Applied Surface Science 356 (2015) 475485

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Surface Science

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

Study of the effects produced by shot peening on the surface of

quenched and tempered steels: roughness, residual stresses and work
hardening
V. Llaneza , F.J. Belzunce
Materials Science Department, University of Oviedo, University Campus, 33203, Gijn, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 29 May 2015
Received in revised form 29 July 2015
Accepted 13 August 2015
Available online 15 August 2015
Keywords:
Shot peening
Quenched and tempered steels
Roughness
Residual stress proles
Full width at half maximum

a b s t r a c t
Shot peening induces important effects on the surface of materials, both positive and negative, the correct
balance between them being the key to success.
Roughness, impact mark size, compressive residual stress and work hardening of six steel grades
obtained from an AISI 4340 steel were studied to explain their evolution according to the Almen intensity
and their mechanical properties. A linear relationship between the impact diameter, the kinetic energy
of the balls and the Almen intensity was found. Moreover, under full coverage, the surface and the maximum compressive stresses only depend on the mechanical properties of the steels, whereas the depth
subjected to high compressive residual stresses and the total depth subjected to compressive residual
stresses depend on the mechanical properties of the steel and the Almen intensity. Furthermore, several
mathematic expressions were formulated to predict the residual stress proles using the Almen intensity
and the mechanical properties of the steels.
2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Conventional shot peening (SP) is a cheap surface treatment that
consists in projecting very hard, tiny, spherical ceramic or metallic balls (0.3 < < 1.6 mm) at high speed onto the surface of the
component to treat. These impacts produce local surface plastic
deformation, the expansion of which is constrained by the adjacent
deeper material, giving rise to a uniform surface compressive residual stress eld (Fig. 1), along with other important effects. These
include modication of the roughness and appearance of the surface in addition to work hardening, which, if properly controlled,
can signicantly improve the nal properties of metallic components [14]. The aforementioned effects provided by shot peening
treatments cannot be called merely positive or negative, as this role
depends on the purpose of each treatment.
Shot peening has many applications: for instance, it can be used
to improve the fatigue life of industrial components [58], obtain
a specic surface nishing [9], enhance the wear resistance [10] or
prevent stress corrosion cracking [11,12]. Consequently, it is necessary to control the shot peening parameters, mainly the Almen

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 985182024.

E-mail addresses: llanezavictor@gmail.com (V. Llaneza), belzunce@uniovi.es
(F.J. Belzunce).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2015.08.110
0169-4332/ 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

intensity and the coverage degree, according to the mechanical

properties of the material treated, to obtain the best combination of
the aforementioned effects and, hence, maximize the performance
of the product. Coverage is the ratio of the area covered by the shot
impacts to the entire surface of the treated sample, expressed as a
percentage, whereas the Almen intensity is a measure of the energy
of the shot stream, which depends on the projection velocity and
also on the shot density, mass and size [13,14].
However, although shot peening is a relatively old technology,
even now, most companies are not able to employ it optimally, and
this means that they are not able to take full advantage of it. The
main reason is the complexity of the process, due to the different
parameters that must be simultaneously controlled to attain the
optimal balance among effects.
It is worth to remember here the existence of other surface
treatments which are based in similar concepts as conventional
shot peening, but they have some specic differentiating characteristics. For instance, severe shot peening (SSP), which employs
more intense parameters, usually very high coverage degrees [15];
laser peening, which uses laser-generated shock waves to introduce
high level of surface compressive stresses deeper in the workpiece
[16]; roller burnishing, which rub the metal surface with a smooth
hard roller under a sufcient pressure [17] or surface mechanical
attrition treatment (SMAT), where shots are resonated by vibration using an ultrasonic transducer [1820], as well as vibration

476

V. Llaneza, F.J. Belzunce / Applied Surface Science 356 (2015) 475485

nish modication, surface work hardening and compressive residual stress elds), in different quenched and tempered steel grades
presenting a relatively broad range of mechanical properties submitted to different shot peening intensities. The main objective of
the experimental study was to understand the role played by the
mechanical properties of the treated steel and the applied Almen
intensity on the main effects induced by shot peening treatments.
Furthermore, several simple, practical expressions are proposed to
predict the impact diameter and some characteristic values of the
residual stress proles. These expressions may be used in a practical way to predict the effects induced by shot peening treatments
on industrial components, being an effective tool to select the correct parameters to satisfy the requirements xed by the nal client
in an easy and fast way.
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of the shot peening process.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Steel and mechanical properties

Table 1
Chemical composition of AISI 4340 alloy steel.
Element

Mn

Si

Cr

Ni

Fe

wt%
Element
wt%

0.410
Mo
0.235

0.710
V
0.005

0.260
Cu
0.210

0.013
Al
0.016

0.024
Sn
0.011

0.870
Ti
0.004

1.920
Nb
0.003

Balance

polishing, vibration peening or grinding [21]. In relation to these

surface treatments, shot peening is usually cheaper, versatile, effective enough and very easy to be implemented in most workshops.
Anyway, in order to attain the nal goal on these surface treatments and specically in the case of shot peening, it would be
convenient to have a tool able to foresee the main effects of any
treatment in order to select the most appropriate parameters for
optimizing it. Numerous experimental and theoretical studies have
been performed along these lines to improve the state of knowledge
of shot peening and better understand its effects [9,2228].
This paper focuses on the analysis of the evolution of the main
effects induced by conventional shot peening treatments (surface

This study was carried out on samples of AISI 4340, a commercial

heat treatable low-alloy steel widely employed in the automotive
and aircraft industries for the manufacture of gears, shafts and other
structural components due to its favorable combination of strength,
toughness and ductility. The steel was supplied in the form of rolled
bars with a diameter of 16 mm, and its chemical composition is
given in Table 1.
This steel was subjected to different heat treatments in order
to obtain six different steel grades. The treatments consisted in
austenitizing at 850 C for 45 min, water quenching (Q), plus different tempering treatments (T), ranging from 200 C to 680 C, during
150 min. The use of different tempering temperatures allowed us
to obtain a wide range of mechanical properties, as can be seen
in Table 2, which shows a representative range of the mechanical properties of typical martensitic steels employed in the metal
industry.
Fig. 2 shows the steel microstructure obtained after two of these
heat treatments (Q + T200 and Q + T680).

Table 2
Hardness and tensile properties of quenched and tempered AISI4340 steel (Vickers hardness, HV, yield strength,  ys , ultimate tensile strength,  uts , and elongation, E).
Steel

Tempering temperaturea ( C)

HV (31,25 kg)

 ys (MPa)

 uts (MPa)

E (%)

Q + T200
Q + T425
Q + T540
Q + T590
Q + T650
Q + T680

200
425
540
590
650
680

552
424
350
325
255
226

1604
1364
1123
983
863
626

2057
1426
1201
1123
897
764

10.5
10.6
13.7
14.6
19.3
24.7

All tempering times were 150 min, except 10 h in Q + T680.

Fig. 2. Steel microstructures (nital etched). (a) Q + T200; (b) Q + T680.

V. Llaneza, F.J. Belzunce / Applied Surface Science 356 (2015) 475485

477

Table 3
Work parameters for the different shot peening treatments.
Almen intensity (deection of
the Almen strip (A), in mm)

Shot size
(mm)

Pressure
(bar)

Shot Speed
(m/s)

Impact
angle ( )

Stand-off
distance (mm)

nozzle
(mm)

8A (0.2 mm)
10A (0.25 mm)
12A (0.3 mm)
14A (0.35 mm)
16A (0.4 mm)
19A (0.475 mm)
21A (0.52 mm)

CW-0.3
CW-0.4
CW-0.5
CW-0.5
CW-0.7
CW-0.7
CW-0.7

2
2
2
3
1.5
3
4

52.2
53.4
55.1
43.9
49.9

90

240

All the tests were carried out on small slices cut transversely from the bars, with an approximate thickness of 10 mm.
These samples were ground in SiC papers of progressively
lower grit sizes and carefully polished with diamond paste
(6 m and, nally, 1 m) to ensure a soft and homogeneous
initial state (Ra 0.1 m,Rmax 0.2 m, residual stress in the
near-surface region below 200 MPa, and depth affected by the
so-mentioned residual stresses lower than 20 m), thus guaranteeing that all the evaluated effects were only induced by shot
peening.
2.2. Shot peening treatments
Shot peening treatments were carried out by means of a direct
compressed air machine (Guyson Euroblast 4 PF) using conditioned
cut wire shots with rounded off edges (CW, 670-730 HV). Seven
shot peening treatments were designed with Almen intensities ranging between 8A and 21A (0.20.52 mm) following SAE J442 and
SAE J443 specications [29,30] employing A type Almen strips.
In order to achieve this range of Almen intensities, it was necessary to use shots with diameters ranging between 0.3 and 0.7 mm.
The combination of parameters selected in each treatment, including the impact angle, the diameter of the nozzle and the distance
between sample and nozzle, is shown in Table 3. It is important
to remark that both nozzle and samples remained xed during the
whole treatment.
The last step in dening and performing the treatments is the
selection of the exposure time to achieve the required degree of
coverage. Residual stress proles and surface work hardening were
always evaluated in samples with full coverage (100%), but roughness was also studied using different degrees of coverage (25%, 50%,
75%, 100% and 200%). The lower coverage degrees were used to
measure the impact marks.

2.3.2. Roughness
The surface roughness after shot peening was characterized on
a Diavite DH-6 roughness tester by means of the average roughness
Ra and Rmax parameters. The latter parameter is the largest of the
ve Rimax within the assessment length of 4.8 mm, where Rimax is
the maximum peak-to-valley height of the prole in each of the
ve aforementioned measurements [31]. Six different roughness
proles were performed on each sample (three in the longitudinal
direction and another three in the transversal direction) and the
average results were reported.

2.3. Surface nishing

2.4. Residual stresses

2.3.1. Impact diameters

The diameters of the impacts created by the shot peening
treatments were evaluated using a specic routine of an image
analysis software, which allows the average diameter of each dimple to be estimated via images obtained using conventional optical
microscopy (OM). In particular, more than 60 impact marks of
each treatment and steel were assessed, thus obtaining a set of
data which was subsequently analyzed to obtain the evolution of
the average equivalent diameter as a function of both the applied

The shot peening residual stress proles were determined by

X-ray diffraction (XRD) and incremental layer removal by electropolishing. Measurements were carried out on an X-Stress 3000
G3R device manufactured by Stresstech using the sin2 method
and the recommendations of NPL [3234]. The experimental conditions are shown in Table 4.
Diffraction data were determined in three different directions
on the specimen plane, 45, 0 and +45 , subsequently calculating the average result. Electrochemical polishing was performed

Fig. 3. Shot peening impact mark (SEM). Q + T590-SP8A.

Almen intensity and the mechanical properties of the treated steel.

The typical geometry of one impact can be seen in the image taken
with a JEOL JSM5600 scanning electron microscope shown in Fig. 3.

Table 4
Experimental parameters employed in the X-ray diffraction analysis.
Wavelength K (Cr)

0.2291 nm

Filter

Vanadium

Exposure time (s)

Tilt ( )
Background
Measuring mode
Miller indices (h k l)

20
9 points between 45/+45
Parabolic
-modied
(2 1 1)

collimator (mm)
Rotation angle, ( )
Fit
Diffraction angle
Elastic constant, E (1 + )1 (GPa)

2
45, 0 y 45
Pseudo-Voigt
156.0
168.9 2.8

478

V. Llaneza, F.J. Belzunce / Applied Surface Science 356 (2015) 475485

by applying 45 V in an electrolyte composed of 94% acetic acid and

6% perchloric acid. This process produces slight stress relaxation,
which was corrected in accordance with Sikarskie [35], who, based
on the Moore and Evans procedure [36], has developed a special
methodology to minimize the error. Furthemore, the values of the
expanded uncertainties, which correspond to 95% condence, vary
between 30 and 50 MPa, growing as the mechanical properties
of the steel increase.

Table 5
Expressions to predict the compressive residual stress at the surface, src .

2.5. Surface work hardening

D(ys ) = 747 0.154 ys AI Uncertainty < 4.1%

(2)

This phenomenon was assessed by means of the Full Width

at Half Maximum (FWHM), a parameter that corresponds to the
width of the diffraction peak at half of its height and which can
be calculated in the course of the X-ray diffraction tests at the
same time as the residual stresses are estimated. This parameter can be considered an index of the distortion of the crystal
grain which takes into account the density of dislocations and
the so-called type II micro residual stresses present in the crystal lattice, although some instrumental broadening is always also
present [33,37,38]. The FWHM parameter is widely used in shot
peening studies to quantify surface work hardening effects [15,38].
The expanded uncertainty related with these measurements is
about 0.1 .

D(uts ) = (720 0.114 uts ) AI

(3)

Mechanical property

Expression

Error

 ys
 uts
HV

src = 0.537 ys [Eq. (4)]

src = 0.468 uts [Eq. (5)]
src = 1.654 HV [Eq. (6)]

9.9%
6.6%
7.1%

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Surface nishing
3.1.1. Impact marks
As can be seen in Fig. 4, impact diameters depend on both the
applied Almen intensity and the properties of the peened steel:
as impact size is a direct measure of the induced surface plastic
deformation, it increases with increasing Almen intensity and as
the mechanical strength of the steel decreases (higher tempering
temperature, see Table 2).
The results shown in Fig. 4 provide a clear linear relationship between impact diameter and Almen intensity, the slopes of
which are dependent on the mechanical properties of the steels.
Eqs. (1)(3) were developed with a quite high degree of accuracy
(around 4%), using hardness, yield strength or tensile strength as
the reference steel mechanical parameter. These expressions are
able to predict the impact diameter on quenched and tempered
steels submitted to shot peening treatments (8A < AI < 21A) in an
easy and accurate way, as long as the shot peening shot size is
between 0.3 and 0.7 mm.
D(HV) = (736 0.444 HV) AI

src (MPa)

Uncertainty < 4.1%

Fig. 4. Evolution of impact diameter versus the applied Almen intensity.

(1)

Uncertainty < 4.3%

In contrast to those proposed by other authors [11,39,40], these

expressions have been formulated without considering the inuence of shot size. The inuence of shot size on impact diameter was
found to be quite low. Using the same intensity (SP14A) but different shot sizes (CW0.5 and CW0.6) non-signicant differences were
observed between impact diameters. In line with this result and
the small reported error, this peening parameter has been ignored
in Eqs. (1)(3).
3.1.2. Kinetic energy
The kinetic energy provided by the shot stream was measured
using an electronic device which uses two sensors separated by a
known distance. The time shots took to y between these sensors
was measured, thus providing shot velocity and hence the average
kinetic energy of the shot stream (E = 0.5mv2 ). Shot geometry was
considered ideally spherical, average shot diameters were measured under a scanning electron microscope and a density of the
steel shot of 7.8 g cm3 was also used, giving rise to the data shown
in Fig. 5. A linear plot of the shot kinetic energy versus the intensity
of the shot peening treatment was thus obtained. These results conrm that the Almen intensity is directly correlated with the kinetic
energy of the shot stream and this parameter is barely dependent
on shot size, as can also be seen by comparing the kinetic energy of
two 14A treatments produced using two different shot sizes (CW0.5
and CW0.6). The shot kinetic energy measured in these two treatments was quite similar, and the respective values being situated
between 12A and 16A, as expected.
3.1.3. Roughness
As can be seen in the Q + T590 steel used as an example in
Fig. 6a, the Ra and Rmax parameters increase gradually with increasing degree of coverage until reaching full coverage (100%). From
this point on, both roughness parameters remain constant, as the
surface work hardening induced by successive impacts nally limits the depth and extension of surface impact marks. Fig. 6b shows
the evolution of Ra and Rmax versus Almen intensity in the case of

Fig. 5. Kinetic energy versus Almen intensity (AI). 14A intensity was provided using
CW0.5 and CW0.6 shots.

V. Llaneza, F.J. Belzunce / Applied Surface Science 356 (2015) 475485

479

Fig. 6. Roughness. (a) Evolution of roughness versus the degree of coverage; (b) evolution of Ra and Rmax versus Almen intensity (full coverage).

samples submitted to full coverage (results also obtained with the

Q + T590 steel). It can be seen that, in general, roughness increases
with increasing Almen intensity (impact diameter has already been
seen to increase with shot peening intensity). However, shot size
also plays an important role, as a signicant decrease in roughness
was always detected when increasing the shot size from CW0.5
(14A) to CW0.7 (16A). Similar graphs were also found for the other
steel grades.
Moreover, Fig. 7 shows that, under the same shot peening conditions (SP14A, CW0.5 and full coverage), the roughness parameters
decrease linearly with increasing hardness of the treated steel (the

steel initial hardness was used instead of the surface hardness after
shot peening, but as hardness increases were always below 10%,
results would not change signicantly). The effect of steel hardness on impact size was indirectly shown in Fig. 4, as tempering
temperature is inversely related to the hardness of the steel.
3.2. Residual stresses
Every compressive residual stress prole can be well characterized using four parameters [39,41,42]: the compressive residual
stress at the surface, src ; the maximum value of the compressive

Fig. 7. Evolution of the roughness parameters, Ra and Rmax , versus steel hardness. SP14A and full coverage.

480

V. Llaneza, F.J. Belzunce / Applied Surface Science 356 (2015) 475485

Table 6
rc
.
Expressions to predict the maximum value of the compressive residual stress, max
rc
max
(MPa)

Mechanical property

Expression

Error

 ys
 uts
HV

rc
max
= 0.67 ys [Eq. (7)]
rc
max
= 0.58 uts [Eq. (8)]
rc
max
= 2 HV [Eq. (9)]

9.7%
4.5%
6.1%

Table 7
Expressions to predict the total depth of the compressive residual stresses, Z0 .
Z0 (mm)

Fig. 8. Typical residual stress prole and characteristic parameters.

rc
residual stress, max
(usually located at a certain depth under
the surface); the total depth submitted to compressive residual
stresses, Z0 ; and the depth subjected to high compressive residual stresses, Zhc . This last parameter was dened in this study as
the depth at which the compressive residual stress is at least half
the yield strength of the steel. These parameters are represented in
Fig. 8 over a typical residual stress prole induced by shot peening.
Fig. 9 shows the residual stress proles produced by two
given shot peening treatments (10A and 16A) on the different
steel grades: surface and maximum compressive residual stresses
decrease with decreasing strength of the steel (higher tempering temperature) [22,39,40]. However, the total depth of the
compressive residual stresses and the depth subjected to high compressive residual stresses increase with decreasing strength of the
steel.
In addition, all the residual stress proles obtained in our experimental measurements onto the Q + T steels under the different
Almen intensities (full coverage) are shown in Fig. 10. According
to this last gure, compressive residual stresses (surface and maximum) barely depend on the applied Almen intensity. However,
the affected depths (total depth submitted to compressive stresses
and depth subjected to high compressive residual stresses) increase
with increasing Almen intensity, as previously reported by other
authors [22,43,44].
As well as other authors [4548], we have formulated different simple and practical expressions to predict these parameters
making use only of the applied Almen intensity (mmA) and one of
the main mechanical properties of the treated steel (yield strength,
ultimate tensile strength or hardness). The expressions shown in
Tables 58, Eqs. (4)(15), were obtained along with their average error through lineal regressions and statistical analysis and

Mechanical property

Expression

Error

 ys
 uts
HV

Z0 = (0.0004  ys + 1.25) AI [Eq. (10)]

Z0 = (0.0003  uts + 1.19) AI [Eq. (11)]
Z0 = (0.0011 HV + 1.23) AI [Eq. (12)]

6.6%
6.7%
5.8%

Table 8
Expressions to predict the depth subjected to high compressive residual stresses,
Zhc . ( c >  ys /2).
Zhc (mm)
Mechanical property

Expression

Error

 ys
 uts
HV

Zhc = (0.91 0.0003  ys ) AI [Eq. (13)]

Zhc = (0.89 0.0002  uts ) AI [Eq. (14)]
Zhc = (0.92 0.0009 HV) AI [Eq. (15)]

7.8%
10.9%
5.6%

combine precision (error < 10%; in the best cases around 5%) with
simplicity.
The best mechanical parameter for predicting residual compressive stresses is seen to be tensile strength, though hardness
is the best for predicting affected depths. Fig. 11 compares the predicted surface and maximum compressive stresses produced by
shot peening with the experimental results, while Fig. 12 compares
the predicted depths with their experimentally measured values.
Good correlations have been found with the four parameters.
3.3. Work hardening. FWHM proles
As previously stated, the shot peening work hardening study
was carried out employing the FWHM parameter, the proles of
which were obtained by XRD at the same time as those corresponding to the residual stress. Moreover, this parameter was shown to be
a useful and practical tool to evaluate the surface work hardening
induced by shot peening treatments.
Fig. 13 shows that the steel surface layer affected by shot peening becomes deeper as the applied Almen intensity increases, and
covers a similar depth to that subjected to the compressive residual

Fig. 9. Residual stress proles following different SP treatments on diverse steels. Two applied Almen intensities, 10A and 16A, full coverage.

V. Llaneza, F.J. Belzunce / Applied Surface Science 356 (2015) 475485

Fig. 10. Residual stress proles obtained by applying different SP treatments to the different Q + T steels (full coverage).

Fig. 11. Predicted compressive residual stress vs experimental results (full coverage) a) at the surface; b) maximum value.

481

482

V. Llaneza, F.J. Belzunce / Applied Surface Science 356 (2015) 475485

Fig. 12. Predicted depths vs experimental results (full coverage) (a) total depth subjected to compressive residual stresses; (b) depth subjected to high compressive residual
stresses.

Fig. 13. FWHM proles following different SP treatments applied to the studied steel grades (full coverage).

V. Llaneza, F.J. Belzunce / Applied Surface Science 356 (2015) 475485

483

Table 9
Predicted results from an average impact diameter of 179 m (Q + T540 4340 steel).

src = 562 MPa

Z0 = 0.26 mm

rc
max
= 697 MPa

Zhc = 0.18 mm  rc >

ys
2

= 562 MPa

Fig. 14. FWHM proles obtained on different steel grades using a 14A SP (full coverage). *Q corresponds to the quenched and non-tempered 4340 steel.

stress eld. According to these results, it can be seen that any

shot peening treatment gives rise to signicant surface hardening,
but its nal effects are also highly dependent on the strength of
the steel. The softer the steel, the greater the surface increase in
the FWHM parameter; that is to say, softer steels have a greater
work-hardening capacity. However, if the hardness of the base
steel is high enough, shot peening treatments can also give rise
to a kind of local softening. This is clearly seen in the hardest steel
(Q + T200), which was only submitted to stress relieving tempering. The observed decrease in the FWHM parameter in this steel
is probably due to dislocation re-arrangement. The base steel has
a distorted structure with a high hardness and peening-induced
plastic deformation has resulted in a lower-energy dislocation
arrangement. This has, consequently, given rise to a reduction in the
FWHM parameter in the surface and sub-surface regions, although
a slight increase in FWHM was observed in the rst 0.05 mm. The
behavior of the second hardest steel grade (Q + T425) is situated
between the hardest grade and the other steels, conrming the
aforementioned explanation. According to this same gure, it is
also worth noting that the surface value of the FWHM parameter is
barely affected by the applied Almen intensity (no clear inuence
of the shot peening intensity was observed).
Moreover, the initial FWHM parameter characteristic of each
steel (internal, base FWHM value) is linearly related to the hardness
of the steel, as can be seen in Fig. 14. This fact can be better appreciated in Fig. 15a, in which the base FWHM steel value has been
plotted versus the hardness of the steel (a last result obtained with
the quenched and non-tempered 4340 steel, 662 HV, has also been
included in this gure). A quite good linear correlation between
these two variables was obtained, conrming the possibility of

Fig. 16. Experimentally measured residual stress prole and predicted values
(Q + T540 4340 steel, SP12A and full coverage).

using the FWHM parameter to detect changes in hardness. On the

other hand, surface hardening produced by shot peening treatments is better represented as the difference between the surface
FWHM and the base FWHM parameters. Fig. 15b shows a linear
decrease in surface hardening with decreasing hardness of the steel.
It is also worth noting that the surface FWHM parameter of Q + T
steels whose hardness is above 470 HV does not increase through
conventional shot peening. In fact, the surface FWHM values of
these steels decrease below the base value characteristic of each
steel. Nonetheless, even in these cases, a certain degree of work
hardening can be appreciated in the rst 0.05 mm (see Q + T200 in
Fig. 13).
3.4. Example of application
Eqs. (1), (5), (8), (12) and (15) were used to predict the residual
stress prole of a Q + T540 4340 steel using only the measurements
of the impact diameters produced in a shot peening treatment. The
average measurements of the impact marks were 179 m. Using
Eq. (1), the application of an Almen intensity of 0.308 mm (12.3A)
was derived. Subsequently, Eqs. (5), (8), (12) and (15) were used to
determine the compressive residual stress at the surface, src , the
rc , the total
maximum value of the compressive residual stress, max
depth submitted to compressive residual stresses, Z0 , and the depth
subjected to high compressive residual stresses, Zhc ( rc > ys /2).

Fig. 15. Evolution of the FWHM. The greatest hardness represented in the graphs (662 HV) corresponds to the quenched and non-tempered 4340 steel. (a) The base FWHM
parameter; (b) the surface FWHM minus the base FWHM versus steel hardness (full coverage).

484

V. Llaneza, F.J. Belzunce / Applied Surface Science 356 (2015) 475485

Table 9 shows the obtained results, which are also represented in

Fig. 16 along with the residual stress prole experimentally measured on the shot peened sample.

4. Conclusions
It is well-known that shot peening is a complex technology
which produces different effects on the surface of the treated components, the most important being the modication of surface
appearance, work hardening and residual stresses. The most relevant results obtained using an AISI 4340 steel submitted to different
quenched and tempered heat treatments in order to obtain a wide
range of mechanical properties are reported below.
Impact marks: as impact diameter is a direct measure of the
intensity of any shot peening treatment, there is a linear relationship between the diameter of the surface impact marks and the
applied Almen intensity. A simple, accurate expression is proposed
to predict the impact diameter, which increases with increasing
Almen intensity and with decreasing steel hardness.
Kinetic energy: the kinetic energy of the projected balls is partially transferred to the specimen surface and, consequently, Almen
intensity and the kinetic energy of the shots are also linearly related.
Roughness: the analysis of surface roughness through Ra and
Rmax conrmed that both parameters evolve in the same way. For
the same material, roughness increases with increasing applied
Almen intensity (larger impact marks). However, the size of the
shots also plays an important role: roughness decreases with
increasing shot size, even when a higher Almen intensity is produced. Moreover, roughness depends on the degree of coverage,
increasing until full coverage and subsequently remaining constant, due to the saturation of surface work hardening.
Residual stress proles: any compressive residual stress prole
is well dened using four parameters: the compressive residual
stress at the surface, src ; the maximum compressive residual stress,
rc ; the depth subjected to high compressive residual stresses,
max
Zhc ; and the total depth subjected to compressive residual stresses,
rc
Z0 . It was conrmed that, under full coverage, src and max
only
depend on the mechanical properties of the treated steel (they do
not depend on the applied Almen intensity, as surface hardening
saturates after attaining full coverage), whereas, Z0 and Zhc depend
on both the mechanical properties of the steel and the applied
Almen intensity. Several simple, accurate, practical expressions
were formulated to predict these four parameters in quenched and
tempered 4340 steel grades which only require the applied Almen
intensity (mmA) and one of the main mechanical properties of the
treated steel as input.
Work hardening: shot peening also induces an increase of the
hardness of the surface region which can be easily quantied by
means of the FWHM parameter. It was seen that the base FWHM
of the steel, being a hardening parameter, is linearly related to its
hardness. On the other hand, from the study of the surface evolution
of this parameter, it can be stated that softer steels have a greater
work-hardening capacity, although some kind of softening was also
observed in the harder steels unduly associated with dislocation
re-arrangement.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the nancial support for this study
provided by the European Union (FEDER funds) and Principado
de Asturias, through the Plan de Ciencia, Tecnologa e Innovacion,
20132017 (FC-15-GRUPIN14-001 Project). Vctor Llaneza grateful
acknowledges funding from the Principado de Asturias Government, through the Severo Ochoa Programme (contract BP10-021).

References
[1] Shot Peening, Applications, 8th Edition, Metal Improvement Company,
2001.
[2] Shot Peening, A Dynamic Application and its Future, MFN Publishing, 2009.
[3] Manual on Shot Peening, SAE International, 2001.
[4] Handbook of Residual Stress and Deformation of Steel, ASM International,
2002.
[5] A.T. Vielma, V. Llaneza, F.J. Belzunce, Shot peening intensity optimization to
increase the fatigue life of a quenched and tempered structural steel, Proc.
Eng. 74 (2014) 273278.
[6] Y.-K. Gao, Fatigue limit of chemical heat treated specimens and effect of shot
peening, Surf. Eng. 24 (5) (2008) 322326.
[7] Y.-K. Gao, Inuence of shot peening on tension-tension fatigue property of
two high strength Ti alloys, Surf. Eng. 22 (4) (2006) 299303.
[8] I. Fernndez-Pariente, M. Guagliano, About the role of residual stresses and
surface work hardening on fatigue Kth of a nitrided and shot peened
low-alloy steel, Surf. Coat. Technol. 202 (2008) 30723080.
[9] S. Bagherifard, R. Ghelichi, M. Guagliano, Numerical and experimental
analysis of surface roughness generated by shot peening, Appl. Surf. Sci. 258
(2012) 68316840.
[10] S.H. Chang, T.P. Tang, F.C. Tai, Enhancement of thermal cracking and
mechanical properties of H13 tool steel by shot peening treatment, Surf. Eng.
278 (2011) 581586.
[11] X.P. Jiang, X.Y. Wang, J.X. Li, D.Y. Li, C.-S. Man, M.J. Shepard, T. Zhai,
Enhancement of fatigue and corrosion properties of pure Ti by sandblasting,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A: Struct. Mater. Prop. Microstruct. Process. 429 (2006) 3035.
[12] T. Wang, J. Yu, B. Dong, Surface nanocrystallization induced by shot peening
and its effect on corrosion resistance of 1Cr18Ni9Ti stainless steel, Surf. Coat.
Technol. 200 (2006) 47774781.
[13] SAE Standard AMS-S-13165: Shot peening of metal parts, SAE International,
1997.
[14] K.J. Marsh, Shot Peening: Techniques and Applications, EMAS, London, 1993.
[15] S. Bagherifard, M. Guagliano, Fatigue behavior of a low-alloy steel with
nanostructured surface obtained by severe shot peening, Eng. Fract. Mech. 81
(2010) 5668.
[16] J.Z. Zhou, S. Huang, L.D. Zuo, X.K. Meng, J. Sheng, Q. Tian, Y.H. Han, W.L. Zhu,
Studies on laser peening of spring steel for automotive applications, Opt.
Lasers Eng. 52 (2014) 189194.
[17] P. Zhang, J. Lindemann, Effect of roller burnishing on the high cycle fatigue
performance of the high-strength wrought magnesium alloy AZ80, Scr. Mater.
52 (2005) 10111015.
[18] S. Bagheri, M. Guagliano, Review of shot peening processes to obtain
nanocrystalline surfaces in metal alloys, Surf. Eng. 25 (1) (2009) 314.
[19] B. Arifvianto, M. Suyitno, Mahardika, Effects of surface mechanical attrition
treatment (SMAT) on a rough surface of AISI 316L stainless steel, Appl. Surf.
Sci. 258 (2012) 45384543.
[20] H. Du, Y. Wei, W. Lin, L. Hou, Z. Liu, Y. An, W. Yang, One way of surface
alloying treatment on iron surface based on surface mechanical attrition
treatment and heat treatment, Appl. Surf. Sci. 255 (2009) 86608666.
[21] Y. Gao, F. Lu, M. Yao, Inuence of mechanical surface treatments on fatigue
property of 30CrMnSiNi2A steel, Surf. Eng. 21 (4) (2005) 325328.
[22] M. Guagliano, Relating Almen intensity to residual stresses induced by shot
peening: a numerical approach, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 100 (2001)
277286.

[23] P. Sanjurjo, C. Rodrguez, I. Penuelas,

T.E. Garca, F.J. Belzunce, Inuence of the
target material constitutive model on the numerical simulation of a shot
peening process, Surf. Coat. Technol. 258 (2014) 822831.
[24] A. Garipy, F. Bridier, M. Hoseini, P. Bocher, C. Perron, M. Lvesque,
Experimental and numerical investigation of material heterogeneity in shot
peened aluminium alloy AA2024-T351, Surf. Coat. Technol. 219 (2013)
1530.
[25] M.A.S. Torres, H.J.C. Voorwald, An evaluation of shot peening, residual stress
and stress relaxation on the fatigue life of AISI 4340 steel, Int. J. Fatigue 24
(2002) 877886.
[26] H.Y. Miao, S. Larose, C. Perron, M. Lvesque, An analytical approach to relate
shot peening parameters to Almen intensity, Surf. Coat. Technol. 205 (2010)
20552066.
[27] T. Honga, J.Y. Ooi, B. Shaw, A numerical simulation to relate the shot peening
parameters to the induced residual stresses, Eng. Fail. Anal. 15 (8) (2008)
10971110.
[28] L. Xie, C. Jiang, W. Lu, The inuence of shot peening on the surface properties
of (TiB + TiC)/Ti6Al4 V, Appl. Surf. Sci. 280 (2013) 981988.
[29] SAE Standard J442: Test strip, holder and gage for shot peening, SAE
International, 2008.
[30] SAE Standard J443: Procedures for using standard shot peening test strip,
SAE International, 2003.
[31] DIN EN ISO 4288: Geometrical Product Specications (GPS) Surface
Texture: Prole Method Rules and Procedures for the Assessment of Surface
Texture, 1996.
[32] P.S. Prevy, X-ray Diffraction Residual Stress Techniques, in: ASM Handbook,
Vol. 10, Materials Characterization, ASM International, 1986.
[33] I.C. Noyan, J.B. Cohen, Residual Stress: Measurement by Diffraction and
Interpretation, MRE, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1987.
[34] NPL., Determination of Residual Stresses by X-ray Diffraction, Document N .
52, National Physical Laboratory, UK, 2005.

V. Llaneza, F.J. Belzunce / Applied Surface Science 356 (2015) 475485

[35] D.L. Sikarskie, On a series form of correction to stresses measured using X-ray
diffraction, AIME Trans. 239 (1967) 577580.
[36] M.G. Moore, W.P. Evans, Mathematical correction for stress in removed layers
in X-ray diffraction residual stress analysis, SAE Trans. 66 (1958).
[37] S. Bagherifard, C. Colombo, M. Guagliano, Application of different fatigue
strength criteria to shot peened notched components. Part 1: fracture
mechanics based approaches, Appl. Surf. Sci. 289 (2014) 180187.
[38] B. Pinheiro, J. Lesage, I. Pasqualino, E. Bemporad, N. Benseddiq, X-ray
diffraction study of microstructural changes during fatigue damage
initiation in pipe steels: role of the initial dislocation structure, Mater.
Sci. Eng. A: Struct. Mater. Prop. Microstruct. Process. 580 (2013)
112.
[39] S. Wang, Y. Li, M. Yao, R. Wang, Compressive residual stress introduced by
shot peening, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 73 (1998) 6473.
[40] K. Tosha, Effect of shot peening on surface texture and surface integrity, in:
Proc. 11th Int. Conf. of Shot Peening ICSP-11, Indiana, 2011.
[41] Y.K. Gao, M. Yao, J.K. Li, An analysis of residual stress elds caused by shot
peening, Metall. Mater. Trans. A: Phys. Metall. Mater. Sci. 33A (2002)
17751778.

485

[42] I. Sumiyoshi, A. Tange, H. Okada, Shot peening conditions and processing

properties for springs steel, in: Proc. 11th Int. Conf. of Shot Peening ICSP-11,
Indiana, 2011.
[43] Y.F. Al-Obaid, Shot peening mechanics: experimental and theoretical analysis,
Mech. Mater. 19 (1995) 251260.
[44] W. Zinn, B. Scholtes, Mechanical surface treatments of lightweight
materialseffects on fatigue strength and near-surface microstructures, J.
Mater. Eng. Perform. 8 (1999) 145151.
[45] H. Bae, H. Diep, M. Ramulu, Inuence of shot peening coverage on residual
stresses induced in Aluminum alloy 7050-T745, in: Proc. 12th Int. Conf. of
Shot Peening ICSP-12, Goslar, 2014.
[46] S.T.S. Al-Hassani, Mechanical aspects of residual stress development in shot
peening, in: Proc. 1st Int. Conf. of Shot Peening ICSP-1, Paris, 1981.
[47] R. Fathallah, Modelling of shot peening residual stresses and plastic
deformation induced in metallic parts, in: Proc. 6th Int. Conf. of Shot Peening
ICSP-6, San Francisco, 1996.
[48] H. Guechichi, L. Castex, J. Frelat, G. Inglebert, Predicting residual stresses due
to shot peening, in: Proceedings of Tenth Conference on Shot Peening
(CETIM-ITI), Senlis, 1986.