1、SAE Technical Standards Board Rules provide that: “This report is published by SAE to advance the state of technical and engineering sciences. The use of this report is entirelyvoluntary, and its applicability and suitability for any particular use, including any patent infringement arising therefro
2、m, is the sole responsibility of the user.”SAE reviews each technical report at least every five years at which time it may be reaffirmed, revised, or cancelled. SAE invites your written comments and suggestions.QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS DOCUMENT: (724) 772-8512 FAX: (724) 776-0243TO PLACE A DOCUMENT
3、 ORDER; (724) 776-4970 FAX: (724) 776-0790SAE WEB ADDRESS http:/www.sae.orgCopyright 1981 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.SURFACEVEHICLE400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001INFORMATIONREPORTSubmitted for recognition as an American National Stand
4、ardJ811REV.AUG81Issued 1962-06Revised 1981-08Superseding J811 JUN62SURFACE ROLLING AND OTHER METHODS FORMECHANICAL PRESTRESSING OF METALSForewordThis Document has also changed to comply with the new SAE Technical Standards Board format.1. Scope2. References2.1 Applicable PublicationsThe following pu
5、blications form a part of the specification to the extent specifiedherein. Unless otherwise indicated the lastest revision of SAE publications shall apply.1. Butz, G. A., and Lyst, J. O., “Improvements in Fatigue Resistance of Aluminum Alloys by MechanicalSurface Prestressing.“ Paper presented at 19
6、61 Western Metals Congress (ASTM).2. Gadd, C. W., Anderson, J. O., and Martin, D., “Some Factors Affecting the Fatigue Strength of SteelMembers,“ SAE Transactions, Vol. 63, 1955.3. Kudryavtsev, I. V., “The Influence of Internal Stresses on the Fatigue Endurance of Steel,“Proceedings of the Internati
7、onal Conference on Fatigue of Metals, Institution of MechanicalEngineers, London; ASME. New York, 1956.4. Atkin, R. L., and Mezoff, J. G., “Development and Testing of Magnesium Alloy Wheels.“ Paperpresented at Third Sagamore Ordnance Materials Research Conference, December 1956, SyracuseUniversity R
8、esearch Institute.5. Lessels, J. M., Strength and Resistance of Metals, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1954.6. Cohen, B., “Effect of Shot Peening Prior to Chromium Plating on the Fatigue Strength of High StrengthSteel,“ WADC Technical Note 57178, ASTIA Document #AD 130821, 1975.7. Sigwart, H.,
9、 “Influence of Residual Stresses on the Fatigue Limit,“ Proceedings of the InternationalConference on Fatigue of Metals, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London; ASME. New York,1956.8. Dugdale, D. S., “Effect of Residual Stress on Fatigue Strength,“ The Welding Journal, January 1959.9. Grover, H
10、. J., Gordon, S. A., and Jackson, L. P., Fatigue of Metals and Structures, Prepared for Bureauof Aeronautics, Department of the Navy, Nav Aer OO-25-534, 1954.10. Brodrick, R. F., “Protective Shot Peening of PropellersResidual Peening Stresses,“ WADC TechnicalReport 5556, Part I, June 1955.11. Horger
11、, O. J., “Cold Working,“ Section 6.9, ASME Handbook, Metals EngineeringDesign, McGraw-Hill, 1953.12. Hertz, H., Journal of Mathematics (Crelles Journal), Vol. 92, 1881.13. Hertz, H., Gesammelte Werke, Vol. 1, p. 155, Leipzig, 1895.COPYRIGHT Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.Licensed by Informatio
12、n Handling ServicesSAE J811 Revised AUG81-2-14. Belajef, N. M., “On the Problem of Contact Stresses,“ Bulletin, Institute of Engineers of Ways andCommunication, St. Petersburg, 1917. Memoirs on Theory of Structures, St. Petersburg, 1924.15. Thomas, H. R., and Hoersch, V. A., “Stresses Due to the Pre
13、ssure of One Elastic Solid Upon Another,“University of Illinois Experimental Station Bulletin No. 212, Vol. 27, No. 46, July 15, 1930.16. Lundberg, G., and Odqvist, F. K. G., Proc. Ingeniors Vetenskapa Akad., No. 116, Stockholm, 1932.17. Horger, O. J., “Stressing Axles and Other Railroad Equipment b
14、y Cold Rolling,“ Surface Stressing ofMetals, American Society for Metals, pp. 85142, Cleveland, Ohio, 1947.18. Way, S., Discussion of paper by R. E. Peterson and A. M. Wahl in Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 2,No. 2, June, 1935, pp. A-69-71.19. Horger, O. J., “Effect of Surface Rolling on the Fat
15、igue Strength of Steel,“ Journal of AppliedMechanics, Transactions, A.S.M.E., Vol. 57, December, 1935, pp. A-128-136.20. Love, R. J., “Cold Rolled Fillets,“ Engineering, August 8, 1952.21. Ford Motor Company; Manufacturing Research Office.22. General Motors Corporation (Patent #2,357,515).23. Indust
16、rial Metal Products Corporation.24. International Harvester Company (Patent #2,841,861).25. Madison Industries, Inc.26. “Shot Peening and Other Surface Working Processes,“ Supplement to Metals Handbook, MetalProgress, (ASM), July 15, 1954, pp. 104108.27. Almen, J. O., Mattson, R. O., and Fonda, H. E
17、., Report on “Surface Rolling Treatment.“28. The Foote-Burt Company, Schraner Division.29. Timken Roller Bearing Company, “Cold Rolling of Axle Fillets.“30. Almen, J. O., “Fatigue Durability of Prestressed Screw Threads,“ Product Engineering, April, 1951.31. Cogsdill Tool Products, Inc.32. Stewart,
18、W. C., and Ellinghausen, H. C., “Examination and Test of Failed Port Tail Shaft, USS Norfolk(DL-1),“ U.S. Naval Engr. Exp. Station, R American Institute ofMechanical Engineers, New York, 1956. London, William Clowes and Sons, 1956.56. Courtesy H. R. Neifert, Timken Roller Bearing Co.57. Courtesy G.
19、F. Butz, Aluminum Co. of America.58. Courtesy C. W. Cable, Boeing Aircraft Co.2.2 Related PublicationsThe following publications are provided for information purposes only and are not arequired part of this document.Rosenthal, D., Sines, G., and Zizicas, G., “The Effect of Residual Compression on Fa
20、tigue,“ Welding J.,Research Suppl., Vol. 28, 1949.Rosenthal, D., and Sines, G., “Effect of Residual Stress on the Fatigue Strength of Notched Specimens,“Proc. ASTM, Vol. 51, 1951.Norton, J. T., Rosenthal, D., and Maloof, S. B., “X-Ray Diffraction Study of the Effect of ResidualCompression on Fatigue
21、 of Notched Specimens.“ Welding J., Research Suppl. 1946.Surface Stressing of Metals, American Society for Metals, Cleveland, 1947; H. F. Moore, “The ProblemDefined;“ W. M. Murray, “Measurement of Surface Stresses;“ J. O. Almen, “Fatigue of Metals asInfluenced by Design and Internal Stresses;“ O. J.
22、 Horger, “Stressing Axles and Other RailroadEquipment by Cold Rolling;“ P. R. Kosting, “Progressive Stress-Damage.“Almen, J. O., “Fatigue Weakness of Surfaces,“ Product Engineering. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.,November 1950.Almen, J. O., “Torsional Fatigue Failures,“ Part I, Product Engineering, McGr
23、aw-Hill Publishing Co.September 1951.Almen, J. O., “Torsional Fatigue Failures,“ Part II, Product Engineering, McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. March1952.Almen, J. O., “Residual Compressive Stress Strengthens Brittle Materials,“ Product Engineering. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., July 1953.Mattson, R. L., an
24、d Almen, J. O., “Effect of Shot Blasting on the Mechanical Properties of Steel,“ (NA-115),Final Report OSRD, 3274, 4825, 6647. Washington, 1945.Green, W. B., “How Processing Affects Bolt Fatigue Strength,“ Machine Design. Penton Publishing Co.,December 1947.Weibull, W., “The Effect of Decarburizatio
25、n and Other Factors on the Fatigue Strength of Roll-ThreadedAircraft Bolts,“ SAAB TN 4, Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolaget. Linkoping, Sweden, July 1952.Buckwalter, T. V., and Horger, O. J., “Investigation of Fatigue Strength of Axles, Press-Fits, Surface Rolling,and Effect of Size,“ Transactions of the
26、American Society for Metals, Vol. 25, March 1937, p. 229.Horger, O. J., and Maulbetsch, J. L., “Increasing the Fatigue Strength of Press-Fitted Axle Assemblies bySurface Rolling,“ Journal of Applied Mechanics, September 1936, pp. A-91 to A-98.Horger, O. J., Buckwalter, T. V., and Neifert, H. R., “Fa
27、tigue Strength of 5-1/4 in. Diameter Shafts asRelated to Design of Large Parts,“ Journal of Applied Mechanics, September 1945, pp. A-149 to A-155.Horger, O. J., and Cantley, W. I., “Design of Crankpins for Locomotives,“ Transactions ASME, Vol. 68,1946, pp. A-17 to A-33.COPYRIGHT Society of Automotiv
28、e Engineers, Inc.Licensed by Information Handling ServicesSAE J811 Revised AUG81-4-Horger, O. J., “Residual Stress.“ Handbook of Experimental Stress Analysis, John Wiley ASME, New York; 1956.Siebel, E., and Gaier, M., “The Influence of Surface Roughness on the Fatigue Strength of Steels and Non-Ferr
29、ous Alloys,“ translated in The Engineers Digest. March 1957.Bibliography on Residual Stress (SP-125), and Supplement I (SP-167), SAE.Evaluation of Methods for Measurement of Residual Stress, (HS 147), SAE.Horger, O. J., “Cold Working,“ ASME Handbook Metals Engineering-Design, 2nd edition, O. J. Horg
30、er, ed.McGraw-Hill, 1964, pp. 264267.Metals Handbook, Vol. 3, 8th edition, “Roller Burnishing,“ pp. 105107, “Thread Rolling,“ pp. 130145.3. Applications of Mechanical Prestressing (by George A. Butz)3.1 IntroductionThe word “prestressing“ implies that a stress is applied prior to service. For the pu
31、rposes ofthis discussion this is true, but insufficient, definition. It must be extended to say, by virtue of a localizedpressure on the surface of a part, that the surface of the part in the vicinity is stressed in tension beyond itselastic limit. When the pressure is removed, the surface elements
32、tend to retain part of the total deformationexperienced under pressure. Since this is resisted by subsurface layers which did not exceed the elastic limit,the surface and adjacent layers are left in a state of compressive residual stress.COPYRIGHT Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.Licensed by Inf
33、ormation Handling ServicesSAE J811 Revised AUG81-5-The two most widely used methods of mechanical prestressing probably are surface rolling and shot peening.Since the process of shot peening has been rather widely discussed in previously published literature, thegreater part of this manual is concer
34、ned with surface rolling and its theory, load specification, tooling, control,and effects. Methods briefly considered include hammer peening, cold pressing, and treatment of small holeswith balls or tapered pins. The general aims of this manual are:1. To give the reader a general understanding as to
35、 what mechanical prestressing is and whether it maybe expected to help him with his product.2. To help him choose a process.3. To help him get started in tool design and preparation of test samples. At this stage of development ofthe art, the optimum prestressing conditions and degree of performance
36、 improvement should beestablished by objective and destructive tests, unless one has ample previous experience on similarmaterials and products.Mechanical prestressing methods affect the surface layers of a part in at least three ways, the relative amountsbeing affected by the process and the materi
37、al:1. Compressive residual stresses.2. Cold work or strain hardening.3. Surface geometry or finish.It is usually quite difficult to assess the individual contributions of these effects on the improvement inperformance attained. The consensus, however, is that the compressive residual stress is the m
38、ost potent ofthe three. These effects are discussed in later sections of this report.While mechanical prestressing methods are now used in many various industries, most of their developmentand application has occurred in the transportation industry. This might be attributable to the intensecompetiti
39、on which fosters development work, continually driving toward the attainment of maximum strength inminimum space and weight with low-cost alloys and processing. In meeting these goals, prestressing methodshave made some of their most impressive accomplishments. The following list of parts is not int
40、ended to becomprehensive, but rather gives an idea as to the variety of parts where worthwhile gains in performance havebeen obtained:1. AircraftPropellers, engine parts, wheels.2. MarinePropeller shafts, engine crankshafts.3. AutomotiveCoil and leaf springs, torsion bars, front axle spindles, crank
41、shafts, wheels.4. RailroadCar axles.Significant increases in performance have been obtained by prestressing techniques. Under certainconditions, the fatigue strength of specimens has been more than doubled (3). 1 Improvements of this orderare not possible in all fatigue situations, nor in all materi
42、als. Furthermore, where they are possible, theoptimum prestressing conditions must be worked out by objective performance tests. Once these areestablished and production specifications are set up, the processing engineer must insist that thesespecifications be met on every piece processed. Mechanica
43、l prestressing is unique because there are nosimple, nondestructive, or even destructive, tests which can be routinely used to check whether a particularpart has been properly prestressed, although certain laboratory methods can be used to measure residualstress. One must inspect the process rather
44、than the part. Even then, subsequent processing steps canreduce or cancel the benefits obtained. These steps could include honing or other finishing, straightening,overheating, and so forth.1. Numbers in parentheses in text and tables refer to references at end of report.COPYRIGHT Society of Automot
45、ive Engineers, Inc.Licensed by Information Handling ServicesSAE J811 Revised AUG81-6-3.2 Improving Fatigue ResistanceAn overwhelming majority of prestressing applications are aimed atimproving performance under fatigue loading conditions (cyclic stressing). A detailed discussion of the relativecontr
46、ibutions of residual stresses, strain hardening, and surface smoothness to fatigue resistance is beyondthe scope and intent of this report. Although it is admittedly oversimplified, acceptance of the premises thatinitial fatigue cracking is associated with stresses in surface layers and that fatigue
47、 cracks are propagated bytensile mean stresses will lead to at least a qualitative understanding of the role of prestressing.The fatigue situations in which prestressing might be considered may be divided into four arbitrary classes asfollows:1. “Normal“ ConditionsNo high stress gradients, no surfac
48、e degradation from processing or service.2. “Designed“ Stress ConcentrationsFillets, grooves, transverse holes, and so on.3. Surface Degradation From Service and EnvironmentsCorrosion, fretting, wear, mechanical abuse(nicks, gouges, and related misuses).4. Negative Effects of Fabricating ProcessesMa
49、chining, grinding, unfavorable heat treatment, plating,anodizing, straightening, and so forth.The data in Table 1 is illustrative of all these classes. Rolling increased the strength of the smooth specimen by21%. The harmful effect of a sharp notch was cancelled when the specimens were rolled before notching.Exposure to a corrosive medium before testing reduced the strength of a machined specimen to 69% of thebaseline. Companion specimens, which were rolled before exposure, not only exceeded the base line, butwere equal to those which were rolled, stored, and tested in
