Gradient of higher rank tensor

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter chowdhury
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gradient rank Tensor
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of equations involving higher rank tensors in index notation, particularly focusing on the divergence of a product of a third rank tensor and the symmetric gradient of a vector. Participants explore various notational conventions and the implications of symmetry in tensor components.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks to express the equation $$\nabla \cdot \left( \mathbf{e} : \nabla_{s} \mathbf{u} \right)$$ in index notation and proposes an approach involving the indices of the tensors.
  • Another participant critiques the notation used in the original book, suggesting that it is confusing and proposes an alternative method for expressing the relationship between the indices.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of symmetry in the tensor ##e##, with suggestions on how to handle cases where the tensor is not symmetric.
  • Participants discuss the concept of transposing a third rank tensor and the ambiguity of the term "transpose" in the context of tensors, emphasizing the importance of defining symmetries instead.
  • Questions arise regarding the representation of indices in double differentiation and the use of parentheses in tensor operations.
  • One participant expresses gratitude for the clarification provided by another, indicating that the discussion has been helpful in resolving their queries.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the clarity and utility of the notation used in the original book. There is no consensus on the best approach to represent the equations, and multiple competing views remain regarding the handling of tensor indices and symmetries.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include the potential confusion arising from the use of capital indices and the lack of clarity in the original notation. The discussion also highlights the need for modern approaches to tensor notation, as some references may be outdated.

  • #31
chowdhury said:
@anuttarasammyak : yes in most cases,

Query 1.)

here is what I try to follow
$$\nabla \cdot (\bf{\epsilon}^{S} \cdot \nabla \phi) = \nabla \cdot (\bf{e} : \nabla_{s} \bf{u}) $$
Now
$$\nabla_{i} \epsilon_{ij}^{S} \nabla_{j} \phi = \nabla_{i} \epsilon_{ij}^{S} \phi_{,j} = \epsilon_{ij}^{S}\nabla_{i} \phi_{,j} = \epsilon_{ij}^{S}\phi_{,ij}$$

I don't know how to full the full 3-index notation for e. It was immensely helpful by @Orodruin : With his insight, it turned out to be,

$$ \nabla \cdot (\bf{e} : \nabla_{s} \bf{u}) = \nabla_{i} e_{ijk} \nabla_{j} u_{k} = e_{ijk} u_{k, ji}$$

Hence
$$\epsilon_{ij}^{S}\phi_{,ij} = e_{ijk} u_{k, ji}$$

I do not understand what was the basis for the book to say symmetry condition for the e-coeficient in their index?
View attachment 297832

Query 2.)
$$ \bf{c^{eff}} = \bf{c^{E}} + e^{transpose} \cdot (\bf{(\epsilon^{S}})^{-1} \bf{e})$$

The notation my be incorrect, but the true nature is CORRECT in the above expression, then when I wanted to express in index notation, I get into trouble,

$$ c^{eff}_{IJ} = c^{E}_{IJ} + e^{transpose}_{iI} (\epsilon^{S}_{??})^{-1} e_{??})
$$

I cannot write in single index notation, meaning not combined capital I,J etc.

Query 3.) For this equation,

$$\nabla \cdot (\bf{c}^{E} : \nabla_{s}\bf{u}) -\rho \frac{\partial^2 \bf{u}}{\partial t^2} = - \nabla \cdot (\bf{e}^{transpose} \cdot \nabla \phi)$$

I derived
$$(c^{E}_{ijkl} u_{k,l})_{,j} - \rho u_{i,tt} = - (e^{transpose}_{ijk} \phi_{,k})_{,j} =- (\color{red}{e}_{kji} \phi_{,jk}) $$
But the book derived as in the picture above. There might be difference in the indices, I cannot reconcile between mine and the book.

Does anybody know how to derivemy above three queries? Thanks.
Untitled17.png
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
763
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
4K