Method for determining initial burnishing parameters

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 8079120
  • Patent Number
    8,079,120
  • Date Filed
    Saturday, December 30, 2006
    17 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, December 20, 2011
    12 years ago
Abstract
A method of determining parameters for a burnishing operation includes: using a rolling burnishing element to burnish at least two segments on a selected surface of a material sample, the segments having a common width and overlapping each other by a preselected overlap value; measuring the resulting hardness of the surface; and selecting a working overlap value for a subsequent burnishing operation on a workpiece, based on the measured hardness.
Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates generally to methods for creating fatigue-resistant and damage-tolerant components more specifically to a method of setting process parameters for a burnishing treatment.


Various metallic, ceramic, and composite components, such as gas turbine engine fan and compressor blades, are susceptible to cracking from fatigue and damage (e.g. from foreign object impacts). This damage reduces the life of the part, requiring repair or replacement. The main objective of burnishing is to impart residual stress onto a surface to obtain material benefits, like fatigue and corrosion resistance and preventing crack formation and propagation. Of these benefits the aerospace industry is most interested in increasing fatigue life stress resistance. It is known to protect components from crack propagation by inducing residual compressive stresses therein. Methods of imparting these stresses include shot peening, laser shock peening (LSP), pinch peening, and low plasticity burnishing (LPB). These methods are typically employed by applying a “patch” of residual compressive stresses over an area to be protected from crack propagation.


A typical burnishing apparatus includes rolling burnishing elements such as cylinders or spheres which are loaded against a workpiece at a selected burnishing pressure by mechanical or hydrostatic means, and traversed across the part surface in a series of strokes or segments. The magnitude of the residual stress is a function of a number of parameters, of which the most influential are the burnishing pressure and the degree of overlap of burnishing strokes. With the high costs of fatigue testing, the initial selection of these parameters can prove expensive given the broad range of burnishing pressures and degrees of overlap.


In the prior art, initial pressure and overlap selection is performed either arbitrarily or through trial and error. A trial and error approach is not only expensive but time consuming.


Furthermore, using parameters derived for a particular application may not have the same results for another application. For example, burnishing two thin plates of the same material under the same conditions but with different cross-sectional thickness will result in different degrees of overlap up to a critical thickness, and therefore will behave differently in fatigue testing. The critical thickness is the thickness for a given material at which the degree of overlap will remain constant at or above this value, if all other parameters are held constant.


BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The above-mentioned shortcomings in the prior art among others are addressed by the present invention, which according to one embodiment provides a method of determining parameters for a burnishing operation, including: using a rolling burnishing element to burnish at least two segments on a selected surface of a material sample, the segments having a common width and overlapping each other by a preselected overlap value; measuring the resulting hardness of the surface; and selecting a working overlap value for a subsequent burnishing operation on a workpiece, based on the measured hardness.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The invention may be best understood by reference to the following description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawing figures in which:



FIG. 1 is a top, schematic view of an application pattern of a burnishing process;



FIG. 2A is a schematic top view of a burnishing path showing a zero overlap condition;



FIG. 2B is a schematic top view of a burnishing path showing a negative overlap condition; and



FIG. 2C is a schematic top view of a burnishing path showing a full overlap condition.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Referring to the drawings wherein identical reference numerals denote the same elements throughout the various views, FIG. 1 illustrates a generalized burnishing pattern 10 overlaid on a surface 12 of a sample 13 of a workpiece “WP” to be treated. Non-limiting examples of workpieces WP that are treated in this manner include compressor blades and stator vanes, fan blades, turbine blades, shafts and rotors, stationary frames, actuator hardware and the like. Such workpieces WP may be made from metal alloys, ceramics, or composite materials (e.g. carbon fiber composites). This burnishing pattern 10 is typically applied using a burnishing apparatus of a known type including a rolling burnishing element 11 which is hydrostatically or mechanically loaded against the surface 12 by a multi-axis numerical-or-computer-controlled manipulator.


