PART IV - Papers - On a Series Form of Correction to Stresses Measured Using X-Ray Diffraction

The measurement of residual stress fields using X-ray diffraction techniques requires the removal of successive layers of material from the specimen. In the process of removing these layers, the underlying residual stress field is altered; hence, if the original stress field is desired, corrections must be made to the measured stresses. Although these corrections already exist for a number of cases, an alternate procedure is outlined herein whereby the corrections are presented in series form. This form is numerically more convenient within certain ranges of correction depths and in its simplicity gives additional insight into the factors affecting the corrections. It, further, readily permits determining the proper slice depth to remove and the effect on the correction of both specimen thickness and magnitude and form of the measured residual stress itself. ONE of the techniques currently being used to determine residual stress fields is X-ray diffraction. Since X-rays are diffracted essentially from the layers of atoms near the surface of the specimen, of the order of 0.0001 to 0.001 in. depending on conditions, the method can only determine stresses* in this very thin surface region. Therefore, if the residual stress field at some depth into the specimen is required it is necessary to remove successive layers of material taking measurements after each cut. In the process of removing a thin surface layer of stressed material, however, the over-all equilibrium of a cross section of the specimen is disturbed with the result that the internal residual stress which existed before the slice of material was removed is altered. This alteration of stress occurs after each slice and its effect is cumulative. Thus, if the original stress distribution is desired, corrections must be applied to the measured stresses. These corrections can be found by satisfying equilibrium on each new cross section. These corrections have been derived in detail for a number of cases, e.g., cylinders, bars, plates,' and also are given in Appendix VI of Ref. 2. In each of the above cases the correction terms require the evaluation of definite integrals of the measured residual stress distribution. In general, this is indeed the way one would proceed with the corrections. There are a number of instances, however, where the integrals can be replaced by a series form of correction which is considerably more convenient numerically and, also, gives added insight into the factors which influence the corrections. Such a form of the correction is particularly useful, for example, if one is interested in designing a test such that stress corrections will be small. Also, the question of what depth of slice to use in relation to both specimen thickness and residual stress distribution itself must invariably be answered. Questions of this type can be readily answered using a series form of correction. In addition, if the correct residual stress distribution is needed only for limited depths into the specimen the series correction provides numerical results which are equivalent to the integral correction. I) DERIVATION OF THE SERIES CORRECTION The problem to be considered here is that of a bar or plate,* i.e., either one or two dimensions of the specimen is large compared with the third. Also, the residual stress distributions considered depend only on z, see Fig. 1. In view of this it can be shown' that a stress correction, based on simple beam theory, satisfies all conditions of "elasticity theory" and hence is the correct (and only) solution. The integral form of the correction (this assumes that the measured residual stress is a piecewise continuous function) as given in Ref. 1 is: