Magnetostrictive microelectromechanical loudspeaker

Thorsten S. Albacha) and Reinhard Lerch

University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Chair of Sensor Technology, Paul-Gordan-Strasse 3-5,
91052 Erlangen, Germany

(Received 22 April 2013; revised 2 September 2013; accepted 26 September 2013)

A microelectromechnical-loudspeaker based on the magnetostrictive effect is presented. The
membrane consists of a comb structure of monomorph bending cantilevers with an area of about
16 mm2 . Prototypes generate a sound pressure level (SPL) of up to 102 dB at 450 Hz with a total
harmonic distortion of 2% inside a 2 cm3 measurement volume. The fabrication process of the
device as well as a coupled simulation model to calculate its sound pressure is introduced. The
model reproduces the measurements and is employed to further optimize the loudspeaker
membrane. As a result, a computed maximum SPL of 106 dB has been achieved with a 6 dB
C 2013 Acoustical Society of America.
frequency range extending from 100 Hz to 2.6 kHz. V
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4824815]
PACS number(s): 43.38.Ct, 43.38.Ja [DDE] Pages: 4372–4380

I. INTRODUCTION of the membrane. The fabrication processes are compara-

tively straightforward. All the above-mentioned actuation
Microelectromechanical (MEMS) microphones are used
principles lead to electrically capacitive loudspeakers.
in millions of devices from consumer electronics to mobile
Inductive concepts have also been investigated. There have
phones. They are small, robust, and economically priced.
been attempts to transfer the electromagnetic actuation prin-
MEMS-loudspeakers could have similar advantages. But
ciple of hearing aid speakers into a MEMS-setup.10
until now, no commercial integrated MEMS-device for
Electrodynamically actuated MEMS-loudspeakers are based
sound generation in the audio range does exist.
on the Lorentz force on a current driven coil in the magnetic
State-of-the-art miniature loudspeakers in mobile appli-
field of a permanent magnet.11–14 Either the permanent mag-
cations are assembled by means of precision mechanics.
net or the coil is attached to the membrane. So far, the most
They behave electrically inductive. Therefore, it will be an
promising results have been achieved by the piezoelectric5
advantage for MEMS-devices designed to replace them to
and the electrodynamic12,14 setups.
show inductive behavior as well. Acoustical requirements
Still another actuation principle has been used for sound
for a marketable MEMS-loudspeaker are the generation of a
generation as early as 1861 in the invention of the first
high sound pressure level (SPL) over a broad frequency
telephone by Philip Reis:15 the magnetostriction, more pre-
range and low total harmonic distortion (THD). In general,
cisely, the Joule-magnetostrictive effect. It describes the
simple and economical fabrication with low tolerances, low
strain of ferromagnetic materials under the influence of a
power consumption, mechanical as well as chemical robust-
magnetic field. Some advantageous characteristics make it
ness, and small geometric dimensions are further require-
also suitable for use in MEMS applications: high energy
ments to promote a market entry.
density and contactless operation, as well as the possibility
Different actuation principles have been investigated in
of low driving voltages due to low electrical actuator
order to develop a MEMS-loudspeaker. The electrostatic
impedances.16–19 However, this effect has never been con-
principle utilizes the force on electric charges in an electric
sidered to develop a MEMS-loudspeaker. In fact, it has
field.1,2 The setup resembles a plate capacitor, with one plate
rarely been used in micromechanics at all. Among the few
designed as a flexible membrane. A drawback is the required
examples are optical scanners20 and bio-sensors.21
high electrical voltage. Amplitudes lie in the range of 20 V to
This paper, which is based on previous work,22–27 extends
200 V. The same idea can also be realized in a simpler (non-
the research toward a magnetostrictive MEMS-loudspeaker.
MEMS) setup by applying the electrodes directly on the top
Contributions of the presented magnetostrictive design to the
and bottom surface of a dielectric polymer.3,4 The polymer is
above given requirements for MEMS-loudspeakers are laid
contracted by electrostatic forces when an electric voltage is
out in the following sections. First, the concept of this loud-
applied. The required voltages are even higher with ampli-
speaker is presented. Its electrical impedance is of inductive
tudes up to 1 kV. Active materials showing the piezoelectric
nature. The special design of the membrane, consisting of
effect have been utilized as MEMS-loudspeakers.5–9 These
separate bending cantilevers, leads to certain improvements
materials (mostly PZT, ZnO, or AlN) are deposited and struc-
over a closed membrane. Its fabrication process is introduced.
tured upon a passive membrane. An applied electric voltage
It is as straightforward as for piezoelectric membranes.5–9
leads to a geometric deformation which excites a movement
Furthermore, a simulation model is derived from the physical
interrelationships. It combines the methods of lumped ele-
a)
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail: ments and finite elements. A suitable linear working point for
talbach@lse.eei.uni-erlangen.de the magnetostrictive material is identified by measuring the

4372 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134 (6), December 2013 0001-4966/2013/134(6)/4372/9/$30.00 C 2013 Acoustical Society of America
V
membrane deflection. The setup for measuring the generated
sound pressure in a standard 2 cm3 measurement volume is
illustrated. Acoustic measurement results show a good con-
formance with simulation output. Finally, possibilities for
further optimizations are discussed. An optimized setup,
increasing the SPL, and expanding the acoustical bandwidth is
presented.
II. CONCEPT
The presented MEMS-loudspeaker is designed for in-
ear use. Thus, the sound pressure is measured inside a stand-
ard 2 cm3 measurement volume that emulates the human
ear. The MEMS-loudspeaker consists of three parts.
(i) A silicon chip, which carries a magnetostrictively
actuated membrane (membrane-chip),
(ii) a current driven coil, which provides a magnetic field,
and
(iii) a housing, which carries the generated volume flux
into the measurement volume.
A. Membrane-chip
Figure 1 depicts the design of the membrane. It consists
of two rows of long and narrow bending cantilevers that are
positioned opposite to each other. The membrane is proc-
essed micromechanically on a silicon substrate. A cavity is
etched through the silicon underneath the membrane to pro-
vide an acoustic back volume (see Sec. III).
Figure 2 shows a cross section (A-B) along one bending
cantilever. The monomorph setup consists of a magnetostric-
tive layer on top and at least one passive layer underneath. A
magnetic field, 6H,~ parallel to the length of the cantilever
causes the magnetostrictive layer to strain by Dlc (positive
magnetostriction). Thus, the cantilever bends downward.
But, elongation of the magnetostrictive material in one direc-
tion leads to contractions in the perpendicular directions.
This leads to a transverse bending around the x-axis and an
unwanted increased stiffness of the cantilever. A high length
to width aspect ratio is chosen to suppress this side effect.
The membrane design shown in Fig. 1 offers certain
advantages compared to a closed membrane. First, the bend-
ing stiffness of the membrane is decreased which allows
higher deflections. Second, two additional design parameters
provide control over the acoustical frequency response: the
width of the airgaps between the cantilevers and the mechan-
ical eigenfrequency of the cantilevers. Processing cantilevers
FIG. 1. Design of the membrane consisting of a comb structure of bending
cantilevers.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 134, No. 6, December 2013
FIG. 2. Working principle, cross section A-B as in Fig. 1 (not to scale).
of different lengths inside the same membrane lead to differ-
ent eigenfrequencies. This can add even more parameters to
tune the frequency-response of the loudspeaker. An alterna-
tive layer setup has also been investigated.25,26
B. MEMS-loudspeaker setup
In an integrated MEMS-loudspeaker setup, the magnetic
~ to drive the cantilever movement can be provided
field, H,
by flat multilayered microcoils on a separate silicon-chip.24
To demonstrate the performance of the membrane-chip, a
cylindrical coil is used in this paper.
Due to the highly nonlinear nature of the magnetostric-
tive effect, an additional offset magnetic field is needed to
set up a linear working point. Small permanent magnets can
be utilized here. In this paper, an additional direct current
(DC) through the cylindrical coil is provided to increase the
flexibility of the measurements.
Figure 3 depicts the corresponding measurement setup
of the MEMS-loudspeaker in an exploded view. The
membrane-chip is fixed to a housing (2) and positioned
inside the cylindrical coil (1). A standard hearing aid rubber
tube (3) leads the sound pressure into the measurement vol-
ume (4; RA0038, IEC 126, and ANSI S3.7-1973, G.R.A.S.
Sound and Vibration A/S, Holte, Denmark), which emulates
the human ear. The microphone (5; 1/2 in. type 4189 with
amplifier type 2669, Bruel and Kjaer, Naerum, Denmark)
detects the pressure signal.
III. FABRICATION PROCESS
This section briefly introduces the micromechanical
fabrication process of the membrane-chip. The length of
the bending cantilevers, lc , is constant inside one chip.
Two different types of membranes, with lc ¼ 1250 lm and
lc ¼ 1500 lm, are presented in this paper. Their different
mechanical eigenfrequencies lead to different acoustical
characteristics. As magnetostrictive material, Vanadium
Permendur (Fe49 Co49 V2 ) is used. The passive layer consists
of silicon dioxide (SiO2 ). Boron doping reduces its brittle-
ness. Chromium (Cr) serves as adhesion layer. The process
FIG. 3. Setup to demonstrate performance of membrane-chip (exploded
view): (1) cylindrical coil, (2) membrane-chip fixed to housing, (3) small
hearing aid rubber tube, (4) measurement volume (2 cm3 ), and (5)
microphone.
T. S. Albach and R. Lerch: Magnetostrictive MEMS-loudspeaker 4373
requires three lithography masks. Silicon wafers are proc-
essed from both sides. Figure 4 depicts the main process
steps (cross section C-D as in Fig. 1):
(1) Wet oxidation of a (100)-Si-wafer and boron-doping of
SiO2 (0.9 lm);
(2) sputter deposition of Cr (0.035 lm)–Fe49 Co49 V2
(1.05 lm)–Cr (0.035 lm) layers on the front;
(3) wet etching of the metal layers on the front: definition of
the membrane area;
(4) wet etching of the SiO2 on the back: definition of the
cavity area;
(5) wet etching of all layers on the front: definition of the
cantilevers;
(6) anisotropic wet etching of silicon from the back (KOH,
15%, 40  C); and
(7) anisotropic wet etching of silicon from the front (KOH,
15%, 40  C): liberation of the bending cantilevers.
For the prototype membrane-chips, the width of the
cantilevers is 72 lm and the gap between adjacent cantile-
vers is 13 lm. The membrane area, including the airgaps,
amounts to Am ¼ 16:2 mm2 for both cantilever lengths. This
leads to a total number of cantilevers per chip of n ¼ 126 for
the longer and n ¼ 152 for the shorter ones. Figure 5 shows
an example of a membrane-chip.
IV. MODEL SETUP
In order to understand and optimize the performance of
the MEMS-loudspeaker, a simulation model is presented in
this section. The model assumes linear behavior of the
involved physical effects. A MEMS-loudspeaker needs an
electrical signal as its input. Its output is the sound-pressure
FIG. 4. Micromechanical fabrication process of the membrane-chip.
4374 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 134, No. 6, December 2013
FIG. 5. Membrane-chip with highlighted membrane area, Am .
in the ear volume. Since these are both scalar quantities, the
MEMS-loudspeaker may be represented by a scalar transfer
matrix.
The different components of the MEMS-loudspeaker,
which are the current driven coil, the membrane-chip and
the acoustical network, can be modeled independently. Each
of these components can also be represented by a scalar
transfer matrix, whereas the calculations to achieve these
matrices may include more than one spatial dimension.
In this paper, the magnetic field is generated by a cylin-
drical coil. The electrical feedback of the moving membrane
into this coil can be neglected. Thus, the simulation model,
as depicted in Fig. 6, directly handles the magnetic field
(flux density, B^x , and field strength, H^ x ) as its input. This
field is assumed to be homogeneous along the cantilevers
and to only have a component in x-direction. Here, the nota-
tion m^ ¼ me^ ju denotes the complex amplitude of the time
function mðtÞ ¼ m ^ cosðxt þ uÞ with its phase u.
Nevertheless, for an integrated MEMS-loudspeaker with flat
multilayered microcoils,24 the coils have to be modeled
accordingly and the electrical source has to be chosen as
input quantity.
The membrane-chip can be represented by a transfer
matrix, AMC , coupling the magnetic field to the mechanic
field (force, F^y , and velocity, ^v y ). The acoustical network,
represented by AAN , couples these quantities to the acoustic
field (sound pressure, p^2 , and volume flux, q^2 ) in the mea-
surement volume.
A. Model of the membrane-chip
The model of the membrane-chip describes the move-
ment of the bending cantilevers due to the magnetostrictive
effect, as well as their response to the generated sound pres-
sure. This behavior is frequency dependent.
Assuming plane strain condition in the x-y-plane, it is
sufficient to model a cross section of one bending cantilever,
FIG. 6. Simulation model of the MEMS-loudspeaker.
T. S. Albach and R. Lerch: Magnetostrictive MEMS-loudspeaker
    
according to Fig. 2. The results have to be scaled with the B^x F^y
¼ AMC : (4)
total membrane area. H^ x ^v y
The membrane-chip can thus be represented by a two-
dimensional coupled field problem, including the magnetic Here, B^x and H^ x are the spatially averaged magnetic field
and the mechanic field. The underlying coupling effect can properties along the magnetostrictive layer of the cantilever
be described by the linear magnetostrictive equations in the x-direction. ^v y denotes the average velocity of the can-
(Voigt’s notation) tilever in the y-direction (this property determines the acous-
tic volume flux) and F^y is the total force on all bending
~ ¼ eS þ lS H;
B ~
cantilevers in the y-direction, calculated from the initial
H ~
T ¼ c S  et H; (1) load, ny , as

where tensors of first order are denoted by vector arrows, Fy ¼ bc nny ; (5)
and those of higher order in bold print. The index “t ” denotes
~ is the magnetic flux density, H
a transposition. B ~ is the mag- where n is the total number of cantilevers and bc is their indi-
netic field strength, S is the mechanical strain, and T is the vidual width.
mechanical stress. The magnetic permeability at constant
strain is denoted as lS , the mechanical elasticity at constant B. Model of the acoustical network
magnetic field is cH , and the magnetostrictive coupling ten- The model of the acoustical network (transfer matrix,
sor is e. AAN ) describes
All materials are assumed to be isotropic, except for the
magnetostrictive layer. Here, transverse isotropic coupling is (i) the coupling between the mechanic and the acoustic
assumed,16,28 which leads to the coupling tensor field (transfer matrix, AAN;1 ) and
(ii) the acoustical behavior of the MEMS-loudspeaker
0 1 (transfer matrix, AAN;2 ).
0 0 0 0 e15 0
B C
e¼@ 0 0 0 e15 0 0 A; (2) This leads to
e31 e31 e33 0 0 0
AAN ¼ AAN;1 AAN;2 : (6)
where the magnetization lies in 3-direction. Material coordi-
The coupling is described by the gyrator-type equation
nates are mapped to the geometry as
     
0 1 0 1 F^y p^1 Ac 0
x 3 ¼ AAN;1 ^ with AAN;1 ¼ ;
^v y q1 0 1=Ac
B C B C
@ y A $ @ 2 A: (3)
(7)
z 1
where Ac is the total cantilever area (membrane area, Am ,
The solution to this problem can be found using the without the airgaps)
method of finite elements (FE).29 The simulation domain
has to be spatially discretized. The underlying coupled par- Ac ¼ lc bc n; (8)
tial differential equations can then be transferred to a sys-
tem of algebraic equations, including appropriate p^1 is the acoustic pressure and q^1 is the volume flux gener-
boundary conditions. Losses in the vibrating mechanical ated by the moving cantilevers.
structure are included by adding a velocity proportional The acoustical behavior of the MEMS-loudspeaker is
damping term (Rayleigh damping model). Additionally, described by
two initial conditions are provided along the cantilever: a      
homogeneous magnetic field in the x-direction, resembling p^1 p^2 a11 a12
¼ AAN;2 ^ ; with AAN;2 ¼ :
the input magnetic field, and an equally distributed me- q^1 q2 a21 a22
chanical load, ny , in the y-direction, resembling the (9)
sound pressure. The numerical solution yields the distribu-
tion of the magnetic and the mechanic field along the finite In the next step, the components a11   a22 of AAN;2 have to
elements. It is calculated for frequencies in the audio be derived. Since the physical dimensions of the MEMS-
range. For the FE simulations, we use CFSþþ (“coupled loudspeaker are small compared to audio wavelengths in air,
field simulation”), which is a numerical simulation tool it is possible to model the acoustic network using lumped
optimized for coupled field problems.30 elements.15,31 In this paper, an electroacoustic analogy is
By providing adequate values for the initial conditions used, which maps the acoustic pressure, p, to the electric
in different simulation runs, the transfer behavior between voltage and the volume flux, q, to the electric current. The
the magnetic and the mechanic field can be achieved. The resulting acoustic lumped element model is depicted in
membrane-chip can thus be represented by a frequency Fig. 7. Assuming an ideally closed measurement volume, no
dependent, one-dimensional transfer matrix AMC (see Fig. 6) volume flux leakage will occur and q^2 can be set to zero.
as The quantity that is actually of interest is the sound pressure

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 134, No. 6, December 2013 T. S. Albach and R. Lerch: Magnetostrictive MEMS-loudspeaker 4375
 FIG. 8. Setup for measuring the magnetostrictive bending of the cantilevers:
(1) coil on ferromagnetic yoke, (2) magnetic field sensor, (3) membrane-
chip, and (4) confocal measurement microscope.

ðRa þ Z 2 ÞðZ1 þ Z t þ Z 0 Þ þ Z 1 ðZ t þ Z 0 Þ
FIG. 7. Lumped element model of the acoustical network. a21 ¼ ; (17)
Z 0 Z 1 Ra

in the measurement volume, which is then equal to p^2 . ðZt þ Z 1 ÞðRa þ Z 2 Þ þ Z 1 Zt

a22 ¼ ; (18)
Cavities of the acoustical network are modeled as acoustic Z 1 Ra
compliances, N0;1;2 , the hearing aid rubber tube is repre-
sented by a mass element, Mt , and a friction element, Rt . The with the acoustic impedances
airgaps between the cantilevers are modeled with a friction
1 1
element, Ra . The corresponding equations31 are Z0 ¼ ; Z1 ¼ ; (19)
jxN0 jxN1
V0;1;2
N0;1;2 ¼ ; (10) 1
qc2 Z2 ¼ ; Z t ¼ jxMt þ Rt ; (20)
jxN2
4g
ft ¼ ; (11)
pqrt2 where j is the imaginary unit and x is the angular frequency.
0 1 With Eq. (6), this leads to the transfer matrix, AAN , of
1 qlt the acoustical network
Mt ¼ B1 þ rffiffiffiC 2 ; (12)
@ fA t pr
2
ft
sffiffiffi0 1
1 f 1 8glt
Rt ¼ 1 þ rffiffiffiC 4 ; (13)
2 ft B
@ f A prt
ft

12gtc
Ra ¼ : (14)
b3a la;tot

Here, V0;1;2 denote the volumes of the corresponding cav-

ities, c ¼ 343 m/s is the sound velocity, q ¼ 1:2 kg=m3 is
the air density, and g ¼ 1:8  105 kg/(m s) is the viscosity
of air. The characteristic frequency for the hearing aid tube
is ft , the length of the hearing aid tube is lt , and rt is its ra-
dius. The thickness of one bending cantilever is tc , the width
of the airgap between two cantilevers is ba , and la;tot is the
total length of all the airgaps between the cantilevers.
Deriving the components of the matrix, AAN;2 , from Fig. 7
[see Eq. (9)] leads to the equations

Z2 ðZ 1 þ Z t þ Z0 Þ þ Z1 ðZ t þ Z0 Þ
a11 ¼ ; (15)
Z0 Z1
FIG. 9. Normalized tip deflection of the cantilevers under the influence of
Z ðZ þ Z t Þ þ Z1 Z t a magnetic field. (a) Outer hysteresis loop when driven into saturation at
a12 ¼ 2 1 ; (16) H^ ¼ 135 kA/m, (b) and (c) inner hysteresis loops around a working point at
Z1 HDC ¼ 12 kA/m with outer hysteresis loop given as reference.

4376 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 134, No. 6, December 2013 T. S. Albach and R. Lerch: Magnetostrictive MEMS-loudspeaker
 TABLE I. Measured key data from the MEMS-loudspeakers as in Figs. 10
and 11; frequencies rounded to 10 Hz.

Cantilever length, lc 1250 lm 1500 lm

Sensitivity, SI , at 450 Hz 0.08 Pa  m/kA 0.16 Pa  m/kA

Frequency range (6 dB) 340 Hz–1020 Hz 360 Hz–800 Hz

Maximum SPL 95 dB 95 dB 102 dB 102 dB

Corresponding THD 3% 6% 2% 6%
Corresponding frequency 430 Hz 890 Hz 450 Hz 650 Hz

saturation and hysteresis. In order to quantify these nonli-

nearities, the magnetostrictive deflection of the cantilevers is
measured as depicted in Fig. 8. A confocal microscope
(lsurf explorer, Nanofocus AG, Oberhausen, Germany)
measures the topography of the cantilevers under the influ-
ence of a magnetic field, which is provided by a current
FIG. 10. Measurements of SPL and THD; cantilever length, lc ¼ 1250 lm;
measurement resolution is 20 Hz to 50 Hz below 1.4 kHz and 100 Hz above
driven coil on a ferromagnetic yoke. The static magnetic
1.4 kHz. field, which is measured with a Hall effect sensor, is adjusted
in small steps after each topography measurement.
   
F^y p^2
¼ AAN ; (21)
^v y q^2 B. Acoustic measurements
The sound pressure inside the ear volume is measured
as defined in Fig. 6.
using the setup depicted in Fig. 3. The SPL is calculated
C. Model of the MEMS-loudspeaker from the root-mean-square (rms)-value of the sound pressure
component, pI;rms , which has the same frequency as the
Finally, the sound pressure, p^2 , in the measurement vol- exciting magnetic field with respect to 20 lPa,
ume can be expressed as  
    pI;rms
B^x p^2 SPL ¼ 20 log10 : (23)
¼ A A : (22) 20 lPa
H^ x MC AN
0
The total harmonic distortion (THD) is calculated as
V. MEASUREMENT SETUP sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p^2II þ p^2III þ   
A. Deflection measurements THD ¼ ; (24)
p^2I þ p^2II þ p^2III þ   
When excited with large magnetic fields, the magneto-
strictive effect shows highly nonlinear behavior including where p^I ; p^II ; ::: are the sound pressure amplitudes at one,
two,… times the excitation frequency.
The sensitivity, SI , of the MEMS-loudspeaker can be
calculated from the amplitude of the exciting magnetic field,
^ as
H,
^
SI ¼ p^I H: (25)

VI. MEASUREMENT RESULTS

A. Magnetostrictive deflection
Figure 9 shows measurements of the tip deflection of
the cantilevers. The deflection is normalized to its maximum
and defined as zero at its minimum. The exciting magnetic
field as a function of time is varied in a triangular shape

TABLE II. Geometric dimensions.

Length of rubber tube lt ¼ 5:2 mm

FIG. 11. Measurements of SPL and THD, cantilever length, lc ¼ 1500 lm; Inner radius of rubber tube rt ¼ 0:5 mm
measurement resolution is 20 Hz to 50 Hz below 1.4 kHz and 100 Hz above Housing volume V1 ¼ 0:03  106 m3
1.4 kHz.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 134, No. 6, December 2013 T. S. Albach and R. Lerch: Magnetostrictive MEMS-loudspeaker 4377
TABLE III. Mechanic material data: density, q; Young’s modulus, Y;
Poisson ratio, ; SiO2 is boron-doped.
q in kg/m3 Y in GPa
Fe49 Co49 V2 8100 230
Cr 7100 280
SiO2 2500 60
with constant amplitude. In Fig. 9(a), the field amplitude of
H^ ¼ 135 kA/m drives the magnetostrictive material into sat-
uration. This results in the characteristic and essentially non-
linear outer hysteresis loop of the deflection behavior.
Nevertheless, the magnetostrictive hysteresis is less distinct
compared to piezoelectric materials,32 which is an advantage
for audio applications. However, in order to operate a loud-
speaker, a linear relationship between magnetic field and
deflection is needed. An appropriate working point for the
material Fe49 Co49 V2 has been found at an offset magnetic
field of HDC ¼ 612 kA/m. With the excitation of small mag-
netic fields, the magnetostrictive effect can be approximated
by a linear function around this working point [see Eq. (1)].
Two examples are given in Figs. 9(b) and 9(c) for field
amplitudes of H^ ¼ 11 kA/m and H^ ¼ 19 kA/m. To keep
within the linear operating range, maximum field amplitudes
of 23 kA/m are allowed (see also Sec. IV B).
B. Acoustic properties
Figures 10 and 11 show the measured SPL and THD
for membrane-chips with cantilever lengths of 1250 lm
and 1500 lm. The amplitude of the magnetic field, H, ^ netometer. The magnetic field amplitudes in the simulation
is varied between 1.6 kA/m and 23.3 kA/m. The DC
working point is chosen according to Sec. IV A
(HDC ¼12 kA/m). The 6 dB cutoff frequencies are
indicated in both figures. The corresponding 6 dB-
bandwidth is larger for shorter cantilevers where this
bandwidth amounts to 680 Hz (Fig. 10). On the contrary,
the maximum SPL is higher for longer cantilevers, where
a maximum SPL of 102 dB has been measured (Fig. 11).
In both cases, the THD is well below 10% for frequen-
cies above 400 Hz inside the 6 dB-bandwidth. Observing
Figs. 10 and 11, the relationship between the sound pres-
sure and the magnetic field strength is found to be nearly
linear up to an amplitude of 23 kA/m. That means the
sensitivity, SI [Eq. (25)], is nearly constant in this field
range and also confirms the choice of the working point,
HDC . For field amplitudes above 23 kA/m, the sensitivity
has been found to decrease due to the nonlinear behavior
of the magnetostrictive effect, which becomes more visi-
ble at high field amplitudes (Fig. 9). The resulting key
data from these measurements is summarized in Table I.
TABLE IV. Magnetostrictive coupling tensor for Fe49 Co49 V2 , as measured
in the working point 12 kA/m [see Eq. (2)]; e15 is set to zero.
e33 e31
780 Vs/m2 390 Vs/m2
4378 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 134, No. 6, December 2013

0.3
0.21
0.17
FIG. 12. Cantilever length, lc ¼ 1250 lm; simulation of SPL; tolerance
band from simulation runs with 65% tolerance on material properties and
layer thicknesses; magnetic field strengths as in Fig. 10; measurement data
reproduced from Fig. 10 for comparison.
VII. COMPARISON WITH SIMULATION DATA
Simulation results for the sound pressure, p^2 , in the
measurement volume are obtained by evaluating Eq. (22).
The geometric dimensions are equal to the measurements
and are given in Table II. The mechanic material data given
in Table III has been verified by comparison of the mechani-
cal eigenfrequencies of the cantilevers.23 The magnetostric-
tive coupling tensor, as given in Table IV, has been derived
from measurements of the static deflection of the cantilevers
(Fig. 9). The saturation magnetostriction of Fe49 Co49 V2 has
been measured22 to ks ¼ 62  106 with a tolerance of
613%. For the relative permeability of Fe49 Co49 V2 , a value
of lr ¼ 50 has been obtained using a vibrating sample mag-
are chosen equal to the measurements. The simulated SPLs
are given in Figs. 12 and 13 for the two different types of the
membrane. Table V indicates the resulting key data.
Micromechanical processes are always subject to possi-
ble tolerances. Thus, it is important to gain knowledge of the
influence of these tolerances on the output quantity. Realistic
tolerances are assumed to be 65% concerning all material
parameters as well as all layer thicknesses. The tolerance of
the length of the cantilevers is neglected. The resulting devi-
ations of the SPL are referred to as tolerance band in Figs.
e15 FIG. 13. Cantilever length, lc ¼ 1500 lm; simulation of SPL; tolerance
band from simulation runs with 65% tolerance on material properties and
0 Vs/m2 layer thicknesses; magnetic field strengths as in Fig. 11; measurement data
reproduced from Fig. 11 for comparison.
T. S. Albach and R. Lerch: Magnetostrictive MEMS-loudspeaker
TABLE V. Simulated key data from the MEMS-loudspeakers as in Figs. 12
and 13; frequencies rounded to 10 Hz.
Cantilever length, lc 1250 lm 1500 lm
Sensitivity, SI , at 450 Hz 0.08 Pa  m/kA 0.18 Pa  m/kA
Frequency range (6 dB) 350 Hz–1030 Hz 360 Hz–720 Hz
Maximum SPL 97 dB 97 dB 103 dB 103 dB
Corresponding frequency 440 Hz 940 Hz 450 Hz 630 Hz
12 and 13. The measurement data given in these figures is
the same as in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively.
From the comparison of measurement and simulation
data, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(i) Measured key data, such as cutoff frequencies, maxi-
mum SPL, or sensitivity is closely reproduced by the
simulation. Thus, the simulation model is validated
by the measurement results.
(ii) The process tolerances of the membrane-chips lie
inside the assumed boundaries. Thus, repeatability of
the fabrication process can be presumed.
(iii) The simulation model assumes purely linear behavior
of the involved physical effects. Thus, also the proto-
types of the MEMS-loudspeaker are found to exhibit
good linearity.
VIII. OPTIMIZATION
The aim is to develop an optimized membrane design
that shows a higher SPL output and a broader bandwidth.
Using the validated simulation model [Eq. (22)], different
design parameters can be varied and the effect on the SPL
can be examined.
As an example, Fig. 14 shows the influence of the airgap
width, ba , between the cantilevers. The cantilever length is
lc ¼ 1250 lm. The layer thicknesses and the number of can-
tilevers are chosen as in the corresponding measurements.
The amplitude of the magnetic field is H^ ¼ 23:3 kA/m. The
airgap width, ba , has direct influence on the acoustic friction
element, Ra [Eq. (14)]. From Fig. 14, the following conclu-
sions can be drawn: The membrane operates as acoustically
FIG. 14. Influence of the airgap, ba , on the SPL; lc ¼ 1250 lm; H^ ¼ 23:3
kA/m.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 134, No. 6, December 2013
TABLE VI. Design of the optimized membrane.
Cantilever length, lc 1250 lm
Cantilever width, bc 72 lm
Thickness of Fe49 Co49 V2 2.4 lm
Thickness of SiO2 3.6 lm
Airgap width, ba 4.5 lm
Number of cantilevers, n 152
Membrane area, Am 14.57 mm2
closed when the airgaps are smaller than 3 lm. Opening up
the airgaps flattens the frequency response of the SPL (in the
range ba ¼ 3 lm–13 lm). When the airgaps become too
wide, a considerable loss of sound pressure occurs (acoustic
short-circuit condition).
By performing further geometric variations, several
design rules are found for optimizing the membrane.
(1) Adequate airgaps between the cantilevers lead to a flat
frequency response of the SPL.
(2) The upper cut-off frequency is given by the mechanical
eigenfrequency of the bending cantilevers.
(3) The bending cantilevers should be processed as thick as
possible; to adjust a certain upper cut-off frequency,
their length has to be chosen accordingly.
(4) The optimal layer thickness ratio between the magneto-
strictive and the passive layer is about 2:3 for the pre-
sented materials; the passive layer is the thicker one.
Following these design rules, an example for an opti-
mized membrane geometry is presented in Table VI. The
layer thicknesses present the estimated upper limits for
the given fabrication process. The corresponding simu-
lated SPL is depicted in Fig. 15. The magnetic field for
the simulation is again set to H^ ¼ 23:3 kA/m. This ena-
bles a comparison to the corresponding measurements
from Figs. 10 and 11. The acoustic geometry and the ma-
terial data are chosen as in Tables II–IV. Table VII
presents the key data extracted from the simulation (Fig.
15). In comparison to the key data from the measure-
ments (Table I), a significant increase in bandwidth as
well as in the SPL has been achieved. This shows the
acoustic potential of the presented technology and design.
However, a fully integrated MEMS-loudspeaker still needs
to incorporate flat microcoils into the setup.
FIG. 15. SPL of optimized loudspeaker membrane (as in Table VI) and
measurements of prototype membranes (as in Figs. 10 and 11) for compari-
son; H^ ¼ 23:3 kA/m.
T. S. Albach and R. Lerch: Magnetostrictive MEMS-loudspeaker 4379

TABLE VII. Simulated key data from the simulation of the optimized loud-
speaker (Fig. 15); frequencies rounded to 10 Hz.
Sensitivity, SI , at 450 Hz 0.20 Pa  m/kA
Frequency range (6 dB) 100 Hz–2660 Hz
Maximum SPL (H^ ¼ 23:3 kA/m) 106 dB
Corresponding frequency 1400 Hz
IX. CONCLUSION
In this contribution, a concept for a magnetostrictively
actuated MEMS-loudspeaker has been presented. The mem-
brane consists of more than a hundred separate bending canti-
levers. This design advantageously introduces additional
tuning parameters for the acoustic frequency response.
Electrical impedances are of inductive nature, which enables
the possible replacement of state-of-the-art miniature
loudspeakers. The fabrication process for the membrane on a
silicon-chip is as straightforward as the process for
piezoelectric membranes. Its reproducibility has been verified.
Nevertheless, a fully integrated setup of the MEMS-
loudspeaker will still add another silicon-chip carrying flat
microcoils. A coupled simulation model has been developed to
calculate the generated SPL inside a 2 cm3 measurement vol-
ume. Measurement data validates the model. A maximum SPL
of 102 dB has been measured with a THD of 2% at 450 Hz.
The membrane has been further optimized by employing the
simulation model; a theoretical SPL of 106 dB has been
achieved at 1.4 kHz with a 6 dB frequency range extending
from 100 Hz to 2.6 kHz. This result shows the potential for
acoustical applications of both the magnetostrictive actuation
principle as well as the special membrane design.
1 24
J. J. Neumann and K. J. Gabriel, “CMOS-MEMS membrane for audio-
frequency acoustic actuation,” Sens. Actuators, A 95, 175–182 (2002).
2
H. Kim, A. A. Astle, K. Najafi, L. P. Bernal, P. D. Washabaugh, and F.
Cheng, “Bi-directional electrostatic microspeaker with two large-
deflection flexible membranes actuated by single/dual electrodes,” in
IEEE Sensors 2005 Conference (2005), pp. 89–92.
3
R. Heydt, R. Pelrine, J. Joseph, J. Eckerle, and R. Kornbluh, “Acoustical
performance of an electrostrictive polymer film loudspeaker,” J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 107, 833–839 (2000).
4 27
K. Hochradel, S. J. Rupitsch, A. Sutor, R. Lerch, D. K. Vu, and P.
Steinmann, “Dynamic performance of dielectric elastomers utilized as
acoustic actuators,” Appl. Phys. A 107, 531–538 (2012).
5
S. S. Lee and R. M. White, “Piezoelectric cantilever acoustic transducer,”
J. Micromech. Microeng. 8, 230–238 (1998).
6 29
S. H. Yi, M. S. Yoon, and S. C. Ur, “Piezoelectric microspeakers with
high compressive ZnO film and floating electrode,” J. Electroceram. 23,
295–300 (2008).
7
M. Fischer and T. Niederdr€ank, “Micromechanical piezoelectric actuator
for hearing aid application,” Acta Acust. United Ac. 90, 868–872 (2004).
8 31
K. Seo, J. Park, H. Kim, D. Kim, S. Ur, and S. Yi, “Micromachined piezo-
electric microspeakers fabricated with high quality AlN thin film,” Integr.
Ferroelectr. 95, 74–82 (2007).
9 32
I.-J. Cho, S. Jang, and H.-J. Nam, “A piezoelectrically actuated MEMS
speaker with polyimide membrane and thin film Pb(Zr,Ti)O3(PZT)
actuator,” Integr. Ferroelectr. 105, 27–36 (2009).
4380 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 134, No. 6, December 2013
10
J. Rehder, P. Rombach, and O. Hansen, “Balanced membrane microma-
chined loudspeaker for hearing instrument application,” J. Micromech.
Microeng. 11, 334–338 (2001).
11
M.-C. Cheng, W.-S. Huang, and S. R.-S. Huang, “A silicon micro-
speaker for hearing instruments,” J. Micromech. Microeng. 14, 859–866
(2004).
12
Y. C. Chen and Y. T. Cheng, “A low-power milliwatt electromagnetic
microspeaker using a PDMS membrane for hearing aids application,” in
International Conference on MEMS, Cancun, Mexico (2011), pp.
1213–1216.
13
S.-S. Je, F. Rivas, R. E. Diaz, J. Kwon, J. Kim, B. Bakkaloglu, S. Kiaei,
and J. Chae, “A compact and low-cost MEMS loudspeaker for digital
hearing aids,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits Syst. 3, 348–358 (2009).
14
G. Lemarquand, R. Ravaud, I. Shahosseini, V. Lemarquand, J. Moulin,
and E. Lefeuvre, “MEMS electrodynamic loudspeakers for mobile
phones,” Appl. Acoust. 73, 379–385 (2012).
15
R. Lerch, G. M. Sessler, and D. Wolf, Technische Akustik: Grundlagen
und Anwendungen (Technical Acoustics) (Springer, Berlin, 2009), pp.
1–949.
16
E. du Tremolet De Lacheisserie, Magnetostriction—Theory and
Applications of Magnetoelasticity (CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2000), pp.
1–430.
17
A. Ludwig and E. Quandt, “Giant magnetostrictive thin films for applica-
tions in microelectromechanical systems (invited),” J. Appl. Phys. 87,
4691–4695 (2000).
18
R. C. Wetherhold and H. D. Chopra, “Beam model for calculating magne-
tostriction strains in thin films and multilayers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 79,
3818–3820 (2001).
19
E. Quandt, B. Gerlach, and K. Seemann, “Preparation and applications of
magnetostrictive thin films,” J. Appl. Phys. 76, 7000–7002 (1994).
20
A. Garnier, T. Bourouina, H. Fujita, T. Hiramoto, E. Orsier, and J. C.
Peuzin, “Magnetic actuation of bending and torsional vibrations for 2D
optical-scanner application,” Sens. Actuators, A 84, 156–160 (2000).
21
S. Li, L. Fu, J. M. Barbaree, and Z.-Y. Cheng, “Resonance behavior of
magnetostrictive micro/milli-cantilever and its application as a biosensor,”
Sens. Actuators B 137, 692–699 (2009).
22
T. Albach, A. Sutor, and R. Lerch, “Measuring technology for a magneto-
strictive microactuator,” in 14th International Conference on Sensors,
Technologies, Electronics and Applications, SENSOR 2009, N€ urnberg
(2009), Vol. II, pp. 83–87.
23
T. Albach, A. Sutor, and R. Lerch, “Untersuchungen an magnetostriktiven
Mikroaktoren” (“Analysis of magnetostrictive microactuators”), Tech.
Mess. 77, 67–73 (2010).
T. Albach, A. Sutor, R. Lerch, C. Weistenh€ ofer, and T. Weidner, “Hearing
device with a sound transducer and method for producing a sound trans-
ducer,” U.S. patent 2010/0296681 A1 (November 25, 2010).
25
T. Albach, P. Horn, J. Ilg, S. Friedrich, A. Sutor, and R. Lerch, “Towards
a magnetostrictive micro-loudspeaker,” in 15th International Conference
on Sensors and Measurement Technology, SENSOR 2011, N€ urnberg
(2011), pp. 477–482.
26
T. Albach, P. Horn, A. Sutor, and R. Lerch, “Sound generation using a
magnetostrictive micro actuator,” J. Appl. Phys. 109, 07E510 (2011).
T. Albach and R. Lerch, “Magnetostrictive micro-loudspeaker (A),”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130, 2427 (2011).
28
IEEE Std 319-1990, IEEE Standard on Magnetostrictive Materials:
Piezomagnetic Nomenclature (IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and
Frequency Control Society, Champaign, IL, 1991).
M. Kaltenbacher, Numerical Simulation of Mechatronic Sensors and
Actuators, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2007), pp. 1–428.
30
M. Kaltenbacher, “Advanced simulation tool for the design of sensors and
actuators,” Procedia Engineering (Proc. Eurosensors XXIV) 5, 597–600
(2010).
A. Lenk, R. G. Ballas, R. Werthsch€ utzky, and G. Pfeifer,
Electromechanical Systems in Microtechnology and Mechatronics
(Springer, Berlin, 2010), pp. 1–472.
S. J. Rupitsch, F. Wolf, A. Sutor, and R. Lerch, “Reliable modeling of pie-
zoceramic materials utilized in sensors and actuators,” Acta Mech. 223,
1809–1821 (2012).
T. S. Albach and R. Lerch: Magnetostrictive MEMS-loudspeaker
Copyright of Journal of the Acoustical Society of America is the property of American
Institute of Physics and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to
a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.