
[21] M.X. Gan, C.H. Wong, Practical support structures for selective laser melting, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 238 (2016) 474–484, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmatprotec.2016.08.006.
[22] R. Vaidya, S. Anand, Optimum support structure generation for additive
manufacturing using unit cell structures and support removal constraint,
Procedia Manuf., Elsevier (2016) 1043–1059, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
promfg.2016.08.072.
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
[23] D. Brackett, I. Ashcroft, R. Hague, Topology optimization for additive
manufacturing, in: Proc. Solid Free. Fabr. Symp. Austin, TX, S, 2011: pp. 348–
362.
[24] A.T. Gaynor, J.K. Guest, Topology optimization considering overhang
constraints: eliminating sacrificial support material in additive
manufacturing through design, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 54 (2016) 1157–
1172, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-016-1551-x.
[25] A.M. Mirzendehdel, K. Suresh, Support structure constrained topology
optimization for additive manufacturing, CAD Comput. Aided Des. 81 (2016)
1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2016.08.006.
[26] M. Cloots, A.B. Spierings, K. Wegener, Assessing new support minimizing
strategies for the additive manufacturing technology SLM, in: 24th Int. SFF
Symp. - An Addit. Manuf. Conf. SFF 2013, 2013: pp. 631–643.
[27] F. Mezzadri, V. Bouriakov, X. Qian, Topology optimization of self-supporting
support structures for additive manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 21 (2018) 666–
682, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.04.016.
[28] J. Jiang, X. Xu, J. Stringer, Support structures for additive manufacturing: a
review, J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2 (2018) 64, https://doi.org/10.3390/
jmmp2040064.
[29] R. Paul, S. Anand, Optimization of layered manufacturing process for reducing
form errors with minimal support structures, J. Manuf. Syst. 36 (2015) 231–
243, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.014.
[30] P. Das, R. Chandran, R. Samant, S. Anand, Optimum part build orientation in
additive manufacturing for minimizing part errors and support structures,
Procedia Manuf. 1 (2015) 343–354, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
promfg.2015.09.041.
[31] S. Wan, X. Zhang, H. Zhang, M. Xu, X. Jiang, Modeling and analysis of sub-
aperture tool influence functions for polishing curved surfaces, Precis. Eng. 51
(2018) 415–425, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2017.09.013.
[32] A. Dareh Baghi, S. Nafisi, R. Hashemi, H. Ebendorff-Heidepriem, R. Ghomashchi,
Experimental realisation of build orientation effects on the mechanical
properties of truly as-built Ti-6Al-4V SLM parts, J. Manuf. Process. 64 (2021)
140–152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.01.027.
[33] Y. Bai, Y.J. Lee, C. Li, H. Wang, Densification behavior and influence of building
direction on high anisotropy in selective laser melting of high-strength 18Ni-
Co-Mo-Ti maraging steel, Metall. Mater. Trans. A Phys. Metall. Mater. Sci. 51
(2020) 5861–5879, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-020-05978-9.
[34] W.M. Tucho, V.H. Lysne, H. Austbø, A. Sjolyst-Kverneland, V. Hansen,
Investigation of effects of process parameters on microstructure and
hardness of SLM manufactured SS316L, J. Alloys Compd. 740 (2018) 910–
925, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2018.01.098.
[35] A.M. Khorasani, I. Gibson, U.S. Awan, A. Ghaderi, The effect of SLM process
parameters on density, hardness, tensile strength and surface quality of Ti-
6Al-4V, Addit. Manuf. 25 (2019) 176–186, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addma.2018.09.002.
[36] 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, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.10.001.
[37] J. Zhang, A. Chaudhari, H. Wang, Surface quality and material removal in
magnetic abrasive finishing of selective laser melted 316L stainless steel, J.
Manuf. Process. 45 (2019) 710–719, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmapro.2019.07.044.
[38] Y. Bai, C. Zhao, J. Yang, J.Y.H. Fuh, W.F. Lu, C. Weng, H. Wang, Dry mechanical-
electrochemical polishing of selective laser melted 316L stainless steel, Mater.
Des. 193 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108840 108840.
[39] I. Gibson, D. Rosen, B. Stucker (Eds.), Additive Manufacturing Technologies,
Springer New York, New York, NY, 2015.
[40] Q. Cao, Y. Bai, J. Zhang, Z. Shi, J.Y.H. Fuh, H. Wang, Removability of 316L
stainless steel cone and block support structures fabricated by selective laser
melting (SLM), Mater. Des. 191 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.matdes.2020.108691 108691.
[41] Q. Cao, Z. Shi, Y. Bai, J. Zhang, C. Zhao, J.Y.H. Fuh, H. Wang, A novel method to
improve the removability of cone support structures in selective laser melting
of 316L stainless steel, J. Alloys Compd. 854 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jallcom.2020.157133 157133.
[42] A. Bandyopadhyay, B. Heer, Additive manufacturing of multi-material
structures, Mater. Sci. Eng. R Rep. 129 (2018) 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mser.2018.04.001.
[43] D.R. Feenstra, R. Banerjee, H.L. Fraser, A. Huang, A. Molotnikov, N. Birbilis,
Critical review of the state of the art in multi-material fabrication via directed
energy deposition, Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 25 (4) (2021) 100924,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cossms.2021.100924.
[44] O.J. Hildreth, A.R. Nassar, K.R. Chasse, T.W. Simpson, Dissolvable metal
supports for 3D direct metal printing, 3D Print. Addit. Manuf. 3 (2016) 91–
97, https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2016.0013.
[45] C.S. Lefky, B. Zucker, D. Wright, A.R. Nassar, T.W. Simpson, O.J. Hildreth,
Dissolvable supports in powder bed fusion-printed stainless steel, 3D Print.
Addit. Manuf. 4 (2017) 3–11, https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2016.0043.