0
Research Papers

Shape Prediction for Laser Peen Forming of Fiber Metal Laminates by Experimentally Determined Eigenstrain

[+] Author and Article Information
Zhengyu Zhang, Zhenqiang Yao

State Key Laboratory of Mechanical
System and Vibration,
School of Mechanical Engineering,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai 200240, China

Yongxiang Hu

Mem. ASME
State Key Laboratory of Mechanical
System and Vibration,
School of Mechanical Engineering,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai 200240, China
e-mail: huyx@sjtu.edu.cn

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received April 28, 2016; final manuscript received September 13, 2016; published online October 18, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Hongqiang Chen.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 139(4), 041004 (Oct 18, 2016) (10 pages) Paper No: MANU-16-1251; doi: 10.1115/1.4034891 History: Received April 28, 2016; Revised September 13, 2016

Laser peen forming (LPF) is a promising method to fabricate fiber metal laminates (FMLs) with its design flexibility to produce complex shapes. Eigenstrain-based modeling is a helpful method to predict deformation after LPF, while determining eigenstrain is very difficult because of its complex constituents and high-dynamic loading of process. An effective experiment-based method is proposed in this work to obtain eigenstrain induced by LPF in metal layers of FMLs. An analytical beam model is developed to relate the deflection profile generated by specific scanning strategy to equivalent bending moment. Based on the determined bending moment from the measured deflection profiles, the generated eigenstrain can be inversely calculated by the proposed beam model describing the relationship between the eigenstrain and the bending moment. Chemical etching to remove sheets layer by layer is used to obtain the relaxed deflection profile to calculate the eigenstrain in each metal layer. Furthermore, an approximate model of plate is established to predict deformation after LPF based on determined eigenstrain. The results show that the predictive deformed shape agrees very well with both experiments and finite model prediction.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Bending of fiber metal laminates by laser peen forming: (a) schematic of laser peening, (b) FMLs plate sample after LPF, (c) eigenstrain distributed in the metal layer, and (d) the equivalent external load to generate bending

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic of removing layers to obtain bending moment derived from the embedded eigenstrain in each metal layer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Illustration of beam samples after LPF: (a) deformation under equivalent bending moment and (b) the extracted bending model to relate deformation with bending moment

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Flow chart to determine eigenstrain in each metal layer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Illustration of scanning strategy: (a) overlapping rate between adjacent scanning lines, (b) scanning strategy 1 performed on beam samples to determine bending moment, (c) scanning strategy 2 performed on beam samples to determine bending moment, and (d) scanning strategy performed on plate samples to validate the predictive model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Schematic of the experimental setup for laser peen forming

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Schematic illustrate of GLARE laminates: (a) GLARE 2 with the unidirectional fiber coinciding with the rolling direction and (b) GLARE 3 with the cross-plied fiber layers

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Illustration of plate samples after LPF: (a) deformation under equivalent bending moment and (b) the extracted quarter bending model to predict the deformed shape

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

The fitted profile compared with the experimental profile with scanning strategy 1: (a) GLARE 2 and (b) GLARE 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

The determined uniform eigenstrain in the top and bottom metal layer through repeated experiments

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of deformed profile between simulation and experiment with scanning strategy 1: (a) abaqus model with layered structure, (b) GLARE 2, and (c) GLARE 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

The deformed shape of GLARE 2 sample from experiment, prediction, and simulation: (a) the deformed plate sample after experiment, (b) the contour of sample after experiment, (c) the contour of prediction with the analytical model, and (d) the contour of simulation with the determined eigenstrain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Deformation profiles of prediction, experiment, and simulation along the centerline of GLARE 2: (a) length direction and (b) width direction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Interval of deflection curve along the centerline by prediction compared to experiment: (a) length direction of GLARE 2, (b) width direction of GLARE 2, (c) length direction of GLARE 3, and (d) width direction of GLARE 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Results of strip samples with and without etching after laser peen forming: (a) the measured contour of GLARE 2 strip samples with scanning strategy 2, (b) surface of GLARE 2 with removal of top aluminum layer by chemical etching, and (c) the deformed profile of GLARE 2 with and without chemical etching

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