By Schajer at al

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

151 views

By Schajer at al

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Fn 3610121021
- Finite Element Reference Guide
- Mathematical Modeling of Rotating Beams
- Poroelasticity.pdf
- Chapter 3. J2 Plasticity Models v1.0
- Simulating the Behaviour of Three Dimensional Reticular Structures
- sol700_ug
- Equivalent CPT-DMT Settlement Method
- Solid Mechagvb
- Stress and Strain
- 5. Lab Manual for Principal of Stress and Strain LAb 5
- Cartridge Steel Ammunition Dtic
- Stress and Strain_Additional Notes
- Plastic Metal Forming
- AJSR_53_03
- Plasticity Tutorial
- strengthofmaterialsi-170404133205
- 18- A Three‐Dimensional Phenomenological Model for Magnetic Shape Memory Alloys
- Full Text
- Solid State

You are on page 1of 10

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

=

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.

The Cartesian stresses calculated by solving eq (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

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.

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.

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

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)

A ex = ~--~ A A

where

m = 4VEx/Ey (I0)

(b

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

Q:

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

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)

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

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

TABLE 1--Continued

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.

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-

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.

USED IN THIS STUDY

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

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

i

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-

TABLE 4--MEASURED AND CALCULATED STRAIN RESPONSES OF THE GRAPHITE-POLYIMIDE LAMINATE

STUDIED BY PRASAD ET AL.8

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

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

STRESS

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

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).

- Fn 3610121021Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Finite Element Reference GuideUploaded bymukesh_mlb
- Mathematical Modeling of Rotating BeamsUploaded byhmalikn7581
- Poroelasticity.pdfUploaded bymarcos_samudio
- Chapter 3. J2 Plasticity Models v1.0Uploaded byCarlos Agelet De Saracibar
- Simulating the Behaviour of Three Dimensional Reticular StructuresUploaded byPierre_P300
- sol700_ugUploaded byHrishikesh Phadke
- Equivalent CPT-DMT Settlement MethodUploaded byAntonio Martino
- Solid MechagvbUploaded byJames Thee
- Stress and StrainUploaded byKailasham Ramalingam
- 5. Lab Manual for Principal of Stress and Strain LAb 5Uploaded bybmz00000
- Cartridge Steel Ammunition DticUploaded byHercio Moyses
- Stress and Strain_Additional NotesUploaded byMuhammad Khairuddin
- Plastic Metal FormingUploaded byepsa333
- AJSR_53_03Uploaded byZuzar
- Plasticity TutorialUploaded byflorinelvv
- strengthofmaterialsi-170404133205Uploaded bySai Charan
- 18- A Three‐Dimensional Phenomenological Model for Magnetic Shape Memory AlloysUploaded bymohammadreza91
- Full TextUploaded byPramod Pamu
- Solid StateUploaded byKimberly Si
- Lecture 4 - Elastic Deformation and the Elastic Modulus(2)Uploaded byanon_63479514
- 6_N.S. Das & C.K. Biswas & B.S. ChawlaUploaded bySpandana Achanta
- Effect of Material Nonlinearity on Submarine Pipeline During LayingUploaded byIJSTR Research Publication
- Ch03Uploaded byAnonymous 7ZYHilD
- 2_axial_loading.pptxUploaded byKHAKSAR
- 5-Soil Structure Interaction Analysis of Deep Foundations_model ComparisonUploaded byOanh Phan
- Bending LabUploaded byAshley Bill
- pro078-058 (1)Uploaded byPedro Silva
- Analysis Gravity OffshoreUploaded byLaetitia Genco
- Pipe_duct System Design for Tornado Missile Impact LoadsUploaded byLuis Ortiz

- FEA Solution Final and CompleteUploaded byAli Javed
- GuptaEtAl_16AIAA_GroundVibrationTestsUploaded byAli Javed
- Eng742s1 Cw SaUploaded byAli Javed
- 1-s2.0-S0889974603000185-mainUploaded byAli Javed
- FEA Beam Analysis in AnsysUploaded byAli Javed
- Gauss_SeidelUploaded byAli Javed
- RS in Laminated Fiber Epoxy CompositesUploaded byAli Javed
- NonUniform RS using blind hole drillingUploaded byAli Javed
- 0 TN 503 RS MeasurementUploaded byAli Javed

- Martin Luther’s Introduction From His Commentary on GalatiansUploaded byapi-25885259
- SMRT 131 Witchcraft and the Act of 1604.pdfUploaded byEsotericist Minor
- Management of Working Capital in Cement IndustryUploaded byArpit Garg
- Profile Kirit PatelUploaded bySuresh Tripathi
- impact-of-human-resource-management-on-organizational-performance-2168-9601-1000213.pdfUploaded byAris Sudibyo
- Viner v. SweetUploaded byGeorge W. Conk
- lessonplan2016tongapuhoro 1Uploaded byapi-314273734
- Girish KarnadUploaded bytelugutalli
- The Delphi Technique - What is ItUploaded byLynn
- M003 Client CareUploaded bySampath Priyashantha
- The Victor Will Never Be Asked if He Told the Truth Hitler IdeologyUploaded byKshitij Narayan
- 1. Background to IPSAS Implementation in NigeriaUploaded byAkinmulewo Ayodele
- New-Catalogue of Books.pdfUploaded byAri Mulyono
- Minggu ke-4 Biaya dan Penerimaan-ani.pdfUploaded bydwikiindrawan565
- Vector Control ActivitiesUploaded byIrvin Ecalnir
- UF XUploaded byurbanfolk
- Communication Arts I Module Part IUploaded byLemuel Condes
- Business Strategy on Coca ColaUploaded byYeasir Malik
- 002 ReviewUploaded bymofy09
- Whole FoodsUploaded bycorinne531
- Chapter 3 - Theories of LeadershipUploaded bycatalic
- Contoh Artikel Paired Sample t TestUploaded byalfa xox
- Fbm Zivame Final 1Uploaded byRishi Kumar
- entrapreneurUploaded byAkbar Ali Paryani
- Articulate Rapid E-Learning PowerPoint Template Kit Quick-Start GuideUploaded byEdson H. Junior
- Ms Anuradha Bhatia Dit Tp 1 MumbaiUploaded byamolkhare
- [Allon & Salomon] New Evidence for Mahayana in Early Gandhara.fr12Uploaded byPit H
- PartsList_W1000.pdfUploaded byHữu Dũng Nguyễn
- BladeCenter Interoperability GuideUploaded byjuan_gomez78
- The $3 Recognizer: Simple 3D Gesture Recognition on Mobile DevicesUploaded bysrlresearch