2024Al

Accepted Manuscript Effect of shot peening on surface residual stress distribution of SiCp/2024Al Qiong Wu, Dong-jian Xie, Zhe-min Jia, Yi-du Zhang, Hua-zhao Zhang PII:

S1359-8368(18)32325-4

DOI:

10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.09.021

Reference:

JCOMB 5991

To appear in:

Composites Part B

Received Date: 26 July 2018 Revised Date:

27 August 2018

Accepted Date: 10 September 2018

Please cite this article as: Wu Q, Xie D-j, Jia Z-m, Zhang Y-d, Zhang H-z, Effect of shot peening on surface residual stress distribution of SiCp/2024Al, Composites Part B (2018), doi: 10.1016/ j.compositesb.2018.09.021. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Finite element simulation

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Establishment of SiCp/2024Al Model

Shot Peening Experiment

Residual stress test

Conclusion and Discussion

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Effect of Shot Peening on Surface Residual Stress Distribution of SiCp/2024Al Qiong Wu a, Dong-jian Xie a, Zhe-min Jia b,*, Yi-du Zhang a, Hua-zhao Zhang a a

State Key Laboratory of Virtual Reality Technology and Systems, School of Mechanical

b

RI PT

Engineering and Automation, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing, China. School of Environment and Civil Engineering, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, China.

*Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-10-8231-7756; Fax: +86-10-8231-7756

SC

Present address: New Main Building Room B313, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, XueYuan Road No.37, HaiDian District, Beijing China.

M AN U

Abstract

SiCp/2024Al is used as a structural material for aerospace applications due to its isotropic mechanical properties, high specific stiffness and strength, and high wear resistance. Large residual tensile stress that may be present in the material may degrade its fatigue properties due to the large difference in thermal expansion

TE D

coefficient between the matrix and reinforcement. Shot peening can effectively change the residual stress distribution of the material and improve its fatigue performance. The effect of multiparameter shot peening on the residual stress

EP

distribution of SiCp/2024Al is studied in this paper. A finite element model of SiCp/2024Al is established. Then, the residual stress distribution of SiCp/2024Al is

AC C

studied under the influence of shot peening radius, speed, and angle. Related shot peening experiments are performed to verify the simulation. This study provides guidance on the application of shot peening technology to SiCp/2024Al. Keywords: Shot Peening; Residual Stress; Metal Matrix Composites; Finite Element Analysis; Stress Distribution

1. Introduction Metal matrix composites are a promising class of structural materials in which a reinforcement phase is dispersed in a continuous metallic matrix aiming to achieve superior mechanical properties to those of the parent alloy [1]. An aluminum 1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT reinforced with a silicon carbide particle (SiCp) reportedly exhibits several advantages in structural applications owing to its unique properties [2], including isotropic mechanical properties, high specific stiffness and strength, and high wear resistance. Thus, these composites have found new applications as structural materials in

RI PT

aerospace and automotive industries. However, the considerable difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion between the matrix and reinforcements results in residual stresses during manufacturing and subsequent heat treatment. The tensile stresses in the matrix may deteriorate the fatigue properties [3]. Therefore, surface

SC

treatment processes can potentially provide enhancement of their fatigue performances. These processes remain the subject of ongoing research. Moreover,

M AN U

knowledge on residual stresses within engineering components is of crucial importance in predicting their fatigue life [4].

Shot peening, an effective method widely used in the industry, can considerably improve the fatigue strength and life of cyclically loaded metallic components by inducing compressive residual stress and work hardening into the surface region [5].

TE D

In the process of controlled shot peening, a component is blasted with shots, typically of steel, glass, or ceramics. The multiple indentations subject the material to cyclic plastic loading due to progressive shot effects. Outer layers experience an in-plane

EP

stretching plastic deformation, whereas the elastic subsurface tries to retain its original shape, thus generating compressive residual stress at the surface [6,7]. Compressive residual stress induced by shot peening is a main beneficial effect to improving the

AC C

fatigue resistance of the treated component. This effect can reduce the effective applied stresses of the component during application, resulting in delayed crack initiation and retarded crack propagation from the surface [8–10]. Numerous researchers have conducted several studies on the use of shot peening

in traditional materials. Some scholars focused on the finite element simulation. In 1999, Meguid et al. developed the three-dimensional finite element model to simulate shot peening [11]. His research results revealed that the depth of the compressed layer and surface and sub-surface residual stresses are significantly influenced by shot velocity, shot shape, and separation distance between co-indenting shots. Hong et al. 2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT presented a comprehensive model of shot peening, which is based on finite element and discrete element methods [12]. Meo and Vignjevic simulated shot peening on the residual stress field of parts composed of 2024-T6 aluminum [13]. K Sherafatnia et al. focuses on the effects of initial conditions of surface such as initial stress filed and

RI PT

hardness profile on shot peening residual stress field [14]. Mylonas and Labeas developed a three-dimensional finite element model consisting of an elastic plastic aluminum alloy target plate and rigid spherical steel shots [15]. The developed numerical model was mainly used to predict the effect of shot velocity, impinging

SC

angle, and shot size on the specific aluminum alloy through a parametric study.

By contrast, other researchers focused on experimental testing. Ali et al. used

M AN U

shot peening to enhance the microstructure and fatigue properties of friction stir welds produced from 2024-T3 aluminum alloys [16]. Miao et al. experimentally measured the effects of shot peening rate and time on the residual stress distribution and surface roughness [17]. Feng et al. showed that stress shot peening is superior to conventional shot peening to improve the surface properties of duplex stainless steels [18]. Ishigami

TE D

et al. found that through stress double shot peening, a high compressive residual stress was successfully introduced into hard steel [19]. Zhan et al. conducted three types of shot peening (traditional shot peening, double shot peening, and triple shot peening)

EP

experiments on S30432 austenitic stainless steel through a blower [20]. They found increasingly uniform deformation after repeated shot peening. With the development of material applications, the researchers have conducted

AC C

numerous studies on composite materials. Gangaraj et al. presented a sequential finite element simulation to investigate the shot peening effects on normal stress, shear stress, bulk stress, and slip amplitude for the titanium alloy Ti–6Al–4V [21]. Bagherifard et al. created a number of parameters of the shot peening simulation, which had different projectile sizes, speeds, and coverages for 39NiCrMo3 [22]. Rotundo et al. conducted a shot peening study on the 2124-T4 aluminum alloy matrix composites containing 17 vol.% granular silicon carbide [23]. The researchers changed the shot peening distance from the sample height and the changes in vertical and horizontal residual stress in the test specimen. They ultimately verified that the 3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT different parameters of shot peening can improve the fatigue characteristics of the sample. The influence of different shot peening parameters on the residual stress distribution of SiCp/2024Al is compared in this paper. First, a finite element model of

RI PT

SiCp/2024Al is established. Then, the residual stress distribution of SiCp/2024Al is studied under the influence of shot peening radius, speed, and angle. To verify the simulation, we conducted experiments on shot peening. Finally, the regularity of the shot peening technology on SiCp/2024Al is provided.

SC

2. Finite Element Simulation Analysis of Shot Peening Process

M AN U

2.1. Establishment of SiCp/2024Al Model

Metal shot peening, in which the material exhibits plastic and elastic deformations, is a complex nonlinear problem. SiCp particles and the Al matrix are considered different entities, whereas the composite material is an assembly of the two components in this paper. We assigned the material properties and correctly

TE D

describing the properties of the interface between the particles and the matrix are necessary, which constitutes the description of the entire constitutive relationship of the composite material. Table 1 shows the physical properties of the 2024Al matrix, SiC particles, and steel pellets.

EP

Table 1 Physical and mechanical properties of materials in the simulation Density (kg/m3)

Modulus (MPa)

Poisson’s ratio

2024Al

2.82 E3

70 E3

0.3

SiC

7.8 E3

210 E3

0.3

Steel pellets

3.22 E3

410 E3

0.14

AC C

Material

The Johnson-Cook model [24] considers the effect of strain hardening, strain rate hardening, and temperature softening on the material flow stress. Therefore, this model is selected as the description of the matrix Al constitutive relations. The formula of the Johnson-Cook model is as follows: 4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT α

  •   •  n ε ε σ =（A + Bε ）× 1+ C × ln  •   ×  •  ×（D - ET *m）       ε0    ε0 

(1)

Where A, B, C, m, and n indicate the material yield strength, hardening modulus,

RI PT

strain rate sensitivity coefficient, temperature softening coefficient, and hardening coefficient, respectively. These indices are the main parameters in the simulation. σ •

denotes the effective stress, and ε represents the effective plastic strain. ε stands •

SC

for the effective plastic strain rate, and ε0 is the reference strain rate. D and E refer to the relevant temperature coefficients. T * signifies a dimensionless temperature

M AN U

that is converted from the current temperature and melting point of 2024Al. In this simulation, the job is used to describe the process under room temperature. Thus,

is

0. Table 2 shows the Johnson-Cook model parameters of 2024Al. Table 2 Johnson-Cook model parameters of 2024Al B(MP)

m

210

546

0.38

N

C

3.73

0.14

TE D

A(MP)

0

D

E

1

1

EP

For simulating the binding relationship between the particles and the matrix, they are welded together in the simulation. The interface supposedly exhibits a high

AC C

strength and corresponds to a part of the particle. In addition, when the matrix unit around the particle fails, the particle is peeled from the substrate. With reference to the actual matrix proportion score, the model shown in Fig. 1 is constructed. The reinforcing effect of SiC particles was simulated with circular particles, whereas a rectangle was used as the basic shape of Al. The function of the connection layer is provided by adding the contact between the particles and the Al matrix.

5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Al Matrix

Connection layer

Fig. 1 Model of SiCp/2024Al

SC

2.2. Simulation results and analysis

RI PT

SiC Particle Reinforcement

M AN U

The finite element analysis software ABAQUS used in this paper simulates shot peening. The base body is a cube with a side length of 50 mm, in which reinforcing base particles exhibit a diameter of 0.03 mm are concentrated at the place where the projectile hits. Fig. 2(a) shows the meshed finite element model, and Fig. 2(b) illustrates the sectional view of the finite element model. Fig. 2(c) presents the

AC C

EP

TE D

internal deformation of the finite element model during collision.

a

b

c

Fig. 2 Finite element model: a. meshed model, b. sectional view of the model, c. internal deformation in the model Numerous factors, such as size and velocity of the projectile and the angle of incidence, affect the residual stress field. The simulation in this paper mainly selects the pellet radii of 0.5, 0.8, and 1.0 mm, incident speeds of 40, 50, 60, and 70 m/s, and

6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT incident angles of 45°, 60°, and 90°. The duration of the simulation is set to 0.00001s. The coefficient of friction between the pellet and the matrix is 0.03. Fig. 3 presents the simulation analysis results. When shot peening speed remains constant and shot peening angle is 90°, the effects of different shot peening radii on

RI PT

residual stress distribution are compared in Figs. 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), and 3(d). Figs. 3(e), 3(f), and 3(g) show the effects of different shot peening angles on residual stress distribution when the shot peening pellet radius remains constant and the shot peening speed is 40 m/s. When the peening pellet radius remains constant and at the peening

SC

angle of 90°, the effects of different shot peening speeds on residual stress distribution are compared in Figs. 3(h), 3(i), and 3(j).

0.5mm 0.8mm 1.0mm

-200

-400

0.0

0.5

Residual Stress/MPa

Residual Stress/MPa

0

M AN U

200

200

0

-400

0.0

1.0

-200

-400

0.0

0.5

0.5mm 0.8mm 1.0mm 1.0

Depth/mm

200

0

-200

-400

0.5mm 0.8mm 1.0mm 0.0

0.5

Depth/mm

c

d

7

1.0

b

Residual Stress/MPa

TE D

EP

0

AC C

Residual Stress/MPa

200

0.5

Depth/mm

Depth/mm

a

0.5mm 0.8mm 1.0mm

-200

1.0

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 200

0

90°

-200

45° 60°

0

45° 60° -400

-400 0.0

0.5

90°

-200

1.0

0.0

e

0.5

Residual Stress/MPa

1.0

0

M AN U

90° 45° 60°

-200

-200

-400

0.0

0.5

30m/s 40m/s 50m/s 60m/s 70m/s 1.0

Depth/mm

g 200

h

TE D

200

0

30m/s 40m/s 50m/s 60m/s 70m/s

-400 0.0

EP

-200

0.5

Residual Stress/MPa

Residual Stress/MPa

0

SC

200

Depth/mm

Residual Stress/MPa

1.0

f

200

0.0

0.5

Depth/mm

Depth/mm

-400

RI PT

Residual Stress/MPa

Residual Stress/MPa

200

0

-400

1.0

Depth/mm

30m/s 40m/s 50m/s 60m/s 70m/s

-200

0.0

0.5

1.0

Depth/mm

j

AC C

i

Fig. 3 Comparison of residual stress distribution with different shot peening speeds (v), angles (θ), and radii (r): a. v = 40 m/s, θ = 90°; b. v = 50 m/s, θ = 90°; c. v = 60 m/s, θ = 90°; d. v = 70 m/s, θ = 90°; e. r = 0.5 mm, v = 40 m/s; f. r = 0.8 mm, v = 40 m/s; g. r = 1.0 mm, v = 40 m/s; h. r = 0.5 mm, θ = 90°; i. r = 0.8 mm, θ = 90°; j. r = 1.0 mm, θ = 90°

On the basis of the simulation results, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) With the increase in shot peening pellet radii, the depth of residual stress layer distributions increases within the sample. The residual stress layer with the 8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT pellet radius of 0.8 mm is 0.2 mm thicker than that with the pellet radius of 0.5 mm. Moreover, the residual stress layer with the pellet radius of 1.0 mm is 0.1 mm thicker than that with the pellet radius of 0.8 mm. The maximum value of the residual stress did not change significantly with the

reached 330 MPa at the shot peening radius of 0.8 mm.

RI PT

variation in shot peening pellet radii. The maximum residual compressive stress

(2) Under the same shot peening velocity and radius, the incident angle of shot peening exerts minimal effect on the residual stress distribution of the specimen.

SC

When the pellet exceeds 0.5 mm, the residual stress distribution layer with the incident angle of 90° is deeper than that of other incident angles.

M AN U

(3) The depth of the residual stress layer in the sample increases with the increase in shot peening velocity. Increasing radius of the pellet shows indicates the more considerable phenomenon. At the pellet radius of 1.0 mm, the deepest residual stress distribution layer reaches 0.7 mm.

The maximum residual compressive stress at different shot peening velocities is

TE D

identical. When shot peening pellet reaches 1.0 mm and at the shot peening velocity of 60 m/s, the maximum residual compressive stress is 330 MPa.

3. Experiment

EP

3.1. Experimental equipment and process The residual stress measurement equipment used in the experiment was

AC C

Stresstech Group’s PRISM laser hole stress analyzer. The drill diameter of the laser hole stress analyzer was 3.2 mm, and the cutting speed used in the experiment was 20000 r/min. The range of errors about residual stress measured by the equipment is ±7MPa. Fig. 4 shows the residual stress measurement experiment.

9

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

RI PT

SiCp/2024Al sample

SC

PRISM laser hole stress analyzer

Fig. 4 Residual stress measurement experiment

M AN U

The shot peening machine used in the experiment is the BX1418-8A large sandblasting machine produced by Shenzhen Baixuan Automation Equipment Co., Ltd., China. The working pressure of this machine is 3–8 kg/cm2. First, the speed of the shot peening machine needs to be calibrated before the shot peening experiment. The high-speed camera used in this experiment was the Olympus i-SPEED 3 with a

TE D

frame rate of 4000 frames and Nikon Macro. Fig. 5(a) shows the speed calibration experiment of the shot peening machine. The position of shot peening pellets on the measuring ruler are taken by using the high

EP

magnification camera. Fig. 5(b) presents the initial position of shot peening pellets, and Fig. 5(c) illustrates the position of shot-peened pellets after 0.0002 s. On the basis

AC C

of the length of shot peening time, shot peening speed can be obtained. The test results show that the shot peening speed is approximately 35 m/s at the working pressure of 8 kg/cm2.

