Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Mathematical Modelling

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

Coupled longitudinal-transverse-rotational free vibration

of post-buckled functionally graded first-order shear
deformable micro- and nano-beams based on the Mindlin’s
strain gradient theory
R. Ansari a,∗, R. Gholami b,∗∗, M. Faghih Shojaei a, V. Mohammadi a, M.A. Darabi a
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Guilan, P.O. Box 41635-3756, Rasht, Iran
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Lahijan Branch, Islamic Azad University, P.O. Box 1616, Lahijan, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Presented herein is a comprehensive study on the size-dependent coupled longitudinal-
Received 25 June 2015 transverse-rotational free vibration behavior of post-buckled functionally graded (FG)
Revised 17 March 2016
micro- and nano-beams based on the most general Mindlin’s strain gradient theory. The
Accepted 20 June 2016
current model enables us to incorporate size effects via introducing material length scale
Available online 29 June 2016
parameters and is developed in the framework of the first-order shear deformable beam
Keywords: model and the von Karman geometric nonlinearity. The FG micro- and nano-beams, whose
Functionally graded micro- and nano-beams volume fraction is expressed by using a power law function, are assumed to be made of
Free vibration a mixture of metals and ceramics. By using Hamilton’s principle, the nonlinear governing
Postbuckling equations and associated boundary conditions are derived for FG micro- and nano-beams
Most general Mindlin’s strain gradient in the postbuckling domain. Afterwards, the governing equations and boundary conditions
elasticity are discretized using the generalized differential quadrature (GDQ) method in conjunc-
Size-dependent first-order shear deformable tion with a direct approach without linearization, before solving numerically by Newton’s
beam model
method. The effects of length scale parameter, length-to-thickness ratio, material gradi-
ent index and boundary conditions on the postbuckling path and frequency of FG micro-
and nano-beams are carefully investigated. Finally, numerical results obtained from both
the modified strain gradient theory (MSGT) and modified couple stress theory (MCST) are
compared.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The introduction of nano- and micro-electromechanical systems (NEMS and MEMS) to the industrial process has offered
a large variety of attractive research opportunities. In addition, the use of functionally graded (FG) materials in NEMS and
MEMS has attracted a lot of attention in recent years [1–3]. Of all the micro-scale elements, microbeams are intensively used
in the MEMS and atomic force microscopes, so comprehending all mechanical aspects concerned with these materials is of
high importance. Some experiments have demonstrably approved the size-dependent mechanical behaviors in microbeams
[4–7] and have shown that size-dependency is an inherent property that gets important when the thickness of beam is

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 131 6690276.
∗∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 141 2222906.
E-mail addresses: r_ansari@guilan.ac.ir (R. Ansari), gholami_r@liau.ac.ir (R. Gholami).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2016.06.042
0307-904X/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891 9873

comparable to the internal material length scale parameter. Therefore, a variety of examinations have been performed on
the estimation of mechanical characteristics of small-scale structures based upon the non-classical continuum mechanics
theories [8–15].
The scale dependency can be incorporated through different non-classical continuum theories, namely the strain gradient
elasticity, couple stress elasticity, nonlocal elasticity and the surface elasticity theories [16–21]. The couple stress theory has
two material length scale parameters to describe the microstructure-dependent size effects [16, 22]. Yang et al. [19] proposed
the modified couple stress theory (MCST) and eased incorporating the small-scale effect by considering only one material
length scale parameter in addition to classical material constants. Another type of the higher-order continuum theory is
presented by Mindlin [23] by considering the first and second derivatives of the strain tensor effective on the strain energy
density. This proposition was then reformulated and modified by Fleck and Hutchinson [24] and was named as the strain
gradient theory; they only considered the first derivative of the strain tensor. In comparison to the couple stress theory,
this theory contains some higher-order stress components beside the classical and couple stresses. Subsequently, Mindlin
[25] proposed the most general form of strain gradient elasticity theory. After that, this proposition was used as the basic
formulations in many investigations. Lam et al. [18] proposed the modified strain gradient theory (MSGT) by considering
three higher-order material constants related to the dilatation gradient, deviatoric gradient and symmetric rotation gradient
tensor.
Despite the significance of FG microstructures, several studies are devoted to explore the mechanical responses of these
phenomenal structures [26–36]. In this direction, based upon the MSGT, Ansari et al. [37] examined the nonlinear free vi-
bration characteristics of FG Timoshenko microbeams. They found that the difference between results obtained by the MSGT
and MCST is considerable for lower dimensionless length scale parameters. Furthermore, in another work, the nonlinear free
vibration behavior of size-dependent FG Timoshenko microbeams was investigated by Ke et al. [38]. Based on the MCST, they
showed that when the thickness of the FGM microbeam is comparable to the material length scale parameter, the linear
and nonlinear frequencies soar notably. Rahaeifard et al. [39] investigated the free vibration of electrostatically actuated mi-
crobridges using the MCST. Based on the MCST, a new nonlinear theoretical model was developed to study the nonlinear
dynamics cantilevered microbeams [40]. Şimşek [41] investigated the size dependent geometrically nonlinear free vibration
of an axially FG microbeam.
Current study, with the purpose of fulfilling all capabilities of FG microbeams, is inclined to investigate the size-
dependent coupled longitudinal-transverse-rotational free vibration behavior of post-buckled FG first-order shear deformable
microbeams based on the most general form of strain gradient theory. The nonlinear governing equations and associated
boundary conditions are obtained for FG microbeams with different boundary conditions. After that, the governing equations
and boundary conditions are discretized and solved by employing the GDQ method in conjunction with a direct approach
without linearization. The FG microbeam, whose volume fraction is expressed by means of a power law function, is made
of a mixture of metals and ceramics. The effects of important parameters including the length scale parameter, length-to-
thickness ratio, and material gradient index on the postbuckling path and frequency of FG microbeams are investigated.

2. Derivation of governing equations and boundary conditions

According to the most general pattern of strain gradient theory [23], the stored strain energy s in a continuum con-
structed by a linear elastic material occupying region V with negligible deflection is:
  
1 .
s = σ : ε + τ .. ξ dV, (1)
2 V

in which σ , τ , ɛ and ξ denote strain, third order strain gradient, stress and double stress tensors, respectively. The strain
tensors are introduced as:
1  1 
ε= ∇ u + (∇ u )T + (∇ u )(∇ u )T , εi j = ui, j + u j,i + um,i um, j , (2a)
2 2
1   1 
ξ = ∇ ε = ∇ ∇ u + (∇ u )T + (∇ u )(∇ u )T , ξi jk = ξik j = ε jk,i = u j,k + uk, j + um, j um,k ,i , (2b)
2 2
where ui denotes the components of the displacement vector u. Also, the stresses are defined as:

σi j = σ ji = λεkk δi j + 2μεi j , (3a)

1      
τi jk = τik j = a1 ξkpp δi j + 2ξ ppi δ jk + ξ jpp δik + 2a2 ξipp δ jk + a3 ξ ppk δi j + ξ pp j δik + 2a4 ξi jk + a5 ξ jki + ξk ji , (3b)
2
where δ ij symbolizes the Kronecker delta. With regards to the constitutive equation of the classical stress σ , the parameters
λ and μ are the Lame parameters expressed as follows [42]:
Eν E
λ= , μ= . (4)
( 1 + ν ) ( 1 − 2ν ) 2 (1 + ν )
9874 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891

Fig. 1. Schematic of coordinate system, kinematic parameters, geometry and loading for a first-order shear deformable microbeam.

As shown in Fig. 1, a FG microbeam made from a mixture of ceramic and metal with the length L and thickness h is
considered. One can consider a coordinate system x, y, z on the central axis of the beam, where x, y and z axes are taken
along the length, the width and the depth (height) directions of the microbeam, respectively. It is assumed that the materials
of FG microbeam at bottom surface (z = − h/2 ) and top surface (z = h/2 ) of the microbeam are ceramic-rich and metal-
rich, respectively. The volume fraction of the ceramic and metal phases is defined by the power-law function as [43]:
k k
1 z 1 z
Vc (z ) = + , Vm (z ) = 1 − + , (5)
2 h 2 h
where k is the material gradient index. The subscripts m and c denote metal and ceramic phases, respectively. Hence, the
effective material characteristics of the FG microbeam such as Young’s modulus (E), Poisson’s ratio (ν ) and mass density (ρ )
can be obtained as:

E ( z ) = Ec Vc + Em Vm , ν (z ) = νcVc + νmVm , ρ (z ) = ρcVc + ρmVm . (6)

On the basis of the first-order shear deformation beam theory, the displacements of an arbitrary point in a microbeam
along x, y and z axes can be described as:

u1 = U (t, x ) − z (t, x ), u2 = 0, u3 = W (t, x ) (7)

in which U(t, x), W(t, x) and (t, x) signal the axial displacement of the center of cross sections, lateral deflection, and rota-
tion angle of the cross section with respect to the vertical direction, respectively. Let consider a first-order shear deformable
microbeam under tiny slopes after deflection and possible finite transverse deflection W; the nonlinear strain-displacement
relations can be estimated by the von-Karman relation as:
 2  2  
∂ u1 1 ∂ W ∂U ∂ 1 ∂W 1 ∂W
εxx = + = −z + , εxz = − , (8)
∂x 2 ∂x ∂x ∂x 2 ∂x 2 ∂x

Substituting Eqs. (7) and (8) into Eq. (2b) gives the following nonzero constituents of ξ :
 
∂ 2U ∂ W ∂ 2W ∂2 1 ∂ 2W ∂ ∂
ξxxx = 2 + −z , ξ = ξxzx = − , ξzxx = − . (9)
∂x ∂ x ∂ x2 ∂ x2 xxz 2 ∂ x2 ∂x ∂x
 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891 9875

One can express the main components of the symmetric section of the stress tensor by means of the kinematic parame-
ters as
 2  
∂U ∂ 1 ∂W ∂W
σxx = (λ + 2μ) −z + , σxz = μks − . (10)
∂x ∂x 2 ∂x ∂x

where ks depicts the shear correction factor. Inserting Eq. (9) into Eq. (3b) leads to the following nonzero constituents of
the higher-order stresses:
 2 
∂ U ∂ W ∂ 2W ∂2
τxxx = 2 ( a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + a5 ) + −z ,
∂ x2 ∂ x ∂ x2 ∂ x2
∂ 2W 1
1 ∂
τxxz = τxzx = (a3 + 2a4 + a5 ) − ( a1 + a3 + 2a4 + 3a5 ) ,
∂ x2
2 2 ∂x
1 ∂ W 1
2
∂
τzxx = ( a1 + 2a5 ) − ( a1 + 4a2 + 4a4 + 2a5 ) . (11)
2 ∂ x2 2 ∂x
Let us to use symbols C and NC to denote the strain energies associated with classical and strain gradient theories,
respectively. By substituting Eqs. (8)–(11) into Eq. (1), the strain energy owing to both the variations of the classical and
higher order stresses with respect to the initial configuration can be obtained as:
   2  
1 1 L
∂U 1 ∂W ∂ ∂W
C = σ : ε dV = Nxx + − Mxx +Q − dx, (12a)
2 V 2 0 ∂x 2 ∂x ∂x ∂x
 .
1
NNC = τ ..ξ dV
2 V
 L  2   2  
∂ U ∂W ∂ 2W ∂2 ∂ W ∂ ∂
= Txxx + − Mxxx + Txxz − − Tzxx dx, (12b)
0 ∂ x2 ∂x ∂ x2 ∂ x2 ∂ x2 ∂x ∂x
where the normal resultant force Nxx , shear force Q, bending moment Mxx , and the other higher-order resultant forces and
higher order moments (Txxx , Mxxx , Txxz , Tzxx ), in relation with higher-order stresses acting on a section are introduced as:

{Nxx , Q, Txxx , Txxz , Tzxx } = {σxx , σxz , τxxx , τxxz , τzxx }dA,
A
{Mxx , Mxxx } = {σxx , τxxx }zdA. (13)
A

For the kinetic energy of microbeam, T , one can have:

   2  2 
1 L
∂U ∂ ∂W
T = ρ −z + dAdx
2 0 A ∂t ∂t ∂t
  2  2  2 
1 L
∂U ∂U ∂ ∂ ∂W
= I1 − 2I2 + I3 + I1 dx, (14)
2 0 ∂t ∂t ∂t ∂t ∂t

where ρ and A denote the density and cross-sectional area of the microbeam, respectively. Additionally, the inertia terms
apparent in Eq. (14) are expressed as:
 h/2  
{I1 , I2 , I3 } = ρ (z ) 1, z, z2 dz. (15)
−h/2

As for the work done by the transverse force N̄0x , one can have:
  2
1 L
∂W
w = N̄0x dx (16)
2 0 ∂x
According to the Hamilton principle:
 t2
δ (T − s + w )dt = 0, (17)
t1

where s = C + NC . Taking the variations of U, W and , integrating by parts and setting the coefficients of δ U, δ W and
δ equal to zero, gives the following governing equations and associated boundary conditions:
9876 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891

∂ Nxx ∂ 2 Txxx ∂ 2U ∂2
− = I1 2 − I2 , (18a)
∂x ∂x 2 ∂t ∂t2
  
∂ ∂ Txxx ∂ w ∂ Q ∂ 2 Txxz ∂ 2w ∂ 2W
Nxx − + − − N̄0x 2 = I1 , (18b)
∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂ x2 ∂x ∂t2
∂ (Mxx + Txxz + Tzxx ) ∂ 2 Mxxx ∂2 ∂ 2U
Q− + = I − I . (18c)
∂x ∂ x2 3
∂t2 2
∂t2
 
∂ Txxx 
Nxx − = 0or δU |x=0,L = 0, (18d)
∂ x x=0,L
  
∂ Txxx ∂ W ∂ Txxz 
Nxx − +Q + = 0or δW |x=0,L = 0, (18e)
∂x ∂x ∂ x x=0,L
 
∂ Mxxx 
Mxx + Txxz + Tzxx − = 0or δ |x=0,L = 0, (18f)
∂ x x=0,L
 
∂ U 
Txxx |x=0,L = 0or δ = 0, (18g)
∂ x x=0,L
   
∂W  ∂ W 
Txxx + Txxz  = 0or δ = 0, (18h)
∂x x=0,L
∂ x x=0,L
 
∂ 
Mxxx |x=0,L = 0or δ  = 0. (18i)
∂ x x=0,L
Now, by considering the following parameters:
 h/2    h/2
1
{A11 , B11 , D11 } = (λ + 2μ) 1, z, z2 dz, A22 = − (a1 + a3 + 2a4 + 3a5 )dz,
−h/2 2 −h/2
 h/2  
{A33 , B33 , D33 } = 2 (a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + a5 ) 1, z, z2 dz,
−h/2
 h/2  h/2  
1
A44 = (a5 + 2a4 + a3 )dz, {A55 , B55 , D55 } = μ 1, z, z2 dz,
2 −h/2 −h/2
 h/2
1
A66 = (2a1 + 5a5 + a3 + 6a4 + 4a2 )dz. (19)
2 −h/2

One can introduce the following dimensionless parameters:


x L (U, W ) t A110 N̄0x
ζ = , η = , (u, w ) = , ψ= ,τ = ,P = , (20a)
L h h L I10 A110
 
A11 A55 B11 B55 D11 D55
(a11 , a55 , b11 , b55 , , d11 , d55 ) = , , , , , ,
A110 A110 A110 h A110 h A110 h2 A110 h2
   
A22 A44 A66 A33 B33 D33
(a22 , a44 , a66 ) = 2
, 2
, 2
, ( a 33 , b 33 , d 33 ) = 2
, 3
, 4
, (20b)
A110 h A110 h A110 h A110 h A110 h A110 h
  I1 I2 I3
I¯1 , I¯2 , I¯3 = , , , (20c)
I10 I10 h I10 h2
in which A110 and I10 are the values of A11 and I1 for a homogeneous microbeam made of metal. Therefore, the dimensionless
governing equations together with the dimensionless boundary conditions can be written as:
   
∂ 2u 1 ∂ w ∂ 2w ∂ 2 ψ a33 ∂ 4 u 1 ∂ w ∂ 4 w 3 ∂ 2 w ∂ 3 w b33 ∂ 4 ψ ∂ 2u ∂ 2ψ
a11 + − b − + + + 2 = I¯1 − I¯2 ,
∂ ζ 2 η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 2 11
∂ζ 2 η2 ∂ ζ 4 η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 4 η ∂ x2 ∂ x3 η ∂ζ 4 ∂τ 2 ∂τ 2
(21a)

   2
∂ 2w ∂ψ ∂ 4 w a22 ∂ 3 ψ a11 ∂ u ∂ 2 w ∂ 2 u ∂ w
a44 3 ∂ 2w ∂ w
ks a55 −η − 2 − + + +
∂ζ 2 ∂ζ η ∂ζ 4 η ∂ζ 3 η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 2 ∂ ζ 2 ∂ζ 2η ∂ ζ 2 ∂ζ
 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891 9877

     
b11 ∂ψ ∂ 2 w ∂ w ∂ 2 ψ ∂ 4u ∂ w ∂ 3u ∂ 2w
a33 b33 ∂ w ∂ 4 ψ ∂ 2w ∂ 3ψ
− + − + + 3 +
η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 2 ∂ζ ∂ ζ 2 η3 ∂ ζ 4 ∂ζ ∂ ζ 3 ∂ ζ 2 η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 4 ∂ ζ 2 ∂ ζ 3
 2  2 3
a33 ∂ w ∂ 2w ∂ 3w ∂ 4w ∂ w ∂ w ∂ 2w ¯ ∂ 2w
− 4 4 + + − P = I1 , (21b)
η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 2 ∂ ζ 3 ∂ ζ 4 ∂ζ ∂ζ 2 ∂ζ 2 ∂τ 2
   2 
∂w ∂ u 1 ∂ w ∂ 2w ∂ 2 ψ d33 ∂ 4 ψ a22 ∂ 3 w ∂ 2ψ
ks a55 η − ηψ − b11 + + d − + + a
∂ζ ∂ ζ 2 η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 2 11
∂ζ 2 η2 ∂ ζ 4 η ∂ζ 3 66
∂ζ 2
 4 
b33 ∂ u 1 ∂w ∂ w
4
3∂ w∂ w
2 3
∂ ψ
2
∂ u
2
+ 2 + + = I¯3 − I¯2 . (21c)
η ∂ ζ 4 η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 4 η ∂ ζ 2 ∂ ζ 3 ∂τ 2 ∂τ 2
Similarly, the boundary conditions can be written in terms of the components of displacement which are provided in
Appendix A.
It is remarked that considering the parameters ai (i = 1, 2, .., 5) as follows:
4 2 1 2 1 2 4 2 1 2
a1 = μ l22 − l , a2 = μ l02 − l − l , a3 = −μ l + l ,
15 1 15 1 2 2 15 1 2 2
1 2 2 2
a4 = μ l + l22 , a5 = μ l − l22 . (22)
3 1 3 1
in which l0 , l1 and l2 are the independent material length scale parameters related to the dilatation gradients, deviatoric
stretch gradients and symmetric rotation gradients, respectively. The current general form of strain gradient beam model can
be degraded to the nonlinear FG first-order shear deformable beam MSGT–based model. Furthermore, assuming l0 = l1 = 0
and l2 = l and substituting into the obtained governing equations result in the mathematical formulation based on the MCST.

3. Numerical solution

3.1. Discretization

Herein, by means of the GDQ [44] method, the governing equations and boundary conditions are discretized. The shifted
Chebyshev–Gauss–Lobatto grid points is employed to generate grid points in ξ i directions:
 
1 i−1
ξi = 1 − cos π , i = 1, 2, . . . , N. (23)
2 N−1

Let consider column vectors U, W and  as follows:

U = {u1 , u2 , . . . , uN }T , W = {w1 , w2 , . . . , wN }T ,  = {ψ1 , ψ2 , . . . , ψ N }T , (24)

with N entries equal to the number of grid points ui = u(ξi ), wi = w(ξi ) and ψi = ψ (ξi ). Now, one can write the discretized
form of governing equations Eqs. (21a–c) as:

F(X, P ) = MẌ + KX − P Kg X + N(X ) = 0, (25)

in which X, K, Kg , M and N(X) are field variables vector, stiffness matrix, geometric stiffness matrix, mass matrix and
nonlinear part vector, respectively, which are given in Appendix B.
Similar pattern can be used to discretize the boundary conditions; For instance, the discretized form of clamped bound-
ary condition is:

U = W =  = Dξ( ) U = Dξ( ) W = Dξ( )  = 0 ξ = 0, 1

1 1 1
at . (26)

3.2. Postbuckling analysis

In order to solve the nonlinear postbuckling problem of FG microbeams, the time-dependent terms are dropped from
Eq. (25). Then, after using the GDQ method and discretizing the stability equations and associated boundary conditions, a
set of nonlinear equations of the domain coupled with the boundary can be attained via substituting the equations of the
boundary conditions into the equations of the system in the boundaries
 T
F : R3N+1 → R3N , F(Xs , P ) = 0, Xs = UTs , WTs , sT , (27)

here N denotes the number of grid points in the GDQ discretization; Also, Xs and P show the field variable vector dictating
the buckling deformation and the buckling load, respectively. This nonlinear problem is quite large and seems to be difficult
to treat through a linearization scheme. The buckling load P is unknown, so, the number of unknown variables is one more
9878 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891

Fig. 2. Non-dimensional postbuckling deflection versus the non-dimensional axial load for FG microbeam using different grid number (L/h = 12, h/l =
2, k = 0.2).

Table 1
Comparison of the non-dimensional critical buckling load of FG microbeam with SS-SS boundary condition.
l
h
k=0 k=1 k = 10

Ref. [45] Present Ref. [45] Present Ref. [45] Present

0 98.1 98.0285 41.96 41.9482 19.55 19.5457

0.2 115.11 115.0721 51.35 51.3363 22.65 22.6425
0.4 166.2 166.1428 79.49 79.4675 31.93 31.9220
0.6 251.16 251.0611 126.28 126.2426 47.37 47.3516
0.8 369.70 369.5290 191.58 191.4975 68.91 68.8772
0.1 521.44 521.1334 275.15 275.0040 96.48 96.4238

Table 2
First three non-dimensional critical axial buckling loads for various length scale parameter corresponding to different theories and end conditions
(L/h = 10, k = 0.1).
Boundary condition Mode h/l = 2 h/l = 3 h/l = 5 h/l = 10 CT

MSGT MCST MSGT MCST MSGT MCST MSGT MCST

C-C 1 0.55640 0.28810 0.35590 0.20293 0.22428 0.15834 0.15905 0.13932 0.13295
2 0.84438 0.52501 0.57977 0.37288 0.39085 0.29147 0.28793 0.25635 0.24451
3 1.28965 0.89302 0.90918 0.63904 0.64009 0.49987 0.48616 0.43915 0.41863
SS-C 1 0.31855 0.15424 0.19373 0.10822 0.11859 0.08435 0.08375 0.07422 0.07083
2 0.70177 0.41241 0.46716 0.29173 0.30614 0.22787 0.22342 0.20049 0.19131
3 1.06707 0.72191 0.74476 0.51486 0.51573 0.40272 0.38929 0.35408 0.33768
SS-SS 1 0.16993 0.07807 0.09855 0.05463 0.05901 0.04256 0.04165 0.03745 0.03574
2 0.52203 0.28810 0.33316 0.20293 0.21197 0.15834 0.15365 0.13932 0.13295
3 0.88666 0.57687 0.60615 0.40984 0.41031 0.32043 0.30736 0.28189 0.26893
 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891 9879

Fig. 3. Frequency-response curve of the FG microbeam using different grid number (L/h = 12, h/l = 2, k = 0.2).

Table 3
First three non-dimensional critical axial buckling loads for various material gradient indexes and end conditions based on the MSGT
(L/h = 10, h/l = 2).
Boundary condition Mode Ceramic (SiC) k = 0.2 k = 0.6 k = 1.2 k=2 Metal (Al)

C-C 1 0.60889 0.51384 0.40056 0.31252 0.25346 0.09407

2 0.92378 0.78006 0.60895 0.47543 0.38501 0.14100
3 1.41114 1.19131 0.93004 0.72600 0.58733 0.21341
SS-C 1 0.34837 0.29437 0.23007 0.18014 0.14657 0.05437
2 0.76754 0.64845 0.50649 0.39570 0.32075 0.11797
3 1.16713 0.98602 0.77047 0.60194 0.48730 0.17748
SS-SS 1 0.18566 0.15726 0.12393 0.09824 0.08075 0.02926
2 0.57070 0.48252 0.37712 0.29476 0.23907 0.08850
3 0.96943 0.81960 0.64115 0.50155 0.40652 0.14836

than the number of the equations in Eq. (27). One initiative to solve this problem is adding a normalizing equation to Eq.
(27) to convert the present eigenvalue problem to a set of nonlinear equations of the following form:

F ( Xs , P ) = 0
(28)
XTs Xs − c = 0

Therefore, the previous nonlinear equations can be solved by means of the Newton method. To this end, by dropping
the nonlinear terms, the equations are solved firstly; the linear response is imparted to the nonlinear equations in Newton’s
method as initial values in order to obtain eigenpairs of the nonlinear model afterwards.
9880 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891

Fig. 4. Effect of material gradient index on the non-dimensional postbuckling deflection curves of FG microbeams with different boundary conditions based
on the MSGT (L/h = 12 h/l = 2).

3.3. Vibration of post-buckled FG microbeam

In order to investigate the free vibration characteristics of FG microbeams under buckled configuration we need to con-
sider a time-dependent small disturbance around the buckled configuration as the following assumptions:
u(τ , ζ ) = us (ζ ) + ud (τ , ζ ), w(τ , ζ ) = ws (ζ ) + wd (τ , ζ ), ψ (τ , ζ ) = ψs (ζ ) + ψd (τ , ζ )., (29)
where ud (τ , ζ ), wd (τ , ζ ) and ψ d (τ , ζ ) denote the minor dynamic displacement around the buckled configuration of
us (ζ ), ws (ζ ) and ψ s (ζ ), respectively. In other words, one can express:
X = Xs + Xd ., (30)
in which Xd = {uTd , wTd , ψdT }T
stands for the time-dependent solution corresponding to the small amplitude vibration of FG
small-scale beam in the post-buckling regime.
Introducing Eq. (30) into the discretized governing Eq. (25), splitting the stability equations and equations of motions and
neglecting the nonlinear terms gives the linear equations of motion of the FG small-scale beam in the post-buckled domain
which can be expressed as follows:
K̄Xd + MẌd = 0. (31)
where Ẍ signifies the second derivative of Xd with respect to time. Furthermore, M and K̄ stands for the mass and stiffness
matrices of postbuckled FG microbeam, which are defined in Appendices B and C.
One can consider a harmonic solution, Xd = X ˜ ejωτ ; where ω denotes the natural frequency. So, the general eigenvalue
problem would be:
˜ = −ω2 MX
K̄X ˜. (32)
 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891 9881

Fig. 5. Effect of length scale parameter on the non-dimensional postbuckling deflection curves of FG microbeams with different boundary conditions based
on the MSGT (L/h = 12, k = 0.2).

By inserting the equations of boundary conditions into the discretized equation of the system and by adding a normal-
izing equation, the eigenvalue problem declines to:

F (ω, ) = 0
. (33)
T  = 1
The preceding nonlinear system of equations can be solved by Newton’s method for different values of axial load P in
the first three buckled configurations by changing Xs as the parameter.

4. Results and discussion

Herein, the numerical results obtained from the most general strain gradient model for the size-dependent coupled
longitudinal-transverse-rotational free vibration analysis of FG microbeams in the pre- and post-buckled domains are rep-
resented. FG microbeams made of a mixture of aluminum (Al) and ceramic (SiC) are considered with material properties
Em = 70 GPa, νm = 0.3 and ρm = 2702 kg/m3 for Al, and Ec = 427 GPa, νc = 0.17 and ρc = 3100 kg/m3 for SiC. In
this paper, FG microbeams with three commonly-used boundary conditions including simply supported-simply supported
(SS-SS), simply supported-clamped (SS-C) and clamped-clamped (C-C) end supports are investigated. It should be noted
that for the postbuckling analysis, the non-dimensional maximum deflection (i.e., Non. Dim. Deflection (wmax )) versus the
non-dimensional axial load (i.e., Non. Dim. Axial Load (P)) is plotted. Furthermore, for the vibration analysis of small-scale
beams in the pre- and post-buckling regimes, the non-dimensional frequency (Non. Dim. Frequency (ω)) versus the non-
dimensional axial load is plotted.
9882 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891

Fig. 6. Effect of length scale parameter on the non-dimensional postbuckling deflection curves of FG microbeams with different boundary conditions based
on the MCST (L/h = 12, k = 0.2).

4.1. Convergence study

The effect of different grid numbers on the variation of the equilibrium postbuckling path as well as the non-dimensional
critical axial buckling load of FG microbeams is investigated in Fig. 2. Moreover, the frequency response curves of FG mi-
crobeams with different boundary conditions solved for different grid numbers is depicted in Fig. 3. It is seen that varia-
tion of grid numbers is gradually more effective in microbeams with SS-SS boundary conditions. Also, there are almost no
changes in critical buckling loads at higher grid numbers and results almost converge when N ≥ 21.

4.2. Validation

In order to verify the validity of the developed model and solution procedure, the non-dimensional critical buckling loads
of simply-supported FG microbeams (P˜cr = N̄0x L2 /Em I) corresponding to various length scale-to-thickness ratios and mate-
rial gradient indexes achieved from the present analysis are compared with analytical results reported in [45], as given in
Table 1. The used parameters are Em = 1.44 GPa, Ec = 14.4 GPa, ν = 0.38, L = 20h and h = 17.6 μm. It can be seen that a
good agreement is achieved between the present results and those of [45].

4.3. Buckling and postbuckling analyses

The influence of material gradient index on the non-dimensional first three critical buckling loads (P = N̄0x /A110 ) of FG
small-scale beams with C-C, SS-C and SS-SS edge supports is studied in Table 2. The increase of material gradient index re-
sults in decreasing the critical buckling loads as well as the strength of FG small-scale beams, due to increasing the portion
 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891 9883

Fig. 7. Effect of length-to-thickness ratio on the non-dimensional postbuckling deflection curves of FG microbeams with different boundary conditions
based on the MSGT (h/l = 2, k = 0.2).

of metal in the beam compared to the ceramic part. Moreover, the critical buckling load of C-C beam is larger than that of
beams under SS-C and SS-SS boundary conditions due to its better stability. Moreover, the effect of the material gradient in-
dex on the non-dimensional postbuckling deflection curves of FG microbeams with different boundary conditions predicted
by the MSGT is illustrated in Fig. 4. It is seen that an increase in the value of the material gradient index leads to lower
critical axial loads. This is mainly due the fact that increasing the material gradient index decreases the bending rigidity of
the small-scale beams, and hence reduces the non-dimensional critical axial buckling load and postbuckling load-carrying
capacity. Moreover, comparing boundary conditions reveals that the space between curves is much more noticeable in FG
microbeams with C-C boundary conditions which assess that the effect of material gradient index on C-C microbeams is
more pronounced. Furthermore, the slope of curves at C-C microbeams is more than that of microbeams with other con-
straints; so, the non-dimensional deflection of C-C microbeams is more than that for microbeams with other end supports.
Listed in Table 3 is a comparison between the first three non-dimensional critical buckling loads of FG small-scale beams
calculated by different beam models corresponding to MSGT, MCST and CT as well as the various edge supports. One can re-
alize that using the size-dependent beam models based upon the MCST and MSGT makes an increase in the non-dimensional
critical buckling loads in comparison with the results predicted by beam model based on CT. The critical buckling load of
the FG small-scale beam with an arbitrary edge support decreases as the length scale parameter increases and tends to
values predicted by the CT. According to the results, an underestimation can be found in critical buckling load as well as
stability of FG small-scale beams modeled based on the CT. However, at higher values of length scale parameters, the dif-
ference between the buckling loads predicted by MSGT, MCST and CT is negligible. Therefore, CT can be utilized to predict
the stability and axial buckling behavior of small-scale beams. Furthermore, the influences of the length scale parameter
on the postbuckling behavior of FG microbeams with different boundary conditions predicted by the MSGT and MCST are
9884 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891

Fig. 8. Effect of material gradient index on the frequency-response curves of FG microbeams with different boundary conditions based on the MSGT
(L/h = 12 h/l = 2).

Fig. 9. Mode shapes of FG microbeams with various boundary conditions at different axial loads based on the MSGT (L/h = 12, h/l = 2, k = 0.2).
 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891 9885

Fig. 10. Effect of length scale parameter on the frequency-response curves of FG microbeams with different boundary conditions based on the MSGT
(L/h = 12, k = 0.2).

depicted in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. It can be observed that the curves shift to left-hand side as the non-dimensional
length scale parameter grows. Comparing these figures shows that both the CT and MCST theories underestimate the non-
dimensional critical buckling loads as well as the postbuckling load-carrying capacity, especially at lower non-dimensional
length scale parameters. This is mainly due the fact that according to the beam model based on the MSGT, in addition
to the need for the classical and couple stresses to generate the displacement gradients and microstructure rigid rotation,
respectively, generating the dilatation gradient and the deviatoric stretch gradient require the dilatation stresses and the
deviatoric stretch stresses, respectively. Therefore, the bending rigidity of small-scale beams with an arbitrary edge support
estimated by MSGT is greater than those calculated by MCST and CT. Furthermore, the fact that the difference between
graphs is comparatively more in C-C FG microbeams makes the importance of using size-dependent MSGT in characterizing
the postbuckling behavior of microbeams clear.
Fig. 7 illustrates the influence of the length-to-thickness ratio on the non-dimensional postbuckling deflection curves
predicted by the MSGT. It is seen that FG microbeams with higher length-to-thickness ratios have lower critical buckling
loads and the non-dimensional deflection ascends sharply which signal lower stability, due to the smaller bending stiffness.
In addition, for C-C microbeams, the spaces between curves are comparatively higher than those for other counterparts
which indicate that these types of microbeam are more sensitive to the variation of length-to-thickness ratio.

4.4. Vibration analysis of FG microbeam in pre- and post-buckled domains

Fig. 8 shows the variation of the non-dimensional natural frequency with the non-dimensional axial load for FG mi-
crobeams with different material gradient indexes. It is observed that in the prebuckling regime, increasing the compressive
9886 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891

Fig. 11. Effect of length scale parameter on the frequency-response curves of FG microbeams with different boundary conditions based on the MCST
(L/h = 12, k = 0.2).

axial load leads to decreasing the non-dimensional natural frequency, and as expected, the natural frequency tends to zero at
the non-dimensional critical axial buckling load. The decrease of the non-dimensional natural frequency in the prebuckling
domain is attributed to the fact that the compressive axial load weakens the small-scale beam stiffness. Furthermore, when
the non-dimensional axial load exceeds the critical buckling load, the non-dimensional frequency grows monotonously. It
implies that the buckled small-scale beams can carry additional load without any failure. In fact, the buckling point can
be considered as a bifurcation point through which the small-scale beam falls into the secondary equilibrium path (i.e.,
postbuckling path) from the initial equilibrium straight path. Before the non-dimensional axial load, an increase in material
gradient index gives lower non-dimensional natural frequencies; this is while, after the non-dimensional axial load, this
increment leads to higher dimensional natural frequencies. It is necessary to remark that the dominant mode can be de-
termined by plotting the mode shape corresponding to the fundamental frequency. Plotted in Fig. 9 shows that the for the
considered FG small-scale FG beam the first mode is dominant.
Depicted in Figs. 10 and 11 are the effect of the non-dimensional length scale parameter on frequency-response curves
of FG microbeams with different boundary conditions based on the MSGT and MCST theories. An increase in the value of
non-dimensional length scale parameter shifts the curves to the left hand-side which signals that the CT underestimates
non-dimensional critical buckling load and stable regimes. Also, it is seen that the space between curves grows as the non-
dimensional length scale parameter decreases.
Illustrated in Fig. 12 is the variation of the non-dimensional frequency with the axial load for different values of length-
to-thickness ratios. When the value of length-to-thickness ratio rises, the frequency-response curves move to left hand-side.
Also, similar to previous figures, the vibrational behavior of microbeams is totally different before and after the critical
buckling load.
 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891 9887

Fig. 12. Effect of length-to-thickness ratio on the frequency-response curves of FG microbeams with different boundary conditions based on the MSGT
(h/l = 2, k = 0.2).

5. Conclusion

In this paper, the size-dependent coupled longitudinal-transverse-rotational free vibration behavior of post-buckled FG
nano- and micro-beams was studied. To this end, based on the most general form of strain gradient theory and Hamilton’s
principle in the framework of first-order shear deformation beam theory, the nonlinear governing equations and associated
boundary conditions were derived. Then, the governing equations and boundary conditions were discretized by employing
the GDQ method in combination with a direct approach without linearization. The effects of the important parameters on
the non-dimensional postbuckling deflection and frequency-response of FG small-scale beams were carefully investigated.
Also, for better evaluation, results obtained from both the MSGT and MCST are represented and compared. Main conclusions
can be drawn as follows

➣ An increase in the material gradient index and aspect ratio gives lower critical axial buckling loads. This behavior is more
pronounced for FG small-scale beams with C-C end supports.
➣ Both the CT and MCST theories underestimate the non-dimensional axial load, especially at lower non-dimensional
length scale parameters and lower aspect ratios.
➣ Before the non-dimensional axial load, an increase in material gradient index and length-to-thickness ratios lead to
lower non-dimensional natural frequencies; this is while, after the non-dimensional axial load, these increments result
in higher dimensional natural frequencies.
➣ Before the non-dimensional axial load, the MCST underestimates the non-dimensional frequency of FG small-scale
beams; while, after that, this theory overestimates that.
9888 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891

Appendix A

The boundary conditions can be expressed in terms of displacement variables as follows:

δ u|ζ =0,1
 2  2 

∂u 1 ∂w ∂ψ a33 ∂ 3 u 1 ∂ w ∂ 3 w 1 ∂ 2 w b33 ∂ 3 ψ 
= 0or a11 + − b11 − 2 + + + 2  =0
∂ζ 2η ∂ζ ∂ζ η ∂ζ 3 η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 3 η ∂ζ 2 η ∂ζ  3
ζ =0,1
(A-1)
    
∂ u  ∂ 2u 1 ∂ w ∂ 2w ∂ 2 ψ 
δ = 0or a33 + − b33 = 0, (A-2)
∂ζ  ζ =0,1
∂ ζ 2 η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 2 ∂ ζ 2 ζ =0,1
   3
∂w a11 ∂ u ∂ w 1 ∂w b11 ∂ψ ∂ w a44 ∂ 3 w
δ w| ζ =0, 1 = 0 or ks a55 − ηψ + + − + 2
∂ζ η ∂ζ ∂ζ 2η ∂ζ η ∂ζ ∂ζ η ∂ζ 3
 2 3  2 

a22 ∂ 2 ψ a33 ∂ 3 u ∂ w 1 ∂w ∂ w 1 ∂ w ∂ 2w b33 ∂ 3 ψ ∂ w 
+
η ∂ζ 2
− + + +  = 0, (A-3)
η3 ∂ ζ 3 ∂ζ η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 3 η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 2 η3 ∂ ζ 3 ∂ζ 
ζ = 0, 1
   
∂ w  
δ = 0 or a44 ∂∂ ζw2 + a22 η ∂ψ ∂2u 1 ∂w ∂2w ∂ w − b33 ∂ 2 ψ ∂ w
2


∂ζ ζ =0,1 ∂ζ +
a33
η ∂ ζ 2 + η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 2 ∂ζ η ∂ ζ 2 ∂ζ  = 0, (A-4)
ζ =0,1

 2  2
∂u 1 ∂w ∂ψ b33 ∂ 3 u 1 ∂ w ∂ 3 w 1 ∂ 2 w
δψ |ζ =0,1 = 0 or b11 + − d11 − 2 + +
∂ζ 2η ∂ζ ∂ζ η ∂ ζ 3 η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 3 η ∂ ζ 2

d33 ∂ 3 ψ a22 ∂ 2 w ∂ψ 
− 2 − − a =0 (A-5)
η ∂ζ 3 η ∂ζ 2 66
∂ζ ζ =0,1
   2  
∂ψ  ∂ u 1 ∂ w ∂ 2w ∂ 2 ψ 
δ = 0 or b + − d = 0. (A-6)
∂ζ ζ =0,1 33
∂ ζ 2 η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 2 33
∂ ζ 2 ζ =0,1

According to the these non-dimensional boundary conditions, the mathematical expression for the simply-supported end
support can be written as:
 
∂ 2u 1 ∂ w ∂ 2w ∂ 2ψ
u = a33 + − b33 = 0,
∂ ζ 2 η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 2 ∂ζ 2
 
∂ 2w ∂ψ a33 ∂ 2 u 1 ∂ w ∂ 2 w ∂ w b33 ∂ 2 ψ ∂ w
w = a44 + a22 η + + − = 0,
∂ζ 2 ∂ζ η ∂ ζ 2 η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 2 ∂ζ η ∂ ζ 2 ∂ζ
 2  2
∂u 1 ∂w ∂ψ b33 ∂ 3 u 1 ∂ w ∂ 3 w 1 ∂ 2 w d33 ∂ 3 ψ a22 ∂ 2 w
b11 + − d11 − 2 + + + −
∂ζ 2η ∂ζ ∂ζ η ∂ ζ 3 η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 3 η ∂ ζ 2 η2 ∂ ζ 3 η ∂ζ 2
 2 
∂ψ ∂ u 1 ∂ w ∂ 2w ∂ 2ψ
− a66 = b33 + − d33 = 0. (A-7)
∂ζ ∂ζ 2 η ∂ζ ∂ ζ 2 ∂ζ 2
Also, for the clamped boundary condition, one can write:

∂u ∂u ∂ψ
u= =w= =ψ = = 0. (A-8)
∂ζ ∂ζ ∂ζ

Appendix B

The field variables vector, stiffness matrix, geometric stiffness matrix, mass matrix and nonlinear part vector appeared in
Eq. (28) are defined as:
 T
X = UT , WT ,  T (B-1)
 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891 9889

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
−Ī1 Dξ( ) Ī2 Dξ( )
0 0
0 0 0 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎣
−Ī1 Dξ( ) Dξ( ) 0⎦
0 2
M=⎣ 0 0 ⎦, K g = 0 (B-2)
Ī2 Dξ( ) −Ī3 Dξ( )
0 0
0 0 0 0
⎡ ⎤
a33 4 b33 4
a11 Dξ( ) − 2 Dξ( ) −b11 Dξ( ) + 2 Dξ( )
2 2
0
⎢ η η ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ks a55 Dξ( )
2 a44 4
− 2 Dξ( ) −ks a55 ηDξ( )
1
−
a22 (3 ) ⎥
K=⎢ 0 Dξ ⎥ (B-3)
⎢ η η ⎥
⎣ b33 4 a22 (3 ) d33 4 ⎦
−b11 Dξ( ) + 2 Dξ( ) ks a55 ηDξ( ) + −ks a55 η2 Dξ( ) + (a66 + d11 )Dξ( ) − 2 Dξ( )
2 1 0 2
Dξ
η η η
 
T T
N ( X ) = Nu ( X ) , Nw ( X ) , Nψ ( X )
T T
,
a11 a33 1 3
Dξ( ) W ◦ Dξ( ) W − Dξ( ) W ◦ Dξ( ) W + Dξ( ) W ◦ Dξ( ) W
1 2 1 4 2 3
Nu ( X ) =
η η2 η η
a11 3
Dξ( ) U ◦ Dξ( ) W + Dξ( ) U ◦ Dξ( ) W + Dξ( ) W ◦ Dξ( ) W ◦ Dξ( ) W
1 2 2 3 2 1 1
Nw ( X ) =
η 2η
b11 a33
Dξ( )  ◦ Dξ( ) W + Dξ( ) W ◦ Dξ( )  Dξ( ) U ◦ Dξ( ) W + Dξ( ) U ◦ Dξ( ) W
1 2 1 2 4 1 3 2
− − 3
η η
a33
4 Dξ( ) W ◦ Dξ( ) W ◦ Dξ( ) W + Dξ( ) W ◦ Dξ( ) W ◦ Dξ( ) W + Dξ( ) W ◦ Dξ( ) W ◦ Dξ( ) W
1 2 3 4 1 1 2 2 2
−
η4
b33
Dξ( ) W ◦ Dξ( )  + Dξ( ) W ◦ Dξ( ) 
1 4 2 3
+
η3
b11 b33
Dξ( ) W ◦ Dξ( ) W + 3 Dξ( ) W ◦ Dξ( ) W + 3 Dξ( ) W ◦ Dξ( ) W
1 2 1 4 2 3
Nψ ( X ) = − . (B-4)
η η
where ◦ shows the Hadamard product (refer to Appendix C). Also, the following relations are given to obtain the weighting
coefficients of the first derivative and higher-order derivatives:
⎧
Wij( )
r
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ P ( ξi )
⎪
⎪     , i = j and i, j = 1, . . . , N and r = 1
⎪
⎪ ξ i − ξj P ξ j
  ⎨
Dξ( ) = Wij( ) =
r r
W(
r−1 ) (B-5)
ij ⎪
⎪r Wij( ) Wii( ) −
1 r−1 ij
, i = j and i, j = 1, . . . , N and r = 2, 3, . . . N − 1
⎪
⎪ ξ − ξj
⎪
⎪ i
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ #
N
⎩ Wij( ) , i = j and i, j = 1, . . . , N and r = 1, 2, 3, . . . N − 1
r
−
j=1; j=i
$N
where Ix is a N × N identity matrix and P (xi ) = j=1; j=i (ξi − ξj ) .

Appendix C

The stiffness matrix of postbuckled FG microbeam (i.e., K̄) appeared in Eq. (31) is calculated as follows:
⎡ ∂N ∂ Nu ∂ Nu ⎤
u

  ⎢ ∂ Us ∂ Ws ∂ s ⎥
⎢ ⎥
∂F ∂N ∂ N ⎢ ∂ Nw ∂ Nw ∂ Nw ⎥
K̄ = = K − P Kg + , =⎢ ⎥ (C-1)
∂ Xs ∂ Xs ∂ Xs ⎢ ∂ Us ∂ Ws ∂ s ⎥
⎣ ∂N ∂ Nψ ∂ Nψ ⎦
ψ
∂ Us ∂ Ws ∂ s
where,
a33 4
K̄11 = a11 Dξ( ) − 2 Dξ( ) ,
2
η
a11
Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( ) + Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( )
2 1 1 2
K̄12 =
η
a33
Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( ) + Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( ) + 3 Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( ) + 3 Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( ) = K̄21 ,
1 4 4 1 2 3 3 2
−
η3
9890 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891

b33 4
K̄13 = −b11 Dξ( ) + 2 Dξ( ) = K̄31 ,
2
η
a11 3 3
Dξ( ) Us ♦ Dξ( ) + Dξ( ) Us ♦ Dξ( ) + Dξ( ) Ws ◦ Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( ) + Dξ( ) Ws ◦ Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( )
1 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 2
K̄22 =
η η 2η
b11 a33
Dξ( ) s ♦ Dξ( ) + Dξ( ) s ♦ Dξ( ) − 3 Dξ( ) Us ♦ Dξ( ) + Dξ( ) Us ♦ Dξ( )
1 2 2 1 4 1 3 2
−
η η

a33
4 Dξ( ) Ws ◦ Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( ) + 4 Dξ( ) Ws ◦ Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( ) + 4 Dξ( ) Ws ◦ Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( )
1 2 3 1 3 2 2 3 1
−
η4

Dξ( ) Ws Dξ( ) Ws Dξ( ) Dξ( ) Ws Dξ( ) Ws Dξ( ) Dξ( ) Ws Dξ( ) Ws Dξ( )
4 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 2
+2 ◦ ♦ + ◦ ♦ +3 ◦ ♦

b33 a44 4
Dξ( ) s ♦ Dξ( ) + Dξ( ) s ♦ Dξ( ) + ks a55 Dξ( ) − 2 Dξ( ) − N0 Dξ( ) ,
4 1 3 2 2 2
+
η3 η
a22 (3 ) b11
K̄23 = −ks a55 ηDξ( ) − Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( ) + Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( )
1 2 1 1 2
Dξ −
η η
b33
Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( ) + Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( ) ,
1 4 2 3
+
η3
a22 (3 ) b11
K̄32 = ks a55 ηDξ( ) + Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( ) + Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( )
1 1 2 2 1
Dξ −
η η
b33
Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( ) + Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( ) + 3 Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( ) + 3 ◦ Dξ( ) Ws ♦ Dξ( ) ,
1 4 4 1 2 3 3 2
+
η3
d33 4
K̄33 = −ks a55 η2 Dξ( ) + (a66 + d11 )Dξ( ) − 2 Dξ( ) − P Dξ( ) .
0 2 2
(C-2)
η
where ♦ stands for the SJT product, in which is defined in in Appendix D.

Appendix D. Hadamard and SJT products

Definition. I: Let A = [Ai j ]N×M and B = [Bi j ]N×M , then the Hadamard product of these matrices take the form as A ◦ B =
[Ai j Bi j ]N×M .

Definition. I: Consider = [Ai j ]N×M , and vector V = {vi }1×M , then VT ♦ A = [Ai jV j ]N×M denotes the premultiplying SJT product
of matrix A and vector V.

