Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Testing: A Reveiw
Muhammad Shoaib1, Nor Hisham B Hamid2
Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
Bandar Seri Iskandar, 31750 Tronoh, Perak Malaysia
1
shoaib-shafi@hotmail.com, 2 hishmid@petronas.com.my,
Abstract This paper presents a review about testing of MEMS devices. It highlights the current issues of testing and test
time consumption in detail. A comprehensive process flow is presented to tackle the issues. Different proposed test techniques
have been discussed to achieve high degree of testing parallelism in order to grab the serious challenges of huge test cost and
time consumption.
KeywordsMEMS, ATE, Parallel Testing
I. INTRODUCTION
Since the mid of 1970 MEMS (Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems) have emerged as an innovative technology by creating new
opportunities in physical [1], chemical [2] and biological [3] sensor and actuator applications. Although MEMS technology emerges
from IC fabrication techniques but test methods [4] of both technologies significantly differ from each other. This is because MEMS
devices respond to both electrical and non-electrical (physical, chemical, biological, optical) stimuli.
MEMS devices are tested at two stages, the production and the packaging stage. This testing is essential to verify the
performance metrics of the device, parametrically and functionally. In the 1 st stage, MEMS are tested by measuring all AC
and DC parameters at wafer level [5, 6] using an ATE (Automatic Test Equipment) [7]. This test phase sorts out the wafer
for good and bad die by exploiting Design for Testability circuitries within chip, for instance self test mechanisms and
scan chains, similarly to common integrated circuits. Then dicing is performed and good devices are packaged. In the 2 nd
and final stage, these packaged devices are retested parametrically to confirm their overall functionalities. Table.1 shows
the testable parameter of few devices. After the parametric testing, calibration and functional testing is performed to
assure the confirmation of the device to mechanical and electrical requirements.
Functional testing is essential for every MEMS sensor before proper utilization. Therefore some intrinsic constants or trimming values
related to the device working principle are captured during calibration as reported in [8-10]. These trimming values vary from device
to device and are stored into the device under test (DUT) by using ad-hoc registers, fuse transistors, trimmed resistors and a flash
memory. Functionality of the device is measured by applying a known physical and electrical stimulation and comparing the device
output. If the measured values are different from the estimated one the device is considered fail, otherwise it is accepted as a good
device. Comprehensive details of infrastructures about Automatic Test Stations and methods for MEMS testing are reported in [11,
12].
Self-test techniques for several commercial MEMS are reported in [13-15], these are based on BIST (built in self-test)
mechanism capable for testing device with electrical stimuli. However, previous MEMS BIST techniques cannot be used
as a substitute of traditional manufacturing test. The reason is that due to the variations in device fabrication process, the
electrostatic force of self-test mode become different for individual MEMS device and the validation process requires the
complete device testing using external test equipment [15]. The BIST methods are used for online, offline and in-field
testing. Therefore BIST mechanism increases the time and process of testing because the device cannot perform if the
BIST itself isnt tested and verified initially. Consequently, testing become essential for each part of the device using
automatic test equipment before shipping it to the market.
In MEMS manufacturing process, testing has an important role to verify performance and reliability, however this
testing process consumes a huge cost [16]. A plethora of work is reported on the cost of MEMS testing process. C. G.
Masi and M. F. Cortese [17, 18] reported that 25-35% cost is consumed in overall testing process. According to Texas
Instruments [19], in case of testing digital micromirror device, the cost of final test (Packaged device testing) is 14%
whereas the cost of wafer level test is 8%. MEPTEC (Microelectronics Packaging and Test Engineering Council) [20]
reported, the cost of MEMS testing is 20-45% of the total device manufacturing cost. On the other hand, in MEMS test
standard report of MIG (MEMS Industry Group) [21] testing cost at manufacturing level can accede up to 50% due to
device complexity and maturity. Recently, V. Henttonen et al. [22] reported more than 60% testing cost of the device, the
reason of this huge cost is that testing systems are mostly associated with automotive sensor testing which can be costly to
be adopted in as testing systems for ordinary consumer MEMS devices mentioned in [23].
Therefore it is utmost important to find a suitable alternate to reduce this huge cost. A part work has been reported on
the reduction of cost in final testing. One way of cost reduction technique is to increase the test throughput by testing
multiple DUTs (device under test) in parallel [24, 25]. Substantial research efforts have been practiced to reduce test time
and cost by examining various aspects of test [26]. These techniques of parallel testing have widely used in VLSI test
areas [27]. However these testing techniques are not fully applicable to MEMS because MEMS devices operate under
working principle of different domains (electrostatic, electromagnetic, electrothermal, piezoelectric etc.).
Recently available technique is parallel testing of single domain using electrical and non-electrical stimuli for DUT
response [28-31]. In this work, enhancing the parallelism of test system has been tried to reduce the cost. On the other
hand, L. Ciganda, et al [29] introduced a technique of parallel testing of different devices i.e. accelerometer and gyroscope
in parallel. However the mentioned in the next section is applicable to test the devices which belong to single domain
only. This review motivates to come up with a cost effective system for parallel testing of MEMS. The parallel testing
mechanism, capable of testing devices using electrical or physical test stimuli can prove to be efficient and cost effective.
Literature shows the customized methodologies of testing a variety of MEMS devices [32-39] that are available in the
market. Table 1 represents the customized testing techniques for different sensors.
Table 1: customized test techniques for MEMS.
Device
Testing Parameters
Test Technique
Ref
Accelerometer
Force, capacitance,
displacement, Sensitivity
[40]
Gyroscope
Displacement,
Vout,
[41]
Pressure sensor
Capacitance,
pressure,
voltage
Response,
capacitance,
frequency, temperature
[42]
Gas sensor
rotation,
Microphone
[43]
[44]
parameters were being occurred from device to device in case of producing MEMS devices in bulk. ATE was unable to
perform proper calibration of these devices due to lack of modularity and flexibility. It was improved by changing
electrical and nonelectrical interfaces of DUT. Moreover these efforts and test system were limited to accelerometers only.
Various approaches to test MEMS optical devices and flow sensors were reported by Hans G. Kerkhoff [10]. Packaging
influence alters the device specifications due to change in environment. Therefore test system had the issues in handling
mechanism of non-electric input for flow sensor. That increased the test time, therefore novel test handlers were
developed to reduce time and enhance parallelism. The test systems are also limited to the specific devices. Berny Chen
reported an effort of improving traditional ATE in [54]. The technique was able to test only 16-sites in parallel. Therefore
QSPI (quad serial port interface) was used to enhance the parallelism. However ATE was confined to test the
accelerometers only.
A case study based on accelerometers testing was introduced by L. Ciganda et al [28]. In conventional tester, interfaces
of DUTs were connected through wires, which were being stretched and twisted due to mechanical movement of test
stage. Some DUTs were being suffered through the lack of signal communication during testing process, resulting in raise
the test time and reducing the parallelism. Then an enhanced architecture was proposed that was able to implement
calibration and testing process by hardware, serial interface module (SIM), reducing the amount of tester internal wires.
Their efforts and test system was also restricted to accelerometers only. In [29] L. Ciganda et al. also used the FPGA
technique in conventional testing machine of MEMS devices . Lengthy communication distance and wires between tester
and DUT interface were the limiting issues in ATE, tending to limit the electrical stimulation frequency, which ultimately
slowed down the test process. High testing parallelism was achieved to overcome such limitations using FPGA module.
These techniques were being used on commercial gyroscopes and accelerometers.
Several MEMS test systems introduced by [55] have the ability to test multiple MEMS applications like accelerometer,
gyroscope, pressure sensor, magnetic sensor and microphone. These systems are only capable of testing single domain
devices in parallel. However their modification is required to test different domain devices in parallel. C. Schaeffel et al in
[56] introduced the design of interferometry test station for parallel testing of optical MEMS. The inspection system has
the ability of testing up to 100 DUTs simultaneously. As commercial optical test systems available in the market have
ability of testing devices serially, which consume a lot of testing time and costs. Hence they used the concept of parallel
measurement of multiple dies to obtain a significant reduction of measurement time. Another technique has been reported
by Florian Oesterle et al [57] for a massive parallel test of MEMS microphones. A reconstruction method was
adopted by utilizing techniques of tomographic imaging. The specific parameters of all parallel connected DUTs are
superimposed through one signal and the DUT response is read-out with the reference of single measurement of device.
Most of efforts are being emphasized on modification of conventional test systems. Final testing of MEMS devices is
still in its formative stage, the techniques proposed in [28, 29] are limited to parallel testing of single domain
(Electrostatic) MEMS accelerometer and gyroscope. The current test systems [10, 54, 55] utilize both electrical and
nonelectrical stimuli for final testing and calibration. But the non-electrical stimuli such as humidity, pressure, motion,
and other are intrinsically slower than electrical signals and as a result, it takes long test time and it is not cost effective.
Ongoing changes in MEMS market are the warnings for future testing issues and challenges. A lack of test standards has a
negative indirect effect on the business of MEMS. There is a need of cost effective test methodology. Testing imposes
large direct costs on the product as test equipment is expensive and test programs are limited to test specific devices. The
flow chart in fig.1 shows the efforts that are being performed to improve the test systems to reduce the cost of testing.
Table 3:
Integrated system
Analog
mixed
signal
Microelectromechanical
testing
and circuits
systems
Fault model
Hierarchical, behavioral,
macro model, transistor,
physical, parametric and
catastrophic faults etc.
Test technique
Pole-Zero Analysis,
Artificial neural network,
HSPICE, SABER,
VHDL-AMS, ATPG,
Diagnosis of soft faults
based on fractional
correlation, BIST etc.
sensors and actuators have different and distinctive failure mechanisms by their classifications and nature. In ICs, testing
only electrical parameters are measured to find the fault, while in MEMS testing both the electrical and mechanical
parameters are tested to deal with the failure. MEMS causes of failures and its procurement are summarized in Table 3.
Table 4. Summarizes various MEMS groups, their causes of failure and procurement of the failures.
Group
Group 1
Chemical Sensor
Nozzles
Microfluidic
DNA Sequencers
Group 1 or 2
Accelerometers
Causes of Failures
Test
Ref
Dielectric Breakdown
[64]
Fracture,
Fatigue, Mechanical
Charging, Change in friction
Wear, 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Group 2
Pressure Sensors
Gyroscopes
Group 3
Thermal Actuators
1.
Valves
Micro relays
Group 4
Electrostatic Actuators
Optical Shutters
Mirror Devices
Gear Devices
Micro turbines/Fans
[65, 66]
[67, 68]
[69]
[70]
[73, 74]
[75]
Stochastic method was used to analyze the pull-in and pullout voltages for prediction of device life time.
[79, 80]
[81]
[81]
[71, 72]
[76, 77]
[78]
[82]
[82]
MEMS structures consist of flexible or rigid membranes or beams that are clamped from one or two sided and some
contains perforation on its surface. These devices also contains insulated or conductive flat layers, gears, cavities and
hinges integrated with an electronic readout circuit. On the other hand more than one devices are being integrated in a
single chip. Single axis moving MEMS structures have been upgraded to multi axis movements. MEMS are getting more
multifaceted design features to fit for more applications. Therefore improvements are required for better performance of
these devices, consequently it is deem necessary to aware about the root causes of device failure at the preliminary stage.
The failure analysis can help to understand the basic reasons of behavior faulty device during the testing process from
wafer level to the final device packaging. Failure mechanism due to defective interconnects and low compatibility results in
poor performance of the device. Table 5 indicates the foremost mechanical failures of MEMS devices. These devices are
rapidly growing in the electronic market because of improved performance. No doubt, numerous mode of failures can
occur in poorly designed MEMS devices, while carefully designed MEMS products can withstand harsh reliability issues.
Generally it is considered that the MEMS failures are related to only mechanical parts of the device, however, electrical
failures have also been ignored occasionally. These can be originated due to contact failure, electromigration, and dielectric
degradation. Table 6 shows common electrical failures of MEMS devices.
Table 5. MEMS MECHANICAL FAILURES
Mechanical Fracture
Failur
Shock
e
Mechanical Interference
Cause
disorder, Excessive Loading,
s
drops
Stiction
Failur
Capillary forces
e
Cause
s
Wear
Failur
e
Cause
s
Overload
Fatigue
Corrosion
Excessive stress
Residual stress
Chemical bonding
Interaction of atoms or
molecules at the surface
of close contact
Surface fatigue
Corrosion
Abrasion
Adhesion
Chemical interaction
between two surfaces
Intrinsic stress
Applied stress
Residual stress
Applied stress
Electrostatic
charging
Potential difference
at two closed
surfaces
Electro-migration
Mismatch load
Manufacturing - induced
Rough handling in Industry
Testing challenges and issues in different categories of MEMS sensor and actuators
MEMS devices are categorized in six different classes. The classification is based on their operating mechanism and
applications and are discussed in this section.
MEMS Sensors [83] are designed and fabricated for sensing multiple environmental changes. The sensors are capable of
sensing behavior of fluids, force, inertia, gas, etc. Testing of this category of devices many challenges lay ahead the test
engineer due to complex sensing functionality and a variety of designs. The test mechanism developed for theses sensors
also have the issues of testing as reported in [46, 84, 85], as each devices required individual test bench to analyze the
sensing environment. Therefore for MEMS fault or failure analysis [], available testing techniques [] are limited. As these
tools and testing techniques have been leveraged from the IC technology, therefore these are helpful in resolving various
fault mechanisms to an extent. The major dilemma is to discover the faulty origins in multiple devices that are put
together on single test bench for mass production. Recently existing tools [86] have limitations to test specific MEMS
devices electrically and mechanically. The emerging challenge is to analyze and identify unique source of failure during
assessment of multiple die on single test stage. Unfortunately there is a lack of knowledge in the literature regarding
MEMS failure mechanism.
In the development of a test bench for gas sensor, the main obstacle is the chamber designing for chemical environment
for the device sensibility. Mechanical sensors [87] that are designed to sense physical changes like motion, pressure, are
relatively easy to test or characterize. While chemical sensors have issues of selectively in case of sensing targeted gases.
Et. Al. reported in [], carbon mono oxide CO and H2 sensors are operated in a variety of challenging environments of
industries. Fast response is the critical requirement for theses sensors therefore readout mechanism of testing system faces
high level of noise signals because detecting device signal at ppm level to find the selectivity of these gases is very
cumbersome effort. [88] reported the sensitivity issues in ethanol sensor during the device analysis, without readout
circuitry interface on chip these sensors become difficult to characterize.
The packaged devices that have specific environment, any change in the environment or defective packaging may cause
incorrect outcomes and induce additional faulty behavior during testing. In MEMS analysis [89], lid removing changes the
device environment; causes change in functionality. Device faces malfunctioning due to contaminant particles,
environmental change and other potential defect.
MEMS actuators [90, 91] generate power using any electrical or physical stimulus. These mechanical components generate
power and motion for other MEMS components. A variety of devices for example BioMEMS, RF MEMS, microfluidic, or
optical MEMS need some forms of actuations to interact with another micro structure, in moving a fluid or a micro mirror.
MEMS actuators are stimulated under different electrical domains. Electrothermal actuators [] exploit heat producing due to
power dissipation in the device. The increase in temperature causes expansion in the structure, then necessary displacement
is induced for motion. In electrostatic actuators [92], electric field is involved to attract other parts of device to generate
motion []. Prevailing fault modes of stiction [71] and particle contamination were observed in both thermal and electrostatic
actuators. Actuators can contain rubbing surfaces which may result in formation of wear or debris []. The major concerns
for testing of MEMS actuators must be nondestructive regarding fault analysis of stiction films and coatings, and functional
testing of multiple devices in parallel. Every type of actuator may have distinctive failure mechanisms and tribulations for
fault analysis.
Thermal actuators face the typical fault mechanisms of thermal degradation [93].The side effects of electrothermal cycles in
these devices are under observations. Analysis under stress [94] can cause faults by introducing permanent deformation in
the mechanical structure. This defect can produce out of plane nonlinear motion of thermal actuator and due to increase in
temperature, actuator can be welded to the substrate. Analyzing thermal behavior of dynamic structures is a difficult task.
Techniques involved to generate thermal actuations may be destructive; it can slow down the motion of actuator. The
significance of understanding about heating effect of a thermal actuator and occurrence of localized heat can support in
thermal behavior modeling and reducing the fault mechanisms.
Electrostatic actuators typically have two sets of comb fingers; the actuator is derived due to the change in polarity of the
electric fields at the opposite fingers. In multi structure MEMS devices, occurrence of defects in comb fingers may be the
origins of failure. Rapid identification of failure mechanism of comb finger is essential.
Table 7
Category
RF MEMS
Devices
Switches,
Resonators,
Lab-on-chip
Capacitor
Varactor
Sensors
Filters
Source of failure
stiction failure,
surface
contaminations,
accumulation
of
charges
in
the
dielectric part,
Optical
MEMS
Sensor
Resonator,
Optical
buffer
Mirrors
Filters
High
surface
roughness
stiction,
accumulation
of
charges
Microfluidic
s
Lab-on-chip
Biosensors
Gas sensors
fluid contamination,
leakage
No compatibility with
MEMS
short-circuit defect,
catastrophic
and
parametric faults due to
structural defects
Testing Issues
A short is occurred
when two parts of the
device stick to one
another.
Major issue due to left
over charge in the
dielectric
causes
increase in voltage
required for the device
actuation and signal
transmission.
Other
issues
of
catastrophic failure can
be occurred due to
constant increase in
voltage that causes the
dielectric breakdown.
Observations
A challenge in RF
MEMS testing is to
analyze stiction failure
nondestructively
Tracing the genuine
adhesion point without
the removal any part of
component
is
challenging.
Therefore
knowledge
about
the
surface
contact of the devices is
essential to understand
the roughness of contact
area.
Therefore understanding
about contact mechanics
is important to tackle the
issues about contact
area, geometry and the
asperity in contact area.
roughness
of surface roughness of
micromirror
surface, single mirror can be
stiction due to the determined feasibly and
accumulation of charges it takes time for analysis
that causes stuck in of
various
mirror
actuation.
locations.
tracing faults of shorts The surface roughness
and stiction beneath the analysis of arrays of
mirror surface
mirrors is not reasonable
Cracks
during using current AFM
detachment
of
the techniques.
micromirror
during to develop a technique
failure analysis under that should be capable
mirror surface.
of determining surface
roughness of entire
array or collection of
mirrors in parallel
device is flushed of It has been investigated
fluid before analysis; in that during typical
this
effort
may analysis using SEM, it is
negotiate the failure necessary
that
the
mechanism and induce device is flushed of fluid
erroneous outcomes.
before analysis;
The issues of fluid There is need of
contamination,
modifying
SEM
deprocessing,
leak techniques to achieve
detection
and high quality resolution
compatibility
with of microfluidic systems
MEMS.
during an analysis of
pressure or flow sensor
Ref
[95]
[96]
[97]
[98]
[99]
[100]
[101]
[102,
103]
[104,
105]
[106]
[107]
Lab-on-chip
Biosensors
fluid contamination,
leakage,
blockage of channel,
Cracks
compatibility
experience
analogous
tribulations
with
the
existence of additional
biological materials
[108]
[109]
[110,
111]
they observed the defect escape of 0.2% and yield loss of 0.1. N. Dumas et al. [115] developed online testing technique
for sensors using superposition of the test stimuli on the specifications. They utilized the signal processing technique to
reduce the fluctuations of test output by encoding the test stimulus through pseudo-random sequence. They also studied
the overall test time and level of perturbation rejection.
The dynamic Electrostatic Force Microscopy is used in [116] to characterize the beam resonators.
The resonator was actuated by placing probe cantilever above the beam. Then modulated signal
was applied to the probe cantilever. The resonance frequency response of the test beams was
analyzed by studying coupled electrostatic interaction between the conductive beams. A. Izadian et
al. [117] developed fault diagnostic system for MEMS using multiple model adaptive estimation technique. They used
Kalman filters to model the fault of the system and implemented to diagnose the fault in MEMS in real time application.
Lateral comb MEMS resonators are fabricated to validate the fault diagnosis unit in multiple model adaptive estimation
technique. They also developed another fault diagnosis technique [118] for MEMS resonator by combining least square
forgetting-factor method and multiple-model adaptive estimation method. This technique identified the parameters of
slowly time-varying systems. Another work developed by Izadian [119] is the self-tuning-based parameter estimation
technique for fault diagnosis of MEMS. He used this technique to recognize the parameters of system and generation of
residual signals. Alena [120] developed an anti stiction and self-recovery mechanism in order to recover the functioning
of RF-MEMS switches in case of malfunctioning due to stiction. An effective heat-based mechanism was designed in
order release the stuck component. Reppa [121] developed a fault detection and diagnosis (FDD) technique for MEMS.
Parametric faults can be captured, isolated and identified with the help of this technique. This technique depends on
estimation of parameters arrayed in a set membership identification framework.
Observation
Mode
Ref
Optical Microscopy
Non-destructive
[122]
extended depth-of-focus,
displacements
Non-destructive
[123]
Non-destructive
[124]
destructive
[125]
Non-destructive
[126]
Non-destructive
[127, 128]
Non-destructive
[129]
Non-destructive
[130]
Scanning Electron
Microscopy (SEM)
Laser-Doppler vibrometer
Computed tomography
(CT)
Interferometry
Transmission electron
abnormal
vertical
microscopy (TEM)
Energy dispersive X-ray
spectroscopy (EDS)
Wavelength dispersive Xray spectroscopy (WDS)
Atomic force microscopy
(AFM)
Auger electron
spectroscopy (AES)
Secondary ion mass
spectroscopy (SIMS)
Thermally-induced voltage
alteration (TIVA)
Resistive contrast imaging
(RCI)
Infrared Microscopy
Light Emission
Acoustic Emission
Laser Cutting
Lift-off Technique
Non-destructive
[131]
Non-destructive
[132]
Non-destructive
[133, 134]
Non-destructive
[135]
destructive
[136, 137]
Non-destructive
[138]
Non-destructive
[139]
Non-destructive
[140]
Non-destructive
[141]
Non-destructive
[142]
destructive
[143]
Non-destructive
[144]
VI-Summery
MEMS devices are enormously dissimilar in their application and function. Test engineers must be multi-disciplinary in the
field of MEMS devices. Various limited tools and techniques leveraged from the VLSI technology are being utilized in
MEMS testing, however there is need of developing new test tools for the diagnosis of different faults. Several classes of
devices discussed in this literature have common issues related to MEMS testing. It is deemed necessary to share
knowledge among research institutions and industries to develop tools and techniques for faults localization to speed up the
MEMS manufacturing and lowering the device cost. MEMS can only be penetrated as an emerging technology until the
cost of testing is reduced substantially as well as valued added technique is applied at the early stage of the market. MEMS
testing is fetching difficult challenges, for the reason that conventional electrical testing is unable to comprehend the
mechanical behavior of a MEMS device. In addition mechanical behavior requires different technique to test it (e.g. flow,
movement, pressure etc.) Therefore integration of multi-function in devices increases the testing problems as a function of
the device complexity. Techniques of MEMS testing are different in development processes i.e design, prototype, and
production. In the design phase, it is essential for the engineers to know the requirements of device testing and it should be
cost effective and reliable as a predictor of device performance. The Design for Test (DFT) is becoming a paramount as
MEMS designers are facing the pressure of more cost and time-to-market
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the UTP GA funding agency as well as the Department of Electrical & Electronic
Engineering of Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
Germany, 2012.
[23] K. Lightman, "MEMS and Sensor Trends," MEMS Industry Group, p. 29, 2013.
[24] S. Delgado, "Parallel testing techniques for optimizing test program execution and
reducing test time," in AUTOTESTCON, 2008 IEEE, 2008, pp. 439-441.
[25] E. H. Volkerink, A. Khoche, J. Rivoir, and K. D. Hilliges, "Test economics for multi-site test
with modern cost reduction techniques," in VLSI Test Symposium, 2002. (VTS 2002).
Proceedings 20th IEEE, 2002, pp. 411-416.
[26] T. Adachi, A. Pramanick, and M. Elston, "Parallel, multi-DUT testing in an open architecture
test system," in Test Conference, 2005. Proceedings. ITC 2005. IEEE International, 2005,
pp. 9 pp.-890.
[27] P. Cochran, G. Kovar, and T. Pham. (2002, July 13). Comparison of Final Test Handling
Strategies for Massively Parallel Test of Logic Devices. Available: http://www.futurefab.com/documents.asp?d_ID=943
[28] L. Ciganda, P. Bernardi, M. S. Reorda, D. Barbieri, M. Straiotto, and L. Bonaria, "A tester
architecture suitable for MEMS calibration and testing," in Test Conference (ITC), 2010
IEEE International, 2010, pp. 1-1.
[29] L. Ciganda Brasca, P. Bernardi, M. Sonza Reorda, D. Barbieri, L. Bonaria, R. Losco, et al., "A
Parallel Tester Architecture for Accelerometer and Gyroscope MEMS Calibration and Test,"
Journal of Electronic Testing, vol. 27, pp. 389-402, 2011.
[30] F. Su, S. Ozev, and K. Chakrabarty, "Concurrent testing of droplet-based microfluidic
systems for multiplexed biomedical assays," in Test Conference, 2004. Proceedings. ITC
2004. International, 2004, pp. 883-892.
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
D. Zheng, H. Dagui, Z. Deyin, and W. Wenrong, "An Automatic MEMS Testing System based
on Computer Microvision," in Mechatronics and Automation, Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE
International Conference on, 2006, pp. 854-858.
P. V. Cicek, T. Saha, B. Waguih, F. Nabki, and M. N. El-Gamal, "Design of a low-cost MEMS
monolithically-integrated relative humidity sensor," in Microelectronics (ICM), 2010
International Conference on, 2010, pp. 172-175.
U. Kang and K. D. Wise, "A high-speed capacitive humidity sensor with on-chip thermal
reset," Electron Devices, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 47, pp. 702-710, 2000.
A. L. Herrera-May, P. J. Garca-Ramrez, L. A. Aguilera-Corts, E. Figueras, J. MartinezCastillo, E. Manjarrez, et al., "Mechanical design and characterization of a resonant
magnetic field microsensor with linear response and high resolution," Sensors and
Actuators A: Physical, vol. 165, pp. 399-409, 2011.
S. Baglio, L. Latorre, and P. Nouet, "Resonant magnetic field microsensors in standard
CMOS technology," in Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference, 1999.
IMTC/99. Proceedings of the 16th IEEE, 1999, pp. 452-457 vol.1.
Y. Hui-Yang, Q. Ming, N. Meng, and H. Qing-An, "A MEMS pressure sensor based on Hall
effect," in Sensors, 2011 IEEE, 2011, pp. 218-221.
R. S. Popovic, Z. Randjelovic, and D. Manic, "Integrated Hall-effect magnetic sensors,"
Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, vol. 91, pp. 46-50, 2001.
A. F. Malik, Z. A. Burhanudin, and V. Jeoti, "A flexible Polyimide based SAW delay line for
corrosion detection," in National Postgraduate Conference (NPC), 2011, 2011, pp. 1-6.
S. Ahmadi, C. Korman, M. Zaghloul, and H. Kuan-Hsun, "CMOS integrated gas sensor chip
using SAW technology," in Circuits and Systems, 2003. ISCAS '03. Proceedings of the 2003
International Symposium on, 2003, pp. IV-848-IV-851 vol.4.
T. Dar, K. Suryanarayanan, and A. Geisberger, "No Physical Stimulus Testing and
Calibration for MEMS Accelerometer," Microelectromechanical Systems, Journal of, vol. 23,
pp. 811-818, 2014.
Y. Zhang, Y. Wu, X. Wu, X. Xi, and J. Wang, "A Novel Vibration Mode Testing Method for
Cylindrical Resonators Based on Microphones," Sensors, vol. 15, pp. 1954-1963, 2015.
Y. Wang and V. Chodavarapu, "Differential Wide Temperature Range CMOS Interface Circuit
for Capacitive MEMS Pressure Sensors," Sensors, vol. 15, pp. 4253-4263, 2015.
M.-Z. Yang and C.-L. Dai, "Ethanol Microsensors with a Readout Circuit Manufactured Using
the CMOS-MEMS Technique," Sensors, vol. 15, pp. 1623-1634, 2015.
J. Li, J. Makkonen, M. Broas, J. Hokka, T. T. Mattila, M. Paulasto-Krockel, et al., "Reliability
assessment of a MEMS microphone under shock impact loading," in Thermal, Mechanical
and Multi-Physics Simulation and Experiments in Microelectronics and Microsystems
(EuroSimE), 2013 14th International Conference on, 2013, pp. 1-6.
T. Sviridova, M. Lobur, U. Marikutsa, and D. Korpyljov, "MEMS Testing: Goals and Needs," in
Modern Problems of Radio Engineering, Telecommunications, and Computer Science,
2006. TCSET 2006. International Conference, 2006, pp. 442-443.
R. D. Blanton, "The Challenge of MEMS Test," presented at the Proceedings of the 2000
IEEE International Test Conference, 2000.
H. G. Kerkhoff, "Microsystem Testing: Challenge Or Common Knowledge," in Test
Symposium, 1998. ATS '98. Proceedings. Seventh Asian, 1998, pp. 510-511.
M. Lubaszewski, E. F. Cota, and B. Courtois, "Microsystems testing: an approach and open
problems," in Design, Automation and Test in Europe, 1998., Proceedings, 1998, pp. 524528.
L. G. Salmon, "Testing requirements for microelectromechanical systems (MEMS)," in
AUTOTESTCON '98. IEEE Systems Readiness Technology Conference., 1998 IEEE, 1998, p.
160.
S. Tatyana, K. Yuriy, and K. Dmytro, "An Overview of MEMS Testing Technologies," in
Perspective Technologies and Methods in MEMS Design, 2006. MEMSTECH 2006.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on, 2006, pp. 15-18.
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79]
[80]
[81]
[82]
[83]
[84]
[85]
[86]
[87]
[88]
[89]
X. J. Liang and S. Q. Gao, "The adhesion failure analysis of the MEMS gyroscope with comb
capacitor," in Reliability, Maintainability and Safety, 2009. ICRMS 2009. 8th International
Conference on, 2009, pp. 1234-1236.
C. Patel, P. McCluskey, and D. Lemus, "Performance and reliability of mems gyroscopes at
high temperatures," in Thermal and Thermomechanical Phenomena in Electronic Systems
(ITherm), 2010 12th IEEE Intersociety Conference on, 2010, pp. 1-5.
H. Kapels, R. Aigner, and J. Binder, "Fracture strength and fatigue of polysilicon determined
by a novel thermal actuator [MEMS]," Electron Devices, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 47, pp.
1522-1528, 2000.
M. van Gils, J. Bielen, and G. McDonald, "Evaluation of Creep in RF MEMS Devices," in
Thermal, Mechanical and Multi-Physics Simulation Experiments in Microelectronics and
Micro-Systems, 2007. EuroSime 2007. International Conference on, 2007, pp. 1-6.
M. Qi, T. Junyong, Z. Yun'an, and C. Xun, "A parallel-plate actuated test structure for
fatigue analysis of MEMS," in Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and Safety
Engineering (ICQR2MSE), 2011 International Conference on, 2011, pp. 297-301.
J. Bejhed. (2011) Activity Summary Reliability assessment of a MEMS-based isolation valve
for propulsion systems. NANOSPACE.
S. M. Ali, S. C. Mantell, and E. K. Longmire, "Experimental Technique for Fatigue Testing of
MEMS in Liquids," Microelectromechanical Systems, Journal of, vol. 21, pp. 520-522, 2012.
K. Hei, V. Pott, R. Nathanael, J. Jaeseok, E. Alon, and L. Tsu-Jae King, "Design and reliability
of a micro-relay technology for zero-standby-power digital logic applications," in Electron
Devices Meeting (IEDM), 2009 IEEE International, 2009, pp. 1-4.
D. Mardivirin, A. Pothie, M. El Khatib, A. Crunteanu, O. Vendier, and P. Blondy, "Reliability of
Dielectric Less Electrostatic Actuators in RF-MEMS Ohmic Switches," in Microwave
Conference, 2008. EuMC 2008. 38th European, 2008, pp. 1517-1520.
Bo, x, lo, x, F. ni, A. Benabou, et al., "Stochastic modeling of the pull-in voltage in a MEMS
beam structure," in Electromagnetic Field Computation (CEFC), 2010 14th Biennial IEEE
Conference on, 2010, pp. 1-1.
H. Yunhan, A. S. S. Vasan, R. Doraiswami, M. Osterman, and M. Pecht, "MEMS Reliability
Review," Device and Materials Reliability, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 12, pp. 482-493, 2012.
P. Yang and N. Liao, "Surface sliding simulation in micro-gear train for adhesion problem
and tribology design by using molecular dynamics model," Computational Materials
Science, vol. 38, pp. 678-684, 2// 2007.
P. Yi-Joe, S. Chih-Hsiung, and C. Shu-Jung, "A low cost high sensitivity CMOS MEMS gas
sensor," in Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC), 2010 IEEE,
2010, pp. 564-567.
J. G. Ortega, C. L. Tarrida, J. M. Quero, F. J. Delgado, P. Ortega, L. Castaner, et al., "MEMS
solar sensor testing for satellite applications," in Electron Devices, 2009. CDE 2009.
Spanish Conference on, 2009, pp. 345-348.
Y. Ura, K. Sugano, T. Tsuchiya, and O. Tabata, "Tensile testing of fullerene nano wire using
electrostatic MEMS device," in Solid-State Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems
Conference, 2009. TRANSDUCERS 2009. International, 2009, pp. 2062-2065.
W. Lei, H. Yongping, W. Zesong, and W. Fei, "A calibration procedure and testing of MEMS
inertial sensors for an FPGA-based GPS/INS system," in Mechatronics and Automation
(ICMA), 2010 International Conference on, 2010, pp. 1431-1436.
K. Ghose and H. R. Shea, "Fabrication and testing of a MEMS based earth sensor," in SolidState Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems Conference, 2009. TRANSDUCERS 2009.
International, 2009, pp. 327-330.
M.-Z. Yang and C.-L. Dai, "Ethanol Microsensors with a Readout Circuit Manufactured Using
the CMOS-MEMS Technique," Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), vol. 15, pp. 1623-1634, 2015.
A. Hartzell and M. da Silva, "Reliability Issues in Miniaturized Sensors: Importance of
Standards. What is needed?," in Sensors, 2007 IEEE, 2007, pp. 44-44.
[90]
[91]
[92]
[93]
[94]
[95]
[96]
[97]
[98]
[99]
[100]
[101]
[102]
[103]
[104]
[105]
[106]
[107]
[108]
[109] S. Yang, "Special Issue on BioMEMS," The Korean Society of Medical & Biological
Engineering and Springer vol. 2, pp. 69-70, 2012.
[110] D. R. Tokachichu and B. Bhushan, "Bioadhesion of polymers for BioMEMS,"
Nanotechnology, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 5, pp. 228-231, 2006.
[111] E. Seker, S. Jong Hwan, M. L. Shuler, and M. L. Yarmush, "Solving Medical Problems with
BioMEMS," Pulse, IEEE, vol. 2, pp. 51-59, 2011.
[112] C. Jeffrey, Z. Xu, and A. Richardson, "Using bias superposition to test a thick film
conductance sensor," Institute of Physics, vol. 15, pp. 161166, 2005.
[113] N. Islam, Microelectromechanical Systems and Devices: InTech, 2012.
[114] S. Biswas, L. Peng, R. D. Blanton, and L. T. Pileggi, "Specification test compaction for
analog circuits and MEMS [accelerometer and opamp examples]," in Design, Automation
and Test in Europe, 2005. Proceedings, 2005, pp. 164-169 Vol. 1.
[115] N. Dumas, Z. Xu, K. Georgopoulos, R. J. T. Bunyan, and A. Richardson, "Online Testing of
MEMS Based on Encoded Stimulus Superposition," J Electron Test, vol. 24, pp. 555566,
2008.
[116] K. M. Cheng, "Electrostatic Testing of Simple MEMS Structures," Master of Science,
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Manitoba, 2006.
[117] A. Izadian and P. Famouri, "Fault Diagnosis of MEMS Lateral Comb Resonators Using
Multiple-Model Adaptive Estimators," Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on,
vol. 18, pp. 1233-1240, 2010.
[118] A. Izadian, P. Khayyer, and P. Famouri, "Fault Diagnosis of Time-Varying Parameter Systems
With Application in MEMS LCRs," Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 56, pp.
973-978, 2009.
[119] A. Izadian, "Self-tuning fault diagnosis of MEMS," Mechatronics, vol. 23, pp. 1094-1099,
2013.
[120] A. Repchankova, "Anti-Stiction And Self-Recovery Active Mechanisms For High Reliability
RF-MEMS Switches," PhD Dissertation, Information and Communication Technologies,
University of Trento, 2010.
[121] V. Reppa, "Fault Detection and Diagnosis: Application in Microelectromechanical Systems,"
Doctoral dissertation, Departement of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of
PATRAS, 2010.
[122] B. Potsaid and J. Ting-Yung Wen, "Adaptive scanning optical microscope: large field of view
and high-resolution imaging using a MEMS deformable mirror," Journal of
Micro/Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS, vol. 7, pp. 021009-021009-10, 2008.
[123] C. Bechtel, J. Knobbe, H. Grger, and H. Lakner, "Large field of view MEMS-based confocal
laser scanning microscope for fluorescence imaging," Optik - International Journal for Light
and Electron Optics, vol. 125, pp. 876-882, 1// 2014.
[124] T. Ichimura, Y. Ren, and P. Kruit, "A large current scanning electron microscope with MEMSbased multi-beam optics," Microelectronic Engineering, vol. 113, pp. 109-113, 1// 2014.
[125] F. Altmann and R. J. Young, "Site-specific metrology, inspection, and failure analysis of
three-dimensional interconnects using focused ion beam technology," Journal of
Micro/Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS, vol. 13, pp. 011202-011202, 2014.
[126] J. Janes and U. Hofmann, "Studies on the dynamics of vacuum encapsulated 2D MEMS
scanners by laser Doppler vibrometry," SPIE Proceedings vol. 8975, p. 8, 7 March 2014.
[127] Z. Niu, H. Suzuki, Y. Ohtake, and T. Michikawa, "Mesh generation of porous metals from Xray computed tomography volume data," Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology,
vol. 28, pp. 2445-2451, 2014/07/01 2014.
[128] J. Yao, C.-H. Huang, L. Wang, J.-M. Yang, L. Gao, K. I. Maslov, et al., "Wide-field fastscanning photoacoustic microscopy based on a water-immersible MEMS scanning mirror,"
Journal of Biomedical Optics, vol. 17, p. 080505, 08/14
06/01/received
07/19/revised
07/24/accepted 2012.
[129] Z. Zhang, Y. Gao, and W. Su, "Laser self-mixing interferometer for MEMS dynamic
measurement," Frontiers of Optoelectronics, vol. 6, pp. 210-215, 2013/06/01 2013.
[130] E. Hosseinian and O. N. Pierron, "Quantitative in situ TEM tensile fatigue testing on
nanocrystalline metallic ultrathin films," Nanoscale, vol. 5, pp. 12532-12541, 2013.
[131] D. E. Newbury and N. W. M. Ritchie, "Scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive
spectrometry fixedbeam or overscan x-ray microanalysis of particles can miss the real
structure: x-ray spectrum image mapping reveals the true nature," 2013, pp. 872902872902-9.
[132] D. E. Newbury and N. W. M. Ritchie, "Rigorous quantitative elemental microanalysis by
scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry (SEM/EDS) with
spectrum processing by NIST DTSA-II," 2014, pp. 92360H-92360H-17.
[133] A. Mohammadi, A. G. Fowler, Y. K. Yong, and S. O. R. Moheimani, "A Feedback Controlled
MEMS Nanopositioner for On-Chip High-Speed AFM," Microelectromechanical Systems,
Journal of, vol. 23, pp. 610-619, 2014.
[134] Z. Xiong, B. Walter, E. Mairiaux, M. Faucher, L. Buchaillot, and B. Legrand, "MEMS
piezoresistive ring resonator for AFM imaging with pico-Newton force resolution," Journal
of Micromechanics and Microengineering, vol. 23, p. 035016, 2013.
[135] J. Harris-Jones, E. Stinzianni, C. Lin, V. Jindal, R. Teki, and H. J. Kwon, "Applications of
advanced metrology techniques for the characterization of extreme ultraviolet mask blank
defects," Journal of Micro/Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS, vol. 12, pp. 013007013007, 2013.
[136] J. An, J. H. Shim, Y.-B. Kim, J. S. Park, W. Lee, T. M. Gr, et al., "MEMS-based thin-film solidoxide fuel cells," MRS Bulletin, vol. 39, pp. 798-804, 2014.
[137] C. Chen, Y. Tzeng, E. Kohn, C.-H. Wang, and J.-K. Mao, "RF MEMS capacitive switch with
leaky nanodiamond dielectric film," Diamond and Related Materials, vol. 20, pp. 546-550,
4// 2011.
[138] R. J. Ross, Microelectronics Failure Analysis Desk Reference: ASM International, 2011.
[139] K. Lambrinou, K. Arstila, T. Hantschel, A. Rummel, Z. Tkei, M. Pantouvaki, et al., "Towards
the Understanding of Resistive Contrast Imaging in in-situ Dielectric Breakdown Studies
Using a Nanoprober Setup," MRS Online Proceedings Library, vol. 1249, pp. null-null, 2010.
[140] L. Seungwoo and Y. Hongki, "A near-infrared confocal scanner," Measurement Science and
Technology, vol. 25, p. 065403, 2014.
[141] Y. Takaki. (2014, Micromirrors and 1D scanning produce an enlarged holographic color
display. Illumination & Displays.
[142] A. P. Wright, "A Multi-axis Capacitive MEMS Sensor System for Acoustic Emission Sensing,"
Doctor of Philosophy, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Canegei Mellon University,
2009.
[143] P. Romero, N. Otero, I. Coto, C. Leira, and A. Gonzlez, "Experimental Study of Diode Laser
Cutting of Silicon by Means of Water Assisted Thermally Driven Separation Mechanism,"
Physics Procedia, vol. 41, pp. 617-626, 2013.
[144] E. Tolstosheeva, E. Barborini, E. M. Meyer, M. Shafi, S. Vinati, and W. Lang,
"Micropatterning of nanoparticle films by bilayer lift-off," Journal of Micromechanics and
Microengineering, vol. 24, p. 015001, 2014.