Strengthening Performance Optimization of Single Ball Impact Treatment by Evaluating Residual Stress
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Model Development
3. Numerical Work
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Qualitative Analysis
4.2. Quantitative Analysis
5. Conclusions
- The values of the surface residual compressive stress, the maximum residual compressive stress, the depth of maximum residual compressive stress and the depth of residual compressive stress layer from the target’s surface to subsurface are four essential factors that affect the surface strengthening performance, and can be numerically obtained rather than by using experimental methods, which are expensive and time-consuming.
- It was found from simulation that by increasing the ball diameter and impact velocity, the depth of maximum residual compressive stress and the depth of residual compressive stress layer become significantly enlarged due to increasing kinetic energy of the shot peening ball. It was also numerically found that with an increase in ball impact angle, the maximum residual compressive stress, the depth of maximum residual compressive stress and the depth of residual compressive stress layer become significantly improved, except for the surface residual compressive stress which shows a decreasing trend.
- Quantitative analysis according to the entropy method was employed to consider the effect of processing parameters on the four essential values of residual stress obtained from simulation. It was found that within the range of processing parameters considered in this simulation, a ball with a diameter of 0.6 mm should be used to impact the target with a velocity of 80 m/s and an angle of 90°; this would subsequently obtain the best strengthening performance in terms of evaluating the distribution of residual stress.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ostapenko, M.G.; Semin, V.O.; D’Yachenko, F.A.; Neiman, A.A.; Meisner, L.L. Structure and residual stress distribution in TiNi substrate after fabrication of surface alloy using electron-beam treatments. Acta Mater. 2022, 231, 117893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, L.; Wang, L.; Chen, H.; Wang, X.; Chen, F.; Lyu, B.; Hang, W.; Zhao, W.; Yuan, J. Effects of pH Values and H2O2 Concentrations on the Chemical Enhanced Shear Dilatancy Polishing of Tungsten. Micromachines 2022, 13, 762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.; Xu, Q.; Wang, J.; Li, P.; Yuan, J.; Lyu, B.; Wang, J.; Tokunaga, K.; Yao, G.; Luo, L.; et al. Effect of surface quality on hydrogen/helium irradiation behavior in tungsten. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2022; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saetang, V.; Qi, H.; Smerchit, T.; Rujisamphan, N. Laser scribing of fluorine-doped tin oxide coated on glass substrate in air and water. Opt. Laser Technol. 2022, 153, 108280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tangwarodomnukun, V.; Kringram, S.; Zhu, H.; Qi, H.; Rujisamphan, N. Fabrication of superhydrophobic surface on AISI316L stainless steel using a nanosecond pulse laser. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. 2022, 236, 680–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, D.; Lv, H.; Wang, H.; Yu, J. Surface micro-morphology and residual stress formation mechanisms of near-net-shaped blade produced by low-plasticity ultrasonic rolling strengthening process. Mater. Des. 2022, 215, 110513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balbaa, M.; Ghasemi, A.; Fereiduni, E.; Al-Rubaie, K.; Elbestawi, M. Improvement of fatigue performance of laser powder bed fusion fabricated IN625 and IN718 superalloys via shot peening. J. Mater. Process. Tech. 2022, 304, 117571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, K.T.; Kim, Y.S. The Effect of the Static Load in the UNSM Process on the Corrosion Properties of Alloy 600. Materials 2019, 12, 3165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, K.T.; Kim, S.K. Effect of the amplitude in ultrasonic nano-crystalline surface modification on the corrosion properties of Alloy 600. Corros. Sci. Technol. 2019, 18, 196–205. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, J.; Sun, Z. Numerical characterization of shot peening induced work hardening gradient and verification based on FEM analysis. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2022, 244–245, 111586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, J.; Tang, J.; Zhou, W.; Jiang, T.; Liu, H.; Xing, B. Numerical modeling and experimental verification of residual stress distribution evolution of 12Cr2Ni4A steel generated by shot peening. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2022, 430, 127993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unal, O.; Maleki, E.; Karademir, I.; Husem, F.; Efe, Y.; Das, T. Effects of conventional shot peening, severe shot peening, re-shot peening and precised grinding operations on fatigue performance of AISI 1050 railway axle steel. Int. J. Fatigue 2022, 155, 106613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bozkurt, Y.B.; Kovacı, H.; Yetim, A.F.; Çelik, A. Tribocorrosion properties and mechanism of a shot peened AISI 4140 low-alloy steel. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2022, 440, 128444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Q.; Wei, P.; Liu, H.; Zhu, J.; Zhu, C.; Wu, J. A CFD-FEM numerical study on shot peening. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2022, 223, 107259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, H.; Shi, L.; Teng, Q.; Hong, T.; Tangwarodomnukun, V.; Liu, G.; Li, H.N. Subsurface damage evaluation in the single abrasive scratching of BK7 glass by considering coupling effect of strain rate and temperature. Ceram. Int. 2022, 48, 8661–8670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, W.; Teng, Q.; Hong, T.; Saetang, V.; Qi, H. Stress field modeling of single-abrasive scratching of BK7 glass for surface integrity evaluation. Ceram. Int. 2022, 48, 12819–12828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Qi, H.; Yin, Z.; Li, D.; Zhu, Z.; Tangwarodomnukun, V.; Tan, D. Investigation on the multiphase sink vortex Ekman pumping effects by CFD-DEM coupling method. Powder Technol. 2020, 360, 462–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Z.; Qin, S.; Fang, Z. Numerical modeling and experimental study on the material removal process using ultrasonic vibration-assisted abrasive water jet. Front. Mater. 2022, 9, 895271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Zheng, B.; Xie, Y.; Ji, R.; Li, Y.; Mao, W. Control mechanism of particle flow in the weak liquid metal flow field on non-uniform curvature surface based on lippmann model. Front. Mater. 2022, 9, 895263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, R.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, L.; Li, Y.; Lu, S.; Fu, Y. Processing method for metallic substrate using the liquid metal lapping-polishing plate. Front. Mater. 