1

Methods and Models for Shot Peening Simulation

Mats Werke IVF, mats.werke@ivf.se

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to discuss some important aspects concerning methods and models
for shot peening simulation. An overview of papers concerning shot peening simulation from
international conferences according to http://www.shotpeening.org/ICSP/confrns.htm together
with other publications according to the reference list is presented and a short summary of
each investigated paper/thesis is enclosed as an appendix to this report. This study is a part of
an R&D project Simulation of product properties for efficient product development
http://extra.ivf.se/prosim/ where the aim is to develop methods for sequential simulation of
manufacturing processes. This project is financed by Vinnova and participating companies.

Since using the Finite Element Method (FEM) for simulation of shot peening is not industrial
established yet the focus of the studied papers was to show that FEM is a useful tool in order
to predict residual stress and plastic strain profiles. Several papers presented results that was
validated with experiments and residual stress measurements with X-Ray diffraction (XRD)
and concluded the usefulness of FEM. A lot of methods and models were proposed with
different model descriptions, number of shots, type of analysis and type of material models
and several studies proposed simplifications such as 2D models, static analysis and one shot
studies etc. However one conclusion of this overview is that one should consider as many
aspects as possible when modeling the process. The most advanced studies in the overview
indicate a dynamic analysis where the target is a 3D model (block or cylinder) of the substrate
below the surface. They also indicate that several shots should be considered where the shot is
modeled in 3D with elastic or elastic perfectly plastic capabilities. Furthermore it is noted that
the material model will have a large influence of the results and kinematic hardening,
multilinear isotropic or kinematic multilinear hardening capabilities should be taken into
consideration as well as the strain rate dependency. In several of the R&D presentations the
influence of different process and material parameters on the residual stress profile was
studied. The influence of shot velocity, shot diameter, impact angle, shape of shot and target
hardening was discussed but since the studies were performed under different conditions it is
difficult to draw generic conclusions concerning the impact of different process and material
parameters on the residual stress profile.















2
Overview of previous R&D concerning shot peening simulation
An overview of the studied papers/thesis is condensed in the table 1 and 2 below.

Nr Code Target conditions
Model Dimension (mm) Target Yield (Mpa) Hardening Strain rate Temp.
1 Abaqus 3D block 1.5*1.5*0.85 1263Yes Yes Yes
2 Ansys 3D block 7R *4R *5R 600Bilinear no no
3 Abaqus 2D axisym - 1680Bilinear kinematic no no
4 LS-Dyna 3D block 0.8*0.8*1.6 1500Bilinear Cwpr Smnds no
5 Abaqus 2D axisym, 3D cylinder - 315, 930, 1120 Bilinear kinematic no no
6 Abaqus 3D Cylinder R=8D, H=3D 760Bilinear no no
7 Abaqus 3D block 4*4*2 1250Bilinear Cwpr Smnds no
8 Abaqus 3D block, 2D axisym 35*35*20 (35*20) 930Elastic perf plastic Yes no
9 Ansys 2D axisym Diam=100 H=50 630Multilinear isotropic no no
10 Murakami experiment 100*100*50 630 - - -
Table 1: A summary of commercial codes and target conditions for shot peening simulation.

Nr Shot conditions Focus for investigation Validation
Type Diam (mm) Number Vel (m/s) Friction
1 Rigid 0.5 - 2.5 1 - 7, 7 20 - 80 0.4 number of shots, velocity,angle, size XRD at Karlsruhe
2 Rigid 0.5 - 2 1, 2 50,75,100 0.25 velocity, size, shape, hrdness modul Edberg [11]
3 Elastic 0.8 1 - 7 6 Mj (75 m/s) - isotropic - kinematic hardening -
4 Elastic 0.8 4 - 25 50 - 100 0.1 number of shots, velocity, angle Torres [12]
5 Rigid 0.2-1 several 40 - 120 - Almen intensity - velocity, linear - elasto plastic XRD on Almen strip
6 Rigid 1.0 1 25 - 100 0.2 velocity, angle -
7 Rigid 0.72 several 37,73,91 0.1 FEM or Analytical expr -
8 Rigid 3.2 1 200, 300 0.1 Quasi static or dynamic XRD
9 Elastic 50.0 1 6 0.4 bilinear-multilinear, friction - no friction Murakami [10]
10 Steel 50 & 76.2 1 - 30 Drop from 2 m - Influence of number of shots and dynamic conditions on res. stress
Table 2: A summary of shot conditions and focus for investigation in the studied papers

FE codes and analysis
Software: The commercial code Abaqus was used in most of the cases but also Ansys and LS-
Dyna was used in some cases.
Dynamic or static analysis: Both dynamic and static analysis with large deformation
capabilities was performed. The dynamic analysis was performed both in implicit and explicit
mode and for example in [2] and [9] Ansys implicit solver was used with Newmark implicit
time integration. In [3] the dynamic analysis was replaced by a static analysis with large
deformation capabilities and where the velocity was replaced with an energetic criterion. One
of the reasons was that dynamic simulations generate elastic vibrations in the material and the
computations that are necessary to reach equilibrium can be time consuming. In [8] the effect
of the velocity was matched by the size of the measured crater and a static analysis with large
deformation was performed. Also in [8] a comparison between dynamic and static analysis
was done and the conclusions was that for velocities below 200 m/s a static analysis is
sufficient. However the experiments in [10] contradicts those conclusions showing a big
experimental difference between a static and dynamic impact. The different conclusions in the
presentations may be an effect of different input conditions concerning material, dimensions
and impact velocity. Especially in [9] and [10] the conditions differs from real shot peening
concerning impact velocity (very low velocity =6.4 m/s), shot diameter (very large shots =50
mm). The discussion above indicates that one should indeed be careful when trying to
simplify the analysis.
3
Target conditions
Both 2D axisymmetric models and 3D models have been used. Significant for all the shot
peening simulations is the very small geometric volume (cube or cylinder) that is studied due
to the fact that only a very small volume below the surface is affected by the shot peening
procedure. Only in [9] a geometric large model was studied (axisymmetric model of 100 x 50
mm with shot diameter 50 mm) since the goal of this study was to validate the model against
an experiment [10]. The mesh is often modeled very fine close to the impact zone in order to
get a good resolution of the residual stress distribution below the surface and coarser away
from the impact zone. The number of elements differs significant and in [8] a very small 2D
model with 4000 8-nodes brick elements is described. However in [1] the 3D FE-mesh
consists of 372000 8-nodes brick element where the smallest element size is 0.008 mm. Both
[1] and [8] are validated with XRD- measurements. Mesh convergence studies has been
performed in many presentations in order to secure the accuracy of the results. The
characteristics of the studied target material differed from mild material (Yield =600 Mpa)
to high strength steel (Yield =1680 Mpa).

Shot conditions
Type of shot: Most of the shots in the discussed R&D are modeled as rigid. In [4] the shot is
modeled as elastic and the results form experimental evaluation is very good. Also [3] use
elastic shot and in [9] both elastic and elastic perfectly plastic shots are investigated and in [9]
the validation with experimental residual stress measurements [10] is good.
Number of shots: The number of shots varies from analysis with one shot [6], [8] and [9] to
analysis with 19 shots where 1 to 7 shots in a sequence and then 7 simultaneous impacts are
evaluated [1] and tests with 4 to 25 shots [4]. It is interesting to note that in [5] the conclusion
is that the residual stress field is mainly influenced by the first impact and the difference due
to the following ones are limited in a range about 15 %. Also in [4] the difference between 9
and 25 shots is small which emphasis this statement. However in [1] the difference in
maximum residual stress between the 1:st and 7:th is substantial and also in the experiment
[10] the difference between the 1:st and 30:th shot is very significant and the surface residual
stress state at the center of the indenter goes from tension in the first shot to compression in
the 30:th shot. The different statements probably depend on different conditions concerning
dimensions, target material and shot speed. Thus attention should be paid concerning the
number of shots that should be included in the model and this study indicates that a pattern of
shots according to [1] or [4] should be used.
Friction coefficient: In most of the studied papers the friction coefficient was set to 0.1.
However in [9] a closer investigation of friction resulted in friction coefficient =0.4. Also in
[1] the friction coefficient is set to 0.4.

Material models
Stress strain relations: The description of plastic hardening differs form perfect elastic
plastic [8], elastic plastic with bilinear behavior [2], [6] and [7], elastic plastic with kinematic
hardening, [3] and [5] and elastic plastic with isotropic multilinear behavior [9]. Especially [3]
compares isotropic and kinematic hardening and recommends kinematic hardening due to
significant changes in residual stress profile, also for one-shot simulation. Also [9]
investigates several material models and receives very good results with multilinear isotropic
hardening compared to tests [10]. The conclusion is that one should pay attention to the
choice of material model and evaluate especially kinematic hardening and multilinear
isotropic hardening or combinations according to the material models described in fig 1.

4

Fig 1: Difference between bilinear, multilinear, isotropic and kinematic material models according to Ansys Inc
Theory reference.

Influence of strain rate: The strain rate may have a significant effect on the stress strain curve
according to fig 2:

Fig 2: Stress-strain curves for a mild steel as a function of strain rate according to [13]

Several mathematical models describes the influence of strain rate on hardening like Cowper-
Symonds, J ohnson-Cook, Armstrong-Zerilli and Piecewise linear Cowper Symonds according
to below.

Fig 3: Models for strain rate dependence on a mild steel according to [13] Where the solid lines indicate tests
and dotted lines indicates the models.

The Cowper Symonds material model was used in [4] and [7] but the parameter settings
differs in the presentations. In [8] a similar power law was used and in [1] a more complex
material model was used with strain rate dependence, asymptotic characteristics of hardening
5
as well as temperature dependence included. In the other presentations the strain rate
dependence was ignored and also in [8] it is indicated that the strain rate could be igno
impact velocities below 200 m/s. The Cowper Symond formula is described below:

red for
=() [1 +( / D)
1/P
]
here () =static stress strain relation, W =plastic strain rate, D and P are adjustable

he Influence of shot peening and material parameters on the residual stress profile
al


(0.5 2.5 mm) does not significant affect
ss.
esidual
hardening: According to [2] the target hardening does not affect the maximum

iscussion
and methods for shot peening simulation differ a lot in the studied presentations

arget: 3D block or cylinder of a small substrate
n coeff ient:
with multilinear kinematic hardening or alike and
ignificant for most of the presented FE models is the fact that the studied geometric target
f
parameters. More information about Cowper Symonds parameter settings can be found in
[14].

T
Velocity: In [1] the velocity is varied between 20 80 m/s with no major change of maxim
residual stress or surface residual stress. However the position of the maximum compressive
stress gets deeper in the material as an effect of velocity increase. Also in [2] no major change
in maximum residual stress but significant increase in the depth of the compressive layer for
shot velocity 50 100 m/s. However in [4] an increase in velocity from 50 to 100 m/s may
increase maximum compressive stress about 10 %. Also in [6] the shot velocity have effects
on maximum compressive residual stress, especially in the low range of velocities (12 30
m/s) while at higher ranges (30 100) the influence is not so big. In [6] the maximum
compressive stress is detected to 1.5*Yield stress.
Shot diameter: In [1] the variation of shot diameter
the maximum residual stress or surface residual stress. However the position of the maximum
stress gets deeper in the material as an effect of diameter increase. The same results in [2].
Impact Angle: In [1] an increase in impact angle show a decrease in maximum residual stre
Also the position of maximum residual stress moves towards the surface while the impact
angle increase. Also in [6] it is stated that normal impact angle is most beneficial.
Shape of shot: According to [2] the geometrical shape of the shot affects maximum r
stress.
Target
residual stress. However increase in hardening increase the depth in compressive layer.

D
The models
and different approaches are suggested concerning type of model (2D or 3D), type of analysis
(static or dynamic), number of shots and material model. The discussion above indeed
indicates that one should be careful when trying to simplify the model and indicates a
specification of a model according to below:

T
Shot: Elastic or elastic perfectly plastic
Frictio ic 0.1 0.4
Type of analysis: Dynamic
strain rate dependence
Number of shots: Several shots

S
volume is very small due to the fact that only a small volume below the surface is affected o
the process. A typical FE-model has the form of a block or a cylinder where the element size
is very small around the impact zone.

6
It is always recommended to evaluate the model with XRD-tests or alike. Especially [1], [2],
lop a
he results from a shot peening simulation may give indications of the residual stress and
y
an be
[4] and [9] has been successfully validated against experiments and residual stress
measurements with XRD. In one presentation [7] an attempt has been made to deve
mathematic expression for analytical prediction of residual stress.

T
plastic strain profile below the surface as well as indentation depth. A simulation model ma
also be a support for investigation of the influence of process parameters (impact speed, shot
diameter, shape of shot, shot angle and impact pattern) and material characteristics on the
residual stress and plastic strain profiles. A simulation model may also be a support to
develop a better understanding of the physical effects of the shot peening process and c
used for quantitative or qualitative analysis.
7
References

1. Schwarzer J ., Schulze V., Vhringer O., Finite Element Simulation of Shot Peening - A
Method to Evaluate the Influence of Peening Parameters on Surface Characteristics,
Proceedings from International Conference of shot peening nr 8 (ICSP-8) Munich,
Germany, 2002, http://www.shotpeener.com/library/spc/2002066.htm

2. Meguid S.A., Shagal G., Stranart J .C., Daly J ., Three-dimensional dynamic Finite
element analysis of shot-peening induced residual stresses, Finite Elements in Analysis
and Design 31, 1999, 179-191

3 Rouhaud E., Oakka A., Ould C., Chaboche J ., Francois M., Finite Elements Model of
Shot Peening, Effects of Constitutive Laws of the Material, Proceedings ICSP-9, Paris,
France, 2005

4. Majzoobi G.H., Azizi R., A 3-D Numerical Method of Shot Peening Process using
Multiple Shot Impacts, Proceedings ICSP-9, Paris, France, 2005

5. Guagliano M., Vergani L., Bandini M., Gili F., An approach to relate the shot peening
parameters to the induced residual stresses, Proceedings ICSP-7, Warsaw, Poland, 1999,
http://www.shotpeening.org/ICSP/icsp-7.htm

6. Hong T., Ooi J .Y., Favier J ., Shaw B., A numerical simulation to relate the shot peening
process parameters to the induced residual stresses, Proceedings ICSP-9, Paris, France
2005

7. Al-Hassani S.T.S, Numerical Simulation of Multiple Shot Impact, Proceedings ICSP-7,
Warsaw, Poland, 1999, http://www.shotpeening.org/ICSP/icsp-7.htm

8. Boyce B.L., Chen X., Hutchinson J .W., Ritchie R.O., The residual stress state due to a
spherical hard-body impact, Mechanics of Materials 33, 441- 454, 2001

9. Zion H. Lewis, A Dynamic Finite Element Simulation of the Shot-Peening Process,
Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA, 2003

10. Kobayashi M., Matsui T., Murakami Y., Mechism of creation of compressive residual
stress by shot peening, Int. J . Fatigue. Vol 20 no 5, 1998, 351-357.

11. Edberg J . Lindgren L., Mori K., shot peening simulated by two different finite element
formulations, Simulation of materials Processing: Theory, Methods and Applications,
Balkema, Rotterdam, 1995, pp. 425 430

12. Torres M., Voorvald H., An evaluation of shot peening residual stress and stress
relaxation on the fatigue life of AISI 4340 steel, Int J . of Fatigue, Vol. 24, pp 877 - 886

13. Dietenberger M, Buyuk M, Kan C, Development of a high strain-rate dependent vehicle
model, LS-Dyna Anwenderforum, Bamberg 2005

14. Cunat P, Stainless steel properties for structural automotive applications, Metal bulletin
International Materials Conference, Cologne, 2000
8

Web-sites

Shot peening organization: http://www.shotpeening.org/
Conferences in shot peening: http://www.shotpeening.org/ICSP/confrns.htm
Shot peening organization: http://www.shotpeener.com/
Ansys theory reference guide: www.oulu.fi/atkk/tkpalv/unix/ansys-
6.1/content/theory_toc.html
9
Appendix: Short summary of papers and thesis
[1] Finite element simulation of shot peening a method to evaluate the
influence of peening parameters on surface characteristics (Schulze et
al)

FE-Code: ABQUS

FE-model: Target plate modeled as 3D mesh of 1.5 x 1.5 x 0.85 mm, 372000, 8-nodes linear
brick with reduced integration and hourglass control, smallest element size 0.008 mm. Shots
modeled as half spherical rigid surfaces connected to point mass and rotary inertia, diameter
0.56 mm. Simulation of 19 impacts. Isotropic Coulomb friction coefficient 0.4 was used to
describe the contact between the shot and target. Impact order according to below.



Fig 1: FE-model and impact order according to [1].

Material: Target material is quenched and tempered steel, 42CrMo4 Yield strength 1263
Mpa, Tensile Strength 1373 Mpa. Shot material is cast steel shot, mass density 7.85 g/cm
3

Material models: A constitutive law that describes the influence on temperature and strain
rate on flow stress (shear stress required to cause plastic deformation of solid metals) is
implemented as a subroutine in ABAQUS (Including Boltzmann constant). A constitutive
equation that describes the work hardening behavior as a function of initial yield stress and
hardening rate and asymptotic characteristics of hardening is implemented. Material
constants are determined by tensile tests.

Analysis: Influence of shot velocity (20, 40, 50, 65, 80 m/s), shot diameter (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2,
2.5 mm), impact angle (10, 30 and 55 degrees) and number of impacts (1 to 7 impacts in a
sequence and 7 simultaneous impacts according to fig 1) on residual stress profile according
to fig 2:

Validation: Experiment and X-Ray diffraction comparison according to fig 2:

10



Fig 2: Analysis of shot parameter variations and validation of model against experiments according to [1].

Summary:
- Constitutive law that describe the influence of strain rate and temperature. Also work
hardening included. Rigid shot, Abaqus/explicit
- Number of impacts: influence the shape of the profile but not the maximum residual stress
- Variations in impact velocity: No major impact of maximum residual stress, some influence
of maximum residual stress position and deep of intendent.
- Variations in shot diameter: No influence of surface and maximum residual stress. Some
influence on position.
- Good agreement with experiment. The model is an effective tool for prediction of residual
stresses.

11
[2] Three dimensional dynamic Finite element analysis of shot peening
induced residual stresses (Mequid et al)

FE-Code: Ansys

FE-model: Single shot and twin shot, each of radius R against 3D mesh of plate with width
7R, height=4R and breadth =5R where. Dimensions carefully determined as a result of
numerous models to establish the effect of the boundary. Eight node bricks and four-node
tetrahedral elements with large strain capabilities with brick elements at impact zone. A
number of mesh designs in order to find the best mesh (convergence tests). Contact elements
on both shot and target but only on lower half of shot surface. Elastic Coulumbs law with
friction coefficient 0.25 was used. Normal and tangential stiffness of contact elements were
decided to 10
8
N/m and 10
6
N/m. Symmetry boundary conditions at z=0 and x=0 planes and
fully constrained at work piece bottom surface. The effect of strain rate and elastic wave
propagation was not considered in the study. Dynamic analysis carried out using Newmark
implicit time-integrations scheme. Tests with single shot and two shots simultaneously
(dynamic cointendentation) according to below.



Fig 3. FE-models according to [2].

Material: Target in high strength steel =7800 Kg/m
3
and E=200 Gpa, Yield stress =
600Mpa and strain hardening rate=800 Mpa. Shot assumed to be rigid.

Material models: Elasto plastic with bilinear behavior.

Analysis: Single shot: Influence of shot velocity (50, 75, 100 m/s), shot size (R=0.25, 0.5 and
1.0 mm), shape of shot (a/b=0.25, 0.5, 1 and 2, see below) and hardening characteristics (50,
800 and 1600 Mpa) on residual stress profile. Co-indentation model: Influence on distance
between shots (C/R =1, 1.5 and 2) on residual stress profile.

12



Fig 4: Simulation of residual stresses as a function of parameter variations according to [2]

Validation: The model was validated against an earlier work of Edberg et al [11] where the
target and shot characteristics were the same as in this report.

Summary:
- 3D model, medium strength material 1 2 impacts, Ansys 5.3 implicit solver, Elastic plastic
with bilinear behavior. Rigid shot
- Variations in impact velocity: Increase in the maximum equivalent plastic strain and
increase in depth of compressed layer, no major impact on residual stress profile
- Variations in shot size: No major influence on maximum residual stress and surface residual
stress. Influence in position of maximum residual stress.
- Variations in shot shape: Influence of the maximum residual stress
- Variation in target hardening: Increase in hardening coefficient increase the depth in
compressive layer, no change in maximum residual stress state and decrease in surface
residual stress.
- Variations in distance between 2 shots: Variations in residual stresses between the centerline
of the target between the co- indenting shots
Proposed finite element model is capable of capturing the main features of the residual
stress field.
13

[3] Finite elements model of shot peening, effects of constitutive laws
of material (Rouhaud et al)

FE-Code: ABAQUS

FE-model: 2D axisymmetric, shot with radius=0.4 mm Velocity 75 m/s (=6.03 MJ kinematic
energy), Dynamic analysis generates elastic vibrations and the computations that are
necessary to reach equilibrium can be time consuming. Static analysis based on an energetic
criterion is therefore chosen, normal contact with no friction, strain rate sensitivity neglected.
Elastic shot

Material: Yield stress 1680 Mpa


Fig 5: FE-model and models for isotropic and kinematik hardening according to [3]

Material models: Isotropic or Kinematic hardening

Analysis: Influence of kinematic hardening (none, small slope, average slope high slope) of
residual stress curves




Fig 6: Comparison of isotropic hardening and kinematic hardening after one shot according to [3]

14

Fig 7: Comparison of isotropic hardening (a) and kinematic hardening (b) after several shots according to [3]

Summary:
- Medium strength material, 1 7 impacts at same place, Abaqus
- Isotropic or kinematic hardening, quasi-static analysis, elastic shot.
- Variation of material law: Kinematic hardening can greatly enhance the shot peening
models.
- Kinematic hardening models are well suited for cyclic solicitations and can enhance shot
peening models.

15
[4] A 3-D numerical method of shot peening process using multiple shot
impact (Majzoobi et al)


FE-Code: LS-DYNA

FE-model: Target plate 0.8x0.8x1.6 mm. Shot radious 0.4 mm, friction coefficient =0.1.
Number of shots: 4, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 25 shots. Impact velocities in range of 50 to 100 m/s.
Elsatic shots and symmetry conditions.


Fig 8: FE-model and impact pattern according to [4]


Material: Target: AISI 4340 steel, =7800 Kg/m
3
, E=210 Gpa, =0.3, yield strength =
1500 Mpa, plasticity modulus =1600 Mpa. Shots: =7800 Kg/m
3
, E=210 Gpa, =0.3

Material models: Cowper-Symonds material model

=() [1 +( / D)
1/P
]

Where () =static stress strain relation, =plastic strain rate, D and P are adjustable
parameters. D was set to 2*10
5
s
-1
and P to 3.3.

Analysis: Influence of number of shots and impact velocity and shot angle of residual stress
profile.

Fig 9: Results according to [4]

Validation: Flat steel plate 20x300x300 mm, two single balls of 3 and 5.5 mm fired against
the target using explosive actuated gun launcher (100 to 400 m/s). Examination of the
16
intendentations using optical microscopy and comparison between numerical and
experimental residual stress profiles [Torres]

Summary:
- 3D models, several impacts at different places, LS-Dyna
- Elastic plastic with Cowper Symonds material model (influence of strain-rate), elastic shot
- Number of shots: Uniform state of stress at a particular shot number
- Variation in shot velocity: Increase of velocity improves the residual stress to a particular
point. Further increase may reduce the maximum residual stress.
- Shot peening can successfully be simulated by LS-DYNA providing a proper material
model is selected. A uniform state of stress is achieved at a particular shots number. The
increase of the impact velocity improves the residual stress distribution up to a particular
point. Further increase in velocity may reduce the maximum residual stress. Impact angle
affects the residual stress profile.

17
[5] An approach to relate the shot peening parameters to the induced
residual stresses (Guagliano et al)


FE-Code: ABAQUS

FE-model: Both 2D axisymmetric for tests with one shot and 3D models for tests with one
shot and several shots. First order elements, 22379 nodes, rigid shot (diam 0.2 1 mm) and
dynamic impact of one or more shots against a plate (velocity 40 120 m/s).





Fig 10: FE models according to [5].

Material: Mechanical characteristics of 3 materials: Fe510 with yield stress =315 Mpa and
tensile stress =510 Mpa, 35CrMo4 with yield=930 Mpa and tensile =1050 Mpa, C70 with
yield strength =1120 Mpa and tensile strength =1300 Mpa.

Material model: Both linear elastic and elastic plastic with kinematic hardening rule. The
linear model showed a difference of contact pressure compared to Hertz value with less than 1
%.

Analysis: Evaluation of shot velocity, diameter, material, angle and number of impacts with
focus on the value of the maximum compressive stress and its depth and the depth where the
residual stress change sign. Analysis of the relation between shot velocity and Almen
intensity. Development of dimensionless peening index.


Fig 11: FE Analysis of shot velocity based on Almen intensity according to [5].

18
Validation: Several FE models with different numbers of elements were tested in order to
evaluate the accuracy of the results. Residual stress field were measured with X-Ray
diffraction method. It should be noted that the residual stress field might be affected due to
material removement with an electro chemical device during X-ray measurements.

Summary:
- 2D and 3D models, one shot and several shots, Abaqus/explicit
- Elastic plastic with kinematic hardening rule, rigid shot
- Number of impacts: The residual stress field is mainly influenced by the first impact. The
following are limited in range of about 15 %.
- FEM for relation between Almen intensity and shot velocity.
- Angle of impact on residual stress state is limited if the shot speed is higher than 60 m/s.
Surface stress is the one that is more influenced by the numerical model and parameters
probably to the high surface distortion of the elements. The residual stress field is mainly
influenced by the first impact and the differences due to the following one are limited in a
range of about 15 %. Fatigue resistance is mainly due to residual stress field. The hardening
also play a role in the increment of fatigue but is less important than the residual stresses.

19
[6] A numerical simulation to relate shot peening process parameters to
the induced residual stresses (Hong et al)


FE-Code: ABAQUS

FE-model: FE-mesh acc. to below with radius R=8d
shot
, height H=3d
shot
where d
shot
is the shot
diameter. One half of a circular plate with symmetry conditions. Restrained against all
displacements and rotations on the bottom. 8-nods linear brick elements with reduced
integration with element size 0.05 x d
shot
x 0.05d
shot
x 0.05d
shot
, initial diameter of shot =1 mm.
ABAQUS analytical rigid surface with a mass position at the center to model the shot.
Convergence tests with different meshes and element types to ensure that the numerical
results were not affected by the choice of mesh and element types. Friction coefficient =0.2
and reference velocity =75 m/s.


Fig 12: FE-model and results according to [6].

Material: Target: E=200 Gpa, Poissons ratio=0.3, density=7800 kg/m
3
, yield stress=760
Mpa, strain hardening =500 Mpa, density of shot =7800 kg/ m
3
, mass of shot =4.085 mg.

Material model: Linear elastic strain hardening plastic material model

Analysis: The influence of the influence of impact velocity and angle.

Summary:
- 3D model, Abaqus/explicit
- Linear elastic strain hardening plastic material model, rigid shot
- Impact velocity: Little effect on surface residual stress but significant effect on maximum
subsurface residual stress and depth of compressive residual stress zone.
- Impact angle: Normal angle impact results in most beneficial compressive residual stress.
- The impact velocity appeared to have little effect of surface residual stress but showed
significant effect on the maximum sub surface residual stress and depth of compressive
residual stress zone. Maximum compressive residual stress reached 1.5 x yield stress. Impact
angle close to normal impact produces most beneficial compressive residual stress as
expected.
20
[7] Numerical simulation of multiple shot impact (Al Hassani et al)

FE-Code: ABAQUS

FE-model: A solid steel block of width, breadth and height 4, 4 and 2 mm. Symmetry and
of the geometry is modeled. 8 node brick elements with 14 elements in each direction acc to
below. Spherical rigid surfaces of diameter 0.72 mm. Each carried a mass element (1.5128
mg). In a second case the spheres were arranged above one another. Time lag between
impacts was 1.27 s. Friction coefficient=0.1.


Fig 13: FE-model according to [7].

Material: High tensile steel with E=2.03 Gpa, poisons ration =0.3, mass density =7830
kg/m
3
. Bilinear material work hardening between 1250 1550 Mpa with plastic strain 0 1.

Material model: Strain rate dependence under dynamic loading according to Cowper-
Symonds power law:

=() [1 +( / D)
1/P
]

Where () =static stress strain relation, =plastic strain rate, D and P are adjustable
parameters. D was set to 40s
-1
and P to 5.1.

Summary:
- A theoretical solution was presented acc to below as a complement to the FE-simulations
and compared. By using a strain hardening strain-rate sensitive material it is possible to
model the effects that the repeated and progressive impacts of shots have on the residual stress
profile and extent of surface hardening. Caution should be taken before the results are
compared with experiments.


Fig 14: Analytical results according to [7].
21

[8] The residual stress state due to a spherical hard-body impact
(Boyce et al)

FE-Code: ABAQUS

FE-model: A Substrate was approximated both as a cylindrical block with 35 * 35 * 20 mm
and as an axi symmetrical model with diameter =35 mm and depth =20 mm. An
axisymmetric mesh with 4000 8-nodes elements. Friction coefficient=01. Static finite
element calculations. Diameter of shot, D=3.2 mm, rigid contact surface option used to
simulate the rigid intender. Impact velocities =200 m/s and 300 m/s.

Fig 14: FE-model according to [8].

Material: Ti-6Al-4V alloy, yield stress=930 Mpa, tensile stress=970 Mpa, Youngs
modulus=116 Gpa.

Material Model: Elastic-perfectly plastic with a V. Mises surface to specify yielding. For
dynamic simulation also the strain rate was included according to:


Where is the strain rate sensitive yield stress and is the yield stress at .



Analysis: Both Quasi-static simulation with Abaqus implicit and dynamic simulation - Only
one shot. In the quasi-static analysis the size of the crater was adjusted by controlling the
force such that the resulting crater dimensions matched with the dimensions measured on the
experimental impact.



22
Validation: The results from the FE-simulations where compared against experiments with
shots against a plate and afterwards with X-Ray diffraction measurements of residual strain
and stresses according to below:


Fig 15: Comparison between FE-simulation and XRD-measurements according to [8].

Summary:
- Experiments shows that the initial residual stress state is substantially reduced by relaxation
or redistribution during subsequent fatigue cycling (30 50 % after first fatigue cycle). The
model was modified to take into account the Baushinger effect and showed a reduction of
residual stresses on the order of 40 % after the first cycle.
- Observations of significant tensile stresses at the crater rim. In the case of multiple
overlapping shots the tensile zone is offset as a result of successive shots, which indicates that
incomplete peening coverage will leave uncompressed rims leading to degradation of fatigue
life time.
- The shape of the spatial strain gradient predicted by FEM model is consistent with
experimental observations with X-Ray diffraction.
- A 200 m/s impact can be modeled using a quasistatic approach, ignoring time dependent
effects and simply simulate the effect of velocity by matching the relative shape of the crater.
- There are substantial errors from the application of quasistatic analysis to the simulation
impact of 300 m/s. These errors part attributable to time dependent effects like strain-rate
sensitivity, elastic wave interactions etc).

23

[9] A dynamic Finite element simulation of shot peening process (Zion)

FE-Code: Ansys

FE-model: Axisymmetric model 100 mm diameter and 50 mm depth acc to below, 8 node 2D
solid element (plane82) and contact elements (Conta172), friction coefficient =0.4 and elastic
ball with diam. =50 mm. Force for static case =49 KN and velocity at impact for dynamic
case =6.26 m/s. Mesh convergence checks were performed. Dynamic finite element solution
with Newmark integration scheme. Implicit solution with Newmark time integration scheme
was chosen due to its stability along with the fact that the stress wave propagation was not
considered to play a role in the residual stress outcome:


Fig 16: Static and dynamic axisymmetric FE-models in 2D according to [9]

Material: Medium steel, S48C with Yield strength =375 Mpa, Tensile strength =630 Mpa
E=207 Gpa and poissons ratio =0.28 and density =7840 g/m3. Ball with elastic-perfectly
plastic behavior with both yield and tensile strength =2.534 Gpa.

Material Model: Several material models in Ansys were tested. Bilinear kinematic hardening
with and without friction, multilinear isotropic hardening with and without friction. Since the
aim was to capture a single load unload drop event there is no theoretical difference
between kinematic and isotropic hardening in this case.



Fig 17: Difference between bilinear and multilinear material input according to [9].

Analysis:
- Both static and dynamic analysis and tests with different material models and friction
coefficients, Ansys implicit.
- Also analysis of shot peening parameter variations on high strength steel with much smaller
shots and higher velocities and analysis according to Design of Experiments (DoE)

24
Validation: The models were validated against Murakami experiments [10]. Murakami
dropped steel balls (diam. =50 and 76.2 mm) against a steel plate (material S48C and
dimensions 100 x 50 mm) from a height of 2 m and measured residual stresses and shapes of
indentations according to below. He also made static tests where the ball was pressed against
the plate with Force =49 KN and 108 KN.


Fig 19: Residual stress distribution at static tests with load 49 KN and dynanic test with dropping height 2 m
according to [10], ball diam.=50 mm.


Fig 20: Comparison between FE-results and Murakami experiments according to [9].

Both the shape of indentation and the residual stress profile differed between the static and
dynamic experiments. In the dynamic experiments there was a surface tension residual stress
at the center of the indentation. The tension stress component disappeared when dropping
several balls on the plate as showed below:



Fig 21: Results from experiments according to [10] where the surface residual stress changes as a result of
several impacts.

25
Summary:
- With the multilinear material model together with friction coefficient there was a good
correlation between the experiments and simulation models. In the dynamic case the
tension puddle according to Murakami experiment [10] was captured in the FE-
simulation.
- No major impact when raising the friction coefficient from 0.4 to 0.8
- DoE investigation with one shot