Distributed Forces and force density....

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of force density and pressure density in the context of distributed forces, particularly in relation to stress tensors and their applications in statics and fluid mechanics. Participants explore the definitions and implications of these terms, including their mathematical representations and physical interpretations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that force density ##\sigma = f(x)## can be considered a pressure density, while others argue that stress is distinct from pressure, as pressure is always normal to a surface and stress can include shear components.
  • It is noted that stress is a symmetric 2nd-rank tensor, and its components represent force per unit area acting on a surface, with the total force being the integral of the stress tensor over an area.
  • Some participants clarify that stress is not a force density, which they define as force per unit volume, while others challenge this view by stating that stress can be considered a force density per unit area.
  • There is a question raised about the possibility of a volume integral of the stress tensor and what it might represent, with one participant suggesting it could represent energy.
  • Discussions include the relationship between stress, force density, and current density, with differing opinions on the definitions and usage of these terms in various contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether stress can be classified as a force density, leading to an unresolved debate on the definitions and implications of these terms. There is no consensus on the relationship between stress, force density, and pressure density.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of definitions in the fields of statics and fluid mechanics, with participants referencing different contexts (engineering vs. field theory) that may influence their interpretations. Assumptions about the nature of densities and their mathematical representations are not fully resolved.

fog37
Messages
1,566
Reaction score
108
TL;DR
force density or pressure
Hello,
Forces can be concentrated (when acting at a single point) or distributed (when acting over a surface or line).
In the case of distributed forces, we can find the resultant concentrated force by calculating a surface or line integral of the force density ##f(x)## w.r.t. an area or length differential.

1664822121238.png

This is equivalent to adding together small products of force times infinitesimal areas. Statics books show these types of calculations. For example, $$\int \sigma dA$$
Is the force density ##\sigma =f(x)## to be considered a pressure density or a force density? Pressure is fundamentally normal force per unit area. Is ##\sigma## a pressure density only when the force direction is exactly perpendicular to the surface? The force density may be at an angle at different points on the surface with both a parallel and normal components relative to the surface.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
fog37 said:
Summary: force density or pressure

Is the force density σ=f(x) to be considered a pressure density or a force density?
##\sigma## is stress, which is related to pressure but not the same thing. Stress is force density.

Pressure is the isotropic part of stress. Pressure is always normal to a surface, but in general stress can have shear components also.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd and fog37
fog37 said:
... Statics books show these types of calculations. For example, $$\int \sigma dA$$
Is the force density ##\sigma =f(x)## to be considered a pressure density or a force density? Pressure is fundamentally normal force per unit area. Is ##\sigma## a pressure density only when the force direction is exactly perpendicular to the surface? The force density may be at an angle at different points on the surface with both a parallel and normal components relative to the surface.

Thanks!
Sigma refers only to a normal internal force in the cross-section, which is an indirect effect of the bending load on those beams.
Please, see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bending
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fog37
Stress is a symmetric 2nd-rank tensor. Let the components be ##\sigma_{jk}=\sigma_{jk}##. It's the force per unit area acting on a surface ##A## of a continuous medium. The total force thus is
$$F_k=\int_A \mathrm{d}^2 A_j \sigma_{jk}.$$
Pressure is a special case. E.g., in an ideal fluid the stress tensor is given (in the local rest frame of the fluid) by
$$\sigma_{jk}=-P \delta_{jk},$$
where ##P## is the pressure.

It's not a force density. This would be a quantity "force per unit volume", e.g., ##\vec{f}=\rho \vec{g}## for the gravitational force close to Earth acting on a fluid.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fog37
vanhees71 said:
Stress is a symmetric 2nd-rank tensor. Let the components be ##\sigma_{jk}=\sigma_{jk}##. It's the force per unit area acting on a surface ##A## of a continuous medium. The total force thus is
$$F_k=\int_A \mathrm{d}^2 A_j \sigma_{jk}.$$
Pressure is a special case. E.g., in an ideal fluid the stress tensor is given (in the local rest frame of the fluid) by
$$\sigma_{jk}=-P \delta_{jk},$$
where ##P## is the pressure.

It's not a force density. This would be a quantity "force per unit volume", e.g., ##\vec{f}=\rho \vec{g}## for the gravitational force close to Earth acting on a fluid.
Thank you. So what I am calling ##\sigma## is the stress tensor (rank 2) whose integral with respect to area is the total force. So far so good. And ##\sigma## is NOT a force density. Why not? Because it is a tensor and not a vector field? The components of the stress tensor are forces either perpendicular or parallel to the surface...

In your last comment about the gravitational force you mention that ##\vec{f}## is instead a force density, force per unit volume, which I get...So the force density is a vector field, a different thing than a rank-2 tensor...Is my understanding correct? To find the overall gravitational force we calculate the volume integral of the force density ##\int f dV##...

To find the overall force on a surface with calculate the surface integral of the stress tensor...

Could we have a volume integral of stress tensor? If so, what does it represent?
 
vanhees71 said:
It's not a force density. This would be a quantity "force per unit volume"
I disagree. Current density is current per unit area. Not all densities are per unit volume. Stress is force density: force per unit area.
 
fog37 said:
Could we have a volume integral of stress tensor? If so, what does it represent?
Yes, energy.
 
Dale said:
I disagree. Current density is current per unit area. Not all densities are per unit volume. Stress is force density: force per unit area.
It's again a matter of definitions. The standard nomenclature in the field-theory literature is that a density of a quantity is per volume and current density of a quantity is per unit area and unit time. In natural units with ##c=1## the dimensions are the same ;-)).
 
This is an engineering question, not a field-theory question.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K