Physica E 43 (2011) 979988

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physica E
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/physe

Theoretical study of the effect of Casimir force, elastic boundary conditions and
size dependency on the pull-in instability of beam-type NEMS
Y. Tadi Beni a, A. Koochi b, M. Abadyan c,n
a

Faculty of Engineering, University of Shahrekord, Shahrekord, Iran

Mechanical Engineering Group, Islamic Azad University, Naein Branch, Naein, Iran
c
Mechanical Engineering Group, Islamic Azad University, Ramsar Branch, Ramsar, Iran
b

a r t i c l e in f o

abstract

Article history:
Received 30 September 2010
Received in revised form
16 November 2010
Accepted 26 November 2010
Available online 3 December 2010

In this paper, the static pull-in instability of beam-type nano-electromechanical systems (NEMS) is
theoretically investigated considering the effect of Casimir attraction, elastic boundary conditions (BC)
and size dependency. Rotational springs are utilized at each of the supported ends of the simply and
doubly supported beams to model an elastic BC. The modied couple stress theory is applied to examine
the size effects on the instability of nanostructures. In order to solve the nonlinear constitutive equation of
nano-beams, modied Adomian decomposition (MAD) as well as the numerical method is employed. The
results reveal signicant inuences of Casimir attraction, elastic BC and size dependency on the pull-in
characteristics of NEMS. The obtained MAD solution agrees well with the numerical one.
& 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Nano-electromechanical systems (NEMS) are increasingly being
used in the development of advanced nano-devices such as
switches, actuators, probes, etc. [13]. A typical beam-type NEMS
is constructed from two conductive electrodes, where one is
movable and the other is xed (ground electrode). Application of
voltage difference between the two causes the movable electrode
to deect towards the ground one as a result of electrostatic
attraction. The pull-in instability occurs when the electrostatic
attraction exceeds the elastic restoring moment of the NEMS and
leads to contact between the two electrodes. The pull-in characteristics, i.e. pull-in voltage and deection of micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS), have been studied for over two decades
without consideration of nanoscale effects [46]. With the decrease
in dimensions, many essential phenomena appear at the micro/
nano-scales, which are not important at macro-scales. In this paper,
three effects of these phenomena are demonstrated and considered
in simulation of pull-in instability of beam-type nano-actuator.
The rst issue that appears at the nanoscale is the effect of
dispersion forces such as Casimir attraction. At small separations
(typically less than several micrometers), the Casimir force can
highly inuence the instability of NEMS. These forces can be
explained by electromagnetic quantum vacuum uctuations existing between two separated plates [7]. When the separation

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Abadyan@yahoo.com (M. Abadyan).

1386-9477/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.physe.2010.11.033

between the two surfaces is sufciently large, i.e. above the plasma
(in metals)/absorption (in dielectrics) wavelength of the surface
material [810], the virtual photons emitted by atoms of one
surface do not reach the other during their lifetime [7,8]. In this
case, the interaction between the two surfaces is described by the
Casimir force. Some researchers have studied the pull-in behavior
of electromechanical systems having considered the effect of the
Casimir force [1120]. Instability of micro-plates and micromembranes under the Casimir force has been simulated by Batra
et al. [1113] using the nite element method (FEM). Moghimi et al.
[14] have also applied FEM to simulate the inuence of the Casimir
attraction on the dynamic pull-in behavior of nano-beams. Experimental investigation of the Casimir attraction has been performed
by Buks and Roukes [15,16] on the dynamic behaviors of pull-in
variables in MEMS/NEMS. An one degree of freedom lumped
parameter model has been proposed by Lin and Zhao [17,18] to
survey stiction of nano-actuators in the presence of electrostatic
and Casimir attractions. Ramezani et al. [19,20] used Greens
function to investigate the pull-in parameters of cantilever
beam-type actuators under Casimir forces. Further information
concerning the effect of Casimir force on the pull-in instability
of electromechanical systems and its modeling are presented in
Refs. [2124].
The second effect that appears at the submicron-scale is the size
dependency of material characteristics. From a theoretical point
of view, the classical continuum mechanics is not capable of
explaining the size-dependent behaviors of ultra-small structures.
Therefore, non-classical continuum theories such as non-local
elasticity [25] and couple stress [26] are proposed to interpret

980

Y. Tadi Beni et al. / Physica E 43 (2011) 979988

the size-dependence behaviors. Some experimental works [2731]

demonstrate that the size dependency is an inherent property of
conductive metals when the characteristic size of the structures is
in the order of the internal material length scale. It has been shown
that torsional hardening of copper wire increases by a factor of 3 as
the wire diameter decreases from 170 to 12 mm [27]. An increase
in plastic work hardening was caused by the thickness reduction
during a microbending test on nickel beams [28]. In order to
determine the length scale parameter of materials, experimental
methods such as micro/nano-indentation could be applied [29,30].
The material length scale parameters of single crystal copper
and those of polycrystalline copper have been evaluated to be 12
and 5.84 mm, respectively [29,30]. Furthermore, atomistic simulation could be applied to evaluate the material length scale
parameter [31].
In beam-type nanostructures, the characteristic size (usually
the beam thickness) is comparable with metal length scale parameter [32]. Therefore, size dependency must be considered in the
simulation of the instability of these nanostructures [33]. Recently,
a new modied couple stress theory has been proposed by Yang
et al. [34]. According to their theory, two material constants in the
couple stress theory are reduced to only one length scale parameter. In this view, this modied theory is applied to model microbeams by many researchers [3539].
Finally, the third important issue that must be considered in the
simulation of micro/nanoscale structures is characterization of real
boundary conditions (BC). Supported BC characterization is important in the modeling of many micro/nanostructures such as optical
waveguides [40], microscope probes [41] and switches [42]. It has
been observed that the BC of real micro/nanostructures could be
made exible by rotation [42,43]. The mechanical responses of
beam-type nano-devices have become varied under different BCs.
Rinaldi et al. [43] have investigated the characterization of nonclassical support conditions of micro-cantilevers through electromechanical testing. Yunqiang et al. [44] have studied the BC effect
in the static and dynamic responses of micro-plates. Owing to the
limitations of manufacturing techniques at the micro/nanoscale,
any ideal BC such as the simply supported or clamped condition
would be unacceptable and the boundary support conditions need
to be theoretically quantied and experimentally validated [45].
As far as the knowledge of the authors is concerned, none of the
three mentioned phenomena have contributed together in any of
the pull-in models proposed by previous researchers. In this study,
the modied couple stress theory is introduced to demonstrate the
combined effects of Casimir attraction, elastic BC and size dependency together on the pull-in behavior of a nano-beam for the rst
time. The Euler beam model is applied as a time-saving continuum
approach in obtaining constitutive governing equations [4651].
Rotational articial springs are used at the supported ends to model
the BCs of simply and doubly supported nano-beams. In order to
solve the constitutive equation of nanostructures, modied Adomian decomposition (MAD) is utilized. The MAD results are
compared with the numerical data as well as with other results
reported in the literature.

2. Fundamentals of the modied couple stress theory

The modied couple stress theory has been presented by Yang
et al. [34] where the strain energy density is written as
u r : e m : v,

where the stress tensor r, strain tensor e, deviatoric part of the

couple stress tensor m and symmetric curvature tensor v are
dened by the following relations:

r ltreI 2me,

1
ru ruT ,
2

m 2l2 mv,

1
2

v rh rhT ,

where l, m and l are the Lame constant, shear modulus and the
material length scale parameter, respectively. The rotation vector h
is related to the displacement vector eld according to [35]

1
curlu:
2

According to the basic hypotheses of the EulerBernoulli beams,

the displacement eld has been assumed as [52]
u zcX,

v 0,

w wX,

where u, v and w represent the displacement along X, Y and Z axes,

respectively, and the rotation angle c is related to the deection by
@wX
:
@X

cX 

With a small deformation in the elastic range, which is

considered here using Eqs. (3), (7) and (8), it follows that

exx z

@2 wX
,
@X 2

eyy ezz exy eyz ezx 0,

and Eqs. (6)(8) give

yy 

@wX
,
@X

yx yz 0:

10

Substituting Eq. (10) into (5), it follows that

wxy 

1 @2 wX
,
2 @X 2

wxx wyy wzz wyz wzx 0:

11

By neglecting Poissons effect, so as to facilitate the formulation

of the beam theory and by substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (2), it is found
that

sxx Ez

@2 w
,
@X 2

syy szz syz szx sxy 0,

12

where E is Youngs modulus. Same as above, by substituting Eq. (11)

into Eq. (4) it is found that
mxy ml2

@2 w
,
@X 2

mxx myy mzz myz mxz 0:

13

3. Governing equation
Fig. 1a and b shows simply supported (SS) and doubly supported
(DS) beams, respectively. The actuators are modeled by a beam of
length L with a uniform rectangular cross section of width B and
thickness H, are suspended over a conductive substrate. An
articial angular spring with a spring stiffness of K1y is used to
model the real BC in the SS nano-actuator. In the case of DS case,
two springs with rotational stiffness of K1y and K2y are applied
at the supported ends. Note that the consideration of stretching
(in xedxed beams) and that of axial tractions/forces along the
beam is beyond the scope of this work and these effects will be
considered in further publications.
In order to develop the governing equation of the beams, the
constitutive material of the nano-actuator is assumed to be linear
elastic, and only the static deection of the nano-beam is considered. We apply the minimum energy principle, which implies
equilibrium when the free energy reaches a minimum value.
Substituting Eqs. (9)(13) into Eq. (1), integrating and adding the
elastic energy of the springs and by considering the work done by

Y. Tadi Beni et al. / Physica E 43 (2011) 979988

981

analytically. However, it should be mentioned that axial tractions

could have large inuence on the pull-in voltage at some ranges
[53] and will be discussed in further works.
It should also be mentioned that the effect of nite kinematics is
negligible when L410g [19,20]; hence, nite kinematics is not
considered in this study. This simplication is acceptable in most
cases [19,20]. Due to the large displacement/deformation considerations, this model should be improved for short beams with a
small H/g ratio. By rewriting the distribution force along the beam,
q(X), as
qX felec fCas ,

22

Eq. (16) is written as [46,47]

EI mAl2

Fig. 1

external forces, the energy of the system can be written as [32]

8

2
>
!2
@w0
>
Z
SS
< 12 K1y @X
2
1 L
@
w
EI mAl2
dX

U




2
2
>
2 0
@X 2
>
12 K2y @wL
DS,
: 12 K1y @w0
@X
@X
14a
V

qXwXdX,

14b

where I is the second moment of cross-sectional area around Z-axis

and A is the cross-sectional area of the beam. Now, the Hamilton
principle can be applied to determine the governing equilibrium
equation

dVdU 0,

15

where d denotes the variation symbol. By applying Eqs. (14) and

(15), the governing equilibrium micro/nano-beam is derived as
EI mAl2

d4 w
qX,
dX 4

16

with the following BC of the SS beam:

w0

d3 wL
d2 wL

0,
3
dX
dX 2

EI mAl2

d2 w0
dw0
:
K1 y
dX
dX 2

17

18

Note that Eq. (17) implies zero displacement at the supported

end as well as zero force and moment at the free end. Furthermore,
Eq. (18) reveals the moment balance at the supported end of the
nano-beam.
Similarly, the BC of the DS nano-beam is obtained as
w0 wL 0,
d2 w0
dw0
EI mAl2
,
K1 y
dX
dX 2

23

where felec and fCas are the electrostatic and Casimir forces per unit
length of the beam, respectively. In this equation, the constitutive
material of the nano-actuator is assumed to be linear elastic and
only the static deection of nano-beam is considered. The electrostatic force enhanced with rst order fringing correction can be
presented in the following equation [54]:


e0 BV 2
gw
felec
,
24
1

0:65
B
2gw2
where e0 8.854  10  12 C2 N  1 m  2 is the permittivity of vacuum,
V is the applied voltage and g is the initial gap between the movable
and the ground electrode. For ultra-thin NEMS, the nite size and
quantum effects must be considered when we calculate the surface
charge distribution especially for narrow beams [55].
In a realistic case, the Casimir interaction between two surfaces
largely depends on the dielectric properties of the surfaces and also
on the geometric parameters [8,10]. Considering some idealizations, the Casimir force per unit length of the actuator is [8]
fCas

p2 _cB
240gw4

25

where _1.055  10  34 J s is Plancks constant divided by 2p and

c2.998  108 m/s is the light speed. When actuators are sufciently wider than the separation, Eq. (25) provides acceptable
results [8]. In this study, only nano-actuators that are wider than
the separation (g/B r1) are considered. One can use the substitu w/g and x X/L, to transform Eq. (23) into the following
tions, w
equation:
1 d

^
d4 w
a
b
gb
:

4
2
^
dx4
1wx
^
^
1wx
1wx

26

In the above equations, the non-dimensional parameters, a, b, g

and size effect parameter d are dened as

a
b

p2 _cBL4
,
240g 5 EI
e0 BV 2 L4
2g 3 EI

19

27

28

g
B

29

30

g 0:65 ,
20

d wL
dwL
EI mAl
:
K2y
dX
dX 2
2

d4 w
felec fCas ,
dX 4

21

Note that Eq. (16) reveals the same constitutive differential

equations with regard to SS and DS beams due to ignorance of axial
tractions along the beam. Without omitting axial forces, an integrodifferential constitutive equation is obtained in case of the DS
beam, which requires comprehensive efforts to be solved

mAl2
EI

The BCs of the SS beam with the rotational spring are

^ 00 0 K wu0,
^
^
^ 00 1 w
^ 000 1 0,
w
w0
w
where K is dened by
K

K1 y L
:
EI mAl2

31

32

982

Y. Tadi Beni et al. / Physica E 43 (2011) 979988

Similarly the BCs of DS with the rotational spring at ends are

^ 00 0 K1 wu0,
^
w

^ 000 1 K2 wu1,

^
w

^
^
w0
w1
0,

33

where K1 and K2 are dened by

K1 y L
,
K1
EI mAl2

N2,k ky2 yk1

34

It should be noted that special cases, i.e. beams with cantilever

ends, can be modeled easily by setting the spring stiffness to be
innite (K N). Therefore, one can use the following BC in special
cases instead:
^
^
^ 00 1 w
^ 000 1 0,
wu0
w0
w

Cantilever C

35

ClampedClamped CC

^
^
^
^
^ 00 1 K wu1,
w0
wu0
w1
0, w
Clampedsimply supported CS

36

37

Relations (26)(37) present the governing equation of beamtype nanostructures. In order to study the pull-in behavior of
nanostructures, Eq. (26) is solved numerically using MAPLE commercial software. Furthermore, MAD is applied to the boundary
value problem, and the analytical results are compared with those
of the numerical solution in the following section.

y0 1
1
1
1 1
C3 x2 C4 x3 
a b bgx4
2!
3!
4! 1 d

1
1
1
1
1
C1 x4 C2 x5 C3 x6 C4 x7
4a 2b bg
y2
1 d
4!
5!
6!
7!

1 1
a b bgx8

8! 1 d
C2 1
2C1 C2 1
10a 3b bgx4 
10a 3b bgx5
y3  1
4! 1 d
5! 1 d
y1 C1 C2 x

2C1 C3 2C22 1
10a 3b bgx6
1 d
6!
2C1 C4 6C2 C3 1
10a 3b bgx7

1 d
7!
"
1
1
C1

4a 2b bg2
8!
1 d2

In order to apply MAD for analysis of the pull-in instability,

transformation to rewrite Eq. (26) into (38):
we use y1  w
38

41

1
a 2b bg10a 3b bg
1 d2

1
10a 3b bg x9
20C3 C4
1 d
"
1
1
C3

4a 2b bg2
10!
1 d2

CC

42

30C3

y0 1, y00 0 Kyu0, y00 1 y000 1 0,

SS

y0 y1 1, y00 0 K1 yu0, y00 1 K2 yu1,

yu0 y 1 y 1 0, y0 1,
y0 y1 1, yu0 yu1 0,

y0 y1 1, yu0 0, y00 1 Kyu1:

39
DS

CS

40

1
a 2b bg10a 3b bg
1 d2

1
10a 3b bg x10
20C42
1 d
"
1
1
C4

4a 2b bg2
11!
1 d2

43

Using the ADM method, the deection of the nano-beam in

Eq. (38) can be represented by (see Refs. [51,58])
yx

1
X
n0

yn x C1 C2

1 d2

10C2

with the following new BC of the simply supported beam

000

a 2b bg10a 3b bg

1
10a 3b bg x8
8C2 C4 6C32
1 d
"
1
1
C2

4a 2b bg2
9!
1 d2
2C1

d4 y
a
b
gb
,



dx4
1 dy4 x 1 dy2 x 1 dyx

kk 1k 2 3 k3
y1 y0
:::::::
3!
45

Substituting relation (45) into Eq. (44), we obtain

4. Modied Adomian decomposition

00

kk 1 2 k2
y1 y0
2!

N3,k ky3 yk1

kk 1y1 y2 yk2

0
0

K2y L
K2
:
EI mAl2

^
^
^
^
w0
w1
wu0
wu1
0,

N1,k ky1 yk1

0

1
1
C3 x 2 C4 x 3
2!
3!

"
#
1
1
1
X
X
X
1
4
L

a
Nn,3 x b
Nn,2 x bg
Nn,1 x :
1 d
n0
n0
n0

Table 2
Geometrical parameters and material properties of nano-beam of Table 3.

44
In Eq. (44), the function Nn,k, which approximates the nonlinear
term yn k, is determined through the MADs polynomials (see
Refs. [51,58]) as

Case

Material properties

Narrow beam
Wide beam

N0,k yk
0

Geometrical dimensions

E (GPa)

L (mm)

B (mm)

H (mm)

g (mm)

77
77

0.33
0.33

300
300

0.5
50

1
1

2.5
2.5

Table 1
Variation in typical NEMS deection obtained by MAD. Analytical solution converges to the numerical solution as the number of the selected terms increases.
Case

SS NEMS (a b d 0.5, g/B 1, K 30)

DS NEMS (a b 20, g/B 1, d 0.5, K1 K2 30)

Numerical

0.1732
0.1669

MAD
2 terms

3 terms

4 terms

5 terms

6 terms

0.1251
0.1150

0.1573
0.1413

0.1685
0.1572

0.1720
0.1615

0.1729
0.1653

Y. Tadi Beni et al. / Physica E 43 (2011) 979988

a b bg20a 3b bg x11
1 d2
"
1
1

a 2b bg4a 2b bg2
12! 1 d3
#
1
2
70
a b bg 10a 3b bg x12    :
1 d3

35C4

Therefore, the solution of Eq. (38) can be summarized to

Narrow
beam
Wide beam

46

Pull-in voltage (V)

Ref.
[5]

Ref.
[56]

Ref.
[57]

Ref.
[20]

Ref.
[49]

Numerical MAD

1.23

1.20

1.21

1.29

1.21

1.24

1.27

2.27

2.25

2.27

2.37

2.16

2.27

2.31

Fig. 2

1
1
1 1 
C3 x2  C4 x3
a b bg
2!
3!
4! 1 d

4a 2b bgC1 10a 3b bgC12 x4

1 1 
2C1 C2 10a 3b bg4a 2b bg x5

5! 1 d
1 1 
2C1 C3 2C22 10a 3b bg

6! 1 d

1 1
4a 2b bgC3 x6
7! 1 d


 2C1 C4 6C2 C3 10a 3b bg4a 2b bgC4 x7
"
1
1
C1

4a 2b bg2
8!
1 d2

^
wx
C1 C2 x

Table 3
Pull-in voltage comparison of cantilever beam of Table 2. Casimir force is neglected.
Case

983

2C1

1
1 d2

a 2b bg10a 3b bg

Fig. 3

984

Y. Tadi Beni et al. / Physica E 43 (2011) 979988

8C2 C4 6C32
1

1
10a 3b bg
1 d
#

4a 2b bga b bg x8
1 d2
"
1
1
C2

4a 2b bg2
9!
1 d2

1
a 2b bg10a 3b bg
1 d2

1
10a 3b bg x9
20C3 C4
1 d
"
1
1
C3

4a 2b bg2
10!
1 d2
10C2

1
a 2b bg10a 3b bg
1 d2

1
10a 3b bg x10
20C42
1 d
"
1
1
C4

4a 2b bg2
11!
1 d2
#
1
35C4
a b bg20a 3b bg x11
1 d2
30C3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Y. Tadi Beni et al. / Physica E 43 (2011) 979988

h
1
1
a 2b bg4a 2b bg2
12! 1 d3
i
70a b bg2 10a 3b bg x12    ,

47

where constants C1, C2, C3 and C4 can be determined by solving the

resulting algebraic equations from BC at xLb, i.e. using Eqs. (39)(43).
With any given a, b, d and g/B, Eq. (47) can be used to obtain the
pull-in parameters of the beam-type NEMS. The pull-in voltage
(bPI) of the nano-beams can generally be determined via plotting
. Similarly, for freestanding beam, critical value of the
b vs. w
.
Casimir force (aC) can be obtained by plotting a vs. w
In order to verify the obtained series, typical beam-type NEMS is
numerically simulated and the results are compared with those of
the MAD. Table 1 shows the comparison between numerical
solution and those of the MAD ones. As seen, a higher accuracy
can be obtained by evaluating more terms of the series solution
(x). By using 6 terms, the global error is less than 1%, which is
w
within the excellent range for most engineering applications.
Therefore, 6 terms are selected in the following section for the
convenience of calculations and acceptable error.
For comparison with the literature, the pull-in voltage of typical
cantilever micro-actuators (a d 0, K N) is calculated. Geometry and constitutive material of the beams are identied in Table 2.
A comparison between pull-in voltages obtained by MAD and those

Fig. 7

985

of the literature [5,20,49,56,57] is presented in Table 3; It reveals

that the difference between MAD and numerical values is within
the range of those of other methods presented in the literature.

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Simply supported beam
Fig. 2 depicts the variation in bPI of SS nano-beam vs. spring
stiffness (K) and Casimir force (a) without considering size effect.
As seen, enhancing the spring stiffness leads to an increase in pullin voltage of the SS nano-actuator. On the other hand, the Casimir
force decreases the pull-in voltage of a nano-structure. At an
arbitrary K value, an increase in a leads to a decrease in bPI. Finally,

Fig. 8

986

Y. Tadi Beni et al. / Physica E 43 (2011) 979988

when a reaches its critical value, i.e. aC, no bPI is obtained. This
means that for a large value of Casimir attraction, the beam
becomes unstable and attaches to the ground plane even without
applying voltage difference.
Fig. 3 depicts variation in bPI vs. K and a at d 0.5. By comparing
Figs. 2 and 3, it is found that with arbitrary spring stiffness and
Casimir force, presence of the size effect (d a0) produces higher
values of bPI. This effect cannot be modeled by the classical
continuum theory.

size dependency increases the values of bPI and aC of DS actuators.

This is attributed to the increase in the rigidity of the beam
constitutive material, due to the size effect.

5.3. Case studies

In order to thoroughly investigate the pull-in behavior of NEMS,
three special cases including clampedclamped (K1 K2 N),
clampedhinged (K1 N, K2 0) and hingedhinged (K1 K2 0)
are investigated. Fig. 8ac shows the centerline deection of
clampedclamped, clampedhinged and hingedhinged nanobeams, respectively. Increase in voltage from zero to bPI, increases
from its initial value to pull-in deection. While the maximum
w
deection of clampedclamped and clampedhinged beams occurs
at x 0.5, the maximum deection of the clampedhinged beam is
obtained at x 0.578. It is observed that clampedclamped and
hingedhinged structures have the highest and the lowest bPI
values among the three BC, respectively. This is attributed to the
highest elastic rigidity of the clampedclamped and exibility of
the hingedhinged boundary conditions.
Effect of the Casimir force on the pull-in behavior of clamped
clamped, clampedhinged and hingedhinged actuators is illustrated
in Fig. 9ac respectively. These gures represent the obtained
results for various a values and depict that the intermolecular force
decreases the pull-in deection and voltage of the nano-actuators.
These gures also reveal that the beam has an initial deection due to

5.2. Doubly supported beam

Fig. 4 depicts the effect of elastic BC on the pull-in voltage of DS
beam at a d 0. Neglecting both the Casimir force as well as the
size effect is a common practice in MEMS literature. As seen,
stiffening the BC increases the pull-in voltage of the beam.
Fig. 5 shows the variation in aC for freestanding beam ignoring
the size effect (b 0 and d 0). When the gap between the ground
and movable electrode is sufciently small, instability occurs
without application of voltage due to the Casimir force (a 4 aC).
This phenomenon must be considered in designing the minimum
gap of beam-type NEMS to ensure that the NEMS does not adhere to
the substrate as a result of intermolecular force. Fig. 5 also reveals
that stiffening the BC increases aC of the beam.
Figs. 6 and 7 depict the effect of size dependency (d 0.5) on bPI
and aC of DS actuators, respectively. As seen from these gures, the

Fig. 9

Y. Tadi Beni et al. / Physica E 43 (2011) 979988

987

Fig. 10

the presence of intermolecular force even without application of

voltage (b 0).
Fig. 10ac shows the strong size dependency of the pull-in
voltage in clampedclamped, clampedhinged and hingedhinged
nano-beams, respectively. As seen from these gures, the size effect
greatly inuences bPI of nanostructures. With increase in d from 0
to 0.5, bPI increases more than twice in the case of clamped
clamped and hingedhinged structures. On the other hand, the
pull-in deection is less sensitive to the size effect in comparison to
the pull-in voltage.
6. Conclusions
In this article, the modied couple stress theory, in conjunction
with the MAD solving method, is introduced to investigate the effect
of the Casimir attraction, elastic boundary conditions and size
dependency on nonlinear pull-in behavior of the supported beam.
Results reveal that the Casimir force decreases the pull-in voltage
and deection of beam at submicron scales. On the other hand, size
effect can greatly increase the pull-in parameters of nano-beams.
The pull-in deection of NEMS is less sensitive to the size effect than
the pull-in voltage. Furthermore, the instability of NEMS strongly
depends on the type of applied BC. This emphasizes the importance
of characterizing real BC in design and analysis of NEMS. The
relative error of MAD solution with respect to the numerical one is
within the acceptable range for most engineering applications and
can be reduced by selecting more series terms. The proposed
analytical method avoids time-consuming numerical iterations
and makes parametric studies possible. The proposed approach
enables engineers to predict pull-in behavior of ultra-small NEMS
more accurately by considering the Casimir attraction, supporting
condition and the size effect in constitutive equations.

Acknowledgment
Authors are thankful to Majid Kachal-Sigari Ghablan, Majid
kachal-bisigar Felan, Saeid Sabunat Aboo-Hamoom Bar O Bach and
Mohseni Marangoonii for their support of the investigations.

References

[1] L. Zhang, S.V. Golod, E. Deckardt, V. Prinz, D. Grutzmacher,

Physica E 23 (34)
(2004) 280.
[2] C.H. Ke, H.D. Espinosa, Nanoelectromechanical systems (NEMS) and modeling,
in: M. Rieth, W. Schommers, P.D. Gennes (Eds.), Handbook of Theoretical and
Computational Nanotechnology, American Scientic Publishers, Valencia, CA, ,
2006 (Chapter 121).
[3] S.K. Georgantzinos, N.K. Anifantis, Physica E 42 (5) (2010) 1795.
[4] P.M. Osterberg, S.D. Senturia, A. M-TEST, J. Microelectromech. Syst. 6 (2) (1997) 107.
[5] P.M. Osterberg, Electrostatically actuated micromechanical test structures for
material property measurement, Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), Cambridge, 1995.
[6] R.C. Batra, M. Porri, D. Spinello, Smart Mater. Struct. 16 (2007) R23.
[7] G.L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, V.M. Mostepanenko, Phys. Rev. A 61 (2000)
062107.
[8] S.K. Lamoreaux, Rep. Prog. Phys. 68 (2005) 201.
[9] J.N. Israelachvili, Intermolecular and Surface Forces, Academic Press, London, 1992.
[10] A. Gusso, G.J. Delben, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 175405.
[11] R.C. Batra, M. Porri, D. Spinello, Europhys. Lett. 77 (2007) 200.
[12] R.C. Batra, M. Porri, D. Spinello, J. Sound Vib. 315 (2008) 939.
[13] R.C. Batra, M. Porr, D. Spinello, Int. J. Solids Struct. 45 (2008) 3558.
[14] M. Moghimi Zand, M.T. Ahmadian, B. Rashidian, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.
CJ. Mech. Eng. 224 (9) (2010) 2037.
[15] E. Buks, M.L. Roukes, Phys. Rev. B 63 (2001) 033402.
[16] E. Buks, M.L. Roukes, Europhys. Lett. 54 (2) (2001) 220.
[17] W.H. Lin, Y.P. Zhao, Microsyst. Technol. 11 (2005) 80.
[18] W.H. Lin, Y.P. Zhao, Chaos Solitons Fractals 23 (2005) 1777.
[19] A. Ramezani, A. Alasty, J. Akbari, Microsyst. Technol. 14 (2008) 145.
[20] A. Ramezani, A. Alasty, J. Akbari, Int. J. Solids Struct. 44 (2007) 4925.
[21] W.H. Lin, Y.P. Zhao, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 40 (6) (2007) 1649.
[22] W.H. Lin, Y.P. Zhao, Int. J. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 9 (2) (2008) 175.
[23] J.G. Guo, Y.P. Zhao, J. Microelectromech. Syst. 13 (6) (2004) 1027.
[24] G. Palasantzas, J. Appl. Phys. 101 (2007) 063548.
[25] A.C. Eringen, D.B.G. Edelen, Int. J. Eng. Sci. 10 (1972) 233.
[26] U.B.C.O. Ejike, Int. J. Eng. Sci. 7 (1969) 947.
[27] N.A. Fleck, G.M. Muller, M.F. Ashby, J.W. Hutchinson, Acta Metall. Mater. 42
(1994) 475.
[28] J.S. Stolken, A.G. Evans, Acta Mater. 46 (1998) 5109.
[29] K.W. McElhaney, J.J. Valssak, W.D. Nix, J. Mater. Res. 13 (1998) 1300.
[30] W.D. Nix, H. Gao, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 46 (1998) 411.
[31] R. Maranganti, P. Sharma, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 55 (2007) 1823.
[32] S. Kong, S. Zhou, Z. Nie, K. Wang, Int. J. Eng. Sci. 46 (2008) 427.
[33] L. Wang, Physica E 41 (10) (2009) 1835.
[34] F. Yang, A.C.M. Chong, D.C.C. Lam, P. Tong, Int. J. Solids Struct. 39 (2002) 2731.
[35] S.L. Kong, S.J. Zhou, Z.F. Nie, K. Wang, Int. J. Eng. Sci. 47 (2009) 487.
[36] S.K. Park, X.L. Gao, J. Micromech. Microeng. 16 (2006) 2355.
[37] W. Xia, L. Wang, L. Yin, Int. J. Eng. Sci. (2010).
[38] M. Asghari, M.T. Ahmadian, M.H. Kahrobaiyan, M. Rahaeifard, Mater. Des. 31
(2010) 2324.

988

Y. Tadi Beni et al. / Physica E 43 (2011) 979988

[39] M.H. Kahrobaiyan, M. Asghari, M. Rahaeifard, M.T. Ahmadian, Int. J. Eng. Sci.
2010.
[40] E. Ollier, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 8 (2002) 155.
[41] N.L. Pedersen, Eng. Optim. 32 (2000) 373.
[42] P. Muthukumaran, R.B. Bhat, I. Stiharu, J. Sound Vib. 220 (5) (1999) 847.
[43] G. Rinaldi, M. Packirisamy, I. Stiharu, Sensor Actuator A Phys. 143 (2008)
415.
[44] L. Yunqiang, P. Muthukumaran, B.B. Rama, Microsyst. Technol. 14 (2008) 255.
[45] R. Gino, P. Muthukumaran, S. Ion, Sensors 7 (2007) 2062.
[46] M. Abadyan, A. Novinzadeh, A. Kazemi, Phys. Scr. 81 (2010) 015801.
[47] A. Koochi, A. Noghrehabadi, M. Abadyan, Investigation of the effect of Van der Waals
force on the instability of electrostatic nano-actuators, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B, in press.
[48] M. Mojahedi, M. Moghimi Zand, M.T. Ahmadian, Appl. Math. Modell. 34 (2010)
1032.
[49] R. Soroush, A. Koochi, A.S. Kazemi, A. Noghrehabadi, H. Haddadpour, M. Abadyan,
Phys. Scr. 82 (2010) 045801.

[50] M. Abadyan, A.S. Kazemi, A. Koochi, New approach to model the buckling and
stable length of multi walled carbon nanotube probes near graphite sheets,
Mater. Des., in press, doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2010.08.002.
[51] A. Koochi, A.S. Kazemi, Y. Tadi Beni, A. Yekrangi, M. Abadyan, Physica E 43 (2)
(2010) 625.
[52] C.L. Dym, I.H. Shames, Solid Mechanics: A Variational Approach, China Railway
Publishing House, , 1984.
[53] L.X. Zhang, Y.P. Zhao, Microsyst. Technol. 9 (2003) 420.
[54] R.K. Gupta, Electrostatic pull-in test structure design for in-situ mechanical
property measurements of microelectromechanical systems, Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA. 1997.
[55] H. Chen, S. Mukherjee, Commun. Numer. Methods Eng. 24 (2008) 1135.
[56] S. Pamidighantam, R. Puers, K. Baert, H.A.C. Tilmans, J. Micromech. Microeng.
12 (2002) 458.
[57] S. Chowdhury, M. Ahmadi, W.C. Miller, J. Micromech. Microeng. 15 (2005) 756.
[58] J.H. Kuang, C.J. Chen, Math. Comput. Modell. 41 (2005) 1479.