## 4 Discussion
In addition to this, the sufficient gap available between the different line support structures made it easier for the sand and glass particles during blasting, as well as the electrolyte, to move during ECP. Thus, the improved performance of the line support in comparison with other support structures can be attributed to the modified design. A clear distinction and dependence of the type of support structure on the support removal strategies was observed. ECP was established as an efficient support removal strategy irrespective of the type of support and strut thicknesses. However, noted differences were observed in the polishing times depending on the type of support structure and the strut thicknesses. Even with the highest efficacy for support removal, the chemical nature of the ECP method persists as a concern. Electrolyte handling and discarding requires care because of the acidic ingredients involved. Even at a high pressure such as 7.3 \(\times\) 10\({}^{5}\) Pa, used to irradiate the support structure, the sand particles were unable to penetrate the cross support due to their relatively large size. This has led to some deformation within the support structures, without being able to remove them from the specimen geometry. GB was successful in removing the cross support irrespective of the strut thicknesses. The manufactured specimen geometry is composed of a curved base and two struts that are held at an angle to the vertical. Hence, for an enhanced understanding of the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Performance** & **Filled Circle** & **Rectangle** & **Cross** & **Line** \\
**Characteristics** & & & & \\ \hline Material usage & ++++ & ++++ & +++ & ++ \\ \hline Manufacturing time & ++++ & ++++ & +++ & ++ \\ \hline Breaking load requirements & ++ & ++ & +++ & ++++ \\ \hline Ease of support removal & Difficult & – & Medium & Easy \\ \hline +++++ Very High ++++ High +++ Medium ++ Low + Very Low–No data available. & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Performance comparison of the integrative experimental approach. influence of support removal strategies, the specific characteristics of these individual features are shown in Figure 15. High-magnification optical micrographs representing the boundary between the support and sample (curved base) after the support removal are depicted in Figure 15a-c. In addition to this, a representative single strut (left) of the manufactured samples is also shown in Figure 15d-f. The curved base as well as the strut reveal a significant amount of visible pores in Figure 15a-d corresponding to the specimen manufactured on the cross support. However, the amount of visible porosity was significantly reduced for the specimens fabricated using the line support. For the identical laser beam parameters used for the manufacturing of supports and specimens, the curved base (bottom) part of the components manufactured using the line support revealed identical microstructures in the form of some darker regions. These darker regions corresponded to the overlapping regions of consecutive melt pool boundaries. In contrast, the darker regions were only visible around the inner boundary of the curvature in the specimen manufactured using the cross support. Thus, it was confirmed that the type of support had a significant impact in determining the porosity and microstructure of the manufactured components. In comparison to the line support, the cross support exposed a relatively broad area to the laser beam in a single step. This meant that there was more material available for the support to perform its additional role as a heat sink during manufacturing. The availability of additional solid material in the bottom as a support allows for better heat conduction during specimen fabrication. Higher cooling rates are caused by faster heat conduction, resulting in the formation of finer solidification features within the strut.