JOURNAL OF MICROELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO.

3, JUNE 2009 597

A Study for the Effect of the PCB Motion

on the Dynamics of MEMS Devices
Under Mechanical Shock
Fadi M. Alsaleem, Student Member, ASME, Mohammad I. Younis, Member, ASME, and
Mahmoud I. Ibrahim, Student Member, ASME

Abstract—We present a theoretical and experimental investiga-

tion into the effect of the motion of a printed circuit board (PCB)
on the response of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) de-
vices to shock loading. For the theoretical part, a 2-DOF model
is used, where the first degree of freedom accounts for the PCB.
The second degree of freedom represents the motion of the MEMS
microstructure. Low-g acceleration pulses are applied to the
MEMS–PCB assembly base to simulate shock pulses generated
from a drop-table test. Simulation data are presented to show the
effects of the natural frequency of the PCB, the natural frequency
of the microstructure, and the shock pulse duration. Universal 3-D
spectra representing the effect of these parameters are presented.
It is found that neglecting the PCB effect on the design of MEMS
devices under shock loads can lead to undesirable motion of their
microstructures. The effects of electrostatic force and squeeze film
damping are investigated. It is found that the amplification of
motion due to the PCB can cause early pull-in instability for
MEMS devices implementing electrostatic forces. The effect of
higher order modes of a microbeam is studied through a contin-
uous beam model coupled with a lumped model of the PCB. The
limitations of the 2-DOF model are discussed. An experimental
investigation is conducted to verify the theoretical results using a
capacitive accelerometer. Experimental data for the response of
the accelerometer while it is mounted on two representative PCBs
due to different low-g shock conditions are shown. [2008-0026]
Index Terms—Electrostatic force, mechanical shock, micro-
electromechanical systems (MEMS), microstructure, printed cir-
cuit board (PCB), reliability, squeeze film damping (SQFD).
I. I NTRODUCTION
Fig. 1. Schematic of a microstructure mounted on a PCB.
to facilitate the electrical interconnections and the structural
support [3]–[5]. MEMS microstructures, prior to getting
assembled on a PCB, are housed in a mold compound that can
be, for example, ceramic or plastic. However, recently, in some
MEMS applications, such as RF MEMS switches [6] and low-g
accelerometers [7], the MEMS device is directly placed on the
PCB in order to reduce the system complexity and cost. Mount-
ing the microstructure of a MEMS device (directly or within the
mold compound) on a PCB may raise concerns about the role of
the PCB in amplifying the shock effects on the microstructure
and distorting its sensing/actuating signal. This is particularly
important in applications, such as micro-g accelerometers,
where very high sensitivity to motion is required [7].
Fig. 1 shows a schematic for the assembly (packaging) levels
of a typical MEMS device [3]–[5]. As seen from the figure, four
levels of assembly can be identified. These represent the con-
nection between a microstructure and a substrate, the bonding

T HE reliability of microelectromechanical systems

(MEMS) devices in shock environment represents one
of the key factors to their commercialization [1], [2]. Unlike
that in macroscale devices, where the failure is primarily due
to fatigue, mechanical shock loads in microscale systems can
cause different failure mechanisms such as mechanical failure,
stiction, and short circuits. In commercial devices and electron-
ics, MEMS devices are placed on a printed circuit board (PCB)
Manuscript received February 1, 2008; revised July 29, 2008 and January 2,
2009. First published April 21, 2009; current version published June 3, 2009.
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant
0700683. Subject Editor L. Spangler.
The authors are with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, State
University of New York (SUNY), Binghamton, NY 13902 USA (e-mail:
myounis@binghamton.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JMEMS.2009.2016278
1057-7157/$25.00 © 2009 IEEE
between the substrate and the chip, the connection of the leads
from the chip carrier to the PCB, and the connection of the PCB
to the supported structure. These four connections are almost
rigid to ensure an undistorted signal from the microstructure
while sensing or actuating. However, because the microstruc-
ture and the PCB are flexible structures (beams, plates, and
diaphragms), the interaction of their motion can be significant.
Therefore, whether a microstructure is attached directly to a
PCB [6], [7] or is packaged in a standard assembly process as
in Fig. 1, the interaction of its motion with the PCB should be
analyzed. Other sources of significant effect on the motion of
a microstructure are electrostatic forces in electrostatic MEMS
and squeeze film damping (SQFD). Both introduce nonlinear
effects that also need to be analyzed in depth, combined with
the PCB effect.
The current trend in the IC and MEMS industry is to make
the PCB very thin and flexible. This means that the PCB is now
598
more susceptible to experience considerable bending motion
when subjected to mechanical shock and vibration. This motion
can be transmitted to the microstructure, leading to either its
collapse or false function. These new PCBs are characterized
by having low natural frequencies. A coupling in the response
between such PCBs with MEMS devices that have low natural
frequencies, such as microcantilever beams, may occur. On the
other hand, thick or small PCBs of high natural frequencies are
expected to cause coupling problems with stiffer microstruc-
tures, such as clamped–clamped microbeams and prestressed
diaphragms.
Many authors have studied the response of MEMS devices
under shock loads without incorporating the PCB effects [1],
[9]–[15]. Some of these works are reviewed in [15]. The
response of MEMS devices to shock loads, including the
PCB (assembly) effects, has not been investigated thoroughly.
Gogoi et al. [16] remarked that the fundamental frequency
of the system represented by the chip attached to the PCB
should lie outside the intended operating frequency range of
the MEMS structure. Fan and Shaw [3] evaluated the response
of a microstructure used for acceleration measurement under
severe shock loads. They indicated that the PCB, on which
the microstructure is mounted, introduces undesirable effects
on the acceleration measurements. To alleviate this factor, they
proposed to stiffen the PCB.
Srikar et al. [2] studied the reliability of MEMS devices
subjected to shock loads. They indicated that most MEMS
devices experience shock loads as quasi-static loads since their
natural periods are much smaller than the duration of shock
loads. Srikar et al. [2] pointed out that the MEMS package
reduces the shock load applied to the microstructure, and the
worst case scenario is to transfer this shock pulse without
significantly altering its shape or intensity. In this paper, how-
ever, we show that, for certain package designs and for certain
shock duration values, the microstructure response might be
amplified significantly because of the motion of the package
over a PCB.
In a previous work [17], the effect of the PCB motion on the
response of a microstructure was studied theoretically using a
2-DOF model. The mechanical shock was modeled as a single-
point force impacting the PCB. In [18], a continuous–lumped-
mass model was used to simulate the dynamic response of
the PCB MEMS assembly under the effect of a point force
impacting the PCB. In [19], we studied theoretically and ex-
perimentally the response of a capacitive accelerometer under
the combined effects of shock and electrostatic forces.
The objective of this paper is to present an accurate dy-
namical model for the mechanical shock problem on the PCB
MEMS assembly. This paper aims to understand the vibration
and motion consequences due to shock, which may cause stic-
tion and short-circuit problems due to the impact of microstruc-
tures among themselves and with the substrate. This paper does
not consider the effect of shock on the functionality of the
MEMS as a sensor or actuator. Here, we model the mechanical
shock as a base-excitation acceleration pulse affecting the PCB
MEMS assembly, which is an accurate way to model shock
pulses due to drop-table or drop tests [20]. A comparison
between this case and the model of [17] is made. Simulation
JOURNAL OF MICROELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO. 3, JUNE 2009
results and experimental data showing the effects of different
PCBs on the response of MEMS devices under base-excitation
shock loads will be presented.
The organization of this paper is as follows. In Section II, a
brief background on the modeling of shock and impact load is
presented. In Section III, we present simulation results on the
effects of PCB alone on a MEMS device. Section IV presents
details of the parameter extraction for the studied capacitive
accelerometers and PCBs. Section V provides simulation and
experimental results on the effects of PCBs. Following that, in
Section VI, we discuss the effects of electrostatic forces and
SQFD on the response of a MEMS device. In Section VII, we
analyze the impact of electrostatic forces and SQFD combined
with that of a PCB on the response of a MEMS device.
Section VIII presents a microbeam model coupled with a
lumped-mass model for the PCB and addresses the limitations
of the 2-DOF model. Finally, in Section IX, we summarize and
conclude this paper.
II. A PPROACHES TO M ODEL S HOCK AND I MPACT L OAD
As mentioned earlier, we assume here that both the substrate–
chip and the chip–PCB assembly are rigidly connected [2],
[21]. Hence, the assembly effect reduces to that of the PCB
motion only. We use a 2-DOF model (Fig. 2) to study the
PCB effect on the response of a MEMS device under shock
load. The first degree of freedom accounts for the PCB motion,
and the second degree of freedom represents the motion of the
microstructure, such as a beam or a plate, which is mounted
on the PCB. Shown in Fig. 2 are km : microstructure stiffness,
kPC : PCB stiffness, cm : microstructure damping, cPC : PCB
damping, mm : microstructure mass, and mPC : PCB mass. In
this model, we assume that the MEMS device is placed on the
center of the PCB, which represents a worst case scenario. This
is because the center of the PCB is expected to have the largest
motion due to shock [as will be shown later in Fig. 12(b)].
Impact forces and base-excitation pulses are two methods
to model shock forces affecting a 2-DOF system [22], similar
to the case of the MEMS–PCB assembly. Impact shock force
occurs, in the MEMS–PCB assembly case, when a sudden
force is applied directly to the PCB, such as that of a hammer
hit [Fig. 2(a)]. On the other hand, base-excitation acceleration
pulse occurs when the base of the assembly undergoes a sud-
den acceleration change [Fig. 2(b)]. This change happens, for
example, due to the drop of the assembly to the ground or due
to a drop-table test. In this paper, we study the latter case of
Fig. 2(b). Fig. 3(a) and (b) shows shock pluses due to a base-
excitation pulse and an impact force.
To model a shock pulse due to a drop test [20], [23], it
is assumed to be a half-sine pulse of period T [Fig. 3(a)].
Under this assumption, the governing equations of motion of
the system are given by
mm ẍ1 + km (x1 − x2 ) + cm (ẋ1 − ẋ2 ) = 0 (1)
mp ẍ2 − km (x1 − x2 ) − cm (ẋ1 − ẋ2 )
+ kPC x2 + cPC ẋ2 = kPC y + cPC ẏ (2)
ALSALEEM et al.: STUDY FOR THE EFFECT OF THE PCB MOTION ON THE DYNAMICS OF MEMS DEVICES
Fig. 2. Two approaches to model shock and impact. Shown is the MEMS–
PCB assembly, (a) subjected to a single impact force [17] and (b) a base
acceleration due to a drop-table test.
Fig. 3. Schematic of a half-sine pulse used to model the actual shock loads,
(a) base shock acceleration, and (b) impact shock force. For comparison
purposes of the two shock load types, it is assumed that Fo = Ao mPC .
where y and ẏ are the displacement and velocity of the assembly
base, respectively. The base acceleration ÿ is assumed to be
a half-sine pulse of amplitude Ao , which is expressed as ÿ =
Ao [sin(ωPulse t)u(t) + sin(ωPulse (t − T ))u(t − T )], where
ωPulse is the pulse frequency = π/TPulse , t is the time, and
u(t) is the unit step function.
Many MEMS devices are actuated by electrostatic forces and
operated in the presence of SQFD. In this case, the equations of
599
motion can be written as
mm ẍ1 + km (x1 − x2 ) + cm (ẋ1 − ẋ2 ) + fsqueeze
2
εAVdc
= (3)
2 [d − (x1 − x2 )]2
mp ẍ2 − km (x1 − x2 ) − cm (ẋ1 − ẋ2 ) + kPC x2 + cPC ẋ2
= kPC y + cPC ẏ (4)
where ε is the dielectric constant of the gap medium, A is
the electrode area of the microstructure, d is the capacitor gap
width, and Vdc is the dc polarization voltage. The squeeze film
term fsqueeze can be expressed using the Blech model [24], [25],
which is a series expression, as fsqueeze = Csqu (ẋ1 − ẋ2 ), where
64σPa A   m2 + n2

Csqu =
π 6 ωd (mn) {[m2 + n2 ]2 + σ 2 /π 4 }
2
m,n,odd
(5)
and σ is the squeeze number, σ = (12Aωm η/Pa [d − (x1 −
x2 )]2 ). Here, Pa is the ambient pressure, ωMEMS is the natural
frequency of the microstructure, and η is the viscosity coeffi-
cient of air. In [19], we found that using one term in the series
yields sufficient accuracy. By considering only the first term of
(5), where m = 1 and n = 1, the squeeze damping coefficient
becomes
 
64σPa A 2
Csqu = 6 . (6)
π ωm [d − (x1 − x2 )] [4 + σ 2 /π 4
The Blech model in (6) is modified to allow variation in the gap
distance with the motion [19].
III. S IMULATION R ESULTS ON THE PCB E FFECTS
In this section, (1) and (2) are used to model the influence
of the PCB motion on the response of a microstructure in the
absence of electrostatic forces or SQFD. Using modal analysis,
(1) and (2) can be solved analytically [23].
As a case study, a MEMS diaphragm of an omnidirectional
pressure microphone [26] is considered. The diaphragm has
a fundamental natural frequency of 24 kHz. Fig. 4(a) and (b)
shows the maximum relative amplitude of the diaphragm with
respect to the PCB (x1 − x2 ). The response in this figure and
all subsequent ones is normalized with respect to the static
deflection of the microstructure to an equivalent static load.
Results are shown for different PCB natural frequencies ωPCB ’s
with T = 1.0 ms and T = 60 μs. In the figures, the damping
ratio is assumed zero, considering the worst case scenario for
a shock response. The figures show that the MEMS response
is always amplified due to the presence of the PCB, except for
the zones where the natural frequency of the PCB is very low
(the response is attenuated) and very high (the response is the
same as if there is no PCB). Moreover, as the shock duration
decreases, the amplification amplitude increases.
For comparison purposes, we show in Fig. 5 the maximum
normalized relative amplitude of the response for the same
600
Fig. 4. Undamped response of a microdiaphragm to a base shock load. (a)
T = 1.0 ms. (b) T = 60 μs.
shock conditions in Fig. 4 due to a single impact load on the
PCB [17]. It is clear from the figures that the diaphragm exhibits
similar amplification zones for the base shock load case as in the
single force impact. The main differences, however, are that, as
the natural frequency of the PCB increases, the diaphragm starts
to experience the shock load as if there is no PCB in the case
of the base shock load. On the other hand, the response dies out
in the case of a single impact load. Furthermore, the response
of the diaphragm dies out as the natural frequency of the PCB
decreases in the base shock load case, whereas it experiences
the shock load as if there is no PCB in the impact shock
load case.
Next, we show in Fig. 6 a universal 3-D plot for the nor-
malized deflection of a microstructure as a function of the
shock frequency, the PCB natural frequency, and the natural
frequency of the microstructure. In the figure, we assume a
damping ratio for the PCB of 0.05 and a damping ratio of the
microstructure of 0.05 in Fig. 6(a) and 0.5 in Fig. 6(b). These
plots can serve as a guideline for MEMS designers to ensure
reliable operation of their various MEMS devices on a PCB.
For example, the pressure microphone has a natural frequency
of 24 kHz. The shock duration that this microstructure could
experience in a drop test is between 0.1 and 1.0 ms. This
shock range corresponds to ωMEMS /ωPulse = 2.4 − 24. Based
on Fig. 6, a designer can select a suitable PCB, which has the
minimum effect on amplifying the unwanted response of the
microphone due to shock load.
JOURNAL OF MICROELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO. 3, JUNE 2009
Fig. 5. Comparison of the undamped response of a microdiaphragm due to a
single force and a base-excitation load. (a) T = 1.0 ms. (b) T = 60.0 μs.
IV. E XPERIMENTAL S ETUP AND P ARAMETER E XTRACTION
In this section, we discuss the parameter extraction for two
capacitive accelerometers and two PCBs, which we will use as
case studies for the simulation and experimental work of this
paper.
A. MEMS Characterization
Two different samples of a commercial off-the-shelf
capacitive accelerometer (Fig. 7), fabricated by Sensata
Technologies,1 are used for simulation and experimental inves-
tigation. We label them as sample “a” and sample “b.” The sam-
ples are made up of two alloy-42 cantilever beams of 150-μm
thickness and a proof mass (approximately of 9.0-mm length
and 5.32-mm width) attached to their tips. The proof mass
forms one side of the capacitive electrode used for detection.
The samples are identical in their geometrical properties. The
differences between them are the stiffness of their cantilever
beams and the gap separating the proof mass from the substrate.
The experimental setup shown in Fig. 8(a) and (b) was used for
1 www.sensata.com.
ALSALEEM et al.: STUDY FOR THE EFFECT OF THE PCB MOTION ON THE DYNAMICS OF MEMS DEVICES
Fig. 6. Universal 3-D plots of the normalized relative amplitude of a mi-
crostructure for different ωPCB and ωPulse values. (b) Effect of damping in
reducing the amplification in the MEMS response due to the presence of a PCB.
(a) ζMEMS = 0.05. (b) ζMEMS = 0.5.
both the experimental investigation and extracting the mechan-
ical parameters of the samples. The first parameter extracted
was the effective stiffness of the cantilevers. The device was
actuated using various dc voltages, and the transient response
of the proof mass was monitored using a laser vibrometer.
Fig. 9 shows an example of the data obtained experimentally
for sample b. Using an S-DOF model for the capacitive sensor,
the equilibrium solution can be written as
2
εAVdc
x3 − 2dx2 + d2 x − = 0. (7)
2k
The stable solution of (7) was used to curve-fit the experi-
mental data. To measure the gap width d, which separates the
proof mass from the stationary electrode, a high dc voltage
beyond pull was applied. Fig. 10 shows the measured transient
response of the proof mass of sample b. Finally, the vibration
response of the device was measured to identify the natural fre-
quency and linear damping ratio. A continuous random signal
was used to drive the shaker. Using a curve fitting technique,
both the fundamental natural frequency of the device and the
601
Fig. 7. (a) Photograph of a capacitive accelerometer, fabricated by Sensata
Technologies.1 (b) Capacitive accelerometer taken apart.
linear damping ratio were found. Table I gives a summary of the
different parameters for each sample. Although Table I shows
that the two samples have low natural frequencies, they both
share the main characteristics of a MEMS device. The gap and
the thickness of their structures are in the micrometer range,
their responses are dominated by the SQFD effect, and they are
actuated electrostatically. We conducted modal analysis using
white noise, which revealed that the torsional modes of the
device get activated at very large frequencies. Hence, they will
be neglected in this paper.
B. PCB Characterization
Two PCBs of representative fundamental natural frequencies
were chosen. The first one (PCB1) is a circular disk of a fun-
damental natural frequency that is very large compared to the
natural frequency of the accelerometer [Fig. 11(a)]. The other
one (PCB2) is a rectangular plate with a fundamental natural
frequency close to the natural frequency of the accelerometer
[Fig. 11(b)]. The second PCB is designed to adhere to the
JEDEC standard [27] for electronic component shock testing.
We began our characterization for the two PCBs by mounting
them on the head of a shaker. A laser vibrometer was used to
monitor the velocity response of each PCB. A reference ac-
celerometer was mounted on the head of the shaker to measure
its acceleration. A random noise voltage was applied as an input
to the electromagnetic shaker to obtain the frequency response
of the two PCBs. Fig. 12 shows an example of the obtained
frequency response and the corresponding mode shape of PCB1
at its first fundamental natural frequency. The figure shows that
PCB1 has a first natural frequency around 6.0 kHz. Similarly,
it was found that PCB2 has a fundamental natural frequency of
230 Hz.
602
Fig. 8. (a) Photograph of the experimental setup used for testing.
(b) Schematic of the experimental setup and the data acquisition system. In the
figure, the resistor R is used as a current-limiting resistor to protect the device
in the case of pull-in from the high current of the closed circuit.
Fig. 9. Variation of the proof-mass displacement normalized by the gap
spacing underneath the proof mass d for various values of Vdc . Shown in the
figure are both simulation and experimental data of sample b.
JOURNAL OF MICROELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO. 3, JUNE 2009
Fig. 10. Measured transient response of the proof mass for a voltage beyond
the pull-in voltage.
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF THE EXTRACTED PARAMETERS FOR EACH SAMPLE
OF THE S TUDIED C APACITIVE A CCELEROMETER
Fig. 11. Photograph of the two PCBs used for testing. (b) PCB2 placed over
a shaker head. (a) PCB1 (ωPCB = 6 kHz). (b) PCB2 (ωPCB = 230 Hz).
V. E XPERIMENTAL D ATA AND C OMPARISON W ITH
S IMULATION R ESULTS ON THE PCB E FFECTS
This section presents a comparison between experimental
and theoretical results for the responses of the capacitive ac-
celerometer, including the PCB effect, due to base shock loads.
Sample “a” was used in this investigation. First, the response
of sample “a” without a PCB was obtained. Toward this, the
capacitive accelerometer was mounted directly on the top of
the shaker, and its response was monitored. Two displacement
measurements were obtained using the laser vibrometer, i.e.,
one for the absolute motion of the accelerometer and the
other for the substrate motion, which is the same as the PCB
motion assuming a rigid connection between the PCB and the
accelerometer substrate. By subtracting these two measure-
ments, the relative displacement of the capacitive accelerometer
relative to the substrate (PCB) was obtained. A positive value
of the relative displacement means that the microstructure
deflects toward the substrate. In this case, SQFD becomes
ALSALEEM et al.: STUDY FOR THE EFFECT OF THE PCB MOTION ON THE DYNAMICS OF MEMS DEVICES
Fig. 12. (a) Frequency response of PCB1. (b) Three-dimensional plot for the
first mode shape of PCB1, which was obtained experimentally by measuring
the PCB response at different locations using the laser vibrometer. The figure
shows that the PCB moves purely up and down with its maximum deflection at
its center.
significant. A negative value indicates that the microstructure
deflects away from the substrate. In this case, SQFD be-
comes weak.
Fig. 13(a) shows the normalized maximum response of the
accelerometer for different shock durations (shock spectrum)
while it is not mounted on any PCB. In this figure, the experi-
mental data are compared with S-DOF shock spectrum. In the
simulation, only a linear damping ratio that is equal to 0.5 is
assumed. Experimentally, the response of the proof mass while
it is deflecting away from the substrate is measured so that
the effect of SQFD is weak. The figure shows good agreement
between simulation and experimental results.
Next, the accelerometer was mounted on PCB1 shown in
Fig. 11(a). The PCB was fixed using four screws to the head
of the shaker. Since the ratio of the PCB’s natural frequency to
the accelerometer’s natural frequency is very high, i.e., ωPCB /
603
Fig. 13. Shock spectrum of sample a obtained theoretically and experimen-
tally, (a) including and (b) without including the effect of PCB1.
ωMEMS = 6 kHz/187 Hz = 32, it is expected, according to
Fig. 6(b), that the PCB will transfer the shock load to the
accelerometer microstructure without any alteration. Fig. 13(b)
compares the simulation and experimental results for the max-
imum normalized relative amplitude of the tested accelerom-
eter for different shock durations when the accelerometer is
mounted on PCB1. We assumed a damping ratio that is equal
to 0.05 for PCB1 in the simulations. A comparison between
Fig. 13(a) and (b) shows that the shock spectra of the two
cases are similar. This agrees with the conclusion of Section III,
i.e., for a base shock load, as the ratio between the natural
frequencies of a PCB and a MEMS device increases, the PCB
transfers the shock load to the MEMS device without any
alteration (i.e., the shock spectrum of the MEMS device when
mounted on a PCB should be similar to the one when the
MEMS is not on a PCB).
Next, the accelerometer was mounted on PCB2. The ratio of
the natural frequency of PCB2 to the accelerometer’s natural
frequency is 1.23. Fig. 6(a) shows that a high amplification for
the MEMS response occurs at this ratio. However, since the
damping ratio of the accelerometer is very high, we expect less
amplification [Fig. 6(b)]. Fig. 14 compares the simulation and
experimental results for the maximum normalized relative am-
plitude of the tested accelerometer for different shock durations
when the accelerometer is mounted on PCB2. We assumed a
damping ratio that is equal to 0.05 for PCB2 in the simulations.
The figure shows a good agreement between the simulation
and experimental results. A comparison between Figs. 13 and
14 shows that, at this specific ratio between the PCB and the
604
Fig. 14. Simulation-versus-experimental results for the shock spectrum of
sample a, including the effect of PCB2.
Fig. 15. Transient response of the proof mass with and without PCB2 when
subjected to a mechanical shock, as monitored through a laser Doppler vibrom-
eter (T = 5.0 ms).
MEMS device, the response of the microstructure is amplified.
This is because the natural frequency of the PCB is near that of
the microstructure.
Fig. 15 shows a sample of the measured transient response
of the device with PCB2 (dynamic response amplification) and
without PCB2 (quasi-static response with no amplification) due
to a shock load of T = 5.0 ms. This figure shows a significant
amplification for the response of the device due to the dynamic
effect of the poorly designed PCB. Note that, without a PCB,
the device responds quasi-statically to shock load. Hence, the
PCB here has adverse effect on the performance of the device.
We can observe from the figure a nonlinear behavior in the
accelerometer response. This behavior is characterized by a
large deflection of the proof mass (near −100 μm) when it
moves away from the substrate while the response is suppressed
going toward the substrate. This is due to the effect of SQFD,
which increases toward the substrate. Fig. 16 [19] shows more
clearly the nonlinear effect of SQFD on the deflection of the
proof mass. It should also be mentioned that the figure shows
a drift in the measurement where the proof mass appears to
oscillate steadily around an equilibrium position near −20 μm
instead of zero. This is just due to the laser vibrometer reading
drift over time.
JOURNAL OF MICROELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO. 3, JUNE 2009
Fig. 16. (Stars and diamonds) Simulation results and (circles and squares)
experimental data of the proof-mass deflection with shock amplitude when T =
5.0 ms [19].
Fig. 17. S-DOF model of a parallel-plate electrostatic MEMS device sub-
jected to base excitation.
VI. E FFECT OF E LECTROSTATIC F ORCE
W ITHOUT I NCLUDING THE PCB
We investigated in the previous section the effect of the
PCB alone on the motion of a MEMS device. In order to fully
understand the behavior of an electrostatically actuated MEMS
device, one needs to include the nonlinearities introduced to the
problem in a real application. The first source of nonlinearity
affecting the motion of a microstructure is the electrostatic
force, which acts as a negative quadratic nonlinearity. Another
source of nonlinearity is introduced through SQFD. This effect
was ignored in the previous section since the proof mass was
studied while moving away from the substrate.
The model shown in Fig. 17 is used to investigate these
nonlinearity effects on the microstructure without the presence
of the PCB. The equation of motion, in this case, is given by
2
εAVdc
mz̈ + cż + kz + fsqueeze = − F0 mÿ(t) (8)
2(d − z)2
where z is the relative deflection of the proof mass, which
is the absolute motion of the proof mass x minus that of the
substrate y (z = x − y), and ÿ(t) denotes the base acceleration
ALSALEEM et al.: STUDY FOR THE EFFECT OF THE PCB MOTION ON THE DYNAMICS OF MEMS DEVICES 605

