Finite element modeling can be a powerful tool for predicting residual stresses induced by laser peening; however the sign and magnitude of the stress predictions depend strongly on how the material model captures the high strain rate response. Although a Johnson-Cook formulation is often employed, its suitability for modeling phenomena at very high strain rates has not been rigorously evaluated. In this paper, we address the effectiveness of the Johnson-Cook model, with parameters developed from lower strain rate material data (∼10³ s^–1), to capture the higher strain rate response (∼10⁵–10⁶ s^–1) encountered during the laser peening process. Published Johnson-Cook parameters extracted from split Hopkinson bar testing were used to predict the shock response of aluminum samples during high-impact flyer plate tests. Additional quasi-static and split Hopkinson bar tests were also conducted to study the model response in the lower strain rate regime. The overall objective of the research was to ascertain whether a material model based on conventional test data (quasi-static compression testing and split Hopkinson bar measurements) can credibly be used in FE simulations to predict laser peen-induced stresses.

References

1. 1)
  - 25. Lesuer, D.R.: Experimental Investigations of Material Models for T-6Al-4V Titanium and 2024-T3 Aluminum. 2000, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-00/25..
2. 2)
  - 13. Arif, A.F.M.: ‘Numerical prediction of plastic deformation and residual stresses induced by laser shock processing’. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2003, 136, p. 120–138. (doi: 10.1016/S0924-0136(02)01122-6).
3. 3)
  - 23. Johnson, G.R., Cook, W.H.: ‘A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rate and high temperatures’, in Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ballistics, The Hague, Netherlands, 1983, p. 541–547..
4. 4)
  - 17. Montross, C.S., Wei, T., Ye L., Clark, G., Mai, Y.-W.: ‘Laser shock processing and its effects on microstructure and properties of metal alloys: a review’. International Journal of Fatigue, 2002, 24, (10), p. 1021–1036. (doi: 10.1016/S0142-1123(02)00022-1).
5. 5)
  - 9. Ocaña, J.L., Morales, M., Molpeceres, C., Torres, J.: ‘Numerical simulation of surface deformation and residual stresses fields in laser shock processing experiments’. Applied Surface Science, 2004, 238, (14), p. 242–248. (doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2004.05.232).
6. 6)
  - 28. LeBlanc, M.M., Lassila, D.H.: ‘Dynamic tensile testing of sheet material using the split Hopkinson bar technique’. Experimental Techniques, 1993, 17, (1), p. 37–42. (doi: 10.1111/j.1747-1567.1993.tb00274.x).
7. 7)
  - 16. Ding, K., Ye, L.: ‘Laser Shock Processing, Process Performance and Simulation’. (Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press, 2006)..
8. 8)
  - 4. Cai, H., Bunch, J., Polin, L., Walker, M., Garcia, W.: ‘Verification of analytical methodology to minimize inspection burdens and to utilize full benefits of residual stress life enhancement technique’. in The 2013 Aircraft Structural Integrity Program Conference, Bonita Springs, FL, 2013..
9. 9)
  - 22. Zerilli, F.J., Armstrong, R.W.: ‘Dislocation-mechanics-based constitutive relations for materials dynamic calculations’. Journal of Applied Physics, 1987, 61, (5), p. 1816–1825. (doi: 10.1063/1.338024).
10. 10)
  - 14. Peyre, P., Chaieb, I., Braham, C.: ‘FEM Calculation of residual stresses induced by laser shock processing in stainless steels’. Modeling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering, 2007, 15, pp. 205–221. (doi: 10.1088/0965-0393/15/3/002).
11. 11)
  - 8. Ding, K., Ye, L.: “Three-dimensional dynamic finite element analysis of multiple laser shock peening processes”. Surface Engineering, 2003, 19, (5), p. 351–358. (doi: 10.1179/026708403225007563).
12. 12)
  - 29. Hopkins, A., Brar, N.S.: ‘Hugoniot and shear strength of titanium 6–4 under shock loading’. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2000, 505, (1), p. 423–426..
13. 13)
  - 30. Rosenberg, Z., Yaziv, D., Partom, Y.: ‘Calibration of foil-like manganin gauges in planar shock wave experiments’. Journal of Applied Physics, 1980, 51, (7), p. 3702–3705. (doi: 10.1063/1.328155).
14. 14)
  - 6. Coratella, S., Sticchi, M., Toparli, M.B., Fitzpatrick, M.E., Kashaev, N.: ‘Application of the eigenstrain approach to predict the residual stress distribution in laser shock peened AA7050-T7451 samples’. Surface & Coatings Technology, 2015, 2073, p. 39–49. (doi: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2015.03.026).
15. 15)
  - 26. Amarchinta, H.K., Grandhi, R.V., Langer, K., Stargel, D.S.: ‘Material model validation for laser shock peening process simulation’. Modelling and simulation in materials science and engineering, 2009, 17, (1), p. 015010. (doi: 10.1088/0965-0393/17/1/015010).
16. 16)
  - 15. Warren, A.W., Guo, Y.B., Chen, S.C.: ‘Massive parallel laser shock peening: Simulation, analysis, and validation’. International Journal of Fatigue, 2008, 30, (1), pp. 188–197. (doi: 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2007.01.033).
17. 17)
  - 5. Air Force Research Laboratory Success Stories – A Review of 2011, 2001: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. p. 10..
18. 18)
  - 11. Brockman, R.A., Braisted, W.R., Olson, S.E, et al: ‘Prediction and characterization of residual stresses from laser shock peening’. International Journal of Fatigue, 2012, 36, (1), p. 96–108. (doi: 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2011.08.011).
19. 19)
  - 24. Bhamare, S., Ramakrishnan, R.G., Mannava, S.R., Langer, K., Vasuvedan, V.K., Qian, D.: ‘Simulation-based optimization of laser shock peening process for improved bending fatigue life of Ti-6Al-2Sn-4Zr-2Mo alloy”. Surface & Coatings Technology, 2013. 232: p. 464–474. (doi: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2013.06.003).
20. 20)
  - 2. Dorman, M., Toparli, M.B., Smyth, N., Cini, A., Fitzpatrick, M.E., Irving, P.E.: ‘Effect of laser shock peening on residual stress and fatigue life of clad 2024 aluminium sheet containing scribe defects”. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 2012, 548, p. 142–151. (doi: 10.1016/j.msea.2012.04.002).
21. 21)
  - 21. Bammann, D.J., Chiesa, M.L., Johnson, G.C.: ‘Johnson. Modeling large deformation and failure in manufacturing processes’. in International Congress of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Kyoto, Japan, 1996..
22. 22)
  - 20. Miller, A.: ‘An inelastic constitutive model for monotonic, cyclic, and creep deformation, Part 1’. ASME Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, 1976. 98: p. 97–105. (doi: 10.1115/1.3443367).
23. 23)
  - 3. Hill, M.R., DeWald, A., VanDalen, J., Bunch, J.: ‘Design and analysis of engineered residual stress surface treatments for enhancements of aircraft stucture’. in The 2012 Aircraft Structural Integrity Program Conference, San Antonio, TX, 2012..
24. 24)
  - 19. Bodner, S.R.: ‘Unified plasticity for engineering applications’ (Mathematical Concepts and Methods in Science and Engineering, Springer, 2002)..
25. 25)
  - 10. Singh, G., Grandhi, R.V., Stargel, D.S., Langer, K.: ‘Modeling and optimization of a laser shock peening process’. 12th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, 2008, p. 5838–5850..
26. 26)
  - 12. Hasser, P.J., Malik, A.S., Langer, K., Spradlin, T.J.: ‘Simulation of Surface Roughness Effects on Residual Stress in Laser Shock Peening’. in ASME 2013 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference collocated with the 41st North American Manufacturing Research Conference: American Society of Mechanical Engineers..
27. 27)
  - 1. Peyre, P., Fabbro, R.: ‘Laser Shock Processing: A Review of the Physics and Applications’. Optical and Quantum Electronics, 1995, 27, (12), p. 1213–1229..
28. 28)
  - 7. Braisted, W., Brockman, R.: ‘Finite element simulation of laser shock peening’. International Journal of Fatigue, 1999, 21, (7), p. 719–724. (doi: 10.1016/S0142-1123(99)00035-3).
29. 29)
  - 18. Meyers, M.A.: ‘Dynamic Behavior of Materials’ (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994)..
30. 30)
  - 27. Follansbee, P.S.: ‘The Hopkinson Bar, in Metals Handbook - Mechanical Testings’ (ASM, Metals Park, OH, 1985), p. 198–203..

High Strain-Rate Material Model Validation for Laser Peening Simulation

References

Related content