• Chinese Journal of Lasers
  • Vol. 50, Issue 12, 1202208 (2023)
Yajun Chen">**, Wenting Lu, and Yating Yang
Author Affiliations
  • Sino-European Institute of Aviation Engineering, Civil Aviation University of China, Tianjin 300300, China
  • show less
    DOI: 10.3788/CJL221134 Cite this Article Set citation alerts
    Yajun Chen, Wenting Lu, Yating Yang. Optimization of Laser Paint Removal Process for Carbon Fiber Composite Substrate Based on Response Surface Analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Lasers, 2023, 50(12): 1202208 Copy Citation Text show less
    Schematic of scanning path of laser paint removal
    Fig. 1. Schematic of scanning path of laser paint removal
    Epoxy primer on sample surface. (a) Paint thickness distribution; (b) morphology of paint
    Fig. 2. Epoxy primer on sample surface. (a) Paint thickness distribution; (b) morphology of paint
    Comparison of actual and predicted values. (a) Fiber exposure percentage E; (b) single pulse paint removal depth D; (c) ten-point height of microcosmic irregularity Rz
    Fig. 3. Comparison of actual and predicted values. (a) Fiber exposure percentage E; (b) single pulse paint removal depth D; (c) ten-point height of microcosmic irregularity Rz
    Effect of interaction of different factors on fiber exposure percentage
    Fig. 4. Effect of interaction of different factors on fiber exposure percentage
    Effect of laser power and repetition frequency on fiber exposure percentage. (a) Contour plot; (b) response surface plot
    Fig. 5. Effect of laser power and repetition frequency on fiber exposure percentage. (a) Contour plot; (b) response surface plot
    Effect of scanning speed and repetition frequency on fiber exposure percentage. (a) Contour plot; (b) response surface plot
    Fig. 6. Effect of scanning speed and repetition frequency on fiber exposure percentage. (a) Contour plot; (b) response surface plot
    Effect of laser power and scanning speed on fiber exposure percentage. (a) Contour plot; (b) response surface plot
    Fig. 7. Effect of laser power and scanning speed on fiber exposure percentage. (a) Contour plot; (b) response surface plot
    Effect of interaction of different factors on single-pulse paint removal depth
    Fig. 8. Effect of interaction of different factors on single-pulse paint removal depth
    Effect of laser power and repetition frequency on single-pulse paint removal depth. (a) Contour plot; (b) response surface plot
    Fig. 9. Effect of laser power and repetition frequency on single-pulse paint removal depth. (a) Contour plot; (b) response surface plot
    Effect of scanning speed and repetition frequency on single-pulse paint removal depth. (a) Contour plot; (b) response surface plot
    Fig. 10. Effect of scanning speed and repetition frequency on single-pulse paint removal depth. (a) Contour plot; (b) response surface plot
    Effect of scanning speed and laser power on single-pulse paint removal depth. (a) Contour plot; (b) response surface plot
    Fig. 11. Effect of scanning speed and laser power on single-pulse paint removal depth. (a) Contour plot; (b) response surface plot
    Influence of interaction of different factors on ten-point height of microcosmic irregularity
    Fig. 12. Influence of interaction of different factors on ten-point height of microcosmic irregularity
    Effect of laser power and repetition frequency on ten-point height of microcosmic irregularity. (a) Contour plot; (b) response surface plot
    Fig. 13. Effect of laser power and repetition frequency on ten-point height of microcosmic irregularity. (a) Contour plot; (b) response surface plot
    Influence of scanning speed and repetition frequency on ten-point height of microcosmic irregularity. (a) Contour map;
    Fig. 14. Influence of scanning speed and repetition frequency on ten-point height of microcosmic irregularity. (a) Contour map;
    Effect of scanning speed and laser power on ten-point height of microcosmic irregularity. (a) Contour plot; (b) response surface plot
    Fig. 15. Effect of scanning speed and laser power on ten-point height of microcosmic irregularity. (a) Contour plot; (b) response surface plot
    Laser paint removal sample. (a) SEM morphology of sample surface with residual paint; (b) SEM morphology of complete paint removal surface; (c) three-dimensional morphology
    Fig. 16. Laser paint removal sample. (a) SEM morphology of sample surface with residual paint; (b) SEM morphology of complete paint removal surface; (c) three-dimensional morphology
    Technical parameterNumerical value
    Laser wavelength λ /nm1064
    Maximum laser power Pmax /W20
    Single pulse energy e /mJ<1
    Pulse width τ /ns110-140
    Repetition frequency f /kHz20-80
    Scanning speed v /(mm·s-1<12000
    Focal length /mm160
    Spot diameter /μm20
    Operating voltage /V220
    Minimum line width /mm0.02
    Marking range /(mm×mm)100×100
    Total power /W≤500
    Table 1. Main technical parameters of laser paint removal system
    FactorLevel
    LowMediumHigh
    Laser scanning speed v /(mm·s-1130165200
    Laser power P /W111315
    Laser repetition frequency f /kHz205080
    Table 2. Response surface optimization test input factors and level design
    No.ParameterResult
    v /(mm·s-1P /Wf /kHzE /%D /(μm·pulse-1Rz /μm
    1200115003.3940.16
    220013200.02741.4942.02
    320015500.01711.8740.81
    4200138003.2158.63
    513013200.18542.20120.12
    616513500.0079.8650.33
    716513500.0038.0653.97
    813013800.0124.7152.43
    916513500.0058.4051.15
    1016515800.0155.8445.03
    1116513500.0278.6158.80
    1216515200.16349.98116.73
    1316513500.0429.2459.20
    1416511200.01930.7147.76
    15165118001.0545.03
    16130115003.4762.03
    1713015500.14822.7876.91
    Table 3. Response surface optimization test design matrix and test results
    SourceSum of squaresDegree of freedomMean squareF-valuep-value
    Model0.058990.006530.69<0.0001
    v0.011310.011352.870.0002
    P0.013110.013161.610.0001
    f0.016710.016778.51<0.0001
    vP0.004210.004219.840.0030
    vf0.005310.005324.820.0016
    Pf0.004110.004119.450.0031
    f 20.002410.002411.040.0127
    Residual0.001570.0002
    Lack of fit0.000330.00010.40450.7585
    Pure error0.001140.0003
    Cor total0.060416
    Table 4. Analysis of variance of mathematical model of E
    SourceSum of squaresDegree of freedomMean squareF-valuep-value
    Model3946.159438.46220.23<0.0001
    v21.79121.7910.950.0130
    P336.141336.14168.84<0.0001
    f2796.4812796.481404.63<0.0001
    vP29.37129.3714.750.0064
    Pf52.39152.3926.320.0014
    f 2689.141689.14346.14<0.0001
    Residual13.9471.99
    Lack of fit11.8833.967.730.0386
    Pure error2.0540.5128
    Cor total3960.0916
    Table 5. Analysis of variance of mathematical model of D
    SourceSum of squaresDegree of freedomMean squareF-valuep-value
    Model7987.3161331.2212.220.0004
    v2108.8012108.8019.360.0013
    P892.701892.708.200.0169
    f1968.9111968.9118.080.0017
    vf1777.0011777.0016.320.0024
    Pf1189.2511189.2510.920.0080
    Residual1089.0710108.91
    Lack of fit1019.786169.969.810.0223
    Pure error69.29410.0732
    Cor total9076.3816
    Table 6. Analysis of variance of mathematical model of Rz
    Technical parameterCriteriaWeight
    GoalLower limitUpper limit
    Laser scanning speed v /(mm·s-1In range1302001
    Laser power P /WIn range11151
    Laser repetition frequency f /kHzIn range20801
    Fiber exposure percentage E /%Maximization0.040.151
    Single-pulse paint removal depth D /(μm·pulse-1Maximization30501
    Ten-piont height of microcosmic irregularity Rz /μmIn range45551
    Table 7. Optimization criteria and weight
    No.v /(mm·s-1PPmax /%f /kHzE /%D /(μm·pulse-1Rz /μmDesirability
    1200.0071.83200.06045.3255.000.369
    2199.2771.49200.05945.0754.990.361
    3199.9971.68200.05945.2054.630.360
    4198.3171.04200.05944.7455.000.352
    Table 8. Optimization results
    Yajun Chen, Wenting Lu, Yating Yang. Optimization of Laser Paint Removal Process for Carbon Fiber Composite Substrate Based on Response Surface Analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Lasers, 2023, 50(12): 1202208
    Download Citation