GIP Report PDF

Residual Stress Measurement through the Contour
Method
Matt Cursons, Shitong Liu, Karan Mehta, Chen Zhi Shen
Dr Christopher Truman
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol
11th May 2020
Declaration
The accompanying Group Industrial Project report entitled: ”Residual Stress Measure-
ment through the Contour Method” is submitted in the fourth year of study towards
an application for the degree of Master of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering at the
University of Bristol. The report is based upon independent work by the candidates. All
contributions from others have been acknowledged above. The supervisor is identified at
the start of the report. The views expressed within the report are those of the authors
and not of the University of Bristol.
We hereby declare that the above statements are true:
Matt Cursons Chen Zhi Shen

Shitong Liu Karan Mehta
Copyright
Certification of ownership of the copyright in a dissertation presented as part of and in
accordance with the requirements for the Final Degree of Master of Engineering at the
University of Bristol, Faculty of Engineering.
We hereby assert that we own exclusive copyright in the item named below. We give
permission to the University of Bristol Library to add this item to its stock and to make
it available for consultation in the library, and for inter-library lending for use in another
library. It may be copied in full or in part for any bone fide library or research worker
on the understanding that users are made aware of their obligations under the copyright
legislation, i.e. that no quotation and no information derived from it may be published
without the authors’ prior consent.
1
Residual Stress Contour Method Department of Mechanical Engineering
This dissertation is the property of the University of Bristol Library and may only be
used with due regard to the authors. Bibliographical references may be noted but no
part may be copied for use or quotation in any published work without prior permission
of the authors. In addition, due acknowledgement for any use must be made.
Work Allocation
Task Matt Liu Karan Chen
Introduction and Literature Review × × ×
Development of Contour Method in Abaqus × ×
Clamp and Fixture Design ×
Plastic Bending Simulation × ×
Plastic Bending Experiment ×
Plastic Bending Residual Stress Prediction ×
Plastic Bending Sample CMM scanning × ×
Data Processing Method Development × ×
Plastic Bending Result and Discussion ×
Quenching Block Design and Preparation ×
Quenching Experiment × ×
Quenching Residual Stress Simulation × ×
Quenching Sample CMM scanning × ×
Temperature Profile Simulation and evaluation ×
Quenching data processing × × ×
Quenching result and discussion × ×
Conclusion × ×
Matt Cursons Chen Zhi Shen

Shitong Liu Karan Mehta
Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 2

Abstract
Contour Method is a residual stress measurement method originally developed
by Michael B. Prime which computes an arbitrary cross-sectional area map of resid-
ual stress in a specimen. It involves cutting a specimen with residual stress and
measuring the bulged contour displacement of the stress relaxed cut surface to back
calculate the residual stress in a Finite Element Software.
In this project, the Contour Method is formulated using the authors’ original
ideas and researched information. It is developed in Abaqus, contour displacement
data is fed as an input and residual stress is produced as an output. The formulated
Contour Method is validated through experiments and Finite Element simulation
where quenching and plastic bending imparts a known or predicted residual stress
into samples and the formulated Contour Method is applied to evaluate the residual
stress which is then compared with the predicted residual stress. For the plastic
bending sample, the experimentally obtained residual stress has a maximum error
of approximately 30% compared to predictions, the simulated Contour Method
produces residual stress with a maximum error of 16% compared to predictions.
For the quenching sample, the maximum stress measured by contour method has a
maximum error of 14% and the residual stress distribution pattern complies with
the predicted in computational simulation model results. These results imply that
the formulated Contour Method along with the developed data processing method
is valid.

Contents
1 Introduction 6
1.1 Residual Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Contour Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Quenching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4 Aim of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 Literature Review 8
2.1 Theory of Contour Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 Assumptions and Approximation of Contour Method . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3 Materials and Methodology 13

3.1 Practical procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1.1 Sample fixturing for cutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1.2 Sample Cutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.3 Measuring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 Plastic Bending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.1 Bending Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.2 4 Point Bending Experimental Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2.3 Finite Element Analysis Residual Stress Prediction . . . . . . . . 18
3.2.4 Analytical Solution Residual Stress Prediction . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2.5 Strain Gauge Experimental Residual Stress Prediction . . . . . . 20
3.3 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3.1 Plane fitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.3.2 Calculating Contour Surface Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4 Quenching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.4.1 Quenching Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.4.2 Experimental Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.4.3 Finite Element Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.5 Development of Contour Method in Abaqus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4 Results and Discussion 32

4.1 Quenching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.1.1 Computational Model Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.1.2 Experimental Surface Results and Displacement Model result . . . 34
4.1.3 Heat Transfer Model Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.1.4 Displacement Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.1.5 Validation of Contour Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.1.6 Further Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.2 Plastic Bending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5 Conclusions 39
6 Mitigation Plan 40

List of Figures
1 Visualisation of Contour Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2 Symmetric and asymmetric contour components of the resultant contour 10
3 Cut tip stress magnification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4 Contour method flat surface comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5 Anti-symmetric sample about the cut plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6 Anti symmetric error removed through average of both side’s contour . . 12
7 Bulge error illustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 Pictures of fixture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9 Faro Arm CMM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10 Pictures of aluminium sample and 4 point bending diagram . . . . . . . . 16
11 Picture of 4 point bending experiment setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12 FE Residual Stress (axial direction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
13 Midplane view of relaxed sample and residual stress . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14 Plastic bending stress and analytical residual stress prediction . . . . . . 19
15 Stress strain curve and strain distribution of sample after bending, relax-
ation and strain change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
16 Strain gauge experimental residual stress prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
17 FARO CAM auto plane fitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
18 Plane fitting using least square regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
19 Plane fitting using orthogonal regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
20 Calculate contour surface displacements based on fitted plane . . . . . . 25
21 Contour displacement of every scanned data and filtered contour . . . . . 26
22 Thermocouple setup on the heated block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
23 Experimental Temperature profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
24 FE Contour residual stress compared with FE plastic bent residual stress
and FE contour distribution vs fitted contour (Coloured contour represents
axial stress) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
25 Heat Transfer Model Results Through Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
26 Displacement surface produced by contour method . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
27 FE model displacement surface (quarter view) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
28 Contour method results and computational model results . . . . . . . . . 34
29 Contour residual stress compared with predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

1 Introduction
Residual stresses are stresses that exist within a material in the absence of any external
loading. They are common in most materials across many engineering disciplines and
can exist in a material as a result of plastic deformation, temperature changes or phase
changes. Many machining processes such as forging, welding and milling cause residual
stresses meaning that most components in engineering applications will have a residual
stress field. The total stress experienced by a material will be equal to the sum of the
residual and applied stresses. Hence, it is important to measure these residual stresses
because their magnitude and direction can effect the probability and mechanisms of failure
for an operating part.
The University of Bristol has a well-established residual stress department which
leads pioneering research in measurement techniques such as X-ray diffraction, neutron
diffraction and Incremental Centre Hole Drilling (ICHD). The Contour method is a less
developed method that can give lots of information about the nature of the residual
stresses present in a material, especially when used in conjunction with another method
such as Deep Hole Drilling. With the introduction of new measurement technologies that
allow accurate measurements of surface displacements, the contour method becomes a
more viable way to measure residual stresses in materials.
1.1 Residual Stress

Generally residual stresses are beneficial when compressive, and detrimental when tensile.
Therefore gaining an understanding of the type of residual stresses present within a com-
ponent is essential for structural integrity purposes [Mahmoudi et al. (2009)]. Residual
stresses can be induced within components through a variety of methods, such as those
which cause plastic deformation or a phase transformation [Metallurgists (2020)].
One method of causing residual stresses is through temperature variations through
methods such as welding. Non-uniform thermal expansion and contraction occurs due to
localised heating and non-uniform temperature fields during both the heating and cooling
steps. The component therefore deforms plastically, forming residual stresses. [Soul &
Hamdy (2012)].
Another way residual stresses are created is by phase transformations. The rapid
transformation of a crystal lattice creates a difference between the transformed and un-
transformed regions, leading to residual stresses to develop [Withers (2007)]. An example
of a process that induces residual stress via this method is quenching. The outward ther-
mal expansion is restricted by the hardened surface due to the surface cooling faster than
the inner volume of the component. This leads to tension on the outside and compression
to occur within the specimen.
A third way of forming residual stresses is through mechanical treatment using meth-
ods such as bending or rolling. By stressing a component beyond its elastic limit and
plastically deforming the object, the opposing regions are in states of residual tension
and compression.
Residual stresses can be measured using a variety of different techniques. Each has its
own advantages and disadvantages due to the levels of residual stress measured and the
effect left upon the testing specimen. Non-destructive techniques such as neutron and x-
ray diffraction leave no permanent damage to the specimen. Semi-destructive techniques
such as centre hole and deep hole drilling deform a small part of the specimen with

other areas unaffected. Destructive methods such as the contour method are the most
permanent and affect the entire specimen.
1.2 Contour Method

There are several ways in which residual stress can be measured, each with varying dif-
ferences in the stress profile created and the resulting effect on the specimen following
testing. Destructive techniques, such as the contour method, permanently remove mate-
rial and deform the specimen from its original state, preventing any further uses.
The contour method is an example of a destructive process used to measure the
residual stresses within a specimen. It is a relatively new method, created in 2001 by
Michael Prime, and is based on Bueckner’s superposition principle [Prime (2001)]. There
are three main steps involved in the contour method.
First, the specimen is clamped to a table and a wire Electro-Discharging Machine
(EDM) cuts the specimen into two. Wire EDM is used as it does not induce plastic
deformation and therefore will not alter the stresses within the material and affect the
results. This is the most important stage of the process as having an accurate cut is
essential. An imperfect cut can affect the distortions of the surface and alter results. By
constraining the specimen to be fixed in place and having a flat cut, the issues can be
resolved.
Next a coordinate measuring machine (CMM), either a touch probe or a laser, scans
the surface of the object cut by the EDM and measures the surface contour. Despite both
methods providing extremely accurate results, laser scanning is typically more accurate
than a touch probe, especially in larger surfaces. The scanner has an increased resolution
in height detection meaning it is more precise, especially when small contour magnitudes
are to be measured [Prime et al. (2004)]. The scanner also has a high rate of data
acquisition which allows it to record more data points, resulting in a more complete
surface contour. The touch probe is limited by the number of points collected and, due to
human error, may miss certain key points. Both cut surfaces are measured and averaged.
Smoothing data allows errors measured by the CMM to have a smaller magnitude and
less of an impact on the final results.
Finally, using an analytical finite element (FE) model, the inverted plot of the mea-
sured surface is applied to the model. The resulting stresses show the original residual
stresses normal to the plane of the cut within the specimen. The FE model is an identical
copy of the specimen, with the same dimensions and properties, and the cut occurs in
the same place. The plot is smoothed prior to being applied to the model to remove any
errors in the measured data, but it should not be oversmoothed as that may affect the
accuracy.
The contour method is typically used as it can provide a 2D map of the entire residual
stress field and therefore provides information about how the stress is distributed over
the surface. Another benefit to the method is that it is indifferent to grain structure and
therefore can work for a broader ranger of specimens than other testing methods.
Compared with non-destructive testing methods such as neutron diffraction, when
using the contour method, the crystallographic plane due to hardening and the inhomo-
geneity of the material have a minimal effect on the results and therefore will be more
accurate and reliable for a wider range of materials [Boruah et al. (2019)].
However, as it can only provide information about the stress in one direction, it is
ideally used for items which should have a uniform stress profile throughout its thick-

ness. Further cuts can be made, usually perpendicular to the original cut, to provide
information about the residual stress profile in other directions. It is also a destruc-
tive measurement techniques meaning that the part cannot be used for any other needs.
Nonetheless, the clean EDM surface could be used for further testing such as x-ray diffrac-
tion due to being a smooth, almost flat surface. Another disadvantage of the method is
that it is difficult to use on complex shapes due to a cross section needing to be cut along
the length of the object [VEQTER (2020)].
The contour method has been used in many different projects, mostly measuring
residual stress resulting from welding.
1.3 Quenching
Quenching is a multi-step process which involves firstly heating a material to high tem-
peratures before rapidly cooling it down. Materials are typically heated within an oven
or furnace at a uniform rate for ensure the distribution is uniform across the entire spec-
imen. The specimen is heated to temperatures typically between its recrystallisation
temperature and its melting temperature [Supermarkets (2019)]. Following heating, the
object is ‘soaked’ to ensure all the object is at the desired temperature. The second step
involves cooling the object rapidly by submerging it within a fluid, typically water. Other
fluids used to cool the object include liquid nitrogen and helium and are used accordingly
depending on the need of the material properties required.
Quenching is an important thermal processing method widely used in manufacturing
when hardness requirements are needed to be satisfied. In quenching process, especially
when thickness is high, high residual stress will be induced and make significant influences
to further manufacturing process. However, a theoretical model of quenching has not be
developed.
1.4 Aim of Project

The main aim is to formulate the Contour Method using the authors’ original ideas and
researched information in University of Bristol, then validate the developed method using
designed experiments and FE simulation data. The Contour Method is formulated using
the Finite Element Software Abaqus, where contour displacement data is fed into, pro-
ducing residual stress as output. The Contour Method is validated both experimentally
and in FE simulation, where quenching and plastic bending are used to impart resid-
ual stress in specimens, which are then cut and the contour displacements of the cut
is extracted. The contour displacement data is then processed, fed into the formulated
Contour Method, producing experimental and simulation residual stress data which are
then compared with theoretically predicted residual stress for thorough validation of the
formulated Contour Method.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Theory of Contour Method
Figure 1 illustrates the general process of the Contour Method. Step A presents visu-
alization of the real sample imparted with residual stress to be determined through the
contour method. In step B, the sample is cut with EDM so that the material at the cut

Sample
A with
residual
stress (View at cutplane)
= EDM cut
Measure, inverse, 10
ﬁt contour
5
Distance (mm)
B -0.004 -0.002
0
0 0.002 0.004
-5
-10
Apply inversed Surface Displacement (mm)
+ contour on a
Force back in FEA stress free model 10
Distance (mm)
0
C -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Output -5
residual
stress -10
Contour Residual Stress (MPa)
Figure 1: Visualisation of Contour Method
plane would be unconstrained hence undergoes stress relaxation. It can be seen in Figure
1 that the region at the cut surface relaxes with no stress and presents with a bulged
contour as a result of the relaxation. The contour displacement is measured, inverted
and then fitted to a polynomial equation. In step C, the fitted inverted contour is then
applied to a stress free deformed replicated model in Finite Element Analysis (FEA) as an
external displacement boundary condition or displacement loading to force the deformed
stress free surface back to a flat stressed configuration. The stress on that surface will be
the residual stress of the cut surface in the sample.
The theory of the contour method is based on Bueckner’s elastic superposition princi-
ple adapted by Michael B. Prime. The principle intuitively summarises that the residual
stress in a sample is the superposition of the stress field at the cut plane when the sample
is cut, with the opposite of the original residual stress on the cut surface in order for the
relaxed deformed surface to return to its originally flat configuration. It is similar to a
force equilibrium, as explained, the stress field at the relaxed cut surface will be 0 (Step
B), the opposite of the residual stress is equivalent to the internal stress experienced by
the cut surface when the external displacement loading is applied to force the deformed
surface back flat. This can be described through the equation
σA = σB + σC
(1)
σA = σC
where σ is the stress tensor, and σ B = 0. This equation signifies that the stress obtained
in Step C in FEA is equal to the residual stress of the sample in Step A.
A sample with residual stresses imparted into it will have 2 types of residual stresses,
normal residual stress and shear residual stress. Figure 2 illustrates that the resultant
contour displacement to be measured is comprised of two components, the symmetric
contour component which is caused by the normal residual stresses and the asymmetric

Resultant
contour
to be
measured Normal Residual Stress
Tension (+ve)
Compression (-ve)
Symmetric
contour
component by
normal residual
stress
Asymmetric contour
component by shear
residual stress
(averages out)
Shear residual stress in bent beam

example
Figure 2: Symmetric and asymmetric contour components of the resultant contour
contour component which is caused by the shear residual stress. The reason why the
normal residual stress would cause symmetric contour is simply due to the fact that
normal stresses must satisfy the force equilibrium, for instance the tension on one side
of the cut must be counteracted by tension on another cut side. Regions of cut surface
with residual tension will be pulled back during relaxation after material removal, while
regions with residual compression will be pushed out during relaxation. This can be seen
in Figure 2. The reason why the shear residual stress would cause asymmetric contour is
also due to force equilibrium where the shear stress in one cut face will be in the opposite
direction of the shear stress in another cut face. The asymmetric contour can be seen in
Figure 2 where the crest on one cut side fits on the trough in another cut side.
Bueckner’s superposition principle which is the core of the contour method assumes
that all material points on the cut relaxed surface must be returned back to their original
points in the forcing back through inverse contour step. However, CMM measurements
can only measure the resultant contour, providing information on the cut surface normal
displacement only, hence the material points are not reverted back to their original point
in the transverse direction (caused by shear stress) in the FE contour method step.
This is the reason why the function of the contour method is limited to calculating the
normal residual stress only. Clearly, the anti symmetric contour component will act as
an additional inaccuracy and error on the symmetric contour hence inaccurate normal
residual stress calculation as shown in Figure 2. Nevertheless. the asymmetric contour
can be eliminated, leaving only the symmetric contour purely for normal stress calculation
by simply averaging the both cut sides of the resultant contour. This can be conveniently
understood through visualization in Figure 6 which is for asymmetric cutting error but
in a similar fashion.

2.2 Assumptions and Approximation of Contour Method

Elastic Stress Unloading - This assumption describes that the material behaves elasti-
cally during residual stress unloading when the the material is removed. This assumption
is used in the Superposition Principle utilised by the Contour Method in order to back
calculate the existing residual stress in the specimen.
Cutting Process do not impart plastic stress or residual stress onto sample -
This assumption indicates that during the cutting process, no stress leading to further
plasticity is imparted in the material by the cutting process as it could increase the
residual stress measured. However, it is inevitable that during the cutting process, the
material’s cut tip will have large stress concentration as understood from Elastic Plastic
Fracture Mechanics which will give rise to local plastic yielding at the cut tip region.
Heat generation in the cutting process may even lead to thermal stress plasticity. This
suggests that even after the cut is finished, there may be some degree of local plasticity
present on the cut surface which then implies that the residual stress unloading process
is not fully elastic.
Stress
Linear Elastic
Fracture Mechanic
Yield Stress Elastic Plastic

Fracture Mechanic
EDM wire
Distance from cut tip
Figure 3: Cut tip stress magnification
Contour Method Flat surface Start Analysis - Generally, the contour method is
thought of as forcing the stress free contour displacement back into a flat surface through
the inverse of the contour displacement. However, this method would be more tedious
practically in the Finite Element (FEM) work as a stress free starting model has to be
created with the contour displacement on its surface. This assumption signifies that
forcing a stress free contour displacement back into a flat surface through the inverse of
the contour displacement is equivalent to forcing a flat surface into the shape of an inverse
contour displacement through the inverse contour displacement. This assumption holds
true because the contour deformations are very small for engineering materials, and the
finite element analysis is linear. The flat surface starting analysis is less tedious as the
stress free starting model can be built as a simple flat surface.
Figure 4: Contour method flat surface comparison

Symmetric sample about cut plane - The action of averaging the two side cut contour
surface displacement serves to average away the anti-symmetric component of the contour
displacement caused by the anti-symmetric shear stress as discussed above. However,
this would only hold true with the assumption that the sample is symmetric about the
cut plane and is homogeneous and isotropic. This is so that the stiffness of the part
is equal on both cut sides, hence producing comparable contour displacement as the
displacement is dependent on the material stiffness which also depends on its Young’s
Modulus. Practically speaking, the sample only needs to be symmetric within an area
where its stiffness has significant influence on its cut contour displacement. The extent
of that area’s boundary from the cut surface can be approximately described as 1.5 times
the Saint Venant’s characteristic distance. The characteristic distance often being the
sample thickness or more conservatively, the value of its maximum cross-sectional area.
The Saint Venant’s characteristic distance is related to the Saint Venant’s Principle which
is renowned in structural mechanics. It intuitively describes that even if the load states
is substantially different (due to asymmetric sample hence stiffness in this case), it has
negligible effect on the stresses (at the cut plane) at a large enough distance (characteristic
distance) hence not affecting the contour displacement.
Cut Plane
1.5 X
Characteristic
Distance
Asymmetric sample
Figure 5: Anti-symmetric sample about the cut plane
Anti-symmetric cutting errors average away - Anti symmetric cutting errors could
occur due to sample movement during cutting due to residual stress relax causing defor-
mation hence a crooked cut path. A crooked cut path could also be due to EDM machine
error. However, as the errors are anti-symmetric, simply averaging both sides of the cut
surface displacement will sufficiently eliminate these errors.
Cut Average 2 side
Anti-symmetric effect
eliminated
Anti-symmetric
cutting error
Figure 6: Anti symmetric error removed through average of both side’s contour
Symmetric cutting error is marginal - Symmetric cutting errors mostly originate

from cutting irregularities and can be avoided through good experimental procedure

which would be discussed below. Symmetric errors could be caused by wire breakage
halfway through the cutting process, or it is caused by burning of foreign particles. Sym-
metric cutting errors could also occur during cutting heterogeneous material as the same
power delivered to the EDM wire is used to vapourise different materials. This would
result in different amount of material being removed hence varying cut width.
Undeformed shape
Stress relaxation
deforms cutting plane
Fixed width undeformed cutting plane
w Current deformed material

location that were on
undeformed cutting plane.
Figure 7: Bulge error illustration
Bulge error is minimal - Bulge error is a symmetric error which occurs because in
reality, cutting time is finite and not instantaneous. This implies that the materials that
were cut is able to undergo residual stress relaxation during the cut hence pulling or
pushing materials prior to the cut, deforming the cutting plane as illustrated in Figure 7.
However, the physical cutting width is still constant which signifies that the material that
are removed is not the material that should have been removed (the original cut plane).
This error would add another factor of uncertainty to the surface contour displacement
result, the fact that unintended material with unintended stress is cut would mean that
the stress acquired from the contour method would technically not be from the originally
undeformed straight plane. Proper clamping will generally reduce the bulge error as the
clamp will restrict sample residual stress relaxation and movement during the cutting
process hence limiting cut plane deformation.
3 Materials and Methodology

To validate the contour method, two experiments were designed. A 4-point bend which
imparts residual stresses through plastic deformation, and a quench which imparts resid-
ual stress through temperature changes. The experimental 4-point bend results could
be compared against computational results (FE model simulation) and analytical results
calculated by using the well-developed theory. However, the residual stress field created
by the quenching process is more complex and could easily be affected by various factors
such as geometry features or nonlinear relationships between heat capacity and temper-
ature. Thus, an analytical solution is unattainable, and the experimental results were
compared to computational results only.
3.1 Practical procedure

3.1.1 Sample fixturing for cutting
Fixture is a very important aspect of the Contour Method, poor fixture will significantly
increase the surface displacement errors. Ample considerations are given to the design of
a clamping mechanism for the samples. The design criteria chosen is based on :

• Maximum clamping constraint possible to reduce cut plane deformation from resid-
ual stress relaxation. As seen in Figure 8a, the clamp has horizontal constraints
and vertical constraints locked down by horizontal bolts and vertical bolts which
would provide maximum constraints.
• Sample size independent, so that the clamp is adaptable to a lot of other type of
samples. There are hollow tracks on the supports for the vertical bolts as seen in
Figure 8b so that the clamp can accommodate a large variety of sample size in the
future.
• Simple design so manufacturing time in the workshop is minimized due to project

time constraint. The geometry of the clamps are very simple with straight cuts
with the hollow tracks done on the CNC milling machine. The material used for
this clamp is Aluminium Alloy - Commercial Alloy - 5083 - 0 - H111 Sheet and
Plate which is readily available in the workshop and easily machinable.
• Corrosion proof because EDM cutting process involves de-ionized water submersion
of the sample and fixture and the clamp has to be reusable for a lot of time.
Aluminium is corrosion proof hence the reason it is used as the fixture material.
• High rigidity and stiffness so large sample weight will not cause much deflection
and successively cause poor cutting orientation. The fixture base is designed to be
thick (30 mm) and long (across the EDM cut bed for fixed at both end boundary
conditions) to minimize deflection for accurate cutting orientation.
The sample was fixed in the clamp which was bolted to the EDM cutbed. The two
parts of the clamp were spaced 10 mm apart at the sample’s midplane which formed the
EDM wire slit path shown in Figure 8b. It is important to ensure that samples are not
clamped too tightly as to impart any stress onto the material. The bolts were simply
hand tightened to prevent additional material stress.
Hollow Track
Aluminium Sample
EDM wire slit path
(a) Clamp front view. (b) Clamp top view.
Figure 8: Pictures of fixture
3.1.2 Sample Cutting

The primary factor for good cut quality is the EDM cutting settings, secondary factors
include the wire’s material and diameter. Roughly speaking, the EDM cutting settings

should be set to skim cut for a slower but better surface finish which is essential for good
surface displacement measurement. Skim cuts use lower power which would generate less
heat on the cut while allowing longer time for heat dissipation, minimizing the thermal
plasticity effect. Generally, smaller wire diameter is preferred as smaller wire would
reduce cut width hence lower bulge error. However, cutting with a smaller wire would
require a longer time and may lead to wire breakage. The general principle stated by
Prime is as shown in Table 3. From Prime’s experience, Brass wire would be preferable
to other wires such as Tungsten, Zinc coated Brass because Brass wire would provide the
best quality.
Table 1: Wire diameter for different speciment thickness
Sample thickness, t (mm) EDM wire diameter (µm)

t ≤ 15 100
100 ≤ t ≤ 15 150 - 200
t ≥ 50 250
In the actual cutting process, skim cut setting is used, the wire diameter used is
250µm, wire type is Brass. A larger wire diameter is used as it was the only available
wire in the workshop but it will not significantly affect the contour result and in fact
provide a more robust cut. Sample aligning and clamp fixing on the EDM cut bed was
done by the workshop technician. The fixture together with the specimen is then left
to sit submerged in de-ionized water on the EDM cutbed for 15 minutes for the sample
and fixture to achieve thermal equilibrium with the water. During cutting, high water
pressure jet was directed towards the sample submerged in de-ionized water to further
enhance heat dissipation for less thermal plasticity effect. After the cut, the sample is first
rinsed with water to remove any debris, after drying, it is rinsed with acetone to remove
any possible oil form contaminants to ensure good contour measurement. Utmost care is
taken to ensure the cut surface is preserved and not in contact with any contaminants or
materials to prevent scratches on the contour. The samples are stored in empty lockers
to prevent any accidental scratching and only taken out for contour measurement, careful
handling precaution is adopted so as to not accidentally touch the cut surface too.
3.1.3 Measuring
Figure 9: Faro Arm CMM

Once the test sample has been cut, the bulge displacements of the two samples are
measured with a CMM. The Faro Arm (Figure 9) was used for all measurements. The
laser probe tool was used rather than the ball probe since the measurements are very
sensitive and use of the ball probe causes light scratches on the cut surface of the sample
which compromises the quality of the measurement. The laser probe also allows the user
to take a point cloud measurement which useful for collecting many data points on the
cut surface to form a 3D scatter plot of the displacements. The laser probe measures
with a repeatability of 0.029 mm. This accuracy is maintained by using the dual laser
system to ensure the laser is in focus during each measurement.
3.2 Plastic Bending

3.2.1 Bending Sample
F/2 F/2
80.00
Bottom surface tensile strain gauge Aluminium Sample
200.00
20.00
160.00
Simply Supported
Top surface compressive strain gauge Aluminium Bending Sample
(b) 4 point bending diagram
(a) Strain gauges on aluminium sample
Figure 10: Pictures of aluminium sample and 4 point bending diagram
For the bending sample, the material choice’s primary factor is based on convenience as
the earlier the sample can be manufactured, the faster the contour method results can
be obtained in the limited project duration to test if the contour method developed is
accurate. The material chosen is Aluminium Alloy 5083 - 0 - H111 Plate (6.3mm to
80mm thick) supplied by Aalco as it is readily available and stockpiled in the workshop
for manufacturing. It is also important that the plastic bending tests can be carried out
in most test machines in the university so that it can be carried out as soon as possible
which is why Aluminium 5083 is chosen as it has relatively low yield strength as shown in
Table 2. Sample geometric dimension also plays a major role in the force required to bend
it, a rectangular beam sample of 200mm (length) x 30mm (width) x 20mm (thickness) is
chosen such that the residual stress imparted is approximately 50% of its yield strength
because larger deformation produce more significant and easily detectable contour. The
dimensions are acquired through trial and error of samples with different dimensions in 4
point bending simulation on FE software Abaqus such that it satisfies that rule while also
being appropriate for the 4 point flexure fixtures available so no new design is required.
In the trial and error process, the force required to bend the specimen by the hydraulic
press, F is found to be 21kN.
Since the rectangular sample is made of homogeneous material and geometrically
symmetric, it satisfies the rule that the sample must have symmetric stiffness about the
cut plane. 4 point bending is chosen rather than 3 point bending as 4 point bending
produces a region of constant maximum bending moment in the sample between the 2
load points according to the bending moment diagram whereas 3 point bending only

produce samples with a maximum bending moment at the point centre. This means that
the 4 point bent samples will have a large uniform region of residual stress distribution
for the EDM cut whereas the 3 point bent samples will not have this flexibility. Strain
gauges are attached on the top compressive and bottom tensile surfaces to record the
maximum strains which will be used to predict the residual stress as explained further
below in the Strain Gauge Experimental Residual Stress Prediction section.
Table 2: Aluminium Alloy 5083 - 0 - H111 Plate (6.3mm to 80mm thick) material prop-
erties
Material Properties Values

Yield strength 115 MPa
Elastic Modulus 72 GPa
3.2.2 4 Point Bending Experimental Testing
Top and bottom

strain gauges
Figure 11: Picture of 4 point bending experiment setup
The 4 point bending experiment is carried out on the Roell Amsler 25kN Fatigue T/C
with Torsion as shown in Figure 11 where the Aluminium sample is on top of an Instron
4 point flexure fixture with the hydraulic press with 2 load points on top of it. The
loading procedure is done in 2 steps, loading step’s absolute ramp is set to 5 minutes to
achieve 21kN from 0kN compression force while the relaxation step’s absolute ramp is
set to 5 minutes to achieve 0kN from 21kN compression force. There are no standards
found on test methods of 4 point bending for metals only ceramics and composites for
a standardized bending procedure, which is why the ramp rates are done conservatively
such that a long ramping time is implemented so the sample has time to achieve stress
equilibrium as loading occurs.
The strain gauges, load cell and linear voltage displacement transducer (LVDT) which
is attached to the test rig are all connected to the System 8000 StrainSmart Data Ac-
quisition System manufactured by MicroMeasurements which records the measurements
in real time. The system 8000 has internal Wheatstone Bridge Circuits which is used to
accurately measure the change in gauge resistance due to strain hence providing accurate
strain readings. Before the experiment, the strain gauges are shunt calibrated which will

adjust the manufacturer specified gauge factor to compensate for lead wire resistance.
The strains and load measurements are also zeroed and balanced before experiment.
3.2.3 Finite Element Analysis Residual Stress Prediction
Step 1 : Plastic Bending

S, S11 F/2 F/2
(Avg: 75%)
+1.594e+02
+1.263e+02
+9.310e+01
+5.992e+01
+2.675e+01
-6.427e+00
-3.960e+01
-7.278e+01
-1.059e+02
-1.391e+02
-1.723e+02
-2.055e+02
-2.386e+02
Step 2 : Relaxation
S, S11
(Avg: 75%)
+8.605e+01
+7.376e+01 Midplane
+6.147e+01
+4.918e+01
+3.688e+01
+2.459e+01
+1.230e+01
+7.490e-03
-1.228e+01
-2.458e+01
-3.687e+01
-4.916e+01
-6.145e+01
Figure 12: FE Residual Stress (axial direction)
FE Residual 10
S, S11 Stress Prediction
(Avg: 75%) 8
+8.605e+01
+7.376e+01 6
Distance from neutal axis (mm)
+6.147e+01
+4.918e+01 4
+3.688e+01
+2.459e+01 2
+1.230e+01
+7.502e-03
-1.228e+01
-2.458e+01 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 10 20 30 40 50
-3.687e+01 -2
-4.916e+01
-6.145e+01
-4
-6
-8
-10
Residual Stress (MPa)
Figure 13: Midplane view of relaxed sample and residual stress
The 4 point bending experiment is simulated in Abaqus where a built model of the
aluminium sample is subjected to the loading and boundary conditions as described in
Figure 10b. In the 4 point bending experiment, the plastic true stress strain behaviour
is captured by the strain gauge and load cell in the test machine is used to build a stress
strain curve as the plastic stress strain values are required as input for this plasticity
FE modelling. The simulation is carried out in 2 steps as shown in Figure 12, the
first step being plastic bending where plastic deformation occurs where the loads and
boundary conditions are activated. The second step is relaxation where the loads and
boundary conditions are deactivated and the sample is allowed to spring back elastically
until equilibrium, the leftover stress would be the residual stress due to plastic bending.
After that, a view cut is done on the sample’s midplane to obtain the axial stress in the

middle line of the sample’s midplane which would be the FE predicted residual stress as
shown in Figure 13.
3.2.4 Analytical Solution Residual Stress Prediction
Distance from
h
2 neutral axis Plastic Bending Stress
8 Elastic Unloading Stress
(-ve)
6 Residual Stress
Distance from neutral axis (mm)

c 4
- y y Bending -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 50 100 150 200 250
-2
M = PL Stress
8 -c -4
-6
-8
- h2
Stress (MPa)
(a) Perfectly plastic bending stress distribu- (b) Analytical residual stress prediction
tion diagram
Figure 14: Plastic bending stress and analytical residual stress prediction
The analytical solution is based on the theory of elastic plastic bending theory which
assumes the material is an elastic perfectly plastic material where no work hardening will
take place when its yield strength is exceeded and its stress is capped at its yield strength
as shown in Figure 14a. The plastic bending stress distribution of that material would
look like 14a, where there is an inner core which is still linear elastic and obeys Euler
Bernoulli beam theory with a constant bend curvature radius while the outer regions
starting from c are in perfectly plastic state. In order to calculate the only unknown,
plastic distance c, a simple moment equilibrium is assumed where the external bending
moment on the sample by the test machine, M is equal to the internal bending moment
of the sample in the form of axial stress at a distance from the neutral axis, y. The
E c
R 2
internal bending moment is contributed by the inner elastic core, R −c y dA and the two
h
−c
outer region, σy ( h2 − c)b( 2 2 + c) × 2. Referring to Figure 14a, for a rectangular section
Z
M= σx ydA
Area
h
−c
Z
E E h
σx = y : = y 2 dA + σy ( − c)b( 2 + c) × 2
R R Area 2 2
σy c 2
Z
E σy h h
= := y bdy + σy b( − c)b( + c) (2)
R c c −c 2 2
σy b(3h2 − 4c2 )
=
12
F L 2 3 2 2F L
M= :c = h −
8 4 8σy b
where y is distance from neutral axis, A is area, σx is axial stress, E is elastic modulus,
R is curvature radius, h is thickness, b is width, σy is yield stress (150MPa assumed),

L is support span (distance between the 2 support), F is load and the expression of M
is external bending moment obtained from 4 point bending bending moment diagram.
Knowing c and that yield stress occurs and capped outside of ±c and that stress is 0 at
the assumed neutral axis position, the plastic bending stress curve is complete as shown
in Figure 14b.
When the sample relaxes as the loading is removed, it is assumed that it will linear
elastically unload and tries to spring back to its original position but only partially as
it is stopped by the plastic strain deformation at outer regions that cannot be recov-
ered. Assuming Euler Bernoulli bending theory’s strain linearity still holds throughout
the sample’s section due to constant bending radius of curvature, the maximum elastic
unloading stress at the outermost surface, ∆σ can be simply described as
M
∆σ = y
I
PL
h
= ± bh83 (3)
12
2
3F L
=±
4bh2
where I is the second moment of area of a rectangular section. On the tensile surface ∆σ
is positive while ∆σ is negative on the compressive surface. Knowing ±∆σ at tensile and
compressive surface, and that the elastic unloading stress is linear and is 0 at the neutral
axis, the elastic unloading stress curve is complete as shown in Figure 14b. Note that the
negative of elastic unloading stress, −∆σ is plotted in Figure 14b for ease of comparison
and visualisation of intersections with the plastic bending stress curve, when actually ∆σ
should be tensile positive at the compressive bending region indicating tensile springback
of the compressed material during relaxation and vice versa. Finally, the analytical
residual stress can be calculated using the equation
σres = σplastic − (−∆σ)

(4)
σres = σplastic + ∆σ
which is basically the plastic bending curve that occurs during plastic bending minus the
elastic unloading curve (negative) that occurs during relaxation, leaving the analytical
residual stress that occurs after relaxation.
3.2.5 Strain Gauge Experimental Residual Stress Prediction

The strain gauge experimental residual stress prediction is done in a similar framework
with the analytical residual stress prediction where plastic bending curve and elastic
unloading curve are calculated to obtain the residual stress using Equation 4. The plastic
strains are experimentally determined from the strain gauges recorded measurements.
The plastic bending stress can be experimentally determined from the test machine load
cell force, P recorded measurements and strain gauge measurements, from the actual
bending experiment with some mathematics from the paper by Hiroyuki Kato (2014)
which is inspired by the works of Mayville (1982). According to Hiroyuki Kato (2014),
the axial bending stress at the outermost surface can be calculated using the equations

d 1 + 2
σ1 = (P (C 1 + C 2 ) + )
bh2 C1 2
d 1 + 2
σ2 = 2 (P (C1 + C2 ) + )
bh C2 2
(5)
d1 1(n+1) − 1(n)
where C1 = =
dP Pn+1 − Pn
d2 2(n+1) − 2(n)
C2 = =
dP Pn+1 − Pn
where d denotes the nearest distance between the load point and support (d = L4 =
40mm), subscripts 1 and 2 denote the two individual strain gauge on the compressive and
tensile outermost surface respectively in this case. P denotes load cell force measurement,
subscripts (n) and (n+1) simply denotes the current and next data points respectively as
the load and strain comprises multiple data points because they are recorded continuously
throughout the bending test. The outermost stress data points calculated combined with
the outermost strain data recorded at each time can then be used to build a stress strain
curve where the stress limit would be the maximum surface stress endured by the sample.
The stress strain curve is divided into tensile and compressive regions where each region
is subdivided into linear and non linear sections. The stress strain data are smoothed
by fitting the linear section with a linear equation intersecting with the origin where
the gradient is the elastic modulus and fitting the non linear section with a 6th order
polynomial equation intersecting with the final point of the elastic section as shown in
Figure 15a. The reason why the stress strain curve is important is that it represents the
plastic bending stress distribution in the sample during peak bending. In Figure 15a,
the gradient represents the elastic modulus and the average is 72.2GP a and the 0.2%
offset yield stength is about 135M P a which is similar to the manufacturer specification
in Table 2, validating the measurements.
(a) Experimental stress strain curve (b) Strain distribution throughout sample
Figure 15: Stress strain curve and strain distribution of sample after bending, relaxation
and strain change
Figure 15b shows the distribution of the strain throughout the sample during the
bending peak load when F = 21kN is achieved (bent strain), the strain distribution
when the sample has fully relaxed at F = 0kN (relaxed strain) and the strain change

between the two processes. The bent and relaxed strain distribution is obtained through
the two top and bottom strain gauge measurements during the two processes by simply
fitting a straight line through the two strain gauge measurements assuming the strain
linearity of Euler Bernoulli beam theory holds true. The strain change, ∆ is simply
calculated as
∆ = r − b (6)
where subscript r represents relaxed and b represents bent. It is logical that the top
compressive region has negative strain which springs back in tension during relaxation
hence a less negative strain, leading to a positive strain change and vice versa for the
bottom tensile region. The reason why the strain change distribution is important is
that it is required to calculate the elastic unloading stress, ∆σ experienced by the sample
during relaxation using the equation
∆σ = E∆ (7)
where the value of E used is the average of the two measured elastic modulus in Figure
15a.
Figure 16: Strain gauge experimental residual stress prediction
Referring to Figure 16, knowing the plastic bending stress and elastic unloading stress
distribution, the residual stress distribution can be calculated using Equation 4. This
method does not have to assume that the neutral axis is at the centre where strain is 0,
and evidently based on Figure 15b where the strain is actually not at 0 at the centre. This
can be probably be explained as the slight difference in compressive and tensile stress
strain behaviour in the top and bottom region causing the plastic neutral axis to change
to satisfy force and moment equilibrium. This method also takes into account the fact
that a real material has work hardening properties unlike a perfectly plastic material.
3.3 Data Processing

After cutting the sample in half as described in the sample cutting section, both sample
sides of the cut surface is scanned with the FARO arm using the laser probe or the contact
point probe. With the laser probe, a point cloud with millions of Cartesian coordinate
data points of the contour are obtained and recorded. In order to produce a graph of
contour displacement against distance along the section, two data processing steps are
required. The first step is plane fitting to obtain a best fit plane as a zero datum for the
coordinates, the next step is to find the distance between the contour surface coordinate

points with the fitted plane, which would be the contour displacement and it will be fitted
to a polynomial equation. The reference Cartesian vector direction used in this analysis
is that y is the vertical direction (closest to the surface normal), z is the direction across
the sample thickness and x is the direction across the sample width. Plane fitting is
particularly important for the bending sample as plastic bending deformation will cause
the cut plane to be slanted in the other two non-normal to surface direction (x and z)
and the sample base fixed on the FARO measuring Granite table might also be skewed.
For this reason, it is not wise to assume that the cut surface is perfectly normal in
the y direction, directly relating y coordinate as the surface displacement. The main
outcome of plane fitting is that it identifies one normal point and the plane’s normal
direction, 3 methods are implemented to plane fit the coordinate points. The second
step is to calculate the contour displacement based on the plane fitted coordinate points,
filter, then fit the data to mathematically describe the data as an input recognised by the
formulated Contour Method in Abaqus. The whole process is done in a Matlab code with
measured cut surface cloud point coordinates as inputs and fitted contour displacement
as the output.
3.3.1 Plane fitting

3.3.1.1 FARO Arm Software Plane Fitting
The first method is to use an in situ FARO ARM software FARO CAM2 feature (‘Measure
Plane’) which automatically fits the scanned contour and outputs a point (x,y,z) and
normal (i,j,k) as shown in Figure 17.
Plane 1 Readings:21.
actual nominal
PointOnPlane.x 680.959mm
PointOnPlane.y -308.379mm
PointOnPlane.z -0.431mm
Normal.i -0.0015
Normal.j 0.9997
Normal.k -0.0242
3D Distance
MinError -0.028mm
MaxError 0.022mm
Flatness 0.050mm
Mean 0.000mm
Sum 0.000mm
StdDev 0.015mm
SSE 0.004mm
RMS 0.015mm
Figure 17: FARO CAM auto plane fitting
3.3.1.2 Least Square Regression Plane Fitting
Figure 18: Plane fitting using least square regression
The second method uses the least square fitting method, in this case it assumes that the
y-component (surface displacement) is functionally dependent on the other 2 components
(z and x) and it minimizes the y error which is essentially the distance between the sample

point with the to-be fitted plane (David Eberly, 2017). This method is similar to the
least squares linear regression line fitting.
Assume that the plane equation is of the form Axi −y +Bzi = −C, y = Axi +Bzi +C,
note that the y-direction is fixed as -1. The error, E which is the y-distance between the
sample point, ~a and the y direction projection of ~a on the plane, ~x can be described as
m
X m
X
E= (y − yi )2 = ((Axi + Bzi + C) − yi )2 for m sample points (8)
i=1 i=1
Obtaining the coefficients A, B, C would give us the plane normal and plane point.
A, B, C is found by minimizing E with respect to each coefficients,
 Pm
δE
 δA = 0 = 2 Pi=1 [(Axi + Bzi + C) − yi ]xi

∇E = 0 : δE
δB
=0=2 m i=1 [(Axi + Bzi + C) − yi ]zi (9)

 δE Pm
δC
= 0 = 2 i=1 [(Axi + Bzi + C) − yi ]
 Pm 2 Pm Pm    Pm 
i=1 x i i=1 x i z i i=1 x i A i=1 x i yi
 m xi zi Pm
Pm
2  B  =  m
P P P
Pi=1 i=1 zi i=1 zi Pi=1 yi zi  (10)
m m P m m
x
i=1 i z
i=1 i i=1 1 C y
i=1 i
Equation 10 is equation
 9 in matrix form, which can Pbe solved
 to obtain A, B, C, and the
1 m
A m Pi=1 i
x
plane normal, ~n = −1 the plane point, p~ =  m1 Pmi=1 yi
 (sample points average).
1 m
B m i=1 zi
3.3.1.3 Orthogonal Regression Hyperplanar Fitting
Figure 19: Plane fitting using orthogonal regression

The third method is similar to the least square fitting method except that it minimizes
the orthogonal distance between the sample points with the to-be fitted plane (David
Eberly, 2017). In Figure 19, λi is basically the projection of ~y onto ~n, (~n · ~y = |y| cos θ),
which is the orthogonal distance of ~a to the plane. To summarize, the plane point p~
is obtained by averaging the sample points ~a, the plane normal is obtained by solving
eigenvalues and eigenvectors of M , the smallest eigenvalue’s corresponding eigenvector
would be ~n, the plane normal.
3.3.2 Calculating Contour Surface Displacement
Figure 20: Calculate contour surface displacements based on fitted plane
A theory is self developed to calculate the contour surface displacement. with plane and
line geometry vector theory as shown in Figure 20. d is the distance between the sample
point, ~a and the point normal to the sample point on the fitted plane, ~x, which is the
contour surface displacement. As seen in Figure 20, there are two steps to calculating the
contour displacement, the first step is to calculate d, the next step is to determine if d is
positive or negative value based on if it is above or below the plane respectively. In the
first step, Line 1 is dotted with ~n, since ~a is known from FARO measurements and ~n and
p~ is known from the plane fitting methods described above, λ hence ~x can be determined
hence d. In the second step, Line 2 is dotted with ~n, the value of λ2 can be determined
to classify if d calculated in step 1 is negative (below plane) or positive (above plane),
hence the result as shown in Figure 21a for the orthogonal plane fitting method.
The noise present is very large due to the FE predicted trough to peak contour being
6µm as shown in Figure 21b whereas the FARO arm accuracy is 29µm due to an oversight
during experiment planning where the equipment accuracy is unaccounted leading to the
choice of exceedingly low magnitude residual stress hence contour. To get rid of the noise,
the measured contours are filtered and smoothed using robust loess method in Matlab
which is a weighted regression. The span input parameter which dictates the smoothing
intensity used is 0.6, this choice is dictated by visually looking at the filtered contour
result to ensure no abrupt gradient change in contour along the surface because it is
noticed that even small abrupt gradient change will be amplified in the contour residual

stress in FE. The small abrupt gradient change comes from the surface’s inherent surface
roughness, however, oversmoothing the contour will cause reduction in contour residual
stress calculated. Finally, the filtered contour is interpolated at regular distance intervals
and both side’s contour are averaged at the set intervals then fitted to a 30th degree
polynomial as shown in Figure 21b. A high degree polynomial is implemented so that
the equation captures the exact contour, however, it is very susceptible to oscillating
noises hence the filtering step beforehand.
(b) Plane fitted contour results comparison

(a) Orthogonal plane fitted contour data
Figure 21: Contour displacement of every scanned data and filtered contour
In Figure 21b, the least square plane fit overlaps the orthogonal regression plane fit
meaning they are very similar, however the FARO plane fitting method is very different
and unsuitable. The plane fit’s validity can be checked with the FE predicted contour
which is explained further in the Contour method development section. Furthermore,
the contour should be the opposite shape of the predicted residual stress curve as tensile
residual stress pulls the cut surface back producing negative contour and vice versa for
compression, which is not the case for the FARO fit but valid for the other 2 fits. However,
even though in this case there is no difference between orthogonal fitting and least squares
fitting, orthogonal fitting is preferred and used as least squares fitting constrains one
direction (y in this case) to -1 (non-zero). That would be unsuitable if that direction in
the plane normal is close to 0, hence orthogonal fitting is more robust and more accurate
as it minimizes the error in all direction.
3.4 Quenching
3.4.1 Quenching Sample
The specimen used for the quenching test was a block manufactured using the material
Aluminium 7449 with dimensions of 75 x 145 x 195 mm. AL7449 was chosen as for the
contour method as it is desirable that the material exhibits linear elastic behaviour which
can be reflected in the FE model [Prime (2013)]. A good assumption for most materials is
that they are isotropic and also homogeneous. This is required as it means that both sides
of the specimen following the cut are uniform and have virtually identical deformations.
The specimen was cut from a larger block of the same material using a waterjet ensuring
that the specimen solely consists of AL7449. Furthermore, the geometry and the cutting

Figure 22: Thermocouple setup on the heated block
method should ensure that the material properties are consistent and resemble the known
standard properties.
The specimen properties were obtained from Robinson et al. (2011). Values for con-
ductivity (k), density (ρ), specific heat capacity (Cp ), elastic modulus (E) and thermal
expansion coefficient (α) are temperature dependant meaning that their values change
as the temperature of the material is changing. This is essential for the test undertaken
as when comparing to the finite element model, by refining the model using the updated
properties at different temperatures, the FE model will be more accurate and a better
comparison can be made between the experimental and finite element solutions.
3.4.2 Experimental Testing

The block was placed within a Lenton furnace and cooled in a bucket of water at room
temperature. Cooling within water rather than oil or other fluids was chosen as it as
desirable to induce the largest amount of residual stress possible within the specimen
[Masoudi et al. (2015)]. As the aim of the project is to validate the contour method,
generating larger residual stress values will reduce the uncertainty in the results and
make it more accurate.
Using the furnace, the aluminium specimen was heated up to 400◦ C and cooled using
a bucket of water. Initially, a test was undertaken without using thermocouples and
results were gathered. Due to the lack of interaction with the water when quenched,
thermocouples were added to another specimen to track the temperature increase and
guarantee that the block reached the desired temperature. The temperature profile would
also be used to refine the finite element model with an accurate temperature profile rather
than a constant rate of increase.
Three thermocouples were used on the block: one in the middle of the block (T-
Inside), one a quarter of the length into the block (T-Middle) and one on the surface of the
specimen (T-Surface). This arrangement is shown in Figure 22. A fourth thermocouple
was also added to the bucket of water to track the temperature prior to and following
the quenching of the aluminium block. The thermocouples were connected to a PicoLog
6 controller which recorded the temperature at 30 second intervals.
Two holes were drilled at a depth of 20mm into the block where the thermocouples
were threaded through. Only the end point of the thermocouple measures the temper-
ature, thus it was essential that the tip is connected to the block and not sensing the
air temperature. As the surrounding air of the furnace rises faster than the block, an
incorrect placement would record a ’false positive’ reading showing the temperature of
the block higher than it actually is.
Having a plurality of thermocouples also provided an opportunity to verify tempera-

tures as they should all be within a similar range of values and can provide a backup. In
the case one thermocouple is displaced and records the air temperatures, the other two
will still record the correct temperature of the aluminium block. Washers were added
to connect the thermocouple to the block surface. This ensured that it stayed fixed in
place and wouldn’t be displaced from the point measured ensuring the area recorded was
unchanged.
The first test using thermocouples showed the block only reached 200◦ C after eight
hours within the furnace when set to 400◦ C. Due to limitations for the length of time
the lab is available to use in a single sitting, adapting the test was required to enable
the specimen to be heated to the desired temperature. The furnace temperature was
increased to 700◦ C rather than 400◦ C to increase the temperature difference between the
specimen and the surrounding air and would therefore increase the rate of heat energy
transfer. Figure 23 shows that the specimen steadily increasing to the desired temperature
over 3.5 hours and rapidly cooled to around 65◦ C in two minutes.
500 400
T-Inside
T-Inside T-Middle
T-Middle
Temperature (°C)
400 T-Surface
300
Temperature (°C)
T-Surface T-Water
T-Water
300
200
200
100
100
0
0 215 220 225
0 100 200 300 400 500
Minutes from start (mins)
Minutes from start (mins)
(b) Snapshot of temperature profile during
(a) Quench Test temperature profile
cooling
Figure 23: Experimental Temperature profile
T-inside shows the temperature profile of the thermocouple at the middle of the block,
T-middle, the one a quarter of the length in, T-outside, the thermocouple on the surface
of the block and T-water shows the temperature profile of the water sink starting from
a couple minutes prior to quenching the block in the water. Figure 23a shows that the
three thermocouple on the block are all at similar temperatures suggesting that the block
heated uniformly across the entire volume at the same rate at all points.
Following the quenching test, the part was cut using EDM as the first stage of the
contour method. The quenched block was clamped using the existing clamp in the EDM
machine and the designed clamp stated previously in Section 3.1.1. The part was cut
along its longest axis creating to two pieces with length 97.5mm and the remaining two
dimensions the same as prior to cutting. Due to the minute displacements on the surface,
the faces of the cut surfaces on both blocks seemed extremely smooth and flat.
Using the FaroArm, a CMM device, the surface of the two halves of the specimen
were measured. Approximately 5,500,000 data points were measured on each side using
the laser. The data then needed to be processed to create a surface plot which could be
used to compare with the FE model.

A 6mm touch probe and a laser were the two possible options to scan the surfaces of
the two sides. The measuring device created a point cloud with points containing x, y and
z coordinates in 3D space. The y-coordinate of each data points were the most important
as they defined the vertical deformation of the cut surface. Being a non-contact method
of measuring information, the laser was a more effective method of recording the data.
There are two key reasons for this. Firstly, the touch probe was maneuvered across the
entire surface to accumulate the largest amount of data points possible. However, this
resulted in the surface scratching and leaving visible marks which did not appear when
using the laser due to being non-contact. For a process where measurements have minute
differences and are measured to extreme precision, any effect on the surface could affect
the results. The laser probe was also preferred to the touch probe as it is able to collect
more data points. As the touch probe is maneuvered manually, human error could lead
to certain areas being missed accidentally whereas the laser will scan the entire surface
and is less likely to miss parts of the surface.
3.4.3 Finite Element Analysis

When building the quenching FE model, two different types of models were built. One
is a coupled thermal-distance model and the other, a decoupled thermal-distance model.
It has been found that the coupled thermal-distance model is difficult to converge and
takes a huge amount of computational cost. On the other hand, using a coupled thermal-
distance model theoretically won’t increase the accuracy significantly since the thermal
effect due to deformation is negligible when compared with the heat transfer from heated
component to quenchant. Thus the decoupled model fulfills the aim of the project better.
Simulating the quenching process using the decoupled model can be split into two
phases: building the heat transfer model and building the deformation model based on
the temperature profile gained in heat transfer model.
In the heat transfer model, the most important parameter is the heat transfer coeffi-
cient (Rose et al., 2006) which is also the main source of error within the heat transfer
model. In particular, for a real liquid quenching process, the heat transfer coefficient has
a complicated variation over time. The complexity is caused by different types of heat
transfer processes dominating the value of heat transfer coefficient in different stages of
quenching. Generally, liquid quenching can be split into three stages based on the phase
of the quenchant near the heated components (Holman, 2009):
• Vaporisation: When the temperature difference between the heated components and
quenchant is large, the liquid may vaporise due to large amounts of heat transfer
from the heated component to quenchant. In this case, water, acting as a quenchant,
will be vaporised to rapidly release the heat gained from the aluminium block.
• Boiling: As temperatures of the heated components decrease, quenchant will not

vaporize due to insufficient heat supply, and will start boiling instead. In this stage,
the quenchant surrounding the heated component should be able to keep a stable
temperature (at boiling point).
• Convection: When the temperature of heated component drops down below the
boiling point of quenchant, no phase change happens near the components any-
more. Convection will dominant the heat transfer process until the temperature of
component and quenchant drops down to the room temperature.

Several difficulties thus arise, mainly when determining the heat transfer coefficient value
used in the model and heat flow occurring in the surrounding quenchant. These two
reasons will theoretically be the most significant factors influencing the accuracy of the
model. When different stages dominate the process, heat transfer coefficient behaves
in different ways. This thus leads to a complicated data profile and the heat transfer
coefficient will be nonlinear with time. It is apparently impossible to model the actual
simulation in this manner accurately in this project.
Moreover, the heat flow in the surrounding quenchant is also unknown and could not
be solved by ABAQUS, which is a limitation in the function of software. However, the heat
transfer model for the quenchant is also important. When building the computational
model, heat transfer occurring at the block boundary is determined by heat transfer
coefficient and the temperature difference between heated components and quenchant. If
the quenchant temperature distribution is unknown, the results will be unreliable. This
problem is significant in water quench process as the heat transfer model of water needs
to be a two phase model. As a result of the issues stated, several assumptions are set:
• Surface roughness, dirt on surface is neglected to simplify heat transfer coefficient

determination.
• Assume heat transfer coefficient is homogeneous and isotropic on the surface of the
heated block.
• Assume the temperature profile of water remains homogeneous and constant through-
out the process.
• Ignore heat transfer through radiation as the heat energy lost by radiation is small
compared to energy lost by conduction.
Based on the assumptions made, a simplified heat transfer model could be built in
ABAQUS. To enhance the efficiency of the computation process, the model takes advan-
tage of symmetrical geometrical feature of the block. The model is split by two planes of
symmetry, cutting simulation requires one symmetry plane left, and therefore a quarter
model is used in the simulation process. Specific boundary condition is not needed in
heat transfer model as the surface has no heat flux pass through by default.
As mentioned previously, the most important parameter in heat transfer model is the
heat transfer coefficient value, referring to the film coefficient in ABAQUS setting. In the
computational model, it is used in the governing equation:
q = h(T − T0 ) (11)
in which q is the heat flux through the surface, h is heat transfer coefficient, T is the
temporal transient temperature of the heated component and T0 is the sink temperature.
In general, heat transfer coefficient is impossible to be calculated and a common method
is to design a corresponding experiment to get a series of practical values of the heat
transfer coefficient. Due to the limitations in time and resources, it is not applicable to
this project.
In this project, the heat transfer coefficient value is determined by estimating the
total amount of heat transferring from the heated component to quenchant and when
applying assumptions made above (heat transfer coefficient is homogeneous on the surface

of component), total heat energy go through the boundary could be estimated. Average
heat transfer coefficient could then be calculated using:
U
h̄ = (12)
At∆T
where U is the total heat energy lost from the component, A is the total surface area, t is
the total time for component to cool down and ∆T is the average temperature difference.
All values needed could be estimated, however, difficulty remains in predicting how the
heat transfer coefficient varies along time. Thermocouples have been added, which makes
it possible to monitor changing of temperature in the block. The measured data could
be used to validate the computational model, in other words, the temperature changing
profile should be similar to the measured data. The comparison is discussed in further
detail in Section 4.2. Using the average transfer coefficient as a datum and adjusting
the value changed according to the temperature profile gained from thermocouples, a
series of estimated heat transfer coefficient values along time could be set in the model.
Consistency is checked by using tetrahedral and hexahedral components, it is found that
hexahedral is accurate enough to get satisfying results while using fewer elements.
After the heat transfer model analysis, temperature profile in the quench step is
taken to build up a predefined temperature field in the new model aiming to process
stress test. To be noticed, the step in the new model needs to be set to general static
type to avoid collapsing of data (avoid using coupled thermal-displacement step, it makes
sequential thermal-displacement method pointless and will cause error in the software).
To correspond to the thermal model, two boundary conditions about symmetry need to
be set. The surfaces having non heat flux must be constrained with rotation in all degrees
of freedom and constrained with displacement in the normal direction.
3.5 Development of Contour Method in Abaqus
1)Relaxed 2)Contour
Method
Figure 24: FE Contour residual stress compared with FE plastic bent residual stress and
FE contour distribution vs fitted contour (Coloured contour represents axial stress)
The Contour Method is developed in Abaqus, the halved sample is modeled with the
properties obtained experimentally in the sample’s stress strain curve for the most accu-
rate results instead of generic property of Aluminium 5083. The measured, inverted and
fitted contour on both the cut surface is to be averaged then applied on the FE model’s

equivalent measured surface. The fitted contour polynomial is inputted into Abaqus us-
ing the Abaqus feature ‘Analytical fields’, it is used during displacement loading in the
‘Boundary condition’ feature in the Load module. Fixing boundary conditions are re-
quired to fix the model in place during displacement loading, however, only minimum
constraints are enforced as too many constraints are found to cause additional stresses
near the contour surface affecting its residual stress result. Two displacement constraints
are required on the contour surface to prevent translational motion in the non surface
normal direction, in this case z and y, the normal direction x should not be constrained
as the surface must be allowed to deform to the inverted contour and the opposite free
end is allowed to rotate to accommodate for the applied contour. A final extra constraint
is required at the z or y direction to limit indefinite rotational motion. Only one ‘step’
is required in the FE analysis where the displacement loading and boundary fixing took
place.
To test the Contour Method developed is accurate and valid before the experiment, an
FE model is imparted with residual stress, cut and measured, inverted and fitted in FE
then applied to the developed contour method. Conveniently, there is a plastic bending
FE model developed to predict the actual sample residual stress as explained in the FE
residual stress prediction section. Using that plastic bending model with residual stress,
an extra step, ‘cut’ is included in addition to the plastic bending and load removal step.
The sample is cut in FE using the ‘Model change’ feature in the ‘Interaction’ module
where one half of the FE sample elements are deactivated, simulating instantaneous
cutting process. In the cut step, the material removed allows the cut plane to relax and
bulge until equilibrium. The contour is measured in FE at the middle section of the
cut plane, inverted, polynomial fitted in Matlab and applied to an equivalent contour
method model, with the residual stress results compared in Figure 24 with reference to
the contour and fitted contour distribution.
In Figure 24, the contour residual stress measured is very similar with the FE bent
residual stress with only a maximum of 10MPa (16%) error. The source of the error is
attributed to the fact that the fitted contour polynomial does not match the measured
contour perfectly and is seen in Figure 24 where regions of lower fitted contour value than
the measured contour corresponds to a drop of the peak stress. This method’s accuracy
suggests that the contour method developed is valid.
4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Quenching
4.1.1 Computational Model Results
The results of computational model of the heated aluminium block is consist of two parts.
The first set of results is heat transfer model shown above in Fig.25. The temperature
changing is modified by the thermocouple readings.
With the sink temperature set at 50 degrees, the block temperature is cool down to
sink temperature. It is found that the temperature contour becomes anomalous when
reaching the end of quenching.

(a) Caption (b) w
(c) Caption (d) w
Figure 25: Heat Transfer Model Results Through Time
0.15
70
0.1
60
50 0.05
40
Y
0
30
-0.05
20
10 -0.1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
X
Figure 26: Displacement surface produced by contour method
Figure 27: FE model displacement surface (quarter view)

4.1.2 Experimental Surface Results and Displacement Model result
0.16
0.25 CCM data
CCM data
Contour Method Contour Method
0.2 0.14 FE result
FE result
0.15
0.12
0.1
Displacement
Displacement
0.05
0.1
0
0.08
-0.05
-0.1
0.06
-0.15
-0.2 0.04
-0.25
0 50 100 150 0.02
X 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Y
(a) Near top surface (Y = 72.5mm)

(b) Near left surface (X = 2.5mm)
0.15 0.05
0.1
0
0.05
0
Displacement
Displacement
-0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.1
-0.15
-0.15
-0.2 CCM data CCM data

Contour Method Contour Method
FE result FE result
-0.25 -0.2
0 50 100 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
X Y
(c) Mid plane displacement (Y = 37.5mm) (d) Mid plane displacement (X = 72.5mm)
0.16
0.25
CCM data
CCM data Contour Method
Contour Method
0.14 FE result
FE results
0.2
0.12
0.15
Displacement
Displacement
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.08
0
0.06
-0.05
0.04
-0.1
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0.02
X 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Y
(e) Near bottom surface (Y = 2.5mm)
(f) Near right surface (X = 142.5mm)
Figure 28: Contour method results and computational model results
For convenience in validation and easier data processing, displacement field on cut surface
are compared instead of the residual stress field since in this method, residual stress field
is converted form displacement field. Fig.26 and Fig.27 shows the surface displacement

contour plots. And to compare the difference between them, Fig.28 is produced to show
the displacement curves produced by both experimental measurements and simulation
results on different planes (2.5mm from surface plane and middle plane on both X and
Y direction) through cut surface. The points are selected from the point cloud within
±0.035mm (due to the systematic error of Faro Arm) from corresponding planes. The
filtered data is fitted by polynomial functions and it could be observed that deviations of
points from the fitted curves has maximum values about 0.035mm for horizontal planes,
which indicates the fitted curve should be valid. When comes to the vertical planes, fil-
tered points are fluctuating at a high frequency. This phenomenon might be the evidence
for existence of horizontal striation on the cut surface of the block.
4.1.3 Heat Transfer Model Discussion

When comparing the heat transfer model result, it is obvious that the position of the
two thermocouples inside the block is always in the same temperature range according
to Fig. 25. This is also consistent with theoretical analysis. The horizontal surfaces of
the block are the largest surface, so the contour is expected to have reduced curvature.
As the two measuring points are near the centre of the block, the measured temperature
should be similar. The temperature profile provides evidence since the two plots for these
two measurement points nearly coincide.
Another aspect of the heat transfer model is the accuracy of the heat transfer co-
efficient used in the model. From Fig.23b, cooling speed at different points could be
observed by calculating the gradient of each plot. Cooling speed on the surface is main-
tained at a high rate before the temperature drops beneath 100 ◦ C. As the temperature
of the heated block falls below the boiling point of water, vaporization no longer occurs
on the surface of heated block. Vaporization stage of quenching should terminated and
heat transfer coefficient at the surface will drop significantly. When comes to the inside
of the block, the cooling rate increase with time while the temperature is above boiling
point. At the beginning, surface temperature drops rapidly and the cooling rate of core of
block is depending on the thermal conduction, in other words, cooling rate of the interior
of the block is proportional to the temperature difference between interior and exterior
temperature. Thus, the interior cooling rate is generally increase during the first stage of
quenching.
During the vaporization stage, convection transfer occurs in water which significantly
influences the result of the model. According to researches about convection in water,
position and posture of the hot surface has different heat transfer coefficient. Especially
when vapor is generated, hot steam tend to move upwards because of buoyancy, which
make it much more difficult to simulate the actual situation. Moreover, in this experiment,
due to the limitation of apparatus resources, quenching process is operated in a bucket
which is not big enough to make a homogeneous environment. Posture of the block is
not horizontal, which also increases asymmetry of the convection in water. As a result,
the actual displacement curve of the cut surface will be skewed.
In the second stage, when the temperature of the block drops down below boiling
point, the whole cooling rate is slowed down. Heat transfer coefficient at the surface is
not the dominant parameter of the surface, so that the temperature plots are coincide.
To be noticed, the thermocouple monitoring the sink temperature is not placed just
beside heated block, so vapor generate around the block could not be measured. It only
provide a reference of the temperature after convection inside water. This value might

be delayed and it is not sensitive to rapid change. This is one possible cause of error of
the model. Another point is that the thermocouple monitoring surface temperature is
fastening by a washer which also cover the surface of heated block. This leads to lower
temperature decreasing speed recorded. This is obvious when comparing the temperature
measured and simulated temperature change. In the beginning of quenching, surface tem-
perature decreasing rapidly, while this rapid decrease could not be seen in the measured
data. This may due to the reason mentioned above, or the low recording frequency.
Overall, a set of temperature fields are generated and valid to used in the following
modelling. Although errors exists, it still consists with qualitative theoretical analysis.
4.1.4 Displacement Model

Comparatively, the displacement model is relatively simpler. One problem raised in this
model is that in the cutting step, model change interaction is applied to the original
model. The thermal model must have an identical step so that the predefined fields can
map between two models.
When taking an overview of the whole results Fig.26 and Fig.27, it is found that the
geometrical features of both results are similar. Both have a 2D concave cut surface, which
indicates the interior of the block experiences tensile residual stress while the exterior of
the block experiences compressed stress. The result complies with theoretical prediction.
The problem is that the displacement field is shift from one to another. The quantitative
comparison operates in two directions as the cut surface is three dimensional and could
not be simplified to a two dimensional displacement curve. Cross-sectional planes are
selected normal to X and Y direction and displacement in Z direction is recorded.
When comparing results quantitatively, one main differences occurs at the shorter
sides of cut surface (Fig.28a.28c.28e). It is noticed that in the actual measurement results,
the displacement curve is not symmetrical about the centre line but rather appears to
be skewed to one side. This causes the displacement on one side to be larger than the
computational model result and on the other side, the opposite occurs. Causes for this
phenomenon are difficult to identify without further experiments, however, two possible
reasons could be deduced from the experimental process. One reason is the orientation
of the heated block during quenching. As mentioned, in free water convection, the angle
between heat surface and water is important and will affect the heat transfer coefficient
significantly. Moreover, vapor generated during quenching in water will move upwards
and leads to the temperature of quenchant on one side being higher than that on the
other side. Thus tensile residual stress in the block is higher on one side.
Another cause might be the inappropriate clamping during cutting process. This block
is about 6 kg so that if not well clamped, the half of block not on bench of EDM machine
will induce a force on the cut surface, which will definitely cause the displacement curve
deviating from actual value. In this experiment, block is cut by university workshop in
the morning and the process is not supervised. So it might be a important reason for the
difference between computational model result and measurement result.
The last possible reason for the uncertainty is that the fastening of thermocouples
is not ideal in this experiment. Screws used to fix the thermocouple is made of steel,
in other words, it has different mechanical properties with the block. Therefore, during
the heat treatment, different expansion rate and conductivity causes the residual stress
field becomes asymmetrical. (The evidence is that the skew of three displacement curves
are different). Ideally, error induced by steel screws could be eliminated by using high

temperature resistance glue to fix thermocouples (out of stock in lab). Despite the glue’s
mechanical properties are still different from Al-7449, it exert much less force to the
heated block and thus will not influence the results significantly.
When comparing the displacement curve in the other direction, it is founded that
computational results is coincide more neatly with the measured data on half side than
on the other side, which indicates the top plane of the heated block is cooling much faster
than the lower plane since faster cooling produce more residual stress. Besides, from this
set of plots, a potential cause of difference results could be deduced that the measuring
bench zeroing process might not be done well and generate a linear error field in the
measurement. This could not be verified due to the earlier close of university. However,
could be a important tips when operating this experiment in future.
In general, Figure 28 shows that the profile of the curves from the contour method
resemble the predicted FE results fairly accurate with slight differences in the magnitude.
This shows that the method can provide a reasonable prediction for the distribution and
types of stresses present. However, larger negative deformation is observed in measure-
ment of the block, which is different from the FE model analysis. Since FE simulation
for quenching is not well developed, the FE result act more like a value reference and it
is found that the order of magnitude for the displacement field is very close to the FE
model, which insinuate the contour method is reliable to some extent.
4.1.5 Validation of Contour Method

Under quenching criteria, the contour method results give similar values of maximum dis-
placement in Z-direction with the actual measurement. The deformed shape is also nearly
the same especially in the top half of the heated block. In practice, the contour method
should be able to be used to get a reliable estimated residual stress field distribution of
one cut surface and should be able to avoid underestimation.
4.1.6 Further Improvement

FE model for quenching simulation still needs to be improved in film coefficient setting.
A set of transient values need to be measured by experiments and which will improve the
model a lot. Besides, the FE model used in this experiment is over constrained as lot of
strong assumptions are made, some of them have great effects to the result. Reducing
the number of assumptions is an important part of simulation improvement. This will
provide a more reliable referencing result to compare with contour measurement.
The experiment process still need to be improved especially in the quenching step
and temperature monitoring. Larger water tank should be used to simulate the actual
industrial process. Small water tank used in this experiment might lower the residual
stress produced due to the faster rise of temperature of water. Another point is that the
transient temperature measurement should be optimized. Accurate temperature distri-
bution especially on the surface is important. As mentioned above, surface temperature
gained in this project might be lower than the actual value. Changing the fixing method
of thermocouple will definitely promote the quality of data. Moreover, experiment should
be repeated more times to get conclusion which has higher reliability. Having multiple
specimens for the same testing method can help remove erroneous data by removing
anomalies.

4.2 Plastic Bending
Figure 29: Contour residual stress compared with predictions
The resultant orthogonal regression fitted contour surface displacement of the bent beam
as seen in Figure 21b is applied to the developed FE Contour Method in Abaqus yielding
the residual stress in Figure 29. According to Figure 29, the predicted residual stresses
are relatively similar, especially the strain gauge and FE prediction with maximum error
of 20MPa (33%) and the stress peaks are aligned, hence providing some validity. It can
be seen that the contour residual stress seems to diverge at the outer 1mm extremity
where large discrepancy with the predicted residual stress occurs. This could be a wire
exit artefact, where the deionized water flushing has high pressure at the bottom surface
causing wire vibration at that region, while the wire in the inner regions are sheltered
(Foroogh Hosseinzadeh, 2014). It could be corrected with higher wire tension or with
sacrificial layers at the top and bottom surface along cut plane to shelter the inner wire
from the flushing. The contour residual stress distribution seems skewed towards the
right where the peaks are shifted right with respect to the predicted peaks. The contour
residual stress also has a maximum error of 20MPa (33%) compared to the strain gauge
predictions. This large error could be attributed to the low magnitude contour and wide
FARO arm accuracy range, any small contour anomalies will cause a relatively large error
of the already small residual stress.
Improvements could be made in this project such as stress relieving the sample be-
fore the experiment to alleviate any pre-induced residual stress during sample machining
process or forging and rolling during the manufacturing process. This ensures that the
residual stress imparted experimentally can be measured accurately, unaltered by un-
intended residual stress. Another improvement is to simulate the cutting process more
accurately in Abaqus during the Contour Method practical procedure FE simulation,
currently the cutting process is done by simultaneously removing one half of the model’s
element, implying a zero cutting time. A more realistic simulation would do the cutting
incrementally in a finite duration to account for plasticity effect that now has the time to
occur at the cut tip which would affect the simulation obtained residual stress. Another
improvement is to obtain the residual stress distribution across the whole surface and
not just a line. This is easily doable using the CMM laser scanner, the obtained data is
processed and then 2-D fitted using the Matlab ‘fit’ function to fit a polynomial surface
which would return the coefficients of the 2D polynomial. The coefficients mathematically
describe the surface, which would be recognised by Abaqus feature ‘Analytical Fields’ to

be implemented as a displacement boundary condition.
5 Conclusions
The aim of this project to formulate the Contour Method in Abaqus is achieved as
documented in the section “Development of Contour Method in Abaqus”. The validity
of the formulated Contour Method is tested through application of the Contour Method
in experiments on plastic bent and quenched samples where the residual stress imparted
is known or predicted. The experimentally obtained residual stress through the Contour
Method is compared with the predicted residual stress to determine the method’s validity.
For the plastic bending sample, it is found that the experimentally obtained residual stress
has a maximum error of about 30% compared to the predicted residual stress while the
simulated Contour Method in Abaqus produces residual stress with a maximum error
of 16% compared to predictions. These results are deemed to be acceptable, hence the
formulated Contour Method is valid. For the quenching sample, the displacement profile
generated from the contour method is similar in shape to that found through the finite
element model. While the results gathered show that the contour method can be used
as a reliable method to measure residual stress, it is better as a general stress measuring
technique to show the distribution and the order of magnitude rather than the specific
residual stress value.

6 Mitigation Plan
Table 3: Mitigation Plan
Event/ Issue Potential/actual Action(s) taken to Remaining impact

Impact on project mitigate impact on
project outcomes
Couldn’t cut Aim to test con- Focus more on the Application of
a welded part tour method on known testing meth- method to a speci-
using EDM as a specimen with ods (4-point bend- men with unknown
the workshop unknown residual ing and quenching) residual stress
closed early stress using the and the developed cannot be verified
thus the job information gath- contour method pro-
could not be ered from contour cess such as the
submitted to be method tests with plane fitting method
cut known residual
stresses no longer
possible
Student version FE analysis un- Take as much data Accuracy of final re-
of ABAQUS dertaken following as possible prior sults will be slightly
limited to 1000 university shut to university clos- off and potentially
seeds so de- down limited to using and use less less exact than pos-
tailed models ing large elements accurate mesh for sible if using univer-
not possible to remaining data and sity computers
use assume it is close
enough
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Dr Christopher Truman for his supervision, Matt Bland in
the University of Bristol Residual Stress Lab, Ian Chorley in the Composites Lab, Pete
Whereat in the Structures Lab and Ricky Billingham in the workshop for their technical
support.
References
Boruah, Dibakor, Ahmad, Bilal, Lee, Tung Lik, Kabra, Saurabh, Syed,
Abdul Khadar, McNutt, Philip, Doré, Matthew & Zhang, Xiang 2019
Evaluation of residual stresses induced by cold spraying of ti-6al-4v on ti-6al-4v sub-
strates. Surface and Coatings Technology 374, 591–602.
David Eberly 2017 Least squares fitting of data. http://www.sci.utah.edu/

~balling/FEtools/doc_files/LeastSquaresFitting.pdf, Last accessed on 2020-3-
4.

Foroogh Hosseinzadeh, Jan Kowal, Peter John Bouchard 2014 Towards good
practice guidelines for the contour method of residual stress measurement. The Journal
of Engineering 8, 453–468.
Hiroyuki Kato, Yutaka Tottori, Kazuaki Sasaki 2014 Four-point bending test
of determining stress-strain curves asymmetric between tension and compression. Ex-
perimental Mechanics 54, 489–492.
Holman, J.P. 2009 Heat Transfer 10th edition. McGraw-Hill.
Mahmoudi, AH, Hossain, S, Truman, CE, Smith, DJ & Pavier, MJ 2009 A new
procedure to measure near yield residual stresses using the deep hole drilling technique.
Experimental mechanics 49 (4), 595–604.
Masoudi, Soroush, Amirian, Ghasem, Saeedi, Ehsan & Ahmadi, Mohammad
2015 The effect of quench-induced residual stresses on the distortion of machined thin-
walled parts. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance 24 (10), 3933–3941.
Mayville, R.A., Finnie 1982 Uniaxial stress-strain curves from a bending test. Exper-
imental Mechanics 2, 197–201.
Metallurgists, Industrial 2020 Residual Stress [Online]. [14 Mar 2020]. Available
from: https://www.imetllc.com/training-article/residual-stress/.
Prime, M.; DeWald, A. T. 2013 The Contour Method pp. 109–138. Practical residual
stress measurement methods. G. S. Schajer (ed.), Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Prime, Michael B 2001 Cross-sectional mapping of residual stresses by measuring the
surface contour after a cut. J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 123 (2), 162–168.
Prime, Michael B, Sebring, Robert J, Edwards, John M, Hughes, Darren J
& Webster, Peter J 2004 Laser surface-contouring and spline data-smoothing for
residual stress measurement. Experimental Mechanics 44 (2), 176–184.
Robinson, Jeremy S, Tanner, David A, Truman, CE & Wimpory, RC 2011
Measurement and prediction of machining induced redistribution of residual stress in
the aluminium alloy 7449. Experimental mechanics 51 (6), 981–993.
Rose, A., Kessler, Olaf, Hoffmann, Franz & Zoch, Hans-Werner 2006
Quenching distortion of aluminium castings – improvement by gas cooling. Material-
wissenschaft Und Werkstofftechnik - MATERIALWISS WERKSTOFFTECH 37, 116–
121.
Soul, Farag & Hamdy, Nada 2012 Numerical simulation of residual stress and strain
behavior after temperature modification. Welding Processes p. 217.
Supermarkets, Metal 2019 WHAT IS QUENCHING? [Online]. [11 Mar 2020]. Avail-
able from: https://www.metalsupermarkets.co.uk/what-is-quenching/.
VEQTER 2020 Contour. [Online]. [30 Mar 2020]. Available from:
https://www.veqter.co.uk/residual-stress-measurement/contour.
Withers, PJ 2007 Residual stress and its role in failure. Reports on progress in physics
70 (12), 2211.

GIP Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GIP Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Residual Stress Measurement through the Contour

Matt Cursons Chen Zhi Shen

Matt Cursons Chen Zhi Shen

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 2

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 3

3 Materials and Methodology 13

4 Results and Discussion 32

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 4

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 5

1.1 Residual Stress

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 6

1.2 Contour Method

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 7

1.4 Aim of Project

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 8

Figure 1: Visualisation of Contour Method

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 9

Shear residual stress in bent beam

Figure 2: Symmetric and asymmetric contour components of the resultant contour

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 10

2.2 Assumptions and Approximation of Contour Method

Yield Stress Elastic Plastic

Distance from cut tip

Figure 3: Cut tip stress magnification

Figure 4: Contour method flat surface comparison

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 11

Figure 5: Anti-symmetric sample about the cut plane

Cut Average 2 side

Symmetric cutting error is marginal - Symmetric cutting errors mostly originate

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 12

Fixed width undeformed cutting plane

w Current deformed material

Figure 7: Bulge error illustration

3 Materials and Methodology

3.1 Practical procedure

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 13

• Simple design so manufacturing time in the workshop is minimized due to project

EDM wire slit path

(a) Clamp front view. (b) Clamp top view.

Figure 8: Pictures of fixture

3.1.2 Sample Cutting

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 14

Table 1: Wire diameter for different speciment thickness

Sample thickness, t (mm) EDM wire diameter (µm)

Figure 9: Faro Arm CMM

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 15

3.2 Plastic Bending

Figure 10: Pictures of aluminium sample and 4 point bending diagram

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 16

Material Properties Values

3.2.2 4 Point Bending Experimental Testing

Top and bottom

Figure 11: Picture of 4 point bending experiment setup

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 17

3.2.3 Finite Element Analysis Residual Stress Prediction

Step 1 : Plastic Bending

Figure 12: FE Residual Stress (axial direction)

Residual Stress (MPa)

Figure 13: Midplane view of relaxed sample and residual stress

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 18

3.2.4 Analytical Solution Residual Stress Prediction

Distance from neutral axis (mm)

Cursons, Liu, Mehta, Shen 19