Deutsch
日本語
русский 
عربي 
Italiano
Español
Português
한국어
Français
Türkçe
Việt Nam1.macro cleaning situation comparison
The results of the preferred parameters for pulse flushing cleaning the coating layer of the aluminum alloy surface are shown in Figure a, and the preferred parameters for continuous light cleaning the coating layer of the aluminum alloy surface is shown in Figure b. After the use of pulsed light cleaning, the surface of the sample is completely removed, the sample surface presents a metallic white, and almost no damage to the sample substrate. After the use of continuous light cleaning, the paint layer on the surface of the sample is completely removed, but the sample surface appears gray black, and the substrate of the sample also appears micro-melting phenomenon. Therefore, the use of continuous light compared with pulsed light is more likely to cause damage to the substrate.
The results of the preferred parameters of pulse scouring for cleaning the surface paint layer of carbon steel are shown in Figure c, and the preferred parameters of continuous light cleaning the surface paint layer of carbon steel is shown in Figure d. After using pulsed light cleaning, the paint layer of the sample surface is completely removed, the surface of the sample is gray and black, and the damage to the sample substrate is small. After continuous light cleaning, the paint layer on the surface of the sample is completely removed, but the surface of the sample shows a deep black, which can be intuitively seen that the surface of the sample has a large remelting phenomenon. Therefore, the use of continuous light compared with pulsed light is more likely to cause damage to the substrate.
2.Comparison of microscopic morphology of microscope
From Figure E, it can be seen that the paint on the surface of the sample has been completely removed after the use of pulse polishing to clean the surface of the aluminum alloy, and the surface damage of the sample is small and no laser lines. The use of continuous light cleaning of the sample table, as shown in Figure F, the paint is also completely removed, but the surface of the sample appears more serious remelting phenomenon, and laser lines appear.
From Figure G, it can be seen that the paint on the surface of the sample has been completely removed after the use of pulse polishing to clean the surface of the carbon steel, and the surface damage of the sample is small and the surface is relatively flat after cleaning. The use of continuous light cleaning sample surface as shown in Figure H paint is also completely removed, but the sample surface appears more serious remelting phenomenon, and the sample surface uneven.
3.Material surface roughness comparison
The following figure shows the surface roughness after laser paint removal. It can be seen from the figure that after laser cleaning the aluminum alloy surface paint layer, the pulse light has little damage to the surface of the sample, so the surface roughness of the cleaned sample is close to the original material. After continuous light cleaning, the damage to the surface of the sample is large, so the surface roughness of the cleaned sample is 1.5 times of the roughness of the original material and 1.7 times of the surface roughness of the pulsed light cleaning.
After laser cleaning the surface coating of carbon steel, the surface damage of the sample is small, so the surface roughness of the cleaned sample is close to the original material or even lower than the original material. After continuous light cleaning, the damage to the surface of the sample is large, so the surface roughness of the cleaned sample is 1.5 times of the roughness of the original material and 1.7 times of the surface roughness of the pulsed light cleaning.
4.Comparison of cleaning efficiency
In the paint removal of aluminum alloy surface, the paint removal efficiency of pulsed light is much higher than that of continuous light, which is 7.7 times higher than that of continuous light. The cleaning efficiency of pulse light is 2.77 m2 / h and that of continuous light is 0.36 m2 / h.
In the paint removal of carbon steel surface, the paint removal efficiency of pulsed light is also higher than that of continuous light, which is 3.5 times higher than that of continuous light. The cleaning efficiency of pulse light is 1.06 m2 / h, while the cleaning efficiency of continuous light is 0.3 m2 / h.
Conclusion
The experiment shows that both CW laser and pulsed laser can remove the paint on the surface of the material and achieve the effect of cleaning.
Under the same power condition, the cleaning efficiency of pulsed laser is much higher than that of continuous laser. At the same time, pulsed laser can better control the heat input and prevent the substrate temperature from being too high or micro-melting.
CW lasers have an advantage in price, and can make up the gap in efficiency with pulsed lasers by using high-power lasers, but the heat input of high-power CW light is greater, and the damage to the substrate will also increase. Therefore, there are fundamental differences between the two in the application scenario.
High precision, the need to strictly control the substrate temperature, requiring substrate lossless application scenarios, such as molds, you should choose a pulsed laser. For some large steel structures, pipelines, etc., due to large volume and fast heat dissipation, the substrate damage requirements are not high, you can choose continuous laser.
