Reduced-order models for micro-electromechanical structures possess several attractive features when compared with computational approaches using, e.g., finite-element packages. However, also within the business of reduced-order modeling, there are different approaches that yield different results. The efficiency of such approaches has to be judged according to, first, the purposes and aims of the model and, second, according to computational expenses and modeling efforts. This paper deals specifically with the frequently asked question of how many modes have to be considered in the discretization procedure to ensure an efficient reduced-order model. A consistent nonlinear continuum model is employed to describe a doubly clamped microbeam subject to two cases of electromechanical actuation. The analysis, confined to the static behavior, concentrates on two discretization techniques and addresses the differences between the final reduced-order models, accordingly. The results show significant differences with respect to the number of implemented linear-undamped mode shape functions, which are used as basis functions in the approximation procedure. This is demonstrated for the two mentioned distinct excitation schemes of the doubly clamped microbeam. The purposes of this paper are twofold. First, it draws attention to the differences between reduced-order models, which have been discretized one way or the other according to investigation goals and purposes. Second, it serves as a guideline for future micro- and nano-electromechanical system modeling by elaborating the advantages and disadvantages of both techniques.

1.
Rochus
,
V.
,
Rixen
,
D. J.
, and
Golinval
,
J. -C.
, 2006, “
Monolithic Modelling of Electromechanical Coupling in Micro-Structures
,”
Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng.
0029-5981,
65
(
4
), pp.
461
493
.
2.
Gabbay
,
L.
,
Mehner
,
J.
, and
Senturia
,
S.
, 2000, “
Computer-Aided Generation of Nonlinear Reduced-Order Dynamic Macromodels—I: Non-Stress-Stiffened Case
,”
J. Microelectromech. Syst.
1057-7157,
9
(
2
), pp.
262
269
.
3.
Krylov
,
S.
, 2007, “
Lyapunov Exponents as a Criterion for the Dynamic Pull-In Instability of Electrostatically Actuated Microstructures
,”
Int. J. Non-Linear Mech.
0020-7462,
42
, pp.
626
642
.
4.
Younis
,
M.
,
Abdel-Rahman
,
E.
, and
Nayfeh
,
A.
, 2003, “
A Reduced-Order Model for Electrically Actuated Microbeam-Based MEMS
,”
J. Microelectromech. Syst.
1057-7157,
12
(
5
), pp.
672
680
.
5.
Hornstein
,
S.
, and
Gottlieb
,
O.
, 2008, “
Nonlinear Dynamics, Stability and Control of the Scan Process in Noncontacting Atomic Force Microscopy
,”
Nonlinear Dyn.
0924-090X,
54
(
1–2
), pp.
93
122
.
6.
Hung
,
E.
, and
Senturia
,
S.
, 1999, “
Generating Efficient Dynamical Models for Microelectromechanical Systems From a Few Finite-Element Simulation Runs
,”
J. Microelectromech. Syst.
1057-7157,
8
(
3
), pp.
280
289
.
7.
Gutschmidt
,
S.
, and
Gottlieb
,
O.
, 2008, “
Nonlinear Internal Resonances of a Microbeam Array Near the Pull-In Point
,”
Proceedings of the Sixth EUROMECH Nonlinear Dynamics Conference
, St. Petersburg, Russia.
8.
Griffiths
,
D.
, 1981,
Introduction to Electrodynamics
,
Prentice-Hall
,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
.
9.
Nayfeh
,
A.
,
Younis
,
M.
, and
Abdel-Rahman
,
E.
, 2005, “
Reduced-Order Models for MEMS Applications
,”
Nonlinear Dyn.
0924-090X,
41
(
1–3
), pp.
211
236
.
10.
Finlayson
,
B.
, 1991,
The Method of Weighted Residuals and Variational Principles
,
Academic
,
New York
.
11.
Nayfeh
,
A.
, 2000,
Nonlinear Interactions
,
Wiley-Interscience
,
New York
.
12.
Shabana
,
A.
, 1991,
Theory of Vibration
,
Springer-Verlag
,
New York
.
13.
Gottlieb
,
O.
, and
Champneys
,
A. R.
, 2005, “
Global Bifurcations of Nonlinear Thermoelastic Microbeams Subject to Electrodynamic Actuation
,”
IUTAM Symposium on Chaotic Dynamics and Control of Systems and Processes in Mechanics
, Vol.
122
,
Springer
,
New York
, pp.
117
126
.
14.
Senturia
,
S.
, 2001,
Microsystem Design
,
Kluwer Academic
,
Boston, MA
.
15.
Krylov
,
S.
, and
Maimon
,
R.
, 2004, “
Pull-In Dynamics of an Elastic Beam Actuated by Continuously Distributed Electrostatic Force
,”
ASME J. Vibr. Acoust.
0739-3717,
126
(
3
), pp.
332
342
.
16.
Osterberg
,
P.
, and
Senturia
,
S.
, 1997, “
M-Test: A Test Chip for MEMS Material Property Measurement Using Electrostatically Actuated Test Structures
,”
J. Microelectromech. Syst.
1057-7157,
6
(
2
), pp.
107
118
.
17.
McCarthy
,
B.
,
Adams
,
G.
,
McGruer
,
N.
, and
Potter
,
D.
, 2002, “
A Dynamic Model, Including Contact Bounce, of an Electrostatically Actuated Microswitch
,”
J. Microelectromech. Syst.
1057-7157,
11
(
3
), pp.
276
283
.
18.
Hughes
,
T.
, 1987,
The Finite Element Method, Linear Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis
,
Prentice-Hall
,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
.
19.
Kamke
,
E.
, 1948,
Differentialgleichungen, Loesungsmethoden und Loesungen: Band 1, Gewoehliche Differentialgleichungen
,
Chelsea
,
New York
.
20.
Legtenberg
,
R.
, and
Tilmans
,
H. A. C.
, 1994, “
Electrostatically Driven Vacuum-Encapsulated Polysilicon Resonators: Part I. Design and Fabrication
,”
Sens. Actuators, A
0924-4247,
45
(
1
), pp.
57
66
.
You do not currently have access to this content.