Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 22 references

Multi-Robot Scan-n-Print for Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Closed-loop scanning cuts 3D-printed metal height error by 66%

desk verdict Solid multi-robot WAAM integration with a real edge-correction result, but the paper's own replay test undermines its interior height-improvement claim by leaving dwell time as the likely confound. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15915 v2 pith:VORKVNEN submitted 2024-11-24 cs.RO

Chen-Lung Lu , Honglu He , Jinhan Ren , Joni Dhar , Glenn Saunders , Agung Julius , Johnson Samuel , John T. Wen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords WAAMwirearcadditivemanufacturingclosed-loopcontrollaserscanninglayerheightregulationtorchspeedmulti-robotsystemscan-n-print
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) builds metal parts layer by layer, but the height of each layer varies and errors accumulate, especially with aluminum. This paper proposes a closed-loop 'scan-n-print' system in which a laser scanner measures each printed layer and the welding robot's torch speed is adjusted for the next layer based on an identified power-law model. On their testbed, the mean layer height standard deviation improved 66% for an aluminum wall and 53% for a turbine-blade-shaped part, and the corrected speed profile could be replayed to print a second part with similar quality.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the deposition-height model $\ln(\Delta h)=a\ln(v)+b$, fitted from a calibration schedule of two base layers followed by two layers at each of several torch speeds from 20 mm/s down to 2 mm/s. Because the model is monotonic in speed, it can be inverted: for each motion segment of the next layer, the measured average height is compared with the target, and Eq. (1) gives the required torch speed. The control loop is closed by the scanning robot, whose wrist-mounted laser line scanner captures the top surface after each layer; point clouds are registered to the positioner frame using calibrated kinematics, cleaned, and sampled along the welding path to produce the height profile. Smoothing and speed caps are applied to avoid excessive accelerations, and leftover error is corrected in later layers.

What would settle it

Print a tall wall with more than 40 layers in scan-n-print mode and plot the per-layer height standard deviation; if the standard deviation trends upward with layer count or matches the open-loop baseline for layers beyond the calibration range, the model's cross-layer validity is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that geometric precision in WAAM can be achieved by feedback control of torch travel speed alone, without altering wire feed rate or other welding parameters. Using a three-robot testbed (welding robot, positioner, and scanning robot with a laser line scanner), the authors show that the layer height profile can be measured after each deposition and that inverting an identified model $\ln(\Delta h)=a\ln(v)+b$ yields torch speeds that keep subsequent layers close to the desired height. The model is derived from a mass-conservation argument that predicts a slope near $-0.5$, and the fitted slopes in Table 1 are close to this value. In experiments, the closed-loop approach reduces mean layer height standard deviation from 1.38 mm to 0.47 mm (66%) on a wall and from 0.85 mm to 0.24 mm (53%) on a blade, and also improves tracking of the CAD geometry.

Load-bearing premise

The identified model $\ln(\Delta h)=a\ln(v)+b$, calibrated on two-layer runs at each speed, is assumed to hold for every later layer and for the short end segments where arc on/off effects dominate; if the model drifts with thermal history or geometry, the inverted speed commands will not produce the intended height fix.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If closed-loop speed control holds up, WAAM parts can be printed to tighter geometric tolerances without changing material feed parameters, reducing the need for post-process machining.
  • Because the learned speed profile can be replayed for subsequent copies of the same part, the scanning step can be dropped for later units, saving cycle time while retaining the corrected geometry.
  • The same framework transfers to a steel alloy and to a continuous look-ahead mode with a cooperating scanner, suggesting it is not restricted to one material or one print strategy.
  • The physical derivation of the model (slope near $-0.5$) hints that the speed-to-height relation may be transferable to other wire-fed materials with modest re-identification.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One could extend the controller to also modulate wire feed rate, as the authors list as future work; jointly controlling both would decouple height and bead width, potentially giving finer control than speed alone.
  • The strong residual errors at the edges where the arc turns on and off suggest an explicit edge-compensation strategy (e.g., a precomputed speed pulse at segment boundaries) might yield further gains beyond the current layer-by-layer correction.
  • The replay result implies a teach-and-repeat manufacturing model: the first part pays the scanning cost, and subsequent parts reap the benefit, which is economically attractive for small-batch production.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-robot scan-n-print framework for Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM). A sensing robot with a laser line scanner measures the deposited layer height after each weld layer, and an identified log-log model relating torch speed to deposition height is inverted to compute speed commands for the next layer, aiming to reduce layer-height variation. The framework is demonstrated on an aluminum wall, a fan-blade-like geometry, a steel wall, and a cylinder, with reported improvements in layer-height standard deviation (e.g., 66% for the aluminum wall) and CAD-comparison errors. A repeatability test replays the recorded speed profiles in open-loop printing to assess whether the learned profiles transfer to subsequent parts.

Significance. If the reported improvements are robust, the paper makes a useful engineering contribution: it integrates multi-robot coordination, laser scanning, model identification, and closed-loop speed control in a real WAAM testbed, and it shares source code, datasets, and a video. The model identification is reasonable, with slopes close to the theoretically expected -0.5, and the application to two materials and several geometries adds breadth. However, the repeatability test in Section 4.6 raises a serious confound: the closed-loop runs include inter-layer scanning pauses that are absent from the open-loop baselines, and the replayed speed profiles do not reproduce the interior improvement. Because the paper's central claim is the empirical superiority of the closed-loop approach, this confound must be addressed before the improvement can be attributed to the control law rather than to thermal-history effects. The lack of error bars and the post hoc edge-exclusion threshold further weaken the quantitative claims. The manuscript is likely to be acceptable after substantial revision and additional experiments or analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.6, Table 2, Figure 19(b)] The repeatability test undermines the attribution of the without-edge improvement to the speed-control law. The text states that when edge regions are excluded, "the replayed prints perform similarly as the open loop," yet Table 2 reports a 60% without-edge improvement (0.13 mm vs 0.33 mm) for the closed-loop wall. Since replaying the recorded speed commands in an efficient open-loop run (without scanning) does not reproduce the interior improvement, the only remaining differences between the closed-loop run and the replay are online feedback and the inter-layer dwell time introduced by the scanning pass. The paper does not report inter-layer timing for the baseline versus the scan-n-print runs, so the possibility that the without-edge improvement is largely a thermal-history effect of the cooling pause is left unaddressed. This directly affects the headline 66% full-piece improvement, whose without-edge component is the more controlled measure of process improvement. The authors should add an open-loop baseline that includes the same inter-layer pauses (or a scan-only pass without speed adjustment) to isolate the controller's contribution, or otherwise quantify the thermal-history effect.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 2, Section 4.4, Table 6] The edge-exclusion threshold of 7.5 mm from the arc on/off points is introduced post hoc and its sensitivity is not examined. The reported without-edge improvements rest entirely on this threshold: for aluminum the without-edge improvement is 60% (0.33 mm vs 0.13 mm), but for steel it is only 10% (0.31 mm vs 0.28 mm), suggesting a strong material and threshold dependence. Without a sensitivity analysis over a range of exclusion widths (e.g., 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5 mm) or a physical justification of the threshold, the without-edge metric is not robust evidence for interior uniformity improvement. The authors should either justify the threshold from arc on/off physics or show that the conclusion is insensitive to the choice.
  3. [Section 4.2-4.4, Tables 2, 4, 5, 6] All improvement percentages are based on single runs per condition, with no error bars, confidence intervals, or run-to-run variability reported. Given the inherent noise in WAAM and the visible variability between Repeat 1 and Repeat 2 in the repeatability test, the reader cannot assess whether the 66% and 53% improvements are statistically meaningful or within process noise. The paper should report the per-layer standard deviation distributions (e.g., box plots) and, ideally, multiple baseline and closed-loop runs, or at least a sensitivity analysis of the computed metrics to measurement noise. This is load-bearing because the central claim is empirical improvement, and the current tables present only point estimates.
  4. [Section 3, Eq. (5), Section 4.2] The identified model ln(Δh) = a ln(v) + b is fitted from a dedicated calibration schedule with speeds decreasing from 20 mm/s to 2 mm/s, and the model is assumed to remain valid for all subsequent layers and geometries in the closed-loop experiments. The closed-loop runs at 100 ipm use speeds within the calibration range, but the blade's short end segments and the edge regions where arc on/off effects dominate may violate the model's monotonicity assumption, as the paper itself notes that defects concentrate at the edges. The authors do not validate the model's predictive accuracy on the actual closed-loop runs (e.g., comparing the Δh predicted from the commanded speeds with the measured layer heights). Adding such residual analysis would strengthen the claim that Eq. (1) produces the intended height corrections and would help rule out model mismatch as an alternative explanation for the observed improvements.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] There are several typos and grammatical errors, including "addition 6-dof robot" (Section 1, should be "additional"), "measurements the layer height" (Section 2.2, should be "measures"), "an average smoother" (Section 2.3, should be "an averaging smoother"), "The proposed techniques works well" (Section 1, should be "work well"), and "the close-loop approach" (Section 4.4, should be "closed-loop").
  2. [Figures 10 and 16] The layer-height STD plots do not have labeled axes or explicit legends identifying which curve corresponds to the baseline and which to the correction. Adding axis labels and a legend would make the figures self-contained.
  3. [Table 1] The table reports RMSE values in mm, but the fitted model is in log space (ln Δh vs ln v). Please clarify whether the RMSE is computed in the original height units after back-transformation or in log units, and specify the calculation.
  4. [Section 4.4, Figure 16(b)] The text says "the uniformity between the open-loop and the closed-loop approach is comparable" but then claims a trend of error accumulation in the open-loop case. This is somewhat contradictory; please clarify whether the without-edge comparison is comparable overall or shows a layer-dependent trend.
  5. [Section 4.5] The continuous scan-n-print of the cylinder is presented without an open-loop baseline for the same geometry, so the reported reduction in standard deviation is only an internal comparison across layers. State the baseline explicitly or note that the baseline is not included.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scan-n-print improvement claims rest on closed-loop measurements, not on the identified speed-to-height model being derived from those measurements.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The control model in Section 3 is an empirical fit (Eq. 5) to dedicated calibration layers, and the control law (Eq. 1) inverts that fitted model to set torch speeds; the reported height-STD and CAD-error improvements in Section 4 are measured on separate open-loop versus closed-loop prints, not computed from the model equations, so no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction. The self-citations to the group's prior work ([3], [17]-[19]) support the motion-planning and software architecture, but the central empirical demonstration does not reduce to those citations. Section 4.6 does report that edge-excluded replayed prints perform similarly to open loop, which is an admitted limitation and may indicate a thermal-history/dwell-time confound in the closed-loop comparison; that is a correctness/validity concern, not a circularity. No step in the paper is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an empirically fitted deposition model, a chosen edge-exclusion rule, and several measurement assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Model slope a per feed rate = -0.62, -0.43, -0.43, -0.44, -0.45, -0.46 for 100, 110, 130, 150, 170, 240 ipm
    Least-squares fit in Eq. (5), Table 1; part of the control inverse model.
  • Model intercept b per feed rate = 1.85, 1.23, 1.630, 1.37, 1.40, 1.15 for 100, 110, 130, 150, 170, 240 ipm
    Same fit in Eq. (5), Table 1.
  • Edge exclusion threshold = 7.5 mm from arc on/off points
    Chosen in Section 4.2 to define edge regions; affects the without-edge performance metrics.
  • Desired deposition height per layer = 2.34 mm (Al wall and blade), 1.35 mm (steel wall), 1.80 mm (cylinder)
    Set by the chosen baseline torch speed and identified model in Sections 4.2, 4.4, and 4.5.
  • Smoothing filter and speed caps = Not specified numerically
    Applied to the height profile in Section 2.4; the window size and cap values are not reported, affecting reproducibility.
  • Number of motion segments per layer = 40 segments shown in Fig. 5, no general rule specified
    Determines the spatial resolution of the speed updates in the motion optimization.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Mass conservation deposition equation S_w v_MR = S_B v
    Taken from [22] in Section 3, Eq. (2); assumes melted wire is fully converted into weld bead cross-section.
  • domain assumption Bead cross-section proportional to height squared, S_B = c Δh^2
    Eq. (3) in Section 3; an approximation used to motivate the log-linear model.
  • domain assumption Monotonic and invertible speed-to-height map f(v)
    Section 2.4 states f is monotonically decreasing and is inverted to compute the required speed.
  • domain assumption Current layer height plus desired deposition determines the next target height
    Section 2.4, h_d^(i+1) = h^(i) + Δh_d^(i); assumes no shrinkage, overlap, or thermal coupling between layers.
  • domain assumption Laser scan height profile accurately represents the deposit after calibration and outlier removal
    Section 2.3 relies on robot kinematic calibration [21] and statistical filtering to produce the profile used for control.
  • ad hoc to paper Edge-excluded metrics isolate process improvement from arc on/off effects
    Section 4.2 defines edges as points within 7.5 mm of the arc on/off locations; this choice is made in the analysis and drives several headline improvements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Robot Scan-n-Print for Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VORKVNEN