10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The high-speed camera

Shot Peening pellets Measuring ruler a

b

RI PT

Shot Peening pellets

c

M AN U

SC

Fig. 5 Speed calibration experiment of the shot peening machine: a. Shot blasting speed calibration experiment, b. Initial position of shot peening pellets, c. Position of shot peening pellets after 0.0002 s

Then, the tested samples are shot-peened. Finally, the residual stress of shot-peened samples is tested.

3.2. Analysis of experimental results

Table 3 shows the residual stress of samples after the shot peening experiment.

Depth

Experiment 1

Experiment 2

Experiment

Simulation

/mm

/MPa

/MPa

/MPa

/MPa

45.5

-8.2

-53.7

-93.8227

Number

0

EP

1

TE D

Table.3 Residual stress of experimental samples and simulation models

0.01

56.2

-21.2

-77.4

-78.2364

3

0.02

36.2

-20.8

-57

-34.3073

4

0.04

183

-86.2

-269.2

-248.935

5

0.08

169

-100

-269

-315.53

6

0.09

134

-161.15

-295.15

-257.357

7

0.10

118

-108.1

-226.1

-244.951

8

0.12

106

-80.55

-186.55

-217.599

AC C

2

11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Experiment 1 is the initial residual stress distribution before shot peening, and Experiment 2 is the residual stress distribution after shot peening. The value of Experiment is the residual stress distribution after considering the influence of initial residual stress. It is as follows:

σ = σ 2 -σ 1

RI PT

(2)

Where σ 1 , σ 2 and σ are the value of Experiment 1, Experiment 2, and Experiment. The value of Experiment is the difference between Experiment 2 and

results. Experiment1 Experiment2 Experiment

Residual Stress/MPa

M AN U

0

-200

-400

0

0.00

0.06 Depth/mm

a

0.12

Simulation Experiment

-150

-300

0.00

TE D

Residual Stress/MPa

200

SC

Experiment 1. At the same shot peening speed, Table 3 also presents the simulation

0.06 Depth/mm

0.12

b

Fig.6 The simulation and experimental comparison curves: a. Experimental comparison curve, b. Experiment and Simulation curves

EP

The simulation and experimental comparison curves are shown in Fig. 6. Fig. 6(a) is the comparison of Experiment 1, Experiment 2, and Experiment, and Fig. 6(b) is

AC C

the comparison of Experiment and Simulation curves. The change trend of simulation curve and experiment curve is basically the same. As the depth increases, the value of stress becomes larger and then becomes smaller. The maximum residual stress is around 300 MPa when the depth is 0.10. The error is the maximum when the depth is 0.08, but the maximum relative error is not more than 15%. It proves that the result of the simulation is reliable.

4. Discussion and conclusion The finite element model of SiCp/2024Al is constructed in this paper. The multiparameter simulation of shot peening is performed. In addition, the influences of 12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT the shot peening radius, incident speed, and incident angle on the residual stress distribution are analyzed. Then, the shot peening experiments that verified the results of the simulation are performed. After the previously mentioned studies, following conclusions are formulated:

RI PT

1. The residual stress layer of the shot-peened specimen is mainly affected by the shot peening pellet radius and shot peening speed. The depth of the residual compressive stress layer increases as shot peening radius and rate increase. The incident angle exerts minimal effect on the residual stress layer.

SC

2. The maximum value of the residual compressive stress exerts minimal relationship with shot peening radius, rate, and angle. The maximum residual

M AN U

compressive stress of this material is approximately 330 MPa. Acknowledgements

This project was financially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NO.51875024), Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation (NO.3172021) and the State Key Laboratory of Virtual Reality Technology Independent Subject (BUAA-VR-16ZZ-07).

TE D

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Ward PJ, Atkinson HV, Anderson PRG, Elias LG, Garcia B, Kahlen L.Semi-solid processing of novel

EP

MMCs based on hypereutectic aluminium-silicon alloys.ACTA MATER.1996;44(5):1717-27. 2. Kaczmar JW, Pietrzak K, Włosiński W.The production and application of metal matrix composite

AC C

materials.Journal of Materials Processing Tech.2000;106(1):58-67. 3. Yu SY, Ishii H, Tohgo K.CORROSION FATIGUE OF SiC WHISKER OR SiC PARTICULATE REINFORCED 6061 ALUMINUM ALLOY.FATIGUE FRACT ENG M.1994;17(5):571-8. 4. Tokaji, Shiota, Kobayashi.Effect of particle size on fatigue behaviour in SiC particulate‐reinforced aluminium alloy composites.FATIGUE FRACT ENG M.1999;22(4):281-8. 5. Tekeli S.Enhancement of fatigue strength of SAE 9245 steel by shot peening.MATER LETT.2002;57(3):604-8. 6. Fridrici

V,

Fouvry

S,

Kapsa

P.Effect

of

Ti–6Al–4V.WEAR.2001;250(1–12):642-9.

13

shot

peening

on

the

fretting

wear

of

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 7. Gao HJ, Zhang YD, Wu Q, Song J.Experimental Investigation on the Fatigue Life of Ti-6Al-4V Treated by Vibratory Stress Relief.Metals - Open Access Metallurgy Journal.2017;7(5):158. 8. Marsh KJ, Shot peening : techniques and applications.1993. 9. Webster GA, Ezeilo AN.Residual stress distributions and their influence on fatigue lifetimes.INT J FATIGUE.2001;23(1):375-83.

RI PT

10. Almer JD, Cohen JB, Winholtz RA.The effects of residual macrostresses and microstresses on fatigue crack propagation.Metallurgical & Materials Transactions A.1998;29(8):2127-36.

11. Meguid SA, Shagal G, Stranart JC, Daly J.Three—dimensional dynamic finite element analysis of

SC

shot-peening induced residual stresses.Finite Elements in Analysis & Design.1999;31(3):179-91.

12. Hong T, Ooi JY, Shaw B.A numerical simulation to relate the shot peening parameters to the induced residual stresses.ENG FAIL ANAL.2008;15(8):1097-110.

ENG SOFTW.2003;34(9):569-75.

M AN U

13. Meo M, Vignjevic R.Finite element analysis of residual stress induced by shot peening process.ADV

14. Sherafatnia K, Farrahi GH, Mahmoudi AH.Effect of initial surface treatment on shot peening residual

stress

field:

Analytical

SCI.2018;137(171-81.

approach

with

experimental

verification.INT

J

MECH

TE D

15. Mylonas GI, Labeas G.Numerical modelling of shot peening process and corresponding products: Residual stress, surface roughness and cold work prediction.SURF COAT TECH.2011;205(19):4480-94. 16. Ali A, An X, Rodopoulos CA, Brown MW, O Hara P, Levers A.The effect of controlled shot peening

EP

on the fatigue behaviour of 2024-T3 aluminium friction stir welds.INT J FATIGUE.2007;29(8):1531-45. 17. Miao HY, Demers D, Larose S, Perron C, Lévesque M.Experimental study of shot peening and stress

AC C

peen forming.Journal of Materials Processing Tech.2010;210(15):2089-102. 18. Feng Q, Jiang C, Xu Z, Xie L, Ji V.Effect of shot peening on the residual stress and microstructure of duplex stainless steel.SURF COAT TECH.2013;226(226):140-4. 19. Ishigami H.A study on stress, reflection and double shot peening to increase compressive residual stress.Fatigue Fract.engng.mat.struct. 20. Zhan K, Jiang CH, Ji V.Uniformity of residual stress distribution on the surface of S30432 austenitic stainless steel by different shot peening processes.MATER LETT.2013;99(20):61-4. 21. H-Gangaraj SM, Alvandi-Tabrizi Y, Farrahi GH, Majzoobi GH, Ghadbeigi H.Finite element analysis of shot-peening effect on fretting fatigue parameters.TRIBOL INT.2011;44(11):1583-8.

14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 22. Bagherifard S, Ghelichi R, Guagliano M.Numerical and experimental analysis of surface roughness generated by shot peening.APPL SURF SCI.2012;258(18):6831-40. 23. Rotundo F, Korsunsky AM.Synchrotron XRD study of residual stress in a shot peened Al/SiC p composite.Procedia Engineering.2009;1(1):221-4.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

strain rates and high temperatures.In: 1983. p. 541-8.

RI PT

24. Johnson GR, Cook WH.A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high

15