Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
beams
This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.
(http://iopscience.iop.org/0960-1317/13/4/312)
View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more
Download details:
IP Address: 139.80.2.185
The article was downloaded on 18/07/2013 at 05:09
Abstract
Using a commercial finite-element simulation tool, this work considers
some of the electromechanical effects commonly neglected during the
analysis of electrostatically actuated fixed–fixed beams. These structures are
used in many applications of micromechanical systems, from relay switches
and RF resonators to thin film characterization tests, but much of the
analytical modelling of the device behaviour disregards the effects of
electrostatic field fringing, plane-strain conditions and anchor compliance.
It is shown that the cumulative total of these errors can be substantial, and
may lead to large discrepancies in the expected operational characteristics of
the device. We quantify the influence of these effects on the electrostatic
pull-in of fixed–fixed beams, and illustrate some of the limitations of ideal
pull-in theory. In order to more accurately predict the pull-in voltage for a
real structure, a model is developed that combines ideal case theory with
anchor compliance correction factors extracted using finite-element
analysis. Three common anchor types (ideal, step-up and cup-style) are
characterized. The final model takes account of the compliance of the beam
anchors, electrostatic field fringing and plane-strain effects, and agrees well
with simulated results.
S76
Analysis of electromechanical boundary effects on the pull-in of micromachined fixed–fixed beams
Height (microns)
3.5
2.5
2 Measured
1.5 w(x)
1
0 50 100 150 200
Length (microns)
Figure 3. Comparison between measured and assumed deflection profiles for a 200 × 20 µm2 fixed–fixed beam under a bias voltage of
48.8 V. The assumed deflection profile is w(x) = w 1cos2(π x/L), which provides a reasonable fit to the measured profile.
0.9
0.85
longer valid in this case. The larger capacitance causes a
0.8
corresponding increase in the electrostatic energy between the 0.75
Ideal
plates, reducing the voltage needed to achieve pull-in. To first 0.7
Step-up
0.65
order, fringing fields may be approximately compensated for Cupped
0.6
by using an ‘effective width’,
beff,in calculations such as those 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
above, where beff = b 1 + 0.65 gb [8]. Beamlength, microns
S77
C O’Mahony et al
4. Analysis
Note that for the ideal case, the value of c1 extracted using
FEA is higher than that predicted by the analytical case (8).
This is due to the influence of the higher-order stretching
π 4 hbEw4
energy term 32L3 1 in (4). For the micromachining process of
interest here, the error caused is small, as the pull-in voltage is
dominated by the residual stress terms (σo ∼ 200 MPa), and so
this term has been neglected throughout this work. However,
Figure 7. Cup-style anchor design. The titanium beam is 10 µm it serves as an indication that this effect may need to be more
wide and 1.0 µm thick. closely examined as the thin film stress tends towards 0 (σo ∼
10 MPa). For thin film characterization purposes, the Young’s
Since the principles of actuation remain the same, we modulus of a material remains reasonably constant despite
expect that the pull-in voltage for each case may be predicted variations in processing conditions. Because of this, and the
by an expression of the same form as (8), but will reflect influence of the residual stress on pull-in voltages, the first
the increased elasticity and compliance of the step-up and term in (9) is often of little interest. In contrast, the stress in a
cup-style beam anchors. This is done by re-evaluating the thin film often varies enormously with deposition parameters,
numerical compliance factors, c1 and c2, as outlined below. To anneals and back-end processing steps [16, 17], and accurate
verify this approach, the ideal case anchor is also investigated. determination of c2 is far more critical and of more interest to
The corrections for elecrostatic field fringing and plane-strain
microsystems designers.
effects discussed earlier are also included in (9),
Beams that employ a cup-style anchor are subject to
1 E ∗ h3 g 3 g 3 hσ further effects caused by the two outside anchor walls, which
VPI = g c1 4
+ c2 (1 − υ) . (9)
1 + 0.65 d εL εL2 have the effect of stiffening the anchor. These effects
The compliance factor c1 was extracted by assuming arbitrary may become particularly pronounced as the beam becomes
mechanical properties (in this case, titanium; E = 110 GPa, narrower and the anchor walls make up a greater fraction of
v = 0.33), and zero residual stress, and fitting a straight line to the overall beamwidth (figure 11). In each case, the width of
a plot of simulated VPI2 versus 1/L4, repeated for each anchor the anchor walls remains constant, and the width of the anchor
type. All devices were meshed with approximately 6000 cup is equal to the beamwidth minus the width of the anchor
panels (figure 8) and from mesh studies, results are estimated walls (figures 7 and 8). This increased stiffness is reflected
to be accurate to ±5%. in an increase in pull-in voltage as the beamwidth decreases.
A typical c1 extraction plot is shown in figure 9. Structural In cases such as this, the compliance factors may need to be
dimensions are typical for MEMS devices; beam width is re-evaluated at each specific beamwidth in order to cater for
20 µm, thickness is 1 µm and gap height is 1.5 µm. the influence of the anchor walls.
S78
Analysis of electromechanical boundary effects on the pull-in of micromachined fixed–fixed beams
7.E+03 Ideal
6.E+03 y = 6.40E-13x
Stepup y = 5.96E-13x
5.E+03
VPI2 (V2)
4.E+03 Cupped
3.E+03 y = 4.70E-13x
2.E+03
1.E+03
0.E+00
0.E+00 2.E+15 4.E+15 6.E+15 8.E+15 1.E+16 1.E+16
4 -4
1/L (m )
Figure 9. Extraction data for c1. The constant is found from the slope of the line.
5000 V2 (L = 200 microns) ideally clamped device, and we have shown that substantial
V2 (L = 500 microns)
differences exist between the performances of different beam
4000
anchors. This is due to the stress absorption and increased
compliance that occur in these regions. Three common anchor
VPI2, V2
3000
y = 1.03E-05x + 2.93E+02
types (ideal, step-up and bucket-style) have been investigated,
2000 and it has been estimated that a step-up anchor design may
y = 1.64E-06x + 7.50E+00 reduce the pull-in voltage by as much as 25% when compared
1000
with an ‘ideal’ anchor.
0 In order to more accurately predict the pull-in voltage for
0.E+00 1.E+08 2.E+08 3.E+08 4.E+08 5.E+08 a real structure, an approach has been developed that combines
Stress, MPa ideal case theory with electrostatic field fringing compensation
and anchor compliance correction factors extracted using
Figure 10. Extraction plot for the compliance factor c2. This is data finite-element modelling. The final model takes into account
for the step-up anchor; other anchor designs are evaluated in the the compliance of the beam anchors, electrostatic field fringing
same way. Two beamlengths are used to verify the result. and plane-strain effects.
80
70 References
Pull-in voltage, Volts
60
50 [1] Huang J-M, Liew K M, Wong C H, Rajendran S, Tan M J and
40 microns
40 Liu A Q 2001 Mechanical design and optimization of
20 microns
30 capacitive micromachined switch Sensors Actuators A 93
10 microns
20
273–85
10
[2] Muldavin J B and Rebeiz G M 2000 High-isolation CPW
MEMS shunt switches: Part 1. Modeling IEEE Trans.
0
Microw. Theory Tech. 48 1045–52
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
[3] Nguyen C T-C, Katehi L P B and Reibeiz G M 1998
Length, microns Micromachined devices for wireless communications Proc.
IEEE 86 1756–68
Figure 11. Measured pull-in voltages for titanium fixed–fixed [4] Howe R T and Muller R S 1986 Resonant-microbridge vapor
beams of different widths. The influence of the anchor walls is sensor IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED-33 499–506
apparent. [5] Burns D W, Horning R D, Herb W R, Zook J D and Guckel H
1996 Sealed-cavity resonant microbeam accelerometer
Table 1. Extracted compliance correction factors. Sensors Actuators A 53 249–55
Ideal Cupped anchor Step-up Analytical [6] Ahn Y, Guckel H and Zook J D 2001 Capacitive microbeam
anchor (b = 20 µm) anchor case (equation (8)) resonator design J. Micromech. Microeng. 11 70–80
[7] Zou Q, Li Z and Liu L 1995 New methods for measuring
c1 14.1 13.1 10.3 11.7 mechanical properties of thin films in micromachining:
c2 3.4 2.3 1.7 3.6 beam pull-in voltage method and long beam deflection
method Sensors Actuators A 48 137–43
[8] Osterberg P M and Senturia S D 1997 M-Test: a test chip for
5. Conclusions MEMS material property measurement using
electrostatically actuated test structures
J. Microelectromech. Syst. 6 107–17
This work illustrates the manner in which several modifications [9] Gupta R K, Osterberg P M and Senturia S D 1996 Material
may be made to the ideal pull-in model in order to take property measurements of micromechanical polysilicon
into account effects such as electrostatic field fringing, finite beams Proc. SPIE 2880 39–45
beamwidth and anchor compliance. The data of table 1, and the [10] Ijntema D J and Tilmans H A C 1992 Static and dynamic
measurements of figure 11, highlight the dangers of assuming aspects of an air-gap capacitor Sensors Actuators A 35
121–8
an ideal anchor during analysis of pull-in tests. [11] Nemirovsky Y and Bochobza-Degani O 2001 A methodology
The results show that large errors in device performance and model for the pull-in parameters of electrostatic
or measurement data may result from the assumption of an actuators J. Microelectromech. Syst. 6 601–15
S79
C O’Mahony et al
[12] Kobrinsky M J, Deutsch E R and Senturia S D 2000 Effect of [15] Young W C 1989 Roark’s Formulas for Stress and Strain
compliance and residual stress on the shape of doubly 6th edn (New York: McGraw-Hill)
supported surface-micromachined beams [16] Berney H, Hill M, Hynes E, O’Neill M and Lane W A
J. Microelectromech. Syst. 9 361–9 2000 Investigation of the effect of processing steps
[13] Jensen B D, Bitsie F and de Boer M 1999 Interferometric on the stress in a polysilicon structural
measurements for improved understanding of boundary membrane J. Micromech. Microeng. 10
effects in micromachined beams Proc. SPIE 223–34
Micromachining and Microfabrication (Santa Clara, CA) [17] Windischmann H 1992 Ìntrinsic stress in sputter-deposited
[14] Gere J M and Timoshenko S P 1999 Mechanics of Materials thin films Crit. Rev. Solid State Mater. Sci. 17
4th edn (Cheltenham, UK: Stanley Thornes) 547–96
S80