Experimental Mechanics (2016) 56:369380

DOI 10.1007/s11340-015-0104-3

Incremental Hole Drilling for Residual Stress Analysis of Strongly

Textured Material States A New Calibration Approach
S. Schuster 1 & J. Gibmeier 1

Received: 31 July 2015 / Accepted: 12 October 2015 / Published online: 28 October 2015
# Society for Experimental Mechanics 2015

Abstract Technical components produced via sheet metal

forming often obtain characteristic crystallographic textures
and process induced residual stress distributions. Knowledge
of the local residual stress states is essential for the proper
components dimensioning. We report about the expansion
of the incremental hole drilling technique for residual stress
analysis to highly textured material states. A new evaluation
approach using the differential evaluation algorithm is proposed, which bases on the calculation of multiple case specific
calibration functions under consideration of the local orientation distribution function of the textured material. Systematic
finite element (FE) simulations of incremental hole-drilling
experiments are conducted regarding defined ideal nickel single crystal orientations (cube, Goss and brass). Multiple casespecific calibration functions, which consider the materials
elastic anisotropy, are calculated and applied for stress calculation. In addition, the influence of a rosette misorientation
between stress measurement and FE calibration is investigated. Using this new evaluation strategy a significant improvement of (residual) stress calculation on strongly textured materials is achieved. Finally, the capability of the proposed evaluation approach is experimentally validated for an uniaxially
loaded CMSX-4 (nickel base super alloy) single crystal. The
investigation clearly proved that in case of strongly anisotropic materials the evaluation using multiple case-specific calibration functions leads to a significant improvement in stress
analysis compared to a conventional evaluation.

* S. Schuster
simone.schuster@kit.edu
1

Institute for Applied Materials (IAM-WK), Karlsruhe Institute for

Technology KIT, Engelbert-Arnold-Str. 4,
76131 Karlsruhe, Germany

Keywords Residual stress . Hole-drilling method . Texture .

Anisotropy . Case-specific calibration

Introduction
Crystallographic textures in technical components might result for instance from process chains like sheet metal forming
(e.g., warm/cold rolling deep drawing) due to the fact that
limited possibilities of gliding exist with respect to the direction of mechanical loading [1]. The extreme case of a crystallographic texture is a single crystal, which possesses only one
distinct crystal orientation. Beside a crystallographic texture,
characteristic residual stress distributions might be induced by
the forming process and most manufacturing processes, respectively. Concerning the trend to light weight constructions
especially in the automotive industry, the knowledge of the
residual stress state is very important for components design,
not least for the validation of finite element simulations.
A multitude of residual stress analysis methods is developed like for instance diffraction methods, mechanical
methods, ultrasonic methods or magnetic methods. However
all of the established methods have their limitations/problems
dealing with anisotropic material behavior. From the vast of
various analysis techniques, X-ray diffraction and the incremental hole-drilling method are most widely used in industry
and scientific applications. The standard procedure of X-ray
diffraction, in particular the sin2-method [2], is not applicable in case of textured materials, since the sin2-distribution is
no longer linear [3, 4]. Special measuring strategies for an
application on textured materials as for instance the crystallite
group method [5, 6] or stress factors F ij [7] are well
established, but they are very elaborate and time consuming
and in addition knowledge of the stress free lattice parameter
d0 for the stress calculation is required. In many cases, in

370

particular for multiphase materials or when inhomogeneous

microstructures exist, d0 determination is problematic. Additionally, these special diffraction based strategies require assumptions to simplify the given problem. The crystallite group
method assumes, that the texture can be described by a few
crystallite groups only. It neglects randomly distributed grains
and is therefore only applicable for very sharp textures. In
contrast, the existence of micro-stresses is not permitted, in
case of an application of stress factors Fij [7]. However,
formed components for automotive applications often obtain
a complex geometry and they can be quite large as for example A-/B-/C-pillars or cowls. X-ray stress analysis on complex
shaped components can result in shadowing effects and thus
will limit the application. Hence, the tilting angle might e.g.,
be restricted to small angles, but the special measuring strategies often require high tilt angles in order to measure at an
intensity pole of the textured material state. Moreover, conventional stationary diffractometers are limited in installation
space and often large components must be cut for allowing
access to the designated measuring location. As a consequence of the sectioning of the component a redistribution
of the residual stress state emerge, which must be considered
for valuation of the results. Since, the penetration depth of soft
X-rays is very small (only a few micrometers for steel), a
stepwise layer removal, for example by means of electrochemical etching, must be conducted to determine a residual
stress depth distribution. Likewise, the layer removal results in
redistributions of the local residual stresses in particular for
components with small wall thicknesses. For simple geometries (plate, cylinder) correction methods exist (e.g., [8]) but
for deviating component geometries elaborate simulations are
required to account for the effect of the stress redistributions.
A remedy might be the application of high energy synchrotron or neutron diffraction for residual stress analysis, hence
due to the higher penetration depths of the radiation it might
be that the component must not be sectioned beforehand.
However, the access to these large scale facilities (neutron
reactors, synchrotron facilities) is limited. In addition, the
stress free lattice parameter d0 is absolutely necessary to calculate strains. It is to note that for the non-destructive diffraction approaches, e.g., by using neutron radiation, elegant approaches are proposed to analyze the local stress state via
strain pole figure determination. E.g. [9] proposed a method
to construct the grain-orientation-dependent stress from strain
pole figures of a textured IF (interstitial free) steel. Here, the
anisotropy is considered by the elasticity tensor.
In contrast to X-ray diffraction the incremental holedrilling method offers a more flexible alternative regarding
residual stress analysis for large components with complex
geometries, since the method is still applicable provided that
the measuring location is accessible for drilling. In addition,
the method is fast in determining residual stress depth profiles
and the redistribution due to the material removal is already

Exp Mech (2016) 56:369380

considered by the evaluation method itself. Basically, the

method standardized by the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) [10]. However, residual stress analysis
on textured materials is not practicable using the standard
approach, which is provided by means of commercially available evaluation software, if the texture grade is pronounced,
since the standard method assumes isotropic material behavior. Schwarz [11] varied the Youngs modulus for the two
orthogonal measuring directions and found out that a Youngs
modulus difference within the measuring plane of 20 % leads
to tolerable results (stress deviations25 MPa). Schwarz also
postulated that an evaluation of anisotropic materials must
consider specific calibration functions dependent on the direction of the principal load with respect to the texture. For
orthotropic materials Schajer et al. showed that the strain reaction around the hole is no longer trigonometric [12]. Schajer
also formulated a generalized equation based on the elastic
compliances, to solve the problem of stress determination on
orthotropic materials. Our own recent investigations showed
that no defined application limit for application to highly textured material states can be given, since the stress deviation of
a conventional stress evaluation (calibration data was calculated for materials assuming isotropic material behavior) depends on the degree of anisotropy, the texture/rosette orientation and the stress state [13]. It was also shown, that contrary
to [11] - even small Youngs modulus differences within the
measuring plane Emax/Emin between 13 and 20 % result in
intolerable errors larger than 10 %, when using conventional
calibration data based on the assumption of isotropic materials
behavior, which is stored in commercially available evaluation
software. Apart of these limitations the preliminary studies
already indicated that the incremental hole-drilling method
offers a great potential for residual stress determination on thin
walled formed (i.e., highly textured) components. The aim of
the present study is to develop a new measuring and evaluation strategy for reliable residual stress analysis using the incremental hole-drilling method for highly textured components and to establish its application on a real loading experiment for a single crystal sample.
Here, we report about a new evaluation approach based on
the differential algorithm wherefore the calibration data is
case-specifically determined by means of finite element (FE)
simulations. The case-specific calibration functions consider
the anisotropic material behavior. In this study the application
of multiple case-specific calibration functions during the stress
calculation on ideal texture orientations (Nickel single crystal
with cube, Goss or brass texture) as well as on a real CMSX-4
single crystal is proposed. The stress deviation to the nominal
applied stress (applied to the FE model) is calculated and
provides an evaluation criterion of the proposed approach.
Additionally, the influence of an offset/misorientation of the
rosette orientation applied for the stress analysis compared to
the rosette orientation used for the determination of the case-

Exp Mech (2016) 56:369380

specific calibration functions is analyzed. Finally, the presented approach is used for experimental stress analysis on an
Inconel single crystal with cube orientation.

Theory
Fundamentals
The incremental hole-drilling method is one of the widest used
residual stress analysis techniques and the fundamental approach was first developed by Mathar [14] in 1933. The incremental hole-drilling method is based on the elastic strain
relaxation due to stepwise removal of stressed material in the
region of the hole. Conventionally the released strain for each
drilling increment is measured by means of a dedicated strain
gage rosette. Afterwards, the residual stress is calculated from
the measured strain using generalized Hookes law and calibration data. An alternative to the strain gage rosettes are
optical strain measurement techniques like digital image correlation [15, 16], moir interferometry [1719] or holography
[20, 21]. However, these optical techniques are in general not
as accurate as strain gages and more sensitive to external influences like vibrations or temperature variations [22, 23].
Also the effort for stress computation is often relatively large
due to the huge amount of data. For this reason conventional
hole drilling strain gage rosettes are used for strain determination in this study.
Basically, mainly two evaluation methods are used to calculate residual stresses from the depth dependent strain relaxations, i.e., the integral method [24, 25] and the differential
method [26, 27]. Both evaluation approaches are combined in
the necessity of calibration data regarding that only a part of
the residual stress is released due to the drilling of a hole.
Calibration data can only be determined by means of FEsimulations in case of the integral method. Here, the stress
calculation is based on the trigonometric relation of the released strain around the drilled hole, which is not valid for
anisotropic materials. The calibration constants A and B are
calculated for normal stress and shear stress, respectively, and
are not directly assigned to any directions.
The differential methods allows both, an experimental calibration (tension/bending test) [28, 29] as well as a numerical
determination of the calibration data. This is a big plus regarding textured materials, since the knowledge of the texture by
means of the orientation distribution function and more precisely the effective elasticity tensor is not mandatory. Contrary
to the integral method, the measured strain relaxation is only
assigned to the stress within the actual drilled hole increment
for the differential approach. Residual stresses of previously
drilling steps are not considered for stress calculation; hence
steep stress gradients might be problematic. Thus, for larger
drilling depths the differential method wont be as reliable as

371

the integral method. In this study the differential method (DM)

is chosen, since a directional character can be easily assigned
to its calibration functions, which is important in case of textures materials due to its directional dependence of Youngs
modulus.
In the isotropic case, for determination of the calibration
functions (DM methods) a known calibration stress C,x and
C,y is applied on the model/specimen and the appropriate
strain reaction x and y caused by the hole-drilling is determined. In the subsequent step the calibration functions Kx and
Ky can be computed for the standard (isotropic) approach
according to
dy
dx
C;y
C;x
d
d
K x
i
1h 2
C;x 2C;y
E

dy
dx
C;x
C;y
d
d
h
i
K y
v 2
C;x 2C;y
E

Here, is the normalized drilling depth, E is the Youngs

modulus and the Poisson ratio. In general, this calibration
data is a function of the hole diameter D0, the strain gage
rosettes design and the normalized drilling depth =z/D0.
For isotropic materials the calibration data is already determined and is implemented in commercially available evaluation software as for instance MPA II [26]. If application limits
of the method as for example geometric boundary conditions
[30] are exceeded or heterogeneous material states (layered
materials) [31] are considered, the usual approach is to determine case-specific calibration data.
In all cases, i.e., conventional calibration functions
(isotropic) or case specific calibration functions, the stresses
in the direction of the strain gages (see Fig. (1)) can then be
calculated from the measured strain relaxations using equation 3, 4, 5.
0-



d0-
d90-

vK


x
y
2
d
d
K x 2 v2 K y
E

3
45-

E
K x

v2




d45d0- d90- d45-
vK y

2 K x
d
d
d
d
K y

4
90-



d90-
d0-

vK

x
y
2
d
d
K x 2 v2 K y
E

5
Figure (1) gives an overview of the coordinate system
and the position of the strain gages.

372

Exp Mech (2016) 56:369380

Fig. 1 Coordinate system and position of the strain gages

The principal stresses and the angle , which is the

angle between the maximal principal stress 1 and 0-,
are calculated using the relations of Mohrs circle
(equations 6 and 7).
0- 90-
1
 p
1;2
2
2

q
0- 45- 2 90- 45- 2

6
1
245- 0- 90-
arctan
2
0- 90-

The new Evaluation Approach for Anisotropic Material

States
In case of isotropic materials only two calibration functions Kx() and Ky() are needed (see equations 1 and
2), where Kx() represents the calibration function for
linear expansion and Ky() considers the transversal contraction, when a load in X-direction is applied. These
two calibration functions fully describe the isotropic material behavior, since the behavior for linear expansion
and transversal contraction are independent in orientation. In contrast, having textured materials the linear
expansion and transversal contraction vary with
orientation.
Our new evaluation strategy is based on four casespecific calibration functions to describe the anisotropic
strain reaction of the two orthogonal strain gages 0- and
90-. Thus, the basic idea is a directional calibration,
which considers the anisotropic material behavior. Figure (1) shows the coordinate system and the positions
of the strain gages for the determination of the casespecific calibration functions, where a direction of 0coincides with the X-axis and a direction of 90matches with the Y-axis.
A new nomenclature of the calibration functions and
strains in terms of double indices is established for the
proposed evaluation strategy. Here, the first index is
assigned to the direction of the strain reaction and the

second index gives the direction of the calibration

stress. A homogeneous uniaxial calibration stress C,
x applied on a specimen or FE-model causes a linear
expansion xx in X-direction and a transversal contraction yx in Y-direction. The case-specific calibration functions K xx() and K yx() describe the material
behavior in this direction. The procedure is analogous
for the y-direction, K yy () and K xy () designate the
materials reaction yy() and xy() when a homogeneous uniaxial stress y is applied. Thus, the elastic
behavior of anisotropic materials is described for
these two measuring directions and the four casespecific calibration functions can be calculated
through the following equations
dxx
E x
d
K xx
x
dyx
E x
d
K yx
vyx x
dyy
E y
d
K yy
y
dxy
E y
d
K xy
vxy y

10

11

Consequently, two simulations or experiments are necessary to determine the four case-specific calibration
functions. A graphical overview of the whole residual
stress analysis procedure applying this new evaluation
approach is given in Fig. (2). Due to the establishment
of four calibration functions a modification of the stress
calculation scheme is necessary according to

0-



Ex
d0-
d90-
vxy K xy
K yy
d
d
K xx K yy vxy vyx K xy K yx

12
90-



Ey
d90-
d0-
vyx K yx
K xx
d
d
K xx K yy vxy vyx K xy K yx

13
Basically, the Youngs modulus and the Poisson ratio
can be removed of equations (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13),
because it will be canceled down by applying the
case-specifically determined calibration functions during
stress calculation. It comes out that using this new approach a determination of residual stress is possible in
the two orthogonal directions of the strain gauge rosette
only.

Exp Mech (2016) 56:369380

373

Fig 2 Scheme of the new evaluation approach using multiple case-specific calibration functions

If the elastic constants are identical in these two measuring directions as it is for example for a cube texture,
the case-specific calibration functions reduce to the two
functions in equation (1 and 2). This way a biaxial
calibration stress state is also applicable to determine
the case-specific calibration functions. Hence, the evaluation algorithms for the calculation of the stresses in
measuring direction 0- and 90- simplify to the conventional equations (3 and 5). In order to proof the potential of our proposed evaluation strategy using four casespecific calibration functions, the stress is calculated
with three different approaches and the stress deviation
serves as evaluation criteria, using:
&
&
&

conventional calibration functions (isotropic)

conventional case-specific calibration functions (two calibration functions)
multiple case-specific calibration functions (four calibration functions)

FE-Simulations
In this study case-specific calibration functions are numerically determined to evaluate the simulated strain relaxations

using the differential method. Herein, the anisotropic material

behavior is considered in terms of the elasticity tensor in the
three dimensional simulation model based on Hookes law
presented in Fig. (3). The FE-model implemented in
ABAQUS with a dimension of 40 40 mm2 and a thickness
of 4 mm consists of approx. 120,000 elements of type C3D8R.
An external load is applied on the outside surfaces of the
model. The incremental drilling of the hole is simulated using
the model change option of ABAQUS, hence layers of elements within the region of the hole are deleted. A nominal
hole diameter D0 =0.8 mm was assumed. Finally, the released
strain is calculated for each drilling step averaging the strain
relaxation over the actual gauge area (here 99 nodes) corresponding to a rosette of type EA-XX-031RE-120 from Vishay
Measurements Group.
The calibration functions introduced through equations (8, 9, 10, 11, 12) are in addition dependent of
the effective elasticity tensor, i.e., the local anisotropy.
To demonstrate the effect of a rather high anisotropy a
Nickel single crystal in cube {100}<100>, Goss {110}
<100 >and brass {110} < 112> orientation is considered
in the following. Elastic constants for a nickel single
crystal of C 11 = 247 GPa, C 12 = 153 GPa and C 44 =
122 GPa are taken from [32]. For this first approach,
a single phase material and a constant texture through
t h i c k n e s s a r e a s s u m e d . T h e Yo u n g s m o d u l u s

374

Exp Mech (2016) 56:369380

Results and Discussion

Application to Ideal Cube Orientations

Fig. 3 FE-model for the simulation of the strain relaxations during hole
drilling, applied stress and position of strain gages

distribution within the measuring plane for each texture

orientation is illustrated in Fig. (4). Two nominal stress
states are simulated, i.e.,
&

x 300MPa; x 150MPa

x 2y

x 300MPa; x 300MPa

x y

&

For the determination of the case-specific calibration

functions Kxx() and Kyx() a calibration stress of C,x =
200 MPa is applied to the FE model. For the determination of Kyy() and Kxy() the same calibration stress
value of C,y =200 MPa is chosen.
Usually the commercially available software for residual stress evaluation of a hole-drilling experiment
has no interface for self-calculated calibration curves.
For this reason, a costumer-written evaluation program
in MATLAB based on the differential algorithm is used
for stress calculation, which offers the possibility to insert self-calculated calibration data.
In order to compare the nominal stress nominal with
the evaluated stress evaluation a stress deviation stress
is introduced in equation (14).
stress

evaluation nominal
100%
nominal

14

Figure (5a) shows the relieved strain of a numerical simulation

as a function of the normalized drilling depth for a nickel
single crystal in cube orientation when a stress of x =2y =
300 MPa is applied. In contrast, Fig. (5b) shows the stress
distribution, where the squares represent a stress distribution
received after conventional evaluation and the stars represent
an evaluation using multiple case-specific calibration functions. The gray area defines the reliance, since a hole-drilling
experiment is more error-prone at the surface and at larger
depths. Generally, near to the surface the relative error during
strain measurement is higher than for the following depth
increments due to comparatively small values of strain relief.
Additionally, the influence of the drill bit geometry, i.e., the
divergence from an ideal flat tool end face, is more pronounced near to the surface. Furthermore, the accuracy of
the differential method is limited at larger depth (see chapter
2). That is why the first and the last two depth increments were
not taken into account for the calculation of the stress deviation. It is obvious that an evaluation using conventionally
calculated calibration data (isotropic material) cannot describe
the nominal stress state in a proper manner. In comparison to
the conventional evaluation, which assumes isotropic material
behavior, the evaluated stresses using multiple case-specific
calibration data leads to a good accordance to the nominal
stresses. The following diagrams will show the stress deviation calculated according to equation (14) as a function of the
normalized drilling depth, since the stress deviation is an important criteria, whether the stress evaluation gives reasonable
results or not. Here, the stress deviation is only calculated for
the stresses 0 and 90 in measuring direction of the strain
gages. Additionally, the maximum stress deviation within the
reliance range is calculated. Usually, the accuracy of the holedrilling method is 2530 MPa. Since the applied stress is
300 MPa, the tolerance limit of a reliable stress analysis is
defined to 10 % and indicated in the diagrams by a shaded
area.

