698 JOURNAL OF MICROELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO.

3, JUNE 2008

Harmonic Balance Nonlinear Identification of a

Capacitive Dual-Backplate MEMS Microphone
Jian Liu, Member, ASME, David T. Martin, Toshikazu Nishida, Louis N. Cattafesta, III, Senior Member, ASME,
Mark Sheplak, and Brian P. Mann

Abstract—This paper describes the application of a nonlin-

ear identification method to extract model parameters from the
steady-state response of a capacitive dual-backplate microelectro-
mechanical systems microphone. The microphone is modeled as
a single-degree-of-freedom second-order system with both elec-
trostatic and mechanical nonlinearities. A harmonic balance ap-
proach is applied to the nonlinear governing equation to obtain a
set of algebraic equations that relate the unknown system param-
eters to the steady-state response of the microphone. Numerical
simulations of the governing equation are also performed, using
theoretical system parameters, to validate the accuracy of the
harmonic balance solution for a weakly nonlinear microphone
system with low damping. Finally, the microphone is experimen-
tally characterized by extracting the system parameters from the
response amplitude and phase relationships of the experimen-
tal data. [2007-0188]
Index Terms—Harmonic balance method, microelectromechan-
ical systems (MEMS), microphone, nonlinear identification.
Fig. 1. (a) Top-view photograph of the microphone. (b) 3-D cross-sectional
schematic view of microphone structure (not to scale).
I. I NTRODUCTION

D URING the past three decades, the demand for reducing

noise pollution, particularly in communities surrounding
airports, has increased [1]. To abate aircraft noise, noise gen-
eration mechanisms must be characterized. To enable aeroa-
coustic measurements, such as noise-source localization using
directional arrays [1], [2], measurement microphones with high
performance, cost efficiency, and small size, must be developed.
Currently, commercial traditional condenser microphones are
Manuscript received August 22, 2007; revised February 26, 2008. This work
was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant ECS-
0097636, in part by CAREER Award CMS-0636641, and in part by Sandia
National Laboratories. Subject Editor A. Shkel.
J. Liu was with the Interdisciplinary Microsystems Group, Department of
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
32611 USA. He is now with AdaptivEnergy, LLC, Hampton, VA 23666 USA.
D. T. Martin was with the Interdisciplinary Microsystems Group, De-
partment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL 32611 USA. He is now with Avago Technologies, Fort Collins,
CO 80525-9790 USA.
T. Nishida is with the Interdisciplinary Microsystems Group, Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering and with the Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA.
L. N. Cattafesta, III is with the Interdisciplinary Microsystems Group,
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL 32611 USA.
M. Sheplak is with the Interdisciplinary Microsystems Group, Department of
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and with the Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA.
B. P. Mann is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering and
Materials Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708 USA (e-mail:
brian.mann@duke.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JMEMS.2008.922067
1057-7157/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE
widely used in the field of aeroacoustic measurements;
however, these microphones are costly and not suitable for
miniaturization. With the recent advancements in microelectro-
mechanical systems (MEMS) technology, batch fabrication of
microphones with smaller sizes and lower prices has become
possible [3]–[7]. MEMS microphones have used a variety of
transduction schemes such as piezoelectric, piezoresistive, and
capacitive (e.g., see [7]). Recently, capacitive MEMS micro-
phones have shown the potential to meet the specifications for
aeroacoustic testing [8].
The majority of capacitive MEMS microphones have been
developed for audio applications [3]–[7], [9]–[14], which typ-
ically require lower maximum pressure levels (< 120 dB, ref.
20 µPa) and bandwidths that are less than 20 kHz. One dis-
tinguishing characteristic of aeroacoustic microphones is the
large bandwidth, which should range from 45 Hz to 90 kHz to
accommodate 1/8th-scale testing [1]. However, the realization
of capacitive MEMS microphones for aeroacoustic reduced-
scale applications presents several challenges. First, scaling
capacitive transduction schemes to the microscale requires that
the backplate is located in close proximity to the diaphragm
[7]. This close spacing may result in unacceptably high viscous
damping loses, thus limiting the bandwidth of the microphone.
Moreover, pull-in instabilities can be a potential issue [7], [15].
A dual-backplate structure that possesses porous rigid elec-
trodes or backplates on either side of the diaphragm (see Fig. 1)
may address these challenges. Specifically, dual-backplate ca-
pacitive microphones offer the potential of a higher sensitivity,

Authorized licensed use limited to: Vel Tech Dr. RR & Dr. SR Tech University - Chennai. Downloaded on August 27,2020 at 09:29:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 LIU et al.: IDENTIFICATION OF A CAPACITIVE DUAL-BACKPLATE MEMS MICROPHONE
a larger dynamic range, and a broader bandwidth over single-
backplate capacitive microphones [4].
The dual-backplate capacitive MEMS microphone consid-
ered in this paper was fabricated by using the SUMMiT V
process at Sandia National Laboratories [8]. The performance
of this microphone is expected to be further improved via
the implementation of a force-feedback controller [16]. The
development of such a controller requires an accurate model
of the microphone. In particular, the electrostatic force between
the diaphragm and backplate of the microphone is inherently
nonlinear, and the mechanical restoring force of the diaphragm
becomes nonlinear for large displacements. The mechanical
and electrostatic nonlinearities can also generate unwanted
harmonic distortion. An additional consideration is that the
microphone system must be designed such that it does not
operate in regions of pull-in instability that could potentially
result in device failure. Therefore, a thorough understanding
of the microphone dynamics becomes important for device
design and operation. An early work to study and identify the
nonlinear behavior of general dynamic systems includes both
nonparametric and parametric identification schemes [17], [18].
Recently, several parametric methods are developed to identify
nonlinear model parameters for microstructures; however, they
are all based on responses in the frequency domain [19], [20].
The authors’ previous work has focused on the development of
a nonlinear dynamic model and comparisons of the microphone
experimental transient response with an analytical multiple
scales analysis in the time domain [21], [22]. This paper,
however, focuses on the experimental steady-state response of
the microphone. More specifically, a harmonic balance non-
linear identification approach is applied to extract the system
parameters of the microphone based on the time-domain data.
This paper is organized as follows. The next section describes
the microphone and presents a model for the equations that
govern the response behavior under harmonic excitation. An ap-
proximate solution for the nonlinear governing equation is then
obtained by using a harmonic balance approach in Section III.
In Section IV, numerical studies are performed to ensure the
validity of the approximate analytical solution. Details of the
experimental study are provided in Section V. The details
of the experimental characterization results are presented in
Section VI, and concluding remarks are provided in the final
section.
II. M ICROPHONE M ODEL
This section describes the structure and operating principles
of the dual-backplate microphone. A nonlinear model for the
microphone dynamics is then developed from lumped-element
modeling (LEM), and final expressions are given for the case of
applying a harmonic excitation voltage.
A top-view optical microscope photograph of the micro-
phone of interest is shown in Fig. 1(a). The electrical con-
nections are realized by the bond pads between the backplates
and diaphragm. A 3-D cross-sectional schematic view of the
microphone structure is shown in Fig. 1(b). The microphone
has three circular parallel plates, namely: the middle solid
diaphragm and the top and bottom perforated backplates. The
gap between each backplate and the diaphragm is 2 µm. The
Authorized licensed use limited to: Vel Tech Dr. RR & Dr. SR Tech University - Chennai. Downloaded on August 27,2020 at 09:29:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
699
thickness and radius of the diaphragm are 2.25 µm and 230 µm,
respectively. The 5-µm radius holes in the backplates enable
the incident acoustic pressure to pass through the backplates
and load the diaphragm. In addition, a large cavity beneath the
bottom backplate is vented to the ambient air, resulting in an
ac measurement device and reducing the sensitivity loss of the
microphone.
The structural plates of the microphone are made of
phosphorous-doped polysilicon to make them conductive,
which provides two capacitors between the diaphragm and
top/bottom backplates. The capacitance value of both is al-
tered when an acoustic wave impinges on the microphone
and deflects the diaphragm. Finally, the differential capacitance
change is converted to an output voltage through various types
of interface electronics [23]. To further understand the relation
between the input pressure and the output voltage, a model of
the microphone needs to be developed.
The microphone is a multienergy domain (acoustical, me-
chanical, and electrical) transducer system, and the microphone
dynamics are usually governed by a set of coupled nonlinear
partial differential equations [24], [25], which are difficult and
complex to study in practice. One alternative for analyzing
the design coupled-domain transducer systems is through the
construction of lumped-element models. In general, LEM is
based on the assumption that the largest device length scale
of interest is much smaller than the characteristic length scales
(for example, acoustic wavelength) of the governing physical
phenomena [23], [26]. Therefore, the model based on this
quasi-static technique holds only up to frequencies just beyond
the first fundamental natural frequency of the microphone [23],
[26]. However, this limitation is appropriate for the measure-
ment bandwidth of the microphone and the analyses employed
in this paper.
A. Nonlinear Dynamics Model
A simplified lumped-element model of the microphone is
presented in this section. The microphone structure is modeled
via conjugate power variables in the mechanical energy domain,
where force is the effort variable and velocity is the flow
variable [23].
To construct a lumped-element model of the microphone, a
reference point must first be defined. In the case of a circular
diaphragm, the center is chosen as a reference location because
the center velocity and displacement of the diaphragm can be
physically measured in the experiments described in the follow-
ing. The distributed-displacement diaphragm is then replaced
by a rigid rectilinear piston that moves with the center deflection
of the diaphragm and possesses an equivalent compliance,
mass, and area over a frequency range from dc to below the
natural frequency of the diaphragm.
By using LEM, the microphone is represented by a single-
degree-of-freedom (SDOF) second-order nonlinear system.
Fig. 2(a) shows a physical model of the microphone, and
Fig. 2(b) shows a lumped-element dynamic model of the
microphone. The development of the lumped-element model
for the microphone is presented in [22] and is summarized
later for completeness. The top and bottom backplates of the
microphone are assumed to be rigid and have the same area
 700 JOURNAL OF MICROELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 3, JUNE 2008

Fig. 2. Models of a dual backplate capacitive MEMS microphone. (a) Physical model. (b) Lumped-element nonlinear dynamic model.

as the diaphragm. Each backplate is separated by a nominal backplates, respectively. The porosity of the bottom and top
gap d0 from the diaphragm. The diaphragm is modeled by a backplates is given by Abp and Atp , respectively.
Duffing spring with linear k1 nonlinear k3 spring constants and It should be pointed out that the vent resistance is not
a lumped mass Mme with an effective area Ame . In particular, included in the lumped-element model because the microphone
the expressions of these lumped-element parameters are given operates beyond the 3-dB cut-on frequency. In general, the top
in the following [22], [27]: and bottom backplates are biased with respect to the middle
diaphragm by two electrical signals ±V (t) with equal magni-
64Dπ tude and opposite polarity, and the microphone is loaded by an
k1 = (1)
3a2 incident acoustic pressure p(t). Finally, the dynamic governing
10.044Dπ equation of motion with p(t) = 0 is [22]
k3 = (2)
a2 h2 Mme ẍ + bẋ + (k1 + kc )x + k3 x3


1 ε0 Ame V (t)2 V (t)2
Mme = πa2 hρd (3) =− − (7)
5 2 (d0 + x)2 (d0 − x)2
1 where x represents the center displacement of the diaphragm (a
Ame = πa2 (4)
3 downward motion is assumed to be positive), ε0 is the dielectric
constant of the air gap, and a parallel-plate assumption is used
where D = (Eh3 /12(1 − ν 2 )) is the flexural rigidity of the to calculate two electrostatic forces.
diaphragm. ν, E, h, a, and ρd are the Poisson’s ratio, Young’s Equation (7) represents a nonautonomous system with cou-
modulus, thickness, radius, and density of the diaphragm, pled cubic mechanical and electrostatic nonlinearities that can
respectively. be rewritten as
The lumped stiffness of the cavity kc of the microphone is
given by [22], [28] ẍ + 2ξω0 ẋ + ω02 x + βx3


