Arch Appl Mech (2012) 82:423443

DOI 10.1007/s00419-011-0565-5

O R I G I NA L

Bekir Akgz mer Civalek

Analysis of micro-sized beams for various boundary

conditions based on the strain gradient elasticity theory

Received: 5 March 2011 / Accepted: 20 June 2011 / Published online: 7 July 2011
Springer-Verlag 2011

Abstract Bending analysis of micro-sized beams based on the Bernoulli-Euler beam theory is presented within
the modified strain gradient elasticity and modified couple stress theories. The governing equations and the
related boundary conditions are derived from the variational principles. These equations are solved analytically
for deflection, bending, and rotation responses of micro-sized beams. Propped cantilever, both ends clamped,
both ends simply supported, and cantilever cases are taken into consideration as boundary conditions. The
influence of size effect and additional material parameters on the static response of micro-sized beams in
bending is examined. The effect of Poissons ratio is also investigated in detail. It is concluded from the results
that the bending values obtained by these higher-order elasticity theories have a significant difference with
those calculated by the classical elasticity theory.
Keywords Strain gradient elasticity Micro beams Static analysis Size effect Modified couple stress
Bernoulli-Euler beam Poissons ratio

1 Introduction

The classical elasticity (Cauchy) theory yields sufficiently accurate results for many engineering problems.
There are, however, some important problems for which the results are unacceptable such as biosensors,
nanowires, atomic force microscope, micro actuators, nano probes, MEMS, ultra thin films, and NEMS [1].
In these applications, it is observed that the size effect has a major role on static and dynamic deformation
behavior of material and can not be negligible. For example, when the characteristic wavelength of loading is
comparable to the micro-scaled length of material, size effect will be more important in the mechanical mod-
eling of such structures. In microstructures, the size effect can not be interpreted implicitly by beam models
based on classical (macro) elasticity theories due to lack of material length scale parameters. Then, higher-
order continuum (non-local) theories, which contain additional material length scale parameters besides the
classical material constants (Lame), have been proposed to predict the size dependence of these nano/micro
structures. Mostly generally known higher-order theories are the micropolar (Cosserat) elasticity, non-local
theory of Eringen, strain gradient elasticity, and couple stress theories. In the theory of Micropolar elasticity
by Cosserat brothers [2], additional rotational degrees of freedom at each material point in the body were
considered. The classical couple stress theory is one of the other higher-order continuum theories in which
contains two additional material length scale parameters besides the classical constants for an isotropic elastic
material, elaborated by Mindlin [3], Mindlin and Tiersten [4], Toupin [5], and Koiter [6]. In fact, couple stress
theory is a special case of Micropolar theory proposed by Cosserat brothers [2]. After the study proposed by
Koiter [6], some other researchers have made some development on this theory [4,713]. Recently, a modified

B. Akgz . Civalek (B)

Civil Engineering Department, Division of Mechanics, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey
E-mail: civalek@yahoo.com; ocivalek@akdeniz.edu.tr
424 B. Akgz, . Civalek

couple stress theory was proposed by Yang et al. [14] in which contains only one additional material length
scale parameter in addition to the classical material constants. Also, the couple stress tensor is symmetric in
this theory. This modified couple stress theory is more useful than classical one due to these features. The
modified strain gradient elasticity theory is another higher-order continuum theory, which was proposed by
Lam et al. [15] contains a new additional equilibrium equation besides the classical equilibrium equations and
also five elastic constants (two classical and three non-classical) for isotropic linear elastic materials. Both
the strain gradient elasticity and couple stress theories are include the second-order displacement gradients
[15]. Furthermore, it is shown experimentally that a decrease in the thickness of the epoxy polymeric beam
as from 115m to 20m increases the normalized bending rigidity about 2.4 times by Lam et al. [15]. Pure
bending of a circular cylinder is investigated by Anthoine [16] using the classical couple stress theory. Then,
a new Bernoulli-Euler beam model was developed by Park and Gao [17] by using the modified couple stress
theory for bending of cantilever beam under a static tip load. After this, modified couple stress, non-local
elasticity, and strain gradient elasticity theories have been widely applied to static and dynamic analysis of
beams [1828], plates [29,30] and other type structures [3133].
Mechanical analysis of micro or nano-sized structures such as carbon nanotubes, microactuators, micro-
films, nanowires, and atomic force microscope are major topic of current interest by researchers. Recently,
non-local continuum theory proposed by Eringen [11] has been widely used to modeling of micro and nano-
scaled structures. By using the higher-order continuum approach, analyses of micro-sized mechanical and
biological systems are also investigated by present authors [3437]. Artan and Tepe [38] applied non-local
theory for buckling analysis of non-local bar problem. More recently, non-linear theory for beams and plates
based on non-local elasticity theory is also presented [39].
In the literature, some papers can be found related to static analysis of beams via higher-order elasticity, such
as strain gradient theory. Papargyri-Beskou et al. [40] used surface energy approach proposed by Vardoulakis
et al. [12]. Furthermore, a higher-order Bernoulli-Euler beam model proposed by Papargyri-Beskou et al. [40]
is based on the formulations given by Vardoulakis and Sulem approach [41]. Kong et al. [42] used modified
strain gradient elasticity for micro-sized beam. However, the analytical solutions are presented only cantilever
beam under a tip load at free end.
It is shown by some experimental and theoretic studies; length scale parameters for materials play major
role in mechanical behavior of microstructure [1013]. The range of these parameters also depends on the
problem type (crack, screw dislocation, stress concentration related to the hole). For example, when the char-
acteristic wavelength of loading is comparable to the micro-scaled length of material, size effect will be more
important in the mechanical modeling of such structures. Also, results predicted by the atomic simulation or
atomic dynamic models are also showed that the higher-order elasticity models produced reasonable accurate
results. Different materials may have different length scale parameters. For example, micro-scaled experiments
made by McElhaney et al. [43] and Nix and Gao [44] stated that the material length scale parameter related to
annealed single crystal copper and cold-worked polycrystalline copper to be 12 m and 5.84 m, respectively.
More recently, surface elasticity proposed by Gurtin et al. [45] is widely used for modeling of microstruc-
tures. Wang and Feng [46] analyzed the surface effect on natural frequency of microbeam. Static and buckling
analyses of nano-sized structures have also been investigated by Wang and Feng [47] and Wang [48]. Effect
of surface stress is presented for plates by Lachut and Sader [49]. Static, stability, and dynamic analysis of
gradient elastic flexural Kirchhoff plates and bars are investigated via gradient elasticity [50,51].
In the present work, static analysis of micro-sized beams is given by using the modified strain gradient
elasticity and the modified couple stress theories. Bernoulli-Euler beam theory has been adopted. The higher-
order governing equations and boundary conditions are derived by using the variational principle. To the best
knowledge of authors, it is the first time in the literature; the present analytical approach calculates the static
deflections of micro-sized beams using the Bernoulli-Euler beam model based on the strain gradient elasticity
and the modified couple stress theories for four different boundary conditions. The influences of the length
scale parameters and Poissons ratio on the deflection and support rotation of micro-sized beams with simply
supportedsimply supported, both ends clamped, propped cantilever and clampedfree boundary conditions
are discussed in detail.

