| Literature DB >> 30424418 |
Erika García-López1, Juansethi R Ibarra-Medina2, Hector R Siller3, Jan A Lammel-Lindemann4, Ciro A Rodriguez5.
Abstract
Magnesium alloys are of increasing interest in the medical industry due to their biodegradability properties and better mechanical properties as compared to biodegradable polymers. Fiber laser cutting of AZ31 magnesium alloy tubes was carried out to study the effect of cutting conditions on wall surface roughness and back-wall dross. During the experiments, an argon gas chamber was adapted in order to avoid material reactivity with oxygen and thus better control the part quality. A surface response methodology was applied to identify the significance of pulse overlapping and pulse energy. Our results indicate minimum values of surface roughness (Ra < 0.7 μm) when the spot overlapping is higher than 50%. A back-wall dross range of 0.24% to 0.94% was established. In addition, a reduction in back-wall dross accumulations was obtained after blowing away the dross particles from inside the tube using an argon gas jet, reaching values of 0.21%. Laser cutting experimental models show a quadratic model for back-wall dross related with the interaction of the pulse energy, and a linear model dependent on pulse overlapping factor for surface roughness.Entities:
Keywords: AZ31; coronary stent; dross; laser cutting; magnesium alloys; surface roughness
Year: 2018 PMID: 30424418 PMCID: PMC6215129 DOI: 10.3390/mi9100485
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 2.891
Review for fiber laser cutting of AZ31 magnesium alloy.
| Ref. | Test Alloy, | Process Parameters | Response | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | AZ31 Mg, Tube | Laser mode | Pulsed-QCW | Surface quality |
| Laser power (W) | 50 | |||
| Pulse frequency, | 20–80 | |||
| Pulse width, | 0.0001 | |||
| Gas type & pressure (bar) | O2, Ar (6.9) | |||
| Cut speed, | 120 | |||
| [ | AZ31 Mg, Sheet (1000 μm) | Laser mode | CW | Dross height |
| Laser power (W) | 2000 | |||
| Gas type & pressure (bar) | Ar (3–6) | |||
| Cut speed, | 10,000–30,000 | |||
| [ | AZ31 Mg, Sheet (1000–3000 μm) | Laser mode | CW | Striation inclination |
| Laser power (W) | 2000 | |||
| Gas type & pressure (bar) | Ar (3–6) | |||
| Cut speed, | 2000–30,000 | |||
| [ | AZ31 Mg, Tube | Laser mode | Pulsed-QCW |
|
| Laser power (W) | 4.5–7.5 | |||
| Pulse frequency, | 25 | |||
| Pulse width, | 0.0001 | |||
| Gas type & pressure (bar) | O2, Ar (6.9) | |||
| Cut speed, | 120 | |||
| [ | AZ31 Mg, Sheet (400 μm) | Laser mode | CW | |
| Laser power (W) | 150 | |||
| Gas type & pressure (bar) | N2 (6) | |||
| Cut speed, | 1200 | |||
| [ | AZ31 Mg, Tube | Laser mode | Pulsed | n/a |
| Laser power (W) | 7.5 | |||
| Pulse frequency, | 25 | |||
| Pulse width, | 0.0001 | |||
| Gas type & pressure (bar) | Ar (6.9) | |||
| Cut speed, | 120 | |||
| [ | AZ31 Mg, Tube | Laser mode | Pulsed | |
| Laser power (W) | 5 | |||
| Pulse frequency, | 200 | |||
| Pulse width, | 800 | |||
| Gas type & pressure (bar) | Ar (6) | |||
| Cut speed, | 300 | |||
| [ | AZ31 Mg, Sheet (250 µm) | Laser mode | Pulsed | Dross |
| Laser power (W) | 6 | |||
| Pulse frequency, | 300 | |||
| Pulse width, | 1 | |||
| Cut speed, | 15–315 | |||
| [ | MgCa Sheet (700 µm) | Laser mode | Pulsed | Kerf width |
| Laser power (W) | 300–1500 | |||
| Pulse frequency, | 1000 | |||
| Pulse width, | 0.1–0.5 | |||
| Gas type & pressure (bar) | Ar (8.2) | |||
| Cut speed, | 100–1000 | |||
* Dimensions are given in outside diameter (OD) and thickness (t) for tube wall or for sheet.
Microstructure and chemical composition of magnesium miniature tubes.
| Tube A ( | Tube B ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| %Al | 2.819 | %Al | 2.608 |
| %Zn | 1.082 | %Zn | 1.023 |
| %Si | 0.052 | %Si | 0.036 |
| %Ca | 0.035 | %Ca | 0.039 |
| %Cu | 0.034 | %Cu | 0.0017 |
| %Mn | 0.016 | %Mn | 0.016 |
| %Fe | 0.012 | %Fe | 0.014 |
| %Mg | 95.80 | %Mg | 95.90 |
Laser unit specifications IPG YLR-150/1500-QCW-AC.
| Characteristic | Conditions | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Operation mode | Continuous wave (CW) | - |
| Operation sub-mode | Modulated/rectangular waveform | - |
| Fiber core diameter | 50 | μm |
| Wavelength (λ) | 1070 | nm |
| Maximum peak power (CW with modulation) | 250 | W |
| Minimum pulse width (CW with modulation) | 0.01 | ms |
| Beam parameter product | 1 | mm × mrad |
| M2 | 2.82 | - |
| Nozzle diameter | 0.50 | mm |
Figure 1Experimental setup.
Figure 2Experimental conditions under study: (a) Ar assistive atmosphere; (b) Ar assistive atmosphere and blowing through the tube.
Figure 3Schematic representation of pulse overlapping factor.
Process parameters for experimentation without gas blowing through the tube.
| Tube | Process Parameter | Level Code | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1.414 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 1.414 | ||
| Tube A ( | Pulse Overlap, | 19.65 | 30.00 | 55.00 | 80.00 | 90.36 |
| Pulse energy, | 26.97 | 28.00 | 30.50 | 33.00 | 34.04 | |
| Tube B ( | Pulse Overlap, | 7.99 | 20.00 | 49.00 | 78.00 | 90.01 |
| Pulse energy, | 26.97 | 28.00 | 30.50 | 33.00 | 34.04 | |
Process parameters for experimentation with gas blowing through the tube.
| Tube | Pulse Overlapping, | Pulse Energy, |
|---|---|---|
| Tube A ( | 90.36 | 30.5 |
| Tube B ( | 78.0 | 33.0 |
Figure 4Quality-related response variables of interest.
Applied process parameters on a laser cutting machine without gas blowing through the tube.
| Tube | Parameter | Level Code | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1.414 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 1.414 | ||
| Tube A ( | Pulse frequency, | 1000 | 1000 | 1100 | 1200 | 1200 |
| Cutting speed, | 1000 | 875 | 625 | 300 | 150 | |
| Pulse Overlapping, | 19.87 | 30.00 | 54.47 | 80.00 | 90.00 | |
| Peak power, | 150 | 150 | 160 | 170 | 170 | |
| Pulse width, | 0.180 | 0.187 | 0.190 | 0.194 | 0.200 | |
| Pulse energy, | 27.00 | 28.05 | 30.40 | 32.98 | 34.00 | |
| Tube B ( | Pulse frequency, | 600 | 600 | 700 | 800 | 800 |
| Cutting speed, | 690 | 600 | 450 | 220 | 100 | |
| Pulse Overlapping, | 7.85 | 20.00 | 48.49 | 78.00 | 90.00 | |
| Peak power, | 150 | 150 | 160 | 170 | 170 | |
| Pulse width, | 0.180 | 0.187 | 0.190 | 0.194 | 0.200 | |
| Pulse energy, | 27.00 | 28.05 | 30.40 | 32.98 | 34.00 | |
Results with average R and back-wall dross without gas blowing through the tube.
