, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 32–38 | Cite as

Displacement Errors in the Application of Portable X-Ray Diffraction Stress Measurement Instrumentation

  • Clayton O. Ruud
  • Daniel J. Snoha
Physical & Mechanical Metallurgy


The role of residual stresses in the premature failure of metallic components has long been recognized. However, the most prevalent methods of measuring these stresses are at least partly, if not completely, destructive. This, as well as the availability of more rapid and portable x-ray diffraction instrumentation, has led to a renewed interest in this nondestructive residual stress measurement methodology.

This paper discusses the three most popular x-ray diffraction techniques for measuring residual stresses and describes theoretical, as well as experimental, results showing the sensitivity of two of the techniques to specimen-to-detector distance, i.e., displacement, errors. Further, the inherent theoretical advantage of the double-exposure over the single-exposure technique is derived. Theoretical and experimental evidence is then offered showing experimental difficulties in realizing this advantage. Finally, the inherent insensitivity of the single-exposure technique to displacement errors is demonstrated.


Residual Stress Stress Measurement Iron Powder Detector Distance Residual Stress Measurement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    “Methods of Residual Stress Measurement-SAEJ936,” SAE, Warrendale, Pennsylvania, 1965.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. O. Ruud, “A Review of Nondestructive Method for Residual Stress Measurement,” J. Metals, 33(7), 1981, pp. 35–40.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    “Residual Stress Measurement by X-Ray Diffraction-SAE J784a,” SAE Warrendale, Pennsylvania, 1971.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. D. Cullity, Elements of X-Ray Diffraction, 2nd Ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. T. Norton, “X-Ray Stress Measurement by the Single-Exposure Technique,” Adv. in X-Ray Anal., Vol. 11, Plenum Press, New York, 1968, p. 401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. O. Ruud, “Position-Sensitive Detector Improves X-Ray Powder Diffraction,” Ind. Res. and Dev., January 1983.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. D. Cullity, “Some Problems in X-Ray Stress Measurements,” Adv. in X-Ray Anal., Vol. 20, Plenum Press, New York, 1977, pp. 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. O. Ruud, P. S. DiMascio, and D. J. Snoha, “A Miniature Instrument for Residual Stress Measurement,” Adv. in X-Ray Anal., Vol. 27, Plenum Press, New York, to be published in 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clayton O. Ruud
    • 1
  • Daniel J. Snoha
    • 1
  1. 1.Materials Research LaboratoryPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations