Optics & Laser Technology 73 (2015) 179–187

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Optics & Laser Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/optlastec

Random-type scanning patterns in laser shock peening without

absorbing coating in 2024-T351 Al alloy: A solution to reduce
residual stress anisotropy
C. Correa a,n, D. Peral a, J.A. Porro a,b, M. Díaz a,b, L. Ruiz de Lara a, A. García-Beltrán a,
J.L. Ocaña a,b
a
Laser Center, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Campus Sur, Edificio Tecnológico la Arboleda, Carretera de valencia km 7,300, Madrid, Spain
b
Applied Physics and Materials Engineering Department, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, José
Gutiérrez Abascal, 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Laser Shock Peening (LSP) is considered as an alternative technology to shot peening (SP) for the
Received 15 December 2014 induction of compressive residual stresses in metallic alloys in order to improve their fatigue, corrosion
Received in revised form and wear resistance. Since laser pulses generated by high-intensity laser systems cover only a small area,
1 April 2015
laser pulses are generally overlapped and scanned in a zigzag-type pattern to cover completely the
Accepted 29 April 2015
Available online 26 May 2015
surface to be treated. However, zigzag-type scanning patterns induce residual stress anisotropy as col-
lateral effect. The purpose of this paper is to describe and explain, for the first time and with the aid of
Keywords: the numerical model developed by the authors, the influence of the scanning pattern directionality on
Laser shock peening the residual stress tensor. As an effective solution, the authors propose the application of random-type
Finite element method
scanning patterns instead of zigzag-type in order to reduce the mentioned residual stress anisotropy.
Random
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Laser Shock Peening (LSP) is an innovative surface treatment which
induces compressive residual stresses in metallic alloys for improving
their fatigue, corrosion and wear resistance [1–5]. LSP is based on the
application of high intensity laser pulses (intensity41 GW/cm2) with
the duration of nanoseconds on a metallic surface [6]. The laser-
material interaction produces the sudden vaporization of the surface,
generating a high temperature and density plasma whose rapid
expansion induces a shock wave which propagates into the material.
The shock wave induces plastic strains and compressive residual
stresses that improve superficial material properties. A transparent
confining material, normally water, is used for increasing the pressure
in the generated plasma. In typical LSP processes a protective andab-
sorbent coating is used in order to prevent the material surface from
melting or beingdamaged in case of high energy laser pulses (up to
100 J/pulse) and long-duration pulses (up to100 ns) are applied.
However, in case of lower energies (order of a few Joules or less)
andshorter pulse duration, absorbent coating is not necessary. This
latter variant is also known aslaser shock peening without coating
(LSPwC) [3–4].
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: carlos.correa@upm.es (C. Correa).
Since each LSP pulse covers only a small area, usually
1–25 mm2 [7], laser pulses are generally overlapped and scanned
in a zigzag-type pattern in order to cover completely the area to be
treated (see Fig. 1) [8–11]. However, zigzag-type scanning patterns
induce residual stress anisotropy as collateral effect. Differences
between the magnitude of the residual stress after LSP in the
x–direction (sx) and in the y–direction (sy) in the surface region
are found in multitude of Refs. [12–15], but until now the expla-
nation for this residual stress anisotropy has been an open ques-
tion [8]. Trdan et al. [16] (in which residual stress evaluation also
confirmed beneficial compressive residual stresses after LSPwC,
with higher compressive residual stress in the advancing LSPwC)
studied the LSPwC effects on the dislocation generation, dislocation
transition and grain refinement through-depth distribution, which
could be related to the residual stress anisotropy. Results confirmed
that ultra high strains and strain rates involve the formation of
dislocation lines and their accumulation, which contributes to the
formation of complex/completely random structures as dislocation
tangles, dense dislocation walls and dislocation cells. Increasing
amounts of strain results in sub-grains via the dislocations annihi-
