4.4 Article

Electro-thermal modeling and experimental validation for multilayered metallic microstructures

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00542-020-04964-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11572248]
  2. China Scholarship Council
  3. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-SC0012704]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents an electro-thermal modeling for multilayered metallic microstructures that can actuate vertically when heated. The study establishes a lumped model to analytically solve the temperature distribution under Joule heating, which is validated through experimental testing. The proposed microstructures show potential for microrobotic actuators, and the lumped model serves as an effective tool for their design and optimization based on varied requirements.
This paper proposes an electro-thermal modeling on multilayered metallic microstructures that are able to deploy vertically when thermally actuated. A typical design of such microstructures is presented, and the working principle is described. A lumped model is established to find the analytical solution to the temperature distribution when actuated by Joule heating, which shows a good agreement with the results from finite element analysis (FEA). Fabrication and experimental testing of the microstructure are followed, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and temperature-dependent electrical measurement are combined to determine the in-situ temperature when the microstructure is heated with a constant power of 0.56 mW in SEM. The peak temperature derived from the experiment is approximately 333 K, while the peak temperature simulated by the lumped model and FEA model are 330.99 and 331.85 K, respectively. The proposed multilayered microstructures show great potential for applications in microrobotic actuators, and the lumped model offers an effective tool for the design and optimization of such microstructures based on diverse requirements.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据