JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for GEO-TECTONICS Archives


GEO-TECTONICS Archives

GEO-TECTONICS Archives


GEO-TECTONICS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

GEO-TECTONICS Home

GEO-TECTONICS Home

GEO-TECTONICS  February 2000

GEO-TECTONICS February 2000

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: eigenvalues and eigenvectors

From:

[log in to unmask] (Falk H. Koenemann)

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Sun, 27 Feb 2000 21:19:04 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (133 lines)

Dugald Carmichael schrieb:

> >1. ... If f/A -> infinity if V -> 0 it shows that the Newtonian 
> >definition of pressure cannot be used because the transition does not
> >exist. It should not bother anyone because the thermodynamic definition 
> >of pressure P  = dU/dV holds, and is _really_ and without doubt 
> >scale-independent. 
>
> If "scale-independent" implies that P = dU/dV would remain valid as V -> 0,
> I am not persuaded.  Not only P but all the thermodynamic properties of
> matter presuppose a substantial volume of matter in the "system".

But that is precisely my point. In terms of potential theory, a thermodynamic 
system is a _distributed source_ of fluxes; all its properties need to be scaled 
per unit mass, e.g. one mol (implying a standard molar volume in the reference 
state). P = dU/dV observes this relation, P = f/A does not. And it matters 
tremendously whether the Newtonian equilibrium condition f_left + f_right = 0 is 
used which refers to all the external forces acting on a system, or if the 
thermodynamic equilibrium condition f_system + f_surrounding = 0 is used; only 
this eq.condition can treat elastic deformation as a change of state, the 
Newtonian eq.condition cannot. 

If external forces of whichever configuration act upon a body of solid, they may 
or may not balance, or they may balance in part. Externally unbalanced forces 
will accelerate the system externally, so we can ignore them, they cannot cause 
a deformation. It is important to note: only externally balanced forces can do 
work on a system to the effect that a change of state occurs, i.e. only they can 
interact with forces exerted by the system on the surrounding. This point is 
consistently ignored by classical continuum mechanics. 

   
> >2. ...Stress need not be "symmetric" by definition (the mathematically 
> >correct term is "orthogonal"). 
>
> In my opinion "orthorhombic" is preferable. "Orthogonal" does not
> distinguish the symmetry of an orthorhombic prism (or triaxial ellipsoid)
> from that of a tetragonal prism or a cube.  There is plenty of precedent in
> the literature of "petrofabrics".  

I agree 100%!

> >The conclusion that stress is orthogonal, is due to a misunderstood 
> >equilibrium condition: forces acting in a kinetic system of particles which 
> >is (a) not interacting with a surrounding and (b) does not spin 
> >about itelf must be balanced, hence the orthogonality condition. In essence, 
> >such a system is in equilibrium with _itself_. But the "unit cube" 
> >you mention was never understood as a thermodynamic system 
> >(which should be the case). A thd.system is in equilibrium with its 
> >_surrounding_, so the forces exerted by the system on the surrounding and
> > vice versa must balance. ...
>
> It seems to me that a system in equilibrium with its surroundings must also
> be in equilibrium with itself.  

No. In the simplest case, isotropic loading of an isotropic material, a system 
of solid is in equilibrium with itself if its bond lengths are determined only 
by the energetics of its bonds. This is the unloaded state, or the zero 
potential state. If the volume deviates from the volume which it would have in 
the unloaded state, it is the surrounding doing work on the system to the effect 
that its bond lengths are shorter (or longer) than in the unloaded state. The 
system is thus in a non-zero potential state, i.e. it would spontaneously expand 
(or contract) if left to itself. Therefore the system in the loaded state is not 
in equilibrium with itself, but it is in equilibrium with its surrounding. 


> Let us envisage the "cube" as a
> thermodynamic system in contact with its surroundings across a flexible
> diathermal boundary impervious to chemical transport.   [snip] 
> ...it must be possible to remove the surroundings, leaving in place 
> the exact same set of surface forces that was exerted by 
> the surroundings on the boundary, with no effect on the state.  

I think that's a contradiction in terms. If you remove the surrounding, you 
necessarily remove the forces exerted by it as well. Or you may replace the 
surrounding, keeping the forces in place; but this is probably not what you 
meant. If you expand a rubber band, it surely will not stay that way if you let 
go on the left side, but it will snap with a vengeance on your fingers on the 
right.

> So let us now remove the surroundings.  If the system begins
> to spin with ever-increasing angular velocity, centripetal forces will be
> induced and its state of stress will not remain constant and uniform.  If
> the system remains stationary, the set of surface forces on its boundary
> must be such as to generate within the system a stress field with
> orthorhombic (or higher) symmetry.  Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the
> stress in a homogeneous system in thermodynamic equilibrium can have lower
> than orthorhombic symmetry.   

You have slightly changed the subject here - from the nature of the equilibrium 
in general to its geometric properties in particular. The first one is dealt 
with above. - The second part I wish to answer by giving an example. Simple 
shear is caused by a force field like this

                   ---->
                   --->
                   -->
                   ->
                  .
                <-
               <--
              <---
             <----

which surely is not orthorhombic. You can let it act on a thermodynamic system 
to cause an elastic deformation. A ball in water would spin, but a sphere of 
solid in a larger piece of solid will not because of the bonds across the 
system-surrounding boundary. Thus you know that equilibrium exists. For the 
following I just indicate the outline: calculate the average force exerted by 
the above force field (lower and upper half separately), assume that its 
rotational momentum is balanced by bonding forces, subtract that momentum from 
the field above, and you get non-orthogonal eigendirections. 


> But strain is a different beast.  Natural consequences of irreversible
> strain often have lower than orthorhombic symmetry.  I am really intrigued
> by the figure on Falk's website that illustrates non-orthogonal directions
> of principal compression and extension in a "shear zone".  Presumably this
> results in "distorted" strain ellipsoids with monoclinic symmetry? 

The strain ellipsoid is always at least orthorhombic, but strain is a 
path-independent term and may have been reached by a zillion different ways. (Be 
careful not to equate strain and deformation which many people do.) We are 
talking displacements here, and yes, surely they are monoclinic. 


_______________________________________________________________
Falk H. Koenemann    Aachen, Germany      [log in to unmask]
http://home.t-online.de/home/peregrine/hp-fkoe.htm



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager