See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257337232

Finite element analysis of ball burnishing process: Comparisons between

numerical results and experiments

Article  in  International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology · July 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s00170-012-4599-9

CITATIONS READS

31 727

3 authors, including:

Salem Sghaier Hédi Belhadjsalah

University of Monastir University of Monastir
36 PUBLICATIONS   139 CITATIONS    121 PUBLICATIONS   602 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Flexible sheet forming processes View project

biomechanics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hédi Belhadjsalah on 18 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int J Adv Manuf Technol
DOI 10.1007/s00170-012-4599-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Finite element analysis of ball burnishing process: comparisons
between numerical results and experiments
M. Sayahi & S. Sghaier & H. Belhadjsalah
Received: 12 January 2010 / Accepted: 30 October 2012
# Springer-Verlag London 2012
Abstract Ball burnishing is a surface enhancement process
where a residual compressive stress is created in the surface
layers of the workpiece. Several studies have been con-
ducted on this process, but they are more concerned with
the experimental aspect. So, there is still a real need for
reliable numerical models that enable us to understand the
mechanical behaviour of the workpiece during the process.
These models also serve to optimise the studied process.
Two-dimensional and three-dimensional finite element (FE)
ball burnishing modelling is presented in this paper, where
an elastic–plastic material model is assumed in the framework
of the FE analysis. The pertinence of these models to predict
residual stresses created by the process is discussed by draw-
ing comparisons between simulation results and experimental
data. The obtained results show that the three-dimensional FE
model predicts the residual stresses and provides useful in-
formation on the effect of the process parameters.
Keywords Ball burnishing . Finite element . Residual stress
1 Introduction
Surface enhancement technologies are based on the following
physical effects: a localised elastic–plastic deformation in
near-surface regions leads to the formation of compressive
residual stresses and several microstructural alterations asso-
ciated with increases in microhardness. Moreover, some
M. Sayahi : S. Sghaier : H. Belhadjsalah (*)
Laboratoire de génie mécanique, École nationale d’ingénieurs de
Monastir, Université de Monastir,
5019 Monastir, Tunisia
e-mail: hedi.belhadjsalah@enim.rnu.tn
M. Sayahi
e-mail: sayahi_mohamed@yahoo.fr
S. Sghaier
e-mail: salemsghaier@yahoo.fr
surface treatments improve additional effects, such as surface
smoothening and the possibility of phase transformation, as
shown by Altenberger et al. [1]. The basic principles of
mechanical surface treatments can significantly improve the
resistance of components to wear and stress corrosion [2, 3],
but they may be particularly beneficial in enhancing the
fatigue strength of critical highly stressed components [4]. It
is generally accepted that the introduction of residual stresses
can limit fatigue damage imposed on these components by
mechanical and thermal loads. On the other hand, it is irrefut-
able that surface topography has a considerable influence on
the fatigue life and strength of hard and notch-sensitive mate-
rials. One of the most well-known mechanical surface treat-
ments is ball burnishing, which induces a large depth of near-
surface macroscopic compressive residual stresses as well as
work hardening states. Moreover, surface smoothening is also
typical in burnishing treatment.
The ball burnishing process is usually used and develop-
ments rely essentially on empirical knowledge. Many
experiments have been carried out to determine the effect
of different process parameters to obtain the best results
[5–7]. From the numerical point of view, only a few predic-
tive models have been developed for the estimation of
residual stress for a given set of burnishing conditions.
Braham [8] used the simplified analysis of inelastic struc-
tures to predict the residual stress in crankshaft treatment;
this method gives an evaluation of the inelastic components
(residual stresses and plastic strain fields) of the structure
but is applied only to a standard material model with linear
kinematic hardening behaviour. Courtin et al. [9] developed
two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) finite
element method (FEM) models, similar to indentation, for
crankshaft ball burnishing. These models take account of the
loading force and the roller diameter. Bouzid and Saï [10]
proposed an elastic–plastic 3D FEM model to calculate the
ball penetration depth. Skalski et al. [11] analysed the
elastic–plastic contact between the tool and the workpiece
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

during the burnishing process. In their study, a finite element

(FE) model was used and the stick–slip friction between
pieces is considered. Another 2D modelling of the ball
burnishing process using the FEM was presented by

h
Sartkulvanichzt et al. [12]. In this work, this model is x
established and compared to experimental data that could
predict the residual stresses and provide useful qualitative z
information on the effect of process parameters. However,
the major assumption of plane strain is considered in all 2D
modelling in order to approximate the behaviour of the 3D L
process. The main object of this paper is to develop 2D and
3D models of the ball burnishing process. The paper is
divided into four parts. After the Section 1, Section 2
presents the ball burnishing process and describes the prin-
cipal parameters which have an influence on the process
results. Section 3 is focused on the FE process modelling
where the geometric models, boundary conditions and ma-
terial behaviour are described. Section 4 presents the results
and the discussion. In order to evaluate the ability of FE
models, the residual stress distributions obtained from the
2D and the 3D calculations were compared to the results of
residual stress measurements published in the previous work
of Schuh et al. [7]. The ability of the simulation to predict Fig. 2 Mesh and boundary conditions of the workpiece in the 2D ball
the effects of some process parameters (i.e. ball burnishing burnishing simulation
pressure and ball diameter) was also evaluated.

can be estimated analytically from the fluid pressure P and

2 Ball burnishing process
The ball burnishing process produces a layer containing
residual compressive stresses through the application of a
smooth free-rolling ball moving in a single pass under
normal force enough to plastically deform the surface of
the material. Figure 1 shows the ball burnishing process
applied to a cylindrical part where the workpiece turns
around its axis at a speed v, which is defined as the ball
burnishing speed, and the tool is subjected to a definite
longitudinal displacement at the feed rate f.
The ball is supported in a fluid bearing with sufficient
pressure P to generate a ball burnishing force Fb. This force
the ball diameter db. It is given by:
p  db2  P
Fb ¼ ð1Þ
4
However, during the ball burnishing process, it is ob-
served that a small amount of fluid is lost along the circum-
ferential gap between the ball and its socket. The reduction
percentage in the force due to this phenomenon is estimated
to be 11 %. As the experimental setup [7] has a contact angle
of 15° (the angle between the ball tool and the normal-to-
workpiece surface), the ball burnishing force used in these
simulations can be given by Eq. 2, as assumed by Sartkul-
vanichzt et al. [11]:

Unloading
Feed
Loading

Fig. 1 Ball burnishing process Fig. 3 The ball tool loading in the 2D simulation
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Ri

Re

L
e

Fig. 4 Geometric model and mesh of the workpiece in the 3D simulation

p p
Fb ¼ 0:89 db2 P cos
4 12
In the ball burnishing process, the stress distribution and
the depth of the residual stress layer in a workpiece are
controlled by the tool size, tool material, load exerted on
the tool, tool feed, and tool speed.
3 Ball burnishing FE modelling
To simulate the ball burnishing process, the commercially
available non-linear FE software ABAQUS was used. The
2D FE simulations were carried out using ABAQUS/stan-
dard. However, the 3D model involves complex contact
conditions and a high-density mesh. Therefore, in order to
reduce the computational cost, ABAQUS/explicit was used.
The FE models are based on the following assumptions:
1. The ball tool is considered rigid and is modelled by an
analytically rigid part.
2. The surface roughness profile is neglected.
3. Because pressurised fluid acts as coolant and lubricant
in the process, isothermal conditions (room tempera-
ture) and zero friction were assumed.
4. The ball burnishing speed effect is neglected.
ð2Þ 3.1 Development of 2D FEM
To model the ball burnishing process in the 2D condition, the
study was restricted to the cross-sections sliced along the longi-
tudinal direction of the cylindrical workpiece. In fact, compared
to the transverse cross-section, simulation of the longitudinal
object takes into account more primordial parameters, such as
feed rate and surface roughness profile. Since the diameter of the
workpiece is considerably larger than the diameter of the ball
tool, the treated workpiece is modelled by a rectangle fixed on
its lower edge and with no horizontal displacement on its side
edges (Fig. 2). In ABAQUS CPE8, eight-node biquadratic 2D
solid plane strain elements are used to mesh the workpiece.
The ball is considered circular in the 2D model. In the
simulation, the cycle of load imposed on the ball can be
controlled by using two different ball movement controls, that
is, displacement control and force control. In the force control,
the ball presses on the workpiece until the maximum applied
load is reached for every indentation cycle. This type of
loading does not strictly reflect the real load applied to the
part during cylindrical rolling. Indeed, the real contact is a
sphere/cylinder one, whereas the 2D model simulates a cylin-
der/plane contact. For these reasons, it is interesting to use the
displacement control method in the 2D FEM. This load is a
succession of three repetitive movements (Fig. 3):

