You are on page 1of 23

NanoSystems MMTA

Editorial NanoMMTA

Modeling the tip-sample interaction in atomic force


microscopy with Timoshenko beam theory
Abstract
A matrix framework is developed for single and multispan micro-cantilevers Timoshenko beam models of
use in atomic force microscopy (AFM). They are considered subject to general forcing loads and boundary
conditions for modeling tip-sample interaction. Surface eects are considered in the frequency analysis of supported and cantilever microbeams. Extensive use is made of a distributed matrix fundamental
response that allows to determine forced responses
through convolution and to absorb non-homogeneous
boundary conditions. Transients are identied from intial values of permanent responses. Eigenanalysis for
determining frequencies and matrix mode shapes is
done with the use of a fundamental matrix response
that characterizes solutions of a damped second-order
matrix dierential equation. It is observed that surface eects are inuential for the natural frequency at
the nanoscale. Simulations are performed for a bisegmented free-free beam and with a micro-cantilever
beam actuated by a piezoelectric layer laminated in
one side.

Julio R. Claeyssen1,2 , Teresa Tsukazan1 , Leticia


Tonetto1 , Daniela Tolfo1 ,
1 Institute of Mathematics, Universidade Federal do Rio
Grande do Sul,
Av. Bento Gonalves, 9500, 91509-900, Porto Alegre,
RS, Brazil
2 Mechanical Engineering Graduate Program, Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul,
Rua Sarmento Leite, 425, 90050-170, Porto Alegre, RS,
Brazil

Keywords
Atomic force microscopy nanoscale materials and
structures chemical/biological sensors nanomachining microscaled Timoshenko beams
PACS: 07.79.Lh, 62.25.-g, 81.07.-b, 87.85.fk, 46.70.De
MSC: 74H55, 74H10, 35E05, 35L30, 35L35
Versita sp. z o.o.

E-mail:
E-mail:
E-mail:
E-mail:

julio@mat.ufrgs.br
teresa.mat@gmail.com
ltonetto.mat@gmail.com
danitolfo.cp@gmail.com

mple interaction in atomic force microscopy with Timoshenko beam theory

1. Introduction
In this work, we determine dynamic responses of Timoshenko micro-cantilever beam models of use in the scanning
probe technique of AFM. This AFM technique allows to obtain images of surface topography at the atomic scale, in a
noninvasive manner, from a wide variety of samples on a scale from angstroms to 100 microns. Conductive and insulating
samples of surface structures can be considered in both air and liquid environments. Its predecessor was the stylus
proler that magnied, greater than 1000 , the vertical surface of a sample and recorded the motion of the stylus on
photographic paper. The AFM is a mechanical system for sensing force at the nanoNewton level between a sample
and a very tiny tip (< 10nm radius) that is mounted on a microfabricated cantilever ( 100 m). This allows AFM to
be capable of imaging features with a magnication of greater than 106 . Since its invention by Binning et al [5], it
has undergone several developments.
A typical AFM consists of a sensitive micro-cantilever with a mounted sharp tip acting as force sensor, a system that
moves the sample or the sensor in order to probe the sample surface, a detection sensor system of the cantilever
deection, a feed-back system which regulates the force interaction and a controller electronic system which records
movements, control the feedback loop and sends the measured data to a computer processing unit (Fig. 1). In
terms of the cantilever state of motion during measurement, the two basic types of AFM modes are: static mode
(contact, friction or lateral force) and dynamic mode (non-contact, tapping or semi-contact, acoustic, piezoelectric,
electrostatic,etc) [33]. They are typically of length 125-450 m, width 28-45 m, thickness 1-8 m, resonant
frequency 12-300 KHz, spring constant 0.1-48 N/m and tip probe height 17m and tip radius less than 10nm. The associated length scales associated are suciently small to call the applicability of classical continuum models into question.

Deflection detection
system

Laser
Feedback
Electronics
and
Imaging

Cantilever / Tip

Sample
Scanning system

Fig 1.

Schematic of an Atomic Force Microscope operation

The geometry and the material of the cantilever both contribute to the properties that make a cantilever suitable
for any particular imaging modes. Both silicon and silicon nitride micro-cantilevers are commercially available
but reective back surface coating is used for a better feedback. New generations of nanobeams have included
piezoelectric materials locally attached at the micro-beam with the role of sensors and/or actuators [21]., The inclusion
of smart materials layers will modify material properties between neighboring layers. Active beams for AFM have
been subject to a variety of tip-sample interaction types models and they can be formulated as a second-order
matrix dierential equation subject to boundary conditions and compatibility conditions for transversal vibrations
in neighboring segments whenever having a multi-span micro-beam [11], [2], [17], [38]. The use of the AFM, as
nanomachining or as a platform for chemical and biological sensors in connection with and surface and thermal
eects, make that the eects of transverse shear deformation and rotary inertia on the frequency be signicant.
With smaller values of the ratio of the probe length to its thickness, the Timoshenko beam theory is able to
predict the frequencies of exural vibrations of the higher modes with higher stiness for the AFM cantilevers [19].
As the structural size decreases toward the nanoscale regime, surface/tension eects must be taken into account [20], [15].

Julio R. Claeyssen, Teresa Tsukazan, Leticia Tonetto, Daniela Tolfo,

In this work, we shall discuss AFM Timoshenko micro-cantilevers models that can involve smart materials or general
devices for describing tip-sample interaction forces. These models are formulated as second-order evolution systems
subject to initial, forcing and boundary data. Its mathematical study will make an extensive use of distributed matrix
impulse response or initial-value Green matrix response. This allows to characterize transients and forced responses
of a variety of AFM models. The vibration modes for general tip-sample interaction will be explicitly formulated in
terms of a fundamental matrix response of a second-order ordinary matrix dierential equation where the corresponding
stiness matrix coecient depends upon the frequency. This matrix response can be determined in closed form in terms
of a scalar solution that has a completely oscillatory behavior beyond a critical frequency value [9], [10].
This work is organized as follows. In section 2, we formulate the Timoshenko beam model in a matrix form. In section 3,
the dynamic response of the matrix model subject to tip-sample interactions and external forcing is given in terms of the
distributed matrix impulse response. Eigenanalysis is discussed in section 4 by solving a non-conservative second-order
matrix dierential system that depends nonlinearly upon the eigenvalue. The cases of micro-cantilevers involving an
elastic append at the free or linearized boundary conditions are discussed in terms of a fundamental response that given
in closed form. In section 5, the Galerkin method is used to obtain reduced-order forced models. Forced responses are
approximated by concentrated responses involving convolution with a concentrated impulse response and a localized
response at the end of the beam due to boundary conditions. Finally, in section 6 we discuss the matrix methodology
with modal analysis for the case of harmonic inputs as well as for modulated linear piecewise inputs with composite
micro-cantilever beams.

2. Transversal vibrations of AFM using the Timoshenko model


AFM was developed for producing high-resolution images of surface structures. The AFM tip has a vertical resolution
on the order of 1nm or below, and it can detect low-amplitude vibrations corresponding to high frequencies. Nowdays
it is also used to probe properties through interactions between the tip and the sample and to modify surfaces. This
interaction process has lead AFM to be used in smart material technology, chemical/biological sensors, tribology and
nanomachining, among others elds [23], [38], [12]. Modeling and simulate an AFM microstructural system is a complex
task [33]. The sharpness of the tip is often a fundamental resolution-limit parameter [8], [7]. The miniaturized cantilever
device depends on the accurate extract of static bending and resonant frequency. Test measurements and theoretical
studies have shown that the vibration behaviour of microstructures at the nanoscale is signicantly size and parametric
dependent. As the structural size decreases toward the nanoscale regime, surface eects must be taken into account
[20]. This dependence has motivated the use of size-dependent continuum theories in modeling microstructures: couple
stress theory [3], surface energy theory [16], [27], nonlocal formulation [26],[36], strain gradient [22], functionally graded
[25], among others.
In this work, we use the Timoshenko beam-type structure for incorporating shear formation and rotary inertia eects.
This allows to consider microbeams with small length-to-thickness aspect ratio. Thick beams have relatively high
transverse shear modulus and the eects of rotary inertia and transverse shear deformation must be used in the dynamic
analysis of such beams. The Timoshenko model corrects the classical beam theory with rst-order shear deformation
eects. Also, piezoelectric shearing coecients can be considered in the constitutive relations once shear deformation
also induce an electric displacement [30], [39]. This model rests on the assumptions of small deformations and linear
elastic isotropic material behavior. Continuum-based formalisms for nanoscale have been proposed that include the
eect of surface properties on the mechanical behavior. Here we shall consider Laplace-Young surface elasticity and
residual surface tension adapted to solid materials [40].
We consider the micro-cantilever having length L, width b, thickness 2h and mass density area of the beam . We let
3
I = 2bh
be the moment of inertia of the cross section area A = 2bh, w(t, x) the exural deection of the beam, (t, x) the
3
rotation angle of cross section of the beam, f(t, x) a transverse dynamic load and q(t, x) a moment load. The governing
equations are given by [1], [13]
Awtt GAwxx + GAx = f(t, x),
(1)
Itt EIxx GA (wx ) = q(t, x),

mple interaction in atomic force microscopy with Timoshenko beam theory

where
GA = GA (u + b )b,

(2)

EI = (EI + 2bh Es ),

(3)

are the eective curvature eect and exural rigidity, respectively. Here u and b denote the upper and lower surfaces
residual tensions and Es being a surface elastic modulus. The boundary conditions are those of a cantilever beam or
subject to balance of the moment and shear at the free end x = L. In this work, we shall assume that for a uniform beam
the involved coecients are constant.
2.1. Matrix formulation
The coupled Timoshenko model (1) can be written as a second-order dierential equation with matrix coecients
Mv + Kv = F,

(4)

where

v=

w(t, x)

(t, x)

M=

)
f(t, x)
q(t, x)

, F =

(5)

+ R,
, K = E 2 + N
x
x

(6)

with

GA

EI

E=

GA

GA

, N =

, R =

(7)

0 GA

It is frequently found in the literature, that the unforced Timoshenko model is decoupled into the same fourth-order time
dierential equation for the deection and rotating angle [35]. However, the boundary conditions actually couple the
system. Only for very few cases the unforced linear case is completely decoupled. For the case of a forced Timoshenko
model, the transverse forcing and moment load has to be regular in order to admit dierentiation. These arguments
suggest the convenience of keeping the original second-order physical formulation (4).
2.2. Multispan modes
Multispan active micro-beams for AFM are used for improving the detection and sensing imaging performance. In these
situations, the Timoshenko model can be considered in each segment [xi , xi+1 ], i = 0, N 1 where 0 = x0 x1
x2 , xN = L and to require the fullllment of compatibility conditions of continuity and equilibrium for displacement,
rotation and for moment, shear, respectively, in neighbouring segments. In a general setting, we have
(i)

(i)

(i)

(i)

E11 wi (t, xi ) + F11 i (t, xi ) + G11 wi (t, xi ) + H11 i (t, xi ),


(i)
(i)
(i)
(i)
E21 wi (t, xi ) + F21 i (t, xi ) + G21 wi (t, xi ) + H21 i (t, xi )
(i)
(i)
(i)
(i)
E31 wi (t, xi ) + F31 i (t, xi ) + G31 wi (t, xi ) + H31 i (t, xi )
(i)
(i)
(i)
(i)
E41 wi (t, xi ) + F41 i (t, xi ) + G41 wi (t, xi ) + H41 i (t, xi )

=
=
=
=

(i)

(i)

(i)

(i)

(t, x ) + H (t, x ),
E12 wi+1 (t, xi ) + F12 i+1 (t, xi ) + G12 wi+1
i
i
12 i+1
(i)
(i)
(i)
(i)
E22 wi+1 (t, xi ) + F22 i+1 (t, xi ) + G22 wi+1
(t, xi ) + H22 i+1
(t, xi ),
(i)
(i)
(i)
(i)
E32 wi+1 (t, xi ) + F32 i+1 (t, xi ) + G32 wi+1
(t, xi ) + H32 i+1
(t, xi ),
(i)
(i)
(i)
(i)
E42 wi+1 (t, xi ) + F42 i+1 (t, xi ) + G42 wi+1 (t, xi ) + H42 i+1 (t, xi ).

In matrix terms
C1,i wi (t, xi ) = C2,i wi+1 (t, xi ), i = 1, ..., N 1,
4

Julio R. Claeyssen, Teresa Tsukazan, Leticia Tonetto, Daniela Tolfo,

x1

0
Fig 2.

N-1 N

...
x2

xN-1 L x

Multispan micro-beam

where

wi (t, x)
i (t, x)

wi (t, x) =
w (t, x) ,
i

i (t, x)

C1,i =

(i)

E11
(i)
E21
(i)
E31
(i)
E41

(i)

F11
(i)
F21
(i)
F31
(i)
F41

(i)

G11
(i)
G21
(i)
G31
(i)
G41

(i)

H11
(i)
H21
(i)
H31
(i)
H41

, C2,i =

(i)

E12
(i)
E22
(i)
E32
(i)
E42

(i)

(i)

F12
(i)
F22
(i)
F32
(i)
F42

G12
(i)
G22
(i)
G32
(i)
G42

(i)

H12
(i)
H22
(i)
H32
(i)
H42

, i = 1, ..., N 1.

Thus for a multispan Timoshenko micro-beam, including proportional damping C = aM + bK, we have the second-order
block matrix dierential equations
Mv(t, x) + Cv(t, x) + Kv(t, x) = F,
where

v=

v1
v2
..
.
vN

, M =

M1

0
..

0 < x < L,

, K =

t > 0,

K1

0
..

MN

KN

(8)

, F=

F1
F2
..
.
FN

(9)

with

Mj =

j Aj
0

, Kj =

j Gj Aj x 2

Ej Ij x 2 + j Gj Aj

, vj =

j Gj Aj x

j Ij

j Gj Aj x

wj

subject to given initial conditions v(0, x) = ro (x), vt (0, x) = r1 (x), boundary and compatibility conditions

B1 w1 = n0 , BN wN = nL ,
C1,i wi (t, xi ) = C2,i wi+1 (t, xi ), i = 1, ..., N 1.

(10)
(11)

2.3. AFM-tip-cantilever interactions


The tip interaction with the sample has been usually modeled as being subject to springs or dash-springs or attached
mass for normal and lateral interaction and to an external excitation of the base [19, 28].
For instance, when the tip of length h and mass m is subject to normal kN and lateral springs kL and viscous dampers
cN , cL , the moment and shear conditions at the free end are given by
(

w
2 w
m 2 ,
t
t x=L

2
EI
= kL h2 cL h2
mc2 2 ,
x
t
t x=L

GA

= kN cN

(12)

mple interaction in atomic force microscopy with Timoshenko beam theory

cL

c
h
z

kL
kN

cN

x
Fig 3.

AFM tip-sample interaction

where c denotes the distance between the lower edge of the cantilever and the centroid of the cross section.
In a general setting, separated boundary conditions at the ends x = 0, L of the micro-beam can be given as
a11 w1 (t, 0) + a12 1 (t, 0) + b11 w1 (t, 0) + b12 1 (t, 0) = n11 ,
(13)
a21 w1 (t, 0) + a22 1 (t, 0) + b21 w1 (t, 0) + b22 1 (t, 0) = n12 ;
p11 wN (t, L) + p12 N (t, L) + q11 wN (t, L) + q12 N (t, L) = n21 ,
(14)
p21 wN (t, L) + p22 N (t, L) + q21 wN (t, 0) + q22 N (t, L) = n22 .
Or in matrix form
B1 v(t, 0) = Av(t, 0) + Bvx (t, 0) = n1 ,
B2 v(t, L) = Pv(t, L) + Qvx (t, L) = n2 .

(15)

More complex descriptions of the tip-sample force include non-linear surface and contact forces at the boundary x = L
due to Derjaguin-Muller-Toporev (DMT), Johnson-Kendall-Roberts (JKT) [7].
2.4. The Timoshenko AFM model
The Timoshenko microbeam model for AFM operation modes, can be encompassed as the second-order matrix evolution
model
Mv(t, x) + Kv(t, x) = F, 0 < x < L, t > 0,
v(0, x) = vo (x), vt (0, x) = v1 (x),
(16)
B1 v(t, 0) = n1 ,
B2 v(t, L) = n2 ,
where F can include driven excitations or hydrodynamic damping and n1 , n2 interactions terms with the free end. For
instance,
n1 = Cv(t, 0) Dvt (t, 0) Evtt (t, 0),

(17)

n2 = Rv(t, L) Ovt (t, L) Svtt (t, L).

(18)

In (12), the given conditions at x = L will have

kN GA

R=

cN

, O =
0

kL h2

cL h2

S=

0 mc2

(19)

Julio R. Claeyssen, Teresa Tsukazan, Leticia Tonetto, Daniela Tolfo,

Although the unforced governing equation Mv(t, x) + Kv(t, x) = 0 might look to be written in conservative form, the
boundary conditions could change such character introducing extra energy terms into AFM system. When using modal
analysis from a micro-cantilever beam with boundary conditions
(

)
1
0

0
1

v(t, 0) +

)
0 0
0 1

)
0
0

0
0

(
v(t, 0) +

vx (t, 0) = 0,
(20)

)
0
1

1
0

vx (t, L) = 0,

the AFM tip-sample interaction can be considered as localized forces at the free end.

3. The AFM dynamic response


The dynamic response of the Timoshenko model (1) or equation (4) can be described in terms of the matrix impulse
response or matrix Green function h(t, x, ) of the associated homogeneous initial-boundary value problem
M
h(t, x, ) + Kh(t, x, ) = 0, 0 < x, < L, t > 0,
h(0, x, ) = 0,

(21)

Mht (0, x, ) = (x )I,

Ah(t, 0, ) + Bhx (t, 0, ) = 0,


Ph(t, L, ) + Qhx (t, L, ) = 0,
where 0 denotes the 2 2 null matrix and I the 2 2 identity matrix. The Laplace transform of h(t, x, ) with respect to
time will be denoted by H(s, x, ) and referred to as the matrix transfer response. Thus
(

)
s2 M + K H(s, x, ) = (x )I, 0 < x, < L,

(22)

AH(s, 0, ) + BHx (s, 0, ) = 0,


PH(s, L, ) + QHx (s, L, ) = 0.
It turns out that h(t , x, ) acts a integrating factor in Lagranges adjoint method for the nonhomogeneous equation
Mv(t, x) + Kv(t, x) = F(t, x), 0 < x, < L, t > 0,
v(0, x) = vo (x),

(23)

vt (0, x) = v1 (x),

Av(t, 0) + Bvx (t, 0) = n1 (t),


Pv(t, L) + Qvx (t, L) = n2 (t).
Multiplying (23) by h(t , x, ) and integrating by parts, it turns out the dynamic response
v(t, x) =
+

tL
0

tL
0

(ht (, x, )Mvo () + h(, x, )Mv1 ()) dd

L
h(t , x, )F(, )dd + J(v, h) 0 ,

(24)

where J is a term containing eects of the initial-value Green function with values of v at the boundary.
The procedure mentioned above is related to the Riemann function method for integrating hyperbolic equations [14], the
formula appears in the eld of control of distributed systems [6] and in elastodynamics in connection with vibrations and
cracking problems is referred to as the dual integral representation [18]. For homogeneous boundary conditions, the
term J vanishes and (24) becomes a variations of constants formula for a second-order linear matrix dierential equation.

