Stress Calculation Error Analysis

for Incremental Hole-Drilling

G. S. Schajer^
E. Altus
Department of Mectianical Engineering,
Technion - israei Institute of Tectinology,
Haifa 32000, Israel
Residual Stress Measurements
The incremental hole-drilling method for measuring non-uniform residual stresses
gives stress results that are very sensitive to errors in the measured data. The resulting
stress errors can easily become large enough to compromise seriously the usefulness
of the calculated stress results. This paper describes a straightforward method for
calculating the stress range that has a specified probability of containing the actual
residual stresses. Knowledge of this range allows informed interpretations of the
stress results to be made. The four measurement error sources considered are: strain
errors, hole depth errors, uniform hole diameter errors, and material constant errors.
Both the Integral and Power Series stress calculation methods are investigated, and
their different responses to measurement errors are described.

Introduction Two methods are commonly used to determine non-uniform

The hole-drilling method [1-4] is a popular technique for
measuring residual stresses near the surface of a specimen. It
involves drilling a small hole and using a strain gage rosette of
the type shown in Fig. 1 to measure the resulting strain reliefs
in the surrounding material. In the most common application,
the residual stresses are assumed to be uniform with depth from
the specimen surface. The associated stress results calculated
from the measured strain data are stable and repeatable, espe-
cially when strain data averaging [5] is included.
The hole-drilling method can also evaluate residual stresses
that vary with depth from the specimen surface [ 6 - 1 1 ] . In this
case, an incremental technique is used in which relieved strains
are measured during a series of small hole depth increments.
In contrast to the uniform stress case, non-uniform stress calcu-
lations are extremely sensitive to errors in the measured data
[5, 6, 8, 11]. The resulting stress evaluation errors can easily
grow to be similar in size to the stresses being measured. This
error sensitivity occurs because of an inherent physical limita-
tion of the hole-drilling method. The strains are measured at
the specimen surface, but the desired non-uniform stresses are
deep in the interior. St. Venant's Principle indicates that the
surface strain response rapidly becomes insensitive to the effects
of interior stresses existing at increasing distances from the
measurement surface.
Clearly, the possible presence of large errors can seriously
compromise the usefulness of the calculated stress results. A
meaningful interpretation of the stress results can therefore only
be made with a knowledge of the probable range of the stress
evaluation errors. Without such knowledge, it is impossible to
judge whether a given stress result is real or just a calculation
artifact.
Although high error sensitivity was observed even in the
earliest studies of incremental hole-drilling [ 6 ] , no systematic
quantitative investigation of the resulting stress errors has yet
been reported. This study considers four major error sources in
hole-drilling measurements, and presents a practical method for
determining the probable range of their influence on calculated
residual stress values.
Stress Calculation IVIethods
The effects of measurement errors on calculated residual
stresses depend on the method used to evaluate the stresses.
' On leave from tlie University of Britisli Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Contributed by the Materials Division for Publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGI-
residual stresses, the Integral Method and the Power Series
Method. In preparation for the error sensitivity analysis, this
section briefly reviews the two stress calculation methods.
The Integral Method for calculating non-uniform residual
stresses is a direct generalization of the uniform stress calcula-
tion method. In the uniform stress case, the strain measured by
a typical element of the strain gage rosette shown in Figure 1
is
+ Cmin)
ami)cos2/3 (1)
+ -5(a.
where
e = measured strain
o'max, Cmin = priucipal strcsscs
/3 = angle to maximum principal stress direction
E = Young's modulus
v = Poisson's ratio
a, b = calibration constants.
The calibration constants S'and b are almost material indepen-
dent for a wide range of Poisson's ratio [8]. These constants
include the effects of strain averaging over the finite area of the
strain gage grid [5^]. Apart from small changes in the numerical
values of a and b, Eq. (1) applies both to a blind hole in a
thick plate and to a through hole in a thin plate.
Similar equations apply for each of the three strain gages in
the rosette, the equations differing only in the assignment of
angle f3. For the uniform stress case, a single set of three rosette
strain measurements is sufficient to calculate the three principal
quantities a,nax, Cmin and^. In this uniform stress calculation, a
relative error in e, a, or b causes similar relative errors in a^^^^
and a^in- There is no unusually high error sensitivity.
Non-uniform stress evaluations require additional strain mea-
surements. Such evaluations can be made by incremental hole-
drilling, where strain measurements are made during a series
of hole depth increments. Equation (1) then becomes
NEERING MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received by the Materials
Division July 17, 1994; revised itianuscript received December 10, 1994. Associ-
ate Technical Editor: K. S. Chan.

120 / Vol. 118, JANUARY 1996 Transactions of the ASME

Copyright 1996 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Fig. 1 Typical Piole-drilling rosette. Adapted from [2].
(1 + ^ ) r - n , .
L l I (O'max + CTniin )}
2E
ai)cos2^1 (2)
^^mio
where the braces indicate vector quantities and the brackets
matrices. The vector {e} represents the set of strains measured
after each hole depth increment, and (a^.^, a mm} the principal
stresses within each of the increments. Matrices [a] and [fe] are
lower triangular. Calculation of the stresses within each depth
increment involves solving matrix equation (2) and similar
equations for the other two gages in the rosette. The form of
equation (2) is non-linear because of the cos ip term. However,
Eqs. (2) for the three rosette gages can be linearized by rewrit-
ing them as three uncoupled matrix equations [11], one involv-
ing only matrix [a] and the other two only matrix [5]. The first
of these three uncoupled equations is
(1 +v)
m{p]
where stress P = (ff;, + a,)!! and strain p = (ej -(- e^)l2.
Equation (3J| and the two other similar uncoupled equations
involving [b] can be solved using standard matrix meth-
ods [12].
In the Power Series Method, the residual stress variation with
depth is assumed to be expressible in the form of a power
series polynomial. In practice, only the first two terms of the
polynomial' can be used effectively. The first term represents
uniform stresses and the second term stresses varying linearly
with depth from the specimen surface. The coefficients of the
two terms are determined by a least-squares procedure [11].
Again, it is convenient to linearize the least-squares equations
by rewriting them as three uncoupled equations, the first involv-
ing only a terms and the other two only 5 terms. The first of
these equations is
(1 +^) aoUo S oai' [Pol ' Z ap
Oiao X aittt _ . P i . -Xi/'
where ob and Oi represent the measured strain responses of a
hole drilled into unit residual stress fields that are respectively
uniform with depth and proportional to depth. The solution
vector contains the coefficients of the least-squares best-fit lin-
ear stress profile, P{h) = PQ + P\h, where h is the distance
from the specimen surface.
Journal of Engineering l\^aterials and Technology
Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Factors Affecting Stress Calculation Accuracy
The matrix character of Eqs. (3) and (4) introduces a sub-
stantial new influence on stress calculation accuracy in addition
to the direct influence of relative errors. In a scalar equation
such as Eq. (1), a relative error in a given quantity, say e,
typically causes a comparable relative error in a calculated quan-
tity, say (Tniax' This feature is not true for a matrix equation. For
example, relative errors in (p ) in Eq. (3) can cause significantly
greater relative errors \n{P]. The maximum ratio of the relative
errors in the solution vector compared with those in the given
vector is described by the condition number, A', of the matrix
[12]. A well-conditioned matrix for experimental work has a
condition number close to unity, and gives solutions with rela-
tive errors similar to the data relative errors. A poorly condi-
tioned matrix has a condition number much greater than unity,
and gives solutions subject to much larger relative errors.
The condition number of a lower triangular matrix of the
type considered here depends on the size of its determinant
relative to its norm. A smaller determinant corresponds to a
higher condition number. In the extreme case, a zero determi-
nant corresponds to a singular matrix, which has infinite error
sensitivity and is unsolvable. For a triangular matrix such as
[a] or [S], the determinant is simply the product of the diagonal
elements. Unfortunately, these elements rapidly get smaller as
hole depth increases, and can become zero at hole depths equal
to about half of the rosette mean radius [11]. Smaller hole depth
increments also reduce the size of the diagonal elements. Thus,
the greater the stress spatial resolution and measurement depth
that are sought, the worse will be the possible stress calculation
errors. High spatial resolution and large measurement depth
cannot be achieved at the same time as high stress calculation
accuracy. This characteristic, which derives from St. Venant's
Principle, can be considered as a stress measurement analogy
of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of atomic physics.
The Power Series Method achieves a superior stress calcula-
tion stability by limiting the spatial resolution to a small number
of power series polynomial terms. The two terms in Eq. (4)
represent the maximum practical limit. If one attempts greater
stress spatial resolution by increasing the number of terms, the
condition number of the resulting larger matrix in Eq. (4) rap-
idly increases, and the superior stress calculation stability is
lost.
(3)
Measurement Error Sources and Effects
Measurement errors can originate from five main sources:
1. Strain measurement errors. These include instrumenta-
tion errors, thermally induced apparent strains, and addi-
tional residual stresses induced by the hole drilling pro-
cess.
2. Hole depth measurement errors. These include possible
errors in measuring hole depth, and any non-flatness of
the bottom of the hole.
3. Hole diameter measurement errors. These include diame-
ter measurement errors, tapering of the hole, and devia-
tion from roundness.
4. Material constant estimation errors. These include uncer-
tainties in the given elastic constants of the specimen
material.
5. Hole eccentricity errors. These include the effects of pos-
sible eccentricity of the hole from the center of the strain
(4)
gage rosette.
The various sources produce errors of different types. Cate-
gory 1 strain measurement errors only affect the right sides of
Eqs. (3) and (4). Error categories 2 - 5 mostly affect the left
sides.
The part of the matrix equation affected by a particular error
source determines the nature of the response to that error source.
JANUARY 1996, Vol. 1 1 8 / 1 2 1
 For example, category 1 errors, affecting the right side, produce Table 1 Example hole-drilling measurements
stress calculation errors that are independent of the stresses that
are present. The effect is an additive one, and can exist even Rosette type = MM 062-RE
Mean rosette radius = 2.57 mm
in the absence of residual stresses. In contrast, category 2 - 5 Young's modulus = 207 GPa
errors, affecting the left side, produce stress calculation errors Poisson's ratio = 0.3
that are proportional to the residual stresses. Here, the effect is Hole diameter = 2.0 mm
a relative one, and can exist only when stresses are present. For
Std. strain error = 3 /.it
simplicity, the two general error types are called here * 'right- Std. hole depth error = 0.01 mm
side" and "left-side" errors. Std. diameter error = 0.02 mm
This study concentrates on first four error sources. Hole ec- Std. modulus error = 2%
centricity effects are not included here because Eqs. ( l ) - ( 4 )
do not explicitly refer to this type of error. Hole eccentricity Hole depth, Strain 1 Strain 2 Strain 3
effects have been studied for the uniform stress case [13, 14], mm ixe tJ.e IJ.e
and have been shown to be significant. It is believed that typical
stress evaluation errors due to hole eccentricity are less signifi- 0.00 0 0 0
cant for non-uniform stress evaluations. The effects are esti- 0.25 -77 -32 13
0.50 -163 -66 30
mated to be 2 - 3 times the size of the (very small) effects of 0.75 -226 -89 46
hole diameter measurement errors. 1.00 -264 -102 58

Stress Calculation Probability Bounds

To simplify this analysis, it is assumed that all measurement surements. This study uses a 90 percent probability level in its
errors have a zero mean, a normal distribution, and are indepen- example calculations. However, the method described is gen-
dent of each other. Further, it is assumed that each measurement eral, and any other probabiUty level can be used instead.
error is linearly related to the resulting errors in the calculated
stress results. This second assumption is always true for "right-
side" errors. However, for "left-side" errors, it is valid only Strain Measurement Errors
when the errors are small. For the sizes of "left side" errors Strain measurement errors are "right-side" errors. Say that
encountered in practice, the linearity assumption is an excellent there is a strain perturbation {8p ] and that the resulting calcu-
approximation. lated stress perturbation is {SP}. Then, for the Integral Method
The error in a calculated stress value is the sum of the stress
errors caused by each of the measurement errors (1 +'^)
[a][P + 6P] = {p + 6p] (7)
(/ ^ Cj [ (5)
Subtracting Eq. (3) gives
where e,- are the various measurement errors, and the index " / "
ranges over the total number of those errors. The factors c, ^^^misp} = {6p] (8)
relating each measurement error to its effect on calculated stress
error directly define the error sensitivity of the stress calculation.
The larger these factors are, the more sensitive is the calculation and in inverted form
to measurement errors. The factors c, depend on hole diameter
and depth, and hole depth increment size. In the case of ' 'left- \5P] = [ar'{6p] (9)
side' ' errors, they also depend on the stresses that are present. (1 + ; . )
This stress dependence creates an interaction with the "right-
where [ a ] " ' is a lower triangular matrix whose principal diago-
side" errors because the "right-side" errors affect the calcu-
nal elements are the recipocals of the corresponding elements of
lated stresses. Strictly, this interaction violates the initial as-
[fl]. The inverse equation (9) is shown here only for conceptual
sumption of independence among the error sources. Fortunately,
clarity. In practice, [6P] is determined from {6p} by solving
the interaction is weak, and can be handled satisfactorily by
Eq, (8) using back-substitution, rather than explicitly forming
evaluating the "left-side" errors after the "right-side" errors,
the matrix inverse required for Eq. (9).
as discussed in the next sections.
If the strain measurement errors are expressed in terms of
In general, measurement errors e, and factors c, can have strains p, then from Eq. (6) the resulting standard deviation in
positive or negative signs. Thus, some cancellation of stress the error in calculated P stress in hole depth increment " / " is
error is likely in Eq. (5). In the present case, where the measure-
ment errors are assumed to have normal distributions and be
independent, the stress errors also have normal distributions Spi E (,7'5)^ (10)
with standard deviation (1 + J^)
In the case where the standard deviations of the strain mea-
s. = ^'Lic,s,r (6)
surement errors are all equal, Sp, depends on the root sum of
the squares of the elements in row " / " of matrix [S]"'. Equa-
where s, are the standard deviations of the individual measure- tions (11) and (12) show the matrices [a] and [a]' for the
ment errors [15]. When many observations of a given measure- example experimental measurements summarized in Table 1,
ment error are made, the standard deviation approximately where a hole is drilled to a depth of 1 mm in four equal incre-
equals the root mean square error. ments. The root sum of squares for each row of [ a ] " ' approxi-
Given that s has a normal distribution, a range of stress error mately doubles from one row to the next, indicating a rapidly
can be specified that has a given probability of containing the increasing strain error sensitivity with hole depth.
actual error. For example, the stress error will lie within a range
of 1.64 standard deviations with a probability of 90 percent. 0448
In this study, the limits of the corresponding calculated stress 0614 -.0374
[a] = (11)
range are called "probabiUty bounds." The objective here is 0691 -.0475 -.0235
to determine these probability bounds for practical stress mea- 0728 -.0513 -.0296 -.0118

122 / Vol. 118, JANUARY 1996 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


0.00 0.25
300
I Method [5].
I Power Series Method than for the Integral Method. The data
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Depth from Surface [mm]
Fig. 2 90 percent probability bounds for stresses caiculated from mea-
sured strains containing errors witli a standard deviation of S/jte. (a)
Integrai Method, {b) Power Series Method.
root sum
of squares
-22.3 22.3
36.7 -26.8 45.4
[a]-' = (12)
-8.5 54.1 -42.6 69.4
-0.5 -19.2 106.4 -84.5 137.2
Equations (8) and (9) describe the relationship between the
error in " p " strains and the resulting effects of calculated " p"
stresses. However, in practice, interest centers on the effects of
errors in the measured strains ci, 2 and e^ on the calculated
Cartesian stresses a^, a, and r^y Given the linearity of the
measured strain versus calculated stress relationship, these ef-
fects can be evaluated simply by doing conventional hole-dril-
ling stress calculations using the error strains alone. This proce-
dure finds the coefficients c, in equation (5). Some economy
can be achieved in this calculation by noting that the rosette in
Figure 1 is symmetrical about the gage 2 axial direction. The
Ox and o-j, stress calculation errors produced by gage 1 strain
errors are the same as theCTJ,and a^ errors produced from gage
3. This feature reduces the number of needed calculations from
3n to In, where n is the number of hole depth increments.
Figure 2 shows the results of an example calculation for hole
drilling into a stress profile that varies linearly with depth from
the specimen surface. Table 1 summarizes the associated experi-
mental data. In this calculation, the standard deviation of the
strain measurement error is 3//e, and all other error sources are
assumed zero. For the Integral Method calculations in Fig. 2 ( a ) ,
the probability bounds for the calculated stresses become expo-
nentially wider with distance from the specimen surface, ap-
proximately doubling with each hole depth increment. Mathe-
matically, this behavior reflects the approximate doubling of
the root sum squares of the matrix rows in Eq. (12). Physically,
it reflects the diminishing capability of the hole-drilling method
to measure residual stresses remote from the surface (as ex-
Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology
Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
pected from St. Venant's Principle). A depth of 0.4 r^ (1.0 mm
here), where r, is the mean radius of the strain gage rosette,
is a practical working limit [11]. At larger depths, there exists
the possibility of having a zero on the diagonal of [a], thus
making the matrix uninvertible.
In the Power Series Method, the calculated stresses errors
are also linearly related to the measured strain errors. Thus, the
same procedure for finding the probability bounds described
above can be used. In the Power Series calculations shown in
Figure 2 (ft), the width of the 90 percent probability bounds also
increases with depth from the surface. However, the probability
bounds do not widen monotonically. Instead, they have an X-
shape, corresponding to a "pivoting" of the calculated stress
line about a point approximately one-third within the available
hole depth data. This ' 'pivot point'' does not occur at the mid-
point of the hole depth data because the stresses near the speci-
men surface more strongly influence the measured strains than
the stresses farther away. The width of the "neck" approxi-
mately equals the probability bound width that would be calcu-
lated for a uniform stress calculation using the Averaging
The calculated stress probability bounds are narrower for the
averaging implicit in Eq. (4) causes this increased stability of
the Power Series Method. However, there is a price to pay in
terms of reduced stress spatial resolution capability. In the ex-
ample case, the Power Series Method was a good choice because
the particular residual stress profile actually does vary linearly.
If this were not true, for example a U-shaped stress profile, the
Power Series Method would be unable to represent the shape
adequately. The actual residual stress profile could then lie out-
side the calculated probability bounds.
The trade-off between stress calculation accuracy and spatial
resolution can be used to adjust the way in which the stress
probability bounds vary with depth. With the Integral Method,
a strategy for reducing error sensitivity remote from the surface
is to give up some spatial resolution by progressively increasing
the sizes of the hole depth increments. This procedure increases
the size of the elements in the lower rows of matrix [a] relative
to the upper rows, and causes the diagonal elements to have
more uniform sizes. This change also causes the diagonal ele-
ments and root sum of row squares of ["]"' to become more
similar in size. An empirical sequence of four hole depth incre-
ments that has uniform a^ probability bounds is 0.13, 0.34, 0.55
and 1.00 mm. The associated 90 percent probability range of
35 MPa is an average of the individual ranges shown in Fig.
2 ( a ) . The corresponding [a] and [o]^' matrices are
-.0197
-.0299 -.0351
(13)
-.0359 -.0467 -.0312
L-.0403 -.0536 -.0419 -.0297.
root sum
of squares
-50.7 50.7
[a]-' = 43.2 -28.5 51.7 (14)
-6.4 42.8 -32.1 53.9
-0.3 - 8 . 8 45.2 -33.6 57.0
In equation (14), the root sum of squares of each row of
matrix [a]^' have similar sizes, reflecting the similar width
stress probability bounds for each depth increment. The root
sums are not exactly equal because both [a] and [5] enter the
calculation of a^^, and the two matrices have slightly different
spatial characteristics.
Adjustment of the hole depth increment size is only effective
for controlling the probability bound width when using the Inte-
gral Method. For the Power Series Method, the only result is a
slight movement of the center of the X-shape towards a greater
depth. The two stress calculation methods also have different
JANUARY 1996, Vol. 118/123
 responses to changes in the number of hole depth increments
used. If the number of depth increments is increased by making
each increment smaller, then the width of the stress probabiHty
bounds for the Power Series Method decreases in inverse pro-
portion to the number of increments. The reverse is true for the
Integral Method. The width of the probability bounds increases
in direct proportion to the number of hole depth increments.
Thus, using more hole depth increments improves the stress
calculation accuracy of the Power Series Method, but using
fewer hole depth increments improves the accuracy of the Inte-
gral Method.
The probabiUty bounds in Fig. 2 represent the likely range
of the calculated stress at any particular depth. However, the
graphs do not imply that it is possible for all the calculated 0.75 1.00
stresses to lie entirely along either probability bound. This result
can be seen graphically for the Power Series Method because
the stress probability bounds are curved lines. In contrast, the
calculated stresses must lie on a straight line. For the Integral
Method, the stresses along either probability bound in Fig. 2(a) S.
could be calculated simultaneously only if the columns of [ s ] " '
each has uniform sign, either positive or negative. This would
correspond to a particular sequence of positive and negative
strain errors {Sp}. However, Eq. (12) shows that the columns
of [ a ] " ' do not each have uniform sign. The matrix components
along the upper three diagonals have alternating signs (empiri-
cally true in practice, but not consistently true for the lower
diagonals). The fact that the upper three diagonals also contain
I
the largest values suggests that the most adverse combination 0.00 0,26 0.50 0.75 1.00
of strain errors for the Integral Method occurs when the errors
Deptli from Surface [mm]
for successive hole depth increments have alternating signs.
Then the resulting stress errors also have alternating signs in Fig. 3 90 percent probability bounds for stresses calculated from mea-
successive increments, and jump from one probability bound sured hole depths containing errors with a standard deviation of 0.01
to the other. In contrast, alternating sign strain errors have the mm. (a) Integral Method, (b) Power Series Method.
least influence on Power Series calculations because the calcula-
tion method tends to average out such evenly distributed errors.
Power Series Method, where perturbations in [a] affect both
In the particular example considered here, the stress probabil-
sides of Eq. (4).
ity bounds are fairly wide. This behavior occurs because the
given hole diameter is less than the maximum allowed size, For practical purposes, it is desirable to work in terms of
(hole diameter = 2.0 mm, maximum allowed diameter = 2.5 measured strains ej, 62 and 3 and Cartesian stresses a^, Oy and
mm). Since strain sensitivity is proportional to the square of r,j, rather than p and P. Equations similar to (15) and (16)
the hole diameter [5], the largest possible hole diameter is apply, and no new concepts are involved. The resulting propor-
desirable. In this example, a maximum size hole would give tionality constants between the hole depth errors and calculated
1.5 times greater strain sensitivity, and 1.5 times narrower stress stress errors give a set of constants c,- which can be used with
probability bounds for strain-induced errors. Eqs. (5) and (6) to determine calculated stress probability
bounds. To be conservative, the constants c, are determined
using negative hole depth errors (shallower holes) because this
Hole Depth Measurement Errors choice gives slightly larger values.
Figure 3 shows the stress calculation probability bounds cal-
Hole depth measurement errors are "left-side" errors. Say culated using the example data in Table 1 for hole depth mea-
that there is a perturbation [6a] in equation (3) and that the surement errors with standard deviation 0.01 mm. To simplify
resulting calculated stress perturbation is [SP], Then, for the interpretation, all other measurement errors, including strains,
Integral Method are assumed zero. The calculated stress probability bounds for
each calculation method have similar shapes to those in Fig. 2.
(I + u)
[a + 6a][P + SP] = {p] (15) However, the probability bound width does not grow as rapidly
with increasing depth from the specimen surface. This behavior
occurs because hole depth errors change the diagonal elements
where stress perturbations {6P} have different numerical values of Eq. (11) in an approximately proportional manner. The
than in equation (7). The stress perturbation {6P ] can be found smaller elements lower down are not disproportionally changed.
by subtracting the inverse of Eq. (3) from the inverse of equa- In this particular example, the probability bound width is also
tion (15). reduced by the lower stress levels remote from the surface.

\8P\ = [[s-+5fl]-' - lar'\{p\ (16)
(1 ^v)
Unfortunately, the relationship between {dP) and \biX\ is not
exactly linear. A stress perturbation of slightly different size
occurs depending on whether a hole depth perturbation is posi-
tive or negative (deeper or shallower). However, for small
perturbations \ba\, the effect on {bP\ is approximately linear.
To simplify the analysis, it is assumed here that the relationship
actually is linear. The linearity assumption also applies to the
Hole Diameter and Material Constant Errors
In this analysis, the hole is assumed to have a uniform cross-
section at all depths from the specimen surface. The diameter
measurement error refers to the uncertainty in measuring that
one uniform diameter. For mechanical hole-drilling using a den-
tal burr or small milling cutter, diameter uniformity is a reason-
able assumption. Hole diameter errors are of the "left-side"
type because they perturb [S] in Eq. (3). As with hole depth
errors, the relationship between the hole diameter errors and

124 / Vol. 118, JANUARY 1996 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


g 100
i All Error Sources Present Simultaneously
0.2S O.BO
I among error sources violate the initial assumption of error inde-
I
I the "right-side" probability bounds in Fig. 2. The resulting
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Depth from Surface [mm]
Fig. 4 90 percent probability bounds for stresses calcuiated from mea-
sured fioie diameters and Young's moduius containing errors with stan-
dard deviations of 0.02 mm and 2 percent respectively, (a) Integral
Method, (b) Power Series Method.
the resulting stress errors is not exactly linear. Errors of slightly
different sizes occur depending on whether a hole diameter
error is positive or negative (larger or smaller hole). However,
for the small hole diameter errors encountered in practice, the
relationship is approximately linear. To simplify the analysis,
it is assumed here that the relationship actually is linear. To be
conservative, the approximate proportionality constants relating
hole diameter errors and stress calculation errors (the coeffi-
cients c,) are determined using positive hole diameter errors
(larger holes) because this choice gives slightly larger C/.
Young's modulus appears as a factor in the denominator of
Eqs. (3) and (4). Thus, errors in Young's modulus are also of
the "left-side" type. A simple way of including the effects of
hole diameter and material constant errors is to combine their
constants c, with those from the hole depth errors as additional
members of t h e ' 'left side'' group. Figure 4 shows the calculated
stress probability bounds using the example data in Table 1, for
hole diameter and Young's modulus standard deviations of 0.02
mm and 2 percent respectively. To simplify interpretation, all
other measurement errors, including strains and hole depths, are
assumed zero. In contrast to previous figures, the calculated
stress probability bounds are quite narrow, indicating that hole
diameter and Young's modulus errors are not major stress error
sources. In this example, the stress probability bounds get nar-
rower with depth from the surface, reflecting the smaller stresses
at those depths.
Hole diameter and material constant errors have much smaller
effects on the calculated stresses than do hole depth errors be-
cause they are each single items involving just one coefficient
c, in Eqs. (5) and (6). In contrast, the hole depth errors involve
a combination of the coefficients c, for all the various hole
depth increments. These coefficients are relatively large because
they include a multiplication by the condition numbers of the
corresponding matrices [a].
Journal of Engineering Materials and Teclinology
Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
A hole eccentricity error is expected to have a somewhat
similar effect on the calculated stresses as a hole diameter error.
The eccentricity would be the same at all hole depths, and it
would thus also involve only one coefficient c,. The size of that
coefficient could be 2 - 3 times larger because hole eccentricity
causes opposite sign strain errors in the gages of the hole-
driUing rosette, while hole diameter causes the same sign strain
errors.
The example results in Figs. 2 - 4 show the probability bounds
resulting from single types of measurement errors, either ' 'right-
side" or "left-side." A complication arises when both error
types exist at the same time. The "left-side" errors and their
associated coefficients Ci in Eqs. (5) and (6) depend on the
stresses that are present. However, in the presence of "right-
side" errors, these stresses are only known within the probabil-
ity bounds shown in Fig. 2. Strictly, the resulting interactions
pendence. However, for the small error sources of interest here,
an approximate calculation can be made by evaluating the "left-
side" coefficients c, twice, once for each stress profile along
combined "right and left-side" probability bounds are slightly
unsymmetrical because each bound derives from a different
stress profile. The upper and lower combined probability bounds
derive from the different upper and lower ' 'right-side'' proba-
bility bounds. The stress dependency of the "left-side" errors
causes the combined probability bound describing higher abso-
lute stresses to be further away from the "zero error" result.
When doing the above calculations for the stress profile along
a "right-side" probability bound, it is necessary to know the
strains corresponding to those stresses. When using the Integral
Method, the strains can be found directly by matrix multiplica-
tion using Eq. (3). When using the Power Series Method, a
complication arises when doing the strain calculation. Equation
(4) cannot be used directly because the stress probability
bounds in Fig. 2(b) are not straight lines. Thus, they are not
exactly expressible by a two-term power series polynomial. This
complication is handled approximately by doing the two strain
calculations using the two extreme straight lines possible within
the X-shaped pattern in Fig. 2(b). The combined "right and
left" probability bound calculations are done using those por-
tions of the straight lines that are closest to the corresponding
"right-side" probability bounds.
Figure 5 shows the calculated stress probability bounds for
the example data in Table I, when all four error sources are
present simultaneously. As with previous graphs. Fig. 5 shows
that the probability bounds for the Integral Method rapidly get
wider with depth from the surface. In this case, one extreme
probability bound stress profile is almost uniform while the
other reduces towards zero at 1 mm depth. Thus, the stress
results have to be interpreted with some caution. The probability
bounds for the Power Series Method are generally much nar-
rower, but at the expense of reduced spatial resolution capabil-
ity. These stress results are only acceptable if the stress profile
actually is approximately linear.
Figure 5 has a very similar shape to Fig. 2, indicating that
strain measurement error is the dominant error source. Thus, if
narrower stress probability bounds are required, the two primary
factors to address are reduced strain measurement error and
increased hole-drilling strain sensitivity. Improved experimental
technique and larger hole size are the main areas for attention.
Conclusions
The incremental hole-drilling method for measuring non-uni-
form residual stresses gives stress results that are very sensitive
to the effects of measurement errors. This error sensitivity oc-
JANUARY 1996, Vol. 1 1 8 / 1 2 5

\ file has large changes in stress gradient, the Integral Method
l_
I
1 1
M
1
1
1 This work was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences
(a)
1 1 1
300
I Vangi uses a different approach to discuss the effects on calcu-
J the present authors are different, both studies show that the
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1,00
Depth from Surface [mm]
Fig. 5 90 percent probability bounds for stresses calculated from mea-
sured data containing ail four error sources present simultaneously, (a)
Integral Method, {b) Power Series Method.
curs because the strains are measured at the specimen surface,
remote from the desired non-uniform stresses. Most of stresses
are deep in the interior, The resulting stress evaluation errors
can therefore easily become large enough to compromise seri-
ously the usefulness of the calculated stresses. The error sensi-
tivity becomes more severe with distance from the measurement
surface. A straightforward method is presented for estimating
the probability bounds for calculated stress profiles. These prob-
ability bounds allow informed interpretations to be made of the
calculated stress results.
Four major measurement error sources are considered here:
strain errors, hole depth errors, uniform hole diameter errors,
and material constant estimation errors. In the example calcula-
tions, strain measurement errors were identified as the major
error source. Thus, for improved stress calculation accuracy,
the main areas for attention are reduced strain measurement
experimental error and increased hole-drilling strain sensitivity,
for example, by using a larger hole diameter.
Non-uniform hole-drilling residual stress calculations require
a compromise to be made between stress spatial resolution and
stress calculation error sensitivity. An improvement in spatial
resolution causes a deterioration in stress calculation errors, and
vice versa. Of the two stress calculation methods commonly
used, the Integral Method favors stress spatial resolution,
whereas the Power Series Method favors reduced error sensitiv-
ity. Error sensitivity is proportional to the number of hole depth
increments for the Integral Method, but inversely proportional
for the Power Series Method. If the stress profile has a relatively
126 / Vol. 118, JANUARY 1996
Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
constant gradient, the Power Series Method with many small
hole depth increments is preferable. However, if the stress pro-
with a few hole depth increments is the better choice.
Acknowledgments
and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and
from a UBC Killam Faculty Research Fellowship. Dr. Sheldon
Green, Mr. Mohammad Tootoonian, and Mr. Jianping Shen
kindly reviewed the manuscript. Ms. Arian Amirkeyvan skill-
fully prepared the figures.
Postscript
After the review and acceptance of this paper, another paper
addressing some similar issues was published in this journal
(D. Vangi, JEMT, Vol. 116, No. 4, 1994. pp. 561-566.) Dr.
lated stresses of strain and hole diameter measurement errors.
He does not include the effects of hole depth or material con-
stant errors. Although the approaches taken by Dr. Vangi and
calculated residual stresses are very sensitive to measurement
errors, and that this error sensitivity rapidly increases with depth
from the surface.
References
1 ASTM, 1992, "Determining Residual Stresses by the Hole-Drilling Strain-
Gage Method," ASTM Standard E837-92, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia.
2 Measurements Group, 1993, "Measurement of Residual Stresses by the
Hole-Drilling Strain-Gage Method," Tech Note TN-503-4, Measurements Group,
Inc., Raleigh, NC, 16 pp.
3 Procter, E., and Beaney, E. M., 1987, "The Trepan or Ring Core Method,
Centre-Hole Method, Sach's Method, Blind Hole Methods, Deep Hole Tech-
nique," Advances in Surface Treatments, ed. A. Niku-Lari, Pergammon, Oxford,
Vol. 4, pp. 165-198.
4 Rendler, N. J., and Vigness, I., 1966, "Hole-drilling Strain-gage Method
of Measuring Residual Stresses," Experimental Mechanics, Vol, 6, No. 12, pp,
577-586,
5 Schajer, G, S., 1991, "Strain Data Averaging for the Hole-Drilling
Method," Experimental Techniques, Vol, 15, No, 2, pp. 25-28,
6 Kelsey, R. A., 1956, "Measuring Non-Uniform Residual Stresses by the
Hole Drilling Method," Proceedings SESA, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 181-194,
7 Bijak-Zochowski, M., 1978, "A Semidestructive Method of Measuring
Residual Stresses," VDI-Berichte, Vol, 313, pp. 469-476.
8 Schajer, G. S., 1981, "Application of Finite Element Calculations to Resid-
ual Stress Measurements," ASME JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MATERIALS AND
TECHNOLOGY, Vol, 103, No, 2, pp, 157-163,
9 Niku-Lari, A,, Lu, J,, and Flavenot, J, F,, 1985, "Measurement of Residual
Stress Distribution by the Incremental Hole-Drilling Method," Experimental Me-
chanics, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 175-185.
10 Flaman, M, T,, and Manning, B, H,, 1985, "Determination of Residual
Stress Variation widi Depth by the Hole-Drilling Method," Experimental Mechan-
ics, Vol. 25, No, 9, pp. 205-207,
11 Schajer, G, S,, 1988, "Measurement of Non-Uniform Residual Stresses
Using the Hole-Drilling Method," ASME JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MATERIALS
AND TECHNOLOGY, Vol, 110, No, 4, Part I: pp, 338-343, Part II: pp. 344-349,
12 Watkins, D, S., 1991, Fundamentals of Matrix Computations, Wiley, New
York,
13 Ajovalasit, A,, 1979, "Measurement of Residual Stresses by the Hole-
Drilling Method: Influence of Hole Eccentricity," Journal of Strain Analysis.
Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 171-178.
14 Wang, J,-Y., 1988, "Measurement of Residual Stress by the Hole-Drilling
Method: General Stress-Strain Relationship and ifs Solution," Experimental Me-
chanics, Vol. 28, No, 4, pp, 355-358,
15 Peebles, P, Z,, 1993, Probability, Random Variables, and Random Signal
Principles, 3rd, ed,, McGraw-Hill, New York,
Transactions of the ASME