Assessment and Optimization of CO2 Laser Cutting Process of PMMA

H. A. Eltawahni, A. G. Olabi and K. Y. Benyounis

Material Processing Research Centre, School of Mech. & Manu. Eng., Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland, hayat.eltawahni2@mail.dcu.ie, Abdul.olabi@dcu.ie and Khaled.benyounis2@mail.dcu.ie Abstract. The width of kerfs and quality of the cut edges, are affected by laser process parameters. In addition to the work-piece material thickness, laser power, cutting speed, compressed air pressure, and focal point position are the main factors affecting the process output. In this paper CO2 laser cutting of four thicknesses of Polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) were investigated by implementing Box-Behnken design to develop the experiment. The aim of this work is to relate the cutting edge quality parameters namely: upper kerf (UK), lower kerf (LK) and the ratio between upper to lower kerfs to the process parameters mentioned above. Then, an optimization routine was applied in line to define the optimal cutting conditions. Mathematical models were developed to determine the relationship between the process parameters and the process output. The optimal laser cutting conditions were found. Keywords: CO2 laser cutting, PMMA, kerf width, optimization. PACS: 07.05.Fb, 02.6.Pn, 81

INTRODUCTION
Recently, plastic materials are replacing other materials in many applications in different industries. This is due to the improvements achieved in their properties and from cost point of view as there are relatively cheaper. One of these plastic materials is a clear thermoplastic called PMMA, which is widely used in different engineering application. Laser processing of this plastic material is very successful and the edge quality is superior as compared to mechanical cutting process [2]. The laser processing parameters have major consequence on the quality of the cut edge of the PMMA as addressed by many authors [3-7]. Choudhury and Shirley [3] have studied CO2 laser cutting of three polymeric materials PP, PC and PMMA. They found that the quality of the cut in case of PMMA is much better than those of PP and PC. It was found that the roughness is inversely proportions to laser power, cutting speed and compressed air pressure. However, they mentioned that cutting speed and compressed air pressure have more significant effect on the roughness than the effect of laser power. A preliminary study has been presented by Davim et al [4] to evaluate the effect of the processing parameters on the quality of the cut for several polymeric materials. It was evident that the Heat-affected zone (HAZ) increases with the increase in laser power but it decreases with increase in the cutting speed. Also, they found that the CREDIT the (BELOW) TO materials is ON THE FIRST PAGE very high, PC workability of LINEinvestigated BE INSERTED as follow: PMMA OF EACH PAPER high PP
CP1315, International Conference on Advances in Materials and Processing Technologies (AMPT2010) Edited by F. Chinesta, Y. Chastel, and M. El Mansori 2010 American Institute of Physics 978-0-7354-0871-5/10/$30.00

1553

high/medium thermosets platics reinforced lower. Davim et al. [5] have evaluated the cutting quality of PMMA using CO2. They reported that HAZ increases with the laser power and decreases with the cutting speed. Also, they found that the surface roughness increases with a decrease in laser power and an increase in cutting speed. Kurt Et al. [6] have concluded that the cutting speed and laser power must be regulated and optimized in order to obtain the desired dimensions and also, to enhance the surface quality and roughness values. Eltawahni et al. [7] have investigated the effect of CO2 laser cutting of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene. They reported that the focal point position has the key role on the kerf size and on the ratio between the upper kerf to the lower kerf. They listed the optimum sets of cutting conditions, which would lead to best quality and another list for minimum cost. The aim of this work is to investigate the effect of CO2 laser cutting process parameters on the edge quality of PMMA. Response surface methodology (RSM) will be used as a statistical tool to determine the relationship between the input parameters and the cut edge quality features considered in this study. Also, to find out the optimal sets of process parameters that would give the desirable cut.

EXPERIMENTAL WORK Design of Experiment

Previously, the experiments used to be carried out by changing one-factor-at-atime, this type of experimental approach required enormous number of runs to find out the effect of one factor, which is no longer followed as it is expensive and takes longer time. Another disadvantage is that the factors interaction can not be detected when using this approach. Therefore, other techniques, which overcome these obstacles, have to replace it, such as DOE, ANN etc [8, 9]. A good literature review on the techniques used in optimizing certain manufacturing process and the selection of the appropriate technique has been outlined by Benyounis and Olabi [10]. For these reasons, a DOE approach has been selected to be implemented herein. In fact, there are many designs among DOE as mentioned in [10]. Two level factorial design and Taguchi method are the common designs, which have the less number of runs to study a process with multifactor and multi-responses such as laser cutting. However, the quadratic effect of each factor can not be determined using 2-level FD due to the limitation of this design as a screen design and some of the interactions between the factors affecting the process can not be determined using Taguchi method due to the aliased structures, which means not all the interaction effects can be estimated [11]. On the other hand, RSM is able to find out all the factors effects and their interactions. Eq.1 below consists of three capital-sigma notations. The first summation term is representing the main factor effects, the second term is standing for the quadratic effects and the third term is representing the two factor interaction effects. Therefore, RSM was chosen by implementing Box-Behnken design, which is a three level design and it is able to investigate the process with a relatively small number of runs as compared with the central composite design [11, 12]. This design characterizes with its operative region and study region are the same, which would lead to
1554

investigate each factor over its whole range. In fact, this is a competitive advantage for this design over the central composite design [13]. In this study four process parameters are considered namely: laser power (A), cutting speed (B), air pressure (C) and focal point position (D), Table 1 shows process input parameters and experimental design levels used for the four thicknesses (2, 4, 6 and 8 mm). The experimental data was analyzed by statistical software, Design-Expert V7. Second order polynomials were fitted to the experimental data to obtain the regression equations. The sequential F-test, lack-of-fit test and other adequacy measures were carried out to select the best fit. A step-wise regression method was used to fit the second order polynomial Eq. 1 to the experimental data and to find the significant model terms [12, 13]. The same statistical software was used to generate the statistical and response plots as well as the optimization.
2 y = bo + bi i + bii ii + bij i j +

(1)

TABLE 1. Process variables and experimental design levels.

-1 Thickness, mm 4 6 200 350 1200 1000 0.5 0.5 -4 -5 Levels 0 Thickness, mm 4 6 350 525 3100 2300 1.25 1.75 -3 -3.5 +1 Thickness, mm 2 4 6 350 500 700 5000 5000 3600 1.5 2 3 -1 -2 -2

Parameter A, kW B, mm/min C, bar D, mm 2 100 1500 0.5 -3

8 450 800 0.5 -6

2 225 3250 1 -2

8 625 2000 1.75 -4.5

8 800 3200 3 -3

Laser Cutting
PMMA in a sheet form was used as workpiece material. The sheet dimensions were 500 x 500 mm with thicknesses of 2, 4, 6 and 8 mm. Trial laser cut runs were carried out by varying one of the process factors at-a-time to find out the range of each factor. Full cut, with an acceptable kerf width, cutting edge striations and dross were the criteria of selecting the working ranges for all factors. The main experiment was performed as per the design matrix in a random order to avoid any systematic error. The laser used is a CW 1.5 kW CO2 Rofin laser with a linear polarized beam angled at 45 provided by Mechtronic Industries Ltd. A focusing lens with a focal length of 127 mm was used to perform the cut. Compressed air was supplied coaxially as an assist gas with different pressures. The nozzle used has a conical shape with nozzle diameter of 1.5 mm. Specimens were cut from the sheet for each condition. The specimen shape was designed in order to allow the measurement of all responses in an accurate and simple way. The upper and lower kerf width responses were measured using an optical microscope with digital micrometers attached to it with an accuracy of 0.001 mm, which allows measurement in both X-axis and Y-axis. An average of five measurements of both kerf widths was recorded for all runs. The ratio of the upper kerf to the lower kerf was calculated for each run using the averaged data. The average measured responses for each thickness are presented in Table 2.
1555

No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

UK 0.593 0.752 0.708 0.430 0.448 0.732 0.751 0.361 0.444 0.653 0.576 0.606 0.557 0.475 0.574 0.504 0.572 0.731 0.665 0.435 0.442 0.533 0.542 0.565 0.590 0.577 0.593 0.752 0.708

2 mm LK 0.233 0.233 0.212 0.222 0.205 0.173 0.259 0.178 0.266 0.232 0.194 0.220 0.182 0.142 0.233 0.157 0.233 0.252 0.231 0.267 0.245 0.220 0.231 0.236 0.217 0.222 0.233 0.233 0.212

TABLE 2. Average of Experimentally measured responses. 4 mm 6 mm Ratio UK LK Ratio UK LK Ratio 2.545 0.692 0.278 2.488 0.820 0.314 2.551 3.220 0.770 0.337 2.285 0.929 0.414 2.221 3.342 0.628 0.173 3.626 0.745 0.187 3.968 1.934 0.731 0.257 2.850 0.772 0.341 2.234 2.192 0.916 0.211 4.341 1.043 0.235 4.019 4.223 0.821 0.202 4.069 0.929 0.262 3.698 2.897 0.672 0.307 2.185 0.680 0.442 1.542 2.029 0.527 0.310 1.699 0.700 0.291 2.426 1.671 0.765 0.164 4.663 0.955 0.188 5.582 2.810 0.873 0.244 3.580 1.033 0.234 4.343 2.977 0.545 0.216 2.530 0.586 0.327 1.878 2.756 0.608 0.357 1.700 0.618 0.461 1.349 3.056 0.778 0.279 2.790 0.868 0.400 2.207 3.338 0.785 0.241 3.259 0.631 0.298 2.113 2.460 0.746 0.256 2.918 0.890 0.388 2.463 3.220 0.677 0.234 2.895 0.693 0.275 2.444 2.459 0.658 0.181 3.637 0.760 0.268 2.796 2.902 0.815 0.263 3.093 0.857 0.398 2.132 2.885 0.675 0.196 3.440 0.729 0.236 3.077 1.627 0.771 0.267 2.887 0.833 0.333 2.542 1.802 0.895 0.287 3.121 1.039 0.281 3.669 2.424 0.829 0.202 4.110 1.011 0.198 4.937 2.351 0.688 0.362 1.901 0.681 0.538 1.225 2.394 0.593 0.275 2.156 0.588 0.330 1.699 2.714 0.682 0.247 2.766 0.837 0.383 2.205 2.601 0.696 0.244 2.856 0.836 0.373 2.236 2.545 0.718 0.237 3.030 0.794 0.391 2.057 3.220 0.697 0.234 2.973 0.830 0.381 2.227 3.342 0.696 0.231 3.017 0.771 0.388 2.005

UK 1.023 1.047 0.915 0.972 1.105 1.117 0.790 0.802 1.127 1.158 0.743 0.781 1.006 0.940 1.011 0.978 1.011 0.986 0.970 1.025 1.172 1.111 0.860 0.711 0.962 0.972 0.968 0.975 0.976

8 mm LK 0.530 0.635 0.217 0.387 0.343 0.259 0.455 0.471 0.241 0.325 0.380 0.540 0.584 0.336 0.556 0.292 0.334 0.483 0.335 0.493 0.387 0.228 0.664 0.333 0.417 0.417 0.413 0.418 0.420

Ratio 1.928 1.649 4.220 2.511 3.225 4.308 1.738 1.704 4.679 3.562 1.952 1.447 1.723 2.797 1.818 3.346 3.032 2.041 2.891 2.078 3.032 4.863 1.296 2.134 2.307 2.329 2.343 2.329 2.325

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results indicate that all the parameters have a significant effect of the upper kerf as shown in Fig. 1. It is clear that the focal point position has the main effect on the upper kerf, as the upper kerf decreases as the focal position increases. Also, the cutting speed and the laser power are affecting the upper kerf as presented in Fig. 1. The cutting speed has a negative effect whereas; the laser power has a positive effect. The compressed air pressure has a slight effect on the upper kerf.
Perturbation, PMMA 2 mm
0.760 0.920

Perturbation, PMMA 4 mm
1.050

Perturbation, PMMA 6 mm
1.180

Perturbation, PMMA 8 mm
D
1.063

D
0.660 0.820

D D
Upper kerf, mm
0.933

Upper kerf, MM

Upper kerf, MM

B
0.560

A B

BC
0.720

A CB

B A
0.815

Upper kerf, mm

B AC
0.945

CA B

A B
0.698

A
0.620

0.460

0.827

D
0.360 -1.000 -0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000 0.520 -1.000 -0.500 0.000 0.500

D
0.580 1.000 -1.000 -0.500 0.000 0.500

D
0.710

1.000

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

Deviation from Reference Point (Coded Units)

Deviation from Reference Point (Coded Units)

Deviation from Reference Point (Coded Units)

Deviation from Reference Point (Coded Units)

(a) (b) (c) (d) FIGURE 1. Perturbation plots showing the effect of process parameter on upper kerf for (a) 2 mm, (b) 4 mm, (c) 6 mm and (d) 8 mm.

1556

The results demonstrate that all the process parameters investigated have an effect on the lower kerf width as shown in Fig. 2. From Fig. 2 it is evident that the main factors affecting the lower kerf are cutting speed, laser power and focal point position. However, the cutting speed has a negative effect. While, both laser power and focal point position have positive effect on the lower kerf.
Perturbation, PMMA 2 mm
0.270

Perturbation, PMMA 4 mm
0.370
0.540

Perturbation, PMMA 6 mm
0.670

Perturbation, PMMA 8 mm

0.238

BD

A D
0.318
0.450

B B C
0.360 0.555

Lower kerf, mm

Lower kerf, mm

Lower kerf, mm

B
0.265

D A

Lower kerf, mm

D A C B

C
0.205

B C

A D
0.440

C A

B
0.212

0.173

D A

0.270

A D

0.325

0.140 -1.000 -0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000

0.160 -1.000 -0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000

0.180 -1.000 -0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000

0.210 -1.000 -0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000

Deviation from Reference Point (Coded Units)

Deviation from Reference Point (Coded Units)

Deviation from Reference Point (Coded Units)

Deviation from Reference Point (Coded Units)

(a) (b) (c) (d) FIGURE 2. Perturbation plots showing the effect of process parameter on lower kerf for (a) 2 mm, (b) 4 mm, (c) 6 mm and (d) 8 mm.

It clear from Fig. 3 that all the parameters investigated have an influence on the ratio between the upper and the lower kerf widths. However, the main factor affecting the ratio is the focal point position and then cutting speed, laser power and air pressure. Any increase in the focal position or laser power would result in a decrease in the ratio. On the other hand, any increase in the cutting speed or air pressure would lead to an increase in the ratio. In balance, all the parameters should be monitored as to achieve ratio around 1 and as small as possible kerf width as recommended in [6].Therefore, the adequate model developed in this study (as the maximum number of pages is 6 we were not able present these models) should be use to find out the optimal sets of laser cutting conditions, which would lead to the desirable cut.
Perturbation, PMMA 2 mm
4.300

Perturbation, PMMA 4 mm
4.700
5.600

Perturbation, PMMA 6 mm
4.900

Perturbation, PMMA 8 mm

D
3.625

3.925

4.500

D
Ratio

3.975

Ratio

Ratio

Ratio

A
2.950

D C A

A
3.150

CB A

3.400

A CB A D

3.050

B C

B
2.375

C
2.125

2.275

2.300

D
D
1.600 -1.000 -0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000

BC

A D

B
1.200

1.600 -1.000 -0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000

1.200 -1.000 -0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

Deviation from Reference Point (Coded Units)

Deviation from Reference Point (Coded Units)

Deviation from Reference Point (Coded Units)

Deviation from Reference Point (Coded Units)

(a) (b) (c) (d) FIGURE 3. Perturbation plots showing the effect of process parameter on ratio for (a) 2 mm, (b) 4 mm, (c) 6 mm and (d) 8 mm.

OPTIMIZATION
Desirability approach was used with the criterion of having all the process factors and both kerf widths in range. Whilst, setting the ratio around 1. Table 3 shows the optimal cutting conditions that would lead to the best quality cut as determined by Design Expert software. The presented optimal solution for each thickness is selected among the optimal solutions with the maximum cutting speed.

1557

Thickness, mm 2 4 6 8

A, kW 613.48 481.5 576.78 772.37

TABLE 3. Optimal solutions B, mm/min 1212.11 2705.24 2993.96 1348.51

C, bar 2.61 1.19 0.85 2.96

D, mm -3.11 -2.01 -2.09 -3.03

CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusion can be drawn from this work within the factors limits and only applicable for experiment setup considered in this study: 1. All factors are affecting the responses with different behaviours. Also, these factors should be monitored to achieve the desirable cut section. 2. The upper kerf width decreases as the focal position and cutting speed increase, while it increases as the laser power increases. 3. The lower kerf width is inversely proportional to cutting speed and it is proportional to laser power and focal position. 4. The ratio increases as the focal position and laser power increase. The ratio decreases as the cutting speed and air pressure increase. 5. High cutting speed might reduce the cutting cost, but not always improve the efficiency of the process (i.e. produce square edge). 6. The optimal cutting conditions, which would enhance the quality for each thickness, were obtained.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Mr. Martin Johnson for his help in performing the laser cutting. The authors wish to thanks Dr. Saad A. Manna from the Cultural affairs, Libyan bureau London & School of mechanical Engineering for their financial support of the current research.

REFERENCES
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poly(methyl_methacrylate). 2. J. Powell, CO2 Laser Cutting, New York, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2nd Edition, 1998. 3. I. A. Choudhury and S. Shirley, Optics and Laser Tech. 42, 503-508 (2010). 4. J. P. Davim, N. Barricas, M. Conceicao and C. Oliverira, Mat. Processing Tech. 198 99-104 (2008). 5. J. P. Davim, C. Oliveira, N. Barricas and M. Conceico, Advanced Manuf. Tech. 35 875-879 (2008). 6. M. Kurt, Y. Kaynak, E. Bagei, H. Demirer and M. Kurt, Inter. J. of Manuf. Tech. 41 259-267 (2009). 7. H. A. Eltawahni, A. G. Olabi and K. Y. Benyounis, Mat. & Design 31 no. 8, 40294038 (2010). 8. K. Y. Benyounis, A.G. Olabi and M. S. J. Hashmi, Mat. Processing Tech. 164-165 978-985 (2005). 9. M. J. Tsai and C. H. Li, Optics & Laser Tech. 41 (8) 914-921 (2009). 10 K. Y. Benyounis and A.G. Olabi, Advances in Eng. Software 39 483-496 (2008). 11. D.C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, New York, John Wiley & Sons, (1984). 12. A. I. Khuri and J. A. Cornell, Response Surfaces Design and Analysis, New York, Marcel Dekker, 2nd Ed, (1996). 13. Design-Expert software, V7, users guide, Stat-Ease Inc., Minneapolis, MN, 2000.

1558

Copyright of AIP Conference Proceedings is the property of American Institute of Physics and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.