mple interaction in atomic force microscopy with Timoshenko beam theory

If we consider a micro-cantilever beam with a time dependent boundary condition s2 (t) at the free end, the term J can
be identied as
t
h(t , x, L)ET Qn2 ()d,
(25)
J=
0

where
(

)
GA 0
0
EI

E=

(
,

)
0 1
1 0

Q=

(26)

We can observe that the forced response given by (24) will involve the convolution of the impulse response and distributed
or concentrated forcing eects as in (25) and initial-value Green function with values of v at the boundary.
3.1. Frequency response
In practice, when computing the convolution integral for the forced response, we actually have
v(t, x) = vh (t, x) + vp (t, x),

(27)

where vh (t, x) is a free vibration introduced by the system and whose initial values are a priori unknown. It turns out
that these initial values are supplied by the permanent response vp (t, x) that can be determined by other means.
Since the impulse response and its time derivative constitute a basis for the free responses and the forced response in
(24) has null initial values at t = 0, the induced system free response due to a permanent response vp (t, x) can be easily
determined. It turns out

vh (t, x) =

h1 (t, x, )vp (0, )d


0

ho (t, x, )vp (0, )d,

(28)

where
h1 (t, x, )() = h(t, x, )M(),

ho (t, x, )() =

ht (t, x, )
M().
t

(29)

Harmonic and piecewise linear forcing are of interest in frequency analysis. When seeking a response of the same type
the transfer function is introduced. Given the harmonic input
f(t, x) = eit v(x),

(30)

vp (t, x) = eit H(i)v(x),

(31)

we have the harmonic output response

where

H(i)v(x) =

H(i, x, )v()d.

(32)

The kernel H(s, x, ) of the transfer operator H is the Laplace transform of the impulse response h(t, x, ). In particular,
for a concentrated force [29] at a point x = a of spatial amplitude v(x) = v(x)(x a) we have the permanent response
vp (t, x) = eit H(i, x, a)v(a).

(33)

With the initial values vp (0, ) = H(i, , a)v(a), vp (0, ) = ivp (0, ), the induced free response is given by

r(t, x, , )MH(i, a, )v(a)d,

vh (t, x) =
0

(34)

Julio R. Claeyssen, Teresa Tsukazan, Leticia Tonetto, Daniela Tolfo,

where
r = ht (t, x, ) + ih(t, x, ).

(35)

v(x) = vo (Heavisde(x L + b) Heaviside(x L)) ,

(36)

For a pulse amplitude

the permanent response turns out

vp (x) = eit

H(i, x, )vo d.

(37)

Lb

As before, by substituting the initial values in (28), the induced free response will now be

vh (t, x) =

r(t, x, , )MH(i, 0, )v()d,

(38)

with r given as in (35). In the case of a time linear exponential forcing


f(t, x) = exp(t)(ct + d),

(39)

wp(t, x) = exp(t) (tC + D) ,

(40)

we have the particular solution


where
C = (2 M + K )1 c,

(41)

D = (2 M + K )1 d 2(2 M + K )2 Mc,
whenever is not an eigenvalue or natural frequency.

4. Free transverse vibrations


The search of exponential solutions

(
t

v(t, x) = e v(x),

v(x) =

)
w(x)
(x)

(42)

of the unforced Timoshenko model

2 v
+ Kv = 0,
(43)
t 2
subject to general separated homogeneous boundary conditions (15), amounts to determine nontrivial solutions of the
second-order dierential equation
Mv (x) + C v (x) + K ()v(x) = 0,
(44)
M

with matrix coecients

M=

GA
0

0
EI

, C =

GA

GA

, K () =

A2
0

(45)

2 I + GA

that satisfy the boundary conditions


Av(0) + Bv (0) = n1 ,
Pv(L) + Qv (L) = n2 .

(46)

We should observe that if viscous damping forces are considered, then the matrix M has to be modied to include an
eigenvalue term. Also, when considering localized linearized tip-sample interactions and viscous damping force acting
on a microcantilever beam (clamped-free), the above eigenvalue problem will modify the coecient matrices in (43) but
the boundary conditions (15) will be those of clamped-free beam.
9

mple interaction in atomic force microscopy with Timoshenko beam theory

4.1. The eigenvalue problem


In terms of initial values, the general solution of the second-order matrix dierential equations (44) is given by [9]

where

v(x) = ho (x)v(0) + h1 (x)v (0),

(47)

ho (x) = h (x)M + h(x)C, h1 (x) = h(x)M,

(48)

or, in the more practical form


v(x) = h(x)c1 + h (x)c2 ,

(49)

for constant 2 1 vectors c1 and c2 . Here h(x) is the 2 2 matrix solution of the initial value problem
Mh (x) + C h (x) + K ()h(x) = 0,

(50)

h(0) = 0, Ah (0) = I,
where 0 denotes the 2 2 null matrix and I the 2 2 identity matrix. The matrix coecients being given as in (45).
4.2. Shape modes in closed form
For a micro-cantilever beam of length L, we have the clamped boundary condition v(0) = 0, that is B1 = I. By using the
initial values of h(x) in (49), it turns out that c2 = 0. Thus we have to determine so that
v(x) = h(x, )c

(51)

satises the boundary condition at the free end x = L. By assuming homogeneous boundary conditions, we have the
nonlinear eigenmatrix problem
(
)
U()c = Ph(L, ) + Qh (L, ) c = 0.
(52)
From this, it turns out the characteristic equation
() = det(U) = 0.

(53)

We should observe that the modes have the same shape, regardless of the conditions at the free end, but the eigenvalue
diers according to the boundary coecient matrices P and Q. For a micro-cantilever beam, these matrices are given
in (20). The matrix U() or the characteristic equation (53) can be determined by computing the fundamental matrix
solution h(x).
4.2.1. Computing h(x)
The fundamental response h(x) can be determined in closed form as follows. Exponential type vector solutions v(x) = ekx u
of (44) exist ( u = 0), whenever k is a root of the characteristic polynomial
4
(
)
P(k, ) = det k 2 M + kC + K =
j k 4j ,

(54)

j=0

where
0 = abm ,

1 = 0,

2 = (ae2 c2 bm a2 + am a),

3 = 0

4 = c2 a + c4 e,

(55)

with
a

= GA,

c = A,

e = I,

am = GA = GA (u + b )b,
bm = EI = (EI + 2bh2 Es ).
10

(56)

Julio R. Claeyssen, Teresa Tsukazan, Leticia Tonetto, Daniela Tolfo,

The roots of (54) can be easily obtained after writing it as


P(k, ) = abm (k 4 + g2 k 2 r 4 ),

(57)

where
(
g2 = g2m + s2 , g2m =
)
(
a + e2
.
r 4 = c2
abm

c
e
+
bm
a

)
2

s2 =

1
(am a) ,
bm

(58)

(59)
It turns out that the roots of (57) are
k1 = ,

k2 = ,

k3 = i,

k4 = i,

with

1
=
2
=

2g2 + 2

1
2

g4 + 4r 4 ,

(60)

2g2 + 2 g4 + 4r 4 .

(61)

The response h(x) is then given by the formula obtained in [9]


j1
4

i d(j1i) (x)h4j ,

(62)

senh(x) sen(x)
,
abm ( 2 + 2 )

(63)

h(x) =
j=1 i=0

where
d(x) =
is the solution of the initial value problem

0 d(iv) (x) + 2 d (x) + 4 d(x) = 0,


d(0) = d (0) = d (0) = 0, abm d (0) = 1,

(64)

and the matrices hj = h(j) (0) satisfy the matrix dierence equation
Mhj+2 + Chj+1 + Khj = 0,
(65)

h0 = 0, Mh1 = I.
By substituting values, we arrive to the closed formula

h(x) =

(a + e2 )d(x) bm d (x)

am d (x),

ad (x)

ad (x) + c d(x),

where a = GA, am = GA, bm = EI, c = A, e = I.

11

(66)

mple interaction in atomic force microscopy with Timoshenko beam theory

4.3. Frequency euqtaion for a supported micro-beam


For a supported Timoshenko model, we have the boundary conditions
u(t, 0) = 0, x (t, 0) = 0,
u(t, L) = 0, x (t, L) = 0,

(67)

whose coecients written in matrix form (15) are


(
A=F =

1 0

)
,

0 0

J =Q=

)
.

(68)

0 1

0 0

The matriz U can be reduced to a half size one due to the boundary conditions, that is, c12 = 0, c21 = 0. We thus have
the reduced system
)T
(
c11
UD c = 0, c =
,
(69)
c22
where

UD =

(a e2 )d(L) bm d (L)

iv

ad (L)

d (L)am

ad (L) d (L)c

(70)

The natural frequencies = i can be obtained from (60) or (61) by substituting the roots of the characteristic equation
() = det(UD ) = A sin(L) sinh(L) = 0,

(71)

where
A=

(( 2 bm a + a2 ae2 ) 4 + ( 4 abm + (2c2 bm + 2am a) 2 c2 a + c4 e) 2 + (a2 ae2 ) 4 + (c2 a c4 e) 2 )


.
a2 b2m ( 2 + 2 )2

We observe that for = n


we can obtain from (61), while for = i m
we can use (60). This later kind of frequencies
L
L
are associated with the so-called second spectrum [4], [34], [24]. By considering the surface parameter values given in
[1], this second spectrum will appear for frequencies above the classical critical frequency c2 = ae .
4.4. Frequency equation for a micro-cantilever
For the cantilever Timoshenko model, we have the boundary conditions
w(t, 0) = 0,

(t, 0) = 0,

x (t, L) = 0, wx (t, L) (t, L) = 0,

(72)

whose coecients written in matrix form (15) are


(
A=

1 0

(
,

J =

F=

)
,

0 0

0 1
(

0 0

(
,

Q=

0 1

0 1
1 0

12

(73)

)
.

Julio R. Claeyssen, Teresa Tsukazan, Leticia Tonetto, Daniela Tolfo,

By following the same reasoning as before, we obtain that due to the boundary conditions, the matrix U can be reduced
to a half size one, that is, c21 = 0, c22 = 0. We thus have the reduced system
(
UD c = 0,
where

UD =

c11
c12

c=

ad (L)

)T
,

(74)

ad (L) + 2 cd (L)
2

(75)

bm d (L) + ed (L) ad (L) cd(L) am d (L)


The natural frequencies = i can be obtained from (60) or (61) by substituting the roots of the characteristic equation

() = 4 ce (d (x))2 + 2 [ac d(x) d (x) (ae + cbm ) d (x) d (x)] + (a2 aam ) (d (x))2 abm (d (x))2 .

(76)

For a for micro-cantilever beam described by the Timoshenko model with surface eects, Figure 4 below illustrates the
size dependence in the natural frequency of Timoshenko classical model and Timoshenko model including surface eects,
The solutions based on classical Timoshenko beam theory and Timoshenko beam theory including surface eects are
denoted by TB and TMB,respectively. The natural frequencies are normalized to fundamental frequency of cantilever
Euler-Bernoulli beam. In this gure are considered the parameters utilized in [1] for the same purposes. The material and
types of surface crystal orientation determine the surface elastic constants. For an anodic alumina Al (Youngs modulus
E = 70GPa, Poissons ratio = 0.3 and = 2700kg/m3 ) are considered two types of crystallographic direction
Al[100] : Es = 7.9253N/m and = 0.5689N/m,
Al[111]: Es = 5.1882N/m and = 0.9108N/m.

Fig 4.

Inuence of surface eects and size dependence on the normalized fundamental natural frequency of the micro-cantilever for 2h=0.2L,
b=0.4L and = 5/6

In the Figure 4 we can observe that for beam length on the order of nanometer to microns, the dierence between
natural frequencies is apparent and by increasing the length of the microbeam, the results tend to Timoshenko classical
theory. This same behavior was observed in [1] for a microbeam simply supported. Other observation is that the natural
frequency of vibration of TB beams is independent of the beam length while for TB this is not occur, that is, the surface
eects are signicant only in nanoscale.
13

mple interaction in atomic force microscopy with Timoshenko beam theory

5. Modal approximation of dynamic responses


The Galerkin method [13] can be used for determining approximate dynamic responses of the AFM micro-cantilever beam
described by the Timoshenko model. From (24), we actually need to nd an approximation of the fundamental matrix
response h(t, x, ). For this, we rst introduce the block matrix
(
V(x) =

)
,

v1 (x) v2 (x) . . . vn (x)

(77)

whose columns are the rst n cantilever eigenfunctions (51) corresponding to the micro-cantilever eigenvalues, that is,
(

)
wj (x)
j (x)

vj (x) =

= h(x, j )cj ,

(78)

where cj is obtained by nding a nonzero solution of (52) with j = ij . Since the AFM micro-cantilever modes share
the normal mode property, we can assume that they have been normalized with respect to the mass matrix M. Then we
consider the obtention of an approximate response
n

.
v(t, x) =
pj (t)vj (x) = V(x)P(t),

(79)

j=1

of the AFM micro-cantilever Timoshenko model((23).


)
For determining the time amplitudes PT (t) = p1 (t) p2 (t) . . . pn (t) , we substitute (77) into (4), pre-multiply the
resulting matrix dierential equation by V()T and integrate in order to apply the normal mode property. It turns out
the n dimensional system
+ 2 P(t) = f,
P(t)
(80)
where

2 =

12 0
0 22

0 0

0
0

2
N

,
f
=
V()T Fd.

(81)

The above system is subject to the initial conditions

P(0) =

=
V()T vo ()d, P(0)

V()T v1 ()d.

(82)

Thus the solution of (80) with the initial conditions (82) can be written as

P(t) = h(t)P(0) + h(t)P(0)


+

h(t ) (f) d,

(83)

where, due to the decoupled character of (80), we have that

sin(t)

h(t) =
=

sin(1 t)
1

sin(2 t)
2

14

sin(N t)
N

(84)

Julio R. Claeyssen, Teresa Tsukazan, Leticia Tonetto, Daniela Tolfo,

By substituting (83) in the approximated dynamic response v(t, x) = V(x)P(t) of (24), we have

v(t, x) =

V(x)h(t)VT ()vo ()d +

V(x)h(t)VT ()v1 ()d +

V(x)h(t )VT ()fd.

(85)

Consequently, we obtain the spectral approximation for the initial value Green matrix response
N

sin(j t)
.
sin(t) T
h(t, , ) = V()
V () =
vj ()vjT (),

j
j=1

(86)

and for the transfer matrix function


N

vj ()vjT ()
.
H(s, , ) = V()(s2 I + 2 )1 VT () =
.
s2 + j2
j=1

(87)

We observe that when the probe deection is considered due only to the interaction tip-sample force n2 at the end x = L
of the micro-cantilever, we can use (25) to obtain the approximated response

v(t, )
=

h(t , x, L)ET Qn(, L)d.

(88)

6. Numerical simulations
In this section, we shall consider the eigenvalue problem for a free-free bi-segmented Timoshenko beam and the obtention
of forced responses for a Timoshenko micro-cantilever beam with to a piezoelectric layer above it. The computations
were performed in exact rational arithmetic using the symbolic computation language Maple. Expansions were truncated
with a small number N of terms, usually between 5 and 10.
6.1. Bi-segmented free-free Timoshenko beam
In [31], it was considered the eigenanalysis for a free-free Euler-Bernoulli bi-segmented beam. By using the same data,
as given in Table 1.
Properties of beam elements
Parameter(unit)

Table 1.

Symbol Numerical values

Length of rst segment (mm)

l1

Length of second segment (mm)

l2

0, 254
0, 140

Thickness of rst segment (mm)

t1

0, 01905

Thickness of second segment (mm)

t2

0, 00549

Width (mm)

0, 02545

Young Modulus (GPa)

71, 7

Density (K g/m3 )

2830

Geometrical dimensions and material properties of beam [31]

We have simulated the eigenanalysis of a free-free Timoshenko bi-segmented beam by using the matrix basis generated
by a fundamental matrix response in the study of the eigenvalue problem (52).
The corresponding boundary conditions
E1 I1 1 (t, 0) = 0,

1 G1 A1 [w1 (t, 0) 1 (t, 0)] = 0,

E2 I2 2 (t, L)

2 G2 A2 [w2 (t, L)

= 0,

15

2 (t, L)] = 0,

(89)

mple interaction in atomic force microscopy with Timoshenko beam theory

can be written in matrix form as


(

)(
0
0
0 1 G1 A1

)
w1 (t, 0)
1 (t, 0)

)(
0
0
0 2 G2 A2

(
+

)
w2 (t, L)
2 (t, L)

)(

)(

)
0
0

=
)

w2 (t, L)
2 (t, L)

0
E2 I 2
2 G2 A2 0

)
w1 (t, 0)
1 (t, 0)

0
E1 I 1
1 G1 A1 0

(90)

(91)

)
0
0

The compatibility conditions at x = l1 are


w1 (t, l1 ) = w2 (t, l1 ),
1 (t, l1 ) = 2 (t, l1 ),
1 (t, l1 ) = 1 2 (t, l1 ),
w1 (t, l1 ) 1 (t, l1 ) = 1 (w2 (t, l1 ) 2 (t, l1 )),
where 1 = E2 I2 /E1 I1 and 1 = 2 G2 A2 /1 G1 A1 . In matrix form, we have

0 0

0 1 0 0

0 0 0 1
0 1 1 0

w1 (t, l1 )

1 (t, xi )


w1 (t, l1 )
1 (t, l1 )

0 1
0 0

0 1
0 0
0 1 1 0

w2 (t, l1 )

2 (t, l1 )


w2 (t, l1 )
2 (t, l1 )

(92)

or C1 w1 (t, l1 ) = C2 w2 (t, l1 ) where

C1,i =

1 0
0 1
0 0
0 1

0
0
0
1

0
0
1
0

, C2,i =

1 0
0 1
0 0
0 1

0
0
0
1

0
0
1
0

, Wj (t, x) =

wj (t, x)
j (t, x)
wj (t, x)
j (t, x)

(93)

In Table 2, we have theoretical and experimental values obtained in [31] for an Euler-Bernoulli beam model (EBT), those
obtained in this work with a Timoshenko model (TBT) and by applying similar methodology for multispan Euler-Bernoulli
beams [37]. We observe that the frequencies obtained for the Timoskenho model are closer to experimental ones. The
corresponding multispan shape modes for transversal displacement and rotation are illustrated in Figure 5.
Freq. Theoretical Experimental This work This work
(Hz)

(1)

(2)

(3)

1st

292

286 291

292.42

291.77

2nd

1181

1159 1165

1181.28

1167.89

3rd

1804

1759 1771

1804.01

1775.94

(1): Reference [31] (Euler-Bernoulli beam theory)


(2): Reference [31]
(3): Reference [37] (Euler-Bernoulli beam theory)

Table 2.

Natural frequencies of a bi-segmented free-free beam

16

Julio R. Claeyssen, Teresa Tsukazan, Leticia Tonetto, Daniela Tolfo,

Fig 5.

First three matrix shape modes of a bi-segmented free-free Timoshenko beam. Left: transversal deection component w(x). Right: rotation
component (x).

6.2. Forced AFM micro-cantilever beam with piezoelectric layer


A Timoshenko micro-cantilever beam actuated by a piezoelectric layer laminated on one side of the beam was studied in
[32]. The governing equations included viscous damping and the moment at the free end is subject to an applied voltage
to piezoelectric layer. The equations and boundary conditions were established for a Timoshenko micro-cantilever with
a laminated piezoelectric layer having length L, thickness hp and width b as in Figure (6).

z
x
L
b

hb

y
Fig 6.

Schematic of beam with piezoelectric actuator

By incorporating the boundary condition due to piezoelectricity at the free end as a concentrated forcing into the model,
we can describe this later as a forced damped Timoshenko micro-cantilever model. In matrix formulation, we have
Mv + Cv + Kv = F,
where

v=

w(t, x)

M=

M11

M22

, F =

(t, x)

(94)

k1 1 (x)V (t)

, K =

K11

K12

K21

K22

Here

17

, C =

c1

c2

(95)

mple interaction in atomic force microscopy with Timoshenko beam theory

M11 = (p hp b + b hb b), M22 = (p I p + b I b ),


2
p
p
b b
b b
K11 = 4( p c55 hp b + b c55
h b) x 2 , K12 = 4( p c55 hp b + b c55
h b) x ,
p
p

b b 2
b b
p p p
b b b
K21 = 4( c55 h b + c55 h b) x , K22 = (c11 Ip + c11 I ) x 2 + 4( p c55 hp b + b c55
h b),
p

k1 = e13 zm b,

u(t) = V (t),

b =

10(1+ b )
,
12+11 b

p =

(96)

10(1+ p )
.
12+11 p

c1 and c2 are viscous damping constants, zm is the distance between the middle line of the piezoelectric layer and the
neutral axis of beam and V (t) is the applied voltage to piezoelectric layer.
The beam geometrical and material properties are described in the Tables 3 and 4.
Properties of beam elements
Parameter(unit)

Table 3.

Symbol Numerical values

Length (m)

150

Width (m)

30

Thickness (m)

hb

10

Young Modulus (GPa)

b
c11

73

Density (K g/m3 )

2200

Poisson coecient

0.17

Geometrical dimensions and material properties of beam elements

Properties of piezoelectric element


Parameter(unit)

Table 4.

Symbol Numerical values

Length (m)

lp

150

Width (m)

30

Thickness (m)

hp

10

Young Modulus (GPa)

c11

71

Density (K g/m3 )

7700

Poisson coecient

0.31

Geometrical dimensions and material properties of piezoelectric element

The rst four obtained natural frequencies are shown in Table 5 for comparison with those of the formulated model in
[32]. The micro-cantilever shape matrix modes in Figure 7 are mass normalized. It is observed that the inclusion of
rotatory inertia and shear in beam modeling inuences the rotation component of the forced responses due to a spatial
concentrated and spatial pulse moment excitations that are modulated with a harmonic input.
Freq. Reference Present work
(KHz)

(1)

1st

547

544

2nd

3314

3298

3rd

8833

8797

4th

15951

16210

(1): Reference [32]

Table 5.

Comparative natural frequencies

18

Julio R. Claeyssen, Teresa Tsukazan, Leticia Tonetto, Daniela Tolfo,

Fig 7.

Mass normalized matrix shape modes of a micro-cantilever beam with a piezoelectric layer. Left: transversal deection component
w(x).Right: rotation component (x). First mode: solid blue line, Second mode: dash-dotted red line, Third mode: dotted black line,
Fourth mode: dashed gray line.

19

mple interaction in atomic force microscopy with Timoshenko beam theory

F (t, x) = col[0 q(t, x)]

Fig 8.

Above: transversal deection component w(t, x) due to a concentrated moment q(t, x) = k1 1 (x)V (t) at the free end of the micro-cantilever
and proles for several times. Below: rotation component (t, x) and proles for several times.

7. Conclusions
This paper addresses a matrix formulation for micro-cantilever models in AFM that are subject to quite general tip-sample
interactions, surface eects and external excitations. Although we have considered a nite length uniform Timoshenko
beam model, the matrix formulation can be used with other beam models. The use of piezoelectric materials as both an
actuator and a sensor has motivated to incorporate the matrix treatment of multi-span beams. In this work, it is proposed
the extensive use of fundamental matrix responses such as the distributed matrix impulse response of the micro-cantilever
for predicting forced responses and concentrated matrix responses for determining modes and frequencies of the microcantilevers. The eigenalysis involved the solution in closed form of a second-order damped dierential equation with
matrix coecients. The case of a supported micro-beam with surface eects can lead to a second spectrum above a critical
frequency. For the micro-cantilever case, it was observed the size dependence in the natural frequency of Timoshenko
classical model and Timoshenko model and that surface eects are signicant only in nanoscale. Simulations were
performed by using the Galerkin method with micro-cantilever eigenfunctions. The shape matrix modes and frequencies
for a bi-segmented free-free Timoshenko beam were determined. Forced responses of a piezoelectric micro-cantilever
beam where computed when subject to concentrated and pulse harmonic excitations at the free end.

8. Acknowledgments
We thanks the reviewers for their important comments and suggestions.

20

Julio R. Claeyssen, Teresa Tsukazan, Leticia Tonetto, Daniela Tolfo,

F (t, x) = col[0 q(t, x)]

Fig 9.

Above: transversal deection component w(t, x) due to a concentrated pulse moment q(t, x) = 0.01V (t)(H(x 6L/8) H(x 7L/8)) at the
free end of the micro-cantilever and proles for several times. Below: rotation component (t, x) and proles for several times.

References

[1] S. Abbasion, A. Rafsanjani, R. Avazmohammadi, and A. Farshidianfar. Free vibration of microscaled Timoshenko
beam. Applied Physics Letters, 95(14):143122, 2009.
[2] A.Salehi-Khojin, S.Bashash, and N.Jalili. Modeling and experimental vibration analysis of nanomechanical cantilever
active probes. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, 18:11 pp, 2008.
[3] M. Asghari, M.H. Kahrobaiyan, and M.T. Ahmadian. A nonlinear Timoshenko beam formulation based on the modied
couple stress theory. International Journal of Engineering Science, 48:17491761, 2010.
[4] A. Bhaskar. Elastic waves in Timoshenko beams: the lost and found of an eigenmode. Proceedings the Royal of
Society A- Mathematical, Physical & Engineering Sciences, 465:239255, 2009.
[5] G. Binnig, C. F. Quate, and C. Gerber. Atomic force microscope. Physics Review Letters, 56:930933, 1986.
[6] A. G. Butkovsky. Structural Theory of Distributed Systems. John Wiley, 1983.
[7] H.J. Butt, B. Cappella, and M. Kappl. Force measurements with the atomic force microscope: Technique, interpretation and applications. Surface Science Reports, 59:1152, 2005.
[8] L. Calabri, N. Pugno, C. Menozzi, and S. Valeri. AFM nanoindentation: tip shape and tip radius of curvature eect
on the hardness measurement. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 20:474208, 2008.
[9] J. R. Claeyssen, G. Canahualpa, and C. Jung. A direct approach to second-order matrix non-classical vibrating
equations. Applied Numerical Mathematics, 30(1):6578, 1999.

21

mple interaction in atomic force microscopy with Timoshenko beam theory

[10] J.R. Claeyssen and S. Costa. Modes for the coupled Timoshenko model with a restrained end. Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 296(4-5):10531058, 2006.
[11] S. Eslami and N. Jalili. A comprehensive modeling and vibration analysis of afm microcantilevers subjected to
nonlinear tip-sample interaction forces. Ultramicroscopy, 117:3145, 2012.
[12] T.H. Fang and W.J. Chang. Eects of AFM-based nanomachining process on aluminum surface. Journal of Physics
and Chemistry of Solids, 64:913918, 2003.
[13] J. Ginsberg. Mechanical and Structural Vibrations. John Wiley, 2001.
[14] R. B. Guenther and J. W. Lee. Partial Dierential Equations of Mathematical Physics and Integral Equations. Dover,
1988.
[15] M.E. Gurtin, J.Weissmuller, and F. Larche. A general theory of curved deformable interfaces in solids at equilibrium.
Philosophical Magazine A, 75(5):10931109, 1998.
[16] S.H. Hasheminejad and B. Gheshlaghi. Dissipative surface stress eects on free vibrations of nanowires. Applied
Physics Letters, 97:253103, 2010.
[17] H.Jih-Lian, F.Rong-Fong, and C.Sheng-Hsin. Quantitative determination of material viscoelasticity using a piezoelectric cantilever bimorph beam. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 289:529550, 2006.
[18] H. K. Hong and J. T. Chen. Derivation of integral equations in elasticity. Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
114(6):10281044, 1988.
[19] J. Hsu, H. L. Lee, and W. Chang. Flexural vibration frequency of atomic force microscope cantilevers using the
Timoshenko beam model. Nanotechnology, 18:2850328508, 2007.
[20] J. W. Israelachvilli. Intermolecular and Surface Forces. Academic Press, 3rd edition, 2011.
[21] N. Jalili. Piezoelectric-Based Vibration Control: From Macro to Micro/Nano Scale Systems. Springer-Verlag, 2010.
[22] S. Kong, S. Zhou, Z. Nie, and K. Wang. Static and dynamic analysis of micro beams based on strain gradient
elasticity theory. International Journal of Engineering Science, 47:487498, 2009.
[23] F Landolsi and F.H Ghorbel. Design of a duo-biomorph-based afm cantilever suitable for nanomanipulation. Smart
Materials and Structures, 19:065028, 2010.
[24] M. Levinson and D. W. Cooke. On the two frequency spectra of Timoshenko beams. Journal of Sound and Vibration,
84(3):319326, 1982.
[25] J.Yang L.L. Ke, Y.S. Wang and S.Kitipornchai. Nonlinear free vibration of size-dependent functionally graded microbeams. International Journal of Engineering Science, 50:256267, 2012.
[26] P. Lu, H. P. Lee, and C. Lu. Dynamic properties of exural beams using a nonlocal elasticity model. Journal of
Applied Physics, 99(073510):19, 2006.
[27] B.Bar On, E. Althus, and E.B. Tadmor. Surface eects in nonuniform nanobeams: Continuum vs atomistic modeling.
International journal of solids and structures, 47:12431252, 2010.
[28] U. Rabe, E. Kester, and W. Arnold. Probing linear and non-linear tip sample interaction forces by atomic force
acoustic microscopy. Surface and Interface Analysis, 27:386391, 1999.
[29] F. J. Rubio-Sierra, R. Vzquez, and R. W. Stark. Transfer function analysis of the micro cantilever used in atomic
force microscopy. IEEE Transactions on Nanotechnology, 5(6):692700, 2006.
[30] J. Schoeftner and H. Irschik. A comparative study of smart passive piezoelectric structures interacting with electric
networks: Timoshenko beam theory versus nite element plane stress calculations. Smart Materials and Structures,
20:025007, 2010.
[31] S.C.Stanton and B.P.Mann. On the dynamic response of beams with multiple geometric or material discontinuities.
Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 24:14091419, 2010.
[32] M. Shirazi, H. Salarieh, A. Alasty, and R. Shabani. Tip tracking control of a micro-cantilever Timoshenko beam via
piezoelectric actuator. Journal of Vibration and Control, 117:114, june 2012.
[33] Y. Song and B. Bhushan. Atomic force microscopy dynamic modes: modeling and applications. Journal of Physics:
Condensed Matter, 20:225012225041, 2008.
[34] N. G. Stephen. The second spectrum of Timoshenko beam theory - further assessment. Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 292:372389, 2006.
[35] T.C.Huang. The eect of rotatory inertia and of shear deformation on the frequency and normal mode equations of
uniform beams with simple end conditions. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 28:579584, 1961.
[36] H.T. Thai. A nonlocal beam theory for bending, buckling and vibration of nanobeams. International Journal of
Engineering Science, 52:566460, 2012.

22

Julio R. Claeyssen, Teresa Tsukazan, Leticia Tonetto, Daniela Tolfo,

[37] T.Tsukazan. The use of a dynamical basis for computing the modes of a beam system with a discontinuous crosssection. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 281:11751185, 2005.
[38] V. Krishnamurthy W. Hoiles and B. Cornell. Mathematical models for sensing devices constructed out of articial
cell membranes. Nanoscale Systems MMTA, Volume 1(ISSN 2299-3290 DOI: 10.2478/nsmmt-2012-0009):143171,
December 2012.
[39] G. Wang. Analysis of bimorph piezoelectric beam energy harvesters using Timoshenko and Euler-Bernoulli beam
theory. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 24(6):226239, 2012.
[40] G.F Wang and X.Q Feng. Eects of surface elasticity and residual surface tension on the natural frequency of
microbeams. Applied Physics Letters, 90:231904, 2007.

23