Chinese Journal of Lasers, Volume. 47, Issue 11, 1102006(2020)
Local Shielding Gas Model for Laser Cladding of Titanium Alloy in Open Environment
Figures & Tables(16)
Table 1. Numerical simulation parameters and results
View tableTable 1. Numerical simulation parameters and results
No. Shielding gas flow rate Q /(L·min-1) Half effective protection length Leh /mm 1 18 5.70189775 2 21 7.76506575 3 24 10.03191600 4 27 12.06128200 5 30 13.52078375 6 33.5 14.26290000 7 37 16.22803775 8 40.5 16.86484750 9 44 18.30119650 10 47 19.27831025 11 50 20.21293800
Table 2. Significance analysis of fitting equation
View tableTable 2. Significance analysis of fitting equation
Item Degree freedom Sum of squares Mean square F-value P-value Model 3 22.10548 75.03516 940.14394 1.7562×10-9 Error 7 0.55869 0.07981 Total 10 225.66471 R2=0.99752 Adjusted R2= 0.99646
Table 3. Chemical composition of Ti-6Al-4V alloy substrate and powders
View tableTable 3. Chemical composition of Ti-6Al-4V alloy substrate and powders
Material Mass fraction /% Al V Fe C O N H Ti Substrate 6.2 4.3 0.19 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.002 Bal. Powder 6.36 4.06 0.05 0.01 0.0785 0.0028 0.0012 Bal.
Table 4. Impact factors level codes
View tableTable 4. Impact factors level codes
Level Factor Plaser /W v /(mm·s-1) f /mm vp /(r·min-1) Q /(L·min-1) -1 850 4 -4 0.7 14 0 1050 6 -3 1 22 1 1250 8 -2 1.3 30
Table 5. BBD response surface experimental parameters and results
View tableTable 5. BBD response surface experimental parameters and results
No. Plaser /W v /(mm·s-1) f /mm vp /(r·min-1) Q /(L·min-1) Lhtr /mm 1 1050 4 -4 1 22 14.70684039 2 1250 6 -3 1.3 22 12.18566775 3 1050 8 -3 1 30 9.87459283 4 1050 8 -3 1.3 22 10.71498371 5 1250 4 -3 1 22 14.49674267 6 1050 4 -2 1 22 12.60586319 7 1050 6 -3 1 22 11.97557003 8 1050 6 -3 1 22 12.60586319 9 1050 6 -3 1 22 12.39576547 10 1050 8 -4 1 22 13.02605863 11 1050 8 -3 1 14 12.81596091 12 1050 6 -3 1 22 13.02605863 13 1050 6 -4 1 30 10.92508143 14 1050 6 -3 0.7 14 10.92508143 15 850 6 -4 1 22 13.23615635 16 850 6 -3 1 30 10.92508143 17 1050 6 -3 1 22 13.23615635 18 1050 6 -4 0.7 22 10.29478827 19 1250 6 -3 0.7 22 11.97557003 20 1050 4 -3 1.3 22 14.51250000 21 850 6 -2 1 22 10.71498371 22 1050 6 -2 0.7 22 10.92508143 23 1250 6 -3 1 30 15.75732899 24 1050 6 -2 1 14 14.28664495 25 1050 6 -4 1.3 22 11.97557003 26 1250 8 -3 1 22 12.39576547 27 1050 6 -3 1.3 14 12.18566775 28 1050 6 -2 1 30 10.92508143 29 1050 6 -3 1.3 30 11.76547231 30 1250 6 -3 1 14 14.07654723 31 1050 4 -3 0.7 22 11.13517915 32 1050 4 -3 1 14 13.65635179 33 850 6 -3 1 14 12.39576547 34 1050 6 -2 1.3 22 11.76547231 35 1050 6 -3 1 22 11.55537459 36 1050 4 -3 1 30 13.65635179 37 850 8 -3 1 22 9.87459283 38 850 6 -3 1.3 22 10.29478827 39 1050 6 -4 1 14 13.65635179 40 1050 8 -2 1 22 10.50488599 41 1250 6 -4 1 22 14.07654723 42 1250 6 -2 1 22 12.81596091 43 850 4 -3 1 22 13.02605863 44 1050 6 -3 0.7 30 11.76547231 45 850 6 -3 0.7 22 9.24429967 46 1050 8 -3 0.7 22 10.08469055
Table 6. Significance analysis of response value model coefficients and lack of fit
View tableTable 6. Significance analysis of response value model coefficients and lack of fit
Source P-value Lack of fit P-value Result Linear <0.0001 0.0973 Suggested 2FI 0.7805 0.0755 Quadratic 0.0063 0.1711 Suggested Cubic 0.1148 0.3324 Aliased
Table 7. Anova of quadratic regression model for the length of high temperature area behind the spot center
View tableTable 7. Anova of quadratic regression model for the length of high temperature area behind the spot center
Source Sum of squares Degree of freedom Mean square F value P-value>F Remark Model 78.39 9 8.71 13.46 <0.0001 Significant Plaser 20.40 1 20.40 31.53 <0.0001 v 21.40 1 21.40 33.07 <0.0001 f 3.38 1 3.38 5.22 0.0283 vp 5.12 1 5.12 7.91 0.0079 Q 4.41 1 4.41 6.82 0.0131 PlaserQ 2.48 1 2.48 3.84 0.0579 vvp 1.89 1 1.89 2.92 0.0964 vQ 2.16 1 2.16 3.34 0.0758 17.14 1 17.14 26.48 <0.0001 Residual 23.30 36 0.65 Lack of fit 21.29 31 0.69 1.72 0.2870 Not significant Pure error 2.00 5 0.40 Cor total 101.68 45 R2=0.7709 Adjusted R2=0.7136 Predicted R2=0.6002 Adeq Precisior=14.030
Table 8. Process parameters and results of confirmation tests
View tableTable 8. Process parameters and results of confirmation tests
No. Plaser /W v /mm f /mm vp / (r·min-1) Qmin / (L·min-1) Qadj / (L·min-1) Lhtr,P/ mm Lhtr,R / mm Leh /mm Error /% 1 1250 4 -4 1 43.7185 44 18.130683 16.774875 18.18445061 7.48 2 1250 4 -3 1.3 41.1392 42 17.392502 16.289065 17.55358786 6.34 3 1200 4 -3 1.1 39.0482 40 16.721693 15.520317 16.92699800 7.18 4 1250 5 -4 1 37.1176 38 16.068610 15.318750 16.28811566 4.67 5 1250 5 -3 1.3 34.0445 35 15.000184 15.016408 15.27050700 0.11 6 1150 4 -4 0.8 32.1179 33 14.247715 14.062500 14.52841994 1.30 7 1100 5 -2 1.1 29.9140 30 13.241898 12.206250 13.27835400 7.82 8 1250 7 -2 1.2 27.8075 28 12.232164 11.953130 12.32952862 2.28 9 1000 7 -3 1 25.9477 26 11.235384 10.430865 11.26901851 7.16 10 900 7 -2 1.2 23.8533 24 9.963765 9.609375 10.08025829 3.56 11 850 8 -2 1.3 21.7335 22 8.492914 8.637500 8.74668258 1.70
Tools
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Gong Yanqi, Fu Geyan, Shi Tuo, Li Gang, Zhang Jinchao, Yu Siqi. Local Shielding Gas Model for Laser Cladding of Titanium Alloy in Open Environment[J]. Chinese Journal of Lasers, 2020, 47(11): 1102006
Paper Information
Category: laser manufacturing
Received: Feb. 24, 2020
Accepted: --
Published Online: Nov. 9, 2020
The Author Email: Fu Geyan (fugeyan@suda.edu.cn)
© Copyright 2018-2021 | Chinese Laser Press.
All Rights Reserved 沪ICP备15018463号-20