Acta Mech

DOI 10.1007/s00707-014-1188-z
M. H. Kahrobaiyan M. Asghari M. T. Ahmadian
A strain gradient Timoshenko beam element:
application to MEMS
Received: 20 August 2013 / Revised: 24 March 2014
Springer-Verlag Wien 2014
Abstract The classical continuum theory not only underestimates the stiffness of microscale structures such
as microbeams but is also unable to capture the size dependency, a phenomenon observed in these structures.
Hence, the non-classical continuum theories such as the strain gradient elasticity have been developed. In
this paper, a Timoshenko beam nite element is developed based on the strain gradient theory and employed
to evaluate the mechanical behavior of microbeams used in microelectromechanical systems. The new beam
element is a comprehensive beam element that recovers the formulations of strain gradient EulerBernoulli
beam element, modied couple stress (another non-classical theory) Timoshenko and EulerBernoulli beam
elements, and also classical Timoshenko and EulerBernoulli beam elements; note that the shear-locking
phenomenon will not happen for the new Timoshenko beam element. The stiffness and mass matrices of
the new element are derived in closed forms by following an energy-based approach and using Hamiltons
principle. It is noted that unlike the classical beam elements, the stiffness matrix of the new element has a
size-dependent nature that can capture the size-dependent behavior of microbeams. The shape functions of
the newly developed beam element are determined by solving the equilibrium equations of strain gradient
Timoshenko beams, which brings about a size-dependent characteristic for them. The new beam element is
employed to evaluate the static deection of a microcantilever, and the results are compared to the experimental
data as well as the results obtained by using the classical beam element and the couple stress plane element.
The new beam element is also implemented to calculate the static deection, vibration frequency, and pull-in
voltage of electrostatically actuated microbeams. The current results are compared to the experimental data as
well as the classical FEMoutcomes. It is observed that the results of the newelement are in excellent agreement
with the experimental data while the gap between the experimental and classical FEM results is signicant.
1 Introduction
Microscale mechanical components, such as microbeams, are the main building blocks of microelectromechan-
ical systems (MEMS) [1, 2] and atomic force microscopes (AFMs) [3, 4]. Hence, investigating the mechanical
behavior of such components has always been an important issue among researchers. Due to the complications
M. H. Kahrobaiyan M. Asghari M. T. Ahmadian (B)
School of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
E-mail: ahmadian@mech.sharif.edu
Tel.: +982166165503
M. H. Kahrobaiyan
E-mail: kahrobaiyan@mech.sharif.edu
M. T. Ahmadian
Center of Excellence in Design, Robotics and Automation (CEDRA),
Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
M. H. Kahrobaiyan et al.
existing in microscale systems such as the presence of the complex forces like electrostatic, Casimir, Van Der
Waals and capillary forces, complex geometry, or some other issues like existence of the squeeze lmdamping,
the exact analytical solutions may not be achieved for the behavior of the mechanical components; so, some
approaches other than the analytical one are required. One of the most popular approaches is the nite element
method (FEM). The FEM is utilized by many researchers in order to investigate the mechanical behavior of
microscale systems. For example,
Analysis of piezoelectric cantilever-type beam actuators [5]
Study of the mechanical behavior of conducting polymer electromechanical actuators (CPEA) [6]
Investigation of the static behavior and pull-in voltage of electrostatically actuated cantilever microswitches
[7]
Analysis of the mechanical response of microswitches with piezoelectric actuation [8]
Investigating the dynamic pull-in of an electrostatically actuated micro-/nanoplate considering geometrical
nonlinearities and uid pressure by employing a nine-node plate element [9]
Modeling the MEMS subjected to electrostatic forces by developing a non-conforming element [10]
It is noted that all of the above-mentioned works are based on the elements developed on the basis of the
classical continuum theory.
The experimental observations have indicated that the classical continuum mechanics not only underesti-
mates the stiffness of microscale structures but is also incapable of justifying the size dependency observed
in these structures [1113]; note that the size dependency is a peculiar phenomenon in which the normalized
mechanical quantities of microscale structures that the classical continuum theory predict to be independent
of the structure size signicantly changes by the size. Hence, during past years, some non-classical contin-
uum theories such as the strain gradient theory [12, 14] and the couple stress theory [15, 16] have been found,
developed, modied, and employed to study the mechanical behavior of the microscale structures.
Mindlin [14] proposed a higher-order gradient theory for elastic materials by considering the rst and the
second gradients of the strain tensor effective on the strain energy density. Fleck and Hutchinson [1719] used
Mindlins formulations and expressed that the strain energy density of an elastic material is a function of not
only the rst but also the second gradient of the displacement eld (a function of strain and the rst derivative
of strain). The aforementioned theory is named the strain gradient theory. By utilizing the equilibriumequation
of moments of couples in addition to the classical equilibrium equations of forces and moments of forces,
Lam et al. [12] introduced a modied strain gradient theory, which became a popular non-classical theory
in microsystems area. Henceforth, wherever the strain gradient is used in the paper, it refers to the strain
gradient theory modied by Lam et al. [12].
The strain gradient theory is employed to formulate bar, beam, and plate models [2029]. Three material
parameters called the length scale parameters (l
0
, l
1
, and l
2
) appear in this theory in addition to the two classical
parameters, i.e., elastic modulus and Poisson ratio, which enables the theory to capture the size dependency.
In order to determine the length scale parameters for a specic material, some typical experiments such as
microbendtest, microtorsiontest, andmicro-/nano-indentationtest canbe carriedout [1113, 30]. It is notedthat
letting l
0
= l
1
= 0, the formulations of the strain gradient theory reduce to another non-classical theory called
the modied couple stress theory proposed by Yang et al. [31]. This theory has been employed to develop beam
and plate models [3238]. It is also utilized to investigate the characteristics of some microsystems [3943].
According to the necessity of utilizing the nite element method in MEMS due to the force and geomet-
rical complications, and also the necessity of using the non-classical continuum theories due to the inability
of the classical continuum theory to evaluate the accurate stiffness and justify the size dependency of MEMS
components, developing new structural nite elements based on the non-classical continuum theories seems
to be crucial.
This paper presents a new non-classical comprehensive Timoshenko beam element capable of capturing
the size dependency of microscale systems. The stiffness and mass matrices of the new beam element are
derived in a closed form using Hamiltons principle, and the shape functions are determined by solving the
equilibrium equations of a strain gradient Timoshenko beam model. It is noted that the new beam element
is comprehensive such that the stiffness and mass matrices of strain gradient EulerBernoulli beam element,
modied couple stress Timoshenko and EulerBernoulli beam elements, and also classical Timoshenko and
EulerBernoulli beam elements can be recovered from the present formulations. The new beam element is
employed to model the mechanical behavior of microbeams. It is utilized to evaluate the load-end deection
curve of short microcantilever subjected to a concentrated force at its free end. The results of the new element
are compared to the experimental data as well as the classical FEM results, and it is observed that the results of
the new beam element are in excellent agreement with the experimental results, whereas the gap between the
Strain gradient Timoshenko beam element
experimental and classical FEM results is signicant. In another example, the new beam element is employed
to calculate the static pull-in voltage of an electrostatically actuated microswitch. The results are compared to
the experimental and classical FEM results, and it is indicated that while the outcomes obtained by employing
the new beam element successfully coincide with the experimental data, the attempts of the classical beam
elements to be in good agreement with the experimental results have been in vain.
2 Preliminaries
The strain energy U of a linear elastic strain gradient continuum occupying volume is expressed as [12]
U =
1
2
_

i j

i j
+ p
i

i
+
(1)
i j k

(1)
i j k
+ m
s
i j

s
i j
_
d, (1)
where
i j
,
(1)
i j k
,
s
i j
, and
i
are the kinematic parameters:
i j
,
(1)
i j k
, and
s
i j
, respectively, denote the components
of strain, deviatoric part of stretch gradient, and symmetric part of rotation gradient (curvature) tensors, and
i
represents the components of dilatation gradient vector. In addition,
i j
, p
i
,
(1)
i j k
and m
s
i j
stand for the work
conjugates of the aforementioned kinematic parameters noted that
i j
and m
s
i j
are known as the components
of stress and couple stress tensors, and p
i
and
(1)
i j k
are known as the components of higher-order stress tensors.
The components of the strain tensor can be related to the components of displacement vector led u
i
as

i j
=
1
2
_
u
i, j
+ u
j,i
_
, (2)
and the other kinematical parameters are related to the strain tensor components as [12]

i
=
mm,i
, (3)

(1)
i j k
=
1
3
_

j k,i
+
ki, j
+
i j,k
_

1
15

i j
_

mm,k
+ 2
mk,m
_

1
15
_

j k
_

mm,i
+ 2
mi,m
_
+
ki
_

mm, j
+ 2
mj,m
__
, (4)

s
i j
=
1
2
_
E
i mn

nj,m
+ E
j mn

ni,m
_
, (5)
where E
i j k
refers to the permutation symbol. The work conjugates are related to the kinematic parameters as
follows [12]:

i j
=
E
(1 2) (1 + )

kk

i j
+ 2
i j
, (6)
p
i
= 2l
2
0

i
, (7)

(1)
i j k
= 2l
2
1

(1)
i j k
, (8)
m
s
i j
= 2l
2
2

s
i j
, (9)
in which
i j
represents the Kronecker delta, and E, and , respectively, denote the elastic (Young) modulus
and shear modulus, and Poissons ratio noted that E = 2(1 + ). In addition, l
0
, l
1
and l
2
represent the
material length scale parameters that are the additional material properties enabling the theory to capture the
size dependency.
3 Deriving the stiffness and mass matrices
In this section, the mass and stiffness matrices of the new strain gradient Timoshenko beam element are going
to be derived following an energy-based approach and Hamiltons principle. To that end, the components of
the displacement eld vector u of a Timoshenko beam model depicted in Fig. 1 are introduced as
M. H. Kahrobaiyan et al.
Fig. 1 A Timoshenko beam model: loading, kinematic parameters, and coordinate system
u
1
= z (x, t ) , u
2
= 0, u
3
= w(x, t ) , (10)
where u
1
, u
2
, and u
3
represent the displacement of an arbitrary point along the x, y and z axes, respectively. In
addition, z, and w, respectively, denote the lateral distance of an arbitrary point from the neutral axis, rota-
tion angle of the beamcross sections, and lateral deection of the beam. Substituting Eq. (10) into Eqs. (2)(5),
the nonzero kinematic parameters are obtained as [26]:

11
= z

x
,
13
=
31
=
1
2
_
w
x

_
, (11)

1
= z

x
2
,
3
=

x
, (12)

s
12
=
s
21
=
1
4
_

x
+

2
w
x
2
_
, (13)

(1)
111
=
2
5
z

x
2
,
(1)
113
=
(1)
311
=
(1)
131
=
4
15
_

2
w
x
2
2

x
_
,

(1)
122
=
(1)
133
=
(1)
212
=
(1)
221
=
(1)
313
=
(1)
331
=
1
5
z

x
2
, (14)

(1)
223
=
(1)
232
=
(1)
322
=
1
15
_
2

x


2
w
x
2
_
,
(1)
333
=
1
5
_
2

x


2
w
x
2
_
.
Substitution of Eqs. (11)(14) into Eqs. (6)(9) gives the nonzero work conjugates (stresses, couple stresses,
and higher-order stresses) as [26]:

11
= Ez

x
,
13
=
31
= k
_
w
x

_
, (15)
p
1
= 2l
2
0
z

x
2
, p
3
= 2l
2
0

x
, (16)
m
s
12
= m
s
21
=
l
2
2
2
_

x
+

2
w
x
2
_
, (17)

(1)
111
=
4
5
l
2
1
z

x
2
,
(1)
113
=
(1)
311
=
(1)
131
=
8
15
l
2
1
_
2

x


2
w
x
2
_
,

(1)
122
=
(1)
133
=
(1)
212
=
(1)
221
=
(1)
313
=
(1)
331
=
2
5
l
2
1
z

x
2
, (18)
Strain gradient Timoshenko beam element

(1)
223
=
(1)
232
=
(1)
322
=
2
15
l
2
1
_
2

x


2
w
x
2
_
,
(1)
333
=
2
5
l
2
1
_
2

x


2
w
x
2
_
.
where k denotes the shear correction factor in Timoshenko beam model. By insertion of the kinematic parame-
ters and their work conjugates mentioned in Eqs. (11)(19) into Eq. (1), one can express the potential energy
of the strain gradient Timoshenko beam as
U =
1
2
L
_
0
_
A
_

i j

i j
+ p
i

i
+
(1)
i j k

(1)
i j k
+ m
s
i j

s
i j
_
d Adx
=
1
2
L
_
0
_
k
1
_

x
2
_
2
+ k
2
_

x
_
2
+ k
3
_

2
w
x
2
+

x
_
2
+ k
4
_
2

x


2
w
x
2
_
2
+ kA
_
w
x

_
2
_
, (19)
in which the length and cross-sectional area of the beam are, respectively, denoted by L and A. In addition, the
shear deformation factor, accounting for the variation in the shear stress along the cross section of Timoshenko
beammodel, is denoted by k, which depends on the geometry of the cross section (e.g., k = 5/6 for rectangular
cross section) [44]. Moreover,
k
1
=
_
2l
2
0
+
4
5
l
2
1
_
I, k
2
= EI + 2Al
2
0
, k
3
=
1
4
Al
2
2
, k
4
=
8
15
Al
2
1
, (20)
where I refers to the area moment of inertia of the beamcross section. The kinetic energy T of the Timoshenko
beam can be given as
T =
1
2
_
A
L
_
0

_
_
u
1
t
_
2
+
_
u
2
t
_
2
+
_
u
3
t
_
2
_
dxd A
=
1
2

L
_
0
_
I
_

t
_
2
+ A
_
w
t
_
2
_
dx, (21)
in which stands for the beam density. The work W of external distributed force and moment exerted to the
Timoshenko beam (see Fig. 1) is expressed as
W =
L
_
0
(F (x, t ) w M (x, t ) ) dx =
L
_
0
_
w

_
T
_
F (x, t )
M (x, t )
_
dx, (22)
It is noted that the negative sign, i.e., , appears in Eq. (22) since the direction of the applied moment is
in opposition to the direction. In order to derive the governing equations of motion of the strain gradient
Timoshenko beam model, the Hamiltons principle can be employed as
t
2
_
t
1
(T U + W) dt = 0. (23)
Substitution of Eqs. (19), (21), and (22) into Eq. (23) reveals the governing equations as
k
1

x
4
+ k
2

x
2
+ k
3
_

3
w
x
3
+

2

x
2
_
+ 2k
4
_
2

x
2


3
w
x
3
_
+kA
_
w
x

_
M (x, t ) = I

2

t
2
, (24)
M. H. Kahrobaiyan et al.
Fig. 2 A two-node Timoshenko beam element: geometry, coordinate system, and nodal degrees of freedom
k
3
_

4
w
x
4
+

3

x
3
_
+ k
4
_
2

x
3


4
w
x
4
_
+ kA
_

2
w
x
2


x
_
+ F (x, t ) = A

2
w
t
2
. (25)
In order to develop the new element, consider a two-node strain gradient Timoshenko beam element depicted
in Fig. 2. The length of the element is represented by L, and two degrees of freedom are assigned to each node:
1) lateral deection and 2) rotation angle of the cross section. So, the nodal displacement vector of the new
element can be expressed as
=
_

_
w
1

1
w
2

2
_

_
, (26)
where the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the node number in the beam element. For the new beam element, the
displacement and rotation elds of the element, w and , can be related to the nodal displacement vector by
utilizing the shape function matrices:
_
w

_
21
=
_
N
w
14
N

14
_
24
41
, (27)
where
N
w
=
_
N
w
1
N
w
2
N
w
3
N
w
4
_
, N

=
_
N

1
N

2
N

3
N

4
_
, (28)
in which N
w
and N

represent the shape function matrices, matrices with one row and four columns whose
components are the appropriate shape functions of the new element that will be derived later. By substituting
the displacement and rotation angle elds mentioned in Eq. (27) into Eqs. (19), (21), and (22), the potential
energy, kinetic energy, and work of external loads can be rewritten in more appropriate forms as
U =
1
2

T
K, (29)
T =
1
2

T
M

, (30)
W =
T
f, (31)
where the dot symbol refers to derivation with respect to time and
Strain gradient Timoshenko beam element
K =
L
_
0
_
k
1
_
d
2
N

dx
2
_
T
_
d
2
N

dx
2
_
+ k
2
_
dN

dx
_
T
_
dN

dx
_
+k
3
_
d
2
N
w
dx
2
+
dN

dx
_
T
_
d
2
N
w
dx
2
+
dN

dx
_
+ k
4
_
2
dN

dx

d
2
N
w
dx
2
_
T
_
2
dN

dx

d
2
N
w
dx
2
_
+kA
_
dN
w
dx
N

_
T
_
dN
w
dx
N

_
_
dx, (32)
M =
L
_
0
I
_
N

_
T
N

dx +
L
_
0
A
_
N
w
_
T
N
w
dx, (33)
f =
L
_
0
_
N
w
N

_
T
_
F (x, t )
M (x, t )
_
dx =
L
_
0
_
_
N
w
_
T
F (x, t )
_
N

_
T
M (x, t )
_
dx. (34)
By substituting Eqs. (29)(31) into the mathematical formulation of Hamiltons principle, i.e., Eq. (23), the
governing equation of the new element can be achieved as
M

+ K = f. (35)
Regarding Eq. (35), it is inferred that M, K and f, respectively, denote the mass matrix, stiffness matrix, and
nodal force vector of the new beam element. Considering Eqs. (32)(34), it is clear that by having the proper
shape functions, the stiffness and mass matrices as well as the nodal force vector of the new beam element
can be fully determined. Hence, hereafter, the procedure of deriving the shape functions of the new beam
element is explained. The shape functions of the new beam element are derived by solving the equilibrium
equations of strain gradient Timoshenko beam model and then applying the proper boundary conditions. The
equilibrium equations can be obtained from Eqs. (24) and (25) by dropping the external force and moment
and also considering /t = 0 in these equations as
k
1
d
4

dx
4
+ k
2
d
2

dx
2
+ k
3
_
d
3
w
dx
3
+
d
2

dx
2
_
+ 2k
4
_
2
d
2

dx
2

d
3
w
dx
3
_
+ kA
_
dw
dx

_
= 0, (36)
d
dx
_
k
3
d
2
dx
2
_
dw
dx
+
_
+ k
4
d
2
dx
2
_
2
dw
dx
_
+ kA
_
dw
dx

__
= 0. (37)
In order to solve the equations, two new variables, and , are introduced as
= 2
13
= 2
31
=
dw
dx
, = 2
2
=
dw
dx
+ . (38)
Equations (36) and (37) can be rewritten with respect to the new variables as follows:
__
k
2
4
k
3
_

+
_

3
2
k
4

+ kA
__

= 0
_
k
2
4
k
3
_

+
_

3
2
k
4

+ kA
_
= c
1
, (39)
_

k
1
2

(4)
+
_
k
2
2
+ k
3
+ k
4
_

_
+
_
k
1
2

(4)

_
k
2
2
+ 3k
4
_

+ kA
_
= 0, (40)
where the prime symbol refers to derivative with respect to x. In addition, c
1
denotes the constant of integration.
The non-dimensional analysis of Eqs. (39) and (40) will be helpful in order to derive the shape functions. To
that end, a dimensionless parameter can be introduced as x = x/L. Substitution of x into the second term of
Eq. (39), i.e.,
_
(3/2) k
4

+ kA
_
, and also recalling k
4
from Eq. (20) results in

3
2
k
4

+ kA = kA
_

4
5k
_
l
1
L
_
2
d
2

d x
2
+
_
. (41)
M. H. Kahrobaiyan et al.
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
h/l
E
r
r
o
r
%
L/h=2
L/h=3
L/h=5
L/h=7
Fig. 3 Effects of h/l and L/h on the error of ignoring (l
1
/L)
2
in the evaluation of the static end deection of a microcantilever
Since for most of the common materials, the length scale parameter l
1
is in the order of a few microns,
the term of (l
1
/L)
2
is very small even for microbeams used in MEMS. Hence, the coefcient of d
2
/d x
2
is negligible compared to 1, i.e., the coefcient of . In order to investigate the aforementioned assump-
tion on neglecting (l
1
/L)
2
, consider a microcantilever with length L having rectangular cross section with
thickness h and width b = 2h subjected to a concentrated force at its free end. The governing equations
are solved both with and without the aforementioned assumption in order to obtain the maximum deec-
tion of the microcantilever. An error parameter can be dened as Error% =

w
max
2
w
max
1

/w
max
1
where
w
max
1
and w
max
2
refer to the maximum deection of the microcantilever obtained, respectively, without and
with the aforementioned simplication. Since (l
1
/L)
2
can be rewritten as (l
1
/h)
2
(h/L)
2
, it would be help-
ful to investigate the effect of the ratio of the thickness to the length scale parameter h/l and the ratio of
the beam length to the beam thickness L/h. Assuming l
0
= l
1
= l
2
= l, which is a common assump-
tion in strain gradient theory, the error parameter, i.e., the error of ignoring (l
1
/L)
2
, is depicted in Fig. 3,
and the effects of h/l and L/h have been assessed. The gure shows that for high values of h/l, the error
approaches zero since the deections evaluated both with and without the aforementioned simplication will
coincide on the results predicted by the classical beam theory. In addition, it is observed that for low val-
ues of h/l, the error will be saturated, the saturated mechanical behavior of microbeams in low values of
h/l is a noticed issue [45], which will be explain later in this article. Moreover, the gure indicates that as
L/h increases, the error increases too in a way that for a very short beam, L/h = 2, the error is about
6%. In conclusion, since the error is negligible in the case study, the neglecting of (l
1
/L)
2
in shape func-
tion derivation seems to be reasonable. It is noted that later in this section, the shape functions derived by
the aforementioned simplication (neglecting (l
1
/L)
2
) are compared to those numerically derived without
simplication.
Regarding the previous explanations, Eq. (39) reduces to
=
c
1
kA
+
1
kA
_
k
3

k
4
2
_

. (42)
Substitution of Eq. (42) into Eq. (40) gives
1
kA
_
k
3

k
4
2
_
k
1
2

(6)

_
k
1
2
+
1
kA
_
k
2
2
+ 3k
4
__
k
3

k
4
2
__

(4)
+
_
k
2
2
+ 2k
3
+
k
4
2
_

= c
1
.
(43)
Strain gradient Timoshenko beam element
Now, by recalling x, the non-dimensional form of Eq. (43) can be obtained as follows:

kE
_
1
4
_
l
0
L
_
2

4
15
_
l
1
L
_
2
__
_
l
0
L
_
2
+
2
5
_
l
1
L
_
2
_
d
6

d x
6

E
_
_
l
0
L
_
2
+
2
5
_
l
1
L
_
2
_
+
1
k
_
1
2
+

E
_
l
0
r
_
2
+
8
5

E
_
l
1
r
_
2
__
1
4
_
l
2
L
_
2

4
15
_
l
1
L
_
2
__
d
4

d x
4
+
1
2
_
1 +

E
_
2
_
l
0
r
_
2
+
8
15
_
l
1
r
_
2
+
_
l
2
r
_
2
__
d
2

d x
2
= c
1
L
2
, (44)
where r denotes the gyration radius of the beamcross section, i.e., I = Ar
2
. According to the justication made
for simplifying Eq. (41), it is inferred that the coefcients of d
6
/d x
6
and d
4
/d x
4
are negligible compared
to the coefcient of d
2
/d x
2
. Hence, Eq. (44) reduces to

=
2c
1
EI (1 + )
, (45)
where
=
A
EI
_
2l
2
0
+
8
15
l
2
1
+ l
2
2
_
=

E
_
2
_
l
0
r
_
2
+
8
15
_
l
1
r
_
2
+
_
l
2
r
_
2
_
. (46)
The general solution of Eq. (46) is obtained as
=
C
EI (1 + )
x
2
+ c
2
x + c
3
, (47)
in which c
2
and c
3
represent the constants of integration. Substituting Eq. (47) into Eq. (42) and recalling k
3
and k
4
from Eq. (20), one can express
=
c
1
kA
1 +
1 +
, (48)
where
=
A
EI
_
2l
2
0
+
16
15
l
2
1
+
1
2
l
2
2
_
=

E
_
2
_
l
0
r
_
2
+
16
15
_
l
1
r
_
2
+
1
2
_
l
2
r
_
2
_
. (49)
Substitution of Eqs. (47) and (48) into Eq. (38) gives the rotation angle and lateral deection w
as
=
1
2
( ) =
1
2
_

c
1
EI (1 + )
x
2
+ c
2
x + c
3

c
1
kA
1 +
1 +
_
, (50)
w =
1
2
_
( + ) dx =
1
2
_
c
1
kA
1 + /2
1 +
x
c
1
x
3
3EI (1 + )
+
c
2
2
x
2
+ c
3
x
_
+ c
4
. (51)
In order to obtain the shape functions of the new two-node Timoshenko beam element, the following boundary
conditions should be applied:
w(0) = w
1
, (0) =
1
, w(L) = w
2
, (L) =
2
. (52)
By applying the aforementioned boundary conditions, the integration constants, c
1
, , c
4
are determined
as
c
1
=
EI (1 + )
L
3
(1 + )
{12w
1
6L
1
+ 12w
2
6L
2
} ,
c
2
= 2
(
2

1
)
L
+
c
1
L
EI (1 + )
, c
3
= 2
1
+
c
1
kA
1 +
1 +
, c
4
= w
1
,
M. H. Kahrobaiyan et al.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
x/L
F
i
r
s
t

d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

s
h
a
p
e

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
Polynomial (L/h=3)
Higher-order (L/h=3)
Polynomial (L/h=7)
Higher-order (L/h=7)
Polynomial (L/h=13)
Higher-order (L/h=13)
Fig. 4 First shape function of the lateral deection eld, N
w
1
: numerically obtained without ignoring (l
1
/L)
2
(higher-order shape
functions) and analytically obtained with ignoring (l
1
/L)
2
(polynomial shape functions)
where
=
12EI
kAL
2
(1 + ) = 12
E
k
_
r
L
_
2
(1 + ) . (53)
Substituting Eq. (53) into Eqs. (50) and (51) and comparing the results with those mentioned as matrix forms
in Eqs. (27) and (28), the shape functions of the new beam element are derived as
N

1
=
6
L (1 + )
_
x
L
_ _
1
x
L
_
, N

2
=
_
1
x
L
_
_
1
3
(1 + )
_
x
L
_
_
,
N

3
=
6
L (1 + )
_
x
L
_ _
1
x
L
_
N

4
=
_
x
L
_
_
1
3
(1 + )
_
1
x
L
_
_
,
N
w
1
= 1 +
1
1 +
_
2
_
x
L
_
3
3
_
x
L
_
2

_
x
L
_
_
,
N
w
2
=
L
2 (1 + )
_
2
_
x
L
_
3
(4 + )
_
x
L
_
2
+ (2 + )
_
x
L
_
_
, (54)
N
w
3
=
1
1 +
_
3
_
x
L
_
2
2
_
x
L
_
3
+
_
x
L
_
_
,
N
w
4
=
L
2 (1 + )
_
2
_
x
L
_
3
+ ( 2)
_
x
L
_
2

_
x
L
_
_
.
It is observed that the shape functions of the new beam element have the size-dependent nature, i.e., they
are the functions of the ratio of the gyration radius to the length scale parameters. Here, in order to jus-
tify the simplication made to derive the shape functions mentioned in Eqs. (54) and (55), i.e., neglect-
ing (l
1
/L)
2
, the rst two polynomial shape functions of the lateral deection, i.e., N
w
1
and N
w
2
, obtained
based on neglecting of (l
1
/L)
2
are depicted in Figs. 4 and 5 and compared to the shape functions numer-
ically derived without the aforementioned simplication for different values of L/h. The gures indicate
that as L/h increases, the difference between the higher-order and polynomial shape functions decreases.
It is observed that the effect of ignoring the coefcients of (l
1
/L)
2
in solving the equilibrium equations is
negligible. Hence, the assumption of neglecting the coefcients of (l
1
/L)
2
, which is made in the process
of deriving the shape functions mentioned in Eqs. (54) and (55), is justiable. It is noted that the negli-
gible difference is observed between all the 8 shape functions expressed in Eqs. (54) and (55) and those
higher-order shape functions derived without simplication, but only N
w
1
and N
w
2
are chosen for graphical
delineation.
Strain gradient Timoshenko beam element
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
x/L
T
h
e

s
e
c
o
n
d

d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

s
h
a
p
e

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
/
L
Higher-order (L/h=3)
Polynomial (L/h=3)
Higher-order (L/h=7)
Polynomial (L/h=7)
Higher-order (L/h=13)
Polynomial (L/h=13)
Fig. 5 Second shape function of the lateral deection eld, N
w
2
: numerically obtained without ignoring (l
1
/L)
2
(higher-order
shape functions) and analytically obtained with ignoring (l
1
/L)
2
(polynomial shape functions)
Now, by substitution of the shape functions mentioned in Eqs. (54) and (55) into Eq. (28), the shape func-
tion matrices, N
w
and N

, can be determined, and subsequently, by inserting N

w
and N

into Eqs. (32) and

(33), the stiffness and mass matrices of the new beam element can be determined as
K =
EI (1 + )
L
3
(1 + )
_
_
_
_
12 6L 12 6L
(4 + ) L
2
6L (2 ) L
2
12 6L
Symm. (4 + ) L
2
_

_
+
36I
L
3
(1 + )
2
_
2
_
l
0
L
_
2
+
4
5
_
l
1
L
_
2
_
_
_
_
_
4 2L 4 2L
L
2
2L L
2
4 2L
Symm. L
2
_

_
, (55)
M
T.I.
=
AL
210 (1 + )
2
_
_
_
_
_
_
70
2
+ 147 + 78
_
L
4
_
35
2
+ 77 + 44
_ _
35
2
+ 63 + 27
_

L
4
_
35
2
+ 63 + 26
_
L
2
4
_
7
2
+ 14 + 8
_
L
4
_
35
2
+ 63 + 26
_

L
2
4
_
7
2
+ 14 + 6
_
_
70
2
+ 147 + 78
_

L
4
_
35
2
+ 77 + 44
_
Symm.
L
2
4
_
7
2
+ 14 + 8
_
_

_
,
(56)
M
R.I.
=
I
30L (1 + )
2
_
_
_
_
36 L (3 15) 36 L (3 15)
L
2
_
10
2
+ 5 + 4
_
L (3 15) L
2
_
5
2
5 1
_
36 L (3 15)
Symm. L
2
_
10
2
+ 5 + 4
_
_

_
, (57)
where symm. refers to the symmetric nature of stiffness and mass matrices. Moreover, M
T.I.
and M
R.I.
,
respectively, represent the tensors of the transitional and rotary inertia that together make the total mass matrix
of the Timoshenko beam element M as
M = M
T.I.
+ M
R.I.
. (58)
The newstrain gradient Timoshenko beamelement is a comprehensive beamelement that recovers the formula-
tions of strain gradient EulerBernoulli beamelement, modied couple stress Timoshenko and EulerBernoulli
beamelements, and classical Timoshenko and EulerBernoulli beamelements. By letting = 0 in Eq. (55), the
formulations of the classical Timoshenko beamelement can be achieved [47] noted that the condition of = 0
happens either when one utilizes the classical continuum theory so considers l
0
= l
1
= l
2
= 0 in the formula-
tions or when the dimensions of the structure are large, e.g., in macroscales, and consequently the ratio of the
length scale parameters to the gyration radius of the beamcross section l
0
/r, l
1
/r and l
2
/r becomes negligible.
M. H. Kahrobaiyan et al.
Fig. 6 A microcantilever subjected to a concentrated force at its free end: loading, geometry, and coordinate system
Moreover, the formulations of a modied couple stress Timoshenko beam element can be obtained by letting
l
0
= l
1
= 0 and l
2
= l in the formulation of the new beam element. It will be indicated that the formulations of
the new beam element reduce to the formulations of a two-node strain gradient EulerBernoulli beam element
when the ratio of the beam length to the gyration radius of the beam cross section is large, i.e., = 0 in Eqs.
(55)(57). It is noted that letting l
0
= l
1
= 0 and l
2
= l, in addition to = 0, the stiffness matrix of a modied
couple stress EulerBernoulli beam element can be achieved [48]. In addition, assuming l
0
= l
1
= l
2
= 0 in
addition to = 0, the stiffness matrix of a classical EulerBernoulli beam element can be obtained [49].
Since when the ratio of the beam length to the gyration radius of the beam cross section is large, i.e.,
0, the stiffness matrix of the new Timoshenko beam element reduces to the stiffness matrix of a strain
gradient EulerBernoulli beam element, one can be sure that the shear-locking phenomenon will not happen
for the new beam element. To sum up, the new strain gradient Timoshenko beam element is a comprehensive
beamelement that recovers the formulations of strain gradient EulerBernoulli beamelement, modied couple
stress Timoshenko and EulerBernoulli beam elements, and also classical Timoshenko and EulerBernoulli
beam elements.
4 Examples
In this section, it will be indicated how the new beam element can be employed to investigate the mechanical
behavior of microscale systems. In order to assess the validation of the new beam element, the results obtained
by utilizing the newbeamelement are compared to the experimental data as well as the classical FEMoutcomes.
It is observed the new beam element results are in excellent agreement with the experimental observations,
whereas the attempts of the classical FEM to capture the experimental data have been in vain.
4.1 A microcantilever static deection
Consider a microcantilever with length L
b
having a uniform rectangular cross section with height h and width
b subjected to concentrated force P at its free end (see Fig. 6). The microcantilever is modeled by the new
beam element, and its static deection is evaluated. Assuming the microcantilever is made of epoxy with
E = 1.44Gpa and = 0.38 [12] and also considering l
0
= l
1
= l
2
= l, the normalized end deection of
the microcantilever, 3EI w(L) /PL
3
, has been depicted in Fig. 7 versus the ratio of the beam thickness to the
length scale, h/l, for various values of the ratio of the beam length to the beam thickness, L/h. As it can be
observed in Fig. 7, there exist three separate regions: 1) classical saturated region for high values of h/l, in
which the results of the new beam element approach those predicted by the classical beam theories, noting that
for slim beams (high values of L/h), the normalized deection is close to what the classical EulerBernoulli
beam theory predicts (value of 1), but for short beams (low values of L/h), the difference (between the
evaluated results and those the EulerBernoulli beam model predict) increases as the ratio of L/h decreases,
noting that the evaluated results approach the results predicted by the classical Timoshenko beam theory; 2)
strain gradient transitional region, in which the effect of h/l is dominant; and 3) strain gradient-saturated
region for low values of h/l, where the normalized deection increases as L/h decreases. The existence of
these three distinct regions rst discovered by Darrall et al. [45] in an article on FEMmodeling of couple stress
media with plane elements. They expressed that the beams show nearly pure shear deformation behavior
at very low values of h/l. They indicated that there is a saturated equivalent stiffness for microbeams at low
Strain gradient Timoshenko beam element
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
h/l
w

(
3
E
I
/
p
L
3
)
L/h=5
L/h=10
L/h=20
L/h=50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
Fig. 7 Normalized end deection of the microcantilever subjected to a concentrated force at its free end
values of h/l: the stiffness is proportional to A/L [45]. So, the saturated deection of the microcantilever
observed in Fig. 7 at lowvalues of h/l can be justied, and it can be inferred that the normalized end deection
of the microcantilever will be proportional to (E/) (h/L)
2
at low values of h/l.
For a microcantilever with E = 2 and = 0 subjected to a unit lateral deection at its free end [45], the
equivalent stiffness of the beam (end reaction force divided by end deection) is evaluated using the new strain
gradient beam element (assuming l
0
= l
1
= 0 and l
2
= l), and the results are compared to those evaluated
by employing the couple stress plane elements developed by Darrall et al. [45]. The normalized equivalent
stiffness of the beam is depicted in Fig. 8 versus h/l for L/h = 20 and 40. The comparison indicates that the
results of the new beam element are in good agreement with the results of the plane couple stress element. It
is noted that the three distinct regions can be observed in this gure. The lateral deection of the cantilever is
evaluated by employing the new beam element, and the results are compared with those obtained on the basis
of the couple stress plane elements developed by Darrall et al. [45] in Fig. 9. A good agreement between the
results obtained by new beam element and couple stress plane element is observed in this gure.
As another example, the static deection of a microcantilever made of epoxy is evaluated by implementing
the new beam element, and the results are compared to the experimental data extracted from the work done
by Lam et al. [12]. They conducted a bending test on a microcantilever made of epoxy with the following
mechanical properties: the elastic modulus: E = 1.44Gpa and Poisson ratio: = 0.38. It is noted that the
length scale parameter of epoxy is evaluated to be l
0
= l
1
= l
2
= l = 11.02m [12]. Moreover, in the
aforementioned bending test, the geometrical properties of the microcantilever are reported as follows: the
thickness: h = 38m, the width: b = 0.235mm, and the ratio of the length to the thickness: L
b
/h = 10
M. H. Kahrobaiyan et al.
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
Ratio of the beam thickness to the length scale parameter (h/l)
N
o
n
-
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

S
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
L/h=20 (The current work)
L/h=40 (The current work)
L/h=20 (Darrall et al., 2013)
L/h=40 (Darrall et al., 2013)
Fig. 8 Normalized stiffness of the cantilever: a comparison between the results obtained by using the present beam element and
those obtained by using couple stress plane element
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
x/L
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
w
)
h/l=0.0001 (Current work)
h/l=2 (Current work)
h/l=10000 (Current work)
h/l=10000 (Darrall et al., 2013)
h/l=2 (Darrall et al., 2013)
h/l=0.0001 (Darrall et al., 2013)
Fig. 9 Lateral deection of the cantilever: a comparison between the results obtained by using the present beam element and
those obtained by using couple stress plane element
[12]. In order to bend the microcantilever, Lam et al. [12] used a nanoloading system (Hysitron Triboindenter)
to produce a concentrated force at the free end of the cantilever. After that, they graphically reported the
experimentally measured end forces versus the end deections. In order to validate the new non-classical
beam element, the aforementioned microcantilever is modeled by using 10 new beam elements. The stiffness
matrices of the elements are assembled, and the boundary conditions, i.e., w(0) = (0) = 0, are applied. The
end force applied to the microcantilever is depicted in Fig. 10 versus the end deection of the microcantilever,
w
L
b
. In this gure, the results obtained by the FEM based on the newly established beam elements have been
compared to the experimental results and the results obtained by applying the classical beam elements. It is
observed that the outcomes based on the new beam elements are in good agreement with the experimental
results while there is a signicant difference between the experimental and classical FEM results. It is also
observed that the results of the strain gradient Timoshenko beamelement are closer to the experimental data than
the results of the strain gradient EulerBernoulli beam element. Since for the aforementioned microcantilever,
the ratio of the beam length to the beam height is 10 and the above-mentioned observation is justiable.
To sum up, it seems that in order to model the microscale structures, employing the non-classical elements
is essential. The good agreement between the current and the experimental results implies that the newly
Strain gradient Timoshenko beam element
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
End deflection (nm)
E
n
d

F
o
r
c
e

(

N
)
Strain gradient Timoshenko
Strain gradient Euler-Bernoulli
Classical Timoshenko
Classical Euler-Bernoulli
Experimental Data (Lam et al., 2003)
Fig. 10 End-force versus the end deection of the microcantilever: a comparison between the FEMresults and experimental data.
The FEM results are obtained by employing strain gradient and classical Timoshenko and EulerBernoulli beam elements
developed beam elements are valid, reliable, and can be successfully employed to deal with the mechanical
problems in micron and submicron scales. It is seen that the non-classical beam elements predicts the beams
stiffer than those the classical beam theories.
4.2 An electrostatically actuated microcantilever: static deection, frequency, and pull-in voltage
In this section, the new beam element is implemented to investigate the static and vibration behavior of
electrostatically actuated microbeams.
Consider an electrostatically actuated microcantilever with length L
b
having a uniform rectangular cross
section with height h and width b and an initial distance d froma xed substrate subjected to electrostatic force
with the voltage V as shown in Fig. 11. Assuming the aforementioned microcantilever is made of poly-silicon,
which is an isotropic material with elastic modulus of E = 150Gpa and Poissons ratio of = 0.23 [46],
and also considering the geometrical properties of the microcantilever to be tabulated in Table 1, the static
deection of the microcantilever under electrostatic force is calculated using the new beam element. For the
microbeam depicted in Fig. 11, the distributed electrostatic force-per-unit length is expressed as
F(x) =

0
bV
2
(d w)
2
_
1 + 0.65
d w
b
_
, (59)
Fig. 11 An electrostatically actuated microcantilever: conguration, geometry, and coordinate system
M. H. Kahrobaiyan et al.
Table 1 Geometrical properties of the microbeam tested by Jensen et al. [46]
Material Poly-silicon (m)
Length (L) 700
Thickness (h) 2.28
Width (b) 20
Gap distance (d) 6.62
where
0
= 8.854 10
12
represents the vacuum permittivity and V stands for the applied voltage between
the beam and the substrate. Substituting F from Eq. (59) into Eq. (34) and considering M to be zero, the nodal
force vector can be calculated.
Assembling the stiffness matrices and force vectors of all elements and also satisfying the boundary
conditions, i.e., w(0) = 0 and (0) = 0, the equation of the static deection of the electrostatically actuated
microcantilever is determined as follows:

=

K
1

f, (60)
where the symbol

refers to the assembled version of the respected quantity. Equation (60) is a nonlinear
equation in which the force vector

f is a nonlinear function of the displacement vector

. This equation can
be solved using an iterative method as follows. At rst, the electrostatic load on the un-deformed microbeam
(i.e.,

0
= 0, which yields w
0
(x) = 0) is calculated as
F
0
(x) =

0
bV
2
d
2
_
1 + 0.65
d
b
_
. (61)
Given F
0
(x), the force vector f
0
and consequently the rst estimation of the nodal displacement vector (i.e.,

1
)
and subsequently the displacement eld (i.e., w
1
(x)) can be calculated using Eq. (60). Now, the next estimation
of the electrostatic load and force vector can be obtained by substituting w
1
(x) into Eq. (59), and subsequently
the next estimation of the nodal displacements vector and displacement eld can be found. This procedure will
be stopped when the convergence is observed or pull-in phenomenon is happened. The convergence criterion
is considered as
error
i
< error
desired
, (62)
in which
error
i
=

i 1

, error
desired
= 10
8
, (63)
and pull-in happens if w
max
1.
The static deection of the microcantilever obtained by employing the new beam element is depicted in
Fig. 12 for various values of applied voltages and compared with the results achieved by utilizing the classical
beam elements as well as the experimental results extracted from work of Jensen et al. [46]. It is noted that the
length scale parameter of poly-silicon is assumed to be l = 0.14 m. The gure shows that there is a good
agreement between the results evaluated by implementing the new beam element and the experimental data
while the difference between the experimental ndings and the classical FEM modeling outcomes is notable.
It is noted that the difference increases as the applied voltage increases.
As another example, the newly developed beamelement is employed to evaluate the pull-in voltage of elec-
trostatically actuated microbeams. As the applied voltage increases, the attractive electrostatic force between
the xed substrate and the microcantilever increases and so does the deection of the microcantilever; as a con-
sequence, at a certain voltage, the microcantilever tends to collapse to the xed substrate. The aforementioned
behavior is well known in the literature as the pull-in phenomenon, and the corresponding voltage is recognized
as the pull-in voltage denoted by V
P
. It is noted that determining the accurate values of pull-in voltage is an
extremely important issue in design of microswitches. Hence, the static pull-in voltage of a microcantilever
made of silicon is determined here by employing the newly developed beam elements.
Strain gradient Timoshenko beam element
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
x (m)
w

(

m
)
V=6.96 volts
V=7.81 volts V=7.38 volts
Fig. 12 Static deection of an electrostatically actuated microcantilever for different applied voltages: a comparison with the
experimental and classical FEMresults. The solid line represents the results of the new(strain gradient) beamelement; the dashed
line represents the results of the classical beamelement; and green hollowsquare marks represents the experimental results (color
gure online)
Table 2 Specications of the silicon microcantilevers tested by Osterberg [50, 51]
Specication Group 1 Group2
Crystal direction along beam length 110 010
Elastic modulus along beam length 169.2GPa 130.4GPa
Poissons ratio in side plane of the beam 0.239 0.177
The range for length (L) 75250m 75225m
Height (h) 2.94 m 2.94 m
Width (b) 50 m 50 m
Distance from the base (d) 1.05 m 1.05 m
In order to indicate the advantages of the new beam element, the results obtained using the new beam
element are compared with those reported in the experimental research performed by Osterberg [50]. The
specications of the microbeamtested by Osterberg [50] are presented in Table 2. It is noted that the microbeams
were fabricated in two different directions of silicon crystal: 110 direction, i.e., the length of the beam is along
the 110 direction and the side plane of the beam normal to 110 direction of silicon crystal, and 010 direction,
i.e., the length of the beam is along the 010 direction and the side plane of the beam normal to 010 direction of
silicon crystal [50, 51]. Silicon can be assumed as an orthotropic material [5052], and the FEM formulation
derived in this paper is for isotropic materials, but since for bending of slim microbeams, the uniaxial strain
condition can be supposed and the deection of the microbeam is considered to be in xz plane only, the
current formulation can be employed as long as one uses the effective elastic modulus in x direction and
effective Poissons ratio in xz plane. These effective mechanical properties are experimentally determined
for silicon by Osterberg [50], and the same values are used in FEM modeling of the current work.
Figures 13 and 14 compare the results of the pull-in voltage evaluated by the new beam element with those
evaluated based on the classical FEM and also the experimental observations [50] for silicon microbeams,
respectively, in 110 and 010 directions. It is noted that in order to generate the graphs of Figs. 13 and 14, the
length scale parameter of the silicon is considered to be l110 = 0.31 m and l010 = 0.38 m in crystal planes
normal to 110 and 010 directions, respectively (since the silicon is anisotropic material, its length scale will
be different for different directions). The gures indicate that the classical FEM underestimates the pull-in
voltage of the microcantilever. On the other hand, the pull-in voltages evaluated by the new beam element are
in good agreement with the experimental observations [50].
In another example, the rst vibration frequency of a clampedclamped microbeam subjected to electro-
static force is obtained using the new FEM formulation. In order to evaluate the frequency, the eigenvalues of

M
1

K should be calculated. The clampedclamped microbeam used for numerical modeling is assumed to be
made of poly-silicon with elastic modulus of E = 150Gpa, Poissons ratio of = 0.23 [46, 53], and the length
M. H. Kahrobaiyan et al.
50 100 150 200 250
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
( )
b
L m
New beam element ( 0.31 l = )
Experimental data, Osterberg, 1995
Classical beam element
(
)
P
V
v
m
Fig. 13 Comparing the present and the experimental results of static pull-in voltage for silicon microbeams fabricated in 110
direction
50 100 150 200 250
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
( )
b
L m
New beam element ( 0.38 l m = )
Experimental data, Osterberg, 1995
Classical beam element
(
)
P
V
v
Fig. 14 Comparing the present and the experimental results of static pull-in voltage for silicon microbeams fabricated in 010
direction
Table 3 Geometrical properties of the microbeams tested by Tilmans and Legtenberg [53]
Material Poly-silicon (m)
Length (L) 210, 310, 410, 510
Thickness (h) 1.5
Width (b) 100
Gap distance (d) 1.18
scale parameter of l = 0.14 m(as assumed in the rst example). The geometrical properties of the microbeam
can also be found in Table 3. The frequencies obtained by employing the new beam element are compared
to the experimental data found by Tilmans and Legtenberg [53] in Fig. 15 noted that the midplane stretching,
i.e., (E A/2L)
_
L
0
(w/x)
2
dx which appears in beams with immovable supports such as clampedclamped
[54] is also taken into account in FEM modeling. The gure shows that there is a good agrement between
the current and experimental results. In this gure, it is observed that as the voltage increases, the frequency
decreases until the pull-in happens.
In this section, the new strain gradient beam element is implemented to evaluate the static deection, static
pull-in voltage, and vibration frequency of electrostatically actuated microbeams. The results are compared
to the experimental results and those evaluated by the classical FEM modeling. It is observed that unlike the
classical FEM results, the results of the new element are in good agreement with the experimental results. It
comes to the conclusion that the newstrain gradient beamelements can reduce the gap between the experimental
Strain gradient Timoshenko beam element
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Applied Voltage (V)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
k
H
z
)
L=210 m
(Present work)
L=210 m
(Experimental)
L=310 m
(Present work)
L=310 m
(Experimental)
L=410 m
(Present work)
L=410 m
(Experimental)
L=510 m
(Present work)
L=510 m
(Experimental)
Fig. 15 First vibration frequency of the electrostatically actuated clampedclamped microbeam: a comparison with experimental
ndings extracted from Tilmans and Legtenberg [53]
observations and simulation results, and therefore, the necessity of using the non-classical continuum-based
FEM such as the present strain gradient beam element will be comprehensible.
5 Summary and conclusion
Since the classical continuum theory is neither able to capture the size dependency observed in microscale
structures nor able to evaluate the accurate stiffness of these structures, developing structural nite elements
based on non-classical continuum theories such as the strain gradient theory seems to be crucial. In this paper,
a comprehensive beam element is developed on the basis of the strain gradient theory. The formulations of the
newbeamelement recover the formulations of strain gradient, modied couple stress and classical Timoshenko
and EulerBernoulli beam elements. An energy-based approach is utilized to obtain the stiffness and mass
matrices of the new beam element, and the shape functions are derived by solving the governing equations of
strain gradient Timoshenko beams and applying appropriate boundary conditions. The characteristics of the
new beam element can be outlined as:
The new beam element can capture the size dependency of microscale systems unlike the classical beam
elements;
The new beam element predicts the accurate stiffness for microscale structures where the classical beam
elements underestimate the stiffness;
The formulations of the new strain gradient Timoshenko beam element reduce to the formulations of
strain gradient EulerBernoulli, modied couple stress Timoshenko and EulerBernoulli, and also classical
Timoshenko and EulerBernoulli beam elements in special circumstances;
The stiffness and mass matrices of the new beam element are presented in closed forms;
The shape functions of the new beam element are derived by solving the static equilibrium equations and
consequently have size-dependent nature;
The shear-locking phenomenon will not happen for the new beam element.
In order to validate the newbeamelement, the static deection of a microcantilever is evaluated by utilizing
the new beam element, and the results are compared to the experimental data as well as the results obtained by
the classical FEMand the couple stress-based plane element. The static deection, pull-in voltage, and vibration
frequencies of electrostatically actuated microbeams are evaluated by employing the new beam elements, and
the results are compared to the experimental data as well as the classical FEM results. It is observed that the
results based on the new beam elements are in excellent agreement with the experimental results, whereas the
gap between the classical FEM and experimental outcomes is notable. It is noted that when the dimensions of
the beams increase, the results of the new beam element approach the results of classical FEM.
M. H. Kahrobaiyan et al.
References
1. Attia, P., Tremblay, G., Laval, R., Hesto, P.: Characterisation of a low-voltage actuated gold microswitch. Mater. Sci. Eng.
B 51, 263266 (1998)
2. Moeenfard, H., Ahmadian, M.T.: Analytical modeling of bending effect on the torsional response of electrostatically actuated
micromirrors. Opt. Int. J. Light Electron Opt. (2012). doi:10.1016/j.ijleo.2012.06.025
3. Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Rahaeifard, M., Ahmadian, M.T.: Nonlinear dynamic analysis of a V-shaped microcantilever of an
atomic force microscope. Appl. Math. Model. 35, 59035919 (2011)
4. Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Ahmadian, M.T., Haghighi, P., Haghighi, A.: Sensitivity and resonant frequency of an AFM with
sidewall and top-surface probes for both exural and torsional modes. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 52, 13571365 (2010)
5. Wu, D.H., Chien, W.T., Yang, C.J., Yen, Y.T.: Coupled-eld analysis of piezoelectric beam actuator using FEM. Sens.
Actuators A 118, 171176 (2005)
6. Metz, P., Alici, G., Spinks, G.M.: A nite element model for bending behaviour of conducting polymer electromechanical
actuators. Sens. Actuators A 130, 111 (2006)
7. Coutu, R.A., Kladitis, P.E., Starman, L.A., Reid, J.R.: Acomparisonof micro-switchanalytic, nite element, andexperimental
results. Sens. Actuators A 115, 252258 (2004)
8. Chapuis, F., Bastien, F., Manceau, J.F., Casset, F., Charvet, P.L.: FEM modelling of Piezo-actuated Microswitches. In: 7th
International Conference on Thermal, Mechanical and Multiphysics Simulation and Experiments in Micro-Electronics and
Micro-Systems, 2006. EuroSime 2006, IEEE, 2006, pp. 16
9. Tajalli, S.A., Moghimi Zand, M., Ahmadian, M.T.: Effect of geometric nonlinearity on dynamic pull-in behavior of coupled-
domain microstructures based on classical and shear deformation plate theories. Eur. J. Mech. A. Solids 28, 916925 (2009)
10. Rochus, V., Rixen, D., Golinval, J.C.: Non-conforming element for accurate modelling of MEMS. Finite Elem. Anal.
Des. 43, 749756 (2007)
11. Fleck, N.A., Muller, G.M., Ashby, M.F., Hutchinson, J.W.: Strain gradient plasticity: theory and experiment. Acta Metall.
Mater. 42, 475487 (1994)
12. Lam, D.C.C., Yang, F., Chong, A.C.M., Wang, J., Tong, P.: Experiments and theory in strain gradient elasticity. J. Mech.
Phys. Solids 51, 14771508 (2003)
13. Stlken, J.S., Evans, A.G.: A microbend test method for measuring the plasticity length scale. Acta Mater. 46,
51095115 (1998)
14. Mindlin, R.D.: Second gradient of strain and surface-tension in linear elasticity. Int. J. Solids Struct. 1, 417438 (1965)
15. Mindlin, R.D., Tiersten, H.F.: Effects of couple-stresses in linear elasticity. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 11, 415448 (1962)
16. Koiter, W.T.: Couple stresses in the theory of elasticity, I and II, in: Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. Ser. B 67, 1729 (1964)
17. Fleck, N.A., Hutchinson, J.W.: Strain gradient plasticity. Adv. Appl. Mech. 33, 295361 (1997)
18. Fleck, N.A., Hutchinson, J.W.: A reformulation of strain gradient plasticity. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 49, 22452271 (2001)
19. Fleck, N.A., Hutchinson, J.W.: A phenomenological theory for strain gradient effects in plasticity. J. Mech. Phys.
Solids 41, 18251857 (1993)
20. Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Asghari, M., Rahaeifard, M., Ahmadian, M.T.: A nonlinear strain gradient beam formulation. Int. J.
Eng. Sci. 49, 12561267 (2011)
21. Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Rahaeifard, M., Tajalli, S.A., Ahmadian, M.T.: A strain gradient functionally graded EulerBernoulli
beam formulation. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 52, 6576 (2012)
22. Wang, B., Zhao, J., Zhou, S.: Amicro scale Timoshenko beammodel based on strain gradient elasticity theory. Eur. J. Mech.
A. Solids 29, 591599 (2010)
23. Wang, B., Zhou, S., Zhao, J., Chen, X.: A size-dependent Kirchhoff micro-plate model based on strain gradient elasticity
theory. Eur. J. Mech. A. Solids 30, 517524 (2011)
24. Kong, S., Zhou, S., Nie, Z., Wang, K.: Static and dynamic analysis of micro beams based on strain gradient elasticity
theory. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 47, 487498 (2009)
25. Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Tajalli, S.A., Movahhedy, M.R., Akbari, J., Ahmadian, M.T.: Torsion of strain gradient bars. Int. J. Eng.
Sci. 49, 856866 (2011)
26. Asghari, M., Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Nikfar, M., Ahmadian, M.T.: A size-dependent nonlinear Timoshenko microbeam model
based on the strain gradient theory. Acta Mech. 223(6), 12331249 (2012)
27. Rahaeifard, M., Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Ahmadian, M.T., Firoozbakhsh, K.: Strain gradient formulation of functionally graded
nonlinear beams. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 65, 4963 (2013)
28. Tajalli, S.A., Rahaeifard, M., Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Movahhedy, M.R., Akbari, J., Ahmadian, M.T.: Mechanical behavior
analysis of size-dependent micro-scaled functionally graded Timoshenko beams by strain gradient elasticity theory. Compos.
Struct. 102, 7280 (2013)
29. Vatankhah, R., Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Alasty, A., Ahmadian, M.T.: Nonlinear forced vibration of strain gradient microbeams.
Appl. Math. Modell. Article in press (2013)
30. Nix, W.D., Gao, H.: Indentation size effects in crystalline materials: a law for strain gradient plasticity. J. Mech. Phys.
Solids 46, 411425 (1998)
31. Yang, F., Chong, A.C.M., Lam, D.C.C., Tong, P.: Couple stress based strain gradient theory for elasticity. Int. J. Solids
Struct. 39, 27312743 (2002)
32. Asghari, M., Ahmadian, M.T., Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Rahaeifard, M.: On the size-dependent behavior of functionally graded
micro-beams. Mater. Des. 31, 23242329 (2010)
33. Asghari, M., Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Ahmadian, M.T.: Anonlinear Timoshenko beamformulation based on the modied couple
stress theory. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 48(12), 17491761 (2010)
34. Asghari, M., Rahaeifard, M., Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Ahmadian, M.T.: The modied couple stress functionally graded Timo-
shenko beam formulation . Mater. Des. 32, 143543 (2011)
35. Asghari, M., Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Rahaeifard, M., Ahmadian, M.T.: Investigation of the size effects in Timoshenko beams
based on the couple stress theory. Arch. Appl. Mech. 81(7), 863874 (2011)
Strain gradient Timoshenko beam element
36. Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Asghari, M., Hoore, M., Ahmadian, M.T.: Nonlinear size-dependent forced vibrational behavior of
microbeams based on a non-classical continuum theory. J. Vib. Control 18(5), 696711 (2012)
37. Tsiatas, G.C.: A new Kirchhoff plate model based on a modied couple stress theory. Int. J. Solids Struct. 46,
27572764 (2009)
38. Tsiatas, G.C., Yiotis, A.J.: A microstructure-dependent orthotropic plate model based on a modied couple stress the-
ory, recent developments in boundary element methods, a volume to honour professor John T. Katsikadelis, WIT Press,
Southampton, 2010, pp. 295308
39. Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Asghari, M., Rahaeifard, M., Ahmadian, M.T.: Investigation of the size-dependent dynamic character-
istics of atomic force microscope microcantilevers based on the modied couple stress theory. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 48, 1985
1994 (2010)
40. Rahaeifard, M., Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Ahmadian, M.T., Firoozbakhsh, K.: Size-dependent pull-in phenomena in nonlinear
microbridges. Int. J. Mech. Sci. (2011)
41. Sim sek, M.: Dynamic analysis of an embedded microbeam carrying a moving microparticle based on the modied couple
stress theory. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 48, 17211732 (2010)
42. Fu, Y., Zhang, J.: Modeling and analysis of microtubules based on a modied couple stress theory. Phys. E 42,
17411745 (2010)
43. Rahaeifard, M., Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Asghari, M., Ahmadian, M.T.: Static pull-in analysis of microcantilevers based on the
modied couple stress theory. Sens. Actuators A 171, 370374 (2011)
44. Rao, S.S.: Vibration of Continuous Systems. Wiley, Hoboken (2007)
45. Darrall, B.T., Dargush, G.F., Hadjesfandiari, A.R.: Finite element Lagrange multiplier formulation for size-dependent skew-
symmetric couple-stress planar elasticity. Acta Mech. 225, 195212 (2014). doi:10.1007/s00707-013-0944-9
46. Jensen, B.D., Boer, M.P.de , Masters, N.D., Bitsie, F., LaVan, D.A.: Interferometry of actuated microcantilevers to determine
material properties and test structure nonidealities in MEMS. J. Microelectromech. Syst. 10, 33646 (2001)
47. Friedman, Z., Kosmatka, J.B.: An improved two-node Timoshenko beam nite element. Comput. Struct. 47(3),
473481 (1993)
48. Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Khajehpour, M., Ahmadian, M.T.: A size-dependent beam element based on the modied couple stress
theory. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, IMECE2011,
November 1117, 2011, Hyatt Regency Denver & Colorado Convention Center, USA (2011d)
49. Huebner, K.H., Dewhirst, D.L., Smith, D.E., Byrom, T.G.: The Finite Element Method for Engineers, Fourth Edi-
tion. Wiley, New York. (2001)
50. Osterberg, P.M. : Electrostatically actuated micromechanical test structure for material property measurement, Ph.D.
Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Thechnology (1995)
51. Osterberg, P.M., Senturia, S.D.: M-TEST: a test chip for MEMS material property measurement using electrostatically
actuated test structures. J. Microelectromech. Syst. 6, 107118 (1997)
52. Hopcroft, M.A., Nix, W.D., Kenny, T.W.: What is the Youngs modulus of silicon? J. Microelectromech. Syst. 19, 2, April
2010. 10577157/$26.00 2010 IEEE
53. Tilmans, H.A.C., Legtenberg, R.: Electrostatically driven vacuum-encapsulated polysilicon resonators: Part II. Theory and
performance. Sens. Actuators A 45, 6784 (1994)
54. Nayfeh, A.H., Mook, D.T.: Nonlinear Oscillations. Wiley, London (1995)