Influence of Local Electropolishing Conditions on Ferritic–Pearlitic Steel on X-Ray Diffraction Residual Stress Profiling
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Layer removal with electropolishing is a well-established method when measuring residual stress profiles with lab-XRD. This is done to measure the depth impact from processes such as shot peening, heat treatment, or machining. Electropolishing is used to minimize the influence on the inherent residual stresses of the material during layer removal, performed successively in incremental steps to specific depths followed by measurement. Great control of the material removal is critical for the measured stresses at each depth. Therefore, the selection of size of the measurement spot and electropolishing parameters is essential. The main objective in this work is to investigate how different electrolytes and electropolishing equipment affect the resulting surface roughness, geometry, microstructure, and consequently the measured residual stress. A second objective has been to establish a methodology of assessing the acquired electropolished depth. The aim has been to get a better understanding of the influence of the layer removal method on the accuracy of the acquired depth. Evaluation has been done by electropolishing one ground and one shot peened sample of a low-alloy carbon steel, grade 1.1730, with different methods. The results showed a difference in stresses depending on the electrolyte used where the perchloric acid had better ability to retain the stresses compared to the saturated salt. Electropolishing with saturated salt is fast and results in evenly distributed material removal but has high surface roughness, which is due to a difference in electropolishing of the two phases, ferrite, and pearlite. Perchloric acid electropolishing is slower but generates a smooth surface as both ferrite and pearlite have the same material removal rates but may cause an increased material removal for the center of the electropolished area. In this work, it is suggested to use perchloric acid electropolishing for the final layer removal step.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Metal and Thin Film Mechanics · Advanced Surface Polishing Techniques · Advanced machining processes and optimization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (18)
Show source-provided references
1. SAE International. Residual stress measurement by X-ray diffraction, HS-784. vol. 2003 Edition. SAE International.
2. M. Fitzpatrick, A. Fry, P. Holdway, F. Kandil, J. Shackleton and L. Suominen, Determination of Residual Stresses by X-ray Diffraction 2002;52.
3. I.C. Noyan and J.B. Cohen, Residual Stress Measurement by Diffraction and Interpretation, 1987th ed. Springer, New York, 1987.
4. F. Valiorgue, G. Kermouche, L. Lacaille, S. Zuchiatti and J. Rech, Electrolytic polishing influence on residual stresses measurements, in Proceedings of Machines et Usinage à Grande Vitesse (MUGV) MUGV2012;2012:16–8.
5. W.J. McG Tegart, The Electrolytic and Chemical Polishing of Metals in Research and Industry, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1956.
6. W. Han and F. Fang, Fundamental Aspects and Recent Developments in Electropolishing, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf, 2019, 139, p 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2019.01.00110.1016/j.ijmachtools.2019.01.001 ↗
7. D. Landolt, Fundamental Aspects of Electropolishing, Electrochim. Acta, 1987, 32, p 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4686(87)87001-910.1016/0013-4686(87)87001-9 ↗
8. R. Alkaisee and R.L. Peng, Influence of Layer Removal Methods in Residual Stress Profiling of a Shot Peened Steel Using X-ray Diffraction, Advanced Materials Research, 2014, 996, p 175–80.10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.996.175 ↗
9. N. Pettersson. Investigation of material removal techniques for residual stress profile determination on induction hardened steel 2017.
10. V. Savaria, F. Bridier and P. Bocher, Computational Quantification and Correction of the Errors Induced by Layer Removal for Subsurface Residual Stress Measurements, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 2012, 64, p 184–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2012.07.00310.1016/j.ijmecsci.2012.07.003 ↗
11. M.G. Moore and W.P. Evans, Mathematical Correction for Stress in Removed Layers in X-Ray Diffraction Residual Stress Analysis. Pre-1964 SAE Technical Papers, SAE International; 1958. https://doi.org/10.4271/580035.10.4271/580035 ↗
12. E. Wasniewski, B. Honnart, F. Lefebvre and E. Usmial, Material Removal, Correction and Laboratory X-Ray Diffraction, Adv. Mater. Res., 2014, 996, p 181–186. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.996.18110.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.996.181 ↗
13. P.S. Prevey, X-ray Diffraction Residual Stress Techniques, ASM Int ASM Handb, 1986, 10, p 380–392.
14. C. Azanza Ricardo, M. D’Incau and P. Scardi, Revision and Extension of the Standard Laboratory Technique for X-ray Diffraction Measurement of Residual Stress Gradients, J. Appl. Cryst., 2007, 40, p 675–683. https://doi.org/10.1107/S002188980702293510.1107/S0021889807022935 ↗
15. European Committee for Standardization. EN 15305:2008 E, Non-destructive Testing – Test Method for Residual Stress analysis by X-ray Diffraction 2008.
16. O. Flys, J. Berglund and B.-G. Rosen, Using Confocal Fusion for Measurement of Metal AM Surface Texture, Surf. Topogr. Metrol. Prop., 2020, 8, p 024003. https://doi.org/10.1088/2051-672x/ab84c310.1088/2051-672x/ab84c3 ↗
17. International Organisation for Standarization. ISO 25178-2:2012, Geometrical product specifications (GPS) -- Surface texture: Areal -- Part 2: Terms, definitions and surface texture parameters 2012.
18. J. Holmberg, M. Palosaari, S. Hosseini, H. Larjosuo and P. Anderson, Round Robin Study on Residual Stresses Using X-Ray Diffraction for Shot-Peened Tool Steel Specimens, Mater. Res. Proc., 2018, 6, p 51–56.10.21741/9781945291890-9 ↗