P. Phan Huu1, V.Q. Nguyen1, T. Chu Duc1, P.M. Sarro2 Colege of Technology, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam 2 ECTM, DIMES, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands
isolation between the aluminum structure and the silicon substrate. The gaps between the silicon comb fingers are filled with SU8 polymer [see Fig. 1(d)]. When the heater is activated, the generated heat is efficiently transferred to the surrounding polymer through the deep silicon comb finger structure that has a large interface area with the polymer layer. The polymer layers expand along the lateral direction causing bending displacement of the actuator arm.

This paper presents a novel sensing microgripper based on silicon-polymer electrothermal actuators and piezoresistive force sensing cantilever beams which can be controlled by a PID controller to monitor the displacement of the microgripper jaws and also the contact force between the tips and the grabbed object.

A sensing microgripper based on silicon-polymer electrothermal actuators and piezoresistive force sensing cantilever beams was presented in [1, 2]. The sensing microgripper is capable of providing large jaw displacement and output sensing voltage. This device is able to monitor the jaw displacement and the resulting applied force. The device is made on SOI silicon wafers with a fabrication process compatible with CMOS technology. That presented sensing microgripper can potentially be used in automatic manipulation systems for microassembly, living cell handling, minimally invasive surgery, and microrobotics. However, that sensing microgripper it is controlled by an opened-control systems hence limiting its accuracy and response time. This paper describes the design of a Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controller system for this sensing microgripper. The control system is designed for a CMOS process that can be integrated on chip with the microgcripper for low manufacturing cost, precise displacement at setting point, fast transient response, wide range voltage supply, etc.

Figure 1. SEM pictures of a) the sensing microgripper and close-ups of b) the piezoresistors; c) the jaws and d) a section of the thermal actuator.

The sensing microgripper is shown in Fig. 1. The structure is based on the combination of silicon-polymer electrothermal microactuators and piezoresistive laterally force sensing cantilever beams. When the electrothermal actuator is activated the microgripper arm and also the sensing cantilever are bent. This causes a difference in the longitudinal stress on the opposite sides of the cantilever. This changes the resistance values of the sensing piezoresistors on the cantilever. The displacement of the microgripper jaws can be monitored through the output voltage of the Wheatstone bridge of the piezoresistive sensing cantilever beam. The contact force between the microgripper jaws and the clamped object is then determines based on the displacement and stiffness of the microgripper arm. The microgripper is designed for normally opened operation mode. Each actuator has a silicon comb finger structure with the aluminum metal heater on top. A thin layer of silicon nitride is employed as the electrical

The force sensor design is based on the lateral force sensing piezoresistive cantilever beam [3, 4]. The four piezoresistors are located on the cantilever beam structure and connected to create a Wheatstone bridge [see Fig. 1(b)]. The piezoresistors are aligned along the [110] direction in the (001) crystal plane of the silicon wafer. The resistor pair located on the cantilever is the stress sensing resistors. When the electrothermal actuator is activated the cantilever beam is bent parallel to the wafer surface. Therefore, the differential change of resistance occurs on the two sensing resistors. The resistance change of the piezoresistors depends on the displacement of the tip of the cantilever beam [3].

3.1. THE CONTROL SCHEME There are several schemes to be chosen for a control system. In this paper, the control system is designed with a CMOS process that can be integrated on chip with the microgcripper for low manufacturing cost, precise displacement at setting point, fast transient response, wide range voltage supply, etc. In order to meet these requirements, a unity feedback control system is needed as presented in Fig. 2. Plant: A physical system to be controlled, in this case, it consists of the driver circuit and the sensing microgripper.

flyback. 3 shows the measured voltage gain and phase shift as a function of frequency of this sensing microgripper using the lock-in amplifier. etc. Block diagram of a unity feedback control The transfer function of a PID controller is given by: H 1 ( s) = 1 1 K K s + KPs + KI KP + I + KDs = D s s 2 ωP s +1 = 1 0. There are 2 kinds of MOSFETs: NMOS and PMOS. possibilities are buck/boost for step down/up. we only need a controllable active device connected in serial to pass current from power supply. the maximum output voltage is limited by the supply voltage minus VT (threshold voltage. The variable e represents the tracking error. If a NMOS is used.dB -10 -20 -30 10 0 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 Phase shift . the difference between the desired input value X (desired position or status of a physical system) and the actual output Y.e + K I ∫ edt + K D e dt This signal u will be sent to the plant. The cutoff frequency is The behaviourbehavior of the driver circuit is like a RC circuit (the PMOS is a “dynamic” resistor) and the transfer function of the drive circuit is: . In our case. the output voltage can go up to the supply voltage when using a single supply. THE TRANSFER FUNCTION OF THE MICROGRIPPER 0 3. With MOSFET devices. Fig. the variable e is the difference between the voltage setting and the feedback voltage and is sensed by the piezoresistors [1].Controller: Provides the excitation for the plant.7V) when the maximum gate voltage equals the supply voltage.3.2. Amplitude. The final circuit (called Driver circuit) to generate voltage for the actuator is shown in Fig 4. 3. Applying this model to our case.. The signal u just past the controller is now equal to the proportional gain K P times the magnitude of the error plus the integral gain K I times the integral of the error plus the derivative gain K D times the derivative of the error. The sweep input voltage is applied to electrothermal actuator and the output of the piezoresistive Wheatstone bridge is monitored. This new output Y will be sent back to the sensor again to find the new error signal e. The controllable device may be a MOSFET or bipolar transistor.° -50 Figure 4. and the new output Y will be obtained. Driver circuit -100 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 Angular frequency . but the process to fabricate our sensing microgripper was designed to be CMOS compatible and thus a MOSFET is chosen.e. Bode diagram of the sensing microgripper. This process is repeated indefinitely. With PMOS. and the controller computes both the derivative and the integral of this error signal. The controller takes this new error signal and computes its derivative and integral again. Thus. about 0. 2].rad/s Figure 3. designed to control the overall system behavior. This error signal e will be sent to the PID controller. K I = integral gain. i. THE DRIVER CIRCUIT In order to control this microgripper a voltage source supply the actuator with enough will be generated and that voltage source needs to be controlled by the output of the PID controller. u = K P . 29 Hz [1.005s + 1 Where: K P = proportional gain. the output voltage to supply the actuator is controlled by the Gate voltage. and K D = derivative gain. the transfer function of the sensing microgripper in s domain: Figure 2. The large-signal cutoff frequency of this sensing microgripper is measured as 29 Hz ( ωP = 200 rad/s). There are many ways to get a voltage source controlled and depending on what is the level of input supply.

the transient response time due to the value of the filter capacitor is ignored). On the other hand. The derivative gain will reduce the overshoot.s +1 0. the rising and setting time reduces to about 2 ms and have no overshoot.00005s +1 3. setting time =50 ns and there is no overshoot at all.s +1 with a proportional controller is: from the Drain to the Source of the PMOS.1. The plant is the driver circuit and the sensing microgripper connected in serial. and just take a value equal 1μF (in this case.00005s +1 1 0. Step response of close-loop feedback proportional controller in comparison with open-loop.17 and ringing 2 times before it approach the setting point. So the maximum current is 2. Furthermore. 3. Our actuator includes two aluminum wires to transfer electricity to heat with a total resistor of about 200 Ω. but the more current capability the more area for the PMOS device is needed. If we increase K D .5 ms but the overshoot appears with output rise up to 1.5.C.005s +1 0. For the capacitor C which play the part of a filter. the rising time decreases to less than 1 ms.H 2 (s) = 1 where R DS is the resistor R DS . the setting time is about 5 ms. increased the overshoot and decreased the settling time in comparison with the open-loop response. 7. The driver circuit is required higher current capability. The DC gain of the plant transfer function is 1/1 (at s=0).10 ( F ).00000025s + (0.00000025s + 0. 0.03 with rising time = 20 ns.00505s + (1 + K P ) 2 H 2 ( s) = 1 1 = −6 50(Ω).H 2 ( s ) = = 2 1 1 . make the system more stable (reduce number of ringing).5 mA (the supply current is changed from 0 to the maximum value depending on what is the setting point). the DC gain is shifted down a bit to 10/11. Open-loop step response of the sensing microgripper and driver circuit The results for K P = 500 and with several values of K D are shown in Fig. Figure 6. and the setting time is about 25 ms.6.4. The plots show that the proportional controller reduced both the rise time and the steady-state error. When K P = 10 . When K P increases to 500. In short. PROPORTIONAL CONTROL The closed-loop transfer function of the above system K D = 0. 5. Typically. H ( s ) = H 1 ( s ).5 and produces more ringing. so 1 is the final value of the output to a unit step input. we have the transfer function for the driver circuit: H (s) P = KP 0. the rise time is about 10 ms (from 10% to 90% of rising edge). PROPORTIONAL – DERIVATIVE CONTROL The closed-loop transfer function of the given system with a PD controller is: H ( s ) PD = KDs + KP 0. the maximum DC voltage that can be appliedy to the actuator is 5V. R DS = 50Ω. Let’s compare the various cases one by one with the proportional control system. The optimum values for this system are K P = 500 and 3. When K P increases to 100. OPEN-LOOP CONTROL As mentions before.00505s +1 Let's first view the open-loop step response of system shown in Fig. the . the rising time is about 1. the overshoot is up to near 1.00000025s + 0. but the setting time still about 5 ms.4. increasing K P will make the rising and setting time faster but make the overshoot bigger. the controller will take the error signal e and computes to give signal u that will be sent to the plant.00505 + K D ) s + (1 + K P ) 2 Figure 5. The transfer function of control system is: With several trial values of proportional gain ( K P ) we have the step response of the control system shown in Fig. setting time and rising time. Thus.

Step response of close-loop feedback proportional-derivative controller in comparison with open-loop response. we need to evaluate how the integral gain ( K I ) does.03s 2 + 500 = 0. Chu Duc. The closedloop transfer function of the given system with a PID controller is: REFERENCES [1] [2] Chu Duc Trinh. J. Step response of close-loop feedback proportional-integral controller in comparison with only proportional controller. Step response of close-loop feedback proportional-derivative controller in comparison with only proportional. G. Ph. 3.7. 8. “Sensing Microgripper for Micropartical handling”. setting time from 25 ms down to 50 ns). 4.00505 + K D ) s + (1 + K P ) Figure 7. K. the closed-loop transfer function with a PI control is: H ( s) PI = KPs + KI 0. For a complete design.00000025s + 0. and our system is only proportional and derivative. the characteristics of object being manipulated and the ambient environment. the integral gain does not need to be a concern. some aspects of the system need to be considered: adding temperature characteristic of the sensing microgripper into the model to be simulated. let's take a look at a PID controller. F. 3. 0.03 and the final transfer function is: H ( s) PD KDs2 + KP = 0. This device is ideally intended for automatic applications with control of speed and accuracy of the manipulation. The integral gain also reduces the rise time and increases the overshoot as the proportional gain does. PROPORTIONAL – INTEGRAL CONTROL Before going to a PID control system.00000025s 2 + 0.03505s + 501 The response of the close-loop control system in comparison with the open-loop is shown in Fig.00000025s 2 + (0. CONCLUSIONS A method to get the transfer function of the controller system for a novel sensing microgripper is presented. Thesis Delf University of Technology. “Electro-thermal microgrippers with large jaw displacement and intergrated force . M. In conclusion for this system there is no need to use the integral gain and we can keep the system control as simple as possible.6. Creemer. H ( s ) PID = KDs2 + KPs + KI 0. The initial requirements for a system fully integrated on a single die using conventional CMOS technology are shown. Figure 9. Lau. etc. we improve both rising time and setting time to about 500 times faster (rising time from 10 ms down to 20 ns.setting time is longer.00505s 2 + (1 + K P ) s + K I 3 Let's use the K P = 200 and do some trial with the integral gain K I .D. T.00000025s 3 + (0. and P. For the given system. Sarro. but it needs to have a huge integral gain ( K I ) to get a considerable changes. Figure 8.00505 + K D ) s 2 + (1 + K P ) s + K I But from the analysis before.9. Let’s use K P = 500 and K D = 0. By using the PD close-loop control scheme. THE FINAL LOOP-CONTROL TRANSFER FUNCTION Now. and still keep the system stable. limiting the input supply voltage. We will get the plots as shown in Fig.

Proceeding 21th IEEE Conference on MEMS. vol.html. A. Sarro. Pittsburgh. 102-106. and Cybernetics – Part C. 2006. Chu Duc. and R. no. Bang S.36. T. Vol. “Electronics and Circuit analysis using Matlab”. P. Man.F. Jan 2006. Chen. J.engin. Lin. . R. The University of Michigan. “Understanding the stable range of equivalent series resistace of an LDO regulator”. 96-104. Sensors. pp.F. Zesch.M. IEEE J. pp. P. and W. Intell. T. Codourey. Sarro. Attia. Syst. Z. “A robot system for automated handling in microworld”. 1999. Conf. 7. Tucson. IEEE Trans. Website: “Control tutorials for Matlab” at http://www. 16.. Robot.6.[3] [4] [5] sensors”. vol.umich. 1. Siegwrt.C. P. John O. “Piezoresistive cantilever beam for force sensing in two dimensions”. Creemer. J. Lee. CRC Press LLC.M. no. Buchi. W. On System. “Lateral nano-Newton force-sensing piezoresistive cantilever for microparticle handling”. USA. Jan 13-17. J.Y. Chu Duc. Lu. Microeng. Creemer. IEEE/RSJ [6] [7] [8] [9] Micromech. 2008. Proc. PA. “Force sensing and control in micromanipulation”.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful