International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 79 (2014) 75–83

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmecsci

A Timoshenko beam element based on the modified couple

stress theory
M.H. Kahrobaiyan a, M. Asghari a, M.T. Ahmadian a,b,n
a
School of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Center of Excellence in Design, Robotics and Automation (CEDRA), Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Since the classical continuum theory is neither able to evaluate the accurate stiffness nor able to justify
Received 2 June 2013 the size-dependency of micro-scale structures, the non-classical continuum theories such as the
Received in revised form modified couple stress theory have been developed. In this paper, a new comprehensive Timoshenko
7 November 2013
beam element has been developed on the basis of the modified couple stress theory. The shape functions
Accepted 14 November 2013
of the new element are derived by solving the governing equations of modified couple stress Timoshenko
Available online 22 November 2013
beams. Subsequently, the mass and stiffness matrices are developed using energy approach and
Keywords: Hamilton’s principle. The formulations of the modified couple stress Euler–Bernoulli beam element
Modified couple stress theory and also classical Timoshenko and Euler–Bernoulli beam elements can be recovered from the original
Finite element method
formulations of the new Timoshenko beam element. By two examples, it is indicated that how the new
Timoshenko beam
beam element can be applied to deal with the real-case problems. The static deflection of a short
Size-dependency
Length scale parameter microbeam and pull-in voltage of an electrostatically actuated microcantilever made of silicon are
Microbeam evaluated by employing the new beam element and the results are compared to the experimental data as
well as the classical FEM results. It is observed that the results of the new beam element are in good
agreement with the experimental findings while the gap between the classical FEM and experimental
results is notable.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Study of the mechanical behavior of conducting polymer

Micro/nano-scale mechanical components, such as micro/
nano-beams, are the major building blocks of micro/nano electro-
mechanical systems (MEMS/NEMS) [1,2] and atomic force micro-
scopes (AFMs) [3,4]. Hence, investigating the mechanical behavior
of such components has always been an important issue among
the researchers. Due to complications existing in micro/nano-scale
systems such as the presence of the complex forces like electro-
static, Casimir, Van Der Waals and capillary forces, complex
geometry or some other issues like existence of the squeeze film
damping, the exact analytical solutions may not be achieved for
the behavior of the mechanical components in many cases; so,
some approaches other than analytical one are required. One of
the most popular approaches is the finite element method (FEM).
The FEM is utilized by many researchers in order to investigate the
mechanical behavior of micro/nano-scale systems. For example:

Analysis of piezoelectric cantilever type beam actuators: Wu
et al. [5].
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 98 21 6616 5503.
E-mail address: ahmadian@sharif.edu (M.T. Ahmadian).
electromechanical actuators (CPEA): Metz et al. [6].

Investigation of the static behavior and pull-in voltage of
electrostatically actuated cantilever microswitches: Coutu
et al. [7].

Analysis of the mechanical response of microswitches with
piezoelectric actuation: Cahpius et al. [8]

Investigating the dynamic pull-in of an electrostatically actu-
ated micro/nano-plate considering geometrical nonlinearities
and fluid pressure by employing a nine-node plate element:
Tajalli et al. [9].

Modeling the MEMS subjected to electrostatic forces by devel-
oping a non-conforming element: Rochus et al. [10].
It is noted that all the above-mentioned works are based on the
elements developed by the classical continuum theory.
The experimental observations have indicated that the classical
continuum mechanics not only underestimates the stiffness of
micro/nano-scale structures but also is incapable of justifying the
size-dependency observed in these structures [11–13]; noted that
the size-dependency is a peculiar phenomenon in which the
normalized mechanical quantities of micro-scale structures that
the classical continuum theory predicts to be independent of the
structure size, significantly changes by the size. Hence, during past

0020-7403/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2013.11.014
76 M.H. Kahrobaiyan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 79 (2014) 75–83
years, some non-classical continuum theories such as the couple
stress theory have been emerged, developed, modified and
employed to study the mechanical behavior of the micro-scale
structures.
The couple stress theory has been introduced and developed by
some researchers such as Koiter, Ejike, Mindlin and Tiersten in
early 1960s [14–16]. In this theory beside the two classical
material constants (i.e. the elastic modulus and Poison’s ratio)
additional material parameters are appearing which enable the
theory to predict and model the size-dependency in micro-scale
structures. Asghari et al. developed a Timoshenko beam model
based on this theory to investigate the size-dependent static
behavior of microbeams [17]. They concluded that the bending
stiffness of the new model is greater than those evaluated based
on the classical Timoshenko beam theory.
Yang et al. [18] performed a modification on the couple stress
theory and presented the modified couple stress theory. They
utilized the equilibrium equation of moments of couples in
addition to two classical equilibrium equations i.e. the equilibrium
equation of forces and moment of forces. Soon after that, this new
theory became a popular non-classical theory. Many researchers
utilized the modified couple stress theory to develop beam and
plate models as well as investigate the size-dependent phenom-
ena in microsystems. Some of these works on developing beam
and plate models can be listed as below:

Linear homogenous Euler–Bernoulli beam model by Park and
Gao [19] and Kong et al. [20].

Linear homogenous Timoshenko model by Ma et al. [21].

Nonlinear homogenous Euler–Bernoulli beam model by Xia
et al. [22] and Kahrobaiyan et al. [23].

Nonlinear homogenous Timoshenko beam model by Asghari
et al. [24]

Linear functionally graded Euler–Bernoulli and Timoshenko
beam models by Asghari et al. [25,26].

Linear homogenous Kirchhoff plate model by Tsiatas [27].
In addition to developing beam and plate models, mechanical
behavior of microsystems have also been investigated and ana-
lyzed based on the modified couple stress theory. Some of these
works can be expressed as

Investigating the vibration of fluid-conveying microtubes by
Wang [28].

Analyzing the buckling of micro-tubules by Fu and Zhang [29].

Studying the dynamic characteristics of atomic force micro-
scopes (AFMs) by Kahrobaiyan et al. [30].

Investigating the size-dependent static behavior of electrosta-
tically actuated microcantilevers and micro-bridges by Rahaei-
fard et al. [31,32].
Due to:

vast applications micro-scale components such as microbeams
in MEMS/NEMS,

necessity of employing the non-classical continuum theories in
order to capture the size-dependency and evaluate reliable
stiffness for micro-scale structures,

necessity of utilizing the FEM in MEMS/NEMS because of the
complexities in these systems,
developing the structural finite elements based on the non-
classical continuum theories seems to be essential. Recently,
non-classical bar and Euler–Bernoulli beam elements are devel-
oped on the basis of the strain gradient elasticity, a non-classical
continuum theory [33,34]. Since Timoshenko beam element is an
important structural element that has been widely investigated in
the literature [35–40], a modified couple stress Timoshenko beam
element is developed in this paper. The new beam element is a
comprehensive beam element that the formulations of the mod-
ified couple stress Euler–Bernoulli beam element as well as the
classical Timoshenko and Euler–Bernoulli beam elements can be
achieved by letting some parameter to zero in the original
formulations. The shape functions of the new beam element are
derived by directly solving the static equilibrium equations of
modified couple stress Timoshenko beams. The stiffness and mass
matrices are developed on the basis of the Hamilton’s principle.
Some examples are prepared to indicate that how the newly
developed beam element can apply to the real-case problems
and by comparing the results of the new beam element with the
experimental data, it is indicated that the new beam element can
successfully capture the size-dependency unlike the classical beam
elements. In addition, it is observed that the results of the new
beam element are in good agreement with the experimental
results whereas the gap between the experimental and the
classical FEM outcomes is considerable. The first example deals
with the static deflection of a short microcantilever subjected to a
concentrated force at its free end. In this example, the results of
the modified couple stress and classical Timoshenko and Euler–
Bernoulli beam elements are compared to the experimental data
and it is observed that the new modified couple stress Timoshenko
beam element has the best agreement with experimental findings
while the gap between the classical FEM and experimental results
is significant. In the second example, the static pull-in voltage of
an electrostatically actuated microcantilever made of silicon is
determined utilizing the new beam element and the present
results are compared to the experimental and the classical FEM
results. It is observed that the results of the new beam element are
in good agreement with the experimental findings unlike the
results of the classical beam element.
2. Preliminaries
Strain energy U of an elastic continuum occupying the volume
of V modeled by the modified couple stress theory can be
mentioned as [18]
1
Z
U¼ ðs ε þmij χ ij Þ dV ði; j ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ; ð1Þ
2 V ij ij
where sij , εij , mij and χ ij refer to the components of the classical
stress and strain tensors, the symmetric part of the couple stress
tensor and the symmetric part of the curvature (or rotation
gradient) tensor respectively. The strain energy of a modified
couple stress continuum consists of two parts: (1) a classical part,
i.e. ð1=2Þsij εij and (2) a non-classical part, i.e. ð1=2Þmij χ ij .
For an isotropic material, the strain tensor can be related to the
stress tensor via Hooke’s law as
 
1  1 ν
εij ¼ ð1 þ νÞsij  νskk δij ¼ sij  skk δij ; ð2Þ
E 2μ 1þν
where E and μ represent the elastic (Young’s) modulus and the
shear modulus respectively and ν stands for Poisson’s ratio (noted
that E ¼ 2ð1 þ νÞμ ). In addition, the couple stress tensor is related
to the curvature tensor as [18]
2
mij ¼ 2l μχ ij ; ð3Þ
in which l denotes the material length scale parameter, an
additional material parameter enabling the theory to capture the
size-dependency. The strain tensor can be expressed as the
 M.H. Kahrobaiyan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 79 (2014) 75–83 77

symmetric part of the displacement gradient tensor ui;j as where u1 , u2 and u3 represent the displacements along x-, y- and
z-axes respectively, z denotes the displacement of an arbitrary point
1
εij ¼ ðu þ uj;i Þ: ð4Þ from the neutral axis, ψðx; tÞ stands for the rotation angle of the beam
2 i;j
cross-section and wðx; tÞ refers to the lateral deflection of the beam.
Moreover, the symmetric part of the curvature (rotation gra- Substituting Eq. (7) into Eqs. (2)–(6), the non-zero components of the
dient) tensor χ ij can be expressed as [18,19] strain, stress, curvature and couple stress tensors as well as the non-
1 zero component of the rotation vector are obtained as [17,21]
χ ij ¼ ðθ þθj;i Þ; ð5Þ  
2 i;j ∂ψ 1 ∂w
ε11 ¼  z ; ε13 ¼ ε31 ¼ ψ ;
where θi , which refers to the components of the rotation vector, ∂x 2 ∂x
   
can be related to the components of the displacement vector field 1 ∂w 1 ∂ψ ∂2 w
θ2 ¼  ψ þ ; χ 12 ¼ χ 21 ¼  þ 2 ;
ui as 2 ∂x 4 ∂x ∂x
 
1 ∂ψ ∂w
θ¼ ∇  u 3 θi ¼ 12 Ε ijk uk;j ; ð6Þ s11 ¼ Eε11 ¼  Ez ; s13 ¼ 2με13 ¼ s31 ¼ 2με13 ¼ μ ψ ;
2 ∂x ∂x
 2 
β ∂ψ ∂ w
in which θ and u, respectively, denote the rotation and m12 ¼ 2βχ 12 ¼ m21 ¼ 2βχ 21 ¼  þ : ð8Þ
2 ∂x ∂x2
displacement vectors and ∇ and Ε ijk , respectively, represent the
Nabla and Permutation symbols. Now, substitution of Eq. (8) into Eq. (1) gives the strain (potential)
energy U of the new Timoshenko beam element as
Z Z
1 L
3. Developing the stiffness and mass matrices U¼ ðε11 s11 þ 2ε13 s13 þ 2χ 12 m12 Þ dA dx
2 0 A
(  2  2 2 )
Z 2 
In this section, the stiffness and mass matrices of the new size- 1 L ∂ψ ∂w μl A ∂ψ ∂2 w
¼ EI þ μA ψ þ þ 2 dx; ð9Þ
dependent modified couple stress Timoshenko beam element are 2 0 ∂x ∂x 4 ∂x ∂x
derived. To that end, the appropriate shape functions are developed
by directly solving the governing equations of the modified couple in which L, A and I respectively denote the length, cross-section area
and cross-section area moment of inertia of new beam element and
stress Timoshenko beam element and the mass and stiffness R
matrices are obtained by establishing the potential and kinetic noted that I ¼ A z2 dA. Furthermore, the kinetic energy T of the beam
energies of the new beam element and then utilizing Hamilton’s element is expressed as
principle. In addition, it is indicated that the new beam element is a Z Z "      #
1 L ∂u1 2 ∂u2 2 ∂u3 2
comprehensive beam element so that the results of the classical T¼ ρ þ þ dA
2 0 A ∂t ∂t ∂t
Timoshenko beam element, the modified couple stress Euler–Ber- "
Z L  2  2 #
noulli beam element and the classical Euler–Bernoulli beam element 1 ∂ψ ∂w
¼ ρ I þA dx; ð10Þ
can be recovered from the formulations of the newly developed 2 0 ∂t ∂t
modified couple stress Timoshenko beam element. In other words, at
the end of this section, it is shown that the mass and stiffness where ρ refers to the density of the beam element. It is noted that the
matrices of the new modified couple stress Timoshenko beam kinetic energy of the Timoshenko beam element comprises two parts:
(1) the rotary kinetic energy caused by rotation of the beam cross-
element will reduce to those of the modified couple stress Euler– RL
sections: ð1=2Þ 0 ρIð∂ψ=∂tÞ2 dx and (2) the transitional kinetic energy
Bernoulli beam element as the ratio of the beam element length to RL
the gyration radius of beam element cross-section increases which caused by the lateral deformations of the beam: ð1=2Þ 0 ρ
consequently guarantees that the shear-locking phenomenon will Að∂w=∂tÞ2 dx. The work W of the external loads exerted to the beam
not happen for the new beam element. Moreover, it is pointed out element can be written as
that as the dimensions of the beam increase, i.e. the ratio of the beam Z L Z L ( w )T ( Fðx; tÞ )
cross-section gyration radius to the material length scale parameter W¼ ðFðx; tÞw Mðx; tÞψÞ dx ¼ dx; ð11Þ
0 0 ψ  Mðx; tÞ
increases, the formulations of the present element approach the
formulations of the classical beam elements. where Fðx; tÞ and Mðx; tÞ, respectively, represent the external distrib-
In order to develop the new beam element, the displacement uted lateral force-per-unit-length and bending moment-per-unit-
field of a Timoshenko beam model (see Fig. 1) can be expressed as length. It is noted that the reason of appearing the minus sign “ ”
u1 ¼ zψ ðx; tÞ; u2 ¼ 0; u3 ¼ wðx; tÞ; ð7Þ in Eq. (11) is that the direction of the applied distributed couple is in
opposition to the direction of the cross-section rotation angle as it is
indicated in Fig. 1. In order to obtain the governing equations of the
new Timoshenko beam element, Hamilton’s principle can be utilized
as follows:
Z t2
δðT  U þ WÞ dt ¼ 0: ð12Þ
t1

Substitution of Eqs. (9)–(11) into Eq. (12) gives the governing

equations as
  2 
∂2 ψ ∂w μAl ∂2 ψ ∂3 w ∂2 ψ
EI 2 þ μA ψ þ þ  Mðx; tÞ ¼ ρI 2 ; ð13Þ
∂x ∂x 4 ∂x2 ∂x3 ∂t
 2  2 
∂ w ∂ψ μAl ∂3 ψ ∂4 w ∂2 w
μA   þ þ Fðx; tÞ ¼ ρA 2 : ð14Þ
∂x2 ∂x 4 ∂x3 ∂x4 ∂x

Fig. 1. A Timoshenko beam model: kinematic parameters, loadings and coordinate Now, in order to develop the stiffness and mass matrices of the new
system. beam element, consider a two-node beam element depicted in Fig. 2
78 M.H. Kahrobaiyan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 79 (2014) 75–83

Z  T ( ) Z
L Νw Fðx; tÞ L
f¼ ψ dx ¼ fðΝw ÞT Fðx; tÞ  ðΝψ ÞT Mðx; tÞg dx:
0 Ν  Mðx; tÞ 0

ð23Þ

By employing Hamilton’s principle, i.e. substitution of Eqs. (18)-

(20) into Eq. (12), the governing equation of the new Timoshenko
beam element is derived as
€ Kδ ¼ f;
Μδþ ð24Þ

It is now clear that Μ and K respectively denote the mass and

stiffness matrices of the new beam element and f represents the
nodal force vector of the element.
By obtaining appropriate shape functions, the mass and stiff-
ness matrices of the new beam element can be derived. Hereafter,
the procedure of developing the shape functions is presented. In
order to obtain the shape functions, the static governing equations
(equilibrium equations) are considered in which the external loads
are neglected. Afterwards, the equilibrium equations are solved
Fig. 2. A two-node Timoshenko beam element: nodal degrees of freedom, and appropriate boundary conditions are applied. As the applied
geometry and coordinate system. boundary conditions, it is assumed that the element has the lateral
deflection of w1 and rotation angle of ψ 1 at the first node (x ¼ 0)
and lateral deflection of w2 and rotation angle of ψ 2 at the second
and two degrees of freedom are assigned to each node: (1) lateral
node (x ¼ L). By applying the aforementioned boundary condi-
deflection and (2) rotation angle of cross-section. Hence, the nodal
tions, the shape functions are achieved. The equilibrium equations
displacement vector δ of the beam element is expressed as
8 9 of the new beam element can be obtained from Eqs. (13) and (14)
>
> w > by letting ∂=∂t ¼ 0 as follows:
> 1>
> >
< ψ1 >
=  
2 2 2  
δ¼ ; ð15Þ d ψ dw μAl d dw
>
> w > EI þμA ψ þ ψþ ¼ 0; ð25Þ
> 2>
> >
> dx 2 dx 4 dx 2 dx
:ψ ;
2
  2 3  
where wi and ψ i (i ¼ 1; 2) respectively stand for the lateral deflection d dw μAl d dw
μA ψ  ψ þ ¼ 0; ð26Þ
and cross-section rotation angle of node i in the beam element. dx dx 4 dx3 dx
The displacement wðx; tÞ and rotation angle fields ψðx; tÞ can be
noted that in these equations, the external loads are neglected. By
expressed as
( ) " w # introducing the following new variables:
w N14 dw dw
¼ δ41 ; ð16Þ θ ¼  2θ2 ¼ ψ þ ; γ ¼ 2ε13 ¼ 2ε31 ¼  ψ; ð27Þ
ψ Nψ14 dx dx
21 24

in which Nw and Nψ represent the shape function matrices whose the equilibrium equations mentioned in Eqs. (25) and (26) can be
components are the appropriate shape functions of the new beam rewritten with respect to the new variables as follows:
element: !
2
d μAl
w
Nw Nw Nw
ψ
Nψ2 Nψ3 N ψ4 : μAγ  θ″ ¼ 0; ð28Þ
Νw ¼ ½ N 1 2 3 4 ; Νψ ¼ ½ N 1 ð17Þ dx 4

It is noted that these shape functions will be derived by directly !

2
solving the static governing equations (equilibrium equations) of EI μAl EI
þ θ″  γ″ þ μAγ ¼ 0; ð29Þ
the new beam element that will be discussed later. Substituting 2 4 2
Eq. (16) into Eqs. (9)–(11) leads to
where the prime symbol refers to differentiation with respect to x.
1 T Integrating Eq. (28) leads to
U¼ δ Kδ; ð18Þ
2
2
μAl
1 T _ μAγ  θ″ ¼ c1 ; ð30Þ
T ¼ δ_ Μδ; ð19Þ 4
2
in which c1 is a constant. Substitution of γ from Eq. (30) into Eq.
W ¼ δT f; ð20Þ (29) results in

where dot symbol refers to differentiation with respect to time. In 2

l ð4Þ 1 c1
addition, θ  ð1 þ αÞθ″ ¼ ; ð31Þ
8 2 EI
Z L (  ψ T ψ  w T  w 
∂N ∂N ∂N ∂N where
K¼ EI þ μA  Nψ  Nψ
0 ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x 2  2
) μAl μ l
  T   α¼ ¼ ; ð32Þ
μAl ∂Nψ ∂2 Nw ∂Nψ ∂2 Nw
2
EI E r
þ þ þ dx; ð21Þ
4 ∂x ∂x2 ∂x ∂x2
in which r denotes the gyration
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiradius of the new beam element
Z Z cross-section defined as r ¼ I=A.
L L
Μ¼ ρIðNψ ÞT Nψ dx þ ρAðNw ÞT Nw dx; ð22Þ Performing a non-dimensional analysis on Eq. (31) will be
0 0 helpful. To that end, a dimensionless parameter is introduced
 M.H. Kahrobaiyan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 79 (2014) 75–83 79

here: x~ ¼ x=L. Substitution of x~ in Eq. (31) yields the shape functions of the new modified couple stress Timoshenko
beam element expressed in Eqs. (16) and (17) are derived as
 2 4
1 l d θ
2
d θ 2c1 L2  
 ð1 þ αÞ 2 ¼ ; ð33Þ 6 x x x 3 x 
4 L dx~ 4
dx~ EI Nψ1 ¼  1  ; N ψ2 ¼ 1  1 ; Nψ3
Lð1 þ φÞ L L L ð1 þ φÞ L
6 x  x x 3 x

As it can be seen in Eq. (33), since the length scale parameter is in ¼ 1  ; N ψ4 ¼ 1 1 ; ð42Þ
the order of a few microns for most of the materials and Lð1 þ φÞ L L L ð1 þ φÞ L
consequently the ratio of the length scale parameter to the beam  3 x2 x
1 x
length is very small, the coefficient of d θ=dx~ 4 , i.e. ð1=4Þðl=LÞ2 , will
4
Nw
1 ¼ 1þ 2 3 φ ; Nw2
1þφ L L L
be negligible comparing with the coefficient of d θ=dx~ 2 , i.e. ð1 þ αÞ.
2
 3 x2 x
4 L x
Hence, by neglecting ð1=4Þðl=LÞ2 ðd θ=dx~ 4 Þ, Eq. (33) reduces to ¼ 2  ð4 þ φÞ þ ð2 þ φÞ ; Nw
3
2ð1 þ φÞ L L L
 2  3  
2c1 1 x x x
θ″ ¼  ; ð34Þ ¼ 3 2 þφ ; Nw
4
EIð1 þαÞ 1 þφ L L L
 3 x2 x
L x
then by double-integrating Eq. (34), one can express ¼ 2 þ ðφ  2Þ φ : ð43Þ
2ð1 þ φÞ L L L
c1 Substituting Eqs. (42) and (43) into Eq. (17), one can obtain the shape
θ¼  x2 þc2 x þ c3 ; ð35Þ
EIð1 þαÞ function matrices, i.e. Nw and Nψ . Subsequently, substitution of Nw
and Nψ into Eqs. (21) and (22) gives the stiffness and mass matrices
in which c2 and c3 are the constants of integration. Substituting as
Eq. (34) into Eq. (30) yields 2 3
12 6L  12 6L
6 7
EIð1 þ αÞ 6 ð4 þ φÞL2  6L ð2  φÞL2 7
K¼ 3 6 7; ð44Þ
  6 12 6L 7
c1 1 þ α=2 L ð1 þ φÞ4 5
γ¼ : ð36Þ Symm: ð4 þ φÞL2
μA 1 þ α
2 3
ð70φ2 þ 147φ þ 78Þ 4ð35φ þ77φ þ 44Þ
L 2
ð35φ2 þ 63φ þ 27Þ  4L ð35φ2 þ 63φ þ 26Þ
6 7
6 L2
 L4 ð7φ2 þ 14φ þ 6Þ 7
2

4 ð7φ þ14φ þ 8Þ 4ð35φ þ 63φ þ 26Þ

2 L 2
ρAL 6 7
MT:I: ¼ 26 7; ð45Þ
210ð1 þφÞ 6 ð70φ þ 147φ þ78Þ  4L ð35φ2 þ 77φ þ 44Þ 7
2
4 5
L2
4 ð7φ þ 14φ þ 8Þ
2
Symm:
2 3
36 Lð3  15φÞ  36 Lð3  15φÞ
6 7
ρI 6 L2 ð10φ2 þ 5φ þ 4Þ Lð3  15φÞ L2 ð5φ2  5φ 1Þ 7
MR:I: ¼ 6 7; ð46Þ
30Lð1 þ φÞ2 6
4 36  Lð3 15φÞ 7 5
2
Symm: L ð10φ2 þ 5φ þ 4Þ

Now, having θ and γ, the rotation angle ψ and lateral deflection w can
be obtained by substitution of Eqs. (35) and (36) into Eq. (27) as where “symm.” implies the symmetric nature of stiffness and mass
! matrices. In addition, MT:I: and MR:I: respectively denote the tensors
1 1 c1 2 c1 1 þ α=2
ψ ¼ ðθ  γÞ ¼  x þ c2 x þ c3  ; ð37Þ of the transitional and rotary inertia that together make the total
2 2 EIð1 þ αÞ μA 1 þ α mass matrix of the Timoshenko beam element M as
Z 
1 1 c1 1 þ α=2 c 1 x3 c2 M ¼ MT:I: þ MR:I: : ð47Þ
w¼ ðγ þ θÞdx ¼ x þ x2 þ c 3 x þ c 4 :
2 2 μA 1 þα 3EIð1 þ αÞ 2
The new modified couple stress Timoshenko beam element is a
ð38Þ
comprehensive beam element that recovers the formulations of
By applying the appropriate boundary conditions, i.e. modified couple stress Euler–Bernoulli beam element, classical
wðx ¼ 0Þ ¼ w1 ; ψðx ¼ 0Þ ¼ ψ 1 ; wðx ¼ LÞ ¼ w2 and ψðx ¼ LÞ ¼ ψ 2 : Timoshenko beam element and classical Euler–Bernoulli beam
element. By letting α ¼ 0 in Eq. (44), the formulations of the classical
ð39Þ
Timoshenko beam element can be achieved [40] noted that the
the four constant coefficients of Eqs. (37) and (38), i.e. ci ; i ¼ 1; 2; ::; 4, condition of α ¼ 0 happens either when one utilizes the classical
can be determined as continuum theory so considers l ¼ 0 in the formulations or when the
EIð1 þ αÞ   dimensions of the structure are large, e.g. in macro scales, and
c1 ¼ 3
 12w1  6Lψ 1 þ 12w2  6Lψ 2 ; consequently the ratio of the length scale parameter to the gyration
L ð1 þ φÞ
radius of the beam cross-section l=r becomes negligible. Moreover,
ðψ  ψ 1 Þ c1 L
c2 ¼ 2 2 þ ; the formulations of a modified couple stress Euler–Bernoulli beam
L EIð1 þ αÞ
element can be obtained by letting φ ¼ 0 in Eqs. (44) and (45). In
c1 1 þ α=2
c3 ¼ 2ψ 1 þ ; c4 ¼ w1 ; ð40Þ addition, letting α ¼ 0 and simultaneously φ ¼ 0 in Eqs. (44) and
μA 1 þ α
(45), the stiffness and mass matrices of classical Euler–Bernoulli
where beam element can be derived [40]. It is noted that φ ¼ 0 occurs
12EI α E r 2 α
when the ratio of the beam length to the gyration radius of the beam
φ¼ 1þ ¼ 12 1þ : ð41Þ cross-section is large. Hence, it is concluded that for beams whose
μAL 2 2 μ L 2
length is relatively long, the formulations of the new beam element
By substituting the constants from Eq. (40) into Eqs. (37) and (38), approach the formulations of Euler–Bernoulli beam elements which
80 M.H. Kahrobaiyan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 79 (2014) 75–83

consequently guarantee that the shear-locking phenomenon will not 300

happen for the new beam element.
250

200

4. Examples 150

In this section, it is indicated that how the new beam element 100

can be employed in order to solve the real-case problems. The

50
results obtained by utilizing the new beam element are compared
to the experimental data as well as the classical FEM outcomes. 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
It is observed that the gap between the classical FEM and
experimental results are considerable whereas the results of the
new beam element are in good agreements with the experimental
observations.

4.1. A microcantilever under a concentrated force

Consider a microcantilever with length Lb having a uniform
rectangular cross-section with height h and width b subjected to
concentrated force P at its free end (see Fig. 3). The aforemen-
tioned microcantilever is modeled by the new beam element and
the results are compared to the experimental results extracted
from the work done by Lam et al. [12]. They conducted a bending
test on a micro-cantilever made of epoxy with the following
mechanical properties: the elastic modulus: E ¼ 1:44 GPa and
Poisson ratio: ν ¼ 0:38. It is noted that the length scale parameter
of epoxy is evaluated to be l ¼ 17:6 μm [19]. Moreover, in the
aforementioned bending test, the geometrical properties of the
micro-cantilever are reported as follows: the thickness: h ¼ 38 μm,
the width: b ¼ 0:235 mm and the ratio of the length to the
thickness: Lb =h ¼ 10 [12]. In order to bend the micro-cantilever,
Lam et al. [12] used a nano-loading system (Hysitron Triboinden-
ter) 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 deflections. In order to
validate the new non-classical beam element, the aforementioned
micro-cantilever is modeled by using 10 new beam elements. The
stiffness matrices of the elements are assembled and the boundary
conditions, i.e. wð0Þ ¼ ψð0Þ ¼ 0, are applied. The end force applied
to the microcantilever is depicted in Fig. 4 versus the end
deflection of the microcantilever, wLb . In this figure, 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. The
results indicate that the outcomes based on the new beam
elements are in good agreement with the experimental results
while there is a significant difference between the experimental
and classical FEM results. It is also observed that the results of the
modified couple stress Timoshenko beam element are closer to the
experimental data than the results of the modified couple stress
Euler–Bernoulli beam element. Since for the aforementioned
microcantilever, the ratio of the beam length to the beam height
is 10, the above-mentioned observation is justifiable. It is noted
that in Fig. 4, in order to evaluate the Euler–Bernoulli-beam-
Fig. 3. A microcantilever subjected to a concentrated force: geometry, loading and
coordinate system.
Fig. 4. End force versus the end deflection of the microcantilever for different
beam elements.
Fig. 5. An electrostatically actuated microcantilever: geometry and configuration.
element-based results, φ ¼ 0 is considered in formulations of the
new beam element (Eqs. (44)–(46)).
It is inferred that in order to model the micro-scale structures,
employing the non-classical elements is essential. The good
agreement between the current and the experimental results
implies that the newly developed beam elements are valid,
reliable and can be successfully employed to deal with the
mechanical problems in micron and sub-microns scales. It is seen
that the non-classical beam elements predict that the beams are
stiffer than those of the classical beam theories.
4.2. Pull-in voltage of an electrostatically actuated microcantilever
Here, the newly developed beam element is employed to
evaluate the pull-in voltage of electrostatically microbeams. Con-
sider an electrostatically actuated microcantilever with length Lb
an initial distance d from a fixed substrate as shown in Fig. 5. The
cross-section of the beam is assumed to be rectangular with width
b and height h and the applied voltage is denoted by V. As the
applied voltage increases, the attractive electrostatic force
between the fixed substrate and the microcantilever increases
and so does the deflection of the microcantilever, as the conse-
quence. At a certain voltage, the instability begins and the
microcantilever tends to collapse to the fixed substrate. The
aforementioned instability 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 . Here, the static pull-in
voltage of a microcantilever made of silicon is determined by
employing the newly developed beam elements. For the
microbeam depicted in Fig. 5, the distributed electrostatic force
 M.H. Kahrobaiyan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 79 (2014) 75–83 81

per unit length is expressed as

 
ε0 bV 2 d w
FðxÞ ¼ 1 þ0:65 ; ð48Þ
ðd wÞ2 b

where ε0 ¼ 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. (48) into Eq. (23) and consider-
ing M to be zero, the nodal force vector can be calculated.
Assembling the stiffness matrix and force vector of all elements
and also satisfying the boundary conditions, i.e. wð0Þ ¼ 0 and
ψð0Þ ¼ 0, the equation of the static deflection of the electrostati-
cally actuated microcantilever is determined as follows:
~  1 f~ ;
δ~ ¼ K ð49Þ
where “ ~ ” symbol refers to the assembled version of the
respected quantity. Eq. (49) is a nonlinear equation in which the Fig.6. Comparing the present and the experimental results of static pull-in voltage
force vector f~ is a nonlinear function of the displacement vector δ.
~ for silicon microbeams fabricated in 110 direction.
This equation can be solved using an iterative method as follows.
At first, the electrostatic load on the un-deformed microbeam (i.e.
δ~ ¼ 0 which yields w0 ðxÞ ¼0) is calculated as
0

 
ε0 bV 2 d
F 0 ðxÞ ¼ 2
1 þ 0:65 : ð50Þ
d b
0
Given F 0 ðxÞ, the force vector f and consequently the first estima-
tion of the nodal displacement vector (i.e. δ~ ) and subsequently
1

the displacement field (i.e. w1 ðxÞ) can be calculated using Eq. (49).
Now, the next estimation of the electrostatic load and force vector
can be obtained by substituting w1 ðxÞ into Eq. (48) and again the
next estimation of the nodal displacements vector and displace-
ment field can be found. This procedure will be stopped when the
convergence is observed or pull-in instability is happened. The
convergence criterion is considered as
error i o error desired ; ð51Þ
in which Fig. 7. Comparing the present and the experimental results of static pull-in voltage
  for silicon microbeams fabricated in 010 direction.
 ~ i ~ i  1
δ  δ 
error i ¼   ; error desired ¼ 10  8 ; ð52Þ
 ~ i
δ 
for silicon microbeams respectively in 110 and 010 directions. It is
and pull-in happens if wmax Z1. noted that in order to generate the graphs of Figs. 6 and 7, the
In order to indicate the advantages of the new beam element, length scale parameter of the silicon is considered to be
the results obtained using the new beam element are compared l110 ¼0.58 mm and l010 ¼0.71 mm in crystal planes normal to 110
with those reported in the experimental research performed by and 010 directions respectively. These length scale parameters are
Osterberg [41]. The specifications of the microbeam tested by evaluated by matching the numerical results with the experimen-
Osterberge [41] are presented in Table 1. It is noted that the tal data which is in agreement with the results of Rahaeifard et al.
microbeams were fabricated in two different directions of silicon [31]. The length scale parameter is in fact a material characteristic
crystal: 110 direction; i.e. the length of the beam is along the 110 which relates the couple stresses to the curvature of the con-
direction and the side plane of the beam normal to 110 direction of tinuum. This parameter is different for each material and can be
silicon crystal and 010 direction; i.e. the length of the beam is determined by performing some standard experimental tests such
along the 010 direction and the side plane of the beam normal to as micro-bending tests and micro-torsion tests [11–13]. In micro-
010 direction of silicon crystal [41,42]. bending (micro-torsion) tests, the clamped-free samples, i.e.
Figs. 6 and 7 compare the results of the pull-in voltage microbeams with rectangular cross-sections (circular micro-bars)
evaluated by the new beam element with those evaluated based with different thicknesses (diameters) are subjected to the bend-
on the classical FEM and also the experimental observations [41] ing (torsion) loads. Afterward, the graphs of normalized bending
(torsional) rigidity versus the sample thickness (diameter) are
Table 1
delineated and by curve-fitting of these graphs with the results
Specifications of the silicon microcantilevers tested by Osterberg [41]. obtained on the bases of the modified couple stress theory, the
length scale parameter can be determined [11–13]. In a recent
Specification Group 1 Group2 work, the length scale parameter of nickel, aluminum and copper
are determined by performing micro-bending and micro-torsion
Crystal direction along beam length 110 010
Elastic modulus along beam length [43] 169.2 GPa 130.4 GPa tests in which the loading process continued until the yield point
Poisson's ratio in side plane of the beam [43] 0.239 0.177 of the samples. Afterwards, the length scale parameters are
The range for length ( Lb) 75–250 μm 75–225 μm obtained by comparing the experimentally obtained yield loads
Height (h) 2.94 μm 2.94 μm with those derived on the basis of the modified couple stress
width (b) 50 μm 50 μm
Distance from the base (d) 1.05 μm 1.05 μm
theory [44]. In addition, by comparing the modified couple stress
theory with dislocation theory, a relation is developed between
82 M.H. Kahrobaiyan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 79 (2014) 75–83
the length scale parameter and the dislocation based physical
quantities such as barrier strength of the boundary for slip
transmission, Burger vector length and shear modulus in that
work [44]. Moreover, the length scale parameter of high-strength
concretes is related to the grain-size of these materials [45].
Figs. 6 and 7 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 indeed in good
agreement with the experimental observations [41]. Hence, it
comes to conclusion that the new modified couple stress beam
elements can reduce the gap between the experimental observa-
tions and simulation results and therefore the necessity of using
the non-classical-continuum-based FEM such as the present mod-
ified couple stress based beam element will be comprehensible.
5. Conclusion
The classical continuum theory not only underestimates the
stiffness of the micro-scale structures, but also is unable to justify
the size-dependent mechanical behavior observed in these struc-
tures. So, the non-classical continuum theories such as the modified
couple stress theory have recently become very popular in order to
deal with the modeling of micro-scale structures. Accordingly,
developing the new finite elements based on the non-classical
continuum theories seems to be essential to achieve that goal. In
this paper, a new Timoshenko beam element is developed based on
a non-classical continuum theory, the modified couple stress
theory. The shape functions are obtained by solving the governing
equations and applying the proper boundary conditions. In addi-
tion, the stiffness and mass matrices are derived employing an
energy-based approach. It is observed that the new modified couple
stress Timoshenko beam element is a comprehensive beam ele-
ment that the formulations of the modified couple stress Euler–
Bernoulli beam element, classical Timoshenko beam element and
classical Euler–Bernoulli beam element can be achieved from the
original formulations. The mass and stiffness matrices of the
modified couple stress Euler–Bernoulli beam element are obtained
from the respected matrices of the new element when the ratio of
the beam length to the gyration radius of the beam cross-section
increases. In addition, the mass and stiffness matrices of the
classical Timoshenko beam element are derived from those of the
new Timoshenko beam element when the ratio of the gyration
radius of the beam cross-section to the material length scale
parameter increases. Moreover, the formulations of the classical
Euler–Bernoulli beam element are achieved from the present
formulations when both the aforementioned ratios increase. By
some examples, it is indicated that how the new beam element can
be utilized in practice. In first example, the static deflection of a
short microcantilever is determined by employing the new
Timoshenko beam element and the result is compared to the
experimental data as well as the results obtained by utilizing the
modified couple stress Euler–Bernoulli beam element and classical
beam elements. It is observed that the gap between the experi-
mental and classical FEM results is notable whereas the results of
the modified couple stress beam elements are in good agreement
with the experimental outcomes. It is noted that among the
modified couple stress beam elements, the new Timoshenko beam
element result is closer to the experimental findings than the new
Euler–Bernoulli beam element result which confirms that the
Timoshenko beam elements are more suitable for modeling the
short beams. In second example, the pull-in voltage of an electro-
statically actuated microcantilever made of silicon is evaluated
using the newly developed beam elements and the results are
compared to the classical FEM results and experimental data. It is
observed that the new FEM results are in excellent agreement with
the experimental data while the gap between the classical FEM and
experimental results are significant. It is also observed that as the
size of the beam increases, the difference between the new and the
classical FEM results decreases.
References
[1] Attia P, Tremblay G, Laval R, Hesto P. Characterisation of a low-voltage
actuated gold microswitch. Mater Sci Eng B 1998;51:263–6.
[2] Moeenfard H, Ahmadian MT. Analytical modeling of bending effect on the
torsional response of electrostatically actuated micromirrors. Optik – Int J Light
Electron Opt 2012;124(12):1278–86, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2012.06.025.
[3] Kahrobaiyan MH, Rahaeifard M, Ahmadian MT. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of
a V-shaped microcantilever of an atomic force microscope. Appl Math Modell
2011;35:5903–19.
[4] Kahrobaiyan MH, Ahmadian MT, Haghighi P, Haghighi A. Sensitivity and
resonant frequency of an AFM with sidewall and top-surface probes for both
flexural and torsional modes. Int J Mech Sci 2010;52:1357–65.
[5] Wu DH, Chien WT, Yang CJ, Yen YT. Coupled-field analysis of piezoelectric
beam actuator using FEM. Sens Actuators A 2005;118:171–6.
[6] Metz P, Alici G, Spinks GM. A finite element model for bending behaviour of
conducting polymer electromechanical actuators. Sens Actuators A 2006;130:1–11.
[7] Coutu RA, Kladitis PE, Starman LA, Reid JR. A comparison of micro-switch analytic,
finite element, and experimental results. Sens Actuators A 2004;115:252–8.
[8] Chapuis F, Bastien F, Manceau JF, Casset F, Charvet PL. FEM modelling of Piezo-
actuated microswitches. In: Seventh international conference on thermal,
mechanical and multiphysics simulation and experiments in micro-electronics
and micro-systems. EuroSime 2006, IEEE; 2006. p. 1–6.
[9] Tajalli SA, Moghimi Zand M, Ahmadian MT. 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
2009;28:916–25.
[10] Rochus V, Rixen D, Golinval JC. Non-conforming element for accurate model-
ling of MEMS. Finite Elem Anal Des 2007;43:749–56.
[11] Fleck NA, Muller GM, Ashby MF, Hutchinson JW. Strain gradient plasticity:
theory and experiment. Acta Metall Mater 1994;42:475–87.
[12] Lam DCC, Yang F, Chong ACM, Wang J, Tong P. Experiments and theory in
strain gradient elasticity. J Mech Phys Solids 2003;51:1477–508.
[13] Stölken JS, Evans AG. A microbend test method for measuring the plasticity
length scale. Acta Mater 1998;46:5109–15.
[14] Koiter WT. Couple-stresses in the theory of elasticity: I and II. Proc Nederl
Akad Wetensch Ser B 1964;67:17–29.
[15] Mindlin RD, Tiersten HF. Effects of couple-stresses in linear elasticity. Arch
Ration Mech Anal 1962;11:415–48.
[16] Ejike UBCO. The plane circular crack problem in the linearized couple-stress
theory. Int J Eng Sci 1969;7(9):947–61.
[17] Asghari M, Kahrobaiyan MH, Rahaeifard M, Ahmadian MT. Investigation of the
size effects in Timoshenko beams based on the couple stress theory. Arch Appl
Mech 2011;81(7):863–74.
[18] Yang F, Chong ACM, Lam DCC, Tong P. Couple stress based strain gradient
theory for elasticity. Int J Solids Struct 2002;39(10):2731–43.
[19] Park SK, Gao XL. Bernoulli–Euler beam model based on a modified couple
stress theory. J Micromech Microeng 2006;16(11):2355–9.
[20] Kong S, Zhou S, Nie Z, Wang K. The size-dependent natural frequency of
Bernoulli–Euler micro-beams. Int J Eng Sci 2008;46:427–37.
[21] Ma HM, Gao XL, Reddy JN. A microstructure-dependent Timoshenko beam
model based on a modified couple stress theory. J Mech Phys Solids
2008;56:3379–91.
[22] Xia W, Wang L, Yin L. Nonlinear non-classical microscale beams: static
bending, postbuckling and free vibration. Int J Eng Sci 2010;48(12):2044–53.
[23] Kahrobaiyan MH, Asghari M, Rahaeifard M, Ahmadian MT. A nonlinear strain
gradient beam formulation. Int J Eng Sci 2011;49(11):1256–67.
[24] Asghari M, Kahrobaiyan MH, Ahmadian MT. A nonlinear Timoshenko beam
formulation based on the modified couple stress theory. Int J Eng Sci 2010;48
(12):1749–61.
[25] Asghari M, Ahmadian MT, Kahrobaiyan MH, Rahaeifard M. On the size-
dependent behavior of functionally graded micro-beams. Mater Des 2010;31
(5):2324–9.
[26] Asghari M, Rahaeifard M, Kahrobaiyan MH, Ahmadian MT. The modified
couple stress functionally graded Timoshenko beam formulation. Mater Des
2011;32(3):1435–43.
[27] Tsiatas GC, Yiotis AJ. A microstructure-dependent orthotropic plate model
based on a modified couple stress theory. Recent developments in boundary
element methods. Southampton: WIT Press; 2010; 295–308 (A volume to
honour Professor John T. Katsikadelis).
[28] Wang L. Size-dependent vibration characteristics of fluid-conveying micro-
tubes. J Fluids Struct 2010;26(4):675–84.
[29] Fu Y, Zhang J. Modeling and analysis of microtubules based on a modified
couple stress theory. Physica E 2010;42:1741–5.
[30] Kahrobaiyan MH, Asghari M, Rahaeifard M, Ahmadian MT. Investigation of the
size-dependent dynamic characteristics of atomic force microscope micro-
cantilevers based on the modified couple stress theory. Int J Eng Sci 2010;48
(12):1985–94.
 M.H. Kahrobaiyan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 79 (2014) 75–83
[31] Rahaeifard M, Kahrobaiyan MH, Asghari M, Ahmadian MT. Static pull-in
analysis of microcantilevers based on the modified couple stress theory. Sens
Actuators A 2011;171(2):370–4.
[32] Rahaeifard M, Kahrobaiyan MH, Ahmadian MT, Firoozbakhsh K. Size-
dependent pull-in phenomena in nonlinear microbridges. Int J Mech Sci
2012;54(1):306–10.
[33] Kahrobaiyan MH, Asghari M, Ahmadian MT. Longitudinal behavior of strain
gradient bars. Int J Eng Sci 2013;66 and 67:44–59.
[34] Kahrobaiyan MH, Asghari M, Ahmadian MT. Strain gradient beam element.
Finite Elem Anal Des 2013;68:63–75.
[35] Thomas DL, Wilson JM, Wilson RR. Timoshenko beamfinite elements. J Sound
Vib 1973;31(3):315–30.
[36] Lees AW, Thomas DL. Unified Timoshenko beam finite element. J Sound Vib
1982;80(3):355–66.
[37] DAWE DJ. A finite element for the vibration analysis of Timoshenko beams.
J Sound Vib 1978:11–2060(l) 1978:11–20.
[38] Davis R, Henshell RD, Warburton GB. A Timoshenko beam element. J Sound
Vib 1972;22(4):475–87.
83
[39] Rakowski J. The interpretation of the shear locking in beam elements. Comput
Struct 1990;37(5):769–76.
[40] Friedman Z, Kosmatka JB. An improved two-node Timoshenko beam finite
element. Comput Struct 1993;47(3):473–81.
[41] Osterberg PM., Electrostatically actuated micromechanical test structure for
material property measurement [PhD dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology; 1995.
[42] Osterberg PM, Senturia SD. M-TEST: a test chip for MEMS material property
measurement using electrostatically actuated test structures. J Microelectro-
mech Syst 1997;6:107–18.
[43] Gupta RK., Electrostatic pull-in test structure design for in-situ mechanical
property measurement of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) [PhD
dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1997.
[44] Kahrobaiyan MH, Rahaeifard M, Ahmadian MT. A size-dependent yield
criterion. Int J Eng Sci 2014;74:151–61.
[45] Sherafatnia K, Kahrobaiyan MH, Farrahi GH. Size-dependent energy release
rate formulation of notched beams based on a modified couple stress theory.
Eng Fract Mech, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2013.12.001, in press.