You are on page 1of 10

Residual-stress Measurement in Orthotropic Materials

Using the Hole-drilling Method

by G.S. Schajer and L. Yang

ABSTRACT--The hole-drilling method is used here to v~, vy., = x - y Poisson's ratios


measure residual stresses in an orthotropic material. An ~rx, ~y = x - y Cartesian normal stresses
existing stress-calculation method adapted from the iso-
(]'max = maximum (most tensile) principal stress
tropic case is shown not to be valid for orthotropic ma- = minimum (most compressive) principal
terials. A new stress-calculation method is described, (rmi"
based on the analytical solution for the displacement field stress
around a hole in a stressed orthotropic plate. The validity "r~y = x - y Cartesian shear stress
of this method is assessed through a series of experi- ~b = angle measured counterclockwise from the
mental measurements. A table of elastic compliances is x direction to the direction of O'max
provided for practical residual-stress measurements in a t~l, +2 = geometrical parameters [eqs (16) and (17)]
wide range of orthotropic materials.

Introduction
List of Symbols
The hole-drilling-method 1 5 is a well-established,
A, B, C = calibration constants popular technique for measuring residual stresses in a
c** = orthotropic strain relief compliances wide range of engineering materials. The method is
Ex, Ey = elastic moduli along x and y (elastic sym- easy to use, reliable in operation, and involves only
metry) axes limited damage to the specimen.
G~y = x - y shear modulus The conventional hole-drilling method can be used
m = orthotropic elastic modulus ratio [eq (10)] only with isotropic materials. However, many mod-
r~ = hole radius em materials, such as fiber-reinforced composites, have
r,, - mean radius of strain-gage rosette distinctly anisotropic elastic properties. Bert et al. 6'7
u, v = displacements in x and y directions and Prasad et al. 8 have generalized the computational
x, y - coordinates along elastic symmetry axes procedure for the hole-drilling method to extend the
W1, W2 = geometrical parameters [eqs (14) and (15)] use of the method to orthotropic materials. However,
XI, X2 = geometrical parameters [eqs (18) and (19)] this generalization is shown here not to be valid. This
Y1, I12 = geometrical parameters [eqs (20) and (21)] paper presents a different solution method that can be
a, 13 = orthotropic elastic material constants [eqs used for materials of any degree of elastic orthotropy.
(12) and (13)] An experimental example is presented to illustrate the
~,:y = x - y Cartesian shear strain use and applicability of the method.
8r measured relieved strain
=

ex, e r = x - y Cartesian normal strains


0 = counterclockwise angle measured from the Isotropic Case
x direction to the axis of the strain gage
K = orthotropic elastic material constant [eq Residual stresses are measured by the hole-drilling
(11)] method using a strain-gage rosette of the type shown
in Fig. 1. The positive x direction defining the x-y
Cartesian stress system lies along the axis of strain
G.S. Schajer (SEM Member) is Associate Professor and L. Yang
is Graduate Student, University of British Columbia, Department
gage 1. For the 'clockwise' rosette pattern 9 shown
of Mechanical Engineering, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, British Colum- in Fig. 1, the negative y direction lies along the axis
bia, Canada. of gage 3. With a 'counter-clockwise' rosette, the
Original manuscript submitted: May 9, 1993. Final manuscript positive y direction would lie along the axis of strain
received: January 24, 1994. gage 3.

324 ~ December 1994


The Cartesian stresses calculated by solving eq (2)

ty can be used to determine the principal stresses, using

O". . . . O'min = (~x + % ) / 2

• V((O" x __ 2
0",)/2) 2 -'1- "rxy (3)
and

1 [ 2"rxy ]
6 = - arctan
- 2 L~x - %J (4)
X
Orthotropic Material Properties
For the two-dimensional case, five elastic constants
are required to relate the Cartesian stresses and strains
in an orthotropic material, m'u When the x and y axes
lie along the principal elastic directions of the mate-
rial, Hooke's Law generalizes to

Fig. 1 - - A S T M strain-gage rosette used for hole-drilling = x/E. - %V,x/E,


measurements 4
~, = % / E , - ~xv~/E.

% = ~/6~ (5)
Only four of the five elastic constants are independent
When making residual-stress measurements, a cir- because of the elastic symmetry relationship
cular hole is drilled at the geometrical center of the
rosette to a depth slightly greater than the hole di- V~y/E~ = Vy~/Ey (6)
ameter. This hole locally relieves the stresses in the
surrounding material, and the associated strain reliefs In general, the shear modulus Gxy is independent of
are measured by the three strain gages. For an isotro- all other elastic constants. However, in the isotropic
pic material, the relieved strain measured by a strain
case, Ex = Ey = E, Vxy = Vyx = v, and G,~ = G =
gage whose axis is inclined at an angle 0 from the x
0.5E/(1 + v). There are then only two independent
direction is elastic constants and eqs (5) reduce to their more fa-
miliar forms.
er = A(~r~ + %) + B(% - %) cos 20 An interesting special case occurs when the shear
modulus of an orthoU-opic material happens to be re-
+ C %y sin 20 (1)
lated to the other elastic constants as follows.

where the symbols are defined in 'List of Symbols' 1 l+v~ l +- v y ~


above. In this study, it is assumed that the residual -- _ _ -]- -

stresses %, % and "rxydo not vary with depth from G,~ Ex Ey (7)
the specimen surface. The calibration constants A, B
and C depend on the material properties, the rosette In this particular case, the shear modulus is the same
geometry, the hole diameter and the hole depth. For in all directions. The material has isotropic shear be-
an isotropic material, C = 2B. 7 The calibration con- havior, but orthotropic axial behavior. An approxi-
stants can either be determined experimentally' or nu- mately opposite case occurs when Ex = Ey but G #
mericallyfl 0.5E/(1 + v). The latter material has an orthotropic
Equation (1) can be rewritten in matrix form to re- shear modulus, with equal (but not isotropic) princi-
late the three measured strains gl, 1~2and ~3 in Fig. 1 pal axial moduli. These two types of orthotropy are
to the Cartesian stresses ox, % and "rxy. considered in subsequent sections.

Orthotropic Hole-drilling Solution


A - A Txy = E 2
A simple approach to hole-drilling in an orthotropic
- B 0 A + LO-yj 133 (2) material is to assume that the relieved strain response
has a similar trigonometric form to that in an isotropic
For a 'counter-clockwise' rosette, 9 the quantity - C in material. Equations (1) and (2) are assumed still to
eq (2) becomes C. apply, providing that gages 1 and 3 are aligned along

Experimental Mechanics . 325


the elastic symmetry directions of the orthotropic ma- X, = x - W, cos ~, (18)
terial. In this case, C is an independent calibration
constant, not related to A or B. The use of eq (1) was X2 = x - W2 cos ~2 (19)
suggested for hole-drilling applications by Bert e t al. 6'7
Y , = oLmy - W1 sin lt,ll1 (20)
and subsequently by Prasad e t al. 8 However, it is shown
here that eqs (1) and (2) are not valid for hole drilling }12 = 13my - W2 sin q*2 (21)
in an orthotropic material because the displacement
field around a hole in a stressed orthotropic plate does The above solution is valid only for K > 1. This
not have a simple trigonometric form. requirement puts a maximum limitation on the allow-
A mathematical solution for the displacements able size of the shear modulus Gxy relative to the other
around a hole in a stressed orthotropic plate is used elastic moduli. Except for composites that are spe-
here to determine the relationship between the resid- cially designed for high shear stiffness, most ortho-
ual stresses and the hole-drilling relieved strains9 It is tropic materials have elastic properties for which K >
assumed that the orthotropic material under study has 1. A solution for the case K --< 1 is presented by
a sufficiently fine microscopic structure that it can be Schimke e t a l . u The angles +1 and Ill 2 in eqs (16) and
approximated as a homogeneous continuum9 Follow- (17) both lie in the same quadrant as 0 = arctan (y/
ing the method described by Smith,~4 the relieved dis- x). However, they do not in general each equal 0.
placement field around a hole in a stressed orthotropic
plate (plane stress case) for x 2 + y2 _ r ] can be shown
to be
Deviation from Trigonometric Behavior
Figures 2 and 3 schematically show the calculated
oL2m2 + 1)xy strain response versus angle 0 for an ASTM strain gage
/2= in a uniaxial tensile stress field9 The curves are cal-
m(a - ~) Ex(1 - am)
culated by integrating the relieved displacement field
9[Y~(1 + f3m) "rxy - X ~ ( % - 13mCry)] described by eqs (8) and (9) over the strain-gage grid.15
To focus on curve shape rather than curve size, sche-
2m2 + Pxy matic vertical scales are used in the two figures9 All
+
the curves are scaled to a uniform size and are dis-
m(13 - oO E x ( 1 - f3m)
placed vertically so that they coincide at 0 = 0 deg
9[Y2(1 + o t m ) "r~ - X2(O'x - cxm~ry)] (8) and 0 = 90 deg. This plotting procedure emphasizes
the deviations from the trigonometric relationship in
1 + (x2m2 l)yx eq (1), independent of the actual sizes of the strains
V involved. Absolute strain values cannot be inferred
c~m 2 (et -- [3) Ey(1 - c~m)
from Figs. 2 and 3.
9 [XI(1 + [3m)Txy+ Yl(ffx- ~m%)] The two figures illustrate the similar effects of the
two different types of elastic orthotropy. Figure 2 shows
1 + [32rn2 V~y
+
f3m 2 (f3 - o0 E y ( 1 - 13m)

9 [ X 2 ( 1 + e~m) %y + I12(% - etm%)] (9)

A ex = ~--~ A A
where

m = 4VEx/Ey (I0)

K = ~/-ExEy (I/Gx:y - 2Vxy/Ex)/2 (Ii) 0


(b
o~ = ~V/K + ~v/(K2 -- I) (12)
Q:

13 = ~,/K - V ( K 2 - 1) (13) "1

Ey = 1 ~xy = 0.3 Gxy = isotropic


W 1 = 4V(x2 _ r2 _ o~2m2(y 2 - ra2)) 2 -[- (2~mxy) 2
04) -2 i , i i i i i T
0~ 90 o 1800 270 ~ 3600
W 2 = 4V(X2 -- r 2a -- 132mZ(y: r2))2 + (213mxy)2
Angle, e
(15)
t~, = arctan [2otmxy/(x 2 - ~ - e~2m2(y 2 - rZ~))]/2 Fig. 2 - - A n g u l a r variation of relieved strain in materials
(16) of varying degrees of axial orthotropy. ASTM strain-
gage geometry4 with hole radius ra = 0.464 rm. All
~J2 = arctan [213mxy/(x 2 - r2 - 132m2(y2 = r]))]/2 curves are scaled so they coincide at e = 0 deg and e
(17) = 90 deg

