calculating stress invariants using matrix [closed]
As in the attached picture below, how to find the values of I2 and I3?
enter image description here
matrices
closed as off-topic by GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會, NCh, user10354138, Brahadeesh, Xander Henderson Dec 11 at 14:45
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – NCh, user10354138, Brahadeesh
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
|
show 5 more comments
As in the attached picture below, how to find the values of I2 and I3?
enter image description here
matrices
closed as off-topic by GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會, NCh, user10354138, Brahadeesh, Xander Henderson Dec 11 at 14:45
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – NCh, user10354138, Brahadeesh
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
The attached picture already has the formulas for calculating them right there. What more are you after?
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 21:14
Hello, @PaulSinclair , No, they are the results, am deriving them ( my derivation for I1 is correct) but could't derive I2 and I3, Can you help on this? thanks,
– aows61
Dec 9 at 21:17
Expand the two expressions for $II$ and $III$. Do they match the expression you have as the coefficient of $lambda$ and the constant term?
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 21:33
from the upper picture, I want to get an expressions for I2 and I3 that are similar to the lower left picture, I couldn't do that. Can you help me with this dear @PaulSinclair
– aows61
Dec 9 at 21:40
And the step you need to take now is to start with the formulas for $II$ and $III$ in the lower left picture, expand them out, and see if they match what you have on top.
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 23:06
|
show 5 more comments
As in the attached picture below, how to find the values of I2 and I3?
enter image description here
matrices
As in the attached picture below, how to find the values of I2 and I3?
enter image description here
matrices
matrices
asked Dec 9 at 13:20
aows61
37
37
closed as off-topic by GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會, NCh, user10354138, Brahadeesh, Xander Henderson Dec 11 at 14:45
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – NCh, user10354138, Brahadeesh
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as off-topic by GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會, NCh, user10354138, Brahadeesh, Xander Henderson Dec 11 at 14:45
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – NCh, user10354138, Brahadeesh
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
The attached picture already has the formulas for calculating them right there. What more are you after?
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 21:14
Hello, @PaulSinclair , No, they are the results, am deriving them ( my derivation for I1 is correct) but could't derive I2 and I3, Can you help on this? thanks,
– aows61
Dec 9 at 21:17
Expand the two expressions for $II$ and $III$. Do they match the expression you have as the coefficient of $lambda$ and the constant term?
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 21:33
from the upper picture, I want to get an expressions for I2 and I3 that are similar to the lower left picture, I couldn't do that. Can you help me with this dear @PaulSinclair
– aows61
Dec 9 at 21:40
And the step you need to take now is to start with the formulas for $II$ and $III$ in the lower left picture, expand them out, and see if they match what you have on top.
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 23:06
|
show 5 more comments
The attached picture already has the formulas for calculating them right there. What more are you after?
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 21:14
Hello, @PaulSinclair , No, they are the results, am deriving them ( my derivation for I1 is correct) but could't derive I2 and I3, Can you help on this? thanks,
– aows61
Dec 9 at 21:17
Expand the two expressions for $II$ and $III$. Do they match the expression you have as the coefficient of $lambda$ and the constant term?
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 21:33
from the upper picture, I want to get an expressions for I2 and I3 that are similar to the lower left picture, I couldn't do that. Can you help me with this dear @PaulSinclair
– aows61
Dec 9 at 21:40
And the step you need to take now is to start with the formulas for $II$ and $III$ in the lower left picture, expand them out, and see if they match what you have on top.
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 23:06
The attached picture already has the formulas for calculating them right there. What more are you after?
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 21:14
The attached picture already has the formulas for calculating them right there. What more are you after?
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 21:14
Hello, @PaulSinclair , No, they are the results, am deriving them ( my derivation for I1 is correct) but could't derive I2 and I3, Can you help on this? thanks,
– aows61
Dec 9 at 21:17
Hello, @PaulSinclair , No, they are the results, am deriving them ( my derivation for I1 is correct) but could't derive I2 and I3, Can you help on this? thanks,
– aows61
Dec 9 at 21:17
Expand the two expressions for $II$ and $III$. Do they match the expression you have as the coefficient of $lambda$ and the constant term?
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 21:33
Expand the two expressions for $II$ and $III$. Do they match the expression you have as the coefficient of $lambda$ and the constant term?
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 21:33
from the upper picture, I want to get an expressions for I2 and I3 that are similar to the lower left picture, I couldn't do that. Can you help me with this dear @PaulSinclair
– aows61
Dec 9 at 21:40
from the upper picture, I want to get an expressions for I2 and I3 that are similar to the lower left picture, I couldn't do that. Can you help me with this dear @PaulSinclair
– aows61
Dec 9 at 21:40
And the step you need to take now is to start with the formulas for $II$ and $III$ in the lower left picture, expand them out, and see if they match what you have on top.
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 23:06
And the step you need to take now is to start with the formulas for $II$ and $III$ in the lower left picture, expand them out, and see if they match what you have on top.
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 23:06
|
show 5 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Per your text $$I = T_{11} + T_{22}+T_{33}\II =frac{T_{ij}T_{ij} - I^2}2\III=det mathbf T$$
You've proven the first formula. The last formula is almost trivial to prove without expanding it in elements. After all, $III$ is the constant term of the characteristic polynomial $p(lambda) = det(mathbf T - lambdamathbf E)$, where $mathbf E$ is the identity matrix. The constant term of $p$ is the value of $p(lambda)$ when $lambda = 0$.
Therefore $$III = p(0) = det(mathbf T - 0cdot mathbf E) = det mathbf T$$
That leaves only $II$. $$begin{align}I^2 &= (T_{11} + T_{22} + T_{33})^2\&=T_{11}^2 + T_{22}^2 + T_{33}^2+2(T_{11}T_{22} + T_{11}T_{33} + T_{22}T_{33})end{align}$$
I had assumed without bothering to check that $T_{ij}T_{ij}$ was making use of the Einstein summation convention. But that isn't true. Your calculation of $II$ is correct:
$$II = T_{12}T_{21} + T_{13}T_{31} + T_{23}T_{32} - T_{11}T_{22} - T_{11}T_{33} - T_{22}T_{33}$$
But if we interpret this per the convention
$$T_{ij}T_{ij} = sum_{i, j} T_{ij}^2 = T_{11}^2 + T_{22}^2 +T_{33}^2 +T_{12}^2 +T_{21}^2 +T_{13}^2 +T_{31}^2 +T_{23}^2 +T_{32}^2$$ the expression clearly does not give the correct result.
It is actually well-known that for 3x3 matrices, $II = frac{operatorname{tr}(T^2) - (operatorname{tr}(T))^2}2 = frac{operatorname{tr}(T^2) - I^2}2$. So apparently $T_{ij}T_{ij}$ is supposed to be $operatorname{tr}(T^2)$, but I see no way that this makes sense as a notational shorthand.
So instead, let me use the notation which does make sense (though is not a particularly good way to calculate the coefficient, since it involves a lot of wasted calculation):
$$mathbf T^2 = begin{bmatrix}T_{11}^2 + T_{12}T_{21} + T_{13}T_{31} & ... & ...\ ... & T_{21}T_{12} + T_{22}^2 + T_{23}T_{32} & ...\...&...&T_{31}T_{13} + T_{32}T_{23} + T_{33}^2end{bmatrix}$$
where I haven't bothered to expand the entries that will not contribute to the trace. So, $$operatorname{tr}(mathbf T^2) = T_{11}^2 + T_{22}^2 +T_{33}^2 + 2(T_{12}T_{21} + T_{13}T_{31} + T_{31}T_{13})$$
It is should be easy now to get from $frac{operatorname{tr}(T^2) - I^2}2$ to your coefficient for $lambda$.
Thanks indeed @Paul Sinclair for your helpful answer, I will look into your answer deeply and will let you know if I have more questions. Sincerely,
– aows61
Dec 11 at 7:53
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Per your text $$I = T_{11} + T_{22}+T_{33}\II =frac{T_{ij}T_{ij} - I^2}2\III=det mathbf T$$
You've proven the first formula. The last formula is almost trivial to prove without expanding it in elements. After all, $III$ is the constant term of the characteristic polynomial $p(lambda) = det(mathbf T - lambdamathbf E)$, where $mathbf E$ is the identity matrix. The constant term of $p$ is the value of $p(lambda)$ when $lambda = 0$.
Therefore $$III = p(0) = det(mathbf T - 0cdot mathbf E) = det mathbf T$$
That leaves only $II$. $$begin{align}I^2 &= (T_{11} + T_{22} + T_{33})^2\&=T_{11}^2 + T_{22}^2 + T_{33}^2+2(T_{11}T_{22} + T_{11}T_{33} + T_{22}T_{33})end{align}$$
I had assumed without bothering to check that $T_{ij}T_{ij}$ was making use of the Einstein summation convention. But that isn't true. Your calculation of $II$ is correct:
$$II = T_{12}T_{21} + T_{13}T_{31} + T_{23}T_{32} - T_{11}T_{22} - T_{11}T_{33} - T_{22}T_{33}$$
But if we interpret this per the convention
$$T_{ij}T_{ij} = sum_{i, j} T_{ij}^2 = T_{11}^2 + T_{22}^2 +T_{33}^2 +T_{12}^2 +T_{21}^2 +T_{13}^2 +T_{31}^2 +T_{23}^2 +T_{32}^2$$ the expression clearly does not give the correct result.
It is actually well-known that for 3x3 matrices, $II = frac{operatorname{tr}(T^2) - (operatorname{tr}(T))^2}2 = frac{operatorname{tr}(T^2) - I^2}2$. So apparently $T_{ij}T_{ij}$ is supposed to be $operatorname{tr}(T^2)$, but I see no way that this makes sense as a notational shorthand.
So instead, let me use the notation which does make sense (though is not a particularly good way to calculate the coefficient, since it involves a lot of wasted calculation):
$$mathbf T^2 = begin{bmatrix}T_{11}^2 + T_{12}T_{21} + T_{13}T_{31} & ... & ...\ ... & T_{21}T_{12} + T_{22}^2 + T_{23}T_{32} & ...\...&...&T_{31}T_{13} + T_{32}T_{23} + T_{33}^2end{bmatrix}$$
where I haven't bothered to expand the entries that will not contribute to the trace. So, $$operatorname{tr}(mathbf T^2) = T_{11}^2 + T_{22}^2 +T_{33}^2 + 2(T_{12}T_{21} + T_{13}T_{31} + T_{31}T_{13})$$
It is should be easy now to get from $frac{operatorname{tr}(T^2) - I^2}2$ to your coefficient for $lambda$.
Thanks indeed @Paul Sinclair for your helpful answer, I will look into your answer deeply and will let you know if I have more questions. Sincerely,
– aows61
Dec 11 at 7:53
add a comment |
Per your text $$I = T_{11} + T_{22}+T_{33}\II =frac{T_{ij}T_{ij} - I^2}2\III=det mathbf T$$
You've proven the first formula. The last formula is almost trivial to prove without expanding it in elements. After all, $III$ is the constant term of the characteristic polynomial $p(lambda) = det(mathbf T - lambdamathbf E)$, where $mathbf E$ is the identity matrix. The constant term of $p$ is the value of $p(lambda)$ when $lambda = 0$.
Therefore $$III = p(0) = det(mathbf T - 0cdot mathbf E) = det mathbf T$$
That leaves only $II$. $$begin{align}I^2 &= (T_{11} + T_{22} + T_{33})^2\&=T_{11}^2 + T_{22}^2 + T_{33}^2+2(T_{11}T_{22} + T_{11}T_{33} + T_{22}T_{33})end{align}$$
I had assumed without bothering to check that $T_{ij}T_{ij}$ was making use of the Einstein summation convention. But that isn't true. Your calculation of $II$ is correct:
$$II = T_{12}T_{21} + T_{13}T_{31} + T_{23}T_{32} - T_{11}T_{22} - T_{11}T_{33} - T_{22}T_{33}$$
But if we interpret this per the convention
$$T_{ij}T_{ij} = sum_{i, j} T_{ij}^2 = T_{11}^2 + T_{22}^2 +T_{33}^2 +T_{12}^2 +T_{21}^2 +T_{13}^2 +T_{31}^2 +T_{23}^2 +T_{32}^2$$ the expression clearly does not give the correct result.
It is actually well-known that for 3x3 matrices, $II = frac{operatorname{tr}(T^2) - (operatorname{tr}(T))^2}2 = frac{operatorname{tr}(T^2) - I^2}2$. So apparently $T_{ij}T_{ij}$ is supposed to be $operatorname{tr}(T^2)$, but I see no way that this makes sense as a notational shorthand.
So instead, let me use the notation which does make sense (though is not a particularly good way to calculate the coefficient, since it involves a lot of wasted calculation):
$$mathbf T^2 = begin{bmatrix}T_{11}^2 + T_{12}T_{21} + T_{13}T_{31} & ... & ...\ ... & T_{21}T_{12} + T_{22}^2 + T_{23}T_{32} & ...\...&...&T_{31}T_{13} + T_{32}T_{23} + T_{33}^2end{bmatrix}$$
where I haven't bothered to expand the entries that will not contribute to the trace. So, $$operatorname{tr}(mathbf T^2) = T_{11}^2 + T_{22}^2 +T_{33}^2 + 2(T_{12}T_{21} + T_{13}T_{31} + T_{31}T_{13})$$
It is should be easy now to get from $frac{operatorname{tr}(T^2) - I^2}2$ to your coefficient for $lambda$.
Thanks indeed @Paul Sinclair for your helpful answer, I will look into your answer deeply and will let you know if I have more questions. Sincerely,
– aows61
Dec 11 at 7:53
add a comment |
Per your text $$I = T_{11} + T_{22}+T_{33}\II =frac{T_{ij}T_{ij} - I^2}2\III=det mathbf T$$
You've proven the first formula. The last formula is almost trivial to prove without expanding it in elements. After all, $III$ is the constant term of the characteristic polynomial $p(lambda) = det(mathbf T - lambdamathbf E)$, where $mathbf E$ is the identity matrix. The constant term of $p$ is the value of $p(lambda)$ when $lambda = 0$.
Therefore $$III = p(0) = det(mathbf T - 0cdot mathbf E) = det mathbf T$$
That leaves only $II$. $$begin{align}I^2 &= (T_{11} + T_{22} + T_{33})^2\&=T_{11}^2 + T_{22}^2 + T_{33}^2+2(T_{11}T_{22} + T_{11}T_{33} + T_{22}T_{33})end{align}$$
I had assumed without bothering to check that $T_{ij}T_{ij}$ was making use of the Einstein summation convention. But that isn't true. Your calculation of $II$ is correct:
$$II = T_{12}T_{21} + T_{13}T_{31} + T_{23}T_{32} - T_{11}T_{22} - T_{11}T_{33} - T_{22}T_{33}$$
But if we interpret this per the convention
$$T_{ij}T_{ij} = sum_{i, j} T_{ij}^2 = T_{11}^2 + T_{22}^2 +T_{33}^2 +T_{12}^2 +T_{21}^2 +T_{13}^2 +T_{31}^2 +T_{23}^2 +T_{32}^2$$ the expression clearly does not give the correct result.
It is actually well-known that for 3x3 matrices, $II = frac{operatorname{tr}(T^2) - (operatorname{tr}(T))^2}2 = frac{operatorname{tr}(T^2) - I^2}2$. So apparently $T_{ij}T_{ij}$ is supposed to be $operatorname{tr}(T^2)$, but I see no way that this makes sense as a notational shorthand.
So instead, let me use the notation which does make sense (though is not a particularly good way to calculate the coefficient, since it involves a lot of wasted calculation):
$$mathbf T^2 = begin{bmatrix}T_{11}^2 + T_{12}T_{21} + T_{13}T_{31} & ... & ...\ ... & T_{21}T_{12} + T_{22}^2 + T_{23}T_{32} & ...\...&...&T_{31}T_{13} + T_{32}T_{23} + T_{33}^2end{bmatrix}$$
where I haven't bothered to expand the entries that will not contribute to the trace. So, $$operatorname{tr}(mathbf T^2) = T_{11}^2 + T_{22}^2 +T_{33}^2 + 2(T_{12}T_{21} + T_{13}T_{31} + T_{31}T_{13})$$
It is should be easy now to get from $frac{operatorname{tr}(T^2) - I^2}2$ to your coefficient for $lambda$.
Per your text $$I = T_{11} + T_{22}+T_{33}\II =frac{T_{ij}T_{ij} - I^2}2\III=det mathbf T$$
You've proven the first formula. The last formula is almost trivial to prove without expanding it in elements. After all, $III$ is the constant term of the characteristic polynomial $p(lambda) = det(mathbf T - lambdamathbf E)$, where $mathbf E$ is the identity matrix. The constant term of $p$ is the value of $p(lambda)$ when $lambda = 0$.
Therefore $$III = p(0) = det(mathbf T - 0cdot mathbf E) = det mathbf T$$
That leaves only $II$. $$begin{align}I^2 &= (T_{11} + T_{22} + T_{33})^2\&=T_{11}^2 + T_{22}^2 + T_{33}^2+2(T_{11}T_{22} + T_{11}T_{33} + T_{22}T_{33})end{align}$$
I had assumed without bothering to check that $T_{ij}T_{ij}$ was making use of the Einstein summation convention. But that isn't true. Your calculation of $II$ is correct:
$$II = T_{12}T_{21} + T_{13}T_{31} + T_{23}T_{32} - T_{11}T_{22} - T_{11}T_{33} - T_{22}T_{33}$$
But if we interpret this per the convention
$$T_{ij}T_{ij} = sum_{i, j} T_{ij}^2 = T_{11}^2 + T_{22}^2 +T_{33}^2 +T_{12}^2 +T_{21}^2 +T_{13}^2 +T_{31}^2 +T_{23}^2 +T_{32}^2$$ the expression clearly does not give the correct result.
It is actually well-known that for 3x3 matrices, $II = frac{operatorname{tr}(T^2) - (operatorname{tr}(T))^2}2 = frac{operatorname{tr}(T^2) - I^2}2$. So apparently $T_{ij}T_{ij}$ is supposed to be $operatorname{tr}(T^2)$, but I see no way that this makes sense as a notational shorthand.
So instead, let me use the notation which does make sense (though is not a particularly good way to calculate the coefficient, since it involves a lot of wasted calculation):
$$mathbf T^2 = begin{bmatrix}T_{11}^2 + T_{12}T_{21} + T_{13}T_{31} & ... & ...\ ... & T_{21}T_{12} + T_{22}^2 + T_{23}T_{32} & ...\...&...&T_{31}T_{13} + T_{32}T_{23} + T_{33}^2end{bmatrix}$$
where I haven't bothered to expand the entries that will not contribute to the trace. So, $$operatorname{tr}(mathbf T^2) = T_{11}^2 + T_{22}^2 +T_{33}^2 + 2(T_{12}T_{21} + T_{13}T_{31} + T_{31}T_{13})$$
It is should be easy now to get from $frac{operatorname{tr}(T^2) - I^2}2$ to your coefficient for $lambda$.
answered Dec 11 at 0:59
Paul Sinclair
19.3k21441
19.3k21441
Thanks indeed @Paul Sinclair for your helpful answer, I will look into your answer deeply and will let you know if I have more questions. Sincerely,
– aows61
Dec 11 at 7:53
add a comment |
Thanks indeed @Paul Sinclair for your helpful answer, I will look into your answer deeply and will let you know if I have more questions. Sincerely,
– aows61
Dec 11 at 7:53
Thanks indeed @Paul Sinclair for your helpful answer, I will look into your answer deeply and will let you know if I have more questions. Sincerely,
– aows61
Dec 11 at 7:53
Thanks indeed @Paul Sinclair for your helpful answer, I will look into your answer deeply and will let you know if I have more questions. Sincerely,
– aows61
Dec 11 at 7:53
add a comment |
The attached picture already has the formulas for calculating them right there. What more are you after?
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 21:14
Hello, @PaulSinclair , No, they are the results, am deriving them ( my derivation for I1 is correct) but could't derive I2 and I3, Can you help on this? thanks,
– aows61
Dec 9 at 21:17
Expand the two expressions for $II$ and $III$. Do they match the expression you have as the coefficient of $lambda$ and the constant term?
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 21:33
from the upper picture, I want to get an expressions for I2 and I3 that are similar to the lower left picture, I couldn't do that. Can you help me with this dear @PaulSinclair
– aows61
Dec 9 at 21:40
And the step you need to take now is to start with the formulas for $II$ and $III$ in the lower left picture, expand them out, and see if they match what you have on top.
– Paul Sinclair
Dec 9 at 23:06