Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.

196 (2007) 35773584

www.elsevier.com/locate/cma

On the estimation of residual stresses by the crack compliance method

Sebastian Nervi, Barna A. Szabo

Center for Computational Mechanics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
Received 1 November 2005; accepted 30 October 2006
Available online 24 March 2007

Abstract
The crack compliance method is a destructive experimental method used for the estimation of residual stress proles in thick metal
plates. Simplifying assumptions, such as dimensional reduction, are generally used in applications of this method. The question of how
the simplifying assumptions aect the estimated residual stresses is addressed in this paper.
2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PACS: 81.40.Jj; 81.70.Bt
Keywords: Residual stress; Crack compliance; Destructive test; Generalized plane strain; Mathematical model; Inverse problem

1. Introduction
This paper is concerned with an investigation of an
experimental method, known as the crack compliance
method, with respect to its application to the determination
of residual stresses in 7050-T7451 aluminum plates. These
plates are widely used in the aerospace industry in the manufacture of various airframe components. Estimation of
residual stresses is necessary for the prediction and management of distortion of complex airframe components following machining operations. These plates are hot rolled,
quenched, stretched and over-aged. The stretching operation imposes a strain of 1.53% in the rolling direction.
This reduces the magnitude of residual stresses but
increases the complexity of their distribution.
The crack compliance method was initially developed by
Vaidyanathan and Finnie [1] in 1971, subsequently rened
by Cheng and Finnie [2]. For information on the crack
compliance method and other experimental techniques we
refer to [38].
We denote the material points of an elastic body by
X0 2 R3 and its boundary points by oX0. The domain X0
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 314 935 6352; fax: +1 314 935 4014.
E-mail address: szabo@me.wustl.edu (B.A. Szabo).

0045-7825/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cma.2006.10.037

is the reference conguration. The stress-free conguration

of the body is not known. The unit normal to the boundary
is denoted by n0i . The residual stresses, denoted by r0ij , must
satisfy the equations of equilibrium and the stress-free
boundary conditions. Assuming that the body is not
constrained,
r0ij;j 0 on X0 ;

r0ij n0j 0 on oX0 :

Since stresses cannot be observed directly, the magnitude

and distribution of residual stresses must be inferred from
their eects on the deformation of test articles. In destructive testing methods test articles are systematically altered
by mechanical, chemical or electrical means i.e., X0 !
X1 ! X2 . . . (where Xi1  Xi ) and the resulting displacements and/or strains are measured in one or more points.
Estimation of the residual stress distribution involves solving an inverse problem. To this end certain assumptions
have to be made. These assumptions are essential in the
sense that were they not justied, the residual stress state
could not be determined by destructive methods. Additional assumptions are usually made for convenience and
expediency.
The essential assumptions are that (a) the material is
linearly elastic and remains linearly elastic as the body
is altered in the destructive testing process, hence the

3578

S. Nervi, B.A. Szabo / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 196 (2007) 35773584

destructive testing process does not introduce residual

stresses, (b) the residual stresses are smooth functions of
the spatial coordinates and (c) the grips used for constraining the test article do not introduce stresses that would
signicantly aect measurement of strains caused be the
residual stresses. Assumption (a) implies that the principle
of superposition is applicable throughout the destructive
process and, in any given conguration of the body, the
residual stress state depends on r0ij dened on X0 and
the current conguration Xj j 1; 2; . . . ; n but not on
the intervening congurations.
Commonly made non-essential simplifying assumptions
are that (a) the orientation of the principal stresses is
known a priori, (b) the distribution of the residual stresses
was uniform over that part of the body where the test coupon was obtained, (c) the material is isotropic and (d) in
planes of symmetry plane strain conditions exist.
In this paper we examine the eects of simplifying
assumption (d) on the estimated residual stress state in connection with the crack compliance method applied to 7050T7451 aluminum plates. In the crack compliance method a
sample is cut by electric discharge machining (EDM) and
the additional simplifying assumption is made that the
width of the slot created by EDM is negligible.
The plan of the paper is as follows: The properties of
residual stresses are described for a large plate and a sample cut from the plate in Section 2. The crack compliance
method, its interpretation by two- and three-dimensional
analysis and the boundary layer eects are discussed in Section 3. Interpretation of the experimental data obtained by
Prime and Hill [9] on the basis of two- and three-dimensional models is presented in Section 4 and conclusions
are presented in Section 5.
2. Residual stresses
When residual stresses r0ij are present in an elastic body
then the stressstrain law is of the form
rij r0ij C ijkl kl ;

where Cijkl is the tensor of elastic constants and kl is the

tensor of innitesimal mechanical strain, corresponding
to displacements with respect to the reference conguration
X0. Implied is the assumption that the magnitude of the
stress components is below the proportional limit:
;
f rij 6 r

rij kkk dij 2Gij  3k 2Gadij DT;

where k and G are the Lame constants, dened by the modulus of elasticity E and Poissons ratio m:
Em
;
1 m1  2m

k :

G :

E

21 m

rij kkk dij 2Gij  kakk dij 2Gaij DT;

where aij is a diagonal matrix of the coecients of thermal

expansion which are functions of the spatial variable
xk 2 X0 .
2.1. Residual stress in a large plate
We will consider a large plate of constant thickness h.
The coordinate axes x1, x2 lie in the mid-surface of the
plate, aligned with the rolling and transverse directions.
It is assumed that the rolling and transverse directions
are coincident with the principal residual stress directions
and the principal stresses are functions of x3 only. The
principal stresses (resp. strains) will be represented with a
single subscript: ri (resp. i ), i 1; 2; 3. The notation is
shown in Fig. 1.
Considering the equations of equilibrium, r3;3 0.
Therefore r3 is a constant and since on the top and bottom
surfaces x3 h=2 the plate is stress free, it follows that
r3 0. Consequently Eq. (7) can be simplied to:
E
EDT
1 m2 
a1 ma2 ;
1  m2
1  m2
E
EDT
r2
m1 2 
ma1 a2 :
1  m2
1  m2

r1

8
9

It is seen that the residual stresses in a large plate can be

represented as
R

r1

r2

EDT
a1 ma2 ;
1  m2
EDT

ma1 a2 :
1  m2


10

We introduce the dimensionless variable g 2x3 =h and

write:

where akl is the tensor of the coecients of thermal expansion and DT is the temperature change. It is seen that
akl DTcan be dened to represent any r0ij . When the material properties are isotropic then;

In the following it will be assumed that the elastic properties are isotropic but the coecients of thermal expansion
are orthotropic functions and the principal material axes
are aligned with the coordinate directions. Therefore

 is the proportional
where f(rij) is a yield function and r
limit. The residual stress rij0 can be simulated by thermal loading: The stressstrain law in the presence of
thermal loading is given by:
rij C ijkl kl  akl DT;

Fig. 1. Notation.

S. Nervi, B.A. Szabo / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 196 (2007) 35773584

a1 DT

N1
X

A1j P j1 g;

a2 DT

j1

N2
X

A2j P j1 g;

11

j1

where P j1 g j 1; 2; . . . are the Legendre polynomials.

Because of the orthogonality of the Legendre polynomials
we have:
Z h=2
Z h=2
R
R
ri x3 dx3
x3 ri x3 dx3 0 for i 1; 2:
h=2

h=2

12
R
r1

R
r2

We have assumed that

and
are functions of x3
only. Consequently the equations of equilibrium are satised. We have noted that the stress-free boundary conditions are satised on the top and bottom surfaces, i.e.,
r3 h=2 0. On the other boundary surface (side surface)
S C C  h=2; h=2 the tractions should be zero, that is:
R

T 1 r1 n01 0;

T 2 r2 n02 0 on S C ;

where n01 , n02 are the components of the unit normal to the
boundary curve C. This boundary condition cannot be satised exactly, given the assumption that the residual stresses are functions of x3 only. Nevertheless, this condition is
satised in the sense of Eq. (12). In other words, the
orthogonality of Legendre polynomials guarantees that
the stresses on the boundary surface SC have zero resultants, that is, the membrane force and bending moment
vanish at the boundaries. The shear force and twisting moment are zero by virtue of the stated assumptions. By
SaintVenants principle, their eects decay exponentially
with distance from the boundary. Therefore the residual
stresses satisfy the condition of Eq. (1) in the interior of
the plate, on the top and bottom surfaces, and on SC in
the sense of Eq. (12).
The distribution of residual stresses at the boundaries of
7050-T7451 aluminum plates depends on the quenching
process. In general it will not be the same as in a plate
loaded by the temperature distribution given by Eq. (11).
Nevertheless, the dierences decay exponentially with distance from the boundary. From the point of view of estimating the magnitude and distribution of residual stresses
in an aluminum plate, it is assumed that the samples will
be obtained at distances greater than about 2h from the
boundary SC.

tion rij;j 0 on Xs and the traction-free boundary condition rij nj 0 on oXs. Therefore, by the principle of
virtual work;
Z
Z
rij vi;j dV
rij nj vi dS 0;
13

Samples typically have length dimensions similar to the

thickness of the plate. As a sample is removed from the innite plate, the existing stresses change so as to satisfy the
equations of equilibrium and the traction-free boundary
conditions on the surface. In the following we assume that
the process by which a sample is removed from a large
plate does not introduce additional residual stresses.
We denote the material points of the sample by Xs and
its boundary by oXs. The residual stress distribution in
the sample, denoted by rij, satises the equilibrium equa-

oXs

Xs

where vi is an arbitrary virtual displacement function. Since

rij rji , Eq. (13) can be written as
Z
1
v
v
rij ij dV 0 where ij vi;j vj;i :
14
2
Xs
Eq. (14) must hold for all vi for which the integral expression is nite-valued. We write rij as the sum of the residual
R
C
stress in the plate rij plus a correction rij and write
Z
R
C v
rij rij ij dV 0;
15
Xs

where
R
rij

8 R
>
< r1
r2R
>
:
0
C
rij

for i j 1;
for i j 2;
otherwise:
C

Letting
C ijkl kl , where Cijkl is the material stiness
C
tensor of isotropic elasticity and kl uk;l ul;k =2, and
using Eq. (10), this is equivalent to solving a thermal stress
problem on Xs. The resulting stress,
C

rij C ijkl kl  akl DT;

satises the equations of equilibrium and the stress-free
boundary conditions.
This formulation for the computation of the displacement eld ui and the corresponding correction to the stress
C
eld rij is equivalent to applying the tractions
R

Ti

rij nj

16

to the surface of the sample oXs. To show this, we write

Z
Z
C v
R
rij ij dV 
rij nj vi dS:
17
oXs

Xs
R
rij

satises the equations of equilibrium: rij;j 0.

Since
Applying the divergence theorem, we have:
Z
Z
R
R v
rij nj vi dS
rij ij dV :
18
oXs

2.2. Residual stresses in a sample

3579

Xs

Therefore Eq. (17) is equivalent to Eq. (15).

Any further modication of the sample by cutting can
be treated analogously. We observe that, whereas the initial
R
residual stress eld rij does not have to satisfy the comC
patibility conditions, the stress eld rij does.
u
The displacement ui and the strain kl corresponding to
the correction are measurable in surface points and are
R
indicative of the initial residual stress eld rij .
It follows that, subject to the stated assumptions, the
residual stress in a part cut from a plate depends only on
the residual stress in the plate, the location of the cut,
and the conguration of the part.

S. Nervi, B.A. Szabo / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 196 (2007) 35773584

3580

3. The crack compliance method

In the crack compliance method a sample is removed
from a large plate, usually by saw cut. The location of
the sample must be suciently far from the boundaries
of the plate to justify the assumption that the residual stresses in the large plate can be represented by Eq. (11). Typical length dimensions of the sample L1, L2, indicated in
Fig. 2, are approximately 2h.
Strain gauges are attached at a small number of points
on the surface of the sample. The gauges are usually
aligned with the expected principal stress directions.
A slot of small width is progressively cut by EDM.
Because of its small width, the slot is usually idealized as
a crack. For each slot length ak the strain readings are
recorded. We denote the strain reading in gauge location
m
m corresponding to ak by rk
m 1; 2; . . . ; M; k
1; 2; . . . ; K.
The distribution of residual stress in the large plate can
be inferred from the strain readings. Two methods of interpretation are discussed in the following.
Remark 3.1. In the crack compliance method some yielding may occur at the crack tip. The assumption that
superposition can be applied does not hold in the small
region aected by plastic deformation. There are other
methods for inducing deformation in the sample that do
not cause yielding. For example the wide slot method
discussed in [10]. For a discussion of measurement
techniques we refer to [5].
3.1. Interpretation based on two-dimensional analysis
In most interpretations of the measured data in the
crack compliance method it is assumed that plane strain
conditions exist on the cross-section x shown in Fig. 2,
(see, for example, [9,6,7,11]), and a1 a2 a. In this case
Eq. (10) is simplied to:
R

r1

r2

EaDT
:
1m

where, in view of Eq. (19), a single index is used for labelling the coecients Aj.
A thermoelastic plane strain problem is solved corresponding to each slot length ak k 1; 2; . . . ; K and each
term in the polynomial expansion in Eq. (20), using
aDTj P j1 g;

j 1; 2; . . . ; N

for the thermal load. We denote the corresponding solution

by ukj x1 ; x3 and the normal strain, computed from
m
ukj x1 ; x3 at strain gauge location m, by kj . Using the
principle of superposition,
m

rk

N
X

21

Aj kj :

j1

From these equations the coecients Aj can be estimated

by least squares tting. Therefore the estimated residual
stresses in the plate are:
R

r1 g r2 g  

N
E X
Aj P j1 g:
1  m j1

22

It is necessary to have a substantially larger number of

observations than N, that is, N  K  M. It is not possible
to measure very small strains accurately because the signal
to noise ratio is small, so all observations are not equally
reliable. Therefore the strain measurements should be
weighted by the magnitude of strains, or small strain measurements ignored.
m
As N increases, the strains kN decrease. It is not useful
m
to have N larger than the value at which the size of kN is
similar to the size of errors in strain measurement.
Remark 3.2. The assumption that the material is isotropic
implies that the coecient of thermal expansion is the same
R
R
in each direction, therefore r1 r2 , see Eq. (19), which
is contradicted however by the results of experiments
presented in Section 4. This contributes to the errors of
interpretation based on two-dimensional plane strain
models.

19
3.2. Interpretation based on three-dimensional analysis

We let
aDT

N
X

Aj P j1 g;

j1

Fig. 2. Sample geometry. Notation.

20

The assumption that generalized plane strain conditions

exist on the cross-section x, indicated in Fig. 2, would be
justied only if the dimension L2 would be much larger
than L1 and h. Given that the dimensions of the sample
are of similar magnitude, the stress distribution on X is
inuenced by the boundary layer eects, hence the actual
stress distribution is three-dimensional.
Interpretation of the experimental information by
means of three-dimensional analysis permits one to make
independent assumptions about the distribution of residual
stresses in the rolling and transverse directions. The procedure is described in the following.
We solve N 1 N 2 thermoelastic problems in three
dimensions for each slot length ak. Specically, we let
a1 DTj P j1 g, j 1; 2; . . . ; N 1 and compute the strain

S. Nervi, B.A. Szabo / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 196 (2007) 35773584

3581

component corresponding to the strain measured in gauge

location m for each slot length ak. We denote the computed
m
strain values by 1kj . Similarly, we let a2 DTj P j1 g,
j 1; 2; . . . ; N 2 and compute the strain in gauge location
m for each slot length ak. We denote the computed strain
m
values by 2kj .
Using the principle of superposition,
m

rk

N1
X
j1

A1j 1kj

N2
X

23

A2j 2kj :

j1

The coecients A1j, A2j are determined by least squares

tting.
3.3. Boundary layer eects
In order to illustrate the dierences between two- and
three-dimensional models, we examine a single term P2(g)
in the polynomial approximation of the residual stress.
The two-dimensional (plane strain) model is equivalent to
a three-dimensional model where the normal displacements
on the boundary surfaces x2 L=2 (shown in Fig. 3) are
set to zero. Given that the residual stresses satisfy Eq. (12)
in the large plate, the plane strain solution is a generalized
plane strain solution. Therefore the solution of the three-

-0.28
-0.285

Fig. 3. Boundary layer eects: (a) notation and (b) solution domain and
nite element mesh.

0.12
Plane strain solution
0.1

-0.29
-0.295

Cut 2

0.08

Cut 2

-0.3

0.06

-0.305

-0.315

Cut 1

0.02

-0.32
-0.325
0

0.08
0.07

0
2

10

10

10

Cut 1

-0.05

0.05

-0.1

0.04

-0.15

0.03

-0.2

0.02

-0.25

0.01

-0.3

-0.35
2

0.05

Cut 2

0.06

-0.01
0

Cut 1

0.04

-0.31

10

Cut 1

Cut 2

-0.4
0

Fig. 4. Computed normalized strains for a 20 mm. (a) Computed strains 1 and 2 for r1
R
R
r1 0, r2 CP 2 g.

CP 2 g, r2

0 and (b) computed strains 1 and 2 for

3582

S. Nervi, B.A. Szabo / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 196 (2007) 35773584

dimensional problem with zero tractions on the boundary

surfaces x2 L=2 converge to the generalized plane strain
solution when the ratio L/h goes to innity. It is known
that the boundary layer eects decay very rapidly. For a
discussion on generalized plane strain problems we refer
to [12].
Given the constraints imposed by the plane strain
assumption, the computed strains depend only on the stresses acting along the direction normal to the cutting plane.
In three-dimensional analysis the dependence of the comR
R
puted strains on both r1 and r2 can be considered by
allowing dierent series expansions for a1DT and a2DT.
To illustrate the boundary layer eect we consider two
R
R
cases. In the rst case r1 CP 2 g and r2 0, in the
R
R
second case r1 0 and r2 CP 2 g where C is an arbitrary constant having the dimension of stress. These conditions were induced through appropriate selection of a1DT
and a2DT. For the purposes of this analysis the size of
the slot a is kept constant (a 20 mm) while the dimension
L of the sample is progressively increased.
The results are shown in Fig. 4. As expected, the contribution of the in-plane stress component vanishes as L/h
increases, and the three-dimensional solution converges
to the plane strain solution. In the gure the points labelled
Cut 1 and Cut 2 correspond to the rst and second cuts in
[9]. It is seen that the boundary layer eects are substantial
for the rst term in the series given by Eq. (11).
4. Interpretation of the experimental data
Prime and Hill [9] investigated residual stress distributions in 7050-T74 and 7050-T7451 aluminum plates1 by
means of the crack compliance method. They made their
experimental data available to the writers. The experiments
were conducted as follows:
A specimen, measuring 150  150  75:8 mm3, was
removed from the central region of a 760 mm long,
760 mm wide, 75.8 mm thick plate by saw cut.
Cuts were made using EDM with a 0.3 mm diameter
brass wire. The rst cut was in the plane of symmetry
perpendicular to the transverse direction, the second
cut was in the plane of symmetry perpendicular to the
rolling direction. Note that, for the rst cut, the width
to thickness ratio is given by L2 =h 1:979 and for the
second cut is given by L1 =h 0:989. The machine was
set to skim cut in order to minimize the stress induced
by the cutting process. The slot was cut in 0.5 mm increments to a depth of 12 mm and then in 1 mm increments
for the remainder of the test.
The location of the strain gauges is indicated in Fig. 5.
One gauge was placed very close to each cut on the surface where the cut begins (top strain gauges, 1 and 5),

Fig. 5. Schematic view of experiments performed by Prime and Hill [9].

The x1 (resp. x2) coordinate axis corresponds to the transverse (resp.
rolling) direction.

and another was placed on the opposite surface centered

on the cut plane (bottom strain gauges 3 and 7). Gauges
parallel to the cut (transverse strain gauges, 2, 6, 4, and
8) were also placed at each location. Micromeasurements CEA-13-125UT-350 constantan gauges with an
active gauge length of 3.18 mm were used. Only the
strains measured from gauges 3 and 7 (respectively
transverse and rolling directions) were used in the computation of the stresses.
The dierences between interpretations of the experimental data based on two- and three-dimensional analyses
are examined as follows.
As in [9], we modeled the slot as an ideal crack rather
than representing the actual geometry of the cut. Computational experiments have indicated that there were no significant dierences between the computed strain values in the
gauge locations when the 0.3 mm wide slot was idealized as
a crack. In the nite element analysis a geometrically
graded mesh was used in order to control the errors of
approximation, following the recommendations for optimal mesh layout in the neighborhood of singular points
[13].
The computations were performed with StressCheck2.
The errors of approximation were controlled by means of
p-extension. For all solutions the estimated relative error
in energy norm was less than 2%. StressCheck provides a
framework for parametric studies in which the depth of
the slot can be incremented automatically. For details we
refer to [14].

The nomenclature indicates that the plates were quenched and, in the
case of 7050-T7451, stretched through the imposition of 1.53.0% strain in
the rolling direction in order to reduce the magnitude of residual stresses.

2
StressCheck is a trademark of Engineering Software Research and
Development, Inc.

S. Nervi, B.A. Szabo / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 196 (2007) 35773584
25

Plane Strain
3D

10

15
Residual Stress (MPa)

Residual Stress (MPa)

15

Plane Strain
3D

20
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15

5
0
-5
-10
-15

-20
-25

3583

10

20

30
40
50
Depth (mm)

60

70

80

-20

10

20

30
40
50
Depth (mm)

60

70

80

Fig. 6. Comparison between interpretations based on plane strain and 3D analyses. (a) Rolling direction and (b) transverse direction.

Remark 4.1. Standard material properties for 7050-T7451

aluminum were used in the computations. Uncertainties in
the material data undoubtedly inuence the results. For a
discussion on the variability of elastic modulus in 6061-T6
drawn aluminum tube we refer to [15]. Assuming that
the variation of the elastic modulus is not substantially
greater in 7050-T7451 aluminum plates, we believe that
the eect of uncertainties in material properties is not

200
150
Released Strain ()

The results reported in [9] on the basis of a plane strain

model were recomputed and veried. In the verication process only strain gauges 3 and 7 were used. The residual stress
distributions obtained by means of the plane strain model
and the three-dimensional model are shown in Fig. 6. The
dierence is approximately 10% in the rolling direction,
and 20% in the transverse direction in maximum norm.
The signicance of these dierences must be evaluated in
relation to variations of residual stresses within a plate,
variation of stresses between plates from dierent production runs, and variations that depend on the manufacturer.
Using procedures where both the numerical errors and
experimental errors were carefully controlled, but only a
very small number of experiments performed [10], we
found that the variation in maximum stress in the rolling
(resp. transverse) direction was approximately 18% (resp.
5.5) percent as compared with the results reported by Prime
and Hill [9].
We note that neither estimates are reliable in the vicinity
of the top and bottom surfaces (x3 h=2). This is due to
the fact that when the slot is small then the noise-to-signal
ratio in the strain gauges is large. When the slot is large
then the strain gauges nearest to the slot, where the
noise-to-signal ratio would be smallest, are compromised
by the eects of the cutting process.
In order to verify the estimates, a sequence of forward
problems was solved in which the estimated residual stress
distribution was used and the cutting process was simulated for the second cut (perpendicular to the transverse
direction). The computed and the measured strains are
plotted in Fig. 7. It can be seen that the computed strains
compare well with the experimental measurements.

100
50
0
-50
-100
-150

Experiment
Simulation

10

20

30
40
50
Depth (mm)

60

70

80

Fig. 7. Released strain for the second cut (rolling direction).

greater than the eect of uncertainties in the measurement

of strains.
Remark 4.2. The experimental data presented in Fig. 6 conR
R
tradicts the assumption that r1 r2 , see Remark 3.2.
One can view the two-dimensional data presented in
R
Fig. 6 as the rst step in an iterative process in which r1
R
(resp. r2 ) are successively re-interpreted as a new distribuR
R
tion r2 (resp. r1 ) is computed until convergence occurs.
5. Conclusions
Estimation of residual stresses in metals by destructive
methods, such as the crack compliance method, involves
the solution of an inverse problem. The essential assumptions incorporated in the mathematical model are that (a)
the material remains linearly elastic in the entire process,
hence the principle of superposition is applicable and (b)
the residual stresses are smooth functions of the spatial
variables.
Even when these assumptions are fully justied, our
ability to determine residual stresses with high accuracy is
limited by errors in the strain measurements, the mathematical model used for the interpretation of experimental

3584

S. Nervi, B.A. Szabo / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 196 (2007) 35773584

data and the errors in the numerical solution of the mathematical model. The present investigation was concerned
with estimation of errors caused by the choice of mathematical model.
It is commonly assumed that generalized plane strain
conditions exist in the plane of symmetry. This would be
true if the dimension of the sample normal to the plane
of symmetry would be much larger than the other dimensions. Typical samples do not satisfy this condition however. Therefore the experimental data are inuenced by
three-dimensional boundary layer eects.
When a plane strain model is used for the interpretation
of experimental data then only measurements in the plane
of symmetry can be considered. Hence the orientation of
the principal stresses must be assumed a priori and the
eects of residual stresses acting in the transverse direction
on residual stresses acting in the rolling direction (and vice
versa) cannot be considered. Such limitations are not present when a fully three dimensional model is used.
In the example considered the error in stresses, attributable to the choice of the mathematical model, was approximately 10% in the rolling direction, 20% in the transverse
direction in maximum norm.
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to Dr. Michael B. Prime of
the Los Alamos National Laboratory who provided detailed experimental data on crack compliance measurements and responded to queries concerning his
experiments. This work was supported by the Air Force
Oce of Scientic Research through Grant No. F4962001-1-0074 and Grant No. FA9550-05-1-0105. The views
and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors
and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing
the ocial policies or endorsements, either expressed or
implied, of the Air Force Oce of Scientic Research or
the US Government.

References
[1] S. Vaidyanathan, I. Finnie, Determination of residual stresses from
stress intensity factor measurements, J. Basic Engrg. 93 (1971) 242
246.
[2] W. Cheng, I. Finnie, A method for measurement of axisymmetric
residual stresses in circumferentially welded thin-walled cylinders, J.
Engrg. Mater. Technol. 107 (1985) 181185.
[3] E. Macherauch, V. Hauk (Eds.), Residual Stresses in Science and
Technology, International Conference on Residual Stresses, Vol. 1,
DGM, 1986.
[4] E. Macherauch, V. Hauk (Eds.), Residual Stresses in Science and
Technology, International Conference on Residual Stresses, Vol. 2,
DGM, 1986.
[5] J. Lu, Handbook of Measurements of Residual Stresses, The
Fairmont Press Inc., 1996.
[6] M.B. Prime, Measuring residual stress and the resulting stress
intensity factor in compact tension specimens, Fatigue Fract. Engrg.
Mater. Struct. 22 (3) (1999) 195204.
[7] M.B. Prime, Residual stress measurement by the successive extension
of a slot: The crack compliance method, Appl. Mech. Rev. 52 (2)
(1999) 7596.
[8] F. Kandil, L. J.D., A. Fry, P. Grant, A review of residual stress
measurement methods A guide to technique selection, Npl report,
NPL Materials Centre, Queens Road, Teddington, Middlesex, UK,
February, 2001.
[9] M.B. Prime, M.R. Hill, Residual stress, stress relief, and inhomogeneity in aluminum plate, Scripta Mater. 46 (1) (2002) 7782.
[10] S. Nervi, A mathematical model for the estimation of the eects of
residual stresses in aluminum plates, Washington University in Saint
Louis. DSc. Dissertation, 2005.
[11] M.B. Prime, V.C. Prantil, P. Rangaswamy, F.P. Garcia, Residual
stress measurement and prediction in a hardened steel ring, Mater.
Sci. Forum 347349 (2000) 223228.
[12] I. Babuska, B. Szabo, On the generalized plane strain problem in
thermoelasticity, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (2006)
53905402.
[13] B. Szabo, I. Babuska, Finite Element Analysis, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York, 1991.
[14] Engineering Software Research & Development, Inc., StressCheck
Master Guide, release 7, December 2004.
[15] M.J. Fleming, T.J. Kilinski, D.F. Lahrman, Development of the
precision modulus procedure, Final Report, Battelle, Columbus,
Ohio, March 7, 1997.