326 9 December 1994


where the elastic compliances c11-c33 are in general
not related in any way to trigonometric-based con-
stants such as A, B or C. The factor 1/V"-E~Ey is in-
cluded so that the compliances c11-c33 are dimension-
.~2 ' 7 less constants. For the case of interest here, where the
03 x and y directions of the rosette coincide with the prin-
cipal elastic directions of the orthotropic material, the
o compliances c12 and c32 both equal zero.
The values of the elastic compliances in eq (22)
depend on the orthotropic elastic properties of the
specimen, the hole diameter and the strain-gage ro-
sette geometry. Hole depth is also an important fac-
Ex= 1 Ey=l Vxy=0.3
tor. Practical experience with isotropic materials 1-3 and
0 finite-element calculations 5 show that the elastic com-
-2 pliances for the blind-hole case converge at large hole
0~ 900 1800 2700 3600 depths to the results calculated from the plane-stress
Angle, O through-hole solution. Thus, for an orthotropic ma-
terial, the plane-stress solution, eqs (8) and (9), can
Fig. 3--Angular variation of relieved strain in materials be used for the blind-hole case, providing the hole is
of varying degrees of shear orthotropy. ASTM strain- made deep enough for the limiting state to be reached.
gage geometry4 with hole radius ra = 0.464 rr,. All This plane-stress solution applies, even when working
curves are scaled so they coincide at 0 = 0 deg and 0
with thick materials, because the strains are measured
= 90 deg
on the specimen surface, not within the plane-strain
regime in the interior of the material. For an isotropic
material, the limiting hole depth approximately equals
the mean radius r,, of the hole drilling rosette. For an
the effect of having unequal principal axial elastic orthotropic material, the limiting depth depends on the
moduli Ex and Ey, with an isotropic shear modulus ratio of the out-of-plane shear moduli to the in-plane
G~y. Figure 3 shows the effect of an orthotropic shear axial moduli. The lower this ratio, the more rapidly
modulus G~y, with equal principal elastic moduli Ex the limiting hole depth is reached.
and Ey. Increasing orthotropy of either kind causes Table 1 lists numerical values of the compliance
increasingly large deviations from the trigonometric values to be used in eq (22) for a range of elastic
strain response predicted by eq (1). Figures 2 and 3 constants. These numerical values are calculated us-
together confirm that any deviation from isotropic ing eqs (8) and (9) and the method described in Ref
elastic behavior, either in terms of axial or shear mod- 15. They apply to the case of a deep hole with an
uli, causes eq (1) to be violated. The calculation method ASTM strain-gage rosette of the type shown in Fig.
using eq (1) is therefore not seen not to be valid. 1. The hole radius specified in Table 1 corresponds
An important practical exception to the above ob- to a 3/32-in. hole in a standard ASTM strain-gage
servations occurs during bore-hole measurements of rosette of 1/16-in. nominal size, or a 3/16-in. hole
rock stresses. 12'13 For such measurements, eq (1) al- in a 1/8-in. nominal rosette. Linear or polynomial
ways applies exactly, even for highly orthotropic ma- interpolation 17 can be used to determine compliance
terials. This is because the bore-hole technique uses values for materials with elastic properties between
displacement measurements at the curved boundary of the tabulated values. For hole diameters slightly dif-
the hole, rather than strain measurements beyond the ferent from the specified values, the compliances c11-
hole boundary, as in the hole-drilling method. The c33 can be assumed to be proportional to the square
stress and strain solutions presented by Leknitskii a6 of the hole diameter. When working with materials
directly illustrate the trigonometric relationship at the for which Ex > Ey, the first row of headings for the
hole boundary. Unfortunately, this convenient result columns in Table 1 should be used. When Ey > Ex,
does not apply to hole drilling because the strain mea- the second row of headings should be used instead.
surements are made beyond the hole boundary. Table 1 illustrates how the compliance values in eq
(22) for an orthotropic material deviate from the trig-
onometric values expected from eq (2). For example,
Numerical Results when Ex = 2, Ey = 0.5, V~y = 0, G~y = 0.4, the com-
Assuming only linear elasticity, the matrix ap- pliance matrix is
proach used in eq (2) can be generalized so that it
accurately applies to an orthotropic material. In the Cll C12 C13~ [-.291 0 .1831
orthotropic case, eq (2) generalizes to
Cal c22 c23| = -.073 .728 -.196]

x c12c137E
j xEll
IC2, C22C231 (22)
C31 C32 C33J ,228 0 - . 6 5 9 ] (23)

If eq (2) were obeyed, then Ctl = c33, c13 = C31 and


E~/~Ey Lc31 c32 c33 J O-y ~3 c21 -" c23 = (Cll -~- C31.)/2 = (C13 nL C 3 3 ) / 2 . Equation

Experimental Mechanics 9 327


TABLE 1--DIMENSIONLESS COMPLIANCES FOR HOLE DRILLING INTO AN ORTHOTROPIC MATERIAL
iin

Ex/ Ey Vxy Gxy/ Ey c,1 c,3 c2, c22 c23 c3, c33
E~/Ex ~'yx G~y/E~ c33 c31 c23 c22 c2~ c~3 c~1
1 .00 .10 -.591 .169 -.291 1.180 -,291 .169 -.591
1 .25 .10 -.583 .123 -.314 1.097 -,314 .123 -.583
1 .50 .10 -.575 .076 -.336 1.013 -,336 .076 -.575
1 .75 .10 -.568 .030 -.357 .930 -,357 .030 -.568
1 .00 .20 -.514 .193 -.188 .877 -,188 .193 -.514
1 .25 .20 -.503 .146 -.205 .788 -,205 .146 -.503
1 .50 .20 -,491 .098 -.221 .699 -,221 .098 --.491
1 .75 .20 -.478 .049 -.235 .609 -,235 .049 -.478
1 .00 .30 -.474 .205 -.146 .757 -.146 .205 -.474
1 .25 .30 -.460 .157 -.160 .665 -.160 .157 -.460
1 ,50 .30 -.445 .109 ".172 ,572 -.172 .109 -.445
1 .00 .40 -.450 .213 -.123 ,692 -.123 .213 -.450
1 .25 .40 -.433 .164 -.135 .598 -.135 .164 -.433
1 .00 .50 -.433 .218 -.108 .650 -.108 ,218 -.433
2 .00 .15 -.453 .156 - .226 1.156 -.345 .185 -,743
2 .25 .15 -,448 .122 -.244 1.097 -~357 .153 -.737
2 ,50 .15 -.443 .088 -.263 1.038 -.369 .122 -.730
2 .75 ,15 -.438 .053 -.281 .978 -.380 .090 -.723
2 .00 .30 -.403 .180 -,144 ,865 -.225 .207 -.631
2 .25 .30 -.396 .145 -.159 .802 -.233 .175 -.621
2 .50 .30 -.389 .110 -.174 .739 --.240 .143 --.611
2 .75 ,30 -.382 .074 -.188 .675 -.247 .110 -.600
2 .00 .45 -.377 .193 -.111 .751 -.177 .217 -.576
2 .25 .45 -.369 .158 -.124 .686 -.182 .185 -.563
2 .50 .45 -.360 .122 -.137 .620 -.187 .152 -.550
2 .75 .45 -.350 .085 -.149 .554 -.191 .119 -.536
2 .00 .60 -,361 .201 -.092 .689 -.150 .223 -.541
2 .25 .60 -.351 .165 --.105 .623 -.154 .191 -.527
4 .00 ,20 -.350 ,137 -.186 1,212 -.435 .195 -.949
4 .25 .20 -.347 .112 -.201 1.171 -.441 .174 -.944
4 .50 .20 -.344 .088 -.216 1.129 -.447 .152 -.938
4 .75 .20 -.341 .063 -.232 1.087 -.453 .131 -.932
4 .00 .40 -.318 .162 -.116 .910 -.288 .215 -.787
4 ,25 .40 -.314 .136 -.130 .866 -.291 .193 -.778
4 .50 .40 -.310 .110 -.143 .821 -.294 .171 -.770
4 .75 .40 -.306 .084 -,156 .776 -.296 .149 -.761
4 .00 .60 -.301 .175 -.088 .792 -.229 ,223 -.707
4 .25 .60 -.296 .149 -.101 .746 -.230 .201 -.696
4 .50 .60 -.291 .122 -.112 .700 -.231 .179 -,685
4 .75 .60 -.286 .096 -.124 .653 -.231 .157 -.674
4 .00 ,80 -.291 .183 -.073 ,728 --.196 ,228 --.659
4 .25 .80 -.285 .157 -.084 .681 -.196 .206 -.646
4 .50 .80 -.279 .130 -.095 .634 -.196 .184 -.633
4 .00 1.00 -.283 .189 -.063 .687 -.175 .231 -.626
8 .00 .30 -,263 .123 -.138 1.224 -.508 .207 -1.160
8 .25 .30 -.262 .105 -.150 1.194 -.510 .192 -1.155
8 .50 .30 -.260 .087 -.162 1.164 -.513 .177 -1.149
8 ,75 .30 -.258 .068 --.174 1.135 -.515 ,163 -1.144
8 .00 .60 -.244 .146 -.084 .935 -.343 .222 -.939
8 .25 .60 -.242 .127 -.095 .903 -.343 .207 -.931
8 .50 .60 -.239 .108 -.105 .871 -.342 .192 -.923
8 .75 .60 -.236 .089 -.116 .839 -.342 .177 -,914
8 .00 .90 -.234 .158 -.062 .823 -.278 .228 -.834
8 .25 .90 -.231 .139 -.072 .790 -.276 .213 -.824
8 .50 .90 -.228 .120 -.082 .757 --.275 .198 --.814
8 .75 .90 -.224 .100 -,092 .724 -.273 .183 -.803
8 .00 1.20 -,227 .166 -,050 .763 -.242 .231 -.771
8 .25 1.20 -.224 .147 -.060 .729 -.240 ,216 -.760
8 .50 1.20 -.220 .127 -,069 .696 -.237 ,201 -.748
16 .00 .40 -.199 .105 -.109 1.323 -.634 .213 -1.450
16 .25 ,40 -.198 .092 -.118 1.301 -.634 .203 -1.446
16 .50 .40 -.196 .079 -.127 1.280 -.634 ,193 -1.441
16 .75 .40 -.195 .065 -.136 1.259 -.634 .182 -1.437

328 ~ December 1994


TABLE 1--Continued

Ex/Ey Vxy G~/Ey ~ qa c2i cea c23 c3~ c33


Ey/Ex v~ G~y/Ex caa C31 C23 022 ~1 ~3 ~1
16 .00 .80 -,187 .126 -.062 1.019 -.437 .225 -1.147
16 .25 .80 -.186 .113 -.071 .997 -.435 .214 -1.140
16 .50 .80 -.184 .099 -.079 .974 -.433 .204 -1.133
16 .75 .80 -.182 .085 -.088 .952 -,432 .193 -1.126
16 .00 1.20 -.181 .138 -.044 .903 -,360 .228 -1.006
16 .25 1.20 -.179 .124 -.052 .880 -.357 .218 -.997
16 .50 1.20 -.177 .109 -.060 .856 -,354 ,207 -.988
16 .75 1.20 -.175 .095 -.068 .833 -,351 .197 -.979
16 ,00 1.60 -.177 .145 -.034 .840 -,318 .230 -.923
16 .25 1.60 -.175 .131 -.042 .816 -,315 .220 -.913
16 .50 1.60 -.173 .116 -.049 .792 -,311 .209 -.902
16 .75 1.60 -.171 .102 -.057 .768 -.308 .198 -,892
16 .00 2.00 -.175 .150 -.027 .801 -.292 .231 -.867
ASTM rosette with gage 1 aligned along the Ex principal elastic direction, and with hole radius ra = 0.464 rm. The
first row of column headings applies when Ex > Ey. The second row of column headings applies when Ey > Ex.

(23) clearly shows that these relationships are not


obeyed in this orthotropic example.
Equation (23) also illustrates a fundamental prob-
lem when trying to evaluate the constants A, B and C 90~ hole-drilling / / ~
for eq (1). I r A and B were determined from a uniaxial rosette / 40 ,2
tension test where crx = 1, O'y = "r,:y= 0, the two con- (one side) / /
stants would be evaluated as A = ( q l + c31)/2 =
- . 0 3 2 , and B = (Cll - c31)/2 = - . 2 6 0 . However, \/_ /
quite different results would be obtained from a uni-
axial tension test along the perpendicular axis. In that
case, ~ry = 1, o'x = "r~y = 0, and the two constants
would be evaluated as A = (c33 -~- c 1 3 ) / 2 = - . 2 3 8 ,
and B = (c33 - c13)/2 = - . 4 2 1 . The difference be- \
tween these two sets of 'constants' is substantial. //~inglegages
/ bothsides)
Experimental Measurements l ~ / /I
A series of experimental measurements was under-
taken to test the effectiveness of the proposed resid-
" - 0o
ual-stress measurement method. The test procedure
was adapted from a combination of the orthotropic
material property measurement method described by Fig. 4--Test specimens cut from a sheet of graphite-
Lineback 18 and the hole-drilling calibration method epoxy laminate. The rosettes are attached on one side
described by Rendler and Vigness.1 The test method only. The single gages are attached on both sides
measures the material and hole-drilling constants in-
dependent of any residual stresses that may be pres-
ent. The test material was a graphite-epoxy laminate,
3.5-ram thick, composed of 24 unidirectional graphite
fiber layers in an epoxy matrix. The lay-up was sym- to check for the possible presence of bending strains.
metrical, with two layers in the 0-deg direction, six When making strain measurements, corresponding
layers each in the two 45-deg directions, and 10 lay- strain gages in pairs of specimens were connected to-
ers in the 90-deg direction. Three tensile test speci- gether in half-bridge circuits. During measurements,
mens, 250 x 38.1 m m in size and oriented at 0, 45 one specimen was loaded while the other was kept
and 90 deg, were cut from a 300-mm square panel, undisturbed. This procedure minimized any thermal
as shown in Fig. 4. strain effects. Thermal drift of the strain gages was a
Measurements Group 125-RE residual-stress ro- potential problem due to the low thermal conductivity
settes were attached to one surface of each tensile of the laminate.
specimen. Additional single gages were attached to Each of the three test specimens was secured using
opposite sides of each specimen, as shown in Fig. 4, wedge grips in a lO-kN capacity Instron tensile test-

Experimental Mechanics o 329


ing machine. Strain readings were taken from all seven The 10-percent discrepancy in elastic property mea-
gages on each specimen as the axial load was incre- surements from the various specimens is much greater
mentally increased and then decreased. Fine sand- than the likely experimental error. Variation in the ac-
paper was inserted within the wedge grips to improve tual material properties of the test specimens is sus-
the grip on the smooth-faced specimens. The posi- pected to be the cause. Figure 4 shows that the three
tions of the pieces of sandpaper were adjusted so that specimens were cut from different parts of the orig-
the strain readings on the four single gages were all inal square sample. Of necessity, the 0-deg and 90-
equal within two percent. deg specimens had to be cut close to the sample edges.
Two series of measurements were made with each Unfortunately, these are areas where material non-
specimen, one before and one after drilling a 4.8-mm uniformity is most likely.
diameter hole at the geometric center of the hole-drill- In Table 2, column 5 lists the differences between
ing rosette. From the 0-deg specimen, strain readings the strain responses measured before and after hole
were taken after 1.5-kN increments in load up to 9.0 drilling (columns 3 and 4). These values correspond
kN. For the 45-deg specimen, the readings were taken to the strain reliefs that would be measured during a
in 1.0-kN increments up to 6.0 kN, and for the 90- hole-drilling residual-stress measurement. Column 6
deg specimen, in 0.8-kN increments up to 4.8 kN. lists the theoretically expected strain responses cal-
The measured strains were in the range - 5 0 0 txe to culated from eq (22) using the elastic properties listed
+1200 Ixe, with a scatter (deviation from linearity) in Table 3. To minimize the effect of material prop-
less than 10 ixe. To maximize measurement accuracy, erty variation, the elastic properties measured from
the gradients of the graphs of measured strain versus the 0-deg and 45-deg specimens were used for the 0-
applied load were used to determine the elastic strain deg specimen. The measurements from the 45-deg and
responses (compliance), i.e., the strain per unit ap- 90-deg specimens were used for the 90-deg specimen,
plied stress. and the average of both sets was used for the 45-deg
Column 3 of Table 2 lists the strain responses of specimen. The given laminate had a very high shear
the three test specimens, measured before hole drill- stiffness because of the large number of 45-deg lay-
ing. These measurements, together with the equations ers. As a result, the shear modulus slightly exceeds
presented by Lineback, TM were used to determine the the limiting value for a valid mathematical solu-
orthotropic elastic properties of the laminate. Table 3 tion (e.g. G~y = 17.6 GPa for the 45-deg specimen
lists the results together with the values calculated from when K = 1). The results in column 6 have been
laminate theory based on the properties and allgn- extrapolated to reach the actual 18.6 GPa shear
ments of the 24 component layers. Two different sets modulus.
of experimental data can be used for calculating the The measured and calculated strain-response values
elastic properties of the laminate. One data set con- listed in columns 5 and 6 of Table 2 are almost all
sists of the strain readings from the 0-deg and 45-deg within 1 txe/MPa. This agreement is certainly close
specimens, and the other data set from the 45-deg and enough to be convincing. However, some of the dif-
90-deg specimens. The results from the two data sets ferences are larger than might be hoped. Several rea-
are up to 10-percent different. This discrepancy can sons for these differences were identified. One likely
be seen directly in the measured strain responses in error source is the variation in the material properties
column 3 of Table 2. The elastic symmetry require- of the three test specimens. The 0.6 Ixe/MPa differ-
ment in eq (1) implies that the transverse responses ence in the e3 values for the 0-deg and 90-deg spec-
(gages 3 and 1) of the 0-deg and 90-deg specimens imens, which is mostly due to material property vari-
should be identical. However, the measured values, - 7.1 ation, is comparable to the differences up to 1.0 txe/
and - 6 . 5 ~x~/MPa, are about 10-percent different. MPa between columns 5 and 6.

TABLE 2--MEASURED AND CALCULATED STRAIN RESPONSES OF THE GRAPHITE-EPOXY LAMINATE


USED IN THIS STUDY

Strain Response, ~e/MPa


Strain Measured Measured Difference Calculated
Specimen Gage -no hole with hole due to hole due to hole
0 deg 1 15.3 7.0 -8.3 -7.9
0 deg 2 4.1 1.5 -2.6 -2.7
0 deg 3 -7.1 -4.0 3.1 4.0
45 deg 1 3.9 1.4 -2.5 -2.3
45 deg 2 22.1 10.5 -11.6 -9.9
45 deg 3 13.8 8.4 -5.4 -4.4
90 deg 1 -6.5 -4.1 2.4 2.8
90 deg 2 14.2 9.2 -5.0 -4.0
90 deg 3 32.7 21.4 - 11.3 - 11.7

330 9 December 1994


TABLE 3--ELASTIC CONSTANTS OF THE GRAPHITE-EPOXY LAMINATE USED IN THIS STUDY
i

Elastic Modulus, GPa


Ex Ey Gxy Vxy
Calculated from
Laminate Theory 73.6 34.5 21.3 0.45
Measured from
0-deg and 45-deg specimens 72.0 30.6 18.6 0.46
Measured from
45-deg and 90-deg specimens 65.2 28.9 18.6 0.46
Average measurement
from all specimens 68.6 29.7 18.6 0.46

The strain responses in column 5 of Table 2 are expected from c~z in eqs (2) and (22). A numerical
particularly sensitive to measurement errors because error is suspected because their calculated C values
they derive from the difference between the much larger do not approach 2B in the two nearly isotropic ex-
values in columns 3 and 4. In most cases, the values amples that they examine. The results in columns 5
in column 5 are less than half of those in column 3. and 6 are believed to be reliable because the calcu-
Thus, any errors in columns 3 and 4 have magnified lation method gives C = 2B for an isotropic material
relative effects on column 5. and also gives displacement fields identical to those
Rosette angular misalignment was found to be an reported by Schimke e t al. 11
additional source of error in Table 2. For the 0-deg Column 6 of Table 4 lists the predicted strain re-
and 90-deg specimens before hole drilling, the read- sponse when the finite areas of the hole-drilling ro-
ings from gage 2 are expected to be the average of sette gages are taken into account. The calculation
the readings from gages 1 and 3. This is true for the method is the same as used for column 6 of Table 2.
0-deg specimen but not for the 90-deg specimen. The In some cases, the difference between the 'point' and
discrepancy was traced to a 1.5-deg error in the ro- finite-area gage calculations are quite significant. In
sette alignment. This alignment error was taken into all cases, the relieved strain responses listed in col-
account when computing the values in column 6. umn 6 of Table 4 correspond more closely with the
measured values in column 3 than do the 'point' gage
values in columns 4 and 5. These results demonstrate
Comparisons with Other Published Data the significance of using the finite-area strain-gage
Prasad e t al. 8 did a series of hole-drilling measure- calculation.
ments, similar to those reported here, using a graph-
ite-polyimide laminate. They also made calculations
Residual-stress Measurement Accuracy
of the strain responses expected during their experi-
mental measurements. Their mathematical method The discussion so far has focused on how well the
differs from that presented here, notably by their choice proposed calculation method predicts the measured
of working in terms of strains. To simplify their strain- strain responses in calibration tests. This assessment
based computations, Prasad e t al. approximated each provides an important measure of the theoretical
strain gage in the hole-drilling rosette as being con- method. However, in practice, the question of interest
centrated at a point. In the present study, displace- is "What level of accuracy can be expected when ma-
ment-based calculations were chosen because this ap- trix eq (22) and theoretical compliance values are used
proach lends itself very conveniently to computin~ the to evaluate residual stresses from experimental strain
response of practical strain gages of finite area. measurements?" A related question is "What is the
Table 4 lists the measured strain responses of Pra- consequence of using the trigonometric assumption,
sad e t al. and the corresponding theoretical values, eq (1), rather than the matrix eq (22)?" These ques-
calculated in three different ways. Column 3 lists the tions are examined here.
measured strain responses, and column 4 lists Pra- Table 5 lists the residual stresses that would be cal-
sad's corresponding calculated values. Column 5 lists culated for the five tensile specimens whose measured
the strain responses calculated from eqs (8)-(21) as- strain data are reported in Tables 2 and 4. Each spec-
suming a strain gage concentrated at a point. These imen supports a purely longitudinal stress, which for
results are mostly the same as those of Prasad et al. simplicity of comparison has been normalized to 1.00
The differences between columns 4 and 5 for the 45- MPa. The table lists the stresses that would be cal-
deg specimen are due to a suspected numerical error culated from the measured strains in column 5 of Ta-
by Prasad e t al. in calculating shear strain response. ble 2 and column 3 of Table 4, using the finite-area
In their study, they worked in terms of constants A, compliance values in columns 6. The actual applied
B and C in eq (1). Their value of C is smaller than stresses are shown in parentheses. In general, the cal-

Experimental Mechanics ~ 331


TABLE 4--MEASURED AND CALCULATED STRAIN RESPONSES OF THE GRAPHITE-POLYIMIDE LAMINATE
STUDIED BY PRASAD ET AL.8

Strain Response, ixe/MPa


Strain Strain Prasad8 'Point' Finite
Specimen Gage due to Hole Calculated Gage Area Gage Area
Tension a 2.76 3.33 3.32 3.04
Tension b - 1.28 -- 0.37 -0.36
Tension c -4.14 -5.17 -5.16 -3.76
Shear a -19.1 -15.62 -16.78 -16.93
Shear b 0.8 0.00 0.00 0.00
Shear c 18.7 15.62 16.78 16.93

TABLE 5--COMPUTED STRESSES FOR A 1.00 MPa APPLIED LONGITUDINAL STRESS APPLIED STRESSES
IN PARENTHESES)
Computed Stress, MPa
Specimen cr,~ "rxy %, ~rr,~ ~rm,n s
0 deg 1.09 .04 .11 1.09 .11 3 deg
(1.00) (.00) (.00) (1.00) (.00) (0 deg)
45 deg .57 -.58 .61 1.17 .01 46 deg
(.50) (-.50) (.50) (1.00) (.00) (45 deg)
90 deg .06 -.07 1.00 1.00 .05 96 deg
(.00) (.00) (1.00) (1.00) (.00) (90 deg)
Tension 1.12 -.04 .03 1.12 .03 - 2 deg
aef. 8 (1.00) (.00) (.00) (1.00) (.00) (0 deg)
Shear - . 19 1.12 .04 1.04 - 1.20 48 deg
aef. 8 (.00) (1.00) (.00) (1.00) (-1.00) (45 deg)

culated stresses are somewhat higher than the actually centage increase corresponds well with the results in
applied stresses, up to 20 percent higher in extreme Table 5.
cases. This over-estimation of the actual stresses is Table 6 compares the calculated stresses for the 0-
believed to be a consequence of the laminar structure deg and 90-deg specimens used in this study, deter-
of the test material. mined using matrix eq (22) and also using the trigo-
When using eqs (8)-(21) to calculate the strain re- nometric assumption, eq (1). Column 2 of Table 6
sponses in Tables 2 and 4, the assumption is made lists the A, B and C values that would be used for
that the graphite-epoxy laminate is a homogeneous each specimen, determined from longitudinal tension
continuum. However, in reality, the test material con- calibration tests. Column 3 lists the corresponding A,
sists of 24 discrete layers, each about 0.15-mm thick. B and C values from hypothetical transverse tension
In such a case, the continuum assumption is reason- calibration tests. The values in columns 2 and 3 sig-
able only for macroscopic features that extend over nificantly differ. The longitudinal A, B and C values
regions significantly larger than one layer thickness. for one specimen should normally equal the trans-
For the tests done in this study, the hole is 4.8 mm verse values for the other specimen. They are not ex-
in diameter, which is much larger than the 0.15-mm actly equal here because of the 10-percent difference
layer thickness. Thus, the hole can be expected to be in elastic properties of the two specimens.
a 'macroscopic' feature. However, St. Venant's prin- Column 4 of Table 6 lists the stresses calculated
ciple suggests that the laminar structure is likely to using eq (22) for a nominal longitudinal tension of
disturb the continuum assumption within about one 1.00 MPa. These values are the same as those listed
layer thickness from the hole boundary. Thus, the ef- in Table 5. Column 5 lists the stresses calculated us-
fective hole diameter could be expected to be slightly ing eq (2) with the 'longitudinal' A, B and C values
larger than the actual hole diameter. If the enlarge- from column 2. These calculated stresses are similar
ment in effective hole radius is one layer thickness, to those from eq (22) in column 4. Column 6 lists the
then the expected increase in strain response is about stresses calculated using eq (2) with the 'transverse'
12 percent. (The strain response is approximately pro- A, B and C values from column 3. These calculated
portional to the square of the hole diameter). This per- stresses greatly differ from the expected values, and

332 9 December 1994


TABLE 6--STRESSES COMPUTED USING EQS (2) AND (22) FOR A 1.00-MPa APPLIED LONGITUDINAL
STRESS

ABC, I~E/MPa Computed Stress, MPa


eq (2) eq (2)
Specimen Longitudinal Transverse eq (22) Long. ABC Trans. ABC
A = -1.9 -4.8 trx = 1.09 1.15 .63
0 deg B = -6.0 -8.0 "rxy = .04 .00 .00
C = -13.5 -13.5 %, = .11 .20 -.08
A = -4.4 -1.7 Crx = .06 .03 .65
90 deg B = -7.3 -5.3 "rxy = - . 0 7 -.04 -.04
C---12.6 -12.6 %, = 1.00 .98 1.95

are seriously in error. The results in Table 6 clearly References


demonstrate that the trigonometric assumption, eq (1), 1. Rendler, N.J. and Vigness, I., "Hole-drilling Strain-gage
gives useful results only when the calibration stresses Method of Measuring Residual Stresses," EXPERIMENTAL MECHAN-
are similar to the stresses to be measured. Serious er- ICS, 6 (12), 577--586 (1966).
rors develop when the calibration stresses differ sig- 2. Beaney, E.M. "Accurate Measurement of Residual Stress on
nificantly from the stresses to be measured. any Steel Using the Centre Hole Method," Strain, 12 (3), 99-106
(1976).
3. "Measurement of Residual Stresses by the Hole-Drilling
Conclusions Strain-Gage Method," Tech. Note TN-503-4, Measurements Group,
Inc. Raleigh, NC (1993).
(1) When used with eq (22), the hole-drilling method 4. "Determining Residual Stresses by the Hole-Drilling Strain-
can successfully measure uniform residual stresses in Gage Method," ASTM Standard E837-92, Amer. Soc. for Test.
orthotropic materials. In calibration tests, stress-mea- and Mat. (1992).
surement errors were in the 10-20-percent range. This 5. Schajer, G.S., "Application of Finite Element Calculations
error range is expected to be typical of hole-drilling to Residual Stress Measurements," J. Eng. Mat. and Tech., 1 0 3
(2), 157-163 (1981).
measurements in orthotropic laminates. The likely 6. Bert, C.W. and Thompson, G.L. "A Method for Measuring
major error sources are the laminar structure of most Planar Residual Stresses in Rectangularly Orthotropic Mate-
orthotropic materials, uncertainty of local elastic rials," J. Composite Mat., 2 (2), 244-253 (1968).
properties and angular misalignment of the strain-gage 7. Lake, B.R., Appl, F.J. and Bert, C.W., "An Investigation
rosette relative to the material principal elastic direc- of the Hole-drilling Technique for Measuring Planar Residual Stress
tions. in Rectangularly Orthotropic Materials," EXPERIMENTAL MECHAN-
ICS, 10 (10), 233--239 (1970).
(2) Equation (22) provides theoretically exact re- 8. Prasad, C.B., Prabhakaran, R. and Thompkins, S., "De-
sidual-stress solutions for a wide range of linear-elas- termination of Calibration Constants for the Hole-Drilling Resid-
tic orthotropic materials. The compliances Cll - c33 ual Stress Measurement Technique Applied to Orthotropic Com-
required for eq (22) can be determined using the plane- posites," Composite Structures, Part 1: Theoretical Considerations,
stress solution, eqs (8)-(21), for the displacement field 8 (2), 105-118 (1987); Part H: Experimental Evaluations, 8 (3),
around a hole in a stressed orthotropic plate. 165-172 (1987).
9. Perry, C.C., "Data Reduction Algorithms for Strain-Gage
(3) The compliances Cll - c 3 3 required for eq (22) Rosette Measurements," Exp. Tech., 13 (5), 13-18 (1989).
are more accurately calculated when the finite areas 10. Hearmon, R.F.S., "An lntroduction to Applied Anisotropic
of the hOle-drilling strain gages are taken into account Elasticity," Oxford Univ. Press (1961).
using the method described in Ref. 15. Table 1 lists 11. Schimke, J., Thomas, K. and Garrison, J., "Approximate
computed Cll - c33 values for a wide range of material Solution of Plane Orthotropic Elasticity Problems," Scholarly
properties. (1970).
(4) The relieved strain versus angle relationship at 12. Kawamoto, T., "On the State of Stress and Deformation
Around Tunnel in Orthotropic Elastic Ground," Memoirs of the
any radius beyond the boundary of a hole in a stressed Faculty of Engineering, Kumamoto Univ., Japan, 10 (1), 1-30
orthotropic material does not have a simple trigono- (1963).
metric form. An existing stress calculation method 13. Becker, R.M., "An Anistropic Elastic Solution for Testing
based on the trigonometric assumption in eq (1) is not Stress Relief Cores," U.S. Bureau of Mines, Report of Investi-
valid for hole-drilling residual-stress calculations with gations 7143 (1968).
orthotropic materials. 14. Smith, C.B., "Effect of Elliptic or Circular Holes on the
Stress Distribution in Plates of Wood or Plywood Considered as
Orthotropic Materials," USDA Forest Products Lab., Mimeo 1510
Acknowledgments (May 1944).
This work was supported by a research grant from 15. Schajer, G.S., "Use of Displacement Data to Calculate
Strain Gauge Response in Non-Uniform Strain Fields," Strain, 2 9
the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Coun- (1), 9-13 (1993).
cil of Canada (NSERC). Drs. Sheldon Green, Anoush 16. Lekhnitskii, S.G., Anisotropic Plates, Gordon and Breach,
Poursartip and Bruce Lehmann kindly reviewed the New York (1968).
manuscript. Mr. Alan Russell of the Defense Re- 17. Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I.A., Handbook of Mathe-
matical Functions, Dover, New York (1965).
search Establishment Pacific generously provided the 18. Lineback, L.D. ESA Notebook, Measurements Group, Inc.,
laminate sample used in this study. Raleigh, NC 3 7-14, (May 1986).

Experimental Mechanics 9 333