4.4 Article

Fabrication and characterization of thin-film silicon resonators on 10 μm-thick polyimide substrates

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6439/ab7262

关键词

amorphous semiconductors; MEMS; flexible electronics; microresonators; microfabrication; polyimide; mass sensitivity

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT) [PD/BD/137490/2018, PD/BD/113960/2015, PTDC/CTM-NAN/5052/2014, UID/NAN/50024/2013]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PD/BD/113960/2015, PTDC/CTM-NAN/5052/2014] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

MEMS fabricated on polymer substrates can allow for a range of new applications that require bending or lightweight, unbreakable substrates. The surface micromachining of hydrogenated amorphous silicon resonators on 10 mu m-thick flexible polyimide substrates is presented. Clamped-clamped (bridges) and clamped-free (cantilevers) resonators are fabricated and characterized, exhibiting quality factors as high as 2.0 x 10(3) and natural resonance frequencies in the 10(4)-10(6) Hz range. The deflection of an 80 mu m long bridge was measured to be over 100 pm, using laser Doppler vibrometry. The electrical addressing of the devices was demonstrated to be reliable when bent to radii of curvature larger than 10 mm. The resonators on ultra-thin polymer are characterized using different actuation voltages and pressures, showing comparable performance to resonators on rigid (glass) substrates. However, the flexible substrate allows the relaxation of the residual stress of the structural film in clamped-clamped structures, lowering the resonance frequency. Resonators on PI were found to be suitable for mass-sensing applications, achieving a minimum frequency shift detectable Delta f(min) = 30 Hz which results in a calculated mass sensitivity of 25 pg in vacuum. Ultimately, the reliable performance of the resonators developed in this work make them good candidates for applications that require mass-sensing on ultra-thin, flexible substrates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据