Surface & Coatings Technology 206 (2012) 3125–3136

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Surface & Coatings Technology

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

A 3D FE model with plastic shot for evaluation of equi-biaxial peening residual stress
due to multi-impacts
Taehyung Kim a, Hyungyil Lee b,⁎, Sunghwan Jung c, Jin Haeng Lee d
a
Gas Turbine Technology Service Center, KEPCO Plant Service & Engineering Co., Incheon, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sogang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dankook University, JukJeon, Republic of Korea
d
Division for Research Reactor, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, Daejeon, Republic of Korea

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

Article history: A 3D multi-impact finite element (FE) model for evaluation of peening residual stress is presented. Combined
Received 13 May 2011 peening factors by Kim et al. are applied to the 3D symmetry-cell originally contrived by Meguid et al. To
Accepted in revised form 28 December 2011 describe the feature of multi-impacts, concepts such as FE peening coverage, impact sequence and cycle-
Available online 4 January 2012
repetition are introduced. We successfully extracted the equi-biaxial stress from the simulations of diverse
single-cycle and multi-cycle impacts. At four impact locations of FE symmetry-cell, surface and maximum
Keywords:
Symmetry-cell
residual stresses converge to equi-biaxial stress, and convergence improves with the number of repetitions
Multi-impact of cycle. Impact velocity needed for comparing the FE solution with the XRD result is determined from the
Equi-biaxial stress Almen arc height and coverage. It is further found that the simulation set with plastic shot produces residual
Shot peening stress consistent with the experimental XRD result.
Residual stress © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Shot peening technique is widely used to improve the fatigue life
of mechanical parts producing compressive residual stress on the
surface. It is thus significant to evaluate the peening residual stresses,
and achieve the intended durability. Key information on peening
residual stress consists of surface residual stress, maximum compressive
residual stress and deformed depth, all of which are largely determined
by peening conditions such as shot type and diameter, impact angle,
exposure time, and peening coverage [3,4]. Peening residual stress is
often measured by experimental X-ray diffraction (XRD) [5–8].
However, a substantial amount of cost and time makes the XRD applica-
tion troublesome in the field. For this reason, theoretical and analytical
approaches were attempted in the evaluation of peening residual
stress. Numerous studies using finite element (FE) analysis were also
performed to evaluate the peening residual stress. Al-Hassani [9], Hills
et al. [10], and Al-Obaid [11] theoretically suggested the relationship
between shot peening parameters and residual stress. However, it is
almost prohibitive to theoretically predict the stress interference from
multi-impacts, and interaction among the peening parameters, various
material properties and surface morphology. This leads the finite
element (FE) analysis to be an advantageous tool in the evaluation of
peening residual stress.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 82 2 705 8636; fax: + 82 2 712 0799.
E-mail address: hylee@sogang.ac.kr (H. Lee).
Regarding FE analyses for shot peening residual stresses, there are
many FE models such as 2D indentation, 2D and 3D single impact, 3D
multi-impact and 2D and 3D angled-impact. Among them, the 2D
axisymmetric FE model has been used longest, and mainly aims to
describe the single shot impact on the surface of elasto-plastic bodies.
Some studies validated the 2D FE solution by comparing it with the
Hertzian solution for spherical indentation [12,13], experimental
results [14]. Some studies considered the deformation of shot and
friction [15,16] and strain hardening of material [17], and a dent
produced by a single shot [18]. Those 2D FE models were further
being refined for single-angled impact [19], and used as the base for
3D multi-shot impacts [20–25]. Among the issues above, we focused
our concern on the FE model with kinematical factors of shot, material
characteristics, and experimental validation of FE solution.
In the early stages of FE analysis for peening, 2D single impact or
indentation FE models were largely used. Follansbee et al. [26] and
Sinclair et al. [27] examined residual stress field of the host material
based on FE analyses for quasi-static normal indentation with a
rigid sphere. Levers et al. [28] introduced compressive residual stress
with thermal load. Al-Obaid [29], and Schiffner and Helling [12]
performed elasto-plastic dynamic analysis for normal impact of a single
shot. Meguid et al. [30] examined the effects of size and shape of shot
and the shot velocity for impact of a rigid shot via 3D FE analysis. Han
et al. [31] performed 3D dynamic analysis combining finite element
and discrete element (DE) for normal impact of a single shot. Those
prior FE approaches presumed the single-shot-impact to be 100%
peening coverage on the peened surface, and accordingly, stress inter-
ference by multi-shot-impacts was excluded.

0257-8972/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2011.12.042
3126 T. Kim et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 206 (2012) 3125–3136
Fig. 1. Impact positions of 7 shots and position (P1) for stress evaluation in a basic FE model.
Hence, some multi-impact FE analyses were carried out to simulate
the peening process in a more actual manner including the effect of
stress interference. Guagliano [20] derived the relationship between
arc height of Almen strip and peening residual stress via FE analyses
for arbitrary multi-impacts. Han et al. [21] extended their single
impact analysis to multi-impact analysis for peen-forming process
with combined finite and discrete elements. Kim et al. [32] set the
peening coverage as central distances between shot balls in the 3D
multi-impact analysis. Those FE analyses for arbitrary multi-impacts,
however, could not provide homogeneous equi-biaxial residual stress
on the peened surface. Meguid et al. [2] and Majzoobi et al. [23]
contrived a 3D symmetry-cell FE model for multi-impacts to achieve
location free residual stress. They used rigid or elastic shots in the
simulation, but they excluded plastic deformation of shot ball, which
is however crucial in extracting the proper residual stress. Further,
they neither checked the convergency to equi-biaxial stress nor
compared it with experimental result. Overall, the prior 2D and 3D FE
works examined the effect of an individual set of peening parameters
without any systematic integration of the physical response of material
and the kinematical peening factors.
Recently, FE peening analyses have been widely studied for multi-
random impact. Miao et al. included additional computation in their
multi-random shots analyses and applied the analysis result to their
analytical model [33]. In the model of Miao et al., the shots set with
rigid ball and angled at 60 o and 90 o, respectively involved a limited
surface area. However, the model has not been experimentally
verified. Bagherifard et al. [34] proposed a multi-random shot-peening
model, where elastic shots are chosen and shots are introduced in a
Fig. 2. Deformed shapes of dents with various S and shot diameter D = 0.8 mm.
confined surface region, and they investigated the vertical impact
with the model and subsequently verified the results with the XRD
experimental results. However, in all of the previous works the impact
regions were confined so that randomness in multi-shots was only
limitedly achieved. Thus, randomness in multi-shot simulations
remained yet to be properly addressed. To the end, previously we
addressed randomness in conjunction with various possible impact
sequences instead of actually expanding the impact area in the simulation
set-up. We proposed to construct a 3D FE model (named Symmetry-cell)
bounded by four symmetry planes enabling the simulation of large-
surface peening. Various possible impact sequences were studied using
the FE model and the optimal impact sequence to best match the
experimental data was found based on the FE results. In addition, the FE
model was assumed elastic–plastic material to realistically behave at
the impact (whereas the previous works used elastic shots). Using the
FE model tuned with the optimal impact sequence and the shot ball
material characteristic, the accuracy of the shot peening predictions was
largely improved in comparison with those from the previous works.
In this study, we propose a 3D FE model (Symmetry-cell) for
evaluation of peening residual stress resulting from multi-impacts.
The integrated peening factors are applied to the 3D symmetry-cell
contrived by Meguid et al. [2]. To describe the feature of multi-
impacts, concepts such as FE peening coverage, impact sequence and
cycle-repetition are introduced. The role of plastic shot is also
discussed. We then obtain the homogeneous equi-biaxial stress with
diverse single-cycle and multi-cycle impacts. In the end, the residual
stress solution of the 3D FE model (set with the impact velocity achieved
by using the Almen curve) is compared with the XRD result [35].
 T. Kim et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 206 (2012) 3125–3136 3127

Fig. 3. Comparison of residual stresses for various values of S after 7 multi-shot-impacts.

2. Preliminary 3D FE analysis for multi-impact
2.1. FE modeling of multi-impact
We used the commercial FE analysis program ABAQUS Ver.6.5
(2004) [36]. Fig. 1(a) shows a 3D FE model for preliminary multi-
impact simulation, meshed with the 3D 8-node bilinear, reduced
integral element (C3D8R, ABAQUS Library). In shot peening, dents
are generated on material surface by continuous impacts, and the
sub-surface region undergoes large deformation. To analyze large
deformation of elasto-plastic material, we adopted the NLGEOM
option in the ABAQUS Explicit code. The FE model consisted of
about 169,000 nodes and 164,000 elements, and we fixed the bottom
of the circular plate. We placed contact surfaces elements on contact
areas of material and shot (Contact surfaces, ABAQUS Ver.6.5 (2004)
[36]) and applied the penalty algorithm designed for dynamic contact/
impact FE analyses [37–39]. Considering the capacity of shot peening
machine [40], we set the initial shot velocity v to 75 × 103 mm/s.
Since shot peening process is commonly used to improve the
surface property of AISI4340, AISI4340 was chosen as the material
for the single impact FE model. The material was tempered for 2 h
at 230 °C after quenching from 815 °C. Tensile test provided the
material properties; yield strength σo = 1510 MPa, tensile strength
σt = 1860 MPa, elastic modulus E = 205 GPa, Poisson's ratio ν = 0.25
and density ρ = 7850 kg/m 3. In this work, the power law formula
[24] for plastic strain was used as
0
 1n
σ e ε_ p
_ε p ¼ Dm @ − 1A ð1Þ
σo
where ε_ p is effective plastic strain rate; σe( ε_ p) is effective stress for
non-zero strain rate; and σo is quasi-static yield strength. Here, the
constants Dm and n are 2.5 × 10 6 and 6 respectively [1].
The tensile test of SWRH 72A wire with diameter 3 mm, which is
the material of CWRS (SCW/CW-32, SAE J441 [41]), provides the
properties of shot ball; yield strength σo = 1470 MPa, tensile strength
σt = 1840 MPa, which is also included in the SAE J441 standard from
1840 to 2110 MPa, elastic modulus E = 210 GPa, Poisson's ratio
ν = 0.3, density ρ = 7850 kg/m 3 and diameter D = 0.8 mm. Three

Fig. 4. Deformed shapes of dents with various impact cycles.

3128 T. Kim et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 206 (2012) 3125–3136

Fig. 5. Comparison of residual stresses for various impact cycles after 7 multi-shot-impacts.

types of shot ball were used for the present FE analysis which are
rigid shot (RS), elastic shot (EDS: elastic deformable shot) and
elastic–plastic shot (PDS: plastic deformable shot) whereas only
PDS was used in the preliminary analysis. For both the specimen
and the shot, the incremental plasticity theory was applied in the
analysis, and the material was modeled as an isotropic elastic–plastic
material obeying J2 flow theory [42,43]. The friction coefficient μ = 0.2
and material damping coefficient ξ = 0.5, which were suggested and
used in our prior 2D work [1], were also applied to the present 3D
FE model.
2.2. Peening residual stress under multi-impacts for a single cycle and
repeated cycles
In the preliminary FE model (Fig. 1(a)), dents after 7 consecutive
shot-impacts are illustrated in Fig. 1(b), when S = 0.4 mm for the
given shot diameter D = 0.8 mm. We denote the center shot by
number 1, meaning first impact on the surface of specimen. We evaluate
the residual stress distribution along with the vertical depth from the
center impact location P1. Knowing that the residual stress from actual
shot peening is in equi-biaxial stress state (σx = σz), we selected the

Fig. 6. FE symmetry-cell model for simulating multi-shot-impacts.

 T. Kim et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 206 (2012) 3125–3136
Fig. 7. Normalized equivalent stress distribution in FE symmetry-cell model.
impact sequences of a single cycle as (1) 1–2–3–5–6–4–7 (assumed as
random sequence) and (2) 1–2–3–4–5–6–7.
Fig. 2 illustrates that, for S = 0.6, 0.5, and 0.4 mm, and Fig. 3 shows
distributions of residual stress σx for various values of S with
sequences (1) and (2). In Fig. 3 d represents depth from surface,
and “single” means the single shot. With S, surface and maximum
compressive residual stresses change clearly. Smaller S increases the
stress interference between dents, producing residual stress much
greater than that of the previous single impact.
Let one-cycle represent the 7 shot-impacts as shown in Fig. 1.
Thereby n-cycle implies 7n impacts. Fig. 4 shows the shapes of
dents with various repeated impacts of 1–4 cycles for S = 0.4 mm
with shot diameter D = 0.8 mm. For one-cycle impact, dents are
clear from one another. From 2 to 3 cycles, the dents gradually
grow, and then for 4-cycles, the size and shape of dent change due
to interference. As the impact energy is further transferred to the
material surface, plastic deformation occurs to enlarge the dent.
Fig. 5 shows the distributions of residual stress with depth from the
P1 position at each cycle-repetition with sequence (1) and (2). For
both sequences, the stress distributions are similar, but surface stres-
ses are rather different. Residual stress distributions for 3 and 4 cycles
are almost identical. As the impact energy of each shot is transferred
to the material surface, energy dissipation (= plastic deformation)
capacity of material seems to get smaller and finally disappear.
Those concepts of area fraction of dent (It is called FE peening
Fig. 8. Definition of FE coverages for given shot diameter D = 0.8 mm.
3129
coverage), impact sequence and cycle repetition are applied in the
symmetry-cell model described below.
3. 3D finite element analysis using symmetry-cell model
3.1. Symmetry-cell model
Fig. 6 shows a 3D FE model for multi-shot-impact peening analysis
[2]. The left side simulates the shot peening where numerous shots,
depicted by four rows, impact on the material surface. The gap
between rows is equal, and each row remains horizontal. Shots of
four rows impact on the material surface consecutively. The second
row is set apart from the first row by the shot radius of R in
x-direction. The third row is set apart in x and z-directions by R, and
the fourth row is set in z-direction by R, respectively. Such an arrange-
ment provides the smallest gap between the shots without bumping
involved, achieving evenly spaced impacts. After impacts of four
rows, FE peening coverage C reaches 78% at any part of the material
surface. With this observation, we extracted the smallest unit cell
on which the symmetry-cell FE model is composed as shown in the
right side of Fig. 6. The symmetry-cell FE model may serve as the
whole body being shot-peened.
The FE model was meshed with 3D eight-node reduced integral
elements (C3D8R, ABAQUS Library) [36]. We fixed the bottom of the
symmetry-cell completely, and imposed symmetric displacement
conditions on the four sides (Ux = 0 or Uz = 0). In shot peening,
depending on the capacity of the peening machine, the shot velocity
varies from 20 to 100 × 10 3 mm/s [44,45]. Considering the capacity
of shot peening machine used in [40], we set the initial impact velocity,
v to 75 × 103 mm/s. The number of nodes and elements of the FE model
were about 16,000 and 14,000 for rigid shot. For elastic and plastic
shots, the number of nodes is about 85,000 (4shots) to 100,000
(16shots) and the number of elements is about 80,000 (4shots) to
96,000 (16shots) depending on the quantity of shot. We used dynamic
friction coefficient μ = 0.2 and material damping coefficient ξ = 0.5,
which were determined from the 2D single impact analysis [1].
Especially, in shot peening, where a shot impacts the material, stress
waves propagate within the material. The stress waves gradually
diminish with time as impact energy dissipates, and eventually
disappear. In this study, the global material damping is taken into
account to allow the impact energy to dissipate in a shorter computational
time. In our 2D study, without damping, ξ= 0, surface residual stress is
unstable with all shots, leading to longer computation time. On the
3130 T. Kim et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 206 (2012) 3125–3136

