0
Research Papers

An Efficient Reliability-Based Simulation Method for Optimum Laser Peening Treatment

[+] Author and Article Information
Peter J. Hasser

Parks College of Engineering,
Aviation and Technology,
Saint Louis University,
3450 Lindell Boulevard,
St. Louis, MO 63103
e-mail: hasser.peter@gmail.com

Arif S. Malik

Mem. ASME
Mechanical Engineering Department,
Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and
Computer Science,
The University of Texas at Dallas,
800 West Campbell Road,
Richardson, TX 75080
e-mail: arif.malik@utdallas.edu

Kristina Langer

Air Force Research Laboratory,
AFRL/RQVS,
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433
e-mail: kristina.langer@us.af.mil

Thomas J. Spradlin

Air Force Research Laboratory,
AFRL/RQVS,
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433
e-mail: thomas.spradlin@us.af.mil

Mohammad I. Hatamleh

Mechanical Engineering Department,
Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and
Computer Science,
The University of Texas at Dallas,
800 West Campbell Road,
Richardson, TX 75080
e-mail: mih150230@utdallas.edu

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received February 23, 2015; final manuscript received April 12, 2016; published online June 23, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Hongqiang Chen.This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 138(11), 111001 (Jun 23, 2016) (14 pages) Paper No: MANU-15-1091; doi: 10.1115/1.4033604 History: Received February 23, 2015; Revised April 12, 2016

A method is introduced for efficient reliability-based design of laser peening (LP) surface treatment to extend fatigue life of metal components. The method includes nonparametric probability density estimation, surrogate modeling using a new finite element (FE or FEA) approach, and reliability analysis with correlated random variables (RVs). Efficient LP simulation is achieved via a new technique termed single explicit analysis using time-dependent damping (SEATD), which reduces simulation times by a factor of 6. The example study of a three-point bend coupon reveals that fatigue life reliability significantly affects optimal LP design, as 52 laser spots are needed for 99% reliability versus 44 spots for 95%.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Conventional explicit–implicit simulation approach of LP using FEA

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The 2N + 1 approach to FEA of LP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Flowchart of the SEATD approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Spectral radius versus normalized eigenvalue. (Reproduced with permission from Underwood [21]. Copyright 1983 Elsevier B. V.).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Strain energy history for three 2N + 1 constant-damping values and SEATD oscillatory damping

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

SEATD mass-proportional damping profile used for simulations in Sec. 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Laser peened plate configuration, based on Ref. [11] (dimensions are in mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Spatial pressure profile of circular LP spot. Adapted from irradiance profile in Ref. [22].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison between SEATD, replicated 2N + 1, and Brockman's experimentally verified 2N + 1 results, along Fig. 8 path

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Strain energy history for constant damping (c = 2.8 × 106, c = 3.8 × 106, c = 5 × 106, and c = 1 × 107), and variable damping profile-1 and profile-2 after the second LP shot

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Kinetic energy history for constant damping (c = 2.8 × 106, c = 3.8 × 106, c = 5 × 106, and c = 1 × 107), and variable damping profile-1 and profile-2 after the second LP shot

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Total energy history for constant damping (c = 2.8 × 106, c = 3.8 × 106, c = 5 × 106, and c = 1 × 107), and variable damping profile-1 and profile-2 after the second LP shot

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Reliability method for LP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Decision-making process for quantifying uncertainty of an RV

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Flowchart of the RBDO process for LP. (Note: LHS refers to Latin hypercube sampling.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Three-point bend specimen (shaded area indicates region for LP treatment)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Cross section of specimen (dimensions are in mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Peened area of the specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Temporal pressure profile for each LP spot, sampled from Ref. [11]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

General LP pattern, showing how adjacent rows overlap

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Axisymmetric top hat spatial pressure profile, indicating PPR variable definition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

BI-based marginal PDFs for JC model parameters of Al 2014-T4: (a) A, MPa; (b) B, MPa; (c) C; and (d) n

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Two-part RBDO process for case study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Longitudinal residual stress for optimal LP design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Residual stress along z-direction path from midpoint

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Residual stress along x-direction path from midpoint

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In