Composite Structures 98 (2013) 272–281

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Nonlinear analysis of functionally graded microstructure-dependent beams

A. Arbind, J.N. Reddy ⇑
Advanced Computational Mechanics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3123, USA

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

Article history:
Available online 31 October 2012
Keywords:
Euler–Bernoulli beam theory
Bending
Functionally graded materials
Microstructure dependent beam
Von Kármńonlinear strain
Nonlinear finite element model
Nonlinear finite element models of functionally graded beams considering the von Kármán geometric
nonlinearity, power-law variation of material through the beam height, and microstructure length scale
parameter are developed for the Euler–Bernoulli beam theory and the Timoshenko beam theory. To cap-
ture the size effect, a modified couple stress theory with one length scale parameter is used. Such theories
play crucial role in predicting accurate deflections of micro- and nano-beam structures. Numerical results
are presented to show the effect of nonlinearity, shear deformation, power-law index, microstructural
length scale, and boundary conditions on the bending response of beams under mechanical loads. In
general, the effect of microstructural parameter is to stiffen the beam, while shear deformation has the
effect of modeling realistically as flexible beams.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Background Functionally graded material are the class of material in which

Thin micro-beams, which has been very commonly used in
many application in micro and nanoscale device such as biosensor,
micro and nanoelectro-mechanical devices (MEMS and NEMS),
shows microstructure dependent size effect [1]. So, many research-
er has employed nonlocal continuum theories to develop beam
models. Anthoine [2] has used classical couple stress elasticity
theory of Koiter [3] for pure bending of a circular cylinder, which
includes four material constants (two classical and two additional).
Papargyri-Beskou et al. [4] has developed the higher order
Bernoulli Euler beam model based on the gradient elasticity theory
with surface energy. The nonlocal Euler-Bernoulli beam model by
Peddieson et al. [5], the nonlocal Timoshenko beam model by
Wang et al. [6], the nonlocal Euler–Bernoulli, Timoshenko, Reddy,
and Levinson beam models formulated by Reddy [7,8] and Reddy
and Pang [9] are developed using constitutive equation suggested
by Eringen [10]. Beam models using modified couple stress theory
proposed by Yang et al. has been developed by Park and Gao
[11,12], Ma et al. [13–15], and Aghababaei and Reddy [16] for
Timoshenko and Reddy beams and Mindlin plates. These models
contains only one material length scale parameter. Governing
equations for Euler–Bernoulli and Timoshenko beams have been
developed by Reddy [17] using von Kármán nonlinear strains for
functionally graded beam and an analytical solution has been
presented for linear case. Recently, Reddy [18] and Reddy and
Kim [19] presented a general third-order theory of functionally
graded plates based on modified couple stress theory.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 979 862 2417.
E-mail address: jnreddy@tamu.edu (J.N. Reddy).
material properties varies gradually from one face to another
[20–22]. These kind of material are proposes as thermal barrier
for applications in space planes, space structures, nuclear reactors,
turbine rotors, flywheels, and gears, to name only a few. Also, The
functionally gradient material characteristics are represented in
most structures found in nature (e.g., sea shells, bones, etc.).
Understating the behavior of these material under microlength
scale may results in the use of such material in devises of
microscale.
To the best of the author’s knowledge, no results have been re-
ported till to date which concern nonlinear analysis of FGM beams
with account for the microstructural length scale and the von
Kármán nonlinearity. This very fact motivated the present study.
In this study, a functionally graded through-thickness beams with
the von Kármán nonlinear strains are considered. Modified couple
stress theory is used to account for a microstructural length scale
parameter. Euler–Bernoulli beam theory and Timoshenko beam
theory are considered in the study. This study aims to investigate
the effects of the microstructural length scale, the material grading
index and the nonlinearity on the displacement and stress fields
under various boundary conditions.
2. Material gradation through thickness of the beam
Consider a beam of length L and rectangular cross section. The
x-coordinate is taken along the length of the beam through the
geometric centroid, z-coordinate along the thickness (the height)
of the beam, and the y-coordinate is taken along the width of the
beam, as shown in Fig. 1.

0263-8223/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.10.003
 A. Arbind, J.N. Reddy / Composite Structures 98 (2013) 272–281 273

Fig. 1. Geometry of a through-thickness functionally graded beam.

Generally, the variation of a typical material property of the

material in the FGM beam along the thickness coordinate z is as-
sumed to be represented by the simple power-law as: Fig. 3. Kinematics of deformation of the Euler–Bernoulli beam theory (EBT).
 n
1 z
Eðz; TÞ ¼ ½E1 ðTÞ  E2 ðTÞf1 ðzÞ þ E2m ðTÞ; f 1 ðzÞ ¼ þ ð1Þ
2 h
where E1 and E2 are the Young’s modulus of the constituent where w and u denotes the transverse and axial displacement of a
material of the functionally graded beam, n is the volume fraction point on the midplane of the beam respectively. The only nonzero
exponent (power-law index). Note that when n = 0, we obtain the von Kármán nonlinear strain and curvature tensor component are
single-material beam (with Young’s modulus E1). Fig. 2 shows (see Reddy [25,17])
the variation of the volume fraction, f1(z) of material 1, through  2  2
the beam thickness for various values of the power-law index n. @u1 1 @u3 @u 1 @w @hx
exx ðx; z; tÞ ¼ þ ¼ þ þz ð3Þ
@x 2 @x @x 2 @x @x
!
2
3. Governing equations 1 @hx @ w
vxy ¼  2 ð4Þ
4 @x @x
The governing equations for Euler–Bernoulli and Timoshenko
beam theories for microstructure dependent beam are based on For an isotropic linear elastic material the uniaxial stress–strain
modified couple stress theory and von Kármán nonlinear strain relation is used
for functionally graded beam. Let (u1, u2, u3) are the displacements
along the coordinates (x, y, z). For beams, the displacements are rxx ðx; z; tÞ ¼ Eðz; TÞ½exx ðx; z; tÞ  aðz; TÞDTðz; tÞ; DT ¼ T  T 0 ð5Þ
only functions of the x and z coordinates where x and z axes are
Eðz; TÞ‘2
along the length and the height of the beam respectively. Here it mxy ¼ v ð6Þ
is further assumed that the displacement u2 is identically zero.
ð1 þ mÞ xy
where E is Young’s modulus, a is the coefficient of thermal expan-
3.1. Euler–Bernoulli beam theory sion, ‘ is a length scale parameter, and DT is the temperature incre-
ment from the room temperature, T0. The equations of motion
The total displacements (u1, u3) along the coordinate directions associated with the Euler–Bernoulli theory for microstructure
(x, z), as implied by the Euler–Bernoulli hypothesis are given by dependent beam are given by (see Reddy [17])
(see Fig. 3 and [23,24]):
u1 ðx; z; tÞ ¼ uðx; tÞ þ zhx ðx; tÞ; @Nxx @2u @3w
 þ I0 2  I1 2  f ¼ 0 ð7Þ
@x @t @t @x
@w
hx   ; u3 ðx; z; tÞ ¼ wðx; tÞ ð2Þ
@x  
@ 2 M xx @ 2 P xy @ @w
 2
 2
 Nxx
@x @x @x @x
@2w @3u @4w @r
þ I0 þ I 1  I 2 q ¼0 ð8Þ
@t2 @t2 @x @t 2 @x2 @x

where f, q and r are distributed axial load, transverse load and body
couple measured as per unit length of the beam, and (I0, I1, I2) are
the mass inertias
Z
ðI0 ; I1 ; I2 Þ ¼ ð1; z; z2 Þq dA ð9Þ
A

The stress resultants Nxx, Mxx and Pxy on a beam element are de-
fined by:

Z "  2 #
@u 1 @w @hx
Nxx ¼ rxx dA ¼ Axx þ þ Bxx  NTxx ð10Þ
A @x 2 @x @x
Z "  2 #
@u 1 @w @hx
Mxx ¼ zrxx dA ¼ Bxx þ þ Dxx  M Txx ð11Þ
A @x 2 @x @x
Z !
1 @hx @ 2 w
Pxy ¼ mxy dA ¼ Sxy  2 ð12Þ
A 2 @x @x
Fig. 2. Volume fraction f(z) of the ceramic material through the beam thickness
(height) for various values of the power-law index, n. where Axx, Bxx, Dxx and Sxy are given as:
274 A. Arbind, J.N. Reddy / Composite Structures 98 (2013) 272–281

Z Z "  2 #
ðAxx ðTÞ; Bxx ðTÞ; Dxx ðTÞÞ ¼ ð1; z; z2 ÞEðz; TÞ dA @u 1 @w @/
Nxx ¼ rxx dA ¼ Axx þ þ Bxx x  N Txx ð20Þ
Z
A
ð13Þ A @x 2 @x @x
2 "
‘ Z  2 #
Sxy ðTÞ ¼ Eðz; TÞdA @u 1 @w @/
2ð1 þ mÞ A Mxx ¼ zrxx dA ¼ Bxx þ þ Dxx x  MTxx ð21Þ
A @x 2 @x @x
and N Txx and MTxx are the thermal stress resultants defined as: Z !
Z 1 @hx @ 2 w
Pxy ¼ mxy dA ¼ Sxy  2 ð22Þ
NTxx ðTÞ ¼ aðz; TÞEðz; TÞDT dA; A 2 @x @x
ZA Z  
@w
M Txx ðTÞ ¼ zaðz; TÞEðz; TÞDT dA ð14Þ Q x ¼ K s rxz dA ¼ K s Sxz /x þ ð23Þ
A @x
A

where Axx, Bxx, Dxx and Sxy have same definition as Eq. (13) and Ks the
3.2. Timoshenko beam theory shear correction factor. And Sxz is the shear stiffness
Z
1
Displacement field for Timoshenko beam theory (TBT) (see Sxz ¼ Eðz; TÞ dA ð24Þ
2ð1 þ mÞ A
Reddy [25]) is
u1 ðx; z; tÞ ¼ uðx; tÞ þ z/x ðx; tÞ; u3 ðx; z; tÞ ¼ wðx; tÞ ð15Þ
4. Virtual work statement: weak forms
where /x denotes the rotation of the cross section about the y-axis
(see Fig. 4). For Timoshenko beam theory the normality assumption 4.1. Euler–Bernoulli beam theory
of the Euler–Bernoulli beam theory is relaxed and a constant state
of transverse shear strain (and thus constant shear stress computed The weak form of Eqs. (7) and (8) are (see Reddy [24])
from the constitutive equation) with respect to the thickness coor- Z " #
dinate z is included. The Timoshenko beam theory requires shear
xb
@2u @3w @du
0¼ I0 du  I 1 du þ N xx dx  Q 1 duðxa ; tÞ
correction factors to compensate for the error due to this constant xa @t 2 @t 2 @x @x
shear stress assumption. The shear correction factors depend not  Q 4 duðxb ; tÞ ð25Þ
only on the material and geometric parameters but also on the load
and boundary conditions. The nonzero von Kármán nonlinear Z "
2
xb
@2w @dw @ 2 u @dw @ 3 w d dw
strains and component of curvature tensor are 0¼ I0 dw
2
 I1 2
þ I2  ðMxx þ Pxy Þ
xa @t @x @t @x @x@t2 dx2
 2 
@u 1 @w @/ @w
exx ¼ þ þz x; cxz ¼ /x þ þ
@dw
Nxx
@w
 dwq dx  Q 2 dwðxa ;tÞ  Q 3 dhx ðxa ;tÞ  Q 5 dwðxb ;tÞ
@x 2 @x @x @x @x @x
!
2
1 @/x @ w  Q 6 dhx ðxb ;tÞ
vxy ¼  2
4 @x @x ð16Þ
where Qi are the generalized forces defined as:
rxx ¼ Eðz; TÞ½exx  aDT ; rxz ¼ Gcxz
Q 1 ¼ ½Nxx xa ; Q 4 ¼ ½Nxx xb
E‘2    
mxy ¼ v @M xx @Pxy @w @M xx @Pxy @w
ð1 þ mÞ xy Q2 ¼    Nxx ; Q5 ¼ þ þ Nxx
@x @x @x xa @x @x @x xb
where G the shear modulus [G = E/2(1 + m)] and m is Poisson’s ratio,
Q 3 ¼ ½Mxx  Pxy xa ; Q 6 ¼ ½Mxx þ Pxy xb
which is assumed to be a constant. The equations of motion of the
Timoshenko beam theory for microstructure dependent beam are ð27Þ
(see Reddy [17])
By substituting Nxx, Mxx, and Pxy from Eqs. (10)–(12), the weak
@Nxx @2u @ 2 /x forms (25) and (26) can be expressed in terms of the displacements
 þ I0 2 þ I1 f ¼0 ð17Þ as:
@x @t @t 2
2   Z " ( "  2 #
@Q x 1 @ Pxy @ @w 1 @r @2w xb
@2u @3w @du @u 1 @w
  2
 N xx q þ I0 2 ¼ 0 ð18Þ 0¼ I0 du 2  I1 du 2 þ Axx þ
@x 2 @x @x @x 2 @x @t xa @t @t @x @x @x 2 @x
@Mxx 1 @P xy r @ 2 /x @2u )#
 þ Qx   þ I2 þ I1 2 ¼ 0 ð19Þ @2w
@x 2 @x 2 @t 2
@t  Bxx 2  NTxx dx  duðxa ; tÞQ 1  duðxb ; tÞQ 4 ð28Þ
@x
where f, q and r are again distributed axial load, transverse load and
body couple measured as per unit length of the beam, and (I0, I1, I2) Z (
xb
@2w @dw @ 2 u @dw @ 3 w
are the mass inertias defined as (9). And the stress resultants are 0¼ I0 dw  I1 þ I2
2 @x @t 2 @x @x@t2
xa @t
 2 !
@ 2 dw @ 2 w @ 2 dw @u 1 @w
þ Dxx þ Sxy Þ  Bxx þ
@x2 @x2 @x2 @x 2 @x
 2 !
@ 2 dw @dw @w @u 1 @w
þ MTxx þ A xx þ
@x2 @x @x @x 2 @x
)
@dw @w @ 2 w @dw @w T
 Bxx  N  dwq dx
@x @x @x2 @x @x xx

Fig. 4. Kinematics of deformation of the Timoshenko beam theory (TBT).

 dwðxa ; tÞQ 2  dwðxb ; tÞQ 5  dhx ðxa ; tÞQ 3  dhx ðxb ; tÞQ 6 ð29Þ
 A. Arbind, J.N. Reddy / Composite Structures 98 (2013) 272–281 275

