## 2 Materials and Methods
Figure 3a-i correspond to the parameters detailed in Table 1. All nine builds were deposited using the parameters detailed in Table 2. With these builds, it is easy to see the drastic difference in build volume between a build with no overlap, such as Builds Figure 3a,b, compared to a build with a higher amount of overlapping material, such as Builds Figure 3h,i. Only one trial for each overlap distance was deposited for the present study. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Builder** & **Center-to-Center Distance** & **Overlap Region Width** & **Volume Per Build** & **Single-Layer Deposition** \\  & **(mm)** & **(mm)** & **(cm3)** & **Time (s)** \\ \hline A & 44.5 & \(-\)6.4 & 39.8 & 102.0 \\ B & 41.3 & \(-\)3.2 & 38.4 & 99.0 \\ C & 38.1 & 0.0 & 36.7 & 96.0 \\ D & 34.9 & 3.2 & 35.2 & 93.0 \\ E & 31.8 & 6.4 & 33.8 & 90.0 \\ F & 28.6 & 9.5 & 32.1 & 87.0 \\ G &If a component was to be made with a much larger surface area than the depositions from this study, there would be a large difference in the required amount of consumed material between builds using different overlap parameters, assuming all other operating parameters are held constant. A large build using a 6.4 mm overlap (Figure 3e) would take much less material and time, and therefore require lower overall costs, than a build with a 19.1 mm overlap (Figure 3i). A build using a gap between passes instead of an overlap, such as Figure 3a, with a \(-6.4\) mm overlap, would deposit material the fastest and use the least amount of material, but the mixing region between the initial and returning pass would only be connected by the flash material. A greater amount of overlap will have a much higher amount of mechanical mixing and create a more homogenous deposition  
Figure 3: Completed AFSD builds with variable overlap widths. throughout the multiple deposition tracks at the expense of more material and a longer build time. From the builds shown in Figure 3, tensile specimens and cross-section samples were collected for quasi-static tensile testing, hardness testing, and grain size analysis. Figure 4a shows the schematic of a completed build with the original locations of the tensile specimens and cross-section samples. The build shown was deposited with a 3.2 mm overlap, which corresponds to Build D from Table 1 and Figure 3d. The failure location of each specimen was designed to be within the overlap region of the deposition. Figure 4b details the dimensions of the tensile specimens used in the present study in accordance with the modified ASTM E606/E606M-12 standard [40]. Due to the geometry of the tensile specimens and the final depositions, quasi-static results could not be collected for every build. Specimens and cross-sections were machined from the respective depositions using a Mitsubishi MV1200 wire electron discharge machine. The specimens were tested using a 25 kN Landmark 370 MTS servohydraulic load frame and were run in displacement control with a 5 mm gauge extensometer at a nominal strain rate of 0.001 s\({}^{-1}\) in ambient laboratory conditions. Post-mortem specimen analysis was performed via scanning electron microscopy (SEM) using a Versa 3D focused ion beam scanning electron microscope for \(-3.2\) mm overlap specimens and a TM3030 Plus tabletop scanning electron microscope for all other specimens. All hardness measurements were taken using an EMCOTest DuraScan 50 microhardness tester, in accordance with ASTM E384-22 [41], with a load of 2 newtons and a 10 s load period (HV 0.2). Hardness data was collected across the entirety of each cross-section in a grid pattern with 1 mm spacing between data points. Grain size analysis was performed using the line-intercept method in compliance with the ASTM E112-13 standard [42]. Grain size and microstructure analysis was performed using a Keyence VHV-7100 digital microscope for all cross-section samples.