Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T03:17:16.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

X-Ray Diffraction Study of the Effects of Uniaxial Plastic Deformation on Residual Stress Measurements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

A. L. Esquivel
A. L. Esquivel*
Affiliation:
Materials Technology Laboratories, The Boeing Company Seattle, Washington 98124
Get access

Abstract

Uniaxial Plastic Deformation (UPD) has been known to produce anomalies in residual stress measurements based on x-ray diffraction techniques. This study was undertaken to determine the magnitude of the effects, if any, on residual stress calculations from various materials subjected to UPD. An x-ray diffraction study using the two-exposure method ( ψ = 0° and ψ = U5°) was made on several iron, aluminum, and titanium alloys (AISI 4340, 4330M, 4130; 2024-13, 7075-T611; Ti-6Al-4V) before and after these alloys were deformed plastically by bending on a U-bend test fixture. The x-ray peak shifts, Δ2θ0-ψ, were recorded and the x-ray stress factors, Ki, calculated by three different methods. The results indicate that UPD of the calibration specimens will increase or decrease Ki depending on the alloy. These results are discussed together with observations on the additivity of residual and applied stresses, and the per cent differences in the stress measurements based on stress factors calculated by three different methods.

Type
Research Article
Information
Advances in X-Ray Analysis , Volume 12: Seventeenth Annual Conference on Applications of X-ray Analysis, August 21-23, 1968 , 1968 , pp. 269 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © International Centre for Diffraction Data 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Ricklefs, R. E. and Evans, W. P., “Anomalous Residual Stresses,” in J. B. Newkirk and G. R. Mallett, Editors, Advances in X-Ray Analysis, Vol. 10, Plenum Press, New York, 1967, pp. 273–283.Google Scholar
2. Barrett, C. S. and Massalski, T. B., Structure of Metals, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill Co., New York, 1966, pp. 483–484.Google Scholar
3. Cullity, B. D., “Sources of Error in X-Ray Measurements of Residual Stress,” J. Appl. Phys., 35 1915–1917, 1964.Google Scholar
4. Macherauch, E., “X-Ray Stress Analysis,” Experimental Mechanics 6: 140–153, 1966.Google Scholar
5. Hyler, W. S. and Jackson, L. R., “Precautions to be Used in the Measurement and Interpretation of Residual Stresses by X-Ray Technique,” W. R. Osgood, Editor, Residual Stresses in Metals and Metal Construction, Reinhold Press, New York, 1954, pp. 297–303.Google Scholar
6. Garrod, R. I. and Hawkes, G. A., “X-Ray Stress Analysis on Plastically Deformed Metals,” Brit. J. Appl. Phys., 14: 422–428, 1963.Google Scholar
7. Donachie, M. J. Jr. and Norton, J. T., “Lattice Strains and X-Ray Stress Measurements,” Trans. AIME, 221: 962–967, 1961.Google Scholar
8. Greenough, G. B., “Macroscopic Surface Stresses Produced by Plastic Deformation,” J. Iron and Steel Inst., 169: 235–241, 1951.Google Scholar
9. Greenough, G. B., “Residual Stresses Associated with Lattice Strains,” in Ref. 5, pp. 285-296.Google Scholar
10. Smith, S. L. and Wood, W. A., “Internal Stress Created by Plastic Flow in Mild Steel, and Stress-Strain Curves for the Atomic Lattice of Higher Carbon Steels,” Proc. Roy. Soc., 182A: 404–414, 1943.Google Scholar
11. Cullity, B. D., Elements of X-Ray Diffraction, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass., pp. 444–447.Google Scholar
12. Christenson, A. L., Editor, Koistinen, D. P., Marburger, R. E., M. Semchyshen and Evans, W. P., “The Measurement of Stress by X-Ray,” SAE Technical Report 182, SAB, Inc., New York, 1960.Google Scholar
13. Bolstad, D. A. and Quist, W. E., “The Use of a Portable X-Ray Unit for Measuring Residual Stresses in Aluminum, Titanium, and Steel Alloys,” Advances in X-Ray Analysis, 8: 26–37, 1965.Google Scholar
14. Woehrle, H. R., et al., “Experimental X-Ray Stress Analysis Procedures for Ultra-High Strength Materials,” Advances in X-Ray Analysis, 8: 38–47, 1965.Google Scholar
15. Koistinen, D. P. and Marburger, R. E., “Simplified Procedure for Calculating Peak Position in X-Ray Residual Stress Measurements on Hardened Steel,” Trans. ASM, 51: 537, 1959.Google Scholar
16. Hilley, M. E., Wert, J. W. and Goodrich, R. S., “Experimental Factors Concerning X-Ray Residual Stress Measurements in High Strength Aluminum Alloys,” in J. B. Newkirk and G. R. Mallett, Editors, Advances in X-Ray Analysis, Vol. 10, Plenum Press, New york, 1967, pp. 284–294.Google Scholar
17. Fine, M. E. and Keeney, H. T., “Effect of Cold Deformation and Annealing on Young's Modulus of Metals,” J. Metals, 4: 151–152, 1952.Google Scholar
18. Donachie, M. J. Jr. and Norton, J. T., Ref. 7, p. 966.Google Scholar
19. Adler, R. P. I. and Otte, H. M., “Dislocation Configuration in Wire-Drawn Polycrystalline Copper Alloys: A Study by X-Ray Diffraction,” Mater. Sci. Eng., 1: 222–238, 1966.Google Scholar
20. Dreyer, G. A., “Investigation of Susceptibility of High Strength Martensitic Steel Alloys to Stress Corrosion,” Technical Documentary Report Wo. ASD-TDR-62-876, Sept, 1962, pp. 21, 23.Google Scholar