Materials Science and Engineering, 92 (1987) 13-21
Residual Stress Evaluation of a Cold-rolled Steel Strip Using X-rays and a Layer
Removal Technique*
K. FEJA, V. HAUK and W. K. KRUG
Institut fiir Werkstoffkunde, Rheinisch-Westfdlische Technische Hochschule, Templergraben 55, D-5100 Aachen
(F.R.G.)
L. PINTSCHOVIUS
Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Institut fiir Nukleare Festkhrperphysik, Postfach 3640, D-7500 Karlsruhe
(F.R.G.)
(Received July 30, 1986)
ABSTRACT
In terplanar spacingD{hkl} VS. sin2t~ distribu-
tions were measured on the surface o f a cold-
rolled steel strip with Cr K s radiation for the
(211} reflection and with Mo K s radiation
for the (631}, (732 + 651} and (721 + 633 +
552} reflections. Additional measurements
were p e r f o r m e d for the (211} and (732 +
651} reflections after the sample had been
progressively thinned d o w n by electrochemical
etching. E x c e p t for the {732 + 651} reflec-
tion, all D vs. sin2~b curves were f o u n d to be
non-linear. The residual macrostresses were
evaluated from the deflection o f stepwise and
o f continuously etched specimens. By corn-
parison o f these results with the X-ray data
and with the results o f a neutron diffraction
study on an equivalent sample the distribu-
tion o f the residual microstresses could be
determined. Conclusions are drawn for the
determination o f residual stresses in textured
materials by X-ray diffraction,
1. INTRODUCTION
In the acco mp an yi ng paper [1] the residual
stress state o f a cold-rolled, heavily t e x t u r e d
steel strip has been studied by means of neut-
r o n diffraction. In this paper, we r e p o r t re-
sults o f measurements made with X-rays of
*Some of the measurements given in the paper have
been presented at the German Fachausschui~tagung
Spannungsmei~technik, Erding, F.R.G., October 12,
1984.
0025-5416/87/$3.50
13
two different wavelengths on an equivalent
specimen. In order to separate the influence
of macrostresses and microstresses on the ob-
served strains, the measurements were per-
form ed on several reflection lines, i.e. (211},
(200}, (631}, (732 + 651} and (721 + 633 +
552}, at the surface and on deeper layers after
etching. In addition, we report results of a
determination of the macrostresses from the
deflection of samples after the removal of
surface layers by etching.
As the state of the material has been des-
cribed in detail in ref. 1, we shall not pursue
this topic here. Similarly, we wish to point
o u t that a list of publications dealing with
the problems of stress measurements on steels
having preferred orientations was given in ref.
1. In Section 2, we shall describe the experi-
mental details and the results of the X-ray
measurements. Section 3 is devoted to the
investigation of the residual macrostresses
by the deflection m et hod. In Section 4 the
results o f this study and of ref. 1 will be dis-
cussed with respect to the variation in bot h
macrostresses (type I residual stresses) and
microstresses (type II residual stresses) as a
funct i on of distance f r o m the surface. Finally,
conclusions will be drawn concerning the
devel opm ent of a m e t h o d suitable for stress
analysis in t e x t u r e d materials.
2. X-RAY INVESTIGATIONS
Some of the measurements r e p o r t e d here
were carried out 3 years ago. According to
the standard of that time, the lattice spacing
© Elsevier Sequoia/Printed in The Netherlands
14

D was measured for positive and negative @
values up to sin2@ ~< 0.5, where @ is the angle
between the normal to the specimen surface
and the reflecting planes. Recently [2, 3] the
measuring technique has been improved, al-
lowing D vs. sine@ distributions to be deter-
mined up to sin e @ ~< 0.9. All results presented
in this paper dating from the later period meet
the improved standard. Moreover, some of the
previous measurements were extended to
higher @ values,
The X-ray measurements were carried o u t
following the lines described in refs. 4-6. A
survey of the specimens investigated and the
details of the measurements is given in Table
1. Using chromium powder (Do = 0.288 528
nm) the diffractometers were adjusted so that
the peak position was independent of ~ to
within +0.01 ° in 20. The counting times were
chosen such that the statistical error A(20) of
the peak positions was generally less than
0.01 °.
For easy comparison of the results obtained
from different reflection lines, all measured
D values were converted to {100} spacings.
Lattice strains were calculated from the dif-
ference between the observed D values and
Do = 0.286 699 nm obtained for a specimen
which had been annealed in vacuum for 1 h
at 470 °C, slowly cooled and etched to a depth
of 0.2 mm.
The D vs. sin2@ distributions measured in
the rolling direction (RD) and in the trans-
verse direction (TD) on the as-manufactured
surface are shown in Figs. 1-4. The corres-
ponding relative intensities axe also given. The
positions of poles of the ideal orientations
{100}<011>, { l l l } < 2 i i > and {211}<01i> are
indicated by the letters A, B and C respective-
ly. For multiple reflections, indices have been

TABLE 1
List of the specimens and details of the X-ray measurements

Speci- Specimen Depth Mea- (hkl} Radia- 20 Slit Maxi- N u m b e r Fig-

men size (mm) surement tion (deg) K~I-KOL 2 mum o f mea- ure
(mm x mm) direction separa- sin2~ sure-
tion a ments

2.5 100 x 20 0 RD, TD (211} Cr 156 DS 0.5 1 1

2.5 100 X 20 0 RD, TD (732 + 651} Mo 154 ES 0.5 3-4 2
2.5 100 X 20 0 RD, TD {721 + 633 + Mo 131 ES, DT 0.6 2 4
552}
2.5 100 × 20 0 RD, TD {631} Mo 114 ES, DT 0.6 2 3
2.5 100 x 20 0 RD, TD (530 + 433} Mo 92 ES, DT 0.6 1
2.5 90 X20 0.300 RD (211} Cr 156 ES, DT 0.9 1
2.5 90 × 20 0.300 RD (200} Cr 106 ES, DT 0.0 5
2.5 90 X20 0.300 RD (732 + 651} Mo 154 ES, DT 0.9 1
2.6 100 x 20 0 TD {200} Cr 106 ES, DT 0.9 3
2.7 100 × 20 0 RD {211} Cr 156 ES, DT 0.9 2 1
2.7 100 X20 0 RD (200} Cr 106 ES, DT 0.0 5 i
2.7 100 × 20 0 RD <732 +651} Mo 154 ES, DT 0.9 1 2
2.7 30 X20 0.250, RD {211} Cr 156 ES, DT 0.9 1 6, 7
0.350
2.7 30 × 20 0.250, RD (200} Cr 106 ES, DT 0.0 5 6, 7
0.350
2.7 3 0 x 20. 0.250, RD, TD ~732 + 651} Mo 154 ES, DT 0.9 1 6,7
0.350
1.4 200 × 20 0.075 b RD (211} Cr 156 ES, DT 0.9 1 5
1.4 200 x 20 0.0755 <200} Cr 106 ES, DT 0.0 5 5
1.4 200 × 20 0.0755 {732 + 651} Mo 154 ES, DT 0.9 1 5

The first and second measurements on specimen 2.5 were carried out with a ~ diffractometer; all other measure-
ments were performed with a @ diffractometer.
aDS, double slit; ES, single slit; DT separation of the doublet.
bRemoval of a layer on one side only; for all other specimens a layer was removed on both sides.
 15

0.28~ 1 l I I l 'I I I I I I 1
I Aze.-.O,01 °

•- o ° ® ~ 8 0 °o ° ° ~ ~ °~° °~©8°
o • 0 ®-4 (
o
02867 8 • 8

°o 8

B l c A
0.2856 J I II I I I [ I [ I I I I [ I
0,2 0,4

o®©oOOg~OO®O~ ®

I I ] I I ] ] t ]
O0 0.2 0/, 0.6 0.8 1
( C) sin z

Fig. 1. Interplanar spacings v s. sin2~ in (a) the R D ( ~ = 0 °) and (b) the TD ( ~ = 9 0 ° ) , and (c) the relative intensi-
ties v s . sin2~ for the R D (9 = 0°), measured for the as-manufactured surface on the (211} reflection line w i t h
Cr K(~ radiation: 0, ~ < 0°; e, ~ > 0 °. The D spacing (A) measured at ~ = 0 ° on the ( 2 0 0 ) reflection line is also
given. The labelling of the ideal orientations is explained in Section 2.

0.28~8 [ l I I I I T I I I I I [
(~ A ZO .,0,01 °

?- 0 , z ~ 7 • - - 0~ ~ o e 0 o ~
-
= O~oo~
B
C, A'B'~ C~ B~ C' C' A;/C
0.2866 II Ill l I I t I I t l I I J __ l LL i J
0,2 04
Co) 1 © - g 0~0 c1O 0 • • r l o © ©i 0I b ) sinZ~

0 ] [ t 1 1 ] ]
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
(c ) sinz qJ

Fig. 2, I n t e r p l a n a r spacings vs. sin2~ in (a) t h e R D ( ~ - - O°) and (b) t he T D ( ~ = 90 °) and (c) the relative intensi-
ties v s. sin2~ for the R D (~ = 0°), measured for the as-manufactured surface on the t w o f o l d reflection line {732 +
651 } w i t h Mo K0~ radiation: o, ~ < 0 ° ; o, ~ > 0 °.

0,Z868 I I i I I I I I I [
{ & ZO'~O, 01° • •

o
=- • • O •
o o~
,=~-0zm7 " ® o ~S S• ~ ®® o • ® o•~ 8 ®

c' B' B'

0,2855 I l l I I l I I I I I I I
0,2 0/,, 0,6 0 0,2 0,4 0,6
sin z 0~
(a) (b)

Fig. 3. Interplanar spacings v s . sin2~ in (a) the R D (~ : 0 °) and (b) the T D (~ = 90 ° ), measured for the as-manu-
factured surface on the r e f l e c t i o n line (631 } w i t h Mo K0~ radiation: o, ~ < 0°; e, ~ > 0 °.
 16

O.Z8~ I I I I I I I I I r
~ A 2@ =_*0,01°

Cl B18z A1 8' Q B; C' A~ Cz B~

0.2866 II I I I II I II I II I I
0,2 0,4 0,6 0.2 0,4 0,6 sin 2 q~
(o) b)

F i g . 4. I n t e r p l a n a r s p a c i n g s v s . s i n 2 ~ in (a) t h e R D (~ = 0 ° ) a n d ( b ) t h e T D ( ~ = 9 0 °), m e a s u r e d f o r t h e a s - m a n u -
f a c t u r e d surface on the threefold reflection line {721 + 633 + 552) with Mo Ks radiation: o, ~ < 0°; t, ~ > 0°.

added to these letters, e.g. 1 stands for the slopes of the curves shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2
(651) c o m p o n e n t of the {732 + 651) reflec- respectively. In view of the strong non-linear-
tion line. A prime denotes that the pole does ity of the D{21z} vs. sin2~ distribution the
n o t lie exactly in the measuring direction but good agreement between the two stress values
that it is close to it ( ~ ~ 15°). should n o t be overvalued.
The shapes of the D vs. sin 2 ~ distributions To investigate the variation in the residual
of the (211) reflection are similar to those stresses across the thickness, three specimens
f o u n d in previous investigations on cold-rolled were thinned down by etching on one or both
steels [7], i.e. the curve is oscillating for the RD sides over the entire width (20 mm) and a
and is approximately a straight line for the TD. length of 10 mm (Table 2). In a further step
Pronounced non-linearities were also f o u n d the middle part of the third specimen was
for the reflection line (721 + 633 + 552} in etched to a final thickness of 0.3 mm.
the RD and the reflection line {732 + 651} Figures 5-7 give examples of lattice strain
in the TD, where the curve bends at sin2~ = distributions measured after etching. Obvi-
0.6. The other D vs. sin 2 ~ distributions are ously the characteristics of the curves are
essentially linear; in particular the linearity unchanged, i.e. strong oscillations for the
of the D vs. sin 2 ~ distribution of the (732 + (211} reflection and a linear behaviour, some-
651) reflection in the RD reported in previous times with considerable scattering, for the
publications [8,9] is confirmed. According to {732 + 651) reflection. From the slope of the
ref. 9, the linearity in this case can be e x - D{732+651} vs. sin2~ curves it is evident that
plained by two facts: (i) because of the high considerable compressive residual stresses
multiplicity of this reflection line, i.e. 96, there persist even after removal of relatively thick
are m a n y poles of the ideal orientations of a layers on both sides of the specimen (see
rolling texture close to the measuring direc- Table 2). Since type I residual stresses are
tion; (ii) the elastic anisotropy does n o t pro- largely relieved by the etching procedure, the
duce non-linearities for a rolling texture, at residual stresses observed have to be mainly
least up to sin 2 ~ = 0.5, owing to a compensa- type II stresses. Thus it is suggested that the
tion of the non-linearities calculated for the residual stresses observed for the as-manu-
{7 32} and the (651) lattice planes, factured surface also contain considerable
The average slopes of the curves depicted type II components. To separate type I resi-
in Figs. 1-4 indicate small compressive resi- dual stresses and type II residual stresses, we
dual stresses for both the RD and the TD. used a mechanical technique which is sensitive
Quantitative evaluation of stresses from the to macrostresses only.
observed strains was restricted to the RD and
the data obtained for the (211} and (732 +
651) reflections. Using the values ½s2 {2zz} = 3. DETERMINATION OF RESIDUAL MACRO-
5.76 X 10 -6 MPa -z and ~s2 {732+651} = 6.05 x STRESSESBY A LAYER REMOVAL TECHNIQUE
10 -6 MPa -z from ref. 4 for the X-ray elastic
constants, stress values a~ -- 03 of --39 MPa A m e t h o d for the determination of residual
and --28 MPa are computed from the average stresses by continuously removing thin layers
 17

TABLE 2
Residual stress values determined by X-ray diffraction on different samples

Depth o 1 -- a 3 (MPa) from the average slopes up to sin2~ = 0. 9 01 - a 3 (MPa) from the
(mm) for the following (hkl} and radiation { 211}( 011) group of
erystaIlites
{211}, Cr (732 + 651}, Mo

0.000 --39 --28 --52

0.075 a 13 15 --26
0.250 --12 --44 --59
0.300 --56 --55 --97
0.350 --49 --59 98

For the sample preparation and details of the measurements see Table 1.
aRemoval of a layer on one side only; for all other specimens a layer was removed on both sides.

8.Z868 l I I T- I I I I ~ 0.Z868--F-~ I r T--T- ~ -- I I I --

,~&20=-*001 ° ,~ &28=_-0.01 °
o

°.o $ •
• o
oQ ~o ~
.= 0,2867 • © 8 • o • • ° 0.286; • o
o '-= 8 e • Q o •
0 • • 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 • 0 0
o o Q o ~ O o
o o~

0.2866 I ] ] l I _ I I _ I l 0.2866 l I ~ I J ~L I L I
(a) Ca)
0.Z868 I I I I I [ 1 I I 0,2868 r F 1 , ~ T ~'-- ~ r , ]
(~ & 2 8 =-* 0'01° ~ £ & z O ='* 0,01°

]
1
=E o o
o o°,o,o.°o.oooo
0,2867 o --- 0.2867 o o • o o

e~ • •

!
•
• "

" "
02866 I I I I I I l I I 02866 I 012 ~ t ._ t I I l I
03 0.4 0,6 0.8 ' . 0. 0.6 0.8
( b ) sin2q~ ( b ) sln2•

Fig. 5. D{hkl} VS. sin2~ in the RD (•= 0°), measured
after removal of a 75 tim surface layer on one side us-
ing (a) the (211} reflection line with Cr Ka radiation
and (b) the {732 + 651} reflection line with Mo Ka
radiation: o, ~ -<<0°; o, ~ > 0 °. The D spacing (A)
measured at ~ = 0 ° on the (200} reflection line is
also given,
Fig. 6. D{hl~l} vs. sin2~ in the RD @ = 0°), measured
after removal of layers of 250 tim thickness on both
sides using (a) the (211} reflection line with Cr K a
radiation and (b) the (732 + 651} reflection line with
Mo Ka radiation: o, ~ ~<0°; o, ~; > 0 °. The D spacing
(A) measured at ~ = 0 ° on the {200} reflection line is
also given.

of material by electro-polishing while monitor- T D ) a n d y i e l d e d v e r y s i m i l a r r e s u l t s . T h e dis-

ing the resultant deformations of the sample tribution of the residual stresses obtained by
h a s b e e n p r e s e n t e d in r e f s . 10 a n d 11. T h e t h i s t e c h n i q u e is p l o t t e d in F i g . 8. E v i d e n t l y ,
a p p a r a t u s u s e d in o u r e x p e r i m e n t s h a s b e e n the residual macrostresses are tensile for both
d e s c r i b e d in r e f s . 12 a n d 1 3 . T h e r e s u l t s re- t h e R D a n d t h e T D in t h e l a y e r s c l o s e t o t h e
p o r t e d in t h i s s e c t i o n a r e p a r t l y b a s e d o n r a w s u r f a c e . T h e b a l a n c e o f f o r c e s is m a i n t a i n e d
d a t a s o m e o f w h i c h w e r e o b t a i n e d in a n e a r l i e r b y t h e c o m p r e s s i v e r e s i d u a l s t r e s s e s in t h e
i n v e s t i g a t i o n [ 1 4 ] . T h e size o f t h e s p e c i m e n centre of the strip.
w a s 1 4 6 m m X 21 m m . T w o s p e c i m e n s w e r e As the residual stresses obtained for the
measured for each direction (the RD and the surface do not agree with the X-ray values,
18

0,Z868 r. I e I u 1 r I I u 80 I I I
t{zoo} (} A ze =-'°'°1° ' If
/
• Rolling D i r e c t i o n / ~
0 0 •0 •

• o •
Oo~ o • 40-
o •
0 • •
0 0
0,2866 .... I I [ I L I [ I ] .-

(o) I~ , i , , , r ~ • ~ , 0

® O o o ® ® O ® o ® ® o • ~ "
H I • ®
"0 I t i [ I I i I I
(b)
0,Z868 r 1 1 1 I I I I I - ~0
~, ZO : ; 0,01 °

) e

_c • o
_ 02867 - o
0 [ I 1 i l
'=~
•
•
*~L..~ o°
0
-8 0,1 0 0,1 0,3 0.5
Distence from Center of the Specimen in mm

02866 I [ I I I L I I I Fig. 8. Residual s t r e s s e s v s . distance from t h e c e n t r e

(c)
i t i , i of the strip, as determined by the layer removal tech-
,..,~, 1 o
g~ g ~' ° ~ 0 ~ 0 o © © © o © ® o o nique.

0 ~ i i ~ i ; ~ L L removal technique, we have to consider that

0 o,z
( d)
Fig. 7. (a), (c)The interplanar spacings and (b), (d)
the intensities vs. sin2~ in the RD (~=0°), measured
after removal of layers of 350 pm thickness on both
sides using (a), (b) the {211} reflection line with Cr
Ks radiation and (c), (d) the {732 + 651} reflection
line with Mo Ks radiation: o, ~ ~<0°; o, ~ > 0 °.
t h e y were checked by additional exper i m ent s
using a slightly d if fer e nt technique. T w o spec-
imens were etch ed in steps and the resultant
deflections were measured after each step.
These experiments confirmed t hat at the sur-
face the residual macrostresses in the RD are
tensile. Th e value obtained by this m e t h o d is
in fact even larger than t ha t p l o t t e d in Fig. 8;
this is p r o b ab ly due to the simplifying as-
sumptions made in the evaluation f or this
case. In the following discussion the distribu-
tion o f the residual macrostresses shown in
Fig. 8 is taken as th e basis,
4. DISCUSSION
Comparing the residual stress distribution
d e t e rmin ed b y X-rays and t hat by the layer
0,4 0,6 0,8
sin, ¢ all X-ray values measured after the etching of
the surface layers are affected by partial relief
of the residual macrostresses. Consequently
the X-ray values were corrected f o r stress
relief using the residual stress distribution
shown in Fig. 8. A comparison of the cor-
rected X-ray values with the residual macro-
stresses in the RD det erm i ned by t he layer
removal technique, is given in Fig. 9. Evi-
dently, there are systematic deviations be-
tween the two stress distributions. This must
be attributed to the fact t hat the strains mea-
sured by X-ray diffraction (and also by neu-
t ron diffraction) are caused by t y p e I and
t y p e II residual stresses. T y p e II residual stres-
ses in turn contain two com ponent s, called
d e f o r m a t i o n residual stresses and grain inter-
action stresses. F o r the d e f o r m a t i o n residual
stresses the stress-strain relationship is t h o u g h t
to be the same as for macrostresses, but t h e y
are n o t balanced over the cross-section of the
specimen. The equilibrium of forces is main-
tained by residual stresses in regions which do
n o t contribute to the diffraction intensity,
i . e . at grain boundaries and/ or grains of addi-
tional phases [15, 16]. So d e f o r m a t i o n resi-
dual stresses are n o t released by the removal

lZ0 , , , ,
i - " - - . -. ~ ~
80 / / / / / .- . . / . f f ~ i : ~ j j j S
40
j // f./ //
=_ .i"
j/
~ 0
//
-40
m sensitively on t h e precise value o f the d e f o r -
o~ 40
./
....... " T given elsewhere [ 2 0 ] . T h e results are i n c l u d e d
-160)
|
i J ___~__ i stress values f o r t h e {211}<01i> g r o u p and
0 0.1 02 03 0,4 0.5
Distance from center of specimen m mm
Fig. 9. Type I residual stress vs. distance from the
centre in the RD in the as-manufactured specimen
( ) and at the surface after removal of layers on
one side (- - -) or on both sides ( - . - - ) . The lowest
curve (. . . . ) was obtained by shifting the full line
downwards by 75 MPa. The reflections and radiation
lines used were as follows: e, Mo(732 + 651}; o,
Cr(211}; A, grain group {211}(01i); 0, neutrons. The
X-ray values were corrected for stress relief,
o f surface layers. T h e grain i n t e r a c t i o n stresses
are t h e residual m i c r o s t r e s s e s in a n a r r o w
sense, i.e. t h e y r e p r e s e n t t h e v a r i a t i o n in t h e
residual stresses w i t h the o r i e n t a t i o n o f the
grains t h a t o r i g i n a t e s f r o m plastic a n i s o t r o p y ,
A n e v a l u a t i o n o f the grain i n t e r a c t i o n stres-
ses in o u r m a t e r i a l has b e e n r e p o r t e d in ref. 1.
T h e analysis w a s b a s e d o n f o u r D{h~a} vs. sin 2 ~
d i s t r i b u t i o n s d e t e r m i n e d b y n e u t r o n diffrac-
t i o n u p to sin2~ = 1. All the r e f l e c t i o n s used
h a d low Miller indices, a n d t h e r e f o r e the varia-
tion in t h e d i f f r a c t i o n i n t e n s i t y w i t h ~0 a n d ~
r e f l e c t e d s t r o n g l y t h e t e x t u r e o f the material.
A similar analysis was a t t e m p t e d using o u r
X - r a y d a t a . H o w e v e r , t h e X - r a y d a t a at o u r
disposal are less suited to such a p u r p o s e ,
yielding o n l y a v e r y f e w d a t a p o i n t s f o r e a c h
g r o u p o f o r i e n t a t i o n s . T h e r e f o r e , reliable
stress values c o u l d be c a l c u l a t e d o n l y f o r the
{211}<01i> g r o u p in the RD. E v e n in this
19
case t h e s i m p l i f y i n g a s s u m p t i o n h a d to be
m a d e t h a t in c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e results in ref. 1
t h e p r i n c i p a l axes o f t h e stress t e n s o r are
given b y t h e s a m p l e s y s t e m . A f u r t h e r reduc-
tion in t h e n u m b e r o f p a r a m e t e r s was 0b-
tained b y restricting t h e e v a l u a t i o n to the
d i f f e r e n c e s 01 - - 03 and 02 - - 03. If, as is c o m -
m o n l y a s s u m e d , t h e stress c o m p o n e n t 03 is
v e r y small in the l a y e r irradiated b y the X-
rays, these d i f f e r e n c e s are a b o u t e q u a l to the
stresses in t h e R D a n d the T D respectively.
An a t t e m p t to evaluate a3 also w o u l d d e p e n d
m a t i o n - f r e e lattice spacing a n d was t h e r e f o r e
omitted.
As in ref. 1, t h e e v a l u a t i o n was based on
the stress-strain r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r single crystals
[ 1 7 - 1 9 ] . Details o f t h e c a l c u l a t i o n will be
in T a b l e 2. As can be seen f r o m the table,
t h e r e are s y s t e m a t i c d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the
t h o s e w h i c h are d e d u c e d f r o m the average
slopes o f t h e D{a~z} vs. sin2~ distributions.
This c o n f i r m s t h e findings in ref. 1 w h e r e it
has b e e n s h o w n t h a t t h e residual stress state
o f t h e grains varies c o n s i d e r a b l y w i t h their
orientation.
T h e D vs. sin 2 ~ d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f t h e {732 +
651} r e f l e c t i o n o b s e r v e d f o r ~ = 0 ° w i t h
Mo K a r a d i a t i o n are linear, a l t h o u g h w i t h
c o n s i d e r a b l e scatter. This indicates t h a t t h e y
are v e r y little a f f e c t e d b y plastic a n i s o t r o p y .
F u r t h e r m o r e , as has b e e n e x p l a i n e d in S e c t i o n
2, t h e i n f l u e n c e o f elastic a n i s o t r o p y is ex-
p e c t e d t o be very small in this case. T h e r e f o r e ,
we believe t h a t t h e residual stress values cal-
c u l a t e d f r o m t h e slope o f these curves using
t h e X - r a y elastic c o n s t a n t s f o r an i s o t r o p i c
d i s t r i b u t i o n o f grain o r i e n t a t i o n s yields the
s u m o f t h e residual m a c r o s t r e s s e s a n d t h e
d e f o r m a t i o n residual stresses. As can be seen
f r o m Fig. 9, the d e f o r m a t i o n residual stresses
are n e a r l y c o n s t a n t across t h e s a m p l e t h i c k -
ness, i.e. ad = - - 7 5 MPa. F o r t h e surface itself,
a s o m e w h a t larger stress value of a b o u t - - 1 0 6
MPa is o b t a i n e d . T h e s e values are c o n s i s t e n t
w i t h t h e results o f investigations o f d e f o r m a -
t i o n residual stresses in similar low c a r b o n
steels a f t e r uniaxial plastic e l o n g a t i o n [ 15 ].
T h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e residual m a c r o -
stresses a n d t h e stress values e v a l u a t e d f r o m
t h e D vs. s i n 2 ~ d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f the (211}
r e f l e c t i o n are also a p p r o x i m a t e l y c o n s t a n t
20
throughout the sample. This supports our
conclusion that the deformation residual
stresses do n o t vary markedly across the
thickness. Furthermore, it indicates t h a t the
grain interactions are also approximately
constant,
The presence of con.siderable deformation
residual stresses has also been inferred from
the neutron results presented in ref. 1. From
data measured as averages over the whole
cross-section a 0 d value of --30 + 10 MPa was
obtained. From the difference between the
neutron value f o u n d for the interior and the
residual macrostresses in the same region, we
obtain Od = --40 + 10 MPa. This means that
the agreement with the X-ray results is quali-
tative but n o t quantitative. This may be be-
cause in contrast with our assumption the
stress values deduced from the D vs. sin 2 ~
distributions of the (732 + 651} reflection
are somewhat affected by plastic anisotropy.
Moreover, we cannot exclude the fact that the
much smaller penetration depth of X-rays
than that of neutrons may lead to somewhat
different results. However, in so far as the raw
data can be compared, there is good agree-
m e n t between the X-ray and the neutron
results,
For the purpose of X-ray measurements of
residual macrostresses the precise value of the
deformation residual stress is not very im-
portant. What is important is the fact t h a t
deformation residual stresses and grain inter-
action stresses are approximately constant
across the thickness. This means that t r u e
residual macrostresses can be determined
from X-ray data by subtracting the stress mea-
sured on a deeply etched specimen from the
observed stress values of the unetched sample,
We admit that for the unetched surface the
residual macrostress value obtained in this
way is about 30 MPa too low. In view of the
low stress level in our sample, this error may
seem quite large. However, for practical pur-
poses an error of 30 MPa is usually tolerable,
Residual stresses (type I and II) on the surface
should be checked very carefully.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Summarizing the results of this and the
accompanying study [1], we obtain the fol-
lowing picture of the residual stress state of
our specimen. The residual macrostresses are
compressive in the centre of the specimen and
tensile at the surface. The stresses in the RD
are about a factor of 2 larger than in the TD.
Neutrons as well as X-rays reveal the presence
of deformation residual stresses and grain
interaction stresses. The deformation residual
stress in the RD is considerable, i.e. about
--50 MPa, whereas it is small in the TD and
the normal direction. As for the grain inter-
action stresses, all three stress components
are of the order of 50 MPa. In some cases the
principal axes of the stress tensor deviate
from those of the sample system. There seems
to be little variation in deformation residual
stresses and in grain interaction stresses across
the sample thickness. The grain interaction
stresses, which arise from plastic anisotropy,
are the major cause of the non-linearities ob-
served in several D{~ d vs. sin 2 ~ distributions.
The following conclusions can be drawn
concerning X-ray measurements aimed at a
determination of residual macrostresses in
textured materials. If, as usual, the strains
are measured with Cr K~ radiation, the mea-
surements should be extended to sin2~ =
0.9. Thus the uncertainty of the stress values
caused by the non-linearities in the D{211} vs.
sin2~ distribution is considerably reduced.
However, a better way is to use Mo K~ radia-
tion, which allows the positions of reflection
lines with a very high multiplicity to be mea-
sured. Hence the resulting D{~l} vs. sin2~
distributions in the RD are often linear. For
rolling textures the (762 + 651} reflection
seems to be the most suitable. Attention has
to be paid to the fact that, even in the cases
where the observed D{hk~}vs. sin2~ distribu-
tions are linear, the evaluated stresses may
deviate considerably from the residual mac-
rostresses because of superimposed type II
residual stresses. A good estimate of these
deviations can be obtained by additional mea-
surements on a sample in which the residual
macrostresses have been relieved by deep
etching.
If interest is n o t only in the residual macro-
stresses but also in the grain interaction stres-
ses, the measurements should be carried out
for several reflection lines with low Miller in-
dices. If additionally the texture of the mater-
ial is determined, the stress state of the grains
can be evaluated as a function of their crystal-
lographic orientation.

REFERENCES
1 L. Pintschovius, V, Hauk and W. K. Krug, Mater.
Sci. Eng., 92 (1987) 1-12.
2 V. Hauk and G. Vaessen, Z. Metallkd., 76 (1985)
102.
3 V. Hauk, G. Vaessen and B. Weber, Hiirterei-Tech.
Mitt. , 40 (1985) 122.
4 V. Hauk and E. Macherauch, in V. Hauk and E.
Macherauch (eds.), Eigenspannungen und Last-
spannungen, Carl Hanser, Munich, 1982, pp.
1-19.
5 V. Hauk and E. Macherauch, Adv. X-ray Anal., 2 7
(1984) 81.
6 V. Hauk and W. K. Krug, Materialpr~fung, 25
(1983) 241.
7 V. Hauk and G. Vaessen, in V. Hauk and E.
Macherauch (eds.), Eigenspannungen und Last-
spannungen, Carl Hanser, Munich, 1982, pp.
38-48.
8 V. Hauk and G. Vaessen, in E. Macherauch and
V. Hauk (eds.), Eigenspannungen, Vol. 2, Deut-
sche Gesellschaft fiir Metallkunde, Oberursel,
1983, pp. 9-30.
21
9 V. M. Hauk and G. J. H. Vaessen, Metall. Trans.
A, 15 (1984) 1407.
10 F. St~iblein, Kruppsche Monatsh., 12 (1931) 93.
11 R. G, Treuting and W. T. Read, J. Appl. Phys.,
22 (1951) 130.
12 P. Jazwierski, Rheinisch-Westfiilische Technische
Hochschule, Aachen, unpublished graduate work,
1981.
13 W. Hartig, Dissertation, Rheinisch-Westfi/lische
Technische Hochschule, Aachen, 1982.
14 U. Fritsching, Rheinisch-Westfiilische Technische
Hochschule, Aachen, unpublished undergraduate
work, 1983.
15 G. Fanninger and V. Hauk, H~rterei-Tech. Mitt.,
31 (1976) 72.
16 V. Hauk, in V. Hauk and E. Macherauch (eds.),
Eigenspannungen und Lastspannungen, Carl
Hanser, Munich, 1982, pp. 92-100.
17 R. Glocker, Z. Tech. Phys., 19 (1938) 289.
18 E. Schiebold, Berg- Hiittenm~nn. Monatsh., 86
(1938) 278.
19 H. MSller and G. Martin, Mitt. Kaiser-Wilhelm-
Inst. Eisenforsch., D'usseldorf, 21 (1939)261.
20 V. Hauk, W. K. Krug, R. W. M. Oudelhoven and
L. Pintschovius, Z. MetaUkd., to be published.