Elastic Energy Momentum Tensor and Defects

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Eshelby's seminal paper regarding the elastic energy-momentum tensor, specifically focusing on equation 4.4. The equation claims that the energy difference between two surfaces, S and S', is proportional to the energy of surface S multiplied by the translation vector u. Participants express confusion over the dimensional consistency of this claim and seek clarification on its implications. The conversation highlights the challenges in understanding advanced concepts in continuum mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of continuum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with the elastic energy-momentum tensor
  • Knowledge of vector calculus, particularly gradients and translations
  • Experience with reading and interpreting academic papers in physics or engineering
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and applications of the elastic energy-momentum tensor in continuum mechanics
  • Review the implications of equation 4.4 in Eshelby's paper
  • Explore dimensional analysis techniques in physics to assess consistency in equations
  • Investigate related concepts such as stress and strain in materials science
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for researchers, graduate students, and professionals in the fields of materials science, mechanical engineering, and applied physics who are studying the elastic energy-momentum tensor and its applications in continuum mechanics.

muzialis
Messages
156
Reaction score
1
Hi All,

I am reading the seminal paper by Eshelby on the elastic energy-momentum tensor, which I attach for your convenience.
It is all beautiful but equation 4.4 at the beginning. He considers a surface S in the undeformed configuration of a body. The surface is translated by a vector u to a surface S', and the claim is made that the difference in the energies of the portions of the body enclosed by S, S' equals the energy of the portion included by S times the vector u, I really do not see that, albeit the fact it must be obvious...it does not even seem dimensionally consistent to me ...Can anybody help?, I am sure many of you read the paper and/or are familiar with these concepts, I would not hope that you read a new paper just to answer a post.

Thank you very much
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
4.4 looks like an alternate way of writing ∇E = F (equivalently, ΔE = Δx * F).
 
Andy, many thanks. sometimes I get stuck and an obviousity becomes a wall.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K