| Literature DB >> 22573961 |
Hsun-Heng Tsai1, Der Ho Wu, Ting-Lung Chiang, Hsin Hua Chen.
Abstract
This paper adopts Taguchi's signal-to-noise ratio analysis to optimize the dynamic characteristics of a SAW gas sensor system whose output response is linearly related to the input signal. The goal of the present dynamic characteristics study is to increase the sensitivity of the measurement system while simultaneously reducing its variability. A time- and cost-efficient finite element analysis method is utilized to investigate the effects of the deposited mass upon the resonant frequency output of the SAW biosensor. The results show that the proposed methodology not only reduces the design cost but also promotes the performance of the sensors.Entities:
Keywords: Dynamic Taguchi Method; Finite Element Method (FEM); Signal-to-Noise ratio; Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW)
Year: 2009 PMID: 22573961 PMCID: PMC3332250 DOI: 10.3390/s90301394
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Schematic of SAW sensor model.
Figure 2.IDTS structure.
Figure 3.Procedure of Taguchi analysis.
Control factor and level.
| A Types of ST quartz | ST-cutX Quartz | ST-cutY Quartz | |
| B No. of electrode finger pairs | 20 | 40 | 60 |
| C Delay distance (×10−3 m) | 95λ = 2.28 | 100λ = 2.4 | 105 |
| D Electrode thickness | 1800 | 1900 | 2000 |
| E Electrode overlay W(×10−3 m) | 5.76 | 6 | 6.24 |
| F Types of sensor membrane | rubbery | glassy-rubbery | glassy |
| G Sensor membrane thickness | 0.21 | 0.22 | 0.23 |
| H dimensions of matrix(×10−3 m) | 9.8×6.8×1 | 10×7×1 | 10.2×7.2×1 |
L18(21×37) Orthogonal array.
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
| 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | |
| 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |
| 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | |
| 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |
| 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
| 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | |
Figure 4.SAW sensor 3D geometry model.
Figure 5.SAW sensor 3D FE model.
Figure 6.(a) Half FEM model (b)FE simulation of Rayleigh wave propagation of SAW.
Simulation data of dynamic analysis.
| 5.9544 | 5.6137 | 4.9526 | 59.5442 | 56.1371 | 49.5256 | 595.4416 | 561.3709 | 495.2558 | |
| 7.1123 | 5.7219 | 4.9320 | 71.1227 | 57.2190 | 49.3202 | 711.2268 | 572.1900 | 493.2021 | |
| 5.5450 | 5.5383 | 5.3513 | 55.4500 | 55.3828 | 53.5127 | 554.4994 | 553.8276 | 535.1274 | |
| 5.4662 | 5.3247 | 5.2557 | 54.6623 | 53.2474 | 52.5567 | 546.6235 | 532.4737 | 525.5666 | |
| 5.4200 | 5.1293 | 4.9677 | 54.1996 | 51.2925 | 49.6774 | 541.9964 | 512.9252 | 496.7736 | |
| 6.3338 | 5.8331 | 5.3219 | 63.3379 | 58.3312 | 53.2185 | 633.3791 | 583.3116 | 532.1852 | |
| 6.8546 | 6.0335 | 5.3645 | 68.5457 | 60.3350 | 53.6445 | 685.4569 | 603.3505 | 536.4451 | |
| 5.7614 | 5.2287 | 4.7018 | 57.6145 | 52.2869 | 47.0182 | 576.1448 | 522.8694 | 470.1817 | |
| 5.7140 | 5.4216 | 5.2758 | 57.1402 | 54.2158 | 52.7585 | 571.4015 | 542.1579 | 527.5847 | |
| 5.7761 | 5.2158 | 4.9665 | 57.7609 | 52.1579 | 49.6647 | 577.6092 | 521.5794 | 496.6465 | |
| 6.4332 | 5.8204 | 5.5289 | 64.3322 | 58.2037 | 55.2894 | 643.3219 | 582.0373 | 552.8947 | |
| 6.3500 | 5.8675 | 5.2588 | 63.5002 | 58.6746 | 52.5882 | 635.0022 | 586.7465 | 525.8818 | |
| 5.9821 | 5.7190 | 5.6693 | 59.8209 | 57.1903 | 56.6933 | 598.2086 | 571.9030 | 566.9328 | |
| 5.9668 | 5.2947 | 4.4197 | 59.6676 | 52.9465 | 44.1973 | 596.6765 | 529.4654 | 441.9732 | |
| 6.8332 | 5.5468 | 5.0760 | 68.3321 | 55.4676 | 50.7604 | 683.3214 | 554.6763 | 507.6042 | |
| 5.6545 | 5.3507 | 5.0336 | 56.5454 | 53.5073 | 50.3358 | 565.4542 | 535.0729 | 503.3581 | |
| 6.1350 | 5.7287 | 5.4108 | 61.3502 | 57.2874 | 54.1076 | 613.5021 | 572.8741 | 541.0759 | |
| 5.8872 | 5.4612 | 5.1292 | 58.8720 | 54.6125 | 51.2920 | 588.7199 | 546.1248 | 512.9201 | |
Figure 7.The S/N cause effects graph of control factors.
Figure 8.The gain cause effects graph of control factors.
S/N Dynamic results.
| 255982.282 | 154.13 | 155.59 | 208368.032 | 148.89 | 157.08 | ||
| 554690.052 | 165.75 | 149.51 | 231941.752 | 165.91 | 157.09 | ||
| 55255.112 | 153.33 | 168.87 | 274784.632 | 163.05 | 155.47 | ||
| 53940.542 | 149.71 | 168.87 | 84458.612 | 162.06 | 165.66 | ||
| 115161.772 | 144.77 | 161.99 | 389818.282 | 146.30 | 151.49 | ||
| 254263.752 | 163.17 | 156.15 | 457088.892 | 162.86 | 151.04 | ||
| 375054.862 | 170.29 | 153.14 | 156034.232 | 149.64 | 159.64 | ||
| 266243.532 | 146.40 | 154.81 | 901749.612 | 133.18 | 143.39 | ||
| 112131.852 | 153.11 | 162.71 | 190940.612 | 153.73 | 158.12 | ||
| 274328.242 | 154.79 | 157.25 | |||||
The results of ANOVA.
| 59.2562 | 1 | 59.2562 | 12.5668 | 1 | 12.5668 | ||
| 45.6002 | 2 | 22.8001 | 166.5850 | 2 | 83.2925 | ||
| 164.4157 | 2 | 82.2078 | 192.4940 | 2 | 96.2470 | ||
| 7.3055 | 2 | 3.6528 | 248.9454 | 2 | 124.4727 | ||
| 70.2703 | 2 | 35.1351 | 300.8786 | 2 | 150.4393 | ||
| 40.1874 | 2 | 20.0937 | 83.0479 | 2 | 41.5239 | ||
| 334.6497 | 2 | 167.3248 | 92.9377 | 2 | 46.4689 | ||
| 13.5930 | 2 | 6.7965 | 240.5441 | 2 | 120.2721 | ||
| 17.9588 | 2 | 8.9794 | 205.9727 | 2 | 102.9864 | ||
| 753.2366 | 17 | 1543.9724 | 17 | ||||
The comparisons of S/N ratio between original design and Taguchi design.
| 163.81 | 175.26 | 11.45 | |
| 149.89 | 170.08 | 20.20 |
Figure 9.Comparisons of original and robust design for sensitivity β analysis.