Comparative Numerical Analysis of Keyhole Shape and Penetration Depth in Laser Spot Welding of Aluminum with Power Wave Modulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keyhole mode laser welding is a valuable technique for welding thick materials in industrial applications. However, its susceptibility to fluctuations and instabilities poses challenges, leading to defects that compromise weld quality. Observing the keyhole during laser welding is challenging due to bright process radiation, and existing observation methods are complex and expensive. This paper alternatively presents a novel numerical modeling approach for laser spot welding of aluminum through a modified mixture theory, a modified level-set (LS) method, and a thermal enthalpy porosity technique. The effects of laser parameters on keyhole penetration depth are investigated, with a focus on laser power, spot radius, frequency, and pulse wave modulation in pulsed wave (PW) versus continuous wave (CW) laser welding. PW laser welding involves the careful modulation of power waves, specifically adjusting the pulse width, pulse number, and pulse shapes. Results indicate a greater than 80 percent increase in the keyhole penetration depth with higher laser power, pulse width, and pulse number, as well as decreased spot radius. Keyhole instabilities are also more pronounced with higher pulse width/numbers and frequencies. Notably, the rectangular pulse shape demonstrates substantially deeper penetration compared to CW welding and other pulse shapes. This study enhances understanding of weld pool dynamics and provides insights into optimizing laser welding parameters to mitigate defects and improve weld quality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".