journal article·2020-02-01Open access

Laser polishing of tool steel using a continuous-wave laser assisted by a steady magnetic field

Haibing Xiao, Yongquan Zhou, Mingjun Liu, Xiaomei Xu

AIP Advances· Volume 10· Issue 2

Abstract

Continuous-wave (CW) lasers are widely used in laser polishing, but with CW laser polishing, it is difficult to reduce the surface roughness to 0.2 µm from an original value exceeding 1.0 µm. The aim of this study is to develop an innovative method of laser polishing assisted by a steady magnetic field to overcome that bottleneck and produce smoother surfaces. Two experiments confirm the hypothesis that the molten pool overflows during melting peaks to flow into valleys in CW laser polishing, resulting in secondary roughness that causes the aforementioned quality bottleneck. To either reduce or eliminate this secondary roughness, a steady magnetic field is used during CW laser polishing to suppress the overflow of the molten pool. A three-dimensional surface profiler, a scanning electron microscope, and a nanometer indentation tester are used to characterize and analyze the microstructure and properties of the materials. The experimental results show that the Lorentz force due to the steady magnetic field plays an important suppression role in reducing the secondary roughness.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Advanced Surface Polishing Techniques · Laser Material Processing Techniques · Surface Roughness and Optical Measurements

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Intelligent Manufacturing and Equipment School, Shenzhen Institute of Information Technology , Shenzhen 518172, Guangdong, China

Funding

Shenzhen Science and Technology Plan · Scientific Research Project of General Universities in Guangdong Province

References (26)

Show source-provided references
1. JOM · 2019 · 71 · 91210.1007/s11837-018-3216-2 ↗
2. Coatings · 2019 · 9 · 32410.3390/coatings9050324 ↗
3. Phys. Procedia · 2013 · 41 · 34610.1016/j.phpro.2013.03.087 ↗
4. Appl. Surf. Sci. · 2017 · 405 · 2910.1016/j.apsusc.2017.01.211 ↗
5. CIRP Ann. · 2014 · 63 · 23710.1016/j.cirp.2014.03.055 ↗
6. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. · 2010 · 50 · 11510.1016/j.ijmachtools.2009.09.003 ↗
7. J. Mater. Process. Technol. · 2012 · 212 · 130510.1016/j.jmatprotec.2012.01.007 ↗
8. J. Manuf. Process. · 2012 · 14 · 42510.1016/j.jmapro.2012.09.004 ↗
9. Procedia Manuf. · 2017 · 10 · 72010.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.029 ↗
10. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. · 2016 · 85 · 236710.1007/s00170-015-7992-3 ↗
11. Phys. Procedia · 2013 · 41 · 36210.1016/j.phpro.2013.03.089 ↗
12. Opt. Lasers Eng. · 2012 · 50 · 130610.1016/j.optlaseng.2012.02.016 ↗
13. J. Laser Appl. · 2017 · 29 · 01170110.2351/1.4966923 ↗
14. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. · 2014 · 73 · 3510.1007/s00170-014-5761-3 ↗
15. Phys. Procedia · 2016 · 83 · 36210.1016/j.phpro.2016.08.038 ↗
16. Opt. Laser Technol. · 2018 · 104 · 14810.1016/j.optlastec.2018.02.020 ↗
17. J. Mater. Process. Technol. · 2018 · 260 · 9710.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.05.009 ↗
18. Opt. Lasers Eng. · 2017 · 91 · 19610.1016/j.optlaseng.2016.12.001 ↗
19. J. Manuf. Process. · 2019 · 41 · 11110.1016/j.jmapro.2019.03.033 ↗
20. Appl. Surf. Sci. · 2015 · 351 · 79410.1016/j.apsusc.2015.05.179 ↗
21. 2003 · 451
22. Proc. SPIE · 2012 · 8243 · 82430W10.1117/12.906001 ↗
23. Poprawe · 2011 · 19610.1007/978-3-642-01237-2 ↗
24. Procedia CIRP · 2018 · 71 · 15010.1016/j.procir.2018.05.005 ↗
25. J. Mater. Process. Technol. · 2016 · 229 · 2210.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.09.009 ↗
26. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. · 2017 · 92 · 167710.1007/s00170-017-0268-3 ↗