International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 137 (2018) 171–181

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

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

Effect of initial surface treatment on shot peening residual stress field:

Analytical approach with experimental verification
Khalil Sherafatnia a, Gholam Hossein Farrahi a,∗, Amir Hossein Mahmoudi b
a
School of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Mechanical Engineering Department, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

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

Keywords: Shot peening is the most common surface treatment employed to enhance the fatigue performance of structural
Shot peening metallic materials and often carried out after other surface treatments. This paper mainly focuses on the effects
Residual stress of initial conditions of surface such as initial stress filed and hardness profile on shot peening residual stress field.
Analytical model
The residual stress distribution induced by shot peening is obtained using Hertzian contact theory and elastic–
Experimental measurement
plastic evaluation after yielding occurred during impingement and rebound of shots. Elastic plastic calculations
Initial stress
Hardness are performed using different hardening models considering Bauschinger effect. The present model is able to
predict redistribution of residual stresses in shot peening process by considering the initial conditions of target
surface. Initial stress distribution and yield stress variation produced by previous surface treatments are taken
into account by measuring residual stresses and hardness profile at near surface layers. An analytical parametric
study is performed to evaluate the influence of initial conditions induced by surface pretreatments on shot peening
residual stress field. The results of analytical model are validated by experimental data obtained in the literature
as well as by our own measurements. The analytical results generally agree with the experimental measurements.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction residual stress distribution induced by shot peening both experimen-

To improve the fatigue performance, surface nano-crystallization
and stress corrosion resistance of metallic components, shot peening is
widely used in many industries. During shot peening, a large number
of small shots impinge on the target surface at velocities in the range
of 30–100 m/s. Resulting from each impingement, near surface layers
undergoes compressive plastic deformation and consequently, compres-
sive residual stress field (CRSF) is created. These compressive residual
stresses are balanced by tensile residual stresses which are located in
beneath the compressive layers.
A great number of numerical and experimental studies have been
dedicated to investigate the effect of shot peening parameters such as
shot velocity [1–6], shot diameter [5–8], Almen intensity [1–3,6–8] and
peening coverage [1–4,9] on the CRSF. Also, many researchers have
examined the role of shot peening process and generated CRSF on the
extended fatigue life over the past decades [7,10–12].
Nevertheless, only a few studies have been carried out to investigate
the effect of the initial residual stress field (IRSF) produced by primary
surface treatments on shot peening residual stresses [13–16]. One of the
comprehensive studies on this topic has been conducted by Mahmoudi
et al. [13] in which they have investigated the effects of the IRSF on
tally and numerically. In their work, IRSF was induced using a four-
point bending rig and grinding. Numerical analyses and experimental
measurements of these processes were performed to provide quantita-
tive comparison of different combinations of residual stresses [13]. In
addition to Mahmoudi’s et al. work, the effect of the initial conditions
of surface pretreatments on shot peening CRSF have been investigated
experimentally by a few researchers such as Hatamle and DeWald [14],
Molzen and Hornbach [15] and Sidhom et al. [16].
Several analytical researches have been made to better understand
the effects of various shot peening parameters on CRSF. Guechichi
[17] outlined an analytical model to determine shot peening CRSF based
on Hertzian contact theory and using Zarka elasto–plastic calculation
method. Thereafter, Guechichi ’s model improved by Khabou et al.
[18] and Fathallah et al. [19].
Li et al. [20] proposed a mechanical approach for estimating CRSF
of shot peening using the Hertzian contact theory and Iliushins elastic–
plastic theory. Shen and Atluri [21] proposed a theoretical relation
for the plastic indentation instead of empirical one and also added
shot velocity to Li’s model. Later, Bhuvaraghan et al. [22] included
in Li’s model the strain rate effect. Franchim et al. [23] improved
Li’s approach by considering the Hertzian pressure as a dynamic load
and using the Ramberg-Osgood and Ludwick hardening models to

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: farrahi@sharif.edu (G.H. Farrahi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.01.022
Received 27 November 2017; Received in revised form 8 January 2018; Accepted 15 January 2018
0020-7403/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Sherafatnia et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 137 (2018) 171–181

and can influence on the CRSF. Since creating the residual stresses
Nomenclature in pretreatment processes is inevitable and experimental tests and FE
simulations are expensive and time consuming, so a suitable analytical
Latin characters model for considering the IRSF is required.
a indentation radius In the current research, an analytical model is proposed to deter-
D shot diameter mine residual stress distribution induced by shot peening after pri-
E elastic modulus mary surface treatments. This model is able to consider the initial equi-
F tensile force biaxial residual stress and near surface hardness distribution produced
h thickness of target part by primary surface treatment. Also, unlike previous analytical mod-
HV Vickers hardness els the current model can estimate the tensile residual stresses which
k efficiency coefficient of energy dissipation created beneath the compressive layer. In elastic plastic calculations,
Kl strength coefficient of linear hardening model the Bauschinger effect in reserve yielding and different hardening pa-
Kp strength coefficient of power-law hardening model rameters in loading and unloading phases are utilized. Moreover, shot
m strain hardening exponent peening experiments are done with and without IRSF induced by grind-
M bending moment ing. The results of proposed analytical model for shot peening residual
P0 maximum pressure of Hertzian contact stresses are verified with our own experiments on ground samples and
Sij components of the deviatoric stress tensor experimental measurements from other studies on welded samples.
V shot velocity
z depth variable 2. Analytical model
Greek characters
𝛽 Bauschinger factor 2.1. Primary state of stresses
𝜀ij components of the strain tensor
𝜃 angle of impingement In order to evaluate the effect of the shot peening process on initial
𝜈 Poisson ratio stresses induced by other treatments, the IRSF is defined as a function of
𝜌 mass density depth. In this article, we focus on the primary surface treatments which
𝜎0 initial residual stress field produce equi-biaxial residual stress distribution (e.g. grinding and turn-
𝜎 ij components of the stress tensor ing). It is assumed that the IRSF only exist in X and Y principle directions.
𝜓 plastic strain to elastic strain ratio Accordingly, the IRSF can be defined as 𝜎 0x = 𝜎 0y = 𝜎 0 (z). According to
Hook’s law, the elastic stress and strain field induced by shot peening
Subscripts with initial equi-biaxial stresses can be obtained as:
eq equivalent
l loading process 𝜎𝑥𝑒 = 𝜎𝑦𝑒 = 𝜎𝑥𝑒𝑠 + 𝜎0 = 𝜎𝑦𝑒𝑠 + 𝜎0
s shot 𝜎𝑧𝑒 = 𝜎𝑧𝑒𝑠 (1)
t target part
un unloading process
Y yield stress 1 𝑒𝑠
𝜀𝑒𝑥 = 𝜀𝑒𝑦 = (𝜎 (1 − 𝜈𝑡 ) − 𝜈𝑡 𝜎𝑧𝑒𝑠 )
𝐸𝑡 𝑥
Superscripts 1 𝑒𝑠
e elastic 𝜀𝑒𝑧 = (𝜎 − 2𝜈𝑡 𝜎𝑥𝑒𝑠 ) (2)
𝐸𝑡 𝑧
p plastic
rel relaxed stress The equivalent Von-Mises stress and strain in elastic state are derived
res final residual stress as given in Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively.
( ( ))1∕2
1
describe plastic behavior of treated part. Furthermore, Miao et al.
𝑒
𝜎𝑒𝑞− 𝑙 = (𝜎𝑥𝑒 − 𝜎𝑦𝑒 )2 + (𝜎𝑥𝑒 − 𝜎𝑧𝑒 )2 + (𝜎𝑧𝑒 − 𝜎𝑦𝑒 )2 = ||𝜎𝑥𝑒𝑠 − 𝜎𝑧𝑒 + 𝜎0 ||
2
[24] analytically estimated CRSF and arc height in the Almen strip for (3)
different combinations of shot peening parameters. Also, the effects of
friction between shots and target material, real unloading behavior and 𝑒
𝜎𝑒𝑞− 𝑙
kinetic energy dissipation of shot impact on the resulting CRSF were 𝜀𝑒𝑒𝑞−𝑙 = (4)
𝐸𝑡
investigated by Sherafatnia et al. [25].
In spite of the above mentioned studies, there has been no analyti- It should be noted that in above equations, the superscript index “es”
cal study considering IRSF in the literature except one by Wang et al. and subscript index “l” belong to the elastic stresses generated by shot
[26]. Wang et al. [26] studied on the residual stress distribution in- peening in the absence of IRSF and loading process, respectively.
duced by shot peening with considering the initial welding stresses. Us- Most surface treatments cause to change the mechanical properties
ing Hertzian elastic contact theory, the shot peening stresses superposed of metals by heating them to a high temperature and then cooling back
with initial welding stress field and after yielding occurred, the CRSF de- to room temperature (e.g. welding and rough grinding). Different condi-
termined based on elastic plastic evaluations. Due to lack of enough data tions including temperature and cooling rate usually affect the mechani-
to calculate plastic strain deviators, these strains were obtained from cal properties of metals such as yield strength [27]. So, the primary yield
elastic stress deviators. So, with this simplified assumption, the ratio of strength is not constant in depth and should be considered as a function
deviatoric stress components of elastic model and elastic-plastic model of z. Temperature change of component surface lead to increase (or de-
were considered similar, which needs to be modified. Also, the effect of crease) in hardness of near surface layers. Hence, primary yield stress
the hardness change due to welding process at near surface layers is not modified as a function of z using the below empirical relation [28]:
considered in their work.
Δ𝜎𝑌 = 𝐾 Δ 𝐻𝑉 (5)
Reviewing the existing work mentioned above, nearly all the
analytical works were done without considering the initial conditions where Δ𝜎 Y and Δ HV are yield stress in MPa and Vickers hardness in
such as near surface material properties and residual stress field. In Kg/mm2 . K is a constant which has different values for different materi-
the shot peening process, the IRSF interacts with shot peening one als and generally get values between 2 and 4 [29,30]. Therefore, based

172
K. Sherafatnia et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 137 (2018) 171–181

where dimensionless parameter 𝛿 is valued by

0.5
0.91((1 − 2𝜐𝑡 )∕(1 − 𝜐2𝑡 )) ∕(1 + 𝜐𝑡 ).
For evaluating axially symmetric stress state of shot peening with
negligible shear stress, the principal stress components are calculated
using Hertzian contact theory as:
( )
𝐴
𝜎𝑥𝑒𝑠 = 𝜎𝑦𝑒𝑠 = −𝑝0 − + (1 + 𝜈𝑡 )𝐵
2
𝜎𝑧𝑒𝑠 = −𝑝0 𝐴 (11)

where A and B are defined as following:

( ( )2 )−1
𝑧
𝐴= 1+
𝑎𝑒
(𝑎 )
𝑧
𝐵 = 1− tan−1 𝑒 (12)
𝑎𝑒 𝑧

Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of the single shot impingement in shot peening process. 2.3. Elastic–plastic analysis with initial stresses

There are many operating parameters that influence on results of

on the proportionality between yield stress and hardness, following re-
shot peening CRSF. Due to this multitude of parameters, elastic–plastic
lation can be used for all materials [31]:
analysis of peening induced stresses is complicated. The complex in-
𝜎𝑌𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 teraction of the shots impacting the inelastic target surface makes it
Δ𝜎𝑌 = Δ 𝐻𝑉 (6)
𝐻𝑉𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 acceptable to obtain residual stresses with simple analytical procedure.
In elastic–plastic analysis, if the equivalent elastic stress obtained in
where 𝜎𝑌𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 and 𝐻𝑉𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 denote yield stress and hardness of the bulk mate- Eq. (3) is greater than the yield strength defined in Eq. (6) as a func-
rial. So, the variation of yield stress with depth below the surface can be tion of depth, then plastic deformation occurs. In order to relate elastic–
found by measuring microhardness profile after primary surface treat- plastic relations with elastic parameters, the coefficient defined by Li
ment. The yield stress function along the depth used in analytical model et al. [20] and modified by Shen and Atluri [21] is utilized. The plas-
is determined by fitting a polynomial function with the curve obtained tic to elastic ratio 𝜓 is determined by dividing the indentation radius
from experimental measurement. induced by shot impact in fully plastic target media by the indentation
radius in elastic target using Eqs. (13) and (8).
2.2. Elastic analysis of shot peening ( )1∕4
𝜌(𝑉 sin 𝜃)2
𝑎𝑝 = 𝐷 (13)
The elastic analysis of shot impact on target surface is performed 18𝜎𝑌 (𝑧=0)
based on Hertzian contact theory. The target component is considered 𝑎𝑝
as a semi-infinite medium and impacting shots are assumed spherical 𝜓= (14)
𝑎𝑒
with the diameter of D, density of 𝜌, velocity of V and impact angle of
𝜃. Fig. 1 shows a schematic of a single shot impingement on a target where ap is the indentation radius induced by shot impact in perfect
surface. plastic condition of target. Then, the equivalent elastic–plastic strain is
According to the Hertzian contact theory, maximum pressure and determined from the strain field:
( )
elastic indentation radius are determined from Eqs. (7) and (8), respec- 𝜀𝑒𝑝
𝑒𝑞−𝑙
= 𝜀𝑌 + 𝜓 𝜀𝑒𝑒𝑞 − 𝜀𝑌 𝜀𝑒𝑒𝑞 > 𝜀𝑌 (15)
tively.
In above equation, the equivalent plastic strain 𝜀𝑝𝑒𝑞−𝑙 is calculated
1
𝑝0 = (40𝜋𝜌𝑘𝐸𝐻
4
(𝑉 sin 𝜃)2 )1∕5 (7) by subtracting the elastic limit strain from the equivalent elastic–plastic
𝜋
strain.
𝜋𝑝0 𝐷 In order to calculate the elastic–plastic stresses, the linear and power
𝑎𝑒 = (8) law hardening models are used. The Ludwick–Hollomon equation is cho-
2𝐸𝐻
sen for power law hardening model. Eq. (16) presents the relation be-
In above equations, EH is the average value of elastic characteristics
tween equivalent stress and plastic strain for two common hardening
of shot and target materials that called equivalent Elastic modulus and
models.
can be obtained from the following equation:
𝜎𝑒𝑞 = 𝜎𝑌 + 𝐾𝐿 𝜀𝑝𝑒𝑞 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑟 ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑑 𝑒𝑙
1 − 𝜈𝑠2 1 − 𝜈𝑡2 (16)
1
= + (9) 𝜎𝑒𝑞 = 𝜎𝑌 + 𝐾𝑃 (𝜀𝑝𝑒𝑞 )𝑚 𝑃 𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑎𝑤 ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑑 𝑒𝑙
𝐸𝐻 𝐸𝑠 𝐸𝑡
Due to surface pretreatments, the mechanical properties of near sur-
In Eq. (7), k is an efficiency coefficient based upon energy dissipa-
face layers may be changed. So, the yield stress function is not consid-
tion during elastic rebound of shot. It should be noted that k is strongly
ered constant in depth. The primary yield stress can be calculated using
dependent on shot velocity [32,33]. So, it is better to utilize a velocity
hardness profile by substituting Eq. (6) into Eq. (17).
dependent function for K instead of a constant value. The energy dissipa-
tion fraction is determined same as procedure presented by Sherafatnia 𝜎𝑌 = 𝜎𝑌𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 + Δ𝜎𝑌 (17)
et al. [25]. The fractional energy lost during elastic impact due to stress Since the IRSF assumed to be equibiaxial and peening stresses are ax-
wave propagation can be calculated as [33]: ially symmetric, so the stresses and strains used in elastic–plastic calcula-
( )0 . 5 ( )1.2 tions are considered equal in x and y directions. Hence, the relationship
𝜌0𝑡 .5 1 − 𝜐2𝑡 .2 4𝐸𝐻 between stress and plastic strain during shot impact can be determined
𝜆 = 7.267 𝛿(1 + 𝜐𝑡 ) 𝜌−0
𝑠 𝑉 0.6
𝐸𝑡1.5 1 − 2𝜐𝑡 3 using the plastic flow rule as following:
. ( )1.2
𝜌𝑡
0 5 3𝑆𝑥 𝑑 𝜎𝑖𝑗
.2 4𝐸𝐻 𝑑 𝜀𝑝𝑥 = 𝑑 𝜀𝑝𝑦 =
≈ 6.613 𝜌−0
𝑠 𝑉 0.6 (10) (18)
𝐸𝑡1 . 5 3 2𝐸𝑝 𝜎𝑒𝑞

173
K. Sherafatnia et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 137 (2018) 171–181

where Ep is the slope of stress strain curve in plastic zone and can be ob- In the case of reserve yielding is not experienced by the target ma-
tained as 𝐸𝑝 = 𝑑𝜎𝑒𝑞 ∕𝑑𝜀𝑝𝑒𝑞 . It should be noted that the differential of initial terial, the final stresses is evaluated as the difference between stresses
stresses unlike the peening stresses is considered to be zero. By substi- created in loading and elastic stresses released in unloading.
tuting Ep for linear and power law hardening models in Eq. (18) and 𝑝
𝜎𝑒𝑞 − 𝜎𝑌 −𝑢𝑛
1 𝑒 𝜎0
considering the relationship between plastic strain in x direction and 𝜎𝑥𝑟 = 𝑆𝑥−𝑙 − 𝜎 𝜀𝑌 − < 𝜀𝑒𝑠 < (28)
3 𝑒𝑞−𝑢𝑛 𝐸𝑡 𝑒𝑞−𝑢𝑛 𝐸𝑡
equivalent plastic strain from incompressibility condition 𝜀𝑝𝑒𝑞 = 2𝜀𝑝𝑥 , the
relation between deviatoric stresses and plastic strains are determined. 2.4. Residual stresses after shot peening
𝜎𝑌 2𝐾𝐿 𝜀𝑝𝑥
𝑆𝑥−𝑙 = + (19) Experimental measurements confirm that the in-plane residual
3 3
stresses produced by shot peening with at least 100% coverage are equal
𝜎𝑌 𝐾 and uniform on target surface. Also, the target surface is only deformed
𝑆𝑥−𝑙 = + 𝑃 (2𝜀𝑝𝑥 )𝑚 (20) in the depth direction without variation in plane directions. The for-
3 3
Eqs. (19) and (20) are derived using linear and power-law hardening mulation derived in the previous section, is suitable for a single shot
models, respectively. On rebound of the shot, the contact stresses are impact and cannot satisfy the full coverage peening conditions. By ap-
released elastically until touch the yield surface again. In this research, plying equilibrium equations and equibiaxial state of residual stresses
an empirical relation for considering the Bauschinger effect is used that at the target surface, boundary conditions of full coverage peening can
given in Eq. (21) [34]. be written as:
( 𝑝𝑎 ) 𝑟
𝜎𝑥𝑧 𝑟
= 𝜎𝑦𝑧 = 𝜎𝑧𝑟 = 𝜀𝑟𝑥 = 𝜀𝑟𝑦 = 0 , 𝜎𝑥𝑟 = 𝜎𝑦𝑟 = 𝑓𝜎 (𝑧) , 𝜀𝑟𝑧 = 𝑓𝜀 (𝑧) (29)
𝛽 = 1 + 𝑎1 tanh 𝑎2 𝜀𝑒𝑞 3 (21)
In order to satisfy the conditions in Eq. (29), Li et al. [20] pro-
where the constants a1 , a2 and a3 are determined by curve fitting with
posed that the residual stresses should be elastically relaxed by following
experimental data. Also, 𝜀𝑝𝑒𝑞 denotes cumulative plastic strain and can
terms:
be obtained from Eq. (22).
𝜈𝑡
( ( ))1∕2 𝜎𝑥𝑟𝑒𝑙 = 𝜎𝑦𝑟𝑒𝑙 = 𝜎𝑟 (30)
𝜀𝑝𝑒𝑞 =
2 𝑝2
𝜀 + 𝜀𝑝𝑦 2 + 𝜀𝑝𝑧 2 = 2𝜀𝑝𝑥 (22) 1 − 𝜈𝑡 𝑧
3 𝑥
Then, the final CRSF can be determined by subtracting the relaxed
The yield strength in unloading phase can be found from the param- stresses from the residual stresses obtained in Eqs. (26)–(28).
eter 𝛽 and its’ initial value for each depth below the surface.
1 + 𝜈𝑡 𝑟
𝜎𝑌 −𝑢𝑛 = −𝛽𝜎𝑌 𝜎𝑥𝑅 = 𝜎𝑦𝑅 = 𝜎𝑥𝑟 − 𝜎𝑥𝑟𝑒𝑙 = 𝜎 (31)
(23) 1 − 𝜈𝑡 𝑥
In loading process, the elastic stresses induced by shot impingement The calculated residual stresses in Eq. (31) can only estimate the
were superposed by IRSF. But in unloading phase, the elastic stresses CRSF and unable to predict tensile one. This residual stress profile is ob-
produced due to rebound shots, are applied following the elastic plastic tained for a semi-infinite target part and if applied to a component with
stresses from loading. Therefore, the equivalent elastic stress in unload- specified thickness, then the tensile residual stresses can be determined.
ing is different from loading and can be obtained from Eq. (24). The induced CRSF in a part with certain thickness must be equilibrated
( (( )2 ( )2 ))1∕2 by a bending moment and a tensile force for each in-plane directions. To
𝑒 1 )2 (
𝜎𝑒𝑞− 𝑢𝑛 = 𝜎𝑥𝑒𝑠 − 𝜎𝑦𝑒𝑠 + 𝜎𝑥𝑒𝑠 − 𝜎𝑧𝑒𝑠 + 𝜎𝑧𝑒𝑠 − 𝜎𝑦𝑒𝑠 neutralize the non-equilibrium effect of CRSF, a tensile force Fx and a
2 bending moment Mx in x direction and Fy and My in y direction must be
= ||𝜎𝑥𝑒𝑠 − 𝜎𝑧𝑒𝑠 || (24) applied. Because the forces Fx and Fy and also the moments Mx and My
per unit length of the target part are equal, so we just focus on x direc-
Also, the equivalent elastic–plastic strain at unloading is determined tion. Using the equilibrium equations, the tensile force per unit length
differently than in Eq. (15). So, the equivalent plastic strain considering 𝐹̄ x and the bending moment per unit length 𝑀 ̄ x can be determined as
the Bauschinger effect can be calculated as: [35]:
ℎ
𝜀𝑝𝑒𝑞−𝑢𝑛 = 𝜓(𝜀𝑒𝑠 𝑝
𝑒𝑞−𝑢𝑛 − (𝜎𝑒𝑞 − 𝜎𝑌 −𝑢𝑛 )∕𝐸𝑡 ) 𝜀𝑒𝑠 𝑝
𝑒𝑞−𝑢𝑛 > (𝜎𝑒𝑞 − 𝜎𝑌 −𝑢𝑛 )∕𝐸𝑡 𝐹̄𝑥 = ∫0 𝜎(𝑥𝑅 (𝑧)𝑑𝑧)
̄ ℎ ℎ (32)
(25) 𝑀𝑥 = ∫ 0 2
− 𝑧 𝜎 𝑅 (𝑧)𝑑𝑧
𝑥

Where, 𝜀𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑞−𝑢𝑛 is the equivalent elastic strain induced by shot impact The stresses created by the force and moment that are mentioned in
and is calculated by dividing equivalent elastic strain from Eq. (24) by Eq. (32) can be found from Eq. (33) as:
𝑝 ( )
elastic modulus of target media. Also, 𝜎𝑒𝑞 can be calculated by substi- 12𝑀
𝑝
tuting 𝜀𝑒𝑞−𝑙 obtained from Eq. (15) into Eq. (16). 𝜎𝑀𝑥 (𝑧) = ℎ3 𝑥 ℎ2 − 𝑧
(33)
After shot rebounding, the final stresses are calculated from plastic 𝜎𝐹 𝑥 = ℎ1 𝐹𝑥
strains if equivalent elastic stress exceeds the yield strength of unload-
Finally, the residual stress distribution in plastic region of peened
ing which is calculated in Eq. (23) using the Bauschinger effect factor.
surface is determined from Eq. (34). This region for the case of IRSF
In this case, the procedure of calculating the deviatoric stresses after re-
includes both compressive and tensile peening residual stresses. Due to
serve yielding is the same as loading. Hence, the deviatoric stresses can
existence of IRSF, the tensile residual stresses induced beneath the com-
be obtained as Eqs. (26) and (27) for linear and power law hardening
pressive ones can be determined as Eq. (35).
models, respectively.
𝑝 𝜎𝑥𝑟𝑒𝑠 (𝑧) = 𝜎𝑦𝑟𝑒𝑠 (𝑧) = 𝜎𝑥𝑅 (𝑧) + 𝜎𝐹 𝑥 + 𝜎𝑀𝑥 (𝑧) For 𝑧 < 𝑧𝑏 (34)
𝜎 2𝐾𝐿 𝜀𝑝𝑥−𝑢𝑛 𝜎𝑒𝑞 − 𝜎𝑌 −𝑢𝑛
𝜎𝑥𝑟 = 𝑆𝑥−𝑢𝑛 = 𝑌 −𝑢𝑛 + 𝜀𝑒𝑠
𝑒𝑞−𝑢𝑛 > (26)
3 3 𝐸𝑡
𝜎𝑥𝑟𝑒𝑠 (𝑧) = 𝜎𝑦𝑟𝑒𝑠 (𝑧) = 𝜎0𝑅 (𝑧) + 𝜎𝐹 𝑥 + 𝜎𝑀𝑥 (𝑧) For 𝑧 > 𝑧𝑏 (35)
𝑝
𝜎 𝐾 ( )𝑚 𝜎𝑒𝑞 − 𝜎𝑌 −𝑢𝑛
𝜎𝑥𝑟 = 𝑆𝑥−𝑢𝑛 = 𝑌 −𝑢𝑛 + 𝑃 2𝜀𝑝𝑥−𝑢𝑛 𝜀𝑒𝑠
𝑒𝑞−𝑢𝑛 > (27) where, the depth zb is the positive root of equation𝜀𝑒𝑠
𝑒𝑞−𝑢𝑛 (𝑧) − 𝜀𝑌 (𝑧) +
3 3 𝐸𝑡
𝜎0 (𝑧)∕𝐸𝑡 = 0. So in similar conditions, the value of zb for the case with
where the plastic strain in x direction, 𝜀𝑝𝑥−𝑢𝑛 , is equal to half the equiva- initial tensile stresses is greater than that for the case with initial com-
lent plastic strain based on incompressibility assumption. Since the slope pressive stresses. Using Eqs. (34) and (35) the full depth residual stress
of stress strain curve in loading and unloading is different, the constants profile induced by shot peening with the effects of IRSF and hardness
of hardening models are not considered identical. variation can be calculated.

