Applied Surface Science 258 (2012) 4538–4543

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Surface Science

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

Effects of surface mechanical attrition treatment (SMAT)

on a rough surface of AISI 316L stainless steel
B. Arifvianto ∗ , Suyitno, M. Mahardika
Center for Innovation of Medical Equipments and Devices (CIMEDs), Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Gadjah Mada University, Jl. Grafika 2, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia

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

Article history: Surface mechanical attrition treatment (SMAT) improves mechanical properties of metallic materials
Received 6 August 2011 through the formation of nanocrystallites at their surface layer. It also modifies the morphology and
Received in revised form roughness of the work surface. Surface roughening by the SMAT has been reported previously in a smooth
20 December 2011
specimen, however in this study the starting point was a rough surface and a smoothening phenomenon
Accepted 3 January 2012
is observed. In this paper, the mechanisms involved in the surface smoothening of AISI 316L stainless
Available online 28 January 2012
steel during the SMAT are elucidated. The SMAT was conducted on a specimen with a roughness of
Ra = 3.98 ␮m for 0–20 min. The size of milling balls used in the SMAT was varied from 3.18 mm to 6.35 mm.
Keywords:
Surface
The modification of subsurface microhardness, surface morphology, roughness and mass reduction of the
Roughness specimen due to the SMAT were studied. The result shows the increasing microhardness of the surface and
Morphology subsurface of the steel due to the SMAT. The impacts of milling balls deform the surface and produce a flat-
AISI 316L like structure at this layer. Surface roughness decreases until its saturation is achieved in the SMAT. The
SMAT mass reduction of the specimens is also detected and may indicate material removal or surface erosion
by the SMAT. The size of milling ball is found to be the important feature determining the pattern of
roughness evolution and material removal during the SMAT. From this study, two principal mechanisms
in the evolution of surface morphology and roughness during the SMAT are proposed, i.e. indentation
and surface erosion by the multiple impacts of milling balls. A comparative study with the results of the
previous experiment indicates that the initial surface roughness has no influence in the work hardening
by the SMAT but it does slightly on the saturated roughness value obtained by this treatment.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Surface mechanical treatments have received much attention
due to their versatility in improving mechanical properties of
metallic materials. In principle, the treatments improve surface
structures and properties of metals by impacting milling balls
or particles onto the work surface repeatedly [1–12]. Sandblast-
ing [1–3], shot peening [4–6], ultrasonic shot peening (USSP)
[7], surface nanocrystallization and hardening (SNH) [8] and sur-
face mechanical attrition treatment (SMAT) [9–12] are among the
typical surface treatments which have been already reported in
literatures.
The novel SMAT evidently improves tensile strength [10,12] and
fatigue resistance of metals [11]. During the SMAT, the multiple and
random impacts of smooth milling balls are introduced onto the
work surface [9]. The impacts refine the grains size until nanometer
scale and induce the formation of residual stress and martensite at
∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +62 274521673.
E-mail address: b.arifvianto@gmail.com (B. Arifvianto).
the work surface and subsurface [9–13]. The nanocrystallites, resid-
ual stress and martensite are responsible to increase the strength
and fatigue resistance of metals [9]. The SMAT utilizes smooth and
spherical shots [9] rather than particles with angular shapes such
as used in the common sandblasting treatment [1–3,15]. Millling
balls with a dimension of >1 mm are also used in the SMAT instead
of micrometer-size particles as in sandblasting [1–3,15] or smaller
shots as in shot peening [9]. The SMAT generates random direc-
tional impacts [9] instead of single ones such as in the shot peening
and sandblasting [4,15]. The SMAT also modifies the morphology
and roughness of the work surface [14] as well as the other surface
mechanical treatments [1–4,15].
The modification of surface morphology and roughness during
the SMAT has been previously reported in Ref. [14]. The SMAT
enhances the average roughness of a smooth AISI 316L stainless
steel from Ra = 0.04 ␮m to the values spanning from Ra = 0.7 ␮m to
0.9 ␮m. The roughness enhancement is attributed to the impacts or
indentations of milling balls which result in the formation of craters
and pile-up at the steel surface. The uppermost points of the pile-
up and the lowest points of the craters become the new peaks and
valleys at the treated surface, respectively. The more irregular and

0169-4332/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2012.01.021
 B. Arifvianto et al. / Applied Surface Science 258 (2012) 4538–4543 4539

rougher surface is therefore obtained as the presence of such new Table 1

Microhardness enhancement at a depth of 0.1 mm after the SMAT using 250 milling
peaks and valleys [14]. In this study, AISI 316L strips with an ini-
balls with diameter of 4.76 mm.
tially rough surface are processed in the SMAT and a smoothening
phenomenon during this treatment is observed. This phenomenon Treatment Microhardness (GPa)
has never been revealed in literatures as well as the mechanisms As-received 1.65 ± 0.07
involved in the work surface evolution by the SMAT. SMAT for 20 min 2.90 ± 0.10
In this paper, the mechanisms involved in the surface smoothen-
ing of AISI 316L during the SMAT are elucidated. The typical steel
is selected due to its wide application in engineering structures average of arithmetic medium value (Ra ) of the distance travelled
and biomedical implants thanks to its excellent corrosion resis- by the stylus. The wear phenomenon was investigated by quanti-
tance and biocompatibility. The effect milling ball diameter used fying the percentage of mass reduction of the specimen after the
in the SMAT on the surface evolution of the steel is also discussed. SMAT. The percentage of mass reduction (W) is defined in Eq. (1),
The mass reduction of the specimen after the SMAT is quantified to  mt

reveal the possibility of wear mechanism during the treatment. In W= 1− × 100% (1)
m0
addition, a comparative study with the previous experiment [14]
has been made to indicate the effect of initial roughness on the mod- where m0 and mt are the mass of the specimen before and after the
ification of surface properties (i.e. microhardness and roughness) SMAT, respectively.
of AISI 316L by the SMAT.
Surface roughness is an important issue which must be opti- 3. Results
mized in materials processing. The rough surfaces are often
hindered in many structural applications. The rough surface The enhancement of microhardness at a point located in 0.1 mm
reduces corrosion resistance [16,17] and fatigue strength [18,19]. deep from the treated surface is shown in Table 1. The hardness
The smooth surface is also preferable rather than the rough one at this point increases from 1.6 GPa to 2.9 GPa after the SMAT for
for certain biomedical implants regarding to its less susceptibility 20 min.
toward microbial adhesion [20]. In contrary, a high rate adsorption The change in surface morphology of AISI 316L due to the SMAT
of specific proteins which initiate tissue development occurs on a is shown by the SEM images in Fig. 1. The as-received surface
rough implant surface [21]. consists of an irregular texture with some ridges as indicated by
the arrows (Fig. 1a). The large peaks and valleys are also observed
at the surface. The impacts of milling balls deform the peaks
2. Materials and methods

Specimens were prepared from AISI 316L stainless steel strips

with a dimension of 100 mm × 50 mm × 4 mm. The steel’s chemical
compositions (wt%) are: 0.03 C, 24.30 Cr, 10.96 Ni, 1.75 Mo, 1.24 Mn,
0.44 Si, 0.86 Cu, and balanced Fe. A cleaning-up procedure using 70%
ethanol (PT. Jayamas Medical Industri, Indonesia) was carried out
to remove the impurities at the surface prior to the SMAT.
The principle of the SMAT in this study has been described in
Ref. [14]. The specimen was placed in a tubular chamber with
a dimension of 150 and 80 mm in length and diameter, respec-
tively, together with 250 stainless steel milling balls. The SMAT
was carried out by shaking the chamber for 0–20 min so that mul-
tiple impacts between the specimen and milling balls occured. The
milling ball diameter was varied from 3.18 to 6.35 mm. The cham-
ber vibration during the SMAT was generated by 2 HP electric
motor which was able to deliver rotational speed of 1400 rpm. A
crankshaft was used in the machine to generate a reciprocating
motion of the chamber.
The hardness of the specimen subsurface was measured using
a microhardness tester (Buehler, USA) to confirm the result of the
SMAT in this study with the finding in the previous ones. The spec-
imen cross-sectional area was exposed so that Vickers indentation
at a point located in 0.1 mm deep from the work surface with
applied load of 4.9 N can be done. Prior to the surface character-
izations, the specimens were cleaned up again using 70% ethanol
(PT. Jayamas Medical Industri, Indonesia). A standard cleaning up
procedure using acetone (Junsei Chemical Co., Ltd., Japan) in PC3
ultrasonic bath (L&R Manufacturing, USA) with vibration frequency
of 55 kHz was conducted prior to the scanning electron microscopic
(SEM) study. The SEM study was conducted using XL 30 ESEM
(Philips, The Netherlands) to compare the surface morphology of
the as-received and the treated specimen. The specimen surface
roughness and its cross sectional surface profiles were measured
and observed, respectively, using Surfcom 120A contact stylus pro-
filometer (Advanced Metrology System, UK). The roughness was Fig. 1. Surface morphology evolution of AISI 316L stainless steel during the SMAT
measured at five different locations on the surface to obtain the using 250 milling balls with diameter of 4.76 mm.
4540 B. Arifvianto et al. / Applied Surface Science 258 (2012) 4538–4543
Fig. 2. Reduction of peak-to-valley heights on specimens during the SMAT using
250 milling balls with diameter of 4.76 mm.
during the SMAT and result in the formation of a flat-like structure
(Fig. 1b). However, some dark pits are clearly seen and may
represent the deep valleys or the unimpacted region at the surface.
The modification of AISI 316L surface morphology during the
SMAT is confirmed by the change in cross-sectional profile of the
surface such as shown in Fig. 2. The cross-sectional surface pro-
files confirm the presence of a rough surface on the as-received
specimen by showing the large peak-and-valley heights. The size
of peak-to-valley heights decreases during the SMAT. The reduc-
tion of peak-to-valley heights during the SMAT is time dependent
where the lower peak-to-valley height is observed at the specimens
with the longer duration of SMAT.
The evolution of surface roughness during the SMAT is shown
in Fig. 3. The SMAT reduces the roughness from Ra = ±3.98 ␮m to
the values ranging from Ra = 0.99 ␮m to Ra = 1.24 ␮m after 20 min.
Fig. 3. Surface roughness evolution of AISI 316L stainless steel during the SMAT.
Table 2
Percentage of mass reduction after the SMAT for 20 min.
Milling ball diameter Percentage of mass
used in the SMAT (mm) reduction (%)
3.18 0.013
4.76 0.017
6.35 0.035
A quick reduction in surface roughness is observed at the first 5 min
of the SMAT, but the treatment with a longer duration gives a less
significant change in the roughness. The effect of milling ball diame-
ter on the surface roughness reduction is also observed. A smoother
surface is found in the specimen after the SMAT using the bigger
milling balls.
Table 2 shows the percentage of mass reduction of the speci-
men after 20 min of the SMAT. The mass of the specimen reduces
by 0.013–0.035% after 20 min of the SMAT. In addition, the mass
reduction is higher in the SMAT using the bigger milling balls.
4. Discussions
Surface mechanical attrition treatment (SMAT) is originally
intended to improve the strength of metals by generating nanocrys-
tallites at the surface layer of work material. The SMAT induces
the formation of 6–40 ␮m thick surface layer with grains size of
20–22 nm on AISI 316L stainless steel [10–12,16]. Moreover, the
formation of residual stress and martensite due to this treatment
is also reported and considered to contribute to the enhancement
of surface microhardness (Table 1) as well as shown previously in
literatures [10,11,16]. Furthermore, the increasing surface micro-
hardness corresponds to the enhancement of tensile strength of the
steel [10,11,16].
4.1. Mechanisms involved in the evolution of surface morphology
and roughness during the SMAT
Similar to the other surface mechanical treatments [3,4,6,15],
the SMAT modifies surface morphology and roughness of metals
owing to the multiple impacts of milling balls during the treatment.
The previous finding indicates three stages of roughness evolution
during the SMAT of an initially smooth work surface [14]. In the first
stage, the roughness increases until a certain maximum value due
to the pile-up as formed surrounding the indent or crater at the orig-
inally smooth surface (Ra = 0.04 ␮m). The highest and the lowest
point of the pile-up become the peak and valley of the treated sur-
face, respectively. In the second stage, the entire surface has been
covered by the indents or craters. Some locations are even impacted
