Strain Rate Dependent FEM of Laser Shock Induced Residual Stress

  • Colin C. Engebretsen
  • Anthony Palazotto
  • Kristina Langer
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)


Laser Shock Peening (LSP) is a process by which the energy of a laser burst produces a plasma shock, transmitting mechanical forces into a substrate material. On metallic structures, LSP produces residual stresses in the substrate which can extend fatigue life and improve surface hardness (Eisensmith, Fatigue effects of laser shock peening minimally detectable partial-through thickness surface cracks. MS thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology, 2017). These resulting stresses are difficult to predict, however, as the LSP process is difficult to model. This difficulty stems from the relatively unknown temporospatial profile of the pressure impulse in relation to settings in the LSP process. A better correlation is desired between FEM predictions, and empirical residual stresses. Residual stress profiles on LSP treated workpieces have been determined by Neutron diffraction in prior work (Eisensmith, Fatigue effects of laser shock peening minimally detectable partial-through thickness surface cracks. MS thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology, 2017). Simulations using Johnson-Cook equations and Mie-Grüneisen equation of state (EOS) were run in Abaqus using an assumed pressure impulse. Initial results show qualitative agreement with empirical LSP results, but still have room for model optimization.


Laser shock peen Residual stress Finite element Johnson-Cook Mie-Grüneisen 


A, B, C, m, n

Johnson-Cook Constants (Material Properties)


Bulk Sound Speed (Material Property)


Energy per Unit Mass




Hugoniot Slope Coefficient (Material Property)




Melting Temperature


Reference Temperature


Particle Velocity


Shock Velocity


Mie-Grüneisen Constant (Material Property)


Nominal Volumetric Compressive Strain




Strain Rate


Reference Strain Rate




Reference Density


Flow Stress


  1. 1.
    Achintha, M., Nowell, D., Fufari, D., Sackett, E.E., Bache, M.R.: Fatigue behaviour of geometric features subjected to laser shock peening: experiments and modelling. Int. J. Fatigue. 62, 171–179 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eisensmith, D.: Fatigue effects of laser shock peening minimally detectable partial-through thickness surface cracks. M.S. Thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engebretsen, C., et al.: Finite element model correlation of laser shock peening. In: Conference Paper, 2018 AIAA SciTech Annual Conference, Jan 2018Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braisted, W., Brockman, R.: Finite element simulation of laser shock peening. Int. J. Fatigue. 21(7), 719–724 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Warren, A.W., Guo, Y.B., Chen, S.C.: Massive parallel laser shock peening: simulation, analysis, and validation. Int. J. Fatigue. 30(1), 188–197 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dewald, A.T., Hill, M.R.: Eigenstrain-based model for prediction of laser peening residual stresses in arbitrary three-dimensional badies. Part 1: model description. J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des. 44, 1–11 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    SAE International: Laser Peening. Aerospace Material Specification. SAE International. 2546 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Veitch, L., Laprade, E.: Recent developments in the joint strike fighter durability testing, Institute For Defense Analyses Research Notes, pp. 47–52 (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    DOT&E.: FY16 DOD PROGRAMS F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, OSD report, pp. 47–108 (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hfaiedh, N., Peyre, P., Song, H., Popa, I., Ji, V., Vignal, V.: Finite element analysis of laser shock peening of 2050-T8 aluminum alloy. Int. J. Fatigue. 70, 480–489 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hasser, P.J., Malik, A.S., Langer, K., Spradlin, T.J., Hatamleh, M.I.: An efficient reliability-based simulation method for optimum laser peening treatment. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 138(11), 111001 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brockman, R., Braisted, W., Spradlin, T., Langer, K., Olson, S., Fitzpatrick, M.E.: High strain-rate material model validation for laser peening simulation. J. Eng. (October), 1–8 (2015),
  13. 13.
    Li, P., et al.: Numerical simulation and experiments of titanium alloy engine blades based on laser shock processing. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 40, 164–170 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knapp, K., et al.: Comparison of finite element strain distribution to in situ strain field of a plastically-deformed plate. In: 58th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA SciTech Forum (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grązka, M., Janiszewski, J.: Identification of Johnson-Cook equation constants using finite element method. Eng. Trans. 60(3), 215–223 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dassault-Systemes: Abaqus Documentation and User’s Manual, Dassault-Systemes (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singh, G., et al.: Modeling and optimization of a laser shock peening process. In: 12th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, pp. 5838–5850 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meyers, M.: Dynamic Behavior of Materials. Wiley, New York (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin C. Engebretsen
    • 1
  • Anthony Palazotto
    • 1
  • Kristina Langer
    • 2
  1. 1.Air Force Institute of TechnologyWright-Patterson AFBUSA
  2. 2.Air Force Research LaboratoryWright-Patterson AFBUSA

Personalised recommendations