4.2. Timoshenko beam theory X

2 X
4
uðxÞ  uj ðtÞwj ðxÞ; wðxÞ  Dj ðtÞuj ðxÞ ð37Þ
j¼1 j¼1
For Timoshenko beam, the weak form of the governing Eqs.
(17)–(19) can be given as where wj(x) are the linear polynomials, uj(x) are the Hermite cubic
Z " #
xb
@2u @ 2 /x ddu polynomials (u1, u2) are the nodal values of u at xa and xb, respec-
0¼ I0 du 2 þ I1 du 2 þ Nxx dx  Q 1 duðxa ; tÞ tively, and Dj are the nodal values associated with w (see Reddy
xa @t @t dx
[26])
 Q 5 duðxb ; tÞ ð30Þ
D1 ðtÞ ¼ wðxa ; tÞ; D3 ðtÞ ¼ wðxb ; tÞ; D2 ðtÞ ¼ hx ðxa ; tÞ; D4 ðtÞ
Z "  #
xb 2
@ w @dw @dw @w 1 @ dw 2
1 @r ¼ hx ðxb ; tÞ ð38Þ
0¼ I0 dw 2 þ Q þ Nxx  P xy  dw q þ dx
xa @t @x x @x @x 2 @x2 2 @x
where hx  dw/dx. By substituting Eq. (37) for u and w and putting
@dw @dw du = wi and dw = ui into the virtual work statements in Eqs. (28) and
 Q 2 dwðxa ;tÞ  Q 3 ðxa ;tÞ  Q 6 dwðxb ;tÞ  Q 7 ðxb ;tÞ
@x @x (29), the finite element equations can be obtained as
ð31Þ " #  " #  ( )
M11 M12 €
u K11 K12 u F1
Z "  # € þ ¼ ð39Þ
xb
@2u @ 2 /x @d/x 1 M21 M 22
D K21 K22 D F2
0¼ I1 d/x 2 þ I2 d/x 2 þ d/x Q x þ M xx þ Pxy dx
xa @t @t @x 2 where
 Q 4 d/x ðxa ; tÞ  Q 8 d/x ðxb ; tÞ Z Z
xb xb @ uj
M11
ij ¼ I0 wi wj dx; M 12
ij ¼  I 1 wi dx
xa xa @x
ð32Þ Z xb
@ u
Z xb 
@ ui @ uj

M21 ij ¼  I1 i
wj dx; M 22 ij ¼ I0 ui uj þ I2 dx
where Qi are the generalized forces for the Timoshenko beam theory xa @x xa @x @x
Z xb Z xb
for microstructure dependent beam. dw dw j dw
K 11ij ¼ Axx i dx; F 1i ¼ i T
N dx þ wi ðxa ÞQ 1 þ wi ðxb ÞQ 4
xa dx dx xa dx xx
Q 1 ¼ ½Nxx xa ; Q 5 ¼ ½Nxx xb Z xb
dw d uj
2
1
Z xb
dw dwi duj
    K 12ij ¼  Bxx i dx þ Axx dx
@w 1 @Pxy @w 1 @Pxy xa dx dx2 2 xa dx dx dx
Q 2 ¼ Q x  Nxx  ; Q 6 ¼ Q x þ Nxx þ Z xb 2
d ui dwj
Z xb
dw dui dwj
@x 2 @x xa @x 2 @x xb 21
K ij ¼  Bxx 2
dx þ Axx dx
dx dx dx dx dx
    xa
Z xb "  2
xa
!# Z xb
1 1 K 22
A xx dw d u i
du j dw 1 d
2
u i
d uj dui d2 uj 2
ðDxx þ Sxy Þ 2 i
2
d u d uj
Q3 ¼ Pxy ; Q 7 ¼  Pxy ij ¼
2 dx dx dx
 Bxx
dx 2 dx
2 dx
þ
dx dx
2
dx þ
dx dx
2
dx
2 xa 2 x
xa
Z xb !  
xa
 
  b  F 2i ¼
d u
2
 2 i MTxx þ i
du dw T
N þ ui q dx þ ui ðxa ÞQ 2 þ  i
du
Q þ ui ðxb ÞQ 5 þ  i
du
Q ð40Þ
1 1 xa dx dx dx xx dx xa 3 dx xb 6
Q 4 ¼ Mxx  Pxy ; Q 8 ¼ M xx þ Pxy
2 2
xa xb
Clearly, the stiffness matrix is not symmetric, i.e., K aijb – K bjia for
ð33Þ the nonlinear case. Further, there are two sources of the coupling
Again the weak forms (30)–(32) can be expressed in terms of between the axial displacement u and the transverse displacement
the displacements (u, w, /x) by replacing Nxx, Mxx, Pxy and Qx in w: first, the coupling is due to the extensional-bending coefficient
terms of u, w, and /x by means of Eqs. (20)–(23) as: B, and it is independent of the von Kármán nonlinearity; second,
Z " ( "  2 # ) #
xb
@2 u @ 2 / @du @u 1 @w @/ the coupling is due to the von Kármán nonlinearity, which is inde-
0¼ I0 du þ I1 du 2x þ Axx þ þ Bxx x  N Txx  f du dx
xa @t 2
@t @x @x 2 @x @x pendent of the coupling coefficient B. Of course, the coefficient B
 duðxa ;tÞQ 1  duðxb ;tÞQ 5 has a stronger coupling in the presence of the von Kármán nonlin-
ð34Þ
earity. The finite element Eq. (39) can be expressed in the standard
form
Z xb " " ( 2 # )
@ 2 w @dw @w @u 1 @w @/x T
€ þ KD ¼ F
MD ð41Þ
0¼ I0 dw 2 þ Axx þ þ Bxx  Nxx
xa @t @x @x @x 2 @x @x
! # Full discretization using the Newmark scheme reduces the fi-
 
@dw @w 1 @ 2 dw @/x @ 2 w nite element Eq. (41) to (see Reddy [25,26])
þ K s Sxz /x þ  S xy   dwq dx
@x @x 4 @x2 @x @x2 b sþ1 ðDsþ1 ÞDsþ1 ¼ b
K F s;sþ1 ð42Þ
@dw @dw
 Q 2 dwðxa ;tÞ  Q 3 ðxa ;tÞ  Q 6 dwðxb ;tÞ  Q 7 ðxb ;tÞ ð35Þ where
@x @x
Z xb " (  2 ! b sþ1 ðDsþ1 Þ ¼ Ksþ1 ðDsþ1 Þ þ a3 Msþ1 ;
K b
F s;sþ1 ¼ Fsþ1 þ Msþ1 As ð43Þ
@2u @2/ @d/x @u 1 @w
0¼ I1 d/x 2 þ I2 d/x 2x þ Bxx þ
@t @t @x @x 2 @x
xa
   As ¼ a3 Ds þ a4 D_ s þ a5 D
€s
@/x T @w
þ Dxx  M xx þ K s Sxz d/x /x þ a1 ¼ aDt; a2 ¼ ð1  aÞDt ð44Þ
@x ! # @x a3 ¼ cðD2tÞ2 ; a4 ¼ a3 Dt; a5 ¼ 1c  1
1 @d/x @/x @ 2 w r
þ Sxy  2  d/x dx
4 @x @x @x 2 a and c being the parameters of the Newmark scheme. The nonlin-
 Q 4 d/x ðxa ; tÞ  Q 8 d/x ðxb ; tÞ ð36Þ ear Eq. (39) are solved using Newton’s iterative method (see Reddy
[25]), which involves the computation of the coefficients of the ele-
ment tangent stiffness matrix Tb e . It is convenient to view T
b e as one
5. Finite element model that has structure similar to Ke in Eq. (39)
" #ðrÞ ( )ðrþ1Þ ( )ðrÞ
5.1. Euler–Bernoulli beam theory b 11
T b 12
T dD1 R1
¼ ð45Þ
b 21
T b 22
T dD2 R2
ðsþ1Þ ðsþ1Þ
Axial displacement u and transverse displacement w are
approximated using linear and Hermite cubic interpolations, where symbol dD denotes the increment of the displacements from
respectively. the rth iteration to the (r + 1) st iteration. Also, note that D1 = u and
276 A. Arbind, J.N. Reddy / Composite Structures 98 (2013) 272–281

Table 1 The components Rai of the residual vector R can be expressed as:
  102 for
Comparison of analytical and FEM (linear) solution of center deflection w
simply supported homogeneous beam for uniform load for EBT and TBT. X Nc
2 X X
2 X
4
Rai ¼ b ac Dc  b
K F ai ¼ b a1 D1 þ
K b a2 D2  b
K F ai
ip p ip p iP P
l/h Method EBT TBT c¼1 p¼1 p¼1 P¼1
0 Analytical 1.3021 1.3103
X
2 X
4
FEM (linear) 1.3021 1.3103 ¼ b a1 u p þ
K b a2 DP  b
K F ai ð47Þ
ip iP
0.6 Analytical 0.5076 0.5116 p¼1 P¼1
FEM (linear) 0.5076 0.5098
where Nc (c = 1,2) denotes the number of element degrees of free-
1 Analytical 0.2435 0.2464
FEM (linear) 0.2435 0.2460
dom [N1 = 2 and N2 = 4]. The tangent stiffness coefficients that are
different from their counterparts are computed, noting that M and
b
F 1i are not functions of the current solution, as follows:
b ab from the defini-
D2 ¼ D. Then we can compute the components T
Tb ija1 ¼ K
b a1 for a ¼ 1; 2
tion (evaluated at the rth iteration) ij
Z xb  
1 @w dwi duj
@Ra Tb 12 b 12 þ
¼K A b 21
dx ¼ K
Tb ijab ¼ ib ; a; b ¼ 1; 2 ð46Þ ij ij
xa 2
xx
@x dx dx ji
@ Dj

Fig. 5. Transverse deflection versus distance along the length of a pinned–pinned beam.
 A. Arbind, J.N. Reddy / Composite Structures 98 (2013) 272–281 277

Z Z  2
xb
@u dui duj xb
@w dui 5.2. Timoshenko beam theory
Tb 22 b 22
ij ¼ K ij þ Axx dx þ Axx
xa @x dx dx xa @x dx
For the formulation of finite element model of microstructure
duj
 dx dependent Timoshenko beam, we approximate the field variables
dx (u, /x) by Lagrange interpolation function and w by Hermite inter-
Z xb !
2
1 @w d ui duj @ 2 w dui duj polation function as:
 Bxx þ dx
xa 2 @x dx2 dx @x2 dx dx X
m X
n
ð1Þ ð2Þ
Z xb uðxÞ  uj ðtÞwj ðxÞ; wðxÞ  wj ðtÞwj ðxÞ; /x
dui duj
 N Txx dx ð48Þ j¼1 j¼1
xa dx dx
X
p
ð3Þ
From the above expression, it is clear that the tangent matrix is  Sj ðtÞwj ðxÞ ð49Þ
j¼1
symmetric.

Fig. 6. Maximum transverse deflection versus load for a pinned–pinned beam.

278 A. Arbind, J.N. Reddy / Composite Structures 98 (2013) 272–281

Fig. 7. Transverse deflection versus distance along the length of a clamped beam.

ð1Þ ð3Þ
where wj ðxÞ and wj ðxÞ are the Lagrange polynomials of different Z ð1Þ ð1Þ Z ð1Þ ð2Þ
xb
dwi dwj 1 xb
dw dwi dwj
ð2Þ K 11
ij ¼ Axx dx; K 12
ij ¼ Axx dx
order used for u and /x respectively and wj ðxÞ is Hermite interpo- xa dx dx 2 xa dx dx dx
lation function used for w as derivative of w (@w/@x) and w both are Z ð1Þ ð3Þ Z ð2Þ ð1Þ
xb
dw dwj xb
dw dwi dwj
primary variable in microstructure dependent Timoshenko beam. K 13
ij ¼ Bxx i dx; K 21ij ¼ Axx dx
ð1Þ ð2Þ xa dx dx xa dx dx dx
Substitution of Eq. (49) for (u, w, /x) and du ¼ wi ; dw ¼ wi , and Z " ð2Þ ð2Þ  2 ð2Þ ð2Þ 2 ð2Þ 2 ð2Þ
#
ð3Þ
d/x ¼ wi into the virtual work statements in Eqs. (34)–(36), the fi-
xb
dw dwj Axx dw dwi dwj 1 d wi d wj
K 22
ij ¼ K s Sxz i þ þ Sxy 2 2
dx
dx dx 2 dx dx dx 4 dx dx
nite element equations can be obtained as: xa
Z " ð2Þ ð3Þ 2 ð2Þ ð3Þ
#
xb
dwð2Þ ð3Þ dw dwi dwj 1 d wi dwj
K 23
ij ¼ K s Sxz w þ Bxx  Sxy dx
2 38 9 2 11 38 9 8 1 9 xa dx j dx dx dx 4 dx
2 dx
M11 0 M13 ><u€>= K K12 K13 ><u> = ><F >= Z ð1Þ
6 22 7 € 6 7  xb ð3Þ
dwi dwj
4 0 M 0 5 w þ 4 K21 K 22
K23 5 w ¼ F2 K 31
ij ¼ Bxx dx
>
:€> ; > >
: ; : 3>
> ; xa dx dx
M31 0 M33 s K31 K32 K33 s F Z " ð2Þ
ð3Þ ð3Þ ð2Þ 2 ð2Þ
#
xb dwj
Bxx dw dwi dwj 1 dw d wj 33
ð50Þ K 32
ij ¼ K s Sxz wð3Þ
i þ Sxy i dxK ij
xa dx 2 dx dx dx 4 dx dx2
Z xb " ð3Þ ð3Þ ð3Þ ð3Þ
#
ð3Þ ð3Þ dw dwj 1 dw dwj
where the components of stiffness matrix, mass matrix and force ¼ K s Sxz wi wj þ Dxx i þ Sxy i dx ð51Þ
xa dx dx 4 dx dx
vector can be given as:
 A. Arbind, J.N. Reddy / Composite Structures 98 (2013) 272–281 279

Z xb Z xb
ð1Þ ð1Þ ð1Þ ð3Þ 6. Numerical results
M11
ij ¼ I0 wi wj dx; M 13
ij ¼ I1 wi wj dx
xa xa
Z xb Z xb
ð2Þ ð2Þ ð3Þ ð1Þ
Although nonlinear finite element models of the dynamic anal-
M22
ij ¼ I0 wi wj dx; M 31
ij ¼ I1 wi wj dx ð52Þ ysis of the two beam theories are presented in the preceding sec-
xa xa
Z xb tions, numerical results are presented only for the static case.
ð3Þ ð3Þ
M33
ij ¼ I2 wi wj dx Nonlinear vibration and nonlinear transient analysis are topics that
xa
deserve to be considered separately.
Z xb ð1Þ
dwi ð1Þ ð1Þ 6.1. Pinned–pinned beams
F 1i ¼ NT dx þ wi ðxa ÞQ 1 þ wi ðxb ÞQ 4
xa dx xx
Z xb ð2Þ First, a homogeneous beam of following geometric and material
dwi dw T ð2Þ ð2Þ
F 2i ¼ N dx þ wi ðxa ÞQ 2 þ wi ðxb ÞQ 5 ð53Þ parameters is considered:
xa dx dx xx
Z xb ð3Þ
dwi ð3Þ ð3Þ 5ð1 þ mÞ
F 3i ¼ MTxx dx þ wi ðxa ÞQ 3 þ wi ðxb ÞQ 6 E2 ¼ E1 ¼ E ¼ 1:44 GPa; m ¼ 0:38; K s ¼
xa dx 6 þ 5m
Further, by applying time approximation, the finite element h ¼ 17:6  106 m; b ¼ 2 h; L ¼ 20 h ð58Þ
equation can be written as the nonlinear algebraic equations of
the form (41). Again applying the Newton’s iterative procedure, In the nonlinear finite element model of the Euler–Bernoulli
nonlinear equation can be written in the form of beam theory (EBT), linear and Hermite cubic interpolation function
are used for u and w, respectively, and quadratic elements are used
2 38 9 8 1 9ðrÞ
b 11 b 12 b 13 > du >ðrþ1Þ > for the conventional (i.e., for ‘ = 0) Timoshenko beam theory (TBT).
T T T < = <R > =
6 b 21 b 22 b 23 7 For microstructure dependent Timoshenko beam model, linear
4T T T 5 dw ¼  R2 ð54Þ
> > >
: 3>
b 31
T b 32
T b 33 : ds ;
T R
; interpolation of u and /x and Hermite cubic approximation of w
ðsþ1Þ
are used. For the pinned–pinned (i.e., pinnes at both ends) beam,
b e can be given as
where the tangent matrix, T thirty, twenty, and sixty beam elements are used for EBT and
TBT (‘ = 0) and TBT (‘ – 0), respectively, in the half beam because
@Ra of the symmetry of the problem. The analytical solution (see Reddy
Tb ijab ¼ ib ; a; b ¼ 1; 2; 3; D1 ¼ u; D2 ¼ w; D3 ¼ s ð55Þ
@ Dj [17]) and the linear
 finite element
solution for the maximum ver-
tical deflection w  ¼ wEI=q0 L4 are compared in Table 1. It is noted
where that for more accurate solution for microstructure dependent Tim-
oshenko beam, more number of elements or higher order elements
X Nc
3 X
are required. Vertical deflection ðw  ¼ wEI=L4 Þ of the beam along
ba ¼
R b ac Dc  b
K F ai
i ik k the length (non-dimensional, x/L) of the beam is shown for differ-
c¼1 k¼1
ent ‘, which is taken as a fraction of the height (h) of the beam, in
X
m X
n X
p
Fig. 5a and b for both linear and nonlinear analysis under uni-
¼ b a1 uk þ
K b a2 wk þ
K b a3 sk  b
K F ai ð56Þ
ik ik ik
k¼1 k¼1 k¼1
formly distributed load, q0 = 1 N/m for both Euler–Bernoulli and
Timoshenko beam theory, respectively, for homogeneous beam.
where N1 = m, N2 = n, and N3 = p. Then we have The non-dimensional transverse deflection ðw  ¼ wEI=q0 L4 Þ for
functionally graded beam having power-law index of n = 0, n = 1
and n = 10, under uniformly distributed load, are shown in Fig. 5c
Tb ija1 ¼ K
b a1 ;
ij Tb ija3 ¼ Kb a3 for a ¼ 1; 2; 3 Tb 12
ij ij
and d for l/h = 0 and l/h = 1. Linear solution of transverse deflection
X n 
@ b 12
b 12 þ for the respective beams is also shown in the same figure for
¼K ij K ik wk
k¼1
@wj comparison.
Z ð2Þ
! To see the effect of nonlinearity, maximum deflection of the
xb
1
ð1Þ
dw dwj X
n
dw
ð2Þ
b 12 þ
¼K Axx i k
wk dx FGM beam verses the transverse load applied are plotted for differ-
ij
xa 2 dx dx k¼1
dx ent power-law index of FGM in Fig. 6. Homogeneous and function-
Z xb ð1Þ ð2Þ ally graded beam of aforementioned geometric and material
b 12 þ 1 dw dwi dwj b 21 Tb 22 parameter are also analyzed considering Timoshenko beam theory.
¼K ij A xx dx ¼ K ji ij
2 xa dx dx dx To see the shear effect, both EBT and TBT are shown together in
X @
m  X @
n  Fig. 6 with respect to load applied. It is noted that for pinned–
b 22 þ
¼K Kb 21 uk þ b 22 wk
K
ij
@w j
ik
@wj ik pinned connected beam, there is more nonlinearity in case of lower
k¼1 k¼1
value of ‘. The shear effect in this boundary condition is not
X @  b 23 @ Fb 2
p
significant.
þ K ik sk  i
k¼1
@w j @wj
Z xb "  2 # ð2Þ
du dw d/x dwi 6.2. Clamped beams
b 22 þ
¼K A xx þ A xx þ B xx  N T
ij xx
xa dx dx dx dx
The same beam described by Eq. (58) with clamped boundary
ð2Þ
dwj condition is analyzed for uniform loading condition. In Fig. 7, the
 dx Tb 32
ij  ¼ wEI=L4 ) along the
dx non-dimensional transverse deflection (w
Z ð3Þ ð2Þ length (non-dimensional, x/L) of the beam are plotted for different
b 32 þ 1
xb
dw dwi dwj b 23
¼K ij Bxx dx ¼ K ji ð57Þ value of microstructure length parameters, ‘ for homogeneous and
2 xa dx dx dx
FGM beam considering EBT and TBT.
Once again, it is noted that the tangent stiffness matrix of func- In Fig. 8 the maximum non-dimensional transverse deflection
tionally graded microstructure dependent Timoshenko beam ele- verses different uniform loading condition are plotted for different
ment with the von Kármán nonlinearity is also symmetric. microstructural length parameter for homogeneous and FGM beam
280 A. Arbind, J.N. Reddy / Composite Structures 98 (2013) 272–281

Fig. 8. Maximum transverse deflection versus load for a clamped beam.

having power-law index of n = 1, 10 considering EBT and TBT. It
can be seen that the nonlinearity is less as compared to the pin-
ned–pinned boundary condition, whereas the shear deformation
effect is significant.
7. Summary and conclusions
In this study, nonlinear formulations of functionally graded
beams with modified couple stress theory are presented. Both
the Euler–Bernoull and Timoshenko beam theories are used to
bring out the effect of shear deformation. The governing equa-
tions account for the modified couple stress terms (i.e., material
length scale parameter) and the von Kármán nonlinear strain for
functionally graded material beams. Nonlinear finite element
models of these nonconventional Euler–Bernoulli and Timo-
shenko beam theories are developed. The numerical results are
obtained for beams with pinned and clamped boundary condi-
tions. Effects of the microstructure length scale, power-law in-
dex, shear deformation, and geometric nonlinearity on the
deflections are discussed for homogeneous and functionally
graded beams with and without microstructure length scale
parameter, ‘. The stiffness of the beam increases for large values
of the length scale parameter. It is also found from the analysis
that the shear deformation effect is more for the case of higher
values of ‘/h ratio. Extensions of the present work to plates and
shells are awaiting.
Acknowledgement
The results reported herein were obtained under the National
Science Foundation research Grant CMMI-1030836. The support
is gratefully acknowledged.
 A. Arbind, J.N. Reddy / Composite Structures 98 (2013) 272–281 281

References [13] Ma HM, Gao XL, Reddy JN. A microstructure-dependent Timoshenko beam
model based on a modified couple stress theory. J Mech Phys Solids
2008;56:3379–91.
[1] Li X, Bhushan B, Takashima K, Baek CW, Kim YK. Mechanical characterization
[14] Ma HM, Gao XL, Reddy JN. A nonclassical Reddy–Levinson beam model based
of micro/nanoscale structures for MEMS/NEMS applications using
on a modified couple stress theory. Int J Multiscale Comput Eng
nanoindentation techniques. Ultramicroscopy 2003;97:481–94.
2010;8(2):167–80.
[2] Anthoine A. Effect of couple-stresses on the elastic bending of beams. Int J
[15] Ma HM, Gao XL, Reddy JN. A non-classical Mindlin plate model based on a
Solids Struct 2000;37:1003–18.
modified couple stress theory. Acta Mech 2011;220:217–35.
[3] Koiter WT. Couple-stresses in the theory of elasticity, I and II. Proc K Ned Akad
[16] Aghababaei R, Reddy JN. Nonlocal third-order shear deformation plate theory
Wet 1964;B67(1):17–44.
with application to bending and vibration of plates. J Sound Vib
[4] Papargyri-Beskou S, Tsepoura KG, Polyzos D, Beskos DE. Bending and
2009;326:277–89.
stability analysis of gradient elastic beams. Int J Solids Struct 2003;40:
[17] Reddy JN. Microstructure-dependent couple stress theories of functionally
385–400.
graded beams. J Mech Phys Solids 2011;59:2382–99.
[5] Peddieson J, Buchanan GR, McNitt RP. Application of nonlocal continuum
[18] Reddy JN. A general nonlinear third-order theory of functionally graded plates.
models to nanotechnology. Int J Eng Sci 2003;41:305–12.
Int J Aerospace Lightweight Struct 2011;1(1):1–21.
[6] Wang CM, Zhang YY, Ramesh SS, Kitipornchai S. Buckling analysis of micro-
[19] Reddy JN, Kim J. A nonlinear modified couple stress-based third-order theory
and nano-rods/tubes based on nonlocal Timoshenko beam theory. J Phys D:
of functionally graded plates. Compos Struct 2012;94:1128–43.
Appl Phys 2006;39:3904–9.
[20] Hasselman DPH, Youngblood GE. Enhanced thermal stress resistance of
[7] Reddy JN. Nonlocal theories for bending, buckling and vibration of beams. Int J
structural ceramics with thermal conductivity gradient. J Am Ceram Soc
Eng Sci 2007;45:288–307.
1978;61(1,2):49–53.
[8] Reddy JN. Nonlocal nonlinear formulations for bending of classical and
[21] Yamanouchi M, Koizumi M, Hirai T, Shiota I, editors. In: Proceedings of the first
shear deformation theories of beams and plates. Int J Eng Sci 2010;48:
international symposium on functionally gradient materials, Japan; 1990.
1507–18.
[22] Koizumi M. The concept of FGM. Ceram Trans Funct Grad Mater 1993;34:3–10.
[9] Reddy JN, Pang SD. Nonlocal continuum theories of beams for the analysis of
[23] Reddy JN. Theory and analysis of elastic plates and shells. 2nd ed. Boca Raton,
carbon nanotubes. Appl Phys Lett 2007;103. 023511-1–023511-16.
FL: CRC Press; 2007.
[10] Eringen AC. On differential equations of nonlocal elasticity and solutions of
[24] Reddy JN. Energy principles and variational methods in applied mechanics.
screw dislocation and surface waves. J Appl Phys 1983;54:4703–10.
2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.
[11] Park SK, Gao XL. Bernoulli–Euler beam model based on a modified couple
[25] Reddy JN. An introduction to nonlinear finite element analysis. Oxford,
stress theory. J Micromech Microeng 2006;16:2355–9.
UK: Oxford University Press; 2004.
[12] Park SK, Gao XL. Variational formulation of a modified couple stress theory and
[26] Reddy JN. An introduction to the finite element method. 3rd ed. New
its application to a simple shear problem. Z Angew Math Phys 2008;59:
York: McGraw-Hill; 2006.
904–17.