2020Procedia ManufacturingOpen access

Modelling of the Mechanical Response in 304 Austenitic Steel during Laser Shock Peening and Conventional Shot Peening

Bojan Starman, Håkan Hallberg, Mathias Wallin, Matti Ristinmaa, Nikolaj Mole, Miroslav Halilovič

Open full text 9 citations

Abstract

Laser Shock Peening (LSP) and conventional Shot Peening (SP) are processes that aim to improve the surface properties of a workpiece by inducing compressive residual stresses. The peening processes also cause martensitic phase transformation in austenitic steels. Interestingly, experimental studies report significant differences in martensite content depending on the used peening process. This study aims to present numerical simulations of both peening processes. The study is based on a constitutive model which considers rate-dependent elasto-viscoplastic behaviour allowing for martensitic transformation. The results show the influence of spot size, laser pulse duration and laser intensity on the mechanical response. The differences in martensite content are investigated in terms of the corresponding transformation and yield surface evolution. The main finding of the study is an explanation for the significantly higher amount of martensite that is found after SP in comparison to LSP. It has been found that the main reason is not the intensity, but the stress trajectory in the stress space, which is inherently different between the two processes.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Laser Shock Peening (LSP) and conventional Shot Peening (SP) are processes that aim to improve the surface properties of a workpiece by inducing compressive residual stresses. The peening processes also cause martensitic phase transformation in austenitic steels. Interestingly, experimental studies report significant differences in martensite content depending on the used peening process. This study aims to present numerical simulations of both peening processes. The study is based on a constitutive model which considers rate-dependent elasto-viscoplastic behaviour allowing for martensitic transformation. The results show the influence of spot size, laser pulse duration and laser intensity on the mechanical response. The differences in martensite content are investigated in terms of the corresponding transformation and yield surface evolution. The main finding of the study is an explanation for the significantly higher amount of martensite that is found after SP in comparison to LSP. It has been found that the main reason is not the intensity, but the stress trajectory in the stress space, which is inherently different between the two processes.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 9 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Laser Shock Peening (LSP) and conventional Shot Peening (SP) are processes that aim to improve the surface properties of a workpiece by inducing compressive residual stresses. The peening processes also cause martensitic phase transformation in austenitic steels. Interestingly, experimental studies report significant differences in martensite content depending on the used peening process. This study aims to present numerical simulations of both peening processes. The study is based on a constitutive model which considers rate-dependent elasto-viscoplastic behaviour allowing for martensitic transformation. The results show the influence of spot size, laser pulse duration and laser intensity on the mechanical response. The differences in martensite content are investigated in terms of the corresponding transformation and yield surface evolution. The main finding of the study is an explanation for the significantly higher amount of martensite that is found after SP in comparison to LSP. It has been found that the main reason is not the intensity, but the stress trajectory in the stress space, which is inherently different between the two processes.

Key concepts: Peening, Materials science, Shot peening, Martensite, Laser peening, Residual stress, Shock (circulatory), Austenite

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Modelling of the Mechanical Response in 304 Austenitic Steel during Laser Shock Peening and Conventional Shot Peening — Research Paper | ScholarLens