## 3 Results and Discussion
### Benchmark Case: Simulation 1  
Simulation 1 is treated as the benchmark case in this study. The part under consideration is a cantilever beam, since the expected deformation is almost exclusively in a single plane. The plane in question is the x-z plane, where the x-direction is longitudinal, and the z-direction is perpendicular to the build plate. This allows direct comparison between the obtained results. The cantilever used in this work is shown in Figure 5a. The part presented in Figure 5a cannot be easily produced in the shown orientation. It would require support underneath the large overhangs, which have a length of 9 mm. However, for the sake of these simulations, which are mostly concerned with the deformation of the cantilever beam itself, the manufacturability of the simulated geometry was not taken into account. Moreover, an easily identifiable stress field, as present in a cantilever beam was prioritised. In addition, the FE model, as presented in the preceding section, does not include effects such as cross formation or sagging. These can be identified when performing high-fidelity simulations with the associated high computational cost. On each simulated build plate, two different process sequences are simulated. Sequence A is the theoretically preferred sequence, where the part is heat treated to relief the residual stresses and subsequently cut from the base plate. In sequence B, the order of these post-processes is reversed, although this will result in an increase of the deflection of the cantilever tip. Moreover, cutting from the cantilever from the base plate will release the residual stresses, allowing the part to deform freely. If the stresses have been reduced during stress relaxation, this will imply a reduction in the cantilever tip deflection. However, sequence B is often preferred in industry, since after heat treatment of parts in 17-4 PH stainless steel, the hardness of the part increases, to a degree where it becomes impractical to cut the part from the base plate using a mechanical machining device (such as a band saw). Both of these sequences are schematically described in Figure 5b. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Number**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Parameters**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Intentions**} \\ \hline  & **Time** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Peak** \\ **Temperature** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Deposition** \\ **Temperature** \\ \end{tabular} & **Element Size** & \\ \hline
1 & 7200 s & 350 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1405 \({}^{\circ}\)C & \(5.00\times 10^{-3}\) m & Simulation benchmark \\ \hline
2 & 7200 s & 350 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1405 \({}^{\circ}\)C & \(6.00\times 10^{-4}\) m & Investigation of mesh convergence \\ \hline
3 & 7200 s & 350 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1405 \({}^{\circ}\)C & \(7.50\times 10^{-4}\) m & \\ \hline
4 & 7200 s & 350 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1405 \({}^{\circ}\)C & \(8.00\times 10^{-4}\) m & \\ \hline
5 & 7200 s & 350 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1405 \({}^{\circ}\)C & \(1.00\times 10^{-3}\) m & \\ \hline
6 & 3600 s & 350 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1405 \({}^{\circ}\)C & \(5.00\times 10^{-4}\) m & Investigation of effect of dwell time during heat treatment \\ \hline
7 & 10800 s & 350 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1405 \({}^{\circ}\)C & \(5.00\times 10^{-4}\) m & Investigation of effect of heat treatment temperature \\ \hline
8 & 7200 s & 400 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1405 \({}^{\circ}\)C & \(5.00\times 10^{-4}\) m & Investigation of effect of heat treatment temperature \\ \hline
9 & 7200 s & 300 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1405 \({}^{\circ}\)C & \(5.00\times 10^{-4}\) m & \\ \hline
10 & 7200 s & 280\({}^{\circ}\)C & 1405 \({}^{\circ}\)C & \(5.00\times 10^{-4}\) m & Energy correction approach \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Overview of all the simulations performed for this study. Note that study 1 is the simulation benchmark. Other techniques, such as electrical discharge machining (EDM) [47], will affect the stress field in a different way.