As illustrated, the burnishing pattern 10 includes a plurality of segments 14 arranged in a series of S-turns along a path “P” defining the segment centerlines, and connected by lateral segments 16. The segments 14 are separated by a feed distance “F” (also referred to as a “step-over distance” or “offset”), which is the distance between adjacent legs of the centerline path P. Various paths may be used to suit a particular application. For convenience in set-up, programming, and measurement, the path P would most commonly comprise some combination of linear segments or strokes.


The width “W” of the segments 14 (also referred to as a “footprint”) is a function of the material and thickness of the workpiece WP, as well as the applied burnishing pressure and dimensions and properties of the burnishing element 11 used. The relationship between the feed distance F and the footprint W determines the degree of overlap between the segments 14. In particular, the overlap value “OV” can be expressed mathematically as a percent by OV=[(W−F)/W]×100.


If the segments 14 are burnished side-by-side using a feed F equal to the footprint W, they will not overlap each other (FIG. 2A). This is considered to be a 0% overlap value OV and is illustrated in FIG. 2A. If the feed F is higher than the 0% overlap value OV, there will be a space between the adjacent footprints W. This is considered a negative overlap value OV and is illustrated in FIG. 2B. Finally, when the feed F is equal to the footprint W, the segments 14 are essentially burnished one on top of each other, and they are considered to be at 100% overlap value 0V. This is shown in FIG. 2C.


Initial parameters for a burnishing process as follows. First a material sample 13 with a known material composition and thickness is selected. Test segments 14 are burnished on the sample 13 of the workpiece WP and measurements made of the widths of these segments 14 to determine the burnish footprint W at the selected burnishing pressure. This footprint value defines the 0% overlap value OV as described above.


Next, using various defined overlap values, patches are burnished in selected areas of the surface 12 on the sample 13 of the workpiece WP at different overlaps between 0% and 100% overlap value OV, and are measured for hardness. The hardness measurements are then analyzed to determine the desired overlap value OV. The various defined overlap values OV used may be determined arbitrarily, for example by using even increments of overlap, or by using design of experiments (DOE) or other statistical methods. Generally, higher hardness values correspond to greater fatigue resistance and are desired. Once the hardness measurements are made, the overlap value OV corresponding to the desired hardness value (e.g. the highest hardness) is then used as a working overlap value OV to process subsequent workpieces WP.


Example

The parameter setting process described above was applied to flat plates of Ti-6-4 alloy to find the initial process parameters for fatigue testing of gas turbine engine compressor blades. The following general results were observed for Titanium samples 13 with a footprint W of about 0.4178 mm (16.45 mils): Hardness results at about 90% to 100% overlap value OV (high overlap range) were generally lower than at lower overlap settings. High overlap settings also produce greater deformation on the samples 13. This suggests that at high overlap settings the material sample 13 may plastically deform in a macroscopic scale. On the other hand, hardness results at about 50% overlap value OV or lower (low overlap range) generally decline as the overlap setting is reduced. By analyzing the burnishing footprints W and hardness results, the initial pressure and incremental feed F were selected for subsequent burnishing of compressor blades. Testing of the burnished blades showed that fatigue stress resistance of the blades was improved by about 200% of its original value at the test conditions.


This process described above is quick and inexpensive. It allows the use of inexpensive material samples instead of expensive finished products. It also uses inexpensive and quick tests (length measurements and hardness measurements) to narrow down parameter selection before any fatigue testing is performed.


The foregoing has described a method for setting parameters for a burnishing process. While specific embodiments of the present invention have been described, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that various modifications thereto can be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, the foregoing description of the preferred embodiment of the invention and the best mode for practicing the invention are provided for the purpose of illustration only and not for the purpose of limitation, the invention being defined by the claims.

