Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/259632742
The hole-drilling strain gauge method for the measurement of uniform or non-
uniform residual stresses Working Group on Residual Stresses
CITATIONS READS
8 2,448
9 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Lorenzo Bertelli on 10 January 2014.
AIAS – TR01:2010
The hole-drilling strain gauge method for the
measurement of uniform or non-uniform residual
stresses
Revision: 02.09.2010
PREFACE
This test method is the result of work by the AIAS Working Group on Residual Stresses over the
period from 2006 to 2010.
The objective was to draw up a draft set of recommendations for the measurement of residual
stresses by the incremental hole-drilling technique, also known as the hole-drilling strain-gauge
method. Both terms are used without distinction in this document.
The hole-drilling strain-gauge method is the test method which is the most widely used in
industry to determine near-surface residual stresses.
The technical standard on the subject (ASTM E 837-08), which is an indispensable reference,
has a restricted field of application as it does not consider:
• cases in which stresses exceed 50% of the yield stress.
• corrections where the drilled hole is eccentric to the centre of the rosette;
• the effects of plasticity within the hole boundary.
• the effects of any fillet radius at the bottom of the hole.
All these effects, nevertheless, influence the quality and accuracy of measurement.
The latest revision of the standard, ASTM E837-08, introduced computation of non-uniform
stresses, however, the static nature of the method means that it is impossible to evaluate
residual stresses in many practical cases.
While acknowledging the progress that has been achieved thanks to the ASTM E837-08
standard, the purpose of this guide is to go a step further, integrating new methods of correcting
and calculating residual stress values with the considerations set out in the ASTM standard.
This method presents detailed instructions for the test reports and provides considerations
regarding uncertainty analysis in residual stress measurement.
The contributions presented herein reflect the results of the work carried out on these subjects
by Italian researchers both in the theoretical-experimental field and in design and construction
of new measurement instruments.
Thanks go to the researchers of the University of Palermo, the University of Pisa and the
company SINT Technology srl for the invaluable contributions they have given both to the
scientific works developed over these years and to the preparation of this test method guide.
Emilio Valentini
Coordinator of the A.I.A.S.
Residual Stress Working Group
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 7
2 SCOPE ........................................................................................................................................... 7
3 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................. 7
4 SYMBOLS ..................................................................................................................................... 8
5 PRINCIPLE OF MEASUREMENT ......................................................................................... 10
6 PRACTICAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MEASUREMENT ............................... 13
6.1 APPLICABILITY OF THE METHOD................................................................................................. 13
6.1.1 PARAMETERS OF THE MATERIAL ......................................................................................... 13
6.1.2 ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEASUREMENT AREA ..................................................................... 14
6.1.3 EFFECT OF NON-UNIFORMITY AND PLASTICITY ................................................................... 14
6.2 STRAIN GAUGE ROSETTE SELECTION .......................................................................................... 14
6.2.1 ROSETTE DESIGNS................................................................................................................ 14
6.2.2 ROSETTE DIMENSIONS ......................................................................................................... 15
6.2.3 OTHER FACTORS INFLUENCING SELECTION ......................................................................... 16
6.3 SURFACE PREPARATION AND INSTALLATION.............................................................................. 18
6.3.1 SURFACE PREPARATION ....................................................................................................... 18
6.3.2 CHOICE OF ADHESIVE. ......................................................................................................... 18
6.4 STRAIN-MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTATION .............................................................................. 18
6.5 ALIGNMENT. .................................................................................................................................. 19
6.6 PERPENDICULARITY ..................................................................................................................... 21
6.7 EFFECTS OF THE FILLET RADIUS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HOLE.............................................. 22
6.8 HOLE SPACING .............................................................................................................................. 24
6.9 DISTANCE FROM GEOMETRIC DISCONTINUITIES ........................................................................ 24
6.10 ZERO DEPTH DETECTION.............................................................................................................. 24
6.10.1 ELECTRICAL CONTACT DETECTION ..................................................................................... 24
6.10.2 OBLIQUE OBSERVATION OF DRILLING ................................................................................. 25
6.11 HOLE-PRODUCING TECHNIQUES .................................................................................................. 25
6.11.1 HIGH-SPEED DRILLING ......................................................................................................... 26
6.11.2 MEDIUM-SPEED DRILLING ................................................................................................... 27
6.11.3 LOW-SPEED DRILLING.......................................................................................................... 27
6.11.4 ABRASIVE JET MACHINING .................................................................................................. 27
6.11.5 ELECTRO-CHEMICAL MACHINING ........................................................................................ 28
6.11.6 HIGH-SPEED ORBITAL DRILLING .......................................................................................... 28
6.12 DRILLING CUTTERS....................................................................................................................... 28
6.13 VERIFICATION OF THE DRILLING PROCESS................................................................................. 30
6.14 SELECTION OF DRILL DEPTH INCREMENTS ................................................................................. 30
6.15 MEASUREMENT OF STRAIN........................................................................................................... 30
6.15.1 EFFECT OF THE TURBINE AIR SUPPLY TEMPERATURE .......................................................... 30
6.15.2 HEAT GENERATED DURING THE DRILLING PROCESS............................................................ 30
6.16 MEASUREMENT OF HOLE DIMENSIONS AND ECCENTRICITY...................................................... 31
6.17 FINAL HOLE DEPTH MEASUREMENT CHECK ............................................................................... 32
6.18 PRACTICAL EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION ...................................................................................... 33
7 RESIDUAL STRESS ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES .................................................................. 34
7.1 STANDARD ASTM E837-08: GENERAL ........................................................................................ 35
7.1.1 STRAIN GAUGE ROSETTES .................................................................................................... 35
7.1.2 STRAIN RELIEF IN PROXIMITY TO THE HOLE ........................................................................ 35
7.1.3 NUMERICAL VALUES OF a AND b ..................................................................................... 36
7.1.4 SENSITIVITY OF THE METHOD .............................................................................................. 36
7.2 STANDARD ASTM E837-08: CALCULATION OF RESIDUAL STRESSES ........................................ 38
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Symbols used in this publication. (On the left the symbols necessary for determining
the state of stress, on the right the symbols used for correct definition of the geometry of the
rosettes). 10
Figure 2 - Relaxation of residual stresses after hole-drilling. 11
Figure 3 - Diagram of the measurement chain using a high-speed air turbine. 12
Figure 4 - Designs of strain gauge rosettes recommended by standard ASTM E837-08. 15
Figure 5 - On the left a CW numbering scheme, on the right a rosette with CCW gauge
identification. 15
Figure 6 - Hole drilling apparatus with a high speed air turbine (MTS 3000 - SINT Technology) 20
Figure 7 – Hole drilling device: on the left alignment, on the right rotation of the drilling head. 21
Figure 8 - Checking the vertical perpendicularity of the hole-drilling tool. 21
Figure 9 - Hole sections: on the left and in the centre a hole made by high speed drilling with
inverted-cone tungsten carbide cutters, on the right a hole made by EDM. 23
Figure 10 - 2D (left) and 3-D (right) BEM models for studying the effects of the hole-bottom fillet
radius. 23
Figure 11 - Identifying the zero cutter depth by an electrical connection. 25
Figure 12 - Types of holes that can be produced with the techniques studied by Flaman: 26
Figure 13 - High speed drilling technique 26
Figure 14 - Medium-speed drilling technique. 27
Figure 15 - High-speed orbital hole-drilling 28
Figure 16 - High-speed orbital hole-drilling technique. Detail of the cutting tool 28
Figure 17 - Cutters used for high-speed drilling 29
Figure 18 - Hardness ranges for which the three types of cutters are recommended 29
Figure 19 - Measurement of hole diameter and eccentricity 31
Figure 20 - Off-centre hole, parameters necessary for calculating hole-rosette eccentricity 32
Figure 21 - Instrument for measuring hole depth 32
Figure 22 - Graphical test of through-thickness stress uniformity (ASTM E837-08) 39
Figure 23 - Schwarz – Kochelmann method. 48
Figure 24 - On the right, calibration functions Kx and Ky for the HBM rosette shown on the left. 49
Figure 25 -. Symbols used in the HDM method. 50
Figure 26- Assumed material constitutive law: bilinear isotropic hardening 53
Figure 27- Ratio between the measured relaxed strains versus plasticity factor 54
Figure 28 –.HBM 4-element Rosette 0/90/157,5/225° (Left), Angles between gauges (Right) 56
Figure 29: (a) Principal Angle (least squares minimisation); (b) Reconstruction of measured strain
versus angle. 56
Figure 30 – Equi-biaxial Stress Field: difference between the values of strain measured in the
absence (above) and presence (bottom) of eccentricity (e=0.1 mm) 57
Figure 31 - Notations relating to a rosette with an off-centre hole 57
Figure 32 - 6-element rosette for eccentricity correction 59
Figure 33 - Hole-drilling software. Endmill Positioning Tool (left) and Drilling System Setup (right)
60
Figure 34 - Measured and interpoled strains versus depth. 60
Figure 35 - Residual stress evaluation: above analysis in accordance with ASTM E837-08, below
stress analysis with the Integral Method. 61
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1 - Symbols. 10
Table 2 - Typical dimensions of type A, B and C rosettes described by standard ASTM E837-08. 16
Table 3 - Rosettes produced by HBM and Vishay Measurement Group. 17
Table 4 - Maximum and minimum workpiece thicknesses and hole diameters, and drilling depths
recommended by standard ASTM E837-08. 22
Table 5 - Residual stress calculation methods: principal features. 34
Table 6 - Numerical values of coefficients a and b provided by standard ASTM E837-08 for type
A, B and C rosettes for uniform stress evaluations with through holes and blind holes. 36
Table 7 - Convention used for placement of angle β (ASTM E837-08). 38
Table 8 - Coefficients a and b for type A rosettes for non-uniform residual stress evaluations
(ASTM E837-08). 41
Table 9 - Coefficients a and b for type B rosettes for non-uniform residual stress evaluations
(ASTM E837-08). 42
Table 10 - Coefficients a and b for type C rosettes for non-uniform residual stress evaluations
(ASTM E837-08). 43
Table 11 - Coefficients a and b of the integral method for type A, B and C rosettes. 47
Table 12 - Errors due to hole-rosette eccentricity for some types of rosette considered in standard
ASTM 837-08 58
Table 13 - Contributions of uncertainty in residual stress measurement. 65
1 Introduction
Residual stresses are present in almost all structures. They may be caused by manufacturing
processes or may be created during the life of a mechanical component. Residual stresses are
often a predominant factor contributing to structural failure, particularly of structures subject to
alternating service loads or corrosive environments.
The effect on properties can also be beneficial, in which case residual stresses are created
purposely to improve the behavior of a material, for example, the compressive stresses
produced by shot peening. In either case, it is important to determine the residual stresses in
order to be able to foresee static resistance and fatigue strength.
The hole-drilling method is a practical, inexpensive and widely used method for determining
residual stresses near the surface of a component to be analysed. It can be applied to a wide
range of materials.
It involves attaching a three-element strain rosette to the surface, drilling a hole in a series of
depth increments through the centre of the rosette, and measuring the strains that are produced
reflecting the stress relaxation which takes place with the removal of material.
2 Scope
This test method specifies an incremental hole-drilling procedure for determining residual stress
profiles near the surface of an isotropic linearly elastic homogeneous material. The test method
is applicable also to plastic materials and composite materials: these materials present a
different mechanical behavior from that of metal materials and also require particular attention in
the choice of hole-drilling procedure.
The test method may be considered “semi-destructive” because the damage that it causes is
localized and often does not affect use of the component to which it is applied.
The method, which is a development of the hole-drilling procedure specified by standard ASTM
E837-08 [1], may also be applied in cases where: a) residual stresses vary with depth, b) there
is a small eccentricity between the axis of the hole and the centre of the strain gauge rosette.
This test method is limited to cases where the maximum residual stresses do not exceed 50%
of the material yield stress. A correction method is specified for stresses exceeding 50% of yield
stress, which can only be applied where the stresses remain constant with depth.
However, the limitation relating to the thickness of a component reported in the ASTM standard
holds and if the thickness is between 0.4 D and 1.2 D the results have to be considered
approximate.
3 Referenced documents
• Standard Test Method for Determining Residual Stresses by the Hole-Drilling Strain Gauge
Method, ASTM E837-08.
• Standard Test Method for Determining Residual Stresses by the Hole-Drilling Strain Gauge
Method, ASTM E837-01.
• Grant P.V., Lord J.D., Whitehead P.S., “The Measurement of Residual Stresses by the
Incremental Hole Drilling Technique”, NPL Materials Centre, “Measurement Good Practice
Guide No.53, National Physical Laboratory, UK, 2002.
• LU J., Handbook of Measurement of Residual Stresses, Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Fairmont Press, Lilburn, GA, 1996, Chapter 2.
4 Symbols
The diagrams shown in Figure 1 are useful for understanding the majority of the symbols listed
in Table 1.
Table 1 - Symbols.
Figure 1 - Symbols used in this publication. (On the left the symbols necessary for determining the state
of stress, on the right the symbols used for correct definition of the geometry of the rosettes).
5 Principle of measurement
The hole-drilling method involves drilling a small hole into the surface of a component, at the
centre of a special strain gauge rosette, and measuring the relieved strains. The maximum
depth of hole is approximately equal to 0.4 D.
The single measurements represent the average values of surface strain in the area of the grids
caused by relaxation of the stresses and the value of the readings is more sensitive to
relaxation of the material the closer they are taken to the surface. This sensitivity decreases as
the depth increases until it reaches zero. The residual stresses originally present at the hole
location are then calculated from the measured strain values.
The relieved strains depend on the stresses that originally existed at the boundaries of the
drilled hole (the residual stresses are assumed to act uniformly over the in-plane region around
the rosette and to vary only through the thickness of the material) and are not affected by the
stresses beyond the hole boundary.
It is also assumed that the drilling technique does not introduce plastic local strains: as will be
pointed out later, the drilling operation calls for techniques and specific measures to eliminate
Figure 2 shows relaxation of the stresses after drilling a hole for measurement of residual
stresses.
Strain Gauge
Hole Diameter - Do
It is always preferable to drill the hole in small increments of depth, recording the measured
strains and hole depth at each increment.
It is advisable that the drilling system for the incremental method is automatic and electronically
controlled: for example, Figure 3 shows a typical diagram of the measurement chain using a
high-speed air turbine.
Figure 5 - On the left a CW numbering scheme, on the right a rosette with CCW gauge identification.
Type A (with grids in two quadrants) is recommended for general-purpose use, type B (with all
grids in a single quadrant) is used for measurements near an obstacle, such as a fillet radius or
weld, and type C for situations where high strain sensitivity and high thermal stability are
required.
The type C rosette consists of six grids forming three pairs, with radially and tangentially aligned
grid axes. The opposed grids (for example, 1T and 1R in Figure 4) are to be wired in half-bridge
configurations.The type C gauge has increased sensitivity (varying from +70% to +140%) in
relation to type A and B designs. The disadvantages in using this type include a higher cost,
limited availability, and the extra preparation time and instrumentation associated with the six
strain gauges (connected to three measurement channels).
Table 2 shows the typical geometric dimensions of type A, B and C rosettes described by
standard ASTM E837-08. A variety of sizes and types of strain gauge currently produced by
HBM and Vishay Measurement Group are presented in Table 3.
• the depth required for the residual stress analysis (larger gauges are more suitable for
determining the stress profile at greater depths whereas smaller gauges are suitable for a
near-surface analysis),
• acceptable damage (smaller holes are introduced with the smaller gauges).
The most widely used gauge size is the one with an individual gauge length measuring 1.5 –
1.57 mm. This size of gauge is capable of providing useful residual stress data to a depth of
approximately 1 mm.
It should be noted that the experimental errors associated with the measurements from small
strain gauges (hole eccentricity, control of depth, etc) are higher than those associated with the
corresponding measurements with larger gauges.
However, the larger strain gauges should be selected with caution because of the size of drills
required and the large amount of material to be removed during the drilling process.
Table 2 - Typical dimensions of type A, B and C rosettes described by standard ASTM E837-08.
Encapsulated designs are available complete with soldering tabs. These are particularly
suitable for use in harsh environmental conditions where special protection for the gauge is
required.
