Author Affiliations
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shaanxi University of Technology, Hanzhong 723001, Shaanxi , Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Dingdian laser cutting equipment
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of equal distance marking for cutting seam
Fig. 3. Distributions of predicted and actual values. (a) Cutting entrance width; (b) HAZ width; (c) kerf taper angle
Fig. 4. Influence of interaction between laser power and cutting speed on slit entrance width. (a) Response surface; (b) contour map
Fig. 5. Influence of interaction between laser power and cutting speed on HAZ width. (a) Response surface; (b) contour map
Fig. 6. Influence of interaction between laser power and cutting speed on kerf taper angle.(a) Response surface; (b) contour map
Fig. 7. Optimal combination cutting effect. (a) Positive; (b) kerf taper angle
Fig. 8. Schematic diagram of specimen bonding and adhesive layer thickness control. (a) Specimen bonding; (b) adhesive layer thickness control
Fig. 9. Failure mode of bonded tensile shear specimen. (a) Central test point specimen; (b) parameter optimization combination specimen
Factor | X | Level |
---|
-1 | 0 | 1 |
---|
Power /W | X1 | 700 | 800 | 900 | Speed /(mm·s-1) | X2 | 20 | 25 | 30 | Focus position /mm | X3 | -1.5 | -1 | -0.5 | Air pressure /MPa | X4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 |
|
Table 1. Horizontal coding table
Number | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | A /W | B /(mm·s-1) | C /mm | D /MPa | ψ /μm | H /μm | θ /(°) |
---|
1 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 700 | 20 | -1.0 | 0.6 | 452.45 | 1352.04 | 3.81 | 2 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 900 | 20 | -1.0 | 0.6 | 507.74 | 1859.20 | 3.62 | 3 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 700 | 30 | -1.0 | 0.6 | 436.78 | 1293.72 | 4.89 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 900 | 30 | -1.0 | 0.6 | 489.90 | 1732.96 | 4.28 | 5 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 800 | 25 | -1.5 | 0.5 | 489.96 | 1538.62 | 4.79 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 800 | 25 | -0.5 | 0.5 | 456.20 | 1383.18 | 4.66 | 7 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 800 | 25 | -1.5 | 0.7 | 466.92 | 1346.88 | 4.57 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 800 | 25 | -0.5 | 0.7 | 444.60 | 1311.16 | 4.17 | 9 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 700 | 25 | -1.0 | 0.5 | 475.02 | 1356.32 | 4.91 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 900 | 25 | -1.0 | 0.5 | 514.42 | 1923.40 | 4.43 | 11 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 700 | 25 | -1.0 | 0.7 | 452.84 | 1306.32 | 4.46 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 900 | 25 | -1.0 | 0.7 | 488.94 | 1712.05 | 4.11 | 13 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 800 | 20 | -1.5 | 0.6 | 477.83 | 1481.56 | 4.28 | 14 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 800 | 30 | -1.5 | 0.6 | 456.43 | 1393.00 | 4.65 | 15 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 800 | 20 | -0.5 | 0.6 | 472.25 | 1353.00 | 3.52 | 16 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 800 | 30 | -0.5 | 0.6 | 446.74 | 1303.00 | 4.58 | 17 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 700 | 25 | -1.5 | 0.6 | 477.32 | 1395.80 | 4.91 | 18 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 900 | 25 | -1.5 | 0.6 | 518.88 | 1877.56 | 4.56 | 19 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 700 | 25 | -0.5 | 0.6 | 458.40 | 1266.80 | 4.51 | 20 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 900 | 25 | -0.5 | 0.6 | 496.88 | 1803.35 | 4.21 | 21 | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 800 | 20 | -1.0 | 0.5 | 487.90 | 1481.75 | 3.88 | 22 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 800 | 30 | -1.0 | 0.5 | 462.30 | 1398.23 | 4.60 | 23 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 800 | 20 | -1.0 | 0.7 | 456.35 | 1362.10 | 3.49 | 24 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 800 | 30 | -1.0 | 0.7 | 446.70 | 1284.50 | 4.36 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 800 | 25 | -1.0 | 0.6 | 461.08 | 1339.36 | 4.11 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 800 | 25 | -1.0 | 0.6 | 463.50 | 1381.36 | 4.18 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 800 | 25 | -1.0 | 0.6 | 469.80 | 1346.45 | 4.12 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 800 | 25 | -1.0 | 0.6 | 472.23 | 1339.23 | 4.16 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 800 | 25 | -1.0 | 0.6 | 469.56 | 1348.56 | 4.09 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 800 | 25 | -1.0 | 0.6 | 471.62 | 1336.35 | 4.15 |
|
Table 2. Experimental results
Parameter | Prediction function |
---|
Cutting entrance width | ψ=468.27+21.99A-9.63B-9.35C-10.78D+14.89A2-7.12B2 | HAZ width | H=1352.98+244.7A-40.35B-51.07C-63.20D-16.97AB-40.33AD+29.92CD+ 204.70A2+26.50C2+20.32D2 | Kerf taper angle | θ=4.13-0.19A+0.39B-0.17C-0.17D-0.10AB+0.17BC-0.06CD+0.17A2-0.16B2+0.26C2+0.14D2 |
|
Table 3. Prediction function of target response
Parameter optimization combination | Index prediction |
---|
Power /W | Speed /(mm·s-1) | Focus position /mm | Air pressure /MPa | Predictor | Predicted value | Fluctuation range | 755 | 20 | -0.6 | 0.7 | ψ /μm | 445.02 | ±22.01 | H /μm | 1299.58 | ±42.68 | θ /(°) | 3.39 | ±0.18 |
|
Table 4. Parameter optimization combination and index prediction
Parameter | ψ /μm | H /μm | θ /(°) |
---|
Measurement results | 457.75 | 1306.13 | 3.51 | Deviation from predicted value | 12.73 | 6.55 | 0.12 |
|
Table 5. Measurement results and error of parameter optimization combination test
Experimental group | Central test point | Parameter optimization combination |
---|
Average /N | 3938.67 | 4837.33 | Serial number | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | Maximum load /N | 4316 | 3116 | 4384 | 4852 | 4870 | 4790 |
|
Table 6. Maximum load of glued tensile shear damage