micromachines

Review
Monolithic Multi Degree of Freedom (MDoF)
Capacitive MEMS Accelerometers
Zakriya Mohammed 1, *, Ibrahim (Abe) M. Elfadel 2 and Mahmoud Rasras 3
1 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, New York University-Tandon School of Engineering,
Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA
2 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi 54224, UAE;
ibrahim.elfadel@ku.ac.ae
3 Engineering Department, New York University, Abu Dhabi 129118, UAE; mrasras@nyu.edu
* Correspondence: zm775@nyu.edu




Received: 9 October 2018; Accepted: 12 November 2018; Published: 16 November 2018


Abstract: With the continuous advancements in microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) fabrication

technology, inertial sensors like accelerometers and gyroscopes can be designed and manufactured
with smaller footprint and lower power consumption. In the literature, there are several reported
accelerometer designs based on MEMS technology and utilizing various transductions like capacitive,
piezoelectric, optical, thermal, among several others. In particular, capacitive accelerometers are
the most popular and highly researched due to several advantages like high sensitivity, low noise,
low temperature sensitivity, linearity, and small footprint. Accelerometers can be designed to sense
acceleration in all the three directions (X, Y, and Z-axis). Single-axis accelerometers are the most
common and are often integrated orthogonally and combined as multiple-degree-of-freedom (MDoF)
packages for sensing acceleration in the three directions. This type of MDoF increases the overall
device footprint and cost. It also causes calibration errors and may require expensive compensations.
Another type of MDoF accelerometers is based on monolithic integration and is proving to be
effective in solving the footprint and calibration problems. There are mainly two classes of such
monolithic MDoF accelerometers, depending on the number of proof masses used. The first class
uses multiple proof masses with the main advantage being zero calibration issues. The second class
uses a single proof mass, which results in compact device with a reduced noise floor. The latter class,
however, suffers from high cross-axis sensitivity. It also requires very innovative layout designs,
owing to the complicated mechanical structures and electrical contact placement. The performance
complications due to nonlinearity, post fabrication process, and readout electronics affects both classes
of accelerometers. In order to effectively compare them, we have used metrics such as sensitivity per
unit area and noise-area product. This paper is devoted to an in-depth review of monolithic multi-axis
capacitive MEMS accelerometers, including a detailed analysis of recent advancements aimed at
solving their problems such as size, noise floor, cross-axis sensitivity, and process aware modeling.

Keywords: accelerometer; multi-axis sensing; capacitive transduction; inertial sensors; three-axis

accelerometer; micromachining; miniaturization

1. Introduction
An accelerometer is a mechanical sensor which measures various modes of accelerations whether
they are constant (gravity), time varying (vibrations), or quasi static (tilt). The miniaturization of these
sensors was triggered with the advent of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) technology in the
late 1960s and early 1970s [1]. MEMS have had a great positive impact on growing the applications of
accelerometers to domains ranging from automotive to biomedical [2,3]. Apart from accelerometers,

Micromachines 2018, 9, 602; doi:10.3390/mi9110602 www.mdpi.com/journal/micromachines

Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 2 of 20

many sensors have used MEMS technology for miniaturization, including pressure sensors, gyroscopes,
micromirrors, and microphones [4].
To accurately determine the motion and position of an object in space, a microsystem must have
10 degrees of freedom (DOF) [5]. This condition can be fulfilled by using a combined system of
three-axis accelerometer (3 DOF), three-axis gyroscope (3 DOF), three-axis magnetometer (3 DOF),
and a barometer (1 DOF). Therefore, for a high precision inertial navigation system, an accelerometer
with three-axis sensing is desired. Most of the reported accelerometers are either single-axis or
two-axis and for sensing motion in three directions, assembling two or three of these accelerometers
is typically undertaken. The simplest assembly approach is orthogonal mounting and packaging of
three single-axis accelerometers. However, there are many drawbacks in such assembly, including
larger device footprint, higher packaging cost, and increased chances of misalignment errors [6,7].
These misalignment errors require corrections and compensations which further increases the cost.
Monolithic three-axis accelerometers seem to solve many of the issues related to expensive packaging,
misalignment errors, and size. There are several approaches for the monolithic implementation of a
three-axis accelerometer, including

1. Single chip integration of three proof masses, each sensing a particular axis.
2. Monolithic fabrication of two proof masses, one for in-plane sensing (X and Y) and the other for
out-of-plane sensing (Z-axis).
3. Single proof mass designed to sense all the three directions.

Monolithic three-axis accelerometers that are composed of multiple proof masses have been
reported since 1990s [8]. These devices have very low cross-axis sensitivity but suffer from high
Brownian noise and have relatively large form factor [8]. On the other hand, it has been found that
with the use of a single proof mass for three-axis sensing, a 50% reduction in the chip size can be
achieved [9,10]. Even though their Brownian noise is low, the single proof-mass accelerometers suffer
from very high cross-axis sensitivity. Moreover, complex innovative designs are needed for sensing
all the three directions with only a single proof mass. The main objective of the present paper is to
survey the reported monolithic multi-axis accelerometers and analyze in detail their structures and
key MEMS design decisions that have enabled them to overcome the reported sensing challenges.

2. Applications of Multi-Axis Accelerometers

Miniaturized multi-axis accelerometers are mainly used in inertial measurement units (IMUs),
along with gyroscopes and magnetometers for position and motion sensing. However, there use is
increasing in many consumer electronic applications. Accelerometers are incorporated in electronics
such as digital cameras, smart phones, notebooks, and video games. Apple iPhone 3G [11], Google
Nexus One [12], Nokia N97 [13], and Nintendo Wii [14], all had three-axis accelerometers. In the
current generation of these smart devices, the board size to mount the sensors is decreasing while
the number of mounted sensors is increasing. Therefore, it is necessary to constantly pursue research
for reducing the accelerometer footprint while enhancing its performance. In these smart gadgets,
the accelerometer performs various functions, including flipping the display according to changes
in gadget orientations, image stabilization while taking photos, better user experience while playing
video games, and detecting whether the gadget is at rest of under free fall. This feature of detecting free
fall is used to protect data in a notebook by quickly turning off the hard drive during accidental drops.
In industry, three-axis accelerometers are used for motion control, robot positioning, finding
incline angles of bulky structure, and vibration monitoring. In healthcare, they are used to monitor
fibrillation and arrhythmias during heart surgery. Heavy vehicles such as pickup trucks and sports
utility vehicles have a very high center of gravity making them more susceptible to rollover accidents.
Therefore, a three-axis accelerometer is used to detect rollovers and deploy side airbags. Some of the
advanced applications of multi-axis accelerometers include electronic stability control, automotive
headlight leveling and vehicle alarm.
Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 3 of 20

Micromachines 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 20

3. Accelerometer Operating Principle
3. Accelerometer Operating
An accelerometer can bePrinciple
modeled as a second order spring-mass-damper system (Figure 1).
WhenAnan accelerometer
acceleration (a)can
is applied to proof
be modeled as mass
a second(m) suspended by springs with a spring
order spring-mass-damper systemconstant
(Figure (k),
1).
and
Whenhaving a damping (a)
an acceleration (b),isthen the force
applied (Fapplied
to proof mass ) acting on the proof
(m) suspended bymass is given
springs with by:
a spring constant
(k), and having a damping (b), then the force (Fapplied) acting on the proof mass is given by:
Fapplied = ma applied (1)
= (1)
The force exerted by springs and damping in the system can be defined as:
The force exerted by springs and damping in the system can be defined as:
Fspring ==kx (2)
(2)
.
Fdamping ==b x (3)
(3)

Applying
Applying Newton’s
Newton’s second
second law which
which states
states that
that the
the algebraic
algebraic sum
sum of
of all
all the
the forces
forces equals
equals the
the
inertial
inertial force
force of
of the
the proof
proofmass,
mass,we
weget:
get:
− − = .. (4)
Fapplied − Fspring − Fdamping = m x (4)
.. + . + =F = (5)
mx + b x + kx = applied = ma applied (5)
The transfer function H(s) of the system is given by:
The transfer function H(s) of the system is given by:
( )+ ( )+ ( )= ( )= ( ) (6)
ms2 x (s) + bsx (s) + kx (s) = F (s) = ma(s) (6)
( ) (7)
2
( ) +b ( ) +k ( ) =F (s) = ( )
s x (s) + sx (s) + x (s) = = a(s) (7)
m m m
x ((s)) = 11 11
H ((s))== ( ) = =
= (8)
(8)
a(s) 2
s + b k
+ m s ++ m 2
s + + Q s ++ω0 2
ω0

In
In Equation
Equation (8),
(8), ω0 isisthe
theresonance
resonancefrequency andQQisisthe
frequencyand thequality
qualityfactor
factorgiven
givenby:
by:
√
ω0 == k/m/ (9)
(9)
mω0
Q == (10)
(10)
b
Accelerometers work
Accelerometers work in in the
the low
low frequency
frequency domain
domain (ω(  ≪ ω0 )) with
with their
their mechanical
mechanical sensitivity
sensitivity
calculated by
calculated by setting
setting ss == 00 in
in the
the transfer
transfer function
function H(s)
H(s) to
to get
get
1
x ~m = 1 (11)
∼ = (11)
a k ω0 2

Figure 1. Model
Figure 1. Model of
of accelerometer.
accelerometer.

In order to have a large sensing bandwidth, we need a high resonant frequency which can be
achieved by reducing the size of the proof mass and increasing the stiffness of the springs. However,
Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 4 of 20

In order to have a large sensing bandwidth, we need a high resonant frequency which can be
achieved by reducing the size of the proof mass and increasing the stiffness of the springs. However,
this reduces the sensitivity of the device. Therefore, there is a tradeoff between the sensitivity
and bandwidth.

4. Specifications of Accelerometers
MEMS accelerometers are used for various kinds of applications and therefore their specifications
are application dependent. For example, in seismic measurements, accelerometers with an operation
range greater than ±0.1 g, frequency range of 0–1 Hz, and resolution less than 1 µg are required. On the
other hand, in shock or impact sensing, they require a range of 10,000 g, a resolution less than 1 g, and a
bandwidth of 50 kHz. In this section, we give a brief overview of the specifications of an accelerometer
and the design parameters on which they depend. Accelerometers are typically characterized by their
Brownian noise, sensitivity, frequency response, resolution, nonlinearity, range, cross-axis sensitivity,
and shock resistance.

4.1. Brownian Noise

One of the most important factor to be considered during the design is the Brownian noise.
It limits the minimum achievable resolution of an accelerometer. Brownian noise is given by:
s √ s
a2n 4K B Tb 4K B Tω
= = (12)
∆f m mQ

where

an = Brownian equivalent acceleration noise

∆ f = Bandwidth
K B = Boltzmann constant
T = Absolute temperature in Kelvin

From Equation (12), it is clear that lower noise can be achieved with larger proof mass and higher
quality factor. In a single proof-mass three-axis accelerometer, a relatively large proof mass is used to
sense acceleration in all the three directions. Therefore, it will have lesser noise compared to three-axis
accelerometer formed by the integration of three smaller one-axis accelerometers. The noise floor in the
later can also be reduced by increasing the individual size of each proof mass but this will drastically
increase the overall footprint.

4.2. Sensitivity
The sensitivity of an accelerometer is defined as the output voltage signal generated per unit
input acceleration in ‘g’. It is sometimes referred to as scale factor and denoted by ‘S’. The general
units are mV/g. For a triaxial accelerometer, the axial sensitivities are independent along the X, Y and
Z axes are denoted by XS , YS and ZS .

Output Volage generated (mV)

XS = (13)
input acceleration along X − axis (g)
Output Volage generated (mV)
YS = (14)
input acceleration along Y − axis (g)
Output Volage generated (mV)
ZS = (15)
input acceleration along Z − axis (g)
Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 5 of 20

4.3. Cross-Axis Sensitivity

Cross-axis sensitivity is the output voltage generated due to an acceleration orthogonal to a
sensitive axis. Cross-axis sensitivity is generally expressed in percentage of the sensitivity i.e., ratio
of the measured voltage in the cross-axis direction to the measured voltage in the sensing axis. For a
tri-axial accelerometer, each axis has two cross-axis sensitivities. For example, in the case of X-direction
sensing axis, there is cross-axis sensitivity due to Y-axis acceleration (Xs )AY and Z-axis acceleration
(Xs )AZ .

Output Volage generated (mV)

( XS ) AY = (16)
input acceleration along Y − axis (g)
Output Volage generated (mV)
( XS ) AZ = (17)
input acceleration along Z − axis (g)
A three-axis single proof-mass accelerometer can move freely in the three directions and the
proof-mass displacement is directly proportional to the output voltage. It is therefore prone to high
cross-axis sensitivity. On the other hand, a single-axis accelerometer has high stiffness in the cross
direction and thus has very low cross-axis sensitivity. Therefore, the monolithic integration of multiple
proof masses has a similar advantage.

4.4. Dynamic Range and Nonlinearity

The dynamic range of the accelerometer is the maximum dynamic acceleration that can be
measured accurately. It is given in ‘±g’.
The output response of an ideal accelerometer is linear with the input acceleration.
The nonlinearity of the accelerometer, therefore, measures the deviation in the output signal with
respect to the ideal linear sensitivity behavior. It is expressed in terms of full-scale range as

Maximum deviation (g)

% Non linearity = × 100 (18)
Full scale range (g)

4.5. Frequency Response and the Bandwidth

The frequency response gives the dependence of accelerometer sensitivity on frequency. It also
gives the amplitude and phase responses of the accelerometer. The sensitivity of an accelerometer
remains constant below the resonant frequency. The range of frequencies in which the sensitivity
remains constant within a tolerance band of ±3 dB is the 3 dB bandwidth of the accelerometer

5. Types of Accelerometers
Depending on the transduction mechanism employed to convert the proof-mass displacement
due to acceleration into a measurable signal, accelerometers can be classified as Piezoresistive [15],
Piezoelectric [16], capacitive, resonant [17], optical [18], thermal [19], and tunneling [20]. The advantages
and disadvantages of these transductions are explained in Figure 2.
Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 6 of 20
Micromachines 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20

Figure 2. Advantages and disadvantages of various transduction schemes.

5.1. Capacitive
5.1. Capacitive Accelerometers
Accelerometers
In capacitive
In capacitive accelerometers,
accelerometers, the the displacement
displacement in in the proof mass
the proof mass due
due to
to acceleration
acceleration is is converted
converted
to a
to a proportional capacitance change,
proportional capacitance change, which
which is is later
later converted
converted and and amplified
amplified into into aa voltage
voltage signal.
signal.
There are rotor electrode plates attached to the proof mass and stator electrode
There are rotor electrode plates attached to the proof mass and stator electrode plates attached to plates attached to the
the
substrate. The design of a capacitive accelerometer is accomplished
substrate. The design of a capacitive accelerometer is accomplished so as to have a simultaneous so as to have a simultaneous
capacitance increase
capacitance increase and and decrease
decrease with with the
the same
same acceleration
acceleration with with differential
differential sensing
sensing traditionally
traditionally
used for quantifying the acceleration. Differential sensing increases the sensitivity by
used for quantifying the acceleration. Differential sensing increases the sensitivity by aa factor
factor ofof 2.
2.
In order to fabricate capacitive accelerometers, there are two basic processes:
In order to fabricate capacitive accelerometers, there are two basic processes: surface and bulk surface and bulk
micromachining. InInsurface
micromachining. surfacemicromachining,
micromachining, thethe accelerometer
accelerometer structure
structure is fabricated
is fabricated on top
on top of theof
the substrate [21,22]. This is done by using various film deposition
substrate [21,22]. This is done by using various film deposition techniques similar to that of techniques similar to that of
complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor
complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) (CMOS) fabrication.
fabrication. Therefore,
Therefore, the the main
main advantage
advantage of of
this method lies in excellent CMOS compatibility. In this process, the first step is to deposit
this method lies in excellent CMOS compatibility. In this process, the first step is to deposit and and
pattern
pattern a a sacrificial
sacrificial layer
layer onon the
the substrate,
substrate, followed
followed by by the
the deposition
deposition andand patterning
patterning of of a a structural
structural
layer on top. The sacrificial layer is subsequently etched, releasing a suspended
layer on top. The sacrificial layer is subsequently etched, releasing a suspended mechanical structure. mechanical structure.
The devices fabricated using surface-micromachining suffers from
The devices fabricated using surface-micromachining suffers from high noise due to the thinhigh noise due to the thin structural
layer thickness,
structural and high internal
layer thickness, and high stresses.
internal stresses.
In contrast,
In contrast, bulk-micromachining
bulk-micromachining uses uses etching
etching of of the bulk silicon
the bulk silicon substrate
substrate to to create
create aa suspended
suspended
structure within the wafer [23]. The etching can be done using either wet
structure within the wafer [23]. The etching can be done using either wet (isotropic/anisotropic) (isotropic/anisotropic) or dryor
etching techniques. In isotropic etching, the etch rate is the same in all directions
dry etching techniques. In isotropic etching, the etch rate is the same in all directions while in while in anisotropic
etching the rate
anisotropic differs
etching the according
rate differstoaccording
crystal orientation. For high aspect
to crystal orientation. For ratio
high structures,
aspect ratioreactive
structures,ion
etching (RIE) or deep reactive ion etching (DRIE) techniques are used.
reactive ion etching (RIE) or deep reactive ion etching (DRIE) techniques are used. The structures The structures realized using
the bulk micromachining
realized process have the process
using the bulk micromachining advantages haveofthe lowadvantages
noise due toofthicklowstructures
noise dueand to good
thick
stability but have the drawbacks of higher cost and complex fabrication.
structures and good stability but have the drawbacks of higher cost and complex fabrication.
Apart from these two basic fabrication processes, there are new fabrication techniques that are
meant to overcome the various drawbacks. Some of them utilize advantages of both surface and bulk
micromachining while others use nonstandard methods for surface micromachining such as
Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 7 of 20

Apart from these two basic fabrication processes, there are new fabrication techniques that
Micromachines 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20
are meant to overcome the various drawbacks. Some of them utilize advantages of both surface
and bulk micromachining while others use nonstandard methods for surface micromachining such
electroplating through resist molds [24]. Electroplating mitigates the disadvantage of surface
as electroplating through resist molds [24]. Electroplating mitigates the disadvantage of surface
micromachining by increasing the thickness of the structure. There are also reported developments
micromachining by increasing the thickness of the structure. There are also reported developments
for monolithically fabricating a three-axis accelerometer, a three-axis gyroscope, and a three-axis
for monolithically fabricating a three-axis accelerometer, a three-axis gyroscope, and a three-axis
magnetometer in a single chip [25,26].
magnetometer in a single chip [25,26].
5.1.1. In-Plane Capacitive Accelerometers
5.1.1. In-Plane Capacitive Accelerometers
The in-plane acceleration (X-axis, Y-axis or both) is generally sensed using multiple comb
The in-plane acceleration (X-axis, Y-axis or both) is generally sensed using multiple comb
electrodes attached to the proof mass (rotors) and combs fixed to the substrate (stators). Since the
electrodes attached to the proof mass (rotors) and combs fixed to the substrate (stators). Since the
capacitance is directly proportional to overlap area between the combs and inversely proportional to
capacitance is directly proportional to overlap area between the combs and inversely proportional
finger gap, the accelerometer can be designed to generate capacitance change with acceleration in
to finger gap, the accelerometer can be designed to generate capacitance change with acceleration
either of two ways i.e., change in the overlap area between combs (Area Change) [27] or change in
in either of two ways i.e., change in the overlap area between combs (Area Change) [27] or change
the gap between rotor and stator combs (Gap Closing). In the first approach, the capacitance changes
in the gap between rotor and stator combs (Gap Closing). In the first approach, the capacitance
linearly with the displacement. However, it results in a very small fractional change in capacitance.
changes linearly with the displacement. However, it results in a very small fractional change in
This approach is not used very often because of its low sensitivity. Figure 3a shows a block diagram
capacitance. This approach is not used very often because of its low sensitivity. Figure 3a shows a
of the area changeable accelerometer. With the application of an external acceleration, the proof mass
block diagram of the area changeable accelerometer. With the application of an external acceleration,
is displaced, causing capacitance change in the right and left-hand side combs. On one side, the
the proof mass is displaced, causing capacitance change in the right and left-hand side combs. On one
capacitance ‘C1’ increases while on the other, capacitance ‘C2’ decreases under the same acceleration.
side, the capacitance ‘C1 ’ increases while on the other, capacitance ‘C2 ’ decreases under the same
The stator fingers are excited with a differential voltage (opposite polarity) to produce an output
acceleration. The stator fingers are excited with a differential voltage (opposite polarity) to produce an
signal which is proportional to the capacitance difference (C1–C2).
output signal which is proportional to the capacitance difference (C1 –C2 ).
The second approach, which is based on the change in the gap spacing between the two plates
The second approach, which is based on the change in the gap spacing between the two
[28,29], creates a relatively larger change in capacitance. Hence it is easier to sense but its response is
plates [28,29], creates a relatively larger change in capacitance. Hence it is easier to sense but its
nonlinear. In this case, the capacitance change is inversely proportional to the square of the finger
response is nonlinear. In this case, the capacitance change is inversely proportional to the square of
gap, thus causing a large capacitance change with acceleration. The nonlinearity can be reduced if
the finger gap, thus causing a large capacitance change with acceleration. The nonlinearity can be
the displacement is made very small compared with the gap spacing. Linear output also simplifies
reduced if the displacement is made very small compared with the gap spacing. Linear output also
the implementation of the readout circuit. Figure 3b shows the implementation of a gap change
simplifies the implementation of the readout circuit. Figure 3b shows the implementation of a gap
accelerometer. The configuration is differential. Figure 3c shows the equivalent circuit diagram,
change accelerometer. The configuration is differential. Figure 3c shows the equivalent circuit diagram,
which is common for gap and area changeable accelerometers.
which is common for gap and area changeable accelerometers.

(a)
Figure 3. Cont.
Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 8 of 20
Micromachines 2018,
Micromachines 2018, 9,
9, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 88 of
of 20
20

(b) (c)
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Sensing
3.Sensing scheme
Sensingscheme of
schemeof (a)
of(a) area
(a)area change
areachange accelerometer
changeaccelerometer (b)
accelerometer(b) gap
(b)gap change
gapchange accelerometer
changeaccelerometer (c)
accelerometer(c) equivalent
(c)equivalent
equivalent
circuit.
circuit.

There is
There is also
also room for further improvement
improvement in gap-change accelerometers
accelerometers using
using interdigitated
interdigitated
fingers [30,31]. Figure 4a illustrates the block diagram of a gap-change
fingers [30,31]. Figure 4a illustrates the block diagram of a gap-change accelerometer using inter- accelerometer using
inter-digitated
digitated fingers.
fingers. The fabrication
The fabrication of interdigitated
of interdigitated fingers
fingers is complex
is complex becauseititrequires
because requiresisolation
isolation
betweenthe
between thetop
topand
andbottom
bottomstator
stator electrodes
electrodes andand wiring
wiring resources
resources to connect
to connect electrode
electrode contacts.
contacts. All
All top
the the stator
top stator fingers
fingers are wired
are wired together
together (red(red fingers)
fingers) to form
to form a single
a single capacitance
capacitance plate.
plate. Similarly,
Similarly, all
all the
the bottom
bottom fingers
fingers areare wired
wired together
together (green
(green fingers)totoform
fingers) formanother
anothersingle
singlecapacitance
capacitanceplate.
plate. This
This is
is
done so as as to
toform
formaafully
fullydifferential
differentialcapacitive
capacitive bridge
bridge(Figure 4b)4b)
(Figure in order to improve
in order to improvesensitivity and
sensitivity
for canceling
and the offsets.
for canceling the offsets.

(a) (b)
Figure4.
Figure
Figure 4.Sensing
4. Sensing scheme
Sensing scheme of
of (a)
(a) gap
gap changeable fully
changeable fully differential
fullydifferential accelerometer
differentialaccelerometer (b)
accelerometer(b) equivalent
(b)equivalent circuit.
equivalentcircuit.
circuit.

The working
The working of of two-axis,
two-axis, in-plane
in-plane accelerometer
accelerometer with with aa single
single proof
proof mass
mass is
is similar
similar to
to one-axis
one-axis
accelerometer. However, the suspension system is designed to facilitate the displacement
accelerometer. However, the suspension system is designed to facilitate the displacement in the X- in the X- as
as
well as
well as Y-direction
Y-direction while
while having
having dedicated
dedicated combs
combs to to sense
sense both
both in-plane
in-plane accelerations.
accelerations. Due
Dueto tothis,
this,
there is high cross-axis sensitivity along the X- and Y-axis. However, new methodologies
there is high cross-axis sensitivity along the X- and Y-axis. However, new methodologies are are currently
being developed
currently to overcome
being developed this challenge
to overcome [32]. As[32].
this challenge withAs the one-axis
with accelerometers,
the one-axis the 2-axis
accelerometers, the
accelerometers
2-axis can be can
accelerometers area-change, gap-change,
be area-change, partiallypartially
gap-change, differential or fully differential.
differential Figure 5
or fully differential.
shows 5a sample
Figure shows aofsample
2-axis accelerometer [33]. It is a[33].
of 2-axis accelerometer gapItchange
is a gapdifferential accelerometer.
change differential The Y-axis
accelerometer.
acceleration
The creates a gap
Y-axis acceleration change
creates and
a gap therefore
change and atherefore
capacitance changes inchanges
a capacitance the Y-axis combs
in the while
Y-axis combsthe
X-axis acceleration creates capacitance change in the X-axis combs. Voltages in the X-
while the X-axis acceleration creates capacitance change in the X-axis combs. Voltages in the X- and and Y-axis comb
electrodes
Y-axis comb are modulated
electrodes arewith different
modulated frequencies
with different and demodulated
frequencies at the outputattothe
and demodulated measure
outputtheto
in-plane the
measure acceleration.
in-plane acceleration.
Micromachines 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20

Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 9 of 20

Micromachines 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20

Figure 5. Dual axis gap change differential accelerometer.

Figure
Figure 5. 5. Dualaxis
Dual axisgap
gap change
change differential
differentialaccelerometer.
accelerometer.
5.1.2. Z-Axis
5.1.2.5.1.2.
Z-Axis Capacitive
Z-Axis Accelerometers
Capacitive
Capacitive Accelerometers
Accelerometers
For sensing
For sensing
For sensing out-of-plane
out-of-plane
out-of-plane acceleration,
acceleration,
acceleration, the
the arrangement
arrangement
the arrangement ofofa asingle-stator
of a large largesingle-stator
large single-stator electrode
electrode
electrode separated
separated
separated from from
the the proof
proof mass mass by by narrowair
narrow airgaps
gaps isis generally
generally used.
used.Here,
Here, thetheentire proof
entire massmass
proof acts acts
from the proof mass by narrow air gaps is generally used. Here, the entire proof mass acts as a
as as
a rotora rotor electrode.
electrode. ThisThis stator
stator and
and rotor
rotor pair
pair acts
acts as a parallel plate capacitor creating a capacitance
rotor electrode. This stator and rotor pair acts asasa aparallel
parallelplate
platecapacitor
capacitor creating
creating aa capacitance
capacitance
changechange
with with out-of-plane displacement under applied applied acceleration. However, this arrangement is
change with out-of-plane
out-of-plane displacement
displacement under under applied acceleration.
acceleration. However,
However, this
non-differential. In order to create a differential capacitance, two electrode plates are used [34–36].
this arrangement
arrangement is is
non-differential.
non-differential. In
In order
order to
to create
create aa differential
differential capacitance,
capacitance, two
two electrode
electrode plates
plates are
are used
used [34–36].
[34–36].
Figure 6a shows such an arrangement with the proof-mass suspended between the top and bottom
Figure
Figure 6a
6a shows
shows such an arrangement with
with the proof-mass suspended between the top
top and
and bottom
stator plates. such
Whenan arrangement
acceleration is applied, the
one proof-mass suspended
stator gap decreases, thus between
increasingthe capacitance bottom
C+
stator plates.
statorwhile
plates. When
the When acceleration
acceleration
other stator is
gap increases, applied,
is applied, one stator gap decreases,
one statorcapacitance
thus decreasing gap decreases, thus
C−. It thus increasing
is alsoincreasing capacitance
create C+
possible tocapacitance
while
C+ whilethe the
other
differential otherstator gap
capacitance
stator increases,
changes
gap withthus
increases, a thus decreasing
single electrode capacitance
decreasing plate. Figure 6b
capacitance C−. −It. Itisisalso
Cdemonstrates alsopossible to
a torsional
possible create
toZ-create
differential
axis capacitance
accelerometer changes
with a singlewith a single
electrode electrode
plate. Here plate.
torsional Figure
springs 6b
differential capacitance changes with a single electrode plate. Figure 6b demonstrates a torsional Z-axisaredemonstrates
used to displacea torsional
a non- Z-
axis accelerometer
uniform proof with
mass, a
thatsingle
is, a electrode
proof mass plate.
with a Here torsional
nonuniform mass springs
distribution
accelerometer with a single electrode plate. Here torsional springs are used to displace a non-uniform are used
creatingto adisplace
heavy a
side non-
proofand
uniformmass, a light
proof side.that
thatmass,
is, Such
a proof non-uniform
is,mass
a proofwithmass mass
withdistribution
a nonuniform a nonuniform is typically achieved by
mass distribution
mass distribution creating a non-uniform
creating
a heavy a heavy
side side
and a light
and perforation
a light side.of the
Suchproof mass
non-uniform using etching
mass techniques
distribution (Figure
is 7). The
typically Z-axis
achievedacceleration
by a creates a
non-uniform
side. Such non-uniform mass distribution is typically achieved by a non-uniform perforation of the
torsional see-saw
perforation motion that results in a differential capacitance change
7). The[37,38].
proof mass of the etching
using proof mass using
techniques etching
(Figuretechniques
7). The Z-axis(Figureacceleration Z-axis
creates acceleration
a torsionalcreates
see-saw a
torsional
motion that see-saw
results motion that results
in a differential in a differential
capacitance change capacitance
[37,38]. change [37,38].

(a) (b)
Figure 6. Sensing scheme of (a) vertical Z-axis accelerometer (b) torsional Z-axis accelerometer.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 6.
6. Sensing
Sensingscheme
schemeof
of (a)
(a) vertical
vertical Z-axis
Z-axis accelerometer
accelerometer (b)
(b) torsional
torsional Z-axis
Z-axis accelerometer.
accelerometer.
Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 10 of 20
Micromachines 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 20

Figure 7. Layout of a torsional Z-axis accelerometer [31].

6. Development of
6. Development of Monolithic
Monolithic Multi-Axis
Multi-Axis Capacitive
Capacitive Accelerometers
Accelerometers
6.1. Multiple Proof-Mass Monolithic Integrated Accelerometers
6.1. Multiple Proof-Mass Monolithic Integrated Accelerometers
Table 1 summarizes the performance of tri-axial multiple proof-mass accelerometers.
Table 1 summarizes the performance of tri-axial multiple proof-mass accelerometers.
One of the simplest methods to design a three-axis accelerometer is to fabricate three individual
One of the simplest methods to design a three-axis accelerometer is to fabricate three individual
accelerometers monolithically on a single chip. One of the earlier designs using this method was
accelerometers monolithically on a single chip. One of the earlier designs using this method was
reported by M. Lemkin and B.E. Boser in 1999 [8]. The device consists of three individual proof
reported by M. Lemkin and B.E. Boser in 1999 [8]. The device consists of three individual proof
masses, each measuring acceleration in a particular direction, fabricated using surface micromachining.
masses, each measuring acceleration in a particular direction, fabricated using surface
The configuration used is differential (half-bridge). The X-direction (and Y-direction) sensing
micromachining. The configuration used is differential (half-bridge). The X-direction (and Y-
proof-mass uses comb fingers while for Z-axis sensing, a reference structure is attached to the substrate.
direction) sensing proof-mass uses comb fingers while for Z-axis sensing, a reference structure is
The overall die size is 4 mm × 4 mm, including the readout electronics. The three individual proof
attached to the substrate. The overall die size is 4 mm × 4 mm, including the readout electronics. The
masses are designed to be very small which resulted in high Brownian noise. One main advantage of
three individual proof masses are designed to be very small which resulted in high Brownian noise.
Lemkin-and-Boser design is the use of a sigma-delta (Σ∆) Modulated force-feedback loop to provide
One main advantage of Lemkin-and-Boser design is the use of a sigma-delta (ΣΔ) Modulated force-
the output in digital form. In order to stabilize the proof mass after acceleration, a control signal in a
feedback loop to provide the output in digital form. In order to stabilize the proof mass after
negative feedback loop is used. Thus, through the control and stabilization of deflections, measurement
acceleration, a control signal in a negative feedback loop is used. Thus, through the control and
nonlinearities are minimized. This is because feedback control extends the bandwidth of the sensor
stabilization of deflections, measurement nonlinearities are minimized. This is because feedback
beyond its natural frequency. However, this design is not suitable for high ‘g’ applications. Since in
control extends the bandwidth of the sensor beyond its natural frequency. However, this design is
high ‘g’, the force generated is not sufficient to bring the proof mass back into equilibrium.
not suitable for high ‘g’ applications. Since in high ‘g’, the force generated is not sufficient to bring
In the same year, Y. Matsumoto and his collaborators demonstrated an accelerometer using
the proof mass back into equilibrium.
an SOI fabrication process [39]. The double challenge they addressed is that of after-rinse stiction
In the same year, Y. Matsumoto and his collaborators demonstrated an accelerometer using an
during the fabrication process and in-use stiction during operation whether it is due to high ‘g’ shock
SOI fabrication process [39]. The double challenge they addressed is that of after-rinse stiction during
accelerations or high bias electrostatic forces due to applied voltages at the stators. Stiction is caused
the fabrication process and in-use stiction during operation whether it is due to high ‘g’ shock
when rotor plates come in contact with the stator plates, resulting in output saturation and possibly
accelerations or high bias electrostatic forces due to applied voltages at the stators. Stiction is caused
permanent failure. In [39], the authors added a photoresist-buried plug and a side stopper, which
when rotor plates come in contact with the stator plates, resulting in output saturation and possibly
removes ‘after-rinse stiction’ resulting in a more than 90% manufacturing yield. A fluorocarbon film
permanent failure. In [39], the authors added a photoresist-buried plug and a side stopper, which
with plasma polymerization has been used to prevent in-use stiction [40].
removes ‘after-rinse stiction’ resulting in a more than 90% manufacturing yield. A fluorocarbon film
S. Butefisch et al. reported a three-axis bulk micromachined accelerometer (four prototypes) with
with plasma polymerization has been used to prevent in-use stiction [40].
four proof masses oriented orthogonal to each other [41]. Among these designs, one has the proof mass
S. Butefisch et al. reported a three-axis bulk micromachined accelerometer (four prototypes) with
suspended by a single beam while in other a modified proof mass (triangular shape) is suspended
four proof masses oriented orthogonal to each other [41]. Among these designs, one has the proof mass
with stiffer suspension (double beam). The latter design is of higher quality due to low cross-axis
suspended by a single beam while in other a modified proof mass (triangular shape) is suspended with
effects. The remaining two designs are improvements of the single-beam and double-beam designs.
stiffer suspension (double beam). The latter design is of higher quality due to low cross-axis effects. The
Three proof masses, each rotated by 90◦ in the wafer plane, were sufficient to detect acceleration in all
remaining two designs are improvements of the single-beam and double-beam designs. Three proof
directions, making the forth one redundant. Most probably the fourth proof mass is used to make the
masses, each rotated by 90° in the wafer plane, were sufficient to detect acceleration in all directions,
design more symmetric. Each proof mass measures (length × width × height) 1000 µm × 1000 µm
making the forth one redundant. Most probably the fourth proof mass is used to make the design more
× 300 µm, making the overall die size without the readout circuits 9000 µm × 9000 µm × 1300 µm.
symmetric. Each proof mass measures (length × width × height) 1000 μm × 1000 μm × 300 μm, making
the overall die size without the readout circuits 9000 μm × 9000 μm × 1300 μm. Some compensation
schemes are used to reduce the size but still the device footprint is quite large. As the size of an
Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 11 of 20

Some compensation schemes are used to reduce the size but still the device footprint is quite large.
As the size of an individual proof mass is large, the device sensitivity is high at about 210 mV/g and
990 mV/g for a single beam and a double beam, respectively. Other exemplary designs using four
proof masses are reported in [42,43] where a more compact accelerometer (2.5 mm × 2.0 mm × 6 µm)
with highly symmetric sensitivity is proposed. This was at the expense of a maximum sensitivity of
1.51 fF/g, which is very low.
A low-noise three-axis accelerometer integrating three individual proof masses was reported
in [44]. The fabrication was based on both bulk and surface micromachining. By using this process,
the authors of [44] were able to fabricate a thick device (475 µm) with narrow sense gap (<1.5√ µm).
Due to the thick structural layer and large
√ device size, the total measured noise floor was 1.6 µg/ Hz
for the X- and Y-direction and 1.08 µg/ Hz for Z-direction. The work of [44] is an integration of the
authors’ previously reported in-plane accelerometer [45] and out-of-plane accelerometer [46].
In 2013, Y.C. Liu et al. have demonstrated monolithic three-axis accelerometer with multiplexed
read-out circuit [47]. Due to the tight integration, the authors were able to achieve a smaller chip
size. Prior to their three-axis accelerometer chip, the three-axis readout circuitry consisted of three
different circuits, each connected to a proof-mass for one-axis sensing. This triplication of readout
circuits results in an increase of not only the overall footprint but also of the power consumption.
The in-plane acceleration is detected by comb fingers and the out-of-plane acceleration is detected
using top and bottom electrode plates. The wiring is done to implement fully differential configuration
which enhances the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).
A sandwich three-axis bulk-micromachined accelerometer with three individual proof masses
is proposed by S. Tez and T. Akin [48,49]. The design consists of comb fingers proof masses for
in-plane sensing and electrode plates (top and bottom) for Z-axis sensing. The overall die size is
12 mm × 7 mm × 1 mm and the structural thickness of the device is 35 µm. The main focus of [48,49]
is to reduce the cross-axis sensitivity and achieve low noise in a reasonable measurement range.
A Double-Glass, Modified Silicon-on-Glass (DGM-SOG) process is used for fabrication. Due to
the multiple stacking of glass-silicon-glass, individual in-plane and out-of-plane proof–masses are
implemented. The top glass layer also acts as top electrode for the Z-axis proof mass. The same
authors proposed a similar sandwiched, three-axis accelerometer [50] where the Z-axis proof mass
(2 mm × 2 mm) and its electrode area are perforated to reduce damping. Again, three individual proof
masses are used to sense acceleration in three directions. The lateral accelerometer has combs attached
to its proof mass for in-plane sensing. Two such proof-masses (2.7 mm × 4.2 mm) are used that are
oriented orthogonally to each other.
Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 12 of 20

Table 1. Performance summary of tri-axial multiple proof-mass accelerometers.

√ Cross-Axis Sensitivity X,
Ref Year Author Device Size (mm × mm) Range (‘±g’) Sensitivity X, Y, and Z Noise (µg/ Hz) X, Y, and Z Nonlinearity X, Y, and Z
Y, and Z
[8] 1999 Lemkin, M. 4 × 4 (including read out) 1.9 Digital Output (0.4 fF/bit) 110, 160, 990 - -
25 fF/g,
[39] 1999 Matsumoto, Y. 5×5 - 25 fF/g, <10%
100 fF/g

-
210 mV/g
- R2 = 0.997 -
[41] 2000 Butefisch, S 9×9
990 mV/g R2 = 0.99
1.27 fF/g,
[43] 2005 Rodjegard, H. 2.5 × 2 - 1.27 fF/g, - - 0.12 fF/g
0.82 fF/g
6.8 pF/g,
[44] 2005 Chae, J. 7×9 1 6.8 pF/g, 1.6, 1.6, 1.08 - -
2.9 pF/g
105 mV/g,
[47] 2013 Liu, Y.C. 1.57 × 1.73 0.01~2 127 mV/g, 400, 210, 940 1%, 0.5%, 2.4% 3%, 2.3%, 8.8%
58 mV/g
10 (X, Y)
[49] 2015 Tez, S. 12 × 7 - 5.4, 5.5, 12.6 0.34%, 0.28%, 0.41% <1%
+12, −7 (Z)
4
70.2 mV/g,
[50] 2016 Aydemir, A. 11.8 × 4.8 71 (X, Y) 70.4 mV/g, 13.9, 13.2, 17.8 0.26%, 0.28%, 0.3% <1%
231 (Z) 21.6 mV/g
estimated
Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 13 of 20

6.2. Single-Proof-Mass 3-Axial Accelerometers

Table 2 summarizes the design characteristics of all the single proof-mass accelerometers surveyed
in this section.
One of the earliest demonstrations of using a single proof mass for three-axis sensing was
performed by T. Mineta et al. [51]. The structure utilizes a bulk-micromachined, Glass-Silicon-Glass
process with a sensor made of a Pyrex glass plate. The sensor has no comb fingers and only electrode
plates are used for sensing both in-plane and out-of-plane acceleration. The X and Y direction
acceleration cause tilting in the proof mass and the capacitance is changed with respect to the fixed
electrode plates. In turn, the Z-axis acceleration causes a parallel shift. The overall chip size was
10 mm × 10 mm × 1 mm with the best achieved sensitivity being 40 mV/g. This is likely due to due
to the low performance of the readout circuit. Furthermore, the cross-axis sensitivity is as high as 10%.
A surface-micromachined, single, proof-mass three-axis accelerometer with integrated electronics
is reported by Lemkin and Boser [10]. The thickness of the device is 2.3 µm. It uses comb fingers
for in-plane acceleration detection and one bottom electrode plate for Z-axis acceleration sensing.
Comb fingers are laid in the common centroid geometry, which causes off-axis acceleration to be
rejected as a common-mode, first-order signal. Furthermore, quad symmetry of the proof mass around
the Z-axis is adopted to minimize cross-axis sensitivity. The design has equal compliance in the three
directions with almost equal resonant frequencies. The proof mass size is 500 µm × 500 µm. The chip
consists of three separate readout circuits for X-, Y- and Z-axis, yielding an overall size of 4 mm × 4 mm.
In order to have high performance, the operation is closed loop, i.e., there are three individuals Σ∆
feedback loops with three readout circuits designed for the three proof masses. The results indicate a
sensitivity of 0.24 fF/g for √
in-plane motion and 0.82 fF/g for out-of the plane motion with the maximum
noise floor being 0.76 mg/ Hz. The maximum cross-axis sensitivity is only 1.58% (as inferred from [10]).
Due to the use of very small proof masses the device suffers from poor sensitivity and high noise.
A theoretically zero-cross-axis sensitive, single proof-mass, bulk-micromachined three-axis
accelerometer is reported by Li et al. [52]. This is accomplished by using a highly symmetrical quad
beam structure. There are no comb fingers in the design, and all the three-axis sensing is implemented
by placing electrode plates on the top of the proof mass. The acceleration in the Z-direction causes
the proof mass to move in the Z-axis while X-directional acceleration causes a rotation around the
Y-axis and translation along the X-axis. The capacitances are changed with respect to fixed electrode
plates placed on the top. The proof mass measures 1.8 mm × 1.8 mm in size with a structural thickness
of 0.4 mm. The theoretical sensitivity is around 6–8 fF/g, which corresponds to 30–37 mV/g of
measurements. The maximum cross-axis sensitivity was found to be less than 5%.
In 2003, H. Xie et al. have proposed a very compact, monolithically integrated three-axis
accelerometer with a readout circuit [53]. The design consists of a large outer proof-mass in which the
Z-axis proof -mass is embedded. The comb fingers are placed all around the proof mass for in-plane
sensing but inside the proof mass for Z-axis sensing. The sensor uses the side-wall capacitance of the
comb fingers to detect three-axis acceleration. In order to create a side-wall capacitance, three metal
lines are used and are interconnected to form fully differential bridge configuration. The design uses
a single crystalline silicon (SCS) CMOS-MEMS process for to achieve high resolution with a small
size. The overall
√ die measures only 1 mm × 1 mm and is able to calculate a very low-noise floor of
only 50 µg/ Hz. However, the design uses Al/SiO2 thin film spring beams for suspending the Z-axis
proof-mass, thus making it more sensitive to temperature. Furthermore, the etching steps to create
electrical isolation introduce undercuts on the sensing combs. In a MEMS accelerometer, the undercut
problem is quite common and may be due to a variety of reasons [54]. This causes the capacitive gaps
to increase between the rotor and stator combs.
H. Qu et al. have addressed the undercut and thermal sensitivity problems and reported their
findings in [55]. They have used the same SCS-based CMOS-MEMS process as above. In order to avoid
undercuts they have sacrificed one interconnect layer. The design consists of crab-leg suspended outer
proof-mass for lateral sensing with an unbalanced proof-mass embedded inside it and suspended
Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 14 of 20

using a torsional spring. Again, capacitive combs wired to form a side-wall capacitance are used in
a fully differential configuration. The design has nonetheless suffered undesirable undercuts due
to overheating. The same authors have further addressed these issues and reported on their results
in [56] where they have demonstrated a much more robust three-axis accelerometer with a readout
circuit. In particular, they have used the same SCS CMOS-MEMS process and mitigated the above
problems by improving the DRIE post-processing. The design was also identical with some changes in
the parameters (spring length, proof-mass area...).
In 2009, Analog Devices reported a very low-cost three-axis accelerometer for consumer
electronics [57]. The proposed method to reduce the cost was to use a single proof-mass accelerometer
for the three-axis sensing. Also, a two-chip solution was chosen in which instead of monolithically
integrating the accelerometer with readout circuit, separate chips for MEMS and electronics were used.
The Analog Devices accelerometer was known as ADXL335. For fabricating this MEMS sensor, a new
process was developed based on surface micromachining. From comprehending the chip micrograph,
it can be concluded that comb fingers are used for in-plane sensing. For Z-axis sensing, the proof mass
acts as one electrode plate, which changes the capacitance with respect to a reference electrode plate,
making Z-axis sensing not fully differential. In an overall chip size of 4 mm × 4 mm × √ 1.45 mm, the
device achieved a scale factor of 300 mV/g with a noise-limited resolution of 150 µg/ Hz.
An implementation of a novel single proof-mass three-axis accelerometer was reported by C.M.
Sun et al. [58]. In their approach, one proof mass (Z-axis) and two supporting frames (X- and Y-axis)
are used. There are an inner proof mass for Z-axis sensing, intermediate frame for Y-axis sensing and
outer frame for X-axis sensing. The inner proof mass is connected to the Y-axis frame using V-shaped
springs. The Y-axis frame is connected to the X-axis frame using serpentine springs, and the X-axis
frame is connected to the substrate using the same type of serpentine springs. These two sets of
springs are flexible only in one direction to reduce cross-axis sensitivity. Similarly, the V-shaped Z-axis
springs contribute to the reduction of cross-axis sensitivity. There are three sets of comb fingers that
are micromachined on the X-, Y-, and Z-proof masses. The intermediate proof mass acts as an outer
frame for the inner proof mass, and the X-axis proof mass acts as an outer frame for intermediate proof
mass. The entire sensing is through gap-change comb fingers with no electrode plates being used.
The Z-proof mass is designed to move in an out-of-plane direction with Z-axis acceleration causing
a capacitance change in the comb fingers. Theoretically, any other acceleration (X- or Y-axis) causes
no capacitance change in the Z-electrode combs and therefore no cross-axis sensitivity. The same
applies for the in-plane motion of the inner and outer frames. The overall chip size along with
the readout circuit is 1.78 × 1.38 mm2 . In the acceleration range of 0.8–6 g, the results indicate a
sensitivity of 0.53 mV/g, 0.28 mV/g and 0.2 mV/g for the X-, Y- and Z-axis respectively. The cross-axis
sensitivity ranges from 1–8.3% and the nonlinearity is between 2.5% and√3.5% for all the three axes.
The Z-axis√proof mass is the smallest causing
√ a high noise floor of 357 mg/ Hz, followed by the Y-axis
(271 mg/ Hz) and the X-axis (120 mg/ Hz).
A compact three-axis accelerometer with very low cross-axis sensitivity was reported by Y.W. Hsu
et al. in [59]. Three spring-mass systems were integrated into one structure using linkage springs with
an overall foot-print of 1.3 × 1.28 mm2 . Silicon-On-Glass (SOG) bulk micromachining was used to
fabricate the sensor. An inner proof mass is used for the Y-direction, an intermediate proof mass for the
X-direction, and outer proof mass for the Z-direction. The in-plane sensing is done using comb fingers
while for the out-of-plane Z-axis sensing, two electrode plates are used. With the Z-axis acceleration,
the out-of-balance proof mass undergoes a torsional movement that generates a capacitive difference
with respect to reference plates. The device is symmetric and has a sensitivity of 1.4442 V/g, 1.241 V/g,
and 1.434 V/g in X-, Y-. and Z-direction,√respectively. The noise floor
√ and cross-axis sensitivity for the
in-plane X- and Y-direction are 138 µg/ √ Hz (0.28%) and 159 µg/ Hz (0.7%), respectively, while for
the Z-direction, the noise floor is 49 µg/ Hz (0.54%). The accelerometer is packaged with readout
circuits and measures 4 mm × 4 mm × 1.2 mm. This design has achieved excellent performance
figures that are attributed to the DRIE process with high aspect ratio and a highly symmetric design.
Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 15 of 20

Table 2. Performance summary of three-axis single proof-mass accelerometers.

