Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Copyright
Abstract: To improve the fatigue life of metallic components, especially in aerospace industry, shot peening is
widely used. There is a demand for the advancement of
numerical algorithms and methodologies for the estimation of residual stresses due to shot peening. This paper
describes an analytical model to simulate the shot peening process and to estimate the residual stress field in the
surface layer. In this reasonable, convenient, and simple
model, no empirical relation is used, and the effects of
shot velocity are included. The results of validation of
this model against the test data are very good.
76
V2
5
ae = R k
2
E0
15
(1)
(2)
2
2
Based on an elastic-perfectly plastic body, Al-Hassani 1 = 1 v + 1 vs
(3)
E
Es
(1981, 1982, 1984) developed an analysis model to pre- E0
dict residual stresses, which depend on the experimental
where V is the initial velocity of the shot, p is the maxiresults (there exist empirical relations to fit experimental
mum normal pressure, R is the radius of the shot, and ae
77
is at maximum the radius of the elastic contact circle, E And the mean stress and strain can be written as
and v, Es and vs , are Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio
1
e
e
e
e
of the target and shot, respectively. k is an efficiency co- m = 3 (11 + 22 + 33 )
(10)
efficient that stands for the thermal and elastic dissipation
e = 1 (e + e + e )
m
22
33
3 11
during the impact. The value of k is fixed at 0.8 according
to Johnson (1985). A 100% k value will describe purely
Now, the stress deviators in the target material can be
elastic rebound energy.
derived as
The classical Hertz results are used to model the elastic
stress field created by the impact. The Hertzian elastic se11 = e11 em = 13 ei
stress tensor can be written as follows:
(11)
e
se22 = e22 em = 13 ei
11 0
0
e
e
22 0
T = 0
2
(12)
se33 = e33 em = ei = 2se11
0
0
e33
3
where the subscripts 1, 2, and 3 represents the axis x1 , x2 Similar to the stress deviators, the strain deviators are deand x3 , respectively. The axis x3 directs along the depth rived as
of the target, and goes away from its surface. The elastic
1
e
e
e
e
stress field is then obtained from the Hertzian theory. The e11 = 11 m = 3 (1 + v) i
(13)
stresses in the target material reach their maximum under
e = e e = 1 (1 + v) e
e
m
22
22
i
3
the shot and can be written as
a2e
2
e11 = p (1 + ) xa3e tan1 xa3e 1 + p 2 a2 +x
(14)
ee33 = e33 em = (1 + v) ei = 2ee11
( e 23 )
3
(4)
a2e
x3
x3
Now, the stress and strain tensors in the elastic field are
e
1
22 = p (1 + ) ae tan
ae 1 + p 2(a2e +x2 )
3
derived. The elastic-plastic analysis of the loading pro
cess will be discussed in the subsequent section.
2 1
x3
e
(5)
33 = p 1 +
ae
3 Elastic-plastic analysis of the loading process
According to the Hooks law, the strains are expressed as The elastic-plastic regime presents a difficult theoretical
problem that is still a subject of serious research effort. In
e11 = E1 [e11 v (e22 + e33 )]
the elastic-plastic deformation stage, the equivalent stress
(6) in the target material is greater than the yield stress, i.e.,
e22 = E1 [e11 v (e22 + e33 )]
i > s ; the stress-strain analysis becomes too complicated and inconvenient to apply in practice. It is very
1
(7) difficulty to directly use the complex elastic-plastic cone33 = [e33 2ve11 ]
E
stitutive relation in engineering. It is however, worth
Thus, we can obtain the Von Mises equivalent stress in resorting to a simple analytical treatment. As in many
the target material as
elastic-plastic analyses, the elastic-plastic constitutive re
1 lationship associated with the target material can be sime
e
e 2
e
e 2
e
e 2 2
2 plified to a multi-linear one. A simplified relation [Li,
i = (11 22 ) + (22 33 ) + (33 11 )
et al. (1991)] will be implemented here. By adopting a
(8) modifying coefficient, , the elastic-plastic strain p at
i
any depth x3 is calculated from the elastic strain ei , at the
Then, the equivalent strain can be obtained through the corresponding depth x :
3
Hooks law as
e
i for ei s
p
ei
e
=
(15)
(9) i
i =
s + (ei s ) for ei > s
E
78
p
ratio of the deformation at the surface.
ei for i < s
p
p
p
s + E1 i s for s i < b
(21)
The derivation of the plastic radius a p is begins with the i =
p
equation of motion during contact:
b for i b
The definitions of the parameters are shown in Fig. 1,
(17) and is the ultimate tension strength.
b
4 3 dV
R
= a2 p
3
dt
As in reference [Al-Hassani (1984)], the stress field surrounding the indentation is assumed to be the same as for
a pressurized spherical cavity in an elastic-plastic material. The cavity expands to accommodate the material
displaced by the indenter. The model gives an approximate value for the average pressure p resisting the motion
[Al-Hassani (1984)], as:
2 Ea
p
= 0.6 + ln
s
3 s R
(18)
e11 = 13 (1 + v)i
(22)
e22 = 13 (1 + v)i
2
p
p
p
(23)
e33 = (1 + v) i = 2e11
3
(19) By appealing to the elastic-plastic theory, the elasticplastic stress deviators can be derived from the following
relationship
1
2 12
2 2 V
z
=
Q (z)
R
3
p
Where,
1 Q=
2 E
0.2 + ln
9 s
2z 4z
1
ln
+
9
R
R
1
2
si j =
1 i p
e
1 + v ip i j
(24)
79
V i
Vie
'Vi
2Vi
'Hie
V ip
Vs
Hie
V b
E1
0 Hs
'Hip
2Vi
H b
H i
'Vip
Figure 1 : Schematic diagram for calculating residual stress
4 The residual stress after unloading
Similar to Li, et al. (1991), three assumptions are involved, that are: (a) the deformation is small; (b) unloading is an elastic process before reversed yielding starts;
and (c) hydrostatic stresses do not introduce plastic deformation. By means of these assumptions, the basic formula for calculating the residual stress can be written as
rij
p
= si j seij
(27)
ei = ei 2i
(30)
Now, from the elastic Hooks law and the assumption that
p
the ratio of i to ei on the x3 -axis inside the target is equal
to the ratio of the deformation at the surface, the elastic and elastic-plastic strains corresponding to ei are
obtained, respectively, as
80
r22 =
1
3
p
p
p
i 2i i
(33)
r33 = 2r11
r is only the residual stress after loading and unloading a
single ball. After shot peening with 100% coverage it is
assumed that the plastic deformation is steady and continuous. As there is no particular direction on the surface
of the semi-infinite body, all the tensors only depended
on the depth x3 . The residual stress tensor in the stabilized state is independent of the coordinates (x1 , x2 )
and remains constant on any plane parallel to the surface, with R11 = R22 . The superscript R indicates the
residual stress after 100% coverage, i.e. the final residual
stress. The boundary conditions on the surface enable us
to write:
R13 (0) = R23 (0) = R33 (0) = 0
The equilibrium equations are reduced to:
R13
x3
=0
R23
x3
=0
R33
x3
=0
v
r
1v 33
v
r
1v 33
11 =
(35)
22 =
Thus, the final residual stressed R11 and R22 can be obtained as
v
r33 =
R11 = r11 1v
1+v r
1v 11
R22
1+v r
1v 11
(36)
=
v
r22 1v
r33
81
Shot Size
S170 est.
S170 est.
S170 est.
S170 est.
S170
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Stress/yield
-0.2
-0.4
Theoretical
Experimental
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
depth (mm)
82
Stress/yield
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
-0.2
Theoretical
-0.3
2d2-4
-0.4
2f2-1
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
depth (mm)
Ti-6Al-4V Alpha-Beta
Shot Peen Stress Distribution, S170 shots
0.4
0.2
0
Stress/yield
0.1
0.2
0.3
-0.2
0.4
0.5
Theoretical
Manual
-0.4
Coupon
0.010A
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
depth (mm)
this relation to determine the shot velocity. The comparisons of the residual stress distribution from our theoretical model with the experimental data from test are
depicted in Figures 2-7. In Fig. 3, there are 2 sets of experiment data: 2d2-4 and 2f2-1. In Fig. 4, there are 3 sets
of experiment data: Manual, Coupon and 0.010A, where
the 0.010A means the Almen intensity for this set of
experiment results is 0.010A, however, the other sets of
experiment data and the numerical result are for Almen
intensity 0.011A.
83
Stress/yield
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
-0.2
Theoretical
experimental
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
depth (mm)
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Stress/yield
-0.2
Theoretical
-0.4
experimental
-0.6
-0.8
-1
depth (mm)
which is unreasonable.
In the present model, no empirical relation is used, and
the quantity a p is determined by the shot velocity. Very
few numerical computations are needed when a classical numerical computation would have been nearly impossible. So, the analysis model appears to be a very
suitable tool for industrial purposes. These numerical results were instrumental in concluding that the newly developed analysis model is:
very simple and quick;
84
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Stress/yield
-0.2
Theoretical
-0.4
experimental
-0.6
-0.8
-1
depth (mm)
85
less Local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) Mixed Collocation Khabou, M. T.; Castex, L.; and Inglebert, G. (1990):
Method For Elasticity Problems. CMES: Computer Mod- The effect of material behavior law on the theoretical
shot peening results. Eur. J. Mech., A/Solids 9: 537eling in Engineering & Sciences 14: 141-152.
Atluri, S. N.; Liu, H. T.; Han, Z. D. (2006b): Meshless 549.
Local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) Mixed Finite Difference Li, J.K.; Yao, M.; Wang, D.; and Wang, R. (1991):
Method for Solid Mechanics. CMES: Computer Model- Mechanical approach to the residual stress field induced
by shot peening. Materials Sci. and Engineering A 147:
ing in Engineering & Sciences 15: 1-16.
th
Atluri, S. N.; Shen, S. (2005): MSimulation of a 4 Or- 167-173.
der ODE: Illustration of Various Primal & Mixed MLPG Liu, H. T.; Han, Z. D.; Rajendran, A. M.; Atluri, S.
Methods. CMES: Computer Modeling in Engineering & N. (2006): Computational Modeling of Impact Response
with the RG Damage Model and the Meshless Local
Sciences 7: 241-268.
Davis, R. M. (1948): The determination of static and Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) Approaches. CMC: Computdynamic yield stresses using a steel ball. Proc. Roc. Soc. ers, Materials & Continua 4: 43-54.
A 197: 416.
Deslaef, D.; Rouhaud, E.; and Rasouli-Yazdi, S.
(2000): 3D finite element models for shot peening processes. Materials Science Forum 347-349: 241-246.