Original article

Proc IMechE Part L:

J Materials: Design and Applications
Finite element modeling of ultrasonic 0(0) 1–12
! IMechE 2017
and conventional shot peening: A Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

comparison of the effect of both DOI: 10.1177/1464420717719474

journals.sagepub.com/home/pil

processes on surface conditions

S Manchoul1, R Seddik1, R Ben Sghaeir2 and R Fathallah1

Abstract
This paper presents three-dimensional-dynamic finite element simulations of both conventional and ultrasonic peening
processes. The proposed models have the advantages of being very close to reality and of taking into account the
majority of the influencing factors linked to the processing parameters, the shot–target contact conditions and the
monotonic-cyclic elastic–plastic behavior law coupled to the damage of the treated material. The implementations of
these simulations allow predicting the changes of the main affecting fatigue surface properties, which are: (i) the in-depth
profiles of compressive residual stresses and the Von Mises equivalent plastic strains, (ii) the peened-surface damage
values (iii) and the micro-geometrical surface irregularity patterns. Applications have been carried out on two materials:
the AISI 316L and the AISI 2205. The comparisons of the computed results to the available experimental investigations
show good correlations. These results have been used and exploited to analyze and to compare the two studied peening
processes.

Keywords
Three-dimensional-dynamic finite element simulations, ultrasonic shot peening, conventional shot peening, fatigue
surface properties, comparison

Date received: 14 March 2017; accepted: 16 June 2017

Introduction
Conventional Shot Peening (CSP) is a very widely
used cold-surface treatment, particularly in aerospace
and automotive industries. It leads to enhance signifi-
cantly the High Cycle Fatigue performance of treated
parts.1 This process consists in projecting a stream jet
of dispersed hard shots on the surface of treated com-
ponents at relatively high velocities. The repetitive
impacts generally permit having beneficial surface
work-hardening and Compressive Residual Stresses
(CRS) inside the first affected layers. However, this
process needs to be carefully controlled in order to
avoid over-peening cases due to high velocities and
excessive exposure durations that induce detrimental
surface defects (overlaps, scales, etc.). More recently,
a similar treatment has been introduced: the
Ultrasonic Shot Peening (USP).2 It has the advantage
to induce a better surface quality and a larger depth of
the CRS compared to the CSP. The projection of
shots has been replaced by ultrasound energy that
generates random and repeated impacts in a specific
chamber. These differences have a significant effect on
surface characteristics and mechanical properties.
Therefore, the prediction of the influence of both
treatments on surface conditions and the provision
of a quantitative description of these differences still
present a scientific interest.
The experimental method is often utilized to study
the parameters of shot peening3 and to measure the
CRS induced by this process.4 Nevertheless, such
measurements are costly and time consuming. Thus,
a particular importance has been given to the numer-
ical simulations of this mechanical process. Numerous
Finite-Element (FE) models have been conducted to
simulate the CSP process.5–11 Al-Obaid5 performed
an initial simple model. It was based on three-dimen-
sional (3D) iso-parametric FEs. A quarter-symmetric
shot peening model was presented by Meguid et al.6
It introduced contact elements to represent the
1
Mechanical, Material and Processes Laboratory, National Engineering
School of Sousse, University of Sousse, Sousse, Tunisia
2
Institute of Applied Sciences and Technology of Sousse, University of
Sousse, Sousse, Sousse, Tunisia
Corresponding author:
S Manchoul, Ecole Nationale d’Ingenieurs de Sousse, Sousse 4000,
Tunisia.
Email: manchoulsondess@yahoo.fr
2 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)
physical contact between the shot and the target steel
plate. This model was utilized in another work to cal-
culate the equivalent stress, the equivalent plastic
strain and the elastic strain as a function of time.
Meguid et al.7 presented a comprehensive non-linear
dynamic elastic–plastic FE analysis of shot peening.
In their study, great importance was given to the
numerical convergence and to the validity of the
CRS fields. Majzoobi and Azizi8 developed a numer-
ical model to simulate multiple-shot impacts with dif-
ferent operating conditions. Their results revealed
that 25 impacts enabled obtaining a uniform stress
state. Frija et al.9 presented a 3D FE model leading
to predict the CRS fields, the plastic strain profiles,
and particularly the superficial damage value. This
model allows predicting and characterizing the geo-
metrical shot-peening-surface irregularities. It has
the advantage of predicting, as completely as possible,
all initial effects induced by shot peening. However,
the authors applied the model for isotropic hardening.
The cyclic elastic–plastic hardening was not con-
sidered. Kim et al.10 proposed a 3D FE shot peening
model, which leads to predict the CRS fields resulting
from multi-impacts. For this model, the authors
applied the idea of area-average to obtain a realistic
distribution of shot-peening CRS fields. Yang et al.11
studied the effect of an initial surface finish on the
effectiveness of the shot peening process using an
enhanced periodic cell model. Although there are a
lot of other models that have been developed to simu-
late the CSP, the study of the USP simulation is rarely
reported. Indeed, only few numerical models are
available regarding USP impacts. Similar to the
CSP process, the USP has been also opted for an
impact process. Thereby, the USP model has been
established while modifying some parameters of the
CSP model. In fact, the USP computes a lower
number of shots, bigger shots and lower speeds than
those involved in the CSP. In this context, a simula-
tion of the USP process was performed by Nouguier-
Lehon et al.12 using the discrete element method to
access the velocities of shot impacts. Their results
showed a strong correlation between the average
depth and the velocity of impacts. Moreover,
Badreddine et al.13 utilized the granular-gases meth-
ods showing that impact distributions are sensitive to
the number of shots in terms of angle and shot vel-
ocity. Chaise et al.14 gave a specific USP model to
compute a residual stress after normal impacts.
Zhang et al.15 analyzed the CRS after successive
normal impacts at the same location. Fei Yin et al.16
developed a 3D FE model to simulate the plastic
strain and deformation of the ultrasonic peened sur-
face after multiple impacts. Indeed, the authors pro-
posed a numerical algorithm to predict the surface
morphology after several impacts. Rousseau et al.17
studied the effect of bead quantity in an ultrasonic
shot peened surface, demonstrating that an increase
in the number of shots concentrates the CRS into the
treated piece. An FE modeling was performed by Dai
and Shaw18 to describe the differences between shot
peening, surface nanocrystallization and hardening
processes.
Despite the fact that these researches have taken
into account the simulation of the CSP and the
USP, the prediction and comparison of surface con-
ditions induced by both processes still present an
industrial interest. The aim of the present study is to
model and compare the CSP and USP processes by
using FE simulations. The steps of this work can be
summarized as follows:
(i) Development of 3D random multi-impact
models to simulate the USP and CSP processes.
The proposed models have the advantages of
considering the most relevant factors linked to
the processing parameters, the shot–subjected
material contact conditions and the monotonic-
cyclic elastic–plastic behavior law coupled to
damage.
(ii) Prediction of the changes of the principle affect-
ing fatigue surface properties induced by both
processes: the CRS profiles, the Von Mises
equivalent plastic strains, the peened-surface
damage value and the micro-geometrical surface
irregularity patterns.
(iii) Comparison of these surface conditions, con-
sidering the same kinetic energy and coverage
for both models.
(iv) Study of the effect of peening parameters (diam-
eter of shots, velocity and number of impacts) on
residual stress profiles.
FE models for ultrasonic and
CSP processes
Target geometry and boundary conditions
To predict the initial surface conditions after ultra-
sonic and CSP, two 3D models are carried out using
the ABAQUS /Explicit19 FE code and the Python
Programming Language. In both models, the target
dimensions are 20 mm  20 mm  35 mm, as illu-
strated in Figure 1(a). The cells of the target are
meshed by means of hexagonal elements with reduced
integration elements (C3D8R). The treated region
(Figure 1(b)) is reduced on the central area with a
2 mm width, a 2 mm length and a 1 mm height. To
improve the accuracy of the FE solutions, a refiner
mesh (0.03 mm  0.03 mm  0.01 mm) is used in the
treated region. For the boundary condition, the
bottom surface of the target is restrained against all
displacements.
For the shot–target contact, an explicit surface-to-
surface contact with friction is defined between the
target surface and the uniform spherical shots. A kine-
matic contact algorithm is selected to model the shot–
target interactions.19
Manchoul et al.
Figure 1. (a) 3D shot-peening finite-element model and (b) fine mesh of treated surface.
FE model for USP process
For the USP process, a generator delivers a sinusoidal
electric field. Using a piezo-transmitter, this electric
energy is transformed into an ultrasonic vibration
and thereafter transferred into the ultrasonic horn.
Using this horn, the shots are projected onto the
target in which the kinetic energy stored by the
shots functions as the driver of the plastic deform-
ation on the surface.
The velocity of impact is a crucial initial condition
for the USP simulation. Chaise et al.14 reported that
the average shot velocity could be as large as the max-
imal initial velocity of the ultrasonic horn, which is
given by
Vin max ¼ A2 f
where A is the vibration amplitude of the horn and f is
the vibration frequency.
For a real USP process, the collision between shots
as well as with the walls of the chamber, during the
treatment, leads to multidirectional impacts at the
surface. Therefore, the determination of impact
angles is so complicated and a specific model is
required to obtain the distribution of real impact dir-
ections. Nevertheless, it has been proved in the litera-
ture that using a small number of shots in the
experiments can significantly reduce the interactions
between shots and simplify the estimation of impact
directions.14 It can be inferred that all shots impact
the surface with an impact angle very close to 90 and
minor collisions of shots can be neglected. In the pre-
sent USP numerical model, the previous approxima-
tion is considered and the impacts of the shots are
supposed mainly normal to the impacted surface.
3
The USP model (Figure 2(a)) is composed of a
small number of elastic–plastic shots, with a big diam-
eter, which impact the treated surface at different
locations with an impingement of angle ffi90 .
FE model for CSP process
The CSP usually can control the incidence at a speci-
fied angle. In order to propose a realistic model of the
CSP process, an FE model (Figure 2(b)) which takes
into account a large number of identical shots hitting
the surface at a very high speed is developed (20–
120 m/s) with an impingement angle of ffi90 .
Material constitutive model
ð1Þ The shot peening is considered as a complex and spe-
cific cyclic loading.20 In this study, we use the com-
bined isotropic-non-linear-kinematic hardening
formulation, first introduced by Armstrong and
Frederick21 and subsequently modified by
Chaboche.22 This model expresses the evolution of
the back stress tensor, X, as a function of the equiva-
lent plastic strain. In this model,22 the yield criterion
of Von Mises is defined as follows
f ð, X, RÞ ¼ J2 ð  XÞ  R  Y 40 ð2Þ
The nonlinear hardening component X is
defined by
2
dX ¼ Cd"p  Xdp ð3Þ
3
The isotropic hardening component R describes the
change of the equivalent stress which defines the size
4 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

Figure 2. (a) Ultrasonic shot-peening finite-element model and (b) conventional shot-peening finite-element model.

of the yield surface as a function of plastic deformation at rupture, the accumulated plastic
deformation strain, the Von Mises equivalent stress, the hydro-
static stress of the applied tensor stress and the
dR ¼ bðQ  RÞdp ð4Þ Poisson’s ratio, respectively. Et , Etþt and Dt are the
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Young’s modulus at the instant t, the Young’s modu-
where dp ¼ 23 d"p : d"p indicates the increment of the lus at the instant t þ t and the damage value,
equivalent plastic strain and d"p is the plastic flow respectively.
law, which is defined as
Proposed criterion to compare CSP
f
d"p ¼l ð5Þ and USP processes

To compare the CSP and USP processes, two criteria
Depending on the material, the coefficients Q and b have been suggested: (i) the same peening coverage
are the parameters of the isotropic hardening, C and  and (ii) the same Kinetic energy.
are the two coefficients that represent the evolution of
the kinematic hardening and Y is the size of the yield
Coverage
stress.
In the shot peening, the surface coverage presents an
important variable, since it has an effect on the CRS
Damage model profile. It is deEned as the percentage of surface that
In the present study, in order to predict the shot peen- has been impacted for a given time of peening. We
ing superficial damage, the damage model of Lemaitre obtain the full coverage (100%) when the surface
and Chaboche23 is used in its integrated form. It is (Figure 1(b)) is entirely impacted.
expressed as follows In our proposed models, the shot stream impacts
the target specimen with spherical shots at a normal
Dc incidence angle. The random sequence and positions
Dffi
"R  "D of shots are generated by a python function with
"  # !
2 H 2 respect to the following constraint. In order to pro-
 p ð1 þ Þ þ 3ð1  2Þ  "D duce a T (%) coverage with a specific number of
3 eqVM
impacts, the distance between the centers ofptwo
ffiffiffi adja-
ð6Þ cent shots should be equal to e ¼ 10  a  T. Based
on the study of Fathallah,20 the radius a of shot
In the first step, the damage parameter is evaluated indentation is given by the following equation
using equation (6), and the Young’s modulus E is
updated after each increment as follows  1
D 5Kð1  er Þ2 5 ð8Þ
a¼
2 2E
Etþt ¼ Et ð1  Dt Þ ð7Þ

where Dc , "D , "R , p,  eq ,  H and  are the critical  is the density of shots, v is the shot velocity, D is the
damage, the initial critical deformation, the diameter of shots, E is the equivalent stiffness
Manchoul et al. 5

modulus, er is the coefficient of restitution and k is the
efficiency coefficient. Hence, the indentation surface
induced by the shot impact is 2a2 . Referring to
Figure 3, forpffiffiffia 100% coverage, the distance e is
equal to a  .
Kinetic energy (EK )
An identical EK is attributed to the CSP and the USP
to compare the surface conditions induced by both
processes. The kinetic energy of the shots is
 stainless steel part.26 A good correlation between the
EK ðCSPÞ ¼ D3 V2 N
12
where N is the number of shots. It can be noted that
EK depends also on the density () of the material of
the used shot.
As mentioned above, the USP simulation considers
all impacts at a constant and maximal velocity Vin max .
Consequently, referring to the same equation (8), the
total kinetic energy brought to the shots for the USP
is equal to

EK ðUSPÞ ¼ D3 V2in max N ð10Þ
12
The accuracy of the proposed CSP model is
validated by taking into consideration the same CSP
operating conditions adopted by Ahmed et al.’s 26
experimental investigations. For the AISI 316L
there are: (i) ceramic shots with 0.8 mm of diam-
eter, (ii) velocity of shots equal to 40 m/s (it corres-
ponds to the Almen intensity 0.22 mmA), (iii) a
surface coverage of 100% and (iv) an impact angle
equal to 90 .
Figure 4 presents a comparison between the com-
puted CRS profiles and the investigated X-ray
obtained inside the conventional penned AISI 316L
ð9Þ
experimental and computed values is observed. For
deeper layers, the numerical prediction in this figure
has an obvious deviation from the experimental
results. It can be related to the uncertainties and limi-
tations of the X-ray diffraction analysis technique in
inner layers. Actually, X-ray analyses are generally
more precise in the first outer layers than in the
deeper ones.
For the AISI 2205, the operating conditions used
by Pedro Sanjurjo et al.’s24 experimental investiga-
tions are considered in this application to verify the
Table 1. Mechanical properties of materials.24,25

Application E y Q
Material (GPa) (MPa)  C (GPa)  (MPa) b
Validation of two proposed FE models
AISI 316L 196 220 0.29 30 60 150 1
A comparison of the two proposed FE models is car- AISI 2205 192.5 632 0.3 192.777 575 23 13
ried out on the AISI 2205 and AISI 316L steel. Both
materials are considered as elastic–plastic with non-
linear combined isotropic–kinematic hardening.22 The
mechanical properties of the AISI 2205 and AISI Table 2. Damage parameters.24
316L steel are presented, respectively, in Table 1.24,25
Material "R "D Dc
The damage parameters (Table 2) of the AISI 2205
have been discussed in literature.24 AISI 2205 0.75 0.02 0.8

Figure 4. Validation of conventional shot peening model for

Figure 3. Used assumption for 100% coverage condition. AISI 316l.26
6 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

accuracy of the established CSP numerical model: obtained inside the conventional peened AISI 2205
(i) shot type S230, (ii) value of shot velocity equal target.24 A good correlation between the experimental
to 40 m/s (corresponds to the Almen intensity and computed values is observed.
0.22 mm A), (iii) surface coverage of 100% and (iv) For the AISI 316L, we consider the same ultrasonic
impact angle equal to 90 . peening conditions used by Li27 in his experimental
Figure 5 presents a comparison between the com- results: (i) 100 Cr6 steel shots, (ii) velocity of shots
puted CRS profiles and the investigated X-ray equal to 4 m/s, (iii) size of shots equal to 4 mm, (iv)
surface coverage of 100% and(v) impingement angle
equal to 90 .
Figure 6 indicates a good correlation for predicting
the initial CRS profiles for the AISI 316L material
comparing with the experimental results obtained by
the X-ray diffraction analysis.27 The disagreement
between the stresses predicted by the USP model
and the experimental results is observed for large
depths. The reason of this deviation may be due to
the uncertainties and limitations of the X-ray diffrac-
tion analysis technique in deeper layers. In fact, the
conditions of the X-ray measurements induce a more
dispersed error bar for the inner layers of the sample
compared to the outer ones.
All these previous results prove the capability of
the two models (USP and CSP) to describe the mater-
Figure 5. Validation of conventional shot peening model for ial behavior of the affected layers submitted to the
AISI 2205.24 cyclic shot-peening loading.

Application of proposed criterions of comparaison

AISI 316L
50
Table 3 summaries the input data for the size of shots,
0
the velocity of impacts considered in the USP and
-50 CSP simulations. In this study, two values of an amp-
-100 litude A are used (A ¼ 32 mm and A ¼ 47 mm). As a
Residual stress (MPa)

-150 result, the initial velocities of the shots Vin max used in
-200 the USP are 4 m/s (A ¼ 32 mm) and 6 m/s (A ¼ 47 mm).
-250
Numerical model USP
XRD
It is assumed that the S230 shots are used in both
-300 processes. The elasto-plastic properties of the material
-350 of shots are available in literature.24 In particular, the
-400
density, the Poisson’s ratio and the Young’s modulus
-450
of the S230 shots are, respectively, 7800 kg=m3 , 0.3
and 210 GPa.
-500
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 The USP process is similar to the CSP in the sense
Depth (mm)
that both processes entail repeated impacts of the
target surface by spherical shots. The differences
Figure 6. Validation of ultrasonic shot peening model for AISI between both mechanisms are the size of the shot
316l material.27 (between 0, 25 mm to 1 mm for CSP, and 1 mm to

Table 3. Shot peening cases.

Shot peening Velocity Number of Diameter Kinetic Coverage

models Cases (m/s) shots (mm) energy (J) (%)

USP C1 4 10 4 0.0208 75
CSP C1 40 100 0.4 0.0208 75
USP C2 6 10 4 0.0469 85
CSP C2 60 100 0.4 0.0469 85
USP C3 4 10 6 0.0704 100
CSP C3 40 100 0.6 0.0704 100
CSP: Conventional Shot Peening; USP: Ultrasonic Shot Peening.
Manchoul et al.
8 mm for USP) and its velocity (between 20 m/s to
150 m/s for CSP and 3 m/s to 20 m/s for USP).17,28
It is noted, that the USP can be also called Surface
Mechanical Attrition Treatment (SMAT).29 In fact, in
USP and SMAT processes, the shots (having the same
size in both processes) are resonated by vibration of
an ultrasonic transducer. Consequently, it can be
assumed that USP and SMAT are the same processes
through which the shots are projected onto the target
under similar peening conditions. Indeed, the only dif-
ference resides in the exposure time which is more
important in the SMAT process.
Thus, in order to approach to the real situation and
to have hypothetically the same kinetic energy as CSP,
the size of the USP shot is supposed to be 10 times
larger than the CSP one, whereas the velocity taken
into account is 10 times lower (Table 3). Considering
these hypotheses and referring to equation (8), the
evaluated indentation radius for a shot impact is
about three times higher than the one obtained in
the CSP. Thus, 10 shots are required in the CSP
model to achieve the same impacted surface induced
by one shot impact in the USP. For these reasons,
only 10 shots are utilized in USP model, while 100
shots are considered in the CSP one.
As mentined above, a Python code is developed to
the desired coverage percentage to be simulated for
each model. In order to compare the two processes,
the same coverage percentage is adopted in the CSP
and USP simualtions.
Table 3 indicates the different coverage percentages
coverage investigated in different shot peening cases.
C1, C2 and C3 present the cases of the USP and the
CSP having the same surface coverage (i.e. for the C3,
both processes have 100% of surface coverage).
As mentioned above, C1, C2 and C3 (Table 3) are
the cases of the USP and the CSP having, respectively,
Figure 7. Deformation contour of residual stress after conventional shot peening for AISI 316l material (v ¼ 60 m/s, D ¼ 0.4 mm,
EK ¼ 0:0494 J).
7
a kinetic energy equal to 0.0219 J, 0.0494 J and
0.0741 J. Each case provides the differences between
the USP and the CSP when EK is kept constant
between the two processes.
Results and disscussion
Comparison of the effect of both processes
on surface conditions
Figure 7 depicts the contours of residual stress for the
target after a CSP impact. It shows a sufficient correl-
ation between the available experimental analyses and
the numerical results, especially in the outer layers.
The contours of the equivalent plastic stress upon
the AISI 2205 peened by the CSP and USP processes
with the same coverage percentage (200%) and the
same EK are given in Figure 8.
The calculated Von Mises’s plastic stress profiles
induced by the CSP and the USP (obtained in same
condition C1) are presented in Figure 9.
Figures 10 and 11 provide a comparison between
the residual stress profiles of the USP and CSP pro-
cesses performed, respectively, on the AISI 316L and
AISI 2205 materials. For both materials, the CRS at
the surfaces for the two processes having identical EK
are comparable. In addition, the subsurface CRS
maximum in the conventional peened target is
higher than for ultrasonic peened one. On the other
hand, the thickness of the CRS is deeper for the USP
treatment than for the CSP one.
Figure 12 represents the in-depth PEEQ for USP
and CSP processes. It is observed that the plastic zone
achieved from the USP (0.55 mm) is substantially
deeper than the one obtained from the CSP
(0.4 mm). Furthermore, it is noted that the maximal
magnitude of the von mises equivalent plastic strain
8 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

Figure 8. (a) Equivalent plastic stress after CSP with (200% coverage; D ¼ 0.6 mm; v ¼ 40 m/s) for AISI 2205 material. (b) Equivalent
plastic stress after USP with (200% coverage; D ¼ 6 mm; v ¼ 4 m/s) for AISI 2205 material.

AISI 316 L AISI 316 L

700 100
Von Mises equivalent Plastic stress (MPa)

600 0

CSP MODEL C1 -100

Residual Stress(Mpa)

500
USP MODEL C1
-200 CSP model C1
400 USP model C1
-300

300 -400

200
-500

-600
100
-700
0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Depth (mm) Depth(mm)

Figure 9. Distribution of plastic equivalent stress after Figure 10. Residual stress profiles generated in the AISI 316 L
ultrasonic and conventional shot peening for AIS316L target target for ultrasonic and conventional shot peening
(EK ¼ 0:0219 J; coverage ¼ 75%). (EK ¼ 0:0219 J; coverage ¼ 75%).

(PEEQ) is reduced from 0.32 for the CSP to 0.2 for the damage variable is greater for the USP.
the USP. Therefore, the FE results suggest that for an This observation is linked to the distribution of the
EK between the USP and CSP processes, smaller shots in-depth plastic deformations.
with higher velocity generate a higher PEEQ max- In the present study, the proposed FE models are
imum than bigger shots. Nevertheless, bigger shots applied to predict the critical roughness parameters
results in a larger depth of hardened layer. These (Figure 14): (i) Rtm is defined as the average of the
major differences between the two processes can highest and lowest point between dents and (ii) Sm is
have a significant effect on the fatigue surface proper- defined as the distance between adjacent peaks.
ties of the peened target. Based on the work of Dai et al.,30 there are three
Figure 13 illustrates the evolution of the damage stages in surface roughness evolution: (i) in the first
profiles vs. the depth of the treated part for the stage, some areas are not covered, (ii) in the sec-
CSP and USP (C3) treatment. The damage is greater ond stage, more areas are covered and (iii) in the
for the CSP when the z-depth is inferior to 0.1 mm. third stage, the surface roughness comes to a stable
However, for the z-depth superior to 0.1 mm, state. As a consequence, the surface roughness
Manchoul et al. 9

AISI 2205
200

0
Residual Stress (Mpa)

-200
CSP model C1
USP model C1
-400

-600
Figure 14. Numerical contour plots, defining roughness (Rtm)
and (Sm).28
-800
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Depth(mm)

Figure 11. Residual stress profiles generated in AISI 2205

target for ultrasonic and conventional shot peening
(EK ¼ 0:0219 J; coverage ¼ 75%).

AISI 2205
0.4

0.35
Von Mises equivalent plastic strain

0.3 CSP model C3

USP model C3 Figure 15. Comparison between numerically computed sur-
0.25 face roughness (Rtm) for CSP and USP models.
0.2

0.15

0.1
numerically calculated in this work presents only the
first stage. Based on the work of Mylonas and
0.05
Labeas,31 the geometrical stress concentration factor
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Depth(mm)
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 (Kt) is also calculated by using the computed surface
roughness parameters. This factor indicates the crit-
ical shot-peened area from which a crack can initiate.
Figure 12. Distribution of plastic equivalent strain (PEEQ)
It can be approximated by the following expressions31
after ultrasonic and conventional shot peening for AIS 2205
target (coverage ¼ 100%; EK ¼ 0:0741 J).    
Rtm 1:3 Rtm
Kt ¼ 1 þ 4 5 0:15 ð11Þ
Sm Sm
   
Rtm Rtm
Kt ¼ 1 þ 2:1 40:3 ð12Þ
Sm Sm
AISI 2205
0.35
CSP model C3 The experimental results in the literature have
0.3 USP model C3
shown an important difference between the CSP and
the USP concerning surface roughness. Figure 15
0.25
depicts the numerically computed (Rtm) induced by
Damage variable

0.2 both processes. It can be observed that for a given

case (EK constant), the CSP results in a rougher sur-
0.15
face than the USP one. Indeed, for the C1
0.1 (EK ¼ 0:0219J), the Rtm induced by the CSP is equal
to 16 mm, while the Rtm induced by USP is equal to
0.05
10 mm.Thus, it proves this difference between the two
0 processes. This is caused by the shots that impact the
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Depth (mm) target at very high velocity. Besides, it proves that for
each model, the rising velocity (from C1 to C2) leads
Figure 13. Damage variable after ultrasonic and conventional to an increase in roughness.
shot peening for AIS 2205 target (coverage ¼ 100%; The Kt of the USP and CSP models are presented
EK ¼ 0:0741 J). for two cases (C1 and C2). It can be noted that
10 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

Figure 16. Comparison between stress concentration factor (Kt) for CSP and USP models.

AISI 2205 AISI 2205

100
100
0
0
-100
Residual Stress (Mpa)

-100
-200
Residual Stress (Mpa)

CSP model C1 CSP model C1

-300 -200
CSP model C2 CSP model C3
-400 -300

-500 -400

-600 -500

-700 -600

-800 -700

-900 -800
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-900
Depth (mm) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Depth(mm)

Figure 17. Effect of impact velocity on residual stress

Figure 18. Effect of diameter of shots on residual stress
distribution for CSP model (D ¼ 0.4 mm).
distribution for CSP model (v ¼ 40 m/s).

(Figure 16) for a given case (especially for C2 which

involves higher velocity than C1), the CSP process
increases the Kt more than the USP. AISI 2205

100

Influence of shot peening parameters 0

Residual Stress (Mpa)

-100
Different simulations of the USP and the CSP are
-200
performed in order to analyze the effect of the vel- USP model C3
-300 USP model C1
ocity, the diameter of shots and the number of
-400
impacts on residual stress distributions. Added to
-500
that, we propose to evaluate the impact of the increas-
-600
ing velocity on surface roughness. The shot peening
-700
cases used in this study are listed in Table 3. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

The effect of velocity is examined in the CSP model Depth(mm)

using two velocities of shots (40 m/s and 60 m/s) when

the diameter is equal to 0.4 mm. Figure 17 illustrates
that raising the velocity increases the subsurface CRS
(the maximum) value and region. Moreover, the zone
of compressive stress goes up from 0.28 mm to
0.33 mm when the velocity of shots grows from
40 m/s to 60 m/s. This result is in a good agreement
with the researches of Meguid et al.6 and Majzoobi
et al.32
The effect of modifying the diameter of shots is
presented in Figures 18 and 19. It can be observed
that for the CSP and CSP processes, increasing the
Figure 19. Effect of diameter of shots on residual stress
distribution for USP model (v ¼ 4 m/s).
diameter slightly raises the maximal magnitude of
the CRS and moves away the position of this max-
imum from the peened surface. In addition, it is obvi-
ously noted that varying the diameter of shots
influences the depth of the CRS layers. Actually, a
bigger diameter (i.e. C3 in Table 3) results in deeper
thickness of the CRS.
Manchoul et al. 11

AISI 2205
prediction of the RS distribution, an equivalent plas-
tic strain, induced surface roughness induced and a
0
superficial damage by both processes. Critical differ-
ences between the USP and the CSP have been inves-
Residual stress (Mpa)

-200
tigated using these proposed simulations. The
following conclusions and results of this work can
USP model C1 impact 2
-400 be drawn:
USP model C1 impact 1

-600 (i) When the kinetic energy is identical the resulting

CRS at the surfaces induced by bothprocesses are
-800
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
comparable. The USP produces a deeper work-
Depth (mm) hardened layer and a thicker surface area of the
CRS while the CSP results in a sighnificant
Figure 20. Effect of the number of impacts on residual stress increase in the maximum compressive residual
distribution for USP (v ¼ 4 m/s and D ¼ 4 mm). stress.
(ii) The proposed models gives the opportunity to
predict the surface roughness and the geometric
stress concentration factor by using the computed
AISI 2205
results as input values to analytical equations. It
0.25
has been numerically approved that main benefit
Von mises equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ)

USP model C1 -first impact of the USP compared to the CSP is the low
USP model C1-second impact
0.2
roughness of the surface due to the lower
impact velocities.
0.15
(iii) The developed models have been used to predict
the effect of shot velocity, shot size and the
0.1
number of impacts on the induced residual
stress profiles for the AISI316L and the AISI
0.05
2205 through a parametric study. This study illus-
trates that both the number of impacts and the
0
shot velocity affect the magnitude of the max-
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Depth(mm) imum CRS and the depth of penetration.
However, increasing the shot size results in a
Figure 21. Effect of the number of impacts on PEEQ for USP
rise in the depth of the maximum CRS and
(v ¼ 4 m/s and D ¼ 4 mm). penetration.

It remains now to adopt a fatigue criterion which

Figure 20 depicts the residual stress profiles takes into account the surface conditions induced by
induced by the USP after 10 (first impact) and 20 the USP and the CSP to determine which process fur-
(second impact) random impacts. A comparison ther improves the fatigue performance.
between the two profiles indicates that the residual
stress at the surface remains to be practically constant Declaration of conflicting interests
(400 MPa). Furthermore, the value of the maximum The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
CRS goes up (from 580 MPa to 640 MPa) as the respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
impact number grows from 10 to 20 impacts, presum- this article.
ably due to the work hardening at the surface resulted
in raising the yield stress. Funding
The effect of the number of impacts on the equiva- The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
lent plastic strain is shown in Figure 21. It is noted authorship, and/or publication of this article.
that the maximum PEEQ induced by the second
impact of the USP is 0.25, which represents an
References
important increase over that (0.1) resulting from
the first impact event (0.15). It proves that the plastic 1. Liu KK and Hill MR. The effects of laser peening and
shot peening on fretting fatigue in Ti–6Al–4V coupons.
deformation increases continually with repeated
Tribol Int 2009; 42: 1250–1262.
impacts.
2. Ducha Zeaubeneix J. Stressonic shot peening (ultrasonic
process). In: Proceedings of the ICSP-7 conference,
Conclusion Warsaw, 1999.
3. Fathallah R, Inglebert G and Castex L. Determination
Random impingement simulations of ultrasonic and of shot peening coefficient of restitution. Surf Eng 2003;
CSP have been developed to provide an accurate 19: 109–113.
12
4. Zhiming L, Laimin S, Shenjin Z, et al. Effect of high
energy shot peening pressure on the stress corrosion
cracking of the weld joint of 304 austenitic stainless
steel. Mater Sci Eng A 2015; 637: 170–174.
5. Al-Obaid YF. Three dimensional dynamic finite elem-
ent analysis for shot peening. Mech Comput Struct
1990; 36: 681–689.
6. Meguid SA, Shagal G, Stranart JC, et al. Three-
dimensional dynamic finite element analysis of shot
peening induced residual stresses. Finite Elem Anal
Des 1999; 31: 179–191.
7. Meguid SA, Shagal G and Stranart JC. 3D FE analysis
of peening of strain-rate sensitive materials using mul-
tiple impingement model. Int J Impact Eng 2002; 27:
119–134.
8. Majzoobi GH and Azizi R. A 3D numerical study of
shot peening process using multiple shot impacts. In:
9th international conference on shot peening, France,
Paris, 2005.
9. Frija M, Hassine T, Fathallah R, et al. FEM modelling
of shot peening process: prediction of the compressive
residual stresses, the plastic deformations and the sur-
face integrity. Mater Sci Eng 2006; 426: 173–180.
10. Kim T, Lee H, Kim M, et al. A 3D FE model with
plastic shot for evaluation of equi-biaxial peening resi-
dual stressdue to multi-impacts. Surf Coat Technol
2012; 206: 3981–3988.
11. Yang F, Chen Z and Meguid SA. Effect of initial sur-
face Enish on effectiveness of shot peening treatment
using enhanced periodic cell model. Int J Mech Mater
Des 2014; 4: 463–478.
12. Nouguier-Lehon C, Zarwel M, Diviani C, et al. Surface
impact analysis in shot peening process. Wear 2013;
302: 1058–1063.
13. Badreddine J, Remy S, Micoulaut M, et al. CAD based
model of ultrasonic shot peening for complex industrial
parts. Adv Eng Software 2014; 76: 31–42.
14. Chaise T, Li J, Nelias D, et al. Modeling of multiple
impacts for the prediction of distortions and residual
stresses induced by ultrasonic shot peening (USP).
J Mater Process Technol 2012; 212: 2080–2090.
15. Zhang X, Lu J and Shi S. A computational study of
plastic deformation in AISI304 induced by surface
mechanical attrition treatment. Mech Adv Mater
Struct 2011; 18: 572–577.
16. Fei Y, Lin H, Xiaoming W, et al. Numerical modeling
and experimental approach for surface morphology
evaluation during ultrasonic shot peening. Comput
Mater Sci 2014; 92: 28–35.
17. Rousseau T, Hoc T, Gilles P, et al. Effect of bead quan-
tity in ultrasonic shot peening: surface analysis and
numerical simulations. J Mater Process Technol 2015;
225: 413–420.
18. Dai K and Shaw L. Comparison between shot peening
and surface nanocrystallization and hardening pro-
cesses. Mater Sci Eng A 2007; 463: 46–53.
Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)
19. ABAQUS theory manual. Version 6.10. USA: Hibbitt,
Karlsso and Sorensen Inc., 2011.
20. Fathallah R. Mode´lisation du Proce´de´ de Grenaillage:
Incidence des Billes et Taux de Recouvrement. PhD
Thesis, ENSAM, Paris, 1994.
21. Armstrong PJ and Frederick CO. A mathematical repre-
sentation of the multi-axial Bauschinger effect. Technical
Report RD/B/N731, London: CEGB, December 1966.
22. Chaboche J-L. Sur l’utilisation des variables d’état
interne pour la description de la viscoplasticité cyclique
avec endommagement. In: Proble´mes Non Line´aires de
Me´canique, Symposium Franco-Polonais de Rhe´ologie et
Me´canique, Cracovie 1977, pp.137–159.
23. Lemaitre J and Chaboche JL. Me´canique des mate´riaux
solides. 2 ed. Paris: Dunod, 2002.
24. Sanjurjo P, Rodrı́guez C, Peñuelas I, et al. Influence of
the target material constitutive model on the numerical
simulation of a shot peening process. Surf Coat Technol
2014; 258: 822–831.
25. Laamouri A, Sidhom H and Braham C. Evaluation of
residual stress relaxation and its effect on fatigue
strength of AISI 316Lstainless steel ground surfaces:
experimental and numerical approaches. Int J Fatigue
2013; 48: 109–121.
26. Ahmed AA, Mhaede M, Basha M, et al. The effect of
shot peening parameters and hydroxyapatite coating on
surface properties and corrosion behavior of medical
grade AISI 316L stainless steel. Surf Coat Technol
2015; 280: 347–358.
27. Li J. Simulation de Re´paration par Soudage et Billage
Ultrasonore d’un Alliage à Base Nickel. PhD Thesis
LaMCoS, Lyon, 2011.
28. Astaraee AH, Miresmaeili R, Bagherifard S, et al.
Incorporating the principles of shot peening for a
better understanding of the surface mechanical attrition
treatment (SMAT) by simulations and experiments.
Mater Des 2017; 116: 365–373.
29. Bagherifard S and Guagliano M. Effects of surfaces
nanocrystallization induced by shot peening on material
properties: a review. Fratturaed Integrità Strutturale
2009; 7: 3–16.
30. Dai K, Villegas J, Stone Z, et al. Finite element model-
ing of the surface roughness of 5052 Al alloy subjected
to a surface severe plastic deformation process. Acta
Mater 2004; 52: 5771–5782.
31. Mylonas GI and Labeas G. Numerical modelling of
shot peening process and corresponding products: resi-
dual stress, surface roughness and cold work prediction.
Surf Coat Technol 2011; 205: 4480–4494.
32. Majzoobi GH, Azizi R and Alavi Nia A. A three-
dimensional simulation of shot peening process using
multiple shot impacts. J Mater Process Technol 2005;
164: 1226–1234.