MHB Where can I find info on the partial derivative of elastic energy wrt position?

datahead8888
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I've been studying a version of the finite element method.

The author of a paper I was reading refers to the partial derivative of total elastic energy wrt position, partial derivative of surfacic energy wrt position, and partial derivative of strain wrt position.

Does anyone know of a good resource that explains these concepts?

I'm not as skilled with vector calculus, so a less aggressive reference is good.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
If elastic energy is
$$\frac{1}{2} k x^{2},$$
then its derivative w.r.t. position is just the negative of the force:
$$ \frac{ \partial}{ \partial x} \left( \frac{1}{2} kx^{2} \right)= kx = -F.$$

I've never heard of "surfacic energy". Could you define that, please?

As for the derivative of strain w.r.t. position, you could probably find that in a book on material science.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top