3.8 Proceedings Paper

Some advancements in the ultrasonic evaluation of initial stress states by the analysis of the acoustoelastic effect

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.494

关键词

Acoustoelastic effect; Non-destructive tests; Ultrasonic tests; Wave propagation; Stress-induced anisotropy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The acoustoelastic effect-that is the correlation between the acoustic properties and the stress state for a solid body-can be profitably employed for experimental measurements of applied and/or residual stress, for example starting from the results of ultrasonic tests. Usually, the interpretation of the results of acoustoelastic experiments is performed in the theoretical framework of the so-called third-order elasticity. In the recent past, more general theoretical models aimed at overcoming some limitations of the third-order elasticity for acoustoelastic stress measurements have been developed. In particular, here we refer to a model developed within the linearizedfinite elasticity theory and describing the propagation of small amplitude waves in prestressed elastic materials. In this model, no assumption on the origin of initial stress neither on the initial anisotropy of the material is made, but the only hypothesis is that ultrasonic waves superimposed on the stressed reference configuration behaves elastically; then, this theoretical approach is also applicable for the experimental stress analysis of plastically deformed bodies and ofanisotropic materials. Moreover, this model leads to universal relations relating ultrasonic velocities to the stress in a prestressed configuration of a body. Ultrasonic acoustoelastic tests on specimens under known stress states allows us for showing that the application of the above mentioned theoretical model, together with the use of a suitable experimental setup developed at our laboratory, may lead to stress measurements with an high level of accuracy.(C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据