Disclaimer.
Peeter’s lecture notes from class. May not be entirely coherent.
Review: Cauchy Tetrahedron.
Referring to figure (\ref{fig:continuumL5:continuumL5fig1})
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[totalheight=0.2\textheight]{continuumL5fig1}
\caption{Cauchy tetrahedron direction cosines.}
\end{figure}
recall that we can decompose our force into components that refer to our direction cosines
Or in tensor form
We call this the traction vector and denote it in vector form as
Constitutive relation.
Reading: section 2, section 4 and section 5 from the text [1].
We can find the relationship between stress and strain, both analytically and experimentally, and call this the Constitutive relation. We prefer to deal with ranges of distortion that are small enough that we can make a linear approximation for this relation. In general such a linear relationship takes the form
Consider the number of components that we are talking about for various rank tensors
latex 0^\text{th}$ rank tensor} & \mbox{
components} \\ \mbox{
rank tensor} & \mbox{
components} \\ \mbox{
rank tensor} & \mbox{
components} \\ \mbox{
rank tensor} & \mbox{
components}\end{array}\end{aligned} \hspace{\stretch{1}}(3.7)$
We have a lot of components, even for a linear relation between stress and strain. For isotropic materials we model the constitutive relation instead as
For such a modeling of the material the (measured) values and
(shear modulus or modulus of rigidity) are called the Lam\’e parameters.
It will be useful to compute the trace of the stress tensor in the form of the constitutive relation for the isotropic model. We find
or
We can now also invert this, to find the trace of the strain tensor in terms of the stress tensor
Substituting back into our original relationship 3.8, and find
which finally provides an inverted expression with the strain tensor expressed in terms of the stress tensor
Special cases.
Hydrostatic compression
Hydrostatic compression is when we have no shear stress, only normal components of the stress matrix is nonzero. Strictly speaking we define Hydrostatic compression as
i.e. not only diagonal, but with all the components of the stress tensor equal.
We can write the trace of the stress tensor as
Now, from our discussion of the strain tensor recall that we found in the limit
allowing us to express the change in volume relative to the original volume in terms of the strain trace
Writing that relative volume difference as we find
or
where is called the Bulk modulus.
Uniaxial stress
Again illustrated in the plane as in figure (\ref{fig:continuumL5:continuumL5fig2})
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[totalheight=0.2\textheight]{continuumL5fig2}
\caption{Uniaxial stress.}
\end{figure}
Expanding out 3.12 we have for the element of the strain tensor
or
where is Young’s modulus. Young’s modulus in the text (5.3) is given in terms of the bulk modulus
. Using
we find
FIXME: figure (\ref{fig:continuumL5:continuumL5fig3}) reference?
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[totalheight=0.2\textheight]{continuumL5fig3}
\caption{stress associated with Young’s modulus}
\end{figure}
We define Poisson’s ratio as the quantity
Note that we are still talking about uniaxial stress here. Referring back to 3.12 we have
Recall (3.20) that we had
Inserting this gives us
so
We can also relate the Poisson’s ratio to the shear modulus
These ones are (5.14) in the text, and are easy enough to verify (not done here).
Appendix. Computing the relation between Poisson’s ratio and shear modulus.
Young’s modulus is given in 3.21 (equation (43) in the Professor’s notes) as
and for Poisson’s ratio 3.24 (equation (46) in the Professor’s notes) we have
Let’s derive the other stated relationships (equation (47) in the Professor’s notes). I get
or
For substitution into the Young’s modulus equation calculate
and
Putting these together we find
Rearranging we have
This matches (5.9) in the text (where is used instead of
).
We also find
References
[1] L.D. Landau, EM Lifshitz, JB Sykes, WH Reid, and E.H. Dill. Theory of elasticity: Vol. 7 of course of theoretical physics. 1960.