Fig. 1. Laser welding test platform

Fig. 2. Schematic diagrams of scanning trajectories.(a) “—” shaped; (b) “O” shaped; (c) “8” shaped; (d) “∞” shaped

Fig. 3. Weld morphology of specimens in penetrated states with different scanning trajectories. (a) Top side and (b) back side of “—” shaped; (c) top side and (d) back side of “O” shaped; (e) top side and (f) back side of “8” shaped; (g) top side and (h) back side of “∞” shaped

Fig. 4. Weld morphology of specimens in the unpenetrated states under different scanning trajectories. (a) “—” shaped; (b) “O” shaped; (c) “8” shaped; (d) “∞” shaped

Fig. 5. Weld cross-sections of specimens in penetrated and unpenetrated states under different scanning trajectories. (a) “—” shaped, (b) “O” shaped, (c) “8” shaped, (d) “∞” shaped in penetrated state; (e) “—” shaped, (f) “O” shaped, (g) “8” shaped, (h) “∞” shaped in unpenetrated state

Fig. 6. Tensile strength of joints in penetrated and unpenetrated states under different scanning trajectories of specimens

Fig. 7. Four probe method measurement diagram field intensity

Fig. 8. Conductivity of specimens in penetrated and unpenetrated states under different scanning trajectories

Fig. 9. Dynamic behavior of molten pool in penetrated states of specimen during an “O” shaped scanning trajectory

Fig. 10. Dynamic behavior of molten pool in unpenetrated states of specimen during an “O” shaped scanning trajectory