Materials Science Forum Online: 2011-03-28

ISSN: 1662-9752, Vol. 681, pp 374-380

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.681.374
© 2011 Trans Tech Publications Ltd, Switzerland

Retained austenite and residual stress evolution in carbonitrided shot-

peened steel

S.Van Wijk1, M. François1,a, E. Sura2, M. Frabolot2,

1
ICD LASMIS, Université de Technologie de Troyes (UTT), UMR CNRS 6279, 12 rue Marie Curie,
BP 2060, 10010 Troyes Cedex, France
2
Direction Ingénierie Process, Renault, 67 rue des bons raisins, 92508 Rueil Malmaison, France
a
manuel.francois@utt.fr

Keywords: Shot peening; Carbonitriding, compressive residual stresses; residual austenite, X-ray
diffraction

Abstract. Carbonitriding followed by shot peening is an important industrial process to improve the
mechanical properties of components, especially by producing compressive residual stresses. In
addition, a high hardness and strength produced by this process enhances the surface properties and
leads also a high resistance to fatigue.
In this study, shot peening with different parameters have been employed to treat the
carbonitrided specimens. The measurements of residual stress and residual austenite were
performed by X-ray diffraction. It is shown, with a simple eigenstrain model, that residual austenite
transformation under shot impact contributes to a significant fraction of residual stresses. When the
material (750 HV) is peened with 800 HV shot, it represents about 50%, the remaining is due to
plasticity. When it is peened with 640HV shot, 100% of residual stresses can be explained by
austenite transformation.

Introduction
Carbonitriding is a thermochemical diffusion process which produces a hard, wear resistant
surface layer on treated components. This treatment leads to the formation of a hardness gradient
and to a distribution of residual stresses with compressive stresses in the surface microstructure due
to changes in volume during the martensitic transformation [1]. The high hardness and strength of
the surface layer, combined with the compressive stress developed by interaction between the
surface and the core, enhance the surface properties and produce very high resistance to fatigue [2].
Shot peening (SP) is a surface treatment applied to extend the fatigue life of components
using projection of small shot with high velocity. The most important microstructural changes
introduced by shot peening are work hardening and phase transformation [3]. Usually residual
stresses are produced by shot peening because of the intense plastic deformation in material [4].
However, retained austenite produced by carbonitriding is prone to transformation into martensite
by cold working so part of the evolution of stress is due to the volumetric change associated with
strain-induced/ stress assisted transformation of the retained austenite γ into martensite α’ [5].
In this paper, an attempt is made to quantify the effects of shot peening parameters on the
residual stress (RS) and retained austenite (RA) distribution taking into account of material hardness
after carbonitriding. A simple eigenstrain model is also presented to separate the contribution of
plasticity and volume change.

Experimental Evaluation
Material and sample preparation
The test specimens are 16 x 9 x 80 mm3 parallelepipeds with material 27MnCr5. They have
been carbonitrided at 907°C and quenched in a bath at 170°C. Hardness of material of 750HV is
obtained after carbonitriding. Following, the specimens were shot peened with different process

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of Trans
Tech Publications Ltd, www.scientific.net. (#534472901, École de Technologie Supérieure, Montréal, Canada-13/02/20,21:08:45)
 Materials Science Forum Vol. 681 375

parameters, which are given in Table 1. The peened surface is 80 x 9 mm2. Depth is the distance
below the treated surface where the maximum RS is obtained. ∆RS and ∆RA are the residual stress
and retained austenite variation between carbonitrided state and shot peened state.
The stress in longitudinal direction has almost the same level than in the transversal
direction in surface and in depth. During shot peening, some parameters are kept constant: Angle of
impact of 85°, Mass flow of 13 kg/minute.

Table 1 Shot peening treatments (RS = Residual Stress, RA = Retained Austenite)

Shot peening condition Experimental results
N° Shot Shot Coverage Pressure Max Depth ∆RS ∆RA
Size Hardness [%] [Bar] RS [µm] [MPa] [%]
[mm] [Hv] [MPa]
1 0.3 640 100 3.7 1104 24 876 23.8
2 0.3 640 200 3.7 1147 15 927 25.4
3 0.3 800 100 3.7 1262 18 1034 17.9

Residual stress and retained austenite evaluation

The measurement of residual stresses was carried out by X-ray diffraction. The depth
profiles were realized by removing successive layers using electrochemical polishing. The XRD
technique was also adopted for measuring residual austenite volume fraction [6]. More information
is listed in Table 2. It should be kept in mind that residual stresses were measured in martensite
phase and thus, they are not macroscopic stresses. For specimens with high volume fraction there
may be a significant difference.

Table 2 X Ray diffraction parameters for RS and RA measurement

X ray diffraction
Diffractometer Seifert XRD 3000 PTS, 4 circles
Residual stress determination
Sin2Ψ method, peak fitting with a
Residual stress measurement
pseudo-Voigt function and Kα doublet
Lattice plane {2 1 1}
Detector type Position sensitive detector
Radiation Cr Kα (V filter)
Number of tilt angle Ψ 13 Ψ from -45° to 45°
Standard uncertainty ± 10 MPa (standard deviation)
Retained austenite determination
Measure uncertainty ±0.3%
Face centered {200} plane 2θ = 78.99°
Austenite γ
cubic {220} plane 2θ = 128.70°
Body centered {200} plane 2θ = 106.03°
Martensite α’
cubic {211} plane 2θ = 156.11°

Results
Distribution of residual stress and residual austenite introduced by shot peening
The distributions of the RS and RA with their measurement uncertainty for 3 different
conditions of SP are shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 respectively. It can be seen in Fig. 1 that there is an
376 Residual Stresses VIII

effective improvement of RS after shot peening treatment. The RS profiles show that there is almost
no influence of a change in coverage from 100% to 200% on stress maximum and a light influence
on stressed depth. However, the maximum compressive stress is influenced by shot hardness. An
important benefit of maximum RS of 158 MPa is obtained by changing shot hardness from 640 HV
to 800 HV.
Significant difference of phase transformation was observed by comparing the retained
austenite in material peened with 640HV and 800HV shot. Specimen N°3 shows much less
variation of austenite fraction than specimen N° 1. In order to quantify the influence of this
phenomenon, an analysis on plastic and transformation strain can be accounted for specimen N°1
and N°3.
0 100 200 300

Depth (µm)
-100
Residual Stress (MPa)

-400

-700 Carbonitrided
N°1_640Hv_100%
-1000
N°2_640Hv_200%
N°3_800Hv_100%
-1300
Figure 1 Residual stress profiles as a function of the depth with different conditions of SP

32
Residual Austenite (%)

Carbonitrided
24 N°1_640Hv_100%
N°2_640Hv_200%
16
N°3_800Hv_100%

0 Depth (µm)
0 100 200 300

Figure 2 Retained austenite profiles as a function of the depth with different conditions of SP

Quantitative estimation of strain due to plasticity and phase transformation

The quantitative determination of strain in material carbonitrided shot peened is based on the
eigenstrain principle [7-10]. The total strain due to shot-peening is the sum of eigenstrain and elastic
residual strain. The former can be decomposed into two parts: one comes from volume change from
austenite to martensite, and another is produced by plasticity due to shot impact and/or
transformation plasticity. So the total strain can be expressed as Eq. 1, where [εT] is the total strain,
[εE] is the elastic strain, [εP] is the plastic strain and [εTR] is the phase transformation strain.
 Materials Science Forum Vol. 681 377

[εT] = [εE] + [εP] + [εTR] (1)

For this analysis, following experimental results, only longitudinal direction (direction X)
and transversale direction (direction Y) are assumed to be no null. Using this condition, the shape of
stress, elastic strain, plastic strain and phase transformation strain tensors are assumed to be:

 
 ∆σ  ε E  ε P  ε TR 
 ∆σ  E   P   TR  
[σ]=   [ε ]=  εE  [ε ]=  ε P
 [ε ]=  ε TR
 (2)
 0   2ν E   P
−2ε   TR 
ε 
 − ε   
 1 −ν 

By using the six strain compatibility equations for total strain and the assumed symmetries, a
linear relationship between total strain and depth z is found (Eq. 3 and Eq. 4) where the curvature
radius after deformation R is equal to 1/A, the relative elongation is equal to B [11].

∂ 2ε kk ∂ 2ε ij ∂ 2ε jk ∂ 2ε ik
+ − − =0
∂xi ∂x j ∂xk ∂xk ∂xi ∂xk ∂x j ∂xk
(3)
∂ 2ε XX
T
⇒ =0
∂z 2

Then:

1 −ν
ε T = ε E + ε P + ε TR = ∆σ + ε P + ε TR = Az + B (4)
E

Constants A and B are obtained by writing the equilibrium of the section of the specimen,
e.g. writing that the total normal force and bending moment are equal to zero. As mentioned above,
strictly speaking, equilibrium on the section should be written for macroscopic stress and not, as we
did, on stress in martensite phase.
The γ to α’ transformation has been shown to be accompanied by a 4.5% volume expansion
for a complete transformation of γ in steel [12]. This allows knowing εTR from experimental
variations of retained austenite fractions.
The stress variation ∆σ due to volume expansion can thus be obtained by setting εP to zero in
Eq. 4. It is reported on Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 for two peening conditions
The plastic strain εP can be obtained from Eq. 4 knowing the experimental values of ∆σ.and
εTR from changes in retained austenite volume fraction. It is reported on Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.

It can be observed in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 that when the material is shot peened with shot
hardness (640HV) lower than the hardness of material (750HV), the change in stress during shot
peening can be completely explained by volume change due to γ phase transformation, except on the
very surface. However, when the specimen is treated with a harder shot (800HV), about half of the
stress variation during shot-peening is due to volume change and the other half by plastic straining
of martensite phase. This plasticity may be due to direct impact loading from the shot, or by the
loading from transforming austenite (transformation plasticity). Only by analyzing the stress
evolutions, there is no definitive way to distinguish the two phenomena; however, as the volume
fraction of transformed austenite is larger for peening with 640 HV shot, one would expect
 378 Residual Stresses VIII

transformation plasticity to occur also in this case. As it is not observed, it is likely that most of the
plasticity occurring when peening with 800 HV shot is due to impact loading.

0 30 60 90 0 30 60 90
0 Depth(µm) 0 Depth(µm)

-300

Stress(MPa)
-300
Stress(MPa)

-600 ∆σ experimental -600

-900 ∆σ due to phase -900

transformation
-1200
-1200

Figure 3 Stress evolutions for specimen Figure 4 Stress evolutions for specimen
peened with 640HV shot hardness peened with 800HV shot hardness

Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show more explicitly the difference in magnitude between plastic strain and
volume change for the two different conditions of shot peening. It is shown in Fig. 5 that the plastic
strain remains close to zero when shot hardness is less to the material hardness. The difference
between transformation strain and plastic strain is significant. However, in Fig. 6, almost the same
magnitude of transformation and plastic strain can be observed. This result is a clearer view of the
conclusion obtained from Fig. 3 and 4 that, for harder shot, plasticity contributes for a similar part to
residual stress change during shot peening as compared with volume change due to phase
transformation.
On Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 are reported the stress change versus the transformed fraction of
austenite. For the specimen shot with softer shot, the relation is almost linear up to 17% of
transformed austenite after which there could be saturation. On Fig. 8, it can be seen that, although
the fraction of transformed austenite is lower, the stress levels achieved are higher due to plastic
straining by impact loading. It is possible that even higher stress values could be obtained if more
austenite was transformed.

0,004 0,004

Transformation
Strain

Strain

0,002 strain 0,002

Plastic strain

0 Depth(µm) Depth(µm)
0
0 30 60 90 0 30 60 90

Figure 5 Strain evolutions for specimen Figure 6 Strain evolutions for specimen
shot peened with 640HV of shot hardness shot peened with 800HV of shot hardness
 Materials Science Forum Vol. 681 379

5 10 15 20
5 10 15 20 25 30
0
∆A(%)
∆A(%)
-100
-300
∆σ (MPa)

∆σ (MPa)
∆σ experimental
-400 -600
∆σ due to phase
transformation
-700 -900

-1200
-1000

Figure 7 Variation of stress in function of Figure 8 Variation of stress in function of

change of austenite% for material shot change of austenite% for material shot
peened with 640HV of shot hardness peened with 800HV of shot hardness

Discussion
The observation show that shot peening treatment with different parameters cause different
residual stress profiles, particular when the hardness of shot is modified. In the literature, it was
shown [13], for 100% coverage, that the peening treatment with softer shot (490-550HV) results in
a bigger amount of strain induced retained austenite transformation than the peening with the hard
shot (600-680HV) when the specimen has a hardness superior than 550HV. There is a same
tendency with results of this work by comparing the shot hardness of 640HV and 800HV.
Effect of different shot hardness on plastic surface deformation and effect of Hertz pressure
is concluded [14]. When a material of 700HV hardness was shot peened by shot of 470-520HV,
only little direct plastic surface deformation occurs which is proved by the low surface roughness.
The volumetric change produced during the decomposition of the retained austenite
contributes significantly to the generation of compressive residual stresses. The contribution of this
phase transformation to the residual stress build-up is not linearly related to the initial retained
austenite content but seems to be linearly related to the transformed fraction. The contribution may
be of similar magnitude to the residual stresses generated by inhomogeneous kinematic-plastic
deformation [5].
The analysis presented above relies on simplifying assumptions that should be analyzed
further in order to obtain quantitative relations. The stress measured by X-ray diffraction in
martensite is taken similar to macroscopic stress which is probably true enough after carbonitriding
but remains questionable after shot-peening. The value of volume change due to austenite
transformation is taken from the literature but the actual value for our material may be different.

Conclusion
The reported work illustrates the influence of shot peening treatments on residual stress
levels and austenite transformation in 27MnCr5 steel carbonitrided. A simple model based on
eigenstrains is proposed to interpret experimental results. Analysis has been developed to quantify
the plastic and transformation strain
Effect of shot hardness is studied in detail. Retrained austenite fraction in the microstructure
is an important factor to the generation of compressive residual stress during shot peening. The
stress improvement is close to 900MPa for specimen N°1 treated with softer shot (640HV) and
1050MPa for specimen N°3 treated with harder shot (800HV). These correspond to change of γ to
α’ of 24% and 18% respectively. For specimen N°1, almost all of the stress change is produced by
phase transformation because of volume expansion when retained austenite transforms into
martensite and if transformation plasticity exists, its magnitude is negligible. However, for specimen
380 Residual Stresses VIII

N°3, the stress change is the result of two phenomena of similar magnitude: phase transformation
and plasticity (most probably due to impact loading rather than transformation plasticity).

Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to ANRT (French Agency for Research and Technology) for the
CIFRE grant supporting this work.

References
[1] C.Genzel, W.Reimers, O.Schwarz, J.Grosch, Development of the residual stress state in
carburized steels due to austenite transformation by deep-cooling, 3rd European conference on
residual stress, (1992), 129-138
[2] T.Reti, Residual stresses in carburized, carbonitrided, and case hardened components,
Handbook of residual stress and deformation of steel, edited by G. Totten, M. Howes, T. Inoue,
ASM international, (2003)
[3] D.Kirk, Residual stresses and retained austenite in shot peened steels, 1st International
conference on shot peening, ICSP1 (1981)
[4] M.Benedetti, V.Fontanari, B.R.Hohn, P.Oster, T.Tobie, Influence of shot peening on bending
tooth fatigue limit of case hardened gears, International journal of fatigue, 24 (2002) 1127-1136
[5] R.C.Dommarco, K.J.Kozaczek, P.C.Bastias, G.T.Hahn, C.A.Rubin, Residual stresses and
retained austenite evolution in SAE 52100 steel under non ideal rolling contact loading, Wear 257
(2004) 1081-1088
[6] C.Suryanarayana, M.Grant Norton, X-ray diffraction A practical approach, edited by Plenum,
(1998)
[7] J.D.Eshelby, Determination of the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion and related problems,
Proc. Roy. Soc. London, series A, vol 241, No 1226, (1957), 376-396
[8] F.Ahdad, M.Desvignes, contraintes résiduelles et deformations plastiques, Matériaux et
Techniques, n°5-6, (1996), 46-50.
[9] T.Michelitsch, A.Wunderlin, Solution of the incompatibility problem in linear three
dimensional anisotropic media for an isotropic tensor, (1996)
[10] A.M.Korsunsky, On the modelling of residual stresses due to surface peening using eigenstrain
distributions, J. Strain Analysis Vol. 40 No. 8, (2005), 817-824
[11] M.François, Relation entre contraintes résiduelles et déformations inélastiques, application à
une éprouvette Almen, Internal report, University of Technology of Troyes (2005)
[12] T.Ericsson, Principles of heat treating of steels, ASM Handbook, Vol 4, Heat treating, edited by
J.Davis, G.Davidson, S.Lampman, T.Zorc, J.Daquila, A.Ronke, K.Henniger, ASM international
(1991)
[13] T.Hirsch, H,Wohlfahrt, E.Macherauch, Fatigue strength of case hardened and shot peened
gears, 3rd International conference on shot peening, ICSP3, (1987), 547-560
[14] H.Wohlfahrt, The influence of peening conditions on the resulting distribution of residual
stress, 2nd International conference on shot peening, ICSP2, (1984)