174
K. Sherafatnia et al.
Table 1
Chemical composition of DIN 1.6582 steel.
C Si S P Mn
% 0.368 0.306 0.022 0.016 0.610
Fig. 2. Dimensions of the test specimens in mm: (a) tensile specimen, (b) tension com-
pression specimen, and (c) prepared tensile and tension compression test specimens.
3. Experimental work
3.1. Material and specimens geometry
The investigations were carried out on samples made from DIN
1.6582 (34CrNiMo6) hot rolled steel with the chemical composition
given in Table 1. This type of material is widely used in automotive
and oil and gas industries. The samples used in grinding and shot peen-
ing processes were machined to the form of rectangular cube with di-
mensions of 60 mm × 60 mm × 10 mm (thickness). The tensile test speci-
mens and tension–compression test specimens were prepared according
to the dimensions described in ASTM E8M [36] and ASTM E606 [37],
respectively, as shown in Fig. 2. It is noted that all the specimens were
cut from a round bar of DIN 1.6582 hot rolled steel with diameter of
85 mm.
The near surface residual stresses of samples were measured as negli-
gible. To determine standard tensile properties, monotonic tensile tests
were performed by SANTAM universal test machine, STM-400 series.
Fig. 3. True stress–strain curve of DIN 1.6582 steel obtained by: (a) monotonic tensile test and (b) tension-compression test for three strain ranges of 1.2%, 2% and 5%.
175
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 137 (2018) 171–181
Ni Cr Mo V Al Cu
1.401 1.312 0.229 0.037 0.034 0.080
Fig. 3(a) shows the stress–strain curve obtained from tensile testing
of the specimens. The mechanical properties of the used alloy are ob-
tained from Fig. 3(a) as: yield strength of 531 MPa, ultimate tensile
stress of 787 MPa and elastic modulus of 215 GPa. Moreover, tension–
compression tests were carried out to evaluate the Bauschinger ef-
fect in reserve yielding and hardening behavior in unloading. Tension–
compression tests were conducted at various strain amplitudes in a servo
hydraulic fatigue-testing machine (Instron 8503) with a maximum ca-
pacity of 600 kN. The first cycles of cyclic tension–compression tests un-
der controlled-strain condition are shown in Fig. 3(b) for strain ranges
of 1.2%, 2% and 5%.
3.2. Rough grinding and shot peening tests
In order to verify the analytical results of shot peening residual
stresses, experiments were conducted on DIN 1.6582 alloy steel spec-
imens. The specimens were manufactured to perform grinding and shot
peeing as mentioned in Section 3.1. The grinding experiment was car-
ried out under dry conditions using the silicon carbide grinding wheel
with diameter of 185 mm and width of 50 mm. The depth of cut was
80 μm in each pass at a table speed of 34 mm/s and a grinding wheel
speed of 2340 rpm. Grinding was completed when the total depth of cut
attained was 0.4 mm.
Shot peening was performed on DIN 1.6582 steel samples using S230
steel shots with an average diameter of 0.6 mm and impact angle of
about 90°. The ground and as-received samples were shot peened with
Almen intensity of 12A, air pressure of 5 bar and nozzle diameter of
6 mm under full coverage condition as seen in Fig. 4. Moreover, the
values of shot velocity at a nozzle were measured between 45 m/s and
60 m/s.
3.3. Residual stress and micro-hardness measurement
Residual stress profile produced by shot peening and grinding were
measured by the X-ray diffraction (XRD) and the incremental center hole
drilling (ICHD) methods. The CRSF at the sample surface and at depth
of 20 microns were measured by XRD method. The equipment used is
a Stress tech Group’s Xstress 3000 G2/G2R X-ray Stress Analyzer with
K. Sherafatnia et al.
Fig. 4. Illustrations of (a) As-received sample (AR), (b) ground sample (G), (c) shot peened
sample (SP) and (d) ground sample after shot peening (GSP). Dimensions of SP and GSP
samples are similar to AR and G samples, respectively.
Fig. 5. Residual stress determination using incremental hole drilling technique, (a) Shot
peened specimen during drilling the hole, (b) attached rosette with the drilled hole.
Cr K𝛼 radiation, irradiated area of 4 mm diameter, sin2 𝜓 method and
diffraction angle of (2𝜃) ∼156° scanned between 45° and −45°.
In the ICHD method a hole in a component is drilled gradually and
the removed volume causes the locked-in stress to release [38]. The
algorithm used to determine the residual stress field from measure-
ment of the released strain is based on the Nikulari and Flavenot work
[38]. The released strain is created due to drilling of a small hole at
the center of the strain gage rosette. ICHD was performed using the
RS-200 milling equipment supplied by Vishay Precision Group with
an ultra-high speed air turbine and a tungsten carbide cutter of diameter
0.8 mm. Released strains were measured using EA-06-031RE-120 strain
gauges made by Vishay Company. Because of existence of Strain gauge
on the sample surface during drilling, depth of the first step drilling may
be measured with a little error. Since the first point of strain measuring
in CHD is not reliable, so data measured in XRD were used instead of
CHD ones in the above mentioned algorithm. In addition, ICHD method
is not able to measure the residual stress in the surface. Hence, its value
is measured by using the x-ray method. The shot peened sample of DIN
1.6582 steel with attached strain gauge is shown in Fig. 5. According to
the ASTM E837 standard [39], in specimens with a thickness of more
than 1.2 hole diameter, if the residual stress magnitude is less than 80%
of the material’s local yield strength, residual stresses can be accurately
obtained by incremental hole drilling. If the residual stresses are close to
local yield strength, the plasticity effect can cause errors [40]. For exam-
176
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 137 (2018) 171–181
ple, an overestimation of about 15% [41] and 20% [42] have been re-
ported by researchers in stress determination for residual stresses reach-
ing respectively 70% and 90% of the local yield strength. According to
the above descriptions, the measurement error range of hole-drilling
method is specified in the results.
In addition to IRSF, micro-hardness profile of the ground sample is
measured by a diamond Vickers indenter. Micro-hardness profile along
the depth is an important surface integrity characteristic that could be
a good representative for the material properties. Micro-hardness mea-
surement was performed with 100 gf load and 15 s dwell time along the
depth of the ground sample. The measured values of micro-hardness
along the depth of the ground surface are presented in Table 2. It is
noted that each data point in Table 2 is obtained by averaging of three
measurements.
4. Results and discussion
In this paper, the effect of the IRSF as well as the material properties
change on the residual stress distribution of the shot peening has been
evaluated. In this model, the influence of initial equi-biaxial residual
stresses and primary near surface mechanical properties such as hard-
ness distribution in depth are taken into account. For this purpose, the
simple mechanical approach proposed by Li et al. [20] was developed
considering the different hardening models, Bauschinger effect and also
the effects of IRSF and material properties changes produced by pri-
mary surface treatments. Also, In order to model the real unloading,
the Bauschinger effect and hardening parameters of unloading different
with loading are incorporated to our analytical model.
4.1. Material parameters
The analytical approach presented in Section 2 is used to determine
shot peening residual stresses of the ground sample of DIN 1.6582 steel
and welded sample of 5083 H11 Al-alloy with IRSF. Also, quenched and
tempered AISI 4140 steel as well as DIN 1.6582 hot rolled steel is uti-
lized to perform analytic study on initial conditions of pretreatments.
The mechanical properties of the DIN 1.6582 steel can be derived from
tensile test and given in Table 3. Moreover, steel shots with elastic mod-
ulus of 188 GPa, Poisson ratio of 0.32 and mass density of 7830 kg/m3
are used in our analytical model.
The coefficients of Linear and Ludwick–Hollomon power law hard-
ening models for loading and unloading have been obtained by curve
fitting on the experimental data of Fig. 3 as given in Table 3. It should
be noted that the hardening coefficients in loading and unloading are
obtained from tensile test and tension–compression test for strain ampli-
tude of 2.5%, respectively. Also, the coefficients of Bauschinger factor
used in Eq. (21) can be determined from Fig. 3(b) using reserve yield
strengths with 0.2% offset for three strain amplitudes of 0.6%, 1% and
2.5%. The above mentioned coefficients are tabulated in Table 3. The
comparison between experimental measurements and analytical predic-
tions of stress-strain curve of DIN 1.6582 in tension compression test
for three different strain amplitudes is shown in Fig. 6. From Fig. 6,
it is obvious that the power-law hardening model follow the trend of
experimental data much better than Linear hardening model.
Mechanical properties of 5083 H11 Al-alloy have been reported as
the elastic modulus of 72 GPa and poison ratio of 0.3. Also, thickness
of the peened welded specimens was considered as 10 mm [16]. The
plastic characteristics of this Al-alloy can be found from stress strain
curve which have been presented in Ref. [43]. From the monotonic
stress strain curve, the yield strength and hardening coefficients of 5083
H11 Al-ally are determined as given in Table 3. Because there is no data
for reserve yielding of target material, the hardening coefficients of un-
loading process are considered similar to loading process and the re-
serve yield strength is estimated by different values of 𝛽 in Eq. (23). As
explained later in Section 4.2.2, the most appropriate value for 𝛽 is 0.7.
K. Sherafatnia et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 137 (2018) 171–181

Table 2
Measured values of micro-hardness below the ground surface.

Depth (μm) Vickers hardness (Kg/mm2 ) Depth (μm) Vickers hardness (Kg/mm2 )

0 528 140 259

20 502 160 251
40 446 180 244
60 379 200 242
80 327 240 242
100 298 280 242
120 278

Table 3
Material parameters used in the analytical calculations.

Din 1.6582 5083 H11 AISI 4140 (Q&T)

Et (GPa) 215 72 210

𝜈t 0.3 0.3 0.28
𝜎 Y (MPa) 531 188 1250
𝜌t (kg/m3 ) 7800 2700 7800
kl (GPa) loading 3.5 1.8 3.9
unloading 9.6 1.8 12
kp (GPa) loading 0.4 0.52 0.38
unloading 1.8 0.52 2.8
m loading 0.39 0.48 0.22
unloading 0.35 0.48 0.4
𝛽 constants a1 −0.9 −0.3 −0.58
a2 8 ∞ 4.3
a3 0.38 0 0.3

Fig. 7. Measured initial conditions induced by rough grinding process and curve fitting
function at near surface depths.

Fig. 6. Comparison of the experimental measurement and analytical prediction of stress–
strain curve of Din 1.6582 steel for different strain amplitudes.
The material parameters of quenched and tempered AISI 4140 which
used in parametric study are listed in Table 3. These parameters are de-
rived from tension–compression test data at different strain amplitudes
and tensile test data, which have been measured experimentally by Kle-
menz et al. [44].
4.2. Experimental validation of the analytical model
In order to validate the analytical results, two types of IRSF are con-
sidered. The residual stresses which induced by shot peening after weld-
ing and rough grinding are obtained analytically and compared to exper-
imental measurements. To investigate the case of welding before shot
peening, the experimental results of Sidhom et al. [16] is used. Sidhom
and his colleagues [16] measured residual stress profiles of 5083 H11
Al-alloy T-welded joints induced by first welding and then shot peening.
4.2.1. Initial conditions induced by rough grinding
In order to investigate the effect of equi-biaxial IRSF produced by
surface pretreatments on the shot peening CRSF, grinding surface treat-
ment is chosen before shot peening process. Rough grinding was car-
ried out at a table speed of 2 m/min, a cutting depth of 0.08 mm in
each step and wheel speed of 22.6 m/s. Other properties of samples and
grinding process were explained in Section 3.2. The residual stress pro-
file induced by rough grinding is measured using hole drilling method
for in-depth points and X-Ray method for two points at depth of 20 and
40 μm. The measured IRSF of grinding are plotted in Fig. 7. The me-
chanical properties of the material at near surface layers change due to
high temperature during rough grinding process. To consider these ef-
fects, micro hardness profile of the ground sample is measured using a
diamond Vickers indenter as shown in Fig. 7.
The rough ground sample of DIN 1.6582 steel was shot peened to in-
duce a symmetric residual stress distribution. The following shot peen-
ing parameters were used: Almen intensity of 12A, S230 shots with di-
ameter of 0.6 mm and coverage of 100%. Also, shot velocity is consid-
ered as 57 m/s by using the trend of Almen intensity with shot velocity
and shot diameter described in Ref. [6].
In order to import the experimental data of IRSF and primary yield
stress variation (YSV) into the analytical calculations, the experimental
measurements should be model by a theoretical function. For this pur-
pose, the IRSF induced by grinding and the measured micro-hardness
profile are estimated by polynomial functions. It should be noted
that the YSV was calculated using the measured data of Table 2 and
Eq. (6) with 𝜎𝑌𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 = 531 𝑀𝑃 𝑎 and 𝐻𝑉𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 = 242 𝐾𝑔 ∕𝑚𝑚2 . The measured
data and estimated functions obtained using curve fitting method are
shown in Fig. 7. The polynomial functions used to define IRSF and YSV
can be determined as in Eqs. (36) and (37), respectively. In these equa-
tions, dimensions of stress and depth are in MPa and micrometer, re-
spectively.
𝜎0 (𝑧) = 686 − 2.87 𝑧 + 3 × 10−3 𝑧2 For 𝑧 < 467 μm
(36)
𝜎0 ( 𝑧 ) = 0 For 𝑧 > 467 μm
𝜎𝑌 (𝑧) = 1198 − 7.25 𝑧 + 1.96 × 10−2 𝑧2 For 𝑧 < 200 μm
(37)
𝜎𝑌 (𝑧) = 531 For 𝑧 > 200 μm

177
K. Sherafatnia et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 137 (2018) 171–181

Fig. 8. Comparison between measured and analytical results of residual stress distribution
Fig. 9. The effects of initial stresses and yield strength variation produced by rough grind-
induced by shot peening on (a) rough ground sample and (b) as-received sample.
ing on peening residual stresses for, (a) Linear and (b) power-law hardening models.

Residual stresses induced by shot peening with the effects of IRSF

and near surface variations of hardness due to rough grinding are calcu-
lated for two hardening models. Using the present analytical approach,
the compressive and tensile residual stress distribution for linear and
Ludwick–Hollomon power-law hardening models are calculated as de-
picted in Fig. 8(a). It can be observed from Fig. 8(a) that the analytical
results are in good agreement with the experimental measurements. The
difference between profiles highlights the importance of using the suit-
able hardening model in elastic–plastic analysis. As seen in this figure,
the magnitudes of IRSF due to rough grinding in x and y directions are
approximately close together. So, the equi-biaxial initial stress state can
be utilized in this case.
Also to compare the present results of CRSF with experimental data,
the residual stresses induced by shot peening without any pretreatments
are measured using hole drilling method and X-ray diffraction method
as mentioned in Section 3.3. Shot peening is carried out on as-received
sample with same conditions applied to the ground sample. The analyt-
ical results and experimental measurements of the CRSF with no initial
conditions are depicted in Fig. 8(b). In addition to experimental mea-
surements, the present results are compared to analytical results of Li
et al. [20] and Sherafatnia et al. [25] in Fig. 8(b). The CRSF obtained
from Li’s et al. model [20] is obtained for dimple diameter of 0.23 mm
and loading force of 94 N. It can be deduced from Fig. 8(b) that the
present approach with the initial stress value of zero and no hardness
change is reliable and its results agree well with the experimental data.
Also, the profiles using Ludwick–Hollomon and Armstrong–Frederick
hardening models could predict CRSF better than the profiles using lin-
ear hardening model and Li’s model.
To know well the influence of the IRSF and the change of material
properties created by surface pretreatments on peening residual stresses,
the residual stress profiles are calculated by considering the effect of
each factor, separately. Hence, the residual stress distribution induced
by shot peening are determined once by considering the IRSF and with
no change on primary yield stress and again by considering the variation
of near surface YSV by applying zero initial stresses. Fig. 9 shows the
influence of each factor induced by primary grinding process on shot
peening CRSF for linear and power-law hardening models.
As seen from Fig. 9, it can be deduced that the effect of the hard-
ness change due to the rapid temperature change of surface created by
the previous surface treatment is more tangible on the peening CRSF.
The IRSF only can affect the magnitude of compressive residual stresses
away from the surface as well as the tensile ones. It should be noted
that the near surface hardness variation can be applied two modifica-
tions to peening residual stresses as following: (1) changing the primary
yield stress distribution at a certain interval from the surface, and (2)
changing the plastic indentation radius described in Eq. (13). Also, the
results obtained by using the Ludwick–Hollomon hardening model are
more consistent with experiments.
4.2.2. Initial conditions induced by welding
The T-welded specimens were shot peened under the following con-
ditions: Almen intensity of 16–20 A, steel shots with diameter of 0.8 mm,
coverage of 125% and an angle of impingement of about 90° . In analyt-
ical model, the Almen intensity is considered the average of 16 and 20
which have been reported by Sidhom et al. [16]. Also, shot velocity can
be calculated from the data reported by Guagliano et al. [6]. Therefore,
Almen intensity of 18 A (0.45 mm) and shot diameter of 0.8 mm are lead
to the shot velocity of 80 m/s. The IRSF produced by MIG-welding pro-
cess is incorporated in analytical model by a linear function as given in
Eq. (38). The linear function defining IRSF in both x and y directions, is
obtained from experimental measurements [16] as depicted in Fig. 10.
It can be seen in Fig. 10 that the IRSF in x and y directions are almost

178
K. Sherafatnia et al.
Fig. 10. Experimental and analytical redistributions of welding initial stresses induced
by shot peening along the depth for various values of the Bauschinger factor.
Fig. 11. Residual stress distributions induced by shot peening on welded sample with and
without effects of the initial conditions.
equal and so the equi-biaxial condition can be used for this problem.
𝜎0 (𝑧) = 32 𝑀𝑃 𝑎 For 𝑧 < 1.2 𝑚𝑚
The change of mechanical properties of near surface layers can be
estimated with the help of micro-hardness profile in depth. So, using
the micro-hardness profile of the T-welded joint from Ref. [16], the
YSV can be calculated. Measured micro-hardness varies from the sur-
face to a depth of about 300 μm and in more depths is practically con-
stant. The YSV can be estimated by micro-hardness data using Eq. (6).
In Eq. (6) 𝜎𝑌𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 is 188 MPa and 𝐻𝑉𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 is about 80 Kg/mm2 . Therefore
the YSV can be estimated as a function of depth between the surface
and 300 μm depth. Eq. (39) is obtained with curve fitting a polynomial
function to a set of experimental data points.
𝜎𝑌 (𝑧) = 134 − 0.33 𝑧 + 1.7 × 10−3 𝑧2 For 𝑧 < 300 μm
𝜎𝑌 (𝑧) = 188 For 𝑧 > 300 μm
where dimension of 𝜎 Y is Mpa and dimension of z is μm.
The CRSF of T-welded joints after shot peening is determined analyt-
ically using power-law hardening model for four values of Bauschinger
coefficient 𝛽 in Fig. 10. In this figure, it can be seen that more values of
Bauschinger coefficient lead to higher maximum compressive residual
stress without tangible change in surface residual stress and depth of
CRSF. The residual stress distribution obtained for 𝛽 = 0.7 gives the best
matching solution between four values of 𝛽.
The residual stresses determined with and without considering the
initial conditions, are compared to experimental results in Fig. 11. The
differences between CRSF observed in Fig. 11 were created at near sur-
face layers due to the effect of both IRSF and hardness variation. Also,
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 137 (2018) 171–181
Fig. 12. Comparison between experimental and analytical distributions of residual stress
along the depth for as-received sample of quenched and tempered AISI 4140 steel.
the differences can be seen in tensile residual stresses beneath the com-
pressive layer, because of the existence of initial tensile stresses. The re-
sults of utilizing linear and power law hardening models for the 𝛽 value
of 0.7 are also compared in Fig. 11. Comparing analytical results with
experimental measurements, shows that the proposed model enables to
predict residual stresses induced by shot peening with the effect of IRSF.
4.3. Parametric study
In this section, a parametric study is presented to illustrate the in-
fluence of relevant variables of pretreatment initial conditions on shot
peening CRSF. To do this, linear distribution of initial equi-biaxial
stresses and yield stress with different descending slopes are utilized.
Considering the mentioned initial conditions, the CRSF induced by shot
peening on plates of AISI 4140 steel in a quenched and tempered state
are determined analytically by using shot diameter of 1 mm, shot veloc-
ity of 40 m/s and coverage of 100%.
The analytical results without any surface pretreatments are com-
pared with the results obtained from Li et al.’s model [20] as well as
experimental measurements of Holzapfel et al. [45] for corresponding
shot peening parameters in Fig. 12. The CRSF of Li’s et al. model [20] is
(38)
determined using the loading force of 155 N and shot diameter of 1 mm.
Shot peening parameters used in experiment of Holzapfel et al. [45] are
S330 steel shots, shot mass flow rate of 15 kg/min and peening pressure
of 1.6 bar. Furthermore, target part is a plate of quenched and tempered
AISI 4140 steel with thickness of 40 mm.
The IRSF created due to surface pretreatments are considered lin-
early distributed along the depth as shown in Fig. 13. Shot peening CRSF
for four types of initial equi-biaxial stress distribution is determined us-
ing power-law hardening model. Fig. 13(a) and (b) show the residual
stresses induced by shot peening on an AISI 4140 plate with thickness
of 40 mm and 6 mm, respectively. Also, full-depth residual stress distri-
bution for samples of AISI 4140 and DIN 1.6582 with thickness of 3 mm
(39) and 10 mm is drawn in Fig. 14(a) and (b), respectively. Shot peening
parameters used for determining the results of Figs. 13 and 14 are the
same as mentioned above.
It is obvious from Fig. 13 that with the increase of initial tensile
stresses the surface and maximum CRSF are decreased for all samples.
Also, by increasing the magnitude of initial tensile stresses, the depth
of CRSF of samples with 40 mm thickness is decreased while that of
samples with 6 mm thickness is increased. The increase of depth of CRSF
in 6 mm sample thickness happens due to high values of equilibrium
stresses created by the tensile force and bending moment that described
in Section 2.4. It can be deduced that initial tensile stresses increase
the depth of CRSF induced by shot peening in thin plates. As seen from
Fig. 14, the maximum compressive residual stress for AISI 4140 steel is
greater than that for DIN 1.6582 steel because of the higher value of
179
K. Sherafatnia et al.
Fig. 13. Redistributions of residual stress profile of Q&T AISI 4140 steel by shot peening
for various distributions of IRSF on samples with (a) 40 mm thickness and (b) 6 mm
thickness.
Fig. 14. Analytical predictions of full depth residual stress redistribution induced by shot
peening with considering IRSF for sample thickness of, (a) 3 mm and (b) 10 mm.
180
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 137 (2018) 171–181
Fig. 15. Redistributions of residual stress profile of AISI 4140 and DIN 1.6582 steel by
shot peening for various yield strength distributions on a sample with 40 mm thickness.
yield strength in AISI 4140 steel. Also, the lower value of yield strength
in sample of DIN 1.6582 steel leads to the greater value of the depth of
CRSF.
In order to evaluate the influence of the change of material properties
due to surface pretreatments on shot peening CRSF, four types of YSV
near the surface are considered as depicted in Fig. 15. The shot peening
residual stress field with primary YSV is obtained analytically in Fig. 15.
The residual stress profiles are plotted in Fig. 15 for target materials
of AISI 4140 and DIN 1.6582 with the same shot peening parameters
(1 mm shot diameter and 40 m/s shot velocity).
The hardness variation or YSV due to surface treatments is created at
a low depth from surface. So, it only effects on near surface CRSF of tar-
get material. From Fig. 15, it can be seen that as the initial distribution
of yield stress increases from bulk material to surface, the compressive
residual stress increases. The increase of compressive residual stress val-
ues of AISI 4140 steel is more than that of DIN 1.6582 steel, because of
the higher value of yield stress in quenched and tempered AISI 4140.
By comparing the results of Figs. 13 and 15, it can be deduced that the
effect of YSV in the region down to 200 μm on compressive residual
stresses is more than the effect of IRSF.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, an analytical approach is proposed to determine resid-
ual stresses induced by shot peening with considering conditions of pre-
vious treatments. The present model is capable of capturing both the
equi-biaxial IRSF and the hardness variation of the near surface layers.
Moreover, the effect of different hardening models in loading and un-
loading on final residual stresses is investigated. In order to validate the
results, surface treatment of rough grinding and fabrication process of
welding are evaluated as case studies. Analytical predictions are com-
pared with experimental results obtained using X-ray diffraction and
hole drilling method on DIN 1.6582 hot rolled steel and also with ex-
periments of Sidhom et al. [16]. The comparison indicates that the out-
comes of present study are in good agreement with experimental mea-
surements. The results can be outlined as:
• Shape and magnitudes of the shot peening CRSF considering initial
conditions which obtained analytically are in good accordance with
the experimental measurements.
• The effect of the hardness variation at near surface layers due to
previous treatments on shot peening CRSF is significant and ignoring
it can make a considerable error.
• Initial tensile stress field increases the depth of CRSF in samples with
low thickness and decreases that in thick samples.
• As the hardness values produced by surface pretreatment increases,
the maximum and surface compressive residual stresses increase.
K. Sherafatnia et al.
• In addition to CRSF, the tensile residual stresses created beneath the
compressive layer could be estimated well by the present model.
• The results obtained by using power-law hardening model follow
better the trend of the measurements compared to using the linear
hardening model.
• The higher value of yield strength of the target material leads to
greater value of the maximum compressive residual stress and lower
value of the depth of the CRSF.
•
The experimental measurements indicate that shot peening of the
rough ground sample is able to change the maximum compressive
residual stress and the depth of CRSF by increasing about 15% and
7%, respectively, compared to shot peening of the as-received sam-
ple.
References
[1] Miao HY, Demers D, Larose S, Perron C, Lévesque M. Experimental study of shot
peening and stress peen forming. J Mater Process Technol 2010;210:2089–102.
[2] Kim T, Lee H, Jung S, Lee JH. A 3D FE model with plastic shot for evaluation
of equi-biaxial peening residual stress due to multi-impacts. Surf Coat Technol
2012;206:3125–36.
[3] Xie L, Wang C, Wang L, Wang Z, Jiang C, Lu W, Ji V. Numerical analysis and exper-
imental validation on residual stress distribution of titanium matrix composite after
shot peening treatment. Mech Mater 2016;99:2–8.
[4] Badreddine J, Rouhaud E, Micoulaut M, Remy S. Simulation of shot dynamics for ul-
trasonic shot peening: effects of process parameters. Int J Mech Sci 2014;82:179–90.
[5] Gariépy A, Miao HY, Lévesque M. Simulation of the shot peening process with vari-
able shot diameters and impacting velocities. Adv Eng Softw 2017;114:121–33.
[6] Guagliano M. Relating Almen intensity to residual stresses induced by shot peening:
a numerical approach. J Mater Process Technol 2001;110:277–86.
[7] Farrahi GH, Lebrun JL, Couratin D. Effect of shot peening on residual stress and
fatigue life of spring steel. Fatigue Fract Engg Mater Struct 1995;18:21–120.
[8] Bhuvaraghan B, Srinivasan SM, Maffeo B. Numerical simulation of Almen
strip response due to random impacts with strain-rate effects. Int J Mech Sci
2011;53:417–24.
[9] Gangaraj SMH, Guagliano M, Farrahi GH. An approach to relate shot peening finite
element simulation to the actual coverage. Surf Coat Technol 2014;243:39–45.
[10] Farrahi GH, Majzoobi GH, Hosseinzadeh F, Harati SM. Experimental evaluation of
the effect of residual stress field on crack growth behaviour in C(T) specimen. Eng
Fract Mech 2006;73:1772–82.
[11] Torres MAS, Voorwald HJC. An evaluation of shot peening, residual stress and stress
relaxation on the fatigue life of AISI 4340 steel. Int J Fatigue 2002;24:877–86.
[12] Tekeli S. Enhancement of fatigue strength of SAE 9245 steel by shot peening. Mater
Lett 2002;57:604–8.
[13] Mahmoudi AH, Ghasemi A, Farrahi GH, Sherafatnia K. A comprehensive experimen-
tal and numerical study on redistribution of residual stresses by shot peening. Mater
Des 2016;90:478–87.
[14] Hatamleh O, DeWald A. An investigation of the peening effects on the residual
stresses in friction stir welded 2195 and 7075 aluminum alloy joints. J Mater Process
Technol 2009;209:4822–9.
[15] Molzen MS, Hornbach D. Evaluation of welding residual stress levels through shot
peening and heat treating, in:, SAE technical paper 2000-01-2564, 2000.
[16] Sidhom N, Laamouri A, Fathallah R, Braham C, Lieurade HP. Fatigue strength im-
provement of 5083 H11 Al-alloy T-welded joints by shot peening: experimental char-
acterization and predictive approach. Int J Fatigue 2005;27:729–45.
[17] Guechichi H, Castex L, Frelat J, Inglebert G. Predicting residual stresses due to shot
peening. In: Proceedings of the tenth conference on shot peening (CETIM-ITI). Senlis,
France; 1986. p. 23–34.
[18] Khabou MT, Castex L, Inglebert G. Effect of material behaviour law on the theoretical
shot peening results. Eur J Mech A/Solids 1990;9:537–49.
[19] Fathallah R, Inglebert G, Castex L. Modelling of shot peening residual stresses and
plastic deformation induced in metallic parts. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Interna-
tional Conference on Shot Peening (ICSP6). San Francisco, USA; 1996. p. 464–73.
181
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 137 (2018) 171–181
[20] Li JK, Mei Y, Duo W, Renzhi W. Mechanical approach to the residual stress field
induced by shot peening. Mater Sci Eng A 1991;147:167–73.
[21] Shen S, Atluri SN. An analytical model for shot-peening induced residual stresses.
Comput Mater Contin 2006;4:75–85.
[22] Bhuvaraghan B, Srinivasan SM, Maffeo B, Prakash O. Analytical solution for single
and multiple impacts with strain-rate effects for shot peening. CMES - Comput Model
Eng Sci 2010;57:137–58.
[23] Franchim AS, Campos VSD, Travessa DN, Neto CDM. Analytical modelling for resid-
ual stresses produced by shot peening. Mater Des 2009;30:1556–60.
[24] Miao HY, Larose S, Perron C, Levesque M. An analytical approach to relate shot
peening parameters to Almen intensity. Surf Coat Technol 2010;205:2055–66.
[25] Sherafatnia K, Farrahi GH, Mahmoudi AH, Ghasemi A. Experimental measurement
and analytical determination of shot peening residual stresses considering friction
and real unloading behavior. Mater Sci Eng A 2016;657:309–21.
[26] Wang J, Han J, Li W, Yang Z, Li Z, Zhao Y. Analytical modelling of shot-peening
residual stress on welding carbon steel surface layer. J Wuhan Univ Technol Mater
Sci Ed 2016;31:1352–62.
[27] Noh S, Choi B-K, Han C-H, Kang SH, Jang J, Jeong Y-H, Kim TK. Effects of heat
treatments on microstructures and mechanical properties of dual phase ods steels
for high temperature strength. Nucl Eng Technol 2013;45:821–6.
[28] Higgy HR, Hammad FH. Effect of fast-neutron irradiation on mechanical properties
of stainless steels: AISI types 304, 316 and 347. J Nucl Mater 1975;55:177–86.
[29] Busby JT, Hash MC, Was GS. The relationship between hardness and yield stress in
irradiated austenitic and ferritic steels. J Nucl Mater 2005;336:267–78.
[30] Tiryakioğlu M. On the relationship between Vickers hardness and yield stress in
Al–Zn–Mg–Cu alloys. Mater Sci Eng A 2015;633:17–19.
[31] Nobre JP, Dias AM, Kornmeier M. An empirical methodlogy to estimate a local yield
stress in work-hardened surface layers. Exp Mech 2004;44:76–84.
[32] Hutchings IM. Energy absorbed by elastic waves during plastic impact. J Phys D
Appl Phys 1979;12:1819–24.
[33] Reed J. Energy losses due to elastic wave propagation during an elastic impact. J
Phys D Appl Phys 1985;18:2329–37.
[34] Farrahi GH, Hosseinian E, Assempour A. On the material modeling of the autofret-
taged pressure vessel steels. J Press Vessel Technol 2009;131:051403.
[35] Al-Hassani STS. Shot peening of metals, mechanics and structures, SAE technical
paper 821452, 1982, 4513–4525.
[36] ASTM E8/E8M-09. Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metal-
lic Materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2009.
doi:10.1520/E0008_E0008M-09.
[37] ASTM E606/E606M-12. Standard Test Method for Strain-Controlled
Fatigue Testing. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2012.
doi:10.1520/E0606_E0606M-12.
[38] Niku-Lari A, Lu J, Flavenot JF. Measurement of residual-stress distribution by the
incremental hole-drilling method. J Mech Work Technol 1985;11:167–88.
[39] ASTM E837-13a. Standard Test Method for Determining Residual Stresses by the
Hole-Drilling Strain-Gage Method. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International;
2013. doi:10.1520/E0837.
[40] Nobre J.P., Kornmeier M., Scholtes B. Plasticity effects in the hole-drilling resid-
ual stress measurement in peened surfaces, (Experimental Mechanics, In Press, 17
November 2017). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-017-0352-5.
[41] Beaney EM, Procter E. A critical evaluation of the centre hole technique for the
measurement of residual stresses. Strain 1974;10:7–14.
[42] Beghini M, Bertini L, Raffaelli P. Numerical analysis of plasticity effects
in the hole-drilling residual stress measurement. J Test Eval 1994;22:522–9.
doi:10.1520/JTE11856J.
[43] Benson S, Downes J, Dow RS. Ultimate strength characteristics of aluminium plates
for high-speed vessels. Ships Offshore Struct 2011;6:67–80.
[44] Klemenz M, Schulze V, Rohr I, Löhe D. Application of the FEM for the predic-
tion of the surface layer characteristics after shot peening. J Mater Process Technol
2009;209:4093–102.
[45] Holzapfel H, Wick A, Schulze V, Vöhringer O. Zum Einfluss der Kugelstrahlparam-
eter auf die Randschichteigenschaften vom 42CrMo4 in verschiedenen Wärmebe-
handlungszuständen. Härterei Tech Mitt 1998;53:155–63.