Fig. 4 Youngs modulus distribution within the measuring plane for the investigated texture orientations of a nickel single crystal

Exp Mech (2016) 56:369380

375

Fig. 5 Relieved strain of a nickel single crystal in cube orientation with an applied stress of x =2y (a) and the corresponding stress distribution
evaluated conventionally (isotropic) and case-specifically using multiple case specific calibration functions (b)

Figure (6) demonstrates the application of this new approach

for the cube texture, which for the cases considered here shows
the highest stress deviations using a conventional evaluation.
The application of multiple case-specific calibration functions
leads to a significant decrease of the stress deviation. This is
shown for both applied stress states. In case of a nominal stress
state of x =2y the maximum deviation of the stress component in a direction of 0 decreases from approx. 34 % to about
3 % and the deviation of 90 reduces from 49 % to approx.
4 %. Hence, the calculated stress deviation is within the defined
tolerance limit. Similar improvements can be achieved for the
axi-symmetric stress state. Here, the deviations for both stress
components are identical and the deviation decreases from 39
to 3 %. Thus, a reliable stress analysis using multiple casespecific calibration functions is feasible in case of a cube orientation. The cube orientation is an exceptional case due to its
highly symmetric Youngs modulus distribution. Since the
Youngs modulus is equal for 0 direction and 90 direction,
a proper evaluation can also be achieved using conventional
(two) case-specific calibration functions.

Application to Ideal Goss and Brass Orientations

t first it is important to demonstrate that a conventional casespecific calibration based on two calibration functions
(equations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) is normally insufficient, if a reliable
stress analysis on strongly textured materials is required.
Therefore, the calculated stress deviation for a conventional
case-specific calibration of a nickel single crystal in Goss orientation is shown in Fig. (7) and compared to a conventional
evaluation assuming isotropic material behavior. A conventional evaluation based on isotropic material behavior leads
to a maximum stress deviation of 32 % and 39 % for 0 and
90, respectively. An evaluation with conventional casespecific calibration functions reduces the stress deviation in
0 direction to 22 %, whereas the stress deviation with a maximum of 75 % in 90 direction is even higher.
A reliable stress analysis based on the proposed evaluation
approach using multiple case-specific calibration functions is
practicable for the ideal Goss and brass orientations as can be
seen in Figs. (8) and (9). The application of multiple case-

Fig. 6 Comparison of the stress deviation of a Cube orientation using conventional calibration functions or multiple case-specific calibration functions
for a stress state x =2y (a) and x =y (b)

376

Exp Mech (2016) 56:369380

deviation of 8 % for the stress in 0 direction and 12 % in 90

direction. Here, an evaluation using multiple case-specific calibration function improves the stress calculation and the maximum stress deviation for the stress component in 0 direction
is 1 % and 2 % for the stress component in 90 direction.
An important finding of this new evaluation approach is the
constant but marginal stress deviation, which is independent
of Youngs modulus ratio Ey/Ex in measuring direction (here 1
for cube texture to 1.7 for Goss and brass texture).
Preliminary Conclusion

Fig. 7 Comparison of the stress deviation for a Goss orientation using

conventional calibration functions or conventional (two) case-specific
calibration functions for a stress state x =2y

specific calibration functions results in a considerable reduction of stress deviations due to the directional consideration of
material stiffness and strain reaction. All stress distributions
evaluated by the new approach are in good accordance with
the nominal applied stress, since the maximum stress deviations are smaller than 5 %. If a nominal stress state of x =2y
is applied on a nickel single crystal in Goss orientation the
maximum stress deviation for the stress component in direction of 0 is reduced from approx. 32 % to 2 % and in a
direction of 90 from 38 to 5 %. For an axi-symmetric stress
state the 0-component decreases from 34 to 2 % and
the 90-component decreases from 37 to 5 %.
In case of the brass texture (see Fig. (9)), the conventionally
evaluated stress deviates about 8 % and 19 %, respectively, for
the components in 0 and 90 direction, when a stress state of
x =2y is applied. If the stress is evaluated using the proposed
evaluation approach the maximum stress deviation reduces to
1 % in 0 direction and 2 % in 90 direction. A conventional
evaluation for axi-symmetric stress state results in a maximum

However, the new evaluation strategy proposed in the present

paper is accompanied by a higher calculation effort to determine these multiple case-specific calibration functions. Furthermore, the texture and the resulting effective elastic constants must be known beforehand to provide an appropriate
numerical determination of the case-specific calibration data.
In this respect, the boundary conditions of the simulation must
be identical to the measurement conditions (e.g., hole diameter, rosette geometry/orientation). In case of real components,
at first the texture must be measured e.g., by means of X-ray
diffraction. Afterwards the effective elastic constants can be
calculated using the orientation distribution function ODF and
single crystal elastic constants in combination with a model
assumption concerning the interaction between individual
grains [3336]. At least two simulations or experiments must
be conducted to determine the four case-specific calibration
functions. An evaluation with only two case-specific calibration functions is usually not reasonable. The cube orientation
represents an exception due to its identical Youngs moduli
E0 and E90, but real textured components generally obtain a
Youngs modulus distribution where E0 and E90 are not identical. Finally, the case-specific calibration functions are only
valid for one set of parameter (i.e., hole diameter, rosette geometry/orientation, texture). As a consequence a residual
stress analysis is only possible for the two directions of the

Fig. 8 Comparison of the stress deviation of a Goss orientation using conventional calibration functions or multiple case-specific calibration functions
for a stress state x =2y (a) and x =y (b)

Exp Mech (2016) 56:369380

377

Fig. 9 Comparison of the stress deviation of a Brass orientation using conventional calibration functions or multiple case-specific calibration functions
for a stress state x =2y (a) and x =y (b)

orthogonal strain gages of the rosette and a calculation of the

principal stress is so far not applicable. Apart from the higher
invest in effort for calibration the influence of the anisotropic
material behaviour is negligible using the multiple casespecific calibration functions and a reliable stress analysis on
strongly textured materials is practicable. Moreover, since the
simulation model allows for a consideration of depth dependent elasticity tensors, also texture gradients can be considered. About the application to material states with texture gradients we will report elsewhere. Additionally, the transferability of this strategy to the integral method is part of our ongoing
research. An assignment of the calibration constants to specific directions is difficult as a result of the more complex connection between stress, strain and calibration constants. An
enhancement to more than two calibration constants seems
to be essential, as was already proposed by Schajer [12] for
orthotropic materials.

increase from 3 % to almost 6 %. Thus, an additional increase

of 3 % is caused by the rosette misorientation. It can be seen
that for the Goss and brass orientation the stress component in
90 direction in general shows higher stress deviations as the
stress component in 0 direction, whilst for the Goss orientation the stress deviation is highest. The latter point might be
due to the larger Youngs modulus ratio in the measuring
plane in case of the Goss orientation. The stress component
in 0 direction possesses an almost parallel distribution to the
90 direction, but with lower stress deviation. In case of the
Goss orientation, the maximum stress deviation slightly rises
from 2 to 4 % and 4.7 to 6.3 %, respectively. The brass orientation shows the highest increase of 4 %. Here, the maximum
stress deviation increases from 0.7 to 4.7 % in 0 direction and
from 1.7 to 5.3 % in 90 direction. Basically, a maximum error
of 10 % is not exceeded and thus, a reliable stress analysis is
still practicable for all texture orientations. The proposed evaluation method is robust, although, there is a significant

Effect of Strain Gage Rosette Misorientations

Since the alignment of the strain gage rosette in an experimental hole-drilling measurement may differ in a small range compared to the rosette position used for the calibration, the orientation of the rosette is varied stepwise up to 5 misorientation for axi-symmetric load cases to study the effect of strain
gage misorientation. According to experience a positioning of
the rosette should be possible within this range. Consequently,
the stress is calculated using multiple case-specific calibration
functions with a constant rosette alignment of 0. Figure (10)
shows the maximum stress deviation regarding the misorientation of the rosette with respect to the texture orientation in
case of an axi-symmetric stress state. The maximum stress
deviation of all texture orientations is increasing together with
the degree of misorientation of the rosette alignment between
stress analysis and calibration. The maximum stress deviations for the cube orientation of both stress components

Fig. 10 Mean stress deviation dependent of rosette misorientation during

stress measurement and calibration

378

Exp Mech (2016) 56:369380

Fig. 11 Scheme of the bending

setup including a detailed image
of the applied drilling tool and
orientation of the single crystal

Youngs modulus gradient in 0 direction of 26 GPa for the

brass orientation. Nevertheless, the best results can be
achieved, if the alignment of the rosette in the experimental
stress analysis setup matches best to the alignment of the
calibration.
Likewise this systematic study means that an uncertainty in
knowledge of the orientation distribution function and thus of
the effective elastic constants of up to 5 of misorientation is
tolerable using the new evaluation approach.

Experimental Validation
Up to this point we only focused on fundamental investigations using finite element simulations, whilst measurement
uncertainties (scatter) were not considered. For this reason
experimental validation of the proposed approach is carried
out for a CMSX-4 single crystal sample, which was subjected
to a defined bending stress distribution. Figure (11) schematically shows the experimental setup as well as the orientation
of the sample by means of the {100} pole figure. The single
crystal obtains a cube orientation with its edges parallel to the
samples edges. Single crystal elastic constants of nickel were
assumed (see Chapter 3). Thus, the same Youngs modulus
distribution for a cube orientation as in Fig. (4) results for the
CMSX-4 single crystal.
The bent beam sample with dimension of 70 mm x 18 mm
x 5.3 mm (L x W x T) was elastically loaded in a four point
bending fixture to a defined surface strain of 3106 m/m. This
load corresponds to a surface stress of about 407 MPa. Prior to
load stress analysis the initial residual stress state was analyzed by means of the incremental hole drilling and slitting
method. The results show that only at the very surface
(<0.1 mm) small amount of grinding residual stresses exist.
For larger drilling depth the bending bar can be assumed to be
stress free (RS <10 MPa). For the hole-drilling stress analysis
a hole-drilling apparatus with an electrical turbine from Newport was used. The rotational speed was 25,000 rpm and the
feed rate was set to 0.02 mm/s. The released strain is measured
by a strain gage rosette of type EA-06-031RE-120 from
Vishay Measurements Group. A TiN coated 2-flute drill bit
with a diameter of 0.795 mm led to a final hole diameter D0 of

approximately 0.80 mm. The measuring data is conditioned

by cubic spline functions and evaluated using the differential
method. However, additionally to conventional calibration
functions, the residual stress depth profile is calculated by
means of multiple case-specific calibration functions determined by FE simulation following the above proposed evaluation approach. The elastic constants of nickel were assumed,
since the orientation of the single crystal corresponds to a cube
texture. The calibration functions Kxx(), Kyx(), Kyy() and
Kxy() were determined numerically using the described FE
model. The hole diameter and the drilling increments in the FE
simulation were adapted according to the hole-drilling experiment. Using the resultant strain relaxation and equations (8 to
11), the four case-specific calibration functions were
calculated.
The plot presented in Fig. (12) clearly indicates that a conventional evaluation assuming isotropic material behavior
cannot describe the subjected bending stress profile (nominal
stress data) correctly. This is in good accordance with the
simulation results. At the beginning, the nominal stress is
underestimated until a normalized drilling depth of approx.
0.35. For larger drilling depths the nominal stress is strongly
overestimated. Here, a maximum stress deviation of 31 % was
calculated. Figure (12) further presents, that in general the
bending stress profile can be described in good agreement

Fig. 12 Stress depth profile for the CMSX-4 single crystal during loading stress experiment using a four point bending setup

Exp Mech (2016) 56:369380

by the new evaluation approach using multiple case-specific

calibration functions. Near to the surface the evaluated stress
is in very good accordance to the applied bending stress. For
normalized drilling depths larger than 0.25 the nominal stress
is slightly overestimated and a maximum stress deviation of
12 % is not exceeded. It can be seen, that the proposed evaluation approach leads to a significant improvement of the
stress results in case of strongly anisotropic materials. Hence,
it was demonstrated that the higher effort invested for the
determination of multiple case-specific calibration functions
is be valuable.

Conclusion
A new evaluation approach for hole-drilling residual stress
analysis on strongly textured materials was presented. The
proposed evaluation strategy, which bases on the differential
method, takes into account the anisotropic material behavior
during the stress calculation by means of multiple casespecific calibration functions.
From the systematic studies for different ideal orientations
(cube-, Goss-, brass-texture) of a nickel-based single crystal
for different stress states the following conclusions can be
drawn:
&

&

&

&

&

A conventional stress evaluation assuming isotropic materials behavior leads to significant stress deviations, in the
cases studied here up to 49 %, and thus, a reliable stress
analysis is not feasible (see also [13]).
An evaluation using conventional case-specific calibration
functions (i.e., two calibration functions are used), basically leads to no improvement in stress evaluation on
strongly textured materials. Only for cube orientations,
where the effective Youngs modulus distribution is symmetric with respect to the strain gage rosette orientations
the conventional case-specific approach results in a considerable advancement.
The application of the proposed evaluation approach using
multiple case-specific calibration functions (i.e., four casespecific calibration functions are considered) reduces the
stress deviation (referring to conventional calibration
based on isotropic materials behavior) to 15 % and the
evaluated stress is in good accordance to the nominal applied stress.
For the implementation of the new approach a higher simulation effort must be invested, which is unquestionable
worthy in case of strongly textured materials, where all
other residual stress analysis approaches have their limitations. Further the ODF must be known beforehand.
The usage of multiple case-specific calibration functions
is still applicable, when the rosette orientation does not
perfectly match between the hole-drilling measurement

379

and the calibration. This was shown up to a misorientation

of 5. This implicitly means that an imprecision in the
exact knowledge of the ODF up to this degree is also
tolerable.
So far only the stresses in strain gage rosette orientation
can be determined reliably.

&

In summary, it could be demonstrated that an evaluation

using multiple case-specific calibration functions is an approved method to determine residual stress in highly anisotropic materials by means of the incremental hole-drilling
method.
Acknowledgment The Graduate School 1483 BProcess chains in production: Modelling, interactions and assessments of process zones^ and
the German research foundation (DFG) are gratefully acknowledged for
funding. Further, we thank Mike Steinzig (Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA), who provided the hole drilling measuring setup used for
experimental validation during Simones stay at LANL.

References
1.
2.
3.

4.

5.
6.
7.

8.

9.

10.
11.

12.

13.

Kocks UF, Tom CN, Wenk HR (1998) Texture and Anisotropy.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Macherauch E, Mller P (1961) Das sin 2 -verfahren der
rntgenographischen spannungsmessung. Z Phys 13:340345
Hauk V, Herlach D, Sesemann H (1975) ber nichtlineare
gitterebenenabstandsverteilungen in sthlen, ihre entstehung,
berechnung und bercksichtigung bei der spannungsermittlung. Z
Metallkde 66:734737
Eigenmann B, Macherauch E (1995) Rntgenographische
untersuchung von spannungszustnden in werkstoffen teil I.
Mat-wiss u Werkstofftech 26:148160
Hauk V, Vaessen G (1985) Eigenspannungen in kristallitgruppen
texturierter sthle. Z Metallkde 76:102107
Hauk V, Oudelhoven R (1988) Eigenspannungsanalyse an
kaltgewalztem nickel. Z Metallkde 79:4149
Behnken H, Hauk V (1991) Berechnung der rntgenographischen
spannungsfaktoren texturierter werkstoffe vergleich mit
experimentellen ergebnissen. Z Metallkde 82:151158
Moore MG, Evans WP (1958) Mathematical correction for stress in
removed layers in X-Ray diffraction residual stress analysis. SAE
Trans 66:340345
Wang YD, Wang XL, Stoica AD, Richardson JW (2002)
Measurement of grain-orientation-dependent stress and stored energy using a spallation neutron source. Mater Sci Forum 408412:
179184
ASTM E837-08. Standard Test Method for Determining Residual
Stresses by Hole-Drilling Strain-Gage method
Schwarz T (1996) Beitrag zur Eigenspannungsermittlung an
isotropen, anisotropen sowie inhomogenen, schichtweise
aufgebauten Werkstoffen mittels Bohrlochmethode und
Ringkernverfahren. Dissertation, University of Stuttgart
Schajer GS, Yang L (1994) Residual-stress measurement in
orthotropic materials using the hole-drilling method. Exp
Mech 34:324333
Schuster S, Gibmeier J (2014) Residual stress analysis of strongly
textured materials by means of the incremental hole-drilling method
survey on the application limits. Mater Test 56:915922

380
14.

Mathar J (1933) Ermittlung von eigenspannungen durch messung

von bohrloch-verformungen. Arch Eisenhuttenwes 7:277281
15. Nelson DV, Makino A, Schmidt T (2006) Residual stress determination using hole drilling and 3D image correlation. Exp Mech 46:
3138
16. Lord JD, Penn D, Whitehead P (2008) The application of digital
image correlation for measuring residual stress by incremental hole
drilling. Appl Mech Mater 1314:6573
17. Nicoletto G (1991) Moir interferometry determination of residual
stresses in the presence of gradients. Exp Mech 31:252256
18. Wu Z, Lu J, Han B (1998) Study of residual stress distribution by a
combined method of moir interferometry and incremental hole
drilling, part I: theory. J Appl Mech 65:837843
19. Schwarz RC, Kutt LM, Papazian JM (2000) Measurement of residual stress using interferometric moire: a new insight. Exp Mech 40:
271281
20. Makino A, Nelson DV (1994) Residual-stress determination by
single-axis holographic interferometry and hole drilling - part I:
theory. Exp Mech 34:6678
21. Steinzig M, Ponslet E (2003) Residual stress measurement using
the hole drilling method and laser speckle interferometry: part I.
Exp Techniques 27:4346
22. Schajer GS (2010) Advances in hole-drilling residual stress measurements. Exp Mech 50:159168
23. Schajer GS (2010) Hole-drilling residual stress measurement at 75:
origin, advances, opportunities. Exp Mech 50:245253
24. Schajer GS (1988) Measurement of non-uniform residual stresses
using the hole-drilling method part I. Stress calculation procedures.
J Eng Mater-T ASME 110:338343

Exp Mech (2016) 56:369380

25.

Schajer GS (1988) Measurement of non-uniform residual stresses

using the hole-drilling method part II. Practical application of the
integral method. J Eng Mate-T ASME 110:344349
26. Schwarz T, Kockelmann H (1993) Die bohrlochmethode eine fr viele anwendungsbereiche optimales verfahren zur
experimentellen ermittlung von eigenspannungen.
Messtechnische Briefe 29:3338
27. Knig G (1991) Ein Beitrag zur Weiterentwicklung teilzerstrender
Eigenspannungsmeverfahren. Dissertation University of Stuttgart
28. Rendler NJ, Vigness I (1966) Hole-drilling strain-gage method of
measuring residual stresses. Exp Mech 6:577586
29. von Mirbach D (2014) Experimental validation of the calibration
function of the hole drilling method and ring core method for residual stress measurement. Mater Test 56:184190
30. Sobolevski EG, Nau A, Scholtes B (2011) Residual stress analysis
using the hole-drilling method and geometry-specific calibration
functions. Mater Sci Forum 681:159164
31. Obelode E, Gibmeier J (2013) Residual stress analysis on
thick film systems by the incremental hole-drilling method
simulation and experimental results. Exp Mech 53:965976
32. Landolt-Brnstein (1992) Group III Condensed Matter, Table 3.
Cubic system. Elements, 29a:14, Springer
33. Voigt W (1928) Lehrbuch der kristallphysik. Teubner, Leipzig
34. Reuss A (1929) Berechnung der fliegrenze von mischkristallen
auf grund der plastizittsbedingung fr einkristalle. Z Angew
Math Mech 9:4958
35. Hill R (1952) The elastic behaviour of a crystalline aggregate. Proc
Phys Soc A 65:349354
36. Krner E (1958) Berechnung der elastischen konstanten des
vielkristalls aus den konstanten des einkristalls. Z Phys 151:504518