| Literature DB >> 30424444 |
Jia Jia1,2, Xukai Ding3,4, Yang Gao5,6, Hongsheng Li7,8.
Abstract
In order to eliminate the frequency mismatch of MEMS (Microelectromechanical Systems) gyroscopes, this paper proposes a frequency tuning technology based on a quadrature modulation signal. A sinusoidal signal having a frequency greater the gyroscope operating bandwidth is applied to the quadrature stiffness correction combs, and the modulation signal containing the frequency split information is then excited at the gyroscope output. The effects of quadrature correction combs and frequency tuning combs on the resonant frequency of gyroscope are analyzed. The tuning principle based on low frequency input excitation is analyzed, and the tuning system adopting this principle is designed and simulated. The experiments are arranged to verify the theoretical analysis. The wide temperature range test (-20 ∘ C ⁻60 ∘ C ) demonstrates the reliability of the tuning system with a maximum mismatch frequency of less than 0.3 Hz. The scale factor test and static test were carried out at three temperature conditions (-20 ∘ C, room temperature, 60 ∘ C), and the scale factor, zero-bias instability, and angle random walk are improved. Moreover, the closed-loop detection method is adopted, which improves the scale factor nonlinearity and bandwidth under the premise of maintaining the same static performances compared with the open-loop detection by tuning.Entities:
Keywords: dual-mass MEMS gyroscope; frequency mismatch; frequency split; frequency tuning; quadrature modulation signal
Year: 2018 PMID: 30424444 PMCID: PMC6215141 DOI: 10.3390/mi9100511
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 2.891
Figure 1Mechanical model of dual-mass MEMS gyroscope.
Figure 2The mechanical sensitivity at different temperature (left red y-axis represents S and right blue y-axis represents ).
Figure 3The phase relationship between the drive mode and sense mode signals.
Figure 4The effect of on and .
Figure 5The effect of on and .
Figure 6The effect of and on .
Figure 7Schematic control loop for the automatic frequency tuning system.
Figure 8The effect of and on .
Simulation parameters of the dual-mass MEMS gyroscope.
| Parameter | Values | Units |
|---|---|---|
| Drive mode resonant frequency ( | 3925.29 × 2 | rad/s |
| Drive mode quality factor ( | 4673 | |
| Sense mode resonant frequency ( |
| rad/s |
| Sense mode quality factor ( | 449 | |
| Drive effective mass ( |
| kg |
| Sense effective mass ( |
| kg |
| Drive mode capacitance ( | 2.88 | pF |
| Sense mode capacitance ( | 4.68 | pF |
| Quadrature correction comb number ( | 30 | |
| Quadrature correction comb thickness ( | 60 | um |
| Quadrature correction comb gap ( | 5 | um |
| Comb overlap length ( | 10 | um |
| Unequal spacing ratio ( | 2.5 | |
| Vacuum permittivity ( |
| F/m |
| Tuning comb number ( | 300 | |
| Tuning comb number thickness ( | 60 | um |
| Correction comb gap ( | 4 | um |
| Comb overlap length ( | 200 | um |
| Low-frequency signal amplitude ( | 1 | |
| Input signal frequency ( |
| rad/s |
| DC benchmark voltage ( | 2.048 | V |
| Interface circuit amplification factor ( |
| |
| Controller parameters ( | 30 | |
| Controller parameters ( | 0.0075 | |
| Reference voltage ( | 0.2587 | mV |
Figure 9The curves of observation points in the frequency tuning system.
Figure 10The disturbance of different (left) and (right) to .
Figure 11Coriolis path output curves.
Figure 12Photos of the MEMS gyroscope circuit and test equipment.
Figure 13The test curves of the frequency tuning system.
Figure 14Wide temperature range test curves: (a) The variation of frequency tuning voltage, (b) The variations of and .
Scale factor performance of the tested gyroscope.
| Temperature | Test Type | Scale Factor | Scale Factor Nonlinearity | Scale Factor Asymmetry |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (mV/ | (ppm) | (ppm) | ||
| −20 | Test1 | −2.039 | 142 | 546 |
| Test2 | 40.453 | 107,155 | 46,978 | |
| Test3 | 3.857 | 53 | 212 | |
| 60 | Test1 | −2.048 | 144 | 596 |
| Test2 | 19.324 | 2526 | 10,074 | |
| Test3 | 3.780 | 96 | 568 | |
| Room temperature | Test1 | −2.051 | 322 | 1009 |
| Test2 | 22.024 | 3398 | 14,792 | |
| Test3 | 3.786 | 28 | 128 |
Figure 15The residual errors of the scale factor under different temperatures: (a) −20 C condition, (b) Room temperature condition, (c) 60 C condition.
Static performance of the three test methods at different temperatures.
| Temperature | Test Type | Zero Bias ( | Zero Bias Stability ( | ARW ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −20 | Test1 | 1.138 | 24.746 | 12.780 |
| Test2 | 5.554 | 23.964 | 4.966 | |
| Test3 | 5.381 | 24.580 | 4.862 | |
| 60 | Test1 | 5.991 | 70.187 | 12.536 |
| Test2 | 13.127 | 67.429 | 5.085 | |
| Test3 | 13.526 | 64.926 | 5.058 | |
| Room temperature | Test1 | 1.458 | 43.439 | 12.229 |
| Test2 | 2.602 | 37.648 | 4.784 | |
| Test3 | 2.601 | 39.545 | 4.956 |
Figure 16Gyroscope bandwidth under the three test methods.