Method Works Best For: Limitations/Challenges:
Excision Surface measurements where the
stress direction is known
Diffi cult to cut material sample
cleanly, without stress addition
Splitting Comparative quality control of
prismatic or tubular specimens
Gives an average or “representative”
result only
Two-Groove Surface measurements where the
stress direction is known
Gives an average result only
Slitting 1-D perpendicular stress in
prismatic shaped specimens
Stresses must be uniform across slit
width. Only 1 stress measured
Ring-Core 2-D surface stresses, also near-
surface stress profi le
Creates much specimen damage,
awkward strain gauge placement
Hole Drilling 2-D surface stresses, also near-
surface stress profi le
Near-yield stresses are overestimated
Deep Hole Large components Done only by specialists and
compromised by plasticity
Layer Removal Flat plates and cylinders of uniform
thickness
Time consuming procedure, subject
to measurement drift
Stoney in layers on fl exible substrate Determining layer thickness
accurately
Contouring 2-D perpendicular stress in
prismatic shaped specimens
Requires very accurate cutting, not
good for near-surface
Sectioning Can be tailored to specifi c
specimen geometry
Challenging calculations for multiple
sectioning
X-ray Diff raction Near surface measurements
on crystalline materials
Variations in grain structure and
surface texture
Synchrotron
Diff raction
Deeper non-destructive
measurements
Requires synchrotron radiation
source in a major facility
Neutron
Diff raction
Very deep non-destructive
measurements
Requires neutron radiation
source in a major facility
Magnetic
(Barkhausen)
Rapid measurements in
ferromagnetic materials
Requires extensive material-specifi c
calibration
Ultrasonic Low-cost comparative
measurements
Requires material-specifi c calibration
ermo-elastic Low-cost comparative
measurements
Results are not quantitative
Photo-elastic Full-fi eld measurements in
transparent materials
rough-thickness average.
Stress separation is challenging