Carrier Lenght
Carrier Width
dmin (mm)
dmin (mm)
dmax/D
dmin/D
Factor
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
ASTM E837
d/D
Gauge Pattern Designation Manufacturer
Type
1-RY61-1,5/120S HBM Type A (CCW) 120 1.94 1.5 5.1 1.5 2.2 10.2 10.2 0.29 0.43
1-RY61-1,5/120K HBM Type B (CCW) 120 1.93 1.5 5.1 1.5 2.2 10.2 5.2 0.29 0.43
1-RY61-1,5/120R HBM Type B (CCW) 120 1.93 1.5 5.1 1.5 2.2 10.2 5.2 0.29 0.43
K-RY61-1,5/120R
(with pre-attached HBM Type B (CCW) 120 1.93 1.5 5.1 1.5 2.2 10.2 5.2 0.29 0.43
leads)
1-VY61-1,5/120S HBM 120 1.93 1.5 5.1 1.5 2.2 10.2 5.2 0.29 0.43
Vishay -
N2K-XX-030 RR Measurement Type C (CW) 350 0.75 4.32 2.3 2.6 9.4 9.4 0.53
Group
Vishay -
EA-XX-031 RE Measurement Type A (CW) 120 2.01 0.75 2.56 0.8 1 7.4 7.4 0.31
Group
Vishay -
EA-XX-062 RE Measurement Type A (CW) 120 2.08 1.57 5.13 1.5 2 10.7 10.7 0.29
Group
Vishay -
CEA-XX-062 UL Measurement Type A (CW) 120 2.05 1.57 5.13 1.5 2 12.7 11.7 0.29
Group
Vishay -
CEA-XX-062 UM Measurement Type B (CW) 120 2.05 1.57 5.13 1.5 2 10.7 10.7 0.29
Group
Vishay -
EA-XX-125 RE Measurement Type A (CW) 120 2.05 3.18 10.26 3 4.1 19.8 19.8 0.29
Group
However, the following minimum requirements are believed to be advisable for incremental
hole-drilling applications: strain resolution of ±0.25 µm/m, stability ±0.5 µm/m, repeatability ±0.5
µm/m.
With the more conventional rosettes (types A and B) a three-wire quarter bridge circuit should
be used (self-temperature-compensating for as far as regards apparent thermal strain of the
leads) with conveniently short leadwires.
Half-bridge circuits should be used with type C rosettes.
A particularly high acquisition frequency is not necessary for these measurements.
It is advised that the average of the values measured (recommended value between 10 and 50
acquisitions) be made for every measurement interval.
ASTM E837-08 recommends checking the integrity of the gauge installation by applying a small
load to induce strains and evaluating the mechanical hysteresis of the strain gauges forming the
rosette. The standard also recommends visual inspection of the rosette installation.
For the strain gauge installation, however, it is advisable to refer to the preliminary checks
specified by the standard UNI 10478-3 [7].
6.5 Alignment.
Eccentricity between the hole and gauge centre can introduce significant errors into the
measurement of residual stresses.
Alignment between these centres is normally achieved with the aid of a microscope
incorporating a reticle in the focus of the objective, the centre of which should coincide with the
centre of the endmill for drilling the hole.
After installation of the strain gauge rosette, the mechanical part of the measurement system is
moved close to the point where the measurement is to be made, and is positioned so that the
strain gauge centering marks are within the field of view of the microscope. Two adjustments
set at 90° to each other are used for centering until the microscope reticle coincides with the
strain gauge centering marks.
A typical alignment and air turbine drilling system is shown in Figure 6. In this setup, the
microscope is incorporated in the measurement system and is not taken off during
measurements: all that is necessary is a rotation of the drilling head as it is aligned with the
microscope (Figure 7).
The drilling tool is fitted in front of the microscope after the alignment procedure. In other
measurement systems the microscope is replaced with the drilling tool after alignment.
This reduces (but does not eliminate) eccentricity as alignment of the reticle does not allow the
uncertainty in positioning the tool holder (in the region of a few microns) to be taken into
account.
ASTM E837-08 states that the centre of the drilled hole should be aligned concentric with the
strain gauge circle to within ±0.004 D.
15
4 1
11
13
16
10
6 9 14
7
8 12
5
1- Stepping motor for fine positioning 9 - Knob for fast vertical movement
2- Knob for slow manual feed 10 - Rear cap for closing the turbine
3- Eyepiece 11 - Threaded dowels for microscope alignment
4- Turbine release pushbutton 12 - Support feet
5- Compressed air connection 13 - Microscope
6- Air turbine 14 - Knob for horizontal movement
7- Chuck 15 - Eyepiece reticle
8- Endmill 16 - Vertical height adjustment
Figure 6 - Hole drilling apparatus with a high speed air turbine (MTS 3000 - SINT Technology)
Figure 7 – Hole drilling device: on the left alignment, on the right rotation of the drilling head.
The standard recommends using an optical system to align the axis of rotation of the cutter in
relation to the centre of the strain gauge rosette. In other cases it is necessary to align the
apparatus using a microscope, then remove the microscope and fit the air turbine hole-drilling
system. Section 7.5 deals with the influence of eccentricity and methodologies for correcting the
effect of eccentricity.
6.6 Perpendicularity
It is essential that the cutter is positioned perpendicular to the surface of the component to be
analysed.
This corresponds to a substantial error in depth in the typical increments that are used in
incremental measurements: its effect will depend on the orientation between the angle axis and
the rosette configuration [12].
It is important that the drilling system be checked before any test to avoid any errors caused by
the drill not being perpendicular: this is not always easy, particularly for in-situ measurements.
It is therefore important that the drilling system incorporates a means of adjusting
perpendicularity to ensure that the cutter is correctly positioned. Apparatuses usually have three
magnetic feet that can be used for regulating perpendicularity.
This operation can be checked with precision squares and levels (Figure 8).
It is recommended that a margin of at least 0.30 mm be maintained between the hole and the
strain gauge grid endloops to protect the grids.
The need for this margin limits the maximum allowable diameter of the drilled hole D0.
The recommended minimum hole diameter is 60% of the maximum allowable diameter.
Table 4 indicates the maximum and minimum diameters recommended for standardized, type
A, B, and C rosettes.
Table 4 - Maximum and minimum workpiece thicknesses and hole diameters, and drilling depths
recommended by standard ASTM E837-08.
As indicated in Section 7.1.4, it is important to note that as the ratio of D0/D increases, the
sensitivity of the method increases in approximate proportion to (D0/D)2.
Consequently, larger holes are recommended to achieve higher sensitivity.
Drilling diameters between 1.6 and 2.0 mm are normally used for rosettes with grids from 1.5 –
1.57 mm long.
If orbital drilling is used, the hole diamter is significantly larger than the drill diameter.
Figure 9 shows the section and hole-bottom radius of three holes made with different hole-
drilling techniques and endmills.
r r
Figure 9 - Hole sections: on the left and in the centre a hole made by high speed drilling with inverted-
cone tungsten carbide cutters, on the right a hole made by EDM.
The hole-bottom fillet radius has an effect on residual stress values measured by the hole-
drilling method. It is possible to study the effect with 2-D and 3-D BEM models (Boundary
Element Method, Beasy® code) (Figure 10).
D/2
D0/2
ER σ
z
r
Figure 10 - 2D (left) and 3-D (right) BEM models for studying the effects of the hole-bottom fillet radius.
The study by M. Scafidi and B. Zuccarello [14] has shown that the hole-bottom fillet radius
ranges from 0.04 D0 to 0.10 D0 using inverted-cone tungsten carbide cutters and is in the region
of 0.30 D0 with EDM techniques.
The effect of the hole-bottom fillet radius on relaxed strains was evaluated by numerical
simulations performed with the BEM models shown in Figure 10: it must be taken into due
account particularly in the initial drilling steps.
The effect increases as the hole-bottom fillet radius increases and decreases with hole depth.
The hole-bottom fillet radius can significantly influence the test specified by ASTM E837-08 for
evaluating the uniformity of stresses.
For example, considering an equi-biaxial stress field, it is found that:
• a hole-bottom fillet radius equal to r=0.10 D0 leads to a maximum deviation in relaxed
strains of 5%,
• a hole-bottom fillet radius equal to r=0.30 D0 leads to a deviation in relaxed strains greater
than 20%.
In both cases the bottom-hole fillet radius influences the stress uniformity test and therefore
stress measurement by the ASTM E837-08 method: these deviations can actually influence
determination of the stress field since uniformity of the field is guaranteed if the deviations in
strain between the measured value and the theoretical value are lower than ±3% according to
the standard.
This technique can be applied when analysing conductive materials and providing the air
turbine conducts electricity [17]. Figure 11 shows zero depth detection by the electrical contact
technique.
M.T.Flaman and J.A.Herring [21] studied four different techniques which were compared
quantitatively on the basis of induced stresses and hole geometry and qualitatively in terms of
portability and ease of use.
In addition, a fifth drilling technique, the orbital hole-drilling technique, was introduced and later
studied by the aforementioned M.T.Flaman [22].
The main techniques are:
• high-speed drilling,
• low-speed drilling,
• abrasive jet machining,
• electro-chemical machining,
• high-speed orbital drilling.
A diagram is provided in Figure 12 showing the geometric characteristics of the holes that can
be made by the four techniques studied by M.T.Flaman.
Figure 12 - Types of holes that can be produced with the techniques studied by Flaman:
A – High-speed drilling; B – Conventional low-speed drilling; C – Abrasive jet machining; D –
Electro-chemical machining.
High-speed drilling is considered suitable for most materials as it does not introduce significant
machining stresses due also to the modest torque applied to the tool during the drilling process.
In addition, abrasive jet machining cannot be used for determining non-uniform residual
stresses as it does not allow sufficient control of hole depth and diameter. It is not
recommended for the less hard materials. [12]
The orbital drilling technique is an effective method for drilling hard, highly abrasive materials
such as spring and bearing steels and cast aluminium alloys with a silicon content greater than
6% (for example AlSi9Cu3 and AlSi7Mg).
With the orbital drilling technique the removal and extraction of chips is facilitated and more
efficient. A further advantage are greater drilling diameters.
The inverted-cone cutting tools that may be used for high-speed drilling with an air turbine are
illustrated in Figure 17.
Figure 18 - Hardness ranges for which the three types of cutters are recommended
As can be noted, uncoated tungsten carbide cutters can be used on materials with a hardness
ranging between 100 and 200 HV10. Tungsten carbide cutters with TiAlN coating can be used
with materials with hardnesses up to 550 HV10.
Inverted-cone diamond-coated cutters (type D in Figure 17) are recommended for extremely
hard materials (cemented and nitrided steels, ceramics, glass, etc.).
Diamond-coated cutters do not cut a hole with a sharp angle; the small radius represents a
departure from the ideal case for which coefficients were evaluated, therefore the residual
stress data from near-surface increments should be treated with caution as they are affected by
greater uncertainty.
It is therefore necessary to wait for undesired thermal strains to gradually reduce and for gauge
output to stabilize. This is particularly important for materials with poor thermal conductivity.
The delay time before acquisition of strain measurements depends on the material, the shape of
the workpiece, and the ambient temperature.
Standard ASTM E837-08 prescribes waiting at least 5 seconds between the end of drilling and
reading strain gauge output to allow the surface to cool. The cutter need not be retracted.
In practice, the signal stabilization time depends on the thermal conductivity and thickness of
the material. In metal materials stabilization occurs in 3 to 10 seconds.
DX = (X1 + X 2 ) (1)
D Y = (Y1 + Y 2 ) (2)
( D X + DY )
D0 , M =
2 (3)
e = e X2 + eY2 (6)
and the eccentric angle is expressed as:
eY 180
ϕ = arctan ⋅
eX π (7)
Any difference from the expected hole depth (recorded during drilling by the micrometer gauge
of the drilling apparatus) should be taken into consideration.
Cutter wear, the grip between the tool holder and cutter shank, and inadequate stiffness
between the component and the drilling apparatus can all contribute to hole depth errors.
Optimization of
No No No No No No No Yes
calculation steps
HBM rosette
Type of rosettes Yes (*) Yes (*) Yes (*) Yes (*) Yes (*) Yes (*) Yes
only
(*) Any type of rosette can be used: however, the new coefficients need to be calculated.
(**) In the case of blind hole, the correction is indicative.
(***) The accuracy of the correction depends on the stress state and on the type of rosette used in the test.
Table 5 summarizes the techniques and major features of the residual stress analysis methods.
The main corrections that can be applied to the results are also indicated.
The two calibration constants a and b are dimensionless, almost independent of the
properties of the material, and vary with hole depth, as indicated in Table 2.
In the case of a through-hole in a thin workpiece, a is independent of the Poisson’s ratio.
Whereas, considering the case of non-uniform stresses within depth, the surface strain relief
associated with the hole depth step j ( 1 ≤ k ≤ j ) is tied to the relieved principal stresses by the
following relationship:
1 +ν j
σ x +σ y 1 j σ −σ y 1 j
εj = ∑ a jk + ∑ b jk x cos(2θ ) + ∑ b jk (τ xy ) k sin (2θ ) (9)
E k =1 2 k E k =1 2 k E k =1
The two calibration constants a jk and b jk indicate the strains relieved by the drilling process at
the depth associated with hole step j.
Table 6 - Numerical values of coefficients a and b provided by standard ASTM E837-08 for type A, B
and C rosettes for uniform stress evaluations with through holes and blind holes.
D0
2
2 ( 15 )
+ sin 2θ 2 cos 2θ 2
R2
where:
d
θ1 = arctan ( 16 )
2 R1
d
θ 2 = arctan ( 17 )
2 R2
To increase strain relieving efficiency it is necessary to [37] ]:
• adopt high values for (D0/2)/R1, that is, drill holes with the biggest diameter possible,
compatibly with the need to avoid parasitic effects on the inner edge of the strain gauge
(paragraph 6.7),
• use rosettes with a short gauge length (low R2/R1 values),
• use rosettes with reduced grid width (low GW/R1 values),
• have the usual S values around 0.3.
Special rosettes are also available (ASTM Type C) with six grids, three of which are radial and
three circumferential, which are wired in a half-bridge configuration (using a radial grid and the
diametrically opposed circumferential grid).
This achieves a sensitivity equal to 2.3 times the sensitivity of the corresponding ASTM
standard Type A or B.
The angle β, which the maximum principal stress σmax forms with the direction of strain gauge 1,
(measured clockwise for the CW rosettes and counterclockwise for CCW rosettes), is calculated
with the following equation:
1 −T
β = arctan
2 −Q ( 21 )
The direction of the angle is defined by Table 7, dependent on signs T and Q.
In either case, the measured data are not acceptable for the residual stress calculations
described in the ASTM E837-08 standard.
This graphical test is not a sensitive indicator of stress field uniformity. Workpieces with
significantly non-uniform stress fields can yield percentage relieved strain curves substantially
similar to those shown in Figure 22.
The main purpose of the test is to identify grossly non-uniform stress fields and strain
measurement errors. This stress uniformity test may be applied only to thick workpieces.
P=
− E ∑ a⋅ p
⋅
( ) Q = −E ⋅
∑ (b ⋅ q ) T = −E ⋅
∑ (b ⋅ t )
(1 + ν ) ∑ a 2 ∑b
2
∑b
2
( 24 )
where the summation is of the indicated values for the eight hole depths.
Angle β is calculated with the formula:
1 −T 1 ∑bt
β= ⋅ arctan = ⋅ arctan
2 −Q 2 ∑bq
( 25 )
The measurement direction for the angle is determined referring to Table 7, dependent on the
signs of T and Q.
The principal stresses are calculated using:
σ max , σ min = P ± Q 2 + T 2 ( 26 )
The basic calculations described above are not to be used for measuring residual stresses in
non-uniform stress fields.
Table 8 - Coefficients a and b for type A rosettes for non-uniform residual stress evaluations (ASTM
E837-08).
The tabulated numbers refer to a 1/16 inch (5.13 mm) nominal size rosette: if a 1/32 inch (2.56
mm) rosette is used, all hole and stress depths in the tables should be multiplied by 0.5; if a 1/8
in. (10.26 mm) rosette is used, they should be multiplied by 2. Since the tabulated numbers
refer to a nominal hole diameter of 2 mm, the numbers have to be adjusted once the actual hole
diameter is measured and be multiplied by the following corrective factor: (actual diameter/
nominal diameter)2.
Table 9 - Coefficients a and b for type B rosettes for non-uniform residual stress evaluations
(ASTM E837-08).
Table 10 - Coefficients a and b for type C rosettes for non-uniform residual stress evaluations (ASTM
E837-08).
The depth increments should be 0.025 mm for 2.56 mm diameter rosettes; 0.05 mm for 5.13
mm diameter rosettes and, finally, 0.10 mm for 10.26 mm diameter rosettes.
The residual stresses are calculated for each hole depth step j by solving the following matrix
equations:
r E r
a ⋅P = ⋅p r r r r
1 +ν b ⋅Q = E ⋅q b ⋅T = E ⋅ t ( 29 )
in which:
[(σ y ) k + (σ x ) k ] [(σ y ) k − (σ x ) k ]
Pk = Qk = Tk = (τ xy ) k
2 2 ( 30 )
When a large number of hole depth steps are used, the matrices a and b are numerically ill-
conditioned: small errors in the input data lead to large errors in output.
The results are filtered by Tikhonov regularization to reduce this effect. Using a regularization
matrix of the type:
0 0
− 1 2 − 1
c=
− 1 2 − 1 ( 31 )
0 0
and applying the Tikhonov regularization, the equations for calculating residual stresses are:
r E r
(a T a + α P ⋅ c T c ) ⋅ P = ⋅aT p
1 +ν
r r
(b T b + α Q ⋅ c T c ) ⋅ Q = E ⋅ b T q
( 32 )
r r
(b T b + α T ⋅ c T c ) ⋅ T = E ⋅ b T t
The factors αP,αQ and αT control the amount of regularization that is used: an initial value for
these factors may be chosen in the range 10-4 to 10-6.
On account of the regularization used, the unregularized strains that correspond to the
calculated stresses (P, Q and T) do not exactly correspond to the actual strains p, q and t.
The difference in terms of strain is indicated by the “misfit” vectors, calculated as :
r r 1 +ν r r r 1 r r r 1 r
p misfit = p − ⋅ aP q misfit = q − ⋅ b Q t misfit = t − ⋅ b T
E E E ( 33 )
Parameters prms, qrms and trms are defined as the mean squares of the “misfit” vectors at the
various depths:
1 n 1 n 1 n
2
p rms = ∑
n j =1
( p misfit ) 2j 2
q rms = ∑
n j =1
(q misfit ) 2j 2
t rms = ∑
n j =1
(t misfit ) 2j
( 34 )
If the values of prms2, qrms2 and trms2 differ 5% from the values of pstd2, qstd2 e tstd2 regularization
values αP,αQ and αT need to be modified and recalculated through an iterative process.
The new values of αP, αQ and αT will be:
2
p std
(α P ) new = 2
⋅ (α P ) old
p rms
2
q std
(α Q ) new = 2
⋅ (α Q ) old
q rms ( 35 )
2
t
(α T ) new = std
2
⋅ (α T ) old
trms
If the difference is within 5% the maximum and minimum residual stress values are calculated
for every hole depth step by the following equations:
1 − Tk
βk = arctan
2 − Qk ( 37 )
E ∫0
p ( hi ) = ⋅ A ( H , h i ) ⋅ P ( H ) dH
h
1 i ˆ
E ∫0
q ( hi ) = ⋅ B ( H , hi ) ⋅ Q ( H ) dH
( 38 )
hi
1
E ∫0
t ( hi ) = ⋅ Bˆ ( H , h i ) ⋅ T ( H ) dH
where  and B̂ are the influence functions for a hydrostatic stress state and a shear stress
state, respectively, and take account of the effect of the relaxed stresses at depth H for a
measurement depth h.
In order to simplify the problem of residual stress evaluation, Schajer proposed that the stress
field can be determined by means of functions defined in intervals with constant values in each
depth step considered: with this procedure the integral equations seen above can easily be
evaluated, provided the influence functions can be calculated for each calculation step.
If this can be done, the equations shown above can be expressed in discrete form as:
i i i
E
⋅ pi = ∑ a i , j Pj E ⋅ qi = ∑ bi , j Q j E ⋅ t i = ∑ bi , j T j
1 +ν j =1 j =1 j =1
( 39 )
where n indicates the hole depth step considered and ai , j and bi , j indicate the relieved strains
due to unit stresses P, Q and T at depth j for hole depth step i.
ˆ ( H , h) as follows:
The a i , j coefficients are related to the functions A
Hi
ai , j = ∫ Aˆ (H , h )dH
H i −1
i ( 40 )
Discrete formulation of the problem therefore implies solution of a linear system with a lower
triangular matrix of coefficients.
With the aid of a finite element calculation, coefficients a i , j have been determined by
calculating the following functions
H
A (h, h ) = ∫ Aˆ (H , hi )dH
0 ( 41 )
by which coefficients a i , j are evaluated as:
ai , j = A (H j , hi ) − A (H j −1 , hi )
( 42 )
Functions A and B have been provided for ratios D0/D equal to 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for
calculation depth h between 0.05 and 0.50.
The coefficients are obtained by interpolation for different D0/D ratio and calculation depth h
values.
The values of the coefficients proposed by G. S. Schajer for calculating residual stresses by the
integral method are indicated in Table 11.
Table 11 - Coefficients a and b of the integral method for type A, B and C rosettes.
( 44 )
( 45 )
where εx and εy are the strains measured respectively by the strain gauge grids oriented parallel
to the loading direction and perpendicular to the loading direction in the case of uniaxial loading.
Figure 24 shows relaxation functions Kx and Ky calculated for an HBM rosette, type 1-Y61-
1.5/120S for dm/d0=3.
Figure 24 - On the right, calibration functions Kx and Ky for the HBM rosette shown on the left.
After the relaxation functions have been defined, the stress field can be calculated applying the
following formulas:
( 46 )
( 47 )
( 48 )
The principal stress values can be calculated by the following equation:
( 49 )
( 50 )
This method can be applied only for HBM rosettes as the numerical/experimental values of
functions Kx and Ky have been calculated only for this type of rosette.
Although the residual stress results obtained with this method may agree with those evaluated
with the integral method, it must be pointed out that the method is approximate because it does
not take account of the change in hole geometry with depth (but only of the residual stress in
the removed stratum of material).
Observing Figure 25 and considering an isotropic linearly elastic homogeneous material, the
relationship between measured strain and related stresses can be described as follows:
( 51 )
where the influence functions A1…A9 depend on the properties of the material, hole depth and
eccentricity and rosette geometry.
Each of these influence functions can be described with a double power series, the coefficients
of which have been calculated by a finite-element regression analysis of surface displacements
for every particular configuration of the problem under examination (Poisson’s ratio, ratio
between the hole radius and rosette mean radius, etc).
Knowing the form of the functions and the relieved strains, it is possible to solve the system of
equations seen above by an inverse formulation, in order to determine the state of residual
stress existing in the component.
Supposing that each stress component may be described with a series of functions, the
following expressions can be obtained:
( 52 )
where:
J11, J12 and J13 are the degrees of freeedom of the stress field,
are constant coefficients determined by the least squares method for best
reconstructing the experimental strain measurements.
By combining the two systems of equations, it is possible to obtain the following relationship:
( 53 )
where i = 1,2…n = number of hole-drilling steps.
Knowing the form of the influence functions, the integrals in the equations can easily be
analytically solved, and therefore the whole relationship is reduced to a linear system of 3n
equations in which J11+J12+J13 are unknowns, that can be simplified to:
( 54 )
This system can be solved directly when 3n=J11+J12+J13, and with the least squares method
when 3n> J11+J12+J13.
The latter analysis technique is better because it reduces the influence of random experimental
errors.
Nevertheless, the liberty granted in selecting the ψj functions used to describe the state of
residual stress implies introduction of some new parameters, the definition of which influences
the accuracy of the result (for example, in the case of the power series, the maximum
superscript at which to stop expansion). To obtain the optimum solution with the hole-drilling
method, such parameters can be selected by automatic methods, for example, by genetic
algorithms [36].
The choice of these parameters is very important as it actually corresponds to the level of
flexibility that is given to the representation of the state of stress, and therefore, to the ability to
reproduce even highly complex stress functions. A low level of flexibility can lead to
approximate solutions whereas too high a flexibility can cause excessive sensitivity to
measurement error, which is always present in acquired strain data.
The criterion of optimization follows the principle that the strains obtained from calculated
residual stresses have to reconstruct the acquired state of strain with the same accuracy of the
method. Any inferior accuracy leads to an approximate solution, whereas a higher accuracy
results in reproducing the measurement errors that are normally associated with a high
instability of the results.
For this reason, the following objective function is defined:
( 55 )
where σexp is the estimated standard deviation of the measurement error (which may be
experimentally calculated from acquired strain data), and σ~ is the standard deviation of the
error between acquired strain and strain obtained from the calculated residual stress state.
To find the minima of that function, the spline methods use a genetic algorithm, whereas serial
methods employ an exhaustive algorithm:
• the genetic optimization algorithm makes it possible to position base points randomly in the
interval (0, zmax), where zmax is the maximum hole depth, collapses neighbouring base points
if their distance is less than a threshold (the threshold is set at 5% of zmax) and then
identifies the best arrangement and the best number of base points with a process of
evolution of the solution typical of genetic algorithms, until the condition ξ<0.01 is verified,
• the exhaustive algorithm identifies the solution with the least value of ξ, within the domain of
all possible solutions, compatibly with the number of measurements made (for which the
condition 3n> J11+J12+J13 is verified).
σ eq = σ 2 + σ 2 − σ ⋅ σ
x y x y
was assumed to quantify the effect of biaxiality and a dimensionless plasticity factor f is
introduced:
σ eq − σ eq ,i
f = (57)
σ Y − σ eq ,i
where σ eq,i is the equivalent residual stress producing the onset of plasticity in the 2D case, and
σY is the material yield stress.
The condition of f=0 represents the highest residual stress that still does not produce plasticity,
while f=1 is related to the residual stress producing general yielding in the whole body.
The plasticity factor measures the residual stress intensity with respect to the approximate
onset of plasticity given by the plane Kirsch solution [15]. For the correction algorithm, it is
AIAS TR-01:2010 Page 53 of 70
The hole-drilling strain gauge method for the measurement of uniform or non-uniform residual stresses
necessary to consider the biaxial stress ratio Ω. The ratio between the measured relaxed strains
along the principal directions εx/εy depends on the stress ratio Ω but it is almost unaffected by
the plasticity factor, as shown in Figure 27.
As a consequence, the biaxiality ratio Ω can be approximated by the ratio between the
elastically calculated residual stress components σx, el, σy, el
σ σ
y y, el
Ω= ≈Ω = (58)
σ el σ
x x, el
Figure 27- Ratio between the measured relaxed strains versus plasticity factor
The equivalent residual stress at the plasticity onset can be expressed as a function of the
biaxiality ratio Ω, according to the plane stress Kirsch solution [15].
1− Ω + Ω 2
σ eq,i = σ (59)
Y 3− Ω
The acquired strain can be used to obtain the ‘as elastically-evaluated’ residual stresses and for
the elastically-evaluated equivalent stress definition:
σ eq,el = σ 2 +σ 2 −σ ⋅σ (60)
x, el y, el x, el y, el
The related elastically-evaluated plasticity factor is obtained by the equation:
σ eq ,el − σ eq ,i
f el = (61)
σ Y − σ eq ,i
If a significant plasticity is produced, the elastically-calculated plasticity factor is larger than the
actual plasticity factor. As the plasticity is not expected to play a significant role for a plasticity
factor near 0, it follows that fel<f, when f≈1.
The following function:
f el = f + Wf µ (62)
was found accurately to fit the relationship between f and fel for any considered configuration.
It can be observed that the asymptotic behaviour of the function at low f values is fulfilled by the
proposed expression for any values of the parameters W and µ.
The parameters W and µ were found for any analysed material and geometrical configuration by
means of a least-squares fitting, which was found to produce excellent results.
The parameters W and µ depend on the biaxial ratio Ω, the hardening ratio of the material R,
the hole depth Z, the hole diameter D0 and the strain gage average diameter.
Figure 28 –.HBM 4-element Rosette 0/90/157,5/225° (Left), Angles between gauges (Right)
Unknown dependance
Simulated readings
Re-
Re-evaluated dependence
Figure 29: (a) Principal Angle (least squares minimisation); (b) Reconstruction of measured
strain versus angle.
0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
-20
-40
Strain [µm/m]
-60
-80
-100
-120
Depth [mm]
0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
-20
-40
Strain [µm/m]
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
Depth [mm]
Figure 30 – Equi-biaxial Stress Field: difference between the values of strain measured in the
absence (above) and presence (bottom) of eccentricity (e=0.1 mm)
Aio Bio C io
εi =
'
(σ 1 + σ 2 ) +
cos 2α i + sin 2α i (σ 1 − σ 2 ), (i = a , b, c ) (67)
E E E
where the coefficients A°i, B°i and C°i depend not only on the radius of the hole and geometry of
the grid but also on the orientation of the grid and eccentricity (Figure 31).
Residual stresses and stress orientation are calculated by introducing strains ε a , εb , ε c in the
formulas used for a centered rosette.
If eccentricity between the hole and rosette is neglected, the principal stresses σ1 and σ2 are
affected by the following errors:
σ 1' − σ 1
Eσ 1 = 100 (71)
σ1
σ 2' − σ 2
Eσ 2 = 100 (72)
σ2
where
σ'1 and σ'2 are the calculated principal stresses, that is, without taking account of eccentricity;
σ1 and σ2 are the actual principal stresses, that is, calculated taking account of eccentricity.
Only the error relating to the greater stress in absolute value in the most unfavourable
conditions of γ (orientaton of the greater principal strain) and β (orientaton of the eccentricity) is
considered.
For a given relative eccentricity e'%= (e/r1)%, and with other conditions being the same,
0°/45°/90° rosettes are more unfavourable than 0°/225°/90° rosettes.
In the most unfavourable conditions of σ2/σ1 (σ2/σ1=-1) the errors relating to the type A and B
rosettes considered in standard ASTM E837, calculated for the minimum hole diameter are:
• ASTM type A rosettes (0°/225°/90°): Eσ 1 ≈ 5,6e ' % (73)
The formulas stated above therefore make it possible to determine the upper error limit, in the
most unfavourable conditions of γ, β and σ2/σ1.
Table 12 - Errors due to hole-rosette eccentricity for some types of rosette considered in standard ASTM
837-08
Table 12 provides the error limit calculated by formulas (73) and (74) for some types of rosettes
specified by standard ASTM E837.
If the orientation of the cross of the principal stresses is known, the rosette can be set in a
known angular position in relation to the cross. Thus it is possible to reduce the hole-rosette
eccentricity error.
The formulas for a centre-hole rosette are usually used, but keeping eccentricity within set limits
by using centering and drilling devices.
The data in the table points to the need for careful checking of hole-rosette eccentricity when
using the standard centre-hole rosette formulas.
It cannot be defined either as a type A or type B rosette, as per the ASTM standard, as the grids
are positioned in opposed quadrants.
The total resistance of the grid is therefore the sum of the resistance of the two diametrically
opposed grids, just as variation of the total resistance, due to strain, is the sum of the variations
of the two opposite grids. The balancing effect is due to the fact that if the hole is not perfectly
concentric, taking any one of the three measuring directions (0°/45°/90°), the grid closest to the
hole measures a higher strain than it would have measured had the hole been concentric,
whereas the diametrically opposed grid measures a lower strain.
The variation in resistance is less on one grid but greater on the other, while the sum balances
out, reproducing a measurement roughly equal to what would be obtained with a single grid if
the hole were concentric. The 6-element rosette, therefore, connects with the acquisition system
in precisely the same way as the standard 3-element rosette.
The 6-element rosette is perfectly balanced in the case of eccentricity having only an effect of
the first order on the single strain gauge measurement. In such a case, an eccentricity
perpendicular to the grid would produce a null variation whereas an eccentricity parallel to the
grid would produce a variation in line with the component of eccentricity in that direction. This
applies only for small eccentricity values but is limited to a factor of 1/2 for higher eccentricities.
Figure 33 - Hole-drilling software. Endmill Positioning Tool (left) and Drilling System Setup (right)
(RSM by SINT Technology s.r.l.).
Figure 33 shows some images drawn from a software for the management of the hole-drilling
procedure. At the end of each drilling test, the measured strain data can be processed by an
automatic evaluation program for calculating residual stresses (Figures 34 and 35).
Figure 35 shows some images taken from the residual stress evaluation phase: the software
allows analysis using the method described by standard ASTM E837-08 and a series of
methods for evaluation of non-uniform residual stresses (for example, the Integral Method).
Figure 35 - Residual stress evaluation: above analysis in accordance with ASTM E837-08, below stress
analysis with the Integral Method.
(EVAL by SINT Technology)
9 Test report
On completion of a residual stress analysis test, it is necessary to draw up the test report. The
test report should include all useful information for understanding the phenomenon that has
been measured.
Standard ASTM E837-08 [ 1] defines the content of the test report in section 11, based on the
measured stress profile. Also the National Physical Laboratory’s Measurement Good Practice
Guide No.53 [12] lists recommended parameters for inclusion in the test report.
The contents of the test report necessary for clearly identifying the test conditions and for
providing the most complete presentation of the results are indicated herebelow.
10 Uncertainty Analysis
Determining the uncertainties associated with measurement of residual stresses by the hole-
drilling method is a subject that has been little investigated, also due to the large number of
parameters contributing to the total value of uncertainty.
Standard ASTM E837-08 [1] states that the bias associated with a residual stress measurement
by the hole-drilling method is less than ±10% when dealing with uniform residual stresses. The
random (precision) error is such as to give a standard deviation of ±14 MPa for AISI 1018
carbon steels and a standard deviation of ±12 MPa for type AISI 304 stainless steels. These
values are the result of round-robin test programs [40, 41].
Standard ASTM E837-08 also refers to the difficulty in estimating uncertainties in non-uniform
stress measurements, which are greater that in uniform stress distributions.
Stress gradient Bias Insignificant No Choose the right data analysis technique
Constraints (eg, measurement is located
near an edge, a hole or a concentration of Bias Minor No
stress)
Surface curvature Bias Minor No
Provided by
Gauge Factor Bias Major No
manufacturer
Strain gauge application drift Bias Insignificant No If high, re-install the rosette
Drill wear Bias Minor No Monitor or change after every drilling operation
Hole perpendicularity Bias Minor No Limit the effect by keeping check on perpendicularity
Eccentricity (in relation to the center of the Error can be corrected using the methods proposed
Bias Major Yes
rosette) by Ajovalasit or Sandifer, or with HDM Method
< 50% σY : /
50%<σY <70%: 10% Error can be corrected using the method proposed by
Plasticization Bias Major Yes
70%<σY <90%: >10% Beghini-Bertini up to σY <90%, for uniform stress field
σY > 90%: >>10%
Error can be corrected using the method proposed by
Hole-bottom fillet radius Bias Major Yes
Scafidi - Zuccarello [45]
Distance = 4.5D: 7%
Distance from the nearest hole Bias Minor Distance = 6D: 1% No
Distance = 10D < 1%
Distance from the nearest geometric Insignificant error if the distance is equal to 0.5 D
Bias Minor No
discontinuity (type B rosette) or 1.5 D (type A rosette)
Identification of the zero reference depth Bias Major No Depends on the drill and perpendicularity
Sometimes observed. Depends on the delay time and
Local rise in temperature Bias Minor No
material
Stresses induced by the drilling process Random Minor No Qualify the drilling technique
The coefficients (ai, bi) relating to the actual depths are then evaluated by the least squares
method commencing with the coefficients given in [1], as follows:
r s
3 6
D z
ai = ∑∑ α r , s 0 i (80)
r = 0 s =1 D D
r s
3 6
D z
bi = ∑∑ β r , s 0 i
r = 0 s =1 D D (81)
where αr,s and β r,s are the polynomial coefficients, indicated in ASTM E 837.
Since these coefficients are generally affected by small randomly distributed errors, their
influence will be considered only in the subsequent residual stress uncertainty evaluation
(presented in the following section).
In accordance with ASTM E 837, the hydrostatic (P) and shear (Q, T) residual stress
components are calculated using the following equations:
n n n
E ∑a p i i ∑b q i i ∑b t i i
P=− i =1
, Q = −E i =1
, T = −E i =1
(82-84)
(1 + ν ) n n n
∑a
i =1
i
2
∑b
i =1
i
2
∑b
i =1
i
2
In addition, the principal residual stresses and principal angle β are calculated using the well-
known equations:
1 −T
β = arctan
′′
σ max,min = P ± Q +T
2 2
2 −Q
; (85-86)
The stresses calculated by Eq.(85-86) are generally influenced by two sources of error: the
effects of plasticity due to the concentration of stresses at the base of the hole and machining-
induced stresses σind .
As far as correction of the effect of plasticity is concerned, the two principal stresses obtained
from Eq.(85-86) can be corrected using the procedure given in 7.4.
Assuming that all the parameters are not mutually dependent, the law of propagation of
uncertainties is given by the following general formula:
N
uc 2 ( y ) = ∑ cs 2u 2 ( xs )
s =1 (87)
where y is the calculated parameter, xs is the related influence parameter, and uc(y) and u(xs)
are the corresponding uncertainties. The constants cs are the so-called sensitivity coefficients.
If the analytical relationship between y and xs is known, then the generic sensitivity coefficients
are given by the simple relationship:
∂y
cs = (88)
∂xs
On the contrary, if the analytical relationship between the measured value (y) and the influence
parameter (xs) is not known, then the sensitivity coefficients cs can be determined by a statistical
analysis based on experimental or numerical data.
By applying equation (87) to equation (82), the following formulas are obtained, allowing
evaluation of the uncertainty of the stress component P as a function of the uncertainty of the
four influence parameters (E,v,pi,ai).
2 2
n
n
1 ∑ ai pi E ∑ ai pi
uc 2 ( P ) = i =1
u2 ( E ) + i =1
u 2 (ν ) +
(1 + ν ) (1 + ν )
n 2 n
2 2
∑i =1
ai
∑i =1
ai
2
2 n n
i∑ j i∑ j j
p a 2
− 2 a a p
n
E ai 2 n
E 2
+∑ uc ( pi ) + ∑ uc ( ai ) .
j =1 j =1
i =1 (1 + ν ) 2 i =1 (1 + ν )
n 2
n 2
∑ a j
∑aj
j =1 j =1 (82)
Similar relationships are obtained for the other stress components Q and T by applying equation
(80) to equations (83 and 84).
In such relationships, the uncertainties uc(ai) and uc(bi) of the influence coefficients (ai, bi)
provided by equations (80 and 81) are obtained by summing the uncertainties that are typical of
the coefficients directly provided by standard ASTM E837 (due to the numerical simulations
used to calculate them), and the uncertainties of the other parameters of influence, for example,
the uncertainty of the hole depths hi, of the hole diameter D0.
The uncertainties uc(pi), uc(qi) and uc(ti) of the strain components can be calculated from the
uncertainty uc ( ε ji ) of the corrected measured strains by simply applying equation (87) to
equations (77-79).
To obtain the uncertainty uc ( ε ji ) it is necessary to evaluate the uncertainty of the measured
strains and then to take into account the propagation of all the influence parameters, including
the uncertainty of the parameter involved in the correction terms.
Calculation of uncertainty components is dealt with in detail in Reference [45].
11 References
[ 1] Standard Test Method for Determining Residual Stresses by the Hole-Drilling Strain
Gage Method, ASTM E837-08.
[ 2] Schajer, G.S., “Application of Finite Element Calculations to Residual Stress
Measurements,” Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol. no. 103, 1981,
pp. 157-163.
[ 3] Beghini, M., Bertini, L., “Effect of Plastic Deformation in Residual Stress Measurements,”
(in Italian) Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department – University of Pisa, Italian
Stress Analysis Association (AIAS), Journal no. 3, March 1997.
[ 4] Standard Test Methods for Performance Characteristics of Metallic Bonded Resistance
Strain Gages, ASTM E 251-92 (Reapproved 2003).
[ 5] UNI 10478-1 Terms and Definitions (1996) (in Italian).
[ 6] UNI 10478-2 Selection of Strain Gauges and Accessories (1998) (in Italian).
[ 7] UNI 10478-3 Strain Gauge Installation and Verification of Installation (1998) (in Italian) .
[ 8] UNI 10478-4 Measurement Circuits, Computation and Presentation of Results (1998) (in
Italian).
[ 9] UNI 10478-5 Verification of Properties (1998) (in Italian).
[10] Prevey, P.S., “Residual Stress Distributions Produced by Strain Gauge Surface
Preparation,” Proc. 1986 SEM Conference on Experimental Mechanics, 1986.
[11] Hampton, R.W. and Nelson, D.V., “On the Use of the Hole-Drilling Technique for
Residual Stress Measurements in Thin Plates,” Trans. ASME Pressure Vessel Tech.,
114, pp 292-299, 1992.
[12] Grant P.V., Lord J.D., Whitehead, P.S., “The Measurement of Residual Stresses by the
Incremental Hole Drilling Technique,” Measurement Good Practice Guide No.53.,
National Physical Laboratory, UK, 2002.
[13] Standard Test Method for Determining Residual Stresses by the Hole-Drilling Strain-
Gage Method, ASTM E 837-01.
[14] Scafidi, M., Valentini, E., Zuccarello, B., “Effects of the Hole Bottom Fillet Radius on
Residual Stress Analysis by the Hole Drilling Method” (in Italian), Proceedings of the
XXXVI National Conference of the Italian Stress Analysis Association (AIAS), Ischia,
14-17 September 2007.
[15] Kirsch, G., “Theory of Elasticity and Application in Strength of Materials,” Zeitschrift des
Vereins Deutscher Ingenieure, 42 (29), pp. 797-807, 1898.
[16] Hampton, R.W. and Nelson, D.V., “On the Use of the Hole Drilling Technique for
Residual Stress Measurements in Thin Plates,” Trans. ASME Pressure Vessel Tech.,
114, pp 292-299, 1992.
[17] SINT Technology s.r.l., “An Automatic System for Measuring Residual Stresses,”
Instruction Manual.
[18] Valentini, E., Vangi, D., “An Automatic System for Measuring Residual Stresses by the
Blind Hole Method,” the XXI National Conference of the Italian Stress Analysis
Association (AIAS), Genoa, 22-26 September 1991.
[19] Valentini, E., “An Automatic System for Measuring Non-Uniform Residual Stress by the
Hole Drilling Method,” XIII IMEKO World Congress, Turin, September 1994, pp.
1904-1909.
[20] Valentini, E., Benincasa, A., Baggiani, M., Brogelli, S., “Evolution of the High-Speed
Drilling Technology for Residual Stress Evaluation by the Centre-Hole Method,” (in
Italian) Proceedings of the XXXIV National Conference of the Italian Stress Analysis
Association (AIAS), Milan 14-17 September 2005, pp. 1627-1636.
[21] Flaman, M.T. and Herring, J.A., “Comparison of Four Hole–Producing Techniques for
the Centre-Hole Residual Stress Measurement Method,” Experimental Techniques, Vol.
9, No. 8, 1985, pp. 30-32.
[22] Flaman, M.T., Herring, J.A., “Ultra-High-Speed Centre-Hole Technique for Difficult
Machining Materials,” Experimental Techniques, Vol. 10, No. 1, Jan 1986, pp 34-35.
[23] Steinzig,M.,Ponchione,A., “ Effect of Hole Drilling Parameters on the Accuracy of
Residual Stress Measurements for ESPI Hole Drilling “ 2002 BSSM International
Conference on Advances in Experimental Mechanics, 27-29 August 2002, Stratford
upon Avon, UK.
[24] Rendler, N.J. and Vigness, I., ”Hole-Drilling Strain-Gage Method of Measuring Residual
Stresses,” Experimental Mechanics, December, 1966, pp. 577 – 586.
[25] Schajer, G.S., “Measurement of Non-Uniform Residual Stresses Using the Hole-Drilling
Method. Part I - Stress Calculation Procedures,” Journal of Engineering Materials and
Technology, Vol. n. 110, 1988, pp. 338-343.
[26] Schajer, G.S., “Measurement of Non-Uniform Residual Stresses Using the Hole-Drilling
Method. Part II - Practical Application of the Integral Method,” Journal of Engineering
Materials and Technology, Vol. n. 110, 1988, pp. 344-349.
[27] Schwarz, T., Kochelmann, H., – “The hole Drilling Method – The Best Technique for the
Experimental Determination of Residual Stresses in Many Fields of Application,” –
Messtechnische Briefe 29 (1993) No.2, pp. 33-38.
[28] Beghini, M., Bertini, L., Rosellini, W., “Genetic Algorithms for Variable Through-
Thickness Residual Stress Evaluation,” Proceedings of the 5th European Conference
on Residual Stresses, Noordwick (NL), 28-30 September 1999, pp.145-149.
[29] Beghini, M., Bertini, L., “Analytical Expressions of the Influence Functions for Accuracy
and Versatility Improvement in the Hole-Drilling Method,” Journal of Strain Analysis, Vol.
35, n° 2, 2000, pp. 125-135.
[30] Beghini, M., Bertini, L., “Analytical Influence Functions for the Hole-Drilling Method,”
Fourth European Conference on Residual Stress, Cluny, France, 1996.
[31] Beghini, M., Bertini, L., “Recent Advances in the Hole-Drilling Method for Residual Stress
Measurement,” Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, 1998, Vol. 7 (2), pp.
163-172.
[32] Bertini, L., Beghini, M., Rosellini, W., “Genetic Algorithms for Variable Through-
Thickness Residual Stress Evaluation,” Materials Science Forum, 1999.
[33] Beghini M., Bertini L., Rosellini W., “Measurement of Residual Stresses with an Off-
Centre Hole” (in Italian), Proceedings of the XXIX National Conference of the Italian
Stress Analysis Association (AIAS), Lucca, 6-9 September 2000.
[34] M. Beghini, L. Bertini, L.F. Mori. "Evaluating Non-Uniform Residual Stress by the Hole-
Drilling Method with Concentric and Eccentric Holes. Part I. Definition and Validation of
the Influence Functions". Strain, 46(4), p.324-336, 2010.
[35] M. Beghini, L. Bertini, L.F. Mori. "Evaluating Non-Uniform Residual Stress by the Hole-
Drilling Method with Concentric and Eccentric Holes. Part II: Application of the Influence
Functions to the Inverse Problem”. Strain, 46(4), p.337-346, 2010.
[36] M. Beghini, L. Bertini, L.F. Mori, W. Rosellini. "Genetic algorithm optimization of the
holedrilling method for non-uniform residual stress fields". Journal of Strain Analysis for
Engineering Design, 44(1), 105-115, 2009.
[37] Ajovalasit, A., “Review of the Hole-Drilling Method for Uniform Stresses,” (in Italian),
Italian Stress Analysis Association (AIAS), Journal no. 3, March 1997, pp. 3-11.
[38] Ajovalasit, A., “Measurement of Residual Stresses by the Hole-Drilling Method: Influence
of Hole Eccentricity,” Journal of Strain Analysis (1979), Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 171-178.
[39] Sandifer, J.P., Bowie, G.E., “Residual Stress by Blind Hole Method with Off-Centre
Hole,” Experimental Mechanics 1978, 18(5), pp. 173-179.
[40] Flaman, M.T. and Herring, J.A., “SEM/ASTM Round-Robin Residual Stress
Measurement Study - Phase 1,” Experimental Techniques, May 1986, pp 23-25.
[41] Yavelak, J. J. (compiler), “Bulk-Zero Stress Standard—AISI 1018 Carbon-Steel
Specimens, Round Robin Phase 1,” Experimental Techniques, Vol 9, No. 4, 1985, pp.
38–41.
[42] Fontanari, V., Frendo, F., Bortolamedi, Th., Scardi, P., “Comparison of the Hole-Drilling
and X-Ray Diffraction Methods for Measuring the Residual Stresses in Shot Peened Al-
Alloys,” – Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design, No.2, vol.40, pp.199-200,
2005.
[43] Oettel, R., “The Determination of Uncertainties in Residual Stress Measurement (using
the Hole Drilling Technique),” Code of Practice No.15, Issue 1, Sept 2000 EU Project
No. SMT4-CT97-2165.
[44] Scafidi, M., Valentini, E., Zuccarello, B., “Analysis of Uncertainties in the Centre-Hole
Method for Measurement of Uniform Residual Stress,” (in Italian),Proceedings of the
XXXVII National Conference of the Italian Stress Analysis Association (AIAS), Rome,
10-13 September 2008.
[45] Scafidi, M., Valentini, E., Zuccarello, B., “Error and Uncertainty Analysis of the Residual
Stresses Computed by Using the Hole Drilling Method,” Strain (2010), (In Press), doi:
10.1111/j.1475-1305.2009.00688.x
[46] Scafidi, M., Valentini, E., and Zuccarello, B., “Effect of the Hole-Bottom Fillet Radius on
Residual Stress Analysis by the Hole Drilling Method,” ICRS-8 The 8th International
Conference on Residual Stress – Denver, CO (USA), 2008.
[47] Beghini, M., Bertini, L., and Raffaelli, P., “Numerical Analysis of Plasticity Effects in Hole-
Drilling Residual Stress Measurement,” Journal of Testing Evaluation 22 (6), 1994.
[48] Valentini, E., Beghini, M., Bertini, L., Santus, C., and Benedetti, M., “Procedure to
Perform a Validated Incremental Hole Drilling Measurement: Application to Shot Peening
Residual Stresses, Strain 2010 (In Press),DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1305.2009.00664.x
[49] Beghini,M., Bertini, L., and Santus, C., “A Procedure for Evaluating High Residual
Stresses Using the Blind Hole Drilling Method, Including the Effect of Plasticity,” Journal
of Strain Analysis, 2010, 45 (4), 301-318. DOI 10.1243/03093247JSA579.