Fig. 5 a Boundary conditions

imposed on the workpiece; b
ball boundary conditions

– A vertical displacement δ (loading), which corresponds
to the phase of penetration into the material;
– A phase of unloading, where the ball returns to its
original position;
– After unloading, the ball is moved in a horizontal di-
rection over a distance equal to the value of the feed rate
per revolution (f).
This method would require information on the ball pene-
tration depth for the given process settings. This depth value,
involving plastic deformation, changes from one cycle to
another. It cannot be solved analytically due to the non-
linearity of the workpiece properties and is usually very diffi-
cult to measure during ball burnishing experiments. One so-
lution is to consider the depth constant and use the 3D sphere/
cylinder indentation simulation to assume the relationship
between ball burnishing force and ball penetration depth
under various conditions. The 2D simulation results are pre-
sented and compared to the experimental data in Figs. 8 and 9.
3.2 Development of 3D FEM
Figure 4 shows the geometric workpiece model considered
in the 3D FEM simulations. The workpiece is modelled by a
portion of a cylindrical part. The choice of workpiece size in
3D FEM simulations takes into account the real dimensions
of the treated piece, the presented boundary conditions and
the optimization of computational time. The external radius
is equal to the rod bar radius which is utilised in experimen-
tal work. The length L, the angle α and the thickness e are
chosen in order to eliminate the effects of boundary con-
ditions imposed on the workpiece and to obtain a homoge-
neous zone where these results are established. Sensitivity
analysis of the workpiece size effect on the inelastic com-
ponents led to the choice of the following values:
L ¼ 7 mm; a ¼ 50 ; e ¼ 2 mm; and Re ¼ 7:5 mm
Several FE meshes were prepared and studied for the 3D
model to find the effect of the mesh density on computa-
tional accuracy, computer time and program convergence.
Finally, an FE model with 283,550 eight-node C3D8R ele-
ments and 300,456 nodes was prepared with increased mesh
density in the area close to the surface, as shown in Fig. 4.
The following velocity boundary conditions were applied
to the nodes on these surfaces:
At θ ¼ 0 and θ ¼ 50; vθ ¼ 0
At R ¼ Ri ; vx ¼ vy ¼ vz ¼ 0
At z ¼ 0 and z ¼ L; these planes were considered free:
For the 3D ball burnishing modelling, the displace-
ment control method was used. The controlled ball
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
penetration depth is determined by the ball burnishing
force Fb.
For every revolution simulation, the loading is done in two
steps. The first is the indentation phase. In the second step, the
ball is free on rotation and moves along the path presented in
Fig. 5. The depth penetration of the tool is determined by the
ball burnishing force. For the jth simulation revolution, the tool
centre is maintained in the α00 plane at z01.8 mm. For the
(j+n)th revolution, the tool begins its motion from z01.8+n×f.
3.3 Material
The material Ti·6Al·7Nb was selected for the workpiece to be
subjected to the treatment. The basic Von Mises elastic–plastic
criterion with an isotropic hardening behaviour model was
assumed for this material. Consequently, the FEM cannot con-
sider the effects of ball burnishing speed. This behaviour
defines the evolution of the yield surface size, σ, as a function
of the equivalent plastic strain, εp, by using the exponential law:
p

σð"p Þ ¼ σy þ Q1 1  eb" ð3Þ
where σy is the yield stress at zero plastic strain and Q∞ and b
are material parameters. Q∞ is the maximum change in the size
of the yield surface and b defines the rate at which the size of
the yield surface changes as plastic straining develops. These
parameters, Q∞ and b, were assumed to be equal to 309 MPa
and 7, respectively. Some properties of this material are
reported in Table 1.
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Comparison between predicted results and experimental
data
Figure 6 shows the ball penetration depth corresponding to
each revolution, which is adjusted in order to keep the
normal force output equal to a desired value. This depth
varies from one revolution to another due to the variation in
plastic deformation state. However, after a number of revo-
lutions, these effects of plastic deformation are stabilised.
The tool penetration is stable and an homogenous treated
Table 1 Properties of Ti·6Al·7Nb [7]
Alloy: Ti·6Al·7Nb
Elastic constants E (GPa) 113
Poisson ratio ν 0.32
ρ (gcm−3) 4.52
Tensile strength, yield Rp0.2 (MPa) 800
Tensile strength, ultimate Rm (MPa) 862
Elongation at break A (%) 10
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

a 350 Table 2 Samples in-

300 vestigated with ball Sample Cross Feed Ball Pressure
250 burnishing parameters no. (mm/rev) diameter (bar)
(mm)
F(N)

200
150
1 0.2 6 100
100
50
2 0.2 6 200
0 3 0.2 6 300
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
revolution 4 0.2 4 300

b 13.0
12.5
12.0
In an attempt to compare the results predicted by the FE
δ (µm)

11.5
11.0
10.5
10.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
revolution
Fig. 6 a Output response of ball burnishing force (F) obtained for 12
simulated revolutions based on the proposed 3D model with P075 bar,
f00.2 mm/rev, db 08 mm; b ball penetration depth values used for
different revolutions in the 3D simulation which give rise to a simu-
lated force obtained for work pressure P075 bar, f00.2 mm/rev, db 0
8 mm
zone is formed. It should also be noted that the varying ball
penetration depth was ignored in the 2D simulation.
The output results were obtained from the steady-state
area where the pattern of residual components may appear to
be periodic for a long workpiece, as shown in Fig. 7. So, the
average of many output fields taken from this area consti-
tuted the final predicted residual stress and plastic strain
state. These results were obtained along several paths from
the surface to the depth of 1 mm.
The suitability of the 2D and 3D models used to predict ball
burnishing residual stress and plastic strain could be evaluated
by comparing them to the experimental data. For this purpose,
the experimental data published by Schuh et al. [7] are used.
Specimens having a 15-mm diameter and a 100-mm length
were treated with various parameters reported in Table 2. The
residual stress–depth profiles were determined by successive
electrolytic material removal using an XRD 3000 PTS X-ray
diffractometer. The measurements were performed with Cu
Kα radiation and the sin2ψ method.
simulations with experimental data, in Figs. 8 and 9, three
comparisons between the residual stress components profile
obtained by numerical simulations (i.e. 2D and 3D FEM) and
experimental measurements are plotted. It is shown that the
results are qualitatively similar for both FE models and good
agreement with experimental results is found. The shapes of
both experimentally and numerically obtained relations between
the compressive stresses and the depth were similar. It can be
concluded that the maximum compressive residual stress is
located just below the workpiece surface. This result is in
accordance with the Hertz theory, which predicts that the max-
imum stress and thus the plastic strain will be slightly beneath
the contact area.
The quantitative study reveals several differences between
the 2D and 3D models. In Table 3, the characteristic parameters
(σr,a surf, σr,a max and compressive layer) of experimental meas-
urements and simulated residual stress are given for different
treatment parameters. For axial stress, the comparison of the
simulated results with the experimental ones shows that the 3D
predictions are in agreement with the experimental values.
However, it is observed that the 2D model predicted a slightly
deeper compressive stress layer than the experiment. Other-
wise, the predicted maximum axial compressive residual stress
is less than the measurement data. The difference between
calculated and measured maximum residual stress values vary
by 40 % for the 2D simulation and 7 % for the 3D calculations.
Indeed, the plane strain assumption for the 2D model prohibits
the material from flowing along the out-of-plane, tangential
direction, and thus, compared to the 3D simulation, the plastic
strain has clearly decreased (Fig. 10). Consequently, the max-
imum residual stress introduced is affected.

Fig. 7 Zone of data obtained: a

2D model; b 3D model
a Homogenous
treated zone
b
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

250 250
a a
0 0

-250 -250
σr,a [MPa]

σr,t [MPa]
-500 -500

-750 -750 2D FEM

2D FEM
3D FEM 3D FEM
Exp, P = 100 bars Exp, P = 100 bars

-1000 -1000

-1250 -1250
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Depth [mm] Depth [mm]
250 250

b b
0 0

-250 -250
σr,a [MPa]

σr,t [MPa]

-500 -500

-750 -750 2D FEM

2D FEM
3D FEM 3D FEM
Exp, P = 200 bars Exp, P = 200 bars

-1000 -1000

-1250 -1250
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Depth [mm] Depth [mm]
250 250

c c
0 0

-250 -250
σr,t [MPa]
σr,a [MPa]

-500 -500

-750 -750
2D FEM 2D FEM
3D FEM 3D FEM
Exp, P = 300 bars Exp, P = 300 bars

-1000 -1000

-1250 -1250
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Depth [mm] Depth [mm]

Fig. 8 Axial residual stress evolution from simulations and experi- Fig. 9 Tangential residual stress evolution from simulations and
ments for db 06 mm and f00.2 mm/rev: a P0100 bar; b P0200 bar; c experiments for db 06 mm and f00.2 mm/rev: a P0100 bar; b P0
P0300 bar 200 bar; c P0300 bar

For the tangentially induced residual stresses, Fig. 9 shows results. However, for the slight load, unlike the experimental
a good correlation between 3D calculated and measured tangential residual stress curve, where the stresses change
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

250
Table 3 Experimental and numerical characteristics of axial residual
stress
0
Sample no. 1 Sample no. 2 Sample no. 3 Sample no. 4

σr,a surf (MPa) -250

Exp −410 −460 −770 −690

σr,a [MPa]
Sim 3D −730 −980 −1,150 −980 -500
Sim 2D −15 −250 −467 – FEM, P = 100 bars
FEM, P = 200 bars
σr,a max (MPa) -750 FEM, P = 300 bars
Exp −920 −1,030 −1,150 −1,070 Exp, P = 100 bars
Exp, P = 200 bars
Sim 3D −850 −1,065 −1,200 −1,065 Exp, P = 300 bars
-1000
Sim 2D −400 −630 −758 –
Compressive layer (mm)
-1250
Exp 0.35 0.5 0.61 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Depth [mm]
Sim 3D 0.35 0.51 0.65 0.45
Sim 2D 0.25 0.66 0.94 – Fig. 11 Effects of work pressure on axial residual stress distributions
along the depth with db 06 mm and f00.2 mm/rev

drastically into positive stress, this model is unable to predict
this evolution precisely. This overestimation of compressive
tangential stress is probably related to the material behaviour.
Indeed, the isotropic hardening provides a purely elastic re-
sponse during unloading.
4.2 Effects of ball burnishing pressure
Figures 11 and 12 present the effect of work pressure on the
residual stress profiles. It can be seen that the proposed
model shows the ameliorations caused by increases in pres-
sure. It is observed that the compressive residual stress layer
increases with work pressure. This layer, considered as one
of the most important parameters in surface treatment, rea-
ches a depth of up to 0.6 mm for 300 bar. It is noted that the
correct choice of optimised thickness should always consid-
er the material state and the loading conditions. For exam-
ple, a deep layer is much more essential in push–pull loaded
components than in parts subjected to bending with high
stress gradients. Besides, the influence of ball burnishing
pressure on the maximum axial residual stresses is shown.
Indeed, the sub-surface axial residual stress is about 1.5
yield stress. However, owing to the limits of the deformation
capability of the material, the maximum tangential residual
stress changes slowly, so with high pressure, only an in-
crease in the compressive layer is observed.
Generally, the microhardness increases as the material is
cold worked. However, with high-force rolling, the plastic
strain magnitude increases dramatically (Fig. 13). Hence, it
is possible to increase surface defects, such as surface spalls,
microcracks and developing surface failure, as described by

