## 3 Results
### Support Structure Optimization
An additional support structure is also shown (**d**) for the cross support. created variations in the dimensions of the actual part and the 3D CAD model (distortion). Furthermore, tensile tests of the rectangular support indicated intermittent peak loads, implying an unstable design. When a single continuous line was used for the line support, as shown in Figure 7a,b, the supports bent. As a result, the line support was redesigned as two connected lines, as shown in Figure 7c,d, and the bending issue was resolved. Line and cross supports were only examined in the later stages of the optimization process, taking into consideration the objective of the optimization method. A schematic with approximate dimensions is given in Figure S1 for a better understanding of these two support systems (supplementary file). Cross and line supports were identified as the optimal designs based on early investigations, as they satisfied the requirements of high breaking load, minimal material consumption, and shorter production time. As illustrated in Figure 8, nine samples with line and cross supports were fabricated for each process parameter combination. The possibilities of skipping the melting within the deposited powder layers of support structures adjacent to the specimen geometry were also investigated. For the line support, the skipped layer specimens were numbered from zero (no skipping) to ten (Figure 8b). The availability of an additional support structure, as shown in Figure 4d, allowed for the skipping of up to five levels only for the cross support. Mechanical property testing was performed to understand the breaking load requirements of different support structure designs. Cage structures were removed before the mechanical testing. Higher breaking loads resulted in more stable strut development, indicating a stronger support structure. Breaking loads were measured, plotted, and displayed in Figure 9a,b for the two different strut thicknesses. The breaking load requirements for the 0.5 mm strut thickness were found to be lower, and the results from the testing of three distinct specimens were also comparable. The load needs for specimens manufactured with the line support were higher, with a maximum load requirement of >150 N for all samples. The possibility of skipping the melting within the deposited powder layers was explored as an additional optimization strategy. To better analyze the stability of support systems, layer skipping was combined with breaking load requirements. It should be noted that the breaking load requirements were only performed for specimens manufactured on 0.5 mm wide support structures (Figure 9c,d). As a result, the values in Figure 9c,d are lower than those in Figure 9a,b. By bypassing eight layers for the line support versus only  
Figure 5: Final design, cross-section, and the designation of support structures. five layers for the cross support, a nearly similar breaking load requirement was attained. The ability to skip up to eight layers during line support manufacture presents a number of possibilities for combining reduced manufacturing times with lower energy consumption. Figure 6: Printability assessment of the rectangular support indicating the deviation from the CAD model: (**a**) input model and (**b**) manufactured specimen geometry. Figure 7: Printability assessment of the line support: (**a**) input CAD model of the initial design; (**b**) bending of the support caused by using a single line; (**c**) modified CAD model incorporating two connected lines with an included angle; (**d**) successful manufacturing of the specimen geometry with the modified design. Figure 8: (**a**) Top and (**b**) front view of the specimens fabricated using line and cross supports. Type of support and the number of skipped layers are mentioned in (**a**,**b**), respectively. Figure 9: Breaking load vs. displacement plots for two different strut thicknesses, 0.5 mm and 1 mm, for (**a**) cross support, (**b**) line support.