4.7 Article

Design and implementation of Crossed-circle MEMS ciliary vector hydrophone

Journal

MEASUREMENT
Volume 201, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.measurement.2022.111678

Keywords

Vector hydrophone; MEMS; Sensitivity; Directivity; Resonant frequency

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Develop- ment project [2019YFC0119800]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China as National Major Scientific Instruments Develop- ment project [61927807]
  3. National Natural Science Founda- tion of China [52175553]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51875535]
  5. Key Subject Construction and Innovation Special Zone Project

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A crossed-circle bionic vector hydrophone is proposed in this paper, which increases the sensitivity and working bandwidth of the sensor through optimized structural design, while achieving excellent directivity.
MEMS ciliary vector hydrophone is used for underwater low-frequency acoustic signal testing, but it is limited by mutual inhibition of bandwidth and sensitivity. A crossed-circle bionic vector hydrophone is proposed in this paper. It uses two circular structures to increase receiving area of sound waves and improve sensitivity. At the same time, it improves working bandwidth of the hydrophone by reducing thickness of circular structure and adopting hollow cylinder. In this paper, COMSOL simulation software was used to carry out simulation and analysis of stress distribution and natural frequency, and determine the optimal size of crossed-circle structure. Experiments show that sensitivity of the hydrophone was measured to reach-184.5 dB@1250 Hz(0dB = 1 V/ mu Pa), and the working bandwidth was 20-1250 Hz, the sensitivity reaches-186.7 dB at 1000 Hz, 10.4 dB higher than that of single-cylinder structure. The depth of pit exceeds 30 dB at 315 Hz and 630 Hz, indicating that the hydrophone has excellent dipole directivity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available