Navier Solution

Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.
org/ on December 2, 2018
A non-classical Mindlin plate

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org model incorporating
microstructure, surface energy
Research
and foundation effects
X.-L. Gao and G. Y. Zhang
Cite this article: Gao X-L, Zhang GY. 2016 A
non-classical Mindlin plate model Department of Mechanical Engineering, Southern Methodist
incorporating microstructure, surface energy University, PO Box 750337, Dallas, TX 75275-0337, USA
and foundation effects. Proc. R. Soc. A 472:
X-LG, 0000-0003-2280-4942
20160275.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2016.0275
A non-classical model for a Mindlin plate resting
on an elastic foundation is developed in a general
Received: 20 April 2016 form using a modified couple stress theory, a surface
Accepted: 21 June 2016 elasticity theory and a two-parameter Winkler–
Pasternak foundation model. It includes all five
kinematic variables possible for a Mindlin plate. The
Subject Areas: equations of motion and the complete boundary
mechanical engineering, structural conditions are obtained simultaneously through
engineering, mechanics a variational formulation based on Hamilton’s
principle, and the microstructure, surface energy
and foundation effects are treated in a unified
Keywords:
manner. The newly developed model contains one
Mindlin plate, size effect, couple stress theory, material length-scale parameter to describe the
surface elasticity, Winkler–Pasternak microstructure effect, three surface elastic constants
foundation, plate theory to account for the surface energy effect, and two
foundation parameters to capture the foundation
effect. The current non-classical plate model reduces
Author for correspondence:
to its classical elasticity-based counterpart when
X.-L. Gao the microstructure, surface energy and foundation
e-mail: xlgao@smu.edu effects are all suppressed. In addition, the new model
includes the Mindlin plate models considering
the microstructure dependence or the surface
energy effect or the foundation influence alone
as special cases, recovers the Kirchhoff plate model
incorporating the microstructure, surface energy
and foundation effects, and degenerates to the
Timoshenko beam model including the microstructure
effect. To illustrate the new Mindlin plate model, the
static bending and free vibration problems of a simply
supported rectangular plate are analytically solved
by directly applying the general formulae derived.
2016 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 2, 2018
1. Introduction 2
Thin beams and plates resting on elastic foundations have been widely used in nano- and micro-
rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org Proc. R. Soc. A 472: 20160275

...................................................
scale devices and systems. Different types of elastic foundation models have been proposed,
which include those by Winkler [1], Filonenko-Borodich [2], Pasternak [3], Kerr [4] and Vlasov [5].
The Winkler foundation model contains only one parameter and is the simplest elastic foundation
model, while the Winkler–Pasternak foundation model uses two parameters and can better
capture the foundation effect (e.g. [6–8]). As size effects play a significant role in nano- and micro-
scale applications and classical continuum theories are unable to capture such effects, higher
order continuum theories, which contain material length-scale parameters and can account for
the microstructure and surface energy effects, have recently been used to develop new models for
thin beams and plates resting on elastic foundations.
Khajeansari et al. [8] studied the bending deformation of an Euler–Bernoulli beam lying on a
Winkler–Pasternak foundation by using a surface elasticity theory (e.g. [9,10]) to incorporate the
surface energy effect. Şimşek & Reddy [11] proposed a model for a functionally graded micro-
beam embedded in an elastic medium by applying a modified couple stress theory (e.g. [12,13])
and the Winkler–Pasternak foundation model. Limkatanyu et al. [14] provided a model for
an Euler–Bernoulli beam resting on a Winkler–Pasternak foundation by including both the
microstructure and surface energy effects, which extends the non-classical beam model of Gao &
Mahmoud [15].
However, very few models have been developed for thin plates that incorporate the elastic
foundation effect in addition to the microstructure and surface energy effects. Akgöz &
Civalek [16] proposed a non-classical Kirchhoff plate model by using a modified couple stress
theory and the Winkler foundation model, but the surface energy effect is not incorporated in
their model. Recently, a general non-classical model that considers the microstructure, surface
energy and foundation effects was provided by Gao & Zhang [17] for Kirchhoff plates using a
variational formulation.
The objective of the current paper is to develop a new model for Mindlin plates in a
general form involving all five possible kinematic variables (rather than three for Kirchhoff
plates) by including the microstructure, surface energy and foundation effects in a unified
manner.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In §2, a new non-classical model for a Mindlin
plate resting on an elastic foundation is developed using a modified couple stress theory [12,13],
a surface elasticity theory [9,18] and a two-parameter Winkler–Pasternak foundation model
(e.g. [19,20]) through a variational formulation based on Hamilton’s principle. It is shown that
the new Mindlin plate model reduces to its classical elasticity-based counterpart when the
microstructure, surface energy and foundation effects are all suppressed. In addition, the new
model includes the Mindlin plate models considering the microstructure dependence or the
surface energy effect or the foundation influence alone as special cases, recovers the counterpart
non-classical model for Kirchhoff plates and degenerates to the Timoshenko beam model
incorporating the microstructure effect. In §3, the static bending and free vibration problems of a
simply supported rectangular plate are analytically solved by directly applying the new model.
The numerical results are also presented there to quantitatively show the differences between the
current non-classical Mindlin plate model and its classical counterpart. The paper concludes in §4
with a summary.
2. Formulation
The Mindlin plate theory, also known as the first-order shear deformation plate theory, is the
simplest plate theory including transverse shear strains. By using the Cartesian coordinate system
(x, y, z) shown in figure 1, where the xy-plane is coincident with the geometrical mid-plane of the

...................................................
o
x
y
x
S–
o x
h
u
fx w
+
S
∂w
z ∂x
Figure 1. Plate configuration and coordinate system. (Online version in colour.)
undeformed plate, the displacement field in a Mindlin plate of uniform thickness h can be written
as (e.g. [21,22])
u1 (x, y, z, t) = u(x, y, t) − zφx (x, y, t), (2.1a)

u2 (x, y, z, t) = v(x, y, t) − zφy (x, y, t), (2.1b)
u3 (x, y, z, t) = w(x, y, t), (2.1c)
where u1 , u2 and u3 are, respectively, the x-, y- and z-components of the displacement vector u
of a point (x, y, z) in the plate at time t; u, v and w are, respectively, the x-, y- and z-components
of the displacement vector of the corresponding point (x, y, 0) on the plate mid-plane at time t;
and φx and φy are, respectively, the rotation angles of a transverse normal about the y- and x-axes
(figure 1). Note that, in equations (2.1a–c), there are five independent kinematic variables, i.e. u, v,
w, φx and φy , which will need to be determined in order to fully describe the displacement field
in the Mindlin plate.
In figure 1, S+ and S− are two surface layers of zero thickness that are taken to be perfectly
bonded to the bulk plate material at z = ±h/2, respectively. The bulk material satisfies a modified
couple stress theory [12,13], while the two surface layers are governed by a surface elasticity
theory [9,18].
Figure 2 shows a Mindlin plate resting on a Winkler–Pasternak foundation. The Winkler–
Pasternak foundation model contains two parameters, namely the Winkler foundation modulus
kw for the spring elements and the Pasternak foundation modulus kp for the shear layer
h o x 4

kp
...................................................
kw
Figure 2. Plate on a Winkler–Pasternak foundation.
(e.g. [19,20]). The effect of this two-parameter elastic foundation on the plate can be treated as
a vertical body force q (in N m−2 ) given by [19]
q(x, y, t) = kw w(x, y, t) − kp ∇ 2 w(x, y, t), (2.2)
where ∇ 2 is the Laplacian, and w is the plate mid-plane deflection first introduced through
equation (2.1c).
According to the modified couple stress theory [12,13], the constitutive equations for an
isotropic linear elastic material read
σij = λεkk δij + 2μεij , (2.3)
mij = 2l2 μχij , (2.4)
where σij , mij and δij are, respectively, the components of the Cauchy stress tensor, the components
of the deviatoric part of the couple stress tensor and the Kronecker delta, λ and μ are the Lamé
constants in classical elasticity, l is a material length-scale parameter measuring the couple stress
effect (e.g. [23,24]), and εij and χij are, respectively, the components of the infinitesimal strain
tensor and the symmetric curvature tensor given by
εij = 12 (ui,j + uj,i ) (2.5)
and χij = 12 (θi,j + θj,i ), (2.6)
with ui being the displacement components and θi being the components of the rotation vector
defined by
θi = 12 εijk uk,j . (2.7)
According to the surface elasticity theory (e.g. [9,10,18,25–27]), the zero-thickness surface layer
of a bulk elastic material has distinct elastic properties and satisfies the following governing
equations (e.g. [9,28,29]):
σij nj = τiα,α , (2.8a)
σij ni nj = ταβ καβ , (2.8b)
where καβ are the components of the surface curvature tensor, ni are the components of the
outward-pointing unit normal n(=ni ei ) to the surface (with nβ being the two in-plane components
of n), ταβ are the in-plane components of the non-symmetric surface stress tensor given by [9]
ταβ = [τ0 + (λ0 + τ0 )uγ ,γ ]δαβ + μ0 (uα,β + uβ,α ) − τ0 uβ,α , (2.9a)
and τ3β are the out-of-plane components of the surface stress tensor expressed as [9,18]
τ3β = τ0 u3,β , (2.9b)
where μ0 and λ0 are the surface elastic constants, and τ0 is the residual surface stress (i.e. the
surface stress at zero strain). These three constants μ0 , λ0 and τ0 can be determined from either
atomistic simulations or experimental measurements (e.g. [30–32]).
Note that, in equations (2.3)–(2.9a,b) and throughout the paper, the summation convention and
5
standard index notation are used, with the Greek indices running from 1 to 2 and the Latin indices
from 1 to 3 unless otherwise indicated.

...................................................
From equations (2.1a–c) and (2.5)–(2.7), it follows that in the bulk of the current Mindlin plate:
⎫
∂u ∂φx 1 ∂u ∂v ∂φx ∂φy 1 ∂w
εxx = −z , εxy = + −z −z , εxz = − φ x ,⎪⎪
⎪
⎬
∂x ∂x 2 ∂y ∂x ∂y ∂x 2 ∂x
(2.10)
∂v ∂φy 1 ∂w ⎪
⎪
εyy = −z , εyz = − φy , εzz = 0, ⎪
⎭
∂y ∂y 2 ∂y

1 ∂w 1 ∂w 1 ∂u ∂v ∂φx ∂φy
θ1 = + φy , θ2 = − + φx , θ3 = − + +z −z , (2.11)
2 ∂y 2 ∂x 2 ∂y ∂x ∂y ∂x
⎫
1 ∂ 2w ∂φy 1 ∂ 2 w ∂ 2 w ∂φx ∂φy ⎪
⎪
χxx = + , χxy = − 2 + − + , ⎪
⎪
2 ∂x∂y ∂x 4 ∂x ∂y2 ∂x ∂y ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪⎪
⎪
1 ∂ u
2 ∂ v
2 ∂ φx
2 ∂ 2φ
y 1 ∂ w2 ∂φx ⎬
χxz = − + 2 +z − z 2 , χyy = − + , (2.12)
4 ∂x∂y ∂x ∂x∂y ∂x 2 ∂x∂y ∂y ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
∂ 2 φy ∂φy ⎪
⎪
1 ∂ 2u ∂ 2v ∂ 2 φx 1 ∂φx ⎪
χyz = − 2 + +z 2 −z , χzz = − . ⎪ ⎪
⎭
4 ∂y ∂x∂y ∂y ∂x∂y 2 ∂y ∂x
The total strain energy in the elastically deformed Mindlin plate is given by

1 1 1
UT = UB + US + UF = (σij εij + mij χij ) dV + ταβ εαβ dA + ταβ εαβ dA
2 Ω 2 S+ 2 S−

1 1
+ kw w2 dA + kp w,α w,α dA, (2.13)
2 R 2 R
where Ω is the region occupied by the plate, S+ and S− represent, respectively, the bottom and
top surface layers at z = ±h/2 of the Mindlin plate (figure 1), R denotes the area occupied by the
mid-plane of the plate, dV is the volume element and dA is the area element. In equation (2.13),
UB is the strain energy in the bulk of the plate which is governed by the modified couple stress
theory, US is the strain energy in the surface layers S+ and S− satisfying the surface elasticity
theory, and UF is the strain energy representing the effect of the two-parameter Winkler–Pasternak
foundation.
The first variation of the total strain energy in the Mindlin plate over the time interval [0, T]
can be obtained from equations (2.9a,b)–(2.13) as
T T T
+ 1 +
δ UT dt = (σij δεij + mij δχij ) dV dt + ταβ − τ0 δαβ δεαβ dA dt
0 0 Ω 0 S+ 2
T T
− 1 −
+ ταβ − τ0 δαβ δεαβ dA dt + kw wδw dA dt
0 S− 2 0 R
T
+ kp w,α δw,α dA dt, (2.14)
0 R
where ∂R is the boundary curve enclosing the area R, ds is the differential element of arc length
+ −
along ∂R, and ταβ and ταβ represent, respectively, the surface stress components on the plate
+ −
bottom (S ) and top (S ) surfaces.
Note that the volume integral of a sufficiently smooth function D(x, y, z, t) over the region Ω
can be written as
h/2
D(x, y, z, t) dV = D(x, y, z, t) dz dA, (2.15)
Ω R −h/2
where h is the (uniform) plate thickness and R is the area occupied by the mid-plane of the plate.
From equations (2.10) and (2.15), it follows that, with the help of Green’s theorem,
6
T T
σij δεij dV dt = − [(Nxx,x + Nxy,y )δu + (Nxy,x + Nyy,y )δv + (Nxz,x + Nyz,y )δw

...................................................
0 Ω 0 R
− (−Nxz + Mxx,x + Mxy,y )δφx − (−Nyz + Mxy,x + Myy,y )δφy ] dA dt

T
+ [(Nxx nx + Nxy ny )δu + (Nxy nx + Nyy ny )δv + (Nxz nx + Nyz ny )δw
0 ∂R

− (Mxx nx + Mxy ny )δφx − Mxy nx + Myy ny δφy ds dt, (2.16)
where
h/2 h/2 h/2 h/2 ⎫
⎪
⎪
Nxx ≡ σxx dz, Nxy ≡ σxy dz, Nxz ≡ σxz dz, Nyy ≡ σyy dz, ⎪
⎪
−h/2 −h/2 −h/2 −h/2
⎬
h/2 h/2 h/2 h/2 (2.17)
⎪
⎪
Nyz ≡ σyz dz, Mxx ≡ σxx z dz, Mxy ≡ σxy z dz, Myy ≡ σyy z dz⎪
⎪
⎭
−h/2 −h/2 −h/2 −h/2
are the Cauchy stress resultants through the plate thickness.

Similarly, the use of equations (2.12) and (2.15) and Green’s theorem yields
T
mij δχij dV dt
0 Ω
T
1
=− [(Yxz,xy + Yyz,yy )δu − (Yxz,xx + Yyz,xy )δv
2 0 R
− (Yxx,xy − Yxy,xx + Yxy,yy − Yyy,xy )δw − (Yxy,x + Yyy,y − Yzz,y + Hxz,xy + Hyz,yy )δφx
− (−Yxx,x − Yxy,y + Yzz,x − Hxz,xx − Hyz,xy )δφy ] dA dt

1 T 1 1 1 1
+ Yxz,x ny + Yxz,y nx + Yyz,y ny δu − Yxz,x nx + Yyz,x ny + Yyz,y nx δv
2 0 ∂R 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1
− Yxx,x ny + Yxx,y nx − Yxy,x nx + Yxy,y ny − Yyy,x ny − Yyy,y nx δw
2 2 2 2

1 1
+ −Yxy nx − Yyy ny + Yzz ny − Hxz,x ny − Hxz,y nx − Hyz,y ny δφx
2 2

1 1
+ Yxx nx + Yxy ny − Yzz nx + Hxz,x nx + Hyz,x ny + Hyz,y nx δφy
2 2

1 1 1
− Yxz ny δu,x − Yxz nx + Yyz ny δu,y + Yxz nx + Yyz ny δv,x
2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1
+ Yyz nx δv,y + Yxx ny − Yxy nx − Yyy ny δw,x + Yxx nx + Yxy ny − Yyy nx δw,y
2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1
+ Hxz ny δφx,x + Hxz nx + Hyz ny δφx,y − Hxz nx + Hyz ny δφy,x − Hyz nx δφy,y ds dt,
2 2 2 2
(2.18)
where
h/2 h/2 h/2 ⎫ h/2
⎪
Yxx ≡ mxx dz, Yxy ≡ mxy dz, Yxz ≡ mxz dz, Yyy ≡ myy dz, ⎪⎪
⎪
⎬
−h/2 −h/2 −h/2 −h/2
h/2 h/2 h/2 h/2 (2.19)
⎪
⎪
Yyz ≡ myz dz, Yzz ≡ mzz dz, Hxz ≡ mxz z dz, Hyz ≡ myz z dz⎪
⎪
⎭
−h/2 −h/2 −h/2 −h/2
are the couple stress resultants through the plate thickness.

Also, it follows from equations (2.10) and (2.15) and Green’s theorem that
7
T T
+ 1 + − 1 −
ταβ − τ0 δαβ δεαβ dA dt + ταβ − τ0 δαβ δεαβ dA dt

2 2
...................................................
0 S+ 0 S−
T
+ 1 + 1 + − 1 − 1 −
=− τxx,x + τxy,y + τyx,y + τxx,x + τxy,y + τyx,y δu
0 R 2 2 2 2

1 + 1 + + 1 − 1 − −
+ τxy,x + τyx,x + τyy,y + τxy,x + τyx,x + τyy,y δv
2 2 2 2

h + 1 + 1 + − 1 − 1 −
− τxx,x + τxy,y + τyx,y − τxx,x − τxy,y − τyx,y δφx
2 2 2 2 2

h 1 + 1 + + 1 − 1 − −
− τxy,x + τyx,x + τyy,y − τxy,x − τyx,x − τyy,y δφy dA dt
2 2 2 2 2
T
1 + + + − − −
+ (2τxx nx + τxy ny + τyx ny + 2τxx nx + τxy ny + τyx ny − 2τ0 nx )δu
2 0 ∂R
+ + + − − −
+ (τxy nx + τyx nx + 2τyy ny + τxy nx + τyx nx + 2τyy ny − 2τ0 ny )δv

+ 1 + 1 + − 1 − 1 −
− h τxx nx + τxy ny + τyx ny − τxx nx − τxy ny − τyx ny δφx
2 2 2 2

1 + 1 + + 1 − 1 − −
−h τxy nx + τyx nx + τyy ny − τxy nx − τyx nx − τyy ny δφy ds dt. (2.20)
2 2 2 2
Note that in reaching equation (2.20) use has been made of the relations S+ = R = S− , ∂S+ =
∂R = ∂S− for the uniform-thickness plate under consideration in order to facilitate the integral
evaluations.
In addition, using Green’s theorem gives
T T
kw wδw dA dt + kp w,α δw,α dA dt
0 R 0 R
T T
= kw wδw dA dt − kp (w,xx + w,yy )δw dA dt
0 R 0 R
T
+ kp (w,x nx + w,y ny )δw ds dt. (2.21)
0 ∂R
The kinetic energy of the Mindlin plate can be written as (e.g. [22])

1
K= ρ[(u̇1 )2 + (u̇2 )2 + (u̇3 )2 ] dV, (2.22)
2 Ω
where ρ is the mass density of the plate material. Note that, here and in the sequel, the overhead ‘·’
and ‘··’ denote, respectively, the first and second time derivatives (e.g. u̇1 = ∂u1 /∂t, ü1 = ∂ 2 u1 /∂t2 ).
It should be mentioned that the kinetic energy expression in equation (2.22) is in the simple
form which is standard in classical elasticity. For a microstructured material that undergoes micro-
deformations in addition to macro-deformations, there could be a second term related to the
micro-deformations in the kinetic energy expression [33]. However, in the modified couple stress
theory adopted in the current formulation, no micro-deformation is considered. As a result, the
kinetic energy takes the simple form shown in equation (2.22).
The first variation of the kinetic energy, over the time interval [0, T], can be obtained from
equations (2.1a–c), (2.15) and (2.22) as
T T
δ K dt = − (m0 üδu + m0 v̈δv + m0 ẅδw + m2 φ̈x δφx + m2 φ̈y δφy ) dA dt, (2.23)
0 0 R
where h/2 h/2
ρh3
m0 ≡ ρ dz = ρh and m2 ≡ ρz2 dz = . (2.24)
−h/2 −h/2 12
In reaching equation (2.23), it has been assumed that the initial (t = 0) and final (t = T)
8
configurations of the plate are prescribed so that the virtual displacements vanish at t = 0 and
t = T. In addition, ρ is taken to be constant along the plate thickness and over the time interval

...................................................
[0,T] such that ṁ0 = 0, ṁ2 = 0. Note that m2 , as defined in equation (2.24), accounts for the rotary
inertia of the plate.
From the general expression of the work done by external forces in the modified couple stress
theory (e.g. [13,24]) and in the surface elasticity theory (e.g. [9,18]), the virtual work done by the
forces applied on the current Mindlin plate over the time interval [0, T] can be expressed as
T T
1 1
δ W dt = fx δu + fy δv + fz δw + cx δ(w,y + φy ) − cy δ(w,x + φx )
0 0 R 2 2
T
1
− cz (δu,y − δv,x ) dA dt + t̄x δu + t̄y δv + t̄z δw − M̄x δφx − M̄y δφy
2 0 ∂R

1 1 1
+ s̄x δ(w,y + φy ) − s̄y δ(w,x + φx ) − s̄z (δu,y − δv,x ) ds dt
2 2 2
T T
+ −
+ τ3α,α δw dA dt + τ3α,α δw dA dt, (2.25)
0 S+ 0 S−
where fi and ci (i = x, y, z) are, respectively, the components of the body force resultant (force per
unit area) and the body couple resultant (moment per unit area) through the plate thickness acting
in the area R (i.e. the plate mid-plane); t̄i and s̄i (i = x, y, z) are, respectively, the components of
the Cauchy traction resultant (force per unit length) and the surface couple resultant (moment
per unit length) through the plate thickness acting on ∂R (i.e. the boundary of R); and M̄x and
M̄y are, respectively, the applied moments per unit length about the y- and x-axes acting on ∂R.
Note that the positive directions of M̄x and M̄y are, respectively, opposite to those of φx and φy
(figure 1). Also, in reaching equation (2.25), use has been made of Green’s theorem. It should be
mentioned that the last two terms in the virtual work expression in equation (2.25) account for
± ±
the contribution of the normal stress on the top and bottom plate surfaces σ33 (=±τ3α,α from the
equilibrium equations in equation (2.8a)), which is neglected in the Mindlin plate models that do
not consider the surface energy effect (e.g. [22,34]).
According to Hamilton’s principle (e.g. [17,21,22,35–38]),
T
δ [K − (UT − W)] dt = 0. (2.26)
0
Using equations (2.14), (2.16), (2.18), (2.20), (2.21), (2.23) and (2.25) in equation (2.26) and
applying the fundamental lemma of the calculus of variations (e.g. [39–41]) will lead to, with
the arbitrariness of δu, δv, δw, δφx and δφy and the relations S+ = R = S− , ∂S+ = ∂R = ∂S− due to
the uniform thickness of the plate,
Yxz,xy + Yyz,yy + 1 + 1 + −
Nxx,x + Nxy,y + + τxx,x + τxy,y + τyx,y + τxx,x
2 2 2
1 − 1 − 1
+ τxy,y + τyx,y + fx + cz,y = m0 ü, (2.27a)
2 2 2
Yxz,xx + Yyz,xy 1 + 1 + + 1 − 1 −
Nxy,x + Nyy,y − + τxy,x + τyx,x + τyy,y + τxy,x + τyx,x
2 2 2 2 2
− 1
+ τyy,y + fy − cz,x = m0 v̈, (2.27b)
2
Yxx,xy − Yxy,xx + Yxy,yy − Yyy,xy + −

Nxz,x + Nyz,y − + τ3α,α + τ3α,α − kw w + kp ∇ 2 w 9
2
1 1

+ fz − cx,y + cy,x = m0 ẅ,
...................................................
(2.27c)
2 2
Yxy,x + Yyy,y − Yzz,y + Hxz,xy + Hyz,yy
− Nxz + Mxx,x + Mxy,y +
2
h + + + − − − 1
+ (2τxx,x + τxy,y + τyx,y − 2τxx,x − τxy,y − τyx,y ) + cy = −m2 φ̈x , (2.27d)
4 2
−Yxx,x − Yxy,y + Yzz,x − Hxz,xx − Hyz,xy
− Nyz + Mxy,x + Myy,y +
2
h + + + − − − 1
+ (τxy,x + τyx,x + 2τyy,y − τxy,x − τyx,x − 2τyy,y ) − cx = −m2 φ̈y (2.27e)
4 2
as the equations of motion of the current Mindlin plate for any (x, y) ∈ R and t ∈ (0, T), and
T
1 1 + −
2Nxx nx + 2Nxy ny + Yxz,x ny + Yxz,y nx + Yyz,y ny + 2(τxx + τxx − τ0 )nx
0 ∂R 2 2

+ − + − 1
+ (τxy + τxy + τyx + τyx )ny + cz ny − 2t̄x δu + 2Nxy nx + 2Nyy ny − Yxz,x nx − Yyz,x ny
2

1 + − + − + −
− Yyz,y nx + (τxy + τxy + τyx + τyx )nx + 2(τyy + τyy − τ0 )ny − cz nx − 2t̄y δv
2

1 1
+ 2Nxz nx + 2Nyz ny − (Yxx − Yyy ),x ny − (Yxx − Yyy ),y nx + Yxy,x nx − Yxy,y ny
2 2

+ 2kp (w,x nx + w,y ny ) − cx ny + cy nx − 2t̄z δw − 2Mxx nx + 2Mxy ny + Yxy nx + Yyy ny
1 1 + −
− Yzz ny + Hxz,x ny + Hxz,y nx + Hyz,y ny + h(τxx − τxx )nx
2 2

h + − + −
+ (τxy − τxy + τyx − τyx )ny − 2M̄x − s̄y δφx − 2Mxy nx + 2Myy ny − Yxx nx − Yxy ny + Yzz nx
2

1 1 + − h + − + −
− Hxz,x nx − Hyz,x ny − Hyz,y nx + h(τyy − τyy )ny + (τxy − τxy + τyx − τyx )nx − 2M̄y + s̄x δφy
2 2 2

1 1 1 1
− Yxz ny δu,x − Yxz nx + Yyz ny − s̄z δu,y + Yxz nx + Yyz ny − s̄z δv,x + Yyz nx δv,y
2 2 2 2

1 1 1
+ (Yxx − Yyy )ny − Yxy nx + s̄y δw,x + (Yxx − Yyy )nx + Yxy ny − s̄x δw,y + Hxz ny δφx,x
2 2 2

1 1 1
+ Hxz nx + Hyz ny δφx,y − Hxz nx + Hyz ny δφy,x − Hyz nx δφy,y ds dt = 0, (2.28)
2 2 2
which can be further simplified to obtain the boundary conditions (BCs).

Note that the integrand of the line integral in equation (2.28) is expressed in terms of the
Cartesian components of the resultants and displacements that are functions of the Cartesian
coordinates (x, y, z) with the unit base vectors {e1 , e2 , e3 }. This is convenient for a rectangular
plate whose edges are parallel to the x- and y-axes. However, for a more general case of a
plate whose boundary is not aligned with the x- or y-axis, as shown in figure 3, it is more
convenient to use a Cartesian coordinate system (n, s, z) with the unit base vectors {en , es , e3 },
where en (=nx e1 + ny e2 ) and es (=−ny e1 + nx e2 ) are, respectively, the unit normal and tangent
vectors on the plate boundary ∂R.
y S 10
n
es

...................................................
en
e2 R
e1
O
x
∂R
Figure 3. Two coordinate systems. (Online version in colour.)
It can be shown that the components in the coordinate system (x, y, z) are related to those in
the coordinate system (n, s, z) through the following transformation expressions:
⎫
{u, v}T = [R1 ]{un , vs }T , {φx , φy }T = [R1 ]{φn , φs }T , {w,x , w,y }T = [R1 ]{w,n , w,s }T , ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
{t̄x , t̄y }T = [R1 ]{t̄n , t̄s }T , {s̄x , s̄y }T = [R1 ]{s̄n , s̄s }T , {cx , cy }T = [R1 ]{cn , cs }T , ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
{Nxz , Nyz }T = [R1 ]{Nnz , Nsz }T , {M̄x , M̄y }T = [R1 ]{M̄n , M̄s }T , ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
{Yxz , Yyz }T = [R1 ]{Ynz , Ysz }T , {Hxz , Hyz }T = [R1 ]{Hnz , Hsz }T , ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
Nxx Nxy
= [R1 ]
Nnn Nns T Yxx Yxy
= [R1 ]
Ynn Yns
[R1 ]T , ⎪
⎪
[R1 ] , ⎪
⎪
Nxy Nyy Nns Nss Yxy Yyy Yns Yss ⎪
⎪
⎬

(2.29)
Mxx Mxy Mnn Mns Yxz,x Yxz,y Y Ynz,s ⎪
= [R1 ] [R1 ]T , = [R1 ] nz,n [R1 ]T ,⎪
⎪
⎪
Mxy Myy Mns Mss Yyz,x Yyz,y Ysz,n Ysz,s ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
φx,x φx,y φn,n φn,s H H H H T ⎪
= [R1 ] T
[R1 ] , xz,x xz,y
= [R1 ] nz,n nz,s
[R1 ] , ⎪⎪
⎪
φy,x φy,y φs,n φs,s Hyz,x Hyz,y Hsz,n Hsz,s ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
± ± ± ± ⎪
⎪
τxx τxy τnn τns u ,x u ,y u n,n u n,s ⎪
⎪
± ± = [R1 ] ± ± [R1 ] ,
T
= [R1 ] T
[R1 ] , ⎪
⎪
τyx τyy τsn τss v,x v,y vs,n vs,s ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
T T ⎭
{Yxx,x , Yxx,y , Yxy,x , Yxy,y , Yyy,x , Yyy,y } = [R3 ]{Ynn,n , Ynn,s , Yns,n , Yns,s , Yss,n , Yss,s } ,
where

n −ny
[R1 ] ≡ x (2.30a)
ny nx
and
⎡ ⎤
n3x −n2x ny −2n2x ny 2nx n2y nx n2y −n3y
⎢ ⎥
⎢n2 ny n3x −2nx n2y −2n2x ny n3y nx n2y ⎥
⎢ x ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥
⎢n ny −nx n2y n3x − nx n2y −n2x ny + n3y −n2x ny nx ny ⎥
2
⎢ x ⎥
[R3 ] ≡ ⎢ ⎥, (2.30b)
⎢nx n2y n2x ny n2x ny − n3y n3x − nx n2y −nx n2y −nx ny ⎥
2
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢nx n2y −n3y 2n2x ny −2nx n2y n3x −nx ny ⎥
2
⎣ ⎦
n3y nx n2y 2nx n2y 2n2x ny n2x ny n3x
with n2x + n2y = 1.

