Proceedings of the ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences &

Computers and Information in Engineering Conference

IDETC/CIE 2013
August 4-7, 2013, Portland, Oregon, USA
DETC2013-13645
PRELIMINARY MODELING OF AN INTRACOCHLEAR PIEZOELECTRIC
MICROPHONE
Robert D. Manson
Graduate Student
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington 98195
Email: mansonr@uw.edu
I.Y. Shen

Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington 98195
Email: ishen@uw.edu
ABSTRACT
A preliminary model of an intracochlear piezoelectric mi-
crophone is proposed that mimics the structure of stereocilia in
the cochlea. Its purpose is to determine the crucial system pa-
rameters prior to fabrication of an actual testing set up via a
mathematical model. As a rst approximation, the system is
modeled as a 1-D, periodic beam with N identical substructures.
Each one consists of a nanorod grown on an Si substrate, a bot-
tomelectrode, piezoelectric thin lm, and two top electrodes. The
model consists of: a nite element analysis of a single substruc-
ture to obtain its exibility matrix and differential voltage (DV)
under unit loads; and a mapping of these results through the
structure to predict displacement and DV of each substructure. A
parametric study is then conducted based on this model. It was
determined that the nanorod length was the most critical param-
eter in improving sensitivity. By increasing the amount of drag
force on the nanorods the sensitivity grows. Substructures near
xed boundaries generate higher DV thus leading to better sen-
sitivity too. The number of substructure in the microphone would
also affect signal-to-noise ratio.
NOMENCLATURE
C Matrix of displacements per loadings used in model devel-
opment from end reaction forces; nite element analysis is
used to develop this matrix.

Address all correspondence to this author.

M End moment.
N Number of elements along length of microchannel.
T End axial force.
V End shear force.
b Width of the beam.

d
p
Vector of displacements per unit loading from lateral pres-
sure; nite element analysis is used to develop this.

