1. Introduction
Micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) actuators are small transducers which convert electrical, thermal, magnetic or other types of energy into precise mechanical motion or force [
1]. Made by photolithography, these transducers are the basic muscle of microsystems, allowing for dynamic physical control at micrometer and millimeter scales [
2]. MEMS actuators are significant because they offer actuation with high control and rapid and localized actuation that is essential in the operation of modern technologies. They can be used in an extensive variety of applications, such as in stabilizing smartphone cameras with voice-coil motors [
3], in deploying airbags in cars with inertial sensors [
4], steering optical beams in telecommunications [
5] and targeted drug delivery in implantable medical devices [
6]. Of particular importance are the current developments in MEMS actuators in microfluidic applications, which aim for a new design, advanced multiphysics models, and strict performance optimization. These advances are driving the limits of Lab-on-a-Chip (LoC) systems, which is capable of controlling fluids and particles on the nanoliter scale with precision that has never been realized before. This development is essential for facilitating next-generation point-of-care diagnostics, high-throughput single-cell analysis, and portable environmental monitoring systems, and advanced chemical and biological analysis is more accessible, efficient and powerful than ever before [
7,
8].
MEMS has experienced a geometric increase in its application within the last two decades, with microfluidic applications emerging as a strong and transformative field of study. This onslaught has of course been associated with an increase in the number of review articles that have tried to depict the state of the art. Various review articles have provided comprehensive descriptions of the larger MEMS and microfluidics environment. The work by Senturia [
9] set the fundamental guidelines of a microsystem design, whereas the work of Madou [
2] described the full arsenal of fabrication methods at the disposal of MEMS engineers. Squires and Quake [
10] described the physics and possibilities of microfluidics in a very eloquent way, and the area of MEMS actuators has been brought to a point of growth. Many reviews have also been dedicated to MEMS actuators. Actuation principles were explained in an early general overview by Judy [
11] and their performance measure was compared by Bell et al. [
12]. However, the older literature preempts many of the recent advances in materials, methods of fabrication, and multiphysics modeling that are important in the MEMS actuator design today. Judy [
11] has outlined a historical and broad study of MEMS fabrication, design principles and applications, and in any case, does not reflect the challenges of fluid–structure interaction that exist in contemporary microfluidic systems.
In the microfluidics space, most reviews have been of a component-based nature. Laser and Santiago [
13] introduced a breakthrough review on micropumps, which lacked a discussion of the new actuation schemes such as electrochemical or more advanced magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) principles, and its discussion of how to optimize performance had been restricted to simple geometrical parameters. Woias [
14] reported a brief description of micropumps, though did not give critical evaluations of non-mechanical (e.g., electrokinetic, electrowetting) pumps and their ability to operate with biological fluids. Nguyen and Wu [
15] have offered a thorough and comprehensive review of the micromixers, including passive and active mixing strategies, the actuation mechanism of the mixers, and their fabrication methods. However, it predates much of the more recent developments in the system integration of microfluidics, such as the introduction of concepts of soft and adaptive actuation, data-driven and artificial intelligence-assisted design paradigms, and the reliability and long-term performance studies needed to translate these concepts into robust lab-on-a-chip and biomedical systems. Similarly to the mechanical micropumps reviewed by Amirouche et al. [
16], a significant gap exists in the progress made in electrokinetic, acoustic, and surface-tension-based actuation modalities that are essential to lab-on-a-chip system development. On the subject of microneedles, other important reviews have been made by researchers. Kim et al. [
17], have presented a detailed review of the microneedles in drug and vaccine delivery, including the types of needles, fabrication methods and biomedical usage. Their work, however, mainly covers performance in terms of delivery and clinical relevance, but not much discussion of mechanical failure mechanisms, detailed fluidic transport in hollow microneedles or the obstacles to integration with other active microfluidic devices like micropumps. Donnelly et al. [
18] provided a comprehensive review of hydrogel-forming microneedles but only did so in relation to their particular category, not the entire range of solid, coated and dissolvable microneedles and their required actuation and integration requirements.
Although a review by Sachdeva and Banga [
19] was extensive regarding the applications of therapeutic use of the devices and regulatory concerns, it was not as comprehensive about the multiphysics of needle insertion, the optimization of painless insertion, or the closed-loop control systems needed to achieve smart deliveries of responsive drugs.
Beyond pumps and needles, there are broader reviews on Bio-MEMS, but they lacked detail on the actuation needed. Grayson et al. [
20] have also discussed a short discussion of different integrated MEMS devices but failed to give a single unified presentation as to the design, modeling, fabrication and performance optimization of the actuators that drive them. Prausnitz and Langer [
21] analyzed transdermal drug delivery systems, detailing advanced actuation methods such as microneedles and active permeation enhancers, and critically analyzed their working principles and performance limitations under realistic biological conditions, including challenges in dosing precision, skin variability, and long-term biocompatibility.
This review provides a critical assessment of the progress made in MEMS actuators to be used in microfluidic applications, focusing on the links between design concepts and multiphysics simulations, and maximizing the performance of the actuators. It discusses the essential actuation processes, electrostatic, electrothermal, piezoelectric, electromagnetic and surface-tension, and their applications in pumps, valves, mixers and droplet manipulators. In contrast to the earlier literature that conducts studies on individual aspects, this review provides a more comprehensive perspective at the system level, and it deals with the combination of sophisticated simulation and material science with smart control. It highlights the need to focus on predictive design with high-fidelity modeling, geometry optimization based on AI and the significance of reliability to enable clinical integration. This review can be a key reference for scientists and researchers working in the emerging area of bio-MEMS and lab-on-a-chip technology.
5. Multiphysics Modeling Viewpoints and Simulation Structures
Modeling MEMS actuators for application in microfluidics systems requires integrated knowledge of multiple interacting physical domains–mechanical deformation, electrostatic or piezoelectric actuation, heat transfer and microscale fluid flow [
165]. The behavior of these systems cannot be explained by just one of the physics disciplines because the deformation of a microstructure directly changes the surrounding electric field and fluid dynamics [
166]. Therefore, multiphysics modeling and simulation are essential to accurately predict the performance, reducing the number of design iterations and optimizing the fabrication parameters before physical prototyping.
Table 8 outlines some typical multiphysics coupling types in MEMS microfluidic actuators, including those equations that govern these coupling types, the essential physics thematic of the coupling, and what numerical methods are generally used to model and simulate.
5.1. Critical Modeling Problems and Technology-Specific Trade-Offs
Simulation MEMS actuators in microfluidic systems does not just require the solution of governing equations; the main difficulty is the development of transferable predictions and experimental consistency of the actuators in more realistic operating conditions. There are three issues of modeling that can be identified throughout the literature. To start with, electrostatic pull-in instability, thermo-fluidic phase change, and piezoelectric hysteresis are strong nonlinearities that most practical microfluidic actuators are governed by in their dynamic behavior. Weak coupling or linearization of the formulation may capture the trends in a qualitative manner, but frequently fail to provide precise predictions of important phenomena such as the stability boundaries, the efficiency metrics, and effects such as long-term drift [
178,
179]. Indicatively, the actuators can be electrical, and pull-in instabilities are caused by nonlinear electromechanical coupling, making the development of nonlinear model approaches necessary to guarantee the reliability and the long life of the device [
178]. Similarly, the piezoelectric actuators require nonlinear constitutive descriptions, capturing hysteresis and energy loss mechanisms for the dynamic response and control accuracy [
179]. Second, these actuators change radically in their operation in liquid environments; because it is viscously damped, there are additional mass and changed boundary conditions. Consequently, experiments on models which work in air do not necessarily work in fluidic microchannels. Classical formulations of the hydrodynamic analyses reveal that for viscous fluids, the resonance frequencies and bandwidth and effective damping properties drastically change, requiring fluid–structure interaction (FSI) formulations coupled with multiphysics solvers, which are adequate to reproduce the modified dynamic behaviors [
180]. Third, incomplete agreement of the model predictions and experimental measurements have a tendency to persist due to missing physics, including dielectric charging, clamping/stiction effects, material properties dependent on temperature, complexities at the fluid–solid interface, etc. In addition, mechanical and electrical prediction errors in thin-films are also sources of uncertainties that add to the uncertainties in predictions. Consequently, closely knit model calibration and validation structures that entail definite discrepancy functions, and quantification of uncertainty are becoming essential in predictive design and optimization [
181]. Technologically, the electrostatic actuators are still appealing owing to their low power consumption and developed electromechanical finite elements modeling (FEM) workflow. Nevertheless, charge dielectric and non-equilibrium surface/contact effects significantly restrict their reliability modeling, which influences the long-term operation [
178]. The actuation provided by thermal bubble and electrothermal actuators are bigger in pressure and flow, but necessitate multiphase phase-change modeling which is very resource intensive. Their sensitivity on nucleation assumptions is often the driving factor for the use of reduced-order surrogate models and simplified physics for design iterations [
180]. Strong electromechanical coupling with a high response rate, piezoelectric microactuators require complex nonlinear constitutive and fluid–structure interaction modeling in order to capture all effects of hysteresis and losses. Also, the devices have variability, which adds complexity to the portability and generalization of the calibrated models. These observations point out the fact that a more complex model does not necessarily give more useful forecasts unless prevalent unresolved uncertainties and lacking physics are tackled (systematically) in experimental validation schemes [
178,
179].
Instead of working out the governing equations, this section approaches the subject matter critically to see how various multiphysics couplings are typically modeled in the literature, how they simplify certain physical effects and where the overall predictive limitations lie.
5.2. Coupled Physics Domain and Scope of Modeling
The operation of MEMS actuators is inherently multiphysical, with interdependent electromechanical, thermo-fluidic and piezo-electromechanical interactions. Each domain then needs to be modeled and integrated where their simultaneous effects on performance and reliability can be modeled as a coupled system [
9,
165].
5.2.1. Electromechanical Coupling
Electrostatic MEMS actuators such as parallel plate, comb drive and diaphragm-based actuators are based on an electrostatic attraction between charged electrodes to be converted into mechanical deformation of the movable structure. This basic coupling of the electrical field to the mechanical structure defines the actuator’s performance. For example, the application of a voltage across the electrodes leads to a force which, e.g., pulls the moving electrode towards the fixed electrode and therefore reduces the gap and the capacitance; this leads to a deformation of the electrical boundary conditions and therefore feeds back into the force distribution. The result is a strong nonlinear electromechanical coupling, which must be mathematically described by combining Poisson’s equation for the electrostatics and elasticity or structural-mechanic equations for the mechanical domain [
167,
182]. As observed in the schematic illustration in
Figure 17, the stator is used to convert the input electric energy into a rotating magnetic field and with the interaction between the stator magnetic field and the rotating magnetic field, a driving torque is generated and can be used to move the rotor.
Because of this nonlinearity, phenomena such as the classical “pull-in” instability occur: beyond a critical voltage, the electrostatic force overwhelms the mechanical restoring force and the moving electrode snaps into contact with the fixed electrode [
167,
184]. In practical modeling frameworks (for example, using commercially available multiphysics tools such as COMSOL Multiphysics or ANSYS Workbench), the coupled system is often solved via iterative methods (for instance, a Newton–Raphson solver), where the mechanical deformation updates the electrode gap and the changed capacitance feeds back into the electrostatic field, and this loop is repeated until convergence is achieved. The necessity of iterative nonlinear solvers is emphasized in the modeling literature [
168,
182].
The coupling between electrical and mechanical domains also influences resonant frequencies and stiffness characteristics: as the deformation proceeds, the effective stiffness of the movable structure is softened due to the electrostatic spring effect; thus, the resonant frequency shifts. Moreover, structural fatigue and reliability concerns arise because the deformation under high fields subjects the structure to elevated stress and potential dielectric charging or contact fatigue [
182].
Finally, advanced actuator designs often must account for the full electromechanical coupling, including fringe fields, residual stress, structural non-idealities, and non-linear dynamic effects such as bifurcations and chaotic responses under harmonic excitation. For example, the work on nonlinear resonances and dynamic pull-in in electrostatic resonators demonstrates how complex the coupling behavior can be [
169,
185].
5.2.2. Thermo-Fluidic Coupling
In thermal bubble actuators, a microheater embedded in or adjacent to a microchannel rapidly generates localized Joule heating, which raises the temperature of the surrounding fluid and solid substrate to a point where vaporization occurs, forming a transient bubble; this bubble expands violently, displacing fluid and producing a pressure-driven flow that can be harnessed for pumping or valving applications [
170]. Capturing this process in a computational model requires solving coupled heat conduction in the solid and liquid domains, phase-change dynamics at the liquid–vapor interface, and Navier–Stokes equations governing the liquid flow, often with interface-tracking methods such as volume-of-fluid (VOF) or phase-field techniques to accurately represent bubble growth and collapse [
186].
The interaction between thermal and fluid fields is highly nonlinear: the rate of bubble growth depends on the heat flux from the heater and the thermal properties of the substrate, while the expanding bubble induces a convective motion that alters local heat transfer, creating a feedback loop between fluid motion and thermal evolution [
171]. The interdependence between the three disciplines is depicted in
Figure 18.
Beyond the main thermo-fluidic interactions, there are other secondary effects that can have a significant impact in terms of performance. For example, thermocapillary (Marangoni) flows occur when gradients in surface tension are generated along the liquid–vapor interface, as a result of temperature differences that affect the lateral flows that alter the bubble shape, detachment dynamics, and recirculation within the channel [
172]. At the same time, the thermal expansion of the solid substrate as well as the walls of the microchannels changes the channel geometry and affects the site of nucleation and fluid boundary conditions; in some cases, this is even intentionally used to increase the efficiency of actuation [
188]. Material properties themselves are temperature-dependent: fluid viscosity, density and surface tension are all temperature-dependent, making it even more difficult to predict flow rates and actuator efficiency.
Because these coupled phenomena occur on very different time scales such as bubble nucleation and growth may occur on a time scale of seconds, while heating of the substrate takes place on a time scale between hundreds to thousands of milliseconds, the simulation must be able to resolve several different spatial and temporal scales at the same time. The conjugate heat transfer between the heater, substrate, and fluid, as well as the latent heat of the phase change, viscous dissipation and pressure transients, thermocapillary flows, and thermal expansion are the performance components that determine the performance of the actuator in terms of flow rate, stroke volume, and efficiency. Therefore, thermo-fluidic coupling represents a central challenge in modeling thermal bubble actuators, requiring fully integrated multiphysics simulation frameworks to capture the dynamic interplay between heat, fluid, and structure in microscale environments [
173].
5.2.3. Critical Analysis (Thermal/Bubble Microactuation)
Thermo-fluidic microactuators have the ability to provide relatively high pressure and flow generation, which may be used as a pumping device and a valuing device. However, predictive modeling is highly limited by uncertainties in nucleation criteria, interfacial heat transfer and phase-change dynamics and thus various reasonable choices may produce dramatically different bubble growth histories and net flow predictions. Recent CFD and OpenFOAM-based work points to the fact that the full inclusion of Joule heating and nucleation, as well as phase change, is frequently simplified or otherwise ignored in a bid to make simulations manageable enough to limit the quantitative predictive capability of a simulation, even when qualitative trends are well-captured. Thus, in the case of thermal bubble actuators, the coupling of heat and flow is not the only research gap, but also the creation of experimentally validated reduced-order or hybrid models that can be useful for all operating regimes, without the prohibitive computational cost [
189,
190].
5.2.4. Piezo–Electromechanical Coupling
piezoelectric MEMS actuators, including cantilever-type microvalves and ultrasonic micropumps, exploit the direct piezoelectric effect to convert an applied electric voltage into mechanical strain within the piezoelectric material, thereby inducing motion or pressure in an adjacent fluidic channel [
191]. The electromechanical behavior of such devices is governed by constitutive relations that couple the electric displacement field (D) and the mechanical stress field (T) via the piezoelectric tensor, necessitating the simultaneous solution of Gauss’s law for electrostatics and the elastic constitutive equations for solid mechanics [
174]. In practical microfluidic implementations, the piezoelectric layer is often bonded to a compliant membrane or cantilever structure that interfaces with the working fluid. This requires fluid–structure interaction (FSI) modeling to accurately capture the transfer of mechanical energy from the vibrating solid into the surrounding fluid, which determines the actuation efficiency, flow rate, and pressure generation within the microchannel [
175]. The schematic diagram of the piezoelectric effect in
Figure 19 depicts the effect.
The electromechanical–fluid coupling is a nonlinear coupling. Under high electric fields, the piezoelectric layer may show a hysteresis effect, dielectric losses and polarization saturation, all of which will influence the displacement response and the transmitted fluid forces [
193]. Furthermore, geometric nonlinearities in the flexible membrane or cantilever can amplify or damp fluid motion, depending on the frequency and amplitude of excitation such that linear approximations cannot predict the actual behavior of the device. In order to achieve a proper simulation, it is necessary to combine the governing equations of piezoelectricity, solid mechanics and incompressible fluid flow in an integrated manner, typically using finite element or multiphysics numerical methods. Such fully coupled multiphysics models are necessary to predict dynamic effects such as transient flow generation, resonance behavior, energy dissipation, and nonlinear interaction effects that show that decoupled single-physics analyses are not able to reflect the real operation characteristics of MEMS microfluidic actuators. Such interdependency of mechanisms adds to the complexity and calls for stringent computational modeling of piezoelectric MEMS devices in order to design, optimize, and control them [
174,
175,
193].
5.2.5. Critical Assessment (Piezoelectric Microfluidics)
Piezoelectric actuators are precise and provide excellent electromechanical coupling, and fully coupled FSI models are able to model diaphragm–fluid energy transfer in a more realistic manner compared to decoupled workflows. Nevertheless, a notable weakness is that linear piezoelectric constitutive equations can be excessively predicted to indicate displacement and pressure response in the presence of hysteresis, dielectric loss, field-dependent nonlinearity, and so on, at realistic drive frequencies. Moreover, batches of thin-film piezoelectric devices may be heterogeneous, and this is why the portability of a calibrated model is lowered, thereby encouraging parameter identification and uncertainty quantification as a modeling task. Consequently, the way to fill the greatest gap in piezoelectric multiphysics modeling is not to do so, but to obtain device-independent predictive models that will be maintained under different drive conditions and aging behavior [
194,
195].
5.3. Techniques of Multiphysics Simulation: Numerical
As opposed to giving tutorial-like descriptions of numerical methods, this section critically accounts how the techniques are used in the literature in relation to MEMS microfluidic actuators, and where their key predictive advantages and constraints occur.
An explanation of multiphysics behavior is only possible through advanced numerical techniques that are capable of dealing with nonlinearity, transitions, and complex boundary interactions at the microscale.
5.3.1. Finite Element Modeling (FEM)
FEM is still the pillar supporting the MEMS actuator simulation, due to its potential for discretizing the complex geometries and solving coupled partial–differential equations over the irregular domains. In the FEM framework, the physical domain is divided into small finite elements, within which field variables (e.g., displacement, potential, temperature) are approximated via shape functions, and the global system of equations is assembled and solved iteratively [
167]. In the context of MEMS design, FEM is extensively used to simulate mechanical deformation (e.g., stress/strain in beams, membranes), electrostatic field distributions (e.g., potential and charge around electrodes), and thermal stresses (e.g., due to Joule heating or thermal expansion) with high spatial fidelity. For example, FEM has been applied to model electrostatically actuated microsystems, including fringing-field effects to improve accuracy [
176,
196].
Commercial multiphysics platforms such as COMSOL Multiphysics and ANSYS Mechanical provide ready-to-use modules for coupled electromechanical, thermal–structural, and fatigue analyses within a unified computational domain. Studies on electrothermal MEMS actuators demonstrate the need for coupling between heat conduction in solids, thermal expansion and structural deformation, which FEM handles efficiently [
197].
Another critical capability is parametric sweeps: designers can vary key parameters such as electrode spacing, material thickness, actuation voltage or membrane geometry, and examine how these influence the overall displacement, resonance frequency, response time and stress distribution. For instance, analytical and FEM modeling of thermal flexure actuators in COMSOL showed how voltage and geometry variation change the deflection and temperature distribution [
198,
199].
Although they have been widely used, FEM-based multiphysics models frequently assume idealized boundary conditions and idealized bulk material behavior, which restricts their ability to be applied on a quantitative basis to predict thin-film MEMS actuators in liquid environments. As a result, most of the published FEM works are qualitative trends that need to be calibrated by a lot of experimentation to be reliable.
5.3.2. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
CFD techniques are applied to model the fluid flow and pressure variations generated by actuator motion in micro-scale fluidic systems. At the microscale, the Reynolds number is typically very low, leading to laminar flow regimes; nevertheless, accurate modeling of velocity, pressure and shear stress is essential. CFD simulations typically solve the incompressible (or weakly compressible) Navier–Stokes equations, along with the continuity equation, and impose appropriate boundary conditions such as no-slip (for continuum regimes) or slip (when the Knudsen number indicates rarefaction) at the walls. The importance of properly treating slip–flow regimes at micro-scales has been documented [
200,
201].
CFD supports the prediction of essential performance parameters such as volumetric flow rate, pressure gradients, shear stresses acting on delicate samples (e.g., in biomedical microfluidics) and flow-domain responses to moving boundaries. When the actuator surface deforms, coupling the CFD solver with moving mesh or arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian (ALE) methods enables accurate tracking of the fluid domain’s evolution and the solid–fluid interface motion regimes [
202,
203].
Although CFD allows for detailed visualization of flow fields at the microscale and offers strong localized position estimation, regardless of whether these edges are mobility walls or flowing walls, traditions, methods or approximations that characterize its approach to the field including the assumed constant fluid behavior between surfaces as Newtonian, no-slip boundary conditions, and moving-boundary simplifications are highly limiting to both high-frequency and strongly coupled actuation.
5.3.3. Multiphysics Solvers and Co-Simulation Frameworks
Modern simulation practice for MEMS actuators employs multiphysics solvers and co-simulation frameworks, where FEM and CFD solvers are integrated to resolve multiple coupled domains electrical, thermal, structural and fluidic within a consistent computational environment. For example, a micropump based on a piezoelectric diaphragm can be simulated by using FEM to compute diaphragm deflection (structural/piezoelectric domain) and CFD to analyze fluid displacement (fluidic domain), with a boundary-data exchange at each time step until convergence. Commercial software such as COMSOL Multiphysics and ANSYS Multiphysics and open-source options like OpenFOAM (coupled with structural solvers) support such direct matrix coupling or partitioned time-stepping schemes. Many recent studies highlight the significance of strong coupling between domains: for example, multiphysics analyses of electrothermal actuators integrating finite-element thermal/electrical models with surrounding fluid convection via finite-volume methods [
197,
204].
These platforms further support advanced techniques such as adaptive meshing (refining mesh in regions of high gradients), time-stepping control (for resolving fast transient phenomena such as pull-in or collapse), and moving-mesh or ALE methods to handle deformable boundaries under large nonlinearities [
180].
Fully coupled solvers are more physically faithful, but as they are often of high computational cost and are sensitive to poorly known parameters, they may only be used in case studies and not in general design rules.
5.4. Model Calibration and Validation Using Experimental Data
The integrity of a multiphysics simulation ultimately depends on its ability to reproduce experimentally observed behavior. Additionally, the concept of calibration and validation is articulated as the core of predictive modeling for MEMS actuator research, which links the gap between numerical abstraction and physical realization. According to Ling et al. [
205], compared to simulation results with experimental data, the calibration of multi-physics computational models using Bayesian networks process enables us to reduce uncertainties and enhance the confidence and reliability of predictive models when the system is analyzed from a coupled electro–thermo–mechanical system.
Calibration is the first step in this process, which is the systematic adjustment of poorly known physical constants (e.g., Young’s modulus, residual stress, damping coefficients, piezoelectric constants) until the result obtained by the simulation agrees with the measured data. Experimental calibration of micro electromechanical relays using laser-Doppler vibrometry (LDV) has shown that dynamic deflection data can be used to obtain reliable material stiffness and damping properties, resulting in optimized finite element models for the prediction of displacement and stress evolution with high fidelity [
206].
For accurate model parameterization, multiple experimental instruments with the ability to capture microscale mechanical and fluidic effects are utilized. LDV is a non-contact vibration and deflection measurement system with nanometer confidence, which is suitable for the characterization and evaluation of the resonant frequency and mode shape of piezoelectric and electrostatic actuators. White light interferometry is capable of capturing static out-of-plane deformation and residual stress gradients, whereas micro-particle image velocimetry (μ-PIV) is used to record transient flow fields and pressure distributions through microchannels. For instance, experimental validation of the computational fluid dynamics model using micro-particle image velocimetry showed that micro-PIV data could successfully measure local velocity profiles, which were able to validate simulated flow regimes in micro-pumping systems [
207].
Model validation is not limited to calibration; numerical predictions must be valid far outside of the calibration regime in terms of the operating conditions and experimental boundary conditions. This is typically done by a direct comparison between simulated and experimental curves, such as deflection–voltage curves for electrostatic actuators or flow–pressure curves for thermal micropumps. An example includes the application of LDV-based dynamic characterization in determining the validity of frequency response models under changing environmental conditions, which is provided [
208].
However, even if the calibration is conducted rigorously, due to unmodeled effects such as dielectric charging, leakage via micro-scale pathways or surface adhesion, discrepancies often arise. These discrepancies are useful hints of missing physics or approximations in the computational model. In particular, the Bayesian calibration formalism proposed by Kennedy and O’Hagan defined a model discrepancy function to capture the systematic differences between simulation and experiment to improve their iteration refinement and uncertainty quantification [
205].
To overcome these long-standing model–experiment mismatches, inverse modeling techniques are currently being used, in which experimental observations are iteratively used to update experimental inputs for the model, such as parameters and constitutive relations. Such hybrid techniques have been very effective in MEMS device characterization, which combined machine learning algorithms and experimental data to reconstruct accurate electromechanical parameters and enhance the design reliability. With these integrated calibration and validation workflows, multiphysics models transform from being theoretical abstractions to quantitative predictive models that can be used to inform next-generation MEMS actuator design [
209,
210,
211].
5.5. Limitations in Simulation Accuracy and Computational Cost
In spite of superb progress, there are still a number of downsides, limiting how realistic and scalable MEMS multiphysics modeling is.
Computational cost: Transient fully coupled 3D simulations are very power-intensive and require large memories. The high-fidelity models that incorporate fine-meshing of the microchannels, electrodes, and moving interfaces usually lead to a simulation time of several days.
Material uncertainty: The mechanical and thermal properties of thin films such as silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, or SU-8 differ from their bulk counterparts, due to the grain boundary and surface effects. Inaccurate parameterization of these properties leads to deviations between simulated and experimental results.
Boundary condition simplification: Many simulations assume ideal boundary conditions (perfect insulation, no-slip walls, or fixed supports). However, real-world MEMS devices experience imperfect clamping, stiction, and temperature gradients that are difficult to model precisely [
212].
Neglect of multiscale effects: Processes such as the fringing of electric fields, flow of rarefied gases, and loss of surface energy happen at the nanometer scale and cannot be modeled using the continuum. To include these effects, it is necessary to couple a molecular dynamics (MD) or lattice Boltzmann methods (LBM) solution to the continuum solvers, which is a computationally intense method [
213].
Fluid–structure interaction approximation: Linearized FSI models fail to capture nonlinear fluid responses, especially in oscillatory or high-frequency actuation. This limits the predictive capacity of models for applications like acoustic streaming and ultrasonic pumping [
214].
Addressing these challenges calls for reduced-order models (ROMs) and data-driven surrogate models that retain essential multiphysics fidelity while significantly lowering the computational costs.
9. Conclusions
This review examined the history and status of MEMS actuators to be applied in microfluidic systems and how novel design methodologies, multiphysics models, and performance optimization can be used. Various diverse actuation mechanisms, including electrostatic and piezoelectric systems, have enhanced integration density, accuracy and functionality by enhancing the material performance of electroactive polymer and magnetic nanocomposites. The multi-material architectures, as well as complex geometries, are made possible by additive manufacturing that evolved to be utilized in the contemporary fabrication techniques, which are founded upon the conventional MEMS. Performance-wise, the existing MEMS actuators for use in microfluidic applications can provide forces on the micro-Newton to sub-milli-Newton scale, and the performance of such actuators can reach displacements in the tens of micrometers to nanometers and response times in the sub-milliseconds to milliseconds time ranges. The operating limits can be effectively useful when fine microfluidic pumping and valving, as well as manipulation of cells, are needed, but this is limited to applications that must operate with a large stroke or produce large forces. The idea that the requirement for design multiphysics would give the true modeling of actuators, and predicting their behavior through high-fidelity simulations and multi-objective optimization models, is one of the themes that was found in this review. Positive indicators of multifunctional architectures that are concurrent in sensing and actuation, AI-assisted design tools, reliability, and sustainability also exist. However, there are a number of research gaps that need to be addressed, such as small actuator stroke (usually less than 100 um), small force output in compact MEMS devices (less than 1 mN), long-term reliability issues, and standardized benchmarking measures that can be used to compare and contrast different actuator technologies fairly. In the future, the momentum of progress is likely to be based on the multidisciplinary methods to incorporate the materials innovation, multiphysics modeling, data-driven design tools and the establishment of standardized performance metrics to aim at a higher level of reproducibility, manufacturability, and scalability. Further evolution in the future will be formulated on the basis of a multidisciplinary approach and the creation of standardized benchmarks to enhance the reproducibility and commercialization, aiming at attempting to transform laboratory innovations into scalable systems with clinical feasibility.