Creep and Fatigue Failure in Single- and Double Hot Arm MEMS Thermal Actuators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determination of the failure mechanisms of mechanical devices is the key to the design of reliable products. This paper reports an investigation on creep and fatigue failure of microelectromechanical (MEMS) thermal actuators. Finite element modeling is used to predict thermomechanical behavior of actuators under low to moderate voltage differences. The modeling results are compared with experimental results to evaluate the models. Two probable failure modes associated with thermal actuators, that is, fatigue and creep, are investigated, and it is found that creep is the dominant failure mechanism. The creep behaviors of several U-shape and double hot arm thermal MEMS actuators are examined, and their deformation-time curves are obtained numerically and experimentally. The curves follow a typical three-stage creep curve usually observed in metals. The creep life cycles of the devices are compared on the basis of their stress and temperature distributions. This study shows that actuators with the maximum temperature occurring at the location where the high stress is induced have shorter life spans than those experiencing the high stress away from the maximum temperature location. It is concluded that the double hot arm actuators with equal length have longer creep life than the U-shape (single hot arm) actuators.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".