| Literature DB >> 28809305 |
Wu Zhou1, Huijun Yu2, Bei Peng3, Huaqin Shen4, Xiaoping He5, Wei Su6.
Abstract
Microstructure curvature, or buckling, is observed in the micromachining of silicon sensors because of the doping of impurities for realizing certain electrical and mechanical processes. This behavior can be a key source of error in inertial sensors. Therefore, identifying the factors that influence the buckling value is important in designing MEMS devices. In this study, the curvature in the proof mass of an accelerometer is modeled as a multilayered solid model. Modeling is performed according to the characteristics of the solid diffusion mechanism in the bulk-dissolved wafer process (BDWP) based on the self-stopped etch technique. Moreover, the proposed multilayered solid model is established as an equivalent composite structure formed by a group of thin layers that are glued together. Each layer has a different Young's modulus value and each undergoes different volume shrinkage strain owing to boron doping in silicon. Observations of five groups of proof mass blocks of accelerometers suggest that the theoretical model is effective in determining the buckling value of a fabricated structure.Entities:
Keywords: boron-doped silicon; curvature; microstructure; multilayer solid model
Year: 2013 PMID: 28809305 PMCID: PMC5452111 DOI: 10.3390/ma6010244
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Process of boron diffusion in silicon. (a) Silicon wafer. (b) Double-sided boron doping. (c) Boron profile of thinned wafer.
Figure 2The solid structure is divided into a multilayer model.
Figure 3Multilayer model with nonuniform Young’s modulus is equivalently substituted by one with uniform modulus E1 with changed widths: (a) Multilayer model and (b) Equivalent model.
Figure 4Observed buckling phenomenon under microscopy.
Geometrical parameters of sensors.
| Group | Thickness | Sensor dimensions | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 42 | 83 | 1720 | 5 |
| 2 | 42 | 83 | 1720 | 8 |
| 3 | 42 | 97 | 1720 | 8 |
| 4 | 31 | 83 | 1720 | 8 |
| 5 | 42 | 83 | 1920 | 8 |
Figure 5Section k – k of mass block shown in Figure 4.
Figure 6The height difference of comb fingers along the X-axis with different U-type beams.
Figure 7The relative errors of buckling values from experiments and models.
Figure 8The buckling value with different lengths of mass block.
The largest buckling value with different diffusion depths.
| Group | Thickness | Buckling value, µm | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experiment | Model | |||
| 2 | 42 | 83 | 1.55 | 1.59 |
| 3 | 42 | 97 | 1.31 | 1.42 |
| 4 | 31 | 83 | 0.90 | 1.03 |