Comparison between the improvements made to the fatigue strength of stainless steel by cavitation peening, water jet peening, shot peening and laser peening

[Display omitted] In order to make a clear comparison between the various peening methods used to improve the fatigue strength of stainless steel 316L, the fatigue strength of specimens treated by cavitation peening, water jet peening, laser peening and shot peening were examined using a plate bendi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of materials processing technology 2019-07, Vol.269, p.65-78
Main Author: Soyama, Hitoshi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Austenitic stainless steels
Bend strength
Bending fatigue
Bending stresses
Cavitation
Fatigue life
Fatigue strength
Fatigue tests
Hardness
Heat treating
Hydraulic jets
Laser ablation
Lasers
Metal fatigue
Nozzles
Shot peening
Stainless steel
Surface modification
Surface roughness
Water jet peening
Work hardening
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:[Display omitted] In order to make a clear comparison between the various peening methods used to improve the fatigue strength of stainless steel 316L, the fatigue strength of specimens treated by cavitation peening, water jet peening, laser peening and shot peening were examined using a plate bending fatigue test. Both cavitation peening and water jet peening were carried out using a submerged water jet system, and these are distinguished by the distance from the nozzle to the specimen. A submerged laser peening system was used for laser peening. The impact with the surface due to laser cavitation was greater than that due to laser ablation. For each peening method, the optimum coverage was examined by measuring the fatigue life at constant bending stress. Then, the fatigue strength of specimens treated with the optimum coverage was examined. The fatigue strength of the non-peened specimen was 279 MPa, whereas it was 348 MPa for cavitation peening, 325 MPa for shot peening, 303 MPa for laser peening and 296 MPa for water jet peening. The fatigue strength of each peening method was affected by the surface roughness and work hardening.
ISSN:0924-0136
1873-4774
DOI:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2019.01.030