Fig. 1. Schematic of millisecond pulse laser drilling system
Fig. 2. Calculation of via-hole taper
Fig. 3. Schematic of penetration detection principle. (a) Schematic of detection device; (b) schematic of pulse signal
Fig. 4. Influence of defocusing amount on entrance and end diameters of via-hole
Fig. 5. Influence of defocusing amount on threshold of pulse number
Fig. 6. Cross sections and taper a change of via-hole drilled under different defocusing amounts. (a) -2.8 mm; (b) -1.8 mm; (c) 0.8 mm; (d) 0 mm; (e) 0.8 mm; (f) 1.8 mm; (g) 2.8 mm; (h) taper change of via-hole
Fig. 7. Schematic of beam expansion ratio
Fig. 8. Influence of beam expanding ratio on entrance and end diameters of via-hole
Fig. 9. Influence of beam expanding ratio on threshold of pulse number
Fig. 10. Cross sections and taper change of via-hole drilled under different beam expanding ratios. (a) 1; (b) 1.8; (c) 2.8; (d) 3.8; (e) 4.8; (f) 5.8;(g) taper change of via-hole
Fig. 11. Experimental results of drilling holes in argon
Fig. 12. Influence of pulse repetition frequency on entrance and end diameters of via-hole
Fig. 13. Influence of pulse repetition frequency on threshold of pulse number
Fig. 14. Cross sections and taper change of via-hole drilled under different pulse repetition frequencies. (a) 15 Hz; (b) 25 Hz; (c) 35 Hz; (d) 45 Hz; (e) 65 Hz; (f) 85 Hz; (g) 100 Hz;(h) taper change of via-hole
Composition | C | Cr | Ni | W | Mo | Al | Ti | V |
---|
Mass fraction /% | 0.03-0.1 | 13-16 | Allowance | 5-7 | 2-4 | 1.7-2.3 | 1.8-2.3 | 0.1-0.5 | Composition | Fe | B | Ce | Mn | Si | P | S | Cu | Mass fraction /% | ≤5 | ≤0.02 | ≤0.02 | ≤0.5 | ≤0.4 | ≤0.015 | ≤0.01 | ≤0.07 |
|
Table 1. Chemical composition of nickel-based superalloy GH4037
Defocusing amount /mm | -2.8 | -1.8 | -0.8 | 0 | 0.8 | 1.8 | 2.8 |
---|
Threshold of pulse number | N1 | N2 | N3 | N4 | N5 | N6 | N7 |
|
Table 2. Improved control variable method
Item | Defocusing amount /mm |
---|
-2.8 | -1.8 | -0.8 | 0 | 0.8 | 1.8 | 2.8 |
---|
Ni | 15 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 18 | 30 | 40 | Nt | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | R /% | 70 | 84 | 86 | 88 | 64 | 40 | 20 |
|
Table 3. Comparison of drilling efficiency between improved control variable method and traditional control variable method under different defocusing amounts
Item | Beam expanding ratio |
---|
1 | 1.8 | 2.8 | 3.8 | 4.8 | 5.8 | |
---|
Ni | 21 | 15 | 9 | 6 | 10 | 25 | | Nt | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | | R /% | 30.00 | 50.00 | 70.00 | 80.00 | 66.67 | 16.67 | |
|
Table 4. Comparison of drilling efficiency between improved control variable method and traditional control variable method under different beam expanding ratios
Item | Pulse repetition frequency /Hz |
---|
15 | 28 | 35 | 45 | 65 | 85 | 100 |
---|
Ni | 41 | 30 | 15 | 9 | 6 | 9 | 11 | Nt | 55 | 55 | 55 | 55 | 55 | 55 | 55 | R /% | 25.45 | 45.45 | 72.73 | 83.64 | 89.09 | 83.64 | 80.00 |
|
Table 5. Comparison of drilling efficiency between improved control variable method and traditional control variable method under different pulse repetition frequencies