scholarly journals Determination of phases and residual stresses after martensitic transformation induced by rolling in 304L stainless steel

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Juciane Maria Alves ◽  
Luiz Paulo Brandao ◽  
Andersan dos Santos Paula
Keyword(s):  
Residual Stress ◽  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Martensitic Transformation ◽  
Residual Stresses ◽  
Compressive Residual Stress ◽  
Sample Thickness ◽  
304L Stainless Steel ◽  
X Ray Diffraction ◽  
X Ray

ABSTRACT The 304L austenitic stainless steel is susceptible to deformation induced martensitic transformation. This phase transformation depends on the temperature as well as on the mode, rate and level of deformation. In this work the phases and residual stresses of a 304L TRIP steel where martensitic transformation was induced by cold rolling were investigated by X-ray diffraction XRD. The analyses were performed for different sample thicknesses. The results showed that the phase composition and the residual stresses are strongly dependent on sample thickness. All samples showed a compressive residual stress.

X-Ray Diffraction Analysis of Steel with Oxidised Surface Layer

2016 ◽  
Vol 368 ◽  
pp. 99-102
Author(s):  
Lukáš Zuzánek ◽  
Ondřej Řidký ◽  
Nikolaj Ganev ◽  
Kamil Kolařík
Keyword(s):  
Residual Stress ◽  
Surface Layer ◽  
Residual Stresses ◽  
Diffraction Analysis ◽  
Oxide Surface ◽  
X Ray Diffraction ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Electrolytic Polishing ◽  
Small Depth

The basic principle of the X-ray diffraction analysis is based on the determination of components of residual stresses. They are determined on the basis of the change in the distance between atomic planes. The method is limited by a relatively small depth in which the X-ray beam penetrates into the analysed materials. For determination of residual stresses in the surface layer the X-ray diffraction and electrolytic polishing has to be combined. The article is deals with the determination of residual stress and real material structure of a laser-welded steel sample with an oxide surface layer. This surface layer is created during the rolling and it prevents the material from its corrosion. Before the X-ray diffraction analysis can be performed, this surface layer has to be removed. This surface layer cannot be removed with the help of electrolytic polishing and, therefore, it has to be removed mechanically. This mechanical procedure creates “technological” residual stress in the surface layer. This additional residual stress is removed by the electrolytic polishing in the depth between 20 and 80 μm. Finally, the real structure and residual stresses can be determined by using the X-ray diffraction techniques.

Measuring residual stresses in stainless steel—recent experiences within a VAMAS exercise

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (S1) ◽  
pp. S41-S44 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. T. Fry ◽  
J. D. Lord
Keyword(s):  
Residual Stress ◽  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Austenitic Stainless Steel ◽  
Residual Stresses ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Test Procedure ◽  
Industrial Plant ◽  
X Ray Diffraction ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Industrial Sectors

Residual stresses impact on a wide variety of industrial sectors including the automotive, power generation, industrial plant, construction, aerospace, railway and transport industries, and a range of materials manufacturers and processing companies. The X-ray diffraction (XRD) technique is one of the most popular methods for measuring residual stress (Kandil et al., 2001) used routinely in quality control and materials characterization for validating models and design. The VAMAS TWA20 Project 3 activity on the “Measurement of Residual Stresses by X-ray Diffraction” was initiated by NPL in 2005 to examine various aspects of the XRD test procedure in support of work aimed at developing an international standard in this area. The purpose of this project was to examine and reduce some of the sources of scatter and uncertainty in the measurement of residual stress by X-ray diffraction on metallic materials, through an international intercomparison and validation exercise. One of the major issues the intercomparison highlighted was the problem associated with measuring residual stresses in austenitic stainless steel. The following paper describes this intercomparison, reviews the results of the exercise and details additional work looking at developing best practice for measuring residual stresses in austenitic stainless steel, for which X-ray measurements are somewhat unreliable and problematic.

Shakedown During Fatigue of Residual Stresses Introduced by Different Mechanical Surface Treatments

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher M. Gill ◽  
Philip J. Withers ◽  
Alex Evans ◽  
Neil Fox ◽  
Koichi Akita
Keyword(s):  
Residual Stress ◽  
Residual Stresses ◽  
Glass Bead ◽  
Compressive Residual Stress ◽  
Cold Work ◽  
Diffraction Method ◽  
Hole Drilling ◽  
X Ray Diffraction ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Cold Worked

A layer of compressive residual stress extending from the surface of a component can help to extend fatigue life, but it must remain stable during applied service loading. Metal shot and glass bead peening are traditionally used; introducing a shallow (100–300μm) layer of compressive residual stress and a highly cold worked surface. Laser peening and deep rolling are capable of introducing much deeper compressive residual stresses combined with lower levels of cold work. In this paper we report on the level of shakedown of residual stress brought about by constant strain amplitude fatigue. Glass and metal shot peened, laser peened and deep rolled Ti-6Al-4V samples have been studied. The residual stress profiles as a function of depth have been measured using neutron diffraction, laboratory x-ray diffraction and a hybrid hole-drilling/laboratory x-ray diffraction method. The magnitude and depth of cold work determined for each of the treatment methods. The extent of subsequent residual stress shakedown under different strain amplitudes and load ratios, in deep rolled, glass bead and metal shot peened samples is also assessed.

scholarly journals The long-term stability of residual stresses in steel

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eckehard Mueller
Keyword(s):  
Residual Stress ◽  
Residual Stresses ◽  
Compressive Residual Stress ◽  
List Type ◽  
X Ray Diffraction ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Term Stability ◽  
Long Term Stability ◽  
The Stability

Abstract There is frequent debate over the long-term stability of calibration specimens. It is an essential component of monitoring, especially for X-ray diffraction equipment used to determine residual stresses. If residual stresses are stable, a second consideration is that the residual stress should not be close to 0 MPa. If such specimens are available for monitoring, it is more sensitive concerning changes. These are key requirements when developing calibration specimens. In this study five specimens were observed, one of them was tested for more than 20 years. The stresses were determined with X-ray diffractometers. In the last four years two different X-ray methods for determination were used. It can be shown that high compressive residual stress does not change in steel if the specimens had no dynamic or static load and were stored under normal laboratory conditions. Article Highlights Finding a material in which compressive residual stress is stable Showing that the stability of compressive residual stress is over a long term The stability of the compressive residual stress is in a great range

INFLUENCE OF ANNEALING ON THE DEPTH MICROSTRUCTURE OF THE SHOT PEENED DUPLEX STAINLESS STEEL AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURE

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (02) ◽  
pp. 1850059
Author(s):  
QIANG FENG ◽  
JIA SHE ◽  
YONG XIANG ◽  
XIANYUN WU ◽  
CHENGXI WANG ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Residual Stress ◽  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Thermal Expansion ◽  
Elevated Temperature ◽  
Residual Stresses ◽  
Duplex Stainless Steel ◽  
Coefficient Of Thermal Expansion ◽  
Lattice Parameters ◽  
X Ray Diffraction ◽  
X Ray

The depth profiles of residual stresses and lattice parameters in the surface layers of shot peened duplex stainless steel at elevated temperature were investigated utilizing X-ray diffraction analysis. At each deformation depth, residual stress distributions in both ferrite and austenite were studied by X-ray diffraction stress analysis which is performed on the basis of the sin[Formula: see text] method and the lattice parameters were explored by Rietveld method. The results reveal that difference changes of depth residual compressive stress profiles between ferrite and austenite under the same annealing condition are resulted from the diverse coefficient of thermal expansion, dislocation density, etc. for different phases in duplex stainless steel. The relaxations of depth residual stresses in austenite are more obvious than those in ferrite. The lattice parameters decrease in the surface layer with the extending of annealing time, however, they increase along the depth after annealing for 16[Formula: see text]min. The change of the depth lattice parameters can be ascribed to both thermal expansion and the relaxation of residual stress. The different changes of microstructure at elevated temperature between ferrite and austenite are discussed.

scholarly journals Precision of the Residual Stress determined by X-ray Diffraction: Summery and Limits

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eckehard Mueller
Keyword(s):  
Residual Stress ◽  
Compressive Residual Stress ◽  
Round Robin ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
X Ray Diffraction ◽  
Measurement Standard ◽  
Passenger Cars ◽  
Round Robin Test ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Mechanical Surface

Today components specially for passenger cars are weight optimized. Often it is done by mechanical surface treatments. Therefore, the amount of compressive residual stress induced by the treatment must be known. The measurement is very often done by x-ray diffraction. But how precise can you determine (and not directly measured) the amount? A big question is the calibration of the equipment. A specimen must be designed and calibrated by round robin test, because no measurement standard is available.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document