Is the Civil Aerospace Industry Ready

to Implement Laser Shock Peening

into Maintenance Environment? Questions
to Be Answered and Minimum Requirements
from Aircraft Manufacturer’s Perspective

D. Furfari1(&), U. C. Heckenberger2, V. Holzinger2,

E. Hombergsmeier2, J. Vignot3, and N. Ohrloff1
1
Airbus Operations GmbH, Hamburg, Germany
domenico.furfari@airbus.com
2
Airbus Defence and Space GmbH, Ottobrunn, Germany
3
Airbus SAS, Toulouse, France

Abstract. Laser Shock Peening (LSP) system, involving complex set up and
tooling, is not practical at all for in-service use (not compatible with airline
maintenance constrains). To make LSP applicable at Maintenance Repair and
Operations (MRO) and ensure reasonably simple setup and easy transportability
to all around the world requires developing a “portable” device (i.e. low energy
laser). The application of LSP as retrofit solution for in service commercial
aircraft is particular challenging and currently no applications are reported.
Applying LSP as a structural modification in critical component of in service
commercial aircraft implies treatment at the MRO all around the world during
already scheduled maintenance to avoid Aircraft on Ground situation, which can
cost tens of thousands dollars a day. It is a common understanding that the depth
of compressive residual stress over 1 mm can be achieved only if high energy
laser (i.e. large laser spot) is used. It is demonstrated in this paper that low
energy LSP system (  200 mJ, pulse width of  25 nsec) and associated
small laser spot size (< 1 mm diameter) can determine high compressive stress
in the near surface of typical aeronautical Al alloy and compression depth above
1 mm. This residual stress profile is sufficient to extend the fatigue lives of
critical components opening the door for development of portable LSP devices
requiring low energy laser. The paper includes the investigation of low energy
LSP system from residual stress characterization to fatigue life response of
7175-T7531 aluminum alloy. Finally, the authors review the minimum
requirements of LSP portable device to ensure the compatibility with the
operational environments typical of MRO.

Keywords: Fatigue
Residual stresses
Maintenance
Laser shock peening

Aircraft structures

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

A. Niepokolczycki and J. Komorowski (Eds.): ICAF 2019, LNME, pp. 643–657, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21503-3_52
644 D. Furfari et al.

1 Introduction

Technology Process Description. Laser Shock Peening (LSP) as surface technology

inducing residual stresses in metallic airframe is a well-established technology in
aerospace industry (Furfari 2014; Hombergsmeier et al. 2013). It produces compressive
residual stresses, which inhibit the initiation and propagation of fatigue cracks.
A metallic material is subject to short duration pulses (< 25 nsec) from a pulsed laser
which generates a confined plasma on the surface. The plasma rapidly expands forming
an extremely high-pressure pulse (from 1 to 10 GPa) (Liu et al. 2007) with water
serving to confine the pressure at near surface of the target material (Frank 1980). This
pressure pulse sends shock waves through the part which propagate into the material
plastically straining the near surface layer and the surrounding bulk elastic material
generating permanent compressive stresses to re-establish the equilibrium. The residual
compressive stresses introduced are similar in magnitude to the conventional shot
peening but extending deeper into the part – typically 5–10 times deeper.
State of the Art. An overview of potential applications to ensure salvage for identified
hot spots for fatigue and crack growth performance in aircraft structures is in Furfari
et al. 2017.
In the past 10 years there was an increased interest by the scientific community to
develop Laser Peening capability either in Research as well as in Photonics and
Optronic Industry.
From Aerospace Industry perspective, the development of laser peening system is
just the first step towards entering in service of this technology into both manufacturing
and maintenance industry environment. Beside the optical physics performances
required to ensure an optimum laser peening process, other requirements are necessary
to allow for the usage in Aerospace Industry. The mechanical performance of the
structures treated with laser peening as well as the compatibility of the laser peening
equipment with typical manufacturing and maintenance environment must be
demonstrated. If the aim is to improve the mechanical resistance of metallic structures,
a certain residual stress profile reaching into the depth of the material must be ensured.
The final response under fatigue loading to extend fatigue lives of the components or to
slow down the crack growth to extend the interval of inspection of an aircraft must be
demonstrated.
Since 1997 Engine Manufacturers (e.g. General Electric Aviation, Pratt & Whitney
and Rolls Royce) together with laser shock peening service provider (Laser Shock
Peening Technologies Inc. and Metal Improvement Company subsidiary) developed
and entered in production with solutions to introduce laser peening as surface treatment
to extend fatigue life of critical engine components. Embedding LSP into production
lines (General Electric Aviation and Pratt & Whitney) or treating the components out of
production line before final assembly (MIC as service provider for Rolls Royce) are
well established business models.
 Is the Civil Aerospace Industry Ready to Implement Laser Shock Peening 645

2 Constrains and Requirements For LSP at MRO

Major Constrains for In-Service Implementation. The use of Laser Shock Peening
as surface technology for Fatigue and Damage Tolerance enhancement have been
largely used in aeronautic industries for structural critical components and for military
aircraft also in Maintenance Environment as the example reported in MacGillivray
et al. 2010, Polin 2011.
The application of LSP as retrofit solution for in service commercial aircraft is
particular challenging and currently no application is reported. Appling Laser Shock
Peening in critical components of in service commercial aircraft implies to treat the
aircraft at the Maintenance Repair and Operations (MRO) all around the world. To
avoid Aircraft on Ground, which can cost tens of thousands dollars a day, any structural
modification, including eventually laser shock peening, shall be done during scheduled
maintenance operation taking the opportunity that the aircraft will be in any case at the
MRO. When a commercial aircraft is grounded for scheduled maintenance, many
repair operations, structural modifications and standard inspections take place in a
limited time (typical 2 weeks up to 8 weeks). At major overhaul inspection, e.g. after 6
years and 12 years, the aircraft is inspected and eventually repaired and many main-
tenance teams are working at the same time around the aircraft making the accessibility
not easy at all (Fig. 1).

© AIRBUS 2007 – Photo by exm

company/H.Gousse’
© AIRBUS 1992 © AIRBUS 2000

Fig. 1. Typical maintenance repair and operations environment

Challenge to Treat Aircraft Worldwide at MROs. Any tools or equipment to

support aircraft maintenance operations (Ground Support Equipment, GSE) shall be
manufactured in modular design to allow easy assembly and disassembly operation to
facilitate the transportability all around the world. A component, part of the GSE,
heavier than 25 kg must be designed and manufactured taking into account the
transportability and preferably provide means for easy rolling movement (e.g. caster).
Such component shall have a means of lifting during assembly and disassembly
operation provided in the final design (e.g. handles, hosting points etc.). The design of
LSP system for MRO use shall take into account the time constrain for typical aircraft
maintenance operation and ensuring short assembly and disassembly lead time (e.g.
max 48 h) when the system is moved at MRO from location A to B. The
646 D. Furfari et al.

assembly/disassembly operation as well as the function of the LSP equipment shall be

possible with limited personnel (e.g. 2 people). Specialized team requiring EASA/FAA
PART145 qualification regarding Aircraft Maintenance carries out any modification or
treatment on the aircraft (EASA Part 145, 2012). This implies that LSP devices
designed for MRO use must be easy to operate and maintain by not specialized people
in the field of laser technology but rather personnel specialized and qualified for aircraft
maintenance operation. A skilled mechanic shall be able to set-up, and use the LSP
equipment in an autonomous manner, with a limited duration of training provided by
the LSP supplier. The LSP system shall be designed to minimize the maintenance and
ensuring continuous operation with minimal disruptive service to avoid aircraft on
ground situation. Spare parts and consumables shall be listed and available to be sent
all around the world within limited time (e.g. within 48 h). Interchangeability and easy
installation of parts (e.g. optical devices, cabling, laser components etc.) and con-
sumables shall be considered in the design of the LSP device to ensure operations in all
possible MRO locations around the world by standard skilled mechanics. Electrical
connections, as well as, water and compressed air may be required for the laser peening
operations shall be designed taking into consideration what would be available at
standard MRO station. The LSP system shall be air transportable and it shall not
represent a hazard to either the staff in the transport aircraft, or to the transport aircraft
itself or to the MRO station. The LSP system could be stored for a short period before
use at MRO or during transportation from one MRO location to another and for this
reason it is important to design and manufacture this device considering the possibility
to be subjected to the temperature range from 0°C to +50°C and maximum relative
humidity of up to 100%. The enclosure containing the LSP system could be exposed to
rain and vibration during transportation and for this reason shall be designed and
manufactured to fulfill the requirements as described in MIL-STD-810G, 2014.
High Energy System and Complex Tooling, the Major Limiting Factor for LSP at
MRO. Current LSP technology provided by MIC and LSPT Inc. consists of high
energy lasers and heavy and complex laser beam delivery systems based on mirrors
technology is used in production environment and in some military application case as
retrofit in fixed established repair station as reported in MacGillivray et al. 2010 and
Polin 2011.
Figure 2 shows an example of laser peening system for integration at manufac-
turing lines that consists of a 200 W power diode pumped Procudo® Laser Peening
System (courtesy of LSPT Inc.) capable of 10 Joules peak energy at 20 nsec nominal
pulse width at 1064 nm wavelength. ZAL GmbH (Zentrum für Angewandte Luft-
fahrtforschung) is the German Center of Applied Aeronautical Research in Hamburg,
where the largest in Europe LSP manufacturing cell has been recently installed for
research projects aiming to demonstrate the capability of LSP process for integration at
manufacturing lines.
The typical configuration of such system consist of a laser system, laser beam
delivery and robotic system to position the component in front of the focused laser
beam to process the required surface. The laser system includes laser oscillator source
and an optical bench setup to achieve the target laser power parameters (e.g. 10 Joules
per pulse). The most common way to achieve laser power used in LSP technology is by
 Is the Civil Aerospace Industry Ready to Implement Laser Shock Peening 647

Fig. 2. Procudo® Laser Peening System (courtesy of LSPT Inc.) and the largest in Europe LSP
manufacturing cell at ZAL GmbH in Hamburg, Germany

MOPA (Master Oscillator Power Amplifier) configuration consisting of a seed laser

and single or multi-passes laser amplifiers as shown in Fig. 2.
The laser beam delivery system consists of lenses, mirrors and other optics to
condition the laser beam and focus it correctly onto the target. The part handling system,
such as robot arm to manipulate the component to be treated in front of fixed laser beam
(Fig. 2), or complex optics system to allow movable laser beam to focus onto stationary
large component target as described in MacGillivray et al. 2010 and Polin 2011.
This stationary high energy laser peening systems are capable generating deep
material residual stress profiles (several millimeters) and as consequence tremendous
potential for the mitigation of otherwise life-limiting fatigue cracking, especially if
applied to the airframe at critical locations where the conventional methods (e.g. Shot
Peening) would have very limited benefit as summarized in Furfari et al. 2017.
A dramatic fatigue life improvement and reduction of the crack growth rates due to
compressive residual stresses introduced by LSP was demonstrated by experimental
investigations and reported in Hombergsmeier et al. 2013 and Furfari et al. 2017.
Large and heavy LSP systems are not compatible with commercial aircraft main-
tenance environment and rigid and complex mirror-based beam delivery system may be
a showstopper for applying LSP treatment at fatigue critical components for in-service
commercial aircraft during standard maintenance and repair operations. The alignment
of the optical path within mirror-based beam delivery system represents one of the most
critical setup in LSP devices. Time consuming and complex setup will not allow easy
assembly/disassembly and transportability all around the world, which is the main
requirement to be fulfilled by any GSE used in MRO.
To make LSP available for MRO operations and ensure reasonably simple setup
and easy transportability to various MRO locations requires developing a “portable”
device that is low energy system. Fiber delivery system, replacing the heavy, rigid and
648 D. Furfari et al.

complex mirrors system, can be a Game Changer to prove accessibility to complex

geometries and structures during standard maintenance operations. The limitation of
the current capability to deliver short pulsed laser beam into silica core fiber is well
documented (Sano et al. 2006; Uehara et al. 2008). The current industrial application of
LSP using silica core fiber is limited to max 100 mJ peak energy with a 532 nm
wavelength with a laser pulse width of 8 nsec into 1 mm silica core fiber diameter
(Uehara et al. 2008). A low energy system that could represent a solution for compact,
light LSP device is said to be not capable to induce deep compressive stress. It is a
common understanding, as summarized in Gujba and Medraj 2014, that the depth of
compressive residual stress in the order of mm into metallic material can be achieved
only if high energy pulsed laser is used. It is believed that the depth of compressive
stress over 1 mm in aluminum alloys is associated only to large laser spot size with
high energy system to generate power density in range of 2–4 GW/cm2. The com-
pressive shock wave, that generate compressive residual stress into the material, will
have a lower attenuation travelling into the material if more planar as per the larger
spot; while smaller spots are characterized by spherical shock wave front with higher
attenuation rate and shallower compressive stress.
LSP with fiber delivery system provides interesting benefit in terms of accessibility
to complex geometries and structures in particular in MRO environment but the focus
distance to the target is very limited (e.g. 20 mm) becoming a challenge for treatment
of complex 3-D shape surfaces. The tolerances in positioning the focusing lens to the
target application are very tight (e.g. ± 0.5 mm) resulting in possible significant
change of laser spot size to the target covering complex areas. The possible drop of
compressive residual stresses because of reduction of laser irradiance (in GW/cm2) with
larger spot must be quantified.
Other Limiting Factors to Be Considered. Although LSP represents an attractive
process concerning accessibility because it is an optical system (no contact), there is
still room for improvement to extend the application in internal airframe structures. The
limitation of positioning the focusing lens (e.g. ± 0.5 mm) to the target application
when optical fiber is used is only the first limiting factor. The potential application of
LSP can be limited by the use of the laser peening with tamping water. Although at the
very early stage of exploring the LSP technology, pioneers in this field as Clauer et al.
(1977) and Fairand and Clauer (1979) used quartz as laser transparent medium to
confining the expansion of the plasma, all current applications of LSP use water
because it is very simple and very efficient. LSP treatment at fatigue critical locations
involving already in service aircraft (as in MRO) could imply local treatment in
component surrounded by electrical devices, cablings, etc. (Fig. 1). The water overlay
must be prevented to enter in contact with any electrical connections or devices. LSP
system that shall be used at MRO must include also the design and realization of a
system capable to contain the water used during the process.
Health and Safety Constrains and Requirements. Health and safety of the work
environment during scheduled maintenance must be considered ensuring appropriate
protection to the personnel working in the aircraft at MRO while the LSP operation is
performed. Lasers used in LSP process are classified as Class IV and for this reason a
dedicated protection shall be used by the process operators as well as all people in the
 Is the Civil Aerospace Industry Ready to Implement Laser Shock Peening 649

near surrounding area according to EN 60825-1 (2001). LSP equipment consisting of

laser source, complex electrical and mechanical system that shall comply with the
safety requirements for laser use described in EN 60825-1 (2001). Safety features
commonly used when laser products are in operations shall be integrated in the design
of the LSP system. Electromechanical shutter that automatically stop any laser oper-
ation if safe use is not ensured as well mechanical interlocks capable to prevent injuries
to personnel within the range of motion of the optics component used to focus the laser
beam to target surface must be considered. The accidental exposure of personnel (e.g.
eyes or the skin) to the laser beam either if it is a direct or diffuse reflected beam must
be prevented at any time and duration. A LSP system operating at MRO must consider
the design of devices or features to have a total self-contained laser beam and NO laser
light leakage possible throughout all LSP operation either during the process or during
equipment maintenance operations.
LSP in operation at MRO station implies use of laser products and electrical
apparatus in environment where dangerous concentrations and quantities of flammable
gases, vapors, mists, ignitable fiber or dusts may be present. Particular attention must
be paid to remove any risk of explosion due to ignition by arcs, sparks or hot surfaces
associated to use of laser shock peening. Prevention of ignition must be ensured either
during normal operation or under potential fault conditions caused by malfunctioning
of the apparatus. It is a common approach to classify hazardous areas into zones with
different level of risks for an explosion to occur. Hazardous areas can be defined as a
space in which an explosive mixture may be present in quantities that justify special
precautions to prevent ignition when equipment are build up, installed and or used in
this areas. Typically, three zones are defined depending on the frequency of the
occurrence and duration of an explosive mixture. These three zones identify working
areas with decreasing level of severity against likelihood of explosion. Beside these
three zones it can be defined a Non-Hazardous zone as an area that it does not fall in
any of the Zone 0, 1 and 2 definition (IEC 60079-10, 2015).
The maintenance and repair operation of an aircraft in MRO station are typically
performed in hangar or buildings designed for the scope. Depending on the aircraft and
the operation planned, hazardous zones can be defined with reference to the areas
inside the MRO buildings surrounding the aircraft structure as well as inside the aircraft
structure itself. In the LSP process source of possible ignition could be from the plasma
expansion as part of the process as well as from the electrical apparatus and laser and
optics sources. The IEC 60079-28 (2015) describes precautions and requirements when
using equipment for optical radiation in explosive atmospheres. LSP can create ignition
mechanisms, from optical radiation absorbed by surfaces heating up to ignition point,
to laser light inducing air breakdown, plasma and shock waves. If LSP is installed and
used in areas at risk of ignition, protective measures must be applied to eliminate such
risk. This can be achieved either designing the LSP equipment to locate all apparatus at
risk of ignition (e.g. electrical, laser, optics, optical fiber etc.) in no-hazardous areas or
to design the equipment including source of ignition in a way that this is not possible
occur. It is a common practice to ventilate hazardous areas purging inert gases or
simply removing oxygen from the explosive mixture and the same approach can be
used when critical elements for the LSP are designed and in particular if not possible to
locate them in no-hazardous areas.
650 D. Furfari et al.

3 Low Energy LSP System (i.e. Portable LSP) Performance

Lasers, Optics, Automation – First Step Development. The development of new

laser shock peening system involve expertise from different disciplines. From Laser
physics perspective, the kind of laser source and optical design can vary significantly.
For instance, within the solid-state laser system both flash lamp technology or diode
laser type can be used. The laser light spectrum (i.e. laser wavelength) can be also
selected ranging from green (532 nm) to infrared (1064 nm) depending on the specific
application. With respect to the transmission into the water, which is the main
requirement for LSP technology with water acting as tamping layer, green lasers are
preferable in full water immerged configuration (Uehara et al. 2008). Infrared laser
sources are preferred to treat large component having water film running into surface to
confine the plasma. For system using 1064 nm wavelength, the water film should be
controlled in terms of thickness (i.e. constant along the areas to be treated), and con-
taminations or turbulence that can reflect and disperse the laser beam before reaching
the target shall be absent. The loss of energy of infrared laser light through the water
should be taken into account as part of the design (i.e. mastering of the confining
media) since it is significant higher than for green lasers. The peak energy and the pulse
width are one of the main parameters to design LSP system since both have a
tremendous influence in material response after laser shock peening as well as in the
size and weight of the final equipment. Current industrial applications ranged from
100 mJ peak energy with pulse width of 8 nsec in 532 nm wavelength (Uehara et al.
2008) to 10 J per pulse and width of 20 nsec in 1064 nm (MacGillivray et al. 2010).
The Laser Scientist Community has shown a tremendous improvement in the laser
beam quality of the new laser generation in the past decade demonstrating the capa-
bility to control beam quality in both temporal and spatial profile. Typical temporal
Gaussian distribution and flat top hat spatial resolution are obtained with very small
modulation (less than 5%) within the typical range of shorter than 20 nsec pulse width
with laser beam diameter from less than a 1 mm up to 10 mm at focus plane. The laser
beam distortion and peak energy stability are also parameters part of the laser beam
quality management that has to be controlled with the design of the laser and optics. An
overview of the characterization of the high power laser system is summarized in Slater
and Brian (2010).
The Laser Scientist requirements used to design new laser shock peening system
ranging from the selection of the laser source (green vs. infrared, energy peak, pulse
width, beam profiles, quality beam etc.) to the optical design to deliver the laser beam
into the target surface shall ensure in any case the desired mechanical response of the
material treated. In other words, the final target requirement shall be established in terms
of fatigue life improvement, damage tolerance behavior of the component, surface
finishing and operational function. Whatever LSP system would be developed shall at
the end fulfil the engineering requirement. Especially as the influence of the laser beam
quality on the mechanical performance of the material is not clear when low energy and
small laser beam diameters are used. When large spots are used it is possible to find not
uniform distribution of residual stresses across the laser spot and for this reason multi-
layers treatment is most commonly used (Dorman et al. 2012). The minimum threshold
 Is the Civil Aerospace Industry Ready to Implement Laser Shock Peening 651

of quality in terms of temporal and spatial profile deviating from the nominal shape (i.e.
Gaussian and Flat Top Hat) for which it is still possible to induce residual stresses into
the depth of the material is a missing gap in the research areas.
Final Goal – Engineering Requirements (Performance Requirements). One of the
most important engineering requirement to be considered to demonstrate the sufficient
level of performance of any laser shock peening system under development is the
residual stress profile into the depth of metallic material. Minimum depth of com-
pressive residual stress and magnitude sufficient to ensure the part has the desired
enhancement in fatigue performance must be demonstrated. A compressive stress at
near surface in excess of 70% of the yield stress of the material with negative sign and a
minimum depth into the material of 10% of the overall thickness are the minimum
requirements. There are several experimental techniques to measure the residual
stresses in metallic material. Among all of them, incremental hole drilling (ASTM
E837-13, 2013) and X-ray diffraction technique are the most commonly used. It is
suggested to measure the residual stresses with at least two different techniques selected
from each of the principles as following: “Lattice Spacing” (X-ray, neutron & syn-
chrotron) and “Compliance” (e.g. Hole Drilling, Slitting and Contour method as
described e.g. by Prime 2001; Prime et al. 2004) to ensure consistency of the results.
After LSP treatment, the part or the specimen shall show a minimum fatigue life
enhancement factor (ratio between life to final failure of specimen treated with LSP
over life to final failure of reference specimen No treatment) at selected stress level.
Testing “four point bending” coupons, as described in EN6072 (2010), can demon-
strate the minimum requirement for the fatigue performance improvement after laser
shock peening treatment.
A minimum Fatigue Life Improvement factor after LSP treatment, of 3,5 vs the
reference should be demonstrated by testing under constant amplitude loading spec-
trum with R ratio (minimum stress over maximum stress applied) of 0.1 and at max-
imum surface stress of 80% of Rp0.2 (material yield stress).
If Damage Tolerance analysis shall fulfilled according to the requirement in
AC25.571-1D admt 45 (2011), inspection or other procedure to detect the crack prior to
failure is required. In this case LSP can slow down crack growth rates and provide
significant improvement.
According to AC25.571-1D admt 25-96 (2011), inspection thresholds must be
established based on crack growth, assuming the structure contains an EIFS (Equiv-
alent Initial Flaw Size) of the maximum probable size that could exist because of
manufacturing or service-induced damage. LSP can bring an improvement providing
that the depth of the compressive stresses is beyond the minimum size of EIFS.
Capability of LSP to slow down crack growth in different materials commonly used in
aerospace industry is reported in Furfari et al. (2017).
No ablative coating is used with low energy LSP system (Sano et al. 2006). It is
important to control the complete LSP coverage (100%), defined when one relatively
uniform layer has plastically deformed the entire surface. Coverage of over 100% is
measured in terms of multiples 100% coverage. Detailed Visual Inspection is the
method to determine the Coverage. If possible the layer count set up will be by visible
indications of the discrete plastic indents on the metal surface after LSP. In some cases,
652 D. Furfari et al.

especially for hard materials, there are no visible indications of the discrete spots on the
surface. A fraction of energy without water on “witness paper” or “tape” can be used to
mark the surface. “Standard” tolerance on “designated area for LSP” shall be –0.0 mm
to +2.0 mm. The surface finish after LSP treatment becomes an important requirement
to be fulfilled. If notch sensitive materials are used, the increased roughness induced by
the LSP treatment can neglect the effect of the compressive residual stress reducing the
overall fatigue life benefit. Depending on the specific application it can be decided to
machine the surface layer removing the effect of the roughness and eventually restoring
the fatigue life benefit thanks to the deep compressive residual stress into the material
induced by the LSP treatment.
Surface profiles in terms of Ra, Rt and Rm (DIN EN ISO 4287 2010), shall be
compared with the ones in “as machined” condition. Deviation of these profiles from
typical values recorded during process parameter definition can be used as LSP process
quality check. LSP treatment with use of ablative coating (aluminum or black tape,
paint) are characterized by low profile of roughness and rather surface waviness and for
this reason less sensitive to surface fatigue crack initiation (Furfari 2014; Hombergs-
meier et al. 2013 and Furfari et al. 2017). Examples of the roughness profiles after LSP
treatment are shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. Examples of roughness profiles after LSP treatment.

Surface integrity after LSP treatment is another important quality check to be

considered. No evidence of surface defects must be demonstrated by detailed visual
inspection, such as: No discoloration indicative of damage, burns, surface cracks,
spatter, un-complete coverage, or residual ablative layer (if used). Micrographic
examination to prove absence of surface and sub-surface defects: localized tarnishing,
melting, spatter, grain growth, surface cracks > 20 lm depth, sub-surface cracks,
surface oxidation or contamination.
To remove defects as described, rectifications/rework can be performed as part of a
normal production cycle.
 Is the Civil Aerospace Industry Ready to Implement Laser Shock Peening 653

4 Experimental Approach

Can Low Energy LSP Systems Provide Required Fatigue Mechanical Perfor-
mance? Low energy LSP system, (  200 mJ, pulse width of  25 nsec) and asso-
ciated small laser spot size (< 1 mm diameter), can determine high compressive stress
in the near surface of typical Aluminum alloys and compression depth beyond 1 mm.
The higher attenuation rate associated to spherical shock wave (small spot size) is
recovered by the increased peening coverage larger than for LSP associated to high
energy (typically 2–3 layers treatment, Furfari et al. 2017).
Investigated Materials, Specimen Geometry and Test Condition and Setup. 7175-
T7531 aluminum alloy was investigated. All coupons were extracted in the LT-ST
orientation at the mid-thickness position from plate material. The specimens used for
the residual stress characterization were 70 mm x 80 mm x 10 mm with LSP area
placed in the center of the coupon of 20 mm x 20 mm (ref. to Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Coupon orientation from plate material (left); Residual stress coupon with typical Zig-
Zag LSP peening pattern (i.e. scanning and stepping direction)

The four point bending specimens used to demonstrate fatigue life enhancement
after LSP treatment are described in EN6072 (2010). The surfaces subjected to the
maximum stresses were covered with either shot peening or LSP extending the peened
surface to half thickness from each side of the coupon. Shot peening parameters were
intensity of Almen strip 0.20-0.24 mmA, steel balls peening media 600 lm diameter
and coverage of minimum 100%.
The LSP treatment was performed using a green laser (wavelength 532 nm) with
peak energy per pulse of 70 mJ, pulse width of 8 nsec. Spot diameter at the focus plane
has been varied to investigate the influence on the compressive residual stress profile.
The LSP coverage is performed by scanning the surface to be treated with high per-
centage overlap (typically > 60% of the spot size) and advancing the line with similar
overlap in the so called stepping direction.
The residual stress characterization was carried out by means of X-ray diffraction
(XRD) technique, to assess the residual stress on near surface (i.e. < 20 µm depth), and
by means of incremental hole drilling (ICHD) method to obtain the depth profile up to
1 mm into the material. Figure 5 describes exemplarily the measurement location for
both techniques inside the LSP area. The gauge area for the X-ray method was 2 mm
diameter and two lines of measurements placed at 2 mm and 10 mm inside the peened
654 D. Furfari et al.

area. The residual stresses near the surface obtained by XRD were reported as arith-
metic average measurements from 14 readings resulting from 2 lines and 7 spots
measurements and in some cases up to 18 measurements (2 lines and 9 spots readings).
The incremental hole drilling measurements were performed with 1.9 mm hole
diameter at the position described in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. Residual stress measurements locations inside the LSP area for X-ray diffraction method
(left) and incremental hole drilling (right)

5 Experimental Results and Discussion

Residual Stress Measurements in 7175-T7351 Material. The residual stresses pro-

files up to 1 mm depth have been measured by incremental hole drilling after LSP. The
effect in terms of compressive residual stress induced by LSP using a pulsed laser of
532 nm wavelength at pulse width of 8 nsec and 45 pulses/mm2 coverage with
increasing spot diameter from 0.6 mm up to 1.1 mm are shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6. Residual stress profiles after LSP in 7175-T7351 material using 532 nm laser at 0.8 nsec
pulse width and 45 pulses/mm2 at increased spot size.

The residual stresses at near surface, measured by X-ray diffraction, are influenced
by the peening strategy, resulting in higher compressive residual stress component in
the stepping direction than in the scanning direction. The effect of increasing the spot
size results in a decreased power density (in GW/cm2) which is the major parameter of
LSP as discussed in Furfari (2014), Hombergsmeier (2015) and Furfari et al. (2017).
Reducing the power density results in lower compressive stress at the near surface. The
 Is the Civil Aerospace Industry Ready to Implement Laser Shock Peening 655

compressive residual stress at near surface reach a maximum value at power density
level above 1.5 GW/cm2 as shown in Fig. 7. Similar threshold (i.e. 1.5 GW/cm2) is
demonstrated for the residual stresses at 0.3 mm and 1 mm depth (Fig. 7 right). The
results summarized in Figs. 6 and 7 demonstrate the capability to induce compressive
residual stress in excess of 1 mm depth into 7175-T7351 material using low energy
LSP system, providing a minimum power density of 1.5 GW/cm2 is applied.

Fig. 7. Residual stress in 7175-T7531 as function of power density near the surface (left), and at
0.3 mm and 1 mm depth (right).

Fatigue Life Results in 7175-T7351 Material. The fatigue life response of four point
bending coupons made of 7175-T7351 material and subjected to constant amplitude
loading condition with R ratio of 0.1 is reported in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8. Wöhler curves of coupons made of 7175-T7351 material in as machined condition

(reference), after shot peening and LSP (70 mJ, 0.7 mm, 45 pulses/mm2)

Fatigue lives up to complete failure are reported in the Wöhler curves with three
conditions investigated: as machined (reference), after conventional shot peening and
after LSP with 70 mJ energy per pulse, spot diameter of 0.7 mm and 45 pulses/mm2.
At increasing stress levels the benefit in terms of fatigue lives up to failure for surface
656 D. Furfari et al.

mechanical process as shot peening and LSP diminish. The fatigue lives after either
conventional shot peening or LSP at all stress levels have shown a significant extension
of fatigue lives up to final failure.

6 Conclusions

The major constrains for in-service implementation of LSP at MRO environment have
been reviewed. Heavy and complex laser shock peening systems are not compatible
with surrounding operational environments such as a typical MRO. Easy transporta-
bility, modularity, quick assembly and disassembly capabilities, availability of spare
parts and consumables are the key features to enable the development for MRO
environment.
Health and safety, together with the ATEX requirement represent one of the most
challenging constraints to be fulfilled. Key features to enhance the development of LSP
portable device capable to apply this surface technology at typical MRO environment
were suggested. Engineering requirements that must be fulfilled beside any laser
specific requirements (e.g. laser type, laser beam characteristic, laser beam quality etc.)
were described in terms of residual stress profiles, fatigue life improvement and surface
quality.
It has been demonstrated that even using low energy LSP system (< 200 mJ) and
small spot diameter (< 1 mm) it is possible to introduce high compressive residual
stress in excess of 1 mm depth in 7175-T7351 aluminum alloy. The response in fatigue
of this material treated with low energy LSP system has shown a dramatic extension of
fatigue lives compared to not treated material (reference). These results open the door
for development of portable low energy LSP system providing that ALL the other
requirements and constrains as described in this paper are respected.

References
Furfari, D.: Laser shock peening to repair, design and manufacture current and future aircraft
structures by residual stress engineering. Adv. Mater. Res. 891–892 (2014), 992–1000, ©
(2014) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland (2014)
Hombergsmeier, E., Furfari, D., Ohrloff, N., Heckenberger, U.C., Holzinger, V.: Enhanced
fatigue and damage tolerance of aircraft components by introduction of residual stresses – a
comparison of different processes. In: 27th ICAF Symposium, Jerusalem, 5–7 June 2013
Liu, Q., Yang, C.H., Ding, K., Barter, S.A., Ye, L.: Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 30(2007),
1110–1124 (2007)
Frank, A.D., Smith, D.L., Kuster, R.L.: Investigation of laser shock processing – executive
summary. In: Technical Report AFWAL-TR-80-3001, Vol. I, Executive Summary to Final
Report – July 1978–October 1979 (1980)
Furfari, D., Ohrloff, N., Hombergsmeier, E., Heckenberger, U.C., Holzinger, V.: Laser shock
peening as surface technology to extend fatigue life in metallic airframe structures. In: 35th
ICAF Conference, Nagoya, Japan, 7–9 June 2017
EASA Part-145: Maintenance Organization Approvals (2012)
 Is the Civil Aerospace Industry Ready to Implement Laser Shock Peening 657

MIL-STD-810G: Department of Defense Test Method Standard. In: Environmental Engineering

Considerations and Laboratory Tests (2014)
MacGillivray, Lt.Ken, Dane, B., Osborne, M., Bair, R., Garcia, W.: F-22 laser shock peening
depot transition and risk reduction. USAF ASIP Conf., 30/11–02/12, S. Antonio, TX (2010)
Polin, L., Bunch, J., Caruso, P., McClure, J.: Full scale component tests to validate the effects of
laser shock peening. In: ASIP 2011, Nov 29–Dec 1, San Antonio, TX (2011)
Sano, Y., Akita, K., Masaki, K., Ochi, Y., Altenberger, I., Scholtes, B.: Laser Peening without
Coating as a Surface Enhancement Technology. JLMN-J. Laser Micro/Nanoeng. 1(3) (2006)
Uehara, T., Sano, Y., Chida, I., Yoda, M., Mukai, N., Kato, H.: Laser peening systems for
preventive maintenance against stress corrosion cracking in nuclear power reactors. In:
Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, ICONE16,
Orlando, Florida, USA, 11–15 May 2008
Gujba, A.K., Medraj, M.: Laser Peening Process and Its Impact on Materials Properties in
Comparison with Shot Peening and Ultrasonic Impact Peening. Materials 7, 7925–7974
(2014). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma7127925
Clauer, A.H., Fairand, B.P., Wilcox, B.A.: Pulsed laser induced deformation in an Fe-3wt Si
alloy. Metall. Trans. A 1977(8), 119–125 (1977)
Fairand, A.H., Clauer, B.P.: Interaction of laser-induced stress waves with metals. In:
Proceedings of the ASM Conference Applications of Lasers in Materials Processing,
Washington, DC, USA, 18–20 April 1979; ASM International: Materials Park, OH, USA
(1979)
IEC 60825-1, (International Standard): Safety of laser products – part 1: Equipment
classification, requirements and user’s guide (2001)
IEC 60079-10, (International Standard): Explosive atmospheres-Part10-1: Classification of areas
- Explosive gas atmospheres (2015)
IEC 60079-28, (International Standard): Explosive atmospheres – Part 28: Protection of
equipment and transmission systems using optical radiation (2015)
Slater, J.M., Brian E.: Characterization of high power lasers. In: Laser Technology for Defense
and Security VI. Ed. Mark Dubinskii & Stephen G. Post. Orlando, Florida, USA: SPIE, 2010.
76860 W-12. ©2010 COPYRIGHT SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering
(2010)
Prime, M.B.: Cross-sectional mapping of residual stresses by measuring the surface contour after
a cut. J. Eng. Mat. & Techn. 123, 162–168 (2001)
Prime, M.B., Sebring, R.J., Edwards, J.M., Hughes, D.J., Webster, P.J.: Laser surface contouring
and spline data-smoothing for residual-stress measurement. Exp. Mech. 44(2), 176–184
(2004)
Dorman, M., Toparli, M.B., Smyth, N., Cini, A., Fitzpatrick, M.E., Irving, P.E.: Effect of laser
shock peening on residual stress and fatigue life of clad 2024 aluminium sheet containing
scribe defects. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 548(2012), 142–151 (2012)
ASTM E837-13: Standard test method for determining residual stresses by the hole-drilling
strain-gage method (2013)
EN 6072: Aerospace series – metallic materials – test methods – constant amplitude fatigue
testing (2010)
AC25.571-1D Advisory Circular: Damage Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Structure (2011)
DIN EN ISO 4287: Geometrical product specifications (GPS) – surface texture: profile method –
terms, definitions and surface texture parameters (2010)