repeatedly. The height of the peak to the valley on the surface
decreases and the valley depth is no longer affected by the repeated
impact. The last stage is a saturated condition of the surface where
severe changes in the peak to valley heights are no longer to occur.
Although its roughness is lower than the as-obtained maximum
value, the saturated surface is several times rougher than the initial
one [14]. The similar phenomenon is observed during the sand-
blasting [22], shot peening [4], and surface nanocrystallization and
hardening (SNH) [8].
In contrast to the previous results [4,8,14,22], the current study
shows (1) the ability of the SMAT to decrease surface roughness
and (2) two stages in the roughness evolution. The roughness
reduction is observed during the first 10 min of the treatment fol-
lowed by saturation of surface roughness at the longer duration of
treatment. The initial surface condition clearly contributes to this
distinct result. The SMAT enhances the roughness of a smooth sur-
face (Ra = 0.04 ␮m) [14], but a roughness reduction phenomenon
by the same treatment occurs in a rough surface (Ra = 3.98 ␮m). The
 B. Arifvianto et al. / Applied Surface Science 258 (2012) 4538–4543
Fig. 4. A model of surface evolution during the SMAT.
underlying mechanisms of the surface evolution during the SMAT
have not yet been established in literatures although several mech-
anisms have been proposed to elucidate the roughness evolution
by fine particles or shot impacts, such as indentation [8] and surface
erosion or wear [3,23].
Indentation or deformation by the impacts of milling balls seems
to be the principal mechanism on surface evolution during the
SMAT as well as that shown in Ref. [14]. The peaks on the as-
received surface are deformed plastically by the multiple impacts of
milling balls and a flat-like surface with some pits is consequently
formed after the SMAT. The smooth surface of the milling balls may
be also responsible to reduce the roughness of the work surface dur-
ing the treatment. The smooth surface of the milling balls used in
the SMAT may be transferred and leaving smooth imprints to the
work surface as well as the mechanism in cold rolling [24].
Since the reduction of specimen mass is observed, the ero-
sion phenomenon presumably contributes to the surface evolution
during the SMAT. Several investigators indicate surface erosion
phenomenon at the work surface during the impact with single
particle [25,26] and sandblasting treatment [3,15,27]. The hardness
of the work surface, impact direction and velocity, geometry and
properties of the shot particles are among the important features
which determine material removal during the impact. The erosion
resistance of stainless steel is improved due to the hardening pre-
treatment, such as cold-rolling and nitriding [27]. A sandblasting
treatment with a low impact angle of attack (±20◦ ) yields the max-
imum erosion rate in ductile material such as stainless steel [15,27],
whereas the treatment with a high angle of attack results in work
hardening [15]. Surface erosion occurs when the impact velocity
of particle or shot exceeds the critical value for material removal
[25]. The higher impact velocity gives the higher impact energy,
which subsequently capable of increasing the erosion rate of mate-
rial [27]. The bigger particles used in sandblasting yields a lower
erosion rate due to the less number of impacting particles for a
given mass flow rate during the treatment [27]. However, Ref. [23]
4541
reveals a higher erosion rate on the work surface during the impact
with a bigger spherical particle because of the higher impact energy
to erode the surface. In addition to the size, the shape of the shot
or particle also determines the erosion rate of the work surface.
Impacts by angular particles yield a more severe removal effect
on the surface layer than those with the spherical ones [3]. The
impacts of angular Al2 O3 particles remove the surface layer of AISI
316LVM by microcutting action which is consequently able to elim-
inate martensite layer and relax the residual stress on the surface.
In contrary, the impacts of spherical ZrO2 particles result in a more
homogenously deformed surface [3]. Surface erosion by the impact
of angular particles is also studied in Refs. [15,27]. The impacts of
angular particles produce gouged regions and traces which indicate
the erosion of the surface layer, whereas the spherical particles as
well as used in this study tend to deform the surface instead of to cut
off and remove the surface layer. In some cases, surface erosion by
the round shape particles takes place by a plowing mechanism [26].
Particle rigidity is also the important feature determining the ero-
sion mechanism in surface mechanical treatment. The more severe
surface erosion is observed when the shot particle is broken during
the impact. The additional cutting point resulting from the break-
off of the impacting particle provides the possibility of secondary
cutting mechanism with a consequence of the enhanced erosion
rate [26].
The current study indicates a small reduction in the mass of
specimen (0.013–0.035%) after the SMAT. The milling ball param-
eters used in the SMAT may contribute to the small reduction in
mass of the specimen during the treatment. The use of rigid and
spherical milling balls instead of fragile and angular particles in the
SMAT should not theoretically induce material removal during the
treatment. Hence, the impact velocity and direction of milling balls
are the most possible factors which responsible to the surface ero-
sion mechanism during the SMAT. The random direction of milling
ball motion in the SMAT consists of a normal (Fig. 4a) and angular
impact (Fig. 4b). Both impacts generate a pile-up surrounding the
4542 B. Arifvianto et al. / Applied Surface Science 258 (2012) 4538–4543

crater. However, the later one is able to produce a larger pile-up

at the opposite of impact direction than the normal one [28]. The
pile-up may detach from the surface when the impact velocity of
the milling ball exceeds the critical value for material removal [25]
(Fig. 4c). Some other pile-up may be deformed by the subsequent
impact of milling balls during the treatment (Fig. 4d) and form a flat-
like surface such as shown in the SEM figures (Fig. 1b). Fig. 4d also
provides a representative model of surface smoothening in a rough
specimen and confirm the finding in Fig. 1b where the peaks are
deformed or indented by the impacts of smooth milling balls.Effect
of milling ball size on surface roughness evolution during the SMAT
The effect of milling ball size on surface roughness evolution
during the SMAT is clearly shown in this paper (Fig. 3). The use
of bigger milling balls increases the rate of roughness reduction
in the SMAT compared to the treatment with the smaller ones.
In this study, the saturation of surface roughness of AISI 316L
stainless steel is assumed to occur at Ra ≈ 1.0 ␮m since the longer
treatment does not yield a significant change in the roughness
value. The SMAT using 6.35 mm milling balls produces a surface
with Ra ≈ 1.0 ␮m at the end of the first 10 min, whereas the longer
duration is required by the treatment using 4.76 mm and 3.18 mm
milling balls to achieve such roughness value. The saturation of sur-
face roughness is not seen at the specimen even until 20 min of the
SMAT using 3.18 mm milling balls. A similar finding is shown in Ref.
[14] where the use of bigger milling balls produces a smoother sur-
face. Ref. [8] shows the formation of a rougher surface by SNH using
7.9 mm rather than 5.0 mm balls after 180 min of treatment. How-
ever, the treatment using the bigger balls reduces the time required
to obtain the saturation state of surface roughness [8]. The bigger
milling balls is more energetic than the smaller ones [3,8,23], hence
they can induce a larger crater or indent and reduce the duration
required for covering the entire surface with indents. The saturation
of surface roughness and the formation of the more homogenous
surface resulting from the SMAT are therefore accelerated [8].
The reduction in specimen mass is also influenced by the size
of milling balls used in the SMAT. A larger percentage of mass
reduction is observed after 20 min of the SMAT with bigger milling
balls instead of the smaller ones. This result is in agreement with
Refs. [23,29]. The higher impact energy of the bigger milling ball
enhances its velocity prior to impact the work surface until to value
that may exceed the critical velocity for surface erosion. Hence,
the SMAT using the bigger milling balls induces a severe material
removal than that using the smaller ones.

4.2. Effect of initial roughness on the modification of surface

properties of AISI 316L stainless steel by the SMAT

A comparative study of the result between the current and pre-

vious experiment [14] has been done to evaluate the effect of initial
roughness on the modification of surface microhardness and rough-
ness by the SMAT. The SMAT was performed using 250 milling balls
with a diameter of 4.76 mm for 0–20 min.
The surface microhardness enhancement by the SMAT seems
independent from the initial roughness of the work surface. For
both the current and the previous experiment [14], the microhard-
ness at 0.1 mm deep increases from Hv = 1.6–1.7 GPa to 2.7–2.9 GPa
after 20 min of the SMAT. This may indicate that the amount of Fig. 5. Effect of initial roughness on the pattern of surface roughness evolution of
impact energy for deforming the surface and modifying the subsur- AISI 316L during the SMAT.

face microstructure as well as enhancing the surface microhardness

is unaffected by the initial surface roughness and morphology of the
specimen.
The roughness evolution during the SMAT is influenced by
the initial state of the surface (Fig. 5a). The SMAT increases the
roughness of an initially smooth specimen, but it decreases for an
initially rough one. The saturation of surface roughness is observed
after 10 min for both the groups of the specimen. Interestingly,
the roughness saturation of both the groups falls into Ra ≈ 1.0 ␮m
although the latter is slightly rougher than the former one. No stud-
ies have been published to elucidate this phenomenon.
The roughness transfer from the milling balls to the work
surface during the impact may contribute to the formation of sat-
urated roughness of Ra ≈ 1.0 ␮m for both the groups of specimen.
The impacts by the identical milling balls at the same processing
 B. Arifvianto et al. / Applied Surface Science 258 (2012) 4538–4543
parameters, e.g. duration and vibration frequency of the SMAT, pro-
duce imprints with a similar morphology and thus a proximity
in roughness value for work surface. The slight difference in the
resulting saturated roughness between the two groups of speci-
men is merely related to the surface characteristics of the specimen
instead of the treatment parameters. The size of pits that are formed
in between the deformed peaks of the work surface may induce
such distinct result. The depth of the pit determines the rough-
ness since it deals with the peak-to-valley height at the surface. A
rough surface contains many deep pits. Since all SMAT parameters,
such as the milling balls, duration and the vibration frequency, in
both studies are the same, an equal impact energy is supposed to
be delivered from the milling balls into both groups of the speci-
men. However, the impact energy is not sufficient to deform the
large peaks on the initially rough surface into a size close to that
in the initially smooth one; hence this leads to the formation of a
relatively rough surface (Fig. 5b). In contrary, the shallow pits are
formed on the initially smooth surface after the SMAT. The impacts
of milling balls are able to deform the peaks and reduce the peak-
to-valley height into a size lower than that in the previous case
(Fig. 5c).
5. Conclusion
The effects of surface mechanical attrition treatment (SMAT)
on a rough AISI 316L stainless steel have been studied. The SMAT
increases the subsurface microhardness of the steel. The work hard-
ening by this treatment at the subsurface of the steel is unaffected
by the initial surface roughness of the specimen. However, the ini-
tial roughness influences the evolution of surface morphology and
roughness during the SMAT and it does slightly to the saturated
roughness value. A smoothening phenomenon by the SMAT occurs
in a rough AISI 316L. The roughness evolution during the surface
smoothening by the SMAT consists of two stages, i.e. a rapid rough-
ness reduction followed by the formation of a saturated surface
roughness. Two principal mechanisms contribute to the roughness
reduction during the SMAT, i.e. (1) indentation and (2) surface ero-
sion by the impact of milling balls. The roughness transfer from
the surface of milling ball toward the work surface during the
impact likely contributes to the mechanism of roughness reduction
as well. The milling ball size influences the roughness evolution.
4543
A smoother surface and a larger mass reduction are obtained after
the SMAT with the bigger milling balls.
Acknowledgment
This work is financially funded by The Graduate Program,
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Gadjah
Mada University, Indonesia (grant no. 1437/H1.17/TMI/PL/2011).
References
[1] M. Multigner, E. Frutos, J.L. Gonzalez-Carrasco, J.A. Jimenez, P. Marin, J. Ibanez,
Mater. Sci. Eng. C 29 (2009) 1357.
[2] M. Multigner, E. Frutos, C.L. Mera, J. Chao, J.L. Gonzalez-Carrasco, Surf. Coat.
Technol. 203 (2009) 2036.
[3] M. Multigner, S. Ferreira-Barragans, E. Frutos, M. Jaafar, J. Ibanez, P. Marin, M.T.
Perez-Prado, G. Gonzalez-Doncel, A. Asenjo, J.L. Gonzalez-Carrasco, Surf. Coat.
Technol. 205 (2010) 1830.
[4] V. Azar, B. Hashemi, M.R. Yazdi, Surf. Coat. Technol. 204 (2010) 3546.
[5] E.R. de los Rios, A. Walley, M.T. Milan, G. Hammersley, Int. J. Fatigue 17 (1996)
493.
[6] P. Peyre, X. Scherpereel, L. Berthe, C. Carboni, R. Fabbro, G. Beranger, C. Lemaitre,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A 280 (2000) 294.
[7] G. Liu, J. Lu, K. Lu, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 286 (2000) 91.
[8] K. Dai, J. Villegas, Z. Stone, L. Shaw, Acta Mater. 52 (2004) 5771.
[9] K. Lu, J. Lu, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 38 (2004) 375–377.
[10] T. Roland, D. Retraint, K. Lu, J. Lu, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 445–446 (2007) 281.
[11] T. Roland, D. Retraint, K. Lu, J. Lu, Scripta Mater. 54 (2006) 1949.
[12] X.H. Chen, J. Lu, L. Lu, K. Lu, Scripta Mater. 52 (2005) 1039.
[13] H.W. Zhang, Z.K. Hei, G. Liu, J. Lu, K. Lu, Acta Mater. 51 (2003) 1871.
[14] B. Arifvianto, Suyitno, M. Mahardika, P. Dewo, P.T. Iswanto, U.A. Salim, Mater.
Chem. Phys. 125 (2011) 418.
[15] C.-K. Fang, T.H. Chuang, Wear 230 (1999) 156.
[16] Y.-W. Hao, B. Deng, C. Zhong, Y.-M. Jiang, J. Li, J. Iron Steel Res. 16 (2009) 68.
[17] X.P. Jiang, X.Y. Wang, J.X. Li, D.Y. Li, C.-S. Man, M.J. Shepard, T. Zhai, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 429 (2006) 30.
[18] J.H. Ryu, S.W. Nam, Int. J. Fatigue 11 (1989) 433.
[19] H. Itoga, K. Tokaji, M. Nakajima, H.-N. Ko, Int. J. Fatigue 25 (2003) 379.
[20] S. Arens, M. Hansis, U. Schlegel, H. Eijer, G. Printzen, W.J. Ziegler, S.M. Perren,
Injury 27 (1996) SC27–SC33.
[21] C.J. Wilson, R.E. Clegg, D.I. Leavensley, M.J. Pearcy, Tissue Eng. 11 (2005) 1.
[22] B. Arifvianto, Suyitno, M. Mahardika, Key Eng. Mater. 738 (2011) 462–463.
[23] I. Finnie, Wear 3 (1960) 87.
[24] P. Anderson, M. Wild, J. Leven, B. Hemming, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 173
(2006) 394.
[25] I.M. Hutchings, R.E. Winter, Wear 27 (1974) 121.
[26] R.E. Winter, I.M. Hutchings, Wear 29 (1974) 181.
[27] M. Divakar, V.K. Agarwal, S.N. Singh, Wear 259 (2005) 110.
[28] B.N. Mordyuk, G.I. Prokopenko, J. Sound Vibration 308 (2007) 855.
[29] G.P. Tilly, Wear 23 (1973) 87.