Characterization and operation of a mechanically actuated silicon

microgripper
Marius M. Blideran,a兲 Monika Fleischer, Wolfgang Henschel, and Dieter P. Kern
Institute of Applied Physics, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 10, 72076 Tübingen, Germany
Jochen Sterr, Klaus Schock, and Stephan Kleindiek
Kleindiek Nanotechnik GmbH, Aspenhaustrasse 25, 72770 Reutlingen, Germany
Matthias G. Langer, Karsten Löffler, and Francois Grauvogel
Sensory Biophysics Group, Department of Applied Physiology, University of Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 11,
89081 Ulm, Germany
共Received 6 February 2006; accepted 28 August 2006; published 4 December 2006兲
Since the manipulation of biological objects is usually performed in a life-sustaining environment,
electrical fields or thermal gradients through the liquid may cause perturbations. The authors present
a microgripper fabricated in silicon by a combination of bulk and surface micromachining processes
that exhibits several advantages compared to previous reports. In order to avoid any possible
perturbation caused by electrical fields, their microgripper is mechanically actuated. The complete
system including the microgripper, a piezoactuator, and a nanomanipulator is described in detail
together with manipulation of micrometer sized glass spheres. © 2006 American Vacuum
Society. 关DOI: 10.1116/1.2357961兴

I. INTRODUCTION objects to be manipulated. The stability during the gripper’s

Understanding biological matter to its deepest levels re-
quires a better understanding of the matter at the micron and
submicron levels. Studying the properties of small particles
or biological structures, which is our final target, requires
their individual handling and manipulation.
Early manipulations were carried out, e.g., using an
atomic force microscope,1 ranging from moving 30 nm
GaAs particles on a surface with the tip of the cantilever2 to
surgery on living cells, using a sharpened atomic force mi-
croscopy tip.3
The previously reported manipulators can be grouped ac-
cording to their gripping mechanism as follows: thermal
actuation—by passing an electrical current through a gripper
with different thermal expansion coefficients along its
structure,4–8 electrical actuation—applying a potential differ-
ence between the tips,9–11 and mechanical actuation—
applying a mechanical force on a segment of the gripper, a
force that leads to the movement of the tips.12,13 Beside these
gripping mechanisms, optically driven micromanipulators
with a focused laser beam14 and magnetically driven three-
finger grippers15 were also reported.
We present a mechanically actuated microgripper that
eliminates the disadvantage of generating electrical fields or
thermal gradients and which promises better mechanical sta-
bility during its operation.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE MICROGRIPPER
CONCEPT
In Fig. 1, scanning electron microscope images of one
structure are shown. Through its narrow angle of only 25°
between its arms the gripper ensures an easy approach to the
a兲
Electronic mail: marius-marcel.blideran@uni-tuebingen.de
operation is strongly increased by the three different sections
of thicknesses: 452 ␮m thickness of the support base, 52 ␮m
thicknesses of “the support arms” and “contact area,” and
11 ␮m for “the actuated segment.” The components of the
actuated segment are shown in Fig. 1共b兲: “thin arms,”
“hinges,” and parallel “tips.” Figure 1共c兲 illustrates the con-
tact area to which a copper wire was glued, the other end of
the wire being attached to a piezomotor. The motion pro-
vided by the piezomotor is transferred along the copper wire
to the contact area and further along the long “pullers” to the
actuated segment. The flexure and with it the closing of the
tips is realized through the hinges. The four support bridges
connecting the contact area to the thick support arms reduce
significantly the out-of-plane motion. The tips, shown in Fig.
1共d兲, are 1 ␮m wide and 3 ␮m long.
III. SIMULATION
A. Theoretical considerations
For obtaining optimum geometrical parameters of the
gripper we performed simulations using the finite element
method 共FEM兲 simulation program FEMLAB. This program
provides direct output of the maximum surface stress called
“von Mises stress.” The “von Mises criterion” known as
“maximum distortion energy criterion” or Maxwell-Huber-
Hecky-von Mises theory16 states that a material will yield if
the distortion 共strain兲 energy reaches a critical value.17 The
strain energy is proportional to the von Mises stress, which is
defined by the equation

3239 J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 24„6…, Nov/Dec 2006 1071-1023/2006/24„6…/3239/5/$23.00 ©2006 American Vacuum Society 3239
3240 Blideran et al.: Characterization and operation of a mechanically actuated silicon microgripper
␴0 = 冑 共 ␴ 1 − ␴ 2兲 2 + 共 ␴ 2 − ␴ 3兲 2 + 共 ␴ 3 − ␴ 1兲 2
2
,
where ␴1, ␴2, and ␴3 are the principal stresses. The “von
Mises” criterion states that a structure will behave elastically
when
␴0 ⬍ ␴ y ,
where ␴y is the yield strength of the material and defines the
limit for its elastic behavior. Since silicon is a brittle mate-
rial, it exhibits no plastic behavior and therefore fractures
will appear if ␴y is exceeded. For silicon the fracture strength
is 7 GPa.18
B. Simulation results
Our first concern during design simulations was the me-
chanical stability of the microgrippers. Therefore the most
J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B, Vol. 24, No. 6, Nov/Dec 2006
3240
FIG. 1. Description of the microgrip-
per’s concept and components: 共a兲 the
complete gripper, 共b兲 the actuated seg-
ment, 共c兲 the contact area, and 共d兲 the
tips.
important objective was to keep the maximum von Mises
stress below the critical value. Different designs were studied
starting with already presented models8 that were scaled to
fulfill our purposes and cantilever based structures. After
most of the initial models failed because they exhibited mo-
tion out of the gripper’s plane we decided that one with a
robust “thin arm” of a least 5 ⫻ 5 ␮m2 cross section will be
more suitable for our applications. Only a small region on
the thin arm was narrowed constituting the hinges of the
gripper. For simplicity and symmetry reasons, first only one
thin arm structure was simulated, one result being shown in
Fig. 2共a兲 for an arm with curved hinges. All the geometrical
parameters were studied: the position of the hinges along the
arms, their length, possible shape and minimum width, the
cross section and length of the thin arm, and the angle made
with the vertical. Besides the maximum value of the von
Mises stress, other important aspects were considered: the
FIG. 2. Simulation results for 共a兲 one
thin arm with curved hinges and 共b兲
the functional part.
3241 Blideran et al.: Characterization and operation of a mechanically actuated silicon microgripper
FIG. 3. Dependency of 共a兲 maximum “von Mises stress” and displacement at the puller on minimum width w for a gripper with curved hinges. 共b兲 Maximum
“von Mises stress” and displacement at the puller on angle ␣.
ratio between the motion along x and z directions at the tip,
xt / zt, and the ratio between the motion along x at the tip and
the motion along the z axis of the puller, xt / z p. By providing
a large ratio xt / zt we actually ensure that the object to be
grabbed will still be located between the tips at the moment
of their closing. The motion of the puller can be translated
directly into the motion provided by the piezoactuator; there-
fore increasing xt / z p means that a bigger stroke of the tips
along the x axis will be achieved for a smaller effort from the
piezobars. On the other hand, increasing those ratios results
in an increase of the structure’s stiffness and therewith an
increase of the maximum von Mises stress. Therefore a com-
promise between these aspects had to be found.
One thin arm structure 5 ⫻ 5 ␮m2 in cross section was
chosen and sets of simulations were performed, in turn, for
each parameter, keeping all the other fixed. As expected, in-
creasing the length of the hinges from 10 to 30 ␮m led to a
decrease in the gripper’s stiffness of 13%, and of the maxi-
mum von Mises stress from 650 to 496 MPa, and required a
two and a half times smaller force to close the gap between
the tips. At the same time the displacement at the puller
increased by 31%. Out of the three different shapes consid-
ered for the hinges: parallel 关Fig. 1共b兲兴, curved 关Fig. 2共a兲兴,
and triangular, the parallel exhibited the greatest von Mises
stress of 803 MPa but for a smaller force. The changes in
behavior of the designs in terms of motion were practically
nonexistent. In Fig. 3共a兲, the dependency of the von Mises
stress and motion of the pullers on the minimum width w of
the hinges is plotted. Varying w from 1 to 2 ␮m showed
only a 3% decrease in the puller’s motion. As a compromise,
we have chosen grippers of all three shapes with 20 ␮m
length and 1.5 ␮m minimum width for fabrication.
Another important aspect to analyze is the angle between
the arm and the vertical. In Fig. 3共b兲 the results when the
angle ␣ is increased from 10° to 40° are presented. The dis-
placement of the puller along z triples for ␣ = 40°. For angles
up to 25°, the maximum von Mises stress appears on the
hinges and decreases with increasing angle. From 25°, the
JVST B - Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures
3241
maximum surface stress moves to the bottom of the arm and
increases with increasing angle. To minimize the von Mises
stress a design with 12.5° was chosen.
The next step was to complete the microgripper, namely,
to extend the actuated segment until it could connect with the
macroworld. At this point one aspect was very important: the
thickness of “the support bridges” which basically deter-
mines the force needed to operate the gripper. The maximum
von Mises stress ranges from 321 to 473 MPa when the
thickness T 关Fig. 2共b兲兴 is increased from 5 to 10 ␮m and is
thus uncritical during the design process. The force though
increases substantially from 8 up to 33 mN. Under these
forces the maximum expansion of the approximately 3 mm
long⫻ 100 ␮m thick copper wire is about 100 nm, represent-
ing 10% of the motion required to close the gap. We used the
commercial glue UHU 300 Endfest with a mechanical
strength of 15⫻ 106 N / m2. This value was compared with
the load necessary to close the gap between the tips of grip-
pers with 5 – 10 ␮m thicknesses of the support bridges. Since
the calculated maximum required load for the 10 ␮m struc-
tures is 4 N / m2, corresponding to 33 mN acting on a
100 ␮m diameter wire, and is thus of the same order as the
maximum load supported by the glue, we considered only
structures with 5, 6, 7, and 8 ␮m for fabrication.
As a result of the simulations, we have chosen for fabri-
cation microgrippers with the following sizes and features:
hinges in parallel, curved, and triangular shapes with 20 ␮m
length and 1.5 ␮m minimum width, on arms making an
angle of 12.5° and widths of the thin arms of 5, 6, 7, and
8 ␮m.
IV. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The microgripper is made from silicon 共Si兲 and the fabri-
cation process, as described elsewhere,19 consists of four op-
tical lithography steps and five deep reactive ion etching
steps. The starting Si wafer has two buried silicon oxide
layers 共SiO2兲 that act as etch stop during the processing. The
3242 Blideran et al.: Characterization and operation of a mechanically actuated silicon microgripper
FIG. 4. Schematics of the piezomotor including the microgripper and the
piezoactuator.
three Si layers separated by the SiO2 define the 11, 52, and
452 ␮m cross sections along the microgripper. Following the
simulations, grippers with different shapes for the hinges:
trapezoidal, curved, and parallel, were fabricated. The total
length of the grippers is 4.25 mm and the width at the end of
the base is 2 mm. The gaps between the tips were 6.5 and
8.5 ␮m.
Once the microgrippers were fabricated, they were at-
tached to the piezomotor as described in Fig. 4. The system
consists of two piezobars. Each piezobar has depicted in
black and yellow the polarity of the faces. At the bottom side
of the lower bar a silicon plate was glued and the microgrip-
per was attached on top of it. On the bottom side of the upper
bar one end of a 100 ␮m copper wire was soldered while its
other end was glued on top of the microgripper’s “contact
area.” The inner sides of the piezobars were grounded, while
on the outer sides a positive potential was applied. By having
the bars positioned such that their inner and outer sides are of
opposite polarity, the upper piezobar contracts and the lower
piezobar extends when applying a positive voltage. Thus the
action of the two piezos is essentially added. The design also
ensures that differences in the thermal expansion of the pi-
ezobars and the silicon structure do not translate into a force
on the contact area, which would move the tips.
The piezomotor, including the microgripper and the pi-
ezoactuator, was attached to a micromanipulator from
Kleindiek Nanotechnik20 共see Fig. 5兲. This is a high precision
positioning tool with a linear operating range of 12 mm and
240° rotation range in the horizontal and vertical plans. The
FIG. 5. Complete system: microgripper, piezoactuator, and Kleindiek
Micromanipulator.
J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B, Vol. 24, No. 6, Nov/Dec 2006
3242
FIG. 6. Sequences of manipulating a 5 ␮m glass sphere: 共a兲 gripping the
sphere, 共b兲 lifting and moving the sphere, 共c兲 setting the sphere on the
surface again, and 共d兲 releasing the sphere.
positioning resolutions are 0.25 nm for the linear range and 5
and 3.5 nm for the horizontal and vertical ranges,
respectively.
V. APPLICATIONS
First, the function of the microgripper was studied and
structures with trapezoidal, curved, and parallel “hinges”
were tested. The gaps of 6.5 and 8.5 ␮m between “the tips”
were closed before the 80 V voltage limit was reached, the
voltage that corresponds to the maximum expansion range of
the piezobars. The closing procedure was repeated for more
than ten times for several of the structures as an endurance
test. One structure had 5 ␮m thickness T of the support
bridges, 5 ␮m width of the thin arms, and 1.5 ␮m wide
hinges. A second structure featured the following sizes:
8 ␮m thick support bridges, 7 ␮m wide thin arms, and 2 ␮m
wide hinges. Differences between the two operating proce-
dures were practically unidentifiable under the optical micro-
scope and more importantly, both structures were intact after
the ten times closing operation.
As a proof for the grippers’ function, in Fig. 6 we show a
sequence of images from the manipulation of 5 ␮m glass
spheres. At the first attempt the glass spheres with diameters
of 3 – 5 ␮m were spread on a glass substrate. Due to the
electrostatic charges accumulated on the spheres and on the
substrate a precise control was practically impossible. The
spheres jumped as soon as they were released from the pres-
sure of the tips and left the visual field of the optical micro-
scope. By choosing a gold coated substrate the gripping op-
eration presented no more difficulties and was successful
from the first attempt. In Fig. 6共a兲, the microgripper is al-
ready positioned around the sphere. Since the sphere we
wanted to handle was one of the biggest we considered its
size as being 5 ␮m. The scratch that crosses the optical mi-
crographs on the diagonal was our reference during manipu-
lation. In the next image 关Fig. 6共b兲兴 the sphere is lifted and
the microgripper moved to the upper side of the scratch. At
3243 Blideran et al.: Characterization and operation of a mechanically actuated silicon microgripper 3243

this point the gripper is out of focus. Next, we brought the
gripper back in contact with the surface 关Fig. 6共c兲兴. In Fig.
6共d兲 the sphere is settled on the surface and released from the
tips.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks go to Peter Nommensen and Johannes
Auber from the “Institute for Micro and Information Tech-
nology” for fruitful discussions during the fabrication pro-
cess. Financial support from “The German Federal Ministry
of Education and Research” under Contract No. 0312017C is
gratefully acknowledged.

VI. CONCLUSIONS 1
G. Binnig, C. F. Quate, and C. Gerber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 930 共1986兲.
2
I. Obataya, C. Nakamura, S. W. Han, N. Nakamura, and J. Miyake, Nano
We designed, fabricated, and tested silicon microgrippers Lett. 5, 27 共2005兲.
3
whose gripping mechanism is solely mechanically based. M. Ueda, Y. Baba, H. Iwasaki, O. Kurosawa, and M. Washizu, Jpn. J.
Appl. Phys., Part 1 38, 6568 共1999兲.
This way we eliminated the disadvantages of having electri- 4
G. Hashiguchi and H. Fujita, Proceedings of IEEE Sensors 共IEEE, New
cal fields, potential differences, or thermal gradients in the York, 2002兲, p. 922.
5
medium in which the manipulation is performed. The small N. Chronis and L. P. Lee, J. Microelectromech. Syst. 14, 857 共2005兲.
6
N.-T. Nguyen, S.-S. Ho, and C. L.-N. Low, J. Micromech. Microeng. 14,
angle between “the thin arms” of only 25° facilitates the
969 共2004兲.
approach to the targeted objects especially when they are 7
M. C. Carrozza, A. Menciassi, G. Tiezzi, and P. Dario, J. Micromech.
surrounded by other objects. Those two important advan- Microeng. 8, 141 共1998兲.
8
tages qualify our gripper to be a viable tool for biological Zyvex NanoEffector Microgripper, http://www.zyvex.com
9
P. Boggild, T. M. Hansen, C. Tanasa, and F. Grey, Nanotechnology 12,
applications with cells or other biological structures in a life- 331 共2001兲.
sustaining environment. 10
S. Akita, Y. Nakayama, S. Mizooka, Y. Takano, T. Okawa, Y. Miyatake,
After first tests performed in air and vacuum, the experi- S. Yamanaka, M. Tsuji, and T. Nosaka, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 1691
ments confirmed the simulation results in terms of maximum 共2001兲.
11
P. Kim and C. M. Lieber, Science 286, 2148 共1999兲.
surface stress. There are several reports on silicon’s failure 12
D. Petrovic, G. Popovic, T. Petrovic, A. Schneider, E. Huq, H. Detter, and
stress21–23 presenting values from 300 MPa up to 7 GPa. Fol- F. Franek, Proc. SPIE 4928, 63 共2002兲.
13
lowing our endurance test performed on the microgrippers S. K. Jericho, M. H. Jericho, T. Hubbard, and M. Kujath, Rev. Sci.
and considering that the simulations’ results in terms of the Instrum. 75, 1280 共2004兲.
14
S. Maruo, K. Ikuta, and H. Korogi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 82, 133 共2003兲.
maximum surface stress varied from 300 MPa to 1.3 GPa 15
S. Caraffini and J. G. Boyd, Proc. SPIE 3519, 6 共1998兲.
for the stiffer designs we consider that 7 GPa was a reason- 16
R. von Mises, Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 8, 161 共1928兲.
17
able value to refer to during the simulations. The three sec- M. Batista, Arch. Mech. 37, 581 共1985兲.
18
tions of different thicknesses along the gripper increase the K. E. Peterson, Proc. IEEE 70, 420 共1982兲.
19
M. M. Blideran, G. Bertsche, W. Henschel, and D. P. Kern, Microelec-
mechanical stability of the gripper by drastically reducing tron. Eng. 83, 1382 共2006兲.
20
bending and torsional effects. Kleindiek Micromanipulator, http://www.nanotechnik.com
21
Further work will be focused on applications in liquid and C. Wilson and P. Beck, J. Microelectromech. Syst. 5, 142 共1996兲.
22
W. Suwito, M. L. Dunn, and S. J. Cunningham, Proceedings of the Inter-
on biological structures as well as on inorganic objects with
national Conference on Solid-State Sensors and Actuators 共1997兲, p. 611.
sizes under 1 ␮m, and on developing a real-time detection 23
F. Pourahmadi, D. Gee, and K. E. Petersen, Proceedings of IEEE Trans-
method of the gripping moment. ducers, San Francisco 共IEEE, New York, 1991兲, p. 197.

JVST B - Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures