Modeling of multiple shots for analyzing shot peening controlled parameters on formed curvature radius

  • Jiabin Zhang
  • Shihong Lu
  • Zhen Zhou
  • Tianrui Wu
  • Gang Xu
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

The desired peening outcome of the peening process like curvature is based on the reasonable determination of shot peening (SP) parameters. In this work, an assessment about accuracy of randomly distributed shots model was performed by comparing the experimental test. And, the comprehensive nonlinear dynamic elastic-plastic finite element analysis was conducted to reveal the difference between the regularly ordered shots model and the randomly distributed shots model in terms of induced stress and residual stress. The comparison indicated a difference between those two kinds of models under high coverage. Based on the randomly distributed shots model, we also found curvature radius increased with increasing thickness but decreased with shot velocity and increasing coverage. At last, we analyzed the reason by associating the residual distributions. Contrary to the shot peening parameters, shot velocity and coverage, the thickness of the strip is the most influential factor which inhibits the decrease of curvature radius. It should be noted that the over-high impact velocity will lead to a buckling distortion on the strip. Furthermore, the relation between the impact velocity and coverage was developed.

Keywords

Shot peening Finite element simulation Curvature radius Experiment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Hassani STS (1981) Mechanical aspects of residual stress development in shot peening. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on shot peening, pp 583–602Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kulekci MK, Esme U (2014) Critical analysis of processes and apparatus for industrial surface peening technologies. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 74:1551–1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang T, Platts MJ, Levers A (2006) A process model for shot peen forming. J Mater Process Technol 172:159–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grasty LV, Andrew C (1996) Shot peen forming sheet metal: finite element prediction of deformed shape. Proc Inst Mech Eng B-J Eng 210:361–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Levers A, Prior A (1998) Finite element analysis of shot peening. J Mater Process Technol 80-81(98):304–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schwarzer J, Schulze V, Vöhringer O (2002) Finite element simulation of shot peening—a method to evaluate the influence of peening parameters on surface characteristics. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Shot peening (ICSP8), Garmisch-Partenkirchen, pp 507–515Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klemenz M, Schulze V, Rohr I, Löhe D (2009) Application of the FEM for the prediction of the surface layer characteristics after shot peening. J Mater Process Technol 209:4093–4102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meguid SA, Shagal G, Stranart JC (2002) 3D FE analysis of peening of strain-rate sensitive materials using multiple impingement model. Int J Impact Eng 27:119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miao HY, Larose S, Perron C, Lévesque M (2011) Numerical simulation of the stress peen forming process and experimental validation. Adv Eng Softw 42:963–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gariépy A, Larose S, Perron C, Lévesque M (2011) Shot peening and peen forming finite element modelling—towards a quantitative method. Int J Solids Struct 48:2859–2877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seddik R, Bahloul A, Atig A, Fathallah R (2016) A simple methodology to optimize shot-peening process parameters using finite element simulations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. doi: 10.1007/s00170-016-9532-1
  12. 12.
    Wang JM, Liu FH, Yu F, Zhang G (2011) Shot peening simulation based on SPH method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 56:571–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Han K, Owen DRJ, Peric D (2002) Combined finite/discrete element and explicit/implicit simulations of peen forming process. Eng Comput 19:92–118CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hong T, Ooi JY, Shaw B (2008a) A numerical simulation to relate the shot peening parameters to the induced residual stresses. Eng Fail Anal 15:1097–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gariépy A, Cyr J, Levers A, Perron C, Bocher P, Lévesque M (2012) Potential applications of peen forming finite element modelling. Adv Eng Softw 52:60–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baughman DL (1987) U.S. patent no. 4,694,672—method and apparatus for imparting a simple contour to a workpiece, U.S. Patent and Trademark OfficeGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marsh KJ (1993) Shot peening: techniques and applications. EMAS, London, p 1993Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karuppanan S, Romero JS, De los Rios ER, Rodopolous C, Levers A (2002) A theoretical and experimental investigation into the development of coverage in shot peening. In: ICSP8, Munich, pp 101–107Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bagherifard S, Ghelichi V, Guagliano V (2012) On the shot peening surface coverage and its assessment by means of finite element simulation: a critical review and some original developments. Apple Surf Sci 259:186–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gao GQ, Wang YJ, Zhang WY, Xiao XD, Wang W, Qiao MJ (2014) Influence analysis of shot peening forming technological parameters on formed curvature radius (in Chinese). Forging Stamping Technol 39:53–57Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim T, Lee JH, Lee H, Cheong SK (2010) An area-average approach to peening residual stress under multi-impacts using a three-dimensional symmetry-cell finite element model with plastic shots. Mater Des 31:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kirk D (2009) Shot peening coverage: prediction and control. Shot Peener:24–30Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miao HY, Larose S, Perron C, Lévesque M (2009) On the potential applications of a 3D random finite element model for the simulation of shot peening. Adv Eng Softw 40:1023–1038CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prevey PS, Cammett JT (2003) The effect of shot peening coverage on residual stress, CW and fatigue in a Ni-Cr-Mo low alloy steel. In: Proceedings of the 8th International conference on shot peening (ICSP8). Garmisch-Partenkirchen, pp. 295–304Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mylonas GI, Labeas G (2011) Numerical modelling of shot peening process and corresponding products: residual stress, surface roughness and cold work prediction. Surf Coat Tech 205:4480–4494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Xie LC, Wang CX, Wang LQ, Wang Z, Jiang CH, Lu WJ, Ji V (2016) Numerical analysis and experimental validation on residual stress distribution of titanium matrix composite after shot peening treatment. Mech Mater 99:2–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bhuvaraghan B, Srinivasan SM, Maffeo B, Mcclain RD, Potdar Y, Prakash O (2010) Shot peening simulation using discrete and finite element methods. Adv Eng Softw 41:1266–1276CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Xiao X, Wang Y, Zhang W, Wang J, Wei S (2014) Numerical simulation of stress peen forming with regular indentation. Procedia Eng 81:867–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guo C, Hu S, Wang D, Wang Z (2015) Finite element analysis of the effect of the controlled parameters on plate forming induced by ultrasonic impact forming (UIF) process. Appl Surf Sci 353:382–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guagliano M (2011) Relating Almen intensity to residual stresses induced by shot peening: a numerical approach. J Mater Process Technol 110(3):277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wagner L (1999) Mechanical surface treatments on titanium, aluminum and magnesium alloys. Mater Sci Eng A 263(2):210–216MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meguid SA, Shagal G, Stranart JC, Daly J (1999) Three-dimensional dynamic finite element analysis of shot-peening induced residual stresses. Finite Elem Anal Des 31(3):179–191CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Akyıldız HK, Kulekci MK, Esme U (2015) Influence of shot peening parameters on high-cycle fatigue strength of steel produced by powder metallurgy process. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 38:1246–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jiabin Zhang
    • 1
  • Shihong Lu
    • 1
  • Zhen Zhou
    • 1
  • Tianrui Wu
    • 1
  • Gang Xu
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Mechanical and Electrical EngineeringNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.AVIC Xi’an Aircraft Industry (Group) Company LTDXianPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations