Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 914–919

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Science and Engineering A

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

Effect of laser shock processing on fatigue crack growth of duplex stainless steel
C. Rubio-González a,∗ , C. Felix-Martinez a , G. Gomez-Rosas b , J.L. Ocaña c , M. Morales c , J.A. Porro c
a
Centro de Ingeniería y Desarrollo Industrial, Pie de la Cuesta, 702, Desarrollo San Pablo, Querétaro, Qro., 76130, Mexico
b
Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jal, Mexico
c
Departamento de Física Aplicada a la Ingeniería Industrial, E.T.S.I.I., Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Duplex stainless steels have wide application in different fields like the ship, petrochemical and chemical
Received 31 May 2010 industries that is due to their high strength and excellent toughness properties as well as their high
Received in revised form 30 August 2010 corrosion resistance. In this work an investigation is performed to evaluate the effect of laser shock
Accepted 8 October 2010
processing on some mechanical properties of 2205 duplex stainless steel. Laser shock processing (LSP)
or laser shock peening is a new technique for strengthening metals. This process induces a compressive
residual stress field which increases fatigue crack initiation life and reduces fatigue crack growth rate. A
Keywords:
convergent lens is used to deliver 2.5 J, 8 ns laser pulses by a Q-switched Nd:YAG laser, operating at 10 Hz
Fatigue test
Laser shock processing
with infrared (1064 nm) radiation. The pulses are focused to a diameter of 1.5 mm. Effect of pulse density
Residual stress in the residual stress field is evaluated. Residual stress distribution as a function of depth is determined by
the contour method. It is observed that the higher the pulse density the greater the compressive residual
stress. Pulse densities of 900, 1600 and 2500 pul/cm2 are used. Pre-cracked compact tension specimens
were subjected to LSP process and then tested under cyclic loading with R = 0.1. Fatigue crack growth
rate is determined and the effect of LSP process parameters is evaluated. In addition fracture toughness
is determined in specimens with and without LSP treatment. It is observed that LSP reduces fatigue crack
growth and increases fracture toughness if this steel.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction formation raises due to extended exposure to temperatures ranging

from 600 ◦ C to 900 ◦ C [10]. Sigma phase is a very hard and brittle
Laser shock processing (LSP) is a relatively new surface treat- intermetallic compound that affects impact properties of duplex
ment technique and has been shown to be effective in improving stainless steel.
the fatigue properties of a number of metals and alloys. Potential There has been interest to evaluate the effect of shot peening
applications are directed to aerospace and automotive industries. on the fatigue behavior of 2205 duplex stainless steel [11]; and
The beneficial effects of LSP on static, cyclic, fretting fatigue and the effect of burnishing on stress corrosion cracking susceptibility
stress corrosion performance of aluminum alloys, steels and nickel- of that steel [12]. However, few works are available that investi-
based alloys have been demonstrated [1–9]. Since laser beams can gate the effect of laser peening on the fatigue behavior of duplex
be easily directed to fatigue-critical areas without masking, LSP stainless steel. The changes in surface hardness, wear resistance,
technology is expected to be widely applicable for improving the and corrosion resistance with and without laser peening has been
fatigue properties of metals and alloys, particularly those that show reported in [13].
a positive response to shot peening. The objective of this work is to examine the effect of laser
Duplex stainless steels have wide applications in different fields shock processing on the fatigue behavior and of 2205 duplex stain-
like the ship, petrochemical and chemical in industries. The main less steel specimens. Process parameters such as pulse density are
applications of these steels are related to their high strength and varied. The effect of LSP on fatigue crack growth rate, fracture
excellent toughness properties as well as their high corrosion toughness, micro-hardness, and residual stresses are investigated.
resistance. The outstanding mechanical properties of these steels A microscopic evaluation of fracture surfaces and microstructure is
are due to its duplex microstructure with approximately equal presented as well.
amounts of austenite  and ferrite ı. However, when the steel is In the laser shock processing of metals, the sample is either com-
subjected to high temperature its susceptibility for sigma (␴) phase pletely immersed in water or in air. A water jet may be used also to
produce a water wall with constant thickness on the sample. The
laser pulse is then focused onto the sample. The schematic of how
∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +52 442 2119839. the process works in water is shown in Fig. 1. When the laser beam is
E-mail address: crubio@cidesi.mx (C. Rubio-González). directed onto the surface to be treated, it passes through the trans-

0921-5093/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2010.10.020
 C. Rubio-González et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 914–919 915

Water
Swept
direction
Lens

Laser pulse
Shock Plasma
Wave

Sample

Fig. 1. Principle of laser shock processing.

parent overlay and strikes the sample. It immediately vaporizes a

thin surface layer of the overlay. High pressure against the surface of
the sample causes a shock wave to propagate into the material. The
plastic deformation caused by the shock wave produces the com-
pressive residual stresses at the surface of the sample. Laser pulse
may come directly from the laser apparatus or may be delivered
using an optical fiber [14].

2. Experimental procedure

2.1. Material

Plates of 2205 duplex stainless steel with thickness of 9.5 mm

were machined to obtain the specimens. Its chemical composition
(wt%) was: 0.023 C, 0.55 Si, 1.40 Mn, 0.02 P, 0.001 S, 22.19 Cr, 3.21
Mo, 5.78 Ni, balance Fe. Chemical composition was determined
using a spark emission spectrometer. The mechanical proper-
ties were determined using dog-bone type specimens. Results are
shown in Fig. 2. The offset tensile yield stress is 532 MPa, ultimate
tensile strength is 750 MPa and elastic modulus is 190 GPa.
The specimens used for residual stress measurement were Fig. 3. Compact tension test specimens used in the fatigue crack growth tests. (a)
blocks of 50 mm × 50 mm × 5 mm with LSP on only one side. The Specimen illustration with dimensions in mm. Specimen thickness is 6.3 mm. (b)
specimen used for fatigue crack growth tests were compact ten- Real specimens.

sion specimens as illustrated in Fig. 3. All fatigue crack growth

tests specimens were machined with the loading axis parallel to and the FWHM of the pulses was 8 ns. A convergent lens is used
the rolling direction (L). Fig. 3(a) also illustrates pulse swept direc- to deliver 2.5 J. Spot diameter was 1.5 mm. Three pulse densities
tion. The thickness of all specimens was reduced from 9.3 mm to were used: 900, 1600 and 2500 pul/cm2 . A special device to pro-
5 mm (or 6.3 mm for compact tension specimens) by machining the duce a controlled water jet has been implemented to form a thin
specimen faces to eliminate the manufacturing effect of the original water layer on the sample to be treated. Specimen treated area was
plates. 20 mm × 20 mm on both sides of the compact tension specimen. A
2D motion system was used to control specimen position and gen-
2.2. Laser shock processing erate the pulse swept as shown in Fig. 3. Controlling the velocity of
the system, the desired pulse density was obtained. No protective
The LSP experiments were performed using a Q switched coating was used during LSP [9]. Fig. 3(b) shows a photograph of
Nd:YAG laser operating at 10 Hz with a wave length of 1064 nm a compact tension specimen with LSP applied after the pre-crack
was induced.
Stress-strain curve. 2205 Duplex stainless steel
800 2.3. Characterization of the effects induced by LSP
700
Micro-hardness measurement was made with 200 g load and
600
11 s hold time. Roughness measurement on the different speci-
Stress (MPa)

500
mens was performed using a roughness meter “Mitutoyo Surftest”.
400
A summary of arithmetic mean roughness measurements, Ra , with
300
different pulse densities is given in Table 1. The overall trend is
200 that the higher the pulse density the higher the roughness of the
100 specimen surface. Note that roughness does not increase consid-
0 erably increasing the pulse density as observed in other materials,
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
for instance 6061-T6 aluminum alloy [8]. In aluminum treated with
Strain 900 pul/cm2 , roughness increased by a factor of 2.5 with respect
Fig. 2. Stress–strain curve of 2205 duplex stainless steel under tensile loading con-
to the untreated surface [8]. To observe microstructural changes,
ditions. samples were prepared by conventional metallographic polishing
916 C. Rubio-González et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 914–919

Table 1
a Fatigue Crack Growth. 2205 Duplex Stainless Steel
Roughness values for specimens with different LSP densities. 29
Specimen Roughness, Ra (␮m) 27

Crack Length (mm)

No treatment 0.85 25
900 pul/cm3 0.93
1600 pul/cm3 1.18 23
900 pul/cm2
2500 pul/cm3 1.51
21
1600 pul/cm2
19 2500 pul/cm2
and etching in a KOH electrolyte (50 g KOH, 100 ml water) with a 17
voltage of 3 V for approximately 10 s.
15
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
2.4. Fatigue crack growth test Number of Cycles

b Fatigue Crack Growth. Duplex Stainless Steel 2205

Fatigue crack growth tests were performed on a MTS 810
1.E-03
servo-hydraulic system at room temperature in the air. Load ratio
R = Pmin /Pmax was maintained at R = 0.1. Frequency of 20 Hz with a
sine wave form was used in the experiments. Pulse densities were 900 pul/cm2

da/dN (mm/cycle)
900, 1600 and 2500 pul/cm2 . Each specimen was tested to maxi- 1600 pul/cm^2
mum load of 5000 N. Crack lengths were measured using the crack 1.E-04
2500 pul/cm^2
compliance method. A fatigue pre-crack 3 mm long (from notch
tip) was growth on each specimen before LSP treatment. Only one
specimen with each pulse density was tested.
Stress intensity factor KI due to external load P was determined
1.E-05
using the following equation [15,16]: 10 100
 a  a 2 K, MPa(m)^1/2
P 2 + (a/W )
KI = √ 0.886 + 4.64 − 13.32
B W 1 − (a/W )3/2 W W Fig. 5. Fatigue crack growth of duplex stainless steel samples with LSP treatment

 a 4 
with different pulse densities.
 a 3
+ 14.72 − 5.60 (1)
W W displacements from the cutting surface were filtered by fitting to
a smooth analytical surface. Finally, the original residual stresses
were calculated from the measured contour using a finite element
2.5. Fracture toughness model.

Compact tension test specimens with and without LSP treat- 3. Results and discussion
ment were used to measure fracture toughness according to ASTM
standard E399 [17]. A fatigue pre-crack to give a crack length of Micro-hardness profiles of the specimen cross section are shown
27 mm was done on each specimen. Densities of 900, 1600 and in Fig. 4. Note that laser shock processing has no effect on hardness,
2500 pul/cm2 were considered for the treated specimens. it remains almost constant at approximately 275 HV on surface and
inside the material. This effect is not usual, for instance the work
2.6. Residual stress measurement reported in [13] has observed about 325 HV on the cross section
near the treated surface, decreasing hardness level to 250 HV inside
Residual stress component perpendicular to the swept direction the untreated material. In that work an aluminum foil was used as a
was measured using the contour method [18] on the treated speci- protective coating, 10 GW/cm2 and a pulse density of 7500 pul/cm2
men cross section. This was carried out by cutting specimens along were applied. Therefore, it seems that the energy delivered by
the measurement plane with an EDM wire. Before the specimens the laser shock processing applied in this research work was not
were cut, they were fixed to a rigid backing plate in order to mini- enough to produce a hardness increment on the treated surface.
mize movement during the cutting process. The deformed surface Fig. 5(a) shows fatigue crack growth curves for different pulse
shape, resulting from the relaxed residual stresses, was measured densities. Initial crack length was about 15 mm and the final one
on the cutting surface using a coordinate measuring machine. The was approximately 27 mm. Note that the higher the pulse density
the greater the number of cycles required to extend the crack to

350
Fractue toughness test
300 60
Micro-hardness

50
250 2500 pul/cm2
Load (kN)

900 pul/cm2 40
1600 pul/cm2
1600 pul/cm2
200 30 900 pul/cm2
2500 pul/cm2
20
150
10
100
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Distance(mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 4. Micro-hardness profile on the specimen cross section. Fig. 6. Load–displacement curves to determine PQ and fracture toughness.
 C. Rubio-González et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 914–919 917

Fig. 7. Microstructure on the specimen cross-section of 2205 duplex stainless steel with LSP at (a) 900 pul/cm2 , (b) 1600 pul/cm2 , and (c) 2500 pul/cm2 .

Table 2
Effect of LSP on fracture toughness.

Pulse density (pul/cm3 ) Load PQ (kN) Fracture toughness MPa (m)1/2

Without LSP 45.0 360.5

900 49.9 397.0
1600 50.5 398.3
2500 46.7 372.6

a given crack length. The difference is more important in the case

of 2500 pul/cm2 . Fig. 5(b) shows the fatigue crack growth rate as a
function of the stress intensity factor range. Note that the exper-
imental data do not follow a linear trend in log–log scale, as it is
usual for some metallic materials.
To determine fracture toughness the load–displacement curve
was registered for each test. A typical curve is shown in Fig. 6.
Tests were performed under load control. According to the ASTM
standard E399 [17], a PQ load value is determined from the inter- Fig. 8. Microstructure close to the laser treated face of 2205 duplex stainless steel.
section of the load–displacement curve with a straight line of 95% Pulse density 900 pul/cm2 .
of the slope in the linear region. Values of PQ are used in Eq. (1)
to calculate fracture toughness. Table 2 shows a summary of these
calculations. Fracture toughness observed for the specimen with- interpreted as representative for the plate thickness that has been
out LSP is about 360 MPa (m)1/2 which is similar to that expressed in tested. Note that increasing pulse densities the fracture toughness
the literature [19]. As mentioned in [20], fracture toughness often is increased as well. With 900 pul/cm2 we get an increment of
gives very high values, but requirements for plain strain is not ful- 10% in fracture toughness compared with the untreated material
filled. Nevertheless, it is claimed that the figures given could be result. Because the thickness of the specimens used in determina-

Fig. 9. Residual stress distribution on the specimen cross section. The stress component is perpendicular to LSP swept direction. (a) Stress profiles for different laser pulse
densities and (b) color-map showing the residual stress distribution for the case of 900 pul/cm2 .
918 C. Rubio-González et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 914–919

Fig. 10. SEM micrographs of different regions on the fracture surface. Pulse density 900 pul/cm2 .

tion of fracture toughness is small, these specimens do not satisfy the residual stress profiles for different pulse densities registered
plane strain conditions. However the purpose of the test is to eval- at the middle of the specimen. It is observed that the higher the
uate qualitatively the effect of LSP on this stainless steel. Note that pulse density the greater the compressive residual stress. Fig. 9(b)
fracture toughness of the sample treated with 2500 pul/cm2 does shows the normal stress component for the case of 900 pul/cm2 . The
not follow the same trend since the obtained value decreases. This higher compressive stress level is observed on the treated surface
may be due to the severe plastic deformation generated with that as expected.
density. Fig. 10 reveals details at different points of the fracture surface.
Fig. 7 shows microstructure on specimen cross section of 2205 These SEM micrographs correspond to the case of 900 pul/cm2 . No
duplex stainless steel for different laser pulse densities. Dark important difference is observed on the fracture mechanisms on
regions correspond to ferrite (ı) and bright regions indicate austen- the pre-crack and stable crack growth regions. In addition, similar
ite (). Those micro-graphs correspond to regions close to the laser fracture morphologies are found on the central region and on the
treated sides. Note that there is no noteworthy difference on ı and  border close to the laser treated faces. Local cleavage is observed
phases at different laser pulse densities. It is well known that pre- on the stable crack growth zone. Once the desired crack length
cipitation of sigma phase may occur in the interface of austenite was reached, the compact specimen was separated into two parts
and ferrite due to heating. However LSP is a very fast process that applying an overload. The final rupture zone shows the typical dim-
does not affect phase structures on the 2205 duplex stainless steel. ples and significant thickness reduction corresponding to a ductile
Fig. 8 reinforces this statement; it shows a region very close to the failure mechanism. The curved crack front is a consequence of the
laser treated face. Note on that picture the roughness generated by residual stresses induced by LSP.
the laser treatment.
Fig. 9 shows the residual stress distribution on the specimen 4. Conclusions
cross section obtained by the contour method. The calculated stress
component is perpendicular to the swept direction. Distance is It has been demonstrated that the laser shock processing (LSP) is
measured from the treated surface. Recall that residual stress mea- an effective surface treatment technique to improve fatigue prop-
surement specimens were treated only on one face. Fig. 9(a) shows erties of 2205 duplex stainless steel.
 C. Rubio-González et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 914–919 919

This is due to the residual stress field induced on surface. It has [8] U. Sanchez-Santana, C. Rubio-Gonzalez, G. Gomez-Rosas, J.L. Ocaña, C.
been shown that increasing pulse density, fatigue crack growth rate Molpeceres, J. Porro, M. Morales, Wear 260 (2006) 847–854.
[9] C. Rubio-González, G. Gomez-Rosas, J.L. Ocaña, C. Molpeceres, A. Banderas, J.
is reduced. LSP has no effect on micro-hardness of duplex stainless Porro, M. Morales, Appl. Surf. Sci. 252 (2006) 6201–6205.
steel with the energy level delivered in the experiments reported in [10] A. Ruiz, N. Ortiz, H. Carreón, C. Rubio-González, J. Nondestruct. Eval. 28 (2009)
this work. Compressive residual stresses increases increasing pulse 131–139.
[11] E. Real, C. Rodríguez, F. Belzunce, P. Sanjurjo, A. Canteli, I. Pariente, Fatigue Fract.
density. Microstructure is not affected by LSP, ferrite and austenite Eng. Mater. Struct. 32 (7) (2009) 567–572.
phases are not altered by the laser peening. Fracture toughness has [12] J. Labanowski, A. Ossowska, J. Achievements Mater. Manuf. Eng. 19 (1) (2006)
been determined for specimens with different pulse densities. It has 46–52.
[13] H. Lim, M. Lee, P. Kim, J. Park, S. Jeong, Laser Peening of Duplex Stainless Steel
been shown that LSP treatment improves this mechanical property. for the Application to Seawater Desalination Pump, The 2nd International Con-
ference on Laser Peening, San Francisco, CA, USA, April, 2010.
[14] T. Schmidt-Uhlig, P. Karlitschek, M. Yoda, Y. Sano, G. Marowsky, Eur. Phys. J.
References Appl. Phys. 9 (2000) 235–238.
[15] ASTM, 2002 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, v.03.01 No. E647-00 Standard
[1] J.M. Yang, Y.C. Her, N. Han, A. Clauer, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 298 (2001) 296– Test Method for Measurement of Fatigue Crack Growth Rates.
299. [16] T.L. Anderson, Fracture Mechanics, Fundamentals and Applications, CRC Press,
[2] Z. Hong, Y. Chengye, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 257 (1998) 322–327. New York, 1995.
[3] L.W. Tsay, M.C. Young, C. Chen, Corros. Sci. 45 (2003) 1985–1997. [17] ASTM, 2002 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, v.03.01 No. JT E399-97 Standard
[4] J.E. Rankin, M.R. Hill, L.A. Hackel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 349 (2003) 279–291. Test Method for Plane Stress Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials.
[5] J.P. Chu, J.M. Rigsbee, G. Banas, H.E. Elayed-Ali, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 260 (1–2) [18] M.B. Prime, J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 123 (2001) 162–168.
(1999) 260. [19] H. Sieurin, Fracture Toughness Properties of Duplex Stainless Steels, PhD Thesis,
[6] P. Peyre, R. Fabbro, Opt. Quant. Electron. 27 (1995) 1213–1229. Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, 2006.
[7] C. Rubio-González, J.L. Ocaña, G. Gomez-Rosas, C. Molpeceres, M. Paredes, A. [20] Johansson R., Fatigue and fracture properties of duplex stainless steels, In: ASM
Banderas, J. Porro, M. Morales, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 386 (2004) 291–295. Handbook, vol. 9, Fatigue and Fracture.