2 Motivation and basic formulations

More recently, renewed interests in the higher-order continuum theories have been occurred. It is known that,
the classical continuum mechanics are unable to predict the scale effects in related problems since their consti-
tutive models include no any scale parameters for length. The first constitutive model based on micro continuum
Analysis of micro-sized beams for various boundary conditions 425

was proposed by Cosserat and Cosserat [2]. In the classical micropolar continuum theory, the deformation is
defined by two vectors such as displacement vector and an independent rotation vector. Cosserat brothers [2]
proposed a new model by introducing additional degrees of freedom of rotation at each material point in the
continuum body. After this, a different approach based on the Cosserat theory was developed by Mindlin [3]
and Eringen and Suhubi [10]. This new general form proposed 12 independent degrees of freedom at each
material point in the body. These are 9 components of micro deformation and 3 components of macro displace-
ment. Following, some derived forms of this approach are proposed by Mindlin and Tiersten [4], Toupin [5],
and Mindlin and Eshel [9]. This new kind micropolar elasticity model is generally known as gradient elasticity
nowadays. In this approach, the strain energy density is taken as the function of the strains and the second
derivatives of the displacements.
According to the modified strain gradient elasticity theory, in which contains a new additional equilibrium
equation besides the classical equilibrium equations and also three material length scale parameters besides
two classical ones for isotropic and linear elastic materials [15]. The strain energy U in a linear elastic isotropic
material occupying volume V based on the modified strain gradient elasticity theory can be written by Lam
et al. [15]

1  (1) (1)

U = i j i j + pi i + i jk i jk + m is j isj dv (1)
2
V
1 
i j = ui, j + u j,i (2)
2
mm,i = i (3)
(1) 1  1  
i jk = jk,i + ki, j + i j,k i j mm,k + 2mk,m
3 15
1     
jk mm,i + 2mi,m + ki mm, j + 2m j,m (4)
15
1 
i j =
s
ei pq q j, p + e j pq qi, p (5)
2
(1)
where ui is the displacement vector, i j is the strain tensor, mm,i is the dilatation gradient vector, i jk is the
deviatoric stretch gradient tensor, isj is the symmetric rotation gradient tensor, i j is the Kronocker delta, and
ei jk is the permutation symbol. In the above equations, the stress measures: i j is the classical stress tensor
(1)
and pi , i jk , m is j are the higher-order stresses, also i j is deviatoric strain, respectively, defined as

i j = ki j mm + 2i j (6)
pi = 2l02 i (7)
(1) (1)
i jk = 2l12 i jk (8)
m is j = 2l22 isj (9)
1
i j = i j mm i j (10)
3
where k is bulk modulus, is shear modulus, and l0 , l1 , l2 are additional material length scale parameters
related to dilatation gradients, deviatoric stretch gradients, and rotation gradients, respectively.

3 Governing equations for bending

The stresses i j can be written for Bernoulli-Euler beam as [17]

2w Ev 2w
x x = E  z 2 , yy = zz = z 2 (11)
x (1 + v) (1 2v) x
where
E (1 v)
E = (12)
(1 + v) (1 2v)
426 B. Akgz, . Civalek

After using the related values, we obtain the strain energy U as

L 

1  8   2 4 2   2
U= E I + 2Al02 + Al1 + Al2 w
2 2
+ I (2l0 + l1 ) w
2
dx (13)
2 15 5
0

I and A are the moment of inertia and cross section area of the beam, respectively. The variation of an integral
L  
of the type U = 0 F w  , w  d x is obtained by using the following relation [40]

L 

 

  L
d2 F d3 F d F d2 F
U = 3 wd x + + 2 w
dx2 w  dx w  d x w  dx w  0
0

 L  L
F d F F
+ 
w  + w  (14)
w dx w  0 w  0

where, for the present case, the Lagrangian function is

1 
F= B.(w  )2 + D.(w  )2 (15)
2
in which
8
B = E  I + 2Al02 + Al12 + Al22 (16)
15
4
D = I (2l02 + l12 ). (17)
5
The variation of the strain energy of the beam is obtained by using Eq. (15) into Eq. (14) as

L         
  
U = B.w (4) D.w (6) wd x + B.w  + D.w (5) w 0L + B.w  D.w (4) w  0L + D.w  w  0L
0
(18)

Also, the variations of the work done by the external force q(x), the boundary shear force V , and the boundary
classical and non-classical bending moments Mc and Mnc are, respectively, reads

L
 L  L
W = q(x)w(x)d x + [V w]0L + Mc w  0 + Mnc w  0 (19)
0

The governing equilibrium equation of a beam in bending as well as all possible boundary conditions can be
determined with the aid of the following variational principle

L     

(U W ) = B.w (4) D.w (6) q wd x + B.w  + D.w (5) V w 0L
0
     
 
+ B.w  D.w (4) Mc w  0L + D.w  Mnc w  0L = 0 (20)

It can be seen clearly from the above variational equation that each term must be equal to zero. Hence, the
governing equilibrium equation of a beam in bending on the basis of strain gradient elasticity theory is given
by [42]

4w 6w
B. D. = q(x) (21)
x4 x6
Analysis of micro-sized beams for various boundary conditions 427

and the boundary conditions at x = 0, L

V = D.w (5) B.w  or w = 0 (22)
Mc = B.w  D.w (4) or w  = 0 (23)
Mnc = D.w  or w  = 0 (24)
When the additional material length scale parameters l0 and l1 in the modified strain gradient elasticity theory
are equal to zero, then the constitutive equation reduces to the relation of the modified couple stress theory, and
if all of these length scale parameters equal to zero, the governing equation will become as classical theory.

4 Solution of bending problems

4.1 Modified strain gradient elasticity theory

According to the modified strain gradient elasticity theory of Lam et al. [15], the deflection of a beam under
uniformly distributed in bending can be obtained by solving higher-order differential equation in Eq. (21) [42]
 
qx4 B
x Bx
w(x) = + C1 + C2 x + C3 x 2 + C4 x 3 + C5 e D + C6 e D (25)
24B
where C1 C6 are integration constants that will be determined by classical and non-classical boundary
conditions.