Fig. 19. Simulation-versus-experimental results for the accelerometer shock

spectrum of sample b when subjected to a 3-g shock at Vdc = 0 V.
Fig. 18. Shock spectra of sample b when subjected to a shock load of 1 g and
various electrostatic loads for the case of SQFD and high linear damping.

that is provided to the device in the form of a half-sine shock

pulse given in Section II. The squeeze film term fsqueeze can
be expressed using the Blech model [24], [25] as fsqueeze =
Csqu ẋ, where Csqu is defined in (6).
Next, we investigate the electrostatic force combined with
SQFD and their effects on the shock spectrum of sample b
(see Table I). Here, we assume that the accelerometer works
under ambient pressure. We use a linear damping ratio of 0.4,
which is obtained experimentally for sample b of the capacitive
accelerometer. Since (8) is nonlinear, an analytical solution
is not available. Hence, we use direct time integration for
the equation of motion to obtain the shock spectrum using
Runge–Kutta method. It is important to note that applying
the electrostatic force causes an initial static deflection of the Fig. 20. Simulation-versus-experimental results for the accelerometer shock
spectrum of sample b when subjected to a 3-g shock at Vdc = 60 V.
proof mass and applying the shock load thereafter causes the
proof mass to oscillate about its new equilibrium position due
to the electrostatic force. For the purpose of comparing with using the shaker. Figs. 19 and 20 compare the simulation
experimental data, all simulated shock spectra illustrated in this and experimental results, where the device was subjected to a
section account for this new equilibrium position by subtracting mechanical shock of 3 g and dc voltages of 0 and 60 V, respec-
the static deflection of the proof mass due to the electrostatic tively. The figures show good agreement between simulations
force from the total response to obtain the dynamic component and experimental data within the tested range. The experimental
of the response only. data were obtained only for a small range of shock durations
Fig. 18 shows the shock spectrum of the MEMS device when due to experimental limitations from both the shaker and laser
subjected to acceleration pulses of amplitude of 1.0 g. We can vibrometer. For large shock durations, the response was quasi-
note from the figure that, as we increase the electrostatic force, static when subtracting the two measurements, which was not
the deflection of the microstructure increases significantly. This well captured by the laser vibrometer. When the shock duration
behavior shows that the electrostatic force acts as a softener was too small, it was close to the natural period of the shaker,
to the microstructure. Young et al. [28] observed the same be- which caused disturbances in the signal.
havior on a spring–mass–damper model with a cubic-softening
spring term in the equation of motion. The figure also clearly
VII. E FFECT OF E LECTROSTATIC F ORCE
shows the effect of SQFD in suppressing the motion of the
I NCLUDING THE PCB M OTION
microstructure in the dynamic zone causing no amplification,
unlike the amplification observed in Fig. 13(a) and (b), where Here, we study the combined effect of the PCB and the elec-
SQFD was not present. It is also observed that the microstruc- trostatic force on the response of the capacitive accelerometer
ture experiences pull-in near the quasi-static region of the shock of sample a to base shock load. We used the model shown in
spectrum where SQFD has small effect. Fig. 21 with (3) and (4).
Comparison With Experiment: The same procedure ex- Fig. 22 compares the calculated pull-in voltage of the capac-
plained in Section V was used here, where the device was itive device against the shock amplitude when modeling the de-
actuated by a dc voltage and subjected to mechanical shock vice alone without the PCB and with the PCB for the two cases
606 JOURNAL OF MICROELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO. 3, JUNE 2009

Fig. 23. Schematic of the coupled model used to represent the effects of the
Fig. 21. Schematic for a 2-DOF model of a parallel-plate MEMS device motion of the PCB on the response of a clamped–clamped microbeam under
mounted on a PCB undergoing base shock load excitation. base load excitation.

VIII. C ONTINUOUS –L UMPED M ODEL

In this section, we present a continuous model of a MEMS
microstructure that is coupled with a lumped-mass model of the
PCB (Fig. 23). We adopt this model to study the limitations of
considering the MEMS device in the aforementioned analysis
as a lumped-mass model. For illustration, a clamped–clamped
microbeam is used in this investigation. Clamped–clamped mi-
crobeams play an important role in many MEMS devices, such
RF switches and thermal actuators. Using Hamiltonian’s princi-
ple, the equations of motion for the microbeam deflection w and
the PCB when subjected to a base excitation can be written as
⎡ ⎤
4 2 L 2
∂ w ∂w ∂w ⎣Ebh ∂w ∂2w d2X
EI + ρbh 2 + c̃ = dx⎦ 2 −ρbh 2
∂x 4 ∂t ∂t 2L ∂x ∂x dt
Fig. 22. Plot of the pull-in voltage of sample a against the shock load ampli- 0
tude of a half-sine pulse using the 1-DOF and 2-DOF models. Results are shown (9a)
with and without including the effect of SQFD for the case of T = 5.0 ms
and ωPCB = 230 Hz (PCB2). L
d2X dX ∂2w dy
(m+ρbhL) 2 + kp X + cp + ρbh 2 dx = kp y+ cp
TABLE II dt dt ∂t dt
0
PULL-IN VOLTAGE UNDER SHOCK FOR THE SELECTED POINTS
OF F IG . 22 IN THE P RESENCE OF SQFD (9b)

where x is defined as the position along the microbeam length;

with and without SQFD. The linear damping ratio is assumed
to be 0.5. It is noted here that the 2-DOF model (accounting
for PCB2) shows an earlier pull-in compared to the 1-DOF
model. The results indicate the importance of modeling the
effect of the PCB motion in electrostatic MEMS. By neglecting
the effect of the PCB, there is a possibility that the device
will fail to function properly and that it might collapse and fail
mechanically or electrically. When comparing the cases of with
and without SQFD, we note that SQFD has significant impact
in raising the threshold of dynamic pull-in due to mechanical
shock. Table II shows the selected experimental points for the
results of Fig. 22. The table compares the pull-in threshold
under shock with and without PCB2 in the presence of SQFD.
The experimental data agree with the simulation results.
X is the PCB displacement; I is the moment of inertia of the
cross section; E is Young’s modulus; ρ is the material density;
t is the time; c̃ is the damping coefficient of the microbeam
per unit length; y is the base motion; kp , cp , and m are the
effective stiffness, damping coefficient, and the mass of the
PCB, respectively; and L, h, and b are the microbeam length,
thickness, and width, respectively. Because the mass of the
microbeam is much smaller than that of the PCB, its effect on
the motion of the PCB is neglected. We assume no damping
acting on the PCB, which represents a worst case scenario.
Therefore, the equation of motion of the PCB is decoupled
from the microbeam. Hence, (9b) is reduced to
d2 X
m + kp X = kp y. (10)
dt2
Next, we solve for X in (10) and substitute the result in
(9a). We then use a reduced-order model [29] to discretize the
ALSALEEM et al.: STUDY FOR THE EFFECT OF THE PCB MOTION ON THE DYNAMICS OF MEMS DEVICES 607

Fig. 24. Results for the MEMS–PCB assembly response to base shock
load of shock amplitude of 400 g and duration T = 1 ms using (dashed)
the 2-DOF model, (solid) the continuous–lumped model, and (dotted) the
continuous–lumped model, including midplane stretching. The natural fre-
quency of the PCB is 1.0 kHz. Here, w refers to the maximum deflection of
the microbeam in the continuous–lumped model and to the relative deflection
of the microbeam for the case of the lumped-mass model.
Fig. 25. Results for the MEMS–PCB assembly response to base shock load
of shock amplitude of 400 g and T = 1 ms using (dashed) the 2-DOF model
and (solid) the continuous–lumped model. The natural frequency of the PCB is
87.57 kHz. Here, w refers to the maximum deflection of the microbeam in the
continuous–lumped model and to the relative deflection of the microbeam for
the case of the lumped-mass model.

resulting equation into a finite-degree-of-freedom system con-

sisting of ordinary differential equations in time. The odd un-
damped linear mode shapes of the straight microbeam are used
as basis functions in the Galerkin procedure. The even modes
are not included in the solution since they are asymmetric
modes, and hence, their influence on the beam dynamics is
negligible.
The material properties of the investigated microbeam are
assumed to be E = 169.0 GPa and ρ = 2332 kg/m3 . The
microbeam is assumed to have L = 900 μm, h = 1.5 μm,
b = 100 μm, and d = 2.0 μm.
Fig. 24 compares the continuous–lumped model results [in-
cluding and not including the nonlinear midplane stretching
term, the integral term in (9a)] with the 2-DOF model results
when the shock load amplitude is 400 g and its duration value
is 1.0 ms. The PCB’s natural frequency, in this case, is assumed
to be 1.0 kHz. In the 2-DOF model, the effective stiffness of the
clamped–clamped beam is calculated as

32Ebh3
k= . (11)
L3
The figure shows that the results of the 2-DOF model and
the continuous–lumped model (without including midplane
stretching) are in good agreement. However, the figure shows
that midplane stretching has the effect of stiffening the beam.
Because the focus of this paper is on the participation of higher
order modes, not on the effect of midplane stretching, we will
neglect midplane stretching in the rest of the paper to allow for
a more quantitative comparison with the 2-DOF linear model.
Next, we show in Fig. 25 the response of the microbeam Fig. 26. Results for the MEMS–PCB assembly response to base shock load
of shock amplitude of 400 g and duration T = 27 μs using (dashed) the 2-DOF
using the continuous–lumped model and the 2-DOF models model and (solid) the continuous–lumped model. The natural frequency of the
for the case of a natural frequency of the PCB that is equal PCB is 87.57 kHz.
to 87.57 kHz. This natural frequency was chosen to be near
the second symmetric natural frequency of the microbeam. We models for shock load amplitude of 400 g and duration of 27 μs.
notice from the figure that the two plots are almost identical. In The natural frequency value of the PCB is the same as in
Fig. 26, we show the response of the microbeam using the two Fig. 25. The shock duration value was chosen here to be near
608
the natural period of the second symmetric natural frequency
of the microbeam. The figure shows that the 2-DOF model
fails to predict the microbeam response for this specific shock
loading case (when the natural frequency of the PCB and the
shock pulse frequency are near the second symmetric natural
frequency of the microbeam).
In summary, we conclude that the higher order modes of
vibration of a microbeam may contribute to its response only
when one of those modes has a natural frequency that is near
both the natural frequency of the PCB and the shock pulse
frequency.
IX. C ONCLUSION AND S UMMARY
We investigated the response of MEMS devices, including
the effect of the PCB motion, for different conditions of shock
pulses. It was found that neglecting the PCB effect on the mod-
eling of a microstructure of a MEMS device could underesti-
mate the microstructure motion. Universal 3-D plots accounting
for the natural frequency of the PCB, the natural frequency
of the microstructure, and the shock duration are generated.
These can be used to define the amplification zones in which
the normalized response of a microstructure is amplified. Such
plots can be used by MEMS designers to help ensure safe
operation of their devices.
For MEMS devices actuated electrostatically, it is found
that a poor design of the PCB can lead to an early dynamic
instability (dynamic pull-in) under shock load. In these devices,
SQFD is found to have the effect of suppressing the shock
effects and stabilizing the device.
An experimental investigation has been conducted to char-
acterize a capacitive accelerometer that is mounted on PCBs.
Experimental results for the capacitive accelerometer when it
is mounted on two different PCBs due to different base shock
load conditions are shown. It is found that these results are in
good agreement with the simulation results.
Finally, a continuous model for the microbeam coupled with
a lumped model for the PCB is used to study the limitations of
considering a microstructure as a lumped mass. It is found that
higher modes of vibration of the microstructure have negligible
effects on its response, except for the case when one of those
modes has a natural frequency that is near both the natural
frequency of the PCB and the shock pulse frequency.
As a future work, we plan to investigate the effect of higher
order modes of a microstructure when they interact with those
of a PCB. This problem requires a continuous–continuous
model for both the microstructure and the PCB.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Sensata Technologies for
providing the parts used for testing.
R EFERENCES
[1] G. Li and J. Shemansky, “Drop test analysis on micro-machined struc-
tures,” Sens. Actuators A, Phys., vol. 85, no. 1–3, pp. 280–286, Aug. 2000.
[2] V. Srikar and S. Senturia, “The reliability of microelectromechanical
systems (MEMS) in shock environments,” J. Microelectromech. Syst.,
vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 206–214, Jun. 2002.
JOURNAL OF MICROELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO. 3, JUNE 2009
[3] M. S. Fan and H. C. Shaw, “Dynamic response assessment for the MEMS
accelerometer under severe shock loads,” NASA, Washington, DC, Rep.
TP—2001-209978, 2001.
[4] R. Ghaffarian, D. Sutton, P. Chaffee, N. Marquez, A. Sharma, and
A. Teverovsky, “Thermal and mechanical reliability of five COTS
MEMS accelerometers,” NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging Program,
2002. [Online]. Available: http://nepp.nasa.gov/eeelinks/February2002/
Thermal_and_Mechanical_Reliability.pdf
[5] G. Ken, “MEMS PCB assembly challenge,” Circuits Assem., vol. 11,
no. 3, p. 62, 2002.
[6] H. Chang, J. Qian, B. Cetiner, F. Flaviis, M. Bachman, and G. Li, “Design
and processes consideration for fabrication RF MEMS switches on printed
circuit boards,” J. Microelectromech. Syst., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1311–1322,
Dec. 2005.
[7] N. Yazdi and K. Najafi, “An all-silicon single-wafer micro-g
accelerometer with a combined surface and bulk micromachining
process,” J. Microelectromech. Syst., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 544–550,
Dec. 2000.
[8] U. Wagner, J. Franz, M. Schweiker, W. Bernhard, R. Muller-Fiedler,
B. Michel, and O. Paul, “Mechanical reliability of MEMS-structures un-
der shock load,” Microelectron. Reliab., vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 1657–1662,
Sep. 2001.
[9] J. De Coster, H. Tilmans, J. Van Beek, G. Rijks, and R. Puers, “The
influence of mechanical shock on the operation of electrostatically
driven RF-MEMS switches,” J. Micromech. Microeng., vol. 14, no. 9,
pp. S49–S54, Aug. 2004.
[10] T. Brown, “Harsh military environments and microelectromechanical
(MEMS) devices,” in Proc. IEEE Sensors, 2003, vol. 2, pp. 753–760.
[11] N. Tas, T. Sonnenberg, H. Jansen, R. Legtenberg, and M. Elwenspoek,
“Stiction in surface micromachining,” J. Micromech. Microeng., vol. 6,
no. 4, pp. 385–397, Dec. 1996.
[12] D. Tanner, J. Walraven, K. Helgesen, L. Irwin, N. Smith, and N. Masters,
“MEMS reliability in shock environments,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Reliab.
Phys. Symp., San Jose, CA, 2000, pp. 129–138.
[13] X. Fang, Q. Huang, and J. Tang, “Modeling of MEMS reliability in shock
environments,” in Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Solid-State Integr. Circuits Technol.,
Beijing, China, 2004, pp. 860–863.
[14] O. Millet, D. Collard, and L. Buchaillot, “Reliability of packaged
MEMS in shock environments: Crack and stiction modeling,” in Proc.
Des., Test, Integr. Packag. MEMS/MOEMS, Cannes, France, 2002,
pp. 696–703.
[15] M. I. Younis, R. Miles, and D. Jordy, “Investigation of the response
of microstructures under the combined effect of mechanical shock
and electrostatic forces,” J. Micromech. Microeng., vol. 16, no. 11,
pp. 2463–2474, Oct. 2006.
[16] B. Gogoi, M. Vujosevic, and S. Petrovic, “Challenges in MEMS packag-
ing,” in Proc. SMIT Int. Conf., Rosemont, Cook, IL, 2000, pp. 775–783.
[17] F. M. Alsaleem, M. I. Younis, and R. Miles, “An investigation into the
effect of the PCB motion on the dynamic response of MEMS devices
under mechanical shock loads,” J. Electron. Packag., vol. 130, no. 3,
pp. 031 002-1–031 002-10, Sep. 2008.
[18] M. I. Younis, F. M. Alsaleem, and D. Jordy, “The response of clamped–
clamped microbeams under mechanical shock,” Int. J. Non-Linear Mech.,
vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 643–657, May 2007.
[19] M. I. Younis, F. M. Alsaleem, R. Miles, and Q. Su, “Characteriza-
tion of the performance of capacitive switches activated by mechanical
shock,” J. Micromech. Microeng., vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 1360–1370,
Jun. 2007.
[20] D. S. Steinberg, Vibration Analysis for Electronic Equipment, 3rd ed.
New York: Wiley–Interscience, 2000.
[21] J. M. Pitarresi and A. Primavera, “Comparison of modeling techniques for
the vibration analysis of printed circuit cards,” Trans. ASME, J. Electron.
Packag., vol. 114, no. 4, pp. 378–383, 1992.
[22] A. G. Hernried and J. L. Sackman, “The two-degree-of-freedom equip-
ment structure system,” J. Eng. Mech., vol. 112, no. 6, pp. 621–628,
Jun. 1986.
[23] B. Balachandran and E. Magrab, Vibrations. Columbus, IN: Thomson
Eng., 2003.
[24] J. J. Blech, “On isothermal squeeze films,” J. Lubr. Technol., vol. 105,
pp. 615–620, Oct. 1983.
[25] M. Andrews, I. Harris, and G. Turner, “A comparison of squeeze-film
theory with measurements on a microstructure,” Sens. Actuators A, Phys.,
vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 79–87, Mar. 1993.
[26] W. Cui, “Analysis, design and fabrication of a novel silicon micro-
phone,” Ph.D. dissertation, Mech. Eng. Dept., State Univ. New York at
Binghamton, Vestal, NY, 2005.
[27] JEDEC Mechanical Shock, Standard JESD22-B104-B, 2001.
ALSALEEM et al.: STUDY FOR THE EFFECT OF THE PCB MOTION ON THE DYNAMICS OF MEMS DEVICES 609

