Experimental and Simulation Study about Bending Effect and Slag

Ball Blasting at Surface Roughness, Surface Structure, and

Microhardness of Knee Joint Prosthetic Made from 316L Stainless
Steel
Marcellia Crenata, Great A.H. Samosir, Suyitno
Center for Innovation of Medical Equipments and Devices
(CIMEDs), Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
Gadjah Mada University, Jl. Grafika 2 Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia
marcelliacrenata@gmail.com, greatsamosir@yahoo.co.id, suyitno@ugm.ac.id,

Keywords: slag ball blasting, bending, surface properties, 316L stainless steel, knee joint
prosthetic

Abstract. The prominences of bending process combined with slag ball blasting to produce hard
and smooth surfaces with a less hydrophilic property knee joint made by medical grade 316L
stainless steel are demonstrated in this paper. In this study, knee joint prosthetic made from 316L
stainless steel by bending process was treated with slag ball basting. The slag ball blasting yields a
hard but rough surface; hence its use in design of osteosynthesis plates may be hindered.

Introduction
Knee joint is one of sinovial joint that is most likely to be replaced during our lifetime due to
wear and tear of cartilage, bone degeneration, arthritis, infection, and injuries (Farid dan Giovanni,
2011). The broken knee joint can be healed by total knee replacement surgery used knee joint
prosthetic made from biomaterial.
Pemilihan biomaterial yang digunakan pada knee joint prosthetic didasarkan pada sifat-sifat
tertentu, seperti: wear resistance, corrosion resistance, processability, availability, bioadhesion,
biocompatibility, dan biofunctionality yang mendekati sifat tulang manusia (Carr dan Goswami,
2009; Smallman dan Bishop, 1999). 316L stainless steel is biomaterial that used for hip joint and
knee joint replacement because its corrotion resistance, good mechanical properties, and
economically cheap compared with another material that have same capability.
Kelemahan yang dimiliki baja tahan karat AISI 316L adalah sifat mekanisnya yang tidak sebaik
paduan titanium dan cobalt chromium molybdenum (CoCrMo). Pada penelitian ini hal tersebut
diatasi dengan metode deformasi dengan memberikan gaya tertentu pada material sehingga dimensi
dan struktur mikro material berubah, dan metode shot blasting dengan menembakkan material
abrasif pada permukaan material dengan durasi dan tekanan tertentu. Metode shot blasting ini
dimaksudkan untuk memberikan deformasi plastis, tegangan sisa (Jiang dkk, 2006), dan
memperhalus ukuran butir pada material (Arifvianto dkk, 2011; Jiang dkk, 2006; Arifvianto dkk,
2012; Wang dan Li, 2003). Metode-metode tersebut secara keseluruhan akan berdampak pada
peningkatan ketahanan korosi, kekerasan, ketahanan aus, dan kekasaran pada permukaan material
(Arifvianto dkk, 2012).
Hal lain yang dapat dilakukan untuk memperbaiki ketahanan korosi dan sifat mekanis dari
implan adalah pemilihan proses manufaktur yang tepat, sehingga memberikan dampak yang baik
bagi sifat meksnis material dan efisien dalam segi ekonomis. Proses manufaktur knee joint
prosthetic yang digunakan dapat berupa metode machining, casting, forming, ataupun kombinasi
diantara ketiganya. Pembuatan knee joint prosthetic dengan metode machining merupakan proses
yang mahal dan sulit dilakukan karena mesin harus membuat kontur yang tidak beraturan. Cara ini
membutuhkan mesin CNC 5 aksis dengan perkiraan waktu pengerjaan selama 30 jam. Metode
casting merupakan proses yang membutuhkan biaya investasi, namun lebih ekonomis dibandingkan
dengan machining. Kekurangan dari metode ini adalah adanya kemungkinan munculnya porositas
internal yang dapat menurunkan kekuatan dan ketahanan fatik. Hal ini dapat diatasi dengan hot
isostatic pressing, namun proses ini membutuhkan biaya yang besar. Forming merupakan metode
dengan cara paling sederhana yang dapat digunakan untuk membuat knee joint prosthetic. Forming
dilakukan dengan membentuk material sesuai dengan kelengkungan tertentu kemudian proses
dikombinasikan dengan machining untuk membentuk dan memperhalus kontur akhir (finishing).
Proses tersebut lebih sederhana serta mampu menekan waktu dan biaya manufaktur, selain itu
metode forming juga dapat meningkatkan properti internal dari material seperti: kekuatan,
ketangguhan, dan ketahanan fatik (Anasane dkk, 2007).

In this study, simulation is performed to predict bending process and springback of 316L
stainless steel. Influences of the bending as manufactur process and slag ball blasting on
surface roughness, surface structures, and microhardness distribution of medical grade 316L
stainless steel are discussed.

Materials and Methods

Specimens were prepared from 316L stainless steel strips with a dimension of 100 mm × 50 mm
× 4 mm. The steel’s chemical compositions (%wt) are: 0.03 C, 16.69 Cr, 10.57 Ni, 2.39 Mo, 1.74
Mn, 0.67 Si, 0.34 Cu, and balanced Fe. All specimens were cleaned up using 70% ethanol (PT.
Jayamas Medical Industri, Indonesia) prior to treatments.

Fig. 1. Experimental setup for (a) SMAT and (b) electropolishing

Principles of the SMAT are shown in Fig. 1a. The specimen was placed in a tubular chamber
with a dimension of 150 and 80 mm in length and diameter, respectively, together with 250 milling
balls. The milling balls were smooth and spherical with 4.76 mm in diameter. The SMAT was
conducted by shaking the chamber in reciprocating motion in order to generate multiple impacts of
milling balls onto the work surface for 20 min. Vibration of the chamber during the SMAT was
generated by electric motor which delivers power of 2 HP and shaft speed of 1400 rpm. A
crankshaft was used to convert shaft rotation into a reciprocating motion of the chamber.
Electropolishing was conducted with a system illustrated in Fig. 1b. Both cathode and anode
were made of 316L stainless steel, separated by a gap of 35 mm in distance and immersed in an
electrolyte solution. The anode was the specimen subjected to electropolishing. The electric current
and voltage of 36 A and 9.5 V, respectively, were applied for 0 – 20 min during the treatment. The
electrolyte solution consisted of 96% H2SO4 and 85% H3PO4 solutions which were mixed with a
ratio of 1 : 1. Both as-received specimens and those which had been processed with SMAT for 20
min were electropolished.
Surface structures of the specimens were observed by Quanta 250 scanning electron microscope
(SEM; Oxford Instrument, UK). A standard cleaning up procedure was conducted using 99%
ethanol (Wako, Japan) in CUC-O2L ultrasonic bath (As One, China) prior to the SEM study. In
addition, energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy was performed to identify surface chemical
composition of the specimens.
 Fig. 2. The SEM micrograph of 316L stainless steel surface: (a) as-received, (b) electropolished,
(c) SMAT and (d) SMAT-electropolished

Surface roughness measurement was conducted at five different locations of each specimen
using Surfcom 120A contact stylus profilometer (Advanced Metrology System, UK). The
specimens were cleaned up with 70% ethanol (PT. Jayamas Medical Industri, Indonesia) before the
measurement. Scanning was performed by a stylus in linear direction for a distance of 5 mm. The
arithmetic medium values (Ra) of the specimens were averaged to represent the roughness.
Surface wettability was evaluated with sessile droplet contact angles measurement. The
specimens were cleaned up using 70% ethanol, rinsed in distilled water, and dried at room
temperature before the measurement. A distilled water droplet was injected from a syringe and
deposited at five different locations on the surface of specimens. 2D images of a static water droplet
on the surface were captured using SX 20IS digital camera (Canon, Japan). The droplet contact
angles were then calculated by image analysis.
Microhardness distribution across the specimen sectional area was measured in triplicate using
Vickers microhardness tester (Buehler, USA). All specimens were mounted in resin, grinded and
polished mechanically prior to the testing. Vickers indentations were performed with a load of 4.9
N for 15 sec on the specimen’s cross-sectional area.

Results
Fig. 2 shows surface structures of the specimen after the SMAT and electropolishing. A rough and
irregular surfaces with protrusions and cracks are seen in as-received specimen (Fig. 2a), but these
features dissapear by electropolishing (Fig. 2b). The SMAT deforms protrusions and produce flat
structures on the as-received surface (Fig. 2c). The electropolishing after the SMAT produces a
similar surface structure with that shown in Fig. 2b.

Fig. 3. Surface roughness of specimen before and Fig. 4. Surface wettability of specimen before and
after the treatments after the treatments

Fig. 3 shows surface roughness of the specimens before and after the SMAT, electropolishing
and their combination. Ra decreases from 3.98 µm to 0.99 µm by the SMAT. Meanwhile, the
electropolishing reduces Ra from 3.98 µm to 0.65 µm. The combination of SMAT and
electropolishing further decreases the roughness until Ra = 0.15 µm.
Fig. 4 shows the effect of treatments in this study on static droplet contact angles, which
demonstrate the specimen wettability, on the specimen surfaces. The SMAT does not change
wettability, but the electropolishing does by slightly increasing droplet contact angles. The
combination of SMAT and electropolishing yields a larger increase of droplet contact angles and
hydrophobicity of the specimen.
Fig. 5 shows surface elemental composition of the specimens from EDX spectroscopic analysis.
In general, all specimens, except the as-received one, indicate the presence of primary elements of
stainless steel such as Fe, Cr and Ni. treatments in this study do not introduce contaminants. C and
Ni elements are eliminated by the SMAT and electropolishing.
Microhardness distribution across the specimen sectional area is presented in Fig. 6. The SMAT
yields a gradient of microhardness with the hardest region located at the nearest point from the
surface. An increasing subsurface microhardness from Hv = 1.6 GPa to 2.9 GPa at depth of 100 µm
and the formation of a hard surface layer with 800 µm thick are seen after 20 min of the SMAT.
The electropolishing does not influence the specimen microhardness. However, it reduces
microhardness of the SMAT-processed specimen at a depth of 100 µm from Hv = 2.9 GPa to 2.2
GPa and decreases the thickness hard layer formed by the SMAT. Nevertheless, the surface of the
SMAT-electropolished specimen remains harder than both the as-received and electropolished ones.

Discussion
The use of SMAT to enhance mechanical properties of 316L stainless steel has been reported in
literatures [5-7]. In this study, the increased micorhardness of 316L stainless steel from Hv = 1.6
GPa to 2.9 GPa at a depth of 100 µm by the SMAT is confirmed in the previous works [5,7,8]. The
impacts of milling balls during the SMAT refine the surface and subsurface grains of this steel until
20-22 nm in size [5-7]. The presence of such refined grains increases total grain boundary area
through which the dislocation movement is hindered. The more difficult dislocation to move, the
greater external force is required to induce plastic deformation. Consequently, surface hardness and
strength of 316L stainless steel increase after the SMAT [5].
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 5. EDX analysis of specimens before and after the treatments

The formation of rough surfaces by the SMAT is associated with new peaks and valleys resulting
from the impacts of milling balls in an initially smooth surface [8]. However, a roughness reduction
by the SMAT is also observed in an initially rough surface which corresponds to deformation of the
existing peaks of a rough surface by the impacts of milling balls. A roughness transfer occurs from
a smooth surface of milling balls onto the specimen surface during the impacts. The impacts
produce smooth imprints and result in a roughness reduction during the SMAT [11]. Moreover, it is
also reported that the SMAT creates surfaces with saturated roughness of around Ra = 1.0 µm
irrespective to the initial roughness of the specimen [8,11]. This value is unfortunately higher than
that requested for osteosynthesis plates. The average surface roughness of commercial
osteosynthesis plates falls into Ra = 0.59 µm – 0.88 µm [1].
The use of electropolishing to decrease the roughness of 316L stainless steel is confirmed in this
study. During the treatment, irregular surface structures of the specimen is dissolved
electrochemically followed by a release of oxygen from the anode and hydrogen from cathode
[18,19]. The roughness reduction by electropolishing is time-dependent as well as that reported in
Ref. [19,21]. A smoother surface is obtained by prolonging the duration of this treatment. Surface
roughness evolution of the specimens during the electropolishing is also influenced by its initial
roughness. The electropolishing for a less rough SMAT specimen yields a smoother surface than
that for as-received specimen. Ref. [19] shows similar finding where the same treatment for a less
rough specimen produces a smoother surface. The electropolishing for an initially rough surfaces
takes longer duration to yield certain roughness value compared with the process for the smoother
one. This evidently shows limitation of electropolishing in smoothening a rough surface [19]. Pre-
treatment such as mechanical polishing has been reported to be able to improve final result of
electropolishing [19]. In this experiment, the SMAT prior to electropolishing can be used as such
pre-treatment to improve surface finish of 316L stainless steel.
 Fig. 6. Microhardness distribution across the specimen sectional area

A rough SMAT-induced surface is undesired in design of osteosynthesis plates. A smooth

surface improves anti-corrosion property [12,20], fatigue resistance [14,15] and reduces the
susceptibility of several biomaterials to bacterial adhesion [16]. The electropolishing dissolves a
rough surface structure produced by the SMAT and yields a smooth and dense surface without any
pits, defects and scratches. Such a hybrid treatment is even able to produce a smoother surface (Ra =
0.1 µm) than that of commercial osteosynthesis plates (Ra = 0.59 µm – 0.88 µm) presented in Ref.
[1].
A relationship between surface roughness and wettability is demonstrated in this experiment.
Droplet contact angles are inversely related to surface roughnesses. This phenomenon is well
described in literatures [21,22]. Despite reducing the roughness, the SMAT does not influence the
droplet contact angles. Ref. [8] confirms the minor effect of SMAT on surface wettability of 316L
stainless steel. The electropolishing reduces the roughness of 316L stainless steel strip and slightly
increases droplet contact angles on its surface. Meanwhile, the combination of SMAT and
electropolishing produces a greater droplet contact angles than those found on the electropolished
surface. This is possibly due to a smoother surface produced by such a hybrid treatment.
Surface wettability plays important role in bacterial contamination of implants. Hydrophilic
bacteria prefer to adhere on hydrophilic surfaces, whereas hydrophobic ones tend to contaminate
hydrophobic implants [16]. The droplet contact angles on the SMAT-electropolished surface falls
into  = 85.5 which is close to those on commercial osteosynthesis plates, i.e.  = 87 [1] and
mechanically polished 316L stainless steel with Ra = 0.04 µm, i.e.  = 88.6 [8]. According to
classification in Ref. [22,23], this indicates the less hydrophilic but not hydrophobic property of the
SMAT-electropolished surface than that of the as-received, SMAT and electropolished 316L
stainless steel. A less hydrophilic but not hydrophobic property of the SMAT-electropolished
surface may be beneficial since the adhesion of hydrophilic and hydrophobic bacteria on this
surface is likely not as powerful as that on the highly hydrophilic and highly hydrophobic
substratum. Moreover, a less hydrophilic surface of the SMAT-electropolished stainless steel is
preferrable than a more hydrophilic one since it improves cleanability of osteosynthesis plates [1]
through a self-cleaning mechanism such as shown by hydrophobic lotus leaves [17].
Investigation on surface elemental composition shows the presence of C only at the as-received
surface. Ni dissapears by the combination of the SMAT and electropolishing. Both electropolishing
and SMAT are able to eliminate these elements through surface dissolution and wear mechanism,
respectively. Surface dissolution by electropolishing and wear by shot impacts in the SMAT are
well described in the literature [11,18,19]. Moreover, the treatments performed in this study do not
contaminate the specimen surfaces with harmful chemical elements, hence sterility of
osteosynthesis plates can be maintained.
The SMAT enhances subsurface microhardness and produces a hard surface layer on the
specimen. A gradient of microhardness is formed with the hardest region located at the nearest
place from surface [5-8]. The electropolishing however reduces surface microhardness and
thickness of hard layer resulting from the SMAT. This treatment dissolves and replaces the
outermost layer by the less hard sublayer. A longer duration of electropolishing may result in total
elimination of such hard surface layer. Hence, optimization of electropolishing duration is
necessary. In this experiment, 20 min electropolishing for the SMAT specimen remains yielding a
harder surface layer than either as-received or electropolished specimens. Tensile strength and
fatigue resistance of 316L stainless steel correspond to the presence of a hard surface layer by the
SMAT, therefore combination of SMAT and electropolishing in this study is beneficial for
osteosynthesis plates.

Conclusion
The effects of SMAT combined with electropolishing on surface structures and wettability of 316L
stainless steel are studied in this paper. In addiiton, subsurface microhardness of this steel after this
hybrid surface treatment is revealed. The SMAT produces a hard surface layer, but generates
unfavorable surface properties for osteosynthesis plates. The electropolishing for 20 min produces a
smooth surface without eliminating the presence of hard surface layer and a less hydrophilic
property of the SMAT-processed specimen. The SMAT-electropolished surface is even smoother
than that of the commercial osteosynthesis plates. In addition, this hybrid treatment does not
contaminate the surface with harmful elements and thus may potentially be used in fabrication of
osteosynthesis plates. The combination of SMAT and electropolishing is potential for use to
improve mechanical properties and biocompatibility of osteosynthesis plates.

Acknowledgment
This work is funded by The Graduate Program, Department of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering, Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia (Grant No. 1437/H1.17/TMI/PL/2011).

References
[1] P. Dewo, Evaluation and Redesign of an Osteosynthesis Plate, Produced in Indonesia, Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Groningen, Groningen, 2010.
[2] G.K. Triantafylllidis, A.V. Kazantzis, K.T. Karageorgiou, Premature fracture of a stainless
steel 316L orthopaedic plate implant by alternative episodes of fatigue and cleavage
decoherence, Eng. Fail. An. 14 (2007) 1346-1350.
[3] P. Holzach, P. Matter, The comparison of steel and titanium dynamic compression plates used
for internal fixation of 256 fractures of the tibia, Injury 10 (1979) 120-123.
[4] H. Brunner, J.P. Simpson, Fatigue fracture of bone plates, Injury, 11 (1980) 203-207.
[5] T. Roland, D. Retraint, K. Lu, J. Lu, Enhanced mechanical behavior of a nanocrystallised
stainless steel and its thermal stability, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 445-446 (2007) 281-288.
[6] X.H. Chen, J. Lu, L. Lu, K. Lu, Tensile properties of a nanocrystalline 316L austenitic
stainless steel, Scripta Mater. 52 (2005) 1039-1044.
[7] T. Roland, D. Retraint, K. Lu, J. Lu, Fatigue life improvement through surface
nanostructuring of stainless steel by means of surface mechanical attrition treatment, Scripta
Mater. 54 (2006) 1949-1954.
[8] B. Arifvianto, Suyitno, M. Mahardika, P. Dewo, P.T. Iswanto, U.A. Salim, Effect of surface
mechanical attrition treatment (SMAT) on microhardness, surface roughness and wettability
of AISI 316L, Mater. Chem. Phys. 125 (2011) 418-426.
[9] Z.B. Wang, J. Lu, K. Lu, Wear and corrosion properties of a low carbon steel processed by
means of SMAT followed by lower temperature chromizing treatment, Surf. Coat. Technol.
201 (2006) 2796-2801.
[10] Y.S. Zhang, Z. Han, K. Wang, K. Lu, Friction and wear behaviors of nanocrystalline surface
layer of pure copper, Wear 260 (2006) 942-948.
[11] B. Arifvianto, Suyitno, M. Mahardika, Effects of surface mechanical attrition treatment
(SMAT) on a rough surface of AISI 316L stainless steel, Appl. Surf. Sci. 258 (2012) 4538-
4543.
[12] H. Lee, K. Kim, J. Jung, Y. Pyoun, K. Shin, Influence of peening on the corrosion properties
of AISI 304 stainless steel, Corr. Sci. 51 (2009) 2826-2830.
[13] Y. Hao, B. Deng, C. Zhong, Y. Jiang, J. Li, Effect of Surface Mechanical Attrition Treatment
on Corrosion Behavior of 316 Stainless Steel, J. Iron Steel Res. 16 (2009) 68-72.
[14] J.H. Ryu, S.W. Nam, Effect of surface roughness on low-cycle fatigue life of Cr-Mo-V steel
at 550°C, Int. J. Fatigue 11 (1989) 433-436.
[15] J.M. Lee, S.W. Nam, Effect of crack initiation mode on low cycle fatigue life of type 304
stainless steel with surface roughness, Mater. Lett. 10 (1990) 223-230.
[16] Y.H. An, R.J. Friedmann, Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterial
surfaces, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 43 (1998) 338-348.
[17] R. Furstner, W. Barthlott, C. Neinhuis, P. Walzel, Wetting and Self-Cleaning Properties of
Artificial Superhydrophobic Surfaces, Langmuir 21 (2005) 956-961.
[18] S.J. Lee, J.J. Lai, The effects of electropolishing (EP) process parameters on corrosion
resistance of 316L stainless steel, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 140 (2003) 206-210.
[19] E.S. Lee, Machining characteristics of the electropolishing of stainless steel (STS316L), Int. J.
Adv. Manuf. Technol. 16 (2000) 591-599.
[20] L.R. Hilbert, D. Bagge-Ravn, J. Kold, L. Gram, Influence of surface roughness of stainless
steel on microbial adhesion and corrosion resistance, Int. Biodeter. Biodegrad. 52 (2003) 175-
185.
[21] B. Arifvianto, Suyitno, M. Mahardika, Hybrid surface treatment for improving mechanical
and surface properties of AISI 316L stainless steel, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Instr. Commun. Inf.
Technol. Biomed. Eng. (2011) 315-317.
[22] J. Bico, C. Tordeux, D. Quere, Rough Wetting, Europhys. Lett. 55 (2001) 214-220.
[23] T. Uelzen, J. Muller, Wettability enhancement by rough surfaces generated by thin film
technology, Thin Solid Films 434 (2003) 311-315.