See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322082728

Absolute stress measurement of structural steel members with ultrasonic

shear-wave spectral analysis method

Article in Structural Health Monitoring · December 2017

DOI: 10.1177/1475921717746952

CITATIONS READS

28 773

5 authors, including:

JingBo He Jun Teng

Harbin Institute of Technology Harbin Institute of Technology Shenzhen Graduate School
6 PUBLICATIONS 126 CITATIONS 90 PUBLICATIONS 959 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ying Wang
Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen)
84 PUBLICATIONS 1,411 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ying Wang on 02 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Absolute Stress Measurement of Structural Steel Members
with Ultrasonic Shear Wave Spectral Analysis Method 
Zuohua Li1, Jingbo He1, Jun Teng1, Qin Huang1, Ying Wang2

Abstract
Absolute stress in structural steel members is an important parameter for the design,

construction, and servicing of steel structures. However, it is difficult to measure via

traditional approaches to structural health monitoring. The ultrasonic time-of-flight (TOF)

method has been widely studied for monitoring absolute stress by measuring the change of

ultrasonic propagation time induced by stress. The TOF of the two separated shear-wave

modes induced by birefringence, which is particular to shear waves, is also affected by

stress to different degrees. Their synthesis signal amplitude spectrum exhibits a minimum

that varies with stress, which makes it a potential approach to evaluating uniaxial stress

using the shear-wave amplitude spectrum. In this study, the effect of steel-member stress

on the shear-wave amplitude spectrum from the interference of two shear waves produced

by birefringence is investigated, and a method of uniaxial absolute stress measurement

using shear-wave spectral analysis is proposed. Specifically, a theoretical expression is

derived for the shear-wave pulse-echo amplitude spectrum, leading to a formula for

1
Shenzhen Graduate School, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen 518055, People’s
Republic of China
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford
GU2 7XH, UK

Corresponding author: Qin Huang, Shenzhen Graduate School, Harbin Institute of

Technology, Shenzhen 518055, People’s Republic of China
E-mail: tmxhq@126.com
evaluating uniaxial absolute stress. Three steel-member specimens are employed to

investigate the influence of uniaxial stress on the shear-wave pulse-echo amplitude

spectrum. The testing results indicate that the amplitude spectrum changes with stress, and

that the inverse of the first characteristic frequency in the amplitude spectrum and its

corresponding stress exhibit a near-perfect linear relationship. On this basis, the uniaxial

absolute stress of steel members loaded by a test machine is measured by the proposed

method. Parametric studies are further performed on three groups of steel members made

of 65# steel and Q235 steel to investigate the factors that influence the testing results. The

results show that the proposed method can measure and monitor steel-members uniaxial

absolute stress on the laboratory scale and has potential to be used in practical engineering

with specific calibration.

Keywords
Uniaxial absolute stress monitoring, structural steel members, shear-wave birefringence,

amplitude spectrum, acoustoelastic effect

Introduction
Absolute Stress and Stress Measurement Methods
Steel is widely used in civil engineering structures for its high strength and toughness.

Many large structural-bearing members, such as huge steel columns, giant steel beams, and

large joints, are made of steel. The use of steel improves structural load resistance and

prolongs structural service life. The safe and proper service of the overall structures is

directly affected by the key steel members. When steel structures have been serviced for a

long time or have suffered natural disasters, their spatial stress state may be redistributed;

in particular, stress concentration may occur in key components. This may lead to abnormal
functioning and even failures of aging structures. Absolute stress in structural steel

members plays an important role in evaluating the safety of existing structures. Evaluating

the absolute stress of structural steel members is of great significance in judging structural

safety performance, predicting structural service life, and determining aging structural

reinforcement and reconstruction. 1

Structural health monitoring technologies can be used to monitor the structural state by

applying different types of stress/strain sensor to key members. 2–4 In recent years, crack

identification5 of local components, damage detection, and vibration control of structures6

have been widely studied. However, studies that investigate the application of measuring

the absolute stress of structural steel members remain rare in the literature. The stress

measured in traditional way is the relative value from the start time of monitoring to the

current state, rather than the absolute stress. 7 If the stress/strain sensors are applied at the

beginning of structure construction, the absolute stress can be measured. However, the

absolute stress distribution cannot be measured over long-term servicing of the structures

because the stress monitoring system and sensors have a certain lifetime. After replacing

the stress monitoring system and sensors, the absolute stress of structures still cannot be

monitored. Generally speaking, the absolute stress of steel members is difficult to be

measured using traditional structural health-monitoring approaches.

Stress measurement methods1 such as sectioning, hole drilling, X-ray diffraction, neutron

diffraction, the magnetoelastic method, and ultrasound can be used to measure absolute

stress. The sectioning8 and hole-drilling9 methods are both destructive to members and thus

are not recommended for use on existing structures. X-ray diffraction,10 neutron

diffraction,11 and the magnetoelastic method12 can only be used on the laboratory scale and
are generally not suitable for on-site applications because the required equipment is

complex. However, ultrasound is not limited by the types of material under study and can

be used with portable instruments to measure absolute stress. The existing literature 13

shows that ultrasound can be used to measure the internal stress of steel members and is

regarded as a promising approach for the non-destructive evaluation of absolute stress.

Ultrasonic Stress Measurement Methods

The ultrasonic method is based on the acoustoelastic effect. 14 In the elastic range, the

velocity of ultrasound varies linearly with material stress when a wave propagates in the

material. However, because the change in ultrasonic velocity due to stress is too small to

be measured, the TOF method15 is proposed by transforming the relationship between

stress and velocity to one between stress and TOF along a fixed acoustic path. Thus, the

material stress can be evaluated by measuring the ultrasonic TOF. According to the

different ultrasonic wave patterns, ultrasonic stress evaluation based on TOF measurement

can be subdivided into the following methods.

The first method involves the use of longitudinal waves. The estimation of clamping force

is regarded as the main issue in the maintenance of high-tension bolts. Because the

ultrasonic wave velocity changes minimally in the range of actual stress in the bolt, the

determination of stress requires precise and accurate measurement of the wave velocity.

Jhang et al.16 proposed a phase-detection method to measure the TOF of longitudinal waves

precisely, and the experimental results showed that longitudinal-wave TOF decreases

linearly with stress. Karabutov et al.17 used an optoacoustic transducer to excite and detect

longitudinal ultrasonic pulses, leading to TOF measurements with an accuracy of around

0.5 ns. This technique was used to measure plane residual stress in welds, and the results
agreed well with those of conventional testing. Vangi18 employed a pulse-echo technique

to evaluate concentrated stress gradients. Combining with automated ultrasonic inspection

techniques, an approach to evaluate the structural integrity of components or structures was

presented19. Overall, the longitudinal-wave method has been widely studied and used.

The second method involves the use of shear waves. Schramm20 measured the velocity of

two orthogonally polarized ultrasonic shear waves, which allowed the calculation of rim

stress in railroad wheels; the results were consistent with those obtained by destructive

methods. Clark and Moulder21 measured the velocity difference of orthogonally polarized

shear-waves, which can be related to the difference in principal stresses; the experimentally

determined specimen stresses were in good agreement with theoretical values. Allen and

Sayers22 measured residual stress in textured steel by measuring the time delay between

two orthogonally polarized shear waves used in the birefringence technique; the method

was further demonstrated by measuring near the tip of a crack in a compact tension

specimen. The use of the shear-wave method to measure stress has unique advantages. By

varying the shear-wave velocity simultaneously in two different polarization directions, the

two-dimensional stress distribution in the propagation direction of the shear wave can be

obtained.23

The third method employs a critically refracted longitudinal (Lcr) wave to measure stress.

The Lcr wave is a bulk longitudinal wave that travels underneath the surface of the material,

with the penetration depth being a function of excitation frequency. 24 The Lcr technique

does not require opposite parallel surfaces and so does not impose any strict geometric

limitations on the test specimens. Of all ultrasonic waves, Lcr waves exhibit the largest

sensitivity to stress and are least affected by material texture.25 All these features make Lcr
waves the best candidate for use in stress evaluation. Bray and Junghans24 and dos Santos

and Bray25 used Lcr waves to detect the residual stresses of an aluminum welded seam and

a steel welded seam to study the relaxation of welding residual stress. Chaki et al.26

investigated characterization of the Lcr beam profile both numerically and experimentally

to optimize the choice of incident angle to obtain sufficient energy in the experimental

signal. Javadi and colleagues23,27 used Lcr waves to measure the distribution of welding

residual stress in an austenitic stainless-steel member and verified the experimental results

by hole drilling. Combining experimental results with those of numerical simulations using

ANSYS, the distribution of welding residual stress was obtained at different depths, and a

stress-distribution diagram was drawn. Li et al. 13 used Lcr waves to measure the absolute

stress of existing structural steel members, and the testing results agreed well with those

measured using a strain gauge. Vangi28 presented an ultrasonic critical-angle reflectometry

technique to determine the velocity of the longitudinal wave by measuring the amplitude

of the refracted signal in relation to the angle of incidence. This technique can be applied

to the measurement of stress states and is not based on the TOF data, which offers the

possibility of a significant increase in spatial resolution. In general, applications of the Lcr

wave method have been widely researched in recent years. In addition to the

aforementioned stress measurement methods, Lamé waves, 29 Rayleigh waves,30 and

surface waves31 are also used to evaluate stress.

Generally speaking, the majority of studies on ultrasonic TOF measurement are still in their

infancy, with a limited number of industrial applications. There are three possible reasons

for this. First, ultrasonic propagation characteristics are influenced by factors such as grain

size,32 material texture,33 and coupling conditions,34 all of which influence the change in
ultrasonic wave velocity or TOF more so than does absolute stress. In particular, the

propagation times of ultrasonic waves in the probe and coupling layer cannot be measured

accurately,13,23,27 leading to inaccurate values of detected stress. Second, the TOF method

requires high-precision measurement of the travelling times of the ultrasonic waves. Based

on previous studies, the ultrasonic wave velocity is not very sensitive to stress. For example,

a 100-MPa stress change corresponds to a velocity change of less than 1%.16 Thus, the

results of measuring absolute stress depend directly on the TOF measurement accuracy. To

solve this problem, the sing-around method35 was proposed to reduce the TOF

measurement error by extending the ultrasonic propagation distance. However, the energy

of ultrasonic waves is seriously attenuated when they travel a long distance. 36 Third, some

parameters require calibration in field experiments, and the fitted results are inaccurate. In

fact, the fitted parameters contain information such as material density, elastic modulus,

and elastic constant,13,23,27 all of which are greatly influenced by the component material.

Still, there are a few industrial applications of the ultrasonic method. For example, Vangi37

designed a methodology to remotely monitor thermal stresses on continuous welded rails.

The methodology has been used to monitor about 3 km of railway track for at least 2 years.

The ultrasonic TOF method has some intrinsic defects, leading some scholars to propose

the use of ultrasonic shear waves to test stress. This method is based on the birefringence

of shear waves.38 The presence of stress in a solid material leads to acoustic anisotropy.

When an ultrasonic shear wave encounters a stressed solid, it separates into two modes that

propagate simultaneously with different velocities and produce interference effects. The

shear-wave echo contains both fast and slow components of the two shear-wave modes,

and its amplitude spectrum exhibits a periodic minimum value that sensitive to stress and
therefore could be used to indicate the stress in the material. Blinka and Sachse39

investigated the interference between two decomposed shear waves in stressed aluminum,

and found that the echo power spectrum exhibited periodic stress-induced minima. In

addition, their experimental results showed that material stress and the frequency

corresponding to the minimum value were linearly related. That research laid the

foundation for stress measurement using spectral analysis. One advantage of this method

is that it is less affected by environmental noise. However, research into the use of shear-

wave birefringence to measure absolute stress has yet to yield a systematic method for

doing so. In fact, it is inaccurate to claim a perfectly linear relationship between stress and

frequency in the power spectrum. In general, stress measurement using shear-wave

birefringence requires further investigation.

Goals and Objectives of This Study

Accepting the above difficulties, the aim of this paper is a new non-destructive evaluation

approach to determine the uniaxial absolute stress of structural steel members using

spectrum analysis of ultrasonic shear waves. In accordance with ultrasonic shear-wave

birefringence and acoustoelasticity theory, a formula is derived for uniaxial stress

measurement. An important parameter, the interference factor, is emphatically analyzed.

Expressions for shear wave frequency and polarization angle are solved theoretically when

the shear-wave echo amplitude spectrum exhibits a minimum value. On this basis, three

steel members are tested using the proposed method and the results are validated. The

influencing factors, namely the material and the thickness of the steel members, are

investigated by combining theoretical and experimental studies on three other groups of

specimens made of 65# steel and Q235 steel.

Theory
Theoretical Derivation of Shear-wave Pulse-echo Amplitude
Spectrum Based on Birefringence Effect
In a free state, the velocity of ultrasonic shear waves in an acoustically isotropic metallic

material is independent of the directions of propagation and polarization. When a metallic

material is subjected to stress, the stress causes acoustic anisotropy of the material. When

a beam of shear waves travels from one medium to another, it separates into two shear-

wave modes at the interface. Shear waves whose polarization directions are parallel and

perpendicular to the stress direction have different velocities. This phenomenon is known

as birefringence, and is particular to shear waves. In this paper, we first derive a theoretical

expression for the amplitude spectrum of a shear-wave pulse echo in a stressed steel

member.

Figure 1 shows the propagation of shear waves generated and received in a parallelepiped

specimen. The contact point between the shear-wave probe and the steel member is the

origin o. The propagation direction of the shear wave is in the positive direction of the

horizontal axis x3. The angle between the polarization of the shear wave and the horizontal

axis x1 is θ. The length of the steel member along the horizontal axis x3 is l, and the direction

of the steel member’s force is in the direction of the vertical axis x2. For the sake of

illustration, compressive stress of the steel members is positive and tensile stress is negative.
 x2
σ

x3

θ x1
o
Transceiver shear
wave probe
l
σ

Figure 1. Sketch of shear-wave propagation in steel member

According to Fourier analysis, a shear-wave pulse can be regarded as the superposition of

sine or cosine waves with different frequencies. The equation of motion for the shear wave

can be written as

n
u0  y(t )   Ai cos( wit  i ),(i  0,1, 2..., n) . (1)
i 0

Here, u0 is the amplitude of vibration source, Ai is the amplitude of the ith vibrational

component, wi is the angular frequency of the ith vibrational component, φi is the initial

phase of the ith vibrational component, and t is the vibration time of the vibration source.

Because steel is birefringent, shear waves containing fast and slow components parallel to

the x1 and x2 axes propagate through the specimen in the x3-direction. After being reflected

from the specimen’s rear side, the shear wave travels back to the source. The equations of

motion for two components propagating in the positive x3 direction are given by38

x3  2l
u1 ( x3 , t )  y (t  )cos  , (2)
v31

x3  2l
u2 ( x3 , t )  y (t  )sin  , (3)
v32
where vij is the velocity of shear waves traveling in direction i with particle vibration in

direction j. Synthesis of the two wave components parallel to the polarization direction θ

received by the transducer (x3=0) is

2l 2l
ur (t )  y (t  )cos2   y (t  )sin 2  . (4)
v31 v32

Let

2l
g (t )  y (t  ), (5)
v32

2l 2l
t   , (6)
v31 v32

where Δt is the arrival time difference of the two components. Equation (4) can then be

written as

ur (t )  g (t  t ) cos2   g (t )sin 2  . (7)

We define U(f ) and G(f ) to be the Fourier transforms of ur(t) and g(t), respectively.

Transforming Eq. (7), a relationship is obtained between the shear-wave echo power

spectrum and frequency:

U ( f )  G( f )cos2  ei 2 f t  G( f )sin 2  . (8)

According to Euler’s formula, Eq. (8) can be written as

U ( f )  G( f ) sin 2   cos2  cos2 f t  (cos2  sin 2 f t )i  . (9)

Taking the modulus of Eq. (9), the following expression is obtained:


2
1 
U ( f )  G( f )  1  2sin 2 (  )  1 (cos 2 f t  1) . (10)
2 4 
Here, |U(f )| is the shear-wave echo amplitude spectrum when the steel member is under

stress. It contains both fast and slow shear-wave components; |G(f )| is the reference

spectrum, which is the amplitude spectrum of an echo when the steel member is under zero

stress. The remaining part in Eq. (10) can be defined as the interference factor, the

expression of which can be written as


2
1 
 ( , f )  1  2sin 2 (  )  1 (cos 2 f t  1) . (11)
2 4 

The interference factor holds information on the interference between the fast and slow

shear-wave components, and is a function of polarization angle and frequency. The

functional image is shown in Fig. 2 when the arrival time difference of the two shear-wave

components is 0.1 μs. It can be seen that the interference factor varies periodically with

polarization angle and frequency. The value range of the interference factor is [0, 1].

Figure 2. Functional image of the interference factor

Equation (10) can be further simplified as

U ( f )  G( f )   ( , f ) . (12)
Equation (12) is the theoretical expression of the shear-wave echo amplitude spectrum; it

is the product of the reference spectrum and the interference factor. After adjusting the

reference spectrum by the interference factor, the amplitude spectrum can be obtained. In

fact, when the steel member is under zero stress, the velocities of the two shear-wave

components are equal and there is no interference. Then, the interference factor is 1, and

the echo amplitude spectrum is the same as the reference amplitude spectrum. When the

steel member is under stress, the interference factor changes periodically with polarization

angle and frequency.

Next, we deduce theoretical expressions for the shear-wave polarization angle and

frequency when the interference factor is a minimum. To obtain this minimum value, we

use the following:

cos2 f *t =  1 . (13)

The solution of Eq. (13) is

2 N1  1
f*  ， ( N1  1, 2,3...) , (14)
2t
*
where f is defined as the characteristic frequency when the interference factor is a

minimum. The characteristic frequencies corresponding to N1=1, 2, 3, … are recorded as

f1*, f2*, f3*, …, respectively, which are referred to as the first characteristic frequency (FCF),

the second characteristic frequency, the third characteristic frequency, ..., respectively.

By substituting Eq. (6) into Eq. (14), a new formula is obtained:

(2 N1  1)v31v32
f* ， ( N1  1,2,3...) . (15)
4l (v32  v31 )

Equation (15) illustrates the fact that the characteristic frequency is influenced by the

velocities of the two shear-wave components. Because the shear-wave velocities are
influenced by the stress in the steel member, the characteristic frequency is similarly

affected. Thus, the relationship between characteristic frequency and stress is established

in this way.

By substituting Eq. (13) into Eq. (11), the latter becomes


2
 
 ( , f )  1  2sin 2 (  )  1 ,
*
(16)
 4 

whereupon the shear-wave polarization angle can be solved as

N 2
 , ( N 2  1,3,5...) . (17)
4

Figure 3 shows the relationship between the extreme value of the interference factor and

the polarization angle. The maximum value of the interference factor is constant at 1. The

minimum value changes periodically with polarization angle every 90°. When the

polarization angle is an odd multiple of 45°, the minimum value of the interference factor

is 0. The analysis results are consistent with those shown in Fig. 2.

Figure 3. Relationship between polarization angle and extreme value of interference factor

Theoretical Derivation of Uniaxial Absolute Stress Measurement

Based on Acoustoelasticity Effect
In this study, the material of the structural steel member is assumed to be isotropic and

homogeneous. Furthermore, it is assumed to be in its elastic range. According to

acoustoelastic theory, the shear-wave velocity in the steel member is related to the particle

vibration and stress direction.23 The specific expressions are as follows:

 n
 v32 2    (  2   m  ), (18)
3  2 4

 
 v312    (m  2  n) . (19)
3  2 2

Here, v31 is the velocity of the shear wave when its propagation and particle-vibration

directions are perpendicular to the stress direction; v32 is the velocity of the shear wave

when its propagation and particle-vibration directions are perpendicular and parallel,

respectively, to the stress direction; λ and μ are the second-order elastic constants (Lamé

constants); l, m, and n are the third-order elastic constants (Murnaghan constants); and ρ0

is the material density.

When the steel member is under zero-stress condition, the velocity of the shear-wave is:

 v02   , (20)

where v0 is the shear-wave velocity when the steel member is under zero stress.

It can be deduced from Eqs. (18) and (19) that

4  n
 (v32  v31 )(v32  v31 )   . (21)
4

By substituting Eq. (20) into Eq. (21), it becomes:

v32  v31 v32  v31 4  n

  . (22)
2v0 v0 8 2
In fact, the ultrasonic wave velocity is not sensitive to stress conditions of the steel

members40. Based on previous experimental studies41, when the strain of a steel sample is

about 1‰ (the stress is about 210 MPa), the relative difference of velocity of two types of

v32  v31
shear waves are about 1.15‰ and -0.2‰. The term in Eq. (22) is thus equal to
2v0

1.0005, which is approximately equal to 1. Referring to the derivation process by Allen

and Sayers42, Eq. (22) is simplified as the following form

v32  v31 4  n
 . (23)
v0 8 2

Considering that the initial state of the steel material may not be isotropic, a factor, α, is

included to reflect the initial acoustic anisotropy of the steel member. Then the following

formula can be obtained:

v32  v31 4  n
   . (24)
v0 8 2

By substituting Eq. (15) into Eq. (24), the latter becomes

v0 -8 2
(2 N1  1) 

4l0 (1   ) 4   n
f* E , ( N1  1, 2.3...) , (25)
-8 2
 
4  n

where l0 is the initial thickness of steel member; ν is Poisson’s ratio; and E is elastic

modulus.

Let

1 v0 -8 2
' 
 4l0 4   n , (26)
1 
E
 -8 2
 , (27)
4  n

whereupon Eq. (25) can be simplified as follows:

(2 N1  1) '
   , ( N1  1,2,3...) . (28)
f*

In Eq. (26), parameter κ’ is a function of stress. For structural steel members, the stress

range of the commonly used steel materials is from 0 MPa to 500 MPa43,44. When a steel

member is under the stress of 500 MPa, with ν=0.26 and E=205 GPa, then based on Eq.

(26), the maximum influence of stress on the variation of parameter κ’ is only 0.6‰.

Further, the maximum transverse deformation is about 0.634‰ of its initial thickness,

which has little influence on the parameter κ’, and little effect on the interference of the

two separated shear-wave modes.

Therefore, for the convenience of parametric calibration, we neglect the influence of the

transverse deformation and assume l is equal to l0. Then Eq. (26) can be simplified as

1 -8 2
  . (29)
4t0 4   n

where t0 is the TOF, and equal to l0/v0.

To determine the optimum N1 value in Eqs. (15) and (28), the following tests are carried

out. A shear-wave transceiver probe is attached on the surface of the steel member of

dimensions 50.00 mm × 29.71 mm × 19.27 mm. The polarization angle of the shear wave

is 45°. The first echo signals are collected when the steel-member stresses are zero and

400 MPa. The amplitude spectra are normalized by the spectrum of the shear-wave

transducer whose central frequency, f0, is about 5 MHz. Specifically, the peak amplitude
for this spectrum for the unloaded sample is defined as unity. Their amplitude spectra are

shown in Fig. 4.

Figure 4. The normalized amplitude spectra for steel-member stresses of zero and 400 MPa
when polarization angle is 45°
Fig. 4 shows the stress-induced change in the energy distribution of the shear-wave echo

amplitude spectrum; the change is most obvious at shear-wave frequencies around

5.7 MHz, which is the FCF. It should be noted that when the shear wave polarization angle

is different from an odd multiple of 45°, the frequency corresponding to the minimum value

of interference factor is also the FCF, as shown in Fig. 2. But its amplitude spectrum does

not change as obviously as that when the shear-wave polarization angle is 45°. Because the

amplitude-spectrum energy is centered on the low-frequency band (0–10 MHz) and the

FCF is in the range of 0–10 MHz (i.e., the spectrum energy concentration region), the

change associated with it is most easily observed. To facilitate the FCF data collection, we

set N1 = 1. By integrating Eq. (29), Eq. (28) can be further simplified to the following form:


  , (30)
f1*

which is the proposed formula for measuring uniaxial absolute stress in the steel member,

and indicates that uniaxial absolute stress is a function of the FCF. By calibrating the linear
relationship between uniaxial stress and the inverse of FCF, the parameters κ and γ can be

obtained.

Experimental Studies
Absolute Stress Measurement System
Based on the above theory, a measurement system is designed and developed in this study.

A schematic diagram and a photograph of the developed system are shown in Figs. 5 and

6, respectively. As can be seen, there are four components in the system, specifically ① an

ultrasonic generator (5072PR; Olympus, USA); ② a shear-wave transceiver probe

(Olympus, USA; central frequency: 5 MHz); ③ an oscilloscope (MDO3024; Tektronix,

USA); the sampling rate is 100 MSa/s in all experiments; and ④ a universal testing

machine (DNS300; Changchun Research Institute for Mechanical Science Co., Ltd.,

China). In addition, a GW-type-III high-temperature ultrasound coupler is used to

effectively couple the probe to the surface of the steel member.

The main objective of the measurement system is to accurately collect the shear-wave echo

signals. To achieve this, the following process is proposed. The ultrasonic generator

transmits pulse signals and then shunts them into the probe to generate a pure shear wave.

The shear wave propagates in the steel member and is then reflected from its rear side.

After being collected by the same probe, the echo signal is transmitted to the ultrasonic

generator and displayed on the oscilloscope. The first pulse echo signal of the collected

data is collected, and Fourier analysis is used to study the signal’s amplitude spectrum.
 Echo signal output
3
1
2
Transmitting signal

Receiving signal
Loading
Steel member

Figure 5. Measurement system: schematic diagram

3
1

Figure 6. Measurement system: photograph

Test Sample
In this study, experiments were carried out on Q235 steel and 65# steel, which are used not

only in steel structures but also in mechanical welding and parts machining. They are the

main materials of structural load-bearing components and mechanical processing. The

dimensions and materials of the specimens are summarized in Table 1. To reduce the lateral

restraint of the machine bearing pad, lubricant is smeared on the end surface of the

specimen before loading. All tests were carried out at room temperature.
Determination of Shear Wave Polarization Angle
Equation (10) shows that the shear-wave polarization angle exerts a direct influence on the

echo amplitude spectrum. Because Figs. 2 and 3 show that the interference factor varies

periodically with polarization angle, we study the variation of the echo amplitude spectrum

only for changes in the polarization angle in the range of [0, 45°].

Table 1. Material and dimensions of test samples

Name Material Dimensions

Sample A 65# steel 60.0 mm×30.0 mm×20.0 mm

Sample B 65# steel 50.0 mm×30.0 mm×20.0 mm

Sample C 65# steel 55.0 mm×30.0 mm×18.0 mm

Sample D 65# steel 60.0 mm×30.0 mm×16.0 mm

Sample E 65# steel 60.0 mm×30.0 mm×18.6 mm

Sample F Q235 steel 50.0 mm×30.0 mm×20.0 mm

Sample G Q235 steel 55.0 mm×30.0 mm×18.0 mm

Sample H Q235 steel 60.0 mm×30.0 mm×16.0 mm

Sample I 65# steel 45.0 mm×30.0 mm×12.8 mm

Sample II 65# steel 45.0 mm×30.0 mm×13.6 mm

Sample III 65# steel 45.0 mm×30.0 mm×14.4 mm

Sample IV 65# steel 45.0 mm×30.0 mm×15.2 mm

Sample V 65# steel 45.0 mm×30.0 mm×16.0 mm

Sample VI 65# steel 45.0 mm×30.0 mm×16.8 mm

Sample VII 65# steel 45.0 mm×30.0 mm×17.6 mm

Sample VIII 65# steel 45.0 mm×30.0 mm×18.4 mm

 Sample IX 65# steel 45.0 mm×30.0 mm×19.2 mm

Sample A is chosen as the research object. The shear-wave probe is coupled to the surface

of sample A and the polarization angle is set to 0°. The universal testing machine is used

to apply loads on sample A to generate the stresses of zero, 100 MPa, 200 MPa, 300 MPa,

and 400 MPa. The first echo signals under each stress condition are recorded. We adjust

the polarization angle to 15°, 30°, and 45°, and repeat the above process in each case. By

using a Fourier transform, we obtain the amplitude spectra under different stress conditions

and polarization angles, as shown in Fig. 7.

a) θ = 0° b) θ = 15°

c) θ = 30° d) θ = 45°
 Figure 7. Amplitude spectra under different polarization angles

It can be seen that the amplitude spectra are most obviously affected by stress when the

shear-wave polarization angle is 45°, which verifies the correctness of Eq. (17), Fig. 2 and

Fig.3. If the shear-wave polarization angles are different from 45°, the FCF in the amplitude

spectrum can also be collected, but the change of amplitude spectrum is not as obvious as

that of the polarization angle is 45°, which may lead to greater errors. Therefore, the

polarization angle is determined to be 45°, which is beneficial for capturing the FCF

accurately. It should be noted that in general it is not so immediate to know the appropriate

polarization angle to adopt. Eq. (16) shows that when shear-wave polarization is an odd

multiple of 45°, the minimum amplitude-spectrum value is 0. We can change the

polarization angle to observe in which direction the minimum value in amplitude spectrum

is 0. And this direction is the appropriate polarization angle. In this study, all the steel

members are subject to axial stress and the shear-wave polarization angle is 45°.

Calibration of Parameters
Equation (30) indicates that the parameters κ and γ must be calibrated before measuring

the absolute stress in the steel member. Equations (27) and (29) illustrate that κ and γ are

related to the shear-wave propagation path and the steel-member material. Therefore,

parameter calibration must be done on specimens of the same thickness and material as

those of the tested object. In this study, samples B, C, and D were used to calibrate

parameters κ and γ. The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 6.

Samples B, C, and D were loaded in compression from zero stress, and each load was held

for 10 min. Because the amplitude-spectrum values corresponding to the FCF are most
obviously affected by stress when the shear-wave polarization angle is an odd multiple of

45°, the shear-wave polarization angle is set as 45°during the calibration of parameters.

Then, the shear-wave echo signals and the corresponding stress data were recorded. The

first pulse-echo time-domain signals were converted into the amplitude spectrum using a

Fourier transform. As the amplitude spectra of sample B, C and D influenced by stress is

nearly the same, the amplitude spectra of sample B is provided as an example, as shown in

Fig. 8. The FCFs were extracted from the amplitude spectra, and the FCF and the

corresponding stress value under each load state were obtained. Using the least-squares

method, linear relationships between the stress and the inverse of FCF were fitted, and the

parameters κ and γ were calibrated as shown in Fig. 9.

Figure 8. Illustration of amplitude spectra of sample B influenced by stress

 Figure 9. Fitting lines between stress and the inverse of FCF for samples B, C, and D

Validation of the Proposed Method

Based on Eq. (30) and the calibrated parameters κ and γ, the absolute stress of the structural

steel member can be calculated via measurement of the FCF. Actually, it is difficult to

measure steel-member absolute stress using traditional methods, which causes difficulties

in verifying the proposed method. Therefore, the specimens loaded by the testing machine

were taken as the measurement objects. Under laboratory conditions, a set of random loads

was applied to samples B, C, and D using the universal testing machine. The shear-wave

polarization angle was set to 45°. The echo signal under each loading condition was

recorded, and the applied stress was measured using the proposed method. The

measurement results are listed in Table 2.

To verify the stress measured by the proposed method, the loading indicators of the

universal testing machine were recorded to calculate the true stress values of the specimens.

The true stress values of samples B, C, and D are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparison between two methods for samples B, C, and D

 Sample B Sample C Sample D

Testing Testing Testing

Proposed Proposed Proposed
machine Difference machineDifference machineDifference
method method method
value value value

(MPa) (MPa) (%) (MPa) (MPa) % (MPa) (MPa) %

29.53 28.42 3.91 25.71 25.07 2.55 26.62 25.92 2.70

59.18 57.60 2.74 48.41 47.05 2.89 50.38 49.46 1.86

85.44 81.67 4.62 64.92 62.89 3.23 73.96 72.46 2.07

105.72 108.76 2.80 90.47 92.39 2.08 98.20 96.28 1.99

131.18 127.60 2.81 113.39 109.69 3.37 123.39 124.01 0.50

158.84 153.58 3.42 138.64 141.85 2.26 144.05 139.48 3.28

172.51 175.25 1.56 159.06 153.37 3.71 168.45 164.56 2.36

199.45 192.37 3.68 183.17 176.37 3.86 183.49 179.92 1.98

222.74 230.99 3.57 206.55 213.06 3.05 204.43 197.82 3.34

249.87 242.52 3.03 233.96 227.69 2.75 228.88 221.83 3.18

271.03 263.23 2.96 258.84 254.35 1.77 253.29 256.83 1.38

297.13 288.16 3.11 283.32 274.31 3.28 279.49 272.36 2.62

318.35 312.84 1.76 304.58 306.83 0.73 304.48 299.21 1.76

344.15 334.89 2.77 327.68 319.03 2.71 327.54 319.91 2.39

367.52 356.38 3.13 352.49 346.21 1.81 351.74 344.61 2.07

393.21 380.31 3.39 371.50 362.44 2.50 376.61 366.88 2.65

Investigation of Influencing Factors

Equations (27) and (29) indicate that parameters κ and γ are influenced by the material, and

that parameter κ is also related to steel-member thickness. To further investigate the effects
of steel-member material and thickness on the results, extensive experimental studies were

conducted and are reported in this section.

Materials

The influence of probe position on the parametric fitting results was studied. Samples E

and VIII were used for this analysis; the corresponding fitting positions are shown in

Fig. 10. The values of κ and γ were fitted using the proposed method, as shown in Fig. 11.

The fitted parameter values of the different locations are listed in Table 3.

a) Sample E b) Sample VIII

Figure 10. Fitting positions on samples E and VIII

a) Sample E b) Sample VIII

Figure 11. Fitting lines between stress and the inverse of FCF for samples E and VIII at
positions ①–④
Table 3. Fitted parameters values for samples E and VIII at different locations

Parameter κ(MPa·MHz) γ(MPa)

Position ① 11793.86 1567.54

Samples E Position ② 11737.57 1559.14

Difference 0.48% 0.54%

Position ③ 12325.13 1550.03

Samples VIII Position ④ 12302.16 1546.12

Difference 0.19% 0.25%

The influence on the parametric fitting results of steel members made of different materials

was further studied. Two groups of specimens were employed here. The first group of

specimens made of 65# steel contains samples B, C, and D, while the second group of

specimens made of Q235 steel contains samples F, G, and H. Their fitted linear

relationships are shown in Figs. 9 and 12, respectively. The fitted parameter values are

listed in Table 4.

Figure 12. Fitting lines between stress and the inverse of FCF for samples F, G, and H
Table 4. Fitted parameter values of two groups of specimens

Parameter κ(MPa·MHz) γ(MPa)

Sample B 11054.36 1556.01

Samples B & F Sample F 7597.33 1157.64

Difference 37.07% 29.36%

Sample C 13007.81 1550.65

Samples C & G Sample G 8194.17 1152.76

Difference 45.41% 29.44%

Sample D 15155.69 1548.45

Samples D & H Sample H 9292.68 1144.22

Difference 47.96% 30.02%

Steel Member Thickness

Equation (29) shows that parameter κ is inversely proportional to the shear-wave

propagation TOF, that is, parameter κ is inversely proportional to steel-member thickness.

Samples I–IX were employed to investigate the influence of steel-member thickness on

parameter κ. Parameter κ and the corresponding steel-member thickness were measured

using the proposed framework as shown in Fig. 13 and Table 5. The fitting trend line

between parameter κ and steel-member thickness is shown in Fig. 14.

 Figure 13. Fitting lines between stress and the inverse of FCF for samples I–IX

Table 5. Fitted parameter values for samples I–IX

κ γ
Name R2
(MPa·MHz) (MPa)

Sample I 20090.31 1553.96 0.9996

Sample II 19669.68 1548.42 0.9995

Sample III 16969.39 1565.37 0.9994

Sample IV 15552.84 1556.00 0.9996

Sample V 15155.69 1548.45 0.9971

Sample VI 14402.77 1568.06 0.9996

Sample VII 13567.69 1561.73 0.9997

Sample VIII 12325.13 1550.03 0.9997

Sample IX 11309.08 1548.24 0.9997

 Figure 14. Fitting trend line between parameter κ and steel-member thickness

Results and Discussion

Influence of Shear-wave Polarization Angle on the Amplitude

Spectrum

Figure 7(a) indicates that the amplitude spectra are almost the same for a polarization angle

of 0°. Theoretically, when the shear-wave polarization angle is 0° in Eq. (11), the

interference factor is constant at 1. The echo amplitude spectrum and the reference

spectrum are then the same. However, the FCF appears in the amplitude spectra for

polarization angles of 15°, 30°, and 45°. As shown in Fig. 7(b)–(d), the FCF values

decrease with stress, a phenomenon that can be explained by Eq. (14). When the stress in

sample A increases, the TOF difference between the two shear-wave components also

increases, whereupon the FCF values decrease. It means that the proposed method can

measure absolute stress with different polarization angles (except 0°). By comparing the

amplitude spectra in Fig. 7(a)–(d), it can be further found that the amplitude spectra do not

change with polarization angle when sample is unstressed. It demonstrates that the initial
anisotropy exerts little influence on the measurement process and that stress causes the

change of the amplitude spectra.

Parameter Calibration and Absolute Stress Measurement Results

Figures 9, 11–13 show that the inverse of FCF and its corresponding stress in the steel

members exhibit an almost perfect linear relationship with a fitting error of less than 1%.

The fitting results verify the correctness of Eq. (30). The absolute-stress measurement

results in Table 2 show that the difference between the stresses measured by the two

methods is less than 5% for every single test. This demonstrates the reliability and accuracy

of the proposed method in the laboratory. Because the amplitude-spectrum energy is

centered on the low-frequency band, high-frequency noise exerts little influence on the

change of FCF.

To facilitate validation of the proposed method, the loaded specimens were taken as the

measurement objects. It should be pointed out that the stress distribution of a real structural

steel member is different from that of the loaded specimen. Structural steel members are

generally slender and have both ends fixed. In many cases, the steel members are mainly

subjected to axial force. Therefore, to verify the proposed method, it is reasonable to some

extent to use loaded specimens as the measured objects instead of structural steel

components.

Actually, structural steel members are not removable after installation, which makes

parametric calibration difficult. Since the calibration of parameters should ideally be

performed on the original on-site structural steel member while it cannot be removed, a

duplicate steel member with the same material properties and thickness to the on-site
structural steel member is needed for parametric calibration. In such scenario, the

parameters of the duplicate steel member and the on-site structural steel member need to

be assumed as the same. But there are limitations in this assumption. Most importantly,

there should be no damage on the on-site structural steel member and duplicate steel

member, because the effect of fatigue, corrosion, and other kinds of damage may change

the amplitude spectrum.

Influence of Materials on Parameter Calibration

Figure 11 and Table 3 show that the fitted linear functions are almost identical for the same

specimen, with a difference of less than 1%, which shows that the fitting-point location

exerts little influence on the fitting results. The small difference may be due to the fitting

process and can usually be ignored. Therefore, the probe position has little influence on the

parametric calibration results.

The fitted values of parameters κ and γ in Table 4 are quite different even though

specimens B, C, and D are the same sizes as specimens F, G, and H, respectively. The

difference is caused by the material, which illustrates that the specimen material exerts a

great influence on the two parameters. The essential reason for this is that the second- and

third-order elastic constants of 65# steel and Q235 steel are very different, which can

directly influence the calibration results. This matches with the conclusion from the

theoretical study as given by Eq. (27) and Eq. (29). Figures 9, 11, and 13 show that the

fitted values of parameter γ for specimens made of 65# steel are around 1555.21 MPa, with

a maximum error of 0.65%. This illustrates that specimens made of the same material have
little influence on the calibration of parameter γ. The little difference may be caused by the

initial birefringence of the material and can be ignored.

Influence of Steel Member Thickness on Parameter Calibration

Figure 14 illustrate that the fitted value of parameter κ decreases in inverse proportion to

the specimen thickness. Because specimen thickness is proportional to shear-wave TOF,

the fitted value of parameter κ is inversely proportional to shear-wave TOF. The change

trend of the fitted line in Fig. 15 verifies the correctness of Eq. (29). However, Fig. 14 also

shows discrepancies between the fitted function and the experimental results, which

confirms the complexity of the problem. The discrepancies may come from fitting

parameter κ to the data, which will introduce certain fitting errors. The fitting of parameter

κ with initial errors can lead to greater errors. In fact, the quantitative relationship between

parameter κ and specimen thickness requires further study, which in turn requires accurate

measurement of the second- and third-order elastic constants of the steel members.

Conclusions
The main aim of this study is to evaluate the uniaxial absolute stress of steel members. A

shear-wave spectrum analysis method was employed to reach this goal. According to the

achieved results, the conclusions are summarized as follows.

1) Absolute stress in a steel member causes interference between the fast and slow shear-

wave components induced by birefringence, leading to a change in the shear-wave echo

amplitude spectrum. This establishes the basis for measuring the uniaxial absolute stress

of a steel member.
2) The relationship between the inverse of the FCF and its corresponding uniaxial stress

showed a near-perfect linear relationship. The uniaxial stresses of steel members loaded by

a test machine were measured. Based on the results, acceptable agreement was observed

between those from the proposed method and those from the test-machine loading results.

The present method measures the change of the FCF in the amplitude spectrum, and does

not consider the variation of shear-wave velocity or TOF directly.

4) The proposed method focuses on the uniaxial stress evaluation of steel-member, rather

than biaxial stress. The influence of the uniaxial stress on the shear-wave polarization angle,

amplitude spectrum and the FCF had been experimentally studied and the results were

consistent with those obtained from the theoretical results. The FCF in the shear-wave

pulse-echo amplitude spectrum was selected as the measured index to evaluate the uniaxial

stress of steel-member.

3) The probe position has little influence on the absolute-stress measurement results,

whereas the material properties and thickness of steel members have significant effects on

the fitted parameters. Therefore, parametric calibration is a necessary step for the

evaluation of steel-member uniaxial stress. If the to-be-tested steel member is in service,

parametric calibration should be performed on specimens of the same material and

thickness as the measured steel member.

5) The proposed method is non-destructive, and the equipment costs are low compared

with those of X-ray diffraction or the magnetoelastic method. The experimental

verification of this method is implemented on the laboratory scale. With specific calibration,

the method has potential to be used in practical engineering situations in limited cases.

Future research efforts can be placed on:

1) the influence of biaxial and complicated stress on the shear-wave pulse-echo amplitude

spectrum and the biaxial stress measurement method;

2) the combined effects of damage and stress on the shear-wave pulse-echo amplitude

spectrum;

3) the quantitative relationship between parameter κ and specimen thickness by measuring

the second- and third-order elastic constants of the steel members;

4) the influence of environmental factors, such as temperature, on measurement results.

Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,

authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,

authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was financially supported by

National Nature Science Foundation of China under Grant 51378007, Shenzhen

Technology Innovation Program under Grant JSGG20150330103937411 and

JCYJ20150625142543473.

References
1. Rossini NS, Dassisti M, Benyounis KY, Olabi AG. Methods of measuring residual

stresses in components. Mater Design 2012; 35: 572-588.

2. Guan R, Lu Y, Duan WH, Wang XM. Guided waves for damage identification in

pipeline structures: A review. Struct Control Hlth 2017; 1: e2007.

3. Lu Y, Su Z, Ye L. Crack identification in aluminum plates using Lamb wave signals

 of a PZT sensor network. Smart Mater Struct 2006; 15(3): 839.

4. Li J, Hao H, Fan K, James B. Development and application of a relative displacement

sensor for structural health monitoring of composite bridges. Struct Control Hlth 2015;

22(4): 726-742.

5. Ng CT. Bayesian model updating approach for experimental identification of damage

in beams using guided waves. Struct Health Monit 2014; 13(4): 359-373.

6. Domaneschi M, Martinelli L, Po E. Control of wind buffeting vibrations in a

suspension bridge by TMD: Hybridization and robustness issues. Comput Struct 2015;

155: 3-17.

7. Teng J, Lu W, Wen RF, Zhang T. Instrumentation on structural health monitoring

systems to real world structures. Smart Struct Syst 2015; 15(1): 151-167.

8. Yang B, Nie SD, Kang SB, Xiong G, Hu Y, Bai JB, Zhang WF, Dai GX. Residual

stress measurement on welded Q345GJ steel H-sections by sectioning method and

method improvement. Adv Steel Constr 2017; 13(1): 78-95.

9. Woo W, An GB, Truman CE, Jiang W, Hill MR. Two-dimensional mapping of

residual stresses in a thick dissimilar weld using contour method, deep hole drilling,

and neutron diffraction. J Mater Sci 2016; 51(23): 10620-10631.

10. Lin J, Ma N, Lei Y, Murakawa H. Measurement of residual stress in arc welded lap

joints by cos alpha X-ray diffraction method. J Mater Process Tech 2017; 243: 387-

394.

11. Woo W, An GB, Em VT, Wald ATD, Hill MR. Through-thickness distributions of

residual stresses in an 80 mm thick weld using neutron diffraction and contour method.

J Mater Sci 2015; 50(2): 784-793.

12. Gur CH, Erian G, Batigun C, Çam İ. Investigating the effects of subsequent weld

passes on surface residual stresses in steel weldments by magnetic Barkhausen noise

technique. Mater Eval 2016; 74(3): 418-423.

13. Li ZH, He JB, Teng J, Wang Y. Internal stress monitoring of in-service structural steel

members with ultrasonic method. Materials 2016; 9(4): 223.

14. Crecraft DI. Measurement of applied and residual stresses in metals using ultrasonic

waves. J Sound Vib 1967; 5(1): 173.

15. Buenos AA, Dos Santos Junior AA, Rodrigues AR, Tokimatsu RC. Application of

acoustoelasticity to measure the stress generated by milling in ASTM A36 steel plates.

J Braz Soc Mech Sci 2013; 35(4): 525-536.

16. Jhang K, Quan H, Ha J, Kim NY. Estimation of clamping force in high-tension bolts

through ultrasonic velocity measurement. Ultrasonics 2006; 44(8): 1339-1342.

17. Karabutov A, Devichensky A, Ivochkin A, Lyamshev M, Pelivanov I, Rohadgi U,

Solomatin V, Subudhi M. Laser ultrasonic diagnostics of residual stress. Ultrasonics

2008; 48(6): 631-635.

18. Vangi D. Stress evaluation by pulse-echo ultrasonic longitudinal wave. Exp Mech

2001; 41(3): 277-281.

19. Link RE, Vangi D. Ultrasonic technique for experimental evaluation of structural

integrity. J Test Eval 2001; 29(3): 301-305.

20. Schramm RE. Ultrasonic measurement of stress in railroad wheels. Rev Sci Instrum

1999; 70(2): 1468-1472.

21. Clark AV, Moulder JC. Residual-stress determination in aluminum using

electromagnetic acoustic transducers. Ultrasonics 1985; 23(6): 253-259.

22. Allen DR, Sayers CM. The measurement of residual-stress in textured steel using an

ultrasonic velocity combinations technique. Ultrasonics 1984; 22(4): 179-188.

23. Javadi Y, Azari K, Ghalehbandi SM, Roy MJ. Comparison between using longitudinal

and shear waves in ultrasonic stress measurement to investigate the effect of post-weld

heat-treatment on welding residual stresses. Res Nondestruct Eval 2017; 28(2): 101-

122.

24. Bray DE, Junghans P. Application of the L(cr) ultrasonic technique for evaluation of

post-weld heat-treatment in steel plates. NDT & E Int 1995; 28(4): 235-242.

25. dos Santos AA, Bray DE. Comparison of acoustoelastic methods to evaluate stresses

in steel plates and bars. J Press Vess-T Asme 2002; 124(3): 354-358.

26. Chaki S, Ke W, Demouveau H. Numerical and experimental analysis of the critically

refracted longitudinal beam. Ultrasonics 2013; 53(1): 65-69.

27. Javadi Y, Mosteshary SH. Evaluation of sub-surface residual stress by ultrasonic

method and finite-element analysis of welding process in a monel pressure vessel. J

Test Eval 2017; 45(2): 441-451.

28. Sgalla M, Vangi D. UCRfr—ultrasonic critical-angle refractometry for stress

measurement. Nondestruct Test Eva 2003; 19(1-2): 67-77.

29. Mohabuth M, Kotousov A, Ng CT. Effect of Uniaxial Stress on the Propagation of

Higher–Order Lamb Wave Modes. Int J Nonlin Mech 2016; 86: 104-111.

30. Duquennoy M, Ouaftouh M, Ourak M. Ultrasonic evaluation of stresses in orthotropic

materials using Rayleigh waves. NDT & E Int 1999; 32(4): 189-199.

31. Wali Y, Njeh A, Wieder T, Ghozlen Ben MH. The effect of depth-dependent residual

stresses on the propagation of surface acoustic waves in thin Ag films on Si. NDT &
 E Int 2007; 40(7): 545-551.

32. Palanichamy P, Joseph A, Jayakumar T, Raj B. Ultrasonic velocity-measurements for

estimation of grain-size in austenitic stainless-steel. NDT & E Int 1995; 28(3): 179-

185.

33. Javadi Y, Akhlaghi M, Najafabadi M A. Nondestructive evaluation of welding residual

stresses in austenitic stainless steel plates. Res Nondestruct Eval 2014; 25(1): 30-43.

34. Lhemery A, Calmon P, Chatillon S, Gengembre N. Modeling of ultrasonic fields

radiated by contact transducer in a component of irregular surface. Ultrasonics 2002;

40(1): 231-236.

35. Aindow JD, Chivers RC. The optimization of electronic precision in ultrasonic

velocity-measurements - a comparison of the time interval averaging and sing around

methods. J Acoust Soc Am 1983; 73(5): 1833.

36. Badidi BA, Lebaili S, Benchaala A. Grain size influence on ultrasonic velocities and

attenuation. NDT & E Int 2003; 36(1): 1-5.

37. Vangi D, Virga A. A practical application of ultrasonic thermal stress monitoring in

continuous welded rails. Exp Mech 2007; 47(5): 617-623.

38. Lipeles R, Kivelson D. Theory of ultrasonically induced birefringence. J Chem Phys

1977; 67(10): 4564-4570.

39. Blinka J, Sachse W. Application of ultrasonic-pulse-spectroscopy measurements to

experimental stress analysis. Exp Mech 1976; 16(12): 448-453.

40. Song WT, Xu CG, Pan QX, Song JF. Nondestructive testing and characterization of

residual stress field using an ultrasonic method. Chin J Mech Eng-En 2016; 29(2):

365-371.
 41. Hauk V. Structural and residual stress analysis by nondestructive methods. Elsevier

Ltd, 1997.

42. Allen DR, Sayers CM. The measurement of residual stress in textured steel using an

ultrasonic velocity combinations technique. Ultrasonics 1984; 22(4): 179-188.

43. People's Republic of China National Standard: Code for construction of steel structures

(GB 50755-2012). China Standard Press 2012.

44. People's Republic of China National Standard: Quality carbon structure steels (GB/T

699-2015). China Standard Press 2015.

View publication stats