02-Novel Insights Into Conventional Machining of Metal Additive Manufactured Components - A Compre

Machining Science and Technology
An International Journal
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/lmst20
Novel insights into conventional machining of

metal additive manufactured components: a
comprehensive review
Prameet Vats, Avinash Kumar & Kishor Kumar Gajrani
To cite this article: Prameet Vats, Avinash Kumar & Kishor Kumar Gajrani (2024) Novel
insights into conventional machining of metal additive manufactured components:
a comprehensive review, Machining Science and Technology, 28:5, 866-959, DOI:
10.1080/10910344.2024.2381206
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10910344.2024.2381206
Published online: 30 Jul 2024.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 231
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lmst20
MACHINING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
2024, VOL. 28, NO. 5, 866–959
https://doi.org/10.1080/10910344.2024.2381206
REVIEW ARTICLE
Novel insights into conventional machining of metal

additive manufactured components: a comprehensive
review
Prameet Vats, Avinash Kumar, and Kishor Kumar Gajrani
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Information Technology, Design and
Manufacturing, Kancheepuram, India
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Metal-based additive manufacturing (AM) displayed a revolu Additive manufacturing;
tionary influence in the world of engineering and opened the chip formation; cutting
doors to new opportunities for individuals as well as for indus forces; hole quality;
machining; machinability;
tries. The design flexibility and high mechanical performance surface integrity;
make this process more widespread and popular. temperature; tool wear; tool
Furthermore, the usage of minimal material with less wastage morphology
and the lowering of tooling expenses stands out as note
worthy benefits of the AM process. Nonetheless, an inherent
limitation of AM printed materials includes issues related to
the unique microstructure of AM parts, such as varying mater
ial densities, anisotropic properties and residual stresses. These
factors can lead to unpredictable tool wear, poor surface finish
and dimensional inaccuracies during machining operations.
Additionally, the presence of hard inclusions or defects within
the printed material can further exacerbate tool wear and
increase machining difficulty. As a result, machining processes
are often required to obtain the desired surface quality of the
component. This study undertook a comprehensive and sys
tematic review of the machinability of metal additive manu
factured (AMed) components, contrasting them with wrought
materials based on their response parameters. It investigated
the turning, milling and drilling performances of AMed com
ponents, examining factors such as cutting forces, tool morph
ology, chip formation, hole quality, surface integrity, tool wear
and temperature. This analysis encompassed diverse cutting
conditions, building orientations and machining environments
including flood, MQL, cryogenic cooling as well as AM param
eters and post-heat treatments. Furthermore, this study places
a significant emphasis on the sustainable attributes of the cut
ting fluids utilized in the machining of AM parts, alongside
the overall sustainability of the manufactured components. It
aims to pinpoint pivotal research findings and constraints
while proposing avenues for future research endeavors. The
main goal of this review is to furnish a comprehensive
resource that consolidates knowledge regarding the surface
quality and machinability of AMed metallic objects.
Furthermore, it offers suggestions on machining strategies
and insights into challenges and potentials related to
CONTACT Kishor Kumar Gajrani g.kishor@iiitdm.ac.in Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian

Institute of Information Technology, Design and Manufacturing, Kancheepuram, India.
� 2024 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
MACHINING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 867
machining AM parts. Additionally, it provides recommenda

tions to enhance their machinability. Finally, the article intro
duces potential directions for future research to advance the
field and enhance the efficacy of the AMed part.
Introduction
In recent years, industrial sectors have aimed to move toward digitally
linked machinery and knowledge-based manufacturing systems. Digital
manufacturing systems are driven by automation systems and the industrial
internet of things (IIOT) that use computer-based algorithms to track and
regulate physical objects such as equipment and robots (Chong et al., 2018;
Parmar et al., 2022). Consequently, it reduces human interaction require
ments, design constraints, tooling time and assembly time. Taking these
points into account, additive manufacturing (AM) is the technology that
comprises almost every feature of smart manufacturing systems. As a result,
the demand for AM is increasing rapidly, and it has become an important
commercial manufacturing technology (Dilberoglu et al., 2017; Mehrpouya
et al., 2019). AM is distinct from traditional processes, which often include
removing material from a piece of raw material or casting it into a specific
form (Lee et al., 2021). In the early 1980s, Charles Hull created this tech
nique for the stereolithography process. Initially, AM was mainly used to
fabricate models and prototype components, but the rapid growth and
wide range of applications promoted AM over most traditional manufac
turing processes for specific applications (Wong and Hernandez, 2012).
Most of the conventional manufacturing techniques remove extra material
in the fabrication of desired products, which makes the process costly (Guo
and Leu, 2013). However, AM is a technique that claims to lower the com
ponent costs by minimizing the material waste and production time for
single or batch runs (Williams et al., 2016). This technology is also compat
ible with numerous materials, including metal, polymer, ceramics, compo
sites and metal matrix composites (MMC) which allow processes to achieve
more functionally useful and creative products that cannot be achieved
with conventional manufacturing (Frazier, 2014; Bains et al., 2016). ASTM
categorizes AM processes into seven distinct categories, which include vat
photopolymerization (VPP), binder jetting (BJ), directed energy deposition
(DED), material extrusion (ME), material jetting (MJ), powder bed fusion
(PBF) and sheet lamination (Sarathchandra et al., 2020; Segovia Ram�ırez
et al., 2023). These categories are differentiated on the basis of their work
ing principles, material compatibility and source of input energy. In VPP,
vat of liquid resins converts the photopolymer into a solid state using a
laser or LED (Alghamdi et al., 2021). VPP is further classified based on the
868 P. VATS ET AL.
light source, such as, if the material is cured by a laser source, the process
is known as SLA, whereas, the curation of resin by projected or digital light
is known as DLP (Vallabh et al., 2022). In BJ, a binding adhesive is select
ively applied on a powder bed to bind the powder material layer-by-layer
(D. Zhang et al. 2018). DED is the most complicated AM process of all. It
poses challenges in precise parameter control, heat management and metal
lurgical consistency. Overcoming these hurdles requires thorough process
optimization, meticulous parameter tuning, advanced monitoring systems
and strategic post-processing techniques to ensure uniformity and quality
in the final manufactured parts. In this process, a material is deposited in
layers in a controlled manner using intense energy sources, such as elec
trons or laser beams (Vaezi et al., 2020; Pragana et al., 2021). The DED
process also includes laser energy net shape (LENS) as well as the electron
beam additive manufacturing (EBAM) process (Mehrpouya et al., 2019). In
the case of ME, spool of material (typically thermoplastic polymer) is
extruded at constant pressure through a heated nozzle to produce 3D com
ponents (Bikas et al., 2016). A component is made by successively deposit
ing photopolymer materials that are solidified or cured by ultraviolet light
(Vallabh et al., 2022; Segovia Ram�ırez et al., 2023). The PBF process
involves selectively melting powder in a chamber using laser or electron
beams. The PBF process is further subcategorized as L-PBF and EB-PBF
(Vaezi et al., 2020; Kayacan and Yılmaz, 2020; Vallabh et al., 2022). The
sheet lamination technique is an AM process that typically involves stack
ing and laminating tiny sheets of cut material in a specific pattern to create
3-dimensional objects. Table 1 illustrates the categorization of various AM
processes based on their working principles.
Over the last two decades, AM technologies have been increasingly
employed to produce intricate metallic objects with complex geometries.
This approach typically entails the layer-by-layer melting and recombin
ation of raw materials in accordance with their computer-generated designs
(Attar et al., 2018). When compared to conventional manufacturing meth
ods like forging and casting, AM can fabricate nearly final-shaped compo
nents without the need for extensive rough machining. This reduces
material waste and eliminates the necessity for additional machining facili
ties, such as cutting tools, coolants and equipment (Karthik and Kim,
2021). These benefits of AM attract almost every industrial area, including
biomedical, automotive, electronics and aerospace (Y. Zhang et al., 2018;
Gisario et al., 2019; Omiyale et al., 2022). Despite this, the majority of AM
components cannot be employed immediately. This is due to the irregular
surface integrity of AMed products, especially the significantly increased
levels of residual stress, distortion, surface roughness, porosity and hardness
in printed parts (Khan et al., 2020; Snow et al., 2021). Hence, to attain a
Table 1. Classification of additive manufacturing technology.
Process Technologies Principles Materials Description Pros/cons
Material extrusion (Sidambe, FDM, FFF Melting and freezing Polymers and Extruded material is Pros
2014) filaments composite assembled into multi- Economical
layer models on tracks. Good mechanical property
Large build volume
Cons
Lower layer resolution
Strength anisotropy
Vat polymerization (Shaukat SLA, DLP Solidifies liquid resin layer UV curable polymer, Liquid photopolymer resin Pros
et al., 2022) by layer with light (Laser, photopolymer resin solidifies when exposed High-resolution prints with fine details.
LED) to selective light. Precise control over layer thickness.
Cons
Limited material options
Post-curing is required
Powder bed fusion L-PBF, EB-PBF Melting, solidification Plastic, metal Powdered material is Pros
(Santecchia et al., 2020) of powder selectively melted with Achieve high level complexity
(Laser, beam, while surrounding Wide range of material
Electron beam) powder supports Cons
overhangs. High cost
Powder handling challenges and waste.
(continued)
869
Table 1. Continued.
Process Technologies Principles Materials Description Pros/cons
870
Material jetting (G€

ulcan MJ, DOD Inkjet (UV, Heat) Plastic, metal, wax Material droplets are Pros
et al., 2021) dropped layer-by-layer to High accuracy
build components. Accommodates multiple material in single
part
Cons
Slow process
Limit for small parts
P. VATS ET AL.
Binder jetting (Ziaee and BJ Binds powder layers with a Gypsum sand, metal, Organic or inorganic liquid Pros
Crane, 2019) liquid binder (Bonding polymer, ceramics binders are selectively High productivity
agent) printed onto powdered Uses wide range of material
layers to create Cons
components layer-by- Low mechanical properties
layer. Structural integrity can be a concern, in
thin-walled structures
Direct energy deposition (Oh LENS, LBMD Direct energy melting Metal Intense heat energy is Pros
et al., 2019) (Laser, electron beam) employed to meld Suitable for large-scale metal part
materials during their production
deposition process. High build rate
Cons
High capital cost
Low build resolution
Sheet lamination (Mahmood LOM Sheet joining Composite, Metal sheets are joined Pros
et al., 2022) Paper, together to create a part. Fast print time
metal sheets No support structure is required
Cons
Limited resolution due to layering.
Layered appearance affects esthetics
Post processing is required
pristine surface finish for component assembly, the finishing machining

step becomes essential (Kumbhar and Mulay, 2018). This integration of
AM with machining is referred to as the hybrid additive manufacturing
(HAM) process (Khanna, Shah, et al., 2021).
HAM processes have been devised to improve the effectiveness of exist
ing AM processes. Implementing HAM allows manufacturers to produce
quality components in quick succession (Sealy et al., 2018). This is attribu
ted to the HAM, which provides two or more different processes such as
machining alongside additive manufacturing techniques. The genesis of the
HAM can be identified in the 1990s within the domain of welding, aimed
at the advancement of weld surface quality (Pragana et al., 2021). HAM
has the versatility to encompass a spectrum of secondary processes, encom
passing turning, milling, drilling, grinding, burnishing, pulsed laser depos
ition, re-melting, ablation and a variety of other techniques (Li et al., 2022;
Sefene et al., 2022). To enhance the metrological precision, surface
improvement, physical attributes, microstructure and dimensional accuracy
of AMed components, HAM often combines AM processes with surface
improvement or finish-machining methods as a secondary process
(Bhuvanesh Kumar et al., 2023; Dinit, �a et al., 2023; Bankong et al., 2023).
The bibliometric analysis from the Scopus, academia.edu, EBSCO,
Inspec, Proquest and Google Scholar database provides 168 articles pub
lished on the machining of metal AMed components from 2008 to 2023.
This database exclusively contains studies that discuss the impact of the
turning, milling and drilling processes on AMed metal. The analysis of stat
istical data reveals that members of the AM community have focused a
huge amount of attention over the last five years on this issue (see
Figure 1a). Further, the global statistics of the countries reveal that China,
USA and Germany have shown great interest in this issue. They published
more than 50% of the papers on this emerging research topic. Figure 1b
illustrates the breakdown of published papers on the machining of AMed
components based on the countries of the corresponding authors
affiliations.
Machining of AMed parts can be more challenging than machining con
ventionally manufactured parts due to the unique or anisotropic properties
and possible defects associated with AMed parts (Dilberoglu et al., 2021). It
is essential to carefully plan the machining method and consider the spe
cific characteristics of the AMed part to achieve the desired results (Kok
et al., 2018). Therefore, this work focuses on the systematic review of the
analysis of the machinability of metal AMed components on the basis of
their response parameters. In this article, the impact of convensional
machining techniques, including turning, drilling and milling processes on
metal AMed parts has been discussed in detail. Figure 2 illustrates the
872 P. VATS ET AL.
Figure 1. (a) Year wise paper published in the area of machining of metal AMed components
from 2008 to 2023, (b) breakup of machining of metal AMed components based on the coun
tries of corresponding authors affiliations; Keywords used for search on Scopus, academia.edu,
EBSCO, Inspec, Proquest and Google Scholar are “Turning” or “Milling” or “Drilling” and “Metal
and Additive manufacture parts” or “Additive manufacture material” AND (LIMIT-TO
(LANGUAGE,"English")).
Figure 2. Framework of the review process of machining of metal additive manufactured com
ponents based on response parameters.
framework of the review process for the machining of metal AMed compo
nents based on response parameters.
Machining of additive manufactured components

Machining of metal AMed components is often essential to achieving the
necessary standards of surface finish, dimensional precision and overall
quality (Vats et al., 2023). AMed parts can sometimes have rough or
uneven surfaces, support structure material or other imperfections that
need to be removed or smoothed out through machining (Townsend et al.,
2016). Also, machining of AMed parts is used to characterize the behavior
of fabricated components based on their responses.
Turning
Turning is a machining technique that employs machine tools like lathe or
computer numerical control (CNC) centers to shape the workpiece by
removing material, resulting in a desired form and achieving high-quality
surface finishes (Oh et al., 2019; Sefene et al., 2022). It is often used as a
post-processing procedure for AMed metallic parts to enhance their dimen
sional accuracy, surface quality and overall quality. In case of metal AMed
parts, turning is used to remove excess material, smooth out rough surfaces
or produce precise features such as threads and the precise diameter of a
component (D. Zhang et al., 2018; Dilberoglu et al., 2021). It can also be
used to correct any errors or defects that may have occurred during the
AM process. This section is dedicated to assessing the impact of the turn
ing process on materials produced through metal AM, focusing on various
parameters such as cutting force (Fc), surface roughness (Ra), tool wear
(VB), cutting temperature (Tc) and tool morphology. Detailed information
about the machinability of AMed components during the turning process
is discussed in Table 2.
Turning forces
The machinability of AMed parts has become an area of discussion for the
machining industry. The machinability of the material can be evaluated by
analyzing the Fc (Barzani et al., 2013; Thakur and Gangopadhyay, 2016).
Knowledge of Fc gives information for evaluating several elements of man
ufactured materials such as material surface integrity, VB, temperature gen
eration and defects (Aky€uz, 2014). Thus, the study of Fc is required for a
better understanding of the effectiveness of machining operations, especially
when machining is performed on new materials such as AMed metallic
components (Kumar Wagri et al., 2022). As a result of these factors,
874
Table 2. Summary of the turning performance on additive manufactured components based on Fc, Ra, VB, tool morphology and Tc.
Machining parameters
VB and
Authors Method Material AM parameters Sc (m/min) f (mm/rev) d (mm) Fc Ra morphology Tc
(Chen et al., DLAM IN718 P (W) 2000 60 0.1 60,0.1, 0.4 Coated carbide Cemented Coated carbide Machining of
2021) Sr (mm/min) reduces carbide tool has 2.64, 7.99, LAM exhibit
P. VATS ET AL.
450 29.78%. obtained 1.59-time 6.29% less

Pf(g/min) 50 LAM IN718 23% less longer life than temperature
Ps (lm)53–105 needs 9.63% roughness uncoated while than
less force. than coated cutting LAM wrought.
carbide. IN718,
subsurface,
wrought,
respectively.
(Calleja et al., Laser IN718 P(W) 650 60−100 0.1,0.2,0.3 0.1,0.2,0.4 Force varies: Roughness
2018) cladding Pf (g/min) 6 For HT þ laser ranges:
Pfr(mm/ cladding For HT þ laser
min) 500 40−120N, cladding
For laser 40−120N,
cladding For laser
20−80N, cladding
For base 20−80N,
35−40N For base
35−40N
(Polishetty SLM Ti alloy P (W) 100/200 45−180 0.05−0.2 0.5 Maximum Fc of The lowest Ra
et al., Laser- YLR 1000N of 1.6 lm
2017) observed at was
180m/min obtained at
and 0.2mm/ 180m/min
rev for SLM and 0.2mm/
Ti6Al4V. rev for SLM
Ti6Al4V.
(continued)
Table 2. Continued.
VB and
(Oyelola DED Ti6Al4V þ WC P (kW) 1.2 − 1.6 80 0.1 0.025–0.05 Maximum 150N MMC with PCD Tool wear:
et al., ST (mm/min) observed exhibits MMC < Ti6Al4V
2018) 250–300 with PCD maximum
Wfr (mm/min) tool whereas roughness
750 120N of 1.2 lm
Pfr (g/min) 15 with CBN showed
lager
roughness
whereas Ti
with CBN
exhibit
minimum
of 0.4lm.
(Le Coz et al., SLM Ti alloy P (W) 175 60−500 0.001−0.02 Fc varied by
2017) SS (mm/s) 775 3% at lower
f and 24%
at higher f,
with a 21%
difference at
lower Sc
compared to
10% at 100
m/min.
(Anwar et al., EBM c-TiAl Ps (lm) 110 40−80 0.1−0.2 0.2−0.4 Maximum feed Less than Maximum VB
2020) V (kV) 60 force 0.5 lm uncoated nearly
IB 19 mA observed roughness 0.2mm.
SS 2200 mm/s nearly observed for Maximum VB
230Nwith both coated coated nearly
coated and 0.5mm at
insert and uncoated 0.15mm/rev,
160N with material 80m/min and
uncoated whereas 0.3mm.

insert at maximum
similar 2lm with
parameter. coated.
875
(continued)
876
Table 2. Continued.
VB and
(Airao, SLM Ti alloy P(W)175 28,56 0.02,0.03 0.050 Ra 16−52% Tool wear 35%
Kishore, Sr (mm/s) more in SLM more in SLM
and Nirala 1050 Ti alloy in contrary to
2023) Lt (lm) 30 contrary to CMed Ti alloy.
P. VATS ET AL.
HS (mm) 0.05 CMed Ti

alloy.
(Silva et al., SLM 316L, P (W) 300,400 S(rpm) 0.05−0.2 0.1−0.5 Forces varied Ra of AMed perpendicular
2021) 18Ni300 SS (m/s) 1,0.86 2500, from 30N surface in direction
HS (mm)110, 95 1800 −220N for parallel and 8.99 lm and
LT (mm) 50,40 SLM316L 11.06 lm
and 80N whereas for
−220N for machined
SLM surface 0.5 lm
18Ni300 for 316L.
Ra of AMed
surface in
parallel and
perpendicular
direction
5.35 lm and
5.52 lm
whereas for
machined
surface 1 lm
for 18Ni300.
(Shunmugavel SLM Ti alloy P (W) 100, 60−180 0.1 0.5 Minimum Fc Minimum Ra Minimum VB of
et al., LT (mm) 0.03, 400N 0.5 lm for 180lm was
2016) SS (mm/s) 600 obtained at SLM Ti6Al4V observed at
60m/min at 180m/min 60m/min for
whereas SLM Ti6Al4V.
maximum
800N at
120m/min
for SLM
Ti6Al4V.
(continued)
Table 2. Continued.
VB and
(Shunmugavel SLM Ti alloy P (W) 90, 45−180 0.05 0.5 Forces varies Minimum Ra is 0.673 ± 0.0294
et al., LT (lm) 30, from at 45m/min.
2017) HS (mm)75 246 ± 10.95N to
SS (mm/s) 700 372 ± 12.23N
for SLM Ti-
6Al-4V.
(Kaynak and SLM IN718 P (W) 200 60 0.08− 0.2 0.4 Wrought IN718
Tascioglu, PS (mm)14–45 gives
2018) LT (mm) 60 92%lower
HS (mm) 90 surface
roughness
compare to
SLMed
IN718
(Oyelola DMD Ti alloy 70 0.15 1.25 Ra values:
et al., Uncoated
2016) tool:
2.140mm
Coated tool:
0.822 mm
(Sartori, DMLS Ti alloy 80 0.1, 0.2 0.25 Minimum Ra 0.58 ± 0.023lm
Bordin, for DMLS Ti whereas for HT
Ghiotti, alloy is DMLS Ti alloy is
et al., 0.72 ± 0.015 lm.
2016)
(Bordin, EBM Ti alloy 50−80 0.1−0.2 0.25 Minimum Ra Maximum nose

Bruschi, observed wear obtained
et al., Dry-0.46 mm, 80 mm and 64
2015) Cryogenic-0.6 mm, in dry and
mm cryogenic and
at 80m/ wet
min,0.1mm/ environment
rev for for 15min of
877
15min of turning.
turning
(continued)
Table 2. Continued.
878
VB and
(Farooq et al., LPBF SS 316L P(W)110−195 125−225 0.22,0.33 0.45, 0.90 At lower Sc, f Lower Sc (125 m/
2023) Sr (mm/s) and d min) and f
800−1083 exhibits (0.225 mm/rev)
Lt (mm) 0.02 minimum Ra provide better
HS (mm) 0.09 of 1lm, tool life
P. VATS ET AL.
whereas (�13 min)

maximum Ra compared to
of 2.67lm higher values
was (225 m/min,
observed at 0.337 mm/rev)
d of 0.9mm which result in
and f of reduced tool
0.337 mm/ life (�3 min).
rev.
(Bruschi et al., EBM Ti alloy 50−80 0.1, 0.2 0.25 Ra range for Minimum weight
2016) EBM Ti6Al4V of 0.00125%
from reduction of
0.967 ± 0.02 observed for
mm to EBM Ti6Al4V at
2.017 ± 0.17 80m/min,
mm for dry 0.2 mm/min.
whereas
0.727 ± 0.18
mm to
2.297 ± 0.07
mm in
cryogenic.
(Bertolini, EBM Ti alloy 80 0.1 0.25 Surface
Lizzul, roughness:
Bruschi, EBM_Dry_0.64
et al., mm
2019) EBM_flood_
0.63 mm
EBM_Dry_
0.97 mm
LPBF Ti alloy 80 0.15, 0.2 0.15, 0.5
(continued)
Table 2. Continued.
VB and
(Lizzul, P (W) 280 Minimum
Bertolini, SS (mm/s) 1200 roughness
et al., obtained in
2020) longitudinal
turning 1.2
mm, whereas
in face
turning
0.6 mm.
(Bordin et al., EBM Ti alloy 50,80 0.1, 0.25 Minimum Ra Wear limit reach
2014) 0.2 0.6 mm in between
observed at 23to 25min for
50m/min, EBM Ti6Al4V.
0.1mm/rev.
(Km et al., DMLS Ti alloy P (KW) 8.5 70−210 0.1−0.2 0.1−0.3 Ra range was Flank wear vary Maximum Tc
2022) SS (m/s) 7.0 noticed from from 0.102 to attain
PS (lm) 5-50 0.222 to 0.169 mm. upto170 � C
1.879 mm.
(Struzikiewicz SLM 316L SS P (W) 90, 60,100 0.07− 0.5 Fc linearly Ra varies from Temperature
et al., LT (lm)20, 0.211 increases 1.44 to varies from
2019) LS (mm/s) 500 from 140N 4.15 lm 175.4� C to
to 271N with feed 205.8� C.
with feed. 0.07 to
0.211 mm/
rev.
(Kaynak and SLM 316L SS P (W) 200 40,200 0.15 0.4 Finish
Kitay, PS (mm) 14–45 machining
2019) LT (mm) 50 improves
HS (mm) 110 surface
quality by 4
time than
SLM316L SS
(continued)
879
Table 2. Continued.
880
VB and
(Tebaldo and EBM Titanium P (W)100 20,35 0.07− 0.5 Tangential Maximum Ra Ti48Al2Nb2Cr is Maximum tool
Faga, aluminides LT (mm) 0.03 0.25 forces vary for EBM 0.387 mm life for EBM
2017) SS (mm/s)600 in between whereas for HT
400−600N. material
P. VATS ET AL.
0.383 mm.
Ti48Al2Nb2Cr is
2.2min whereas
for HT material
4.10 min.
(Sartori, EBM, DMLS Ti alloy 80 0.2 0.25 Cryogenic Cryogenic cooling
Bordin, cooling reduces crater
Moro, reduces wear 58% for
et al., maximum DMLS, 80% for
2016) crater depth wrought and
wear 100% for EBM
by 58%. part.
(Bordin, EBM Ti alloy 50−110 0.1,0.2 0.2 T(max) is
et al. 2015) 500 � C in
dry and
150 � C in
cryogenic.
(Kaynak and SLM 316L SS P (W) 200 50−200 0.08− 0.4 Turning
Kitay, PS (mm) 14–45 0.24 reduced
2018) LT (mm) 50 roughness
HS (mm) 110 from 7 ± 1
mm to 1mm.
(Bertolini, EBM Ti alloy 80 0.1−0.2 0.25 EBM samples
Lizzul, showed high
Pezzato, surface
et al., roughness
2019) than
wrought, up
to 71% and
134% at 0.1
and
0.2 mm/rev.
(continued)
Table 2. Continued.
VB and
(Holmberg LPBF, EB- PBF IN718 P(W) 400 70 0.075 0.3 PBF-LB had less
et al., SS (mm/s) flank and crater
2024) 540,1000 wear than PBF-
and 4530 EB, with 87%
IB (mA) 8-15 and 43% higher
HS (mm) wear for as-
0.125−0.3 built and heat-
treated
conditions,
respectively.
881
882 P. VATS ET AL.
various studies are conducted to evaluate the fluctuation in Fc during the

turning of AMed components. Calleja et al. (2018) examined the cutting
force during turning of the three different materials fabricated by laser
cladding process such as laser cladding Inconel (IN)718 with heat treatment
(HT), without heat treatment and base wrought IN718 material. The max
imum forces were observed during the turning of laser cladding IN718
hardened with precipitation HT compared to base and without HT mater
ial. However, the AMed IN718 without HT showed minimum Fc. This is
ascribed to the precipitation HT, which improves the mechanical properties
of AMed IN718. The maximum Fc were observed at a feed (f) equal to
0.3 mm/rev and a cutting speed (Sc) of 80 m/min.
Numerous studies have been undertaken to analyze the behavior of Fc
during turning AM components, taking into consideration various factors
that includes machining parameters, cooling and lubrication methods, as
well as tool coating. Anwar et al. (2020) evaluated all three components of
forces during the turning of electron beam melting (EBM)-fabricated
c-TiAl with multi-coated carbide tools under a flooded cooling environ
ment. They found that the cutting force increases with time (see Figure 3)
owing to VB, particularly at Sc of 60 and 80 m/min. However, almost steady
Fc with time were seen for the uncoated inserts at low and medium Sc of
40 and 60 m/min, respectively, whereas a continual rise in forces was
recorded at the high Sc of 80 m/min. On the other hand, coated inserts
exhibit constant cutting forces at a low Sc of 40 m/min, whereas, in the case
of coated carbide inserts, the cutting forces significantly increase at Sc of
60 m/min and 80 m/min owing to high VB. Chen et al. (2021) utilized
coated carbide and cemented carbide tools for the turning of laser additive
manufacturing (LAM) fabricated IN 718. They observed that turning with
the coated carbide tool required 29.78% less Fc compared to cemented car
bide tool. This is due to anti-frictional behavior of coated tool.
Furthermore, turning of LAM IN718 using coated carbide tool required 9.6
% less Fc compared to wrought IN718. This is owing to the greater density
and microhardness of wrought IN718.
Several research endeavors have been undertaken to analyze the impact
of parameters and environment on Fc in biocompatible Ti alloys. For
instance, Shunmugavel et al. (2016) analyzed the Fc during the turning of
AMed and CMed Ti alloys. They observed that the turning of the AMed Ti
alloy exhibits high Fc compared to the CMed. This discrepancy is owing to
the increased hardness and strength of AMed Ti-6Al-4V. In another inves
tigation led by Shunmugavel et al. (2017), comparable results were docu
mented, albeit with decreased forces observed during the turning of
wrought Ti alloy. This reduction was primarily attributed to the material’s
thermal softening. Polishetty et al. (2017) conducted turning on SLM Ti
Figure 3. Variation in forces for uncoated and coated tool inserts with varying (a) depth of cut,
(b) cutting velocity, and (c) feed rate (Anwar et al., 2020).
alloy and compared to casted Ti alloy. The outcomes revealed that, during
the turning of SLM Ti alloy, elevated cutting forces were observed at higher
f and Sc in contrast to casted Ti alloy. This is due to the higher hardness of
the SLMed Ti alloy. Similar to this, Le Coz et al. (2017) observed that
SLM-fabricated Ti alloy shows a higher Fc than wrought Ti alloy during
turning. The deviation in Fc between both materials varies from 3% to 24%
at lower to higher f and Sc, respectively. Besides focusing on machining
parameters, Ni et al. (2022) examined the impact of the scan orientation
(0� , 67.5� , and 90� rotation) of AMed components during turning SLM Ti
alloy under dry and MQL environments. Analysis of the process revealed
that the highest Fc was observed at 0� linear SLM components, which was
much higher compared to Fc observed during the turning of fabricated
components at the scan orientations of 67.5� and 90� selective laser melting
manufactured (SLMed) in dry conditions. The deviation in Fc between the
front and top surfaces was particularly large in the case of the 0� linear
SLM Ti alloy, which indicates that the 0� linear SLMed showed higher
anisotropic behavior than the 67.5� and 90� rotational SLM components. A
884 P. VATS ET AL.
considerable drop of 33 − 46% in Fc was observed during machining of

SLM Ti6Al4V in the MQL condition, contrary to dry cutting (see
Figure 4a,b).
Oyelola et al. (2018) examined machining behavior in functionally
graded Ti6Al4V/WC components fabricated via the DED method. Two dis
tinct regions, a MMC and a single alloy area, were examined. In the WC-
enriched region, Fc exhibited periodic fluctuations and reduced stability.
Conversely, the Ti6Al4V region displayed more consistent Fc behavior.
Notably, the Ti þ WC region (MMC) exhibited periodic patterns in Fc
measurements when employing PCD and CBN inserts. This periodicity can
be attributed to hardness variations arising from the uneven distribution of
dissolved WC within the layers.
Surface integrity
The surface integrity of AMed components have serious limitations, such
as dimensional accuracy, surface wear, scratch resistance, esthetics and Ra,
which can adversely affect their performance (Tian et al., 2013). Usually,
the Ra of AMed components is significantly higher compared to wrought
components. This limitation is mainly associated with defects caused by the
layer-by-layer deposition procedures, and inadequate fusion, along with fac
tors related to the parameters of the AM technique. This complicates future
machining processes because the uneven surfaces may cause VB, and also
cause inconsistency in material removal. The high Ra may significantly
degrade the performance of AMed components, as well as limit their
potential applications.
Recently, significant effort has been directed toward enhancing the qual
ity of AMed metallic products. Careri et al. (2021),evaluated Ra of AMed
Figure 4. Change in cutting forces (a) on top and front surface, (b) in dry and MQL environ
ments (Ni et al., 2022).
components after dry turning of HT and deposited IN718 by the DED pro
cess. The authors observed that, under specific machining conditions (f of
0.2 mm/rev and Sc of 120 m/min), HT IN718 exhibited a higher level of Ra
compared to DED IN718 alloy. Whereas, at a reduced f of 0.1 mm/rev and
a lower Sc of 70 m/min, both components demonstrated a reduction in Ra
to a minimum level. The higher Ra of the turned DED IN718 is attributed
to high VB and high material adhesion on its surface. Additionally, the
microstructure of machined as-deposited IN718 displays plastic deform
ation layers, while HT components show a thin white layer formation,
affecting tool life and, consequently, Ra of turned parts. Holmberg et al.
(2024) investigated the surface characteristics and residual stresses of PBF-
LB and PBF-EB materials. They found that while PBF-LB exhibited similar
low Ra between as-built and heat-treated conditions, significant differences
in residual stresses were observed. In contrast, PBF-EB showed nearly twice
the Ra for the as-built sample compared to heat-treated conditions, with
distinct residual stress profiles. These findings underscore the importance
of process parameters in AM for achieving desired material properties.
Chen et al. (2021) examined the Ra of IN718 fabricated by the LAM pro
cess after turning using two distinct tool inserts, cemented and coated car
bide tools, respectively. The authors observed a 23.05% reduction in Ra
when machined with a cemented carbide tool as compared to a coated car
bide tool. This is owing to the unstable tool edge and VB radiusing treat
ment during turning with coated carbide tools. Kaynak and Tascioglu
(2020) examined the effect of various post-processes such as drag finishing,
finish machining and vibratory surface finishing on the Ra of SLM IN718.
The fabricated SLM IN718 showed a poor surface finish due to the partly
melted powders, pores, cavities and undesirable layer thicknesses ranging
from 80 mm to 130 mm on the AMed component. As a consequence of fin
ish machining, the roughness of as-built specimens was reduced by as
much as 96%, while vibratory surface finish and drag finish were able to
reduce surface roughness by 73% and 88%, respectively. The surface rough
ness of SLM IN718 varies in the range of 19−24 mm. However, the max
imum surface roughness observed after finish machining was 1.85 mm
(Kaynak and Tascioglu, 2018).
Cooling and lubrication environment as well as printing strategies also
play a crucial role in surface roughness. Bertolini, Lizzul, Bruschi, et al.
(2019) discussed the Ra assessment of EBM Ti6Al4V after turning opera
tions under dry, cryogenic and flood cooling conditions with variable feeds.
Ra values in EBM samples were greater compared to wrought samples, up
to 71% and 134% for specimens machined at feeds of 0.1 to 0.2 mm/rev,
respectively. Additionally, although some slight changes in sub-surface
microstructures were observed in both materials after dry machining, no
886 P. VATS ET AL.
phase change was detected. This suggests that the alloy did not undergo a
beta-transus temperature transition during dry cutting Bordin et al. (2016)
examined the surface integrity of an EBM Ti alloy subsequent to cryogenic
and dry turning operations. A marginal reduction in Ra was detected in the
cryogenic condition as opposed to the dry condition. The observed
decrease in performance was ascribed to the enhanced resistance to tool
attrition that cryogenic cooling enabled. Additionally, the researchers per
formed a subsurface analysis in which they identified subsurface micro
structural alterations in all turned samples under dry circumstances, which
manifested as deformed and elongated granules along the direction of Vc.
Nevertheless, despite the most severe cutting parameters, they observed no
significant changes at this stage of investigation when cryogenic cooling
was applied. In a separate study, (Bordin et al., 2017) assessed the viability
of employing dry, wet and cryogenic environments in the semi-finish turn
ing of EBM Ti6Al4V. The cryogenic cooling has not shown any major
effect on Ra at the lower limit of parameters, but significant evidence of a
reduction in Ra of the machined test specimens was found at the high
machining parameters compared to dry and wet turning (see Figure 5).
Cryogenic condition results in smoother surfaces with fewer adhering par
ticles compared to wet and dry machining (Kaynak and Tascioglu, 2018;
Struzikiewicz et al. 2019; Silva et al. 2021). Nevertheless, in certain instan
ces, the machined surfaces exhibited irregularities and presented jagged
feed lines due to reduced material plasticity resulting from the lower cut
ting temperatures.
To overcome the adverse effects such as uneven surfaces and jagged feed
lines produced by the decrease in cutting temperature during cryogenic
Figure 5. Surface roughness variation with cutting parameters under dry, cryogenic, and wet
environments (Bordin et al., 2017).
cooling, Ni et al. (2022) examined the impact of laser scanning patterns

during the turning of SLM Ti alloys in dry and MQL environments. The
Ra of SLMed Ti alloys varies from 0.112 to 0.169 lm after dry turning. The
results depict that the minimal Ra of 0.112 lm was observed for component
fabricated at 0� rotation for the Ti6Al4V alloy sample, which is marginally
smaller than that of wrought titanium alloy Ra of 0.119 lm under dry con
ditions. In the case of MQL cutting conditions, the Ra values for SLMed
Ti6Al4V alloys range from 0.030 to 0.044 lm, outperforming the Ra of
wrought Ti6Al4V alloys which is 0.048 lm. Furthermore, when employing
MQL, Ra saw a remarkable reduction of 62.3−82.2% compared to dry
machining. The maximum improvement in surface finish occurs at 67.5�
rotational angle in the SLMed Ti alloy under MQL conditions, resulting in
a reduction of Ra from 0.168−0.030 mm. This was ascribed to the outstand
ing cooling and lubricating performance offered by the MQL
technique. The variation in Ra under both MQL and dry environments is
illustrated in Figure 6.
Surface roughness is of utmost importance in the AMed components
and becomes even more important, especially for biological applications.
As a result, researchers like Umbrello et al. (2022) examined the surface
modification and biocompatibility of Zr-702 additively formed bars. In add
ition, the Ra of the AMed bars after turning in dry and cryogenic environ
ments was also analyzed. Their findings indicated that both the machining
environment and parameters exert a substantial impact on Ra. The min
imum Ra was observed in cryogenic cooling environments at a low f and a
high Sc. Initially, the arithmetical mean height (Sa) surface roughness of
AMed bars was 13.27 ± 1.5 mm and the maximum height (Sz) was
Figure 6. Surface roughness variation in dry and MQL environments with respect to scan rota
tion (Ni et al., 2022).
888 P. VATS ET AL.
114.79 ± 6.8 mm. Following the turning process, Sa and Sz were both
reduced to approximately 0.6 mm and 8 mm, respectively. Rotella et al.
(2018) examined the surface quality of EBM, direct metal laser sintering
(DMLS) and traditionally fabricated titanium alloys after the turning pro
cess. They observed that higher in Sc corresponded to a decrease in Ra.
Furthermore, the surface finish of wrought components was shown to be
superior to that of AMed components. This is attributed to the lower duc
tility, which causes more abrasive interactions between the cutting tool and
the material. This increased abrasiveness accelerates VB, consequently con
tributing to a decline in the surface quality of AMed components. Across
all three machined samples, a thin layer of plastically deformed material
formed beneath the machined surface. Specifically, equiaxed grains and
lamellar structures were stretched and deformed along the cutting direc
tion, with smaller grain sizes and lamellar thicknesses observed beneath the
affected layer. However, the hardness of EBM and DMLS titanium alloys
was found to be 21% and 26% higher than that of wrought material,
respectively. The hardness beneath the surface increased due to plastic
deformation during machining, with the most significant change occurring
within 10 lm. At a Vc of 50 m/min, the hardness of wrought, EBM and
DMLS materials increased by 9.40%, 15.70%, and 6.25%, respectively, and
increased further at 110 m/min. Despite the consistent chemical compos
ition, the mechanical response to machining was influenced by production
techniques, with EBM demonstrating a higher sensitivity to variations in
hardness compared to DMLS.
Joshy et al. (2023) evaluated the Ra after microturning of wrought, SLM
fabricatedand HT AISI10Mg. The Ra of the bare cast AlSi10 Mg is consider
ably less compared to SLM AlSi10Mg, which has a Ra value of 1,276.2 nm.
This significant reduction in Ra for the wrought AlSi10 Mg can be attribu
ted to the fact that, in its early stages, the wrought AlSi10 Mg has a lower
propensity to form cracks and surface fractures compared to the SLMed
AlSi10 Mg. However, HT showed a significant influence on the reduction
of Ra. The HT SLM- AlSi10 Mg had the lowest Ra value of all samples.
This reduction is attributed to a large reduction in residual stresses during
the HT procedure, which produced stress concentration and fracture initi
ation in the SLM workpiece. The HT AlSi10 Mg SLM workpiece has a Ra
value of 172.2 nm.
Tool wear and tool wear morphologies

Metal-based AM is an emerging low-cost manufacturing technology for
producing complex components. However, AM is not enough to make
high-quality precise products, therefore, post-machining of manufactured
features is necessary to improve product quality for some applications,
whereas machining processes have their own limitations (Lee et al., 2021).
One of the primary challenges linked to traditional machining is the occur
rence of VB, which significantly affects tool geometry and consequently
influences product quality. This phenomenon is particularly prominent
during the machining of challenging materials like superalloys based on
nickel and titanium (Kaya and Aky€ uz, 2017). Therefore, the investigation
of VB during the machining of AMed components became an emerging
area for industries as well as for researchers.
Studies on tool performance in the turning of metal AMed parts, particu
larly IN718, have primarily focused on understanding VB mechanisms and
evaluating tool efficacy in comparison to components produced through
traditional manufacturing techniques across various cutting environments.
One such investigation was conducted by Chen et al. (2021). Authors
examined the VB of coated carbide and cemented carbide tools after the
turning of LAM IN718 and wrought IN718. Compared to cemented coated
carbide, the carbide tool exhibits 2.64 times, 7.99 times and 1.59 times
more tool life while machining the LAM IN718 alloy surface, subsurface
and wrought surface, respectively. This is due to the high rise in tempera
tures and Fc with coated carbide tools, which leads to plastic deformation,
rapid tool attrition and a shortened tool life. Also, the difference in tool life
during machining of LAM surfaces, sub surfaces and wrought surfaces is
attributed to the distinct microstructures of the materials at different surfa
ces. Careri et al. (2021) investigated the wear mechanisms after turning
DED IN718 and HT DED IN718 material under a dry machining environ
ment. They observed that the deposited IN718 experienced adhesive and
abrasive wear as well as chipping (see Figure 7a,b) owing to the inferior
mechanical properties of the material, while the HT IN718 exhibits exces
sive KB on the tool rake face (see Figure 7c,d).
Lubricant and coolant can be effective in decreasing the VB. Some of the
researchers such as Ni et al. (2022) evaluated wear processes in TiAlN/
AlCrN multi-layered coated carbide tools after turning SLM Ti6Al4V in
dry and MQL environments. They found that during the turning of SLM
Ti6Al4V alloys in a MQL environment, adhesive wear emerged as the pre
dominant VB mechanism. Conversely, in a dry condition, abrasive wear
was identified as the primary VB mechanism. This distinction is attributed
to the enhanced tribological characteristics between the sliding surfaces in
the MQL environment. To reduce the wear induced after turning in a dry
and MQL environment, Sartori et al. (2017) investigated VB and tool
morphology after turning DMLS, EBM, HT and conventionally cast Ti
alloy in dry and cryogenic cooling environments. They noticed that regard
less of fabrication methods, abrasive and adhesive wear were the dominant
wear mechanisms for all conditions. In some cases, adhesion wear is also
890 P. VATS ET AL.
Figure 7. Tool rake and flank wear during turning of: (a and b) AM and (c and d) HT IN718
(Careri et al., 2021).
associated with the generation of build-up layer (BUL) and build-up edge
(BUE), which protect the tool surface but activate diffusion wear and cause
the formation of crater wear for DMLS fabricated alloys. This phenomenon
was ascribed to the high hardness and lower thermal conductivity of mater
ial. The utilization of cryogenic cooling proved effective in reducing crater
wear, resulting in an 80% reduction for DMLS and a 58% reduction for
HT DMLS contrary to dry machining conditions. Furthermore, after dry
machining, VB was observed for nearly all of the materials, while cryogenic
cooling reduced VB by 14.1% for DMLS, 15.8% for EBM, 6.1% for HT
DMLS and 20.7% for wrought alloys, respectively. The EBM fabricated
alloy has better machinability, while the DMLS alloy has the lowest
machinability among all. Whereas the HT DMLS and wrought alloys
exhibit similar behaviors (Bruschi et al., 2016; Bertolini, Lizzul, Bruschi,
et al., 2019;) (see Figure 8a,b).
The benefits of cryogenic cooling on VB have also been highlighted by
Bordin et al. (2017). They examined the VB after turning of EBM Ti alloy
in dry, flooded and cryogenic environments. Cryogenic cooling exhibits
minimum VB for all tested machining parameters. Whereas, dry machining
yielded VB equal to flood cutting at the lowest f owing to the intense
adherence of machined material to the tool surface, which mitigated the
impact of abrasive wear. However, at a higher f, dry machining caused
severe cratering. Adhesion was identified as the predominant mechanism of
VB in both dry and cryogenic turning processes. A separate study by the
Figure 8. Crater depth for the wrought, EBM, DMLS, and HT DMLS Ti alloy under: (a) dry, and
(b) cryogenic environment (Sartori et al., 2017).
same research group, conducted by Bruschi et al. (2016) have extended the
work and verified that adhesion is the primary wear mechanism during
cryogenic cooling during the machining of Ti alloy cylinders. This confirm
ation was based on the assessment of the initial and final weights of the
cylinders. Cylinder weight is reduced in the case of dry machining, which
may be attributed to the abrasion mechanism.
Cutting temperature
Cutting temperature is an essential factor to consider during the machining
of metal AMed components. The high energy input and local melting that
occur during the AM process can result in a component which is harder
and more abrasive, and therefore more difficult to machine (Danish et al.,
2017). Machining generates heat as a result of the friction that occurs
between the sliding surfaces (Mehrpouya et al., 2019). In contrast, heat
might be more relevant during the machining of AMed components
because of the layer-by-layer build process, and unique material features
can lead to varied thermal responses during machining compared to the
more homogenous structure of CMed parts. Understanding and managing
these various temperature dynamics is critical for improving machining
operations and ensuring product quality. Extremely high temperatures can
induce thermal stress in materials, which can result in deformation and
errors in dimensions. Elevated temperatures can likewise impact the materi
al’s mechanical attributes, including fatigue resistance and strength. To
mitigate the temperature-related impacts during machining, it is crucial to
employ coolant and maintain appropriate machining parameters, such as
892 P. VATS ET AL.
reducing Sc and f. It may also be necessary to use specialized cutting tools

or techniques, such as flood cooling, cryogenic cooling, MQL, etc., (Huang
et al., 2022; Bambam et al., 2023) to improve the machinability of AMed
components. In order to achieve the desired surface quality and extended
tool life, it is crucial to carefully assess the implications of heat generation
and temperature control while machining AM components. Chen et al.
(2021) examined the cutting temperature while turning of the LAM IN718
and wrought IN718 superalloy. During the turning of wrought IN718, a
substantial temperature rise was observed as compared to LAM IN718.
This is owing to the lower thermal conductivity of wrought IN718. Further,
machining was carried out with two distinct tool materials, such as coated
carbide and cemented carbide. The temperature was reduced by 7.04% and
6.29%, respectively, during machining of LAM IN718 super alloy and
wrought IN718 super alloy using the coated carbide tool as contrary to the
cemented carbide tool. This is due to the antifriction effect exhibited by the
carbide-coated tool, which aids in temperature reduction during machining.
However, Park et al. (2021) used the finite element method (FEM) to inves
tigate the thermal effects of the deposition of Ti alloy powder on WC-Co
cutting tools using the DED process during turning operations. Initially,
FEM simulations were conducted to examine the temperature distribution
on the tool surface. The maximum temperature observed on the turning
tool insert, made of titanium alloy deposited WC-Co, was 13% lower than
that of a standard WC-Co tool insert. Subsequently, experimental valid
ation confirmed that the deposited turning tool insert exhibited a 15%
lower maximum temperature compared to a regular WC-Co cutting insert.
This is because of the high heat conductivity of ordinary WC-Co cutting
tools.
Km et al. (2022) undertook an investigation during the turning of DMLS
Ti alloy under flood environment. Authors observed that the maximum
cutting temperature of 170 � C was observed at a Sc of 210 m/min, a depth
of cut of 0.3 mm, and a f of 0.1 mm/rev, whereas the cutting temperatures
during turning under flood cooling vary from 28 � C to 170 � C, respectively.
The primary source of heat generation was attributed to friction and rub
bing at the contact surfaces, with flood cooling serving to mitigate the rate
of temperature rise. Notably, while turning of AMed Ti alloy, rapid VB was
observed, which contributed to an elevation in Tc near the cutting edge.
Chip morphology
In the machining of novel materials like 3D printed metallic parts, under
standing their behavior under diverse cutting conditions is pivotal for
enhancing machining efficiency. Assessments of chip formation are vital
for evaluating process reliability and the efficacy of cutting strategies.
Numerous studies have delved into investigating these aspects in turning

AMed materials. Concerning chip morphology and formation, researchers
have explored how AMed materials deviate from traditional alloys in terms
of chip characteristics (Ingle and Raut, 2020). They have noted variations
in chip morphology, encompassing discrepancies in length, shape and sur
face quality, influenced by factors such as material microstructure, cutting
parameters, tool material and tool geometry. Grasping these distinctions is
crucial for refining cutting strategies to minimize VB, enhance surface fin
ish, and optimize overall machining performance when dealing with AMed
materials. Therefore, to take as a concern to words this, Chen et al. (2021)
observed that during turning operations, chips from LAM superalloy exhib
ited irregular, continuous shapes, while those from wrought superalloy had
heliciform shapes and were easier to manage. Serrated edges were present
on all chips due to the high cutting temperature and extensive cutting
deformation. Serration degree decreased in the order: LAM superalloy sub
surface, LAM superalloy surface and wrought superalloy. These variations
in chip shapes were attributed to differing microstructures, with LAM
superalloy’s inhomogeneous microstructure leading to unstable plastic
deformation and distinct serrated edges. Authors like Bordin et al. (2017)
have explored the chip formation behavior during the turning of EBM
Ti6Al4V in dry, wet and cryogenic cooling. They found that cryogenic
cooling significantly improved chip breakability compared to dry and wet
conditions by effectively cooling low ductility chips. In dry turning, fre
quent chip entanglements occurred, resulting in snarled ribbon morph
ology at low feed rate (fr)and long helical form at high fr. Wet turning
produced snarled tubes at low fr and long tubular chips at high fr.
Cryogenic cooling enhanced chip control by reducing material plasticity,
resulting in long helical chips at low fr and 20 mm long snarled helical
chips at high fr. Lower cutting temperatures with cryogenic cooling pre
vented chip entanglements and facilitated efficient chip evacuation
(Bordin et al., 2014). Further, Ni et al. (2022) approached MQL environ
ment to investigate chip morphology during turning of SLMed titanium
alloys. They found winding ribbon-shaped chips with smooth contact
surfaces and fluffy free surfaces. Chips from SLMed alloys, especially
from the top plane of a 67.5� -rotational sample, were more ductile and
intact compared to those from annealed titanium alloys. SLMed titanium
alloys showed excellent plasticity, as evidenced by the curling degree of
the winding chips. Under MQL conditions, chips from SLMed samples
exhibited uniform serrated structures, while significant tearing and crack
ing occurred in chips from annealed titanium alloys due to differences in
microstructure and mechanical properties, affecting chip ductility and
integrity during cutting.
894 P. VATS ET AL.
The relationship between chip formation and morphology is significantly

influenced by both tool structure, workpiece material and machining
parameters. To investigate their impact, Silva et al. (2021) analyzed the
chip morphology generated during the cutting of AM 316 L stainless steel
and AM 18Ni300 steel using T-FLAT and T-CB cutting inserts. Lower
uncut chip areas and higher Vc result in more effective chip segmentation
and shorter chips. Chip breaking decreases significantly at lower Vc, espe
cially with T-FLAT inserts. T-CB inserts produce continuous and helical
chips for AM 18Ni300 steel due to its low porosity and high ductility. They
exhibit better chip control for 316 L stainless steel in finishing turning
operations. Unfavorable chip formation, like snarled chips, is more com
mon in 316 L stainless steel compared to 18Ni300 steel. Segmented chips
are mostly observed at d of 0.5 mm and f of 0.2 mm/rev for 18Ni300 steel,
but long chips still occur occasionally. Airao et al. (2023) investigated chip
geometry and morphology in micromachining of wrought and SLM
Ti6Al4V. Chip characteristics depend on cutting mechanisms, process
parameters and material properties. Wrought Ti6Al4V produces continuous
chips with a lamella structure, while SLM Ti6Al4V generates discontinuous
chips with detached segments due to its higher hardness. Higher Vc
increase plastic deformation, leading to more continuous chips in wrought
Ti6Al4V but short discontinuous chips in SLM Ti6Al4V. Dry conditions
with a worn tool increase plastic deformation, resulting in thicker chips
with welded microparticles. Scaly structures are observed in chips from
both materials due to plastic strain and segment sliding, more prominent
in wrought Ti6Al4V due to its lower hardness and higher ductility (see
Figure 9).
Shunmugavel et al. (2019) investigated chip formation in SLMed Ti-6Al-
4V compared to wrought Ti-6Al-4V. SLMed Ti–6Al–4V exhibited a greater
propensity for segmentation during crystal formation compared to wrought
Ti–6Al–4V. The presence of cracks in SLMed Ti–6Al–4V crystals suggests
that machining-induced periodic crack initiation resulted in the construc
tion of "saw teeth." In contrast to wrought Ti–6Al–4V, the incidence of
build-up edges during machining in SLMed Ti–6Al–4V was comparatively
diminished, thereby impacting the surface quality. The formation of chips
in SLMed and HT AlSiMg0.75 alloys was investigated by Bai et al. (2020)
via ultrasonic elliptical vibration-assisted machining (UEVAM) and con
ventional turning. In contrast to conventional cutting, which produced
lengthy, continuous chips, UEVAM produced brief chips along the gliding
surface that exhibited numerous failures and scars. By reducing hardness
and achieving a uniform microstructure via thermal treatment, long pieces
were produced, which improved plasticity and generated smooth surfaces.
The occurrence of scratches on UEVAM chips was ascribed to the upward
Figure 9. Chip morphology of microturned wrought and SLM Ti alloy (Airao et al., 2023).
cutting direction of the elliptical tool path, which caused hard oxide par
ticles to become dislodged and flow with the chips.
The turning process unveils distinctive challenges demanding nuanced
attention. VB dynamics exhibit unpredictability owing to the intricate
microstructure, hardness and anisotropic nature of AM parts (Bansal and
Upadhyay, 2013). The heterogeneous material densities provoke accelerated
and irregular wear patterns, necessitating advanced tooling strategies (Bar-
Hen and Etsion, 2017). Surface finish intricacies emerge from irregularities
in the printed material’s microstructure, intensifying the need for tailored
approaches. Residual stresses within AM parts add another layer of com
plexity, contributing to deformations during turning and underscoring the
imperative for precision control to maintain dimensional accuracy Sousa
and Silva (2020). Research efforts are focused on developing predictive
models to anticipate VB behavior based on the specific geometry and
material composition of AM parts (Kanta Das et al., 2015). Additionally,
advanced tooling materials and coatings are being investigated to enhance
tool life and mitigate the impact of varying material properties during turn
ing processes.
Drilling
Drilling operations have become crucial for connecting and tapping on the
essential production elements. However, drilling precise holes in AMed
metallic components, ensuring proper circularity and dimensional accuracy
is still a major concern for industries due to the anisotropic behavior of the
AMed material (Aamir et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2023). Therefore, researchers
are continuously working to enhance the surface integrity of the drilled
896 P. VATS ET AL.
hole. Drilling of AMed components is similar to drilling wrought metal

parts. However, due to the unique microstructure and properties of AM
parts, different process parameters, tools and cooling techniques are
required (Ahmed et al., 2016). This section contains an extensive review of
the research related to the impact of the drilling process on metal AMed
components, with a focus on various outcomes such as Fc, Ra, VB, tool
morphology and hole quality. The detailed summary of this in-depth
review is tabulated in Table 3.
Drilling forces and torque

During drilling, several factors including drill geometry, process parame
ters, part design as well as material properties, influence Fc and torque
(Suresh Kumar et al., 2020). In general, drilling AMed components can be
more challenging as compared to drilling wrought components because of
the existence of internal voids and material porosity (Khanna et al., 2023).
The drilling of the AMed component may result in higher forces due to
the non-uniformity of the material, its high hardness, as well as the pres
ence of internal voids. The forces can also be influenced by the orientation
of the part and the alignment of the drill in relation to the part build
orientation (Ullah et al., 2020). Additionally, the use of a conventional drill
bit may not be ideal for drilling AMed components, as the drill bit may fail
quickly and exhibit a large amount of force due to the heterogeneous struc
ture of the material. Thus, specialized drill bits and a machining environ
ment are required to maintain/reduce the Fc and avoid tool damage during
drilling. Alonso et al. (2019) examined the forces and torque during drilling
of CMed Ti6Al4V alloy and wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM)
Ti6Al4V alloy manufactured by the plasma arc welding process. They
observed that the forces were higher during drilling of WAAM Ti6Al4Vas
compared to the CMed. This is attibuted to the great hardness of WAAM
Ti6Al4V alloy. Likewise, in a separate study, Hoye et al. (2018a) examined
the Fc during drilling of CMed Ti alloy pads and gas tungsten arc welding
(GTAW) Ti alloy fabricated pads. Authors observed that the drilling forces
were 10–15% higher for the WAAM Ti alloy pad than for the wrought Ti
alloy pad. This difference was ascribed to the greater hardness of the
WAAM Ti6Al4V pad in contrast to the CMed Ti6Al4V pad. Raval et al.
(2022) investigated the variations in forces and torque under dry and
flooded environments during drilling of wrought IN625 and WAAM IN625
alloys fabricated using the metal inert gas (MIG) process. Authors observed
that drilling of WAAM IN625 required 21.28% and 44.37% more thrust
forces than drilling wrought IN625 alloy in flood and dry environments,
respectively (See Figure 10). Moreover, the torque was found to be 51.22%
and 500% higher during drilling of WAAM IN625 alloy as compared to
Table 3. Summary of the drilling performance on additive manufactured components based on Fc, Ra, VB, tool morphology and hole quality.
SC VB and
Authors Process Material AM parameters m/min f mm/rev d (mm) Fc Ra morphology Hole quality
(Alonso et al., 2019) WAAM Ti alloy VT (mm/min) 10,20,30 0.05,0.075 0.1 Thrust force Ra varies from After drilling,
400 ranges 450N − 0.75 to WAAM
Wf (m/min) 6.7 800N for 1.25 mm Ti6Al4V has
EA (J/mm) WAAM. 0.1 mm
1.125 lower burr
GF (l/min) 12 height
compared to
wrought
(Hoye et al., 2018a) WAAM Ti alloy IA (A) 140 9 0.09 WAAM Ti6Al4V
AL (mm) 4 exhibited
ST (mm/ 10−15%
min)150 higher Fc than
EA (J/mm) 634 wrought.
Wf (mm/
min)1470
(Raval et al., 2022) WAAM Inconel 625 Wf (m/min) 3.8 35 0.10 AMed produced Ra for WAAM Tool wear for Circularity of
V (V) 17.2 44.37% and IN625 varies WAAM drilled hole
ST (mm/min) 21.28% higher from 0.3 to 0.5 IN625 varies of AM-ed
240 forces then mm in dry from 0.05 to component
GF (L/min) 15 wrought in dry whereas 0.4 to 0.2mm in was 130%
and flooded 0.8mm in dry whereas and 141%
conditions. flooded. 0.1 to more than
0.45mm in wrought
flooded. under dry
and flood
cooling.
(Dang, Cai, et al., DMLS Ti alloy P (kW) 2–3 500− 1500 (rpm) 0.06− 12 Drilling of DMLS Minimum Ra
2019) SS (mm/s) 6–10 0.15 cause high obtained
Pf (rev/min)6– thrust forces between 0.5−1
10 ranges 320 N mm at 0.12mm/
SD (mm)3 to 600 N rev, 800rpm.

(Dang et al., 2020) DMLS Ti alloy
(continued)
897
Table 3. Continued.
898
SC VB and
500− 0.06− Fc varies: Wear width:
1500 (rpm) 0.15 Wrought:254N Wrought:
−450N 530lm
P. VATS ET AL.
DMLS: 290N DMLS: 910 lm

−525N HTDML: 520lm
HTDMLS: 428N
−625N
(Dedeakayogulları SLM Ti alloy P(W) 230, 25 −100 0.06− 0.5 Feed force varies: Minimum Ra for Abrasive wear: Drilling
and Kacal, 2022) SS (mm/s)1500, 0.15 Uncoded drill: uncoated is coated < enhances
LT (mm) 0.04 27.98N 0.52 lm uncoated AM hole
−301.71N whereas for tool. circularity
Coated: 46.42 − coated drill is and
329.29N 0.58 lm cylindricity
by
about 98%.
(Ming et al., 2020) DMLS Ti alloy P (kW) 2 � 3 500 −1500 0.06−
SD (mm)3 (rpm) 0.15
(Karabulut and SLM Inconel 718 P (W) 180 15, 30 0.025−0.075 SLM IN718
Kaynak, 2020) SS (mm/s) 600 showed higher
LT (mm) 40 surface
PS (mm) 15-60 roughness
compared to
wrought IN718.
(Sorgato et al., LPBF Ti alloy P (W) 105 40, 60 0.005− VAD outperformed VAD improves Maximum
2020) SS (mm/s) 950, 0.015 CD. 26% and cylindricity
HS (lm) 80 Higher cutting 23% tool deviations of
LT (lm) 20 speed increases wear for 5th 56% with
Ra by 50.7% and 35th CD and
and lower hole at 64.5% with
cutting speed minimum VAD was
reduces Ra feed. observed.
by 45%.
(continued)
Table 3. Continued.
SC VB and
(Sorgato et al., LPBF Ti alloy P (W) 106 55 0.005−0.020 VAD reduces Wear area vary Using VAD
2021) SS (mm/s) 945, maximum with feed reduces the
HS (lm) 80 roughness up from Index BA by
LT (lm) 20 to 22% at 200 lm2to 8% for the
0.02 mm/tooth. 9000 lm2 first hole
for CD and 15% for
whereas, for the final
VAD hole.
200 lm2to
800 lm2.
(Priarone et al., EBM Ti alloy 15,22.5,30 0.01,0.03,0.05 Minimum Ra Maximum 280 Minimum
2013) nearly 0.07 lm hole without circularity
obtained at exceeding error was
30m/min and wear at less than
0.01mm/rev. velocity of 0.02mm at
15 m/min 15m/min
and and
0.01mm/ 0.01mm/rev
rev f.
(Rysava et al., 2016) DMLS Ti alloy 60,110 0.01− Burr height
0.02 varies
between 2.5
to 3.4lm for
all cutting
conditions.
(continued)
899
Table 3. Continued.
900
SC VB and
(Khanna et al., WAAM Inconel 625 V (V) 12.2 25 0.04 Fc for WAAMed
2023) VT (mm/min) IN625 were
240 obtained
P. VATS ET AL.
Wf (m/min)3.8 11.95%,
21.27% and
44.36% higher
as compared
to CMed in
cryogenic,
flood and dry
environment.
(Tamer et al., LPBF AISI10Mg P (W)370 1520 0.1 20 TiN-coated tool:
2023) SS (mm/s) 1300 (rpm) 31.9% less FT
LT (lm) 0.03 than uncoated
HSS, 48.8%
less than
TiAlN-
coated HSS.
Figure 10. Variation in thrust forces during drilling of wrought and AMed part: (a) dry and (b)
flood environments (Raval et al., 2022).
wrought IN625 under flood and dry environments, respectively. The

increased torque and Fc during drilling of an AMed component are most
likely due to the larger concentration of “Ɣ” participates (Ni3Nb-BCT
structure) in WAAM IN625, resulting in material work-hardening.
Dang, Liu, et al. (2019) investigated the thrust force (FT) and Tc in the
context of dry drilling on AMed Ti6Al4V manufactured by the DMLS pro
cess. The FT vary from 320 N to 600 N during the drilling of DMLS manu
factured Ti6Al4V, which are quite high. This is owing to the greater
strength and hardness of DMLS Ti6Al4V. The minimum Fc was achieved
at 1200 rev/min spindle speed (S) and 0.06 mm/rev feed. They also
observed the influence of parameters on cutting temperature. Authors
found that at the maximum S of 1500 rev/min and a f of 0.12 mm/rev, the
cutting temperature reached 501 � C. As the S increased from 500 rev/min
to 1500 rev/min, the cutting temperature exhibited incremental rises of
31 � C, 25 � C, 46 � C, and 33 � C for f of 0.06 mm/rev to 0.12 mm/rev.
However, at a f of 0.15 mm/rev, a marginal temperature increases of only
10 � C was observed at 1500 rev/min. This decrease was attributed to
enhanced heat dissipation in the cutting zone due to larger chip removal.
In another study, Dang et al. (2020) studied the variation in the FT during
the drilling of as-built DMLS, HT DMLS and wrought Ti6Al4V with a
TiAlN coated WC-Co tool. Authors noted that the FT obtained while drill
ing of DMLS Ti6Al4V and HT DMLS Ti6Al4V was higher as contrary to
the wrought. This is due to their anisotropic behavior and higher hardness
in DMLS Ti6Al4V and HT DMLS Ti6Al4V materials. Furthermore, they
noted that, at a constant S, the FT increased linearly with increase in f for
all material types. Conversely, the FT decreased with an increase in S. This
was attributed to the thermal softening of materials during drilling at high
Vc, which was caused by a rise in temperature. To control increase in tem
perature and force, Dedeakayogulları and Kacal (2022) used coated and
902 P. VATS ET AL.
uncoated drill tools to analyze the feed force (Ff) while drilling of the SLM
Ti alloy component. The coated drill requires less force as compared to the
uncoated drill. It was also noted that the Ff increases with an increase in f
as the overall chip removal volume increases with both types of drills. This
may be attributed to the enlargement of the chip area as the f increases,
leading to higher forces. Conversely, a decrease in the feed force was
noticed with an increase in Sc. This is attributed to a reduction in chip
adhesion due to an increase in Sc. Davidson et al. (2022) investigated the
machinability of SLM-fabricated duplex stainless steels during drilling.
They observed that the SLM sample exhibited less torque than the wrought
sample. This may be a consequence of the predominant ferritic structures
formed in SLM samples, which likely resulted in decreased shear flow
resistance and work hardening.
Surface integrity
Surface roughness stands as a critical factor that defines the surface quality
of product. Roughness impacts both the esthetics of the component (such
as glossy or matte) and the mechanical performance of the part, including
fluid dynamics, wear resistance, fatigue life, fracture initiation, etc. The
function and durability of a component significantly depend on Ra (Al-
Tameemi et al., 2021). Metal AM alone does not typically meet Ra stand
ards, necessitating the adoption of post-processing methods like polishing,
finishing and machining (Ceritbinmez et al., 2023). These post-processing
procedures are not only time-consuming but also costly (Boban and
Ahmed, 2022). In order to select the most efficient manufacturing work
flow, it is crucial to have a comprehensive understanding of the surface
imperfections achievable through metal AM, as well as the post-processing
techniques, including their associated costs and time requirements.
Karabulut and Kaynak (2020) studied the Ra after drilling of SLMed IN718
and the CMed IN718 process. Authors observed that drilled SLM IN718
showed higher Ra compared to CMed IN718. Furthermore, for SLM IN718,
there was a decrease in Ra as the Sc increased from 15 to 30 m/min, regard
less of the f set at 0.025, 0.05, and 0.075 mm/rev. This was due to less BUE
formation and a reduction in the length of tool-chip contact at higher Sc.
However, the development of scratches and debris on machined surfaces
increased with increasing feed, which results in higher roughness. Similarly,
Ming et al. (2020) found that the augment in feed caused poor Ra and
affected the color of the machined surface after drilling of HT DMLS
Ti6Al4V. This occurrence was linked to elevated cutting temperatures and
increased VB associated with higher f. According to the discussion, f seems
to be an essential aspect that influences Ra. As a result, Dang, Cai, et al.
(2019) discussed the effect of f on the Ra while dry drilling of DMLS-
fabricated Ti6Al4V alloy. Authors observed that Ra reduces initially and

subsequently rises at f of 0.06, 0.09, 0.12, and 0.15 mm/rev. After analyzing
the trend, it seems that f does not affect Ra. They noticed that machine
vibration and stability have a substantial influence on the quality of the
material’s surface. It significantly degrades the surface quality of the work
piece. This outcome might be associated with the initial cutting frequency,
which is influenced by both the tool geometry and the machining parame
ters. Nevertheless, the drilling process parameters had no remarkable
impact on the Ra. Instead, they focused their research on the effect of lubri
cation and cooling conditions on Ra, seeking to understand how these fac
tors impacted the final surface quality. Therefore, to explore this study,
Raval et al. (2022) investigated the variations in Ra during machining of
wrought IN625 alloy and WAAM IN625 alloy under dry and flooded envir
onmental conditions. In dry cutting conditions, drilled hole in wrought
plate showed a poorer surface finish than AMed plate. While under flood
conditions, no significant differences in Ra were detected. As compared to
the AMed component, the drilling chips from the wrought plate were con
tinuous and lengthy. The main factor contributing to poor surface quality
is the rubbing of long attached chips (both serrated and continuous)
against the machined surface. For flood cooling environment, chips were
flushed and no such phenomenon was detected. Conversely, with AMed
plates, dry drilling has shown a better surface quality in contrast to flood
drilling. This enhancement may be ascribed to the elimination of chip clog
ging in flood machining.
To improve the efficiency of conventional drilling (CD), authors have
introduced vibration-assisted drilling (VAD). Sorgato et al. (2020) investi
gated the effectiveness of VAD as compared to CD of LPBF fabricated
Ti6Al4V based on Ram, Rdq, and Rz. They observed that VAD outperformed
CD and showed better surface finish. This is due to improved material flow
as well as easier chip removal. In the case of CD, both f and Sc do not
show any effective results, whereas, in the case of VAD, both f and Sc have
shown a substantially significant impact on Ra. At higher Sc, the quality of
the surface deteriorates, and Ram, Rdq and Rz increase by 50.7%, 42.4%, and
40.1%, respectively. At lower Sc, the Ram, Rdq and Rz were reduced by 45%,
18.1%, and 26.3%, respectively. In different study, Sorgato et al. (2021)
examined the influence of f during drilling of LPBF Ti6Al4V by using both
CD and VAD. They observed that the use of VAD reduces the Ra by 6%,
31%, 13%, and 22% at the f of 0.005, 0.01, 0.015 and 0.02 mm/tooth,
respectively. However, with regard to CD, Ra increased by 18% and 29% at
f of 0.005 mm/tooth and 0.01 mm/tooth, respectively. For the rest of the f,
Ra decreased by 31%. This decrease in Ra while using VAD might be due
to material softening resulting from localized temperature elevation, which
904 P. VATS ET AL.
Figure 11. Variation in surface roughness with number of drilled holes at constant feed(mm/
tooth): (a) 0.005, (b) 0.01, (c) 0.015, and (d) 0.02 (Sorgato et al., 2021).
simplifies the cutting process. This fluctuation in Ra value is depicted in

Figure 11a–d.
Tool wear and tool morphology

Drilling of AMed metallic components can lead to increased VB and altered
tool morphology due to the distinctive mechanical characteristics and
microstructure of AMed components. Typical VB mechanism observed dur
ing drilling are crater wear, flank wear and chipping (Khaliq et al., 2020).
During the machining of AMed components, tools are susceptible to
increased wear due to factors such as increased hardness, inhomogeneity
and adhesion. Tool morphology can also be altered due to thermal soften
ing and deformation of materials, as well as the non-uniform layer-by-layer
deposition in AM (Sorgato et al., 2023). Appropriate cutting parameters,
coatings, and advanced machining strategies can be used to mitigate VB
and maintain tool morphology during the drilling of AMed metallic
components.
Priarone et al. (2013) investigated the effectiveness of uncoated carbide
drills after drilling c-titanium aluminide manufactured using the EBM tech
nique. They conducted a series of experiments with varying Sc and f.
Authors observed that the Sc had a substantial impact on the tool life. The
lower Sc of 22.5 and 15 m/min enabled the production of a maximum of
280 holes without exceeding the wear limit of 100 lm. However, after drill
ing the 16th and 71st holes at f of 0.01 and 0.05 mm/rev, respectively, the
drill encountered a catastrophic failure at a Sc of 30 m/min. The main wear
mechanisms responsible for tool failure at high Sc were identified as
chipping and adhesion. These issues were attributed to the lower thermal
conductivity of c titanium aluminide, leading to elevated cutting tempera
tures at high Sc. To address these challenges and improve the thermal con
ductivity, mechanical properties and corrosion resistance of the drill
material, a coating was employed. Influence of TiAlN coated WC-Co drill
on VB was evaluated by Dang et al. (2020) after drilling of wrought, DMLS
fabricated, and HT DMLS Ti6Al4V under dry environment. Authors
observed that during drilling of DMLS Ti alloy, the region of abrasive
marks on the flank surface of the drill tool is wider as compared to
wrought and HT DMLS Ti alloy. This is attributed to the variable hardness
of the workpiece materials, which leads to varying Fc causing cutting edge
to wear significantly. Moreover, drilling of wrought alloy showed a severe
build-up edge and chip adhesion, whereas drilling of DMLS alloy had
micro-pits and catastrophic failure, and HT DMLS Ti alloy had chip adhe
sion as well as abrasive wear under similar cutting parameters. Noticeable
peeling of the coating was also observed. This was owing to the smaller
size grains of the DMLS Ti6Al4V, which contributed to the grater hardness
and varying cutting stress on the heavy wear edges as contrary to wrought
and HT Ti6Al4V material. The poor drilling performance of DMLS compo
nents compared to wrought ones owing to the limited heat conductivity
and high strength of the material. In a similar study, with the same param
eter, Dang, Cai, et al. (2019) studied the machinability of AMed Ti6Al4V
using WC-Co with a diamond coated drill under dry conditions. After the
analysis of the drill tool, significant coating peeling was identified on both
the rake and flank surfaces of the drill. This is the result of the higher cut
ting temperature, which causes the coating to deteriorate rapidly. Besides,
micro-chipping, chip adhesions and abrasive wear were also observed on
worn tools. This occurrence is a result of the increased hardness of the as-
built Ti6Al4V material. As discussed in Bhuvanesh Kumar et al. (2023)
machining of harder substances generates elevated temperatures at the tool-
workpiece interface, leading to tool failure. Consequently, the use of lubri
cation and coolant has become essential for machining. Raval et al. (2022)
investigated tool wear after drilling of wrought IN625 and AMed IN625
alloys in dry and wet environments. They observed that the increase in VB
follows an almost linear trend in relation to the number of holes drilled in
the AMed component during dry drilling. In contrast, catastrophic tool
failure was seen during drilling of wrought IN625 because of adherent
chips on the tool surface, which prevented the tool from returning to its
home position. Unfortunately, after drilling 18 holes into a wrought plate
during a flood environment, the coating on the cutting tool was completely
obliterated. As a consequence, tool wear increased dramatically after the
18th hole. Whereas drilling of AMed components led to a steady rise in
906 P. VATS ET AL.
flank wear under flood cooling. Flood machining increases tool life by 5
times compared to dry drilling of wrought IN625 as flood coolant enhances
the heat dissipation rate from the machining area. Additionally, during the
drilling of AMed components with flood cooling, tool wear remains low
contrary to dry drilling.
Sorgato et al. (2021) assessed the impact of VAD on tool life during
drilling of LPBF Ti alloy and compared it with CD. Authors observed that
VAD exhibited superior performance at lower feed per tooth. Despite drill
ing a higher number of holes, the estimated wear area remained consist
ently smaller than that observed with CD. The machining parameters also
hold a key significance on VB. The most substantial enhancements were
observed at the f of 0.005 mm/tooth for both the 5th hole and 35th hole,
with 26% and 23% reductions in VB using VAD, respectively. This was
attributed to the VAD kinematics, which enhanced chip breakage efficiency
at low f. The improved chip removal contributes to a reduction in sliding
friction against the drill bit, resulting in less wear and more stable cutting
conditions. On the surface of the tool, coating peeling and mild adhesion
wear were detected. This may be the consequence of the intense heat gen
erated by the high mechanical stress, which causes chip and machined
material to adhere to the tool surface (see Figure 12).
Hole quality
The hole quality consists of the circularity, hole size, burr, surface rough
ness and roundness error. In the manufacturing industries, the component
rejection rates are as high as 50−60%, mostly because of the subpar hole
quality in the final assembly. This is a difficult challenge that needs imme
diate attention. In regards to the performance of machined components,
the diametric deviation or circularity of holes is a crucial element (Aamir
et al., 2020; Khanna et al., 2023). Circularity or roundness error as well as
two-dimensional radial tolerance quantifies the precision of diametrical cir
cularity (Giasin and Ayvar-Soberanis, 2017). This problem is not limited to
the drilling of holes in wrought materials. It also has a valuable impact on
the fabrication of holes in AMed components. Achieving acceptable hole
quality in metal AM during drilling or post-processing is becoming a ser
ious challenge.
Priarone et al. (2013) investigated the dimensional and geometrical errors
after drilling of TiAl produced using EBM process. They observed that the
cylindricity error increases with tool wear and Sc, whereas the f has not
shown any proper trend. When the tool is worn out or the Sc is high, the
hole becomes more conical in shape, which influence the circularity of the
hole. Sorgato et al. (2021) studied the hole quality on the basis of the burr
of VAD drilled holes on LPBF-fabricated Ti6Al4V components. The burr
Figure 12. Tool morphology after drilling of additive manufactured Ti6Al4V using conventional
drilling and vibrational assisted drilling at three different feeds (Sorgato et al., 2021).
quantity of each hole was measured using the descriptor Index BA (indica
tion of the total burr amount) after the 1st and 35th holes for each drilling
condition. Authors observed that the quantity of burrs is mostly deter
mined by the feed per tooth as well as the type of drilling (VAD or con
ventional drilling). Utilizing VAD lowers the BA index by 8% for the first
hole and 15% for the 35th hole (See Figure 13). These findings were associ
ated with the progression of tool wear throughout the drilling cycle. The
lesser the VB, the fewer burrs will develop.
In separate research, Sorgato et al. (2020) analyzed the quality of micro
drill holes in terms of diameter, outer edge quality and cylindricity by
employing both CD and VAD on Ti6Al4V produced by the LPBF process.
They observed that both cylindricity and diameter may be changed by cut
ting parameters. Maximum cylindricity deviations of 56% with CD and
64.5% with VAD were noticed at higher f and Sc. Hole diameters are not
significantly affected by VAD, typically range between 1.602 and 1.610 mm.
908 P. VATS ET AL.
Figure 13. Index BA in 1st and 35th hole for both conventional and vibration-assisted drilling
(Sorgato et al., 2021).
Figure 14. Variation of cylindricity and hole diameters with respect to feed per tooth for con
ventional and vibration-assisted drilling (Sorgato et al., 2020).
Figure 14a,b illustrates the variation of cylindricity and hole diameters with
respect to feed per tooth for conventional and vibration-assisted drilling.
Cooling and lubrication in drilling prevent tool overheating, reduce wea
and improve surface smoothness, allowing for more efficient drilling and
prolonging the life of drill bits. Furthermore, they aid in the prevention of
workpiece deformation, and the drilling of high-temperature alloys to
achieve optimum tool performance, eventually increasing productivity and
precise hole drilling. Raval et al. (2022) examined the drilled hole quality
(cylindricity and circularity) on wrought and WAAM manufactured IN625
in both dry and flooded environmental conditions. They observed that the
cylindricity and circularity values are greater for drilled AMed components
as compared to wrought components under both machining environments.
The circularity for drilled holes in AMed components was about 130% and
141% more than its wrought equivalent. AMed parts exhibited a 129%
greater cylindricity in a flood environment than in a dry condition. The
increased deviation in cylindricity and circularity for AMed is due to the
greater Fc observed during the drilling process. A higher Fc value increases
vibrations, which cause poor hole quality.
Surface quality is a serious concern in pre designed holes through the
AM process, which can be handled by adjusting the printing parameters,
maintaining appropriate bed adhesion, utilizing support structures and
applying post-processing procedures like drilling. Dedeakayogulları and
Kacal (2022) investigated the quality of a Ti6Al4V alloy pre-hole designed
manufactured by SLM and drill hole featured with coated and uncoated
twist drills. After drilling, the authors observed that the deviation values
from the average diameter, cylindricity and circularity in the AM holes
improved by nearly 98%. However, uncoated drills had the lowest deviation
from cylindricity and circularity compared to AMed holes and coated tool
drilled holes. Whereas, the diameter deviation in hole diameter using a
coated tool was found to be 76% smaller than that of the uncoated tool.
This is attributed to the lower Fc obtained while drilling with coated tools
as compared to uncoated tools because the deviation increases with an
increase in forces. Additionally, they analyzed the deviation in cylindricity,
circularity and hole diameter when drilling with both coated and uncoated
drills. The study revealed a consistent decrease in cylindricity deviation at
all f and Vc up to 75 m/min, followed by an increase at 100 m/min. Coated
drills exhibited decreased circularity deviation at 100 m/min, while
uncoated drills showed an increase with higher f. The lowest deviations for
both drill types were observed at the lowest Vc. Furthermore, higher cutting
speeds improved circularity for coated drills, and post-machining processes
contributed to enhanced accuracy. Minimal differences in accuracy were
noted between coated and uncoated drills, with both types showing
improvement at higher Vc, particularly at 75 and 100 m/min. Overall, the
study emphasized that specific combinations of Vc and f exerted a greater
influence on hole accuracy than the type of drill used.
Drilling operations within metal AM pose distinctive challenges due to
the heterogeneous material properties and internal defects inherent in AM
parts. The presence of hard inclusions and internal voids within the printed
material significantly heightens the risk of tool breakage and delamination
during drilling processes. Current research efforts are concentrated on the
development of advanced drilling strategies, which encompass innovative
tool designs and cutting techniques, aiming to mitigate the likelihood of
tool failure and enhance the surface quality of drilled holes which includes
burr height, circularity, cylindricity and surface roughness in AM
910 P. VATS ET AL.
components (Aamir et al., 2020). Moreover, there is a growing focus on

the exploration of in-situ monitoring techniques such as real time forces
and cutting temperature (Nouari et al., 2003). These techniques are being
investigated to detect and effectively counteract thermal damage during
drilling operations, thereby ensuring the integrity of AM parts and optimiz
ing machining results. Additionally, the utilization of proper lubrication
and cooling mediums like nanofluids, ionic fluids and cryogenic cooling
has shown promise in both mitigating thermal damage and improving hole
quality and tool longevity during drilling operations (Outeiro et al., 2015).
Milling
Milling is a widely used post-processing technique for metal AMed compo
nents. Utilizing milling as a post-processing method provides several
advantages over other methods such as reduced lead time, increased accur
acy and improved surface finish. Milling is also ideal for producing com
plex geometries that are not possible to achieve using metal AMed and
other traditional machining processes. Despite the advantages of milling, it
can be challenging to mill metal AMed components. This is because of the
unique material properties and geometries of the parts produced through
AMed. These parts can have complex geometries, including internal fea
tures and undercuts, which make it difficult to access certain areas for mill
ing. Additionally, the material characteristics of the AMed component may
differ based on the printing process, which can affect the milling process.
To address these challenges, it is essential to carefully control various fac
tors such as Fc, Ra, VB, and chip morphology during the milling process.
Table 4 shows the milling performance overview of AMed components
during dry condition based on forces, surface roughness, tool wear and
morphology as well as chip morphology.
Milling forces
Forces play a pivotal and determinative role in shaping the quality of the
milling process. Milling forces may be influenced by factors such as mater
ial qualities, tool shape, lubrication, coatings and cutting parameters
(Ducroux et al., 2021). Excessive Fc may cause high tool wear, surface dam
age, and, in extreme cases, component failure. As a result, it is critical to
carefully monitor and manage the Fc throughout the milling operation.
Hojati et al. (2020) studied the forces involved in micro-milling
of extruded Ti alloy and EBM-fabricated Ti alloy. They noticed that uncut
chip thickness and material mechanical properties had a substantial impact
on Fc. Both the materials showed similar resultant forces for an uncut chip
thickness greater than 7.5 lm. This might be as a result of the increased
Table 4. Summary of the milling performance on additive manufactured component based on Fc, Ra, VB, tool morphology and chip morphology.
Machining parameter
Dia.
SC f mm/ da & dr VB and
Authors Process Material AM parameters m/min tooth (mm) Fc Ra morphology Chip morphology
(Hoye et al., GTAW Ti alloy ST (mm/min) 80 0.15 30 and 1 GTAW Ti-6Al-4V Ra for wrought
2018a) 150 needed 13-21% and GTAM
EA (J/mm) 634 fewer Fc than Ti6Al4V is 0.7
Wf (mm/min) wrought and 0.9 lm
1470 structure. respectively.
(de Oliveira SLM Ti alloy P (W) 170 W, 18,000 0.5–4.0 0.04 and 0.5 SLM samples Ra varies from Microchips
Campos SS (mm/s) (rpm) exhibits 9.3% 0.06−0.12 lm observed for
et al., 1250 mm/s less force than for SLM both wrought
2020) LT (lm) 30 lm the Ti6Al4V. and SLM
HS (mm)0.1 conventional material.
Ti6Al4V
(Lopes et al., WAAM HSLA IA (A) 95 30−65 0.0115− 0.0345 0.6 and 6 Fc varies from 70N Ra varies from Maximum VB
2020) (High-strength V (V) 21 to 100N. 0.25 − 0.65 lm. 0.227 ±
low-alloy ST (mm/s) 9 0.029 mm.
steel) Wf (m/min) 3
H (J/mm) 221
(Al-Rubaie SLM Ti6Al4V P (W)200 55 0.016/rev 2 and 0.4 mm Fc varies: Ra varies: VB: Wrought: Conventional and
et al., SS (mm/s) 1250 Wrought: 25N Wrought: 0.175lm 36lm SLM-SR
2020) HS (lm) 115 −30N −0.275 lm −70lm processes
LT (lm) 30 SLM-AB:32N −40N SLM-AB: 0.1lm SLM-AB: 42lm generated
SLM-SR: −0.25 lm −84 lm fragmented and
35N −60N SLM-SR: 0.12lm SLM-SR: discontinuous
−0.25 lm 36lm chips, while
−78lm SLM-AB
exhibited a
subtle rise in
chip curling.
(Zimmermann L-PBF AlSi10Mg HS (mm) 170 250 0.03−0.09 1 and 4 Down milling Minimum Ra Discontinuous
et al., LT (mm) 60 30 needs 2-8% during down chips for
2021) less Fc than up milling is 0.96 wrought
milling. 3lm where in material and,
up milling segments spiral

1.063lm for chip AMed .
LPBF AlSi10Mg
(Jarosz et al., L-PBF IN625 P(W) 195 30−90 0.10−0.2 1.5–5 and 1.5–12 Maximum forces
911
2020) SS (mm/s) 800, of obtained

HS (mm) 0.10 nearly of 3.8N
(continued)
912
Table 4. Continued.
Machining parameter
Dia.
at scan strategy
P. VATS ET AL.
orientation of
67⁰, 0.2mm/
tooth feed and
90m/min speed
(Ozel
€ et al., L-PBF IN625 P(W) 195, 30−90 63.7-382 0.1 Discontinuous and
2019) SS (mm/s) 800 (mm/min) fan shaped
HS (mm) 0.10 chips were
observed.
(Ostra et al., LMD IN718 P (W) 2500, 2500 0.1−2 21.2 Forces nearly 40% Shorter and
2019) Pfr(mm/min) and 0.75 higher in LMD straight shape
500, IN718 chips.
Pf 20 g/min. Compared to
forged.
(Periane SLM IN718 P (W)100 Force in the
et al., SS (mm/s)100− emulsion
2019) 1200 condition is
HS (mm) 120 38% lower than
dry condition
(Li et al., DMD Ti alloy P (W) 130, 15000-35000 30,60,90 0.075 Preheating of Maximum VB of
2020) SS (mm/s) 1200 (rpm) (mm/min) DMD Ti6Al4V 120 mm
LT (lm) 30 over 300 � C obtained
reduces forces 300 � C pre
FX by 19 % and heating
FY by 19.5%. temperature.
(Zhang et al., DMLS Ti alloy 150− 0.05− 0.5and8 Maximum Fc was Feed direction: Continuous ribbon
2020) 250 0.09 530 N at Ra ranges from and broken
0.09 mm/tooth 1.5−1.8 lm. piece of chip
and 250 m/min. Cutting
(continued)
Table 4. Continued.
Machining parameter
Dia.
direction: Ra with deep
ranges from purple color.
1.4−1.7 lm.
(Zhang et al., SLM AISI316L P (W) 100 W, 50–200 0.2 0.5 Nanotextured Nanotextured tool Wear depth in nanotextured
2019) PS 20–73 lm tools reduces reduced 30- conventional TiAlN.
LT (lm) 50, 10-20% of Fc. 35% roughness coated tool
SS (mm/s) 0.2 compared to is nealy 2
the times then
conventional
one.
(Litwa et al., SLM CrMnFeCoNi, P (W) 200 60−115 0.025−0.04 1−2 AISI 304L stainless Maximum VB of
2021) AISI 304L LT (mm) 30 steel exhibits 175 lm was
HS (mm) 50 320N maximum found on
forces whereas flute2 with
CrMnFeCoNi 304L
high entropy whereas
alloys (HAE) CrMnFeCoNi
exhibits 260N. HAE showed
25 lm for all
flutes
(Tripathi LPBF IN718 LT (lm) 40 24.4 0.0254 1.016 Grand average
et al., PS (lm) 10−60 value varied:
2018) 13−16N for
short support,
15−18N for tall
support and
23−26N for tall
with tapped
powder.
(P�erez-Ruiz LPBF IN718 P (W) 200, 60 0.03−0.05 5 and 0.1− 0.5 Anisotropic impact
et al., SS (mm/s) reduces Fc to 5-
2021) 1000, 25% for LT30
913
and 18-48% for

(continued)
914
Table 4. Continued.
Machining parameter
Dia.
P. VATS ET AL.
HS (mm) 0.09, LT60 at 0.5 mm

LT (lm) 30 60, depth.
(Dabwan, EBM Ti alloy TLP highest Fc is TLP improve 29% Small saw-tooth
Anwar, Al- 57% higher roughness chip height was
Samhan, than TILP, while compared to found for TILP
and Nasr, TPLP and TLP TPLP and TILP. and largest for
2020) orientations TLP orientation.
vary by 42%.
(Priarone Gamma-TiAl EBM IB (mA)15 50, 80 30, 60 0.4 Minimum Ra: Maximum tool
et al., V (kV)60 (mm/min) and In MQL 0.27 lm, life:
2012) SS (mm/s) 4530 2.4, 4.8 In wet 0.26 lm In MQL
LT (mm)0.05 In dry 0.19lm 145.1min,
In wet 5.8min
In dry
107.6min
(Brinksmeier SLM 18 35−71 0.06−, Across all
et al., Maraging 0.1 machined
2010) 300 surfaces, the Ra
measurements
fall within the
range of
0.3−0.9 mm.
(Yang et al., LPBF IN625 P (W) 102 Discontinuous,
2020) LT (mm) 30 fan-shaped and
SS (mm/s) 250 slightly curled
HS (mm) 0.14 chips.
(Sen et al., DMLS IN939 90 0.2 1.5 and 0.1 Machining of
2020) DMLS IN 939
(continued)
Table 4. Continued.
Machining parameter
Dia.
P (W)195, exhibits
SS (mm/s) 800, maximum Ra
HS (mm) 0.10. nearly 1.35 mm
in parallel to
build direction.
(Periane SLM IN718 30−50 0.05−0.15 0.25 Nearly 2 times Wear from the
et al., better surface SLM sample
2020) finish was is 0.04 mm,
obtained at and C&W is
MQL 0.09 mm.
environment
compared
to dry
(Tascioglu SLM IN625 P (W) 200 20−40 0.05−0.15 0.5 Surface roughness: High-feed
et al., SS (mm/s) 800 (mm/min) Postprocessing finish-milling
2019) HS (lm)120 (1.5 mm) < scan reduces SLM
direction (3 specimen
mm) < build wear
direction by 50%.
(6 mm)
(Sadiq et al., SLM IN718 P (W)210 2500, 5,10 0.05 Micro milling AMed IN718
2018) SS (mm/min) 3000 (mm/min) reduced the Ra had 61%
750 of AMed less tool
HS (mm) 0.1 component wear as
PS (lm)15-53 from 17 to compared to
1.2 mm wrought.
(Huang et al., LAM Ti alloy P (W) 160 14−19 0.008− Maximum Ra:
2017) HS (mm) 0.11 0.0.2 For wrought
(continued)
915
Table 4. Continued.
916
Machining parameter
Dia.
1.5mm
For AMed less
P. VATS ET AL.
than 1mm.
(Veiga et al., WAAM (PAW) Ti alloy 2,000 0.01−0.13 0.5 Ra varies for 0.5
2020) (rpm) mm to 1.1 mm
for up-milling
whereas 0.6 mm
to 1.4 mm for
down milling.
(Bonaiti et al., LENS Ti alloy 50−60 0.066− 0.4 Resultant force Ra LENS Ti alloy <
2017) 0:12 varies from 1N conventional Ti
to 3N for all alloy
materials.
(Lizzul, LPBF Ti alloy P (W) 105, 75 0.02 0.2 Minimum Ra value Tool life Lamellar ribbon-
Sorgato, SS (mm/s) 950, and 2 of 0.2 mm decreased like chips.
�
et al., HS (lm)80 obtained at 90 by up to
2020) LT (lm) 20, of built 40% when
orientation and machining
1m of cutting parts
length oriented
from 0� to
90� in the
build
direction.
(Oyelola DED Ti alloy P (kW) 1.4–1.6 780 0.032 0.5 Use of adaptive
et al., ST (mm/min) (rpm) control systems
2020) 170 improves the
Wf (mm/ surface
min) 800 roughness by
up to 70%.
(Cao et al., SLM 316L stainless P (W)190 3900 500 0.2 Maximum flank Fragmented chips
2020) steel SS 1000,1500 (rpm) (mm/min) wear for for cone
(continued)
Table 4. Continued.
Machining parameter
Dia.
mm/s cone support
HS (lm) 80 support is whereas
LT (lm) 30 130 lm continuous
whereas chips for block
120 lm for support.
block
supports.
(Ramoni LPBF Al-Si10-Mg P (W) 400 1200− 0.10, 0.12/ MQL enhances MQL reduces
et al., LT (lm) 60 2400 rev surface quality flank wear
2021) SS 7 m/s (rpm) 45-63% over by 18–31%
dry and 23-43% and 45–29%
over flood compared to
cooling. flooded
and dry.
(Matras, 2019) SLM AlSi10Mg P (W) 175 848 835–2045 0.829−1.67 Minimum
HS (mm) 200 (mm/min) and 0.1 roughness
LT (mm) 20 3.55 ± 0.32 mm
at SS of
600mm/s, worst
roughness is
6.91 ± 0.65 mm
at SS of
1400mm/s.
(Guo et al., SLM CoCrFeMnNi P (W) 240, 50 0.05 and Milling had the
2018) LT (lm) 40, 0.4 lowest
SS (mm/s) roughness
2000. (1lm) among
grinding, Wire
EDM, and
electro-
polishing.
(continued)
917
918
Table 4. Continued.
Machining parameter
Dia.
(Brown et al., SLM IN718 P (W) 80, 60 0.15 0.5 and 0.5 The Ra for SLM
P. VATS ET AL.
2018) SS 1500 mm/ IN718 in

min, cutting
HS 150 lm. directions
parallel to &
perpendicular
to the scan
direction, is
0.41 lm and
0.12 lm.
(Fortunato SLM 18Ni (300) steel P(W) 100 120 190, 380 0.08/rev 0.5 Maximum axial Milling reduces Tool wear: tool < treated
et al., 150 force was 500N the Ra of the Partial treated tool < not
2018) SS (mm/s) obtained for AMed sample treated tool
500,700,900 totally heat- from 11.86 to
treated sample 0.45 lm.
whereas
minimum was
obtained nearly
200N for
partially treated
sample.
(W€
ust et al., SLM Steel P(W) 320−350 189− 0.0267− 0.030 0.03 and Parameters
2020) SS (mm/s)300− 210 0.10−0.12 optimization
1400 reduced the Ra
HS (mm) 0.12 by 40% for
0.16 0.20 unmachined
LT (mm) 50 surface whereas
23% for
(continued)
Table 4. Continued.
Machining parameter
Dia.
machined
surface.
(Oliveira et al. PBF Maraging P (W) 170, 150− 0.02, 0.10 Milling reduces
2020) steel 300 HS (mm) 0.1, 350 0.08 the Ra from
SS (mm/s) 3.30lm to
1250, 0.31lm.
LT (mm) 0.02.
(Anwar et al., EBM gamma-TiAl V (kV) 60 50 60 0.6 . Minimum
2018) PS (lm) 110 (mm/min) −4.8 roughness of
ST (mm/s) 2200 0.12lm was
IB (mA) 19 found in tool
feed direction.
(Bai et al., SLM 18Ni300 P (W) 285 245 468 0.15 Maximum Milling reduces Maximum wear Aging-treated
2021) SS (mm/s) 960 (mm/min) transverse the Ra of AMed of 250 lm samples exhibit
HS (mm) 0.09 forces observed from 10lm observed for the largest chip
LT (mm) 0.035 270N −360N for to 0.4lm. HT5 sample curvature.
heat treated
(HT3) material.
(Chen et al., SLM Ti alloy P (KW) 350– 9549 0.002 0.010 The maximum Fc Maximum Ra of Maximum rake
2023) 380 (rpm) peaks at 20.4N 160nm was face wear
SS (mm/min) at milling observed at area of
1600–1800 distance milling distance 1500 lm2
extends to of 11400mm was
11,400 mm. observed at
11400mm
milling
length
WAAM Invar 36 30,50 0.06, 0.1

(continued)
919
Table 4. Continued.
Machining parameter
920
Dia.
(Gil et al., IA (A) 220 5 and WAAM Invar 36
2023) V (V) 27 0.15 showed 9%
VT (mm/min) higher forces
P. VATS ET AL.
800 than wrought

Wf (m/min) 8 Invar 36.
Ew (J/mm) 446
(Cozzolino EBM Ti alloy 1600− 300−750 0.3−0.9 Lowest Ra in
and 3500 (rpm) parallel
Astarita, direction
2023) 1.2 lm and in
perpendicular
1.6 lm
whereas, peak
Ra in parallel
and
perpendicular
direction was
5.9 lm and
4.5 mm,
respectively.
(Duro et al., LPBF 18Ni300 P (W)400 80− 320 (rpm) 0.05−0.2 0.2− Forces: Ra for LPBF part is
2023) SS (m/s) 0.86 (mm/min) 0.6 CMed < 4 lm whereas
HS (lm) 95 LPBF18Ni300 minimum Ra for
LT (lm) 40 CMed.
ductility and strength of extruded Ti6Al4V. However, milling of extruded

Ti6Al4V exhibits higher resultant force compared to EBM Ti alloy when
the uncut chip thickness is smaller than 7.5 lm. This may be due to
increased plastic deformation when cut chip thickness is smaller than the
cutting-edge radius. Moreover, the influence of the built pattern of EBM Ti
alloy on forces was also observed at various Vc and uncut chip thicknesses,
although no significant changes in Fc were noted.
de Oliveira Campos et al. (2020) evaluated the forces during micro-mill
ing of CMed Ti alloy and SLM Ti alloy. They noticed that the SLM
resulted in lower Fc compared to the commercial Ti alloy (see
Figure 15a,b). This was owing to the unique grain size and microstructure
of the materials. The SLM Ti alloy showed acicular alpha martensite, which
has needlelike structure that can result in stress concentrations within the
material, which leads to more brittle material and is prone to fracture
under certain loading conditions. In contrast, commercial Ti alloy showed
equiaxed alpha grains with alpha/beta microstructure, which have a more
uniform crystal structure and morphology. Due to this, stresses can be dis
tributed more evenly throughout the material resulting in more ductile and
resistant to fracture under certain loading conditions.
Hoye et al. (2018) analyzed the forces during milling of the GTAW Ti
alloy material. The milling trials revealed that the GTAW Ti alloy thin wall
structures required 13−21% fewer forces in the three main directions (axial,
radial and feed) compared to an equivalent wrought T-fillet structure,
which might be described by the lower hardness of the GTAW formed thin
wall structure. Lopes et al. (2020) milled a component made up of high
Figure 15. Variation in forces with respect to feed per tooth: (a) cutting forces and (b) specific
cutting forces (de Oliveira Campos et al., 2020).
922 P. VATS ET AL.
strength low alloy (HSLA) steel material using the WAAM process and
investigated the variation in Fc. They observed less Fc during milling at
high Sc, which is advantageous from an industrial standpoint as it resulted
in shorter machining times and less energy use. During milling, certain
abnormal Fc peaks were observed, which may be related to the vibration
brought on by the chip removal and formation of BUE (see Figure 16).
Several researchers have implemented some pre-machining processes like
heat treatment and hot isostatic pressing (HIP) to enhance the machinabil
ity and decrease the Fc of the AMed components. Al-Rubaie et al. (2020)
evaluated the Fc during milling of wrought Ti alloy, SLM Ti alloy and
SLM-SR Ti alloy. They noticed that milling of as-built Ti alloy requires
higher Fc than wrought Ti alloy. This is owing to the increased hardness of
the as-built Ti6Al4V. Despite having a lower hardness than as-built
Ti6Al4V, HT Ti6Al4V exhibits greater Fc than as-built Ti6Al4V. The
results were related to the residual stress states of components made of as-
built Ti6Al4V (tensile stresses) and HT as-built Ti6Al4V (compressive
stresses) components. As per experimental results, during milling of HT
Ti6Al4V, compressive stresses increased the Fc. Milton et al. (2021) ana
lyzed the impact of HIP, built direction and microstructure on forces dur
ing machining of EBM and SLM fabricated Ti6Al4V. They observed that
the use of HIP reduced forces by 12% and 10% during milling of EBM and
SLM fabricated components, respectively. This is attributed to the coarsen
ing of the grains induced by the HIP process, which affects yield strength
Figure 16. Trace of resultant cutting forces: (a) real time computed signals, and (b) intermittent
signal with respect to uncut chip thickness (Lopes et al., 2020).
according to the Hall-Petch relation. Moreover, SLM samples displayed

comparable Fc during cutting of all three types of build configurations (i.e.,
edge plane, face plane and cross-sectional plane), which signifies that build
direction does not have any major influence on Fc. However, EBM samples
have experienced some variation in force. The edge plane and face plane
have higher Fc than the cross-sectional plane. This difference becomes
more significant at higher f. This indicates that the material’s shear resist
ance during chip formation is notably influenced by the build orientation
of the EBM sample. Milton et al. (2019) evaluated the Fc during milling of
EBM Ti6Al4V and wrought Ti6Al4V. They observed that EBM Ti6Al4V
produced 10% more forces than wrought Ti6Al4V. This is due to the fine
microstructure of EBM Ti6Al4V. Ni et al. (2020) examined the impact of
built orientations (front and top surfaces) on Fc during machining of SLM
Ti alloy produced with varying scan strategy (0� , 67.5� , 90� ). They observed
that the Fc at 0� and 90� for the top surface of SLM Ti alloy are greater
than the front surface. Whereas for 67.5˚ the required Fc for the top surface
is slightly lower. This is owing to the anisotropic microstructure of the
material and mechanical characteristics. In addition, the required Fc on the
top surface with scan strategy of 0� SLM Ti alloy are notably greater than
those required for annealed Ti alloy. Whereas, the Fc required on the front
surface with scan strategy of 0� and 90� SLM Ti alloy is considerably less
than that for annealed Ti alloy. Zhang et al. (2020) investigated the Fc and
Tc of DMLS Ti6Al4V using solid ceramic mill in dry cutting conditions at
Vc of up to 250 m/min during high-speed milling. Initially, with an increase
in Vc from 150 m/min to 200 m/min, the Fc decreased. Conversely, with the
progressive escalation of the Vc to 250 m/min, an observed rise in the cut
ting force ensued. The observed outcome was attributed to the facilitation
of material removal at reduced cutting velocities as a result of thermal soft
ening, whereas strain hardening took precedence at high Vc, resulting in
elevated Fc. In the temperature distribution study, the maximum tempera
tures were centered around the chips, which are nearly 942.8 � C.
Furthermore, it was noted that as the Tc increased, the morphology of the
chips changed from continuous to short-broken, indicating that elevated
temperatures facilitated chip flow fracture.
Multiple studies have also been undertaken to scrutinize the ramifica
tions of AM parameters on the forces of AMed components during milling.
Zimmermann et al. (2021) assessed the impact of machining parameters
and material-built paths (parallel and perpendicular) of LPBF fabricated
AlSi10Mg on milling forces and compared the results to wrought
AlSi10Mg. They observed that the increase in f increases the resultant
forces for both SLM AlSi10Mg and wrought AlSi10Mg because of the
increased undeformed chip thickness. Furthermore, it was noted that up-
924 P. VATS ET AL.
milling resulted in higher Fc compared to down-milling. In up milling, the

deviation in Fc ranges from 18.7−39.1% for both building directions (paral
lel and perpendicular), whereas this difference was reduced up to 17.3–
28.9% in the case of down milling. This is due to the high friction and
more pronounced plowing of the material in up-milling. Dabwan, Anwar,
and Al-Samhan (2020) studied the milling force during machining of EBM
Ti6Al4V. They noticed that an increase in Sc reduce the Fc. This is attribu
ted to the elevation in temperature during milling at high Sc, which causes
plastic deformation and decreased friction in the tool -workpiece sliding
area. In another work, Dabwan et al (2021) analyzed the influence of layer
thickness of 30, 60, 80 and 100 mm and orientation on all three forces such
as feed force (Ff), axial force (Fa) and radial force (Fr) during milling of
LPBF SS316L. They observed that the variation in Fc is roughly 34%, 12%
and 56% for Ff, Fa and Fr for a layer thickness of 30 mm. However, in the
case of 80 mm layer thickness, the differences between Ff, Fa and Fr are
nearly 25%, 28% and 51%, respectively. Additionally, the variations are
nearly 33%, 23% and 48% for Ff, Fa and Fr, respectively, for a layer
thickness of 100 mm. Whereas the minimum variation in forces was
found to be nearly 25%, 11% and 28% for Ff, Fa and Fr, respectively, at
layer thickness of 60 mm. Cooling and lubrication are the best solutions
to reduce plastic deformation and rubbing (Bagherzadeh et al. 2022; Pei
et al., 2023,). In context of this, Ming et al. (2019) analyzed the impact
of MQL cutting environment and parameters during milling of SLM
Ti6Al4V and forged Ti6Al4V. They noticed that initially the forces first
increased with increased Sc and subsequently reduced with further
increases in Sc. However, with an increase in f per tooth, forces con
tinuously increased. Whereas, in the case of forged Ti6Al4V, forces
increased with an increase in feed per tooth and Sc. Moreover, forces
observed in the MQL environment are lower as contrary to dry envir
onment. This is owing to the lubrication and cooling behavior observed
in the MQL environment, which reduces the friction as well as
improves the heat dissipation rate. Additionally, the authors observed
less force while milling of SLM Ti alloy as compared to forged Ti alloy.
This phenomenon may be ascribed to the pronounced thermal softening
effect and elevated strain rates observed in SLM Ti6Al4V, especially at
high Sc of 80 m/min.
In order to increase the effectiveness of conventional milling, Guo et al.
(2021) employed ultrasonic assisted vertical milling (UAVM) to process
Ti6Al4V produced by the SLM process. Authors evaluated the effectiveness
of milling with the UAM technique and observed that the UAVM required
less Fc compared to milling. This is owing to periodic contact between the
end mill and the workpiece.
Surface integrity
Metal AM is experiencing rapid growth due to its ability to build compo
nents with complicated geometries and unique properties for a broad spec
trum of applications. However, the as-built components often have bad
surface quality (Chernovol et al., 2021). Surface irregularities and defects
caused by successive layer deposition procedures, spatters, balling effects,
partly fused feedstock material and insufficient fusion results in a signifi
cantly uneven surface morphology as well as high Ra (Carolo and Cooper,
2022). Surface imperfections significantly reduce the performance of AMed
components and restrict their possible applications. For example, dimen
sional accuracy, wear, fatigue performance, scratch resistance and esthetics
are negatively influenced by these surface flaws (Taşcıo�glu et al., 2022).
Recently, much work has been devoted to post processing to increase the
surface quality of AMed metallic parts. Huang et al. (2017) examined the
Ra of wrought Ti alloy and LPBF produced Ti alloy after milling opera
tions. Authors observed that the AMed component had a superior surface
polish than the wrought component. This is owing to the lower hardness,
ductility, and strength of the AMed part. A similar kind of result has been
seen in micro milling operation. Ji et al. (2021) investigated the Ra of
SLMed IN718 and CMed IN718 after the micro milling process. They ana
lyzed that the SLM manufactured component exhibits less roughness com
pared to CMed (see Figure 17). This is attributed to the low ductility and
plasticity of SLM IN718 alloy, which affects the burr formation and pro
vides a better surface finish. The Ra increases as S increases and decreases
as f increases. This may be ascribed to the fact that when f increases, the
amount of tool and workpiece contact decreases.
Figure 17. Comparison of machined surface (a) SLM fabricated and (b) wrought sample (Ji
et al., 2021).
926 P. VATS ET AL.
Coolant plays a pivotal role in enhancing the quality of machined surfa

ces during the machining process (Pei et al., 2023). Therefore, authors like
Moritz et al. (2020) discussed the influence of cryogenic cooling while mill
ing of Ti alloy parts manufactured by LMD. Result shows that the Ra varies
in the order of low to high as emulsion cooling < cryogenic cooling < dry
machining. This is a result of elevated temperatures during dry milling,
causing the workpiece material to soften and undergo plastic deformation.
Khaliq et al. (2020) analyzed the Ra of SLM manufactured Ti alloy after
micro milling process using tungsten coated carbide micro end tool under
dry and MQL environments at varying Sc and f. They observed that the use
of the MQL reduces Ra by 55% compared to a dry. This reduction is attri
buted to the higher tool wear rate during dry milling when compared to
the MQL. Furthermore, the maximal Ra value of 0.9037 mm was noted at a
f of 90 mm/min and 35000 rpm of spindle speed (S), while the minimal
value of Ra was 0.4419 mm at the same S and 30 mm/min of f after dry
micro end milling. MQL exhibits a positive trend in decreasing the Ra
value; the maximal and minimal values of Ra were 0.5041 and 0.1246 mm,
respectively, under an MQL environment with similar machining parame
ters as dry milling. On a different note, Danish et al. (2022) assessed the
impact of MQL environment and cutting length on Ra after milling of
AMed IN718. After 200 mm of cutting length, the Ra increased with dry
and chill air conditions, whereas in MQL, the Ra increased after 500 mm of
cutting length. The MQL technique improved the surface finish by almost
65% as compared to dry milling. (Ramoni et al., 2021) contrasted the influ
ence dry, flooded and MQL environments based on Ra after milling of
LPBF AlSi10Mg material. Authors observed that the employing MQL led to
a substantial improvement in surface quality, with a reduction of 45−63%
compared to dry milling and a decrease of 23−43% compared to flooded
environments. This enhancement in surface quality is attributed to the
lubricating effect of MQL. Meng et al. (2024) examined the surface proper
ties of forged and AMed IN 718 under various feed environments. They
observed that greater f resulted in more visible feed cutter markings on the
workpiece surface owing to the cutting tool’s plowing action. Interestingly,
AM IN718 exhibited shorter tool marks and less plastic deformation than
forged equivalents, suggesting better surface smoothness. Under high f,
forged IN718 showed a plowing effect due to considerable plastic deform
ation in the shear zone during machining, resulting in the appearance of
adhering materials, mostly built-up edges, on the machined surface. In add
ition, the researchers noted that the microstructure of the material exhib
ited no significant deviations from that of the substrate. Particles
underwent negligible tensile and twisting deformations, and were largely
impervious to Fc. Conversely, granules experienced elongation and
deformation in the plastic deformation zone in a direction parallel to the

Vc, with the degree of deformation becoming more severe as one
approached the boundary of the zone. The results of this study highlight
the complex interplay among feed conditions, material properties and
machining impacts on IN718 surface characteristics.
Several studies also focused on effect of scan strategy during fabrication
of AMed components on Ra. Fei et al. (2020) fabricated the IN625 compo
nents by LPBF methods with two different layer-wise scan strategies (rota
tion 67� and 90� ). During this investigation, surface flaws like smearing,
adhesion and material side flow were observed. The materials that adhered
or spread were caused by particles that were fused to the BUE or by the
surface. The lateral material displacement was induced by the plasticity of
the surface material, which was amplified by tool vibrations. This amplifica
tion was a result of elevated cutting temperatures during the milling of
AMed IN625 parts. Nearly all cutting circumstances produced jagged feed
mark peaks. Lizzul et al. (2021a) studied the Ra of the AMed Ti alloy sur
face after finishing operations using ball milling on a surface fabricated at a
45� inclined scan direction. They compared the surface quality of AMed
with that of wrought Ti alloy and found that AMed Ti6Al4V showed better
surface quality than wrought. This was owing to the interaction between
the cutting edge of the ball mill and the resulting colonies of alloy in the
alpha phase, which may facilitate the removal of the material. In another
work, Lizzul et al. (2021b) analyzed the influence of part orientation, both
horizontally (0� ) and vertically (90� ), on the surface quality after milling of
HT SLM Ti alloy at variable cutting parameters under MQL conditions.
The Ra of the machined components exhibited a similar quality for both 0�
and 90� orientations. However, greater peaks predominated in the compo
nents that were generated with 0� orientation samples, especially at the
maximum feed per tooth as illustrated in Figure 18.
Guo et al. (2021) conducted a comprehensive study to assess the impact
of UAVM on the surface integrity of the SLM Ti alloy compared with con
ventional milling. They observed that UAVM exhibits higher Ra as com
pared to conventional milling. This increase in roughness may be
attributed to the additional sinusoidal vibrations introduced by the UAV
milling cutter (see Figure 19a,b).
Tool wear and morphology

AM causes microstructural anisotropy in its components, which has an
impact on their mechanical characteristics and machinability. Machining
AMed parts is a bigger challenge for industries. During machining, the
anisotropic behavior of AMed components is the main cause of excessive
VB. Tool wear and its morphology significantly impact both product quality
928 P. VATS ET AL.
Figure 18. Surface profile during machining of as-built at: (a) 0� , (b) 90� and (c) along with
feed direction (Lizzul et al., 2021b).
Figure 19. Surface roughness profile during milling of SLM Ti6Al4V by using: (a) conventional
milling and (b) UAVM (Guo et al., 2021).
and power consumption. Deformed tools have repercussions on product

surface quality and dimensions (Liang et al., 2023). Hence, it is imperative
to explore and mitigate VB while machining of AMed components.
Ji et al. (2021) examined the VB after micro-milling of AMed IN718 and
wrought IN718. They observed two types of VB, namely tool diameter
reduction and flank wear, after machining the IN718. The flank wear
exhibited an upward trend with increase in S and f, whereas tool diameter
reduction showed the opposite tendency. Moreover, compared to SLM
IN718, wrought components exhibit more VB. This was due to the differ
ence in the microstructure of both materials. With a substantial columnar
dendritic component and a heterogeneous microstructure, SLM-fabricated
IN718 exhibits lower plasticity, hardness and toughness than wrought
IN718, which has a dense microstructure. As a result, milling SLM IN718

exhibits 40–45% less tool wear than milling wrought. Similarly, Park et al.
(2020) examined the VB after milling of wrought IN718 and SLM IN718.
They analyzed the impact of HIP and build orientation treatments on tool
wear. Milling of wrought IN718 shows the larger tool wear as compared to
SLM IN718. However, milling of SLM IN718 showed 61% less VB as com
pared to CMed. This may be owing to the variation in material hardness,
which varies with build orientation and manufacturing methods. Avegnon
et al. (2021) evaluated the tool wear after milling three types of SS 316 L;
(i) hybrid AM by ultrasonicated peening, (ii) AMed and (iii) wrought. Tool
flank wear increased rapidly while machining hybrid and AMed SS 316 L as
compared to wrought SS 316 L. After 65 min of machining, the rate of wear
for hybrid, AMed and wrought SS 316 L was 0.10, 0.07and 0.06 mm,
respectively. In the case of machining hybrid SS 316 L, the flank wear of
machining hybrid SS 316 L was about 32–38% greater than that of AMed
and wrought SS 316 L. This may be attibuted to work hardening caused by
ultrasonic peening. The variation in flank wear with time for materials
manufactured using different processes is shown in Figure 20.
The shape of the structure and material of milling tool also significantly
affect the cutting performance. Cao et al. (2020) assessed the VB after mill
ing of the cone shape and block shape support structures from the AMed
components made of stainless steel 316 L. They observed that the removal
of block-shaped support structure exhibited less flank wear than the cone-
shaped structure. This was due to the greater hardness of the cone struc
ture as compared to the block structure. Dang et al. (2020) evaluated the
efficiency of Al2O3/Si3N4 ceramic end mill during slot milling of HT SLM
Ti6Al4V. During VB analysis, it was noticed that the diffusion and adhesive
wear mechanisms were found to be the most prevalent (see Figure 21),
when the tool’s cutting edges were exposed to markedly elevated cutting
Figure 20. Variation in flank wear with respect to time for hybrid AM by ultrasonicated peen
ing for as-printed and wrought SS 316 L material (Avegnon et al., 2021).
930 P. VATS ET AL.
Figure 21. Adhered chips and diffusion traces on the tool rake and flank face (Dang et al.,
2020).
temperature (1200 � C). This leads to a severe adhesion of the machined

material onto the tool surface.
According to the literature, adhesive, abrasive and diffusion wear on tool
surfaces are the outcomes of high elevated heat generation and increased
friction at the interface of tool and workpiece in dry cutting environments.
To address this issue, researchers introduced lubrication into the machining
process. Lubrication helps to reduce tool temperature, tool wear, friction,
wear rate and heat generation (Gupta et al., 2023). In order to analyze the
impact of lubricant or coolant, Moritz et al. (2020) compared cryogenic
milling and dry milling of Ti alloy components fabricated by LMD. In dry
machining, tool breakage occurred after 59.4 m of milling, likely due to the
elevated thermal load on the tool. However, implementation of cryogenic
cooling results in very low tool wear and built-up edges, even after 90 m of
milling. This was due to the significantly low thermal load on the tool
while employing cryogenic cooling.
Khaliq et al. (2020) analyzed the impact of the MQL technique on VB
during micro-milling of SLM Ti alloy. Authors conducted a series of
experiments using a TiAlN-coated WC-Co end mill in dry and MQL envir
onment. They noticed that, regardless of the cutting environment, increas
ing Sc and f values led to an increase in VB. Nevertheless, employing MQL
during the milling of SLM Ti alloy led to a more modest reduction in tool
diameter, reduced flank wear and enhanced machining stability by reducing
abrasive wear when compared to dry milling. While implementation of the
MQL environment lowers the VB by 33.5% as contrary to dry environment
at 35,000 RPM. This was attributed to decreased abrasive wear with efficient
lubrication in the MQL environment. Danish et al. (2022) studied VB after
micro-milling of AMed In718 alloy under chilled air, MQL and flood
environment. The least amount of wear was recorded in MQL and flood
environments, with a 4.9% and 4.2% decrease in tool diameter, respectively.
Moreover, the morphology of mill tools shows that the abrasive and adhe
sive wear were the dominant wear mechanisms. This may be owing to the
higher friction and heat generation at the interface between the workpiece
and tool.
Lizzul, Bertolini, et al. (2020) investigated tool diameter reduction during
milling of LPBF Ti alloy components with four distinct part build orienta
tion angles (0⁰, 36⁰, 72⁰ and 90⁰) under MQL environment. They observed
that altering the built orientation angles of the aGB layers concerning the
tool registration angle had a pronounced effect on the cutting tool diam
eter. Specifically, the decrease in tool diameter was observed with the
decrease in build-up orientation angle of the component. The decrement in
tool life was observed up to 40%, while milling of 0⁰ sample to the 90⁰ one
(see Figure 22). Under flood lubrication environment, Al-Rubaie et al.
(2020) investigated tool wear after milling SLM Ti alloy, stress-relief SLM
Ti6Al4V, and wrought Ti6Al4V, alloys. They observed that milling of SLM
Ti alloy exhibits a larger flank than wrought and stress-relief SLM Ti6Al4V
alloys. This was ascribed to the increased hardness of the SLM Ti alloy.
Chip morphology
Examining the morphology of machined chips can provide valuable
insights into the material’s behavior, which can be utilized to enhance mill
ing process parameters for better dimensional accuracy and surface finish.
Chips are divided into two major categories; continuous chips and discon
tinuous chips. Usually, continuous chips are undesirable for various rea
sons, such as worker safety, product quality, tool wear, etc., (Liu et al.,
2021). To address this problem, chip breakers are used to break the chips
into smaller sizes. Furthermore, the morphology of the chip is directly
related to the quantity of heat output from chip cooling rate, cutting zone,
as well as thermal softening of the workpiece (Li et al., 2012). This subsec
tion discusses the morphology of AMed milled chips, encompassing the
932 P. VATS ET AL.
Figure 22. Tool diameter reduction during milling of printed material at different built orienta
tions (Lizzul, Bertolini, et al., 2020).
impact of diverse material properties and milling parameters. Furthermore,

recent state of art techniques used to analyze and quantify the chip morph
ology of milled AMed parts are also discussed.
AM parameters, including layer scan strategies and part orientations, sig
nificantly alter the chip morphology of AMed components. These critical
factors have a substantial influence on the potential of AM to produce
innovative designs and functional applications, as well as the machinability
of the component. Fei et al. (2020) studied the chip morphology after mill
ing of L-PBF manufactured IN625 with two different layer scan strategies
(90⁰ and 67⁰ rotation). They observed that the nature of the chip was dis
continuous and slightly curled. Almost every chip has a fan-shaped struc
ture with a saw tooth-shaped edge. However, some flaws, such as gas
porosity and cracks, were observed on the chip surface. Similarly, with the
same scan strategies of 67⁰ and 90⁰, Yang et al. (2020) investigated the chip
morphology after machining of the LPBF fabricated IN625 alloy. They
observed that the chips had discontinuous, curled and fan shaped struc
tures during the milling of IN625. Additionally, some circumferential and
radial cracks, as well as gas porosity, were observed during the analysis of
the chips. Conversely, Patel et al. (2019) found broken and folded chips
into a fan-shaped structure with cracks and a saw edge. Most of the saw
edges are seen at the ends of the chips. This may be due to the radial and
circumferential stress generated during the milling of LPBF IN625. Zhang
et al. (2020a) characterized the chip morphology of AMed Ti6Al4V alloy
after cutting with ceramic tools under dry high speed milling conditions.
They observed the continuous ribbon and broken pieces of chip with a deep
purple color. This was due to the exceptionally high cutting temperature
observed during high-speed milling. Lizzul, Bertolini, et al. (2020) analyzed
the chip morphology of PBF fabricated Ti6Al4V component with four dis
tinct build-up orientations (0⁰, 36⁰, 72⁰ and 90⁰) after milling. They observed
lamellar ribbon-like chips for all build-up orientations. Al-Rubaie et al.
(2020) analyzed the chip morphology of SLM-manufactured Ti alloy compo
nent (SLM-AB), conventional Ti alloy and SLM-SR Ti alloy during toroidal
milling. Chips produced from SLM-AB exhibit a minor hike in curling in
contrast to the fragmented and discontinuous chips formed during the cut
ting of all three materials. This is because of the higher hardness of SLM-AB.
Dabwan, Anwar, Al-Samhan, and Nasr (2020) analyzed the chip morph
ology after milling EBM fabricated components in three orientations about
the tool feed. The orientations are tool movement perpendicular to layer
planes (TLP), tool movement in a layer plane (TILP) and tool movement
parallel to layer planes (TPLP). During the chip analysis, they observed that
the fractures in chips vary in number and size along with layer orienta
tions. This happens because the EBM layers provide varying chip bending
and curling resistances inside the chip. Mainly the saw-tooth chip structure
was observed while milling EBM Ti6Al4V components (see Figure 23).
TLP has substantially greater saw-tooth chips due to higher Fc. However, in
TPLP, the saw tooth is less visible, which can be related to lower Fc. The
saw tooth chip height is lowest for TILP as Fc are minimal.
In the examination of chip morphology, the influence of cutting environ
ment has been evident. Cutting fluid or coolant plays a crucial role in miti
gating tool wear and minimizing heat generation during machining,
thereby directly impacting the resulting chip size, thickness and morph
ology. Moritz et al (2020) examined the chip morphology of LMD Ti alloy
after the milling process, both in dry and cryogenic environments.
Cryogenic cooling produced flat chips with torn edges and rolled chips
with smoother edges. This is because of the cryogenic cooling reduces the
toughness of material compared to dry cutting.
In their study, Ross et al. (2023) investigated the effect of various cutting
parameters, including workpiece-to-tool ratio, f, cutting environment (dry,
flood, MQL and cryogenic) and tool geometry, on chip structure of Al-
based alloys. They observed that different cutting regimes resulted in
decreased material ductility, leading to the formation of discontinuous
chips characterized as thick and short, indicating a distinct chip morph
ology post-machining. The research also depicted the chip structure during
milling of AMed specimens under different cooling regimes, revealing chip
curl in all cutting procedures (see Figure 24). This variation in chip morph
ology was attributed to differing thermo-mechanical pressures on the
934 P. VATS ET AL.
Figure 23. Resultant chip morphology after milling of EBM Ti6Al4V component in three direc
tions: TILP, TLP and TPLP (Dabwan, Anwar, Al-Samhan, and Nasr, 2020b).
material, resulting in varied stress distributions across the chip cross-sec

tion. Furthermore, Zimmermann et al. (2021) noticed a similar trend in
LPBF-AlSi10Mg chip shape, linking it to the influence of production proce
dures on chip structure. The variance in chip shape was attributed to alter
ations in microstructure and elemental composition of the material.
Notably, the inhomogeneous microstructure, particularly around Si par
ticles, induced significant stresses during chip flow, promoting crack initi
ation and propagation, leading to chip breaking. Additionally, all cutting
regimes generated uneven serrations, whereas, MQL produced more regular
serrations due to the lubricating properties of vegetable oil, reducing fric
tion and enhancing heat transfer. These findings underscore the intricate
interplay between cutting parameters, material properties and lubrication in
determining chip morphology during Al-based alloy machining.
Notable challenge that arises from AMed metal parts is their intrinsic
heterogeneity and anisotropic characteristics. These attributes may result in
irregular material properties and inconsistencies in microstructure across
the entire component. The lack of uniformity introduces a complexity to
the machining process, as conventional cutting strategies might not be
Figure 24. Chip morphology of Aluminum based alloy at different cutting environment (Ross
et al., 2023).
adequate for the consistent removal of material (Duet al., 2018). In addition,
tool fracture and tool attrition during milling operations can be exacerbated
by the presence of internal defects in AM components, including voids, aper
tures and residual stresses (Borgonovo and Lindsley, 2016). This results in a
reduction in both tool life and manufacturing efficiency. In addition, milling
may be hindered in its pursuit of the desired surface finish and dimensional
accuracy due to the intricate internal features and complex geometries that
are frequently associated with AMed component (Bai et al., 2021). Overall,
addressing these challenges necessitates the development of specialized
milling path strategies, selection of tool material, cutting environment and
optimized machining parameters to tailored to the specific characteristics of
AM-produced metal components, as well as careful consideration of AM pro
cess parameters to optimize machinability and ensure quality outcomes.
Key factors influencing machinability of additive manufactured

components
Understanding the machinability of an additive manufactured components
involves assessing its ease of material removal using cutting tools.
936 P. VATS ET AL.
Machinability is influenced by various factors such as fabrication techni

ques, process parameters, machining environment, tool and workpiece
material properties as well as heat treatment. Utilizing machinability data is
crucial for determining response parameters, but also it is important to
stay updated with the latest technological advancements. AM or 3D printed
metallic materials present unique challenges such as anisotropic material
behavior, variable hardness, poor surface quality and unique microstructure
during machining as a result of their distinct properties resulting from
layer-by-layer fabrication. Gaining a deep understanding of these factors is
essential in order to fine-tune machining processes, enhance the overall
quality of the end product, and keep costs to a minimum. Figure 25 illus
trates the major factors that can affect the machinability as well as machin
ing responses.
Figure 25. Visual representation of the key factors influencing machinability.

Assessment of sustainability in the machining of metal additive

manufactured components
Establishing environmentally favorable and cost-effective solutions is inte
gral to sustainable manufacturing. When it comes to environmentally sus
tainable manufacturing, the efficient management and application of
cutting fluids are crucial components. The sustainability implications of
machining AMed IN625 by dry, electrostatic minimum quantity lubrication
(EMQL) and cryogenic means were investigated in a study by Salvi et al.
(2023). The results of the study revealed that the cost of producing a
wrought component was 86.5% lower in comparison to that of an AMed
IN625 components. An analysis of the cost increases in machining AMed
IN625 versus wrought IN625 under dry, EMQL and LCO2 conditions
revealed respective increases of 5.51%, 37.43% and 61.605% respectively.
LCO2-assisted cryogenic machining was deemed more economically feasible
than alternative techniques when initial investment costs were disregarded.
In terms of carbon emissions, EMQL exerted a more substantial influence
compared to dry machining and LCO2. During turning operations, the
power consumption of AM-finished components was greater than that of
wrought-finished components. On the contrary, power consumption for
AMed parts was found to be lower in EMQL machining when compared to
conventional parts. Conversely, the opposite tendency was observed for the
remaining two machining conditions. In conventional drilling of IN625
with cryogenic coolants, researchers observed decreases in power consump
tion, surface roughness and thrust force of 19%, 11% and 14% in LCO2
compared to LN2, respectively. Nonetheless, in 17 out of 18 environmental
impact categories, LCO2 had more adverse effects on the environment than
LN2. Maheshwari et al. (2023) conducted an extensive LCA (life cycle ana
lysis) to compare the environmental impacts of additive-subtractive manu
facturing processes for IN625. They analyzed 18 environmental variables
affecting human health, ecosystems and resource availability. The study
focused on two case studies: plate and hollow cylinder production using
WAAM with drilling and turning post-processing, respectively. The authors
found that dry conditions significantly reduce environmental impact in
both cases, indicating dry environments as the most sustainable choice for
IN625 manufacturing. However, in the flood environment of case 1 and
with the use of EMQL in case 2, a greater impact on human health, ecosys
tems, and resource availability was observed (see Figure 26). This was attri
buted to the use of cutting fluid and extraction of raw materials, as well as
the additional power source required for charging mist particles in the case
of EMQL.
Carbon emissions have a substantial influence on both ecological systems
and human well-being. The correlation between cutting environments,
938 P. VATS ET AL.
Figure 26. Effect of environment and fabrication process on human health, resource and eco
system (Maheshwari et al., 2023).
machining parameters and carbon emissions has been shown to be signifi

cantly statistically significant. Consequently, investigations into carbon
emissions within manufacturing systems are of the utmost importance. A
comparison was made between the carbon emission reduction in WAAM
and CM by Priarone et al. (2020). A range of material compositions and
geometries were considered by the researchers, encompassing steel, titan
ium and aluminum, among others. WAAM, as opposed to CM, exhibited a
reduced cumulative energy demand across all components. Furthermore,
the study revealed that cost reductions were exclusively observed in alumi
num components. In comparison to CM, the cost and manufacturing
expenses of steel components were higher in WAAM. It has been ascer
tained that although MQL is ecologically feasible for traditional machining
of Ti6Al4V, its lack of sustainability becomes evident when compared to
cryogenic and flood machining due to the heightened tool attrition.
Cryogenic machining demonstrated a more advantageous balance between
sustainability and machining performance than flood coolant machining,
which was deemed to be environmentally unfriendly (Khanna, Zadafiya,
et al. 2021). In consideration of social, economic and environmental
repercussions, Gupta et al. (2021) investigated the machining of IN800

alloy. Turning experiments were conducted under a combined of four sus
tainable machining conditions: dry, vegetable oil with MQL system, gra
phene nanofluid plus vegetable oil with MQL system and LN2 refrigeration.
When comparing N2 cooling to alternative cooling methods, it was
observed that the latter reduced carbon emissions by 49.17%, overall energy
consumption by 11.3%, and total machining expenses by 9.3%. The utiliza
tion of these chilling conditions has the capacity to improve sustainability
in the aerospace industry through the conservation of resources and the
provision of environmental benefits, as evidenced by these results. In their
investigation of EBM of Ti6Al4V, Cozzolino et al. (2023) observed that it is
crucial to maintain a high d and S to reduce energy consumption during
this phase. In a distinct inquiry pertaining to the machining of EBM-ed
Ti6Al4V for biomedical applications, (Sartori, Bordin, Ghiotti, et al. 2016)
concluded that cryogenic chilling outperformed dry machining due to its
reduced cost of production and environmental footprint.
The technology of AM significantly influences LCA. Various researchers
have undertaken LCA analyses to examine their impact on material fabrica
tion using AM and also, they compared these novel fabrication methods
with conventional manufacturing. Reis et al. (2023) conducted an assess
ment of the environmental impacts associated with a specific WAAM tech
nique, for fabricating metal parts compared to subtractive manufacturing.
The study compared the production of three metal parts with varying com
plexities using both WAAM and milling processes. To quantify the envir
onmental impacts of each process, the authors utilized the LCA
methodology. The findings revealed that the WAAM approach resulted in
material savings ranging between 40% and 70%, along with a reduction in
environmental impact ranging from 12% to 47%, compared to the subtract
ive approach for fabricating the three geometries considered in the study
(see Figure 27). This improvement was attributed to the superior material
efficiencies of WAAM compared to the CNC milling approach.
Figure 27. Environment impact on (a) WAAM and (b) CNC milling produced geometries (Reis
et al., 2023).
940 P. VATS ET AL.
In their study, Kokare et al. (2023a) compared the environmental impact

and production costs of three different methods of additive WAAM, SLM
and pure subtractive CNC machining to manufacture a marine propeller. To
quantify the environmental and economic impacts associated with each man
ufacturing approach, LCA and life cycle costing (LCC) were utilized. The
authors observed that the WAAM method for fabricating the marine propel
ler emerged as the most environmentally and economically efficient, as deter
mined by LCA and LCC data. The environmental impact of WAAM was
approximately 2.5 times and 3.4 times lower than that of conventional CNC
milling and SLM, respectively. The primary reason for this superiority was
the enhanced material and energy efficiencies that possessed by WAAM.
Similarly, another study by Kokare et al. (2023b) examined the economic and
environmental implications of employing WAAM, SLM and CNC machining
to fabricate a basic steel wall. The researchers noted that CNC machining
exhibited greater environmental sustainability, as evidenced by a 55%
decrease in environmental impact, and cost-effectiveness, as it was 67% less
expensive than the WAAM process. In addition, it was determined that the
SLM process was four times less sustainable than the WAAM process. This
unequivocally demonstrates that the sustainability index of a manufacturing
process is contingent upon a multitude of factors, encompassing the intricacy
of the component, the materials utilized, and the post-processing methodolo
gies implemented. The sustainability of alternative processes may be compro
mised in favor of either CNC machining or a particular AM technique,
contingent upon the part’s complexity and machinability.
Conclusion
This article presents an in-depth discussion on the machinability of metal-
based AMed components, concentrating on several performance assessment
criteria such as cutting forces, surface roughness, tool wear, cutting tem
perature, hole quality and chip morphology. The discussions encompass
the impact of printing parameters, build direction, cutting parameters and
post-process heat treatment on the machinability of AMed components
during turning, drilling and milling operations. Through extensive research,
approaches to improve the machinability of AMed components have been
explored and discussed. The following key findings have been derived from
this comprehensive review based on the collected data.
� Anisotropy behavior in mechanical properties and microstructures of

AMed components is one of the main causes of poorer machinability
compared to their CMed counterparts. This leads to elevated cutting
forces, diminished surface quality and increased tool wear.
� The presence of imperfections like porosity, cracks and subpar surface

finishes in AMed components are the responsible factors for the poor
machinability of the components. These factors compromise the struc
tural integrity of a material, leading to shorter tool lifespan, increased
cutting forces and diminished surface quality.
� When compared to uncoated tools, the utilization of coated carbide
tools for cutting AMed components has shown improved machinability.
Coatings help to reduce cutting forces, surface roughness and tool wear,
improving overall machining performance.
� In comparison to wrought materials, AMed materials often exhibit poor
machinability owing to greater ultimate tensile strength, higher hardness
and lower elongation values. Nevertheless, under specific and optimized
cutting conditions, their machinability can be improved. Alternative
techniques for cooling and lubrication, namely cryogenic cooling,
flooded and MQL, have been utilized to reduce cutting temperature and
tool wear. These approaches have shown the ability to enhance the sur
face quality of machined AMed parts. However, their usefulness in
micro-machining techniques may be limited because of less heat gener
ation compared to macro-machining.
� The machinability of AMed components is significantly affected by post
process heat treatments and printing parameters such as scanning
method, particle size, layer thickness and building orientation. These
variables have a direct impact on the mechanical and physical character
istics of AMed components, which in turn affect their machinability.
Gaps and future scope

Researchers have been working diligently to make metal AM a top choice
for mass production, customized to user needs. Nevertheless, the restric
tions of metal AM components, like precision and surface quality, require
additional post-processing and machining to make them appropriate for
industrial use. Significantly, there has been a focus on machining and post-
processing of titanium and nickel-based alloys due to their extensive use in
vital sectors like aerospace and automotive. Research efforts have primarily
concentrated on using different cutting fluids and fluid delivery (flood and
MQL) systems to improve the overall quality and performance of AMed
parts. Proposed are several suggestions for future research directions to
advance this field.
� Despite their promise in metal AM, machining for typical metal AM

alloys such as high entropy, aluminum, copper and steel alloys has
received little attention. Future research should priorities the
942 P. VATS ET AL.
appropriate selection of cutting fluids and understanding their inter

action with the microstructure and defect of AMed components.
Furthermore, the influence of cutting fluid on machining performance,
such as surface quality, tolerance, cutting temperature tool wear, cutting
forces and dimensional accuracy must be considered. The structure of
the infill or porosity of printed components significantly affects post-
processing performance, leading to further investigation into the collect
ive effects of cutting fluid and structural integrity on the machinability
of parts produced through additive manufacturing. Future research
should explore various advantages of adding nanoparticles to cutting
fluids to improve heat dissipation during machining. Cooling fluids
based on nanoparticles may effectively transfer heat from the cutting
zone, reducing thermal-induced deformities in metal AMed
components.
� Hybrid additive manufacturing (HAM), which combines additive and
subtractive processes is a prominent area of study and expected to
remain dominant in the field of AM for the foreseeable future.
Typically, HAM uses dry machining after metal additive manufacturing
to finish the finalized item. Alternative techniques of using cutting flu
ids for machining of metal AM components to improve surface polish
and subsurface.
� Recent studies have indicated a lack of attention given to incorporating
assisted machining in the post-processing of metal AMed components.
Exploring external assistance like ultrasonic or low-frequency vibration,
laser radiation, etc., has been well-documented in additive manufactur
ing and machining. However, there is limited use of vibration applica
tion in hybrid additive manufacturing. Reports in the literature suggest
that assisted machining is used to focus on specific enhancements in
machining performance. For future studies, it would be valuable to
explore various assisted machining methods, such as vibration-assisted
machining and laser-assisted machining, to analyze the behavior of
metal AMed materials.
� Investigating cryogenically treated cutting tools and novel design ideas
for cutting tools, fluid delivery systems and AM part internal structures
is crucial for improving post-processing performance. These innovations
can enhance tool lifespan, surface finish and overall machining
efficiency.
� Exploring different facets of sustainable manufacturing and conducting
a LCA for machining metal AMed parts is essential. Emphasizing sus
tainable manufacturing is crucial for the future of manufacturing proc
esses, moving beyond HAM. Current discussions are not giving enough
attention to the sustainability aspects of AM. To address this gap, it’s
crucial to consider various aspects like the energy efficiency and eco
nomical aspect of fabrication and machining of AMed components.
This will allow for a more precise evaluation of its performance in com
parison to traditional manufacturing techniques.
� The present state of knowledge regarding force dynamics, coefficient of
friction, surface roughness and tool wear in the machining process of
AMed components is insufficient. As a result, it is imperative to con
duct thorough research on tooling optimization, which should encom
pass in-depth evaluations of tool wear patterns, lifespan and failure
mechanisms under diverse machining conditions. In order to bridge
knowledge gaps, novel approaches such as image processing, machine
learning and deep learning can be utilized to track force dynamics, coef
ficient of friction, surface roughness, tool wear and tool life, among
other variables, thereby supplying crucial data for the optimization of
machining procedures.
� By integrating multiscale modeling approaches—material microstruc
ture, heat transport, residual stresses, and chip formation—into machin
ing methodologies, it is possible to solve the complex material behavior
exhibited during machining. This offers a potentially fruitful avenue for
improving predictive accuracy and refining machining processes. In
addition, it is crucial to investigate the effects of geometric distortions
and residual stresses in metal additive manufacturing processes. Such
research would enhance our comprehension of how to optimize the sur
face quality of AMed components and uncover the potential obstacles
these factors pose to dimensional accuracy, tolerances and surface
integrity.
Acknowledgments
Authors are also thankful to the copyright holders of various figures for providing copy
right to reuse figures in this work. The authors also acknowledge the support from Mr.
Arun Kumar Bambam (IIITDM Kancheepuram) for this work.
Disclosure statement
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal
relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article.
Funding
This work was supported by the Institute Seed Grant from the Indian Institute of
Information Technology, Design and Manufacturing, Kancheepuram, India (No. IIITDM/
ISG/2022/ME/02).
944 P. VATS ET AL.
Abbreviations and Nomenclature

P Laser power
SR Scan rate
SS Scan speed
t Uncut chip thickness
dr Radial depth of cut
tc Cut chip thickness
PF Powder flow rate
Fc Force
Ps Powder size
d Depth of cut
f Feed
da Axial depth of cut
S Spindle speed
Pfr Powder feed rate
Hs Hatch spacing
Sc Cutting speed
Lt Layer thickness
VT Torch velocity
Wf Wire feed
GF Gas flow
EA Arc energy
Wfr Wire feed rate
V Voltage
IB Beam current
Ls Layer speed
IA Arc current
AL Arc length
ST Travel speed
H Heat input
fr Flow rate
ND Nozzle distance
NA Nozzle angle
VB Wear
Tc Cutting temperature
Ra Surface roughness
Sa Arithmetical mean height
Sz Maximum height
CBN Cubic boron nitride
PCD Polycrystalline diamond
AM Additive manufacturing
ME Metal extrusion
AMed Additive manufactured
VPP Vat photopolymerization
BJ Binder jetting
Ti Titanium (Ti6Al4V)
MJ Material jetting
DED Directed energy deposition
LPBF Laser powder bed fusion

KB Crater wear
SLA Stereolithography
DLP Digital light processing
LENS Laser energy net shape process
ME Material extrusion
MMC Metal matrix composite
SLS Selective laser sintering
GTAW Gas tungsten arc welding
FDM Fused deposition Modeling
HAM Hybrid additive manufacturing
DMLS Direct metal laser sintering
DOD Drop-on-demand
LBMD Laser-Based Metal Deposition
LOM Laminated Object Manufacturing
LMD Laser metal deposition
FT Thust force
LAM Laser additive manufacturing
WAAM Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing
FEM Finite element method
MQL Minimum quantity lubrication
BUL Build-up layer
BUE Build-up edge
FFF Fused filament fabrication
HT Heat treated
UAVM Ultrasonic assisted vertical milling
CD Conventional drilling
VAD Vibration-assisted drilling
HSLA High strength low alloy
PBF Powder bed fusion
SLM-SR Selective laser melting- stress relief
EBM Electron beam melting
CMed Conventional manufactured
HIP Hot isostatic pressing
SLM Selective laser melting
References
Aamir, M.; Giasin, K.; Tolouei-Rad, M.; Vafadar, A. (2020) A review: drilling performance
and hole quality of aluminium alloys for aerospace applications. Journal of Materials
Research and Technology, 9(6): 12484–12500. doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.09.003.
Ahmed, L.S.; Govindaraju, N.; Pradeep Kumar, M. (2016) Experimental investigations on
cryogenic cooling in the drilling of titanium alloy. Materials and Manufacturing
Processes, 31(5): 603–607. doi:10.1080/10426914.2015.1019127.
Airao, J.; Kishore, H.; Nirala, C.K. (2023) Measurement and analysis of tool wear and sur
face characteristics in micro turning of SLM Ti6Al4V and wrought Ti6Al4V.
Measurement, 206: 112281. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2022.112281.
946 P. VATS ET AL.
Aky€uz, B. (2014) Comparison of the machinability and wear properties of magnesium

alloys. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 75(9-12): 1735–
1742. doi:10.1007/s00170-014-6256-y.
Al-Rubaie, K.S.; Melotti, S.; Rabelo, A.; Paiva, J.M.; Elbestawi, M.A.; Veldhuis, S.C. (2020)
Machinability of SLM-Produced Ti6Al4V titanium alloy parts. Journal of Manufacturing
Processes, 57: 768–786. doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2020.07.035.
Al-Tameemi, H.A.; Al-Dulaimi, T.; Awe, M.O.; Sharma, S.; Pimenov, D.Y.; Koklu, U.;
Giasin, K. (2021) Evaluation of cutting-tool coating on the surface roughness and hole
dimensional tolerances during drilling of Al6061-T651 alloy. Materials (Basel,
Switzerland)14(7): 1783. 10.3390/ma14071783
Alghamdi, S.S.; John, S.; Roy Choudhury, N.; Dutta, N.K. (2021) Additive manufacturing of
polymer materials: Progress, promise and challenges. Polymers, 13(5): 1–39. doi:10.3390/
polym13050753.
Alonso, U.; Veiga, F.; Su�arez, A.; Artaza, T. (2019) Experimental investigation of the influ
ence of wire arc additive manufacturing on the machinability of titanium parts. Metals,
10(1): 24. doi:10.3390/met10010024.
Anwar, S.; Ahmed, N.; Abdo, B.M.; Pervaiz, S.; Chowdhury, M.A.K.; Alahmari, A.M. (2018)
Electron beam melting of gamma titanium aluminide and investigating the effect of
EBM layer orientation on milling performance. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 96(9-12): 3093–3107. doi:10.1007/s00170-018-1802-7.
Anwar, S.; Ahmed, N.; Pervaiz, S.; Ahmad, S.; Mohammad, A.; Saleh, M. (2020) On the
turning of electron beam melted gamma-TiAl with coated and uncoated tools: A
machinability analysis. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 282: 116664. doi:10.
1016/j.jmatprotec.2020.116664.
Attar, H.; Ehtemam-Haghighi, S.; Kent, D.; Dargusch, M.S. (2018) Recent developments
and opportunities in additive manufacturing of titanium-based matrix composites: A
review. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 133: 85–102. doi:10.
1016/j.ijmachtools.2018.06.003.
Avegnon, K.L.M.; Noll, P.; Uddin, M.R.; Madireddy, G.; Williams, R.E.; Achuthan, A.;
Sealy, M.P. (2021) Use of energy consumption during milling to fill a measurement gap
in hybrid additive manufacturing. Additive Manufacturing, 46: 102167. doi:10.1016/j.
addma.2021.102167.
Bagherzadeh, A.; Koc, B.; Budak, E.; Isik, M. (2022) High-speed machining of additively
manufactured inconel 718 using hybrid cryogenic cooling methods. Virtual and Physical
Prototyping, 17(3): 419–436. doi:10.1080/17452759.2022.2034081.
Bai, Y.; Shi, Z.; Lee, Y.J.; Wang, H. (2020) Optical surface generation on additively manu
factured AlSiMg0.75 alloys with ultrasonic vibration-assisted machining. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 280: 116597. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2020.116597.
Bai, Y.; Zhao, C.; Yang, J.; Hong, R.; Weng, C.; Wang, H. (2021) Microstructure and
machinability of selective laser melted high-strength maraging steel with heat treatment.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 288: 116906. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2020.
116906.
Bains, P.S.; Sidhu, S.S.; Payal, H.S. (2016) Fabrication and machining of metal matrix com
posites: a review. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 31(5): 553–573. doi:10.1080/
10426914.2015.1025976.
Bambam, A.K.; Dhanola, A.; Gajrani, K.K. (2023) A critical review on halogen-free ionic
liquids as potential metalworking fluid additives. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 380:
121727. doi:10.1016/j.molliq.2023.121727.
Bankong, B.D.; Abioye, T.E.; Olugbade, T.O.; Zuhailawati, H.; Gbadeyan, O.O.; Ogedengbe,
T.I. (2023) Review of post-processing methods for high-quality wire arc additive manu
facturing. Materials Science and Technology, 39(2): 129–146. doi:10.1080/02670836.2022.
2110223.
Bansal, P.; Upadhyay, L. (2013) Experimental investigations to study tool wear during turn
ing of alumina reinforced aluminium composite. Procedia Engineering, 51: 818–827. doi:
10.1016/j.proeng.2013.01.117.
Bar-Hen, M.; Etsion, I. (2017) Experimental study of the effect of coating thickness and
substrate roughness on tool wear during turning. Tribology International, 110: 341–347.
doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2016.11.011.
Barzani, M.M.; Farahany, S.; Yusof, N.M.; Ourdjini, A. (2013) The influence of bismuth,
antimony, and strontium on microstructure, thermal, and machinability of aluminum-
silicon alloy. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 28(11): 1184–1190. doi:10.1080/
10426914.2013.792425.
Bertolini, R.; Lizzul, L.; Bruschi, S.; Ghiotti, A. (2019) On the surface integrity of electron
beam melted Ti6Al4V after machining. Procedia CIRP, 82: 326–331. doi:10.1016/j.procir.
2019.04.166.
Bertolini, R.; Lizzul, L.; Pezzato, L.; Ghiotti, A.; Bruschi, S. (2019) Improving surface integ
rity and corrosion resistance of additive manufactured Ti6Al4V alloy by cryogenic
machining. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 104(5-8):
2839–2850. doi:10.1007/s00170-019-04180-5.
Bhuvanesh Kumar, M.; Sathiya, P.; Senthil, S.M. (2023) A critical review of wire arc addi
tive manufacturing of nickel-based alloys: principles, process parameters, microstructure,
mechanical properties, heat treatment effects, and defects. Journal of the Brazilian Society
of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, 45(3): 1–27. doi:10.1007/s40430-023-04077-1.
Bikas, H.; Stavropoulos, P.; Chryssolouris, G. (2016) Additive manufacturing methods and
modeling approaches: a critical review. The International Journal of Advanced
Boban, J.; Ahmed, A. (2022) Electric discharge assisted post-processing performance of
high strength-to-weight ratio alloys fabricated using metal additive manufacturing. CIRP
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 39: 159–174. doi:10.1016/j.cirpj.2022.
08.002.
Bonaiti, G.; Parenti, P.; Annoni, M.; Kapoor, S. (2017) Micro-milling machinability of DED
additive titanium Ti-6Al-4V. In Procedia Manufacturing, 10: 497–509. doi:10.1016/j.
promfg.2017.07.104.
Bordin, A.; Bruschi, S.; Ghiotti, A.; Bariani, P.F. (2015) Analysis of tool wear in cryogenic
machining of additive manufactured Ti6Al4V alloy. Wear, 328-329: 89–99. doi:10.1016/j.
wear.2015.01.030.
Bordin, A.; Bruschi, S.; Ghiotti, A.; Bucciotti, F.; Facchini, L. (2014) Comparison between
wrought and EBM Ti6Al4V machinability characteristics. Key Engineering Materials,
611-612: 1186–1193. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.611-612.1186.
Bordin, A.; Imbrogno, S.; Rotella, G.; Bruschi, S.; Ghiotti, A.; Umbrello, D. (2015) Finite
element simulation of semi-finishing turning of electron beam melted Ti6Al4V under
dry and cryogenic cooling. Procedia CIRP, 31: 551–556. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2015.03.040.
Bordin, A.; Sartori, S.; Bruschi, S.; Ghiotti, A. (2017) Experimental investigation on the
feasibility of dry and cryogenic machining as sustainable strategies when turning
Ti6Al4V Produced by additive manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production 142: 4142–
4151. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.209.
948 P. VATS ET AL.
Borgonovo, C.; Lindsley, B. (2016) Improving machinability of PM components via a new

additive compound. International Journal of Powder Metallurgy, 52(1): 37–48.
Brinksmeier, E.; Levy, G.; Meyer, D.; Spierings, A.B. (2010) Surface integrity of selective-
laser-melted components. CIRP Annals, 59(1): 601–606. doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2010.03.131.
Brown, D.; Li, C.; Liu, Z.Y.; Fang, X.Y.; Guo, Y.B. (2018) Surface integrity of inconel 718
by hybrid selective laser melting and milling. Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 13(1):
26–31. doi:10.1080/17452759.2017.1392681.
Bruschi, S.; Bertolini, R.; Bordin, A.; Medea, F.; Ghiotti, A. (2016) Influence of the machin
ing parameters and cooling strategies on the wear behavior of wrought and additive
manufactured ti6al4v for biomedical applications. Tribology International, 102: 133–142.
doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2016.05.036.
Calleja, A.; Urbikain, G.; Gonz�alez, H.; Cerrillo, I.; Polvorosa, R.; Lamikiz, A. (2018)
InconelV718 superalloy machinability evaluation after laser cladding additive manufactur
R
ing process. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 97(5-8):

2873–2885. doi:10.1007/s00170-018-2169-5.
Cao, Q.; Bai, Y.; Zhang, J.; Shi, Z.; Hsi Fuh, J.Y.; Wang, H. (2020) Removability of 316L
stainless steel cone and block support structures fabricated by Selective Laser Melting
(SLM). Materials & Design, 191: 108691. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108691.
Careri, F.; Umbrello, D.; Essa, K.; Attallah, M.M.; Imbrogno, S. (2021) The effect of the
heat treatments on the tool wear of hybrid additive manufacturing of IN718. Wear470-
471: 203617. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2021.203617.
Carolo, L.C.B.; Cooper O, R.E. (2022) A review on the influence of process variables on the
surface roughness of Ti-6Al-4V by electron beam powder bed fusion. Additive
Manufacturing, 59: 103103. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2022.103103.
Ceritbinmez, F.; G€ unen, A.; G€ urol, U.; Çam, G. (2023) A comparative study on drillability
of inconel 625 alloy fabricated by wire arc additive manufacturing. Journal of
Manufacturing Processes, 89: 150–169. doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2023.01.072.
Chen, L.; Xu, Q.; Liu, Y.; Cai, G.; Liu, J. (2021) Machinability of the laser additively manu
factured inconel 718 superalloy in turning. The International Journal of Advanced
Chen, Z.; Wu, X.; Ke, W.; Shen, J.; Jiang, F.; Zhu, L.; Fang, C. (2023) Tool wear mecha
nisms of PCD micro end mill in machining of additive manufactured titanium alloy.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 127(7-8): 3269–3280.
doi:10.1007/s00170-023-11729-y.
Chernovol, N.; Sharma, A.; Tjahjowidodo, T.; Lauwers, B.; Van Rymenant, P. (2021)
Machinability of wire and arc additive manufactured components. CIRP Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Technology, 35: 379–389. doi:10.1016/j.cirpj.2021.06.022.
Chong, L.; Ramakrishna, S.; Singh, S. (2018) A review of digital manufacturing-based
hybrid additive manufacturing processes. The International Journal of Advanced
Cozzolino, E.; Astarita, A. (2023) Energy saving in milling of electron beam – melted
Ti6Al4V Parts : influence of process parameters. The International Journal of Advanced
Cozzolino, E.; Franchitti, S.; Borrelli, R.; Pirozzi, C.; Astarita, A. (2023) Energy consump
tion assessment in manufacturing Ti6Al4V electron beam melted parts post-processed by
machining. The International Journal, Advanced Manufacturing technology, 125(3-4):
1289–1303. doi:10.1007/s00170-022-10794-z.
Dabwan, A.; Anwar, S.; Al-Samhan, A. (2020) Effects of milling process parameters on cut
ting forces and surface roughness when finishing Ti6Al4V produced by electron beam
melting. International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, 14(8): 324–328.
Dabwan, A.; Anwar, S.; Al-Samhan, A.M.; AlFaify, A.; Nasr, M.M. (2021) Investigations on
the effect of layers’ thickness and orientations in the machining of additively manufac
tured stainless steel 316L. Materials (Basel, Switzerland)14(7): 1797. 10.3390/ma14071797
Dabwan, A.; Anwar, S.; Al-Samhan, A.M.; M. Nasr, M. (2020b) On the effect of electron
beam melted Ti6Al4V part orientations during milling. Metals, 10(9): 1172. 10.3390/
met10091172
Dang, J.; Cai, X.; Yu, D.; An, Q.; Ming, W.; Chen, M. (2019) Effect of material microstruc
ture on tool wear behavior during machining additively manufactured Ti6Al4V. Archives
of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 20(1): 4. doi:10.1007/s43452-019-0007-7.
Dang, J.; Liu, G.; Chen, Y.; An, Q.; Ming, W.; Chen, M. (2019) Experimental investigation
on machinability of DMLS Ti6Al4V under dry drilling process. Materials and
Manufacturing Processes, 34(7): 749–758. doi:10.1080/10426914.2019.1594254.
Dang, J.; Zhang, H.; Ming, W.; An, Q.; Chen, M. (2020) New observations on wear charac
teristics of solid Al2O3/Si3N4 ceramic tool in high speed milling of additive manufac
tured Ti6Al4V. Ceramics International, 46(5): 5876–5886. doi:10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.11.
039.
Danish, M.; Aslantas, K.; Hascelik, A.; Rubaiee, S.; Gupta, M.K.; Yildirim, M.B.; Ahmed, A.;
Mahfouz, A.B. (2022) An experimental investigations on effects of cooling/lubrication
conditions in micro milling of additively manufactured inconel 718. Tribology
International, 173: 107620. doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2022.107620.
Danish, M.; Lenggo Ginta, T.; Habib, K.; Carou, D.; Rani, A.M.A.; Saha, B.B. (2017)
Thermal analysis during turning of AZ31 magnesium alloy under dry and cryogenic con
ditions. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 91(5-8): 2855–
2868. doi:10.1007/s00170-016-9893-5.
Davidson, K.P.; Littlefair, G.; Singamneni, S. (2022) On the machinability of selective laser
melted duplex stainless steels. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 37(12): 1446–1462.
doi:10.1080/10426914.2021.2001513.
de Oliveira Campos, F.; Araujo, A.C.; Jardini Munhoz, A.L.; Kapoor, S.G. (2020) The
Influence of additive manufacturing on the micromilling machinability of Ti6Al4V: A
comparison of SLM and commercial workpieces. Journal of Manufacturing Processes
(60): : 299–307. doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2020.10.006.
Dedeakayogulları, H.; Kacal, A. (2022) Experimental investigation of hole quality in drilling
of additive manufacturing Ti6Al4V parts produced by hole features. Journal of
Dilberoglu, U.M.; Gharehpapagh, B.; Yaman, U.; Dolen, M. (2017) The role of additive
manufacturing in the era of industry 4.0. Procedia Manufacturing, 11: 545–554. doi:10.
1016/j.promfg.2017.07.148.
Dilberoglu, U.M.; Gharehpapagh, B.; Yaman, U.; Dolen, M. (2021) Current trends and research
opportunities in hybrid additive manufacturing. The International Journal of Advanced
Dinit, �a, A.; Neacs, a, A.; Portoac�a, A.I.; T�anase, M.; Ilinca, C.N.; Ramadan, IN. (2023)
Additive manufacturing post-processing treatments, a review with emphasis on mechan
ical characteristics. Materials (Basel, Switzerland)16(13): 4610. doi:10.3390/ma16134610.
Du, W.; Bai, Q.; Zhang, B. (2018) Machining characteristics of 18ni-300 steel in additive/
subtractive hybrid manufacturing. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 95(5-8): 2509–2519. doi:10.1007/s00170-017-1364-0.
950 P. VATS ET AL.
Ducroux, E.; Fromentin, G.; Viprey, F.; Prat, D.; D’Acunto, A. (2021) New mechanistic cut
ting force model for milling additive manufactured inconel 718 considering effects of
tool wear evolution and actual tool geometry. Journal of Manufacturing Processes, 64(:
67–80. doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2020.12.042.
Duro, M.; Silva, T.; Marques, M.J.; Batista, A.; Rosa, P.; De Jesus, A. (2023) Influence of
post-processing milling conditions on the machinability and residual stresses evolution
of LPBF 18Ni300 maraging steel. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 127(5-6): 2287–2297. doi:10.1007/s00170-023-11492-0.
Farooq, M.U.; Anwar, S.; Ullah, R.; Guerra, R.H. (2023) Sustainable machining of additive
manufactured SS-316L underpinning low carbon manufacturing goal. Journal of
Materials Research and Technology, 24: 2299–2318. doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.03.122.
€
Fei, J.; Liu, G.; Patel, K.; Ozel, T. (2020) Effects of machining parameters on finishing addi
tively manufactured nickel-based alloy inconel 625. Journal of Manufacturing and
Materials Processing, 4(2): 32. doi:10.3390/jmmp4020032.
Fortunato, A.; Lulaj, A.; Melkote, S.; Liverani, E.; Ascari, A.; Umbrello, D. (2018) Milling of
maraging steel components produced by selective laser melting. The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 94(5-8): 1895–1902. doi:10.1007/s00170-
017-0922-9.
Frazier, William. E. (2014) Metal additive manufacturing: a review. Journal of Materials
Engineering and Performance, 23(6): 1917–1928. doi:10.1007/s11665-014-0958-z.
Giasin, K.; Ayvar-Soberanis, S. (2017) An Investigation of burrs, chip formation, hole size,
circularity and delamination during drilling operation of GLARE Using ANOVA.
Composite Structures, 159: 745–760. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.10.015.
Gil, A.; Val, D.; Cearsolo, X.; Suarez, A.; Veiga, F.; Altuna, I.; Ortiz, M. (2023)
Machinability characterization in end milling of invar 36 Fabricated by wire arc additive
manufacturing. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 23: 300–315. doi:10.1016/j.
jmrt.2022.12.182.
Gisario, A.; Kazarian, M.; Martina, F.; Mehrpouya, M. (2019) Metal additive manufacturing
in the commercial aviation industry: a review. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 53:
124–149. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2019.08.005.
G€ulcan, O.; G€ unaydın, K.; Tamer, A. (2021) The state of the art of material jetting—a criti
cal review. Polymers, 13(16): 2829. doi:10.3390/polym13162829.
Guo, J.; Goh, M.; Zhu, Z.; Lee, X.; Nai, M.L.S.; Wei, J. (2018) On the machining of selective
laser melting CoCrFeMnNi high-entropy alloy. Materials & Design, 153: 211–220. doi:10.
1016/j.matdes.2018.05.012.
Guo, N.; Leu, M.C. (2013) Additive Manufacturing: technology, applications and research
needs. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 8(3): 215–243. doi:10.1007/s11465-013-0248-8.
Guo, S.; Du, W.; Jiang, Q.; Dong, Z.; Zhang, B. (2021) Surface integrity of ultrasonically-
assisted milled Ti6Al4V alloy manufactured by selective laser melting. Chinese Journal of
Mechanical Engineering, 34(1): 67. doi:10.1186/s10033-021-00586-z.
Gupta, M.K.; Song, Q.; Liu, Z.; Sarikaya, M.; Jamil, M.; Mia, M.; Singla, A.K.; Khan, A.M.;
Khanna, N.; Pimenov, D.Y. (2021) Environment and economic burden of sustainable
cooling/lubrication methods in machining of inconel-800. Journal of Cleaner Production,
287: 125074. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125074.
Gupta, M.K.; Korkmaz, M.E.; Shibi, C.S.; Ross, N.S.; Singh, G.; Demirs€ oz, R.; Jamil, M.;
Kr�olczyk, G.M. (2023) Tribological characteristics of additively manufactured 316 stain
less steel against 100 Cr6 Alloy using deep learning. Tribology International, 188(July).
doi:: 108893. 10.1016/j.triboint.2023.108893.
Hojati, F.; Daneshi, A.; Soltani, B.; Azarhoushang, B.; Biermann, D. (2020) Study on
machinability of additively manufactured and conventional titanium alloys in micro-mill
ing process. Precision Engineering, 62: 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.precisioneng.2019.11.002.
Holmberg, J.; Berglund, J.; Brohede, U.; Åkerfeldt, P.; Sandell, V.; Rashid, A.; Zhao, X.;
Dadbakhsh, S.; Fischer, M.; Hryha, E.; Wiklund, U.; Hassila, C.J.K.; Hosseini, S. (2024)
Machining of additively manufactured alloy 718 in as-built and heat-treated condition:
surface integrity and cutting tool wear. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 130(3-4): 1823–1842. doi:10.1007/s00170-023-12727-w.
Hoye, N.; Cuiuri, D.; Rahman Rashid, R.A.; Palanisamy, S. 2018, Machining of GTAW
additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V structures. The International Journal of Advanced
Huang, H.; Liu, S.; Zhu, L.; Qing, Z.; Bao, H.; Liu, Z. (2022) Cooling and lubrication per
formance of supercritical CO2 mixed with nanofluid minimum quantity lubrication in
turning Ti-6Al-4 V. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
122(7-8): 2927–2938. doi:10.1007/s00170-022-10091-9.
Huang, X.; Bai, Q.; Li, Y.T.; Zhang, B. (2017) Machining finish of titanium alloy prepared
by additive manufacturing. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 872: 43–48. doi:10.4028/
www.scientific.net/amm.872.43.
Ingle, S.V.; Raut, D.N. (2020) Challenges in machining of titanium alloys with proper tool
ing and machining parameters–a review. International Journal of Innovations in
Engineering and Technology, 16: 25–43. 10.21172/ijiet.164.05.
€
Jarosz, K.; Patel, K.V.; Ozel, T. (2020) Mechanistic force modeling in finish face milling of
additively manufactured inconel 625 nickel-based alloy. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 111(5-6): 1535–1551. doi:10.1007/s00170-020-
06222-9.
Ji, H.; Kumar Gupta, M.; Song, Q.; Cai, W.; Zheng, T.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, Z.; Pimenov, D.Y.
(2021) Microstructure and machinability evaluation in micro milling of selective laser
melted inconel 718 alloy. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 14: 348–362. doi:
10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.06.081.
Joshy, J.; George, A.; Kuriachen, B.; Mathew, J. (2023) Influence of post processing on the
micro-machinability of selective laser melted AlSi10Mg: an experimental investigation.
Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 38(5): 516–528. doi:10.1080/10426914.2022.
2075886.
Kanta Das, D.; Mishra, P.C.; Singh, S.; Thakur, R.K. (2015) Tool wear in turning ceramic
reinforced aluminum matrix composites - a review. Journal of Composite Materials,
49(24): 2949–2961. doi:10.1177/0021998314558955.
Karabulut, Y.; Kaynak, Y. (2020) Drilling process and resulting surface properties of inconel
718 alloy fabricated by selective laser melting additive manufacturing. Procedia CIRP, 87:
355–359. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2020.02.110.
Karthik, G.M.; Kim, H.S. (2021) Heterogeneous aspects of additive manufactured metallic
parts: a review. Metals and Materials International, 27(1): 1–39. doi:10.1007/s12540-020-
00931-2.
Kaya, E.; Aky€ uz, B. (2017) Effects of cutting parameters on machinability characteristics of
Ni-based superalloys: a review. Open Engineering, 7(1): 330–342. doi:10.1515/eng-2017-
0037.
Kayacan, M.Y.; Yılmaz, N. (2020) An investigation on the measurement of instantaneous
temperatures in laser assisted additive manufacturing by thermal imagers. Measurement,
160: 107825. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2020.107825.
952 P. VATS ET AL.
Kaynak, Y.; Kitay, O. (2018) Porosity, surface quality, microhardness and microstructure of
selective laser melted 316l stainless steel resulting from finish machining. Journal of
Manufacturing and Materials Processing, 2(2): 36. doi:10.3390/jmmp2020036.
Kaynak, Y.; Kitay, O. (2019) The effect of post-processing operations on surface character
istics of 316L stainless steel produced by selective laser melting. Additive Manufacturing,
26: 84–93. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.12.021.
Kaynak, Y.; Tascioglu, E. (2018) Finish machining-induced surface roughness, microhard
ness and XRD analysis of selective laser melted inconel 718 alloy. Procedia CIRP, 71:
500–504. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2018.05.013.
Kaynak, Y.; Tascioglu, E. (2020) Post-processing effects on the surface characteristics of
inconel 718 alloy fabricated by selective laser melting additive manufacturing. Progress in
Additive Manufacturing, 5(2): 221–234. doi:10.1007/s40964-019-00099-1.
Khaliq, W.; Zhang, C.; Jamil, M.; Khan, A.M. (2020) Tool wear, surface quality, and
residual stresses analysis of micro-machined additive manufactured Ti–6Al–4V under
dry and mql conditions. Tribology International, 151: 106408. doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2020.
106408.
Khan, H.M.; Karabulut, Y.; Kitay, O.; Kaynak, Y.; Jawahir, I.S. (2020) Influence of the post-
processing operations on surface integrity of metal components produced by laser pow
der bed fusion additive manufacturing: a review. Machining Science and Technology,
25(1): 118–176. doi:10.1080/10910344.2020.1855649.
Khanna, N.; Raval, P.; Patel, D.; Prajapati, R.; Schoop, J.; Gajrani, K.K. (2023) Assessment
of additive and subtractive sustainable manufacturing of inconel 625. Tribology
Khanna, N.; Shah, P.; Noberto L� opez de Lacalle, L.; Rodr�ıguez, A.; Pereira, O. (2021) In
Pursuit of sustainable cutting fluid strategy for machining Ti-6Al-4V using life cycle ana
lysis. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 29: e00301. doi:10.1016/j.susmat.2021.
e00301.
Khanna, N.; Zadafiya, K.; Patel, T.; Kaynak, Y.; Abdul Rahman Rashid, R.; Vafadar, A.
(2021) Review on machining of additively manufactured nickel and titanium alloys.
Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 15: 3192–3221. doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.09.
088.
Km, R.; Kumar Sahoo, A.; Routara, B.C.; Panda, A.; Kumar, R. (2022) Study on machin
ability characteristics of novel additive manufactured titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) fabri
cated by direct metal laser sintering. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part C, 237(4)doi:: 865–885. 10.1177/09544062221126809.
Kok, Y.; Tan, X.P.; Wang, P.; Nai, M.L.S.; Loh, N.H.; Liu, E.; Tor, S.B. (2018) Anisotropy
and heterogeneity of microstructure and mechanical properties in metal additive manu
facturing: a critical review. Materials & Design, 139: 565–586. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2017.
11.021.
Kokare, S.; Oliveira, J.P.; Godina, R. 2023a, A LCA and LCC analysis of pure subtractive
manufacturing, wire arc additive manufacturing, and selective laser melting approaches.
Journal of Manufacturing Processes, 101: 67–85. doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2023.05.102.
Kokare, S.; Oliveira, J.P.; Santos, T.G.; Godina, R. 2023b, Environmental and economic
assessment of a steel wall fabricated by wire-based directed energy deposition. Additive
Manufacturing, 61: 103316. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2022.103316.
Kumar Wagri, N.; Petare, A.; Agrawal, A.; Rai, R.; Malviya, R.; Dohare, S.; Kishore, K.
(2022) An overview of the machinability of alloy steel. Materials Today: Proceedings, 62:
3771–3781. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.457.
Kumbhar, N.N.; Mulay, A.V. (2018) Post processing methods used to improve surface fin
ish of products which are manufactured by additive manufacturing technologies: a
review. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C, 99(4)Springer India: :
481–487. doi:10.1007/s40032-016-0340-z.
Le Coz, G.; Fischer, M.; Piquard, R.; D’Acunto, A.; Laheurte, P.; Dudzinski, D. (2017)
Micro cutting of Ti-6Al-4V parts produced by SLM process. Procedia CIRP, 58: 228–232.
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.326.
Lee, J.-Y.; Nagalingam, A.P.; Yeo, S.H. (2021) A review on the state-of-the-art of surface
finishing processes and related ISO/ASTM standards for metal additive manufactured
components. Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 16(1): 68–96. doi:10.1080/17452759.2020.
1830346.
Li, A.; Zhao, J.; Zhou, Y.; Chen, X.; Wang, D. (2012) Experimental investigation on chip
morphologies in high-speed dry milling of titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V. The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 62(9-12): 933–942. doi:10.1007/s00170-
011-3854-9.
Li, G.; Chandra, S.; Rahman Rashid, R.A.; Palanisamy, S.; Ding, S. (2022) Machinability of
additively manufactured titanium alloys: A comprehensive review. Journal of
Li, S.; Zhang, B.; Bai, Q. (2020) Effect of temperature buildup on milling forces in additive/
subtractive hybrid manufacturing of Ti-6Al-4V. The International Journal of Advanced
Liang, J.; Gao, H.; Li, D.; Lei, Y.; Li, S.; Guo, L.; Chen, L.; Leng, Z.; Sun, Y.; Li, C. (2023)
Tribology international study on milling tool wear morphology and mechanism during
machining superalloy GH4169 with PVD-TiAlN coated carbide tool. Tribology
International, 182(111): 108298. doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2023.108298.
Litwa, P.; Hernandez-Nava, E.; Guan, D.; Goodall, R.; Wika, K.K. (2021) The additive
manufacture processing and machinability of CrMnFeCoNi high entropy alloy. Materials
& Design, 198: 109380. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2020.109380.
Liu, C.; Wan, M.; Zhang, W.; Yang, Y. (2021) Chip formation mechanism of inconel 718: a
review of models and approaches. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 34(1): 34.
doi:10.1186/s10033-021-00552-9.
Lizzul, L.; Bertolini, R.; Ghiotti, A.; Bruschi, S. (2020) Effect of am-induced anisotropy on
the surface integrity of laser powder bed fused Ti6Al4V machined parts. Procedia
Manufacturing, 47: 505–510. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2020.04.149.
Lizzul, L.; Sorgato, M.; Bertolini, R.; Ghiotti, A.; Bruschi, S. (2020) Influence of additive
manufacturing-induced anisotropy on tool wear in end milling of Ti6Al4V. Tribology
Lizzul, L.; Sorgato, M.; Bertolini, R.; Ghiotti, A.; Bruschi, S. (2021a) Surface finish of addi
tively manufactured Ti6Al4V workpieces after ball end milling. Procedia CIRP, 102: 228–
233. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2021.09.039.
Lizzul, L.; Sorgato, M.; Bertolini, R.; Ghiotti, A.; Bruschi, S. (2021b) Anisotropy effect of
additively manufactured Ti6Al4V titanium alloy on surface quality after milling.
Precision Engineering, 67: 301–310. doi:10.1016/j.precisioneng.2020.10.003.
Lopes, J.G.; Machado, C.M.; Duarte, V.R.; Rodrigues, T.A.; Santos, T.G.; Oliveira, J.P.
(2020) Effect of milling parameters on HSLA steel parts produced by Wire and Arc
Additive Manufacturing (WAAM). Journal of Manufacturing Processes, 59: 739–749. doi:
10.1016/j.jmapro.2020.10.007.
Lu, H.; Zhu, L.; Wang, S.; Yan, B.; Xue, P.; Hao, Y.; Ning, J.; Xu, P.; Qin, S. (2023) The
Machinability and anisotropy of Bio-CoCrMo manufactured by directed energy
954 P. VATS ET AL.
deposition in ultrasonic vibration assisted drilling. Journal of Materials Research and

Technology, 26: 1238–1259. doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.07.251.
Maheshwari, P.; Khanna, N.; Hegab, H.; Singh, G.; Sarıkaya, M. (2023) Comparative envir
onmental impact assessment of additive-subtractive manufacturing processes for inconel
625: a life cycle analysis. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 37: e00682. doi:10.1016/
j.susmat.2023.e00682.
Mahmood, M.A.; Chioibasu, D.; Ur Rehman, A.; Mihai, S.; Popescu, A.C. (2022) Post-proc
essing techniques to enhance the quality of metallic parts produced by additive manufac
turing. Metals, 12(1): 77. doi:10.3390/met12010077.
Matras, A. (2019) Research and optimization of surface roughness in milling of slm semi-
finished parts manufactured by using the different laser scanning speed. Materials (Basel,
Switzerland)13(1): 9. 10.3390/ma13010009
Mehrpouya, M.; Dehghanghadikolaei, A.; Fotovvati, B.; Vosooghnia, A.; Sattar, E.;
Emamian, S.; Gisario, A. (2019) The potential of additive manufacturing in the smart.
Applied Science, 9(18): 3865. 10.3390/app9183865
Meng, G.; Gong, Y.; Zhang, J.; Ren, Q.; Zhao, J. (2024) Microstructure effect on the
machinability behavior of additive and conventionally manufactured inconel 718 alloys.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 324: 118228. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2023.
118228.
Milton, S.; Duchosal, A.; Chalon, F.; Leroy, R.; Morandeau, A. (2019) Thermal study during
milling of Ti6Al4V produced by Electron Beam Melting (EBM) process. Journal of
Milton, S.; Rigo, O.; LeCorre, S.; Morandeau, A.; Siriki, R.; Bocher, P.; Leroy, R. (2021)
Microstructure effects on the machinability behaviour of Ti6Al4V produced by selective
laser melting and electron beam melting process. Materials Science and Engineering: A
823: 141773. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2021.141773.
Ming, W.; Chen, J.; An, Q.; Chen, M. (2019) Dynamic mechanical properties and machin
ability characteristics of selective laser melted and forged Ti6Al4V. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 271(800): 284–292. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2019.04.015.
Ming, W.; Dang, J.; An, Q.; Chen, M. (2020) Chip formation and hole quality in dry drill
ing additive manufactured Ti6Al4V. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 35(1): 43–
51. doi:10.1080/10426914.2019.1692353.
Moritz, J.; Seidel, A.; Kopper, M.; Bretschneider, J.; Gumpinger, J.; Finaske, T.; Riede, M.;
Schneeweiß, M.; L� opez, E.; Br€
uckner, F.; Leyens, C.; Rohr, T.; Ghidini, T. (2020) Hybrid
manufacturing of titanium Ti-6Al-4V Combining laser metal deposition and cryogenic
milling. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 107(7-8):
2995–3009. doi:10.1007/s00170-020-05212-1.
Ni, C.; Wang, X.; Zhu, L.; Liu, D.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, Z.; Zhang, P. (2022) Machining per
formance and wear mechanism of PVD TiAlN/AlCrN coated carbide tool in precision
machining of selective laser Melted Ti6Al4V alloys under Dry and MQL conditions.
Ni, C.; Zhu, L.; Zheng, Z.; Zhang, J.; Yang, Y.; Hong, R.; Bai, Y.; Lu, W.F.; Wang, H.
(2020) Effects of machining surface and laser beam scanning strategy on machinability
of selective laser melted Ti6Al4V alloy in milling. Materials & Design, 194: 108880. doi:
10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108880.
Nouari, M.; List, G.; Girot, F.; Coupard, D. (2003) Experimental analysis and optimisation
of tool wear in dry machining of aluminium alloys. Wear, 255(7-12): 1359–1368. doi:10.
1016/S0043-1648(03)00105-4.
Oh, W.J.; Lee, W.J.; Kim, M.S.; Jeon, J.B.; Shim, D.S. (2019) Repairing additive-manufac
tured 316L stainless steel using direct energy deposition. Optics & Laser Technology, 117:
6–17. doi:10.1016/j.optlastec.2019.04.012.
Oliveira, A.R.; Jardini, A.L.; Del Conte, E.G. (2020) Effects of cutting parameters on rough
ness and residual stress of maraging steel specimens produced by additive manufactur
ing. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 111(9-10): 2449–
2459. doi:10.1007/s00170-020-06309-3.
Omiyale, B.O.; Olugbade, T.O.; Abioye, T.E.; Farayibi, P.K. (2022) Wire arc additive manu
facturing of aluminium alloys for aerospace and automotive applications: a review.
Materials Science and Technology, 38(7): 391–408. doi:10.1080/02670836.2022.2045549.
Ostra, T.; Alonso, U.; Veiga, F.; Ortiz, M.; Ramiro, P.; Alberdi, A. (2019) Analysis of the
machining process of inconel 718 parts manufactured by laser metal deposition.
Materials (Basel, Switzerland)12(13): 2159. doi:10.3390/ma12132159.
Outeiro, J.C.; Lenoir, P.; Bosselut, A. (2015) Thermo-mechanical effects in drilling using
metal working fluids and cryogenic cooling and their impact in tool performance.
Production Engineering, 9(4): 551–562. doi:10.1007/s11740-015-0619-6.
Oyelola, O.; Crawforth, P.; M’Saoubi, R.; Clare, A.T. (2018) Machining of functionally
graded Ti6Al4V/WC produced by directed energy deposition. Additive Manufacturing,
24: 20–29. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.09.007.
Oyelola, O.; Crawforth, P.; M’Saoubi, R.; Clare, A.T. (2016) Machining of additively manu
factured parts: implications for surface integrity. Procedia CIRP, 45: 119–122. doi:10.
1016/j.procir.2016.02.066.
Oyelola, O.; Jackson-Crisp, A.; Crawforth, P.; Pieris, D.M.; Smith, R.J.; M’Saoubi, R.; Clare,
A.T. (2020) Machining of directed energy deposited Ti6Al4V using adaptive control.
€
Ozel, T.; Patel, K.; Fei, J.; Liu, G. (2019) Cutting force investigation in face milling of addi
tively fabricated nickel alloy 625 via powder bed fusion. International Journal of
Mechatronics and Manufacturing Systems, 12(3/4): 196. doi:10.1504/ijmms.2019.
10025072.
Park, E.; Kim, D.M.; Park, H.W.; Park, Y.B.; Kim, N. (2020) Evaluation of tool life in the
dry machining of inconel 718 parts from additive manufacturing (AM). International
Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, 21(1): 57–65. doi:10.1007/s12541-
019-00275-x.
Park, J.K.; Man Lee, C.; Hyeon Kim, D. (2021) Investigation on the thermal effects of Wc-
Co turning inserts deposited by additive manufacturing of titanium alloy powder.
Metals, 11(11): 1705. doi:10.3390/met11111705.
Parmar, H.; Khan, T.; Tucci, F.; Umer, R.; Carlone, P. (2022) Advanced robotics and addi
tive manufacturing of composites: towards a new era in industry 4.0. Materials and
Manufacturing Processes, 37(5): 483–517. doi:10.1080/10426914.2020.1866195.
€
Patel, K.; Fei, J.; Liu, G.; Ozel, T. (2019) Milling investigations and yield strength calcula
tions for nickel alloy inconel 625 manufactured with laser powder bed fusion process.
Production Engineering, 13(6): 693–702. doi:10.1007/s11740-019-00922-2.
Pei, S.; Xue, F.; Zhou, Y.; Pan, C.; Jia, K. (2023) Effects of cryogenic gas jet cooling on mill
ing surface roughness and tool life for gh4169 alloy additive manufacturing parts.
P�erez-Ruiz, J.D.; de Lacalle, L.N.L.; Urbikain, G.; Pereira, O.; Mart�ınez, S.; Bris, J. (2021)
On the relationship between cutting forces and anisotropy features in the milling of lpbf
inconel 718 for near net shape parts. International Journal of Machine Tools and
Manufacture, 170: 103801. doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2021.103801.
956 P. VATS ET AL.
Periane, S.; Duchosal, A.; Vaudreuil, S.; Chibane, H.; Morandeau, A.; Cormier, J.; Leroy, R.
(2019) Machining Influence on the fatigue resistance of inconel 718 fabricated by
Selective Laser Melting (SLM). Procedia Structural Integrity, 19: 415–422. doi:10.1016/j.
prostr.2019.12.045.
Periane, S.; Duchosal, A.; Vaudreuil, S.; Chibane, H.; Morandeau, A.; Xavior, M.A.; Leroy,
R. (2020) Selection of machining condition on surface integrity of additive and conven
tional inconel 718. Procedia CIRP, 87: 333–338. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2020.02.092.
Polishetty, A.; Shunmugavel, M.; Goldberg, M.; Littlefair, G.; Singh, R.K. (2017) Cutting
force and surface finish analysis of machining additive manufactured titanium alloy Ti-
6Al-4V. Procedia Manufacturing, 7: 284–289. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2016.12.071.
Pragana, J.P.M.; Sampaio, R.F.V.; Bragança, I.M.F.; Silva, C. M. A.; Martins, P. A.F. (2021)
Hybrid metal additive manufacturing: a state–of–the-art review. Advances in Industrial
and Manufacturing Engineering, 2: 100032. doi:10.1016/j.aime.2021.100032.
Priarone, P.C.; Pagone, E.; Martina, F.; Catalano, A.R.; Settineri, L. (2020) Multi-criteria
environmental and economic impact assessment of wire arc additive manufacturing.
CIRP Annals, 69(1): 37–40. doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2020.04.010.
Priarone, P.C.; Rizzuti, S.; Rotella, G.; Settineri, L. (2012) Tool wear and surface quality in
milling of a gamma-TiAl intermetallic. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 61(1-4): 25–33. doi:10.1007/s00170-011-3691-x.
Priarone, P.C.; Rizzuti, S.; Ruffa, S.; Settineri, L. (2013) Drilling experiments on a gamma
titanium aluminide obtained via electron beam melting. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 69(1-4): 483–490. doi:10.1007/s00170-013-5050-6.
Ramoni, M.; Shanmugam, R.; Ross, N.S.; Gupta, M.K. (2021) An experimental investigation
of hybrid manufactured SLM based Al-Si10-Mg alloy under mist cooling conditions.
Raval, P.; Patel, D.; Prajapati, R.; Badheka, V.; Kumar Gupta, M.; Khanna, N. (2022)
Energy consumption and economic modelling of performance measures in machining of
wire arc additively manufactured inconel-625. Sustainable Materials and Technologies,
32: e00434. doi:10.1016/j.susmat.2022.e00434.
Reis, R.C.; Kokare, S.; Oliveira, J.P.; Matias, J.C.O.; Godina, R. (2023) Life cycle assessment
of metal products: a comparison between wire arc additive manufacturing and CNC
milling. Advances in Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, 6: 100117. doi:10.1016/j.
aime.2023.100117.
Ross, N.S.; Srinivasan, N.; Ananth, M.B.J.; Al Faify, A.Y.; Anwar, S.; Gupta, M.K. (2023)
Performance assessment of different cooling conditions in improving the machining and
tribological characteristics of additively manufactured AlSi10Mg alloy. Tribology
Rotella, G.; Imbrogno, S.; Candamano, S.; Umbrello, D. (2018) Surface integrity of
machined additively manufactured Ti alloys. Journal of Materials Processing Technology,
259: 180–185. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.04.030.
Rysava, Z.; Bruschi, S.; Carmignato, S.; Medeossi, F.; Savio, E.; Zanini, F. (2016) Micro-
drilling and threading of the Ti6Al4V Titanium alloy produced through additive manu
facturing. Procedia CIRP, 46: 583–586. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.030.
Sadiq, M.A.; Hoang, N.M.; Valencia, N.; Obeidat, S.; Hung, W.N.P. (2018) Experimental
study of micromilling selective laser melted inconel 718 superalloy. Procedia
Manufacturing, 26: 983–992. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2018.07.129.
Salvi, H.; Vesuwala, H.; Raval, P.; Badheka, V.; Khanna, N. (2023) Sustainability analysis of
additive þ subtractive manufacturing processes for inconel 625. Sustainable Materials and
Technologies, 35: e00580. doi:10.1016/j.susmat.2023.e00580.
Santecchia, E.; Spigarelli, S.; Cabibbo, M. (2020) material reuse in laser powder bed fusion:
side effects of the laser—metal powder interaction. Metals, 10(3): 341. doi:10.3390/
met10030341.
Sarathchandra, D.T.; Davidson, M.J.; Visvanathan, G. (2020) Parameters effect on ss304
beads deposited by wire arc additive manufacturing. Materials and Manufacturing
Processes, 35(7): 852–858. doi:10.1080/10426914.2020.1743852.
Sartori, S.; Moro, L.; Ghiotti, A.; Bruschi, S. (2017) On the tool wear mechanisms in dry
and cryogenic turning additive manufactured titanium alloys. Tribology International,
105: 264–273. doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2016.09.034.
Sartori, S.; Bordin, A.; Ghiotti, A.; Bruschi, S. (2016) Analysis of the surface integrity in
cryogenic turning of Ti6Al4V produced by direct melting laser sintering. Procedia CIRP,
45: 123–126. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.02.328.
Sartori, S.; Bordin, A.; Moro, L.; Ghiotti, A.; Bruschi, S. (2016) The influence of material
properties on the tool crater wear when machining ti6al4v produced by additive manu
facturing technologies. Procedia CIRP, 46: 587–590. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.032.
Sealy, M.P.; Madireddy, G.; Williams, R.E.; Rao, P.; Toursangsaraki, M. (2018) Hybrid
processes in additive manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering,
140(6): 060801. doi:10.1115/1.4038644.
Sefene, E.M.; Hailu, Y.M.; Tsegaw, A.A. (2022) Metal hybrid additive manufacturing: state-
of-the-art. Progress in Additive Manufacturing, 7(4): 737–749. doi:10.1007/s40964-022-
00262-1.
Segovia Ram�ırez, I.; Garc�ıa M�arquez, F.P.; Papaelias, M. (2023) Review on additive manu
facturing and non-destructive testing. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 66: 260–286.
doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.12.005.
Sen, C.; Subasi, L.; Ozaner, O.C.; Orhangul, A. (2020) The effect of milling parameters on
surface properties of additively manufactured inconel 939. Procedia CIRP, 87: 31–34. doi:
10.1016/j.procir.2020.02.072.
Shaukat, U.; Rossegger, E.; Schl€ogl, S. (2022) A Review of multi-material 3d printing of
functional materials via vat photopolymerization. Polymers, 14(12): 2449. doi:10.3390/
polym14122449.
Shunmugavel, M.; Goldberg, M.; Polishetty, A.; Nomani, J.; Sun, S.; Littlefair, G. (2019)
Chip formation characteristics of selective laser melted Ti–6Al–4V. Australian Journal of
Mechanical Engineering, 17(2): 109–126. doi:10.1080/14484846.2017.1364833.
Shunmugavel, M.; Polishetty, A.; Goldberg, M.; Singh, R.; Littlefair, G. (2017) A
Comparative study of mechanical properties and machinability of wrought and additive
manufactured (selective laser melting) titanium alloy - Ti-6Al-4V. Rapid Prototyping
Journal, 23(6): 1051–1056. doi:10.1108/RPJ-08-2015-0105.
Shunmugavel, M.; Polishetty, A.; Nomani, J.; Goldberg, M.; Littlefair, G. (2016)
Metallurgical and machinability characteristics of wrought and selective laser melted Ti-
6Al-4V. Journal of Metallurgy, 2016: 1–10. doi:10.1155/2016/7407918.
Sidambe, A.T. (2014) Biocompatibility of advanced manufactured titanium implants-a
review. Materials (Basel, Switzerland)7(12): 8168–8188. doi:10.3390/ma7128168.
Silva, T.E.F.; Amaral, A.; Couto, A.; Coelho, J.; Reis, A.; Rosa, P.A.R.; Jesus, A. M.P d
(2021) Comparison of the machinability of the 316L and 18Ni300 additively manufac
tured steels based on turning tests. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications, 235(10): 2207–2226. doi:10.1177/
14644207211014906.
958 P. VATS ET AL.
Snow, Z.; Diehl, B.; Reutzel, E.W.; Nassar, A. (2021) Toward in-situ flaw detection in laser
powder bed fusion additive manufacturing through layerwise imagery and machine
learning. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 59: 12–26. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.01.008.
Sorgato, M.; Bertolini, R.; Ghiotti, A.; Bruschi, S. (2021) Tool wear analysis in high-fre
quency vibration-assisted drilling of additive manufactured Ti6Al4V alloy. Wear, 477:
203814. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2021.203814.
Sorgato, M.; Bertolini, R.; Ghiotti, A.; Bruschi, S. (2023) Tool wear assessment when drill
ing AISI H13 tool steel multilayered claddings. Wear524-525: 204853. doi:10.1016/j.wear.
2023.204853.
Sorgato, M.; Zanini, F.; Bertolini, R.; Ghiotti, A.; Bruschi, S. (2020) Improvement of micro-
hole precision by ultrasound-assisted drilling of laser powder bed fused ti6al4v titanium
alloy. Precision Engineering, 66: 31–41. doi:10.1016/j.precisioneng.2020.06.014.
Sousa, V.F.C.; Silva, F.J.G. (2020) Recent advances in turning processes using coated
tools—a comprehensive review. Metals, 10(2): 170. doi:10.3390/met10020170.
Struzikiewicz, G.; ZeR bala, W.; Matras, A.; Machno, M.; �Slusarczyk, Ł.; Hichert, S.; Laufer, F.
(2019) Turning research of additive laser molten stainless steel 316L obtained by 3D
printing. Materials (Basel, Switzerland)12(1): 182. doi:10.3390/ma12010182.
Suresh Kumar, B.; Baskar, N.; Rajaguru, K. (2020) Drilling operation: a review. Materials
Today: Proceedings, 21: 926–933. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2019.08.160.
Tamer, A.E; Yarar, E.; Ozer € Mustafa, G.; Bulduk, E. (2023) Post - process drilling of
AlSi10Mg parts by laser powder bed fusion. The International Journal of Advanced
Tascioglu, E.; Kaynak, Y.; Poyraz, O.;€ Orhang€ €
ul, A.; Oren, S. (2020) The effect of finish-
milling operation on surface quality and wear resistance of inconel 625 produced by
selective laser melting additive manufacturing. In Lecture Notes in Mechanical
Engineering, 263–272. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-0054-1_27.
Taşcıo�glu, E.; Kaynak, Y.; Sharif, S.; Pıtır, F.; Suhaimi, M.A. (2019) The effect of finish
milling operation on surface quality and wear resistance of inconel 625 produced by
selective laser melting additive manufacturing. In International Conference on Advanced
Surface Enhancement, 263–272. Singapore: Springer Singapore. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-
0054-1_27.
Tebaldo, V.; Faga, M.G. (2017) Influence of the heat treatment on the microstructure and
machinability of titanium aluminides produced by electron beam melting. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 244: 289–303. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2017.01.037.
Thakur, A.; Gangopadhyay, S. (2016) Dry machining of nickel-based super alloy as a sus
tainable alternative using TiN/TiAlN coated tool. Journal of Cleaner Production, 129:
256–268. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.074.
Tian, X.; Zhao, J.; Zhao, J.; Gong, Z.; Dong, Y. (2013) Effect of cutting speed on cutting
forces and wear mechanisms in high-speed face milling of inconel 718 with sialon cer
amic tools. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 69(9-12):
2669–2678. doi:10.1007/s00170-013-5206-4.
Townsend, A.; Senin, N.; Blunt, L.; Leach, R.K.; Taylor, J.S. (2016) Surface texture metrol
ogy for metal additive manufacturing: a review. Precision Engineering, 46: 34–47. doi:10.
1016/j.precisioneng.2016.06.001.
Tripathi, V.; Armstrong, A.; Gong, X.; Manogharan, G.; Simpson, T.; De Meter, E. (2018)
Milling of inconel 718 block supports fabricated using laser powder bed fusion. Journal
of Manufacturing Processes, 34: 740–749. doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.03.046.
Ullah, R.; Akmal, J.S.; Laakso, S.; Niemi, E. (2020) Anisotropy of additively manufactured
18Ni-300 maraging steel: threads and surface characteristics. Procedia CIRP, 93: 68–78.
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2020.04.059.
Umbrello, D.; Saffioti, M.R.; Imbrogno, S. (2022) Surface modifications induced by turning
on additively manufactured Zr-702 and their effects on cell adhesion and proliferation
for biomedical applications. CIRP Annals, 71(1): 457–460. doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2022.04.079.
Vaezi, M.; Drescher, P.; Seitz, H. (2020) Beamless metal additive manufacturing. Materials
(Basel, Switzerland)13(4): 922. doi:10.3390/ma13040922.
Vallabh, C.K.P.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, X. (2022) In-situ ultrasonic monitoring for vat photopo
lymerization. Additive Manufacturing, 55: 102801. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2022.102801.
Vats, P.; Kumar Gajrani, K.; Kumar, A. (2023) Laser-based additive manufacturing. In
Laser-Based Technologies for Sustainable Manufacturing, 67–83. CRC Press. 10.1201/
9781003402398-4
Veiga, F.; Gil Del Val, A.; Su�arez, A.; Alonso, U. (2020) Analysis of the machining process
of titanium Ti6Al-4V parts manufactured by Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing
(WAAM). Materials (Basel, Switzerland)13(3): 766. doi:10.3390/ma13030766.
Williams, S.W.; Martina, F.; Addison, A.C.; Ding, J.; Pardal, G.; Colegrove, P. (2016)
Wire þ arc additive manufacturing. Materials Science and Technology, 32(7): 641–647.
doi:10.1179/1743284715Y.0000000073.
Wong, K.V.; Hernandez, A. (2012) A review of additive manufacturing. ISRN Mechanical
Engineering, 2012: 1–10. doi:10.5402/2012/208760.
W€ust, P.; Edelmann, A.; Hellmann, R. (2020) Areal surface roughness optimization of mar
aging steel parts produced by hybrid additive manufacturing. Materials (Basel,
Switzerland)13(2): 418. doi:10.3390/ma13020418.
€
Yang, L.; Patel, K.V.; Jarosz, K.; Ozel, T. (2020) Surface integrity induced in machining
additively fabricated nickel alloy inconel 625. Procedia CIRP, 87: 351–354. doi:10.1016/j.
procir.2020.02.104.
Zhang, D.; Sun, S.; Qiu, D.; Gibson, M.A.; Dargusch, M.S.; Brandt, M.; Qian, M.; Easton,
M. (2018) Metal alloys for fusion-based additive manufacturing. Advanced Engineering
Materials, 20(5): 1700952. doi:10.1002/adem.201700952.
Zhang, H.; Dang, J.; Ming, W.; Xu, X.; Chen, M.; An, Q. (2020) Cutting responses of addi
tive manufactured Ti6Al4V with solid ceramic tool under dry high-speed milling proc
esses. Ceramics International, 46(10): 14536–14547. doi:10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.02.253.
Zhang, K.; Guo, X.; Sun, L.; Meng, X.; Xing, Y. (2019) Fabrication of coated tool with fem
tosecond laser pretreatment and its cutting performance in dry machining SLM-
Produced stainless steel. Journal of Manufacturing Processes, 42: 28–40. doi:10.1016/j.
jmapro.2019.04.009.
Zhang, Y.; Wu, L.; Guo, X.; Kane, S.; Deng, Y.; Jung, Y.G.; Lee, J.H.; Zhang, J. (2018)
Additive manufacturing of metallic materials: a review. Journal of Materials Engineering
and Performance, 27(1): 1–13. doi:10.1007/s11665-017-2747-y.
Ziaee, M.; Crane, N.B. (2019) Binder jetting: a review of process, materials, and methods.
Additive Manufacturing, 28: 781–801. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2019.05.031.
Zimmermann, M.; M€ uller, D.; Kirsch, B.; Greco, S.; Aurich, J.C. (2021) Analysis of the
machinability when milling AlSi10Mg additively manufactured via laser-based powder
bed fusion. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 112(3-4):
989–1005. doi:10.1007/s00170-020-06391-7.

02-Novel Insights Into Conventional Machining of Metal Additive Manufactured Components - A Compre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

02-Novel Insights Into Conventional Machining of Metal Additive Manufactured Components - A Compre

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02-Novel Insights Into Conventional Machining of Metal Additive Manufactured Components - A Compre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Machining Science and Technology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/lmst20

Novel insights into conventional machining of

Prameet Vats, Avinash Kumar & Kishor Kumar Gajrani

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10910344.2024.2381206

Published online: 30 Jul 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 231

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Novel insights into conventional machining of metal

CONTACT Kishor Kumar Gajrani g.kishor@iiitdm.ac.in Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian

machining AM parts. Additionally, it provides recommenda­

Material jetting (G€

pristine surface finish for component assembly, the finishing machining

Machining of additive manufactured components

450 29.78%. obtained 1.59-time 6.29% less

uncoated whereas 0.3mm.

HS (mm) 0.05 CMed Ti

(Bordin, EBM Ti alloy 50−80 0.1−0.2 0.25 Minimum Ra Maximum nose

whereas (�13 min)

various studies are conducted to evaluate the fluctuation in Fc during the

considerable drop of 33 − 46% in Fc was observed during machining of

cooling, Ni et al. (2022) examined the impact of laser scanning patterns

Tool wear and tool wear morphologies

reducing Sc and f. It may also be necessary to use specialized cutting tools

Numerous studies have delved into investigating these aspects in turning

The relationship between chip formation and morphology is significantly

hole. Drilling of AMed components is similar to drilling wrought metal

Drilling forces and torque

SD (mm)3 to 600 N rev, 800rpm.

DMLS: 290N DMLS: 910 lm

wrought IN625 under flood and dry environments, respectively. The

fabricated Ti6Al4V alloy. Authors observed that Ra reduces initially and

simplifies the cutting process. This fluctuation in Ra value is depicted in

Tool wear and tool morphology

components (Aamir et al., 2020). Moreover, there is a growing focus on

up milling segments spiral

2020) SS (mm/s) 800, of obtained

and 18-48% for

HS (mm) 0.09, LT60 at 0.5 mm

2018) SS 1500 mm/ IN718 in

WAAM Invar 36 30,50 0.06, 0.1

800 than wrought

ductility and strength of extruded Ti6Al4V. However, milling of extruded

according to the Hall-Petch relation. Moreover, SLM samples displayed

milling resulted in higher Fc compared to down-milling. In up milling, the

Coolant plays a pivotal role in enhancing the quality of machined surfa­

deformation in the plastic deformation zone in a direction parallel to the

Tool wear and morphology

and power consumption. Deformed tools have repercussions on product

IN718, which has a dense microstructure. As a result, milling SLM IN718

temperature (1200 � C). This leads to a severe adhesion of the machined

impact of diverse material properties and milling parameters. Furthermore,

material, resulting in varied stress distributions across the chip cross-sec­

Key factors influencing machinability of additive manufactured

Machinability is influenced by various factors such as fabrication techni­

Figure 25. Visual representation of the key factors influencing machinability.

machining AM parts. Additionally, it provides recommenda

Coolant plays a pivotal role in enhancing the quality of machined surfa

material, resulting in varied stress distributions across the chip cross-sec

Machinability is influenced by various factors such as fabrication techni

machining parameters and carbon emissions has been shown to be signifi

appropriate selection of cutting fluids and understanding their inter