## 3 Simulated and Measured Results
### Electro-Magnetic Behavior  
The following characterization was achieved by means of a measurement setup composed of a Karl Suss PM5 probe station (KARL SUSS, Garching, Germany) equipped with two Karl Suss micromanipulators for DC tips and two RF/Microwave Ground-Signal-Ground (GSG) probes (Z50-X-GSG-200 model). The probes were connected to a proper 45 MHz-50 GHz Vector Network Analyzer (VNA), HP 8510C model. The outcomes of the performed characterization are reported in Figures 4-6, in which they are compared with the simulation results. From a general point of view, regarding the electrical behavior of _Dev1_, in the following plots, the measured curves seem to be quite stable: contrary to the simulated curve, the measured return loss (S22 curve of each device in ON state) does not exceed the \(-21.3\) dB along the entire considered frequency interval. In the OFF state (Figure 4a), a remarkable agreement between the S22 curves is displayed, with a gap that never exceeds the 0.6 dB observable at 5 GHz. Also, in terms of insertion loss (S12 curve of each device in ON state), a substantial agreement is visible in Figure 4b between the two curves, which are separated by a gap smaller than 0.95 dB along the entire measured interval. The measured insertion loss is smaller than \(-2\) dB up to 29.2 GHz, and it reaches its maximum at 30 GHz (\(-2.17\) dB). Regarding the isolation (S12 curve of each device in OFF state), in Figure 4a, it is possible to notice that, while the measured curve approximates the simulated one up to 14 GHz, in the 14-29 GHz interval, it is generally even better, reaching the local minimum of \(-30\) dB (at 23.3 GHz). Along the entire interval, the measured isolation is better than \(-15.5\) dB (at 29.45 GHz). The only noisy curve is the one describing the return loss, which is also the one showing the most significant discrepancy with the simulation curves. In fact, it is possible to notice a non-negligible gap between the measured and simulated S22 curves of the ON state (Figure 4b), with the measured one being greater in the 10-22 GHz range and reaching the maximum discrepancy of 16.93 dB at 17.19 GHz. Figure 3: (**a**) Simulated displacements of _Dev1_, _Dev2_, and _Dev3_ switches showing actuation voltage. (**b**) Measured actuation voltages of _Dev1_, _Dev2_, _Dev3_ by resistance drop along RF signal line. Figure 4: (**a**) A comparison between the simulated and measured performances of \(Dev1\) in its OFF state. (**b**) A comparison between the simulated and measured performances of \(Dev1\) in its ON state. Figure 5: (**a**) A comparison between the simulated and measured performances of \(Dev2\) in its OFF state. (**b**) A comparison between the simulated and measured performances of \(Dev2\) in its ON state. Figure 6: (**a**) A comparison between the simulated and measured performances of \(Dev3\) in its OFF state. (**b**) A comparison between the simulated and measured performances of \(Dev3\) in its ON state. Compared to _Dev1_, the S parameters of _Dev2_ reported in Figure 5a,b display a similar pattern. In fact, in this case, the measured return loss (S22) of Figure 5b is higher than the simulated one along the central part (roughly from 10 to 22 GHz) of the frequency interval, and conversely to the simulated return loss, the measured one does not exceed \(-22.43\) dB (reached at 20.53 GHz). Regarding the insertion loss (S12) curves of Figure 5b, their discrepancy is smaller than 1.75 dB. While the minimum measured insertion loss is \(-3.02\) dB (at 29.47 dB), it does not exceed the \(-2\) dB threshold up to 22.8 GHz. The measured isolation (S12) of Figure 5a is always below \(-14.86\) dB (reached at 29.62 GHz), and it is better than the simulated one that ranges roughly from 14 to 29 GHz, with a local minimum of \(-30.52\) dB at 23.13 GHz (\(-19.52\) dB simulated value at the same frequency).