Category Archives: MEMS

It sounds futuristic, but today Carnegie Mellon University researchers are developing edible electronic devices that can be implanted in the body to improve patient care.

"We are creating electronically active medical devices that can be implanted in the body," said Christopher Bettinger, an assistant professor in the departments of Materials Science and Engineering and Biomedical Engineering at CMU. "The idea is for a patient to consume a pill that encapsulates the device."

Bettinger, along with Jay Whitacre, a professor of materials science and engineering, is creating edible power sources for medical devices that can be taken orally using materials found in the daily diet.

"Our design involves flexible polymer electrodes and a sodium ion electrochemical cell, which allows us to fold the mechanism into an edible pill that encapsulates the device," Bettinger said.

CMU researchers report that the edible device could be programmed and deployed in the gastrointestinal tract or the small intestine depending upon packaging. Once the battery packaging is in place, Bettinger’s team would activate the battery.

Bettinger reports that the battery could power biosensors to measure biomarkers or monitor gastric problems. The battery also could be used to stimulate damaged tissue or help in targeted drug delivery for certain types of cancer.

"There’s so much out there we can do with this novel approach to medical devices," said Bettinger, a recipient of the National Academy of Sciences Award for Initiatives in Research for his innovative work on advanced materials for next-generation implanted medical devices.  

Bettinger has worked for more than a decade at the interface of materials science and biomedical engineering. Some of his innovative technologies include new synthetic materials that mimic the natural properties of soft tissue and biodegradable electronics that could usher in a new era of electronically active implants. 

Bettinger is an assistant professor in the Departments of Materials Science and Engineering and Biomedical Engineering at Carnegie Mellon. Bettinger received an S.B. in Chemical Engineering in 2003, an M.Eng. in Biomedical Engineering in 2004, and a Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering in 2008 as a Charles Stark Draper Fellow, all from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He completed his post-doctoral fellowship at Stanford University in the Department of Chemical Engineering as an NIH Ruth Kirschstein Fellow in 2010. He has received many honors including the MIT Department of Materials Science and Engineering Award for “Outstanding PhD Thesis,” the ACS AkzoNobel Award for Polymer Chemistry, and the Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Society Young Investigator Award. Bettinger is also a co-inventor on several patents and was a finalist in the MIT $100K Entrepreneurship Competition.

Carnegie Mellon is a private research university with programs in areas ranging from science, technology and business, to public policy, the humanities and the arts. More than 12,000 students are currently in attendance across Carnegie Mellon’s multiple campuses worldwide. Carnegie Mellon’s main campus in the United States is in Pittsburgh, Pa. It has campuses in California’s Silicon Valley and Qatar, and programs in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe and Mexico.

Despite stronger-than-expected growth during the fourth quarter, 2012 was still a miserable year for the semiconductor market and suppliers, with only eight out of the Top 25 chipmakers managing to eke out revenue growth—but nine suffering double-digit declines.

Global semiconductor revenue in 2012 declined by 2.2 percent from 2011, according to final results from the IHS iSuppli Competitive Landscaping Tool (CLT) from information and analytics provider IHS. The preliminary forecast issued by IHS in December projected a drop of 2.3 percent.

The modest improvement in the final results came from year-over-year growth in the fourth quarter that came in slightly better than estimated, topping out at a 2.8 percent increase. The preliminary estimate had predicted a 1.9 percent expansion. 

Read more: When is the semiconductor industry expected to recover?

“The last three months were the only quarter in 2012 that generated a year-over-year increase in semiconductor market revenue, but that growth was too little and too late to salvage a terrible year for chipmakers,” said Dale Ford, senior director at IHS. “Even so, the stronger performance in the fourth quarter represents a positive signal for the semiconductor market, marking the beginning of a new growth cycle in the industry that will be sustained though 2013. IHS predicts global semiconductor revenue will rise by 5.6 percent in 2013, bringing an end to the slump of 2012.”

Semiconductor body count

Semiconductor industry growth in 2012 slipped from stagnation in the first half to a slump in the second half, widely affecting various players in the market.

Among the Top 25 suppliers, the only companies to expand revenue in 2012 were No. 2 Samsung, No. 3 Qualcomm, No. 9 Broadcom, No. 11 Sony, No. 14 NXP, No.15 nVidia, No.18 MediaTek and No. 24 LSI, as presented in the attached table.

The remaining 17 suppliers suffered revenue declines. Companies whose revenue fell by double-digit percentages were No. 4 Texas Instruments, No. 5 Toshiba, No. 6 Renesas, No. 8 STMicroelectronics, No. 12 Advanced Micro Devices, No. 16 Freescale, No. 17 Elpida, No. 21 Panasonic and No. 22 On Semiconductor.

“The semiconductor downturn had an extremely broad impact, as global economic uncertainty and weakness affected companies across all regions as well as the vast majority of products and application markets,” Ford observed. “Almost every major semiconductor product market suffered a decline in 2012, with double-digit drops in the major memory and discrete categories.” 

Merger dirge

With semiconductor suppliers’ financial condition so weak, merger and acquisition (M&A) activity among the top companies was nearly non-existent in 2012—a stark contrast to the high level of activity seen in 2011.

The only major purchase was Samsung’s acquisition of a 100 percent share of the Samsung LED business from Samsung Electro-Mechanics. The results of all other top companies were not meaningfully impacted by M&A activity.

Silver linings playbook

While there was plenty of bad news in the 2012 semiconductor market, the most dramatic change for any single semiconductor supplier was actually a positive development: Qualcomm’s nearly 30 percent surge in revenue.

Qualcomm’s revenue growth of 29.2 percent launched it to the No. 3 rank in the global semiconductor market in 2012, up from No. 6 in 2011.  Its share of the semiconductor market grew by a full percentage point to 4.3 percent, up from 3.3 percent.

“In two years, Qualcomm has risen from No. 9 to No. 3 in the semiconductor rankings,” Ford noted. “This is the strongest ascension through the top ranks by any semiconductor company in recent history. Qualcomm continues to capitalize on the robust growth of semiconductor sales to the strong market for wireless devices including smartphones and media tablets.”

Only two other companies among the Top 25 achieved double-digit growth: LSI, with 22.6 percent; and Sony, with 21.8 percent. These expansions were notable achievements in such a tough market environment.

Semiconductor surprises

The bright spots in an otherwise dismal year for semiconductor growth were found in CMOS image sensors, logic ASICs, LEDs, display drivers and sensors. Growth in CMOS image sensors hit 38.8 percent, followed by logic ASICs at 19.0 percent. LEDs also expanded in the double digits at 11.9 percent. Meanwhile, growth came in at 6.9 percent for display drivers and at 6.1 percent for sensors and actuators.

The only other categories to sustain increases were logic ASSPs and standard logic components.

“Robust growth in smartphones and media tablets was key to driving growth opportunities for logic ASICs, CMOS image sensors and sensors essential to enabling new and attractive features in the exciting wireless market. LEDs also have been boosted by their continued adoption in LCD TV backlight and general purpose lighting applications.”

Veredus Laboratories today announced that the current version of VereFlu detects the current subtype of H7N9 (Avian Flu) that is responsible for the flu outbreak in China. H7N9 is the latest mutation to cause concern and increased surveillance in the region. Launched in 2008 and built on the STMicroelectronics lab-on-chip platform, VereFlu run on Veredus’ VerePLEXTM biosystem is the market’s first test to integrate two powerful molecular biological applications, Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and a microarray, onto a Lab-on-Chip platform.

Detect avian flu
Veredus uses STMicroelectronics’ lab-on-chip platform to detect avian flu.

VereFlu is a portable lab-on-chip application for rapid detection of all major influenza types at the point of need. Unlike existing diagnostic methods, VereFlu is a breakthrough molecular diagnostic test that can detect infection with high accuracy and sensitivity, within two hours, providing genetic information on the infection that traditionally could take days to weeks to learn. With its high level of automation, users outside the traditional lab environment can easily perform the tests at the point of need. In addition to the current H7N9 Avian Flu, VereFlu is proven to identify and differentiate human subtypes of Influenza A (H1, H3, H5, H7, H9) and B viruses, including the Avian Flu subtype H5N1, and the 2009 pandemic H1N1/2009, all in a single test.

“After learning of the outbreak in China, we have confirmed that our current VereFlu influenza panel is able to detect the subtype of H7N9 responsible for this outbreak in addition to other human flu A and B infections,” said Rosemary Tan, chief executive officer of Veredus. “This confirms our vision when we designed the panel for the need to have a multiplexed molecular test to detect not only the typical seasonal influenza subtypes but also novel emerging subtypes, including the current H7N9 subtype, capable of making the jump from animals to humans.”

Veredus specializes in the development, manufacture, and marketing of innovative multiplexed molecular solutions in the clinical, specialty, and custom testing markets based on STMicroelectronics’ proprietary Lab-on-Chip platform. The Lab-on-Chip platform, marketed as the VerePLEXTM biosystem, combines Micro-Electro-Mechanical-Systems (MEMS) with micro-fluidics to integrate multiplexed DNA amplification with microarray detection for rapid, cost-effective, and accurate analysis of biological materials.

From smart wristwatches that record heart rates, to intelligent armbands that track physical activities, wearable electronics and fitness monitoring devices are attracting increased attention from health-conscious consumers, causing shipments of MEMS sensors used in these products to more than quadruple in just five years.

Starting with a stable base in the $20.0 million range, revenue for MEMS motion sensors in wearable electronics and fitness monitoring is set to climb to $31.0 million this year and then jump 33 percent to $41.3 million in 2014, according to the IHS iSuppli MEMS and Sensors service from information and analytics provider IHS. An even larger increase, equivalent to 47 percent, will occur in 2015 when takings amount to $60.8 million.

“The biggest leap will occur in 2016 when annual revenue rises 50 percent to $91.5 million,” said Marwan Boustany, senior analyst for MEMS & sensors at IHS. “That means the market by then will have expanded by more than a factor of four from $20.8 million in 2011.”

The below figure presents the IHS forecast of global MEMS shipments for wearable electronics and fitness monitoring devices.

MEMS sensors in fitness monitoring devices and wearable electronics

Two trends are spurring demand for wearable and mobile health technology, in turn fueling the MEMS motion sensor market for wearable and mobile health devices, said Boustany. “One trend is the higher average life expectancy of people all over the world, coupled with the amplified prevalence of illnesses like cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The second trend arises from greater awareness in the population of health, fitness and wellness issues—indicated by the rapid growth in demand for healthy nutrition, diet programs, gym memberships and even health-based mobile applications.”

Activity monitors such as the FitLinxx Pebble and Fitbug, for instance, are increasingly finding their way into consumers’ hands as employers seek to augment their corporate wellness strategies, noted Shane Walker, senior manager for consumer and digital health research at IHS. “In the United States, this is due in part to the growth of consumer-directed healthcare plans and the Affordable Care Act, which is incentivizing insurers. These corporate programs are opening yet another channel of distribution for new monitoring devices,” he said.

Market drivers and the top wearable electronics devices

“Several factors overall will help drive the market for wearable electronics and fitness monitoring devices,” Boustany said. “For one, the sensor technology has reached a state of maturity, having been introduced to consumers via smartphones and their use of accelerometers, gyroscopes and electronic compasses. The billions of sensors consumed by smartphones to date, meanwhile, have served to lower the average selling prices of the sensors and improved their production. A significant market stimulus also comes from patients diagnosed with health issues related to the lack of exercise, encouraged by their doctors—or in some cases, their employers—to track activity and manage their condition.”

Other important drivers are the proliferation and suitability of the Bluetooth Low Energy 4.0 communication protocol, as are the efforts of sensor manufacturers in combining and miniaturizing sensor technology.

For the latter, sensor fusion technology conjoined with small combo sensors—such as 9-axis inertial measurement units from French-Italian maker STMicroelectronics, California-based InvenSense and Bosch of Germany—make it easier than ever to incorporate motion sensors in a wide range of wearable devices.

Development kits proposed by sensor suppliers like InvenSense have likewise stimulated the imagination of designers for sports applications. Here new products are emerging, such as ski and snowboard goggles with motion sensors to monitor jump heights and the speed of runs, as well as 9-axis motion tracking armbands to improve swimming technique.

Electronics ready to wear

At the end of 2016, the top wearable electronics device overall for MEMS motion sensors will be activity monitors. Already in big demand today, the device features a built-in accelerometer to monitor movement and provide feedback, such as for calorie consumption.

Pedometers will rank second, helping to determine the number of each steps a person takes and popular as an exercise measuring device; followed by smart watches and smart glasses as the next largest application. In the smart watch category, Apple is rumored to be launching an iWatch soon, and both Google and Samsung are also looking to enter the segment.

While all the pieces are in place for the wearable technology and mobile health market to prosper, the mass adoption of activity monitors and similar devices will depend on the success of companies to move to so-called true lifestyle products. The devices by that point will be fashionable, resemble jewelry being worn or remain inconspicuous, allowing the wearer to integrate the gadgets with normal clothing and other accessories. The products should also be easy to use, reliable and competitively priced in order to maximize penetration among consumers.

Growth of the wearable electronics and fitness monitoring market will, in turn, provide good revenue opportunities for MEMS motion sensor manufacturers.

memsstar Limited, a provider of etch and deposition equipment and technology solutions to manufacturers of semiconductors and MEMS, today announced the appointment of Tony McKie as its new chief executive officer (CEO). McKie is tasked with capitalising on the company’s experience and reputation in the semiconductor and MEMS markets to drive its growth.

"memsstar is poised to take advantage of the significant growth potential of the MEMS and remanufactured semiconductor equipment markets," said Peter Connock, chairman of the board of memsstar. "Both MEMS and remanufactured equipment are forecast to see continuing growth over the next few years. Tony, with his industry experience and in-depth knowledge of technology, is ideally suited to ensure we maximize our opportunities in these markets. We look to Tony to advance our MEMS technology beyond our present capabilities and drive our efforts to expand our remanufactured equipment and services business."

Europe remains a center for semiconductor technology development in emerging applications along with the cost-effective manufacture of legacy products, both of which benefit from production-ready remanufactured legacy semiconductor processing equipment — a market poorly supported by conventional suppliers. Under McKie’s guidance, memsstar will expand its portfolio of process capabilities and services to better supply the needs of its customers.

At the same time, single wafer dry release etch is seeing global adoption by the leading advanced MEMS manufacturers to overcome the process challenges associated with traditional wet etch and batch etch processes. memsstar’s proprietary sacrificial vapour release etch technology is market-proven and positioned to take advantage of emerging requirements for MEMS manufacturing.

"Tony has been a key resource as the company has developed," said Andrew Elder, non-executive director representing Albion Ventures. "His extensive knowledge of the industry, together with his vision for ongoing development and expansion, makes him the obvious choice to lead the company through its next stage of growth."

As one of memsstar’s founders, McKie was responsible for developing the memsstar range of technology products and managing business development activities for the single wafer release etch platforms. He brings an extensive background in semiconductor equipment manufacturing through prior management roles at Electrotech, Lam Research and Applied Materials.

The global semiconductor materials market decreased 2 percent in 2012 compared to 2011 while worldwide semiconductor revenues declined 3 percent. Revenues of $47.11 mark the first decline in the semiconductor materials market in three years.

Total wafer fabrication materials and packaging materials were $23.38 billion and $23.74 billion, respectively. Comparable revenues for these segments in 2011 were $24.22 billion for wafer fabrication materials and $23.62 billion for packaging materials. 2012 is the first time packaging materials revenues exceeded wafer fabrication materials revenues. A substantial decline in silicon revenue contributed to the year-over-year decrease to the total semiconductor materials market.

For the third year in a row, Taiwan is the largest consumer of semiconductor materials with record spending of $10.32 billion due to its large foundry and advanced packaging base. Materials markets in China and South Korea also experienced increases in 2012, benefiting from strength in packaging materials. The materials market in Japan contracted 7 percent, with markets also contracting in Europe, North America, and Rest of World. (The ROW region is defined as Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, other areas of Southeast Asia and smaller global markets).

2011-2012 Semiconductor Materials Market by World Region
(Dollar in U.S. billions; Percentage Year-over-Year) 

Region 2011 2012 %Change
Taiwan 10.11 10.32 2%
Japan 9.21 8.53 -7%
Rest of World 8.21 8.09 -1%
South Korea 7.27 7.33 1%
China 4.87 5.07 4%
North America 4.86 4.74 -2%
Europe 3.31 3.03 -8%
Total 47.84 47.11 -2%

Source: SEMI April 2013

Note: Figures may not add due to rounding.

The Material Market Data Subscription (MMDS) from SEMI provides current revenue data along with seven years of historical data and a two-year forecast. A year subscription includes four quarterly updates for the material segments reports revenue for seven market regions (North America, Europe, ROW, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and China). The report also features detailed historical data for silicon shipments and revenues for photoresist, photoresist ancillaries, process gases and leadframes.

 

Controlling the shapes of nanometer-sized catalytic and electrocatalytic particles made from noble metals such as platinum and palladium may be more complicated than previously thought.

Using systematic experiments, researchers have investigated how surface diffusion – a process in which atoms move from one site to another on nanoscale surfaces – affects the final shape of the particles. The issue is important for a wide range of applications that use specific shapes to optimize the activity and selectivity of nanoparticles, including catalytic converters, fuel cell technology, chemical catalysis and plasmonics.

Results of the research could lead to a better understanding of how to manage the diffusion process by controlling the reaction temperature and deposition rate, or by introducing structural barriers designed to hinder the surface movement of atoms.

“We want to be able to design the synthesis to produce nanoparticles with the exact shape we want for each specific application,” said Younan Xia, a professor in the Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering at Georgia Tech and Emory University. “Fundamentally, it is important to understand how these shapes are formed, to visualize how this happens on structures over a length scale of about 100 atoms.”

The research was reported April 8 in the early online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The research was sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Controlling the shape of nanoparticles is important in catalysis and other applications that require the use of expensive noble metals such as platinum and palladium. For example, optimizing the shape of platinum nanoparticles can substantially enhance their catalytic activity, reducing demand for the precious material, noted Xia, who is a Georgia Research Alliance (GRA) eminent scholar in nanomedicine. Xia also holds joint appointments in the School of Chemistry and Biochemistry and the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at Georgia Tech

“Controlling the shape is very important to tuning the activity of catalysts and in minimizing the loading of the catalysts,” he said. “Shape control is also very important in plasmonic applications, where the shape controls where optical absorption and scattering peaks are positioned. Shape is also important to determining where the electrical charges will be concentrated on nanoparticles.”

Though the importance of particle shape at the nanoscale has been well known, researchers hadn’t before understood the importance of surface diffusion in creating the final particle shape. Adding atoms to the corners of platinum cubes, for instance, can create particles with protruding “arms” that increase the catalytic activity. Convex surfaces on cubic particles may also provide better performance. But those advantageous shapes must be created and maintained.

Natural energetic preferences related to the arrangement of atoms on the tiny structures favor a spherical shape that is not ideal for most catalysts, fuel cells and other applications. 

In their research, Xia and his collaborators varied the temperature of the process used to deposit atoms onto metallic nanocrystals that acted as seeds for the nanoparticles. They also varied the rates at which atoms were deposited onto the surfaces, which were determined by the injection rate at which a chemical precursor material was introduced. The diffusion rate is determined by the temperature, with higher temperatures allowing the atoms to move around faster on the nanoparticle surfaces. In the research, bromide ions were used to limit the movement of the added atoms from one portion of the particle to another.

Using transmission electron microscopy, the researchers observed the structures that were formed under different conditions. Ultimately, they found that the ratio of the deposition rate to the diffusion rate determines the final shape. When the ratio is greater than one, the adsorbed atoms tend to stay where they are placed. If the ratio is less than one, they tend to move.

“Unless the atomic reaction is at absolute zero, you will always have some diffusion,” said Xia, who holds the Brock Family Chair in the Department of Biomedical Engineering. “But if you can add atoms to the surface in the places that you want them faster than they can diffuse, you can control the final destination for the atoms.”

Xia believes the research may also lead to improved techniques for preserving the unique shapes of nanoparticles even at high operating temperatures.

“Fundamentally, it is very useful for people to know how these shapes are formed,” he said. “Most of these structures had been observed before, but people did not understand why they formed under certain conditions. To do that, we need to be able to visualize what happens on these tiny structures.”

Xia’s research team also studied the impact of diffusion on bi-metallic particles composed of both palladium and platinum. The combination can enhance certain properties, and because palladium is currently less expensive than platinum, using a core of palladium covered by a thin layer of platinum provides the catalytic activity of platinum while reducing cost.

In that instance, surface diffusion can be helpful in covering the palladium surface with a single monolayer of the platinum. Only the surface platinum atoms will be able to provide the catalytic properties, while the palladium core only serves as a support.

The research is part of a long-term study of catalytic nanoparticles being conducted by Xia’s research group. Other aspects of the team’s work addresses biomedical uses of nanoparticles in such areas as cancer therapy.

“We are very excited by this result because it is generic and can apply to understand and control diffusion on the surfaces of many systems,” Xia added. “Ultimately we want to see how we can take advantage of this diffusion to improve the catalytic and optical properties of these nanoparticles.”

The research team also included Xiaohu Xia, Shuifen Xie, Maochang Liu and Hsin-Chieh Peng at Georgia Tech; and Ning Lu, Jinguo Wang and Professor Moon J. Kim at the University of Texas at Dallas.

 CITATION: Xia, Xiaoho, et al., “On the role of surface diffusion in determining the shape or morphology of noble-metal nanocrystals,” (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 2013). http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/05/1222109110

Silex Microsystems, the world’s largest pure-play MEMS foundry, and BroadPak, a provider of ultra-high performance 2.5D silicon interposer and 3D integration technologies, today announced the immediate availability of their jointly developed silicon interposer solution in high-volume manufacturing. Leveraging the advanced interposer co-design methodology and system integration expertise of BroadPak with the proven interposer manufacturing capabilities of Silex, this new solution delivers a cost-effective, ultra-high performance, reliable and high-yield silicon interposer that will enable a broader market to realize the benefits of 2.5D packaging

 While market analyst firm Yole Dévelopement expects the market for interposers to grow by 88 percent annually through 2017, Silex and BroadPak believe their partnership can accelerate this market adoption by overcoming the cost, engineering, reliability and supply chain bottlenecks.  3D-IC designs are widely recognized as the next step towards meeting the growing performance requirements such as increased bandwidth, reduced latency, and lower power.  2.5D silicon interposers, which are double-sided die used to stack chips side-by-side, have emerged as the most effective way to accelerate the adoption of 3D-IC, but these solutions are costly and complex, which presents significant design, integration, reliability and supply chain challenges. Recognizing these bottlenecks, Silex and BroadPak believe their new 2.5D silicon interposer product solves these hurdles that have prevented many companies from participating in this space.

“This partnership is a critical step in enabling companies to benefit from silicon interposers because most companies don’t have the integration techniques and methodologies to even start a 2.5D IC design and the current solutions have been too costly and high-risk to implement,” said Peter Himes, Vice President of Marketing and Strategic Alliances for Silex Microsystems.  “The combined Silex/BroadPak solution opens up this market to a very large portion of customers that have been unable to compete in this space due to overwhelming cost, engineering and integration challenges.”

“BroadPak and Silex have created a technical solution and the supply chain infrastructure that the industry has been waiting for,” said Farhang Yazdani, President and CEO of BroadPak. “To date, silicon interposer technology has been limited to a very small number of companies. We are now enabling the mass adoption of silicon interposer by lowering the cost and providing the co-design, heterogeneous integration and the required supply chain infrastructure in a complete package.”

 The Silex/Broadpak finished product consists of a robust interposer for 2.5D packaging, which has been designed and characterized for thermal-stress and signal integrity performance by BroadPak and also optimized for manufacturing by Silex. The unique challenges of 2.5D/3D-IC packaging require special engineering expertise to deliver cost effective solutions to meet the reliability, warpage and signal/power integrity requirements of the packaged components as well as an optimized and robust manufacturing process.

STMicroelectronics has introduced the world’s smallest TVS diode for protecting sensitive electronics in consumer products and handhelds.

As the first such device to be offered in the industry’s smallest standard surface-mount outline of 0.45 x 0.2mm, the ESDAVLC6-1BV2 is one size smaller than today’s 0.6 x 0.3mm devices.

The value of the space saving to designers can be seen by comparing with other chip sizes used in smartphones and tablets.

"A complete motion-sensing IC for features such as indoor navigation and advanced user interface, such as ST’s LSM303D, measures just 3 x 3mm, while some power chips are as small as 2 x 2mm," explains Eric Paris, product marketing director, ASD & IPAD Division, STMicroelectronics. "Trimming 0.2mm or 0.1mm from each TVS can simplify placing components and routing connections, especially if the design contains several such devices."

The ESDAVLC6-1BV2 TVS diode fully satisfies the protection requirements specified in the international standard IEC 61000-4-2. Although other types of electrostatic-discharge (ESD) protectors, such as varistors, are available in the same size, these generally do not protect as effectively. ST’s new ESDAVLC6-1BV2 has a clamping voltage half that of the nearest competing varistor in the same size package, offering greater safety for the internal components. Although useful in many applications, varistors also age, providing progressively less protection with each ESD event clamped.

David DiPaola is Managing Director for DiPaola Consulting a company focused on engineering and management solutions for electromechanical systems, sensors and MEMS products.  A 17-year veteran of the field, he has brought many products from concept to production in high volume with outstanding quality.  His work in design and process development spans multiple industries including automotive, medical, industrial and consumer electronics.  He employs a problem solving-based approach working side-by-side with customers from startups to multi-billion dollar companies.  David also serves as Senior Technical Staff to The Richard Desich SMART Commercialization Center for Microsystems, is an authorized external researcher at The Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at NIST and is a Senior Member of IEEE. Previously, he has held engineering management and technical staff positions at Texas Instruments and Sensata Technologies, authored numerous technical papers, is a respected lecturer and holds 5 patents.  To learn more, please visit www.dceams.com.   

The fourth article of the MEMS new product development blog is Part 2 of the critical design and process steps that lead to successful prototypes.  In the last article, the discussion focused on definition of the customer specification, product research, a solid model and engineering analysis to validate the design direction.  The continuation of this article reviews tolerance stacks, DFMEA, manufacturing assessment and process mapping.       

A tolerance stack is the process of evaluating potential interferences based on the interaction of components’ tolerances.  On a basic level, a cylinder may not fit in a round hole under all circumstances if the cylinder’s outside diameter is on the high size and the inside diameter of the hole is on the lower size causing an interference when there is an overlap of their tolerances.  This situation can become complex when multiple components are involved because it results in the number of variables reaching double digits.  A simple approach to tolerance stacks is using a purely linear or worst case approach where full tolerances are added to determine potential for interference.  However, experience from producing millions of sensors shows this approach is overly conservative and a non optimal design practice.  If tolerances of the assembly follow a normal distribution, are statistically independent, are bilateral and are small relative to the dimension, a more realistic approach is a modified root sum of the squares (MRSS) tolerance stack technique.  In this approach the root sum of the squares of the tolerances are multiplied by a safety factor to determine the maximum or minimum geometry for a set of interrelated components.  The safety factor accounts for cases where RSS assumptions are not fully true.  This approach is only recommended when 4 or more tolerances are at play.  If only 2 tolerances are present as in the first example above, it is recommended to perform a linear tolerance stack.  In some cases, linear tolerances need to be added to a MRSS calculation (MRSS calculation + linear tolerances = result).  Pin position inside a clearance slot for anti-rotation is linear tolerance that is added to a MRSS calculation.  Reasoning for this is the pin can be any location in the slot at any given time and does not follow a normal statistical distribution. 

An example of a MRSS tolerance stack is provided below to review this concept in more detail.    Let’s determine if the wirebond coming off of the sense element will interfere with the metal housing.  A modified RSS tolerance stack shows line to line contact and only a small adjustment in the design is needed to resolve the issue.  The linear tolerance stack shows a significant interference what requires a larger adjustment.  Dimensions and tolerances are illustrative only.

Figure 1: MEMS Sensor Package (mm)

Figure 2

Modified Root Sum Square Versus Linear Tolerance Stack Approaches

 0.17 > SF*(((T1^2) + (T2^2) + (T3^2) + (T4^2) + (T5^2))^(0.5))        

MRSS Approach

0.17 > 1.2*((0.01^2 + 0.05^2 + 0.025^2 + 0.10^2 + 0.08^2)^0.5) = 0.17

0.17 > T1 + T2 + T3 + T4 + T5       

Linear Approach

0.17 > 0.01 + 0.05 + 0.025 + 0.1 + 0.08 = 0.27

An excellent text on this subject is Dimensioning and Tolerancing Handbook, by Paul J. Drake, Jr. and published by McGraw-Hill.

DFMEA, design failure mode and effects analysis. is another tool that is extremely effective to identify troublesome areas of the design that need to be addressed to prevent failures in validation and the field.  Simply put this is a systematic approach to identify potential failure modes and their effects and finding solutions to mitigate the risk of a potential failure.  A Risk Priority Number (RPN) is then established based on rating and multiplying severity, occurrence and detection of the failure mode (severity*occurrence*detection = RPN).  The input to the tool is the design feature’s function, the reverse of the design function, the effect of the desired function not being achieved, and the cause of the desired function not being achieved.  There is also an opportunity to add design controls prevention and detection.  The outputs are the corrective actions taken to mitigate risk of a potential failure. Figure 3 shows an brief example of this approach for a MEMS microphone.

Figure 3: Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis

Further information on DFMEA can be found at Six Sigma Academy or AIAG.  Corrective action section left out of illustration for clarity.

 It is also extremely important that the manufacturing process be considered from the first day of the design process.  Complete overlap of design and process development are the true embodiment of concurrent design.  The following illustration depicts this well:

Figure 4: Concurrent Design

Hence before a MEMS design is started, discussions should be initiated with the foundry, component fabrication suppliers and the process engineers responsible for the package assembly.  These meetings are excellent times to review new capabilities, initial ideas and explore new concepts.   Considering the design from a process perspective simultaneously with other design requirements leads to highly manufacturable products that are often lowest cost.    In essence, the design engineer is performing a constant manufacturing assessment with each step in the design phase.  This methodology also encourages process short loops in the design phase to develop new manufacturing steps.  This expedites the prototype process with upfront learning and provides feedback to the design team for necessary changes.  The additional benefit of this approach is the boarder team is on board when prototyping begins as they had a say in shaping the design.   

Another tool to thoroughly understand the process in the design phase is process mapping.  Using this methodology, process inputs, outputs, flow, steps, variables, boundaries, relationships and decision points are identified and documented.  The level of detail is adjustable and to start there can be a broad overview with more detailed added as the design progresses.  This quickly provides a pictorial view of the process complexity, the variables effecting the design function, gaps, unintended relationships and non value added steps.  It can also be used as a starting point for setting up the sample line in a logical order to assemble prototypes, estimating cycle time and establishing rework loops.  To further clarify this method, a partial process map for a deep reactive ion etch process is provided:

Figure 5: Partial Process Map of Deep Reactive Ion Etch Process

This process map is not all inclusive but illustrative of the process flow, critical parameters, inputs and a decision point.  The personal protection equipment, tools used and relationships in the process are omitted for brevity.  With this level of process detail available to the design team, the complexity of feature fabrication can be evaluated, anticipated variation from process parameters can be analyzed and much more possibly prompting design changes. 

 Knowledge of and attention to detail in these eight critical, yet often overlooked steps are essential in the design of highly manufacturable, low cost and robust products.  These methodologies create a strong foundation upon which additional skills are built to provide a balanced design approach.  In next month’s blog, the design review process and a checklist will be discussed to help engineers prepare for this important peer review process.