Application of homotopy analysis method in studying

dynamic pull-in instability of microsystems

M. Moghimi Zand, M.T. Ahmadian
*
School of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 26 October 2008
Received in revised form 16 February 2009
Available online 2 April 2009
Keywords:
Dynamic pull-in instability
Homotopy analysis method
MEMS
a b s t r a c t
In this study, homotopy analysis method is used to derive analytic solutions to predict
dynamic pull-in instability of electrostatically-actuated microsystems. The model consid-
ers midplane stretching, initial stress, distributed electrostatic force and fringing elds
effect. Inuences of different parameters on dynamic pull-in instability are investigated.
Results are in good agreement with numerical and experimental ndings.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
One of the most important phenomena associated with electrostatically-actuated microelectromechanical systems
(MEMS) is pull-in instability, observed experimentally by Nathanson et al. (1967) and Taylor (1968). The pull-in instability
occurs when the electrostatic force exceeds the elastic restoring force of the structure, leading to contact between the actu-
ated structure and substrate (Chao et al., 2008). The critical value of voltage corresponding to this instability is referred to as
the pull-in voltage. When the rate of voltage variation is very low and consequently inertia has almost no inuence on the
microsystem behavior, the critical voltage is called static pull-in voltage (V
pi
). When the rate of voltage variation is not neg-
ligible, the effect of inertia has to be considered. The pull-in instability related to this situation is called dynamic pull-in
instability and the critical value of voltage, corresponding to the dynamic instability, is referred to as the dynamic pull-in
voltage (V
pid
) (Krylov, 2007). The dynamic behavior of microsystems has been investigated by several researchers so far. Kry-
lov and Maimon (2004) have studied the transient dynamics of an electrically-actuated microbeam considering the electro-
static force, squeeze lm damping, and rotational inertia of a mass carried by the microbeam. Krylov (2007) has investigated
the dynamic pull-in instability of microbeams subjected to nonlinear squeeze lm damping using a reduced order model.
Chao et al. (2008) have investigated dynamic pull-in instability for a generalized double-clamped microbeambased on a con-
tinuous model and bifurcation analysis.
In addition to pull-in study, analyzing the vibrational behavior of MEMS is quite useful in determining design parameters
of these systems. Tilmans and Legtenberg (1994) have studied the vibrations of a wide double-clamped microbeam using the
linear beam theory. Abdel-Rahman et al. (2002) have investigated the oscillatory behavior of microbeams considering mid-
plane stretching. Batra et al. (2008) have analyzed vibrations of microbeams pre-deformed by an electric eld considering
fringing elds and nite deections. Reviews on modeling electrostatically-actuated MEMS, stability and nonlinearity in
MEMS have been presented by Batra et al. (2007) and Zhang et al. (2007).
0093-6413/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mechrescom.2009.03.004
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 66165503; fax: +98 21 66000021.
E-mail address: ahmadian@sharif.edu (M.T. Ahmadian).
Mechanics Research Communications 36 (2009) 851858
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Mechanics Research Communications
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ mechrescom
Electrostatic actuation, large deections and damping caused by different sources give rise to nonlinear behavior. Non-
linearity in microelectromechanical systems may cause some difculties in computations. Until now, several techniques
have been used to nd numerical solutions, for example the shooting method (Abdel-Rahman et al., 2002), the differential
quadrature method (Kuang and Chen, 2004) and the nite element method (Moghimi Zand and Ahmadian, 2007, 2009).
Although it is difcult to get analytic approximations for different phenomena in MEMS, there are some analytic techniques
for nonlinear problems of microelectromechanical systems such as perturbation techniques (Younis, 2004). Nevertheless,
perturbation techniques are valid only for weakly nonlinear problems (Liao, 2004). Based on the homotopy method in topol-
ogy, Liao (1995) has proposed homotopy analysis method (HAM) to nd analytic solutions for strongly nonlinear problems.
The HAM provides us with freedom to use different base functions, initial approximations and auxiliary linear operators to
approximate a nonlinear problem (Liao, 2004). Homotopy analysis method is general and can be applied to solve nonlinear
problems of MEMS.
In the present paper, the dynamic pull-in instability of microbeams subjected to step voltages is investigated. Different
sources of nonlinearity such as electrostatic force and midplane stretching are considered. Galerkin decomposition method
is used to convert nonlinear partial differential equation of motion to a nonlinear ordinary differential equation. Afterward,
the homotopy analysis method is utilized to solve the nonlinear ODE of motion. The approach is used to predict dynamic
pull-in instability. Results are compared with numerical and experimental ndings. MAPLE software commands fsolve
and dsolve are used to solve the problem numerically.
2. Modeling and formulation
An electrostatically-actuated microsystem consists of a microbeam and a substrate (Fig. 1). When a voltage V is applied
between the microbeam and the substrate, an attractive electrostatic force causes the microbeam to deect. The length
of the microbeam is l, the width is b, the density is q, the thickness is h and the air initial gap is d
gap
. x is the coordinate along
the length, z is the coordinate along the thickness, w is deection in the z-direction, t is the time, I is the moment of inertia of
the cross-section about the y-axis and E is the effective Youngs modulus of the beam.
According to Palmers formula, the electrostatic force per unit area takes the following form:
F
es

1
2
eV
2
d
gap
wx; t
2
1 b
d
gap
wx; t
b
_ _
1
where e is the vacuum permittivity. The rst term on the right-hand side of Eq. (1) describes the parallel-plate approxima-
tion and the second one accounts for the fringing elds effect due to the nite width. It should be noted that for a double-
clamped beam, b is set to 0.65. For more study on the use of the Palmers formula for modeling electrostatic actuation, see
Batra et al. (2006a,b).
By incorporating von Karman nonlinearity for midplane stretching, the deection w in z-direction is governed by (Batra
et al., 2008)
Tw qbh
@
2
w
@t
2
EI
@
4
w
@x
4
N
i

Ebh
2l
_
l
0
@w
@x
_ _
2
dx
_ _
@
2
w
@x
2
bF
es
0 2
where N
i
is the initial (residual) axial load. The microbeam deection is subjected to the following kinematic boundary
conditions:
w0; t 0;
@w0; t
@x
0; wl; t 0;
@wl; t
@x
0 3
The initial conditions are as follows:
wx; 0 0;
@wx; 0
@t
0 4
Fig. 1. Schematic view of a double-clamped microbeam.
852 M. Moghimi Zand, M.T. Ahmadian/ Mechanics Research Communications 36 (2009) 851858
In general, one can assume
wx; t

n
i1
u
i
xu
i
t 5
where n is the number of degrees of freedom, u
i
(x) is the ith eigenfunction of the beam and u
i
(t) is the ith time-dependent
deection parameter of the beam. Based on a single degree-of-freedom model of the beams (n = 1), Eqs. (2)(4) can be solved
with appropriate accuracy (Batra et al., 2008). Hence, the solution is constructed by expressing the deection function w (x, t)
as the product of two separate functions
wx; t uxut 6
where u(x) is a trial function satisfying the kinematic boundary conditions and u(t) is an unknown time-dependent deec-
tion parameter. For example, u(x) can be assumed as
ux
x
l
_ _
2
1
x
l
_ _
2
7
or
ux cosh
ax
l
_ _
cos
ax
l
_ _ _ _

cosha cos a
sinha sina
_ _
sinh
ax
l
_ _
sin
ax
l
_ _ _ _
; a 4:730040745 8
Eq. (8) is the rst eigenfunction of a double-clamped beam. The term F
es
in Eq. (1) can be approximated by Taylors series as
F
es

1
2
eV
2
d
gap
wx; t
2
1 b
d
gap
wx; t
b
_ _

m
j0
K
j
wx; t
j

1
2
eV
2
1
d
2
gap

2wx; t
d
3
gap

3wx; t
2
d
4
gap

4wx; t
3
d
5
gap

_ _

1
2
ebV
2
b
1
d
gap

wx; t
d
2
gap

wx; t
2
d
3
gap

wx; t
3
d
4
gap

_ _
9
where m is the degree of the electrostatic force Taylor approximation. Substituting for F
es
from Eq. (9) into Eq. (2), one
obtains
Tw qbh
@
2
w
@t
2
EI
@
4
w
@x
4
N
i

Ebh
2l
_
l
0
@w
@x
_ _
2
dx
_ _
@
2
w
@x
2

beV
2
2
1
d
2
gap

2wx; t
d
3
gap

3wx; t
2
d
4
gap

4wx; t
3
d
5
gap

_ _

beV
2
2
1
d
gap

wx; t
d
2
gap

wx; t
2
d
3
gap

wx; t
3
d
4
gap

_ _
0 10
The one-parameter Galerkins solution can be computed by
_
l
0
uxTwdx 0 11
After substituting for Tw from Eq. (10) into Eq. (11) and integrating by parts in some terms, the governing equation for u(t)
becomes (for the case m = 4)
M
d
2
ut
dt
2
Mk
2
ut LV
2
DV
2
ut
2
S PV
2
ut
3
GV
2
ut
4
0; k
2
K BV
2
=M 12
where
M
_
l
0
qbhux
2
dx; S
_
l
0
0:5Ebh
l
ux
d
2
ux
dx
2
_
l
0
dux
dx
_ _
2
dx
_ _
dx
K
_
l
0
EIux
d
4
ux
dx
4
N
i
ux
d
2
ux
dx
2
_ _
dx; L
_
l
0
0:5ebux
d
2
gap

0:5ebux
d
gap
_ _
dx
B
_
l
0
ebux
2
d
3
gap

0:5ebux
2
d
2
gap
_ _
dx; D
_
l
0
1:5ebux
3
d
4
gap

0:5ebux
3
d
3
gap
_ _
dx
P
_
l
0
2ebux
4
d
5
gap

0:5ebux
4
d
4
gap
_ _
dx; G
_
l
0
2:5ebux
5
d
6
gap

0:5ebux
5
d
5
gap
_ _
dx
13
Eq. (12) is a nonlinear ordinary differential equation which can be solved by HAM. The integral terms in Eq. (13) are all con-
stants because the microbeam parameters and the trial function u(x) are dened. It should be noted that the fourth-order
M. Moghimi Zand, M.T. Ahmadian/ Mechanics Research Communications 36 (2009) 851858 853
model (m = 4) is not as accurate as the full-order one, but provides simpler formulation, as well as adequate accuracy for the
pull-in voltage (Hu, 2006). For higher accuracy, higher degrees of the electrostatic force Taylor approximation (m) can be
used. In the next section, the homotopy analysis method is utilized to study the dynamic pull-in instability of microbeams.
3. Application of the homotopy analysis method to dynamic pull-in instability
Among various techniques for nding analytic solutions, homotopy analysis method is one of the most effective methods.
HAM transforms a general nonlinear problem into an innite number of linear problems by embedding an auxiliary param-
eter q. To illustrate the basic idea of the HAM briey, consider a general nonlinear problem
Nut 0 14
where N is a nonlinear operator and u(t) is an unknown function. Using q 2 [0, 1] as an embedding parameter, the homotopy
function is constructed as follows:
U; q; h; Ht 1 qL Ut; q u
0
t qhHtN Ut; q; Xq 15
where h, u
0
(t), H(t) and L are a nonzero auxiliary parameter, an initial guess, a nonzero auxiliary function and an auxiliary
linear operator, respectively. Parameters h and H(t) adjust the convergence region of the solution. For the microbeam prob-
lem, the auxiliary function can be chosen in the form H(t) = 1. As q increases from 0 to 1, U(t; q) varies from the initial guess
to the exact solution. In other words, U(t; 0) = u
0
(t) is the solution of the equation U; q; h; Ht j
q0
0 and U(t;1) = u(t) is
the solution of the equation U; q; h; Ht j
q1
0. U(t; q) can be expanded in a power series of the embedding parameter q
using Taylors theorem as
Ut; q Ut; 0

1
j1
1
j!
@
j
Ut; q
@q
j

q0
q
j
u
0
t

1
j1
u
j
tq
j
16
where u
j
(t) is the so-called jth-order deformation derivative. By equating to zero the homotopy function U; q; h; Ht, the
so-called zero-order deformation equation is constructed as
1 qL Ut; q u
0
t qhN Ut; q; Xq 17
U0; q 0;
dU0; q
dt
0 18
When q = 0, the zero-order deformation equation becomes
L Ut; 0 u
0
t 0 19
which gives the zero-order approximation of u(t). The higher-order approximations of the solution u(t) can be found by solv-
ing high-order deformation equations. Differentiating Eq. (17) with respect to q and then setting q = 0, yields the rst-order
deformation equation which gives the rst-order approximation
L u
1
t hN Ut; q; Xq j
q0
20
subject to zero initial conditions. Differentiating Eq. (17) j times with respect to q, and then dividing it by j! and nally set-
ting q = 0, one obtains the so-called jth-order deformation equation
L u
j
t v
j
u
j1
t
_ _

1
j 1!
h
@
j1
N Ut; q; Xq
@q
j1

q0
21
where
v
j

0 when j 6 1
1 otherwise
_
22
The higher-order approximations of the solution u(t) can be found by solving high-order deformation equations. For more
details, see Liao (1995, 1997, 2004).
Now we apply the HAM to solve the microbeam problem. Consider Eq. (12) as the governing equation. Let s = Xt denote a
new time scale. Under the transformation s = Xt, Eq. (12) becomes
Ous M X
2
@
2
us
@s
2
k
2
us
_ _
LV
2
DV
2
us
2
S EV
2
us
3
GV
2
us
4
0; k
2
K BV
2
=M 23
The nonlinear operator can be dened as
N Us; q; Xq Xq
2
@
2
Us; q
@s
2
k
2
Us; q
LV
2
DV
2
Us; q
2
S EV
2
Us; q
3
GV
2
Us; q
4
_ _
M
24
854 M. Moghimi Zand, M.T. Ahmadian/ Mechanics Research Communications 36 (2009) 851858
subject to zero initial conditions. As discussed before, HAM provides us with freedom to choose the auxiliary linear operator.
For example, the auxiliary linear operator can be chosen as
L Us; q X
2
0
@
2
Us; q
@s
2
Us; q
_ _
0 25
One can expand U(s; q) and X(q) as
Us; q u
0
s qu
1
s q
2
u
2
s q
3
u
3
s ; Xq X
0
qX
1
26
Due to the initial conditions, it is straightforward to set the initial guess u
0
(s) to zero. First-order approximation u
1
(s) is then
found by solving Eq. (20) as
u
1
s
V
2
hL
MX
2
0
1 coss 27
It should be noted that the vibrations of an undamped microbeam under the actuation of the electrostatic force can be ex-
pressed by the following base functions:
cosks; k 1; 2; 3; . . . 28
Therefore, to eliminate the secular terms in the jth-order approximation, one can set the coefcient of cos(s) in the j 1th-
order deformation equation to zero. This provides us with an algebraic equation. Solving the algebraic equation yields X
j2
. It
is noteworthy that choosing the auxiliary linear operator in the form of Eq. (25), gives a linear algebraic equation for X
j2
.
Second-order approximation u
2
(s) is found by utilizing Eq. (21) for j = 2 as
u
2
s
V
2
hL
Mk
2
1 h1 coss; X
0
k 29
Fig. 2. Midpoint deection time history for different voltages using HAM and RungeKutta method.
Table 2
A comparison between initial frequencies of microbeams calculated by different methods.
Beam length
(lm)
x
0
/2p (kHz)
Measured (Tilmans and Legtenberg,
1994)
Calculated (Tilmans and Legtenberg,
1994)
Calculated (Kuang and Chen,
2004)
HAM,
m = 4
210 322.05 324.70 324.70 324.78
310 163.22 164.35 163.46 163.16
410 102.17 103.80 103.70 103.42
510 73.79 74.80 73.46 74.38
Table 1
A comparison between dynamic pull-in voltages calculated by different methods.
Method HAM, n = 1 RungeKutta, n = 1 Reduced order model,
n = 3 (Krylov, 2007)
Finite difference
(Krylov, 2007)
Degree of the electrostatic
force approximation (m)
4 4 Exact
V
pid
(V) 44.40 44.49 43.54 41.68 41.61
M. Moghimi Zand, M.T. Ahmadian/ Mechanics Research Communications 36 (2009) 851858 855
After nding sufcient approximations, by setting q = 1 one gets
us

p2
i0
u
i
s u
0
s u
1
s u
p2
s; X

p
i0
X
i
X
0
X
1
X
p
30
Table 4
A comparison between values of dynamic pull-in voltage calculated by different methods.
V
pid
(V)
Beam length (lm) 210 28.70 28.17 27.94 27.77 26.96 26.40
510 6.49 6.37 6.30 6.26 6.04 5.62
Degree of the electrostatic force approximation (m) 4 4 4 4 4 Exact
Method of solution HAM, p = 8 HAM, p = 13 HAM, p = 18 HAM, p = 23 RungeKutta RungeKutta
Table 3
A comparison between values of static pull-in voltage calculated by different methods.
Beam length (lm) V
pi
(V)
Measured (Tilmans and Legtenberg, 1994) Calculated (Kuang and Chen, 2004) Present study, m = 4
210 27.95 28.10 28.86
310 13.78 14.00 14.40
410 9.13 8.90 9.03
510 6.57 6.40 6.47
Fig. 3. Midpoint deection time history for microbeams with different lengths before and after dynamic pull-in instability using RungeKutta method: (a)
l = 210 lm and (b) l = 510 lm.
856 M. Moghimi Zand, M.T. Ahmadian/ Mechanics Research Communications 36 (2009) 851858
where p is the order of approximation. In the next section p is set to 23 to limit the maximum relative error to less than 4%.
It is noteworthy that expanding X using Eq. (26) results in nding the frequency without the need for solving nonlinear
equations; however, it forces us to consider high-order approximations. A method of nding the frequency, which effectively
reduces the required order of approximation, has been presented in (Moghimi Zand et al., in press).
4. Results and discussions
We validate the proposed model by studying the dynamic behavior of a 300 lm long, 20 lm wide and 2 lm thick micro-
beam with initial gap of 2 lm. The Poissons ratio and Youngs modulus for the microbeam material are m = 0.28 and
E
y
= 169 GPa, respectively. It is be noted that the Youngs modulus E
y
is replaced by

E E
y
=1 m
2
in the beam model
due to the fact that b > 5h. Midpoint deection time history of the microbeam for step-input voltages of 30 and 40 V is shown
in Fig. 2. It can be seen that the results computed by the HAM are in excellent agreement with the numerical results calcu-
lated by RungeKutta method using MAPLE dsolve command. The HAM results are found by means of setting h = 1.
It can be observed that the amplitude of vibrations is increased with an increase in the input voltage. When the input
voltage exceeds the dynamic pull-in value, no stable equilibrium exists and the system becomes dynamically instable. In
the vicinity of the dynamic pull-in point a small change in the input voltage results in a change in the character of the re-
sponse (Krylov, 2007). It is to be noted that for voltages lower than V
pid
, the beam performs a periodic motion, while for volt-
ages higher than V
pid
the beam collapses onto the substrate. The values of dynamic pull-in voltage for the above-mentioned
microbeam, calculated by different methods, are presented in Table 1. It is clear from the results given in Table 1 that the
values of V
pid
computed by homotopy analysis method agrees well with those computed by RungeKutta method (MAPLE),
Reduced Order model (Krylov, 2007) and Finite Difference method (Krylov, 2007). The results also indicate that the fourth-
order model (m = 4) provides adequate accuracy for calculating the dynamic pull-in voltage.
Another comparison is performed using 100 lmwide and 1.5 lm thick microbeams with initial gap of 1.18 lm. The effec-
tive Youngs modulus for the microbeams material is

E 166 GPa with a residual axial load N

i
= 0.0009 N, representative of
pretensioned microbeams. Table 2 presents the calculated and measured initial frequencies for these microbeams. Table 2
reveals that the results calculated by the HAM agree well with the numerical and experimental results presented in the
literature.
The value of static pull-in voltage is calculated by setting the inertia term in Eq. (12) equal to zero and plotting the dia-
gram of displacement versus input voltage. Static pull-in takes place when the slope of the curve approaches innity. Using
this technique, the values of static pull-in voltage are computed using MAPLE command fsolve. The results are presented in
Table 3.
Figs. 3a and 3b show midpoint deection time history for double-clamped microbeams subjected to step voltages lower
and higher than V
pid
. The dsolve command in MAPLE has been utilized to solve the exact microbeam equation (i.e. without
truncating the electrostatic force).
In Table 4 HAM results are compared with the numerical results (RungeKutta). There is good agreement between values
of dynamic pull-in voltages computed by HAM and RungeKutta method. The table also indicates that the convergence rate
of the solution series is slow. It has been found that the convergence rate of solution series is controlled by means of setting
proper values of h using the so-called h-curve (Liao, 2004). For instance, by choosing h = 1.12 instead of h = 1, the dynamic
pull-in voltage is varied from 6.49 to 6.47 V for p = 8. The so-called homotopy-Pad technique can also be applied to accel-
erate the convergence of the solution series. For further study on h-curve and homotopy-Pad technique, see Liao (2004).
In Table 5 the inuences of fringing elds and midplane stretching are observed. The table signies that discarding the
fringing elds results in the underestimation of the electrostatic force and an overestimation of the dynamic pull-in voltage.
On the other hand, neglecting the midplane stretching underestimates the microbeam stiffness and dynamic pull-in voltage.
Table 5
A comparison between values of dynamic pull-in voltage considering different assumptions (HAM, m = 4).
V
pid
(V)
Beam length (lm) 210 26.81 27.77 27.84
510 6.14 6.26 6.28
Mid-plane stretching No Yes Yes
Fringing eld effect Yes Yes No
Table 6
A comparison between values of dynamic pull-in voltage calculated by assuming different trial functions (HAM, m = 4).
V
pid
(V)
Beam length (lm) 310 13.87 13.89
410 8.74 8.77
Trial function Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
M. Moghimi Zand, M.T. Ahmadian/ Mechanics Research Communications 36 (2009) 851858 857
Heretofore, we have used an approximate mode shape (Eq. (7)) as the trial function. It should be compared with the rst
exact mode shape of the beam (Eq. (8)). Table 6 shows the comparison of these trial functions. As seen, the values of V
pid
calculated by assuming the approximate and exact mode shapes agree very well together. It can be concluded that using
an approximate trial function, satisfying the kinematic boundary conditions, results in appropriate accuracy in
computations.
5. Conclusion
In this study, the homotopy analysis method has been utilized to investigate the dynamic pull-in instability of micro-
beams, actuated by step voltage. The model has considered midplane stretching, residual stress, electrostatic actuation
and fringing elds effect. Galerkins decomposition method has been applied to convert the governing nonlinear partial dif-
ferential equation to a nonlinear ordinary differential equation. Afterward, the homotopy analysis method has been used to
nd analytic solutions. Inuences of fringing elds, midplane stretching and trial functions on dynamic pull-in have been
studied. It was shown that the model is capable to predict dynamic pull-in instability. Comparison between the results found
by HAM and those in the literature shows that the homotopy analysis method is a promising tool to achieve analytic solu-
tions to strongly nonlinear problems of MEMS.
References
Abdel-Rahman, E.M., Younis, M.I., Nayfeh, A.H., 2002. Characterization of the mechanical behavior of an electrically actuated microbeam. J. Micromech.
Microeng. 12 (6), 759766.
Batra, R.C., Porri, M., Spinello, D., 2006a. Capacitance estimate for electrostatically actuated narrow microbeams. Micro NanoLett. 1 (2), 7173.
Batra, R.C., Porri, M., Spinello, D., 2006b. Electromechanical model of electrically actuated narrow microbeams. J. Microelectromech. Syst. 15 (5), 1175
1189.
Batra, R.C., Porri, M., Spinello, D., 2007. Review of modeling electrostatically actuated microelectromechanical systems. Smart Mater. Struct. 16, R23R31.
Batra, R.C., Porri, M., Spinello, D., 2008. Vibrations of narrow microbeams predeformed by an electric eld. J. Sound Vibrat. 309, 600612.
Chao, P.C.P., Chiu, C.W., Liu, T.H., 2008. DC dynamic pull-in predictions for a generalized clampedclamped micro-beam based on a continuous model and
bifurcation analysis. J. Micromech. Microeng. 18, 114.
Hu, Y.C., 2006. Closed form solutions for the pull-in voltage of micro curled beams subjected to electrostatic loads. J. Micromech. Microeng. 16, 648655.
Krylov, S., Maimon, R., 2004. Pull-in dynamics of an elastic beam actuated by continuously distributed electrostatic force. J. Vibrat. Acoust. 126 (3), 332342.
Krylov, S., 2007. Lyapunov exponents as a criterion for the dynamic pull-in instability of electrostatically actuated microplates. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 42,
626642.
Kuang, J.H., Chen, C.J., 2004. Dynamic characteristics of shaped micro-actuators solved using the differential quadrature method. J. Micromech. Microeng. 14
(4), 647655.
Liao, S.J., 1995. An approximate solution technique which does not depend upon small parameters: a special example. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 30, 371.
Liao, S.J., 1997. A kind of approximate solution technique which does not depend upon small parameters (ii): an application in uid mechanics. Int. J. Non-
Linear Mech. 32, 815822.
Liao, S.J., 2004. Beyond Perturbation. Introduction to Homotopy Analysis Method. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, FL.
Moghimi Zand, M., Ahmadian, M.T., 2007. Characterization of coupled-domain multi-layer microplates in pull-in phenomenon, vibrations and dynamics.
Int. J. Mech. Sci. 49 (11), 12261237.
Moghimi Zand, M., Ahmadian, M.T., 2009. Vibrational analysis of electrostatically actuated microstructures considering nonlinear effects. Commun.
Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simulat. 14 (4).
Moghimi Zand, M., Ahmadian, M.T., Rashidian, B., in press. Semi-analytic solutions to nonlinear vibrations of microbeams under suddenly applied voltages.
J. Sound Vibrat.
Nathanson, H.C., Newell, W.E., Wickstrom, R.A., Davis, J.R., 1967. The resonant gate transistor. IEEE Trans. Electr. Dev. 14 (3), 117133.
Taylor, G.I., 1968. The coalescence of closely spaced drops when they are at different electric potentials. Proc. Royal Soc. A 306, 423434.
Tilmans, H.A., Legtenberg, R., 1994. Electrostatically driven vacuum-encapsulated polysilicon resonators. Part II: theory and performance. Sens. Actuat. A 45
(1), 6784.
Younis, M.I., 2004. Modeling and Simulation of Microelectromechanical Systems in Multi-Physics Fields. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University.
Zhang, W.M., Meng, G., Chen, D., 2007. Stability, nonlinearity and reliability of electrostatically actuated MEMS devices. Sensors 7, 760796.
858 M. Moghimi Zand, M.T. Ahmadian/ Mechanics Research Communications 36 (2009) 851858