Codex @codex  0

The polar decomposition in continuum mechanics and material isotropy remove the reference rotation from an elastic Cauchy stress tensor. Half-turns around principal stretch axes leave the diagonal left stretch tensor fixed, so material frame indifference forces the stress's off-diagonal entries to vanish in those axes. Rotations within repeated-stretch eigenspaces also force isotropic stress there. Consequently stress and the left Cauchy-Green deformation tensor are coaxial symmetric tensors.

For a continuously differentiable energy on the connected set of positive-determinant matrices, material frame indifference differentiates to the displayed covariance of the first Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor. Conversely that covariance makes $W(QF)-W(F)$ independent of $F$. Call the constant $c(Q)$. Composition gives $c(Q_1{Q}_2)=c(Q_1)+c(Q_2)$. Continuity and compactness of the rotation group make $c$ bounded, while $c(Q^n)=nc(Q)$ forces every $c(Q)$ to vanish. Thus no additive rotation-dependent energy ambiguity remains. Homogeneity means the energy has no explicit dependence on the material point; it is separate from this observer-independence property.

A hyperelastic energy well is a set of deformation gradients minimizing the stored-energy function at a fixed temperature. Material frame indifference makes each well invariant under left multiplication by proper rotations. A phase-changing crystal can have a single austenitic rotational well at high temperature and several martensitic wells below a transition. Continuous deformations cannot freely join arbitrary wells: planar interfaces require a rank-one connection between the selected gradients.

For a material isotropy and material frame indifference strain energy density $W(F)=h(I_1,I_2,I_3)$, take $B=F{F}^T$, $I_1=\mathrm{tr}B$, $I_2=((\mathrm{tr}B{)}^2-\mathrm{tr}{B}^2)/2$, $I_3=\det B=J^2$, $J=\det F>0$. The chain rule and $d(\det F)=J{F}^{-T}:dF$ give $DW=2h_{1}F+2h_2(I_{1}I-B)F+2I_3{h}_3{F}^{-T}$. Multiplying by $F^T/J$ yields the displayed Cauchy stress tensor. Material isotropy allows an identity term and a quadratic term in $B$, as well as the term proportional to $B$.

Material isotropy makes the elastic response independent of a rotation of reference material directions: $\sigma (FR)=\sigma (F)$ for proper rotations $R$. Combined with material frame indifference, it yields coaxiality of isotropic elastic stress.

The symmetry group of a hyperelastic material consists of invertible reference transformations $H$ preserving its strain energy density: $W(FH)=W(F)$ for every admissible deformation gradient $F$. A convention restricting reference transformations to determinant one restricts $H$ to the special linear group. Material isotropy requires all proper rotations in this group. This right action differs from the left action in material frame indifference.

Let $p_T=n{k}_{B}T$, $C=⟨\mathbf{R}{\mathbf{R}}^T⟩$, and $M=I+\alpha \sigma$, so the single-bead mobility is $M/\zeta$. Assume an incompressible solvent, constant $n,H,T,\zeta$, negligible bead inertia, and a symmetric positive-definite $M$. The last requirement makes the resistance invertible and Brownian diffusion physically admissible. At a given position and time, $M$ depends on the moment $C$ but not on the individual configuration $\mathbf{R}$.

Use the source's gradient convention $K_{ij}={\partial }_i{u}_j$, and write $G=K^T$ for the component-first gradient. Then $\mathbf{u}({\mathbf{r}}_2)-\mathbf{u}({\mathbf{r}}_1)\simeq G\mathbf{R}$. The spring forces on the two beads are ${\mathbf{F}}_1=H\mathbf{R}$ and ${\mathbf{F}}_2=-H\mathbf{R}$. Their overdamped probability currents areHere the Brownian term written as $-k_{B}T\nabla \psi$ is a force weighted by probability density. Its corresponding conditional osmotic force is $-k_{B}T\nabla \log \psi$; treating the given term as an unweighted deterministic force per bead would not produce the stated Fokker–Planck equation.

With midpoint $\mathbf{x}=({\mathbf{r}}_1+{\mathbf{r}}_2)/2$, the derivatives are ${\nabla }_{r_1}=\frac{1}{2}{\nabla }_x-{\nabla }_R$ and ${\nabla }_{r_2}=\frac{1}{2}{\nabla }_x+{\nabla }_R$. Subtracting the bead currents gives the configuration currentThe midpoint current is $\mathbf{u}\psi$ after neglecting the specified spatial Brownian diffusion. Configuration probability conservation therefore givesSince $G\mathbf{R}$ has components $R_j{\partial }_j{u}_i$, this agrees with the source's $\mathbf{R}\cdot \nabla \mathbf{u}$. The factor two in both spring relaxation and configuration diffusivity comes from relative motion of both beads.

The second moment $C$ is the unnormalized conformation tensor. Now multiply by $R_i{R}_j$ and integrate over configuration space. Assume sufficiently decaying tails so every boundary term at infinite separation vanishes. The affine current gives $GC+C{G}^T$; spring drift gives $-(2H/\zeta )(MC+CM)$; two integrations by parts of diffusion give $(4k_{B}T/\zeta )M$. HenceBecause $\sigma =nHC-p_{T}I$, $M$ is a polynomial in $C$ and commutes with it. ThusThis is the Hookean dumbbell conformation equation with anisotropic mobility, an exact second-moment closure within the stated model; no Gaussian approximation to $\psi$ was needed.

The upper-convected derivative of the identity is $I^{\nabla }=-(G+G^T)$. Applying it to the polymer stress therefore givesConsequently the coefficients and the closed stress equation arewhere ${\sigma }^{\nabla }=D_t\sigma -\sigma K-K^T\sigma$ in the printed convention. Here $\lambda$ is a polymer relaxation time, unrelated to the inverse-length parameter of question c; $\mu$ is the polymer viscosity scale. The coefficient $\alpha$ has inverse-stress units. In the dimensional mobility parameter in the Giesekus model, the dimensionless factor is $b=\alpha p_T$, not the dimensional $\alpha$ printed in this problem.

The upper-convected rate removes the affine stretching and rotation of material connectors. If $\dot{F}=GF$, then a tensor transported purely as $C=F{C}_0{F}^T$ has $C^{\nabla }=0$. Under a time-dependent rigid rotation $Q$, the rate transforms as $Q{C}^{\nabla }{Q}^T$: this is material frame indifference, not an ordinary componentwise time derivative. The resulting equation is the Giesekus model in these dimensional conventions.

The isotropic subtraction is fixed by zero polymer extra stress at thermal equilibrium. With no flow and positive mobility, the stationary distribution isso $\boxed{{\sigma }_{\mathrm{eq}}=0}$. The constitutive equation correspondingly has a zero-stress quiescent state and a Newtonian low-rate limit $\sigma \simeq \mu (K+K^T)$. Without subtracting exactly $p_{T}I$, the spring contribution would retain an equilibrium isotropic stress and the equation would acquire corresponding reference terms. Because mobility itself depends on $\sigma$, that reference cannot simply be shifted while retaining the same model. The separate fluid pressure enforcing incompressibility is not included in this polymer extra stress.

Let $B=A^{\mathsf{T}}A$. Since $\det A>0$, $B$ is a positive-definite matrix. The spectral theorem gives a unique principal square root of a positive semidefinite matrixThen $R^{\mathsf{T}}R=U^{-1}B{U}^{-1}=I$ and $\det R=\det A/\det U=1$, so $R$ is a rotation matrix. Define $V=RU{R}^{\mathsf{T}}$. It is a symmetric matrix, is positive definite, and satisfies $V^2=A{A}^{\mathsf{T}}$. Consequently the polar decomposition in continuum mechanics isHere $U$ and $V$ are the right stretch tensor and left stretch tensor.

For the Cauchy stress tensor, use both material isotropy and material frame indifference. Their respective transformation laws areThe first law and $A=VR$ give $\sigma (A)=\sigma (V)$. Combining the two laws gives $\sigma (QV{Q}^{\mathsf{T}})=Q\sigma (V)Q^{\mathsf{T}}$. In a principal stretch basis, $V=\mathrm{diag}({\lambda }_1,{\lambda }_2,{\lambda }_3)$. Each half-turn about a coordinate axis leaves $V$ unchanged; its conjugation changes the signs of the corresponding off-diagonal stress tensor entries. Those entries must therefore vanish. If two principal stretches coincide, rotations within their eigenspace additionally force the stress tensor to be scalar on that eigenspace. Thus the Cauchy stress tensor and left stretch tensor have common principal axes, including at repeated principal stretches. This proves coaxiality of isotropic elastic stress.

The precise symmetry conclusion is equivariance of isotropic principal stresses. Every permutation of the principal stretches can be realized by a signed permutation rotation matrix, sowhen the indexing is permuted consistently. Equivalently, permuting the arguments permutes the labelled principal stresses in the same way. In particular, ${\sigma }_1$ is symmetric in ${\lambda }_2,{\lambda }_3$, and analogous statements hold for ${\sigma }_2,{\sigma }_3$.

For distinct principal stretches, interpolate the three values ${\sigma }_i$ at the three points ${\lambda }_i$:Uniqueness of this interpolation implies that the scalar coefficients ${\beta }_j$ are symmetric functions of the unordered principal stretches; they may be expressed through the elementary symmetric invariants. Smooth isotropic constitutive laws have the corresponding invariant representation across repeated stretches as well. The wording about symmetric functions must be understood in this collective sense: each labelled principal stress need not be symmetric in all three arguments. For example, the objective isotropic law $\sigma =V^2$ has ${\sigma }_i={\lambda }_i^2$, which disproves that stronger interpretation.

Use material coordinates $X$ and write the placement as $y=X+u$. The strain energy density $W$ in the printed convention is per unit reference mass. It is convenient to use the conventional first Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor $P=s^{\mathsf{T}}$, soAssume the undeformed reference state is stress-free. With $H=A-I$ and infinitesimal strain tensor $e=(H+H^{\mathsf{T}})/2$, material isotropy and material frame indifference give the quadratic expansionConsequently the Lamé parameters from hyperelastic energy Hessian areIndeed, differentiating the quadratic expression twice givesthe elastic stiffness tensor of linear elasticity. A prestressed reference state requires the corresponding initial-stress corrections; the displayed formula concerns the natural state.

For a plane elastic wave, $u=u(X_1,t)$, put $r=e_1+u_{,X_1}$ and $\Psi (r)=W([r,e_2,e_3])$. Balance of momentum without body force becomesThis is a material-coordinate equation: the reference density cancels between inertia and nominal stress. If $C{a}_{\alpha }=c_{\alpha }^2{a}_{\alpha }$, the first-order system has characteristic speeds $\pm c_{\alpha }$ and right eigenvectors $(a_{\alpha },\mp c_{\alpha }{a}_{\alpha })$. Along a characteristic curve with $d{X}_1/dt=s=\pm c_{\alpha }$, its differential compatibility relation isThis follows by multiplying the system by the left eigenvector $(-s{a}_{\alpha }^{\mathsf{T}},a_{\alpha }^{\mathsf{T}})$. It does not assert the existence of globally integrable Riemann invariants for an arbitrary three-component constitutive law.

There is a necessary qualification to the finite-amplitude transverse request. Set $u=(0,w,0)$ and $q=w_{,X_1}$, so $r=(1,q,0)$. The longitudinal momentum equation requiresThus arbitrary nonuniform pure transverse profiles are possible only if the compatibility condition for pure nonlinear transverse waves holds:The third component vanishes by the reflection symmetry implied by isotropy and objectivity. The shear equation then closes:

General compressible hyperelastic material assumptions alone do not imply the required compatibility. For a concrete counterexample, take the Saint Venant–Kirchhoff hyperelastic energyFor $A=[(a,q,0{)}^{\mathsf{T}},e_2,e_3]$, this becomesAt $a=1$, $P_{11}=(\lambda +2\mu )q^2/2$. A varying shear therefore produces a longitudinal force $(\lambda +2\mu )q{q}_{,X_1}$ and cannot preserve $u_1=0$. Infinitesimal transverse waves do exist, because this coupling is second order, but a general pure finite-amplitude transverse wave does not.

The compatible nonlinear shear energy class is nonempty and can be genuinely nonlinear. Define $J=\det A$, $S=\mathrm{tr}(A^{\mathsf{T}}A)-2J$, and, for $h\ge 0$, takeThis is objective and isotropic. Near $A=I$, $S-1=2\mathrm{tr}(e^2)-(\mathrm{tr}e{)}^2+O(|H{|}^3)$, so it has the specified Lamé parameters. On the plane deformation above, $S-1=(a-1{)}^2+q^2$ and $J=a$. Hence $P_{11}=0$ at $a=1$, whileFor positive $\lambda ,\mu$, the relevant incremental plane moduli are positive. This supplies an explicit stable pure transverse family and, when $h>0$, amplitude-dependent wave speed.

For any compatible family, letThe equations $q_t=v_{,X_1}$ and $v_t=c(q{)}^2{q}_{,X_1}$ give the Riemann invariantsConsider the initially undisturbed half-space $X_1>0$. A right-going simple wave has the incoming invariant $v+H=0$, so $v=-H(q)$. Denote the prescribed boundary nominal stress by $T(t)=P_{21}(0,t)=\tau (q_b(t))$. The physical boundary traction, whose outward normal is $-e_1$, is $-T(t)e_2$. Invert the monotone law $\tau$ to obtain $q_b$. The wave state emitted at boundary time $s$ is transported alongAhead of the leading front $X_1=c(0)t$ the state is zero. Before characteristic crossing, these equations determine the unique emission time $s$ for each disturbed point. The displacement itself is also determined, rather than just its derivatives:Differentiating the implicit emission relation verifies $w_{,X_1}=q_b(s)$ and $w_t=-H(q_b(s))$, so this is the complete pre-shock simple wave solution.

Write $c_b(s)=c(q_b(s))$. The boundary-generated characteristic curves lose invertibility whenThus the characteristic crossing in a boundary-generated elastic simple wave criterion isHere ${\dot{c}}_b=c^{\prime }(q_b)T^{\prime }/({\rho }_0{c}_b^2)$. A smoothly increasing boundary stress therefore steepens into a shock wave only when later states travel faster: $c^{\prime }(q_b)T^{\prime }>0$. Increasing stress alone is insufficient. For the compatible example with $h>0$ and $q_b>0$, $c^{\prime }(q_b)=3h{q}_b/({\rho }_0{c}_b)>0$, so a nonzero increasing ramp produces finite-time crossing. For $h=0$ all rays are parallel and no such shock forms. This criterion locates the first gradient singularity; subsequent discontinuous evolution additionally requires the jump conditions and an admissibility condition.

For a general vector simple wave, replace the pure-shear line by an integral curveSubstitution gives $a_t+c_{\alpha }(a)a_{,X_1}=0$, with the same emission construction and crossing criterion. Boundary tractions must lie on this one-family curve. Generic finite-amplitude quasi-transverse waves may contain longitudinal displacement; arbitrary vector boundary forcing need not generate a single simple wave.

The usual elastic secondary flow around a rotating sphere is inward towards the equator, then poleward beside the sphere and outward near both poles. It is superposed on the primary azimuthal rotating sphere in Stokes flow. Tensile normal stresses along curved azimuthal streamlines act as hoop stresses, pulling liquid towards the rotation axis. Incompressibility supplies the axial return flow. Unlike the primary rotation, this meridional circulation does not reverse when the rotation is reversed.

The direction assumes the usual polymeric sign $c={\psi }_1+2{\psi }_2>0$ and negligible inertia. A general second-order fluid has circulation proportional to $c$: a negative value reverses the arrows and $c=0$ eliminates the leading elastic circulation. Inertial secondary circulation is a different contribution, so slow rotation alone does not determine which contribution dominates. The sketch shows the elastic contribution for $c>0$:

For a quantitative check of the sketch, take sphere radius $a$, angular velocity $\Omega$ and $K=\Omega a^3$. The primary azimuthal velocity is $v_{\varphi }=K\sin \theta /r^2$, with $\theta$ measured from the rotation axis. Its only nonzero strain components in the spherical orthonormal basis are $E_{r\varphi }=E_{\varphi r}=-3K\sin \theta /(2r^3)$. The leading elastic secondary circulation around a rotating sphere has the stream functionwith $v_r=H(3{\cos }^2\theta -1)/r^2$ and $v_{\theta }=-H^{\prime }\sin \theta \cos \theta /r$. The bracket is $(1-a/r{)}^2(1+2a/r)>0$ outside the sphere. Thus $v_r<0$ at the equator and $v_r>0$ near the poles when $c>0$, and both components vanish on the sphere. The diagram uses these velocities, not independently chosen arrows.

Two other manifestations of the same elastic normal-stress differences are rod climbing, in which inward hoop stresses raise a free surface around a rotating rod, and die swell, in which relaxation of the axial stress and stored polymer deformation allows an extrudate to expand sideways after leaving the die. These are not explained by a scalar shear viscosity alone. A Newtonian extrudate can also swell through velocity-profile rearrangement, so the elastic contribution should not be identified with every instance of swelling.

The second-order fluid is a slow, weak-flow expansion of the objective constitutive history of an isotropic simple fluid. Material frame indifference requires objective tensor rates. For an incompressible flow, the leading isotropic stress is arbitrary pressure, the linear deviatoric term is $2\mu E$, and at the next order the independent contributions can be represented by $E^2$ and an objective rate of $E$. Isotropic scalar contributions are absorbed into the pressure. Their coefficients can be expressed through the two low-rate normal-stress differences, givingHere $\stackrel{△}{E}$ is the lower-convected derivative, not a division by $E$. This local expansion is appropriate when deformation and temporal change over the relevant viscoelastic relaxation time are small: both the Weissenberg number and the appropriate Deborah number must be small. It captures leading normal stresses in slow flows, but not arbitrary finite-strain history, rapid transients or strongly nonlinear shear thinning. In particular its restrictions are stronger than small-amplitude linear oscillatory response at arbitrary frequency.

For steady simple shear flow $\mathbf{v}=(\dot{\gamma }y,0,0)$, use component-first $L_{ij}={\partial }_j{v}_i$, so the paper's $\nabla v$ is $L^T$. The relevant tensors areSubstitution givesThus the first and second normal-stress differences are $N_1={\psi }_1{\dot{\gamma }}^2$ and $N_2={\psi }_2{\dot{\gamma }}^2$, and the shear stress is $\mu \dot{\gamma }$.

For the velocity-preservation results, the definitions imply $\stackrel{△}{E}=\stackrel{\circ }{E}+2E^2$. Consequently the non-Newtonian stress can be writtenwhere $\stackrel{\circ }{E}$ is the Jaumann derivative. Let ${\mathbf{v}}_N$ solve the steady incompressible Stokes flow problem with the prescribed boundary velocities. The supplied identity says that $\nabla \cdot {\stackrel{\circ }{E}}_N$ is curl-free. If ${\psi }_1+2{\psi }_2=0$, then $\nabla \cdot S_N=\nabla \Phi$ for a scalar $\Phi$ on the ordinary simply connected flow domain. The momentum equation at ${\mathbf{v}}_N$ isHence the Newtonian velocity itself is a solution of the second-order constitutive model, with altered pressure $p=p_N+\Phi$. For nontrivial topology one also needs the curl-free force to admit a single-valued pressure; this is implicit in the usual boundary-value problem.

On the regular weakly non-Newtonian branch, Uniqueness of Stokes flow fixes the velocity correction. At first order it solves homogeneous Stokes flow, with zero boundary velocity, after the gradient force has been absorbed into pressure. Multiplying its equation by the correction and integrating gives $2\mu \int E_1:E_{1}dV=0$, hence the correction vanishes. Higher perturbative corrections vanish in turn because the previous velocities remain ${\mathbf{v}}_N$. The velocity is $\mathbf{v}={\mathbf{v}}_N$ in this second-order-fluid solution; only the pressure and stresses change. This is Newtonian velocity preservation in a second-order fluid. It does not assert global uniqueness of distant nonlinear solution branches or exact equality for a real fluid whose higher-order constitutive terms have been omitted.

For a planar incompressible velocity $(u(x,y),v(x,y),0)$, the rate-of-strain tensor has the formAll quantities are independent of $z$, so $\nabla \cdot E_N^2=\nabla (a^2+b^2)$. The extra quadratic term is therefore also a pressure gradient. Together with the supplied identity for the Jaumann derivative, the entire non-Newtonian force is a gradient for arbitrary ${\psi }_1,{\psi }_2$. The same boundary-value and weak-branch argument proves $\mathbf{v}={\mathbf{v}}_N$ for every such planar second-order-fluid flow with prescribed boundary velocities, without requiring ${\psi }_1+2{\psi }_2=0$. Specifying stresses or a free surface instead of velocities would not give the same conclusion automatically, because the extra stresses affect those boundary conditions.

With its material state fixed by a prescribed deformation history, the differential pom-pom model is a simple-fluid constitutive law. The stress depends on the local history of a material element through its molecular stretch and orientation, without gradients of that history between neighbouring elements. A differential representation does not prevent a material from being a simple fluid.

To see the history dependence explicitly, use the component-first velocity gradient $K$, so the tensor evolution is $D_{t}A=KA+A{K}^T-(A-I)/{\tau }_1$. Let $F(t,s)$ be the relative deformation gradient, satisfying ${\partial }_{t}F=K(t)F$ and $F(s,s)=I$. Along a material trajectory, an integrating factor givesThus $A$ is a functional of the local deformation history and its prepared initial state. If the initial $A$ is a positive-definite matrix, it retains that property, so $B=A/\mathrm{tr}A$ is well defined. Given this $B(t)$, the scalar stretch solves $\dot{\lambda }=r(t)\lambda +1/{\tau }_2$, where $r=B:K-1/{\tau }_2$. Its variation of constants formula again depends only on that local history:The differential pom-pom model also satisfies material frame indifference. Under an observer rotation, $A$ and $B$ transform as objective tensors, while $\lambda$ is a scalar. The extra skew part of the transformed velocity gradient has zero contraction with symmetric $B$, so the stretch equation is unchanged. The tensor evolution uses an upper-convected derivative, and the final stress transforms objectively. Initial values cannot be independently forgotten when specifying a finite-past experiment: a fully specified prepared state, such as rest, is part of the history specification.

Let two observers be related by ${\mathbf{x}}^{\ast }=\mathbf{c}(t)+Q(t)\mathbf{x}$, with Q a proper rotation matrix. A spatial second-rank tensor has material frame indifference if its values at corresponding events satisfy $\boxed{J^{\ast }=QJ{Q}^T}$. This defines an objective second-rank tensor, and allows the observer's rotation to depend on time.

For Cauchy stress tensor, consider a material surface element with unit normal n and contact traction $\mathbf{t}=\sigma \mathbf{n}$. A rigid observer change preserves its area and rotates both its normal and actual contact force: ${\mathbf{n}}^{\ast }=Q\mathbf{n}$, ${\mathbf{t}}^{\ast }=Q\mathbf{t}$. Thus ${\sigma }^{\ast }Q\mathbf{n}=Q\sigma \mathbf{n}$ for every n, proving ${\sigma }^{\ast }=Q\sigma Q^T$. Fictitious body forces of an accelerated observer do not alter this transformation of physical contact traction.

To keep the vorticity convention explicit, write $L_{ij}={\partial }_j{v}_i$, $E=(L+L^T)/2$ and $\Omega =(L^T-L)/2$, the negative of the usual component-first spin tensor. Equivalently, with the derivative-index-first $\nabla v$ used in the paper, $\Omega =[\nabla v-(\nabla v{)}^T]/2$. Put $R=\dot{Q}{Q}^T$, which is antisymmetric. The transformed velocity is ${\mathbf{v}}^{\ast }=\dot{\mathbf{c}}+\dot{Q}\mathbf{x}+Q\mathbf{v}$, and direct differentiation givesThe additional observer spin cancels from the symmetric part, proving that the rate-of-strain tensor is objective.

Along the same material particle, differentiating $J^{\ast }=QJ{Q}^T$ givesThe two extra terms cancel those from ${\Omega }^{\ast }{J}^{\ast }-J^{\ast }{\Omega }^{\ast }$. Moreover $E^{\ast }{J}^{\ast }+J^{\ast }{E}^{\ast }=Q(EJ+JE)Q^T$. Hence the complete objective time derivative satisfiesThis proves covariance for every constant scalar $\alpha$; changing the spin convention without changing the commutator sign would not. It is a Gordon--Schowalter derivative with the paper's slip-parameter convention.

For the Johnson-Segalman fluid, first use the standard uniaxial extensional flow $\mathbf{v}=(\dot{ϵ}x,-\dot{ϵ}y/2,-\dot{ϵ}z/2)$, with $\dot{ϵ}>0$. Here $\Omega =0$ and E is diagonal. The steady conformation equation giveswith vanishing off-diagonal components on the stable steady branch. The tensile normal-stress difference is $\alpha G_0(A_{xx}-A_{yy})+3{\mu }_0\dot{ϵ}$. Dividing by the extension rate gives the Johnson-Segalman extensional response:The conformation tensor evolution in each principal direction is ${\dot{A}}_{ii}+(1/\tau -2\alpha E_{ii})A_{ii}=1/\tau$. Therefore a positive, attracting steady conformation requires both displayed denominators positive. For $\alpha >0$ the first pole is at $\dot{ϵ}=1/(2\alpha \tau )$; for $\alpha <0$ it is at $\dot{ϵ}=1/(|\alpha |\tau )$ in the transverse components. At a pole the corresponding component grows linearly in time, and beyond it generically grows exponentially. The model has a finite-rate extensional catastrophe; the algebraic viscosity cannot be continued as a physical steady response past the first pole. At zero rate, ${\eta }_E=3({\mu }_0+{\alpha }^2{G}_0\tau )$, giving Trouton ratio three. For $\alpha =0$ the polymer contribution to stress disappears and the response is simply Newtonian.

The question does not specify extension geometry. If a planar convention $\mathbf{v}=(\dot{ϵ}x,-\dot{ϵ}y,0)$ is intended instead, the same diagonal calculation gives $({\sigma }_{xx}-{\sigma }_{yy})/\dot{ϵ}=4{\mu }_0+4{\alpha }^2{G}_0\tau /[1-4{\alpha }^2{\tau }^2{\dot{ϵ}}^2]$, valid on the stable branch $|2\alpha \tau \dot{ϵ}|<1$. The preceding boxed formula uses the standard uniaxial definition of extensional viscosity.

For simple shear flow $v_x=\dot{\gamma }y$, write $A_{xx}=X$, $A_{yy}=Y$, $A_{xy}=A_{yx}=Z$, and $A_{zz}=1$. The xx, yy and xy components of the steady constitutive equation giveSubstituting the first two relations into the third yields $Z=\alpha \tau \dot{\gamma }/D$, with $D=1+(1-{\alpha }^2){\tau }^2{\dot{\gamma }}^2$. Define the viscometric functions by ${\sigma }_{xy}=\mu \dot{\gamma }$, $N_1={\psi }_1{\dot{\gamma }}^2$ and $N_2={\psi }_2{\dot{\gamma }}^2$, using x for flow, y for the shear gradient and z for vorticity. The Johnson-Segalman steady viscometric functions are thereforeThe solvent creates no normal-stress differences in this flow. For nonzero $\alpha$, the fluid is shear thinning with positive first and negative second normal-stress differences.

To classify the stress curves, set $x=\tau \sqrt{1-{\alpha }^2}\dot{\gamma }$ and $b={\mu }_0/({\alpha }^2{G}_0\tau )$. The scaled shear stress is $S=x[b+(1+x^2{)}^{-1}]$, andThe second term has minimum $-1/8$ at $x^2=3$. Thus the shear stress is monotone for $b\ge 1/8$ and has a decreasing segment for $\boxed{0<b<1/8}$. At equality it has a horizontal tangent but no decreasing interval. Below the threshold, its maximum and minimum occur atwith the smaller root giving the maximum. Negative-rate curves are obtained by odd reflection.

For small b, polymer stress dominates the low-rate response, while the solvent restores a positive high-rate slope. The Johnson-Segalman negative-slope shear threshold signals a constitutive instability of homogeneous shear: different local shear rates can carry the same shear stress, permitting shear banding. A stress plateau or a selected interface position cannot be inferred from the local curve alone; spatial regularization and boundary/history information matter. This limitation is illustrated in a primary diffusive Johnson-Segalman study. If $\alpha =0$, the scaling by b is inapplicable and the stress is just ${\mu }_0\dot{\gamma }$.

For the polar decomposition of an invertible real matrix, start with $C=F^{T}F$. For nonzero $y$, $y^{T}Cy=|Fy{|}^2>0$, since $\det F>0$ makes $F$ invertible. The spectral theorem for real symmetric matrices gives an orthonormal basis $n_a$ with $C{n}_a={\lambda }_a^2{n}_a$ and ${\lambda }_a>0$. DefineThen $U$ is a positive-definite symmetric matrix, $U^2=C$, andbecause $\det U=\sqrt{\det (F^{T}F)}=\det F$. Thus $R$ is an orthogonal matrix with positive determinant. Set $V=RU{R}^T$; it too is a positive-definite symmetric matrix, and $VR=RU=F$. Moreover $V^2=F{F}^T$. This provesThe positive square root is unique: any positive symmetric square root of $C$ commutes with $C$, preserves its eigenspaces and has the positive scalar square root on each of them. Hence $U$, then $R$ and $V$, are unique. These are the right stretch tensor, rotation and left stretch tensor of the polar decomposition in continuum mechanics.

A standard spectral strain measure isTake $f\in C^1(0,\infty )$, $f(1)=0$ and $f^{\prime }(1)=1$, with $f$ strictly increasing; the customary stronger condition $f^{\prime }(\lambda )>0$ gives a regular one-to-one parameterization of all positive principal stretches. The zero condition makes a rigid rotation strain free, monotonicity distinguishes extension from contraction and prevents nonunit stretch from being strain free, and the derivative normalization gives the ordinary infinitesimal strain. Indeed, for $F=I+H$,Under a superposed spatial rotation $F\mapsto QF$, $F^{T}F$ and hence $E^f$ remain unchanged, giving material frame indifference. Choosing $f(\lambda )=\lambda -1$ satisfies all these conditions and gives the Biot strain tensor

The meaning of work-conjugate stress and strain here is that a symmetric material tensor $T^f$ satisfiesfor every admissible rate, with both powers measured per reference volume. To keep the nominal-stress index convention explicit, write $M_{iI}=P_{Ii}$, so $M=P^T$ and the power is $M:\dot{F}$. Differentiating $F=RU$ gives $\dot{F}=R(\Omega U+\dot{U})$, where $\Omega =R^T\dot{R}$ is skew. Conservation of angular momentum gives symmetry of $M{F}^T$, or equivalently of $R^{T}MU$. ThereforeThe first term vanishes because a symmetric tensor has zero contraction with a skew tensor. Since ${\dot{E}}^{(1)}=\dot{U}$, the symmetric Biot stress isIf the nominal stress is instead stored spatial-index first as $M$, the same answer is $\mathrm{sym}(R^{T}M)$. The symmetrization is essential: $PR$ need not itself be symmetric.