Why need 4th order stiffness tensor expression?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the differences between two expressions for strain-stress relations: a 2D matrix form and a 4th order tensor form in Voigt notation. It clarifies that the two expressions are not the same due to additional assumptions about material symmetry in the matrix form. The necessity of the 4th order tensor expression is emphasized, as it accommodates more complex material behaviors, particularly anisotropic materials, which have 21 independent variables. The participant's confusion regarding the identification of independent components in the first expression is addressed, indicating that there are interrelations among those elements. Ultimately, both expressions are recognized as being in Voigt notation, but they represent different levels of complexity in material characterization.
Galbi
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
3.jpg


2.jpg
OK. First of all, I'm novice at Physics so this question may be weird.

Above, there are 2 expressions for strain-stress relations.

Let's assume that all components in the matrix are variables, not zero, not E, nor not G in the first picture.

The first one is written in 2D matrix form, whereas the other one is written in 4th order tensor form although this is a Voigt notation.

Here are my questions:

1. Are these 2 expression same, I mean if the components of each matrix are variables, not zeroes as seen in the picture? That is, can the first form present a general material, like anisotropic?

2. If so, then why do we need to use 4th order tensor expression? The first one is easier to understand. and more intuitive. Why do we learn about the second form?

3. I learned if the material is anisotropic there are 21 independents in the 4th order stiffness tensor. What are the 21 independent variables in the first form? Can you draw circle in the picture or indicate by using notation? I already circled 9 independent components. Where are other 12 components? And why are they independent?

4. Oh, I see the first and second expressions are almost same except shear parts. Can I say that the first one is also Voigt notation?

Thank you very much for reading my question.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
1. No, they are not the same. The first expression has made additional assumptions on the symmetry properties of the material.

2. Answered by 1.

3. You did not circle 9 independent components. There are relations among those elements.

4. Yes, they are both in Voigt notation, but the first one makes additional assumptions about the material.
 
Thank you very much!
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...

Similar threads

Back
Top