Effect of Varying Layer Thickness by Interlayer Machining on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties in Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing

Abstract

This study investigates the influence of varying layer thickness through interlayer machining in Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM) and its impact on microstructural evolution, mechanical properties, and residual stress distribution. It compares four types of WAAM samples: As-built with uneven layer thickness without interlayer machining and uniform layer thicknesses of 2 mm, 1.5 mm, and 1 mm achieved through interlayer machining. As-built components exhibited coarse columnar grains and uneven deposition, adversely affecting hardness and strength. Interlayer machining at reduced layer thickness refined grains, restricted growth, and induced plastic deformation, leading to enhanced mechanical properties. Grain refinement achieved reductions of 62.7% (top), 77.6% (middle), and 64.3% (bottom), significantly improving microstructural uniformity. Microhardness increased from 150 to 180 HV (as-built) to 210 to 230 HV (machined to maintain 1 mm layer thickness), marking a 40–43% improvement. Tensile strength was enhanced, with UTS increasing from 494.72 MPa to 582.11 MPa (17.6%) and YS from 371 MPa to 471 MPa (26.9%), although elongation decreased from 59% to 46% (22% reduction). Residual stress was reduced by 55–60%, improving structural integrity. These findings highlight interlayer machining as a key strategy for optimizing WAAM-fabricated components while balancing mechanical performance and manufacturing efficiency.

1. Introduction

Layer thickness is a crucial factor in Additive Manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, impacting various aspects of the process and the resulting component’s properties. It significantly influences resolution and surface finish, with lesser layer thickness yielding finer details and smoother surfaces. Smaller layer thickness increases build time and cost as it requires more layers to achieve a given part height than higher layer thickness [1]. However, higher layer thickness has to compromise accuracy and surface quality [2,3]. Layer thickness also influences mechanical properties with smaller layer thickness, enhancing interlayer bonding for greater strength [4,5]. Directed Energy Deposition (DED) is one class of AM which utilizes metal powder or wire as feedstock and uses a laser, arc, or electron beam as a thermal energy source to melt the material for deposition [6]. Powder feedstock has a low yield due to high wastage, and therefore wire feedstock becomes more prominent [7]. Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM) is an emerging metal AM technology facilitating the cost-effective production of medium to large metal parts, driven by its outstanding material utilization (>90%) and improved energy efficiency [6,8,9,10,11]. It employs an electric arc to melt wire and construct components layer by layer. Further post-processing, such as milling, turning, and grinding, is required because the WAAM process produces near-net shapes with low dimensional accuracy and surface quality [12,13,14,15]. These machining operations determine the component’s surface integrity, residual stresses, microstructural deformations, and longevity [16,17,18]. However, other techniques, such as pre-heating [19], hammering [20], process selection [21], fixture design [22], etc., also have significant effects on the various aspects of the WAAM components.

During machining, material microstructure evolves through the combined influence of thermal and mechanical interactions, with plastic deformation significantly advancing this evolution [23]. The generation of residual stresses in machining can be attributed to non-uniform plastic deformation resulting from the mechanical and thermal processes associated with chip formation (cutting) and the interaction between the tool’s nose and the freshly machined workpiece surface (compression). These forces, acting parallel and perpendicular to the surface, develop compressive residual stresses [24,25]. Numerous studies have investigated the impact of layer thickness on the build time and mechanical characteristics of metal Additive Manufacturing [4,5,26,27]. Additionally, various researchers have investigated the influence of machining on the microstructure evolution and residual stress of machined surfaces [28,29,30,31,32]. Few researchers have studied the effect of substrate and layer thickness on residual stress, heat input, and deformation in WAAM [21,33,34]. Nevertheless, there is a noticeable gap in exploring the combined effects of layer thickness by interlayer machining on the mechanical properties and reduction in residual stress in WAAM surfaces. This study aims to fill this void by providing insights into how adjusting layer thickness by incorporating interlayer machining can enhance mechanical properties and reduce residual stress in WAAM components.

2. Materials and Methods

Four different sample blocks (S1–S4) were deposited using the material mild steel (grade ER70S-6) in the wire form of 1.2 mm diameter by Fronius Magic WAVE 2700 Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW) (Fronius, Wels, Austria, Austria-based company) with customized wire feeding assembly, as shown in Figure 1. The chemical composition of ER70S-6 [35] is shown in Table 1. The welding parameters were optimized with trial experiments and taken as current 150 A, welding speed 800 mm/min, and voltage 14 V. The deposition and machining process was performed using an in-house-developed machine, Multi-Station Multi-Axis Hybrid Layered Manufacturing (MSMA-HLM) [6]. The machining center is equipped with a carbide tool, and the diameter of that cutting tool was 63 mm, a face milling cutter with 5 carbide inserts and a rake angle of 6°. The feed rate was 800 mm/min, the spindle speed was 2000 rpm, and the depth of cut was 0.5 mm, and they were optimized based on preliminary trials. The machining operation was performed without lubrication, as the presence of a lubricant could introduce moisture to the machined surface, which is undesirable for welding.

Figure 2 presents samples in various scenarios. Bead height in a single layer of deposition ranged from 2.3 to 2.7 mm (Figure 2a). Four samples were prepared to assess multi-pass machining’s impact on residual stress, microstructure, and mechanics. The initial sample (S1) was manufactured without any machining (Figure 2b), consisting of three consecutive deposition layers (Figure 2f). Subsequently, the second sample (S2) was manufactured with single-pass machining applied after each deposition layer. In this process, layer thickness was maintained at 2 mm, and this procedure was iterated over three layers, resulting in an aggregate layer height of 6 mm (as illustrated in Figure 2c,g). For the third sample, denoted as S3, two machining passes were executed, a layer thickness of 1.5 mm was maintained, and a total of four such layers were deposited (Figure 2d,h). In the case of the fourth sample, S4, three machining passes were carried out to attain a layer thickness of 1 mm, and this sequence was repeated six times to achieve a final height of 6 mm (Figure 2e,i).

Samples extracted by wire-electric discharge machining (W-EDM) from the various places of deposited block were used for characterization and testing, as illustrated in Figure 3. The microstructure examination utilized Electron Back Scattered Diffraction (EBSD) on Zeiss Gemini SEM 300 (Carl Zeiss AG, Oberkochen, Germany, German-based company) following grinding and colloidal polishing. Vickers microhardness using the Innovatest Model 41 2D (INNOVATEST, Maastricht, The Netherlands, The Netherlands-based company) tests applied a 500 g load for 10 s on polished samples to measure the microhardness. Miniature tensile specimens were fabricated following a modified ASTM E8 sub-size standard, featuring a gauge length of 5 mm and a width of 2 mm, as illustrated in [36], tested on the Tinius Olsen, Model H25KS (Tinius Olsen, Horsham, PA, United States of America (USA), USA-based company). The residual stress was measured by XRD using a PANalytical model, System-EMPYREAN (Malvern Panalytical, Almelo, The Netherlands, The Netherlands-based company), with the following parameters: Cu target (K α average 1.5405 Å), a tilt angle range of 0–40° in 8° intervals, and in-plane rotation angles of 0°, 45°, and 90° in the first quadrant, and 180°, 225°, and 270° in the third quadrant, with a 2θ value of 82.4° and the (2, 1, 1) plane. All reported values (microhardness, ultimate tensile strength, and residual stress) represent the averages from three measurements.

3. Results and Discussion

This section explores the influence of varying layer thickness achieved through interlayer machining on microstructure evolution and mechanical properties. It examines how layer thickness affects grain refinement and distribution, highlighting its role in altering microstructural characteristics. Additionally, this section evaluates changes in mechanical properties such as microhardness, ultimate tensile strength, yield strength, and elongation. Furthermore, it discusses the impact of layer thickness on residual stress distribution in the X and Y directions, emphasizing the benefits of machining in reducing stress concentrations. These findings show the importance of layer thickness by interlayer machining on the performance of WAAM’s components.

3.1. Microstructure Evolution

Figure 4 illustrates the grain evolution in WAAM-fabricated components under four different conditions as-built, 2.0 mm layer thickness, 1.5 mm layer thickness, and 1.0 mm layer thickness, highlighting the impact of layer thickness by interlayer machining on grain size distribution. In the as-built WAAM condition, the grain structure varies across the build height due to different thermal gradients and solidification conditions. In the bottom region (1st layer of deposition), rapid heat dissipation into the substrate leads to a mix of equiaxed and short columnar grains, with an average grain size of 22.83 µm. The middle region, subjected to a repeated heat input from successive layers, experiences epitaxial growth, resulting in predominantly columnar grains with an average size of 56.24 µm. In the top region, where cooling rates are lower due to reduced thermal dissipation, the grains show a mix of equiaxed and columnar morphologies, averaging 24.74 µm. The interlayer machining in WAAM, low-speed, shallow-depth operations is used mainly to eliminate surface irregularities, not for the removal of extensive material. Optimized parameters and intermittent passes help to minimize heat generation. The underlying layers and substrate act as efficient heat sinks, dissipating heat quickly. Due to the short machining time and removal of minimal material, temperatures remain well below critical transformation limits, preventing negative impacts on microstructure, phase stability, and mechanical properties. Interlayer machining in the samples, carried out via face milling with cutting and thrust forces of 524 N and 340 N, respectively, flattens the uneven WAAM-deposited surface and alters the grain structure. This process interrupts epitaxial columnar growth, and machining-induced plastic deformation, along with localized strains, facilitates grain refinement through recrystallization. For a 2.0 mm layer thickness, the bottom region exhibits an average grain size of 17.35 µm, the middle region has 22.23 µm, and the top region shows 18.04 µm, demonstrating effective grain refinement compared to the as-built condition. Reducing the layer thickness to 1.5 mm by introducing a higher number of milling cycles further enhances grain refinement, with average grain sizes of 13.04 µm in the bottom, 12.36 µm in the middle, and 14.61 µm at the top. This reduction in thickness decreases the heat accumulation per layer, leading to better grain control. The most refined microstructure is observed at 1.0 mm layer thickness, where the bottom region achieves 9.15 µm, the middle 10.89 µm, and the top 10.24 µm, illustrating the significant influence of layer height on thermal history and grain structure. The deposition of a new layer over a previously deposited one affects microstructure and mechanical properties due to thermal cycling and reheating effects. Cyclic reheating leads to grain growth and phase changes, while machining removes surface defects, enhancing fusion and homogeneity. Thermal cycling impacts hardness and strength; machined layers improve mechanical properties, whereas unmachined surfaces can induce stress concentrations and defects. Additionally, the primary reason for the refinement is that thinner layers allow for more effective heat dissipation and induce localized recrystallization due to plastic deformation from milling, promoting finer equiaxed grains throughout the build. The progressive reduction in layer thickness minimizes grain growth anisotropy and results in a more uniform microstructure with better mechanical properties.

A similar trend of grain size refinement with and without interlayer machining of the same material was observed by Rashid et al. [37]. Chen et al. [38] also reported the impact of interpass milling on grain refinement and various related mechanical properties for titanium alloy, but the results show similar results.

3.2. Microhardness

Figure 5 demonstrates the microhardness variation across different conditions with respect to build height. In the as-built condition (red squares), microhardness remains the lowest, fluctuating between 150 HV and 180 HV, due to coarser grain structures from thermal cycling. In the 2.0 mm layer thickness condition (pink circles), microhardness improves to a range of 175 HV to 195 HV, attributed to partial grain refinement induced by machining. The 1.5 mm layer thickness condition (blue triangles) exhibits further hardness enhancement, ranging between 200 HV and 215 HV, as more frequent interlayer machining promotes finer grain structures and increased work hardening. The 1.0 mm layer thickness condition (green inverted triangles) shows the highest and most stable microhardness, consistently between 215 HV and 230 HV, due to maximum grain refinement and recrystallization effects. Earlier studies have reported microhardness values for the same filler material in the range of 160–197 HV [39,40,41]. The microhardness obtained in this study (for 1 mm layer thickness) represent an approximate 24.6% increase over the average hardness reported in the literature. The as-built condition shows lower hardness in the middle regions due to coarser dendritic structures; all machined conditions maintain a more stable hardness throughout the build height. The slight increase in hardness at the top may result from variations in the cooling rate during deposition. Decreasing layer thickness increases thermal cycling, enabling repeated reheating and gradual cooling that promote grain refinement. Interlayer machining serves as a surface activation process, improving layer geometry and eliminating oxides and defects. Frequent machining enhances microstructural uniformity by reducing inhomogeneities, leading to improved bonding and consistent microhardness across the entire WAAM build. This analysis confirms that interlayer machining significantly enhances hardness, with more frequent machining (lower layer thickness) leading to finer microstructures.

3.3. Stress–Strain Curves

Figure 6 highlights the impact of interlayer machining (ILM) on the stress–strain maps of WAAM-fabricated samples, demonstrating a progressive increase in strength with decreasing layer thickness due to grain refinement and work hardening. The as-built condition (red curve) exhibits the lowest yield strength (~350 MPa) and ultimate tensile strength (~480 MPa) due to coarser columnar grains, though it retains moderate ductility (~0.55 mm/mm). The 2.0 mm layer thickness condition (pink) shows a slight improvement in strength (YS: ~370 MPa, UTS: ~510 MPa) and fracture strain (~0.58 mm/mm), attributed to partial grain refinement. The 1.5 mm layer thickness condition (blue curve) further enhances strength (YS: ~390 MPa, UTS: ~550 MPa) due to increased dislocation density, with a slight reduction in ductility (~0.52 mm/mm). The 1.0 mm layer thickness condition (green curve) achieves the highest strength (YS: ~400 MPa, UTS: ~600 MPa) due to maximum grain refinement and work hardening but exhibits a moderate drop in ductility (~0.48 mm/mm).

Figure 7 illustrates the variation in ultimate tensile strength (UTS), yield strength (YS), and elongation across different interlayer machining (ILM) conditions in WAAM-fabricated samples, highlighting the effect of grain refinement and residual stress reduction. The as-built condition exhibits the lowest YS (371 MPa) and UTS (494.72 MPa) due to the presence of coarse columnar grains, yet it retains the highest elongation (59%), benefiting from a more ductile microstructure. The 2.0 mm layer thickness condition slightly improves UTS (523.45 MPa) and YS (372 MPa), while elongation remains relatively high (58%) due to moderate grain refinement and stress relaxation. The 1.5 mm layer thickness condition shows a significant enhancement in YS (471 MPa) and UTS (568.52 MPa) as finer equiaxed grains and dislocation strengthening contribute to better mechanical properties, though elongation reduces to 47%. The 1.0 mm layer thickness condition achieves the highest UTS (582.11 MPa) and YS (519 MPa), indicating maximum strengthening from refined grains and work hardening, but elongation drops to 46%, suggesting a trade-off between strength and ductility. In comparison, earlier studies on the same material have reported UTS values below 500 MPa and yield strength below 400 MPa [39,40,41]. The 1.0 mm layer thickness condition demonstrates an approximate increase of 16.4% in UTS and 29.8% in yield strength over the values reported in the literature. Reduced layer thickness enhances thermal cycling, promoting grain refinement, better diffusion, and uniform microstructures. Interlayer machining, especially at lower layer thickness, removes oxides, improves bonding, and reduces porosity. Together, these factors significantly improve UTS and YS. However, finer grains and more boundaries hinder dislocation motion, decreasing ductility. Despite reduced elongation (46%), the 1.0 mm layer thickness sample shows optimal strength. Thus, reduced layer thickness with interlayer machining offers a promising route to improve WAAM part performance while maintaining acceptable ductility.

3.4. Residual Stress

The presence of non-uniform layer thickness during as-built conditions results in elevated residual stress compared to the case where a consistent layer thickness of 2 mm, 1.5 mm, and 1 mm is employed. This phenomenon primarily stems from variations in thermal gradients and cooling rates. As-built WAAM often leads to uneven cooling and significant residual stress within thicker layers, and a high value of residual stresses was observed in sample S1. Applying intermittent compressive forces reduces the residual stress from the WAAM surface and redistributes internal stresses, promoting a consistent distribution. This leads to a reduction in residual stress as the number of machining passes increases, imparting compressive load. The reduction in residual stress enhances structural integrity and minimizes the risk of deformation or cracking.

In Figure 8, the graphs (a, b, c, and d) illustrate residual stress (in MPa) along the build height (in mm) in the X and Y directions under different conditions: (a) as-built, and (b–d) after successive machining with layer thicknesses of 2.0 mm, 1.5 mm, and 1.0 mm, respectively. The as-built condition (a) shows the highest residual stresses, which increase significantly along the build height. With successive machining (b–d), the magnitude of residual stresses progressively decreases as layer thickness reduces. This reduction correlates directly with material removal during machining, as the process eliminates surface and sub-surface layers where the most significant residual stresses are concentrated due to rapid cooling and solidification during WAAM. Machining redistributes the internal stress field more evenly, reduces stress peaks, and mitigates work hardening effects, while localized thermal or mechanical effects from machining may further contribute to stress relaxation. A comparison across different layer thicknesses shows that a 2.0 mm layer thickness (S2) results in a moderate stress reduction compared to the as-built condition, while the sample with a 1.5 mm layer thickness (S3) provides further stress relaxation. The 1.0 mm layer thickness (S4) minimizes residual stresses, achieving the most uniform stress distribution among all the conditions. Additionally, machining improves the surface finish, removing micro-cracks, and makes the uniform deposition of subsequent layers on machined surface. These observations highlight that increased machining reduces residual stress by eliminating stress-concentrated layers, redistributing stresses, and mitigating thermal and mechanical effects, thereby enhancing the overall quality and mechanical performance of the WAAM-fabricated component.

The reduction in residual stress in both the X and Y directions follows a progressive trend as the layer thickness decreased with more interlayer machining. Compared to the as-built condition, which exhibits the highest residual stress due to non-uniform layer thickness and uneven cooling, the 2 mm layer thickness condition achieves an approximate 22–25% reduction in residual stress due to improved thermal gradients and stress redistribution. Further reducing the layer thickness to 1.5 mm results in a 38–42% reduction, as additional machining removes high-stress regions and redistributes internal stresses more effectively. The 1 mm layer thickness condition achieves the most significant stress reduction, approximately 55–60%, due to maximum material removal, improved stress relaxation, and uniform stress distribution. The as-built condition exhibits the highest residual stress (420 MPa) owing to poor thermal dissipation and the absence of interlayer machining. Interlayer machining removes surface defects, interrupts stress propagation, and enables better residual stress control. Stress fluctuations at intermediate heights likely stem from cooling rate variations and are minimized in cases with reduced layer thickness. These results indicate that interlayer machining significantly reduces residual stress, minimizes deformation risks, and enhances the structural integrity of WAAM-fabricated components.

4. Conclusions

This study demonstrates the influence of varying layer thickness through interlayer machining in WAAM. As-built components exhibit uneven deposition, fostering coarse columnar grains that degrade hardness and strength. However, reducing layer thickness refines grains by restricting growth and inducing plastic deformation, thereby enhancing mechanical properties. Additionally, multi-insert interlayer machining applies compressive forces, effectively reducing residual stress and improving structural integrity.

Grain refinement at 1.0 mm layer thickness achieves reductions of 62.7% (top), 77.6% (middle), and 64.3% (bottom), improving microstructural uniformity and mechanical properties through the Hall–Petch effect.

Microhardness increases from 150 to 180 HV (as-built) to 210 to 230 HV, marking a 40–43% improvement due to dislocation strengthening.

Tensile properties show significant enhancement: UTS rises from 494.72 MPa to 582.11 MPa (17.6% increase), and YS increases from 371 MPa to 471 MPa (26.9% increase) due to grain boundary strengthening and strain hardening.

Ductility trade-off: Elongation decreases from 59% to 46% (22% reduction) as restricted dislocation movement enhances strength at the expense of ductility.

Residual stress reduction of 55–60% at 1.0 mm layer thickness improves structural integrity by minimizing stress concentrations and reducing distortion or cracking risks.

While decreasing layer thickness enhances material properties, it increases production time and cost, necessitating a balance between mechanical improvements and manufacturing efficiency.

This study investigates a specific range of interlayer machining thicknesses (1.0 mm, 1.5 mm, and 2.0 mm). Although reducing the layer thickness below 1 mm could potentially enhance strength and hardness, incorporating machining processes increases both deposition time and overall production costs. Future research should focus on these trade-offs and assess long-term performance, particularly with respect to fatigue life, impact tests, and other relevant mechanical tests tailored to specific applications.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.G., N.K.G., S.S., S.R.K., H.Z., K.N. and K.P.K.; methodology, G.G., N.K.G., H.Z., K.N. and K.P.K.; software, G.G., S.S. and S.R.K.; validation, G.G. and N.K.G.; formal analysis, G.G.; investigation, G.G. and N.K.G.; resources, K.N. and K.P.K.; data curation, G.G., K.N. and K.P.K.; writing—original draft, G.G., N.K.G., S.S. and S.R.K.; writing—review and editing, G.G., N.K.G., S.S., S.R.K., H.Z., K.N. and K.P.K.; visualization, G.G., H.Z., K.N. and K.P.K.; supervision, K.N., H.Z. and K.P.K.; project administration, K.P.K.; funding acquisition, K.P.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Table

Figure 1 Wire feeding setup.

Figure 2 Sample preparation with different conditions; (a) actual deposition of single bead, schematic representation of single bead; (b) without machining, (c) with machining at 2 mm, (d) with machining at 1.5 mm, (e) with machining at 1 mm, schematic representation of multi bead; (f) without machining, (g) with machining at 2 mm, (h) with machining at 1.5 mm, (i) with machining at 1 mm.

Figure 3 Framework highlighting the sample extraction for different tests.

Figure 4 Microstructure evolution with varying layer thickness; (a) as built, (b) layer thickness of 2 mm, (c) layer thickness of 1.5 mm, (d) layer thickness of 1 mm.

Figure 5 Hardness values with varying layer thickness.

Figure 6 Stress–strain curves for varying layer thickness.

Figure 7 Tensile strength vs. varying layer thickness.

Figure 8 Residual stress in X and Y directions for varying layer thickness; (a) as built, (b) layer thickness of 2 mm, (c) layer thickness of 1.5 mm, (d) layer thickness of 1 mm.

Table 1

Chemical composition of ER70S-6.

Element	Fe	C	Mn	Si	Ni	Cr	P	S	V	Cu
%	Remaining	0.07	1.50	0.90	0.15	0.15	0.025	0.035	0.03	0.50

References

1. Ayrilmis, N. Effect of Layer Thickness on Surface Properties of 3D Printed Materials Produced from Wood Flour/PLA Filament E Ff Ect of Layer Thickness on Surface Properties of 3D Printed Materials Produced from Wood Fl Our/PLA Fi Lament Nadir Ayrilmis. Polym. Test.; 2021; 71, pp. 163-166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.09.009]

2. Shergill, K.; Chen, Y.; Bull, S. An Investigation into the Layer Thickness Effect on the Mechanical Properties of Additively Manufactured Polymers: PLA and ABS. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.; 2023; 126, pp. 3651-3665. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-023-11270-y]

3. Agrawal, A.P.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, J.; Paramasivam, P.; Dhanasekaran, S.; Prasad, L. An Investigation of Combined Effect of Infill Pattern, Density, and Layer Thickness on Mechanical Properties of 3D Printed ABS by Fused Filament Fabrication. Heliyon; 2023; 9, e16531. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16531]

4. Gullane, A.; Murray, J.W.; Hyde, C.J.; Sankare, S.; Evirgen, A.; Clare, A.T. On the Use of Multiple Layer Thicknesses within Laser Powder Bed Fusion and the Effect on Mechanical Properties. Mater. Des.; 2021; 212, 110256. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.110256]

5. Hyer, H.C.; Petrie, C.M. Effect of Powder Layer Thickness on the Microstructural Development of Additively Manufactured SS316. J. Manuf. Process; 2022; 76, pp. 666-674. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2022.02.047]

6. Karunakaran, K.P.; Gupta, N.K.; Patel, A.K.; Rakeshkumar, K.; Ganesan, G.; Siddhartha,; Sealy, M.; Bernard, A. Multi-Station Multi-Axis Hybrid Layered Manufacturing (MSMA-HLM). Manuf. Lett.; 2022; 33, pp. 630-639. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2022.07.078]

7. Karade, S.R.; Siddhartha, S.; Gupta, N.K.; Ganesan, G.; Karunakaran, K.P.; Zeidler, H. Hybridization in Metal Wire Additive Manufacturing: A Case Study of an Impeller. Metals; 2025; 15, 71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/met15010071]

8. Chernovol, N.; Lauwers, B.; van Rymenant, P. Development of Low-Cost Production Process for Prototype Components Based on Wire and Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM). Procedia CIRP; 2020; 95, pp. 60-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.01.188]

9. Ding, D.; Pan, Z.; Cuiuri, D.; Li, H. Wire-Feed Additive Manufacturing of Metal Components: Technologies, Developments and Future Interests. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.; 2015; 81, pp. 465-481. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7077-3]

10. Grossi, N.; Lazzeri, F.; Venturini, G. Deposition Strategies for Bar Intersections Using Dot-by-Dot Wire and Arc Additive Manufacturing. J. Manuf. Mater. Process.; 2025; 9, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmmp9030077]

11. Sebok, M.; Lai, C.; Masuo, C.; Walters, A.; Carter, W.; Lambert, N.; Meyer, L.; Officer, J.; Roschli, A.; Vaughan, J. . Slicing Solutions for Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing. J. Manuf. Mater. Process.; 2025; 9, 112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmmp9040112]

12. Zhou, N.; Peng, R.L.; Pettersson, R. Surface Integrity of 2304 Duplex Stainless Steel after Different Grinding Operations. J. Mater. Process Technol.; 2016; 229, pp. 294-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.09.031]

13. Bekker, A.C.M.; Verlinden, J.C. Life Cycle Assessment of Wire + Arc Additive Manufacturing Compared to Green Sand Casting and CNC Milling in Stainless Steel. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 177, pp. 438-447. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.148]

14. da Costa, A.L.S.; de Paiva, R.L.; de Oliveira, D.; Ziberov, M. Influence of Interlayer Temperature and Deposition Method on the Wall Geometry and Vickers Microhardness Profile of ER70S-6 Parts Manufactured by Additive Manufacturing Using CMT. J. Manuf. Mater. Process.; 2025; 9, 93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmmp9030093]

15. Šket, K.; Brezočnik, M.; Karner, T.; Belšak, R.; Ficko, M.; Vuherer, T.; Gotlih, J. Predictive Modelling of Weld Bead Geometry in Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing. J. Manuf. Mater. Process.; 2025; 9, 67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmmp9020067]

16. Sales, W.F.; Schoop, J.; da Silva, L.R.R.; Machado, Á.R.; Jawahir, I.S. A Review of Surface Integrity in Machining of Hardened Steels. J. Manuf. Process; 2020; 58, pp. 136-162. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2020.07.040]

17. Liao, Z.; la Monaca, A.; Murray, J.; Speidel, A.; Ushmaev, D.; Clare, A.; Axinte, D.; M’Saoubi, R. Surface Integrity in Metal Machining—Part I: Fundamentals of Surface Characteristics and Formation Mechanisms. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf.; 2021; 162, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2020.103687]

18. Cox, A.; Herbert, S.; Villain-Chastre, J.P.; Turner, S.; Jackson, M. The Effect of Machining and Induced Surface Deformation on the Fatigue Performance of a High Strength Metastable β Titanium Alloy. Int. J. Fatigue; 2019; 124, pp. 26-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.02.033]

19. Gupta, N.K.; Ganesan, G.; Siddhartha, S.; Karade, S.R.; Paul, A.K.; Dubey, S.; Ely, R.H.; Karunakaran, K.P. In Situ Pre-Heating in Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing: Design, Development, and Experimental Investigation on Residual Stresses and Metallurgical and Mechanical Properties. J. Mater. Eng. Perform.; 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11665-024-10011-w]

20. Maity, M.; Tiwari, Y.; Manivannan, R.; Mukherjee, M. Influence of In-Situ Hammering on Microstructural, Mechanical and Residual Stress Behaviour of Inconel 718 during Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing. Prog. Addit. Manuf.; 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40964-024-00890-9]

21. Gupta, N.K.; Ganesan, G.; Siddhartha, S.; Karade, S.R.; Singh, S.D.; Karunakaran, K.P. A Dual-Side Deposition Technique to Mitigate Deformation in Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing. Trans. Indian. Inst. Met.; 2024; 77, pp. 3425-3434. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12666-024-03350-8]

22. West, J.; Betters, E.; Schmitz, T. Limited-Constraint WAAM Fixture for Hybrid Manufacturing. Manuf. Lett.; 2023; 37, pp. 66-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2023.08.139]

23. Yang, X.; Zhang, B.; Bai, Q.; Kang, R.; Tang, J. Effect of Grain Size on Subsurface Characterization of Pure Iron Subjected to Orthogonal Cutting. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.; 2022; 120, pp. 5793-5806. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-09156-6]

24. Brinksmeier, E.; Cammett, J.T.; König, W.; Leskovar, P.; Peters, J.; Tönshoff, H.K. Residual Stresses—Measurement and Causes in Machining Processes. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol.; 1982; 31, pp. 491-510. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60172-3]

25. Arunachalam, R.M.; Mannan, M.A.; Spowage, A.C. Residual Stress and Surface Roughness When Facing Age Hardened Inconel 718 with CBN and Ceramic Cutting Tools. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf.; 2004; 44, pp. 879-887. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2004.02.016]

26. Pauza, J.; Rollett, A. Simulation Study of Hatch Spacing and Layer Thickness Effects on Microstructure in Laser Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing Using a Texture-Aware Solidification Potts Model. J. Mater. Eng. Perform.; 2021; 30, pp. 7007-7018. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11665-021-06110-7]

27. Leicht, A.; Fischer, M.; Klement, U.; Nyborg, L.; Hryha, E. Increasing the Productivity of Laser Powder Bed Fusion for Stainless Steel 316L through Increased Layer Thickness. J. Mater. Eng. Perform.; 2021; 30, pp. 575-584. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11665-020-05334-3]

28. Pan, Z.; Feng, Y.; Liang, S.Y. Material Microstructure Affected Machining: A Review. Manuf. Rev.; 2017; 4, 5. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/mfreview/2017004]

29. Rajaguru, J.; Arunachalam, N. Investigation on Machining Induced Surface and Subsurface Modifications on the Stress Corrosion Crack Growth Behaviour of Super Duplex Stainless Steel. Corros. Sci.; 2018; 141, pp. 230-242. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2018.07.012]

30. Atmani, Z.; Haddag, B.; Nouari, M.; Zenasni, M. Multi-Physics Modelling in Machining OFHC Copper—Coupling of Microstructure-Based Flow Stress and Grain Refinement Models. Procedia CIRP; 2015; 31, pp. 545-550. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.03.023]

31. Bissey-Breton, S.; Vignal, V.; Herbst, F.; Coudert, J.B. Influence of Machining on the Microstructure, Mechanical Properties and Corrosion Behaviour of a Low Carbon Martensitic Stainless Steel. Procedia CIRP; 2016; 46, pp. 331-335. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.016]

32. Abboud, E.; Attia, H.; Shi, B.; Damir, A.; Thomson, V.; Mebrahtu, Y. Residual Stresses and Surface Integrity of Ti-Alloys during Finish Turning—Guidelines for Compressive Residual Stresses. Procedia CIRP; 2016; 45, pp. 55-58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.02.069]

33. Derekar, K.S.; Ahmad, B.; Zhang, X.; Joshi, S.S.; Lawrence, J.; Xu, L.; Melton, G.; Addison, A. Effects of Process Variants on Residual Stresses in Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing of Aluminum Alloy 5183. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. Trans. ASME; 2022; 144, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4052930]

34. Queguineur, A.; Asadi, R.; Ostolaza, M.; Valente, E.H.; Nadimpalli, V.K.; Mohanty, G.; Hascoët, J.Y.; Ituarte, I.F. Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing of Thin and Thick Walls Made of Duplex Stainless Steel. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.; 2023; 127, pp. 381-400. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-023-11560-5]

35. Gupta, N.K.; Guna, G.; Siddhartha, S.; Karade, S.R.; Mehta, A.K.; Karunakaran, K.P. Effect of Multiple Technologies on Minimizing the Residual Stresses in Additive Manufacturing. Proceedings of the ICRS 11—The 11th International Conference of Residual Stresses, SF2M, IJL; Nancy, France, 27–30 March 2022; Volume hal-040150.

36. Jacob, K.; Yadav, D.; Dixit, S.; Hohenwarter, A.; Jaya, B.N. High Pressure Torsion Processing of Maraging Steel 250: Microstructure and Mechanical Behaviour Evolution. Mater. Sci. Eng. A; 2021; 802, 140665. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2020.140665]

37. Rashid, A.; Kota, A.; Boing, D.; Melkote, S.N. Effect of Interlayer Machining Interventions on the Geometric and Mechanical Properties of Wire Arc Directed Energy Deposition Parts. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng.; 2024; 146, 091004. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4065577]

38. Chen, C.; Feng, T.; Zhang, Y.; Ren, B.; Hao, W.; Zhao, X. Improvement of Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of TC4 Titanium Alloy GTAW Based Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing by Using Interpass Milling. J. Mater. Res. Technol.; 2023; 27, pp. 1428-1445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.10.006]

39. Ron, T.; Levy, G.K.; Dolev, O.; Leon, A.; Shirizly, A.; Aghion, E. Environmental Behavior of Low Carbon Steel Produced by a Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing Process. Metals; 2019; 9, 888. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/met9080888]

40. Kumar Sinha, A.; Sreeja, V.; Yagati, K.P. Influence of Aloe-Vera Powder Addition on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Wire + Arc Additively Manufactured ER70S-6 Steel. Mater. Lett.; 2024; 375, 137230. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2024.137230]

41. Dekis, M.; Tawfik, M.; Egiza, M.; Dewidar, M. Unveiling the Characteristics of ER70S-6 Low Carbon Steel Alloy Produced by Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing at Different Travel Speeds. Metals Mater. Int.; 2024; 31, pp. 325-338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12540-024-01766-x]