Advances in Engineering Software 97 (2016) 116

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advances in Engineering Software

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/advengsoft

Optimization of static and dynamic travel range of electrostatically

driven microbeams using particle swarm optimization
R.R. Trivedi a,, D.N. Pawaskar a,1, R.P. Shimpi b
a
b

Mechanical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India
Aerospace Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 6 June 2015
Revised 11 December 2015
Accepted 3 January 2016

Keywords:
Micro electro mechanical systems
Pull-in instability
Particle swarm optimization
Hybrid simulated annealing
Electrostatic microbeams
Stable travel range

a b s t r a c t
This paper examines the enhancement of static and dynamic travel range of electrostatically driven microbeams using shape optimization approach. Continuous functions of width and thickness are used for
optimizing the geometry of both cantilever and xedxed microbeams. RayleighRitz energy method is
employed to compute the static and dynamic pull-in parameters. Particle swarm optimization and hybrid simulated annealing are used for shape optimization of microbeams. Constraints on design variables are imposed using penalty approach. Enhanced pull-in parameters obtained for variable geometry microbeams have been validated using 3-D nite element analysis. Optimized shapes of microbeams
show signicant improvement in static and dynamic travel range. Pull-in displacement is increased up to
54.92% for cantilever microbeam and 40.79% for xedxed microbeam with hybrid simulated annealing.
Effectiveness of particle swarm optimization is brought out through representative test cases. The convergence of the particle swarm optimization is approximately ve times faster as compared to the hybrid
simulated annealing, while maintaining the same level of accuracy.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and motivation

Electrostatically driven micro electro mechanical systems

(MEMS) devices are attracting widespread interest of engineers
and researchers due to promising scaling properties, high energy
density and low power consumption [1,2]. Electrostatically driven
microbeams, which act as actuators have many practical applications such as microgrippers, microswitches, microrelays, sensors,
etc. [3]. The major restriction on the use of electrostatically driven
microbeams is the operational instability known as pull-in instability, which was experimentally rst observed by Nathanson [4] and
Taylor [5]. The pull-in instability occurs when electrostatic force
goes beyond elastic restoring force of the structure which leads to
sudden contact of structure with substrate and the device becomes
nonfunctional. The critical value of voltage at which pull-in instability occurs is called pull-in voltage and the corresponding displacement of the structure is called pull-in displacement. Together
they are known as pull-in parameters.

As pull-in represents an operational doorstep for the MEMS

system, an accurate estimation of pull-in parameters is crucial at
the design stage of electrostatically driven MEMS devices [68].
Pull-in is desirable in applications like material property extraction [9] and switching operations [10]. However, it is detrimental
to many applications like micromirror [11], biosensors [12,13], microresonators [14] and tuning of Atomic force microscope optical
levers [15]. The motivation of the present investigation is to delay the occurrence of pull-in instability of electrostatically driven
MEMS actuators for improving the device performance.

Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +91 2225726875.

E-mail addresses: 08410804@iitb.ac.in, reenatrivedi73@yahoo.co.in (R.R. Trivedi),
pawaskar@iitb.ac.in (D.N. Pawaskar).
1
Tel: +91 22 2576 7548.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.01.005
0965-9978/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.2. Modeling of electrostatic microactuator

Detailed description of modeling of electrostatically driven microactuator is given in the articles of Lee [16] and Batra et al. [17].
Microactuator can be mathematically modeled using the Galerkins
method based reduced order model (ROM) [18,19]. Among electrostatically driven MEMS devices, xed-xed microbeams and cantilever microbeams are widely used and their pull-in instability has
been thoroughly studied by various researchers. Hence, microactuators in the present analysis are modeled as xedxed microbeam
and cantilever microbeam. Dimensions of the microbeams under investigation indicate that computationally ecient Galerkins

R.R. Trivedi et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 97 (2016) 116

reduced order model can be used in the present analysis and the
RayleighRitz energy based method as a solver. ROM is specially
preferred for design optimization problems where repetitive analysis has to be carried out by an optimization algorithm until the
objective function is extremized.

optimization of microbeams. Dielectric breakdown voltage is considered as upper limit of the rise in voltage. For prismatic microbeams, pull-in parameters are compared with experimental and
numerical ndings. Estimated pull-in parameters of variable geometry optimized microbeams are compared with 3-D nite element
simulation package COMSOLTM [29].

1.3. Static and dynamic pull-in instability of microactuator

2. Modeling and formulation
It is well known that when the applied voltage is raised gradually, inertia of the structure becomes negligible for the system behavior. The critical value of voltage at this point is known as static
pull-in voltage and the distance traveled by the tip of cantilever
microbeam and mid point of the xedxed microbeam is called
as static travel range or static pull-in displacement [20]. Many researchers have presented the pull-in phenomenon and the methods to estimate the stability of static deection of the beam type
microactuators [21]. The stability of motion around deformed position of the electrode is addressed and this is particularly important
since the behavior of these devices is non linear [2,22]. Therefore,
there is a chance for a dynamic instability to provoke pull-in called
dynamic pull-in, below the static instability limit of voltage [23].
The pull-in instability of the system in this situation is called as
dynamic pull-in instability. Maximum static pull-in displacement
of prismatic cantilever microbeam and xedxed microbeam with
rectangular cross-section is 45% and 40% of initial gap respectively.
1.4. Shape optimization using derivative free methods
Electrostatic force distribution and mechanical stiffness of the
structure are inuenced by the shape of microbeams. Hence, shape
optimization is most popular passive method to enhance the travel
range of microbeams. Various researchers presented their study
carried out in the past on the performance improvement of MEMS
devices through shape variations. For example Abdalla et al. [24]
optimized shape of microbeams for maximization of pull-in voltage. Lake et al. used optimization method for design of slotted
MEMS resonator [25]. Joglekar and Pawaskar [26] used shape optimization using NelderMead algorithm for performance improvement of the electrostatically driven microactuators. However, they
did not account dielectric breakdown voltage as limiting voltage
for actuation of MEMS devices which is one of the important
constraint of electrostatic MEMS devices. Moreover, the rise in
pull-in displacement is limited compared to its referential prismatic microbeams because of constant thickness or constant width
while varying the geometry [27]. In the present study, an attempt
is made to vary width and thickness of variable geometry microbeams using parametric functions to enhance the stable travel
range of the device. To this end, hybrid simulated annealing and
particle swarm optimization methods are used for shape optimization. Penalty approach for violation of constraints is employed.
1.5. Objective and methodology
Aim of this paper is to present the conceptually novel design of
electrostatically driven microbeams having enhanced travel range
by shape optimization exploiting initial gap. While optimizing the
shape, rise in applied voltage is limited by dielectric breakdown
voltage [28].
In the present paper, static and dynamic pull-in instability
of microbeams subjected to DC step voltage is addressed. For
structural analysis, RayleighRitz energy method, including various source of nonlinearity such as electrostatic force, midplane
stretching and fringing eld effect, is used for estimation of pullin parameters. Reduced order model based on Galerkins approach
is used for numerical solution of equations. Hybrid simulated
annealing and particle swarm optimization are used for shape

Shown in Fig. 1 is the proposed electrostatically driven MEMS

devices consisting of deformable electrode (xedxed or cantilever microbeam) and a xed electrode, separated by initial gap
g(x) and is lled with the dielectric medium as air having permittivity . Throughout this article, all hatted () terms indicate
dimensional quantities having their physical units. Deformable
electrode is made up of linear elastic material having Youngs modulus E and Poisons ratio . Effective Youngs modulus as Ee f f ,
E
where, Ee f f = E for wide beam ((b >= 5h )) and Ee f f =
for
2

(1 )

narrow beam ((b < 5h ) ) [9]. Dimensions of the deformable electrode are, length L, width b (x) and thickness h (x) at co-ordinate
x along length and the corresponding dimensions of the referential prismatic microbeam are length L, width b p and thickness h p .
The distance from mid-plane of the deformable electrode to rigid
electrode is kept constant and it is denoted as gm . I(x) represents
area moment of inertia at x. When a step voltage is applied between xed and deformable electrode, attractive electrostatic force
causes deection of microbeam. Beyond a critical value of voltage,
deformable electrode snaps the xed electrode, resulting in collapse of the device. Value of voltage and the deformation at this
point is calculated using RayleighRitz energy method. For analysis, potential energy of the system consist of following terms:
(1) Strain energy due to bending of microbeam.
(2) Strain energy considering von Karman nonlinearity for midplane stretching, is applicable to xedxed microbeam only
[3].
(3) Electrostatic potential considering Palmers fringing eld
model [30].
In the present investigation EulerBernoulli beam theory is applied for modeling. Total potential energy of the system can be expressed as [26],

 
 L
x
d2 w
= E

I(x)
2 0
dx2

2

dx

 
 L
x
dw
E

+
N + A(x)
dx
0
8L

2
dx

  2
dx

x
dw
dx




 
V 2 L
b (x)
2
b (x)

+
1 + ln
dx
2 0

(x)
(x)
g(x) w
g(x) w
(1)
(x) represents
Here, A (x) represents area of cross-section and w
is the axial force due to residual stress. Width
displacement at x. N
variation b (x) in terms of prismatic microbeam width b p and thickness variation h (x) in the form of h p for both the microbeams is as
follows:

b (x) = b p b(x )

(2)

h (x) = h p h(x )

(3)

R.R. Trivedi et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 97 (2016) 116

Fig. 1. Schematic view of proposed variable geometry microbeams with xedxed and xed-free end conditions.

Here, functions b(x) and h(x) describe scaling of b p and h p respectively. Thickness variation causes variation in initial gap, represented by the following equation.

g(x) = g p +

h p
h (x)

2
2

(4)

Here, g p represents initial gap between referential prismatic microbeam and substrate. For taking common reference for nondimensional form of the equation, the distance of mid plane of microbeam from the xed electrode is taken as base, mathematically
represented as

gm = g p +

h p
2

the degree of geometric nonlinearity, represents fringe parameter, t represents dimensionless time and w(x, t ) is estimation of
deection of microbeam in dynamic mode. In this paper, effect of
residual stresses is neglected. Using above mentioned nondimensional terms, potential energy equation in dimensionless form is

=

1
2

3
+
4 2

(5)

In order to generalize the analysis, following nondimensional

terms are dened,

x=

x
,
L

1 =

A p g2m
, T =
2Ip

b( x ) =
N=

(x)
w
,
gm

w (x ) =

A p L4
E Ip

b p
,
gm

h p
,
gm

E
Ee f f

N L2
,
E Ip

2 =

0 L4
g2p E Ip

b p h 3p
12

, w(x, t ) =


V2

2
dx

dw(x )
A (x )
dx

dw(x )
dx

d 2 w (x )
d x2

2 
dx

2 
dx

b( x )
2
+
1 + ln
g( x ) w ( x )

b( x )
g( x ) w ( x )


dx
(6)

3. Estimation of static and dynamic pull-in parameters

b (x)
g(x )
h (x)
A (x)
, g( x ) =
, h (x ) =
, A (x ) =
,
gm
A p
b p
h p
,

I(x)
A p = b p h p , I (x ) =
,
Ip
Ip =


I (x )

In this section, pull-in parameters for static and dynamic operating conditions are estimated numerically.

3.1. Static pull-in parameters

V2 =

b p L4V 2
2E Ip g3m

(x, t)
w
t
, t=
T
gm

Here, A p is the cross-sectional area and Ip is the area moment of

inertia of the prismatic microbeam. The stretching ratio denes

Normalized displacement of the microbeam can be represented

as

w ( x ) = as ( x )

(7)

Here, (x) is a shape function, satisfying appropriate boundary

conditions. as is a constant determining the scaling of shape function in static mode. Boundary conditions for cantilever microbeam

R.R. Trivedi et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 97 (2016) 116

are as follows:


dw(x ) 
dx 

w(x )|x=0 = 0,

= 0,

x=0

d2 w(x ) 
d x2 

1
Kb =
2

d3 w(x ) 
d x3 

= 0,

x=1

1
0

d 2 d ( x )
I (x )
d x2

=0

Us (ad ) =

On parallel lines, boundary conditions for xedxed microbeam are,

= 0,

dw(x ) 
dx 

=0

w(x )|x=0 = 0,

dx

(ii) Strain energy considering von Karman nonlinearity for midplane stretching [3]

x=1

dw(x ) 
dx 

x=0

N
1
d (x )
+
A ( x ) ad
2
4
dx

d (x )
ad
dx

2 

dx

2
dx

From the available resources, shape functions chosen for cantilever microbeam is [26,31],

Ks 4 Kn 2
a +
a ,
4 d
2 d

2  1 
2
 1
d (x )
d (x )
Ks = 1
A (x )
dx
dx
dx
dx
0
0

c (x ) = cosh x cos x Dc (sinh x sinx )

Kn = N

w(x )|x=1 = 0,

Us (ad ) =

x=1


where, Dc =

cos + cosh
sin + sinh

(8)

(9)


where D f =

cos cosh
sin sinh

(11)

d2 
=0
da2s

(12)

3.2. Dynamic pull-in parameters

w(x, t ) = ad (t ) (x )

(13)

here, ad (t) indicates time parameter and (x) is spatial function dened in Section 3.1. Potential energy equation in nondimensional
form for dynamic operating condition is rewritten using following
terms

1
Ub (ad ) =
2
Ub (ad ) =

1
0

1
0

a2d Kb
2

d2 w(x, t )
I (x )
d x2

dx

1
0

ad
0

F ( ) ddx

KB 2 KN 2 KS 4
a +
a +
a 2V 2
2 d
2 d
4 d

d 2 d ( x )
I ( x ) ad
d x2

dx

2
dx


0

ad
0

F ( ) ddx

Effect of damping is neglected in the present study. Two initial

conditions for both microbeams are,

w(x, 0 ) = 0,

w(x, 0 )
=0
t

(14)

The transverse displacement of EulerBernoulli beam satisfy

following mechanical boundary conditions,
Fixedxed microbeam

w ( 0, t ) = 0,

w ( 0, 1 )
w ( 1, t )
= 0, w ( 1, t ) = 0,
=0
x
x

Cantilever microbeam

w ( 0, t ) = 0,

In dynamic mode due to sudden rise in voltage, deection of

microbeam becomes a function of time and space represented as
w(x, t ). Energy method is used for estimating dynamic pull-un parameters of parallel plates and torsional plates MEMS devices by
Nelson and Barbastathis [33] followed by Joglekar and Pawaskar
[26] for variable width microbeams. Approximation of deection
of microbeams w(x, t ) in dynamic operating condition is assumed
by the Eq. (13).

=

Eq. (12) are solved numerically using MATLABTM code. The

value of as = a ps and V = Vps is calculated numerically at static
pull-in point. Subscript ps represents pull-in in static mode.

1
Ub (ad ) =
2

d (x )
dx

Total potential energy equation is

(i) Strain energy due to bending

U f (ad ) = 2V 2

(10)

Here, subscript c indicates entities referring cantilever and f

referring xedxed microbeam. The value of for cantilever is
= 1.875104 and for xedxed microbeam is = 4.730041 [31].
To nd static pull-in parameters, it is characterized as bistable state
of the system, mathematically expressed as [32],

d
= 0,
d as

(iii) Electrostatic potential considering Palmers fringing eld

model [30]

Similarly, shape function for xedxed microbeam is

f = cosh x cos x D f (sinh x sinx )

w ( 0, t )
2 w ( 1, t )
3 w ( 1, t )
= 0,
=
0
=0
x
x2
x3

Response of the electrostatically driven MEMS devices up to dynamic pull-in voltage is periodic [26,32] and at pull-in point, velocity becomes zero, beyond pull-in response becomes non-periodic.
For extracting dynamic pull-in parameters, conditions expressed in
Eq. (15) hold true,

 = 0,

d
=0
d ad

(15)

Dynamic pull-in parameters are estimated by solving Eq. (15)

numerically using code developed in MATLABTM . In Section 3.3,
pull-in parameters estimated using energy method are compared
with data in the literature. For referential prismatic microbeams
and variable geometry microbeams results are compared with 3-D
simulation package COMSOLTM .
3.3. Validation of estimated static and dynamic pull-in parameters
with 3-D FEA
Table 1 shows comparison of pull-in voltage of prismatic microbeams, reported by various researchers with the pull-in voltage obtained by RayleighRitz energy method. The values of pullin parameters estimated from code developed in MATLABTM show
excellent agreement with the literature. In Table 1, only values

R.R. Trivedi et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 97 (2016) 116

Table 1
Comparison of the estimates of static and dynamic pull-in voltage of prismatic microbeam obtained from energy based method with the data available
from the literature.
Case

Type of

Mode of

No.

beam

actuation

Beam dimensions and material properties

L
(m)

b
(m)

Pull-in

Pull-in voltage (Volts)

Relative

Present
work

Corresponding
value from ref.

error(%) in
Pull-in
voltage

37.84
0.09
(Chowdhury et al.) [6]
2.27
0
(Pamidighantam et al.) [34]
2.25
0.44
(Chaterjee and Pohit) [35]
2.61
0.99
(Durieu et al.) [36]
27.95
1.24
(Tilmans and Legtenberg) [14]
3.8
0.26
(Ijntema and Tilmans) [37]
26.4
1.79
(Zand and Ahmedian) [38]
41.68
0.00
( Krylov) [39]

h
(m)

g p
(m)

E
(GPa)

displacement
Present
work

169

0.06

0.45

37.87

Cantilever

Static

100

50

Cantilever

Static

300

50

1.00

2.5

77

0.33

1.12

2.27

Cantilever

Dynamic

80

10

0.5

0.7

169

0.33

0.46

2.24

Cantilever

Dynamic

300

50

77

0.06

0.65

2.58

Fixedxed

Static

210

100

1.5

1.18

166

0.3

0.5116

Fixedxed

Static

500

100

1.5

175

0.3

0.42

3.79

Fixedxed

Dynamic

210

100

1.5

1.18

166.00

0.30

0.73

26.88

Fixedxed

Dynamic

300

20

2.0

169.00

0.28

0.43

41.68

28.3

Table 2
Comparison of estimated static pull-in parameters using energy method with those obtained
using 3-D nite element simulations for prismatic and variable geometry microbeams.
Type of beam

Cantilever

Fixedxed

Beam geometry

Prismatic
Nonprismatic
(Test case S9)
Prismatic
Nonprismatic
(Test case S9)

Pull-in parameters
by proposed method

Pull-in parameters
using 3-D FEA (COMSOL)

Displacement
(m)

Voltage
(Volts)

Displacement
(m)

Voltage
(Volts)

0.9017
1.09

6.45
11.46

0.90
1.078

6.48
11.225

0.9142
1.082

44.29
65.56

0.909
1.094

44.70
66.005

of pull-in voltage are compared, pull-in displacement value is not

mentioned by many researchers in their study.
In addition to the comparison of pull-in parameters of prismatic microbeam, results are validated with 3-D FEA simulation
using COMSOLTM MEMS multiphysics [29] module. Values of estimated pull-in parameters using energy method and 3-D FEA is presented in Table 2. Estimated pull-in parameters show good agreement with those obtained from 3-D FEA COMSOLTM
3.4. Formulation of objective function and constraints
Optimization problem under investigation is solved for selecting
the best design of microbeams having maximum pull-in displacement. Appropriate side constraints, geometric constraints and behavior constraints are implemented through penalty approach. The
minimum width and thickness constraints has been adopted from
the handbook of design rules for PolyMUMPS [40]. Study on micromachining using gray scale lithography along with dry anisotropic
etching presented by Waits et al. [41] indicates that present microfabrication facility is capable of generating the complicated 3-D
features from silicon structures. To restate the objective of this paper for quick reference, the aim of this is to arrive at the width
and thickness proles which can maximize the pull-in displacement keeping the area of overlap and volume of the microbeam
same as that of referential prismatic microbeam. Continuous width
and thickness functions are used for varying width and thickness
along the length. For cantilever microbeam it is mathematically
expressed as,
y4

bc ( x ) = y1 ( 1 y2 xy3 )

(16)

hc ( x ) = y5 ( 1 y6 xy7 )

y8

On parallel lines, width and thickness variation for xedxed

microbeam is dened by following equations:
2 y3

b f ( x ) = y1 ( y2 + ( 1 y2 )[ ( 1 2x ) ] )y4

(17)

2 y7 y8

h f ( x ) = y5 ( y6 + ( 1 y6 ) ( ( 1 2x ) ) )

Here, subscript c refers to cantilever and f refers to xed

xed microbeam. Width and thickness functions for cantilever and xedxed microbeams has total eight parameters,
y1 , y2 , y3 , y4 , y5 , y6 , y7 , y8 . Width and thickness functions are symmetrical about x = 0.5 for xedxed microbeam, in order to keep
symmetry of loading and boundary conditions. This will rest assure that torsion and bending effects are not asymmetrical. Here,
constraints on each design parameters is imposed to avoid non realistic solutions. Maximum and minimum width as well as thickness value is decided on the basis of dimensions of the microbeam
available in the literature and minimum feature size which can be
fabricated using microfabrication facilities. It is obvious that rise
in pull-in displacement will bring rise in actuation voltage. For
MEMS devices, rise in actuation voltage is restricted by the dielectric breakdown voltage of the uid present between the two
electrodes. In the present case, dielectric medium is taken as air,
Paschens law of breakdown voltage is not applicable when the gap
between two electrode is less than 4 m [28]. Modied Paschens
curve for the initial gap than 5 indicates, there is a low risk if
the breakdown voltage is set approximately 50 V/ [42]. Following
equations represent objective function and equality and inequality

R.R. Trivedi et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 97 (2016) 116

constraints in normalized form.

vi. The term Phmax represents the degree of violation of maximum thickness constraint, represented as,

Minimize f {Y } = w ps + Parea + Pvol + Pbmin + Pbmax

Subject to :

b min
b p

Phmax = Chmax (max [0, hmax (x ) hmax ] )

+ Phmin + Phmax + Pvbd

b max
y1
b p

The term hmax (x ) represents maximum thickness of the variable geometry microbeam conguration at ith iteration of
optimization process. hmax represents the nondimensional
upper bound of thickness.
vii. The term Pvbd shows that if the actuation voltage is greater
than break down voltage of dielectric medium, cost of
penalty Cvbd is imposed,

0 y2 1
0 y3
0 y4
h min
h max
y5
h p
h p

Pvbd = Cvbd (min [0, Vbd V ] )

0 y6 1
0 y8
 1
1
b(x )dx = 0
1

b(x )h(x )dx = 0

V Vbd

(18)

In the Eq. (18), f represents objective function with design vector Y and w ps is the pull-in displacement in static mode, w pd is
the pull-in displacement in dynamic mode, to be maximized. Term
P and C with different subscripts show penalties and cost for violating constraints respectively. For example, term Parea and Carea
represents penalty and cost for violating constant area of overlap.
Expression for penalty and cost of violation of different constraints
are mathematically represented as follows:
i. The term Parea species the penalty for violation of constant
area of overlap of the variable geometry microbeam.

Parea = Carea 1

b(x )dx

(19)

ii. The term Pvol quanties the degree of violation of constant volume constraint,volume of the proposed microbeam
should be same as referential prismatic microbeam.

Pvol = Cvol 1

1
0

b(x )h(x )dx

(20)

iii. Penalty for minimum width constraint violation Pbmin , is expressed as,

Pbmin = Cbmin min 0, bmin (x ) bmin

2

(21)

bmin (x )

where,
represents minimum width of the microbeam
dened by design parameters y1 , y2 , y3 , y4 at ith iteration.
bmin represents lower bound of the normalized width.
iv. The term Pbmax represents the degree to which maximum
width constraint is violated. Mathematically represented as,

Pbmax =

Cbmax max [0, bmax

(x ) bmax ] )

(22)

bmax (x )

The term
represents maximum width of the variable geometry microbeam at ith iteration. bmax represents
the non dimensional upper bound of the width.
v. Minimum thickness violation constraint is penalized using
Phmin , mathematically represented as,

Phmin = Chmin min 0, hmin (x ) hmin

hmin (x )

(25)

The term Vbd represents breakdown voltage of the dielectric

medium and V represents actuation voltage of proposed microbeam at ith iteration of optimization.

0 y7

(24)

2

(23)

The term
represents minimum thickness of the proposed microbeam for any combination of design parameters,
y5 , y6 , y7 , y8 at ith iteration. hmin represents the non dimensional lower bound of the thickness.

The value of penalty in optimization is problem specic and

user dependant. Hence, cost of penalty values are decided after
taking several trials in MATLABTM code. The cost values for violation of various constraints are taken as, Carea = 100, Cvol = 10 0 0 ,
Cbmax = 10 0 0, Cbmin = 10 0 0, Chmax = 10, 0 0 0, Chmin = 10, 0 0 0, Cvbd =
10 0 0.
3.5. Optimizing design variables using particle swarm optimization
Swarm intelligence (SI) is a very wide research domain of optimization and several algorithms have been developed under the
roof of SI to solve complex combinatorial optimization problems.
Particle swarm optimization was developed by Kennedy and Eberhart in 1995, which models social behavior of bird ocking in
search of food [43,44]. In PSO, system starts with a random set of
solutions and searches for optimum value by updating generations.
Each candidate solution is known as particle and set of particles is
called as swarm, moves in n- dimensional search space in a cooperative manner. Movement of each particle in swarm is performed
by a variable called velocity, that is inuenced by a local and a social factor [45]. Each particle moves through search space based on
the best positions found so far by itself Pbest and the best position
found by the swarm i.e. global best Gbest . Objective function (tness function) value is calculated for each particle p in the search
space Rn . Position and velocity of each particle at ith iteration is
S(i) and Vel(i) respectively. Movement of each particle in PSO is inuenced by three factors (i) Particles own direction search (ii) Best
position of the particle itself (iii) Best position found by the whole
swarm. After every iteration position and velocity of every particle
is updated using equation

S (i + 1 ) = S (i ) + V el (i + 1 )
V el (i + 1 ) = uV el (i ) + c1 1 (Pbest S (i ) ) + c2 2 (Gbest S (i ) )
(26)
Where u(i) is called inertia of the particle, is the coecient
determining the effect of previous velocity rate on the current velocity, deciding self condence of the particle. The coecients c1 ,
1 and c2 , 2 decide the impact of Pbest and Gbest respectively. 1
and 2 are random numbers between 0 and 1, c1 and c2 are known
as individual and social factors respectively. In the present study
variable inertia model of PSO is adopted and change in inertia
value is governed by,

u (i ) =

(us u f )
(i 1 ) + u f
(l 1 )

(27)

Here, u(i) is the inertia model at ith iteration, us is the inertia at

beginning and uf is inertia at the end. l is the number of iterations
for variable inertia.

R.R. Trivedi et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 97 (2016) 116

Algorithm 1 Algorithm for particle swarm optimization.

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10:
11:
12:
13:

Input swarm size SS, Max. Iteration N, i = 1

for k = 0 to SS do
Initialize S(i ) , V el (i ) randomly
Find Pbest and Gbest
end for
while i N do
for k = 0 to SS do
update S(i ) and V el (i + 1 ) Eq. (26)
update inertia using Eq. (27)
end for
Find Pbest and Gbest
end while
return Gbest

Algorithm 1 describes the pseudocode of PSO, code is developed in MATLABTM [46] for this algorithm. PSO has been used in
design optimization of various devices. For example, Lake et al.
[25] successfully used PSO for design of slotted MEMS resonators.

Fig. 2. Graph showing dependency of maximum pull-in displacement on swarm

size for representative test case S9 of cantilever.
Table 3
Table of test cases showing geometrical constraints
of cantilever and xedxed microbeam.

3.6. Optimizing design variables using hybrid simulated annealing

Simulated annealing is the popular derivative free method of
optimization problems solution established by Kirckpatrick [47],
resembles with the behavior of system in equilibrium at nite temperature. The detailed procedure for optimizing the design variables of electrostatically driven microactuator is discussed in the
study presented by Trivedi et al. [48].
The code is developed for hybrid simulated annealing following
Algorithm 2 in MATLABTM [46].
Algorithm 2 Algorithm for simulated annealing with pattern
search method.
1: Input max. Iteration N, design vector Y , i = 1
2: Calculate objective function value f (Y )
3: Let f (Y ) = f min (Y ) and Y = Ymin
4: for i = 1 to N do
5:
Randomly move Y , calculate f (Y )
if f (Y ) fmin (Y ) then
6:
7:
fmin (Y ) = f (Y ), Ymin = Y
Reduce temperature Eq. (29)
8:
else
9:
Find probability Eq. (30)
10:
Accept or reject worse solution based on probability
11:
end if
12:
13: end for
14: return f min and Ymin
15: Minimize f min using pattern search method
16: return f min and Ymin
Balling cooling schedule is used here [49] for lowering the temperature, mathematically represented as,

= Q

(28)

where, is the temperature, Q is the cooling factor dened as,

Q=

ln(Ps )
ln(Pf )

1/(N1)

(29)

Here, Ps and Pf represents acceptance probability at rst and nal

iteration respectively. N represents maximum number of iterations.
The choice of Balling cooling schedule is made specically for the
following reason. As the optimization progresses, it is continuously

Case No.

bmax /L

bmin /L

hmax /L

hmin /L

S1, D1
S2, D2
S3, D3
S4, D4
S5, D5
S6, D6
S7, D7
S8, D8
S9, D9

0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.4

0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.06

0.008
0.009
0.01
0.008
0.009
0.01
0.008
0.009
0.01

0.003
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.005

decreasing the possibility of accepting worse solution. Probability

of accepting the worse solution is dened by the Eq. (30)

p=

f

(30)

where, f is the difference of objective function value of two consecutive iterations. It is successfully employed by Trivedi et al.
[50] for shape optimization of electrostatically driven cantilever
microbeam.
In Section 4, the results obtained by implementing particle
swarm optimization (PSO) and hybrid simulated annealing (HSA)
to the objective function are presented and discussed.
4. Results and discussion
In this section, results obtained using particle swarm optimization and hybrid simulated annealing for optimizing pull-in displacement using Eq. (18) are discussed. For generalization purpose,
nine representative test cases for xedxed and cantilever microbeam are considered. Upper and lower limit of geometrical dimensions of microbeam for each test case is shown in Table 3.
Width and thickness constraints in normalized form are chosen from the prismatic beam dimensions available in various research articles [6,9,26]. Nomenclature for various test cases of
microbeam is as follows, S indicates static mode and D represents
dynamic mode of actuation. Numerals represents row number of
the Table 3. Here row number indicates geometric constraints for
the respective test case, for example, S1 represents static mode of
actuation having geometric constraints dened in row number 1 of
Table 3. Similarly, D3 represents dynamic mode of actuation having
constraints corresponding to row number 3 of Table 3.

R.R. Trivedi et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 97 (2016) 116

(a) Width profile for test cases D1, D2, D3

(b) Thickness profile for test cases D1, D2, D3

(c) Width profile for test cases D4, D5, D6

(d) Thickness profile for test cases D4, D5, D6

(e) Width profile for test cases D7, D8, D9

(f) Thickness profile for test cases D7, D8, D9

Fig. 3. Comparison of optimized width and thickness proles of cantilever microbeam using hybrid simulated annealing and particle swarm optimization for dynamic mode
of actuation.

Normalized value of width and thickness for referential prismatic beam is chosen as
[6,9,26].

b pr
L

= 0.15,

h pr
L

= 0.00667, g pr = 0.00667

4.1. Deciding the parameters of particle swarm optimization method

for shape optimization of microactuators
In this section, results obtained using PSO for maximizing
pull-in displacement using Eq. (18) are discussed. Test cases for
xedxed and cantilever microbeam are considered as shown in
Table 3. Following parameters are set for performing shape optimization using PSO
i. No of design variables: 8 (y1 y2 y3 y4 y5 y6 y7 y8 ).

ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.

Maximum iterations: 60 0 0.
Swarm size : 30.
Initial swarm : Random initialization.
Initial velocity: Randomly initialized.
Social factor : 2.1.
Cognitive factor : 2.1.
Inertia weight: [0.9, 0.4] using Eq. (27).
Function tolerance: 107 .

The choice of selecting the swarm size is user dependant and

problem specic. The swarm size is decided on the basis of numerical experiment carried out for one of the representative test
cases (test case S9 for cantilever).

R.R. Trivedi et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 97 (2016) 116

(a) Width profile for test cases D1, D2, D3

(c) Width profile for test cases D4, D5, D6

(e) Width profile for test cases D7, D8, D9

(b) Thickness profile for test cases D1, D2, D3

(d) Thickness profile for test cases D4, D5, D6

(f) Thickness profile for test cases D7, D8, D9

Fig. 4. Comparison of optimized width and thickness proles of xedxed microbeam using hybrid SA and PSO for dynamic mode of actuation.

The swarm size dependency shown in Fig. 2 clearly indicates that the maximum pull-in displacement value obtained using swarm size 10, 15, 20 and 25 can be improved by increasing the swarm size. If the swarm size is increased beyond 30, not
much improvement is observed in the maximum pull-in displacement value. Therefore, in order to save computational effort without compromising the accuracy of results, swarm size is decided
as 30.

ii. Maximum iterations: 107 .

iii. Start point: [1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0] (Referential prismatic microbeam).
iv. Initial temperature: 10, 0 0 0.
v. Hybrid function: Pattern search.
vi. Hybrid interval: At the end.
vii. Annealing function: Balling cooling schedule.
viii. Function tolerance: 107 .

4.2. Deciding the parameters of hybrid simulated annealing (HSA) for

shape optimization of microactuators
Following parameters are set for hybrid simulated annealing for
optimization of cantilever and xedxed microbeam.
i. No of design variables: 8 (y1 y2 y3 y4 y5 y6 y7 y8 ).

Pull-in displacement is optimized in static and dynamic operating conditions of cantilever and xedxed microbeam discussed
separately in the following sections.

10

R.R. Trivedi et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 97 (2016) 116

Fig. 5. Convergence graphs of cantilever and xedxed microbeam using PSO and hybrid SA for representative test case S9.

4.3. Comparison of the design variables and normalized pull-in

parameters using PSO and HSA of cantilever microbeam
In this section, the optimized design variables and enhanced
pull-in parameters obtained using PSO and HSA are compared for
each test cases of cantilever microbeam. Both static and dynamic
behavior is analyzed for cantilever microbeams.
4.3.1. Comparison of optimized design variables and pull-in
parameters obtained using PSO and HSA for cantilever microbeam in
static operating condition
Table 4 shows the comparison of the optimized design parameters and static pull-in parameters for cantilever microbeam using
particle swarm optimization (PSO) and hybrid simulated annealing
(HSA) algorithm.
As shown in Table 4 parameters using both the optimization
techniques are compared for each test case. Nomenclature of test
case is as follows. For example, in test case if it is written as S2
(PSO) it means that it is static test case having geometric dimension limits dened in row no 2 of Table 3 and design variables are
optimized using particle swarm optimization. It is clear from the
Table 3 that by using PSO, static pull-in displacement is maximum
for test case S3, which indicates 54.32% rise in pull-in displace-

ment as compared to referential prismatic microbeam. While implementing hybrid simulated annealing, the results show that maximum rise in static pull-in displacement is 54.92% for test case S3.
4.3.2. Comparison of optimized design variables and pull-in
parameters obtained using PSO and HSA for cantilever microbeam in
dynamic operating condition
Table 5 presents optimized design variables and dynamic pullin parameter for test cases D1 to D9 for cantilever microbeam.
As presented in Table 5, while employing particle swarm optimization, maximum rise in dynamic pull-in displacement is 49.90%
for test case D3. On parallel lines, using hybrid simulated annealing, increment in dynamic travel range is 49.81% for test case
D2. Test cases having maximum range for thickness and width
have shown signicant improvement in the pull-in displacement
in static and dynamic operating conditions. Width and thickness
proles of cantilever microbeams, optimized in static and dynamic
operating conditions show striking similarity in most of the test
cases. Optimized width and thickness proles of cantilever microbeam in dynamic operating condition using PSO and HSA are
shown in Fig. 3.
Convergence criteria for the optimization problem is set as
follows:

R.R. Trivedi et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 97 (2016) 116

11

Fig. 6. Deformation contour of microbeams in static mode of actuation using FEA.

Table 4
Comparison of optimized design parameters of cantilever microbeam for maximizing static pull-in displacement using particle swarm optimization
(PSO) and hybrid simulated annealing (HSA).
Design variables

Pull-in parameters

Case
No.

y1

y2

y3

y4

y5

y6

y7

y8

Normalized
voltage (Vps )

Normalized
displacement (w ps )

% Rise in
w ps

S1
S1
S2
S2
S3
S3
S4
S4
S5
S5
S6
S6
S7
S7
S8
S8
S9
S9

1.333
1.333
1.824
1.928
1.831
2.164
1.021
1.333
1.468
1.835
1.495
1.588
1.303
1.333
1.375
1.598
1.363
1.444

0.045
0.045
0.233
0.233
0.190
0.140
0.164
0.212
0.131
0.781
0.422
0.333
0.623
0.042
0.128
0.149
0.328
0.233

4.440
4.444
1.961
1.786
1.974
1.550
45.375
3.143
2.395
0.995
2.046
1.835
2.100
2.485
2.181
1.451
2.089
1.815

50.0 0 0
50.0 0 0
9.884
10.087
12.437
18.425
7.501
6.739
12.176
1.270
3.147
4.405
1.209
28.316
9.005
8.579
3.089
4.839

1.190
1.180
1.219
1.306
1.319
1.285
1.142
1.190
1.199
1.326
1.303
1.301
1.159
1.185
1.192
1.239
1.190
1.233

0.032
0.032
0.043
0.085
0.091
0.059
0.980
0.188
0.308
0.373
0.201
0.170
0.097
0.330
0.171
0.084
0.189
0.057

2.161
2.246
1.545
1.180
1.174
1.177
22.563
1.571
1.346
0.827
1.009
0.989
1.261
0.984
1.002
0.803
1.014
0.867

30.0 0 0
30.0 0 0
22.752
11.973
11.330
17.404
18.350
3.286
1.882
1.701
3.461
4.147
4.267
1.142
2.468
5.721
2.206
8.496

2.801
2.794
3.644
3.970
3.896
5.149
1.848
2.539
2.728
3.127
2.918
3.020
2.174
2.254
2.306
2.517
2.284
2.407

0.441
0.441
0.461
0.464
0.464
0.466
0.374
0.401
0.405
0.405
0.406
0.408
0.365
0.367
0.367
0.368
0.367
0.368

46.67
46.57
53.33
54.46
54.32
54.92
24.55
33.43
34.60
34.83
35.16
35.60
21.29
22.02
22.19
22.46
22.02
22.42

(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)

(Reference parameters for prismatic beam conguration w ps = 0.3006, Vps = 1.2834)

12

R.R. Trivedi et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 97 (2016) 116

Table 5
Comparison of optimized design parameters of cantilever microbeam for maximizing dynamic pull-in displacement using particle swarm optimization
(PSO) and hybrid simulated annealing (HSA).
Design variables

Pull-in parameters

Case
No.

y1

y2

y3

y4

y5

y6

y7

y8

Normalized
voltage (Vpd )

Normalized
displacement (w pd )

% Rise in
w pd

D1 (PSO)
D1(HSA)
D2 (PSO)
D2 (HSA)
D3 (PSO)
D3 (HSA)
D4 (PSO)
D4 (HSA)
D5 (PSO)
D5 (HSA)
D6 (PSO)
D6 (HSA)
D7 (PSO)
D7 (HSA)
D8 (PSO)
D8 (HSA)
D9 (PSO)
D9 (HSA)

1.333
1.2900
1.909
1.9755
1.914
1.8228
1.323
1.3333
1.488
1.6472
1.540
1.7119
1.295
1.3137
1.388
1.4140
1.352
1.4182

0.163
0.9200
0.215
0.2593
0.283
0.1916
0.033
0.0320
0.110
0.5666
0.306
0.5065
0.338
0.4481
0.146
0.2977
0.393
0.5286

4.305
2.8191
1.825
1.7032
1.776
1.9885
3.312
3.3118
2.322
1.5038
1.994
1.4407
2.512
2.2572
2.103
1.8826
2.086
1.6661

12.946
0.8988
10.990
8.9821
7.993
12.2963
49.566
49.5660
14.765
2.1779
4.793
2.6329
2.844
2.0 0 09
7.906
3.5738
2.443
1.6832

1.190
1.1642
1.273
1.3369
1.377
1.3279
1.190
1.1900
1.245
1.3081
1.284
1.3529
1.157
1.1678
1.182
1.1726
1.181
1.2315

0.036
0.3783
0.086
0.0981
0.043
0.0920
0.014
0.0136
0.122
0.4653
0.297
0.2131
0.058
0.4115
0.190
0.1230
0.124
0.2025

2.163
2.3464
1.280
1.0871
1.040
1.1534
1.650
1.6502
1.217
0.8444
1.002
0.8383
1.282
1.0451
1.033
1.1006
1.085
0.8408

26.197
1.9996
11.584
10.5439
25.294
11.2152
49.980
49.9796
5.600
1.2449
2.156
3.3936
7.202
0.8351
2.155
3.4036
3.443
2.1918

2.532
2.289
3.491
3.672
3.688
3.516
2.304
2.314
2.576
2.727
2.655
2.861
1.600
2.046
2.088
2.093
2.051
2.138

0.632
0.606
0.623
0.657
0.657
0.656
0.577
0.578
0.583
0.581
0.583
0.583
0.506
0.529
0.529
0.529
0.528
0.529

44.22
43.21
49.53
49.81
49.90
49.71
31.69
31.92
32.92
32.65
32.90
33.11
20.33
20.65
20.69
20.60
20.53
20.63

(Reference parameters for prismatic beam conguration w pd =0.4383, Vpd = 1.1672)

If the difference of the objective function value of two consecutive iterations is less than or equal to 107 (value of function
tolerance), the optimization algorithm will stop iterations and the
minimum value of the objective function is reported as optimized
value. Convergence graphs for test case S9 is shown in Fig. 5a for
PSO and for HSA is shown in Fig. 5c for cantilever. It clearly indicates that solution converges around 50 0 0 iterations using PSO,
which is almost 5 times faster than those obtained using HSA. It is
depicted from convergence graph that hybrid simulated annealing
is one of the alternatives among the optimization algorithms for
the problem under investigation. Solution using HSA is converged
in around 320 0 0380 0 0 iterations. Width and thickness proles of
cantilever microbeam show striking similarity in most of the test
cases.
4.4. Comparison of the design parameters and normalized pull-in
parameters using PSO and HSA of xed-xed microbeam
In this section, for xedxed microbeam, the optimized pullin parameters using PSO and HSA are compared for 9 different test
cases in static and dynamic operating conditions.
4.4.1. Comparison of optimized design variables and pull-in
parameters obtained using PSO and HSA for xed-xed microbeam in
static operating condition
Results of xedxed microbeam for static operating condition
is shown in Table 6. It shows that using PSO, maximum pull-in displacement is observed in test case S3 showing 34.20% rise as compared to referential prismatic xed-xed microbeam. On parallel
lines, shape optimization using hybrid simulated annealing indicate that static travel range is maximum in test case S2 and it is
increased by 40.79% compared to prismatic xedxed microbeam.
4.4.2. Comparison of optimized design variables and pull-in
parameters obtained using PSO and HSA for xedxed microbeam in
dynamic operating condition
Table 7 shows the comparison of the optimized design and pullin parameters for xedxed microbeam using particle swarm optimization and hybrid simulated annealing optimization techniques
in dynamic operating condition. In dynamic mode of actuation,
shape optimization using PSO show 39.15% rise in travel range for
the test case D2. While shape optimization using hybrid simulated

annealing indicate 38.76% rise in dynamic pull-in displacement for

test case D2.
Comparison of optimized width and thickness proles of xed
xed microbeam using PSO and HSA in dynamic operating condition is shown in Fig. 4.
Width and thickness proles of various test cases show close
proximity with those obtained from hybrid SA. Convergence graph
for test case S9 of xedxed microbeam using PSO is shown in
Fig. 5b. The graph of convergence using hybrid simulated annealing
is shown in Fig. 5d for the test case S9. Hybrid simulated annealing
provides a successful method for the problem under investigation.
Hybrid SA converges after 320 0 0380 0 0 iterations. This converged
solution should avoid local minimum and provide a good approximation of a global optimum. The major drawback in using HSA is
that it takes signicant computational time to converge.
4.4.3. Comparison of optimized pull-in parameters of variable
geometry microbeams with those obtained using variable width
microbeams
Varying width and thickness simultaneously using parametric
functions has shown signicant improvement than those obtained
using the variable width microbeams. Joglekar and Pawaskar reported the enhancement in pull-in displacement using variable
width and constant thickness geometry. Using the same constraints
on width, area of overlap and constant volume, the pull-in parameters are compared for each test cases in Tables.
4.4.4. Validation of optimized pull-in parameters with 3-D FEA model
Optimized pull-in parameters for variable geometry microbeam
is validated using 3-D nite element analysis software COMSOLTM
[29] in multiphysics mode. Deformable electrode is modeled as
structural domain in COMSOLTM which uses Arbitrary Euclarian
Lagrangian (ALE) method to calculate the deformation due to
electric eld. Electrostatic domain is dened by box surrounding the deformable electrode which transfers the load to deformable electrode. Results of prismatic microbeam and variable geometry microbeam using proposed energy method and
COMSOLTM is compared in Table 2 and it shows predicted results for static test case S9 is having less than 2% difference
with those obtained from COMSOLTM . For 3-D FEA, half symmetry model is considered to save computational effort. Deformation

R.R. Trivedi et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 97 (2016) 116

13

Table 6
Comparison of optimized design parameters of xedxed microbeam for maximizing static pull-in displacement using particle swarm optimization (PSO) and hybrid simulated annealing (HSA).
Design variables

Pull-in parameters

Case
No.

y1

y2

y3

y4

y5

y6

y7

y8

Normalized
voltage (Vps )

Normalized
displacement (w ps )

% Rise in
w ps

S1
S1
S2
S2
S3
S3
S4
S4
S5
S5
S6
S6
S7
S7
S8
S8
S9
S9

1.333
1.333
1.997
1.834
1.633
1.609
1.328
1.333
2.0 0 0
1.913
1.676
1.704
1.108
1.333
1.964
1.799
1.789
1.685

0.053
0.056
0.019
0.010
0.045
0.042
0.139
0.151
0.076
0.063
0.049
0.035
0.046
0.017
0.066
0.048
0.016
0.018

0.231
0.227
0.777
0.762
0.429
0.420
0.252
0.249
0.795
0.774
0.712
0.715
0.174
0.600
1.111
1.003
1.265
1.091

0.783
0.800
0.684
0.569
0.807
0.788
0.814
0.850
0.782
0.711
0.556
0.553
0.332
0.297
0.577
0.496
0.362
0.360

1.200
1.199
1.349
1.349
1.500
1.489
1.200
1.190
1.350
1.349
1.350
1.490
1.200
1.190
1.343
1.349
1.490
1.490

0.008
0.010
0.105
0.010
0.385
0.067
0.010
0.010
0.318
0.206
0.058
0.048
0.081
0.010
0.501
0.445
0.409
0.418

0.670
0.641
1.608
1.417
0.677
1.091
0.927
0.892
1.212
1.015
1.271
1.824
0.900
1.456
1.305
1.284
1.813
1.706

0.204
0.213
0.314
0.238
1.260
0.442
0.151
0.149
0.597
0.513
0.285
0.300
0.175
0.100
0.843
0.726
0.769
0.787

6.991
6.980
10.838
10.768
10.793
10.788
6.916
6.859
10.309
10.331
9.463
10.781
6.020
6.793
9.484
9.112
9.923
9.579

0.375
0.374
0.403
0.429
0.409
0.414
0.370
0.369
0.385
0.397
0.392
0.394
0.343
0.361
0.361
0.363
0.359
0.359

23.04
22.74
32.10
40.79
34.20
35.74
21.53
21.20
26.29
26.92
28.78
29.14
12.67
13.48
18.54
19.04
17.92
17.76

(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)

(Reference parameters for prismatic beam conguration w ps = 0.3047, Vps = 4.7999)

Table 7
Optimized design parameters of xedxed microbeam for maximizing dynamic pull-in displacement using particle swarm optimization.
Design variables

Pull-in parameters

Case
No.

y1

y2

y3

y4

y5

y6

y7

y8

Normalized
voltage (Vpd )

Normalized
displacement (w pd )

% Rise in
w pd

D1
D1
D2
D2
D3
D3
D4
D4
D5
D5
D6
D6
D7
D7
D8
D8
D9
D9

1.333
1.333
1.867
1.831
1.637
1.647
1.333
1.333
2.0 0 0
1.910
1.695
1.697
1.327
1.327
1.955
1.984
1.496
2.097

0.010
0.075
0.010
0.010
0.046
0.048
0.143
0.151
0.075
0.062
0.037
0.041
0.034
0.019
0.067
0.065
0.010
0.034

0.340
0.221
0.788
0.761
0.432
0.430
0.253
0.249
0.797
0.773
0.723
0.711
0.507
0.583
1.111
1.112
0.939
1.954

0.500
0.843
0.573
0.567
0.808
0.827
0.827
0.850
0.779
0.709
0.545
0.560
0.356
0.302
0.574
0.586
0.287
0.405

1.190
1.200
1.340
1.350
1.500
1.490
1.200
1.190
1.350
1.350
1.500
1.350
1.188
1.200
1.350
1.350
1.171
1.497

0.010
0.058
0.01
0.010
0.383
0.382
0.009
0.010
0.313
0.206
0.049
0.059
0.013
0.010
0.495
0.503
0.640
0.501

0.618
0.471
1.409
1.415
0.679
0.671
0.949
0.892
0.928
1.017
1.840
1.292
1.367
1.521
1.328
1.555
0.500
1.903

0.211
0.317
0.237
0.239
1.254
1.244
0.148
0.149
0.698
0.513
0.303
0.285
0.106
0.102
0.837
0.798
1.0 0 0
1.0 0 0

6.325
6.364
8.142
9.795
9.853
9.825
6.339
6.268
9.633
9.395
9.826
8.729
6.169
6.244
8.631
8.577
6.481
9.346

0.524
0.523
0.601
0.600
0.578
0.578
0.521
0.518
0.558
0.558
0.554
0.554
0.506
0.507
0.510
0.504
0.505
0.492

21.22
20.96
39.15
38.76
33.69
33.78
20.43
19.94
29.11
29.08
28.16
28.27
17.01
17.33
18.00
16.50
16.94
16.81

(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)
(PSO)
(HSA)

(Reference parameters for prismatic beam conguration w pd = 0.4322, Vpd = 4.3934)

contour in static operating condition is shown in Fig. 6 for both

microbeams.
Voltage-displacement graphs for cantilever and xedxed microbeam are shown in Fig. 7 which reconrms pull-in parameters
estimated from energy method are in close proximity with the
COMSOLTM 3-D FEA package.
To validate the dynamic pull-in parameters, time history diagrams of optimized microbeams developed using MATLABTM code
are compared with those obtained from with 3-D FEA simulation
package COMSOLTM . As shown in Fig. 8, estimated response of the
microbeams at various voltage is showing close match with 3-D
FEA software results.

4.4.5. Result summary

Optimized design parameters for static and dynamic pull-in displacement using hybrid simulated annealing and particle swarm
optimization (PSO) are summarized by following important points

Using particle swarm optimization, maximum rise in static

pull-in displacement is observed as 54.32% for test case S3
and dynamic pull-in displacement is raised by 49.90% in test
case D3.
Application of PSO for shape optimization of xedxed microbeam show rise in static pull-in displacement by 34.20% for
test case S3 and 39.15% rise in dynamic pull-in displacement for
test case D2.
Using particle swarm optimization, results are converged within
the range of 50 0 060 0 0 iterations for all the test cases of
xedxed and cantilever microbeam.
Using hybrid simulated annealing, for optimized cantilever microbeam, maximum rise of 54.92% of static pull-in displacement is obtained for test case S3. Similarly, for dynamic pull-in
maximum rise of 49.81% is obtained for test case D2.
Out of 9 static test cases of cantilever microbeam, optimized
pull-in parameters of test case S4 using PSO shows rise in pullin displacement as 24.55% and those obtained using HSA is

14

R.R. Trivedi et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 97 (2016) 116

Fig. 8. Time history diagram of microbeams for representative test case D9.

Fig. 7. Comparison of voltage-displacement graphs of prismatic and nonprismatic

microbeams using energy method with those obtained from FEA simulation package.

33.43% which shows signicant difference in the results using

both the methods. Here, hybrid SA though taking long time is
giving better results.
Out of 9 static test cases of xedxed microbeam, optimized
pull-in parameters of test case S2 using PSO shows rise in pullin displacement as 32.10% and those obtained using HSA is
40.79% which shows considerable difference in the results using both the methods.
Shape optimization of xedxed microbeam using hybrid simulated annealing shows maximum rise in static pull-in displacement which is of 40.79% in test case S2 while, in dynamic
pull-in displacement 38.76% rise is obtained in test case D2.
To get the convergence of design variables using hybrid simulated annealing method around 320 0 0380 0 0 iterations are required for various test cases of microbeams.
Estimated static pull-in parameters for xedxed and cantilever microbeam are compared with the 3-D FEA package
COMSOLTM results, shows less than 2% variation in the estimated results.

Validation of dynamic pull-in parameters is demonstrated by

comparing time history for both the microbeams for representative test case D9.

Various test cases are presented to demonstrate the applicability of particle swarm optimization and hybrid simulated annealing method for shape optimization of electrostatically actuated microbeams.
5. Concluding remarks
In this paper, novel design of electrostatically driven microbeams is presented for enhancement of travel range. Shape
optimization of microbeams for enhanced travel range is carried
out successfully using PSO and hybrid SA. To the best of authors
knowledge, this is the rst instance of PSO being used for optimizing a width and a thickness proles for travel range enhancement of electrostatically driven microbeams. From the presented
results,following conclusions can be drawn:

Particle swarm optimization is successfully applied for shape

optimization of electrostatically driven microbeams and it is almost ve times faster than hybrid simulated annealing.

R.R. Trivedi et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 97 (2016) 116

Pull-in parameters are more sensitive to thickness variation

than width variation. Since constant area and volume constraints are imposed, more material is deposited towards the
xed end of the microbeam, which causes rise in the exural
rigidity and ultimately leads to increase in actuation voltage. A
similar phenomenon is also reported by many researchers in
the past like, Abdalla et al. [24], Najar et al. [51], and Joglekar
and Pawaskar [52].
Width and thickness proles obtained using PSO show striking similarity with those obtained using hybrid SA. Similarly
pull-in displacements obtained using PSO show close proximity
with the hybrid SA in most of the test cases. Moreover, using
PSO, computation effort is reduced drastically without significant lose in the results of pull-in displacement in static and
dynamic operating condition.
Out of 18 (9 static and 9 dynamic) test cases optimized using PSO for cantilever microbeam, pull-in displacement results
are having approximately 1% difference with the respective test
cases optimized using hybrid SA except for test case S4. For
test case S4, hybrid simulated annealing outperform the particle swarm optimization.
Out of 18 (9 static and 9 dynamic) test cases optimized using
PSO for xedxed microbeam, results of PSO show signicant
difference for static test case S2 from HSA. In this test case, HSA
proves to be better.
Design parameters obtained under static operating conditions
for cantilever and xedxed microbeams are quite close to optimized design parameters of respective beams obtained under
dynamic operating conditions for most of the test cases.
Optimized pull-in parameters obtained in the present investigation compare well with 3-D nite element analysis model
which helps in building condence in use of the presently used
numerical method.

Constraints of microfabrication can be added in the present investigation.

Acknowledgments
Authors wish to thank Mr. Amar Gaonkar and Mr. Thamarai Silven Vasu, Department of Mechanical Engineering Indian Institute
of Technology Bombay and Dr. Anand Bhushan, National Institute
of Technology Patna for many useful discussions.
References
[1] Thielicke E, Obermeier E. Microactuators and their technologies. Mechatronics
20 0 0;10(4):43155. doi:10.1016/S0957-4158(99)0 0 063-X.
[2] Najar F, Nayfeh A, Abdel-Rahman E, Choura S, El-Borgi S. Dynamics and
global stability of beam-based electrostatic microactuators. J Vib Control
2010;16(5):72148. doi:10.1177/1077546309106521.
[3] Batra RC, Porri M, Spinello D. Vibrations of narrow microbeams predeformed
by an electric eld. J Sound Vib 20 08;309(35):60 012.
[4] Nathanson HC, Newell WE, Wickstrom RA, Davis J J R. The resonant gate transistor. IEEE Trans Electron Devices 1967;14(3):11733.
[5] Taylor G. The coalescence of closely spaced drops when they are at different
electric potentials. In: Proceedings of the royal society A; 1968. p. 42334.
[6] Chowdhury S, Ahmadi M, Miller WC. A closed-form model for the pull-in
voltage of electrostatically actuated cantilever beams. J Micromech Microeng
2005;15(4):75663. doi:10.1088/0960-1317/15/4/012.
[7] Hu YC, Chang CM, Huang SC. Some design considerations on the electrostatically actuated microstructures. Sens Actuators A Phys 2004;112(1):15561.
doi:10.1016/j.sna.2003.12.012.
[8] Batra RC, Porri M, Spinello D. Electromechanical model of electrically actuated narrow microbeams. J Microelectromech Syst 2006;15(5):117589. doi:10.
1109/JMEMS.2006.880204.
[9] Osterberg PM, Senturia SD. M-test: A test chip for MEMS material property measurement using electrostatically actuated test structures. J Microelectromech Syst 1997;6(2):10718. doi:10.1109/84.585788.
[10] Leus V, Elata D. On the dynamic response of electrostatic MEMS switches. J
Microelectromech Syst 2008;17(1):23643. doi:10.1109/JMEMS.2007.908752.
[11] Hung ES, Senturia SD. Generating ecient dynamical models for microelectromechanical systems from a few nite-element simulation runs. J Microelectromech Syst 1999;8(3):2809.

15

[12] Chen KN, Yu SP. Shape optimization of micromachined biosensing cantilevers.

In: Proceedings of the 2007 international microsystems, packaging, assembly
and circuits technology (IMPACT 20 07); 20 07. p. 3014. doi:10.1109/IMPACT.
2007.4433622.
[13] Ansari MZ, Cho C. Deection, frequency, and stress characteristics of rectangular, triangular, and step prole microcantilevers for biosensors. Sensors
2009;9(8):604657. doi:10.3390/s90806046.
[14] Legtenberg R, Tilmans HAC. Electrostatically driven vacuum-encapsulated
polysilicon resonators: Part I. Design and fabrication. Sens Actuators A Phys
1994;45:5766.
[15] Rinaldi G, Packirisamy M, Stiharu I. Frequency tuning AFM optical levers using
a slot. Microsyst Technol 2008;14(3):3619. doi:10.1007/s00542-007- 0456- 4.
[16] Lee K. Closed-form expressions for pull-in parameters of two-degree-offreedom torsional microactuators. J Micromech Microeng 2007;17(9):185362.
doi:10.1088/0960-1317/17/9/014.
[17] Batra RC, Porri M, Spinello D. Review of modeling electrostatically actuated microelectromechanical systems. Smart Mater Struct 2007;16(6):R2331.
doi:10.1088/0964-1726/16/6/R01.
[18] Bifano TG, Perreault J, Krishnamoorthy Mali R, Horenstein MN. Microelectromechanical deformable mirrors. IEEE J Sel Top Quantum Electron
1999;5(1):839.
[19] Zhang Y, Zhao YP. Numerical and analytical study on the pull-in instability of micro-structure under electrostatic loading. Sens Actuators A Phys
2006;127(2):36680.
[20] Joglekar MM, Hardikar KY, Pawaskar DN. Analysis of electrostatically actuated
narrow microcantilevers using RayleighRitz energy technique. In: Proceedings
of the second international conference on integration and commercialization
of micro and nanosystems; 2008. p. 30717.
[21] Nayfeh AH, Younis MI, Abdel-Rahman EM. Dynamic pull-in phenomenon
in MEMS resonators. Nonlinear Dyn 2007;48(1-2):15363. doi:10.1007/
s11071- 006- 9079- z.
[22] Abdel-Rahman EM, Younis MI, Nayfeh AH. Characterization of the mechanical behavior of an electrically actuated microbeam. J Micromech Microeng
2002;12(6):75966. doi:10.1088/0960-1317/12/6/306.
[23] Younis M, Nayfeh A. A study of the nonlinear response of a resonant microbeam to an electric actuation. Nonlinear Dyn 2003;31(1):91117. doi:10.
1023/A:1022103118330.
[24] Abdalla MM, Reddy CK, Faris WF, Grdal Z. Optimal design of an electrostatically actuated microbeam for maximum pull-in voltage. Comput Struct
2005;83(15-16):13209. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.07.010.
[25] Lake JJ, Duwel AE, Candler RN. Particle swarm optimization for design of slotted MEMS resonators with low thermoelastic dissipation. J Microelectromech
Syst 2014;23(2):36471. doi:10.1109/JMEMS.2013.2275999.
[26] Joglekar MM, Pawaskar DN. Shape optimization of electrostatically actuated
microbeams for extending static and dynamic operating ranges. Struct Multidisc Optim 2012;46:87190. doi:10.10 07/s0 0158- 012- 0804- 6.
[27] Najar F, Choura S, Abdel-Rahman EM, El-Borgi S, Nayfeh AH. Dynamic analysis of variable-geometry electrostatic microactuators. J Micromech Microeng
2006;16(11):244957.
[28] Dhariwal RS, Torres JM, Desmulliez MPY. Electric eld breakdown at micrometre separations in air and nitrogen at atmospheric pressure. IEE Proc Sci Meas
Technol 20 0 0;147(5):2615. doi:10.1049/ip-smt:20 0 0 0506.
[29] COMSOL. COMSOL multiphysics, MEMS module users guide, version 3.5a.
COMSOL, Inc.; 2008.
[30] Palmer H. Capacitance of a parallel-plate capacitor by the SchwartzChristoffel
transformation. Trans AIEE 1937;56:3636.
[31] Rao S. Mechanical vibrations. 4th. Pearson Education; 2004.
[32] Elata D. On the static and dynamic response of electrostatic actuators. Bull Pol
Acad Sci Tech Sci 2005;53(4):37384.
[33] Nielson GN, Barbastathis G. Dynamic pull-in of parallel-plate and torsional
electrostatic MEMS actuators. J Microelectromech Syst 2006;15(4):81121.
doi:10.1109/JMEMS.2006.879121.
[34] Pamidighantam S, Puers R, Baert K, Tilmans HAC. Pull-in voltage analysis of
electrostatically actuated beam structures with xedxed and xed-free end
conditions. J Micromech Microeng 2002;12(4):45864. doi:10.1088/0960-1317/
12/4/319.
[35] Chaterjee S, Pohit G. A large deection model for the pull-in analysis of electrostatically actuated microcantilever beams. J Sound Vib 2009;322(4-5):969
86. doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2008.11.046.
[36] Durieu F, Brls O, Rochus V, Srandour G, Golinval J-C. Reduced-order modeling of electrostatically-actuated micro-beams. In: Proceedings of the 2008
sixth EUROMECH on nonlinear dynamics conference, Saint Petersburg, Russia;
2008.
[37] Ijntema DJ, Tilmans HAC. Static and dynamic aspects of an air-gap capacitor.
Sens Actuators, A 1992;35(2):1218.
[38] Zand MM, Ahmadian MT. Application of homotopy analysis method in
studying dynamic pull-in instability of microsystems. Mech Res Commun
2009;36(11):8518. doi:10.1016/j.mechrescom.2009.03.004.
[39] Krylov S. Lyapunov exponents as a criterion for the dynamic pull-in instability of electrostatically actuated microstructures. Int J Nonlinear Mech
2007;42(4):62642. doi:10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2007.01.004.
[40] Koester D, Cowen A, Mahadevan R, Stoneeld M, Hardy B. PolyMUMPs design
handbook. MEMSCAP; 2003.
[41] Waits CM, Morgan B, Kastantin M, Ghodssi R. Microfabrication of 3D silicon
MEMS structures using gray-scale lithography and deep reactive ion etching.
Sensors Actuators A Phys 2005;119(1):24553.

16

R.R. Trivedi et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 97 (2016) 116

[42] Schaffert RM. Electrophotography. Focal Press; 1975. ISBN 10: 0240507819
[43] Kennedy J, Eberhart RC. Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the
IEEE international conference on neural netwroks, vol. 4; 1995. p. 19428.
doi:10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968.
[44] Hu X, Eberhart RC, Shi Y. Swarm intelligence for permutation optimization:
A case study on n-queens problem. In: Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE swarm
intelligence symposium; 2003. p. 2436.
[45] Rosendo M, Pozo A. Applying a discrete particle swarm optimization algorithm
to combinatorial problems. In: Proceedings of the 2010 eleventh Brazilian symposium on neural networks; 2010. p. 23541. doi:10.1109/SBRN.2010.48.
[46] MATLAB. Optimization toolbox users guide (for use with MATLAB). Natick, MA:
MathWorks, Inc.; 2001.
[47] Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 1983;220(4598):67180. doi:10.1126/science.220.4598.671.

[48] Trivedi RR, Bhashan A, Joglekar MM, Pawaskar DN, Shimpi RP. Enhancement of
static and dynamic travel range of electrostatically actuated microbeams using
hybrid simulated annealing. Int J Mech Sci 2015;98(4):93110.
[49] Balling RJ. Optimal steel frame design by simulated annealing. J Struct Eng
1991;6(117):178095.
[50] Trivedi RR, Joglekar MM, Shimpi RP, Pawaskar DN. Shape optimization of electrostatically actuated micro cantilever beam with extended travel range using
simulated annealing. In: Proceedings of the 2011 world congress on engineering (WCE 2011), vol. III; 2011. p. 20427.
[51] Najar F, Choura S, El-Borgi S, Abdel-Rahman EM, Nayfeh AH. Modeling and design of variable-geometry electrostatic microactuators. J Micromech Microeng
2005;15(3):41929. doi:10.1088/0960-1317/15/3/001.
[52] Joglekar MM, Pawaskar DN. Pull-in dynamics of variable-width electrostatic
microactuators. In: Proceedings of the ninth biennial conference on engineering systems design and analysis, Haifa, Israel, vol. 4; 2009. p. 32735.