## 3 Results  
Figure 10 shows the cross-sections of two single tracks produced on the two considered machines using the same set of process parameters that were later used to realize the case study. Table 3 summarizes the geometrical properties of the two deposited tracks. The two cross sections match, indicating that the depositions made with the two machines using the identical set of process settings are equivalent. As a result, the remarkable similarity between the two machines in terms of the laser source, optical, and powder feeding arrangement resulted in very comparable deposition properties. This ensures that any possible geometrical discrepancy between the two deposited components may be attributed to the kinematics of the two machines, which are vastly different. Figure 8: (**a**) positions of the pauses during the component realization phase for measuring the distance between the top surface of the substrate and the positioner table; (**b**) lateral view of the mounted and deformed substrate with the scheme of the measurement procedure; (**c**) top view of the substrate with the positions of the height measurement points along the substrate perimeter. Figure 9: Position of the two section planes. Figure 11 portrays the two realized components, one deposited with the articulated robot-based system and the other with the CNC gantry-based system. The pictures were acquired directly after the deposition and cleaning phases, with the components and substrates still linked to the positioner table via the interface plates (that is not visible in the articulated robot-based system since it is narrower than the substrate). Figure 12 shows the normalized cumulative deformations and normalized deformation increments measured during the two depositions. These results are obtained by averaging the measurements taken at the four corners and four sides after normalization based on their distance from the substrate center. Analyzing the deformation of the two substrates through the two abovementioned graphs, it appears that the substrates deform significantly at the start of the deposition. Indeed, the greatest deformation was observed in both depositions during the first stop. After the third pause, the deformation of the substrates halted, and no substantial alterations were recorded, only oscillations due to measurement  
Figure 11: The deposited components (**a**) deposited with the articulated robot-based system and (**b**) with the gantry-based system. Figure 10: Cross sections of the single tracks realized with the same set of process parameters (**a**) on the articulated robot-based LMD machine and (**b**) on the gantry-based LMD machine. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Machine** & **Width [mm]** & **Height [mm]** & **Cross-Section Area [mm\({}^{2}\)]** \\ \hline Articulated robot-based & 2.35 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.95 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 1.58 \(\pm\) 0.02 \\ \hline Gantry-based & 2.27 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.94 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 1.55 \(\pm\) 0.02 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Geometrical characteristics of the two tracks deposited with the two machines (mean \(\pm\) standard deviation). uncertainty. Another thing to notice when looking at these graphs is the exact similarity of the deformations of the two substrates during the two depositions on the two machines. The graphs are substantially overlapping, indicating that the substrates act similarly: both deform significantly at the start of the deposition and do not deform after a few layers. Figure 13 displays the dimensional difference between the two 3D scans of the realized components and the original CAD file. According to a basic analysis of the pseudo-colored surfaces, both components are distorted similarly and are obviously bent towards the part centerline at the top. Figure 14 compares the four scan sections to the sections of the CAD file.