Residual-stress Measurement in Orthotropic Materials
Using the Hole-drilling Method
by G.S. Schajer and L. Yang
ABSTRACT--The hole-drilling method is used here to
measure residual stresses in an orthotropic material. An
existing stress-calculation method adapted from the iso-
tropic case is shown not to be valid for orthotropic ma-
terials. A new stress-calculation method is described,
based on the analytical solution for the displacement field
around a hole in a stressed orthotropic plate. The validity
of this method is assessed through a series of experi-
mental measurements. A table of elastic compliances is
provided for practical residual-stress measurements in a
wide range of orthotropic materials.
List of Symbols
A, B, C = calibration constants
c** = orthotropic strain relief compliances
Ex, Ey = elastic moduli along x and y (elastic sym-
metry) axes
G~y = x - y shear modulus
m = orthotropic elastic modulus ratio [eq (10)]
r~ = hole radius
r,, - mean radius of strain-gage rosette
u, v = displacements in x and y directions
x, y - coordinates along elastic symmetry axes
W1, W2 = geometrical parameters [eqs (14) and (15)]
XI, X2 = geometrical parameters [eqs (18) and (19)]
Y1, I12 = geometrical parameters [eqs (20) and (21)]
a, 13 = orthotropic elastic material constants [eqs
(12) and (13)]
~,:y = x - y Cartesian shear strain
8r measured relieved strain
=
ex, e r = x - y Cartesian normal strains
0 = counterclockwise angle measured from the
x direction to the axis of the strain gage
K = orthotropic elastic material constant [eq
(11)]
G.S. Schajer (SEM Member) is Associate Professor and L. Yang
is Graduate Student, University of British Columbia, Department
of Mechanical Engineering, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, British Colum-
bia, Canada.
Original manuscript submitted: May 9, 1993. Final manuscript
received: January 24, 1994.
324 ~ December 1994
v~, vy., = x - y Poisson's ratios
~rx, ~y = x - y Cartesian normal stresses
(]'max = maximum (most tensile) principal stress
= minimum (most compressive) principal
(rmi"
stress
"r~y = x - y Cartesian shear stress
~b = angle measured counterclockwise from the
x direction to the direction of O'max
t~l, +2 = geometrical parameters [eqs (16) and (17)]
Introduction
The hole-drilling-method 1 5 is a well-established,
popular technique for measuring residual stresses in a
wide range of engineering materials. The method is
easy to use, reliable in operation, and involves only
limited damage to the specimen.
The conventional hole-drilling method can be used
only with isotropic materials. However, many mod-
em materials, such as fiber-reinforced composites, have
distinctly anisotropic elastic properties. Bert et al. 6'7
and Prasad et al. 8 have generalized the computational
procedure for the hole-drilling method to extend the
use of the method to orthotropic materials. However,
this generalization is shown here not to be valid. This
paper presents a different solution method that can be
used for materials of any degree of elastic orthotropy.
An experimental example is presented to illustrate the
use and applicability of the method.
Isotropic Case
Residual stresses are measured by the hole-drilling
method using a strain-gage rosette of the type shown
in Fig. 1. The positive x direction defining the x-y
Cartesian stress system lies along the axis of strain
gage 1. For the 'clockwise' rosette pattern 9 shown
in Fig. 1, the negative y direction lies along the axis
of gage 3. With a 'counter-clockwise' rosette, the
positive y direction would lie along the axis of strain
gage 3.
 The Cartesian stresses calculated by solving eq (2)

ty can be used to determine the principal stresses, using

O". . . . O'min = (~x + % ) / 2

• V((O" x __ 2
0",)/2) 2 -'1- "rxy (3)
and

1 [ 2"rxy ]
6 = - arctan
- 2 L~x - %J (4)
X
Orthotropic Material Properties
For the two-dimensional case, five elastic constants
are required to relate the Cartesian stresses and strains
in an orthotropic material, m'u When the x and y axes
lie along the principal elastic directions of the mate-
rial, Hooke's Law generalizes to

Fig. 1 - - A S T M strain-gage rosette used for hole-drilling = x/E. - %V,x/E,

measurements 4
~, = % / E , - ~xv~/E.

When making residual-stress measurements, a cir-
cular hole is drilled at the geometrical center of the
rosette to a depth slightly greater than the hole di-
ameter. This hole locally relieves the stresses in the
surrounding material, and the associated strain reliefs
are measured by the three strain gages. For an isotro-
pic material, the relieved strain measured by a strain
gage whose axis is inclined at an angle 0 from the x
direction is
er = A(~r~ + %) + B(% - %) cos 20
+ C %y sin 20
% = ~/6~ (5)
Only four of the five elastic constants are independent
because of the elastic symmetry relationship
V~y/E~ = Vy~/Ey (6)
In general, the shear modulus Gxy is independent of
all other elastic constants. However, in the isotropic
case, Ex = Ey = E, Vxy = Vyx = v, and G,~ = G =
0.5E/(1 + v). There are then only two independent
elastic constants and eqs (5) reduce to their more fa-
miliar forms.
An interesting special case occurs when the shear
modulus of an orthoU-opic material happens to be re-
(1)
lated to the other elastic constants as follows.

where the symbols are defined in 'List of Symbols' 1 l+v~ l +- v y ~

above. In this study, it is assumed that the residual -- _ _ -]- -

stresses %, % and "rxydo not vary with depth from
the specimen surface. The calibration constants A, B
and C depend on the material properties, the rosette
geometry, the hole diameter and the hole depth. For
an isotropic material, C = 2B. 7 The calibration con-
stants can either be determined experimentally' or nu-
mericallyfl
Equation (1) can be rewritten in matrix form to re-
late the three measured strains gl, 1~2and ~3 in Fig. 1
to the Cartesian stresses ox, % and "rxy.
G,~ Ex Ey (7)
In this particular case, the shear modulus is the same
in all directions. The material has isotropic shear be-
havior, but orthotropic axial behavior. An approxi-
mately opposite case occurs when Ex = Ey but G #
0.5E/(1 + v). The latter material has an orthotropic
shear modulus, with equal (but not isotropic) princi-
pal axial moduli. These two types of orthotropy are
considered in subsequent sections.

Orthotropic Hole-drilling Solution

A - A Txy = E 2
A simple approach to hole-drilling in an orthotropic
- B 0 A + LO-yj 133 (2) material is to assume that the relieved strain response
has a similar trigonometric form to that in an isotropic
For a 'counter-clockwise' rosette, 9 the quantity - C in material. Equations (1) and (2) are assumed still to
eq (2) becomes C. apply, providing that gages 1 and 3 are aligned along

Experimental Mechanics . 325

the elastic symmetry directions of the orthotropic ma- X, = x - W, cos ~, (18)
terial. In this case, C is an independent calibration
constant, not related to A or B. The use of eq (1) was X2 = x - W2 cos ~2 (19)
suggested for hole-drilling applications by Bert e t al. 6'7
Y , = oLmy - W1 sin lt,ll1 (20)
and subsequently by Prasad e t al. 8 However, it is shown
here that eqs (1) and (2) are not valid for hole drilling }12 = 13my - W2 sin q*2 (21)
in an orthotropic material because the displacement
field around a hole in a stressed orthotropic plate does The above solution is valid only for K > 1. This
not have a simple trigonometric form. requirement puts a maximum limitation on the allow-
A mathematical solution for the displacements able size of the shear modulus Gxy relative to the other
around a hole in a stressed orthotropic plate is used elastic moduli. Except for composites that are spe-
here to determine the relationship between the resid- cially designed for high shear stiffness, most ortho-
ual stresses and the hole-drilling relieved strains9 It is tropic materials have elastic properties for which K >
assumed that the orthotropic material under study has 1. A solution for the case K --< 1 is presented by
a sufficiently fine microscopic structure that it can be Schimke e t a l . u The angles +1 and Ill 2 in eqs (16) and
approximated as a homogeneous continuum9 Follow- (17) both lie in the same quadrant as 0 = arctan (y/
ing the method described by Smith,~4 the relieved dis- x). However, they do not in general each equal 0.
placement field around a hole in a stressed orthotropic
plate (plane stress case) for x 2 + y2 _ r ] can be shown
to be
Deviation from Trigonometric Behavior
Figures 2 and 3 schematically show the calculated
oL2m2 + 1)xy strain response versus angle 0 for an ASTM strain gage
/2= in a uniaxial tensile stress field9 The curves are cal-
m(a - ~) Ex(1 - am)
culated by integrating the relieved displacement field
9[Y~(1 + f3m) "rxy - X ~ ( % - 13mCry)] described by eqs (8) and (9) over the strain-gage grid.15
To focus on curve shape rather than curve size, sche-
2m2 + Pxy matic vertical scales are used in the two figures9 All
+
the curves are scaled to a uniform size and are dis-
m(13 - oO E x ( 1 - f3m)
placed vertically so that they coincide at 0 = 0 deg
9[Y2(1 + o t m ) "r~ - X2(O'x - cxm~ry)] (8) and 0 = 90 deg. This plotting procedure emphasizes
the deviations from the trigonometric relationship in
1 + (x2m2 l)yx eq (1), independent of the actual sizes of the strains
V involved. Absolute strain values cannot be inferred
c~m 2 (et -- [3) Ey(1 - c~m)
from Figs. 2 and 3.
9 [XI(1 + [3m)Txy+ Yl(ffx- ~m%)] The two figures illustrate the similar effects of the
two different types of elastic orthotropy. Figure 2 shows
1 + [32rn2 V~y
+
f3m 2 (f3 - o0 E y ( 1 - 13m)

9 [ X 2 ( 1 + e~m) %y + I12(% - etm%)] (9)

A ex = ~--~ A A
where

m = 4VEx/Ey (I0)

K = ~/-ExEy (I/Gx:y - 2Vxy/Ex)/2 (Ii) 0

(b
o~ = ~V/K + ~v/(K2 -- I) (12)
Q:

13 = ~,/K - V ( K 2 - 1) (13) "1

Ey = 1 ~xy = 0.3 Gxy = isotropic

W 1 = 4V(x2 _ r2 _ o~2m2(y 2 - ra2)) 2 -[- (2~mxy) 2
04) -2 i , i i i i i T
0~ 90 o 1800 270 ~ 3600
W 2 = 4V(X2 -- r 2a -- 132mZ(y: r2))2 + (213mxy)2
Angle, e
(15)
t~, = arctan [2otmxy/(x 2 - ~ - e~2m2(y 2 - rZ~))]/2 Fig. 2 - - A n g u l a r variation of relieved strain in materials
(16) of varying degrees of axial orthotropy. ASTM strain-
gage geometry4 with hole radius ra = 0.464 rm. All
~J2 = arctan [213mxy/(x 2 - r2 - 132m2(y2 = r]))]/2 curves are scaled so they coincide at e = 0 deg and e
(17) = 90 deg

326 9 December 1994


.~2 ' 7
03
o compliances c12 and c32 both equal zero.
Ex= 1 Ey=l Vxy=0.3
0 finite-element calculations 5 show that the elastic com-
-2
0~ 900 1800 2700 3600
Angle, O through-hole solution. Thus, for an orthotropic ma-
Fig. 3--Angular variation of relieved strain in materials
of varying degrees of shear orthotropy. ASTM strain-
gage geometry4 with hole radius ra = 0.464 rr,. All
curves are scaled so they coincide at 0 = 0 deg and 0
= 90 deg
the effect of having unequal principal axial elastic
moduli Ex and Ey, with an isotropic shear modulus
G~y. Figure 3 shows the effect of an orthotropic shear
modulus G~y, with equal principal elastic moduli Ex
and Ey. Increasing orthotropy of either kind causes
increasingly large deviations from the trigonometric
strain response predicted by eq (1). Figures 2 and 3
together confirm that any deviation from isotropic
elastic behavior, either in terms of axial or shear mod-
uli, causes eq (1) to be violated. The calculation method
using eq (1) is therefore not seen not to be valid.
An important practical exception to the above ob-
servations occurs during bore-hole measurements of
rock stresses. 12'13 For such measurements, eq (1) al-
ways applies exactly, even for highly orthotropic ma-
terials. This is because the bore-hole technique uses
displacement measurements at the curved boundary of
the hole, rather than strain measurements beyond the
hole boundary, as in the hole-drilling method. The
stress and strain solutions presented by Leknitskii a6
directly illustrate the trigonometric relationship at the
hole boundary. Unfortunately, this convenient result
does not apply to hole drilling because the strain mea-
surements are made beyond the hole boundary.
Numerical Results
Assuming only linear elasticity, the matrix ap-
proach used in eq (2) can be generalized so that it
accurately applies to an orthotropic material. In the
orthotropic case, eq (2) generalizes to
x c12c137E
j xEll
IC2, C22C231 (22)
E~/~Ey Lc31 c32 c33 J O-y ~3
where the elastic compliances c11-c33 are in general
not related in any way to trigonometric-based con-
stants such as A, B or C. The factor 1/V"-E~Ey is in-
cluded so that the compliances c11-c33 are dimension-
less constants. For the case of interest here, where the
x and y directions of the rosette coincide with the prin-
cipal elastic directions of the orthotropic material, the
The values of the elastic compliances in eq (22)
depend on the orthotropic elastic properties of the
specimen, the hole diameter and the strain-gage ro-
sette geometry. Hole depth is also an important fac-
tor. Practical experience with isotropic materials 1-3 and
pliances for the blind-hole case converge at large hole
depths to the results calculated from the plane-stress
terial, the plane-stress solution, eqs (8) and (9), can
be used for the blind-hole case, providing the hole is
made deep enough for the limiting state to be reached.
This plane-stress solution applies, even when working
with thick materials, because the strains are measured
on the specimen surface, not within the plane-strain
regime in the interior of the material. For an isotropic
material, the limiting hole depth approximately equals
the mean radius r,, of the hole drilling rosette. For an
orthotropic material, the limiting depth depends on the
ratio of the out-of-plane shear moduli to the in-plane
axial moduli. The lower this ratio, the more rapidly
the limiting hole depth is reached.
Table 1 lists numerical values of the compliance
values to be used in eq (22) for a range of elastic
constants. These numerical values are calculated us-
ing eqs (8) and (9) and the method described in Ref
15. They apply to the case of a deep hole with an
ASTM strain-gage rosette of the type shown in Fig.
1. The hole radius specified in Table 1 corresponds
to a 3/32-in. hole in a standard ASTM strain-gage
rosette of 1/16-in. nominal size, or a 3/16-in. hole
in a 1/8-in. nominal rosette. Linear or polynomial
interpolation 17 can be used to determine compliance
values for materials with elastic properties between
the tabulated values. For hole diameters slightly dif-
ferent from the specified values, the compliances c11-
c33 can be assumed to be proportional to the square
of the hole diameter. When working with materials
for which Ex > Ey, the first row of headings for the
columns in Table 1 should be used. When Ey > Ex,
the second row of headings should be used instead.
Table 1 illustrates how the compliance values in eq
(22) for an orthotropic material deviate from the trig-
onometric values expected from eq (2). For example,
when Ex = 2, Ey = 0.5, V~y = 0, G~y = 0.4, the com-
pliance matrix is
Cll C12 C13~ [-.291 0 .1831
Cal c22 c23| = -.073 .728 -.196]
C31 C32 C33J ,228 0 - . 6 5 9 ] (23)
If eq (2) were obeyed, then Ctl = c33, c13 = C31 and
c21 -" c23 = (Cll -~- C31.)/2 = (C13 nL C 3 3 ) / 2 . Equation
Experimental Mechanics 9 327
TABLE 1--DIMENSIONLESS COMPLIANCES FOR HOLE DRILLING INTO AN ORTHOTROPIC MATERIAL
iin

Ex/ Ey Vxy Gxy/ Ey c,1 c,3 c2, c22 c23 c3, c33
E~/Ex ~'yx G~y/E~ c33 c31 c23 c22 c2~ c~3 c~1
1 .00 .10 -.591 .169 -.291 1.180 -,291 .169 -.591
1 .25 .10 -.583 .123 -.314 1.097 -,314 .123 -.583
1 .50 .10 -.575 .076 -.336 1.013 -,336 .076 -.575
1 .75 .10 -.568 .030 -.357 .930 -,357 .030 -.568
1 .00 .20 -.514 .193 -.188 .877 -,188 .193 -.514
1 .25 .20 -.503 .146 -.205 .788 -,205 .146 -.503
1 .50 .20 -,491 .098 -.221 .699 -,221 .098 --.491
1 .75 .20 -.478 .049 -.235 .609 -,235 .049 -.478
1 .00 .30 -.474 .205 -.146 .757 -.146 .205 -.474
1 .25 .30 -.460 .157 -.160 .665 -.160 .157 -.460
1 ,50 .30 -.445 .109 ".172 ,572 -.172 .109 -.445
1 .00 .40 -.450 .213 -.123 ,692 -.123 .213 -.450
1 .25 .40 -.433 .164 -.135 .598 -.135 .164 -.433
1 .00 .50 -.433 .218 -.108 .650 -.108 ,218 -.433
2 .00 .15 -.453 .156 - .226 1.156 -.345 .185 -,743
2 .25 .15 -,448 .122 -.244 1.097 -~357 .153 -.737
2 ,50 .15 -.443 .088 -.263 1.038 -.369 .122 -.730
2 .75 ,15 -.438 .053 -.281 .978 -.380 .090 -.723
2 .00 .30 -.403 .180 -,144 ,865 -.225 .207 -.631
2 .25 .30 -.396 .145 -.159 .802 -.233 .175 -.621
2 .50 .30 -.389 .110 -.174 .739 --.240 .143 --.611
2 .75 ,30 -.382 .074 -.188 .675 -.247 .110 -.600
2 .00 .45 -.377 .193 -.111 .751 -.177 .217 -.576
2 .25 .45 -.369 .158 -.124 .686 -.182 .185 -.563
2 .50 .45 -.360 .122 -.137 .620 -.187 .152 -.550
2 .75 .45 -.350 .085 -.149 .554 -.191 .119 -.536
2 .00 .60 -,361 .201 -.092 .689 -.150 .223 -.541
2 .25 .60 -.351 .165 --.105 .623 -.154 .191 -.527
4 .00 ,20 -.350 ,137 -.186 1,212 -.435 .195 -.949
4 .25 .20 -.347 .112 -.201 1.171 -.441 .174 -.944
4 .50 .20 -.344 .088 -.216 1.129 -.447 .152 -.938
4 .75 .20 -.341 .063 -.232 1.087 -.453 .131 -.932
4 .00 .40 -.318 .162 -.116 .910 -.288 .215 -.787
4 ,25 .40 -.314 .136 -.130 .866 -.291 .193 -.778
4 .50 .40 -.310 .110 -.143 .821 -.294 .171 -.770
4 .75 .40 -.306 .084 -,156 .776 -.296 .149 -.761
4 .00 .60 -.301 .175 -.088 .792 -.229 ,223 -.707
4 .25 .60 -.296 .149 -.101 .746 -.230 .201 -.696
4 .50 .60 -.291 .122 -.112 .700 -.231 .179 -,685
4 .75 .60 -.286 .096 -.124 .653 -.231 .157 -.674
4 .00 ,80 -.291 .183 -.073 ,728 --.196 ,228 --.659
4 .25 .80 -.285 .157 -.084 .681 -.196 .206 -.646
4 .50 .80 -.279 .130 -.095 .634 -.196 .184 -.633
4 .00 1.00 -.283 .189 -.063 .687 -.175 .231 -.626
8 .00 .30 -,263 .123 -.138 1.224 -.508 .207 -1.160
8 .25 .30 -.262 .105 -.150 1.194 -.510 .192 -1.155
8 .50 .30 -.260 .087 -.162 1.164 -.513 .177 -1.149
8 ,75 .30 -.258 .068 --.174 1.135 -.515 ,163 -1.144
8 .00 .60 -.244 .146 -.084 .935 -.343 .222 -.939
8 .25 .60 -.242 .127 -.095 .903 -.343 .207 -.931
8 .50 .60 -.239 .108 -.105 .871 -.342 .192 -.923
8 .75 .60 -.236 .089 -.116 .839 -.342 .177 -,914
8 .00 .90 -.234 .158 -.062 .823 -.278 .228 -.834
8 .25 .90 -.231 .139 -.072 .790 -.276 .213 -.824
8 .50 .90 -.228 .120 -.082 .757 --.275 .198 --.814
8 .75 .90 -.224 .100 -,092 .724 -.273 .183 -.803
8 .00 1.20 -,227 .166 -,050 .763 -.242 .231 -.771
8 .25 1.20 -.224 .147 -.060 .729 -.240 ,216 -.760
8 .50 1.20 -.220 .127 -,069 .696 -.237 ,201 -.748
16 .00 .40 -.199 .105 -.109 1.323 -.634 .213 -1.450
16 .25 ,40 -.198 .092 -.118 1.301 -.634 .203 -1.446
16 .50 .40 -.196 .079 -.127 1.280 -.634 ,193 -1.441
16 .75 .40 -.195 .065 -.136 1.259 -.634 .182 -1.437

328 ~ December 1994

TABLE 1--Continued

Ex/Ey Vxy G~/Ey ~ qa c2i cea c23 c3~ c33

Ey/Ex v~ G~y/Ex caa C31 C23 022 ~1 ~3 ~1
16 .00 .80 -,187 .126 -.062 1.019 -.437 .225 -1.147
16 .25 .80 -.186 .113 -.071 .997 -.435 .214 -1.140
16 .50 .80 -.184 .099 -.079 .974 -.433 .204 -1.133
16 .75 .80 -.182 .085 -.088 .952 -,432 .193 -1.126
16 .00 1.20 -.181 .138 -.044 .903 -,360 .228 -1.006
16 .25 1.20 -.179 .124 -.052 .880 -.357 .218 -.997
16 .50 1.20 -.177 .109 -.060 .856 -,354 ,207 -.988
16 .75 1.20 -.175 .095 -.068 .833 -,351 .197 -.979
16 ,00 1.60 -.177 .145 -.034 .840 -,318 .230 -.923
16 .25 1.60 -.175 .131 -.042 .816 -,315 .220 -.913
16 .50 1.60 -.173 .116 -.049 .792 -,311 .209 -.902
16 .75 1.60 -.171 .102 -.057 .768 -.308 .198 -,892
16 .00 2.00 -.175 .150 -.027 .801 -.292 .231 -.867
ASTM rosette with gage 1 aligned along the Ex principal elastic direction, and with hole radius ra = 0.464 rm. The
first row of column headings applies when Ex > Ey. The second row of column headings applies when Ey > Ex.

(23) clearly shows that these relationships are not

obeyed in this orthotropic example.
Equation (23) also illustrates a fundamental prob-
lem when trying to evaluate the constants A, B and C 90~ hole-drilling / / ~
for eq (1). I r A and B were determined from a uniaxial rosette / 40 ,2
tension test where crx = 1, O'y = "r,:y= 0, the two con- (one side) / /
stants would be evaluated as A = ( q l + c31)/2 =
- . 0 3 2 , and B = (Cll - c31)/2 = - . 2 6 0 . However, \/_ /
quite different results would be obtained from a uni-
axial tension test along the perpendicular axis. In that
case, ~ry = 1, o'x = "r~y = 0, and the two constants
would be evaluated as A = (c33 -~- c 1 3 ) / 2 = - . 2 3 8 ,
and B = (c33 - c13)/2 = - . 4 2 1 . The difference be- \
tween these two sets of 'constants' is substantial. //~inglegages
/ bothsides)
Experimental Measurements l ~ / /I
A series of experimental measurements was under-
taken to test the effectiveness of the proposed resid-
" - 0o
ual-stress measurement method. The test procedure
was adapted from a combination of the orthotropic
material property measurement method described by Fig. 4--Test specimens cut from a sheet of graphite-
Lineback 18 and the hole-drilling calibration method epoxy laminate. The rosettes are attached on one side
described by Rendler and Vigness.1 The test method only. The single gages are attached on both sides
measures the material and hole-drilling constants in-
dependent of any residual stresses that may be pres-
ent. The test material was a graphite-epoxy laminate,
3.5-ram thick, composed of 24 unidirectional graphite
fiber layers in an epoxy matrix. The lay-up was sym- to check for the possible presence of bending strains.
metrical, with two layers in the 0-deg direction, six When making strain measurements, corresponding
layers each in the two 45-deg directions, and 10 lay- strain gages in pairs of specimens were connected to-
ers in the 90-deg direction. Three tensile test speci- gether in half-bridge circuits. During measurements,
mens, 250 x 38.1 m m in size and oriented at 0, 45 one specimen was loaded while the other was kept
and 90 deg, were cut from a 300-mm square panel, undisturbed. This procedure minimized any thermal
as shown in Fig. 4. strain effects. Thermal drift of the strain gages was a
Measurements Group 125-RE residual-stress ro- potential problem due to the low thermal conductivity
settes were attached to one surface of each tensile of the laminate.
specimen. Additional single gages were attached to Each of the three test specimens was secured using
opposite sides of each specimen, as shown in Fig. 4, wedge grips in a lO-kN capacity Instron tensile test-

Experimental Mechanics o 329

ing machine. Strain readings were taken from all seven
gages on each specimen as the axial load was incre-
mentally increased and then decreased. Fine sand-
paper was inserted within the wedge grips to improve
the grip on the smooth-faced specimens. The posi-
tions of the pieces of sandpaper were adjusted so that
the strain readings on the four single gages were all
equal within two percent.
Two series of measurements were made with each
specimen, one before and one after drilling a 4.8-mm
diameter hole at the geometric center of the hole-drill-
ing rosette. From the 0-deg specimen, strain readings
were taken after 1.5-kN increments in load up to 9.0
kN. For the 45-deg specimen, the readings were taken
in 1.0-kN increments up to 6.0 kN, and for the 90-
deg specimen, in 0.8-kN increments up to 4.8 kN.
The measured strains were in the range - 5 0 0 txe to
+1200 Ixe, with a scatter (deviation from linearity)
less than 10 ixe. To maximize measurement accuracy,
the gradients of the graphs of measured strain versus
applied load were used to determine the elastic strain
responses (compliance), i.e., the strain per unit ap-
plied stress.
Column 3 of Table 2 lists the strain responses of
the three test specimens, measured before hole drill-
ing. These measurements, together with the equations
presented by Lineback, TM were used to determine the
orthotropic elastic properties of the laminate. Table 3
lists the results together with the values calculated from
laminate theory based on the properties and allgn-
ments of the 24 component layers. Two different sets
of experimental data can be used for calculating the
elastic properties of the laminate. One data set con-
sists of the strain readings from the 0-deg and 45-deg
specimens, and the other data set from the 45-deg and
90-deg specimens. The results from the two data sets
are up to 10-percent different. This discrepancy can
be seen directly in the measured strain responses in
column 3 of Table 2. The elastic symmetry require-
ment in eq (1) implies that the transverse responses
(gages 3 and 1) of the 0-deg and 90-deg specimens
should be identical. However, the measured values, - 7.1
and - 6 . 5 ~x~/MPa, are about 10-percent different.
TABLE 2--MEASURED AND CALCULATED STRAIN RESPONSES OF THE GRAPHITE-EPOXY LAMINATE
USED IN THIS STUDY
Strain Measured
Specimen Gage -no hole
0 deg 1 15.3
0 deg 2 4.1
0 deg 3 -7.1
45 deg 1 3.9
45 deg 2 22.1
45 deg 3 13.8
90 deg 1 -6.5
90 deg 2 14.2
90 deg 3 32.7
330 9 December 1994
The 10-percent discrepancy in elastic property mea-
surements from the various specimens is much greater
than the likely experimental error. Variation in the ac-
tual material properties of the test specimens is sus-
pected to be the cause. Figure 4 shows that the three
specimens were cut from different parts of the orig-
inal square sample. Of necessity, the 0-deg and 90-
deg specimens had to be cut close to the sample edges.
Unfortunately, these are areas where material non-
uniformity is most likely.
In Table 2, column 5 lists the differences between
the strain responses measured before and after hole
drilling (columns 3 and 4). These values correspond
to the strain reliefs that would be measured during a
hole-drilling residual-stress measurement. Column 6
lists the theoretically expected strain responses cal-
culated from eq (22) using the elastic properties listed
in Table 3. To minimize the effect of material prop-
erty variation, the elastic properties measured from
the 0-deg and 45-deg specimens were used for the 0-
deg specimen. The measurements from the 45-deg and
90-deg specimens were used for the 90-deg specimen,
and the average of both sets was used for the 45-deg
specimen. The given laminate had a very high shear
stiffness because of the large number of 45-deg lay-
ers. As a result, the shear modulus slightly exceeds
the limiting value for a valid mathematical solu-
tion (e.g. G~y = 17.6 GPa for the 45-deg specimen
when K = 1). The results in column 6 have been
extrapolated to reach the actual 18.6 GPa shear
modulus.
The measured and calculated strain-response values
listed in columns 5 and 6 of Table 2 are almost all
within 1 txe/MPa. This agreement is certainly close
enough to be convincing. However, some of the dif-
ferences are larger than might be hoped. Several rea-
sons for these differences were identified. One likely
error source is the variation in the material properties
of the three test specimens. The 0.6 Ixe/MPa differ-
ence in the e3 values for the 0-deg and 90-deg spec-
imens, which is mostly due to material property vari-
ation, is comparable to the differences up to 1.0 txe/
MPa between columns 5 and 6.
Strain Response, ~e/MPa
Measured Difference Calculated
with hole due to hole due to hole
7.0 -8.3 -7.9
1.5 -2.6 -2.7
-4.0 3.1 4.0
1.4 -2.5 -2.3
10.5 -11.6 -9.9
8.4 -5.4 -4.4
-4.1 2.4 2.8
9.2 -5.0 -4.0
21.4 - 11.3 - 11.7
TABLE 3--ELASTIC CONSTANTS OF THE GRAPHITE-EPOXY LAMINATE USED IN THIS STUDY
i
Ex
Calculated from
Laminate Theory 73.6
Measured from
0-deg and 45-deg specimens 72.0
Measured from
45-deg and 90-deg specimens 65.2
Average measurement
from all specimens 68.6
The strain responses in column 5 of Table 2 are
particularly sensitive to measurement errors because
they derive from the difference between the much larger
values in columns 3 and 4. In most cases, the values
in column 5 are less than half of those in column 3.
Thus, any errors in columns 3 and 4 have magnified
relative effects on column 5.
Rosette angular misalignment was found to be an
additional source of error in Table 2. For the 0-deg
and 90-deg specimens before hole drilling, the read-
ings from gage 2 are expected to be the average of
the readings from gages 1 and 3. This is true for the
0-deg specimen but not for the 90-deg specimen. The
discrepancy was traced to a 1.5-deg error in the ro-
sette alignment. This alignment error was taken into
account when computing the values in column 6.
Comparisons with Other Published Data
Prasad e t al. 8 did a series of hole-drilling measure-
ments, similar to those reported here, using a graph-
ite-polyimide laminate. They also made calculations
of the strain responses expected during their experi-
mental measurements. Their mathematical method
differs from that presented here, notably by their choice
of working in terms of strains. To simplify their strain-
based computations, Prasad e t al. approximated each
strain gage in the hole-drilling rosette as being con-
centrated at a point. In the present study, displace-
ment-based calculations were chosen because this ap-
proach lends itself very conveniently to computin~ the
response of practical strain gages of finite area.
Table 4 lists the measured strain responses of Pra-
sad e t al. and the corresponding theoretical values,
calculated in three different ways. Column 3 lists the
measured strain responses, and column 4 lists Pra-
sad's corresponding calculated values. Column 5 lists
the strain responses calculated from eqs (8)-(21) as-
suming a strain gage concentrated at a point. These
results are mostly the same as those of Prasad et al.
The differences between columns 4 and 5 for the 45-
deg specimen are due to a suspected numerical error
by Prasad e t al. in calculating shear strain response.
In their study, they worked in terms of constants A,
B and C in eq (1). Their value of C is smaller than
Elastic Modulus, GPa
Ey Gxy Vxy
34.5 21.3 0.45
30.6 18.6 0.46
28.9 18.6 0.46
29.7 18.6 0.46
expected from c~z in eqs (2) and (22). A numerical
error is suspected because their calculated C values
do not approach 2B in the two nearly isotropic ex-
amples that they examine. The results in columns 5
and 6 are believed to be reliable because the calcu-
lation method gives C = 2B for an isotropic material
and also gives displacement fields identical to those
reported by Schimke e t al. 11
Column 6 of Table 4 lists the predicted strain re-
sponse when the finite areas of the hole-drilling ro-
sette gages are taken into account. The calculation
method is the same as used for column 6 of Table 2.
In some cases, the difference between the 'point' and
finite-area gage calculations are quite significant. In
all cases, the relieved strain responses listed in col-
umn 6 of Table 4 correspond more closely with the
measured values in column 3 than do the 'point' gage
values in columns 4 and 5. These results demonstrate
the significance of using the finite-area strain-gage
calculation.
Residual-stress Measurement Accuracy
The discussion so far has focused on how well the
proposed calculation method predicts the measured
strain responses in calibration tests. This assessment
provides an important measure of the theoretical
method. However, in practice, the question of interest
is "What level of accuracy can be expected when ma-
trix eq (22) and theoretical compliance values are used
to evaluate residual stresses from experimental strain
measurements?" A related question is "What is the
consequence of using the trigonometric assumption,
eq (1), rather than the matrix eq (22)?" These ques-
tions are examined here.
Table 5 lists the residual stresses that would be cal-
culated for the five tensile specimens whose measured
strain data are reported in Tables 2 and 4. Each spec-
imen supports a purely longitudinal stress, which for
simplicity of comparison has been normalized to 1.00
MPa. The table lists the stresses that would be cal-
culated from the measured strains in column 5 of Ta-
ble 2 and column 3 of Table 4, using the finite-area
compliance values in columns 6. The actual applied
stresses are shown in parentheses. In general, the cal-
Experimental Mechanics ~ 331
TABLE 4--MEASURED AND CALCULATED STRAIN RESPONSES OF THE GRAPHITE-POLYIMIDE LAMINATE
STUDIED BY PRASAD ET AL.8

Strain Response, ixe/MPa

Strain Strain Prasad8 'Point' Finite
Specimen Gage due to Hole Calculated Gage Area Gage Area
Tension a 2.76 3.33 3.32 3.04
Tension b - 1.28 -- 0.37 -0.36
Tension c -4.14 -5.17 -5.16 -3.76
Shear a -19.1 -15.62 -16.78 -16.93
Shear b 0.8 0.00 0.00 0.00
Shear c 18.7 15.62 16.78 16.93

TABLE 5--COMPUTED STRESSES FOR A 1.00 MPa APPLIED LONGITUDINAL STRESS APPLIED STRESSES
IN PARENTHESES)
Computed Stress, MPa
Specimen cr,~ "rxy %, ~rr,~ ~rm,n s
0 deg 1.09 .04 .11 1.09 .11 3 deg
(1.00) (.00) (.00) (1.00) (.00) (0 deg)
45 deg .57 -.58 .61 1.17 .01 46 deg
(.50) (-.50) (.50) (1.00) (.00) (45 deg)
90 deg .06 -.07 1.00 1.00 .05 96 deg
(.00) (.00) (1.00) (1.00) (.00) (90 deg)
Tension 1.12 -.04 .03 1.12 .03 - 2 deg
aef. 8 (1.00) (.00) (.00) (1.00) (.00) (0 deg)
Shear - . 19 1.12 .04 1.04 - 1.20 48 deg
aef. 8 (.00) (1.00) (.00) (1.00) (-1.00) (45 deg)

culated stresses are somewhat higher than the actually
applied stresses, up to 20 percent higher in extreme
cases. This over-estimation of the actual stresses is
believed to be a consequence of the laminar structure
of the test material.
When using eqs (8)-(21) to calculate the strain re-
sponses in Tables 2 and 4, the assumption is made
that the graphite-epoxy laminate is a homogeneous
continuum. However, in reality, the test material con-
sists of 24 discrete layers, each about 0.15-mm thick.
In such a case, the continuum assumption is reason-
able only for macroscopic features that extend over
regions significantly larger than one layer thickness.
For the tests done in this study, the hole is 4.8 mm
in diameter, which is much larger than the 0.15-mm
layer thickness. Thus, the hole can be expected to be
a 'macroscopic' feature. However, St. Venant's prin-
ciple suggests that the laminar structure is likely to
disturb the continuum assumption within about one
layer thickness from the hole boundary. Thus, the ef-
fective hole diameter could be expected to be slightly
larger than the actual hole diameter. If the enlarge-
ment in effective hole radius is one layer thickness,
then the expected increase in strain response is about
12 percent. (The strain response is approximately pro-
portional to the square of the hole diameter). This per-
centage increase corresponds well with the results in
Table 5.
Table 6 compares the calculated stresses for the 0-
deg and 90-deg specimens used in this study, deter-
mined using matrix eq (22) and also using the trigo-
nometric assumption, eq (1). Column 2 of Table 6
lists the A, B and C values that would be used for
each specimen, determined from longitudinal tension
calibration tests. Column 3 lists the corresponding A,
B and C values from hypothetical transverse tension
calibration tests. The values in columns 2 and 3 sig-
nificantly differ. The longitudinal A, B and C values
for one specimen should normally equal the trans-
verse values for the other specimen. They are not ex-
actly equal here because of the 10-percent difference
in elastic properties of the two specimens.
Column 4 of Table 6 lists the stresses calculated
using eq (22) for a nominal longitudinal tension of
1.00 MPa. These values are the same as those listed
in Table 5. Column 5 lists the stresses calculated us-
ing eq (2) with the 'longitudinal' A, B and C values
from column 2. These calculated stresses are similar
to those from eq (22) in column 4. Column 6 lists the
stresses calculated using eq (2) with the 'transverse'
A, B and C values from column 3. These calculated
stresses greatly differ from the expected values, and

332 9 December 1994

TABLE 6--STRESSES COMPUTED USING EQS (2) AND (22) FOR A 1.00-MPa APPLIED LONGITUDINAL
STRESS
ABC, I~E/MPa
Specimen Longitudinal Transverse
A = -1.9 -4.8
0 deg B = -6.0 -8.0
C = -13.5 -13.5
A = -4.4 -1.7
90 deg B = -7.3 -5.3
C---12.6 -12.6
are seriously in error. The results in Table 6 clearly
demonstrate that the trigonometric assumption, eq (1),
gives useful results only when the calibration stresses
are similar to the stresses to be measured. Serious er-
rors develop when the calibration stresses differ sig-
nificantly from the stresses to be measured.
Conclusions
(1) When used with eq (22), the hole-drilling method
can successfully measure uniform residual stresses in
orthotropic materials. In calibration tests, stress-mea-
surement errors were in the 10-20-percent range. This
error range is expected to be typical of hole-drilling
measurements in orthotropic laminates. The likely
major error sources are the laminar structure of most
orthotropic materials, uncertainty of local elastic
properties and angular misalignment of the strain-gage
rosette relative to the material principal elastic direc-
tions.
(2) Equation (22) provides theoretically exact re-
sidual-stress solutions for a wide range of linear-elas-
tic orthotropic materials. The compliances Cll - c33
required for eq (22) can be determined using the plane-
stress solution, eqs (8)-(21), for the displacement field
around a hole in a stressed orthotropic plate.
(3) The compliances Cll - c 3 3 required for eq (22)
are more accurately calculated when the finite areas
of the hOle-drilling strain gages are taken into account
using the method described in Ref. 15. Table 1 lists
computed Cll - c33 values for a wide range of material
properties.
(4) The relieved strain versus angle relationship at
any radius beyond the boundary of a hole in a stressed
orthotropic material does not have a simple trigono-
metric form. An existing stress calculation method
based on the trigonometric assumption in eq (1) is not
valid for hole-drilling residual-stress calculations with
orthotropic materials.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a research grant from
the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Coun-
cil of Canada (NSERC). Drs. Sheldon Green, Anoush
Poursartip and Bruce Lehmann kindly reviewed the
manuscript. Mr. Alan Russell of the Defense Re-
search Establishment Pacific generously provided the
laminate sample used in this study.
Computed Stress, MPa
eq (2) eq (2)
eq (22) Long. ABC Trans. ABC
trx = 1.09 1.15 .63
"rxy = .04 .00 .00
%, = .11 .20 -.08
Crx = .06 .03 .65
"rxy = - . 0 7 -.04 -.04
%, = 1.00 .98 1.95
References
1. Rendler, N.J. and Vigness, I., "Hole-drilling Strain-gage
Method of Measuring Residual Stresses," EXPERIMENTAL MECHAN-
ICS, 6 (12), 577--586 (1966).
2. Beaney, E.M. "Accurate Measurement of Residual Stress on
any Steel Using the Centre Hole Method," Strain, 12 (3), 99-106
(1976).
3. "Measurement of Residual Stresses by the Hole-Drilling
Strain-Gage Method," Tech. Note TN-503-4, Measurements Group,
Inc. Raleigh, NC (1993).
4. "Determining Residual Stresses by the Hole-Drilling Strain-
Gage Method," ASTM Standard E837-92, Amer. Soc. for Test.
and Mat. (1992).
5. Schajer, G.S., "Application of Finite Element Calculations
to Residual Stress Measurements," J. Eng. Mat. and Tech., 1 0 3
(2), 157-163 (1981).
6. Bert, C.W. and Thompson, G.L. "A Method for Measuring
Planar Residual Stresses in Rectangularly Orthotropic Mate-
rials," J. Composite Mat., 2 (2), 244-253 (1968).
7. Lake, B.R., Appl, F.J. and Bert, C.W., "An Investigation
of the Hole-drilling Technique for Measuring Planar Residual Stress
in Rectangularly Orthotropic Materials," EXPERIMENTAL MECHAN-
ICS, 10 (10), 233--239 (1970).
8. Prasad, C.B., Prabhakaran, R. and Thompkins, S., "De-
termination of Calibration Constants for the Hole-Drilling Resid-
ual Stress Measurement Technique Applied to Orthotropic Com-
posites," Composite Structures, Part 1: Theoretical Considerations,
8 (2), 105-118 (1987); Part H: Experimental Evaluations, 8 (3),
165-172 (1987).
9. Perry, C.C., "Data Reduction Algorithms for Strain-Gage
Rosette Measurements," Exp. Tech., 13 (5), 13-18 (1989).
10. Hearmon, R.F.S., "An lntroduction to Applied Anisotropic
Elasticity," Oxford Univ. Press (1961).
11. Schimke, J., Thomas, K. and Garrison, J., "Approximate
Solution of Plane Orthotropic Elasticity Problems," Scholarly
(1970).
12. Kawamoto, T., "On the State of Stress and Deformation
Around Tunnel in Orthotropic Elastic Ground," Memoirs of the
Faculty of Engineering, Kumamoto Univ., Japan, 10 (1), 1-30
(1963).
13. Becker, R.M., "An Anistropic Elastic Solution for Testing
Stress Relief Cores," U.S. Bureau of Mines, Report of Investi-
gations 7143 (1968).
14. Smith, C.B., "Effect of Elliptic or Circular Holes on the
Stress Distribution in Plates of Wood or Plywood Considered as
Orthotropic Materials," USDA Forest Products Lab., Mimeo 1510
(May 1944).
15. Schajer, G.S., "Use of Displacement Data to Calculate
Strain Gauge Response in Non-Uniform Strain Fields," Strain, 2 9
(1), 9-13 (1993).
16. Lekhnitskii, S.G., Anisotropic Plates, Gordon and Breach,
New York (1968).
17. Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I.A., Handbook of Mathe-
matical Functions, Dover, New York (1965).
18. Lineback, L.D. ESA Notebook, Measurements Group, Inc.,
Raleigh, NC 3 7-14, (May 1986).
Experimental Mechanics 9 333