Fig. 1 Experimental details in the study: a morphology of the as-used 316L SS powder, b a sketch of laser inside powder feeding nozzle, and c real photograph of the LMD system

Fig. 2 a-e Detailed information about specimen geometries, f polished surface used for microstructural observation

Fig. 3 a Defects detection using OM method, b the corresponding distribution of defect size in terms of the major axis length in a, c OM image showing the columnar dendrites (e.g., region B) and cells (e.g., region A) in the material, the yellow and blue arrows indicate dendrites and cells, respectively, d SEM image revealing the solidification microstructure, e a magnified view showing the columnar dendrite and cell structures

Fig. 4 Microstructure of LMD-produced 316L SS sample observed by EBSD: a IQ map, b IPF image, c PF image, d band contrast map, e KAM map, f phase mapping, g misorientation angle distribution, and h grain size distribution

Fig. 5 A summary of mechanical properties versus specimen size for LMD-produced 316L SS samples: a yield strength, b ultimate tensile strength, c elongation to failure, and d slimness ratio dependence of elongation to failure with different specimen sizes

Fig. 6 Represented fracture surface of sample ‘S0.5-1’ (εf?=?12.9%). a Macroscopic fracture morphology, b, c are enlarged images showing the pore defects, d a high magnified image revealing the dimple fracture and oxide particles

Fig. 7 Represented fracture surface of sample ‘S1-1’ (εf?=?14.2%). a Macroscopic fracture morphology, b, c are enlarged images showing the pores and lack of fusion defects, d a high magnified image revealing the dimple fracture and oxide particles

Fig. 8 Represented fracture surface of sample ‘S2-2’ (εf?=?11.7%). a Macroscopic fracture morphology, b SEM image revealing the lack of fusion defects, c an enlarged image showing the pores, d a high magnified image revealing the dimple fracture and oxide particles

Fig. 9 Represented fracture surface of sample ‘w4.5-4’ (εf?=?12.2%). a Macroscopic fracture morphology, b, c enlarged images showing the dimple fracture and oxide particles

Fig. 10 Represented fracture surface of sample ‘w10-4’ (εf?=?15.7%). a Macroscopic fracture morphology, b SEM image revealing the pore defect, c a high magnified image revealing the dimple fracture and oxide particles

Fig. 11 Represented fracture surface of sample ‘w10-1’ (εf?=?35%). a Macroscopic fracture morphology, b, c are enlarged images showing the pores and lack of fusion defects, d a high magnified image revealing the dimple fracture and oxide particles

Fig. 12 Defect size distribution measured on the observed fracture surfaces. The corresponding area fraction of defect region is also presented. a Sample ‘S1-1’, b Sample ‘S2-2’, c Sample ‘S0.5-1’, d Sample ‘w10-1’, e Sample ‘w10-4’, f Sample ‘w4.5-4’

Fig. 13 OM and SEM images showing a representative side view of LMD-produced specimen after tensile testing: a OM image showing the crack propagates to the edge of fractured sample surface, b OM image showing the crack initiates from the pore, c SEM image showing an intergranular fracture mode

Fig. 14 A summary of yield strength versus elongation to failure for LMD-produced 316L SS from our work and previous studies [5,79,14,16,17,18,19]. The reported values are collected from different references where the LMD-produced samples are produced by different processing parameters and are tensile tested by various sample sizes and shapes

Fig. 15 Microstructures of deformed sample: a IQ map, b band contrast map, c IPF image, d KAM map, e grain size distribution, f misorientation angle distribution, g phase mapping

Fig. 16 A magnified image of deformed sample observed in another area: a IPF image, b band contrast map, c phase mapping, d KAM map