1
On characterising microelectromechanical processes
using coupled resonators
Bhaskar Choubey, Steve Collins and Mike Ward
Abstract—In this paper, a simple method of measuring process
induced variations is proposed using a chain of nominally iden-
tical microelectromechanical (MEMs) resonators. The method is
based upon the fact that the n eigenfrequencies of a chain of
mechanically coupled resonators can be determined from the
response of only one resonator in the chain. However, these n
values do not provide enough information to determine the (2n-
1) elements of the system matrix. The extra information needed
to obtain the system matrix is therefore obtained by perturbing
the characteristics of one of the resonators and measuring the
resulting eigenfrequencies. A resonator whose effective spring
constant can be perturbed by varying an applied voltage has
therefore been used to validate the proposed method. The validity
of the proposed method is then demonstrated in several different
ways. First the extracted system matrix is used to predict
the effects of perturbations to one or more of the resonators.
Secondly, the eigenvectors of the system matrix are shown to
correspond to the measured eigenmodes of the system. Finally, it
is shown that as expected a change to one resonator only changes
the corresponding diagonal element of the system matrix. Most
importantly, this test shows that the method can determine the
critical diagonal elements of a system matrix to an accuracy
of 0.1%. This method is therefore suitable for determining the
variability between nominally identical resonators manufactured
on the same substrate.
Key steps used to manufacture Microelectromechanical de-
vices, particularly lithography and etching, are also used to
manufacture microelectronic devices. Within the microelec-
tronics industry it is well known that variations between the
results of these key manufacturing steps at different times or
in different locations on a substrate lead to variations between
nominally identical microelectronic devices. It is therefore
not surprising that variations have been observed between the
characteristics of nominally identical microelectromechanical
(MEM) devices [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Majority of
these studies; however, have concentrated on designing MEM
structures in presence of variability. In the microelectronics
industry, two types of variations are recognised. The first
type of variations, known as process variations, arises from
differences between the results of performing the same process
at different times. In addition there are variations between the
results of the same process even when it is performed at the
same time on neighbouring parts of a substrate. These smaller,
mismatch variations are important when designing circuits that
rely upon pairs of nominally identical devices. Furthermore,
B. Choubey is with the School of Engineering, University
of Glasgow, Rankine Building, Glasgow, G12 8LT, UK (email:
bhaskar.choubey@glasgow.ac.uk)
S. Collins is with the Department of Engineering Science, University of
Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PJ.
M. Ward is with the Mechanical engineering department of The University
of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
even when pairs of devices are not important within a circuit,
any variations between the expected characteristics of a device
and manufactured devices are important in determining the
probability that a manufactured device or circuit will match
a target specification. This means that regular monitoring of
the characteristics of manufactured devices or test structures is
an important part of maintaining the yield of a manufacturing
process.
Resonant structures have been used to identify process
parameters as the resonant frequency measurements can be
used to monitor simple physical characteristics like length and
width of the manufactured devices [5], [6], [7]; however, very
little, if any, research has been undertaken in characterising
a process for mismatch variations within a substrate. With
reduction in feature size, it is now possible to design several
micro/nano electromechanical sensors on a single substrate
and hence there individual variations has become important.
The simplest way to characterise a process, hence would be
to connect to and measure the response of a large number
of nominally identical structures, which is both impractical as
well uneconomical.
In this paper a simple method of simultaneously determining
the characteristics of several MEM resonators as well as
measuring variations between the characteristics of individual
resonators is proposed. The proposed method relies upon the
fact that the eigenfrequencies of coupling resonators depend
upon the characteristics of all the coupled resonators but can
be determined from a single resonator. This means that the
characteristics of several coupled resonators can be determined
with the minimum number of contacts.
I. T HEORETICAL A NALYSIS
The response of a single resonator to a force F can be
modelled by the second order differential equation.
mẍ + bẋ + Ks x = F (1)
where m is the mass of the resonator, b is the damping
factor and Ks is the stiffness constant of the resonator. If
n such resonators are coupled together then the behaviour of
the whole system can be predicted using a set of coupled
differential equations
{ẍ} + [B] {ẋ} + [S] {x} = {F } (2)
where [B] is the mass normalised damping matrix and [S]
is the mass normalised stiffness matrix or the system matrix
of the system. The vector {x} represents the movement of
resonators in response to the mass normalised applied force
represented by the vector {F }.
 If each of the resonators is only coupled to two neighbours,
so that the coupled system forms a chain, then the matrix [S]
is a symmetric tridiagonal matrix, whose elements sij are
 element can be calculated by

 (Ks,i + Kcpl,i )/mi ∀i = j = 1|n
 (Ks,i + Kcpl,i−1 + Kcpl,i )/mi ∀i = j 6= 1|n


√ (7)
si,j = −Kcpl,i / mi mj ∀i = j + 1
√ where {xn } contains the eigenvectors corresponding the nth
−K / m m ∀i = j − 1

cpl,j i j



0 ∀others

(3)
where Ks,i is the mechanical spring constant of the ith
element, mi is its mass and Kcpl,i is the strength of the
coupling spring connecting the ith element to the (i + 1)th
element. The eigenvalues of this matrix (λi ) are related to the
resonant frequencies (fi ) of the system.
p
fi = λi /(2π) (4)
Critically, although these resonant frequencies depend upon
all elements of the system matrix they can be determined
from response of any one of the resonators in the chain. This
creates the opportunity to determine all the elements of the
system matrix from the resonant frequencies determined by
monitoring the response of only one resonator.
Choubey and coworkers have previously described a tech-
nique that can be used to determine the mass normalized
stiffness matrix, [S], of a chain of coupled resonators from
their measured eigenfrequencies using inverse eigenvalue anal-
ysis [8]. Briefly, this technique utilises the fact that the system
matrix of the coupled resonator chain, [S], is a symmetric tridi-
agonal (Jacobian) matrix. For such matrices, uniqueness can be
proved for any given set of eigenvalues and the corresponding
eigenvectors [9]. Choubey and co-workers’ technique to obtain
the eigenvectors and hence all the elements of [S] from the
measured response of only one resonator is to first measure the
resonant frequencies of the system so that the eigenvalues of
[S] can be determined. Unfortunately, these eigenvalues alone
do not provide enough information for the determination of all
2n−1 elements of [S]. To obtain more information a temporary
change in the spring constant of one of the terminal resonators
must be induced. This changes both the resonant frequencies
and the eigenvalues of the system [8].
To understand how the elements of [S] can be determined
from the two sets of eigenvalues, let us assume that the
temporary change in spring constant of the terminal element
changes the last diagonal element of the matrix [S] by s∗ .
This change can be calculated by finding the difference of all
eigenvalues of the original and new system matrices,
n
X system. Finally, the resonators are coupled to one another
∗
s = (λi − λ∗i ) (5)
i=1
This means that one only needs to induce a change without
knowing the exact value of the change induced. The elements
xi,n corresponding to the nth element can then be calculated
using the value of s∗ and the two sets of eigenvalues using
the following equation [9]
n lateral component, wherein the electrostatic force is dependant
λ∗i − λi Y λi − λ∗j
 
2 upon the displacement of the resonator. To understand this
xi,n = (6)
s∗ λi − λj
j=1,i6=j
2
Lanczos’ algorithm can now be used with these eigenvectors
and the eigenvalues of the unperturbed array, λ to obtain the
tridiagonal symmetric matrix [S] [9], [10]. The last diagonal
sn,n = {xn }T Λ{xn }
element as calculated by the equation 6. Λ is a diagonal matrix
of all eigenvectors. The last off-diagonal element can then be
calculated using the expression
sn,n−1 = ||sn,n {xn } − Λ{xn }|| (8)
where ||.|| is the second norm. This equation can then used to
calculate the eigenvectors corresponding to (n − 1)th element.
sn,n {xn } − Λ{xn }
xn−1 = (9)
sn,n−1
Iteratively, the diagonal elements of the matrix, off-diagonal
elements and the (i − 1)th can then be found as
si,i = {xi }T Λ{xi } (10)
si,i−1 = ||si,i {xi } − si−1,i−2 {xi−1 } − Λ{xi }||
si,i {xi } − si−1,i−2 {xi−1 } − Λ{xi }
xi,i−1 =
si,i−1
With this method, it is possible to determine all the elements
of the matrix [S], if a temporary change can be induced in
the spring constant of any one of the terminal resonators.
Furthermore, this can be achieved by monitoring the response
of only one of the resonators to a force applied to one
resonator. In practice, one can use the same terminal resonator
to apply the force, measure the response as well as induce the
temporary change. This means that the whole system can be
characterised even though contacts are only needed to one
resonator.
II. T HE E XAMPLE R ESONATORS
The example resonator that has been used in this study is
shown in Figure 1. This resonator consists of a movable frame,
supported by mechanical springs in each corner, that forms
one half of four comb capacitors. The other sides of the four
comb capacitors are formed by four electrically isolated pads
in the centre of the design. Two of these pads have been used
to electrostatically drive the resonator; while the other two
have been used to measure the response of the resonator to
any applied force using an electronic capacitive measurement
using weak mechanical springs.
The capacitance of an ideal comb capacitor is dominated
by the capacitance formed by the side of each comb. This
means that when a voltage is applied to these capacitors, the
result is a force that is independent of the displacement of
the resonator. However, when the separation between the ends
of the comb fingers are small, the net capacitance has a small
effect, let us assume that the capacitance of the comb capacitor
 4
x 10
1.386

1.384

Resonant Frequency
1.382

Fc 3 µm 1.38
Fe
3 µm
5 µm 1.378

10 µm
1.376

1.374

Fig. 1. (a) SEM Photograph of a microresonator with coupling springs. (b) 1.372
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
The dimension and forces in a single finger of the resonator. Sum of applied voltages squared

Fig. 2. The measured resonant frequency of a typical single resonator at

different applied DC bias voltages.
at a displacement x0 is C0 , then the capacitance with a
displacement x is
x0
C = C0 (11) III. VALIDATION OF THE P ROPOSED M ETHOD
x0 − x
To validate the proposed characterisation method in detail,
When a voltage V is applied to this capacitor, the Taylor series samples were needed that were small enough to allow con-
expansion for the resulting electrostatic force is tacts to be made to all the resonators in the chain. Systems
−dW containing three coupled identically designed resonators were
FE = therefore manufactured on QinetiQ’s Integram DPK process.
dx
1 2 C0

x x2
 Figure 3 shows the frequency response of a typical chain of
= − V 1 + 2 + 3 2 + ··· (12) resonators showing the three expected resonant peaks. The
2 x0 x0 x0
resonant frequencies of this particular system were found to be
The first term in this expression represents a position 17124 Hz, 17585 Hz and 18085 Hz. When a DC voltage of 8V
independent electrostatic force. On the other hand, all other was applied to one terminal element of this chain the resonant
subsequent terms have a displacement dependence. An expres- frequencies shifted to 17053 Hz, 17552 Hz and 18077 Hz.
sion for the electrostatically induced stiffness can be obtained Using these two sets of resonant frequencies, the system matrix
from the first derivative of the electrostatic force with respect was found to be
to the displacement.
 
1.1751 −0.0424 0
dFE [St1 ] = 1010 ∗  −0.0424 1.2329 −0.0426 
KE = 0 −0.0426 1.2463
dx  
2 C0 3x
= −V 1+ + ··· (13)
x20 x0 0.35 200
150
0.3 100
Ignoring the higher order term, the effective electronic spring 50
0
constant can be assumed to be linearly dependent on the 0.25
−50

square of the applied DC voltage. The variation of the resonant −100

Amplitude

0.2 Phase
−150
frequency of a single resonator with different DC voltages, 0.15
shown in Figure 2, shows the expected ability to vary the
0.1
effective spring constant of a resonator. These resonators can
hence be used to temporarily induce the change needed to 0.05

obtain the second set of eigenvalues in the inverse eigenvalue 0

1.68 1.7 1.72 1.74 1.76 1.78 1.8 1.82
technique. Frequency x 10
4

Once the resonators have been fabricated they were pack-

aged in a dual-in-line package that is then mounted on a PCB
and are tested in low pressure vacuum. The resonator array
was excited using two sets of summing amplifiers on the PCB.
These amplifiers add a DC signal with a small ac voltage to
produce a pair of excitation signals for the array. These two
voltages are used to enable balanced excitation for the micro-
resonator using two ac signals which are out of phase with one
another. The output signals from the array are fed to a pair
of transimpedance amplifiers followed by an instrumentation
amplifier before being readout by PC based data acquisition
system. This readout method enables direct measurement of
the velocity of the resonators.
Fig. 3. The amplitude and phase response of a typical system of three
coupled resonators showing the expected three resonant frequencies.
A simple test of the validity of this extracted system matrix
is to calculate the resonant frequency of the system when
this matrix is perturbed by changing the spring constant of
one of the resonators. The predicted resonant values can then
be compared to the measured resonant frequencies. To verify
the system matrix, yet another change was induced in the
third element of the chain. The measured resonant frequencies
were found to be 17038 Hz, 17463 Hz and 18013 Hz. By
inducing an equivalent perturbation in the system matrix, the
theoretically predicted resonant frequencies were found to be

3
17042 Hz, 17467 Hz and 18018 Hz. The error between the
predicted and the measured resonant frequency is less than
0.03%, which validates the system matrix.
Another way of validating a system matrix extracted using
the proposed technique, that is made possible by the con-
nections to all the resonators in the chain, is to compare its
eigenvectors with the eigenvectors of the measured system.
The data needed to validate the technique using this approach
has been published previously [11]. This data was obtained
using another sample made on the same process. The res-
onant frequencies of the second sample were found to be
16209.6 Hz, 16574.9 Hz and 17083.2 Hz respectively. With
a DC voltage of 8V applied to the terminal resonator, the
resonant frequencies changed to 16183.4 Hz,16494.7 Hz and
17045.6 Hz respectively. Using these two sets of eigenvalues,
the system matrix was extracted using inverse eigenvalue
analysis and found to be
 
1.0999 −0.0389 0
[St2 ] = 1010 ∗  −0.0389 1.1072 −0.0368 
0 −0.0368 1.0669
To measure the eigenvectors, it is necessary to apply a DC
voltage to each of the resonators. With these voltages applied
the expected eigenvectors of the system are

0.72 1 −0.71
 The results obtained suggested that the off diagonal ele-
 1 0.18 1 
0.92 −0.98 −0.53
The corresponding experimentally measured eigenvectors were
found to be  
0.70 1 −0.70
 1 0.17 1 
0.94 −0.96 −0.57
The small differences between the two sets of eigenvec-
tors provide more evidence for the validity of the proposed
approach to determining the system matrix.
In addition to validating the proposed method of obtaining
the system matrix of a chain of resonators the two system
upon the quality of the data used to obtain the extracted
system matrix. Since the accuracy to which the data, that is the
eigenfrequencies, have to be obtained will have a significant
impact on the practicality of the proposed method the effects
of errors in the measured eigenfrequencies have been studied
numerically. The two types of noise that have been studied are
quantisation noise and random temporal noise.
A. Quantisation noise
Quantisation errors could arise from either recording the
measured eigenfrequencies to a particular accuracy or from
terminating a search for the eigenfrequencies when the result
is known to be between two known values. To understand the
effect of this type of error, the measured resonant frequencies
were quantised so that they were only represented as an integer
number of a minimum frequency resolution. These quantised
eigenfrequencies were then used to determine a new estimate
of the system matrix, St1, q. This matrix, together with the
system matrix obtained with the measured eigenfrequencies,
Se1 , was then used to calculate a relative error matrix, [Eq ].
St1,q − St1
Eq = ∗ 100 (14)
St1
ments of the system matrix are more sensitive to errors in
the measured eigenfrequencies that the diagonal elements.
However, it is the diagonal elements of the matrix that contain
the information about the individual resonators and which
are hence more important. The percentage errors caused to
the diagonal elements by the different levels of quantisation
of the measured eigenfrequencies are therefore shown in
Figures 4. These results suggest the percentage errors in all
the diagonal elements is significantly less than 1% as long as
the eigenfrequencies are known to an accuracy of better than
9 Hz.
0.8

0.6
matrices show two important features of variability. These 0.4

features emerge when the important, diagonal elements of the 0.2

0
two system matrices are compared. The first result is that 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3
for both systems the nominally identical diagonal elements
2
vary by 3.2% for the first system and 3.5% for the second
1
system. The second result that emerges from this comparison
0
is that the average diagonal element the two matrices differ 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

by approximately 100 Hz or 6%. This suggests that, as with 2

microelectronic devices, micromechanical devices made on 1

different parts of a substrate are more different than devices 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
that are made near to each other. Frequency quantisation in Hz

Fig. 4. Percentage errors in the diagonal elements due to quantisation in

IV. T HE EFFECTS OF NOISE
The example results suggest that individual resonators will
vary by a few percent and it is anticipated that as processes
mature the resonators will become even more similar. One
factor that will determine the usefulness of the proposed
method is therefore the accuracy of the elements of the system
matrix. It is anticipated that the accuracy to which the extracted
system matrix represents the true system matrix will depend
measured resonant frequency. The topmost plot shows the errors in St1 (1, 1),
the middle one in St1 (2, 2) and the bottom one in St1 (3, 3).
Although the small number of elements in this particular
system means that it is possible to show the errors in each
element separately, this will not be possible for larger chains
of resonators. For these systems it is suggested that the relevant
error measure that should be considered is the root mean

4
 140

square deviation of the diagonal elements,

qP 120
n 2
i=1 Eq(i,i)
Dq = (15) 100

n
80
Figure 5 shows the root mean square deviations for the
present system and it can be seen that this error measure 60

also shows the sudden increase in error when the measured

40
eigenfrequencies are represented to an accuracy of 9 Hz.
Most importantly both methods of assessing the impact of 20

quantisation errors suggest that with errors of less than 5 Hz

0
it is possible to estimate the diagonal elements of the system 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Standard deviation of noise in frequency measurement in Hz
9 10

matrix to an accuracy of less than 0.5%.

Fig. 6. Root mean square deviation of diagonal matrix elements due to
1.4 random noise in measured resonant frequency.

1.2

1
the extracted matrix elements at this noise level have been
examined. These histograms suggest that the sources for the
0.8
high errors are a few outliers which drastically increase the
0.6
statistical measure of the errors in the system matrix.
4000
0.4
3000

2000
0.2
1000

0
−20 0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3000
Frequency quantisation in Hz

2000

Fig. 5. Root mean square deviation of diagonal elements from their base 1000

value due to quantisation in measured resonant frequency 0

−10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

10000

5000

B. Random Temporal noise

0
−0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Another possible source of errors in the measured eigen- 4
x 10

frequencies is the random errors, such as those that occur

with temporal noise. The effect of this type of noise has
been studied using a Monte Carlo procedure. The numerical
experiments were conducted at several levels of noise. At each
level, Gaussian noise with zero mean and a given standard
deviation was added to the measured resonant frequencies.
These resonant frequencies were then used as the data from
which system matrices, St1,n were extracted. Again these
results suggest that the elements of the system matrix can
be determined to an accuracy of approximately 1%. More
importantly, all the results that were obtained showed that
for each noise level the extracted matrix elements formed
a Gaussian distribution. This means that the results of these
experiments can be summarised using the standard deviation
(std) and mean of the extracted system matrices. Once again
a root mean square deviation metric was defined.
pPn
2
i=1 [100*std(St1,n )/mean(St1,n )]
Dn = (16)
n eigenvalues should also decrease. Once the temporal noise
Figure 6 shows this error metric for different amounts of
temporal noise. As expected, there is a general increase in the
standard deviation of the extracted values as the amount of
noise increases. However, in addition to this general trend,
there is a sharp increase in the standard deviation when
the standard deviation of the temporal noise is 7 Hz. To
understand this phenomenon, the histograms of errors in
Fig. 7. Histogram of percentage errors in various element values after
extraction with a Gaussian noise of 7Hz standard deviation in the measured
resonant frequencies. The topmost plot shows the errors in St1 (1, 1), the
middle one in St1 (2, 2) and the bottom one in St1 (3, 3).
Removing these outliers will significantly improve the qual-
ity of the information obtained from the elements of the
extracted system matrix. The data that will lead to large errors
in the system matrix elements can be identified by considering
the method of obtaining the two sets of eigenvalues of the
system matrix. This method depends upon the ability to shift
the resonant frequencies by temporarily changing the effective
spring constant of a resonator at one end of a chain. As
the system matrix is a tridiagonal symmetric matrix, the new
set of eigenvalues created by this temporary change should
interleave with the original eigenvalue of the system [9].
More importantly, as the spring constant of the terminal
element is reduced by applying a DC voltage, all of the
is comparable to the smallest induced shift in the two sets
of measured eigenfrequencies, it is possible for the measured
data to suggest an increase rather than a decrease in one or
more eigenfrequencies. Any data which suggests an increase
in any eigenfrequency should therefore be excluded from the
analysis. Revisiting the resonant frequencies of this system
(17124, 17585 and 18085 Hz, which changed to 17053,

5
17552 and 18077 Hz respectively on application of a DC addition, the results suggest that it is always sensible to check
voltage), one may observe that the third resonant frequency the validity of any data by ensuring that all the measured
has shifted by 8 Hz only. This means that a noise in frequency eigenfrequencies show the expected decrease in value.
measurement of 7Hz could not only cancel this shift, it could
also introduce a positive shift in the system, which invalidates V. F URTHER VALIDATION
the analysis presented above and hence should be excluded
To further utilise our system for process characterisation, a
from analysis.
larger chain of five identically designed resonators was fabri-
The effect of selecting valid data based upon this criterion
cated in an in-house process at the University of Birmingham.
has been assessed by excluding any sets of data in which
For the samples made on this process the simulated stiffness
noise has caused an apparent increase in any eigenfrequency
constant of each resonator was 20.75 N/m while that of the
and calculating the errors in the remaining data. As shown
coupling spring was 0.25 N/m. The natural resonant frequency
in Figure 8 and 9, applying this simple test of the validity
of a single resonator is then 12.86 KHz and the designed
of measured data significantly reduces the variation in the
system matrix is hence
extracted diagonal elements. " 6.6117 −0.0787 #
0 0 0
−0.0787 6.6904 −0.0787 0 0
600
[Sf d ] = 109 ∗ 0
0
−0.0787
0
6.6904
−0.0787
−0.0787
6.6904
0
−0.0787
400 0 0 0 −0.0787 6.6117

