Interlaboratory Reproducibility of Contour Method Data Analysis and Residual Stress Calculation

Abstract

Background: While the contour method for residual stress assessment has developed rapidly, no published study documents its interlaboratory reproducibility. Objective: Here we report an initial reproducibility experiment focused on contour method data analysis and residual stress calculation. Methods: The experiment uses surface topography data from a physical process simulation of elastic-plastic beam bending. The simulation provides surface topography, for input to the contour method data analysis, as well as a known residual stress field with 130 MPa peak magnitude. To increase realism, noise and specific artifacts are added to the topography data. A group of participants received the topography data (without the known residual stress), independently analyzed the data, and submitted results as a two-dimensional residual stress field. Results: Analysis of submissions provides a group average residual stress field and the spatial distribution of reproducibility standard deviation. The group average residual stress agrees with the known stress in magnitude and spatial trend. The reproducibility standard deviation ranges from 2 to 54 MPa over the measurement plane, with an average of 5.4 MPa. Reproducibility standard deviation is smaller in the cross-section interior (≤ 5 MPa), modest near local extrema in the stress field (5 to 10 MPa), and larger near the cross-section boundaries (10 to 30 MPa). The largest values of reproducibility standard deviation (up to 54 MPa) occur in limited areas where artifacts had been added to the topography data; while some participants identified and removed these artifacts, some did not, leading to systematic differences that elevated the standard deviation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Change history

  • 17 June 2020

    The original version of this article has been corrected to include authors middle initials in the author list. The details given in this correction are correct.

References

  1. 1.

    Prime MB (2001) Cross-Sectional Mapping of Residual Stresses by Measuring the Surface Contour after a Cut. J. Eng. Mater. Tech 123:162–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Hill MR, Olson MD (2014) Repeatability of the contour method for residual stress measurement. Exp Mech 54(7):1269–1277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Olson MD, DeWald AT, Prime MB, Hill MR (2014) Estimation of uncertainty for contour method residual stress measurements. Exp Mech 55(3):577–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    ASTM E691-15, Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision of a Test Method (2015) ASTM international. West Conshohocken, MA

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Hosseinzadeh F, Kowal J, Bourchard PJ (2014) Towards good practice guidelines for the contour method of residual stress measurement. J Eng 8:453–468

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Prime MB, DeWald AT (2013) The Contour Method. In: Schajer GS (ed) Practical Residual Stress Measurement Methods. Wiley, West Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Prime MB, Gonzales AR (2000) Contour Method: Simple 2-D Mapping of Residual Stresses. In: Proceedings of the 6thInternational Conference on Residual Stresses. IOM Communications, London, pp 617–624

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp., ABAQUS Analysis User's Guide version 6.14, Providence, RI, USA, 2014

  9. 9.

    Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization (MMPDS): MMPDS-06. United States Federal Aviation Administration, Washington D.C., 2011

  10. 10.

    Franchi A, Riva P, Genna F (1991) Incremental elastic-Ziegler kinematic hardening plasticity formulations and an algorithm for the numerical integration with an "a priori" error control. In: Grierson DE et al (eds) Progress in Structural Engineering, pp 407–421

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp., ABAQUS Analysis User's Guide version 6.14, section 23.2.2, Models for metals subjected to cyclic loading, Providence, RI, USA, 2014

  12. 12.

    Olson MD, DeWald AT, Hill MR (2018) Validation of a contour method single-measurement uncertainty estimator. Exp Mech 58:767–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-018-0385-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Olson MD, DeWald AT, Hill MR (2018) Repeatability of contour method residual stress measurements for a range of materials, processes, and geometries. Materials Performance and Characterization 7(4):427–445. https://doi.org/10.1520/MPC20170044

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was performed by the authors without the support of external funding.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. R. Hill.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

• SSC, MLS, TJS, and JBL report no potential conflicts of interest.

• CRD is a graduate student pursuing a doctorate under the guidance of MRH.

• MBP holds patent US6470756B1 on the contour method, from which modest royalties are received.

• JAO and MRH have separate economic interests in contour method measurements that derive from their employment by (JAO) or an ownership interest in (MRH, Hill Engineering, LLC of Rancho Cordova, CA, USA) a firm providing contour method measurements.

All authors affirm that these potential conflicts of interest did not play a significant role in the work reported here and that this paper reflects the consensus of all authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article has been corrected to include authors middle initials in the author list. The details given in this correction are correct

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

D’Elia, C.R., Carlson, S.S., Stanfield, M.L. et al. Interlaboratory Reproducibility of Contour Method Data Analysis and Residual Stress Calculation. Exp Mech (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-020-00599-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Contour method
  • Residual stress
  • Reproducibility
  • Precision
  • Uncertainty