0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Waterjet Peening and Surface Preparation at 600MPa: A Preliminary Experimental Study

[+] Author and Article Information
A. Chillman1

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

M. Ramulu

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

M. Hashish

 Flow International Corporation, Kent, WA

1

Corresponding author.

J. Fluids Eng 129(4), 485-490 (Dec 11, 2006) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2436580 History: Received April 03, 2006; Revised December 11, 2006

An experimental study was conducted to explore the surface preparation as well as the effects of high-pressure waterjet peening at 600MPa on the surface integrity and finish of metals. The concept of larger droplet size and multiple droplet impacts resulting from an ultra-high-pressure waterjet was used to explore and develop the peening process. A combination of microstructure analysis, microhardness measurements, and profilometry were used in determining the depth of plastic deformation and surface finish that result from the surface treatment process. It was found that waterjet peening at 600MPa induces plastic deformation to greater depths in the subsurface layer of metals than laser shock peening. The degree of plastic deformation and the state of the material surface were found to be strongly dependent on the peening conditions and desired surface roughness. Based on these first investigation results, water peening at 600MPa may serve as a new method for introducing compressive residual stresses in engineering components.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

(a) Schematic diagram of a peening system and (b) peening nozzle assembly

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Top left: 10× magnification of run 1 of experimental set 1. Top right: Close up of peening track on run 1. Bottom right: 10× magnification of run 22 of experimental set 2. Bottom left: Close up of peening track on run 22.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Sectional Kerf profiles: (a) end view of peening run 11 of experimental set 1, peened at a 63.5mm standoff distance and (b) end view of peening run 15 of experimental set 1, 12.7mm standoff distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Erosion volume rate versus standoff distance for cases of (a) plain waterjet (WJ) and (b) fuzzy nozzle (WAJ) with atmospheric pressure as described for experimental set 1 in Table 1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Experimental set 3: Exposed surface of peening sample with 50 passes taken at a 0.254mm index using a fuzzy nozzle (WAJ) of width 0.762mm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Surface profiles for (a) experimental set 3, run 1 and (b) experimental set 3, run 20

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Ra values as a function of standoff distance for experimental set 3: (a) 0.103MPa applied air pressure and (b) 0.207MPa applied air pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Ry values as a function of standoff distance for experimental set 3: (a) 0.103MPa applied air pressure and (b) 0.207MPa applied air pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Superplastic formed specimen with erosion marks for varying traverse rates

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

SEM Surface erosion images of SPF Titanium Alloy. The traverse speeds are (a) 21.2mm∕s, (b) 31.7mm∕s, (c) 42.3mm∕s, and (d) 169.3mm∕s.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Normalized Knoop hardness values for runs 1–20 of experimental set 3

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