Formula for the energy of elastic deformation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The energy of elastic deformation per unit mass is derived using the integral of stress with respect to strain, leading to the formula V = (1/2E)(σ₁² + σ₂² + σ₃²) - (ν/E)(σ₁σ₂ + σ₂σ₃ + σ₁σ₃). This derivation involves substituting generalized Hooke's law after integration, which raises questions about the validity of this approach. The discussion clarifies that conservation of energy allows for independent application of stresses and strains, ultimately confirming the correctness of the derived formula when integrating the modified stress-strain relationships.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of elastic deformation principles
  • Familiarity with generalized Hooke's law
  • Knowledge of stress and strain relationships
  • Basic calculus for integration of functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of generalized Hooke's law in detail
  • Explore the implications of conservation of energy in elastic materials
  • Learn about the integration of stress-strain relationships in elasticity theory
  • Investigate advanced topics in continuum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Mechanical engineers, materials scientists, and students studying elasticity and deformation mechanics will benefit from this discussion.

baw
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
In every book I checked, the energy (per unit mass) of elastic deformation is derived as follows:

## \int \sigma_1 d \epsilon_1 = \frac{\sigma_1 \epsilon_1}{2} ##
and then, authors (e.g. Timoshenko & Goodier) sum up such terms and substitute ##\epsilon ## from generalised Hooke's law i.e.
## \epsilon_1=\frac{1}{E} (\sigma_1 -\nu \sigma_2 -\nu \sigma_3) ##
## \epsilon_2=\frac{1}{E} (\sigma_2 -\nu \sigma_1 -\nu \sigma_3) ##
## \epsilon_3=\frac{1}{E} (\sigma_3 -\nu \sigma_2 -\nu \sigma_1) ##
obtaining:
##V=\frac{1}{2E} (\sigma_1^2 +\sigma_2^2+\sigma_3^2 )-\frac{\nu}{E}(\sigma_1 \sigma_2+\sigma_2 \sigma_3 + \sigma_1 \sigma_3) ##

but... is it correct to substitute generalised Hooke's law after the integration? The formula is obtained as if simple ##\sigma = E \epsilon ## was used. As in the attached figure, it looks like they assume that ##\sigma_x ## has no term independent on ##\epsilon_x ##, despite that Hooke's law can be transformed to:

## \sigma_1=\frac{(\nu -1)E}{(\nu +1)(2 \nu-1)} \epsilon_1 - \frac{\nu E}{(\nu+1)(2\nu -1)}(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_3) ##
##\sigma_2=(...) ##
##\sigma_3=(...) ##

where this term is present. Shouldn't we integrate the above formula? Could someone please, explain me why it is correct?
 

Attachments

  • skrin4.PNG
    skrin4.PNG
    36.5 KB · Views: 169
Physics news on Phys.org
It’s energy per unit volume.

Conservation of energy implies that elastic energy is independent of order applied and depends only on final state. Otherwise one could find an order that creates/destroys energy.

The first method takes advantage of this and applies the stresses/strains indendently and then adds them together. There are subtleties to this that I cannot do justice to.

The second method applies everything at once and then integrates.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: baw
Lets say we applied ##\sigma_1## at first and got ##\epsilon_1## as well as some ##\epsilon_2## and ##\epsilon_3##. The (specific) work done is ##\frac{\sigma_1^2}{2E}##. If we now apply ##\sigma_2## we already have some initial strain, so the plot ##\sigma_2(\epsilon_2)## moves downward by ##\frac{\nu}{E}\sigma_1##. If we now integrate it, we get ##\frac{\sigma_2^2}{2E}-\frac{\nu}{E}\sigma_1 \sigma_2##. Then, ##\sigma_3(\epsilon_3)## is shifted by ##\frac{\nu}{E}(\sigma_1+\sigma_2)## and suma summarum, after the integration we get the right formula. I got it, thanks!

Btw. it means that I just made some mistke in the second method and that's why I didn't got the same answer, doesn't it?
 
In your starting equations, evaluate the differentials of the strains in terms of the differentials in the three stresses. Then, multiply each differential of strain by its corresponding stress, and add up the resulting 3 equations. What do you get?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
11K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
613
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K