Application of design of experiments for laser shock peening process optimization
- 38 Downloads
Laser shock peening—a very promising life enhancement technique—has demonstrated great success regarding the improvement of fatigue behavior via deep compressive residual stresses. However, the prediction and adaption of residual stress fields on basis of the laser peening parameters are still not comprehensively established. The aim of the current work is to investigate the effects of the laser pulse energy, the number of treatment overlaps as well as the laser spot size on the resulting residual stress distribution, characterized by following quantities: the residual stress close to the surface, the maximum compressive residual stress, and the integral compressive stress area over the specimen depth. For a systematic investigation of all main and interaction-based process parameter effects, and a subsequent parameter optimization, the general full factorial design is employed. The results show that laser shock peening with different process parameter combinations, inducing residual stresses with comparable integral stress area, can lead to a minimum fatigue life extension of approx. 100,000 cycles, representing a minimum fatigue life of 250% of the base material. The experimental scatter in the number of cycles to failure follows the Weibull distribution which qualitatively correlates with the standard deviation of the integral stress area.
KeywordsLaser shock peening Design of experiments Fatigue crack growth Residual stress Hole drilling
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
The authors wish to thank S. Riekehr and R. Dinse from Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht for their valuable support in carrying out LSP experiments and L. Moura for helping with hole drilling measurements.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
- 1.Ding K, Ye L (2006) Laser shock peening. Performance and process simulation. Woodhead CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 2.McElhone M, Rugg D (2005) Experimental evaluation of the fatigue performance of aero-engine fan blade dovetails. In: Presentation for the AeroMat, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
- 3.Heckenberger U, Hombergsmeier E, Bestenbostel W, Holzinger V (2010) LSP to improve the fatigue resistance of highly stressed AA7050 components. In: presentation for the 2nd International Conference on Laser Peening. San Francisco, pp 1–27Google Scholar
- 10.Mostafa AM, Hameed MF, Obayya SS (2017) Effect of laser shock peening on the hardness of AL-7075 alloy. J King Saud Univ – Sci in PressGoogle Scholar
- 11.United States Patent 7137282, Laser shock peening, Rolls-Royce plc http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7137282.html. Accessed 31 January 2018
- 13.Laser Peening (2017) Metal Improvement Company LLC. http://www.kugelstrahlen-shotpeening-mic.de/laser-peening.html. Accessed 27 October 2017
- 14.Laser Peening System for Superior Metal Enhancement, Metal Forming, Fatigue and Cracking Prevention (2014) LSP Technologies Inc. https://www.lsptechnologies.com/. Accessed 24 October 2017
- 15.MacGillivray K, Dane B, Osborne M, Bair R, Garcia W (2010) F-22 laser shock peening depot transition and risk reduction. In: USAF ASIP Conference, San AntonioGoogle Scholar
- 23.Sokol D, Clauer A, Ravindranath R, Lahrman DF (2004) Applications of laser peening to titanium alloys. In: ASME/JSME 2004 Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- 32.Trdan U, Ocana JL, Grum J (2011) Surface modification of aluminium alloys with laser shock processing. J Mech Eng 57(5):385–393Google Scholar
- 33.ASM Aerospace Specification Metals Inc, Aluminum 2024-T3. http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA2024T3. Accessed 28 February 2017
- 35.DeGarmo EP, Black JT, Kohser RA (2003) Materials and processes in manufacturing, 9th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 39.American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2008) Standard test method for determining residual stresses by the hole-drilling strain-gage method, standard test method E837–08. American Society for Testing and Materials, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
- 40.Measurements Group (2001) Measurement of residual stresses by hole-drilling strain gage method. In: Tech note TN-503-6. Vishay Measurements Group, RaleighGoogle Scholar
- 41.Grant PV, Lord JD, Whitehead PS (2002) The measurement of residual stresses by the incremental hole drilling technique. Measurement good practice guide 53. National Physical Laboratory, TeddingtonGoogle Scholar
- 45.Jeff Wu CF, Hamada M (2000) Experiments: planning, analysis and parameter optimization. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 46.Montgomery DC (2001) Design and analysis of experiments, 5th 839 edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 49.ReliaSoft (2014) User's guide DOE++. ReliaSoft Publishing, TucsonGoogle Scholar
- 50.ReliaSoft Corporation (2015) Experiment design & analysis reference. ReliaSoft Publishing, TucsonGoogle Scholar
- 52.Ge MZ, Xiang JY (2016) Effect of laser shock peening on microstructure and fatigue crack growth rate of AZ31B magnesium alloy. J Alloys Compd 680:544–552Google Scholar