Dear William,
I checked the discussion you mentioned, which redirects me to a paper "Stamhuis, E. J. (2006), Aquatic Ecology, 40(4), pp. 463–479.". I checked the definitions of Strain rate and shear rate in this paper, which seemed slightly odd to me. I checked the references metioned in that paper which lead me to Stamhuis and Videler 1995, J. Exp. Biol. 198: 283 – 294. Here again, the shear rate is defined as ∂v/∂x + ∂u/∂y and strain rate as ∂u/∂x - ∂v/∂y. I have also checked the references mentioned in that paper, which lead me to a paper in Ocean research, OKUBO, A. AND EBBESMEYER , C. C. (1976). Here again, the definitions are similar.
However, in classical fluid mechanics textbooks (kindly refer to section 3.4 in Fluid Mechanics by Cohen and Kundu or section 2.4 of Viscous Fluid Flow by Papanastasiou or even Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strain-rate_tensor), the strain rate tensor is defined as S = 1/2 (∇u + ∇u^T). The trace (sum of the diagonal elements) is the bulk /volumetric strain rate ∇.u = ∂u/∂x + ∂v/∂y for 2D case and is equal to the divergence of the velocity field. Again, the shear strain rate for 2D case is ∂v/∂x + ∂u/∂y, which is consistent with the
shear rate in PIVLab. However, the
strain rate in PIV Lab, which is defined according to the paper Stamhuis 2006 is
∂u/∂x - ∂v/∂y, and doesn't make any sense to me, nor could I find it in any of the classical textbooks of Fluid Mechanics including Batchelor.
I think a more appropriate way would be to refer to the "linear strain rates" as the diagonal components of the strain rate tensor i.e, for x-direction ∂u/∂x and for y-direction, ∂v/∂y separately. Their sum for 2D flows is the volumetric strain rate for compressible flows and is 0 for 2D incompressible flows. For 3D incompressible flows, this sum is -∂w/∂z. I don't know if there's any meaning to the definition of ∂u/∂x - ∂v/∂y as "strain rate"- which is actually a tensor quantity. Again, the shear rate could be renamed as shear strain rate, which I think is more appropriate.
Kindly correct me if I'm wrong, we can discuss.
Thanks,
Visakh