d
f
Vector of displacements per unit loading from force on
nanorod; nite element analysis is used to develop this.
f () Force prole applied on nanorod.
f
o
Maximum absolute value of f () on nanorod.
l Length of one substructure.
l
R
Length (or height) of a nanorod
p Lateral pressure on beam.
u Axial displacement of substructure end.
w Vertical displacement of substructure end.
z
o
Height to the neutral axis of the beam (with no nanorods).
Slope of substructure end.
Local axis along length of nanorod.
Note that the subscripts 1 and 2 denote the left and right
ends of the rst substructure, respectively. More generally, the
subscripts i and (i +1) represent the left and right ends of the i-th
substructure.
1 Copyright c 2013 by ASME
INTRODUCTION
In most humans that experience hearing loss, the hair cells
(stereocilia) that exist in the inner ear are lost or die off in some
manner. For cases of severe hearing loss, patients may undergo
the surgical placement of a cochlear implant. One of the latest
developments in cochlear implants has been to attempt to create
totally implantable devices, microphones and all [14]. How-
ever, there have been a number of challenges faced in moving
the microphone inside the body [5]. Recent clinical trials involv-
ing the use of invisible microphones implanted under the skin
have revealed increased body noise interference and reduced mi-
crophone sensitivity [4].
One means of circumventing the issues currently faced by
these invisible microphones is to use an intracochlear micro-
phone. Given the high bandwidth and sensitivity capabilities of
piezoelectric materials, they make a good candidate for these de-
vices. For example, Zhang [6] has implanted a piece of piezo-
electric polymer PVDF in the cochlea as a microphone. Since
the charge is generated via dilatational deformation of the poly-
mer, its sensitivity is extremely small, roughly around 1 V/Pa.
There is a strong need for a better mechanism to enhance the
sensitivity of these intracochlear microphones by several orders
of magnitude while maintaining a small size. In order to help
improve the sensitivity, utilizing a design motivated by the stere-
ocilia structures that are the driving force behind the ultra-high
sensitivity of hearing hair cells is a pertinent approach.
An approach such as this is supported by the recent develop-
ments in the design of bio-inspired ow sensors based on the hair
cells of arthropods such as crickets and some sh [79]. There
are few sensory systems as highly sensitive as those developed
by nature, as seen in the ability of crickets (as well as other in-
sects) to sense acoustic signals at thermal noise levels [10]. The
incredibly high level of sensitivity and low power consumption
are what motivates the exploration of the usefulness of these hair
cell based ow sensors in a variety of applications. Furthermore,
it is on this same basic principle that the cochleas hair cells elicit
hearing, suggesting that a design that mimics the structure of the
stereocilia has the potential to be useful as a small scale ow-
sensitive microphone. This is precisely the type of device that is
proposed in this paper.
More specically, the device suggested consists of an ar-
ray of patterned nanorods grown on a piezoelectric substrate as
shown in Fig. 1.
These patterned nanorods mimic the stereocilia, whereas the
piezoelectric substrate mimics the cochlear basilar membrane
where hair cells are located.
The operating principle of this device is based on the fact
that when a pressure disturbance is present, it will apply a drag
force on the nanorods, resulting in the bending of the piezoelec-
tric substrate thus generating charge via the piezoelectric effect.
Since the nanorods have a high aspect ratio, they are effective
levers amplifying minute pressure disturbances into appreciable
FIGURE 1. SAMPLE MICROPHONE SET UP
FIGURE 2. OPERATING PRINCIPLE
substrate deformation. This deformation in turn results in the ar-
eas to either side of the nanorods developing strains in opposite
senses (i.e., positive and negative or compressive and tensile).
This operating principle is shown in Fig. 2. This will result in
a difference in charge and voltage between the electrodes to ei-
ther side of an individual nanorod. As such, the difference in
output between these electrodes must be measured to capture the
response of the system.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of this design, the sys-
tem must be modeled so as to understand the physics involved
therein. However, given the complexity of the system and the
number of design parameters present, it is pertinent to simplify
this modeling. Furthermore, by modeling the system in a simple
manner, it is possible to gain insight into the system characteris-
tics that play the largest role in promoting a more sensitive de-
vice. As such, this paper presents a model to simplify the anal-
ysis of the physics involved in the patterned array of nanorods
with the goal of determining the most important system charac-
teristics prior to fabrication of an actual testing set up.
This paper describes in detail the development of the math-
ematical model used to characterize the system response as well
as the nite element model used to help inform certain portions
of this model. Furthermore, several parameter studies were then
undertaken in order to determine which system parameters prove
to be key in improving the sensitivity of the system, allowing for
insight to be gained for future fabrication. These parameter stud-
ies also suggest means of setting up future experiments involving
this system.
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
The bio-inspired microphone is modeled as a one-
dimensional beam with N identical substructures as shown in
Fig. 3. The beam is xed at the left and right ends. Moreover,
each substructure is subjected to the same uid loading.
Figure 4 shows a free-body diagram and geometry of the i-
2 Copyright c 2013 by ASME
FIGURE 3. SUBSTRUCTURE DIVISION FOR MODEL
FIGURE 4. ONE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL LAYOUT OF FIRST
SUBSTRUCTURE
th substructure. The substructure consists of a base beam and a
nanorod. The base beam has length l, width b, and a neutral axis
located at a distance z
0
from the top surface. The base beam has a
length l
R
, and is attached perpendicularly to the top surface of the
based beam (i.e., along direction in Fig. 4). At the left end of
the base beam, there are a shear force V
i
, a bending moment M
i
,
and an axial force T
i
acting on the beam (from the neighboring
(i 1)-th element). The corresponding lateral, angular, and ax-
ial displacements are w
i
,
i
and u
i
, respectively. Similarly, at the
right end of the base beam, there are a shear force V
i+1
, a bend-
ing moment M
i+1
, and an axial force T
i+1
from the neighboring
(i +1)-th element. The corresponding lateral, angular, and axial
displacements are w
i+1
,
i+1
and u
i+1
, respectively.
The substructure is subjected to two types of uid loading: a
uniform pressure p transverse to the base beam, and a drag force
distribution f () normal to the nanorod. To gage the drag force,
let us dene f
o
to be the maximum absolute value of f () on the
nanorod, i.e.,
f
o
max| f ()| , (0, l
R
) (1)
Consider rst a special case, in which the left side of the sub-
structure is xed; see Fig. 5. Also note that Fig. 5 shows specic
detail of the substructure. For example, the base beam consists
of a PZT layer and a silicon layer with a common electrode and
FIGURE 5. SUBSTRUCTURE WITH CHARACTERISTIC LOADS
two surface electrodes. With the uid loads p and f () as well
as the boundary forces v
i+1
, M
i+1
and T
i+1
, the displacements at
the right end are
_
_
w
i+1

i+1
u
i+1
_
_
=C
_
_
V
i+1
M
i+1
T
i+1
_
_
+
_

d
p
,

d
f

_
p
f
o
_
(2)
where C,

d
p
, and

d
f
are exibility matrices resulting from the
boundary forces, pressure p, and drag force f (), respectively.
Note that these exibility matrices can be found via nite ele-
ment analysis of a single substructure subjected to the applica-
tion of unit loadings. Similarly, the voltages v
(L)
i
and v
(R)
i
devel-
oped on the left and right electrodes present on the substructure
is given by
_
v
(L)
i
v
(R)
i
_
=V
EL
_
_
V
i+1
M
i+1
T
i+1
_
_
+V
f
_
p
f
o
_
(3)
where V
EL
and V
f
can also be found via nite element analysis.
For the general case where the left end is not xed (c.f.
Fig. 4), the displacements at the right ends will consist of a rigid-
body translation of the left end, a rigid-body rotation of the sub-
structure, and the elastic deformation in (2). Therefore,
_
_
w
i+1

i+1
u
i+1
_
_
=
_
_
1 l 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
_
_
_
_
w
i

i
u
i
_
_
+C
_
_
V
i+1
M
i+1
T
i+1
_
_
+
_

d
p
,

d
f

_
p
f
o
_
(4)
where the 33 matrix represents the rigid-body translation and
rotation. (Note that the presence of the rigid-body motion does
3 Copyright c 2013 by ASME
not affect the voltage output in (3).) Moreover, force and moment
equilibrium of the substructure results in the following matrix
equation
_
_
V
1+1
M
1+1
T
1+1
_
_
=
_
_
1 0 0
l 1 0
0 0 1
_
_
_
_
V
i
M
i
T
i
_
_
+
_
_
bl 0

bl
2
2

M
0
T
_
_
_
p
f
o
_
(5)
where a normalized drag force
T
and a normalized drag moment

M
are dened as

T

1
f
o
_
l
R
0
f ()d (6)

M

1
f
o
_
l
R
0
f ()(z
o
+)d (7)
To simply the derivation, let us dene the following matri-
ces.
R
(1)

_
_
1 l 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
_
_
, D
(1)

d
p
,

d
f

(8)
R
(2)

_
_
1 0 0
l 1 0
0 0 1
_
_
, D
(2)

_
_
bl 0

bl
2
2

M
0
T
_
_
(9)
D CD
(2)
+D
(1)
(10)
By substituting Eqn. (5) into Eqn. (4), the following is arrived at:
_
_
w
i+1

i+1
u
i+1
_
_
=R
(1)
_
_
w
i

i
u
i
_
_
+CR
(2)
_
_
V
i
M
i
T
i
_
_
+D
_
p
f
o
_
(11)
Combination of Eqn. (11) and Eqn. (4) results in
_

_
w
i+1

i+1
u
i+1
V
i+1
M
i+1
T
i+1
_

_
=
_
R
(1)
CR
(2)
0 R
(2)
_
_

_
w
i

i
u
i
V
i
M
i
T
i
_

_
+
_
D
D
(2)
__
p
f
o
_
(12)
or, equivalently
x
i+1
=Ax
i
+B

f (13)
where
x
i
[w
i
,
i
, u
i
,V
i
, M
i
, T
i
]
T
,

f [p, f
o
]
T
(14)
and
A
_
R
(1)
CR
(2)
0 R
(2)
_
, B
_
D
D
(2)
_
(15)
The general derivation in (13) can be applied to the rst and
second substructures as
x
2
=Ax
2
+B

f (16)
x
3
=Ax
2
+B

f
=A(Ax
1
+B

f ) +B

f
=A
2
x
1
+(A+I)B

f (17)
Following the trend out to the N
th
substructure seen in Eqn. (17)
(were the value (N +1) denotes the extreme right-end of the
beam), it is seen that:
x
N+1
=A
N
x
1
+
_
N1

j=0
A
j
_
B

f (18)
or, equivalently
_

_
w
N+1

N+1
u
N+1
V
N+1
M
N+1
T
N+1
_

_
=
_
G
(N)
11
G
(N)
12
G
(N)
21
G
(N)
22
_
_

_
w
1

1
u
1
V
1
M
1
T
1
_

_
+
_
H
(N)
1
H
(N)
2
_

f (19)
where G
(N)
11
, G
(N)
12
, G
(N)
21
, and G
(N)
22
are submatrices from A
N
, and
H
(N)
1
and H
(N)
2
are submatrices from
_

N1
j=0
A
j
_
B.
By applying the boundary conditions of w
1
=
1
= u
1
= 0
and w
N+1
=
N+1
= u
N+1
= 0 to Eqn. (19), the reaction forces at
the wall of the rst substructure can be solved for:
_
_
V
1
M
1
T
1
_
_
=
_
G
(N)
12
_
1
H
(N)
1

f (20)
4 Copyright c 2013 by ASME
Therefore, the displacements at the right end of the i
th
substruc-
ture may be solved for using Eqn. (20) as:
_
_
w
i+1

i+1
u
i+1
_
_
=
_
G
(i)
12
[G
(N)
12
]
1
H
(N)
1
+H
(i)
1
_

f (21)
And similarly, the reaction forces at the right-end of the i
th
sub-
structure are:
_
_
V
i+1
M
i+1
T
i+1
_
_
=
_
G
(i)
22
[G
(N)
12
]
1
H
(N)
1
+H
(i)
2
_

f (22)
Finally, substitution of (22) into (3) leads to the voltage in the
i-th substructure as
_
v
(L)
i
v
(R)
i
_
=
_
V
EL
_
G
(i)
22
[G
(N)
12
]
1
H
(N)
1
+H
(i)
2
_
+V
f
_

f (23)
NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS
The numerical simulations consist of three parts: a nite ele-
ment model, and MATLAB model, and a parametric study. They
are explained in detail as follows.
Finite Element Model
An ANSYS model is created to obtain exibility matrices C,

d
p
, and

d
f
in (2) as well as the voltage matrices V
EL
and V
f
in
(3). The model consists of a silicon nanorod and substrate (mod-
eled as one solid volume), a thin lm of PZT, a grounded elec-
trode between the silicon substrate and the PZT, and two elec-
trodes on top of the PZT on either side of the nanorod. See
Figure 5 for a prole view of this layout and Figure 6 for a
three-dimensional representation of the substructure created in
ANSYS.
By utilizing this computer-based modeling, the execution of
parameter studies becomes simple. However, in order to effec-
tively run these parameter studies, a design point about which
they were to be run was needed. The design parameters used for
this reference conguration were as follows. The width of sub-
structure was 12.5 m, length of substructure 20 m, thickness
of silicon substrate (not including the nanorod) 0.5 m, thick-
ness of PZT 1.0 m, length of nanorod 400 m, and diameter
of nanorod 10 m. In addition, the grounded electrode was con-
sidered so thin as to simply be represented by the nodes that are
shared between the silicon and PZT layers. The two electrodes
on the surface of the PZT layer on either side of the nanorod take
up the entire space on either side of the nanorod.
FIGURE 6. ANSYS MODEL
All components, except for the PZT thin lm, were as-
sumed to be isotropic and linearly elastic. The Youngs modu-
lus used for the silicon in the system was E
Si
= 202 10
3
MPa;
the Poissons ratio used was
Si
= 0.33; and the density used
was
Si
= 2330
kg
m
3
. The PZT thin lm was treated as a trans-
versely isotropic material, with the material properties for bulk
PZT (PZT-4) used. The exact material properties of PZT thin
lms remain unknown and vary signicantly depending on the
quality of the deposited lm hence the use of the bulk properties.
In order to use the results from this FEA model in the one-
dimensional model, unit loadings must be applied in ANSYS to
the model to develop the data for the compliance and voltage
development matrices needed. To do so, the left end of the AN-
SYS model was xed and the following loads were then applied
individually to the right end: unit end shear, unit end moment
(modeled as distributed line forces in opposing directions on the
top and bottom of structure, the top towards the left, bottom to
the right), unit end axial force towards the right, unit uniform
pressure on the top of substructure (including the very top of
the nanorod), and unit uniform pressure applied to the left-facing
side of the nanorod to represent a uid ow from left to right.
From these loadings, displacement, slope, and voltage val-
ues were recorded for use in the matrices mentioned. It should be
noted that the voltage development was modeled in ANSYS via
the use of coupled-eld analysis (i.e., dening sets of nodes with
both mechanical and electromagnetic degrees of freedom). This
was accomplished by assuming the electrode thicknesses were
small compared the dimensions of the PZT and the silicon layers
and then taking the shared nodes between the silicon and PZT
layers to be dened as the bottom, grounded electrode and the
exposed portions of the PZT layer to either side of the nanorod
to be dened as the top, open electrodes. This, coupled with the
dielectric coefcient matrix set up in ANSYS for the PZT mate-
rial allowed for a piezoelectric analysis to be successfully run.
5 Copyright c 2013 by ASME
FIGURE 7. DIFFERENCE IN ELECTRODE VOLTAGE -
NANOROD LENGTH STUDY
MATLAB Model
The one-dimensional model formulated above was then
recreated in MATLAB in order to quickly generate results for
this system. The input of the MATLAB model includes two
parts. The rst part is the exibility matrices C,

d
p
, and

d
f
and
the voltage matrices V
EL
and V
f
obtained from the nite ele-
ment analysis. The second input is the loading conditions, such
as pressure and drag force, i.e., the force vector

f . In order to
do so, a reference loading condition was chosen as follows. The
pressure p = 0.283 Pa and the velocity of the uid owing per-
pendicular to the nanorods was taken to be 0.0066 10
3
m/s.
The uid velocity is then used to calculate the drag force, which
depends on the diameter of the nanorod. These values of the pres-
sure and uid velocity were calculated from the paper by Aibara
et al. [11], which corresponds to an inner ear environment cor-
responding to an outside acoustic excitation of 60 dB. pressure
applied to the left-facing side of the nanorod to represent a uid
ow from left to right.
Parametric Study
By utilizing ANSYS as well as the one dimensional model
discussed, a parametric study was performed to determine the
components that most critically affects the sensitivity of the
microphone. The parameters considered here are the nanorod
length, nanorod diameter, the number of elements (i.e., the num-
ber of nanorods) along the length of the beam, and the thickness
of PZT as a percentage of total thickness. To compare the results
of the various parameters, the difference in voltage developed
between the right and left electrodes (i.e., opposite the direction
of ow) on each substructure was plotted along the length of the
beam. The results of these studies are presented here.
Nanorod Length. The rod lengths considered in this
study were 100 m, 200 m, 300 m, 400 m, 500 m, and
600 m. The voltage differences developed via this parameter
FIGURE 8. DIFFERENCE IN ELECTRODE VOLTAGE -
NANOROD LENGTH STUDY
FIGURE 9. ARTIFICIAL STUDY: f
o
ONLY APPLIED
study are shown in Fig. 8. There are several features worth not-
ing in Fig. 8.
The rst feature is that the voltage difference (i.e., the output
voltage) from each substructure is not the same. Instead, the out-
put voltage is the highest at both ends and is minimal at the cen-
ter of the beam. To understand where this phenomenon comes
form, consider the articial analyses seen in Fig. 9, where only a
drag force is applied to the nanorods, and Fig. 10, where only the
lateral pressure is applied to the substrate. The output voltage re-
sulting from the drag force remains constant for all substructures,
and increases signicantly as the length of the nanorod increases.
In contrast, the output voltage resulting fromthe pressure reaches
a positive maximum at both ends and a negative minimum at the
center. As such, the curved natural of the output voltage in Fig. 8
results from the presence of the lateral pressure p.
The curved nature of the output voltage has many implica-
tions. If the microphone has only the nanorod side exposed to the
uid pressure (termed closed-end design in this paper), the sen-
sor output voltage should be taken near the ends, where both the
pressure and drag force contribute to voltage difference. The out-
6 Copyright c 2013 by ASME
FIGURE 10. ARTIFICIAL STUDY: p ONLY APPLIED
put voltage, however, will not be uniform along the entire sensor.
If the microphone has both sides exposed to the uid pressure
(termed open-end design in this paper), the pressure will balance
out and the sensor output voltage will result from the drag force
along. In this case, the sensor output will be quite uniform for
each substructure, but it will lead to a smaller sensitivity because
the contribution of the pressure is absent.
The second feature is the signicant voltage output obtained
from the bio-inspired microphones. The output voltage is in the
range of 10 mV versus 1 V currently reported in the literature.
The high voltage output, in fact, is not achieved through the pres-
sure. Instead, it is achieved via the drag force and the leverage of
the nanorod.
The third feature is that the length of the nanorod can signif-
icantly increase the output voltage. As the rod length increases,
the larger the moment arm acting on the substructure, which then
results in an increase in the voltage produced by the PZT on the
electrodes. This increase in voltage also results in an increase in
the difference in voltage between the two electrodes as evidenced
in Fig. 8.
Another notable feature of this gure is that by increasing
the length of the nanorods, the difference in electrode voltage
moves from alternating between positive and negative values to
solely positive values. This is a result of the drag force on the
nanorods increasing with increasing length. This increase in volt-
age difference corresponds to an increase in the sensitivity of the
system, as for the same loading case, a larger response was ob-
served.
Given the dramatic increase in response seen, the nanorod
length may be considered a sensitive parameter.
Nanorod Diameter. The nanorod diameters considered
were 4.0 m, 6.0 m, 8.0 m, 10.0 m, 11.0 m, and 12.0 m.
The plot of the difference in voltage values between the right and
left electrodes of each substructure is shown in Fig. 11.
The change in nanorod diameter does not appear to have a
FIGURE 11. DIFFERENCE IN ELECTRODE VOLTAGE -
NANOROD DIAMETER STUDY
dramatic impact on the response of the system. Unlike alter-
ing the length of the nanorods, which serves to only increase the
drag force on the nanorods, changing the diameter also alters the
Reynolds number of the system. Since the drag coefcient is
dependent on the Reynolds number (as the Reynolds number in-
creases, the drag coefcient decreases), this leads to two terms
changing in the equation used to solve for the drag force on the
nanorods. While increasing the nanorod diameter does increase
the projected area that is acted on by the drag force, the change in
the drag coefcient results in an insubstantial change in response
of the system, as seen in Fig. 11.
Number of Elements. The numbers of elements con-
sidered in this parameter study were 40, 50, 80, 100, 120, and
160, given a xed overall length of the bio-inspired microphone.
These values result in a decrease in length of the substructures
that dene the system as well as an increase in the number of
nanorods used as the number of elements increases. The results
of this parameter study are presented in Fig. 12.
Similar to the nanorod diameter parameter study, the results
of these simulations suggest that the number of elements along
the length of the microphone does not signicantly affect the sys-
tem response, as between 50 and 160 elements there is only an
approximately 1.5 mV increase, and only at the far end of the
microphone. Nevertheless, once approximately 80 elements are
included in the structure of the microphone, the response of the
system reaches a saturated point. Thus, above this level, even if
the number of elements is doubled from 80 to 160, the response
stays appreciably the same.
This simulation result implies that there are two ways to in-
strument the bio-inspired microphone. If the instrumentation al-
lows only very few measurements of the output voltage, it will
be preferable to include fewer elements, since measurements of
the output voltage will require use of a charge amplier. When
there are fewer elements, each element will have larger electrode
leading to larger piezoelectric charge generated. Thus inclusion
7 Copyright c 2013 by ASME
FIGURE 12. DIFFERENCE IN ELECTRODE VOLTAGE - ELE-
MENT NUMBER ALONG LENGTH DIMENSION STUDY
of fewer elements will improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the
measured output voltage.
If the instrumentation allows measurement of the output
voltage at every substructure, it will be preferable to include as
many elements as possible and obtain an average from all mea-
sured output voltages. Although the signal-to-noise ratio will be
low, the noise of output voltages will average out due to the large
number of available out voltages. This will result in a very sensi-
tive microphone capable of detecting tiny ow velocity, and this
is how natural biological systems work.
Thickness of PZT (By Percentage). The nal param-
eter considered is the thickness of the PZT thin lm as a percent-
age of the base beams total thickness. The base beam was xed
at 1.5 um thick, and the thickness percentages considered were:
25%, 33.3%, 50%, 60%, 66.7%, and 75%. The remainder of the
thickness was composed of the silicon substrate. The results of
this parameter study are shown in Fig. 13.
The voltage difference between the electrodes of the sub-
structures is maximized at the extreme ends of the microphone
(as seen in all cases here considered). Among all thickness ra-
tios, the largest voltage difference occurs for a PZT thickness of
50%. This result is a natural consequence following the assump-
tion that both PZT and silicon have roughly the same value of
Youngs modulus (Youngs modulus of silicon was taken to be
E
Si
= 20210
3
).
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a bio-inspired microphone with nanorods is
modeled as a one-dimensional periodic structure consisting of
many identical substructures. Theoretical and numerical studies
lead to the following conclusions.
1. The output voltage resulting from the drag force is the same
for all substructures. In contrast, the output voltage result-
FIGURE 13. DIFFERENCE IN ELECTRODE VOLTAGE - PZT
THICKNESS AS PERCENTAE OF TOTAL THICKNESS STUDY
ing from a uniform uid pressure varies quadratically along
the bio-inspired microphne and reaches maximal at the two
xed ends of the microphone.
2. The output voltage can be in the range of 10 mV making
this design viable. The largest output voltage occurs at the
substructures of the two xed ends.
3. The most sensitive parameter is the length of the nanorods.
Increase of the length of the nanorod will signicantly in-
crease the output voltage of the bio-inspired microphone.
4. There are two ways to implement the bio-inspired micro-
phone. If instrumentation only allows measurements of out-
put voltage at only a few substructures, it is preferable to
have fewer nanorods to increase electrode areas and thus
the signal-to-noise ratio. If instrumentation allows measure-
ments of output voltage for all substructures, it is preferable
to have many nanorods so that the noise can be averaged
out from all measured output voltages to detect very small
pressure and drag variations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This material is based upon work supported by the Na-
tional Science Foundation under Grant No. CMMI-1030047.
Any opinions, ndings, and conclusions or recommendations ex-
pressed in this material are those of the authors and do not nec-
essarily reect the views of the National Science Foundation.
REFERENCES
[1] Berrang, P. G., Bluger, H. V., Jarvin, S. D., and Lupin,
A. J. Totally implantable cochlear prosthesis. US Patent
6648914.
[2] Maniglia, A. J., and Ko, W. H. Totally implantable
cochlear implant for improvement of partial and total sen-
sorineural hearing loss. US Patent 6161046.
8 Copyright c 2013 by ASME
[3] Cohen, N., 2007. The totally implantable cochlear im-
plant. Ear and Hearing, 28, pp. 100S101S.
[4] Briggs, R. J. S., Eder, H. C., Seligman, P. M., Cowan, R.
S. C., Plant, K. L., Dalton, J., Money, D. K., and Patrick,
J. F., 2008. Initial clinical experience with a totally im-
plantable cochlear implant research device. Otology and
Neurotology, 29, pp. 114119.
[5] Jenkins, H. A., Pergola, N., and Kasic, J., 2007. Anatom-
ical vibrations that implantable microphones must over-
come. Otology and Neurotology, 28, pp. 579588.
[6] Zhang, L. A., 2008. Acoustic Sensors for Totally Im-
plantable Cochlear Implant. PhD Thesis, University of
Melbourne, Department of Otolaryngology, Melbourne,
Australia.
[7] Fan, Z., Chen, J., Zou, J., Bullen, D., Liu, C., and Del-
comyn, F., 2002. Design and fabrication of articial lateral
line ow sensors. Journal of Micromechanics and Micro-
engineering, 12(5), p. 655.
[8] Wang, Y.-H., Lee, C.-Y., and Chiang, C.-M., 2007. A
mems-based air ow sensor with a free-standing micro-
cantilever structure. Sensors, 7(10), pp. 23892401.
[9] Dijkstra, M., van Baar, J. J., Wiegerink, R. J., Lammerink,
T. S. J., de Boer, J. H., and Krijnen, G. J. M., 2005. Arti-
cial sensory hairs based on the ow sensitive receptor hairs
of crickets. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengi-
neering, 15(7), p. S132.
[10] Dagamseh, A. M. K., Bruinink, C. M., Wiegerink, R. J.,
Lammerink, T. S. J., Droogendijk, H., and Krijnen,
G. J. M., 2013. Interfacing of differential-capacitive
biomimetic hair ow-sensors for optimal sensitivity. Jour-
nal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, 23(3),
p. 035010.
[11] Aibara, R., Welsh, J. T., Puria, S., and Goode, R. L. Hu-
man middle-ear sound transfer function and cochlear input
impedance. Hearing Research, 152, pp. 100109.
9 Copyright c 2013 by ASME