Transformation relations tensors

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the derivation of 2D stress transformation relations using directional cosines. The transformation relations are expressed mathematically, showing how stress components change with rotation. There is confusion regarding the matrix representation of σpq, which is suggested to be the original stress matrix elements. Clarification is provided that the transformation equation should correctly represent the indices for the directional cosine matrix. Overall, the thread emphasizes the need for a clearer explanation of the mathematical process involved in these transformations.
roldy
Messages
206
Reaction score
2
I'm trying to understand the transformation relations for 2d stress and the book doesn't show the derivation of the 2d stress transformation relations from the directional cosines. The 2d stress transformation relations are found by using the transformation equation and the 2d directional cosines matrix. I'm really confused as to how they go about performing the math.

2d stress transformation relations:

\sigma_{xx}^{'}= \sigma_{xx} \cos^2 \theta + \sigma_{yy} \sin^2 \theta + 2\sigma_{xy} \cos \theta \sin \theta

\sigma_{yy}^{'}= \sigma_{xx} \sin^2 \theta + \sigma_{yy} \cos^2 \theta - 2\sigma_{xy} \cos \theta \sin \theta

\sigma_{xy}^{'}= \sigma_{xx}(\cos^2 \theta - sin^2 \theta) + (\sigma_{yy} - \sigma_{xx}) \sin \theta \cos \theta

transformation equation:

\sigma_{ij}^{'} = m_{ip} m_{jp} \sigma_{pq}

2d directional cosine matrix:

m_{ij} = \left[\stackrel{\cos \theta}{ -\sin \theta}\ \stackrel{\sin \theta}{\cos \theta} \right]

I guess the thing that I'm confused about is \sigma_{pq}. What does that matrix look like?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
roldy said:
I'm trying to understand the transformation relations for 2d stress and the book doesn't show the derivation of the 2d stress transformation relations from the directional cosines. The 2d stress transformation relations are found by using the transformation equation and the 2d directional cosines matrix. I'm really confused as to how they go about performing the math.

2d stress transformation relations:

\sigma_{xx}^{'}= \sigma_{xx} \cos^2 \theta + \sigma_{yy} \sin^2 \theta + 2\sigma_{xy} \cos \theta \sin \theta

\sigma_{yy}^{'}= \sigma_{xx} \sin^2 \theta + \sigma_{yy} \cos^2 \theta - 2\sigma_{xy} \cos \theta \sin \theta

\sigma_{xy}^{'}= \sigma_{xx}(\cos^2 \theta - sin^2 \theta) + (\sigma_{yy} - \sigma_{xx}) \sin \theta \cos \theta

transformation equation:

\sigma_{ij}^{'} = m_{ip} m_{jp} \sigma_{pq}

2d directional cosine matrix:

m_{ij} = \left[\stackrel{\cos \theta}{ -\sin \theta}\ \stackrel{\sin \theta}{\cos \theta} \right]

I guess the thing that I'm confused about is \sigma_{pq}. What does that matrix look like?

I suspect σpq is simply the original matrix elements.
σ11 = σxx etc.

\sigma_{ij}^{'} = m_{ip} m_{jp} \sigma_{pq}
should be
\sigma_{ij}^{'} = m_{ip} m_{jq} \sigma_{pq}
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top