Claims
  • 1. A method of determining parameters for a burnishing operation, comprising: (a) using a rolling burnishing element to burnish at least two segments on a selected surface area of a material sample, the segments having a common width and overlapping each other by a preselected overlap value;(b) measuring a resulting hardness of the selected surface area of the material sample; and(c) selecting a working overlap value for a subsequent burnishing operation on a workpiece, based on the measured resulting hardness.
  • 2. The method of claim 1 wherein the common width is determined by: (a) burnishing a test segment on the selected surface area; and(b) measuring a resulting width of the segment.
  • 3. The method of claim 1 further comprising repeating steps (a) and (b) using a range of overlap values, to generate a plurality of hardness measurements.
  • 4. The method of claim 3 wherein the range of overlap values is from 50% to 90%.
  • 5. The method of claim 3 further comprising selecting the working overlap value corresponding to the highest of the plurality of hardness measurements.
  • 6. The method of claim 3 further comprising correlating each of the measured hardness to a measured fatigue resistance of the material sample.
  • 7. The method of claim 1 further comprising performing a burnishing operation on a workpiece using the selected working overlap value.
US Referenced Citations (53)
Number Name Date Kind
2393317 Edwards, Jr. et al. Jan 1946 A
3638464 Winter et al. Feb 1972 A
3690140 Shive Sep 1972 A
3695091 Smith Oct 1972 A
3950642 Feld Apr 1976 A
4347689 Hammond Sep 1982 A
4428213 Neal et al. Jan 1984 A
4470292 DeClark et al. Sep 1984 A
4839245 Sue et al. Jun 1989 A
4909859 Nazmy et al. Mar 1990 A
4974434 Reccius et al. Dec 1990 A
5421939 Scher et al. Jun 1995 A
5531570 Mannava et al. Jul 1996 A
5569018 Mannava et al. Oct 1996 A
5591009 Mannava et al. Jan 1997 A
5620307 Mannava et al. Apr 1997 A
5666841 Seeger et al. Sep 1997 A
5731509 Thompson Mar 1998 A
5735044 Ferrigno et al. Apr 1998 A
5756965 Mannava May 1998 A
5771729 Bailey et al. Jun 1998 A
5826453 Prevey, III Oct 1998 A
5846057 Ferrigno et al. Dec 1998 A
5877405 Champaigne Mar 1999 A
5932120 Mannava et al. Aug 1999 A
5951790 Mannava et al. Sep 1999 A
6005219 Rockstroh et al. Dec 1999 A
6062958 Wright et al. May 2000 A
6144012 Dulaney et al. Nov 2000 A
6289713 Champaigne Sep 2001 B1
6415486 Prevey, III Jul 2002 B1
6483578 Clauer et al. Nov 2002 B1
6568239 Champaigne May 2003 B1
6592435 Kishima Jul 2003 B2
6622570 Prevey, III Sep 2003 B1
6672838 Crall et al. Jan 2004 B1
6752593 Clauer et al. Jun 2004 B2
6759626 Clauer et al. Jul 2004 B2
6893225 Crall et al. May 2005 B2
6959572 Lawrence et al. Nov 2005 B2
6969821 Mika et al. Nov 2005 B2
7185521 Lombardo et al. Mar 2007 B2
7188398 Prevey Mar 2007 B2
7229253 Broderick et al. Jun 2007 B2
7261500 Killer et al. Aug 2007 B2
7384244 Broderick et al. Jun 2008 B2
7530792 Luna et al. May 2009 B2
7600404 Prevey, III Oct 2009 B2
20010036800 Liners et al. Nov 2001 A1
20050158460 Williams Jul 2005 A1
20050171703 Goldfine et al. Aug 2005 A1
20070175030 Luna et al. Aug 2007 A1
20080011391 Brenner et al. Jan 2008 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (7)
Number Date Country
2158761 Feb 2005 CA
1 175 956 Jan 2002 EP
1175956 Jan 2002 EP
61060875 Mar 1986 JP
9525821 Sep 1995 WO
0164398 Sep 2001 WO
2007055864 May 2007 WO
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20080160891 A1 Jul 2008 US