EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 12 (2025) Manufacturing Rev., 12 (2025) 20 Full HTML
Open Access
Issue
Manufacturing Rev.
Volume 12, 2025
Article Number 20
Number of page(s) 11
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/mfreview/2025015
Published online 03 September 2025

© P. Ninpetch and P. Kowitwarangkul, Published by EDP Sciences 2025

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1 Introduction

Laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) process is a type of Metal Additive Manufacturing (MAM), which is used to manufacture complex geometric components with high performance [1–3]. Due to its numerous advantages, this process has been increasingly adopted to produce complex high-performance components in automotive, aerospace, and medical industries [4,5]. In the medical sector, the L-PBF process is commonly applied to produce medical components such as hip prostheses, femoral, tibial tray, and joint replacements, which often feature intricate shapes and geometries [6,7]. These components are mostly made from titanium alloys, such as Ti-6Al-4V, which offer low density, a high strength-to-weight ratio, and excellent biocompatibility [8–10]. Nevertheless, the inherent complexity of thermal processes during the L-PBF process leads to large thermal gradients [11,12]. The gradients can induce substantial thermal strain, thermal stress, and part distortion [11]. The occurrence of distortion negatively impacts the dimensional and geometric accuracy, and mechanical performance of the final parts produced through the L-PBF process [13,14]. Furthermore, the forming quality, particularly residual stress part distortion, is highly influenced by the selection of process parameters [15]. Among them, the integral process parameters that highly effect residual stress, and distortion are scanning length, scanning strategy, preheat temperature, and build orientation [16–19]. To date, numerous researchers have investigated the impact of process parameters on residual stress and part distortion in the L-PBF process [20–23]. Mugwagwa et al. [24] examined the effect process parameters including laser power and scanning speed on parts distortion of the in selective laser melting (SLM) of Maraging Steel 300. They found that the distortion of parts tends to increase with an increase of laser power and scanning speed. Makeen et al. [25] utilized the numerical simulation with modified inherent strain method (ISM) to predict residual stress, and distortion of additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V part. They discovered that the maximum distortion could reduce from 0.68 to 0.28 mm with geometry compensation. Promoppatum and Yao [26] conducted both numerical and experimental studies to examine the impact of scanning length on residual stress reduction. Their findings revealed that residual stress was primarily influenced by thermal history and surface temperature that affected from scanning length. Xiaochuan et al. [27] studied the effect of scanning strategies on distortion. It was seen that the distortion of parts can be reduced when 90° alternative scanning pattern along the x and y directions in sequential was applied. Mohanraj et al. [28] studied the impact of specimen positioning and orientation on the build platform concerning residual stress and distortion. The findings indicated the build orientation and position of specimen has an important impact on residual stress, and distortion. The minimal stress occurred at specimen with the 45° orientation, and near the power collector bin position. Moreover, Pagac et al. [29] and Cheng, et al. [30,31] investigated the optimization of build orientation to minimize residual stress, and support structure volume. Their findings suggested that build orientation plays a crucial role in influencing the residual stress, distortion and the required support volume. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the effects of build orientation on distortion in components fabricated by the L-PBF process to achieve final parts with high geometric accuracy.

However, based on the literature survey the studies above indicate that previous research on residual stress and distortion analysis essentially focuses on its simple geometries [32–34]. The distortion of complex geometrical parts, particularly medical components in L-PBF process is scarce. Additionally, studies investigating the effect of build orientation on distortion, and support structure volume in medical components fabricated through the L-PBF process remain limited. Therefore, this research conducted numerical investigation to examine the effect of build orientation on the distortion and support structure volume of a femoral component fabricated through L-PBF process. The numerical investigation was conducted using the Simufact Additive, employing the inherent strain method (ISM). The ISM is a purely mechanical analysis where thermal effect is not considered [35]. The component studied is the femoral implant, which is used for knee joint replacement. The results of this study can provide valuable insights into the medical sector in fabricating efficient and high-quality medical components.

2 Methodology

2.1 Mechanical analysis

To predict the residual stress and distortion part manufactured by L-PBF process, thermal history data derived from thermal analysis is utilized. The computational domain is modeled as an elastic-perfectly-plastic material. Equation (1) exhibits constitutive model that is applied for the mechanical analysis of the L-PBF process [36,37]

σ=[D]{εe}(1)

where σ is the second-order stress tensor, D is the fourth order stiffness tensor.

The total strain, comprising elastic strain, plastic strain, thermal strain, and phase transformation strain, is expressed in equation (2) [38,39]. However, when using the ISM for mechanical analysis, the effects of thermal and phase transformation are disregarded. Hence, the inherent strain value is described in equation (3) [40,41]

{εtotal}={εe}+{εp}+{εt}+{εph}(2)

{ε*}={εtotal}−{εe}(3)

where εtotal is total strain, εe is the second-order elastic strain, εp is plastic strain, εt is thermal strain, and εph is phase transition strain. Moreover, the Von Mises yield criteria and Prandtl-Reuss flow rule are employed for plastic strain analysis as shown as follows: [23,38]

f=σVM−σy(T)(4)

dεp=dλ∂f∂σ(5)

where f is yield function, σVM is von Mises stress, σy is yield stress, dλ is plastic multiplier.

2.2 Numerical investigation setup

A numerical investigation was conducted using Simufact Additive 2020 F1 software based on ISM to analyze the distortion of femoral component fabricated through L-PBF process in this study. To calculate and predict the distortion, the simufact Additive software requires inherent strain values as input parameters. The inherent strain values utilized in this study are εx = −0.0047, εy = −0.0020, and εz = 0, obtained and calibrated based on the prior study by Siewert et al. [42]. Further details on this calibration process can be observed in reference [42]. As shown in Figure 1, the femoral component with the dimensions of 70 mm (width) × 56 mm (length) × 62 mm (height) was selected as build component. The component model was acquired from grab CAD [43]. The cylindrical support structure was defined for the analysis. The height between built components and substrate of all case studies was 2 mm. A voxel element with an element size of 1 mm was set for building components and support structure. Moreover, the voxel element size of 6 mm was set for substate base plate. The zero-displacement condition was defined at the bottom of substrate plate. The process parameters utilized for this study comprise laser power of 180 W, scanning speed of 1,250 mm/s, hatching distance 0.105 mm, and layer thickness of 0.03 mm from reference [42]. Additionally, the material properties of Ti-6Al-4V used in this study were acquired from the Simufact Material database [44] and the previous study of Siewert et al. [42]. Figures 2a–2g shows the model of femoral components with seven different build orientations.

For the study, the build components were rotated around the X-axis and Y-axis, comprising 0° degree, 30° degree, 60° degree, and 90° degree. The rod support structure was built to support the overhanging structure of the femoral component. The overhanging structure is defined as the structure protruded greater than 45 degrees from vertical axis [45,46]. The benefit of support structure is to prevent the failure of overhanging structures. Different building orientations in building process were expected to influence the distortion and support structure volume of the femoral components.

thumbnail Fig. 1

(a) Computational domain comprises build component, support structure, and substrate plate and (b) meshing.
thumbnail Fig. 2

The model of femoral component with seven different build orientations (The letters and numbers represent the rotation axis and the rotation degrees).

2.3 The sequence of numerical investigation processes using Simufact Additive software

Figure 3 demonstrates the sequence of numerical investigation processes using Simufact Additive software. The process involves six key steps for conducting numerical investigation for distortion analysis. The sequence of this process can be followed: 1) importing model of built component, 2) creating support structure design, 3) generating voxel mesh, 4) Running the simulation calculation, 5) analyzing the numerical result of distortion before support structure removal, and 6) analyzing numerical result of distortion after support structure removal.

thumbnail Fig. 3

The sequence of numerical investigations processes using Simufact Additive software.

2.4 Mesh convergence analysis

For the numerical simulation process, a mesh convergence study was carried out first to specify the optimal element size [23,47]. In the study, the analyzed specimen is the single cantilever beam with dimensions of 12 mm (width) × 72 mm (length) × 9 mm (height). The mesh convergence of the study is considered using Z-axis displacement of cantilever beam part of each reference points along the longitudinal direction before cutting. The fine, medium, coarse mesh sizes applied for the analysis were 0.5 mm, 1 mm, and 1.25 mm, respectively, as demonstrated in Figure 4a. The experiment data was obtained from reference [48] As displayed in Figure 4b, it was seen that the estimated deflection in relationship between the Z-axis displacement and the distance of reference points along longitudinal direction for the with parts with mesh sizes of 0.5 mm and 1 mm provide similar results was mostly identical. Nevertheless, the computational time for the case with mesh size of 0.5 mm was four times longer than that of mesh size of 1 mm. Hence, a mesh size of 1 mm was selected to investigate the effect of build orientations on distortion of femoral components.

thumbnail Fig. 4

(a) Single cantilever beam part with different mesh sizes, and (b) mesh convergence analysis.

3 Results and discussions

3.1 Numerica model validation

A numerical model of the study was validated with experimental results from L. M. Siewert et al. [42] to explore the accuracy of the numerical model. The twin cantilever beam with dimensions of 7.5 mm (width) x 80 mm (length) x 13 mm (height) was adopted as an analyzed specimen for validation process. Figure 5 presents The comparison of the twin cantilever beam distortion between (a) the experiment measurement from L. M. Siewert et al [42] and (b) numerical result of the study. The results indicated that the deviation in this validation is 10% when compared to the experimental results. From the result, the developed model is deemed suitable for further investigation in this research study. Additional information on the validation process for the numerical model is available in our previous work [13].

thumbnail Fig. 5

The comparison of the twin cantilever beam distortion between (a) numerical result of the study and (b) the experiment measurement from L. M. Siewert et al [42].

3.2 Distortion formation, and distribution of Femoral components before support removal stage

Figure 6 demonstrates the numerical result of the total displacement distribution of femoral component with X-0° before support structure removal process. It can be noted that the larger distortion is observed near the interface between overhanging structure of build component and support structure as highlighted by red circle. This is attributed to the difference in stiffness between solid bulk materials and support structures. In contrast, the small distortion is observed at the top surface of femoral condyles part as presented in blue region. Moreover, it was found that distortion gradually decreased from the inner surface of the femoral condyles at the interface, extending to the top surface and then to the outer surface of the femoral condyles. This is mainly due to the reduction in constraint strength provided by the support structure as the deposition height increases [49]. As seen in Figure 7, similar results can be observed across other orientations.

thumbnail Fig. 6

The numerical result of femoral component's distortion formation, and distribution before support removal stage.
thumbnail Fig. 7

Numerical results of distortion of femoral components with seven different build orientations at built stage.

3.3 Build orientations effects distortion of femoral components at building process

The numerical results of the distortion of femoral components with seven different build orientations at built stage are shown in Figure 7. The simulation results showed that the distribution of distortion in all cases is somewhat similar, however, the magnitude of distortion in each case was significantly distinguished. It was also observed that when the femoral component was rotated along the X-axis, and Y-axis in increments from 30° to 90°, the highest distortion occurred at a rotation angle of 30°on Y-axis. In contrast, the one with the smallest distortion is the case of rotation angle of 90° on X-axis. This is mainly due to the uniform construction of the component, lacking significant protrusions or sharp angles that would be perpendicular to the printing process. This result is consistent with the previous research conducted by DeCarvalho et al. [17]. Figure 8a illustrates the maximum distortion and support structure volume of femoral components under different build orientations. The maximum distortion was obtained from the calculation of simulation software. The result of maximum distortion value of femoral components under different build orientations are shown in Table 1.

As shown in Figure 8a, the volume of support structure varied when the build orientations were rotated with different degrees. It was observed that build orientation not only significantly influences distortion but also affects the volume of the support structure. From the result, it was discovered that a rotation angle of 90° along the X-axis resulted in the minimum support structure volume due to smaller overhanging regions compared to other rotation angles [17]. Table 2 demonstrated the support volume of femoral components under different build orientations. Moreover, the build orientation also has an influence on the build time. Figure 8b represents the build time of fabricated femoral components with seven different build orientations. The result showed that longer build time is observed at rotation angle of 60° on Y-axis and 90° on Y-axis case due to the larger support structure volume [50]. Meanwhile, the case of rotation angle of 90° on X-axis demonstrated the shortest of the build time. The build time of femoral component under seven different build orientations were 9.20 hr for X−0° case, 9.85 hr for X−30° case, 9.48 hr for X−60° case, 7.71 hr for X−90° case, 10.20 hr for Y−30° case, 12.76 hr for Y−60° case, and 12.76 hr for Y−90° case consecutively.

thumbnail Fig. 8

(a) The maximum distortion and support volume; and (b) Build time of built component under different of build orientations before support removal.
Table 1

Maximum distortion of femoral components under different build orientations.

Table 2

Support volume of femoral components under different build orientations.

3.4 Distortion of femoral component after support structure removal process

Further investigation of this research was conducted on the distortion analysis after support structure removal process. After the building process of femoral components, the support structure is generally removed from build component [51]. Figure 9 depicts the numerical result of the distortion of femoral components under seven different building orientations after support structure removal process.

Figure 10 illustrates the comparison between the maximum distortion of femoral components before and after support structure removal obtained from numerical investigation. The distortion was noticeably increased when support structure was removed from build component. The maximum distortion of femoral components with different build orientations after support structure removal of the X−0°, X−30°, X−60°, X−90°, Y−30°, Y−60°, and Y−90° cases were 3.91 mm, 1.03 mm, 0.89 mm, 0.68 mm, 2.06 mm, 2.01 mm, and 0.90 mm respectively. These values increased by around 0.40 mm to 3.57 mm or 48.89% to 91.30% for all cases. The distortion of the femoral component in the support structure removal process is primarily attributed to stress accumulation and subsequent stress relief [52]. Nevertheless, the distortion of build component can be mitigated by post heat treatment process, particularly stress relief heat treatment process before the support removal process [53].

thumbnail Fig. 9

Distortion of femoral components under seven different of build orientations after support structure removal process.
thumbnail Fig. 10

Comparison between the max distortion of femoral components before and after support removal process.

3.5 Selection of the optimal build orientations for manufacture of the femoral component

In addition to the influence of build orientations on distortion formation of femoral component fabricated through the L-PBF process, the selection of build orientation for minimizing the distortion, support volume, and build time for manufacturing the femoral component was further discussed. The optimal build orientation in this study was evaluated and compared by using three parameters including maximum distortion, volume of support structure, and build time. The optimal build orientation can be determined based on the orientation that exhibits the lowest maximum distortion, minimal support structure volume, and shortest build time. It was seen that the optimal build orientation was the case of rotation angle of 90° on X-axis. In contrast, the rotation angle of 60° on Y-axis and 90° on Y-axis are not suitable to produce the femoral component due to high support structure volume that results in longer build time. Similarly, the cases of rotation angle of 0° on X-axis and 30° on Y-axis are also improper for build component manufacturing because of high distortion on build components. However, the distortion in the L-PBF process can be amended and prevented by distortion compensation which is a function of commercial simulation that was employed to encounter the parts with geometrical and dimensional accuracy. Another advantage of this function is reducing waste, saving printing cost and time, and avoiding the post processing such as heat treatment process and machining process.

4 Conclusion

In this study, the influence of build orientation on distortion, support structure volume, and build time of femoral component fabricated using the L-PBF process was investigated through numerical investigation based on the inherent strain method (ISM). Additionally, the study examined the optimization of build orientation to minimize both distortion and support structure volume during the fabrication of the femoral component. The key findings from this research can be drawn as follows:

  • Significant distortion is created near the interface between the built component and the support structure due to the difference in stiffness between the solid bulk material and the support structure. Moreover, the result revealed that the build orientation plays a significant role in distortion, support structure volume, and build time in L-PBF process.

  • Distortion progressively reduced from the inner surface of the femoral condyles at the interface, moving toward the top surface and then to the outer surface. This reduction is preliminary attributed to the diminishing constraint strength of the support structure as the deposition height increases.

  • Build orientation plays a vital role in determining distortion, volume of support structure, and build time. Selecting the appropriate build orientation can effectively decrease distortion, minimize support structure volume, and shorten build time in the L-PBF process.

  • The lowest total distortion of 0.23 mm, support structure volume of 6.47 cm3, and build time of 7.71 h were observed when fabricating the femoral component at a 90° rotation angle along the X-axis (Case X-90°). This can be attributed to the smaller overhanging regions compared to other rotation angles.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Simufact MSC and Sigma solution Co., Ltd., for providing a software license. The author also expresses gratitude to the Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi for providing the necessary facilities to conduct this research.

Funding

This work was supported by National Research Council of Thailand and King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok under Grant No. N42A650321.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Author contribution statement

Conceptualization, P.N. and P.K.; Methodology, P.N., and P.K.; Software, P.N.; Formal Analysis, P.N.; Investigation, P.N. and P.K.; Writing − Original Draft Preparation, P.N.; Writing − Review & Editing, P.N. and P.K.; Supervision, P.K.; Project Administration, P.K.; Funding Acquisition, P.K.

References

  1. S. Chowdhury, N. Yadaiah, C. Prakash, S. Ramakrishna, S. Dixit, L.R. Gupta, D. Buddhi, Laser powder bed fusion: a state-of-the-art review of the technology, materials, properties & defects, and numerical modelling, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 20 (2022) 2109–2172 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. W. Abd-Elaziem, S. Elkatatny, A.-E. Abd-Elaziem, M. Khedr, M.A. Abd El-baky, M.A. Hassan, M. Abu-Okail, M. Mohammed, A. Järvenpää, T. Allam, A. Hamada, On the current research progress of metallic materials fabricated by laser powder bed fusion process: a review, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 20 (2022) 681–707 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. R. Thongpron, P. Ninpetch, P. Chalermkarnnon, P. Kowitwarangkul, Effect of hatch spacing in selective laser melting process of Ti-6Al-4V alloy on finished surface roughness: a computational study, J. Met. Mater. Miner. 34 (2024) 1861 [Google Scholar]
  4. X. Gao, A. Aryan, W. Zhang, Numerical analysis of rotating scans' effect on surface roughness in laser-powder bed fusion, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 30 (2024) 8671–8682 [Google Scholar]
  5. M. Taghian, M.H. Mosallanejad, E. Lannunziata, G. Del Greco, L. Iuliano, A. Saboori, Laser powder bed fusion of metallic components: latest progress in productivity, quality, and cost perspectives, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 27 (2023) 6484–6500 [Google Scholar]
  6. A.K. Singla, M. Banerjee, A. Sharma, J. Singh, A. Bansal, M.K. Gupta, N. Khanna, A.S. Shahi, D.K. Goyal, Selective laser melting of Ti6Al4V alloy: process parameters, defects and post-treatments, J. Manuf. Process. 64 (2021) 161–187 [Google Scholar]
  7. T. Majumdar, T. Bazin, E. Massahud Carvalho Ribeiro, J.E. Frith, N. Birbilis, Understanding the effects of PBF process parameter interplay on Ti-6Al-4V surface properties, PLoS ONE 14 (2019) e0221198 [Google Scholar]
  8. H. Shipley, D. McDonnell, M. Culleton, R. Coull, R. Lupoi, G. O'Donnell, D. Trimble, Optimisation of process parameters to address fundamental challenges during selective laser melting of Ti-6Al-4V: A review, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 128 (2018) 1–20 [Google Scholar]
  9. S. Cao, Y. Zou, C.V.S. Lim, X. Wu, Review of laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) fabricated Ti-6Al-4V: process, post-process treatment, microstructure, and property, Light Adv. Manuf. 2 (2021) 20 [Google Scholar]
  10. D. Chen, G. Li, P. Wang, Z. Zeng, Y. Tang, Numerical simulation of melt pool size and flow evolution for laser powder bed fusion of powder grade Ti6Al4V, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 223 (2023) 103971 [Google Scholar]
  11. X. Lu, M. Chiumenti, M. Cervera, H. Tan, X. Lin, S. Wang, Warpage analysis and control of thin-walled structures manufactured by laser powder bed fusion, Metals 11 (2021) 686 [Google Scholar]
  12. N.C. Levkulich, S.L. Semiatin, J.E. Gockel, J.R. Middendorf, A.T. DeWald, N.W. Klingbeil, The effect of process parameters on residual stress evolution and distortion in the laser powder bed fusion of Ti-6Al-4V, Addit. Manuf. 28 (2019) 475–484 [Google Scholar]
  13. P. Ninpetch, P. Kowitwarangkul, P. Chalermkarnnon, P. Promoppatum, P. Chuchuay, P. Rattanadecho, Numerical modeling of distortion of Ti-6Al-4V components manufactured using laser powder bed fusion, Metals 12 (2022) 1484 [Google Scholar]
  14. I. Aiza, C. Baldi, F.M. De La Vega, S. Sebastiani, N.E. Veronese, M. Yousefi, M.H. Mosallanejad, E. Maleki, M. Guagliano, L. Iuliano, A. Saboori, S. Bagherifard, Effects of build orientation and inclined features on physical, microstructural and mechanical properties of powder bed fusion additively manufactured metallic parts, Prog. Mater. Sci. 147 (2025) 101357 [Google Scholar]
  15. Z. Li, R. Xu, Z. Zhang, I. Kucukkoc, The influence of scan length on fabricating thin-walled components in selective laser melting, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 126 (2018) 1–12 [Google Scholar]
  16. W. Zhang, M. Tong, N.M. Harrison, Scanning strategies effect on temperature, residual stress and deformation by multi-laser beam powder bed fusion manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 36 (2020) 101507 [Google Scholar]
  17. S. DeCarvalho, O. Aljarrah, Z. Chen, J. Li, Influence of build orientation and support structure on additive manufacturing of human knee replacements: a computational study, Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 62 (2024) 2005–2017 [Google Scholar]
  18. S. Zou, L. Pang, C. Xu, X. Xiao, Effect of process parameters on distortions based on the quantitative model in the SLM process, Appl. Sci. 12 (2022) 1567 [Google Scholar]
  19. M. Mele, G. Campana, A. Bergmann, Optimisation of part orientation and design of support structures in laser powder bed fusion, Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 16 (2022) 597–611 [Google Scholar]
  20. R. Dogea, X.T. Yan, R. Millar, Additive manufacturing process design for complex aircraft components, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 123 (2022) 4195–4211 [Google Scholar]
  21. A. Ahmed, A. Majeed, Z. Atta, G. Jia, Dimensional quality and distortion analysis of thin-walled alloy parts of AlSi10Mg manufactured by selective laser melting, JMMP 3 (2019) 51 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. 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) 2367104 [Google Scholar]
  23. P. Promoppatum, V. Uthaisangsuk, Part scale estimation of residual stress development in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing of Inconel 718, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 189 (2021) 103528 [Google Scholar]
  24. L. Mugwagwa, I. Yadroitsev, S. Matope, Effect of process parameters on residual stresses, distortions, and porosity in selective laser melting of maraging steel 300, Metals 9 (2019) 1042 [Google Scholar]
  25. R. Makeen, K. Joshi, M.H. Jhon, P. Promoppatum, Distortion prediction and geometry compensation using modified inherent strain method for additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V, J. Manuf. Process. 131 (2024) 1334–1347 [Google Scholar]
  26. P. Promoppatum, S.-C. Yao, Influence of scanning length and energy input on residual stress reduction in metal additive manufacturing: numerical and experimental studies, J. Manuf. Process. 49 (2020) 247–259 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. X. Zhang, J. Kang, Y. Rong, P. Wu, T. Feng, Effect of scanning routes on the stress and deformation of overhang structures fabricated by SLM, Materials 12 (2018) 47 [Google Scholar]
  28. J. Mohanraj, J. Sahu, Numerical prediction of residual stress and distortion for laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) AM process of Ti-6Al-4V, Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 140 (2025) 103094 [Google Scholar]
  29. 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, Appl. Sci. 11 (2021) 1656 [Google Scholar]
  30. L. Cheng, A. To, Part-scale build orientation optimization for minimizing residual stress and support volume for metal additive manufacturing: theory and experimental validation, Comput. Aided Des. 113 (2019) 1–23 [Google Scholar]
  31. L. Cheng, X. Liang, J. Bai, Q. Chen, J. Lemon, A. To, On utilizing topology optimization to design support structure to prevent residual stress induced build failure in laser powder bed metal additive manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 27 (2019) 290–304 [Google Scholar]
  32. M. Yakout, M.A. Elbestawi, S.C. Veldhuis, A study of the relationship between thermal expansion and residual stresses in selective laser melting of Ti-6Al-4V, J. Manuf. Process. 52 (2020) 181–192 [Google Scholar]
  33. D. De Baere, M. Moshiri, L. Smolej, J.H. Hattel, Numerical investigation into laser-based powder bed fusion of cantilevers produced in 300-grade maraging steel, Addit. Manuf. 50 (2022) 102560 [Google Scholar]
  34. D. Bompos, J. Chaves-Jacob, J.-M. Sprauel, Shape distortion prediction in complex 3D parts induced during the selective laser melting process, CIRP Ann. 69 (2020) 517–520 [Google Scholar]
  35. G. Seitz, P. Bantle, M. Biegler, B.A.M. Elsner, M. Rethmeier, An inherent strain method using progressive element activation for fast distortion calculation in directed energy deposition, Metals 14 (2024) 1338 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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 [Google Scholar]
  37. P. Pant, S. Sjöström, K. Simonsson, J. Moverare, S. Proper, S. Hosseini, V. Luzin, R. Peng, A simplified layer-by-layer model for prediction of residual stress distribution in additively manufactured parts, Metals 11 (2021) 861 [Google Scholar]
  38. X. Liang, L. Cheng, Q. Chen, Q. Yang, A.C. To, A modified method for estimating inherent strains from detailed process simulation for fast residual distortion prediction of single-walled structures fabricated by directed energy deposition, Addit. Manuf. 23 (2018) 471–486 [Google Scholar]
  39. Z.-D. Zhang, O. Ibhadode, S.I. Shahabad, X.-Y. Zhai, D.-Y. Yu, T. Gao, J.-H. Zhu, W.-H. Zhang, High-resolution inherent strain method using actual layer thickness in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing with experimental validations, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 30 (2024) 6576–6595 [Google Scholar]
  40. I. Setien, M. Chiumenti, M. San Sebastian, C.A. Moreira, M.A. Caicedo, Integrating temperature history into inherent strain methodology for improved distortion prediction in laser powder bed fusion, Metals 15 (2025) 143 [Google Scholar]
  41. C. Behrens, S. Neubert, M. Siewert, M.S. Mohebbi, V. Ploshikhin, Integration of annealing into the inherent strain simulation of wire arc additive manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. Lett. 4 (2023) 100115 [Google Scholar]
  42. M. Siewert, F. Neugebauer, J. Epp, V. Ploshikhin, Validation of mechanical layer equivalent method for simulation of residual stresses in additive manufactured components, Comput. Math. Appl. 78 (2019) 2407–2416 [Google Scholar]
  43. Grab Cad. Available online: https://grabcad.com/library/3d-model-of-a-knee-prosthesis (accessed on 5 March 2024) [Google Scholar]
  44. Simufact Engineering Gmbh MSC Software Company, “Simufact Additive material database 2020” [Google Scholar]
  45. ISO/ASTM 52902: Additive manufacturing − Test artifacts − Geometric capability assessment of additive manufacturing systems, West Conshohocken, PA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  46. P.R. Gradl, D.C. Tinker, J. Ivester, S.W. Skinner, T. Teasley, J.L. Bili, Geometric feature reproducibility for laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) additive manufacturing with Inconel 718, Addit. Manuf. 47 (2021) 102305 [Google Scholar]
  47. P. Thongjitr, P. Kowitwarangkul, Y. Pratumwal, S. Otarawanna, Optimization of oxygen injection conditions with different molten steel levels in the EAF refining process by CFD simulation, Metals 13 (2023) 1507 [Google Scholar]
  48. Simufact Engineering Gmbh MSC Software Company, Simufact Additive Tutorial, 2020 [Google Scholar]
  49. C. Chen, Z. Xiao, H. Zhu, X. Zeng, Deformation and control method of thin-walled part during laser powder bed fusion of Ti-6Al-4V alloy, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 110 (2020) 3467–3478 [Google Scholar]
  50. A. Bhat, R.S. Elsen, D. Abishai, M. Jayaprakash Narayan, A.R. Sakthivel, U. Chadha, B.B. Hirpha, Prediction and experimental verification of distortion due to residual stresses in a Ti-6Al-4V control arm plate, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2022 (2022) 1–11 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  51. 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) 108691 [Google Scholar]
  52. J. Su, Y. Mo, P. Shangguan, C. Panwisawas, F. Jiang, S.L. Sing, Additive manufacturing-by-design for support structures: a critical review, Int. J. Extrem. Manuf. 7 (2025) 052002 [Google Scholar]
  53. D. De Baere, P. Van Cauwenbergh, M. Bayat, S. Mohanty, J. Thorborg, L. Thijs, B. Van Hooreweder, K. Vanmeensel, J.H. Hattel, Thermo-mechanical modelling of stress relief heat treatments after laser-based powder bed fusion, Addit. Manuf. 38 (2021) 101818 [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Patiparn Ninpetch, Pruet Kowitwarangkul, Effect of build orientation on distortion of medical component fabricated via laser powder bed fusion: a numerical investigation, Manufacturing Rev. 12, 20 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1051/mfreview/2025015

All Tables

Table 1

Maximum distortion of femoral components under different build orientations.

In the text
Table 2

Support volume of femoral components under different build orientations.

In the text

All Figures

thumbnail Fig. 1

(a) Computational domain comprises build component, support structure, and substrate plate and (b) meshing.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 2

The model of femoral component with seven different build orientations (The letters and numbers represent the rotation axis and the rotation degrees).
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 3

The sequence of numerical investigations processes using Simufact Additive software.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 4

(a) Single cantilever beam part with different mesh sizes, and (b) mesh convergence analysis.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 5

The comparison of the twin cantilever beam distortion between (a) numerical result of the study and (b) the experiment measurement from L. M. Siewert et al [42].
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 6

The numerical result of femoral component's distortion formation, and distribution before support removal stage.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 7

Numerical results of distortion of femoral components with seven different build orientations at built stage.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 8

(a) The maximum distortion and support volume; and (b) Build time of built component under different of build orientations before support removal.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 9

Distortion of femoral components under seven different of build orientations after support structure removal process.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 10

Comparison between the max distortion of femoral components before and after support removal process.
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.