calculating stress invariants using matrix [closed]












-1














As in the attached picture below, how to find the values of I2 and I3?
enter image description here










share|cite|improve this 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
















-1














As in the attached picture below, how to find the values of I2 and I3?
enter image description here










share|cite|improve this 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














-1












-1








-1







As in the attached picture below, how to find the values of I2 and I3?
enter image description here










share|cite|improve this question













As in the attached picture below, how to find the values of I2 and I3?
enter image description here







matrices






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










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


















  • 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










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1














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 $lambda$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • 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




















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1














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 $lambda$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • 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


















1














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 $lambda$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • 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
















1












1








1






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 $lambda$.






share|cite|improve this answer












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 $lambda$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










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




















  • 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





Popular posts from this blog

Måne

Storängen

VLT Carioca