A modified couple stress model for bending analysis of composite laminated beams with first order shear deformation
Wanji Chen,Lì Lì,Ma Xu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.05.032
IF: 6.3
2011-01-01
Composite Structures
Abstract:Based on a modified couple stress theory, a model for composite laminated beam with first order shear deformation is developed. The characteristics of the theory are the use of rotation–displacement as dependent variable and the use of only one constant to describe the material’s micro-structural characteristics. The present model of beam can be viewed as a simplified couple stress theory in engineering mechanics. An example as a cross-ply simply supported beam subjected to cylindrical bending loads of f w = q 0 sin ( πx / L ) is adopted and explicit expression of analysis solution is obtained. Numerical results show that the present beam model can capture the scale effects of microstructure, and the deflections and stresses of the present model of couple stress beam are smaller than that by the classical beam mode. Additionally, the present model can be reduced to the classical composite laminated Timoshenko beam model, Isotropic Timoshenko beam model of couple stress theory, classical isotropic Timoshenko beam, composite laminated Bernoulli–Euler beam model of couple stress theory and isotropic Bernoulli–Euler beam of couple stress theory. Keywords Composite laminated Timoshenko bending beam Modified couple stress theory Material length parameter Scale effect 1 Introduction Since the 1960s, experiments have shown that micro-structure has scale effects due to impurities, crystal lattice mismatch and micro cracks at micro scales. With the material size scaling down to the order of micro scales, the stiffness and the strength of metal materials can increase with the size decreasing, which is called size effects. The size effects have been proved by many experiments in the recent two decades. For example, Fleck et al. [1] observed that the scaled shear strength increases by a factor of three as the wire diameter decreases from 170 μm to 12 μm in the twisting of thin copper wires; Stolken and Evan [2] reported a significant increase in the normalized bending hardening with the beam thickness decreasing in bending of ultra thin beams. Sun et al. [3] put forward a alternative view of the size effects in the nano-scale structures. As conventional continuum theory cannot explain or solve the problems of the scale effects, theories for microstructures need to be developed. Theories for microstructures include couple stress theory and strain gradient theory. A series of research in the couple stress/strain gradient theories have been made. For example, in the 1960s, Toupin [4] , Koiter [5] and Mindlin proposed strain gradient theory by introducing strain gradient into constitutive equation [6] . Between the 1980s and 1990s, Aifantis [7] , Fleck and Hutchinson [8,9] developed the strain gradient theory in plasticity. Gao et al. [10] further improved the strain gradient theory in plasticity. A modified couple stress theory has recently been proposed by Yang et al. in which the couple stress tensor is symmetric and only one internal material length scale parameter is considered [11] . The couple stress theory can be viewed as a special format of strain gradient theory which uses rotation as a variable to describe curvature, while the strain gradient theory uses strain as variable to describe curvature. Though both theories can describe the scale defects at micro-scale, the couple stress theory contains fewer rotation variables than the strain gradient theory does for the strain variables. In the couple stress theory, the variables related to micro-scale impurities or defects are formulated into rotation equilibrium equations. In the strain gradient theory, these variables are formulated into higher order strain terms in geometric equations. In both cases, new parameters which describe the material scale characteristics are introduced as higher order term (4th order) into the partial differential governing equation. Yet, in conventional continuum mechanics, this partial differential governing equation is a 2nd order equation. Generally speaking , the couple stress/strain gradient theory for microstructures can be classified into two respective theories, C 1 theory and C 0 theory. For C 1 theory the displacements and rotations/strains are dependent variables. For C 0 theory, the displacements and rotations/strains are independent variables. In the application in the engineering, the micro-structures such as sensors and actuators in micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) and nano-electromechanical systems (NEMS) are often consist in the components of beam, plate and membrane et al. According to the application in engineering, the beam, plate and shell theories based on couple stress/strain gradient theory should be developed. The researchers have focused on the beam theory on micro-scale in recent years. A number of papers have been published for attempting to develop microstructure-dependent non-local Timoshenko beam models and apply them to analyze nanotubes and other small beam-like members/devices. All of these models are based on a C 0 theory in which the rotation–displacement as dependent variables. For example, the model for pure bending proposed by Anthoine [12] is based on the classical C 0 couple stress elasticity theory, which includes two additional internal material length scale parameters. The higher-order Bernoulli–Euler beam model developed by Papargyri-Beskou et al. [13] is based on the C 0 gradient elasticity theory, which involves two internal material length scale parameters. The non-local Bernoulli–Euler beam model by Peddieson et al. [14] , in the formulation the constitutive equation suggested by Eringen [15] contains two additional material constants. More background related to the couple stress beam based on the C 0 couple stress theory, especially Cosserat-type theories which contain more than two additional material constants, can be found in the review by Altenbach al. [16] . Recently, due to the difficulty of determining more than one microstructure-dependent length scale parameters and the approximate nature of beam theories, C 1 non-classical beam models involving only one material length scale parameter are getting many attentions. One model, as a simpler Bernoulli–Euler beam model based on modified couple stress theory with only one material length parameter, has recently been developed by Park and Gao [17] . Ma et al. proposed a microstructure-dependent Timoshenko beam model based on a modified couple stress theory with only one material length parameter [18] . Tsiatas proposed a new Kirchhoff plate model based on a modified couple stress theory [19] . Metin developed a general nonlocal beam theory based on C 0 theory [20] , where the nonlocal constitutive equations proposed by Eringen [15] are adopted. The nonclassical R–L beam model based on the higher order shear deformation theory and C 1 couple stress theory was developed by Ma et al. [21] . The non-classical R–L model can be reduced to the existing classical elasticity-based R–L model by using the material length scale parameter and Poisson’s ratio are both taken to be zero. The classical R–L beam model [22] is a third-order beam model satisfied the condition of shear stress equal zero on the upper and lower surfaces of the beam. For moderate thickness beam, the accuracy is higher than first-order shear beam model. Furthermore the R–L beam model can be reduce the non-classical Bernoulli–Euler beam model when the normality assumption is introduced. Composite laminate beam and plate are widely used in engineering. Due to the microscale such as fiber, impurities and micro cracks at micro matrix are involved in a laminated composite structure, it results in classical laminate theory invalid in some problems related to the miro-scale of laminate composites. The objective of this paper is to develop a microstructure-dependent model for the laminated Timoshenko beam based on a modified couple stress theory with only one material length scale parameter. 2 Formulations for modified couple stress theories Unlike the conventional continuum mechanics, the rotation vector ω i is introduced to kinematic relation of the classical couple stress theory, as well as the curvatures tensor χ ij and couple stress tensor m ij . Unlike the classical couple stress theory, Yang et al. [11] developed a modified couple stress theory in which the part of rotation gradient in the strain tensor is symmetric. 2.1 Modified coupled stress theory According to the symmetric couple stress theory proposed by Yang et al., the strain tensor and curvature tensor can be defined as ε ij = 1 2 ( u i , j + u j , i ) , χ ij = 1 2 ( ω i , j + ω j , i ) respectively, where ω = 1 2 curl u , u = ( u i ) is the displacement vector and ω ( ω ι ) is the rotation vector. The main differences of modified couple stress theory with standard couple stress theory are that for modified couple stress theory the couple stress tensor is symmetric and only one internal material length scale parameter is considered [11] , however, for standard couple stress theory, the couple stress tensor is asymmetric and number of internal material length scale parameters is one not always. The beam theory is a special plane problem of the plane elasticity, so the related 2-D couple stress theories can be given as follows. Considering conventional representation in the engineering, the component representation for the couple stress theory is adopted. 2.2 Formulations of plane modified couple stress theory (C 1 theory) The displacements are represented by u and v , which are displacements along x and y directions. Consider the strain tensor and curvature tensor can be defined respectively as ε ij = 1 2 ( u i , j + u j , i ) , χ ij = 1 2 ( ω i , j + ω j , i ) , we introduce γ xy = γ 12 + γ 21 , χ x = χ 13 + χ 31 , χ y = χ 23 + χ 32 . The geometric equations can be written as: (2-1) ε x = ∂ u ∂ x ε y = ∂ v ∂ y γ xy = ∂ v ∂ x + ∂ u ∂ y χ x = 1 2 ∂ 2 v ∂ x 2 - ∂ 2 u ∂ x ∂ y χ y = 1 2 ∂ 2 v ∂ x ∂ y - ∂ 2 u ∂ y 2 Strain : { ε x , ε y , γ xy , χ x , χ y } . Stress : { σ x , σ y , τ xy , m x , m y } . where ε x , ε y , andγ xy are normal and shear strains in continuum mechanics. σ x , σ y , τ xy are normal and shear stresses in continuum mechanics. χ x , χ y are curvatures and torsional shear strain for microstructures. m x , m y are bending momentums and torsional shear stress for microstructures. The constitutive equations can be written as: (2-2) σ = [ σ x σ y τ xy ] T = D ε where D = D 1 μ D 1 μ D 1 D 1 G , and (2-3) m = m x m y = 2 ℓ 2 G 2 ℓ 2 G χ x χ y ℓ are an internal material length scale parameter, and E , μ are constants of elasticity, D 1 = E ( 1 - μ 2 ) , G = E 2 ( 1 + μ ) . The strain energy is expressed as (2-4-1) U = ∫ V ( ( σ x ε x + σ y ε y + τ xy γ xy ) + ( m x χ x + m y χ y ) ) dx dy Substituting (2-1) into (2-4) , we have, (2-4-2) U = ∫ V σ x ∂ u ∂ x + σ y ∂ v ∂ y + τ xy ∂ u ∂ y + ∂ v ∂ x + 1 2 m x ∂ 2 v ∂ x 2 - ∂ 2 u ∂ x ∂ y + 1 2 m y ∂ 2 v ∂ x ∂ y - ∂ 2 u ∂ y 2 dxdy Integrating by parts of Eq. (2-4-2) , we obtain (2-5) U = ∫ S σ x n x + τ xy n y u + ( σ y n y + τ xy n x ) v + 1 2 ( m x n x + m y n y ) ∂ v ∂ x - ∂ u ∂ y ds - ∫ V ∂ σ x ∂ x + ∂ τ xy ∂ y - 1 2 ∂ 2 m x ∂ x ∂ y + ∂ 2 m y ∂ y 2 u + ∂ σ y ∂ y + ∂ τ xy ∂ x + 1 2 ∂ 2 m x ∂ x 2 + ∂ 2 m y ∂ x ∂ y v dx dy = ∫ S σ x n x + τ xy n y - 1 2 ∂ m x ∂ x + ∂ m y ∂ y n y u + σ y n y + τ xy n x + 1 2 ∂ m x ∂ x + ∂ m y ∂ y n x v ds + ∫ S 1 2 ( m x n x + m y n y ) ∂ v ∂ x - ∂ u ∂ y ds From (2-5) , following governing equations can be obtained. The equilibrium equations (no body forces) are (2-6) ∂ σ x ∂ x + ∂ τ xy ∂ y - 1 2 ∂ 2 m x ∂ x ∂ y + ∂ 2 m y ∂ y 2 = 0 ∂ τ xy ∂ x + ∂ σ y ∂ y + 1 2 ∂ 2 m x ∂ x 2 + ∂ 2 m y ∂ x ∂ y = 0 The boundary forces are (2-7) T = T mx T my T ω = σ x n x + τ s n y - 1 2 ∂ m x ∂ x + ∂ m y ∂ y n y σ y n y + τ s n x + 1 2 ∂ m x ∂ x + ∂ m y ∂ y n x m x n x + m y n y The boundary displacements are (2-8) u ˜ = u v 1 2 ∂ v ∂ x - ∂ u ∂ y Substituting (2-1), (2-2), (2-3) into (2-6) , The couple stress equilibrium equation in terms of displacements: (2-9) E 1 - μ 2 ∂ 2 u ∂ x 2 + ( 1 - μ ) 2 ∂ 2 u ∂ y 2 + ( 1 + μ ) 2 ∂ 2 v ∂ x ∂ y - 1 2 ℓ 2 G ∂ 4 u ∂ x 2 ∂ y 2 - ∂ 4 v ∂ x 3 ∂ y + ∂ 4 u ∂ y 4 - ∂ 4 v ∂ x ∂ y 3 = 0 E 1 - μ 2 ( 1 + μ ) 2 ∂ 2 u ∂ x ∂ y + ( 1 - μ ) 2 ∂ 2 v ∂ x 2 + ∂ 2 v ∂ y 2 + 1 2 ℓ 2 G ∂ 4 u ∂ x 3 ∂ y - ∂ 4 v ∂ x 4 + ∂ 4 u ∂ x ∂ y 3 - ∂ 4 v ∂ x 2 ∂ y 2 = 0 3 Basic equations of composite laminated beam of modified couple stress theory In the point of view of theory of elasticity, the beam theory can be described by introducing the hypothesis of the cross-section into the plane elasticity. It is also true for the composite laminated beam for the couple stress theory. Considering conventional representation of beam theory in the engineering, the x – y coordinate of the plane is replaced by x – z coordinate shown in Fig. 1 . Based on the couple stress theory, only ω y is included among the rotations are ω x = 0 and ω z = 0. 3.1 hypothesis of composite laminated beam of modified couple stress theory The hypothesis of the cross-section of the classical beam can be adopted in the couple stress theory of the Timoshiko beam [18] . In order to avoid distortion and warping of beam section under pure bending, the fiber orientation of the composite laminated beam should be orthogonal. Assumed displacements in a section of composite laminated beam can be described by (3-1) u ( x , z ) = u 0 ( x ) - z θ ( x ) v = 0 w = w ( x ) where θ is the angle of rotation around the y -axis of the cross-section (see Fig. 1 ). Substituting (3-1) into the expression of the rotation as ω = 1 2 curl u , we have, (3-2) ω x = 1 2 ( w , y - v , z ) = 0 ω y = 1 2 ( u , z - w , x ) = - 1 2 ( θ + w , x ) ω z = 1 2 ( v , x - u , y ) = 0 3.2 Strain of composite laminated beam of modified couple stress theory Consider the strain tensor and curvature tensor can be defined respectively as ε ij = 1 2 ( u i , j + u j , i ) , χ ij = 1 2 ( ω i , j + ω j , i ) ∘ According to the engineering conventional representation, the strain tensor and curvature tensor for the beam can be expressed in the vector form as follows: ε x = u , x , γ xz = γ zx = 2 γ 13 , χ xy = χ 12 , χ yx = χ 21 , and ε y = γ xy = γ yz = χ x = χ y = χ xz = χ yz = 0 . The strain can be written as (3-3) ε = ε x γ xz γ zx χ xy χ yx Substituting (3-1), (3-2) into (3-3) , we have (3-4) ε x = ∂ u ∂ x = du 0 dx - z d θ dx γ xz = γ zx = 1 2 ∂ u ∂ z + dw dx = 1 2 dw dx - θ χ yx = χ xy = 1 2 d ω y dx + d ω x dy = 1 2 d ω y dx = - 1 4 d θ dx + d 2 w dx 2 3.3 Constitutive relations of composite laminated beam of modified couple stress theory The constitutive relations of composite laminated beam are defined in layer-by-layer. The stress–strain relations of k th layer in the local coordinate ( x ′, z ′) can be expressed as follows (3-5) σ k = C k ε where (3 - 6) σ k = σ x ′ k τ x ′ z ′ k τ z ′ x ′ k m x ′ y ′ k m y ′ x ′ k T (3-7) ε = ε x ′ γ x ′ z ′ γ z ′ x ′ χ x ′ y ′ χ y ′ x ′ T (3-8) C k = c 11 k c 44 k c 44 k 2 ℓ 2 c 44 k 2 ℓ 2 c 44 k where x ′ aligns with the direction of the fiber in k th layer, C 11 k = E 1 k 1 - v 12 k 2 , C 44 k = G 12 k , v 21 = E 2 k v 12 k E 1 k , E 1 k is elastic constant of k th layer, G 12 k is shear elastic constant of k th layer, v 12 k is Poisson ratio of k th layer, in which subscripts 1 and 2 represent the direction of fiber and matrix, respectively. After coordinate transformation, the stress–strain relations of k th layer in the global coordinate ( x , z ) can be written as follows (3-9) σ k = Q k ε where (3 - 10) σ k = σ x k τ xz k τ zx k m xy k m yx k T (3-11) ε = ε x γ xz γ zx χ xy χ yx T (3-12) Q k = Q 11 k Q 44 k Q 44 k 2 ℓ 2 Q ∼ 44 k 2 ℓ 2 Q ∼ 44 k . The components of Q k are expressed as (3-13) Q 11 k = m 4 C 11 k + n 4 C 22 k Q 44 k = C 44 k m 2 + C 44 k n 2 = C 44 k (3-14) Q ∼ 44 k = C 44 k H ( ϕ k ) where m = conϕ k , n = sin ϕ k and ϕ k is angle of ply, H ( ϕ k ) = 0 when ϕ k = 0 ° 1 when ϕ k = 90 ° . In order to avoid distortion and warping of beam section under pure bending, the effect of couple stress can be ignored when angle of ply is ϕ k = 0. 3.4 principle of virtual work for composite laminated beam of modified couple stress theory It is well known that the principle of virtual work can be used to derive the equilibrium equation and the boundary condition. The principle of virtual work for composite laminated beam of couple stress theory ca be given by (3-16) δ U - δ W = 0 where (3-17) δ U = ∑ k - 1 n δ U k = ∑ k - 1 n ∫ Ω k ε T Q k δ ε dv (3-18) δ W = ∫ Ω f ¯ T δ u dv + ∫ δ Ω T ¯ T δ u ds where f ¯ T and T ¯ T are body force and boundary force respectively. Substituting equation (3-4) and (3-5) and (3-15) into the equation (3-17) , by the integration of the y and z coordinates in the section of beam, the equation of beam becomes (3-19) δ U = ∑ k = 1 n δ U k = ∑ k = 1 n ∫ V k σ kT δ ε dx dy dz = ∫ Ω ∑ k = 1 n ∫ - h k 2 h k 2 σ kT δ ε dz dx dy = ∑ k = 1 n ∫ Ω k σ x k δ ε x + τ xz k δ γ xz + τ yz k δ γ yz + m xy k δ χ xy + m yx k δ χ yx dv = ∑ k = 1 n ∫ Ω k σ x k δ ε x + 2 τ xz k δ γ xz + 2 m xy k δ χ xy dv = ∫ 0 L - dN dx δ u 0 - dQ dx + 1 2 d 2 Y dx 2 δ w + dM dx - Q + 1 2 dY dx δ θ dx + N δ u 0 + Q + 1 2 dY dx δ w - Y 2 δ dw dx - M + Y 2 δ θ x = 0 x = L where N , M , Q are the classical tractions of the beam, Y is the traction of couple stress moment of the beam. They are (3-20) N = ∑ k = 1 n ∫ A k σ x k dA , M = ∑ k = 1 n ∫ A k ( σ x k z ) dA Q = ∑ k = 1 n ∫ A k τ xz k dA , Y = ∑ k = 1 n ∫ A k m xy k dA The expression of the work by the external forces on the beam in the modified couple stress theory can be expressed as (3-21) δ W = ∫ l ( f u δ u 0 + f w δ w + f c δ ω ) dx + [ N ¯ δ u 0 + V ¯ δ w + M ¯ δ θ ] | x = 0 x = L where f u and f w are, respectively, the x - and z -components of the body force per unit length along the x -axis, f c is the y -component of body force per unit length along the x -axis, and N ¯ , V ¯ and M ¯ are the applied axial force, transverse force, and bending moment at the two ends of the beam respectively, and (3-22) ∫ ℓ f c δ ω dx = - 1 2 ∫ ℓ f c δ ( θ + w , x ) dx = - 1 2 ∫ ℓ f c δ θ dx + df c dx δ w x = 0 x = L - ∫ ℓ f c δ θ dx Substituting Eqs. (3-19) and (3-21) into the equation (3-16) we have (3-23) ∫ 0 L - dN dx + f u δ u 0 - dQ dx + 1 2 d 2 Y dx 2 + 1 2 df c dx + f w δ w + dM dx - Q + 1 2 dY dx + 1 2 f c δ θ dx + ( N - N ¯ ) δ u 0 + Q + 1 2 dY dx + f c 2 - V ¯ δ w + - Y 2 - Y ¯ δ dw dx + - M - Y 2 - M ¯ δ θ x = 0 x = L = 0 From (4-8) , the equilibrium equations are obtained as (3-24) dN dx + f u = 0 dQ dx + 1 2 d 2 Y dx 2 + 1 2 df c dx + f w = 0 dM dx - Q + 1 2 dY dx + 1 2 f c = 0 and traction boundary conditions at x = 0 and x = L are (3-25) N = N ¯ Q + 1 2 dY dx + 1 2 f c = V ¯ Y = 0 M x + Y 2 = M ¯ and displacement boundary conditions are (3-26) u 0 = u ¯ 0 w = w ¯ dw dx = d w ¯ dx θ = θ ¯ 4 Composite laminated beam of modified couple stress theory 4.1 Equilibrium equations in terms of displacements for the composite laminated beam of modified couple stress theory with first order shear deformation Substituting geometric (3-4) and stress–strain relation (3-9) into (3-20) , we have (4-1) N = Q ¯ 11 du 0 dx - J ¯ 11 d θ dx M = J ¯ 11 du 0 dx - I ¯ 11 d θ dx Y = - ℓ 2 Q ¯ ¯ 44 2 d 2 w dx 2 + d θ dx Q = k s Q ¯ 44 dw dx - θ the equilibrium equations in terms of displacements of Timoshenko’s beam of couple stress theory can be obtained as follows (4-2) Q ¯ 11 d 2 u 0 dx 2 - J ¯ 11 d 2 θ dx 2 + f u = 0 k s Q ¯ 44 d 2 w dx 2 - d θ dx - ℓ 2 Q ¯ ¯ 44 2 d 4 w dx 4 + d 3 θ dx 3 + 1 2 df c dx + f w = 0 J ¯ 11 d 2 u 0 dx 2 - I ¯ 11 d 2 θ dx 2 - k s Q ¯ 44 dw dx - θ - ℓ 2 Q ¯ ¯ 44 2 d 3 w dx 3 + d 2 θ dx 2 + 1 2 f c = 0 where k s is the Timoshenko shear coefficient, which depends on the geometry of beam cross-section, and (4-3) Q ¯ ¯ 44 = ∑ k = 1 n Q ∼ 44 k b ( z k + 1 - z k ) Q ¯ jj = ∑ k = 1 n Q jj k b ( z k + 1 - z k ) ( j = 4 , 5 ) J ¯ ii = ∑ k = 1 n Q ii k b z k + 1 2 - z k 2 2 ( i = 1 ) I ¯ ii = ∑ k = 1 n Q ii k b z k + 1 3 - z k 3 3 ( i = 1 ) 4.2 Degradation of the composite laminated beam of modified couple stress theory 4.2.1 Classical composite laminated Timoshenko beam Substituting ℓ = 0 into the Eq. (4-1) , the equilibrium equations in terms of displacement of classical composite laminated Timoshenko beam can be given as (4-4) Q ¯ 11 d 2 u 0 dx 2 - J ¯ 11 d 2 θ dx 2 + f u = 0 k s Q ¯ 44 d 2 w dx 2 - d θ dx + 1 2 df c dx + f w = 0 J ¯ 11 d 2 u 0 dx 2 - I ¯ 11 d 2 θ dx 2 - k s Q ¯ 44 dw dx - θ + 1 2 f c = 0 4.2.2 Isotropic Timoshenko beam of modified couple stress theory For the isotropic Timoshenko beam ( H ( ϕ k ) ≡ 1), the elastic constants become Q ¯ 11 = EA , Q ¯ 44 = GA , Q ¯ 55 = GA / 2 , Q ¯ 66 = 0 , J ¯ 11 = 0 , I ¯ 11 = EI and I = bh 3 12 . Substituting these constants into the (4-4) the equilibrium equations in terms of displacements classical isotropic Timoshenko beam of couple stress theory can be obtained as (4-5) EA d 2 u 0 dx 2 + f u = 0 k s GA d 2 w dx 2 - d θ dx - ℓ 2 GA 4 d 4 w dx 4 + d 3 θ dx 3 + 1 2 df c dx + f w = 0 EI d 2 θ dx 2 + k s GA dw dx - θ + ℓ 2 GA 4 d 3 w dx 3 + d 2 θ dx 2 - 1 2 f c = 0 These are identical to results in the reference [18] . 4.2.3 Classical isotropic Timoshenko beam Substituting ℓ = 0 and f c = 0 into the (4-5) , the equilibrium equations of the Classical isotropic Timoshenko beam in terms of displacements can be obtained as follows (4-6) EA d 2 u 0 dx 2 + f u = 0 k s GA d 2 w dx 2 - d θ dx + f w = 0 EI d 2 θ dx 2 + k s GA dw dx - θ = 0 These are identical to results in the reference [18] . 4.2.4 Composite laminated Bernoulli–Euler beam of modified couple stress theory Substituting θ = dw dx into the (4-5) , the equilibrium equations in terms of displacements of composite laminated Bernoulli–Euler beam of couple stress theory can be obtained as follows (4-7) Q ¯ 11 d 2 u 0 dx 2 - J ¯ 11 d 3 w dx 3 + f u = 0 - ℓ 2 Q ¯ ¯ 44 2 d 4 w dx 4 + df c dx + f w = 0 J ¯ 11 d 3 u 0 dx 3 - I ¯ 11 + ℓ 2 2 Q ¯ ¯ 44 d 4 w dx 4 + 1 2 f c = 0 4.2.5 Isotropic Bernoulli–Euler beam of couple stress theory Substituting equations θ = dw dx , u 0 = 0 , f c = 0 and H ( ϕ k ) = 1 into the (4-7) , considering only bending deformation of beam, the equilibrium equation in terms of displacements of classical isotropic Bernoulli–Euler beam of couple stress theory can be obtained as (4-8) ( I ¯ 11 + ℓ 2 Q ¯ 44 ) d 4 w dx 4 = f w This is identical to result in the reference [17] . 5 Numerical example for scale effect: simply supported beam subjected to cylindrical bending A cross-ply simply supported beam shown in Fig. 2 is analyzed here. The beam is only subjected to cylindrical bending loads of f w = q 0 sin π x L , i.e., f u = f c = 0. The thickness and the material properties of each layer are uniform. Boundary conditions: (5 - 1) u | x = 0 = u | x = L = 0 , w | x = 0 = w | x = L = 0 , (5-2) Y | x = 0 = Y | x = L = 0 , M | x = 0 = M | x = L = 0 . Substituting (4-1) into the (4-2) , in terms of θ and w , the (5-2) become (5-3) d 2 w dx 2 x = 0 = d 2 w dx 2 x = L = 0 , d θ dx x = 0 = d θ dx x = L = 0 5.1 Solution of the composite laminated beam of modified couple stress theory The trial function is assumed as (5-4) u 0 ( x ) = 0 , w ( x ) = w 0 sin π x L , θ ( x ) = θ 0 cos π x L Substituting (5-4) into (5-2) , we have (5 - 5) π 2 L 2 k s Q ¯ 44 + π 2 ℓ 2 Q ¯ ¯ 44 2 L 2 w 0 + π L π 2 ℓ 2 Q ¯ ¯ 44 2 L 2 - k s Q ¯ 44 θ 0 - q 0 = 0 (5-6) π L π 2 ℓ 2 Q ¯ ¯ 44 2 L 2 - k s Q ¯ 44 w 0 + k s Q ¯ 44 + π 2 Q ¯ ¯ 44 ℓ 2 2 L 2 + π 2 I ¯ 11 L 2 θ 0 = 0 The solution of the displacements in the center of beam is obtained as follows (5 - 7) w 0 = q 0 L 4 2 k s Q ¯ 44 L 2 + 2 π 2 I ¯ 11 + π 2 Q ¯ ¯ 44 ℓ 2 π 4 2 k s I ¯ 11 Q ¯ 44 L 2 + ℓ 2 Q ¯ ¯ 44 4 k s Q ¯ 44 L 2 + π 2 I ¯ 11 (5-8) θ 0 = q 0 L 3 2 k s Q ¯ 44 L 2 - π 2 ℓ 2 Q ¯ ¯ 44 π 3 2 k s I ¯ 11 Q ¯ 44 L 2 + ℓ 2 Q ¯ ¯ 44 4 k s Q ¯ 44 L 2 + π 2 I ¯ 11 where k s = 5 + 5 ν 12 6 + 5 ν 12 for the rectangular section. The stress in the beam is (5-9) σ x k = π Q 11 k θ 0 z L sin π x L 5.2 Solution of Bernoulli–Euler beam of modified couple stress theory By using the trial functions of w ( x ) = w 0 sin π x L , the solution of the displacement in the center of beam can be obtained (5-10) w 0 = q 0 L 4 π 4 I ¯ 11 + ℓ 2 Q ¯ 44 σ x k = zQ 11 k π L 2 w 0 sin