@misc{pith2026241115915,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Robot Scan-n-Print for Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VORKVNEN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15915}
}
read the original abstract

Robotic Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM) is a metal additive manufacturing technology, offering flexible 3D printing while ensuring high quality near-net-shape final parts. However, WAAM also suffers from geometric imprecision, especially for low-melting-point metal such as aluminum alloys. In this paper, we present a multi-robot framework for WAAM process monitoring and control. We consider a three-robot setup: a 6-dof welding robot, a 2-dof trunnion platform, and a 6-dof sensing robot with a wrist-mounted laser line scanner measuring the printed part height profile. The welding parameters, including the wire feed rate, are held constant based on the materials used, so the control input is the robot path speed. The measured output is the part height profile. The planning phase decomposes the target shape into slices of uniform height. During runtime, the sensing robot scans each printed layer, and the robot path speed for the next layer is adjusted based on the deviation from the desired profile. The adjustment is based on an identified model correlating the path speed to change in height. The control architecture coordinates the synchronous motion and data acquisition between all robots and sensors. Using a three-robot WAAM testbed, we demonstrate significant improvements of the closed loop scan-n-print approach over the current open loop result on both a flat wall and a more complex turbine blade shape.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    The robotic easy teaching system incomputeraidedwelding,

    Handa, H., Okumura, S., and Nio, S., 1997, “The robotic easy teaching system incomputeraidedwelding,”NISTSpecialPublication(USA)„ 923,pp.562–575

    work page 1997

  2. [1]

    Wire + Arc Additive Manufacturing,

    Williams, S. W., Martina, F., Addison, A. C., Ding, J., Pardal, G., and Cole- grove, P., 2016, “Wire + Arc Additive Manufacturing,” Materials Science and Technology,32(7), pp. 641–647

    work page 2016

  3. [2]

    Designing a WAAM Based Manufacturing System for Defence Applications,

    Busachi, A., Erkoyuncu, J., Colegrove, P., Martina, F., and Ding, J., 2015, “Designing a WAAM Based Manufacturing System for Defence Applications,” Procedia CIRP,37, pp. 48–53, CIRPe 2015 - Understanding the life cycle im- plications of manufacturing

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    Open-Source Software Architecture for Multi-Robot Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM)

    He, H., lung Lu, C., Ren, J., Dhar, J., Saunders, G., Wason, J., Samuel, J., Julius, A., and Wen, J. T., 2024, “Open-Source Software Architecture for Multi- Robot Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM),” arxiv:2408.04677, https: //arxiv.org/abs/2408.04677

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    Process planning for adaptive contour parallel toolpath in additive manufacturing with variable bead width,

    Xiong, Y., Park, S.-i., Padmanathan, S., Dharmawan, A., Foong, S., Rosen, D., and Soh, G., 2019, “Process planning for adaptive contour parallel toolpath in additive manufacturing with variable bead width,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,105, pp. 4159–4170

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    A Model- Based Reinforcement Learning and Correction Framework for Process Control of Robotic Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing,

    Dharmawan, A. G., Xiong, Y., Foong, S., and Song Soh, G., 2020, “A Model- Based Reinforcement Learning and Correction Framework for Process Control of Robotic Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing,”2020 IEEE International Con- ference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Paris, France, May 31 — June 4, pp. 4030–4036, doi: 10.1109/ICRA40945.2020.9197222

    arXiv 2020

  7. [6]

    Optimizationstrategies for robotic additive and subtractive manufacturing of large and high thin-walled aluminum structures,

    Ma,G.,Zhao,G., Li,Z.,Yang,M., andXiao,W., 2019,“Optimizationstrategies for robotic additive and subtractive manufacturing of large and high thin-walled aluminum structures,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,101, pp. 1275–1292

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    Development and per- formance evaluation of a hybrid-wire arc additive manufacturing system based on robot manipulators,

    Lim, W. S., Dharmawan, A. G., and Soh, G. S., 2022, “Development and per- formance evaluation of a hybrid-wire arc additive manufacturing system based on robot manipulators,” Materials Today: Proceedings,70, pp. 587–592, The InternationalConferenceonAdditiveManufacturingforaBetterWorld(AMBW 2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 22 references
  1. [8]

    2021, A Study on the Acoustic Signal Based Frameworks for the Real-Time Iden- tification of Geometrically Defective Wire Arc Bead, Vol. Volume 3A: 47th De- sign Automation Conference (DAC) of International Design Engineering Tech- nical Conferences and Computers and Informatio...

    2021

  2. [9]

    Acoustic feature based geometric defect identification in wire arc additive manufacturing,

    Surovi, N. A. and Soh, G. S., 2023, “Acoustic feature based geometric defect identification in wire arc additive manufacturing,” Virtual and Physical Proto- typing, 18(1), p. e2210553

    2023

  3. [10]

    Robot arc welding operations planning with a rotating/tilting positioner,

    Kim, D.-W., Choi, J.-S., and Nnaji, B. O., 1998, “Robot arc welding operations planning with a rotating/tilting positioner,” International Journal of Production Research, 36(4), pp. 957–979

    1998

  4. [11]

    Coordinated motion control of multiple robotic devices for welding and redundancy coordination through constrained optimiza- tion in Cartesian space,

    Ahmad, S. and Luo, S., 1989, “Coordinated motion control of multiple robotic devices for welding and redundancy coordination through constrained optimiza- tion in Cartesian space,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation,5(4), pp. 409–417

    1989

  5. [12]

    Optimizing Part Placement for Improving Accuracy of Robot-Based Ad- ditive Manufacturing,

    Bhatt, P. M., Kulkarni, A., Malhan, R. K., and Gupta, S. K., 2021, “Optimizing Part Placement for Improving Accuracy of Robot-Based Ad- ditive Manufacturing,” 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Xi’an, China, May 30 -– June 5, pp. 859–865, doi...

    2021

  6. [13]

    ARobot-CenteredPath-PlanningAlgorithmforMultidirectionalAdditive Manufacturing for WAAM Processes and Pure Object Manipulation,

    Schmitz, M., Wiartalla, J., Gelfgren, M., Mann, S., Corves, B., and Hüsing, M., 2021,“ARobot-CenteredPath-PlanningAlgorithmforMultidirectionalAdditive Manufacturing for WAAM Processes and Pure Object Manipulation,” Applied Sciences, 11(13), p. 5759

    2021

  7. [14]

    A modular path planning solution for Wire + Arc Additive Manufactur- ing,

    Michel, F., Lockett, H., Ding, J., Martina, F., Marinelli, G., and Williams, S., 2019, “A modular path planning solution for Wire + Arc Additive Manufactur- ing,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing,60, pp. 1–11

    2019

  8. [15]

    Online Coordinated Mo- tionControlofaRedundantRoboticWireArcAdditiveManufacturingSystem,

    Lizarralde, N., Coutinho, F., and Lizarralde, F., 2022, “Online Coordinated Mo- tionControlofaRedundantRoboticWireArcAdditiveManufacturingSystem,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters,7(4), pp. 9675–9682. ASME Letters in Translational Robotics ALTR-24-1010, LU/ 7

    2022

  9. [16]

    Task-priority redundancy res- olution for co-operative control under task conflicts and joint constraints,

    Hu, Y., Huang, B., and Yang, G.-Z., 2015, “Task-priority redundancy res- olution for co-operative control under task conflicts and joint constraints,” 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Hamburg, Germany, September 28 -– October 2, ...

    2015

  10. [17]

    High-Speed High- Accuracy Spatial Curve Tracking Using Motion Primitives in Industrial Robots,

    He, H., Lu, C.-L., Wen, Y., Saunders, G., Yang, P., Schoonover, J., Wason, J., Julius, A., and Wen, J. T., 2023, “High-Speed High- Accuracy Spatial Curve Tracking Using Motion Primitives in Industrial Robots,” 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA...

    2023

  11. [18]

    Fast and Accurate Relative Motion Tracking for Dual Industrial Robots,

    He, H., Lu, C.-L., Saunders, G., Wason, J., Yang, P., Schoonover, J., Ajdelsztajn, L., Paternain, S., Julius, A., and Wen, J. T., 2024, “Fast and Accurate Relative Motion Tracking for Dual Industrial Robots,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 9(11), pp. 10153–10160

    2024

  12. [20]

    Robot Raconteur®: Updates on an Open Source Interoperable Middleware for Robotics,

    Wason, J. D. and Wen, J. T., 2023, “Robot Raconteur®: Updates on an Open Source Interoperable Middleware for Robotics,”2023 IEEE 19th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), Auckland, New Zealand, August 26 – 30, pp. 1–8, doi: 10.1109/CASE56687.2...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Hand-eye calibration for 2D laser profile scanners using straight edges of common objects,

    Xu, J., Hoo, J. L., Dritsas, S., and Fernandez, J. G., 2022, “Hand-eye calibration for 2D laser profile scanners using straight edges of common objects,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing,73, p. 102221

    2022

  14. [23]

    A method for registration of 3-D shapes,

    Besl, P. and McKay, N. D., 1992, “A method for registration of 3-D shapes,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,14(2), pp. 239–256. 8 / ALTR-24-1010, LU Transactions of the ASME List of Figures 1 Scan-n-Print WAAM testbed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.