Comparison of conventional and severe shot peening effects on the microstructure, texture, roughness, hardness, and electrochemical behavior of austenitic stainless steel.

In the present research, microstructure, texture, roughness, hardness, and electrochemical behavior of AISI 316L austenitic stainless steel before and after shot peening were studied to elucidate the effect of conventional and severe shot peening (CSP and SSP) processes. After the shot peening, the fraction of strain-induced martensite (SIM) and mechanical twins (MTs) in the sub-surface layer was increased. The fraction of SIM and MTs in the SSP sample was higher than in the CSP sample. The XRD patterns indicated that the SSP sample had a higher peak broadening compared to the CSP sample. In the CSP and SSP samples, a gradient microstructure was formed along the depth direction. The microstructure of the topmost layer of the CSP and SSP samples exhibited numerous ultrafine grains. The grain refining during severe shot peening was faster because of the accumulation of more strain. The CSP and SSP samples revealed a gradient distribution of elements. After the SSP, the intensity of ⟨110⟩‖ED fiber texture decreased from 12.7 to 11.6 × R and the average intensity of ⟨100⟩‖ED fiber texture increased from 1.7 to 2.0 × R, respectively, compared to the CSP sample. The surface roughness of the SSP sample (Rq = 73.6 nm and Ra = 45.2 nm) was lower than that of the CSP sample which represented the roughness decreased with surface coverage increasing from 100 % to 1500 %. Also, the wettability increased after the conventional and severe shot peening processes. In addition, the microhardness of the CSP and SSP samples showed a gradient distribution. The CSP sample had the lowest corrosion current density (0.13 μA/cm) whereas the NP (non-peened) sample exhibited the highest current density (0.65 μA/cm). The presence of ⟨100⟩-oriented grains in both CSP and SSP samples led to the higher corrosion resistance of shot-peened steels compared to the NP sample. The presence of favorable texture with higher intensity in the CSP sample was responsible for the higher corrosion resistance of the CSP sample compared to the SSP sample. Finally, the gradient distribution of elements along the depth direction in the CSP and SSP steels improved the corrosion resistance of the surface.