1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
|
---
title: "Hooke's law"
sort_title: "Hooke's law"
date: 2021-04-02
categories:
- Physics
- Continuum physics
layout: "concept"
---
In its simplest form, **Hooke's law** dictates that
changing the length of an elastic object requires
a force that is proportional the desired length difference.
In its most general form, it gives a linear relationship
between the [Cauchy stress tensor](/know/concept/cauchy-stress-tensor/) $$\hat{\sigma}$$
to the [Cauchy strain tensor](/know/concept/cauchy-strain-tensor/) $$\hat{u}$$.
Importantly, all forms of Hooke's law are only valid for small deformations,
since the stress-strain relationship becomes nonlinear otherwise.
## Simple form
The simple form of the law is traditionally quoted for springs,
since they have a spring constant $$k$$ giving the ratio
between the force $$F$$ and extension $$x$$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boxed{
F
= k x
}
\end{aligned}$$
In general, all solids are elastic for small extensions,
and therefore also obey Hooke's law.
In light of this fact, we replace the traditional spring
with a rod of length $$L$$ and cross-section $$A$$.
The constant $$k$$ depends on, among several things,
the spring's length $$L$$ and cross-section $$A$$,
so for our generalization, we want a new parameter
to describe the proportionality independently of the rod's dimensions.
To achieve this, we realize that the force $$F$$ is spread across $$A$$,
and that the extension $$x$$ should be take relative to $$L$$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{F}{A}
= \Big( k \frac{L}{A} \Big) \frac{x}{L}
\end{aligned}$$
The force-per-area $$F/A$$ on a solid is the definition of **stress**,
and the relative elongation $$x/L$$ is the defintion of **strain**.
If $$F$$ acts along the $$x$$-axis, we can then write:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boxed{
\sigma_{xx}
= E u_{xx}
}
\end{aligned}$$
Where the proportionality constant $$E$$,
known as the **elastic modulus** or **Young's modulus**,
is the general material parameter that we wanted:
$$\begin{aligned}
E
= k \frac{L}{A}
\end{aligned}$$
Due to the microscopic structure of some (usually crystalline) materials,
$$E$$ might be dependent on the direction of the force $$F$$.
For simplicity, we only consider **isotropic** materials,
which have the same properties measured from any direction.
However, we are still missing something.
When a spring is pulled,
it becomes narrower as its coils move apart,
and this effect is also seen when stretching solids in general:
if we pull our rod along the $$x$$-axis, we expect it to deform in $$y$$ and $$z$$ as well.
This is described by **Poisson's ratio** $$\nu$$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boxed{
\nu
\equiv - \frac{u_{yy}}{u_{xx}}
}
\end{aligned}$$
Note that $$u_{yy} = u_{zz}$$ because the material is assumed to be isotropic.
Intuitively, you may expect that the volume of the object is conserved,
but for most materials that is not accurate.
In summary, for our example case with a force $$F = T A$$ pulling at the rod
along the $$x$$-axis, the full stress and strain tensors are given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\sigma} =
\begin{bmatrix}
T & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
\qquad
\hat{u} =
\begin{bmatrix}
T/E & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -\nu T/E & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -\nu T/E
\end{bmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$
## General isotropic form
The general form of Hooke's law is a linear relationship
between the stress and strain tensors:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boxed{
\hat{\sigma}
= 2 \mu \: \hat{u} + \lambda \Tr(\hat{u}) \: \hat{1}
}
\end{aligned}$$
Where $$\Tr{}$$ is the trace.
This is often written in index notation,
with the Kronecker delta $$\delta_{ij}$$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boxed{
\sigma_{ij}
= 2 \mu u_{ij} + \lambda \delta_{ij} \sum_{k} u_{kk}
}
\end{aligned}$$
The constants $$\mu$$ and $$\lambda$$ are called the **Lamé coefficients**,
and are related to $$E$$ and $$\nu$$ in a way we can derive
by returning to the example with a tension $$T = F/A$$ along $$x$$.
For $$\sigma_{xx}$$, we have:
$$\begin{aligned}
T
= \sigma_{xx}
&= 2 \mu u_{xx} + \lambda (u_{xx} + u_{yy} + u_{zz})
\\
&= \frac{2 \mu}{E} T + \frac{\lambda}{E} T - \frac{\nu \lambda}{E} (T + T)
\\
&= \frac{T}{E} \Big( 2 \mu + \lambda (1 - 2 \nu) \Big)
\end{aligned}$$
Meanwhile, the other diagonal stresses $$\sigma_{yy} = \sigma_{zz}$$
are expressed in terms of the strain like so:
$$\begin{aligned}
0
= \sigma_{yy}
&= 2 \mu u_{yy} + \lambda (u_{xx} + u_{yy} + u_{zz})
\\
&= - \frac{2 \nu \mu}{E} T + \frac{\lambda}{E} T - \frac{\nu \lambda}{E} (T + T)
\\
&= \frac{E}{T} \Big( \!-\! 2 \nu \mu + \lambda (1 - 2 \nu) \Big)
\end{aligned}$$
After dividing out superfluous factors from the two preceding equations,
we arrive at:
$$\begin{aligned}
E
= 2 \mu + \lambda (1 - 2 \nu)
\qquad \quad
2 \nu \mu
= \lambda (1 - 2 \nu)
\end{aligned}$$
Solving this system of equations for the Lamé coefficients
yields the following result:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boxed{
\lambda
= \frac{E \nu}{(1 - 2 \nu)(1 + \nu)}
\qquad \quad
\mu
= \frac{E}{2 (1 + \nu)}
}
\end{aligned}$$
Which can straightforwardly be inverted
to express $$E$$ and $$\nu$$ as a function of $$\mu$$ and $$\lambda$$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boxed{
E
= \mu \frac{3 \lambda + 2 \mu}{\lambda + \mu}
\qquad \quad
\nu
= \frac{\lambda}{2 (\lambda + \mu)}
}
\end{aligned}$$
Hooke's law itself can also be inverted,
i.e. we can express the strain as a function of stress.
First, observe that the trace of the stress tensor satisfies:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Tr(\hat{\sigma})
= \sum_{i} \sigma_{ii}
= 2 \mu \sum_{i} u_{ii} + \lambda \sum_{i} \sum_{k} u_{kk}
= (2 \mu + 3 \lambda) \sum_{i} u_{ii}
\end{aligned}$$
Inserting this into Hooke's law
yields an equation that only contains one strain component $$u_{ij}$$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{ij}
= 2 \mu u_{ij} + \frac{\lambda}{2 \mu + 3 \lambda} \delta_{ij} \sum_{k} \sigma_{kk}
\end{aligned}$$
Which is therefore trivial to isolate for $$u_{ij}$$,
leading us to Hooke's inverted law:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boxed{
\begin{aligned}
u_{ij}
&= \frac{\sigma_{ij}}{2 \mu} - \frac{\lambda}{2 \mu (3 \lambda + 2 \mu)} \delta_{ij} \sum_{k} \sigma_{kk}
\\
&= \frac{1 + \nu}{E} \sigma_{ij} - \frac{\nu}{E} \delta_{ij} \sum_{k} \sigma_{kk}
\end{aligned}
}
\end{aligned}$$
## References
1. B. Lautrup,
*Physics of continuous matter: exotic and everyday phenomena in the macroscopic world*, 2nd edition,
CRC Press.
|