Fig. 9. Impact types with similar impact sequences in FE multi-impact symmetry-cell.

other hand, when ξ= 0.5, surface residual stress becomes stable in the
middle of given time step. The value of ξ= 0.5, giving the converged
solution in a shorter time, is used in this analysis.
We also determined the height h of symmetry-cell FE model from
Fig. 7. The abscissa is the depth measured from the surface of
symmetry-cell, and the ordinate is equivalent stress normalized by
the yield strength of σo = 1510 MPa. The letters A–D denote four
nodal locations impacted by the shots on the surface of symmetry-cell
as shown in Fig. 8. Since the stress vanishes at ~1 mm of distance
from the surface, we set the height of FE model h to 1.5 mm.

Fig. 10. Distribution of residual stresses for 4 impact sequences in Case 1.

 T. Kim et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 206 (2012) 3125–3136 3131

Fig. 11. Identity of peening residual stresses for similar impact types of unit cycle.

Table 1 “full coverage”. The peening coverage generally exceeds 100% in

Impact sequences with single/multi cycles. shot peening application. Most prior FE studies overlooked the peening
Case Cycles (shots) Impact sequence coverage, or represented it simply with central distance between dents.
Disregard of peening coverage left the prior FE solutions far apart from
1 (04) (1–2–3–4), (2–1–4–3), (3–4–1–2), (4–3–2–1)
4 (16) (1–2–3–4/2–1–4–3/3–4–1–2/4–3–2–1) × 1 the actual one. Peening coverage of more than 100% is expressed with
1 8 (32) (1–2–3–4/2–1–4–3/3–4–1–2/4–3–2–1) × 2 multiples of full coverage. For example, 200% of peening coverage
16 (64) (1–2–3–4/2–1–4–3/3–4–1–2/4–3–2–1) × 4 means the case where full coverage is repeated twice including the
1 (04) (1–2–4–3), (2–1–3–4), (3–4–2–1), (4–3–1–2) dent overlap. Here we only define FE peening coverage in symmetry-
4 (16) (1–2–4–3/2–1–3–4/3–4–2–1/4–3–1–2) × 1
2 8 (32) (1–2–4–3/2–1–3–4/3–4–2–1/4–3–1–2) × 2
cell for example as shown in Fig. 8 to obtain a realistic stress solution
16 (64) (1–2–4–3/2–1–3–4/3–4–2–1/4–3–1–2) × 4 for multi-impacts. Fig. 8(a) is regarded as the case with 55% peening
1 (04) (1–3–2–4), (2–4–1–3), (3–1–4–2), (4–2–3–1) coverage resulting from consecutive impacts by 4 shots. Fig. 8(b)
4 (16) (1–3–2–4/2–4-1–3/3–1–4–2/4–2–3–1) × 1 corresponds to C = 75% resulting from 12 shots (4 shots× 3 cycles),
3 8 (32) (1–3–2–4/2–4–1–3/3–1–4–2/4–2–3–1) × 2
(c) corresponds to C = 85% from 16 shots (4 shots× 4 cycles), and
16 (64) (1–3–2–4/2–4–1–3/3–1–4–2/4–2–3–1) × 4
(d) corresponds to C = 98% from 24 shots (4 shots× 6 cycles). In the
initial state of impacts, the circular dents are apart from each other.
However, they overlap soon after subsequent impacts are executed,
Generally, peening residual stresses are built on the surface and resulting in gradually changing in their shape and size. The residual
sub-surface. In the FE model, we placed fine mesh near the surface stress changes with the degree of dent overlap, which is explained in
and center axis, and coarse mesh elsewhere. We then set the the concept of peening coverage. To obtain the proper FE peening
minimum element size L to 0.02 mm based on the prior study [1]. solution, the concept of FE peening coverage should be taken as the
Considering both the test error in XRD approach and the error in main factor in the FE model.
the FE analysis involving dynamic contact, we evaluated stress
convergency at d = 0.04 mm, which is 5% of the shot diameter (=d/ 3.3. Dependency on the impact sequence
D = 0.04/0.8 = 0.05). Solutions of surface and maximum residual stress
converged for L/D less than 1/40 (see [1] for details). To apply the FE peening coverage to the 3D symmetry-cell FE
model in Fig. 8, we set S to 0.4 mm (= shot radius R) in the following
3.2. Definition of FE peening coverage analyses. This is because the symmetries of cell and shot require S ≥ R,
and the stress interference is at its maximum when S = R. Fig. 9
Peening residual stress depends on the area fraction of dent illustrates six basic impact types. Each type is divided into four sub-
formed by multi-shot-impacts. The area fraction of dent is termed types with respect to the position of first impact each unit cycle. Cases
peening coverage C, and about 100% of peening coverage C is called 1 and 6 are the same since x and z axes are equivalent in equi-biaxial

Fig. 12. Convergence to equi-biaxial stress in for 4-cycles with rigid shot.
3132 T. Kim et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 206 (2012) 3125–3136

Fig. 13. Convergence to equi-biaxial stress in for 4 cycles with elastic shot.

Fig. 14. Convergence to equi-biaxial stress in for 4 cycles with plastic shot.

stress state. Only by 90° clockwise rotation of Case 6, Case 1 and Case 6
would coincide. Similarly, Case 2 = Case 5 and Case 3 = Case 4.
Therefore only 3 impact types remain independent.
The study aims to systematically define a sequence of analysis
procedure and achieve the uniform biaxial residual stress field at
each of the four impact locations of the symmetry-cell. We thus
examined the residual stress and its convergency for various
impact sequences at locations A–D. The receptive stress fields at
the four points are adopted in the following steps to achieve the
equi-biaxial stress field and then achieve node-averaged FE
solution.
Fig. 10 shows the distribution of residual stress for 4 types of unit
cycle in Case 1. The rigid shot FE model was used without considering
any effect of strain rate. The residual stress distributions at impact
locations A–D appear different. However, if we do not differentiate
locations A–D, Fig. 10(a)–(d) are the same. Thus we may consider
the curves in Fig. 10(a)–(d) as location-free (LF) solutions. However,
residual stress by actual peening is homogeneous, implying that four
curves must converge to a single curve regardless of A–D locations.
Fig. 11(a) shows that (σx of Case 1) = (σz of Case 6). Fig. 11(b)–(c)
also demonstrates that Case 2 = Case 5 and Case 3 = Case 4. We can
now consider only Cases 1–3 below.

Fig. 15. Convergence to equi-biaxial residual stress state with number of shot ball in (a) rigid and (b) elastic and (c) plastic shots.
 T. Kim et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 206 (2012) 3125–3136 3133

Table 3
Numerical values of variables and coefficients of Eq. (3).

v (× 103 mm/s) Bi C H Computed Error

(%) (mmA) H (mmA) (%)

70 B1 = − 6.33 × 10− 7 100 0.387 0.393 1.4

B2 = 6.60 × 10− 4 200 0.450 0.440 2.3
B3 = 0.333 300 0.477 0.474 0.6
400 0.491 0.496 1.0
500 0.500 0.505 0.9
60 B1 = − 5.34 × 10− 7 100 0.342 0.348 1.9
B2 = 5.98 × 10− 4 200 0.400 0.392 2.0
B3 = 0.294 300 0.423 0.425 0.6
400 0.436 0.448 2.6
500 0.444 0.460 3.4
50 B1 = − 4.92 × 10− 7 100 0.286 0.289 1.2
B2 = 5.34 × 10− 4 200 0.334 0.328 1.8
B3 = 0.241 300 0.359 0.357 0.6
Fig. 16. Experimental Almen saturation curves for estimation of peening intensity. 400 0.373 0.376 0.8
500 0.381 0.385 1.0
40 B1 = − 3.84 × 10− 7 100 0.240 0.244 1.6
B2 = 3.98 × 10− 4 200 0.278 0.272 2.1
B3 = 0.218 300 0.294 0.293 0.4
3.4. Effects of impact cycle-repetition 400 0.302 0.306 1.2
500 0.307 0.311 1.3

Peening residual stress gradually converges to an equi-biaxial

stress state not by a single-cycle impact but by repeated impacts of
numerous shots. In this section, we therefore examined the effect of
cycle-repetition with respect to its pattern and quantity to properly stress states in further detail, we involved 4, 8, and 16 cycles. In
simulate multi-impacts. Table 1 summarizes the impact sequences other words, we set cycle-repetitions such as (4 cycles = 16 shots),
for multi-cycles of Cases 1–3. We grouped them as 1 (4 shots) cycle, (8 cycles = 32 shots) and (16 cycles = 64 shots). Fig. 15 shows conver-
and 4 (16 shots), 8 (32 shots), and 16 (64 shots) cycles. Figs. 12–14 gence of the residual stresses with the number of cycles for 3 types of
show the convergence to equi-biaxial residual stress state in the FE shots. As the cycle is repeated, the stress state converges to
models for Cases 1–3 with 4 cycle impacts. Here, the strain rate equi-biaxial state. The results achieved from shot peening tests with
sensitivity of the material is neglected. The stress convergency with AISI4340 are likely inconsistent with the FE solutions of shot peening
multi-cycle impacts is superior to that with single-cycle impacts. for a rigid or elastic shot. For 200% of the shot peening coverage where
Convergency to equi-biaxial stress state (σx = σz) is found the best energy transfer to the material at the impact is considerable, discrep-
with Case 3. In contrast to the rigid and elastic shots, plastic shot ancy between the experimental data and the FE solutions with
gives the best convergence. To check the convergency to equi-biaxial AISI4340 is more likely to appear. Since the plastic shot model demon-
strates the best convergency, we selected Case 3 as the basic FE model.
Note that here convergence to equi-biaxial stress state is used to
assess the validity of randomly sequenced multi-impacts in the FE
Table 2
model. Strictly speaking, perfectly random multi-impact could not be
Numerical values of variables and coefficients of Eq. (2). realized using symmetry-cell because the shot-ball symmetry condi-
tions would have to be met for the case where the shot balls impact
v (×103 mm/s) A t H Computed Error
(s) (mmA) H (mmA) (%)
the top surface at the lines where the four symmetry sides intersect
the top surface of Symmetry-cell. However, whereas randomness is
70 0.53 60 0.276 0.253 9.0
not fully realized in the present analysis, improved consistency of
120 0.355 0.338 4.8
180 0.390 0.389 0.1 the FE solution with the experimental data was achieved by tuning
240 0.416 0.423 1.7
480 0.478 0.487 1.8
720 0.506 0.510 0.8
960 0.518 0.520 0.3
60 0.46 60 0.248 0.212 13 Table 4
120 0.312 0.294 6.1 Numerical values of variables and coefficients of Eq. (4).
180 0.336 0.338 0.6
C Ci H v Computed Error
240 0.372 0.367 1.3
(%) (mmA) (×103 mm/s) v (m/s) (%)
480 0.411 0.423 2.8
720 0.430 0.442 2.8 100 C1 = 179.4 0.240 40 42.5 5.9
960 0.454 0.451 0.7 C2 = 0.57 0.274 50 48.6 2.9
50 0.39 60 0.185 0.186 0.8 0.342 60 60.8 1.3
120 0.238 0.249 4.6 0.387 70 68.9 1.7
180 0.274 0.287 4.4 200 C1 = 153.4 0.278 40 41.8 4.4
240 0.304 0.311 2.3 C2 = 0.82 0.334 50 50.4 0.8
480 0.340 0.358 5.1 0.400 60 60.5 0.9
720 0.381 0.375 1.6 0.450 70 68.2 2.6
960 0.394 0.382 3.0 300 C1 = 144.6 0.294 40 41.6 3.9
40 0.32 60 0.143 0.153 6.5 C2 = 0.87 0.360 50 51.2 2.3
120 0.197 0.205 3.7 0.423 60 60.3 0.5
180 0.235 0.235 0.1 0.477 70 68.1 2.8
240 0.252 0.255 1.3 400 C1 = 140.2 0.302 40 42.8 6.5
480 0.275 0.294 6.5 C2 = 0.89 0.373 50 53.1 5.8
720 0.295 0.308 4.2 0.436 60 62.2 3.5
960 0.313 0.314 0.2 0.491 70 70.1 0.2
3134 T. Kim et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 206 (2012) 3125–3136
Fig. 17. Variation of arc height H with peening with coverage C for various values of v.
Fig. 18. Variation of shot impact velocity v arc heights H for various values of C.
the random sequence in multi-impacts and the number of cycles of
shots.
4. Experimental verification of finite element solution
We have introduced the concepts such as FE peening coverage,
impact sequence and cycle-repetition in the FE model. Deformation
of shot ball has been additionally considered. Fig. 16 shows the
modified experimental Almen saturation curves by Kim et al. [1] for
calibration of peening intensity on the AISI4340 surface for the shot
ball of D = 0.08 mm. The abscissa t represents the shot peening
Fig. 19. Residual stresses with 3 types of shot vs. cycle repetition in Case 3.
time, and the ordinate H represents the arc height. After shot-
peening on A-type Almen strip, we measured the curved height of
the bent strip-A meeting the SAE J442 standard [46]. In our prior
study [1], we derived Eqs. (2)–(4) from the experimental Almen
curves to calculate the shot velocities. In the present study, the
units of the parameters in Eqs. (2) and (3) are corrected to be consis-
tent, and Figs. 17-19 and Tables 2-4 from [1] are also corrected ac-
cordingly.
 
t −0:0454t 0:65
H ¼A 1−e ð2Þ
C 2
H ¼ B1 C þ B2 C þ B3 ð3Þ
H
v ¼ C 1 H−C 2 ð4Þ
where A, B1, B2, B3, C1, and C2 are fitting coefficients [1]. Considering
the capacity of peening equipment (Model: PMI-0608) [40] used in
this work, we set the limits of t (s), v (mm/s), and C (%), as
0 ≤ t ≤ 1000, 30000 ≤ v ≤ 80000 and C ≥ 100 respectively. The XRD ex-
perimental result was obtained from the specimen with coverage of
200% and arc height of 0.36 mmA [35] to be used as the reference.
In Eq. (4), for C = 200%, the numerical coefficients C1 and C2 are
153.4 and 0.82 respectively. Then, v is 55 × 10 3 mm/s by Eq. (3) set
with H = 0.36 mmA. We input this value into our FE analysis, strain
rate effect is ignored in the analysis. Fig. 19 shows convergency of sur-
face and maximum compressive residual stresses for 3 types of shots
with Case 3. After the multi-impacts with four cycles, at the locations
of A–D in the symmetry-cell, surface and maximum compressive re-
sidual stresses converge to equi-biaxial stress state. Especially, the
best convergence was achieved with plastic shot. Fig. 20(a) illustrates
that the plastic shot model agrees well with the XRD result in terms of
distribution of residual stress. Here, the analytical solutions represent
the average values of the results from the four nodal points of A–D.
The difference between plastic shot FE solution and XRD result was
fully discussed in [47]. The convergence to equi-biaxial stress state
in plastic shot is well demonstrated in Fig. 20(b). Relative deforma-
tion rate and sensitivity at the impact varies among rigid, elastic,
and plastic shot balls, all of which adopt the material properties of
AISI4340. Therefore, it can be argued that the resulting residual stress
field after the impact also varies on type of shot ball. The impact with
the plastic shot ball type produces the least deformation rate among
the three types, which is due to the fact that the transferred energy
to material is reduced by the amount of the kinetic energy consumed
by the plastic deformation of the shot ball. In comparison with the
XRD experimental data, the FE model using the plastic shot ball was
found the most consistent, which demonstrates the validity of using
the plastic shot ball for the present FE model.
 T. Kim et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 206 (2012) 3125–3136 3135

Fig. 20. (a) Comparison of stresses from FE and XRD (b) equi-biaxial stress by plastic shot.

Generally, XRD provides the stress averages over the area involved
by the X-ray inspection. Boo et al. [48] achieved the XRD data from
the circular area of metal with the diameter of 0.4 mm and Hong et
al. [49] achieved the XRD data from the area of 2 mm × 7 mm. Prevey
and Cammett [50] characterized the relationship between shot peen-
ing coverage and the area-averaged XRD data from the area of
5 mm × 5 mm. Kirk and Hollyoak [51] achieved the area-averaged
XRD data of residual surface stress from the areas of 4 mm × 4 mm,
12 mm × 1 mm and 4 mm × 1 mm, respectively. Since the present
XRD data are area-averaged, the nodal stress values from the present
model were averaged with the area accordingly and then compared
with the XRD data. Fig. 21 illustrates the node sets of A–D and A–I
of the symmetry cell where the stress fields are computed. The stress
values from the nodes are then averaged with the impact area. Each
of the average stress values from the model well agrees with the
average value of the corresponding residual stress values collected
from the areas of I, II, and III, respectively (Fig. 21). Fig. 22 presents
the average values involving the 4-node set and the 9-node set
against the XRD data. The 9-node-averaged solutions better match
the XRD data than the 4-node-averaged ones. Thus, these experimen-
tal verifications demonstrate that the present symmetry cell is able to
serve to realize random sequence multi-impact shot peening simula-
tion: the multi-random shot peening analysis requires large impact
area to reflect the reality, but instead of actually expanding the
impact area in the simulation set-up, the present FE model is opti-
mized for random multi-shot simulation with a sequence of impact
and an arrangement of the impact cycle. The present model is greatly
simplified by adopting impact sequence, yet efficiently realizes ran-
dom sequence multi-impact shot peening process.
5. Concluding remarks
Using the 3D FE model designed for multi-impacts, we examined
residual stress distributions with respect to FE peening coverage,
impact sequence and cycle-repetition and integrated combined
factors [1] with the symmetry-cell [2]. We defined FE peening cover-
ages over 100% to simulate the actual peening coverage. For various
patterns of unit impact cycle, the symmetry-cell generated the dis-
similar stress distribution at the four impact locations. As the cycle
is more repeated, the stress convergency to equi-biaxial state
improves. The plastic shot FE model provided an equi-biaxial stress
state, which agrees well with the XRD experimental results [41]. In
addition, the 9-node-averaged solutions are in better agreement
with the XRD experimental data than the 4-node based solution. It
is shown that the present symmetry-cell set with a plastic shot
efficiently realizes multi-random shot peening process only with an
impact area confined with the four symmetry planes.

Fig. 21. Locations of 4 and 9 nodes for FE averaged solution in symmetry-cell.

3136 T. Kim et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 206 (2012) 3125–3136

[17] E. Rouhaud, A. Ouakka, C. Ould, J.L. Chaboche, M. Francois, Proc. of the 9th Int.
Conf. on Shot Peening, 2005, p. 107.
[18] N. Hirai, K. Tosha, E. Rouhaud, Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on Shot Peening, 2005,
p. 82.
[19] T. Hong, J.Y. Ooi, B. Shaw, Eng. Fail. Anal. 15 (8) (2008) 1097.
[20] M. Guagliano, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 110 (2001) 227.
[21] K. Han, D. Owen, D. Perić, Eng. Comput. 19 (2002) 92.
[22] M.S. Eltobgy, M.A. Elbestawi, Proc. IME B J. Eng. Manufact. 218 (11) (2004) 1471.
[23] G.H. Majzoobi, R. Azizi, N.A. Alavi, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 164–165 (2005)
1226.
[24] S.A. Meguid, G. Shagal, J.C. Stranart, J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 129 (2) (2007) 271.
[25] M. Zimmermann, V. Schulze, H.U. Baron, D. Löhe, Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on
Shot peening, 2008, p. 63.
[26] P.S. Follansbee, G.B. Sinclair, Int. J. Solids Struct. 20 (1) (1983) 81.
[27] G.B. Sinclair, P.S. Follansbee, K.L. Johnson, Int. J. Solids Struct. 21 (8) (1985) 865.
[28] A. Levers, A. Prior, D. Socie, Multi-axial fatigue: Analysis and experiments, Society
of Automotive Engineers Inc., Warrendale, 1989, p. 16.
[29] Y.F. Al-Obaid, Comput. Struct. 36 (1990) 681.
[30] S.A. Meguid, G. Shagal, J.C. Stranart, J. Daly, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 31 (1999) 179.
[31] K. Han, D. Peric, D.R.J. Owen, J. Yu, Eng. Comput. 17 (6) (2000) 680.
Fig. 22. Closeness to XRD solution for 4- and 9-node-averaged FE solution. [32] T.J. Kim, N.S. Kim, S.C. Park, W.W. Jeong, Korea Soc. Mech. Eng. A 26 (12) (2002)
2656.
[33] H.Y. Miao, S. Larose, C. Perron, M. Lévesque, Adv. Eng. Softw. 40 (10) (2009) 1023.
[34] S. Bagherifard, R. Ghelichi, M. Guagliano, Surf. Coat. Technol. 204 (24) (2010)
Acknowledgment 4081.
[35] M.A.S. Torres, H.J.C. Voorwald, Int. J. Fatigue 24 (2002) 877.
[36] ABAQUS User's Manual, Version 6.5, Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc., Paw-
The authors are grateful for the support provided by a grant from tucket, RI, 2004.
the Korea Research Foundation (Grant No. KRF-2008-D00017). [37] F. Armero, E. Petocz, Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 158 (1998) 69.
[38] D.R.J. Owen, E.A. De Souza Neto, S.Y. Zhao, D. Peric, J.G. Loughran, Comput. Meth.
Appl. Mech. Eng. 151 (1998) 479.
References [39] D.R.J. Owen, Y.T. Feng, E.A. De Souza Neto, M.G. Cottrell, F. Wang, F.M. Andrade
Pires, J. Yu, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 60 (2004) 317.
[1] T. Kim, H. Lee, H.C. Hyun, S. Jung, Mater. Sci. Eng., A 528 (2011) 5945. [40] Rotation Table Type Impeller Peening Machine (PMI-0608) User's Manual, Sae-
[2] S.A. Meguid, G. Shagal, J.C. Stranart, Int. J. Impact Eng. 27 (2002) 119. myung Shot Machinery Co., Inc., 2004
[3] C.M. Verport, C. Gerdes, Inst. Ind. Technol. Transfer Int., 1, 1989, p. 11. [41] SAE J441, Cut wire shot, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 2001
[4] R.P. Garibay, S.L. Terry, Inst. Ind. Technol. Transfer Int. 1 (1989) 227. [42] R. Hill, The mathematical theory of plasticity, Oxford University Press, London,
[5] P.S. Song, C.C. Wen, Eng. Fract. Mech. 63 (1999) 295. 1998.
[6] R.M. Menig, L. Pintschovius, V. Schulze, O. Vöhringer, Scr. Mater. 45 (2001) 977. [43] J. Davis, M. Ramulu, Proc. of 11th Int. Conf. Shot Peening, 2011.
[7] W. Luan, C. Jiang, V. Ji, Y. Chen, H. Wang, Mater. Sci. Eng., A 426 (2008) 374. [44] W. Cao, R. Fathallah, L. Castex, Mater. Sci. Technol. 11 (9) (1995) 967.
[8] I.F. Pariente, M. Guagliano, Surf. Coat. Technol. 202 (3) (2008) 072. [45] R. Fathallah, G. Inglebert, L. Castex, 6st Int. Conf. on Shot peening, 1996, p. 464.
[9] S.T.S. Al-Hassani, Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on Shot Peening, 1981, p. 583. [46] SAE J442, Test Strip, Holder and Gage for Shot Peening, Society of Automotive En-
[10] D.A. Hills, R.B. Waterhouse, B. Noble, J. Strain Anal. 18 (1983) 95. gineers, Inc., 2004
[11] Y.F. Al-Obaid, Mech. Mater. 19 (1995) 251. [47] T. Kim, J.H. Lee, H. Lee, S.K. Cheong, Mater. Des. 24 (2010) 877.
[12] K. Schiffner, C. Helling, Comput. Struct. 72 (1999) 329. [48] M.H. Boo, S.W. Oh, Y.C. Park, Y. Hirose, Study Ocean Technol. 8 (2) (1994) 105.
[13] S. Baragetti, Int. J. Comput. Appl. Technol. 14 (1–3) (2001) 51. [49] S.H. Hong, D.W. Lee, S.S. Cho, W.S. Joo, Int. J. Automot. Technol. 10 (6) (2002) 150.
[14] C. Ould, E. Rouhaud, M. Francois, J.L. Chaboche, Mater. Sci. Forum 524–525 (2006) 16. [50] P.S. Prevey, J.T. Cammett, Proc. of 8th Int. Conf. Shot Peening, 2002, p. 295.
[15] E. Rouhaud, D. Deslaef, Mater. Sci. Forum 404–407 (2002) 153. [51] D. Kirk, R.C. Hollyoak, Proc. of 9th Int. Conf. Shot Peening, 2005, p. 373.
[16] H.L. Zion, W.S. Johnson, Am. Inst. Aero. Astro. J. 44 (9) (2006) 1973.