0

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

LAB REPORT
ME3281 MICROSYSTEMS DESIGN AND APPLICATIONS


Lecturer: ASSOC PROF Zhou Guangya

Student: Nguyen Duy Tam
Student ID: A0093535B
Email: A0093535@nus.edu.sg






Singapore, 21 March 2012

1

SESSION I UNDERSTANDING THE COMB DRIVE MICRORESONATOR
MECHANICS
Comb
Drive
Ground Plane Anchor
Folded-beam
Flexure
V
x

Movable
Shuttle
Comb
Drive
Ground Plane Anchor
Folded-beam
Flexure
V
b
V
x

Movable
Shuttle
-V
x


(a) (b)
Fig.1 Microactuator driving mechanism (a) single-side driving (b) push-pull driving
Q1. Derive the applied voltage Vx and static displacement relationship for the
microresonator, when driven by single-side driving mechanism as show in Fig.1 (a).
Estimate the stable operation voltage and maximum stable travel range of the comb
drive.
Answer:
In Fig.1 (a), we can see the voltage V
x
is only applied for the left portion of comb-drive
resonator. And the electrostatic force of the right portion is zero. Thus, the electrostatic
force can be described by:
2
e x
n t
F V
g

=
Where: n: number of movable fingers on the left portion; : the dielectric constant in air
t: the finger thickness; g: finger gap spacing
2

The elastic force:
m x
F K x =
With
3
3 3 3
12 48
8 8 4
2 2
beam
x
k EI EI Etw
K
L L L
= = = = , w is the width of the spring beam.
(
3
12
beam
EI
k
L
= ,
3
12
tw
I = )
When:

2
e m
x x
F F
n t
V K x
g

=
=

So, the stable operation voltage can estimate by:
x
x
gK x
V
n t
=
With K
x
is the spring constant of the compliant suspension in the x-ditection and x is the
comb displacement in the x-direction.
The maximum stable travel range of the comb-drive:

max 2 2 0
0
1
2
2 2
y
x
x
K
L
L g
K
= +
Ky is the spring constant of the compliant suspension in y-direction, and it is bounded by:
K
y
> K
e

Where:
( )
0
2
2
x
e
K L x x
K
g
+
=
L
0
is the initial finger overlap.
Q2. Derive the applied voltage Vx and static displacement relationship for the
microresonator, when driven by push-pull mechanism. As shown in Fig.1 (b), the
movable fingers are biased at -32 V.
Answer:
The elastic force:
m x
F K x =
3

With:
3
3
4
x
Etw
K
L
=
The electrostatic force:
left right
e e e
F F F =

( )
( )
( ) ( )
2
2
2 2
2 2 2 2
2 2
4
left
e b x
right
e b x
left right
e e b x b x
b b x x b b x x
b x
n t
F V V
g
n t
F V V
g
n t
F F V V V V
g
n t
V V V V V V V V
g
n t
V V
g

= +
=

= +

= + + +

=

Thus, the applied voltage Vx and static displacement relationship is:
F
m
=F
e
4
x b x
n t
K x V V
g

=
Q3. Draw the mechanical equivalent model of the microresonator. Given a
polysilicon structure thickness of 2 m, Youngs Modulus of 1.69 10
11
Pa, viscosity
of the air of 1.8 10-5 N s/m2, and density of 2330 kg/m3, estimate the equivalent
spring constant, mass, damping coefficient.
Answer:
From the Q1, the equivilent spring constant can be estimated by:
3
3
4
x
Etw
K
L
=
Where: E=1.69 10
11
Pa; t=2 m , w=2 m , L=250 m
So:
3 11 6 3 18
3 3 18
1, 69 10 2 10 2 10
4 4 0.692
250 10
x
Etw
K
L

= = =

(N/m)
To estimate the mass, we have to calculate the total volume of the structure and then
using the density value to determine.
4

Method to estimate the total volume:
V
total
= [A
movable finger
+ A
spring
+ 4(A1+A2+A3+A4+A5)] x (structure thickness t)
A is the surface area.

Fig.2 Estimating the volume part of comb-drive resonator
A1=
( )
12 12 2
550 30 10 16500 10 m

=
A2=
( )
12 12 2
56 225 2 10 25200 10 m

=
A3=
( )
12 12 2
60 36 10 2160 10 m

=
5

A4=
( )
12 12 2
30 101 10 3030 10 m

=
A5=
( )
12 12 2
60 90 10 5400 10 m

=
A
movable finger
=
( )
12 12 2
2 109 3 50 10 32700 10 m

=
A
spring
=
( )
12
12 2
16 250 2 10 8000 10 m

=
Thus,
( ) ( )
12 6 18 3
V = 32700 8000 4 16500 25200 2160 3030 5400 10 2 10 499720 10
total
m

+ + + + + + =

From:
( )
18 9
2330 499720 10 1,164 10
m
d m dV kg
V

= = = =
To estimate the damping coefficient, we have to estimate the total plate area.
A
total
= A
movable finger
+ 4(A1+A2+A3+A4+A5)
= ( ) ( )
12 12 2
32700 4 16500 25200 2160 3030 5400 10 241860 10 m

+ + + + + =


Thus, the damping coefficient is:
( )
5 12
6
6
1.8 10 241860 10
2.17674 10 . /
2 10
A
N s m
d

= =

Q4. Estimate the resonant frequency and Q factor.
Answer:
The resonant frequency of the comb-drive resonator can be estimated by:

1
2
x
eff
K
m

| |
=
|
|
\

Where: K
x
= 0,692 (N/m)
m
eff
= ( )
9
1.164 10 kg

Thus, the resonant frequency is:
1
1
2
2
9
0, 692
24382.4
1,164 10
x
eff
K
m

| |
| |
= =
|
|
|

\
\

6

( )
24382.4
3.8806
2 2
f kHz

= = =
The Q factor:

eff FoldedBeam
p
d
Q m K
A
= =
Where:

( )
( )
5 2
12 2
2
1.8 10 . /
241860 10
1,164
0, 692 /
p
eff
FoldedBeam
d m
N s m
A m
m g
K N m

=
=
=
=
=

Thus, the Q factor is:
6
9
5 12
2 10
1,164 10 0, 692
1.8 10 241860 10
13.04
eff FoldedBeam
p
d
Q m K
A

= =

=












7

SESSION 2: TESTING OF MICRORESONATOR
Q5. Describe the experimental setup and procedures.
Answer:
After manufacturing, comb-drive resonator is checked and running tested. And then it is
installed into the system.
Whole comb-drive resonator is set in a capsule. Above it is a microscope, is connected
with a display monitor. This microscope has some knobs which can move in x, y and z
direction to control when observing.
Electrodes of comb-drive resonator are linked with applied source via connector. Whole
system is connected with a computer and a software to process measured data.
Before operating this device, we have to set up some parameters. The most importance is
estimating one pixel of display monitor correlated to how many micrometers in real scale.
After calculating, we estimate that 1 pixel = 0,1882 micrometers.
Q6.Test the static performances of the microresonator. (Both single-side driving and
push-pull)
Answer:
1.Single-side driving
In this case, we apply a DC voltage to one side of comb-drive resonator and measure the
displacement of movable fingers.
Measured data:
Voltage (V) X1 (Pixel) X2 (Pixel) dX (Pixel) Gap ( m) Displacement ( m)
0 133.4 275.1 141.7 26.66794 0
5 133.4 275.1 141.7 26.66794 0
10 130 275.1 145.1 27.30782 0.63988
15 128.4 275.1 146.7 27.60894 0.941
20 125 275.1 150.1 28.24882 1.58088
24 120 275.1 155.1 29.18982 2.52188
26 118.4 275.1 156.7 29.49094 2.823
28 116.7 275.1 158.4 29.81088 3.14294
30 113.4 275.1 161.7 30.43194 3.764
32 111.7 275.1 163.4 30.75188 4.08394
8

34 110 275.1 165.1 31.07182 4.40388
36 106.7 275.1 168.4 31.69288 5.02494
38 103.4 275.1 171.7 32.31394 5.646
40 100 275.1 175.1 32.95382 6.28588
42 98.4 275.1 176.7 33.25494 6.587
44 93.4 275.1 181.7 34.19594 7.528
46 88.4 275.1 186.7 35.13694 8.469
48 85 275.1 190.1 35.77682 9.10888
50 81.2 275.1 193.9 36.49198 9.82404

Diagram:
0 20 40 60
0
5
10
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
M
i
c
r
o
m
e
t
e
r
)
Voltage (V)
Experimental
Analytical

Fig.3 Diagram express the applied voltage and static displacement relationship in single-
side driving
Comparison:
We compare two diagrams of voltage-displacement relationship, which the theoretic
diagram obeys the equation:
2 2
x x x
x
n t n t
V K x x V
g gK

= = (Where: n=109,
( )
12
8.85 10 / F m

= , ( ) 2 , 2 , 0.692 /
x
t m g m K N m = = = , thus, the equation becomes:
( )
2
0.001394
x
x V m = ). The voltage values V
x
are the same to the experimental values. We
can see two diagrams have the same conformation. Although the experimental curve is
not regular and steeper than theoretical curve in high voltage.
9

2.Push-pull mechanism:
In this case, we apply voltage to both two electrodes of the comb-drive resonator. But one
side is positive and the another one is negative.
Measured data:
Voltage (V) X1 (Pixel) X2 (Pixel) dX (Pixel) Gap ( m) Displacement ( m)
0 131.7 275.1 143.4 26.98788 0
2 126.7 275.1 148.4 27.92888 0.941
4 121.7 275.1 153.4 28.86988 1.882
6 115 275.1 160.1 30.13082 3.14294
8 111.7 275.1 163.4 30.75188 3.764
10 105 275.1 170.1 32.01282 5.02494
12 100 275.1 175.1 32.95382 5.96594
14 95 275.1 180.1 33.89482 6.90694
16 90 275.1 185.1 34.83582 7.84794
18 85 275.1 190.1 35.77682 8.78894
20 80 275.1 195.1 36.71782 9.72994
22 75 275.1 200.1 37.65882 10.67094
24 71.7 275.1 203.4 38.27988 11.292
26 68.3 275.1 206.8 38.91976 11.93188
28 66.7 275.1 208.4 39.22088 12.233
Diagram:
0 10 20 30
0
5
10
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
M
i
c
r
o
m
e
t
e
r
)
Voltage (V)
Experimental
Analytical

Fig.4 Diagram express the applied voltage and static displacement relationship in push-
pull mechanism
10

Comparison:
We compare the experimental line with the theoretic line which is expressed by the
equation:
4
b x
x
n t
x V V
gK

= (where: n=218, ( )
12
8.85 10 / , 2 , 0.692 /
x
F m t g m K N m

= = = =
Vb = 32 V, thus, the equation becomes: ( ) 0.3569
x
x V m = ). We can see that the
experimental line is linear, similar to the theoretic line. But it is steeper and its linearity
decreases at high voltages.
Q7. Sketch the frequency response of the microresonator.
Answer:
In this case, we apply a AC voltage with frequency , and then varying the frequency to
measure the oscillate amplitude of the comb-drive resonator.
Measured data:
Frequency (kHz) X1 (Pixel) X2 (Pixel) dX (Pixel) Gap ( m) Amplitude ( m)
1.4 118.4 145 26.6 5.00612 2.50306
1.5 145 173.4 28.4 5.34488 2.67244
1.6 145 176.7 31.7 5.96594 2.98297
1.7 141.7 178.4 36.7 6.90694 3.45347
1.8 141.7 180 38.3 7.20806 3.60403
1.9 136.7 181.7 45 8.469 4.2345
2 135 188.4 53.4 10.04988 5.02494
2.1 128.4 188.4 60 11.292 5.646
2.2 120 195 75 14.115 7.0575
2.3 110 206.8 96.8 18.21776 9.10888
2.4 98.4 205 106.6 20.06212 10.03106
2.5 108.4 203.4 95 17.879 8.9395
2.6 116.7 191.7 75 14.115 7.0575
2.7 126.7 185 58.3 10.97206 5.48603
2.8 131.7 178.4 46.7 8.78894 4.39447
2.9 133.4 173.4 40 7.528 3.764
3 138.4 171.7 33.3 6.26706 3.13353



11

Diagram:
1.4 2.1 2.8
3
6
9
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
M
i
c
r
o
m
e
t
e
r
)
Frequency (kHz)
Amplitude

Review:
We can see the oscillate amplitude increases with the increasing of frequency in some
initial values. And then is inversely proportional with the increasing of frequency. The
frequency at which the oscillate amplitude achieves maximum value is the resonator
frequency. In this case the resonator frequency is 2.4 kHz.
We can use this result to estimate the Q factor by calculating the 3dB Bandwidth. On the
diagram, the 3dB Bandwidth is: 2.6 - 2.2 = 0.4 kHz.
Thus, the Q factor can be estimated by:

3
2.4
6
0.4
c
dB
f
Q
BW
= =
Q8. Are there any discrepancies between the analytical and experimental results?
Explain.
Answer:
Yes. There are some discrepancies between the analytical and experimental results.
In the testing the static performances of microresonator, there are not a lot of different
between the analytical and experimental results. They have the same conformation. The
12

most important point is the experimental lines are steeper than the theoretic lines. This is
maybe caused by the deviation during microfabrication processes. In theoretic model, we
will manufacture the finger with the width is 2 m, but in fact, the real size is maybe 1.5
to 1.9 m. Because we cant control completely the etching and fabrication processes.
This deviation leads to a lot of differences compare with the theoretic model. For
example, when the finger width decreases to 1.5 1.9 m, the mass of whole comb-drive
resonator also decreases; the finger gap spacing increases. Thus, when we apply the
voltage, the displacement of the comb-drive resonator also increases compared with
theoretical. It explains why observing on the graphs, the experimental displacements
greater than analytical values in the same voltage value.
The deviation during microfabrication processes also create the large disparity between
the theoretic and experimental Q factor (13.04 and 6). In the theoretic formulae to
calculate the Q factor, there are a lot of parameters are depend on the comb-drive size.
Thus, when occurring the difference between theoretic and real size, the deviation of Q
factor is also created. Besides, that is the deviation when we do the measurements. At
high frequency, the display monitor cant create a high resolution picture, plus using the
naked eyes to observe the oscillate amplitude, it causes a very large errors when we
estimate the real oscillate amplitude of microresonator under the applying of frequency
change. In addition, there are also some others reasons, such as the deviation of
measuring devices, the fluctuations of measuring values.
These factors are the reasons create the large disparity between the analytical and
experimental result.