Stress tensor and pressure relationship

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Seyn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fluid dynamic
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the stress tensor and pressure, specifically focusing on the interpretation of the stress vector components and the notation used in the context of fluid mechanics. Participants explore the mathematical representation of stress vectors and their components, as well as the implications of the author's notation in Currie's Fundamental Mechanics of Fluids.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion regarding the notation used for the stress vector, particularly the interpretation of ##P_2=\sigma_{12}n_1## and its implications for the direction of the vector.
  • Others argue that the notation simplifies the concept in a potentially misleading way, emphasizing that ##n_1## is a component of a vector rather than a vector itself.
  • A participant proposes that the stress vector can be expressed in terms of its components as ##\vec{P}=(P_1,P_2,P_3)##, leading to the formulation ##P_j=\sigma_{ij}n_i##.
  • Some participants assert that the author's interpretation of the unit normal vector is incorrect, suggesting that a unit vector in the 1 direction should be represented as (1,0,0) and that the components of the stress vector are ##P_1=\sigma_{11}##, ##P_2=\sigma_{12}##, and ##P_3=\sigma_{13}##.
  • There is a reiteration of the relationship between the components of the stress vector and the unit normal vector, with some participants confirming the understanding of the notation used.
  • Links to previous discussions are provided for additional context on related topics, indicating that the conversation may connect to broader themes in fluid mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the clarity and correctness of the author's notation and interpretation of the stress vector. There is no consensus on whether the author's approach is helpful or misleading, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of the notation.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the author's simplification of notation may lead to confusion, particularly regarding the interpretation of unit normal vectors and their components. The discussion highlights the complexity of representing stress vectors in fluid mechanics and the potential for misinterpretation based on notation.

Seyn
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
캡처.PNG


I'm studying with Currie's Fundamental Mechanics of Fluids, Fourth edition.
I'm confusing with the above statement; the force acting in the x2 direction is P2=s12n1 which is n1 direction.
Is there anybody help me to understand this subject?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Seyn said:
the force acting in the x2 direction is P2=s12n1 which is n1 direction.
No, ##P_2=\sigma_{12}n_1## is the second component of a vector. That vector is the result of multiplying your original normal vector by a matrix, so can be in an arbitrary direction. Its second component is the component in the direction of your second basis vector.

Note that I think the author has tried to simplify the notation slightly, and I think he's done it in an unhelpful way. The point is that there's a normal vector ##\vec n## which he has chosen to be parallel to the first basis vector, so in component form it is ##(n_1,0,0)^T##. So I'd say that "the unit normal vector ... is ##n_1##" is possibly confusing the issue - ##n_1## is a component of a vector (in this case, the only non-zero component, but still only a component), not a vector itself.
 
Ibix said:
No, ##P_2=\sigma_{12}n_1## is the second component of a vector. That vector is the result of multiplying your original normal vector by a matrix, so can be in an arbitrary direction. Its second component is the component in the direction of your second basis vector.

Note that I think the author has tried to simplify the notation slightly, and I think he's done it in an unhelpful way. The point is that there's a normal vector ##\vec n## which he has chosen to be parallel to the first basis vector, so in component form it is ##(n_1,0,0)^T##. So I'd say that "the unit normal vector ... is ##n_1##" is possibly confusing the issue - ##n_1## is a component of a vector, not a vector itself.
Do you mean the point is,
##\vec{P}=(P_1,P_2,P_3)## and,
##P_j=\sigma_{ij}n_i##
so
##\vec{P}=\sigma_{ij}n_i \hat{e_j}##??
 
Yes.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Seyn
Ibix said:
Yes.
Thank you for your kind explanation!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix
No problem! You're welcome.
 
You are confused because the result the author gives is wrong. A unit vector in the 1 direction is (1,0,0). The components of the stress vector on the surface of constant x (i.e., 1) are ##P_1=\sigma_{ 11}##, ##P_2=\sigma_{ 12}##, and ##P_3=\sigma_{ 13}##. So the stress vector is ##(P_1,P_2,P_3)=(\sigma_{11},\sigma_{12},\sigma_{13})##
 
Chestermiller said:
You are confused because the result the author gives is wrong. A unit vector in the 1 direction is (1,0,0). The components of the stress vector on the surface of constant x (i.e., 1) are ##P_1=\sigma_{ 11}##, ##P_2=\sigma_{ 12}##, and ##P_3=\sigma_{ 13}##. So the stress vector is ##(P_1,P_2,P_3)=(\sigma_{11},\sigma_{12},\sigma_{13})##
Thanks for the reply. Do you mean the term ##n_i##s are the component of arbitrary surface vector##\vec{n}##, and the author chose an unit vector in the 1 direction as the surface vector for the first example which is ##(1,0,0)##? As a result, because ##n_1=1##, ##n_2=0##, ##n_3=0##, the surface force vector is ##P_j=\sigma_{ij} n_i=(1 \cdot \sigma_{11}+0 \cdot \sigma_{21}+0 \cdot \sigma_{31},1 \cdot \sigma_{12}+0 \cdot \sigma_{22}+0 \cdot \sigma_{23},1 \cdot \sigma_{13}+0 \cdot \sigma_{23}+0 \cdot \sigma_{33})=(\sigma_{11},\sigma_{12},\sigma_{13})##??
 
Seyn said:
Thanks for the reply. Do you mean the term ##n_i##s are the component of arbitrary surface vector##\vec{n}##, and the author chose an unit vector in the 1 direction as the surface vector for the first example which is ##(1,0,0)##? As a result, because ##n_1=1##, ##n_2=0##, ##n_3=0##, the surface force vector is ##P_j=\sigma_{ij} n_i=(1 \cdot \sigma_{11}+0 \cdot \sigma_{21}+0 \cdot \sigma_{31},1 \cdot \sigma_{12}+0 \cdot \sigma_{22}+0 \cdot \sigma_{23},1 \cdot \sigma_{13}+0 \cdot \sigma_{23}+0 \cdot \sigma_{33})=(\sigma_{11},\sigma_{12},\sigma_{13})##??
yes
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K