Formula for the energy of elastic deformation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the formula for the energy of elastic deformation, specifically addressing the integration of stress and strain relationships in the context of generalized Hooke's law. Participants explore the implications of substituting generalized Hooke's law after integration and the validity of different methods for calculating elastic energy.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a derivation of the energy of elastic deformation using integration of stress with respect to strain, questioning the correctness of substituting generalized Hooke's law after this integration.
  • Another participant asserts that elastic energy is independent of the order in which stresses are applied, emphasizing that it depends only on the final state.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that the specific work done when applying stresses sequentially leads to a correct integration of the energy formula, acknowledging a previous misunderstanding in the second method.
  • One participant proposes evaluating the differentials of strains in terms of the differentials in stresses and suggests a method for deriving the energy expression from this approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of substituting generalized Hooke's law after integration, with some supporting this approach and others questioning it. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the correctness of the methods presented.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the treatment of stress and strain relationships, particularly in the context of generalized Hooke's law and the integration process. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of the mathematical steps involved.

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: 174
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
747
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K