Measurement of Non-Uniform

Residual Stresses Using the Hole-

Drilling Method. Part I—Stress
G. S. Schajer
Weyerhaeuser Technology Center,
Tacoma, WA 98477
Calculation Procedures
Mem. ASME
The Incremental Strain, A verage Stress, Power Series, and Integral methods are ex-
amined as procedures for determining non-uniform residual stress fields using strain
relaxation data from the hole drilling method. Some theoretical shortcomings in the
Incremental Strain and A verage Stress methods are described. It is shown that these
two traditional methods are in fact approximations of the Integral Method.
Theoretical estimates of the errors involved are presented for various stress fields.
Also, some simple transformations of stress and strain variables are introduced so as
to decouple the stress/strain equations and simplify the numerical solution.

Introduction
The hole-drilling method is a popular and widely used need no longer be limiting factors. The Power Series Method
technique for measuring residual stresses. Its popularity stems [9] and the Integral Method [8, 10, 12] both rely on finite ele-
largely from its ease of use in many different applications and ment calculated calibration data, and do not have the
materials, its limited damage to the specimen, and its general theoretical shortcomings of the two traditional methods. This
reliability. A typical application of the hole-drilling method paper describes all four stress calculation procedures and
involves drilling a small shallow hole (depth = diameter) in shows that the Incremental Strain and Average Stress methods
the specimen. This removal of stressed material causes local- are in fact just approximations of the Integral Method. Some
ized stress and strain relaxations around the hole location. The comparative stress calculations are also presented.
strain relaxations are conveniently measured using a specially
designed strain gauge rosette, such as the one shown in Fig. 1. Basic Hole-Drilling Method
During the hole drilling, careful experimental technique is
essential so as to avoid introducing additional localized Many researchers have contributed, and continue to
stresses, particularly in materials which strain harden
appreciably.
Most often, the hole-drilling method is used when the
residual stress field is assumed not to vary with depth below
the surface. In such cases, experimental relaxed strain calibra-
tion data from test specimens with known uniform stress fields
can be used directly [1,2]. For many years, there has also been
a great interest in using the hole drilling method to measure
non-uniform residual stresses. Two stress calculation pro-
cedures, the Incremental Strain Method [3-6] and the Average
Strain Method [7] have been widely adopted. The need to use
experimental calibration data has limited the theoretical scope
of these two stress calculation procedures, and some
theoretical shortcomings have recently been identified [8-11].
Finite element calculation of calibration data opens new
possibilities for improved ways of calculating non-uniform
residual stresses from incremental relaxed strain data. The
possibilities and practicalities of experimental calibrations
3 Strain Gauge
Elements

Contributed by the Materials Division for publication in the JOURNAL OF

ENGINEERING MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received by the Fig. 1 Strain gauge rosette for the hole-drilling method. Measurements
Materials Division November 4, 1987. Group type 062-RE. After Beaney, 1976 [2J.

338/Vol. 110, OCTOBER 1988 Transactions of the ASME

Copyright © 1988 by ASME
Downloaded 22 Apr 2011 to 171.67.216.21. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 contribute, to the extensive literature describing the hole-
drilling method. A good historical review is included in a re-
cent paper by Hu [13]. Comprehensive practical information
and further references are given in the Technical Note [14]
supplied by Measurements Group, Inc., a manufacturer of the
specialized strain gauge rosette shown in Fig. 1. This section
summarizes some of the mathematics used to calculate
residual stresses from measured strain relaxations for the
uniform stress case. The mathematical method and
nomenclature used here differ somewhat from those conven-
tionally used. This is done in preparation for later
developments for non-uniform stress fields. For uniform
Standard [15] uses a different approach, and specifies nor-
malization of the hole depth relative to the hole diameter. The
ASTM approach is not used here because the constants a and
b (and A and B) then do not have the properties described
above.
For a 45 deg rectangular rosette of the type shown in Fig. 1,
the relationship between the Cartesian stress components and
the three strain relaxations measured by the strain gauge
rosette can be compactly written using matrix notation
A+B 0 A-Bn ' °\ " ei '

stress fields, the calculated results are the same as those from IB A (3)
A f\i = ^2
generally used procedures.
For a linear elastic isotropic material, it may be shown A-B 0 A+B . ff
3 . . £
3 _
theoretically that the following general formula relates the
strain relaxation measured at any of the strain gauges in the where
rosette in Fig. 1 to the principal residual stresses and the angle
ffj ,a3 = normal stress components in directions 1 and 3
relative to the maximum principal stress direction
T13 = shear stress normal to directions 1 and 3
tr =^(ffmax + ff
min)+fi(ffmax-ffmin)COS2a (1) e,,e2,e3 = strain relaxations measured at gauges 1, 2, and
where er = measured strain relaxation 3
amax = maximum principal stress Equations (3) may be decoupled using the following
ffmin = minimum principal stress transformations of stress variables
A,B = calibration constants
a = angle measured counterclockwise from the P=(<7 3 +(T,)/2 e=(ff3-ff,)/2 T=T 13 (4)
maximum principal stress direction to the and of strain variables
axis of the strain gauge p=(ei+ei)/2 q=(e3-el)/2 t= (e 3 +et - 2 e 2 ) / 2 (5)
The two calibration constants A and B depend on the Variables P andp conceptually represent the mean "pressure"
geometry of the strain gauge used, the elastic properties of the of the residual stresses, and their corresponding "volumetric"
material of the specimen, and the radius and depth of the hole. strain relaxations. Similarly, the other four variables concep-
Since the strain gauge geometry is constant when using the tually represent the shear stress and shear strain components.
specialized rosette in Fig. 1, only the specimen elastic proper- With these transformations, the set of simultaneous equations
ties and the hole radius and depth remain as variables. The (3) reduce to three separate equations
dependence on elastic properties can be eliminated in practice
by working in terms of two closely related dimensionless con- a P =Ep/(\ + v) (6)
stants a and b [9], where bQ=Eq (7)
2EA
b = 2EB (2) bT =Et (8)
\ +v
where the dimensionless coefficients a and b have been used
The factors of two are included so that the constants are instead of A and B so as to give a more general solution. The
associated with the mean biaxial and shear stresses, (<rraax + more familiar Cartesian stress components may be recovered
<7min)/2 and (ffmax - a min )/2, respectively. from these equations using
Some simplification can also be achieved with the hole
radius and depth dependencies. It is desirable to normalize «i=P-Q
these two dimensions with respect to the mean radius of the a3=P+Q (9)
strain gauge rosette, rm. When normalized in this way, the
constants a and b (and A and B) for a given normalized hole r13 = r
depth, are very nearly proportional to the square of the hole Finally, the principal stresses can be evaluated very com-
radius. Also, each constant reaches certain limiting values at pactly in terms of the transformed stresses or strains
similar normalized hole depths, irrespective of hole radius.
This allows a unified specification of the hole depth limits for ><V --P±-JQ2 + T1
-'max'^min
stress calculations and for "full" strain relief. The depth V<72 + 1 2
variables used here are: (10)
.a(\ + v) b J
Z = depth from surface, mm
0 = Vi tan ~' (T/Q) = Vi tan - ' (t/q) (11)
z = hole depth, mm
H = Z/rm = nondimensional depth from surface where /3 = angle measured clockwise from gauge 3 to the max-
h =z/rm = nondimensional hole depth imum principal stress direction.
where, for the strain gauge rosette type shown in Fig. 1
rm = 2.57mm for the MM 062-RE gauge Incremental Strain Method
rm =5.15mm for the MM 125-RE gauge
The Incremental Strain Method for estimating non-uniform
Normalization relative to the mean radius of the strain residual stresses was first introduced by Soete and Vancrom-
gauge rosette is in keeping with previous theoretical brugge [3] and further developed by Kelsey [4]. It involves
developments [9] which showed that the sensitivity of the measuring the strain relaxations after successive small in-
method (i.e., the magnitude of the strain relaxations) depends crements of hole depth. The stresses originally existing within
mainly on the hole radius, while the character of the response each hole depth increment are then calculated by assuming
(i.e., the shape of the strain relaxation versus depth curve) that the incremental strain relaxations are wholly due to the
depends mainly on the rosette geometry. The current ASTM stresses that existed within that depth increment. For each

Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology OCTOBER 1988, Vol. 110 / 339

Downloaded 22 Apr 2011 to 171.67.216.21. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 depth increment, separate values of the calibration constants a stress fields with power series variations with depth h, i.e.,
and b (or A and B) must be used. These calibration constants °a(h) = 1, xa(h) = h, 2a(h) = h2, etc. These strain
for each hole depth increment are determined experimentally responses are then used as basis functions in a least-squares
by incremental drilling into a specimen with a known, exter- analysis of the measured strain relaxations. In this way, the
nally applied, uniform stress field. measured strains are decomposed into components corre-
Although widely used, the incremental strain method has a sponding to the power series stress fields. The actual stress
significant theoretical shortcoming. The assumption that the field is then reconstructed by summing the stress fields cor-
incremental strain relaxations measured after making an incre- responding to the individual strain relaxation components.
ment in hole depth are wholly due to the stresses within that The least-squares analysis is best done by applying the "nor-
depth increment is not valid. After the first hole depth incre- mal equations" [16] to each of the transformed strains defined
ment, subsequent strain relaxations combine the effect of the in equation (4). The transformed stresses P(h) are calculated
stresses within the new hold depth increment and the effect of from strains p(h) = (ex{h) + e3 {h))/2 using
the change in hole geometry. The geometrical change allows
further strain relaxations from the stresses within previous E°d(/i)°d(h) E°d(h)'d(h)
i(h) - • o p -
hole depth increments. For this reason, strain relaxations can
continue to grow, even when the new hole depth increment is Lxd(h)°d(h) Vd(h)xd(.h)
i(h) Sp
totally unstressed [8-10].
E ' L°d(h)p(h)
(13)
Average Stress Method l+v x
L c (h)p(h)
In order to overcome the theoretical shortcomings of the In-
cremental Strain Method, Nickola [7] introduced a new stress stress P(h)=°P+xP h (14)
calculation method using the concept of equivalent uniform
stress. The equivalent uniform stress is the uniform stress where °P and 'P are the first two power series components of
within the total hole depth that produces the same total strain the "P" stress field, and E indicates the summation of the
relaxations as the actual non-uniform stress distribution. It is products of the d(h) andp(h) values corresponding to all the
calculated by using the values of the calibration constants a hole depths, h, used for the strain measurements. This calcula-
and b (or A and B) for uniform stress fields with the measured tion is repeated for transformed stresses Q(h) and T(h) using
strain relaxations. strains q{h) and t(h) with coefficients b{h) instead of a (A),
With the Average Stress Method, the equivalent uniform and omitting the factor 1 + v. The Cartesian stress field is
stress is calculated using the strain relaxations measured then recovered using equations (9).
before and after each hole depth increment. It is then assumed
Figures 2 and 3 tabulate the functions °d(h), °b{h), and
that the equivalent uniform stress after a hole depth increment x
d(h), xb(h). These values derive from the finite element
equals the spatial average of the equivalent uniform stress
calculations described in Part II of this paper [17], and are
before the hole depth increment plus the stress within the
more accurate than those previously reported [9]. Only the
increment,
d(h) and b(h) values for uniform and linear stress fields are
cz + Az(z + ^z)=azz + aAzAz (12) given because the hole drilling method is not well adapted to
where <x= equivalent uniform stress within subscript giving accurate values for more than the first two power series
terms for stresses. For the same reason, the maximum depth
region
below the surface is limited to 0.5 /•,„. In Fig. 2, values of
Z = hole depth before increment
°d(h) and °b(h) are tabulated to greater hole depths because
Az = hole depth increment
they correspond to the standard d and b values for a uniform
z + Az = hole depth after increment
stress field.
The stress within the hole depth increment is then determined An advantage of the Power Series Method is that the least-
by solving this equation. squares procedure forms a best fit curve through the measured
The Average Stress Method also has a significant shortcom- strain data. This averaging effect is particularly effective when
ing. It assumes that the equivalent uniform stress equals the strain measurements are made at many hole depth increments.
average stress over the hole depth. This would be true only if A limitation of the method is that it is suitable only for
the stresses at all depths within a given hole depth contribute smoothly varying stress fields.
equally to the strain relaxations measured at the surface. In
practice however, the stresses in the material closer to the sur-
face contribute much more to the surface strain relaxations
than do the stress further from the surface. For this reason, Integral Method
the equivalent uniform stress is actually a weighted average, The use of finite element calculations as a calibration pro-
with a bias towards the stress values closer to the surface. cedure has also made application of the Integral method a
Scaramangas et al. [6] experimentally found that, for a stress practical possibility. Initial developments in this area were
field linearly varying through the hole depth, the equivalent made by Bijak-Zochowski [8], Niku-Lari et al. [10], and
uniform stress equals the actual stress at about one quarter of Flaman and Manning [12]. In the Integral Method, the con-
the hole depth. In contrast, the average stress equals the actual tributions to the total measured strain relaxations of the
stress at one half of the hole depth. stresses at all depths are considered simultaneously. For exam-
ple, let o(H) be the stress at depth H from the surface.
Assume for the present that this stress field is equal biaxial,
Power Series Method i.e., at any given depth from the surface, the stresses are the
The Power Series Method was introduced by Schajer [9] as same in all directions parallel to the surface. In this case the
an approximate, but theoretically acceptable method of same strain relaxations will be measured at each of the strain
calculating non-uniform stress fields from incremental strain gauges in the three-element rosette. The measured strain relax-
data. Finite element calculations are used to compute series of ation e(h), due to drilling a hole of depth h, is the integral of
coefficients °d(h), xd(h), 2d{h) and °b(h), xb(h), 2
b(h), the infinitesimal strain relaxation components from the
corresponding to the strain responses when hole drilling into stresses at all depths in the range 0 < H < h

340/Vol. 110, OCTOBER 1988 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 22 Apr 2011 to 171.67.216.21. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Coe fficients a The strain relaxation response, e(h), can be determined ex-
Hole
Hole Radius, r / i perimentally from a sufficiently large number of strain gauge
Depth m
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
measurements with gradually increasing hole depths.
ID
However, it is very difficult, if not almost impossible, to deter-
.00 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.06 -.011 -.015 -.021 -.028 -.033
mine the strain relaxation function A(H, h) experimentally.
. 10 -.027 -.035 -.049 -.063 -.081 This fact has prevented the practical use of this mathematical
.15 -.043 -.059 -.079 -. 102 -. 1,32
. 20 -.058 -.080 -. 107 -. 137 -. 175 approach in the past. However, it is now possible to calculate
.26 -.072 -.099 -.131 -.167 -. 210 A(H, h) using finite element calculations. If the functions
.30 -.084 -. 114 -. 150 -. 190 -. 236
.35 -.093 -. 127 -. 166 -.208 -.256 e{h) and A (H, h) are then known, the unknown stress field
.40 -. 100 -. 135 -. 176 -.221 -.270 o{H) can be determined by solving the integral equation (15).
.45 -. 105 -.142 -. 184 -.230 -.280
.50 -. 108 -. 146 -. 189 -.236 -.286 This solution is assumed to exist and to be unique.
.60 -.112 -. 149 -. 193 -.241 -.290 In practice, the strain relaxation response e(h) is not con-
.70 -. 112 -. 150 -. 193 -.240 -.289 tinuously determined. Only values at n discrete points, cor-
.80 -.111 -.150 -. 190 -.236 -.285
.90 -.108 -.145 -. 187 -.233 -.282 responding to n hole depths after successive increments, h-, =
1 .00 -. 106 -. 141 -. 163 -.228 -.276 1, 2, , , n are known. In this case, an approximate solution
can be achieved using a discrete form of equation (15)

Coe fficients °b
Y, dijO: = e • 1<j<i<n
<j (16)
Hole Hole Radius,
Depth Vm
z/r 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
„ 0.50 where e, = measured strain relaxation after the z'th hole depth
.00 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 increment
.05 -.021 -.028 -.037 -.048 -.058
. 10 -.050 -.067 -.088 -. Ill -. 140
Oj = equivalent uniform stress within they'th hole depth
. 15 -.082 -.111 -.145 -.181 -.229 increment
.20 -. 115 -.155 -. 201 -.250 -.311
.25 -.147 -.196 -.252 -.312 -.382 ciy = strain relaxation due to a unit stress within incre-
.30 -. 175 -.232 -.297 -.366 -.443 ment j of a hole / increments deep.
.35 -.200 -.264 -.335 -.410 -.492
.40 -.220 -.290 -.367 -.447 -.531 n = total number of hole depth increments
.45 -.237 -.312 -.392 -.476 -.562
.50 -.251 -.329 -.413 -.499 -.587 The relationship between the coefficients dy and the strain
.60 -.271 -.352 -.441 -.530 -.619 relaxation function A (H, h) is
.70 -.282 -.367 -.457 -.546 -.639
.80 -.288 -.376 -.466 -.558 -.648
.90 -.290 -.378 -.471 -.563 -.653 A(H,hi)dH (17)
1.00 -.291 -.379 -.472 -.564 -.654

Fig. 2 Coefficients °a and °b for a uniform stress field, °o(h)

In matrix notation, equation (16) becomes
aa = Ee/(l + v) (18)
Coe fficlent s a
where for four increments
Hole r IT
Hole Radius, a ro
Depth «11 "i £i
0.30 0.40 0.45 0.50
Z / r
m 0.35
.00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 a
21 fl
22 a= "2 € = «2 (19)
.05 -.0003 -.0004 -.0005 -.0007 -.0008
.10 -.0012 -.0017 -.0022 -.0029 -.0037
a a a
. 15 -.0029 -.0039 -.0052 -.0066 -.0085 3l 32 33 ^3 ^3
.20 -.0050 -.0068 -.0089 -.0112 -.0140
.25 -.0075 -.0101 -.0130 -.0161 -.0196 a ff 6
.30 -.0100 -.0132 -.0169 -.0206 -.0247 °41 42 #43 #44 _ . 4 . _ 3
.35 -.0123 -.0162 -.0203 -.0248 -.0291
.40 -.0143 -.0186 -.0232 -.0281 -.0325
.45 -.0159 -.0205 -.0254 -.0305 -.0350 The discrete strain relaxation matrix a is lower triangular. If
.50 -.0169 -.0219 -.0269 -.0321 -.0365
the matrix coefficients dy are known, a stepwise approximate
solution for the stress variation with depth can be found by
solving equation (18) using simple forward substitution. The
Coefficient 9 'b
resulting stress values, <jj are the equivalent uniform stresses
Hole Hole ItctUi Utl , ra IT m within each hole depth increment. As previously noted, the
Depth
z/r 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 equivalent uniform stress within a hole depth increment does
„m
not equal the average stress within that increment because of
.00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000
.05 -.0005 -.0007 -.0009 -.0012 -.0014 the increased sensitivity to the stresses closer to the surface.
. 10 -.0024 -.0032 -.0042 -.0052 -.0065
. 15 -.0058 -.0077 -.0100 -.0123 -.0154 Figure 4 shows a physical interpretation of the coefficients
. 20 -.0105 -.0139 -.0178 -.0218 -.0265 dy of matrix d. The columns of the matrix correspond to the
.25 -.0163 -.0214 -.0270 -.0328 -.0389
.30 -.0226 -.0295 -.0368 -.0442 -.0516 strain relaxations caused by the stresses within a fixed incre-
.35 -.0292 -.0377 -.0466 -.0556 -.0639 ment, for holes of increasing depth. The rows of the matrix
.40 -.0356 -.0457 -.0560 -.0662 -.0753
.45 -.0416 -.0532 -.0647 -.0760 -.0856 correspond to the strain relaxations caused by stresses within
.50 -.0469 -.0599 -.0725 -.0846 -.0947 successive increments of a hole of fixed depth. The combina-
Fig. 3 Coefficients 1
a and 1 b for a linear stress field, 1 o(h) = h tion of all the coefficients in each row corresponds to uniform
stress field over the entire hole depth. Therefore, the row sums
of a equal the strain relaxation coefficients d in equations (2)
and (6) for uniform stress fields in holes of corresponding
e(h)=—^-[' A(H,h)o(H)dH Q<H<h (15) depth. With this in mind, the Incremental Strain and Average
Stress methods can be seen as approximations of the Integral
where A(H, h) is the strain relaxation per unit depth caused Method. The former two procedures seek to estimate the co-
by a unit stress at depth H, when the hole depth is h. The term efficients dy given only the row sums from uniform stress field
(1 + v)/E describes the dependence of the strain relaxations calibrations. In the Incremental Method, all the coefficients in
on material properties. each column are assumed to be the same. In the Average Stress

Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology OCTOBER.1988, Vol. 110/341

Downloaded 22 Apr 2011 to 171.67.216.21. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 bQ =£q (24)
bT =Et (25)
In the equal biaxial stress field example, only equation (23)
was needed because the stresses and strains in equations (24)
i^ar i_# ±n
and (25) were all zero.
To summarize, the stress calculation procedure for non-
uniform stress fields is as follows. First the transformed
strains after each hole depth increment are calculated from the
measured strains using the vector equivalent of equations (5).
Then the transformed stresses within each hole depth incre-
d
ment are determined by solving matrix equations (23), (24),
32 ^33 and (25). Finally, the Cartesian stresses within each increment
are recovered from the transformed stresses using equations
(9). Alternatively, the principal stresses and principal stress
angle can be found from the transformed stresses using equa-
A d a
tions (10) and (11).
U\ %Z 43 44
The incremental stress calculation procedure described by
Fig. 4 Stress loadings corresponding to the coefficients aVj of matrix a Flaman and Manning [12] is mathematically equivalent to that
described here. They work in terms of Cartesian stresses and
strains, and do not decouple their equations. In that case, it is
necessary to solve for all stress components simultaneously,
method, the coefficients in each row are assumed proportional using an enlarged strain relaxation matrix which combines the
to the size of the hole depth increments. Equations (20), (21), elements of both a and b. The matrix is block lower-
and (22) show the a matrices corresponding to each method triangular, where each block is a 3 x 3 submatrix containing
for the case of four equal hole depth increments, Az = 0.1 rm, the elements shown in equation (3). Because of this structure,
and a hole radius r„ = 0.4 rm. the matrix has nine times more coefficients than either a or b,
Incremental Strain Method: and has a much bulkier and less revealing solution.

- .0490
Comparison of Methods
a= .0490 -.0580 (20)
Experimental data from hole-drilling measurements into
.0490 -0.580 -.0433 residual stress fields with steep gradients are not readily
available in the literature. Here, a theoretical example is con-
.0490 -.0580 -.0433 • .0257 sidered, where a hole of radius r„ = 0.4 rm is drilled in four
equal depth increments, Az = 0.1 rm into an equal-biaxial
Average Stress Method: stress field. The theoretical stress field a = 1 - H - 2H2,
where H = Z/rm, is chosen so as to be both non-uniform and
- .0490
nonlinear. The numerical results tabulated in Part II of this
.0535 -.0535 (21) paper are used to compute the corresponding strain
relaxations.
.0501 -0.501 -.0501 Figure 5 shows a comparison of the results of all four stress
calculation methods. Calculations for the Incremental Strain,
..0440 -.0440 -.0440 -.0440 Average Stress, and Integral Methods use the a matrices in
Integral Method:
- .0490
Incremental Strain Method
-.0671 -.0399 (22) Average Stress Method
100 Power Series Method
-.0754 -0.507 .0242 Integral Metiiod
Actual Stress
-.0792 -.0547 .0305 -.0116
^-4.
v;
The numerical values of the coefficients a,-, derive from the
finite element calculations described in Part II of this paper.
For conceptual simplicity, the discussion so far has been
limited to a simple equal biaxial stress field. The in-plane
stresses at a given depth were the same in all directions, and
the three measured relaxed strains were all equal. For the
general case, the three stress components a,, <r3, and T 13 , and
the three strains e,, e2, and e3 vary independently throughout
the hole depth. For calculations with such general non-
uniform stress fields, it is mathematically convenient to work
in terms of incremental transformed stress and strain vectors,
P, Q, T and p, q, t, analogous to the scalar quantities defined
in equations (4) and (5). Equations (6), (7), and (8) then
become
Fig. 5 Comparisons of the results from the four stress calculation
a P =Ep/(l + v) (23) methods

342/Vol. 110, OCTOBER 1988 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 22 Apr 2011 to 171.67.216.21. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 equations (20), (21), and (22). The Power Series Method
calculation uses the coefficients tabulated in Figs. 2 and 3. The
Integral Method gives a good stepped approximation to the
actual stress variation with depth, and the Power Series
Method gives a close straight-line fit. The Incremental Strain
and the Average Stress methods give much less satisfactory
results. Both of these methods do not work well with stress
fields that are significantly non-uniform. This is because they
are "calibrated" using uniform stress field data. They main-
tain the correct row sums in their corresponding a matrices,
but the individual coefficients are not correct.
For smoothly varying stress fields, such as the one il-
lustrated in Fig. 5, the Power Series Method with many small
hole depth increments is probably the best choice. The least-
squares procedure used by the Power Series Method tends to
average out the effects of random measurement errors. This
increases the robustness of the calculation. The Integral
Method is better suited to the case where the residual stress
field varies abruptly, and where strain relaxations are
measured after only a few hole depth increments. Meticulous
experimental technique using a drilling procedure that does
not introduce additional localized stresses is essential whatever
stress calculation method is used. Small strain measurement
errors can cause significant variations in calculated stresses,
particularly for stresses remote from the surface. This
characteristic of the hole drilling method is explored further in
Part II of this paper.
All calculation methods assume linearity of the specimen
material. When the residual stresses exceed about 50 percent
of the yield stress, small deviations start to occur in the
measured strain relaxations due to localized yielding at the
stress concentration created by the presence of the hole [2].
These strain deviations can have a significant effect on the
calculation of non-uniform stresses because of the sensitivity
to strain measurement errors.
The calibrated constants for all calculation methods are
calculated assuming homogeneity of the specimen material.
Where this is not true, for example with some case-hardened
materials, a decrease in accuracy can be expected. If the depth
variations of £"and v are known, specific calibration constants
could be calculated.
Conclusions
Four calculation procedures are available to determine non-
uniform residual stress fields from incremental strain relaxa-
tion data from the hole drilling method. The two traditional
procedures, the Incremental Strain and the Average Stress
methods are the simplest to apply because they use experimen-
tally measured calibration data. However, they have some
theoretical shortcomings, and should be avoided if possible.
The Power Series Method is suitable for use with smoothly
varying stress fields. It is relatively robust numerically because
the least-squares procedure used tends to smooth out the ef-
fects of random errors in the experimental strain data. The In-
tegral Method is the most general of the four stress calculation
procedures, and is suitable for calculations with irregular
stress fields.
It is shown that the Incremental Strain and Average Stress
methods are simple approximations of the Integral Method.
For slightly non-uniform stress fields, all stress calculation
Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology
Downloaded 22 Apr 2011 to 171.67.216.21. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
methods give satisfactory results. For more steeply varying
stress fields, the Incremental Strain and Average Stress
methods become increasingly unreliable, particularly for the
stresses more remote from the specimen surface.
The simple transformations of stress and strain variables,
equations (4) and (5), decouple the stress/strain equations (3).
This greatly simplifies the stress calculations, particularly for
non-uniform residual stress fields.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Weyerhaeuser Company,
Tacoma, WA, and by Kimura Knife & Saw Mfg. Co. Ltd. and
Kanefusa Knife & Saw Co. Ltd., Nagoya, Japan. Their kind
support is much appreciated. Sincere thanks are due especially
to Dr. Shiro Kimura of Nagoya University, without whose
help and encouragement this study would not have been possi-
ble. Dr. Will Fohrell and Ms. Sharon Geffen kindly reviewed
the manuscript.
References
1 Rendler, N. J., and Vigness, I., "Hole-Drilling Strain-gage Method of
Measuring Residual Stresses," Experimental Mechanics, Vol. 6, No. 12, 1966,
pp. 577-586.
2 Beaney, E. M., "Accurate Measurement of Residual Stress on any Steel
Using the Centre Hole Method," Strain, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1976, pp. 99-106.
3 Soete, W., and Vancrombrugge, R., " A n Industrial Method for the
Determination of Residual Stresses," Proceedings SESA, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1950,
pp. 17-28.
4 Kelsey, R. A., "Measuring Non-Uniform Residual Stresses by the Hole
Drilling Method," Proceedings SESA, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1956, pp. 181-194.
5 Bathgate, R. G., "Measurement of Non-Uniform Bi-Axial Residual
Stresses by the Hole Drilling Method," Strain, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1968, pp. 20-29.
6 Scaramangas, A. A., Porter Goff, R. F. D., and Leggatt, R. H., "On the
Correction of Residual Stress Measurements Obtained Using the Centre-Hole
Method," Strain, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1982, pp. 88-97.
7 Nickola, W. E., "Practical Subsurface Residual Stress Evaluation By The
Hole-Drilling Method," Proceedings of the Spring Conference on Experimental
Mechanics, New Orleans, June 3-13, 1986, pp. 47-58. Society for Experimental
Mechanics.
8 Bijak-Zochowski, M., " A Semidestructrve Method of Measuring Residual
Stresses," VDI-Berichte, Vol. 313, 1978, pp. 469-476.
9 Schajer, G. S., "Application of Finite Element Calculations to Residual
Stress Measurements," ASME JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MATERIALS AND
TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 103, No. 2, 1981, pp. 157-163.
10 Niku-Lari, A., Lu, J., and Flavenot, J. F., "Measurement of Residual-
Stress Distribution by the Incremental Hole-Drilling Method," Experimental
Mechanics, Vol. 25, No. 6, 1985, pp. 175-185.
11 Flaman, M. T., Mills, B. E., and Boag, J. M., "Analysis of Stress-
Variation-With-Depth Measurement Procedures for the Center-Hole Method of
Residual Stress Measurement," Experimental Techniques, Vol. 11, No. 6, 1987,
pp. 35-37.
12 Flaman, M. T., and Manning, B. H., "Determination of Residual Stress
Variation with Depth by the Hole-Drilling Method," Experimental Mechanics,
Vol. 25, No. 9, 1985, pp. 205-207.
13 Hu, C. N., "Recent Developments Achieved in China About the Centre
Hole Relaxation Technique for Residual Stress Measurement," Strain, Vol. 22,
No. 3, 1986, pp. 119-126.
14 "Measurement of Residual Stresses by the Hole-Drilling Strain-Gage
Method," Tech Note TN-503-2. Measurements Group, Inc., Raleigh, NC, 1986.
15 "Determining Residual Stresses by the Hole-drilling Strain-Gage
Method," ASTM Standard E837-85.
16 Dahlquist, G., Bjork, A . , and Anderson, N., Numerical Methods,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1974, Chapter 4.
17 Schajer, G. S., "Measurement of Non-Uniform Residual Stresses Using
the Hole-Drilling Method. II. Practical Application of the Integral Method,"
ASME JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY, published in
this issue pp. 344-349.
OCTOBER 1988, Vol. 110 / 343