Abstract
Energy minimizers to a MEMS model with an insulating layer are shown to converge in its reinforced limit to the minimizer of the limiting model as the thickness of the layer tends to zero. The proof relies on the identification of the \(\Gamma \)-limit of the energy in this limit.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
A microelectromechanical system (MEMS), such as an electrostatic actuator, consists of an elastic plate, which is coated with a thin dielectric layer, clamped on its boundary, and suspended above a rigid ground plate. The latter is also coated with a dielectric layer but with positive thickness \(\delta >0\), see Figs. 1 and 2. Applying a voltage difference between the two plates generates a Coulomb force across the device and induces a deformation of the elastic plate, thereby changing the geometry of the device and converting electrostatic energy to mechanical energy through a balance between electrostatic and mechanical forces [2, 3, 8, 22]. Assuming that the physical state of the MEMS device is fully described by the vertical deflection \(u\) of the elastic plate and the electrostatic potential \(\psi \) inside the device, a mathematical model is derived in [15]. It characterizes equilibrium configurations of the device as critical points of the total energy which is the sum of the mechanical and electrostatic energies, with an additional constraint stemming from the property that the elastic plate cannot penetrate the layer covering the ground plate. Specifically, ignoring variations in the transverse horizontal direction, we consider a two-dimensional MEMS in which the rigid ground plate and the undeflected elastic plate have the same one-dimensional shape \(D:=(-L,L)\) with \(L>0\). The ground plate is located at height \(z=-H-\delta \), where \(H>0\), and is coated with a dielectric layer
of positive thickness \(\delta \). The vertical deflection \(u\) of the elastic plate from its rest position at \(z=0\) is a function from \(D\) to \([-H, \infty )\) with \(u(\pm L)=0\), so that the elastic plate is described by the graph \(\{ (x,u(x))\ :\ x\in D\}\) of the function \(u\). Observe that the required lower bound \(u\ge -H\) on \(u\) is due to the assumption that the elastic plate cannot penetrate the dielectric layer \(\mathcal{R}_{\delta }\), while the boundary conditions \(u(\pm L)=0\) reflect the fact that the elastic plate is clamped on its boundary. We then define
as the free space between the elastic plate and the top of the dielectric layer and denote the interface separating the free space and the dielectric layer by
As for the electrostatic potential \(\psi \), it is defined in the full device
It is worth mentioning at this point that the geometry of the full device \(\Omega _{\delta }(u)\) has different properties according to the minimal value of \(u\). Indeed, the free space \(\Omega (u)\) is connected and \(\Sigma (u)=D\times \{-H\}\) when \(\min _{D} u>-H\), while it is disconnected when \(\min _{D} u = -H\), which corresponds to a touchdown of the elastic plate on the dielectric layer \(\mathcal{R}_{\delta }\) on the coincidence set
see Figs. 1 and 2. In the model derived in [15], equilibrium configurations of the above described MEMS device are critical points of the total energy given by
In (1.2), \(E_{m}(u)\) is the mechanical energy
with \(\beta >0\), \(a\ge 0\), and \(\tau \ge 0\), and includes bending and external stretching effects of the elastic plate. The electrostatic energy is
with \(\sigma _{\delta }\) denoting the permittivity of the device (see (2.1a), (2.1b) below), and \(\psi =\psi _{u,\delta }\) is the electrostatic potential satisfying the transmission problem
Here, denotes the jump of a function across the interface \(\Sigma (u)\). The boundary values of the electrostatic potential are prescribed by a function \(h_{u,\delta }\) which satisfies the assumptions listed below in (3.1a)–(3.1l). A specific example, when \(\sigma \) does not depend on the vertical coordinate \(z\), is
Since the elastic plate is clamped at the boundary and cannot penetrate the dielectric layer \(\mathcal{R}_{\delta }\), the set of admissible deflections is
where
Equilibrium configurations of the MEMS device are then critical points \(u\in \bar{S}_{0}\) of the total energy \(E_{\delta }\). Their analysis involves the associated transmission problem (1.3a)–(1.3c) solved by the electrostatic potential \(\psi _{u,\delta }\). A natural question is what happens when the thickness \(\delta \) of the dielectric layer tends to zero, in particular, whether the reduced model derived in this limit retains the dielectric inhomogeneity of the device. When the dielectric permittivity \(\sigma _{\delta }\) of the device does not depend on \(\delta \), the influence of the dielectric layer is lost in the limit \(\delta \to 0\), and the reduced model is obtained simply by setting \(\delta =0\) in (1.2) and (1.3a)–(1.3c), discarding the jump condition (1.3b) which is then meaningless. Building upon the outcome of [1, 5], it turns out that it is rather the reinforced limit, where the dielectric permittivity scales as \(\delta \) in the layer \(\mathcal{R}_{\delta }\), which leads to a relevant reduced model. For a given deflection \(u\in \bar{S}_{0}\), the reinforced limit of the transmission problem (1.3a)–(1.3c) is identified in [18] by a \(\Gamma \)-convergence approach. More precisely, it is shown in [18] that the reinforced limit as \(\delta \rightarrow 0\) of (1.3a)–(1.3c) is
that is, in the reinforced limit the electrostatic potential \(\psi _{u}\) solves Laplace’s equation in \(\Omega (u)\) with a Robin boundary condition along the interface \(\Sigma (u)\) and a Dirichlet condition on the other boundary parts. Here, \(\sigma := \sigma _{\delta }\mathbf{1}_{\Omega (u)}\) is assumed to be independent of \(\delta \). The total energy is then given by
where
and \(\mathfrak{h}_{u}\) is defined below in (3.1l).
The purpose of this research is to complete the outcome of [18] by identifying the reinforced limit of the full model and showing that, in this limit, if \(u_{\delta }^{*}\in \bar{S}_{0}\) is a minimizer of \(E_{\delta }\) in \(\bar{S}_{0}\) for each \(\delta \in (0,1)\), then the cluster points of \((u_{\delta }^{*})_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) in \(L_{2}(D)\) are minimizers of the reduced total energy \(E\) in \(\bar{S}_{0}\). The main tool we shall employ in the forthcoming analysis is the theory of \(\Gamma \)-convergence. We shall actually show that, under suitable assumptions on the dielectric permittivity \(\sigma _{\delta }\) and the boundary values in (1.3a)–(1.3c), the \(\Gamma \)-limit in \(L_{2}(D)\) of \((E_{\delta })_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) is the reduced total energy \(E\) defined in (1.6).
Let us finally remark that, in this paper, we focus on the energy approach to take into account the influence of the thickness of a dielectric layer as first developed in [14] for a related model. We refer to [3, 19–21] for alternative approaches to model dielectric layers, all designed within the so-called small aspect ratio approximation. Recall that, in the latter, the electrostatic potential is given explicitly as a function of the deflection \(u\) and the model then reduces to a single equation for \(u\). Such models have been extensively studied in the last decades in the mathematical literature since the pioneering works of [4, 9, 11, 21], see the book [7], the survey [13] and the references therein.
2 Convergence of Minimizers
As already mentioned, the reinforcement limit requires that the permittivity \(\sigma _{\delta }\) in the dielectric layer \(\mathcal{R}_{\delta }\) scales with the layer’s thickness; that is, the (scaled) permittivity of the device is given in the form
for \(\delta \in (0,1)\), where \(\sigma \in C^{2}(\bar{D}\times [-H-1,-H])\) is a fixed function with
With this specific form of \(\sigma \), we can show that cluster points as \(\delta \to 0\) of minimizers of the total energy \(E_{\delta }\) on \(\bar{S}_{0}\) are minimizers of the reduced total energy \(E\). More precisely:
Theorem 2.1
Suppose that the dielectric permittivity satisfies (2.1a), (2.1b) and that the assumptions on the boundary values in (1.3c) are given by (3.1a)–(3.1l) below. For \(\delta \in (0,1)\) let \(u_{\delta }^{*}\in \bar{S}_{0}\) be any minimizer of \(E_{\delta }\) on \(\bar{S}_{0}\) with corresponding electrostatic potential \(\psi _{u_{\delta }^{*},\delta }\) satisfying (1.3a)–(1.3c). Then
and there are a subsequence \(\delta _{j}\rightarrow 0\) and a minimizer \(u^{*}\in \bar{S}_{0}\) of \(E\) on \(\bar{S}_{0}\) such that
and
Moreover, for \(M>0\) such that \(-H\le u_{\delta }^{*}\le M-H\) a.e., we have
where \(\psi _{u^{*}}\) satisfies (1.5a)–(1.5c) (with \(u\) replaced by \(u^{*}\)).
As we shall see below, the main step in the proof of Theorem 2.1 is the \(\Gamma \)-convergence of the sequence \((E_{\delta })_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) in \(L_{2}(D)\) to \(E\) which is established in Sect. 4. We then combine this property with estimates on the minimizers of \(E_{\delta }\) on \(\bar{S}_{0}\), which do not depend on \(\delta \in (0,1)\) and are derived in Sects. 4.3-4.4 to complete the proof.
Let us finally point out that the assumptions (2.1a), (2.1b) and (3.1a)–(3.1l) on the permittivity \(\sigma _{\delta }\) and the boundary conditions \(h_{u,\delta }\) guarantee that, for each \(\delta \in (0,1)\), the total energy \(E_{\delta }\) defined in (1.2) has at least one minimizer \(u_{\delta }^{*}\in \bar{S}_{0}\); that is,
see [16, Theorem 1.3]. Actually, the corresponding electrostatic potential \(\psi _{u_{\delta }^{*},\delta } \in H^{1}(\Omega _{\delta }(u_{\delta }))\) is a strong solution to the transmission problem (1.3a)–(1.3c) in the sense that \(\psi _{u_{\delta }^{*},\delta }\vert _{\mathcal{R}_{\delta }} \in H^{2}( \mathcal{R}_{\delta })\) and \(\psi _{u_{\delta }^{*},\delta }\vert _{\Omega (u_{\delta }^{*})} \in H^{2}( \Omega (u_{\delta }^{*}))\), this regularity property being in fact true for any \(u\in \bar{S}_{0}\) [15, 16].
As for the reduced total energy \(E\), the existence of minimizers of \(E\) on \(\bar{S}_{0}\) has already been established in [17, Theorem 2.3] by a direct approach, assuming additionally that
for \((x,w)\in D\times [-H,\infty )\), besides (3.1a)–(3.1l) below. Theorem 2.1 then extends the existence of minimizers of \(E\) on \(\bar{S}_{0}\) to the situation where (2.3) does not hold. However, it does not provide the \(H^{2}\)-regularity of the associated electrostatic potential \(\psi _{u^{*}}\) solving (1.5a)–(1.5c), which is shown to be true in [17, Theorem 2.2] under the assumptions (2.3) and (3.1a)–(3.1l).
3 Assumptions and Auxiliary Results
This section is devoted to a precise definition of the boundary conditions (1.3c) and (1.5c), and includes as well useful properties of \(h_{u,\delta }\) on which we rely on in the sequel.
3.1 Boundary Data
We fix two \(C^{2}\)-functions
and
satisfying
We then define for \((x,w) \in \bar{D} \times [-H,\infty )\)
and observe that \(h_{\delta }\in C(\bar{D} \times [-H-\delta ,\infty )\times [-H,\infty ))\) by (3.1c).
In order to guarantee the coercivity of the energy functional \(E_{\delta }\) we require that there is a constant \(m>0\) such that
for \((x,z,w)\in \bar{D} \times [-H-1,-H] \times [-H,\infty )\) and
for \((x,z,w)\in \bar{D} \times [-H,\infty ) \times [-H,\infty )\). Moreover, we assume that
and that there is \(K>0\) such that, for \((x,w)\in \bar{D}\times [-H,\infty )\),
Given a function \(u:\bar{D}\rightarrow [-H,\infty )\) we shall also use the abbreviations
and
Furthermore, we set
Note that (3.1c)-(3.1d) imply that \(h_{u,\delta }\) satisfies the transmission conditions (1.3b):
Simple computations show that the example provided in (1.4) satisfies (3.1a)–(3.1l) with
for \((x,z,w)\in \bar{D}\times [-H-1,-H]\times [-H,\infty )\) and
for \((x,z,w)\in \bar{D}\times [-H,\infty ) \times [-H,\infty )\).
3.2 Auxiliary Results
We begin with some properties of the function \(h_{u,\delta }\) that we derive from assumptions (2.1a), (2.1b), (3.1a)–(3.1l) imposed above. For further use, we set
Lemma 3.1
Assume (2.1a), (2.1b) and (3.1a)–(3.1l).
(i) There is a constant \(c_{0}>0\) depending on \(m\), \(L\), and \(\sigma _{max}\) such that, given \(u\in \bar{S}_{0}\) and \(\delta \in (0,1)\),
(ii) Suppose that \(u_{\delta }\rightarrow u\) in \(H^{1}(D)\) as \(\delta \rightarrow 0\) and that \(-H\le u_{\delta }\) in \(D\). Then
and, as \(\delta \rightarrow 0\),
Moreover,
Proof
(i) Using (2.1a), (3.1e), (3.1j), and the definition of \(\Omega _{\delta }(u)\) we have
Invoking (3.1f)-(3.1g) and Young’s inequality, we derive
This proves (i).
(ii) First, \(M\) is well-defined and finite owing to the continuous embedding of \(H^{1}(D)\) in \(C(\bar{D})\) and the strong convergence of \((u_{\delta })_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) in \(H^{1}(D)\). Next, the stated convergences readily follow from the smoothness of \(h\) and \(h_{b}\), from the convergence of \(u_{\delta }\rightarrow u\) in \(H^{1}(D)\), and the continuous embedding of \(H^{1}(D)\) in \(C(\bar{D})\). □
4 Convergence of Minimizers
Three steps are needed to prove Theorem 2.1: we begin by establishing in Sect. 4.1 the convergence of the electrostatic energy \(E_{e,\delta }\) as \(\delta \to 0\), building upon the analysis performed in [18] for a reduced problem. This convergence, along with the weak lower semicontinuity of the mechanical energy \(E_{m}\), leads us to the \(\Gamma \)-convergence of \(E_{\delta }\) to \(E\) in \(L_{2}(D)\), see Sect. 4.2. Such a property provides information on the relationship between minimizers for the cases \(\delta >0\) and \(\delta =0\), which we use in Sects. 4.3–4.4 to complete the proof of Theorem 2.1.
4.1 Convergence of the Electrostatic Energy
Building upon the analysis performed in [18], we investigate the limit of the electrostatic energy \(E_{e,\delta }\) as \(\delta \to 0\). Recalling that the main outcome of [18] is that
for any \(u\in \bar{S}_{0}\), we extend this result to a sequence \((u_{\delta })_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) in \(\bar{S}_{0}\) and show that \((E_{e,\delta }(u_{\delta }))_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) converges to \(E_{e,0}(u)\) as \(\delta \to 0\), provided that \((u_{\delta })_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) converges to \(u\) in \(H^{1}(D)\). More precisely, consider a sequence \((u_{\delta })_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) in \(\bar{S}_{0}\) and \(u\in \bar{S}_{0}\) such that
Observe that the convergence (4.1a) and the continuous embedding of \(H^{1}(D)\) in \(C(\bar{D})\) ensure that
Proposition 4.1
Suppose (4.1a), (4.1b) and set \(\Omega (M):=D\times (-H,M)\). Then
and
Proof
We use a \(\Gamma \)-convergence approach combining arguments from [17, Proposition 4.1] and [18, Theorem 3.1]. Let \(\mathcal{O}_{M} := D\times (-H-1,M)\) and define, for \(\delta \in (0,1)\),
and \(G_{\delta }[\vartheta ] := \infty \) for \(\vartheta \in L_{2}(\mathcal{O}_{M})\setminus H_{0}^{1}(\Omega _{\delta }(u_{\delta }))\). Then
and \(\chi _{u_{\delta },\delta }\) is the unique minimizer of \(G_{\delta }\) on \(H_{0}^{1}(\Omega _{\delta }(u_{\delta }))\), see [15, Proposition 3.1].
We next introduce \(H_{B}^{1}(\Omega (u))\) as the closure in \(H^{1}(\Omega (u))\) of the set
Noticing that \(\vartheta (x,u(x))=\vartheta (x,-H)=0\) for \(x\in \mathcal{C}(u)\) and \(\vartheta \in C_{B}^{1}(\overline{\Omega (u)})\), we agree upon setting \(\vartheta (x,u(x))=\vartheta (x,-H):=0\) for all \(x\in \mathcal{C}(u)\) and \(\vartheta \in H_{B}^{1}(\Omega (u))\) in the sequel. Now, given \(\vartheta \in H_{B}^{1}(\Omega (u))\), we define
with \(\mathfrak{h}_{u}\) defined in (3.1l), and
Then
and \(\chi _{u}\) is the unique minimizer of \(G\) on \(H_{B}^{1}(\Omega (u))\), see [18, Proposition 3.3]. We now claim that
For (4.5) we have to prove the asymptotic weak lower semicontinuity and the existence of a recovery sequence.
(i) Asymptotic weak lower semicontinuity. Consider \(\vartheta _{0}\in L_{2}(\mathcal{O}_{M})\) and a sequence \((\vartheta _{\delta })_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) in \(L_{2}(\mathcal{O}_{M})\) such that
We shall then show that
Due to the definitions of \(G_{\delta }\) and \(G\), we only need to consider the case where \(\vartheta _{\delta }\in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega _{\delta }(u_{\delta }))\) for \(\delta \in (0,1)\) and
We may then extend \(\vartheta _{\delta }\) trivially to \(\Omega (M)=D\times (-H,M)\), so that \(\vartheta _{\delta }\in H_{B}^{1}(\Omega (M))\). We next infer from (2.1a), (2.1b) and the definition of \(G_{\delta }\) that
and the right-hand side of the above inequality is bounded by (4.1a), (4.1b), (4.8), and Lemma 3.1. Consequently, taking also into account (4.6) and the property \(\vartheta _{\delta }\in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega _{\delta }(u_{\delta }))\) for \(\delta \in (0,1)\), we conclude that \((\vartheta _{\delta })_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) is bounded in \(H_{B}^{1}(\Omega (M))\). Owing to (4.1a), (4.1b) and Lemma 3.1, we may assume without loss of generality that
Moreover, since \(\Omega (M)\) is a Lipschitz domain, the embedding of \(H^{1}(\Omega (M))\) in \(H^{3/4}(\Omega (M))\) is compact, see [10, Theorem 1.4.3.2], while the trace operator is continuous from \(H^{3/4}(\Omega (M))\) in \(L_{2}(\partial \Omega (M))\), see [10, Theorem 1.5.1.2]. We may thus assume without loss of generality that
In particular,
and it follows from (4.1a), (4.1b), (4.11), and Lemma 3.1 that
Next, arguing as in [17, Proposition 4.1], we deduce from (4.9) and Lemma 3.1 that
Hence, together with (4.12),
Moreover, (4.8) entails that
The continuity of \(\sigma \) now warrants that
Since \(\vartheta _{\delta }(\cdot ,-H-\delta )= 0\) a.e. in \(D\), we infer from Hölder’s inequality that
for a.e. \(x\in D\). Combining the previous two estimates and using (see (3.1e) and (3.1j)-(3.1l))
we deduce from (4.1a), (4.1b), (4.11), and Lemma 3.1 that
Noticing finally that
we readily obtain from (4.12), (4.13), and (4.14) that
This is the asymptotic weak lower semicontinuity (4.7).
(ii) Recovery sequence. Let \(\hat{\Omega }(M):=D\times (-2H-M,M)\). Given an arbitrary function \(\vartheta \in H_{B}^{1}(\Omega (u))\) we define \(\bar{\vartheta }\in H_{0}^{1}(\hat{\Omega }(M))\) by extending \(\vartheta \) trivially to \(D\times (-H,M)\) and then reflecting the outcome to \(\hat{\Omega }(M)\); that is,
Then \(F:=-\Delta \bar{\vartheta }\in H^{-1}(\hat{\Omega }(M))\). With
the restriction of the distribution \(F\) belongs to \(H^{-1}(\hat{\Omega }(u_{\delta }))\). Thus, there is a unique variational solution \(\hat{\vartheta }_{\delta }\in H_{0}^{1}(\hat{\Omega }(u_{\delta }))\subset H_{0}^{1}( \hat{\Omega }(M))\) to
If \(d_{H}\) denotes the Hausdorff distance in \(\hat{\Omega }(M)\) (see [12, Sect. 2.2.3]), then, due to (4.1a) and the continuous embedding of \(H_{0}^{1}(D)\) in \(C(\bar{D})\), we have
Since \(\overline{\hat{\Omega }(M)}\setminus \hat{\Omega }(u_{\delta })\) has a single connected component, it follows from [23, Theorem 4.1] and [12, Theorem 3.2.5] that \(\hat{\vartheta }_{\delta }\rightarrow \hat{\vartheta }\) in \(H_{0}^{1}(\hat{\Omega }(M))\), where \(\hat{\vartheta }\in H_{0}^{1}(\hat{\Omega }(M))\) is the unique variational solution to
Clearly, since \(\bar{\vartheta }\) and \(\hat{\vartheta }\) both belong to \(H_{0}^{1}(\hat{\Omega }(M))\), we deduce from the above identity that \(\hat{\vartheta }=\bar{\vartheta }\). Hence,
Considering the corresponding restrictions to \(\Omega (M)\) yields
Set
and introduce
for \((x,z)\in \mathcal{R}_{\delta }\) and
The smoothness and definitions of \(\hat{\vartheta }_{\delta }\), \(h_{u_{\delta },\delta }\), and \(\tau _{\delta }\) imply that \(\vartheta _{\delta }\in H^{1}(\mathcal{R}_{\delta })\cap H^{1}(\Omega (M))\) and thus, since moreover on \(\Sigma (u_{\delta })\), we deduce that \(\vartheta _{\delta }\in H^{1}(\Omega _{\delta }(u_{\delta }))\). By construction, \(\vartheta _{\delta }\) vanishes on \(\partial \Omega _{\delta }(u_{\delta })\), hence \(\vartheta _{\delta }\in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega _{\delta }(u_{\delta }))\). We now claim that \((\vartheta _{\delta })_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) is a recovery sequence for \(\vartheta \); that is,
First, using that \(\hat{\vartheta }_{\delta }=0\) in \(\Omega (M)\setminus \Omega (u_{\delta })\) and \(\vartheta _{\delta }=\hat{\vartheta }_{\delta }\) in \(\Omega (u_{\delta })\) along with (4.1a), (4.1b), Lemma 3.1, and (4.16), it is not difficult to see that
Next, for \((x,z)\in \mathcal{R}_{\delta }\), we have
and we aim at identifying the limit of the right-hand side of (4.19) as \(\delta \rightarrow 0\). Let us first note that, for \(z\in (-H-\delta ,-H)\),
from which, thanks to the convergence (4.15), we deduce that
Since (4.16) implies that \(\hat{\vartheta }_{\delta }(\cdot ,-H)\to \bar{\vartheta }(\cdot ,-H)\) in \(L_{2}(D)\), we infer from (4.20) and the continuity of \(\sigma \) that
Now, the definitions of \(\sigma _{\delta }=\delta \sigma \) in \(\mathcal{R}_{\delta }\) and \(\tau _{\delta }\), the properties of \(h_{u_{\delta },\delta }\) (see Lemma 3.1), and (4.21) yield
Moreover,
so that, recalling that \((\hat{\vartheta }_{\delta })_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) is bounded in \(H^{1}(\hat{\Omega }(M))\) due to (4.15),
Finally, observe from (3.1e) that
Hence,
so that, using (4.1a), (4.1b), the definition of \(\tau _{\delta }\), the continuity of \(\partial _{z} h_{b}\), and Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem, we derive
Consequently, we deduce from (4.19) and (4.22)-(4.24) that
Furthermore, we note that
and, recalling (3.1e),
for \((x,z)\in \mathcal{R}_{\delta }\). Thus, since
we easily obtain from \(\sigma _{\delta }=\delta \sigma \) in \(\mathcal{R}_{\delta }\) that
where \(\|h_{b}\|_{C^{1}}\) denotes the norm of \(h_{b}\) in \(C^{1}(\bar{D}\times [-H-1,-H]\times [-H,M])\), and \(c\) is a positive constant depending on \(D\) and \(H\). Therefore, (4.1a), (4.1b) and (4.15) entail
Consequently, we derive from (4.18), (4.25), and (4.26) that
where we used that \(\bar{\vartheta }(x,-H)=\vartheta (x,-H)\) by construction of \(\bar{\vartheta }\). Hence, \((\vartheta _{\delta })_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) is indeed a recovery sequence for \(\vartheta \).
(iii) Convergence. Since (i) and (ii) prove (4.5), we may invoke the Fundamental Theorem of \(\Gamma \)-convergence [6, Corollary 7.20] to deduce from (4.2)-(4.5) that, as \(\delta \to 0\),
and
This proves Proposition 4.1. □
4.2 \(\Gamma \)-Convergence of the Total Energy
We now turn to the \(\Gamma \)-convergence of the total energy and first establish that the \(H^{2}\)-norm of \(u\) is controlled by the total energy \(E_{\delta }(u)\) (defined in (1.2)) and the \(L_{2}\)-norm of \(u\), whatever the value of \(\delta \in (0,1)\).
Lemma 4.2
Given \(\kappa >0\) there is a constant \(c(\kappa )>0\) such that, if \(u\in \bar{S}_{0}\) satisfies
then
Proof
We argue similarly to [16, Lemma 2.3]. The variational characterization of \(\psi _{u,\delta }\) (see [15, Lemma 3.2]) and (3.2) imply
where \(c_{0}\) is defined in Lemma 3.1. Furthermore, since \(u\in \bar{S}_{0}\subset H_{D}^{2}(D)\) we have
so that we deduce from (4.27) and (4.29) that
Consequently, we obtain from (4.31), the definition of \(E_{\delta }\), and Young’s inequality that
Combining the above estimate with (4.27) and (4.30) entails that \(\| u\|_{H^{2}(D)}\le c(\kappa )\), which also implies the second assertion of (4.28) due to (4.31). □
The total energies (defined in (1.2) and (1.6)), being a priori defined only on \(\bar{S}_{0}\), are extended to functionals on \(L_{2}(D)\) by setting
Then we can prove:
Corollary 4.3
Proof
(i) Recovery sequence. Concerning the construction of a recovery sequence it is sufficient to consider \(u\in \bar{S}_{0}\). Let us observe from [18, Corollary 3.4] that
Since \(E_{m}(u)\) is independent of \(\delta \), we thus readily obtain
(ii) Asymptotic weak lower semicontinuity. Consider a sequence \((u_{\delta })_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) in \(L_{2}(D)\) and \(u\in L_{2}(D)\) such that
Since we shall show that then
a property which is obviously true if the right-hand side is infinite, we may assume that there is a constant \(\kappa >0\) such that
Now, due to (4.32) and (4.34), we may invoke Lemma 4.2 to derive that \((u_{\delta })_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) is bounded in \(H^{2}(D)\). Thus, up to a subsequence, we have \(u_{\delta }\rightharpoonup u\) in \(H^{2}(D)\) and \(u_{\delta }\to u\) in \(H^{1}(D)\). The former implies
while the latter, along with Proposition 4.1, entails
Therefore, (4.33) holds true owing to (4.35) and (4.36). This implies the assertion. □
4.3 Remaining Arguments for the Proof of Theorem 2.1: The Case \(a>0\)
Let \(\delta \in (0,1)\). We first use the positivity of \(a\) to show that the \(H^{2}\)-norm is controlled by \(E_{\delta }\). Specifically, it follows from (4.29), the Poincaré inequality
and Young’s inequality \(a r^{4} + a \ge 2 a r^{2}\) that, for \(u\in \bar{S}_{0}\),
with \(c_{0}\) defined in Lemma 3.1 and \(c_{1} := a/8 + c_{0} + c_{0}^{2} (1+16L^{2})^{2}/a\). Hence,
Now, for each \(\delta \in (0,1)\), let \(u_{\delta }^{*}\in \bar{S}_{0}\) be an arbitrary minimizer of \(E_{\delta }\) in \(\bar{S}_{0}\), see (2.2), with corresponding electrostatic potential \(\psi _{u_{\delta }^{*},\delta }\) satisfying (1.3a)–(1.3c). Since \(E_{\delta }(u_{\delta }^{*}) \le E_{\delta }(0) \le 0\), we readily infer from (4.37) and (4.38) that \((u_{\delta }^{*})_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) is bounded in \(H^{2}(D)\). In particular, there are a subsequence \(\delta _{j}\rightarrow 0\) and \(u^{*}\in \bar{S}_{0}\) such that
so that Corollary 4.3 and the Fundamental Theorem of \(\Gamma \)-convergence, see [6, Corollary 7.20], imply that \(u^{*}\) is a minimizer of \(E\) on \(\bar{S}_{0}\) and
Moreover, since \((u_{\delta }^{*})_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) is bounded in \(H^{2}(D)\) and \((E_{\delta }(u_{\delta }^{*}))_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) is bounded, Lemma 4.2 and (2.1a), (2.1b) entail that (the trivial extensions of) \(\big (\psi _{u_{\delta }^{*},\delta }-h_{u_{\delta }^{*},\delta }\big )_{ \delta \in (0,1)}\) is bounded in \(H^{1}(D\times (-H,M))\), where
is finite thanks to the boundedness of \((u_{\delta }^{*})_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) in \(H^{2}(D)\) and the continuous embedding of \(H^{2}(D)\) in \(L_{\infty }(D)\). Therefore, upon extracting a further subsequence if necessary, we may assume that \(\big ( \psi _{u_{\delta _{j}}^{*},\delta _{j}} - h_{u_{\delta _{j}}^{*}, \delta _{j}} \big )_{j\ge 1}\) weakly converges in \(H^{1}(D\times (-H,M))\), the limit necessarily being \(\psi _{u^{*}}-h_{u^{*}}\) owing to Proposition 4.1.
Let us finally improve the convergence (4.39) of \((u_{\delta _{j}}^{*})_{j\ge 1}\). Since \(H^{2}(D)\) embeds compactly in \(H^{1}(D)\), it follows from (4.39) that
and Proposition 4.1 then entails that \(E_{e,\delta _{j}}(u_{\delta _{j}}^{*})\rightarrow E_{e,0}(u^{*})\) as \(j \rightarrow \infty \). Recalling (4.40), we deduce that \(E_{m}(u_{\delta _{j}}^{*}) \rightarrow E_{m}(u^{*})\) as \(j \rightarrow \infty \). Together with the convergences (4.39) and (4.41), this property implies the strong convergence of \((u_{\delta _{j}}^{*})_{j\geq 1}\) to \(u^{*}\) in \(H^{2}(D)\) and completes the proof of Theorem 2.1 when \(a>0\).
4.4 Remaining Arguments for the Proof of Theorem 2.1: The Case \(a=0\)
To finish off the proof of Theorem 2.1, we are left with the case \(a=0\) for which the weak compactness of minimizers in \(H^{2}(D)\) is harder to derive. Additional information on these minimizers is actually required and follows from the analysis performed in [15, 16], using that they are critical points of the total energy.
Lemma 4.4
There is a constant \(c_{2}>0\) which does not depend on \(\delta \in (0,1)\) such that, if \(u\) is a minimizer of \(E_{\delta }\) on \(\bar{S}_{0}\) for some \(\delta \in (0,1)\), then
Taking Lemma 4.4 for granted, we are in a position to complete the proof of Theorem 2.1 when \(a=0\).
Proof of Theorem 2.1: \(a=0\).
For each \(\delta \in (0,1)\), let \(u_{\delta }^{*}\in \bar{S}_{0}\) be an arbitrary minimizer of \(E_{\delta }\) in \(\bar{S}_{0}\), see (2.2), with corresponding electrostatic potential \(\psi _{u_{\delta }^{*},\delta }\) satisfying (1.3a)–(1.3c). By Lemma 4.4, \((u_{\delta }^{*})_{\delta \in (0,1)}\) is bounded in \(L_{\infty }(D)\) and thus also in \(L_{2}(D)\). Therefore, since \(E_{\delta }(u_{\delta }^{*})\le E_{\delta }(0)\le 0\), it is also bounded in \(H^{2}(D)\) according to Lemma 4.2. We may then proceed as in the previous case \(a>0\) in order to complete the proof of Theorem 2.1. □
We are left with proving Lemma 4.4, which relies on the same comparison argument as [16, Proposition 2.6] and uses in an essential way the Euler-Lagrange equation satisfied by minimizers of the total energy \(E_{\delta }\).
Proof of Lemma 4.4
Let \(\delta \in (0,1)\) and consider a minimizer \(u\in \bar{S}_{0}\) of \(E_{\delta }\) on \(\bar{S}_{0}\) (if any). Owing to (3.1a)–(3.1l), it follows from [16, Theorem 1.3] (see also [15, Theorem 5.3]) that \(u\) is a weak solution to the parabolic variational inequality
where \(\partial \mathbb{I}_{\bar{S}_{0}}\) denotes the subdifferential in \(L_{2}(D)\) of the indicator function \(\mathbb{I}_{\bar{S}_{0}}\) of the closed convex set \(\bar{S}_{0}\) (that is, \(\mathbb{I}_{\bar{S}_{0}}(v)=0\) for \(v\in \bar{S}_{0}\) and \(\mathbb{I}_{\bar{S}_{0}}(v)=\infty \) for \(v\in L_{2}(D)\setminus \bar{S}_{0}\)). Taking into account assumptions (2.1a), (2.1b) and (3.1h), the electrostatic force \(g_{\delta }(u)\in L_{2}(D)\) is given by
for \(x\in D\), where
for \(x\in D\setminus \mathcal{C}(u)\) and
for \(x\in \mathcal{C}(u)\), the coincidence set \(\mathcal{C}(u)\) being defined in (1.1). In the definition of \(\mathfrak{g}_{\delta }(u)\), \(\psi _{u,\delta ,1} := \psi _{u,\delta } \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{R}_{\delta }}\) and \(\psi _{u,\delta ,2} := \psi _{u,\delta } \mathbf{1}_{\Omega (u)}\), where we recall that [15, Theorem 1.1] guarantees that \(\psi _{u,\delta ,1} \in H^{2}(\mathcal{R}_{\delta })\) and \(\psi _{u,\delta ,2}\in H^{2}(\Omega (u))\), so that the traces involved in (4.42a)–(4.42c) are well-defined.
Now, since \(\mathfrak{g}_{\delta }(u_{\delta }^{*})\ge 0\) in \(D\), it easily follows from (3.1i) that \(g_{\delta }(u)\ge -K^{2}\) in \(D\) and we argue as in the proof of [16, Proposition 2.6] to conclude that there is a constant \(c>0\) depending only on \(L\), \(\beta \), \(\tau \), and \(K\) such that \(u\le c\) in \(D\). Recalling that \(u\ge -H\) completes the proof. □
References
Acerbi, E., Buttazzo, G.: Reinforcement problems in the calculus of variations. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré, Anal. Non Linéaire 3, 273–284 (1986)
Ambati, V.R., Asheim, A., van den Berg, J.B., van Gennip, Y., Gerasimov, T., Hlod, A., Planqué, B., van der Schans, M., van der Stelt, S., Vargas Rivera, M., Vondenhoff, E.: Some studies on the deformation of the membrane in an RF MEMS switch. In: Bokhove, O., Hurink, J., Meinsma, G., Stolk, C., Vellekoop, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 63rd European Study Group Mathematics with Industry. Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, pp. 65–84. CWI Syllabus, Netherlands (2008). http://eprints.ewi.utwente.nl/14950
Bernstein, D.H., Guidotti, P.: Modeling and analysis of hysteresis phenomena in electrostatic zipper actuators. In: Proceedings of Modeling and Simulation of Microsystems 2001, Hilton Head Island, SC pp. 306–309. (2001)
Bernstein, D.H., Guidotti, P., Pelesko, J.A.: Analytical and numerical analysis of electrostatically actuated MEMS devices. In: Proceedings of Modeling and Simulation of Microsystems 2000, San Diego, CA, pp. 489–492 (2000)
Brézis, H., Caffarelli, L.A., Friedman, A.: Reinforcement problems for elliptic equations and variational inequalities. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 123, 219–246 (1980)
Dal Maso, G.: An Introduction to \(\Gamma \)-Convergence. Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications, vol. 8. Birkhäuser Boston, Boston (1993)
Esposito, P., Ghoussoub, N., Guo, Y.: Mathematical Analysis of Partial Differential Equations Modeling Electrostatic MEMS. Courant Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 20. Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences/American Mathematical Society, New York/Providence (2010)
Fargas Marquès, A., Costa Castelló, R., Shkel, A.M.: Modelling the electrostatic actuation of MEMS: state of the art 2005. Technical Report, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, (2005)
Flores, G., Mercado, G., Pelesko, J.A., Smyth, N.: Analysis of the dynamics and touchdown in a model of electrostatic MEMS. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 67, 434–446 (2006/07) (electronic)
Grisvard, P.: Elliptic Problems in Nonsmooth Domains. Classics in Applied Mathematics, vol. 69. SIAM, Philadelphia (2011). Reprint of the 1985 original
Guo, Y., Pan, Z., Ward, M.J.: Touchdown and pull-in voltage behavior of a MEMS device with varying dielectric properties. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 66, 309–338 (2005) (electronic)
Henrot, A., Pierre, M.: Shape Variation and Optimization. EMS Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 28. European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich (2018)
Laurençot, Ph., Walker, Ch.: Some singular equations modeling MEMS. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 54, 437–479 (2017)
Laurençot, Ph., Walker, Ch.: Heterogeneous dielectric properties in models for microelectromechanical systems. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 78, 504–530 (2018)
Laurençot, Ph., Walker, Ch.: Shape derivative of the Dirichlet energy for a transmission problem. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 237, 447–496 (2020)
Laurençot, Ph., Walker, Ch.: Stationary solutions to a nonlocal fourth-order elliptic obstacle problem. J. Elliptic Parabolic Equ. 6, 171–186 (2020)
Laurençot, Ph., Nik, K., Walker, Ch.: Energy minimizers for an asymptotic MEMS model with heterogeneous dielectric properties (2020). arXiv:2004.14000
Laurençot, Ph., Nik, K., Walker, Ch.: Reinforced limit of a MEMS model with heterogeneous dielectric properties. Appl. Math. Optim., 1–21 (2020)
Lindsay, A.E., Lega, J., Glasner, K.G.: Regularized model of post-touchdown configurations in electrostatic MEMS: equilibrium analysis. Physica D 280–281, 95–108 (2014)
Lindsay, A.E., Lega, J., Glasner, K.G.: Regularized model of post-touchdown configurations in electrostatic MEMS: interface dynamics. IMA J. Appl. Math. 80, 1635–1663 (2015)
Pelesko, J.A.: Mathematical modeling of electrostatic MEMS with tailored dielectric properties. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 62, 888–908 (2001/02)
Pelesko, J.A., Bernstein, D.H.: Modeling MEMS and NEMS. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2003)
Šverák, V.: On optimal shape design. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 72, 537–551 (1993)
Acknowledgements
We thank the referee for helpful comments.
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Vienna.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Partially supported by the CNRS Projet International de Coopération Scientifique PICS07710.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Laurençot, P., Nik, K. & Walker, C. Convergence of Energy Minimizers of a MEMS Model in the Reinforced Limit. Acta Appl Math 173, 9 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10440-021-00416-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10440-021-00416-3