Influence of Grit Blasting on Residual Stress Depth

Profile and Dislocation Density in Different Metallic

Substrates
TINA GHARA, S. PAUL, and P.P. BANDYOPADHYAY

This work deals with the effect of grit blasting on the surface and in-depth properties of a
number of commercially available metals/alloys, i.e., low carbon steel, C45 steel, SS316,
Ti-6Al-4V, Inconel 718, and Hastelloy X. The residual stress depth profile and dislocation
density of the specimens were determined using X-ray diffraction. A substantial increase in
dislocation density was observed after grit blasting. A transmission electron microscope was
utilized to observe the dislocation structure in a grit-blasted specimen. Strain hardening was also
observed at the blasted surface owing to dislocation interaction and entanglement. The hardness
profile followed a trend similar to that of dislocation density along the depth of grit-blasted low
carbon steel. Moreover, compressive residual stress is induced in the blasted surface having a
maximum value at a certain depth. The maximum induced compressive residual stress was
found to have a good correlation with the Johnson–Cook flow stress. Moreover, the depth of
the affected layer and the increase in hardness were found to depend on the yield strength and
the strain hardening exponent of the materials, respectively. A plastic deformation-induced
phase transformation from austenite to martensite was also identified in the case of SS316.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-020-06055-x
 The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society and ASM International 2020

I. INTRODUCTION materials in thermal spraying applications.[6,7] Carbon

SURFACE preparation is an important and integral
part of the thermal spraying process and is performed
prior to deposition of thermally sprayed coatings.[1–3]
This is accomplished using various means to make the
surface suitable for deposition of coatings. Grit blasting
is a surface preparation technique in which sharp
abrasive grits are made to impinge on to the substrate
surface at a high velocity. Upon impact, the hard grit
erodes a small volume of material leaving a small crater
on the surface. Repeated occurrence of such impacts
results in roughening of the substrate surface.[4] The
rough surface thus produced is often useful for better
mechanical anchorage of the coating and the sub-
strate.[5] Alumina, silicon carbide, SiO2, ZrO2, B4C,
diamond, etc., are commonly used grit materials.
Considering the material chemistry, excellent struc-
tural properties, and wettability, low carbon steel,
stainless steel, Ti-6Al-4V, high carbon steel, Nimonic,
Hastelloy, Inconel, etc., are prevalently used as substrate
TINA GHARA, S. PAUL, and P.P. BANDYOPADHYAY are
with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal 721302, India.
Contact e-mail: ppb@mech.iitkgp.ac.in
Manuscript submitted March 23, 2020; accepted October 5, 2020.
Article published online October 30, 2020
steels are extensively used as the structural materials,
whereas SS316 and Ti-6Al-4V are utilized as medical
implants.[8] On the other hand, Ni-based superalloys are
mostly suitable for high temperature applications, i.e.,
turbine blades, heat exchanger tubes, jet engines, and so
on.[9]
Grit blasting is the most common process that is
employed to remove scales and deposits from the
substrate surface.[10,11] Grit blasting is also useful to
improve the fatigue life of the substrates.[12,13] Cattoni
et al.[14] reported that grit blasting restricted fatigue
crack initiation and growth owing to the generation of
compressive residual stress in Ti-6Al-7Nb and AISI
316LVM substrate surfaces.
Different material removal mechanisms in surface
erosion by abrasive particles were observed by various
researchers.[15,16] Chander et al.[17] observed that micro-
cutting and shearing of the low carbon steel surface after
grit blasting. They also investigated the influence of grit
blasting parameters on surface properties like rough-
ness, residual stress, and hardness. Staia et al.[18] exam-
ined the adhesive property of the WC-Co coating on the
basis of surface roughness of the grit-blasted substrate.
They observed that a rougher surface is capable to
provide better anchorage with the coating material.
A grit-blasted surface usually harbors a compressive
residual stress. The residual stress becomes more com-
pressive at a certain depth, and then, it gradually

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 52A, JANUARY 2021—65

decreases to near zero value with the depth. A plot of
residual stress vs depth is known as residual stress depth
profile. The depth profile of the residual stress (com-
pressive in the case of grit blasting) affects the crack
growth from the surface to the interior of a grit-blasted
component. This aspect has been investigated by several
researchers. Mellali et al.[19] utilized bending method
and incremental hole drilling method to estimate the
residual stress in grit-blasted aluminum alloy AU4G,
hard carbon steel 100C6, and cast iron FT25. Pressure,
grit size, and substrate material properties influenced the
depth of the affected zone after grit blasting. In case of
FT25 substrate, the maximum compressive residual
stress was found to be around 600 MPa at a depth of
approximately 30 lm from the surface. Kovářı́k et al.[20]
measured residual stress in alumina-blasted low carbon
steel using neutron diffraction method. A maximum
compressive residual stress of 100 MPa was induced at
around 50 lm under the blasted surface. The hardness
of the blasted surface also increased after grit blasting.
The substrate material is severely deformed under grit
blasting treatment. This deformation, in turn, results in
an increase in the dislocation density in the deformed
region. Dislocation density is expected to increase in a
material that is subjected to mechanical working such as
machining, rolling, shot peening, grit blasting, and so
on. Wu and Jiang[21] calculated the dislocation density in
shot peened Inconel 625. An increase in the dislocation
density from around 1 9 1013 m2 to around 791014
m2 was observed using Williamson–Hall method. Fu
et al.[22] also estimated dislocation density in SS304 after
triple step shot peening using the said method. The
maximum dislocation density of around 1016 m2 was
found after shot peening process. The dislocation
density was increased by two orders in this case.
Reports on residual stress in grit-blasted components
are few. Even fewer reports are available on residual
stress depth profiling. In fact, no work was found in the
literature on residual stress depth profiling of grit-
blasted Ni-based materials such as Inconel 718 and
Hastelloy X. Moreover, to the knowledge of the
authors, no report on dislocation density in grit-blasted
metallic substrates is available in the literature. In
addition, no dislocation density depth profile of the
grit-blasted material was found in the literature.
In this work, residual stress depth profiling of a set of
widely used and important substrate materials after grit
blasting were undertaken. The selected substrate mate-
rials are low carbon steel, C45 steel, SS316, Ti-6Al-4V,
Inconel 718, and Hastelloy X. The stress depth profile
was acquired by measuring the residual stress using
X-ray diffraction after successive removal of the sub-
strate layers by electropolishing. The maximum com-
pressive stresses in different materials were correlated
with Johnson–Cook flow stress. In addition, hardness
depth profile in each case was obtained at the polished
cross-sections of the grit-blasted samples. The depth of
affected layers and the percentage increase in hardness
were correlated to the yield strength and strain harden-
ing exponent of the materials, respectively. Further-
more, the dislocation density of as-received, annealed,
and grit-blasted specimens were estimated from X-ray
66—VOLUME 52A, JANUARY 2021
diffraction of each material using Williamson–Hall
method. Dislocation density profile was also obtained
along the depth of annealed grit-blasted low carbon
steel. To the knowledge of author, such an in-depth
investigation considering so many aspects of grit blast-
ing has not been reported so far. The data available in
the literature are scattered and few. Therefore, it was felt
appropriate to conduct a comprehensive investigation
on the properties of a few important alloys in
grit-blasted condition using the same set of equipment
and instruments.
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
A. Materials
The alloys selected for grit blasting along with their
nominal chemical compositions are listed in Table I.
Test samples of size 15 9 15 9 5 mm were cut off from
larger plates. Two coupons from each set of materials
were annealed in a vacuum tubular furnace (Nisabjee
Engg. Co., Kolkata, India), following specific annealing
cycles for individual materials. The annealing cycles
applied on different materials are tabulated in Table II.
In all cases, furnace cooling of the samples was done
after the annealing operation.
B. Grit Blasting
Both as-received and annealed samples for each
material were grit blasted in a suction type grit-blasting
machine (SANDSTORM, Bangalore, India) using
Al2O3 grits of mesh size #24 (704 lm). The following
parameters were used for blasting purpose: pressure 7
bar, SOD 120 mm, nozzle angle 90 deg, and blasting
time 60 seconds. The grit-blasted specimens were then
cleaned ultrasonically after dipping them into 2-propa-
nol to clean the grit residue[28] present on the blasted
surface.
C. Characterization of Specimens
After grit blasting, the morphology of the blasted
surfaces was observed under SEM (EVO 15, Zeiss, Jena,
Germany). A contact-type surface roughness tester
(TALYSURF 50, 3D profilometer, TAYLOR HOB-
SON, UK) was used to measure the roughness of the
blasted surfaces. The traverse and cut-off lengths for
surface roughness measurement were set at 4 and 0.8
mm, respectively. The roughness measurement was
performed at five places on the blasted surface and an
average of those five readings is presented.
X-ray diffraction patterns of all the materials, prior to
and after grit blasting, were acquired by scanning a 2h
range of 20 to 160 deg using Cu–Ka radiation. There-
after, background correction and Ka2 stripping were
applied in all the X-ray diffraction profile for the line
profile analysis as discussed by Delhez et al.[29] Then, the
average crystallite size and microstrain were obtained
using Williamson–Hall[30,31] equation, considering uni-
form deformation model (UDM). It was assumed that
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
 Table I. Nominal Compositions of Different Materials Under Consideration

Elements Fe C P Mn S
[17]
Low Carbon Steel (Wt Pct) balance 0.2 0.04 0.3 0.05

Elements Fe C Mn Si Cr P S Mo Ni Cu Al
[23]
C45 Steel (Wt Pct) balance 0.45 0.65 0.25 0.4 0.008 0.025 0.1 0.4 0.17 0.01

Elements Fe C Cr Ni Se Si Mn Mo
[24]
SS316 (Wt Pct) balance 0.02 16.3 10.2 5.4 0.455 1.5 2.08

Elements Ti Al V Fe C O H N
[25]
Ti-6Al-4V (Wt Pct) balance 6.08 4.02 0.22 0.02 0.18 0.0053 0.01

Elements Ni Cr Mo Nb Fe Co Cu Ti Al C
[26]
Inconel 718 (Wt Pct) balance 19.06 3.04 5.08 18.15 0.11 0.02 0.93 0.52 0.021

Elements Ni Cr Fe Mo Co Mn Si W C
Hastelloy X[27] (Wt Pct) balance 22 18 9 1.5 1 1 0.6 0.1

Table II. Detail of Annealing Cycles

Material Temperature (C) Heating Rate (C/min) Dwell Time (h)

Low Carbon Steel 500 6 1
C45 Steel 400 6 1
SS316 400 6 1
Ti-6Al-4V 700 6 1
Inconel 718 550 6 1.5
Hastelloy X 600 6 2

the strain is uniform along all the crystallographic
directions. The Williamson–Hall equation is given by,
kk
b cos h ¼ þ 4e sin h
D pffiffi
where 2h is the position of the peaks, b is FWHM of
different peaks, k is shape factor (k = 0.9), k is the
wavelength of X-ray (k = 1.54 Å), D is crystallite size,
and e is microstrain. The values of D and e are calcu-
lated from the intercept and slope, respectively, from
b cos h vs 4 sin h plot. The dislocation density of the
blasted and non-blasted specimens was then estimated
using the following formula,[21,22]
pffiffiffi 1=2
2 3 e2
 
q¼ ~ ½2
bD
   
   
where b~ is the Burgers vector. The Burgers vector (b~)
signifies the distortion in a crystal lattice that is
generated owing to dislocation. It is denoted as the
shortest lattice translation vector along the slip direction
in a most favorable slip plane (closely packed plane).
The Burgers vectors were calculated considering a
(BCC lattice) peaks for low carbon steel and C45 steel, a
(HCP lattice) peaks for Ti-6Al-4V and c (FCC lattice)
for SS316, Inconel 718 and Hastelloy X.
In case of BCC crystal, most favorable slip plane is of
{1 1 0} type and the slip direction is of h1 1 1i type. The
Burgers vector is expressed as follows: b~ ¼ a2 h111i,
½1 where a is the lattice
  constant. Therefore, the magnitude
~ a pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
of the vector is b ¼ 2 1 þ 1 þ 12 ¼ 23a. Similarly, in
2 2
the case of FCC crystal, most favorable slip plane and
direction are of {1 1 1} and h1 1 0i types, respectively.
Therefore,
 the Burgers vector is b~ ¼ a2 h110i and
~ a pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
b ¼ 2 12 þ 12 þ 02 ¼ paffiffi. On the other hand, for
2
HCP crystal, most favorable slip plane  is the basal
plane and the direction is of 1120 type. Hence, the
Burgers vector is b~ ¼ a3 h11
20i and
  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffi
~ a 2
b ¼ 3 12 þ 12 þ ð2Þ þ02 ¼ p2ffiffi3a, where a is the basal
lattice parameter. Table III lists the calculated values of
the Burgers vector of the considered materials.
Grazing incidence X-ray diffraction pattern of SS316
is obtained by Cu Ka radiation in 40 deg £ 2h £ 55 deg
with an incidence angle of 1 deg and 0.03 deg step size
to examine the formation of deformation-induced
martensite.
The blasted and non-treated specimens were cross
sectioned, polished, and metallographically etched to
obtain cross-sectional views. The prepared cross-sec-
tions were utilized for microhardness measurement as

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 52A, JANUARY 2021—67

well. A Leco LM 700 microhardness tester was utilized
for hardness testing using a load of 50 gf with a dwell
time of 15 seconds. The hardness measurement was
performed along the thickness of the specimens to
obtain hardness depth profile. Ten measurements were
taken at a particular depth and their average along with
standard deviation is presented.
The residual stresses of both blasted and non-blasted
surfaces were measured using X-ray diffraction tech-
nique in a high-resolution XRD machine (PANalytical,
Empyrean, DY1705, Netherlands).[32,33] Cu tube
(Empyrean Cu LFF HR (9430 033 7310x) DK411025)
generating Ka radiation was used for Ti-6Al-4V,
whereas for other materials, Cr tube (Empyrean Cr
LFF (9430 033 7800x) DK411025) was employed.
However, the other settings in the optics of the XRD
machine were kept same for both targets. A point source
with a parallel beam X-ray lens having mask of 2 mm
and divergence slit of 4 mm was employed in the
incident beam side of the diffractometer. An open
detector with parallel plate collimator was employed in
the diffracted beam side. The instrument was operated
at 30 kV and 55 mA for Cr target material and at 45 kV
and 40 mA for Cu target material. The stress measure-
ment was undertaken using sin2w method with a step
size of 0.1 and taking eleven stage tilt angles (0 deg,
± 18.43 deg, ± 26.57 deg, ± 33.21 deg, ± 39.23 deg,
and ± 45 deg) from 45 to 45 deg. The diffraction
angle ranges utilized for stress measurement of each
material under consideration is given in Table IV.
Evaluation of residual stress was performed by stress
analysis software (Panalytical B.V., Almelo, Nether-
lands) through fitting the data by straight line. Stress
measurement was undertaken at two different positions
on every sample surface and the average of these two
measurements with error bar is presented.
Residual stress depth profiling was accomplished by
removing successive layers of the grit-blasted samples
from the top by electropolishing, followed by stress
measurement on the exposed layer. For this purpose, a
BUEHLER electropolisher cell module (ElectroMet 4)
was used. Up to a depth of around 100 lm, an approx-
imately 20 lm thick material layer was removed every
time. Thereafter, the layer thickness was kept around 40
lm. Table V shows the electrolyte and parameter com-
binations for different alloys considered in this work.
The material removal is associated with relaxation
and redistribution of the residual stress. Therefore,
correction is necessary on the measured stress values to
determine a more accurate stress profile. Considering
small depths of material removal, the corrected residual
stress r(z) at a depth z can be expressed the following
equation as proposed by Moore and Evans[34]:
 
Dz
rðzÞ ¼ rm ðzÞ þ ð4Þ  rm ðHÞ  ½3
H
where rm ðzÞ, rm ðHÞ, H and Dz are the measured residual
stress at depth z, measured residual stress before surface
removal, original thickness of the sample, and thickness
of material removed, respectively.
68—VOLUME 52A, JANUARY 2021
Thereafter, the residual stress corrected for stress
relaxation is plotted to construct the residual stress
depth profiles.
Dislocation density depth profile of grit-blasted low
carbon steel was also obtained by measuring the density
each time after successive material removal by
electropolishing.
A transmission electron microscope (TEM)
(JEM-2100F, JEOL, Tokyo, Japan) was employed to
observe the dislocation structure of the annealed and
grit-blasted (after annealing) low carbon steel speci-
mens at a depth of 50 lm from the treated surface.
The samples were cut parallel to the surface at a depth
of 1 mm using a low-speed CBN cutter in a
STRUERS machine (Copenhagen/Denmark). The
sliced samples were thereafter electropolished to
remove a layer of thickness 50 lm from the top
surface. Then, the opposite sides of the samples were
polished using SiC polishing papers to a thickness of
around 70 lm. After that, a disk of 3 mm diameter
was cut out from each of the polished samples. Next,
a dimple of 1 mm diameter was made in the centers of
the samples using a GATAN 656 (Pleasanton, CA)
dimple grinder. The thickness of the sample at the
dimpling area was brought down to around 30 lm.
Thereafter, the samples were further thinned and
polished by ion milling using a GATAN (Model No.
691) ion polishing machine at an incident angle of 3 to
4 deg, till a hole appears in the sample. TEM
observations were made near the edge of the perfo-
rated area where the material thickness was around
100 nm or less.
III. RESULTS
A. Morphology and Surface Roughness
SEM images of blasted surfaces reveal an irregular
rough surface resulted from grit blasting with alumina
grits. The morphology of the grit-blasted surfaces,
observed under scanning electron microscope, is shown
in Figure 1. The images also show microcutting and
indentation marks on the blasted surface. The traces of
indentation and microcutting are shown in the figure by
yellow and red arrows, respectively. Average surface
roughness of the grit-blasted surfaces is tabulated in
Table VI.
Scanning electron images of alumina grit of 24 mesh
size utilized for grit blasting are shown in Figure 2. It
can be observed from the figure that the abrasive grits
also underwent erosion after repeated blasting.
B. Cross-Sectional Microstructure
Grit blasting deforms the material plastically by
repeated impact on the substrate surface. Figures 3((a)
to (b)) exhibit the cross-sectional view of low carbon
steel specimen prior to and after grit blasting. The
figure depicts deformation of ferrite and pearlite phases
near the blasted surface.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
 Table III. Crystal Lattice and the Associated Values of the Burgers Vector for Different Metallic Materials
 
 
Materials Crystal Lattice Burgers Vector (~
b) (nm)
Low Carbon Steel BCC 0.248
C45 Steel BCC 0.248
SS316 FCC 0.258
Ti-6Al-4V HCP 0.241
Inconel 718 FCC 0.250
Hastelloy X FCC 0.250

Table IV. Ranges of Diffraction Angles Used for Stress Measurement

Materials X-Ray Source 2h Range Crystallographic Plane (h k l)

Low Carbon Steel Cr 151.93 deg < 2h < 160.93 deg (2 1 1)
C45 Steel Cr 152.22 deg < 2h < 160.22 deg (2 1 1)
SS316 Cr 124.61 deg < 2h < 132.61 deg (2 2 0)
Ti-6Al-4V Cu 135.01 deg < 2h < 147.01 deg (2 1 3)
Inconel 718 Cr 125.25 deg < 2h < 130.25 deg (2 2 0)
Hastelloy X Cr 125.2 deg < 2h < 130.2 deg (2 2 0)

Table V. Electrolyte and the Parameter Combinations Utilized for Electropolishing

Amount of
Material
Materials Electrolyte Voltage (V) Time Removed (lm)
[35]
Low carbon steel 50 pct H3PO4+ 20 pct H2SO4+ 30 pct H2O 15 1 min 20
C45 steel 50 pct H3PO4+ 20 pct H2SO4+ 30 pct H2O[35] 25 1 min 20
SS316 50 pct H3PO4+ 20 pct H2SO4+ 30 pct H2O[35] 15 1 min 30 s 20
Ti-6Al-4V 700 mL ethyl alcohol+ 300 mL isopropyl alcohol + 60 g AlCl3+ 60 2 min 20
250 g ZnCl2[36]
Inconel 718 600 mL methanol + 330 mL HNO3[37] 18 35 s 20
Hastelloy X 600 mL methanol + 330 mL HNO3[37] 17 40 s 20

C. Dislocation Density dislocations as revealed in Figure 4(a). However, a large

Dislocation density is defined as the number of
dislocations per unit surface area or the total length of
dislocations per unit volume. The methodology for
estimation of dislocation density is already discussed in
Section II–C. The estimated values of dislocation den-
sities in different materials are listed in Table VII. It can
be seen from the table that the range of dislocation
densities in different materials in as-received condition is
4.34 9 1012 m2 to 5.06 9 1014 m2. Upon annealing,
dislocation density decreased to a range of 5.91 9 1011
m2 to 8.77 9 1013 m2. However, after grit blasting, it
again increased. The range is from 6.31 9 1014 m2 to
3.43 9 1015 m2. The range of dislocation density in
grit-blasted samples is much narrower than that of the
both as-received and annealed components.
D. Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) Results
Figures 4(a) and (b), respectively, show the TEM
images of annealed and grit-blasted low carbon steel
specimens. The annealed specimen contained very few
number of entangled dislocations are observed after grit
blasting as shown in Figure 4(b).
E. Microhardness
Figures 5(a) through (f) shows the hardness profiles
of different materials. In all cases, the hardness values
of as-received and annealed samples did not show
much variation along the depth. However, after grit
blasting, higher hardness was identified near the blasted
surface which gradually decreased with depth to the
bulk value. The increase in hardness was observed upto
a certain depth ranging from around 130 lm to around
340 lm depending on the material. As observed from
the plots, the depth of hardened layer is low (131 lm)
in the case of Ti-6Al-4V and much higher (333 lm) in
the case of low carbon steel. Moreover, it was observed
that the degree of hardening is different for different
materials. For example, the hardness increase is nearly
80 pct in the case of SS316, whereas it is around 45 pct
in the case of C45 steel. The percentage increases in

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 52A, JANUARY 2021—69

Fig. 1—SEM images of (i) as-received grit-blasted and (ii) annealed grit-blasted surfaces.

hardness of the other materials lie between these two
limits.
Figure 6 shows the depth profiles of dislocation
density as well as the microhardness of grit-blasted
low carbon steel. The dislocation density along the
depth follows a trend similar to that of hardness.
F. X-Ray Diffraction Results
Grazing incidence X-ray diffraction result of
grit-blasted SS316 revealed a low-intensity martensite
peak at 2h ~ 44.5 deg. The GI-XRD patterns of
annealed and annealed grit-blasted samples are shown
in Figure 7(a).The austenite and martensite peaks are

70—VOLUME 52A, JANUARY 2021 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

Table VI. Surface Roughness of the Grit-Blasted Specimens very close to each other and are in overlapped condition.
Moreover, the intensity of the martensite peak is very
Materials Average Surface Roughness (Sa) in lm low as compared to the adjacent austenite peak. So,
Low Carbon Steel these two peaks have been deconvoluted (shown in
As-Received 3.64 ± 0.21 Figure 7(b)) for better understanding. The figure also
Annealed 3.52 ± 0.18 depicts shifting and broadening of both peaks
C45 Steel (Figure 7(a)) after grit blasting. This peak broadening
As-Received 3.50 ± 0.12 indicates an increase in strain and decrease in grain size
Annealed 3.59 ± 0.08 upon grit blasting. The austenite peak at 2h ~ 50.5 deg
SS316 was found to shift towards lower angles in the figure.
As-Received 3.51 ± 0.20 However, shifting of peak at 2h ~ 43.5 deg is not clearly
Annealed 3.69 ± 0.15
visible. Figures 8(a) and (b) show X-ray diffraction
Ti-6Al-4V
As-Received 3.49 ± 0.17 patterns of annealed and grit-blasted low carbon steel.
Annealed 3.63 ± 0.15 The plots confirm shifting and broadening of different
Inconel 718 peaks after grit blasting treatment. It may be noted that
As-Received 3.25 ± 0.09 some reduction in maximum peak intensity was also
Annealed 3.24 ± 0.16 identified after grit blasting.
Hastelloy X
As-Received 2.81 ± 0.11
Annealed 2.73 ± 0.15

Fig. 2—SEM images of (a) alumina grit of 24 mesh size before blasting and (b) eroded alumina grit after blasting.

Fig. 3—Cross-sectional back-scattered electron (BSE) images of low carbon steel (a) before grit blasting and (b) after blasting using alumina
grits.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 52A, JANUARY 2021—71

 Table VII. Dislocation Densities in Different Materials Before and After Grit Blasting

Dislocation Density (m2)

Condition Low Carbon Steel C45 Steel SS316 Ti-6Al-4V Inconel 718 Hastelloy X
12 13 14 14 13
As-Received 4.34 9 10 5.67 9 10 1.11 9 10 5.06 9 10 6.21 9 10 6.16 9 1013
Annealed 5.91 9 1011 5.39 9 1012 8.77 9 1013 1.11 9 1013 2.86 9 1012 4.32 9 1013
Annealed Grit Blasted 6.31 9 1014 7.13 9 1014 2.38 9 1015 3.43 9 1015 1.87 9 1015 2.63 9 1015

Fig. 4—TEM micrographs showing dislocation structures in (a) annealed and (b) annealed grit-blasted low carbon steel specimens at a depth of
50 lm from the surface.

G. Residual Stress
Residual stress depth profiles of the grit-blasted and
non-blasted specimens of different metallic substrates
evaluated by X-ray sin2w technique is shown in
Figures 9(a) through (f). The graphs show that a
compressive residual stress depending upon the mechan-
ical properties of the materials is induced on the blasted
surfaces. In each case, the highest residual stress is
recorded slightly below the top surface. This is followed
by a steady decrease of compressive stress with depth
and finally become tensile.
H. Roughness Variation After Electropolishing
An interesting observation was made after removing
successive layers from the grit-blasted samples by
electropolishing. Figure 10 shows the variation of
inverse of the roughness of electropolished surface (1/
Sa) with depth for the annealed grit-blasted low carbon
steel specimen. The residual stress is also plotted in the
same figure. The as-grit-blasted sample had a high
roughness value (Sa = 3.52 ± 0.18 lm). The roughness
of the electropolished surfaces was found to decrease
with depth, and finally, a steady roughness value was
obtained. In other words, the inverse of the roughness
parameter (1/Sa) profile was similar to the residual stress
profile.
IV. DISCUSSION
Figure 1 shows rough surfaces having signatures of
microcutting and indentation after grit blasting of
different materials. At a low impingement angle, the
material is removed from the substrate surface by
microcutting and ploughing.[38] On the other hand, the
primary mode of material removal is indentation and
extrusion at an impact angle of 90 deg. Repeated impact
of the abrasive grits on the surface leads to the
formation of platelets (shown by rectangles in
Figure 1) with extruded materials at the periphery.
However, prolonged impact of the abrasive particles
eventually leads to erosion of the extruded material
from the surface.[39] Although the present study was
undertaken at a nominal impingement angle of 90 deg,
both mechanisms, namely, indentation and microcut-
ting, were found to be active concurrently. This is
attributed to the motion characteristics of the abrasive
particles entrained in the air jet during grit blasting. In
addition to translation, the abrasive particles undergo

72—VOLUME 52A, JANUARY 2021 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

Fig. 5—Hardness depth profiles of as-received, annealed and grit-blasted (a) low carbon steel, (b) C45 steel, (c) SS316, (d) Ti-6Al-4V, (e) Inconel
718 and (f) Hastelloy X substrates. Note The abbreviations used in the plots are designated as follows: AR as-received, AN annealed, AR_GB
as-received grit blasted, AN_GB annealed grit blasted.

rotation while coming out of the nozzle. This rotational The grit materials also demonstrated signatures of
component can influence the effective impact angles of surface damage. Upon collision with the substrate, the
individual abrasive grits[40] bringing about both micro- sharp edges of the grits are broken. Moreover, the
cutting and indentation. incoming abrasive particles from the nozzle collide with

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 52A, JANUARY 2021—73


Fig. 6—Dislocation density and microhardness variation along the
depth of annealed grit-blasted low carbon steel.
the ricocheting particles from the target surface. This
leads to grit fragmentation. Progressive grit damage
during the blasting process is evident from Figure 2.
Figure 3 shows evidence of plastic deformation of the
target surface (annealed low carbon steel) upon grit
blasting. During blasting, the abrasive particles impinge
on the substrate surface at high a velocity and apply a
large amount of stress on the substrate surface. The
applied stress, in turn, moves the pre-existing disloca-
tions by slip and twining. Plastic deformation results
from the cumulative motion of a number of dislocations.
At the same time, new dislocations are generated and
multiplied from pre-existing dislocations, defects, and
grain boundaries through Frank-Reed mechanism.[41]
Hence, the dislocation density is increased after grit
blasting (Table VII). It may be noted that a moderately
high dislocation density was found in the as-received
samples. Upon annealing, the dislocation density was
found to reduce to an extent. This is attributed to the

Fig. 7—Grazing incidence X-ray diffraction pattern of SS316 with an incidence angle of 1 deg and 0.03 deg step size (a) annealed and annealed
grit-blasted samples, (b) deconvoluted peaks of austenite and martensite in the 2h range of 41 to 47 deg.

Fig. 8—(a) X-ray diffraction patterns of annealed and grit-blasted low carbon steel substrates, (b) magnified view of (3 1 0) peak in the 2h range
of 113 to 120 deg.

74—VOLUME 52A, JANUARY 2021 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

Fig. 9—Residual stress depth profiles of as-received, annealed and grit-blasted specimens of (a) low carbon steel, (b) C45 steel, (c) SS316, (d)
Ti-6Al-4V, (e) Inconel 718 and (f) Hastelloy X.

absorption of dislocations at grain boundaries during
recovery stage.[42] Figure 4(a) shows a TEM micrograph
of annealed low carbon steel specimen indicating low
dislocation density. A high density of dislocations in the
grit-blasted sample is observed in Figure 4(b).
Figure 4(b) also reveals the region showing disloca-
tion interaction and entanglement (shown using an
ellipse) in grit-blasted low carbon steel substrate. Dis-
location entanglement occurs during dislocation move-
ment at intersecting slip planes. At that instant, higher

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 52A, JANUARY 2021—75


Fig. 10—Variation of the inverse of the roughness parameter (1/Sa)
and residual stress with depth. The measurements were made on
annealed grit-blasted low carbon steel specimen.
stress is required for further slip to occur.[43] Under this
circumstance, the material is said to have undergone
strain hardening.
Figure 5 shows the hardness depth profiles of differ-
ent materials. In all cases, the hardness is highest near
the grit-blasted surface. With increase in depth, the
hardness gradually decreases and finally attains a steady
value which is equal to the material hardness in
as-received or annealed condition. The depth to which
the hardness is higher than that of the annealed material
is the affected layer. The depth of the affected layer and
percentage increase in hardness vary with the material
properties. The properties of the materials, e.g., yield
strength, strain hardening exponent, and so on, along
with the depth of affected layer, maximum compressive
residual stress, and percentage increase in hardness (AR
to AR_GB, AN to AN_GB and average) of different
materials under consideration are listed in Table VIII.
Figure 6 shows the dislocation density variation along
the depth of annealed grit-blasted low carbon steel

Table VIII. The Values of Yield Strength, Strain Hardening Exponent, Depth of Affected Layer, Maximum Compressive Residual
Stress, and Percentage Increase in Hardness of the Materials Under Investigation

Increase in Hardness ( pct)

Yield Depth of
Strength Strain Hardening Affected Layer Maximum Compressive AR to AN to
Materials (MPa) Exponent (n) (lm) Residual Stress (MPa) AR_GB AN_GB Average
Low Car- 250 0.643[44] 333 ± 5.5 340 ± 3 72.45 71.69 72.07 ± 1.5
bon
Steel
C45 Steel 370 0.25[45] 281 ± 10 382 ± 7 44.41 42.36 43.34 ± 1.07
SS316 290 0.8722[46] 293 ± 2.5 639 ± 21 79.78 80.89 80.34 ± 0.85
Ti-6Al-4V 880 0.5387[47] 131 ± 7 693 ± 12 49.56 51.38 50.47 ± 0.91
Inconel 725 0.6828[48] 263 ± 2 774 ± 33 64.59 62.81 63.7 ± 0.89
718
Hastelloy 380 0.55[49] 230 ± 5.5 660 ± 48 62.42 59.81 61.11 ± 1.3
X

Fig. 11—Correlation between (a) depth of the affected layer and yield strength and (b) percentage increase in hardness and strain hardening
exponent.

76—VOLUME 52A, JANUARY 2021 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

 Table IX. Calculated Texture Coefficient of Annealed and Annealed Grit-Blasted Low Carbon Steel Substrate
Condition (1 1 0) (2 0 0)
Annealed (AN) 1.538 0.703
Annealed Grit Blasted (AN_GB) 1.458 0.738
specimen. The microhardness profile has also been
shown in the same plot. The dislocation density profile
follows a similar trend as that of the hardness with the
specimen depth. The top layer receives the impinging
abradants during grit blasting. Hence, the top layer
harbors a high dislocation density. The effect of impact,
i.e., the degree of deformation, reduces with depth.
Hence, the dislocation density reduces with the depth of
the grit-blasted specimen. The extremely work-hardened
top layer also has a high hardness. The degree of work
hardening reduces with the depth and so does the
hardness.
Figure 11(a) shows depth of affected layer vs yield
strength plot of various materials. The affected layer
depth tends to vary with the yield strength in a
somewhat linear fashion. Ti-6Al-4V with its higher yield
strength has a thinner affected layer. On the other hand,
low carbon steel, with its lower yield strength, offers a
much thicker affected layer (Table VIII). Therefore, it
can be concluded that the yield strength of the materials
significantly influences the depth of affected layer in grit
blasting. On the other hand, the increase in hardness of
different materials relies on the ability of the materials to
work harden. The strain hardening exponent (n) is a
measure of work or strain hardening behavior of
materials. Larger the value of strain hardening expo-
nent, higher would be the hardening for a given plastic
strain.[50] A linear correlation was found between the
percentage increase in hardness after grit blasting and
the strain hardening exponents of the materials, as
plotted in Figure 11(b). The increase in subsurface
hardness is maximum (80 pct) for SS316 with a strain
hardening exponent of n =0.8722,[46] whereas, in the
case of C45 steel (n = 0.25,[45] only 43 pct hardness
increase was observed.
Grit blasting of SS316 resulted in a phase transfor-
mation from austenite to martensite as indicated in
Figure 7. This phase change is attributed to severe
plastic deformation owing to grit blasting.[51] The
estimated X-ray penetration depth of Cu-Ka radiation
at 1 deg incidence angle is nearly 240 nm. Therefore, it
may be assumed that the martensite is induced very near
to the blasted surface. Multigner et al.[52] also identified
deformation-induced a martensite in Al2O3 and ZrO2-
blasted 316 LVM steel. They, however, described the
formation of martensite inside a thinner severely
deformed layer (less than 100 nm) using less energetic
Co radiation.
As expected, residual stress is also induced on the
blasted surface owing to plastic deformation. The
measurement of residual stress using XRD is
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
Texture Coefficient (Tc)
(2 1 1) (2 2 0) (3 1 0) (2 2 2)
0.672 1.142 1.144 0.798
1.128 1.008 1.008 0.642
accomplished by analyzing peak shifting and broaden-
ing. Figures 7 and 8 show the evidence of shifting and
broadening of X-ray diffraction peaks after grit blasting
of low carbon steel substrate. A reduction in maximum
peak intensities of the diffraction peaks was also
observed after grit blasting. This is attributed to the
roughening of the substrate surface after repeated
abrasive grit impacts. Moreover, there is a possibility
of crystallographic texture generation after plastic
deformation in grit-blasted material. This may lead to
a change in the integrated intensity as well.[53,54]
Preferential growth of some particular plane is observed
in the grit-blasted material. This is assessed by calcula-
tion of texture coefficient values of the crystallographic
planes in a material. The texture coefficient (Tc) of a
crystallographic plane (h k l) is calculated using the
following equation[32]:

IðhklÞ IoðhklÞ
TcðhklÞ ¼ hP  i ½4
1=N N
1 IðhklÞ IoðhklÞ
where I(h k l) and Io(h k l) are the measured and relative
intensity of the corresponding lattice plane, and N is the
number of reflections. The calculated texture coefficients
for annealed (AN) and annealed grit blasted (AN_GB)
for low carbon steel specimen are listed in Table IX. An
increase in the Tc value for (2 0 0) and (2 1 1) planes in
the grit-blasted specimen is observed from the table.
Therefore, it can be said that these planes grow
preferentially as compared to the other planes owing
to severe plastic deformation during grit blasting
process.
The peak broadening is affected by various factors,
e.g., grain size, strain, and broadening owing to instru-
mental errors.[55] This peak broadening and conse-
quently the plastic deformation after grit blasting can
be assessed by observing full width at half maximum
(FWHM) of a particular X-ray diffraction peak of a
material. FWHM values of the same peak used for stress
measurement of different materials are plotted against
depth as shown in Figures 12(a) through (f). The
averages of FWHM values of eleven peaks correspond-
ing to each stage tilt angles are presented along with an
error bar. The FWHM values of the grit-blasted samples
were found to be higher as compared to the non-treated
samples. Moreover, the FWHM values gradually
decrease with depth and finally reduce to that of the
annealed sample. This indicates that the deformation is
maximum at the blasted surface and decreases with the
depth.
VOLUME 52A, JANUARY 2021—77
Fig. 12—Variation of FWHM with depth of as-received annealed and grit-blasted (a) low carbon steel, (b) C45 steel, (c) SS316, (d) Ti-6Al-4V,
(e) Inconel 718 and (f) Hastelloy X substrates.

Figure 9 shows the residual stress depth profiles of
different substrate materials. A compressive residual
stress field with a maximum value at a certain depth was
induced after grit blasting. During grit blasting, the
impacted grits try to make the material flow outwards
by deforming the work material plastically. The
underlying material restricts that plastic flow, and hence,
a compressive stress is induced at the blasted surface.
However, the deformation on the blasted top surface is
restricted only by the underlying material but the
material at a certain depth is hindered by both top
and bottom layer of material. Moreover, stress

78—VOLUME 52A, JANUARY 2021 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

relaxation may occur at the free surface. Thus, the
maximum stress is attained at a certain depth of the
material instead of the top surface.
The residual stress profiles are similar to the stress
profile obtained in shot peening process.[56,57] The
residual stress is induced to a certain depth inside the
material. This depth is termed as the plastically influ-
enced depth.[58] Similar to the hardness profiles
(Figure 5), a lower depth of affected layer was achieved
in the case of Ti-6Al-4V as compared to other materials
(Figure 8(d)).The thicknesses of the affected layers given
in Figure 5 (hardness) are in agreement with those in
Figure 12 (FWHM) and Figure 9 (residual stress).
The grit blasting-induced maximum compressive
residual stresses are found to be different for different
materials. Low carbon steel possessed the lowest value
of maximum compressive stress while Inconel 718
possessed the highest value. The maximum stress
obtained is influenced by several factors such as yield
strength, strain hardening modulus, strain hardening
exponent, strain rate sensitivity factor, and so on. This is
elucidated by Johnson–Cook strength model.[47,48] The
model is used to represent the strength behavior of
metals, subjected to high strains, strain rates, and
temperatures. With this model, the yield stress varies
depending on strain, strain rate, and temperature. The
model defines the flow or yield stress r as follows:
r ¼ ½A þ Ben ½1 þ C ln e_  ½1  T m 
where e is the effective plastic strain, e_  is the normalized
effective plastic strain rate, T is the Homologous
temperature ¼ ðT  Troom Þ=ðTmelt  Troom Þ, A is yield
strength, B is the strain hardening modulus, C is strain
rate sensitivity factor, n is strain hardening exponent,
and m is thermal softening coefficient.
According to this model, the flow stresses of the
considered materials are as follows: For low carbon
steel,[44]
rðMPaÞ ¼ 217 þ 234e0:643 ½1 þ 0:076 ln e_  
For C45 steel,[45]
h i
rðMPaÞ ¼ 546 þ 487e0:25 ½1 þ 0:015 ln e_   1  T 1:22
For SS316,[46]
h i
rðMPaÞ ¼ 388 þ 1901e0:8722 ½1 þ 0:02494 ln e_   1  T0:6567
For Ti-6Al-4V,[47]
h i
rðMPaÞ ¼ 980:8 þ 732:16e0:5387 ½1 þ 0:01829 ln e_   1  T0:834
For Inconel 718,[48]
h i
rðMPaÞ ¼ 1132 þ 1091e0:6828 ½1 þ 0:0147 ln e_   1  T1:3225
For Hastelloy X,[49]
rðMPaÞ ¼ 380 þ 1200e0:55 ½1 þ 0:012 ln e_  
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
The total effective strain and strain rate are assumed
to be 0.4 and 100,000/s, respectively, in shot peening
process that is similar to grit blasting.[58,59] Neglecting
the temperature in case of blasting and substituting the
strain and strain rate values in Eqs. [6] through [11], the
flow stress values of the materials under high strain and
strain rate were calculated and plotted against maximum
compressive residual stress in Figure 13. The plot clearly
shows a linear correlation between the magnitude of
maximum induced stress and Johnson–Cook flow stress.
It shows that higher is the stress required for a material
to flow plastically as predicted by Johnson–Cook model,
higher is the induced maximum compressive stress upon
grit blasting.
The strain and strain rate are high near the free
surface where the actual material flow occurs. Hence,
the maximum compressive residual stress could be
correlated to the Johnson–Cook flow stress
(Figure 13). On the other hand, the depth of affected
layer merely indicates to what depth the material has
undergone yielding. Hence, the depth of affected layer is
well correlated to the yield strength of the materials
(Figure 11(a)).
Figure 10 shows the variation of the roughness of
electropolished surface and residual stress with depth.
Grit-blasted surface was rough with a maximum peak to
valley height (Sz) of around 40 lm. Therefore, after
removing 40 lm, the roughness of the exposed (to acid)
½5 surface is expected to attain a stable value. However, in
this case, the roughness decreased to a depth of around
225 lm and finally achieved a stable value. This is
attributed to the difference in dissolution rates of the
different phases of the material under residual stress.
The low carbon steel coupon consists of two phases,
namely, ferrite and pearlite (Figure 3). These two phases
dissolve at different rates during electropolishing, espe-
cially when the specimen is subjected to a stress. Salamci
et al.[60] investigated the corrosion behavior of plain
carbon steels of different phases obtained using different
½6 cooling rates. It was found that the rates of dissolution
changes with the phase content of the material. At a
½7
½8
½9
½10
½11
Fig. 13—Correlation between maximum induced stress and flow
stress calculated from the Johnson–Cook model.
VOLUME 52A, JANUARY 2021—79
lower electropolishing depth, the residual stress is high
and so is the difference in dissolution rates of the two
phases. This difference in dissolution rates produces a
rough electropolished surface in the stressed layer of the
sample. At a higher depth, the residual stress reduces and
the difference in the dissolution rate also reduces. This, in
turn, produces a surface with a lower roughness. Finally,
at a depth of around 225 lm, both the residual stress and
roughness attain a stable value. In this way, the inverse of
the roughness of the electropolished surface and residual
stress produces similar depth profiles.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The present work deals with the influence of grit
blasting on the properties such as residual stress,
dislocation density, roughness, hardness, and so on of
different metallic substrates. The mechanisms of mate-
rial erosion in grit blasting have been investigated. Both
microcutting and indentation led damages were
observed after blasting at 90 deg impact angle. An
increase in dislocation density has been identified upon
grit blasting of the substrates. This is attributed to
generation and multiplication of dislocations by
Frank–Reed mechanism under high stress. However,
the movement of dislocations during material flow leads
to dislocation interaction and entanglement. This, in
turn, produces strain hardening of the blasted surface.
The rate of strain hardening and the depth of affected
layer rely on the strain hardening exponent and yield
strength of the materials, respectively. Both dislocation
density and hardness are highest at the blasted surface
and reduce gradually with depth. Grit blasting treatment
also generates a compressive residual stress on the
substrate surface with a maximum value at a certain
depth. The maximum compressive stress has been found
to have a good correlation with the Johnson–Cook flow
stress. It is observed that the maximum induced com-
pressive stress on a material depends on the flow stress
of that material under high strain and strain rate
condition. Moreover, severe plastic deformation of
austenitic stainless steel during blasting produces a
martensitic transformation in the deformed layer.
REFERENCES
1. B.J. Griffiths, D.T. Gawne, and G. Dong: J. Manuf. Sci. Eng.,
1999, vol. 121, pp. 49–53.
2. S.C. Jambagi, S. Kar, P. Brodard, and P.P. Bandyopadhyay:
Mater. Des., 2016, vol. 112, pp. 392–401.
3. F. Parsikia, P. Amini, and S. Asgari: Metall. Trans. A, 2014,
vol. 45, pp. 4588–93.
4. P. P. Bandyopadhyay: PhD Thesis, IIT Kharagpur, 2000,
pp.57-58.
5. S. Datta, D.K. Pratihar, and P.P. Bandyopadhyay: Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol., 2013, vol. 65, pp. 967–80.
6. P.P. Bandyopadhyay, D. Chicot, C.S. Kumar, X. Decoopman,
and J. Lesage: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2013, vol. 576, pp. 126–33.
7. P. Das, S. Paul, and P.P. Bandyopadhyay: J. Alloys Compd., 2018,
vol. 767, pp. 448–55.
80—VOLUME 52A, JANUARY 2021
8. V. Parmar, A. Kumar, G.V. Prakash, S. Datta, and D. Kalyana-
sundaram: Mech. Mater., 2019, vol. 137, pp. 103–25.
9. D. Mohanty, S. Kar, S. Paul, and P.P. Bandyopadhyay: Mater.
Des., 2018, vol. 156, pp. 340–50.
10. B. Das, A.K. Nath, and P.P. Bandyopadhyay: Ceram. Int., 2018,
vol. 44, pp. 7524–34.
11. S.C. Jambagi and P.P. Bandyopadhyay: J. Eur. Ceram. Soc., 2017,
vol. 37, pp. 2235–44.
12. S. Kar, S. Paul, and P.P. Bandyopadhyay: Surf. Coat. Technol.,
2016, vol. 304, pp. 364–74.
13. S. Datta, D.K. Pratihar, and P.P. Bandyopadhyay: Appl. Soft
Comput., 2012, vol. 12, pp. 3356–68.
14. D. Cattoni, C. Ferrari, L. Lebedev, L. Pazos, and H. Svoboda:
Procedia Mater. Sci., 2012, vol. 1, pp. 461–68.
15. I. Finnie: Wear, 1960, vol. 3, pp. 87–103.
16. C.K. Fang and T.H. Chuang: Metall. Trans. A, 1999, vol. 30,
pp. 941–48.
17. K.P. Chander, M. Vashista, K. Sabiruddin, S. Paul, and
P.P. Bandyopadhyay: Mater. Des., 2009, vol. 30, pp. 2895–902.
18. M.H. Staia, E. Ramos, A. Carrasquero, A. Roman, J. Lesage,
D. Chicot, and G. Mesmacque: Thin Solid Films, 2000,
vols. 377–378, pp. 657–64.
19. M. Mellali, A. Grimaud, A.C. Leger, P. Fauchais, and J. Lu: J.
Therm. Spray Technol., 1997, vol. 6, pp. 217–27.
20. O. Kovářı́k, P. Haušild, Z. Pala, P. Sachr, and V. Davydov: Key
Eng. Mater., 2014, vol. 606, pp. 91–94.
21. L.H. Wu and C.H. Jiang: Mater. Trans., 2017, vol. 58, pp. 164–66.
22. P. Fu, C. Jiang, X. Wu, and Z. Zhang: Mater. Manuf. Process.,
2015, vol. 30, pp. 693–98.
23. I. Magnabosco, P. Ferro, A. Tiziani, and F. Bonollo: Comput.
Mater. Sci., 2006, vol. 35, pp. 98–106.
24. A. Ul-Hamid, H. Saricimen, A. Quddus, A.I. Mohammed, and
L.M. Al-Hems: Corros. Eng. Sci. Technol., 2017, vol. 52,
pp. 134–40.
25. A. Hasçalık and U. Çaydaş: Appl. Surf. Sci., 2007, vol. 253,
pp. 9007–16.
26. A. Thomas, M. El-wahabi, J.M. Cabrera, and J.M. Prado: J.
Mater. Process. Technol., 2006, vol. 177, pp. 469–72.
27. J.W. Lee and Y.C. Kuo: Surf. Coatings Technol., 2006, vol. 201,
pp. 3867–71.
28. S. Amada, T. Hirose, and T. Senda: Surf. Coatings Technol., 1999,
vol. 111, pp. 1–9.
29. R. Delhez, Th.H. de Keijser, and E.J. Mittemeijer: Fres. Z. Anal.
Chem., 1982, vol. 312, pp. 1–16.
30. G.K. Williamson and R.E. Smallman: Philos. Mag., 1956, vol. 1,
pp. 34–46.
31. P. Jayaram, P.P. Pradyumnan, and S.Z. Karazhanov: Phys. B
Phys. Condens. Matter, 2016, vol. 501, pp. 140–45.
32. B. Das, M. Gopinath, A.K. Nath, and P.P. Bandyopadhyay: J.
Eur. Ceram. Soc., 2018, vol. 38, pp. 3932–44.
33. P. Das, S. Paul, and P.P. Bandyopadhyay: J. Alloys Compd., 2018,
vol. 746, pp. 361–69.
34. M.G. Moore and W.P. Evans: SAE trans., 1958, vol. 66,
pp. 340–45.
35. E. Lee: Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 2000, vol. 16, pp. 591–99.
36. L. Yang, Y. Wu, A. Lassell, and B. Zhou: Proceedings of the 27th
Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium- An
Additive Manufacturing Conference, 2016, pp. 1333–44.
37. M. Bauccio, ASM Metals Reference, ASM International, 1993.
38. E. Rodriguez, M. Flores, A. Pérez, R.D. Mercado-Solis,
R. González, J. Rodriguez, and S. Valtierra: Wear, 2009, vol. 267,
pp. 2109–15.
39. G. Sundararajan and P.G. Shewmon: Wear, 1983, vol. 84,
pp. 237–58.
40. C. Fang and T.H. Chuang: Wear, 1999, vol. 230, pp. 156–64.
41. F. Khodabakhshi and M. Kazeminezhad: Mater. Des., 2011,
vol. 32, pp. 3280–86.
42. K.T. Park, Y.S. Kim, J.G. Lee, and D.H. Shin: Mater. Sci. Eng. A,
2000, vol. 293, pp. 165–72.
43. S. Wulfinghoff and T. Böhlke: Int. J. Plast., 2015, vol. 69,
pp. 152–69.
44. K. Vedantam, D. Bajaj, S. Brar, and S. Hill: AIP Conf. Proc.,
2006, vol. 845, pp. 775–78.
45. M. Abouridouane, F. Klocke, and D. Lung: Procedia CIRP, 2013,
vol. 8, pp. 94–99.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
46. P. Bansal, P.H. Shipway, and S.B. Leen: Acta Mater., 2007,
vol. 55, pp. 5089–5101.
47. J. Sun and Y.B. Guo: Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 2009, vol. 41,
pp. 651–59.
48. W. Grzesik, P. Niesłony, and P. Laskowski: J. Mater. Eng. Per-
form., 2017, vol. 26, pp. 5705–14.
49. F.H. Çakır, M.A. Sofuoğlu, and S. Gürgen: Adv. Eng. Forum,
2018, vol. 30, pp. 1–7.
50. M. Kumar, V. Balasubramanian, and A.G. Rao: J. Mater. Res.
Technol., 2017, vol. 6, pp. 116–22.
51. N. Solomon and I. Solomon: Rev. Metal., 2010, vol. 46,
pp. 121–28.
52. M. Multigner, S. Ferreira-Barragáns, E. Frutos, M. Jaafar,
J. Ibáñez, P. Marı́n, M.T. Pérez-Prado, G. González-Doncel,
A. Asenjo, and J.L. González-Carrasco: Surf. Coatings Technol.,
2010, vol. 205, pp. 1830–37.
53. H.J. Bunge: Text. Micros., 1997, vol. 29, pp. 1–26.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
54. J.P. Velasquez, B. Bolle, P. Chevrier, G. Geandier, and A. Tidu:
Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2007, vol. 452, pp. 469–74.
55. B. D. Cullity and S. R. Stock: Principles of X-Ray Diffraction. MA:
Addison-Wesley, 1978 (USA), pp. 431–51.
56. K. Dalaei, B. Karlsson, and L.E. Svensson: Mater. Sci. Eng. A,
2011, vol. 528, pp. 1008–15.
57. G.H. Majzoobi, R. Azizi, and A.A. Nia: J. Mater. Process.
Technol., 2005, vol. 165, pp. 1226–34.
58. K. Schiffner and C.D.G. Helling: Comput. Struct., 1999, vol. 72,
pp. 329–40.
59. S.A. Meguid, G. Shagal, and J.C. Stranart: J. Mater. Process.
Technol., 1999, vols. 92–93, pp. 401–04.
60. E. Salamci, S. Candan, and F. Kabakci: Kov. Mater, 2017, vol. 55,
pp. 133–39.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
VOLUME 52A, JANUARY 2021—81
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.