4.6 Article

An investigation on the hole quality during picosecond laser helical drilling of stainless steel 304

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00339-015-9023-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2011CB013004]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51375008, 51005130]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Precision drilling with ultra-short pulse lasers (e.g., picosecond and femtosecond) has been advocated to significantly improve the quality of the micro-holes with reduced recast layer thickness and no heat-affected zone. However, a combination of high-power picosecond laser with helical drilling strategy in laser drilling has rarely been reported in previous studies. In the present study, a series of micro-holes with circular, triangular, rectangular, and rhombic shapes (diameter 0.6 mm) were manufactured on stainless steel 304 using a newly developed laser drilling system which incorporated a picosecond laser and a high-speed laser beam rotation apparatus into a five-axis positioning platform. The quality of the helical drilled holes, e.g., recast layer, micro-crack, circularity, and conicity, were evaluated using an optical microscope, an optical interferometer, and a scanning electron microscope. In addition, the microstructure of the samples was investigated following etching treatment. It was demonstrated that the entrance ends, the exit ends, and the side walls of the micro-holes were quite smooth without accumulation of spattering material and formation of recast layer and micro-crack. No tapering phenomenon was observed, and the circularity of the holes was fairly good. There was no distinctive difference with regard to the microstructure between the edges of the holes and the bulk material. Picosecond laser helical drilling can be an effective technique for manufacturing of micro-holes with very high quality. The development of high-power picosecond laser would promote picosecond laser drilling to be more industrial relevance in the future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据