Effect of Vibration Parameters on the Shot Velocity in SMAT Process Using Dynamic Finite Element Analysis

Document Type : Article


Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kocaeli University 41380, Kocaeli, Turkey



In this study, factors affecting average shot velocity in the SMAT process were investigated numerically. The numerical model was developed by using the finite element method. The effects of frequency, amplitude, and projection distance parameters on shot velocity were simulated. Response Surface Methodology was used to evaluate the simulation results. ANOVA tables were used for statistical evaluation. Moreover, the regression equations derived from simulation results were compared with the theoretical equations. Besides, the effect of the amount of shot in the SMAT chamber on the speed of the shot is simulated. The results showed that apart from frequency and amplitude, projection distance also had a significant impact on shot velocity.


 1. Zhou, J., Retraint, D., Sun, Z., et al., “Comparative study of the effects of surface mechanical attrition treatment and conventional shot peening on low cycle fatigue of a 316L stainless steel”, Surf. Coatings Technol., 349(June), pp. 556–566 (2018).
2. Lu, K. and Lu, J., “Nanostructured surface layer on metallic materials induced by surface mechanical attrition treatment”, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 375–377(1-2 SPEC. ISS.), pp. 38–45 (2004).
3. Liu, G., Lu, J., and Lu, K., “Surface nanocrystallization of 316L stainless steel induced by ultrasonic shot peening”, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 286(1), pp. 91–95 (2000).
4. Bagheri, S. and Guagliano, M., “Review of shot peening processes to obtain nanocrystalline surfaces in metal alloys”, Surf. Eng., 25(1), pp. 3–14 (2009).
5. Lu, K. and Lu, J., “Surface nanocrystallization (SNC) of metallic materials-presentation of the concept behind a new approach”, J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 15(3), pp. 193–197 (1999).
6. Todaka, Y., Umemoto, M., and Tsuchiya, K., “Comparison of Nanocrystalline Surface Layer in Steels Formed by Air Blast and Ultrasonic Shot Peening”, Mater. Trans., 45(2), pp. 376–379 (2004).
7. Rakita, M., Wang, M., Han, Q., et al., “Ultrasonic shot peening”, Int. J. Comput. Mater. Sci. Surf. Eng., 5(3), p. 189 (2013).
8. Yarar, E., Erturk, A. T., and Karabay, S., “Dynamic Finite Element Analysis on Single Impact Plastic Deformation Behavior Induced by SMAT Process in 7075-T6 Aluminum Alloy”, Met. Mater. Int., (0123456789) (2021).
9. Yarar, E. and Erturk, A. T., “A Numerical Investigation of a Single-Shot Impact Effects on Plastic Deformation of Titanium Alloys”, Adv. Sci. Technol., 105, pp. 119–124 (2021).
10. Hughes, D. A. and Hansen, N., “Deformation structures developing on fine scales”, Philos. Mag., 83(31–34), pp. 3871–3893 (2003).
11. Olugbade, T. O. and Lu, J., “Literature review on the mechanical properties of materials after surface mechanical attrition treatment (SMAT)”, Nano Mater. Sci., 2(1), pp. 3–31 (2020).
12. Sun, Z., Retraint, D., Baudin, T., et al., “Experimental study of microstructure changes due to low cycle fatigue of a steel nanocrystallised by Surface Mechanical Attrition Treatment (SMAT)”, Mater. Charact., 124, pp. 117–121 (2017).
13. Anand Kumar, S., Ganesh Sundara Raman, S., and Sankara Narayanan, T. S. N., “Effect of surface mechanical attrition treatment on fatigue lives of alloy 718”, Trans. Indian Inst. Met., 65(5), pp. 473–477 (2012).
14. Kang, X., Wang, T., and Platts, J., “Multiple impact modelling for shot peening and peen forming”, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf., 224(5), pp. 689–697 (2010).
15. Chaise, T., Li, J., Nélias, D., et al., “Modelling of multiple impacts for the prediction of distortions and residual stresses induced by ultrasonic shot peening (USP)”, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 212(10), pp. 2080–2090 (2012).
16. Astaraee, A. H., Miresmaeili, R., Bagherifard S., et al., “Incorporating the principles of shot peening for a better understanding of surface mechanical attrition treatment (SMAT) by simulations and experiments”, Mater. Des., 116, pp. 365–373 (2017).
17. Yin, F., Hua, L., Wang, X., et al., “Numerical modelling and experimental approach for surface morphology evaluation during ultrasonic shot peening”, Comput. Mater. Sci., 92, pp. 28–35 (2014).
18. Manchoul, S., Seddik, R., Grissa, R., et al., “A predictive approach to investigate the effect of ultrasonic shot peening on a high-cycle fatigue performance of an AISI 316L target”, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 95(9–12), pp. 3437–3451 (2018).
19. Sun, Q., Han, Q., Xu, R., et al., “Localized corrosion behaviour of AA7150 after ultrasonic shot peening: Corrosion depth vs. impact energy”, Corros. Sci., 130(November 2017), pp. 218–230 (2018).
20. Du, H., Wei, Y., Zhang, H., et al., “Effect of Velocity of Balls on the Strain and Stress of Low Carbon Steel Surface Layer During SMAT, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 23, pp. 1924-1930 (2009).
21. Pilé, C., François, M., Retraint, D., et al., “Modelling of the ultrasonic shot peening process”, Mater. Sci. Forum, 490–491, pp. 67–72 (2005).
22. Micoulaut, M., Mechkov, S., Retraint, D., et al., “Granular gases in mechanical engineering: On the origin of heterogeneous ultrasonic shot peening: Granular gases in mechanical engineering”, Granul. Matter, 9(1–2), pp. 25–33 (2007).
23. Badreddine, J., Rouhaud, E., Micoulaut, M., et al., “Simulation of shot dynamics for ultrasonic shot peening: Effects of process parameters”, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 82, pp. 179–190 (2014).
24. Rousseau, T., Hoc, T., Gilles, P., et al., “Effect of bead quantity in ultrasonic shot peening: Surface analysis and numerical simulations”, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 225, pp. 413–420 (2015).
25. Bahl, S., Suwas, S., Ungàr, T., et al., “Elucidating microstructural evolution and strengthening mechanisms in nanocrystalline surface induced by surface mechanical attrition treatment of stainless steel”, Acta Mater., 122, pp. 138–151 (2017).
26. Tsai, M. T., Huang, J. C., Tsai, W. Y., et al., “Effects of ultrasonic surface mechanical attrition treatment on microstructures and mechanical properties of high entropy alloys”, Intermetallics, 93(December 2017), pp. 113–121 (2018).
27. Li, K., Spartacus, G., Dong, J., Cao, P., et al., “Effect of ultrasonic shot peening on microstructure and properties of 301SS”, Mater. Manuf. Process., 32(16), pp. 1851–1855 (2017).
28. Kumar, S., Chattopadhyay, K., and Singh, V., “Effect of ultrasonic shot peening on LCF behavior of the Ti–6Al–4V alloy”, J. Alloys Compd., 724, pp. 187–197 (2017).
29. Gallitelli, D., Retraint, D., and Rouhaud, E., “Comparison between conventional shot peening (SP) and surface mechanical attrition treatment (SMAT) on a titanium alloy”, Adv. Mater. Res., 996(September 2015), pp. 964–968 (2014).
30. Pandey, V., Chattopadhyay, K., Santhi Srinivas, N. C., et al., “Role of ultrasonic shot peening on low cycle fatigue behavior of 7075 aluminium alloy”, Int. J. Fatigue, 103, pp. 426–435 (2017).
31. Olugbade, T. and Lu, J., “Characterization of the Corrosion of Nanostructured 17-4 PH Stainless Steel by Surface Mechanical Attrition Treatment (SMAT)”, Anal. Lett., 52(16), pp. 2454–2471 (2019).
32. Olugbade, T. O., “Electrochemical Characterization of the Corrosion of Mild Steel in Saline Following Mechanical Deformation”, Anal. Lett.,52, pp. 2454–2471 (2020).
33. Olugbade, T. and Lu, J., “Enhanced corrosion properties of nanostructured 316 stainless steel in 0.6 M NaCl solution”, J. Bio- Tribo-Corrosion, 5(2) (2019).
34. Olugbade, T., Liu, C., and Lu, J., “Enhanced Passivation Layer by Cr Diffusion of 301 Stainless Steel Facilitated by SMAT”, Adv. Eng. Mater., 21(8), pp. 1–11 (2019).
35. Sun, H. Q., Shi, Y. N., and Zhang, M. X., “Wear behaviour of AZ91D magnesium alloy with a nanocrystalline surface layer”, Surf. Coatings Technol., 202(13), pp. 2859–2864 (2008).
36. Wen, L., Yuan, Y., Wang, Y., et al., “Effect of nanocrystalline surface and iron-containing layer obtained by SMAT on tribological properties of 2024 al alloy”, Xiyou Jinshu Cailiao Yu Gongcheng/Rare Met. Mater. Eng., 44(6), pp. 1320–1325 (2015).
37. Liu, Y., Jin, B., Li, D. J., et al., “Wear behavior of nanocrystalline structured magnesium alloy induced by surface mechanical attrition treatment”, Surf. Coatings Technol., 261, pp. 219–226 (2015).
38. Chamgordani, A. S., Miresmaeili, R., and Aliofkhazraei, M., “Improvement in tribological behavior of commercial pure titanium (CP-Ti) by surface mechanical attrition treatment (SMAT)”, Tribol. Int., 119, pp. 744–752 (2018).
39. Erturk, A. T., Vatansever, F., Yarar, E., et al., “Effects of cutting temperature and process optimization in drilling of GFRP composites”, J. Compos. Mater., 55(2), pp. 235–249 (2021).
40. Yarar, E. and Karabay, S., “Investigation of the effects of ultrasonic assisted drilling on tool wear and optimization of drilling parameters”, CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol., 31, pp. 265–280 (2020).
41. Erturk, A. T., Vatansever, F., Yarar, E., et al., “Machining behavior of multiple layer polymer composite bearing with using different drill bits”, Compos. Part B Eng., 176(April), p. 107318 (2019).