materials

Article
Efficiency of Plasticity Correction in the Hole-Drilling
Residual Stress Measurement
Tomáš Návrat, Dávid Halabuk * and Petr Vosynek
Institute of Solid Mechanics, Mechatronics and Biomechanics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Brno University of Technology, Technická 2896/2, 61669 Brno, Czech Republic; navrat@fme.vutbr.cz (T.N.);
vosynek@fme.vutbr.cz (P.V.)
* Correspondence: david.halabuk@vutbr.cz




Received: 2 July 2020; Accepted: 29 July 2020; Published: 31 July 2020


Abstract: This paper focuses on the analysis of the plasticity effect in the measurement of the residual
stress by the hole-drilling method. Relaxed strains were evaluated by the computational simulation
of the hole-drilling experiment using the finite element method. Errors induced by the yielding
were estimated for uniaxial tension, plane shear stress state and equi-biaxial stress state at various
magnitudes of residual stress uniformly distributed along the depth. The correction of the plasticity
effect in the evaluation of residual stress was realized according to the method proposed by authors
from the University in Pisa, which was coded in MATLAB. Results obtained from the MATLAB script
were compared to the original input data of the hole-drilling simulation and discussed. The analyses
suggested that the plasticity effect is negligible at the ratio of applied equivalent stress to yield stress,
being 0.6, and that the correction of the plasticity effect is very successful at the previous ratio, being
0.9. Failing to comply with the condition of the strain gauge rosette orientation according to the
principal stresses directions causes an increase in the relative error of corrected stresses only for the
case of uniaxial tension. It affects the relative error negligibly for the plane shear and equi-biaxial
stress states.

Keywords: residual stress; hole-drilling method; plasticity effect; finite element method;
computational simulation

1. Introduction
Almost all technological operations induce residual stress. These might also occur during the
operation of the structure. Its existence negatively influences the generation of various limit states
regarding the component failure as well as undesirable changes in the structure shape. Therefore, there is
the demand for finding the magnitude of residual stress and adopting measures for their minimization.
One of the most frequent methods for measuring residual stress is the semi-destructive hole-drilling
method. The drilling of a hole (blind or through) causes the redistribution of residual stress around it
(Figure 1). Then, the relaxed strains are measured on the component’s surface by a strain gauge rosette,
usually consisting of three resistive grids. The magnitudes of principal residual stresses and respective
principal stresses directions can be then evaluated using calibration constants determined by the Finite
Element Method (FEM). The necessary condition is the presence of the elastic state of the stress in the
investigated section [1].

Materials 2020, 13, 3396; doi:10.3390/ma13153396 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2020, 13, 3396 2 of 15
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 15

Figure 1.
Figure 1. The
The principle
principle of
of the
the hole-drilling
hole-drilling method
method [2].
[2].

Plasticdeformations
Plastic deformations develop
develop at theatdrilled
the drilled
surface surface
and adjacent and volume
adjacent duevolume
to stressdue to stress
concentration
ifconcentration
the residual stressif the residual
reaches astress certain reaches
level. aThis certain
causes level.
an This causes an overestimation
overestimation of present residual of present
stress
residual
and stress
it leads to aand it leads
certain errorto aofcertain
estimatederrorresults.
of estimated results. model
The material The material
and the model and the
character character
of the stress
of thequantified
state stress state by,quantified
for instance, by, afor instance,ratio,
biaxiality a biaxiality
also play ratio, also play a role.
a role.
Many publications paid
Many paid attention
attentiontotothe theestimation
estimationofof errors
errors duedue to tothethe
plastic
plastic strains
strainsaround
around the
holehole
the either
eitheron on thethe basis
basisofofexperiments
experimentsoror computational
computational simulations.
simulations. Beaney Beaney and and Procter [3] [3]
experimentallyestimated
experimentally estimatedthat thatthethe error
erroris is negligible
negligible for for residual
residual stresses
stressesunder under 50%
50% of of the
the yield
yield stress
stress
using the
using thefour-point
four-pointbending bendingtest. test.Gibmeier
Gibmeier et et
al.al.
[4][4] presented
presented thethe errorerror of 35%
of 35% for stress
for stress equalequal
to 95% to
95%
of theofyield
the yield
stress,stress, the error
the error of 27% ofat27%80% atof
80% theof the yield
yield stressstress
and the and the of
error error
13%ofat13% 70%atof70% the of the
yield
yield stress.
stress. Therefore,
Therefore, the error
the error started started to increase
to increase for stresses
for stresses exceeding
exceeding 60%–70%
60%–70% of theof the
yieldyield stress
stress at
at an
an equi-biaxial
equi-biaxial stress
stress state.
state. LinLinandand ChouChou[5][5]statedstatedthat thatthetheerror
errorinduced
inducedby bythethelocal
localplasticity
plasticity is is
negligible for
negligible for residual
residual stresses
stresses lowerlower than than 65%65% of of the
the yield
yield stress.
stress. The maximum maximum error of of 32%–47%
32%–47%
occurred for
occurred for tensile
tensile stresses
stresses on on the
the level
level of of 95%
95% of of the
theyield
yield stress.
stress. Maximum
Maximum error error waswas reached
reached for for
elastic–plastic material without hardening (practically with
elastic–plastic material without hardening (practically with very low tangent modulus). The error very low tangent modulus). The error
values were
values were plotted
plotted in in dependence
dependence on on thethe level
level of of residual
residual stress
stress for for low
low carbon
carbon steel,
steel, stainless
stainless steel
steel
and aluminum
and aluminum alloy. alloy. Nickola
Nickola [6] [6] found
found that that the
the error
error waswas negligible
negligible for for residual
residual stresses
stresses lower
lower thanthan
70% of
70% ofthe
theproportional
proportionallimit limitand andthrough
through hole,
hole, while
while thethe error
error waswas 20%–30%
20%–30% for for stresses
stresses equal equal
to theto
the yield
yield stress.
stress. Vangi Vangi andand Ermini
Ermini [7][7] proved
proved thatthat thethe simplecorrection
simple correctionofofcalibration
calibrationcoefficients
coefficientsdoes does
not include
not include the the influence
influence of of biaxiality
biaxiality as as well
well as as the
the angle
angle between
between the the principal
principal direction
direction and and oneone
measuring the
measuring the grid
grid of of the
the strain
strain gauge
gauge rosette.
rosette. Weng Weng and and Lo Lo [8]
[8] based
based on on their
their own
own experiments
experiments the the
conclusion that
conclusion that thethe calibration
calibration coefficients
coefficients are are almost
almost constant
constant (the (the plasticity
plasticity effect
effect isis very
very small)
small) forfor
residual stresses up to 70% of the yield stress. Kornmeier et al.
residual stresses up to 70% of the yield stress. Kornmeier et al. [9] presented that the integral method[9] presented that the integral method
overestimatesthe
overestimates the residual
residual stresses
stresses by by 10%–20%
10%–20% for for residual
residual stresses
stresses exceeding
exceeding 95% of the yield stress.
It can
It can be be concluded
concluded that that allall the
the above
above results
results obtained
obtained at at various
various points
points and and with
with difficult
difficult
comparableconditions
comparable conditionsdodo notnot provide
provide a reliable
a reliable answer answer
to theto the question;
question; which magnitudes
which magnitudes of residual of
residual
stress stress still
produce produce still acceptable
acceptable errors in errors in the engineering
the engineering perspective? perspective?
Generally, Generally,
it is assumed it is assumed
that the
that theofresults
results residual of stress
residual stress measurements
measurements are reliableare whenreliable when the equivalent
the equivalent residual stress residual
did not stress did
exceed
not exceed
60% 60% of
of the yield the yield
stress. stress.given
The limits The limits
by the given
ASTM bystandard
the ASTM standard
[10] [10] are considered
are considered reliable: 50% reliable:
of the
50% stress
yield of thefor yield stress for
thin-walled thin-walled
structures and 80% structures
of the yieldand stress
80% of forthe yield stress
thick-walled for thick-walled
structures. It is 60%
structures.
of the yield It is 60%
stress of the yield
regardless stress
of the regardless
structure thicknessof thewithin
structure the thickness
2008 version within
of the theASTM
2008 version
standard. of
the ASTM
Possible standard.
corrections of the plasticity effect in evaluating the residual stress can be found in
numerousPossible corrections
works. Yan et al. of[11]
theproposed
plasticityaeffect critical inparameter
evaluatingofthe the residual stress can beatfound
plastic deformations the hole in
numerous works. Yan et al. [11] proposed a critical parameter
edge under the assumption of the elastic stress state. A simple correction function was presented of the plastic deformations at the hole
edge under
based on thisthe assumption
parameter in order of the elastic stress
to correct the effect state. A simple correction
of plasticity. Wang and function
Huang [12] was presented
divided the
based onstresses
residual this parameter
in to four in order
intervalsto correct
(whenthe theeffect
plastic of deformations
plasticity. Wang and Huang
develop around [12]
thedivided
hole) and the
residual stresses
experimentally in to four
estimated theintervals
respective (when the plastic
calibration deformations
coefficients for them develop
using thearoundpulled thespecimens.
hole) and
experimentally estimated the respective calibration coefficients for them using the pulled specimens.
Moharami [13] conducted extensive simulations by means of FEM (more than one thousand analyses)
Materials 2020, 13, 3396 3 of 15

Moharami [13] conducted extensive simulations by means of FEM (more than one thousand analyses)
covering eleven variants of the tangent and elastic moduli ratio, ten variants of the maximum to yield
stresses ratio and nine variants of the maximum to minimum stresses ratio. Obtained results were
approximated by a simple formula for correcting the evaluated principal residual stresses according
to the ASTM method. Vangi and Tellini [14] used a computation model of elastic–plastic material in
a combination with iterative FEM computations, which gives the possibility of considering various
mechanical characteristics (elastic modulus, Poisson’s ratio or stress–strain relationship) or dimensions
of a strain gauge rosette or hole. Fourier’s series with five terms were used for the description of relaxed
strains. It was also shown that better convergence is reached for the strain gauge rosette with four
measuring grids. Seifi and Sallimi-Majd [15] introduced two other constants, C and D, for plasticity
effect correction, which extended two usual calibration coefficients A and B. Their magnitude was
evaluated on the basis of numerical simulations of the wall with a drilled through hole from material
with bilinear hardening. It was shown that von Mises equivalent stress overestimates the plasticity
effect for residual stress of distinct signs, and, therefore, the equivalent stress was expressed on the
basis of weighted averages of the stress intensities.
The aim of this paper is focused on the method developed at the University of Pisa by Beghini
et al. [16–18]. This method was also implemented within the EVAL 7 software, supplied with the
RESTAN-MTS3000 system developed by SINT Technology (version 7.13, Calenzano, Italy). According
to the authors, it should be effective for residual stress reaching up to the yield stress. The necessary
assumptions of this correction are: two respectively perpendicular resistive grids of the strain gauge
rosette have to be oriented along the principal stress directions and the stress state along the depth
has to be homogeneous. It is not always possible to orient the strain gauge rosette along the principal
stress directions, as these directions may be unknown, or inaccuracies may occur during application
of the strain gauge rosette. In addition, the relevant material characteristics may be available for
each investigated component. For these reasons, it is important to know how the orientation of the
strain gauge rosette or unknown material characteristics affect the relative error of the measured
residual stresses.
The main goals of this work can be summarized as follows. To evaluate the errors of residual
stress estimation at:

• various magnitudes of residual stress (related to the yield stress),

• various biaxiality ratios of applied stresses (uniaxial tension, plane shear stress state and
equi-biaxial stress state),
• various rosette strain gauge orientations according to the principal directions,
• uncertain knowledge of the material constant (yield stress) of the investigated material,
• using rosette strain gauge type 1-RY61-1.5/120S (HBM),
• using the correction of plasticity effect developed at the University in Pisa with inclusion of all the
above stated factors.

The above mentioned allows for the following:

• to obtain a qualified opinion on various recommendations related to the maximum value of

reliable evaluated residual stresses,
• to assess the errors due to the plasticity effect with using the above-mentioned ASTM standard,
• to verify the quality of the plasticity effect correction method developed by the University in Pisa.

2. Materials and Methods

Beghini et al. [16–18] published one of the most beneficial works on the hole-drilling method
(HDM), where the maximum error stated is of ±4%, typical ones then in the range 1%–2%, for high
values of the residual stresses (plasticity factor 0.99) and low strain hardening (the ratio of the tangent
modulus ET to elastic modulus E r = ET /E = 0.0, which is the so-called hardening ratio). This method
Materials 2020, 13, 3396 4 of 15

should be effective for cases of residual stresses up to the yield stress according to its authors. The aim
is to express the principal residual stresses acting in the elastic–plastic state using the principal residual
stresses obtained under the assumption of elastic behavior. The respective equivalent stresses read

ET z
 
σeq = f σeq,e , σeq,i , Re , , Ω, (1)
E D

where σeq,e is elastically evaluated equivalent stress by the ASTM standard, σeq,i is the equivalent
residual stress, when the plastic deformation is induced on the cylindrical surface of the drilled hole,
Re is yield stress, Ω is the biaxiality ratio (which is the ratio of residual stress in y direction to residual
stress in x direction), z is the hole depth and D is the mean diameter of the strain gauge rosette.
The equivalent stress can be written as
q p
σeq = σ2x + σ2y − σx σ y = σx 1 − Ω + Ω2 (2)

The corrected residual stresses in the plane x and y are, respectively,

σeq
σx = √ (3)
1 − Ω + Ω2

σ y = Ωσx (4)

Then, the equivalent residual stress (according to von Mises yield criterion) evaluated from the
principal residual stresses σx,e and σ y,e in the plane x and y under the assumption of elastic material
behavior is q
σeq,e = σ2x,e + σ2y,e − σx,e σ y,e (5)

The biaxiality ratio for elastic stress state is (−1 ≤ Ωe ≤ 1)

σmin
Ωe = (6)
σmax

where σmin and σmax are chosen from σx,e and σ y,e so that the following condition applies

|σmin | ≤ |σmax | (7)

Next, the equivalent residual stress with which the plastic deformation starts to develop on the
cylindrical surface of the drilled hole occurs, when for the tangential stress (σt ) on the cylindrical
surface applies the following Kirsch’s theory [19]

σt = 3σx,i − σ y,i = σx,i (3 − Ωe ) = Re (8)

where σx,i and σ y,i are the principal residual stresses in the plane x and y in the moment, when the
plastic deformations initiate on the drilled cylindrical hole surface. Then the respective equivalent
stress is q
q 1 − Ωe + Ω2e
σeq,i = σ2x,i + σ2y,i − σx,i σ y,i = Re (9)
3 − Ωe
For further analysis, the plasticity factor calculated under the assumption of the elastic behavior is
introduced as
σeq,e − σeq,i
fe = (10)
Re − σeq,i
along with the plasticity factor
σeq − σeq,i
f = (11)
Re − σeq,i
Materials 2020, 13, 3396 5 of 15

which yields in  
σeq = f Re − σeq,i + σeq,i (12)

The correlation relationships between the above plasticity factors were estimated using the
extensive numerical simulations by means of FEM, while the equality of the biaxiality parameters
was assumed
Ω = Ωe (13)

The following correction expression was considered [18,19]

fe = f + C f 2 (14)

from which the plasticity factor can be directly expressed as

p
1 + 4C fe − 1
f = (15)
2C
It was estimated for the through hole that

C = 0.793(1 − r)2 (0.6495 sin(2γ) + 1) (16)

while for the blind one the following

C = (0.167 − 0.281r)(sin(2γ) + 0.299 − 0.390r) (17)

where γ is the following

γ = tan−1 (Ω) (18)

The correction in the latter variant was introduced as [18]

fe = f + W f µ (19)

where W and µ are the functions of the normalized hole depth, normalized hole diameter, hardening
ratio and biaxiality parameter. The plasticity factor has to be solved iteratively in this case.
The whole algorithm was programmed within MATLAB. It can be summarized into the following
bullet points according its sequence:

• σx,e and σ y,e are calculated using the relaxed strains under the consideration of linearly elastic
state of stress,
• σeq,e is calculated using the Equation (5),
• Ωe is calculated using the Equation (6),
• σeq,i is calculated using the Equation (9),
• fe is calculated using the Equation (10),
• f is calculated using either the Equation (15) or iterating the Equation (19),
• σeq is calculated using the Equation (12),
• σx is calculated using the Equation (3) considering the Equation (13),
• σ y is calculated using the Equation (4) considering the Equation (13).

It can be concluded that there is still unknown practical methodology usable for general cases of
the plane stress state with unknown principal directions and with stresses non-uniformly distributed
along the hole depth (hence with the stress gradient along the depth).
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15

It can be concluded that there is still unknown practical methodology usable for general cases of
the plane stress state with unknown principal directions and with stresses non-uniformly distributed
Materials
along the 2020, 13, 3396
hole depth (hence with the stress gradient along the depth). 6 of 15

3. Computational Modelling of the Hole Drilling

3. Computational Modelling of the Hole Drilling
The strains relaxed by the drilling (or milling, respectively) of the hole were obtained using the
The strains relaxed by the drilling (or milling, respectively) of the hole were obtained using the
computational simulations of this process by means of the FEM. The computational model was
computational simulations of this process by means of the FEM. The computational model was created
created in order to investigate the distribution of strains around the drilled hole. The model was
in order to investigate the distribution of strains around the drilled hole. The model was based on the
based on the procedure “hole after residual stress”, which prescribes the residual stress to the solid,
procedure “hole after residual stress”, which prescribes the residual stress to the solid, while the relaxed
while the relaxed strains are measured after the removal of the material from the hole. The hole-
strains are measured after the removal of the material from the hole. The hole-drilling process was
drilling process was simulated by the stepwise deactivating of particular layers of elements. There
simulated by the stepwise deactivating of particular layers of elements. There were used 10 respective
were used 10 respective layers for the material removal. The nonlinear solution was carried out
layers for the material removal. The nonlinear solution was carried out within the ANSYS software
within the ANSYS software (version 19.0, Canonsburg, PA, USA). The model used in the calculations
(version 19.0, Canonsburg, PA, USA). The model used in the calculations was a thick solid body with
was a thick solid body with dimensions 60 × 60 × 25 mm. Because of the symmetry, the simulated
dimensions 60 × 60 × 25 mm. Because of the symmetry, the simulated model consists only of one
model consists only of one quarter of the whole geometry. The boundary conditions of zero
quarter of the whole geometry. The boundary conditions of zero displacement in the perpendicular
displacement in the perpendicular direction were applied on the faces of the model in the symmetry
direction were applied on the faces of the model in the symmetry planes. Another zero displacement
planes. Another zero displacement was applied on the bottom face of the model to guarantee the
was applied on the bottom face of the model to guarantee the numerical stability of the calculation.
numerical stability of the calculation. The stress in the model, which represents the residual stress,
The stress in the model, which represents the residual stress, was generated by loading external faces
was generated by loading external faces of the model in the x and y direction. The mapped mesh with
of the model in the x and y direction. The mapped mesh with solid elements SOLID186 was uniformly
solid elements SOLID186 was uniformly spaced around the hole and along the depth. Finer mesh
spaced around the hole and along the depth. Finer mesh (element size 0.05 mm) was used in the
(element size 0.05 mm) was used in the area surrounding the hole and coarser mesh (element size 3
area surrounding the hole and coarser mesh (element size 3 mm) was used near the far boundaries.
mm) was used near the far boundaries. The element size was gradually increased from the hole
The element size was gradually increased from the hole towards the boundaries. The total number
towards the boundaries. The total number of elements and nodes was 123,000 and 257,000,
of elements and nodes was 123,000 and 257,000, respectively. Figure 2 depicts the geometry with
respectively. Figure 2 depicts the geometry with boundary conditions and the finite element mesh
boundary conditions and the finite element mesh around the drilled hole used in simulations.
around the drilled hole used in simulations.

(a)

(b)
Figure 2.
Figure 2. (a)
(a) Model
Model of
of geometry
geometry with
with boundary
boundary conditions
conditions (adapt
(adapt from
from [20]);
[20]); (b)
(b) the
the finite
finite element
element
mesh around the drilled hole.
mesh around the drilled hole.
Materials 2020, 13, 3396 7 of 15
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15

The strains were obtained from the virtual strain gauge rosette by averaging of the nodal strains
across the strain gauge grid surface at stepwise removal of the hole layers. Dimensions, designations
and orientations of
of the
the strain
straingauge
gaugerosette
rosetteaccording
accordingtotothe
thedirections
directionsofof
applied load
applied areare
load depicted in
depicted
Figure 3a. The dimensions of the drilled hole are given in Figure
in Figure 3a. The dimensions of the drilled hole are given in Figure 3b. 3b.

Figure 3. Dimensions
Dimensions in
in mm
mm of:
of: (a)
(a) strain
strain gauge
gauge rosette
rosette type
type 1-RY61-1.5/120S;
1-RY61-1.5/120S; (b) drilled hole.

The bilinear stress–strain relationship

relationship and von Mises yield criterion with kinematic hardening
and associative flow rule were used for the description of the material behavior. The elastic modulus
was 210,000 MPa and Poisson’s ratio was 0.3. The tangenttangent moduli
moduli were 2100 MPa, 21,000 MPa and
52,500 MPa, respectively. This helped to quantify the influence
MPa, respectively. This helped to quantify the influence of of
thethe
hardening on on
hardening thethe
precision of the
precision of
evaluated
the residual
evaluated stress.
residual TheThe
stress. yield stress
yield waswas
stress considered Re = 𝑅
considered 500 MPa.
= 500 MPa.
Computational simulations were realized only for an ideally concentric hole. The elastic–plastic
states were induced within the material around the hole for the following
following states
states of
of stress:
stress:
•• uniaxial tension (biaxiality ratio Ω 𝛺e = = 0),
0),
•• plane shear stress state (biaxiality
plane shear stress state (biaxiality ratio Ω ratio 𝛺e =
= −1),
−1),
•• equi-biaxial stress state (biaxiality ratio
equi-biaxial stress state (biaxiality ratio Ωe = 1).𝛺 = 1).
The following was considered:
• 𝜎 eq ⁄𝑅 = 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, 0.9, 0.95 and 1,
The following was considered:
•• 𝐸 ⁄𝐸 = 0.01, 0.1, 0.25,
σeq /R e = 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, 0.9, 0.95 and 1,
• 𝛼 = 0°, 15°, 30°, 45° and 60°.
• ET /E = 0.01, 0.1, 0.25,
where
• α= 𝜎 0◦ is ◦ , 30
, 15the ◦ , 45◦ and
applied 60◦ .
equivalent stress according to von Mises yield criterion (stresses in two
directions were actually applied in the FEM model). The used combinations of 𝜎I ⁄𝑅 with 𝜎II ⁄𝑅 ,
where σeq is the applied equivalent stress according to von Mises yield criterion (stresses in two
where 𝜎I and 𝜎II are the principal stresses in I and II principal directions, respectively, and
directions were actually applied in the FEM model). The used combinations of σI /Re with σII /Re ,
biaxiality ratios are shown in Figure 4.
where σI and σII are the principal stresses in I and II principal directions, respectively, and biaxiality
ratios are shown in Figure 4.
Materials 2020, 13, 3396 8 of 15
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15

Figure 4. Graphical interpretation of

Figure 4. of performed
performed computations.
computations.

4.
4. Results
Results and
and Discussion
Discussion
The
The errors
errors of
of von
von Mises
Mises equivalent
equivalent stresses
stresses were
were estimated.
estimated. The
The absolute
absolute error
error of
of the
the equivalent
equivalent
stresses is
stresses is
∆ = σeq,e − σeq (20)

The relative error of evaluated equivalent∆= 𝜎 ,can

stress − 𝜎be expressed as a ratio of an absolute error(20)
of
this stress and a real (true) value of equivalent stress (the applied one). It is in percent for uncorrected
Theasrelative error of evaluated equivalent stress can be expressed as a ratio of an absolute error
stresses
∆
of this stress and a real (true) value of equivalent eq,e − σ(the
σstress eq applied one). It is in percent for
δ = 100 = 100 (21)
uncorrected stresses as σeq σeq
while for the corrected ones as ∆ 𝜎 , −𝜎
𝛿 = 100 =σ100
eq − σeq (21)
δcor =𝜎 100 𝜎 (22)
σeq
whileStrains
for thecomputed
correctedusing FEM were entered into the script in MATLAB and the corrected stresses
ones as
were evaluated using HDM.
𝜎 −𝜎
𝛿 = 100 (22)
4.1. Uniaxial Tension (Ωe = 0) 𝜎
Results obtained for the uniaxial tension and the angle between the grid A of the strain gauge
Strains computed using FEM were entered into the script in MATLAB and the corrected stresses
rosette and the applied principal stress α = 0◦ are given in Table 1.
were evaluated using HDM.

4.1. Uniaxial Tension (𝛺 = 0)

Results obtained for the uniaxial tension and the angle between the grid A of the strain gauge
rosette and the applied principal stress 𝛼 = 0° are given in Table 1.
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15
Materials 2020, 13, 3396 9 of 15

Table 1. Relative errors of chosen evaluated residual stresses for uniaxial tension.
Table 1. Relative errors of chosen evaluated residual stresses for uniaxial tension.
𝜶 (°) 𝝈I (MPa) 𝝈eq ⁄𝑹𝒆 (-) 𝑬𝑻 (MPa) 𝜹 (%) 𝜹𝒄𝒐𝒓 (%)
α (◦ ) σI (MPa) ¯
σ eq /Re (-) 2100
ET (MPa) δ (%) 0.35 δcor (%)
0.20
250 0.5 21,000 0.33 0.19
2100 0.35 0.20
250 0.5 52,500
21,000 0.33 0.29 0.19 0.17
2100
52,500 0.29 1.3 0.17 0.29
300 0.6 21,000
2100 1.3 1.1 0.29 0.25
300 0.6 52,500
21,000 1.1 0.88 0.25 0.21
52,500
2100 0.88 8.5 0.21–0.13
400 0.8 21,000
2100 8.5 6.9 –0.13–0.09
400 0.8 21,000
52,500 6.9 5.1 –0.09–0.11
0 0
52,500
2100 5.1 20.1 –0.11 1.5
450 0.9 2100
21,000 20.1 16.1 1.5 1.3
450 0.9 21,000
52,500 16.1 11.2 1.3 0.73
52,500 11.2 0.73
2100 29.5 3.4
475 0.95 2100
21,000 29.5 23.5 3.4 3.0
475 0.95 21,000 23.5 3.0
52,500
52,500 16.1
16.1 1.9
1.9
2100 38.8 5.9
2100 38.8 5.9
500500 1
1
21,000
21,000 31.8 31.8 5.2 5.2
52,500
52,500 21.9 21.9 3.5 3.5

The error of uncorrected stress increased with the increasing ratio 𝜎eq ⁄𝑅 . It is obvious from
The error of uncorrected stress increased with the increasing ratio σeq /Re . It is obvious from Table 1
Table 1 and Figure 5 that the relative error was 5.1%–8.5% for 𝜎eq ⁄𝑅 = 0.8 depending on the strain
and Figure 5 that the relative error was 5.1%–8.5% for σeq /Re = 0.8 depending on the strain hardening
hardening (tangent These
(tangent modulus). modulus).
errorsThese
wereerrors were therefore
significant, significant,thetherefore the value
value of 80% of theof 80%stress
yield of theshould
yield
stress should be approached critically. The correction on plasticity within the MATLAB
be approached critically. The correction on plasticity within the MATLAB code was still very successful code was still
very successful
for σeq /Re = 0.9,for
which⁄
𝜎eq 𝑅corresponds
= 0.9, which corresponds
to results to results
of Beghini et al. of Beghini
[17]. et al. [17].
The relative The
error, relativeslightly
though, error,
though, slightly increased at higher magnitudes of the residual stress, even after
increased at higher magnitudes of the residual stress, even after the correction. This error can the correction. This
be
error can be as
considered considered as acceptable,
acceptable, especially forespecially forwith
materials materials with high
high strain strain hardening.
hardening. The relativeThe relative
errors for
errors for with
materials materials with
higher higher
strain strain hardening
hardening were
were slightly slightly
lower thanlower
thosethan those for with
for materials materials with
low strain
low strain hardening, which was simulated by 𝐸 = 2100 MPa, hence
hardening, which was simulated by ET = 2100 MPa, hence with the ratio r = ET /E = 0.01.with the ratio 𝑟 = 𝐸 ⁄𝐸=
0.01.

The dependency
Figure 5. The
Figure dependency of
of the
the relative
relative error
error on
on the
the ratio
ratio of
of the
the equivalent
equivalent stress
stress to
to yield
yield stress
stress for
for
various strain hardening (UNC states for uncorrected and COR states for corrected).
various strain hardening (UNC states for uncorrected and COR states for corrected).
Materials 2020, 13, 3396 10 of 15
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15

Then, the errors coming from failing to comply with the demand on the rosette strain gauge
Then, the errors coming from failing to comply with the demand on the rosette strain gauge
orientation along with the principal stress directions were studied. The simulations were done for
orientation along with the principal stress directions were studied. The simulations were done for ratio
ratio 𝜎eq ⁄𝑅 = 0.8 with tangent modulus equal to 2100, 21,000 and 52,500 MPa and for various
σeq /Re = 0.8 with tangent modulus equal to 2100, 21,000 and 52,500 MPa and for various orientation
orientation
of the strainofgauge
the strain gauge
rosette. Therosette.
resultsThe results are summarized
are summarized in Table 2. in Table 2.

Table
Table 2.
2. Relative
Relative errors
errors of
of chosen
chosen evaluated
evaluated residual
residual stress
stress for
for uniaxial
uniaxial tension
tension and
and various
various angles
angles
between
betweenthe
thegrid
gridAAof
ofthe
thestrain
strain gauge
gauge rosette
rosette and
and the
the applied
applied principal
principal stress.
stress.
𝝈I (MPa)◦ 𝝈eq ⁄𝑹𝒆 (-) ¯𝜶 (°) 𝑬𝑻 (MPa) 𝜹 (%) 𝜹 𝒄𝒐𝒓 (%)
α( ) σI (MPa) σ eq /Re (-) ET (MPa) δ (%) δcor (%)
2100 8.5 −0.13
2100 8.5 −0.13
0 21,000 6.9 −0.09
0 21,000 6.9 −0.09
52,500
52,500 5.1 5.1 −0.11−0.11
2100 6.6 −1.3
2100 6.6 −1.3
15
15 21,000
21,000 5.5 5.5 −1.1 −1.1
52,500
52,500 4.1 4.1 −0.8 −0.8
400 0.8 2100
2100 12.04
12.04 1.16 1.16
400 0.8 3030 21,000
21,000 9.889.88 1.23 1.23
52,500
52,500 7.267.26 1.15 1.15
2100
2100 17.117.1 3.4 3.4
4545 21,000
21,000 13.93
13.93 3.31 3.31
52,500
52,500 10.110.1 2.9 2.9
2100
2100 12.04
12.04 1.16 1.16
6060 21,000
21,000 9.889.88 1.23 1.23
52,500 7.26 1.15
52,500 7.26 1.15

Theerror
The error due
due to
to the
the failure
failure in
in orienting
orienting the
the strain
strain gauge
gauge rosette
rosette within
within the
the principal
principal directions
directions
caused the
caused the increase ofof the
the relative
relativeerror
errorfor
foruncorrected
uncorrectedstresses asas
stresses well as as
well corrected ones
corrected (Table
ones 2 and
(Table 2
Figure
and 6). This
Figure increase
6). This was more
increase was than
moredouble for uncorrected
than double stresses stresses
for uncorrected (compared to the corrected
(compared to the
ones) andones)
corrected respective errors were
and respective high.were high.
errors

Thedependency
Figure6.6.The dependencyofofthe
therelative
relativeerror
erroron
onthe
theangle
anglefor
forthe ratio𝜎σeq⁄/R
theratio e = 0.8 (UNC states for
Figure eq 𝑅 = 0.8 (UNC states for
uncorrected and COR states for corrected).
uncorrected and COR states for corrected).

Then, the errors coming from the unknown yield stress of the investigated material were also
studied. The yield stress is often unknown and has to be approximated. These sources of uncertainties
Materials 2020, 13, 3396 11 of 15

Then, the errors coming from the unknown yield stress of the investigated material were
also studied. The yield stress is often unknown and has to be approximated. These sources of
uncertainties should be accounted for in the analysis of experimental uncertainties. The material
was considered having the yield stress Re = 500 MPa and tangent modulus ET = 2100 MPa in
simulations. Applied residual stress was σI = 400 MPa, which was equal to 80% of the yield stress.
However, these values are not known during the evaluation. The strains obtained by the computational
hole-drilling simulations were evaluated under these conditions and used for the evaluation of
corrected stresses, assuming the value of the yield stresses RC
e being in the interval 450–650 MPa.
The obtained results are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Relative errors of evaluated residual stresses for RC

e in the interval 450–650 MPa.

e /Re (-)
RC RC
e (MPa) ET (MPa) δ (%) σeq (MPa) δcor (%)
0.9 450 8.5 383.7 –4.1
1 500 8.5 399.5 –0.13
1.1 550 2100 8.5 411.2 2.8
1.2 600 8.5 419.6 4.9
1.3 650 8.5 425.2 6.3

The corrected equivalent residual stress was in the interval 383.7–427.9 MPa for used interval of
(uncertain) yield stress 450–650 MPa. Range of the residual stress was therefore 44 MPa. The guess
was good according to the applied stress of 400 MPa, when the mean value was 406 MPa.

4.2. Plane Shear Stress State (Ωe = −1)

The results are summarized in Table 4 and Figure 7 for ratios σeq /Re = 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, 0.9, 0.95 and 1
for plane shear stress state (pure shear), and also for the orientation of the strain gauge rosette α = 0◦
and 45◦ , while the results in Table 5 and Figure 8 are for the strain gauge rosette rotated 0, 15, 30, 45 and
60 degrees to the principal stress directions and for σeq /Re = 0.8.

Table 4. Relative errors of evaluated residual stresses for plane shear stress state with α= 0◦ and 45◦ .

¯
α (◦ ) σI (MPa) σII (MPa) σI /Re (-) σ eq /Re (-) δ (%) δcor (%)
144.3 –144.3 0.289 0.5 0.85 0.85
173.2 –173.2 0.346 0.6 1.2 1.1
230.9 –230.9 0.462 0.8 5.1 1.5
0
259.8 –259.8 0.520 0.9 13.0 2.9
274.2 –274.2 0.548 0.95 19.5 4.5
288.7 –288.7 0.577 1 24.9 5.1
144.3 –144.3 0.289 0.5 0.85 0.85
173.2 –173.2 0.346 0.6 1.2 1.1
230.9 –230.9 0.462 0.8 5.2 1.6
45
259.8 –259.8 0.520 0.9 13.1 3.0
274.2 –274.2 0.548 0.95 19.5 4.6
288.7 –288.7 0.577 1 24.4 4.9
Materials 2020, 13, 3396 12 of 15
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15

Figure 7. The dependence of the relative error on the ratio of the equivalent stress to yield stress for
plane shear stress state.

The errors of uncorrected equivalent stresses were lower for the plane shear stress state, when
compared to uniaxial tension. These differences increased with the increasing magnitude of the
residual stress (Figure 7). On the contrary, the errors of corrected equivalent stresses were higher for
the plane shear stress state, when compared to uniaxial tension. Therefore, the plasticity correction
was less efficient at the plane shear stress state than that at uniaxial tension. However, the errors were
Figure 7. The
Figure 7.
still acceptable The dependence
dependence
(Figure 7).
of the
of the relative
relative error
error on
on the
the ratio
ratio of
of the
the equivalent stress to
equivalent stress to yield
yield stress
stress for
for
plane
plane shear
shear stress
stress state.
state.
Table
Table 5.
5. Relative
Relative errors of evaluated
evaluatedresidual
residualstress
stressfor
forplane
planeshear
shear stress
stress state
state α =𝛼0◦=, 0°,
with
with 15◦15°,
, 30◦30°,
, 45◦
The
45° errors
andand ◦
60 60° of
andand uncorrected
thethe ratio
ratio equivalent
𝜎eqe⁄=
σeq /R = 0.8.
𝑅 0.8. stresses were lower for the plane shear stress state, when
compared to uniaxial tension. These differences increased with the increasing magnitude of the
𝝈I (Figure ⁄𝑹 ¯ ⁄𝑹 (-)
𝝈eq
residualσstress
I (MPa) II 𝝈
(MPa)σ7). II (MPa)
(MPa)
On σ𝝈II/R
the contrary, e 𝒆(-)(-)errors
the 𝜶 (°)
/R𝒆corrected
σ eqof e (-) (◦ ) 𝜹 (%)δ (%)
αequivalent 𝜹𝒄𝒐𝒓 (%)
stresses δcor (%)
were higher for
the plane shear stress state, when compared to uniaxial tension. 0 Therefore,
0
5.1 the
5.1
1.5
plasticity
1.5correction
was less efficient at the plane shear stress state than that at uniaxial 15 15 4.93 However,
tension. 4.93 1.49 the errors were
1.49
230.9
230.9 (Figure 7).
still acceptable –230.9
–230.9 0.462
0.462 0.8
0.8 30 30 5.0 5.0 1.5 1.5
45 45 5.19 5.19 1.59 1.59
Table 5. Relative errors of evaluated residual stress for plane shear 60 60
stress5.0state5.0 𝛼 = 0°, 1.5
with1.5 15°, 30°,
45° and 60° and the ratio 𝜎eq ⁄𝑅 = 0.8.

𝝈I (MPa) 𝝈II (MPa) 𝝈I ⁄𝑹𝒆 (-) 𝝈eq ⁄𝑹𝒆 (-) 𝜶 (°) 𝜹 (%) 𝜹𝒄𝒐𝒓 (%)
0 5.1 1.5
15 4.93 1.49
230.9 –230.9 0.462 0.8 30 5.0 1.5
45 5.19 1.59
60 5.0 1.5

Figure
Figure8.8.The
Thedependence
dependenceofofthe
therelative
relativeerror
erroron
onthe angle𝛼αfor
theangle forthe
theplane
planeshear
shearstress
stressstate
stateangle
anglefor
for
the ratio 𝜎
the ratio σeq ⁄ 𝑅 = 0.8.
eq /Re = 0.8.

The errors of uncorrected equivalent stresses were lower for the plane shear stress state,
when compared to uniaxial tension. These differences increased with the increasing magnitude
of the residual stress (Figure 7). On the contrary, the errors of corrected equivalent stresses were higher
for the plane shear stress state, when compared to uniaxial tension. Therefore, the plasticity correction

Figure 8. The dependence of the relative error on the angle 𝛼 for the plane shear stress state angle for
the ratio 𝜎eq ⁄𝑅 = 0.8.
Materials 2020, 13, 3396 13 of 15

Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW

was less efficient at the plane shear stress state than that at uniaxial tension. However, the errors13were
of 15

still acceptable (Figure 7).

The magnitudes of errors only slightly changed for the rotated strain gauge rosette (Table 5 and
The magnitudes of errors only slightly changed for the rotated strain gauge rosette (Table 5 and
Figure 8). Therefore, unknown principal stress directions did not affect the error of the result from
Figure 8). Therefore, unknown principal stress directions did not affect the error of the result from the
the practical point of view for the plane shear stress state.
practical point of view for the plane shear stress state.
4.3.
4.3. Equi-Biaxial
Equi-Biaxial Stress
Stress State (Ωe ==1)
State (𝛺 1)
Results
Results obtained for the
obtained for the concentric
concentric hole
holeand
andassessment
assessmentofofthe
theinfluence
influenceofofplasticity
plasticitycorrection
correction
is
is given in Table 6. Material parameters 𝐸 = 2100 MPa and 𝑅 = 500 MPa and the
given in Table 6. Material parameters ET = 2100 MPa and Re = 500 MPa and the orientation of theorientation of
the strain
strain gauge
gauge rosette α = 𝛼0◦=were
rosette 0° were
usedused incomputations.
in the the computations.

Table
Table 6.
6. Relative
Relative errors
errors of
of evaluated
evaluated residual
residual stress
stress for
for equi-biaxial
equi-biaxial stress
stress state.
state.
𝝈 (MPa) 𝝈II (MPa) ¯ 𝝈eq ⁄𝑹𝒆 (-) 𝑬𝑻 (MPa)
I 𝜹 (%) 𝜹𝒄𝒐𝒓 (%)
σI (MPa) σII (MPa) σ eq /Re (-) ET (MPa) δ (%) δcor (%)
250 250 0.5 –0.54 –0.54
250 300 250 300 0.5 0.6 –0.54
–0.37 –0.76 –0.54
300 300 0.6 –0.37 –0.76
400
400 400
400 0.8
0.8 5.75.7 –2.4 –2.4
2100
2100
450 450 450 450 0.9 0.9 13.3
13.3 –3.1 –3.1
475 475 475 475 0.950.95 17.3
17.3 –3.3 –3.3
500 500 500 500 1 1 26.0
26.0 –1.6 –1.6

Errors
Errors ofof uncorrected
uncorrected equivalent
equivalent stresses
stresses for
for the
the equi-biaxial
equi-biaxial stress
stress state
state (equi-biaxial
(equi-biaxial tension)
tension)
were lower than
were lower thanthose
thosefor
forthe
theuniaxial
uniaxial tension,
tension, thethe
samesame situation
situation as inasthe
in case
the case
of theofplane
the plane
shear shear
stress
stress state. These differences increased as the magnitude of residual stress arose (Figure
state. These differences increased as the magnitude of residual stress arose (Figure 9). As all the stress 9). As all
the stress directions
directions were the ones
were the principal principal ones
in this in the
case, thisresults
case, the
wereresults were not influenced
not influenced by α.
by the angle the angle
𝛼.

Figure 9. The dependence of the relative error on the ratio of equivalent stress to yield stress for
Figure 9. The dependence of the relative error on the ratio of equivalent stress to yield stress for equi-
equi-biaxial stress state.
biaxial stress state.
4.4. The Comparison of All Stress States
4.4. The Comparison of All Stress States
The comparison of errors for all stress states with ET = 2100 MPa is shown in Figure 10. Errors of
The comparison
uncorrected equivalentof stresses
errors for
areallhigher
stressfor
states
uniaxial 𝐸 = 2100
with tension thanMPa is shown
for the in Figure
plane shear 10. Errors
or equi-biaxial
of uncorrected
stress state. Onequivalent
the contrary,stresses
errorsare higher forequivalent
of corrected uniaxial tension
stressesthan
wereforhigher
the plane shear
for the or equi-
equi-biaxial
biaxial stress state. On the contrary, errors of corrected equivalent stresses were higher for the
stress state and the plane shear stress state, when compared to uniaxial tension. Therefore, the plasticity equi-
biaxial stress state and the plane shear stress state, when compared to uniaxial tension. Therefore, the
plasticity correction for the equi-biaxial stress state and the plane shear stress state was less successful
than in the case of uniaxial tension, except in the case where 𝜎eq ⁄𝑅 = 1. Despite that, the errors of
corrected equivalent stresses were very low.
Materials 2020, 13, 3396 14 of 15

correction for the equi-biaxial stress state and the plane shear stress state was less successful than in
the case of uniaxial tension, except in the case where σeq /Re = 1. Despite that, the errors of corrected
equivalent
Materials 2020,stresses
13, x FORwere
PEERvery low.
REVIEW 14 of 15

Figure 10. The dependence of the relative error on the ratio of equivalent stress to yield stress for all
Figure 10. The dependence of the relative error on the ratio of equivalent stress to yield stress for all
modelled stress states (ET = 2100 MPa).
modelled stress states (𝐸 = 2100 MPa).
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
The effect of plasticity was analyzed for measurement of the residual stress using the hole-drilling
method.The The
effectmain
of plasticity
goal of thewas analyzed
research wasfor
to measurement
investigate theofefficiency
the residual
of thestress usingcorrection
plasticity the hole-
drilling
in method. The
the hole-drilling main for
method goal of the research
industrial practice;was
that to investigate
means thewhere
for states, efficiency of orientation
correct the plasticity
of
correction in the hole-drilling method for industrial practice; that means for
the strain gauge rosette is not always guaranteed or the yield strength of material may be unknown. states, where correct
orientation
All of the strain
the simulations gauge
assumed therosette is notdistributed
uniformly always guaranteed or the
stress along yield
with strength
depth, whileofthree
material may
different
be unknown.
stress All investigated
states were the simulations assumed
(uniaxial the uniformly
tension, plane shear distributed stress
stress state and along with depth,
equi-biaxial while
stress state).
three different stress states were investigated
The main conclusions are summarized as follows: (uniaxial tension, plane shear stress state and equi-
biaxial stress state). The main conclusions are summarized as follows:
• The plasticity effect was negligible for residual stress ratio lower than σeq /Re = 0.6.
• The plasticity effect was negligible for residual stress ratio lower than 𝜎eq ⁄𝑅 = 0.6.
• The correction on the plasticity effect was very successful at σeq /Re = 0.9 for the hole-drilling
• The correction on the plasticity effect was very successful at 𝜎eq ⁄𝑅 = 0.9 for the hole-drilling
method programmed within MATLAB. The relative error increased for higher magnitudes of
method programmed within MATLAB. The relative error increased for higher magnitudes of
residual stress. Nevertheless, the correction can be still considered as acceptable.
residual stress. Nevertheless, the correction can be still considered as acceptable.
• Failing to comply with the demand on the strain gauge rosette orientation along with the principal
• Failing to comply with the demand on the strain gauge rosette orientation along with the
stress directions caused an increase in the relative error for corrected stress only in the case of
principal stress directions caused an increase in the relative error for corrected stress only in the
uniaxial tension. Nevertheless, the relative errors are still acceptable from an engineering point of
case of uniaxial tension. Nevertheless, the relative errors are still acceptable from an engineering
view. Unknown principal stress directions influenced only slightly the error for the plane shear
point of view. Unknown principal stress directions influenced only slightly the error for the
and equi-biaxial stress state.
plane shear and equi-biaxial stress state.
•• The
The unknown
unknown yield
yieldstrength
strengthof ofthe
thematerial
materialaffected
affectedthetheefficiency
efficiencyofofthe
thecorrection
correction method,
method, but if
but
the yield strength used for the correction method was in range of ±100 MPa
if the yield strength used for the correction method was in range of ±100 MPa from its actual from its actual value,
the relative
value, error for
the relative the for
error uniaxial tensiontension
the uniaxial stress state
stresswas upwas
state to 5%.
up to 5%.

Author Contributions:
Author Contributions: Investigation,
Investigation, formal
formal analysis,
analysis, resources,
resources, writing—original
writing—original draft preparation, T.N.
draft preparation, and
T.N. and
D.H.; software, writing—review and editing,
editing, P.V.;
P.V.; supervision, project administration, funding
funding acquisition,
acquisition, T.N.
T.N.
All
All authors
authors have
have read
read and
and agreed
agreed to
to the
the published
publishedversion
versionof
ofthe
themanuscript.
manuscript.
Funding: This research
Funding: This research was
was funded
funded by
by the
the Czech
Czech Science
Science Foundation
Foundation under
under contract
contract No.
No. 19-20802S
19-20802S “A
“A coupled
coupled
real-time thermo-mechanical solidification model of steel for crack prediction.”
real-time thermo-mechanical solidification model of steel for crack prediction.”

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Schajer, G.S. Practical Residual Stress Measurement Methods; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2013.
Materials 2020, 13, 3396 15 of 15

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Schajer, G.S. Practical Residual Stress Measurement Methods; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2013.
2. Halabuk, D.; Navrat, T. The effect of third principal stress in the measurement of residual stresses by
hole-drilling method. In Proceeding of the 2018 3rd International Conference on Design, Mechanical and Material
Engineering (D2ME 2018), Phuket, Thailand, 27–29 September 2018; Das, R., Ed.; EDP Science: Les Ulis, France,
2018; Volume 237, pp. 1–6.
3. Beaney, E.M.; Procter, E. Critical evaluation of the centre hole technique for the measurement of residual
stresses. Strain 1974, 10, 7–14. [CrossRef]
4. Gibmeier, J.; Kornmeier, M.; Scholtes, B. Plastic deformation during application of the holle-drilling method.
Mater. Sci. Forum 2000, 347–349, 131–137. [CrossRef]
5. Lin, Y.C.; Chou, C.P. Error induced by local yielding around hole in hole drilling method for measuring
residual stress of materials. Mater. Sci Technol. 1995, 11, 600–604. [CrossRef]
6. Nickola, W.E. Post-yield effects on center-hole residual stress measurements. In Proceedings of the 5th
International Congress on Experimental Mechanics, Montreal, QC, Canada, 10–14 June 1984; pp. 126–136.
7. Vangi, D.; Ermini, M.D. Plasticity effects in residual stress measurement by the hole drilling method. Strain
2000, 36, 55–59.
8. Weng, C.C.; Lo, S.C. Measurement of residual stresses in welded steel joints using hole drilling method.
Mater. Sci. Technol. 1992, 8, 212–218. [CrossRef]
9. Kornmeier, M.; Nobre, J.P.; Dias, M.; Gigmeier, J.; Scholtes, B. Plasticity effect on residual stresses results
using different hole-drilling evaluation methods. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
Residual Stresses, Oxford, UK, 10–12 July 2000; pp. 1188–1195.
10. ASTM International. ASTM E837-13a—Standard Test Method for Determining Residual Stresses by the Hole-Drilling
Strain Gauge Method; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013.
11. Yan, Z.H.; Wu, S.Y.; Yi, P.; Pin, L.Y.; Jun, C.Y. On the correction of plasticity effect at the hole edge when using
the centre hole method for measuring high welding residual stress. Strain 1996, 32, 125–130. [CrossRef]
12. Wang, Y.; Huang, L. A new method of calibrating strain release coefficients in measuring welding stresses.
Strain 1994, 30, 9–14.
13. Moharami, R.; Sattari-Far, I. Experimental and numerical study of measuring high welding residual stresses
by using the blind-hole-drilling technique. J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des. 2008, 43, 141–148. [CrossRef]
14. Vangi, D.; Tellini, S. Hole-drilling strain-gauge method: Residual stress measurement with plasticity effects.
J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 2010, 132, 1–7. [CrossRef]
15. Seifi, R.; Salimi-Majd, D. Effects of plasticity on residual stresses measurement by hole drilling method.
Mech. Mater. 2012, 53, 72–79. [CrossRef]
16. Beghini, M.; Bertini, L.; Raffaelli, P. Numerical analysis of the plasticity effects in the hole drilling residual
stress measurement. J. Test. Eval. 1994, 22, 522–529.
17. Beghini, M.; Bertini, L. Recent advances in the hole drilling method for residual stress measurement. J. Mater.
Eng. Perform. 1998, 7, 163–172. [CrossRef]
18. Beghini, M.; Bertini, L.; Santus, C. A procedure for evaluating high residual stresses using the blind hole
drilling method, including the effect of plasticity. J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des. 2010, 45, 301–318. [CrossRef]
19. Kirsch, J.H. Die theorie der elastizität und die bedürfnisse der festigkeitslehre. Z. Ver. Dtsch. Ing. 1898, 42,
797–807.
20. Navrat, T.; Halabuk, D.; Vlk, M. The issue of recommended hole diameters in ASTM E837-13a. In Experimental
Stress Analysis (EAN 2017); Technical University of Košice: Košice, Slovakia, 2017; pp. 8–14.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).