2022, 9, 896346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meguid, S.A.; Shagal, G.; Stranart, J.C.; Daly, J. Three-dimensional dynamic finite element analysis of shot-peening induced residual stresses. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 1999, 31, 179–191. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, T.; Lee, H.; Hyun, H.C.; Jung, S. Effects of Rayleigh damping, friction and rate-dependency on 3D residual stress simulation of angled shot peening. Mater. Des. 2013, 46, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, T.; Wang, Z.; Yuan, J. Numerical simulation of shot peening process using finite element and discrete element method. China Mech. Eng. 2008, 11, 1321–1325. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, L. Numerical Simulation Research for Compressive Residual Stress Field and Surface Roughness of Shot Peening; Shandong University: Jinan, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, G.R.; Cook, W.H. A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Ballistics, The Hague, The Netherlands, 19–21 April 1983; pp. 541–547. [Google Scholar]
- Teng, T. Simulation Research of ZGMn13 Drilling Force and Temperature Based on ABAQUS; Dalian Jiaotong University: Dalian, China, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, H.; Wang, S.; Lu, S.; Qiao, Y.; Wang, X.; Fan, N.; Guo, P.; Niu, J. Simulation and experimental validation of residual stress and surface roughness of high manganese steel after shot peening. Procedia CIRP 2018, 71, 227–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Y.X.; Tian, D.Z.; Yan, F. Effectiveness of Entropy Weight Method in Decision-Making. Math. Probl. Eng. 2020, 2020, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
A/MPa | B/MPa | n | C | m |
---|---|---|---|---|
634 | 897 | 0.913 | 0.04 | 1 |
Mn | C | Si | P | S |
---|---|---|---|---|
11–14 | 1–1.4 | 0.3–1 | <0.03 | <0.05 |
No. | dp (mm) | vp (m/s) | αp (°) | Parameters | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
σs (MPa) | σm (MPa) | Zm (mm) | Z0 (mm) | ||||
1 | 0.2 | 40 | 30 | −674.245 | −780.380 | 0.013 | 0.044 |
2 | 0.2 | 40 | 60 | −670.691 | −1092.080 | 0.024 | 0.060 |
3 | 0.2 | 40 | 90 | −586.816 | −1194.410 | 0.025 | 0.065 |
4 | 0.2 | 60 | 30 | −638.922 | −817.008 | 0.025 | 0.052 |
5 | 0.2 | 60 | 60 | −520.579 | −1117.960 | 0.024 | 0.074 |
6 | 0.2 | 60 | 90 | −472.759 | −1217.970 | 0.035 | 0.081 |
7 | 0.2 | 80 | 30 | −611.712 | −1002.980 | 0.024 | 0.061 |
8 | 0.2 | 80 | 60 | −609.965 | −1244.020 | 0.035 | 0.087 |
9 | 0.2 | 80 | 90 | −555.414 | −1390.040 | 0.036 | 0.093 |
10 | 0.4 | 40 | 30 | −667.563 | −757.921 | 0.025 | 0.081 |
11 | 0.4 | 40 | 60 | −559.120 | −1043.590 | 0.048 | 0.125 |
12 | 0.4 | 40 | 90 | −521.545 | −1203.650 | 0.049 | 0.140 |
13 | 0.4 | 60 | 30 | −645.162 | −845.771 | 0.048 | 0.110 |
14 | 0.4 | 60 | 60 | −640.605 | −1125.830 | 0.049 | 0.155 |
15 | 0.4 | 60 | 90 | −413.234 | −1237.520 | 0.070 | 0.170 |
16 | 0.4 | 80 | 30 | −613.877 | −996.326 | 0.047 | 0.120 |
17 | 0.4 | 80 | 60 | −601.694 | −1221.590 | 0.070 | 0.180 |
18 | 0.4 | 80 | 90 | −492.369 | −1317.470 | 0.093 | 0.201 |
19 | 0.6 | 40 | 30 | −635.010 | −891.511 | 0.058 | 0.130 |
20 | 0.6 | 40 | 60 | −534.369 | −1137.270 | 0.055 | 0.185 |
21 | 0.6 | 40 | 90 | −318.198 | −1245.100 | 0.081 | 0.210 |
22 | 0.6 | 60 | 30 | −706.755 | −1011.280 | 0.055 | 0.160 |
23 | 0.6 | 60 | 60 | −421.261 | −1291.860 | 0.079 | 0.231 |
