Microsystem Technologies

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 263–276 | Cite as

Design of experiments based factorial design and response surface methodology for MEMS optimization

  • M. M. Saleem
  • A. Somá
Technical Paper


This paper presents the application of the design of experiments technique based factorial designs and response surface methodology (RSM) for optimization of MEMS devices. The RSM methodology is used to optimize the geometric parameters of the symmetric toggle RF MEMS switch to minimize the switch pull-in voltage. Fractional factorial based Plackett–Burman screening design is developed and the corresponding pull-in voltage is obtained, through finite element method (FEM) based simulations, for different combinations of the dimensional parameters. Analysis of variance is performed to distinguish the most significant parameters affecting the output response. The significant parameters, obtained using Plackett–Burman screening design, are further investigated using second order Box–Behnken design to obtain the optimal levels of the significant parameters and analyze their interactions. Regression analysis is carried out to check the adequacy of the Box–Behnkan based response surface model for predicting the output response. The effect of the significant parameters and their interactions on the pull-in voltage is analyzed through model based 3D surface and contour plots. The optimal levels of the parameters for a pull-in voltage \(\le\)15 V, with compact device dimensions, are determined and verified through FEM simulations. A comparison is made for the results obtained through RSM with the analytical results presented in the literature. This showed a close agreement, verifying the practicability of this approach for the optimization of MEMS devices.


Response Surface Methodology Output Response Finite Element Method Simulation Burman Design Factor Level Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anderson TW, Darling DA (1954) A test of goodness of fit. J Am Stat Assoc 49(268):765–769CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballestra A, Brusa E, De Pasquale G, Munteanu MG, Somá A (2008) RF-MEMS beam components: FEM modelling and experimental identification of pull-in in presence of residual stress. In: Design, test, integration and packaging of MEMS/MOEMS, pp 232–235Google Scholar
  3. Benmessaoud M, Nasreddine MM (2013) Optimization of MEMS capacitive accelerometer. Microsyst Technol 19:713–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouchaud J, Knoblich B (2007) RF MEMS switches deliver on early promise. Sens Transducers J 86:1802–1808Google Scholar
  5. Box GE, Draper NR (1987) Empirical model-building and response surfaces. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Daniel C (1959) Use of half-normal plots in interpreting factorial two-levels experiments. Technometrics 1:311–341CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. De Pasquale G, Veijola T, Somá A (2010) Modelling and validation of air damping in perforated gold and silicon MEMS plates. J Micromechanic Microengineering 20(1):015010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farinelli P, Solazzi F, Calaza C, Margesin B, Sorrentino R (2008) A wide tuning range MEMS varactor based on a toggle push-pull mechanism. In: Microwave conference, pp 1501–1504Google Scholar
  9. Ferreira SC, Bruns RE, Ferreira HS, Matos GD, David JM, Brandão GC, Dos Santos WL (2007) Box–Behnken design: an alternative for the optimization of analytical methods. Anal Chim Acta 597(2):179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giacomozzi  F, Calaza C, Colpo S, Mulloni  V, Collini A, Margesin  B, Farinelli P, Casini F, Marcelli R, Monnocchi G, Vietzorreck L (2008) Development of high con coff ratio RF MEMS shunt switches. Rom J Inf Sci Technol 11(2):143–151Google Scholar
  11. Hamada M, Wu C (2000) Experiments: planning, analysis, and parameter design optimization. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Ishikawa K (1976) Guide to quality control. Asian Productivity Organization. Nordica International, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee Y, Filipovic DS (2005) ANN based electromagnetic models for the design of RF MEMS switches. Microw Wirel Compon Lett IEEE 15(11):823–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee Y, Park Y, Niu F, Filipovic D (2006) Design and optimisation of one-port RF MEMS resonators and related integrated circuits using ANN-based macromodelling approach. IEE Proc-Circuits Devices Syst 153(5):480–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liu Y, Yang HY, Wang GC (2012) Genetic algorithm based multidisciplinary design optimization of MEMS accelerometer. Appl Mech Mater 101:530–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maninder K, Rangra KJ, Kumar D, Singh S (2009) Parametric optimization of symmetric toggle RF MEMS switch for X-band applications. Int J Recent Trends Eng 2(7):95–98Google Scholar
  17. Mason RL, Gunst RF, Hess JL (2003) Statistical design and analysis of experiments: with applications to engineering and science, vol 474. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Montgomery DC (1997) Design and analysis of experiments, 5th edn. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Mukherjee T, Iyer S, Feeder GK (1998) Optimization-based synthesis of microresonators. Sens Actuators A Phys 70(1):118–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Plackett RL, Burman JP (1946) The design of optimum multifactorial experiments. Biometrika 33(4):305–325CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Pramanik C, Saha H, Gangopadhyay U (2006) Design optimization of a high performance silicon MEMS piezoresistive pressure sensor for biomedical applications. J Micromechanics Microengineering 16:2060–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rangra K, Margesin B, Lorenzelli L, Giacomozzi F, Collini C, Zen M, Soncini G, Tin L, Gaddi R (2005) Symmetric toggle switch-a new type of RF MEMS switch for telecommunication applications. Design and fabrication. Sens Actuators A 123–124:505–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Razali NM, Wah YB (2011) Power comparisons of Shapiro–Wilk, Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson–Darling tests. J Stat Model Anal 2(1):21–33Google Scholar
  24. Rebeiz GM, Entesari K, Reines IC, Park SJ, El-Tanani MdA, Grichener A, Brown AR (2009) Tuning in to RF MEMS. In: IEEE microwave magazine, pp 55–72Google Scholar
  25. Rebeiz GM (2003) RF MEMS: theory, design and technology. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stephens MA (1976) Asymptotic power of EDF statistics for exponentiality against Gamma and Weibull alternatives. Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Report No. 297Google Scholar
  27. Wan W, Lowther DA (2007) Design and synthesis of wide tuning range variable comb drive MEMS capacitors. COMPEL Int J Comput Math Electr Electron Eng 26(3):689–699CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang Z, Liu Z (2009) An analytical method for optimization of RF MEMS wafer level packaging with CPW detuning consideration. In: Progress in electromagnetics research symposium proceedings, Moscow, pp 479–483Google Scholar
  29. Wilcock R, Kraft M (2011) Genetic algorithm for the design of electro-mechanical sigma delta modulator MEMS sensors. Sensors 11(10):9217–9232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhang Y, Kamalian R, Agogino AM, Séquin CH (2005) Hierarchical MEMS synthesis and optimization. In: Smart structures and materials, international society for optics and photonics, pp 96–106Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringPolitecnico di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations