4.7 Article

Modeling and Characterization of a Pull-in Free MEMS Microphone

期刊

IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL
卷 20, 期 12, 页码 6314-6323

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/JSEN.2020.2976527

关键词

Electrostatic; micro-electro-mechanical-systems (MEMS); microphone; pull-in; levitation; repulsive; sensitivity

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [ECCS1608692]
  2. NSF [1608692]
  3. Directorate For Engineering
  4. Div Of Electrical, Commun & Cyber Sys [1608692] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we examine the feasibility of designing a MEMS microphone employing a levitation based electrode configuration. This electrode scheme enables capacitive MEMS sensors that could work for large bias voltages without pull-in failure. Our experiments and simulations indicate that it is possible to create robust sensors properlyworking at high DC voltages, which is not feasible for most of the conventionalparallel plate electrode-basedmicroscale devices. In addition, the use of larger bias voltages will improve signal-to-noise ratios in MEMS sensors because it increases the signal relative to the noise in read-out circuits. This study presents the design, fabrication, and testing of a capacitivemicrophone, which is made of approximately 2 mu m thick highly-doped polysilicon as a diaphragm. It has approximately 1 mm2 surface area and incorporates interdigitated sensing electrodeson three of its sides. Right underneath thesemoving electrodes, there are fixed fingersbeing held at the same voltage potential as themoving electrodes and separated from them with a 2 mu mthick air gap. The electronic output is obtained using a charge amplifier. Measured results obtained on three different microphone chips using bias voltages up to 200 volts indicate that pull-in failure is completely avoided. The sensitivity of this initial design was measured to be 16.1 mV/Pa at 200 V bias voltage, and the bandwidth was from 100 Hz to 4.9 kHz.

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

4.7
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