References

[1] D. Hasanyan, R. Batra, S. Harutyunyan, Pull-in instabilities in functionally graded microthermoelectromechanical systems, J. Thermal Stress. 31 (2008)
1006–1021.
[2] A. Witvrouw, A. Mehta, The use of functionally graded poly-SiGe layers for MEMS applications, Mater. Sci. Forum 492 (2005) 255–260.
[3] Y. Fu, H. Du, W. Huang, S. Zhang, M. Hu, TiNi-based thin films in MEMS applications: a review, Sens. Actuators A 112 (2004) 395–408.
[4] A. Chong, D.C. Lam, Strain gradient plasticity effect in indentation hardness of polymers, J. Mater. Res. 14 (1999) 4103–4110.
[5] J. Stölken, A. Evans, A microbend test method for measuring the plasticity length scale, Acta Mater. 46 (1998) 5109–5115.
[6] A.W. McFarland, J.S. Colton, Role of material microstructure in plate stiffness with relevance to microcantilever sensors, J. Micromech. Microeng. 15
(2005) 1060.
[7] S. Kong, S. Zhou, Z. Nie, K. Wang, The size-dependent natural frequency of Bernoulli–Euler micro-beams, Int. J. Eng. Sci. 46 (2008) 427–437.
[8] R. Ansari, R. Gholami, Surface effect on the large amplitude periodic forced vibration of first-order shear deformable rectangular nanoplates with
various edge supports, Acta Astronaut. 118 (2016) 72–89.
[9] R. Ansari, R. Gholami, A. Norouzzadeh, M. Darabi, Surface stress effect on the vibration and instability of nanoscale pipes conveying fluid based on a
size-dependent Timoshenko beam model, Acta Mech. Sin. 31 (2015) 708–719.
[10] Y.T. Beni, F. Mehralian, H. Razavi, Free vibration analysis of size-dependent shear deformable functionally graded cylindrical shell on the basis of
modified couple stress theory, Compos. Struct. 120 (2015) 65–78.
[11] R. Ansari, M. Faraji Oskouie, R. Gholami, Size-dependent geometrically nonlinear free vibration analysis of fractional viscoelastic nanobeams based on
the nonlocal elasticity theory, Physica E 75 (2016) 266–271.
[12] R. Ansari, E. Hasrati, R. Gholami, F. Sadeghi, Nonlinear analysis of forced vibration of nonlocal third-order shear deformable beam model of magneto—
electro–thermo elastic nanobeams, Composites Part B 83 (2015) 226–241.
[13] R. Ansari, T. Pourashraf, R. Gholami, S. Sahmani, M. Ashrafi, Size-dependent resonant frequency and flexural sensitivity of atomic force microscope
microcantilevers based on the modified strain gradient theory, Int. J. Optomech. 9 (2015) 111–130.
[14] J. Kim, J. Reddy, A general third-order theory of functionally graded plates with modified couple stress effect and the von Kármán nonlinearity: theory
and finite element analysis, Acta Mech. 226 (2015) 2973–2998.
[15] L. He, J. Lou, E. Zhang, Y. Wang, Y. Bai, A size-dependent four variable refined plate model for functionally graded microplates based on modified
couple stress theory, Compos. Struct. 130 (2015) 107–115.
[16] R. Mindlin, H. Tiersten, Effects of couple-stresses in linear elasticity, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 11 (1962) 415–448.
[17] A.C. Eringen, Nonlocal polar elastic continua, Int. J. Eng. Sci. 10 (1972) 1–16.
[18] D. Lam, F. Yang, A. Chong, J. Wang, P. Tong, Experiments and theory in strain gradient elasticity, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 51 (2003) 1477–1508.
[19] F. Yang, A. Chong, D. Lam, P. Tong, Couple stress based strain gradient theory for elasticity, Int. J. Solids Struct. 39 (2002) 2731–2743.
 R. Ansari et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9872–9891 9891

[20] M.E. Gurtin, A.I. Murdoch, A continuum theory of elastic material surfaces, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 57 (1975) 291–323.
[21] M.E. Gurtin, A.I. Murdoch, Surface stress in solids, Int. J. Solids Struct. 14 (1978) 431–440.
[22] W. Koiter, “Couple stresses in the theory of elasticity, I and II,” Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. Ser. B, 1964, pp. 17–29.
[23] R.D. Mindlin, Second gradient of strain and surface-tension in linear elasticity, Int. J. Solids Struct. 1 (1965) 417–438.
[24] N. Fleck, J. Hutchinson, A phenomenological theory for strain gradient effects in plasticity, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 41 (1993) 1825–1857.
[25] R. Mindlin, N. Eshel, On first strain-gradient theories in linear elasticity, Int. J. Solids Struct. 4 (1968) 109–124.
[26] L. Wang, Size-dependent vibration characteristics of fluid-conveying microtubes, J. Fluids Struct. 26 (2010) 675–684.
[27] R. Ansari, R. Gholami, M.A. Darabi, A nonlinear Timoshenko beam formulation based on strain gradient theory, J. Mech. Mater. Struct. 7 (2012) 195–211.
[28] R. Ansari, M.F. Shojaei, R. Gholami, V. Mohammadi, M. Darabi, Thermal postbuckling behavior of size-dependent functionally graded Timoshenko
microbeams, Int. J. Non Linear Mech. 50 (2013) 127–135.
[29] R. Ansari, R. Gholami, M. Faghih Shojaei, V. Mohammadi, M. Darabi, Thermal buckling analysis of a mindlin rectangular FGM microplate based on the
strain gradient theory, J. Thermal Stress. 36 (2013) 446–465.
[30] R. Ansari, M.F. Shojaei, V. Mohammadi, R. Gholami, M. Darabi, Nonlinear vibrations of functionally graded Mindlin microplates based on the modified
couple stress theory, Compos. Struct. 114 (2014) 124–134.
[31] R. Ansari, R. Gholami, M.F. Shojaei, V. Mohammadi, M. Darabi, Size-dependent nonlinear bending and postbuckling of functionally graded Mindlin
rectangular microplates considering the physical neutral plane position, Compos. Struct. 127 (2015) 87–98.
[32] H.-T. Thai, T.P. Vo, A size-dependent functionally graded sinusoidal plate model based on a modified couple stress theory, Compos. Struct. 96 (2013)
376–383.
[33] C. Roque, A. Ferreira, J. Reddy, Analysis of Mindlin micro plates with a modified couple stress theory and a meshless method, Appl. Math. Model. 37
(2013) 4626–4633.
[34] Y.-G. Wang, W.-H. Lin, N. Liu, Large amplitude free vibration of size-dependent circular microplates based on the modified couple stress theory, Int. J.
Mech. Sci. 71 (2013) 51–57.
[35] R. Gholami, A. Darvizeh, R. Ansari, M. Hosseinzadeh, Size-dependent axial buckling analysis of functionally graded circular cylindrical microshells
based on the modified strain gradient elasticity theory, Meccanica 49 (2014) 1679–1695.
[36] Y.-G. Wang, W.-H. Lin, N. Liu, Nonlinear bending and post-buckling of extensible microscale beams based on modified couple stress theory, Appl.
Math. Model. 39 (2015) 117–127.
[37] R. Ansari, R. Gholami, S. Sahmani, Study of small scale effects on the nonlinear vibration response of functionally graded Timoshenko microbeams
based on the strain gradient theory, J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 7 (2012) 031009.
[38] L.-L. Ke, Y.-S. Wang, J. Yang, S. Kitipornchai, Nonlinear free vibration of size-dependent functionally graded microbeams, Int. J. Eng. Sci. 50 (2012)
256–267.
[39] M. Rahaeifard, M. Ahmadian, K. Firoozbakhsh, Vibration analysis of electrostatically actuated nonlinear microbridges based on the modified couple
stress theory, Appl. Math. Model. 39 (2015) 6694–6704.
[40] H. Dai, Y. Wang, L. Wang, Nonlinear dynamics of cantilevered microbeams based on modified couple stress theory, Int. J. Eng. Sci. 94 (2015) 103–112.
[41] M. Şimşek, Size dependent nonlinear free vibration of an axially functionally graded (AFG) microbeam using He’s variational method, Compos. Struct.
131 (2015) 207–214.
[42] S.P. Timoshenko, J.N. Goodier, Theory of elasticity (1970). third ed. New York: McGraw-Hill
[43] M. Fares, M.K. Elmarghany, D. Atta, An efficient and simple refined theory for bending and vibration of functionally graded plates, Compos. Struct. 91
(2009) 296–305.
[44] C. Shu, Differential Quadrature and its Application in Engineering, Springer Science & Business Media, 20 0 0.
[45] J. Reddy, Microstructure-dependent couple stress theories of functionally graded beams, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 59 (2011) 2382–2399.