journal article·2016-01

Surface mechanical attrition treated AISI 304L steel: role of process parameters

A. M. Gatey, S. S. Hosmani, R. P. Singh

Surface Engineering· Volume 32· Issue 1
Publisher page

Abstract

In the present work, AISI 304L steel was used to investigate the effect of surface mechanical attrition treatment (SMAT) parameters on the hardness and microstructure. The surface modified by SMAT was examined using an optical microscope, SEM, electron backscattered diffraction, X-ray diffraction and microhardness measurements. The surface hardness of specimens was more than two times the hardness of non-treated core for all SMAT parameters. High density of shear bands (which formed nanosize rhombic blocks) was observed near the treated specimen surface. Density of shear bands was reliant on the size and number of balls. Deformation induced martensite (α′) was formed in surface mechanical attrition treated region. Volume per cent of α′ was enhanced with an increase in SMAT duration and number of balls. However, it was reduced with an increase in gap between vibrating plate and specimen surface. Microstructure evolution at various SMAT parameters was effectively explained using newly introduced terminology called ‘peening intensity’.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Surface Treatment and Residual Stress · Metal Alloys Wear and Properties · Erosion and Abrasive Machining

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Technology, Savitribai Phule Pune University (formerly University of Pune), Pune 411007, India

Department of Metallurgy & Materials Science, College of Engineering, Pune (COEP), Pune, India

Kalyani Centre for Technology and Innovation (KCTI), Bharat Forge Ltd, Pune, India

References (19)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.2320/matertrans.44.191910.2320/matertrans.44.1919 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.matchar.2013.08.00910.1016/j.matchar.2013.08.009 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.actamat.2011.11.02910.1016/j.actamat.2011.11.029 ↗
4. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.794.23810.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.794.238 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.actamat.2011.03.00510.1016/j.actamat.2011.03.005 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.msea.2006.09.04110.1016/j.msea.2006.09.041 ↗
7. 10.1016/S1359-6454(02)00594-310.1016/S1359-6454(02)00594-3 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.corsci.2013.04.05610.1016/j.corsci.2013.04.056 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2013.01.04710.1016/j.surfcoat.2013.01.047 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.matchar.2013.06.00610.1016/j.matchar.2013.06.006 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.actamat.2007.07.01510.1016/j.actamat.2007.07.015 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2004.03.01110.1016/j.scriptamat.2004.03.011 ↗
13. Cullity B. D. ‘Elements of X-ray diffraction’, in ‘Diffraction II – intensities of diffracted beams’, 2nd edn, Chap. 4, 121–136; 1978, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.
14. 10.1016/j.matdes.2009.11.00810.1016/j.matdes.2009.11.008 ↗
15. 10.4236/wjnse.2012.2302010.4236/wjnse.2012.23020 ↗
16. 10.1016/0036-9748(78)90019-410.1016/0036-9748(78)90019-4 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.msea.2012.05.08010.1016/j.msea.2012.05.080 ↗
18. Davis J. ‘Analytical modeling and application of residual stresses induced by shot peening’, PhD thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA, 7–8; 2012.
19. 10.1016/0001-6160(83)90103-710.1016/0001-6160(83)90103-7 ↗