ε0 Γ V (t)2 V (t)2
πρa c20 a2c =− − (8)
kc = (5) 2 (d0 + x)2 (d0 − x)2
dc
where the resonant frequency ω0 is given by
where c0 is the isentropic speed of sound in air, ρa is the density 
of air, and ac and dc are the radius and depth of the cavity k1 + kc
ω0 = (9)
cylinder, respectively. Mme
The lumped viscous damping coefficient b of the microphone
is defined as [22], [29] ξ is the damping ratio
b
4µπa4 4µπa4 ξ= (10)
b= f (Abp ) + f (Atp ) 2Mme ω0
3
3nbp d0 3ntp d30
β is the nonlinear stiffness parameter and is defined as
8µπhbp nbp 8µπhtp ntp
+ + (6) k3
A2bp A2tp β= (11)
Mme
where f (X) = 1/4 ln(1/X) − (3/8) + (1/2)X − (1/8)X 2 . and Γ is the ratio of lumped area over lumped mass
µ is the dynamic viscosity of air. nbp and ntp are the total
number of holes in the bottom and top backplates, respectively. Ame
Γ= . (12)
hbp and htp are the thicknesses of the bottom and top Mme

Authorized licensed use limited to: Vel Tech Dr. RR & Dr. SR Tech University - Chennai. Downloaded on August 27,2020 at 09:29:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 LIU et al.: IDENTIFICATION OF A CAPACITIVE DUAL-BACKPLATE MEMS MICROPHONE 701

As seen from (8), for given electrical and pressure inputs, tic force acts on the diaphragm and forces it to vibrate; the
the dynamic characteristics of the microphone are determined governing equation is
by system parameters such as ξ, ω0 , β, and Γ. Therefore,
identifying these system parameters is the focus of this pa- ε0 Γ V02 cos2 (Ωt)
ẍ + 2ξω0 ẋ + ω02 x + βx3 = . (15)
per. Although these parameters can be estimated from LEM, 2 (d0 − x)2
some approximations are usually required. For example, in
the actual device, the two compliant backplates have slightly The square of the sinusoidal input contains both constant and
different areas. In addition, variations in physical dimensions harmonic terms
and material properties, which are usually caused by the fab- V02 V2
rication process, and nonideal boundary conditions could al- V02 cos2 (Ωt) = + 0 cos(2Ωt). (16)
2 2
ter the device model parameters. Therefore, characterization
experiments are required to obtain the actual system parame- With the introduction of the nondimensional center displace-
ters and evaluate the accuracy of the assumptions employed ment, (15) is nondimensionalized as
in the theoretical model. In practice, there are several ways
F0 + F0 cos(2Ωt)
to calibrate microphones, for example, a pressure-reciprocity ÿ + α1 ẏ + α2 y + α3 y 3 = (17)
calibration with two microphones in a coupler [30]. For a (1 − y)2
capacitive microphone, considering that it is a reciprocal and
where
conservative electromechanical transducer [15], it can be elec-
trically self-calibrated in a quiescent acoustic field as indi- x
y= (18)
cated in (7). Based on this approach, system parameters are d0
extracted from the steady-state response of the microphone α1 = 2ξω0 (19)
when excited by a sinusoidal electrical signal. The mathemat- α2 = ω02 (20)
ical background of the governing equation is discussed in the
α3 = βd20 (21)
following section. The detailed derivation of the formulas used
to extract system parameters and details of the characterization ε0 ΓV02
F0 = . (22)
experiments will be provided in Section III and Section V, 4d30
respectively.
The further rearrangement of (17) results in
 
ÿ + α1 ẏ + α2 y + α3 y 3 (1−y)2 = F0 [1 + cos(2Ωt)] . (23)
B. Governing Equation for Harmonic Excitation
During the characterization experiments, no acoustic wave Equation (23) represents a nonautonomous second-order
was incident on the diaphragm, and a designed electrical signal nonlinear system which does not have a known closed-form
V (t) was applied directly to either the top or bottom backplate solution [31]. However, the work of the next section provides a
with the diaphragm and the other backplate was electrically methodology for obtaining an approximate analytical solution.
grounded. Physically, the designed signal has 60 sinusoidal
cycles in three-quarters of its period and is equal to zero for
III. A PPROXIMATE S OLUTION BY H ARMONIC
the remainder of the period. The time duration of the applied
B ALANCE M ETHOD
60 sinusoidal cycles was selected such that the system reached
a steady-state response during that interval. In addition, the time Previous LEM has shown that the microphone system studied
interval for the zero voltage input signal was set to ensure that in this paper is a weakly nonlinear system with low damping
the transient response of the system completely died out. The [22]. Furthermore, as seen from (16), a harmonic term is gener-
mathematical expression for the designed excitation signal is ated due to the electrostatic nonlinearity when the microphone
given by is excited by an input sinusoidal signal. Therefore, an intuitive
 way to obtain an approximate analytical solution to (23) is via
 V0 cos [Ω(t − nT )] , nT ≤ t < nT + 3T 4 the harmonic balance method. The approximate steady-state
V (t) = n = 0, 1, 2, . . . solution of (23) is assumed to be a truncated Fourier series

0, nT + 3T4 ≤ t < (n + 1)T in the harmonic balance method [31]. Considering that (23)
(13) represents a weakly nonlinear system with low damping, the
where V0 is the voltage amplitude and T is the period. Consid- approximate steady-state solution is assumed to be
ering that there are 60 sinusoidal cycles in three-quarters of T ,
the angular sinusoidal excitation frequency Ω is y = A0 + A2 cos(2Ωt + ϕ)
A2 i(2Ωt+ϕ)

= A0 + e + e−i(2Ωt+ϕ) (24)
80 2
Ω = 2π . (14)
T where A0 and A2 are the amplitudes of the constant and second
harmonic terms, respectively, and φ is the phase of the second
During the time nT + 3T /4 ≤ t < (n + 1)T , no electro- harmonic term with respect to the input sinusoidal signal. The
static force acts on the diaphragm, and the diaphragm freely validity of the truncation employed in (24) will be assessed in
vibrates. During the time nT ≤ t < nT + 3T /4, an electrosta- Section IV.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Vel Tech Dr. RR & Dr. SR Tech University - Chennai. Downloaded on August 27,2020 at 09:29:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 702 JOURNAL OF MICROELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 3, JUNE 2008

It follows that TABLE I

GIVEN AND EXTRACTED SYSTEM PARAMETERS

ẏ = A2 Ω ei(2Ωt+ϕ) − e−i(2Ωt+ϕ) (25)

ÿ = 2A2 Ω2 ei(2Ωt+ϕ) + e−i(2Ωt+ϕ) . (26)

By introducing the complex form of input excitations, (23) is

rewritten as
F0 i2Ωt and F0 are estimated, the system parameters ξ, ω0 , β, and Γ are
(ÿ + α1 ẏ + α2 y + α3 y 3 )(1 − y)2 = F0 + (e + e−i2Ωt ). extracted by simultaneously solving (19)–(22) as follows:
2
(27)
√
ω0 = α2 (35)
Equations (24)–(26) are then substituted into (27), where α1
equations for the constant term A0 and the real and imaginary ξ= √ (36)
2 α2
parts of the second harmonic term A2 are finally found to be α3
β= 2 (37)
d0
Const : B11 α1 + B12 α2 + B13 α3 − C1 = F0 (28)
1 4d30 F0
Real : B21 α1 + B22 α2 + B23 α3 − C2 = F0 (29) Γ= . (38)
2 ε0 V02
Imag : B31 α1 + B32 α2 + B33 α3 − C3 = 0 (30)
To investigate the accuracy of the presented harmonic bal-
where the coefficients Bij and Ci (i = 1, 2, 3 and j = 1, 2, 3) ance approach, the numerical simulation of (17) is provided in
are summarized in the Appendix. the following section.
It follows that (28)–(30) are further condensed into the
following matrix form:
IV. N UMERICAL V ERIFICATION
[B]{U } = {C} (31) This section investigates the accuracy of the parameter iden-
tification approach by generating time series data from numeri-
where cal simulation. First, the theoretical system parameters defined
  in (9)–(12) are used as inputs to the numerical simulation. The
B11 B12 B13 B14 time responses of both the center velocity and displacement are
[B] =  B21 B22 B24 
∆
B23 (32) found from the simulations of the original nonlinear system
B31 B32 B33 B34 defined in (17). The system parameters are then extracted by
 
 α1 
  using the identification process outlined in Section III. The
∆ α2 known input and resulting output parameters from the harmonic
{U } = (33)

 α3 
 balance approach are summarized and compared in Table I [32].
 F0  As seen from Table I, the maximum difference of 1.5%
 C1  occurs for the damping ratio, and the differences for other pa-
∆
{C} = C2 . (34) rameters are smaller. Considering that the obtained approximate
 
C3 harmonic balance solution only exhibits a small amount of
error for a weakly nonlinear microphone system, it is applied
The expressions for the coefficients Bi4 (i = 1, 2, 3) are to identify the unknown system parameters of the microphone
also provided in the Appendix. From (A.1) to (A.15) in the from the experimental data.
Appendix, both the matrix [B] and the vector {C} can be calcu- Equation (24) basically represents an approximate solution
lated based on the diaphragm steady-state response amplitudes to (23) via the harmonic balance method, and it has two terms,
and phase (A0 , A2 , and ϕ). Hence, the vector {U }, which is namely: a constant and a second harmonic due to a frequency
related to the unknown system parameters, is determined from doubling caused by the electrostatic nonlinearity. It is important
(31) via the characterization experiments. to determine whether (24) is a good approximation when other
The identification process is outlined as follows. For a given high order harmonics exist in the steady-state displacement
sinusoidal excitation frequency Ω, a nonlinear least squares response. One approach to obtain the validity region of (24)
curve-fitting technique is applied to extract A0 , A2 , and ϕ from is through the study of the maximum difference between the
the time history of the steady-state displacement response. The theoretical input and numerically identified system parameters,
matrix [B] and vector {C} are then calculated from (A.1) to which is in terms of the total harmonic distortion (THD) in the
(A.15) in the Appendix. Considering that there are four un- output displacement. The THD is defined as follows [26], [33]:
knowns (α1 , α2 , α3 , and F0 ) in the vector {U } and that the rank 
of the matrix [B] is three, (31) is underdetermined. Therefore, PH
a second test is performed at a different excitation frequency to THD = × 100% (39)
PT
provide three more equations, which makes the system overde-
termined (two additional equations), and the four unknowns are where PH is the sum of power of all harmonics and PT is the
solved via the linear least squares method. Once α1 , α2 , α3 , sum of power of the fundamental and all harmonics.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Vel Tech Dr. RR & Dr. SR Tech University - Chennai. Downloaded on August 27,2020 at 09:29:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 LIU et al.: IDENTIFICATION OF A CAPACITIVE DUAL-BACKPLATE MEMS MICROPHONE 703

Fig. 3. Block diagram of experimental setup showing that the microphone was placed on a microscope stage and a laser vibrometer was used to measure the
center displacement of the diaphragm.

Fig. 4. Laser beam spot hits the diaphragm through the center hole of the top backplate. (a) Isometric view in a schematic. (b) Zoom-in top view in an actual
optical image. Note although the actual laser spot size is less than 1 µm [34], the spot size in the picture appears larger due to scattering.

Further numerical study shows that as the THD in the output
displacement increases, the maximum difference between the
theoretical input and numerically identified system parameters
also increases, which indicates that the approximate solution
in (24) is less accurate [32]. Further analysis shows that the
approximate solution in (24) holds, with a maximum difference
of 9.5%, for the system parameters when the THD in the output
displacement is 10.6% [32].
V. E XPERIMENTAL S TUDY
The characterization of the microphone was conducted by
using a laser Doppler vibrometer (Polytec MSV 300). The
development of the experiment setup is presented in [22] and
is summarized in the following for completeness.
As shown in Fig. 3, a test microphone is positioned on the
stage of a microscope (OLYMPUS BX60), with a 100× objec-
tive lens. The output of an external function generator (Agilent
33220 A) is used to provide the previously designed electrical
signal to excite the microphone. The data acquisition process
is triggered by the output “Sync” signal from the function
generator. The laser vibrometer generates the input laser beam
and receives the resulting interference optical signal from the
microscope. The resulting optical signal is converted into an
electrical signal by the photodetector inside the vibrometer and
subsequently decoded to generate the velocity output [34]. The
data from both reference and velocity channels in the laser
vibrometer are acquired by an external PC. In the experiments,
a sampling rate of 2.56 MHz was used to record the velocity
for 6.4 ms; 100 ensemble averages were used to minimize
the noise in the measured velocity data [22]. To measure the
center velocity response of the diaphragm, the laser beam was
shone through the center hole of the top backplate, as shown
schematically in the side view of Fig. 3 and in the isometric
view of Fig. 4(a) and (b), shows an experimental picture (zoom-
in top view), with the laser beam positioned right inside the
center hole of the top backplate [22].
When the characterization experiments for the bottom back-
plate excitation are conducted, the middle diaphragm and the
top backplate are electrically grounded. The designed signal
defined by (7) and (8) is directly applied to the bottom backplate
of the microphone, and the dynamic response of the center
velocity of the diaphragm is recorded. As mentioned previ-
ously, two tests need to be conducted to extract the system
parameters of the microphone. For the first test, the sinusoidal
excitation frequency was chosen to be approximately half of
the fundamental resonant frequency of the diaphragm, and
the excitation frequency of the second test was chosen to be
close to the frequency of the first test so that each system
parameter is not significantly changed. It should be pointed out
that the excitation frequencies are carefully selected such that
the diaphragm velocity signal amplitude is larger and easier to

Authorized licensed use limited to: Vel Tech Dr. RR & Dr. SR Tech University - Chennai. Downloaded on August 27,2020 at 09:29:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 704
Fig. 5. Measured steady-state center velocity response for a sinusoidal excitation with an input frequency of 114.4 kHz (a) in the time domain and (b) in the
frequency domain. Note the frequency doubling.
Fig. 6. Comparison of the (asterisk) steady-state integrated and (solid line) curve-fitting center displacement results for a sinusoidal excitation with a frequency
of 114.4 kHz (a) in the time domain and (b) in the frequency domain.
measure in practice and that the quasi-static lumped-element
assumption still holds.
Similarly, during the characterization experiments using the
top backplate for excitation, the designed signal was directly
applied to the top backplate of the microphone, and two tests
are conducted with the middle diaphragm and bottom back-
plate being electrically grounded, respectively. The details of
the experimental results and extracted system parameters are
provided in the next section.
VI. R ESULT , A NALYSIS , AND D ISCUSSION
In this section, the experimental results are presented and dis-
cussed. The system parameters of the microphone are extracted
from the experimental data based on the harmonic balance
solution presented in Section III. Considering that the approx-
imate solution in (31) is a displacement-based one, the center
displacement of the diaphragm is required. The trapezoidal rule
is applied to numerically integrate the measured average center
velocity to yield the center displacement [35]. Because the time
step is small (0.39 µs), the numerical integration error is on the
order of 10−20 m and is neglected in the following analysis.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Vel Tech Dr. RR & Dr. SR Tech University - Chennai. Downloaded on August 27,2020 at 09:29:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
JOURNAL OF MICROELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 3, JUNE 2008
A. Bottom Backplate Excitation Results
For the first test, the amplitude of sinusoidal excitation is
9 V, and its frequency is 114.4 kHz. Shown in Fig. 5(a)
is the measured steady-state time history of the ensemble-
averaged center velocity, and Fig. 5(b) shows the fast Fourier
transform (FFT) analysis result for the time-domain data [36].
As shown in Fig. 5(b), there is a dominant single harmonic tone
(228.8 kHz) located at twice the excitation frequency due to the
electrostatic nonlinearity as shown in (16). The corresponding
time response of the integrated center displacement in the
steady state is shown in Fig. 6(a).
By using (18) and (24), a nonlinear least squares curve-fitting
technique is implemented in MATLAB to extract the parame-
ters A0 , A2 , and ϕ from the steady-state center displacement
response. The curve-fit center displacement response is also
shown in Fig. 6(a), and the curve-fit parameters are summarized
in Table II. Moreover, Fig. 6(b) shows the comparison of
the integrated and curve-fit center displacement results in the
frequency domain by carrying out the FFT analysis for the
corresponding time-domain data in Fig. 6(a). The amplitudes
and locations for the two peaks (constant and second harmonic
terms) agree well with each other, respectively. The difference
 LIU et al.: IDENTIFICATION OF A CAPACITIVE DUAL-BACKPLATE MEMS MICROPHONE
TABLE II
NONLINEAR LEAST SQUARES CURVE-FIT RESULTS
OF B OTTOM B ACKPLATE E XCITATION
TABLE III
NONLINEAR LEAST SQUARES CURVE-FIT RESULTS
OF T OP B ACKPLATE E XCITATION
is mainly due to the power leakage and relatively coarse fre-
quency resolution, which was introduced by the finite integrated
center displacement data points [36]. Similarly, for the second
test, the frequency of the sinusoidal excitation is 114.8 kHz,
whereas its amplitude is still 9 V. The final curve-fit results of
the second test are also listed in Table II.
B. Top Backplate Excitation Results
During the experiments using the top backplate for excita-
tion, the amplitude of the sinusoidal excitation is 8.3 V, and
the frequencies of the two tests are 114.0 and 114.4 kHz,
respectively. After obtaining the measured ensemble-averaged
steady-state center velocity responses, a nonlinear least squares
curve fitting is carried out to extract the parameters A0 , A2 , and
ϕ for each test, respectively. Finally, the curve-fit results are
summarized in Table III.
C. System Parameter Results
With the parameters in Table II, the coefficients defined from
(A.1) to (A.15) are calculated. Therefore, system parameters
ξ, ω0 , β, and Γ are extracted by using (31), (35)–(38) for the
bottom backplate excitation. Similarly, the parameters for the
top backplate excitation are extracted with the parameters in
Table III. The final two sets of system parameters are listed in
Table IV.
D. Discussion of Experimental Results
As seen from Table IV, small differences exist between the
experimentally identified damping ratios, fundamental resonant
frequencies, and nonlinear stiffness parameters of both bottom
and top backplate excitations. The unequal air gaps and dif-
ferent electrode areas in the bottom and top capacitors of the
microphone could potentially contribute to the observed differ-
ences in Table IV. Experimental results from Table IV indicate
that Γ varies with different applied voltages [21], [22], which
means that the equivalent area for modeling electrostatic forces
actually depends on the applied voltage with an assumed con-
stant lumped mass. The lumped-element model in Section III
Authorized licensed use limited to: Vel Tech Dr. RR & Dr. SR Tech University - Chennai. Downloaded on August 27,2020 at 09:29:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
705
assumes that Γ is a constant, which is based on a simple equal-
area parallel-plate assumption. One possible way to examine
the difference between the real and modeled electrostatic forces
is through nonlinear finite element analyses, for example, Co-
SolveEM (coupled electromechanical analysis) simulations in
CoventorWare [37]. The coupled simulation alternates between
the mechanical and electrostatic domains until a converged
equilibrium solution is found for a given dc voltage. Further
simulations using CoventorWare show that the modeling error
due to the equal-area parallel-plate assumption monotonically
increases as the applied dc voltage reaches a critical quasi-
static pull-in point [32]. Physically, the following factors could
result in the changing behavior of Γ in Table IV. In the real
microphone device, the area of the three plates is not same.
The top backplate has the largest area, which is followed by
the middle diaphragm and bottom backplate, respectively [8].
Therefore, the equal-area assumption employed in the model
is not accurate [15], [38]–[41]. In addition, the overlapping
area between the perforated backplate and diaphragm varies
due to their different bending shapes when excited by different
electrical voltages [38], [40].
VII. C ONCLUSION
This paper presents a harmonic balance nonlinear identifi-
cation of a capacitive dual-backplate MEMS microphone. The
microphone is modeled by an SDOF second-order differential
equation with electrostatic and cubic mechanical nonlinearities.
The approximate analytical solution to the governing equa-
tion under the sinusoidal electrical excitation is explored by
a harmonic balance method, which relates the unknown sys-
tem parameters to the steady-state response of the diaphragm.
Numerical simulations for the nonlinear governing equation
are performed, using the theoretical lumped-element system
parameters, to validate the accuracy of the approximate so-
lution for a weakly nonlinear microphone system with low
damping. Numerical simulation results show that the maximum
difference of 1.5% occurs for the damping ratio and that the
differences for other parameters are smaller. The microphone is
then experimentally characterized by a laser Doppler vibrome-
ter, and a nonlinear least squares algorithm is implemented to
extract the system parameters from the experimental data. The
experimentally extracted resonant frequency of the microphone
is over 218 kHz. The nonlinear model will be used as the basis
for the design of a force-feedback controller to further improve
the overall performance of the microphone.
It should be mentioned that the identification scheme de-
veloped in this paper is valid up to frequencies that are just
beyond the first fundamental natural frequency of the device,
which is due to the lumped-element assumption employed
in the modeling. However, this limitation is appropriate for
the operation bandwidth of most electromechanical sensors
and actuators in practice. Also, model parameters extracted
through the developed scheme show a relatively large error
(for example, 9.5%) for the dynamic system with a large THD
(for example, 10.6%) as shown in Section IV. For dynamic
systems exhibiting highly nonlinear or unstable behaviors (for
example, pull-in for electrostatically excited microstructures),
higher order modes generally need to be considered in the
 706 JOURNAL OF MICROELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 3, JUNE 2008

TABLE IV
EXPERIMENTALLY IDENTIFIED SYSTEM PARAMETERS

analysis, and one common practice is through the analytical ACKNOWLEDGMENT

reduced-order model or macromodel [41]–[45].
The authors would like to thank Dr. K. Kadirvel from
the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Florida, for the assistance with the experiment of
A PPENDIX
the microphone.
C OEFFICIENTS OF THE A PPROXIMATE S OLUTION
R EFERENCES
Expressions for the coefficients in (32) and (34) are provided
[1] T. J. Mueller, Aeroacoustic Measurements. Berlin, Germany: Springer-
as follows: Verlag, 2002, pp. 158–179.
[2] D. P. Arnold, T. Nishida, L. N. Cattafesta, and M. Sheplak, “A directional
B11 = 0 (A.1) acoustic array using silicon micromachined piezoresistive microphones,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 289–298, Jan. 2003.
3 [3] S. Bouwstra, T. Storgaard-Larsen, P. R. Scheeper, J. O. Gullov,
B12 = A0 − A22 − 2A20 + A30 + A22 A0 (A.2) J. Bay, M. Mullenborg, and P. Rombach, “Silicon microphones—A
2
Danish perspective,” J. Micromech. Microeng., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 64–68,
3 15
B13 = − 2A40 + A22 A0 + A42 A0 + A50 + A30 Jun. 1998.
2 8 [4] P. Rombach, M. Mullenborn, U. Klein, and K. Rasmussen, “The first low
voltage, low noise differential silicon microphone, technology develop-
3
+ 5A2 A0 − 6A2 A0 − A42
2 3 2 2
(A.3) ment and measurement results,” Sens. Actuators A, Phys., vol. 95, no. 2/3,
4 pp. 196–201, Jan. 2002.
B14 = − 1 (A.4) [5] P. R. Scheeper, B. Nordstrand, J. O. Gullov, B. Liu, T. Clausen,
  L. Midjord, and T. Storgaard-Larsen, “A new measurement microphone
1 based on MEMS technology,” J. Microelectromech. Syst., vol. 12, no. 6,
B21 = Ω 2A2 A0 − A2 A20 − A2 − A32 sin(ϕ) (A.5) pp. 880–891, Dec. 2003.
4
  [6] P. V. Loeppert and S. B. Lee, “SiSonic—The first commercialized MEMS
1 3 3 3 microphone,” in Proc. Solid-State Sens., Actuators, Microsyst. Workshop,
B22 = A2 + A2 A0 + A2 − 2A2 A0 cos(ϕ)
2
(A.6) 2006, pp. 27–30.
2 2 8 [7] P. R. Scheeper, A. G. H. van der Donk, W. Olthuis, and P. Bergveld, “A
 review of silicon microphones,” Sens. Actuators A, Phys., vol. 44, no. 1,
3 3 5 15 5
B23 = A2 + A52 + A32 A20 − 3A32 A0 + A2 A40 pp. 1–11, Jun. 1994.
8 16 4 2 [8] D. T. Martin, J. Liu, K. Kadirvel, R. M. Fox, M. Sheplak, and
 T. Nishida, “Development of a MEMS dual backplate capacitive mi-
3
+ A2 A20 − 4A2 A30 cos(ϕ) (A.7) crophone for aeroacoustic measurements,” presented at the 44th AIAA
2 Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA, Reno, NV, 2006,
Paper 2006-1246.
1
B24 = − (A.8) [9] D. Hohm and R. Gerhard-Multhaupt, “Silicon-dioxide electret trans-
2 ducer,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 1297–1298, Apr. 1984.
  [10] T. Bourouina, S. Spirkovitch, F. Baillieu, and C. Vauge, “A new condenser
1 microphone with a p+ silicon membrane,” Sens. Actuators A, Phys.,
B31 = Ω A2 A20 + A2 + A32 − 2A2 A0 cos(ϕ) (A.9)
4 vol. 31, no. 1–3, pp. 149–152, Mar. 1992.
  [11] Q. Zou, Z. Liu, and L. Liu, “Theoretical and experimental studies of
1 3 3 single-chip-processed miniature silicon condenser microphone with cor-
B32 = A2 + A2 A20 + A32 − 2A2 A0 sin(ϕ) (A.10) rugated diaphragm,” Sens. Actuators A, Phys., vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 209–215,
2 2 8
 Dec. 1997.
3 3 5 15 5 [12] D. Schafer, S. Shoaf, and P. Loeppert, “Micromachined condenser
B33 = A2 + A52 + A32 A20 − 3A32 A0 + A2 A40 microphone for hearing aid use,” in Proc. Solid-State Sens., Actuators,
8 16 4 2
 Microsyst. Workshop, 1998, pp. 27–30.
3 [13] A. Torkkeli, O. Rusanen, J. Saarilahti, H. Seppa, H. Sipola, and
+ A2 A20 − 4A2 A30 sin(ϕ) (A.11) J. Hietanen, “Capacitive microphone with low-stress polysilicon mem-
2 brane and high-stress polysilicon backplate,” Sens. Actuators A, Phys.,
B34 = 0 (A.12) vol. 85, no. 1–3, pp. 116–123, Aug. 2000.
[14] Y. Iguchi, M. Goto, M. Iwaki, A. Ando, K. Tanioka, T. Tajima, F. Takeshi,
C1 = 4A22 A0 Ω2 − 4A22 Ω2 (A.13) S. Matsunaga, and Y. Yasuno, “Silicon microphone with wide frequency
  range and high linearity,” Sens. Actuators A, Phys., vol. 135, no. 2,
3 pp. 420–425, Apr. 2007.
C2 = Ω2 2A2 A20 + A32 + 2A2 − 4A2 A0 cos(ϕ) [15] F. V. Hunt, Electroacoustics: The Analysis of Transduction and its
2
Historical Background. New York: Acoust. Soc. Amer., 1954, ch. 6.
(A.14) [16] R. P. van Kampen, M. J. Vellekoop, P. M. Sarro, and
  R. F. Wolffenbuttel, “Application of electrostatic feedback to critical
3
C3 = Ω2 2A2 A20 + A32 + 2A2 −4A2 A0 sin(ϕ). (A.15) damping of an integrated silicon capacitive accelerometer,” Sens.
2 Actuators A, Phys., vol. 43, no. 1–3, pp. 100–106, May 1994.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Vel Tech Dr. RR & Dr. SR Tech University - Chennai. Downloaded on August 27,2020 at 09:29:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 LIU et al.: IDENTIFICATION OF A CAPACITIVE DUAL-BACKPLATE MEMS MICROPHONE 707

[17] S. F. Masri and T. K. Caughey, “Nonparametric identification technique
for non-linear dynamic problems,” Trans. ASME, J. Appl. Mech., vol. 46,
pp. 433–437, Jun. 1979.
[18] A. H. Nayfeh, “Parametric identification of nonlinear dynamic systems,”
Comput. Struct., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 487–493, 1985.
[19] F. Ayela and T. Fournier, “An experimental study of anharmonic microma-
chined silicon resonators,” Meas. Sci. Technol., vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 1821–
1830, Nov. 1998.
[20] A. J. Dick, B. Balachandran, D. L. DeVoe, and C. D. Mote, “Paramet-
ric identification of piezoelectric microscale resonators,” J. Micromech.
Microeng., vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 1593–1601, Aug. 2006.
[21] J. Liu, D. T. Martin, K. Kadirvel, T. Nishida, M. Sheplak, and
B. P. Mann, “Nonlinear identification of a capacitive dual-backplate
MEMS microphone,” presented at the ASME Int. Design Engineering
Technical Conf. (IDETC), Long Beach, CA, 2005, Paper DETC2005-
84591.
[22] J. Liu, D. T. Martin, K. Kadirvel, T. Nishida, L. N. Cattafesta, M. Sheplak,
and B. P. Mann, “Nonlinear model and system identification of a capaci-
tive dual-backplate MEMS microphone,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 309, no. 1/2,
pp. 276–292, Jan. 2008.
[23] S. D. Senturia, Microsystems Design. Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 2001,
ch. 6.
[24] J. E. Warren, A. M. Brzezinski, and J. F. Hamilton, “Capacitance micro-
phone static membrane deflections,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 52, no. 3,
pp. 711–719, 1972.
[25] J. E. Warren, A. M. Brzezinski, and J. F. Hamilton, “Capacitance micro-
phone dynamic membrane deflections,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 54,
no. 5, pp. 1201–1213, 1973.
[26] M. Rossi, Acoustics and Electroacoustics. Boston, MA: Artech House,
1988, ch. 5, 6.
[27] S. Timoshenko and S. Woinowsky-Krieger, Theory of Plates and Shells.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959, ch. 13.
[28] D. T. Blackstock, Fundamentals of Physical Acoustics. New York:
Wiley, 2000, ch. 4.
[29] Z. Skvor, “On the acoustical resistance due to viscous losses in the
air gap of electrostatic transducers,” Acustica, vol. 19, pp. 295–299,
1967.
[30] American National Standard Method for the Calibration of Microphones,
American National Standards Institute, ANSI S1.10-1966
[31] A. H. Nayfeh and D. T. Mook, Nonlinear Oscillations. New York: Wiley,
1979, ch. 3.
[32] J. Liu, “Nonlinear dynamics of a dual-backplate capacitive MEMS
microphone,” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL, 2007.
Ch. 3, 4.
[33] W. M. Humphreys, C. H. Gerhold, A. J. Zuckerwar, G. C. Herring, and
S. M. Bartram, “Performance analysis of a cost-effective electret con-
denser microphone directional array,” presented at the 9th AIAA/CEAS
Aeroacoustics Conf. and Exhib., Hilton Head Island, SC, 2003, Paper
2003-3195.
[34] User Manual: Laser Doppler Vibrometer, Polytec PI Inc., Auburn, MA,
1997, pp. 50–70.
[35] S. C. Chapra and R. P. Canale, Numerical Methods for Engineers:
With Software and Programming Applications. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 2002, ch. 21.
[36] J. S. Bendat and A. G. Piersol, Random Data: Analysis and Measurement
Procedures. New York: Wiley, 2000, ch. 11.
[37] CoventorWare Analyzer Reference Guide, Coventor Inc., Cary, NC, 2003.
[38] M. Pedersen, W. Olthuis, and P. Bergveld, “Harmonic distortion in silicon
condenser microphones,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 1582–
1587, Sep. 1997.
[39] P. M. Zavracky, S. Majumder, and N. E. McGruer, “Micromechani-
cal switches fabricated using nickel surface micromachining,” J. Micro-
electromech. Syst., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 3–9, Mar. 1997.
[40] S. Chowdhury, M. Ahmadi, and W. C. Miller, “Nonlinear effects in
MEMS capacitive microphone design,” in Proc. Int. Conf. MEMS, NANO
Smart Syst., Baniff, AB, Canada, 2003, pp. 297–302.
[41] M. I. Younis and A. H. Nayfeh, “A study of the nonlinear response of
a resonant microbeam to an electric actuation,” Nonlinear Dyn., vol. 31,
no. 1, pp. 91–117, Jan. 2003.
[42] M. I. Younis, E. M. Abdel-Rahman, and A. H. Nayfeh, “A
reduced-order model for electrically actuated microbeam-based
MEMS,” J. Microelectromech. Syst., vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 672–680,
Oct. 2003.
[43] E. M. Abdel-Rahman, M. I. Younis, and A. H. Nayfeh, “Char-
acterization of the mechanical behavior of an electrically actuated
microbeam,” J. Micromech. Microeng., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 759–766,
Nov. 2002.
[44] X. Zhao, E. M. Abdel-Rahman, and A. H. Nayfeh, “A reduced-order
model for electrically actuated microplates,” J. Micromech. Microeng.,
vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 900–906, Jul. 2004.
[45] G. W. Vogl and A. H. Nayfeh, “A reduced-order model for electrically
actuated clamped circular plates,” J. Micromech. Microeng., vol. 15, no. 4,
pp. 684–690, Apr. 2005.
Jian Liu received the B.E. degree in aerospace en-
gineering and the M.S. degree in mechanical engi-
neering from the Nanjing University of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Nanjing, China, in 1998 and 2001,
respectively. His master’s research focused on the
design, modeling, simulation, and characterization
of piezoelectric ultrasonic motors. He also received
the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in aerospace engineer-
ing from the University of Florida, Gainesville, in
2003 and 2006, respectively. His Ph.D. research fo-
cused on the study of nonlinear dynamics of a dual-
backplate capacitive MEMS microphone.
Since 2006, he has been a key mechanical analyst with AdaptivEnergy LLC,
Hampton, VA, working on the development and commercialization of piezo-
based actuators and energy harvesters. His research interests include piezo-
electric and capacitive electromechanical transducers, coupled multiphysics
simulation and modeling, and nonlinear dynamics.
Dr. Liu is a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronau-
tics (AIAA) and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).
David T. Martin received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering and the M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees in electrical and computer engineering from the University of
Florida, Gainesville, in 2001, 2005, and 2007, respectively. His Ph.D. research
was conducted as part of the work of the Interdisciplinary Microsystems Group
and was focused on the development of a microelectromechanical systems
(MEMS) dual-backplate capacitive microphone.
He is currently with Avago Technologies, Fort Collins, CO, working on
process integration for MEMS transducers. He is also currently with the
Interdisciplinary Microsystems Group, Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of Florida. His research interests include MEMS
transducers, acoustic modeling, and MEMS packaging.
Toshikazu Nishida received the B.S. degree in engineering physics, the M.S.
degree in electrical and computer engineering from the University of Illinois,
Urbana–Champaign, and Ph.D. degree in electrical and computer engineering
from the University of Illinois in 1988.
He is currently a member of the Interdisciplinary Microsystems Group and an
Associate Professor with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer-
ing, University of Florida, Gainesville, where he is also an Affiliate Associate
Professor with the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. He
is the holder of five U.S. patents. His current research interests include solid-
state physical sensors and actuators, transducer noise, strained semiconductor
devices, and reliability physics of semiconductor devices.
Dr. Nishida is a Distinguished Lecturer for the IEEE Electron Devices
Society. He, with his colleagues and students, received three Best Paper Awards.
He is also the recipient of the 2003 College of Engineering Teacher of the Year
Award.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Vel Tech Dr. RR & Dr. SR Tech University - Chennai. Downloaded on August 27,2020 at 09:29:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 708 JOURNAL OF MICROELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 3, JUNE 2008

Louis N. Cattafesta, III received the B.S. degree
in mechanical engineering from The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, in 1986, the M.S.
degree in aeronautics from Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology, Cambridge, in 1988, and the
Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering from The
Pennsylvania State University in 1992.
He is currently an Associate Professor in the De-
partment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
University of Florida (UF), Gainesville. His primary
research interests are experimental fluid dynamics,
particularly active flow control, and aeroacoustics. Prior to joining UF in April
1999, he was a Senior Research Scientist at High Technology Corporation,
Hampton, VA, where he was the group leader of the Experimental and In-
strumentation Group. In 1992, he joined High Technology Corporation as a
Research Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center.
Dr. Cattafesta is a Senior Member of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME).
Brian P. Mann received the B.S. degree from
the University of Missouri in 1996 and the M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees from Washington University in
1998 and 2003, respectively, all in mechanical
engineering.
He is currently an Assistant Professor in the De-
partment of Mechanical Engineering and Materials
Science, Duke University, Durham, NC. His primary
research interests are in applied nonlinear dynamics
and vibration utilizing analytical, numerical, and ex-
perimental techniques. Prior to joining Duke in 2007,
he had previous academic appointments at the University of Missouri and the
University of Florida.

Mark Sheplak received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.

degrees in mechanical engineering from Syracuse
University, Syracuse, NY, in 1989, 1992, and 1995,
respectively.
From 1992 to 1995, he was a Graduate Student
Researchers Project Fellow with the NASA Langley
Research Center, Hampton, VA. From 1995 to 1998,
he was a Postdoctoral Associate with the Microsys-
tems Technology Laboratories, Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology, Cambridge. Since 1998, he has
been with the University of Florida, Gainesville,
where he is currently an Associate Professor with the Interdisciplinary Mi-
crosystems Group, Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering,
and an Affiliate Associate Professor with the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering. His current research interests include the design,
fabrication, and characterization of high-performance instrumentation-grade
microelectromechanical systems-based sensors and actuators that enable the
measurement, modeling, and control of various physical properties.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Vel Tech Dr. RR & Dr. SR Tech University - Chennai. Downloaded on August 27,2020 at 09:29:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.