Residual Stress Analysis for Sustainable Structural Integrity Assessment of an

Engineering Component
Mohammad S Hossain, Military Technological College, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman
Mohammad A Maleque, International Islamic University Malaysia, Jalan Gombak, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
r 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

List of Symbols

d(h, z) Hole diameter before trepanning step

d'(h, z) Hole diameter after trepanning step
v Poisson’s ratio
BU Bristol University
DH Deep-hole
DHD Deep-hole drilling
DHFE Deep-hole finite element
E Young’s modulus
EPRI Electric power research institute
FE Finite element
NKH Non-linear kinematic hardening

Introduction

Residual stress may be defined as the self-equilibrating internal stress existing in a free body under uniform temperature conditions
without any external load or thermal gradient. At equilibrium both the resultant force and the resultant moment of the body are
zero. It is most commonly termed as the “residual stress” as it may be “left over” by a previous manufacturing process. Macherauch
and Kloos (1986) suggested a classification of residual stress into three groups, as shown in Fig. 1, using the term “homogeneous”
to mean “constant in magnitude and direction” as:

(1) Type I – Macro residual stresses which are homogeneous across several grains of the material and are equilibrated over
the body.
(2) Type II – Nearly homogeneous micro residual stress which are homogeneous only on a part of a grain or one grain and
equilibrated over several grains. Such stresses may exist in single-phase materials due to anisotropy in the behavior of each
grain or develop in multi-phase materials due to the different properties of different phases.
(3) Type III – Inhomogeneous micro residual stresses which are inhomogeneous even over sub-microscopic distances inside the
body but in equilibrium on small parts of a grain due to the existence of dislocations and other crystalline defects.

One or a superposition of these three categories defines all the residual stress states. However, from an engineering
perspective the first category has more importance than the other two since any modification to equilibrium may also modify
the external dimensions of the body. Residual stresses arise from a number of sources and can exist in the unprocessed raw
material, during manufacturing processes involving material deformation, heat treatment, machining or processing operations
which transform the shape or change the properties of a material or can also arise from in-service loading (Withers and
Bhadeshia, 2001a).
Welding process commonly generates residual stresses in engineering structures and components which are the key factor in the
structural integrity assessment. It is thought that reheat cracking in plant structures is solely driven by the presence of residual stress
field (Baikie et al., 1997; Dhooge, 1998; Skelton et al., 2003). Compressive residual stresses can help to restrain crack propagation
and enhance fatigue life and therefore, can have a beneficial effect on structural integrity. In contrast, tensile residual stresses in
general have an adverse effect on brittle fracture, corrosion properties and fatigue performance. With residual stress levels reaching
the material yield strength, the consequence of residual stress effects on structural integrity become substantial. Reliable technique
to correctly analyze these residual stresses can help move away from decade old over conservative structural integrity assessment
and is a key to an accurate and sustainable structural integrity assessment.

Residual Stress Measurement Methods

Strains rather than stresses are invariably measured by residual stress measurement methods. The measured strains can be used to
deduce the residual stresses through a simple elastic relation using the appropriate material elastic constants including the Young’s

Encyclopedia of Renewable and Sustainable Materials doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.10830-6 1

2 Residual Stress Analysis for Sustainable Structural Integrity Assessment of an Engineering Component

Fig. 1 Classification of residual stresses according to length scales. After Kandil, F.A., Lord, J.D., Fry, A.T., Grant, P.V., 2001. A review of
residual stress measurement methods – A Guide to Technique Selection. NPL Report MATC (A) 04.

modulus, E and the Poisson’s ratio ðnÞ. A single value of the stress is often quoted instead of its distribution and is assumed to be
constant within the measurement volume. When measured residual stresses by different techniques are compared, the sampling
volume and the resolution of each measurement method are considered in relation to the type of residual stress being measured
(see Fig. 1), in particular if type II and III micro stresses are of interest (Kandil et al., 2001). The concept of the characteristic volume
is also considered essential. It is the volume over which a given type of residual stress averages to zero. Most material removal
techniques, e.g., the hole drilling method, layer removal method remove large volumes of material over which type II and III
stresses average to zero and only the macro residual stresses remain and are measured.
Residual stress measurement methods range from non-destructive technique via semi-destructive to the fully destructive
technique. Non-destructive technique includes the diffraction, magnetic and ultrasonic techniques. Semi-destructive techniques
where the component is partially damaged and does not compromise its integrity include the incremental center-hole drilling
technique and the deep-hole drilling technique. In the destructive technique the component is destroyed completely and includes
the Sachs method (Sachs, 1927; Garcia-Granada et al., 2000) and the curvature and the layer removal method (Treuting and Read,
1951; Withers and Bhadeshia, 2001b). Here a description of the mechanical strain relief deep-hole drilling method is reviewed due
to its relevance to the present study.
Deep-hole drilling (DHD) method measures residual stresses in thick components. A schematic illustration of the method is
provided in Fig. 2. A small reference hole is drilled through the component and the diameter d(y, z) of the hole is measured along
its depth. A cylindrical column (core) of material concentric to the reference hole is then removed from the component, using a
trepanning technique. This causes the stresses in the cylindrical core to relax and change the reference hole diameter and column
dimensions. The dimensions of the column and reference hole diameter d'(y, z) are re-measured. The dimensional changes caused
by removing the material from the bulk of the specimen are then used to calculate the residual stresses.
The method was originally developed by Zhdanov and Gonchar (1978) and Beaney (1978). Zhdanov and Gonchar (1978)
measured residual stress in steel welds by drilling 8 mm diameter hole followed by an incremental cutting of a concentric column
of metal of 40 mm diameter from the specimen using a hollow drill. By using changes in the axial length during incremental
trepanning and measuring the diameter changes in two mutually perpendicular directions at a number of fixed distances along the
reference hole they measured the residual stresses in the component.
Beaney's (1978) approach to the measurement procedure was to gun-drill a very smooth and straight hole of diameter
3.175 mm along the direction of a principal stress component and to measure its diameter at three in-plane angles of 01, 451 and
901 at every 2 mm depth along the reference hole. In his approach, he measured the hole diameter first using strain gauges fixed
onto two parallel beams fixed together and drawn along the sidewalls of the hole. By using the strain gauges the changes in
diameter were measured due to the trepanning of the core by electro-chemical machining (ECM) process which allows to measure
the beam deflection.
A substantial development of the technique has undergone over the past two decades mainly at University of Bristol (Bonner
and Smith, 1994; Smith and Bonner, 1996; George et al., 2000; Smith et al., 2000; Hossain et al., 2017) both in the improvement
of the method (e.g., using air-probe to measure the hole diameter) and its accuracy. George et al. (2002) used small holes to
measure stresses in calibration of aluminum and steel samples arising from external applied loading.
The technique was further developed by using smaller hole and smaller core which improved the precision of the measured
stresses. Measurements of diametral distortions at higher number of angles, i.e., 18 angular measurements substantially reduced
the error associated with the air-probe measurements. Other advancement includes the design of a small-scale portable deep-hole
drilling rig (Kingston, 2004; Ficquet, 2007) capable of measuring residual stresses in metal parts of depths in the range of
5–500 mm.
George (2000) used finite element analysis (FEA) to model a pipe under autofrettage and compared the predicted FEA residual
stress distribution with the stress distribution measured using deep-hole drilling (DHD) and Sachs methods. By considering
removal of elements which defined drilled reference hole and electric discharge machining (EDM) thickness, he further modelled
and simulated the deep-hole drilling of the autofrettaged tube. He found that the predicted FEA simulated DHD residual stresses
compared well with the stresses measured by the DHD method. In his DHD FEA analysis, he removed the set of elements defining
 Residual Stress Analysis for Sustainable Structural Integrity Assessment of an Engineering Component 3

Fig. 2 Schematic of the DHD method: Step 1 – Drilling a reference hole, step 2 – Measuring reference hole diameter, step 3 – trepanning a core
and step 4 – Re-measuring reference hole diameter.

the EDM thickness, i.e., the material which is machined away during the trepanning stage in a single step. However, in practice the
trepanning process takes place incrementally so that the removal of elements defining the EDM thickness needs to be carried out
incrementally in order to model the trepanning process more realistically.

Residual Stress in Structural Integrity

Residual stresses have influence on the life assessment of engineering structures. Manufacturing process and final fabrication may
generate residual stresses. Tensile residual stresses generally have detrimental effect on life of engineering components. The
presence of residual stress can solely initiate cracking even in the absence of service loads. When the component enters into service,
tensile residual stress combines with service stresses and reduces crack-initiation time and accelerates growth rates of pre-existing or
service-induced defects. Welding is a common manufacturing process where residual stresses can reach the level of yield stress.
Post-weld heat treatment is usually applied to reduce such stress level. One of the reasons for residual stresses to develop in
engineering components is the presence of repair welds. Fabrication defects in castings or welds, or in-service degradation of
components which can be treated or improved by applying repair welds and thereby extend the life and economic operation of
ageing engineering plant. Repair weld can be applied to a localized shallow excavation using standard weld procedures or to deep
excavations covering a significant proportion of the structure. Weld metal failing to fuse completely with the sidewall of the joint
lead to sidewall fusion defects. The need to rectify these defects or degraded heat affected zone (HAZ) material typically leads to
repairs that are offset from the weld centerline. A survey of weld repair technologies used by electric power research institute (EPRI)
4 Residual Stress Analysis for Sustainable Structural Integrity Assessment of an Engineering Component

Fig. 3 Arrangement of stainless steel pipe girth weld with repair weld, dimensions in mm. Reproduced from Hossain, S., 2005. Residual stresses
under conditions of high triaxiality. PhD Thesis. UK : University of Bristol.

member utilities (Gandy et al., 2001) has found that 40% of all repairs to steam chests, piping and headers resulted in subsequent
cracking. This was thought to be due to the high level of residual stresses associated with repair process performed without
implementing post-weld heat treatment.
Hole drilling (incremental center-hole drilling) and X-ray diffraction techniques are the most widely applied methods to
determine the residual stresses in engineering components. However, these methods only provide near surface residual stresses. In
order to accurately assess the structural integrity of a component, a good description of the through thickness residual stress
distribution along the depth of the component is required. Deep-hole drilling method is a practical means of measuring residual
stresses deep into metal parts, e.g., 500 mm deep into steels (Kingston, 2004), whereas the non-destructive neutron diffraction
method suffers from limitation in penetrative depth, cost and the availability. Deep-hole drilling residual stress measurements
were carried out on a number of 316 H stainless steel mock-up components (George et al., 2002) provided by British Energy
Generation Ltd, including information on their fabrication history. Previous studies (Hossain, 2005; Mahmoudi et al., 2009;
Hossain et al., 2011a; Zheng et al., 2017) highlighted that the DHD measurement of highly triaxial residual stresses can be
problematic due to the redistribution of the stresses during the strain relaxation. A numerical study of the deep-hole drilling
process was undertaken to explore how the stress triaxiality and the redistribution influence the deep-hole measurement
technique.

Material and Test Specimen

The test specimen consisted of a stainless steel cylindrical pipe girth weld with repair weld. Detail of the fabrication history is
available in (Mitsui Babcock Report 316, 2002). Fig. 3 shows the global dimension of the test component. The length included
1022 mm, with outer diameter about 432 mm and wall thickness varying between 32 and 39 mm around the pipe. A 2.4 mm
diameter wire tungsten inert gas (TIG) root was used to produce a girth butt weld near the mid-length of the pipe, followed by
16 manual metal arc (MMA) passes with an average girth weld heat input of 2.2 kJ/mm using 2.5, 3.2, 4, and 5 mm diameter
electrodes. Further detail of the weld is provided in Hossain et al. (2006). By grinding at a location 1801, a repair cavity, 218 mm
long at the outer surface of the cylinder, 26 mm deep, 7 mm offset from the girth weld centerline, with sidewall and end run-out
angles of 151 and 451 respectively, was excavated. The repair excavation was filled with 14 MMA passes with heat input of
2.1 kJ/mm combining 3.2 mm and 5 mm diameter electrodes. Welding was intentionally carried out in a single direction, in order
to maximize the superposition of start and stop effects. The repair cap was ground flush following welding.
The locations of the DHD measurement in the offset repair included Hole 1 which was located at the intersection of the
centerline of the girth weld and the mid-length of the repair, and Hole 2 which was located at the intersection of the girth weld
centerline and the stop end of the repair (Hossain et al., 2006).

Weld Residual Stress

Fig. 4 shows through-thickness variation of the measured residual stresses at the locations, Hole 1 (mid-length) and Hole 2 (end
position). Fig. 4(a) shows the longitudinal component and Fig. 4(b) shows the transverse component of the weld residual stresses.
Also shown are the finite element predictions of the weld residual stress distribution. A reasonably good correlation existed
between the measured and the prediction particularly for the transverse component of stress (Fig. 4(b)). For the longitudinal stress
component (Fig. 4(a)), although similar trend existed, the FEA prediction was much higher in magnitude. For example, the FEA
predicted peak longitudinal stress component was almost 300 MPa higher than the measured, giving an error of approximately
50%. In contrast, the error in the measured stresses in steel part is estimated to be 730 MPa (George et al., 2002). Thus, the
measured result in Fig. 4(a) cannot be acceptable and is further explained below.
 Residual Stress Analysis for Sustainable Structural Integrity Assessment of an Engineering Component 5

Fig. 4 Measured residual stresses in a 218 mm long, offset, 316 H stainless steel repair weld compared with 3D FEA predictions.
(a) Longitudinal and (b) Transverse. Reproduced from Hossain, S., Truman, C.E., Smith, D.J., Bouchard, P.J., 2006. Measurement of residual stresses in
a type 316H stainless steel offset repair in a pipe girth weld. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Transactions of the ASME 128 (3), 420–426.

When measuring residual stresses using mechanical strain relief method in components containing highly triaxial residual
stress field close to yield extra caution have to be exercised since the introduction of a free surface, created as part of the
measurement procedure, can lead to plastic redistribution of the residual stress field. Under normal cases the plastic redistribution
is not accounted for in the elastic inversion algorithms of the experimental procedure. The FEA predicted longitudinal residual
stress components for both mid-length (Hole 1) and end positions (Hole 2) shown in Fig. 4(a) are substantially high enough for
plastic redistribution to occur during the trepanning stage of the deep hole drilling measurement.

Influence of Plastic Redistribution in DHD Procedure

The influence of trepanning step on the DHD measured result was verified by Hossain et al. (2011a). They carried out a FEA
simulated DHD procedure on repair welded pipe. The methodology and sequence consisted of four steps. (1) FEA simulation of
weld residual stress field conducted by British Energy Generation Ltd (BEGL). (2) The BEGL predicted stresses were mapped onto a
mesh which allowed DHD measurement simulation. (3) The FEA DHD measurement simulation was carried out. (4) The FEA
simulated DHD reconstructed residual stress distribution was compared with the previously measured stress distribution.
Fig. 5 shows the 3D quarter model (University of Bristol, BU model) of the welded pipe. The overall dimension and the drilling
and trepanning regions are shown in Fig. 5 as well. The model constructed with 14,330 quadratic brick elements has two symmetry
planes including the XY (1–2) plane and the YZ (2–3) plane. As the repair was offset from the girth weld centerline, the XZ (1–3)
symmetry plane did not exist. Although the short repair spans only 218 mm, i.e., covering about 16% of the circumference of the
pipe, a fully circumferential repair weld was assumed in the model; the purpose of the FEA study was to investigate the influence of
the plastic redistribution in the DHD measurement process on the initial residual stress. Furthermore, by using the British Energy
6 Residual Stress Analysis for Sustainable Structural Integrity Assessment of an Engineering Component

Fig. 5 3D mesh of the repair welded pipe showing overall geometry and the drilling and trepanning regions. Reproduced from Hossain, S., 2005.
Residual stresses under conditions of high triaxiality. PhD Thesis. UK: University of Bristol.

Fig. 6 Comparison of the residual stress distribution at the mid-length of repair weld between the measured and the FEA reconstructed using
NKH model. Reproduced from Hossain, S., Goudar, D.M., Truman, C.E., Smith, D.J., 2011a. Simulation and measurement of residual stresses in a
Type 316H stainless steel offset repair in a pipe girth weld. Materials Science Forum 681, 492–497.

Generation Limited (BEGL) predicted weld residual stress field as initial condition for the BU model the influence of cir-
cumferential repair was minimized. Appropriate material model was constructed for parent, girth and repair weld regions, which
can be found elsewhere (Hossain et al., 2006).
In addition to the influence of plastic redistribution on the FEA simulated DHD result, the effect of different material hardening
models was also studied. Detail of the DHD simulation and the measurement are both provided in Hossain et al. (2011a). Fig. 6
shows the main outcome of the study. The DHD measured residual stress distribution at the mid-length (Hole 1) of repair weld
(shown in Fig. 4) is compared with the FEA simulated DHD reconstructed residual stress distribution using non-linear kinematic
hardening (NKH) model. An excellent correlation exists between the FEA simulated DHD and the DHD measured residual stress
distributions as shown in Fig. 6.

FEA Validation of a Modified DHD Method

In the preceding section, results from the DHD FEA simulation highlighted how the DHD process influences the measured residual
stresses. In this section, a variation to the standard DHD technique, known as the over-core deep-hole drilling (oDHD) technique
 Residual Stress Analysis for Sustainable Structural Integrity Assessment of an Engineering Component 7

(Hossain et al., 2011b) developed to avoid plasticity issues is validated by utilizing FEA simulation of the technique. The influence
of material removal and cutting sequence on the initial residual stress field during the DHD measurement process was explored
through a 3D FEA. An FEA predicted weld residual stress field in a 40 mm thick butt-welded pipe was applied as the initial stress
condition in a DHD FEA model. Detail of the FEA simulation of the weld residual stress, the standard DHD simulation and the
oDHD simulation are provided in Hossain et al. (2011b). Fig. 7 shows the schematic of the butt-welded pipe, with outer diameter
369 mm, thickness 40 mm, and length 800 mm. Two SUSF316 stainless steel cylinders of length 400 mm each were cir-
cumferentially welded by using alloy 82 weld metal. The DHD measurement and simulation were both carried out through the
weld thickness from the outer surface of the pipe.
The DHD reconstructed residual stresses are compared with the initial FEA predicted stresses in Fig. 8. Both the longitudinal
and the transverse components of the stresses are shown. Close to the outer surface of the pipe, the longitudinal stresses
significantly redistributes. This is attributed to the influence of plasticity during trepanning. A recently developed incremental
deep-hole drilling (iDHD) technique (Mahmoudi et al., 2009; Zheng et al., 2017) takes into account the effect of plasticity during
trepanning and provides an approximate solution to measurements of near yield residual stresses. The iDHD method has
successfully been applied to various components (Hossain et al., 2012; Hosseinzadeh et al. 2009, 2010; Kingston et al., 2010;
Mahmoudi et al., 2009b; Mahmoudi et al., 2011; Robinson et al., 2010, 2008; Zheng et al., 2017). However, the iDHD method
suffers from a limited spatial resolution.
In contrast, the oDHD technique (Hossain et al., 2011b; Zheng et al., 2017) used in the present analysis significantly
improves the spatial resolution. By adding an extra step between steps 2 and 3 in the standard DHD procedure, Fig. 2 where a
large core, diameter 40 mm is trepanned ensuring the initial near yield residual stress to redistribute elastically around the
reference hole. Hence only elastic unloading occurs during final trepanning step 3. The choice of the over-core size depends on
the specimen thickness and the cutting sequence. Zheng et al. (2017) studied different over-core trepan diameter to optimize the

Fig. 7 Schematic of girth-butt welded pipe. All dimensions in mm.

Fig. 8 Comparison of the standard DHD FEA reconstructed and the initial FEA predicted residual stress distribution in the butt-welded pipe.
Reproduced from Hossain, S., Kingston, E., Truman, C.E., Smith, D.J., 2011b. Finite element validation of the over-coring deep-hole drilling
technique. Applied Mechanics and Materials 70, 291–296.
8 Residual Stress Analysis for Sustainable Structural Integrity Assessment of an Engineering Component

Fig. 9 Comparison of the oDHD FEA reconstructed and the initial FEA predicted residual stress distribution in the butt-welded pipe. Reproduced
from Hossain, S., Kingston, E., Truman, C.E., Smith, D.J., 2011b. Finite element validation of the over-coring deep-hole drilling technique. Applied
Mechanics and Materials 70, 291–296.

trepan size. They found that the over-core size should be larger than both the width and depth of the welding to generate elastic
stress relaxation. The size of the over-core diameter can be halved from 40 mm to 20 mm with effectively the same result to keep
the destruction to the component at minimum. However, the cutting process may need to be adjusted. Therefore, a thorough
FEA simulation of the oDHD procedure conducted prior to a practical measurement can provide an optimum over-core
dimension.
An excellent comparison of the oDHD reconstructed residual stress distribution with the initial FEA predicted is shown in
Fig. 9. The dimension included: Reference hole diameter 1.5 mm, over-core diameter 40 mm, final trepan diameter 15 mm. The
excellent correlation between the DHD reconstructed and the initial weld residual stress validated the present oDHD technique.
The integrity of the structure nominally depends on the size of the over-core relative to the size of the component structure. The
application of a 40 mm diameter over-core which was small enough relative to the size of the butt-welded pipe ensured the oDHD
method to remain semi-destructive.

Concluding Remarks

The accuracy in residual stress characterization on the sustainable structural integrity assessment of an engineering component has
been highlighted. Two welded pipe samples were considered in the study. The DHD numerical simulation on the welded pipes
indicated that the DHD technique works reasonably well for practical components. Measurements of residual stresses were made
in practical components using the deep-hole drilling method and were compared with finite element prediction. In general a good
correlation existed particularly for the transverse component of the residual stress. The measured distribution was generally lower
than the FEA predicted. It is anticipated that a combined hardening model in the FEA study can better represent the initial weld
residual stress field.
The study illustrated that a significant influence of the DHD process on the initial longitudinal residual stresses occurred; both
the measured and the predicted longitudinal stress component was much higher in magnitude than the transverse component. The
FEA reconstructed residual stress distribution did not provide the initial peak tensile stress close to the outer surface of the
welded pipes.
The FEA study using a large over-core, diameter 40 mm (oDHD technique) illustrated that the effect of plasticity in the DHD
trepanning process can be reduced without affecting the accuracy of the result. Compared to the iDHD technique the oDHD
technique is much simpler to apply and can achieve residual stress data of much higher spatial resolution, the same resolution as
in the standard DHD technique. The FEA DHD simulation in the butt-welded pipe validated the oDHD technique. Moreover, the
study further highlighted the need to exploit an FEA study prior to practical measurements.

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful for the time provided by the Military Technological College, Sultanate of Oman in order to complete
this work.
 Residual Stress Analysis for Sustainable Structural Integrity Assessment of an Engineering Component 9

