Single-cell simulation hides the array
The effects that decide whether a transducer works — crosstalk, radiation, real beam shape — are array-level. Model one cell at a time and you don't see them until the wafer comes back.
The array won't fit in memory
So you simulate element by element and stitch assumptions together. The array-level behaviour is never solved.
Crosstalk is left out
Inter-element coupling doesn't enter a single-cell model, then reappears as artefacts in the measured beam profile.
Model and measurement diverge
Simplified models can lead to serious discrepancies with experiment, so the prototype is the first honest look at the device.
CMUT setup is a bottleneck
Full CMUT models are hard enough to set up that one specialist becomes the constraint on the whole project.
Array-scale MUT simulation, fully coupled
One model, all the physics, at array scale, run on the cloud and driven from your own scripts.
Array-scale modelling
Crosstalk, acoustic radiation, and propagation solved together across the array, including viscoelastic damping in packaging and lens layers that acoustic-only tools skip.
Natively coupled physics
Electrical, mechanical, and acoustic interactions in one unified model, solved simultaneously rather than handed sequentially between separate solvers.
Cloud scale, from code
Sweep hundreds of design variants overnight with parallel cloud compute. Write the loop once in the Python SDK and feed results straight into surrogate training.
What that makes possible
Two PMUT examples of the kind of study that isn't practical when every run takes hours on a desktop.
65 → 100%
Fractional bandwidth, from parametric limit to inverse-designed
10,000 simulations trained an AI surrogate that predicts device physics in under a millisecond. Inverse design then pushed PMUT fractional bandwidth from 65% to roughly 100% while holding the 12 MHz centre frequency.
260× faster
1,000 runs in 15 minutes, not 66 hours
A yield study ran 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations in about 15 minutes instead of 66 hours, predicting 71.9% manufacturing yield for a strongly coupled piezoelectric-acoustic sensor and flagging oxide thickness as the critical parameter.
Real-world examples
Array-scale simulation
Crosstalk, directivity and real beam shape are array-level effects. Allsolve solves hundreds of MUT cells with the electrical, mechanical and acoustic physics coupled, so they show up in the model rather than in the measured prototype. Watch the webinar →
1. Build the array, not the cell
Hundreds of cells in one model, with the elastic–acoustic coupling intact across elements.
View full-size
2. All physics coupled
Electrical, mechanical and acoustic interactions solved simultaneously, including viscoelastic damping in packaging and lens layers.
View full-size
3. Crosstalk, element by element
Mechanical and electrical crosstalk read directly off the array surface instead of being assumed away.
View full-size
4. Beam pattern and directivity
The acoustic field in the load, giving real beam width and directivity before a wafer is committed.
View full-size15×15 PMUT array
A 15×15 PMUT array, more than 30 million unknowns, solved in 223 seconds. The constraint that forces single-cell modelling is a hardware limit, not a physics one. Watch the webinar →
1. 225 cells in one model
The full 15×15 array meshed and assembled as a single coupled problem, over 30 million unknowns.
View full-size
2. Solved in 223 seconds
Under four minutes on cloud hardware, against memory limits that stop on-premise machines assembling the model at all.
View full-size
3. Transient response per element
Time-domain output read back for the array, scripted and repeatable through the Python SDK.
View full-sizePMUT generative design
Designing a PMUT means trading sensitivity against bandwidth. 10,000 parallel simulations trained a surrogate that predicts both in under a millisecond, exposing the full Pareto front and a design with roughly double the fractional bandwidth. Open the white paper →
1. Dataset in minutes
10,000 Allsolve runs varying four geometric parameters, across four KPIs.
View full-size
2. Millisecond screening
The trained surrogate predicts performance in under 1 ms with roughly 1% error.
View full-size
3. Pareto front, visible
The full sensitivity–bandwidth trade-off computed in seconds, constrained to the 12 MHz target frequency.
View full-size
4. Verified improvement
Allsolve confirmed fractional bandwidth from 65% to about 100%, with +6.5% sensitivity.
View full-sizePMUT yield prediction
A fully coupled piezoelectric-acoustic PMUT was put through 1,000 Monte Carlo runs to see how manufacturing scatter moves signal amplitude and arrival time. The study took 15 minutes instead of 66 hours. Open the example →
1. Realistic variability modelling
1,000 simulations apply random variations to the PMUT stack dimensions using a normal distribution, reflecting manufacturing and material scatter.
View full-size
2. 260× faster in the cloud
All 1,000 transient runs execute in parallel: about 15 minutes of elapsed time against 66 hours sequentially.
View full-size
3. Clear sensitivity identification
Correlation and cross-plot analysis single out oxide layer thickness as the parameter driving arrival-time variation.
View full-size
4. Quantitative yield
Against pass/fail limits of ±50% on peak amplitude and ±1% on arrival time, KPI histograms give 71.9% predicted yield.
View full-sizeSingle PMUT cell
Before the array, the cell. A transient model of one PMUT cell driven into a water load returns impedance, displacement and acoustic output from a single run. Read the full article →
1. Drive the cell
A transient solver applies the drive voltage and resolves the time-domain response of the cell in its water load.
View full-size
2. Electrical impedance
Impedance decides how well the cell matches the driving circuitry, which sets energy transfer and signal loss.
View full-size
3. Membrane displacement
Surface displacement across the membrane, resolved over the full drive cycle.
View full-size
4. Acoustic output
Acoustic pressure in the water load, the direct measure of how well the cell transmits.
View full-sizePiezocomposite array
The same bandwidth–sensitivity workflow applied to a piezocomposite transducer stack: 10,000 randomised-geometry simulations in under ten minutes.
1. Fast training data generation
A dataset of 10,000 simulations with randomised geometry, in less than 10 minutes.
View full-size
2. Instant design space visibility
The set of best designs balancing bandwidth and sensitivity at the target frequency, in seconds.
View full-size
3. Validation grounded in physics
The top candidates re-simulated and confirmed in Allsolve.
View full-sizePiezoelectric material characterization
Identifying the full material matrices of a piezoelectric sample from measured impedance is a notoriously difficult inverse problem. Here the surrogate was trained to run backwards — from measured response to material properties.
1. Randomized dataset
10,000 simulations of a bulk PZT disc, randomizing stiffness, coupling, permittivity, and geometry for each run.
2. Inverse training
A model trained to take the simulation outputs, impedance magnitude and phase, and predict the material property inputs.
3. Instant characterization
Feed in a complex impedance spectrum, get the correct material properties back in milliseconds.
4. Quantified accuracy
Validation predicted the difficult-to-determine material matrices with error rates significantly below 5%.
View full-sizeEvery avoided prototype run pays for the tool
MEMS development is expensive because each device needs its own bespoke process, built and validated across multiple fab-dependent stages. A medium-complexity device runs to a minimum of ~$4M in engineering budget over roughly four years. Every prototype iteration you can resolve in simulation instead of silicon takes cost and months out of that path.
Source: Fitzgerald, White & Chung, "MEMS Product Development: From Concept to Commercialization" (Springer), Ch. 3, Table 3.2.
$1.5M
Minimum engineering budget for the advanced-prototype stage alone, for a medium-complexity MEMS device.~4 years
Typical span from proof-of-concept to foundry pilot production — each fab-dependent stage is roughly a year.$4M
Minimum total engineering budget across the four development stages, before overhead or capital expenses.PMUT and CMUT simulation questions
Can Allsolve simulate a full PMUT or CMUT array instead of a single cell?
Does it capture crosstalk between array elements?
How does it couple electrical, mechanical, and acoustic physics?
How much faster is cloud simulation than desktop FEM for MUTs?
Can I run manufacturing-yield or Monte Carlo studies?
Does it fit a scripted or Python workflow?
Can it help with CMUT setup complexity?
Not sure if Allsolve fits your MUT design?
Talk to our engineers about your application and how Allsolve could help in practice.
Case examples and other resources
Webinar + PDF summary
Accelerating MUT design with cloud-based multiphysics simulation
Download the PDF summary covering case examples of design optimization of CMUT and PMUT devices with Quanscient Allsolve.
Download PDF summary →
Case example
Enhancing MUT design and performance with Quanscient Allsolve
Designing high-performance MUT arrays is challenging due to limited simulation capabilities. See how Allsolve has changed this.
Read the full article →
Case example
Optimizing designs by simulating thousands of design variations
Explore a case study covernig how to run thousands of simulations in parallel with Quanscient Allsolve.
Read the full article →
See how it could work for you
Submit the form to talk with our experts — we'll respond within one business day.
“Quanscient Allsolve's unique capabilities have helped us push the boundaries of what can be simulated in ultrasonic MEMS design.”
Nilavazhagan Subbiah, PhD — Staff Engineer, Infineon

Interested in just seeing an on-demand demo? Watch the 3-minute demo
Just want to know what it costs? See pricing and plans
%20(1).png?width=300&name=Website%20visualizations%20(3)%20(1).png)