lation and the formation of multiple shear bands, which eventually
lead to ultra-fine and nano-grain refined structures. However, Trdan
et al. [16] also recommends more systematic investigations to
explain residual stress anisotropy.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2015.04.027
0030-3992/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
180 C. Correa et al. / Optics & Laser Technology 73 (2015) 179–187
Fig. 1. Zigzag-type scanning pattern.
In the present paper, for the first time we explain the influence
of the scanning pattern directionality on the residual stress com-
ponents sx and sy. In order to carry out this purpose, the authors
have developed a 3D Finite Element Method (FEM) model which
allows to simulate LSP treatments with zigzag-type patterns over
real geometries. Pulse by pulse FEM analysis shows the physical
mechanism which produces the mentioned phenomenon and the
role played by the residual stresses induced in the outer zones of
each single laser spot. In addition, the authors propose the appli-
cation of random-type scanning patterns instead of zigzag-type,
an effective solution to reduce the residual stress anisotropy.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. The base Al2024–T351 alloy
The material chosen for this study was Al2024–T351 aluminum
in the shape of rolled plates. It is an aluminum alloy with good
surface finish capabilities. It is a high strength material of adequate
workability and multiple applications in different areas: aircraft
fuselage and fittings, gears, shafts, pistons, fastening devices and
structures. Its chemical composition is: Al, 90.7–94.7 wt% Cu, 3.8–
4.9 wt% Mg, 1.2–1.8 wt% Mn, 0.3–0.9 wt% Mn, 0.46 wt% Si, Max.
0.5 wt% Fe, Max. 0.5 wt% Zn, Max. 0.25 wt% Ti, Max. 0.15 wt% Cr,
Max. 0.1 wt% other (each) Max. 0.05 wt% other (total) Max.
0.15 wt%. The mechanical properties of the material are listed in
Table 1 [14].
2.2. Laser shock peening setup
Fig. 2 displays the scheme (a) and the photograph (b) of the
experimental setup. The laser source is a Q-switched Quanta-Ray
Nd:YAG laser which operates at 10 Hz and it supplies an maximum
energy ¼ 2.4 J/ pulse. The full width half maximum (FWHM) of the
generated pulses is 9 ns and the wavelength is 1064 nm (infrared
radiation). The laser pulse is focused on the target by using a flat
mirror and a convergent lens (f¼ 200 mm, bi-convex). The flat
mirror and the convergent lens are AR-coated for 1064 nm, guar-
anteeing a high transmittance efficiency. Applied LSP treatment is
performed without coating (also known as LSPwC [3] and [11]).
Control of water purity is important in order to avoid the forma-
tion of water bubbles or the concentration of impurities resulting
from the material ablation due to laser treatment. The formation
Table 1
Al2024–T351mechanical properties [14].
Material Young mod- Yield Ultimate Elongation at
ulus (GPa) stress stress (MPa) fracture (%)
(MPa)
Al 2024 72 360 481 19
T351
Fig. 2. Scheme and photograph of the LSP experimental setup.
of suspended elements can affect the LSP process by their inter-
action with the high energy laser beam. A water jet may be a good
solution to avoid these detrimental elements. A device to produce
a water jet (tap water) has been implemented to create a thin
water layer with a constant thickness on the sample to be treated.
This enables plasma confinement. The material target is fixed on a
holder and is driven along the x and y directions by means of an
ABB anthropomorphic robot.
2.3. Residual stress determination using HD technique
The method used for the measurement of residual stresses in
the present article is the hole-drilling (HD) strain gage method
according to the ASTM standard E837 [17]. It is a widely used
technique for the determination of in depth residual stress profiles
induced by LSPwC [16] and [18]. Strain gage rosettes EA-13-062RE-
120 along with a RS-200 Milling Guide from Measurements Group
were used. Strains measurement were performed by incremental
hole drilling measurements, with the drill penetration increasing
until achieving 1 mm, whereas 6 measurements were performed
at depths (mm) to calculate each single in-depth profile: 0.060,
0.120, 0.230, 0.400, 0.620 and 0.913. In order to obtain reliability of
the measurements four separate measurements were performed
on LSPwC, respectively. The final residual stress distribution in
depth was determined using H-drill v. 2.33 software (integral
method). This method enables low sensitivity to experimental
 C. Correa et al. / Optics & Laser Technology 73 (2015) 179–187
errors and high resolution of calculated residual stresses. This
method is the right choice when measuring high gradients of
residual stresses in depth. However, the sensitivity of the calcu-
lated stresses is also the most severe. Therefore, according to
H-drill recommendation automatic smoothing was chosen
(Tikhonov regularization scheme) in order to enhance stability and
to reduce experimental errors.
3. Calculation
3.1. Description of the numerical model
For the study of LSPwC 3D problems, we have developed a
model based on FEM commercial code Abaqus/Explicit [19–21]. It
solves the shock wave propagation problem into the solid material
with specific consideration of elastic–plastic behavior. From a
geometrical point of view, a fully 3D configuration for the geo-
metry and for the sequential overlapping strategy of pulses has
been considered. The FEM elements used in Abaqus/Explicit are
eight-node bricks (reduced integration with hourglass control) in
the treated area, namely C3D8R. The element size, in the nearest of
the treated area, is 100x100  25 μm3, being the maximum ele-
ment size which allows to maintain calculation convergence. In
the rest of the geometry, where there is no applied loads, the FEM
elements are six-node prisms, namely C3D6T, which ease meshing
complex partitions. All simulations were run using parallel
execution (domain-level method which splits the model into a
number of topological domains) with two Intels Xeons CPUs
E5530 clocked at 2.40 GHz and 48 GB of RAM memory.
Table 2
Pressure evolution.
P (GPa) 0 0.7 1.3 2.7 4.4 4.8 4.7 3.9 2.5 1.9 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.2 0
t (ns) 0 3 5 7 9 12 15 19 26 33 59 80 120 178 200
Table 3
Al2024–T351 Johnson–Cook parameters [29].
A (MPa) B (MPa) C n m ε0̇
369 684 0.0083 0.73 1.70
Fig. 3. LSP parameters and zigzag-type scanning pattern applied in the Al2024–T351 sheet.
181
3.2. Shock wave modeling: evolution and spatial distribution
The shock wave is modeled as a transient pressure whose
characteristics depend on laser parameters. Peak pressure value,
4.8 GPa, was calculated using the following equation: Ppeak (GPa)¼
0.01[α/(α þ 3)]1/2[Z (g cm  2 s  1)]1/2[I (GW/cm2]1/2 [22,23] where
α is the fraction of the internal energy devoted to the thermal
energy (α ¼0.25 for wavelength¼1064 nm), I is the peak intensity
(10.2 GW/cm2) and Z is the reduced acoustic impedance between
the target and the confining water defined by the relation: 2/Z¼
1/Zwater þ 1/Ztarget where Zwater and Ztarget are the acoustic impe-
dance of the water and the target. For aluminum targets, Ztarget ¼
1.5∙106 g cm  2 s  1 and Zwater ¼ 0.165∙106 g cm  2 s  1. Pressure
pulse evolution (see Table 2) was modeled multiplying the peak
pressure by the normalized pressure pulse induced by a 8–10 ns
laser pulse given in Ref. [24].
The spatial distribution of the pressure pulse has been adjusted
(following the method proposed in Ref. [13]) as a quasi-Gaussian
function: P(x,y,t)¼P(t)exp[ 0.85(x2 þy2)/R2], where x and y are the
surface coordinates and R is the pulse radius. In addition, when
simulating a large number of LSPwC pulses applied at different
locations and times, a minimum time interval between successive
impacts had to be selected to ensure a quasi-residual stress field
(shock and relaxation). A time interval of 10  5 s between con-
secutive pulses is a period of time long enough to calculate the
residual stresses [12]. These data and the scanning pattern were
programmed using VDLOAD Abaqus subroutine.
3.3. Constitutive material law
In LSPwC processes, the material is stressed and deformed in a
dynamic way, with strain rates exceeding 106 s  1, thus the elasto-
plastic behavior of Al2024–T351 is modeled using the Johnson–
Cook equation [25] and parameters provided in [26] (Table 3).
A, B, C and n are material constants (A ¼yield stress, B ¼work
hardening modulus, n ¼work hardening coefficient and C ¼strain
rate sensitivity). For our LSP conditions, preliminary research using
coupled temperature–displacement elements DC3D8T proved that
the thermal term of Johnson–Cook equation [25] can be neglected:
on a sequence of five pulses, the local temperature increment due
to shock waves propagation was only 60 K maintaining the same
residual stress values, supposing an inelastic heat fraction of 0.9.
1 Hence, the thermal term of Johnson–Cook equation was not taken
into account in the developed model.
182 C. Correa et al. / Optics & Laser Technology 73 (2015) 179–187

4. Results and discussion
In this section, the analysis of the residual stress anisotropy
induced by zigzag-type LSPwC treatments is presented. FEM
simulations' results prove the reduction of residual stress aniso-
tropy by using a random sequence strategy.
4.1. Simulation of 1430 LSP pulses over a 10  100 mm2 patch using
the typical zigzag-scanning pattern
The present study begins analyzing the residual stresses induced
by LSPwC with typical zigzag-type scanning patterns. Fig. 3 shows
the zigzag-type scanning pattern applied in the Al2024–T351 target,
firing 1430 pulses, covering a total area of 10  100 mm2 and
advancing in the y-direction (in this case, the advancing direction).
The target geometry is a 2 mm-thick sheet with an overall length of
160 mm and width of 65 mm (the rolling direction (L) is parallel to x-
direction). As indicated in Fig. 4, laser spot diameter is Φ ¼2.5 mm
and the overlapping distance (distance between consecutive pulses)
is d¼ 0.75 mm.
The simulated surface residual stresses sx and sy in the Al2024–
T351 sheet after the LSPwC treatment are displayed in Fig. 4. The
FEM model can predict the residual stress tensor in each and every
point of the whole target geometry, but only one representative
point (located in the center of the treated patch) was selected in
order to compare the experimental and simulated residual stresses
in depth. The comparisons (see Fig. 5) show a good match between
experimental and simulation results. In fact, the maximum error in
the calculation is 34 MPa for the sx comparison and 70 MPa for the
sy comparison (both at depth¼ 0.62 mm).

Fig. 4. Surface residual stresses (a) sx and (b) sy.

Fig. 5. Comparisons between experimental and simulated residual stresses in depth.

Fig. 6. Residual stresses after 1 pulse.

 C. Correa et al. / Optics & Laser Technology 73 (2015) 179–187 183

In Fig. 5, it can be seen the notable difference between the spot. This stress induction mechanism resembles that of shrink fit
magnitude of residual stresses sx and sy. The maximum compressive technique, where a column is fit into a pipe [12] and [30]. On
stress values are sx,max ¼  130 MPa and sy,max ¼  405 MPa, with a condition that the outer radius of pipe is infinite, residual stress
difference of 275 MPa between them. The explanation to this resi- field generated by shrink fit can be expressed as: sr ¼  k and
dual stress anisotropy can be found by showing the residual stress sϑ ¼  k for r rR; sr ¼  k(r/R)  j and sϑ ¼(j  1)k(r/R)  j for r 4R,
components at different stages during the process. where sr is the radial residual stress, sϑ is the angular residual
stress, k is the residual stress in the spot zone and j is the decay
4.2. Analysis of residual stress anisotropy during the LSP process exponent (typically between 1.5 and 2). It is a simplified 2D-ana-
lytical model, far from the FEM model presented in this paper, but
The residual stress distribution for sx and sy after applying one
it describes the residual stress distribution in a very intuitive way
single pulse was simulated. Fig. 6 shows the obtained results. In
by simple equations. After the impact, radial and angular residual
the inner zone of the spot, there is no difference between sx and
stresses, sr and sϑ, are axially symmetric, but it is not the case of
sy. However, residual stresses sx and sy present significant differ-
cartesian residual stress components, sx and sy. It can be clearly
ences in the outer zone of the spot. On one hand, in connection
with sx, compressive stresses appear in the upper and the bottom seen in Figs. 6 and 9, where radial residual stress sr and cartesian
zones (sx E 130 MPa) and tensile stresses appear in the left and residual stresses sx and sy are represented, respectively. The dif-
the right sides of the spot (sx E180 MPa). On the other hand, in sy ference between sx and sy in the outer zone of the single spot
compressive stresses appear in the left and the right sides of the
spot (sy E  130 MPa) and tensile stresses appear in the upper and
the bottom zone (sy E180 MPa). Residual stresses in the outer
zone are the same in absolute values but have different signs.
Residual stress anisotropy in the outer zone is a well-known
phenomenon which occurs in craters generated as a result of high-
velocity impacts, e.g. Foreign Object Damage (FOD) and ballistics
impacts [27–29]. Fig. 7 displays the crater generated after applying
one single pulse, it achieves a maximum depth of 13 μm in spot
center and it was measured by means of a confocal microscope
LEICA DCM3D. Fig. 8 shows the comparison between simulated
and measured deformations after 1, 2 and 5 pulses fired in the
same position. Hence, when a single pulse is irradiated, the spot is
compressed along the z-direction by mechanical pressure. The
compressive strain along the z-direction produces that the dia-
meter of the irradiated spot tends to expand by plastic deforma-
tion, but the expansion is partly restricted by the surrounding
region. As a result, residual stresses are induced on and around the

Fig. 7. Crater depth after 1 pulse. Fig. 9. Radial residual stress after 1 pulse.

Fig. 8. Comparison between simulated and measured crater deformations after 1, 2 and 5 pulses.
184 C. Correa et al. / Optics & Laser Technology 73 (2015) 179–187

Fig. 10. Residual stresses after 11 pulses (zigzag-type scanning pattern).

Fig. 11. Residual stresses after 16 pulses (zigzag-type scanning pattern).

Fig. 12. Residual stresses after 100 pulses (zigzag-type scanning pattern).

plays a critical role in the difference which appears between sx and
sy in the treated zone after applying the complete zigzag-type
scanning pattern.
Fig. 10 displays the surface residual stress for sx and sy, after 11
pulses, when the first column of pulses has been peened. In sx the
induced compressive stresses are greater than in sy. On one hand,
in sx, each new pulse adds compressive stresses when it is peened
(Δsx ¼ 100 MPa ). On the other hand, in sy, each new pulse
induces a detrimental effect (Δsy ¼170 MPa ) in the compressive
stresses generated by the previous pulses. The reason which
explains this behavior is the overlapping of the residual stresses
induced in the outer zone of each single spot (see Fig. 6).
 C. Correa et al. / Optics & Laser Technology 73 (2015) 179–187 185

Fig. 13. Residual stresses after 286 pulses (zigzag-type scanning pattern).

Fig. 14. Residual stresses after 16 pulses (a) and 286 pulses (b) (both with random-type scanning pattern).

When the second column is being peened (see Fig. 11 after 16 LSP
pulses), the residual stresses' fields change. In sx, each new pulse
peened in the second column induces a detrimental effect
(Δsx ¼245 MPa) in the compressive stresses generated by the pulses
of the first column, while in sy each new pulse peened in the second
column adds extra compressive stresses (Δsy ¼  185 MPa). On the
one hand, the decrease in sx is definitely related to the tensile stress
addition generated by the second column on its left and right sides.
On the other hand, the increase in sy is definitely related to the
compressive stress addition generated by the second column on its
upper and lower bounds (it is the same stress distribution in the
surroundings of the treated area than after a single pulse (see Fig. 6)).
Figs. 12 and 13 after 100 and 286 pulses, respectively, show the
same effect observed in Fig. 10. The residual stresses induced in
186 C. Correa et al. / Optics & Laser Technology 73 (2015) 179–187
the advancing direction of the zigzag-type scanning pattern (sy in
the figures) are more compressive than the residual stresses
generated in the perpendicular direction (sx in the figures).
4.3. Reduction of residual stress anisotropy by application of ran-
dom-type scanning patterns
Since numerical results indicate a strong influence of scanning-
pattern features on residual stress anisotropy, specifically the fact that
residual stresses induced in the advancing direction of the zigzag-type
scanning pattern are much more compressive than the residual
stresses generated in the perpendicular direction, the advancing
direction must be chosen in order to optimize the residual stresses
fields. Accordingly, we have extracted some logical outcomes: (i) in
forming applications, the advancing direction must be imposed par-
allel to the bending direction in order to increase the bending angle;
and (ii) in cases where the pieces to be treated are subjected to uni-
directional fatigue loads, the advancing direction of the zigzag scan-
ning patterns must be imposed parallel to the fatigue load in order to
obtain more superficial compressive stresses opposing the load.
However, in applications were fatigue loads are not unidirectional,
residual stresses anisotropy can represent a problem and it is inter-
esting to achieve the same residual stresses in sx and sy. This situation
can be achieved after applying traditional shot peening because blast
impacts are not fired in a predefined scanning pattern. If LSPwC pulses
are not applied according to a predefined pattern and they are fired in
random sequence, residual stress differences between sx and sy are
decreased. It can be seen in Fig. 14, where the residual stresses present
a very similar configuration in sx and sy after applying 286 pulses
fired in a random sequence (the random sequence was also
Fig. 15. Comparison between residual stress anisotropy induced by random and
zigzag sequences.
programmed using the VDLOAD Abaqus subroutine), contrary to the
case displayed in Fig. 13, where surface residual stresses were repre-
sented after the zigzag-type scanning pattern application. Another
effect observed by comparison is that macro-scale anisotropy tends to
be reduced after random sequence, but a few zones with moderate
local heterogeneity appear, both in sx and sy.
The comparison between the zigzag-type and the random-type
scanning patterns can be visualized more clearly by representing the
residual stresses in sx and sy along an in-depth path. Fig. 15 displays
the mentioned comparison. As it can be observed, the difference
between sx and sy (Δsanisotropy ¼abs (sx  sy) which is indicated in
the figure with gray color) after the zigzag-type scanning pattern is
significantly greater than the difference after the random-type pat-
tern (Δsanisotropy ¼150–275 MPa against Δsanisotropy ¼50–100 MPa).
It means a residual stress anisotropy decrease of E100–175 MPa
leads to the final conclusion that random-type scanning pattern is an
effective solution to reduce the residual stress anisotropy created by
typical zigzag-type scanning pattern in LSPwC treatments with
overlapped pulses. These results proved that the residual stress
anisotropy is a direct consequence of the applied pulse sequence and
the equilibration residual stress which appears around each fired
laser spot. Logically, this phenomena must be related with the pre-
sence of microstructural anisotropy because of the relationship
between the induced plastic strains and the dislocations density.
However, it must be studied in detail in future works.
5. Conclusions
The developed 3D FEM model allows to simulate LSPwC
treatments over real geometries, showing a good match between
calculated and experimental residual stresses and crater defor-
mations. The typical zigzag-type scanning pattern has been ana-
lyzed at different stages during the LSP treatment and, for the first
time, the reason why the greatest compressive residual stresses
are obtained in the advancing direction has been explained. The
residual stresses sx and sy generated in the outer zone of each
single spot have no axial symmetry, contrary to radial residual
stresses sr. The overlapping of these outer residual stresses during
the peening sequence produces the mentioned notable differences
between sx and sy in the treated zone. In cases where the piece to
be treated is stressed under multiaxial fatigue loads, residual stress
anisotropy generated by typical zigzag-type scanning patterns can
be a problem because the LSP treatment protects the material
more in the advancing direction than in the perpendicular direc-
tion. In these latter cases, a random-type scanning pattern is
proposed by the authors in order to reduce the mentioned ani-
sotropy. Simulation results proved that by means of a randomized
pulse sequence in laser shock processing (with the intention of
imitating the random sequence intrinsic to shot peening treat-
ments), the residual stress anisotropy was significantly reduced.
Acknowledgments
Funding for this research was provided by Postdoctoral
Research Fellowships at Centro Láser Universidad Politécnica de
Madrid (UPM) under contract (Ref. PCD-UPM/13/2014). Work
partly supported under spanish MINECO funding (MAT2012-
37782).
 C. Correa et al. / Optics & Laser Technology 73 (2015) 179–187
References
[1] Hatamleh O, Singh PM, Garmestani H. Corrosion susceptibility of peened
friction stir welded 7075 aluminum alloy joints. Corros Sci 2009;51(1):135–40.
[2] Peyre P, Scherpereel X, Berthe L, Fabbro R. Current trends in laser shock
processing. Surf Eng 1998;14:377–80.
[3] Sano Y, Masaki K, Gushi T, Sano T. Improvement in fatigue performance of
friction stir welded A6061-T6 aluminum alloy by laser peening without
coating. Mater Des 2012;36:809–14.
[4] Trdan U, Grum J. Evaluation of corrosion resistance of AA6082–T651 alumi-
nium alloy after laser shock peening by means of cyclic polarization and ElS
methods. Corros Sci 2012;59:324–33.
[5] Zhang XC, Zhang YK, Lu JZ, Xuan FZ, Wang ZD, Tu ST. Improvement of fatigue
life of Ti–6Al–4V alloy by laser shock peening. Mater Sci Eng A: Struct
2010;527(15):3411–5.
[6] Morales M, Ocaña JL, Molpeceres C, Porro JA, García-Beltrán A. Model based
optimization criteria for the generation of deep compressive residual stress
fields in high elastic limit metallic alloys by ns-laser shock processing. Surf
Coat Technol 2008;202(11):2257–62.
[7] Montross CS, Wei T, Ye L, Clark G, Mai YW. Laser shock processing and its
effects on microstructure and properties of metal alloys: a review. Int J Fatigue
2002;24(10):1021–36.
[8] Sano Y, Akita K, Masaki K, Ochi Y, Altenberger I, Scholtes B. Laser peening
without coating as a surface enhancement technology. J Laser Micro/Nanoeng
2006;1:161–6.
[9] Rubio-González C, Ocaña JL, Gomez-Rosas G, Molpeceres C, Paredes M, Ban-
deras A, et al. Effect of laser shock processing on fatigue crack growth and
fracture toughness of 6061-T6 aluminum alloy. Mater Sci Eng A: Struct
2004;386:291–5.
[10] Hu Y, Yao Z. Overlapping rate effect on laser shock processing of 1045 steel by
small spots with Nd:YAG pulsed laser. Surf Coat Technol 2008;202(8):1517–25.
[11] Ocaña JL, Molpeceres C, Gómez G, Porro JA, Morales M. Experimental assess-
ment of materials treatment by laser shock processing. Appl Surf Sci 2004;238
(1–4):501–5.
[12] 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 2015;70:480–9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2014.05.015.
[13] Peyre P, Hfaiedh N, Song H, Nivard M, Branly S, Ji V, et al. Laser shock pro-
cessing with two different laser sources on 2050-T8 aluminum alloy. Int J Surf
Integr Special Issue: Adv Laser Shock Peen Theory Pract Around World: Pre-
sent Solut Future Chall 2011;2:87–100.
[14] Dorman M, Toparli MB, Smyth N, Cini A, Fitzpatrick ME, Irving PE. Effect of
laser shock peening on residual stress and fatigue life of clad 2024 aluminium
sheet containing scribe defects. Mater Sci Eng A: Struct 2012;548:142–51.
187
[15] Maawad E, Sano Y, Wagner L, Brokmeier H-G, Genzel Ch. Investigation of laser
shock peening effects on residual stress state and fatigue performance of
titanium alloys. Mater Sci Eng A: Struct 2012;536:82–91.
[16] Trdan U, Skarba M, Grum J. Laser shock peening effect on the dislocation
transitions and grain refinement of Al-Mg-Si alloy, materials. Characterization
2014;97:57–68.
[17] ASTM International: E837-08 Standard Test Method for Determining Residual
Stresses by the Hole–Drilling Strain Gage Method. v. 04 (2008).
[18] Trdan U, Porro JA, Ocaña JL, Grum J. Laser shock peening without absorbent
coating (LSPwC) effect on the 3D surface topography and mechanical prop-
erties of 6082-T651 alloy. Surface and Coatings Technology 2012;208:109–16.
[19] Brockman RA, Braisted WR, Olson SE, Tenaglia RD, Clauer AH, Langer K, et al.
Prediction and characterization of residual stresses from laser shock peening.
Int J Fatigue 2012;36(1):96–108.
[20] Correa C, Ruiz de Lara L, Díaz M, Porro JA, García-Beltrán A, Ocaña JL. Influence
of pulse sequence and edge material effect on fatigue life of Al2024-T351
specimens treated by laser shock processing. Int J Fatigue 2015;70:196–204.
[21] Warren AW, Guo YB, Chen SC. Massive parallel laser shock peening: simula-
tion, analysis, and validation. Int J Fatigue 2008;30(1):188–97.
[22] Fabbro R, Fournier J, Ballard P, Devaux D, Virmont J. Physical study of laser-
produced plasma in confined geometry. J Appl Phys 1990;68:775–84.
[23] Berthe L, Fabbro R, Peyre P, Tollier L, Bartnicki E. Shock waves from a water-
confined laser-generated plasma. J Appl Phys 1997;82:2826–32.
[24] Peyre P, Chaieb I, Braham C. FEM calculations of residual stresses induced by
laser shock processing in stainless steels. Model Simul Mater Sci Eng
2007;15:205–21.
[25] Johnson GR, Cook WH. A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to
large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In: Proceedings of the
7th international symposium on ballistics. The Hague; 1983. p. 541–7.
[26] Lesuer DR. Experimental investigations of material models for Ti–6Al–4V
titanium and 2024-T3 aluminum. DOT/FAA/AR-00/25 U.S. Department of
Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration); 2000.
[27] Frankel PG, Withers PJ, Preuss M, Wang HT, Tong J, Rugg D. Residual stress
fields after FOD impact on flat and aerofoil-shaped leading edges. Mech Mater
2012;55:130–45.
[28] Zabeen S, Preuss M, Withers PJ. Residual stresses caused by head-on and 45°
foreign object damage for a laser shock peened Ti–6Al–4V alloy aerofoil. Mater
Sci Eng A 2013;560:518–27.
[29] Flores-Johnson EA, Muránsky O, Hamelin CJ, Bendeich PJ, Edwards L.
Numerical analysis of the effect of weld-induced residual stress and plastic
damage on the ballistic performance of welded steel plate. Comput Mater Sci
2012;58:131–9.
[30] Hirano K, Sugihashi A, Imai H, Hamada N. Mecanism of anisotropic stress
generation in laser peening processs. In: Proceedings of Icaleo’2006 con-
ference (Miami, USA); 2006.