Research Article

Comparison of Two Different Circular Diaphragm Models with Central Mass for MEMS Based FPI Pressure Sensor Performance Based on Sensitivity and Frequency Response

Volume: 25 Number: 3 June 30, 2021
EN

Comparison of Two Different Circular Diaphragm Models with Central Mass for MEMS Based FPI Pressure Sensor Performance Based on Sensitivity and Frequency Response

Abstract

The sensitivity and the fundamental frequency of membrane with central mass (embossment) were analytically evaluated. Two different previously developed model (named as M1 and M2) of center embossment diaphragm were considered to obtain results. According to the results, it was noted that M1 structure shows higher sensitivity and displacement compared to M2. On the other hand, M2 structure provide more linearity on central deformation of membrane from applied pressure due to smaller displacement M1 counterpart. Moreover, frequency response of two structure is different for thinner embossment; however, this difference reduces for thicker embossment. As a result, the non-uniform structure of M2 model shows more flexibility on designing the sensors due to more geometrical parameters and provide more deformation linearity for effective detection of pressure. It was understand that compared with the conventional circular diaphragm (CD) structure used by Fabry-Perot interferometers (FPI) sensors, non-uniform structure provides extra geometrical parameters to tune the device performance and resulting in an enhanced design flexibility of the sensor structure.

Keywords

References

  1. [1] A. P. Jathoul et al., “Deep in vivo photoacoustic imaging of mammalian tissues using a tyrosinase-based genetic reporter,” Nat. Photonics, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 239–246, 2015.
  2. [2] J. Zhu, L. Ren, S. C. Ho, Z. Jia, and G. Song, “Gas pipeline leakage detection based on PZT sensors,” Smart Mater. Struct., vol. 26, no. 2, 2017.
  3. [3] X. Qi et al., “Fiber Optic Fabry-Perot Pressure Sensor with Embedded MEMS Micro-Cavity for Ultra-High Pressure Detection,” J. Light. Technol., vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 2719–2725, 2019.
  4. [4] H. F. Zhang, K. Maslov, G. Stoica, and L. V. Wang, “Functional photoacoustic microscopy for high-resolution and noninvasive in vivo imaging,” Nat. Biotechnol., vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 848–851, 2006.
  5. [5] W. Ni et al., “Ultrathin graphene diaphragm-based extrinsic Fabry-Perot interferometer for ultra-wideband fiber optic acoustic sensing,” Opt. Express, vol. 26, no. 16, p. 20758, 2018.
  6. [6] J. Liu et al., “Fiber-optic Fabry–Perot pressure sensor based on low-temperature co-fired ceramic technology for hightemperature applications,” Appl. Opt., vol. 57, no. 15, p. 4211, 2018.
  7. [7] B. Liang et al., “Highly Sensitive, Flexible MEMS Based Pressure Sensor with Photoresist Insulation Layer,” Small, vol. 13, no. 44, pp. 1–7, 2017.
  8. [8] I. Padron, A. T. Fiory, and N. M. Ravindra, “Modeling and design of an embossed diaphragm fabry-perot pressure Sensor,” Mater. Sci. Technol. Conf. Exhib. MS T’08, vol. 2, no. October 2017, pp. 992–997, 2008.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Electrical Engineering

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

June 30, 2021

Submission Date

May 15, 2020

Acceptance Date

April 1, 2021

Published in Issue

Year 2021 Volume: 25 Number: 3

APA
Yıldız, F. (2021). Comparison of Two Different Circular Diaphragm Models with Central Mass for MEMS Based FPI Pressure Sensor Performance Based on Sensitivity and Frequency Response. Sakarya University Journal of Science, 25(3), 619-628. https://doi.org/10.16984/saufenbilder.737982
AMA
1.Yıldız F. Comparison of Two Different Circular Diaphragm Models with Central Mass for MEMS Based FPI Pressure Sensor Performance Based on Sensitivity and Frequency Response. SAUJS. 2021;25(3):619-628. doi:10.16984/saufenbilder.737982
Chicago
Yıldız, Fikret. 2021. “Comparison of Two Different Circular Diaphragm Models With Central Mass for MEMS Based FPI Pressure Sensor Performance Based on Sensitivity and Frequency Response”. Sakarya University Journal of Science 25 (3): 619-28. https://doi.org/10.16984/saufenbilder.737982.
EndNote
Yıldız F (June 1, 2021) Comparison of Two Different Circular Diaphragm Models with Central Mass for MEMS Based FPI Pressure Sensor Performance Based on Sensitivity and Frequency Response. Sakarya University Journal of Science 25 3 619–628.
IEEE
[1]F. Yıldız, “Comparison of Two Different Circular Diaphragm Models with Central Mass for MEMS Based FPI Pressure Sensor Performance Based on Sensitivity and Frequency Response”, SAUJS, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 619–628, June 2021, doi: 10.16984/saufenbilder.737982.
ISNAD
Yıldız, Fikret. “Comparison of Two Different Circular Diaphragm Models With Central Mass for MEMS Based FPI Pressure Sensor Performance Based on Sensitivity and Frequency Response”. Sakarya University Journal of Science 25/3 (June 1, 2021): 619-628. https://doi.org/10.16984/saufenbilder.737982.
JAMA
1.Yıldız F. Comparison of Two Different Circular Diaphragm Models with Central Mass for MEMS Based FPI Pressure Sensor Performance Based on Sensitivity and Frequency Response. SAUJS. 2021;25:619–628.
MLA
Yıldız, Fikret. “Comparison of Two Different Circular Diaphragm Models With Central Mass for MEMS Based FPI Pressure Sensor Performance Based on Sensitivity and Frequency Response”. Sakarya University Journal of Science, vol. 25, no. 3, June 2021, pp. 619-28, doi:10.16984/saufenbilder.737982.
Vancouver
1.Fikret Yıldız. Comparison of Two Different Circular Diaphragm Models with Central Mass for MEMS Based FPI Pressure Sensor Performance Based on Sensitivity and Frequency Response. SAUJS. 2021 Jun. 1;25(3):619-28. doi:10.16984/saufenbilder.737982

Cited By


INDEXING & ABSTRACTING & ARCHIVING

33418 33537  30939     30940 30943 30941  30942  33255    33253  33254

30944  30945  30946   34239




30930Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf-Ticari Olmayan 4.0 Uluslararası Lisans   kapsamında lisanslanmıştır .