 Solution

Take the trace of the constitutive relation at zero stress. It gives $0=(2\mu +3\lambda )e_{kk}-3c\alpha (T-T_0)$. With the observed stress-free volume strain this requiresThis is the bulk modulus. A stable solid resists uniform compression, so $\boxed{K>0}$; equivalently the elastic energy of a nonzero pure dilation is positive. The thermal strain is isotropic, $e_{ij}^{\mathrm{th}}=\alpha (T-T_0){\delta }_{ij}/3$, because $\alpha$ here is the volumetric, not linear, thermal expansion coefficient.

Let $\beta =K\alpha$. Using $e_{ij}=(u_{i,j}+u_{j,i})/2$, stress divergence isZero body force and equilibrium therefore giveFor an applied body force per unit volume $b$, equilibrium is $\nabla \cdot \tau +b=0$, so its right-hand side becomes $\beta \nabla T-b$. Consequentlycancels the effective thermal forcing in the displacement equation. Per unit mass the force is $\beta \nabla T/\rho$. This sign follows from the divergence of the thermal stress $-\beta (T-T_0)I$, which is $-\beta \nabla T$. Cancelling that divergence is distinct from removing the stress tensor itself: boundary tractions and thermal compatibility still matter.

For spatially uniform heating with the entire boundary fixed, $u=0$ is the unique equilibrium displacement in a stable elastic solid, andThe stress is compressive hydrostatic stress for a temperature rise. The fixed boundary supplies the tractions that prevent thermal expansion. If $T$ varies spatially and no compensating body force is imposed, fixing the boundary alone does not generally force the interior displacement to vanish: one must solve the displayed forced Navier-Cauchy equation with $u=0$ on the boundary, then recover the stress. The simple uniform hydrostatic expression should not be asserted for arbitrary temperature fields. This is uniform thermal stress in a fully constrained solid.