## 3 Results and Discussion
### Benchmark Case: Simulation 1
This is illustrated in the next paragraph. When the part is first heat treated and cut afterwards in sequence A, the tip of the cantilever is displaced in the z-direction by 9.4 mm. The difference between the displacement observed in the cantilever which is treated according to sequence A and the cantilever which is subjected to the reverse sequence, B, is 19.3 mm. Both cantilevers are shown side by side in Figure 9, showing the clear difference in displacement. This benchmark simulation took 52 min and 13 s to complete on eight cores of an Intel Xeon W-2195 processor. The origin of the difference of displacement must lie in the stress relaxation, which occurs during the stress relief heat treatment. The cantilever subjected to sequence B is free to move, and as a result, it will bend upwards under the influence of the residual stresses after the LPBF process. After the stress relaxation, the stresses in both cantilevers are an order of magnitude lower than after the primary process. However, when cooling slowly, new stresses build up. In the case of sequence A, the part is still attached to the base plate, and therefore, the stress profile is similar to the original one, but the absolute value is reduced. The part subjected to sequence B is free to deform, since it is already cut from the build plate. However, due to its curvature, it will deform non-homogeneously, leading to a new build-up of stresses. When undergoing the stress relief heat treatment, these new stresses are also reduced in magnitude, meaning that the cantilever will not bend back into its original deformed shape, since the stresses required to make this happen are no longer present. This leads to an increase in the deformation when comparing both cantilevers. The final profile of the longitudinal normal stress for both cantilevers after the post-processing is shown on the deformed geometry in Figure 10. This profile clearly illustrates the release of stress that occurs during the base-plate removal process. Comparing the stress profile in Figures 8C and 10 illustrates this reduction in the stress field. Figure 8: Stress in the cantilever after the primary LPBF process; (**A**) the normal stress in the x-direction (longitudinal) at the surface of the part; (**B**) the stresses on the left-most support of the cantilever, indicated in Figure 8D; (**C**) the same normal stress in longitudinal direction. The stress field is identical; (**D**) the same stress component as Figure 8A, but on the central cross-section of the part. These results can be compared with experimental works in which the residual stresses are measured in the part. [PERSON] et al. [52] investigated the surface residual stresses in a cuboid fabricated in Maraging steel 300, a tool steel similar to 17-4 PH stainless steel. For most scanning  
Figure 10: The normal stress in x-direction after the entire process chain is completed. The cantilever which underwent sequence A is displayed on the bottom, while the one that followed sequence B is shown on the top. Figure 9: Vertical deformation in the two cantilevers. The cantilever which underwent sequence A is displayed on the bottom, while the one that followed sequence B is shown on the top. speeds they find stresses which are larger than the ones reported in this work, namely around 300 MPa. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [53] measured the residual stress throughout a beam attached to the build plate and found a variation from tensile at the top of the beam to compressive near the bottom. This is in agreement with the results presented in Figure 8. However, they measured an increase of the stress at the bottom of the beam. Such behaviour can also be observed in Figure 8A at the surface of the part. The values of the stress at both surfaces are 153.3 MPa and 223.6 MPa at the top and bottom surfaces of the beam respectively. This is similar to the values displayed in Figure 10 at the top and bottom of the cantilevers. [PERSON] et al.