Using equations (2.29) and (2.30a,b) in equation (2.28) yields, after some lengthy algebra,
11
T
1 + − 1 + − +
2 Nnn + Ynz,s + τnn + τnn − τ0 − t̄n δun + 2Nns − Ynz,n − Ysz,s + τns + τns + τsn

...................................................
0 ∂R 4 2

− Ynn,s − Yss,s
+ τsn − cz − 2t̄s δvs + 2Nnz − + Yns,n + 2kp w,n + cs − 2t̄z δw − (Yns − s̄s )δw,n
2

Ynn − Yss 1 + −
+ − s̄n δw,s − 2Mnn + Yns + Hnz,s + hτnn − hτnn − 2M̄n − s̄s δφn
2 2

Hsz,s h + h − h + h −
− 2Mns − Ynn + Yzz − Hnz,n − + τns − τns + τsn − τsn − 2M̄s + s̄n δφs
2 2 2 2 2

Ynz Ysz Hnz Hsz
− − s̄z δun,s + (Ynz − s̄z )δvs,n + δvs,s + δφn,s − Hnz δφs,n − δφs,s ds dt = 0.
2 2 2 2
(2.31)
Note that on the closed boundary ∂R the following identity:

Dδg,s ds = − D,s δg ds (2.32)
∂R ∂R
holds, where D and g are two smooth functions. With the help of equation (2.32), equation (2.31)
becomes
T
(N̂nn δun + N̂ss δvs + N̂zz δw + M̂n δφn + M̂s δφs + T̂z δw,n + T̂s δvs,n + Ẑs δφs,n ) ds dt = 0,
0 ∂R
(2.33)
where
+ −
N̂nn ≡ 2(Nnn + 12 Ynz,s + τnn + τnn − τ0 − 12 s̄z,s − t̄n ), (2.34a)
+ − + −
N̂ss ≡ 2Nns − Ynz,n − Ysz,s + τns + τns + τsn + τsn − cz − 2t̄s , (2.34b)
N̂zz ≡ 2Nnz − Ynn,s + Yns,n + Yss,s + 2kp w,n + cs + s̄n,s − 2t̄z , (2.34c)
+ −
M̂n ≡ −2Mnn − Yns − Hnz,s − h(τnn − τnn ) + 2M̄n + s̄s , (2.34d)
h + − + −
M̂s ≡ −2Mns + Ynn − Yzz + Hnz,n + Hsz,s − (τns − τns + τsn − τsn ) + 2M̄s − s̄n , (2.34e)
2
T̂z ≡ −Yns + s̄s , (2.34f )
T̂s ≡ Ynz − s̄z , (2.34g)
Ẑs ≡ −Hnz . (2.34h)
Using the fundamental lemma of the calculus of variations in equation (2.33) then gives
N̂nn = 0 or un = ūn , (2.35a)
N̂ss = 0 or vs = v̄s , (2.35b)
N̂zz = 0 or w = w̄, (2.35c)
M̂n = 0 or φn = φ̄n , (2.35d)
M̂s = 0 or φs = φ̄s , (2.35e)
T̂z = 0 or w,n = w̄,n , (2.35f )
T̂s = 0 or vs,n = v̄s,n (2.35g)
and Ẑs = 0 or φs,n = φ̄s,n (2.35h)
as the BCs for any (x, y) ∈ ∂R and t ∈ (0, T), where the overhead bar indicates the prescribed value.
From equations (2.3), (2.10) and (2.17), the Cauchy stress resultants can be expressed in terms
12
of the five kinematic variables u, v, w, φx and φy as

...................................................
Nxx = h[(λ + 2μ)u,x + λv,y ], (2.36a)
Nxy = μh(u,y + v,x ), (2.36b)
Nxz = ks μh(w,x − φx ), (2.36c)
Nyy = h[λu,x + (λ + 2μ)v,y ], (2.36d)
Nyz = ks μh(w,y − φy ), (2.36e)

1 3
Mxx = − 12 h [(λ + 2μ)φx,x + λφy,y ], (2.36f )
1
Mxy = − 12 μh3 (φx,y + φy,x ) (2.36g)
1 3
and Myy = − 12 h [λφx,x + (λ + 2μ)φy,y ], (2.36h)
where ks is a shear correction factor introduced to account for the non-uniformity of the shear
strain components εxz and εyz over the plate thickness (e.g. [42,43]).
From equations (2.4), (2.12) and (2.19), the couple stress resultants through the plate thickness
can be expressed in terms of u, v, w, φx and φy as
Yxx = μl2 h(w,xy + φy,x ), (2.37a)
Yxy = 12 μl2 h(−w,xx + w,yy − φx,x + φy,y ), (2.37b)
Yxz = 12 μl2 h(−u,xy + v,xx ), (2.37c)
Yyy = −μl2 h(w,xy + φx,y ), (2.37d)
Yyz = 12 μl2 h(−u,yy + v,xy ), (2.37e)
Yzz = μl2 h(φx,y − φy,x ), (2.37f )

1 2 3
Hxz = 24 μl h (φx,xy − φy,xx ) (2.37g)
1 2 3
and Hyz = 24 μl h (φx,yy − φy,xy ). (2.37h)
Also, from equations (2.1a–c) and (2.9a,b), it follows that the surface stress components can be
expressed in terms of u, v, w, φx and φy as

± h h
τxx = τ0 + (λ0 + 2μ0 ) u,x ∓ φx,x + (λ0 + τ0 ) v,y ∓ φy,y , (2.38a)
2 2
±
τxy = μ0 (u,y + v,x ) − τ0 v,x ∓ 12 h(μ0 φx,y + μ0 φy,x − τ0 φy,x ), (2.38b)
±
τyx = μ0 (u,y + v,x ) − τ0 u,y ∓ 12 h(μ0 φx,y − τ0 φx,y + μ0 φy,x ), (2.38c)

± h h
τyy = τ0 + (λ0 + τ0 ) u,x ∓ φx,x + (λ0 + 2μ0 ) v,y ∓ φy,y , (2.38d)
2 2
+ −
τ3x = τ3x = τ0 w,x (2.38e)
+ −
and τ3y = τ3y = τ0 w,y . (2.38f )
The equations of motion of the Mindlin plate in terms of the five kinematic variables u,
v, w, φx and φy can then be obtained by using equations (2.36a–h), (2.37a–h) and (2.38a–f ) in
equations (2.27a–e) as
13
(λ + 2μ)hu,xx + μhu,yy + (λ + μ)hv,xy + 14 μl2 h(−u,xxyy − u,yyyy + v,xxxy + v,xyyy )

...................................................
+ 2(2μ0 + λ0 )u,xx + (2μ0 − τ0 )u,yy + (2μ0 + 2λ0 + τ0 )v,xy + fx + 12 cz,y = m0 ü, (2.39a)
1 2
(λ + μ)hu,xy + μhv,xx + (λ + 2μ)hv,yy + 4 μl h(u,xxxy + u,xyyy − v,xxxx − v,xxyy )
+ (2μ0 + 2λ0 + τ0 )u,xy + (2μ0 − τ0 )v,xx + 2(2μ0 + λ0 )v,yy + fy − 12 cz,x = m0 v̈, (2.39b)
ks μh(w,xx + w,yy − φx,x − φy,y ) − 14 μl2 h(w,xxxx + 2w,xxyy + w,yyyy + φx,xxx + φx,xyy
+ φy,xxy + φy,yyy ) + 2τ0 (w,xx + w,yy ) − kw w + kp (w,xx + w,yy ) + fz − 12 cx,y + 12 cy,x = m0 ẅ,
(2.39c)
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 3
− 12 (λ + 2μ)h φx,xx − 12 μh φx,yy − 12 (λ + μ)h φy,xy − ks μh(w,x − φx ) − 48 μl h (−φx,xxyy
− φx,yyyy + φy,xxxy + φy,xyyy ) + 14 μl2 h(−w,xxx − w,xyy − φx,xx − 4φx,yy + 3φy,xy )
− 14 h2 [2(λ0 + 2μ0 )φx,xx + (2μ0 − τ0 )φx,yy + (2λ0 + 2μ0 + τ0 )φy,xy ] + 12 cy = −m2 φ̈x (2.39d)
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 3
and − 12 (λ + μ)h φx,xy − 12 μh φy,xx − 12 (λ + 2μ)h φy,yy − ks μh(w,y − φy ) − 48 μl h (φx,xxxy
+ φx,xyyy − φy,xxxx − φy,xxyy ) + 14 μl2 h(−w,xxy − w,yyy + 3φx,xy − 4φy,xx − φy,yy )
− 14 h2 [(2λ0 + 2μ0 + τ0 )φx,xy + (2μ0 − τ0 )φy,xx + 2(λ0 + 2μ0 )φy,yy ] − 12 cx = −m2 φ̈y (2.39e)
for any (x, y) ∈ R and t ∈ (0, T). Note that the rotary inertia represented by m2 is explicitly involved
in the governing equations listed in equations (2.39d,e).
The differential equations in equations (2.39a–e), the BCs in equations (2.35a–h) (along with
equations (2.34a–h), (2.29) and (2.30a,b)), and the given initial conditions at t = 0 and t = T
define the boundary-initial value problem for determining u, v, w, φx and φy . It is seen from
equations (2.39a–e) that the in-plane displacements u and v are uncoupled with the out-of-plane
displacement w and the rotations φx and φy . Therefore, u and v can be obtained separately from
solving equations (2.39a,b) subject to prescribed BCs of the form in equations (2.35a,b,g) and
suitable initial conditions.
When kw = kp = 0, equations (2.39a–e) will reduce to the governing equations for the Mindlin
plate without the foundation (but incorporating the microstructure and surface energy effects).
When l = 0 and ci = 0, equations (2.39a–e) will become the governing equations for the Mindlin
plate in the absence of the microstructure (or couple stress) effect (but including the surface energy
and foundation effects).
When λ0 = μ0 = τ0 = 0, equations (2.39a–e) will degenerate to the governing equations for the
Mindlin plate without considering the surface energy effect (but accounting for the microstructure
and foundation effects).
When l = 0, ci = 0 and λ0 = μ0 = τ0 = 0, equations (2.39a–e) will be simplified as the classical
elasticity-based governing equations for the Mindlin plate resting on the two-parameter Winkler–
Pasternak elastic foundation.
When kw = kp = 0 and λ0 = μ0 = τ0 = 0, equations (2.39a–e) become
(λ + 2μ)hu,xx + μhu,yy + (λ + μ)hv,xy
+ 14 μl2 h(−u,xxyy − u,yyyy + v,xxxy + v,xyyy ) + fx + 12 cz,y = m0 ü, (2.40a)

(λ + μ)hu,xy + μhv,xx + (λ + 2μ)hv,yy
+ 14 μl2 h(u,xxxy + u,xyyy − v,xxxx − v,xxyy ) + fy − 12 cz,x = m0 v̈, (2.40b)
ks μh(w,xx + w,yy − φx,x − φy,y ) − 14 μl2 h(w,xxxx + 2w,xxyy + w,yyyy
+ φx,xxx + φx,xyy + φy,xxy + φy,yyy ) + fz − 12 cx,y + 12 cy,x = m0 ẅ, (2.40c)

1 1 1
− 12 (λ + 2μ)h φx,xx
3 − 12 μh φx,yy
3 − 12 (λ + μ)h φy,xy
3 − ks μh(w,x − φx ) 14
1
− 48 μl h (−φx,xxyy
2 3 − φx,yyyy + φy,xxxy + φy,xyyy )

...................................................
+ 14 μl2 h(−w,xxx − w,xyy − φx,xx − 4φx,yy + 3φy,xy ) + 12 cy = −m2 φ̈x (2.40d)
1 1 1
and − 12 (λ + μ)h φx,xy
3 − 12 μh φy,xx
3 − 12 (λ + 2μ)h φy,yy
3 − ks μh(w,y − φy )
1
− 48 μl h (φx,xxxy
2 3 + φx,xyyy − φy,xxxx − φy,xxyy )
+ 14 μl2 h(−w,xxy − w,yyy + 3φx,xy − 4φy,xx − φy,yy ) − 12 cx = −m2 φ̈y , (2.40e)
which are the governing equations for the Mindlin plate incorporating the microstructure effect
alone. These equations are identical to those derived in Ma et al. [22] using the same modified
couple stress theory. By setting l = 0 and ci = 0, equations (2.40a–e) will be further reduced to the
governing equations for the Mindlin plate based on classical elasticity, as shown in Ma et al. [22].
When φx = ∂w/∂x and φy = ∂w/∂y, equations (2.39a–e) are simplified as
(λ + 2μ)hu,xx + μhu,yy + (λ + μ)hv,xy + 14 μl2 h(−u,xxyy − u,yyyy + v,xxxy + v,xyyy )
+ 2(2μ0 + λ0 )u,xx + (2μ0 − τ0 )u,yy + (2μ0 + 2λ0 + τ0 )v,xy + fx + 12 cz,y = m0 ü, (2.41a)
(λ + μ)hu,xy + μhv,xx + (λ + 2μ)hv,yy + 14 μl2 h(u,xxxy + u,xyyy − v,xxxx − v,xxyy )
+ (2μ0 + 2λ0 + τ0 )u,xy + (2μ0 − τ0 )v,xx + 2(2μ0 + λ0 )v,yy + fy − 12 cz,x = m0 v̈ (2.41b)

1 1
and − (λ + 2μ)h3 + μl2 h + (λ0 + 2μ0 )h2 (w,xxxx + 2w,xxyy + w,yyyy )
12 2
∂ 2 ẅ ∂ 2 ẅ
+ (2τ0 + kp )(w,xx + w,yy ) − kw w + fz − cx,y + cy,x = m0 ẅ − m2 − m2 , (2.41c)
∂x2 ∂y2
which are the same as the governing equations first derived in Gao & Zhang [17] for the non-
classical Kirchhoff plate model incorporating microstructure, surface energy and foundation
effects and involving three independent kinematic variables u, v and w. That is, the newly
developed Mindlin plate model reduces to the non-classical Kirchhoff plate model when the
normality assumption is reinstated.
When v = 0, φy = 0, u = u(x, t), w = w(x, t), φx = φx (x, t), fy = 0, cx = 0 and cz = 0, the Mindlin
plate considered here becomes a Timoshenko beam. For this case, equations (2.39a–e) reduce to,
by setting kw = kp = 0 and λ0 = μ0 = τ0 = 0 additionally,
(λ + 2μ)hu,xx + fx = m0 ü, (2.42a)
ks μh(w,xx − φx,x ) − 14 μl2 h(w,xxxx + φx,xxx ) + fz + 12 cy,x = m0 ẅ (2.42b)

1 1 2 1
12 (λ + 2μ)h φx,xx + ks μh(w,x − φx ) + 4 μl h(w,xxx + φx,xx ) − = m2 φ̈x ,
and 3
2 cy (2.42c)
which are identical to the equations of motion for a Timoshenko beam with a unit width and
a height h derived in Ma et al. [35]. That is, the current Mindlin plate model recovers the
non-classical Timoshenko beam model based on the same modified couple stress theory as a
special case.
3. Examples
To further demonstrate the new non-classical Mindlin plate model developed in §2, the static
bending and free vibration problems of a simply supported rectangular plate (figure 4) are
analytically solved in this section by directly applying the general forms of the governing
equations and BCs of the new model.
y 15
b

...................................................
P
Figure 4. Simply supported plate. (Online version in colour.)
In view of the general form of the BCs in equations (2.35a–h), the BCs for this simply supported
plate can be identified as
un = 0, w = 0, φs = 0, N̂ss = 0, M̂n = 0, T̂z = 0, T̂s = 0, Ẑs = 0 (3.1)
for all (x, y) on the boundaries x = 0, a and y = 0, b. Also, the following applied traction resultants
vanish on these boundaries:
s̄n = s̄s = s̄z = 0, M̄n = 0, t̄s = 0. (3.2)
For the boundaries x = 0 and x = a, ny = 0 and nx = −1 (on x = 0) or nx = 1 (on x = a), and

equation (3.1) becomes, with the help of equations (2.29), (2.30a), (2.34b,d,f –h) and (3.2),
u(0, y) = u(a, y) = 0, (3.3a)

w(0, y) = w(a, y) = 0, (3.3b)
φy (0, y) = φy (a, y) = 0, (3.3c)
+ − + −
Nxy − 12 Yxz,x − 12 Yyz,y + 12 (τxy + τxy + τyx + τyx ) − 12 cz = 0 on x = 0 and x = a, (3.3d)
+ −
2Mxx + Yxy + Hxz,y + h(τxx − τxx )=0 on x = 0 and x = a, (3.3e)
Yxy = 0 on x = 0 and x = a, (3.3f )
Yxz = 0 on x = 0 and x = a, (3.3g)
Hxz = 0 on x = 0 and x = a. (3.3h)
Using equations (2.36b,f ), (2.37b,c,e,g) and (2.38a–c) in equations (3.3d–h) yields
hμ(u,y + v,x ) − 14 μl2 h(−u,xxy − u,yyy + v,xxx + v,xyy ) + (2μ0 − τ0 )(u,y + v,x ) − 12 cz = 0, (3.4a)
h3 1 1
[(λ + 2μ)φx,x + λφy,y ] − μl2 h3 (φx,xyy − φy,xxy ) − μl2 h(−w,xx + w,yy − φx,x + φy,y )
6 24 2
+ h2 [(λ0 + 2μ0 )φx,x + (λ0 + τ0 )φy,y ] = 0, (3.4b)
w,xx − w,yy + φx,x − φy,y = 0, (3.4c)
u,xy − v,xx = 0, (3.4d)
φx,xy − φy,xx = 0 (3.4e)
on x = 0 and x = a.
For the boundaries y = 0 and y = b, nx = 0 and ny = −1 (on y = 0) or ny = 1 (on y = b), and

16
equation (3.1) becomes, with the help of equations (2.29), (2.30a), (2.34b,d,f –h) and (3.2),

...................................................
v(x, 0) = v(x, b) = 0, (3.5a)
w(x, 0) = w(x, b) = 0, (3.5b)
φx (x, 0) = φx (x, b) = 0, (3.5c)
+ − + −
Nyx + 12 Yxz,x + 12 Yyz,y + 12 (τxy + τxy + τyx + τyx ) + 12 cz = 0 on y = 0 and y = b, (3.5d)
+ −
2Myy − Yyx − Hyz,x + h(τyy − τyy )=0 on y = 0 and y = b, (3.5e)
Yyx = 0 on y = 0 and y = b, (3.5f )

Yyz = 0 on y = 0 and y = b, (3.5g)
Hyz = 0 on y = 0 and y = b. (3.5h)
Using equations (2.36b,h), (2.37b,c,e,h) and (2.38b–d) in equations (3.5d–h) gives
μh(u,y + v,x ) + 14 μl2 h(−u,xxy − u,yyy + v,xxx + v,xyy ) + (2μ0 − τ0 )(u,y + v,x ) + 12 cz = 0, (3.6a)
1 3 1 1 2
6 h [λφx,x + (λ + 2μ)φy,y ] + 24 μl h (φx,xyy
2 3 − φy,xxy ) + 2 μl h(−w,xx + w,yy − φx,x + φy,y )
+ h2 [(λ0 + τ0 )φx,x + (λ0 + 2μ0 )φy,y ] = 0, (3.6b)

w,xx − w,yy + φx,x − φy,y = 0, (3.6c)
u,yy − v,xy = 0, (3.6d)
φx,yy − φy,xy = 0 (3.6e)
on y = 0 and y = b.
(a) Static bending

For static bending problems, u, v, w, φx and φy are independent of time t so that all of the time
derivatives involved in equations (2.39a–e) vanish.
The boundary value problem (BVP) for the static bending of the simply supported plate
shown in figure 4 is defined by the governing equations in equations (2.39a–e) and the BCs
in equations (3.3a–c), (3.4a–e), (3.5a–c) and (3.6a–e), with u = u(x, y), v = v(x, y), w = w(x, y), φx =
φx (x, y) and φy = φy (x, y).
As mentioned in §2, the in-plane displacements u and v are uncoupled with w, φx and φy .
Therefore, u and v can be obtained from solving the BVP defined by equations (2.39a,b), (3.3a),
(3.4a,d), (3.5a) and (3.6a,d). For the current case with fx = fy = 0 and cz = 0, the solution of this BVP
gives u = v = 0 for any (x, y) ∈ R.
The out-of-plane displacement w and rotations φx and φy can be obtained from solving the
BVP defined by equations (2.39c–e), (3.3b,c), (3.4b,c,e), (3.5b,c) and (3.6b,c,e), as shown next.
Consider the following Fourier series solutions for w, φx and φy :
∞
∞ mπ x nπ y ⎫
⎪
w= Wmn sin sin ,⎪
⎪
⎪
a b ⎪
⎪
m=1 n=1 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
∞
∞ mπ x nπ y ⎪⎬
x
φx = Φmn cos sin (3.7)
a b ⎪
⎪
m=1 n=1 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
∞
y ∞ ⎪
⎪
mπ x nπ y ⎪
and φy = Φmn sin cos ,⎪
⎪
⎭
a b
m=1 n=1
y
where Wmn , Φmn x and Φ
mn are the Fourier coefficients to be determined for each pair of m and n. 17
It can be readily shown that w, φx and φy in equation (3.7) satisfy the BCs in equations (3.3b,c),
x and Φ y .
(3.4b,c,e) at x = 0, a and in equations (3.5b,c), (3.6b,c,e) at y = 0, b for any Wmn , Φmn

mn
...................................................
Note that the double Fourier series solution for w given in equation (3.7) was first explored for
a simply supported rectangular Kirchhoff plate based on classical elasticity, which is known as
the Navier solution (e.g. [44,45]). The Navier solution has been extended to a rectangular Mindlin
plate based on classical elasticity [46]. Also, the solutions in the form listed in equation (3.7)
have been successfully obtained for a simply supported rectangular Mindlin plate based on the
modified couple stress theory that accounts for the microstructure effect [22].
The resultant force fz (x, y) can also be expanded as a Fourier series,
∞
∞ mπ x nπ y
fz (x, y) = Qmn sin sin , (3.8)
a b
m=1 n=1
where the Fourier coefficient Qmn is given by

mπ x nπ y
4 a b
Qmn = fz (x, y) sin sin dx dy. (3.9)
ab 0 0 a b
In the current case (figure 4), fz (x, y) = Pδ(x − a/2)δ(y − b/2), where δ(·) is the Dirac delta
function. Using this fz in equation (3.9) yields
4P mπ nπ
Qmn = sin sin . (3.10)
ab 2 2
Substituting equations (3.7) and (3.8) into equations (2.39c–e) results in, with cx = cy = 0,
x y
[C][Wmn , Φmn , Φmn ]T = [−Qmn , 0, 0]T , (3.11)
where [C] is a 3-by-3 matrix whose components are

2 ⎫
m2 π 2 n2 π 2 μl2 h m2 π 2 n2 π 2 ⎪
⎪
C11 = −(ks μh + 2τ0 + kp ) + 2 − + 2 − kw , ⎪ ⎪
⎪
a 2 b 4 a2 b ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
mπ μl h m π
2 3 3 mn π2 3 ⎪
⎪
C12 = ks μh − + , ⎪
⎪
a 4 a3 ab2 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
nπ μl h m nπ
2 2 3 n π
3 3 ⎪
⎪
C13 = ks μh − + , ⎪
⎪
b 4 a2 b b3 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
(λ + 2μ)h3 m2 π 2 μh3 n2 π 2 μl2 h3 m2 n2 π 4 n4 π 4 ⎪
⎪
C22 = ks μh + + + + ⎪
⎪
12 a 2 12 b 2 48 2
a b 2 b4 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
μl h m π
2 2 2 4n π
2 2 (2μ0 + λ0 )h m π 2 2 2 (2μ0 − τ0 )h n π ⎪
2 2 2
⎬
+ + + + ,
4 a 2 b 2 2 a 2 4 2
b ⎪ (3.12)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
(λ + μ)h3 mnπ 2 μl2 h3 m3 nπ 4 mn3 π 4 3μl2 h mnπ 2 ⎪
⎪
C23 = − + − ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
12 ab 48 3
a b ab3 4 ab ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
(2μ0 + 2λ0 + τ0 )h mnπ 2 2 ⎪
⎪
+ , ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
4 ab ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
(λ + 2μ)h n π 3 2 2 μh m π
3 2 2 μl h2 3 m n π
2 2 4 m π
4 4 ⎪
⎪
C33 = ks μh + + + + ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
12 b 2 12 a 2 48 2
a b 2 a 4 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
μl h 4m π
2 2 2 n π
2 2 (2μ0 + λ0 )h n π 2 2 2 (2μ0 − τ0 )h m π ⎪
2 2 2 ⎪
+ + 2 + + ,⎪⎪
⎪
⎪
4 a2 b 2 b2 4 a2 ⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎭
C21 = −C12 , C31 = −C13 , C32 = C23 .
1.4 h=l
18
P = 0.1 N, a = b = 20h h = 2l classical
1.2 h = 5l

...................................................
h=l current
1.0
h = 2l without
h = 5l foundation
0.8
w/h
h=l current with

the Winkler–
0.6 h = 2l Pasternak
h = 5l foundation
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
x/h
Figure 5. Deflection of the simply supported Mindlin plate on y = b/2 with K¯w = 100, K¯p = 10. (Online version in colour.)
h=l
0.20 P = 0.1 N, a = b = 20h h = 2l classical
h = 5l
0.15 h=l current
h = 2l without
0.10 h = 5l foundation
h=l current with
0.05 h = 2l the Winkler–
fx (rad)
h = 5l Pasternak
foundation
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
–0.05 x/h
–0.10
–0.15
–0.20
Figure 6. Rotation of the simply supported Mindlin plate on y = b/2 with K¯w = 100, K¯p = 10. (Online version in colour.)
y
Solving the linear algebraic equation system in equation (3.11) will yield Wmn , Φmn
x and Φ .
mn
Then, substituting them into equation (3.7) will give the exact solutions w, φx and φy based on
the current non-classical Mindlin plate model for the simply supported plate subjected to the
concentrated force at the centre of the plate (figure 4).
Figures 5 and 6 display, respectively, the variations of the plate deflection w and the rotation
φx along the line y = b/2 predicted by the newly developed Mindlin plate model (with or without
the Winkler–Pasternak foundation) and by the classical Mindlin plate model. The numerical
results for the plate with the Winkler–Pasternak foundation (solid lines) are directly obtained
from equations (3.7) and (3.10)–(3.12), while those for the plate without the foundation (dashed
lines) are computed using the same equations but with kw = kp = 0. The values for the classical
Mindlin plate (dotted lines) are determined from equations (3.7) and (3.10)–(3.12) by setting l = 0,
λ0 = μ0 = τ0 = 0, and kw = kp = 0.
For illustration purposes, in the numerical analysis presented herein, the plate material is
taken to be aluminium with the following properties [15,47]: E = 90 GPa, v = 0.23, l = 6.58 µm for
the bulk properties and μ0 = −5.4251 N m−1 , λ0 = 3.4939 N m−1 , τ0 = 0.5689 N m−1 for the surface
0.30
– –
19
P = 0.1 N, a = b = 20h, h = l Kw = 0, Kp = 0
– –
Kw = 100, Kp = 0

0.25
...................................................
– –
Kw = 100, Kp = 10
– –
0.20 Kw = 100, Kp = 50
– –
Kw = 500, Kp = 50
w/h
0.15
0.10
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
x/h
Figure 7. Deflection of the plate with different values of kw and kp . (Online version in colour.)
layers, where Young’s modulus E and Poisson’s ratio v are related to the Lamé constants λ and μ
by (e.g. [48])
μ(3λ + 2μ) λ
E= , v= . (3.13)
λ+μ 2(λ + μ)
The shear correction factor ks is taken to be 0.8 (e.g. [22,42,43]). In addition, the shape of the plate
is fixed by letting a = b = 20 h, while the plate thickness h is varying.
In figures 5 and 6, the foundation moduli are non-dimensionalized and taken to be K̄w = 100,
K̄p = 10, where K̄w ≡ kw a4 /D, K̄p ≡ kp a2 /D, with D = Eh3 /[12(1 − v 2 )] being the plate flexural
rigidity. The number of terms included in equation (3.7) is controlled by adjusting m and n. The
numerical results for w, φx and φy obtained with m = 30 and n = 30 are found to be the same as
those computed with larger m and n values (up to m = 60, n = 60) to the third decimal place. This
indicates that using m = 30, n = 30 in the expansions is sufficient for the convergent numerical
solutions of w and φx displayed in figures 5 and 6. Note that the values of φy along the line x = a/2
are the same as those of φx along the line y = b/2 due to the loading and geometrical symmetry
of the square plate under consideration. Hence, φy is not plotted here.
From figures 5 and 6, it is clearly seen that both the deflection w and the rotation φx predicted
by the current Mindlin plate model with or without the foundation are always smaller than
those predicted by the classical model in all cases considered. It is also observed that the
differences between the values predicted by the new model (with or without the foundation)
and those predicted by the classical model are very large when the plate thickness h is small (with
h = l = 6.58 µm here), but the differences diminish when h becomes large (with h = 5l = 32.9 µm
here). This predicted size effect agrees with the general trend observed experimentally (e.g. [49]).
In addition, it is observed from figures 5 and 6 that the presence of the elastic foundation does
reduce the plate deflection and rotation, as expected. The foundation effect on the deflection of
the simply supported plate (figure 4) is further shown in figure 7, where more cases with different
values of kw and kp , including the case without the foundation (as the top curve with kw = kp = 0)
and the case with the Winkler foundation (as the red dash curve with kp = 0), are compared. Note
that the values of the other parameters remain the same as those used in obtaining the numerical
results shown in figure 5.
Both the microstructure and surface energy effects are included in the numerical results shown
in figures 5–7. To illustrate the surface energy effect separately, additional numerical results are
presented in figure 8 for the deflection of the simply supported plate, which are obtained from
2.5 20
P = 10 mN, a = b = 20h

...................................................
2.0
1.5
w/h
1.0
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
x/h
h = 0.05 mm (current) h = 0.08 mm (current) h = 0.1 mm (current)
h = 0.05 mm (classical) h = 0.08 mm (classical) h = 0.1 mm (classical)
Figure 8. Deflection of the simply supported plate predicted by the new model considering the surface energy effect alone
(i.e. with l = kw = kp = 0) and by the classical model (with l = kw = kp = 0 and λ0 = μ0 = τ0 = 0). (Online version
in colour.)
equations (3.7) and (3.10)–(3.12) by letting l = 0. For comparison purposes, the results predicted by
the classical elasticity-based Mindlin plate model are also plotted in figure 8, which are computed
using equations (3.7) and (3.10)–(3.12) with l = 0 and λ0 = μ0 = τ0 = 0. In addition, the foundation
moduli are set to be kw = kp = 0 to examine only the surface energy effect. Note that the plate
material properties used here remain the same as those employed earlier, and the plate shape is
kept to be the same by letting a = b = 20h (figure 4) for all cases (with different values of h).
From figure 8, it is clearly seen that the plate deflection predicted by the current model
including the surface energy effect alone is always smaller than those predicted by the classical
model in all cases considered here. Figure 8 also illustrates that the differences between the two
sets of predicted values are significant only when the plate thickness h is very small, but they
diminish as h increases. This indicates that the surface energy effect is important only when the
plate is sufficiently thin.
(b) Free vibration

For free vibration problems, the boundary-initial value problem for the simply supported plate
shown in figure 4 is defined by equations (2.39a–e), (3.3a–c), (3.4a–e), (3.5a–c) and (3.6a–e), with all
external forces vanished (i.e. fx = fy = fz = 0 and cx = cy = cz = 0).
For the current case with fx = fy = 0 and cz = 0, equations (2.39a,b), (3.3a), (3.4a,d), (3.5a) and
(3.6a,d) give u = u(x, y, t) = 0, v = v(x, y, t) = 0 for any (x, y) ∈ R and t ∈ [0, T].
For w, φx and φy , consider the following Fourier series expansions:
∞
∞ mπ x nπ y ⎫
⎪
w(x, y, t) = V
Wmn sin sin e iωn t
,⎪
⎪
⎪
a b ⎪
⎪
m=1 n=1 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
∞
∞ mπ x nπ y ⎪
⎬
x,V
φx (x, y, t) = Φmn cos sin eiωn t (3.14)
a ⎪
⎪ b
m=1 n=1 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
∞ ∞ ⎪
y,V mπ x nπ y iωn t ⎪
⎪
and φy (x, y, t) = Φmn sin cos e ,⎪ ⎪
⎭
a b
m=1 n=1
V , Φ x,V and Φ y,V

where ωn is the nth natural frequency of vibration of the plate, Wmn mn mn are the 21
Fourier coefficients, and i is the imaginary unit satisfying i2 = −1. It can be readily shown that
the expressions of w, φx and φy in equation (3.14) satisfy the BCs in equations (3.3b,c), (3.4b,c,e) at

...................................................
x = 0, a and in equations (3.5b,c), (3.6b,c,e) at y = 0, b for any t ∈ [0, T].
Using equation (3.14) in equations (2.39c–e) gives
⎡ ⎤
m0 ωn2 0 0
⎢ ⎥
V x,V y,V ⎢ ⎥ V x,V y,V
[C][Wmn , Φmn , Φmn ]T + ⎢ 0 −m2 ωn2 0 ⎥ [Wmn , Φmn , Φmn ]T = [0, 0, 0]T , (3.15)
⎣ ⎦
0 0 −m2 ωn 2
where [C] is the 3-by-3 matrix whose components are defined in equation (3.12), and m0 and m2
are given in equation (2.24). Note that the rotary inertia represented by m2 is explicitly included
in equation (3.15) for the current free vibration problem.
Let
1 1 1 ⎫
D11 = C11 , D12 = C12 , D13 = C13 , ⎪
⎪
h h h ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎬
12 12 12
D21 = − 3 C21 , D22 = − 3 C22 , D23 = − 3 C23 , (3.16)
h h h ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
12 12 12 ⎪
⎪
D31 = − 3 C31 , D32 = − 3 C32 , D33 = − 3 C33 .⎭
h h h
Using equation (3.16) in equation (3.15) yields, with the help of equation (2.24),
x,V y,V
([D] + ρωn2 [I])[Wmn
V
, Φmn , Φmn ]T = [0, 0, 0]T , (3.17)
V = x,V y,V
where [I] is the 3-by-3 identity matrix. For a non-trivial solution of Wmn 0, Φmn 0 and Φmn
= = 0
simultaneously, it is required that the determinant of the coefficient matrix of equation (3.17)
vanish. That is,
|[D] + ρωn2 [I]| = 0, (3.18)
which can be expanded to obtain
(ρωn2 )3 + ID (ρωn2 )2 + IID (ρωn2 ) + IIID = 0, (3.19)
where
⎫
ID ≡ Dii = D11 + D22 + D33 , ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
1 ⎪
IID ≡ (Dii Djj − Dij Dji ) = D11 D22 + D22 D33 + D33 D11 − D12 D21 − D23 D32 − D13 D31 ,⎬
2 (3.20)
⎪
⎪
IIID ≡ εijk Di1 Dj2 Dk3 = D11 D22 D33 − D11 D23 D32 − D12 D21 D33 + D12 D23 D31 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎭
+ D13 D21 D32 − D13 D31 D22
are the three invariants of the [D] matrix whose components Dij are defined in equation (3.16).
Equation (3.19) is a cubic equation in ωn2 . The smallest (positive) root of equation (3.19) gives
the nth natural frequency, ωn , for the free vibration of the plate. Note that the rotary inertia effect
has been incorporated in equation (3.19).
V , Φ x,V and Φ y,V
With ωn determined from equation (3.19), Wmn mn mn (with two being independent)
can then be obtained from solving equation (3.17), which will then lead to the determination of
w(x, y, t), φx (x, y, t) and φy (x, y, t) through equation (3.14), and thereby completing the solution.
Figure 9 shows the variation of the first natural frequency ω1 , obtained from equation (3.19)
(with m = 1, n = 1 in equation (3.12)), with the plate thickness, which is predicted by the current
Mindlin plate model with the Winkler–Pasternak (K̄w = 1000, K̄p = 100) or Winkler (K̄w = 1000,
kp = 0) or no foundation (kw = kp = 0) and by the classical model (i.e. with l = 0, λ0 = μ0 = τ0 = 0,
and kw = kp = 0). The material properties and geometry of the aluminium plate used here are
the same as those employed earlier to obtain the numerical results shown in figures 5–8. In
50
22
45

a = b = 20h
...................................................
40
classical model
35
30 current model without foundation

w1(MHz)
25 current model with the Winkler

foundation
20 current model with the Winkler–
15 Pasternak foundation
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 80 20
h/l
Figure 9. Natural frequency varying with the plate thickness. (Online version in colour.)
90
a = b = 20h, h = l
80
70
w1(MHz)
60
50
40
30
500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500 9500
–
Kw
– – – – –
Kp = 0 Kp = 50 Kp = 100 Kp = 150 Kp = 200
Figure 10. Natural frequency of the plate with different values of kw and kp . (Online version in colour.)
addition, the density for the aluminium plate is taken to be ρ = 2.7 × 103 kg m−3 , which is needed
in equation (3.19).
From figure 9, it is clearly seen that the natural frequency predicted by the current model with
or without the foundation is always higher than that predicted by the classical elasticity-based
model. The difference between the predictions by the current model without the foundation and
the classical model is significant when the plate thickness h is very small (with h < 2l = 13.16 µm
here), while the difference is diminishing as h becomes large (with h > 6l = 39.48 µm here for the
case with kw = kp = 0). This shows that the size effect on the natural frequency is important only
when the plate thickness is very small. In addition, it is observed from figure 9 that the presence
23
of the elastic foundation indeed increases the natural frequency, and this effect can be significant
when the plate thickness is small but diminishes as the thickness becomes large. The effect of the

...................................................
foundation on the natural frequency of the simply supported plate (figure 4) is further illustrated
in figure 10, where more cases with different values of kw and kp , including the case with the
Winkler foundation (as the bottom curve with kp = 0), are compared. Note that the values of the
other parameters remain the same as those used to obtain the numerical results shown in figure 9.
Clearly, figure 10 shows that the larger the value of kw or kp , the larger the natural frequency
ω1 , which supports what is observed from figure 9.
4. Summary
A new non-classical Mindlin plate model is developed in a general form by using a modified
couple stress theory, a surface elasticity theory and a two-parameter Winkler–Pasternak elastic
foundation model and by including all five kinematic variables possible for a Mindlin plate.
The equations of motion and the complete BCs are determined simultaneously through a
variational formulation based on Hamilton’s principle, and the microstructure, surface energy
and foundation effects are treated in a unified manner. The newly developed model can capture
the size effects exhibited by thin plates at the micrometre scale.
As direct applications of the new Mindlin plate model, the static bending and free vibration
problems of a simply supported rectangular plate are analytically solved, with the solutions
compared with those based on the classical Mindlin plate theory. For the static bending problem,
the numerical results reveal that the deflection and rotations of the simply supported plate with or
without the Winkler–Pasternak elastic foundation predicted by the current model are smaller than
those predicted by the classical model, and the differences are very large when the plate thickness
is sufficiently small but diminish as the thickness of the plate increases. For the free vibration
problem, it is found that the natural frequency predicted by the new plate model with or without
the elastic foundation is higher than that predicted by the classical model, and the difference is
significant for very thin plates. These predicted size effects at the micrometre scale agree with the
general trends observed in experiments. Finally, the numerical results show quantitatively that
the plate deflection is reduced and the plate natural frequency is increased in the presence of the
elastic foundation, as expected.
Competing interests. There are no conflicts or competing interests in this work.
Funding. The work reported here is funded by a grant from the US National Science Foundation (NSF),
Mechanics of Materials and Structures Program, with Dr Kara Peters as the programme manager.
Acknowledgements. The support from NSF is gratefully acknowledged. The authors also would like to thank two
anonymous reviewers for their encouragement and helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper.
References
1. Winkler E. 1867 Die Lehre von der Elasticitaet und Festigkeit. Prague, Czech Republic: Verlag von
H. Dominicus.
2. Filonenko-Borodich MM. 1940 Some approximate theories of the elastic foundation. Uchenyie
Zapiski Moskovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta Mekhanica 46, 3–18. [In Russian.]
3. Pasternak PL. 1954 On a new method of analysis of an elastic foundation by means of two
foundation constants. Moscow, Russia: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo Literaturi po Stroitelstvu
I Arkhitekture. [In Russian.]
4. Kerr AD. 1964 Elastic and viscoelastic foundation models. ASME J. Appl. Mech. 31, 491–498.
(doi:10.1115/1.3629667)
5. Vlasov VZ. 1966 Beams, plates and shells on elastic foundations (translated from Russian).
Jerusalem, Israel: Israel Program for Scientific Translations.
6. Feng ZH, Cook RD. 1983 Beam elements on two-parameter elastic foundations. J. Eng. Mech.
109, 1390–1402. (doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1983)109:6(1390))
7. Eisenberger M, Clastornik J. 1987 Beams on variable two-parameter elastic foundation. J. Eng.

24
Mech. 113, 1454–1466. (doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1987)113:10(1454))
8. Khajeansari A, Baradaran GH, Yvonnet J. 2012 An explicit solution for bending of nanowires

...................................................
lying on Winkler-Pasternak elastic substrate medium based on the Euler-Bernoulli beam
theory. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 52, 115–128. (doi:10.1016/j.ijengsci.2011.11.004)
9. Gurtin ME, Murdoch AI. 1978 Surface stress in solids. Int. J. Solids Struct. 14, 431–440.
(doi:10.1016/0020-7683(78)90008-2)
10. Eremeyev VA, Lebedev LP. 2016 Mathematical study of boundary-value problems within
the framework of Steigmann–Ogden model of surface elasticity. Contin. Mech. Thermodyn. 28,
407–422. (doi:10.1007/s00161-015-0439-0)
11. Şimşek M, Reddy JN. 2013 A unified higher order beam theory for buckling of a functionally
graded microbeam embedded in elastic medium using modified couple stress theory. Compos.
Struct. 101, 47–58. (doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.01.017)
12. Yang F, Chong ACM, Lam DCC, Tong P. 2002 Couple stress based strain gradient theory for
elasticity. Int. J. Solids Struct. 39, 2731–2743. (doi:10.1016/S0020-7683(02)00152-X)
13. Park SK, Gao X-L. 2008 Variational formulation of a modified couple stress theory and its
application to a simple shear problem. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 59, 904–917. (doi:10.1007/
s00033-006-6073-8)
14. Limkatanyu S, Ponbunyanon P, Prachasaree W, Kuntiyawichai K, Kwon M. 2014 Correlation
between beam on Winkler-Pasternak foundation and beam on elastic substrate medium
with inclusion of microstructure and surface effects. J. Mech. Sci. Tech. 28, 3653–3665.
(doi:10.1007/s12206-014-0827-6)
15. Gao X-L, Mahmoud FF. 2014 A new Bernoulli-Euler beam model incorporating
microstructure and surface energy effects. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 65, 393–404. (doi:10.1007/
s00033-013-0343-z)
16. Akgöz B, Civalek Ö. 2013 Modeling and analysis of micro-sized plates resting on elastic
medium using the modified couple stress theory. Meccanica 48, 863–873. (doi:10.1007/
s11012-012-9639-x)
17. Gao X-L, Zhang GY. 2016 A non-classical Kirchhoff plate model incorporating
microstructure, surface energy and foundation effects. Contin. Mech. Thermodyn. 28, 195–213.
(doi:10.1007/s00161-015-0413-x)
18. Gurtin ME, Murdoch AI. 1975 A continuum theory of elastic material surfaces. Arch. Ration.
Mech. Anal. 57, 291–323. (doi:10.1007/BF00261375)
19. Selvadurai APS. 1979 Elastic analysis of soil-foundation interaction. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Elsevier.
20. Yokoyama T. 1996 Vibration analysis of Timoshenko beam-columns on two-parameter elastic
foundations. Comput. Struct. 61, 995–1007. (doi:10.1016/0045-7949(96)00107-1)
21. Reddy JN. 2002 Energy principles and variational methods in applied mechanics, 2nd edn. New
York, NY: Wiley.
22. Ma HM, Gao X-L, Reddy JN. 2011 A non-classical Mindlin plate model based on a modified
couple stress theory. Acta Mech. 220, 217–235. (doi:10.1007/s00707-011-0480-4)
23. Mindlin RD. 1963 Influence of couple-stresses on stress concentrations. Exp. Mech. 3, 1–7.
(doi:10.1007/BF02327219)
24. Park SK, Gao X-L. 2006 Bernoulli-Euler beam model based on a modified couple stress theory.
J. Micromech. Microeng. 16, 2355–2359. (doi:10.1088/0960-1317/16/11/015)
25. Steigmann DJ, Ogden RW. 1997 Plane deformations of elastic solids with intrinsic boundary
elasticity. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 453, 853–877. (doi:10.1098/rspa.1997.0047)
26. Steigmann DJ, Ogden RW. 1999 Elastic surface–substrate interactions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A
455, 437–474. (doi:10.1098/rspa.1999.0320)
27. Altenbach H, Eremeyev VA, Lebedev LP. 2010 On the existence of solution in the linear
elasticity with surface stresses. Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 90, 231–240. (doi:10.1002/zamm.
200900311)
28. Zhou S-S, Gao X-L. 2013 Solutions of half-space and half-plane contact problems based on
surface elasticity. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 64, 145–166. (doi:10.1007/s00033-012-0205-0)
29. Zhou S-S, Gao X-L. 2015 Solutions of the generalized half-plane and half-space
Cerruti problems with surface effects. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 66, 1125–1142.
(doi:10.1007/s00033-014-0419-4)
30. Miller RE, Shenoy VB. 2000 Size-dependent elastic properties of nanosized structural
elements. Nanotechnology 11, 139–147. (doi:10.1088/0957-4484/11/3/301)
31. Jing G, Duan H, Sun X, Zhang Z, Xue J, Li Y, Wang J, Yu D. 2006 Surface effects on
25
elastic properties of silver nanowires: contact atomic-force microscopy. Phys. Rev. B 73,
235409-1–235409-6. (doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.73.235409)

...................................................
32. Zhang Y, Zhuo LJ, Zhao HS. 2013 Determining the effects of surface elasticity and surface
stress by measuring the shifts of resonant frequencies. Proc. R. Soc. A 469, 20130449-1–
20130449-14. (doi:10.1098/rspa.2013.0449)
33. Mindlin RD. 1964 Micro-structure in linear elasticity. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 16, 51–78.
(doi:10.1007/BF00248490)
34. Zhou S-S, Gao X-L. 2014 A non-classical model for circular Mindlin plates based on a modified
couple stress theory. ASME J. Appl. Mech. 81, 051014-1–051014-8. (doi:10.1115/1.4026274)
35. Ma HM, Gao X-L, Reddy JN. 2008 A microstructure-dependent Timoshenko beam
model based on a modified couple stress theory. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 56, 3379–3391.
(doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2008.09.007)
36. Ma HM, Gao X-L, Reddy JN. 2010 A non-classical Reddy-Levinson beam model
based on a modified couple stress theory. Int. J. Multiscale Comput. Eng. 8, 167–180.
(doi:10.1615/IntJMultCompEng.v8.i2.30)
37. Gao X-L, Huang JX, Reddy JN. 2013 A non-classical third-order shear deformation
plate model based on a modified couple stress theory. Acta Mech. 224, 2699–2718.
(doi:10.1007/s00707-013-0880-8)
38. Gao X-L, Zhang GY. 2015 A microstructure- and surface energy-dependent third-order
shear deformation beam model. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 66, 1871–1894. (doi:10.1007/s00033-
014-0455-0)
39. Gao X-L, Mall S. 2001 Variational solution for a cracked mosaic model of woven fabric
composites. Int. J. Solids Struct. 38, 855–874. (doi:10.1016/S0020-7683(00)00047-0)
40. Steigmann DJ. 2007 Thin-plate theory for large elastic deformations. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech.
42, 233–240. (doi:10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2006.10.004)
41. Gao X-L. 2015 A new Timoshenko beam model incorporating microstructure and surface
energy effects. Acta Mech. 226, 457–474. (doi:10.1007/s00707-014-1189-y)
42. Wang CM, Lim GT, Reddy JN, Lee KH. 2001 Relationships between bending solutions
of Reissner and Mindlin plate theories. Eng. Struct. 23, 838–849. (doi:10.1016/S0141-
0296(00)00092-4)
43. Liu Y, Soh C-K. 2007 Shear correction for Mindlin type plate and shell elements. Int. J. Numer.
Meth. Eng. 69, 2789–2806. (doi:10.1002/nme.1869)
44. Timoshenko SP, Woinowsky-Krieger K. 1959 Theory of plates and shells, 2nd edn. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
45. Reddy JN. 2007 Theory and analysis of elastic plates and shells, 2nd edn. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
46. Levinson M, Cooke DW. 1983 Thick rectangular plates—I: The generalized Navier solution.
Int. J. Mech. Sci. 25, 199–205. (doi:10.1016/0020-7403(83)90093-0)
47. Liu C, Rajapakse RKND. 2010 Continuum models incorporating surface energy for
static and dynamic response of nanoscale beams. IEEE Trans. Nanotech. 9, 422–431.
(doi:10.1109/TNANO.2009.2034142)
48. Timoshenko SP, Goodier JN. 1970 Theory of elasticity, 3rd edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
49. McFarland AW, Colton JS. 2005 Role of material microstructure in plate stiffness with
relevance to microcantilever sensors. J. Micromech. Microeng. 15, 1060–1067. (doi:10.1088/
0960-1317/15/5/024)

Navier Solution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Navier Solution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.

org/ on December 2, 2018

A non-classical Mindlin plate

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org Proc. R. Soc. A 472: 20160275

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org Proc. R. Soc. A 472: 20160275

Figure 1. Plate configuration and coordinate system. (Online version in colour.)

u1 (x, y, z, t) = u(x, y, t) − zφx (x, y, t), (2.1a)

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org Proc. R. Soc. A 472: 20160275

Figure 2. Plate on a Winkler–Pasternak foundation.

q(x, y, t) = kw w(x, y, t) − kp ∇ 2 w(x, y, t), (2.2)

σij = λεkk δij + 2μεij , (2.3)

mij = 2l2 μχij , (2.4)

εij = 12 (ui,j + uj,i ) (2.5)

and χij = 12 (θi,j + θj,i ), (2.6)

σij nj = τiα,α , (2.8a)

σij ni nj = ταβ καβ , (2.8b)

ταβ = [τ0 + (λ0 + τ0 )uγ ,γ ]δαβ + μ0 (uα,β + uβ,α ) − τ0 uβ,α , (2.9a)

τ3β = τ0 u3,β , (2.9b)

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org Proc. R. Soc. A 472: 20160275

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org Proc. R. Soc. A 472: 20160275

− (−Nxz + Mxx,x + Mxy,y )δφx − (−Nyz + Mxy,x + Myy,y )δφy ] dA dt

are the Cauchy stress resultants through the plate thickness.

are the couple stress resultants through the plate thickness.

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org Proc. R. Soc. A 472: 20160275

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org Proc. R. Soc. A 472: 20160275

Yxx,xy − Yxy,xx + Yxy,yy − Yyy,xy + −

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org Proc. R. Soc. A 472: 20160275

which can be further simplified to obtain the boundary conditions (BCs).

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org Proc. R. Soc. A 472: 20160275

Figure 3. Two coordinate systems. (Online version in colour.)

with n2x + n2y = 1.

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org Proc. R. Soc. A 472: 20160275

Note that on the closed boundary ∂R the following identity:

T̂s ≡ Ynz − s̄z , (2.34g)

Ẑs ≡ −Hnz . (2.34h)

N̂nn = 0 or un = ūn , (2.35a)

N̂ss = 0 or vs = v̄s , (2.35b)

N̂zz = 0 or w = w̄, (2.35c)

M̂n = 0 or φn = φ̄n , (2.35d)

M̂s = 0 or φs = φ̄s , (2.35e)

T̂z = 0 or w,n = w̄,n , (2.35f )

T̂s = 0 or vs,n = v̄s,n (2.35g)

and Ẑs = 0 or φs,n = φ̄s,n (2.35h)

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org Proc. R. Soc. A 472: 20160275

Nxy = μh(u,y + v,x ), (2.36b)

Nxz = ks μh(w,x − φx ), (2.36c)

Nyy = h[λu,x + (λ + 2μ)v,y ], (2.36d)

Nyz = ks μh(w,y − φy ), (2.36e)

Yxx = μl2 h(w,xy + φy,x ), (2.37a)

Yxy = 12 μl2 h(−w,xx + w,yy − φx,x + φy,y ), (2.37b)

Yxz = 12 μl2 h(−u,xy + v,xx ), (2.37c)

Yyy = −μl2 h(w,xy + φx,y ), (2.37d)

Yyz = 12 μl2 h(−u,yy + v,xy ), (2.37e)

Yzz = μl2 h(φx,y − φy,x ), (2.37f )

(λ + 2μ)hu,xx + μhu,yy + (λ + μ)hv,xy + 14 μl2 h(−u,xxyy − u,yyyy + v,xxxy + v,xyyy )

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org Proc. R. Soc. A 472: 20160275

− φx,yyyy + φy,xxxy + φy,xyyy ) + 14 μl2 h(−w,xxx − w,xyy − φx,xx − 4φx,yy + 3φy,xy )

+ φx,xyyy − φy,xxxx − φy,xxyy ) + 14 μl2 h(−w,xxy − w,yyy + 3φx,xy − 4φy,xx − φy,yy )

(λ + 2μ)hu,xx + μhu,yy + (λ + μ)hv,xy

+ 14 μl2 h(−u,xxyy − u,yyyy + v,xxxy + v,xyyy ) + fx + 12 cz,y = m0 ü, (2.40a)

+ 14 μl2 h(u,xxxy + u,xyyy − v,xxxx − v,xxyy ) + fy − 12 cz,x = m0 v̈, (2.40b)

ks μh(w,xx + w,yy − φx,x − φy,y ) − 14 μl2 h(w,xxxx + 2w,xxyy + w,yyyy

+ φx,xxx + φx,xyy + φy,xxy + φy,yyy ) + fz − 12 cx,y + 12 cy,x = m0 ẅ, (2.40c)