Comparison between the improvements made to the fatigue strength of stainless steel by cavitation peening, water jet peening, shot peening and laser peening
Comparison between the improvements made to the fatigue strength of stainless steel by cavitation peening, water jet peening, shot peening and laser peening
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2019.01.030
复制
发表时间：
2019-07-01
影响因子：
6.3
通讯作者：
Soyama, Hitoshi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Soyama, Hitoshi
为了对提高316L不锈钢疲劳强度的各种喷丸方法进行比较，采用平板弯曲疲劳试验对空蚀喷丸、水射流喷丸、激光喷丸和喷丸处理的试样进行了疲劳强度试验。空化喷丸和水射流喷丸都是使用浸没式水射流系统进行的，并且这些都是通过从喷嘴到试样的距离来区分的。采用浸没式激光喷丸系统进行激光喷丸强化。由于激光空化对表面的影响大于由于激光烧蚀对表面的影响。对于每种喷丸方法，通过测量恒定弯曲应力下的疲劳寿命来检查最佳覆盖率。然后，用最佳覆盖率处理的试样的疲劳强度进行了检查。非喷丸试样的疲劳强度为279 MPa，而空蚀喷丸为348 MPa，喷丸为325 MPa，激光喷丸为303 MPa，水射流喷丸为296 MPa。每种喷丸方法的疲劳强度受表面粗糙度和加工硬化的影响。
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.