24 | 0.6 | 60 | 90 | −353.639 | −1379.460 | 0.080 | 0.263 |
25 | 0.6 | 80 | 30 | −700.955 | −1036.950 | 0.057 | 0.182 |
26 | 0.6 | 80 | 60 | −414.197 | −1354.220 | 0.082 | 0.271 |
27 | 0.6 | 80 | 90 | −270.975 | −1449.210 | 0.105 | 0.310 |
No. | dp (mm) | vp (m/s) | αp (°) | Parameters | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
σs | σm | Zm | Z0 | ||||
1 | 0.2 | 40 | 30 | 0.3093 | 0.6930 | 0.2522 | 0.3093 |
2 | 0.2 | 40 | 60 | 0.4218 | 0.9698 | 0.4655 | 0.4218 |
3 | 0.2 | 40 | 90 | 0.4569 | 1.0607 | 0.4849 | 0.4569 |
4 | 0.2 | 60 | 30 | 0.3655 | 0.7256 | 0.4849 | 0.3655 |
5 | 0.2 | 60 | 60 | 0.5202 | 0.9928 | 0.4655 | 0.5202 |
6 | 0.2 | 60 | 90 | 0.5694 | 1.0816 | 0.6789 | 0.5694 |
7 | 0.2 | 80 | 30 | 0.4288 | 0.8907 | 0.4655 | 0.4288 |
8 | 0.2 | 80 | 60 | 0.6116 | 1.1048 | 0.6789 | 0.6116 |
9 | 0.2 | 80 | 90 | 0.6537 | 1.2344 | 0.6983 | 0.6537 |
10 | 0.4 | 40 | 30 | 0.5694 | 0.6731 | 0.4849 | 0.5694 |
11 | 0.4 | 40 | 60 | 0.8787 | 0.9268 | 0.9310 | 0.8787 |
12 | 0.4 | 40 | 90 | 0.9841 | 1.0689 | 0.9504 | 0.9841 |
13 | 0.4 | 60 | 30 | 0.7732 | 0.7511 | 0.9310 | 0.7732 |
14 | 0.4 | 60 | 60 | 1.0896 | 0.9998 | 0.9504 | 1.0896 |
15 | 0.4 | 60 | 90 | 1.1950 | 1.0990 | 1.3578 | 1.1950 |
16 | 0.4 | 80 | 30 | 0.8435 | 0.8848 | 0.9116 | 0.8435 |
17 | 0.4 | 80 | 60 | 1.2653 | 1.0848 | 1.3578 | 1.2653 |
18 | 0.4 | 80 | 90 | 1.4129 | 1.1700 | 1.8039 | 1.4129 |
19 | 0.6 | 40 | 30 | 0.9138 | 0.7917 | 1.1250 | 0.9138 |
20 | 0.6 | 40 | 60 | 1.3004 | 1.0100 | 1.0668 | 1.3004 |
21 | 0.6 | 40 | 90 | 1.4762 | 1.1057 | 1.5711 | 1.4762 |
22 | 0.6 | 60 | 30 | 1.1247 | 0.8981 | 1.0668 | 1.1247 |
23 | 0.6 | 60 | 60 | 1.6238 | 1.1472 | 1.5323 | 1.6238 |
24 | 0.6 | 60 | 90 | 1.8487 | 1.2250 | 1.5517 | 1.8487 |
25 | 0.6 | 80 | 30 | 1.2794 | 0.9209 | 1.1056 | 1.2794 |
26 | 0.6 | 80 | 60 | 1.9050 | 1.2026 | 1.5905 | 1.9050 |
27 | 0.6 | 80 | 90 | 2.1791 | 1.2870 | 2.0366 | 2.1791 |
No. | dp (mm) | vp (m/s) | αp (°) | Score |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.2 | 40 | 30 | 0.6201 |
2 | 0.2 | 40 | 60 | 0.7691 |
3 | 0.2 | 40 | 90 | 0.7673 |
4 | 0.2 | 60 | 30 | 0.6844 |
5 | 0.2 | 60 | 60 | 0.7312 |
6 | 0.2 | 60 | 90 | 0.7973 |
7 | 0.2 | 80 | 30 | 0.7243 |
8 | 0.2 | 80 | 60 | 0.8760 |
9 | 0.2 | 80 | 90 | 0.8990 |
10 | 0.4 | 40 | 30 | 0.7352 |
11 | 0.4 | 40 | 60 | 0.9382 |
12 | 0.4 | 40 | 90 | 0.9879 |
13 | 0.4 | 60 | 30 | 0.9071 |
14 | 0.4 | 60 | 60 | 1.0511 |
15 | 0.4 | 60 | 90 | 1.1008 |
16 | 0.4 | 80 | 30 | 0.9390 |
17 | 0.4 | 80 | 60 | 1.2004 |
18 | 0.4 | 80 | 90 | 1.3205 |
19 | 0.6 | 40 | 30 | 0.9962 |
20 | 0.6 | 40 | 60 | 1.0872 |
21 | 0.6 | 40 | 90 | 1.1829 |
22 | 0.6 | 60 | 30 | 1.0936 |
23 | 0.6 | 60 | 60 | 1.2673 |
24 | 0.6 | 60 | 90 | 1.3171 |
25 | 0.6 | 80 | 30 | 1.1450 |
26 | 0.6 | 80 | 60 | 1.3628 |
27 | 0.6 | 80 | 90 | 1.4988 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lei, Y.; Wang, Z.; Qi, H. Strengthening Performance Optimization of Single Ball Impact Treatment by Evaluating Residual Stress. Materials 2022, 15, 3719. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15103719
Lei Y, Wang Z, Qi H. Strengthening Performance Optimization of Single Ball Impact Treatment by Evaluating Residual Stress. Materials. 2022; 15(10):3719. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15103719
Chicago/Turabian StyleLei, Yang, Zhengwei Wang, and Huan Qi. 2022. "Strengthening Performance Optimization of Single Ball Impact Treatment by Evaluating Residual Stress" Materials 15, no. 10: 3719. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15103719