0
Research Papers

Predicting the Peen Forming Effectiveness of Ti-6Al-4V Strips With Different Thicknesses Using Realistic Finite Element Simulations

[+] Author and Article Information
Fan Yang

School of Aerospace Engineering and
Applied Mechanics,
Tongji University,
Shanghai 200092, China
e-mail: fanyang@tongji.edu.cn

Yukui Gao

School of Aerospace Engineering and
Applied Mechanics,
Tongji University,
Shanghai 200092, China

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Materials Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received June 8, 2015; final manuscript received October 14, 2015; published online November 4, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Vikas Tomar.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 138(1), 011004 (Nov 04, 2015) (10 pages) Paper No: MATS-15-1130; doi: 10.1115/1.4031830 History: Received June 08, 2015; Revised October 14, 2015

This paper is intended to quantify the relationship between the peen forming effectiveness and various involved parameters through a realistic numerical study. For this purpose, a new finite element (FE) model is proposed with full geometry representation, random shots generation, and rate-dependent material law of kinematic strain-hardening. The mesh sensitivity and effects of boundary conditions are carefully examined. The FE model is validated by comparing the results with the experimental measurements. The proposed model is then used to investigate the effects of the peening intensity (represented as the shot velocity) and the strip thickness on the peen-formed deflection and the residual stress distribution for strips made of Ti-6Al-4V. Our results indicate the existence of a maximum convex deflection for different strip thicknesses. In addition, a reversed deflection (i.e., concaved curvature) is observed for severe peening conditions (i.e., thin strip under high peening intensity). Our simulations verify the previous proposition that a concaved curvature can be generated only when the whole cross section is plastically deformed.

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

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Top view of the investigated strip constrained by the Almen fixture, with dimensions in mm. The dashed box indicates the simulated region in the FE model.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Three-dimensional configuration of the FE model with the coordinate axes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Flowchart of the whole numerical approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Top view showing the boundary conditions and the impinging locations of the random shots that are arranged into multiple arrays, with the global view showing the first (dark) and second (light) arrays and the enlarged view showing the sequence of all the shots that fall within one periodic cell

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Stress–depth profiles for different mesh refinements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Stress–depth profiles for different boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of the simulated residual stress profile with that the experimental results in Ref. [10]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Contours of the stress σxx in x–y plane at three depths: (a) top, (b) the depth corresponding to the maximum stress, and (c) bottom

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

RMS deviation of the stress distribution at each depth

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Strip deflection along the partition paths parallel to (a) the length and (b) the width, compared with those measured by the experiments in Ref. [33]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Averaged residual stress versus depth under the constraint of Almen fixture for the shot velocities of (a) 25 m/s, (b) 50 m/s, and (c) 75 m/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Averaged residual stress versus depth after springback for the shot velocities of (a) 25 m/s, (b) 50 m/s, and (c) 75 m/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Deflection development versus the number of the impinged shots for the shot velocities of (a) 25 m/s, (b) 50 m/s, and (c) 75 m/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Final strip deflection versus thickness for different shot velocities

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Plastic ratio versus thickness for different shot velocities

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