Pull-in voltage study of electrostatically actuated fixed-fixed beams using a VLSI on-chip interconnect capacitance model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A highly accurate computationally efficient closed-form model has been developed to determine the pull-in voltage of an electrostatically actuated fixed-fixed beam. The approach includes the electrostatic spring softening effects due to the fringing field capacitances along with the nonlinear spring hardening effects associated with the load-deflection characteristics of a uniformly loaded fixed-fixed beam. Meijs and Fokkema's highly accurate empirical formula for the capacitance of a VLSI on-chip interconnect has been used to determine the spring softening effects due to the fringing field capacitances. The developed model has been verified by comparing the results with published experimentally verified three-dimensional (3-D) finite element analysis (FEA) results and with those from other published representative closed-form models. The developed model can determine the pull-in voltage with a maximum deviation of 1.27% from the FEA results for small deflections and for large deflections (airgap-beam thickness ratio =12), the deviation from the FEA results is 2.0%. A maximum deviation of 0.5% from the FEA results has been observed for extreme fringing field cases (beamwidth-airgap ratio /spl les/0.5). The model's accuracy range is better compared to the other published models.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it