Rheol Acta (2008) 47:719–725
DOI 10.1007/s00397-007-0256-x
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
A physical decomposition of the stress
tensor for complex flows
P. C. Bollada & T. N. Phillips
Received: 7 August 2007 / Revised: 21 November 2007 / Accepted: 19 December 2007 / Published online: 26 February 2008
# Springer-Verlag 2007
Abstract Traditionally, the components of the stress with
respect to a relevant coordinate system are used for the
purpose of stress visualisation and interpretation. A case for
using a flow dependent measure to interpret and visualise
stress is made for two dimensional flow, together with a
suggestion for extending the idea to three dimensions. The
method is illustrated for Newtonian and Oldroyd B fluids in
both the eccentrically rotating cylinder and flow past a
cylinder benchmark problems. In the context of a general-
ised Newtonian fluid, the relation between the flow-
dependent stress measure to other field variables under
certain flow conditions, is examined and is indicative of its
importance in complex flow.
Keywords Stress invariant . Principal stress .
Stress visualisation . Shear stress . Normal stress difference .
Stress decomposition
Stress invariants and shear/normal decomposition
This paper concerns the decomposition of stress for two
dimensional flow. There are numerous examples in the
literature where authors are faced with the difficulty of
displaying stress tensor results. A popular approach is
simply to plot all three Cartesian components of stress, Txx,
Txy, Tyy, for example (see Keshtiban et al. 2005). However,
there is a difficulty of interpretation here: Txy and Txx −Tyy
are the, respectively, shear stress and normal stress
difference only in very special flows, e.g., simple shear.
P. C. Bollada (*) : T. N. Phillips
School of Mathematics, Cardiff University,
Senghennydd Road,
Cardiff CF24 4AG, UK
e-mail: bolladapc@cf.ac.uk
For some simple geometries, a natural coordinate system
will suggest the components of stress of interest. For example,
cylindrical coordinates are appropriate for concentrically
rotating cylinders where a distinction can be made between
the shear stress, Trθ, and the normal stress difference, Trr −Tθθ
(the axial stress minus the hoop stress). This approach, using
an adapted coordinate system, can be extended, in principle,
to arbitrary geometries, but in a nonunique way.
Another approach, is to visualise the stress with the aid
of ellipses located at a series of grid points in the geometry,
with the magnitude of the semimajor and semiminor axes
equal to the eigenvalues and aligned with the eigenvectors
of the stress tensor. This approach is used in Harlen (2002)
for visualising the polymer deformation tensor and has the
advantage over the previous method in being coordinate
independent. However, when this approach is applied to a
traceless symmetric tensor, where the eigenvalues are equal
in magnitude and opposite in sign, the ellipses degenerate
to circles. An approach which bypasses these difficulties is
to just inspect the principal stresses (Haupt 2002; Phan-
Thien 2002) and has particular relevance for comparison
with birefringence experiments (e.g., Clemeur et al. 2004;
Martyn et al. 2000).
The principal stresses are constructed by removing the
isotropic part (the effective pressure) from the Cauchy
stress, σ, to leave a traceless symmetric stress, T, which has
two equal and opposite eigenvalues, the magnitude of
which is the principal stress:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
T
T11 2 þ T2

12 ðs 11  s 22 Þ2 þs 212 :
4
The shear stress, σ12 =T12, and half the normal stress
difference, 12 ðs 11  s 22 Þ ¼ T11 , can be thus seen as
projections of the principal stress onto the two mutually
perpendicular Cartesian axes. As the principal stress is
invariant, we can choose any pair of orthogonal axes to
720 Rheol Acta (2008) 47:719–725

extract these values from T. In particular, we can use the no problem applying the definitions for flow-dependent
direction of the flow field, b u
u=juj and its unit normal shear stress
u? ¼ kb u, where k is the outward normal to the two-
S1 ¼ u?  T  b
u; ð1Þ
dimensional surface. In Harlen (2002), the author introdu-
1
ces a decomposition in the streamwise and normal stream- and flow dependent normal stress
wise direction for the second moment tensor and similarly S2 ¼ b
uTb
u; ð2Þ
(Wapperom and Renardy 2005) adopt this decomposition
for the configuration tensor in the Oldroyd B model. This and we find that the principal stress is
decomposition, when applied to the total stress tensor qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
(Cauchy stress), is the subject of this paper. To our T ¼ S21 þ S22 : ð3Þ
knowledge, this has not been done previously, yet has the
In the special case of simple steady shear, u=αyi, we
advantage of decomposing the principal stresses into shear
have b
u ¼ i, u⊥ =j and S1 =T12 and S2 =T11 =−T22 (the sign is
and normal stresses in a natural way. An example of the
a matter of convention regarding the direction of the
physical importance of such quantities is suggested in
normal).
(Lodge 1956): “in shear flow, in addition to the usual
There
 remains  the problem of how to deal with the
hydrostatic and shear stress components, there is a tensile
points P : ujP ¼ 0 , of which there are three distinct cases
stress in the direction of the streamlines” and also the
to consider depending on whether P defines a two-
Weissenberg hypothesis: the stress tensor rotates towards
dimensional region, a line or a distinct point.
the direction of the streamlines of flow as the rate of shear
increases (Weissenberg 1946). P defines a region: ∇u=0.
Shear stress can be interpreted physically as the P a line: ∇u has eigenvalues l=0 and eigenvector
tangential (frictional) force per unit area so that, upon along the line.
integration, it will give the tangential force on any surface. P is an isolated point: for incompressible fluids r 
The normal stress difference can be interpreted as the force u¼ 0 implies that tr(∇u)=0 and a fixed point forms
normal to the surface once pressure has been excluded. Any either a saddle point or centre.
small enough region of a general (two dimensional) flow,
When applied to a steady-state solution, the first case
away from stagnation points, is closely approximated by
indicates all traceless (extra) stress components vanish. This
simple shear flow. This was the starting point of Newton’s
cannot be applied in general to transient flows where
original model of viscous forces and is the motivation
viscoelastic effects may still be significant. This situation
behind a flow dependent stress measure, which coincides
did not arise in the simulations contained in this commu-
with traditional measures for any flow between two parallel
nication, which are for steady flows. In the second case,
boundaries where there is no velocity component normal to
where P defines a line, we solve q  ru¼ 0 to give the unit
the boundaries. Although it is well known that there is no
vector
normal stress difference in simple shear flow of a New-
@u @u
tonian fluid, this is only true on a surface parallel or normal @y i  @x j
to the flow. A velocity-directed stress will measure a q¼ r
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2   ð4Þ
@u 2
positive (respectively, negative) normal component of force @y þ @u @x
to the flow of a Newtonian fluid in regions where the flow
converges (respectively, diverges). or, if the denominator of the above vanishes,
The velocity directed stress is not ‘objective’ in the Oldroyd @u @u
@y i  @x j
sense, i.e. although stress invariants are unaffected by moving q¼ r
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2   ð5Þ
frames, the velocity directed stress is. This is because the @u 2
@y þ @u @x
velocity field itself is not an objective quantity. Hence, to give
agreement for all observers on the values of stress using the and define the shear and normal stresses, respectively by
velocity-directed decomposition implies the additional require-
ment that the streamlines must lie on the boundary, i.e., the S1 ¼ q?  T  q ð6Þ
velocity must be tangent to (or zero on) the boundaries. and
S2 ¼ b
qTb
q ð7Þ
Flow-directed decomposition of the stress tensor
1
Conventionally, ‘normal stress’ refers to a vector force/unit area on
At any time, t, the velocity field defines a set of integral any surface defined by its normal. In this paper, we prefer to use it for
curves known as streamlines. As long as juj > 0, we have the component of stress normal to the streamlines.
Rheol Acta (2008) 47:719–725
We note that this situation corresponds to a no-slip
boundary condition, where there is an option to calculate
q without reference to the flow field.
For the first and last cases, it is unclear whether shear
and normal stresses have a meaning, as we cannot define a
meaningful one-dimensional surface. Consider, for exam-
ple, the flow given by u=2yi+xj. This forms a fixed saddle
point at x=0. The rate of strain tensor D¼ 12 ðruþruT Þ has
constant entries, but S1 and S2 both change in a region
around x=0 and are not defined at the point itself. A similar
picture emerges with a circulating flow u=−2yi+xj. We
note that both these flows are possible solutions to the
incompressible Navier–Stokes given a particular pressure
gradient, e.g., in the latter case, p=x2 +y2 and u=−2yi+xj
solve u  ru¼ rp, as r  D¼ 12 r2 u¼ 0. A centre sug-
gests a vortex where typically the stress is negligible; but
for saddle points, where stresses can be significant, we
suggest setting S1 =T and S2 =0.
Some illustrations of the advantages of a flow-directed
stress measure over traditional measures
Consider the contours of stress, T, in an eccentrically rotating
cylinder problem, shown in Fig. 1, for a compressible
Fig. 1 Stresses for a compress-
ible Newtonian fluid,. Top left:
the stress component, Txy. Top
right: principal stress, T. Bottom
left: flow-directed shear stress,
S1, Bottom right: flow-directed
normal stress, S2. Normal
stresses are much less signifi-
cant than the shear stress which
dominates
721
Newtonian fluid, with Re=1.5. The Cartesian component of
shear stress, Txy, oscillates in sign around the cylinder. By
comparison, the principal stress shows no such coordinate-
dependent behaviour. The flow-directed decomposition
shows that the stress is dominated by shear stress as might
be expected for a Newtonian fluid (first normal stress
difference, not shown, is also coordinate dependent). We
may compare the results of.Fig. 1 with Fig. 2, where Re=1.5
and De
lwRJ ðRB  RJ Þ ηs þ ηp ¼ 0:2, with l, w, RJ,
RB, ηs and ηp the relaxation time, angular velocity, journal
radius, bearing radius, solvent viscosity and polymeric
viscosity, respectively. This shows the coordinate-dependent
component, Txy, once again revealing oscillation around the
perimeter of the cylinder, but appears to be rotated when
compared with the Newtonian fluid. The principal stress
appears similar in the two cases, but loses symmetry in the
Oldroyd B case. The decomposition gives a clear picture of
the different stresses manifested in the two types of fluids, with
the flow-directed normal stress being of comparable magni-
tude to the flow-directed shear stress in the Oldroyd B fluid.
In Figs. 3 and 4, a similar comparison is made for the
two fluids within the context of flow past a cylinder for
Re=0.01 and, for the Oldroyd B fluid, We=1. Of particular
note is the absence of flow-directed normal stresses on the
cylinder for a Newtonian fluid but a significant contribution
722 Rheol Acta (2008) 47:719–725

Fig. 2 Stresses for a compress-

ible Oldroyd B fluid, Re=1.5,
De=0.2. Top left: the stress
component, Txy. Top right: Prin-
cipal stress, T. Bottom left: flow-
directed shear stress, S1. Bottom
right: flow-directed normal
stress, S2. The normal stress is
of comparable magnitude to the
shear and both differ in quality
to the principal stress, which
hides the underlying character of
the decomposition

Fig. 3 Stresses for flow round a

cylinder for an incompressible
Newtonian fluid, Re=0.01. Top
left: the stress component, Txy.
Top right: principal stress, T.
Bottom left: flow-directed shear
stress, S1. Bottom right: flow-
directed normal stress, S2. The
normal stress is significantly
less in magnitude to the shear
stress
Rheol Acta (2008) 47:719–725 723

Fig. 4 Stresses for flow round a

cylinder for an incompressible
Oldroyd B fluid, Re=0.01,
We=1. Top left: the stress com-
ponent, Txy. Top right: principal
stress, T. Bottom left: flow-
directed shear stress, S1. Bottom
right: flow-directed normal
stress, S2. The normal stress is
of comparable magnitude to the
shear, and both differ in quality
to the principal stress, which
hides the underlying character of
the decomposition

for the Oldroyd B fluid. By contrast, the normal stress dif- general models. We start by decomposing the acceleration
ference (not shown) exhibits coordinate-dependent effects. into components in the direction of velocity, b
u, and its
In the Oldroyd B fluid, the contribution to stress on the wall normal u⊥:
opposite the cylinder is shown to be dominated by normal
a
u  ru¼ðb u þ ðu?  aÞu?
u  aÞb
stresses, whereas in the Newtonian fluid, this contribution
is negligible. where b
u and u⊥ are unit vectors in the direction of u and
On the other hand, the shear stresses are of comparable orthogonal to u, respectively. Now as
magnitude, with the Oldroyd B fluid breaking the upstream/ 1  1 
downstream symmetry exhibited by the Newtonian fluid. u  ru¼ ruþruT  uþ ruruT  u
2 2
In conclusion, by removing coordinate-dependent 1  1
effects, the underlying properties of the fluid become more ¼ ruþruT  uþ ðr uÞu ð9Þ
2 2
transparent, with viscoelastic effects strongly influencing 1  1
the flow-directed normal stress. This simple observation is ¼ ruþruT  uþ wuu?
2 2
difficult to isolate using either Cartesian stress components
where ω is the (signed) magnitude of vorticity and u
juj,
or the invariant principal stresses.
we find, on rearranging, that
 
ruþruT  u¼ 2ðb u¼aÞb u þ ð2u?  a  uwÞu?
Stress in a generalised Newtonian fluid
Consider the special case where u  a¼ 0. In this case
In this section, we show, using as an illustration, a streamlines flow along contours of velocity magnitude and
 
generalised Newtonian model, how we can extract physical ruþruT  u¼ð2u?  a  uwÞu? ð10Þ
insight for a flow by inspecting some of the relations
between acceleration, flow directed stress and vorticity. By the definition of the stress tensor (Eq. 8) this implies
A generalised Newtonian fluid is one with extra stress that the flow directed normal stress, S2 =0 and flow directed
tensor defined by shear stress is
 

 2
T¼ηð g; p; ΘÞ ruþruT ð8Þ S1 ¼ h u?  a  w ð11Þ
u
Most complex viscoelastic models reduce to the New-
Eq. 10 implies
tonian case in some limit of the material parameters and, as
such, the following results will apply in part to more Tb
u¼T u?
724 Rheol Acta (2008) 47:719–725

As T¼hðruþruT Þ is symmetric

T  u? ¼ T b
u

and so

uþu? Þ ¼ Tðb
T  ðb u þ u? Þ

and

u  u? Þ ¼ T ðb
T  ðb u  u? Þ
Hence, when u  a¼ 0, the streamlines bisect the eigenvec- Fig. 5 These plots illustrate how close the principal stress invariant,
tors. This is the case, for example, in simple steady shear T, (left) is to the vorticity (right) for flow of a Newtonian fluid
between an eccentrically rotating cylinder at high eccentricity, ε=0.9.
flow of a Newtonian fluid. The difference δ
ðT  μωÞ=maxðT Þ  103
Now consider the components
   1
u  ruþruT b ¼ ua ub;a þ ua ub;b ¼ ua ub;a þ ðua ua Þ;b
2 flows. In three dimensions, the traceless (extra) stress tensor
implying is defined by
  1 1
u  ruþruT ¼ u  ruþ ru2
aþuru: ð12Þ T¼σ trðσÞ; ð13Þ
2 2
Using Eq. 9, this implies with which the flow dependent normal stress, S2, can
remain the same as that defined in Eq. 2. This can be
1 1
a¼ ðaþuruÞ þ wuu? ¼ uru þ wuu? displayed in any cross-sectional plane within the geometry,
2 2 as can the three principal stress invariants. On the other
If now, we consider the case when jaj << juruj then u  hand, the flow-directed shear stress, S1, as defined in Eq. 1,
ðruþruT Þ  uru and so varies with the direction of u⊥. Choosing two arbitrary
  directions, u1? , u2? satisfying
u  ruþruT þ uwu?  0:
u1?  u¼u2?  u¼u1?  u2? ¼ 0 ð14Þ
Thus, the flow directed shear stress is
1

2

  and
u?
¼
u?
¼ 1, we can form a positive shear
u  ruþruT  u? ¼ ηw;
S1 ¼ ηb measure, independent of the choice of u1? and u2? ,
and the flow directed normal stress qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
  S1 ¼ ð b u  T  u1? Þ þðb u  T  u2 Þ2  ð15Þ
S2 ¼ hu?  ruþruT  u?  0;
This measure can also be adopted as an alternative to the
and so, using Eq. 3, the principal stress, T  jS1 j. The two-dimensional scheme for two dimensional flows, with
validity of this approximation was verified by considering which it will not generally agree, as T11 +T22 =−T33 ≠0 in
the flow between eccentrically rotating cylinders with the the three dimensional scheme, but T11 +T22 =0 in the two-
inner cylinder rotating at angular velocity, w=500 rads/s at dimensional scheme, the difference being due to the
high eccentricity ratios, e=0.9. The contours of principal physical interpretation of isotropic stress in a plane.
stress, T, and the product of viscosity and vorticity (ηw) are It is possible to extend these definitions further and
presented in Fig. 5 and shown to be practically identical. define a shear stress, S3, in the u1? , u2? plane. Let the 2×2
This provides numerical evidence that jaj << juruj and matrix A be the projection of T onto this plane, then we
also that the flow-directed normal stress is negligible may postulate the measure
compared with the shear stress which may be expected for
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
a Newtonian fluid in such a geometry. qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 tr A2 1
S3
l21 þ l22
¼ trðAÞ2  det A ð16Þ
4 2 2
Extension of the technique to three dimensions
where l1, l2 are the eigenvalues of A satisfying
We need also to address the thorny issue of how the
decomposition might be extended to three dimensional l2  trðAÞl þ det A¼ 0: ð17Þ
Rheol Acta (2008) 47:719–725
Concluding remarks
A strong case has been made for the adoption of a
physically meaningful, flow directed, shear and normal
stress measure for use in visualising and interpreting stress
in complex flows. By choosing a measure related to the
actual flow, the stresses at the boundary are continued
throughout the fluid volume in a natural way. By inspection
of the flow-directed stress in a generalised Newtonian
model, we have also indicated the physical significance of
these measures and their utility in interpreting the dynam-
ical relationships within the flow.
Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the financial sup-
port of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council of the
United Kingdom through a Portfolio Partnership award (EP/
C513037).
My thanks to Rene Vargas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de
Mexico UNAM and Nat Inkson, Cardiff University for their help with
flow past a cylinder computations.
725
References
Clemeur N, Rutgers RPG, Debbaut B (2004) Numerical evaluation of
three dimensional effects in planar flow birefringence. J Non-
Newtonian Fluid Mech 123:105–120
Harlen OG (2002) The negative wake behind a sphere sedimenting
through a viscoelastic fluid. J Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech 108:411–
430
Haupt P (2002) Continuum Mechanics and Theory of Materials.
Springer, Berlin
Keshtiban IJ, Belblidia F, Webster MF (2005) Computation of incompress-
ible and weakly-compressible viscoelastic liquids flow; finite element/
volume schemes. J Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech 126:123–143
Lodge AS (1956) A network theory of flow birefringence and stress in
concentrated polymer solutions. Trans. Faraday Soc, archived at
www.rsc.org/ejarchive/TF/1956/TF9565200120.pdf, pp 120–130
Martyn MT, Nakason C, Coates PD (2000) Stress measurements for
contraction flows of viscoelastic polymer melts. J Non-Newtonian
Fluid Mech 91:123–142
Phan-Thien N (2002) Understanding Viscoelasticity. Springer, Berlin
Wapperom P, Renardy M (2005) Numerical prediction of the boundary
layers in the flow around a cylinder using a fixed velocity field. J
Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech 125:35–48
Weissenberg K (1946) Conference of British Rheologists Club, London.
Proceedings of the 1st International Congress in Rheology,
Amsterdam 1948, 1:29–46