4.1.1 Simply supported beam (Case 1)

The classical boundary conditions of simply supported beam are (Case 1)

w(0) = w(L) = 0; B.w  (0) D.w (4) (0) = 0; and B.w  (L) D.w (4) (L) = 0 (26)
The non-classical boundary conditions for this case are
D.w  (0) = 0 or w  (0) = 0; D.w  (L) = 0 or w  (L) = 0 (27)
The integrating constants are determined by using of above boundary conditions into Eq. (25) as [52]
 

B B
3 L D L
qLD2 2 + e D +e  
q L L2 D qD
C1 =  
, C2 = , C3 = 2
5 B
L B
L 2B 12 B 2B
2B 2 e D e D


(28)
3 BL 3 B
L
qLD2 1 + e D qLD2 1 + e D
qL
C4 = , C5 =  
, C6 =  

12B 5 B
L BL 5 B
L BL
2B 2 e D e D 2B 2 e D e D

Substituting the integrating constants in Eq. (28) into Eq. (25), we obtain the following equation [52]
 

B B
D L + e D L
3
q L D 2 2 + e  
qx4 q L L2 D qD 2 qL 3
w(x) = +  
+ x+ 2
x x
24B 5 B
L B
DL 2B 12 B 2B 12B
2B e2 D e



B B
3 D L 3 L
qLD 1 + e
2  qLD 1 + e
2 D 
B
x Bx
 
e D  
e D (29)
B
5 L BL 5 B
L BL
2B 2 e D e D 2B 2 e D e D

as the deflection of the simply supported beam in bending. For other three-type of boundary conditions, detailed
coefficients are listed in Appendix.
428 B. Akgz, . Civalek

q
(a) b
x
y h

L
z
z (Case 1)
q
(b) b
x
y h
L

z
z (Case 2)
q
(c) b
x
y h

L
z
z
(Case 3)

q
(d) b
x
y h
L

z
z
(Case 4)
Fig. 1 Geometry and boundary conditions for micro beam. a Simply supported beam; b Cantilever beam; c Propped cantilever
beam; d Both ends clamped

5 Numerical examples

We presented and compared three different approaches such as strain gradient elasticity, couple stress theory,
and classical theory, for analytically solving of boundary value problems of bending. For illustration pur-
pose, the beam considered here is taken to be made of epoxy with the following material properties [15]:
E = 1. 44 GPa, v = 0.38, l0 = l1 = l2 = 17.6 m, q = 10 N/m. The beam length and the cross-sectional
shape are kept to be the same by letting L = 20 h and b = 2 h for all cases, respectively. In the figures, classical
theory, modified couple stress theory, and modified strain gradient theory are represented by CT, MCST, and
MSGT, respectively. The computations were carried out for four types of boundary conditions. The boundary
conditions for micro-sized beams are depicted in Fig. 1. In Table 1, non-dimensional maximum deflection
values for clamped beam are reported. The results are obtained for different beam thickness and various val-
ues of material characteristic lengths (l0 , l1 , l2 ). It is clearly seen that the deflection decreases rapidly with
the increasing value of additional material parameters (scale effect) for the modified strain gradient theory
(MSGT). However, deflections have a constant value for classical theory (l0 = l1 = l2 = 0). It is possible to
say that both the classical theory (CT) and the modified couple stress theory (MCST) are not capable to predict
the size effect on deflection of micro-sized beam, especially for slender beam (thickness<<length).
In Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, the results are obtained for v = 0. Figures 2 and 3 show the deflection and
rotation of micro beam using three different models for h = 20 m. The results are depicted for four cases
of boundary conditions. For all four cases, the value of deflections and rotations decrease rapidly for MSGT.
Analysis of micro-sized beams for various boundary conditions 429

 
Table 1 Non-dimensional maximum deflection values w = 103 w E I /q L 4 of clamped beam for different beam thickness
and additional material parameters

h, m (l0 , l1 , l2 ) m MCST MSGT-BC1 MSGT-BC2

0 2.6042 2.6042 2.6042
20 8.8 1.2047 0.4643 0.5071
17.6 0.4612 0.1350 0.1485
0 2.6042 2.6042 2.6042
60 8.8 2.3065 1.6871 1.7842
17.6 1.7175 0.8475 0.9176
0 2.6042 2.6042 2.6042
100 8.8 2.4885 2.1514 2.2345
17.6 2.1960 1.4719 1.5671

(a) 4.5 (b) 45

CT CT
4 MCST 40 MCST
MSGT MSGT-BC1
3.5 35
MSGT-BC2
deflection/thickness

deflection/thickness
3 30

2.5 25

2 20

1.5 15

1 10

0.5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
length/thickness length/thickness

(c) 2 (d) 1
CT
CT
MCST MCST
MSGT-BC1 MSGT-BC1
0.8 MSGT-BC2
1.5 MSGT-BC2
deflection/thickness

deflection/thickness

0.6
1
0.4

0.5
0.2

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
length/thickness length/thickness
Fig. 2 Deflection of micro beam using three different models for h = 20 m. a Simply supported beam (Case 1); b Cantilever
beam (Case 2); c Propped cantilever beam (Case 3); d Both ends clamped (Case 4)

The values of deflection and rotation for MSGT are less than those for MCST and CT. We also noted that the
deflection and rotation obtained by modified strain gradient elasticity (MSGT) are not only smaller than that
by the classical elasticity theory (CT) but also smaller than by the modified couple stress theory (MCST) for
four type of boundary conditions. Furthermore, the results for two types of non-classical boundary (BC1 and
BC2) conditions are also presented for modified strain gradient theory (MSGT). As expected, the cantilever
beam (Case 2) has the highest deflection values followed by the simply supported beam (Case 1), propped
cantilever beam (Case 3), and clamped beam (Case 4). Next, we study the influence of thickness as shown in
Figs. 4 and 5 for l0 = l1 = l2 = 17.6 m. In these two figures, maximum deflection and maximum rotation of
beams are presented for different boundary conditions. It is concluded that as the thickness of the micro-sized
430 B. Akgz, . Civalek

(a) 0.8 (b) 3

CT CT
0.6 MCST MCST
MSGT 2.5 MSGT-BC1
0.4 MSGT-BC2
2
0.2

rotation
rotation

0 1.5

-0.2
1
-0.4
0.5
-0.6

-0.8 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
length/thickness length/thickness

(c) 0.3 (d) 0.15

CT CT
0.2 MCST MCST
MSGT-BC1 0.1 MSGT-BC1
MSGT-BC2 MSGT-BC2
0.1
0.05
rotation

0
rotation

0
-0.1
-0.05
-0.2

-0.3 -0.1

-0.4 -0.15
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
length/thickness length/thickness
Fig. 3 Rotation of micro beam using three different models for h = 20 m. a Simply supported beam (Case 1); b Cantilever
beam (Case 2); c Propped cantilever beam (Case 3); d Both ends clamped (Case 4)

beam increases the deflections also increase for MSGT and MCST. It is clearly shown from Fig. 4 that if the
thickness is close to the material characteristic lengths (l0 = l1 = l2 = 17.6 m), the scale effects will exhibit
strongly. It is also shown from the Fig. 4 that the deflections calculated by the MSGT are greatly different
from that of MCST. It is also observed that the beams deflection in MSGT is about ten times larger than that
in classical theory for small thickness. Furthermore, the thickness has not any effect for deflection in CT for
this geometrical properties (L = 20h, b = 2h).
The Fig. 5 illustrates the maximum rotations of the micro-sized beams for three different approaches. The
figure reveals that as thickness increases, the rotations decrease for all three types of boundary conditions.
From these figures, one can observe that thickness value is significant for all type boundary conditions. The
differences are insignificant for larger value of beam thickness. In this case, the effect of material parameters
on rotation is more significant for MSGT than the MCST. Namely, the size effect is only significant when
the beam thickness is comparable to the additional material scale parameters (l0 = l1 = l2 = 17.6 m).
In other words, the classical theory is not accurate to predict the mechanical response of micro-sized beams.
Comparison of maximum deflection values with thickness-to-scale parameter for various boundary conditions
is presented in Fig. 6. In order to clearly show the scale effect on static response of micro beams, the results are
presented for all three types boundary conditions with this parameter. It is seen that the maximum deflection
values increase gradually with the thickness-to-scale parameter ratio. From this figure, it is also observed that
the difference between the results obtained by the MSGT (l0 = l1 = l2 = 17.6 m) and the predicted by the
CT (l0 = l1 = l2 = 0) is significant when the ratio of the beam thickness to the material length scale parameter
is small. Maximum deflection values for different material length scale parameter and various boundary types
of beams are plotted in Fig. 7. This figure signifies the rate of decrease of maximum deflections with additional
material parameters for each of boundary conditions. This effect is more significant for cantilever beam than
Analysis of micro-sized beams for various boundary conditions 431

(a) 90 (b)1000
80

maximum deflection ( m )
800
maximum deflection ( m )

70

60
600
50

40
400
30

20 CT
CT 200 MCST
10 MCST MSGT-BC1
MSGT MSGT-BC2
0 0
20 40 60 80 100 120 20 40 60 80 100 120
thickness ( m ) thickness ( m )

(c) 40 (d) 20
maximum deflection ( m )

maximum deflection ( m )
16
30

12
20
8

10 CT CT
MCST 4 MCST
MSGT-BC1 MSGT-BC1
MSGT-BC2 MSGT-BC2
0 0
20 40 60 80 100 120 20 40 60 80 100 120
thickness ( m ) thickness ( m )
Fig. 4 Maximum deflection of micro beam using three different models. a Simply supported beam (Case 1); b Cantilever beam
(Case 2); c Propped cantilever beam (Case 3); d Both ends clamped (Case 4)

the others. Effect of thickness on deflection and rotation of propped cantilever beam are depicted in Fig. 8,
respectively. These figures show the strength of material parameter for micro-sized beam (h = 40 m). The
figures also reveal that an increase in the size of beam (thickness) reduces the material length scale effects
and convergence with classical theory results (l0 = l1 = l2 = 0). The results obtained by the modified
strain gradient elasticity theory (MSGT) are obviously different due to the two additional material parameters.
On the contrary, when the beam thickness increases according to the scale parameters, the results obtained
by two methods as MCST and MSGT are nearly equal to the results obtained by CT. Although not presented
here, the same conclusions are also valid for both end simply supported beam or other boundary conditions.
Next, the effects of the Poissons ratio on deflection and rotation of micro-sized beams are also investigated.
Thus the following calculations give a good insight into many analyses based on strain gradient elasticity or
couple stress theories. The results are presented in Figs. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Figure 9 shows the
Poissons ratio effect on deflection and rotation of clamped beam. The deflection value of the beam decreases
when the Poissons ratio is increase for CT (l0 = l1 = l2 = 0). However, it can be seen from Fig. 9b that
increasing the Poissons ratio increase the deflection for the values from v = 0 to v = 0.38 for MSGT
(l0 = l1 = l2 = 17.6 m). Namely, the deflection decreases for higher value of Poissons ratio. Similar obser-
vation is also valid for rotation and these results have been presented in Fig. 9c, d. Variations of maximum
deflection and maximum rotation of cantilever beam with Poissons ratio are presented in Fig. 10 both the
classical theory (l0 = l1 = l2 = 0) and the MSGT (l0 = l1 = l2 = 17.6 m) for h = 50 m. The results
obtained by MCST (l0 = l1 = 0; l2 = 17.6 m) are also presented for comparison.
In Fig. 10, the effects of Poissons ratio on maximum deflection and maximum rotation are studied for
cantilever beam (Case 2) for three different approaches. Generally, it is concluded from these figures that
increase in the Poissons ratio leads to a decrease in the value of maximum deflection and maximum rotation.
432 B. Akgz, . Civalek

(a) 0.7 (b) 3

CT
CT MCST
0.6 MCST 2.5 MSGT-BC1
MSGT MSGT-BC2
0.5
maximum rotation

maximum rotation
2

0.4
1.5
0.3
1
0.2
0.5
0.1

0 0
20 40 60 80 100 120
20 40 60 80 100 120
thickness (m) thickness (m)

(c) 0 (d) 0.14

CT
0.12 MCST
-0.05 MSGT-BC1
MSGT-BC2
0.1
maximum rotation
-0.1
maximum rotation

-0.15 0.08

-0.2 0.06

-0.25 CT 0.04
MCST
-0.3 MSGT-BC1 0.02
MSGT-BC2
-0.35 0
20 40 60 80 100 120 20 40 60 80 100 120

thickness (m) thickness (m)

Fig. 5 Maximum rotation of micro beam using three different models. a Simply supported beam (Case 1); b Cantilever beam
(Case 2); c Propped cantilever beam (Case 3); d Both ends clamped (Case 4)

90

80 S-S (MSGT)
S-S (CT)
70 C-S (MSGT)
C-S (CT)
60 C-C (MSGT)
wmax ( m )

C-C (CT)
50

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
h/l
Fig. 6 Comparison of maximum deflection values for various boundary conditions (l0 = l1 = l2 = 17.6 m)

It is also seen from these figures that the maximum deflection and maximum rotation values obtained by using
the strain gradient elasticity theory are always smaller than those by modified couple stress theory. The differ-
ence between the deflections of two higher-order theories is significant for small thickness. It is also clearly
seen that the deflection and maximum rotation values are rapidly decreases for both the higher-order theories
and the classical theory with a critical value of Poissons ratio. The similar conclusions are also observed by
Analysis of micro-sized beams for various boundary conditions 433

800
S-S
C-F
C-S

maximum deflection ( m )
C-C
600

400

200

-200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 17.6
l0 = l1= l2 ( m )

Fig. 7 Effect of additional material parameters on maximum deflection for various boundary conditions using MSGT

(a) h=40 m (CT)

(b) 0.15 h=40 m (CT)
h=40 m (MSGT) h=40 m (MSGT)
1 0.1
h=120 m (CT) h=120 m (CT)
h=120 m (MSGT) h=120 m (MSGT)
0.05
deflection/thickness

0.8
rotation

0
0.6
-0.05
0.4
-0.1

0.2
-0.15

0 -0.2
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
length/thickness length/thickness
Fig. 8 Effect of thickness on propped cantilever beam response (l0 = l1 = l2 = 17.6 m). a Deflection; b Rotation

Ma et al. (2008) and Wang et al. (2009) for simply supported micro-sized Timoshenko beam. The effects of
thickness on deflection for different theory and various values of Poissons ratio are presented in Figs. 11
and 12, respectively. When h < 60 m, the effect of the Poissons ratio is similar for higher-order elasticity
theories. Consequently, the results for MSGT and MCST are depended both the thickness and the Poissons
ratio. Thus, the Poissons ratio is an important parameter for analysis of micro-sized beam based on the MSGT
or MCST especially. Poissons ratio values ranging from 0 to 0.45 were considered in order to investigate
the effects of thickness on the response of the micro-sized beam. The results are depicted in Figs. 13, 14,
15, 16. Figure 13 shows the relationship between rotation and length-to-thickness for cantilever beam for
three different values of Poissons ratio. It is seen that for a slender beam, the rotation increases rapidly as
the Poissons ratio increases. However, the rotation value is decrease for the higher value of Poissons ratio.
Similarly, variation of deflection with length-to-thickness of a cantilever beam with three different values of
Poissons ratio is depicted in Fig. 14. As can be observed from this figure, the deflection value also decreases
rapidly for the value of 0.45 for Poissons ratio. In general, the effect of the increase in Poissons ratio is to
increase the rotation and deflections of micro beams for a typical value as 0.38 for this case (h = 40 m).
For example, the deflection decreases from the value of 0.42 for h = 20 m, approximately. After the higher
values of Poissons ratio from this value, the deflection and rotation values decrease suddenly.
In order to detailed investigation of the Poissons ratio effect on static response, Figs. 15 and 16; and
Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 have been presented for different value of thickness. It has been observed from Fig. 15a
that as the value of Poissons ratio increases, the deflection of micro beam is also increases for h = 20 m.
When the Poissons ratio is larger than 0.38, the deflection decrease rapidly for v = 0.45. However, for
h = 40 m (Fig. 15b), the decreasing in the deflection value is more significant than h = 20 m. The effect
434 B. Akgz, . Civalek

(a) 1
=0(CT)
(b) 0.06
=0
=0(MSGT) = 0.38
0.8 =0.38(CT) 0.05 = 0.45
=0.38(MSGT)
deflection/thickness

deflection/thickness
=0.45(CT)
0.04
=0.45(MSGT)
0.6

0.03
0.4
0.02

0.2
0.01

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
length/thickness length/thickness

(c) 0.15 =0(CT)

(d) 1
=0
=0(MSGT) = 0.38
0.1 =0.38(CT) = 0.45
=0.38(MSGT) 0.5
=0.45(CT)
0.05
rotation (10 )
=0.45(MSGT)
-2
rotation

0 0

-0.05
-0.5
-0.1

-1
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
length/thickness length/thickness
Fig. 9 Effect of Poissons ratio on deflection and rotation of clamped beam (h = 20 m). a Deflection for comparison; b Deflection
results for MSGT; c Rotation for comparison; d Rotation results for MSGT

of Poissons ratio on displacements and rotations changes also due to thickness such that in some conditions
(h = 20 m) displacement increases up to a Poissons ratio of 0.42 while it starts to decrease for values greater
than 0.42.
As shown in Fig. 15, displacements increase as Poissons ratio increase; however, when Poissons ratio
value becomes 0.45, they decrease. This decrease is more significant and bigger for the case of larger height
(h = 40 m). However, as thickness of beam increases (h = 40 m) value of Poissons ratio, corresponding
to start of decrease in displacement, has a value of 0.40. Likewise, for h = 60 m, value of Poissons ratio,
corresponding to start of decrease in displacement, has a value of 0.35. Accordingly, the effect of Poissons ratio
changes for different thicknesses. As thickness increases, the effect of Poissons ratio increases. In general,
increase in Poissons ratio reduces displacements and rotations.
However, rate of decrease changes for each height. It is possible to say that value of Poissons ratio, where
reduction of displacements and rotations starts, is different for different heights. This situation is clearly seen
in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 for MCST and MSGT. Poissons ratio values, corresponding to where increase in dis-
placements and rotations end and their decrease start, are different for different heights. Namely, when the
Poissons ratio is larger than 0.38, the deflection values become smaller than the deflection value for v = 0.
It means that the Poissons ratio has an influence on the deflection for the value of thickness between the
0 < h < 50 m. This conclusion is shown in Fig. 16. Although not presented here, the same conclusions are
also valid for rotation. It is surprising to find that the deflections are not only dependent the Poissons ratio but
also depended thickness of the beam. For slender beam, the Poissons ratio effect is un-predicted on deflection
and rotation. Namely, for slender beam condition, effect of Poissons ratio is not valid for a specific form.
Although not presented here, the same conclusions are also valid for other type boundary conditions for beam.
Meanwhile, it has to be emphasized that obtained results are valid for material (Epoxy) constants used and
Analysis of micro-sized beams for various boundary conditions 435

(a) 45 (b) 18
h=20m(CT) CT
40 h=20m(MCST) 16 MCST

maximum deflection/thickness
maximum deflection/thickness

h=20 m(MSGT) MSGT-BC1

35 14 MSGT-BC2
h=50m(CT)
30 h=50m(MCST) 12
h=50m(MSGT)
25 10

20 8

15 6

10 4

5 2

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Poisson ,s ratio Poisson ,s ratio

(c) 3 (d) 1.4

h=20m(CT) CT
h=20m(MCST) 1.2 MCST
2.5 h=20m(MSGT) MSGT-BC1
h=50m(CT) MSGT-BC2
maximum rotation

1
maximum rotation
2 h=50m(MCST)
h=50m(MSGT)
0.8
1.5
0.6
1
0.4

0.5 0.2

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
, ,
Poisson s ratio Poisson s ratio
Fig. 10 Variation of maximum deflection and maximum rotation of cantilever beam with Poissons ratio. a Maximum deflection
for comparison; b Maximum deflection results for h = 50 m; c Maximum rotation for comparison; d Maximum rotation results
for h = 50 m

4.5
=0(CT)
maximum deflection/thickness

4 =0(MCST)
=0(MSGT)
3.5
=0.38(CT)
3 =0.38(MCST)
=0.38(MSGT)
2.5

1.5

0.5

0
20 40 60 80 100 120
thickness (m )
Fig. 11 Maximum non-dimensional deflection of simply supported beam for different theories

beam geometry (L = 20h and b = 2h) considered. Different results can be obtained for different conditions.
As a result, one can say that Poissons ratio is effective on results of micro-sized beams upon also application
of Bernoulli-Euler theory. However, this effect also depends on beam height and selection of other dimensions
accordingly.
436 B. Akgz, . Civalek

0.12

maximum deflection/thickness
0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02 h = 20 m
h = 40 m
h = 60 m
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Poisson,s ratio
Fig. 12 Poisson effect on maximum non-dimensional deflection of clamped beam with different beam thickness (MSGT- BC1)

0.2
rotation

0.1

=0
= 0.38
= 0.45
0
0 5 10 15 20
length/thickness
Fig. 13 Rotation of cantilever beam for different values of Poissons ratio (MSGT for BC1; h = 20 m)

4.5
=0
4 = 0.38
3.5 = 0.45
deflection/thickness

2.5

1.5

0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20
length/thickness
Fig. 14 Non-dimensional deflection of cantilever beam for different values of Poissons ratio (MSGT for BC1; h = 40 m)
Analysis of micro-sized beams for various boundary conditions 437

(a) 0.35 (b) 0.5

=0 =0
0.3 = 0.38 = 0.38
= 0.45 0.4 = 0.45
deflection/thickness

deflection/thickness
0.25

0.3
0.2

0.15
0.2

0.1
0.1
0.05

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
length/thickness length/thickness

Fig. 15 Non-dimensional deflection of simply supported beam for different values of Poissons ratio. a h = 20 m (MSGT);
b h = 40 m (MSGT)

60
=0
= 0.38
50
= 0.45
maximum deflection (m)

40

30

20

10

0
20 40 60 80 100 120
thickness (m)
Fig. 16 Variation of maximum deflection values for simply supported beam with different beam thickness and Poissons ratio
(MSGT)

Table 2 Variation of maximum deflection (m) of propped beam for different values of beam thickness and Poissons ratio
(MCST)

h, m v
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
10 1.844 1.930 2.015 2.097 2.175 2.247 2.308 2.349 2.342 2.174
20 6.395 6.649 6.882 7.085 7.246 7.343 7.339 7.155 6.611 5.160
30 11.780 12.149 12.451 12.662 12.750 12.660 12.304 11.519 9.980 6.921
40 16.704 17.099 17.370 17.477 17.367 16.958 16.122 14.646 12.147 7.859
50 20.711 21.075 21.258 21.210 20.864 20.119 18.825 16.750 13.504 8.386
60 23.813 24.120 24.199 23.994 23.426 22.385 20.712 18.169 14.376 8.702

Table 3 Thickness and Poissons ratio pairs for maximum deflection of propped beam (MCST)

h, m v wmax
10 0.372 2.355
20 0.274 7.357
30 0.203 12.75
40 0.152 17.48
50 0.116 21.27
60 0.091 24.20
438 B. Akgz, . Civalek

Table 4 Variation of maximum deflection (m) of propped beam for different values of beam thickness and Poissons ratio
(MSGT)

h, m v
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
10 0.514 0.539 0.564 0.589 0.613 0.637 0.660 0.682 0.699 0.699
20 1.968 2.060 2.150 2.237 2.319 2.394 2.456 2.495 2.479 2.281
30 4.139 4.318 4.488 4.644 4.781 4.888 4.946 4.916 4.695 3.931
40 6.744 7.007 7.245 7.450 7.608 7.695 7.669 7.446 6.835 5.266
50 9.515 9.844 10.126 10.346 10.478 10.483 10.293 9.778 8.665 6.253
60 12.251 12.621 12.917 13.116 13.181 13.055 12.646 11.786 10.145 6.964

Table 5 Thickness and Poissons ratio pairs for maximum deflection of propped beam (MSGT)

v wmax
h, m v w
10 0.429 0.703
20 0.367 2.498
30 0.313 4.949
40 0.267 7.702
50 0.228 10.500
60 0.195 13.180

6 Conclusions

The static analysis of micro-scaled beams is investigated in this paper based on the strain gradient elasticity
and modified couple stress elasticity with Bernoulli-Euler beam theory. The higher-order governing equations
and related boundary conditions are derived for four type of boundary conditions. Analytical solutions have
been obtained for deflection and rotation of micro-sized beam. The results based on the modified couple stress
theory and classical elasticity theories have been also presented for comparison purposes. The influences of
the additional length scale parameters and slenderness ratio on the static response of micro-sized beams are
discussed in detail. The results show that the effect of material parameters on deflection and rotation is more
significant for modified strain gradient elasticity than the modified couple stress theory for small size. If the
thickness is close to the material characteristic lengths, the maximum deflections predicted by the classical
theory (CT) is about 16 times than that predicted by the present modified strain gradient elasticity theory
(MGST) and about 6 times than that obtained by the modified couple stress theory (MCST). Also, the Pois-
sons ratio is a quite essential parameter for determining the bending behavior of the micro-sized beam based
on the higher-order elasticity theory. Furthermore, it is possible to say that the length scale parameters and
Poissons ratio have some notable influences on the bending characteristics of the micro-sized beam based
on the Bernoulli-Euler beam theory. Additionally, this change (increasing and decreasing) is also depending
on the thickness of the beam. In conclusion, the gradient effects (additional length scale parameters) increase
the stiffness of micro-sized beam resulting in decreasing deflections. In other words, when the internal length
of material parameters of a micro-sized beam is comparable to the dimensions of that beam, using of strain
gradient elasticity theory is necessary.

Acknowledgments The financial support of the Scientific Research Projects Unit of Akdeniz University is gratefully
acknowledged.

Appendix

Cantilever beam (Case 2)

The classical boundary conditions are

w(0) = w  (0) = 0
D.w (5) (L) B.w (3) (L) = 0 and B.w  (L) D.w (4) (L) = 0
Analysis of micro-sized beams for various boundary conditions 439

One of the non-classical boundary (BC1) conditions for this case are

w  (0) = 0; D.w  (L) = 0 or w  (L) = 0

Another of the non-classical boundary (BC2) conditions for this case are

D.w  (0) = 0 or w  (0) = 0; D.w  (L) = 0 or w  (L) = 0

Integration constants of cantilever beam for BC1 listed below:

  1 3
  B L 
B
L

L2
qD D q L2 D 2 qD 2 e D e D
C1 = 2 + , C2 = 3
+ 5
  ,
B
2 B 2B 2 B2 B
L D B
L
e D +e
 
q L2 D qL
C3 = + , C4 = ,
2B 2 B 6B
 
2
B
L 2

B
DL
q L D q D2 e D , C6 = q L 2D q D e
C5 = + 3   + 3  
2B 2 B B
L DB
L 2B 2 B B
L DB
L
e D +e e D +e

Integration constants of cantilever beam for BC2 are:

 

B B
D
3 L L
qLD e 2 +e D  
qLD q L2 D
C1 =  
, C2 = 2 , C3 = + ,
5 B
D L B
L B 2B 2 B
B e
2 e D




B B
3 D L 3 L
qLD2 e qLD2 e D
qL
C4 = , C5 =  
, C6 =  

6B 5 D B
L B
L 5 D B
L B
L
B2 e e D B2 e e D

Propped cantilever beam (Case 3)

The classical boundary conditions are

w(0) = w  (0) = 0; w(L) = 0, B.w  (L) D.w (4) (L) = 0

and non-classical boundary (BC1) conditions for this case are

w  (0) = 0 and w  (L) = 0

Another of the non-classical boundary (BC2) conditions for this case are

w  (0) = 0; w  (L) = 0

440 B. Akgz, . Civalek

Integration constants of propped cantilever beam for BC1 are as follows:


2

q D   B
L B
4B DL 2 B 2 L 4 24D 2 1 e 48B 2 D 2 Le D L
D 1 3
C1 =
8B 3 R1

2 
2
1  B B
qD2 B L L
4B DL 2 1 + 4e D + e B 2 L 4 1 + e D
L D
C2 = 5
8B 2 R1

2
 B
B L
2 L D

24D 1 2e D e


2

q   B
L B
4B DL 2 B 2 L 4 24D 2 1 e 48B 2 D 2 Le D
D 1 3 L
C3 =
16B 2 R1

2 
2
B B
q 5B 2 L 3 1 e D
3 L
+ 12B D 2 L 2 1 + e D
1 L

C4 = 3
48B R1
2

2
 B
B L
24D 2 1 2e
3 L D
D +e




qD B
L B
L
C5 = 4B DL 1 2e
2 D + B L + 24D 1 e
2 4 2 D
8B 3 R1


B
1 3 L
+ 24B 2 D 2 Le D


B
L 
 

q De D B
L B
L B
L
C6 = 4B DL 2 + e
2 D B L e
2 4 D + 24D 1 e
2 D
8B 3 R1

+ 24B 2 D 2 L
1 3

where

2 
2
  B
L B
L
R1 = B L 2 + 3D e 1 3B D L e + 1
D 1 1 D
2 2

Integration constants of propped cantilever beam for BC2 are as follows:


2

q D 2   B
L   B
12B DL 2 5B 2 L 4 24D 2 1 e 3D B L 2 16B 2 D 2 Le D
D 1 1 L
C1 =
8B 3 R2

2
3 
q D 2   B
L B
12B DL 2 5B 2 L 4 24D 2 1 + e + 48D 2 e D L
D
C2 = 5
8B 2 R2
Analysis of micro-sized beams for various boundary conditions 441


2 
2
q   B
L   B
L
12B DL 2 24D 3 1 e + B 2 D 2 L 3 8D + B L 2 1 + e
D 3 1 D
C3 =
16B 2 R2


B
1 5 L
48B 2 D 2 Le D


2
1 
qD2   B
L B
C4 = 12B DL 2 5B 2 L 4 24D 2 1 + e D
+ 48D 2 e D L
3
48B 2 R2
 


q D2 1 1 1 1 B
L B
L
C5 = 4B D L 6D 3B D L 2B L e
2 2 2 2 2 D + 5B L + 24D 1 e
2 4 2 D
8B 3 R2

B
L  

q D2e D 1 1 1 1 B
L B
DL
C6 = 4B 2 D 2 L 6D + 3B 2 D 2 Le D 2B L 2
5B 2 4
L e
8B 3 R2


B
L
+ 24D 1 e
2 D

where

2 
2
  B
L B
L
R2 = B D L B L 2 3D 1 + e 3D 2 L 1 e
1 1 D D
2 2

Clamped beam (Case 4)

The classical boundary conditions of clamped beam are

w(0) = w  (0) = 0; w(L) = 0, w  (L) = 0

One of the non-classical boundary (BC1) conditions for this case is

w  (0) = 0; w  (L) = 0

Another of the non-classical boundary (BC2) conditions for this case is

w  (0) = 0; w  (L) = 0

Integration constants of clamped beam for BC1 are given as





B
L B
L B
L
q DL 3 1+e D q 1e D qL 1 + e
DL 33 D

C1 = , C2 = , C3 = ,
12B R3 12 B R3 24R3


B
3 L
q DL e D
qL q L3 D
C4 = , C5 = , C6 =
12B 12B R3 12B R3

where



B 1 1 B
L L
R3 = B L 1 + e D + 2B 2 D 2 1 e D
442 B. Akgz, . Civalek

Integration constants of clamped beam for BC2 are given as



3 B
L
qD2 L 1 + e D
q DL q L2 qD qL
C1 = 
, C2 = 2
, C 3 = + 2
, C4 =
5 B
L 2B 24B 2B 12B
2B 2 e D 1

3 3 B
L
qD L 2 qLD e D 2
C5 = 
, C6 = 

5 B 5 B
L L
2B 2 e D 1 2B 2 e D 1

References

1. Senturia, S.D.: Microsystem Design. Kluwer, Boston (2001)

2. Cosserat, E., Cosserat, F.: Theory of deformable bodies. (Translated by D.H. Delphenich), Scientific Library, vol. 6.
A. Herman and Sons, Paris, Sorbonne (1909)
3. Mindlin, R.D.: Micro-structure in linear elasticity. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 16, 5178 (1964)
4. Mindlin, R.D., Tiersten, H.F.: Effects of couple-stresses in linear elasticity. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 11, 415448 (1962)
5. Toupin, R.A.: Elastic materials with couple stresses. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 11, 385414 (1962)
6. Koiter, W.T.: Couple stresses in the theory of elasticity. I and II. Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet (B) 67, 1744 (1964)
7. Toupin, R.A.: Theory of elasticity with couple stresses. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 17, 85112 (1964)
8. Mindlin, R.D.: Second gradient of strain and surface tension in linear elasticity. Int. J. Solids Struct. 1, 417438 (1965)
9. Mindlin, R.D., Eshel, N.N.: On first strain-gradient theories in linear elasticity. Int. J. Solids Struct. 4, 109124 (1968)
10. Eringen, A.C., Suhubi, E.S.: Nonlinear theory of simple microelastic solid-I. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 2, 189203 (1964)
11. Eringen, A.C.: On differential equations of nonlocal elasticity and solutions of screw dislocation and surface waves. J. Appl.
Phys. 54, 47034710 (1983)
12. Vardoulakis, I., Exadaktylos, G., Kourkoulis, S.K.: Bending of marble with intrinsic length scales: a gradient theory with
surface energy and size effects. J. Phys. IV 8, 399406 (1998)
13. Aifantis, E.C.: Update on a class of gradient theories. Mech. Mater. 35, 25592580 (2003)
14. Yang, F., Chong, A.C.M., Lam, D.C.C., Tong, P.: Couple stress based strain gradient theory for elasticity. Int. J. Solids
Struct. 39, 27312743 (2002)
15. Lam, D.C.C., Yang, F., Chong, A.C.M., Wang, J., Tong, P.: Experiments and theory in strain gradient elasticity. J. Mech.
Phys. Solids 51, 14771508 (2003)
16. Anthoine, A.: Effect of couple-stresses on the elastic bending of beams. Int. J. Solids Struct. 37, 10031018 (2000)
17. Park, S.K., Gao, X.-L.: Bernoulli-Euler beam model based on a modified couple stress theory. J. Micromech.
Microeng. 16, 23552359 (2006)
18. Reddy, J.N.: Nonlocal theories for bending, buckling and vibration of beams. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 45, 288307 (2007)
19. Ma, H.M., Gao, X.-L, Reddy, J.N.: A microstructure-dependent Timoshenko beam model based on a modified couple stress
theory. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 56, 33793391 (2008)
20. Tsiatas, G.C.: A new Kirchhoff plate model based on a modified couple stress theory. Int. J. Solids Struct. 46, 2757
2764 (2009)
21. Papargyri-Beskou, S., Polyzos, D., Beskos, D.E.: Wave dispersion in gradient elastic solids and structures: a unified treat-
ment. Int. J. Solids Struct. 46, 37513759 (2009)
22. Wang, B., Zhao, J., Zhou, S.: A micro scale Timoshenko beam model based on strain gradient elasticity theory. Eur. J. Mech.
A Solids 29, 591599 (2009)
23. Lazopoulos, K.A., Lazopoulos, A.K.: Bending and buckling of thin strain gradient elastic beams. Eur. J. Mech. A
Solids 29, 837843 (2010)
24. Ma, H.M., Gao, X.-L, Reddy, J.N.: A nonclassical Reddy-Levinson beam model based on a modified couple stress theory. Int.
J. Multiscale Comput. Eng. 8, 167180 (2010)
25. Asghari, M., Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Rahaeifard, M., Ahmadian, M.T.: Investigation of the size effects in Timoshenko beams
based on the couple stress theory. Arch. Appl. Mech. (2011). doi:10.1007/s00419-010-0452-5
26. Kahrobaiyan, M.H., Asghari, M., Rahaeifard, M., Ahmadian, M.T.: Investigation of the size-dependent dynamic character-
istics of atomic force microscope microcantilevers based on the modified couple stress theory. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 48, 1985
1994 (2011)
27. Lim, C.W.: Equilibrium and static deflection for bending of a nonlocal nanobeam. Adv. Vibr. Eng. 8, 277300 (2009)
28. Lim, C.W.: On the truth of nanoscale for nanobeams based on nonlocal elastic stress field theory: equilibrium, governing
equation and static deflection. Appl. Math. Mech. 31, 3754 (2010)
29. Lazopoulos, K.A.: On the gradient strain elasticity theory of plates. Eur. J. Mech. A Solids 23, 843852 (2004)
30. Lazopoulos, K.A.: On bending of strain gradient elastic micro-plates. Mech. Res. Commun. 36, 777783 (2009)
31. Papargyri-Beskou, S., Beskos, D.E.: Stability analysis of gradient elastic circular cylindrical thin shells. Int. J. Eng.
Sci. 47, 13791385 (2009)
32. Shen, H.-S.: Nonlocal shear deformable shell model for bending buckling of microtubules embedded in an elastic
medium. Phys. Lett. A 374, 40304039 (2010)
Analysis of micro-sized beams for various boundary conditions 443

33. Shen, H.-S.: Buckling and postbuckling of radially loaded microtubules by nonlocal shear deformable shell model. J. Theor.
Biol. 264, 386394 (2010)
34. Akgz, B., Civalek, .: Buckling analysis of cantilever carbon nanotubes using the strain gradient elasticity and modified
couple stress theories. J. Comput. Theor. Nanosci. (in press) (2011)
35. Civalek, ., Demir, ., Akgz, B.: Free vibration and bending analyses of cantilever microtubules based on nonlocal
continuum model. Math. Comput. Appl. 15, 289298 (2010)
36. Akgz, B., Civalek, .: Strain gradient elasticity and modified couple stress models for buckling analysis of axially loaded
micro-scaled beams. Int. J. Eng. Sci. (2011). doi:10.1016/j.ijengsci.2010.12.009
37. Civalek, ., Akgz, B.: Free vibration analysis of microtubules as cytoskeleton components: nonlocal Euler-Bernoulli beam
modeling. Sci. Iranica Trans. B Mech. Eng. 17, 367375 (2010)
38. Artan, R., Tepe, A.: The initial values method for buckling nonlocal bars with application in nanotechnology. Eur. J. Mech.
A Solids 27, 469477 (2008)
39. Reddy, J.N.: Nonlocal nonlinear formulations for bending of classical and shear deformation theories of beams and plates. Int.
J. Eng. Sci. 48, 15071518 (2010)
40. Papargyri-Beskou, S., Tsepoura, K.G., Polyzos, D., Beskos, D.E.: Bending and stability analysis of gradient elastic beams. Int.
J. Solids Struct. 40, 385400 (2003)
41. Vardoulakis, I., Sulem, J.: Bifurcation Analysis in Geomechanics. Blackie/ Chapman & Hall, London (1995)
42. Kong, S., Zhou, S., Nie, Z., Wang, K.: Static and dynamic analysis of micro beams based on strain gradient elasticity
theory. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 47, 487498 (2009)
43. McElhaney, K.W., Valssak, J.J., Nix, W.D.: Determination of indenter tip geometry and indentation contact area for depth
sensing indentation experiments. J. Mater. Res. 13, 13001306 (1998)
44. Nix, W.D., Gao, H.: Indentation size effects in crystalline materials: a law for strain gradient plasticity. J. Mech. Phys.
Solids 46, 411425 (1998)
45. Gurtin, M.E., Murdoch, A.I.: Effect of surface stress on wave propagation in solids. J. Appl. Phys. 47, 44144421 (1976)
46. Wang, G.F., Feng, X.Q.: Effects of surface elasticity and residual surface tension on the natural frequency of micro-
beams. Appl. Phy. Lett. 90, 231904 (2007)
47. Wang, G.F., Feng, X.Q.: Timoshenko beam model for buckling and vibration of nanowires with surface effects. J. Phys.
D Appl. Phys. 42, 155411 (2009)
48. Wang, G.F.: Effects of surface energy on the mechanical performance of nanosized beams. J. Comp. Theor. Nanosci. 8,
15 (2011)
49. Lachut, M.J., Sader, J.E.: Effect of surface stress on the stiffness of cantilever plates. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 206102 (2007)
50. Papargyri-Beskou, S., Beskos, D.E.: Static, stability and dynamic analysis of gradient elastic flexural Kirchhoff plates. Arch.
Appl. Mech. 78, 625635 (2008)
51. Tsepoura, K.G., Papargyri-Beskou, S., Polyzos, D., Beskos, D.E.: Static and dynamic analysis of a gradient-elastic bar in
tension. Arch. Appl. Mech. 72, 483497 (2002)
52. Akgz, B.: Linear and nonlinear analysis of micro/nano structures based on higher-order continuum theories. M.Sc. thesis,
Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Akdeniz University (2010)