200

0
−2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 0.03 200

Velcoity as measured in Vrms after gain

800

600 0.025 0
400

200
0.02 −200
0
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3

Phase
600 0.015 −400

400
0.01 −600
200

0 0.005 −800
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4

0 −1000
Fig. 8. Histogram of percentage errors in various element values after 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.28 1.29
4
x 10
extraction with a Gaussian noise of 7Hz in the measured resonant frequencies Frequency in Hz
and correction for positive shifts in frequencies. The topmost plot shows
the errors in St1 (1, 1), the middle one in St1 (2, 2) and the bottom one in Fig. 10. Frequency response of one element of the array. The solid lines
St1 (3, 3). show the amplitude response while the dotted lines show the phase response.

The expected resonant frequencies calculated from this

0.7
designed system matrix are 12864 Hz, 12894 Hz, 12971 Hz,
0.6
13065 Hz and 13141 Hz. A typical chain of five resonators
was excited using a sinusoidal voltage source and its resonant
0.5
frequencies were measured. Figure 10 shows the frequency
0.4
response of one element from the chain obtained when the
fifth element of the chain is excited. As expected five res-
0.3
onant peaks are observed and for this data set the resonant
0.2
frequencies are 12210 Hz, 12415 Hz, 12560 Hz, 12638 Hz and
12826 Hz. A DC voltage of 15V was then applied to the fifth
0.1
element to change its effective stiffness. The resulting resonant
0
frequencies were found to be 12203 Hz, 12226 Hz, 12528 Hz,
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Standard deviation of noise in frequency measurement in Hz 12612 Hz and 12809 Hz. Using the two sets of eigenvalues
obtained from the two sets of resonant frequencies, the system
Fig. 9. Corrected Root mean square deviation of diagonal elements of the
matrix due to noise in measured resonant frequency.
matrix obtained using the proposed method was found to be
" 6.2081 −0.1380 0 0 0
#
The results from the numerical studies of the effects of −0.1380 6.3122 −0.1356 0 0
noise in the measured eigenfrequencies on the accuracy of [Sf e ] = 109 ∗ 0
0
−0.1356
0
6.3062
−0.1099
−0.1099
5.9968
0
−0.1511
0 0 0 −0.1511 6.1740
the diagonal elements of the extracted system matrix suggest
that it should be easily possible to estimate these elements To validate the matrix, it was used to predict the response of
to an accuracy of better than 1%. More importantly, they the system to any change induced in any other element of the
emphasis the importance of ensuring that these eigenfrequen- same chain of resonator. Once again, electrostatic spring effect
cies are measured accurately enough to determine shifts in was used to change the spring constant of other elements and
eigenfrequencies. This suggests that the resonator chain should obtain new resonant frequencies, which were then compared
be designed so that eigenfrequency shifts are larger than the to the predictions obtained from the above system matrix. For
accuracy with which eigenfrequencies will be measured. In example, when the spring constant of the fourth resonator

6
was changed by applying a DC voltage of 15V to its drive applying a DC voltage. In this particular case, a contact to one
combs the expected resonant frequencies calculated from the comb on each resonator made it possible to apply a different
system matrix were 12200 Hz, 12268 Hz, 12558 Hz, 12604 Hz DC voltage on each resonator. This meant that it is possible
and 12746 Hz. The corresponding experimentally observed to induce changes in all the diagonal elements of the system
resonant frequencies were 12200 Hz, 12272 Hz, 12558 Hz, matrix and hence experiments were performed with various
12606 Hz and 12744 Hz. Hence, the system matrix is able to random values of DC voltage applied on each resonator. For
predict the resonant frequencies to an accuracy of better than each combination of voltage, a set of resonant frequencies
4 Hz, which corresponds to 0.03% of the resonant frequency. were recorded. In addition, the last element was once again
As with the previous three resonator systems, the effects of perturbed to extract the new system matrix. For example, in
both quantisation noise and random noise in the measured one such experiment, the effective stiffness constants for the
eigenfrequencies have been studied numerically. Figure 11 five resonators were changed by applying 4 V, 15 V, 8 V,
and 12 shows the root mean square deviation in the diagonal 10 V and 0 V to one of the combs on each of the resonators.
elements of the extracted system matrix for various levels The resonant frequencies measured with these voltages applied
of quantisation noise and temporal noise, respectively in to the resonators were observed to be 12050, 12232, 12478,
measured eigenfrequencies. As before these results show that 12567 and 12650 Hz. On applying 15V to the last resonator,
it is important to ensure that the shifts in the eigenfrequencies these shifted to 12003, 12226, 12337, 12500 and 12543 Hz
are larger than the noise in the measured data. In addition, any respectively, leading to the system matrix
data that shows any shift of eigenfrequency in the unexpected " 6.0812 −0.1398 0 0 0
#
−0.1398 6.078 −0.1331 0 0
direction should be excluded. If these two conditions apply [Sf i ] = 109 ∗ 0 −0.1331 6.179 −0.1132 0
0 0 −0.1132 5.8292 −0.1541
then the results again suggest that the diagonal elements 0 0 0 −0.1541 6.1799

of the system matrix can be determined to an accuracy of

This can be compared to the predicted matrix [Sf ip ], which
significantly better than 1%.
has been obtained by adding the known induced variability in
1.4
the system matrix [Sf e ]
" 6.1377 −0.1380 0 0 0
#
−0.1380 6.0481 −0.1356 0 0
[Sf ip ] = 109 ∗
1.2
0 −0.1356 6.1654 −0.1099 0
0 0 −0.1099 5.8208 −0.1511
1 0 0 0 −0.1511 6.1740

0.8
The percentage errors between the extracted matrix to the
predicted matrix was found to be
0.6 " 0.92 1.34 0 #
0 0
1.34 0.5 1.84 0 0
0.4 [En ] = 0
0
1.84
0
0.23
3.1
3.1
0.14
0
1.98
0 0 0 1.98 0.1
0.2
It may be observed that the percentage error between the
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
elements of the predicted and measured matrices is less than
Frequency quantisation in Hz
2%. This is a promising result. However, it may be pessimistic
Fig. 11. Root mean square deviation of diagonal elements due to quantisation as the predicted system matrix has been obtained assuming
in measured resonant frequency that all the combs have the same effect on the effective spring
constant of a resonator. To avoid this source of errors, a test is
required that is independent of the electrostatic spring constant.
12
Applying a voltage to a comb capacitance on only one of
the resonators, will change the effective spring constant of
10
that resonator; however, it will have no effect on any other
8
resonators. To check the accuracy with which the system
matrix has been determined, a DC voltage has been applied to
6 one resonator to perturb the system. The difference between
the system matrices with and without this perturbation should
4
only be a change to one diagonal element of the system matrix.
2 All other elements should remain unchanged. When a voltage
is applied to the second resonator only the difference between
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 the two extracted system matrices was found to be
Standard Deviation of noise in frequency measurement in Hz
" 0.32 0.19 0 0 0
#
0.19 26.87 0.42 0 0
Fig. 12. Root mean square deviation of matrix elements due to random [Ef e2 ] = 107 ∗ 0
0
0.42
0
0.1
0.11
0.11
0.07
0
−0.47
noise in measured resonant frequency. The dotted plot shows the residual 0 0 0 −0.47 −0.54
error without correcting for outliers.
As expected the second diagonal element changes signifi-
As with the smaller chain, the extracted system matrix can cantly. More importantly, although not zero, the changes in
be checked by comparing the observed and predicted effects all the other elements of the system matrix are relatively
of perturbing the effective spring constants of resonators by small. In fact these non-zero elements of this difference matrix

7
are less than 0.1% of the matrix element. This shows that
using the proposed method the errors in the extracted system
matrix are less than 0.1%. The method would therefore be
suitable for detecting any differences between the actual and
the designed system matrix larger than 0.1% of the design
value, thereby determining the variations between individual
resonators caused by variations in the manufacturing process.
VI. C ONCLUSION
Variations between the results of the lithography and etching
steps of the manufacturing process for MEMs devices cause
variations between the characteristics of nominally identical
microelectromechanical devices. Furthermore, if they remain
unchecked, changes in the manufacturing process over time,
known in the microelectronics industry as process variations,
can lead to a loss of yield. It is therefore important to
characterise manufactured devices at regular intervals to ensure
both the manufacturing process isn’t changing significantly
and that the variations between characteristics of nominally
identical devices are insignificant.
Any procedure that is used to monitor device characteristics
should be as simple as possible. In this paper, a method has
been proposed that can be used to characterise several MEMs
resonators using the data that is available from contacts to only
one resonator. A critical part of the method is the mechanical
coupling between the individual resonators that means that
they form a chain. For a chain of n resonators, this creates n
eigenfrequencies that can be determined from the behaviour
of one resonator in the chain. Since the system matrix has
(2n-1) elements this is not enough information to determine
the system matrix. It has been shown that this problem can be
overcome by perturbing the effective spring constant of one
of the resonators in the chain.
The accuracy of the estimates of the critical diagonal
elements of the extracted system matrix must depend upon the
accuracy with which the eigenfrequencies are measured. The
effects on the extracted system matrix of noise in the measured
eigenfrequencies have been studied numerically. Rather unsur-
prisingly, the results emphasised the importance of ensuring
that the eigenfrequencies are measured accurately enough to
determine the shifts in eigenfrequencies. This suggests that
the resonator chain should be designed so that eigenfrequency
shifts are larger than the accuracy with which eigenfrequencies
will be measured. In addition, a closer inspection of the
condition under which large errors occur in the elements of the
system matrix suggest that it will always be sensible to check
the validity of any data by ensuring that all the measured
eigenfrequencies shifted in the expected direction. Any data
that shows any eigenfrequency shift in the opposite direction
should be excluded from any analysis.
The validity of the proposed method has been demonstrated
in several different ways. First, it has been shown that the
extracted system matrix can be used to predict the effects of
perturbations to one or more of the resonators. Secondly, for a
small system the eigenvectors of the system matrix correspond
to the measured eigenmodes of the system. Finally, it has
been shown that as expected a change to one resonator only
changes the corresponding diagonal element of the system
matrix. Most importantly, results have been presented which
show that the method can determine the characteristics of
individual resonators to an accuracy of 0.1%. This method is
therefore not only suitable for monitoring the effect of possible
unintentional changes in the manufacturing process but it is
also capable of determining the variability between nominally
identical resonators manufactured on the same substrate.
VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgements are due to Carl Anthony and Nor Hayati
Saad for manufacturing the samples tested in these experi-
ments. Acknowledgements are also due to Ross Turnbull for
helping in the design of experimental assembly.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. S. Kong, D. M. Frangopolb, M. Raullic, K. Maute, R. A. Saravanan,
L. A. Liew, and R. Raj. A methodology for analyzing the variability
in the performance of a mems actuator made from a novel ceramic.
Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, 116:336–344, 2004.
[2] A. Mawardi and R. Pitchumani. Design of microresonators under
uncertainty. Microelectromechanical Systems, Journal of, 14(1):63–69,
Feb. 2005.
[3] N.O. Attoh-Okine. Uncertainty modeling and analysis of natural
resonant frequency and transconductance parameters in microresonators
design. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and
Reviews, IEEE Transactions on, 37(4):719–723, July 2007.
[4] A. Dewey, H. Ren, and T. Zhang. Behavioral modeling of microelec-
tromechanical systems (mems) with statistical performance-variability
reduction and sensitivity analysis. Circuits and Systems II: Analog and
Digital Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on, 47(2):105–113, Feb
2000.
[5] Peter M. Osterberg and Stephen D. Senturia. M-test: A test chip for
mems material property measurement using electrostatically actuated
test structures. J. Microelectromech. Syst, 6:107–118, 1997.
[6] D.M. Tanner, A.C. Own, and F. Rodriguez. Resonant frequency method
for monitoring mems fabrication. In Reliability, Testing, and Character-
ization of MEMS/MOEMS, volume 4980 of SPIEs Proceedings, pages
220–228, San Jose, January 2003.
[7] George C. Johnson and A. Miller Allen. Mems process error charac-
terization using lateral resonant structures. In Danelle M. Tanner and
Rajeshuni Ramesham, editors, SPIE Conference on Reliability, testing,
and characterization of MEMS/MOEMS III, volume 5343, pages 264–
272. SPIE, 2004.
[8] Bhaskar Choubey, Carl Anthony, Nor Hayati Saad, Mike Ward, Ross
Turnbull, and Steve Collins. Characterization of coupled micro/nano res-
onators using inverse eigenvalue analysis. Appl. Phys. Lett., 97:133114–
7, 2010.
[9] G.M.L. Gladwell. Inverse Problems in Vibration. Kluwer Academic, 2
edition, August 2004.
[10] Cornelius Lanczos. An iteration method for the solution of the
eigenvalue problem of linear differential and integral operators. Linear
Algebra Appl., 45:252–282, 1950.
[11] B. Choubey, M. Ward, and S. Collins. Validation of inverse eigenvalue
analysis method for characterisation of coupled mems resonators using
eigenvectors. In Proc. IEEE Sensors Conference, 2010.