π x L 5.2.1 Numerical examples for the scale effects of microstructure In order to test characteristics of the scale effects of microstructure, models of simply supported laminated cross-ply beam are adopted. The sizes of the beam model are width b = 25 μm, thickness h = 25 μm, length L = 200 μm. Cylindrical bending load is q 0 = 1 N mm. The material constants [23] : E 2 = 6.98 GPa, E 1 = 25 E 2 , G 12 = 0.5 E 2 , G 22 = 0.25 E 2 , ν 12 = ν 22 = 0.25, in which subscripts 1 and 2 represent the direction of fiber and matrix, respectively. We choose the next two types of cross-ply laminated beam with three-layer as follows. The parameters of the first one [0°/90°/0°] are identical to Q ¯ 44 E 2 bh = 0.4 , Q ¯ 55 E 2 bh = 0.2 , 12 I ¯ 11 E 2 bh 3 = 2.014 , Q ¯ ¯ 44 [ 0 ° / 90 ° / 0 ° ] = (0/ 0.4/0). The parameters of second one [90°/0°/90°] are identical to Q ¯ 44 E 2 bh = 0.3 , Q ¯ 55 E 2 bh = 0.15 , 12 I ¯ 11 E 2 bh 3 = 0.158 , Q ¯ ¯ 44 [ 90 ° / 0 ° / 90 ° ] = ( 0.3 / 0 / 0.3 ) . Next, keep the thickness of the beam constant and change the material constant l to examine the scale effect. Numerical results of the deflection of the beam are given in Fig. 3 , which show that the deflection of the beam in couple stress theory is smaller than that in the classical elasticity as the material constant l increases. Numerical results of the deflection of the beam are given in Fig. 3 which show that the deflection of the beam in couple stress theory is smaller than that in the classical elasticity as the material constant l increases. Numerical results of the angle of rotation of the beam are given in Fig. 4 , which show that the angle of rotation of the beam in couple stress theory is smaller than that in the classical elasticity as the material constant l increases. Numerical results of the stress in section of the beam are given in Fig. 5 , which show that the stress in the section of the beam in couple stress theory is smaller than that in the classical elasticity as the material constant l increases. 5.2.2 Numerical examples to compare Euler–Bernoulli and Timoshenko beam couple stress theories for microstructures In order to compare Euler–Bernoulli and Timoshenko beam couple stress theories for microstructures, aforementioned models of simply supported laminated cross-ply beam are adopted. However, various sizes of the beam are chosen firstly as length L = 200 μm and thickness h = 25 μm, and secondly for a slender beam with a large aspect ratio, length L = 2000 μm and thickness h = 25 μm. We choose the cross-ply laminated beam with three-layer of [0°/90°/0°] and [90°/0°/90°], respectively, change the material constant as l = (0, h /2, h ), respectively, to examine the scale effect. Numerical results of the deflection of the beam are given in Figs. 6 and 7 which show that the deference of the Timoshenko beam in couple stress theory is less than Euler–Bernoulli beam of couple stress theory for Medium thickness beam with h / L = 0.125 and for thin beam with h / L = 0.0125 under the material constant l as the same. Numerical results of the stress in section of the beam are given in Figs. 8 and 9 , which show that the stress σ x of the Timoshenko beam in couple stress theory is smaller than Euler–Bernoulli beam of couple stress theory for Medium thickness beam with h / L = 0.125 and for thin beam with h / L = 0.0125 under the material constant l as the same. 6 Conclusion A new model for composite laminated beam with first order shear deformation on the couple stress theory is developed. The characteristics of the couple stress theory are the use of rotation–displacement as dependent variables and the use of only one constant to describe the material’s micro-structural characteristics. By introducing the hypothesis of the cross-section of beam, the governing equations of the composite laminated beam of couple stress theory are established by the principle of virtual work. In order to avoid distortion and warping of beam section under pure bending, the fiber orientation of the composite laminated beam should be orthogonal. The present model of beam can be viewed as a simplified couple stress theory in engineering mechanics. A cross-ply simply supported beam subjected to cylindrical bending loads of f w = q 0 sin ( πx / L ) is solved by directly applying the newly developed beam model. Numerical results show that the present beam model can capture the scale effects of microstructure. The deflections and stresses of the present model of beam of couple stress theory are always smaller than that by the classical beam model. Additionally, the present model can be reduced directly to the classical composite laminated Timoshenko beam, Isotropic Timoshenko beam of couple stress theory, classical isotropic Timoshenko beam, composite laminated Bernoulli–Euler beam of couple stress theory and isotropic Bernoulli–Euler beam of couple stress theory. Conflict of interest None declare. Acknowledgement The work in this paper was supported by the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (No. 11072156 ). This support is gratefully acknowledged. References [1] N.A. Fleck G.M. Muller M.F. Ashby J.W. Ashby Strain gradient plasticity: theory and experiment Acta Metall Mater 42 2 1994 475 487 [2] J.S. Stolken A.G. Evans A microbend test method for measuring the plasticity length-scale Acta Mater 46 14 1998 5109 5115 [3] Z.H. Sun X.X. Wang A.K. Soh H.A. Wu Y. Wang Bending of nanoscale structures: Inconsistency between atomistic simulation and strain gradient elasticity solution Comput Mater Sci 40 1 2007 108 113 [4] R.A. Toupin Elastic materials with couple-stresses Arch Rational Mech Anal 11 1962 385 414 [5] W.T. Koiter Couple stresses in the theory of elasticity I & II Proc K Ned Akad Wet (B) 67 1964 17 44 [6] R.D. Mindlin Microstructure in linear elasticity Arch Rational Mech Anal 16 1964 51 78 [7] E.C. Aifantis On the microstructural origin of certain inelastic models Trans ASME J Eng Mater Tech 106 1984 326 330 [8] N.A. Fleck J.W. Hutchinson A phenomenological theory for strain gradient effects in plasticity J Mech Phys Solids 41 1993 1825 1857 [9] N.A. Fleck J.W. Hutchinson Strain gradient plasticity Adv Appl Mech 33 1997 295 361 [10] H. Gao Y. Huang W.D. Nix J.W. Hutchinson Mechanism-based strain gradient plasticity – I. Theory J Mech Phys Solids 47 1999 1239 1263 [11] F. Yang A.M. Chong D.C.C. Lam P. Tong Couple stress based strain gradient theory of elasticity Int J Solids Struct 39 2002 2731 2743 [12] A. Anthoine Effect of couple-stresses on the elastic bending of beams Int J Solids Struct 37 2000 1003 1018 [13] S. Papargyri-Beskou K.G. Tsepoura D. Polyzos D.E. Beskos Bending and stability analysis of gradient elastic beams Int J Solids Struct 40 2003 385 400 [14] J. Peddieson G.R. Buchanan R.P. McNitt Application of nonlocal continuum models to nanotechnology Int J Eng Sci 41 2003 305 312 [15] A.C. Eringen On differential equations of nonlocal elasticity and solutions of screw dislocation and surface waves J Appl Phys 54 1983 4703 4710 [16] J. Altenbach H. Altenbach V.A. Eremeyev On generalized Cosserat-type theories of plates and shells: a short review and bibliography Arch Appl Mech 80 2010 73 92 [17] S.K. Park X.L. Gao Bernoulli–Euler beam model based on a modified couple stress theory J Micromech Microeng 16 2006 2355 2359 [18] H.M. Ma X.L. Gao J.N. Reddy A microstructure-dependent Timoshenko beam model based on a modified couple stress theory J Mech Phys Solids 56 2008 3379 3391 [19] G.C. Tsiatas A new Kirchhoff plate model based on a modified couple stress theory Int J Solids Struct 46 2009 2757 2764 [20] Aydogdu Metin A general nonlocal beam theory: its application to nanobeam bending, buckling and vibration Phys E: Low-Dimens Syst Nanostruct 41 9 2009 1651 1655 [21] H.M. Ma X.L. Gao J.N. Reddy A nonclassical Reddy–Levinson beam model based on a modified couple stress theory Int J Multi-Scale Computat Eng 8 2 2010 167 180 [22] J.N. Reddy a simply higher-order theory for laminated composite plates J Appl Mech 51 12 1984 745 752 [23] N.J. Pagano Exact solutions for rectangular bi-directional composites J Compos Mater 4 1970 20 34