Morphology Prediction of Coaxial Powder Feeding Multichannel Laser Cladding Layer Based on Response Surface

Fig. 4. Cross-sectional morphologies of cladding layers of each sample. (a) Sample 10; (b) sample 20; (c) sample 30; (d) sample 40; (e) sample 50; (f) sample 60; (g) sample 70; (h) sample 80; (i) sample 90

Download full size

Fig. 5. Effect Pareto diagram of average height of cladding layer

Download full size

Fig. 6. Effect Pareto diagram of average substrate melt depth

Download full size

Fig. 7. Three-dimensional response surfaces of average substrate melt depth under different significant interaction terms. (a) Laser power P and distance from cladding head to the substrate L; (b) overlap rate O_r and distance from cladding head to the substrate L; (c) scanning speed S and overlap rate O_r

Download full size

Fig. 8. Effect Pareto diagram of average dilution rate

Download full size

Fig. 9. Three-dimensional response surfaces of average dilution rate under different significant interaction terms. (a) Scanning speed S and overlap rate O_r; (b) distance from cladding head to the substrate L and laser power P; (c) distance from cladding head to the substrate L and scanning speed S

Download full size

Fig. 10. Effect Pareto diagram of average surface height difference

Download full size

Fig. 11. Three-dimensional response surfaces of average surface height difference under different significant interaction terms. (a) Overlap rate O_r and laser power P; (b) distance from cladding head to the substrate L and overlap rate O_r

Download full size

Fig. 12. Cladding layer morphologies after optimization.(a) Surface morphology; (b) cross-sectional morphology

Download full size

Table 1. Chemical composition of 45 steel and 316L stainless steel powder
View table
Table 1. Chemical composition of 45 steel and 316L stainless steel powder
Material Mass fraction /%
C Si Mn S P Cr Ni Mo Cu
45 steel 0.46 0.27 0.65 - - 0.23 0.3 - 0.24
316L powder 0.07 0.90 1.90 0.03 0.035 17.5 12 2.5 -

Table 2. Process parameter values
View table
Table 2. Process parameter values
Variable Notation Value
Laser power $P / k W$ 1.0，1.2，1.4
Scanning speed S / $(m m \cdot s^{- 1})$ 5，7，9
Overlap rate $O_{r} / %$ 10，20，30，40，50
Distance from cladding head to substrate $L / m m$ 1.5，2.0

Table 3. Predicted average height of cladding layers

View table

Table 3. Predicted average height of cladding layers

No.	$P / k W$	S / $(m m \cdot s^{- 1})$	$O_{r} / %$	$L / m m$	$H / m m$	$H^{'} / m m$	$Δ_{1} / %$
Average							10.09
10	1.0	5	10	1.5	0.934	0.845	9.53
20	1.2	5	30	1.5	0.886	0.908	2.49
30	1.4	5	20	2.0	0.795	0.792	0.37
40	1.0	7	10	2.0	0.328	0.418	27.46
50	1.2	7	30	2.0	0.571	0.481	15.82
60	1.4	7	40	1.5	0.679	0.789	16.20
70	1.0	9	40	2.0	0.256	0.250	2.51
80	1.2	9	50	1.5	0.609	0.558	8.39
90	1.4	9	50	2.0	0.463	0.426	8.01

Table 4. Predicted average substrate melt depth

View table

Table 4. Predicted average substrate melt depth

No.	$P / k W$	S / $(m m \cdot s^{- 1})$	$O_{r} / %$	$L / m m$	$D / m m$	$D^{'} / m m$	$Δ_{2} / %$
Average							4.96
10	1.0	5	10	1.5	0.147	0.149	1.02
20	1.2	5	30	1.5	0.327	0.349	6.64
30	1.4	5	20	2.0	0.638	0.593	7.08
40	1.0	7	10	2.0	0.221	0.197	10.97
50	1.2	7	30	2.0	0.393	0.390	0.95
60	1.4	7	40	1.5	0.426	0.409	3.96
70	1.0	9	40	2.0	0.125	0.137	9.71
80	1.2	9	50	1.5	0.229	0.227	1.11
90	1.4	9	50	2.0	0.442	0.429	2.98

Table 5. Predicted average dilution rate

View table

Table 5. Predicted average dilution rate

No.	P /kW	S /（mm⋅s^-1）	O_r /%	L /mm	D_r /%	$D_{r}^{'} / %$	$Δ_{3} / %$
Average							8.83
10	1.0	5	10	1.5	15.5	12.6	18.77
20	1.2	5	30	1.5	28.3	27.6	2.59
30	1.4	5	20	2.0	45.5	44.8	1.46
40	1.0	7	10	2.0	32.2	31.0	3.81
50	1.2	7	30	2.0	40.7	45.2	10.89
60	1.4	7	40	1.5	32.5	34.4	5.87
70	1.0	9	40	2.0	32.6	39.6	21.75
80	1.2	9	50	1.5	28.9	24.9	13.80
90	1.4	9	50	2.0	49.0	49.3	0.55

Table 6. Predicted average surface height difference

View table

Table 6. Predicted average surface height difference

No.	P /kW	S /（mm⋅s^-1）	O_r /%	L /mm	$A_{d} / m m$	$A_{d}^{'} / m m$	$Δ_{4} / %$
Average							8.34
10	1.0	5	10	1.5	0.337	0.322	4.32
20	1.2	5	30	1.5	0.253	0.282	11.58
30	1.4	5	20	2.0	0.286	0.273	4.47
40	1.0	7	10	2.0	0.280	0.290	3.27
50	1.2	7	30	2.0	0.196	0.200	2.40
60	1.4	7	40	1.5	0.239	0.262	9.85
70	1.0	9	40	2.0	0.115	0.137	19.54
80	1.2	9	50	1.5	0.203	0.240	18.03
90	1.4	9	50	2.0	0.153	0.155	1.58

Table 7. Optimization results and validation

View table

Table 7. Optimization results and validation

	No.	P /kW	S /（mm⋅s^-1）	O_r /%	L /mm	H /mm	D /mm	$D_{r} / %$	$A_{d} / m m$
Predict	I	1.1	6	30	1.4	0.796	0.270	23.6	0.272
	Ⅱ	1.2	8	45	1.4	0.661	0.267	24.6	0.261
	Ⅲ	1.3	9	45	1.3	0.706	0.259	23.3	0.266
Experimental	I	1.1	6	30	1.4	0.829	0.246	22.1	0.268
	Ⅱ	1.2	8	45	1.4	0.698	0.424	36.8	0.209
	Ⅲ	1.3	9	45	1.3	0.776	0.318	29.6	0.230

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Wanxu Liang, Yong Yang, Kang Jin, Kang Qi, Li Xiong, Yi Liu, Longjie Dai. Morphology Prediction of Coaxial Powder Feeding Multichannel Laser Cladding Layer Based on Response Surface[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2022, 59(1): 0114012

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites