Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 41 references

A New Framework for Unidimensional Structures Based on Generalised Continua

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that Euler–Bernoulli and Timoshenko beam models are singular limits of one non-holonomic continuum model carrying dislocations and disclinations.

desk verdict A genuinely new non-holonomic beam model with a plausible but unproved singular-limit hierarchy; the limit theorems need real work before the central claim is established. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13098 v1 pith:J7MEWXZ6 submitted 2025-07-17 math.AP physics.class-ph

Mewen Crespo (IRMAR) , Casale Guy (IRMAR) , Loïc Le Marrec (IRMAR) , Patrizio Neff This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.APphysics.class-ph MSC 74K1074A3574B0535B25
keywords beamsgeneralisedcontinuahigher-orderelasticitymicromorphicdislocationsdisclinationsdefectssingularlimits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the classical beam hierarchy is one family: a higher-order Euler–Bernoulli model, a generalised Timoshenko model, and a fully relaxed model that carries both dislocations and disclinations all descend from a single three-dimensional higher-order elasticity framework. Starting from three kinematic fields — the displacement $u$, the micro-distortion $P$, and a third-order tensor $N$ — the authors impose a truncated Taylor ansatz across the cross-section to obtain one-dimensional beam energies and static equilibrium systems. The load-bearing results are Theorem 39, stating that as the penalty coefficient $e$ enforcing $\nabla P = N$ grows, the non-holonomic solution converges in $L^\infty$ to the semi-holonomic solution, and Theorem 46, stating that as $d$ enforcing $\nabla u = P$ grows, the semi-holonomic solution converges to the holonomic solution. If correct, classical beam theories gain a defect-theoretic parent model and a precise statement of how they are recovered as limits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the third-order tensor field $N$, added to the classical displacement $u$ and the micromorphic micro-distortion $P$, with energy (6) in which the terms $d\|\nabla u - P\|^2$ and $e\|\nabla P - N\|^2$ act as tunable penalties. The argument runs through a 1D-in-3D reduction: assumptions (9)–(10), namely $u_{i,\alpha}\approx P_{i\alpha}$, $P_{ij,\alpha}\approx N_{ij\alpha}$ and $N_{ijk,\alpha}\approx 0$, replace the cross-sectional dependence by a Taylor ansatz and turn the three-dimensional energy into a unidimensional system of ordinary differential equations with only longitudinal derivatives. The proof of the hierarchy works by rewriting the non-holonomic Euler–Lagrange system as a first-order ODE system continuously parametrised by $1/e$ and $1/d$, so the limit $e\to\infty$ or $d\to\infty$ is a regular point of the parametrisation; the limiting system is then read off as the semi-holonomic or holonomic equations.

What would settle it

A concrete check: solve the non-holonomic system (31) with a transverse-dependent $N$, for instance $N^1_{12}(X^1,X^2)=N^0 + \varepsilon X^2$, so that assumption (10) is violated, and test whether $\|u_{\mathrm{non-holo}}-u_{\mathrm{semi-holo}}\|_{L^\infty}$ still tends to zero as $e\to\infty$; Theorem 39 predicts it should, and a failure would show the Taylor ansatz is load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the holonomic, semi-holonomic and non-holonomic beam models are not independent theories but three levels of one framework, connected by singular limits: Theorem 39 shows $\lim_{e\to\infty}\|u_{\mathrm{non-holo}}-u_{\mathrm{semi-holo}}\|_{L^\infty}=0$ (and similarly for $P$ and $N$), while Theorem 46 shows $\lim_{d\to\infty}\|u_{\mathrm{semi-holo}}-u_{\mathrm{holo}}\|_{L^\infty}=0$. The coefficient $e$ multiplies $\|\nabla P - N\|^2$ in the energy, and $d$ multiplies $\|\nabla u - P\|^2$, so increasing each coefficient enforces the corresponding constraint. In the holonomic regime the model reduces to a higher-order Euler–Bernoulli beam with energy $a u_{,1}u_{,1}+b u_{,11}u_{,11}+c u_{,111}u_{,111}$; in the semi-holonomic regime it generalises the Timoshenko beam; and in the non-holonomic regime the unconstrained $N$ and $P$ fields allow both dislocation densities and disclination densities to appear from the kinematics alone.

Load-bearing premise

The entire reduction depends on assuming that the kinematic fields vary exactly linearly across the thin cross-section, with the third-order field $N$ constant across the section; if $N$ actually varies across the section, the simplified beam energies and both limit theorems no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When $e\to\infty$, the non-holonomic beam equations reduce to the semi-holonomic system; when $d\to\infty$, that system reduces to the holonomic system, so engineering beam models form a single chain rather than separate theories.
  • Because the non-holonomic model leaves $N$ free, a purely kinematic bending problem can excite both a dislocation density $N^1_{12}-N^1_{21}$ and a disclination density $N^1_{12}$ through the $d\ell^4/12$ curl-type coupling, so defects appear without extra constitutive assumptions.
  • Choosing $c=0$ in the holonomic energy yields the standard Euler–Bernoulli beam equation, and choosing $c=0$, $\ell=0$, $f_2=0$ in the semi-holonomic energy yields the Timoshenko beam energy, placing the textbook models inside the hierarchy as parameter limits.
  • The simplified pure-traction and pure-bending subsystems give explicit ODE systems that can be solved numerically, so the predicted hierarchy is testable in closed form for basic load cases.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the same penalty structure is carried into the nonlinear regime, the limit theorems suggest a physical interpretation: the measured response of a real beam should interpolate between Timoshenko and Euler–Bernoulli behaviour as micro-structural stiffness grows, which would give a protocol for calibrating $d$ and $e$ from experiments.
  • The Taylor ansatz (9)–(10) should admit a two-dimensional analogue, producing a hierarchy of plate theories with dislocations and disclinations; testing that extension would show whether the beam result is a special case of a general dimensional-reduction principle.
  • The consistency conditions in Theorems 39 and 46 require the boundary data to match $\nabla P=N$ or $\nabla u=P$; without that matching, boundary layers are likely to appear, so the $L^\infty$ convergence as $e$ or $d$ grows may require an additional surface-energy correction that the paper does not treat.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a family of one-dimensional beam models obtained by a formal dimensional reduction of a three-dimensional higher-order elasticity energy with three kinematic fields: the displacement u, the micro-distortion P, and the third-order tensor N. Three regimes are considered: holonomic (N=∇P, P=∇u), semi-holonomic (N=∇P), and non-holonomic (no constraint). The authors derive the Euler–Lagrange systems (31), (33), (34), discuss pure traction and bending sub-systems, and claim that the semi-holonomic and holonomic models emerge as singular limits of the non-holonomic model when the penalty coefficients e and d tend to infinity (Theorem 39 and Theorem 46). They also relate the holonomic and semi-holonomic models to higher-order Euler–Bernoulli and Timoshenko beams and interpret the fields N_i jk − N_i kj and N_i jk,l as dislocation and disclination densities.

Significance. If Theorems 39 and 46 are correct, the paper offers a valuable hierarchical unification: one non-holonomic one-dimensional continuum contains the classical beam models as singular limits, and dislocation and disclination fields are encoded in the same framework. The variational derivation from the three-dimensional energy is explicit, and the reduction to concrete ODE systems in the appendices is a useful reference. The identification of the classical Euler–Bernoulli and Timoshenko energies as special cases of (25) and (21) is clearly presented. The main mathematical novelty is the claimed singular-limit hierarchy, and the two central limit theorems are precisely where the proof is incomplete. The value of the paper will depend on whether the gaps identified below can be closed.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, eqs. (36)–(38) and Theorem 39] The proof of Theorem 39 is built on an invalid functional-analytic argument. The authors claim that the system (37), whose coefficients depend continuously on 1/e, can be viewed as a first-order linear ODE "valued in C0(R*_+, R)" and that, since this space is a Hilbert space, the solutions depend continuously on the parameter and are well-defined at 1/e=0. Two things are wrong: C0 with the sup norm is not a Hilbert space, and 0 is not in R*_+. More importantly, continuity of coefficients alone does not imply continuous dependence of solutions of a boundary-value problem on the parameter; one needs uniform well-posedness estimates, for example uniform bounds on the fundamental matrix and on the inverse of the boundary operator. No such estimates are provided. Since the convergence claims (40) rest on this step, Theorem 39 is not established.
  2. [§4.2, Theorem 39 (limit e→∞, transverse components of N)] The identification of the limiting ODE system is incomplete for the components N_i jα. Dividing eq. (31.4) by e and passing to the limit gives only N_i jα,11 = O(1/e), so the limit is affine in X1, whereas in the semi-holonomic target N_i jα is constant by eq. (18). The hypothesis that N_i jα is fully specified at one boundary point fixes the intercept but not the slope N_i jα,1; the natural boundary condition in eq. (31) involves (c + eℓ^4/12)N_i jα,1, whose limit is not controlled. Consequently the claimed convergence ‖N − ∇P‖_{L∞} → 0 in the proof, and the assertion that the limiting system is exactly eq. (33), are not justified.
  3. [§4.2, eqs. (41)–(44)] The proof sketch for Theorem 39 does not derive the limiting system. Eq. (36) is asserted without showing the algebra that eliminates P; the reduction to the first-order form (37) is not displayed; and eq. (42) is obtained by an unspecified differentiation-and-subtraction procedure. The passage from (42) to (44) assumes N → ∇P, which is essentially the conclusion to be proved. A rigorous proof would require a direct energy estimate controlling e‖N − ∇P‖ in a suitable norm, followed by passage to the limit in the weak formulation; no such estimate is given.
  4. [§4.2, Theorem 46 (limit d→∞)] Theorem 46 is not a consequence of "the exact same arguments". Eq. (45) gives O(1/d) relations for u_i,1 − P_i 1 and for N_i 1α − P_i α,1, but the holonomic target (34) is a sixth-order scalar problem for u, and the convergence of the remaining components P_i α to u_i,α is not shown. In particular, the dℓ^4/12 terms in eq. (33) involve P_i α,11; without uniform a priori bounds on the relevant derivatives as d → ∞, the limiting identification of P_i α is open. The boundary conditions also need to be shown to pass to the limit, which is not done.
  5. [§2, eqs. (9)–(10)] The reduction from the three-dimensional energy to the one-dimensional beam energies is a formal Taylor truncation. No error estimate is provided for the approximations u_i,α ≈ P_i α, P_i j,α ≈ N_i jα, and N_i jk,α ≈ 0, so the energies (14), (20), and (24) are a modeling ansatz rather than a proved asymptotic limit. This should be stated explicitly; it does not affect the internal consistency of the one-dimensional ODE systems, but it limits the claim that the beam models are derived from the three-dimensional theory.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The definition "2 [sym P]_i^j := P_i^j − P_j^i" is the negative of the symmetrization used in eq. (6); in the linearisation of (Id+P)^T(Id+P) the sign must be plus.
  2. [After eq. (17)] The surjectivity of the homogenised boundary/bulk force correspondence is asserted without proof or reference; it should be stated as an assumption, since the treatment of the one-dimensional model as independent depends on it.
  3. [§1.2 and §3] There are several typos that should be corrected, including "freODEm" in the second bullet of Section 1.2, "remainder fo this article" at the start of Section 3, and "nono-holonomic" in the proof of Theorem 46.
  4. [§4.2, eq. (38)] The sentence "This shows that ‖N − ∇P‖_{L∞} → 0" is stronger than what eq. (38) establishes: the displayed bound concerns only the i,j1 components N_i j1 − P_i j,1. The transverse components N_i jα − P_i j,α are not controlled by this argument.
  5. [§4.2] The notation C0(R*_+,R) is ambiguous: if the parameter 1/e is meant to include 0, the domain should be a compact interval such as [0,ε], and the space should be specified with the sup norm and identified as a Banach space, not a Hilbert space.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the limit hierarchy is a consistency property of the penalty construction, not a disguised fit or borrowed uniqueness result.

full rationale

I find no circular step in the sense of the rubric. The paper derives the 1D beam models from a 3D energy taken from the authors' prior work [7]; this is a model input rather than a circular prediction. The relaxed-micromorphic curl term is credited to [29] by the last author, but in this paper it appears from the homogenisation calculation (eq. (15)), so the citation is motivational, not load-bearing. Theorems 39 and 46 are formal consequences of the chosen constitutive structure: the non-holonomic energy contains e||N - grad P||^2 and d||P - grad u||^2, while the semi-holonomic and holonomic cases are defined by exactly those constraints. Hence e -> infinity and d -> infinity are designed to enforce the constraints; this is a consistency property of the framework, not a derivation in which the conclusion is a differently-named copy of the input. No parameters are fitted to data, no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from prior work is invoked to forbid alternatives. The proof of Theorem 39 does contain a technical incorrectness (C0(R*_+,R) is described as a Hilbert space), but that is a correctness gap, not circularity. The self-citations at the starting point are real but not load-bearing, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework depends on the second-order micromorphic model of the authors' prior article [7], on a formal transversal Taylor ansatz, on an unproved surjectivity of homogenized forces, and on anchoring boundary assumptions. No numerical values are fitted; a,b,c,d,e and ℓ are free constitutive and geometric parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • Constitutive coefficients a, b, c, d, e
    Introduced in eq. (5) as scalar multipliers replacing the full constitutive tensors C,D,E,F,G to obtain explicit analytical solutions. The limits e→∞ and d→∞ are central, but the coefficients are otherwise unconstrained material parameters.
  • Transversal length ℓ
    Defined via I_αβ = (ℓ^4/12) δ_αβ in eq. (21) to parametrize the second moment of the cross-section; chosen for convenience and not fitted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The second-order micromorphic model of [7] with objectivity-based energy (4) is a valid description of defective elastic media.
    Section 1.2 adopts the energy (4) from the authors' prior article [7]; all derived beam models inherit this starting point.
  • domain assumption Transversal Taylor ansatz: u_i,α ≈ P_i α, P_i j,α ≈ N_i jα, and N_i jk,α ≈ 0 (eqs. 9-10).
    Section 2, 'The 1D in 3D model'. This truncation is the key dimensional-reduction step and is not derived from an asymptotic limit.
  • ad hoc to paper The homogenized boundary/bulk force correspondence is surjective (after eq. 17).
    Section 2 states that any 1D force system can be realized by some 3D traction without proof, allowing the 1D model to be treated independently.
  • domain assumption N (semi-holonomic) and P (holonomic) are anchored on at least one boundary, making certain fields constitutive constants.
    Section 2, before eqs. (21) and (25); without this, the simplified energies and the derived ODE hierarchies do not hold.
  • ad hoc to paper Solutions of the ODE systems depend continuously on the penalty parameters 1/e and 1/d, including at the limit 0.
    Section 4.2, Theorems 39 and 46; the proof sketches this via eq. (37), but the function-space argument is incomplete and calls C0 a Hilbert space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A New Framework for Unidimensional Structures Based on Generalised Continua." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J7MEWXZ6

@misc{pith2026250713098,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A New Framework for Unidimensional Structures Based on Generalised Continua},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J7MEWXZ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13098}
}
read the original abstract

The present work introduces a family of beam models derived from a three-dimensional higher-order elasticity framework. By incorporating three kinematic fields - the macroscopic displacement u, the micro-distortion tensor P, and the third-order tensor N - the study systematically explores three regimes: holonomic, semi-holonomic, and non-holonomic. These regimes correspond to varying levels of kinematic constraints, ranging from classical elasticity to a fully relaxed model. The holonomic case reduces to a higher-order Euler--Bernoulli beam model, while the semi-holonomic case generalises the Timoshenko beam model. The non-holonomic case provides a unified framework that naturally incorporates both dislocations and disclinations. Furthermore, the holonomic and semi-holonomic models are shown to emerge as singular limits of the non-holonomic model by increasing specific penalty coefficients. Simplified ordinary differential equation systems are derived for specific cases, such as pure traction and bending, illustrating the practical applicability of the models. The results highlight the hierarchical structure of the proposed framework and its ability to capture material defects in beam-like structures.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Da Vinci-Euler-Bernoulli Beam Theor y

    R. Ballarini. “The Da Vinci-Euler-Bernoulli Beam Theor y”. In: Mech. Eng. Mag. Online7 (2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Bernoulli

    D. Bernoulli. Hydrodynamica, sive de viribus et motibus fluidorum comment arii. Strasbourg: Jo- hann Reinhold Dulsecker, 1738./u.sc/r.sc/l.sc: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_3yRVAAAAcAAJ

    work page

  3. [3]

    Véritable Hypothèse de La Résistance Des Solides, Avec La Démonstration de La Courbure Des Corps Qui Font Ressort

    J. Bernoulli. “Véritable Hypothèse de La Résistance Des Solides, Avec La Démonstration de La Courbure Des Corps Qui Font Ressort”. In: Mém. Mathématique Phys. Académie R. Sci. (1705)

    work page

  4. [4]

    Sur Une Généralisation de La Notion de Courbu re de Riemann et Les Espaces à Torsion

    É. Cartan. “Sur Une Généralisation de La Notion de Courbu re de Riemann et Les Espaces à Torsion”. In: Comptes Rendus, Ac. Sc. Paris 174 (1922), pp. 593–595

    work page 1922

  5. [5]

    The Equations of an Isotropic Elastic Solid in Polar and Cylindrical Co-Ordinates Their Solution and Application

    C. Chree. “The Equations of an Isotropic Elastic Solid in Polar and Cylindrical Co-Ordinates Their Solution and Application”. In: Trans. Camb. Philos. Soc. 14 (1889), p. 250

    work page

  6. [6]

    E. M. P. Cosserat and F. Cosserat. Théorie Des Corps Déformables . A. Hermann et fils, 1909

    work page 1909

  7. [7]

    T wo-Scale Geomet ric Modelling for Defective Media

    M. Crespo, G. Casale, and L. Le Marrec. “T wo-Scale Geomet ric Modelling for Defective Media”. In: Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Who Developed the So-Called Timoshenko B eam Theory?

    I. Elishakoff. “Who Developed the So-Called Timoshenko B eam Theory?” In: Math. Mech. Solids 25.1 (2020), pp. 97–116

    work page 2020

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    M. Epstein. The Geometrical Language of Continuum Mechanics . Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  2. [10]

    Theory of Micropolar Elasticity

    A. C. Eringen. “Theory of Micropolar Elasticity”. In: Fracture II Liebowitz, H., ed., Chapter 7 (1968)

    1968

  3. [11]

    Mechanics of Micromorphic Continua

    A. C. Eringen. “Mechanics of Micromorphic Continua”. I n: IUTAM Symp. Mech. Gen. Contin. (1969), 18–35 (Kröner, ed.)

    1969

  4. [12]

    Foundations of Micropolar Thermoelast icity: Intern. Cent. for Mech. Studies

    A. C. Eringen. “Foundations of Micropolar Thermoelast icity: Intern. Cent. for Mech. Studies”. In: Course Lect. 23 (1970)

    1970

  5. [13]

    A. C. Eringen. Microcontinuum Field Theories. New Y ork: Springer New Y ork, 1999

    1999

  6. [14]

    A Micromorphic Approac h to Dislocation Theory and Its Rela- tion to Several Existing Theories

    A. C. Eringen and W . D. Jr Claus. “A Micromorphic Approac h to Dislocation Theory and Its Rela- tion to Several Existing Theories”. In: Fundam. Asp. Dislocation Theory 317.2 (1970), pp. 1023– 1040

    1970

  7. [15]

    L. Euler. Methodus inveniendi lineas curvas maximi minimive proprietate gaudentes, sive solutio problematis isoperimetrici latissimo sensu accepti. Geneva: Apud Marcum-Michaelem Bousquet & Socios, 1744

  8. [16]

    I. Liquid Crystals. On the Theory of Liquid Crystals

    F. C. Frank. “I. Liquid Crystals. On the Theory of Liquid Crystals”. In: Discuss. Faraday Soc. 25 (1958), pp. 19–28

    1958

  9. [17]

    G. Galilei. Discorsi e Dimostrazioni Matematiche, Intorno à Due Nuove S cienze Attenenti Alla Mecanica & i Movimenti Locali. Leiden: Appresso gli Elsevirii, 1638./u.sc/r.sc/l.sc: https://doi.org/10.3931/e-ra The present manuscript is a preprint pending peer review; please read...

    doi

  10. [18]

    La Méthode Des Puissances Virtuelles En Mé canique Des Milieux Continus, Pre- miere Partie: Théorie Du Second Gradient

    P. Germain. “La Méthode Des Puissances Virtuelles En Mé canique Des Milieux Continus, Pre- miere Partie: Théorie Du Second Gradient”. In: J. Mécanique 12.2 (1973), pp. 235–274

    1973

  11. [19]

    The Method of Virtual Power in the Mechanic s of Continuous Media, I: Second- gradient Theory

    P. Germain. “The Method of Virtual Power in the Mechanic s of Continuous Media, I: Second- gradient Theory”. In: Math. Mech. Compl. Sys. 8.2 (2020), pp. 153–190

    2020

  12. [20]

    Ghavanloo and P

    E. Ghavanloo and P. Neff. The Isotropic Relaxed Micromorphic Model in Polar Coordinates and Its Application to an Elastostatic Axisymmetric ExtensionProblem. 2024. /u.sc/r.sc/l.sc: http://arxiv.org/abs/241 Pre-published

    2024

  13. [21]

    Gonzalez and A

    O. Gonzalez and A. M. Stuart. A First Course in Countinuum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, 2008

    2008

  14. [22]

    Buckling of Timos henko Beam under T wo-Parameter Elastic Foundations

    M. Hariz, L. Le Marrec, and J. Lerbet. “Buckling of Timos henko Beam under T wo-Parameter Elastic Foundations”. In: International Journal of Solids and Structures244–245 (2022), p. 111583

    2022

  15. [23]

    de Lagrange

    J.-L. de Lagrange. Mechanique Analytique. Berlin: Springer, 1787

  16. [24]

    Revisiting Bending Theories f or Gradient Elastic Beams

    S. Lurie and Y . Solyaev. “Revisiting Bending Theories f or Gradient Elastic Beams”. In: Interna- tional Journal of Engineering Science 126 (2018), pp. 1–21

    2018

  17. [25]

    Micro-Structure in Linear Elasticity

    R. D. Mindlin. “Micro-Structure in Linear Elasticity” . In: Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 16 (1964), pp. 51–78

    1964

  18. [26]

    Second Gradient of Strain and Surface-T ension in Linear Elasticity

    R. D. Mindlin. “Second Gradient of Strain and Surface-T ension in Linear Elasticity”. In: Interna- tional Journal of Solids and Structures 1.4 (1965), pp. 417–438

    1965

  19. [27]

    On First Strain-Gradient Theories in Linear Elasticity

    R. D. Mindlin and N. N. Eshel. “On First Strain-Gradient Theories in Linear Elasticity”. In: In- ternational Journal of Solids and Structures 4.1 (1968), pp. 109–124

    1968

  20. [28]

    Existence of Minimizers for a Finite-Strain Mi cromorphic Elastic Solid

    P. Neff. “Existence of Minimizers for a Finite-Strain Mi cromorphic Elastic Solid”. In: Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. Sect. Math. 136.5 (2006), pp. 997–1012

    2006

  21. [29]

    A Unifying Perspective: The Relaxed Linear Micromorphic Continuum

    P. Neff, I.-D. Ghiba, A. Madeo, L. Placidi, and G. Rosi. “A Unifying Perspective: The Relaxed Linear Micromorphic Continuum”. In: Continuum Mech. Thermodyn. 26.5 (2014), pp. 639–681

    2014

  22. [30]

    Bending and Stability Anal- ysis of Gradient Elastic Beams

    S. Papargyri-Beskou, K. G. Tsepoura, D. Polyzos, and D. E. Beskos. “Bending and Stability Anal- ysis of Gradient Elastic Beams”. In: International Journal of Solids and Structures 40.2 (2003), pp. 385–400

    2003

  23. [31]

    Ueber Die Fortpflanzungsgeschwindigk eiten Kleiner Schwingungen in Einem Unbegrenzten Isotropen Kreiscylinder

    L. Pochhammer. “Ueber Die Fortpflanzungsgeschwindigk eiten Kleiner Schwingungen in Einem Unbegrenzten Isotropen Kreiscylinder.” In: J. Für Reine Angew. Math. Crelles J.1876.81 (1876), pp. 324–336

  24. [32]

    Analytical So lutions of the Cylindrical Bending Prob- lem for the Relaxed Micromorphic Continuum and Other Genera lized Continua

    G. Rizzi, G. Hütter, A. Madeo, and P. Neff. “Analytical So lutions of the Cylindrical Bending Prob- lem for the Relaxed Micromorphic Continuum and Other Genera lized Continua”. In: Continuum Mech. Thermodyn. 33.4 (2021), pp. 1505–1539

    2021

  25. [33]

    A. B. de Saint-Venant. Mémoire Sur La Torsion Des Prismes . Vol. 14. Mallet-Bachelier, 1856

  26. [34]

    A. B. de Saint-Venant. “Mémoire Sur Les Divers Genres d’ homogénéité Des Corps Solides, et Principalement Sur l’homogénéité Semi-Polaire Ou Cylindr ique, et Sur Les Homogénéités Po- laires Ou Sphériconique et Sphérique”. In: J. Mathématiques Pures Appliqués10 (1865), pp. 297– 349

  27. [35]

    A Computational Approach to Identify the Material Parameters of the Relaxed Micromorphic Model

    M. Sarhil, L. Scheunemann, P. Lewintan, J. Schröder, an d P. Neff. “A Computational Approach to Identify the Material Parameters of the Relaxed Micromorphic Model”. In: Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 425 (2024), p. 116944. The present manuscript is a prep...

    2024

  28. [36]

    On the Correction for Shear of the Diff erential Equation for Transverse Vibra- tions of Prismatic Bars

    S. P. Timoshenko. “On the Correction for Shear of the Diff erential Equation for Transverse Vibra- tions of Prismatic Bars”. In: The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine a nd Journal of Science 41.245 (1921), pp. 744–746

    1921

  29. [37]

    Elastic Materials with Couple-Stresses

    R. A. Toupin. “Elastic Materials with Couple-Stresses ”. In: Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.11.1 (1962), pp. 385–414

    1962

  30. [38]

    Theories of Elasticity with Couple-Stre ss

    R. A. Toupin. “Theories of Elasticity with Couple-Stre ss”. In: Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 17.2 (1964), pp. 85–112

    1964

  31. [39]

    da Vinci

    L. da Vinci. Codex madrid I. Madrid: Biblioteca Nacional de España, 1490

  32. [40]

    Sur l’équilibre Des Corps Élastiques Mul tiplement Connexes

    V . Volterra. “Sur l’équilibre Des Corps Élastiques Mul tiplement Connexes”. In: Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. 24 (1907), pp. 401–517

    1907

  33. [41]

    A Micro Scale Timoshenko B eam Model Based on Strain Gra- dient Elasticity Theory

    B. Wang, J. Zhao, and S. Zhou. “A Micro Scale Timoshenko B eam Model Based on Strain Gra- dient Elasticity Theory”. In: European Journal of Mechanics - A/Solids 29.4 (2010), pp. 591– 599. The present manuscript is a preprint pending peer review; please read with due scientific ...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.