Next Article in Journal
Ultrashort Free-Electron Laser X-ray Pulses
Previous Article in Journal
Estimation of the Performance Improvement of Pre-Amplified PAM4 Systems When Using Multi-Section Semiconductor Optical Amplifiers
Article Menu
Issue 9 (September) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7(9), 913; doi:10.3390/app7090913

Comparison of Laser-Engraved Hole Properties between Cold-Rolled and Laser Additive Manufactured Stainless Steel Sheets

1
Laboratory of Laser Processing, School of Energy Systems, Lappeenranta University of Technology, 53850 Lappeenranta, Finland
2
Machine Technology Center Turku Ltd., 20520 Turku, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 16 August 2017 / Revised: 30 August 2017 / Accepted: 4 September 2017 / Published: 6 September 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue 3D Printing of Metals)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [7258 KB, uploaded 6 September 2017]   |  

Abstract

Laser drilling and laser engraving are common manufacturing processes that are found in many applications. With the continuous progress of additive manufacturing (3D printing), these processes can now be applied to the materials used in 3D printing. However, there is a lack of knowledge about how these new materials behave when processed or machined. In this study, sheets of 316L stainless steel produced by both the traditional cold rolling method and by powder bed fusion (PBF) were laser drilled by a nanosecond pulsed fiber laser. Results were then analyzed to find out whether there are measurable differences in laser processing parts that are produced by either PBF (3D printing) or traditional steel parts. Hole diameters, the widths of burn effects, material removal rates, and hole tapers were measured and compared. Additionally, differences in microstructures of the samples were also analyzed and compared. Results show negligible differences in terms of material processing efficiency. The only significant differences were that the PBF sample had a wider burn effect, and had some defects in the microstructure that were more closely analyzed. The defects were found to be shallow recesses in the material. Some of the defects were deep within the material, at the end and start points of the laser lines, and some were close to the surfaces of the sample. View Full-Text
Keywords: laser processing; laser drilling; laser engraving; additive manufacturing; 3D printing; powder bed fusion; stainless steel laser processing; laser drilling; laser engraving; additive manufacturing; 3D printing; powder bed fusion; stainless steel
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Manninen, M.; Hirvimäki, M.; Matilainen, V.-P.; Salminen, A. Comparison of Laser-Engraved Hole Properties between Cold-Rolled and Laser Additive Manufactured Stainless Steel Sheets. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 913.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Appl. Sci. EISSN 2076-3417 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top