Advertisement

Explicit dynamics simulation of shot peening process induced by various types of shots impacts

  • Himayat Ullah
  • Abdur Rauf
  • Baseer Ullah
  • Muhammad Rehan
  • Riaz Muhammad
Technical Paper

Abstract

Shot peening is a cold-working process that induces a small indentation on a metallic surface by impacting shots onto it causing residual compressive stresses which delays the initiation of fatigue cracking. The experimental assessment of shot-peening process parameters is not only very complex but costly as well. The most promising technique is the explicit dynamics finite-element (FE) analysis capable of determining the shot-peening process parameters subject to the selection of a suitable material’s constitutive model and numerical technique. In this work, Ansys/LS-Dyna code was employed to simulate the impact of shots of various sizes made of steel and glass on an aluminium alloy plate defined with strain-rate-sensitive elasto-plastic material model. The impacts were carried out at various incident velocities. The effects of velocity, size, and material of the shots on the compressive residual stress, indentation, and force–time response were investigated. The results showed that impact with the steel shots caused more indentation and larger area of plastic deformation in target material than the glass shots due to higher kinetic energy. Furthermore, increasing the shot velocity and size resulted in an increase in indentation. However, a negligible effect of the shot velocity, size, and material was observed on target’s surface and subsurface residual stress. The obtained results demonstrated that the proposed FE models simulated the shot-peening process in a realistic way. The study can be used to determine and optimise the shot-peening parameters such as shot size, material and velocity, and amount indentation and residual stresses in the aluminium alloy plate.

Keywords

Shot peening Explicit dynamics Finite-element analysis Residual stress Indentation 

References

  1. 1.
    Chen Z, Yang F, Meguid S (2014) Realistic finite element simulations of arc-height development in shot-peened almen strips. J Eng Mater Technol 136(4):041002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meguid S et al (1999) Three-dimensional dynamic finite element analysis of shot-peening induced residual stresses. Finite Elem Anal Des 31(3):179–191MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Majzoobi G, Azizi R, Nia AA (2005) A three-dimensional simulation of shot peening process using multiple shot impacts. J Mater Process Technol 164:1226–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hong T, Ooi J, Shaw B (2008) A numerical simulation to relate the shot peening parameters to the induced residual stresses. Eng Fail Anal 15(8):1097–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barter SA (2013) Investigation of a Boeing 747 wing main landing gear trunnion failure. Eng Fail Anal 35:387–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mann P et al (2015) Residual stress near single shot peening impingements determined by nanoindentation and numerical simulations. J Mater Sci 50(5):2284–2297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miao HY, Larose S, Perron C, Lévesque M (2011) Numerical simulation of the stress peen forming process and experimental validation. Adv Eng Softw 42(11):963–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    James MN (2011) Residual stress influences on structural reliability. Eng Fail Anal 18(8):1909–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Azizpour MJ (2017) Evaluation of through thickness residual stresses in thermal sprayed WC–Co coatings. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 39(2):613–620MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jebahi M, Gakwaya A, Lévesque J, Mechri O, Ba K (2016) Robust methodology to simulate real shot peening process using discrete-continuum coupling method. Int J Mech Sci 107:21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edberg J, Lindgren L, Ken-Ichiro M (1995) Shot peening simulated by two different finite element formulations. In: Shen D (ed) Simulation of materials processing: theory, methods and applications. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meguid S, Shagal G, Stranart J (2002) 3D FE analysis of peening of strain-rate sensitive materials using multiple impingement model. Int J Impact Eng 27(2):119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Al-Hassani STS, Kormi K, Webb DC (1999) Numerical simulation of multiple shot impact. In: proceedings of the 7th international conference on shot peening. Warsaw, PolandGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meo M, Vignjevic R (2003) Finite element analysis of residual stress induced by shot peening process. Adv Eng Softw 34(9):569–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bagherifard S, Ghelichi R, Guagliano M (2014) Mesh sensitivity assessment of shot peening finite element simulation aimed at surface grain refinement. Surf Coat Technol 243:58–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pedro S et al (2014) Influence of the target material constitutive model on the numerical simulation of a shot peening process. Surf Coat Technol 258:822–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bhuvaraghan B, Srinivasan S, Maffeo B, McCLain RD, Potdar O, Prakash O (2010) Shot peening simulation using discrete and finite element methods. Adv Eng Softw 41(12):1266–1276CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miguel AG, Calle MA (2014) Multibody modeling of the shot peening process. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 36:111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frija M et al (2006) Finite element modelling of shot peening process: prediction of the compressive residual stresses, the plastic deformations and the surface integrity. Mater Sci Eng A 426(1):173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson GR, Cook WH (1983) A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In: proceedings of the 7th international symposium on Ballistics. 1983. The Hague, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hassani-Gangaraj SM, Cho KS, Voigt HJL, Guagliano M, Schuh CA (2015) Experimental assessment and simulation of surface nanocrystallization by severe shot peening. Acta Mater 97:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hfaiedh N et al (2015) Finite element analysis of laser shock peening of 2050-T8 aluminum alloy. Int J Fatigue 70:480–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Matlab (2011) The mathworks. Massuchussets, Natick, USA, p 01760Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    ANSYS LS-DYNA (2015) User’s guideGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Crisfield M (1994) Non-linear finite element analysis of solids and structures. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ullah H, Silberschmidt VV (2015) Numerical analysis of the interactive damage mechanisms in two-dimensional carbon fabric-reinforced thermoplastic composites under low velocity impacts. J Compos Mater 49(25):3127–3143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carlberger T, Stigh U (2007) An explicit FE-model of impact fracture in an adhesive joint. Eng Fract Mech 74:2247–2262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mylonas GI, Labeas G (2011) Numerical modelling of shot peening process and corresponding products: residual stress, surface roughness and cold work prediction. Surf Coat Technol 205(19):4480–4494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ullah H, Harland AR, Silberschmidt VV (2013) Damage and fracture in carbon fabric reinforced composites under impact bending. Compos Struct 101:144–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guagliano M (2001) Relating Almen intensity to residual stresses induced by shot peening: a numerical approach. J Mater Process Technol 110(3):277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Himayat Ullah
    • 1
  • Abdur Rauf
    • 1
  • Baseer Ullah
    • 1
  • Muhammad Rehan
    • 1
  • Riaz Muhammad
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre of Excellence in Applied Sciences and Technology (CESAT)IslamabadPakistan
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringCECOS University of IT and Emerging SciencesPeshawarPakistan

Personalised recommendations