Absolute Determination of Stress in Textured Materials

  • R. B. Thompson
  • J. F. Smith
  • S. S. Lee
Part of the Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data book series (volume 2A)


The continuum theory of elastic wave propagation in deformed, anisotropic solids is reviewed with emphasis on those features which might be used to distinguish between stress induced changes in ultrasonic velocity and changes due to material anisotropy, such as would be produced by preferred grain orientation in a polycrystalline metal As noted by previous authors, one such feature is the difference in velocity of two shear waves, whose directions of propagation and polarization have been interchanged. In particular, when these directions fall along the symmetry axes of a rolled plate (assuming orthorhombic symmetry) and these are also the directions of principal stress, then the theory predicts that ρ(V 12 2 −V 21 2 ) = T1−T2 where ρ is the density, Vij is the velocity of a shear wave propagating along the i-axis and polarized along the j-axis, and Ti is a principal stress component. In addition to being independent of the degree of texture, this relationship has the advantage that no microstructurally dependent acoustoelastic coefficient is involved. The applicability of this prediction of continuum theory to heterogeneous engineering materials such as metal polycrystals is discussed using previously reported stress dependencies of ultrasonic velocities, and new experiments to answer some remaining questions are described. A possible configuration for using the effect to measure the value of a uniform stress in a plate of unknown texture is proposed.


Shear Wave Ultrasonic Velocity Texture Material Rolled Plate Elastic Wave Propagation 
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.
    G. C. Johnston, this proceedings.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. A. Biott, J. Appl. Phys. 11, 522 (1940).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. N. Thurston, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 37, 348 (1965).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. E. MacDonald, IEEE Trans. on Sonics and Ultrasonics, SU-28, 75 (1981).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. N. Thurston and K. Brugger, Phys. Rev. 133, A1604 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. N. Thurston, Physical Acoustics, W. P. Mason, Editor (Academic Press, New York, 1964), Chapter 1.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. S. Hughes and J. L. Kelly, Phys. Rev. 92, 1145 (1953).CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. M. Egle and D. E. Bray, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 60, 741 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. F. S. Hearmon, Landolt-Börnstein, Numerial Data and Functional Relationships in Science and Technology, K.-H. Hellwege, Editor (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1979), Group III, Vol. 11, Chapter 2, p. 265.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. E. Bray and D. M. Egle, Metal Science 15, 574 (1981).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. J. Graham, H. Nadler, R. Chang, J. Appl. Phys. 39, 3025 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. B. Thompson
    • 1
  • J. F. Smith
    • 1
  • S. S. Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Ames Laboratory, USDOEIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations