metals
Article
Investigation of the Shot Size Effect on Residual Stresses
through a 2D FEM Model of the Shot Peening Process
Christos Gakias 1, *, Georgios Maliaris 2
Citation: Gakias, C.; Maliaris, G.;
Savaidis, G. Investigation of the Shot
Size Effect on Residual Stresses
through a 2D FEM Model of the Shot
Peening Process. Metals 2022, 12, 956.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
met12060956
Academic Editors: Matteo Benedetti
and Koji Takahashi
Received: 7 April 2022
Accepted: 25 May 2022
Published: 2 June 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Metals 2022, 12, 956. https://doi.org/10.3390/met12060956
and Georgios Savaidis 1
1 Laboratory of Machine Elements & Machine Design, School of Mechanical Engineering,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece; gsavaidis@auth.gr
2 Additive Manufacturing Laboratory, Department of Chemistry, School of Sciences,
International Hellenic University, Aghios Loukas, 65404 Kavala, Greece; gmaliari@chem.ihu.gr
* Correspondence: clgakias@auth.gr; Tel.: +30-2310-996074
Abstract: Shot peening is a surface treatment process commonly used to enhance the fatigue proper-
ties of metallic engineering components. In industry, various types of shots are used, and a common
strategy is to regenerate a portion (approximately up to 35% of the total shot mix weight) of used and
worn shots with new ones of the same type. Shots of the same type do not have a constant diameter,
as it is concluded by experience that the diameter variation is beneficial for fatigue life. The process of
stochasticity raises the difficulty for the application of computational methods, such as finite elements
analysis, for the calculation of pivotal parameters, for instance, the development of the residual stress
field. In the present work, a recently developed plane strain 2D FEM model is used, which has the
capability to consider various shot size distributions. With the aid of this model, it became feasible to
study the effect of the shot-size distribution, its sensitivity, and to draw conclusions considering the
industrial practice of using a mixture with new and worn shots. The diameter of these shot types
differs significantly, and a used shot may have a diameter three times smaller than a new one. As
concluded from the finite element results, which are verified from experimental measurements, a
shot type with a larger diameter causes a wider valley in the stress profile, and the peak stress depth
increases. Alongside the peak stress depth movement, with smaller shots, larger residual stresses
are observed closer to the surface. Thus, the superimposition of many shots with variable diameters
causes the development of a residual stress field with enhanced characteristics. Furthermore, this
residual stress field may be further enhanced by adjusting or increasing the percentage weight of the
used shots, up to ~50%.
Keywords: shot peening; finite element method; modeling; simulation; shot dynamics; residual
stresses; shot distribution
1. Introduction
One of the most frequently used surface treatment procedures for improving the
fatigue resistance of metallic engineering components is shot peening (SP). In this process,
many small particles (shots) are fired at high velocity onto the surface of the processed
part. The impacts plastically deform the surface of the treated component, yielding a
compressive residual stress field at the surface that increases the resistance to fatigue crack
initiation, decreases the crack propagation rate, and may even lead to the prevention of
short cracks [1,2]. On the other hand, the SP process deteriorates the surface roughness
in some cases [3,4], and, therefore, the fatigue life. The interactions between the above-
mentioned effects are well described in [5–8].
The beneficial effect of the SP processes raised the interest of the industry for the
development of processes compatible with the produced components. The large number
of involved variables, such as shot velocity, shot size(s), shot size distribution, shot mate-
rial properties, and impact angle, increase the complexity of the process design and the
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/metals
Metals 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 16

Metals 2022, 12, 956 2 of 16

necessary steps for the implementation of such methods. Because of this fact, industry’s
efforts rely on the experience acquired through experimental work. Although the use of
necessary
simulationsteps modelsforbased
the implementation
on the finite element of such methods.
method couldBecause
provide ofprecious
this fact,insight,
industry’s the
efforts rely on the experience acquired through experimental
large number of shots as well as their interaction with the surface of the processed work. Although the use com-of
simulation models based on the finite element method could provide
ponent raise the computational effort up to very high levels, which seems to be the main precious insight,
the largefactor
limiting number for oftheshots as well as of
development their interaction
simulation with capable
models the surface of the processed
of describing the SP
component
process with good accuracy. In the last decade, the continuous increaseseems
raise the computational effort up to very high levels, which to be the
in computing
main limiting factor for the development of simulation models capable of describing the
power and the emergence of powerful and accurate commercial software helped to de-
SP process with good accuracy. In the last decade, the continuous increase in computing
velop FE models that provide results with enhanced accuracy. Initial efforts focused on
power and the emergence of powerful and accurate commercial software helped to develop
the simulation of single shots on bodies and the formation of the corresponding contact
FE models that provide results with enhanced accuracy. Initial efforts focused on the simu-
stresses as provided in, for example, [9,10]; the work of Zion and Johnston [11], which
lation of single shots on bodies and the formation of the corresponding contact stresses as
introduced a 2D axisymmetric FEM-based simulation model capable of considering vari-
provided in, for example, [9,10]; the work of Zion and Johnston [11], which introduced a 2D
ous shot types; and Al-Hassani et al. [12], who considered multiple shots. Yang et al. [13]
axisymmetric FEM-based simulation model capable of considering various shot types; and
used a 2D plane strain FEA to analyze high coverage and Almen intensity. Extensive in-
Al-Hassani et al. [12], who considered multiple shots. Yang et al. [13] used a 2D plane strain
vestigations followed to further study and model the physical phenomena of multiple
FEA to analyze high coverage and Almen intensity. Extensive investigations followed to
shot impacts at surfaces using either 2D or 3D models [5,6,13–15]. In recent years, FEM-
further study and model the physical phenomena of multiple shot impacts at surfaces
based either
using simulation2D ormodels
3D modelscapable of simulating
[5,6,13–15]. the years,
In recent shot-peening
FEM-based process have been
simulation pro-
models
posed that can explain and predict the correlation between the
capable of simulating the shot-peening process have been proposed that can explain and SP parameters and the
process results. Significant progress regarding the modeling and
predict the correlation between the SP parameters and the process results. Significant simulation of SP pro-
cesses focusing
progress regardingon the
residual stressand
modeling development,
simulation of the
SPresulting
processessurface
focusing roughness,
on residual and the
stress
cold work are described in [16–19].
development, the resulting surface roughness, and the cold work are described in [16–19].
Despite the
Despite the progress
progress made,
made, crucial
crucial questions
questions regarding
regarding thethe elastoplastic
elastoplastic shot
shot material
material
behavior and the influence of shot size distributions have not been
behavior and the influence of shot size distributions have not been adequately addressed. adequately addressed.
Recently, aa 2D
Recently, 2D FEFE model
model hashas been
been developed
developed [20], [20], using
using aa plane
plane strain
strain approach
approach similar
similar
to [13], capable of covering the aforementioned issues with sufficient
to [13], capable of covering the aforementioned issues with sufficient accuracy. It considers accuracy. It consid-
ers elastoplastic
elastoplastic material
material properties
properties forshots
for the the shots andshot
and real real size
shotdistributions,
size distributions, a combi-
a combination
nation
of of properties
properties that is
that is also alsopresent
only only present
in [21],inwhere
[21], where the authors
the authors presented
presented an ex-
an extended
tendedonstudy
study on the deviations
the deviations of shot diameter.
of shot diameter. Moreover, Moreover,
due to its due to its 2D dimensionality,
2D dimensionality, it requires
it requires
fewer fewer computing
computing resources and resources and lesstime
less execution execution time solution
for model for model and solution
evaluation and
evaluation of the appropriate process parameters. The further
of the appropriate process parameters. The further development of the specific modeldevelopment of the specific
model rendered
rendered feasiblefeasible the conduction
the conduction of simulations
of simulations where different
where different single
single and and multi-
multiple shot
ple shot
size size distributions
distributions are modeled.are modeled.
Therefore,Therefore,
the obtainedtheresults
obtainedbackresults
up theback up the
practice prac-
applied
ticeindustry,
in applied in industry,
where where
a certain a certain percentage
percentage of worn shotsof worn shotswith
are used are used
new with
ones.new With ones.
the
With the developed
developed model, it was model,
alsoitpossible
was also topossible to investigate
investigate the effect ofthetheeffect of the of
percentage percentage
the worn
of theon
shots worn the shots on theresidual
developed developed residual
stress field. stress field.

2. Finite Element
2. Finite Element Analysis
Analysis Model
Model
2.1. Short Description
2.1. Short Description
The
The result
result of
of the
the meshing
meshing strategy
strategy is
is depicted
depicted in
in Figure
Figure 1.
1.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Specimen
Specimen discretization strategy and
discretization strategy and essential
essential dimensions
dimensions [20].
[20].
Metals 2022, 12, 956 3 of 16

While always keeping the required computational time under consideration, a rela-
tively small part (compared to the real component geometry) is considered for the FEA
model. In this study, the dimensions of the part under investigation amount to 20 mm in
length by 5 mm in height (see bottom left part of Figure 1). These dimensions have been
carefully selected to keep the solution time within acceptable limits and considering that
the developed stress field must not reach the model’s boundary. The cyan dashed lines
on the bottom and left side of the model indicate that the nodes of the part’s vertical and
bottom edges are restrained in the horizontal (X) and vertical (Y) direction, respectively.
The FEA model was discretized, applying a variable element size scheme; thus, the element
size increased successively from the surface (very fine mesh) to the core area, as visible on
the right-hand side of Figure 1.
The shots and the surface layers of the part have the same element length to improve
the accuracy of the contact calculation algorithm. Pre-studies showed that an element
length less than 20 µm may slightly improve the accuracy but increases the required
computational time significantly. Further extensive information and thorough descriptions
regarding the model characteristics are available in [20].
The elastoplastic material properties for both shots and specimen are depicted from [20]
and presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Fundamental material values for specimen and shots.

Parameter Specimen: 51CrV4 Shots

Young’s modulus (MPa) 206,000 206,000
Yield stress (MPa) 1450 1500
Ultimate tensile strength (MPa) 1645 1700
Strain hardening behavior Multilinear elastic–plastic Bilinear elastic–plastic

Alongside the fundamental elastic–plastic material properties, a simple linear isotropic

hardening rule was applied that also considers strain rate effects, as described in the study
of Maliaris et al. [20].
Lastly, due to the generation of artificial stress waves, a special damping boundary
condition was defined, which is applied on the nodes of the boundary of the specimen
and permits the absorption of the artificial stress waves. Friction was neglected, since
the assessment of the test run results revealed that the effect of friction on the calculated
parameters is negligible, but the impact on solution time is countable.

2.2. Shot Size Information and Sieve Analysis

Each shot type used for industrial applications is characterized by a nominal diameter.
The actual diameter value lies in a specific range that is determined by sieve analysis
according to the SAE J444 standard [22]. Sieve analysis is a common practice to validate
the size of each shot type, not only for metal blasting abrasives manufacturers, but also for
the automotive and aerospace industry, as a control method for the quality of the peening
process. Thereby, the shots pass through many sieve levels, the retained weight in each level
is measured, and then the weight is converted to a percentage of the total. The percentage
mass is usually expressed in a cumulative form according to SAE J444. The nominal sieve
analysis data for the three different shot types S330, S390, and S460, which are widely used
for automotive suspension components, are presented in Table 2. These data are available
online from abrasives manufacturers like Kholee Blast [23] and Metal White [24].
Table 2. Sieve analysis data of brand-new shots according to SAE J444 (cumulative percentage mass
for each sieve level).

Cumulative Weight Retained (%)

Metals 2022, 12, 956 4 of 16
Screen Size (mm) S460 S390 S330
2.00 All pass
1.70 Table 2. Sieve <5 All pass
analysis data of brand-new shots according to SAE J444 (cumulative percentage mass
for each sieve level).
1.40 - <5 All pass
1.18 >85 Cumulative
- Weight Retained (%)<5
Screen Size (mm) S460 S390
1.00 >96 >85 - S330
2.00 All pass
0.85 1.70 <5 >96 All pass >85
0.71 1.40 - <5 >96All pass
1.18 >85 - <5
1.00 >96 >85 -
2.3. Industrial Shot Mixes 0.85 >96 >85
0.71 >96
Feedback from industry and shot-peening experts has shown that operational shot
mixes do not consist of 2.3.
brand-new shots.
Industrial Shot MixesA shot-peening machine in industrial production
is regularly replenished with Feedback
newfrom industry
shots. Thus,andanshot-peening
industrialexperts
shot has shown that
mixture operational
contains new,shot
mixes do not consist of brand-new shots. A shot-peening machine in industrial production
operational, and wornisshots in a diameter distribution that is monitored over time. New
regularly replenished with new shots. Thus, an industrial shot mixture contains new,
shots are added when operational,
periodic sieve
and wornanalysis
shots inshows
a diameter a decrease
distributionin larger
that diameter
is monitored shots,
over time. New
shots are added when periodic sieve analysis shows a decrease
while the smaller shots (below a certain diameter) are sieved out of the mixture. To illus- in larger diameter shots,
while the smaller shots (below a certain diameter) are sieved out of the mixture. To illustrate
trate the differences inthe
dimensions and shape, Figure 2 shows macroscopic photographs
differences in dimensions and shape, Figure 2 shows macroscopic photographs of the
of the new, operational, and
new, worn (but
operational, and still
wornin operation)
(but shotsshots
still in operation) fromfromananindustrial mix.
industrial mix.

Figure 2. New
Figure 2. New (left), operational (left), operational
(center), and worn (center),
(right)andshots.
worn (right) shots.

A visual inspection of the operational shots revealed that despite the reduced diameter
A visual inspection
dueoftothe operational
deformation shots
and wear, theirrevealed
shape doesthat despite thediffer
not qualitatively reduced
from thediam-
shape of
the brand-new shots. Therefore, all of the shots were considered spherical for the purposes
eter due to deformation and wear, their shape does not qualitatively differ from the shape
of this study.
of the brand-new shots. Therefore,
Table 3 givesall
theof the shots sieve
corresponding wereanalysis
considered
data fromspherical formix
the industrial the pur-
considered
poses of this study. in the present study.
Figure 3 demonstrates an industrial shot mix distribution of operational shots (blue
Table 3 gives the corresponding sieve analysis data from the industrial mix consid-
curve), compared to new/out-of-the-box S460 shots (black curve), as an example, expressed
ered in the present study.
in both nominal and cumulative terms. This specific mix comes directly from a leaf spring
manufacturer, who chooses to use S460 shots to refill the shot peeners in serial leaf spring
production lines. It is obvious that the operational shot distribution differs significantly
from the respective new shot counterparts, which shows that there is a substantial defor-
mation of the shots during shot peening.
 1.00 72.59%
0.90 76.10%
0.80 79.41%
Metals 2022, 12, 956 0.71 82.73% 5 of 16

0.60 88.24%
0.50 94.31%
Table 3. Sieve analysis data of brand-new shots according to SAE J444 (cumulative percentage mass
for each sieve level).
0.40 98.75%
0.30 99.81%
Cumulative Weight Retained (%)

0.20 Screen Size (mm) Industrial Mix

99.94%
2.00
0.10 1.60 100.00%0.00%
0.06%
1.40 1.56%
1.25 30.54%
Figure 3 demonstrates an industrial
1.12 shot mix distribution of operational
57.07% shots (blue
curve), compared to new/out-of-the-box 1.00 S460 shots (black curve), as 72.59%
an example, ex-
0.90 76.10%
pressed in both nominal and cumulative 0.80 terms. This specific mix comes79.41%directly from a
0.71 82.73%
leaf spring manufacturer, who chooses0.60to use S460 shots to refill the shot peeners in serial
88.24%
leaf spring production lines. It is obvious
0.50 that the operational shot distribution
94.31% differs sig-
0.40 98.75%
nificantly from the respective new shot0.30counterparts, which shows that99.81%
there is a substan-
tial deformation of the shots during shot peening.
0.20 99.94%
0.10 100.00%

Figure 3. Normal and cumulative operational

Figure 3. Normal and cumulativeversus new
operational S460
versus shotshotdistributions
new S460 distributions per per relative
relative weight.
weight.
These curves are a more compact and practical way to express the data obtained from
sieve analysis compared to the tabular form of Table 1. The Y axis represents the percentage
These curves are aofmore compact
the weight and that
of the shots practical way
is retained on to
eachexpress theThe
sieve level. data obtained
screen from
size for each of
those levels is located on the X axis. It is worth mentioning that an industrial sieve analysis
sieve analysis compared to the tabular form of Table 1. The Y axis represents the percent-
procedure may not strictly follow the SAE J444 standard for the screen sizes, but it can be
age of the weight of theadapted
shotstothat is retained
the needs onindustry.
of a specific each sieve level. The screen size for each
of those levels is located on the X axis. It is worthofmentioning
It is easily observed that the curve the industrial mixture
that an has two local peaks.
industrial The
sieve
first and higher one is located at a screen size of 1.25 mm, and the second at a size of
analysis procedure may 0.5not
mm.strictly followofthe
Taking advantage thisSAE J444
fact, the standard
operational shot for the screen
distribution can be sizes, but
approached
it can be adapted to theasneeds of a normal
two separate specific industry.
(Gaussian) distributions, using these peaks as a mean value. As a
next step, using a basic statistical analysis, the standard deviation of each distribution can
be extracted. These two main parameters of the Gaussian distribution (mean value and
standard deviation) are crucial during the shot-generation procedure.
 next step, using a basic statistical analysis, the standard deviation of each distributi
be extracted. These two main parameters of the Gaussian distribution (mean val
standard deviation) are crucial during the shot-generation procedure.
The same distributions are expressed in terms of relative (normal and cumu
Metals 2022, 12, 956
shot numbers in Figure 4. This transformation is essential to correlate6the of 16
experi
and the computational results, since both the per relative weight and per relative n
expressions must
The same be closelyarefollowed.
distributions expressed in This
termsis ofvital,
relativeas (normal
the numerical model gene
and cumulative)
relatively limited
shot numbers in number of shots
Figure 4. This (a few hundred)
transformation is essentialblasted over
to correlate thea experimental
small area of a few
and the computational results, since both the per relative
in contrast to the laboratory or industrial conditions that are performed weight and per relative number on a sur
expressions must be closely followed. This is vital, as the numerical model generates a
several cm being hit by many thousands of shots. Hence, this particular relation
2
relatively limited number of shots (a few hundred) blasted over a small area of a few mm2 ,
be kept as close
in contrast as laboratory
to the possible or toindustrial
the experimental
conditions thatone, areinperformed
order toonachieve
a surfacethe
of same
(i.e.,several
momentum 2
cm being ofhitshots = mass
by many x velocity)
thousands of shots. being
Hence, transferred at the same
this particular relation should area
be (i.e.,
age). kept as close as possible to the experimental one, in order to achieve the same energy (i.e.,
momentum of shots = mass x velocity) being transferred at the same area (i.e., coverage).

Figure 4. Normal
Figure 4. Normaland
andcumulative operation
cumulative operation versus
versus new
new S460 S460
shot shot distributions
distributions per relative n
per relative number.

The transformation of the relative mass (direct result of the sieve analysis) to the
The transformation of the relative mass (direct result of the sieve analysis) to
relative shot number considers the average diameter between two consecutive sieves as
ativebeing
shotthenumber considers
representative one forthe average class.
the respective diameter between
For example, two consecutive
the relative mass of 29% sieves
ing the representative one for the respective class. For example, the relative mass
sieved out of the 1.25 mm screen size in the industrial shot mix distribution is transformed
intoout
sieved number of shots
of the 1.25using
mm the meansize
screen diameter
in theof this grid and the
industrial shotprevious one of 1.40 mm,
mix distribution is transf
resulting in a mean diameter of 1.325 mm. Furthermore, during the abovementioned
into statistical
numberanalysis,
of shotsit isusing the
also vital mean diameter
to calculate of this
the percentage gridbyand
occupied each the
shot previous
category one
mm,(brand
resulting
new orinoperational)
a mean diameter
on the totalofof 1.325 mm. per
the mixture, Furthermore,
relative number during
and perthe abovemen
relative
statistical analysis, it is also vital to calculate the percentage occupied bythe
mass. For the current industrial shot mix, this percentage was calculated to ~35% of each sho
total mass for the small (worn) shots.
gory (brand new or operational) on the total of the mixture, per relative number a
relative mass.
2.4. Shots For theAlgorithm
Generation currentDevelopment
industrial shot mix, this percentage was calculated t
of the total mass formodel
To accurately the small (worn) shots.
the brand-new and the industrial shot mix, a random sphere
generation algorithm was developed that follows the sieve analysis data for these shot
mixes. This algorithm was developed using the Python programming language alongside
2.4. Shots Generation Algorithm Development
basic statistical packages. The implementation of this tool in the Application Programming
To accurately
Interface model
(API) of the ANSA©the brand-new
pre-processor led toand thegeneration
the fast industrial shot
of the mix, ofa the
geometry random
spheres, an FE mesh creation, and the application of any boundary and
generation algorithm was developed that follows the sieve analysis data for the initial conditions.
The two main points that govern this algorithm are:
mixes. This algorithm was developed using the Python programming language alo
Metals 2022, 12, 956 7 of 16

• The sphere generation, with a diameter that follows the given distribution(s).
• The random allocation of these spheres within a specified rectangular space domain.
Furthermore, this algorithm can check any intersection between spheres, consider any
shot impact angle, and, most importantly, deviations and stochasticity can be considered
for the given impact velocity and angle.
As for the first operating principle of the algorithm, the simple equation that is used
for the diameter of a shot is the following:

diameter = Gauss(µ, σ), (1)

where Gauss indicates the Gaussian (normal) distribution and µ, σ are the main parameters:
mean value and standard deviation, respectively. This technique is based on simple,
fundamental statistics. Nevertheless, the developed algorithm includes the generation of
shots, using more than one distribution, mixed in the same space domain. This is a simple
and efficient way to accurately model a shot mix with a wide range and variety of shot
diameters, as presented in Figures 3 and 4 above.
Regarding the second operating principle, the random position (X, Y, and Z center
coordinates) of the shots in space in the case of the normal, vertical impingement can be
described with the following equations:

X = width·uniform(−1/2, 1/2) (2)

Y = height·uniform(0, 1) (3)
Z = length·uniform(−1/2, 1/2), (4)
where uniform(a, b) is a uniform pseudo-random number generator in the interval [a, b]
and is used for the random allocation of spheres in space. The variables width, height, and
length stand for the given space domain width, length, and height for each of the three
axes, respectively. For the case of an oblique shot stream, the X coordinate of each sphere is
obtained by:
X = width·uniform(−1/2, 1/2) + y/tan(angle), (5)
where angle refers to the impact angle of the shots. The abovementioned set of equations are
based on the work of Hong [25]. The main difference between the current study and Hong’s
is the first operating principle, where the diameter of the shots is normally distributed.
Nevertheless, the relative shot number and mass of the created shots are also checked as a
final step.
As for the multiple created spheres, taking into account the out-of-the-box mixes, a
Gaussian distribution was assumed, with a mean value equivalent to the nominal diameter
and a standard deviation of 0.112 mm. The Gaussian distribution parameters were calcu-
lated using the sieve analysis data presented in Table 1, so the created spheres are in good
agreement and satisfy the size tolerances according to the SAE J444 standard.
Furthermore, as clearly shown in Figures 5 and 6 below, the created spheres, according
to the data of industrial mixes, accurately conform to both per weight and per number
industrial shot distributions. These figures illustrate the comparison between the actual
sieve analysis results of the operational mix and the corresponding classification data
obtained from the developed algorithm.
PEER
EER REVIEW
REVIEW 8 8of of1616
Metals 2022, 12, 956 8 of 16

Figure
Figure 5. 5. Comparison
Comparison between
between
Figure sieve
sieve analysis
analysis
5. Comparison and
and
between generated
generated
sieve shots
analysis shots
and forfor the
the
generated 2D2D
shots FEA
FEA
for model;
model;
the shot
shot
2D FEA per-
per-
model; shot
centage
centage perper weight. percentage per weight.
weight.

Figure
Figure 6. 6. Normal
Normal andand cumulative
cumulative
Figure 6. Normaloperational
operational versus
versus
and cumulative new
new
operational S460
S460
versus shot
shot
new distributions
distributions
S460 perper
shot distributions relative
relative
per num-
num-
relative number.
ber.
ber.
As previously mentioned, the shot diameter distributions were approximated with
two independent Gaussian distributions with mean diameters of 1.25 mm for the first peak
AsAspreviously
previouslymentioned,
mentioned,the
corresponding tothe shotdiameter
theshot
new, diameter
recently added distributions
distributions
shots, and 0.5werewere
mm approximated
forapproximated
the with
with
operational shots. The
twoindependent
two statistical
independentGaussian analysis
Gaussiandistributions was performed
distributionswith on
withmean the curve of
meandiameters the relative
diametersofof1.25 weight
1.25mm distribution,
mmfor forthe obtained
thefirst
first
directly from the sieve analysis. In addition, a standard deviation of 0.135 was calculated
peakcorresponding
peak correspondingtotothe thenew,
new,recently
recentlyadded
addedshots, shots,and and0.5 0.5mm mmfor forthe
theoperational
operational
for both distributions.
shots.The
shots. Thestatistical
statisticalanalysis
analysis was
was
In Figure performed
performed
7a below, onon
a close-up ofthethecurve
the curveofindustrial
modeled ofthe
therelative
relative
mix shots weight
weight distribu-
distribu-
is presented and the
tion,obtained
tion, obtaineddirectly
directlyfrom
large fromthe
size thesieve
sieveanalysis.
deviations analysis.InInaddition,
between shots are addition,a astandard
obvious. It can standarddeviation
also be seen deviationofof0.135
that there is a 0.135
relatively
wascalculated
was calculatedfor larger
forboth number of
bothdistributions. small
distributions. shots, which is also described in Figure 6 above. The industrial mix
is compared with S460 mix, Figure 7b, and the shot diameter deviations are clearly visible.
InInFigure
Figure7a7abelow,
below,a aclose-up
close-upofofthe
themodeled
modeledindustrial
industrialmixmixshots
shotsisispresented
presentedand and
thelarge
the largesize
sizedeviations
deviationsbetween
betweenshots
shotsare
areobvious.
obvious.It Itcan
canalso
alsobebeseen
seenthat
thatthere
thereisisa arel-
rel-
ativelylarger
atively largernumber
numberofofsmall
smallshots,
shots,which
whichisisalso
alsodescribed
describedininFigure
Figure6 6above.
above.TheThein-in-
dustrialmix
dustrial mixisiscompared
comparedwithwithS460
S460mix,
mix,Figure
Figure7b,7b,and
andthe
theshot
shotdiameter
diameterdeviations
deviationsare are
clearlyvisible.
clearly visible.
ER REVIEW 9 of 16
Metals 2022, 12, 956 9 of 16

(a) (b)
7. Industrial shot mix (a) and S460 brand-new shots (b).
Figure 7. Industrial shotFigure
mix (a) and S460 brand-new shots (b).
3. Results
3. Results Since the current study focuses on the investigation of shot size in the shot-peening
process and its influence on the final surface properties, there will be an extensive presen-
Since the currenttation
study focuses on the investigation of shot size in the shot-peening
of the performed parametrical simulations. The first step for this study is a simple
process and its influence on the of
examination final surface
the shot properties,
size using the three there will
different shotbe an extensive
types: presen-
S330, S390, and S460. The
tation of the performed parametrical simulations. The first step for this study is a simple
residual stresses for each case are compared, considering the size deviations. The second
examination of the shot size using the three different shot types: S330, S390, and S460. Theshot
step is to study the influence of the stochasticity of the shot size. During this step, each
type is studied separately to evaluate the effect of the shot diameter deviations. The final
residual stresses for each casevital
and most arepart
compared,
is the furtherconsidering
examination ofthe size deviations.
the industrial The second
shot mix, where parametrical
step is to study the influence
simulationsof werethecarried
stochasticity of the
out by adjusting theshot size. quantity
percentage Duringofthis step, eachshots
the operational
to investigateto
shot type is studied separately theevaluate
results of the
the abovementioned
effect of the shot variety in shot diameters
diameter and comparing
deviations. The
them with a brand-new shot mix.
final and most vital part is the further examination of the industrial shot mix, where par-
As for the results inspection, besides a simple, rough visual inspection of the stress
ametrical simulationsfield
were carried
during out by adjusting
the post-processing of thethe percentage
results, quantity
the compressive of the
residual opera-
stress values on
tional shots to investigate the results
the surface of the
for the whole abovementioned
peened area are averaged variety in shot
and plotted diameters
as a function andfrom
of depth
the surface. Alongside
comparing them with a brand-new shot mix. those values, the standard deviation is also calculated, as a sign of
stress field uniformity.
As for the results inspection, besides a simple, rough visual inspection of the stress
field during the post-processing
3.1. Examinationofof the
Shot results,
Size Effectthe compressive residual stress values on
the surface for the wholeAspeened area
a first step, are study
a case averaged and plotted
was conducted as a function
to examine the effect ofofthe
depth
shot size,
considering
from the surface. Alongside a distributed
those values,shotthediameter for brand
standard new shots,
deviation as presented
is also in Tableas
calculated, 1. Three
a
simulations were carried out for S330, S390, and S460 shots, respectively.
sign of stress field uniformity.
Regarding the peening conditions, it should be mentioned that the total mass of shots
that impacted the surface was equal to 1.5 g for the total peening length of 10 mm in each
3.1. Examination of Shot Size
case withEffect
different shot types. For case equivalence, it was important that the same amount
of energy was transferred to each specimen. This specific shot quantity was selected so
As a first step, athat
case study
the final was
stress conducted
profile to examine
after the peening procedurethewaseffect
fully of the shot
stabilized. Thesize,
coverage
considering a distributed shot diameter
of the surface for and
was sufficient, brand new shots,
the stabilized stressas presented
profile in Table
was evaluated after 1.
many
Three simulations were pre-studies,
carriedwithoutmultistep
for S330, simulations,
S390, andusingS460 a small
shots,number of shots on each step, until
respectively.
saturation occurred. The shots impacted the specimen vertically with a velocity of 77 m/s,
Regarding the peening conditions, it should be mentioned that the total mass of shots
which is a typical value for shot peening in leaf spring applications.
that impacted the surfaceAwas equal
visual to 1.5
example g for
of the the total
stabilized stresspeening length
field of the of 10surface
specimen’s mm in eachwith
peened
case with different shot types.
S460 shots For case
is presented equivalence,
in Figure 8. it was important that the same
amount of energy was transferred to each specimen. This specific shot quantity was se-
lected so that the final stress profile after the peening procedure was fully stabilized. The
coverage of the surface was sufficient, and the stabilized stress profile was evaluated after
many pre-studies, with multistep simulations, using a small number of shots on each step,
until saturation occurred. The shots impacted the specimen vertically with a velocity of
77 m/s, which is a typical value for shot peening in leaf spring applications.
EER REVIEW 10 of 16

EER REVIEW 10 of 16
Metals 2022, 12, 956 10 of 16

Figure 8. Stabilized compressive stress field after peening with S460 shots.

Figure 8. Stabilized compressive stress field after peening with S460 shots.
Figure
Figure 9 shows
8. Stabilized the calculated
compressive averaged
stress field residualwith
after peening stress
S460profiles
shots. for brand-new shots
of the three different shotFigure
types.9 shows the calculated averaged residual stress profiles for brand-new shots of
the three different shot types. residual stress profiles for brand-new shots
Figure 9 shows the calculated averaged
of the three different shot types.

Figure 9. Averaged residual stress

Figure 9. profiles
Averaged forstress
residual threeprofiles
different shot
for three types.shot types.
different

The correlation between the shot type and the compressive residual stress profile, in
The
Figure correlation
9. Averaged between
residual
terms the
stress
of peak shotand
profiles
depth type anddifferent
forsurface
three the
stresscompressive
shotcan
value, types.residual stress
be summarized profile,
as follows: the in
larger
terms of peak depth and surface
the shot, stressthe
the greater value, can be
peak depth and summarized as follows:
the wider the stress profile. the largerthe
Moreover, thepeak
shot,The correlation
the greater stress
between
the peak value
depth seems
theand shot barely
thetype affected
andthe
wider by the
thestress shot diameter.
compressive This conclusion
residual stress
profile. Moreover, is confirmed
profile,
the peak stressin by
the experimental studies of Ogawa and Asano [24] and it is easy to observe by comparing
terms of peakbarely
value seems depthaffected
and surface stress
shotvalue, can be summarized as follows: the by
larger
the the
the purpleby the
curve (S460 diameter.
type) with theThis
red oneconclusion
(S330 type) is in confirmed
Figure 9. ex-
shot, the greater
perimental theof
studies peak
Ogawadepth
Note and
that and the
peakwider
Asano
this the stress
[24] appears
value and it to profile.
is vary
easy Moreover,
to observe
slightly the
of peak
by comparing
(a difference 40 MPa stress
the
between
value
purpleseems
curvebarely affected
the red
(S460 type) withbythe
and thegreen
the shot
red diameter.
curve),
one and this
(S330 This
type) caninconclusion
beFigure
explained is confirmed
9. from the stochasticbynature
the ex- of the
perimental studies simulations (e.g., the randomly allocated spheres) and the averaging of the stress during
Note that this of
peakOgawavalueand Asanoto[24]
appears varyand it is easy
slightly to observeofby
(a difference 40comparing
MPa between the
post-processing. Hence, this difference can be considered negligible.
purple
the red curve (S460
and the greentype) with and
curve), the red thisonecan(S330 type) in from
be explained Figurethe9. stochastic nature of the
Note that
simulations thisthe
(e.g., peak
3.2. value appears
Influence
randomly of Shot Size
allocated tospheres)
vary slightly
Stochasticity and the (a difference
averaging of 40 theMPastressbetween
during
the red and the green
post-processing. Hence, curve), and this can
Proceeding to
this difference the canbe
next be explained
phaseconsideredfrom
of this study, the the stochastic nature ofvariation
actual
negligible.influence of the diameter the
in a common shot-peening simulation was examined.
simulations (e.g., the randomly allocated spheres) and the averaging of the stress during As mentioned before, most studies
suggested models with pre-allocated shots with a standard, uniform diameter that impact
post-processing. Hence,
3.2. Influence of Shot Size this difference
Stochasticity
a surface. Each shot type canwasbe considered
modeled negligible.
separately. Random sphere batches for every type
Proceeding to the next phase of this study, the actual influence of the diameter vari-
3.2. Influence of Shot Size
ation in a common Stochasticity
shot-peening simulation was examined. As mentioned before, most
Proceeding to the next phase of this study,
studies suggested models with pre-allocated thewith
shots actual influenceuniform
a standard, of the diameter
diametervari-
that
 Metals 2022, 12, 956 11 of 16

R REVIEW 11 batches
were created, with or without a variable diameter. The distributed diameter sphere of 16
followed the sieve analysis data presented in Section 2.2, while the uniform diameter
spheres were created with the nominal diameter of each shot type. Peening conditions
were the same as the studies in Section 3.1 (vertical impact with a velocity of 77 m/s and
Figure 10 shows equivalent
the S460mass
shotsforwith
each case).
variable diameter compared to the correspond-
Figure 10 shows the S460 shots with variable diameter compared to the corresponding
ing S460 shots batch with a uniform (constant) diameter.
S460 shots batch with a uniform (constant) diameter.

(a) (b)
Figure 10. Shots with constant diameter (a), and variable diameter (b).
Figure 10. Shots with constant diameter (a), and variable diameter (b).
The diameter variations are presented in Table 2. These deviations were reproduced
The diameter using the developed
variations algorithm,
are presented and the2.
in Table diameter
Theseofdeviations
the modeled were
spheresreproduced
lie between the
following approximate ranges:
using the developed algorithm, and the diameter of the modeled spheres lie between the
• S330: from ~0.7 mm to ~1.2 mm
following approximate
• ranges:
S390: from ~0.8 mm to ~1.42 mm
• •
S330: from ~0.7 mm S460: from
to ~1.2 mm~0.9 mm to ~1.72 mm
• S390: from ~0.8 mm The influence
to ~1.42 mmof size stochasticity on the residual stress profile regarding the shot
types S330, S390, and S460 (all in brand-new condition) is revealed in the three diagrams of
• S460: from ~0.9 mm to11.
Figure ~1.72 mm
The influence of sizeForstochasticity
the three shot types
on theinvestigated,
residualit can be clearly
stress recognized
profile that diameter
regarding devia-
the shot
tions affect the stabilized stress profile. The curves obtained with the distributed diameter
types S330, S390, and shots
S460models
(all in brand-new
(solid lines) differ condition) is revealed
from those obtained with the in the three
constant diagrams
diameter shot model
of Figure 11. (dashed lines). The differences at low depth values can be considered negligible because the
residual stress values are almost identical. However, models with shots with distributed
diameters tend to have a deeper final stress profile for every shot type, and slightly larger
stress on the surface in most of them. The peak value does not seem to be affected by this
(as also noted in Section 3.1).
These differences can be explained by the existence of smaller and larger spheres in
each type. The number of these divergent-sized shots may be small, but sufficient to affect
the stress profile, following the logic presented in Section 3.1. Larger shots induce a wider
and deeper profile, while the smaller ones affect the area closer to the surface, leaving the
peak stress value unaffected.
 • S330: from ~0.7 mm to ~1.2 mm
• S390: from ~0.8 mm to ~1.42 mm
• S460: from ~0.9 mm to ~1.72 mm
The influence of size stochasticity on the residual stress profile regarding the shot
Metals 2022, 12, 956 12 of 16
types S330, S390, and S460 (all in brand-new condition) is revealed in the three diagrams
of Figure 11.

Figure 11. Comparison of residual stress profiles for three different shot types considering constant
and variable shot diameter.

3.3. Industrial Shot Mix Investigation and Sensitivity

Proceeding to the third and most important part of this study, an extensive investiga-
tion was carried out regarding the differences between an industrial, realistic shot mix and
a mix consisting of only out-of-the-box shots, as a more unrealistic scenario.
As mentioned above, an industrial peening machine is periodically fed with new
shots, and rejects worn shots with diameters below a specific level. This feed-and-rejection
process is mostly performed automatically. This specific mix was used for a series of
experimental shot-peening studies, and the results of one of the many examined scenarios
was reproduced using the developed model for the purposes of this study.
The experimental studies included the examination of different peening conditions on
portions of leaf springs. Specifically, different materials, shot mixes, and velocities were
examined. The scenario that was reproduced using the developed 2D model included
the common 51CrV4 spring steel. Its mechanical elastic–plastic behavior was determined
through tensile tests and was presented in [20]. It also included the shot mix that was
presented in Section 2.3, and the peening velocity of 77 m/s under an impact angle of
10 degrees.
The residual stress profiles were measured using a Pulstec µ360s diffractometer, which
uses the cosα method based on a full Debye–Scherrer ring [26–28]. The measurements
are conducted lengthwise on the spring since normal shot peening produces an isotropic
residual stress distribution in the surface plane [29]. The measurement interval was selected
to be 50 µm in depth, up to approximately 480 µm, where the residual stresses nearly
disappeared and the effect of the in-depth redistribution of stresses was considered. The
measurement area was electropolished, so the induced stresses from the peening process
remained unaffected.
 Metals 2022, 12, 956 13 of 16

Metals 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16

A comparison of the calculated residual stress results and the measured stress profile
Metals 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16
for the industrial mix is presented in Figure 12. Therein, the orange solid curve represents
the calculated averaged profile, while the shadowed area within the dashed lines represents
the scatter of the calculated results.

Figure 12. Comparison between industrial shot mix and experimentally measured residual stress
profiles.
Figure 12. 12.
Figure Comparison between
Comparison industrial
between shot mix
industrial and
shot experimentally
mix measured
and experimentally residual stress
measured residual
Considering
profiles.
stress profiles. that the 2D modeling represents a simplified simulation of shot peening,
a rough comparison to the corresponding experimental results obtained by XRD reveals
that Considering
measuredthat
theConsidering thethe
residual
that 2Dstress
modeling
2D profile
modeling represents
is in good
represents a simplified
agreement
a simplified simulation
with of shot
the calculated
simulation of shotpeening,
one. In
peening,
a rough
aparticular,
rough comparison
comparison
in a depthtoup to
the the
to corresponding
corresponding
200 μm, the measured experimental
experimental lieresults
valuesresults obtained
nearobtained
the upper by
bybounds
XRDXRD reveals
reveals
of the
thatthat
thethe
scatter band measured
measured (standard residual
residualdeviation)stress
stress ofprofile
profile
the is is in
in good
simulated good agreement
agreement
profile. Anwith with
error the the
of calculated
calculated
~13% one.
one.
is visible inIn
In
particular,
particular, in in
a a depth
depth up upto to
200200μm,µm,the the measured
measured values
values lie lie
near
the peak stress value for the current peening velocity, and the shape of the profile is nar- near the the upper
upper bounds
bounds of of
the the
scatter
scatter band (standard deviation) of the
rower. band (standard deviation) of the simulated profile. simulated profile. An error
error of ~13% is visible inthe
of ~13% is visible in
thepeak
peak stress
Figurestress13value
valuefor
presents forthethecurrent
the current
results peening
peening
from velocity,
velocity,
the sensitivity andandthethe
studies shape
shape
performedof of
thethe
profile
for profileis narrower.
is nar-
the industrial
rower.
shot mix Figure
in terms13 presents the results from
of the percentage massthe sensitivity
of the recentlystudies
addedperformed
new shotsfor and thethe
industrial
worn
shot
ones. mixpercentage
Figure
The in terms
13 presents ofofthe percentage
results
worn from
shots inmass
the of the recently
thesensitivity
current studiesadded
industrial shot new
performed mix is shots
for theand
about the The
worn
industrial
35%.
shotones. The percentage
mix in algorithm
developed terms of the of worn
waspercentage shots in the
mass of the
used to reproduce current
tworecently industrial
shot-type added
mixes, shot
new mix
oneshots is about
with and 35%.
the worn
a correspond- The
developed
ones.
ing percentage algorithm
The percentage was
of worn
of around used
15%shots to reproduce
in the current
and another two
of 50%. shot-type
industrial
Again, for mixes,
shot one with
mix is about
equivalency a corresponding
35%. The
reasons, the
percentage
developed
same of of
massalgorithm around
shots was15%
was used
used and another
intoeach
reproduce
study.of 50%.
two Again,seem
The shot-type
results for equivalency
mixes, one with
to follow reasons, the same
a correspond-
a specific pattern.
ing
Themass of shots
percentage
smaller ofwas
(worn) used
around
the in each
15%
shots inand study.
the mix, The
another results
theofhigher
50%. andseem
Again, tofor
wider follow a specific
equivalency
the residual pattern.
reasons,
stress the
profileThe
samesmaller
close mass
to the(worn) thewas
ofsurface.
shots shots
Theused in the mix,
in each
surfaces’ the higher
study.
stress value and
Theranges wider
results seem
from the toresidual
~400 follow
to ~620stress profile
a specific
MPa, close
theto
pattern.
while
The the surface.
peaksmaller
depth seems The surfaces’
(worn)unaffected.
the shots in stress value
the mix,
Moving ranges from
the higher
deeper from the ~400
and to ~620
wider the
surface, MPa,
the less while
residual the peak
stressthe
sensitivity depth
profile
shot
mixseems
close has, unaffected.
to the
andsurface.
the three Moving
The deeper
surfaces’
profiles from
stress
match. the surface,
value ranges fromthe less ~400 sensitivity
to ~620 MPa, the shot
while mixthehas,
and the three profiles match.
peak depth seems unaffected. Moving deeper from the surface, the less sensitivity the shot
mix has, and the three profiles match.

Figure 13.13.
Figure Residual stress
Residual profiles
stress forfor
profiles various industrial
various shot
industrial mixes,
shot alongside
mixes, S460
alongside shot
S460 mix.
shot mix.

Figure 13. Residual stress profiles for various industrial shot mixes, alongside S460 shot mix.
Metals 2022, 12, 956 14 of 16

4. Discussion
The studies presented in the previous section show how the result of the shot-peening
process is strongly dependent on the shot mix. Changes in the shot mix may significantly al-
ter the effect of the process on the peened component in terms of the developed compressive
residual stresses. This observation is of significant importance, since studies—computational
or experimental—of the shot-peening process should consider the changes and variations
of the shot mix.
Proceeding to the leaf spring industry that provided the cases studied in this work,
conventional shot peening and shot peening under high tensile stress (known as stress
peening) are crucial milestones for the production and, consequently, the final quality
of the products in terms of fatigue life. Since, in operational conditions, a leaf spring is
loaded under a high-bending moment, the most intense tensile operational stress is in
the upper surface. Thus, a larger residual compressive stress and a wider stress profile
counteract the tensile stress obtained from that bending moment. This fact leads to the
conclusion that smaller shots are intentionally kept in the production line peeners, and
that they are not only beneficial for the production costs, but also the quality of the final
product. Furthermore, an increase in the number of smaller shots may further optimize
the fatigue life of a leaf spring. Figure 13 illustrated an improved residual stress profile,
which may be more beneficial for fatigue life as the residual stress values were higher
closer to the surface. The 50% increase of the amount of reduced-diameter shots showed
an improvement of the residual stress profile, revealing space for further optimizing the
fatigue life of the product. Scuracchio et al. [30] experimentally demonstrated the beneficial
effect of secondary peening with smaller shots on the fatigue life of leaf springs, verifying
the outcome of the calculation results of the present study.
However, an increase in the percentage of the mass of operational shots in an industrial
mix may not be beneficial for the residual stress profile. After a specific percentage thresh-
old, brand-new shots may not be sufficient, and the stress profile will become narrower and
converge to a lower peak depth. The investigation of this percentage threshold is outside
the scope of these studies.

5. Conclusions
Based on the results of the present studies, it can be safely concluded that deviations
in the diameters of the shots can significantly affect the final compressive residual stress
profile. In addition, when a shot mix consists of spheres with large deviations in diameters
and different shot types, such as a typical industrial mixture, these deviations are important
to consider. Specifically, it has been proven that the existence of used shots in a shot mix, in
a percentage up to 35% per weight, reduces the residual stress peak depth up to ~12.5%
and increases the surface value up to ~50%. Furthermore, a further adjustment of ±15% of
the percentage weight of the used shots increases or decreases the surface stress value up to
~20%, respectively. The assumption of uniform shot diameter equal to the nominal value,
which often occurs in simulation processes, may lead to large errors. This conclusion is
considered important and useful for future research on the optimization of such processes.
Using this 2D simulation approach, an accurate qualitative assessment of the resid-
ual stress profiles after shot peening can be promptly achieved, as well as with useful
information for the behavior and sensitivity of the process, in minor or major condition
changes. Therefore, the shot-mix adjustment presented in Figure 13 and discussed in
paragraph 4 might be considered as a suggestion for an improvement of the process in
industrial conditions.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.G. and G.S.; methodology, C.G. and G.M.; validation,
C.G., G.M. and G.S.; investigation, C.G.; resources, G.S.; writing—original draft preparation, C.G.,
G.M. and G.S.; writing—review and editing, G.S.; supervision, C.G. and G.M.; project administra-
tion, G.S.; funding acquisition, G.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Metals 2022, 12, 956 15 of 16

Funding: This research was funded by Research Fund Coal & Steel, grant agreement number 799787.
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the Research Fund Coal & Steel.
Acknowledgments: BETA CAE is gratefully acknowledged for the provision of ANSA and META software.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. De los Rios, E.R.; Walley, A.; Milan, M.T.; Hammerley, G. Fatigue crack initiation and propagation on shot peened surfaces in
A316 stainless steel. Int. J. Fatigue 1995, 17, 493–499. [CrossRef]
2. Almer, J.D.; Cohen, J.B.; Moran, B. The effect of residual macrostresses and microstresses on fatigue crack initiation. Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 2000, 284, 268–279. [CrossRef]
3. Jizhan, W.; Huaiju, L.; Peitang, W.; Qinjie, L.; Shuangshuang, Z. Effect of shot peening coverage on residual stress and surface
roughness of 18CrNiMo7-6 steel. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2020, 183, 105785. [CrossRef]
4. ChangFeng, Y.; XinTang, D.; Daoxia, W.; Zheng, Z.; JiYin, Z. Surface integrity and fatigue analysis of shot-peening for 7055
aluminum alloy under different high-speed milling conditions. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2016, 8, 1–10. [CrossRef]
5. Schulze, V.; Klemenz, M.; Zimmermann, M. State of the art in shot peening simulation. In Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Shot Peening, Tokyo, Japan, 15–18 September 2008; pp. 53–62.
6. Luo, P.; Wang, Z.; Wu, G.; Wang, Y.; Cheng, M. Literature review on state of the art in shot peening in the last decade (2006–2015).
In Advanced High Strength Steel and Press Hardening, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Advanced High Strength Steel
and Press Hardening, Xian, China, 25–27 August 2016; Zhang, T., Ma, M., Eds.; World Scientific Publishing: Singapore, 2017.
7. Al Hassani, S.T.S. The Shot Peening of Metals–Mechanics and Structures; SAE Technical Paper 821452; SAE International: Warrendale,
PA, USA, 1982.
8. Schütz, W. Fatigue life improvement of high strength materials by shot peening. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference
on Shot Peening, Paris, France, 14–17 September 1981; pp. 423–433.
9. Voyiadjis, G.Z.; Buckner, N.E. Indentation of a half-space with a rigid indentor. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 1983, 19, 1555–1578.
[CrossRef]
10. Kral, E.R.; Komvopoulos, K.; Bogy, D.B. Elastic-plastic finite element analysis of repeated indentation of a half-space by a rigid
sphere. J. Appl. Mech. 1993, 60, 829–841. [CrossRef]
11. Zion, H.L.; Johnson, W.S. Parametric two-dimensional finite element investigation: Shot peening of high-strength steel. AIAAJ
2006, 44, 1973–1982. [CrossRef]
12. Al Hassani, S.T.S.; Kormi, K.; Webb, D.C. Numerical simulation of multiple shot impact. In Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Shot Peening, Warsaw, Poland, 28 September–1 October 1999; pp. 217–227.
13. Yang, Z.; Lee, Y.; He, S.; Jia, W.; Zhao, J. Analysis of the influence of high peening coverage on almen intensity and residual
compressive stress. Appl. Sci. 2019, 10, 105. [CrossRef]
14. Yang, Y.H.; Wan, M.; Zhag, W.H. Finite element modeling of shot peening process—A progress overview. Int. J. Simul. Multidiscip.
Des. Optim. 2009, 3, 332–336. [CrossRef]
15. Bagherifard, S.; Ghelichi, R.; Guagliano, M. On the shot peening surface coverage and its assessment by means of finite element
simulation: A critical review and some original developments. Appl Surf. Sci. 2012, 259, 186–194. [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, B.; Wei, P.; Huaiju, L.; Yan, H.; Guagliano, M. Effect of fine particle peening on surface integrity of flexspline in harmonic
drive. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2022, 433, 128133. [CrossRef]
17. Frija, M.; Hassine, T.; Fathallah, R.; Bouraoui, C.; Dogui, A. Finite element modelling of shot peening process: Prediction of the
compressive residual stresses, the plastic deformations and the surface integrity. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2006, 426, 173–180. [CrossRef]
18. Mylonas, G.I.; Labeas, G. Numerical modelling of shot peening process and corresponding products: Residual stress, surface
roughness and cold work prediction. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2011, 205, 4480–4494. [CrossRef]
19. Starman, B.; Hallberg, H.; Wallin, M.; Ristinmaa, M.; Halilovič, M. Differences in phase transformation in laser peened and shot
peened 304 austenitic steel. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2020, 176, 105535. [CrossRef]
20. Maliaris, G.; Gakias, C.; Malikoutsakis, M.; Savaidis, G. A FEM-Based 2D model for simulation and qualitative assessment of
shot-peening processes. Materials 2021, 14, 2784. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Gariépy, A.; Miao, H.Y.; Lévesque, M. Simulation of the shot peening process with variable shot diameters and impacting
velocities. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2017, 114, 121–133. [CrossRef]
22. SAE J444. Cast Shot and Grit Size Specifications for Peening and Cleaning, Society of Automotive Engineers. 2012. Available
online: https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j444_201710/ (accessed on 14 December 2021).
23. Kholee Blast. 2012. Available online: https://www.kholeeblastpaint.com/product/S460-Steel-Shots.html (accessed on
20 February 2021).
24. Metal White. Available online: http://metalwhiteme.com/?page_id=1170 (accessed on 20 February 2021).
25. Hong, Y.M. Numerical and Theoretical Study of Shot Peening and Stress Peen Forming Process. Ph.D. Thesis, Université de
Montréal, Montreal, MO, Canada, 2010.
Metals 2022, 12, 956 16 of 16

26. Ogawa, K.; Asano, T. Theoretical prediction of residual stress induced by shot peening and experimental verification for
carburized steel. J. Soc. Mater. Sci. Jpn. 1999, 48, 1360–1366. [CrossRef]
27. Ramirez-Rico, J.; Lee, S.-Y.; Ling, J.J.; Noyan, I.C. Stress measurement using area detectors: A theoretical and experimental
comparison of different methods in ferritic steel using a portable X-ray apparatus. J. Mater. Sci. 2016, 51, 5343–5355. [CrossRef]
28. Tanaka, K.; Akiniwa, Y. Diffraction measurements of residual macrostress and microstress using X-rays, synchrotron and neutrons.
JSME Int. J. Ser. A Solid Mech. Mater. Eng. 2004, 47, 252–263. [CrossRef]
29. Müller, E. The development of residual stress at bending specimens under the influence of setting and stress peening. In
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Shot Peening, Warsaw, Poland, 28 September–1 October 1999; pp. 88–95.
30. Scuracchio, B.; Lima, N.; Schön, C. Residual stresses induced by shot peening and fatigue durability of leaf springs. In Proceedings
of the 19th European Conference on Fracture, Kazan, Russia, 26–31 August 2012.