- #1

- 321

- 68

[So then the volume will go like p(1-μ(p-1))

^{2}and the density inversely?]

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- B
- Thread starter Hiero
- Start date

- #1

- 321

- 68

[So then the volume will go like p(1-μ(p-1))

- #2

- 23

- 3

I think, your understanding, calculation and inference is correct.

- #3

- 321

- 68

And presumably this holds for general (not just circular) cross sections?

- #4

- 321

- 68

How can I understand the theory of all this? If I stretch a rod I do work, presumably to separate the molecules a bit? The density is maintained in the above case but the average intermolecular distance changes? How do you generally analyze the energy in a strained object? [etc...]

If anyone has insight or ideally a book where I can study these theories, it would be appreciated.

(The book I mentioned in the OP is

- #5

- 321

- 68

Ok then...

What if I stretch a rectangular-bar in all three directions normal to it's faces. Then am I correct in thinking to find the change in length along one direction we would have to consider the 'poisson-effect' from the other two directions?

This effect becomes particularly simple if you assume uniform pressure on all faces, so let me pose the above question in that context:

Suppose a rectangular-bar is subjected to a uniform pressure P.

(The material of the bar has Young's modulus E and Poisson's ratio μ.)

Then what I am asking is if the change in length will look like this:

ΔL_{x}=(P/E)(-1+2μ)L_{x} for each (principle) dimension?

What if I stretch a rectangular-bar in all three directions normal to it's faces. Then am I correct in thinking to find the change in length along one direction we would have to consider the 'poisson-effect' from the other two directions?

This effect becomes particularly simple if you assume uniform pressure on all faces, so let me pose the above question in that context:

Suppose a rectangular-bar is subjected to a uniform pressure P.

(The material of the bar has Young's modulus E and Poisson's ratio μ.)

Then what I am asking is if the change in length will look like this:

ΔL

Last edited:

- #6

nasu

Gold Member

- 3,776

- 433

Is ## \rho ## in the formula density of the material? Do you have a reference to this definition of Poisson ratio?

[So then the volume will go like p(1-μ(p-1))^{2}and the density inversely?]

The one I know is just the ratio of the strains, like here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson's_ratio

- #7

- 321

- 68

It was an arbitrary p not rho:Is ## \rho ## in the formula density of the material?

Anyway the OP is equivalent to 'the ratio of strains' definition, so you can ignore the first post.if a steel cylinder is stretched along its symmetry axis by a factor p (something like 1.01 or 0.99) then...

What I would like to know now is if we can superimpose the strains as described in post #5; that is, if we compress the bar along the x direction, it will expand in the y and z directions, but now if we compress the bar in all three directions, do I just superimpose the effect of each compression? (Yielding ΔL

Also I would like to understand the general theory better, such as the question of analyzing the energy in post #4. I suppose this falls under continuum mechanics? I'm just having trouble finding relevant theoretical material.

- #8

nasu

Gold Member

- 3,776

- 433

http://web.mit.edu/16.20/homepage/3_Constitutive/Constitutive_files/module_3_with_solutions.pdf

If this is too general and you are interested just in the the isotropic case, this is treated on page 62.

You can see that the strain along one direction ( ## \epsilon_{11} ## for example) is given by contributions from the three stress components (## \sigma _{11}, \sigma _{22}, \sigma _{33}## ).

If you just have the same pressure applied on the sample (like in so called isostatic pressing) , then the three stress components are the same and equal to the pressure.

- #9

- 17,174

- 6,984

I would say what the OP really wants in this case is on page 66 and note that it is true not only in the case of hydrostatic pressure. Taking the trace of the relation between the stiffness and stress tensors, you willIf this is too general and you are interested just in the the isotropic case, this is treated on page 62.

$$

e = \epsilon_{ii} = \frac{1}{E}[(1+\nu)\sigma_{ii} - \nu \sigma_{kk} \delta_{ii}] = \frac{1-2\nu}{E} \sigma_{kk} = \frac{3(1-2\nu)}{E} \frac{\sigma_{kk}}{3}

= \frac{\sigma_{kk}}{3K},

$$

where ##K## is the bulk modulus. Subjecting the material to hydrostatic pressure would lead to ##\sigma_{kk} = 3p## and therefore ##e = p/K## as stated in the text, but the linearity is also clear since the trace ##\sigma_{kk}## is just the sum of the principal stresses.

Share: