Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

You can formulate the question also like this: What is the easiest way of calculating directed derivative of a function if its values are evaluated in a cartesian grid?

a) fit a (spline) surface, differentiate exactly

b) differentiate numerically in cartesian coordinates, project to angle

c) something else

The function at hand is a displacement vector ($u : \mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}^2$ ) and I need the circumferential strain tensor component $$\varepsilon_{\theta\theta} = \frac{\partial u_\theta}{\partial \theta}$$. (Also the radial strain would is somewhat interesting.)

background: In 2d strain tensor has four components: $\varepsilon_{i,j}$, where i and j is either taken from {x,y} (cartesian) or {$\theta$,r} (polar). The first index defines the direction of displacement and the second index the differentiation direction, i.e. $$\varepsilon_{i,j} = \frac{\partial u_i}{\partial j} $$

u here is the 2d displacement vector. In cartesian coordinates above is easy, in polar not so much.

share|improve this question
Not exaclty clear what you ask. Can it be more specific? What is $\Theta$, and in what meaning are you using $\nabla$? –  Berci Sep 27 '12 at 12:16
ok, I added a bit more details. Basically I meant the angular derivative of the angular component. Also, added the word "tensor" where it was missing... –  Juha Sep 27 '12 at 13:52
The verb corresponding to the noun "derivative" is "differentiate", not "derivate". –  joriki Sep 27 '12 at 14:02
@joriki fixed, thanks. –  Juha Sep 28 '12 at 10:44

2 Answers 2

I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for, but,

so, if $(x,y)$ is given by $x=r\cos\varphi$ and $y=r\sin\varphi$, then $$dx = dr\cdot \cos\varphi+r\cdot (-\sin\varphi)d\varphi $$ $$dy = dr\cdot \sin\varphi+r\cdot \cos\varphi\, d\varphi$$ $$r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}\ \text{ and }\ \varphi = \arctan \frac yx \color{grey}{(+\pi)}$$ $$ dr=\frac x{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}dx+\frac y{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}dy$$ $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial r}(x,y)=\frac x{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} + \frac y{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}$$ $$d\varphi = -\frac y{x^2}\cdot\frac{1}{(y/x)^2+1}dx + \frac1x\cdot\frac{1}{(y/x)^2+1}dy $$ $$...$$

share|improve this answer

If we set

$$ x=\rho\cos\theta\\ y=\rho\sin\theta $$


$$ \mathbf{e}_\rho = \cos\theta\,\mathbf{e}_1+\sin\theta\,\mathbf{e}_2,\\ \mathbf{e}_\theta=-\sin\theta\,\mathbf{e}_1+\cos\theta\,\mathbf{e}_2. $$

We have

$$ \nabla\otimes\mathbf{u}=\left(\mathbf{e}_\rho\frac{\partial}{\partial\rho}+\mathbf{e}_\theta\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}\right)\otimes(u_\rho\mathbf{e}_\rho+u_\theta\mathbf{e}_\theta) $$

and then

$$ (\nabla\otimes\mathbf{u})_{\theta\theta}=\frac{1}{\rho}\left(\frac{\partial u_\theta}{\partial\theta}+u_\rho\right) $$

where the second term arises from the derivative of $\mathbf{e}_\rho$ with respect to $\theta$, giving $\mathbf{e}_\theta$.

If one would to express such quantities with respect to the corresponding Cartesian ones, the following formulas could be useful:

$$ u_\rho =\mathbf{u}\cdot\mathbf{e}_\rho = u_1\cos\theta+u_2\sin\theta\\ u_\theta=\mathbf{u}\cdot\mathbf{e}_\theta=-u_1\sin\theta+u_2\cos\theta\\ \frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}=-\rho\sin\theta\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+\rho\cos\theta\frac{\partial}{\partial y} $$

share|improve this answer
Could you add the final step to numerical derivative, please? I mean, $\varepsilon_{\theta\theta}(x,y) = -\rho(x,y) sin \theta(x,y) \frac{u(x+h,y) - u(x,y)}{h} + \rho(x,y) cos \theta(x,y) \frac{u(x,y+h) - u(x,y)}{h}, h \to 0$ and also the same for radial component. Then it would be exactly what I wanted to know. –  Juha Sep 28 '12 at 10:55
First of all, I have only a poor knowledge of numerical methods, my analysis in the answer was purely theoretical. Secondly, I don't said $e_{\theta\theta}=\partial u/\partial\theta$, you are misinterpreting my answer. –  enzotib Sep 28 '12 at 14:57
Ah, ok. So I missed the $ + u_\rho$ and $1/\rho$, right? –  Juha Oct 1 '12 at 10:40
I have to use the fourth last equation in your answer and plug the last line in. Then it should be ok? –  Juha Oct 1 '12 at 10:46
@Juha: yeah, you also need $u_\rho, u_\theta$ in terms of $u_1, u_2$, if only have those. –  enzotib Oct 1 '12 at 15:38

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.