Electrodynamically levitated actuator

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 12091313
  • Patent Number
    12,091,313
  • Date Filed
    Monday, August 24, 2020
    4 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, September 17, 2024
    5 months ago
Abstract
A microelectromechanical actuator, comprising: a substrate, having a surface; a conductive beam suspended parallel to the substrate, displaceable along an axis normal to the surface of the substrate; a center electrode on the substrate under the beam; a pair of side electrodes on the substrate configured, when charged, to exert an electrostatic force normal to the surface of the substrate on the beam that repulses the beam from the substrate, and exerts a balanced electrostatic force on the beam in a plane of the surface of the substrate, the center conductive electrode being configured to shield the beam from electrostatic forces induced by the side electrodes from beneath the beam, and the center electrode being configured to have a voltage different from a voltage on the beam, to thereby induce an attractive electrostatic force on the beam.
Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Each reference cited herein is expressly incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. With increasing demand for high performance and technologically advanced electronic devices, more efficient and reliable sensors are needed to achieve the performance that has come to be expected of new technology. Sensors play a vital role in these devices by enabling them to interact with and acquire information from the user, their environment, and from themselves. Because of the demand for fast, simple, and energy efficient electronic devices, microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) are often used as sensors for their fast response time, low bulk fabrication costs, and low power consumption [1].


MEMS have a tremendous range of applications and can be used as sensors [2-4], switches [5,6], energy harvesters [7-11], signal filters [12-15], etc., or for multiple applications at once [16,17] (e.g. a sensor-switch). Many of these devices use electrostatic actuation because it can be easily fabricated, consumes minimal power, and can be integrated in electronic circuits without much difficulty [1]. Traditional electrostatic actuation utilizes a parallel plate capacitor configuration with electrostatic forces pulling a movable electrode (typically a beam or plate) towards a fixed one. This can cause the electrodes to collapse if the voltage potential between them is high enough (pull-in). For switches, this is desirable because it closes a circuit between the electrodes if the contacting faces are conductive. Therefore, a MEMS switch can be toggled to closed by applying the pull-in voltage between the electrodes. While pull-in is necessary for switches, it is usually undesirable for sensors, which in many cases need the ability to move freely.


Some effort has been made to eliminate the pull-in instability by exploiting electrostatic levitation [18-30]. This creates an effectively repulsive force between the two electrodes instead of an attractive one. Lee and Cho [18] first applied a similar concept to a MEMS device in 2001 where they demonstrated that two grounded electrodes would be pulled away from each other when in close proximity to a charged electrode on their side. He and Ben-Mrad flipped this design on its side to create out of plane actuation [21]. This configuration, shown in FIG. 1, has a beam placed above a fixed electrode, both of which are grounded. Two charged electrodes are placed on either side of the fixed electrode and generate a net electrostatic force on the beam away from the substrate. Because the electrostatic force is generated through the fringe field, a very large voltage is needed to actuate the beam. This requirement of high voltage can easily be satisfied by connecting the actuator to a triboelectric generator. See: U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,937,917; 3,955,426; 4,074,580; 4,521,854; 4,553,917; 4,929,400; 4,981,625; 5,015,528; 5,015,906; 5,162,969; 5,196,999; 5,206,504; 5,215,688; 5,247,144; 5,374,801; 5,653,175; 5,783,335; 5,789,843; 5,969,848; 5,992,233; 6,067,858; 6,250,156; 6,276,147; 6,286,323; 6,296,779; 6,369,006; 6,469,825; 6,484,539; 6,490,081; 6,541,892; 6,549,703; 6,592,689; 6,601,888; 6,626,039; 6,679,118; 6,681,094; 6,686,299; 6,721,093; 6,781,750; 6,841,917; 6,856,067; 6,858,184; 6,900,440; 6,906,789; 6,906,855; 6,950,175; 6,972,896; 7,061,964; 7,070,665; 7,200,493; 7,225,674; 7,252,001; 7,260,959; 7,359,037; 7,372,548; 7,447,250; 7,456,859; 7,544,245; 7,551,265; 7,564,559; 7,599,143; 7,726,035; 7,794,553; 7,815,484; 7,864,829; 7,940,150; 8,028,541; 8,030,823; 8,146,425; 8,221,098; 8,222,795; 8,228,675; 8,336,380; 8,370,105; 8,485,027; 8,487,511; 8,545,942; 8,915,790; 8,939,029; 8,940,361; 8,988,881; 9,005,281; 9,040,439; 9,132,420; 9,207,023; 9,254,496; 9,309,162; 9,316,665; 9,371,173; 9,381,528; 9,427,679; 9,492,272; 9,498,934; 9,625,075; 9,735,338; 9,908,288; 9,963,763; 9,975,064; 10,033,307; 10,155,179; 10,166,740; 10,233,561; 10,244,901; 10,351,464; 20020027664; 20020053375; 20020093251; 20020106314; 20020130524; 20020140533; 20020187618; 20030015807; 20030049642; 20030068179; 20030086154; 20030112499; 20030141453; 20030150268; 20040050458; 20040163471; 20040239283; 20040239911; 20040246569; 20040246570; 20050024808; 20050034200; 20050199180; 20050200830; 20050204817; 20050241394; 20060023195; 20060027709; 20060042314; 20060073395; 20060177147; 20060203417; 20060205095; 20070007393; 20070247739; 20070274368; 20070279638; 20080100175; 20080135138; 20090076294; 20090151182; 20090193893; 20090199997; 20090241719; 20090243426; 20090312980; 20100058865; 20100177480; 20100187948; 20100226765; 20110040376; 20110061455; 20110103011; 20110214982; 20120013224; 20120223726; 20120240679; 20120274183; 20120310338; 20130103147; 20130300259; 20140020556; 20140045680; 20140256531; 20140311243; 20140321024; 20140333177; 20140339954; 20150025627; 20150122784; 20150316065; 20160023438; 20160028330; 20160031156; 20160362811; 20160368811; 20170028682; 20170143171; 20170143477; 20180009158; 20180092557; 20180216935; 20180267184; 20180284175; 20180292470; 20190013228; 20190119147; 20190179136; and 20190222141.


Triboelectricity has been investigated in recent years as a possible transduction mechanism for converting mechanical energy to electrical energy because of its high energy conversion efficiency and large voltage output [31-39]. Triboelectric charging occurs when two materials with different affinities to gain or lose electrons are brought into contact with each other. Electrons are passed from one material to another at the contact area to equalize the potential at the interface. These materials retain their charge even after the materials have been separated. Despite its large voltage, the current produced is on the order of nanoamps. However, the repulsive force electrode configuration from [21] acts as a completely open circuit between the side electrodes and beam/center electrode, requiring no current. This means the high output voltage of a tribolelectric generator can be exploited for this purpose without the downside of a low power output. Triboelectric MEMs are shown in [42, 59].


The working principle of a triboelectric generator (TEG) is based on coupling between triboelectrification and electrostatic induction [40]. A 3D model of the generator can be seen in FIGS. 2A and 2B. The TEG consists of two aluminum electrodes (one fixed, one free) and a PDMS insulator. The PDMS is mounted on the fixed electrode with the exposed face machined to increase surface area. The free electrode is also machined on one side with a reverse pattern and mounted above the PDMS with a set of springs or a clamped-clamped beam. When the generator receives an impact, the free electrode comes into contact with the PDMS and triboelectric charges are created. After the impact, the layers separate because of the springs and a potential difference is generated between the two electrodes. If the two electrodes are connected, the current will be induced through the wire to equalize the voltage potential. If the electrodes are disconnected, the PDMS retain its triboelectric charges, which allows the electrodes to stay charged for a short period of time, such as in the case of FIGS. 2A and 2B. See: U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,990,813; 7,621,471; 8,179,278; 8,519,596; 8,536,760; 9,178,446; 9,287,487; 9,351,690; 9,394,875; 9,444,031; 9,453,774; 9,484,842; 9,490,306; 9,491,271; 9,543,860; 9,569,055; 9,571,009; 9,595,894; 9,625,330; 9,700,266; 9,748,868; 9,762,151; 9,790,928; 9,812,993; 9,825,558; 9,837,933; 9,837,934; 9,843,275; 9,847,659; 9,874,679; 9,887,644; 9,899,939; 9,921,678; 9,985,554; 10,006,819; 10,008,867; 10,011,222; 10,014,799; 10,027,187; 10,034,633; 10,042,446; 10,0425,04; 10,075,100; 10,103,649; 10,108,305; 10,193,472; 10,199,958; 10,211,758; 10,256,381; 10,265,025; 10,318,090; 10,367,431; 20060064826; 20070145167; 20070192972; 20100133006; 20130049531; 20140084748; 20140202948; 20140225475; 20140246950; 20140246951; 20140292138; 20140300248; 20140313141; 20140338458; 20140378805; 20150001993; 20150035408; 20150036797; 20150061464; 20150238110; 20150242057; 20150295101; 20150318800; 20150372620; 20160028327; 20160036351; 20160040648; 20160065091; 20160096031; 20160105538; 20160156282; 20160218640; 20160242711; 20160294305; 20160315561; 20160344308; 20160347627; 20160359429; 20160365808; 20170025857; 20170054308; 20170070164; 20170077838; 20170170752; 20170187307; 20170219391; 20170237365; 20170237368; 20170317609; 20170322094; 20170331396; 20170331397; 20170346416; 20170353043; 20170367455; 20180013358; 20180040806; 20180041139; 20180062543; 20180091064; 20180115258; 20180145613; 20180153450; 20180160911; 20180191274; 20180205327; 20180254405; 20180263328; 20180287512; 20180294744; 20180294745; 20180316202; 20180316281; 20180353101; 20180375443; 20190006961; 20190028040; 20190035957; 20190056603; 20190058419; 20190061533; 20190087771; 20190125523; 20190131889; 20190150805; 20190150824; and 20190239817.


Nonlinearity in electrostatic microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) presents a challenging obstacle in the design of many MEMS sensors and actuators. Electrostatic MEMS convert electrical energy in the form of a voltage potential to kinetic and strain energy in a microstructure or vice versa. In most cases, MEMS are interfaced with electronic circuits to supply power or read the signal from a MEMS sensor. Ideally, sensors and actuators would have a linear relationship between voltage and the electrode position to simplify and miniaturize the electronic circuit. However, the electrostatic force is inherently nonlinear and typically has the relationship Force ˜voltage2/gap2, where the gap is the distance between electrodes. Nonlinearity effectively causes the devices to behave differently at different voltage levels and gaps, so the working range of a device is normally limited to small motions where the force can be treated as effectively linear. However, a smaller range creates less actuation distance for actuators and a smaller signal-to-noise ratio in sensors.


The most common structure of an electrostatic MEMS device consists of two electrodes that act like parallel plates. One electrode is fixed and the other is movable, such as a micro-beam that deflects under the influence of an external force. Applying a voltage potential between the two electrodes creates an electric field that pulls them together. This is the most common method of actuation and sensing in commercial MEMS because it has low bulk fabrication costs, very fast response times, and can be easily integrated into an electronic circuit [45]. However, the electrostatic force is highly nonlinear and can create instability that leads to pull-in (when the two electrodes collapse together), stiction [46], and even chaos [47]. Alternative electrode arrangements have been proposed to avoid instability in electrostatic MEMS [48-51], but all are hampered by the nonlinearity associated with electrostatic forces.


U.S. Pat. No. 7,225,674, discusses a MEMS proof mass that is levitated without any anchoring points. It depends on two electrodes with the same charge repelling each other. The switch uses the attractive electrostatic force with opposite charges to pull two electrodes away from each other. The electric fringe field from the side electrodes pulls on the top of the beam more than the bottom as a result of the shielding that center fixed electrode provides to the bottom face of the beam, and induces a net force upwards. If the beam travels too far away from the center electrode then it would once again be pulled back down with an attractive force because the electric field starts pulling on the bottom face of the beam as it would with a parallel plate. However, the geometry is designed such that this cross over point does not happen until the beam reaches a substantially large deflection.


US20180262843 provides a system and method for a multi-electrode MEMS device, in which electrostatic repulsive forces may be used between the backplate and the membrane to prevent collapse or pull-in.


U.S. Pat. No. 8,963,659 provides electrostatic MEMS devices with high reliability.


Weimin Wang, Qiang Wang, Hao Ren, Wenying Ma, Chuankai Qiu, Zexiang Chen & Bin Fan, “Electrostatic repulsive out-of-plane actuator using conductive substrate”, Scientific Reports volume 6, Article number: 35118 (2016), discloses an electrostatic actuator suspended above a ground plane, as shown in FIG. 33, with raised side electrodes also above the ground plane to drive its motion. This was originally proposed by He, S. & Ben Mrad, R. Large-stroke microelectrostatic actuators for vertical translation of micromirrors used in adaptive optics. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 52, 974-983 (2005). This system does not add a bias voltage to combine the effects of the levitation force and that of a parallel plate. Therefore, there is no possibility of pull-in, which is the basis for the switching mechanism. In the switch embodiment, the levitation force can be strong enough to lift off a pulled-in microbeam, that would normally be permanently stuck to the center electrode in a pure parallel plate system.


Matthias Imboden, Jessica Morrison, Evan Lowell, Han Han, and David J. Bishop, “Controlling Levitation and Enhancing Displacement in Electrostatic Comb Drives of MEMS Actuators”, IEEE J. Microelectromechanical Systems (2014) also provides levitation with respect to a set of raised electrodes. See also, Liao, Yunn-Shivan, Shiang-Woei Chyuan, and Jeng-Tzong Chen. “An alternatively efficient method (DBEM) for simulating the electrostatic field and levitating force of a MEMS combdrive.” Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 14, no. 8 (2004): 1258, and U.S. Pub. App. 20090322260. FIGS. 34 and 35 shows clear distinctions from FIG. 12, and reflect that the field lines of FIGS. 34 and 35 from the stationary electrodes do not provide significant forces beneath the moveable finger, while in FIGS. 34 and 35, the field lines present forces on the moveable electrode from above and beneath. In FIGS. 34 and 35, the moveable finger is held at the same potential as the ground plane (no field lines between the moveable finger and the substrate), while in FIG. 12, these are at different potential. Note that in FIG. 34, the ground plane extends beneath the stationary electrodes, and in FIG. 35, the field lines from the lateral electrodes are shunted to the center electrode, while in FIG. 12, there are field lines between the middle electrode and the moving electrode. The force exerted by the stationary electrodes on the moving electride of Liao is non-linear, and is reflected by the formula F is 0.1504εVp2 μm−1, that is, the levitating force is proportional to V2, and the zero force position is at some distance above the substrate. See, also Chyuan, Shiang-Woei, Yunn-Shivan Liao, and Jeng-Tzong Chen. “Computational study of the effect of finger width and aspect ratios for the electrostatic levitating force of MEMS combdrive.” Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems 14, no. 2 (2005): 305-312, and Chyuan, Shiang-Woei. “Computational simulation for MEMS combdrive levitation using FEM.” Journal of Electrostatics 66, no. 7-8 (2008): 361-365.


Mark Pallay, Meysam Daeichin, and Shahrzad Towfighian, “Dynamic behavior of an electrostatic MEMS resonator with repulsive actuation”, Nonlinear Dyn (2017) 89:1525-1538, DOI 10.1007/s11071-017-3532-z, discloses a repulsive force actuator similar to that shown in FIG. 1. However, the center electrode is held at the same potential as the moving electrode, as shown in FIGS. 36a-36f.


Liu, Zengtao, Myongseob Kim, Nick Shen, and Edwin C. Kan. “Novel electrostatic repulsion forces in MEMS applications by nonvolatile charge injection.” In Technical Digest. MEMS 2002 IEEE International Conference. Fifteenth IEEE International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (Cat. No. 02CH37266), pp. 598-601. IEEE, 2002 employ non-volatile charge injection to produce levitation actuation of a MEMS beam.


Suzuki, Yuji, Daigo Miki, Masato Edamoto, and Makoto Honzumi. “A MEMS electret generator with electrostatic levitation for vibration-driven energy-harvesting applications.” Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 20, no. 10 (2010): 104002, utilizes the levitation force, for the purpose of energy harvesting. The design requires use of an electret.


MEMS microphones are well known. The pull-in problem is well-known, and therefore many configurations employ interdigital fingers with balanced forces in a plane of the diaphragm, to permit capacitive sensing. See, US 20170127189; 20160157025; 20150350790; 20140226841; 20120189151; 20120076329; 20110286610; 20110150260; 20110038492; 20090262958; 20090046883; 20090016557; 20080235079; 20080101641; 20070297631; 20070165896; 20060026054; U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,906,869; 9,554,213; 9,181,086; 9,113,249; 8,582,795; 8,548,178; 8,503,701; 8,374,371; 8,276,254; 8,214,999; 8,073,167; 8,019,640; 7,992,283; 7,903,835; 7,876,924; 7,826,629; 7,545,945; 6,963,653; 6,788,796; 6,859,542; 7,019,955; 7,253,488; 7,395,698; 7,425,749; 7,441,447; 7,449,356; 7,456,043; 7,461,543; 7,520,173; 7,538,401; 7,538,477; 7,552,625; 7,579,753; 7,586,659; 7,600,533; 7,637,149; 7,642,115; 7,707,873; 7,781,249; 7,785,912; 7,795,063; 7,795,695; 7,826,629; 7,855,095; 7,856,804; 7,885,423; 7,941,909; 7,951,636; 7,952,154; 7,961,897; 8,013,405; 8,030,112; 8,036,401; 8,041,064; 8,065,919; 8,081,782; 8,093,087; 8,094,839; 8,094,846; 8,103,027; 8,114,700; 8,130,979; 8,141,573; 8,158,492; 8,169,042; 8,188,557; 8,208,671; 8,220,318; 8,243,962; 8,258,591; 8,258,678; 8,261,602; 8,270,634; 8,276,254; 8,295,528; 8,309,386; 8,330,239; 8,338,898; 8,345,895; 8,345,910; 8,351,632; 8,356,521; 8,358,793; 8,363,860; 8,368,153; 8,374,363; 8,416,970; 8,422,703; 8,428,281; 8,433,084; 8,455,288; 8,460,961; 8,461,657; 8,477,983; 8,488,812; 8,502,329; 8,503,701; 8,507,306; 8,524,519; 8,525,389; 8,542,850; 8,553,911; 8,565,452; 8,587,078; 8,590,136; 8,593,155; 8,625,809; 8,641,919; 8,643,129; 8,664,733; 8,673,732; 8,710,601; 8,755,541; 8,783,113; 8,787,600; 8,818,007; 8,828,773; 8,831,246; 8,833,171; 8,836,111; 8,837,754; 8,841,737; 8,841,738; 8,842,859; 8,847,289; 8,860,154; 8,865,500; 8,897,470; 8,901,683; 8,921,956; 8,934,648; 8,940,639; 8,942,394; 8,946,831; 8,948,419; 8,952,468; 8,955,212; 8,962,368; 8,965,027; 8,973,446; 8,995,693; 9,002,036; 9,002,039; 9,029,179; 9,029,963; 9,039,976; 9,042,581; 9,055,372; 9,061,889; 9,078,068; 9,078,069; 9,096,424; 9,133,016; 9,143,870; 9,150,403; 9,150,407; 9,154,886; 9,157,856; 9,173,024; 9,179,221; 9,181,080; 9,181,086; 9,212,052; 9,219,963; 9,226,052; 9,227,843; 9,237,402; 9,249,008; 9,264,814; 9,266,716; 9,302,904; 9,309,105; 9,309,109; 9,321,635; 9,329,610; 9,332,332; 9,332,345; 9,338,538; 9,340,413; 9,343,455; 9,344,809; 9,346,667; 9,357,296; 9,359,188; 9,372,111; 9,386,379; 9,407,997; 9,409,763; 9,419,562; 9,438,979; 9,448,126; 9,451,359; 9,462,395; 9,462,402; 9,484,524; 9,488,541; 9,494,477; 9,498,312; 9,505,614; 9,510,107; 9,510,121; 9,544,678; 9,554,213; 9,571,931; 9,580,299; 9,584,889; 9,596,547; 9,611,135; 9,621,975; 9,626,981; 9,628,101; 9,628,920; 9,631,996; 9,641,950; 9,656,854; 9,670,059; 9,674,618; 9,674,619; 9,676,614; 9,676,615; 9,681,234; 9,681,242; 9,681,243; 9,695,038; 9,695,040; 9,701,534; 9,724,001; 9,725,300; 9,749,752; 9,758,369; 9,759,618; 9,769,562; 9,773,141; 9,787,320; 9,809,444; 9,809,448; 9,816,881; 9,828,237; 9,836,633; 9,856,134; 9,860,620; 9,872,112; 9,900,677; 9,906,869; 9,914,636; 9,919,913; 9,924,288; 9,930,453; 9,938,133; 9,945,746; 9,945,884; 9,949,037; 9,961,450; 9,986,344; 9,994,440; 9,998,828; 9,999,770; RE40781; 10,000,374; 10,006,824; 10,011,479; 10,045,121; 10,045,126; 10,065,851; 10,065,852; 10,074,000; 10,081,537; 10,082,430; 10,087,071; 10,104,478; 10,104,490; 10,111,021; 10,118,817; 10,129,651; 10,129,676; 10,131,541; 10,138,115; 10,155,656; 10,158,949; 10,158,952; 10,170,685; 10,171,916; 10,177,027; 10,189,699; 10,206,023; 10,223,567; 10,228,387; 10,237,650; 10,250,963; 10,250,998; 10,257,609; 10,276,147; 10,279,192; 10,293,177; 10,301,174; 10,307,611; 10,312,427; 10,315,912; 10,322,481; 10,343,898; 10,343,901; 10,349,170; 10,349,187; 10,349,188; 10,351,419; 10,362,408; 10,370,242; 10,375,475; 20020181725; 20050013455; 20050130360; 20060283338; 20070012094; 20070023851; 20070047744; 20070047746; 20070064968; 20070066027; 20070087466; 20070089496; 20070092983; 20070103697; 20070107502; 20070165888; 20070165896; 20070190680; 20070284682; 20070287233; 20070295064; 20080049953; 20080075306; 20080152171; 20080204757; 20080247572; 20080304681; 20080307865; 20090016550; 20090029501; 20090041270; 20090067659; 20090119905; 20090130783; 20090161894; 20090166772; 20090169035; 20090179233; 20090180647; 20090185250; 20090202089; 20090278217; 20090285418; 20100020991; 20100054495; 20100072561; 20100107772; 20100142744; 20100155864; 20100158279; 20100158280; 20100180354; 20100189289; 20100230629; 20100246859; 20100254549; 20100254561; 20100276766; 20100276767; 20100277229; 20100278372; 20100283138; 20100284553; 20100289097; 20100310096; 20100320548; 20110026742; 20110038492; 20110045616; 20110057288; 20110073859; 20110073967; 20110075865; 20110075866; 20110084344; 20110103622; 20110115039; 20110138902; 20110142261; 20110165720; 20110170108; 20110183456; 20110188687; 20110189804; 20110241137; 20110248364; 20110300659; 20110311081; 20110316100; 20120045078; 20120082325; 20120087521; 20120091546; 20120099753; 20120112765; 20120153771; 20120177229; 20120189144; 20120195797; 20120207324; 20120261775; 20120282719; 20120295216; 20120319174; 20130010989; 20130044899; 20130056297; 20130056841; 20130065343; 20130065344; 20130069179; 20130080295; 20130091642; 20130101151; 20130104384; 20130108084; 20130129118; 20130161702; 20130177180; 20130221457; 20130236036; 20130236037; 20130255393; 20130260504; 20130264663; 20130278937; 20130279721; 20130302933; 20130313662; 20130334627; 20140001577; 20140001581; 20140003633; 20140038335; 20140053651; 20140061825; 20140070082; 20140072150; 20140072152; 20140084394; 20140084395; 20140091406; 20140093102; 20140103464; 20140117272; 20140133685; 20140140533; 20140175572; 20140177113; 20140205127; 20140210020; 20140211957; 20140217521; 20140220723; 20140233782; 20140239352; 20140254835; 20140264650; 20140265720; 20140270273; 20140299949; 20150001647; 20150001653; 20150008540; 20150023529; 20150024536; 20150031160; 20150041929; 20150044808; 20150047437; 20150060955; 20150061048; 20150125003; 20150125007; 20150125984; 20150126900; 20150129992; 20150146906; 20150147841; 20150158722; 20150162523; 20150195658; 20150215706; 20150237448; 20150251285; 20150251899; 20150253208; 20150256913; 20150256940; 20150264465; 20150271617; 20150274506; 20150276529; 20150304777; 20150304787; 20150344294; 20150350792; 20150362521; 20150365747; 20160003698; 20160029129; 20160037265; 20160043664; 20160050499; 20160060101; 20160066099; 20160088389; 20160091378; 20160096726; 20160111954; 20160112803; 20160112807; 20160127845; 20160137486; 20160145093; 20160149542; 20160150324; 20160157025; 20160165331; 20160176704; 20160192082; 20160200567; 20160214857; 20160223579; 20160234592; 20160241022; 20160241965; 20160241979; 20160277846; 20160280534; 20160284974; 20160304336; 20160304337; 20160341619; 20160373874; 20170022046; 20170052083; 20170055081; 20170107097; 20170127189; 20170137282; 20170142524; 20170142525; 20170150277; 20170166437; 20170180864; 20170180870; 20170191894; 20170230757; 20170230776; 20170238107; 20170247244; 20170247246; 20170260040; 20170260043; 20170260044; 20170272886; 20170280263; 20170280265; 20170297895; 20170307668; 20170311083; 20170311088; 20170311089; 20170318385; 20170334714; 20170347185; 20170355591; 20170356810; 20170359648; 20180002159; 20180002160; 20180002167; 20180002168; 20180014099; 20180022603; 20180027337; 20180029878; 20180041842; 20180068888; 20180086624; 20180099867; 20180111824; 20180115836; 20180122356; 20180133431; 20180133504; 20180133507; 20180138391; 20180146272; 20180146296; 20180152792; 20180167730; 20180186623; 20180192218; 20180194615; 20180255402; 20180262844; 20180273372; 20180288532; 20180332390; 20180332405; 20180352330; 20180352341; 20180353756; 20180359571; 20180370790; 20190039882; 20190047849; 20190052976; 20190055119; 20190062150; 20190077654; 20190082269; 20190082270; 20190082271; 20190090048; 20190105011; 20190116429; 20190124452; 20190127217; 20190194013; 20190202358; 20190210866; 20190222941; 20190230439; 20190239000; 20190245133; 20190255350; 20190255669;


Scanning probe microscopes and related devices are well known. Many designs employ a probe which is driven into a surface, and its height of contact measured. One way to measure the height is to propel the probe with a known and dynamically stable motion profile into the surface, and record the timing of contact. Other techniques employ optical sensing, piezoelectric sensing, etc. See, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,136,162; 5,150,392; 5,166,516; 5,168,159; 5,216,631; 5,231,286; 5,245,863; 5,274,230; 5,289,004; 5,298,975; 5,307,311; 5,331,275; 5,336,887; 5,338,932; 5,394,741; 5,436,448; 5,461,605; 5,464,977; 5,467,642; 5,481,528; 5,515,719; 5,517,027; 5,565,987; 5,583,446; 5,585,722; 5,610,898; 5,633,455; 5,675,154; 5,729,026; 5,744,704; 5,804,709; 5,804,710; 5,822,285; 5,854,487; 5,856,617; 5,856,672; 5,866,021; 5,866,807; 5,880,360; 5,923,637; 6,004,444; 6,057,546; 6,066,265; 6,076,397; 6,100,524; 6,101,164; 6,172,506; 6,189,374; 6,228,248; 6,242,736; 6,287,765; 6,291,822; 6,310,342; 6,383,823; 6,452,170; 6,470,738; 6,489,611; 6,530,266; 6,547,940; 6,642,517; 6,672,144; 6,677,697; 6,684,676; 6,762,025; 6,810,720; 6,827,979; 6,828,786; 6,851,301; 6,856,145; 6,862,924; 6,880,388; 6,904,791; 6,923,044; 6,935,167; 6,955,078; 6,986,280; 7,010,949; 7,013,717; 7,017,398; 7,023,220; 7,036,357; 7,044,007; 7,053,520; 7,066,015; 7,076,996; 7,081,624; 7,137,292; 7,155,964; 7,163,658; 7,179,356; 7,204,131; 7,242,129; 7,253,407; 7,262,984; 7,279,686; 7,280,290; 7,281,419; 7,297,946; 7,328,446; 7,344,756; 7,373,806; 7,387,035; 7,393,699; 7,395,698; 7,420,106; 7,441,447; 7,446,324; 7,451,638; 7,453,183; 7,456,400; 7,461,543; 7,489,211; 7,493,794; 7,513,142; 7,523,650; 7,524,534; 7,545,592; 7,552,625; 7,555,940; 7,596,989; 7,603,891; 7,637,149; 7,658,097; 7,665,350; 7,696,653; 7,701,834; 7,707,873; 7,710,766; 7,757,544; 7,765,607; 7,794,657; 7,798,011; 7,852,739; 7,895,885; 7,908,908; 7,928,343; 7,931,784; 7,958,776; 7,979,916; 7,989,164; 7,996,860; 8,020,216; 8,023,393; 8,024,963; 8,029,503; 8,067,169; 8,091,143; 8,151,368; 8,187,673; 8,205,487; 8,220,318; 8,233,314; 8,261,602; 8,266,718; 8,296,856; 8,322,220; 8,341,760; 8,371,182; 8,384,372; 8,387,443; 8,405,138; 8,443,461; 8,448,501; 8,453,498; 8,454,803; 8,479,310; 8,490,209; 8,524,613; 8,528,110; 8,533,861; 8,555,711; 8,583,403; 8,609,409; 8,637,284; 8,646,109; 8,646,344; 8,646,345; 8,650,660; 8,677,809; 8,680,467; 8,719,960; 8,726,409; 8,728,779; 8,732,861; 8,739,309; 8,747,624; 8,756,711; 8,764,948; 8,771,480; 8,793,811; 8,835,142; 8,841,101; 8,852,896; 8,869,310; 8,875,311; 8,877,472; 8,910,311; 8,914,911; 8,921,473; 8,931,950; 8,943,611; 8,950,010; 8,955,161; 8,973,161; 8,980,602; 8,997,260; 8,997,261; 9,023,183; 9,052,337; 9,052,339; 9,061,494; 9,069,007; 9,078,461; 9,091,705; 9,110,092; 9,116,168; 9,134,341; 9,138,715; 9,140,720; 9,186,646; 9,207,167; 9,213,047; 9,244,095; 9,259,590; 9,267,962; 9,267,963; 9,274,139; 9,281,206; 9,291,640; 9,297,827; 9,309,545; 9,318,031; 9,322,842; 9,352,294; 9,354,249; 9,372,154; 9,383,388; 9,409,140; 9,453,857; 9,487,002; 9,500,670; 9,517,444; 9,518,956; 9,535,085; 9,557,347; 9,562,897; 9,575,090; 9,587,258; 9,588,136; 9,599,636; 9,604,846; 9,605,287; 9,605,288; 9,658,247; 9,691,500; 9,691,873; 9,696,342; 9,700,868; 9,709,598; 9,719,916; 9,745,604; 9,745,609; 9,778,282; 9,803,222; 9,810,713; 9,841,436; 9,891,246; 9,902,818; 9,910,064; 9,919,282; 9,921,242; 9,939,460; 9,969,970; 9,970,039; 9,972,354; 9,995,764; 9,995,765; 10,041,970; 10,047,384; 10,068,747; 10,082,523; 10,092,512; 10,092,890; 10,106,401; 10,177,690; 10,191,081; 10,191,082; 10,197,596; 10,201,795; 10,215,773; 10,228,388; 10,241,131; 10,274,513; 10,289,799; 10,302,673; 10,307,723; 10,330,581; 10,330,632; 10,330,698; 10,343,893; 10,352,964; 10,384,238; 20010017054; 20010023024; 20020034757; 20020062572; 20020062684; 20020063212; 20020066307; 20020068304; 20020104963; 20020121131; 20020173033; 20020174715; 20020189330; 20030033863; 20030049381; 20030068446; 20030094036; 20030110844; 20030157254; 20030158474; 20030168594; 20030218132; 20030233870; 20040008042; 20040020774; 20040037959; 20040083799; 20040145824; 20040154367; 20040209376; 20040210289; 20040214177; 20040216517; 20040245462; 20040254419; 20040255651; 20050017598; 20050025797; 20050032226; 20050050947; 20050066714; 20050077915; 20050079132; 20050081610; 20050089890; 20050092929; 20050107870; 20050164299; 20050172704; 20050181132; 20050212529; 20050217354; 20050236566; 20060037379; 20060056076; 20060098267; 20060113472; 20060131997; 20060158998; 20060185424; 20060191329; 20060225164; 20060260388; 20060283240; 20060283338; 20070010702; 20070012093; 20070012094; 20070024295; 20070033682; 20070033991; 20070046397; 20070062264; 20070067883; 20070082459; 20070089496; 20070089498; 20070103697; 20070107502; 20070114880; 20070121477; 20070154354; 20070163335; 20070176100; 20070180924; 20070188268; 20070245815; 20070249059; 20070268808; 20070273860; 20070285843; 20070289369; 20070291623; 20070295064; 20080022759; 20080049590; 20080062853; 20080078229; 20080130158; 20080149832; 20080225575; 20080237754; 20080242559; 20080253269; 20080276695; 20080295583; 20080307865; 20080316904; 20090000363; 20090013770; 20090064772; 20090074966; 20090112957; 20090227040; 20090253589; 20090260113; 20090322260; 20100043107; 20100071100; 20100108567; 20100120023; 20100122385; 20100124583; 20100180354; 20100186132; 20100205698; 20100218286; 20100330345; 20110005306; 20110030109; 20110055983; 20110081335; 20110081336; 20110110139; 20110131690; 20110138506; 20110154546; 20110155559; 20110167524; 20110167525; 20110168549; 20110170108; 20110187798; 20110239336; 20110247106; 20110296561; 20110307980; 20120030845; 20120053580; 20120062213; 20120066799; 20120077247; 20120079631; 20120094355; 20120094358; 20120131702; 20120141562; 20120204296; 20120316376; 20120331592; 20130026969; 20130036521; 20130042375; 20130047302; 20130047303; 20130117895; 20130164818; 20130174302; 20130183735; 20130208330; 20130216520; 20130261340; 20130266556; 20130273612; 20130276175; 20130278937; 20130288307; 20130288366; 20130298294; 20130312142; 20130312143; 20130327160; 20130327161; 20130333077; 20130340126; 20130347147; 20140007309; 20140026263; 20140030763; 20140030768; 20140041084; 20140130213; 20140154749; 20140170624; 20140223615; 20140230103; 20140256078; 20140283229; 20140289912; 20140331368; 20140338073; 20140345007; 20140348982; 20140366228; 20140374237; 20150013037; 20150047078; 20150074859; 20150160259; 20150217260; 20150219622; 20150241334; 20150290938; 20150301080; 20150309071; 20150338437; 20150342224; 20150353974; 20150369838; 20160003868; 20160032341; 20160038905; 20160154022; 20160165926; 20160209322; 20160252545; 20160258979; 20160258980; 20160274144; 20160274146; 20160282384; 20160289577; 20160289704; 20160289705; 20160289706; 20160289709; 20160289710; 20160293990; 20160298141; 20160298147; 20160313367; 20160313369; 20170003316; 20170025148; 20170038410; 20170052111; 20170054389; 20170062180; 20170130252; 20170131322; 20170152532; 20170199219; 20170212145; 20170219622; 20170227577; 20170242052; 20170261532; 20170299628; 20170313583; 20170321233; 20170326522; 20170354945; 20180036939; 20180052186; 20180056245; 20180059137; 20180106715; 20180106830; 20180106833; 20180113149; 20180120344; 20180136251; 20180155183; 20180161749; 20180164342; 20180180642; 20180203037; 20180203039; 20180214838; 20180217181; 20180259553; 20180292432; 20180299479; 20180306837; 20190002309; 20190011358; 20190018040; 20190025340; 20190035601; 20190076812; 20190091650; 20190094265; 20190128919; 20190195910; 20190234993; 20190250185


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present technology relates to an electrostatic levitation MEMS device, which may be used as an actuator, or sensor, for example a switch or accelerometer. In an actuator embodiment, the device is compatible with use of a triboelectric generator to provide actuation. The MEMS device is, for example, a MEMS cantilever/beam, which does not employ a traditional parallel plate electrode configuration and thus avoids the typical pull-in susceptibility which is caused by applying a voltage above a pull-in threshold.


In a typical embodiment, an electrode is fixed to a substrate on each side of a beam, with a conductive plate below the beam, which is held at a controlled potential with respect to the moving electrode, to allow electrostatic levitation and enabling bi-directional actuation.


Advantageously, triboelectricity addresses the voltage requirement to generate an electrostatic levitation force, and may be used to toggle the beam/switch from closed to open. The triboelectric layers of a generator may generate a large enough voltage (˜200 V) between center and side electrodes that creates levitation. The beam tip of a 500 μm bean is capable of, for example a 25 μm deflection.


A threshold shock sensor-switch is provided which consists of a triboelectric generator connected to a MEMS cantilever with a repulsive-force electrode configuration. A small bias voltage is applied between the beam and center electrode to initiate pull-in. The generator is connected between the side and center electrodes and creates a large voltage potential between them when the generator receives an impact. The amount of voltage the generator produces is a function of the impact force magnitude, with a larger impact generating more voltage. This creates a large repulsive force that pulls the beam off of the substrate and opens the switch if the impact force is large enough. Dimples may be placed on the underside of the beam to reduce contact forces, and prevent the beam from sticking to the substrate.


Over the course of a few minutes after actuation, the charge on the generator electrodes decays, which reduces the repulsive force until the switch pulls back in and closes itself. The sensor-switch can be designed such that when the impact force passes a threshold level, the switch is triggered and the beam is released from its pulled-in position. The repulsive-force electrode configuration allows for a very large dynamic range and can be exploited to eliminate the pull-in instability in electrostatic sensors. The triboelectric generator is capable of overcoming the large threshold voltage to actuate the beam via the electrostatic fringe field, and the multi-electrode repulsive-force sensor allows the generator to remain completely open circuit, eliminating the issue with low power output. This opens the possibility for a wide range of novel sensors with increased performance and functionality.


In one embodiment, the center electrode is given a small bias voltage to initiate pull-in and bring the center electrode and cantilever beam into contact with each other, which acts as a closed switch. The side electrodes are then supplied with a voltage relative to the center electrodes, which creates an electric field that pulls the cantilever upwards, employing electrostatic levitation. When the side voltage passes a threshold value, the beam releases from its pulled in position and settles to a stable equilibrium position above the center electrode.


Because the contact or non-contact is a binary condition, the combination of the triboelectric generator and the electrostatic levitation MEMS device provides a shock sensor, since the peak voltage of the triboelectric generator is dependent on the force the triboelectric generator receives. Thus, a lower force generates a lower peak, which may be sub-threshold for changing the state of the electrostatic levitation MEMS device, while a sufficiently larger force will cause a change in state. Further, the triboelectric generator naturally produces a sufficient voltage for actuation, thus presenting a simple configuration without requirement for level shifting, amplification, or other electronic devices. Of course, in other configurations, additional electronics may be provided.


The switch is inherently miniaturized and could easily fit in a miniature electronic device, such as a cell phone.


Alternates to the triboelectric generator are piezoelectric, pyroelectric, and other types of electrically responsive materials. Typically, the electrostatic levitation MEMS device requires voltages in excess of those which typical logic-signal integrated circuits may supply, though various technologies are available which may supply the necessary voltages from a logic circuit. Further, the voltage may also be supplied by inductive or switch capacitor converters.


By driving the potential between the underlying center electrode and the moving electrode, the system is tunable, and may be used as a switch, since a pull-in state is provided. The side electrodes enable a lift-off force, allowing switching between on/off states more readily than electrostatic beams with pull-in forces but no repulsive forces, without failure. This overcomes collapse of the two parallel plate electrodes, and alleviates being stuck in alternating pulled-in positions of a sandwiched beam technique. Further, the design does not add another layer in the fabrication process, and the side electrodes are not in the path of motion of the beam.


The system operates at relatively high voltages, e.g., on the order of 100V, permitting direct use in applications with high voltages present, such as triboelectric, piezoelectric, pyroelectric, and line current.


Advantageously, the use of triboelectric generation/transduction permits a robust and simple design to generate operative conditions for the actuator, and addresses the high voltage requirement of electrostatic levitation by coupling the systems and the contact pressure between the triboelectric layers.


Levitation-based MEMS avoid limiting issues involving pull-in, and draw no current, which allows the triboelectric generator to remain a completely open circuit, and maintain high voltage, which enables synergy between the generation and usage of the voltage.


The system may be used in various electrostatic devices that operate directly from mechanical vibration or shock (i.e., cell phones & safety switches in air bag deployment devices), within safety helmets to provide information on the severity of impacts, to detect severe weather to trigger an immediate response such as shutting off power lines and sounding alarms. For example, the electrostatic levitation may operate from meteorological electrical potentials.


The system may provide a MEMS switch which is normally closed, i.e., pulled-in, which is released (circuit opened) when a sufficient voltage is applied to the side electrodes.


The system may also provide a MEMS sensor, allows the device to move in response to the quantity is sensing, with the possibility of a threshold limit that triggers an action when the sensed quantity exceeds a certain value. The large range of movement of the moving electrode permits application as a sensor, such as an accelerometer, microphone, atomic force microscope probe, force sensor, displacement sensor, or the like. The output may be capacitive, between the moving electrode and the substrate, or the moving electrode may be servo driven to a desired position, and the drive voltage to maintain the position used as a basis for an output, for example.


The moving electrode will typically oscillate, and for many applications, the resonant frequency may be above the sensing frequency. On the other hand, when driven in resonance, modulation of the oscillations may be used as an input or output. While in an oscillatory regime of operation, pull-in may be undesirable, there are cases where this is a desired outcome, and the state which allows pull-in may be tuned by the operative parameters and external conditions, such as inertial forces.


A scanning microscope probe, e.g., atomic force microscope, scanning-tunneling microscope, etc., may be implemented using the repulsive actuator. See, 10,048,289, expressly incorporated herein by reference. The device may have multiple tips, and integrated electronics, e.g., integrated JFETs (junction field effect transistors) as preamplifiers. The JFET device may be monolithically integrated into the MEMS apparatus to reduce the effect of parasitic circuit elements, signals and mismatches. The JFETs also provide on-chip gain and impedance transformation for low noise operation.


A nano-probe tip whose position is freely movable with respect to a substrate (i.e., the nano-probe tip is not attached to the substrate) is coupled to JFET electrodes through electrostatic energy sustaining gaps, and can be sensed by the JFET in two ways. First, the electrostatic force on the JFET induces a strain in the channel which tends to modify the channel carrier mobility of the JFET. Second, the coupled charges across the probe beam of a nano-probe apparatus generate a floating potential on one of the gates of a JFET, which modulates the transistor channel current as a signal that can be measured. The tip is driven repulsively, and the repulsive drive may be displaced from the sensing electrodes. The nano-probe tip position may be coupled to JFET electrodes through a meander spring so that a JFET and a meander spring together may be regarded as a motion sensor with respect to a freely movable nano-probe tip position and movement.


A particular probing method in accordance with the embodiments includes positioning with respect to a sample at least one movable probe tip within a probe apparatus comprising: a substrate; at least one movable probe tip located over the substrate, the at least one movable probe tip being movable with respect to the substrate; at least one motion sensor located over the substrate, the at least one motion sensor comprising at least one pressure sensitive component and at least one spring, the at least one motion sensor being operatively coupled with the at least one movable probe tip, and a repulsive electrostatic drive to displace the probe tip. This particular probing method also includes moving the at least one movable probe tip with respect to the sample while measuring a signal output at the at least one motion sensor.


The MEMS Sensors may be used in gyroscopes, accelerometers, pressure sensors, in smartphones, wearable devices, cars, and various medical devices.


The levitation actuator may act as a sensor by sensing contact, such as by passage of an electric current, an optical sensing of the beam displacement, a resonant frequency change, a beam damping change, an amplitude change (static or dynamic), or other known means. In addition, the large voltage ratio between displacement and side-electrode voltage, a closed loop feedback between the side electrodes (driven) and a displacement error, from a null position, provides a high-level output. The displacement error may be sensed electrostatically, optically, magnetically, or by other means. When the actuator is in resonance, the dynamic mechanical response of the actuator may vary depending on environmental conditions, such as inertia, chemical absorption, etc. For example, a secondary set of electrodes may be provided to measure a motion parameter. Further, the electrostatic potential of a conductive portion of the actuator will vary depending on the repulsive field and the reaction to that field. Thus, for example, a current flowing through the conductor, or a voltage fluctuation through an impedance, may be measured.


One alternative to parallel-plate actuation is electrostatic levitation [52-56]. The electrode configuration shown in FIG. 12 creates an electric field that pushes electrodes apart instead of pulling them together. In this configuration, three electrodes (central, and two lateral) are modelled as being fixed to the substrate, and a beam is suspended above the center. The side electrodes are given a voltage relative to the common voltage of the center electrodes (i.e., the central electrode on the substrate and the actuator, which is generally held at the same potential and disposed above it), which creates an electric field that wraps around and pulls on the top of the movable beam electrode more than the bottom, producing a net upward force.


Much effort has been spent characterizing this system, and it has been shown to eliminate the pull-in instability and increase travel ranges by more than an order of magnitude. However, this comes at the expense of requiring a large actuation voltage because the levitation force is relatively weak compared to the attractive force between a pair of parallel plates.


This system can act as a switch by applying a bias voltage to the center electrode [57]. This allows the switch to toggle to and from the pulled-in position for the purpose of creating a more durable switch.


The present technology relates to a repulsive-force actuated electrodynamic microelectromechanical element, which may be used, for example, as a switch, accelerometer, or atomic force microscopy probe.


A key feature of one implementation of the design is that a cantilever beam is suspended over a base plate, held at approximately equipotential with the beam, and is actuated by laterally located electrodes which induce a repulsive force between the beam and the base plate electrode. The system is laterally symmetric, so the net force on the beam is normal to the baseplate.


This approach takes advantage of a fringe electrostatic field to generate a repulsive force that pushes the cantilever beam, or other movable structure, away from the substrate, which essentially eliminates the possibility of pull-in. Because the movable electrode has about the same voltage as the substrate, the possibility of micro-welding is reduced or eliminated. This failure mode happens when two microstructures with different voltages contact each other [43].


The electrostatic force on the moving element differs considerably from that found in conventional parallel-plate electrode designs, and cannot be estimated using simple analytical expressions. The dynamics of the system are nonlinear. However, the combined system can provide a linear relationship with the side electrode voltage for the static response and first natural frequency. See, M. Pallay, R. Miles, S. Towfighian (2019) Merging parallel-plate and levitation actuators to enable linearity and tunability in electrostatic MEMS, Journal of Applied Physics, 126 (1), 014501. This addresses the issues with the nonlinearity of electrostatic systems and can aid in the creation of highly tunable, linear, electrostatic MEMS with large travel ranges.


It is therefore an object to provide a microelectromechanical actuator, comprising: a substrate, having a surface; a beam having a conductive portion, freely suspended over the substrate, and having a long axis parallel to a surface of the substrate, and being displaceable along an axis normal to the surface of the substrate; a center electrode, provided on the substrate under the beam; a pair of side electrodes, axisymmetric with respect to the beam, provided on the substrate; wherein: the pair of side electrodes are configured, when charged, to exert an electrostatic force normal to the surface of the substrate on the beam, that repulses the beam from the substrate, and exerts a balanced electrostatic force on the beam in a plane of the surface of the substrate, the center conductive electrode is configured to shield the beam from electrostatic forces induced by the side electrodes from beneath the beam, and the center electrode is configured to have a voltage different from a voltage on the beam, to thereby induce an attractive electrostatic force on the beam.


The beam may have a first state in which the beam is pulled in to the center electrode by the attractive electrostatic force on the beam, and a second state in which the attractive electrostatic force on the beam by the center electrode is overcome by the repulsive electrostatic force exerted by the side electrodes.


The microelectromechanical actuator may further comprise a triboelectric generator, configured to induce an electrostatic voltage on the pair of side electrodes with respect to the beam, to thereby selectively overcome the attractive electrostatic force on the beam induced by the center electrode.


The beam may have an inertial mass, subject to displacement by inertial forces, and wherein a voltage on at least one of the center electrode and the side electrodes with respect to the beam is adjusted to control an inertial state which triggers pull-in of the beam to the center electrode.


It is a further object to provide a microelectromechanical actuator, comprising: a substrate, having a surface; an electrostatically displaceable conductive element, suspended over the substrate; a center electrode, provided on the substrate under the electrostatically displaceable conductive element; and a peripheral electrode provided on the substrate; wherein: the center electrode is larger than a projection of the electrostatically displaceable conductive element on the substrate, and is configured to shield the electrostatically displaceable conductive element from electrostatic forces induced by the peripheral electrode from beneath the electrostatically displaceable conductive element, the peripheral electrode is configured to exert an electrostatic force normal to the surface of the substrate on the electrostatically displaceable conductive element that repulses the electrostatically displaceable conductive element from the substrate, and the center electrode is configured to have a voltage different from a voltage on the electrostatically displaceable conductive element, to thereby induce an attractive electrostatic force on the beam.


The electrostatically displaceable conductive element may comprise a beam having a conductive portion, freely suspended over the substrate, and having a long axis parallel to the surface of the substrate, and being displaceable along an axis normal to the surface of the substrate; the peripheral electrode may comprise a pair of side electrodes, axisymmetric with respect to the beam, provided on the substrate, configured to exert an electrostatic force normal to the surface of the substrate on the beam, that repulses the beam from the substrate, and to exert a balanced electrostatic force on the beam in a plane of the surface of the substrate, and the center electrode may be provided on the substrate under the beam, configured to shield the beam from electrostatic forces induced by the side electrodes from beneath the beam, and to have a voltage different from a voltage on the beam, to thereby induce an attractive electrostatic force on the beam.


A triboelectric generator may be provided, configured to induce an electrostatic voltage on the peripheral electrode with respect to the center electrode, to thereby selectively overcome the attractive electrostatic force on the electrostatically displaceable conductive element induced by the center electrode, wherein the electrostatically displaceable conductive element has a first state in which the electrostatically displaceable conductive element is pulled in to the center electrode by the attractive electrostatic force on the electrostatically displaceable conductive element, and a second state in which the attractive electrostatic force on the electrostatically displaceable conductive element by the center electrode is overcome by the repulsive electrostatic force exerted by the peripheral electrode from activation of the triboelectric generator.


The electrostatically displaceable conductive element may have an inertial mass, subject to displacement by inertial forces, wherein a voltage on at least one of the center electrode and the peripheral electrode with respect to the electrostatically displaceable conductive element may be adjusted to control an inertial state which triggers pull-in of the electrostatically displaceable conductive element to the center electrode.


It is a further object to provide a method of actuating a microelectromechanical actuator, comprising: providing the microelectromechanical actuator comprising: a substrate having a surface, a conductive element, suspended over the substrate, and being electrostatically displaceable normal to the surface of the substrate, a center electrode, provided on the substrate under the conductive element, and a peripheral electrode, provided on the substrate outside the center electrode, wherein the center electrode is larger than a projection of the conductive element on the substrate, and is configured to selectively shield the conductive element from electrostatic forces induced by the peripheral electrode from beneath the conductive element, and to permit electrostatic forces induced by the peripheral electrode to interact with the conductive element from above the conductive element; applying an electric potential between the conductive element and the center electrode; and repulsing the conductive element from the substrate by applying an electric potential between the conductive element and the peripheral electrode. The conductive beam may comprise a beam having a conductive portion, freely suspended over the substrate, and having a long axis parallel to the surface of the substrate, and being displaceable along an axis normal to the surface of the substrate; the center electrode is provided on the substrate under the beam; the peripheral electrode may comprise a pair of side electrodes, disposed on either side of the center electrode, axisymmetric with respect to the beam and configured to produce an axisymmetric electrostatic force on beam; the center conductive electrode may be configured to selectively shield the beam from electrostatic forces induced by the side electrodes from beneath the beam, and not to shield the beam from electrostatic forces induced by the side electrodes from above the beam; the electric potential between the beam and the center electrode may be sufficient to cause pull-in; and the electrostatic force on the beam induced by the pair of side electrodes may repulse the beam from the substrate.


It is also an object to provide a method of actuating an microelectromechanical actuator, comprising: providing the microelectromechanical actuator comprising a substrate, having a surface, a beam having a conductive portion, freely suspended over the substrate, and having a long axis parallel to a surface of the substrate, and being displaceable along an axis normal to the surface of the substrate, a center electrode, provided on the substrate under the beam, and a pair of side electrodes, axisymmetric with respect to the beam, wherein the center conductive electrode is configured to shield the beam from electrostatic forces induced by the side electrodes from beneath the beam provided on the substrate; applying an electric potential between the beam and the center electrode to cause an electrostatic attraction sufficient to cause a pull-in; and inducing an axisymmetric electrostatic force on the pulled-in beam by the pair of side electrodes, normal to the surface of the substrate on the beam, that repulses the beam from the substrate, to release the beam from a pulled-in position contacting the substrate to a suspended position displaced from the substrate.


It is a further object to provide a method, comprising: providing an electrostatically-repositionable tip of an actuator beam; displacing the actuator beam away from a supporting substrate of the actuator beam, by applying a bias voltage potential with respect to an actuator beam potential between a bias electrode on the supporting substrate beneath the actuator beam, and a side voltage potential between a pair of laterally located electrodes on the supporting substrate and the actuator beam, wherein the side voltage potential produces a force to levitate the actuator beam away from the supporting substrate, toward the surface; and detecting a displacement of the actuator beam. The pair of laterally located electrodes on the supporting substrate may exert a laterally balanced force on the actuator beam in response to the side voltage potential. The actuator beam may be displaced to contact a surface.


The surface contact may be detected by electrical conduction between the actuator beam than the surface. The tip of the actuator beam may be displaced to contact the surface a plurality of times at a plurality of relative positions, further comprising determining a surface profile of a surface. The tip may be scanned over a portion of the surface, and the detected displacement of the actuator beam determined for a plurality of scan positions, to map a surface profile of the surface.


Contact of the tip with the surface may be determined by a piezoelectric transducer.


The side voltage potential may be increased, to thereby increase an actuator beam deflection, until the tip contacts the surface, and the deflection determined based on the voltage potential at a time of tip contact.


The side voltage potential may be oscillatory, and temporal characteristics of the actuator beam determined.


The bias voltage may be tuned to control a response of the actuator beam to the side voltage.


The side voltage may be generated by a triboelectric generator.


The displacement of the actuator beam may be oscillatory, and a dynamic displacement of the actuator beam detected.


It is a further object to provide a method of determining a surface profile of a surface, comprising: providing an electrostatically-repositionable tip of an actuator beam; displacing the actuator beam away from a supporting substrate of the actuator beam, by applying a bias voltage potential with respect to an actuator beam potential between a bias electrode on the supporting substrate beneath the actuator beam, and a side voltage potential between a pair of laterally located electrodes on the supporting substrate and the actuator beam, wherein the side voltage potential produces a laterally balanced force to levitate the actuator beam away from the supporting substrate, toward the surface; and detecting a displacement of the actuator beam at which the tip contacts the surface.


The tip may be scanned over a portion of the surface, and the detected displacement of the actuator beam is determined for a plurality of scan positions, to map a surface profile of the surface.


A contact of the tip may be determined by a piezoelectric transducer.


The side voltage potential may be increased, to thereby increase an actuator beam deflection, until the tip contacts the surface, and the deflection determined based on the voltage potential at a time of tip contact.


The side voltage potential may be oscillatory (AC), and temporal characteristics of contact of the tip and the surfaced may be determined.


The bias voltage may be further tuned to control a response of the actuator beam to the side voltage.


The side voltage may be generated by a triboelectric generator.


It is another object to provide a method of determining an inertial state of a mass, comprising: providing an electrostatically-repositionable actuator; controlling a force on the actuator with respect to a supporting substrate of the actuator, by applying a bias voltage potential with respect to an actuator potential between a bias electrode on the supporting substrate beneath a beam portion of the actuator, and a side voltage potential between a pair of laterally located electrodes on the supporting substrate and the beam portion of the actuator, wherein the side voltage potential produces a laterally balanced force tending to levitate the beam portion of the actuator away from the supporting substrate; detecting a displacement of the actuator; and controlling at least the side voltage potential, wherein a side potential voltage required to maintain a position of the actuator is responsive to the inertial state of the mass.


The inertial mass may be supported by a plurality of beam portions, each having a respective bias electrode and a pair of respective side electrodes.


The inertial mass may be configured to detect an acceleration, a rotation, and/or a shock, for example.


It is a further object to provide a method of determining an inertial state of a mass, comprising: providing an electrostatically-repositionable actuator; controlling a force on the actuator with respect to a supporting substrate of the actuator, by applying a bias voltage potential with respect to an actuator potential between a bias electrode on the supporting substrate beneath a beam portion of the actuator, and a side voltage potential between a pair of laterally located electrodes on the supporting substrate and the beam portion of the actuator, wherein the side voltage potential produces a laterally balanced force tending to levitate the beam portion of the actuator away from the supporting substrate; and detecting a displacement of the actuator while subject to the controlled force.


The detected displacement may comprise a contract between the actuator and the bias electrode.


The method may further comprise levitating the actuator away from the bias electrode by increasing the side voltage.


A force between the bias electrode and the actuator may be an attractive force toward the substrate, and a force between the side electrodes and the actuator may be a repulsive force away from the substrate.


The actuator may be subject to pull-in to the bias electrode, and the side electrodes may have a range of operation which produces a sufficient force to overcome the pull-in and release the actuator from the bias electrode.


The side electrodes may have a voltage dependent on a force, such that the actuator and bias electrode form a force-activated switch.


The side electrodes may have a voltage dependent on a force impulse, such that the actuator and bias electrode form a force-impulse activated switch.


The side electrodes may have a voltage dependent on a shock, such that the actuator and bias electrode form a shock-activated switch.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES


FIG. 1 shows repulsive force electrode configuration with cantilever beam (black), fixed middle electrode (green) and fixed side electrodes (red). The side electrodes are connected together and treated as a single, third electrode.



FIGS. 2A and 2B show the layout of the impact sensor. Top shows sensor in the initial close state prior to impact. Bottom shows sensor during impact as the switch is opened.



FIG. 2C shows an optical profiler image of the beam in the neutral state and FIG. 2D shows an optical profiler image of the beam in the levitated state. The images show beam showing pull-in (left) at 2 Vbias and 0 Vside and release (right) at 2 Vbias and 120 Vside. The images were captured with a Wyko NT1100 Optical Profiler.



FIG. 3A shows the electrostatic force as the gap between electrodes (d) varies at a 2.2 Vbias and 0, 12, and 30 Vside. The green line indicates the rest position of the beam. The results are obtained from Comsol simulations.



FIG. 3B shows a calculated electrostatic force (N/m) vs. beam-electrode gap (μm) for 0 Vbias, 10 Vside; 1 Vbias, 10 Vside; and 1 Vbias, 0 Vside. Electrostatic force on the beam versus the gap distance simulated in COMSOL. The dashed area shows the attractive regime, and the rest is the repulsive regime. The combined force with bias and side voltages behaves similar to the attractive force at low gaps and the repulsive force at large gaps. Applying 10 V on the side electrodes can change the force from attractive to repulsive outside of very small gaps.



FIG. 3C shows the bias voltage vs. the side voltage at release of pull-in, over a range of bias voltages from 0-4.5V.



FIG. 4 shows the potential energy of the beam as a function of tip displacement at Vbias=2.2 V and Vside=0V. The red line indicates the smallest possible gap because of the dimples.



FIG. 5 shows the phase portrait at Vbias=2.2 V and Vside=0V. The red line indicates the smallest possible gap. The marker shows the pulled in position of the beam at −1.25 μm and zero velocity



FIG. 6 shows the potential energy at Vbias=2.2 V and Vside=12V. The red line indicates the smallest possible gap. The pulled in position is the intersection of the red and blue line. The arrows show the beam settling to its new equilibrium position.



FIG. 7 shows the phase portrait at Vbias=2.2 V and Vside=12V. The inlet shows a zoomed in picture of the intersection at zero velocity and −1.25 μm.



FIG. 8 shows the open circuit generator voltage resulting from a single light impact. The voltage is measured with a Keithley 6514 electrometer. The voltage output can be estimated as a series of step inputs.



FIG. 9 shows the open circuit generator voltage resulting from a single harder impact. The harder impact results in a higher output voltage. The voltage is measured with a Keithley 6514 electrometer. The voltage output can be estimated as a series of step inputs.



FIG. 10 shows the beam tip displacement for a side voltage corresponding to the step voltage shown in FIG. 8. The first Voltage step is at time zero and the second voltage step is after 10 ms. The generator voltage is above the threshold and therefore the switch is operating in the open state.



FIG. 11 shows the beam tip displacement for a side voltage corresponding to the step voltage shown in FIG. 9. The first voltage step is at time zero and the second voltage step is after 28 ms. The generator voltage is above the threshold and therefore the switch is operating in the open state.



FIG. 12 shows an electrode layout to create electrostatic levitation with electric field lines. The side electrodes (red) are denoted as electrode 1, the middle electrode (green) is denoted as electrode 2, and the beam (blue) is denoted as electrode 3. The geometric parameters (hl, bl, g, etc.) are defined in Table II.



FIGS. 13a-13c show the capacitance per unit length of ĉ11, ĉ12, and ĉ22 as calculated in COMSOL. FIG. 13d shows the electrostatic force at various voltages showing the comparison between the pure attractive, pure repulsive, and combined forcing cases.



FIG. 14 shows an optical image of a fabricated beam.



FIG. 15a shows a first experimental setup.



FIG. 15b shows a second experimental setup.



FIG. 15c shows experimental data derived from the second experimental setup.



FIGS. 16a-16d show a comparison of predicted and measured static results for (FIG. 16a) 0V, (FIG. 16b) 2V, (FIG. 16c) 4V, and (FIG. 16d) 6V bias as a function of side voltage. The results are in very close agreement.



FIGS. 17a-17d show the nondimensional force at 6 V bias as a function of side voltage when evaluated at the static equilibrium position for a) the total force, b) c11 component, c) c12 component, and d) c22 component. Each component is scaled with its associated voltages as denoted in Equation (22).



FIGS. 18a-18d shows the natural frequency results for a) 0V, b) 2V, c) 4V, and d) 6V bias as a function of side voltage.



FIGS. 19a-19d show the frequency response around the first natural frequency for (FIG. 19a) 0V, (FIG. 19b) 2V, (FIG. 19c) 4V, and (FIG. 19d) 6V bias at 170 VDC and 0.5 VAC



FIG. 20 shows the model displacement frequency response around the first natural frequency for 0V, 2V, 4V, and 6V bias at 170 VDC and 0.5 VAC on the side electrodes.



FIGS. 21a-21f shows (FIG. 21a) The general schematic of the accelerometer. Base excitation (shown by yellow bi-directional arrows) will be transferred to the microstructure through its supports causing the plate to rotate. (FIG. 21b) A closer view of the configuration of the electrodes. (FIG. 21c) Asymmetric fringing electric field exerts an upward force on the moving electrode (FIG. 21d) Side view of accelerometer and substrate when Vdc=0 (FIG. 21e) when Vdc≠0 but there is no mechanical load and (FIG. 21f) When Vdc≠0 and a mechanical load is applied.



FIG. 22 shows the electrostatic force profile obtained from COMSOL for the two-dimensional unit cell of the sensor.



FIGS. 23a-23j show the fabrication process (FIG. 23a) 4-inch, 525 m thick bare Si wafer. (FIGS. 23b and 23c) Insulation layers growth and deposition. (FIG. 23d) First polysilicon deposition. (FIG. 23e RIE etch of polysilicon. (FIG. 23f) Sacrificial layer deposition and CMP processing. (FIG. 23g) Anchor etch on a sacrificial layer. (FIG. 23h) Second polysilicon deposition. (FIG. 23i) Polysilicon etch and gold deposition on the pads. (FIG. 23j) Release in HF:HCl solution and CPD.



FIGS. 24a-24c show (FIG. 24a) SEM image of the device from top. (FIG. 24b) Closer view of the device anchor point. (FIG. 24c) Moving and fixed electrode configuration.



FIGS. 25a-25c show the frequency response to harmonic excitation for Vdc=60 V, 50 V, and 40 V and acceleration amplitude of 1-4 g.



FIG. 26 shows simulation results for linearized natural frequency for different DC voltages on side electrodes.



FIG. 27 shows simulation results for static displacement at the edge of the proof-mass plate for different DC voltages.



FIG. 28 shows mechanical sensitivity of the sensor for different DC voltages on the side electrodes obtained from experimental results.



FIG. 29 shows the actual shock in the experiment (25 g and 0.25 ms), simulated shock profile in the mathematical model and relative displacement at the proof-mass edge for the corresponding shock (Vdc=60).



FIGS. 30a-30d show both simulation and experimental time responses for half sine shocks with different time duration at 60 V bias voltages. (a) Tsh/Tn=1.79, (b) Tsh/Tn=1.18, (c) Tsh/Tn=0.89, (d) Tsh/Tn=0.61.



FIG. 31 shows both simulation and experimental maximum of the time responses for half sine shocks with time duration (Tsh) equal to 25-300% of the natural period of the microstructure (Tn) at 50 V bias voltages.



FIG. 32 shows a prior art electrode configuration of Weimin Wang, Qiang Wang, Hao Ren, Wenying Ma, Chuankai Qiu, Zexiang Chen & Bin Fan, “Electrostatic repulsive out-of-plane actuator using conductive substrate”, Scientific Reports volume 6, Article number: 35118 (2016), FIG. 1c.



FIG. 33 shows a prior art diagram of a levitating actuator with a uniform ground plane, i.e., FIG. 6 of Liao et al (2004).



FIG. 34 shows a prior art diagram of a levitating actuator with a central ground plane conductor and two lateral conductors on the substrate, with suspended stationary electrodes, i.e., FIG. 18 of Liao et al (2004).



FIG. 35 shows a levitating actuator design according to Pallay et al. (2017) with equipotential center electrode and moving electrode.



FIGS. 36a-36f shows measurements of (FIG. 36a) impact force (FIG. 36b) generator voltage (FIG. 36c) beam velocity using laser vibrometer after the drop of a one-pound weight and (FIG. 36d) impact force (FIG. 36e) generator voltage (FIG. 36f) beam velocity using laser vibrometer after the generator electrodes are shorted. In all cases, the side electrodes are connected to the generator while the beam and the center bottom electrodes are grounded.



FIG. 37 shows the open circuit voltage profiles as the contact force varies are different when the switch is connected.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
Example 1—Actuator Embodiment


FIG. 1 shows repulsive force electrode configuration with cantilever beam (black), fixed middle electrode (green) and fixed side electrodes (red). The side electrodes are connected together and treated as a single, third electrode.



FIGS. 2a and 2b show the layout of the impact sensor. Top shows sensor in the initial close state prior to impact. Bottom shows sensor during impact as the switch is opened.



FIG. 2c shows an optical profiler image of the beam in the neutral state and FIG. 2d shows an optical profiler image of the beam in the levitated state. The images show beam showing pull-in (left) at 2 Vbias and 0 Vside and release (right) at 2 Vbias and 120 Vside. The images were captured with a Wyko NT1100 Optical Profiler.



FIG. 3a shows the electrostatic force as the gap between electrodes (d) varies at a 2.2 Vbias and 0, 12, and 30 Vside. The green line indicates the rest position of the beam. The results are obtained from Comsol simulations.



FIG. 3b shows a calculated electrostatic force (N/m) vs. beam-electrode gap (μm) for 0 Vbias, 10 Vside; 1 Vbias, 10 Vside; and 1 Vbias, 0 Vside. Electrostatic force on the beam versus the gap distance simulated in COMSOL. The dashed area shows the attractive regime, and the rest is the repulsive regime. The combined force with bias and side voltages behaves similar to the attractive force at low gaps and the repulsive force at large gaps. Applying 10 V on the side electrodes can change the force from attractive to repulsive outside of very small gaps.



FIG. 3c shows the bias voltage vs. the side voltage at release of pull-in, over a range of bias voltages from 0-4.5V.


To model the actuator, the system can be treated as an Euler-Bernoulli beam with the governing equation of motion defined as,











ρ





A





2



w
^






t
^

2




+


c
^






w
^



d


t
^




+

E

I





4



w
^






x
^

4





=



f
^

e



(


w
^

,

V



)






(
1
)







where {circumflex over (v)} is the transverse beam deflection (z-direction beam displacement) that depends on the position along the length x of the beam, and time t, I is the moment of inertia, and {circumflex over (f)}e (ŵ, {right arrow over (V)}) is the electrostatic force, which depends on the transverse deflection and applied voltages. Because there are multiple electrodes with different voltages, V is a vector of voltages that are applied to the beam, side electrodes, and center electrode.


The out of plane deflection governing equation of motion for a clamped-clamped beam is:











ρ





A





2



w
^






t
^

2




+


c
^






w
^



d


t
^




+

γ



E

A


2

L







2



w
^






t
^

2







0
L





(




w
^





t
^



)

2


d

x



+

E

I





4



w
^






x
^

4




+




f
^

e



(

w
^

)




V
2



=
0




(

1





A

)







where γ indicates the mid-plane stretching effect. γ is −1 for the clamped-clamped beam and 0 for the cantilever. Because of the small scale of the beams, a nondimensional form of Eq. (1A) may be used. The nondimensional substitutions and parameters are shown below, and the non-dimensional equation of motion is given as:














2


w




t
2



+

c




w


d

t



+

γ


r
1






2


w




t
2







0
1





(



w



t


)

2


d

x



+




4


w




x
4



+


r
2



V
2






j
=
0

5




p
j



h
i



w
j





=
0




(

1

B

)





















Parameter
Substitution









x-direction position
x = {circumflex over (x)}/L



y-direction position
w = ŵ/h



Time
t = {circumflex over (t)}/T



Damping
c = ĉL4/EIT



Time constant
T = {square root over (ρAL4/EI)}



Mid-plane stretching constant
r1 = Ah2/2IL



Force constant
r2 = L4 /EIh










where pj are constants from the 5th-order polynomial forcing profile fit. In Table II and Eq. (1B), the nonaccented variables refer to the non-dimensional quantities. Equation (1B) is then discretized using Galerkin's method. The deflection of the beam is approximated as:










w


(

x
,
t

)







i
=
1

n





q
i



(
t
)





ϕ
i



(
x
)








(

1

C

)







where φi(x) are the linear mode shapes of the beam, qi(t) are the time-dependent generalized coordinates, and n is the number of degrees of freedom (DOF) to be considered. In our case, the mode shapes for a cantilever (CL) and clamped-clamped (CC) microbeam are well known and are of the form φi(x)=cos h(αi x)−cos(αi x)−σi (sin h(αi x)−sin(αi x)), where αi are the square roots of the non-dimensional natural frequencies, and σi are constants determined from the boundary conditions and mode to be considered. Values of αi and σi for the first four modes are obtained from [39]. Once the mode shapes are known, Eq. (1B) becomes a coupled set of ordinary differential equations (ODE) in time for qi(t). Multiplying through by φk and integrating between 0 and 1 decouples the linear terms because of the orthogonality of the mode shapes and results in a set of ODEs, coupled through the nonlinear forcing terms. See, Pallay, Mark, Meysam Daeichin, and Shahrzad Towfighian. “Dynamic behavior of an electrostatic MEMS resonator with repulsive actuation.” Nonlinear Dynamics 89, no. 2 (2017): 1525-1538.


For a classic electrostatic beam with a parallel-plate electrode configuration, {circumflex over (f)}e can be represented analytically with an inverse polynomial of order two that has a singularity when the gap between electrodes goes to zero. However, in the system examined here, the simple analytical expression for the electrostatic force is not valid because of the different electrode arrangement, and the force must be calculated numerically. One way this can be achieved is to calculate the potential energy of the beam at each position, then take the derivative with respect to the direction of motion (ŵ). In this case, the potential energy is calculated from the voltage vector and capacitance matrix, the latter of which is simulated with a 2D finite-element analysis in COMSOL. The potential energy can be represented by,









U
=




1
2



[


V
side



V
bias



V

b

e

a

m



]




[





c
^


1

1






c
^


1

2






c
^


1

2








c
^


2

1






c
^


2

2






c
^


2

3








c
^


3

1






c
^


3

2






c
^


3

3





]




[




V
side






V
bias






V

b

e

a

m





]






(
2
)







where ĉij are the capacitances between each pair of electrodes, and Vside, Vbias, and Vbeam, are the voltages on the side electrodes (1), center electrode (2), and beam (3) respectively. The capacitance matrix is symmetric with cij=cji, which results in 6 independent capacitances in the system. Expanding Equation (2), setting Vbeam=0 because the beam is assumed to be the reference ground voltage level, and taking the derivative with respect to the transverse beam deflection, yields,












f
^

e



(


w
^

,

V



)


=


1
2



(



V

s

i

d

e

2






c

1

1






w
^




+

2


V

s

i

d

e




V

b

i

a

s







c

1

2






w
^




+


V

b

i

a

s

2






c

2

2






w
^





)






(
3
)







In Equation (3), the derivatives of the COMSOL simulated capacitance, ĉij, can be estimated with a simple central difference method.











C
^


1

1






w
^








and










C
^


1

2






w
^








can be fit with 9th order polynomials to create an analytical representation of the numerical data that can be used in Equation (1)











c
^


2

2






w
^



,





however, would require upward of a 20th order polynomial for an adequate fit, and therefore requires more consideration regarding its representation in Equation (1).



FIGS. 13a-13c show the three capacitances from the finite element solution (COMSOL) and the electrostatic force at various side and bias voltages. From Equation (3), when the bias voltage is set to zero, the only remaining force component is











c
^


1

1






w
^



,





which represents the electrostatic levitation force. Conversely, if the side voltage is set to zero, only










c
^


2

2






w
^







remains and the system acts as a parallel-plate. By observing the c11 and c22 capacitances, it is clear that c22 has a much larger nominal capacitance and the magnitude of the slope is greater, especially at small gaps. This shows the parallel-plate force from the bias voltage is by far the dominant force component in this system. To counter this, much larger side voltages are needed to overcome the effect of the bias voltage. FIG. 13d shows the calculated force for several voltage cases. At large gaps, the force is dominated by the levitation force, but as the gap decreases, the total force becomes strongly negative as the behavior is dominated by the attractive parallel-plate force, despite the side voltage being an order of magnitude larger than the bias voltage.









TABLE I







Beam parameters as shown in FIG. 12











Parameter
Variable
Value







Beam Length
L
  505 μm



Beam Width
b3
 20.5 μm



Beam Thickness
h3
   2 μm



Beam Anchor Height
D
   2 μm



Side Electrode Gap
G
20.75 μm



Middle Electrode Width
b2
  32 μm



Side Electrode Width
b1
  28 μm



Electrode Thickness
h1
 0.5 μm



Dimple Length
Ld
 0.75 μm



Elastic Modulus
E
  160 GPa



Density
P
 2330 kg/m3



Poisson's Ratio
V
0.22

















TABLE II







Nondimensional substitutions and forcing coefficients


for the governing differential equation










Parameter
Substitution







x-direction position
x = {circumflex over (x)}/L



z-direction position
w = ŵ/h3



Time
t = {circumflex over (t)}/T



Capacitance
c22 = c22/cn



Time constant
T = {square root over (ρAL4/EI)}



Damping Constant
c* = ĉ/EIT



Capacitance Constant
ρALh32/L2T2



Force Constant 1
Ai = αih3i−1L4/2EI



Force Constant 2
Bi = βih3i−1L4/EI










After the force is calculated, Equation (3) is plugged into Equation (1) yielding the dimensionalized equation of motion for the cantilever,











ρ





A





2



w
^






t
^

2




+


c
^






w
^



d


t
^




+

E

I





4



w
^






x
^

4





=



1
2



V

s

i

d

e

2






i
=
0

9




α
i




w
^

i




+


V

s

i

d

e




V

b

i

a

s







i
=
0

9




β
i




w
^

i




+


1
2



V

b

i

a

s

2







c
^


2

2






w
^









(
4
)







where αi and βi are fitting coefficients for the c11 and c12 terms respectively. Equation (4) is then nondimensionalized with the substitutions shown in Table II, which yields the final nondimensional equation of motion shown in Equation (5).














2


w




t
2



+


c
*





w



t



+




4


w




x
4




=



V
side
2






i
=
0

9




A
i



w
i




+


V
side



V
bias






i
=
0

9




B
i



w
i




+


1
2



V
bias
2






c

2

2





w








(
5
)







When the time-derivative terms in Equation (5) are set to zero, it becomes a fourth-order ordinary differential equation, with x being the only independent variable. Despite the complicated forcing term, this equation can be solved directly as a boundary value problem. First, however, a form for










c
^


2

2






w
^







must be determined. Because this force component behaves similarly to the parallel-plate force, a fitting function with a similar form can be used. Because this force component behaves similarly to the parallel-plate force, a fitting function with a similar form can be used.










c
^


2

2






w
^







is fit with the function shown in Equation (6).













c

2

2





w


=



-

0
.
9



2

5

2



(

w
+

d

h
3



)

2.15






(
6
)







Plugging this into Equation (5) after dropping the time derivatives gives the static equation of motion that can be solved with the boundary value solver, bvp4c, in MATLAB.













4



c

2

2






w
4



=



V

s

i

d

e

2






i
=
0

9




A
i



w
i




+


V

s

i

d

e




V

b

i

a

s







i
=
0

9




B
i



w
i




-


V

b

i

a

s

2





0
.
4


6

2

6



(

w
+

d

h
3



)

2.15








(
7
)







Cantilevers with the electrode arrangement in FIG. 12 may be fabricated with the PolyMUMPs service by MEMSCAP [58] to the dimensions given in Table I. An image of a fabricated beam is shown in FIG. 14. Beam tip displacement may be measured with a Polytec MSA-500 Laser vibrometer. A USB-6366 National Instruments Data Acquisition (DAQ) interfaced with MATLAB supplies the bias and side voltage and records the displacement data from the laser. Because the voltage limitation of the DAQ is +/−10V, the side voltage is fed into a Krohn-Hite 7600 Wideband Power Amplifier and stepped up 20× to reach the desired 200V maximum voltage to the side electrodes. To measure the side voltage, the output of the amplifier is also fed into a resistive voltage divider to drop the voltage back down under 10V and is fed back into the DAQ. The actual voltage on the side electrodes can be calculated with the simvoltage to the center electrode and a quasi-static ramp function from 0V to approximately 190V to the side electrodes. The ramp duration is one second, which is four orders of magnitude longer than the natural frequency of the beam to ensure the beam response is quasi-static.



FIGS. 16a-16d show that the model agrees very well with the experiment, especially at higher bias voltages. To account for support compliance at the fixed end of the cantilever, a corrected length of 505 μm is used. The tip displacement reaches almost 14 μm at 190V, despite the anchor height of just 2 μm. These large travel ranges are not possible in conventional parallel plate actuators and are a distinct advantage of electrostatic levitation. For 4V and 6V bias, the beam pulls in if the side voltage is too low. For example, the beam pulled in below a side voltage of approximately 50V for 4V bias, and 80V for a 6V bias. However, when pull-in occurs, the side voltage can be ramped up to release the beam from its pulled-in position, overcoming both the bias voltage and stiction forces [56]. The model could reach slightly lower voltages before becoming unstable, though this is most likely because the model does not account for the dimples on the underside of the beam. The dimples create an effectively smaller gap between the beam and center electrode, thus increasing the effect of the force from bias voltage, which dominates when the gap is small.


Another interesting result is the linear relationship between tip deflection and side voltage, especially at higher bias voltages. The slope is approximately 90 nm per volt on the side electrodes. This linear relationship is maintained for more than 10 μm of static displacement. (Because high voltages cannot be applied in devices created using the PolyMUMPs fabrication procedure, 190V was not exceeded.) The tip displacement shows no signs of saturating near 190V and the linear voltage relationship most likely extends much further. When there is no bias voltage, an approximately linear relationship exists for deflections above around 4 μm. However, when 4V bias is added to the center electrode, the linearity extends all the way down to 0 μm. If the bias voltage is too large, such as at 6V, pull-in will occur at small gaps. Therefore, there exists an optimal bias voltage, 4V for the dimensions shown in Table I, that yields a linear response over the entire static range.


The reason for the linearization between side voltage and tip displacement can be seen by analyzing the force and its associated components. FIGS. 17a-17d shows the nondimensional forcing components at 6V bias as a function of side voltage when evaluated at the static equilibrium points in FIG. 16d. As shown in FIG. 17a, the total force, which is the sum of each forcing component in FIGS. 17b-d, scales linearly with side voltage. Despite Equation (3) showing the force scaling with the square of the side voltage, when considering the increasing gap, the relationship turns out to be linear. Because the force is now effectively a linear function of side voltage, the solution to Equation (7) will also be a linear function of side voltage.


The reason for the linearization of the force is different when at larger voltages as opposed to smaller voltages. When the side voltage is above 80V, the c11 and c22 are negligible compared to the c11 component. In this case, the system acts like as if there was just a pure levitation force with no bias voltage. When the side voltage is increased, the upward electrostatic force on the beam also increases. If the beam was completely rigid, this force would scale with the square of the side voltage. But the beam is not rigid and deflects upwards when the side voltage is increased. This deflection increases the gap between the beam and fixed electrodes, which in turn causes the upward electrostatic force to decrease. When the side voltage is large, the decrease in the upward electrostatic force from increasing the gap counteracts the nonlinearly increasing force with voltage and the result is an effectively linear scaling of the total force with side voltage. This can be seen in the static position in FIG. 16a, which has no bias voltage, but still shows the linear increase with side voltage. However, when the voltage drops below 80V, FIG. 16a shows a nonlinear relationship with side voltage. This is because the levitation force is inherently weak, and unless the voltage is very large, the force is too low to deflect the beam enough for the increasing gap to counteract the scaling of the force with the square of the side voltage.


To achieve linearity at low side voltages, a bias voltage on the center electrode must be used. Comparing the upward levitation (c11) and downward parallel-plate (c22) components of the force in FIGS. 17b and d shows why. As the side voltage decreases, the levitation c11 component starts to flatten out around zero. This decrease in total force brings the beam closer to the center electrode and increases the influence of the bias voltage, which pulls the beam downward. The parallel-plate c22 component is inversely related to the gap (Equation (6)) and therefore the downward force gets stronger as the gap decreases. When combining the forcing terms, the downward bending of the force from the parallel-plate component counteracts the flattening of the force from the levitation component. Because the parallel-plate force scales with the square of the bias voltage, by choosing the appropriate bias, 4V, the two nonlinear effects cancel each other and the result is a nearly linear force that decreases all the way to zero. If the bias voltage is too large the downward bending from the parallel-plate force overcomes the flattening of the levitation force and the system becomes nonlinear in the negative direction before the force can reach zero and the beam becomes unstable. This is the case for 6V bias, where the beam pulls in during the experiment before it can return to its undeflected position. The linearity with side voltage is extraordinarily useful for any actuator that is negatively affected by nonlinearity and requires a large actuating range. Possible applications include micro-mirrors and micro-fluidic devices.


Natural frequency is an important property of oscillators and sensors that determines their resolution and sensitivity. To calculate the natural frequency, we must return to the dynamic partial differential equation from Equation (5). Now w becomes a function of time and position so it must be reduced to an ordinary differential equation in time before we can calculate the natural frequency. This can be achieved by performing Galerkin's method, which is a modal analysis using separation of variables and integration over x to get a set of second-order ordinary differential equations that are coupled through nonlinear terms. If just a single mode is to be considered, this will yield a single ordinary differential equation that can be used to calculate the natural frequency.


First, the transverse deflection of the beam is assumed to have separate spatial and time-dependent functions as shown in Equation (8).

w(x,t)=φ(x)q(t)  (8)


The mode shapes, φ(x), can be solved from the eigenvalue problem, which depends on the boundary conditions. The mode shapes for a simple cantilever are well known and can be expressed by,

φi(x)=cos hix)−cos(λix)−σi(sin hix)−sin(λix))  (9)


where λi is the square root of the ith nondimensional natural frequency, and σi is a constant. For the first mode, φ1 (herein referred to as φ), σi and λ1 are 0.7341 and 1.875 respectively. However, to account for fabrication imperfections the natural frequency may be identified from an experiment and nondimensionalized to use with Equation (9).


After separation of variables, the governing equation is multiplied by φ and integrated over x to yield Equation (10), which is a second-order ordinary differential equation that depends only on the time-dependent component of the solution, q,












m




d
2


q


d


t
2




+

c



d

q


d

t



+

k

q


=



V
side
2






i
=
0

9




A
i



Φ
i



q
i




+


V
side



V
bias






i
=
0

9




B
i



Φ
i



q
i




+


1
2



V
bias
2





0
1



ϕ





c

2

2






(

ϕ





q

)




dx














where




(
10
)














m
=



0
1




ϕ
2


dx






c
=

c
*
m







k
=


λ
1
4


m






Φ
i

=



0
1




ϕ

i
+
1



dx










(
11
)







The last term in Equation (10) can be problematic if it is not dealt with appropriately. For the static problem, this term could be fitted with the function given in Equation (6). However, the integration on x from the modal analysis will create a singularity at x=0, which will make the differential equation impossible to solve. A standard parallel-plate has a similar problem; however, it can be mitigated by multiplying the entire equation by the denominator, expanding the polynomial, and then performing Galerkin's method. In this case, two complications prevent that from working. First, the order of the polynomial in the denominator of Equation (6) is not an integer, so it cannot be expanded. Second, multiplying the two 9th order polynomials by a noninteger polynomial will be extraordinarily difficult and tedious later in the problem when solving for the natural frequency. Therefore, this term can be treated numerically as a list of numbers, where linear interpolation is used to estimate the values between data points. This is more computationally expensive, but computation time is not an issue for the natural frequency calculation. Before that can be done, the integration on x must be performed.


The derivative,









c

2

2






(

ϕ





q

)







can be rewritten using the relationship,














c

2

2





q


=






c

2

2





w






w



q



=






c

2

2






(

ϕ





q

)








(

ϕ





q

)




q



=





c

2

2






(

ϕ





q

)




ϕ




q



q













which





yields

,





(
12
)










c

2

2






(

ϕ





q

)



=


1
ϕ






c

2

2





q







(
13
)







When substituting Equation (13) into Equation (10), the φs cancel and the integration becomes 1. Now that x has been integrated out of the equation, q represents the deflection of the beam instead of w. The derivative of the numerical c22 data from COMSOL with respect to the deflection can be substituted in for










c

2

2





q


.





The final equation becomes,











m




d
2


q


d


t
2




+

c



d

q


d

t



+

k

t


=



V

s

i

d

e

2






i
=
0

9




A
j



Φ
i



q
i




+


V

s

i

d

e




V

b

i

a

s







i
=
0

9




B
i



Φ
i



q
i




+


1
2



V

b

i

a

s

2






c

2

2





q








(
14
)







To find the natural frequency, the eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix can be calculated by decomposing Equation (14) to two first-order ODEs with y1=q and








y
2

=


d

q


d

t



,





setting the damping coefficient to zero, and plugging the equations into the relationship,









J
=

[








y
.

1





y
1










y
.

1





y
2












y
.

2





y
1










y
.

2





y
2






]





(
15
)







which is the Jacobian matrix. The eigenvalues of Equation (15) are,









Λ
=





V

s

i

d

e

2

m






i
=
0

9



i


A
i



Φ
i



y
1

i
-
1





+




V

s

i

d

e




V

b

i

a

s



m






i
=
0

9



i


A
i



Φ
i



y
1

i
-
1





+


1

2

m




V

b

i

a

s

2






2



c

2

2






y
1
2




-

λ
1
4







(
16
)







where the natural frequency is the imaginary part of the eigenvalue. The only variable that is unknown in this equation is y1, which is the beam deflection. The value of y1 at each voltage level can be determined from the static model results at the given side and bias voltage, after which the natural frequency can be calculated.


In order to experimentally measure the values, white noise was superimposed on the DC side voltage while holding the bias voltage constant, and the beam tip velocity was recorded with the laser vibrometer. A fast-Fourier transform (FFT) was performed on the velocity signal to extract the natural frequency. Unlike the static case, the side voltage was not swept up continuously to 190V. Instead, the side and bias voltage were kept constant and the natural frequency was extracted at 10-volt intervals. FIGS. 18a-18d show the natural frequency results for the experiment and the model.


The model agrees well with the natural frequency experiment. The square root of the natural frequency, λ1, was 1.7998. The curling of the beam tip in the fabricated beam needs to be incorporated into the model to obtain a better fit with the experiment. Because the beams are very long, residual stress from fabrication causes them to curl upward when released. This increases the gap between the beam and center electrodes and reduces the total electrostatic force. In this case, the beam tip was curled up approximately 2 μm out of plane. Ideally, this would be incorporated into both q and the mode shapes. However, the easiest way of addressing this problem is to simply add 2 μm of deflection to q.


When no bias voltage is applied, FIGS. 18a-18d shows that the natural frequency is relatively constant for side voltages under approximately 50V. However, at higher bias voltages the natural frequency starts to bend down at low side voltages until the system becomes unstable. This agrees with the initial assessment that the bias voltage is dominant at low gaps because a parallel-plate electrostatic force is correlated with a decrease in natural frequency, while electrostatic levitation increases the natural frequency with higher voltage. In the case of 4V and 6V bias, the natural frequency can be tuned from less than 6 kHz up to almost 12 kHz. This is an increase of almost 100%, which gives the beam a tremendous amount of tunability to control where the first resonant peak is located. Many devices, such as sensors, operate near their natural frequency to boost the signal-to-noise ratio. This electrostatic tunability enables accounting for any fabrication imperfection or environment operation changes to ensure a large signal-to-noise ratio and resolution.


The system can therefore be tuned to capture a wide range of frequencies, which is highly desirable in many sensors.


At an optimum value of the bias voltage, the highest linearity of natural frequency and the side voltage is achieved. If the bias voltage is set to approximately 2V, the downward bending of the natural frequency curve at low side voltage reaches a point where it matches the slope at higher side voltages. This creates a linear shift in natural frequency with side voltage. Unlike the static solution, the natural frequency is related to the slope of the force at the equilibrium position instead of the magnitude. The slope of the force is the linear stiffness, which is related to the natural frequency through the relationship,










ω
n

=



k
eff

m






(
17
)







where ωn is the natural frequency, m is the mass, and keff is the effective stiffness, which is the sum of the mechanical stiffness of the beam (kmech) and the added stiffness from the electrostatic force (kelec), where kelec is much larger than kmech. Because m and kelec are constant, kelec must be related to the side voltage. If ωn is linearly related to side voltage, then kelec must be related to the square of the side voltage. This is confirmed to be true by analyzing the slope of the force at each static equilibrium position. The linear relationship in frequency is approximately 16 Hz per volt and is maintained for more than 2.9 kHz of frequency shift. The combination of parallel-plate and electrostatic levitation enables a wider range of capabilities that is not possible with each mechanism on its own.


To obtain the model frequency response, the dynamic equation of motion must be solved. Much of the procedure for calculating the natural frequency of Equation (5) can be used for the frequency response as well. Equation (14) can be integrated directly using linear interpolation to determine










c

2

2





q


.





However, the computation expense of using linear interpolation becomes problematic and creates very long solve times. To reduce the integration time,









c

2

2





q






can be fit with the inverse non-integer polynomial in Equation (6) with q replacing w. This is not problematic, because the substitution is occurring after the modal analysis, which is where the problems were occurring initially. This significantly reduces the computation time so that the frequency response can be calculated. The final dynamic equation is given in Equation (18).











m




d
2


q


d


t
2




+

c



d

q


d

t



+

k

q


=



V

s

i

d

e

2






i
=
0

9




A
i



Φ
i



q
i




+


V

s

i

d

e




V

b

i

a

s







i
=
0

9




B
i



Φ
i



q
i




-


V

b

i

a

s

2





0
.
4


6

2

6



(

q
+

d

h
3



)



2
.
1


5









(
18
)







The damping coefficient is estimated from the experiment, which was conducted at approximately 300 mTorr, which correlates to a quality factor of 500. The quality factor is used in Equation (18) by the relationship c=λ12/Q.


To conduct the experiment, the side voltage is given an AC voltage on top of the DC offset. The DAQ supplies the AC voltage, and the DC offset function of the Krohn-Hite amplifier applies the DC side voltage. The bias was held constant at the same 0V, 2V, 4V, and 6V values used in the static and natural frequency tests. For the frequency response, the tip velocity was measured with the vibrometer. FIGS. 19a-19d show the frequency response around the first natural frequency at 0V, 2V, 4V, and 6V bias, with 170 VDC and 0.5 VAC on the side electrodes.


As with the static and natural frequency results, the frequency response model agrees with the experiment. In the experiment, the backsweep branch continues to grow until it starts tapping on the center electrode and falls back down to the lower branch. If the bias voltage is high enough, instead of falling back down to the lower branch, it pulls in, as is the case at 6V bias. Before pull-in occurs, the backsweep branch becomes very flat and increases in size. This extension of higher branch oscillation is because of the quadratic nonlinearity that causes excessive softening from electrostatic levitation and parallel-plate schemes. With no bias, the backsweep branch ends around 11 kHz, but with 6V bias the branch travels back to 10 kHz before pulling in. The high amplitude vibration could be useful for the development of high-resolution oscillators. The triggering of dynamic pull-in near the resonant peak can help create combined systems that act as a sensor and a switch, which triggers when the sensed quantity increases past a threshold. The levitation force can be used to release the pulled-in structure and reuse the device.


To get more insight into the motion of the beam, the model displacement was calculated and is shown in FIG. 20. This dynamic displacement reaches upward of 28 μm with no bias voltage. Increasing the bias bends the peak down and to the left, which drops the peak amplitude by about 3 μm for 6V bias. Unlike static and natural frequency, the addition of the bias voltage always increases the nonlinearity of the system. This is because levitation and parallel-plate electrostatic forces create softening in the frequency response, therefore the combination of the two yields more softening. Therefore, MEMS oscillators and resonators that require a linear frequency response would not particularly benefit from this method.


However, other applications that are less hindered by the nonlinear frequency response may be able to exploit other behaviors of the combined system, such as dynamic pull-in shown in FIG. 19d. One possible application could be a pressure sensor that triggers dynamic pull-in at the resonant peak when the pressure drops below a threshold value. As reported in [55], the resonance region of the levitation actuator is heavily dependent on the ambient pressure because the oscillation amplitude is very large and squeeze film damping effects are significant. The voltage at which dynamic pull-in occurs could be related to the ambient pressure to create a threshold pressure sensor that utilized the switching mechanism proposed in [57].


The relationship between static tip displacement and natural frequency with side voltage can be linearized by choosing an appropriate bias voltage, which can greatly simplify and minimize the electronic circuitry for processing information from sensors and controlling actuator motion. The natural frequency for the design according to Table I can be tuned from 6 kHz up to 12 kHz, increasing tunability, which gives sensors a larger spectrum of detectable frequencies with large signal-to-noise ratios. The softening branch of the frequency response can be flattened and extended by adding a larger bias voltage. The larger bias also triggers dynamic pull-in near the resonant peak, which permits use of the technology for combined sensors and switches that use pull-in to close a circuit. The levitation force enables the system to release from its pulled-in position, allowing the combined sensor and switch system to be reused many times without failure.


Example 2—Accelerometer Embodiment

MEMS sensors and actuators have replaced their macro counterparts in many applications including, for example, pressure sensors, inertial navigation systems, and adaptive optic systems [61-63]. They have enabled consumer electronic products like smartphones, laptops, virtual reality headsets, and health monitoring wearable devices to deliver more enriched functionality. Their reliable performance, low cost, low power consumption, and more importantly, their compatibility with semiconductor fabrication technology have made MEMS technology popular.


Electrostatic actuation and detection is the most common transduction method in MEMS [64], and almost all the current commercially available electrostatic MEMS devices are based on parallel-plate [65] or interdigitated comb drive configurations [66]. In a parallel-plate configuration, the electrostatic force attracts a movable electrode to the substrate or bottom electrode. One can apply a specific voltage to move an electrode to a desired position in the case of an actuator (like micromirrors), or exert an excitation and sense change in the capacitance between two electrodes in the case of a sensor (like accelerometers).


The main drawback of this electrostatic force is pull-in instability. Pull-in happens when the restoring force of the microstructure is no longer able to overcome the attractive electrostatic force and as a result, the microstructure collapses to its substrate. Capacitive MEMS transducers are designed to operate far from the pull-in region and this limits the device operation range; for example, it limits the travel range in micro-mirrors [67]. This issue is a significant constraint that needs to be considered in designing the microstructure geometry. Particularly, the initial gap between the movable electrode and the substrate is affected by this design limitation. This initial gap plays a crucial role in squeeze film damping [64] and the magnitude of the electrostatic force. As a result, it has a significant effect on the device sensitivity and performance in general.


As a new design paradigm, the repulsive capacitive sensing configuration is an alternative to parallel-plate or comb-drive configurations [68-70]. This approach takes advantage of the fringe electrostatic field to generate a repulsive force that pushes the movable structure away from the substrate, which essentially eliminates the possibility of pull-in (FIGS. 21a-21f). This design approach opens a new door to build MEMS sensors and actuators without the limitation on performance imposed by dynamical instability from pull-in. Furthermore, because the movable electrode has the same voltage as the substrate (grounded), the possibility of micro-welding is eliminated. This failure mode happens when two microstructures with different voltages contact each other [71].


Lee et al. first introduced the repulsive approach [72]. A new generation of repulsive actuators was developed by He and Ben Mrad [73,74,68,69]. The nonlinear dynamics of microstructures under a repulsive force has also been investigated [75-77].


The repulsive approach is exploited to build a capacitive accelerometer. There are numerous applications for accelerometers. They are main components of inertial navigation systems used in cars, airplanes, smartphones, etc. For example, they are used to deploy airbags in automobiles in an accident [78] or, as a part of wearable health monitoring technologies, to detect the sudden fall of elderly people [79] to provide them with necessary medical attention as soon as possible. For a comprehensive study on accelerometer sensors based on the parallel-plate scheme, see [80].


The electrostatic force on the moving element in the system examined here differs considerably from that found in conventional parallel-plate electrode designs and cannot be estimated using simple analytical expressions. This, along with the large amplitude vibration of the proof-mass, makes the dynamics of the system fully nonlinear and complicated.


The general schematic of the structure under base excitation is shown in FIGS. 21a-21f. There are four elements that comprise this design. The first element is the square plate that is attached to its anchors through two torsional beams. The two beams undergo torsional deflection as the proof mass rotates because of applied acceleration and electrostatic forces. The second part is the 200 μm long micro-beams that are attached to three sides of the proof mass. The proof-mass and fingers attached to it are all electrically grounded. Under these fingers, there are sets of grounded fingers fixed on the substrate as the third element of the sensor. The fourth part is the sets of electrodes adjacent to the grounded fingers. These fingers carry electrical voltage, the electric field of which exerts electrostatic forces on the beams connected to the proof mass.


The dimensions of all these beams and their electrostatic field are illustrated in FIGS. 21a-21f. The fringe electrostatic field exerts different forces on the top and bottom surfaces of the moving fingers. The resultant force is an upward force that pushes the fingers and the proof mass away from the substrate. Beyond a certain distance, the electrostatic force becomes attractive and tends to bring the microstructure back into the repulsive region. Therefore, there is an equilibrium point where the electrostatic force on the structure becomes zero. Once a voltage is applied on the side electrodes, the accelerometer plate rotates away from the substrate to an equilibrium position where the electrostatic force is equal to the restoring force of the torsional springs. This equilibrium point can be tuned by changing the voltage on the side electrodes. As will be discussed below, this is advantageous when we want to set the threshold acceleration that the sensor can detect.


When the base of the plate accelerates, the plate tends to stay at rest because of its inertia and this leads to a relative displacement between the base and the plate. Because of this displacement, the capacitance between the electrodes will change as well. This change in capacitance can be measured and related to the relative motion of the plate. If the load is large enough, the fingers can hit the bottom electrodes. However, because of the repulsive nature of the force, they will bounce back and will remain free to move. This collision can be detected with the aid of an electrical circuit.


A simple single degree of freedom model [76] may be used as a very powerful tool to predict the response of the system and capture the inherent nonlinearity caused by the electrostatic force. A lumped parameter oscillator is considered:

I{umlaut over ({circumflex over (θ)})}+c{dot over ({circumflex over (θ)})}+k{circumflex over (θ)}=Mes({circumflex over (θ)})+Msh  (19)


in which {circumflex over (θ)} is the rotation of the proof-mass plate about its anchors' axis, I, c and k are the moment of inertia, torsional damping, and torsional stiffness coefficients, respectively. On the right-hand side, Mes and Msh represent the electrostatic moment and inertial moment because of the base excitation, respectively.


The electrostatic force has a nonlinear dependence on the position of the moving fingers in the electric field. To obtain an expression for the electrostatic moment, first we calculate the force profile for a unit-cell using a 2D finite element analysis in COMSOL. Such a unit cell consists of the moving electrode, bottom electrode and two side electrodes as shown in FIG. 1. The force profile is shown in FIG. 22. Using a curve fitting technique, the force profile (FIG. 22) can be approximated as a 9th-degree polynomial, in terms of the deflection, z.










F

e

s


=


V

d

c

2






i
=
0

9



(


A
i



z
i


)







(
20
)







where z is the gap between the bottom electrode and moving fingers in each cross section. In order to write the electrostatic force as a function of θ, we use the following trigonometric equation.










sin





θ

=

z
x





(
21
)







which yields











F

es


-


mov


-


fing




(

x
,
θ

)


=


V

d





c

2






i
=
0

9





A
i



(


x
·
sin






θ

)


i







(
22
)







where z is the gap between the bottom electrode and moving electrode. In order to write the electrostatic force as a function of θ, we use the following trigonometric equation.









TABLE III







Dimensions for the MEMS accelerometer in FIGS. 21a-21f










Parameter
Symbol
Value
Unit













Density
ρ
2330
kg/m3


Proof mass length
Ls
990
Mm


Proof mass width
Lw
1000
Mm


Finger length
Lb
100
Mm


Number tip fingers
Nt
31
Mm


Number side fingers
Ns
25
μm


Voltage fixed finger
d1
8
μm


width





Gap between fixed
d1
8
μm


fingers





Moving finger width
d2
4
μm


Ground fixed finger
d1
8
μm


width





Electrodes and proof
t1
2
μm


mass thickness





Initial gap
h1
2
μm


Natural frequency
ωn
2 × π × 1740
rad/s


Damping ratio
ξ0
0.016
0


(Vdc = 40)





Damping ratio
ξ1
0.033



(Vdc = 40)





Damping ratio
ξ0
0.016
1


(Vdc = 50)





Damping ratio
ξ1
0.038



(Vdc = 40)





Damping ratio
ξ0
0.017
0


(Vdc = 60)





Damping ratio
ξ1
0.055



(Vdc = 60)





Force constant
A0
  3.4079 × 10−7 
N/m


Force constant
A1
−6.7113 × 10−2 
N/m2


Force constant
A2
  7.5644 × 103   
N/m3


Force constant
A3
−8.8555 × 108   
N/m4


Force constant
A4
  8.1341 × 1013  
N/m5


Force constant
A5
−4.6766 × 1018  
N/m6


Force constant
A6
  1.6139 × 1023  
N/m7


Force constant
A7
−3.2602 × 1027  
N/m8


Force constant
A8
  3.5560 × 1031  
N/m9


Force constant
A9
−1.6175 × 1035  
N/m10


Moment of inertia
I
  1.7954 × 10−15
kg m2









Integrating Eq. (22) over the beam (finger) length results in the total electrostatic force on each beam.

















F

es


-


tip




(
θ
)


=




L
s



L
s

+

L
b






F

es


-


mov


-


fing



dx













L
s



L
s

+

L
b







V

d





c

2



(




i
=
0

9





A
i



(


x
·
sin






θ

)


i


)



dx


=


V

d





c

2






i
=
0

9







A
i



(


x
·
sin






θ

)


i


i
+
1


·

(



(


L
s

+

L
b


)


i
+
1


-

L
s

i
+
1



)










(
23
)







where the parameters are given in Table III. To calculate the corresponding moment caused by this force, the distance between the acting point of the resultant force and the axis of rotation (xc) is needed, which can be calculated as follows:










x
c

=





L
s



L
s

+

L
b






x
·

F

es


-


fing




d

x






L
s



L
s

+

L
b






F

es


-


fing



dx







(
24
)







Therefore, the moment of electrostatic force on the tip fingers about the axis of rotation can be written as










M

es
-
tip


=



N
t

·


F

es


-


tip




(
θ
)


·

x
c


=


N
t



V

d





c

2






i
=
0

9







A
i



(

sin





θ

)


i


i
+
2


·

(



(


L
s

+

L
b


)


i
+
2


-

L
s

i
+
2



)









(
25
)







where Nt is the number of fingers on the tip side of the proof mass. Following a similar approach and assuming that the electrostatic force on the fingers on the sides of the proof-mass does not change over the finger length, we can calculate the moment of the electrostatic force on these fingers as follows:










M

es


-


s

i

d

e


=


V

d

c

2

·




j
=
0


N
s







i
=
0

9




(




A
i



(



u
j

·
sin






θ

)


i

·

L
b


)

·

u
j









(
26
)







where uj is the distance of the jth side finger from the axis of rotation and Ns is the number of fingers on each side. So, the total electrostatic moment in Eq. (19) can be written as:

Mes({circumflex over (θ)})Mes-tip+2·Mes-side  (27)


The factor 2 in Eq. (27) accounts for the fact that there are two sets of side fingers, one on each side of the proof-mass. The moment from acceleration (Msh) also can be written as:










M

s

h


=


[


m
p

·

a


(
t
)


·


L
s

2


]

+




[


N
t

·

m
b

·

a


(
t
)


·

(


L
s

+


L
b

2


)


]

+

[

2
·

(




j
=
1


N
s





m
b

·

a


(
t
)


·

u
j



)


]








(
28
)







where the first bracket is the moment caused by proof mass acceleration, the second shows the moment caused by the tip fingers acceleration, and the third is for the side fingers. In Eq. (28), mp, mb, and a(t) are the mass of the rotational plate, mass of the moving electrode, and the acceleration load that is exerted on the microstructure through base excitation. This mechanical load can be modeled as a harmonic base excitation or as a shock load. There are different shock profiles commonly used for modeling shock loads such as square, saw-tooth, half-sine or full-sine shock profiles. The most commonly used shock load is the half-sine with the profile given in Eq. (29), which will be used in the following description of the experiment on the fabricated device,










a


(
t
)


=


Asin


(

ω





t

)


·

u


(


π
ω

-
t

)







(
29
)







where






u


(


π
ω

-
t

)






is the step function. Dividing Eq. (19) by I and using Eqs. (27) and (28) and following non-dimensional parameters (Eq. (30), we can rewrite the governing equation of motion in nondimensional format (Eq. (31).










θ
=


θ
^


θ
0



,

t
=


t
^

T


,

T
=

1

ω
n



,


ω
n

=


k
I







(
30
)








θ
¨

+

2

ξ


ω
n



θ
.


+


ω
n
2


θ


=



T
2


I


θ
0



·

(



M

e

s




(
θ
)


+

M

s

h



)






(
31
)







By applying a DC voltage on the side electrodes, the proof-mass rotates around its anchors' axis and goes to an equilibrium point away from the substrate. To obtain this static rotation, all the time derivative terms in Eq. (31) are set to zero and then the equation is solved for static rotation (θst). The static rotation can be used to solve for the dynamic solution (θdyn) of Eq. (31) in the presence of any time-varying load using the following change of variable.

θ=θstdyn  (32)


The moment of inertia, I, in Eq. (31) can be calculated as









I
=



1
3



m
p



L
s
2


+

Nt
·

(



1

1

2




m
b



L
b
2


+



m
b



(



L
b

2

+

L
s


)


2


)


+




j
=
1


N
s




(



1

1

2




m
b



b
2


+


m
b



u
j
2



)







(
33
)







The natural frequency of the first mode, ωn is obtained from the ANSYS finite element package. The first mode is a rotational mode as expected. The corresponding natural frequency for this mode is predicted to be 1320 Hz. After examining subsequent experimental data, this value can be modified for the natural frequency to account for all the fabrication imperfections, residual stresses and mathematical simplification in this 1 DOF model.


Eq. (31) can be solved numerically using the Runge-Kutta method for various damping conditions. However, it is likely that a simple linear damping does not capture the physics of energy dissipation in this problem. In general, modeling energy dissipation in the repulsive scheme is more challenging compared to the attractive scheme because of two reasons. First, the amplitude of vibration can get very large compared to the initial fabrication gap because the initial static deflection of the structure (from Vdc) moves the structure away from the substrate, providing more space for vibration. Therefore, those damping models available in the literature [81-83] that are based on Reynolds' equation are not valid because the underlying assumptions such as negligible pressure change across the fluid film or small gap to lateral dimension ratio are not valid here. Second, because there is no limitation from pull-in, the device can get very close to the substrate while having a large amplitude vibration. So, in each cycle of vibration, when the moving part is far away from the substrate the dominant damping mechanism is the drag force in free air. However, when the structure gets close to the substrate, the squeeze film damping mechanism starts to play a significant role in energy dissipation. Thus, the damping force is likely to be quite nonlinear.









TABLE IV







Air flow regimes for characteristic length H = 2 μm.










Pressure (Torr)
Regime







P > 2200
Continuum



1000 < P < 2200
Slip flow



10 < P < 1000
Transient



P < 10
Molecular










Another challenge in modeling damping in this problem is that the continuity assumption for the air breaks down when the microstructure gets very close to the substrate, especially at low pressures. In this situation, the characteristic length of the problem is even smaller than the initial fabrication gap, and the characteristic length of the problem becomes comparable with the mean free path of air molecules. The Knudson number is the parameter to check to see if the continuity assumption is valid (Eq. (34)). This number is defined as the ratio of the mean free path of air (gas) molecules to the characteristic length of the problem, which is usually the gap between moving and stationary parts of the microstructure. The mean free path of air molecules depends on the air temperature and pressure. Assuming the room temperature condition (25° C.), the dependence of the molecules' mean free path on pressure can be written as in Eq. (34)











K
n

=

λ
H


,

λ
=



P
0

P



λ
0







(
34
)







Using the Knudsen number, the flow is divided into four regimes: continuum flow, slip flow, transitional flow and free molecular flow. Assuming the characteristic length to be equal to the initial gap and using Eqs. (34) we can categorize the flow according to pressure (Table IV). As the experiment is performed at very low pressure on the device (P<350 mTorr), the flow regime would be in the free molecular regime. Also, as the microstructure gets very close to the substrate, the characteristic length of the problem becomes even smaller than 2 μm, which leads to higher threshold pressure for the molecular region. The modular damping depends on the ratio of vibration amplitude to the initial gap (initial fabrication gap+static deflection caused by DC voltage). When the vibration amplitude is small compared to the initial gap, the damping is dominated by linear viscous damping. However, as the vibration amplitude becomes comparable with the initial gap, the squeeze film damping increases as the air molecules are trapped between the proof mass and substrate. The equation accounting for this variable damping that modulates itself with the amplitude-gap ratio is given in Eq. (35) [76]. I









ξ
=


ξ
0

+


ξ
1



(


θ
dyn


θ
initial


)







(
35
)







With the description of damping above, all the parameters in Eq. (31) have been defined.









TABLE V







Information related to the thin film depositions.










Film
Temp. (° C.)
Thickness (m)
Dep. rate (Å/min)













SiO2
1100
1
74


Si3N4
800
0.2
25


HTO
800
4
12.7


a-Si
570
2
11.7


Annealing
1000











The process flow of the device fabrication is depicted in FIGS. 23a-21j. It starts with 4-inch standard silicon wafers which are dipped into base and acid baths (RCA Cleaning). This process removes residues such as organic particles and the native oxide on the wafer surface. After the cleaning, we grew 1 m thick oxide as an insulation layer using a low-pressure chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD) furnace. On top of this layer, we deposited 0.2 μm thick low-stress nitride. The oxide and nitride layers isolate the device from the substrate. On top of the nitride layer, a 2 μm thick phosphorus-doped amorphous silicon (N+a-Si) was deposited in a LPCVD furnace. The deposition rates and the deposition temperatures of the LPCVD films are presented in Table III. This amorphous layer was then formed to polycrystalline silicon (poly-Si) by an annealing process [84,85]. Following the annealing, a 2 μm thick positive photoresist was spun, and exposed with an i-line stepper. Exposed wafers were baked at 115° C. for 90 s and developed with 726 MIF developer for 60 s. After the developing step, the first layer of fingers was created via the Bosch etching process. The chamber conditions of the etching process are presented in Table VI. On top of the fixed fingers, a 4 μm thick high-temperature oxide (HTO) film was deposited as a sacrificial layer. This layer provides a vertical gap between the first and second poly-Si films which are the fixed and the moving fingers, respectively. Following the deposition process, 2 μm of the oxide was planarized using a chemical mechanical polisher (CMP). This process removes the step difference between the proof mass and the fixed fingers. Later, using inductively coupled plasma reactive ion etching (ICP-RIE), the sacrificial oxide was etched to open vias between first and second poly-Si. The chamber condition of this process is presented in Table VI. Upon etching the vias, another layer of 2 μm thick phosphorus-doped a-Si was deposited, which is also annealed to form poly-Si as done before. This layer is etched to form the moving fingers that are attached to the rectangular shaped proof mass. After the etching, 20 nm Cr and 150 nm of Au are deposited on the pads using an e-beam evaporation tool. Then the wafers are diced and released in HF:HCl solution. Following the release, the chips are critical point dried (CPD) to avoid stiction. The scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of the fabricated device are presented in FIGS. 24a-24c. The chip is mounted on a printed circuit board and wire-bonded using an aluminum wire wedge-bonder.









TABLE VI





Chamber conditions for dry etching. Etch rates for silicon and oxide


are measured around 2 μm/min and 150 nm/min, respectively.







Bosch process for silicon etching















Pressure
C4F8
SF6
Ar


Dura-


Process
(mTorr)
(sccm)
(sccm)
(sccm)
RIE
ICP
tion





Light
13
35
2
40
40
850
8


Passivation
24
60
2
40
0.1
850
4


Etch 1
23
2
70
40
8
850
2


Etch 2
23
2
100
40
8
850
6










(ICP process for oxide etching















Pressure
CHF3
O2
Ar


Dura-


Process
(mTorr)
(sccm)
(sccm)
(sccm)
RIE
ICP
tion





Etch
5
52
2

15
2500










Experiments were conducted on the fabricated sensor to investigate the accelerometer dynamical performance and verify the mathematical model described above. The sensor was subjected to two different mechanical loads, harmonic excitations and shock loads. For harmonic loading, the dynamic response of the microstructure in the resonance region is considered that sheds light on the effects of inherent nonlinearities in the electrostatic force. Also, the mechanical sensitivity of the accelerometer is obtained, which is an important parameter with a significant contribution to the overall sensitivity of the sensor. This mechanical sensitivity is obtained from the frequency response before reaching the resonance region, because accelerometers are always used at frequencies below their resonance range. The robustness of the accelerometer against mechanical shocks is another important parameter to be analyzed.


The printed circuit board containing the MEMS chip is mounted to the head of the shaker and placed inside the vacuum chamber at 200 mTorr. A laser vibrometer (Polytec MSA-500) is used to monitor the time-response of the sensor. This set up is shown in FIG. 5. The next part addresses how the shaker acceleration is kept constant while sweeping the frequency.


The output acceleration of the shaker depends on the amplitude and frequency of the voltage signal given to the shaker. To conduct a frequency sweep on the microstructure, the shaker needs to provide a base acceleration with a constant amplitude at different frequencies. Usually, a closed loop system is used with the shaker where the output acceleration of the shaker is constantly monitored so acceleration amplitude can be kept constant by modifying the amplitude of the voltage signal. Here, the shaker is used in an open loop mode. To identify the required voltage needed to send to the shaker at each frequency (f), the shaker is characterized in a separate setup where a laser vibrometer is used to measure the shaker velocity. For example, if a harmonic base acceleration with 1 g amplitude at 3000 Hz from the shaker is required, voltages with 3000 Hz frequency and different amplitudes are sent to the shaker until a voltage amplitude that results in 1 g±1% acceleration is found. Then, the same procedure is repeated for the next frequency step (3010 Hz). To characterize the shaker for half-sine shock excitations with different time duration, the shaker response is measured with a commercial accelerometer (PCB-352A24). If the shock amplitude is within ±1% range of the desired amplitude, the voltage will be recorded to be used for the shock experiment.


After the shaker characterization, the device is tested by applying harmonic base excitation and performing a frequency sweep. Such an analysis is helpful to investigate the accelerometer dynamical performance and verify the mathematical model described above.


The motion of the sensor proof-mass relative to the substrate is obtained by subtracting the substrate response from the device response for each excitation frequency (f). As the motion of the substrate does not depend on the electrical voltage on the device, for each mechanical loading scenario, the substrate motion was measured by reading its velocity with the laser vibrometer. The device response, on the other hand, depends on the mechanical load and electrical voltage on the side electrodes. For each loading case, the proof-mass response was measured again by reading its velocity using the laser vibrometer. Then, the velocity of the substrate for each mechanical load was subtracted from the device response for the corresponding mechanical load to obtain the relative velocity of the proof-mass. Subsequently, the fast Fourier transform (FFT) of this relative velocity signal was calculated to extract the velocity amplitude in the steady-state region. Dividing this velocity amplitude by 2πf results in the displacement amplitude for the corresponding frequency.



FIGS. 25a-25c show the device response for different voltages on the side electrodes. For each voltage, different harmonic excitations with different amplitudes are applied. These figures show that the resonance frequency increases as the bias DC voltage increases on the side electrode. Furthermore, for DC voltages of 50V and 60V, as the amplitude of vibration increases, a nonlinear softening behavior appears in the response. These two phenomena can be explained by looking at nonlinear terms in the electrostatic force. According to Table III, A1 (coefficient of x in electrostatic force) is negative, when it is on the right-hand side of Eq. (19). This means that linear stiffness caused by electrostatic force will add to the linear mechanical stiffness of microstructure, which leads to an increase in stiffness and resonance frequency as DC voltage increases. This property of the microstructure can be beneficial to increase the robustness of the sensor against severe mechanical loads. By increasing the DC voltage, the proof-mass plate gets further pushed away from the substrate, hence the maximum mechanical load that is required for the proof-mass to hit the substrate is increased. This means that the voltage on the side electrodes can be increased and the sensor used for more harsh environments in terms of mechanical loads such as mechanical shocks. This is the opposite of what happens to conventional shock sensors that are based on the attractive scheme where an increase in the bias voltage results in early pull-in [80]. Also, one can tune the DC voltage on the side electrodes to obtain the frequency ranges of interest for different applications.


The softening behavior in the frequency response at a high voltage of 50V and 60V can be explained by the even-order terms in electrostatic force (A2, A4, A6, A8). Simulation results are presented in FIGS. 25a-25c. These results are obtained when the linear natural frequency of the structure is set to be the measured value of 1740 Hz in the governing equation of motion (Eq. (31). This value is 30% different from what is obtained from finite element analysis (FEA). This discrepancy can be explained by the imperfections in the fabrication process that are not considered in the FEA. These include a slight bending of the plate that happens because of thermal stresses. The residual stress on the supports plays a significant role on the structural stiffness of the sensor. This residual in-plane stress was measured to be approximately 50 MPa in the fabrication process, which causes a slight curvature in the proof mass plate. The deflection due to residual stress was measured to be approximately 6 μm per 1 mm length of the plate. Because a static FEA predicted approximately the same deflection as the measured result, we conclude that this deflection is due to in-plane stress only and the variation of residual stress along the thickness may considered to be negligible. Once the estimated linear frequency for the fabricated device is considered in the lumped model, the model captures the experimental results with good accuracy. The slight difference between the simulation results and experimental data, especially at low frequencies, is also attributed to these inevitable fabrication imperfections and residual stresses as well as limitation of approximating a continuous system with a discrete (lumped) model. The damping ratios are adjusted slightly to match the experimental results for each voltage scenario. It is worth mentioning that the squeeze film damping is dependent on the resonance frequency. The resonance frequency changes by varying the DC voltage as shown in FIG. 26. Therefore, the damping coefficients will slightly vary with the DC voltage. For the frequency sweep, the lumped model is solved for the dynamic solution (θdyn) using the shooting method [26]. The static rotation caused by DC voltage is calculated and shown in FIG. 27 as a function of DC voltage.


The nonlinearity in the device response when the bias voltage is 40V is slightly hardening while the lumped model predicts softening. This discrepancy between the simulation results and experimental data can be reconciled by introducing a cubic nonlinear term for mechanical stiffness for this specific voltage but such a nonlinearity makes the response hardening for higher voltages which does not match the experimental data. Also, because the vibration amplitudes with different voltages for the same mechanical loads are very close to each other (for example, the resonance amplitudes for 40V and 50V when the acceleration amplitude is 3 g), this difference in behavior cannot be attributed to the nonlinearities in the electrostatic force or stiffness caused by air in squeeze film regime.


Although the model does not catch the nonlinear behavior of the microstructure in the resonance region for low voltages, it matches the experimental data away from this region with good accuracy. Because inertial sensors are generally operated in frequency ranges away from their natural frequency the model still could be used to simulate the device response at low frequencies.


The sensitivity of the device for different voltages is shown in FIG. 28. The relative displacement of the proof-mass for harmonic base excitations with different amplitudes at 2500 Hz is recorded and shown in FIG. 28. The slopes of these lines give the mechanical sensitivity for each voltage. The sensitivity for lower voltages is higher because the contribution of electrical stiffness in the total stiffness of the sensor (structural and electrical) is smaller. For example, the sensitivity of the accelerometer at 40V is about 0.1 μm/g. This is extremely superior to the numbers found in the literature, which are generally in the range of nanometer to femtometer per g [87,88]. In the next step, half-sine shocks will be considered as the mechanical load on the microstructure.









TABLE VII







Threshold shock amplitude that results in proof-


mass hitting the substrate (shock duration =


90% of natural period of microstructure


for each voltage) and comparing


resonance frequencies obtained from


experiments (at low g (1 g)) with linearized


natural frequencies derived from Jacobian matrix.












Threshold
Resonance freq.
Resonance freq.



Vdc (V)
shock (g)
(Hz) (exp.)
(Hz) (sim.)
Error (%)





40
200
3000
2981
0.64


50
300
3280
3262
0.55


60
410
3540
3523
0.67









Robustness of accelerometers against mechanical shocks is an important parameter. Under mechanical shocks, a force is transmitted to the microstructure through its anchors during a short period of time compared to the natural period of the microstructure. These loads are usually characterized by the induced acceleration on the affected structure with three parameters: maximum acceleration (amplitude), time duration, and pulse shape, also called shock profile. Here, half-sine shock loads are used with different amplitudes and time durations to investigate the response of microstructure to a shock load. The actual output of the shaker is measured with the PCB accelerometer, which is mounted on the shaker. FIG. 29 shows this measured acceleration as well as the device response, which is obtained by integrating the velocity of the microstructure measured by the laser vibrometer.


The time responses of the microstructure for 60 V bias voltage on the side electrode to shock loads with different time durations and amplitudes are given in FIGS. 30a-30d. Similar experiments were conducted for 50V on the side electrodes to obtain the larger displacements of the proof-mass (FIG. 31). These shock experiments are done for shock loads that have time durations close to the natural period of the microstructure. The linearized natural frequency of the microstructure for each voltage (FIG. 26) is obtained from stability and eigenvalue analysis on the Jacobian matrix for Eq. (31). The linearized natural frequency of the microstructure can be extracted from harmonic experiments at low g levels (Table VII). Because the stiffness of the microstructure and hence, the natural period of the microstructure, would change with the DC voltage, the maximum dynamical displacement of the accelerometer would be a function of the voltage.


The simulation results are in good agreement with the shock-experiment outcomes as shown in FIGS. 31 and 32. The small discrepancies can be attributed to the error in the numerical integration of the velocity signal and the fact that the shock that is actually applied on the device is not a perfect half-sine shock considered in the mathematical model. It should also be mentioned the same damping coefficients that were used for harmonic simulation at 50V and 60V are used for simulating the shock responses. The close agreements of the results show that the damping model can accurately capture the energy dissipation.


The mechanical sensitivity to shock is an important factor in the performance of shock sensors. According to FIGS. 30a-30d at 60V, the maximum displacement at the proof-mass edge is less than 1.2 μm when the shock amplitude is 25 g. If we consider the collision of the microstructure with its substrate as a failure mode or a limit to define the maximum allowable shock load, this 1.2 μm is 10% of the initial gap between the proof-mass edge and the substrate (2 μm fabrication gap+10 μm static gap caused by 60V applied on the side electrodes). However, as discussed above, because there is no pull-in with this repulsive approach, even if the proof-mass hits the substrate, it could bounce off safely. In fact, if this impact could be detected electrically, the device could be employed as a tunable threshold shock sensor. As opposed to conventional parallel-plate shock sensors, the threshold shock could be tuned by applying voltage on the side electrodes. This capability is enabled in the repulsive configuration because of the additional two electrodes on the sides.


Because of the limitation on the shock amplitudes that could be generated by the shaker, the device could not be tested under more severe shocks. However, the model may be used to predict the threshold shock at different voltages. These threshold shock amplitudes are given in Table VII for different voltages on side electrodes. The sensor resilience against mechanical shock could be improved by increasing the voltage on the side electrodes. This also means the threshold shock the sensor can detect can be tuned by varying the DC voltage on the side electrodes.


A capacitive electrode system is provided that achieves a repulsive electrostatic force for acceleration-sensing. A single degree of freedom lumped parameter model is described that captures the nonlinear dynamics of the system. As the presented accelerometer does not suffer from pull-in, the DC voltage can be increased to increase the fundamental natural frequency. This capability enables the accelerometer to become tunable. That means the detection range of the accelerometers, which is often below one third of their natural frequency, can be tuned by changing the DC voltage of the side electrodes. This is superior to current commercial accelerometers that often have a fixed resonance frequency, which limits their performance. Here, because the resonance frequency of the accelerometer can be tuned, it has the potential to be used in a wider range of applications. Furthermore, the initial gap between the proof-mass and the substrate is increased by increasing the voltage on the side electrodes, which improves the accelerometer robustness against mechanical shocks without sacrificing its stability. This device also has the potential to be designed and used as a shock sensor. By changing the voltage difference between the side and bottom electrodes, the threshold shock amplitude needed to collide the structure with the substrate can be tuned. Also, the natural period of the sensor can be tuned to use the sensor for shock loads with different time duration.


A tunable MEMS electrostatic accelerometer is provided that uses a repulsive electrode configuration so that the design is not hampered by capacitive pull-in instability. The repulsive force configuration enables the increase of DC bias voltage without suffering from the pull-in failure mode. This flexibility in increasing voltage can be employed as a tuning parameter to widen the working frequency range and to improve the robustness of the accelerometer.


A lumped parameter model was developed to simulate the response of the microstructure under a combination of electrostatic and dynamic mechanical loading. The electrostatic force is estimated using a finite element simulation. The nonlinear equations of motion are solved for harmonic base excitations and half-sine shock loads using the shooting and the long-time integration methods, respectively. To validate the model, a sensor is fabricated and characterized under harmonic base excitation and mechanical shocks. A mechanical sensitivity of 0.1 μmig is achieved when the bias voltage is 40 V. The experimental data are in good agreement with the simulation results.


Another flavor of the described accelerometer is an accelerometer with translational degree of freedom. A fabricated MEMS accelerometer with translational degree of freedom is depicted in FIG. 32. The mechanical response of this microstructure to different base excitation at different voltage on side electrodes is shown in FIG. 33. FIG. 33. Shows the frequency response of the microstructuer when the frequency is swept backward. The motion of the proof mass in this accelerometer leads to a change in capacitance. This change in capacitance has been read electrically for the first time for the accelerometer based on levitation electrostatic force. FIG. 34 shows the frequency response of electrical voltage that is read with an electronic circuit. FIG. 35. Shows one of the time responses at a particular frequency while the voltage on side electrode is 78V and the base excitation amplitude is 3 g.


Example 3—Switch Characterization

First, the pull-in voltage for the cantilever is calculated, per Pallay, Mark, Alwathiqbellah I. Ibrahim, and Shahrzad Towfighian. “A MEMS Threshold Acceleration Switch Powered by a Triboelectric Generator.” In ASME 2018 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, pp. V004T08A010-V004T08A010. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2018. This is the minimum required voltage for the switch to start in the closed state. Since the cantilever and center electrode act as a simple parallel plate actuator, the pull-in voltage can be calculated with the relationship shown in Equation (36).










V

p

u

l

l






8


k
1



d
3



27

ɛ





A







(
36
)







where ε is the permittivity of air and A is the area of the underside of the beam. From Equation (36), the pull-in voltage should be approximately 1.9 V. Therefore 2.2 V (Vbias) is applied between the beam and center electrode so that the starting position of the switch is in the closed state. A voltage slightly higher than the pull-in voltage is necessary for the switch to stay closed because the dimples (0.75 μm long) do not allow the beam to travel the entire 2 μm gap. If the voltage is too low the beam will start to pull-in, but the force will be too weak to hold it in the pulled in position of −1.25 μm.


Next, the threshold generator voltage to open the switch when given an initial bias of 2.2 V is calculated. This can be estimated by calculating the potential energy and phase portrait. If the voltage is too low the beam should have an unstable trajectory in the phase plane. However, when the voltage exceeds a threshold it becomes stable and wants to settle to an equilibrium position somewhere above the substrate. The phase portrait will then show a periodic orbit about the equilibrium point.


To calculate the potential energy, Equation (37) is integrated. The damping has a small effect on the stability and is set to zero.












m
1




q
¨

1


+


c
1




q
.

1


+


k
1



q
1


+




j
=
0

9




f
j



q
1
j




=
0




(
37
)









m
1





q
.

1
2

2


+


k
1




q
1
2

2


+




j
=
0

9





f
j


j
+
1




q
1

j
+
1





=
H




(
38
)







In Equation (38) the first term is the kinetic energy, while the second two terms are the potential energy. H is the total energy of the system, which can be varied to view various trajectories in the phase portrait.



FIG. 4 shows the potential energy for the case of Vbias=2.2 V and Vside=0V, showing the system will pull in at this voltage. To calculate the phase portrait, Equation (38) is rearranged to solve for {dot over (q)}12, which is a pair of nonlinear function of q1. The separatrix can be calculated by setting H to be the potential energy (V) at a local peak (if one exists). For the case of FIG. 4, no such peak exists and the system remains unstable everywhere. FIG. 5 shows the phase plane trajectory of the beam starting at rest for a bias voltage of 2.2 V.


Next, the side voltage is gradually increased until the system becomes stable again. This occurs when the pulled-in position of the beam (indicated in the phase portrait by the intersection of the red line and zero velocity axis) moves inside of a closed loop in the phase portrait. A loop in the phase portrait occurs when a local minimum appears in the potential energy plot. If the side electrode voltage is increased past a threshold, the potential well will grow large enough to allow the beam to oscillate in a stable orbit and the beam will release. FIGS. 6 and 7 show the potential energy and phase portrait respectively when the side electrode voltage is increased to 12 V.


As can be seen in the phase portrait (FIG. 7), at side voltage of 12 V, the pulled-in position of the beam exists inside a closed loop indicating the beam is now stable. This means, neglecting stiction forces, only 12 V is necessary to open the switch. Contact forces holding the beam in the pulled-in position will inevitably increase this threshold, however it can be difficult to estimate theoretically but its influence may be determined through an experiment. The triboelectric generator is capable of producing voltages over an order of magnitude above the calculated threshold. This allows the bias voltage to be increased significantly to tune the sensitivity of the sensor. It also opens the possibility of miniaturizing the generator to the millimeter or even smaller scale, which is very attractive for MEMS sensors. Both threshold voltages to close and open the switch have been verified through integration of Equation (37).


Next, the generator output was experimentally extracted using a prototype triboelectric generator from [40]. The generator was struck with a 1 lb. weight to see the open circuit voltage produced from a single impact. FIGS. 8 and 9 show the voltage plots for two separate impact tests.


In FIGS. 8 and 9 the voltage responds in two steps during the impact. For the smaller impact (FIG. 8) the first step is a negative voltage, while for the larger impact (FIG. 9) the first step is a positive voltage. This difference does not significantly affect the operation of the device. The delay between steps is relatively short at 10 ms and 25 ms respectively. However, the beam response period is less than 0.1 ms and therefore the short delay cannot be ignored. In both cases, the voltage jump occurs in much less than 2 ms (the sample rate of the electrometer) and is modeled as a step input.


Both cases produced a voltage that was large enough to open the switch. This is a result of the generator size, which has approximately 20 cm2 of contact area between triboelectric layers. This means that even a light impact will produce enough voltage to open the switch. To tune the output voltage such that it is closer to the threshold voltage level, a new, smaller generator should be made so that lower level impacts will produce small voltages that will not open the switch.


The voltage from FIGS. 8 and 9 decayed slowly back to approximately zero over the course of a few minutes. This is because the PDMS layer in the generator is an insulator and becomes charged during the impact. The consequence of this is that the switch will stay in the open position for a few minutes until the voltage decays enough for the beam to pull back into the closed state. In this case the charge decay can be beneficial because it allows the sensor to reset itself after being triggered.



FIG. 10 shows the beam tip displacement for a side voltage corresponding to the step voltage shown in FIG. 8. The first Voltage step is at time zero and the second voltage step is after 10 ms. The generator voltage is above the threshold and therefore the switch is operating in the open state.


The simplified step voltages are then applied to Equation (37) to see the beam response. The generator output is not applied directly to Equation (37) because the electrostatic force does not scale with the square of the generator voltage. The voltage is approximated as a series of two steps so that the electrostatic force only needs to be simulated at three voltage levels for each plot. If the voltage is assumed to start at 0 V, then only two simulations are necessary to achieve the stepped voltage response. The electrostatic force coefficients in Equation (37)), pi, become piecewise functions that change suddenly at each jump in FIGS. 8 and 9. For the dynamic beam analysis, the beam will start at its pulled-in position and experience a jump in voltage at time zero corresponding to the first step in FIGS. 8 and 9. Then it will receive a second step to the final voltage after a short delay. The beam responses are shown in FIGS. 10 and 11. In both cases, the beam is released from its initial pulled-in position showing the switch opens from the shock the generator experiences.


For the smaller impact (FIGS. 8 and 10) the beam first begins to settle around −0.34 μm from the first voltage spike, then jumps up to 0.37 μm after the second spike, which is its final equilibrium position. The larger impact (FIG. 11) moves the beam to approximately 2 μm above the substrate from the first spike, and to over 6 μm from the second spike. Because the force is effectively repulsive, there is no voltage limitation on the sensor. This means the sensor should remain mechanically undamaged from a very large voltage spike, which could occur from an unexpectedly large impact.


Because the delay between each voltage step is much longer than the response period, the beam has time to settle to its static position between the two voltage spikes. If the device is operated at very low pressure, this may not be the case. However, for a quality factor of 70, the beam settles to its equilibrium point in about 10 ms, which is roughly the time between voltage steps in FIG. 8. If the beam does not have time to settle to its equilibrium position prior to the second spike, the operation of the device should not be affected in most cases.


The sensor uses a triboelectric generator to convert mechanical energy from an impact to an electrical signal that opens a switch when the impact passes a threshold value. The switch consists of a MEMS cantilever beam with a multi-electrode configuration that can generate both attractive and repulsive forces on the beam. The center electrode is given a small bias voltage to initiate pull-in, and the side electrodes receive voltage from the generator. If the impact is large enough, the repulsive force from the side electrodes releases the beam from pull-in and opens the switch. After a few minutes, the charge on the generator decays and the switch resets to its closed state.


The levitation force is capable of balancing the parallel plate electrostatic force when the beam is in its pulled-in position without tremendously high voltage levels. It has also been experimentally demonstrated that a triboelectric transducer can generate voltages well above this threshold level and will not immediately discharge when the generator electrodes are left as an open circuit.


Example 4—Mems Switch

A microelectromechanical system (MEMS) beam is experimentally released from pull-in using electrostatic levitation. A MEMS cantilever with a parallel plate electrode configuration is pulled-in by applying a voltage above the pull-in threshold. An electrode is fixed to the substrate on each side of the beam to allow electrostatic levitation. Large voltage pulses upwards of 100 V are applied to the side electrodes to release the pulled-in beam. A large voltage is needed to overcome the strong parallel plate electrostatic force and stiction forces, which hold the beam in its pulled-in position. See, Pallay, Mark, and Shahrzad Towfighian. “A reliable MEMS switch using electrostatic levitation.” Applied Physics Letters 113, no. 21 (2018): 213102.


One common undesirable phenomenon associated with electrostatic actuation is the pull-in instability. Pull-in failure occurs when the electrostatic force pulling the two electrodes together overcomes the mechanical forces separating them and the structure collapses. In many cases, pull-in results in permanent damage to the device as the electrodes become stuck together and cannot be separated even if the voltage is removed. Stiction forces such as van der Waals become much more significant at the micro-scale, and the parallel plate electrostatic force is only capable of pulling objects together, so release is often impossible. Stiction can be mitigated by placing dimples on the bottom face of the beam or movable plate, thus reducing the contact area and minimizing the force holding the plates together. However, even beams with dimples can frequently become stuck after pull-in, and therefore, many electrostatic devices are designed to avoid pull-in entirely.


Much effort has been placed in creating electrostatic MEMS designs that do not experience pull-in at all. One method actuates a structure with electrostatic levitation. Electrostatic levitation involves a slightly different electrode configuration than the standard parallel plate design, with two extra electrodes that help induce an effectively repulsive force instead of an attractive one.


The beam and the fixed middle electrode are kept at similar voltage level, while the fixed side electrodes are supplied with a large voltage. When the beam is close enough to the middle electrode, the electrostatic fringe-field produced by the side electrodes pulls on the top of the beam more than the bottom, resulting in a net force upwards. It is not the case of a purely repulsive force that would occur between two positively charged particles but rather an attractive force that acts in the opposite direction of the substrate and is commonly referred to as repulsive to differentiate it from the attractive parallel plate force. The middle electrode acts as a shield protecting the bottom face of the beam from the electric field and associated electrostatic force. As shown in FIG. 12, some of the electric field lines that would have normally pulled on the bottom face of the beam are now moved to the middle electrode instead. The electric field at the top of the beam is relatively unaffected by the presence of the middle electrode, and therefore, the direction of the net force on the beam becomes upward instead of downward when the beam-electrode gap is small.


If the beam is held to just one degree of freedom, which is common for thin, wide beams, it will not pull-in at all because the side electrodes are not in the beams' path of motion. The middle electrode will not create attractive electrostatic forces on the beam because they are both at the same voltage potential, and thus, pull-in will not occur.


A major drawback to electrostatic levitation is that it requires a very high voltage potential because it utilizes the weak fringe fields. To generate an electrostatic levitation force comparable to the one generated by a standard parallel plate configuration, the voltage must be more than an order of magnitude larger than the parallel plate voltage. Voltages upwards of 150 V may be applied to achieve around 10 μm of static tip deflection for a 500 μm long beam. However, the large voltage potential and elimination of the pull-in instability allow repulsive actuators to move more than an order of magnitude farther than their initial gap, as opposed to parallel plate actuators, which are typically limited to one-third of the initial gap because of pull-in.


Another advantage of electrostatic levitation is that it can be easily combined with parallel plate electrodes to enable bi-directional actuation. Applying a bias to the middle electrode, along with the voltage on the side electrodes, creates attractive and repulsive forces on the beam. The beam and middle electrode act as parallel plates, while the side electrodes produce the levitation force. As with other bidirectional devices, such as double-sided parallel plates, bidirectional actuation requires multiple voltage inputs with each controlling the magnitude of the force in a single direction.


According to the present technology, a MEMS beam may be toggled between its pulled-in and released positions using a combination of parallel plate actuation and electrostatic levitation. A bias voltage is applied to the middle electrode to induce pull-in, and release the beam from its pulled-in state. The repulsive force is capable of overcoming the stiction forces holding the beam to the substrate. The capability of recovering from what was once permanent pull-in failure of a MEMS structure is a great advancement and addresses a fundamental issue that has existed since the inception of electrostatically actuated MEMS. This feature can make MEMS devices more reliable and reusable. It also opens the possibility of new applications for electrostatic MEMS by allowing them to use the pulled-in state as a functional element of the device, rather than a limitation. Almost all electrostatic MEMS are designed around pull-in, and by using a combination of attractive and repulsive forcing, this limitation can be relaxed or removed entirely. This attribute has great potential for MEMS switches that will be normally closed, as opposed to current MEMS switches, which are normally open. It also has a promising application in micromechanical memories to read and erase bits as it can switch back and forth between two functional states: pulled-in and released.


MEMS cantilevers are fabricated using PolyMUMPs standard fabrication by MEMSCAP. Dimples are placed on the bottom of the beam to reduce the contact area and the associated stiction forces. While dimples can aid with release, the beams still suffer from stiction when pulled-in. The cantilevers have the electrode layout shown in FIG. 1.


The beam can be modeled as an Euler-Bernoulli beam with electrostatic forcing, which can be calculated numerically with a 2D COMSOL simulation. A comparison of pure repulsive, pure attractive, and combined repulsive and attractive forces can be seen in FIG. 3B.


A schematic for the experimental setup is shown in FIG. 15a. An alternate setup is shown in FIG. 15b. The cantilevers are placed in air, and the tip displacement is measured with a Polytec MSA-500 Laser Vibrometer interfaced with MATLAB through a National Instruments USB 6366 Data Acquisition (DAQ). A B&K Precision 9110 power supply and a Krohn-Hite 7600 Wideband Power Amplifier supply the bias and side electrode voltage, respectively. The bias voltage is measured directly with the DAQ; however, the side voltage is well over the 10 V limitation of the DAQ and is measured with a Keithley 6514 electrometer, which is also controlled with MATLAB.


In the experiment, a bias voltage is applied to the middle electrode to start the beam in its pulled-in position. The bias is then adjusted to a specified level and held constant before a series of short, high voltage pulses are applied to the side electro des. The beam displacement is observed to determine whether the beam was released during the voltage pulses. A relationship between bias voltage and release side voltage is obtained to demonstrate the working principle of the repulsive switch.



FIG. 15c shows the recorded switch motion and applied voltages. The bias voltage is initially set at 0 V, increased to the pull-in voltage of 4.5 V, and then held constant. As the bias voltage ramps up, the beam is pulled down slightly before suddenly becoming unstable and collapsing, which can be observed at approximately 1.2 s. Two pulses of 195 V are applied to the sides after the beam is in the pulled-in position. The cantilever releases during both pulses, which can be observed jumping 20 μm in the displacement signal. When the side voltage drops to zero, the beam immediately pulls back in and sticks to the substrate. The beam can be toggled to and from pull-in many times without failure or causing noticeable damage to the device by applying and removing a voltage on the side electrodes. The bias voltage determines the minimum side voltage needed to open the switch.



FIG. 3B shows the electrostatic force on the beam versus the gap distance simulated in COMSOL. The dashed area shows the attractive regime, and the rest is the repulsive regime. The combined force with bias and side voltages behaves similar to the attractive force at low gaps and the repulsive force at large gaps. Applying 10 V on the side electrodes can change the force from attractive to repulsive outside of very small gaps.



FIG. 15a shows the experimental setup with (a) Krohn-Hite 7600 Wideband Power Amplifier, (b) Keithley 6514 Electrometer, (c) B&K Precision 9110 Power Supply, (d) Polytec MSA-500 Laser Vibrometer, (e) NI USB 6366 Data Acquisition, and (f) the MEMS repulsive switch. The DAQ and electrometer are interfaced with MATLAB.


The experiment was repeated by adjusting the bias voltage and determining the associated release voltage. FIG. 3C shows the release voltage for various bias levels. For biases that are less than the 4.5 V pull-in voltage, first pull-in is initiated at 4.5 V, and then, the bias is reduced to the specified level. When the bias voltage is removed completely, the beam continues to stick to the middle electrode, and 70 V is required to release the beam. At the pull-in voltage, 195 V is needed for release. Because of limitations with the PolyMUMPs chips, voltages above 200 V were not applied.



FIG. 3C demonstrates that the release voltage can be adjusted by changing the bias voltage. This is useful for a MEMS switch, which can be tuned to open at different threshold voltage levels. If paired with a transducer that is converting mechanical energy to electrical energy, the entire system can be designed to trigger the opening of a switch when the input passes a threshold.24 In addition to the tunability, it also can act as a normally closed switch, which is not possible with a standard two-electrode parallel plate configuration.



FIG. 15c bottom, shows measured beam-tip displacement, bias voltage, and side voltage versus time. The beam pulls in as the bias voltage ramps up to 4.5 V and is released by supplying 195 V on the side. The illustrations at the top of the displacement signal roughly show the profile of the beam during each phase of the experiment.


A MEMS cantilever is experimentally released from its pulled-in position using electrostatic levitation. This method provides a safe and effective way of releasing and reusing pulled-in MEMS beams, which would have otherwise been permanently stuck to the substrate, rendering them unusable.


Example 5—Triboelectric Generator

Several types of transducers have been used to convert mechanical energy to electrical energy including electromagnetic, piezoelectric, electrostatic and triboelectric generators. Recent advances in triboelectric generation show energy conversion efficiency of ˜60% and higher energy densities compared with other transducers. The prefix “tribo” comes from the Greek word for “rub” and more friction generates more electricity. That triboelectricity is contact-induced electrification and has been known for thousands of years, but just recently with the development of micro-patterned surfaces, it has been employed to convert wasted mechanical energy into electrical energy. Despite plenty of research on triboelectric material, there is little research that models the correlation of vibration and triboelectric mechanism. Our team was among the first who discovered the coupled characteristics of triboelectricity and mechanical vibrations. These generators have the advantages of low-cost, high energy density, and flexibility. Two recent studies proposed a triboelectric accelerometer for monitoring the health of railways, in-plane sliding acceleration and motion tracking of a ball.


The triboelectric generators produce surface charges when two materials with opposite electron affinities contact each other. Although the contacting materials can be two polymers, the system works best when contacting materials consists of a polymer and a conductor. The high output energy density of triboelectric generators is attributed to several factors including: (i) the use of surface patterning to increase contacting areas of the polymer and conductor and to generate more surface charges; (ii) the use of a deformable polymer as one of the triboelectric materials to ensure conformal contact. Continuous contact and separation simultaneously create contact electrification and electrostatic induction, which creates a large potential difference or open circuit voltage.


The contact surfaces can be made of a polymer, e.g. polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) layer and a conductor, e.g. aluminum. Another Al layer covers the back of the PDMS layer. The charge generated on the surfaces is directly proportional to the area of the contact. The key to generating more charges is to make micro-textured surfaces. This leads to a larger contact area, more friction at the microsurfaces and consequently more charges and larger output voltage.


Upon applied mechanical pressure, the Al layer is pressed against the PDMS surface. Because of its flexibility, the PDMS layer fills the gaps between the patterns. The micro-textured surface penetration causes equal but opposite charges to accumulate on both surfaces as electrons are injected into the PDMS from the top Al layer. The triboelectric effect here is not due to macroscopic sliding, but mostly from macroscopic compression, which leads to microscopic sliding. Upon release, the load is removed, and the layers separate as the top surface comes back to its initial position because of the restoring force of an external spring. There will be a large electrical potential difference between the two Al conductors that can directly be used to drive an electrostatic actuator.


Despite the high voltage that triboelectric generators produce, the current generated by these generators is very low in the nano and micro-amp ranges (high impedance generator). This drawback makes powering an electrical circuit difficult. The high voltage creates a strong electrostatic field that could be useful for running electrostatic devices.


To overcome the limitations of the typical two-electrode parallel-plate configuration, electrostatic levitation may be employed, where there are four electrodes: a beam above a center electrode and two side electrodes (FIG. 1). The beam and center electrodes are often grounded or have similar voltages, and the side electrodes have voltages. The electrostatic field of the side electrodes on the beam electrode is asymmetric. That means the top of the beam experiences a stronger electrostatic field than the bottom of the beam (FIG. 12). This property creates a force on the beam pushing it away from the substrate (levitation force). This levitation force is in the opposite direction of the substrate, unlike the conventional two parallel-plate electrodes where the electrostatic force is toward the substrate. This attribute eliminates the pull-in instability. Free of instability danger, the beam vibrates at distances away from the substrate, and is not limited to one-third of the capacitor gap, the common limitation of conventional parallel-plate capacitors. Beams with levitation actuation can vibrate up to 24 microns peak to peak despite the nominal capacitor gap of 2 microns. This is possible because when the beam is excited by DC and AC voltage, it can move to its equilibrium position corresponding to the DC voltage that is 12 microns above the substrate. If the AC voltage is adequately increased, the beam vibrates 24 microns peak to peak before hitting the substrate.


The dynamic behavior of levitation actuators is highly nonlinear.


The bias voltage on the bottom center electrode determines the minimum side voltage needed to open the switch. When the bias voltage is removed completely, the beam continues to stick to the middle electrode and a relatively low voltage of 70 V is required to release the beam (open the switch).



FIGS. 36a-36f shows measurements of (FIG. 36a) impact force (FIG. 36b) generator voltage (FIG. 36c) beam velocity using laser vibrometer after the drop of a one-pound weight and (FIG. 36d) impact force (FIG. 36e) generator voltage (FIG. 36f) beam velocity using laser vibrometer after the generator electrodes are shorted. In all cases, the side electrodes are connected to the generator while the beam and the center bottom electrodes are grounded.


The triboelectric generator controls the levitation actuator. Once the impact occurs, the voltage magnitude steps up quickly and the beam begins to move, see FIGS. 36a-36c. Once the voltage flattens out, the velocity dies down as the beam settles to its new equilibrium position. To verify the change of voltage has moved the beam to a new location, the generator is shorted at approximately 12 s, the voltage drops to zero and the beam experiences a sharp velocity spike corresponding to the beam falling back to its undeflected position, see FIGS. 36d-36f. Such controlling capability is a unique property of the electrostatic levitation and is not possible with conventional two parallel-plate electrodes. If such a voltage was connected to conventional parallel-plate electrodes, the actuator would always collapse from pull-in instability. The high voltage of the generator could permanently damage and burn the MEMS actuator. The levitation mechanism connected to the triboelectric generator enables a sensor to respond directly to impact, which significantly simplifies the sensing circuitry and saves costs.


The output of the generator changes when connected to an actuator, although they are connected with an open circuit. As shown in FIG. 37, The generator is capable of outputting almost 200 V when disconnected from the beam. As the force increases up to approximately 200 N there is a linear relationship between force and voltage. After 200 N, the voltage begins to saturate. The voltage the generator produces is affected by the presence of the switch. When the switch is connected, the output voltage saturates around 150 V instead of 190 V. This difference changes the performance of the switch and is an important attribute of the gener-actuator because it defines at what impact force the switch opens. This difference may be the result of nonlinear coupling characteristics between the induced charge of the generator and the dynamics of the switch.


Further embodiments can be envisioned to one of ordinary skill in the art from the specification and figures. In other embodiments, combinations or sub-combinations of the above-disclosed invention can be advantageously made. The specification and drawings are, accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense. It will, however, be evident that various modifications and changes may be made thereunto without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the claims.


REFERENCES



  • [1] Younis, M. I., 2011. MEMS Linear and Nonlinear Statics and Dynamics. Springer, New York.

  • [2] Miles, R. N., Robert, D., and Hoy, R. R., 1995. “Mechanically coupled ears for directional hearing in the parasitoid fly Ormia ochracea.”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 98(6), pp. 3059-3070.

  • [3] Ibrahim, M. I., and Younis, M. I., 2009. “Enhancing the sensitivity of a resonant accelerometer”. 2008 Proceedings of the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (11), pp. 241-247.

  • [4] Miles, R. N., Cui, W., Su, Q. T., and Homentcovschi, D., 2015. “A MEMS low-noise sound pressure gradient microphone with capacitive sensing”. Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, 24(1), pp. 241-248.

  • [5] Ramini, A., Younis, M., and Su, Q., 2013. “A low-g electrostatically actuated resonant switch”. Smart Mate rials and Structures, 22(2), p. 025006 (13 pp.).

  • [6] Ouakad, H. M., and Younis, M. I., 2013. “Modeling the structural-thermal-electrical coupling in an electrostatically actuated mems switch and its impact on the switch stability”. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2013.

  • [7] Jia, Y., Yan, J., Soga, K., and Seshia, A., 2013. “Parametrically excited MEMS vibration energy harvesters with design approaches to overcome the initiation threshold amplitude”. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, 23(11), p. 114007.

  • [8] Jia, Y., and Seshia, A. A., 2014. “An auto-parametrically excited vibration energy harvester”. Sensors & Actuators: A. Physical, 220, pp. 69-75.

  • [9] Park, J. C., Park, J. Y., and Lee, Y. P., 2010. “Modeling and characterization of piezoelectric d33-Mode MEMS energy harvester”. Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, 19(5), pp. 1215-1222.

  • [10] Jamain, U. M., Ibrahim, N. H., and Rahim, R. A., 2014. “Performance analysis of zinc oxide piezoelectric MEMS energy harvester”. IEEE International Conference on Semiconductor Electronics, Proceedings, ICSE(4), pp. 263-266.

  • [11] Saadon, S., and Wahab, Y., 2015. “From Ambient Vibrations To Green Energy Source: MEMS Piezoelectric Energy Harvester for Low Frequency Application”. pp. 59-63.

  • [12] Huang, F., Fouladi, S., and Mansour, R., 2011. “A novel MEMS-based tunable dielectric resonator filter”. IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Symposium Digest, pp. 2-5.

  • [13] Hammad, B. K., Abdel-Rahman, E. M., and Nayfeh, A. H., 2010. “Modeling and analysis of electrostatic MEMS filters”. Nonlinear Dynamics, 60(3), pp. 385-401.

  • [14] Shen, S., and Young, S., 2002. “Design and fabrication of a MEMS filter bank for hearing aids applications”. 2nd Annual International IEEE-EMBS Special Topic Conference on Microtechnologies in Medicine and Biology. Proceedings, pp. 352-355.

  • [15] Ahmadi, M., and Jullien, G. A., 2000. “Programmable mems”. pp. 522-525.

  • [16] Bouchaala, A., Jaber, N., Shekhah, O., Chernikova, V., Eddaoudi, M., and Younis, M., 2016. “A smart microelectromechanical sensor and switch triggered by gas”. Applied Physics Letters, 109(1), p. 013502 (4 pp.).

  • [17] Jaber, N., Ilyas, S., Shekhah, O., Eddaoudi, M., and Younis, M. I., 2018. “Resonant gas sensor and switch operating in air with metal-organic frameworks coating”. Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems.

  • [18] Lee, K. B., and Cho, Y. H., 2001. “Laterally driven electrostatic repulsive-force microactuators using asymmetric field distribution”. Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, 10(1), pp. 128-136.

  • [19] Sugimoto, T., Nonaka, K., and Horenstein, M. N., 2005. “Bidirectional electrostatic actuator operated with charge control”. Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, 14(4), pp. 718-724.

  • [20] Liu, Zengtao, Myongseob Kim, Nick Shen, and Edwin C. Kan. “Novel electrostatic repulsion forces in MEMS applications by nonvolatile charge injection.” In Technical Digest. MEMS 2002 IEEE International Conference. Fifteenth IEEE International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (Cat. No. 02CH37266), pp. 598-601. IEEE, 2002.

  • [21] He, S., and Ben Mrad, R., 2005. “Large-stroke microelectrostatic actuators for vertical translation of micromirrors used in adaptive optics”. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 52(4), pp. 974-983.

  • [22] He, S., and Ben Mrad, R., 2008. “Design, modeling, and demonstration of a MEMS repulsive-force out-of-plane electrostatic micro actuator”. Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, 17(3), pp. 532-547.

  • [23] He, S., and Ben Mrad, R., 2009. “Development of a multilevel repulsive force out-of-plane micro electrostatic actuator”. IECON Proceedings (Industrial Electronics Conference), pp. 4020-4023.

  • [24] Chong, J., He, S., and Ben Mrad, R., 2010. “Control of a surface micromachined repulsive-force driven 2D micromirror”. IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, AIM, pp. 1005-1007.

  • [25] Fan, C., and He, S., 2015. “A Two-Row InterdigitatingFinger Repulsive-Torque Electrostatic Actuator and Its Application to Micromirror Vector Display”. Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, 24(6), pp. 2049-2061.

  • [26] Li, G., Guo, X., Zhao, Q., and Hu, J., 2015. “An Electrostatic Repulsive-Force Based Micro Actuator for Capacitive RF MEMS Switch”. pp. 1095-1098.

  • [27] Qiao, D. Y., Yuan, W. Z., and Li, X. Y., 2006. “Design of an electrostatic repulsive-force based vertical micro actuator”. Proceedings of 1st IEEE International Conference on Nano Micro Engineered and Molecular Systems, 1st IEEE NEMS (90407020), pp. 168-171.

  • [28] Pallay, M., Daeichin, M., and Towfighian, S., 2016. “Dynamic Behavior of an Electrostatic MEMS Resonator with Repulsive Actuation”. Nonlinear Dynamics, 89(2), pp. 1525-1538.

  • [29] Pallay, M., and Towfighian, S., 2017-67381. “Parametric Excitation of a Repulsive Force Actuator”. Proceedings of the ASME 2017 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Aug. 6-9, 2017, Cleveland, OH, USA, DETC2017-67381, 7 pages.

  • [30] Ozdogan, M., Daeichin, M., Ramini, A., and Towfighian, S., 2017. “Parametric Resonance of a Repulsive Force MEMS Electrostatic Mirror”. Sensors and Actuators A Physical (2017) in press.

  • [31] Dhakar, L., Tay, F., and Lee, C., 2015. “Broadband vibration energy harvesting using triboelectric mechanism”. In International Conference on Experimental Mechanics 2014, International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp. 93021H-93021H.

  • [32] Du, W., Han, X., Lin, L., Chen, M., Li, X., Pan, C., and Wang, Z. L., 2014. “A three dimensional multi-layered sliding triboelectric nanogenerator”. Advanced Energy Materials, 4(11).

  • [33] Xie, Y., Wang, S., Niu, S., Lin, L., Jing, Q., Yang, J., Wu, Z., and Wang, Z. L., 2014. “Grating-structured freestanding triboelectric-layer nanogenerator for harvesting mechanical energy at 85% total conversion efficiency”. Advanced Materials, 26(38), pp. 6599-6607.

  • [34] Zhu, G., Pan, C., Guo, W., Chen, C.-Y., Zhou, Y., Yu, R., and Wang, Z. L., 2012. “Triboelectric-generator-driven pulse electrodeposition for micropatterning”. Nano letters, 12(9), pp. 4960-4965.

  • [35] Niu, S., Liu, Y., Wang, S., Lin, L., Zhou, Y. S., Hu, Y., and Wang, Z. L., 2013. “Theory of sliding-mode triboelectric nanogenerators”. Advanced Materials, 25(43), pp. 6184-6193.

  • [36] Zhang, C., Zhou, T., Tang, W., Han, C., Zhang, L., and Wang, Z. L., 2014. “Rotating-disk-based direct-current triboelectric nanogenerator”. Advanced Energy Materials, 4(9).

  • [37] Zhu, G., Chen, J., Zhang, T., Jing, Q., and Wang, Z. L., 2014. “Radial-arrayed rotary electrification for high performance triboelectric generator”. Nature communications, 5.

  • [38] Lin, L., Wang, S., Niu, S., Liu, C., Xie, Y., and Wang, Z. L., 2014. “Noncontact free-rotating disk triboelectric nanogenerator as a sustainable energy harvester and self-powered mechanical sensor”. ACS applied materials & interfaces, 6(4), pp. 3031-3038.

  • [39] Zhang, H., Yang, Y., Zhong, X., Su, Y., Zhou, Y., Hu, C., and Wang, Z. L., 2013. “Single-electrode-based rotating triboelectric nanogenerator for harvesting energy from tires”. Acs Nano, 8(1), pp. 680-689.

  • [40] Ibrahim, A., Ramini, A., and Towfighian, S., 2018. “Experimental and theoretical investigation of an impact vibration harvester with triboelectric transduction”. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 416, pp. 111-124.

  • [41] Rao, S. S., 2010. Mechanical Vibrations, Vol. 67. Pearson Prentice Hall.

  • [42] Williams, J. A., and H. R. Le. “Tribology and MEMS.” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 39, no. 12 (2006): R201.

  • [43] S. Sundaram, M. Tormen, B. Timotijevic, R. Lockhart, T. Overstolz, R. P. Stanley, H. R. Shea, Vibration and shock reliability of MEMS: modeling and experimental validation, J. Micromech. Microeng. 21 (2011) 045022.

  • [44] M. I. Younis, Mems Linear and Nonlinear Statics and Dynamics (Springer, New York, 2011).

  • [45] A. Alneamy, M. Al-Ghamdi, S. Park, M. Khater, E. AbdelRahman, and G. Heppler, Journal of Applied Physics 125, 024305 (2019).

  • [46] M. Al-Ghamdi, M. Khater, and E. Abdel-Rahman, Applied Physics Letters 113, 153501 (2018).

  • [47] M. A. Rosa, M. A. Bruyker, A. R. Volkel, E. Peeters, and J. Dunec, Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 14, 446 (2004).

  • [48] Q. Chen, Y.-C. Lai, J. Chae, and Y. Do, Physical Review B 87, 144304 (2013).

  • [49] Y. Linzon, B. Ilic, S. Lulinsky, and S. Krylov, Journal of Applied Physics 113 (2013), 10.1063/1.4802680. [50] R. N. Miles, IEEE Sensors 18, 5691 (2018).

  • [51] K. B. Lee and Y. H. Cho, Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems 10, 128 (2001).

  • [52] S. He and R. Ben Mrad, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 52, 974 (2005).

  • [53] C. Fan and S. He, Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems 24, 2049 (2015).

  • [54] M. Pallay, M. Daeichin, and S. Towfighian, Nonlinear Dynamics 89, 1525 (2017).

  • [55] M. Pallay and S. Towfighian, Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 277, 134 (2018).

  • [56] M. Ozdogan, M. Daeichin, A. Ramini, and S. Towfighian, Sensors and Actuators A Physical, 265, 20 (2017).

  • [57] M. Pallay and S. Towfighian, Applied Physics Letters 113, 213102 (2018).

  • [58] A. Cowen, B. Hardy, R. Mahadevan, and S. Wilcenski, “PolyMUMPs Design Handbook a MUMPsfi process,” (2011).

  • [59] Park, S.-J. et al. Surface Engineering of Triboelectric Nanogenerator with an Electrodeposited Gold Nanoflower Structure. Sci. Rep. 5, 13866; doi: 10.1038/srep13866 (2015).

  • [60] Meysam Daeichin, Mehmet Ozdogan, Shahrzad Towfighian, Ronald Miles, “Dynamic response of a tunable MEMS accelerometer based on repulsive force”, Sensors and Actuators A 289 (2019) 34-43.

  • [61] D. W. Burns, J. D. Zook, R. D. Horning, W. R. Herb, H. Guckel, Sealed-cavity resonant microbeam pressure sensor, Sens. Actuators A: Phys. 48 (3) (1995) 170-186.

  • [62] O. J. Woodman, An Introduction to Inertial Navigation, University of Cambridge, 2007, pp. 696.

  • [63] W. D. Cowan, M. K. Lee, B. M. Welsh, V. M. Bright, M. C. Roggemann, Surface micromachined segmented mirrors for adaptive optics, IEEE J. Select. Top. Quantum Electron. 5 (1) (1999) 90-101.

  • [64] M. I. Younis, MEMS Linear and Nonlinear Statics and Dynamics, vol. 20, Springer, New York, USA, 2011.

  • [65] G. N. Nielson, G. Barbastathis, Dynamic pull-in of parallel-plate and torsional electrostatic MEMS actuators, J. Microelectromech. Syst. 15 (4) (2006) 811-821.

  • [66] R. N. Miles, W. Cui, Q. T. Su, D. Homentcovschi, A MEMS low-noise sound pressure gradient microphone with capacitive sensing, J. Microelectromech. Syst. 24 (2015) 241-248.

  • [67] S. Towfighian, A. Seleim, E. Abdel-Rahman, G. Heppler, A large-stroke electrostatic micro-actuator, J. Micromech. Microeng. 21 (7) (2011) 075023.

  • [68] S. He, R. Ben Mrad, Large-stroke microelectrostatic actuators for vertical translation of micromirrors used in adaptive optics, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 52 (4) (2005) 974-983.

  • [69] S. He, R. Ben Mrad, Design, modeling, and demonstration of a MEMS repulsive-force out-of-plane electrostatic micro actuator, J. Microelectromech. Syst. 17 (3) (2008) 532-547.

  • [70] J. Zhou, R. N. Miles, S. Towfighian, A novel capacitive sensing principle for microdevices, in: ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2015.

  • [71] S. Sundaram, M. Tormen, B. Timotijevic, R. Lockhart, T. Overstolz, R. P. Stanley, H. R. Shea, Vibration and shock reliability of MEMS: modeling and experimental validation, J. Micromech. Microeng. 21 (2011) 045022.

  • [72] K. B. Lee, Y.-H. Cho, Laterally driven electrostatic repulsive-force microactuators using asymmetric field distribution, J. Microelectromech. Syst. 10 (1) (2001) 128-136.

  • [73] S. He, R. Ben Mrad, Development of a bi-directional micro electrostatic comb actuator for optical MEMS devices, in: Proceedings of the SPIE Opto-Canada Conference, Ottawa, Canada, May 9-10, 2002.

  • [74] S. He, R. Ben Mrad, Development of a novel translation micromirror for adaptive optics, Proceedings of SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering (October 2003).

  • [75] M. Pallay, M. Daeichin, S. Towfighian, Dynamic behavior of an electrostatic MEMS resonator with repulsive actuation, Nonlinear Dyn. 89 (2) (2017) 1525-1538.

  • [76] M. Ozdogan, M. Daeichin, A. Ramini, S. Towfighian, Parametric resonance of a repulsive force MEMS electrostatic mirror, Sens. Actuators A: Phys. 265 (2017) 20-31.

  • [77] M. Pallay, S. Towfighian, A parametric electrostatic resonator using repulsive force, Sens. Actuators A: Phys. 277 (2018) 134-141.

  • [78] D. S. Eddy, R. dougLas, Sparks, Application of MEMS technology in automotive sensors and actuators, Proc. IEEE 86 (8) (1998) 1747-1755.

  • [79] A. Ibrahim, M. I. Younis, Simple fall criteria for MEMS sensors: data analysis and sensor concept, Sensors (2014) 12149-12173.

  • [80] M. I. Younis, F. M. Alsaleem, R. Miles, Q. Su, Characterization for the performance of capacitive switches activated by mechanical shock, J. Micromech. Microeng. (2011) 1360-1370.

  • [81] J. B. Starr, Squeeze-film damping in solid-state accelerometers, Proceeding of the IEEE Solid-State Sensor and Actuator Workshop (1990).

  • [82] J. J. Blech, On isothermal squeeze films, J. Lubric. Technol. (1983) 615-620.

  • [83] W. S. Griffin, H. H. Richardson, S. Yamanami, A study of fluid squeeze-film damping, J. Basic Eng. (1966) 451-456.

  • [84] P. French, Polysilicon: a versatile material for microsystems, Sens. Actuators A: Phys. 99 (1) (2002) 3-12.

  • [85] W. Cui, Analysis, Design and Fabrication of a Novel Silicon Microphone, Ph.D. Dissertation, SUNY Binghamton, 2004.

  • [86] A. H. Nayfeh, B. Balachandran, Applied Nonlinear Dynamics, Wiley, Virginia, USA, 2007.

  • [87] R. H. Olsson, K. E. Wojciechowski, M. S. Baker, M. R. Tuck, J. G. Fleming, Post-CMOS-compatible aluminum nitride resonant MEMS accelerometers, J. Microelectromech. Syst. 18 (3) (2009).

  • [88] H. Luo, G. Zhang, L. R. Carley, G. K. Fedder, A post-CMOS micromachined lateral accelerometer, J. Microelectromech. Syst. 11 (3) (2002) 188-195.

  • [89] Aksyuk, V. A., F. Pardo, D. Carr, D. Greywall, H. B. Chan, M. E. Simon, A. Gasparyan et al. “Beam-steering micromirrors for large optical cross-connects.” Journal of lightwave technology 21, no. 3 (2003): 634.

  • [90] Chao, Fan, Siyuan He, James Chong, Ridha Ben Mrad, and Lei Feng. “Development of a micromirror based laser vector scanning automotive HUD.” In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, pp. 75-79. IEEE, 2011.

  • [91] Chiou, Jin-Chem, Chin-Fu Kou, and Yung-Jiun Lin. “A micromirror with large static rotation and vertical actuation.” IEEE Journal of selected topics in Quantum Electronics 13, no. 2 (2007): 297-303.

  • [92] Cho, Il-Joo, and Euisik Yoon. “A low-voltage three-axis electromagnetically actuated micromirror for fine alignment among optical devices.” Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 19, no. 8 (2009): 085007.

  • [93] Chong, James, Siyuan He, and Ridha Ben Mrad. “Control of a surface micromachined repulsive-force driven 2D micromirror.” In 2010 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, pp. 1005-1007. IEEE, 2010.

  • [94] Chong, James, Siyuan He, and Ridha Ben Mrad. “Development of a vector display system based on a surface-micromachined micromirror.” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 59, no. 12 (2011): 4863-4870.

  • [95] Cowen, Allen, Busbee Hardy, Ramaswamy Mahadevan, and Steve Wilcenski. “PolyMUMPs design handbook.” MEMSCAP Inc.: Durham, NC, USA (2011).

  • [96] Fan, Chao, and Siyuan He. “A microelectrostatic repulsive-torque rotation actuator with two-width fingers.” Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 25, no. 9 (2015): 095006.

  • [97] Fan, Chao, and Siyuan He. “A two-row interdigitating-finger repulsive-torque electrostatic actuator and its application to micromirror vector display.” Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems 24, no. 6 (2015): 2049-2061.

  • [98] Fan, Chao, and Siyuan He. “Micromirror based virtual image automotive head-up display.” Microsystem Technologies 23, no. 6 (2017): 1671-1676.

  • [99] He, S., and R. Ben Mrad. “Development of a multi-level repulsive force out-of-plane micro electrostatic actuator.” In 2009 35th Annual Conference of IEEE Industrial Electronics, pp. 4020-4023. IEEE, 2009.

  • [100] He, S., and R. Ben Mrad. “Performance assessment of a multi-level repulsive-force out-of-plane microelectrostatic actuator.” Canadian Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering 31, no. 2 (2006): 71-75.

  • [101] He, S., R. Ben Mrad, and J. Chong. “Repulsive-force out-of-plane large stroke translation micro electrostatic actuator.” Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 21, no. 7 (2011): 075002.

  • [102] He, Siyuan, and John S. Chang. “Experimental verification of an out-of-plane repulsive-force electrostatic actuator using a macroscopic mechanism.” Microsystem Technologies 15, no. 3 (2009): 453-461.

  • [103] He, Siyuan, and R. Ben Mrad. “Large-stroke microelectrostatic actuators for vertical translation of micromirrors used in adaptive optics.” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 52, no. 4 (2005): 974-983.

  • [104] He, Siyuan, and Ridha Ben Mrad. “Bi-directional actuator utilizing both attractive and repulsive electrostatic forces.” U.S. Pat. No. 7,705,514, issued Apr. 27, 2010.

  • [105] He, Siyuan, and Ridha Ben Mrad. “Design, modeling, and demonstration of a MEMS repulsive-force out-of-plane electrostatic micro actuator.” Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems 17, no. 3 (2008): 532-547.

  • [106] He, Siyuan, and Ridha Ben Mrad. “Development of a novel translation micromirror for adaptive optics.” In Optomechatronic Systems IV, vol. 5264, pp. 154-161. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2003.

  • [107] He, Siyuan, and Ridha Ben Mrad. “Repulsive force actuated rotary micromirror.” In Optomechatronic Sensors, Actuators, and Control, vol. 5602, pp. 12-18. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2004.

  • [108] He, Siyuan, R. Ben Mrad, and J. S. Chang. “Development of a high-performance microelectrostatic repulsive-force rotation actuator.” Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems 19, no. 3 (2010): 561-569.

  • [109] Hu, Fangrong, Jun Yao, Chuankai Qiu, and Hao Ren. “A MEMS micromirror driven by electrostatic force.” Journal of Electrostatics 68, no. 3 (2010): 237-242.

  • [110] Hu, Fangrong, Weiming Wang, and Jun Yao. “An electrostatic MEMS spring actuator with large stroke and out-of-plane actuation.” Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 21, no. 11 (2011): 115029.

  • [111] Hu, Fangrong, Yalu Tang, and Yixian Qian. “Design of a MEMS micromirror actuated by electrostatic repulsive force.” Optik-International Journal for Light and Electron Optics 123, no. 5 (2012): 387-390.

  • [112] Ikeda, Koichi. “Electrostatic drive type MEMS device and manufacturing method thereof, optical MEMS device, light modulation device, GLV device, and laser display.” U.S. Pat. No. 7,116,462, issued Oct. 3, 2006.

  • [113] Kim, Yong-Sik, Nicholas G. Dagalakis, and Satyandra K. Gupta. “Creating large out-of-plane displacement electrothermal motion stage by incorporating beams with step features.” Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 23, no. 5 (2013): 055008.

  • [114] Lee, Ki Bang, and Young-Ho Cho. “Laterally driven electrostatic repulsive-force microactuators using asymmetric field distribution.” Journal of microelectromechanical systems 10, no. 1 (2001): 128-136.

  • [115] Li, Gang, Xingjun Guo, Qinghua Zhao, Jie Hu, Pengwei Li, Wendong Zhang, and Chaoqun Cheng. “An electrostatic repulsive-force based micro actuator for capacitive RF MEMS switch.” In 2015 IEEE 15th International Conference on Nanotechnology (IEEE-NANO), pp. 1095-1098. IEEE, 2015.

  • [116] Linzon, Yoav, Bojan Ilic, Stella Lulinsky, and Slava Krylov. “Efficient parametric excitation of silicon-on-insulator microcantilever beams by fringing electrostatic fields.” Journal of Applied Physics 113, no. 16 (2013): 163508.

  • [117] Liu, Zengtao, Myongseob Kim, Nick Yu-Min Shen, and Edwin C. Kan. “Actuation by electrostatic repulsion by nonvolatile charge injection.” Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 119, no. 1 (2005): 236-244.

  • [118] Milanovic, Veljko, Gabriel A. Matus, and Daniel T. McCormick. “Gimbal-less monolithic silicon actuators for tip-tilt-piston micromirror applications.” IEEE journal of selected topics in quantum electronics 10, no. 3 (2004): 462-471.

  • [119] Miles, Ronald N., Weili Cui, Quang T. Su, and Dorel Homentcovschi. “A MEMS low-noise sound pressure gradient microphone with capacitive sensing.” Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems 24, no. 1 (2014): 241-248.

  • [120] Ozdogan, Mehmet, Meysam Daeichin, Abdallah Ramini, and Shahrzad Towfighian. “Parametric resonance of a repulsive force MEMS electrostatic mirror.” Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 265 (2017): 20-31.

  • [121] Pallay, Mark, and Shahrzad Towfighian. “A parametric electrostatic resonator using repulsive force.” Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 277 (2018): 134-141.

  • [122] Pallay, Mark, and Shahrzad Towfighian. “Parametric excitation of a repulsive force actuator.” In ASME 2017 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, pp. V004T09A005-V004T09A005. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2017.

  • [123] Pallay, Mark, Meysam Daeichin, and Shahrzad Towfighian. “Dynamic behavior of an electrostatic MEMS resonator with repulsive actuation.” Nonlinear Dynamics 89, no. 2 (2017): 1525-1538.

  • [124] Qiao, Da Y., Wei Z. Yuan, and Xiao Y. Li. “Design of an electrostatic repulsive-force based vertical micro actuator.” In 2006 1st IEEE International Conference on Nano/Micro Engineered and Molecular Systems, pp. 168-171. IEEE, 2006.

  • [125] Ren, Hao, Fenggang Tao, Weimin Wang, and Jun Yao. “An out-of-plane electrostatic actuator based on the lever principle.” Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 21, no. 4 (2011): 045019.

  • [126] Rezadad, Imen, Javaneh Boroumand, Evan M. Smith, and Robert E. Peale. “Micro electro mechanical cantilever with electrostatically controlled tip contact.” Applied Physics Letters 105, no. 3 (2014): 033514.

  • [127] Saadon, Salem, and Yufridin Wahab. “From ambient vibrations to green energy source: MEMS piezoelectric energy harvester for low frequency application.” In 2015 IEEE Student Symposium in Biomedical Engineering & Sciences (ISSBES), pp. 59-63. IEEE, 2015.

  • [128] Schaler, Ethan W., Tarek I. Zohdi, and Ronald S. Fearing. “Thin-film repulsive-force electrostatic actuators.” Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 270 (2018): 252-261.

  • [129] Selbrede, Martin G. “Double-electret mems actuator.” U.S. Pat. No. 7,256,927, issued Aug. 14, 2007.

  • [130] Sugimoto, Toshiyuki, Kenichiro Nonaka, and Mark N. Horenstein. “Bidirectional electrostatic actuator operated with charge control.” Journal of microelectromechanical systems 14, no. 4 (2005): 718-724.

  • [131] Suzuki, Yuji, Daigo Miki, Masato Edamoto, and Makoto Honzumi. “A MEMS electret generator with electrostatic levitation for vibration-driven energy-harvesting applications.” Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 20, no. 10 (2010): 104002.

  • [132] Towfighian, Shahrzad, Abdulrahman Seleim, E. M. Abdel-Rahman, and G. R. Heppler. “A large-stroke electrostatic micro-actuator.” Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 21, no. 7 (2011): 075023.

  • [133] Towfighian, Shahrzad, Siyuan He, and Ridha Ben Mrad. “A low voltage electrostatic micro actuator for large out-of-plane displacement.” In ASME 2014 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, pp. V004T09A015-V004T09A015. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2014.

  • [134] Wang, Weimin, Fenggang Tao, Qiang Wang, Chuankai Qiu, Zexiang Chen, and Jun Yao. “A 19-element segmented MEMS deformable mirror based on electrostatic repulsive-force actuator.” In MEMS Adaptive Optics VII, vol. 8617, p. 861702. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2013.

  • [135] Yao, Jun, Fangrong Hu, Dongmei Cai, and Wenhan Jiang. “Design and analysis of repulsive electrostatic driven MEMS actuators.” In MEMS Adaptive Optics III, vol. 7209, p. 72090K. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2009.

  • [136] Zuo, Hui, and Siyuan He. “FPCB micromirror-based laser projection availability indicator.” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 63, no. 5 (2016): 3009-3018.


Claims
  • 1. A microelectromechanical actuator, comprising: a substrate, having a surface;an electrostatically displaceable conductive element, suspended over the substrate;a center electrode, provided on the substrate under the electrostatically displaceable conductive element; anda peripheral electrode provided on the substrate;wherein:the center electrode is larger than a projection of the electrostatically displaceable conductive element on the substrate, and is configured to shield the electrostatically displaceable conductive element from electrostatic forces induced by the peripheral electrode from beneath the electrostatically displaceable conductive element,the peripheral electrode is configured to exert an electrostatic force normal to the surface of the substrate on the electrostatically displaceable conductive element that repulses the electrostatically displaceable conductive element from the substrate, andthe center electrode is configured to have a voltage different from a voltage on the electrostatically displaceable conductive element, to thereby induce an attractive electrostatic force on the beam.
  • 2. The microelectromechanical actuator according to claim 1, wherein: the electrostatically displaceable conductive element comprises a beam having a conductive portion, freely suspended over the substrate, and having a long axis parallel to the surface of the substrate, and being displaceable along an axis normal to the surface of the substrate;the peripheral electrode comprises a pair of side electrodes, axisymmetric with respect to the beam, provided on the substrate, configured to exert an electrostatic force normal to the surface of the substrate on the beam, that repulses the beam from the substrate, and to exert a balanced electrostatic force on the beam in a plane of the surface of the substrate; andthe center electrode is provided on the substrate under the beam, and is configured to shield the beam from electrostatic forces induced by the side electrodes from beneath the beam,and to have a voltage different from a voltage on the beam, to thereby induce an attractive electrostatic force on the beam.
  • 3. The microelectromechanical actuator according to claim 2, wherein the beam has a first state in which the beam is pulled in to the center electrode by the attractive electrostatic force on the beam, and a second state in which the attractive electrostatic force on the beam by the center electrode sufficient to pull in the beam is overcome by the repulsive electrostatic force exerted by the side electrodes.
  • 4. The microelectromechanical actuator according to claim 1, further comprising a triboelectric generator, configured to induce an electrostatic voltage on the peripheral electrode with respect to the center electrode, to thereby selectively overcome the attractive electrostatic force on the electrostatically displaceable conductive element induced by the center electrode, wherein the electrostatically displaceable conductive element has a first state in which the electrostatically displaceable conductive element is pulled in to the center electrode by the attractive electrostatic force on the electrostatically displaceable conductive element, and a second state in which the attractive electrostatic force on the electrostatically displaceable conductive element by the center electrode is overcome by the repulsive electrostatic force exerted by the peripheral electrode from activation of the triboelectric generator.
  • 5. The microelectromechanical actuator according to claim 1, wherein the electrostatically displaceable conductive element has an inertial mass, subject to displacement by inertial forces, and wherein a voltage on at least one of the center electrode and the peripheral electrode with respect to the electrostatically displaceable conductive element is adjusted to control an inertial state which triggers pull-in of the electrostatically displaceable conductive element to the center electrode.
  • 6. A method of actuating a microelectromechanical actuator, comprising: providing the microelectromechanical actuator comprising: a substrate having a surface,a conductive element, suspended over the substrate, and being electrostatically displaceable normal to the surface of the substrate,a center electrode, larger than a projection of the conductive element on the substrate, and is provided on the substrate under the conductive element, anda peripheral electrode, provided on the substrate outside the center electrode, wherein the center electrode is configured to selectively shield the conductive element from electrostatic forces induced by the peripheral electrode from beneath the conductive element, and to permit electrostatic forces induced by the peripheral electrode to interact with the conductive element from above the conductive element;applying an electric potential between the conductive element and the center electrode; andrepulsing the conductive element from the substrate by applying an electric potential between the conductive element and the peripheral electrode.
  • 7. The method according to claim 6, wherein: the conductive beam comprises a beam having a conductive portion, freely suspended over the substrate, and having a long axis parallel to the surface of the substrate, and being displaceable along an axis normal to the surface of the substrate;the center electrode is provided on the substrate under the beam;the peripheral electrode comprises a pair of side electrodes, disposed on either side of the center electrode, axisymmetric with respect to the beam and configured to produce an axisymmetric electrostatic force on beam; the center conductive electrode is configured to selectively shield the beam from electrostatic forces induced by the side electrodes from beneath the beam, and not to shield the beam from electrostatic forces induced by the side electrodes from above the beam;the electric potential between the beam and the center electrode is sufficient to cause pullin; andthe electrostatic force on the beam induced by the pair of side electrodes repulses the beam from the substrate.
  • 8. The method according to claim 7, wherein the beam is pulled-in to the center electrode by the center electrode by the electric potential between the beam and the center electrode, and the electrostatic force induced on the beam by the pair of side electrodes releases the beam from pull-in.
  • 9. A method, comprising: providing: a substrate, having a surface;an electrostatically displaceable conductive element an electrostatically-repositionable tip suspended over the substrate;a center electrode, provided on the substrate under the electrostatically displaceable conductive element, and being larger than a projection of the electrostatically displaceable conductive element on the substrate; anda peripheral electrode provided on the substrate;displacing the electrostatically-repositionable tip away from the substrate, by applying a non-zero bias voltage potential comprising a electrostatically displaceable conductive element potential between the center electrode and the electrostatically displaceable conductive element, and a peripheral electrode potential which produces a repulsive force normal to the surface of the substrate to levitate the electrostatically displaceable conductive element away from the substrate; anddetecting a displacement of the electrostatically displaceable conductive element.
  • 10. The method according to claim 9, wherein the peripheral electrode comprises a pair of laterally located electrodes on the substrate that together exert a laterally balanced force on the electrostatically displaceable conductive element in response to the electrostatically displaceable conductive element potential.
  • 11. The method according to claim 9, wherein the electrostatically displaceable conductive element is displaced to contact a second surface.
  • 12. The method according to claim 11, wherein the second surface contact is detected by electrical conduction between the electrostatically displaceable conductive element and the second surface.
  • 13. The method according to claim 11, where the repositionable tip is displaced to contact the second surface a plurality of times at a plurality of relative positions, further comprising determining a surface profile of the second surface.
  • 14. The method according to claim 11, wherein the repositionable tip is scanned over a portion of the second surface, and the detected displacement of the electrostatically displaceable conductive element is determined for a plurality of scan positions, to map a surface profile of the second surface.
  • 15. The method according to claim 11, wherein contact of the repositionable tip with the second surface is determined by a piezoelectric transducer.
  • 16. The method according to claim 11, further comprising increasing wherein the peripheral electrode potential, to thereby increase an actuator beam deflection, until the repositionable tip contacts the second surface, and determining the deflection based on the voltage potential at a time of repositionable tip contact with the second surface.
  • 17. The method according to claim 9, wherein the peripheral electrode potential is oscillatory, and temporal characteristics of the electrostatically displaceable conductive element are determined.
  • 18. The method according to claim 9, further comprising tuning the non-zero bias voltage to control a response of the electrostatically displaceable conductive element to the peripheral electrode potential.
  • 19. The method according to claim 9, wherein the peripheral electrode potential is generated by a triboelectric generator.
  • 20. The method according to claim 9, wherein the displacement of the electrostatically displaceable conductive element is oscillatory, further comprising detecting the displacement as a dynamic displacement of the electrostatically displaceable conductive element.
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is a Non-provisional of, and claims benefit of priority from, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/891,915, filed Aug. 26, 2019, the entirety of which is expressly incorporated herein by reference.

STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT INTEREST

This invention was made with government support under ECCS 16086921IP and CMMI 1919608 awarded by the National Science Foundation. The government has certain rights in the invention.

US Referenced Citations (1566)
Number Name Date Kind
3937917 Consoli Feb 1976 A
3955426 Klinchuch May 1976 A
4074580 Boltinghouse et al. Feb 1978 A
4521854 Rhim et al. Jun 1985 A
4553917 Lee Nov 1985 A
4802680 Fuchs Feb 1989 A
4929400 Rembaum et al. May 1990 A
4981625 Rhim et al. Jan 1991 A
4990813 Paramo Feb 1991 A
5015528 Pinneo May 1991 A
5015906 Cho et al. May 1991 A
5136162 Miyamoto et al. Aug 1992 A
5150392 Hohn et al. Sep 1992 A
5162969 Leung Nov 1992 A
5166516 Kajimura Nov 1992 A
5168159 Yagi Dec 1992 A
5196999 Abe Mar 1993 A
5206504 Sridharan Apr 1993 A
5215688 Williamson et al. Jun 1993 A
5216631 Sliwa, Jr. Jun 1993 A
5231286 Kajimura et al. Jul 1993 A
5245863 Kajimura et al. Sep 1993 A
5247144 Abe Sep 1993 A
5274230 Kajimura et al. Dec 1993 A
5289004 Okada et al. Feb 1994 A
5298975 Khoury et al. Mar 1994 A
5307311 Sliwa, Jr. Apr 1994 A
5331275 Ozaki et al. Jul 1994 A
5336887 Yagi et al. Aug 1994 A
5338932 Theodore et al. Aug 1994 A
5374801 Leung et al. Dec 1994 A
5394741 Kajimura et al. Mar 1995 A
5436448 Hosaka et al. Jul 1995 A
5461605 Takimoto et al. Oct 1995 A
5464977 Nakagiri et al. Nov 1995 A
5467642 Hosaka et al. Nov 1995 A
5481528 Eguchi et al. Jan 1996 A
5515719 Lindsay May 1996 A
5517027 Nakagawa et al. May 1996 A
5565987 Jain et al. Oct 1996 A
5583446 Takeuchi et al. Dec 1996 A
5585722 Hosoki et al. Dec 1996 A
5610898 Takimoto et al. Mar 1997 A
5633455 Quate May 1997 A
5653175 Milligan Aug 1997 A
5675154 Lindsay et al. Oct 1997 A
5729026 Mamin et al. Mar 1998 A
5744704 Hu et al. Apr 1998 A
5783335 Laia, Jr. et al. Jul 1998 A
5789843 Higuchi et al. Aug 1998 A
5804709 Bourgoin et al. Sep 1998 A
5804710 Mamin et al. Sep 1998 A
5822285 Rugar et al. Oct 1998 A
5854487 Braunstein et al. Dec 1998 A
5856617 Gurney et al. Jan 1999 A
5856672 Ried Jan 1999 A
5866021 Yagi et al. Feb 1999 A
5866807 Elings et al. Feb 1999 A
5880360 Hu et al. Mar 1999 A
5923637 Shimada et al. Jul 1999 A
5969848 Lee et al. Oct 1999 A
5992233 Clark Nov 1999 A
6004444 Aksay et al. Dec 1999 A
6057546 Braunstein et al. May 2000 A
6066265 Galvin et al. May 2000 A
6067858 Clark et al. May 2000 A
6076397 Binnig et al. Jun 2000 A
6100524 Yagi et al. Aug 2000 A
6101164 Kado et al. Aug 2000 A
6172506 Adderton et al. Jan 2001 B1
6189374 Adderton et al. Feb 2001 B1
6228248 Aksay et al. May 2001 B1
6242736 Honma et al. Jun 2001 B1
6250156 Seshia et al. Jun 2001 B1
6276147 Sgarbi et al. Aug 2001 B1
6286323 Sgarbi et al. Sep 2001 B1
6287765 Cubicciotti Sep 2001 B1
6291822 Umemoto et al. Sep 2001 B1
6296779 Clark et al. Oct 2001 B1
6310342 Braunstein et al. Oct 2001 B1
6369006 Sgarbi et al. Apr 2002 B1
6383823 Takahashi et al. May 2002 B1
6452170 Zypman et al. Sep 2002 B1
6469825 Digonnet et al. Oct 2002 B1
6470738 Narita et al. Oct 2002 B2
6484539 Nordine et al. Nov 2002 B1
6489611 Aumond et al. Dec 2002 B1
6490081 Feillens et al. Dec 2002 B1
6530266 Adderton et al. Mar 2003 B1
6541892 Hoen Apr 2003 B2
6547940 Aksay et al. Apr 2003 B2
6549703 Tanielian et al. Apr 2003 B1
6592689 Hays Jul 2003 B2
6601888 McIlwraith et al. Aug 2003 B2
6626039 Adams et al. Sep 2003 B1
6642517 Ghislain et al. Nov 2003 B1
6672144 Adderton et al. Jan 2004 B2
6677697 Struckmeier et al. Jan 2004 B2
6679118 Esashi et al. Jan 2004 B1
6681094 Horrall et al. Jan 2004 B2
6684676 Oumi et al. Feb 2004 B2
6686299 Montemagno et al. Feb 2004 B2
6721093 Feillens et al. Apr 2004 B2
6762025 Cubicciotti Jul 2004 B2
6781750 Feillens et al. Aug 2004 B2
6788796 Miles et al. Sep 2004 B1
6810720 Adderton et al. Nov 2004 B2
6827979 Mirkin et al. Dec 2004 B2
6828786 Scherer et al. Dec 2004 B2
6841917 Potter Jan 2005 B2
6851301 Kim et al. Feb 2005 B2
6856067 Frey et al. Feb 2005 B2
6856145 Pelz et al. Feb 2005 B2
6858184 Pelrine et al. Feb 2005 B2
6859542 Johannsen et al. Feb 2005 B2
6862924 Xi et al. Mar 2005 B2
6880388 Kley Apr 2005 B1
6900440 Reed et al. May 2005 B2
6904791 Honma Jun 2005 B2
6906789 Carter et al. Jun 2005 B2
6906855 Feillens et al. Jun 2005 B2
6923044 Kley Aug 2005 B1
6935167 Sahin et al. Aug 2005 B1
6950175 Galburt et al. Sep 2005 B2
6955078 Mancevski et al. Oct 2005 B2
6963653 Miles Nov 2005 B1
6972896 Feillens et al. Dec 2005 B2
6986280 Muckenhirm Jan 2006 B2
7010949 Oumi et al. Mar 2006 B2
7013717 Struckmeier et al. Mar 2006 B1
7017398 Adderton et al. Mar 2006 B2
7019955 Loeb et al. Mar 2006 B2
7023220 Pelz et al. Apr 2006 B2
7036357 Adderton et al. May 2006 B2
7044007 Struckmeier et al. May 2006 B2
7053520 Zetti et al. May 2006 B2
7061964 Kawasaki et al. Jun 2006 B2
7066015 Honma Jun 2006 B2
7070665 Hays Jul 2006 B2
7076996 Markakis et al. Jul 2006 B2
7081624 Liu et al. Jul 2006 B2
7116462 Ikeda Oct 2006 B2
7137292 Kley Nov 2006 B1
7155964 Huang et al. Jan 2007 B2
7163658 Bension Jan 2007 B2
7179356 Aksay et al. Feb 2007 B2
7200493 Nilsson et al. Apr 2007 B2
7204131 Adderton et al. Apr 2007 B2
7225674 Clark Jun 2007 B2
7242129 Kim et al. Jul 2007 B2
7252001 Boletis et al. Aug 2007 B2
7253407 Kley Aug 2007 B1
7253488 Zhan et al. Aug 2007 B2
7256927 Selbrede Aug 2007 B2
7260959 Chang et al. Aug 2007 B2
7262984 Schindler et al. Aug 2007 B2
7279686 Schneiker Oct 2007 B2
7280290 Araki et al. Oct 2007 B2
7281419 Wang et al. Oct 2007 B2
7297946 Xi et al. Nov 2007 B2
7328446 Binnig et al. Feb 2008 B2
7344756 Mirkin et al. Mar 2008 B2
7359037 Carter et al. Apr 2008 B2
7372548 Carter et al. May 2008 B2
7373806 Kitajima et al. May 2008 B2
7387035 Struckmeier et al. Jun 2008 B2
7393699 Tran Jul 2008 B2
7395698 Degertekin Jul 2008 B2
7420106 Williams et al. Sep 2008 B2
7425749 Hartzell et al. Sep 2008 B2
7441447 Degertekin et al. Oct 2008 B2
7446324 Mirkin et al. Nov 2008 B2
7447250 Kawasaki et al. Nov 2008 B2
7449356 Weigold Nov 2008 B2
7451638 Sahin et al. Nov 2008 B1
7453183 Zettl et al. Nov 2008 B2
7456043 Lin et al. Nov 2008 B2
7456400 Shigeno et al. Nov 2008 B2
7456859 Asahi et al. Nov 2008 B2
7461543 Degertekin Dec 2008 B2
7489211 Naito et al. Feb 2009 B2
7493794 Mancevski et al. Feb 2009 B2
7513142 Rice et al. Apr 2009 B2
7520173 Lee et al. Apr 2009 B2
7523650 Wang et al. Apr 2009 B2
7524534 Mirkin et al. Apr 2009 B2
7538401 Eriksen et al. May 2009 B2
7538477 Fazzio et al. May 2009 B2
RE40781 Johannsen et al. Jun 2009 E
7544245 Yono et al. Jun 2009 B2
7545592 Lee Jun 2009 B2
7545945 Miles Jun 2009 B2
7551265 Phillips Jun 2009 B2
7552625 Degertekin Jun 2009 B2
7555940 Su et al. Jul 2009 B2
7564559 Choo et al. Jul 2009 B2
7579753 Fazzio et al. Aug 2009 B2
7586659 Turner et al. Sep 2009 B2
7596989 Humphris et al. Oct 2009 B2
7599143 Iida Oct 2009 B2
7600533 Tai et al. Oct 2009 B2
7603891 Proksch Oct 2009 B2
7621471 Howe Nov 2009 B2
7637149 Degertekin et al. Dec 2009 B2
7642115 Eriksen et al. Jan 2010 B2
7658097 Su et al. Feb 2010 B2
7665350 Giessibl Feb 2010 B2
7696653 Tanaka Apr 2010 B2
7701834 Rinerson et al. Apr 2010 B2
7705514 He et al. Apr 2010 B2
7707873 Degertekin May 2010 B2
7710766 Mullner et al. May 2010 B2
7726035 Chang et al. Jun 2010 B2
7757544 Huang et al. Jul 2010 B2
7765607 Faris Jul 2010 B2
7781249 Laming et al. Aug 2010 B2
7785912 Zhan et al. Aug 2010 B2
7794553 Duan et al. Sep 2010 B2
7794657 Stewart Sep 2010 B2
7795063 Hsieh et al. Sep 2010 B2
7795695 Weigold et al. Sep 2010 B2
7798011 Warren et al. Sep 2010 B2
7815484 Kriman et al. Oct 2010 B2
7826629 Miles et al. Nov 2010 B2
7852739 Koga et al. Dec 2010 B2
7855095 Miyashita et al. Dec 2010 B2
7856804 Laming et al. Dec 2010 B2
7864829 Asahi et al. Jan 2011 B2
7876924 Miles et al. Jan 2011 B1
7885423 Weigold Feb 2011 B2
7895885 Sretavan et al. Mar 2011 B2
7903835 Miles Mar 2011 B2
7908908 Brown et al. Mar 2011 B2
7928343 King et al. Apr 2011 B2
7931784 Medoff Apr 2011 B2
7940150 Fu et al. May 2011 B2
7941909 Miyashita et al. May 2011 B2
7951636 Lee et al. May 2011 B2
7952154 Guo et al. May 2011 B2
7958776 Wang Jun 2011 B2
7961897 Weigold Jun 2011 B2
7979916 Pittenger et al. Jul 2011 B2
7989164 Sahin et al. Aug 2011 B2
7992283 Miles Aug 2011 B2
7996860 Binnig et al. Aug 2011 B2
8013405 Eriksen et al. Sep 2011 B2
8019640 Barel et al. Sep 2011 B2
8020216 Jin Sep 2011 B2
8023393 Duerig et al. Sep 2011 B2
8024963 Proksch et al. Sep 2011 B2
8028541 Yono et al. Oct 2011 B2
8029503 Sretavan Oct 2011 B2
8030112 Hsieh et al. Oct 2011 B2
8030823 Sinha et al. Oct 2011 B2
8036401 Poulsen et al. Oct 2011 B2
8041064 Kimura Oct 2011 B2
8065919 Takeuchi Nov 2011 B2
8067169 Sahin et al. Nov 2011 B2
8073167 Miles Dec 2011 B2
8081782 Klinghult Dec 2011 B2
8091143 Faucher et al. Jan 2012 B2
8093087 Hsieh et al. Jan 2012 B2
8094839 Lee et al. Jan 2012 B2
8094846 Hovesten et al. Jan 2012 B2
8103027 Zhang et al. Jan 2012 B2
8114700 Miyashita et al. Feb 2012 B2
8130979 Harney et al. Mar 2012 B2
8141573 Tai et al. Mar 2012 B2
8146425 Zhang et al. Apr 2012 B2
8151368 Kawakatsu et al. Apr 2012 B2
8158492 Liu et al. Apr 2012 B2
8169042 Weigold et al. May 2012 B2
8179278 Shakra et al. May 2012 B2
8187673 Mirkin et al. May 2012 B2
8188557 Rombach et al. May 2012 B2
8205487 Rice et al. Jun 2012 B2
8208671 Chen et al. Jun 2012 B2
8214999 Miles Jul 2012 B2
8220318 Degertekin Jul 2012 B2
8221098 Yang et al. Jul 2012 B2
8222795 Sinha et al. Jul 2012 B2
8228675 Koplow Jul 2012 B2
8233314 Mullner et al. Jul 2012 B2
8243962 Qiao Aug 2012 B2
8258591 Lee et al. Sep 2012 B2
8258678 Buccafusca et al. Sep 2012 B2
8261602 Degertekin Sep 2012 B2
8266718 Lai et al. Sep 2012 B2
8270634 Harney et al. Sep 2012 B2
8276254 Miles Oct 2012 B2
8295528 Rombach et al. Oct 2012 B2
8296856 Humphris et al. Oct 2012 B2
8309386 Weigold Nov 2012 B2
8322220 Prater et al. Dec 2012 B2
8330239 Tang et al. Dec 2012 B2
8336380 Kandori et al. Dec 2012 B2
8338898 Schrank et al. Dec 2012 B2
8341760 Fukuma et al. Dec 2012 B2
8345895 Chen Jan 2013 B2
8345910 Chae et al. Jan 2013 B2
8351632 Harney et al. Jan 2013 B2
8356521 Takizawa Jan 2013 B2
8358793 Weigold Jan 2013 B2
8363860 Zhang Jan 2013 B2
8368153 Huang et al. Feb 2013 B2
8370105 Kobayashi et al. Feb 2013 B2
8371182 Israelachvili Feb 2013 B1
8374363 Onishi Feb 2013 B2
8374371 Miles Feb 2013 B2
8384372 Behlow, Jr. et al. Feb 2013 B1
8387443 King et al. Mar 2013 B2
8405138 Dickerson et al. Mar 2013 B2
8416970 Sakurauchi et al. Apr 2013 B2
8422703 Weigold Apr 2013 B2
8428281 Song et al. Apr 2013 B2
8433084 Conti et al. Apr 2013 B2
8443461 Ohnesorge May 2013 B2
8448501 Proksch May 2013 B2
8453498 Warren et al. Jun 2013 B2
8454803 Medoff Jun 2013 B2
8455288 Yang et al. Jun 2013 B2
8460961 Guo et al. Jun 2013 B2
8461657 Tang et al. Jun 2013 B2
8477983 Weigold et al. Jul 2013 B2
8479310 Humphris Jul 2013 B2
8485027 Payton Jul 2013 B2
8487511 Sinha et al. Jul 2013 B2
8488812 David et al. Jul 2013 B2
8490209 Saito Jul 2013 B2
8502329 Hsieh et al. Aug 2013 B2
8503701 Miles et al. Aug 2013 B2
8507306 Chen et al. Aug 2013 B2
8519596 Kim et al. Aug 2013 B1
8524519 Wang et al. Sep 2013 B2
8524613 Dickerson et al. Sep 2013 B1
8525389 Tan et al. Sep 2013 B2
8528110 Humphris Sep 2013 B2
8533861 King et al. Sep 2013 B2
8536760 Kim et al. Sep 2013 B1
8542850 Wang et al. Sep 2013 B2
8545942 Prokofiev et al. Oct 2013 B2
8548178 Miles Oct 2013 B2
8553911 Chen Oct 2013 B2
8555711 Proksch et al. Oct 2013 B2
8565452 Coronato et al. Oct 2013 B2
8582795 Miles et al. Nov 2013 B2
8583403 De Crecy et al. Nov 2013 B2
8587078 Huang et al. Nov 2013 B2
8590136 Yang et al. Nov 2013 B2
8593155 Sparks et al. Nov 2013 B2
8609409 Li et al. Dec 2013 B2
8625809 Josefsson et al. Jan 2014 B2
8637284 Medoff Jan 2014 B2
8641919 Yu et al. Feb 2014 B2
8643129 Laming et al. Feb 2014 B2
8646109 Hu et al. Feb 2014 B2
8646344 Israelachvili Feb 2014 B2
8646345 Israelachvili Feb 2014 B2
8650660 Shi et al. Feb 2014 B2
8664733 Rombach Mar 2014 B2
8673732 Hsieh et al. Mar 2014 B2
8677809 Proksch et al. Mar 2014 B2
8680467 Prater et al. Mar 2014 B2
8710601 Huang et al. Apr 2014 B2
8719960 King May 2014 B2
8726409 Esch et al. May 2014 B2
8728779 Medoff May 2014 B2
8732861 Humphris et al. May 2014 B2
8739309 Hu et al. May 2014 B2
8747624 Medoff Jun 2014 B2
8755541 Liu et al. Jun 2014 B2
8756711 Plodinec et al. Jun 2014 B2
8764948 Medoff Jul 2014 B2
8771480 Medoff Jul 2014 B2
8783113 Robert et al. Jul 2014 B2
8787600 Conti et al. Jul 2014 B2
8793811 Prater et al. Jul 2014 B1
8818007 Robert Aug 2014 B2
8828773 Weigold Sep 2014 B2
8831246 Josefsson Sep 2014 B2
8833171 Besling et al. Sep 2014 B2
8835142 Medoff Sep 2014 B2
8836111 Conti et al. Sep 2014 B2
8837754 Formosa et al. Sep 2014 B2
8841101 Medoff Sep 2014 B2
8841737 Laming et al. Sep 2014 B2
8841738 Harney et al. Sep 2014 B2
8842859 Delaus et al. Sep 2014 B2
8847289 Wang Sep 2014 B2
8852896 Medoff Oct 2014 B2
8860154 Wang Oct 2014 B2
8865500 Huang et al. Oct 2014 B2
8869310 Ruiter et al. Oct 2014 B2
8875311 Hofrichter et al. Oct 2014 B2
8877472 Medoff Nov 2014 B2
8897470 Huang et al. Nov 2014 B2
8901683 Je Dec 2014 B2
8910311 Humphris et al. Dec 2014 B2
8914911 King et al. Dec 2014 B2
8915790 Smoot Dec 2014 B2
8921473 Hyman Dec 2014 B1
8921956 Dehe Dec 2014 B2
8931950 King et al. Jan 2015 B2
8934648 Weigold Jan 2015 B2
8939029 Zhang et al. Jan 2015 B2
8940361 Smith et al. Jan 2015 B2
8940639 Liu et al. Jan 2015 B2
8942394 Conti et al. Jan 2015 B2
8943611 Cannara et al. Jan 2015 B2
8946831 Liu et al. Feb 2015 B2
8948419 Zhang Feb 2015 B2
8950010 Rychen Feb 2015 B2
8952468 Ishimoto et al. Feb 2015 B2
8955161 Andreev Feb 2015 B2
8955212 Mao et al. Feb 2015 B2
8962368 Wang Feb 2015 B2
8963659 Goldsmith et al. Feb 2015 B1
8965027 Bolognia et al. Feb 2015 B2
8973161 Zou et al. Mar 2015 B2
8973446 Fukuzawa et al. Mar 2015 B2
8980602 Medoff Mar 2015 B2
8988881 Koplow Mar 2015 B2
8995693 Harney et al. Mar 2015 B2
8997260 Murdick et al. Mar 2015 B2
8997261 Noel et al. Mar 2015 B2
9002036 Harney et al. Apr 2015 B2
9002039 Zhang Apr 2015 B2
9005281 Christie et al. Apr 2015 B2
9023183 Medoff May 2015 B2
9029179 Liu et al. May 2015 B2
9029963 Sparks et al. May 2015 B2
9039976 Sparks et al. May 2015 B2
9040439 Endo et al. May 2015 B2
9042581 Zoellin et al. May 2015 B2
9052337 Williams et al. Jun 2015 B2
9052339 Williams et al. Jun 2015 B2
9055372 Grosh et al. Jun 2015 B2
9061494 Rogers et al. Jun 2015 B2
9061889 Lander Jun 2015 B2
9069007 Proksch Jun 2015 B2
9078068 Langlois et al. Jul 2015 B2
9078069 Bharatan et al. Jul 2015 B2
9078461 Medoff Jul 2015 B2
9091705 Kim Jul 2015 B2
9096424 Conti et al. Aug 2015 B2
9110092 Magonov et al. Aug 2015 B1
9113249 Miles et al. Aug 2015 B2
9116168 Ruiter et al. Aug 2015 B2
9132420 Nakayama et al. Sep 2015 B2
9133016 Rombach Sep 2015 B2
9134341 Prater et al. Sep 2015 B2
9138715 Medoff Sep 2015 B2
9140720 Kim Sep 2015 B2
9143870 Liu et al. Sep 2015 B2
9150403 Wang et al. Oct 2015 B2
9150407 Tan et al. Oct 2015 B2
9154886 Chen et al. Oct 2015 B2
9157856 Guo et al. Oct 2015 B2
9173024 Bolognia et al. Oct 2015 B2
9178446 Wang et al. Nov 2015 B2
9179221 Barzen et al. Nov 2015 B2
9181080 Dehe et al. Nov 2015 B2
9181086 Miles et al. Nov 2015 B1
9186646 Medoff Nov 2015 B2
9207023 Koplow Dec 2015 B2
9207167 Andreev Dec 2015 B2
9212052 Bolognia Dec 2015 B2
9213047 Li et al. Dec 2015 B2
9219963 Yang et al. Dec 2015 B2
9226052 Khenkin et al. Dec 2015 B2
9227843 Dehe Jan 2016 B2
9237402 Loeppert Jan 2016 B2
9244095 Plodinec et al. Jan 2016 B2
9249008 Hsu et al. Feb 2016 B2
9254496 Dhiman et al. Feb 2016 B2
9259590 Kim et al. Feb 2016 B2
9264814 Je et al. Feb 2016 B2
9266716 Feyh et al. Feb 2016 B2
9267962 Sarkar et al. Feb 2016 B2
9267963 Gellineau et al. Feb 2016 B2
9274139 Shi et al. Mar 2016 B2
9281206 Jin et al. Mar 2016 B2
9287487 Bae et al. Mar 2016 B2
9291640 Su et al. Mar 2016 B2
9297827 Proksch et al. Mar 2016 B2
9302904 Huang et al. Apr 2016 B2
9309105 Dehe et al. Apr 2016 B2
9309109 Chu et al. Apr 2016 B2
9309162 Azimi et al. Apr 2016 B2
9309545 Medoff Apr 2016 B2
9316665 Geisberger et al. Apr 2016 B2
9318031 Boyd Apr 2016 B2
9321635 Hsieh et al. Apr 2016 B2
9322842 Hu et al. Apr 2016 B2
9329610 David et al. May 2016 B2
9332332 Bolognia et al. May 2016 B2
9332345 Melanson et al. May 2016 B1
9338538 Weigold et al. May 2016 B2
9340413 Merassi et al. May 2016 B2
9343455 Gueorguiev et al. May 2016 B2
9344809 Muza et al. May 2016 B2
9346667 Ghahremani et al. May 2016 B2
9351690 Nachaliel May 2016 B2
9352294 Medoff May 2016 B1
9354249 Novak et al. May 2016 B2
9357296 Josefsson et al. May 2016 B2
9359188 Bharatan Jun 2016 B1
9371173 Smith et al. Jun 2016 B2
9372111 Hall et al. Jun 2016 B2
9372154 Prater Jun 2016 B2
9381528 Dhiman et al. Jul 2016 B2
9383388 Proksch et al. Jul 2016 B2
9386379 Sparks et al. Jul 2016 B2
9394875 Wang et al. Jul 2016 B2
9407997 Delaus et al. Aug 2016 B2
9409140 Medoff Aug 2016 B2
9409763 Dehe et al. Aug 2016 B2
9419562 Melanson et al. Aug 2016 B1
9427679 Mahmoudi et al. Aug 2016 B2
9438979 Dehe Sep 2016 B2
9444031 Park et al. Sep 2016 B2
9448126 Dehe et al. Sep 2016 B2
9451359 Mucha et al. Sep 2016 B2
9453774 Bao et al. Sep 2016 B2
9453857 Proksch et al. Sep 2016 B2
9462395 Nicollini et al. Oct 2016 B2
9462402 Cho et al. Oct 2016 B2
9484524 Yu et al. Nov 2016 B2
9484842 Wang et al. Nov 2016 B2
9487002 Rogers et al. Nov 2016 B2
9488541 Fukuzawa et al. Nov 2016 B2
9490306 Kim et al. Nov 2016 B2
9491271 Olah et al. Nov 2016 B2
9492272 Christie et al. Nov 2016 B2
9494477 Wiesbauer et al. Nov 2016 B2
9498312 Dykes et al. Nov 2016 B2
9498934 Paxson et al. Nov 2016 B2
9500670 Lim et al. Nov 2016 B2
9505614 Liu et al. Nov 2016 B2
9510107 Dehe et al. Nov 2016 B2
9510121 Xu et al. Nov 2016 B2
9517444 Medoff Dec 2016 B2
9518956 Chung et al. Dec 2016 B2
9535085 Stan et al. Jan 2017 B2
9543860 Wang et al. Jan 2017 B2
9544678 Lorenz et al. Jan 2017 B2
9554213 Miles et al. Jan 2017 B2
9557347 Humphris Jan 2017 B2
9562897 Samuels et al. Feb 2017 B2
9569055 Post et al. Feb 2017 B2
9571009 Wang et al. Feb 2017 B2
9571931 Melanson et al. Feb 2017 B1
9575090 Liu et al. Feb 2017 B2
9580299 Dehe et al. Feb 2017 B2
9584889 Escher-Poeppel et al. Feb 2017 B2
9587258 Medoff Mar 2017 B2
9588136 Hu et al. Mar 2017 B2
9595894 Wang et al. Mar 2017 B2
9596547 Zhang Mar 2017 B2
9599636 Humphris Mar 2017 B2
9604846 Proksch et al. Mar 2017 B2
9605287 Medoff Mar 2017 B2
9605288 Medoff Mar 2017 B2
9611135 Klein Apr 2017 B1
9621975 Liu et al. Apr 2017 B2
9625075 Smith et al. Apr 2017 B2
9625330 Park et al. Apr 2017 B2
9626981 Chesney Apr 2017 B2
9628101 Onishi Apr 2017 B1
9628920 Bach et al. Apr 2017 B2
9631996 Wiesbauer et al. Apr 2017 B2
9641950 Loeppert et al. May 2017 B2
9656854 Hur et al. May 2017 B2
9658247 Yang et al. May 2017 B2
9670059 Dehe et al. Jun 2017 B2
9674618 Uchida et al. Jun 2017 B2
9674619 Liu Jun 2017 B2
9676614 Johari-Galle et al. Jun 2017 B2
9676615 Miao Jun 2017 B2
9681234 Yuan et al. Jun 2017 B2
9681242 Harney et al. Jun 2017 B2
9681243 Guo et al. Jun 2017 B2
9691500 Caldeira et al. Jun 2017 B2
9691873 Rogers et al. Jun 2017 B2
9695038 Cargill et al. Jul 2017 B2
9695040 Bolognia et al. Jul 2017 B2
9696342 Proksch et al. Jul 2017 B2
9700266 Nachaliel Jul 2017 B2
9700868 Medoff Jul 2017 B2
9701534 Lin et al. Jul 2017 B2
9709598 Novak et al. Jul 2017 B2
9719916 Andreev et al. Aug 2017 B2
9724001 Dykes et al. Aug 2017 B2
9725300 Stahl et al. Aug 2017 B2
9735338 Guillou et al. Aug 2017 B2
9745604 Medoff Aug 2017 B2
9745609 Medoff Aug 2017 B2
9748868 Taghavi et al. Aug 2017 B2
9749752 Yoo Aug 2017 B2
9758369 Schoen et al. Sep 2017 B2
9759618 Fukuzawa et al. Sep 2017 B2
9762151 Zhang et al. Sep 2017 B2
9769562 Khenkin et al. Sep 2017 B2
9773141 Kozicki Sep 2017 B2
9778282 Yang et al. Oct 2017 B2
9787320 Onishi Oct 2017 B1
9790928 Wang et al. Oct 2017 B2
9803222 Medoff Oct 2017 B2
9809444 Klein Nov 2017 B2
9809448 Lim et al. Nov 2017 B2
9810713 Shi et al. Nov 2017 B2
9812993 Wang et al. Nov 2017 B2
9816881 Dehe et al. Nov 2017 B2
9825558 Zhang et al. Nov 2017 B2
9828237 Walther et al. Nov 2017 B2
9836633 Kozicki Dec 2017 B2
9837933 Park et al. Dec 2017 B2
9837934 Kim et al. Dec 2017 B2
9841436 Proksch et al. Dec 2017 B2
9843275 Wang et al. Dec 2017 B2
9847659 Olah et al. Dec 2017 B2
9856134 Dehe Jan 2018 B2
9860620 Aurongzeb et al. Jan 2018 B2
9872112 Bolognia et al. Jan 2018 B2
9874679 Tan Jan 2018 B2
9887644 Kim et al. Feb 2018 B2
9891246 Serry Feb 2018 B2
9899939 Karagozler et al. Feb 2018 B2
9900677 Hung et al. Feb 2018 B2
9902818 DeSimone et al. Feb 2018 B2
9906869 Miles et al. Feb 2018 B2
9908288 Harkness et al. Mar 2018 B2
9910064 Liu et al. Mar 2018 B2
9914636 Buck et al. Mar 2018 B2
9919282 Medoff Mar 2018 B2
9919913 Pan et al. Mar 2018 B2
9921242 Proksch et al. Mar 2018 B2
9921678 Wang et al. Mar 2018 B2
9924288 Cagdaser et al. Mar 2018 B2
9930453 Zou et al. Mar 2018 B2
9938133 Kautzsch et al. Apr 2018 B2
9939460 Humphris Apr 2018 B2
9945746 Wiesbauer et al. Apr 2018 B2
9945884 Froemel et al. Apr 2018 B2
9949037 Chau Apr 2018 B2
9961450 Hsu et al. May 2018 B2
9963763 Demetriou et al. May 2018 B2
9969970 Hsiao et al. May 2018 B2
9970039 Medoff May 2018 B2
9972354 Boyd May 2018 B2
9975064 Mahmoudi et al. May 2018 B2
9985554 Wang et al. May 2018 B2
9986344 Dehe et al. May 2018 B2
9994440 Jenkins et al. Jun 2018 B2
9995764 Pieper et al. Jun 2018 B2
9995765 Su et al. Jun 2018 B2
9998828 Scheben Jun 2018 B2
9999770 Walraevens et al. Jun 2018 B2
10000374 Schelling et al. Jun 2018 B2
10000819 Kim et al. Jun 2018 B2
10006824 Tsai et al. Jun 2018 B2
10008867 Olah et al. Jun 2018 B2
10011222 Wu et al. Jul 2018 B1
10011479 Schelling et al. Jul 2018 B2
10014799 Byun et al. Jul 2018 B2
10027187 Matthews Jul 2018 B2
10033307 Lee et al. Jul 2018 B2
10034633 Weinberg et al. Jul 2018 B2
10041970 Zou et al. Aug 2018 B2
10042446 Yoon et al. Aug 2018 B2
10042504 Post et al. Aug 2018 B2
10045121 Harney et al. Aug 2018 B2
10045126 Berger et al. Aug 2018 B2
10047384 Medoff Aug 2018 B2
10048289 Lal et al. Aug 2018 B2
10065851 Bryzek Sep 2018 B2
10065852 Cheng et al. Sep 2018 B2
10068747 Budach et al. Sep 2018 B2
10074000 Kozicki Sep 2018 B2
10075100 Kim et al. Sep 2018 B2
10081537 Sooriakumar et al. Sep 2018 B2
10082430 Fukuzawa et al. Sep 2018 B2
10082523 Yang et al. Sep 2018 B2
10087071 Wu et al. Oct 2018 B2
10092512 Johnston et al. Oct 2018 B2
10092890 Medoff Oct 2018 B2
10103649 Rutgers et al. Oct 2018 B2
10104478 Glacer et al. Oct 2018 B2
10104490 Family et al. Oct 2018 B2
10106401 Rabani Oct 2018 B1
10108305 Post et al. Oct 2018 B2
10111021 Deas et al. Oct 2018 B2
10118817 Cargill et al. Nov 2018 B2
10129651 Zhang et al. Nov 2018 B2
10129676 Walther et al. Nov 2018 B2
10131541 Chu Nov 2018 B2
10138115 Theuss et al. Nov 2018 B2
10155179 Mahmoudi et al. Dec 2018 B2
10155656 Cheng et al. Dec 2018 B2
10158949 Sun et al. Dec 2018 B2
10158952 Sun et al. Dec 2018 B2
10166740 Johnson et al. Jan 2019 B2
10170685 Grosh et al. Jan 2019 B2
10171916 Valli et al. Jan 2019 B2
10177027 Wang Jan 2019 B2
10177690 Boyd Jan 2019 B2
10189699 Walther et al. Jan 2019 B2
10191081 Park et al. Jan 2019 B2
10191082 Kley Jan 2019 B1
10193472 Zhang et al. Jan 2019 B2
10197596 Shi et al. Feb 2019 B2
10199958 Shin et al. Feb 2019 B2
10201795 Burakowska-Meise et al. Feb 2019 B2
10206023 Loeppert Feb 2019 B2
10211758 He et al. Feb 2019 B2
10215773 Proksch et al. Feb 2019 B2
10223567 Kozicki Mar 2019 B2
10228387 Hurst et al. Mar 2019 B2
10228388 Prater et al. Mar 2019 B2
10233561 Lee et al. Mar 2019 B2
10237650 Mucha et al. Mar 2019 B2
10241131 Prater Mar 2019 B2
10244901 Ophardt et al. Apr 2019 B2
10250963 Hung et al. Apr 2019 B2
10250998 Hsieh et al. Apr 2019 B2
10256381 Liu et al. Apr 2019 B2
10257609 Bolognia et al. Apr 2019 B2
10265025 Ashton et al. Apr 2019 B2
10274513 Friedman et al. Apr 2019 B2
10276147 Yoo Apr 2019 B2
10279192 Malchano et al. May 2019 B2
10289799 Bathe et al. May 2019 B2
10293177 Malchano et al. May 2019 B2
10301174 Cargill et al. May 2019 B2
10302673 Walter et al. May 2019 B2
10307611 Malchano et al. Jun 2019 B2
10307723 Burakowska-Meise et al. Jun 2019 B2
10312427 Umeda et al. Jun 2019 B2
10315912 Nawaz et al. Jun 2019 B2
10318090 Post et al. Jun 2019 B2
10322481 Dehe et al. Jun 2019 B2
10330581 Robinson et al. Jun 2019 B2
10330632 Lindsay et al. Jun 2019 B2
10330698 Pinno-Rath et al. Jun 2019 B2
10343893 Sasaki et al. Jul 2019 B2
10343898 Chen et al. Jul 2019 B1
10343901 Cargill et al. Jul 2019 B2
10349170 Harney et al. Jul 2019 B2
10349187 Zhan et al. Jul 2019 B2
10349188 Meisel et al. Jul 2019 B2
10351419 Gao et al. Jul 2019 B2
10351464 Eguchi Jul 2019 B2
10352964 Lee et al. Jul 2019 B2
10362408 Kuntzman et al. Jul 2019 B2
10367431 Wang et al. Jul 2019 B2
10370242 Dehe et al. Aug 2019 B2
10375475 Melanson et al. Aug 2019 B2
10384238 Robinson et al. Aug 2019 B2
20010017054 Narita et al. Aug 2001 A1
20010023024 Aksay et al. Sep 2001 A1
20020027664 Hyers et al. Mar 2002 A1
20020034757 Cubicciotti Mar 2002 A1
20020053375 Hays May 2002 A1
20020062572 Bindell et al. May 2002 A1
20020062684 Adderton et al. May 2002 A1
20020063212 Mirkin et al. May 2002 A1
20020066307 Oumi et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020068304 Urry Jun 2002 A1
20020093251 Hoen Jul 2002 A1
20020104963 Mancevski Aug 2002 A1
20020106314 Pelrine et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020121131 Mancevski et al. Sep 2002 A1
20020130524 McIlwraith et al. Sep 2002 A1
20020140533 Miyazaki et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020173033 Hammerick et al. Nov 2002 A1
20020174715 Kim et al. Nov 2002 A1
20020181725 Johannsen et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020187618 Potter Dec 2002 A1
20020189330 Mancevski et al. Dec 2002 A1
20030015807 Montemagno et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030033863 Ashby et al. Feb 2003 A1
20030049381 Mirkin et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030049642 Nilsson et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030068179 Horrall et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030068446 Mirkin et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030086154 Feillens et al. May 2003 A1
20030094036 Adderton et al. May 2003 A1
20030110844 Struckmeier et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030112499 Feillens et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030141453 Reed et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030150268 Takeda et al. Aug 2003 A1
20030157254 Mirkin et al. Aug 2003 A1
20030158474 Scherer et al. Aug 2003 A1
20030168594 Muckenhirn Sep 2003 A1
20030218132 Honma Nov 2003 A1
20030233870 Mancevski Dec 2003 A1
20040008042 Pelz et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040020774 Aksay et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040037959 Mirkin et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040050458 Hays Mar 2004 A1
20040083799 Markakis et al. May 2004 A1
20040145824 Lee Jul 2004 A1
20040154367 Oumi et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040163471 Frey et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040209376 Natan et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040210289 Wang et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040214177 Bension Oct 2004 A1
20040216517 Xi et al. Nov 2004 A1
20040239283 Galburt et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040239911 Carter et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040245462 Binnig et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040246569 Feillens et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040246570 Feillens et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040254419 Wang et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040255651 Adderton et al. Dec 2004 A1
20050013455 Loeb et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050017598 Zettl et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050024808 Kawasaki et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050025797 Wang et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050032226 Natan Feb 2005 A1
20050034200 Montemagno et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050050947 Kitajima et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050066714 Adderton et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050077915 Pelz et al. Apr 2005 A1
20050079132 Wang et al. Apr 2005 A1
20050081610 Struckmeier et al. Apr 2005 A1
20050089890 Cubicciotti Apr 2005 A1
20050092929 Schneiker May 2005 A1
20050107870 Wang et al. May 2005 A1
20050130360 Zhan et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050164299 Stewart Jul 2005 A1
20050172704 Mirkin et al. Aug 2005 A1
20050181132 Mirkin et al. Aug 2005 A1
20050199180 Yono et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050200830 Carter et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050204817 Boletis et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050212529 Huang et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050217354 Honma Oct 2005 A1
20050236566 Liu Oct 2005 A1
20050241394 Clark Nov 2005 A1
20060023195 Carter et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060026054 Barel et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060027709 Pinto Feb 2006 A1
20060037379 Mancevski et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060042314 Abbott et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060056076 Araki et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060064826 Kimball Mar 2006 A1
20060073395 Phillips Apr 2006 A1
20060098267 Togawa May 2006 A1
20060113472 Shigeno et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060131997 Kim et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060158998 Rinerson et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060177147 Asahi et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060185424 Muckenhirn Aug 2006 A1
20060191329 Adderton et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060203417 Kawasaki et al. Sep 2006 A1
20060205095 Yono et al. Sep 2006 A1
20060225164 Williams et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060260388 Su et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060283240 Struckmeier et al. Dec 2006 A1
20060283338 Degertekin Dec 2006 A1
20070007393 Pinto Jan 2007 A1
20070010702 Wang et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070012093 Kwon et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070012094 Degertekin et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070023851 Hartzell et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070024295 Humphris et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070033682 Sretavan et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070033991 Rice et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070046397 Bajaj et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070047744 Harney et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070047746 Weigold et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070062264 Wang et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070064968 Weigold Mar 2007 A1
20070066027 Lin et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070067883 Sretavan Mar 2007 A1
20070082459 Faris Apr 2007 A1
20070087466 Weigold et al. Apr 2007 A1
20070089496 Degertekin Apr 2007 A1
20070089498 Su et al. Apr 2007 A1
20070092983 Weigold Apr 2007 A1
20070103697 Degertekin May 2007 A1
20070107502 Degertekin May 2007 A1
20070114880 Zettl et al. May 2007 A1
20070121477 Belov et al. May 2007 A1
20070145167 Howe Jun 2007 A1
20070154354 Faris Jul 2007 A1
20070163335 Huang et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070165888 Weigold Jul 2007 A1
20070165896 Miles et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070176100 Xi et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070180924 Warren et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070188268 Naito et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070190680 Fukuda et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070192972 Kimball Aug 2007 A9
20070245815 Proksch Oct 2007 A1
20070247739 Iida Oct 2007 A1
20070249059 Stewart Oct 2007 A1
20070268808 Culver et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070273860 Tanaka Nov 2007 A1
20070274368 Asahi et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070279638 Choo et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070284682 Laming et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070285843 Tran Dec 2007 A1
20070287233 Zhan et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070289369 Wang et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070291623 Belov et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070295064 Degertekin et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070297631 Miles Dec 2007 A1
20080022759 Su et al. Jan 2008 A1
20080049590 Bu et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080049953 Harney et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080062853 Bu et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080075306 Poulsen et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080078229 Mancevski et al. Apr 2008 A1
20080100175 Clark May 2008 A1
20080101641 Miles May 2008 A1
20080130158 Binnig et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080135138 Duan et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080149832 Zorn Jun 2008 A1
20080152171 Hovesten et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080204757 Manning Aug 2008 A1
20080225575 Mullner et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080235079 Barel et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080237754 Solomon Oct 2008 A1
20080242559 Mirkin et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080247572 Langereis et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080253269 Koga et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080276695 Prater et al. Nov 2008 A1
20080295583 Giessibl Dec 2008 A1
20080304681 Langlois et al. Dec 2008 A1
20080307865 Degertekin Dec 2008 A1
20080316904 Duerig et al. Dec 2008 A1
20090000363 Brown et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090001845 Ikehashi Jan 2009 A1
20090013770 Proksch et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090016550 Qiao Jan 2009 A1
20090016557 Miles Jan 2009 A1
20090029501 Weigold Jan 2009 A1
20090041270 Schrank et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090046883 Ronald Feb 2009 A1
20090064772 Wang Mar 2009 A1
20090067659 Wang et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090074966 Henderson et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090076294 Agnes et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090112957 Abramovitch et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090119905 Miyashita et al. May 2009 A1
20090130783 Miyashita et al. May 2009 A1
20090151182 Chang et al. Jun 2009 A1
20090161894 Kimura Jun 2009 A1
20090166772 Hsieh et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090169035 Rombach et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090179233 Lee et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090180647 Chen et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090185250 Turner et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090193893 Kandori et al. Aug 2009 A1
20090199997 Koplow Aug 2009 A1
20090202089 Zhang et al. Aug 2009 A1
20090227040 Sahin et al. Sep 2009 A1
20090241719 Fu et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090243426 Sahin Nomaler et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090253589 Muller et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090260113 Rice et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090262958 Miles Oct 2009 A1
20090278217 Laming et al. Nov 2009 A1
20090285418 Klinghult Nov 2009 A1
20090312980 Kobayashi et al. Dec 2009 A1
20090322260 Lee Dec 2009 A1
20100020991 Chen Jan 2010 A1
20100043107 Proksch Feb 2010 A1
20100054495 Harney et al. Mar 2010 A1
20100058865 Zhang et al. Mar 2010 A1
20100071100 Faris Mar 2010 A1
20100072561 Lee et al. Mar 2010 A1
20100107772 Takizawa May 2010 A1
20100108567 Medoff May 2010 A1
20100120023 Sahin et al. May 2010 A1
20100122385 Hu et al. May 2010 A1
20100124583 Medoff May 2010 A1
20100133006 Shakra et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100142744 Rombach et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100155864 Laming et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100158279 Conti et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100158280 Coronato et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100177480 Koplow Jul 2010 A1
20100180354 Degertekin Jul 2010 A1
20100186132 Humphris et al. Jul 2010 A1
20100187948 Sinha et al. Jul 2010 A1
20100189289 Takeuchi Jul 2010 A1
20100205698 Faucher et al. Aug 2010 A1
20100218286 Lai et al. Aug 2010 A1
20100226765 Yang et al. Sep 2010 A1
20100230629 Yu et al. Sep 2010 A1
20100246859 David et al. Sep 2010 A1
20100254549 Onishi Oct 2010 A1
20100254561 Kimura et al. Oct 2010 A1
20100276766 Tang et al. Nov 2010 A1
20100276767 Liu et al. Nov 2010 A1
20100277229 Lee et al. Nov 2010 A1
20100278372 Zhang Nov 2010 A1
20100283138 Chen et al. Nov 2010 A1
20100284553 Conti et al. Nov 2010 A1
20100289097 Weigold et al. Nov 2010 A1
20100310096 Josefsson et al. Dec 2010 A1
20100320548 Tsau et al. Dec 2010 A1
20100330345 Mirkin et al. Dec 2010 A1
20110005306 Warren et al. Jan 2011 A1
20110026742 Huang et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110030109 Saito Feb 2011 A1
20110038492 Ronald et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110040376 Christie et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110045616 Miyashita et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110055983 Kawakatsu et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110057288 Tan et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110061455 Payton Mar 2011 A1
20110073859 Chen et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110073967 Chen et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110075865 Yang et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110075866 Zhang Mar 2011 A1
20110081335 Medoff Apr 2011 A1
20110081336 Medoff Apr 2011 A1
20110084344 Huang et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110103011 Koplow May 2011 A1
20110103622 Weigold May 2011 A1
20110110139 Mullner et al. May 2011 A1
20110115039 Huang et al. May 2011 A1
20110131690 Novak et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110138506 Humphris Jun 2011 A1
20110138902 White et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110142261 Josefsson Jun 2011 A1
20110150260 Miles Jun 2011 A1
20110154546 Proksch et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110155559 Medoff Jun 2011 A1
20110165720 Weigold Jul 2011 A1
20110167524 Hu et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110167525 Humphris Jul 2011 A1
20110168549 Roustaei et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110170108 Degertekin Jul 2011 A1
20110183456 Hsieh et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110187798 Rogers et al. Aug 2011 A1
20110188687 Song et al. Aug 2011 A1
20110189804 Huang et al. Aug 2011 A1
20110214982 Hagen Sep 2011 A1
20110239336 Ruiter et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110241137 Huang et al. Oct 2011 A1
20110247106 Humphris Oct 2011 A1
20110248364 Huang et al. Oct 2011 A1
20110286610 Ronald Nov 2011 A1
20110296561 Humphris et al. Dec 2011 A1
20110300659 Hsieh et al. Dec 2011 A1
20110307980 Park et al. Dec 2011 A1
20110311081 Kim Dec 2011 A1
20110316100 Kim et al. Dec 2011 A1
20120013224 Sinha et al. Jan 2012 A1
20120030845 Fukuma et al. Feb 2012 A1
20120045078 Lander Feb 2012 A1
20120053580 Sretavan Mar 2012 A1
20120062213 Li et al. Mar 2012 A1
20120066799 Esch et al. Mar 2012 A1
20120076329 Miles Mar 2012 A1
20120077247 Medoff Mar 2012 A1
20120079631 Proksch et al. Mar 2012 A1
20120082325 Sakurauchi et al. Apr 2012 A1
20120087521 Delaus et al. Apr 2012 A1
20120091546 Langereis et al. Apr 2012 A1
20120094355 Medoff Apr 2012 A1
20120094358 Medoff Apr 2012 A1
20120099753 van der Avoort et al. Apr 2012 A1
20120112765 Sparks et al. May 2012 A1
20120131702 Shi et al. May 2012 A1
20120141562 Achneck et al. Jun 2012 A1
20120153771 Formosa et al. Jun 2012 A1
20120177229 Lorenz et al. Jul 2012 A1
20120189144 Delaus et al. Jul 2012 A1
20120189151 Miles et al. Jul 2012 A1
20120195797 Sparks et al. Aug 2012 A1
20120204296 Prater et al. Aug 2012 A1
20120207324 Harney et al. Aug 2012 A1
20120223726 Zhang et al. Sep 2012 A1
20120240679 Netzer et al. Sep 2012 A1
20120261775 Wang et al. Oct 2012 A1
20120274183 Sinha et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120282719 Tang et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120295216 Dykes et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120310338 Christie et al. Dec 2012 A1
20120316376 Medoff Dec 2012 A1
20120319174 Wang Dec 2012 A1
20120331592 Ohnesorge Dec 2012 A1
20130010989 Zoellin et al. Jan 2013 A1
20130026969 Kim et al. Jan 2013 A1
20130036521 Prater et al. Feb 2013 A1
20130042375 Humphris et al. Feb 2013 A1
20130044899 Barber et al. Feb 2013 A1
20130047302 Noel et al. Feb 2013 A1
20130047303 King et al. Feb 2013 A1
20130049531 Wang et al. Feb 2013 A1
20130056297 Chen Mar 2013 A1
20130056841 Hsieh et al. Mar 2013 A1
20130065343 Yang et al. Mar 2013 A1
20130065344 Weigold Mar 2013 A1
20130069179 Ishimoto et al. Mar 2013 A1
20130080295 Dykes et al. Mar 2013 A1
20130091642 Dykes et al. Apr 2013 A1
20130101151 Harney et al. Apr 2013 A1
20130103147 Christie et al. Apr 2013 A1
20130104384 Weigold May 2013 A1
20130108084 Zhang May 2013 A1
20130117895 Proksch et al. May 2013 A1
20130129118 Mao et al. May 2013 A1
20130161702 Chen Jun 2013 A1
20130164818 Medoff Jun 2013 A9
20130174302 Saito et al. Jul 2013 A1
20130177180 Bharatan et al. Jul 2013 A1
20130183735 Medoff Jul 2013 A9
20130208330 Naono Aug 2013 A1
20130216520 Medoff Aug 2013 A9
20130221457 Conti et al. Aug 2013 A1
20130236036 Weigold Sep 2013 A1
20130236037 Weigold et al. Sep 2013 A1
20130255393 Fukuzawa et al. Oct 2013 A1
20130260504 Hsieh et al. Oct 2013 A1
20130261340 Medoff Oct 2013 A1
20130264663 Dehe et al. Oct 2013 A1
20130266556 Medoff Oct 2013 A9
20130273612 Medoff Oct 2013 A1
20130276175 King et al. Oct 2013 A1
20130278937 Degertekin Oct 2013 A1
20130279721 David et al. Oct 2013 A1
20130288307 Medoff Oct 2013 A1
20130288366 Li et al. Oct 2013 A1
20130298294 Kim Nov 2013 A1
20130300259 Sinha et al. Nov 2013 A1
20130302933 Tan et al. Nov 2013 A1
20130312142 Kim Nov 2013 A1
20130312143 Novak et al. Nov 2013 A1
20130313662 Wang et al. Nov 2013 A1
20130327160 Israelachvili Dec 2013 A1
20130327161 Israelachvili Dec 2013 A1
20130333077 Murdick et al. Dec 2013 A1
20130334627 Conti et al. Dec 2013 A1
20130340126 Proksch Dec 2013 A1
20130347147 Zou et al. Dec 2013 A1
20140001577 Liu et al. Jan 2014 A1
20140001581 Liu Jan 2014 A1
20140003633 Liu Jan 2014 A1
20140007309 Plodinec et al. Jan 2014 A1
20140020556 Yang Jan 2014 A1
20140026263 Humphris Jan 2014 A1
20140030763 Medoff Jan 2014 A1
20140030768 Medoff Jan 2014 A1
20140038335 Merassi et al. Feb 2014 A1
20140041084 Proksch et al. Feb 2014 A1
20140045680 Nakayama et al. Feb 2014 A1
20140053651 Besling et al. Feb 2014 A1
20140061825 Lee et al. Mar 2014 A1
20140070082 Guo et al. Mar 2014 A1
20140072150 Liu et al. Mar 2014 A1
20140072152 Yang et al. Mar 2014 A1
20140084394 Je Mar 2014 A1
20140084395 Sparks et al. Mar 2014 A1
20140084748 Wang et al. Mar 2014 A1
20140091406 Harney et al. Apr 2014 A1
20140093102 Josefsson et al. Apr 2014 A1
20140103464 Bolognia et al. Apr 2014 A1
20140117272 Yu et al. May 2014 A1
20140130213 Gellineau et al. May 2014 A1
20140133685 Liu et al. May 2014 A1
20140140533 Malek et al. May 2014 A1
20140154749 Medoff Jun 2014 A1
20140170624 Boyd Jun 2014 A1
20140175572 Hsu et al. Jun 2014 A1
20140177113 Gueorguiev et al. Jun 2014 A1
20140202948 Li Jul 2014 A1
20140205127 Khenkin et al. Jul 2014 A1
20140210020 Dehe Jul 2014 A1
20140211957 Bolognia et al. Jul 2014 A1
20140217521 Johari-Galle et al. Aug 2014 A1
20140220723 Liu et al. Aug 2014 A1
20140223615 Shi et al. Aug 2014 A1
20140225475 Kim et al. Aug 2014 A1
20140226841 Miles et al. Aug 2014 A1
20140230103 Su et al. Aug 2014 A1
20140233782 Bolognia et al. Aug 2014 A1
20140239352 Wang Aug 2014 A1
20140246950 Wang et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140246951 Wang et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140254835 Yakura Sep 2014 A1
20140256078 Jin et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140256531 Endo et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140264650 Liu et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140265720 El-Gamal et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140270273 Muza et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140283229 Hu et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140289912 Andreev Sep 2014 A1
20140292138 Wang et al. Oct 2014 A1
20140299949 Conti et al. Oct 2014 A1
20140300248 Wang et al. Oct 2014 A1
20140311243 Geisberger et al. Oct 2014 A1
20140313141 Park et al. Oct 2014 A1
20140321024 Smoot Oct 2014 A1
20140331368 Cannara et al. Nov 2014 A1
20140333177 Guillou et al. Nov 2014 A1
20140338073 Plodinec et al. Nov 2014 A1
20140338458 Wang et al. Nov 2014 A1
20140339954 Yamakawa et al. Nov 2014 A1
20140345007 Williams et al. Nov 2014 A1
20140348982 Medoff Nov 2014 A1
20140366228 Williams et al. Dec 2014 A1
20140374237 Medoff Dec 2014 A1
20140378805 Ashton et al. Dec 2014 A1
20150001647 Dehe et al. Jan 2015 A1
20150001653 Schelling et al. Jan 2015 A1
20150001993 Park et al. Jan 2015 A1
20150008540 Chu et al. Jan 2015 A1
20150013037 Proksch et al. Jan 2015 A1
20150023529 Barzen et al. Jan 2015 A1
20150024536 Dehe Jan 2015 A1
20150025627 Christie et al. Jan 2015 A1
20150031160 Wang Jan 2015 A1
20150035408 Despesse et al. Feb 2015 A1
20150036797 Nachaliel Feb 2015 A1
20150041929 Bolognia Feb 2015 A1
20150044808 Huang et al. Feb 2015 A1
20150047078 Sarkar et al. Feb 2015 A1
20150047437 Fukuzawa et al. Feb 2015 A1
20150060955 Chen Mar 2015 A1
20150061048 Escher-Poeppel et al. Mar 2015 A1
20150061464 Park et al. Mar 2015 A1
20150074859 Ruiter et al. Mar 2015 A1
20150122784 Lee et al. May 2015 A1
20150125003 Wiesbauer et al. May 2015 A1
20150125007 Bolognia et al. May 2015 A1
20150125984 Liu et al. May 2015 A1
20150126900 Walraevens et al. May 2015 A1
20150129992 Hur et al. May 2015 A1
20150146906 Je et al. May 2015 A1
20150147841 Hsieh et al. May 2015 A1
20150158722 Lim et al. Jun 2015 A1
20150160259 Liu et al. Jun 2015 A1
20150162523 Umeda et al. Jun 2015 A1
20150195658 Zhang Jul 2015 A1
20150215706 Sparks et al. Jul 2015 A1
20150217260 Medoff Aug 2015 A1
20150219622 Hickman Aug 2015 A1
20150237448 Loeppert Aug 2015 A1
20150238110 Weinberg et al. Aug 2015 A1
20150241334 Andreev Aug 2015 A1
20150242057 Galela et al. Aug 2015 A1
20150251285 Dehe et al. Sep 2015 A1
20150251899 Dehe et al. Sep 2015 A1
20150253208 Dehe et al. Sep 2015 A1
20150256913 Dehe Sep 2015 A1
20150256940 Dehe et al. Sep 2015 A1
20150264465 Bharatan et al. Sep 2015 A1
20150271617 Langlois et al. Sep 2015 A1
20150274506 Feyh et al. Oct 2015 A1
20150276529 Wiesbauer et al. Oct 2015 A1
20150290938 Rogers et al. Oct 2015 A1
20150295101 Potter Oct 2015 A1
20150301080 Proksch et al. Oct 2015 A1
20150304777 Xu et al. Oct 2015 A1
20150304787 Harney et al. Oct 2015 A1
20150309071 Proksch et al. Oct 2015 A1
20150316065 Yang Nov 2015 A1
20150318800 Zhang et al. Nov 2015 A1
20150338437 Stan et al. Nov 2015 A1
20150342224 Medoff Dec 2015 A1
20150344294 Ghahremani et al. Dec 2015 A1
20150350790 Miles et al. Dec 2015 A1
20150350792 Grosh et al. Dec 2015 A1
20150353974 Medoff Dec 2015 A1
20150362521 Hurst et al. Dec 2015 A1
20150365747 Aurongzeb et al. Dec 2015 A1
20150369838 Lim et al. Dec 2015 A1
20150372620 Zhang et al. Dec 2015 A1
20160003698 Wiesbauer et al. Jan 2016 A1
20160003868 Prater Jan 2016 A1
20160023438 Johnson et al. Jan 2016 A1
20160028327 Aliane Jan 2016 A1
20160028330 Lee et al. Jan 2016 A1
20160029129 Nicollini et al. Jan 2016 A1
20160031156 Harkness et al. Feb 2016 A1
20160032341 Medoff Feb 2016 A1
20160036351 Kim et al. Feb 2016 A1
20160037265 Khenkin Feb 2016 A1
20160038905 Medoff Feb 2016 A1
20160040648 Wang et al. Feb 2016 A1
20160043664 Theuss et al. Feb 2016 A1
20160050499 Bolognia et al. Feb 2016 A1
20160060101 Loeppert Mar 2016 A1
20160065091 Wang et al. Mar 2016 A1
20160066099 Dehe et al. Mar 2016 A1
20160088389 Khenkin et al. Mar 2016 A1
20160091378 Tsai et al. Mar 2016 A1
20160096031 Weinberg et al. Apr 2016 A1
20160096726 Dehe et al. Apr 2016 A1
20160105538 Olah et al. Apr 2016 A1
20160111954 Bach et al. Apr 2016 A1
20160112803 Scheben Apr 2016 A1
20160112807 Yuan et al. Apr 2016 A1
20160127845 Cagdaser et al. May 2016 A1
20160137486 Bharatan May 2016 A1
20160145093 Pan et al. May 2016 A1
20160149542 Mucha et al. May 2016 A1
20160150324 Yoo May 2016 A1
20160154022 Humphris Jun 2016 A1
20160156282 Kim et al. Jun 2016 A1
20160157025 Miles et al. Jun 2016 A1
20160165331 Liu et al. Jun 2016 A1
20160165926 Medoff Jun 2016 A1
20160176704 Cargill et al. Jun 2016 A1
20160192082 Uchida et al. Jun 2016 A1
20160200567 Dehe et al. Jul 2016 A1
20160209322 Andreev Jul 2016 A1
20160214857 Lin et al. Jul 2016 A1
20160218640 Wang et al. Jul 2016 A1
20160223579 Froemel et al. Aug 2016 A1
20160234592 Bolognia et al. Aug 2016 A1
20160241022 Gueorguiev et al. Aug 2016 A1
20160241965 Chau Aug 2016 A1
20160241979 Cho et al. Aug 2016 A1
20160242711 Nachaliel Aug 2016 A1
20160252545 Amponsah Sep 2016 A1
20160258979 Shi et al. Sep 2016 A1
20160258980 Proksch et al. Sep 2016 A1
20160274144 Su et al. Sep 2016 A1
20160274146 Novak et al. Sep 2016 A1
20160277846 Lee Sep 2016 A1
20160280534 Stahl et al. Sep 2016 A1
20160282384 Proksch et al. Sep 2016 A1
20160284974 Umeda et al. Sep 2016 A1
20160289577 Medoff Oct 2016 A1
20160289704 Medoff Oct 2016 A1
20160289705 Medoff Oct 2016 A1
20160289706 Medoff Oct 2016 A1
20160289709 Medoff Oct 2016 A1
20160289710 Medoff Oct 2016 A1
20160293990 Medoff Oct 2016 A1
20160294305 Kim et al. Oct 2016 A1
20160298141 Medoff Oct 2016 A1
20160298147 Medoff Oct 2016 A1
20160304336 Schoen et al. Oct 2016 A1
20160304337 Miao Oct 2016 A1
20160313367 Hu et al. Oct 2016 A1
20160313369 Proksch et al. Oct 2016 A1
20160315561 Shin et al. Oct 2016 A1
20160341619 Dehe et al. Nov 2016 A1
20160344308 Wang et al. Nov 2016 A1
20160347627 Li Dec 2016 A1
20160359429 Byun et al. Dec 2016 A1
20160362811 Lee et al. Dec 2016 A1
20160365808 Kim et al. Dec 2016 A1
20160368811 Eguchi Dec 2016 A1
20160373874 Guo et al. Dec 2016 A1
20170003316 Yang et al. Jan 2017 A1
20170022046 Buck et al. Jan 2017 A1
20170025148 Boyd Jan 2017 A1
20170025857 Matthews Jan 2017 A1
20170028682 Johnson et al. Feb 2017 A9
20170038410 Serry Feb 2017 A1
20170052083 Wiesbauer et al. Feb 2017 A1
20170052111 Andreev et al. Feb 2017 A1
20170054308 Olah et al. Feb 2017 A1
20170054389 Boyd Feb 2017 A1
20170055081 Zou et al. Feb 2017 A1
20170062180 Budach et al. Mar 2017 A1
20170070164 Taghavi et al. Mar 2017 A1
20170077838 Wang et al. Mar 2017 A1
20170107097 Cheng et al. Apr 2017 A1
20170127189 Miles et al. May 2017 A1
20170130252 Medoff May 2017 A1
20170131322 Proksch et al. May 2017 A1
20170137282 Sooriakumar et al. May 2017 A1
20170142524 Sooriakumar et al. May 2017 A1
20170142525 Glacer et al. May 2017 A1
20170143171 Ophardt et al. May 2017 A1
20170143477 Christie et al. May 2017 A1
20170150277 Rombach May 2017 A1
20170152532 Medoff Jun 2017 A1
20170166437 Klein Jun 2017 A1
20170170752 Wei Jun 2017 A1
20170180864 Zhang et al. Jun 2017 A1
20170180870 Hung et al. Jun 2017 A1
20170187307 Wang et al. Jun 2017 A1
20170191894 Wiesbauer et al. Jul 2017 A1
20170199219 Zou et al. Jul 2017 A1
20170212145 Lee et al. Jul 2017 A1
20170219391 Lin et al. Aug 2017 A1
20170219622 Yang et al. Aug 2017 A1
20170227577 Liu et al. Aug 2017 A1
20170230757 Kuntzman et al. Aug 2017 A1
20170230776 Family et al. Aug 2017 A1
20170237365 Kwon et al. Aug 2017 A1
20170237368 Zhang et al. Aug 2017 A1
20170238107 Walther et al. Aug 2017 A1
20170242052 Hu et al. Aug 2017 A1
20170247244 Dehe Aug 2017 A1
20170247246 Schelling et al. Aug 2017 A1
20170260040 Walther et al. Sep 2017 A1
20170260043 Lin et al. Sep 2017 A1
20170260044 Cargill et al. Sep 2017 A1
20170261532 Pieper et al. Sep 2017 A1
20170272886 Family et al. Sep 2017 A1
20170280263 Guo et al. Sep 2017 A1
20170280265 Po Sep 2017 A1
20170297895 Kautzsch et al. Oct 2017 A1
20170299628 Proksch et al. Oct 2017 A1
20170307668 Buffa et al. Oct 2017 A1
20170311083 Sun et al. Oct 2017 A1
20170311088 Sun et al. Oct 2017 A1
20170311089 Sun et al. Oct 2017 A1
20170313583 Proksch et al. Nov 2017 A1
20170317609 Kim et al. Nov 2017 A1
20170318385 Harney et al. Nov 2017 A1
20170321233 Medoff Nov 2017 A1
20170322094 Kim et al. Nov 2017 A1
20170326522 Burakowska-Meise et al. Nov 2017 A1
20170331396 Byun et al. Nov 2017 A1
20170331397 Kim et al. Nov 2017 A1
20170334714 Gao et al. Nov 2017 A1
20170346416 Rutgers et al. Nov 2017 A1
20170347185 Kim et al. Nov 2017 A1
20170353043 Olah et al. Dec 2017 A1
20170354945 Burakowska-Meise et al. Dec 2017 A1
20170355591 Hedenig et al. Dec 2017 A1
20170356810 Fukuzawa et al. Dec 2017 A1
20170359648 Park et al. Dec 2017 A1
20170367455 Enrique Dec 2017 A1
20180002159 Cargill et al. Jan 2018 A1
20180002160 Piechocinski et al. Jan 2018 A1
20180002167 Frischmuth et al. Jan 2018 A1
20180002168 Cargill et al. Jan 2018 A1
20180009158 Harkness et al. Jan 2018 A1
20180013358 Turng et al. Jan 2018 A1
20180014099 Loeppert Jan 2018 A1
20180022603 Chu Jan 2018 A1
20180027337 Hsu et al. Jan 2018 A1
20180029878 Dehe et al. Feb 2018 A1
20180036939 Sundaresan Feb 2018 A1
20180040806 Gong et al. Feb 2018 A1
20180041139 Shin et al. Feb 2018 A1
20180041842 Zheng Feb 2018 A1
20180052186 Su et al. Feb 2018 A1
20180056245 Konradi et al. Mar 2018 A1
20180059137 Prater Mar 2018 A1
20180062543 Jung et al. Mar 2018 A1
20180068888 Wang Mar 2018 A1
20180086624 Cheng et al. Mar 2018 A1
20180091064 Johnson et al. Mar 2018 A1
20180092557 Bickford et al. Apr 2018 A1
20180099867 Walther et al. Apr 2018 A1
20180106715 Andreev et al. Apr 2018 A1
20180106830 Fantner et al. Apr 2018 A1
20180106833 Rath et al. Apr 2018 A1
20180111824 Wu et al. Apr 2018 A1
20180113149 Walter et al. Apr 2018 A1
20180115258 Franklin et al. Apr 2018 A1
20180115836 Hsieh et al. Apr 2018 A1
20180120344 Prater et al. May 2018 A1
20180122356 Yoo May 2018 A1
20180133431 Malchano et al. May 2018 A1
20180133504 Malchano et al. May 2018 A1
20180133507 Malchano et al. May 2018 A1
20180136251 Shi et al. May 2018 A1
20180138391 Grosh et al. May 2018 A1
20180145613 Shin et al. May 2018 A1
20180146272 Hung et al. May 2018 A1
20180146296 Meisel et al. May 2018 A1
20180152792 Hoekstra et al. May 2018 A1
20180153450 Routh et al. Jun 2018 A1
20180155183 Sasaki et al. Jun 2018 A1
20180160911 Fu et al. Jun 2018 A1
20180161749 Medoff Jun 2018 A1
20180164342 Humphris Jun 2018 A1
20180167730 Parker Jun 2018 A1
20180180642 Shetty et al. Jun 2018 A1
20180186623 Vossough et al. Jul 2018 A1
20180191274 Arulandu et al. Jul 2018 A1
20180192218 Wu et al. Jul 2018 A1
20180194615 Nawaz et al. Jul 2018 A1
20180203037 Walter et al. Jul 2018 A1
20180203039 Yang et al. Jul 2018 A1
20180205327 Wu et al. Jul 2018 A1
20180214838 Baumberg et al. Aug 2018 A1
20180216935 Senkal et al. Aug 2018 A1
20180217181 Friedman et al. Aug 2018 A1
20180254405 Sprentall et al. Sep 2018 A1
20180255402 Dehe Sep 2018 A1
20180259553 Yang et al. Sep 2018 A1
20180262843 Barzen Sep 2018 A1
20180262844 Barzen Sep 2018 A1
20180263328 Wang et al. Sep 2018 A1
20180267184 Chen Sep 2018 A1
20180273372 Piechocinski Sep 2018 A1
20180284175 Bickford et al. Oct 2018 A1
20180287512 Joye et al. Oct 2018 A1
20180288532 Wu et al. Oct 2018 A1
20180292432 Proksch et al. Oct 2018 A1
20180292470 Bickford et al. Oct 2018 A1
20180294744 Arulandu et al. Oct 2018 A1
20180294745 Park et al. Oct 2018 A1
20180299479 Liu et al. Oct 2018 A1
20180306837 Sadeghian Marnani et al. Oct 2018 A1
20180316202 Olah Nov 2018 A1
20180316281 Lee Nov 2018 A1
20180332390 Harney et al. Nov 2018 A1
20180332405 Kim et al. Nov 2018 A1
20180352330 Mucha et al. Dec 2018 A1
20180352341 Reinmuth et al. Dec 2018 A1
20180353101 Ouwerkerk et al. Dec 2018 A1
20180353756 Walraevens et al. Dec 2018 A1
20180359571 Zhan et al. Dec 2018 A1
20180370790 Cheng et al. Dec 2018 A1
20180375443 Arulandu et al. Dec 2018 A1
20190002309 Cwiertny et al. Jan 2019 A1
20190006961 Wu et al. Jan 2019 A1
20190011358 Kjoller et al. Jan 2019 A1
20190013228 Takata et al. Jan 2019 A1
20190018040 Su et al. Jan 2019 A1
20190025340 Sadeghian Marnani et al. Jan 2019 A1
20190028040 Song et al. Jan 2019 A1
20190035601 Budach et al. Jan 2019 A1
20190035957 Pujari Jan 2019 A1
20190039882 Theuss et al. Feb 2019 A1
20190047849 Park et al. Feb 2019 A1
20190052976 Sun Feb 2019 A1
20190055119 Sooriakumar et al. Feb 2019 A1
20190056603 Chien Feb 2019 A1
20190058419 Gerhardt et al. Feb 2019 A1
20190061533 Wang et al. Feb 2019 A1
20190062150 Moitzi Feb 2019 A1
20190076812 Burakowska-Meise et al. Mar 2019 A1
20190077654 Reagan et al. Mar 2019 A1
20190082269 Sun Mar 2019 A1
20190082270 Sun Mar 2019 A1
20190082271 Kim et al. Mar 2019 A1
20190087771 Westphal et al. Mar 2019 A1
20190090048 Kim et al. Mar 2019 A1
20190091650 Medoff Mar 2019 A1
20190094265 Sahin Mar 2019 A1
20190105011 Kim et al. Apr 2019 A1
20190116429 Meisel et al. Apr 2019 A1
20190119147 Endo Apr 2019 A1
20190124452 Hsieh et al. Apr 2019 A1
20190125523 Barzilay May 2019 A1
20190127217 Cargill et al. May 2019 A1
20190128919 Amponsah May 2019 A1
20190131889 Oliveira Ventura et al. May 2019 A1
20190150805 Routh et al. May 2019 A1
20190150824 Gerhardt et al. May 2019 A1
20190179136 Menard et al. Jun 2019 A1
20190194013 Chandrasekaran et al. Jun 2019 A1
20190195910 Proksch et al. Jun 2019 A1
20190202358 Arndt et al. Jul 2019 A1
20190210866 Chen et al. Jul 2019 A1
20190222141 Fearing et al. Jul 2019 A1
20190222941 Hishinuma et al. Jul 2019 A1
20190230439 Zhan et al. Jul 2019 A1
20190234993 Friedman et al. Aug 2019 A1
20190239000 Allegato et al. Aug 2019 A1
20190239817 Ashton et al. Aug 2019 A1
20190245133 Umeda et al. Aug 2019 A1
20190250185 Baur Aug 2019 A1
20190255350 Malchano et al. Aug 2019 A1
20190255669 Dehe et al. Aug 2019 A1
20200244189 Polesel-Maris Jul 2020 A1
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20210061648 A1 Mar 2021 US
Provisional Applications (1)
Number Date Country
62891915 Aug 2019 US