Residual tensile stresses due to high compressive loading

  • Thread starter Thread starter kajalschopra
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Tensile
AI Thread Summary
Residual tensile stresses can arise in materials under high compressive loading due to the complex interactions of stress distribution, particularly in scenarios like shelling in rails. Heavy wheel loads create surface compression stresses that lead to tensile stresses at a depth below the surface, ultimately resulting in shelling cracks. Understanding this phenomenon requires a grasp of Hertz contact stress theory, which explains localized stress behaviors that may defy intuitive expectations. The discussion highlights the challenge of conveying complex physical interpretations without extensive background knowledge. Ultimately, the inquiry into the physical reasons behind these tensile stresses remains a nuanced topic in applied mechanics.
kajalschopra
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
I have been trying to understand the physical reason for this

I had been reading about shelling in rails: https://patents.google.com/patent/US2853775

Here you can see (as stated):
Shelling occurs near the upper gage corner of the rail and is the result of cold working of the rail steel by heavy Wheel loads, of the cars operating over the rails in track. At this corner the cold working results in surface compression stresses as high as 20,000

This surface compression stress result in a tension stress of 20,000 p. s. i. at a depth of approximately /8" below the surface, and it is this tensile stress which eventually causes shelling cracks in rails in track.


I'm not able to physically sense this. How do we get residual tensile stresses even if the structural component is in compression.

Kajal
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to start with Hertz contact stress theory, a fairly complicated subject. The stresses resulting from localized contact are not what your intuition might lead you to expect.
 
Can you please elaborate this a bit. I shall be extremely grateful. See attached apper. I'm looking for a physical interpretation for this (as I pointed above). You may just read the abstract and not go into the whole paper.

May be I should not have said about "shelling", in the attached paper there is no contact actually
 

Attachments

I'm not interested in the paper at all, so will not get into it. I told you were to start. Do you know about Google?
 
kajalschopra said:
I'm looking for a physical interpretation

Sorry but that's an unreasonable request on a forum like this. It would require an encyclopedia length reply and we don't know your background to be sure you would understand.
 
It would require an encyclopedia length reply and we don't know your background to be sure you would understand.
I'm specializing in Applied Mechanics and a dedicated member of this forum. Some insight (without math) in order to have a physical intuition on why we get tensile stresses when the loading is compressive is what I was looking for.

I told you were to start
.
You did. But I also said that there is no contact in the problem. I therefore referred you to that paper in order to justify the problem has no contacts and hence the Hertz contact might not be to research my answer

Do you know about Google

I do. But did not get an answer to this. I got the answer while goggling
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top