Continuum Mechanics: Stress on Opposite Sides of Infinitesimal Cube

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the stress distribution on opposite sides of an infinitesimal cube in continuum mechanics, particularly in accelerating systems like fluids. It highlights the importance of Cauchy's lemma, which relates to Newton's third law, ensuring that stresses are balanced. The presence of body forces is acknowledged, which influences the momentum balance equations and can address discontinuities. The user expresses gratitude for the clarification provided by the referenced textbook. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the fundamental principles of stress analysis in continuum mechanics.
vmtgomes
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask about Continuum Mechanics or if the right place would be the engineering forums, but since Continuum Mechanics is a branch of Classical Mechanics, I thought it might be the place.

My question is about Stress. Why does the stresses on opposite sides of an infinitesimal cube have to be the same? I know about the equilibrium. But what if the continuum is accelerating (for example if it is part of a fluid)? How can you describe the stresses on a point? If usually we use a stress tensor with nine components with respect to three orthogonal interfaces at a point, now this wouldn't be possible since we would have eighteen different stresses at that point.

I can't find any continuum mechanics forums on the internet. If you know of anyone, please tell me and sorry for the amount of questions.

Thanks,
Vítor Mussa T. Gomes
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you are asking about Cauchy's lemma:

http://www3.esc.auckland.ac.nz/people/staff/pkel015/SolidMechanicsBooks/Part_III/Chapter_3_Stress_Mass_Momentum/Stress_Balance_Principles_03_The_Cauchy_Stress_Tensor.pdf

Which is equivalent to Newton's third law (action-reaction).

If there is a body force present, that is accounted for in the momentum balance equation- which can also account for surfaces of discontinuity.

Does that help?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you, that certainly helps! I read this part of this textbook you linked here and it helped a lot.
 
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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...
Back
Top