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
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Back
Top