Reliability Testing of 3D-Printed Electromechanical Scanning Devices
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.
Keywords3D 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.
- 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.Hod Lipson MK (2013) Fabricated the new world of 3D printing. John Wiley & Sons, Inc,1st Ed, no 1, pp 1–5Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 11.Qiu Z and Piyawattanametha W (2015) MEMS-based medical Endomicroscopes. IEEE J Sel Top Quantum Electron 21(4)Google Scholar
- 12.Sakai M, Tabata O (2007) Reliability of MEMS testing of materials and devicesGoogle Scholar
- 14.Senturia SD (2001) Microsyst Design 49(0)Google Scholar
- 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.Stratasys (2014) “PolyJet Materials Data Sheet.” [Online]. Available: http://usglobalimages.stratasys.com/
- 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
- 21.Young WC, Budynas RG Roark’s formulas for stress and strain. Library (Lond) 7:2002, 832 no 7th EditionGoogle Scholar