Journal of Electronic Testing

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 363–370 | Cite as

Reliability Testing of 3D-Printed Electromechanical Scanning Devices

  • B. Mert Gönültaş
  • Janset Savaş
  • Ramin Khayatzadeh
  • Sacid Aygün
  • Fehmi Çivitci
  • Y. Dağhan Gökdel
  • M. Berke Yelten
  • Onur FerhanoğluEmail author


Recent advances in the field of stereolithography based manufacturing, have led to a number of 3D-printed sensor and actuator devices, as a cost-effective and low fabrication complexity alternative to micro-electro-mechanical counterparts. Yet the reliability of such 3D-printed dynamic structures have yet to be explored. Here we perform reliability tests and analysis of a selected 3D-printed actuator, namely an electromechanical scanner. The scanner is targeted towards scanning incoming light onto the target, which is particularly useful for barcoding, display, and opto-medical tissue imaging applications. We monitor the deviations in the fundamental mechanical resonance, scan-line, and the quality factor on a number of scanners having different device thicknesses, for a total duration of 5 days (corresponding to 20–80 million cycles, depending on the device operating frequency). A total of 9 scanning devices, having 10 mm × 10 mm die size were tested, with a highlight on device-device variability, as well as the effect of device thickness itself. An average standard deviation of < ~%10 (with respect to the mean) was observed for all tested parameters among scanners of the same type (an indicator device to device variability), while an average standard deviation of less than about 10 percent (with respect to the mean) was observed for all parameters for the duration of the entire test (as an indicator of device reliability), for a total optical scan angle of 5 degrees.


3D printed optomechanics Microscanner Sensors and actuators Reliability Variability 



The authors would like to thank Ahmet Turan Talas from Boğaziçi University Life Sciences Center for his support in manufacturing all 3D printed parts.


  1. 1.
    Connally JA, Brown SB (1992) Slow crack growth in single-crystal silicon. Science 256(5063):1537–1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heinrich SM, Boudjiet MT, Thuau D, Poulin P, Ayela C, Dufour I (2014) Development of analytical models of T- and U-shaped cantilever-based MEMS devices for sensing and energy harvesting applications. In: IEEE SENSORS 2014 Proceedings pp. 1648–1651Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hod Lipson MK (2013) Fabricated the new world of 3D printing. John Wiley & Sons, Inc,1st Ed, no 1, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holmström STS, Baran U, Urey H (2014) MEMS laser scanners: a review. J Microelectromech Syst 23(2):259–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoy CL, Durr NJ, Ben-Yakar A (2011) Fast-updating and nonrepeating Lissajous image reconstruction method for capturing increased dynamic information. Appl Opt 50(16):2376–2382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huang Y, Sai Sarathi Vasan A, Doraiswami R, Osterman M, Pecht M (2012) MEMS reliability review. IEEE Trans Device Mater Reliab 12(2):482–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ishiguro Y, Poupyrev I (2014) 3D printed interactive speakers. Proc 32nd Annu ACM Conf Hum factors Comput Syst - CHI ‘14, pp. 1733–1742Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lulec SZ, Sagiroglu C, Mostafazadeh A, Ermek E, Timurdogan E, Leblebici Y, and Urey H (2012) Simultaneous self-sustained actuation and parallel readout with MEMS cantilever sensor array. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Int Conf Micro Electro Mech Syst (MEMS) pp. 644–647Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    MacDonald E, Wicker R (2016) Multiprocess 3D printing for increasing component functionality. Science 353(6307):aaf2093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peele BN, Wallin TJ, Zhao H, Shepherd RF (2015) 3D printing antagonistic systems of artificial muscle using projection stereolithography. Bioinspir Biomim 10(5):55003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Qiu Z and Piyawattanametha W (2015) MEMS-based medical Endomicroscopes. IEEE J Sel Top Quantum Electron 21(4)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sakai M, Tabata O (2007) Reliability of MEMS testing of materials and devicesGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Savas J, Khayatzadeh R, Civitci F, Gokdel YD, Ferhanoglu O (2018) Towards fully 3D-printed miniaturized confocal imager. Opt Eng 57(4):41402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Senturia SD (2001) Microsyst Design 49(0)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shemelya C, Cedillos F, Aguilera E, Maestas E, Ramos J, Espalin D, Muse D, Wicker R, MacDonald E (2013) 3D printed capacitive sensors. In: IEEE SENSORS 2013 - proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stratasys (2014) “PolyJet Materials Data Sheet.” [Online]. Available:
  17. 17.
    Urey H, Holmstrom S, Yalcinkaya AD (2008) Electromagnetically actuated FR4 scanners. IEEE Photon Technol Lett 20(1):30–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Willis K, Brockmeyer E, Hudson S, Poupyrev I (2012) Printed optics: 3D printing of embedded optical elements for interactive devices. Proc 25th Annu ACM Symp User interface Softw Technol - UIST ‘12, pp. 589–598Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu S-Y, Yang C, Hsu W, Lin L (2015) 3D-printed microelectronics for integrated circuitry and passive wireless sensors. Microsyst Nanoeng 1:15013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yelten MB, Franzon PD, Steer MB (2011) Surrogate-model-based analysis of analog circuits -part I: variability analysis. IEEE Trans Device Mater Reliab 11(3):458–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Young WC, Budynas RG Roark’s formulas for stress and strain. Library (Lond) 7:2002, 832 no 7th EditionGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Mert Gönültaş
    • 1
  • Janset Savaş
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ramin Khayatzadeh
    • 1
  • Sacid Aygün
    • 1
  • Fehmi Çivitci
    • 1
    • 3
  • Y. Dağhan Gökdel
    • 2
  • M. Berke Yelten
    • 1
  • Onur Ferhanoğlu
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Electronics and Communication EngIstanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Electrical and Electronics EngIstanbul Bilgi UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Knight Cancer InstituteOregon Health & Science UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations