B Borovic et al 2005 J. Micromech. Microeng. 15 1917 doi:10.1088/0960-1317/15/10/018
B Borovic1, A Q Liu2, D Popa1, H Cai2 and F L Lewis1
Show affiliationsFrom a controls point of view, micro electromechanical systems (MEMS) can be driven in an open-loop and closed-loop fashion. Commonly, these devices are driven open-loop by applying simple input signals. If these input signals become more complex by being derived from the system dynamics, we call such control techniques pre-shaped open-loop driving. The ultimate step for improving precision and speed of response is the introduction of feedback, e.g. closed-loop control. Unlike macro mechanical systems, where the implementation of the feedback is relatively simple, in the MEMS case the feedback design is quite problematic, due to the limited availability of sensor data, the presence of sensor dynamics and noise, and the typically fast actuator dynamics. Furthermore, a performance comparison between open-loop and closed-loop control strategies has not been properly explored for MEMS devices. The purpose of this paper is to present experimental results obtained using both open- and closed-loop strategies and to address the comparative issues of driving and control for MEMS devices. An optical MEMS switching device is used for this study. Based on these experimental results, as well as computer simulations, we point out advantages and disadvantages of the different control strategies, address the problems that distinguish MEMS driving systems from their macro counterparts, and discuss criteria to choose a suitable control driving strategy.
85.85.+j Micro- and nano-electromechanical systems (MEMS/NEMS) and devices
07.07.Df Sensors (chemical, optical, electrical, movement, gas, etc.); remote sensing
Issue 10 (October 2005)
Received 1 April 2005, in final form 19 July 2005
Published 19 August 2005
B Borovic et al 2005 J. Micromech. Microeng. 15 1917
Todd D Fansler et al 2009 Meas. Sci. Technol. 20 125401
Peter A. Becker and Michael T. Wolff 2005 ApJ 630 465
Martín Rivas 2006 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39 4291
Avinash Khare and Uday Sukhatme 2004 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 37 10037
Hiro Saito et al. 2007 ApJ 659 459
C Michaelsen et al 1997 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 30 3167
Yi Zhang et al 2007 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40 5539
Y Wang and J Wang 2009 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 42 162001
Luiz C de Albuquerque and R M Cavalcanti 2004 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 37 7039