[28] D. Young, M. V. Barton, and Y. C. Fung, “Shock spectra for nonlinear Mohammad I. Younis received the B.S. degree in
spring–mass systems and their applications to design,” AIAA J., vol. 1, mechanical engineering from Jordan University of
no. 7, pp. 1597–1602, 1963. Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan, in 1999, and
[29] M. I. Younis, E. M. Abdel-Rahman, and A. H. Nayfeh, “A reduced- the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in engineering mechanics
order model for electrically actuated microbeam-based MEMS,” from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer-
J. Microelectromech. Syst., vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 672–680, Oct. 2003. sity, Blacksburg, in 2001 and 2004, respectively.
Since then, he has been an Assistant Professor
with the Department of Mechanical Engineering,
State University of New York, Binghamton, where
he is currently the Director of the MEMS Motion
and Characterization Laboratory. He serves as an
Associate Editor for Mathematical Problems in Engineering. He is the holder
of a U.S. patent on a MEMS switch triggered by shock. His research interests
are in the area of dynamics and vibration of MEMS and NEMS.
Fadi M. Alsaleem received the B.S. degree in Dr. Younis is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
mechatronics engineering in 2003 from Hashemite
University, Zarqa, Jordan, a graduate certificate in
mechatronics engineering from the American Uni-
versity of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates,
and the M.S. degree in mechanical engineering, with Mahmoud I. Ibrahim received the B.S. degree
a thesis on the reliability of MEMS devices, in 2007 in mechanical engineering in 2007 from the State
from the State University of New York, Binghamton, University of New York, Binghamton, where he is
where he is currently working toward the Ph.D. de- currently working toward the M.S. degree in the De-
gree in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. partment of Mechanical Engineering. His M.S. thesis
His research is focused on utilizing the nonlinear includes work on the reliability of MEMS devices
dynamic response of MEMS devices to design new mass and acceleration under mechanical shock, electrostatic actuation, and
sensors. squeeze-film damping.
Mr. Alsaleem is a Student Member of the American Society of Mechanical Mr. Ibrahim is a Student Member of the American
Engineers. Society of Mechanical Engineers.