Invariants of the stress tensor (von Mises yield criterion)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the von Mises yield criterion and the confusion surrounding the second stress invariant's sign in two equations. Participants note that the I invariants are derived from the characteristic polynomial of the stress tensor, which can lead to differing sign conventions based on the equation's formulation. Clarification is provided that J2 and I2 should not be confused, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between them. The equations presented highlight the mathematical relationship between the stress components and their contributions to the invariant. Understanding these nuances is crucial for accurately applying the yield criterion in material science.
balasekar1005
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
I see different versions of the second invariant of the cauchy stress tensor.
Hello all,

I am trying to understand the von Mises yield criterion and stumbled across two equations for the second stress invariant. Although the only difference is a difference in signs (negative and positive), it has been bothering me. Attached are the two versions. Which one is correct and if both are correct, why is there a change in sign?

Thank you,
Bala
 

Attachments

  • wiki.PNG
    wiki.PNG
    297 bytes · Views: 241
  • othersource.PNG
    othersource.PNG
    311 bytes · Views: 241
Engineering news on Phys.org
I have not done theoretical stuff in a long time, so take what I say with a grain of salt ...

The I invariants are the constants of the characteristic polynomial of the stress tensor used to determine the principal stresses so that you can define them to within a sign depending on how you choose to write the equation. What I cannot remember, is if there is a sign convention. Since you are finding both, my guess is that there is not one.

BTW, make sure that you do not confuse J2 with I2.
 
Here's what I've found in one of the books:
$$II_{\sigma}=\frac{1}{2} \left[ tr(\sigma^{2})-(tr \sigma)^2 \right]=- \sigma_{11} \sigma_{22}+ \sigma_{12} \sigma_{21} - \sigma_{11} \sigma_{33} + \sigma_{13} \sigma_{31} - \sigma_{22} \sigma_{33} + \sigma_{23} \sigma_{32}$$
 
Here's a video by “driving 4 answers” who seems to me to be well versed on the details of Internal Combustion engines. The video does cover something that's a bit shrouded in 'conspiracy theory', and he touches on that, but of course for phys.org, I'm only interested in the actual science involved. He analyzes the claim of achieving 100 mpg with a 427 cubic inch V8 1970 Ford Galaxy in 1977. Only the fuel supply system was modified. I was surprised that he feels the claim could have been...
Thread 'Turbocharging carbureted petrol 2 stroke engines'
Hi everyone, online I ve seen some images about 2 stroke carbureted turbo (motorcycle derivation engine). Now.. In the past in this forum some members spoke about turbocharging 2 stroke but not in sufficient detail. The intake and the exhaust are open at the same time and there are no valves like a 4 stroke. But if you search online you can find carbureted 2stroke turbo sled or the Am6 turbo. The question is: Is really possible turbocharge a 2 stroke carburated(NOT EFI)petrol engine and...

Similar threads

Back
Top