Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
3URFHGLD
(QJLQHHULQJ
Procedia Engineering011 (2009)
Procedia Engineering (2009)000–000
151–154
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Mesomechanics 2009

Eigenstrain analysis of non-uniformly shaped shot-peened samples

T-S. Juna, A.M. Venterb, C.P. la Grangec, F. Hofmanna, J. Belnouea, P.R. van Heerdenb,
A. Evansd, A.M. Korsunskya,*
a
University of Oxford, Department of Engineering Science, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PJ, UK
b
Necsa Limited, Church Street West Extension, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
c
DLBS, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
d
Paul Scherrer Institut, 5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland
Received 10 February 2009; revised 3 May 2009; accepted 18 May 2009

Abstract

This paper presents the results of eigenstrain analysis in non-uniformly shaped shot-peened 17-4PH stainless steel samples. The
finite element models are established for inverse eigenstrain analysis of slices and bulk conical samples. It is shown that the
elastic strain distributions and relief are directly related to peening intensity and sample shape/thickness via the underlying
permanent strain, or eigenstrain. Thus, the effect of the peening treatment is best described in terms of the induced eigenstrain.
The proposed framework for predictive modelling of residual stresses in non-uniformly shaped shot-peened materials allows
efficient reconstruction of complete residual stress state, and provides an excellent basis for developing predictive tools for in
service performance and design optimization.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Key words: Shot-peening; eigenstrain; residual stress

1. Introduction

Shot peening is an important surface treatment method applied to metallic components to improve the resistance
to crack initiation and propagation, enhancing service performance under fatigue loading and stress corrosion
conditions [1-3]. During the process, multiple progressive impact of a stream of shot particles on the surface leads to
incremental local plastic deformation in the surface layers, while the layers below are not plastically deformed. A
number of publications have focused on establishing the complex relationship between the residual stress state
arising in relation to material properties, shot size, hardness, speed and angle of impact, and also the thickness of the
workpiece [1-5]. Considerable improvement in the understanding of shot-peening effects can be attained if plastic
strain profiles (eigenstrains) are considered, rather than residual stresses [1].
However, the relationship between the shot-peen-induced plastic strain distribution and the thickness/shape of a
peened sample is still not well established, particularly for samples of complex non-uniform shape. It was shown

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1865-2-73043; fax: +44-1865-2-73010.

E-mail address: alexander.korsunsky@eng.ox.ac.uk.

doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2009.06.035
152 T.-S. Jun et al. / Procedia Engineering 1 (2009) 151–154
Jun T.-S. et al./ Procedia Engineering 01 (2009) 000–000

from bending analysis that residual stresses depend on the geometry and thickness of a sample, while experimental
studies show that plastic strain distributions are a function of peening intensity, not of the thickness [2].
Figure 1 shows the sample geometry. The samples were “pencil-shaped”, i.e. 10mm diameter cylinders with the
end tapered to a cone with the half-angle of 15.5º, and a tip rounded to a radius of 0.75mm. A recent study [3] of the
near surface residual stresses in shot peened samples of this shape (both axial slices and bulk samples) showed that
the elastic strain distributions and relaxations are related to peening intensity and sample shape/thickness. Here we
present the results of FE eigenstrain analysis of this sample geometry. The reconstructed elastic strains from the FE
model are compared with the experimental results in bulk samples treated by shot peening to intensity 16A.

2. Eigenstrain analysis

The term eigenstrain and the notation ε were introduced by Toshio Mura [6] to indicate any permanent strain
*

arising in the material due to some inelastic process such as plastic deformation, crystallographic transformation,
thermal expansion mismatch between different parts of an assembly, etc. It accounts for all permanent strains that
arise in the material exhibiting inelastic behaviour. In the small strain approximation, the additive decomposition of
the total strain can be expressed via the sum of elastic strain and eigenstrain parts,

ε total = ε e + ε * (1)
where εe is elastic strain, and eigenstrain ε = ε pl + ε th , with ε pl
*
the plastic strain and ε th the thermal strain.
Distributions of eigenstrains embedded in the workpiece are responsible for the residual stresses observed
experimentally. In fact, the consideration of Saint-Venant strain compatibility equations and the process of elastic
equilibration demonstrates readily that residual stresses arise in a solid body if and only if an incompatible
distribution of eigenstrains is present [7-8]. Both conceptually and mathematically it is convenient to consider
eigenstrain as the source of residual stresses. Using a known eigenstrain field to deduce the residual elastic strain
(and stress) field is the direct problem of eigenstrain analysis. The inverse problem of eigenstrain analysis concerns
using the knowledge of residual elastic strains (or stresses) at a number of measurement points to retrieve the
underlying source eigenstrain field. For the eigenstrain analysis of non-uniformly shaped shot-peened samples, the
inverse eigenstrain analysis was carried out based on synchrotron X-ray diffraction residual strain measurements [3].
Frameworks for inverse eigenstrain analysis proposed in [9-10] make use of a robust and efficient least squares
approach to the determination of unknown eigenstrain distributions from residual elastic strains measured at a finite
number of experimental points [11-12]. The unknown coefficients can be found by least squares matching between
the prediction and the residual elastic strains measured experimentally, following the procedure described in detail
in the literature [12].

3. Modelling of the slice from a shot-peened conical sample

We note from the previous experimental study that residual stress distributions depend on the geometry and
thickness of the conical shot-peened samples under same peening intensity. However, we note also that a hypothesis
could be made that the eigenstrain distribution might be the same along the entire peened surface. Hence, the
experimentally measured residual elastic strain component parallel to the surface (the most important component
that is close to axial direction) from different locations with respect to the cone tip were used together (merged) to
obtain best least squares matching over the entire peened area. The putative eigenstrain profile was extracted from
each line measurement by subtracting the measured profile from its far field linear part [1]. The averaged strain
distributions appeared to be close to a combination of a Gaussian and a parabola – a description that may be useful
because of its compactness and ease of use. However, for the purposes of detailed inverse problem analysis, a more
flexible numeric description was introduced, whereby the variation of the unknown eigenstrain distribution in depth
below the surface was represented as a superposition of localised triangular basis functions, ξ i ( x ) (Figure 1) that
allows continuous piecewise-linear representation of arbitrary distributions. The formulation has the form
N
ε * ( x ) = ¦ ciξ i ( x ) (2)
i =1
 T.-S. Jun et al. / Procedia Engineering 1 (2009) 151–154 153
Jun T.-S. et al./ Procedia Engineering 01 (2009) 000–000

where ξi (x ) corresponds to the triangular pulse basis function, and ci denotes the unknown coefficients.

Fig. 1. Illustration of the triangular pulse basis function representation vs depth below the peened surface

Figure 2 shows the measured and reconstructed elastic strain distributions within the axial slice from the conical
sample. Distributions in the middle and bottom regions in the sample show good agreement with the experimental
results, whilst slight mismatch can be found in the near surface at the top region on which high strains are focused.
1000 1000
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1000 0 1 2 3
Microstrain

Microstrain

-1000
-2000
-2000
-3000

-4000 -3000
Modelling Modelling
Experiment Experiment
-5000 -4000
x (mm) x (mm)
(a) (b)
1000

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Microstrain

-1000

-2000

-3000
Modelling
Experiment
-4000
x (mm)
(c) (d)
Fig. 2. Contour plot of the elastic strain and comparison with experimental results:
(a) section A, (b) section B, (c) section C, and (d) a view of the complete model of the slice

4. Modelling of the shot-peened conical bulk sample

One of the central postulates of eigenstrain analysis is that eigenstrain distributions remain unchanged even if the
sample is cut, provided no additional plastic deformation is introduced in the process. Based on this assumption, the
eigenstrain distribution found from the inversion of the slice experimental data described above were introduced into
the FE model for the conical bulk sample. Figure 3 shows the distributions of eigenstrain and elastic strains deduced
from the FE model (virtual sections through 3D sample). While the same depth variation of eigenstrain is applied in
the entire peened area, the resulting residual stress variation is complex, with higher stresses arising in the near tip
region due to the sample geometry. The results of the model are post-processed to extract the strain values averaged
over the gauge volumes irradiated in the synchrotron X-ray diffraction experiments. It is found that experimental
and reconstructed profiles agree well, apart from a small discrepancy in the near surface region.
154 T.-S. Jun et al. / Procedia Engineering 1 (2009) 151–154
Jun T.-S. et al./ Procedia Engineering 01 (2009) 000–000

1000

Microstrain
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1000

-2000

-3000

-4000 Modelling
Experiment
-5000
x (mm)
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. (a) Contour plot of the eigenstrain and elastic strain, and (b) comparison with experimental results
at 3mm from the tip within the shot-peened conical bulk sample

5. Conclusion

The inverse eigenstrain method was used to analyse the strains/stresses in non-uniformly shaped shot-peened
samples. Two models corresponding to the slice and the bulk conical sample were employed. The slice model was
used to apply the inverse eigenstrain methodology and to determine the unknown eigenstrain variation. The same
variation was then applied to the 3D model to generate the residual stress state, and validated by comparison with
the results of diffraction measurements. It was found from the comparison between experimental and reconstructed
profiles that residual strains agreed well in most of the sample, with minor mismatch in the near surface region close
to the cone tip. The reasons for this discrepancy are being investigated.
It is concluded that, within the limits of accuracy imposed by the strain evaluation and beam positioning, optimal
interpretation is obtained by assuming that the eigenstrain distribution induced by peening is fully determined by the
peening conditions. This allows efficient reconstruction of the complete residual stress state, and provides an
excellent basis for developing predictive tools for in service performance and design optimization.

References

1. Zhang SY, Venter A, Vorster WJJ, Korsunsky AM. High-energy synchrotron X-ray analysis of residual plastic strains induced in shot-
peened steel plates. J Strain Analysis 2008;43:229-241.
2. Korsunsky AM. On the modelling of residual stresses due to surface peening using eigenstrain distribution. J Strain Analysis
2005;40(8):817-824.
3. Venter AM, la Grange CP, Hofmann F, Jun T-S, Belnoue J, Van Heerden PR, Evans A, Korsunsky AM. Synchrotron investigations of
non-uniformly shaped shot-peened samples. In-press: Zeitschrift für Kristallographie; 2008.
4. Korsunsky AM. An analysis of residual stresses and strains in shot-peening. In Proceeding of the 5th International Conference of
Residual Stresses; 1997.
5. Wohlfahrt H. Shot peening and residual stresses. In Proceeding of the Sagamore Army Materials Research Conference; 1982.
6. Mura T. Micromechanics of defects in solids. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff; 1987.
7. Korsunsky AM. Variational eigenstrain analysis of synchrotron diffraction measurements of residual elastic strain in a bent titanium
alloy bar. J Mechanics Matls Structs 2006;1:101-119.
8. Korsunsky AM. Eigenstrain analysis of residual strains and stresses. J Strain Analysis 2009;44:29-43.
9. Ueda Y, Fukyda K, Kim YC. New measuring method of axisymmetric three-dimensional residual stresses using inherent strains as
parameters. Trans of the ASME 1986;108:328-334.
10. Panontin TL, Hill MR. The effect of residual stress on brittle and ductile fracture initiation predicted by micromechanical models. Int J
Fracture 1996;82:317-333.
11. Korsunsky AM. Residual elastic strain due to laser shock peening: modelling by eigenstrain distribution. J Strain Analysis
2006;41(3):195-204.
12. Korsunsky AM, Regino GM, Nowell D. Variational eigenstrain analysis of residual stresses in a welded plate. Int J Solid and Structs
2007;44:4574-4591.