References

Baikie, B.L., Bradford, R.A., Hales, R., et al., 1997. Reheat cracking in austenitic stainless steels – Current status of understanding. Technical Report EPD/AGR/REP/0346/97.
Gloucester, UK: British Energy Generations Ltd .
Beaney, E.M., 1978. Measurement of sub-surface stress. Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) Report No. RB/B/N4325.
Bonner, N.W., Smith, D.J., 1994. Measurement of residual stresses in a thick section steel weld. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Integrity
Assessment, pp. 259–274. Engineering Materials Advisory Services Ltd.
Dhooge, A., 1998. Survey on reheat cracking in austenitic stainless steels and Ni base alloys. Welding in the World 41, 206–219.
Ficquet, X., 2007. Development and application of the deep hole drilling method. PhD Thesis. UK: University of Bristol.
Gandy, D.W., Findlan, S.J., Viswanathan, R., 2001. Weld repair of steam turbine casings and piping – An industry survey. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 123,
157–160.
Garcia-Granada, A.A., Smith, D.J., Pavier, M.J., 2000. A new procedure based on Sachs boring for measuring non-axisymmetric residual stresses. International Journal of
Mechanical Sciences vol. 42, 1027–1047.
George, D.B.F., 2000. Determination of residual stresses in large section stainless steel welds. PhD Thesis, University of Bristol.
George, D., Kingston, E., Smith, D.J. 2000. Residual stress measurement in thick section components. In: Proceedings of the PVP, vol. 410–411, pp. 275–282.
George, D., Kingston, E., Smith, D.J., 2002. Measurement of through-thickness stresses using small holes. The Journal of Strain Analysis 37 (2), 125–139.
Hossain, S., 2005. Residual stresses under conditions of high triaxiality. PhD Thesis. UK : University of Bristol.
Hossain, S., Truman, C.E., Smith, D.J., Bouchard, P.J., 2006. Measurement of residual stresses in a type 316H stainless steel offset repair in a pipe girth weld. Journal of
Pressure Vessel Technology, Transactions of the ASME 128 (3), 420–426.
Hossain, S., Goudar, D.M., Truman, C.E., Smith, D.J., 2011a. Simulation and measurement of residual stresses in a Type 316H stainless steel offset repair in a pipe girth weld.
Materials Science Forum 681, 492–497.
Hossain, S., Kingston, E., Truman, C.E., Smith, D.J., 2011b. Finite element validation of the over-coring deep-hole drilling technique. Applied Mechanics and Materials 70,
291–296.
Hossain, S., Truman, C.E., Smith, D.J., 2012. Finite element validation of the deep hole drilling method for measuring residual stresses. International Journal of Pressure
Vessels and Piping 93–94, 29–41.
Hossain, S., Zheng, G., Truman, C.E., Smith, D.J., 2017. Application of multiple analysis methods in optimising complex residual stress characterisation. Experimental
Techniques 41, 483–503.
Hosseinzadeh, F., Mahmoudi, A.H., Truman, C.E., Smith, D.J., 2009. Prediction and Measurement of Through Thickness Residual Stresses in Large Quenched Components.
London, UK: World Congress on Engineering.
Hosseinzadeh, F., Mahmoudi, A.H., Truman, C.E., Smith, D.J., 2010. Application of deep hole drilling to the measurement and analysis of residual stresses in steel shrink-fitted
assemblies. Strain 47, 412–426.
Kandil, F.A., Lord, J.D., Fry, A.T., Grant, P.V., 2001. A review of residual stress measurement methods – A Guide to Technique Selection. NPL Report MATC (A) 04.
Kingston, E.J., 2004. Advances in the deep-hole drilling technique for residual stress measurement. PhD Thesis. University of Bristol.
Kingston, E., Smith, D.J., Zheng, G., Gill, C., Hurrell, P., 2010. Measurement of residual stresses in thick section steel electron beam welds. In: Proceedings of the ASME
Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference.
Macherauch, E., Kloos, K.H., 1986. Origin, measurement and evaluation of residual stresses. Residual Stresses in Science and Technology vol. 1, 3–26. (ISBN 3-88355-099-X).
Mahmoudi, A.H., Hossain, S., Truman, C.E., Smith, D.J., Pavier, M.J., 2009. A new procedure to measure near yield residual stresses using the deep hole drilling technique.
Experimental Mechanics 49 (4), 595–604.
Mahmoudi, A.H., Smith, D.J., Truman, C.E., Pavier, M.J., 2009b. Application of the modified deep hole drilling technique (IDHD) for measuring near yield non-axisymmetric
residual stresses. In: PVP2009-77940 (Ed.) Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. PVP2009–PV77940.
Mahmoudi, A.H., Truman, C.E., Smith, D.J., Pavier, M.J., 2011. The effect of plasticity on the ability of the deep hole drilling technique to measure axisymmetric residual
stress. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 53, 978–988.
Mitsui Babcock Report 316, 2002. Girth Weld with Offset Repair for British Energy Generation Ltd., TR022/2002.
Robinson, J.S., Truman, C.E., Hossain, S., Wimpory, R., 2008. Residual stress and microstructural variations in thick aluminum alloy forgings. Material Science Forum
571–572, 45–50.
Robinson, J.S., Hossain, S., Truman, C.E., et al., 2010. Residual stress in 7449 aluminum alloy forgings. Materials Science and Engineering 527, 2603–2612.
Sachs, G., 1927. Nachweic innerer spannungen in stange und rohren. Zitschrift fur Metalkunde 19, 352–357.
Skelton, R.P., Goodall, I.W., Webster, G.A., Spindler, M.W., 2003. Factors affecting re-heat cracking in the HAZ of austenitic steel weldments. International Journal of Pressure
Vessels and Piping 80, 441–451.
Smith, D.J., Bonner, N.W., 1996. Measurement of residual stresses using the deep hole method. In: Proceedings of the PVP, vol. 327, pp. 53–65.
Smith, D.J., Bouchard, P.J., George, D., 2000. Measurement and prediction of residual stresses in thick section steel welds. The Journal of Strain Analysis 35 (4), 287–305.
Treuting, R.G., Read Jr., W.T., 1951. A mechanical determination of biaxial residual stress in sheet materials. Journal of Applied Physics 22 (2), 130–134.
Withers, P.J., Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H., 2001a. Residual stress – II: Nature and origins. Materials Science and Technology 17, 366–375.
Withers, P.J., Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H., 2001b. Residual stress: Part 1 – Measurement techniques. Material Science and technology 17, 355–365.
Zhdanov, I.M., Gonchar, A.K., 1978. Determining the residual welding stresses at a depth in metal. Automatic Welding 31 (9), 22–24.
Zheng, G., Hossain, S., Kingston, E., Truman, C.E., Smith, D.J., 2017. An optimisation study of the modified deep-hole drilling technique using finite element analyses applied
to a stainless steel ring welded circular disc. International Journal of Solids and Structures 118–119, 146–166.