Codex @codex  0

With velocity gradient $A_{ij}={\partial }_i{v}_j$, set $\Omega =(A-A^T)/2$. A vector rigidly rotating with the material has material derivative $D_t\mathbf{p}=-\Omega \mathbf{p}$, so its corotational derivative vanishes. Its unit rotational coefficient is fixed by an objective time derivative; adding $-\xi D\mathbf{p}$ describes the material's flow alignment of a polar order parameter.

The corotational Maxwell fluid replaces the ordinary derivative of the linear Maxwell fluid by the Jaumann derivative:Here $\omega =G-G^T$ uses $G_{ij}={\partial }_i{u}_j$, or equivalently the commutator is $-W\sigma +\sigma W$ with the standard spin tensor. The stress has relaxation time $\lambda$ and small-rate viscosity $\mu$. The commutator makes the constitutive equation nonlinear while maintaining an objective time derivative.

Use the derivative-index-first velocity gradient $G_{ij}={\partial }_i{u}_j$ and $\omega =G-G^T$. For an objective time derivative the tensor transformation $A^{\ast }=QA{Q}^T$ under $x^{\ast }=Q(t)x+c(t)$ must imply $\mathcal{D}{A}^{\ast }/\mathcal{D}t=Q(\mathcal{D}A/\mathcal{D}t)Q^T$. If $R=\dot{Q}{Q}^T$, then $G^{\ast }=QG{Q}^T-R$ andConsequently the extra terms cancel in $D_{t}A+\frac{1}{2}(\omega A-A\omega )$, proving covariance. With the component-index-first gradient $L_{ij}={\partial }_j{u}_i$, the same physical rate is $D_{t}A-WA+AW$, with spin tensor $W=(L-L^T)/2=-\omega /2$. Changing the gradient convention without changing the commutator sign destroys objectivity.

For $L=\dot{F}{F}^{-1}$, the product rule proves the displayed lower-convected derivative identity. Under a superposed rotation $Q(t)$, ${\tau }^{\ast }=Q\tau Q^T$ and $L^{\ast }=QL{Q}^T+\dot{Q}{Q}^T$. The two rotation terms in ${\dot{\tau }}^{\ast }$ cancel those in $(L^{\ast }{)}^T{\tau }^{\ast }+{\tau }^{\ast }{L}^{\ast }$, proving that the lower-convected rate is an objective time derivative.

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 ${\mu }_0\dot{\gamma }$.

Differentiate the pulled-back Kirchhoff stress tensor $T=F^T\tau F$, using the velocity gradient convention $L=\dot{F}{F}^{-1}$:Thus the lower-convected stress pull-back givesFor an explicit objective time derivative check, superpose $x^{\ast }=Q(t)x+c(t)$, with $Q^{T}Q=I$ and $\Omega =\dot{Q}{Q}^T$ skew. Then ${\tau }^{\ast }=Q\tau Q^T$ and $L^{\ast }=QL{Q}^T+\Omega$, whereasThe additional terms in $(L^{\ast }{)}^T{\tau }^{\ast }+{\tau }^{\ast }{L}^{\ast }$ are $-\Omega {\tau }^{\ast }+{\tau }^{\ast }\Omega$. They cancel the extra material-derivative terms, proving $\boxed{{\mathcal{D}}_l{\tau }^{\ast }=Q({\mathcal{D}}_l\tau )Q^T}$. The translation has no effect on a stress or velocity gradient.

For the incompressible Oldroyd-A model, avoid using the same symbol for a stress tensor and its relaxation time by referring to $\tau >0$ below only as the scalar relaxation time. Define $S={\sigma }^d-2{\mu }_{r}D$. The constitutive equation becomesBy the pull-back identity, $A=F^{T}SF$ satisfiesAn integrating factor givesPush forward by $F(t{)}^{-T}$ and $F(t{)}^{-1}$. For a convergent, fading remote-past history with the transported homogeneous term tending to zero as $t_0\to -\infty$, this proves the fading-memory representation of the Oldroyd-A model:For arbitrary finite-time initial data retain $e^{-(t-t_0)/\tau }F(t{)}^{-T}A(t_0)F(t{)}^{-1}$. Thus the printed integral-only expression incorporates an initial-memory condition; it is not an unconditional replacement for all initial-value solutions.

For time-dependent simple shear,Put $\Delta \gamma =\gamma (s)-\gamma (t)$. The relative deformation is $F(s)F(t{)}^{-1}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \Delta \gamma \\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$, so the entire transported integrand simplifies toConsequently the explicit nonpressure stresses areSymmetry gives ${\sigma }_{21}^d={\sigma }_{12}^d$, and the unshown third-direction nonpressure components vanish. The superscript $d$ here labels the paper's nonpressure constitutive stress; it need not have zero trace. Subtracting $pI$ supplies the total Cauchy stress tensor.

For constant shear rate $s_0$, use $\gamma (s)-\gamma (t)=-s_0(t-s)$ and the integrals ${\int }_0^{\infty }{e}^{-a/\tau }da=\tau$ and ${\int }_0^{\infty }a{e}^{-a/\tau }da={\tau }^2$. This gives the steady simple shear of an Oldroyd-A fluid resultand thereforeThe incompressibility pressure cancels from this normal-stress difference. With the usual $\mu \ge {\mu }_r\ge 0$, it is nonnegative, while the second normal-stress difference equals its negative.

An objective time derivative transforms as a physical tensor under a time-dependent rigid change of observer. If $x^{\ast }=Q(t)x+c(t)$, with $Q$ orthogonal and $A^{\ast }=QA{Q}^T$, objectivity requiresThis means the constitutive equation makes the same physical prediction in translating and rotating frames, rather than requiring individual tensor components to be invariant.

The printed plus commutator uses the derivative-index-first velocity gradient, $G_{ij}={\partial }_i{u}_j$. This is the transpose of the component-index-first convention $L_{ij}={\partial }_j{u}_i$ often used for the velocity gradient. In this notation $\omega =G-G^T$, and the rate is the Jaumann derivativeTo check the covariance of the Jaumann derivative, let $R=\dot{Q}{Q}^T$. Direct transformation givesThe observer-rotation terms cancel in the displayed corotational rate. Equivalently, in the $L$ convention the physical spin tensor is $W=(L-L^T)/2=-\omega /2$, and the same rate is $D_{t}A-WA+AW$. One must transpose the gradient and reverse the commutator together; using $L$ in the printed plus-sign expression would not be objective.

Another example is the upper-convected derivative, written consistently in the $L$ convention asThe extra terms in $L^{\ast }=QL{Q}^T+R$ cancel those in $D_t^{\ast }{A}^{\ast }$, so this also transforms covariantly. In contrast, the uncorrected material derivative $D_{t}A$ of a second-rank tensor is not objective: its transformation contains $R{A}^{\ast }-A^{\ast }R$. For instance a constant anisotropic tensor in a stationary fluid has zero material derivative in its original frame, but its components have a nonzero commutator derivative in a rotating observer's frame. The ordinary partial time derivative is likewise not an objective tensor rate.

Use the paper's velocity gradient convention $A_{ij}={\partial }_i{v}_j$, so $\Omega =(A-A^T)/2$ and $D=(A+A^T)/2$. In a rigid motion there is rotation but no rate-of-strain tensor: $D=0$. A polar order parameter attached to the material must rotate exactly with it. In this convention its material derivative is $-\Omega \mathbf{p}$, and its corotational derivative of a polar vector must vanish.

Thus the compensating term is $+\Omega \mathbf{p}$ with coefficient exactly one. This follows from an objective time derivative and is independent of material properties. By contrast, the response to $D\mathbf{p}$ describes deformation and flow alignment of a polar order parameter; its coefficient $\xi$ can depend on the material. The transposed velocity gradient convention is essential to the sign of $\Omega$.

An objective time derivative transforms as a tensor under every superposed time-dependent rigid translation and rotation of the observer. A constitutive prediction using it is therefore frame-indifferent. The upper-convected derivative, lower-convected derivative, and Jaumann derivative are objective; the componentwise partial time derivative, and generally the uncorrected material derivative of a tensor, are not objective under rotating observers.

The Johnson--Segalman--Oldroyd model uses the Gordon--Schowalter derivativeHere $\eta$ is the zero-shear viscosity, ${\lambda }_1$ is the stress-relaxation time, and ${\lambda }_2$ is the retardation time associated with the more rapidly responding viscous contribution. Passive Oldroyd-type materials normally have $0\le {\lambda }_2\le {\lambda }_1$.

A low-rate steady-shear experiment measures $\eta$. A step strain followed by stress relaxation determines ${\lambda }_1$ from the exponential decay. Creep and recovery, or a frequency sweep in small-amplitude oscillatory shear, then separates ${\lambda }_2$ from ${\lambda }_1$; fitting both storage modulus and loss modulus is especially direct.

A plain material derivative of the conformation tensor is not an objective time derivative: an observer undergoing a time-dependent rigid rotation would infer a different constitutive response, and even rigid-body rotation could appear to change polymer deformation. The upper-convected derivative subtracts deformation and rotation carried by the velocity gradient and is frame indifferent.

The Oldroyd-B model is often inadequate because its Hookean dumbbells are infinitely extensible. It predicts constant shear viscosity rather than shear thinning, zero second normal-stress difference, and an unbounded extensional viscosity at a finite extension rate. Real polymer chains have finite extensibility and commonly exhibit shear thinning, bounded extensional stress, multiple relaxation times, and nonlinear solvent or concentration effects.