See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257344308

Relating Almen intensity to residual stresses induced by shot peening: A

numerical approach

Article in Journal of Materials Processing Technology · April 2001

DOI: 10.1016/S0924-0136(00)00893-1

CITATIONS READS
274 4,359

1 author:

M. Guagliano
Politecnico di Milano
272 PUBLICATIONS 7,897 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by M. Guagliano on 03 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Materials Processing Technology 110 (2001) 277±286

Relating Almen intensity to residual stresses induced

by shot peening: a numerical approach
M. Guagliano*
Dipartimento di Meccanica, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milan, Italy
Received 27 October 1999; received in revised form 31 July 2000; accepted 24 November 2000

Abstract

Shot peening is a surface impact treatment widely used to improve the performance of metal parts and welded details subjected to fatigue
loading, contact fatigue, stress corrosion and other damage mechanisms. The better performance of the peened parts is mainly due to the
residual stresses resulting from the plastic deformation of the surface layers of the material caused by the impact of the shot. Shot peening
intensity is usually quanti®ed by means of the Almen-scale, which measures the residual arc height of a strip made of a speci®c material,
and of a pre-de®ned size. The scale does not, in other words, apply solely to the residual stress ®eld of a component of unspeci®ed material
and size. In this paper, a ®nite element to predict the residual stresses induced by shot peening in a metal part and to relate these stresses to
Almen intensity is proposed; the aim is to provide the designer with a useful tool with which to choose the optimal treatment parameters
with respect to the mechanical behaviour of the peened parts. Experimental measurements of residual stresses and a comparison with
existing experimental data validate this approach. # 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Shot peening; Almen intensity; Residual stresses; Finite element

1. Introduction further in-service use of the measured element. For this

Shot peening is widely used to improve the mechanical
behaviour of structural parts, notched machine elements or
welded details [1]. Its bene®cial effects are mainly due to the
residual stress ®eld caused by the plastic deformation of the
surface layer of material resulting from multiple impacts of
the shot, although strain hardening and grain distortion
caused by the multiple impacts of the shot also play a role
in the modi®ed mechanical behaviour of the peened com-
ponents [2].
It is, therefore, important to know the values of the
residual stresses in order to predict the mechanical strength
of peened parts, and to know how these stresses vary by
changing the shot peening parameters (dimensions and
material of the shot, speed and the direction of impact,
coverage). The problem is that experimental measurement
of residual stresses is expensive and time consuming and
requires, at least for in-depth measurements, the use of semi-
destructive methods. In fact, both hole-drilling and X-ray
diffraction, the most common methods, require the removal
of material around the measurement area, thus preventing
*
Tel.: ‡390-2-23-99-8206; fax: ‡390-2-23-99-8202.
reason, it can be argued that a method to quantify the
peening intensity based on these measurements is dif®cult
to de®ne and apply.
The method used until now to quantify peening intensity
is not related solely to the residual stress pro®le: known as
Almen intensity, it was introduced by John Almen [3] and
involves peening a strip (Almen strip) of given dimensions
and material (typically SAE 1070 spring steel), ®xed to a
mounting ®xture (Almen block) by means of four round-
head bolts with nuts. The peening time must be suf®cient to
ensure coverage of 200%, in accordance with [4].
Once the bolts are removed, the residual arc height over a
®xed length is measured by means of a modi®ed depth gauge
(Almen gauge). This measurement de®nes Almen intensity.
Other details can be found in [4,5].
This type of measurement cannot, however, give accurate
information about the residual stress ®eld in the components
because different stress pro®les may give the same arc
height, the height being related to the integral of the residual
stress ®eld on the strip thickness. Moreover, the material
used for the strip is pre-de®ned, while that of the peened part
can be of any metal; for this reason too, knowledge of the
Almen intensity alone does not provide useful information
about the residual stress ®eld induced by shot peening in

