![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The last section on engineering uses epsilon instead of varepsilon. Is there any reason for the inconsistency? If not, I would prefer varepsilon Berland 16:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, How would I calculate the force on an object created by a 6.0 earthquake. (The forced movement)
HI. I think there's another error in the article. (3/7/2012) In "the Axial Vector" section ~ which sounds really weird. Wtf is an axial vector...? your omega = del X u when written in tensor notation is missing the derivative term. Books on fluid mechanics like to call this the rotation rate vector, vorticity, etc. not "axial vector". You actually switch in this segment between calling it rotation vector and axial vector. please call it one thing. subject difficult enough without odd variable names.
Hi. I think there is an error in this article. (today: 5/11/05) It's written: 'If Strain is greater than 1, the body has been lengthened; if it is smaller than 1, it has been compressed.' In fact it is: if strain > 0, the body has been lengthened and if strain < 0... according to the definition of the strain written in this same article! Am I right?
I just did loads of stuff to this article. I would say its fairly clean, not quite featured article standard, but clean enough to remove the cleanup notice. I took out a couple of bits about earthquakes, I thought that was a bit too detailed (do we really want to know about tectonic folding in a strain article?), and changed the Small values of strain section to Engineering strain vs. true strain. I'm not done with this article yet. -- Nathan 07:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Tom Harrison (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I've got a question concerning the terms "strain" and "deformation". The article says strain characterizes deformation, while, e.g., Britannica makes no difference between these words. It says "...deformation, or strain,...". So which is correct? Are there any authorities supporting the view expressed in the article? Viktor 12:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i'm trying to find the strain in an aliminium pipe, how do i find the change in length, so that i can find the strain? Nathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.129.75 ( talk) 18:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
hi !! i guess i know the difference.... strain gives the deformation in comparison with the original length. for example. if strains is 0.03, it means the body has deformed 3 percentage of its length. where as deformation is just a value with out comparing with its length. if deformation is 3mm.. it means the body deformed 3mm.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.211.5 ( talk) 16:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The St. Venant's compatibility equations article should be merge into the strain article as the former can be seen as a subtopic of strains. Comments? Sanpaz ( talk) 16:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that this article would be more accessible if it were simply named "Infinitesimal strain", which starts with a simple explanation of infinitesimal strain and then goes on to spend most of its time on infinitesimal strain theory. Opinions? Awickert ( talk) 19:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I really dislike the notation used here, as well as in the finite strain theory article, for the displacement gradient tensor. Writing the operand before the gradient operator seems very unusual to me in the following equation:
I think it should be written as:
Where did this notation come from? There are no references in this article which is also problematic. The continuum mechanics article uses the standard notation, and there are even instances in this article where it says . Sadd 2005 also uses the form I wrote above. Perceptual Chaos ( talk) 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
A vector field F makes an unannounced appearance is Sec 1 after "Furthermore". I have no idea what this bit is about. Can someone clarify? Billlion ( talk) 09:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a mistake in the first paragraph.
Displacement field u cannot possibly be compared with 1 (one) because it carries dimensions (actually length).
You may be willing to compare the displacement field u with x or X
217.216.118.109 ( talk) 23:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I just noticed what might be an important error in the definition of the strain tensor. Following Chaikin and Lubensky's "Principles of condensed matter physics", there should be a minus sign in front of the nonlinear term of : (otherwise it coincides with Lagrangian expression anyway). I corrected this. If anyone knowledgeable at this subject finds it wrong, please correct back. (I'm a graduate student in theoretical physics). Cheers PR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.219.55.219 ( talk) 09:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
A link to Eulerian and Lagrangian strain tensor could be useful. Even only if to know what E and u are. 109.164.216.10 ( talk) 10:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Can somebody please fix the red "Failed to parse(unknown function '\begin')" text? Or am I the only one seeing it? ---- ANDROBETA 08:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi everybody, it can be of some interest to refer of some published text-book in which these information are reported and (maybe) expanded.
A very similar article to the present one can be found here: www.iue.tuwien.ac.at/phd/singulani/disssu4.html. In such a text, there where two references:
[37] G.-Q. Zhang, W. van Driel, and X. Fan, Mechanics of Microelectronics. Springer, 2006, vol. 141, ch. 4.
[39] A. F. Bower, Applied Mechanics of Solids. CRC Press, 2011.
Maybe there are suitable also for the actual wikipedia article? Thank you, have a nice day. -- Car.cin ( talk) 15:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi all! In the first section, named Infinitesimal strain tensor, two conditions are required to perform the geometric linearization:
It is unclear why the first condition is required. In the reference textbook given at the end of the article (namely Slaughter, W. S., 2002, The Linearised Theory of Elasticity, Birkhauser) only the second condition is reported to be necessary and sufficient for the linearization.
I suggest remouving the condition (1) unless someone clarifies why it is necessary.-- Car.cin ( talk) 07:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The last section on engineering uses epsilon instead of varepsilon. Is there any reason for the inconsistency? If not, I would prefer varepsilon Berland 16:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, How would I calculate the force on an object created by a 6.0 earthquake. (The forced movement)
HI. I think there's another error in the article. (3/7/2012) In "the Axial Vector" section ~ which sounds really weird. Wtf is an axial vector...? your omega = del X u when written in tensor notation is missing the derivative term. Books on fluid mechanics like to call this the rotation rate vector, vorticity, etc. not "axial vector". You actually switch in this segment between calling it rotation vector and axial vector. please call it one thing. subject difficult enough without odd variable names.
Hi. I think there is an error in this article. (today: 5/11/05) It's written: 'If Strain is greater than 1, the body has been lengthened; if it is smaller than 1, it has been compressed.' In fact it is: if strain > 0, the body has been lengthened and if strain < 0... according to the definition of the strain written in this same article! Am I right?
I just did loads of stuff to this article. I would say its fairly clean, not quite featured article standard, but clean enough to remove the cleanup notice. I took out a couple of bits about earthquakes, I thought that was a bit too detailed (do we really want to know about tectonic folding in a strain article?), and changed the Small values of strain section to Engineering strain vs. true strain. I'm not done with this article yet. -- Nathan 07:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Tom Harrison (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I've got a question concerning the terms "strain" and "deformation". The article says strain characterizes deformation, while, e.g., Britannica makes no difference between these words. It says "...deformation, or strain,...". So which is correct? Are there any authorities supporting the view expressed in the article? Viktor 12:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i'm trying to find the strain in an aliminium pipe, how do i find the change in length, so that i can find the strain? Nathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.129.75 ( talk) 18:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
hi !! i guess i know the difference.... strain gives the deformation in comparison with the original length. for example. if strains is 0.03, it means the body has deformed 3 percentage of its length. where as deformation is just a value with out comparing with its length. if deformation is 3mm.. it means the body deformed 3mm.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.211.5 ( talk) 16:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The St. Venant's compatibility equations article should be merge into the strain article as the former can be seen as a subtopic of strains. Comments? Sanpaz ( talk) 16:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that this article would be more accessible if it were simply named "Infinitesimal strain", which starts with a simple explanation of infinitesimal strain and then goes on to spend most of its time on infinitesimal strain theory. Opinions? Awickert ( talk) 19:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I really dislike the notation used here, as well as in the finite strain theory article, for the displacement gradient tensor. Writing the operand before the gradient operator seems very unusual to me in the following equation:
I think it should be written as:
Where did this notation come from? There are no references in this article which is also problematic. The continuum mechanics article uses the standard notation, and there are even instances in this article where it says . Sadd 2005 also uses the form I wrote above. Perceptual Chaos ( talk) 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
A vector field F makes an unannounced appearance is Sec 1 after "Furthermore". I have no idea what this bit is about. Can someone clarify? Billlion ( talk) 09:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a mistake in the first paragraph.
Displacement field u cannot possibly be compared with 1 (one) because it carries dimensions (actually length).
You may be willing to compare the displacement field u with x or X
217.216.118.109 ( talk) 23:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I just noticed what might be an important error in the definition of the strain tensor. Following Chaikin and Lubensky's "Principles of condensed matter physics", there should be a minus sign in front of the nonlinear term of : (otherwise it coincides with Lagrangian expression anyway). I corrected this. If anyone knowledgeable at this subject finds it wrong, please correct back. (I'm a graduate student in theoretical physics). Cheers PR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.219.55.219 ( talk) 09:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
A link to Eulerian and Lagrangian strain tensor could be useful. Even only if to know what E and u are. 109.164.216.10 ( talk) 10:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Can somebody please fix the red "Failed to parse(unknown function '\begin')" text? Or am I the only one seeing it? ---- ANDROBETA 08:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi everybody, it can be of some interest to refer of some published text-book in which these information are reported and (maybe) expanded.
A very similar article to the present one can be found here: www.iue.tuwien.ac.at/phd/singulani/disssu4.html. In such a text, there where two references:
[37] G.-Q. Zhang, W. van Driel, and X. Fan, Mechanics of Microelectronics. Springer, 2006, vol. 141, ch. 4.
[39] A. F. Bower, Applied Mechanics of Solids. CRC Press, 2011.
Maybe there are suitable also for the actual wikipedia article? Thank you, have a nice day. -- Car.cin ( talk) 15:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi all! In the first section, named Infinitesimal strain tensor, two conditions are required to perform the geometric linearization:
It is unclear why the first condition is required. In the reference textbook given at the end of the article (namely Slaughter, W. S., 2002, The Linearised Theory of Elasticity, Birkhauser) only the second condition is reported to be necessary and sufficient for the linearization.
I suggest remouving the condition (1) unless someone clarifies why it is necessary.-- Car.cin ( talk) 07:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)