“…As from previous considerations, the boundary conditions of the model involve, only, the local generalized forces and/or the prescribed displacements at the borders as N (l) (x 3i , t) = ∓N i , T (l) (x 3i , t) = ∓T i and M (l) (x 3i , t) = ±M i or, alternatively, the prescribed kinematic field reads u(x 3i , t) = u i (t), v(x 3i , t) = v i (t) and ϕ(x 3i , t) = ϕ i (t) with u i (t), v i (t) and ϕ i (t) (i = 0, L) denoting prescribed displacements and rotations at the ends of the beam. The MB Timoshenko beam model, governed by equation (3.3), along with the boundary conditions, exhibits non-local effects for general loading conditions [31,32] and not necessarily for distributed loads only, thus overcoming the paradox encountered in earlier studies [33][34][35][36][37][38]. The MB Timoshenko beam model is very versatile because it may reproduce a variety of material behaviours, either stiffer or softer than the local one, by proper selection of the physical parameters and the internal length scale of the material l 0 governing the maximum distance beyond which the long-range forces become negligible.…”