# REISSNER’S PLATE THEORY IN THE FRAMEWORK OF

ASYMMETRIC ELASTICITY

By

Pedro Joaqu´ın Madrid

A thesis submitted in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in

APPLIED MATHEMATICS

UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO

MAYAG

¨

UEZ CAMPUS

November, 2007

Approved by:

Lev Steinberg, Ph.D Date

President, Graduate Committee

Paul E. Castillo, Ph.D Date

Member, Graduate Committee

Krzysztof R´ozga, Ph.D Date

Member, Graduate Committee

Arsenio C´aceres, Ph.D Date

Representative of Graduate Studies

Julio Quintana, Ph.D Date

Chairperson of the Department

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School

of the University of Puerto Rico in Partial Fulﬁllment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

REISSNER’S PLATE THEORY IN THE FRAMEWORK OF

ASYMMETRIC ELASTICITY

By

Pedro Joaqu´ın Madrid

November 2007

Chair: Dr. Lev Steinberg

Major Department: Department of Mathematical Sciences

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this thesis is to develop a new mathematical model for the bend-

ing of thin elastic plates with microstructure. Our approach is based on a generaliza-

tion of the classical Reissner plate theory, which takes into account the transverse

microrotation of the plates. Our model assumes polynomial approximations over

the plate thickness of asymmetric stress, couple stress, displacement, and microro-

tation, which are consistent with the elastic equilibrium, boundary conditions and

the constitutive relationships. We use a Cosserat free elastic energy function which

includes the energy of the transverse shear couple stress. The application of the

method of Lagrange multipliers to the free elastic energy function leads to a system

of 9 equations describing the bending (6 equations) and the twisting (3 equations)

of the plate. Analytical solutions for the deﬂection of the plate are calculated for

a square plate made of syntatic foam. The Fourier series method is applied. The

solutions are compared with a model developed by Eringen and also with solutions

ii

obtained from the classical theory. The results illustrate the inﬂuence of transverse

microrotations on the bending of the rectangular plate.

iii

Resumen de Disertaci´on Presentado a Escuela Graduada

de la Universidad de Puerto Rico como requisito parcial de los

Requerimientos para el grado de Maestr´ıa en Ciencias

TEOR

´

IA DE PLACAS DE REISSNER DESDE EL PUNTO DE VISTA

DE LA TEOR

´

IA DE ELASTICIDAD ASIM

´

ETRICA

Por

Pedro Joaqu´ın Madrid

Noviembre 2007

Consejero: Dr. Lev Steinberg

Departamento: Departamento de Ciencias Matem´aticas

RESUMEN

El prop´osito de esta tesis es desarrollar un nuevo modelo matem´atico que gob-

ierne la deformacion de placas delgadas considerando los efectos de la microestruc-

tura. Nuestra metodolog´ıa esta basada en la generalizaci´on de la teor´ıa de placas de

Reissner, tomando ahora en consideraci´on el efecto de la microestructura. En nue-

stro modelo se asume que los esfuerzos y los momentos acoplados se pueden aprox-

imar por medio de polinomios cuya variable dependiente se encuentra a lo largo

del grosor de la placa. Los vectores de desplazamiento y microrotaci´on tambi´en

adquieren una representacion por medio de polinomios. Los grados del polinomio

se eligen a modo las ecuaciones de equilibrio el´astico, las condiciones de frontera y

la ley de Hooke cumplan el principio de consistencia. El sistema de ecuaciones en

derivadas parciales que gobierna la deformaci´on de la placa se obtiene del funcional

de energ´ıa el´astica de Cosserat. El m´etodo de multiplicadores de Lagrange se aplica,

iv

en total se obtienen 9 ecuaciones donde 6 de ellas describen la deﬂexi´on de la placa

y las restantes 3 la torsi´on.

Las ecuaciones de deﬂexi´on las resolvemos por medio del m´etodo de series de

Fourier. Como experimento consideramos una placa constituida de espuma sint´etica.

Las soluciones anal´ıticas son comparadas con un modelo desarrollado por Eringen y

tambien con los resultados de la teor´ıa cl´asica de elasticidad. Los resultados ilustran

el efecto de la microestructura en la deﬂexi´on de la placa.

v

Copyright c 2007

by

Pedro Joaqu´ın Madrid

DEDICATORY

I dedicate this thesis to the following people:

my mother Martha Ram´ırez,

my late father Jos´e Arnulfo Madrid,

my sister Lizbeth Madrid,

my brothers Ram´on Madrid and Luis Felipe Madrid.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to express my gratitude to the following people, without their help this

work would not be possible:

Professor Lev Steinberg for posing me the problem of elasticity theory, for his

patience, for guiding me in the elaboration of the mathematical model and for giving

me advices about my career and personal life.

Professor Paul Castillo for giving me the suggestion to study at the University

of Puerto Rico and for his permanent care of my academic and personal life.

Professor Krzysztof R´ozga and Professor Arsenio C´aceres for their valuable

corrections to my thesis.

Professor Adalid Gutierrez for his inspiring teaching of undergraduate math

courses and for motivating me to continue graduate studies in mathematics.

Professor Salvador Llopis for teaching me the basic techniques of mathematical

proofs.

Professor Concepci´on Ferruﬁno for presenting me the beauty of mathematics.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ABSTRACT ENGLISH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

ABSTRACT SPANISH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

LIST OF SYMBOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

1 History of Elasticity Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Elasticity Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1 Classical Elasticity Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2 Asymmetric Elasticity Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.3 Basic Equations in Asymmetric Elasticity theory . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.3.1 Equations in Asymmetric Elasticity Theory . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Mathematical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.2 The Cosserat Plate Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.3 Kinematic Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.4 Free energy expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.5 Lagrange Equations and Constitutive Relations . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.6 Reduction to Classical Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3.7 Uniqueness of solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4 ANALITICAL SOLUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.1 Description of Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

A The Concept of Stress and Couple Stress in Asymmetric Elasticity . . . 47

B Eringen’s Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2–1 Displacement vector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2–2 Positive orientation for rotation vector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3–1 A plate element. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3–2 Illustration of some parameters appearing in equations (3.20). . . . . 24

4–1 Asymmetric Eﬀect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4–2 Classic case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

A–1 The stress vector σ and the couple stress vector µ. . . . . . . . . . . . 48

x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

PDE’S Partial Diﬀerential Equations.

IHL Isotropic Homogeneous Linear.

xi

LIST OF SYMBOLS

E Young’s Modulus.

ν Poisson’s ratio.

D Flexural rigidity.

G Shear Modulus.

σ

ij

Component ij of stress tensor.

γ

ij

Component ij of the strain tensor.

µ

ij

Component ij of couple stress tensor.

ϕ

i

The i

th

component of microrotation vector.

u

i

The i

th

component of displacement vector.

F Free elastic energy.

C Bulk energy.

λ, µ The Lam´e constants.

α, β, γ, Complementary elasticity constants.

ijk

Levi Civita tensor.

δ

ij

Delta Dirac tensor.

Γ Boundary of the middle plane of a plate.

N Coupling number.

l

t

Characteristic torsion.

l

b

Characteristic bending.

Ψ Polar ratio.

∂R Boundary of region R.

χ

ij

Component ij of the gradient of microrotation vector.

T Top face of a plate.

B Bottom face of a plate.

Γ

1

\ Γ

2

Diﬀerernce between set Γ

1

and Γ

2

.

Γ

1

∪ Γ

2

Union of the sets Γ

1

and Γ

2

.

δ I First variation applied to functional I.

p External force per unit area.

t External momentum per unit area.

Ω

0

i

Microrotation in the middle plane.

W vertical deﬂection of the middle plane.

Ψ

i

Macrorotation of the middle plane.

xii

CHAPTER 1

HISTORY OF ELASTICITY THEORY

In general terms, the elasticity theory studies the resistance to deformation of

solid bodies subjected to a given set of forces. The ﬁrst person who studied the

nature of the resistance of solids was Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642). In all of his

work he treated solids as inelastic, that is, solids undergoing deformations never

recover their original shape. This consideration made impossible the hypothesis of

connecting applied forces to a body with their relative displacements. The most

important contribution Galileo made in this ﬁeld was posing a problem consisting of

the determination of the axis on which a beam built into a wall would tend to turn.

His investigations motivated many people to continue research in this direction. The

next big advances where made by Robert Hooke (1635 - 1703) and Henri Navier (1785

- 1836). In 1660 Hooke discovered an experimental relation between the forces and

the strain (relative displacements) of a body known today as Hooke’s Law. His law

states that the strain of a body is directly proportional to the set of forces applied to

it, mathematically this means that applied force and strain follow a linear relation.

The term stress is understood as force per unit area and strain as a measure

of deformation. The most important fact of Hooke’s Law is that it gives the foun-

dations of the linear theory of Elasticity. Between Hooke’s and Navier’s period

mathematicians like Leonhard Euler (1707 - 1783), Daniel Bernoulli (1700 - 1782),

James Bernoulli (1759 - 1789) and others were trying to develop theory for beams,

plates, shells and vibrations.

1

2

The ﬁrst mathematician to investigate the general equations of equilibrium and

vibrations of elastic solids was Navier. He formulated equations of motion of a

displaced molecule by developing expressions for the component in any direction

of all the forces acting upon the molecule. He also obtained expressions for the

work done by all forces to the molecule and with the use of calculus of variations

he obtained a system of pde’s together with its boundary conditions. The type

of materials Navier studied were assumed to be isotropic and the equations for

equilibrium contained only one constant dependent of the elastic properties of the

material. Today this constant is known as Young’s modulus.

Augustin Jean Fresnel (1788 - 1827) related the study of interference of po-

larised light with the theoretical results of vibrations in elasticity. This attracted

the attention of the mathematicians Augustin Louis Cauchy (1789 - 1857) and Denis

Poisson (1781 - 1840). By the year 1822 Cauchy discovered most of the elements

of pure theory of elasticity. He introduced the notion of stress at a point which

depends of the cross sectional area that contains the point, the principal axes of

strain and the principal planes of stress. Also some of his important contributions

were the formulation of equations of motion in terms of the stress-components and

the acting body forces (Force per unit volume), the description of stress and strain

in terms of six components.

In all of Cauchy’s work the following assumptions were made: Relations between

stress and strain are linear and the principal planes of stress are normal to the

principal axes of strain. Both assumptions are supported by Hooke’s law. It’s

interesting to know that Cauchy never made reference to Hooke’s law. There is one

central diﬀerence from Navier’s results and Cauchy’s : Navier’s equations contained

a single constant (Young’s modulus) to express the elastic behaviour of a body, while

Cauchy’s contain only two. Poisson’s results were equivalent to the ones obtained

by Cauchy’s, the only diﬀerence is that he required diﬀerent hypothesis.

3

The next great advances were made by George Green (1793 - 1841), George

Stokes (1819 - 1903), Robert Kirchhoﬀ (1824 - 1887) , Gabriel Lam´e (1795 - 1870),

Lord Kelvin (1824 - 1907) and others. Their studies were concentrated more in

the Principle of Conservation of Energy. New arguments were employed in their

analysis, for example the use of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

The potential energy of the strained elastic body per unit volume was expressed in

terms of the components of strain. The resistance to deformation of an elastic body

was also well classiﬁed into two types, resistance to shearing and to compression.

Many of the terminology these last researchers made is still used today.

CHAPTER 2

ELASTICITY THEORY

2.1 Classical Elasticity Theory

The mathematical foundation of elasticity theory deals with the calculation of

the relative displacements (deformation) of a solid body which is subject to the

action of a system of forces. The deformations in a solid body depend of the type of

material the body is made and the nature of the forces applied to it. Elasticity theory

concern the situations where after the removal of forces producing the deformation

of the body implies a complete recovery of the undeformed state. These type of

deformations are known as elastic and materials satisfying this property are also

known as elastic. Many materials can undergo elastic deformations for instance

concrete, steel, aluminum, rubber, etc. From now on when the term deformation is

employed it will be understood that it is elastic.

Deformations can be classiﬁed as of linear and nonlinear type. We are inter-

ested only in the linear case. Typically linear deformations are very small and the

mathematical theory for its study requires the use of linear partial diﬀerential equa-

tions (pde’s). The area of elasticity that deals with this type of deformations is

known as Linear Elasticity Theory. Applications of this theory are very important

for engineering, architecture and all other areas which deal with solids as material.

In the classical theory of elasticity only macroscopic eﬀects are taken into con-

sideration, that is, all solid bodies are assumed to be made of a continuous medium.

It happens that the elastic properties of a body are described by some constants

dependent on the structure of the material and known as elastic coeﬃcients. The

4

5

measurement of the elastic coeﬃcients of a material at a given point is done by

calculating some ratios between stress (force per unit area in a given direction) and

the strain (deformation in a speciﬁc direction). In Cosserat’s theory the measure-

ment of these coeﬃcients is not an easy task, this is why we don’t get deep into this

situation.

Materials can be classiﬁed according to the properties of their elastic coeﬃcients.

A material is said to be homogeneus if its elastic coeﬃcients are independent of the

spatial coordinates. If the calculation of the material’s elastic coeﬃcients are the

same in every set of reference axes at any point then we say its isotropic. In the

classical theory of elasticity it’s known that all isotropic materials are described with

exactly two elastic constants. The type of constants is not neccesary unique but it

has been shown that diﬀerent choices are equivalent. Some examples of isotropic

materials are concrete and steel. In the rest of this work we deal with materials that

are homogeneous and isotropic.

2.2 Asymmetric Elasticity Theory

As we saw in the previous section, the classical theory of elasticity is based in

the model of an elastic continuum in which the transfer of forces through an interior

element of area of the body occurs only by means of the stress vector. This type

of assumption leads to a mathematical description of stress and strain by means of

asymmetric tensors. Now stress and strain at a point require the description of nine

components.

Classical elasticity theory showed satisfactory results with experimentation in

many structural materials such as aluminum, steel and iron. There were other cases

of elastic materials in which theory had discrepances with experimentation. Some

of these are polymers, biological materials, cellular materials and nano materials.

These diﬀerences seemed to become signiﬁcative for problems where large stress

gradients occur (near holes or cracks), for vibrational problems where waves have

6

a very high frequency or small wavelength and for materials that possess granular

structure. These type of observations suggested that the inﬂuence of microstructure

should be taken into account.

Voigt was the ﬁrst to consider in his work the eﬀect of couple stress (local mo-

mentum) in granular bodies. His results lead to a description of stress and strain as

nonsymmetric tensors. In 1909 the brothers E. and F. Cosserat published a work

where the eﬀects of couple stress and rotation of particles was taken into account.

Now deformation of a granular body was not only described by means of a displace-

ment vector, also by a rotation vector. Thus, the Cosserat brothers deﬁned an elastic

medium (known today as Cosserat’s Continuum) where each material point has six

degrees of freedon, 3 for displacement and the other 3 for rotations. In Cosserat’s

Continuum, displacements and rotations are considered to be independent vectors.

Today Cosserat’s theory is also known with the name of micropolar elasticity.

During the lifetime of the Cosserat’s brothers, no special attention was given

to their theory. The main reasons could be that the theory treated problems far

away from elasticity theory and also the notation employed was very diﬃcult to

understand. In the last fourty years Cosserat’s theory has attracted the attention

of many researchers such as C. Truesdell, C.A. Eringen, W. Nowacki, E.S. Suhubi,

R.A. Toupin and others. The ﬁrst studies were made for materials where only the

eﬀect of couple stress was taken into account (no rotations). This type of medium is

known as Pseudo-Cosserat Continuum. In most recent works made by C.A. Eringen,

W. Nowacki and R.A. Toupin, a complete treatment of Cosserat’s Continuum has

been made[1].

2.3 Basic Equations in Asymmetric Elasticity theory

We explain some mathematical notation before showing some important general

results of Asymmetric Elasticity theory. In all expressions the subindexes k, l or m

are understood to take values 1, 2 or 3. When i or j are employed as subindexes, we

7

assume they take the values 1 or 2. When repeated subindexes are employed it will

be assumed that addition is performed all over their range. For example, if we have

γ

kk

we mean γ

11

+γ

22

+γ

33

and σ

ij

µ

i

means σ

1j

µ

1

+σ

2j

µ

2

. When a comma is placed

as subindex it will be understood that a derivative has been taken, for example σ

1,2

means

∂σ

1

∂x

2

and µ

,1

means

∂µ

∂x

1

. The tensor δ

ij

is deﬁned as 1 if i = j and 0 otherwise.

The symbol

klm

is deﬁned as

klm

=

**1 when (k, l, m) is an even permutation,
**

−1 when (k, l, m) is an odd permutation,

0 otherwise.

2.3.1 Equations in Asymmetric Elasticity Theory

In this section we describe the equations of equilibrium, constitutive relations

and the free volume energy function. Next we give some boundary conditions related

to the previous equations.

The Cosserat elasticity equilibrium equations without the presence of body

forces have the following form [2]:

σ

lk,l

(x

1

, x

2

, x

3

) = 0,

mlk

σ

lk

(x

1

, x

2

, x

3

) +µ

lm,l

(x

1

, x

2

, x

3

) = 0, (2.1)

where σ

lk

and µ

lk

are known as the stress and couple stress tensors respectively (see

appendix A). All 18 functions σ

lk

and µ

lk

may depend also of time t but our problem

doesn’t require this dependence. The stress σ

lk

is understood to be contained in the

plane whose normal is x

l

and in the direction of axis x

k

.The same applies to the

couple stress µ

lk

.

8

The following linear equations for isotropic materials, known as Hooke’s Law

(also as constitutive relations), relate the deformations of displacements and rota-

tions with the stress and couple stress:

σ

lk

= (µ +α)γ

lk

+ (µ −α)γ

kl

+λδ

kl

γ

mm

,

µ

lk

= (γ +)χ

lk

+ (γ −)χ

kl

+βδ

kl

χ

mm

, (2.2)

here γ

kl

= u

l,k

−

mkl

ϕ

m

and χ

kl

= ϕ

l,k

. The tensor γ

kl

is known as the micropolar

strain tensor, u

k

and ϕ

k

are the displacement and microrotation vectors respectively.

The coeﬃcients µ, λ, α, γ, and β are known as the elastic constants of the material.

Microstructure is strictly related with α, γ, and β, while λ and µ are the Lam´e

constants known from classical elasticity theory.

Equations (2.2) can also be expressed in terms of the following technical con-

stants [3] :

Young’s modulus E =

µ(3λ + 2µ)

λ +µ

,

Poisson’s ratio ν =

λ

2(λ +µ)

,

(2.3)

Characteristic length for torsion l

t

=

γ

µ

,

Characteristic length for bending l

b

=

1

2

γ +

µ

,

Coupling number N =

α

µ +α

,

Polar ratio Ψ =

2γ

β + 2γ

,

some numerical values of (2.3) for diﬀerent kind of materials appear in [4].

9

The displacement vector u

k

is a measure of the relative positions of material

points in the deformed state respect to the undeformed state. Figure 2–1 illustrates

this situation. In this ﬁgure P represents a speciﬁc material point of a body in the

deformed state and P

∗

the new position of P in the deformed state. The micro-

rotation vector ϕ

k

is assumed to be positive according to the convention shown in

ﬁgure 2–2. Formally ϕ

k

is not a vector by the fact that rotations don’t satisfy the

commutative property of addition of vectors, but for linear deformations (ϕ

k

will

assume very small values) rotations behave almost like vectors.

Figure 2–1: Displacement vector.

The strain energy density F in terms of the strain components has the following

form [1]:

10

Figure 2–2: Positive orientation for rotation vector.

F =

µ +α

2

γ

ij

γ

ij

+

µ −α

2

γ

ij

γ

ji

+

λ

2

γ

kk

γ

nn

+

γ +

2

χ

ij

χ

ij

+

γ −

2

χ

ij

χ

ji

+

β

2

χ

kk

χ

nn

, (2.4)

From the non-negativity of (2.4) the elastic constants in (2.2) satisfy the inequalities

µ > 0, 3λ + 2µ > 0,

γ > 0, 3β + 2γ > 0,

α > 0, µ +α > 0,

> 0, γ + > 0.

11

For future convenience we express the strain energy density function (2.4) in

terms of σ

lk

and µ

lk

. This can be done after solving for γ

lk

and χ

lk

in (2.2) and

substituting the results in (2.4)

F =

µ

+α

2

σ

ij

σ

ij

+

µ

−α

2

σ

ij

σ

ji

+

λ

2

σ

kk

σ

nn

+

γ

+

2

µ

ij

µ

ij

+

γ

−

2

µ

ij

µ

ji

+

β

2

µ

kk

µ

nn

, (2.5)

where µ

=

1

4µ

, α

=

1

4α

, γ

=

1

4γ

,

=

1

4

, λ

=

−λ

6µ(λ+

2µ

3

)

and β

=

−β

6µ(β+

2γ

3

)

.

Suppose we have a Cosserat elastic body R with boundary ∂R = ∂R

d

∪ ∂R

σ

,

where ∂R

d

and ∂R

σ

are disjoint. In most problems of elasticity, the equilibrium

equations (2.1) together with Hooke’s law (2.2) are combined with the following

boundary conditions:

σ

lk

n

l

= σ

ok

, µ

lk

n

l

= µ

ok

on ∂R

σ

u

l

= u

ol

, ϕ

α

= ϕ

oα

on ∂R

d

, (2.6)

where σ

ok

and µ

ok

are prescribed on ∂R

σ

, and u

ol

, ϕ

oα

are prescribed on ∂R

s

. The

coeﬃcients n

l

appearing in (2.6) denote the components of the exterior unit normal

vector to ∂R.

