## 4 Fabrication and Validation
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Dimension**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**In Tolerance**} \\ \hline
**Element** & **Nominal** & **Measured** & **Deviation** & **Negative** & **Positive** & Yes \\ \hline A1 & \(11\) & \(11.1\) & \(0.1\) & \(-0.25\) & \(0.25\) & Yes \\ A2 & \(11\) & \(11.07\) & \(0.07\) & \(-0.25\) & \(0.25\) & Yes \\ A3 & \(11\) & \(11.04\) & \(0.04\) & \(-0.25\) & \(0.25\) & Yes \\ A4 & \(11\) & \(11.09\) & \(0.09\) & \(-0.25\) & \(0.25\) & Yes \\ B1 & \(92\) & \(92.03\) & \(0.03\) & \(-0.25\) & \(0.25\) & Yes \\ B2 & \(92\) & \(91.98\) & \(-0.02\) & \(-0.25\) & \(0.25\) & Yes \\ C & \(35\) & \(35.04\) & \(0.04\) & \(-0.25\) & \(0.25\) & Yes \\ H1 & \(200\) & \(200.05\) & \(0.05\) & \(-0.1\) & \(0.1\) & Yes \\ H2 & \(200\) & \(200.02\) & \(0.02\) & \(-0.1\) & \(0.1\) & Yes \\ H3 & \(200\) & \(199.96\) & \(-0.04\) & \(-0.1\) & \(0.1\) & Yes \\ H4 & \(200\) & \(200.03\) & \(0.03\) & \(-0.1\) & \(0.1\) & Yes \\ D1 & \(9\) & \(8.87\) & \(-0.13\) & \(-0.2\) & \(-0.1\) & Yes \\ E1 & \(5\) & \(4.85\) & \(-0.15\) & \(-0.2\) & \(-0.1\) & Yes \\ F1 & \(9\) & \(9.02\) & \(0.02\) & \(0\) & \(0.1\) & Yes \\ G1 & \(5\) & \(5.05\) & \(0.05\) & \(0\) & \(0.1\) & Yes \\ D2 & \(9\) & \(8.85\) & \(-0.15\) & \(-0.2\) & \(-0.1\) & Yes \\ E2 & \(5\) & \(4.89\) & \(-0.11\) & \(-0.2\) & \(-0.1\) & Yes \\ F2 & \(9\) & \(9.06\) & \(0.06\) & \(0\) & \(0.1\) & Yes \\ G2 & \(5\) & \(5.02\) & \(0.02\) & \(0\) & \(0.1\) & Yes \\ D3 & \(9\) & \(8.88\) & \(-0.12\) & \(-0.2\) & \(-0.1\) & Yes \\ E3 & \(5\) & \(4.84\) & \(-0.16\) & \(-0.2\) & \(-0.1\) & Yes \\ F3 & \(9\) & \(9.03\) & \(0.03\) & \(0\) & \(0.1\) & Yes \\ G3 & \(5\) & \(5.05\) & \(0.05\) & \(0\) & \(0.1\) & Yes \\ D4 & \(9\) & \(8.84\) & \(-0.16\) & \(-0.2\) & \(-0.1\) & Yes \\ E4 & \(5\) & \(4.85\) & \(-0.15\) & \(-0.2\) & \(-0.1\) & Yes \\ F4 & \(9\) & \(9.03\) & \(0.03\) & \(0\) & \(0.1\) & Yes \\ G4 & \(5\) & \(5.04\) & \(0.04\) & \(0\) & \(0.1\) & Yes \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Dimensional verification of fabricated components. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Final**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Estimated**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Variation**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Original**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Final Mass**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Estimated**} \\  & **Weight** & & & & **Weight** & **Saving** & **Mass Saving** \\ \cline{2-6}  & [kg] & [kg] & [kg] & [kg] & [kg] & [\%] \\ \hline Module 1 & \(2.70\) & \(2.66\) & \(+0.04\) & \(2.78\) & \(-1.03\) & \(-4.31\) \\ Module 2 & \(4.10\) & \(3.80\) & \(+0.30\) & \(5.26\) & \(-22.05\) & \(-27.76\) \\ Total & \(6.80\) & \(6.46\) & \(+0.34\) & \It can be observed that the obtained masses are higher than the estimations. The exceeding mass in each module has been associated with two main factors:  
* Non-optimal Beam Offset calibration of the PBF-LB/M process. This machine parameter is associated with the geometrical correction of each section to compensate for the geometry of the laser spot;
* CNC milling. During this step, the milling operation had to compensate for small deformations of the 3D-printed components. Therefore, in some areas slightly less material has been subtracted with respect to what has been planned originally in order to comply with dimensional tolerances (max 0.1 mm) and minimum wall thickness (0.5 mm). Figure 17: Micrographs of the module wall (**a**), the lattice structure (**b**), the melt pool boundary (**c**), grain microstructure (**d**). Figure 18: Schematic module assembly for of the static verification system (**a**), compression (**b**) and lateral load (**c**) configuration.