Meccanica
DOI 10.1007/s11012-017-0760-8
Bending of circular nanoplates with consideration of surface
effects
Ying Yang . Jiaqi Zou . Kang Yong Lee . Xian-Fang Li
Received: 25 March 2017 / Accepted: 6 September 2017
 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017
Abstract Surface effects play a significant role in
affecting mechanical properties of micro- and nano-
sized materials and structures. This paper studies the
bending of nanoplates with consideration of surface
effects. Surface effects including surface elasticity and
surface residual stress are incorporated into the
conventional Kirchhoff theory of thin plates. Two
typical cases including a concentrated force at the
plate center and uniformly distributed loading over a
plate surface are analyzed. Explicit expressions for the
deflection of simply supported and clamped circular
nanoplates are obtained. Bending moments at the plate
center exhibit logarithmic singularity for a concen-
trated force at the center. When ignoring the surface
effects, the classical deflections of circular thin plates
are recovered. A comparison of the deflections with
and without the surface effects clarifies a significant
influence of surface effects on the bending behaviors
of nanoplates. Surface effects diminish the bending
moments and enhance the load-carrying capacity of a
nanoplate. Singularity of elastic fields at the plate
Y. Yang  J. Zou  X.-F. Li (&)
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University,
Changsha 410075, People’s Republic of China
e-mail: xfli@csu.edu.cn
K. Y. Lee  X.-F. Li
State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis for Industrial
Equipment and Department of Engineering Mechanics,
Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024,
People’s Republic of China
center is discussed. The obtained results provide
helpful guidelines for design and application of
graphene and other microscopic structures.
Keywords Surface effect  Bending  Circular
nanoplate  Singularity
1 Introduction
A monolayer graphene [1] is a two-dimensional
honeycomb lattice structure in which each carbon
atom forms bonds with three other carbon atoms. Such
materials have superior mechanical, physical, and
electronic properties [2, 3]. They have exceptionally
high stiffness reaching as much as 1 TPa and strength
reaching as much as 130 GPa [4]. Furthermore, with
the development of nanotechnology, a growing num-
ber of nano-structured materials are widely used in
micro/nano-electromechanical systems as sensor and
actuator devices, etc.[5, 6].
Considerable challenges are awaited to be over-
come to integrate graphene-based applications into
commercial devices [7]. In order to optimize the
design and utilization of graphene devices and struc-
tures, it is necessary to investigate their major
mechanical characteristics thoroughly. Monolayer
graphene is so flexible that its bending behavior is
important for its thermal and mechanical properties
[2]. Berinskii [8] proposed a discrete mechanical
123

model of monolayer graphene and gave an analytical
dependence of the monolayer graphene bending
stiffness on the experimental microscale interaction
parameters. Moreover, the effects of rippling on the
effective bending stiffness of a monolayer graphene
were theoretically studied [9]. Besides modeling
predictions, pertinent experiments have also been
reported on the bending and deformation of graphene
under external loading [10]. Although discrete atoms
of a single-layered graphene essentially form a lattice
structure, some continuum mechanics approaches
have been proposed to treat mechanical behavior of
graphene according to homogenization analysis.
For structures with submicron sizes, due to
increasing of specific surface area, surface energy
and surface elasticity are likely to be significant and
considerably modify macroscopic mechanical prop-
erties [11]. In principle, the surface of a solid has
negligible thickness that has its own atom arrange-
ment and property different from bulk [12, 13]. This
characteristic is particularly pronounced for nano-
structures with large specific surface area [14, 15].
Some scale-dependent mechanical properties
observed in experiment can be explained well
according to the surface effects [16–18]. To investi-
gate the surface effects on nanostructures including
graphene, much theoretical and experimental work
along with numerical simulation has been done in
recent years [19]. To capture the surface effects,
Gurtin and Murdoch [20, 21] formulated a continuum
theory by modeling the surface as a two-dimensional
zero-thickness membrane with different material
properties adhering to and surrounding a bulk mate-
rial without slipping. Within the framework of
Gurtin-Murdoch (GM) surface elasticity theory, for
a rectangular thin nanoplate, Lu et al. [22] derived a
basic system of thin plate theory considering the
presence of surface effects. Furthermore, Shaat et al.
[23] analyzed surface effects in the bending analysis
of functionally graded Mindlin plates. Zhou and
Huang [24] used a combined method of molecular
statics and ab initio calculations to address the issue
of surface softening versus stiffening during elastic
deformation. They demonstrated that a solid surface
could be either elastically softer or stiffer than the
corresponding bulk, depending on the competition
between electron redistribution and atomic coordina-
tion on the surface.
123
Meccanica
In this paper, transverse bending of a circular
nanoplate with the surface effects is studied. This
paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we adopt
the Kirchhoff thin plate theory incorporating the
surface effects to establish a governing partial
differential equation for circular nanoplates. Sec-
tion 3 is devoted to two typical cases, a centrally-
and a uniformly-loaded circular nanoplate. With the
help of the Bessel functions, the closed-form ex-
pression for deflection along with its maximum is
given for simply-supported and clamped boundaries.
Then numerical results of the deflection and the
load-deflection response are given, and the influ-
ences of surface elasticity and surface residual stress
on the deflection are discussed in Sect. 4. Finally,
conclusions are drawn. The numerical studies in the
present article may offer useful connections between
scientific research and engineering applications,
therefore help to optimize the design and utilization
of graphene potential applications like nano sensors
and other nanodevices.
2 Basic equations
Figure 1 shows a circular multi-layered graphene
structure, which is modelled as a thin elastic
nanoplate. Since graphene has great specific surface
area, the surface effects must be taken into account.
This characteristic of nanoscale plates is different
from that of macroscale plates. For this reason, we
adopt linear theory of the GM surface elasticity theory
to analyze the mechanical behavior of graphenes,
where the conventional bulk elasticity must be
fulfilled in the plate interior, and the surface elasticity
must be satisfied at the top and bottom surfaces. The
constitutive relations read
Fig. 1 Schematic of a circular nanoplate
Meccanica

 
rij ¼ kekk dij þ 2leij ; ð1Þ o2 w
rrr ¼ z kr2 w þ 2l 2 ; ð5Þ
or
for bulk material, where k and l are Lame constants,
dij the Kronecker delta, rij the stress components, eij  
  2 o2 w
the strain components, eij ¼ 0:5 ui;j þ uj;i , and uj the rhh ¼ z ðk þ 2lÞr w  2l 2 ; ð6Þ
or
displacement components. A comma in subscript
 
denotes differentiation with respect to the coordinate o ow
following. The convention that repeated indices imply srh ¼ 2lz : ð7Þ
or roh
summation is understood unless otherwise noted.
Based on the GM surface elasticity theory, surface is Since the displacement at the surface takes same value
approximated to a mathematical zero thickness mem- as that for the bulk at the same local location, using the
brane with different material properties from the constitutive relations (2) and (3) for the plate surface
corresponding bulk which is completely conjoined material, we have the following stress components
with the membrane and for surface materials, the  
S h  S  2  S  o2 w
constitutive relations read [20, 25] rrr ¼ r0  k þ r0 r w þ 2l  r0 ;
2 or 2
   
rSab ¼ r0 dab þ kS þ r0 eScc dab þ 2 lS  r0 eSab þ r0 uSa;b ; ð8Þ
ð2Þ  
h  S  2  S  o2 w
rShh ¼ r0  S
k þ 2l r w  2l  r0 ;
rSaz ¼ r0 uSz;a ; ð3Þ 2 or 2
ð9Þ
where r0 is the surface residual tension under uncon-
strained conditions, kS and lS is the surface Lame ow ow
constants independent of the surface residual tension, rSrz ¼ rSzr ¼ r0; rShz ¼ rSzh ¼ r0 ; ð10Þ
or roh
a quantity with the superscript S denotes the one for the  
surface material. In the above, Latin subscripts S S h S  o ow
rrh ¼ rhr ¼  2l  r0 ; ð11Þ
i, j, k take values from 1 to 3, and Greek subscripts 2 or roh
a; b; c range from 1 to 2. It is noted that the last term in
where
(2) implies that the surface stress components exhibit a
nonsymmetric characteristic, and the other terms in (2) o2 o o2
except the last term are symmetric. r2 ¼ þ þ ð12Þ
or 2 ror r 2 oh2
For a circular nanoplate of radius R and thickness h,
choose a cylindrical coordinate system ðr; h; zÞ such is two-dimensional Laplacian operator, and the sign
that the origin is located at the circular plate center (see ‘‘;’’ takes ‘‘-’’ for the top surface, and ‘‘þ’’ for the
Fig. 1b). The top and bottom surfaces are respectively bottom surface, respectively.
denoted as Sþ and S . For a thin plate with surface Next, we invoke the equilibrium equations
effects, within the framework of the Kirchhoff plate oMrr oMhr Mrr  Mhh
þ þ  Qr ¼ 0; ð13Þ
theory there only exists a unique independent dis- or roh r
placement component wðr; hÞ at the midplane,
whereas other two displacement components are oMrh oMhh 2Mrh
þ þ  Qh ¼ 0; ð14Þ
related to w through the following relations or roh r
ow ow oQr oQh Qr
ur ¼ z ; uh ¼ z : ð4Þ þ þ þ q ¼ 0; ð15Þ
or roh or roh r
With these displacement components in (4), from the where in addition to applied distributed loading,
above constitutive relation (1) for the plate interior q includes the surface residual stress r0 -induced
material, we obtain the stress components as follows distributed loading q0 over each surface. For a thin
plate, the stress component rzz are small which is
always neglected in the classical thin plate theory.

123
 Meccanica

However, to satisfy the equilibrium equation on the o 2

Qr ¼ ðD1 þ D2 Þ r w; ð24Þ
surface layer in the GM theory the assumption will not or
be neglected. With the assumption, rzz can be directly
obtained according to the generalized Young-Laplace o 2
Qh ¼ ðD1 þ D2 Þ r w: ð25Þ
equation roh
 When inserting the above expressions for the bending
jab rSab ¼ rij ni nj ; ð16Þ
moments and shear forces into (15), we find that
where jab denotes the curvature of surface, nj is the Eq. (15) becomes
outward unit normal vector of the surface, and
 Dr2 r2 w  2r0 r2 w ¼ q; ð26Þ
rij ni nj is the jump of stress across the surface.
For the present study, when substituting the surface with
stresses (8) into the above generalized Young-Laplace
ðk þ 2lÞh3 h2  S 
equation, we find that the surface residual stress r0 - D¼ þ k þ 2lS
induced distributed loading q0 over each surface is 12 2
given by Eh3 E S h2
¼ þ h i; ð27Þ
 S 
12ð1  m2 Þ 2 1  ðmS Þ2
orrz orShz rSrz

q0 ¼ þ þ ¼ r0 r2 w ð17Þ
or roh r
z¼h=2 where the surface residual tension r0 -induced dis-
tributed loading (17) has been taken into account. In
For convenience, we assume that surface properties at  
2
the top and bottom surfaces are identical. Thus, if the above, k ¼ Em=ð1  m2 Þ; kS ¼ ES mS = 1  ðmS Þ ;
defining bending moment per unit length at radius r by l ¼ E=2ð1 þ mÞ and lS ¼ ES =2ð1 þ mS Þ are used,
the following integral where EðES Þ and mðmS Þ denote Young’s modulus and
Z h=2 Poisson’s ratio of bulk (surface) material, respectively.
Mab ¼ zrab dz þ hrSab ; ð18Þ From (27) we find that the bending stiffness is
h=2 decomposed two parts, one corresponding to the
we easily find classical one and the other one arising from the
surface elasticity. When neglecting contribution of the
o2 w ð19Þ
surface elasticity, the bending stiffness reduces to the
Mrr ¼ D1 r2 w  D2 ;
or 2 well-known bending stiffness. However, the surface
residual stress still affect bending behavior but not
o2 w ð20Þ bending stiffness. Therefore, not only the surface
Mhh ¼ ðD1 þ D2 Þr2 w þ D2 ;
or 2 elasticity but also the surface residual stress play a
  crucial role in influencing the deflection of a
o 1 ow
Mhr ¼ Mrh ¼ D2 ; ð21Þ nanoplate.
or r oh As a check, if setting surface residual tension to
where zero and surface elasticity to nil, we find that the
above-derived results reduce to the well-known ones
kh3 h2  S  for the Kirchhoff theory of classical thin plates. It is
D1 ¼ þ k þ r0 ; ð22Þ
12 2 noted that for a plate on elastic foundation of stiffness
modulus k, the nonhomogeneous term q should
lh3 h2  S 
D2 ¼ þ 2l  r0 : ð23Þ include an elastic reaction from elastic foundation,
6 2 i.e. q ¼ kw; for vibration problems, q should include
In addition, using (13) and (14), the shear forces take an inertia force, i.e. q ¼ ðqh þ 2qS Þo2 w=ot2 , where
the following form q and qS are the mass density of the plates and surface
mass density, respectively.

123
Meccanica

3 Static bending p 1n
W ðqÞ ¼  ln q þ C1 ½I0 ðbqÞ  I0 ðbÞ
b2 b2
In the preceding section, the governing equation (26) o
for a circular nanoplate has been derived in the þ C2 ½K0 ðbqÞ  K0 ðbÞ ; ð31Þ
presence of surface effects. In this section, we focus
where C1 and C2 are unknown constants, In ðÞ and
our attention on mechanical behavior of bending of a
Kn ðÞ are the n-th order Bessel functions of imaginary
circular nanoplate with simply supported and clamped
argument of the first kind and the second kind,
boundary conditions. For simply supported boundary,
respectively. In deriving the above expression for the
to guarantee the induced residual strain in the
deflection, we have used the condition wðRÞ ¼ 0 for
nanoplate vanishes, it is still assumed that the
both simply supported and clamped edge.
graphene has in-plane immovable edge [26]. In this
Recalling the properties of the Bessel functions [27]
case, both surface elasticity reflected by ES and mS (or
kS and lS ) and surface residual tension through r0 dI0 ðbqÞ dK0 ðbqÞ
¼ bI1 ðbqÞ; ¼ bK1 ðbqÞ; ð32Þ
affect the mechanical behavior of a nanoplate. In the dq dq
following, for simplicity, axisymmetric loading is
dI1 ðbqÞ I1 ðbqÞ
applied at the nanoplate surface. Consider two typical ¼ bI0 ðbqÞ  ;
cases: one being a concentrated force at the nanoplate dq q
center and the other being a uniformly distributed dK1 ðbqÞ K1 ðbqÞ
¼ bK0 ðbqÞ  ; ð33Þ
force over the whole surface. dq q
one has the slope of deflection
3.1 Concentrated force
dW p 1
¼  2 þ ½C1 I1 ðbqÞ  C2 K1 ðbqÞ; ð34Þ
First we consider the case of a concentrated force dq bq b
F loaded at the nanoplate centre. Usually, surface
and bending moment
residual tension r0 is positive, and introducing the

following dimensionless variables Dp D2
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Mrr ¼  2 þ ½C1 I0 ðbqÞ þ C2 K0 ðbqÞ
R Db2 q2
r 2r0 R2 FR wðRqÞ 
q¼ ; b¼ ; p¼ ; W ðqÞ ¼ D2
R D 2pD R  ½C1 I1 ðbqÞ  C2 K1 ðbqÞ : ð35Þ
ð28Þ Db

in this case the governing equation (26) becomes At the circular nanoplate center q ¼ 0, we require that
      the deflection takes a finite value. In the light of the
1 d d 1 d dW 21 d dW well-known results [27]
q q b q
q dq dq q dq dq q dq dq q  
K0 ðqÞ ¼ c  ln þ O q2 ; lim qK1 ðqÞ ¼ 1; I1 ð0Þ ¼ 0;
dðqÞ 2 q!0
¼p ; ð29Þ
q ð36Þ

where d denotes the Dirac delta function. where c is the Euler–Mascheroni constant, we obtain
Integrating both sides of (29) twice leads to C2 ¼ p and the deflection and its slope can be given
by (31) and (34), respectively.
d 2 W dW
þ  b2 W ¼ p ln q þ C ; ð30Þ The remaining constant C1 can be determined
dq2 qdq through the boundary condition at the rim q ¼ 1. To
where C  is an integration constant. This is a second- this end, we have the following boundary condition
order nonhomogeneous Bessel ordinary differential dW
equation. Its solution consists of a particular solution ¼ 0; q ¼ 1; ð37Þ
dq
and a general solution of the corresponding homoge-
neous equation. Thus a general expression for the for a clamped nanoplate, and
transverse deflection can be written
Mrr ¼ 0; q ¼ 1; ð38Þ

123
 Meccanica

p 
for a simply supported nanoplate, respectively. Mrr ¼  m0 ðbÞ þ m1 ðbÞ ln q þ m2 ðbÞq2 ln q
If the periphery of the circular nanoplate is clamped R2 b2
at r ¼ R, bearing C2 ¼ p in mind and applying (34) þm3 ðbÞq2 þ Oðq3 Þ ð45Þ
to the condition (37) we can determine
where mi ðbÞ denotes known functions depending on b;
C1 ¼ pH; ð39Þ the expressions for which are omitted. The circum-
ferential bending moment (44) has an analogous
with expression. So the bending moments have only
1  bK1 ðbÞ logarithmic singularity, not q2 singularity.
H¼ : ð40Þ On the other hand, if the periphery of the circular
bI1 ðbÞ
nanoplate is simply-supported, applying (35) to the
Then we get the expression for the deflection below boundary condition (38) and remembering C2 ¼ p
p one still gets (39) but with the following H :
W ðqÞ ¼  fln q  H ½I0 ðbqÞ  I0 ðbÞ
b2 b½DbK0 ðbÞ þ D2 K1 ðbÞ  D2
o H¼ : ð46Þ
þ K0 ðbqÞ  K0 ðbÞ : ð41Þ b½DbI0 ðbÞ  D2 I1 ðbÞ
With this in mind, the dimensionless deflection along
It is plausible for the deflection not to be defined at the
its maximum and the bending moments have the same
nanoplate center due to the presence of logarithmic
expressions as Eqs. (41) and (42) derived above. Sole
term. Nevertheless, taking account of the asymptotic
difference is H taking (46) for simply-supported
expression (36) for K0 ð xÞ, one finds that the maximum
nanoplates in place of (40) for clamped nanoplates.
deflection is finite and takes
Although surface stress r0 is positive for most
 
p b cases, a negative r0 is still possible for some special
Wmax ¼ 2 H ½1  I0 ðbÞ þ K0 ðbÞ þ c þ ln crystalline directions of a solid based on atomic
b 2
simulations (see e.g. [28]). When r0 takes a negative
ð42Þ
constant, the governing equation (29) becomes
Moreover, from (19) and (20), after some manipula-      
1 d d 1 d dW 21 d dW dðqÞ
tions we obtain the tangential and radial bending q q þb q ¼p ;
q dq dq q dq dq q dq dq q
moments acting along circumferential and diametral
ð47Þ
sections of the nanoplate, respectively, below
   where
p D2 D2
Mrr ¼  þ Hb DbI0 ðbqÞ  I1 ðbqÞ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
R2 b2 q2 q 2jr0 jR2
  b¼ : ð48Þ
D2 D
b DbK0 ðbqÞ þ K1 ðbqÞ ; ð43Þ
q Omitting the details of derivation, the dimensionless
   deflection is found to take the following form
p D2 D2
Mhh ¼ þ Hb D1 bI0 ðbqÞ þ I1 ðbqÞ p
R2 b2 q2 q W¼ fln q þ H ½J0 ðbqÞ  J0 ðbÞ
  b2
D2
b D1 bK0 ðbqÞ  K1 ðbqÞ : ð44Þ p
q  ½Y0 ðbqÞ  Y0 ðbÞg; ð49Þ
2
From the above, the tangential and radial bending
with its maximal deflection
moments exhibit a singular behavior at the concen-
 
trated loading position. With the aid of the asymptotic p p b
Wmax ¼ 2 Y0 ðbÞ  ln  c þ H ½1  J0 ðbÞ
expressions given in Appendix 1 we get the following b 2 2
behavior for (43) as q approaches to 0 ð50Þ
where Jn ðÞ and Yn ðÞ are the n-th order Bessel
functions of the first and second kinds, respectively,

123
Meccanica

2 þ pbY1 ðbÞ p   1n o
H¼ ; ð51Þ W¼ 2
1  q2 þ 2 C1 ln q þ C2 ½I0 ðbqÞ  I0 ðbÞ ;
2bJ1 ðbÞ 4b b
ð59Þ
for a clamped circular nanoplate, and
where C1 and C2 are unknown constants, and in
pb½DbY0 ðbÞ  D2 Y1 ðbÞ  2D2
H¼ ; ð52Þ deriving the above expression (59), vanishing deflec-
2b½DbJ0 ðbÞ  D2 J1 ðbÞ tion at the ring support r ¼ R ðq ¼ 1Þ has been used.
for a simply-supported circular nanoplate. Performing the derivative of the deflection we have
 
dW pq 1 C1
3.2 Uniform loading ¼ 2þ 2 þ C2 bI1 ðbqÞ : ð60Þ
dq 2b b q
For uniformly distributed loading q over the entire At the circular nanoplate center q ¼ 0, we require that
surface of a circular nanoplate, we introduce the the deflection takes a finite value, which gives C1 ¼ 0:
dimensionless variables given in (28) but the param- This may be interpreted by the fact that the deflection
eter p should be replaced by is smooth at the nanoplate center q ¼ 0. Thus the
remaining a constant C2 in (59) can be determined
qR3
p¼ : ð53Þ through the boundary condition at the rim r ¼ R
D ðq ¼ 1Þ. To this end the associated bending moment
For this case the governing equation (26) becomes expressed by
      
1 d d 1 d dW 1 d dW p I1 ðbqÞ
q q  b2 q ¼ p: Mrr ¼ ðD þ D1 Þ  C2 DI0 ðbqÞ þ C2 D2
q dq dq q dq dq q dq dq 2b2 q
ð54Þ ð61Þ
By introducing If the circular nanoplate rim is clamped, the boundary
  condition is stated as dW=dq ¼ 0 at q ¼ 1: Through
1 d dW
U¼ q ; ð55Þ simple calculation, C2 is easily determined from (60)
q dq dq
and it together with C1 ¼ 0 is inserted back into (59),
one has yielding the expression for the deflection
Z  Z   
1 p 2 2 I0 ðbqÞ  I0 ðbÞ
W¼ qUðqÞdq dq þ C1 ln q þ C2 ; ð56Þ W ¼ 2 1q þ : ð62Þ
q 4b b I1 ðbÞ

where C1 and C2 are integration constants. Equa- In particular, at the nanoplate center q ¼ 0, the
tion (54) is rewritten as maximum deflection takes
 
d 2 U 1 dU p 2 1  I0 ðbÞ
þ  b2 U ¼ p: ð57Þ Wmax ¼ 2 1 þ : ð63Þ
dq2 q dq 4b b I1 ðbÞ

With the aid of a standard theory of Bessel equations, a For practical cases, b often takes lower values, and so
general solution to Eq. (57) without singularity at the for b\\1 expanding the functions Ij ðbÞ as a power
nanoplate center reads series in b (see Appendix 1) we have an approximate
p maximum deflection as
U¼ þ C I0 ðbqÞ; ð58Þ  
b2 p 5b2 11b4  
Wmax ¼ 1 þ  O b6 : ð64Þ
where C  is a constant. Now plugging the result (58) 64 72 2304
into (56) leads to the dimensionless deflection as In addition, inserting (62) into (19) and (20), we obtain
follows: the expression for the tangential and radial bending
moments below

123
 Meccanica

   
p qDbI0 ðbqÞ  D2 I1 ðbqÞ p 2 2ðD þ D1 Þ J0 ðbqÞ  J0 ðbÞ
Mrr ¼   ðD þ D1 Þ ; W¼ q  1 þ ;
2b2 R2 qI1 ðbÞ 4b2 b DbJ0 ðbÞ  D2 J1 ðbÞ
ð65Þ ð73Þ
 
p qD1 bI0 ðbqÞ þ D2 I1 ðbqÞ and the dimensionless maximum deflection
Mhh ¼   ð D þ D Þ
1 :
2b2 R2 qI1 ðbÞ  
p 2ðD þ D1 Þ 1  J0 ðbÞ
ð66Þ Wmax ¼ 2 1 þ :
4b b DbJ0 ðbÞ  D2 J1 ðbÞ
If the circular nanoplate rim is simply supported, the ð74Þ
boundary condition reads Mrr ¼ 0 at q ¼ 1. Using
(61) for the bending moment leads to for simply supported nanoplates and
 
pðD þ D1 Þ p 2 J0 ðbqÞ  J0 ðbÞ
C2 ¼ : ð67Þ W ¼ 2 q2  1 þ ; ð75Þ
2b½DbI0 ðbÞ  D2 I1 ðbÞ 4b b J1 ðbÞ

which together with C1 ¼ 0 is inserted into (59), and its maximum

yielding  
p 2 1  J0 ðbÞ
  Wmax ¼ 2 1 þ ð76Þ
p 2ðD þ D1 Þ I0 ðbqÞ  I0 ðbÞ 4b b J1 ðbÞ
W ¼ 2 1  q2 þ :
4b b DbI0 ðbÞ  D2 I1 ðbÞ for edge clamped nanoplates, respectively.
ð68Þ
The above deflection also gives the maximum deflec-
4 Results and discussion
tion at the nanoplate center q ¼ 0, namely
 
p 2ð D þ D 1 Þ 1  I0 ðbÞ In this section, two special examples are given for a
Wmax ¼ 2 1 þ : nanoplate, respectively. Numerical calculations are
4b b DbI0 ðbÞ  D2 I1 ðbÞ
carried out to show the influences of the surface effects
ð69Þ
including surface residual stress and surface elasticity
For sufficiently small values of b, we similarly have an on the deflection of a circular nanoplate.
approximate maximum deflection as
" # 4.1 Limit case
p 6D  D2 ½152D2  5D2 ð10D  D2 Þb2  4
Wmax ¼  þO b :
64 2D  D2 72ð2D  D2 Þ2 Prior to the presentation of numerical results, let us
ð70Þ examine some degenerated cases. That is, consider the
limit case of negligible b values, which is equivalent to
In particular, from (19) and (20), in this case we have
the absence of surface residual tension. Thus, r0
the bending moments
should be zero or sufficiently small, and then in the
 
p D þ D1 qDbI0 ðbqÞ  D2 I1 ðbqÞ equilibrium equation (26), the last two terms related to
Mrr ¼  2 1 :
2b R2 q½DbI0 ðbÞ  D2 I1 ðbÞ r0 can be removed. Note that in light of kS and lS ,
ð71Þ surface elasticity still affects mechanical behavior of
nanoplates, although surface residual tension is absent.
 
p D þ D1 qD1 bI0 ðbqÞ þ D2 I1 ðbqÞ Therefore, only if setting r0 ¼ 0 in Eq. (26), we can
Mhh ¼ 2 1 : get the governing equation as follows
2b R2 q½DbI0 ðbÞ  D2 I1 ðbÞ
ð72Þ Dr2 r2 w ¼ q; ð77Þ
Also, when r0 takes a negative constant and two which in form is identical to the classical governing
boundary conditions of simply-supported and clamped equation. It should be mentioned that the bending
rims can be treated in an analogous manner. Omitting stiffness D in (27) contains the contribution of surface
the procedure, finally we have elasticity. When the surface Lame constants kS ! 0

123
Meccanica

and lS ! 0, the classical bending stiffness is recov- pð 1  q 2 Þ     

ered from the present. W¼ 2D 3  q2  D2 1  q2 ;
64ð2D  D2 Þ
Now let us set r0 ! 0, meaning b ! 0, in the ð83Þ
derived results. Here focus is placed on the analysis of
the case of r0 [ 0 and r0 ! 0, the case of r0 ! 0 is which in the absence of surface elasticity reduces to
analogous and omitted. To reduce the deflection in the  
p 4 2ð 3 þ m Þ 2 5 þ m
absence of r0 , using asymptotic expressions for In ðbÞ W¼ q  q þ : ð84Þ
and Kn ðbÞðn ¼ 0; 1Þ (see Appendix 1), from (41) and 64 1þm 1þm
(46) we get the limit

 
1 b½DbK0 ðbÞ þ D2 K1 ðbÞ  D2
lim ln q  ½ I 0 ð bqÞ  I 0 ð bÞ  þ K 0 ð bqÞ  K 0 ð bÞ
b!0 b2 b½DbI0 ðbÞ  D2 I1 ðbÞ
  ð78Þ
1 4D  D2  
¼ 1  q2 þ 2q2 ln q :
8 2D  D2

It then indicates that the transverse deflection (41) of a When clamped boundary is instead of simply sup-
simply supported plate takes ported boundary, we have the deflection as
 
1 4D  D2   p  2
W¼ 2 2
1  q þ 2q ln q ; ð79Þ W¼ 1  q2 ð85Þ
8 2D  D2 64

which in the absence of the surface elasticity becomes
 
p 2 3þm  2

W ¼ q ln q þ 1q ;
4 2ð 1 þ m Þ
with its maximum deflection at the nanoplate center
q ¼ 0, Wmax ¼ ð3 þ mÞp=8ð1 þ mÞ; in exact agreement
with the classical counterparts for a thin plate
subjected to a concentrated loading [29].
As for clamped boundary conditions, from (41) and
(40), taking account of the following limit
for a clamped nanoplate, in exact agreement with the
well-known result when neglecting surface elasticity
[29], as expected.
ð80Þ
4.2 Influence of surface properties
In the following, numerical computations are carried
out to examine the influences of surface residual stress
and surface elasticity on the deflection of a circular
nanoplate subjected to applied loading. It is assumed
that a circular nanoplate has a Young’s modulus of 1.0

 
1 1  bK1 ðbÞ 1 
lim 2 ln q  ½I0 ðbqÞ  I0 ðbÞ þ K0 ðbqÞ  K0 ðbÞ ¼  2q2 ln q  q2 þ 1 ; ð81Þ
b!0 b bI1 ðbÞ 8

one finds that the deflection in this case reduces to TPa and Poisson’s ratio m ¼ mS ¼ 0:186; and thickness
  h ¼ 0:335nm unless otherwise stated. Surface mate-
p 2 1 2

W ¼ q ln q þ 1  q ; ð82Þ rial properties ES ¼ 35:3N/m, r0 ¼ 0:31N/m [30] are
4 2
selected.
coinciding with the classical result [29] if neglecting From (27), the effective bending stiffness is
surface elasticity. clearly affected by surface properties. For a
For uniformly-distributed loading, setting b ! 0 nanoplate, the ratio of effective bending stiffness
from Eq. (68) we easily obtain the dimensionless D to its classical counterpart D0 with the variation of
deflection of a simply-supported nanoplate the plate thickness is plotted in Fig. 2. From Fig. 2 one
views that the influence of surface properties on the

123
 Meccanica

10
Es/E=1×10 m
−9 if the ratio ES =E is about of 109 m order and of
9 Es/E=1×10 m
−8
micrometer order if ES =E is about of 106 m. For
8 example, size-dependent properties of microcan-
7
tilevers have been observed in experiment [31, 32].
Now we focus on the static bending of a nanoplate
6
subjected to a concentrated force F at the plate centre.
D/Do

5
The circular nanoplate is simply supported or clamped
4 with different R / h values. The deflection curves are
3 presented in Fig. 3a, b when F=ðpR2 EÞ ¼ 1  106
2 for a simply supported and clamped nanoplate,
1
respectively. From Fig. 3a, b, it is seen that a positive
surface residual tension leads to a smaller deflection,
0
−8 −7 −6
10 10 10 and a negative one causes the deflection to be larger.
h This is readily understood since a positive r0 has a
Fig. 2 The ratio D=D0 against the plate thickness h (m)
tensioning effect, implying that a nanoplate exhibits a
stiffer elastic behavior when the surface effect is taken
bending stiffness evidently depends on ES =E and h. In into account, which is in agreement with the finding in
other words, the bending stiffness is strongly affected experiment [15]. In addition, a clamped nanoplate
by the surface effect for a plate of nanometer thickness

(a) (a)
0.25 0.1
R/h =30 R/h =30
R/h =40 R/h =40
R/h =50 R/h =50
0.2
Dimensionless deflection W

0.08
Dimensionless deflection W

0.15 0.06

no surface effects no surface effects

0.1
0.04

0.05
0.02
surface effects
surface effects

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
r/R r/R
(b) 0.1 (b)0.1
R/h =30 R/h =30
R/h =40 R/h =40
R/h =50 R/h =50
0.08 0.08
Dimensionless deflection W

Dimensionless deflection W

0.06 0.06

no surface effects

0.04 0.04
no surface effects

0.02 0.02

surface effects
surface effects
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
r/R r/R

Fig. 3 Dimensionless deflection W of a centrally-loaded Fig. 4 Dimensionless deflection W of a uniformly-loaded

nanoplate, a simply supported boundary, b clamped boundary nanoplate, a simply supported boundary, b clamped boundary

123
Meccanica

exhibits a stiffer elastic behavior than a simply boundary. Although r0 is often positive, a negative r0
supported nanoplate, as expected. Figure 3a, b also is also possible. Therefore, to clearly elucidate this
display that the influence of the surface effect becomes characteristic, dimensionless maximum deflection
grater with the R / h rising. Wmax at the plate center against the dimensionless
A similar trend can be also seen for the bending of a surface stress parameter g ¼ r0 R2 =D0 for circular thin
circular nanoplate subjected to uniformly distributed plate is shown in Fig. 5a, b with R=h ¼ 30 under the
loading, which is demonstrated in Fig. 4a, b when same loading as stated previously. From Fig. 5a, b, it
q=E ¼ 1  106 for simply supported and clamped is viewed that when a negative surface stress in
boundaries, respectively. It is mentioned that although magnitude increases to a certain critical value, the
the resultant force of uniformly distributed loading in deflection Wmax rapidly rises, which indicates the
Fig. 4a, b is the same as the concentrated force in occurrence of buckling of the circular nanoplate. This
Fig. 3a, b, the deflections in Fig. 4a, b are less than the conclusion is consistent with the prediction in [18]. In
corresponding ones in Fig. 3a, b. fact, the critical surface stress does not depend on
From the above, we see that positive and negative applied loading, but is related to boundary conditions
r0 values give rise to completely opposite trend. The and surface properties. Figure 5a, b show the trans-
former decreases the deflection and the latter increases verse deflection for g close to its critical value. Some
the deflection, irrespective of the restraint of plate’s critical values of g with the different surface elasticity
parameters c ¼ ES =Eh are calculated and listed in
Table 1.
(a) 0.4
The influence of surface elastic modulus on the
Es/Eh=−0.1
0.35
s
E /Eh=0 maximum deflection is examined in Fig. 6a, b, where
s
E /Eh=0.1
dimensionless surface elasticity parameter c ¼ ES =Eh
Dimensionless deflection Wmax

0.3
is introduced as before. It is found that the maximum
0.25 deflection decreases with c rising. That is to say, for a
0.2
clamped or simply supported circular nanoplate,
positive surface elasticity causes it to become stiffer,
0.15 and negative surface elasticity causes it to become
0.1
softer. This influence is the same as that of the surface
residual stress, but with different physical
0.05
mechanisms.
0 Another interesting investigation is the effect of
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
η Poisson’s ratio on the deflection. For simplicity,
(b) 0.2 Poisson’s ratios of the bulk and surface materials are
Es/Eh=−0.1
0.18 s
chosen as the same, i.e. m ¼ mS . Up to date, graphene
E /Eh=0
s
E /Eh=0.1 have been found to have potential auxeticity with
Dimensionless deflection Wmax

0.16
negative Poisson’s ratio [33–35]. The unusual prop-
0.14
erty of nanoplate becoming thicker perpendicular to
0.12
applied force when stretched may be given at
0.1 surrounding conditions through the introduction of
0.08 vacancy defects. Accordingly, optimal Poisson’s ratio
0.06 has aroused great interests. In fact, utilization of
0.04
auxetic materials offers wider choice in the design of
many structures. Figures 7a, b and 8a, b give a
0.02
comparison of the maximum deflection of the
0
−7 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 nanoplate with and without surface effects for varying
η
Poisson’s ratio when a concentrated load is applied at
Fig. 5 Dimensionless maximum deflection against surface the center, and uniformly-distributed loading over a
stress parameter g with R=h ¼ 30 a centrally-loaded simply surface, respectively. As shown in Figs. 7a, b and 8a,
supported nanoplate, b centrally-loaded clamped nanoplate

123
 Meccanica

Table 1 Critical surface Load Boundary condition surface elasticity parameter c

stress parameter g for
circular nanoplates -0.1 0 0.1

Centrally-loaded Simply-supported -0.7776 -1.9453 -3.1126

Clamped -2.9362 -7.3408 -11.7454
Uniformly-loaded Simply-supported -0.7781 -1.9483 -3.1155
Clamped -2.9362 -7.3408 -11.7454

(a) 0.14 (a)

0.14

0.12

max
0.12
Dimensionless deflection Wmax

Dimensionless deflection W
0.1 0.1

0.08
0.08 no surface effects
simply supported 0.06
0.06
0.04

0.04
0.02 surface effects
clamped
0.02 0

−0.02
0 −1 −0.5 0 0.5
−0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1
ν
γ (b) 0.05
(b) 0.06
0.04
Dimensionless deflection Wmax

0.05
Dimensionless deflection Wmax

no surface effects

0.03
0.04

0.02
0.03

simply supported
0.01 surface effects
0.02

0
0.01 clamped

−0.01
0 −1 −0.5 0 0.5
−0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1 ν
γ

Fig. 7 Dimensionless maximum deflection against Poisson’s

Fig. 6 Dimensionless maximum deflection against surface
elastic modulus parameter c; a centrally-loaded simply sup-
ported nanoplate and centrally-loaded clamped nanoplate,
b uniformly-loaded simply supported nanoplate and uni-
formly-loaded clamped nanoplate
b, as compared to the classical situation, the deflection
is not sensitive to Poisson’s ratio when surface effects
are considered, regardless of simply-supported or
clamped boundaries. Particularly, for a highly auxetic
nanoplate, the surface effects nearly do not alter
deflection for simply-supported boundary, and give
rise to a somewhat change in deflection for clamped
ratio for a centrally-loaded nanoplate, a simply supported
boundary, b clamped boundary
boundary. Clearly, if neglecting surface effects, the
deflection is more sensitive to Poisson’s ratio.
In order to better understand the mechanical
behavior of a nanoplate, the strength of a nanoplate
is strongly related to the moment since the stress is
linearly dependent on the moment. For this reason, we
give a comparison of the bending moment Mrr when
surface effects are present and absent, which is showed
in Figs. 9 and 10 for a centrally- and uniformly-loaded

123
Meccanica

(a) 0.05 (a) 1.2 no surface effects

surface effects
1
Dimensionless deflection Wmax

0.04

0.03
0.8
no surface effects

0.6

MrrR/F
0.02

0.4
0.01
surface effects
0.2
0

0
−0.01
−1 −0.5 0 0.5
ν −0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(b) 0.01
r/R
0.009 (b) 3
no surface effects
max

0.008 surface effects

2.5
Dimensionless deflection W

0.007
2
0.006
no surface effects
0.005 MrrR/F 1.5

0.004
1
0.003
0.5
0.002 surface effects

0.001 0

0 −0.5
−1 −0.5
ν
Fig. 8 Dimensionless maximum deflection against Poisson’s
ratio for a uniformly-loaded nanoplate, a simply supported
boundary, b clamped boundary
nanoplate. From Figs. 9 and 10, we find that consid-
eration of surface effects decreases the bending
moment and then the radial stress has a reduction. In
other words, if surface effects are considered, the
internal stress effectively drops, and the nanoplate’s
strength is enhanced. It is mentioned that when a
concentrated force is applied at the plate center,
bending moment has a logarithmic singularity at the
plate center, as shown in (45). However, for uni-
formly-loaded nanoplates, such singularity does not
occur.
5 Conclusions
In this paper, the bending of a circular nanoplate was
analyzed with consideration of surface effects. Based
on the Kirchhoff thin plate theory, the surface effects
including surface elasticity as well as surface residual
0 0.5
−1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
r/R
Fig. 9 Dimensionless bending moment distribution Mrr R=F for
a centrally-loaded nanoplate, a simply supported boundary,
b clamped boundary
stress are incorporated into the governing partial
differential equation. Expressions for the deflection of
thin circular plates have been derived for centrally-
loaded and uniformly-loaded plates, which reduce to
the well-known ones for the classical theory if the
surface effects are absent. The obtained results are
expected to provide helpful guidelines for the design
and application of nanomaterials. It should be men-
tioned that it is not so frequent nanostructures are
subjected to pure mechanical loadings. Usually,
coupled boundary conditions like thermo-electro-
magneto-elastic loading [36, 37] need be considered.
Some conclusions are drawn as follows:
• Positive or negative surface stresses may cause the
deflection to become smaller or larger as if the
nanoplate becomes stiffer or softer. A critical

123
 Meccanica

(a) 0.2 Compliance with ethical standards

no surface effects
surface effects
Conflicts of interest The authors declare that they have no
0.16 conflict of interest.

0.12
M /qR

Appendix 1
rr

0.08

The following asymptotic expressions for the zeroth-

0.04
and first-order Bessel functions of imaginary argument
are used [27]
0 b2 b4 ðA1Þ
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
I0 ðbÞ ¼ 1 þ þ þ Oðb6 Þ;
r/R 4 64
(b) 0.1
no surface effects
surface effects b b3 b5 ðA2Þ
I1 ðbÞ ¼ þ þ þ Oðb6 Þ;
0.05 2 16 384
   
b b2 b
0 K0 ðbÞ ¼  c þ ln þ 1  c  ln
2 4 2
Mrr/qR

4  
b b
−0.05
þ 3  2c  2 ln þ Oðb6 Þ; ðA3Þ
128 2
−0.1  
1 b b
K1 ðbÞ ¼ þ 1 þ 2c þ 2 ln
b 4 2
−0.15
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 3   ðA4Þ
b b
r/R þ 5 þ 4c þ 4 ln þ Oðb4 Þ:
64 2
Fig. 10 Dimensionless bending moment distribution Mrr =qR
for a uniformly-loaded nanoplate, a simply supported boundary,
b clamped boundary

negative surface stress exists, which results in References

buckling of the nanoplate.
• Positive surface elastic modulus has a trend to
enhance the stiffness of nanoplate.
• The influence of Poisson’s ratio on the deflection is
small enough for nanoplates with the surface
effects, and large for classical plates.
• The bending moments exhibit the logarithmic
singularity at the plate center for a centrally-loaded
circular nanoplate.
• Surface effects lower bending moments and
enhance the load-carrying capacity of a nanoplate.
Acknowledgements This study was funded by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11672336) and the
Open Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis
for Industrial Equipment, Dalian University of Technology,
PRC (No. GZ15204).
1. Geim AK, Novoselov KS (2007) The rise of graphene. Nat
Mater 6:183–191
2. Jiang JW, Wang BS, Wang JS et al (2015) A review on the
flexural mode of graphene: lattice dynamics, thermal con-
duction, thermal expansion, elasticity and nanomechanical
resonance. J Phys Condens Matter 27:083001
3. Wang YF, Liao JH, McBride SP et al (2015) Strong resis-
tance to bending observed for nanoparticle membranes.
Nano Lett 15:6732–6737
4. Lee C, Wei X, Kysar JW et al (2008) Measurement of the
elastic properties and intrinsic strength of monolayer gra-
phene. Science 321:385–388
5. Shao Y, Wang J, Wu H et al (2010) Graphene based elec-
trochemical sensors and biosensors: a review. Electroanal-
ysis 22:1027–1036
6. Yoon HJ, Yang JH, Zhou Z et al (2011) Carbon dioxide gas
sensor using a graphene sheet. Sens Actuators B
157:310–313
7. Ahn JH, Hong BH (2014) Graphene for displays that bend.
Nat Nanotechnol 9:737–738

123
Meccanica
8. Berinskii IE, Krivtsov AM, Kudarova AM (2014) Bending
stiffness of a graphene sheet. Phys Mesomech 17:356–364
9. Jomehzadeh E, Pugno NM (2015) Bending stiffening of
graphene and other 2D materials via controlled rippling.
Compos Part B 83:194–202
10. Polyzos I, Bianchi M, Rizzi L et al (2015) Suspended
monolayer graphene under true uniaxial deformation.
Nanoscale 7:13033–13042
11. Sharma P, Ganti S, Bhate N (2003) Effect of surfaces on the
size-dependent elastic state of nano-inhomogeneities. Appl
Phys Lett 82:535–537
12. Cammarata RC (1994) Surface and interface stress effects in
thin films. Prog Surf Sci 46:1–38
13. Ibach H (1997) The role of surface stress in reconstruction,
epitaxial growth and stabilization of mesoscopic structures.
Surf Sci Rep 29:195–263
14. Jing G, Duan H, Sun X et al (2006) Surface effects on elastic
properties of silver nanowires: contact atomic-force
microscopy. Phys Rev B 73:235409
15. Cuenot S, Fretigny C, Demoustier-Champagne S et al
(2004) Surface tension effect on the mechanical properties
of nanomaterials measured by atomic force microscopy.
Phys Rev B 69:165410
16. Wang GF, Feng XQ (2007) Effects of surface elasticity and
residual surface tension on the natural frequency of
microbeams. Appl Phys Lett 90:231904
17. He J, Lilley CM (2008) Surface effect on the elastic
behavior of static bending nanowires. Nano Lett
8:1798–1802
18. Li XF, Zhang H, Lee KY (2014) Dependence of Young’s
modulus of nanowires on surface effect. Int J Mech Sci
81:120–125
19. Wang J, Huang Z, Duan H et al (2011) Surface stress effect
in mechanics of nanostructured materials. Acta Mech Solida
Sin 24:52–82
20. Gurtin ME, Murdoch AI (1975) A continuum theory of
elastic material surfaces. Arch Ration Mech Anal
57:291–323
21. Gurtin ME, Murdoch AI (1978) Surface stress in solids. Int J
Solids Struct 14:431–440
22. Lu P, He LH, Lee HP et al (2006) Thin plate theory
including surface effects. Int J Solids Struct 43:4631–4647
23. Shaat M, Mahmoud FF, Alshorbagy AE et al (2013)
Bending analysis of ultra-thin functionally graded Mindlin
plates incorporating surface energy effects. Int J Mech Sci
75:223–232
24. Zhou LG, Huang H (2004) Are surfaces elastically softer or
stiffer? Appl Phys Lett 84:1940–1942
25. Ru CQ (2010) Simple geometrical explanation of Gurtin–
Murdoch model of surface elasticity with clarification of its
related versions. Sci China A 53:536–544
26. Ru CQ (2016) A strain-consistent elastic plate model with
surface elasticity. Contin Mech Thermodyn 28:263–273
27. Watson GN (1995) A treatise on the theory of Bessel
functions. Cambridge university press, Cambridge
28. Shenoy VB (2005) Atomistic calculations of elastic prop-
erties of metallic fcc crystal surfaces. Phys Rev B
71:094104
29. Timoshenko SP, Woinowsky-Krieger S (1959) Theory of
plates and shells. McGraw-hill, New York
30. Lei XW, Natsuki T, Shi JX et al (2012) Surface effects on
the vibrational frequency of double-walled carbon nan-
otubes using the nonlocal Timoshenko beam model. Com-
pos Part B 43:64–69
31. Son D, hyun Jeong J, Kwon D (2003) Film-thickness con-
siderations in microcantilever-beam test in measuring
mechanical properties of metal thin film. Thin Solid Films
437:182–187
32. McFarland AW, Colton JS (2005) Role of material
microstructure in plate stiffness with relevance to micro-
cantilever sensors. J Micromech Microeng 15:1060
33. Grima JN, Szymon W, Luke M et al (2015) Tailoring gra-
phene to achieve negative Poisson’s ratio properties. Adv
Mater 27:1455–1459
34. Hall LJ, Coluci VR, Galvao DS et al (2008) Sign change of
Poisson’s ratio for carbon nanotube sheets. Science
320:504–507
35. Wu Y, Yi N, Huang L et al (2015) Three-dimensionally
bonded spongy graphene material with super compressive
elasticity and near-zero Poisson’s ratio. Nat Commun
6:6141
36. Kaminski M, Corigliano A (2015) Numerical solution of the
Duffing equation with random coefficients. Meccanica
50:1841–1853
37. Li XF, Liu GL, Lee KY (2009) Magnetoelectroelastic field
induced by a crack terminating at the interface of a bi-
magnetoelectric material. Philos Mag 89:449–463
123