ORI GI NAL PAPER

Pull-in Voltage of Electrostatically-Actuated

Microbeams in Terms of Lumped Model Pull-in
Voltage Using Novel Design Corrective Coefcients
Ghader Rezazadeh

Mohammad Fathalilou

Morteza Sadeghi
Received: 28 May 2009 / Revised: 10 September 2009 / Published online: 30 June 2011
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract In this paper, we present a study of the static and dynamic responses of a
xedxed and cantilever microbeam (using both the lumped and the distributed
models) to a DC and a step DC voltage. A Galerkin-based step by step linearization
method and a Galerkin-based reduced order model have been used to solve the
governing static and dynamic equations, respectively. The calculated static and
dynamic pull-in voltages have been validated by previous experimental and theo-
retical results and a good agreement has been achieved. The introduction of novel
design corrective coefcients, independent of the beams material and geometric
properties, results in a closed form relationship between static pull-in voltage of the
lumped model and static & dynamic pull-in voltages of the distributed models, and
takes into account the residual stresses, axial force and damping effects. Multiplying
these design coefcients with the static pull-in voltage of the lumped model, the
static and dynamic pull-in voltage of a given microbeam can be obtained without
the need to solve the nonlinear governing equations.
Keywords MEMS Electrostatic actuation Pull-in voltage Design corrective
coefcients
1 Introduction
Due to recent advances in the technology of micro-electro-mechanical systems
(MEMS), micro-sensors and actuators driven by an electrostatic force have become
the focus of intensive study. These devices offer advantages due to their small size,
G. Rezazadeh (&)
Mechanical Engineering Department, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
e-mail: g.rezazadeh@urmia.ac.ir
M. Fathalilou M. Sadeghi
Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
123
Sens Imaging (2011) 12:117131
DOI 10.1007/s11220-011-0065-2
ease of production, low-energy consumption, and compatibility with the integrated
circuits (ICs). These micro-devices are the key components of many devices and
commonly seen in various applications such as pressure sensors [1, 2], micro-
mirrors [3], micro-pumps [46], accelerometer [7], and so forth. MEMS devices are
generally classied according to their actuation mechanisms. The most common
actuation mechanisms are electrostatic, pneumatic, thermal, and piezoelectric [8].
Electrostatically-actuated devices form a broad class of MEMS devices due to their
simplicity, as they require few mechanical components and low voltage levels for
actuation [8]. Microbeams (e.g., xedxed and cantilever microbeams) are widely
used in many MEMS devices such as capacitive micro-switches and resonant micro-
sensors. These devices are to some extent, at a more mature stage than some other
MEMS devices. Fixedxed microbeams, due to their high natural frequencies, are
widely used in resonant sensors and actuators. One of the most important issues in
the electrostatically-actuated micro-devices is the pull-in instability. In many of the
microstructures, it is necessary to determine the pull-in voltage. The pull-in
phenomenon is divided broadly speaking into two branches: static and dynamic
pull-in instability. The static pull-in instability is a discontinuity related to the
interplay of the elastic and electrostatic forces. When a potential difference is
applied between a conducting structure and the ground level, the structure deforms
due to electrostatic forces. The elastic forces grow approximately with displace-
ment, whereas the electrostatic forces grow inversely proportional to the square of
the distance. When the voltage is increased, the displacement grows until, at some
point, the growth rate of the electrostatic force exceeds that of the elastic force and
the system cannot reach a force balance without a physical contact, thus pull-in
instability occurs. The critical voltage point is known as the static pull-in voltage.
Previous studies have predicted the pull-in phenomena based on static analysis by
considering the static application of a DC voltage [912]. In addition to the static
pull-in, some studies have also introduced a dynamic pull-in voltage [13, 14]. The
dynamic pull-in voltage is dened as a step DC voltage that, when applied suddenly,
leads to the instability of the system [13].