0924-0136/01/$ ± see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 4 - 0 1 3 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 8 9 3 - 1
278 M. Guagliano / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 110 (2001) 277±286
structural parts [6]. The Almen method is relatively cheap,
though, and it is likely to continue to be used to quantify
peening intensity.
It is, then, important to relate the residual stress ®eld
induced by shot peening in any mechanical part to Almen
intensity. The problem is not easy to solve as it requires
knowledge of the speed of impact and the relationship
between the stresses caused by the impact of shot of a given
dimension against an elasto-plastic material.
In fact, if the type of the shot remains the same and the
material of the Almen strip does not vary, the Almen
intensity depends mainly on the shot velocity perpendicular
to the impact surface [7,8]. The problem is that measurement
of shot velocity is dif®cult and expensive. Only recently, in
fact, has some equipment been developed for this purpose
[9,10], the results obtained are still limited.
Some approximate analytical models have, however, been
developed to relate residual stresses to Almen intensity, in
particular, the one proposed by Al-Obaid [11] is able to
distinguish the contribution of the residual stress ®eld due to
the impact from that due to the limited thickness of the
strip. However, in order to obtain reliable results, some
values (i.e. the depth of the maximum compressive stress)
need to be assumed.
Hills et al. [12] developed an analytical model to predict
the residual stress ®eld due to the impact of shot on a ¯at
surface and to predict the Almen intensity once the shot type
and speed are known. If one looks at the results, while the
approach gives an accurate estimation of the maximum
compressive residual stress, it only gives approximate
predictions of the residual stress pro®le below the surface;
the Almen intensity calculated will be in¯uenced by the
latter.
Although, an approximate model able to relate Almen
intensity to shot velocity [7] was also developed, the rela-
tionship with the residual stresses in a mechanical part was
not dealt with.
Other approaches found in published research deal with
the prediction of residual stresses due to shot peening
[13,14] but do not relate them with Almen intensity, and
are therefore of limited practical interest.
In this paper, an approach based on ®nite-element calcu-
lations is proposed; it is able to relate the residual stress ®eld
induced by shot peening in metal parts with the Almen
intensity. The ®nite-element analyses simulate the impact of
one or more shot on a plate and make it possible to determine
the residual stress pro®le of a metal part on the basis of the
shot material and diameter.
The residual stress distribution due to the impact on a
plate, the same thickness as the Almen strip are subsequently
taken to be uniformly distributed along the strip length; it is
well known that they are not self-equilibrated. Conse-
quently, the strip will curve and by using the theory of
elasticity, it is possible to relate the arc height to the shot
velocity and then to the residual stresses induced by shot
peening on a metal part.
Experimental veri®cation of the proposed approach was
carried out by means of residual stress measurements. The
Almen intensity values obtained were also compared with
those found in existing research. In both cases, the agree-
ment found was good.
2. Finite-element impact analyses
Research into the relationship between Almen intensity
and residual stress ®eld within any mechanical part is based
on the calculation of the residual stress ®eld induced by one
or multiple impacts on an elasto-plastic body.
This calculation requires the development of analytical or
numerical procedures, increasingly popular because of
increased computer power [15±17]. Nowadays, in documen-
ted research, it is possible to ®nd different approaches
simulating shot peening. They all consider static contact
between the shot and the treated body, or apply the contact
pressure between elastic bodies calculated by means of the
Hertz theory [18,19].
However, the pressure between two bodies in contact may
signi®cantly vary from the Hertz results if the yield limit of
the material is reached; the residual stresses calculated will
be affected by this approximation.
A common procedure in all the analyses, numerical and
theoretical, is to consider a body with a ¯at surface even
though, in practical situations, most of the time, mechanical
parts have single or double curvature. This is due to the large
difference in the curvatures of the shot and the mechanical
parts, which makes the latter similar to ¯at bodies; this
assumption is also used in the present study.
Shot peening involves dynamic deformations, and the
formulas relating to static contact lead to approximate
results in terms of residual stresses. A recent experimental
study [20] showed that the residual stress ®eld due to static
contact between the shot and a metal part is quite different
from that obtained by dynamic impact between the same
bodies.
Bearing in mind this last consideration, one can say that
shot peening simulation requires the use of appropriate
numerical techniques, able to take into account the double
non-linearity of the problem due to the contact of two bodies
and the elasto-plastic material of the impacted component.
Thus, a ®nite-element procedure was developed with the
aim of simulating the dynamic impact of one or more shots
against a deformable body. The explicit integration scheme
was used in this research together with diagonal or
``lumped'' mass matrix. The major advantage of the explicit
solution scheme is its computation ef®ciency because itera-
tive calculation is not used and the tangent stiffness matrix is
not formed. Furthermore, if a correct increment time is
chosen, there are no convergence problems. In fact, the
equations of motion for the shot-plate system are integrated
using the explicit central difference integration rule. This
operator is stable under certain conditions and the stability
 M. Guagliano / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 110 (2001) 277±286
limit is given in terms of the highest eigen value of the
system. Consequently, this limit depends on the dimensions
of the smallest ®nite element. Due to very small dimensions
of the element in the zone of impact, the resulting time
increment was 3Eÿ09 s.
The main problem with the use of explicit techniques is
that the analysis is purely dynamic: if some approximate
damping is not included in the analysis, once the shot on
rebound separated from the plate and the plastic deformation
phenomena have ended, the model will never reach a state of
static equilibrium. In other words, the stresses in the plate
will oscillate around an average value which, in the present
research, is taken to be the stable residual stress.
The contact algorithm uses a weighted master±slave
algorithm and enforces the constraint that one surface
may not penetrate the other. In these analyses, the shot
(rigid surface) is always the master surface and the default
values of the weighting factors were not changed. Further
details about the model and the contact algorithm can be
found in [21].
The analyses were made by means of the ABAQUS
Explicit Code.
As previously stated, the shot was modelled as a rigid
body after preliminary tests carried out with deformable
elastic shot gave results close to those obtained with rigid
spheres.
The shot velocity range considered varies from 20 to
110 m/s.
The material characteristics considered are cyclic ones;
this is due to the fact that multiple impacts cause the material
to be subjected to many load cycles.
The kinematic work hardening rule was assumed to
describe the material's mechanical behaviour. The FE code
does not include this work hardening rule; so a FORTRAN
user subroutine was developed by the user to simulate the
kinematic work hardening rule. The strain rate sensitivity of
the material was not taken into account according with [14],
in which the author remarks that due to the heating following
multiple impacts, this effect results attenuated, and due to
the lacking of material data concerning the strain rate range
of the present case. However, a re®nement of the approach
would require to take the strain rate sensitivity into account
[22].
The simulation of multiple impacts made it necessary to
build a 3D ®nite-element model. Fig. 1 shows the mesh of
the ¯at body and of the spheres; only 1/4th of the plate was
modelled, with a considerable saving in calculation time.
The nodes located on the symmetry planes were constrained
with symmetric boundary conditions; consequently, it is
assumed that the impacts, too, are symmetrical with respect
to those planes.
There are 13,949 solid elements (8 nodes, linear shape
functions, reduced integration) and 15,625 nodes.
In Fig. 2, the scheme of positions A, B, C and D of the
simulated impacts is illustrated; different sequences were
tested to evaluate the effect of the chronology of impacts on
279
the residual stresses. The effect of contemporary impacts
was also considered. The results shown in the following part
of the paper refer to the centreline of impact A.
The analyses were carried out considering two types of
material: the ®rst is 39NiCrMo3 steel (UTS ˆ 1053 MPa,
yield stress ˆ 950 MPa, elongation ˆ 40%) according to
Italian standards, while the second is the material used
for Almen strips (SAE 1070 steel, UTS ˆ 1270 MPa, yield
stress ˆ 1120 MPa, elongation ˆ 8:2%).
Two different thickness were also considered: the ®rst
one (50 mm) with the aim of calculating the residual stresses
in a thick part, the second is the thickness of the Almen
strip (type A, thickness ˆ 1:27 mm), and was chosen to
calculate the residual stress ®eld induced by the multiple
impacts in such a strip. The shot velocity was set as an initial
condition.
2.1. Calculation of Almen intensity
For the Almen intensity calculation, the residual stress
distribution calculated in the FE analysis in the centreline of
the impact zone A (Fig. 2) is assumed to be uniformly
distributed over the whole Almen strip, ®xed to the Almen
block.
The results obtained from the previous analyses are not
suf®cient to relate the Almen intensity to the residual stress
®eld induced in a metal part. This is because it is not directly
possible to predict the residual arc height of the strip by
knowing only the residual stresses due to the impacts.
In fact, once the ®xing bolts are removed, the Almen strip,
originally straight, becomes curved and modi®es the resi-
dual stress ®eld. Thus, the residual stresses due to impact are
not equilibrated; consequently, the thin plate will bend and
elongate.
These effects are prevented by the boundary conditions. In
other words, a compressive force F and a bending moment M
are applied in order to keep the strip straight (see Fig. 3). If
we assume that the impact residual stresses are elastic, we
can calculate F and M as:
Z Z
F ˆ sres;imp y† dA M ˆ sres;imp y† y dA (1)
A A
where sres,imp are the residual stresses due to the shot
impacts, A the strip section and y the distance from the
neutral axis.
The removal of the bolts can be interpreted as the appli-
cation of a moment and a force of equal value but with an
opposite sign with respect to M and F. The stresses, strain
and de¯ections of M and F are determined, once the residual
stresses due to the impacts are known, by using the Theory
of Elasticity; with reference to Fig. 3, it is possible to af®rm
that the residual stress ®eld in the strip after the bolts are
removed is equal to
F My
sres y† ˆ sres;imp y† ÿ ÿ (2)
A Inÿn
280 M. Guagliano / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 110 (2001) 277±286

Fig. 1. 3D ®nite-element model used for the determination of residual stresses due to the multiple impact of shot.

where Inÿn is the moment of inertia and A the area of the 3. Experimental measurements
strip.
The residual arc height, or Almen intensity, is The results obtained by means of the ®nite-element
simulations were compared with the data obtained from
3Ml2 experimental measurements of the residual stresses carried
hˆ (3)
2Ebh31 out on some Almen strips and some cylindrical specimens.
The measurements were carried out by means of an Ital-
(l ˆ reference distance for measuring Almen intensity, Structures X-ray diffractometer (sin2c method, linear detec-
b ˆ strip width, h1 ˆ strip thickness). tor, Chromium radiation, Vanadium ®lter, {2 1 1} peak
In this model, the effect of the transverse curvature is not 2Y  156 †). The area subjected to the X-ray measured
taken into consideration. 1 mm2; the chemical removal of thin layers of materials
 M. Guagliano / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 110 (2001) 277±286 281

Fig. 2. Scheme of the position of the centrelines of the impacts (r ˆ radius of the impact dimples; its value depends on the diameter of the shot and on its
velocity).

allowed the measurement of the residual stresses under the
free surface, thus making it possible to determine the
residual stresses below the surface.
The strips were peened with the same Almen intensity
(0.3 mm A) but with different steel shot (diameters of 0.3
and 0.6 mm).
Residual stress measurements carried out on the Almen
strips before shot peening made it possible to verify that the
residual stress of the strips was negligible and that the values
obtained after peening them were only due to shot peening.
As regards the characteristics of the cylindrical speci-
mens, they were made of 39NiCrMo3 steel, according to
Italian standard, and their diameter was 8 mm. The speci-
mens were peened with an Almen intensity of 0.3 mm A and
shot with diameters of 0.3 and 0.6 mm.
Other veri®cations of the accuracy of the results were
obtained by the comparison between Almen intensity±speed
of shot (of given dimensions and material) and the experi-
mental values found in [7,10].
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Residual stress prediction
In Fig. 4, the deformed shape of the 50 mm thick plate
after 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (sequence A, B, C, D and A) impacts is
shown. The material considered is 39NiCrMo3 steel and the
shot have the same density as the steel.
Fig. 5 shows the residual stress pro®le in-depth, in the
centreline of impact zone A after 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 impacts
(shot diameter, 0.5 mm; shot velocity, 100 m/s), with an
impact sequence of A, B, C, D and A. Other sequences did
not give signi®cantly different trends. The stress component

Fig. 3. Calculation of the residual stresses in the Almen strip after bolt removal: when the strip is straight due to reaction forces. When the boundary
conditions are removed the strip elongates and bends.
282 M. Guagliano / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 110 (2001) 277±286

Fig. 4. Deformed shape of the plate after 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 impacts (A, B, C, D and A sequence).

plotted in Fig. 5 and in the following ones is in direction 1 of
Fig. 1. The stress component 3 was not signi®cantly differ-
ent from the stress component 1 and the similar values
enables the use of both, for following comparison with
experimental residual stresses on specimens and Almen
strips. The stress component 2 is smaller than the previous
ones and it is negligible on the free surface.
From the same ®gure, it can be noted that the strongest
effect in terms of residual stresses is due to the ®rst
impact. This does not mean that, in reality, the residual
stress pro®le does not change after the ®rst impact because
calculations assumed the cyclic properties of the material.
They assumed, in other words, that many impacts took place
before the one considered. However, it does make it possible
to say that in the FE analyses, it is suf®cient to consider only
the impacts around the zone of interest in order to get
the residual stress pro®le. In fact, it is reasonable to assume
that impacts in zones more distant than the ones considered
in these calculations do not affect the residual stress in
zone A.
In Fig. 6, it is possible to note the trend obtained for
different shot and different velocities. From this ®gure, it is
clear that the quantities de®ning the residual stress pro®le
that are most in¯uenced by the size and velocity of the shot
 M. Guagliano / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 110 (2001) 277±286 283

Fig. 5. Residual stress pro®les in the centreline of impact A due to impacts A, B, C, D and A (shot diameter, 0.5 mm; shot velocity, 100 m/s), stress
component in direction 1 (see Fig. 1).

are the depth of the maximum compressive residual stress
and the depth at which the residual stresses change sign. The
surface residual stress and the maximum compressive stress
are not greatly affected by the shot peening conditions but
are mainly related to the mechanical characteristics of the
treated material.
The results were compared with the residual stress values
experimentally measured by means of an X-ray diffract-
ometer on a cylindrical specimen with a diameter of 8 mm,
shot peened with an intensity of 0.3 mm A with steel shot
with a diameter of 0.6 mm. The large difference between the
curvature of the specimen and that of the shot enables the use
of the meshes previously described.
In Fig. 7, the numerically obtained longitudinal residual
stress pro®les are compared with ones that were experimen-
tally measured by means of an X-ray diffractometer, the
agreement is satisfactory. The differences fall within the
usual variability of this process [23].

Fig. 6. Residual stress pro®les in depth due to shot peening in a thick part (taken on the centreline of zone A, stress component in direction 1 of Fig. 1): (a)
shot diameter 0.3 mm, (b) shot diameter 0.5 mm, (c) shot diameter 0.7 mm, (d) shot diameter 1.0 mm.
284 M. Guagliano / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 110 (2001) 277±286

and to relate it to shot type and velocity. It is possible, in

other words, to relate residual stresses in a general part (see
Section 4.1) to peening intensity.
The results show that, once the shot type is de®ned (once,
that is, material and dimensions are known), the Almen
intensity depends only on the speed of shot, or, more pre-
cisely, on the speed component perpendicular to the contact
surface. This is in agreement with the existing data [7].
In Fig. 8a, the trend of Almen intensity±steel shot speed
for diameters varying from 0.3 to 1 mm and density equal to
that of steel (7860 Kg/m3) is shown. Fig. 8b shows that of
ceramic shot (3800 kg/m3).
The trend is well described by the following best-®tting
equations (A ˆ Almen intensity (mm), v ˆ shot velocity
(m/s), R2 ˆ regression coef®cient). For the steel shot they
are:
A v† ˆ 2E ÿ 07v3 ÿ 6E ÿ 05v2 ‡ 0:007v R2 ˆ 0:98†
shot diameter ˆ 0:3 mm†
A v† ˆ 2E ÿ 07v3 ÿ 5E ÿ 05v2 ‡ 0:0053v R2 ˆ 0:99†
Fig. 7. Numerical and experimental trend of the longitudinal residual shot diameter ˆ 0:5 mm†
stresses obtained on cylindrical specimens: (a) Almen intensity 0.3 mm A,
shot diameter 0.3 mm; (b) Almen intensity 0.3 mm A, shot diameter A v† ˆ 5E ÿ 07v3 ÿ 0:0001v2
0.6 mm. ‡ 0:0081v ‡ 0:0118 R2 ˆ 0:99†
shot diameter ˆ 0:7 mm†
4.2. Almen intensity prediction
A v† ˆ 9E ÿ 07v3 ÿ 0:0002v2 ‡ 0:0179v R2 ˆ 0:99†
The same type of analysis was performed considering a shot diameter ˆ 1 mm† (4)
plate of the same thickness and material as that of Almen
strip A. Thus, by following the procedure previously For the ceramic shot the following equations were
described, it is possible to calculate the Almen intensity obtained:
A v† ˆ 2E ÿ 07v3 ÿ 4E ÿ 05v2 ‡ 0:0033v R2 ˆ 0:98†
shot diameter ˆ 0:3 mm†
A v† ˆ 2E ÿ 07v3 ÿ 4E ÿ 05v2 ‡ 0:0049v R2 ˆ 0:99†
shot diameter ˆ 0:5 mm†
A v† ˆ 2E ÿ 07v3 ÿ 6E ÿ 05v2 ‡ 0:0065v R2 ˆ 0:99†
shot diameter ˆ 0:7 mm†
A v† ˆ 4E ÿ 07v3 ‡ 8E ÿ 05v2 ‡ 0:0094v R2 ˆ 0:99†
shot diameter ˆ 1:0 mm† (5)

The total residual stresses were veri®ed by means of XRD

Fig. 8. Almen intensity (strip type A) trends vs. shot velocity for the shot
diameter indicated in the key: (a) steel shot, (b) ceramic shot.
residual stress measurements on two Almen strips shot
peened with the same Almen intensity (0.3 mm A) but with
different steel shot (diameter 0.3 and 0.6 mm). In these
cases, the Almen intensity should be obtained with different
shot speed and presumably, with a different residual stress
pro®le. In fact, if we enter these shot diameters in Eq. (1), we
obtain the speeds that cause the Almen intensity which was
experimentally considered. Now, by looking at the residual
stresses obtained after the removal of the boundary condi-
tions in the Almen strip analysis, it is possible to compare
them with the experimental stress pro®le obtained by means
of measurements carried out on the strips not ®xed to the
Almen block. In Fig. 9, the comparison of the numerically
 M. Guagliano / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 110 (2001) 277±286
Fig. 9. Experimental and numerical longitudinal residual stress trends obtained on the Almen strip: (a) Almen intensity 0.3 mm A, shot diameter 0.3 mm, (b)
Almen intensity 0.3 mm A, shot diameter 0.6 mm.
calculated and experimentally measured longitudinal resi-
dual stresses is illustrated. The agreement is good for the
compressed part of the strip. When the residual stresses
change sign and become tensile, the numerical values
exceed the experimental ones. This can be justi®ed bearing
in mind that, for measurements below the surface, it is
necessary to remove much of the thickness of the
strip. Moreover, the removed part is the most stressed zone
Fig. 10. Comparison of the Almen intensities calculated and experimental
data from references [7,10].
285
and this means that the residual stress state in the rest of the
strip remains greatly altered and tends to unstress.
Another test of the quality of the proposed approach was
made by comparing the values of Almen intensity±shot
velocity with experimental data found in [7,10]. The experi-
mental velocities compared with the numerical ones are the
highest of the shots because the residual stresses are mainly
due to the shot with the highest kinetic energy, even though
they are less frequent than the slower ones. This comparison
is shown in Fig. 10, again the agreement is good.
5. Conclusions
A relationship between Almen intensity and the residual
stress ®eld induced by shot peening was found. From the
analyses performed, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
 A procedure was established to relate the value of the
Almen-scale to the residual stresses in metal parts. It is
based on the FE simulation of the impact of shot against a
flat deformable body and the calculation of the residual
286 M. Guagliano / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 110 (2001) 277±286
curvature of the Almen strip after the residual stresses are
imposed on the strip itself.
 Analytical functions relating Almen intensity to shot
velocity were found for the shot considered: the best-
fitting equations were found and the regression coefficient
is always good. It is thus possible to relate the residual
stresses in a mechanical part to Almen intensity.
 Comparison between the numerical results and the experi-
mental values of residual stresses reveals satisfactory
agreement both on the Almen strips and on the cylindrical
specimens.
 The relationship found between Almen intensity and shot
speed was compared with the experimental values found
in published research and the agreement was good.
 By using the present approach, it is possible to estimate
the residual stress profile induced by shot peening in a
general metal part and to relate it to the peening intensity.
This can guide the designer towards the optimal choice of
treatment parameters in view of optimising the mechan-
ical strength of the peened components, at the same time
minimising the experimental measurements necessary to
achieve this scope.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Norblast s.a.s. for ®nancially
supporting this research.
References
[1] K.J. Marsh (Ed.), Shot Peening: Techniques and Applications,
Engineering Materials Advisory Services Ltd., London, 1993.
[2] K.J. Miller, Materials science perspective of metal fatigue resistance,
Mater. Sci. Technol. 9 (6) (1993) 453±462.
[3] J. Almen, J.P.H. Black, Residual Stresses and Fatigue in Metals,
McGraw-Hill, Toronto, 1963, pp. 64±69.
[4] Anon., Shot Peening of Metal Parts, Military Speci®cation Mil-S-
13165c, 1989.
[5] Anon., Shot Peening Applications, 7th Edition, Metal Improvement
Company, 1995.
[6] R. Herzog, W. Zinn, B. Scholtes, H. Wohlfahrt, The signi®cance of
Almen intensity for the generation of shot peening residual stresses,
View publication stats
in: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Shot
Peening, ICSP6, San Francisco, CA, 1996, pp. 270±281.
[7] W. Cao, R. Fathallah, L. Castex, Correlation of Almen arc height
with residual stresses in shot peening process, Mater. Sci. Tehnol. 11
(9) (1995) 967±973.
[8] R. Fathallah, G. Inglebert, L. Castex, Modelling of shot peening
residual stresses and plastic deformation induced in metallic parts, in:
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Shot Peening,
ICSP6, San Francisco, CA, 1996, pp. 464±473.
[9] Y. Le Guernic, Peenstress software selects shot peening parameters,
in: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Shot
Peening, ICSP6, San Francisco, CA, 1996, pp. 481±492.
[10] Y. Lecoffre, X. Bonazzi, F. Jouet, D. Huet, TRAVEL, A real-time
particle velocity measuring system for use in shot peening, Personal
Communication, Wheelabrator, Grenoble, France, 1995.
[11] Y.F. Al-Obaid, A rudimentary analysis of improving fatigue life of
metals by shot peening, J. Appl. Mech. 57 (2) (1990) 307±312.
[12] D.A. Hills, R.B. Waterhouse, B. Noble, An analysis of shot peening,
J. Strain Anal. 18 (2) (1983) 95±100.
[13] Y. Watanabe, N. Hasegawa, Simulation of residual stress distribution
on shot peening, in: Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on Shot Peening, ICSP6, San Francisco, CA, 1996,
pp. 530±535.
[14] S.T.S. Al-Hassani, Mechanical aspects of residual stress development
in shot peening, in: Proceedings of the First International Conference
on Shot Peening, ICSP1, Paris, 1981, pp. 14±17.
[15] S. Kyriacou, Shot peening mechanics, a theoretical study, in:
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Shot Peening,
ICSP6, San Francisco, CA, 1996, pp. 505±516.
[16] Y.F. Al-Obaid, Three-dimensional dynamic ®nite-element analysis
for shot peening mechanics, Comput. Struct. 36 (4) (1990) 681±689.
[17] S. Kyriacou, Modelling of the shot peening process, a theoretical
approach, in: Proceedings of ICSP-BC, Bhopal, India, 1996, pp. 141±
159.
[18] W. Johnson, Impact Strength of Materials, Edward Arnold, Bristol,
1972.
[19] K.L. Johnson, Contact Mechanics, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1985.
[20] M. Kobayashi, T. Matsui, Y. Murakami, Mechanism of creation of
compressive residual stress by shot peening, Int. J. Fatigue 20 (5)
(1998) 351±357.
[21] S. Baragetti, M. Guagliano, Una procedura per la previsione delle
tensioni residue da pallinatura, Il Progettista Industriale 18 (2) (1998)
80±88.
[22] S.T.S. Al-Hassani, Numerical simulation of multiple shot impact, in:
Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Shot
Peening, ICSP7, Warsaw, 1999, pp. 217±227.
[23] S. Wang, Y. Li, M. Yao, R. Wang, Compressive residual stress
introduced by shot peening, J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 73 (1) (1998)
64±73.