CHAPTER 3

MATHEMATICAL MODEL

In this chapter we develop a mathematical model for calculation of bending

and twisting of a thin plate subject to some perpendicular distributed forces and

momentums. Before showing the details of the development of the mathematical

model we ﬁrst explain brieﬂy the meaning of some technical expressions like middle

plane, rigidity constant and shear modulus. Next we explain the type of problem

we solve.

3.1 Introduction

The well known classic bending theory of elastic plates [5], [6] [7], was ﬁrst pre-

sented by Kirchhoﬀ in his thesis (1850) and is described by a bi-harmonic diﬀerential

equation [8]. The usual assumption of this theory is that the normal to the middle

plane remains normal during deformation. Thus the theory neglects transverse shear

strain eﬀects. A system of equations, which takes into account the transverse shear

deformation, has been developed by E. Reissner (1945) [9].

One of the advantages of Reissner’s model is that it is able to determine the

reactions along the edges of a simply supported rectangular plate, where classical

theory leads to a concentrated reaction at the corners of the plate. The Reissner

theory has been applied to thin walled structures with moderate thickness. The

study of the relationships between these two models has proved [10] that the solution

of the clamped Reissner plate approaches the solution of the Kirchhoﬀ plate when

the thickness approaches to zero. The numerical calculations of bending behavior

of the plate of moderate thickness [11] show high level agreement between 3D and

12

13

Reissner models. More remarks on the history of the modeling of classic linear elastic

plates can be found in [5], [11], [12].

In order to describe deformation of elastic plates that possess grains, particles,

ﬁbers, and cellular structures A. C. Eringen (1967) proposed a theory of plates in

the framework of Cosserat (micropolar) Linear Elasticity [2]. His theory is based

on the integration of the linearized three-dimensional Cosserat Elasticity and as-

sumes variation of micro-rotations along the middle plane. The use of the averages,

the ﬁrst moments of stress, couple stress combined with constitutive relationships

provides the model system of equations of Eringen’s theory. This technique is sim-

ilar to the technique used for Kirchhoﬀ plate. In fact, the Eringen plate equations

asymptotically produce the Kirchhoﬀ plate bi-harmonic equation for zero microro-

tations, i.e. it reduces to the classic bending problem. In this chapter we propose

to use the Reissner plate theory as a foundation for the modeling of elastic plates

with microstructure. Our approach, in addition to the transverse shear deformation,

also takes into account the second order approximation of couple stresses and the

variation of micropolar rotations in the thickness direction. A governing system of

equations is obtained for the bending and twisting of the Cosserat plate, a proof for

the existence of the governing system is also developed.

3.2 The Cosserat Plate Assumptions

In this section we formulate the stress, couple stress and kinematic assumptions

of the Cosserat plate. We consider the thin plate P that appears in Figure 3–1, here

h is the thickness of the plate and x

3

= 0 contains its middle plane. The sets T and

B are the top and bottom surfaces contained in the planes x

3

= h/2, x

3

= −h/2

respectively and Γ is the boundary of the middle plane of the plate. The set of

points ∂P={Γ ×[−h/2, h/2]} ∪ T ∪ B forms the entire surface of the plate.

14

Figure 3–1: A plate element.

We assume that plate P is subjected to some perpendicular distributed load of

stress and couple stress along faces T and B. These conditions are described in the

following form:

σ

33

(x

1

, x

2

, h/2) = σ

t

(x

1

, x

2

), σ

33

(x

1

, x

2

, −h/2) = σ

b

(x

1

, x

2

),

σ

3j

(x

1

, x

2

, ±h/2) = 0, µ

3j

(x

1

, x

2

, ±h/2) = 0,

µ

33

(x

1

, x

2

, h/2) = µ

t

(x

1

, x

2

), µ

33

(x

1

, x

2

, −h/2) = µ

b

(x

1

, x

2

). (3.1)

here σ

t

and µ

t

are the normal loads of stress and couple stress acting at the top of

the plate. The functions σ

b

and µ

b

, describe the normal load of stress and couple

stress acting along B.

Assumptions for Stress

Our approach, which is in the spirit of the Reissner’s theory of plates [9], as-

sumes that the variation of stress σ

kl

and coupled stress µ

kl

components across the

thickness can be represented by means of polynomials of x

3

in such a way that it

will be consistent with the equilibrium equations (2.1). Like in standard theory of

plates, ﬁrst we assume the following form for some stress components [9]:

15

σ

ij

= n

ij

(x

1

, x

2

) +x

3

m

ij

(x

1

, x

2

). (3.2)

where n

ij

and m

ij

are functions to be determined. The diﬀerence between our and

Reissner’s assumptions is that the functions n

ij

, m

ij

are not necessarily symmetric.

From (3.2) by means of equilibrium equations we obtain the following form for the

shear stress components:

σ

3j

= q

j

(x

1

, x

2

)

1 −

x

3

h/2

2

, (3.3)

where q

j

are functions to be determined. For the remaining shear stress components

we assume they have following form:

σ

j3

= q

∗

j

(x

1

, x

2

)

1 −

x

3

h/2

2

. (3.4)

In order to preserve consistency, assumption (3.4) seems the most natural. The

function q

∗

j

is also unknown and in the classical case it should be the same as q

j

.

After substituting expressions (3.4) in the remaining equilibrium equations of stress

, we obtain the following form for the transverse normal stress:

σ

33

=

x

3

h/2

1

3

x

3

h/2

2

−1

k

∗

(x

1

, x

2

) +m

∗

(x

1

, x

2

), (3.5)

(3.6)

where k

∗

and m

∗

are functions to be determined. The functions k

∗

and m

∗

in

(3.5) can be determined with the boundary conditions (3.1). It’s easy to check that

k

∗

= −

3

4

(σ

t

−σ

b

) and m

∗

=

σ

t

+σ

b

2

, therefore equation (3.5) takes the following form:

16

σ

33

= −

3

4

1

3

x

3

h/2

3

−

x

3

h/2

p +σ

0

,

where p = σ

t

−σ

b

and σ

0

=

1

2

(σ

t

+σ

b

).

The assumptions for µ

kl

follow from the stress assumptions made above and

the equilibrium equations for couple stress:

µ

ij

=

1 −

x

3

h/2

2

r

ij

(x

1

, x

2

), (3.7)

µ

j3

=

x

3

h/2

s

∗

j

(x

1

, x

2

) +m

∗

j

(x

1

, x

2

), (3.8)

µ

3j

=

1

3

x

3

h/2

3

−

x

3

h/2

s

j

(x

1

, x

2

) +m

j

(x

1

, x

2

), (3.9)

here the functions s

∗

j

, m

∗

j

, r

ij

, s

j

and m

j

are also to be determined. Like the case

for σ

3j

, the boundary conditions (3.1)) are enough to identify s

j

and m

j

, hence it’s

not diﬃcult to show that s

j

= 0, m

j

= 0, therefore

µ

3j

= 0.

Now substituting (3.8) and (3.2) on the third equilibrium equation of (2.1), we

conclude that µ

33

should be of the following form

µ

33

=

1

2

x

3

h/2

2

a

∗

(x

1

, x

2

) +

x

3

h/2

b

∗

(x

1

, x

2

) +c

∗

(x

1

, x

2

),

where the functions a

∗

, b

∗

and c

∗

should satisfy the boundary conditions (3.1). It

happens that conditions (3.1) are not enough to determine all coeﬃcients of µ

33

,

hence a

∗

and c

∗

can be any arbitrary function. For simplicity on the approximation

17

of µ

33

we make a

∗

= 0 and therefore assume that is a ﬁrst order polynomial in the

variable x

3

,

µ

33

=

x

3

h/2

b

∗

(x

1

, x

2

) +c

∗

(x

1

, x

2

).

Under this new assumption of µ

33

we ﬁnd that b

∗

=

µ

t

−µ

b

2

and c

∗

=

µ

t

+µ

b

2

.

Finally the couple stress µ

33

takes the following form:

µ

33

=

x

3

h/2

v +t, (3.10)

where t(x

1

, x

2

) =

1

2

µ

t

(x

1

, x

2

) +µ

b

(x

1

, x

2

)

and v(x

1

, x

2

) =

1

2

µ

t

(x

1

, x

2

) −µ

b

(x

1

, x

2

)

.

Up to this point all components of stress and couple stress are represented in

terms of the 20 unknown functions n

ij

, m

ij

, q

j

, q

∗

j

, r

ij

, s

∗

j

and m

∗

j

. The next step is

to substitute the assumptions of stress and couple stress in (2.1) and obtain a new

system of equilibrium equations. For simplicity we make an average of (2.1) in the

following form:

h/2

−h/2

σ

lk,l

(x

1

, x

2

, x

3

)dx

3

= 0,

h/2

−h/2

(

mlk

σ

lk

(x

1

, x

2

, x

3

) +µ

lm,l

(x

1

, x

2

, x

3

)) dx

3

= 0, (3.11)

this simpliﬁcation is good enough to describe deformation along the middle plane

since we assume h to be very small compared to the plate dimensions [2]. After

substituting the assumptions for stress and couple stress in (3.11) we obtain a new

system of nine equilibrium equations. The resulting system is classiﬁed into two

parts: The bending system which is composed of 6 equations and the twisting

system which has 3 equations.

The bending system of equations has the following form:

18

M

11,1

+M

21,2

−Q

1

= 0,

M

12,1

+M

22,2

−Q

2

= 0,

Q

∗

1,1

+Q

∗

2,2

+p = 0,

R

11,1

+R

21,2

+Q

∗

2

−Q

2

= 0,

R

12,1

+R

22,2

+Q

1

−Q

∗

1

= 0,

S

∗

1,1

+S

∗

2,2

+M

12

−M

21

= 0, (3.12)

with traction boundary conditions at Γ

σ

:

M

ij

n

j

= Π

0j

, R

ij

n

j

= M

0j

,

Q

∗

i

n

i

= Π

03

, S

∗

i

n

i

= M

03

,

where

M

ij

=

h

3

12

m

ij

, R

ij

=

2h

3

r

ij

,

Π

0j

=

h

2

−

h

2

x

3

σ

0j

dx

3

, M

0j

=

h

2

−

h

2

µ

0j

dx

3

,

Q

j

=

2h

3

q

j

, Q

∗

j

=

2h

3

q

∗

j

,

Π

03

=

h

2

−

h

2

(σ

03

−σ

0

) dx

3

, M

03

=

h

2

−

h

2

x

3

µ

03

−

x

3

h/2

v

dx

3

,

S

∗

j

=

h

2

6

s

∗

j

The twisting equilibrium equations have the following form:

19

N

ij,i

= 0,

M

∗

1,1

+M

∗

2,2

+N

12

−N

21

+v = 0 (3.13)

with traction boundary conditions at Γ

σ

:

N

ij

n

1

+N

2j

n

2

= Σ

0,j

,

M

∗

1

n

1

+M

∗

2

n

2

= M

03

,

where

Σ

0,j

=

h

2

−

h

2

σ

0j

dx

3

, M

03

=

h

2

−

h

2

(µ

03

−tn

3

)dx

3

,

N

ij

= hn

ij

, M

∗

j

= hm

∗

j

.

The boundary conditions for the bending and twisting systems are obtained

after the substitution of the stress and couple stress assumptions in (2.6). The

boundary conditions at Γ

d

= Γ \ Γ

σ

will be given after the kinematic assumptions

are stated.

3.3 Kinematic Assumptions

Similarly to the case of stress and couple stress assumptions, the choice of kine-

matic assumptions (assumptions made for displacement and microrotation vectors)

is based on their compatibility with the constitutive relationships (2.2). Like in

Eringen’s work [2] and in [13], we make a linear approximation for the displacement

vector in the following form:

u

i

(x

1

, x

2

, x

3

) = U

i

(x

1

, x

2

) −x

3

V

i

(x

1

, x

2

), (3.14)

u

3

(x

1

, x

2

, x

3

) = w(x

1

, x

2

),

20

where U

i

, V

i

and w are unknown functions. The microrotations are approximated

in the following form:

ϕ

i

(x

1

, x

2

, x

3

) = Θ

0

i

(x

1

, x

2

)

1 −

x

3

h/2

2

,

ϕ

3

(x

1

, x

2

, x

3

) = Θ

0

3

(x

1

, x

2

) +

x

3

h/2

1 −

1

3

x

3

h/2

2

Θ

3

(x

1

, x

2

), (3.15)

where the functions Θ

0

k

are also unknown. Up to this point we can appreciate

that the deformation of the middle plane is completely described in terms of the 9

functions U

i

, V

i

, w, Θ

0

i

, Θ

0

3

and Θ

3

.

In [2] microrotations are assumed to be constant along the thickness of the

plate while (3.15) indicate that microrotations are dependent of plate thickness. We

believe this diﬀerence makes our approach more convenient for relatively thick plates

[14].

3.4 Free energy expression

The total energy of the plate is calculated in the following form [1]:

I

F

=

R

h/2

−h/2

Fdx

3

dA −

Γ

d

h/2

−h/2

F

s

dx

3

ds, (3.16)

where Γ

d

= Γ\Γ

σ

is the portion of Γ on which edge displacements and microrotations

are prescribed. In order to develop a system of governing equations of our plate,

the method we follow is based on the Lagrange’s method applied to (3.16). A total

amount of 9 Lagrange’s multipliers will appear, each of them has a physical meaning

that in further sections will be explained.

The ﬁrst thing we do is evaluate the free bulk energy

C =

h

2

−

h

2

F dx

3

(3.17)

21

of the plate. After integrating expression (3.17) and substituting the stress and

couple stress assumptions (3.2) - (3.9) in (2.5), expression (3.17) takes the following

form:

C =

λ +µ

2hµ(3λ + 2µ)

¸

N

2

11

+N

2

22

+

12

h

2

M

2

11

+M

2

22

−

λ

2hµ(3λ + 2µ)

N

11

N

22

+

6λ

h

3

µ

2

(3λ + 2µ)

M

11

M

22

+

α +µ

8hαµ

¸

N

2

12

+N

2

21

+

3

4h

2

M

2

12

+M

2

21

+

3(α +µ)

20hαµ

(Q

∗

1

)

2

+Q

2

2

+ (Q

∗

2

)

2

+

3(α −µ)

10hαµ

(Q

1

Q

∗

1

+Q

2

Q

∗

2

) +

3(α −µ)

h

3

αµ

M

12

M

21

+

3λ

5hµ(3λ + 2µ)

M

11

Q

∗

1,1

+M

11

Q

∗

2,2

+M

22

Q

∗

1,1

+

3λ

5hµ(3λ + 2µ)

M

22

Q

∗

2,2

+

3( −γ)

10hγ

R

12

R

21

+

3(β +γ)

5hγ(3β + 2γ)

R

2

11

+R

2

22

−

3β

5hγ(3β + 2γ)

R

11

R

22

+

17h(λ +µ)

280µ(3λ + 2µ)

Q

∗

1,1

2

+

Q

∗

2,2

2

+ 2Q

∗

1,1

Q

∗

2,2

+

α −µ

4hαµ

N

12

N

21

−

γ +

hγ

¸

3

2h

2

(S

∗

1

)

2

+ (S

∗

2

)

2

+

3

20

R

2

12

+R

2

21

+

h(λ +µ)

2µ(3λ + 2µ)

σ

2

0

−

β

2γ(3β + 2γ)

(R

11

t +R

22

t) +

h(β +γ)

2γ(3β + 2γ)

t

2

−

γ +

8hγ

(M

∗

1

)

2

+

3(α +µ)

20hαµ

Q

2

1

+

λ

2µ(3λ + 2µ)

(N

11

σ

0

+N

22

σ

0

) −

γ +

8hγ

(M

∗

2

)

2

+

h(β +γ)

6γ(3β + 2γ)

v

2

. (3.18)

Now we evaluate the surface integral of (3.16) on the boundary Γ

d

×[−h/2, h/2]

by means of the following formula

Γ

d

h/2

−h/2

F

s

dx

3

ds =

Γ

d

h

2

−

h

2

(σ

ν

· u +µ

ν

· ϕ

ν

) dx

3

ds. (3.19)

The vectors σ

ν

and µ

ν

in (3.19) are the components of the stress and couple

stress acting along Γ

d

× [−

h

2

,

h

2

] and coplanar to the middle plane of the plate.

Representing σ

ν

and µ

ν

in the form σ

ν

= σ

ν

1

ν

1

+ σ

ν

2

ν

2

and µ

ν

= µ

ν

1

ν

1

+ µ

ν

2

ν

2

,

where ν

1

and ν

2

are unit vectors normal and tangential to Γ

d

×[−

h

2

,

h

2

] respectively,

equation (3.19) takes the following form:

22

Γ

d

h

2

−

h

2

(n

ν

i

u

i

+q

∗

ν

3

1 −

x

3

h/2

2

u

3

+m

ν

i

u

i

x

3

+

r

ν

i

1 −

x

3

h/2

2

ϕ

i

+

x

3

h/2

s

∗

ν

3

+m

∗

ν

3

ϕ

3

)dx

3

ds,

or equivalently:

Γ

d

(N

ν

i

U

i

+Q

∗

ν

3

W +M

ν

i

Ψ

i

+R

ν

i

Ω

0

i

+S

∗

ν

3

Ω

3

+M

∗

ν

3

Ω

0

3

)ds,

where

W =

3

2h

h/2

−h/2

u

3

(x

1

, x

2

, x

3

)

1 −

x

3

h/2

2

dx

3

,

Ψ

i

=

12

h

3

h/2

−h/2

x

3

u

i

(x

1

, x

2

, x

3

)dx

3

,

Ω

0

i

=

3

2h

h/2

−h/2

ϕ

i

(x

1

, x

2

, x

3

)

1 −

x

3

h/2

2

dx

3

, (3.20)

Ω

3

=

12

h

3

h/2

−h/2

x

3

ϕ

3

(x

1

, x

2

, x

3

)dx

3

,

Ω

0

3

=

1

h

h/2

−h/2

ϕ

3

(x

1

, x

2

, x

3

)dx

3

,

U

i

=

1

h

h/2

−h/2

u

i

(x

1

, x

2

, x

3

)dx

3

.

The functions appearing in (3.20) will be the Lagrange multipliers that make

free elastic energy a minimum. The calculation of W, U

i

and Ψ in (3.20) is based on

the same methodology of Reissner’s work [12] while the expressions for Ω

0

i

, Ω

3

, and

Ω

0

3

are assumptions we make that later we verify they are correct. In next section

we give more details about (3.20). After applying (3.14) and (3.15) in (3.20) we

obtain the following expressions:

23

W = w(x

1

, x

2

), Ψ

i

= V

i

(x

1

, x

2

), (3.21)

Ω

0

i

= k

1

Θ

0

i

(x

1

, x

2

), Ω

3

=

k

2

h

Θ

3

(x

1

, x

2

),

Ω

0

3

= Θ

0

3

(x

1

, x

2

), U

i

= U

i

(x

1

, x

2

).

here coeﬃcients k

1

and k

2

depend on the variation of microrotations. Under the

conditions (3.15) we have that k

1

=

4

5

and k

2

=

24

15

.

The physical interpretation of the functions appearing in (3.20) can be veriﬁed

with equations (3.21), (3.14) and (3.15). We summarize this in the following way:

• W : Vertical deﬂection of the middle plate.

• Ψ

i

: Angle of deﬂection of the middle plane respect to the horizontal.

• Ω

0

k

: Microrotation around axis x

k

of the material points of the middle plate.

• U

i

: Displacement of the middle plane along axis x

i

.

• Ω

3

: Instant rate of change of ϕ

3

along x

3

,

ﬁgure (3–2) illustrates the physical interpretation of some of the above parameters.

3.5 Lagrange Equations and Constitutive Relations

Following Reissner methodology [9] we consider the zero variation of the total

strain energy (3.16) due to the volume and surface area of the Cosserat plate under

the constraint of equilibrium equations (3.12) and (3.13). According to the rules of

the calculus of variations, this is accomplished by combining (3.16) with (3.12) and

(3.13) in the following manner:

24

Figure 3–2: Illustration of some parameters appearing in equations (3.20).

δ[I

F

] +

R

(U

j

δ[N

ij,i

] + Ψ

j

(δ[M

ij,i

] −δ[Q

j

]) + Wδ[Q

∗

j,j

] +

Ω

0

i

δ[(−1)

(i+1)

(Q

∗

i+1

−Q

i+1

) +R

ji,j

] + Ω

0

3

δ[N

12

−N

21

+M

∗

1,1

+M

∗

2,2

] +

Ω

3

δ[M

12

−M

21

+S

∗

1,1

+S

∗

2,2

]) = 0. (3.22)

After applying integration by parts and Stoke’s theorem to (3.22) we obtain

25

0 =

R

((

∂C

∂N

11

−U

1,1

)δN

11

+ (

∂C

∂N

22

−U

2,2

)δN

22

+ (

∂C

∂N

12

−U

2,1

)δN

12

+

(

∂C

∂N

21

−U

1,2

−Ω

0

3

)δN

21

+ (

∂C

∂M

11

−Ψ

1,1

)δM

11

+ (

∂C

∂M

22

−Ψ

2,2

)δM

22

+

(

∂C

∂M

12

−Ψ

2,1

+ Ω

3

)δM

12

+ (

∂C

∂M

21

−Ψ

1,2

−Ω

3

)δM

21

+ (

∂C

∂Q

∗

1

−W

,1

)δQ

∗

1

+

(

∂C

∂Q

∗

2

−W

,2

+ Ω

0

1

)δQ

∗

2

+ (

∂C

∂Q

1

−Ψ

1

+ Ω

0

2

)δQ

1

+ (

∂C

∂Q

2

−Ψ

2

)δQ

2

−

Ω

0

1

δQ

2

+ (

∂C

∂R

11

−Ω

0

1,1

)δR

11

+ (

∂C

∂R

22

−Ω

0

2,2

)δR

22

+ (

∂C

∂R

21

−Ω

0

1,2

)δR

21

+

(

∂C

∂R

12

−Ω

0

2,1

)δR

12

+ (

∂C

∂M

∗

1

−Ω

0

3,1

)δM

∗

1

+ (

∂C

∂M

∗

2

−Ω

0

3,2

)δM

∗

2

+

∂C

∂S

∗

1

δS

∗

1

−

Ω

3,1

δS

∗

1

+ (

∂C

∂S

∗

2

−Ω

3,2

)δS

∗

2

+ Ω

0

3

δN

12

−Ω

0

2

δQ

∗

1

) +

Γ

(δN

ν

1

U

1

+δN

ν

2

U

2

+

δM

ν

1

Ψ

1

+δM

ν

2

Ψ

2

+δR

ν

1

Ω

0

1

+δR

ν

2

Ω

0

2

+δQ

∗

ν

1

W +δQ

∗

ν

2

W +δM

∗

ν

1

Ω

0

3

+

δM

∗

ν

2

Ω

0

3

+δS

∗

ν

1

Ω

3

+δS

∗

ν

2

Ω

3

) −

Γp

(δN

ν

1

U

1

+δN

ν

2

U

2

+δQ

∗

ν

3

W +δM

ν

1

Ψ

1

+

δM

ν

2

Ψ

2

+δR

ν

1

Ω

0

1

+δR

ν

2

Ω

0

2

+δS

∗

ν

3

Ω

3

+δM

∗

ν

3

Ω

0

3

). (3.23)

With the use of the boundary conditions associated to (3.12) and (3.13) and

with the application of expression (3.18), it can be shown that the ﬁrst variation

(3.23) is zero if and only if

26

∂C

∂N

11

= U

1,1

=

λ +µ

hµ(3λ + 2µ)

N

11

−

λ

2hµ(3λ + 2µ)

N

22

−

λ

2µ(3λ + 2µ)

σ

0

,

∂C

∂N

22

= U

2,2

=

λ +µ

hµ(3λ + 2µ)

N

22

−

λ

2hµ(3λ + 2µ)

N

11

−

λ

2µ(3λ + 2µ)

σ

0

,

∂C

∂N

12

= U

2,1

−Ω

0

3

=

α +µ

4hαµ

N

12

+

α −µ

4hαµ

N

21

,

∂C

∂N

21

= U

1,2

+ Ω

0

3

=

α +µ

4hαµ

N

21

+

α −µ

4hαµ

N

12

,

∂C

∂M

12

= Ψ

2,1

−Ω

3

=

3(α +µ)

h

3

αµ

M

12

+

3(α −µ)

h

3

αµ

M

21

,

∂C

∂M

21

= Ψ

1,2

+ Ω

3

=

3(α +µ)

h

3

αµ

M

21

+

3(α −µ)

h

3

αµ

M

12

,

∂C

∂Q

∗

1

= W

,1

+ Ω

0

2

=

3(α −µ)

10hαµ

Q

1

+

3(α +µ)

10hαµ

Q

∗

1

,

∂C

∂Q

∗

2

= W

,2

−Ω

0

1

=

3(α −µ)

10hαµ

Q

2

+

3(α +µ)

10hαµ

Q

∗

2

,

∂C

∂Q

1

= Ψ

1

−Ω

0

2

=

3(α −µ)

10hαµ

Q

∗

1

+

3(α +µ)

10hαµ

Q

1

,

∂C

∂Q

2

= Ψ

2

+ Ω

0

1

=

3(α −µ)

10hαµ

Q

∗

2

+

3(α +µ)

10hαµ

Q

2

,

27

∂C

∂M

11

= Ψ

1,1

=

12(λ +µ)

h

3

µ(3λ + 2µ)

M

11

−

6λ

h

3

µ(3λ + 2µ)

M

22

+

3λ

5hµ(3λ + 2µ)

∂Q

∗

1

∂x

1

+

∂Q

∗

2

∂x

2

,

∂C

∂M

22

= Ψ

2,2

=

12(λ +µ)

h

3

µ(3λ + 2µ)

M

22

−

6λ

h

3

µ(3λ + 2µ)

M

11

+

3λ

5hµ(3λ + 2µ)

∂Q

∗

1

∂x

1

+

∂Q

∗

2

∂x

2

,

∂C

∂R

11

= Ω

0

1,1

=

6(β +γ)

5hγ(3β + 2γ)

R

11

−

3β

5hγ(3β + 2γ)

R

22

−

β

2γ(3β + 2γ)

t,

∂C

∂R

22

= Ω

0

2,2

=

6(β +γ)

5hγ(3β + 2γ)

R

22

−

3β

5hγ(3β + 2γ)

R

11

−

β

2γ(3β + 2γ)

t,

∂C

∂R

21

= Ω

0

1,2

=

3( −γ)

10hγ

R

12

+

3(γ +)

10hγ

R

21

,

∂C

∂R

12

= Ω

0

2,1

=

3( −γ)

10hγ

R

21

+

3(γ +)

10hγ

R

12

,

∂C

∂M

∗

1

= Ω

0

3,1

=

γ +

4hγ

M

∗

1

,

∂C

∂M

∗

2

= Ω

0

3,2

=

γ +

4hγ

M

∗

2

,

∂C

∂S

∗

1

= Ω

3,1

=

3(γ +)

h

3

γ

S

∗

1

,

∂C

∂S

∗

2

= Ω

3,2

=

3(γ +)

h

3

γ

S

∗

2

.

28

After solving this system for M

ij

, Q

j

, Q

∗

j

, R

ij

, S

∗

j

and M

∗

j

in terms of the Lagrange

Multipliers (3.20) we obtain :

M

11

= D(Ψ

1,1

+νΨ

2,2

) +

νh

2

10(1 −ν)

p, (3.24)

M

22

= D(Ψ

2,2

+νΨ

1,1

) +

νh

2

10(1 −ν)

p, (3.25)

M

12

=

D

2

(1 +v)

(1 −N

2

)

Ψ

1,2

+ Ψ

2,1

−2N

2

(Ω

3

+ Ψ

1,2

)

, (3.26)

M

21

=

D

2

(1 +v)

(1 −N

2

)

Ψ

2,1

+ Ψ

1,2

+ 2N

2

(Ω

3

−Ψ

2,1

)

, (3.27)

R

12

=

5Gh(l

2

t

−2l

2

b

)

3

Ω

0

1,2

+

10Ghl

2

b

3

Ω

0

2,1

,

R

21

=

5Gh(l

2

t

−2l

2

b

)

3

Ω

0

2,1

+

10Ghl

2

b

3

Ω

0

1,2

, (3.28)

R

11

=

5Ghl

2

t

3

Ω

0

1,1

+ (1 −Ψ)

Ω

0

1,1

+ Ω

0

2,2

+

2Gl

2

t

(1 −Ψ)

Ψ

t, (3.29)

R

22

=

5Ghl

2

t

3

Ω

0

2,2

+ (1 −Ψ)

Ω

0

2,2

+ Ω

0

1,1

+

2Gl

2

t

(1 −Ψ)

Ψ

t, (3.30)

Q

1

=

5Gh

6(1 −N

2

)

W

,1

+ Ψ

1

−2N

2

W

,1

+ Ω

0

2

, (3.31)

Q

2

=

5Gh

6(1 −N

2

)

W

,2

+ Ψ

2

−2N

2

W

,2

−Ω

0

1

, (3.32)

(3.33)

29

Q

∗

1

=

5Gh

6(1 −N

2

)

W

,1

+ Ψ

1

−2N

2

Ψ

1

−Ω

0

2

, (3.34)

Q

∗

2

=

5Gh

6(1 −N

2

)

W

,2

+ Ψ

2

−2N

2

Ψ

2

+ Ω

0

1

, (3.35)

S

∗

1

=

Gl

2

t

(4l

2

b

−l

2

t

)h

3

12l

2

b

Ω

3,1

, (3.36)

S

∗

2

=

Gl

2

t

(4l

2

b

−l

2

t

)h

3

12l

2

b

Ω

3,2

, (3.37)

N

11

=

Eh

(1 −ν

2

)

(U

1,1

+νU

2,2

) +

hν

1 −ν

σ

0

, (3.38)

N

22

=

Eh

(1 −ν

2

)

(U

2,2

+νU

1,1

) +

hν

1 −ν

σ

0

, (3.39)

N

12

=

Gh

(1 −N

2

)

U

2,1

+U

1,2

−2N

2

U

1,2

+ Ω

0

3

, (3.40)

N

21

=

Gh

(1 −N

2

)

U

1,2

+U

2,1

−2N

2

U

2,1

−Ω

0

3

, (3.41)

M

∗

1

=

Gl

2

t

(4l

2

b

−l

2

t

)h

l

2

b

Ω

0

3,1

, (3.42)

M

∗

2

=

Gl

2

t

(4l

2

b

−l

2

t

)h

l

2

b

Ω

0

3,2

. (3.43)

Substituting (3.24) - (3.43) in (3.12) and (3.13) we obtain the following govern-

ing system:

30

Twisting System:

h(µ +α)

∂

2

U

1

∂x

2

2

+

4hµ(λ +µ)

λ + 2µ

∂

2

U

1

∂x

2

1

+

h(µ −α) +

2hλµ

λ + 2µ

∂

2

U

2

∂x

1

∂x

2

+

2hα

∂Ω

0

3

∂x

2

= −

hλ

λ + 2µ

∂σ

0

∂x

1

h(µ +α)

∂

2

U

2

∂x

2

1

+

4hµ(λ +µ)

λ + 2µ

∂

2

U

2

∂x

2

2

+

h(µ −α) +

2hλµ

λ + 2µ

∂

2

U

1

∂x

1

∂x

2

−

2hα

∂Ω

0

3

∂x

1

= −

hλ

λ + 2µ

∂σ

0

∂x

2

4hγ

γ +

∆Ω

0

3

+ 2hα

∂U

2

∂x

1

−

∂U

1

∂x

2

−4hαΩ

0

3

= −2v

Bending System:

h

3

µ(λ +µ)

3(λ + 2µ)

∂

2

Ψ

1

∂x

2

1

+

h

3

(µ +α)

12

∂

2

Ψ

1

∂x

2

2

+

h

3

12

−α +

µ(3λ + 2µ)

λ + 2µ

∂

2

Ψ

2

∂x

1

∂x

2

+

5h(α −µ)

6

∂W

∂x

1

+

h

3

α

6

∂Ω

3

∂x

2

+

5hα

3

Ω

0

2

−

5h(µ +α)

6

Ψ

1

= −

h

2

λ

10(λ + 2µ)

∂p

∂x

1

h

3

µ(λ +µ)

3(λ + 2µ)

∂

2

Ψ

2

∂x

2

2

+

h

3

(µ +α)

12

∂

2

Ψ

2

∂x

2

1

+

h

3

12

−α +

µ(3λ + 2µ)

λ + 2µ

∂

2

Ψ

1

∂x

1

∂x

2

+

5h(α −µ)

6

∂W

∂x

2

−

h

3

α

6

∂Ω

3

∂x

1

−

5hα

3

Ω

0

1

−

5h(µ +α)

6

Ψ

2

= −

h

2

λ

10(λ + 2µ)

∂p

∂x

2

5h(α +µ)

6

∆W +

5hα

3

∂Ω

0

2

∂x

1

−

∂Ω

0

1

∂x

2

+

5h(µ −α)

6

∂Ψ

1

∂x

1

+

∂Ψ

2

∂x

2

= −p

10hγ(β +γ)

3(β + 2γ)

∂

2

Ω

0

1

∂x

2

1

+

5h(γ +)

6

∂

2

Ω

0

1

∂x

2

2

−

10hα

3

Ω

0

1

−

5hα

3

Ψ

2

+

5hα

3

∂W

∂x

2

+

5h

6

γ − +

2βγ

β + 2γ

∂

2

Ω

0

2

∂x

1

∂x

2

= −

5hβ

6(β + 2γ)

∂t

∂x

1

(3.44)

31

−

10hγ(β +γ)

3(β + 2γ)

∂

2

Ω

0

2

∂x

2

2

−

5h(γ +)

6

∂

2

Ω

0

2

∂x

2

1

+

10hα

3

Ω

0

2

−

5hα

3

Ψ

1

+

5hα

3

∂W

∂x

1

−

5h

6

γ − +

2βγ

β + 2γ

∂

2

Ω

0

1

∂x

1

∂x

2

=

5hβ

6(β + 2γ)

∂t

∂x

2

h

3

γ

3(γ +)

∆Ω

3

−

h

3

α

3

Ω

3

+

h

3

α

6

∂Ψ

2

∂x

1

−

∂Ψ

1

∂x

2

= 0

(3.45)

The previous governing system in terms of the technical constants (2.3), takes

the following form:

Twisting System:

E

2(1 +ν)

∂

2

U

1

∂x

2

2

+

E(1 −N

2

)

1 −ν

2

∂

2

U

1

∂x

2

1

+

E(1 +ν −2N

2

)

2(1 −ν

2

)

∂

2

U

2

∂x

1

∂x

2

+

N

2

E

(1 +ν)

∂Ω

0

3

∂x

2

= −

ν(1 −N

2

)

1 −ν

∂σ

0

∂x

1

E

2(1 +ν)

∂

2

U

2

∂x

2

1

+

E(1 −N

2

)

1 −ν

2

∂

2

U

2

∂x

2

2

+

E(1 +ν −2N

2

)

2(1 −ν

2

)

∂

2

U

1

∂x

1

∂x

2

−

N

2

E

(1 +ν)

∂Ω

0

3

∂x

1

= −

ν(1 −N

2

)

1 −ν

∂σ

0

∂x

2

Ehl

2

t

(4l

2

b

−l

2

t

)(1 −N

2

)

4l

2

b

(1 +ν)

∆Ω

0

3

+

N

2

Eh

2(1 +ν)

∂U

2

∂x

1

−

∂U

1

∂x

2

−2Ω

0

3

= (N

2

−1)v

32

Bending System:

D(1 −N

2

)

∂

2

Ψ

1

∂x

2

1

+

D(1 −ν)

2

∂

2

Ψ

1

∂x

2

2

+

D(1 +ν −2N

2

)

2

∂

2

Ψ

2

∂x

1

∂x

2

+

5h(2N

2

−1)E

12(1 +ν)

∂W

∂x

1

+DN

2

(1 −ν)

∂Ω

3

∂x

2

+

5EhN

2

6(1 +ν)

Ω

0

2

−

5Eh

12(1 +ν)

Ψ

1

= −

h

2

ν(1 −N

2

)

10(1 −ν)

∂p

∂x

1

D(1 −N

2

)

∂

2

Ψ

2

∂x

2

2

+

D(1 −ν)

2

∂

2

Ψ

2

∂x

2

1

+

D(1 +ν −2N

2

)

2

∂

2

Ψ

1

∂x

1

∂x

2

+

5h(2N

2

−1)E

12(1 +ν)

∂W

∂x

2

−DN

2

(1 −ν)

∂Ω

3

∂x

1

−

5EhN

2

6(1 +ν)

Ω

0

1

−

5Eh

12(1 +ν)

Ψ

2

= −

h

2

ν(1 −N

2

)

10(1 −ν)

∂p

∂x

2

5N

2

Eh

6(1 +ν)

∂Ω

0

2

∂x

1

−

∂Ω

0

1

∂x

2

+

5(1 −2N

2

)Eh

12(1 +ν)

∂Ψ

1

∂x

1

+

∂Ψ

2

∂x

2

+

5Eh

12(1 +ν)

∆W = (N

2

−1)p

El

2

t

(2 −Ψ)

(1 +ν)

∂

2

Ω

0

1

∂x

2

1

+

2El

2

b

(1 +ν)

∂

2

Ω

0

1

∂x

2

2

−

2EN

2

(1 +ν)(1 −N

2

)

Ω

0

1

+

E(l

2

t

(2 −Ψ) −2l

2

b

)

(1 +ν)

∂

2

Ω

0

2

∂x

1

∂x

2

−

EN

2

(1 +ν)(1 −N

2

)

Ψ

2

+

EN

2

(1 +ν)(1 −N

2

)

∂W

∂x

2

= (Ψ−1)

∂t

∂x

1

−

El

2

t

(2 −Ψ)

(1 +ν)

∂

2

Ω

0

2

∂x

2

2

−

2El

2

b

(1 +ν)

∂

2

Ω

0

2

∂x

2

1

+

2EN

2

(1 +ν)(1 −N

2

)

Ω

0

2

−

E(l

2

t

(2 −Ψ) −2l

2

b

)

(1 +ν)

∂

2

Ω

0

1

∂x

1

∂x

2

−

EN

2

(1 +ν)(1 −N

2

)

Ψ

1

+

EN

2

(1 +ν)(1 −N

2

)

∂W

∂x

1

= (1 −Ψ)

∂t

∂x

2

33

l

2

t

(4l

2

b

−l

2

t

)(1 −N

2

)

4l

2

b

(1 +ν)

∆Ω

3

+

N

2

2(1 +ν)

∂Ψ

2

∂x

1

−

∂Ψ

1

∂x

2

−2Ω

3

= 0

(3.46)

In matrix form we also write the system for the bending in the form:

L(∂

x

) H−F = 0, x ∈R, (3.47)

where L(∂

x

) = L

∂

∂xa

,

L(ξ) = L(ξ

α

) =

L

11

L

12

L

13

L

14

0 L

16

L

12

L

22

L

23

L

24

−L

16

0

−L

13

−L

23

L

33

0 L

35

L

36

−L

14

L

24

0 L

44

0 0

0 L

16

−L

35

0 L

55

L

56

L

16

0 L

36

0 −L

56

L

66

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

,

H

T

=

¸

Ψ

1

Ψ

2

W Ω

3

Ω

0

1

Ω

0

2

,

and

F

T

=

¸

F

1

F

2

F

3

F

4

F

5

F

6

.

In the above L

11

= L

11

(ξ

1

, ξ

2

) = k

1

ξ

2

1

+ k

2

ξ

2

2

− k

3

, L

22

= L

11

(ξ

2

, ξ

1

), L

33

= k

4

∆,

L

44

= k

5

∆ − k

6

, L

55

= L

55

(ξ

1

, ξ

2

) = k

7

ξ

2

1

+ k

8

ξ

2

2

− k

9

, L

66

= −L

55

(ξ

2

, ξ

1

), L

12

=

k

10

ξ

1

ξ

2

, L

13

= k

11

ξ

1

, L

14

= k

12

ξ

2

, L

16

= k

13

, L

23

= k

11

ξ

2

, L

24

= k

12

ξ

1

, L

35

= −k

13

ξ

2

,

L

36

= k

13

ξ

1

, L

56

= k

14

ξ

1

ξ

2

, ∆ = ξ

2

1

+ξ

2

2

and F

1

= −

h

2

ν(1−N

2

)

10(1−ν)

∂p

∂x

1

, F

2

= −

h

2

ν(1−N

2

)

10(1−ν)

∂p

∂x

2

,

F

3

= −(1 −N

2

)p, F

4

= 0, F

5

= −

5h(1−N

2

)

6

(1 −Ψ)

∂t

∂x

1

, F

6

=

5h(1−N

2

)

6

(1 −Ψ)

∂t

∂x

2

. Here

k

1

= D(1 −N

2

), k

2

=

D(1−ν)

2

, k

3

= −

5Gh

6

, k

4

=

5Gh

6

, k

5

=

D(1−ν)l

2

t

(4l

2

b

−l

2

t

)(1−N

2

)

2l

2

b

, k

6

=

34

2N

2

D(1−ν), k

7

=

5h(1−N

2

)Gl

2

t

(2−Ψ)

3

, k

8

=

10h(1−N

2

)Gl

2

b

3

, k

9

=

10hGN

2

3

, k

10

=

D(1+ν−2N

2

)

2

,

k

11

=

5Gh(2N

2

−1)

6

, k

12

= DN

2

(1 −ν), k

13

=

5GhN

2

3

, k

14

5h(1−N

2

)G

(

l

2

t

(2−Ψ)−2l

2

b

)

3

;

The correspondent boundary traction conditions are

T(∂

x

)H−F

∗

= 0,, (3.48)

where diﬀerential operator T(∂

x

) = T

∂

∂x

a

,

T(ξ) = T(ξ

α

) =

T

11

T

12

0 T

14

0 0

T

21

T

22

0 T

24

0 0

T

31

T

32

T

33

0 0 T

36

0 0 0 T

44

0 0

0 0 0 0 T

55

T

56

0 0 0 0 T

65

T

66

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

,

and

(F

∗

)

T

=

¸

F

∗

1

F

∗

2

F

∗

3

F

∗

4

F

∗

5

F

∗

6

.

In the above T

11

= T

1

(ξ

1

, ξ

2

), T

22

= T

1

(ξ

2

, ξ

1

), T

1

(ξ

1

, ξ

2

) = Dn

1

ξ

1

+

D(1+ν)

2(1−N

2

)

n

2

ξ

2

,

T

33

=

5Gh

6(1−N

2

)

(n

1

ξ

1

+n

2

ξ

2

) , T

44

=

Gl

2

t

(4l

2

b

−l

2

t

)h

3

12l

2

b

(n

1

ξ

1

+ n

2

ξ

2

), T

55

=

5Gh

3

(l

2

t

n

1

(2 −

Ψ)ξ

1

+2l

2

b

n

2

ξ

2

), T

66

=

5Gh

3

(2l

2

b

n

1

ξ

1

+l

2

t

(2−Ψ)n

2

ξ

2

), T

12

= Dνn

1

ξ

2

+

D(1+ν)(1−2N

2

)

2(1−N

2

)

n

2

ξ

1

,

T

14

=

D(1+ν)N

2

1−N

2

n

2

, T

21

= Dνn

2

ξ

1

+

D(1+ν)(1−2N

2

)

2(1−N

2

)

n

1

ξ

2

, T

24

= −

D(1+ν)N

2

1−N

2

n

1

, T

31

=

5Gh(1−2N

2

)

6(1−N

2

)

n

1

, T

32

=

5Gh(1−2N

2

)

6(1−N

2

)

n

2

, T

36

=

5GhN

2

3(1−N

2

)

(n

1

− n

2

), T

56

= T

2

(ξ

1

, ξ

2

), T

65

=

T

2

(ξ

2

, ξ

1

), T

2

(ξ

1

, ξ

2

) =

5Gh

3

(l

2

t

n

1

(1 −Ψ)ξ

2

+ (l

2

t

−2l

2

b

)n

2

ξ

1

), F

∗

1

= −

νh

2

10(1−ν)

n

1

p, F

∗

2

=

−

νh

2

10(1−ν)

n

2

p, F

∗

3

= 0, F

∗

4

= 0, F

∗

5

= −

2Gl

2

t

(1−Ψ)

Ψ

n

1

t, F

∗

6

= −

2Gl

2

t

(1−Ψ)

Ψ

n

2

t.

The governing system for the twisting case is

˜

L(∂

x

)

˜

H−

˜

F= 0, x ∈R, (3.49)

where

35

˜

L(ξ) =

˜

L(ξ

α

) =

˜

L

11

˜

L

12

˜

L

13

˜

L

21

˜

L

22

˜

L

23

˜

L

31

˜

L

32

˜

L

33

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

and

(

˜

F)

T

=

¸

˜

F

1

˜

F

2

˜

F

3

.

Here

˜

T

11

= κ

1

ξ

2

1

+ κ

2

ξ

2

2

,

˜

T

12

= κ

3

ξ

1

ξ

2

,

˜

T

13

= 2κ

4

ξ

2

,

˜

T

21

=

˜

T

12

,

˜

T

22

=

˜

T

11

,

˜

T

23

= 2κ

4

ξ

1

,

˜

T

31

= −κ

4

ξ

2

,

˜

T

32

= κ

4

ξ

1

,

˜

T

33

= κ

5

(ξ

2

1

+ ξ

2

2

) − κ

2

,

˜

F

∗

1

= −

νκ

1

2G

∂σ

0

∂x

1

,

˜

F

∗

2

= −

νκ

1

2G

∂σ

0

∂x

2

,

˜

F

∗

3

= −

(1−N

2

)

Gh

v, κ

1

=

2(1−N

2

)

1−ν

, κ

2

= 2N

2

, κ

3

= 1 − κ

1

=

(1+ν−2N

2

)

(1−ν)

,

κ

4

= N

2

, κ

5

=

l

2

t

(4l

2

b

−l

2

t

)(1−N

2

)

2l

2

b

.

The boundary conditions for the twisting system has the following form:

˜

T(∂

x

)

˜

H−

˜

F

∗

= 0,, (3.50)

where diﬀerential operator

˜

T(∂

x

) =

˜

T

∂

∂x

a

,

˜

T(ξ) =

˜

T(ξ

α

) =

˜

T

11

˜

T

12

˜

T

13

˜

T

21

˜

T

22

˜

T

23

0 0

˜

T

33

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

,

˜

H

T

=

¸

U

1

U

2

Ω

0

3

,

and

˜

F

∗

T

=

¸

˜

F

1

∗

˜

F

2

∗

˜

F

3

∗

.

In the above

˜

T

11

=

Ehn

1

1−ν

2

ξ

1

+

Ghn

2

1−N

2

ξ

2

,

˜

T

12

=

Ehνn

1

1−ν

2

ξ

2

+

Ghn

2

(1−2N

2

)

1−N

2

ξ

1

,

˜

T

13

=

2N

2

Ghn

2

1−N

2

,

˜

T

21

=

Ehνn

2

1−ν

2

ξ

1

+

Ghn

1

(1−2N

2

)

1−N

2

ξ

2

,

˜

T

22

=

Ehn

2

1−ν

2

ξ

1

+

Ghn

1

1−N

2

ξ

1

,

˜

T

23

= −

2N

2

Ghn

1

1−N

2

,

˜

T

33

=

Gl

2

t

(4l

2

b

−l

2

t

)h

l

2

b

(ξ

1

n

1

+ξ

2

n

2

),

˜

F

∗

1

= Σ

0,1

−

hνn

1

1−ν

σ

0

,

˜

F

∗

2

= Σ

0,2

−

hνn

2

1−ν

σ

0

,

˜

F

3

∗

= M

03

.

36

3.6 Reduction to Classical Case

In the classical case, that is, when the eﬀect of microrotation is neglected, the

proposed model given in the previous section reduces to the ﬁrst three bending

equations of (3.46). The equations take the following form:

D

∂

2

Ψ

1

∂x

2

1

+

D(1 −ν)

2

∂

2

Ψ

1

∂x

2

2

+

D(1 +ν)

2

∂

2

Ψ

2

∂x

1

∂x

2

−

5hE

12(1 +ν)

∂W

∂x

1

−

5Eh

12(1 +ν)

Ψ

1

= −

h

2

ν

10(1 −ν)

∂p

∂x

1

, (3.51)

D

∂

2

Ψ

2

∂x

2

2

+

D(1 −ν)

2

∂

2

Ψ

2

∂x

2

1

+

D(1 +ν)

2

∂

2

Ψ

1

∂x

1

∂x

2

−

5hE

12(1 +ν)

∂W

∂x

2

−

5Eh

12(1 +ν)

Ψ

2

= −

h

2

ν

10(1 −ν)

∂p

∂x

2

, (3.52)

5Eh

12(1 +ν)

∆W +

5Eh

12(1 +ν)

∂Ψ

1

∂x

1

+

∂Ψ

2

∂x

2

= −p, (3.53)

after some manipulation of equations (3.51) - (3.53) it can be shown that the gov-

erning system for the vertical deﬂection can take the following form:

∆

2

W =

p

D

−

h

2

(ν + 2)

10D(1 −ν)

∆p. (3.54)

which is exactly Reissner’s model [12].

3.7 Uniqueness of solutions

In this section we prove that if we have a solution of (3.47) and (3.49) that

satisﬁes the boundary conditions at Γ = Γ

σ

∪ Γ

d

and that satisﬁes the equilibrium

equations (3.12), (3.13), together with all kinematic assumptions then the solution

must be unique. During the proof we assume that all functions satisfy the Green -

Gauss theorem requirements.

37

For the proof of the uniqueness we assume that the solution of the Cosserat

plate is not unique. We suppose that there are two diﬀerent solutions that satisfy

the previous requirements, if this is the case then the diﬀerence of the solutions must

satisfy the systems (3.47) and (3.49) with zero loads, then boundary conditions take

the following form:

M

ij

n

j

= 0, R

ij

n

j

= 0,

Q

∗

j

n

j

= 0, S

∗

j

n

j

= 0,

N

ij

n

i

= 0, M

∗

j

n

j

= 0, on Γ

σ

(3.55)

and

W = 0, V

i

= 0,

Ω

0

k

= 0, Ω

3

= 0,

U

i

= 0, on Γ

d

. (3.56)

We shall show that under these conditions the strain in the plate should vanish

and therefore the solution represents the plate deformation as a rigid body. It can

be shown that for the homogeneous system associated to (3.47) and (3.49), that is,

for a plate with zero loads, the free energy expression (3.16) can be represented in

the following form:

I

F

=

R

(N

11

U

1,1

+N

12

(U

2,1

−Ω

0

3

) +N

21

(U

1,2

+ Ω

0

3

) +M

11

Ψ

1,1

+Q

2

Ω

0

1

+

M

21

(Ψ

1,2

+ Ω

3

) +Q

∗

1

(W

,1

+ Ω

0

2

) +Q

∗

2

(W

,2

−Ω

0

1

) +Q

1

(Ψ

1

−Ω

0

2

) +Q

2

Ψ

2

+

R

11

Ω

0

1,1

+R

22

Ω

0

2,2

+R

21

Ω

0

1,2

+R

12

Ω

0

2,1

+M

∗

1

Ω

0

3,1

+M

∗

2

Ω

0

3,2

+S

∗

1

Ω

3,1

+

S

∗

2

Ω

3,2

+M

12

(Ψ

2,1

−Ω

3

) +N

22

U

2,2

+M

22

Ψ

2,2

)dA, (3.57)

38

after some manipulations of (3.57) we obtain the following expression for I

F

:

I

F

=

R

{[R

ij

Ω

0

i

+ (M

ij

+N

ij

)U

i

+S

∗

j

Ω

3

+Q

∗

j

W +M

∗

i

Ω

0

3

]

,j

−

(M

11,1

+M

21,2

−Q

1

)Ψ

1

−(M

12,1

+M

22,2

−Q

2

)Ψ

2

−

(Q

∗

1,1

+Q

∗

2,2

)W −(R

11,1

+R

21,2

+Q

∗

2

−Q

2

)Ω

0

1

−

(R

12,1

+R

22,2

+Q

1

−Q

∗

1

)Ω

0

2

−(S

∗

1,1

+S

∗

2,2

+M

12

−M

21

)Ω

3

−

(N

11,1

+N

21,2

)U

1

−(N

12,1

+N

22,2

)U

2

−(M

∗

1,1

+M

∗

2,2

+N

12

−N

21

)Ω

0

3

}dA,

(3.58)

now if we consider the equilibrium equations (3.12) and (3.13) with zero load in

expression (3.58) and Green’s theorem we obtain:

I

F

=

Γ

(R

ij

Ω

0

i

+ (M

ij

+N

ij

)U

i

+S

∗

j

Ω

3

+Q

∗

j

W +M

∗

i

Ω

0

3

)n

j

ds = 0. (3.59)

The integral expression (3.59) vanishes because (3.55) implies

Γ

σ

≡ 0 and

(3.56) implies

Γ

d

≡ 0.

With lots of calculation it can be shown that expressions (3.24) - (3.43) substi-

tuted in (3.18) represents a positive deﬁnite quadratic form in terms of the kinematic

variables, therefore expression (3.59) and (3.23) imply:

U

1,1

= 0, U

2,2

= 0, U

2,1

−Ω

0

3

= 0, U

1,2

+ Ω

0

3

= 0,

Ψ

1,1

= 0, Ψ

2,2

= 0, Ψ

2,1

−Ω

3

= 0, Ψ

1,2

+ Ω

3

= 0,

W

,1

+ Ω

0

2

= 0, W

,2

−Ω

0

1

= 0, Ψ

1

−Ω

0

2

= 0, Ψ

2

+ Ω

0

1

= 0,

Ω

0

1,1

= 0, Ω

0

2,2

= 0, Ω

0

1,2

= 0, Ω

0

2,1

= 0, Ω

0

3,1

= 0,

Ω

0

3,2

= 0, Ω

3,1

= 0, Ω

3,2

= 0, (3.60)

39

after integration of (3.60) we notice that the diﬀerence of any two distinct solutions

of the deformation of the Cosserat plate is represented in the following form:

U

1

(x

1

, x

2

) = −x

2

Ω

0

3

+U

0

1

, U

2

= x

1

Ω

0

3

+U

0

2

, (3.61)

Ψ

1

(x

1

, x

2

) = −x

2

Ω

3

+ Ψ

0

1

, Ψ

2

= x

1

Ω

3

+ Ψ

0

2

, (3.62)

W(x

1

, x

2

) = Ω

0

1

x

2

−Ω

0

2

x

1

+W

0

, (3.63)

where U

0

i

, Ω

0

i

, W

0

, Ω

3

, Ψ

0

i

are constants. The solutions (3.61) - (3.63) describe pure

translation and rotation of the plate, therefore there is no deformation. Since we

know that in general we have deformations, the solution must be unique.

CHAPTER 4

ANALITICAL SOLUTIONS

4.1 Description of Experiments

In this section we are interested to solve analytically the bending system of

equations (3.47) for a thin square plate of height h and length a. The plate is

described by the set of points [0, a]×[0, a]×[−

h

2

,

h

2

]. We assume the plate is subjected

to a load p described by p(x

1

, x

2

) = sin(

π

a

x

1

) sin(

π

a

x

2

)

N

m

2

. We consider the plate to

be made of syntatic foam. Numerical values of the elastic constants for this material

can be found in [4] and are given as follows:

E = 2758 MPa, G = 1033 MPa, ν = 0.34, (4.1)

l

t

= 65 µm, l

b

= 33 ×10

−3

, Ψ = 1.5 rad, (4.2)

N

2

= 0.1 . (4.3)

The methodology to follow consists in assuming that each unknown function can

be represented in terms of Fourier series. Considering that the load is represented

by p(x

1

, x

2

) = sin(

π

a

x

1

) sin(

π

a

x

2

), then the structure of the system (3.47) requires

unknown functions to have the following representations:

W =

¸

m,n

A

mn

sin(

πm

a

x

1

) sin(

πn

a

x

2

), Ψ

1

=

¸

m,n

B

mn

cos(

πm

a

x

1

) sin(

πn

a

x

2

), (4.4)

40

41

Ψ

2

=

¸

m,n

C

mn

sin(

πm

a

x

1

) cos(

πn

a

x

2

), Ω

0

1

=

¸

m,n

D

mn

sin(

πm

a

x

1

) cos(

πn

a

x

2

),

(4.5)

Ω

0

2

=

¸

m,n

E

mn

cos(

πm

a

x

1

) sin(

πn

a

x

2

), Ω

3

=

¸

m,n

F

mn

cos(

πm

a

x

1

) cos(

πn

a

x

2

),

(4.6)

where all coeﬃcients appearing in (4.4) - (4.6) are to be determined. It can be shown

that after substitution of (4.4) - (4.6) in (3.47), a linear system of 6 ×6 is obtained

with the property that all Fourier coeﬃcients are zero for m = 1 or n = 1. The only

case where they can’t be zero is when m = n = 1. Solving the 6×6 system provides

an analytical solution of (3.47).

It’s important to notice that the nature of force p and the homogenity of the

Cosserat plate imply that the maximum deﬂection of the plate occurs at its center,

hence p is maximum at (

a

2

,

a

2

).

Experiment 1

In this experiment we compare W

P

/W

E

versus a/h, where W

E

is the maxi-

mum deﬂection of the plate calculated with Eringen’s model (appendix A), W

P

is

the maximum deﬂection calculated with the proposed model (3.47) and a/h is the

number of times the plate dimensions are more bigger than its thickness. The main

purpose of this comparison is to study the eﬀect of microstructure and the eﬀect of

the plate thickness on the calculation of the maximum deﬂection of the plate.

In this experiment the eﬀect of microstructure is appreciated after calculating

W

P

and W

E

for diﬀerent values of the constants appearing in (4.2) - (3.53), which

correspond to the microstructure of the plate. The values of these constants are

reduced by a factor of

1

10

and

1

100

. The eﬀect of the plate thickness is appreciated

42

after calculating W

P

and W

E

for h = 0.1m and by increasing a/h from 5 up to 30.

Figure 4–1 shows the results of the experiment.

5 10 15 20 25 30

1

1.02

1.04

1.06

1.08

1.1

1.12

1.14

1.16

a / h

E

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 4–1: Asymmetric Eﬀect

Comments of Experiment 1

As we can appreciate, ﬁgure 4–1 shows 3 plots which are described as follows:

• Plot (a) compares W

P

and W

E

for diﬀerent values of a/h. The eﬀect of microstruc-

ture is considered at 100%, that is the material characteristics are described by (4.1)

- (4.3). As we can see, the values of W

P

and W

E

tend to be closer as h becomes

alot smaller compared to size a. For all plate sizes, W

P

> W

E

by a net diﬀerence

of at least 12% and at most of 16% seems to appear. This result is expected since

the model proposed in this thesis is based on Reissner’s approach and Eringen’s

model in Kirchhoﬀ’s assumptions (see appendix A).

• Plot (b) compares W

P

and W

E

for diﬀerent values of a/h. The eﬀect of microstruc-

ture is considered at 10%, that is the material constants (4.2) - (4.3) are all reduced

to a factor of 1/10. As we can see, the values of W

P

and W

E

tend to be closer

43

than in (a), but the behaviour W

P

> W

E

still remains. The net diﬀerence now is

approximately at least 3% and at most of 8%.

• Plot (c) compares W

P

and W

E

for diﬀerent values of a/h. The eﬀect of microstruc-

ture is considered at 1%, that is the material constants (4.2) - (4.3) are all reduced

to a factor of 1/100. As we can see, the values of W

P

and W

E

tend to be closer

than in (b), and the behaviour W

P

> W

E

still remains. The net diﬀerence now is

less than 1% and at most of 7%. Notice also that when the plate thickness is 10

times smaller than its size, W

P

> W

E

by approximately 2%.

Experiment 2

In this experiment we compare W

P

/W

C

versus a/h, where W

C

is the maximum

deﬂection of the plate calculated with Reissner’s model(3.54) and W

P

is the max-

imum deﬂection calculated with the proposed model (3.47). The main purpose of

this comparison is to show that microstructure has a signiﬁcant eﬀect in the plate

deformation. This is appreciated in the same way we did in experiment 1.

Before showing the results of this experiment, it’s important to realize that now

W

P

< W

C

. The explanation of this phenomena is done with energy principles. It

happens that in the classical case the total free energy of the plate considers only the

eﬀect of W

C

. From the other side, in the case where microstructure plays an impor-

tant role, the total free energy of the plate is additionally considers microstructural

deformations, therefore W

P

should be smaller than W

C

. Another important thing

to realize is that microstructure should be taken into account when the plate thick-

ness is alot smaller than its dimensions. Figure (4–2) shows and validates previous

observations:

44

5 10 15 20 25 30

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

a / h

W

P

/ W

C

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 4–2: Classic case

Comments of Experiment 2

As we can appreciate, ﬁgure 4–2 shows 3 plots which are described as follows:

• Plot (a) compares W

P

and W

C

for diﬀerent values of a/h when the eﬀect of mi-

crostructure is considered at 100%. As we can see, the values of W

P

and W

C

tend

to be farther away as h becomes alot smaller compared to size a. For all plate

sizes, W

P

< W

C

, as expected. Notice that the best case when W

P

is closer to W

C

is when h is 5 times smaller than a. In this case W

P

is 60% of W

C

.

• Plot (b) compares W

P

and W

C

for diﬀerent values of a/h when the eﬀect of mi-

crostructure is considered at 10%. Notice that in this case W

P

and W

C

are closer

45

than in (a), but the behaviour that W

P

and W

C

tend to be farther away still re-

mains.

• Plot (c) compares W

P

and W

E

for diﬀerent values of a/h when the eﬀect of mi-

crostructure is considered at 1%. As we can see, the values of W

P

and W

E

are

closer than in (b) and as h is alot smaller than a, W

P

and W

C

tend to be farther

away.

4.2 Conclusions

1. The eﬀect of microstructure plays a signiﬁcant role in the calculation of deforma-

tions of elastic bodies. As shown in experiment 2, the bigger the values of the

complementary constants, more diﬀerence is appreciated between classic results

and Cosserat’s theory results.

2. Experiment 2 shows that microstructure eﬀect in a plate becomes signiﬁcant when

the thickness of the plate is alot smaller than its dimensions.

3. Experiment 1 shows that when microstructure is reduced, Eringen’s model and the

proposed model (3.47) become altmost the same. In cases when G is not so big,

results may be far away. This can be seen by comparing (3.54) and (B.4).

4. In Eringen’s theory the vertical microrotation of the middle plane is considered to

be zero. According to (3.47) we can appreciate that in general this quantity is not

zero. It’s value becomes signiﬁcant when the load µ

t

is diﬀerent than zero.

5. When the load µ

t

= 0, the assumption made by Eringen about zero vertical micro-

rotation seems to be correct. In our experiments Ω

0

3

is practically zero compared

to Ω

0

i

.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

THE CONCEPT OF STRESS AND COUPLE

STRESS IN ASYMMETRIC ELASTICITY

When an elastic body is exposed to some external forces every material point

is in correspondence with a force and a momentum per unit area. In the classical

theory of elasticity only the force per unit area vector is taken in consideration. The

direction of the force and momentum depend on the transversal cut made to the

body. Figure A–1 illustrates this situation. The unitary vector n is normal and

describes the orientation of the transversal cut, σ illustrates the force per unit area

and is known as the stress vector. The stress vector is responsible for the displace-

ment of material points. The momentum per unit area is illustrated with µ and is

known as the couple stress vector, this stress is responsible for the microrotation of

a material point.

Given a transversal cut described by n, the stress or couple stress vectors at a

point can be calculated by means of a linear transformation. Linear transformations

associated to the stress and couple stress receive the name of the stress and couple

stress tensors respectively. Usually components of both tensors at a material point

are calculated along the cuts described by e

1

= (1, 0, 0)

T

, e

2

= (0, 1, 0)

T

and e

3

=

(0, 0, 1)

T

. Once known all stress and couple stress components associated to e

k

, the

stress and couple stress vectors are claculated in the following way:

47

48

µ =

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

µ

11

µ

12

µ

13

µ

21

µ

22

µ

23

µ

31

µ

32

µ

33

T

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

n

1

n

2

n

3

, σ =

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

σ

11

σ

12

σ

13

σ

21

σ

22

σ

23

σ

31

σ

32

σ

33

T

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

n

1

n

2

n

3

.

where n

k

are the components of the unitary normal vector.

In the asymmetric theory of elasticity the stress and couple stress tensors are

in general asymmetric. When the couple stress eﬀect is neglected then the stress

tensor becomes symmetric [1].

Figure A–1: The stress vector σ and the couple stress vector µ.

APPENDIX B

ERINGEN’S MODEL

Eringen in page 18 of [2] proposes a model for the case of the plate we consider

in chapter 3. The bending system of equations Eringen derived has the following

form:

I

2

E

1 −ν

−κ

v

i,ji

+

I

2

E

1 +ν

+κ

v

j,i

−2H

G−

κ

2

w

j

−

2H

G+

κ

2

v

j

+ 2κH

ji

ϕ

k

= 0 (B.1)

G−

κ

2

v

i,i

+

G+

κ

2

w

i,i

+κ

ij

ϕ

j,i

+

p

2H

= 0 (B.2)

α

E

+β

E

ϕ

i,ji

+γ

E

ϕ

j,ii

+κ

kl

(v

i

−w

,i

) −2κϕ

j

= 0 (B.3)

where I =

2

3

H

3

,

11

=

11

= 0,

12

= −

21

= 1, H =

h

2

, and v

i

plays the same role as

Ψ

i

. In [2], it’s assumed that for thin plates, ϕ

1

and ϕ

2

are constant along x

3

. The

vertical microrotation ϕ

3

is assumed to be zero by the fact that a pure vertical load

is applied to the plate.

If microstructure can be neglected and the value of G → ∞, then after some

manipulations of (B.1) - (B.3) the governing system for the vertical deﬂection of the

plate becomes:

49

50

∆

2

w =

p

D

, (B.4)

which is Kirchoﬀ’s model.

REFERENCE LIST

[1] Nowacki W. Theory of Asymmetric Elasticity. Pergamon Press, Oxford, New

York, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, 1986.

[2] Eringen C. A. Theory of micropolar plates. Journal of Applied Mathematics

and Physics, Vol 18:12–31, 1967.

[3] R.D.; Jahsman W.E. Gauthier. A quest for micropolar elastic constants. J.

Applied Mechanics, Vol 42:369–374, 1975.

[4] Lakes R. Experimental methods for study of cosserat elastic solids and other

generalized elastic continua. In M¨ uhlhaus H, Wiley J.(eds.) Continuum Models

for Materials with Microstructures, pages 1–22, New York, 1995.

[5] Love A.E.H. A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity. Dover, New

York, 1986.

[6] Timoshenko S. and Woinowsky-Krieger S. Theory of Plates and Shells.

McGraw-Hill, 1959.

[7] P. M. Naghdi. The theory of shells and plates. in Handbuch der Physik,

Springer-Verlag, 6a.2:425–640, 1972.

[8] Kirchhoﬀ G.

¨

Uber das gleichgewicht and die bewegung einer elastischen scheibe.

Journal f¨ ur reine and angewandte Mathematik, 40:51–88, 1850.

[9] E. Reissner. The eﬀect of transverse shear deformation on the bending of elastic

plates. Journal of applied Mechanics, pages 69–77, 1945.

[10] Bathe K. J.; Brezzi F. On the convergence of a four mode plate bending el-

ement based on mindlin-reissner plate theory and a mixed interpolation. The

Mathematics of Finite Elements and Applications V, Academic Press, London,

pages 491–503, 1985.

51

52

[11] R¨ossle A.; Bischoﬀ M.; Wendland W.; Ramm E. On the mathematical founda-

tion of the (1,1,2)-plate model. International Journal of Solids and Structures,

(36):2143–2168, 1999.

[12] E. Reissner. Reﬂections on the theory of elastic plates. Applied Mechanics

Reviews, (38):1453–1464, 1986.

[13] Madrid Pedro Steinberg Lev. Bending of cosserat thin plates. Proceedings

of the 23

rd

Southeastern Conference on Applied Mechanics, Mayag¨ uez Puerto

Rico, may 21-23, 2006.

[14] Madrid Pedro Steinberg Lev. Bending of cosserat plates with transverse varia-

tion of microrotation. submitted in the journal Mathematics and Mechanics of

Solids (MMS), january 2007.

REISSNER’S PLATE THEORY IN THE FRAMEWORK OF

ASYMMETRIC ELASTICITY

Pedro Joaqu´ın Madrid

(787) XXX-XXXX

Department of Department of Mathematical Sciences

Chair: Dr. Lev Steinberg

Degree: Master of Science

Graduation Date: November 2007

This is the general Audience Abstract.

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Puerto Rico in Partial Fulﬁllment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science REISSNER’S PLATE THEORY IN THE FRAMEWORK OF ASYMMETRIC ELASTICITY By Pedro Joaqu´ Madrid ın November 2007 Chair: Dr. Lev Steinberg Major Department: Department of Mathematical Sciences

ABSTRACT The purpose of this thesis is to develop a new mathematical model for the bending of thin elastic plates with microstructure. Our approach is based on a generalization of the classical Reissner plate theory, which takes into account the transverse microrotation of the plates. Our model assumes polynomial approximations over the plate thickness of asymmetric stress, couple stress, displacement, and microrotation, which are consistent with the elastic equilibrium, boundary conditions and the constitutive relationships. We use a Cosserat free elastic energy function which includes the energy of the transverse shear couple stress. The application of the method of Lagrange multipliers to the free elastic energy function leads to a system of 9 equations describing the bending (6 equations) and the twisting (3 equations) of the plate. Analytical solutions for the deﬂection of the plate are calculated for a square plate made of syntatic foam. The Fourier series method is applied. The solutions are compared with a model developed by Eringen and also with solutions ii

obtained from the classical theory. The results illustrate the inﬂuence of transverse microrotations on the bending of the rectangular plate.

iii

Los vectores de desplazamiento y microrotaci´n tambi´n o e adquieren una representacion por medio de polinomios. En nueo stro modelo se asume que los esfuerzos y los momentos acoplados se pueden aproximar por medio de polinomios cuya variable dependiente se encuentra a lo largo del grosor de la placa. El sistema de ecuaciones en derivadas parciales que gobierna la deformaci´n de la placa se obtiene del funcional o de energ´ el´stica de Cosserat. ıa a e iv
. tomando ahora en consideraci´n el efecto de la microestructura. Lev Steinberg Departamento: Departamento de Ciencias Matem´ticas a
RESUMEN El prop´sito de esta tesis es desarrollar un nuevo modelo matem´tico que gobo a ierne la deformacion de placas delgadas considerando los efectos de la microestructura. El m´todo de multiplicadores de Lagrange se aplica. las condiciones de frontera y a la ley de Hooke cumplan el principio de consistencia. Los grados del polinomio se eligen a modo las ecuaciones de equilibrio el´stico.Resumen de Disertaci´n Presentado a Escuela Graduada o de la Universidad de Puerto Rico como requisito parcial de los Requerimientos para el grado de Maestr´ en Ciencias ıa TEOR´ DE PLACAS DE REISSNER DESDE EL PUNTO DE VISTA IA ´ DE LA TEOR´ DE ELASTICIDAD ASIMETRICA IA Por Pedro Joaqu´ Madrid ın Noviembre 2007 Consejero: Dr. Nuestra metodolog´ esta basada en la generalizaci´n de la teor´ de placas de ıa o ıa Reissner.

Como experimento consideramos una placa constituida de espuma sint´tica. e Las soluciones anal´ ıticas son comparadas con un modelo desarrollado por Eringen y tambien con los resultados de la teor´ cl´sica de elasticidad. Los resultados ilustran ıa a el efecto de la microestructura en la deﬂexi´n de la placa. o
v
. o Las ecuaciones de deﬂexi´n las resolvemos por medio del m´todo de series de o e Fourier.en total se obtienen 9 ecuaciones donde 6 de ellas describen la deﬂexi´n de la placa o y las restantes 3 la torsi´n.

Copyright c 2007 by Pedro Joaqu´ Madrid ın
.

my late father Jos´ Arnulfo Madrid.DEDICATORY I dedicate this thesis to the following people: my mother Martha Ram´ ırez. e my sister Lizbeth Madrid. my brothers Ram´n Madrid and Luis Felipe Madrid. o
.

Professor Paul Castillo for giving me the suggestion to study at the University of Puerto Rico and for his permanent care of my academic and personal life. Professor Adalid Gutierrez for his inspiring teaching of undergraduate math courses and for motivating me to continue graduate studies in mathematics. without their help this work would not be possible: Professor Lev Steinberg for posing me the problem of elasticity theory. Professor Krzysztof R´zga and Professor Arsenio C´ceres for their valuable o a corrections to my thesis. Professor Concepci´n Ferruﬁno for presenting me the beauty of mathematics. for his patience.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to express my gratitude to the following people. o
viii
. Professor Salvador Llopis for teaching me the basic techniques of mathematical proofs. for guiding me in the elaboration of the mathematical model and for giving me advices about my career and personal life.

. . . . Uniqueness of solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xi
LIST OF SYMBOLS . . . . . . Lagrange Equations and Constitutive Relations Reduction to Classical Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
ix
. . . . . .3 3 Classical Elasticity Theory . . . . .6 3. . . The Cosserat Plate Assumptions . . . . . .2 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 3. . . . . . . . . . . . viii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . .2 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 3. . . . . 12 3. .1 Equations in Asymmetric Elasticity Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2. . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13 19 20 23 36 36
4
ANALITICAL SOLUTIONS . . . . . . .7 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . Basic Equations in Asymmetric Elasticity theory . . . . . . . . . . . .1 4. . . . . . . . . . LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . 45
APPENDICES . . . . . .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Description of Experiments . . . 40 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kinematic Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .TABLE OF CONTENTS
page ii iv
ABSTRACT ENGLISH . . Free energy expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 A B The Concept of Stress and Couple Stress in Asymmetric Elasticity . Asymmetric Elasticity Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 4 5 6 7
Mathematical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ABSTRACT SPANISH . . . . . . . . . . .1 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii 1 2 History of Elasticity Theory . . . . . . . . . . 47
Eringen’s Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 3. . . . . Elasticity Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Conclusions .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3–1 A plate element. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
x
. . . . 14 3–2 Illustration of some parameters appearing in equations (3. 44 A–1 The stress vector σ and the couple stress vector µ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4–1 Asymmetric Eﬀect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2–2 Positive orientation for rotation vector. . . . . . . . .20). . . . . . . . . . . .Figure
LIST OF FIGURES
page 9
2–1 Displacement vector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 4–2 Classic case . . . . .

Isotropic Homogeneous Linear.
xi
.LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS PDE’S IHL Partial Diﬀerential Equations.

Microrotation in the middle plane. External force per unit area. Coupling number. Delta Dirac tensor. Characteristic bending. Component ij of the gradient of microrotation vector. The ith component of microrotation vector.
ijk
δij Γ N lt lb Ψ ∂R χij T B Γ1 \ Γ2 Γ1 ∪ Γ2 δI p t Ω0 i W Ψi
Young’s Modulus. First variation applied to functional I. e Complementary elasticity constants.
xii
. Poisson’s ratio. Boundary of the middle plane of a plate. γ. Component ij of the strain tensor. Component ij of couple stress tensor. The ith component of displacement vector. vertical deﬂection of the middle plane. Free elastic energy. External momentum per unit area. Bottom face of a plate. Levi Civita tensor. Macrorotation of the middle plane. Flexural rigidity. Top face of a plate.LIST OF SYMBOLS E ν D G σij γij µij ϕi ui F C λ. Characteristic torsion. β. The Lam´ constants. Component ij of stress tensor. Boundary of region R. Bulk energy. Shear Modulus. Diﬀerernce between set Γ1 and Γ2 . µ α. Union of the sets Γ1 and Γ2 . Polar ratio.

The most important fact of Hooke’s Law is that it gives the foundations of the linear theory of Elasticity.CHAPTER 1 HISTORY OF ELASTICITY THEORY
In general terms.1789) and others were trying to develop theory for beams. In 1660 Hooke discovered an experimental relation between the forces and the strain (relative displacements) of a body known today as Hooke’s Law. His investigations motivated many people to continue research in this direction. the elasticity theory studies the resistance to deformation of solid bodies subjected to a given set of forces. that is. The ﬁrst person who studied the nature of the resistance of solids was Galileo Galilei (1564 . Between Hooke’s and Navier’s period mathematicians like Leonhard Euler (1707 .1782). mathematically this means that applied force and strain follow a linear relation.
1
.1836). plates. shells and vibrations.1703) and Henri Navier (1785 .1783). Daniel Bernoulli (1700 . James Bernoulli (1759 . The term stress is understood as force per unit area and strain as a measure of deformation. solids undergoing deformations never recover their original shape. The most important contribution Galileo made in this ﬁeld was posing a problem consisting of the determination of the axis on which a beam built into a wall would tend to turn.1642). His law states that the strain of a body is directly proportional to the set of forces applied to it. In all of his work he treated solids as inelastic. This consideration made impossible the hypothesis of connecting applied forces to a body with their relative displacements. The next big advances where made by Robert Hooke (1635 .

He also obtained expressions for the work done by all forces to the molecule and with the use of calculus of variations he obtained a system of pde’s together with its boundary conditions. Today this constant is known as Young’s modulus. By the year 1822 Cauchy discovered most of the elements of pure theory of elasticity.2 The ﬁrst mathematician to investigate the general equations of equilibrium and vibrations of elastic solids was Navier. He formulated equations of motion of a displaced molecule by developing expressions for the component in any direction of all the forces acting upon the molecule. This attracted the attention of the mathematicians Augustin Louis Cauchy (1789 . Poisson’s results were equivalent to the ones obtained by Cauchy’s. Also some of his important contributions were the formulation of equations of motion in terms of the stress-components and the acting body forces (Force per unit volume). He introduced the notion of stress at a point which depends of the cross sectional area that contains the point. while Cauchy’s contain only two. There is one central diﬀerence from Navier’s results and Cauchy’s : Navier’s equations contained a single constant (Young’s modulus) to express the elastic behaviour of a body. the description of stress and strain in terms of six components.1857) and Denis Poisson (1781 .1840). It’s interesting to know that Cauchy never made reference to Hooke’s law. Augustin Jean Fresnel (1788 . The type of materials Navier studied were assumed to be isotropic and the equations for equilibrium contained only one constant dependent of the elastic properties of the material.
. In all of Cauchy’s work the following assumptions were made: Relations between stress and strain are linear and the principal planes of stress are normal to the principal axes of strain. the principal axes of strain and the principal planes of stress. the only diﬀerence is that he required diﬀerent hypothesis. Both assumptions are supported by Hooke’s law.1827) related the study of interference of polarised light with the theoretical results of vibrations in elasticity.

Many of the terminology these last researchers made is still used today.1841).3 The next great advances were made by George Green (1793 . for example the use of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. Robert Kirchhoﬀ (1824 .1907) and others. Gabriel Lam´ (1795 .1903).1887) . George Stokes (1819 . The resistance to deformation of an elastic body was also well classiﬁed into two types. e Lord Kelvin (1824 . New arguments were employed in their analysis.1870). resistance to shearing and to compression.
. The potential energy of the strained elastic body per unit volume was expressed in terms of the components of strain. Their studies were concentrated more in the Principle of Conservation of Energy.

Deformations can be classiﬁed as of linear and nonlinear type. steel. We are interested only in the linear case.CHAPTER 2 ELASTICITY THEORY
2. Elasticity theory concern the situations where after the removal of forces producing the deformation of the body implies a complete recovery of the undeformed state. Applications of this theory are very important for engineering. The 4
. rubber. Typically linear deformations are very small and the mathematical theory for its study requires the use of linear partial diﬀerential equations (pde’s). Many materials can undergo elastic deformations for instance concrete. In the classical theory of elasticity only macroscopic eﬀects are taken into consideration. The area of elasticity that deals with this type of deformations is known as Linear Elasticity Theory. These type of deformations are known as elastic and materials satisfying this property are also known as elastic. From now on when the term deformation is employed it will be understood that it is elastic. It happens that the elastic properties of a body are described by some constants dependent on the structure of the material and known as elastic coeﬃcients. all solid bodies are assumed to be made of a continuous medium. that is. etc. The deformations in a solid body depend of the type of material the body is made and the nature of the forces applied to it.1 Classical Elasticity Theory
The mathematical foundation of elasticity theory deals with the calculation of the relative displacements (deformation) of a solid body which is subject to the action of a system of forces. aluminum. architecture and all other areas which deal with solids as material.

In Cosserat’s theory the measurement of these coeﬃcients is not an easy task. steel and iron. In the rest of this work we deal with materials that are homogeneous and isotropic. the classical theory of elasticity is based in the model of an elastic continuum in which the transfer of forces through an interior element of area of the body occurs only by means of the stress vector. biological materials. Now stress and strain at a point require the description of nine components. The type of constants is not neccesary unique but it has been shown that diﬀerent choices are equivalent. Classical elasticity theory showed satisfactory results with experimentation in many structural materials such as aluminum.2 Asymmetric Elasticity Theory
As we saw in the previous section. These diﬀerences seemed to become signiﬁcative for problems where large stress gradients occur (near holes or cracks). A material is said to be homogeneus if its elastic coeﬃcients are independent of the spatial coordinates. Materials can be classiﬁed according to the properties of their elastic coeﬃcients. this is why we don’t get deep into this situation. for vibrational problems where waves have
. In the classical theory of elasticity it’s known that all isotropic materials are described with exactly two elastic constants. cellular materials and nano materials. This type of assumption leads to a mathematical description of stress and strain by means of asymmetric tensors. Some examples of isotropic materials are concrete and steel. There were other cases of elastic materials in which theory had discrepances with experimentation. If the calculation of the material’s elastic coeﬃcients are the same in every set of reference axes at any point then we say its isotropic. Some of these are polymers. 2.5 measurement of the elastic coeﬃcients of a material at a given point is done by calculating some ratios between stress (force per unit area in a given direction) and the strain (deformation in a speciﬁc direction).

6 a very high frequency or small wavelength and for materials that possess granular structure. displacements and rotations are considered to be independent vectors. Today Cosserat’s theory is also known with the name of micropolar elasticity. In all expressions the subindexes k. 3 for displacement and the other 3 for rotations. Now deformation of a granular body was not only described by means of a displacement vector. These type of observations suggested that the inﬂuence of microstructure should be taken into account. Suhubi. W. Cosserat published a work where the eﬀects of couple stress and rotation of particles was taken into account. In the last fourty years Cosserat’s theory has attracted the attention of many researchers such as C. Thus. When i or j are employed as subindexes.A. In 1909 the brothers E. During the lifetime of the Cosserat’s brothers. His results lead to a description of stress and strain as nonsymmetric tensors. also by a rotation vector. 2 or 3. Toupin and others. Nowacki. Nowacki and R. a complete treatment of Cosserat’s Continuum has been made[1]. This type of medium is known as Pseudo-Cosserat Continuum.A. The main reasons could be that the theory treated problems far away from elasticity theory and also the notation employed was very diﬃcult to understand.3 Basic Equations in Asymmetric Elasticity theory
We explain some mathematical notation before showing some important general results of Asymmetric Elasticity theory. Voigt was the ﬁrst to consider in his work the eﬀect of couple stress (local momentum) in granular bodies.A. and F. E. R. Eringen. no special attention was given to their theory. In Cosserat’s Continuum. W. In most recent works made by C.S.A. 2. C. we
. the Cosserat brothers deﬁned an elastic medium (known today as Cosserat’s Continuum) where each material point has six degrees of freedon. Toupin. Eringen. Truesdell. l or m are understood to take values 1. The ﬁrst studies were made for materials where only the eﬀect of couple stress was taken into account (no rotations).

if we have γkk we mean γ11 + γ22 + γ33 and σij µi means σ1j µ1 + σ2j µ2 .3.2 means
∂σ1 ∂x2
and µ. For example.The same applies to the couple stress µlk . m) is an odd permutation. x2 . l. x3 )
+ µlm. l. x2 . When a comma is placed as subindex it will be understood that a derivative has been taken. x3 ) = 0.
klm
2.
mlk σlk (x1 .1
Equations in Asymmetric Elasticity Theory
In this section we describe the equations of equilibrium. The Cosserat elasticity equilibrium equations without the presence of body forces have the following form [2]:
σlk. x2 . When repeated subindexes are employed it will be assumed that addition is performed all over their range.7 assume they take the values 1 or 2. Next we give some boundary conditions related to the previous equations. All 18 functions σlk and µlk may depend also of time t but our problem doesn’t require this dependence.
.
(2. constitutive relations and the free volume energy function. = −1 when (k.1)
where σlk and µlk are known as the stress and couple stress tensors respectively (see appendix A). for example σ1. m) is an even permutation.1 means
klm
∂µ . ∂x1
The tensor δij is deﬁned as 1 if i = j and 0 otherwise. x3 ) = 0. 0 otherwise.l (x1 .l (x1 .
The symbol
is deﬁned as 1 when (k. The stress σlk is understood to be contained in the plane whose normal is xl and in the direction of axis xk .

λ. The coeﬃcients µ. λ+µ λ Poisson’s ratio ν = .3)
γ .k . and β are known as the elastic constants of the material. 2(λ + µ) (2. here γkl = ul.2)
and χkl = ϕl. γ. γ. The tensor γkl is known as the micropolar
strain tensor.3) for diﬀerent kind of materials appear in [4]. and β. Equations (2. Characteristic length for bending lb = 2 µ α Coupling number N = . µlk = (γ + )χlk + (γ − )χkl + βδkl χmm .
.8 The following linear equations for isotropic materials. known as Hooke’s Law (also as constitutive relations). uk and ϕk are the displacement and microrotation vectors respectively. µ+α 2γ Polar ratio Ψ = .k −
mkl ϕm
(2. relate the deformations of displacements and rotations with the stress and couple stress:
σlk = (µ + α)γlk + (µ − α)γkl + λδkl γmm . β + 2γ Characteristic length for torsion lt = some numerical values of (2. α.2) can also be expressed in terms of the following technical constants [3] :
Young’s modulus E =
µ(3λ + 2µ) . Microstructure is strictly related with α. while λ and µ are the Lam´ e
constants known from classical elasticity theory. µ 1 γ+ .

but for linear deformations (ϕk will assume very small values) rotations behave almost like vectors. The strain energy density F in terms of the strain components has the following form [1]:
. Formally ϕk is not a vector by the fact that rotations don’t satisfy the commutative property of addition of vectors. Figure 2–1 illustrates this situation. In this ﬁgure P represents a speciﬁc material point of a body in the deformed state and P ∗ the new position of P in the deformed state. The microrotation vector ϕk is assumed to be positive according to the convention shown in ﬁgure 2–2.
Figure 2–1: Displacement vector.9 The displacement vector uk is a measure of the relative positions of material points in the deformed state respect to the undeformed state.

> 0. γ + > 0. 3β + 2γ > 0. α > 0. 3λ + 2µ > 0.2) satisfy the inequalities
µ > 0. γ > 0.
. 2 2 2
(2. µ + α > 0.
F =
µ+α µ−α λ γij γij + γij γji + γkk γnn + 2 2 2 γ+ γ− β χij χij + χij χji + χkk χnn .4)
From the non-negativity of (2.4) the elastic constants in (2.10
Figure 2–2: Positive orientation for rotation vector.

11 For future convenience we express the strain energy density function (2.6)
where σok and µok are prescribed on ∂Rσ .4) in terms of σlk and µlk .6) denote the components of the exterior unit normal vector to ∂R.λ =
−λ 6µ(λ+ 2µ ) 3
and β =
−β .2) and substituting the results in (2. the equilibrium equations (2. ϕα = ϕoα on ∂Rd . 2 2 2 γ =
1 .2) are combined with the following boundary conditions:
σlk nl = σok . The coeﬃcients nl appearing in (2. where ∂Rd and ∂Rσ are disjoint. This can be done after solving for γlk and χlk in (2. 4α
=
1 4
. and uol .4)
F =
µ +α µ −α λ σij σij + σij σji + σkk σnn + 2 2 2 γ − β γ + µij µij + µij µji + µkk µnn . (2.
.5)
where µ =
1 . 4µ
α =
1 . µlk nl = µok on ∂Rσ ul = uol . In most problems of elasticity. 4γ
(2.1) together with Hooke’s law (2. ϕoα are prescribed on ∂Rs . 6µ(β+ 2γ ) 3
Suppose we have a Cosserat elastic body R with boundary ∂R = ∂Rd ∪ ∂Rσ .

Thus the theory neglects transverse shear strain eﬀects.CHAPTER 3 MATHEMATICAL MODEL
In this chapter we develop a mathematical model for calculation of bending and twisting of a thin plate subject to some perpendicular distributed forces and momentums. [6] [7]. rigidity constant and shear modulus. was ﬁrst presented by Kirchhoﬀ in his thesis (1850) and is described by a bi-harmonic diﬀerential equation [8]. The study of the relationships between these two models has proved [10] that the solution of the clamped Reissner plate approaches the solution of the Kirchhoﬀ plate when the thickness approaches to zero. The numerical calculations of bending behavior of the plate of moderate thickness [11] show high level agreement between 3D and 12
. One of the advantages of Reissner’s model is that it is able to determine the reactions along the edges of a simply supported rectangular plate. The Reissner theory has been applied to thin walled structures with moderate thickness. Next we explain the type of problem we solve. 3. A system of equations. The usual assumption of this theory is that the normal to the middle plane remains normal during deformation. has been developed by E. where classical theory leads to a concentrated reaction at the corners of the plate. which takes into account the transverse shear deformation. Before showing the details of the development of the mathematical model we ﬁrst explain brieﬂy the meaning of some technical expressions like middle plane.1 Introduction
The well known classic bending theory of elastic plates [5]. Reissner (1945) [9].

the ﬁrst moments of stress. A governing system of equations is obtained for the bending and twisting of the Cosserat plate. In this chapter we propose to use the Reissner plate theory as a foundation for the modeling of elastic plates with microstructure. in addition to the transverse shear deformation. particles. In fact. here h is the thickness of the plate and x3 = 0 contains its middle plane. The set of points ∂P = {Γ × [−h/2. [11]. 3.e. the Eringen plate equations asymptotically produce the Kirchhoﬀ plate bi-harmonic equation for zero microrotations. x3 = −h/2 respectively and Γ is the boundary of the middle plane of the plate.2 The Cosserat Plate Assumptions
In this section we formulate the stress. a proof for the existence of the governing system is also developed. h/2]} ∪ T ∪ B forms the entire surface of the plate. The use of the averages. it reduces to the classic bending problem. This technique is similar to the technique used for Kirchhoﬀ plate. and cellular structures A. i. C. ﬁbers. Eringen (1967) proposed a theory of plates in the framework of Cosserat (micropolar) Linear Elasticity [2]. His theory is based on the integration of the linearized three-dimensional Cosserat Elasticity and assumes variation of micro-rotations along the middle plane. Our approach. couple stress and kinematic assumptions of the Cosserat plate. More remarks on the history of the modeling of classic linear elastic plates can be found in [5]. In order to describe deformation of elastic plates that possess grains.
. We consider the thin plate P that appears in Figure 3–1. The sets T and B are the top and bottom surfaces contained in the planes x3 = h/2.13 Reissner models. couple stress combined with constitutive relationships provides the model system of equations of Eringen’s theory. also takes into account the second order approximation of couple stresses and the variation of micropolar rotations in the thickness direction. [12].

1)
µ33 (x1 . x2 ). Assumptions for Stress Our approach. ±h/2) = 0. σ33 (x1 . h/2) = µt (x1 . Like in standard theory of plates. µ3j (x1 . h/2) = σ t (x1 . (3. ﬁrst we assume the following form for some stress components [9]:
. x2 ).14
Figure 3–1: A plate element. x2 . σ3j (x1 .
here σ t and µt are the normal loads of stress and couple stress acting at the top of the plate. x2 . x2 . The functions σ b and µb . x2 . assumes that the variation of stress σkl and coupled stress µkl components across the thickness can be represented by means of polynomials of x3 in such a way that it will be consistent with the equilibrium equations (2. x2 ). These conditions are described in the following form:
σ33 (x1 . x2 ). We assume that plate P is subjected to some perpendicular distributed load of stress and couple stress along faces T and B. which is in the spirit of the Reissner’s theory of plates [9]. −h/2) = µb (x1 . describe the normal load of stress and couple stress acting along B.1). µ33 (x1 . −h/2) = σ b (x1 . x2 . x2 . ±h/2) = 0.

x2 ) 1 −
x3 h/2
2
.4) in the remaining equilibrium equations of stress .
(3.
After substituting expressions (3.4) seems the most natural. The
∗ function qj is also unknown and in the classical case it should be the same as qj . x2 ).2) by means of equilibrium equations we obtain the following form for the shear stress components:
σ3j = qj (x1 . assumption (3.4)
In order to preserve consistency.1). x2 ) 1 −
x3 h/2
2
.
(3. we obtain the following form for the transverse normal stress:
σ33 =
x3 h/2
1 3
x3 h/2
2
− 1 k ∗ (x1 .5) (3.
(3.5) can be determined with the boundary conditions (3.6)
where k ∗ and m∗ are functions to be determined. The diﬀerence between our and Reissner’s assumptions is that the functions nij . 2
therefore equation (3.2)
where nij and mij are functions to be determined. x2 ) + m∗ (x1 . x2 ) + x3 mij (x1 .
(3. For the remaining shear stress components we assume they have following form:
∗ σj3 = qj (x1 .3)
where qj are functions to be determined. It’s easy to check that k ∗ = − 3 (σ t − σb ) and m∗ = 4
σ t +σ b . x2 ). mij are not necessarily symmetric.5) takes the following form:
.15
σij = nij (x1 . The functions k ∗ and m∗ in (3. From (3.

sj and mj are also to be determined.8) (3. b∗ and c∗ should satisfy the boundary conditions (3. It happens that conditions (3.1) are not enough to determine all coeﬃcients of µ33 .
here the functions s∗ .9)
s∗ (x1 . the boundary conditions (3. For simplicity on the approximation
. x2 ) +
x3 h/2
b∗ (x1 . mj = 0.16
σ33 = −
3 4
1 3
x3 h/2
3
−
x3 h/2
p + σ0 . x2 ). m∗ .1).
The assumptions for µkl follow from the stress assumptions made above and the equilibrium equations for couple stress:
µij = µj3 = µ3j =
1− x3 h/2 1 3
x3 h/2
2
rij (x1 . x2 ).7) (3.
1 where p = σ t − σ b and σ0 = 2 (σ t + σ b ).
(3. Now substituting (3. hence it’s not diﬃcult to show that sj = 0.1)) are enough to identify sj and mj . rij . j j x3 h/2
3
−
x3 h/2
sj (x1 . therefore
µ3j = 0.
where the functions a∗ . x2 ) + m∗ (x1 . Like the case j j for σ3j . x2 ) + c∗ (x1 .2) on the third equilibrium equation of (2.1). hence a∗ and c∗ can be any arbitrary function. x2 ) + mj (x1 . we conclude that µ33 should be of the following form
µ33
1 = 2
x3 h/2
2
a∗ (x1 .8) and (3. x2 ). x2 ).

h/2
1 2
and c∗ =
µt +µb .17 of µ33 we make a∗ = 0 and therefore assume that is a ﬁrst order polynomial in the variable x3 .
−h/2 h/2
(
−h/2
mlk σlk (x1 . x2 . rij . After substituting the assumptions for stress and couple stress in (3.l (x1 . x2 ). x2 ) + µb (x1 . x2 ) and v(x1 . x3 )
+ µlm.1) in the following form:
h/2
σlk. qj . qj . mij .
µt (x1 .10) µt (x1 . x2 .
µ33 =
x3 h/2
b∗ (x1 . x2 ) . x2 ) − µb (x1 . x3 )) dx3 = 0. x2 ) =
Up to this point all components of stress and couple stress are represented in
∗ terms of the 20 unknown functions nij .1) and obtain a new system of equilibrium equations. x2 ) =
1 2
(3. x2 ) + c∗ (x1 .
(3. 2
µ33 = where t(x1 . The bending system of equations has the following form:
. s∗ and m∗ . x3 )dx3 = 0. The resulting system is classiﬁed into two parts: The bending system which is composed of 6 equations and the twisting system which has 3 equations.11) we obtain a new system of nine equilibrium equations.
µt −µb 2
Under this new assumption of µ33 we ﬁnd that b∗ = Finally the couple stress µ33 takes the following form: x3 v + t. The next step is j j
to substitute the assumptions of stress and couple stress in (2.11)
this simpliﬁcation is good enough to describe deformation along the middle plane since we assume h to be very small compared to the plate dimensions [2].l (x1 . x2 . For simplicity we make an average of (2.

2 + Q∗ − Q2 = 0. M12.1 2. 12
h 2
Rij = M0j = Q∗ = j
2h rij . Q∗ + Q∗ + p = 0.1 + S2.1 + M22. 3
h 2
−h 2
x3 σ0j dx3 . i where
Mij = Π0j = Qj = Π03 =
∗ Sj =
h3 mij .18
M11.1 + M21.2 R11. Q∗ ni = Π03 . 1.
(3.12)
with traction boundary conditions at Γσ :
Mij nj = Π0j .1 + R22. Si∗ ni = M03 . M03 =
−h 2
x3 µ03 −
x3 v dx3 . 1
∗ ∗ S1.
2h qj .2 + Q1 − Q∗ = 0. 3 j
h 2
−h 2
(σ03 − σ0 ) dx3 .1 + R21. 2 R12.2 + M12 − M21 = 0. 3
h 2
2h ∗ q .2 − Q2 = 0.2 − Q1 = 0. h/2
h2 ∗ s 6 j
The twisting equilibrium equations have the following form:
.
−h 2
µ0j dx3 . Rij nj = M0j .

2 + N12 − N21 + v = 0
(3.
∗ ∗ M1 n1 + M2 n2 = M03 .j =
h 2
−h 2
σ0j dx3 . x2 . 3. the choice of kinematic assumptions (assumptions made for displacement and microrotation vectors) is based on their compatibility with the constitutive relationships (2.2).
where Σ0. x2 ). x2 . we make a linear approximation for the displacement vector in the following form:
ui (x1 .i = 0. x3 ) = w(x1 .
Nij = hnij .3 Kinematic Assumptions
Similarly to the case of stress and couple stress assumptions.13)
with traction boundary conditions at Γσ : Nij n1 + N2j n2 = Σ0. M03 =
h 2
−h 2
(µ03 − tn3 )dx3 . x2 ) − x3 Vi (x1 .
Mj∗ = hm∗ . j
The boundary conditions for the bending and twisting systems are obtained after the substitution of the stress and couple stress assumptions in (2.6).14)
.1 + M2. u3 (x1 .
∗ ∗ M1. Like in Eringen’s work [2] and in [13].
(3.19
Nij. x2 ).j . The boundary conditions at Γd = Γ \ Γσ will be given after the kinematic assumptions are stated. x3 ) = Ui (x1 .

Θ0 and Θ3 . Vi .15) indicate that microrotations are dependent of plate thickness.15)
where the functions Θ0 are also unknown.
(3. the method we follow is based on the Lagrange’s method applied to (3. The microrotations are approximated in the following form:
ϕi (x1 . x2 . We believe this diﬀerence makes our approach more convenient for relatively thick plates [14]. Up to this point we can appreciate k that the deformation of the middle plane is completely described in terms of the 9 functions Ui . Θ0 . x3 ) = Θ0 (x1 . x3 ) = Θ0 (x1 . w. Vi and w are unknown functions.17)
.
(3. 1 3 x3 h/2
2
Θ3 (x1 .4 Free energy expression
The total energy of the plate is calculated in the following form [1]:
h/2 h/2
IF =
R −h/2
F dx3 dA −
Γd −h/2
Fs dx3 ds. x2 ) + 3 x3 h/2
x3 h/2 1−
2
. i 3 In [2] microrotations are assumed to be constant along the thickness of the plate while (3. In order to develop a system of governing equations of our plate. x2 .16)
where Γd = Γ\Γσ is the portion of Γ on which edge displacements and microrotations are prescribed. 3. x2 ) 1 − i ϕ3 (x1 . A total amount of 9 Lagrange’s multipliers will appear. x2 ). The ﬁrst thing we do is evaluate the free bulk energy
h 2
C=
−h 2
F dx3
(3.16).20 where Ui . each of them has a physical meaning that in further sections will be explained.

2 5hγ(3β + 2γ) 280µ(3λ + 2µ) α−µ 3 γ+ 3 ∗ ∗ 2 N12 N21 − (S1 )2 + (S2 )2 + R2 + R21 + 2 4hαµ hγ 2h 20 12 h(λ + µ) 2 β h(β + γ) 2 σ0 − (R11 t + R22 t) + t − 2µ(3λ + 2µ) 2γ(3β + 2γ) 2γ(3β + 2γ) γ+ 3(α + µ) 2 λ γ+ ∗ ∗ (M1 )2 + Q1 + (N11 σ0 + N22 σ0 ) − (M2 )2 + 8hγ 20hαµ 2µ(3λ + 2µ) 8hγ h(β + γ) 2 v .19) takes the following form:
. (3.19)
The vectors σν and µν in (3.9) in (2. h ] and coplanar to the middle plane of the plate. where ν1 and ν2 are unit vectors normal and tangential to Γd × [− h .19) are the components of the stress and couple stress acting along Γd × [− h . h ] respectively.1 3 αµ h 5hµ(3λ + 2µ) 3λ 3( − γ) 3(β + γ) 2 2 M22 Q∗ + R12 R21 + R11 + R22 − 2. After integrating expression (3. 2 2 equation (3. h/2] by means of the following formula
h/2
h 2
Fs dx3 ds =
Γd −h/2 Γd
−h 2
(σν · u + µν · ϕν ) dx3 ds. expression (3.2 1.17) and substituting the stress and couple stress assumptions (3.21 of the plate.2 1.1 1.
(3.(3.18) 6γ(3β + 2γ)
Now we evaluate the surface integral of (3. 2 2 Representing σν and µν in the form σν = σν1 ν1 + σν2 ν2 and µν = µν1 ν1 + µν2 ν2 .17) takes the following form:
C =
λ+µ 12 λ 2 2 2 2 N11 + N22 + 2 M11 + M22 − N11 N22 + 2hµ(3λ + 2µ) h 2hµ(3λ + 2µ) 6λ α+µ 3 2 2 2 2 M11 M22 + N12 + N21 + 2 M12 + M21 + 3 µ2 (3λ + 2µ) h 8hαµ 4h 3(α − µ) 3(α + µ) (Q∗ )2 + Q2 + (Q∗ )2 + (Q1 Q∗ + Q2 Q∗ ) + 2 2 2 1 1 20hαµ 10hαµ 3(α − µ) 3λ M12 M21 + M11 Q∗ + M11 Q∗ + M22 Q∗ + 2.1 2.1 2.2) .5).2 5hµ(3λ + 2µ) 10hγ 5hγ(3β + 2γ) 3β 17h(λ + µ) 2 2 Q∗ + Q∗ + 2Q∗ Q∗ + R11 R22 + 1.16) on the boundary Γd ×[−h/2.

x3 ) 1 −
−h/2 h/2
x3 h/2
2
dx3 . x3 )dx3 .20) will be the Lagrange multipliers that make free elastic energy a minimum.20) is based on the same methodology of Reissner’s work [12] while the expressions for Ω0 . x3 )dx3 . x3 )dx3 . The calculation of W . ν ν
rνi or equivalently:
1−
x3 h/2
2
Γd
∗ ∗ (Nνi Ui + Q∗3 W + Mνi Ψi + Rνi Ω0 + Sν3 Ω3 + Mν3 Ω0 )ds. x3 ) 1 −
−h/2 h/2
x3 h/2
2
dx3 .
x3 ui (x1 .20).14) and (3. Ui and Ψ in (3. Ω3 . x2 .22
h 2
Γd
−h 2
∗ (nνi ui + qν3
1− ϕi +
x3 h/2 x3 h/2
2
u3 + mνi ui x3 + s∗3 + m∗3 ϕ3 )dx3 ds.15) in (3. x2 . After applying (3.
(3.
−h/2 h/2
3 = 2h 12 h3 1 h 1 h
ϕi (x1 .
−h/2 h/2
ϕ3 (x1 . x3 )dx3 .
−h/2
The functions appearing in (3.20) we obtain the following expressions:
. x2 .20)
Ω3 = Ω0 = 3 Ui =
x3 ϕ3 (x1 . ν i 3
where
3 W = 2h Ψi = Ω0 i 12 h3
h/2
u3 (x1 . In next section 3 we give more details about (3. x2 . x2 .
−h/2 h/2
ui (x1 . and i Ω0 are assumptions we make that later we verify they are correct. x2 .

3 3
Ui = Ui (x1 . x2 ).16) due to the volume and surface area of the Cosserat plate under the constraint of equilibrium equations (3. Ω3 = i i Ω0 = Θ0 (x1 . (3. x2 ). this is accomplished by combining (3.12) and (3. According to the rules of the calculus of variations.
• Ω3 : Instant rate of change of ϕ3 along x3 . 15
The physical interpretation of the functions appearing in (3.
Ψi = Vi (x1 .20) can be veriﬁed with equations (3.13). Under the conditions (3. h
(3. x2 ). ﬁgure (3–2) illustrates the physical interpretation of some of the above parameters. x2 ). 3.15).12) and (3. We summarize this in the following way: • W : Vertical deﬂection of the middle plate.13) in the following manner:
. k2 Θ3 (x1 .21).
• Ω0 : Microrotation around axis xk of the material points of the middle plate. x2 ).14) and (3.23
W = w(x1 .
here coeﬃcients k1 and k2 depend on the variation of microrotations. x2 ).16) with (3.15) we have that k1 =
4 5
and k2 =
24 .5 Lagrange Equations and Constitutive Relations
Following Reissner methodology [9] we consider the zero variation of the total strain energy (3. k
• Ui : Displacement of the middle plane along axis xi .21)
Ω0 = k1 Θ0 (x1 .
• Ψi : Angle of deﬂection of the middle plane respect to the horizontal.

i ] + Ψj (δ[Mij.22) we obtain
.1 + S2.2 ] + 3
∗ ∗ Ω3 δ[M12 − M21 + S1.j
+
∗ ∗ − Qi+1 ) + Rji.20).
δ[IF ] +
R 0 (i+1) Ωi δ[(−1) (Q∗ i+1
(Uj δ[Nij.24
Figure 3–2: Illustration of some parameters appearing in equations (3.
(3.i ] − δ[Qj ]) + W δ[Q∗ ] j.22)
After applying integration by parts and Stoke’s theorem to (3.2 ]) = 0.1 + M2.j ] + Ω0 δ[N12 − N21 + M1.

1 )δN11 + ( − U2.2 − Ω0 )δN21 + ( − Ψ1.2 )δN22 + ( − U2.25
0 =
∂C ∂C ∂C − U1.23) is zero if and only if
.1 δS1 + ( ∗ − Ω3.2 1.1 + Ω3 )δM12 + ( − Ψ1.13) and with the application of expression (3.2 )δS2 + Ω0 δN12 − Ω0 δQ∗ ) + (δNν1 U1 + δNν2 U2 + 3 2 1 ∂S2 Γ ((
∗ δMν1 Ψ1 + δMν2 Ψ2 + δRν1 Ω0 + δRν2 Ω0 + δQ∗1 W + δQ∗2 W + δMν1 Ω0 + 1 2 ν ν 3 ∗ ∗ ∗ δMν2 Ω0 + δSν1 Ω3 + δSν2 Ω3 ) − 3
δMν2 Ψ2 +
δRν1 Ω0 1
+
δRν2 Ω0 2
+
Γp ∗ δSν3 Ω3
(δNν1 U1 + δNν2 U2 + δQ∗3 W + δMν1 Ψ1 + ν
∗ + δMν3 Ω0 ). it can be shown that the ﬁrst variation (3.2 )δM22 + ( 3 ∂N21 ∂M11 ∂M22 ∂C ∂C ∂C ( − Ψ2.2 − Ω3 )δM21 + ( ∗ − W.1 )δQ∗ + 1 ∂M12 ∂M21 ∂Q1 ∂C ∂C ∂C − Ψ1 + Ω0 )δQ1 + ( − Ψ2 )δQ2 − ( ∗ − W.23)
With the use of the boundary conditions associated to (3.2 1 ∂R11 ∂R22 ∂R21 ∂C ∂C ∂C ∗ ∂C ∗ ∗ ( − Ω0 )δR12 + ( − Ω0 )δM1 + ( − Ω0 )δM2 + δS − 2.1 )δM11 + ( − Ψ2.2 + Ω0 )δQ∗ + ( 2 2 1 ∂Q2 ∂Q1 ∂Q2 ∂C ∂C ∂C − Ω0 )δR11 + ( − Ω0 )δR22 + ( − Ω0 )δR21 + Ω0 δQ2 + ( 1.18).2 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∂R12 ∂M1 ∂M2 ∂S1 1 ∂C ∗ ∗ Ω3.12) and (3. 3
(3.1 )δN12 + ∂N22 ∂N12 R ∂N11 ∂C ∂C ∂C − U1.1 2.1 3.1 3.

1 ∗ ∂Q2 10hαµ 10hαµ 2 ∂C 3(α − µ) ∗ 3(α + µ) = Ψ1 − Ω0 = Q + Q1 . 2 ∂Q1 10hαµ 1 10hαµ 3(α − µ) ∗ 3(α + µ) ∂C = Ψ2 + Ω 0 = Q + Q2 . ∂N11 hµ(3λ + 2µ) 2hµ(3λ + 2µ) 2µ(3λ + 2µ) ∂C λ+µ λ λ N22 − N11 − σ0 . 3 ∂N21 4hαµ 4hαµ ∂C 3(α + µ) 3(α − µ) = Ψ2.2 + Ω3 = M21 + M12 . = U2.1 − Ω0 = N12 + N21 .1 + Ω0 = Q1 + Q.26
λ+µ λ λ ∂C = U1. 2 ∗ ∂Q1 10hαµ 10hαµ 1 ∂C 3(α − µ) 3(α + µ) ∗ = W.1 = N11 − N22 − σ0 .2 = ∂N22 hµ(3λ + 2µ) 2hµ(3λ + 2µ) 2µ(3λ + 2µ) α+µ ∂C α−µ = U2.2 + Ω0 = N21 + N12 . 3 ∂N12 4hαµ 4hαµ α+µ ∂C α−µ = U1. 1 ∂Q2 10hαµ 2 10hαµ
.1 − Ω3 = M12 + M21 .2 − Ω0 = Q2 + Q. 3 αµ ∂M21 h h3 αµ ∂C 3(α − µ) 3(α + µ) ∗ = W. 3 αµ ∂M12 h h3 αµ ∂C 3(α + µ) 3(α − µ) = Ψ1.

2. 1. 5hµ(3λ + 2µ) ∂x1 ∂x2 ∂C 12(λ + µ) 6λ = Ψ2.1 = 3 M11 − 3 M22 + ∂M11 h µ(3λ + 2µ) h µ(3λ + 2µ) 3λ ∂Q∗ ∂Q∗ 1 2 + .2 ∂R21 10hγ 10hγ ∂C 3( − γ) 3(γ + ) = Ω0 = R21 + R12 .2 ∗ ∂M2 4hγ ∂C 3(γ + ) ∗ = Ω3.2 = S2 .2 = 3 M22 − 3 M11 + ∂M22 h µ(3λ + 2µ) h µ(3λ + 2µ) 3λ ∂Q∗ ∂Q∗ 1 2 + . ∗ ∂S1 h3 γ 3(γ + ) ∗ ∂C = Ω3. 5hµ(3λ + 2µ) ∂x1 ∂x2 6(β + γ) ∂C 3β β = Ω0 = R11 − R22 − t.1 ∂R11 5hγ(3β + 2γ) 5hγ(3β + 2γ) 2γ(3β + 2γ) ∂C 6(β + γ) 3β β = Ω0 = R22 − R11 − t. 2. 3.27
12(λ + µ) 6λ ∂C = Ψ1.1 ∂R12 10hγ 10hγ ∂C γ+ ∗ = Ω0 = M1 . 3.1 ∗ ∂M1 4hγ ∂C γ+ ∗ = Ω0 = M2 .2 ∂R22 5hγ(3β + 2γ) 5hγ(3β + 2γ) 2γ(3β + 2γ) ∂C 3( − γ) 3(γ + ) = Ω0 = R12 + R21 . ∗ ∂S2 h3 γ
. 1.1 = S1 .

2 (1 − N 2 ) 2 2 2 5Gh(lt − 2lb ) 0 10Ghlb 0 = Ω1.1 3
+
2 2Glt (1 − Ψ) t. 10(1 − ν)
(3.1 + Ψ1 − 2N 2 W. Sj and Mj∗ in terms of the Lagrange j
Multipliers (3.1 + Ψ1.2 .33)
.2 + Ω2.1 2.2 − Ω0 1 6(1 − N 2 )
.30)
Q1 =
5Gh W. Rij .
(3.2 1.2 + νΨ1.1 .29)
R22 =
2 5Ghlt Ω0 + (1 − Ψ) Ω0 + Ω0 2. 3 3
2 2 2 5Gh(lt − 2lb ) 0 10Ghlb 0 Ω2.32)
(3.1 − 2N 2 (Ω3 + Ψ1. Ψ
(3.28
∗ After solving this system for Mij .1 + Ω1.1 ) +
(3.1 + νΨ2.2 + 2N 2 (Ω3 − Ψ2.2 + Ψ2 − 2N 2 W.31)
Q2 =
.
(3.24)
M22 = D (Ψ2. 2 (1 − N 2 )
(3.20) we obtain :
M11 = D (Ψ1. Ψ
(3. 10(1 − ν) νh2 p.1 1.1 ) . Qj .27)
R21 =
(3. Q∗ .2 ) .28)
R11 =
2 5Ghlt Ω0 + (1 − Ψ) Ω0 + Ω0 1.1 + Ω0 2 2) 6(1 − N 5Gh W.2 + Ψ2.2 ) +
νh2 p.2 3
+
2 2Glt (1 − Ψ) t.25)
M12 =
D (1 + v) Ψ1.26)
M21 = R12
D (1 + v) Ψ2. 3 3
(3.2 2.

2) (1 − ν 1−ν Gh U2.39)
N12 =
.38)
N22 =
(3.40)
N21 =
.2 + U2.43)
Substituting (3.
(3.2 .29
Q∗ = 1
5Gh W.2 + Ω0 3 2) (1 − N Gh U1.2 + Ψ2 − 2N 2 Ψ2 + Ω0 1 6(1 − N 2 )
2 2 2 Glt (4lb − lt )h3 Ω3. 2 12lb
.2 ) + σ0 .(3.
(3.42)
∗ M2 =
2 2 2 Glt (4lb − lt )h 0 Ω3.2 − 2N 2 U1.2 + νU1.35)
∗ S1 =
(3.1 .12) and (3.1 ) + σ0 .34)
Q∗ = 2
.13) we obtain the following governing system:
.
(3.1 .37)
N11 =
Eh hν (U1. 2) (1 − ν 1−ν Eh hν (U2.1 − Ω0 3 (1 − N 2 )
(3.41)
∗ M1
2 2 2 Glt (4lb − lt )h 0 = Ω3. 2 lb
(3.24) .1 + νU2.
(3. 2 12lb
(3. 2 lb
(3.43) in (3.36)
∗ S2 =
2 2 2 Glt (4lb − lt )h3 Ω3.1 + U1.2 .1 − 2N 2 U2.1 + Ψ1 − 2N 2 Ψ1 − Ω0 2 2) 6(1 − N 5Gh W.

30 Twisting System:
∂ 2 U1 4hµ(λ + µ) ∂ 2 U1 2hλµ + + h(µ − α) + 2 2 ∂x2 λ + 2µ ∂x1 λ + 2µ ∂Ω0 hλ ∂σ0 2hα 3 = − ∂x2 λ + 2µ ∂x1 h(µ + α) ∂ 2 U2 4hµ(λ + µ) ∂ 2 U2 2hλµ + + h(µ − α) + 2 2 ∂x1 λ + 2µ ∂x2 λ + 2µ 0 ∂Ω hλ ∂σ0 2hα 3 = − ∂x1 λ + 2µ ∂x2 h(µ + α) 4hγ ∆Ω0 + 2hα 3 γ+ Bending System: ∂U2 ∂U1 − ∂x1 ∂x2
∂ 2 U2 + ∂x1 ∂x2
∂ 2 U1 − ∂x1 ∂x2
− 4hαΩ0 = −2v 3
∂ 2 Ψ2 h3 µ(λ + µ) ∂ 2 Ψ1 h3 (µ + α) ∂ 2 Ψ1 h3 µ(3λ + 2µ) + + −α + + 3(λ + 2µ) ∂x2 12 ∂x2 12 λ + 2µ ∂x1 ∂x2 1 2 ∂p h3 α ∂Ω3 5hα 0 5h(µ + α) h2 λ 5h(α − µ) ∂W + + Ω2 − Ψ1 = − 6 ∂x1 6 ∂x2 3 6 10(λ + 2µ) ∂x1 h3 µ(λ + µ) ∂ 2 Ψ2 h3 (µ + α) ∂ 2 Ψ2 h3 ∂ 2 Ψ1 µ(3λ + 2µ) + + −α + + 3(λ + 2µ) ∂x2 12 ∂x2 12 λ + 2µ ∂x1 ∂x2 2 1 5h(α − µ) ∂W h3 α ∂Ω3 5hα 0 5h(µ + α) h2 λ ∂p − − Ω1 − Ψ2 = − 6 ∂x2 6 ∂x1 3 6 10(λ + 2µ) ∂x2 5hα 5h(α + µ) ∆W + 6 3 ∂Ω0 ∂Ω0 1 2 − ∂x1 ∂x2 5h(µ − α) 6 ∂Ψ1 ∂Ψ2 + ∂x1 ∂x2
+
= −p
5hα ∂W 10hγ(β + γ) ∂ 2 Ω0 5h(γ + ) ∂ 2 Ω0 10hα 0 5hα 1 1 + − Ω1 − Ψ2 + + 2 2 3(β + 2γ) ∂x1 6 ∂x2 3 3 3 ∂x2 5hβ 5h 2βγ ∂ 2 Ω0 ∂t 2 =− γ− + 6 β + 2γ ∂x1 ∂x2 6(β + 2γ) ∂x1 (3.44)
.

takes the following form:
Twisting System:
E ∂ 2 U1 E(1 − N 2 ) ∂ 2 U1 E(1 + ν − 2N 2 ) ∂ 2 U2 + + + 2(1 + ν) ∂x2 1 − ν 2 ∂x2 2(1 − ν 2 ) ∂x1 ∂x2 2 1 N 2 E ∂Ω0 ν(1 − N 2 ) ∂σ0 3 =− (1 + ν) ∂x2 1 − ν ∂x1 E ∂ 2 U2 E(1 − N 2 ) ∂ 2 U2 E(1 + ν − 2N 2 ) ∂ 2 U1 + + − 2(1 + ν) ∂x2 1 − ν 2 ∂x2 2(1 − ν 2 ) ∂x1 ∂x2 1 2 N 2 E ∂Ω0 ν(1 − N 2 ) ∂σ0 3 =− (1 + ν) ∂x1 1 − ν ∂x2
2 2 2 Ehlt (4lb − lt )(1 − N 2 ) N 2 Eh ∆Ω0 + 3 2 4lb (1 + ν) 2(1 + ν)
∂U2 ∂U1 − − 2Ω0 3 ∂x1 ∂x2
= (N 2 − 1)v
.31
−
10hγ(β + γ) ∂ 2 Ω0 5h(γ + ) ∂ 2 Ω0 10hα 0 5hα 2 2 − + Ω2 − Ψ1 + 2 2 3(β + 2γ) ∂x2 6 ∂x1 3 3 5hα ∂W 5h 2βγ ∂ 2 Ω0 5hβ ∂t 1 − γ− + = 3 ∂x1 6 β + 2γ ∂x1 ∂x2 6(β + 2γ) ∂x2 h3 γ h3 α h3 α ∆Ω3 − Ω3 + 3(γ + ) 3 6 ∂Ψ2 ∂Ψ1 − ∂x1 ∂x2
=0 (3.45)
The previous governing system in terms of the technical constants (2.3).

32 Bending System:
D(1 − N 2 )
∂ 2 Ψ1 D(1 − ν) ∂ 2 Ψ1 D(1 + ν − 2N 2 ) ∂ 2 Ψ2 + + + ∂x2 2 ∂x2 2 ∂x1 ∂x2 1 2 5h(2N 2 − 1)E ∂W ∂Ω3 5EhN 2 0 2 + DN (1 − ν) + Ω − 12(1 + ν) ∂x1 ∂x2 6(1 + ν) 2 5Eh h2 ν(1 − N 2 ) ∂p Ψ1 = − 12(1 + ν) 10(1 − ν) ∂x1 ∂ 2 Ψ2 D(1 − ν) ∂ 2 Ψ2 D(1 + ν − 2N 2 ) ∂ 2 Ψ1 + + + ∂x2 2 ∂x2 2 ∂x1 ∂x2 2 1 5h(2N 2 − 1)E ∂W ∂Ω3 5EhN 2 0 − DN 2 (1 − ν) − Ω − 12(1 + ν) ∂x2 ∂x1 6(1 + ν) 1 h2 ν(1 − N 2 ) ∂p 5Eh Ψ2 = − 12(1 + ν) 10(1 − ν) ∂x2 5N 2 Eh ∂Ω0 ∂Ω0 5(1 − 2N 2 )Eh 2 1 − + 6(1 + ν) ∂x1 ∂x2 12(1 + ν) 5Eh ∆W = (N 2 − 1)p 12(1 + ν) ∂Ψ1 ∂Ψ2 + ∂x1 ∂x2
D(1 − N 2 )
+
2 2 Elt (2 − Ψ) ∂ 2 Ω0 2Elb ∂ 2 Ω0 2EN 2 1 1 + − Ω0 + (1 + ν) ∂x2 (1 + ν) ∂x2 (1 + ν)(1 − N 2 ) 1 1 2 2 0 2 2 E(lt (2 − Ψ) − 2lb ) ∂ Ω2 EN 2 − Ψ2 + (1 + ν) ∂x1 ∂x2 (1 + ν)(1 − N 2 ) EN 2 ∂W ∂t = (Ψ − 1) 2 ) ∂x (1 + ν)(1 − N ∂x1 2
−
2 2 Elt (2 − Ψ) ∂ 2 Ω0 2Elb ∂ 2 Ω0 2EN 2 2 2 − + Ω0 − (1 + ν) ∂x2 (1 + ν) ∂x2 (1 + ν)(1 − N 2 ) 2 2 1 2 2 E(lt (2 − Ψ) − 2lb ) ∂ 2 Ω0 EN 2 1 − Ψ1 + (1 + ν) ∂x1 ∂x2 (1 + ν)(1 − N 2 ) ∂t EN 2 ∂W = (1 − Ψ) 2 ) ∂x (1 + ν)(1 − N ∂x2 1
.

L66 = −L55 (ξ2 . L11 L12 L12 L22 L13 L23 L33 0 −L35 L36 L14 0 L24 −L16 0 L44 0 0 L35 0 L55 −L56 . L56 = k14 ξ1 ξ2 . ξ1 ). x ∈R. L33 = k4 ∆. where L (∂x ) = L
∂ ∂xa
(3. L16 = k13 . F4 = 0. F5 = − 5h(1−N ) (1 − Ψ) ∂x1 . L55 = L55 (ξ1 . 2 2 L44 = k5 ∆ − k6 . k6 =
. F6 = 6
2 2 2 2 2
5h(1−N 2 ) ∂t (1 − Ψ) ∂x2 . 6
2 2 2 D(1−ν)lt (4lb −lt )(1−N 2 ) 2 2lb
Here
k1 = D(1 − N 2 ). 2
k3 = − 5Gh . 0 L56 L66
L (ξ) = L (ξα ) =
−L13 −L23 −L14 0 L16 L24 L16 0
HT = and
Ψ1 Ψ2 W Ω3 Ω0 Ω0 1 2
FT =
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
. L14 = k12 ξ2 .46)
In matrix form we also write the system for the bending in the form:
L (∂x ) H − F = 0. ξ2 ) = k7 ξ1 + k8 ξ2 − k9 . ξ1 ). L24 = k12 ξ1 .
ν(1−N ν(1−N ∂p ∂p 2 2 L36 = k13 ξ1 .47)
. L35 = −k13 ξ2 . k4 = 6
5Gh . L13 = k11 ξ1 . ∂t F3 = −(1 − N 2 )p. L23 = k11 ξ2 . F2 = − h 10(1−ν) ) ∂x2 . ξ2 ) = k1 ξ1 + k2 ξ2 − k3 . L16 0 L36 . ∆ = ξ1 +ξ2 and F1 = − h 10(1−ν) ) ∂x1 . L12 =
k10 ξ1 ξ2 . L22 = L11 (ξ2 .
2 2 In the above L11 = L11 (ξ1 .33
2 2 2 N2 lt (4lb − lt )(1 − N 2 ) ∆Ω3 + 2 4lb (1 + ν) 2(1 + ν)
∂Ψ2 ∂Ψ1 − − 2Ω3 ∂x1 ∂x2
=0 (3. 6
k5 =
. k2 =
D(1−ν) .

T44 =
2 2 2 Glt (4lb −lt )h3 (n1 ξ1 2 12lb
+ n2 ξ2 ). F2 =
2 2Glt (1−Ψ) n1 t. where (3. 6(1−N 2 )
T32 =
T36 =
5GhN 2 (n1 3(1−N 2 )
− n2 ). T2 (ξ1 . 3
k10 =
D(1+ν−2N 2 ) . 1−N 2
T21 = Dνn2 ξ1 + D(1+ν)(1−2N ) n1 ξ2 .48)
. T1 (ξ1 . 2(1−N 2 )
2
T14 =
D(1+ν)N 2 n2 . x ∈R.34 2N 2 D(1−ν). 3
The correspondent boundary traction conditions are T(∂x )H − F∗ = 0. T66 =
5Gh 2 2 (2lb n1 ξ1 +lt (2−Ψ)n2 ξ2 ). Ψ
νh ∗ ∗ ∗ − 10(1−ν) n2 p. T55 =
5Gh 2 (lt n1 (2 3
2
−
2 Ψ)ξ1 +2lb n2 ξ2 ). 3
2
T12 = Dνn1 ξ2 + D(1+ν)(1−2N ) n2 ξ1 . 0 T56 T66
T11 T12 T21 T22
T31 T32 T33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.49)
. F1 = − 10(1−ν) n1 p. ξ1 ). 3
k8 =
2 10h(1−N 2 )Glb . F3 = 0. F5 = −
∗ F6 = −
2 2Glt (1−Ψ) n2 t.
D(1+ν) nξ. 2(1−N 2 ) 2 2
In the above T11 = T1 (ξ1 . ξ2 ). 6(1−N 2 ) 5Gh 2 (lt n1 (1 3
5Gh(1−2N 2 ) n1 . T24 = − D(1+ν)N n1 . 2
k12 = DN 2 (1 − ν). ξ1 ). F4 = 0. T65 =
2
T2 (ξ2 . T31 = 2(1−N 2 ) 1−N 2
5Gh(1−2N 2 ) n2 . where diﬀerential operator T (∂x ) = T T (ξ) = T (ξα ) = and (F ∗ )T =
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 ∂ ∂xa
(3. T22 = T1 (ξ2 . T56 = T2 (ξ1 . ξ2 ) = Dn1 ξ1 + T33 =
5Gh 6(1−N 2 )
(n1 ξ1 + n2 ξ2 ) . 0 0 T14 T24 0 T44 0 0 0 0 0 0 T55 T65 0 0 T36 . ξ2 ). 6
2 5h(1−N 2 )Glt (2−Ψ) . 3
k9 =
10hGN 2 . k13 =
5GhN 2 . k7 = k11 =
5Gh(2N 2 −1) . 3
k14
2 2 5h(1−N 2 )G(lt (2−Ψ)−2lb ) . Ψ
The governing system for the twisting case is ˜ ˜ ˜ L (∂x ) H − F= 0. ξ2 ) =
2
νh ∗ 2 ∗ 2 − Ψ)ξ2 + (lt − 2lb )n2 ξ1 )..

T13 = 2κ4 ξ2 . 1−ν
κ2 = 2N 2 .2 −
hνn2 σ. 1−N 2 Ehn1 ξ 1−ν 2 1
=
˜∗ ˜∗ ˜∗ F1 F2 F3 ˜ T12 =
. ˜ ˜ where diﬀerential operator T (∂x ) = T ˜ ˜ ˜ T11 T12 T13 ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ T (ξ) = T (ξα ) = T21 T22 T23 ˜ ˜ 0 0 T33 ˜ HT = and
T ∂ ∂xa
(3.
˜ F∗ ˜ In the above T11 =
2N 2 Ghn2 . 2 2lb
The boundary conditions for the twisting system has the following form:
˜ ˜ ˜ T(∂x )H − F∗ = 0. κ5 =
2 2 2 lt (4lb −lt )(1−N 2 ) . 1−N 2
˜ T33 =
2 2 2 Glt (4lb −lt )h (ξ1 n1 2 lb
˜∗ + ξ2 n2 ).
2 2 ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ Here T11 = κ1 ξ1 + κ2 ξ2 . 1−ν 0
˜∗ F2 = Σ0. T22 =
Ehn2 ξ 1−ν 2 1
+
Ghn1 ξ..1 −
hνn1 σ. . κ1 = 2G ∂x Gh
2(1−N 2 ) . T33 = κ5 (ξ1 + ξ2 ) − κ2 . 1−N 2 2
Ehνn1 ξ 1−ν 2 2
˜ . κ3 = 1 − κ1 =
(1+ν−2N 2 ) . T21 = T12 . +
Ghn2 (1−2N 2 ) ξ1 1−N 2
+
Ghn2 ξ. F1 = − νκ1 ∂σ1 . (1−ν)
κ4 = N 2 .
. 1−N 2 1
2 ˜ T23 = − 2N Ghn1 .35 ˜ ˜ L11 L12 ˜ ˜ ˜ L (ξ) = L (ξα ) = L21 L22 ˜ ˜ ˜ L31 L32 and ˜ (F ) =
T
˜ 13 L ˜ L23 ˜ 33 L
˜ ˜ ˜ F1 F2 F3
. 2 2 0 ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜∗ T23 = 2κ4 ξ1 . T32 = κ4 ξ1 .
U1 U2 Ω0 3
. 2G ∂x
2 0 ˜∗ ˜∗ F2 = − νκ1 ∂σ2 . F1 = Σ0.50)
. 1−ν 0
˜∗ F3 = M03 . T31 = −κ4 ξ2 . T13 =
˜ T21 =
Ehνn2 ξ 1−ν 2 1
+
Ghn1 (1−2N 2 ) ξ2 1−N 2
˜ . T12 = κ3 ξ1 ξ2 . T22 = T11 . F3 = − (1−N ) v.

6 Reduction to Classical Case
In the classical case. (3.
(3.51) .
. the proposed model given in the previous section reduces to the ﬁrst three bending equations of (3.7 Uniqueness of solutions
In this section we prove that if we have a solution of (3.47) and (3.46). (3.53) it can be shown that the governing system for the vertical deﬂection can take the following form: p h2 (ν + 2) − ∆p. that is.54)
which is exactly Reissner’s model [12].12).49) that satisﬁes the boundary conditions at Γ = Γσ ∪ Γd and that satisﬁes the equilibrium equations (3. 3.53)
after some manipulation of equations (3.52) 12(1 + ν) 10(1 − ν) ∂x2 5Eh 5Eh ∆W + 12(1 + ν) 12(1 + ν) ∂Ψ1 ∂Ψ2 + ∂x1 ∂x2
D
= −p. The equations take the following form:
D
∂ 2 Ψ1 D(1 − ν) ∂ 2 Ψ1 D(1 + ν) ∂ 2 Ψ2 5hE ∂W + + − − ∂x2 2 ∂x2 2 ∂x1 ∂x2 12(1 + ν) ∂x1 1 2 5Eh h2 ν ∂p .36 3. together with all kinematic assumptions then the solution must be unique.(3. D 10D(1 − ν)
∆2 W =
(3. (3. During the proof we assume that all functions satisfy the Green Gauss theorem requirements.51) Ψ1 = − 12(1 + ν) 10(1 − ν) ∂x1 5hE ∂W ∂ 2 Ψ2 D(1 − ν) ∂ 2 Ψ2 D(1 + ν) ∂ 2 Ψ1 + + − − 2 2 ∂x2 2 ∂x1 2 ∂x1 ∂x2 12(1 + ν) ∂x2 5Eh h2 ν ∂p Ψ2 = − .13). when the eﬀect of microrotation is neglected.

(3. for a plate with zero loads.2 + Ω3 ) + Q∗ (W. k Ui = 0.55)
W = 0. the free energy expression (3. It can be shown that for the homogeneous system associated to (3. Sj nj = 0.
Ω0 = 0. on Γσ and
(3.2 )dA. (3.47) and (3.16) can be represented in the following form:
IF =
R
(N11 U1. then boundary conditions take the following form:
Mij nj = 0.57)
.2 1.
Vi = 0.2 2.1 − Ω3 ) + N22 U2.1 − Ω0 ) + N21 (U1.1 ∗ S2 Ω3.1 + Ω0 ) + Q∗ (W. Rij nj = 0.2 + M22 Ψ2. if this is the case then the diﬀerence of the solutions must satisfy the systems (3.1 + 3. j
Nij ni = 0. Mj∗ nj = 0.47) and (3.2 − Ω0 ) + Q1 (Ψ1 − Ω0 ) + Q2 Ψ2 + 2 1 2 2 1
∗ ∗ ∗ R11 Ω0 + R22 Ω0 + R21 Ω0 + R12 Ω0 + M1 Ω0 + M2 Ω0 + S1 Ω3.49) with zero loads.1 2.49).2 + Ω0 ) + M11 Ψ1.
∗ Q∗ nj = 0.2 + M12 (Ψ2.1 + Q2 Ω0 + 1 3 3
M21 (Ψ1.56)
We shall show that under these conditions the strain in the plate should vanish and therefore the solution represents the plate deformation as a rigid body.1 + N12 (U2.37 For the proof of the uniqueness we assume that the solution of the Cosserat plate is not unique.2 3. on Γd . We suppose that there are two diﬀerent solutions that satisfy the previous requirements. that is. Ω3 = 0.1 1.

38 after some manipulations of (3.57) we obtain the following expression for IF :

IF =

R

∗ {[Rij Ω0 + (Mij + Nij )Ui + Sj Ω3 + Q∗ W + Mi∗ Ω0 ],j − i j 3

**(M11,1 + M21,2 − Q1 )Ψ1 − (M12,1 + M22,2 − Q2 )Ψ2 − (Q∗ + Q∗ )W − (R11,1 + R21,2 + Q∗ − Q2 )Ω0 − 1,1 2,2 2 1
**

∗ ∗ (R12,1 + R22,2 + Q1 − Q∗ )Ω0 − (S1,1 + S2,2 + M12 − M21 )Ω3 − 2 1 ∗ ∗ (N11,1 + N21,2 )U1 − (N12,1 + N22,2 )U2 − (M1,1 + M2,2 + N12 − N21 )Ω0 }dA, 3

(3.58) now if we consider the equilibrium equations (3.12) and (3.13) with zero load in expression (3.58) and Green’s theorem we obtain:

IF =

Γ

∗ (Rij Ω0 + (Mij + Nij )Ui + Sj Ω3 + Q∗ W + Mi∗ Ω0 )nj ds = 0. i j 3

(3.59) ≡ 0 and

**The integral expression (3.59) vanishes because (3.55) implies (3.56) implies
**

Γd

Γσ

≡ 0.

With lots of calculation it can be shown that expressions (3.24) - (3.43) substituted in (3.18) represents a positive deﬁnite quadratic form in terms of the kinematic variables, therefore expression (3.59) and (3.23) imply:

U1,1 = 0, U2,2 = 0, U2,1 − Ω0 = 0, U1,2 + Ω0 = 0, 3 3 Ψ1,1 = 0, Ψ2,2 = 0, Ψ2,1 − Ω3 = 0, Ψ1,2 + Ω3 = 0, W,1 + Ω0 = 0, W,2 − Ω0 = 0, Ψ1 − Ω0 = 0, Ψ2 + Ω0 = 0, 2 1 2 1 Ω0 = 0, Ω0 = 0, Ω0 = 0, Ω0 = 0, Ω0 = 0, 1,1 2,2 1,2 2,1 3,1 Ω0 = 0, Ω3,1 = 0, Ω3,2 = 0, 3,2 (3.60)

39 after integration of (3.60) we notice that the diﬀerence of any two distinct solutions of the deformation of the Cosserat plate is represented in the following form:

0 0 U1 (x1 , x2 ) = −x2 Ω0 + U1 , U2 = x1 Ω0 + U2 , 3 3

(3.61) (3.62) (3.63)

Ψ1 (x1 , x2 ) = −x2 Ω3 + Ψ0 , Ψ2 = x1 Ω3 + Ψ0 , 1 2 W (x1 , x2 ) = Ω0 x2 − Ω0 x1 + W 0 , 1 2

where Ui0 , Ω0 , W 0 , Ω3 , Ψ0 are constants. The solutions (3.61) - (3.63) describe pure i i translation and rotation of the plate, therefore there is no deformation. Since we know that in general we have deformations, the solution must be unique.

**CHAPTER 4 ANALITICAL SOLUTIONS
**

4.1 Description of Experiments

In this section we are interested to solve analytically the bending system of equations (3.47) for a thin square plate of height h and length a. The plate is described by the set of points [0, a]×[0, a]×[− h , h ]. We assume the plate is subjected 2 2 to a load p described by p(x1 , x2 ) = sin( π x1 ) sin( π x2 ) a a

N . m2

We consider the plate to

be made of syntatic foam. Numerical values of the elastic constants for this material can be found in [4] and are given as follows:

E = 2758 M P a, G = 1033 M P a, lt = 65 µm, N 2 = 0.1 . lb = 33 × 10−3 ,

ν = 0.34, Ψ = 1.5 rad,

(4.1) (4.2) (4.3)

The methodology to follow consists in assuming that each unknown function can be represented in terms of Fourier series. Considering that the load is represented by p(x1 , x2 ) = sin( π x1 ) sin( π x2 ), then the structure of the system (3.47) requires a a unknown functions to have the following representations:

W =

m,n

Amn sin(

πn πm x1 ) sin( x2 ), Ψ1 = a a

Bmn cos(

m,n

πm πn x1 ) sin( x2 ), (4.4) a a

40

n
πm πn x1 ) cos( x2 ). a linear system of 6 × 6 is obtained with the property that all Fourier coeﬃcients are zero for m = 1 or n = 1.4) . Solving the 6 × 6 system provides an analytical solution of (3. Ω3 = a a
Dmn sin(
m. In this experiment the eﬀect of microstructure is appreciated after calculating WP and WE for diﬀerent values of the constants appearing in (4. The main purpose of this comparison is to study the eﬀect of microstructure and the eﬀect of the plate thickness on the calculation of the maximum deﬂection of the plate.47). It can be shown that after substitution of (4.47). WP is the maximum deﬂection calculated with the proposed model (3.47) and a/h is the number of times the plate dimensions are more bigger than its thickness.41
Ψ2 =
m.6)
Ω0 = 2
m. a a (4.2) .6) are to be determined. which correspond to the microstructure of the plate.n
Emn cos(
Fmn cos(
m.53). 100
The eﬀect of the plate thickness is appreciated
.5) πm πn x1 ) cos( x2 ). hence p is maximum at ( a .n
Cmn sin(
πm πn x1 ) cos( x2 ).(4. It’s important to notice that the nature of force p and the homogenity of the Cosserat plate imply that the maximum deﬂection of the plate occurs at its center.4) . a ). 2 2
Experiment 1 In this experiment we compare WP /WE versus a/h.6) in (3. where WE is the maximum deﬂection of the plate calculated with Eringen’s model (appendix A). a a (4. The only case where they can’t be zero is when m = n = 1.(4. The values of these constants are reduced by a factor of
1 10
and
1 . Ω0 = 1 a a πm πn x1 ) sin( x2 ).n
where all coeﬃcients appearing in (4.(3.

• Plot (b) compares WP and WE for diﬀerent values of a/h.08
(b) (c)
1.1 (a)
E
1.3). As we can see.(4. that is the material constants (4.14
1.(4.1m and by increasing a/h from 5 up to 30. For all plate sizes.
1. The eﬀect of microstructure is considered at 100%. As we can see.12
1. This result is expected since the model proposed in this thesis is based on Reissner’s approach and Eringen’s model in Kirchhoﬀ’s assumptions (see appendix A). the values of WP and WE tend to be closer
.3) are all reduced to a factor of 1/10.04
1.06
(d)
1. WP > WE by a net diﬀerence of at least 12% and at most of 16% seems to appear. ﬁgure 4–1 shows 3 plots which are described as follows: • Plot (a) compares WP and WE for diﬀerent values of a/h.42 after calculating WP and WE for h = 0.02
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
a/h
Figure 4–1: Asymmetric Eﬀect Comments of Experiment 1 As we can appreciate. the values of WP and WE tend to be closer as h becomes alot smaller compared to size a.2) . The eﬀect of microstructure is considered at 10%.1) . Figure 4–1 shows the results of the experiment. that is the material characteristics are described by (4.16
1.

43 than in (a). From the other side. Notice also that when the plate thickness is 10 times smaller than its size.
Experiment 2 In this experiment we compare WP /WC versus a/h.
• Plot (c) compares WP and WE for diﬀerent values of a/h.(4. in the case where microstructure plays an important role. therefore WP should be smaller than WC . The eﬀect of microstructure is considered at 1%. As we can see. Before showing the results of this experiment. and the behaviour WP > WE still remains.2) . the values of WP and WE tend to be closer than in (b). The main purpose of this comparison is to show that microstructure has a signiﬁcant eﬀect in the plate deformation. Another important thing to realize is that microstructure should be taken into account when the plate thickness is alot smaller than its dimensions. the total free energy of the plate is additionally considers microstructural deformations. The net diﬀerence now is approximately at least 3% and at most of 8%.3) are all reduced to a factor of 1/100. it’s important to realize that now WP < WC .47). Figure (4–2) shows and validates previous observations:
. that is the material constants (4.54) and WP is the maximum deﬂection calculated with the proposed model (3. The net diﬀerence now is less than 1% and at most of 7%. It happens that in the classical case the total free energy of the plate considers only the eﬀect of WC . WP > WE by approximately 2%. The explanation of this phenomena is done with energy principles. where WC is the maximum deﬂection of the plate calculated with Reissner’s model(3. This is appreciated in the same way we did in experiment 1. but the behaviour WP > WE still remains.

9
0.1
1
0. WP < WC . Notice that in this case WP and WC are closer
. In this case WP is 60% of WC . For all plate sizes.5
0. As we can see.8
(a) (b) (c) (d)
WP / WC
0.
• Plot (b) compares WP and WC for diﬀerent values of a/h when the eﬀect of microstructure is considered at 10%. as expected.6
0. Notice that the best case when WP is closer to WC is when h is 5 times smaller than a.7
0. the values of WP and WC tend to be farther away as h becomes alot smaller compared to size a.4
5
10
15
20
25
30
a/h
Figure 4–2: Classic case Comments of Experiment 2 As we can appreciate.44
1. ﬁgure 4–2 shows 3 plots which are described as follows: • Plot (a) compares WP and WC for diﬀerent values of a/h when the eﬀect of microstructure is considered at 100%.

When the load µt = 0.47) we can appreciate that in general this quantity is not zero. 4.47) become altmost the same. In our experiments Ω0 is practically zero compared 3 to Ω0 . Experiment 2 shows that microstructure eﬀect in a plate becomes signiﬁcant when the thickness of the plate is alot smaller than its dimensions.45 than in (a). i
. 2.54) and (B. the values of WP and WE are closer than in (b) and as h is alot smaller than a. WP and WC tend to be farther away.
4. 5. In cases when G is not so big. the assumption made by Eringen about zero vertical microrotation seems to be correct. more diﬀerence is appreciated between classic results and Cosserat’s theory results.
• Plot (c) compares WP and WE for diﬀerent values of a/h when the eﬀect of microstructure is considered at 1%.2
Conclusions
1. As we can see. but the behaviour that WP and WC tend to be farther away still remains. the bigger the values of the complementary constants.4). In Eringen’s theory the vertical microrotation of the middle plane is considered to be zero. As shown in experiment 2. This can be seen by comparing (3. results may be far away. Experiment 1 shows that when microstructure is reduced. According to (3. 3. Eringen’s model and the proposed model (3. It’s value becomes signiﬁcant when the load µt is diﬀerent than zero. The eﬀect of microstructure plays a signiﬁcant role in the calculation of deformations of elastic bodies.

APPENDICES
.

1. Usually components of both tensors at a material point are calculated along the cuts described by e1 = (1. Given a transversal cut described by n. the stress and couple stress vectors are claculated in the following way:
47
. 0)T and e3 = (0. The unitary vector n is normal and describes the orientation of the transversal cut. In the classical theory of elasticity only the force per unit area vector is taken in consideration. The direction of the force and momentum depend on the transversal cut made to the body. 1)T . The momentum per unit area is illustrated with µ and is known as the couple stress vector. the stress or couple stress vectors at a point can be calculated by means of a linear transformation. Figure A–1 illustrates this situation. e2 = (0. this stress is responsible for the microrotation of a material point. Once known all stress and couple stress components associated to ek . Linear transformations associated to the stress and couple stress receive the name of the stress and couple stress tensors respectively. 0. 0. The stress vector is responsible for the displacement of material points.APPENDIX A THE CONCEPT OF STRESS AND COUPLE STRESS IN ASYMMETRIC ELASTICITY
When an elastic body is exposed to some external forces every material point is in correspondence with a force and a momentum per unit area. 0)T . σ illustrates the force per unit area and is known as the stress vector.

2 n3
where nk are the components of the unitary normal vector. In the asymmetric theory of elasticity the stress and couple stress tensors are in general asymmetric.48
µ11 µ12 µ13 µ = µ21 µ22 µ23 µ31 µ32 µ33
T
T
n1 σ11 σ12 σ13 n . When the couple stress eﬀect is neglected then the stress tensor becomes symmetric [1].
Figure A–1: The stress vector σ and the couple stress vector µ. σ = σ 2 21 σ22 σ23 n3 σ31 σ32 σ33
n1 n .
.

i + G + wi.3) the governing system for the vertical deﬂection of the plate becomes:
49
.
12
=−
21
= 1.ji + 1−ν 2 κ vj + 2κH 2
E κ + κ vj.1)
G−
κ κ vi.ji + γ E ϕj.i ) − 2κϕj = 0
(B. it’s assumed that for thin plates.i + κ 2 2
ij ϕj. In [2]. If microstructure can be neglected and the value of G → ∞.i
+
p =0 2H
(B.i − 2H G − wj − 1+ν 2
2H G +
ji ϕk
=0
(B. H = h . The bending system of equations Eringen derived has the following form:
I 2
E I − κ vi.1) . ϕ1 and ϕ2 are constant along x3 . The vertical microrotation ϕ3 is assumed to be zero by the fact that a pure vertical load is applied to the plate.3)
=
11
= 0.APPENDIX B ERINGEN’S MODEL
Eringen in page 18 of [2] proposes a model for the case of the plate we consider in chapter 3.(B. and vi plays the same role as 2
Ψi .ii + κ where I = 2 H 3 . 3
11
kl
(vi − w. then after some manipulations of (B.2)
αE + β E ϕi.

50
∆2 w = which is Kirchoﬀ’s model. D
(B.
p .4)
.

.2:425–640.
51
. McGraw-Hill. New York. Academic Press. ¨ [8] Kirchhoﬀ G.E. 1986. New York. A. Toronto. J. M. Vol 42:369–374. Applied Mechanics. Reissner. Theory of Asymmetric Elasticity. Theory of Plates and Shells. Gauthier. Brezzi F. in Handbuch der Physik. A quest for micropolar elastic constants. 1850. Experimental methods for study of cosserat elastic solids and other generalized elastic continua. Naghdi. Paris.. 1975. 1995. u [9] E. Theory of micropolar plates. 1972. 1959. New York. pages 1–22. Pergamon Press. Jahsman W. Sydney. [4] Lakes R. Springer-Verlag. 1967. In M¨hlhaus H. 6a. A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity.) Continuum Models u for Materials with Microstructures. The Mathematics of Finite Elements and Applications V. [3] R. J. The theory of shells and plates. pages 69–77. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics. [5] Love A. On the convergence of a four mode plate bending element based on mindlin-reissner plate theory and a mixed interpolation. Wiley J. pages 491–503. [2] Eringen C. [10] Bathe K.H. Dover. Oxford. London. [7] P.(eds. Journal f¨r reine and angewandte Mathematik. 1985. Journal of applied Mechanics. The eﬀect of transverse shear deformation on the bending of elastic plates. Vol 18:12–31. 1945.REFERENCE LIST [1] Nowacki W.D. and Woinowsky-Krieger S.E. [6] Timoshenko S. 1986. Uber das gleichgewicht and die bewegung einer elastischen scheibe. 40:51–88.

International Journal of Solids and Structures. [14] Madrid Pedro Steinberg Lev. (36):2143–2168. january 2007. Reﬂections on the theory of elastic plates. Reissner. submitted in the journal Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids (MMS). may 21-23. Applied Mechanics Reviews.1. Bending of cosserat thin plates. 2006.
. [13] Madrid Pedro Steinberg Lev.52 [11] R¨ssle A.. Bending of cosserat plates with transverse variation of microrotation. Mayag¨ez Puerto u Rico. 1986. Proceedings of the 23rd Southeastern Conference on Applied Mechanics. 1999. Bischoﬀ M. On the mathematical foundao tion of the (1. Wendland W.. (38):1453–1464. Ramm E.. [12] E.2)-plate model.

. Lev Steinberg Degree: Master of Science Graduation Date: November 2007 This is the general Audience Abstract.REISSNER’S PLATE THEORY IN THE FRAMEWORK OF ASYMMETRIC ELASTICITY Pedro Joaqu´ Madrid ın (787) XXX-XXXX Department of Department of Mathematical Sciences Chair: Dr.