One of the useful practices in the scientic community is simplifying problems as
far as possible. For example, it is useful to develop solutions to problems in non-
dimensional form and to introduce dimensionless data that can be used as a reference
for similar classes of problems, independent of the geometric and material properties.
As mentioned earlier, there are a number of studies focused on the static and
dynamic pull-in phenomena, but there has not been introduced a relationship
between the static pull-in voltage of the lumped model of a microbeam to the static
and dynamic pull-in voltages of the distributed model by considering axial forces
and damping effects. The purpose of this paper is to introduce design corrective
coefcients for the static pull-in voltage of the lumped model of a cantilever and
xedxed microbeams. These will allow the static and dynamic pull-in voltage of
the microbeams (considering axial forces and damping effects) to be calculated
without any need to solve the governing static and dynamic equations of the
distributed model. The coefcients can be used in all types of microbeams with
similar boundary conditions without any dependence on their geometric and
material properties. So, by presenting a mathematical model and numerical solution,
118 Sens Imaging (2011) 12:117131
123
the response of cantilevers and xedxed microbeams to static DC and step DC
voltage is calculated and validated using previous experimental and analytical
results. Then, novel dimensionless design corrective coefcients are introduced in
order to calculate the pull-in voltage of the microbeams.
2 Nonlinear Electromechanical Coupled Model
2.1 Model Description
A lumped model can be helpful for calculating the rough quantitative estimates of
the response of a wide range of electrostatically-actuated micro-structures. The
lumped model shown in Fig. 1 is utilized to represent a MEMS device employing
electrostatic actuation. The device has a movable microstructure of mass m, which
forms one side of a variable capacitor. A viscous damper of coefcient c is used to
model the energy dissipation and a spring of coefcient k is used to model the
effective stiffness of the microstructure due to the elastic restoring force [14].
The equivalent mass (m) and stiffness (k) of a lumped model for a microbeam are
calculated in the references. The equivalent mass (m) and stiffness (k) of lumped
model for a xedxed microbeam are m = 0.41qbhL & k = 384EI/L
3
and for a
cantilever microbeam are m = 0.26qbhL & k = 8EI/L
3
respectively [15, 16].
Figure 2a, b shows an electrostatically-actuated xedxed and cantilever
microbeam, respectively. The electrostatically-actuated microbeam is a suspended
elastic beam with an applied electrostatic force. The device consists of a beam,
suspended over a dielectric lm deposited on top of the center conductor and xed
at one or both ends (for cantilever and xedxed microbeams, respectively) to the
Fig. 1 A lumped model of a
microbeam
Fig. 2 An electrostatically-actuated microbeam: a xedxed, b cantilever
Sens Imaging (2011) 12:117131 119
123
ground conductor. When a voltage is applied between the upper and lower
electrodes, the upper deformable beam is pulled down due to the electrical force.
The microbeams have width b, thickness h, length L, density q and with Youngs
modulus E. Parameters d, j and e are initial gap, dielectric coefcient of the gap
medium and dielectric constant, respectively. Let x denote the coordinate along the
length of the microbeams with its origin at the left end, and w the deection of the
beams, dened to be positive downward (in the direction of z).
2.2 Mathematical Modeling
The equation of motion of the microbeam in the lumped model actuated by a step
DC voltage can be written as follows and the static equation is obtained by dropping
the time dependence from this equation [14].
mz c_ z kz
eAV
2
t
2d z
2
1
where A is the electrode area on the microstructure.
In the distributed model, xedxed microbeams represent an example of a
microstructure subject to a geometric nonlinearity generated by mid-plane
stretching. When a beam is in bending, the actual beam length L
0
is longer than
the original length L, although there is no displacement in the x direction at the
beam ends. The actual length along the centerline of the beam is calculated by
integrating the arc length ds along the curved beam based on the cubic shape
functions for small deection of the beam, w(x):
L
0

