TECHNICAL ARTICLE

Digital Image Correlation in the Classroom: Determining Stress

Concentration Factors with Webcams
P. Lava1 , S. Coppieters1 , R. Van Hecke1 , P. Van Houtte2 , and D. Debruyne1,2
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Catholic University College Ghent, Association K.U. Leuven, Gebroeders Desmetstraat 1, B-9000
Gent, Belgium
2 Department MTM, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 44, B-3001 Leuven (Heverlee), Belgium

Keywords Abstract
Digital Image Correlation, Education, FEA,
Stress Concentrations In this study, we introduce graduate students to an experiment with digital
image correlation (DIC). From an educational point of view, the aim is to
Correspondence
get students familiar with basic aspects of stereovision and DIC, for example,
P. Lava,
speckle pattern, subset size, focus, aperture, etc. First, a homogeneous uniaxial
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Catholic University College Ghent, tensile test is conducted on a rubber dogbone, allowing the determination of
Association K.U. Leuven, the hyperelastic stress–strain relationship. Next, a nondestructive 2D defor-
Gebroeders Desmetstraat 1, mation test on a rubber specimen with a specific geometry is performed on a
B-9000 Gent, Belgium small tensile setup. At various load steps, images are captured with a low-cost
Email: pascal.lava@kahosl.be webcam and are processed with our in-house DIC software which is available
for each individual student. Assuming a Mooney–Rivlin material model based
Received: June 23, 2011; accepted:
on the determined stress–strain data, one can derive stress concentration fac-
January 10, 2012
tors for the specific holes and notches present in the specimen. A comparison
doi:10.1111/j.1747-1567.2012.00813.x is made to analytical calculations of the stress concentration factors and even-
tually a finite element analysis of the experiment can be performed. In this
way, a synergy between experiment, simulation, and theoretical calculations is
achieved. Moreover, we have accomplished all stages in the engineering pro-
cess of determination of material properties, simulation, and validation. The
particular experimental setup is chosen to avoid the use of special equipment,
for example, sophisticated tensile devices and expensive high-tech cameras,
without losing the focus of the objective.

Introduction constitutive properties of the sample material, has

A postgraduate lab course entitled Experimental
Strain Analysis has been offered for many years
by the Mechanical Engineering Department at the
Catholic University College Ghent. Students enrolled
in this course were typically focused on tradi-
tional experimental techniques such as strain gauge
measurements. On the other hand, an increasing
interest in full-field surface, shape, and deforma-
tion measurements has turned Digital Image Cor-
relation (DIC) into one of the standard tools in
the solid mechanicist’s toolbox. Indeed, using mea-
surements of kinematic field variables such as dis-
placements or strains for the identification of other
mechanical parameters, most often associated with
become a very promising and active area of exper-
imental mechanics.1 Compared to standard testing,
full-field measurements, such as DIC, allow a greater
flexibility by providing very rich experimental data
when applied to tests conducted under nonho-
mogeneous conditions (i.e., for which strains and
stresses are not uniform in the zone of interest of
the sample). Performing experiments of increased
complexity thus allows one to extract more (and
more reliable) information from small numbers of
tests. Moreover, larger sets of constitutive parame-
ters may be identified, associated with anisotropic
or nonhomogeneous constitutive properties,1 for
example.

Experimental Techniques (2012) © 2012, Society for Experimental Mechanics 1

Digital Image Correlation in the Classroom
The main research efforts of the research group
Mechanics of Materials, Products, and Processes at this
University have been concentrated around the accu-
racy of this optical–numerical measuring technique2,3
and its application to determine the elastoplastic
material parameters by combining experimental data
and numerical simulations in a so-called inverse
methodology.4,5 In this contribution, we describe
how we bridge the gap between research and edu-
cation by introducing students to the principles of
DIC. A typical lab session consists of three stages,
combining a homework assignment (prelab course
material review and postlab experimental data analy-
sis, report) and follow-on laboratory experiment. The
introduction of DIC in this scheme is not straightfor-
ward as we are not only limited in time—a typical
‘‘hands on’’ lab session takes only three hours—but
also we need to accommodate groups of 20 students.
As such, high-tech experiments combining sophis-
ticated tensile machines, expensive cameras, lenses,
and commercial software are not an option. The soft-
ware issue was easily solved by using an in-house
DIC platform MatchID6 that can be provided to each
student. The next focus was to develop a material test
that not only produces deformations within the mea-
surement range of DIC (strain ≥ 0.1%), but also does
this at low loading conditions (maximum of 200 N)
to avoid the use of tensile test machines. To minimize
the cost, the expensive camera and lens equipment
was replaced by a simple webcam. Obviously, this
replacement needed to be validated with respect to
accuracy and precision for the developed experiment.
Figure 1 Basic principles of digital image correlation: (1) image acquisition of a speckled specimen subject to loading conditions, (2) numerical
comparison of the images via correlation software, and (3) full-field deformation fields.
2 Experimental Techniques (2012) © 2012, Society for Experimental Mechanics
Lava et al.
The prelab course material consists of a general
introduction to DIC via a video demonstration. In the
postlab phase students determine stress concentration
factors via the obtained experimental data, compare
those to analytical expressions corresponding to the
specific geometry and eventually to a finite element
simulation of the experiment.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In the next
section we briefly describe the prelab phase and the
background of digital image correlation. In section
Experimental Setup we focus on the experimental setup
with specific attention to the material’s choice and the
test specimen geometry. Next, in section Analysis and
Report we focus on the data analysis and the report,
with conclusions in the final section.
Prelab Phase: Introduction to DIC
As stated above, within the prelab phase students get
introduced to the basic principles and mathematics
of DIC via a course and a video-demonstration. It is
shown to students that DIC is an optical–numerical
measuring technique offering unique opportunities
for exploring complex full-field displacement and
deformation at the surface of objects under any
kind of loading in 2D and 3D space. The basic prin-
ciples of the technique are demonstrated in Fig. 1.
Cameras take synchronized images of a specimen in
the undeformed and deformed state, a stage which
is referred to as the optical part of DIC. Next, these
images are computationally compared in correlation
software, representing the numerical part. Finally,
Lava et al. Digital Image Correlation in the Classroom

displacement and strain fields at the surface of the

complex object are retrieved. DIC has the advantage
of being noncontact, to provide full-field data and to
be able to cover a wide range of loading conditions,
describing deformations at the small strain level up
to high values of plastic deformation. As a result, the
application area of optical techniques is wide spread,
encompassing (bio)mechanical engineering, material
sciences, and biomedicine.
The correlation technique requires the presence of
a random speckle pattern on the specimens that is
usually applied by combining a white paint surface
layer on the object followed by spraying the actual
speckle pattern with a black paint. The randomness
of the pattern is essential for obtaining a unique solu-
tion in the correlation process. Many DIC algorithms
use a ‘‘subset-based’’ scanning method to measure
the displacements.7 – 9 This is achieved by selecting
a pixel and its neighbourhood in the undeformed
image, the subset, and finding this same subset in
the deformed picture by maximizing some correla-
tion coefficient. During this correlation process the Figure 2 A webcam DIC experiment on rubber at a small-scale tensile
subset can change position, size, and shape to take setup. The exact weights can be measured via a simple load cell
into account the deformation of the specimen. This composed of various strain gauge configurations.
procedure is repeated for a grid of pixels spaced at
regular intervals called the step size. Strains are then specimen can be loaded in steps of 20 N up to 200
determined from the obtained displacement fields by N by manually mounting weights. This setup allows
smoothing and differentiating the displacement data us to work in small groups and avoids students being
in a strain window of a user-defined size in view of confused by a high-tech tensile device.
reducing the noise on the measured displacements.3 As a result of this experimental setup, the test spec-
The principles outlined above only briefly sum- imen should not only produce deformations within
marize the theoretical background of DIC. A more the measuring range of DIC (i.e., ≥0.1% strain), but
detailed discussion would fall beyond the scope of this also yield this at the low loading conditions involved.
work, and we refer the interested reader to Ref. 9. At A rubberlike material meets these conditions and
the end of the video-demonstration, a software demo moreover, being a hyperelastic material, has the clear
is presented. Students are also provided with a free advantage of reusability once the test is performed.
copy of 2D correlation software and some sample We are well aware that rubber is a rather unusual
images, in order to get familiar with the principles material for a graduate student to deal with, but the
outlined above and the software platform. Students main goal of the lab is the introduction of digital
are now ready to start the ‘‘hands on’’ lab session. image correlation, and to this purpose the material
meets our needs very well. The employed NR/SBR
rubber sheet has a thickness of 2 mm with a tensile
Experimental Setup strength of 6 MPa and 180% elongation. In order to
As stated in section Introduction, the goal was to retrieve the hyperelastic stress–strain relationship of
develop an experiment that could be performed by the material involved, the hands-on session initiates
groups of 20 students in teams of two in a lim- with a homogeneous uniaxial tensile test on a rubber
ited time-schedule of 3 h. As such, we need 10 dogbone. With the help of the lecturer, this test is
experimental setups that are relatively easy to use performed on a regular tensile device equipped with
and involve a simple in-house production process in a classical Huggenberger extensometer.
order to reduce the cost. In Fig. 2 one of the exper- Once the hyperelastic stress–strain relationship is
imental setups is displayed. The ‘‘tensile bench’’ is determined, students can start with the experiments
an aluminium frame provided with an aluminium on the low-cost tensile devices. The principal goal of
arm upon which the webcam can be mounted. The these experiments is to focus on stress concentration

Experimental Techniques (2012) © 2012, Society for Experimental Mechanics 3

Digital Image Correlation in the Classroom Lava et al.

Figure 3 Geometry of the specimen. Dimensions are in mm. Various holes and notches are involved, including a circular hole (centre), an u-notch
(right-centre), a semicircular notch (left-centre), an elliptical hole with major axis parallel to the loading direction (upper-right), an elliptical hole with
major axis perpendicular to the loading direction (lower-right), a rectangular hole and rows of circular holes parallel and perpendicular to the axial
loading direction.

factors. Accordingly, the tensile test is performed
on a rubber specimen with the specific geometry
shown in Fig. 3. The various holes are chosen in
order to allow different student groups to deal with
different stress concentrations. In addition, for these
specific holes analytical formulas can be used in order
to validate the experimental results10,11 with the
assumption that the holes do not influence each other.
Each experimental setup is equipped with a
Logitech WebCam Pro9000 which has a resolution of
1600 × 1200 pixels. Within a regular DIC experiment
the setup of the camera is of the utmost importance
and should be handled carefully by the students.
Not only good focus should be guaranteed, but
also the distance to the specimen must be set so that
the specimen roughly fills the entire field of view.
If the specimen is larger than the field of view, we
lose data at the edges, whereas a too small specimen
will hamper our spatial resolution. In addition, the
object must remain in the field of view for the entire
test. Accordingly, the field of view should be adjusted
properly. A suitable setup results in pixel dimensions
of ≈0.125 mm. This means that—for the various
speckle patterns involved—subset dimensions within
the range of 19 × 19 to 35 × 35 pixels2 will result in
a successful correlation.
After accomplishing a good experimental setup,
students can embark on the loading of the specimen.
First, a reference image of the unloaded specimen
is taken. Next, the specimen is loaded with a force
of roughly 20 N and a first deformed image is cap-
tured. A preliminary correlation run is performed
and the analysis of a correlation coefficient pattern
as depicted in Fig. 4 gives the students a good idea
of the performance of their test setup, problems with
the speckle pattern, overexposure, shadowing, etc.
The exact magnitude of the weight can be deter-
mined via the measurement on a tension bar using
strain gauges in a full-bridge circuit, representing a
manufactured load cell (see Fig. 2). As such, students
also get familiar with the concept of a load cell com-
pensating for various influences on the strain gauge
configuration, for example, temperature raise by the
lamp and bending effects on the tensile bar induced
by the experimental setup. This allows a very accurate
determination of the load step under consideration.

4 Experimental Techniques (2012) © 2012, Society for Experimental Mechanics

Lava et al. Digital Image Correlation in the Classroom

Figure 4 The DIC correlation coefficient r ( r ∈ [0, 1] with 1 corresponding to a 100% match) corresponding to F = 100 N. For clarity, the applied load
is shown.

The abovementioned steps are repeated for additional potential of first order. This model is based on strain
weights of approximately 20 N up to a maximum invariants which are functions of the three principal
loading condition of 200 N. Accordingly, the students stretch ratios λ:
have a reference image and 10 deformed images with
corresponding loading conditions which they can use I1 = λ21 + λ22 + λ23 (1)
in the analysis phase. I2 = λ21 λ22 + λ22 λ23 + λ21 λ23 (2)
I3 = λ21 λ22 λ23 . (3)
Analysis and Report
The Mooney–Rivlin strain energy potential of first
In the analysis phase, the primary goal is to determine
order is then given by:
the stress concentration factors around specific holes
at the different load steps. To do this, students need U = C10 (I1 − 3) + C01 (I2 − 3) + (I3 − 1)2 /2D, (4)
to determine the displacements as close as possible to
the edge of the hole. This is done by selecting a subset with C10 , C01 and D are constants that can be obtained
size as small as possible (lower-limited by the gran- from curve fitting the stress–strain relationship of the
ularity of the speckle-pattern), and a data resolution homogeneous uniaxial tensile test conducted on a
as high as possible (small step size). Next, the corre- rubber dogbone at the start of the hands-on phase
lation software allows the determination of the strain (see section Experimental Setup). If available, a stan-
components as shown in Fig. 5. As can be inferred, dard finite-element simulation software package12
the requirement on the magnitude of the determined converts the stress–strain data into C10 , C01 , and D.
strain (≥0.1%) is clearly fulfilled. The aim is, how- If not, students can adopt the following ‘‘default”
ever, to determine stresses. As a result, the students values which result from a previously performed
need to provide the software with a material model stress–strain determination:
in order to convert strains into the corresponding
stresses. C10 = −7.62 E05 J,
Hyperelastic material models are based on strain C01 = 2.19 E06 J,
energy density functions, usually denoted by U. We
adopt a Mooney–Rivlin model with a strain energy D = 3.56 E − 08 J−1 .

Experimental Techniques (2012) © 2012, Society for Experimental Mechanics 5

Digital Image Correlation in the Classroom Lava et al.

Figure 5 DIC results of the principal strain component 1 corresponding to F = 100 N.

Accordingly, the stress components can be obtained loaded in tension.10 This concentration factor depends
as: on the radius of the hole r = 8 mm and the width
   of the plate D = 170 mm. These values are obtained
2 ∂U ∂U ∂U
S = DEV + I1 B− B·B , (5) by subtracting the sizes of the left and right u-notch.
J ∂I1 ∂I2 ∂I2
Substituting these values into the formula of Ref. 10:
with B the left Cauchy–Green strain tensor.    2  3
Students can directly convert the DIC determined 2r 2r 2r
Kt = 3.00 − 3.13 + 3.66 − 1.53 ,
strains into stresses via our in-house software and D D D
the obtained values of C10 , C01 , and D. This yields a (7)
longitudinal stress component as displayed in Fig. 6.
Accordingly, students are able to embark on the study yields Kt = 2.736. In Fig. 7 the evolution of the stress
of stress concentration factors for the specific holes concentration factor measured with DIC at a maxi-
involved. Below we sketch the procedure for the mum load of 200 N is displayed. As can be inferred,
central hole, identical conclusions can be drawn for for this particular load step and very close to the
the other ones. central hole the stress concentration factor is in good
The (net) static stress concentration factor in agreement with the theoretical prediction, whereas
the elastic range, Kt , is defined as the ratio of the the stress concentration factor drops quickly down to
maximum stress, σmax , to the (net) nominal stress, 1 when one moves away from the centre of the hole.
σnom 11 : If students have access to finite-element simulation
software they can perform a finite-element analysis
σmax
Kt = . (6) (FEA) of the considered experiment and validate this
σnom numerical model. The hyperelastic material model is
As such, with the specific force and the geometry identical to the one used to convert DIC strain fields
of the specimen, students can determine the nomi- into stresses, that is, a Mooney–Rivlin model based
nal stress. Using the DIC determined maximum stress on the stress–strain relationship of the homogeneous
close to the central hole, the DIC measured stress con- uniaxial tensile test conducted on a rubber dogbone.
centration factor KtDIC is found. Alternatively, one can Next, the load steps are determined in accordance
analytically determine the static stress concentration to the values measured with the tension bar. In
factor for a plate containing a centrally located hole Fig. 8 the results of a finite element simulation for

6 Experimental Techniques (2012) © 2012, Society for Experimental Mechanics

Lava et al.
Figure 6 DIC results of the longitudinal stress component σL corresponding to F = 100 N. Units are in Pa.
Figure 7 Distribution of the stress concentration factor around the
centrally loaded hole. The open squares indicate the analytical value
of Kt = 2.736 corresponding to maximum concentration. The solid line
represents the results of the DIC measurement corresponding to a load
of 200 N.
the longitudinal stress component at maximum load
conditions are displayed. The calculations are per-
formed in the commercial software Abaqus.12 As can
be inferred, the pattern reflects the one of the DIC
measurement shown in Fig. 6 and the values are in
good agreement.
A more detailed comparison, however, will be
achieved by comparing the stress concentration
factors at the various load steps. The maximum
Experimental Techniques (2012) © 2012, Society for Experimental Mechanics
Digital Image Correlation in the Classroom
Figure 8 Longitudinal stress component σL obtained via a finite element
simulation for F = 100 N. Units are in Pa.
longitudinal stress components are derived from the
DIC measurement and the FE calculation. As depicted
in Fig. 9, for the central circular hole the results are in
good agreement with a maximum deviation of ≈12%
at the highest load step. This is acceptable consider-
ing the basic experimental setup and the assumptions
made. In the lower panel, the evolution of the stress
concentration factor is shown. As can be inferred, the
FE model predictions are nearly constant and under-
estimate the theoretical predictions by ≈10%. The
DIC results, on the other hand, show a better agree-
ment, but it is hard to draw any conclusions because of
7
Digital Image Correlation in the Classroom Lava et al.

2 originally designed for the particular case of a single

FE hole/notch and a linear-elastic material behaviour. A
σL (MPa)
1.5
DIC
FEA of the complete geometry with a linear-elastic
1 Analytic
material behaviour improved the comparison to the
0.5
analytical values, stressing the impact of the nonlinear
0 material behaviour. Moreover, a FEA of geometries
3 with a single hole/notch and a linear-elastic material
behaviour additionally reduced the discrepancy with
Kt

2.5
the analytical values. As such, the bulk of the devia-
2
tions between FEA and analytical calculations can be
1.5 ascribed to the nonlinear material behaviour of rubber
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
and to the assumption that the holes do not influence
F (N)
each other. This makes that the FEA results in Table 1
(full geometry and nonlinear material behaviour)
Figure 9 The maximum longitudinal stress component σL (upper panel)
should be considered as the benchmark ones. The
and the derived stress concentration factor (lower panel) for various
load steps. The circles and the triangles represent the results of the FE DIC results have a standard deviation that is ≈13%
simulation and the DIC measurement, respectively. The solid line is the of the mean value, which is fair in view of the basic
theoretical prediction. setup involved.
Accordingly, we can conclude that the chosen
approximations are justified for a student test. A
the complexity of the measurement errors involved.
more accurate measurement would definitely involve
The mutual comparison, however, lies always within
a more fine-tuned experimental setup and a higher
the 10% range, which is fair for a basic student’s
resolution camera. Moreover, one would also need
laboratory test.
to take into account that the theoretical predictions
Table 1 summarizes the analytical values of the
are only valid in the linear elastic range, whereas we
stress concentration factor for the specific holes and
are dealing with a nonlinear hyperelastic material.
notches. In addition, the mean values and the stan-
The primary goal of the lab course, however, is to
dard deviations of the DIC and FEA results are listed.
introduce students with DIC measurements and the
In general, the FEA and DIC results correspond well,
various aspects involved with this technique.
except for the holes with the smallest radii. This could
In the final report, students create and present the
be because of the fact that it is very hard to cut this
diagrams displayed in Figs. 7–9 for a particular hole of
particular notch out of the rubber specimen, inducing
the specimen (i.e. circular hole, u-notch, semicircular
locally larger stress concentrations. The comparison
u-notch, elliptical hole, row of holes parallel to axial
to the analytical values is reasonable. A FEA con-
tension, row of holes normal to axial tension, or a
vergence study is performed, excluding the impact
rectangular hole with rounded corners). They should
of the element mesh size. Next, it should be noted
critically approach the obtained results and draw con-
that the analytical expressions in Refs. 10 and 11 are
clusions with respect to the underlying assumptions
and the experimental setup. In the end, it is the pur-
Table 1 Summarizing table containing the analytical stress concentra- pose that the student has a basic understanding of DIC
tion factor (second column) for each type of geometry present in the and how to use it in an experimental environment.
specimen

FE   DIC  
Geometry Ktan Kt σ KtFE Kt σ KtDIC
Conclusions
Circular hole 2.74 2.49 0.045 2.52 0.225
A recently developed lab course on digital image
U-notch 2.26 2.54 0.056 2.59 0.237
Semi-circular notch 2.3 2.03 0.003 1.97 0.207
correlation measurements in the classroom was out-
Elliptical (a  F ) 1.87 1.81 0.003 1.72 0.303 lined. The lab course can accommodate a maximum
Elliptical (a ⊥ F ) 2.97 2.66 0.055 3.11 0.306 of 20 students in groups of two. To accomplish this,
Rectangular 2.5 1.87 0.021 1.88 0.342 an experimental setup is chosen that avoids the use
Row of circles ( F) 2.07 2.00 0.006 1.65 0.248 of special equipment like sophisticated tensile test
Row of circles (⊥ F) 2.5 2.24 0.002 2.06 0.182
machines and expensive high-tech cameras. Uniaxial
Column number three and four (five and six) represent the FEA (DIC) tensile tests on a rubber sheet specimen are performed
mean values and standard deviations over the different load stepsx. For on a small experimental setup that can be loaded
the elliptical geometries, a corresponds to the major axis of the ellipse. manually. During the test, images are captured with

8 Experimental Techniques (2012) © 2012, Society for Experimental Mechanics

Lava et al.
a low-budget webcam and are processed with our
in-house DIC software available for each student. As
a final result, experimentally determined stress con- 5.
centration factors around the holes in the specimen
can be compared to the results of a finite element
simulation and the analytical predictions. This cre-
ates a lab exercise which combines an experiment, an
analytical solution and a finite-element validation.
6.
References 7.
1. Avril, S., Bonnet, M., Brettele, A-S., Grediac, M.,
and Hild, F., ‘‘Overview of Identification Methods of
Mechanical Parameters Based on Full-field
8.
Measurements,’’ Experimental Mechanics 48:381–402
(2008).
2. Lava, P., Cooreman, S., Coppieters, S., De Strycker,
M., and Debruyne, D., ‘‘Assessment of Measuring
9.
Errors in DIC Using Deformation Fields Generated
by Plastic FEA,’’ Optics and Lasers in Engineering
47:747–753 (2009).
10.
3. Lava, P., Cooreman, S., and Debruyne, D., ‘‘Study of
Systematic Errors in Strain Fields Obtained Via DIC
11.
Using Heterogeneous Deformation Generated by
Plastic FEA,’’ Optics and Lasers in Engineering
12.
48:457–468 (2010).
4. Cooreman, S., Lecompte, D., Sol, H., Vantomme, J.,
and Debruyne, D., ‘‘Identification of Mechanical
Experimental Techniques (2012) © 2012, Society for Experimental Mechanics
Digital Image Correlation in the Classroom
Material Behaviour through Inverse Modelling and
DIC,’’ Experimental Mechanics 48:421–433 (2008).
Coppieters, S., Cooreman, S., Sol, H., Van Houtte, P.,
and Debruyne, D., ‘‘Identification of the
Post-Necking Hardening Behaviour of Sheet Metal
by Comparison of the Internal and External Work in
the Necking Zone,’’ Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 211:545–552 (2011).
MatchID, Web site: http://www.matchid.org
[accessed on 25 January 2012].
Sutton, M., Wolters, W., Peters, W., Ranson, W.,
and McNeill, S., ‘‘Determination of Displacements
Using an Improved Digital Correlation Method,’’
Image and Vision Computing 1:133–139 (1983).
Chu, T., Ranson, W., and Sutton, M., ‘‘Applications
of Digital-Image-Correlation Techniques to
Experimental Mechanics,’’ Experimental Mechanics
25:232–244 (1985).
Sutton, M., Orteu, J., and Schreier, H., Image
Correlation for Shape, Motion and Deformation
Measurements, Springer, USA (2009).
Young, W., and Budynas, R., Roark Formulas for Stress
and Strain, McGraw-Hill, USA (2002).
Pilkey, W., Peterson’s Stress Concentration Factors, John
Wiley & Sons, USA (1997).
Abaqus, Theory Manual, Version 6.7 (2007).
9