Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 s2.0 S002074031630577X Main
1 s2.0 S002074031630577X Main
A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T
Keywords: A debated issue, in applications of ERINGEN's nonlocal model of elasticity to nanobeams, is the paradox
Nonlocal elasticity concerning the solution of simple beam problems, such as the cantilever under end-point loading. In the
Integral and differential constitutive laws adopted nonlocal model, the bending field is expressed as convolution of elastic curvature with a smoothing
Well-posedness kernel. The inversion of the nonlocal elastic law leads to solution of a FREDHOLM integral equation of the first
Nanobeams
kind. It is here shown that this problem admits a unique solution or no solution at all, depending on whether the
bending field fulfils constitutive boundary conditions or not. Paradoxical results found in solving nonlocal
elastostatic problems of simple beams are shown to stem from incompatibility between the constitutive
boundary conditions and equilibrium conditions imposed on the bending field. The conclusion is that existence
of a solution of nonlocal beam elastostatic problems is an exception, the rule being non-existence for problems
of applicative interest. Numerical evaluations reported in the literature hide or shadow this conclusion since
nodal forces expressing the elastic response are not checked against equilibrium under the prescribed data. The
cantilever problem is investigated as case study and analytically solved to exemplify the matter.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: romano@unina.it (G. Romano), rabarret@unina.it (R. Barretta), diaco@unina.it (M. Diaco), marotti@unina.it (F. Marotti de Sciarra).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2016.10.036
Received 31 July 2016; Received in revised form 9 October 2016; Accepted 26 October 2016
Available online 08 November 2016
0020-7403/ © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Romano et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 121 (2017) 151–156
1 ⎛ |x | ⎞
ϕλ (x ):= exp ⎜ − ⎟ .
2L c ⎝ Lc ⎠ (3)
This kernel, which will be referred to as the special kernel, fulfils
symmetry, positivity, impulsivity:
⎧
⎪i ) ϕλ (x − y ) = ϕλ (y − x ) ≥ 0,
⎨ ii ) lim ϕ (x ) = δ (x ),
⎪
⎩ λ →0
λ
(4)
where δ (x ) is the DIRAC distribution, corresponding to a unit impulse at
the origin.
Fig. 1. Special kernel Eq. (3); λ = 1/3. The integral equation (1) in the unknown curvature field χel and
with the bending field M as data, is known as FREDHOLM equation of the
It follows that a solution of the elastostatic problem will exist only if first kind. In general a solution of this kind of integral equations does
the bending field, univocally detected among the equilibrated ones by not exist and, when it does, uniqueness cannot be assured [5]. However
imposing the conditions of kinematic compatibility to the correspond- the following peculiar result is consequent to the choice of the special
ing elastic curvature field, will also meet the constitutive boundary kernel Eq. (3).
conditions. This verification generally fails in cases of applicative
interest. Proposition 3.1. The constitutive integral equation (1) with the
The consequent interpretation of paradoxical examples is different special kernel equation (3) admits, for any λ > 0 , either a unique
from the one usually adduced in literature. solution or no solution at all, depending on whether or not the
Our analysis reveals in fact that no paradox occurs since in all bending field fulfils the constitutive boundary conditions1
claimed examples the elastostatic problem does not admit solution, and ⎧ M ′ (a ) = 1 M (a ),
⎪ λ Lc λ
it is exactly the presumed existence of a solution that lies at the root of ⎨
all paradoxical results. ⎪ Mλ (b ) = − 1 Mλ (b ).
′
⎩ Lc (5)
As a matter of fact, elastic beam problems formulated according to
ERINGEN's nonlocal integral law, as a rule do not admit solution,
Under fulfilment of the conditions (5), the unique solution is provided
existence being the exception.
by the differential expression:
Ill-posedness of nonlocal elastostatic problems is put into evidence
by general considerations and by a specific discussion of the well- 1 1
·(K ·χel )(x ) = 2 ·Mλ (x ) − Mλ″(x ).
known paradox of nonlocal cantilevers under end-point loading. Lc2 Lc (6)
Mixing of local and nonlocal material behaviours considered in
literature are discussed in Section 6. It is shown that the local elastic Proof.. Let us split Eq. (1) by setting
fraction of the mixture has a beneficial effect and induces well-
posedness. This effect is however abruptly cancelled when the local Mλ (x ) = M1 (x, λ ) + M2 (x, λ ), (7)
fraction vanishes so that a singular behaviour is expected in the limit of
a vanishing local fraction, the inherent ill-posedness of fully nonlocal with
problems being not eliminated.
Other proposed remedies to overcome paradoxical results, such as ⎧ M (x , λ ):= x ϕ (x − y )·(K ·χ )(y ) dy
numerical computations of discretised formulations, hide or shadow ⎪ 1 ∫a λ el
⎪ ⎛y − x⎞
ill-posedness of nonlocal problems, an effect that should be checked by ⎪ = ∫
x 1
exp ⎜ ⎟ ·(K ·χel )(y ) dy,
explicitly verifying equilibrium between nodal forces, expressing the ⎪ a 2L c ⎝ Lc ⎠
elastic response, and the prescribed data. ⎨ b
⎪ M2 (x , λ ):= ∫ ϕλ (x − y )·(K ·χel )(y ) dy
⎪ x
⎪ b 1 ⎛ x − y⎞
⎪ = ∫x 2Lc exp ⎜ ⎟ ·(K ·χel )(y ) dy.
2. Integral formulation ⎩ ⎝ Lc ⎠ (8)
152
G. Romano et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 121 (2017) 151–156
M2 (a , λ ) = Mλ (a ), M1 (a, λ ) = 0, 3 = w + 3 o, (13)
M1 (b , λ ) = Mλ (b ), M2 (b , λ ) = 0, (11) where w ∈ V is a prescribed displacement field and 3 o ⊂ V is the linear
manifold of fields fulfilling the associated homogenous kinematic
we infer the necessity of the constitutive boundary conditions (5).
boundary conditions. Denoting by χo ∈ H :=H 0 (a, b )3 a prescribed
Sufficiency is deduced from uniqueness of solutions of Eq. (6)
curvature, kinematic compatibility between the total curvature field
consequent to the fact that the associated homogeneous equation
χel + χo ∈ H and the beam displacement field u ∈ 3 , is expressed by
admits only the trivial solution under the boundary conditions (5). □
χel + χo = u″. (14)
Exact evaluations of nonlocal bending fields,2 performed either
according to the integral law equation (1) or according to the 2. Equilibrium, expressed by the virtual power variational condition
differential condition (6) with the boundary conditions (5), confirm b
coincidence with the nonlocal bending fields got by direct evaluation of ∫a M (x ), δv″(x ) dx = f , δv ,
(15)
the convolution in Eq. (1), for any curvature data and any positive
value of the nonlocal parameter. for all virtual displacement δv ∈ 3 o , requires that bending fields must
belong to the affine manifold
4. Green's function Σ = Mf + Σo, (16)
The result in Proposition 3.1 can also be stated by saying that the described by a square integrable equilibrated bending field
special kernel Eq. (3) with λ > 0 is the GREEN's function associated with Mf ∈ H (a, b ) and by the linear subspace Σo of self-equilibrated bending
the differential problem fields Mo , characterised by the variational property
b
Mλ (x ) − Lc2·Mλ″ (x ) = δ (x ), (12) ∫a 〈Mo (x ), δv″(x )〉dx = 0, ∀ δv ∈ 3 o.
(17)
with the homogeneous boundary conditions (5).
In fact, by linearity, the solution of the differential expression Eq.
(6) is provided by convolution of the GREEN's function with the datum
K ·χel , as expressed by Eq. (1).
Kinematic compatibility can be equivalently expressed by the
By linearity again, the homogeneous constitutive boundary condi-
implicit variational condition of mean square orthogonality between
tions (5) will be fulfilled also by the bending field got by convolution.
the curvature
The differential condition Eq. (6) has been widely adopted in
treatments of nonlocal elastic beams, often without any mention of χel + χo − w″ ∈ H (a, b ) (18)
the constitutive boundary conditions.
and all self-equilibrated bending moments δMo ∈ Σo :
Necessity of this boundary conditions has been however evidenced
b
in [6] and addressed in [3,7]. Thus, when referring to the differential
formulation of the nonlocal constitutive law, one should always mean
∫a 〈(χel + χo − w″)(x ), δMo (x )〉dx = 0.
(19)
the differential problem composed of the constitutive differential This condition is necessary and sufficient to assure existence of a
condition (6) with the constitutive boundary conditions (5). displacement field v = u − w ∈ 3 o such that χel + χo − w″ = v″, which
At difference with classical problems of potential theory in the is equivalent to Eq. (14).
whole 2D or 3D space, where an unbounded domain is considered and
conditions of rapid decrease at infinity are imposed, in most structural
5.1. Existence of a solution
problems bounded domains are considered and hence the evaluation of
GREEN's functions will naturally involve boundary conditions. It is
The statement in Proposition 3.1 puts into evidence that the
however to be underlined that these boundary conditions are of purely
nonlocal elastic law Eq. (1) imposes stringent requirements to bending
constitutive origin and depend on the nonlocal parameter.
fields in the beam since constitutively admissible bending fields must
They should therefore be carefully taken as distinct from kinematic
belong to the linear subspace Ξλ of fields fulfilling the constitutive
or static boundary conditions generated by equilibrium requirements.
boundary conditions (5).
In this respect we observe that the treatment in [8, Eq. (4)] leads to a
Compatibility between the constitutive boundary conditions (5) and
constitutive theory in which material properties are dependent on
the equilibrium condition in Eq. (15) is a necessary requirement for
arbitrarily prescribed kinematic conditions.
existence of a bending field solution of the elastostatic problem. What
happens is that the affine manifold Σ of equilibrated bending fields and
5. Nonlocal elastostatic problem
the linear subspace Ξλ of those fulfilling the constitutive boundary
conditions (5) may well have a void intersection, i.e.
In the geometrically linearised BERNOULLI-EULER beam model, the
displacement fields are required to be square integrable together with Σ ∩ Ξλ = ∅. (20)
the first and second generalised derivatives, so that boundary values of The relation between boundary values of bending and shearing
the displacement fields and of their first derivatives can be properly fields (Mλ, Mλ′), imposed by constitutive boundary conditions (5) for
considered. This kinematical space is a HILBERT space denoted by λ > 0 , is in fact likely to be in contrast with the equilibrium require-
V :=H2 (a, b ). ments imposed by the prescribed kinematical constraints, in all
Formulation of the nonlocal elastostatic problem is completed by nonlocal elastic problems of applicative interest.
adding to the constitutive law equation (1) the following items Existence of a solution to the nonlocal elastostatic problem,
concerning kinematic compatibility and equilibrium. requires a non-void intersection Σ ∩ Ξλ and results to be an exceptional
event as evidenced also by the fact that only one of the two manifolds is
1. Denoting by 3 ⊂ V the affine manifold of fields fulfilling kinematic dependent on the nonlocal parameter and that the constitutive
conditions imposed at the beam boundary, we may set
3
The linear Hilbert space of square integrable fields on [a, b] is more usually denoted
2
Symbolic and numerical computations and graphical rendering have been carried out by 32 (a, b ) . The notation H 0 (a, b ) is here preferred to avoid similarity with the subspace
by the software Mathematica due to Stephen Wolfram. 3 of admissible displacement fields.
153
G. Romano et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 121 (2017) 151–156
Differentiating again from Eq. (9) we get 7. Paradox of cantilever under end-point loading
4
In [1] it is affirmed that no nonlocal effects will be exhibited by a cantilever
A case-study in nonlocal elastic beam theory is represented by a
subjected to any combination of concentrated loads, but it should rather be said that cantilever under end-point loading. The discussion at the end of
these nonlocal problems do not admit solution. Section 5.1 reveals that this statically determinate problem does not
154
G. Romano et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 121 (2017) 151–156
admit solution.
Anyway non-existence of a solution can also be verified by a direct
analysis which puts into evidence singularities of the involved fields
when a wrong procedure is carried out.
The equilibrium differential condition
Mλ″ (x ) = q (x ) = 0, (28)
and the boundary equilibrium conditions, require that the bending field
is expressed by the linear field
Mλ (x ) = F ·(L − x ). (29)
By Eq. (6) we also should have
(K ·χel )(x ) = Mλ (x ). (30)
This conclusion is contradicted by a direct application of the
constitutive integral law equation (1), for any positive value of the
nonlocal parameter λ > 0 .
Indeed the linear field equation (29) would output, by convolution
with the smoothing kernel in Eq. (1), a nonlinear bending field
expressed by
b
Mλ (x ) = ∫a ϕλ (x − y )·(F ·(L − y )) dy
1 ⎛ ⎛x − L⎞ ⎛ x⎞ ⎛ x ⎞⎞
= F ·L ⎜λ exp ⎜ ⎟ − (1 + λ )exp ⎜ − ⎟ + 2 ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎟ .
2 ⎝ ⎝ Lc ⎠ ⎝ Lc ⎠ ⎝ L ⎠⎠ (31)
The usual interpretation of this contradiction, as given for instance
in [3], is that integral and differential formulations of the nonlocal law
equation (1) with the special kernel equation (3) are not equivalent. Fig. 2. Cantilever bending fields Mλ Eq. (31).
The right conclusion is more stringent since both the integral
formulation Eq. (1) and the equivalent differential formulation Eqs. (5)
and (6), lead to a nonlocal elastostatic problem that does not admit
solution.
The evident contrast between the bending fields expressed respec-
tively by Eqs. (29) and (31) is due to incompatibility between the
equilibrium condition and the constitutive assumption.
This incompatibility emerges clearly from Proposition 3.1 by
observing that the equilibrated bending field Eq. (29) does not fulfil
the constitutive boundary conditions (5).
The proper conclusion is that a solution to this nonlocal elastostatic
problem does not exist and that existence will hold only for those
loading distribution in equilibrium with bending fields that are in the
range of the integral law equation (1), a class of loadings that depends
on the nonlocal parameter and is no interest for applications.
Shearing Tλ (x ):=Mλ′ (x ) and loading fields qλ (x ):=Mλ″ (x ) in the
cantilever, associated with the bending field Mλ (x ) emerging from the
integral law Eq. (31), are expressed by
1 ⎛ ⎛x − L⎞ Lc + L ⎛ x⎞ ⎞
Tλ (x ) = F ⎜exp ⎜ ⎟+ exp ⎜ − ⎟ − 2⎟ ,
2 ⎝ ⎝ Lc ⎠ Lc ⎝ Lc ⎠ ⎠ (32)
F ⎛ ⎛x − L⎞ Lc + L ⎛ x ⎞⎞
qλ (x ) = ·⎜exp ⎜ ⎟− ·exp ⎜ − ⎟ ⎟ .
2Lc ⎝ ⎝ Lc ⎠ Lc ⎝ Lc ⎠ ⎠ (33)
The fields in Eqs. (31), (32), (33) are respectively plotted in Figs. 2,
3, 4 for the nonlocal parameter λ in the list of values
{.0001, 0.005, .03, .05, .10, .15, .333, .50, .75, 1.00} in the upper draw-
ings and in the shorter list {.0001, 1/100, 1/10, 1/3} in the lower
drawings, where a scaling of vertical axis has been performed to
Fig. 3. Cantilever shearing fields Mλ′ Eq. (32).
improve evidence of pathological behaviours in shearing and loading
fields at a boundary layer.
3. the shearing field is not constant and quite different from the unit
We may observe that equilibrium is significantly violated by the
value of the end-force,
bending output of Eq. (31). In particular,
4. the elastic response presents a singular behaviour at the clamped
and at the free ends, due to the effect of successive differentiations in
1. the bending field does not vanish at the right free-end of the
Eqs. (32) and (33).
cantilever,
2. the emerging loading distribution is not vanishing,
Numerical solutions of nonlocal elastic beams according to the
155
G. Romano et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 121 (2017) 151–156
156