4.7 Article

Large-Stroke Capacitive MEMS Accelerometer Without Pull-In

期刊

IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 3097-3106

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/JSEN.2020.3027270

关键词

Electrical read-out; MEMS accelerometer; repulsive electrode configuration

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [ECCS1608692]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates the feasibility of obtaining electrical read-out data from a capacitive MEMS accelerometer with a repulsive electrode configuration, allowing for large-stroke vibrations of microstructures without the pull-in failure of conventional accelerometers. The MEMS device has high mechanical sensitivity, with the ability to use large bias voltages for enhanced resolution and tunable frequency range.
DIn this study, the feasibility of obtaining electrical read-out data from a capacitive MEMS accelerometer that employs repulsive electrode configuration is demonstrated. This configuration allows for large-stroke vibrations of microstructures without suffering from pull-in failure that exists in conventional accelerometers based on the parallel-plate configuration. With initial fabrication gap of 2.75 mu m, the accelerometer can reach a 4.2 mu m dynamical displacement amplitude. The accelerometer is tested up to 95(V) without exhibiting pull-in failure. For comparison, the pull-in voltage of an accelerometerwith same dimensions but with conventional parallel-plate electrode configuration is 0.8(V). The MEMS device is fabricated using the POLYMUMPs fabrication standard. An electrical circuit is built to measure the capacitance change due to motion of the accelerometer proof-mass. The accelerometer has a mechanical sensitivity of 35nm/g and electrical sensitivity of 5.3mV/g. The ability to use large bias voltages without the typical adverse effects on the stability of the moving electrode will enable the design of capacitive MEMS accelerometers with enhanced resolution and tunable frequency range.

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