Boundary condition of limiting friction in continuum mechanics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the boundary condition for the stress tensor in the context of limiting friction for a block of deformable material on a rough surface. Participants explore the relationship between stress, friction, and the physical dimensions involved, as well as the implications of changing the block's height on the boundary conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a boundary condition for the stress tensor involving the frictional force per unit mass, expressed as \(\hat{\mathbf{n}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{t}}=\mu\rho g\).
  • Another participant questions the absence of pressure in the formula, suggesting that force per area is significant.
  • It is noted that pressure is part of the stress tensor, but concerns are raised about the dimensions of the proposed boundary condition.
  • Some participants argue that the right-hand side (RHS) of the equation should represent force per unit volume, aligning with Navier's equations.
  • There is a discussion about the normal compressive stress and the correct component for the frictional force, with references to static friction as a good approximation.
  • One participant suggests that the boundary condition should reflect the inequality \(\sigma_{shear}\leq\mu\sigma_{normal}\) and emphasizes the need for additional logic regarding the direction of shear and handling the inequality.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of doubling the height of the block, with differing views on whether this affects the boundary condition expression or the governing equations.
  • Some participants assert that the governing equations are per unit volume, while others argue that boundary conditions are per unit area.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between boundary conditions and governing equations, particularly regarding dimensions and the effects of changing the block's height. There is no consensus on the correct formulation of the boundary condition or the implications of the block's height on the stress tensor.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of dimensions in the boundary condition and the distinction between force per unit area and force per unit volume. The discussion remains unresolved regarding how these factors interact within the context of continuum mechanics.

hunt_mat
Homework Helper
Messages
1,816
Reaction score
33
TL;DR
What is the correct boundary condition for limiting friction?
Suppose I have a block of deformable material on a rough surface. I want to have the boundary condition for the stress tensor that takes into account of friction. If the mass of my block is m, and of density \rho and the coefficient of friction is \mu as well as gravity g. The resultant force is given by R=mg=\rho gdV, so the frictional force per unit mass is \mu\rho g$. Linking to the tangential part of the stress tensor, this yields: \hat{\mathbf{n}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{t}}=\mu\rho g<br /> <br /> Does this reasoning seem okay?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I assume that force per area or pressure on the surface matters but I do not find it in your formula where volume matters.
 
Pressure is part of the stress tensor.
 
Yea, but I mentioned about RHS ##\mu \rho g## which has physical dimension of ML^-2 T^-2 force per volume.
 
Surely that's correct, as when you use this as a boundary condition, you require the force per unit volume in 3D. Navier's equations in differential form require force per unit volume. That was my thinking here.
 
Your LHS and RHS have same dimension ?
 
The ##\rho g## is not present in the boundary condition; it is only in the stress-equilibrium differential equation.

If the usual convention is followed, where tensile stresses are considered positive, then ##-n \centerdot \sigma \centerdot n## is the normal compressive stress exerted by the surface on the block.
 
anuttarasammyak said:
Your LHS and RHS have same dimension ?
I'm pretty sure they are. I thought about this. The differential equation uses per unit volume. This is the RHS.
 
Chestermiller said:
The ##\rho g## is not present in the boundary condition; it is only in the stress-equilibrium differential equation.

If the usual convention is followed, where tensile stresses are considered positive, then ##-n \centerdot \sigma \centerdot n## is the normal compressive stress exerted by the surface on the block.
I think that \hat{\mathbf{n}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{t}} is the correct component for the frictional force here. One can also generalise this slightly by the equation:
\hat{\mathbf{n}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}-(\hat{\mathbf{n}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{n}})\hat{\mathbf{n}}=f(|\mathbf{u}|)\hat{\mathbf{u}}
The motion is very slight, so static friction should be a good approximation I think.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Chestermiller
  • #10
On the boundary, I would expect to see something like
##\sigma_{shear}\leq\mu\sigma_{normal}##
So you are making approximations on the rhs.
Friction opposes motion, so there is also going to be a need for some additional logic to determine which direction the shear points. There is also going to be a need for logic to handle the inequality.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Frabjous said:
On the boundary, I would expect to see something like
##\sigma_{shear}\leq\mu\sigma_{normal}##
So you are making approximations on the rhs.
Friction opposes motion, so there is also going to be a need for some additional logic to determine which direction the shear points. There is also going to be a need for logic to handle the inequality.
Friction will oppose motion obviously. I am making an approximation; that approximation is that the velocity is small enough that static friction will be enough to accurately capture this. I did explain that it was limiting friction.
 
  • #12
hunt_mat said:
Friction will oppose motion obviously. I am making an approximation; that approximation is that the velocity is small enough that static friction will be enough to accurately capture this. I did explain that it was limiting friction.
What happens if you double the height of the block?
 
  • #13
Frabjous said:
What happens if you double the height of the block?
It doesn’t change the boundary condition expression.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hunt_mat
  • #14
Frabjous said:
What happens if you double the height of the block?
It's scaled with volume.
 
  • #15
If you double the height of the block, you double it’s mass. One would expect the friction to increase. This is not reflected in ##\mu\rho g##.
 
  • #16
It's scaled with volume. The governing equations are per unit volume.
 
  • #17
hunt_mat said:
It's scaled with volume. The governing equations are per unit volume.
Not the boundary conditions.
 
  • #18
Chestermiller said:
Not the boundary conditions.
The boundary conditions have to fit the governing equations. So I don't understand what you're saying here.
 
  • #19
hunt_mat said:
The boundary conditions have to fit the governing equations. So I don't understand what you're saying here.
The boundary conditions are per. unit area, not unit volume.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K