4.1. Stress Distribution during Deep Rolling
The full field 2D maps of the stress component
σeq(
y,
z) measured under load with 3000 N are shown in
Figure 2. The result exhibits a clear mirror symmetry at the line below the contact point (
y = 0). For a more in-depth discussion of the constituting stress fields in
σyy,
σxx,
σyz, and
σzz refer to the initial results from Meyer et al. [
7].
The equivalent stress has a local minimum below the contact point followed by a local maximum in greater depth. At the contact surface, the highest stresses can be observed, as seen in
Figure 2, but diffraction peak overlap with the tool complicates the analysis for this region. It has been shown that the equivalent stress distribution is dominated by the contribution of the
σzz(
y,
z) stress component. The overall distribution is similar to the dynamic case with a moving contact point, as was measured in a previous study with this setup by Meyer et al. [
7], but the residual stress generation and transition cannot be analyzed precisely without a second measurement after the contact.
The internal stress fields of
σeq(
y,
z) during loading for the five different applied forces and with the constant contact geometry are displayed in
Figure 3. This internal stress field is expected to be connected to the compressive residual stress state resulting after unloading. For increasing force, the intensity of the stress field and its distribution in depth increases, while the general shape and the local minimum under the contact point are more or less unchanged in the present range of tolerance for the determination of depth position. To compare the evolution of stress during loading and analyze the distribution characteristics, the depth profiles of
σeq(
y = 0,
z) have been extracted up to 4.15 mm.
The equivalent stress starts at a high level in the contact region. This can be attributed to local plastic deformation at the contact surface. Below the surface, a local minimum is present directly under the deformed layer, followed by a maximum at a depth of about 0.4 to 0.8 mm, which decreases slowly over several millimeters in depth. Increasing applied contact force increases the maximum stress value. It can also be observed for the five applied forces that all distributions exhibit a similar slow decrease in deep regions up to maximum measurement depth at 4.15 mm, excluding the top region in the first 0.15 mm where the plastic surface deformation and the interference from tool diffraction peaks take place. The measurement window shows that stresses below the contact point already affect regions much deeper than 4 mm in this loading condition.
The detailed analysis of the stress distribution regarding the affected depth and the maximum stress values can be achieved by fitting extracted experimental curves with an optimized fit function. It was found that a variation of the probability density function of the Weibull distribution, given by Pararai et al. [
14], as used in failure analysis, gives a very good approximation for the progression of the experimental data. The first increase and maximum can be fitted along with the asymmetric “tail” of the stress distribution into the material while complying with the limits
. For better use with the data, a normalized distribution for the maximum value and an amplitude parameter
σmax was included in Equation (3). Since
α,
β, and
λ are not connected to physical material or process parameters, z is to be considered dimensionless.
The maximum equivalent stress
, its depth position
z0, as well as the width of the asymmetric function at a value of 500 MPa (W
500MPa) were directly evaluated from the fit in order to determine field propagation in depth and analyze the influence of the force on these characteristic values. An example of the experimental stress distribution under load with 3000 N with the fitted function is shown in
Figure 4. It can be observed that this model can achieve a very reliable fit of the stress distribution, while it should be noted that the distribution is tailored to the found stress distributions and not equally applicable to other line shapes without modification. The free fit parameters
β,
λ, and
α are only slightly correlated to each other, which shows that the fitting function is not over parametrized, but it still allows fixing of the
β-variable for one dataset during loading or after unloading, constraining the error for the extracted values.
The results gathered from this approach are shown in
Table 2, where an increase in maximum equivalent stress with increasing force can be noted while the other extracted values show no clear trend. For the whole force range, fitted values have an adjusted coefficient of determination
> 0.9.
In comparison, if the force is increased by 95(±7)%, an increase of 54(±10)% is achieved in maximum equivalent stress. For the width of the distribution in depth, an increase can be detected, which agrees with theoretical predictions. The setup, however, is not sensitive enough to show if the maximum position also shifts deeper at higher loads, as predicted. The correlation between applied force and maximum stress or peak width is shown in
Figure 5a,b. Exemplary √F fit functions were added since this parameter was found to be universal for the values from elastic theory calculations.
4.2. Stress State after Unloading
The same procedure for obtaining 2D stress maps as used under load has been applied after removing the load, and the results are presented in
Figure 6. For the field after unloading, the residual stresses are still concentrated around the contact point with different distributions for each principal stress component. The top layers (about 0.2 mm) present unexpected stress distributions with laterally constant values for longitudinal, transversal, and normal stress components, where no processing took place. In the region of plastic deformation, due to the roller contact, a “cavity-like” shape of this abnormality can also be distinguished. This is attributed to a surface anomaly that can originate from a non-parallelism of the sample surface and of the X-ray beam in thickness direction, which results in different z heights along the thickness of the sample, or from a shift of the sample surface in the z direction. These effects lead to pseudo stress values in
σyy,
σxx, and
σzz, but not the
σyz component, due to a geometrical shift of the center of gravity of the diffracting volume. These top layers, therefore, need to be neglected in the evaluation of the results. In
Figure 6, a compressive stress of the
σyy component is found with a radial distribution around the contact point (about 2 mm around the center point), where maxima appear in the plastically displaced material to each side, whereas directly below the contact point, lower compressive stresses are generated and compensated with tensile stresses of around 30 MPa in depth.
Figure 7 presents the measured 2D half-field stress maps of the stress component
σyy after unloading for the same five loading forces as given in
Figure 4. The region with high compressive residual stress at the side of the contact point grows continuously with increasing applied force, as well as the level of compressive stresses.
For the residual stress field to the side of the contact point, it can be observed that the maximum of compressive residual stresses after unloading
σyy,max scales with the applied force, increasing from a maximum of −80(±25) MPa for 2000 N to −190(±30) MPa at 3900 N, an increase of −130(±30)% (
Table 3). These values were calculated from the average of 5 points with the highest compressive stress in the
σyy(
y,
z) distribution.
The evolution of maximum residual stress is plotted as a function of the applied force in
Figure 8. It is found that power law functions with a √F dependence can be used to describe the dependence of the determined characteristic values with the applied force in the considered force range which is much lower than elastic limit of the material. For higher contact forces, the power law curves would theoretically allow residual stress values higher than the elastic limit, therefore a limitation of the determined dependence to the considered force range between 2000 and 3900 N should be respected.
4.3. Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Contact Mechanics Approach
Calculations based on the formulas of the elastic Hertzian contact mechanics approach, as given by Budynas and Nisbet [
12], were performed in order to evaluate the theoretical loading condition and link these to the experimental results. The theoretically calculated
σyy(
z),
σxx(
z), and
σzz(
z) values were again combined into an equivalent stress. This evaluation leads to a comparable stress distribution as the measured internal material stresses and can also be described by a variation of the considered function, Equation (3). It can be observed that for every applied force, the calculated elastic stress distribution is much higher than the experimental data and the theoretical maximum equivalent stress value is higher by a factor ≈2.1 as compared with the experiment, whereas the depth position of maximum stress calculated from contact mechanics approach is closer to the surface, as shown in
Figure 9.
These large differences are explained by the fully elastic approach of the contact mechanics calculation, which is a theoretical consideration, whereas, in the real case, plastic deformations take place instantaneously when the criterion for yielding is exceeded. Moreover, the measurements performed under load, therefore, reflect the plastically deformed state superimposed with applied elastic strain field, which shifts the measured stress level.
It can be seen that the maximum values from the theoretical elastic approach show an increasing difference as compared with the experimental data measured under load, which can be attributed to an increasing plastic deformation influence in the process. On the one hand, if the yield strength of the material is used as a criterion for the theoretical von Mises equivalent stress in elastic contact, a loading force of F(Mises,Yield) = 2200 N results as a threshold value to achieve a plastic deformation.
On the other hand, for the corresponding residual equivalent stresses, the √F relationship found for experimental residual stress evolution (
Figure 8) can be extrapolated to lower forces and a zero intercept is reached at F
(exp,Yield) = 1600 ± 400 N. At a lower applied load, no measurable residual stresses should be generated. This value is lower than the calculated theoretical limit. It can be assumed, that for the elastic-plastic deformation in the experimental case, the convex indenter shape can concentrate a higher amount of loading stress which leads to higher deformation than in the elastic calculation, where both contact surfaces flatten out in response, and therefore lead to local modifications of the contact geometry and create plastic deformation directly at the contact surface.
Keeping the limitations in mind, a comparison with theoretical Hertzian contact mechanics allows a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between a theoretical approach and in situ measured experimental values of internal material load and resulting residual stress distribution. For the measured equivalent stress during loading and the residual stress, it can be observed that the √F fits give a good approximation for the expected material behavior, close to the yield point in
Figure 10a. Since a direct comparison with the theoretical approach is preferable, in
Figure 10b the same values are shown as a function of the theoretical equivalent stress. In this case, a linear correlation is found for the measured loading stresses and the resulting residual stresses.
It has to be kept in mind that the relationship between internal material load and the theoretical values does not remain linear in higher force range and depends on a set of material and experimental parameters such as yield strength, ultimate strength, work hardening during plastic deformation, as well as the contact geometry.