Formula for the energy of elastic deformation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the energy of elastic deformation, specifically questioning the validity of substituting generalized Hooke's law after integration. The initial formula for energy per unit mass is derived using basic stress-strain relationships, but concerns arise about the assumption that stress terms are independent of strain. The conversation highlights two methods of calculating elastic energy: one that applies stresses independently and sums them, and another that integrates all at once, noting the subtleties involved. Ultimately, the correct approach involves evaluating the differentials of strains in relation to the stresses to achieve an accurate energy formula. The conclusion emphasizes that a misunderstanding in the second method led to an incorrect result.
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: 148
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 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?
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top