2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.jma.2023.04.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of the effects of submerged laser peening, cavitation peening and shot peening on the improvement of the fatigue strength of magnesium alloy AZ31

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Also, the roughness values obtained in this study for the AZ31 magnesium alloy are lower than those obtained for the shot-peened samples in [44]. Favorable surface roughness values (lower than those reported in [45]) may contribute to improved fatigue resistance and higher corrosion resistance [24]. The shot peening process analyzed in this work is classi ed as a dynamic burnishing method.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 61%
“…Also, the roughness values obtained in this study for the AZ31 magnesium alloy are lower than those obtained for the shot-peened samples in [44]. Favorable surface roughness values (lower than those reported in [45]) may contribute to improved fatigue resistance and higher corrosion resistance [24]. The shot peening process analyzed in this work is classi ed as a dynamic burnishing method.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 61%
“…In the case of magnesium alloy, the fatigue strength of laser cavitation peening is better than cavitation peening conducted via a cavitating jet [36]. It was reported that the suitable laser pulse density of improvement of the bending fatigue strength by laser cavitation peening was 4 pulse/mm 2 for stainless steel SUS316L [21], 5 pulse/mm 2 for additively manufactured (AM) titanium alloy Ti6Al4V [37], and 14 pulse/mm 2 for magnesium alloy AZ31 [36]. The Vickers hardness of these tested materials without peening were 168 ± 3 for SUS316L [21], 408 ± 11 for AM Ti6Al4V [38] and 53.0 ± 0.7 for AZ31 [36].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In another way to conduct cavitation peening, a cavitation is generated by a submerged pulsed laser, i.e., laser cavitation peening [33][34][35] (see Figure 1b). In the case of magnesium alloy, the fatigue strength of laser cavitation peening is better than cavitation peening conducted via a cavitating jet [36]. It was reported that the suitable laser pulse density of improvement of the bending fatigue strength by laser cavitation peening was 4 pulse/mm 2 for stainless steel SUS316L [21], 5 pulse/mm 2 for additively manufactured (AM) titanium alloy Ti6Al4V [37], and 14 pulse/mm 2 for magnesium alloy AZ31 [36].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The urgent task of our time is to increase the service life and hardening of metal parts and components by various methods. The most common of these are surface shot blasting, rolling, equal-channel angular pressing, laser peening [1][2][3][4][5], etc. In addition to these traditional methods of surface treatment methods, laser shock peening (LSP) has a number of advantages: the absence of global thermal effects, ability to locally treat parts with complex geometry [6][7][8][9], short processing time, lower surface roughness [10], deeper residual stresses [11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%