_
L
0
ds %
_
L
0

1
dw
dx
_ _
2

dx 2
Considering L ) w, hence (dw/dx)
2
( 1, and, as a result, the elongation is
approximately given by:
DL %
1
2
_
L
0
dw
dx
_ _
2
dx 3
therefore the stretching stress and force are given by:
r
a

~
E
2L
_
L
0
dw
dx
_ _
2
dx; and N
a
bhr
a
4
In the xedxed microbeams, beside the stretching stress, residual stresses due
to the inconsistency of both the thermal expansion coefcient and the crystal lattice
period between the substrate and thin lm, is unavoidable in surface micromachin-
ing techniques. Accurate and reliable data for residual stress are crucial to the proper
design of MEMS devices that are related to these techniques [17, 18]. Considering
the fabrication sequence of MEMS devices, the residual force can be expressed as:
120 Sens Imaging (2011) 12:117131
123
N
r
r
r
1 t bh 5
where r
r
is the biaxial effective residual stress [19].
Assuming the stretching and residual stresses effects, the governing differential
equation for static deection of the xedxed microbeam takes the following form
[13]:
~
EI
d
4
w
dx
4
N
a
N
r

d
2
w
dx
2

jeb
2
V
d wx; t
_ _
2
6
where I is the moment of inertia of the cross-sectional area and V is the applied
voltage to the parallel beams. For a wide beam which has b C 5h, the effective
modulus
~
E can be approximated by the plate modulus E/(1 - m
2
); otherwise,
~
E is
the Youngs modulus E [9]. The m is Poissons ratio of the beam material.
For convenience in analysis, Eq. 6 can take a nondimensional form, by
introducing nondimensional parameters as following:
^ w
w
d
; and ^ x
x
L
7
Substituting these parameters into Eq. 6, the following non-dimensional equation
is obtained:
d
4
^ w
d^ x
4

^
N
a

^
N
r
_
d
2
^ w
d^ x
2

^
V
1 ^ w^ x;
^
t
_ _
2
8
where
^
V is introduced as a dimensionless voltage and expressed as:
^
V

jebL
4
2EId
3
_
V 9
The governing equation for the dynamic motion of the beam, w(x, t) actuated by
an electrical load of step DC voltage V(t) is written as [13].
~
EI
o
4
w
ox
4
qbh
o
2
w
ot
2
c
ow
ot
N
a
N
r

o
2
w
ox
2

jeb
2
Vt
d wx; t
_ _
2
10
The microbeam can be subjected to a structural or a viscous damping [20, 21].
These effects are approximated by an equivalent damping coefcient, c per unit
length [20].
To nondimensionalize Eq. 10, beside the non-dimensional parameters in Eq. 6,
time is also nondimensionalized by introducing the characteristic period of the
beam, t
*
according to:
^
t
t
t

; with t

qbhL
4
~
EI
_
11
Substituting these parameters into Eq. 10, the following equation is obtained:
o
4
^ w
o^ x
4

o
2
^ w
o
^
t
2
^ c
o^ w
o
^
t

^
N
a

^
N
r
_
o
2
^ w
o^ x
2

^
Vt
1 ^ w^ x;
^
t
_ _
2
12
Sens Imaging (2011) 12:117131 121
123
where
^ c
12cL
4
~
Ebh
3
t

;
^
N
a
6
d
h
_ _
2
_
1
0
o^ w
o^ x
_ _
2
d^ x;
^
N
r

12N
r
L
2
~
Ebh
3
13
The xedxed beams boundary conditions are given by:
^ w 0;
^
t ^ w 1;
^
t 0 and
o^ w
o^ x
0;
^
t
o^ w
o^ x
1;
^
t 0 14
The static and dynamic governing equations of a cantilever microbeam are
obtained by dropping the stretching and residual stresses effects from Eqs. 8 and 12,
respectively, and the accompanying boundary conditions are:
^ w 0;
^
t
o^ w
o^ x
0;
^
t 0 and
o
2
^ w
o^ x
2
1;
^
t
o
3
^ w
o^ x
3
1;
^
t 0 15
3 Numerical Analysis
3.1 Distributed Model Equations
The numerical solution for the governing equation of the xedxed and cantilever
beams is unique. Due to the nonlinearity of the derived static equation, the solution
is complicated and time consuming. Direct application of the Galerkin method or
nite difference method creates a set of nonlinear algebraic equations. In this paper
we used a method to solve it which consists of two steps. In rst step, a step by step
linearization method (SSLM) [22] is used and in the second step, a Galerkin method
for solving the obtained linear equation is used.
In order to use SSLM, it is assumed that the ^ w
k
s
, is the displacement of beam due
to the applied voltage
^
V
k
. Therefore, increasing the applied voltage to a new value,
the displacement can be written as:
^ w
k1
s
^ w
k
s
d^ w ^ w
k
s
w^ x 16
when
^
V
k1

^
V
k
d
^
V 17
So, the equation of the static deection of the xedxed microbeam (Eq. 8) can
be rewritten at step of k ? 1 as follows:
d
4
^ w
k1
s
d^ x
4

^
N
k1
a

^
N
r
_
d
2
^ w
k1
s
d^ x
2

^
V
k1
1 ^ w
k1
s
^ x
_ _
2
18
Considering a small value of d
^
V, it is expected that the w would be small enough,
hence using Calculus of Variations theory and Taylors series expansion about ^ w
k
in
Eq. 17, and applying the truncation to rst order for suitable values of d
^
V, it is
possible to obtain the desired accuracy. The linearized equation to calculate w can
be expressed as:
122 Sens Imaging (2011) 12:117131
123
d
4
w
d^ x
4

^
N
k
a
d
^
N
a

^
N
r
_
d
2
w
d^ x
2
d
^
N
a
d
2
^ w
d^ x
2

^ w
k
;
^
V
k

2
^
V
k
_ _
2
1 ^ w
k
s
_ _
3
w 2
^
V
k
d
^
V
1 ^ w
k
s
_ _
2
0
19
where variation of the hardening term based on Calculus of Variations Theory can
be expressed as :
d
^
N
a

_
1
0
w^ x
d
2
^ w
d^ x
2

^ w
k
;
^
V
k

d^ x 20
Considering a small value of d
^
V and as a result w ^ x , multiplying d
^
N
a
with
d
2
w=d^ x
2
would be small enough and can be neglected.
The obtained linear differential equation is solved by the Galerkin method. w ^ x
based on function spaces can be expressed as:
w^ x

1
j1
a
j
/
j
^ x 21
In this paper, /
j
^ x is selected as jth undamped linear mode shape of the straight
microbeam. The unknown w ^ x , is approximated by truncating the summation series
to a nite number, n:
w
n
^ x

n
j1
a
j
/
j
^ x 22
Substituting Eq. 21 into Eq. 18, and multiplying by /
i
^ x as a weight function in
the Galerkin method and then integrating the outcome from ^ x 0 to 1, a set of
linear algebraic equation is generated as:

n
j1
K
ij
a
j
F
i
i 1; . . .; n 23
where K
ij
K
m
ij
K
a
ij
K
e
ij
and:
K
m
ij

_
1
0
/
i
/
iv
j
d^ x K
a
ij

_
1
0
/
i

^
N
k
a

^
N
r
/
00
j

_
1
0
/
j
d
2
^ w
d^ x
2

^
W
k
;
^
V
k
d^ x
_
_
_
_
d
2
^ w
d^ x
2

^
W
k
;
^
V
k
_
_
_
_
d^ x
K
e
ij
2
^
V
k
_ _
2
1 ^ w
k
s
_ _
3
_
1
0
/
i
/
j
d^ x F
i
2
^
V
k
1 ^ w
k
s
_ _
2
^
V
k1

^
V
k
_ _
_
1
0
/
i
^ x d^ x
24
To study the xedxed microbeam response to dynamic loading a Galerkin-based
reduced order model can be used [23]. Due to the non-linearity of the electrostatic
force and the stretching terms, direct application of the reduced order model to
dynamic equation (Eq. 12) leads to the generation of n nonlinear coupled ordinary
Sens Imaging (2011) 12:117131 123
123
differential equations and consequently the solution is more complicated. To
overcome this difculty, the hardening (
^
N
a
) and forcing terms in Eq. 12 are con-
sidered constant terms in each time step of integration and take the value of the
previous step. By selecting sufciently small time steps, this assumption leads to
sufciently accurate results. Eq. 12 can then be rewritten as following:
o
4
^ w
o^ x
4

o
2
^ w
o
^
t
2
^ c
o^ w
o
^
t

^
N
$
a

^
N
r
_ _
o
2
^ w
o^ x
2
F
^
V; ^ w
$
25
To achieve a reduced order model, ^ w^ x;
^
t can be approximated as:
^ w ^ x;
^
t

n
j1
T
j
^
t /
j
^ x 26
By substituting Eq. 26 into Eq. 25 and multiplying by /
i
^ x as a weight function in
the Galerkin method and then integrating the outcome from ^ x 0 to 1, the Galerkin
based reduced order model is generated as:

n
j1
M
ij

T
j

^
t

n
j1
C
ij
_
T
j

^
t

n
j1
K
m
ij
K
a
ij
T
j

^
t F
i
27
where M, C, K
m
and K
a
are mass, damping, mechanical and axial stiffness matrices,
respectively. Also F introduces the forcing vector. These matrices and vector are
given by:
M
ij

_
1
0
/
i
/
j
d^ x C
ij
^ c
_
1
0
/
i
/
j
d^ x i; j 1; . . .; n
K
m
ij

28
Now, Eq. 27 can be integrated over time by various integration methods such as
the RungeKutta method where
^
N
$
a
and ^ w
$
^ x;
^
t in each time step of integration take
the value of the previous step.
The proposed procedures for a xedxed microbeam are used to solve the static
and dynamic equations of a cantilever microbeam where there are no stretching and
residual stresses.
3.2 Design Corrective Coefcients
Using the numerical solution presented in the previous section, the static and
dynamic pull-in voltage of the microbeams can be calculated. In this section our
objective is to derive a relationship between static pull-in voltage of the lumped
model and the static & dynamic pull-in voltage of the distributed model for a xed
xed and a cantilever microbeam considering axial forces and damping effects.
First, the static pull in-voltage of the lumped model for a microbeam is given as
follows [24]:
124 Sens Imaging (2011) 12:117131
123
V
L
pullin

8kd
3
27jeA
_
29
Using stiffness, k, for the xedxed and cantilever microbeam, the pull-in
voltage can be obtained as follows:
For a fixed fixed microbeam : V
L
pullin
3:08

Eh
3
d
3
jeL
4
_
For a cantilever microbeam : V
L
pullin
0:44

Eh
3
d
3
jeL
4
_ 30
The relationship of the pull-in voltage of the distributed models to the lumped
model can be expressed by including several design corrective coefcients as
follows:
V
s
pullin

^
V
s
pullin

Eh
3
d
3
6jeL
4
_
a
s
b
s
c
s
V
L
pullin
_ _
V
d
pullin

^
V
d
pullin

Eh
3
d
3
6jeL
4
_
a
d
b
d
c
d
k V
L
pullin
_ _
31
where a indicates the dimensionless model correction coefcient. Coefcients b, c
and k introduce the dimensionless stretching stress, residual stress and damping
design corrective coefcients, respectively. The subscripts s and d indicate static
and dynamic problems, respectively.
The design corrective coefcients in general can be obtained using existing
experimental results or results from a numerical analysis for a distributed model and
applying a least squares regression or a curve tting method.
4 Results and Discussion
4.1 Model Validation
For verication of our numerical solution, a microbeam with the geometric and
material properties listed in Table 1 was considered.
In Tables 2 and 3 the calculated pull-in voltage was compared to the results of
existing work for the xedxed and cantilever microbeams having properties
shown in Table 1. As shown the calculated pull-in voltages are in good agreement
with the results presented in previous work.
For validation of dynamic results with the results presented in the previous
works, a xedxed microbeam was considered with the specications of a pressure
sensor used by Hung and Senturia [26]: E = 149 GPa, q = 2330 kg/m
3
,
L = 610 lm, b = 40 lm, h = 2.2 lm and d = 2.3 lm. Because h is given as a
nominal value, it was modied to match the experimental pull-in voltage.
Accordingly, we set h = 2.135 lm. We assumed a residual stress of -3.7 MPa.
In Fig. 3, the calculated pull-in time obtained using the proposed method is
compared with the theoretical and experimental results of Hung and Senturia [26]
Sens Imaging (2011) 12:117131 125
123
Table 1 The values of design
variables
Design variable Value
B 50 lm
H 3 lm
D 1 lm
E 169 GPa
q 2331 kg/m
3
e 8.85 PF/m
m 0.06
Table 2 Comparison of the pull-in voltage for a xedxed microbeam
Residual
stress (MPa)
Our results
(V)
Energy model
(V) [11]
MEMCAD
(V) [11]
L = 350 lm 0 20.1 20.2 20.3
100 35.3 35.4 35.8
-25 13.8 13.8 13.7
L = 250 lm 0 39.5 39.5 40.1
100 57.3 56.9 57.6
-25 33.4 33.7 33.6
Table 3 Comparison of the pull-in voltage for a cantilever microbeam (L = 150 lm)
Our result CoSolve simulation [25] Closed form 2D model [25]
Pull-in voltage (V) 17.0 16.9 16.8
Fig. 3 Comparison of the pull-in time for no damping case without the stretching effects
126 Sens Imaging (2011) 12:117131
123
for various values of step DC voltage. The pull-in time was found by monitoring the
beam response over time for a sudden rise in the displacement; at that point, the
corresponding time was reported as the pull-in time [13].
As Fig. 3 illustrates, calculated results are in excellent agreement with the
theoretical and experimental results. It was shown that, for the no damping case
when V is less than 8.18 V, the pull-in instability does not occur, so this step DC
voltage can be taken as the dynamic pull-in voltage for the microbeam.
4.2 Design Corrective Coefcients
Using Eqs. 9, 30, 31 and the presented numerical analysis, Tables 4 and 5 list the
static and dynamic pull-in design corrective coefcients, independent of the
geometric and material properties of the microbeams. The parameter f in Table 5 is
the nondimensional damping ratio. It is shown that the model correction factor, a,
for a xedxed microbeam is less than for a cantilever, so it can be concluded that
the pull-in voltage in a lumped model for a xedxed microbeam gives more
accurate results than for a cantilever. Also the dynamic model correction factor is
about 91% of the static model correction factor. This is in good agreement with
previous reports [27, 28] which indicated that the dynamic pull-in voltage can be as
low as 92% of the static pull-in voltage.
As shown in the nondimensional form of governing equations, the static and
dynamic pull-in voltages for xedxed microbeams vary by the value of stretching
and residual stresses, so their design corrective coefcient b and c, are approximated
by a polynomial expression, using a Least Squares method (LEM) and plotted in
Figs. 4 and 5. Also, in the dynamic part we developed a polynomial expression for
the damping design corrective coefcient and plotted in Fig. 6. Testing of the results
shows that these polynomial expressions can predict the pull-in voltage accurately.
As shown in Fig. 4, the stretching has more effect on the dynamic pull-in than the
static pull-in especially at high values of d/h.
Table 4 Static pull-in design corrective coefcients for xedxed and cantilever microbeams
Fixedxed microbeam Cantilever microbeam
a
s
1.1116 1.2087
b
s
0.0247(d/h)
2
- 0.0071(d/h) ? 1.0019 1
c
s 0:0001
^
N
2
r
0:0121
^
N
r
1
1
Table 5 Dynamic pull-in design corrective coefcients for xedxed and cantilever microbeams
Fixedxed Cantilever
a
d
1.0124 1.0940
b
d
0.0745(d/h)
2
- 0.0105(d/h) ? 1.0013 1
c
d 0:0001
^
N
2
r
0:0122
^
N
r
1
1
k
0:2386f
2
0:4119f 1 1:1444f
2
0:5314f 1
Sens Imaging (2011) 12:117131 127
123
4.3 Formulas Verication
For verication of the presented formulas, we considered a xedxed and
cantilever microbeam used by Nayfeh et al. [29] and Younis et al. [14], respectively
where they have calculated the static pull-in voltage numerically and indicated that
the dynamic pull-in voltage for the no damping case is as low as 92% of the static
pull-in voltage. The microbeams specications are:
Fig. 4 The variation of the stretching design corrective coefcient versus d/h in the xedxed
microbeams
Fig. 5 The variation of the residual stress design corrective coefcient versus nondimensional residual
force in the xedxed microbeams
128 Sens Imaging (2011) 12:117131
123
L = 510 lm, b = 100 lm, h = 1.5 lm, d = 1.18 lm,
^
N 8:7 and
L = 100 lm, b = 10 lm, h = 0.1 lm, d = 2 lm, respectively.
The results are compared and given in Table 6. As shown there is an excellent
agreement between the results.
Therefore, in the pull-in analysis of the cantilever and xedxed microbeams, it
is sufcient to multiply the design corrective coefcients obtained from Tables 4
and 5 and Figs. 4, 5 and 6 of the similar class of a given model by the pull-in voltage
of the lumped model to obtain the static or dynamic pull-in voltage of the model.
5 Conclusion
In this paper, the static and dynamic responses of electrostatically-actuated xed
xed and cantilever microbeams to DC and step DC voltages were studied. The
governing static equation was solved by the Galerkin-based SSLM method and in
the dynamic analysis, the response of the microbeams to a step DC voltage was
obtained using the Galerkin-based reduced order model. Calculated static and
Fig. 6 The variation of the damping corrective coefcient versus damping ratio
Table 6 Comparison of results of the proposed formula with numerical analysis for a xedxed and
cantilever microbeam
Static pull-in voltage Dynamic pull-in voltage
Numerical analysis Proposed
formula
Numerical analysis Proposed
formula
[25] [26] [25] [26]
Fixedxed 4.80 4.80 4.40 4.35
Cantilever 0.65 0.66 0.60 0.60
Sens Imaging (2011) 12:117131 129
123
dynamic pull-in voltages by numerical analysis were validated by previous works
and a good agreement was achieved.
Finally, by introducing the novel dimensionless design corrective coefcients,
closed form formulas were developed for the static and dynamic pull-in analysis in
terms of static lumped pull-in voltage. The introduced design corrective coefcients
capture the effects of residual stresses, stretching and damping ratio. The results of
the proposed formulas were compared with existing results and a good agreement
was achieved. The proposed closed form formulas can be useful in the design and
analysis of similar classes of problems.
References
1. Sallese, J. M., Grabinski, W., Meyer, V., Bassin, C., & Fazan, P. (2001). Electrical modeling of a
pressure sensor MOSFET. Sensors and Actuators. A, Physical, 94, 5358.
2. Nabian, A., Rezazadeh, G., Haddad-derafshi, M., & Tahmasebi, A. (2008). Mechanical behavior of a
circular micro plate subjected to uniform hydrostatic and non-uniform electrostatic pressure. Journal
of Microsystem Technology, 14, 235240.
3. Rezazadeh, G., Khatami, F., & Tahmasebi, A. (2007). Investigation of the torsion and bending effects
on static stability of electrostatic torsional micromirrors. Journal of Microsystem Technology, 13,
715722.
4. Saif, M. T. A., Alaca, B. E., & Sehitoglu, H. (1999). Analytical modeling of electrostatic membrane
actuator micro pumps. Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, 8, 335345.
5. Rezazadeh, G., Tayefe-Rezaei, S., Ghesmati, J., & Tahmasebi, A. (2007). Investigation of the pull-in
phenomenon in drug delivery micropump using Galerkin method. Sensors & Transducers Journal,
78, 10981107.
6. Soleymani, P., Sadeghian, H., Tahmasebi, A., & Rezazadeh, G. H. (2006). Pull-in instability
investigation of circular micro pump subjected to nonlinear electrostatic force. Sensors & Trans-
ducers Journal, 69, 622628.
7. Bao, M., & Wang, W. (1996). Future of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS). Sensors and
Actuators. A, Physical, 56, 135141.
8. Senturia, S. (2001). Microsystem design. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
9. Rezazadeh, G. (2007). A comprehensive model to study nonlinear behaviour of multilayered micro
beam switches. Microsystem Technologies, 14, 35141.
10. Sadeghian, H., Rezazadeh, G. H., & Osterberg P. M. (2007). Application of the generalized dif-
ferential quadrature method to the study of pull-in phenomena of MEMS switches. Journal of
Microelectromechanical Systems, 16(6), 13341340.
11. Osterberg, P. M., & Senturia, S. D. (1997). M-TEST: A test chip for MEMS material property
measurement using electrostatically actuated test structures. Journal of Microelectromechanical
Systems, 6, 107118.
12. Abdel-Rahman, E. M., Younis, M. I., & Nayfeh, A. H. (2002). Characterization of the mechanical
behavior of an electrically actuated microbeam. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering,
12, 759766.
13. Younis, M. I., Abdel-Rahman, E. M., & Nayfeh, A. (2003). A reduced-order model for electrically
actuated microbeam-based MEMS. Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, 12(5), 672680.
14. Younis, M. I., Miles, R., & Jordy, D. (2006). Investigation of the response of microstructures under
the combined effect of mechanical shock and electrostatic forces. Journal of Micromechanics and
Microengineering, 16, 24632474.
15. Thomson, W. T., & Dahleh, M. D. (1998). Theory of vibration with applications. USA: Prentice Hall.
16. Shigley, J. E. (1986). Mechanical engineering design. USA: McGraw-Hill.
17. Mukherjee, T., Fedder, G. K., & White, J. (2000). Emerging simulation approaches for microma-
chined devices. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems,
19, 15721589.
130 Sens Imaging (2011) 12:117131
123
18. Senturia, S. D., Aluru, N., & White, J. (1997). Simulating the behavior of MEMS devices. Computing
in Science & Engineering, 4, 3043.
19. Gupta, R. K. (1997). Electrostatic pull-in test structure design for in situ mechanical property
measurement of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,
MA, pp. 1027.
20. Nayfeh, A., Younis, M. I., & Abdel-Rahman, E. M. (2005). Reduced-order models for MEMS
applications. Journal of Nonlinear Dynamics, 41, 211236.
21. Lynch, J. P., Partridge, A., Law, K. H., Kenny, T. W., Kiremidjian, A. S., & Carryer, E. (2003).
Design of piezoresistive MEMS-based accelerometer for integration with wireless sensing unit for
structural monitoring. Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 16(3), 108114.
22. Rezazadeh, G., Tahmasebi, A., & Zubtsov, M. (2006). Application of piezoelectric layers in elec-
trostatic MEM actuators: Controlling of pull-in voltage. Journal of Microsystem Technology, 12,
11631170.
23. Nayfeh, H., & Mook, D. T. (1979). Nonlinear oscillations. Wiley: New York.
24. Rezazadeh, G., & Tahmasebi, A. (2006). Eliminating of the residual stresses effect in the xedxed
end type MEMS switches by piezoelectric layers. Sensors & Transducers Journal, 66, 534542.
25. Osterberg P. (1995). Electrostatically actuated microelectromechanical test structures for material
property measurement, Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge.
26. Hung, E. S., & Senturia, S. D. (1999). Generating efcient dynamical models for microelectrome-
chanical systems from a few nite-element simulation runs. Journal of Microelectromechanical
Systems, 8, 280289.
27. Ananthasuresh, G. K., Gupta R. K., & Senturia, S. D. (1996) An approach to macromodeling of
MEMS for nonlinear dynamic simulation. In Proceeding ASME international conference of
mechanical engineering congress and exposition (MEMS), Atlanta, GA, (pp. 401407).
28. Krylov,S., & Maimon, R. (2003). Pull-in dynamics of an elastic beam actuated by distributed
electrostatic force. In Proceeding 19th biennial conference in mechanical vibration and noise (VIB),
Chicago, IL. DETC2003/VIB-48518.
29. Nayfeh, A., Younis, M. I., & Abdel-Rahman, E. M. (2007). Dynamic pull-in phenomenon in MEMS
resonator. Journal of Nonlinear Dynamics, 48, 153163.
Sens Imaging (2011) 12:117131 131
123