| Trial | Tube | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tube A ( | Tube B ( | |||||||
| 1 | 30.00 | 28.00 | 1.12 | 0.81 | 20.00 | 28.00 | 1.24 | 0.67 |
| 2 | 80.00 | 28.00 | 0.71 | 0.52 | 78.00 | 28.00 | 0.66 | 0.72 |
| 3 | 30.00 | 33.00 | 1.05 | 0.61 | 20.00 | 33.00 | 1.15 | 0.78 |
| 4 | 80.00 | 33.00 | 0.73 | 0.10 | 78.00 | 33.00 | 0.68 | 0.28 |
| 5 | 55.00 | 30.50 | 1.00 | 0.37 | 49.00 | 30.50 | 1.00 | 0.57 |
| 6 | 55.00 | 30.50 | 1.05 | 0.19 | 49.00 | 30.50 | 1.05 | 0.41 |
| 7 | 55.00 | 30.50 | 1.02 | 0.24 | 49.00 | 30.50 | 0.89 | 0.57 |
| 8 | 19.64 | 30.50 | 1.26 | 0.54 | 7.99 | 30.50 | 1.33 | 0.94 |
| 9 | 90.36 | 30.50 | 0.71 | 0.31 | 90.01 | 30.50 | 0.71 | 0.36 |
| 10 | 55.00 | 26.96 | 1.17 | 0.74 | 49.00 | 26.96 | 0.93 | 0.51 |
| 11 | 55.00 | 34.04 | 0.96 | 0.58 | 49.00 | 34.04 | 0.99 | 0.46 |
| 12 | 55.00 | 30.50 | 0.99 | 0.31 | 49.00 | 30.50 | 1.03 | 0.35 |
| 13 | 55.00 | 30.50 | 1.08 | 0.24 | 49.00 | 30.50 | 1.06 | 0.28 |
| 14 | 55.00 | 30.50 | 0.96 | 0.33 | 49.00 | 30.50 | 0.98 | 0.27 |
Figure 5Illustration of variability in the process: (a) surface roughness and (b) back-wall dross (Tube A OD = 3.0 mm & t = 0.22 mm).
Figure 6Results for Tube A (3 mm outside diameter and 0.22 mm wall thickness): (a) average surface roughness response; (b) back-wall dross response.
Figure 7Results for Tube B (1.8 mm outside diameter and 0.16 mm thickness): (a) average surface roughness response; (b) back-wall dross response.
ANOVA results for surface response methodology without gas blowing through the tube.
| Tube | Tube A ( | Tube B ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response |
|
|
|
| |||||
| R2 | 90.7 | 88.7 | 95.1 | 87.1 | |||||
| Source | DF | SS | P | SS | P | SS | P | SS | P |
| Blocks | 1 | 0.01 | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.56 | 0.01 | 0.16 | 0.05 | 0.07 |
| Regression | 5 | 0.31 |
| 0.52 |
| 0.47 |
| 0.44 |
|
| Linear | 2 | 0.30 |
| 0.24 |
| 0.46 |
| 0.22 |
|
|
| 1 | 0.28 |
| 0.16 |
| 0.46 |
| 0.20 |
|
|
| 1 | 0.01 | 0.13 | 0.09 |
| 0.00 | 0.97 | 0.02 | 0.20 |
| Quadratic | 2 | 0.02 | 0.25 | 0.27 |
| 0.01 | 0.34 | 0.14 |
|
| 1 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.84 | 0.12 |
| |
| 1 | 0.00 | 0.80 | 0.25 |
| 0.01 | 0.15 | 0.02 | 0.23 | |
| Interaction | 1 | 0.00 | 0.54 | 0.01 | 0.30 | 0.00 | 0.38 | 0.07 |
|
| 1 | 0.00 | 0.54 | 0.01 | 0.30 | 0.00 | 0.38 | 0.07 |
| |
| Res. error | 7 | 0.03 | - | 0.07 | - | 0.02 | - | 0.07 | - |
| Lack of fit | 3 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.18 | 0.01 | 0.62 | 0.05 | 0.15 |
| Pure error | 4 | 0.01 | - | 0.02 | - | 0.02 | - | 0.02 | - |
| Total | 13 | 0.36 | - | 0.59 | - | 0.51 | - | 0.56 | - |
Figure 8Selected process conditions and corresponding surface roughness and back-wall dross—experimentation without gas blowing through the tube.
Figure 9Comparison of treatment: without (a,c) and with (b,d) gas blowing through the tube. (e) Back-wall dross response under the condition of blowing gas inside the tube.