Srain ROSETTE PDF

The hole-drilling strain gauge method for the measurement of uniform or non-uniform residual stresses
AIAS TR-01:2010 Page 1 of 70

Working Group on Residual Stresses

A.Ajovalasit, M.Scafidi, B.Zuccarello, University of Palermo
M.Beghini, L.Bertini, C.Santus - University of Pisa
E.Valentini, A.Benincasa, L.Bertelli SINT Technology s.r.l.

AIAS TR01:2010

The hole-drilling strain gauge method for the
measurement of uniform or non-uniform residual
stresses

Revision: 02.09.2010
PREFACE

This test method is the result of work by the AIAS Working Group on Residual Stresses over the
period from 2006 to 2010.
The objective was to draw up a draft set of recommendations for the measurement of residual
stresses by the incremental hole-drilling technique, also known as the hole-drilling strain-gauge
method. Both terms are used without distinction in this document.
The hole-drilling strain-gauge method is the test method which is the most widely used in
industry to determine near-surface residual stresses.
The technical standard on the subject (ASTM E 837-08), which is an indispensable reference,
has a restricted field of application as it does not consider:
cases in which stresses exceed 50% of the yield stress.
corrections where the drilled hole is eccentric to the centre of the rosette;
the effects of plasticity within the hole boundary.
the effects of any fillet radius at the bottom of the hole.
All these effects, nevertheless, influence the quality and accuracy of measurement.
The latest revision of the standard, ASTM E837-08, introduced computation of non-uniform
stresses, however, the static nature of the method means that it is impossible to evaluate
residual stresses in many practical cases.
While acknowledging the progress that has been achieved thanks to the ASTM E837-08
standard, the purpose of this guide is to go a step further, integrating new methods of correcting
and calculating residual stress values with the considerations set out in the ASTM standard.
This method presents detailed instructions for the test reports and provides considerations
regarding uncertainty analysis in residual stress measurement.
The contributions presented herein reflect the results of the work carried out on these subjects
by Italian researchers both in the theoretical-experimental field and in design and construction
of new measurement instruments.
Thanks go to the researchers of the University of Palermo, the University of Pisa and the
company SINT Technology srl for the invaluable contributions they have given both to the
scientific works developed over these years and to the preparation of this test method guide.

Emilio Valentini
Coordinator of the A.I.A.S.
Residual Stress Working Group

Florence, July 2010
CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 7
2 SCOPE ........................................................................................................................................... 7
3 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................. 7
4 SYMBOLS ..................................................................................................................................... 8
5 PRINCIPLE OF MEASUREMENT ......................................................................................... 10
6 PRACTICAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MEASUREMENT ............................... 13
6.1 APPLICABILITY OF THE METHOD ................................................................................................. 13
6.1.1 PARAMETERS OF THE MATERIAL ......................................................................................... 13
6.1.2 ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEASUREMENT AREA ..................................................................... 14
6.1.3 EFFECT OF NON-UNIFORMITY AND PLASTICITY ................................................................... 14
6.2 STRAIN GAUGE ROSETTE SELECTION .......................................................................................... 14
6.2.1 ROSETTE DESIGNS ................................................................................................................ 14
6.2.2 ROSETTE DIMENSIONS ......................................................................................................... 15
6.2.3 OTHER FACTORS INFLUENCING SELECTION ......................................................................... 16
6.3 SURFACE PREPARATION AND INSTALLATION .............................................................................. 18
6.3.1 SURFACE PREPARATION ....................................................................................................... 18
6.3.2 CHOICE OF ADHESIVE. ......................................................................................................... 18
6.4 STRAIN-MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTATION .............................................................................. 18
6.5 ALIGNMENT. .................................................................................................................................. 19
6.6 PERPENDICULARITY ..................................................................................................................... 21
6.7 EFFECTS OF THE FILLET RADIUS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HOLE. ............................................. 22
6.8 HOLE SPACING .............................................................................................................................. 24
6.9 DISTANCE FROM GEOMETRIC DISCONTINUITIES ........................................................................ 24
6.10 ZERO DEPTH DETECTION .............................................................................................................. 24
6.10.1 ELECTRICAL CONTACT DETECTION ..................................................................................... 24
6.10.2 OBLIQUE OBSERVATION OF DRILLING ................................................................................. 25
6.11 HOLE-PRODUCING TECHNIQUES .................................................................................................. 25
6.11.1 HIGH-SPEED DRILLING ......................................................................................................... 26
6.11.2 MEDIUM-SPEED DRILLING ................................................................................................... 27
6.11.3 LOW-SPEED DRILLING .......................................................................................................... 27
6.11.4 ABRASIVE JET MACHINING .................................................................................................. 27
6.11.5 ELECTRO-CHEMICAL MACHINING ........................................................................................ 28
6.11.6 HIGH-SPEED ORBITAL DRILLING .......................................................................................... 28
6.12 DRILLING CUTTERS ....................................................................................................................... 28
6.13 VERIFICATION OF THE DRILLING PROCESS ................................................................................. 30
6.14 SELECTION OF DRILL DEPTH INCREMENTS ................................................................................. 30
6.15 MEASUREMENT OF STRAIN........................................................................................................... 30
6.15.1 EFFECT OF THE TURBINE AIR SUPPLY TEMPERATURE .......................................................... 30
6.15.2 HEAT GENERATED DURING THE DRILLING PROCESS ............................................................ 30
6.16 MEASUREMENT OF HOLE DIMENSIONS AND ECCENTRICITY...................................................... 31
6.17 FINAL HOLE DEPTH MEASUREMENT CHECK ............................................................................... 32
6.18 PRACTICAL EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION ...................................................................................... 33
7 RESIDUAL STRESS ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES .................................................................. 34
7.1 STANDARD ASTM E837-08: GENERAL ........................................................................................ 35
7.1.1 STRAIN GAUGE ROSETTES .................................................................................................... 35
7.1.2 STRAIN RELIEF IN PROXIMITY TO THE HOLE ........................................................................ 35
7.1.3 NUMERICAL VALUES OF a

AND b ..................................................................................... 36
7.1.4 SENSITIVITY OF THE METHOD .............................................................................................. 36
7.2 STANDARD ASTM E837-08: CALCULATION OF RESIDUAL STRESSES ........................................ 38
7.2.1 THIN WORKPIECE ................................................................................................................. 38
7.2.2 THICK WORKPIECE ............................................................................................................... 38
7.2.3 RESIDUAL STRESS UNIFORMITY TEST .................................................................................. 39
7.2.4 CALCULATION OF UNIFORM RESIDUAL STRESSES ............................................................... 39
7.2.5 CALCULATION OF NON-UNIFORM RESIDUAL STRESSES ....................................................... 40
7.2.6 INTERMEDIATE THICKNESS WORKPIECE .............................................................................. 45
7.3 CALCULATION OF NON-UNIFORM RESIDUAL STRESSES. OTHER METHODS .............................. 45
7.3.1 INTEGRAL METHOD ............................................................................................................. 45
7.3.2 INCREMENTAL STRAIN METHOD (ALSO KNOWN AS THE SCHWARZKOCHELMANN METHOD)
48
7.3.3 HDM METHOD .................................................................................................................... 49
7.3.4 NON-UNIFORM RESIDUAL STRESSES WITH AN OFF-CENTRE HOLE ....................................... 50
7.4 CORRECTION FOR PLASTICITY (ELASTIC RELAXATION OF STRESSES) ..................................... 52
7.4.1 CORRECTION WITH A 3-ELEMENT ROSETTE ......................................................................... 53
7.4.2 CORRECTION WITH A SPECIAL 4-ELEMENT ROSETTE ........................................................... 55
7.5 CORRECTION FOR ECCENTRICITY ............................................................................................... 56
7.5.1 CORRECTION FOR ECCENTRICITY: THROUGH HOLE ............................................................. 57
7.5.2 CORRECTION BY HDM TECHNIQUES ................................................................................... 59
7.5.3 CORRECTION USING THE SPECIAL 6-ELEMENT ROSETTE ..................................................... 59
8 RESIDUAL STRESS ANALYSIS SOFTWARE FEATURES ............................................... 60
9 TEST REPORT ........................................................................................................................... 62
9.1 CONTENTS OF THE TEST REPORT ................................................................................................ 62
9.1.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................. 62
9.1.2 PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS ......................................................................................... 63
10 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 64
10.1 SUMMARY OF THE SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY .......................................................................... 64
10.2 CORRECTION OF THE MAIN ERRORS AFFECTING MEASUREMENT............................................. 64
10.3 EVALUATION OF UNCERTAINTIES ON STRESSES ......................................................................... 66
11 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 68
INDEX OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Symbols used in this publication. (On the left the symbols necessary for determining
the state of stress, on the right the symbols used for correct definition of the geometry of the
rosettes). 10
Figure 2 - Relaxation of residual stresses after hole-drilling. 11
Figure 3 - Diagram of the measurement chain using a high-speed air turbine. 12
Figure 4 - Designs of strain gauge rosettes recommended by standard ASTM E837-08. 15
Figure 5 - On the left a CW numbering scheme, on the right a rosette with CCW gauge
identification. 15
Figure 6 - Hole drilling apparatus with a high speed air turbine (MTS 3000 - SINT Technology) 20
Figure 7 Hole drilling device: on the left alignment, on the right rotation of the drilling head. 21
Figure 8 - Checking the vertical perpendicularity of the hole-drilling tool. 21
Figure 9 - Hole sections: on the left and in the centre a hole made by high speed drilling with
inverted-cone tungsten carbide cutters, on the right a hole made by EDM. 23
Figure 10 - 2D (left) and 3-D (right) BEM models for studying the effects of the hole-bottom fillet
radius. 23
Figure 11 - Identifying the zero cutter depth by an electrical connection. 25
Figure 12 - Types of holes that can be produced with the techniques studied by Flaman: 26
Figure 13 - High speed drilling technique 26
Figure 14 - Medium-speed drilling technique. 27
Figure 15 - High-speed orbital hole-drilling 28
Figure 16 - High-speed orbital hole-drilling technique. Detail of the cutting tool 28
Figure 17 - Cutters used for high-speed drilling 29
Figure 18 - Hardness ranges for which the three types of cutters are recommended 29
Figure 19 - Measurement of hole diameter and eccentricity 31
Figure 20 - Off-centre hole, parameters necessary for calculating hole-rosette eccentricity 32
Figure 21 - Instrument for measuring hole depth 32
Figure 22 - Graphical test of through-thickness stress uniformity (ASTM E837-08) 39
Figure 23 - Schwarz Kochelmann method. 48
Figure 24 - On the right, calibration functions Kx and Ky for the HBM rosette shown on the left. 49
Figure 25 -. Symbols used in the HDM method. 50
Figure 26- Assumed material constitutive law: bilinear isotropic hardening 53
Figure 27- Ratio between the measured relaxed strains versus plasticity factor 54
Figure 28 .HBM 4-element Rosette 0/90/157,5/225(Left), Angles between gauges (Right) 56
Figure 29: (a) Principal Angle (least squares minimisation); (b) Reconstruction of measured strain
versus angle. 56
Figure 30 Equi-biaxial Stress Field: difference between the values of strain measured in the
absence (above) and presence (bottom) of eccentricity (e=0.1 mm) 57
Figure 31 - Notations relating to a rosette with an off-centre hole 57
Figure 32 - 6-element rosette for eccentricity correction 59
Figure 33 - Hole-drilling software. Endmill Positioning Tool (left) and Drilling System Setup (right)
60
Figure 34 - Measured and interpoled strains versus depth. 60
Figure 35 - Residual stress evaluation: above analysis in accordance with ASTM E837-08, below
stress analysis with the Integral Method. 61
INDEX OF TABLES

Table 1 - Symbols. 10
Table 2 - Typical dimensions of type A, B and C rosettes described by standard ASTM E837-08. 16
Table 3 - Rosettes produced by HBM and Vishay Measurement Group. 17
Table 4 - Maximum and minimum workpiece thicknesses and hole diameters, and drilling depths
recommended by standard ASTM E837-08. 22
Table 5 - Residual stress calculation methods: principal features. 34
Table 6 - Numerical values of coefficients a and b provided by standard ASTM E837-08 for type
A, B and C rosettes for uniform stress evaluations with through holes and blind holes. 36
Table 7 - Convention used for placement of angle (ASTM E837-08). 38
Table 8 - Coefficients a and b for type A rosettes for non-uniform residual stress evaluations
(ASTM E837-08). 41
Table 9 - Coefficients a and b for type B rosettes for non-uniform residual stress evaluations
(ASTM E837-08). 42
Table 10 - Coefficients a and b for type C rosettes for non-uniform residual stress evaluations
(ASTM E837-08). 43
Table 11 - Coefficients a and b of the integral method for type A, B and C rosettes. 47
Table 12 - Errors due to hole-rosette eccentricity for some types of rosette considered in standard
ASTM 837-08 58
Table 13 - Contributions of uncertainty in residual stress measurement. 65

1 Introduction
Residual stresses are present in almost all structures. They may be caused by manufacturing
processes or may be created during the life of a mechanical component. Residual stresses are
often a predominant factor contributing to structural failure, particularly of structures subject to
alternating service loads or corrosive environments.
The effect on properties can also be beneficial, in which case residual stresses are created
purposely to improve the behavior of a material, for example, the compressive stresses
produced by shot peening. In either case, it is important to determine the residual stresses in
order to be able to foresee static resistance and fatigue strength.
The hole-drilling method is a practical, inexpensive and widely used method for determining
residual stresses near the surface of a component to be analysed. It can be applied to a wide
range of materials.
It involves attaching a three-element strain rosette to the surface, drilling a hole in a series of
depth increments through the centre of the rosette, and measuring the strains that are produced
reflecting the stress relaxation which takes place with the removal of material.
2 Scope
This test method specifies an incremental hole-drilling procedure for determining residual stress
profiles near the surface of an isotropic linearly elastic homogeneous material. The test method
is applicable also to plastic materials and composite materials: these materials present a
different mechanical behavior from that of metal materials and also require particular attention in
the choice of hole-drilling procedure.
The test method may be considered semi-destructive because the damage that it causes is
localized and often does not affect use of the component to which it is applied.
The method, which is a development of the hole-drilling procedure specified by standard ASTM
E837-08 [1], may also be applied in cases where: a) residual stresses vary with depth, b) there
is a small eccentricity between the axis of the hole and the centre of the strain gauge rosette.
This test method is limited to cases where the maximum residual stresses do not exceed 50%
of the material yield stress. A correction method is specified for stresses exceeding 50% of yield
stress, which can only be applied where the stresses remain constant with depth.
However, the limitation relating to the thickness of a component reported in the ASTM standard
holds and if the thickness is between 0.4 D and 1.2 D the results have to be considered
approximate.
3 Referenced documents
Standard Test Method for Determining Residual Stresses by the Hole-Drilling Strain Gauge
Method, ASTM E837-08.
Standard Test Method for Determining Residual Stresses by the Hole-Drilling Strain Gauge
Method, ASTM E837-01.
Grant P.V., Lord J.D., Whitehead P.S., The Measurement of Residual Stresses by the
Incremental Hole Drilling Technique, NPL Materials Centre, Measurement Good Practice
Guide No.53, National Physical Laboratory, UK, 2002.
LU J., Handbook of Measurement of Residual Stresses, Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Fairmont Press, Lilburn, GA, 1996, Chapter 2.
4 Symbols
The diagrams shown in Figure 1 are useful for understanding the majority of the symbols listed
in Table 1.

Symbol Definition Units
a Calibration constant for isotropic stresses
b
Calibration constant for shear stresses
jk
a Calibration matrix for isotropic stresses
jk
b Calibration matrix for shear stresses
D Gauge circle diameter mm
G
L
Grid length mm
G
W
Grid width mm
R
1
Distance from the centre of the rosette to the internal edge of the grid mm
R
2
Distance from the centre of the rosette to the external edge of the
grid
mm
W Rated resistance of the strain gauge rosette
D
0
Diameter of the drilled hole mm
E Youngs modulus MPa
E
p
Plastic modulus of proportionality MPa
r Strain hardening ratio of the material
Poissons ratio
j Number of drilled hole depth steps
k Sequence number for hole depth steps
z Depth of drilling mm
P Uniform isotropic stress MPa
P
k
Uniform isotropic stress within hole depth step k MPa
p Uniform isotropic strain m/m
p
k
Uniform isotropic strain after hole depth step k m/m
Q Uniform 45shear stress MPa
Q
k
45shear stress within hole depth step k MPa
q Uniform 45shear strain m/m
q
k
45shear strain after hole depth step k m/m
T Uniform shear stress in x-y direction MPa
T
k
x-y shear stress within hole depth step k MPa
t Uniform shear strain in x-y direction m/m
t
k
x-y shear strain after hole depth step k m/m
P
Regularization factor for P stresses
Q
Regularization factor for Q stresses
T
Regularization factor for T stresses
Angle measured clockwise from
r
to
max
direction
Relieved strain for uniform stress case m/m
r
Relieved strain measured by the gauge, in radial direction m/m
1,2,3
Relieved strains measured by the strain gauge grids m/m
j
Relieved strain measured after j hole depth steps have been drilled m/m
0
Maximum relievable strain m/m

Angle of strain gauge from the x-axis
max
Maximum principal stress MPa
min
Minimum principal stress MPa
x
Stress in x direction MPa
(
x
)
k
Stress in x direction within hole depth k MPa
y
Stress in y direction MPa
(
y
)
k
Stress in y direction within hole depth k MPa
xy
Shear xy-stress MPa
(
xy
)
k
Shear xy-stress within hole depth step k MPa
Ra Surface roughness m/m
S Sensitivity merit index
Biaxiality ratio
C Plasticity corrective coefficient
f(C) Dimensionless load parameter
X
1
,X
2
Hole radiuses measured in x direction mm
Y
1
,Y
2
Hole radiuses measured in y direction mm
D
x
Hole diameter measured in x direction mm
D
y
Hole diameter measured in y direction mm
D
0,m
Average diameter of the measured hole mm
e
x
Eccentric radius measured in x direction mm
e
y
Eccentric radius measured in y direction mm
e Eccentric radius mm
Eccentric angle
p(h
j
), q(h
j
),
t(h
j
),
p, q and t values calculated for the hole depth steps by the integral
functions proposed by Schajer
MPa
A(H,h
j
), B(H,h
j
) Influence functions of the integral method
K
x
, K
y
Numerical/experimental calibration functions
j
(11)
,
j
(33)
,
j
(13)
Influence functions describing the state of stress (HDM)
K
j
(11)
,K
j
(33)
,K
j
(13)
Coefficients for the calculation of strains (HDM)
Objective function
u(x) Uncertainty tied to factor x
ci Weight of uncertainty associated with parameter x
Uc(y) Total uncertainty associated with the measurement
k Normal distribution of uncertainty coverage factor
y Quantity measured in the test
U Extended uncertainty associated with the measurement
V Result of the test
Table 1 - Symbols.

Figure 1 - Symbols used in this publication. (On the left the symbols necessary for determining the state
of stress, on the right the symbols used for correct definition of the geometry of the rosettes).
5 Principle of measurement
The hole-drilling method involves drilling a small hole into the surface of a component, at the
centre of a special strain gauge rosette, and measuring the relieved strains. The maximum
depth of hole is approximately equal to 0.4 D.
The single measurements represent the average values of surface strain in the area of the grids
caused by relaxation of the stresses and the value of the readings is more sensitive to
relaxation of the material the closer they are taken to the surface. This sensitivity decreases as
the depth increases until it reaches zero. The residual stresses originally present at the hole
location are then calculated from the measured strain values.
The relieved strains depend on the stresses that originally existed at the boundaries of the
drilled hole (the residual stresses are assumed to act uniformly over the in-plane region around
the rosette and to vary only through the thickness of the material) and are not affected by the
stresses beyond the hole boundary.
It is also assumed that the drilling technique does not introduce plastic local strains: as will be
pointed out later, the drilling operation calls for techniques and specific measures to eliminate
Figure 2 shows relaxation of the stresses after drilling a hole for measurement of residual
stresses.
StrainGauge
Modifiedstress due to hole
Stress before drilling
Relieved stress
Hole Diameter - Do
Hole Depth - h

Figure 2 - Relaxation of residual stresses after hole-drilling.
The relieved strains decrease rapidly with distance from the edge of the hole and the strain
gauges measure only a strain corresponding to 25% to 40% of the original residual stress
present in the hole area.
The measurement involves the following steps, which are described in greater detail in Section
6 of this guide:
Installation of a special strain gauge rosette, with a minimum of three grids, on the
component to be analysed for residual stress;
Connection of the rosette to suitable instrumentation for recording of strains;
Alignment and setting up of the drilling fixture;
Establishing zero depth, particularly important for incremental drilling;
Drilling in a series of depth increments to obtain data on the variation of stresses with
depth;
Recording of the strains measured at each depth increment;
Calculation of the residual stress state applying a series of equations to the measured
values. These calculations are described in Section 7.
The typical rosettes used for these measurements are shown in Section 6.2: the size of the hole
strictly depends on the size of the strain gauge used.
The maximum depth of a hole is approximately equal to 0.4 D. Any greater depths are pointless
because the surface strain gauges are not sensitive to contributions at subsequent depth
increments.
It is necessary to use an accurate alignment and drilling system for making these
measurements. Excellent results are achieved drilling with a high speed air turbine.
It is always preferable to drill the hole in small increments of depth, recording the measured
strains and hole depth at each increment.
It is advisable that the drilling system for the incremental method is automatic and electronically
controlled: for example, Figure 3 shows a typical diagram of the measurement chain using a
high-speed air turbine.

Figure 3 - Diagram of the measurement chain using a high-speed air turbine.
(Restan MTS 3000, SINT Technology s.r.l.)
Also where stresses can be considered to be uniform, incremental hole drilling allows
considerations to be made on the uniformity of the stresses.
The basic method described in ASTM E837-08 and presented in Section 7.2 is strictly valid
where the stresses do not exceed approximately 50% of the yield strength. In these cases the
experimentally derived strain calibration coefficients experimentally developed from test
specimens with known stress fields can be used.
The numerical determination (finite element solutions) of calibration data (influence coefficients)
has opened new possibilities for improving the calculation of non-uniform residual stresses from
incremental strain data using the so-called integral method [2]. With this method, the
contributions to the total measured strain relaxation of the stresses at all depths are considered
simultaneously. It will be examined in greater detail in Section 7.3.1.
6 Practical issues associated with the measurement
There are two major factors that influence uncertainty associated with the measurements
obtained by the hole-drilling method, which are:
the way the hole is produced,
the procedure used to evaluate the residual stresses originally present, based on the
strain measurements.
These factors will be considered separately in the following sections. Some of the practical
issues are considered below, and recommendations on the analysis methods are presented in
Section 7.
The practical issues addressed in the following section include:
applicability of the method and planning of measurements,
strain gauge rosette selection,
surface preparation and installation,
strain gauge instrumentation,
alignment,
perpendicularity,
hole diameter,
effects of the fillet radius at the bottom of the hole,
hole spacing,
distance from geometric discontinuities,
zero depth detection,
hole-producing technique,
drilling cutters,
selection of drilling steps,
measurement of strain,
measurement of hole dimensions and eccentricity,
final hole depth measurement check.
6.1 Applicability of the method
Hole-drilling is a semi-destructive technique with relatively low sensitivity and can analyse
residual stress profiles in proximity to the surface of a material. It is the least expensive and
most widely used technique for measuring residual stress.
6.1.1 Parameters of the material
A component on which the test for determining residual stress is to be carried out should be
made of an isotropic material and the properties of the material should be known.
If possible, values for Youngs modulus (E) and Poissons ratio () experimentally determined
on a sample of the material under investigation should be used, particularly for non-standard
alloys and materials where handbook data is not available.
Handbook values are correct only for some well-defined, homogenous materials.
Typical uncertainties in the mechanical properties of common steel and aluminium alloys are
roughly considered to be in the 1 - 4% range and can therefore contribute significantly to the
overall uncertainty in the measurement.
6.1.2 Accessibility of the measurement area
It is necessary to be able to access the areas of the component to be analysed both in order to
apply the strain gauge rosette and to align and make the hole.
Ideally, the sample should be flat and the hole location far from any geometric discontinuity.
In practice, tests often have to be conducted on curved surfaces or at a location close to an
edge, hole or some other feature. In such cases, although the results may provide sufficient
information, the validity of the stress values must be considered carefully.
In the most critical cases, departures from the ideal can be evaluated by using a finite element
model to calculate the influence functions ( a and b coefficients) for the specific installation.
6.1.3 Effect of non-uniformity and plasticity
Standard ASTM E837-08 is applicable to residual stress profile determinations where the
stresses may be uniform or non-uniform through the thickness of the component under
investigation.
In addition, the test method provides accurate results if the stresses are less than approximately
50% of the yield stress.
There are many circumstances where these requirements are not met, for example, residual
stress measurements on a shot peened surface, close to a weld or a hole. This does not mean
that the hole-drilling technique cannot be applied, but numerical corrections are required to take
account of these effects.
For example, the welding process generates high residual stress values that may reach and
even exceed the yield strength of the base metal being welded, and in this case the two
principal sources of error are:
the assumption of uniformity in the stress field,
the plasticity around the hole.
The methods of evaluating non-uniform through-thickness stresses are analysed in detail in
Section 7.
The error in residual stress measurements due to the effect of localized yielding has been
analysed in literature from both an experimental and an analytical point of view.
Beghini and Bertini [3,47,49] have studied the effects of plasticity in the region around the hole:
if the value of the stresses in that area exceeds the yield strength of the material, some relations
have been proposed to correct the value of stresses, clearing obtained results of the effect of
plasticity.
The influence of plasticity is discussed in detail in Section 7.
6.2 Strain gauge rosette selection
6.2.1 Rosette designs
A number of commercial strain gauge rosette designs are available, designed specifically for the
hole-drilling technique.
Rosettes are available with self-temperature-compensation for some materials.
All of the rosette designs incorporate centering marks for aligning the drilling tool precisely at
the centre of the gauge circle.
Standard ASTM E837-08 describes the three strain gauge designs which are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 - Designs of strain gauge rosettes recommended by standard ASTM E837-08.
Standard ASTM E837-08 distinguishes rosettes also by the arrangement of the measurement
grids: the numbering scheme can follow a clockwise (CW) convention if a clockwise rotation is
necessary to go from grid 1 (or a) to grid 3 (or c); rosettes can have counter-clockwise (CCW)
gauge numbering if a counter-clockwise convention is used.
Whether a rosette is CW or CCW type therefore depends on the location of grids 1 and 3:
whereas the position of grid 2 determines the type of rosette (type A, B or C).
Figure 5 shows both identification schemes.

Figure 5 - On the left a CW numbering scheme, on the right a rosette with CCW gauge identification.
Type A (with grids in two quadrants) is recommended for general-purpose use, type B (with all
grids in a single quadrant) is used for measurements near an obstacle, such as a fillet radius or
weld, and type C for situations where high strain sensitivity and high thermal stability are
required.
The type C rosette consists of six grids forming three pairs, with radially and tangentially aligned
grid axes. The opposed grids (for example, 1T and 1R in Figure 4) are to be wired in half-bridge
configurations.The type C gauge has increased sensitivity (varying from +70% to +140%) in
relation to type A and B designs. The disadvantages in using this type include a higher cost,
limited availability, and the extra preparation time and instrumentation associated with the six
strain gauges (connected to three measurement channels).
Table 2 shows the typical geometric dimensions of type A, B and C rosettes described by
standard ASTM E837-08. A variety of sizes and types of strain gauge currently produced by
HBM and Vishay Measurement Group are presented in Table 3.
6.2.2 Rosette dimensions
The first factor to be considered in selecting a strain gauge is size.
The size of strain gauge to use is dependent on the following factors:
the size of the available area on the component (proximity of edges, weld features, etc.),
the depth required for the residual stress analysis (larger gauges are more suitable for
determining the stress profile at greater depths whereas smaller gauges are suitable for a
near-surface analysis),
acceptable damage (smaller holes are introduced with the smaller gauges).
The most widely used gauge size is the one with an individual gauge length measuring 1.5
1.57 mm. This size of gauge is capable of providing useful residual stress data to a depth of
approximately 1 mm.
It should be noted that the experimental errors associated with the measurements from small
strain gauges (hole eccentricity, control of depth, etc) are higher than those associated with the
corresponding measurements with larger gauges.
However, the larger strain gauges should be selected with caution because of the size of drills
required and the large amount of material to be removed during the drilling process.

Table 2 - Typical dimensions of type A, B and C rosettes described by standard ASTM E837-08.
6.2.3 Other factors influencing selection
Others factors to be considered in selecting the most suitable strain gauge rosette include:
the time required for installation and wiring,
temperature compensation,
the ease of handling,
availability,
cost.
Encapsulated designs are available complete with soldering tabs. These are particularly
suitable for use in harsh environmental conditions where special protection for the gauge is
required.
Gauge Pattern Designation Manufacturer
ASTM E837
Type
R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

(

)
N
o
m
i
n
a
l

G
a
u
g
e

F
a
c
t
o
r
G
r
i
d

L
e
n
g
h
t

(
m
m
)
G
r
i
d

C
t
r
'
l
i
n
e

D
i
a
.

(
m
m
)
M
i
n
.

d
i
a
.

h
o
l
e

-

d
m
i
n

(
m
m
)
M
a
x
.

d
i
a
.

h
o
l
e

-

d
m
i
n

(
m
m
)
C
a
r
r
i
e
r

L
e
n
g
h
t

(
m
m
)
C
a
r
r
i
e
r

W
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)
d
m
i
n
/
D
d
m
a
x
/
D
d
/
D
1-RY61-1,5/120S HBM Type A (CCW) 120 1.94 1.5 5.1 1.5 2.2 10.2 10.2 0.29 0.43
1-RY61-1,5/120K HBM Type B (CCW) 120 1.93 1.5 5.1 1.5 2.2 10.2 5.2 0.29 0.43
1-RY61-1,5/120R HBM Type B (CCW) 120 1.93 1.5 5.1 1.5 2.2 10.2 5.2 0.29 0.43
K-RY61-1,5/120R
(with pre-attached
leads)
HBM Type B (CCW) 120 1.93 1.5 5.1 1.5 2.2 10.2 5.2 0.29 0.43
1-VY61-1,5/120S HBM 120 1.93 1.5 5.1 1.5 2.2 10.2 5.2 0.29 0.43
N2K-XX-030 RR
Vishay -
Measurement
Group
Type C (CW) 350 0.75 4.32 2.3 2.6 9.4 9.4 0.53
EA-XX-031 RE
Vishay -
Measurement
Group
Type A (CW) 120 2.01 0.75 2.56 0.8 1 7.4 7.4 0.31
EA-XX-062 RE
Vishay -
Measurement
Group
Type A (CW) 120 2.08 1.57 5.13 1.5 2 10.7 10.7 0.29
CEA-XX-062 UL
Vishay -
Measurement
Group
Type A (CW) 120 2.05 1.57 5.13 1.5 2 12.7 11.7 0.29
CEA-XX-062 UM
Vishay -
Measurement
Group
Type B (CW) 120 2.05 1.57 5.13 1.5 2 10.7 10.7 0.29
EA-XX-125 RE
Vishay -
Measurement
Group
Type A (CW) 120 2.05 3.18 10.26 3 4.1 19.8 19.8 0.29

Table 3 - Rosettes produced by HBM and Vishay Measurement Group.
Open-faced strain gauges are more suitable for installation on irregular surfaces where the
stiffness of encapsulating layers precludes conforming the gauge to the workpiece surface.
Configurations with pre-attached leads considerably facilitate installation work avoiding
soldering on the strain gauge solder tabs and reduce strain gauge installation time and errors.
6.3 Surface preparation and installation
Installation of the strain gauge rosette should be carried out by qualified personnel in
accordance with the strain gauge and adhesive manufacturers instructions. [4].
The instructions provided by the UNI 10478 standards [5-9] should be followed for correct
installation of strain gauges.
Surface-preparation and gauge-installation procedures must be of the highest quality as they
have a direct influence on the accuracy of the strain measurements.
As a rule, it is also useful to refer to material manufacturers instructions for surface-preparation
and gauge-installation procedures.
6.3.1 Surface preparation
To ensure a high-quality bond between the strain gauge and the component, the surface must
be properly prepared.
This is particularly important when using the incremental hole-drilling technique as the strains
measured are generally very small (typically only several m/m in the first depth increments).
The purpose of surface preparation is to develop a surface texture suitable for bonding without
altering the state of the surface stresses.
Nevertheless, any oxides, rust or paint should always be removed.
The UNI 10478-3 standard suggests a surface roughness (Ra) in the 2.0 4.0 m range for
gauge bonding with a cyanoacrylate-based adhesive [6].
However, it is recommended that mechanical abrading be avoided as much as possible if the
incremental hole-drilling method is to be used for determining near-surface stresses [10-11]
Surface abrasion influences only the range of depth nearest the surface and the importance of it
depends on the residual stress gradients and the measurement requirements.
It should be noted that extremely rough surfaces must be avoided due to ambiguity in
establishing the zero depth for incremental hole-drilling [12].
ASTM E837-08 also recommends restricting surface preparation to those methods that have
been demonstrated to induce no significant residual stresses (particularly for workpieces that
contain sharp near-surface stress gradients).
6.3.2 Choice of adhesive.
The simplest, quickest and most common method of bonding the strain gauge to the specimen
is to use a conventional cyanoacrylate adhesive.
These adhesives consist of a single component with a short cure time (1-2 minutes), and are
realtively easy to use.
If the surface of the component is particularly rough, it is important that the chosen adhesive fills
the asperities and irregularities to achieve a good bond. In such cases, a more viscous, two-
component epoxy adhesive may be more suitable.
6.4 Strain-measurement instrumentation
It is important that the instrumentation chosen for strain measurement is calibrated and suitable
to be used for this application.
ASTM E837-08 stipulates that the instrumentation for recording of strains should have a strain
resolution of 1 m/m and that stability and repeatability should also be 1 m/m.
Generally, most modern strain-measurement instrumentation has the required resolution and
stability for measuring the small strains in incremental hole drilling.
However, the following minimum requirements are believed to be advisable for incremental
hole-drilling applications: strain resolution of 0.25 m/m, stability 0.5 m/m, repeatability 0.5
m/m.
With the more conventional rosettes (types A and B) a three-wire quarter bridge circuit should
be used (self-temperature-compensating for as far as regards apparent thermal strain of the
leads) with conveniently short leadwires.
Half-bridge circuits should be used with type C rosettes.
A particularly high acquisition frequency is not necessary for these measurements.
It is advised that the average of the values measured (recommended value between 10 and 50
acquisitions) be made for every measurement interval.
ASTM E837-08 recommends checking the integrity of the gauge installation by applying a small
load to induce strains and evaluating the mechanical hysteresis of the strain gauges forming the
rosette. The standard also recommends visual inspection of the rosette installation.
For the strain gauge installation, however, it is advisable to refer to the preliminary checks
specified by the standard UNI 10478-3 [7].
6.5 Alignment.
Eccentricity between the hole and gauge centre can introduce significant errors into the
measurement of residual stresses.
Alignment between these centres is normally achieved with the aid of a microscope
incorporating a reticle in the focus of the objective, the centre of which should coincide with the
centre of the endmill for drilling the hole.
After installation of the strain gauge rosette, the mechanical part of the measurement system is
moved close to the point where the measurement is to be made, and is positioned so that the
strain gauge centering marks are within the field of view of the microscope. Two adjustments
set at 90to each other are used for centering until the microscope reticle coincides with the
strain gauge centering marks.
A typical alignment and air turbine drilling system is shown in Figure 6. In this setup, the
microscope is incorporated in the measurement system and is not taken off during
measurements: all that is necessary is a rotation of the drilling head as it is aligned with the
microscope (Figure 7).
The drilling tool is fitted in front of the microscope after the alignment procedure. In other
measurement systems the microscope is replaced with the drilling tool after alignment.
This reduces (but does not eliminate) eccentricity as alignment of the reticle does not allow the
uncertainty in positioning the tool holder (in the region of a few microns) to be taken into
account.
ASTM E837-08 states that the centre of the drilled hole should be aligned concentric with the
strain gauge circle to within 0.004 D.


1 - Stepping motor for fine positioning
2 - Knob for slow manual feed
3 - Eyepiece
4 - Turbine release pushbutton
5 - Compressed air connection
6 - Air turbine
7 - Chuck
8 - Endmill

9 - Knob for fast vertical movement
10 - Rear cap for closing the turbine
11 - Threaded dowels for microscope alignment
12 - Support feet
13 - Microscope
14 - Knob for horizontal movement
15 - Eyepiece reticle
16 - Vertical height adjustment
Figure 6 - Hole drilling apparatus with a high speed air turbine (MTS 3000 - SINT Technology)

15
1
12
2
16
14
9
5
8
7
6
10
13
11
4
3

Figure 7 Hole drilling device: on the left alignment, on the right rotation of the drilling head.
The standard recommends using an optical system to align the axis of rotation of the cutter in
relation to the centre of the strain gauge rosette. In other cases it is necessary to align the
apparatus using a microscope, then remove the microscope and fit the air turbine hole-drilling
system. Section 7.5 deals with the influence of eccentricity and methodologies for correcting the
effect of eccentricity.
6.6 Perpendicularity
It is essential that the cutter is positioned perpendicular to the surface of the component to be
analysed.

Figure 8 - Checking the vertical perpendicularity of the hole-drilling tool.
For example, if a 2 mm. diameter hole is to be made using a rosette with strain gauges with 1.5
1.57 mm long grids, a 1angle off the perpendicular will lead to a difference in depth of 17 m
between the outer edge and the centre of the cutter.
This corresponds to a substantial error in depth in the typical increments that are used in
incremental measurements: its effect will depend on the orientation between the angle axis and
the rosette configuration [12].
It is important that the drilling system be checked before any test to avoid any errors caused by
the drill not being perpendicular: this is not always easy, particularly for in-situ measurements.
It is therefore important that the drilling system incorporates a means of adjusting
perpendicularity to ensure that the cutter is correctly positioned. Apparatuses usually have three
magnetic feet that can be used for regulating perpendicularity.
This operation can be checked with precision squares and levels (Figure 8).
It is recommended that a margin of at least 0.30 mm be maintained between the hole and the
strain gauge grid endloops to protect the grids.
The need for this margin limits the maximum allowable diameter of the drilled hole D
0
.
The recommended minimum hole diameter is 60% of the maximum allowable diameter.
Table 4 indicates the maximum and minimum diameters recommended for standardized, type
A, B, and C rosettes.

Table 4 - Maximum and minimum workpiece thicknesses and hole diameters, and drilling depths
recommended by standard ASTM E837-08.
As indicated in Section 7.1.4, it is important to note that as the ratio of D
0
/D increases, the
sensitivity of the method increases in approximate proportion to (D
0
/D)
2
.
Consequently, larger holes are recommended to achieve higher sensitivity.
Drilling diameters between 1.6 and 2.0 mm are normally used for rosettes with grids from 1.5
1.57 mm long.
If orbital drilling is used, the hole diamter is significantly larger than the drill diameter.
6.7 Effects of the fillet radius at the bottom of the hole.
The drilling techniques that can be used with the hole-drilling method for determining residual
stresses generally produce a blind hole with a significant fillet radius at the bottom of the hole.
For example, if the high-speed drilling technique is used, the hole-bottom fillet radius varies
between 4% and 20% of the hole diameter D
0
; whereas with electrical-discharge machining
(EDM) or abrasive jet machining techniques the fillet radius can reach values greater than 30%.
Figure 9 shows the section and hole-bottom radius of three holes made with different hole-
drilling techniques and endmills.

Figure 9 - Hole sections: on the left and in the centre a hole made by high speed drilling with inverted-
cone tungsten carbide cutters, on the right a hole made by EDM.
The hole-bottom fillet radius has an effect on residual stress values measured by the hole-
drilling method. It is possible to study the effect with 2-D and 3-D BEM models (Boundary
Element Method, Beasy code) (Figure 10).

r
D
0
/2
D/2
ER
z
r
D
0
/2
D/2
ER
z

Figure 10 - 2D (left) and 3-D (right) BEM models for studying the effects of the hole-bottom fillet radius.
The study by M. Scafidi and B. Zuccarello [14] has shown that the hole-bottom fillet radius
ranges from 0.04 D
0
to 0.10 D
0
using inverted-cone tungsten carbide cutters and is in the region
of 0.30 D
0
with EDM techniques.
The effect of the hole-bottom fillet radius on relaxed strains was evaluated by numerical
simulations performed with the BEM models shown in Figure 10: it must be taken into due
account particularly in the initial drilling steps.
The effect increases as the hole-bottom fillet radius increases and decreases with hole depth.
The hole-bottom fillet radius can significantly influence the test specified by ASTM E837-08 for
evaluating the uniformity of stresses.
For example, considering an equi-biaxial stress field, it is found that:
a hole-bottom fillet radius equal to r=0.10 D
0
leads to a maximum deviation in relaxed
strains of 5%,
a hole-bottom fillet radius equal to r=0.30 D
0
leads to a deviation in relaxed strains greater
than 20%.
In both cases the bottom-hole fillet radius influences the stress uniformity test and therefore
stress measurement by the ASTM E837-08 method: these deviations can actually influence
determination of the stress field since uniformity of the field is guaranteed if the deviations in
strain between the measured value and the theoretical value are lower than 3% according to
the standard.
r
r
6.8 Hole spacing
The presence of a hole in the vicinity of a new hole alters the residual stresses present in the
material as the first hole-drilling process produces a relaxation of the residual stresses which
extends a certain area around the hole. The extension of the relaxed area depends on the type
and diameter of the hole.
It is recommended that the minimum spacing between holes should be equivalent to at least six
times the hole diameter. When possible, strain gauge grids should be installed well removed
from adjacent holes, and not between adjacent holes. [15,16].
6.9 Distance from geometric discontinuities
ASTM E837-08 introduced a number of considerations relating to the minimum distance
necessary between the centre of a hole and the closest geometric discontinuity.
A geometric discontinuity means an abrupt geometric change or an abrupt change in the
thickness of a component: these geometric discontinuities can locally influence the value of
residual stresses present in a component.
The minimum distance from the nearest discontinuity depends on the diameter and type of
strain gauge used. If type A strain gauge rosettes are used, the distance between the hole
centre and the discontinuity must be at least 1.5 D; this is reduced to 0.5 D using a type B
rosette and positioning the grids diametrically opposed to the discontinuity.
6.10 Zero depth detection
Accurate detection of zero depth, ie, the point at which the drill is in initial contact with the
surface of the component, is particularly important in measuring residual stress variation with
depth (using the incremental hole-drilling technique).
Before actually drilling into the material, the drill should be lowered so that it cuts through the
backing film on the strain gauge without touching the surface below.
Zero depth is the point at which drilling and acquisition of the strain measurements start after
cutting through the backing film.
Exact identification of the zero point may be affected by the following causes of uncertainty:
surface roughness causing uncertainty in identifying a single zero depth;
any error in drill alignment (off perpendicular) leading to initial contact on one side of the
hole;
a concave profile at the end mill cutting edge resulting in an initial ring contact around the
end mill circumference rather than over the whole end face;
axial clearance in drill motor bearings (in particular those of air turbines) may cause some
ambiguity in the absolute position of the end mill cutting edge;
uncertainty relating to actual removal of strain gauge backing and encapsulation material.
These causes of uncertainty can affect the accuracy of stress measurements at initial depth
increments and cannot be identified or corrected by examination of the strain data.
The techniques presented in sections 6.10.1 and 6.10.2 can be applied to determine the instant
when the strain gauge backing is broken.
6.10.1 Electrical contact detection
Considering the zero point to be the point when the strain gauge backing is removed, it is
possible to use the electrical contact technique.
This technique can be applied when analysing conductive materials and providing the air
turbine conducts electricity [17]. Figure 11 shows zero depth detection by the electrical contact
technique.

Figure 11 - Identifying the zero cutter depth by an electrical connection.
The advantages of this method are the simplicity in determining the initial contact, the short time
required (a few seconds), the low cost (no auxiliary equipment is needed except for an electrical
lead) and automation of the method (managed by the electronic control system and
measurement instrumentation software) [18,19,20]
The measurement system shown in Figure 11 has an automatic procedure for determining the
initial drilling point, removing the strain gauge backing and positioning the end mill cutter in
contact with the workpiece metal surface.
6.10.2 Oblique observation of drilling
The technique consists in carrying out oblique observation of the drilling process through a mini
video camera, magnifying eyeglass or a microscope. The device should be held close to the
hole location and cold light reflected from the strain gauge backing makes it possible to detect
the thinning and subsequent elimination of the strain gauge backing. A cold light source does not
generate significant heat, whereas use of conventional inspection lamps may introduce undesired
thermal strains [12].
This technique for determining the zero position provides a less accurate detection of zero
depth than the electrical contact method. It may be applied to all types of materials and not just
materials which carry electricity.
Oblique observation has the advantage of observing the drilling area in detail and consequently
the errors due to bad perpendicular alignment between the endmill and workpiece can be
minimized [12].
6.11 Hole-producing techniques
The two key factors to be considered in selecting the hole-producing technique are the
following:
introduction of additional residual stresses during the machining process;
the ability of the technique to produce geometrically well-defined holes. In fact, calculation of
residual stresses with one of the techniques available requires a cylindrical hole with a flat
bottom.
M.T.Flaman and J.A.Herring [21] studied four different techniques which were compared
quantitatively on the basis of induced stresses and hole geometry and qualitatively in terms of
portability and ease of use.
In addition, a fifth drilling technique, the orbital hole-drilling technique, was introduced and later
studied by the aforementioned M.T.Flaman [22].
The main techniques are:
high-speed drilling,
low-speed drilling,
abrasive jet machining,
electro-chemical machining,
high-speed orbital drilling.
A diagram is provided in Figure 12 showing the geometric characteristics of the holes that can
be made by the four techniques studied by M.T.Flaman.

Figure 12 - Types of holes that can be produced with the techniques studied by Flaman:
A High-speed drilling; B Conventional low-speed drilling; C Abrasive jet machining; D
Electro-chemical machining.

Figure 13 - High speed drilling technique
These methods for residual stress measurement are described and analysed in detail in the
following sections.
6.11.1 High-speed drilling
High-speed drilling was first used by M.TFlaman [21] employing an air turbine drilling system
rotating at speeds of up to 400,000 rpm (Figure 13). The typical cutting tool is an inverted-cone
tungsten carbide cutter, which produces a circular hole with straight sides and a flat bottom.
High-speed drilling is considered suitable for most materials as it does not introduce significant
machining stresses due also to the modest torque applied to the tool during the drilling process.
6.11.2 Medium-speed drilling
The incremental hole drilling method can also be applied using a high speed electric motor
(approx. 30000 RPM). Recent research shows that even lower speeds (14,000 40,000 rpm)
can produce reasonable results. [23].
An electric motor system is an alternative when a compressed air supply for a high speed
turbine is not available and with an automatic drilling system a high speed electric motor can be
operated automatically.
The electric motor drilling system can be housed in a special drilling head (Figure 14) and the
centering and measurement of the hole diameter can be done by changing the drilling
instrument holder with a microscope with a centering reticle.
The drill shank has a diameter of 2.35 or 3.0 mm. and the cutter diameter can be 1.6 to 1.8 mm
or approx. 3 mm depending on the rosette diameter.

Figure 14 - Medium-speed drilling technique.
6.11.3 Low-speed drilling
The low-speed drilling was the first technique used for measuring residual stress by the hole-
drilling method. Rendler and Vigness [24] introduced the low-speed drilling technique in 1966
with specially developed endmills. The technique produces holes that are geometrically suitable
for determining residual stresses by the hole-drilling method.
However, the results of Flamans comparison of hole-producing techniques [21] showed that the
low-speed milling technique induces high stresses and therefore must be considered unsuitable
for the hole-drilling method.
6.11.4 Abrasive jet machining
Hole machining by the abrasive jet technique, proposed and developed by Beaney and Proctor,
is achieved by directing a small diameter jet of cutting powder at high pressure at the surface of
the workpiece. The jet of air and powder removes material and quickly produces a hole.
Abrasive jet machining produces a fairly irregular hole shape that is little suited to the hole-drilling
method (type C in Figure 12): in fact, it allows little control of the hole diameter and shape.
In addition, abrasive jet machining cannot be used for determining non-uniform residual
stresses as it does not allow sufficient control of hole depth and diameter. It is not
recommended for the less hard materials. [12]
6.11.5 Electro-chemical machining
Electro-chemical hole-producing techniques refer to electrical discharge machining (EDM) and
electro-chemical machining (ECM).
The hole shape they produce is acceptable for the hole-drilling method of measuring residual
stress although convexities are formed on the bottom of the hole, as can be seen for type D in
Figure 12, which can influence the measured value of residual stress.
Use of these hole machining processes is limited to electrically conductive materials: the
presence of high electric discharges that generate stresses on the surface layers of the material
plus the presence of chemical agents can cause problems for protection of the strain gauge
grids. These factors have prevented development and diffusion of these techniques in
producing holes for the measurement of residual stresses. [12]
6.11.6 High-speed orbital drilling
Another technique available for measurement of residual stresses by the hole-drilling method is
high-speed orbital drilling. It was first introduced by Flaman [22].
With this technique, the drill is deliberately offset from the centre of the strain gauge and the
hole is drilled with an orbital motion. The diameter of the cutting tool is smaller than the diameter
of the hole (figures 15 and 16).

Figure 15 - High-speed orbital hole-drilling

Figure 16 - High-speed orbital hole-drilling
technique. Detail of the cutting tool

The orbital drilling technique is an effective method for drilling hard, highly abrasive materials
such as spring and bearing steels and cast aluminium alloys with a silicon content greater than
6% (for example AlSi9Cu3 and AlSi7Mg).
With the orbital drilling technique the removal and extraction of chips is facilitated and more
efficient. A further advantage are greater drilling diameters.
6.12 Drilling cutters
For high-speed drilling the recommended drill for most materials is the inverted-cone tungsten
carbide type. An inverted-cone polycrystalline diamond coated cutter can be used for harder
materials.
The inverted-cone cutting tools that may be used for high-speed drilling with an air turbine are
illustrated in Figure 17.

Figure 17 - Cutters used for high-speed drilling
(on the left a tungsten carbide (TC) endmill, in the centre a TiAlN-coated tungsten carbide (TTC) endmill,
on the right a diamond-coated (D) cutting tool)
Milling cutters are available in a range of diameters (from 0.6 to 2.2 mm) and with 1.6 mm
shanks (for an air turbine) or 2.3 mm shanks (for coupling to an electric motor). The end face
cutting edge must be flat or slightly concave; the side relief of the inverted cone gives clearance
for chip removal without affecting the cutting surface.
To avoid ambiguities in hole diameter identification, ASTM E837-08 prescribes that the radial
clearance angles of the cutting edges should not exceed 1(to avoid ambiguities in hole depth
identification by ensuring that the depth is uniform within at least 1% of the tool diameter) and
that the taper angle should not exceed 5 (to allow the diameter of the drilled hole to be
identified with certainty).
The cutting edge outer angle should be as sharp as possible. Excessive blunting or too high a
radius can produce unacceptable errors (see 6.8)
Milling cutters should be visually inspected (for example, with a magnifying lens) prior to use
and on completion of the drilling of a hole. It is advisable to change the cutter for every hole-
drilling operation.
Figure 18 shows the HV10 hardness ranges of metal materials for which tungsten carbide and
diamond-coated cutters are used.

Figure 18 - Hardness ranges for which the three types of cutters are recommended
As can be noted, uncoated tungsten carbide cutters can be used on materials with a hardness
ranging between 100 and 200 HV10. Tungsten carbide cutters with TiAlN coating can be used
with materials with hardnesses up to 550 HV10.
Inverted-cone diamond-coated cutters (type D in Figure 17) are recommended for extremely
hard materials (cemented and nitrided steels, ceramics, glass, etc.).
Diamond-coated cutters do not cut a hole with a sharp angle; the small radius represents a
departure from the ideal case for which coefficients were evaluated, therefore the residual
stress data from near-surface increments should be treated with caution as they are affected by
greater uncertainty.
6.13 Verification of the drilling process
Verification of the selected drilling technique is recommended, when no prior experience is
available, in order to prevent any residual stresses induced by the drilling method from
significantly influencing the accuracy of the results.
Verification could consist in applying a strain gauge rosette identical to the rosette used in the
test method on a stress-free specimen of the same material, and then drilling a hole. If the
drilling method is satisfactory, the stresses produced by the drilling will be small.
According to standard ASTM E837-08 the drilling method is acceptable if the measured strains
are within 8 m/m. If necessary (or if the strains induced by the drilling process exceed 8
m/m), it is possible to use coolants during the drilling process. The coolant used must be
electrically non-conductive (water-based coolants are not suitable).
The most common method for obtaining stress-free specimens consists of annealing heat
treatment.
6.14 Selection of drill depth increments
It is recommended that the measurement system for the incremental hole-drilling techique have
the possibility of selecting the number and position of the depth increments to be drilled.
It may be useful to increase the number of increments in the area near the workpiece surface
and to reduce depth increments further from the surface.
Modern automatic measurement systems make it possible to drill in increments even smaller
than 0.01 mm [17].
6.15 Measurement of strain
After the zero point corresponding to the workpiece surface is identified, strain at the set drilling
depth increments is measured by each strain gauge in a rosette.
6.15.1 Effect of the turbine air supply temperature
It is important that an air turbine drilling system have a side air exhaust to minimize the effects
of any difference between the air temperature and the temperature of the workpiece.
Should the exhaust not be in a lateral position, before beginning drilling the drill (if the air turbine
type) should be made to run for a period of time and then stopped while monitoring the strain
gauge outputs.
If any effect of the turbine exhaust on the strain gauge measurements is noted, it may be
necessary to allow time for the strain gauge readings to stabilize.
6.15.2 Heat generated during the drilling process
Heat is generated during the drilling process and this causes localized heating of the strain
gauge area.
It is therefore necessary to wait for undesired thermal strains to gradually reduce and for gauge
output to stabilize. This is particularly important for materials with poor thermal conductivity.
The delay time before acquisition of strain measurements depends on the material, the shape of
the workpiece, and the ambient temperature.
Standard ASTM E837-08 prescribes waiting at least 5 seconds between the end of drilling and
reading strain gauge output to allow the surface to cool. The cutter need not be retracted.
In practice, the signal stabilization time depends on the thermal conductivity and thickness of
the material. In metal materials stabilization occurs in 3 to 10 seconds.
6.16 Measurement of hole dimensions and eccentricity.
After completion of the hole-drilling process it is necessary to measure all the geometric
characteristics of the drilled hole.

Figure 19 - Measurement of hole diameter and eccentricity
The diameter and eccentricity are measured starting with measurement of four radiuses of the
hole in two directions perpendicular to each other.
An optical microscope incorporating a graticule may be of aid for obtaining an enlarged image of
the drilled hole boundary, utilizing visible light.
The overall hole shape should be analysed to check for any irregularities. It is usual for the
cutting edge of the gauge backing material to be irregular.
Displacement is measured at these four positions with two dial indicators (if possible with
graduations of 0.001 mm) (Figure 19).
The four displacement measurements (X
1
,X
2
,Y
1
,Y
2
) are then used to calculate the measurement
of the hole diameter (average value in the two directions) and eccentricity as indicated
herebelow (Figure 20)
Indeed, the hole diameter in the two orthogonal directions (X and Y) and the average diameter
have the following definitions:
) (
2 1
X X D
X
+ =
( 1 )
) (
2 1
Y Y D
Y
+ =
( 2 )
2
) (
, 0
Y X
M
D D
D
+
=
( 3 )

Figure 20 - Off-centre hole, parameters necessary for calculating hole-rosette eccentricity

while hole eccentricity and orientation are:
2
) (
2 1
X X
e
X
=
( 4 )
2
) (
2 1
Y Y
e
Y
=
( 5 )
2 2
Y X
e e e + =
( 6 )
and the eccentric angle is expressed as:
|
\
|
|
|
\
|
=
180
arctan
X
Y
e
e
( 7 )
6.17 Final hole depth measurement check
After removing the strain gauge, the final hole depth can be measured using a conventional
depth gauge. A depth measuring instrument like the one shown in Figure 21 can be used.

Figure 21 - Instrument for measuring hole depth
Any difference from the expected hole depth (recorded during drilling by the micrometer gauge
of the drilling apparatus) should be taken into consideration.
Cutter wear, the grip between the tool holder and cutter shank, and inadequate stiffness
between the component and the drilling apparatus can all contribute to hole depth errors.
6.18 Practical example of application
Automatic residual stress measurement systems are generally used having the advantage of
enabling numerous depth increments to be drilled with adequate accuracy.
Briefly summarized, the measurement procedure involves the following steps:
installation of the strain gauge rosette and wiring of the gauge grids,
connection to the strain recording instrumentation,
positioning of the measurement system,
centring of the drilling tool over the centre of the rosette (aligned with the microscope),
manual advancement of the cutter to the surface of the workpiece using the fast vertical
advance,
set-up of the test parameters. For example:
o Hole depth: 2.0 mm,
o Number of drilling increments: 40,
o Hole drilling curve: linear.
An automatic procedure makes it possible to:
start the high-speed turbine by acting on the air supply system,
determine the initial drilling point (identification of the zero reference surface) by an
electrical contact that is made with removal of the strain gauge backing film and bringing
the endmill into contact with the metal surface,
zero-balance the strain gauge circuits by a command to the strain recording system.
The automatic system drills the hole automatically in the set depth increments.
On completion of each depth increment and the time interval, the system records the three
strain gauge readings.
Hole-drilling procedure example:
tool: 1.6 mm. diameter, inverted cone, surface-treated, tungsten carbide endmill,
speed of rotation (typical): from 350,000 to 400,000 rpm,
feed rate: 0.2mm/min,
depth increment: 0.05 mm,
delay time: 5 seconds.
Typical results are presented in section 8 (Residual stress analysis software features)
7 Residual stress analysis techniques
The following analysis techniques are presented in this section:
methods proposed by standard ASTM E837-08 (uniform and non-uniform stresses),
other methods for analysing non-uniform stresses within the hole depth.
Treatment of uniform stresses substantially follows the recommendations of ASTM E837-08,
making the following distinctions:
thin workpiece,
thick workpiece,
workpiece with a thickness between 0.4 D and 1.2 D (0.48 D and 1.44 D for type C
rosettes).
With respect to the prescriptions of ASTM E837-08, in addition to considering the case of
rosettes which are not necessarily the types A, B or C contemplated by the standard, the
procedures are provided here for plasticity correction and hole-rosette eccentricity correction.
Although a uniform stress profile is rare in reality, it is useful for study purposes and for
evaluating uncertainties in the measurement procedure.
Other methods are also proposed for analysis of non-uniform stresses, for example, the integral
method [2, 25, 26], the Schwarz Kochelmann method [27] and lastly the HDM method [28, 29,
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35].
The methods are made more generally suitable considering:
the possibility of varying both the depth between two successive drilling increments and the
number of measured acquisition points (Integral, Schwarz-Kochelmann, HDM),
the possibility of having an eccentric hole, a centred hole being a particular case (HDM),
the use of improved influence functions using a more accurate database and a better
representation of influence functions versus Poissons ratio (HDM),
the possibility of describing the state of stress with various functions (HDM).
Feature
plate of
Intermediate
Thickness
thick plate
Drilling spacing and
depths
No No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Optimization of
calculation steps
No No No No No No No Yes
Type of rosettes Yes (*) Yes (*) Yes (*) Yes (*) Yes (*) Yes (*)
HBM rosette
only
Yes
Eccentricity Correction
Yes
(Ajovalasit [38])
Yes (**)
(Ajovalasit
[38])
Yes (**)
(Ajovalasit
[38])
No
Yes
(HDM)
Yes
(HDM)
No Yes
Plasticity Correction
Yes (***)
(Beghini-Bertini
[3,47])
Yes (***)
(Beghini-
Bertini [3,47])
Yes (***)
(Beghini-
Bertini [3,47])
No No No No No
ASTM E837-
08
ASTM E837-
08 Mod.
Integral Through-hole
Blind hole in a
Stress State / Methods of calculation
(*) Any type of rosette can be used: however, the new coefficients need to be calculated.
(**) In the case of blind hole, the correction is indicative.
(***) The accuracy of the correction depends on the stress state and on the type of rosette used in the test.
Uniform stresses Non-uniform stresses
Schwarz -
Kochelmann
HDM

Table 5 - Residual stress calculation methods: principal features.
Table 5 summarizes the techniques and major features of the residual stress analysis methods.
The main corrections that can be applied to the results are also indicated.
7.1 Standard ASTM E837-08: general
The ASTM E837-08 standard is the procedure that can be used for measuring residual stresses
in homogeneous isotropic linear-elastic materials. Application of this test method is limited to
low levels of eccentricity.
The standard allows residual stresses to be calculated directly when using the rosettes
specified in the standard (A, B and C). Nevertheless, it is possible to extend the standard by re-
calculating the coefficients for other rosettes.
The standard provides accurate results if:
the equi-biaxial component of the residual stresses is less than 50% of the yield stress,
shear stresses in any direction are less than 25% of the yield stress.
However, in practice satisfactory results are achieved providing the residual stresses do not
exceed 60% of the material yield stress.
7.1.1 Strain gauge rosettes
Figure 4 shows the geometry of the strain gauge rosette and the preferred numbering for the
direction of the principal stresses.
The centres of the three radially oriented gauges are D/2 from the gauge target and the centre
of the hole.
Although, in theory, the angles between the strain gauges can be chosen arbitrarily, the majority
of commercially available rosettes are rectangular with gauges oriented at 0/45/90. The types
of strain gauge rosette standardized by ASTM E837-08 are presented in Table 2.
In the ASTM type A rosette design (gauges in two quadrants, ie, at 0/225/90), gauge 2 (or b)
has been transposed to be diametrically opposite its original position to give more sampling
about the hole position and a larger grid size.
The type B rosette has all three gauges in a single quadrant, ie, at 0/45/90, to allow the
gauge to be used closer to obstructions such as corners or welds.
The ASTM type C rosette has a circular configuration and is formed of six diametrically opposed
circumferential and radial grids. Compared to the other rosettes, this design provides greater
sensitivity and accuracy.
7.1.2 Strain relief in proximity to the hole
Considering the state of uniform stress in proximity to the hole, schematically illustrated in
Figure 2 surface strain relief is tied to residual stresses , ,
x y xy
by the following relationship:
( 8 )

The two calibration constants a and b are dimensionless, almost independent of the
properties of the material, and vary with hole depth, as indicated in Table 2.
In the case of a through-hole in a thin workpiece, a is independent of the Poissons ratio.
Whereas, considering the case of non-uniform stresses within depth, the surface strain relief
associated with the hole depth step j ( j k 1 ) is tied to the relieved principal stresses by the
following relationship:
( ) ( )

2 sin
1
2 cos
2
1
2
1
+
+
+

+
=
xy
y x y x
r
b
E
b
E
a
E
( ) ( )

2 sin ) (
1
2 cos
2
1
2
1
1 1 1
k xy
j
k
jk
k
j
k
y x
jk
k
j
k
y x
jk j
b
E
b
E
a
E

= = =
+
|
|
\
|
+
|
|
\
| +
+
=

( 9 )
The two calibration constants
jk
a and
jk
b indicate the strains relieved by the drilling process at
the depth associated with hole step j.
7.1.3 Numerical values of a

and b
Table 6 shows the numerical values of a and b for a blind hole and through hole, for the type
A, B and C rosettes specified by the ASTM E837-08 standard.
Table 2 indicates the dimensions provided in standard ASTM E837-08 for type A, B and C
rosettes.
Finally, Table 4 gives the hole diameters and depth steps recommended for each rosette.

Table 6 - Numerical values of coefficients a and b provided by standard ASTM E837-08 for type A, B
and C rosettes for uniform stress evaluations with through holes and blind holes.
7.1.4 Sensitivity of the method
The strain relieved by hole-drilling is a fraction of the maximum relievable strain.
For a uniaxial tensile stress field (
2
/
1
=
x
/
y
= 0) relieved strain in direction =0 is obtained on
the basis of
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1 1

+
+
= +
+
= b
E
a
E
b
E
a
E
x x
r
( 10 )
Whereas the maximum relievable strain is:
E
1
=

0
( 11 )
Assuming as the sensitivity merit index the equation:
0
r
S =
( 12 )
it follows that:
0 0
2
1
2
1
B A
E
b
E
a
E
S + =
|
\
|
+
+
=
( 13 )
where the values of A
0
and B
0
are to be found in literature [37] ]:
( )
( )( )
( )
2 1
1 2
2
0
0
2
1
\
|
+ =
R R G
D
A
W
( 14 )
( )
( )( )
( )
+
|
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
\
|
+ +
+
\
|
+ =
1 1
2
1
0
2 1 2 1
1 2
2
0
0
2 cos 2 sin
2
2 sin 2 2 sin 2
1
1
4
2
2
1
R
D
R R G
D
B
W
(
(
(
(
(
(
|
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
\
|
+
2 2
2
2
0
2 cos 2 sin
2

R
D
( 15 )
where:
1
1
2
arctan
R
d
= ( 16 )
2
2
2
arctan
R
d
= ( 17 )
To increase strain relieving efficiency it is necessary to [37] ]:
adopt high values for (D
0
/2)/R
1
, that is, drill holes with the biggest diameter possible,
compatibly with the need to avoid parasitic effects on the inner edge of the strain gauge
(paragraph 6.7),
use rosettes with a short gauge length (low R
2
/R
1
values),
use rosettes with reduced grid width (low GW/R
1
values),
have the usual S values around 0.3.
Special rosettes are also available (ASTM Type C) with six grids, three of which are radial and
three circumferential, which are wired in a half-bridge configuration (using a radial grid and the
diametrically opposed circumferential grid).
This achieves a sensitivity equal to 2.3 times the sensitivity of the corresponding ASTM
standard Type A or B.

7.2 Standard ASTM E837-08: calculation of residual stresses
7.2.1 Thin workpiece
For a thin workpiece or a through hole (thicknesss 0.4 D plane stress state conditions) the
stresses are considered uniform in the depth direction and only a single reading of strains
1
,
2

and
3
is required.
The following quantities can be calculated from the measured strains:
( )
2
3 1
+
= p

( )
2
1 3

= q

( )
2
2
2 1 3
+
= t
( 18 )
where p is the hydrostatic strain component and q and t are the shear strain components.
The stress components P, Q and T are calculated from p, q and t with the following equations:
) 1 ( 2
P
y

+
=
+
=
a
Ep
x

b
Eq
y
=
=
2
Q
x

b
Et
xy
= = T
( 19 )
Finally, the principal stresses are calculated using:
2 2
, T Q P
MIN MAX
+ = ( 20 )
The angle , which the maximum principal stress
max
forms with the direction of strain gauge 1,
(measured clockwise for the CW rosettes and counterclockwise for CCW rosettes), is calculated
with the following equation:
|
|
\
|
=
Q
T
arctan
2
1
( 21 )
The direction of the angle is defined by Table 7, dependent on signs T and Q.

Q>0 Q=0 Q<0
T<0
45< <90 45 0< <45
T=0
90 undefined 0
T>0
-90< <-45 -45 -45< <0
Table 7 - Convention used for placement of angle (ASTM E837-08).
7.2.2 Thick workpiece
To calculate the values and directions of the principal stresses for a thick workpiece (thickness
1.2 D), it is recommended that eight sets of strain readings
1
,
2
and
3
are measured as the
hole depth is increased in increments of 0.05 D with type A and B rosettes and 0.06 D with type
C rosettes.
The sequence of the relieved strains (eight
1
,
2
and
3
strain values) and the corresponding
hole depths are recorded.
The combination strains p, q and t are calculated for each hole depth from the measured
relieved strains
1
,
2
and
3
using the equations ( 22 ):
( )
2
3 1
+
= p

( )
2
1 3

= q

( )
2
2
2 1 3
+
= t
( 23 )
The procedure continues with:
verification of residual stress field uniformity (section 7.2.3),
calculating the residual stresses (section 7.2.4 and 7.2.5).
7.2.3 Residual stress uniformity test
In the case of a thick workpiece it is necessary to verify that the residual stresses are uniform
within the hole depth.
This involves:
identifying the set of combination strains q or t that contains larger absolute values,
expressing each set of combinations strains (p and the larger of q and t) as a percentage of
their values at the hole depth corresponding to 0.4 D,
plotting these percent strains versus hole depth (D0/D). These graphs should yield data
points very close to the curves shown in Figure 23.
Data points that are separated from the curves in Figure 23 by more than 3% indicate either
substantial stress non-uniformity through the material thickness, or strain measurement errors.

Figure 22 - Graphical test of through-thickness stress uniformity (ASTM E837-08)
In either case, the measured data are not acceptable for the residual stress calculations
described in the ASTM E837-08 standard.
This graphical test is not a sensitive indicator of stress field uniformity. Workpieces with
significantly non-uniform stress fields can yield percentage relieved strain curves substantially
similar to those shown in Figure 22.
The main purpose of the test is to identify grossly non-uniform stress fields and strain
measurement errors. This stress uniformity test may be applied only to thick workpieces.
7.2.4 Calculation of uniform residual stresses
When working with thick workpieces, all eight sets of
1
,
2
,
3
measurements are used for
calculating the magnitude and direction of the principal stresses.
For each of the hole depths corresponding to the eight sets of
1
,
2
,
3
, measurements, the
numerical values of the calibration constants a and b , corresponding to the hole depth and
diameter, and the type of rosette used, are determined using Table 5.
The three combination stresses P, Q and T, corresponding to the three sets of combination
strains p, q and t are calculated using the following formulas:
( )
( )
=
2
1
a
p a
E
P

( )

=
2
b
q b
E Q

( )

=
2
b
t b
E T
( 24 )
where the summation is of the indicated values for the eight hole depths.
Angle is calculated with the formula:
|
|
\
|
=
|
|
\
|
q b
t b
Q
T
arctan
2
1
arctan
2
1
( 25 )
The measurement direction for the angle is determined referring to Table 7, dependent on the
signs of T and Q.
The principal stresses are calculated using:
2 2
min max
, T Q P + =
( 26 )
The basic calculations described above are not to be used for measuring residual stresses in
non-uniform stress fields.
7.2.5 Calculation of non-uniform residual stresses
Should the uniformity test referred to in section 7.2.3 prove negative and stresses be found to
be non-uniform within hole depth, ASTM E837-08 provides a procedure for calculating the
residual stress profile of the workpiece whereby a residual stress value is associated with each
hole depth.
For each hole depth step j, it is possible to calculate:
2
) (
1 3 j
j
p
+
=

2
) (
1 3 j
j
q

=

2
) 2 (
2 1 3 j
j
t
+
=
( 27 )
also estimating the standard error in the combinations strains with the equations:
=
+ + +

+
=
3
1
2
3 2 1 2
) 3 ( 20
) 3 3 (
n
j
j j j j
STD
n
p p p p
p

=
+ + +

+
=
3
1
2
3 2 1 2
) 3 ( 20
) 3 3 (
n
j
j j j j
STD
n
q q q q
q
( 28 )

=
+ + +

+
=
3
1
2
3 2 1 2
) 3 ( 20
) 3 3 (
n
j
j j j j
STD
n
t t t t
t
where the symbol j refers to the serial numbers of the hole depth steps corresponding to the
successive sets of measured strains, and n is the number of sets of strain data at the various
hole depth steps. The summation is carried out over the range
3 1 n j
.
The calibration matrices
jk
a and
jk
b for the three types of rosettes prescribed by the standard
are given in Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10.
The hole-drilling test consists in drilling 20 equal hole depth steps for type A and B rosettes; 25
for type C rosettes.

Table 8 - Coefficients a and bfor type A rosettes for non-uniform residual stress evaluations (ASTM
E837-08).
The tabulated numbers refer to a 1/16 inch (5.13 mm) nominal size rosette: if a 1/32 inch (2.56
mm) rosette is used, all hole and stress depths in the tables should be multiplied by 0.5; if a 1/8
in. (10.26 mm) rosette is used, they should be multiplied by 2. Since the tabulated numbers
refer to a nominal hole diameter of 2 mm, the numbers have to be adjusted once the actual hole
diameter is measured and be multiplied by the following corrective factor: (actual diameter/
nominal diameter)
2
.

Table 9 - Coefficients a and b for type B rosettes for non-uniform residual stress evaluations
(ASTM E837-08).

Table 10 - Coefficients a and b for type C rosettes for non-uniform residual stress evaluations (ASTM
E837-08).
The depth increments should be 0.025 mm for 2.56 mm diameter rosettes; 0.05 mm for 5.13
mm diameter rosettes and, finally, 0.10 mm for 10.26 mm diameter rosettes.
The residual stresses are calculated for each hole depth step j by solving the following matrix
equations:
p
E
P a
r
r
+
=
1

q E Q b
r
r
=

t E T b
r
r
=
( 29 )
in which:
2
] ) ( ) [(
k x k y
k
P
+
=

2
] ) ( ) [(
k x k y
k
Q

=

k xy k
T ) ( =
( 30 )
When a large number of hole depth steps are used, the matrices a and bare numerically ill-
conditioned: small errors in the input data lead to large errors in output.
The results are filtered by Tikhonov regularization to reduce this effect. Using a regularization
matrix of the type:
(
(
(
(

=
0 0
1 2 1
1 2 1
0 0
c
( 31 )

and applying the Tikhonov regularization, the equations for calculating residual stresses are:
p a
E
P c c a a
T T
P
T
r
r
+
= +
1
) (

q b E Q c c b b
T T
Q
T
r
r
= + ) (
( 32 )
t b E T c c b b
T T
T
T
r
r
= + ) (

The factors
P
,
Q
and
T
control the amount of regularization that is used: an initial value for
these factors may be chosen in the range 10
-4
to 10
-6
.
On account of the regularization used, the unregularized strains that correspond to the
calculated stresses (P, Q and T) do not exactly correspond to the actual strains p, q and t.
The difference in terms of strain is indicated by the misfit vectors, calculated as :
P a
E
p p
misfit
r
r r
+
=
1

Q b
E
q q
misfit
r
r r
=
1

T b
E
t t
misfit
r
r r
=
1
( 33 )
Parameters p
rms
, q
rms
and t
rm
s are defined as the mean squares of the misfit vectors at the
various depths:
=
=
n
j
j misfit rms
p
n
p
1
2 2
) (
1

=
=
n
j
j misfit rms
q
n
q
1
2 2
) (
1

=
=
n
j
j misfit rms
t
n
t
1
2 2
) (
1
( 34 )
If the values of p
rms
2
, q
rms
2
and t
rms
2
differ 5% from the values of p
std
2
, q
std
2
e t
std
2
regularization
values
P
,
Q
and
T
need to be modified and recalculated through an iterative process.
The new values of
P
,
Q
and
T
will be:
old P
rms
std
new P
p
p
) ( ) (
2
2
=

old Q
rms
std
new Q
q
q
) ( ) (
2
2
=
( 35 )
old T
rms
std
new T
t
t
) ( ) (
2
2
=

If the difference is within 5% the maximum and minimum residual stress values are calculated
for every hole depth step by the following equations:
2 2
) ( , ) (
k k k k MIN k MAX
T Q P + =
( 36 )
|
|
\
|
=
k
k
k
Q
T
arctan
2
1
( 37 )
7.2.6 Intermediate thickness workpiece
In the intermediate case of a workpiece with a thickness between 0.4 D and 1.2 D the ASTM
E837-08 test method provides an approximate result.
An approximate result can be obtained in such a case by using the calculation for a through
hole and interpolating the blind hole and through-the-thickness hole calibration data given in
Table 6.
Residual stress results obtained in this way should be reported as nonstandard and
approximate.
7.3 Calculation of non-uniform residual stresses. Other methods
In addition to the ASTM standard test method, other methods for evaluating non-uniform stress
are possible. The Integral method, the Schwarz-Kochelmann method and the Hole-Drilling
method are summarized below.
7.3.1 Integral Method
The integral method for analysing non-uniform residual stresses was proposed by G. S. Schajer
in 1988 [2, 25, 26] in order to overcome the limits of the procedure given in ASTM E837 for
evaluating uniform residual stress fields.
In this method values p, q and t are calculated for every hole depth; the stress profile can be
obtained by solving the three integral equations indicated below:

+
=
i
h
i i
dH H P h H A
E
h p
0
) ( ) , (
1
) (

=
i
h
i i
dH H Q h H B
E
h q
0
) ( ) , (
1
) (
( 38 )
=
i
h
i i
dH H T h H B
E
h t
0
) ( ) , (
1
) (

where A
and B
are the influence functions for a hydrostatic stress state and a shear stress
state, respectively, and take account of the effect of the relaxed stresses at depth H for a
measurement depth h.
In order to simplify the problem of residual stress evaluation, Schajer proposed that the stress
field can be determined by means of functions defined in intervals with constant values in each
depth step considered: with this procedure the integral equations seen above can easily be
evaluated, provided the influence functions can be calculated for each calculation step.
If this can be done, the equations shown above can be expressed in discrete form as:
=
=
+
i
j
j j i i
P a p
E
1
,
1

=
=
i
j
j j i i
Q b q E
1
,

=
=
i
j
j j i i
T b t E
1
,
( 39 )
where n indicates the hole depth step considered and
j i
a
,
and
j i
b
,
indicate the relieved strains
due to unit stresses P, Q and T at depth j for hole depth step i.
The
j i
a
,
coefficients are related to the functions ) , (
h H A as follows:
( )
=
i
i
H
H
i j i
dH h H A a
1
,
,
( 40 )
Discrete formulation of the problem therefore implies solution of a linear system with a lower
triangular matrix of coefficients.

Figure 24 - Drilling depths: physical interpretation of coefficients
j i
a
,
.
With the aid of a finite element calculation, coefficients
j i
a
,
have been determined by
calculating the following functions
( ) ( )
=
H
i
dH h H A h h A
0
,
,
( 41 )
by which coefficients
j i
a
,
are evaluated as:
( ) ( )
i j i j j i
h H A h H A a , ,
1 ,
=
( 42 )
Functions A and B have been provided for ratios D
0
/D equal to 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for
calculation depth h between 0.05 and 0.50.
The coefficients are obtained by interpolation for different D
0
/D ratio and calculation depth h
values.
The values of the coefficients proposed by G. S. Schajer for calculating residual stresses by the
integral method are indicated in Table 11.

Table 11 - Coefficients a and b of the integral method for type A, B and C rosettes.
7.3.1.1 Integral Method calculation steps
To calculate the residual stresses from the relaxed strain, the following steps are necessary:
The hole should be produced in many small drilling increments so that the resulting strain
data can be smoothed to reduce noise.
At a smaller number of calculation increments, combination strains p, q and t are calculated
from the smoothed strain data.
Cumulative strain relaxation functions ( A and B ) are calculated (for the measured hole
diameters), by interpolation, from the values of the coefficients of the triangular matrices
provided.
Coefficients
j i
a
,
and
j i
b
,
are calculated directly by subtraction of adjacent elements in the
cumulative strain function matrices.
Stresses P, Q and T are calculated for successive increments using the relationships:
=
=
+
i
j
j j i i
P a p
E
1
,
1

=
=
i
j
j j i i
Q b q E
1
,

=
=
i
j
j j i i
T b t E
1
,
( 43 )
Residual stresses and residual stress orientation (
max
,
min
, ), for each calculation
increment, are obtained from the corresponding combination stresses.
7.3.2 Incremental strain method (also known as the SchwarzKochelmann
method)
The incremental strain method, proposed by T.Schwarz and H.Kochelmann [27] in 1993, is
based on measurement of the strain rate during the drilling operation (Figure 23).

Figure 23 - Schwarz Kochelmann method.
The method involves a preliminary stage of experimental/numerical determination of the
relaxation functions defined as:
( 44 )
( 45 )
where
x
and
y
are the strains measured respectively by the strain gauge grids oriented parallel
to the loading direction and perpendicular to the loading direction in the case of uniaxial loading.
Figure 24 shows relaxation functions K
x
and K
y
calculated for an HBM rosette, type 1-Y61-
1.5/120S for d
m
/d
0
=3.


Figure 24 - On the right, calibration functions Kx and Ky for the HBM rosette shown on the left.
After the relaxation functions have been defined, the stress field can be calculated applying the
following formulas:
( 46 )
( 47 )
( 48 )
The principal stress values can be calculated by the following equation:
( 49 )
( 50 )
This method can be applied only for HBM rosettes as the numerical/experimental values of
functions K
x
and K
y
have been calculated only for this type of rosette.
Although the residual stress results obtained with this method may agree with those evaluated
with the integral method, it must be pointed out that the method is approximate because it does
not take account of the change in hole geometry with depth (but only of the residual stress in
the removed stratum of material).
7.3.3 HDM Method
The HDM Method [28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35] was originally proposed by the University of
Pisa in the nineties as an improvement of the integral method.
It is based on three equations proposed by G. S. Schajer (43) and it has been generalized by
analytical definition of the influence functions ) , (
h H A and ) , (
h H B .
The main advantages of the hole-drilling method over the other methods are:
a parametric description of the strain gauge rosette which eliminates dependence on the
model of rosette used,
a greater accuracy in calculation of the influence coefficients in relation to the values
provided by G. S. Schajer (in the case of stress evaluation by the integral method), if the
hole depths do not match those provided in his study,
the possibility of correcting the effect of hole-rosette eccentricity
a more accurate FEM model for definition of the influence functions,
the possibility of describing the state of stress within a component with several functions, in
order to reconstruct the experimental measurements more accurately by using spline
functions, directly inserted into the integral equations, in addition to power series and
Fourier series (basic functions),
availability of an optimization algorithm which takes account also of the effects of
experimental measurement errors,
the possibility of minimizing the effect of experimental measurement errors by solutions
which are no longer direct but based on statistical instruments, such as the least squares
method, introducing more experimental measurement points, within each stress calculation.
The hole-drilling method makes it possible to chose from five possible functions that represent
the state of stress:
piecewise constant splines,
linear spline,
cubic spline,
power series,
Fourier series.
7.3.4 Non-uniform residual stresses with an off-centre hole
The HDM method was subsequently extended to the off-centre hole by the same authors, with
the contribution of W. Rosellini, [33, 34, 35]: if an off-centre hole is to be considered, the
equations used in the ASTM method and in the integral method are no longer applicable as the
symmetry of the problem is lost.
A more general formulation is therefore necessary.

Figure 25 -. Symbols used in the HDM method.
Observing Figure 25 and considering an isotropic linearly elastic homogeneous material, the
relationship between measured strain and related stresses can be described as follows:
( 51 )
where the influence functions A
1
A
9
depend on the properties of the material, hole depth and
eccentricity and rosette geometry.
Each of these influence functions can be described with a double power series, the coefficients
of which have been calculated by a finite-element regression analysis of surface displacements
for every particular configuration of the problem under examination (Poissons ratio, ratio
between the hole radius and rosette mean radius, etc).
Knowing the form of the functions and the relieved strains, it is possible to solve the system of
equations seen above by an inverse formulation, in order to determine the state of residual
stress existing in the component.
Supposing that each stress component may be described with a series of functions, the
following expressions can be obtained:
( 52 )
where:
J
11
, J
12
and J
13
are the degrees of freeedom of the stress field,
represent the functions used to describe the stress state,
are constant coefficients determined by the least squares method for best
reconstructing the experimental strain measurements.
By combining the two systems of equations, it is possible to obtain the following relationship:
( 53 )
where i = 1,2n = number of hole-drilling steps.
Knowing the form of the influence functions, the integrals in the equations can easily be
analytically solved, and therefore the whole relationship is reduced to a linear system of 3n
equations in which J
11
+J
12
+J
13
are unknowns, that can be simplified to:
( 54 )
This system can be solved directly when 3n=J
11
+J
12
+J
13
, and with the least squares method
when 3n> J
11
+J
12
+J
13
.
The latter analysis technique is better because it reduces the influence of random experimental
errors.
Nevertheless, the liberty granted in selecting the
j
functions used to describe the state of
residual stress implies introduction of some new parameters, the definition of which influences
the accuracy of the result (for example, in the case of the power series, the maximum
superscript at which to stop expansion). To obtain the optimum solution with the hole-drilling
method, such parameters can be selected by automatic methods, for example, by genetic
algorithms [36].
The choice of these parameters is very important as it actually corresponds to the level of
flexibility that is given to the representation of the state of stress, and therefore, to the ability to
reproduce even highly complex stress functions. A low level of flexibility can lead to
approximate solutions whereas too high a flexibility can cause excessive sensitivity to
measurement error, which is always present in acquired strain data.
The criterion of optimization follows the principle that the strains obtained from calculated
residual stresses have to reconstruct the acquired state of strain with the same accuracy of the
method. Any inferior accuracy leads to an approximate solution, whereas a higher accuracy
results in reproducing the measurement errors that are normally associated with a high
instability of the results.
For this reason, the following objective function is defined:
( 55 )
where
exp
is the estimated standard deviation of the measurement error (which may be
experimentally calculated from acquired strain data), and
~
is the standard deviation of the
error between acquired strain and strain obtained from the calculated residual stress state.
To find the minima of that function, the spline methods use a genetic algorithm, whereas serial
methods employ an exhaustive algorithm:
the genetic optimization algorithm makes it possible to position base points randomly in the
interval (0, z
max
), where z
max
is the maximum hole depth, collapses neighbouring base points
if their distance is less than a threshold (the threshold is set at 5% of z
max
) and then
identifies the best arrangement and the best number of base points with a process of
evolution of the solution typical of genetic algorithms, until the condition <0.01 is verified,
the exhaustive algorithm identifies the solution with the least value of , within the domain of
all possible solutions, compatibly with the number of measurements made (for which the
condition 3n> J
11
+J
12
+J
13
is verified).
7.4 Correction for plasticity (elastic relaxation of stresses)
The local plastic deformation which occurs around the drilled hole can introduce significant
errors in the calculation of residual stresses: standard ASTM E837-08 actually specifies a limit
to the maximum measureable residual stress of about 50% of the yield stress of the material.
The University of Pisa has developed a procedure [3, 47, 49] for correcting this effect and HBM
has produced a special 4-element rosette (Figure 27) to overcome the limitations set by the
correction procedure.
There are two approaches for correcting the effect of plastic deformation:
To use a standard 3-element rosette. The two perpendicular elements should be oriented in
the principal directions.
To use a special rosette with 4 elements at 0/90/157,5/225 (for example HBM 1-VY61-
1.5/120S. Figure 28): the fourth grid allows the principal directions to be calculated
approximating the stress profile with the use of a fourth-order Fourier series development.

7.4.1 Correction with a 3-element rosette
The hole-drilling method in accordance with standard ASTM E837-08 poses a limit related to
the maximum measureable residual stress: for the relationships between strains and stresses
defined by the standard to be valid, the measured stress components should not exceed about
50% of the yield stress of the material, in absolute value.
The local plastic deformation which occurs around the drilled hole, must be considered in order
to determine correct residual stress values.
In the case of uniform stress through the thickness of a workpiece, it is possible to correct the
residual stress values and to estimate the actual value of residual stresses in a component
[3,47]
In recent studies [49] a more accurate FE elasticplastic parametric analysis has been
developed and a more accurate, and general, correcting procedure is provided which can be
applied to all the rosettes available on the market.

Figure 26- Assumed material constitutive law: bilinear isotropic hardening
To correct stresses for the effect of local yielding it is necessary to know the yield stress and
strain hardening ratio of the material (R) (Figure 26):
E
E
R
plastic
= (56)
E
plastic
indicates the ratio between deformation and displacement in the plastic field.

The von Mises equivalent stresses
y x y x
eq
+ =
2 2

was assumed to quantify the effect of biaxiality and a dimensionless plasticity factor f is
introduced:
i eq Y
i eq eq
f
,
,

= (57)
where
eq,i
is the equivalent residual stress producing the onset of plasticity in the 2D case, and
Y
is the material yield stress.
The condition of f=0 represents the highest residual stress that still does not produce plasticity,
while f=1 is related to the residual stress producing general yielding in the whole body.
The plasticity factor measures the residual stress intensity with respect to the approximate
onset of plasticity given by the plane Kirsch solution [15]. For the correction algorithm, it is
necessary to consider the biaxial stress ratio . The ratio between the measured relaxed strains
along the principal directions
x
/
y
depends on the stress ratio but it is almost unaffected by
the plasticity factor, as shown in Figure 27.
As a consequence, the biaxiality ratio can be approximated by the ratio between the
elastically calculated residual stress components
x, el
,
y, el

el x
el y
el
x
y
,
,
= = (58)

Figure 27- Ratio between the measured relaxed strains versus plasticity factor

The equivalent residual stress at the plasticity onset can be expressed as a function of the
biaxiality ratio , according to the plane stress Kirsch solution [15].
+
=
3
2
1
,
Y
i eq
(59)
The acquired strain can be used to obtain the as elastically-evaluated residual stresses and for
the elastically-evaluated equivalent stress definition:
el y el x el y el x el eq , ,
2
,
2
, ,
+ = (60)
The related elastically-evaluated plasticity factor is obtained by the equation:
i eq Y
i eq el eq
el
f
,
, ,

= (61)
If a significant plasticity is produced, the elastically-calculated plasticity factor is larger than the
actual plasticity factor. As the plasticity is not expected to play a significant role for a plasticity
factor near 0, it follows that f
el
<f, when f1.
The following function:
Wf f f
el
+ = (62)
was found accurately to fit the relationship between f and f
el
for any considered configuration.
It can be observed that the asymptotic behaviour of the function at low f values is fulfilled by the
proposed expression for any values of the parameters W and .
The parameters W and were found for any analysed material and geometrical configuration by
means of a least-squares fitting, which was found to produce excellent results.
The parameters W and depend on the biaxial ratio , the hardening ratio of the material R,
the hole depth Z, the hole diameter D
0
and the strain gage average diameter.

The procedure is summarized in the following steps:
The strain gauge rosette is applied to the surface of the body affected by residual stress
with the 1 and 3 grids aligned with the known (or at least assumed) principal residual stress
directions and the signals are set to 0.
The relaxed strains
1
,
2
,
3
, are measured after the hole, the x axis is chosen parallel to
the grid measuring the maximum absolute value; therefore, if |
1
|>|
3
|, then
x
=
1
and
y
=
3
, otherwise
x
=
3
and
y
=
1
.
The elastically-evaluated residual stresses
x,el
,
y,el
are determined.
The elastically-calculated biaxiality ratio
el
is assumed to be an accurate approximation of
the actual residual stress biaxiality ratio
The elastically-evaluated plasticity factor f
el
can be obtained with the equivalent residual
stress at the yield onset
eq,eI

If f
el
=0, no correction is required and the elastically-evaluated residual stresses are
assumed as the actual residual stresses; otherwise, the correction is needed
Calculation of the parameters W and
Calculation of the actual f from f
el
by inverting equation (62):
Wf f
el
f + =
To solve this unelementary equation, the NewtonRaphson algorithm is recommended which
gives an accurate numerical approximation of the plasticity factor, hereafter called f

Estimation of the equivalent residual stress
eq
obtained from the plasticity factor f

( )
i eq Y
f
i eq
eq
,
,
+ = (63)
Calculation of the principal residual stress components
x
,
y
obtained from
eq
:
2
1
1

+
=
eq x
,
x y
= (64)
7.4.2 Correction with a special 4-element rosette
As previously observed, a limitation in this procedure is that of requiring the relaxed strains
along the principal directions x and y.
This implies prior knowledge of the principal directions of the residual stress distribution, which
can actually often be deduced from the technological history and background of the component.
Should the principal directions not be known, the procedure could still be used managing to
deduce the relaxed strains that would be read if the grids were oriented along the principal
directions of stress, starting with the relaxed strains with a generic rosette orientation.
This objective can be achieved in part by using a 4-element rosette developed specifically for
addressing the effect of plasticity (Figure 28).
Assuming the principal directions are unknown, there are four strain readings in four directions:
a
= ( = 0);
b
= ( = 90);
c
= ( = 180- 22:5);
d
= ( = 180+45) (65)
while the four values to be obtained are
'
0
,
'
2
,
'
4
and according to the formula:
[ ] [ ]) ( 4 cos ) ( 2 cos ) (
'
4
'
2
'
0
+ + + + = (66)
Inversion of the calculation is not linear; the principal angle is calculated by solving a least
squares minimisation problem. Figure 29a shows the determination of the principal angle and
Figure 29b shows the reconstruction of measured strain versus angle.

Figure 28 .HBM 4-element Rosette 0/90/157,5/225(Left), Angles between gauges (Right)
Re Re Re Re- -- -evaluated evaluated evaluated evaluated dependence dependence dependence dependence
Simulated Simulated Simulated Simulated readings readings readings readings
Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknowndependance dependance dependance dependance

Figure 29: (a) Principal Angle (least squares minimisation); (b) Reconstruction of measured
strain versus angle.
7.5 Correction for eccentricity
Hole-rosette eccentricity influences strain measurement, particularly when small rosettes are
used, making the formulas developed for the centre-hole method of measuring residual stresses
less accurate.
When dealing with small grid dimensions, it is not always possible to ensure the concentricity of
the rosette and hole centres. Nevertheless, this operation should always be carried out as
accurately as possible.
Standard ASTM E837-08 presents limitations in the field of application related to the maximum
permitted hole eccentricity. It considers a maximum acceptable eccentricity of 0.04*D (for
example 0.02 mm for a 5.13 mm diam. rosette). Figure 30 shows the effect of the hole
eccentricity on the measured strains.
Reference may be made to the studies of A. Ajovalasit [38] for formulas which allow the
determination of residual stresses even in the presence of misalignment between the hole
and rosette centres in the case of a through hole and to the studies of J.P.Sandifer and
G.E.Bowie for a blind hole method with an off-centre hole [39].
In both studies strains measured in the presence of eccentricity are corrected to zero
eccentricity: in A. Ajovalasits publication the correction is applied to the values of calibration
constants A and B (and therefore to a and b) presented in the ASTM standard for the through
hole case; whereas, in J.P.Sandifers publication the correction is made on the measured
strains and is applied to blind holes.


-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
S
t
r
a
i
n

[
m
/
m
]
Depth [mm]
GridA GridB GridC

-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
S
t
r
a
i
n

[
m
/
m
]
Depth [mm]
GridA GridB Grid C

Figure 30 Equi-biaxial Stress Field: difference between the values of strain measured in the
absence (above) and presence (bottom) of eccentricity (e=0.1 mm)
7.5.1 Correction for eccentricity: through hole
In the case of an eccentric hole in relation to the centre O of the rosette, the relationship
between strain measured by the strain gauge and residual stresses is of the type:
) , , ( ), ( 2 sin 2 cos ) (
2 1 2 1
'
c b a i
E
C
E
B
E
A
i
o
i
i
o
i
o
i
i
=
|
|
\
|
+ + + = (67)
where the coefficients A
i
, B
i
and C
i
depend not only on the radius of the hole and geometry of
the grid but also on the orientation of the grid and eccentricity (Figure 31).

Figure 31 - Notations relating to a rosette with an off-centre hole
For the through hole, there are theoretical expressions of A
i
, B
i
and C
i
that take account of
the active grid length of the strain gauge [38].
In the presence of misalignment between the hole and rosette centres, residual stresses can be
determined using the standard procedure for a rosette with a centered hole.
To do so, it is sufficient to calculate the strains reduced to zero eccentricity, ie, the strains that
the strain gauges would measure if the rosette were centered, by formulas of the type:

a aa a ab b ac c
J J J = + +
' ' '
(68)

b ba a bb b bc c
J J J = + +
' ' '
(69)

c ca a cb b cc c
J J J = + +
' ' '
(70)
where the expressions of coefficient J are to be found in [38].
Residual stresses and stress orientation are calculated by introducing strains

a b c
, ,
in the
formulas used for a centered rosette.
If eccentricity between the hole and rosette is neglected, the principal stresses
1
and
2
are
affected by the following errors:
1
1
'
1
100
1
= E (71)
2
2
'
2
100
2
= E (72)
where
'
1
and '
2
are the calculated principal stresses, that is, without taking account of eccentricity;
1
and
2
are the actual principal stresses, that is, calculated taking account of eccentricity.
Only the error relating to the greater stress in absolute value in the most unfavourable
conditions of (orientaton of the greater principal strain) and (orientaton of the eccentricity) is
considered.
For a given relative eccentricity e'%= (e/r
1
)%, and with other conditions being the same,
0/45/90rosettes are more unfavourable than 0/225/90rosettes.
In the most unfavourable conditions of
2
/
1
(
2
/
1
=-1) the errors relating to the type A and B
rosettes considered in standard ASTM E837, calculated for the minimum hole diameter are:
ASTM type A rosettes (0/225/90): % 6 , 5
'
1
e E
(73)
ASTM type B rosettes (0/45/90): % 1 , 8
'
1
e E
(74)
The formulas stated above therefore make it possible to determine the upper error limit, in the
most unfavourable conditions of , and
2
/
1
.

ASTM
type of
rosette

Average diam. of
the rosette

D=2r
(mm)
Distance of the inner
edge of the grid from
the centre of the
rosette
r
1

(mm)
Hole-centre
eccentricity

e
(mm)
Per cent
relative
eccentricity

e'%=(e/r
1
)%
Error relating to
maximum
stress

E
1
%
Type A -1/32
0/225/90
2.57 0.89 0.025 2.81 16%
Type A -1/16
0/225/90
5.13 1.77 0.025 1.41 8%
Type B-1/16
0/45/90
5.13 1.77 0.025 1.41 11%

Table 12 - Errors due to hole-rosette eccentricity for some types of rosette considered in standard ASTM
837-08
Table 12 provides the error limit calculated by formulas (73) and (74) for some types of rosettes
specified by standard ASTM E837.
If the orientation of the cross of the principal stresses is known, the rosette can be set in a
known angular position in relation to the cross. Thus it is possible to reduce the hole-rosette
eccentricity error.
The formulas for a centre-hole rosette are usually used, but keeping eccentricity within set limits
by using centering and drilling devices.
The data in the table points to the need for careful checking of hole-rosette eccentricity when
using the standard centre-hole rosette formulas.
7.5.2 Correction by HDM techniques
Eccentricity can be corrected by the HDM method in the most general case of a blind hole with
a non-uniform stress distribution. This correction is possible knowing eccentricity and
eccentricity direction: hole-rosette eccentricity is a parameter used in the FEM studies forming
the basis for the definition of the influence functions used in the HDM method.
The stress profile can be reconstructed using a piecewise constant spline function, similar to the
ASTM E837-08 standard representation) or any of the other methods defined in the HDM
method (linear spline, cubic spline, Fourier series and power series).
7.5.3 Correction using the special 6-element rosette
The following figure 32 shows a 6-element rosette. The pattern is similar to the standard 3-
element rosettes, but with diametrically opposed grids.

Figure 32 - 6-element rosette for eccentricity correction

It cannot be defined either as a type A or type B rosette, as per the ASTM standard, as the grids
are positioned in opposed quadrants.
The total resistance of the grid is therefore the sum of the resistance of the two diametrically
opposed grids, just as variation of the total resistance, due to strain, is the sum of the variations
of the two opposite grids. The balancing effect is due to the fact that if the hole is not perfectly
concentric, taking any one of the three measuring directions (0/45/90), the grid closest to the
hole measures a higher strain than it would have measured had the hole been concentric,
whereas the diametrically opposed grid measures a lower strain.
The variation in resistance is less on one grid but greater on the other, while the sum balances
out, reproducing a measurement roughly equal to what would be obtained with a single grid if
the hole were concentric. The 6-element rosette, therefore, connects with the acquisition system
in precisely the same way as the standard 3-element rosette.
The 6-element rosette is perfectly balanced in the case of eccentricity having only an effect of
the first order on the single strain gauge measurement. In such a case, an eccentricity
perpendicular to the grid would produce a null variation whereas an eccentricity parallel to the
grid would produce a variation in line with the component of eccentricity in that direction. This
applies only for small eccentricity values but is limited to a factor of 1/2 for higher eccentricities.
8 Residual stress analysis software features
The key features of any residual stress analysis software are the following:
the possibility to choose the drilling and calculation depth increments in order to provide an
accurate stress distribution profile while maintaining an acceptable level of uncertainty;
a detailed presentation of strain and stress results, including:
- tables of measured strains for every drilling depth, tables of the principal stresses and of
the principal angle versus depth.
- graphs of measured strains versus depth.
- graphs of the principal stresses and principal angle versus depth.
a recording of any measurement regarding hole shape (diameter, depth, eccentricity value
and angle, etc.)
memorization of details regarding the workpiece/component and strain gauge.

Figure 33 - Hole-drilling software. Endmill Positioning Tool (left) and Drilling System Setup (right)
(RSM by SINT Technology s.r.l.).
Figure 33 shows some images drawn from a software for the management of the hole-drilling
procedure. At the end of each drilling test, the measured strain data can be processed by an
automatic evaluation program for calculating residual stresses (Figures 34 and 35).

Figure 34 - Measured and interpoled strains versus depth.
(EVAL by SINT Technology )
The evaluation program interpolates acquired data (best fitting), and on the basis of the curves
calculated in this way, performs the processing by one of the methods available. Figure 34
shows the distribution of strain measured by the three grids.
Figure 35 shows some images taken from the residual stress evaluation phase: the software
allows analysis using the method described by standard ASTM E837-08 and a series of
methods for evaluation of non-uniform residual stresses (for example, the Integral Method).

Figure 35 - Residual stress evaluation: above analysis in accordance with ASTM E837-08, below stress
analysis with the Integral Method.
(EVAL by SINT Technology)
9 Test report
On completion of a residual stress analysis test, it is necessary to draw up the test report. The
test report should include all useful information for understanding the phenomenon that has
been measured.
Standard ASTM E837-08 [ 1] defines the content of the test report in section 11, based on the
measured stress profile. Also the National Physical Laboratorys Measurement Good Practice
Guide No.53 [12] lists recommended parameters for inclusion in the test report.
The contents of the test report necessary for clearly identifying the test conditions and for
providing the most complete presentation of the results are indicated herebelow.
9.1 Contents of the Test Report
9.1.1 General
Reference to the test method used (in-house, ASTM E837, or any other procedure)
Description of the test workpiece
o Material (designation, heat treatment)
o Mechanical properties (Youngs modulus, Poissons ratio, yield stress, etc.)
o Dimensions of the test workpiece
o Thickness in proximity to the holes
Position and direction of the strain gauge rosettes
Test conditions
o Date of test
o Name of operator
o Location of test (laboratory, in-situ measurement)
o Temperature and environmental conditions, if appropriate
Model and type of strain gauges used
o Type of strain gauge rosette used and designation
o Strain gauge manufacturer
o Technical specifications of the strain gauge rosette (calibration factor,
temperature coefficient, etc)
o Geometry of the strain gauge rosette (average diameter of the strain gauges, grid
length, grid width, etc)
o Type of connection (eg. quarter-bridge, three-wire)
o Surface preparation procedure
o Adhesive used (designation, manufacturer)
o Strain gauge installation protection (type, designation and manufacturer of the
protective coating)
Method used to drill the hole
o The drilling technique (type, speed of rotation, cutting speed)
o The technique used for determining the initial contact (manual, electrical contact,
oblique observation)
Drilling
o Type of hole (through-hole, blind hole)
o Diameter of the hole
o Depth of the hole
o Distribution of depth increments (linear, poynomial, linear in sections)
o Number and depth of each increment
o Other drilling details (drilling delay, acquisition delay)
o Drilling equipment used (manufacturer, designation)
o Drill type, diameter and material
o Software used for controlling the drilling system.
Acquisition of strains
o Strain recording instrumentation used (model, manufacturer, strain resolution,
stability, repeatability)
o Type of connection (quarter-bridge, half-bridge, full bridge)
o Measurement range [mV/V]
o Acquisition details (number of samples)
o Software for calculation of stresses (type, version etc.)
Eccentricity
o Measured values of the four hole radiuses
o Angle and radius of eccentricity.
9.1.2 Presentation of the results
9.1.2.1 Thin workpiece with uniform stress:
o Tabulation of strains
1
,
2
and
3
for each rosette and for each depth increment
o Values of x-y stresses (grid directions)
o Values of principal stresses
o Values of stresses corrected to take account of eccentricity
o Values of stresses corrected to take account of plasticity. It is necessary to
indicate also the biaxiality ratio and the strain-hardening ratio
o Details of uncertainty budget and calculations.
9.1.2.2 Thick workpiece with uniform stress:
o Table of hole depths
1
,
2
and
3
o Plot of strain data versus normalised depth to check for stress uniformity
o Values of x-y stresses (grid directions)
o Values of principal stresses
o Values of stresses corrected to take account of eccentricity
o Values of stresses corrected to take account of plasticity. It is necessary to
indicate also the biaxiality ratio and the strain-hardening ratio
o Details of uncertainty budget and calculations.
9.1.2.3 Thick workpiece with non-uniform stress:
o The procedure used for calculating residual stresses (ASTM E837-08, Integral
Method, Incremental Strain method (Schwarz Kochelmann), HDM Method)
1
,
2
and
3
o Estimate of standard strain errors for each rosette
o Table of x-y stresses (grid directions) versus calculation depth
o Table of principal stresses versus calculation depth
o Any corrections applied to the strain data (eccentricity)
o Any regularization algorithms used (Tikhonov)
10 Uncertainty Analysis
Determining the uncertainties associated with measurement of residual stresses by the hole-
drilling method is a subject that has been little investigated, also due to the large number of
parameters contributing to the total value of uncertainty.
Standard ASTM E837-08 [1] states that the bias associated with a residual stress measurement
by the hole-drilling method is less than 10% when dealing with uniform residual stresses. The
random (precision) error is such as to give a standard deviation of 14 MPa for AISI 1018
carbon steels and a standard deviation of 12 MPa for type AISI 304 stainless steels. These
values are the result of round-robin test programs [40, 41].
Standard ASTM E837-08 also refers to the difficulty in estimating uncertainties in non-uniform
stress measurements, which are greater that in uniform stress distributions.
10.1 Summary of the sources of uncertainty
The sources of uncertainty associated with a residual stress measurement by the hole-drilling
method, based on analyses conducted by R.Oettel [43] and M.Scafidi, E.Valentini, and
B.Zuccarello [44, 45] are presented.
Table 13 summarizes the sources of uncertainty, the influence of the sources of uncertainty
(major, minor, insignificant), the possibility of correction, and an estimate of the uncertainty of
each individual contribution.
10.2 Correction of the main errors affecting measurement
The corrections of the principal errors which have an effect on residual stress measurements
are described in this section.
One possible correction is that due to hole-rosette eccentricity. The formulas relating to the
correction are given in [44] appendix B. When using the HDM Method no eccentricity correction
is necessary.
Another possible correction is related to the undesired effects due to the fillet radius at the base
of the hole r; it can be applied using the formula which can be obtained from [14,46]:
%,
1
100
ji
ji
i
sd
=
| |
+
|
\
(75)
where
( ) ( )
2 3 5
0 0
%, 0 1 2 0 % 2
1 0 0
2 log 2
l
m
i lm lm lm i i
l m
D D r
sd c c c h h u sd
D D D
= =
(
| | | |
( = + +
| |
(
\ \

(76)
sd
%,i
represents the percentage deviation of strains due to the hole-bottom fillet radius, h
i
the
depth of the dimensionless hole defined by h
i
=z
i
/D, with z
i
representing the actual hole depth.
The polynomial coefficients c
klm
(k=0,1,2, l=1,2,3, m=0,1..5), provided in [14,46], depend on the
particular strain gauge rosette used.
The previous corrections are made on the measured strains.
After correction of the strains, in accordance with standard ASTM E 837 [1], the three strain
components p
i
, q
i
and t
i
relating to the i
th
depth increment (i=1,2n) can be calculated by
combining the (corrected) relieved strains
, j i
(j=1,2,3) as:
3, 1,
2
i i
i
p
+
= ,
3, 1,
2
i i
i
q

= ,
3, 1, 2,
2
2
i i i
i
t
+
= . (77-79)

Source of uncertainty
Type of
error
Likely
contribution
Estimate
Correcti
on
Comments
Surface conditions (texture, roughness,
evenness, flatness, oxidation)
Bias Minor No
Contribution only in the first 2 drilling increments,
thereafter of minor importance
Isotropy Bias Insignificant No For Isotropic materials
Homogeneity, porosity, inclusions Bias Insignificant No For homogenious materials
Young's modulus Bias Major 1-4% No For experimental analysis
Poisson's ratio Bias Major 3% No Small in relation to other data
Stress gradient Bias Insignificant No Choose the right data analysis technique
Constraints (eg, measurement is located
near an edge, a hole or a concentration of
stress)
Bias Minor No
Surface curvature Bias Minor No
Thickness Bias Minor Yes Uncertainty if between 0.4D and 1.2D
Quality of the gauges (including gauge
supplier, number of wires, temperature
compensation)
Random Minor No Use qualified suppliers
Quality of the installation (including surface
preparation, gauge bonding, type of adhesive,
wiring)
Random Minor No Use skilled operator
Rosette diameter Bias Insignificant No
Gauge Factor Bias Major
Provided by
manufacturer
No
Strain gauge application drift Bias Insignificant No If high, re-install the rosette
Resolution of the measuring instrument Bias Minor
Provided by
manufacturer
No
Choose instrumentation with good resolution for Fine
increment hole drilling technique
Stability of the measuring instrument Bias Insignificant
Provided by
manufacturer
No
Repeatability of the measuring instrument Bias Insignificant
Provided by
manufacturer
No
Surface preparation Random Minor No
Contribution only in the first 2 drilling increments,
thereafter of minor importance
Uncertainty in the measurement of strains Random Minor 1m/m No
Drill wear Bias Minor No Monitor or change after every drilling operation
Hole diameter Bias Minor Yes Measured by microscope
Hole perpendicularity Bias Minor No Limit the effect by keeping check on perpendicularity
Drilling step Bias Insignificant No
Accuracy of the measurement of depth Bias Minor No Accuracy of drilling tool
Eccentricity (in relation to the center of the
rosette)
Bias Major Yes
Error can be corrected using the methods proposed
by Ajovalasit or Sandifer, or with HDM Method
Plasticization Bias Major
< 50%
Y
: /
50%<
Y
<70%: 10%
70%<
Y
<90%: >10%
Y
> 90%: >>10%
Yes
Error can be corrected using the method proposed by
Beghini-Bertini up to
Y
<90%, for uniform stress field
Hole-bottom fillet radius Bias Major Yes
Error can be corrected using the method proposed by
Scafidi - Zuccarello [45]
Distance from the nearest hole Bias Minor
Distance = 4.5D: 7%
Distance = 6D: 1%
Distance = 10D < 1%
No
Distance from the nearest geometric
discontinuity
Bias Minor No
Insignificant error if the distance is equal to 0.5 D
(type B rosette) or 1.5 D (type A rosette)
Identification of the zero reference depth Bias Major No Depends on the drill and perpendicularity
Local rise in temperature Bias Minor No
Sometimes observed. Depends on the delay time and
material
Stresses induced by the drilling process Random Minor No Qualify the drilling technique
Ambient temperature Random Insignificant No
Humidity Random Insignificant No

Table 13 - Contributions of uncertainty in residual stress measurement.
The coefficients (a
i
, b
i
) relating to the actual depths are then evaluated by the least squares
method commencing with the coefficients given in [1], as follows:
3 6
0
,
0 1
r s
i
i r s
r s
D z
a
D D
= =
| | | |
=
| |
\ \
(80)
3 6
0
,
0 1
r s
i
i r s
r s
D z
b
D D
= =
| | | |
=
| |
\ \
(81)
where
r,s
and
r,s
are the polynomial coefficients, indicated in ASTM E 837.
Since these coefficients are generally affected by small randomly distributed errors, their
influence will be considered only in the subsequent residual stress uncertainty evaluation
(presented in the following section).
In accordance with ASTM E 837, the hydrostatic (P) and shear (Q, T) residual stress
components are calculated using the following equations:
( )
1
2
1
1
n
i i
i
n
i
i
a p
E
P
a
=
=
=
+
,
1
2
1
n
i i
i
n
i
i
b q
Q E
b
=
=
=
,
1
2
1
n
i i
i
n
i
i
b t
T E
b
=
=
=
(82-84)
In addition, the principal residual stresses and principal angle are calculated using the well-
known equations:
2 2
max,min
P Q T = +
;
1
arctan
2
T
Q
(85-86)
The stresses calculated by Eq.(85-86) are generally influenced by two sources of error: the
effects of plasticity due to the concentration of stresses at the base of the hole and machining-
induced stresses
ind
.
As far as correction of the effect of plasticity is concerned, the two principal stresses obtained
from Eq.(85-86) can be corrected using the procedure given in 7.4.
10.3 Evaluation of uncertainties on stresses
The uncertainty of the corrected stresses depends on the major sources of uncertainty listed
below:
1. strain gauge calibration factor K;
2. resistance R
0
of the strain gauges;
3. accuracy u(W) of the strain measurement system;
4. apparent thermal strain
T
, due to the hole-drilling process;
5. hole-bottom fillet radius r ;
6. hole diameter D
0
;
7. rosette diameter D;
8. depth of drilling increments h
i
;
9. hole-rosette eccentricity;
10. zero depth offset error z
0
;
11. Youngs modulus of the material E;
12. Poissons ratio of the material v;
13. plasticity phenomenon at the bottom of the hole;
14. stresses induced by the drilling process
ind

Assuming that all the parameters are not mutually dependent, the law of propagation of
uncertainties is given by the following general formula:
( ) ( )
2 2 2
1
N
c s s
s
u y c u x
=
=
(87)
where y is the calculated parameter, x
s
is the related influence parameter, and u
c
(y) and u(x
s
)
are the corresponding uncertainties. The constants c
s
are the so-called sensitivity coefficients.
If the analytical relationship between y and x
s
is known, then the generic sensitivity coefficients
are given by the simple relationship:
s
s
y
c
x
(88)
On the contrary, if the analytical relationship between the measured value (y) and the influence
parameter (x
s
) is not known, then the sensitivity coefficients c
s
can be determined by a statistical
analysis based on experimental or numerical data.
By applying equation (87) to equation (82), the following formulas are obtained, allowing
evaluation of the uncertainty of the stress component P as a function of the uncertainty of the
four influence parameters (E,v,p
i
,a
i
).
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
2 2
2 2 2 1 1
2
2 2
1 1
2
2
2
1 1 2 2
2
2 1 1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
.
1 1
n n
i i i i
i i
c n n
i i
i i
n n
i j i j j
n n
j j
i
c i c i n
n
i i
j
j
j
j
a p a p
E
u P u E u
a a
p a a a p
a E E
u p u a
a
a

= =
= =
= =
= =
=
=
( (
( (
( ( = + +
+
( ( +
( (

(
(
(
(
(
(
+ +
(
( + +
| |
(
(
|
(

\

(82)
Similar relationships are obtained for the other stress components Q and T by applying equation
(80) to equations (83 and 84).
In such relationships, the uncertainties u
c
(a
i
) and u
c
(b
i
) of the influence coefficients (a
i
, b
i
)
provided by equations (80 and 81) are obtained by summing the uncertainties that are typical of
the coefficients directly provided by standard ASTM E837 (due to the numerical simulations
used to calculate them), and the uncertainties of the other parameters of influence, for example,
the uncertainty of the hole depths h
i
, of the hole diameter D
0
.
The uncertainties u
c
(p
i
), u
c
(q
i
) and u
c
(t
i
) of the strain components can be calculated from the
uncertainty
( )
c ji
u of the corrected measured strains by simply applying equation (87) to
equations (77-79).
To obtain the uncertainty
( )
c ji
u it is necessary to evaluate the uncertainty of the measured
strains and then to take into account the propagation of all the influence parameters, including
the uncertainty of the parameter involved in the correction terms.
Calculation of uncertainty components is dealt with in detail in Reference [45].


AIAS TR-01:2010 Pagina 68 di 70
11 References
[ 1] Standard Test Method for Determining Residual Stresses by the Hole-Drilling Strain
Gage Method, ASTM E837-08.
[ 2] Schajer, G.S., Application of Finite Element Calculations to Residual Stress
Measurements, Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol. no. 103, 1981,
pp. 157-163.
[ 3] Beghini, M., Bertini, L., Effect of Plastic Deformation in Residual Stress Measurements,
(in Italian) Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department University of Pisa, Italian
Stress Analysis Association (AIAS), Journal no. 3, March 1997.
[ 4] Standard Test Methods for Performance Characteristics of Metallic Bonded Resistance
Strain Gages, ASTM E 251-92 (Reapproved 2003).
[ 5] UNI 10478-1 Terms and Definitions (1996) (in Italian).
[ 6] UNI 10478-2 Selection of Strain Gauges and Accessories (1998) (in Italian).
[ 7] UNI 10478-3 Strain Gauge Installation and Verification of Installation (1998) (in Italian) .
[ 8] UNI 10478-4 Measurement Circuits, Computation and Presentation of Results (1998) (in
Italian).
[ 9] UNI 10478-5 Verification of Properties (1998) (in Italian).
[10] Prevey, P.S., Residual Stress Distributions Produced by Strain Gauge Surface
Preparation, Proc. 1986 SEM Conference on Experimental Mechanics, 1986.
[11] Hampton, R.W. and Nelson, D.V., On the Use of the Hole-Drilling Technique for
Residual Stress Measurements in Thin Plates, Trans. ASME Pressure Vessel Tech.,
114, pp 292-299, 1992.
[12] Grant P.V., Lord J.D., Whitehead, P.S., The Measurement of Residual Stresses by the
Incremental Hole Drilling Technique, Measurement Good Practice Guide No.53.,
National Physical Laboratory, UK, 2002.
[13] Standard Test Method for Determining Residual Stresses by the Hole-Drilling Strain-
Gage Method, ASTM E 837-01.
[14] Scafidi, M., Valentini, E., Zuccarello, B., Effects of the Hole Bottom Fillet Radius on
Residual Stress Analysis by the Hole Drilling Method (in Italian), Proceedings of the
XXXVI National Conference of the Italian Stress Analysis Association (AIAS), Ischia,
14-17 September 2007.
[15] Kirsch, G., Theory of Elasticity and Application in Strength of Materials, Zeitschrift des
Vereins Deutscher Ingenieure, 42 (29), pp. 797-807, 1898.
[16] Hampton, R.W. and Nelson, D.V., On the Use of the Hole Drilling Technique for
Residual Stress Measurements in Thin Plates, Trans. ASME Pressure Vessel Tech.,
114, pp 292-299, 1992.
[17] SINT Technology s.r.l., An Automatic System for Measuring Residual Stresses,
Instruction Manual.
[18] Valentini, E., Vangi, D., An Automatic System for Measuring Residual Stresses by the
Blind Hole Method, the XXI National Conference of the Italian Stress Analysis
Association (AIAS), Genoa, 22-26 September 1991.
[19] Valentini, E., An Automatic System for Measuring Non-Uniform Residual Stress by the
Hole Drilling Method, XIII IMEKO World Congress, Turin, September 1994, pp.
1904-1909.

[20] Valentini, E., Benincasa, A., Baggiani, M., Brogelli, S., Evolution of the High-Speed
Drilling Technology for Residual Stress Evaluation by the Centre-Hole Method, (in
Italian) Proceedings of the XXXIV National Conference of the Italian Stress Analysis
Association (AIAS), Milan 14-17 September 2005, pp. 1627-1636.
[21] Flaman, M.T. and Herring, J.A., Comparison of Four HoleProducing Techniques for
the Centre-Hole Residual Stress Measurement Method, Experimental Techniques, Vol.
9, No. 8, 1985, pp. 30-32.
[22] Flaman, M.T., Herring, J.A., Ultra-High-Speed Centre-Hole Technique for Difficult
Machining Materials, Experimental Techniques, Vol. 10, No. 1, Jan 1986, pp 34-35.
[23] Steinzig,M.,Ponchione,A., Effect of Hole Drilling Parameters on the Accuracy of
Residual Stress Measurements for ESPI Hole Drilling 2002 BSSM International
Conference on Advances in Experimental Mechanics, 27-29 August 2002, Stratford
upon Avon, UK.
[24] Rendler, N.J. and Vigness, I., Hole-Drilling Strain-Gage Method of Measuring Residual
Stresses, Experimental Mechanics, December, 1966, pp. 577 586.
[25] Schajer, G.S., Measurement of Non-Uniform Residual Stresses Using the Hole-Drilling
Method. Part I - Stress Calculation Procedures, Journal of Engineering Materials and
Technology, Vol. n. 110, 1988, pp. 338-343.
[26] Schajer, G.S., Measurement of Non-Uniform Residual Stresses Using the Hole-Drilling
Method. Part II - Practical Application of the Integral Method, Journal of Engineering
Materials and Technology, Vol. n. 110, 1988, pp. 344-349.
[27] Schwarz, T., Kochelmann, H., The hole Drilling Method The Best Technique for the
Experimental Determination of Residual Stresses in Many Fields of Application,
Messtechnische Briefe 29 (1993) No.2, pp. 33-38.
[28] Beghini, M., Bertini, L., Rosellini, W., Genetic Algorithms for Variable Through-
Thickness Residual Stress Evaluation, Proceedings of the 5th European Conference
on Residual Stresses, Noordwick (NL), 28-30 September 1999, pp.145-149.
[29] Beghini, M., Bertini, L., Analytical Expressions of the Influence Functions for Accuracy
and Versatility Improvement in the Hole-Drilling Method, Journal of Strain Analysis, Vol.
35, n2, 2000, pp. 125-135.
[30] Beghini, M., Bertini, L., Analytical Influence Functions for the Hole-Drilling Method,
Fourth European Conference on Residual Stress, Cluny, France, 1996.
[31] Beghini, M., Bertini, L., Recent Advances in the Hole-Drilling Method for Residual Stress
Measurement, Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, 1998, Vol. 7 (2), pp.
163-172.
[32] Bertini, L., Beghini, M., Rosellini, W., Genetic Algorithms for Variable Through-
Thickness Residual Stress Evaluation, Materials Science Forum, 1999.
[33] Beghini M., Bertini L., Rosellini W., Measurement of Residual Stresses with an Off-
Centre Hole (in Italian), Proceedings of the XXIX National Conference of the Italian
Stress Analysis Association (AIAS), Lucca, 6-9 September 2000.
[34] M. Beghini, L. Bertini, L.F. Mori. "Evaluating Non-Uniform Residual Stress by the Hole-
Drilling Method with Concentric and Eccentric Holes. Part I. Definition and Validation of
the Influence Functions". Strain, 46(4), p.324-336, 2010.
[35] M. Beghini, L. Bertini, L.F. Mori. "Evaluating Non-Uniform Residual Stress by the Hole-
Drilling Method with Concentric and Eccentric Holes. Part II: Application of the Influence
Functions to the Inverse Problem. Strain, 46(4), p.337-346, 2010.

[36] M. Beghini, L. Bertini, L.F. Mori, W. Rosellini. "Genetic algorithm optimization of the
holedrilling method for non-uniform residual stress fields". Journal of Strain Analysis for
Engineering Design, 44(1), 105-115, 2009.
[37] Ajovalasit, A., Review of the Hole-Drilling Method for Uniform Stresses, (in Italian),
Italian Stress Analysis Association (AIAS), Journal no. 3, March 1997, pp. 3-11.
[38] Ajovalasit, A., Measurement of Residual Stresses by the Hole-Drilling Method: Influence
of Hole Eccentricity, Journal of Strain Analysis (1979), Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 171-178.
[39] Sandifer, J.P., Bowie, G.E., Residual Stress by Blind Hole Method with Off-Centre
Hole, Experimental Mechanics 1978, 18(5), pp. 173-179.
[40] Flaman, M.T. and Herring, J.A., SEM/ASTM Round-Robin Residual Stress
Measurement Study - Phase 1, Experimental Techniques, May 1986, pp 23-25.
[41] Yavelak, J. J. (compiler), Bulk-Zero Stress StandardAISI 1018 Carbon-Steel
Specimens, Round Robin Phase 1, Experimental Techniques, Vol 9, No. 4, 1985, pp.
3841.
[42] Fontanari, V., Frendo, F., Bortolamedi, Th., Scardi, P., Comparison of the Hole-Drilling
and X-Ray Diffraction Methods for Measuring the Residual Stresses in Shot Peened Al-
Alloys, Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design, No.2, vol.40, pp.199-200,
2005.
[43] Oettel, R., The Determination of Uncertainties in Residual Stress Measurement (using
the Hole Drilling Technique), Code of Practice No.15, Issue 1, Sept 2000 EU Project
No. SMT4-CT97-2165.
[44] Scafidi, M., Valentini, E., Zuccarello, B., Analysis of Uncertainties in the Centre-Hole
Method for Measurement of Uniform Residual Stress, (in Italian),Proceedings of the
XXXVII National Conference of the Italian Stress Analysis Association (AIAS), Rome,
10-13 September 2008.
[45] Scafidi, M., Valentini, E., Zuccarello, B., Error and Uncertainty Analysis of the Residual
Stresses Computed by Using the Hole Drilling Method, Strain (2010), (In Press), doi:
10.1111/j.1475-1305.2009.00688.x
[46] Scafidi, M., Valentini, E., and Zuccarello, B., Effect of the Hole-Bottom Fillet Radius on
Residual Stress Analysis by the Hole Drilling Method, ICRS-8 The 8th International
Conference on Residual Stress Denver, CO (USA), 2008.
[47] Beghini, M., Bertini, L., and Raffaelli, P., Numerical Analysis of Plasticity Effects in Hole-
Drilling Residual Stress Measurement, Journal of Testing Evaluation 22 (6), 1994.
[48] Valentini, E., Beghini, M., Bertini, L., Santus, C., and Benedetti, M., Procedure to
Perform a Validated Incremental Hole Drilling Measurement: Application to Shot Peening
Residual Stresses, Strain 2010 (In Press),DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1305.2009.00664.x
[49] Beghini,M., Bertini, L., and Santus, C., A Procedure for Evaluating High Residual
Stresses Using the Blind Hole Drilling Method, Including the Effect of Plasticity, Journal
of Strain Analysis, 2010, 45 (4), 301-318. DOI 10.1243/03093247JSA579.

Srain ROSETTE PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Srain ROSETTE PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The hole-drilling strain gauge method for the measurement of uniform or non-uniform residual stresses

AIAS TR-01:2010 Page 1 of 70

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi