ArticlePloS one2026
High-power pulsed-laser ablation of aluminum alloy: Simulation model and experimental validation.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To address the critical influence of pulse shape on the laser ablation of metallic materials, this study proposes a comprehensive methodology that integrates finite‑element numerical simulations with experimental validation. Based on the spatiotemporal energy‑distribution characteristics of Gaussian and super‑Gaussian pulses, the temperature evolution, plasma electron density, and ablation efficiency of 6061 aluminum alloy were systematically analyzed under various single‑pulse energies and spot radii. Comparison between experimental measurements and numerical predictions enables the construction of an energy‑coupling model for laser ablation and establishes a theoretical framework describing how pulse shape governs the material's thermal response and plasma dynamics. The performance of the experimental laser was benchmarked against that of a commercial laser. The results show that the maximum difference in dispersion coefficients between the two lasers is only 0.19%, and the largest discrepancy in average perforation time between the Gaussian and super‑Gaussian pulses is approximately 6 s. Owing to its more uniform energy distribution, the super‑Gaussian pulse exhibits 3-18% higher energy‑coupling efficiency and material‑removal efficiency under identical energy input. Therefore, controlling the pulse shape can significantly enhance the stability and efficiency of laser ablation, satisfy the requirements of high‑precision material processing regarding energy‑distribution uniformity and ablation consistency, and provide a theoretical foundation for applying pulse‑shaping techniques in high‑efficiency laser manufacturing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.