25
250

20 0

-250
15 2D FEM
3D FEM
ε (%)

σr,t [MPa]

-500
p

FEM, P = 100 bars

10
FEM, P = 200 bars
FEM, P = 300 bars
-750
Exp, P = 100 bars
Exp, P = 200 bars
5 Exp, P = 300 bars
-1000

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 -1250
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Depth [mm] Depth [mm]

Fig. 10 Comparison between 2D and 3D predicted equivalent plastic Fig. 12 Effects of work pressure on tangential residual stress distribu-
strain profiles for P0200 bar, db 06 mm and f00.2 mm/rev tions along the depth with db 06 mm and f00.2 mm/rev
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

50 250

0
40

-250
30

σr, a [MPa]
ε (%)

FEM, P = 100 bars -500

FEM, P = 200 bars
p

20 FEM, P = 300 bars FEM, db = 4mm

-750 FEM, db = 6mm
Exp, db = 4mm
Exp, db = 6mm
10
-1000

0 -1250
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Depth [mm] Depth [mm]

Fig. 13 Effects of work pressure on equivalent plastic strain distribu- Fig. 14 Effects of ball diameter on the axial residual stress distribution
tion along the depth with db 06 mm and f00.2 mm/rev along the depth with P0300 bar and f00.2 mm/rev

Zhang and Lindeman [13]. On the other hand, it is possible

isotropic material model for Ti·6Al·7Nb alloy. Comparison of
to lose the stability of residual stresses under mechanical
the numerical simulation results with previous published ex-
and thermal loading, as shown by Zhuang and Halford [14].
perimental data showed a reasonable accuracy for 3D residual
Indeed, for thermal loading, this stability is strongly associ-
stress predictions in both tangential and axial directions. The
ated with the material state, especially the surface treatment-
2D model provides only a qualitative description of the resid-
induced dislocation density. Surface layers with medium
ual stress variations over the depths. The axial maximum
dislocation densities showed enhanced thermal stability of
residual stress obtained by the 2D calculations differed by
residual stresses, whereas surface layers with extremely high
approximately 40 % from experimental data. This significant
dislocation densities (as induced by high ball burnishing
difference was reduced to <7 % in the 3D simulation.
pressure) exhibited poor stability against thermal loading.
The effects of the ball burnishing pressure and the ball
diameter on the residual stresses and plastic strain distribution
4.3 Effects of ball diameter
were studied using the 3D model. These results can be sum-
marised as follows:
The effects of ball diameter are studied by comparing the
residual stress profiles obtained from workpieces treated with
different ball diameters (i.e. 4 and 6 mm), using the same work
pressure and feed rate. For a pressure of 30 MPa, the ball
250
burnishing forces can be calculated using Eq. 2 as 325 and
730 N for ball diameters of 4 and 6 mm, respectively.
0
The effects of ball diameter on residual stresses are
shown in Figs. 14 and 15. As the ball diameter increases,
-250
the maximum compressive residual stresses in both tangen-
tial and axial directions increase slowly. However, the layer
σr,t [MPa]

of compressive residual stresses becomes thicker when us- -500

ing a larger ball tool. This is due to the fact that a larger ball FEM, db = 4mm
FEM, db = 6mm
presses down the material near the surface more repeatedly -750 Exp, db = 4mm
and uniformly (i.e. increasing coverage) compared to ball Exp, db = 6mm

burnishing with a smaller ball. -1000

-1250
5 Conclusions 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Depth [mm]

In this paper, 2D and 3D FE modelling of the ball burnishing Fig. 15 Effects of ball diameter on the tangential residual stress dis-
process was presented. The results were obtained using the tributions along the depth with P0300 bar and f00.2 mm/rev
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
– The increase in the ball burnishing pressure increases
the compressive residual stress layer and the maximum
residual stress.
– Using high pressure increases the cold work dramati-
cally and may consequently increase surface damage.
– At the same pressure and feed rate, the use of a large
ball diameter is more effective.
Further work will concentrate on refining the 3D model
by using a material model able to describe the viscous
effects and the cyclic deformation behaviour. A study using
a constitutive model taking into account the damage is
necessary to avoid the appearance of superficial damage
and to optimise working conditions.
On the other hand, additional simulations are necessary
to understand:
– The effects of the ball feed rate;
– The effects of initial conditions, such as initial residual
stress and initial surface roughness;
– The use of the developed FEM technique and statistical
models to study the interaction between different
parameters in order to correctly optimise the process.
References
1. Altenberger I, Scholtes B, Martin U, Oettel H (1999) Cyclic defor-
mation and near surface microstructures of shot peened or deep rolled
austenitic stainless steel AISI 304. Mater Sci Eng, A 264(1–2):1–16
2. Lee H, Mall S, Sathish S, Blodgett MP (2006) Evolution of
residual stresses in a stress-free titanium alloy subjected to fretting
fatigue. Mater Lett 60(17–18):2222–2226
View publication stats
3. Xiaodong Liu, Frankel GS (2006) Effects of compressive
stress on localized corrosion in AA2024-T3. Corros Sci 48
(10):3309–3329
4. Nalla RK, Altenberger I, Noster U, Liu GY, Scholtes B, Ritchie
RO (2003) On the influence of mechanical surface treatments deep
rolling and laser shock peening on the fatigue behavior of Ti/6Al/
4 V at ambient and elevated temperatures. Mater Sci Eng
A355:216–230
5. Fattough M, El-Khabeery MM (1989) Residual stress distribution
in burnishing solution treated and aged 7075 aluminium alloy. Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 29(1):153–160
6. El-Axir MH (2000) An investigation into roller burnishing. Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 40:1603–1617
7. Schuh A, Zeller C, Holzwarth U, Kachler W, Wilcke G, Zeiler G,
Eigenmann B, Bigoney J (2006) Deep rolling of titanium rods for
application in modular total hip arthroplasty. J Biomed Mater Res
B Appl Biomater 81B(2):330–335
8. Braham S (1991) Modélisation du galetage des vilebrequins—
Evolutions des contraintes résiduelles sous chargement de serv-
ices. Ph.D. thesis, Ecole polytechnique, Palaiseau, France
9. Courtin S, Henaff-Gardin C, Bezine G (2003) Finite element
simulation of roller burnishing in crankshafts. Proceedings of
Surface Treatment 2003, Greece. In: Brebbia CA, de Hosson
JTM, Nishida SI (eds) Computer methods and experimental meas-
urements for surface treatment effect. WIT, Ashurst, pp 333–342,
ISBN: 1-85312-962-3, ISSN: 1466-7266
10. Bouzid W, Saï K (2005) Finite element modeling of burnishing of
AISI 1042 steel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 25:460–465
11. Skalski K, Morawski A, Przybylskh W (1995) Analysis of contact
elastic–plastic strains during the process of burnishing. Int J Mech Sci
37(5):461–472
12. Sartkulvanich P, Jasso F, Rodriguez C, Altan T (2007) Finite
element modeling of hard roller burnishing: an analysis on the
effects of process parameters upon surface finish and residual
stresses. J Manuf Sci Eng 129:705–716
13. Zhang P, Lindeman J (2005) Effect of roller burnishing on the high
cycle fatigue performance of the high-strength wrought magne-
sium alloy AZ80. Scr Mater 52:1011–1015
14. Zhuang WZ, Halford GR (2001) Investigation of residual stress
relaxation under cyclic load. Int J Fatigue 23(1):31–37