√ Cross-Axis Sensitivity
Ref Year Author Device Size (mm × mm) Range (‘±g’) Sensitivity X, Y, and Z Noise (µg/ Hz) X, Y, and Z Nonlinearity X, Y, and Z
X, Y, and Z
[51] 1996 Mineta, T. 10 × 10 - - - - 10%
11-X-axis, 0.24 fF/g,
[10] 1997 Lemkin, M.A. 4 × 4 (including read out) 11-Y-axis, 0.24 fF/g, 730, 730, 760 - 1.58% (calculated)
5.5-Z-axis 0.82 fF/g
30 mV/g,
[52] 2001 Li, G. 1.8 × 1.8 (only proof mass) - 30 mV/g, - - <5%
37 mV/g
[53] 2003 Xie, H. 1 × 1 (including readout) - - 50 (estimated) - -
520 mV/g, 2.38%, 2.26%,
[56] 2008 Qu, H. 4 × 4 (including readout) 1 460 mV/g, 12, 14, 110 - 4.73%
320 mV/g Maximum values
[57] 2009 Hollocher, D. 4 × 4 (including read out) 3 300 mV/g 150, 150, 300 0.3% 1%
<7.46%,
0.53 mV/g, 120,000, 2.64%,
<8.05%,
[58] 2010 Sun, C.M. 1.78 × 1.78 (including read out) 0.8~6 0.28 mV/g, 271,000, 3.15%,
<8.33%
0.2 mV/g 357,000 3.36%
Max values
1.44 mV/g, 138, 0.52%, 0.28%,
[59] 2010 Hsu, Y.W. 1.3 × 1.28 1 1.24 mV/g, 159, 0.56%, 0.7%,
1.4 mV/g 49 0.24% 0.54% Max values
14.7 mV/g, 2100, 3.2%, 6.6%,
[60] 2012 Tsai, M.H. 0.4 × 0.4 (only proof mass) 0~1 15.4 mV/g, 2000, 1.4%, 5.4%,
14.6 mV/g 2100 2.8% 5.3% Maximum values
4.31 mV/g, 2.72%, 6.8%,
[61] 2013 Lo, S.C. 1.7 × 1.7 (only proof mass) 0.1~3 4.3 mV/g, - 2.57%, 6.8%,
3.48 mV/g 2.91% 9.0%
6 mV/g, 13, 0.5%,
[62] 2014 Serrano, D.E. 0.45 × 0.45 (only proof mass) 6 5 mV/g, 13, 0.5%, 3% (maximum)
11 mV/g 30 1%
Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 16 of 20

A very compact three-axis accelerometer (400 µm × 400 µm) was reported by M.H. Tsai et al. [60].
In this design, gap-change comb fingers are used to sense acceleration is each of the three directions.
The comb fingers are distributed not only along the length and width of the proof mass but also
along its thickness. This arrangement offers a larger number of fingers in a small space with the
vertical fingers drastically improving sensitivity in the Z-direction. Further, the process is rich in
interconnect resources that are used to connect the fingers in an interdigitated fashion in order to create
fully differential configurations for all the three directions. The sensitivity is close to 15 mV/g,
√ which
corresponds to a capacitance change of approximately 2.6 fF/g. The noise floor is 2.1 mg/ Hz and
the maximum cross-axis sensitivity is less than 6.6%.
A novel three-axis polysilicon rib proof-mass accelerometer was proposed by S-C Lo et al. [61].
The design is implemented using two poly-Si trench refill processes, which provides comb electrodes
with high aspect ratio, thus increasing the sensing capacitance by 30 folds. For sensing in-plane
acceleration, gap-change comb fingers are used, while for out-of-plane sensing, gap-change plate
electrodes are used. The sensing is differential in all three directions. For Z-axis sensing, a novel
method is implemented which uses movable and fixed lower and upper electrodes.
A three-axis accelerometer specifically designed for an inertial measurement unit (IMU) was
reported by D.E. Serrano et al. [62]. In their design, a three-axis pendulum accelerometer is proposed
to operate in vacuum. The rationale of this proposal is based on the fact that the IMU gyroscope must
be packaged under vacuum, and so the integrated accelerometer itself can be packaged under the
same condition. The sensor is designed for the quasi-static domain which requires high damping.
This is achieved by increasing the squeeze-film damping through the reduction of the comb finger
gaps. The design consists of a pendulum-like structure composed of a 450 µm × 450 µm × 40 µm
single-crystal silicon proof mass anchored to the substrate by a cross-shaped polysilicon spring.
This type of structure is said to be effective in reducing the footprint. The tethers that compose the
spring are attached to the mass using a self-aligned process that prevents offsets in the center-of-mass.
Such offsets are strong contributors to cross-axis sensitivity. Four pick-off electrodes placed on the top
of the moving structure are multiplexed to read out changes in capacitance generated by the X-, Y- and
Z-axis components. In the presence of acceleration along the X-axis, the tethers act as torsional springs,
allowing the mass to tilt. This causes a differential change in capacitance.

6.3. Comparison of Single-Proof-Mass and Multiple-Proof-Mass Accelerometers

The performance of accelerometers generally scales with device size. The larger devices have
higher sensitivity and lower noise floor. Therefore, in order to effectively compare accelerometers,
we use normalized metrics such as sensitivity per unit area and noise-area product. For top performing
sensors, the value of sensitivity per unit area should be high while the value of the noise-area product
should be low. Some accelerometers have different sensitivities and noise figures along different axes.
Since we are comparing three-axis accelerometers we will consider the lowest sensitivity and highest
noise floor reported. The sensitivity is either expressed in fF/g or mV/g. For most of the devices,
the datasheet sensitivity is given in mV/g. The mV/g gain of the off-the-shelf readout circuit MS3110
IC is used to convert the capacitive sensitivity (fF/g) into output voltage sensitivity (mV/g) for the
accelerometers where voltage sensitivity (mV/g) is not reported. The output voltage of MS3110 IC is
given by:
∆C
Vout = Gain ∗ V2PS ∗ 1.14 ∗ + Vre f
CF
where
Gain = 2 or 4 (we will take 2 for our calculation)
V2PS = 2.25
∆C = Capacitive Sensitivity in fF/g
CF = 1.5 pF
Vre f = 0.5 or 2.25 (this is an offset that we will ignore in our comparisons)
Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 17 of 20

Table 3 gives a comparison overview of various single proof-mass and multiple-proof-mass

accelerometers. For a single-axis accelerometer, Chae et al. [44] has the highest sensitivity per unit area
and lowest noise-area product. This was made possible by fabricating devices using a process that
uses both surface and bulk micromachining techniques. The next best performance is demonstrated by
the device reported in [47]. It has used a multiplexed readout circuit for reducing the overall footprint.
In the case of single proof-mass accelerometers, Tsai et al. [60] has maximum sensitivity per unit
area while [62] has a minimum noise area product. The accelerometer of [61] uses a novel method
to fabricate comb fingers in the thickness direction, which improves Z-axis sensitivity. The vacuum
packaging in the case of [62] has helped the device to achieve a minimum noise-area product. The main
problem which is faced by most single-proof mass accelerometers is with respect to Z-axis sensing.
The overall performance is slightly lower than expected due to low sensitivity and high noise for
Z-direction sensing.

Table 3. Comparison of accelerometers.

Multiple Proof-Mass Accelerometers Single Proof-Mass Accelerometers

Sensitivity/Area Noise ×√Area Sensitivity/Area Noise ×√Area
Ref Year Ref Year
(mV/mm2 ) (µg mm2 / Hz) (mV/mm2 ) (µg mm2 / Hz)
[8] 1999 - 15,840 [10] 1997 0.0513 12,160
[39] 1999 3.42 - [52] 2001 9.259 -
[41] 2000 2.59 - [53] 2003 - 50
[43] 2005 0.56 - [56] 2008 20 1760
[44] 2005 157 100 [57] 2009 18 4800
[47] 2013 21.35 2553 [58] 2010 0.06 1,131,118
[49] 2015 - 1058 [59] 2010 0.745 264
[50] 2016 0.381 1008 [60] 2012 91.25 336
- - - - [61] 2013 1.204 -
- - - - [62] 2014 24 6

7. Conclusions
In this paper, we have given an overview of monolithic, multi-axis accelerometers. We have
discussed various challenges associated with multi-axis sensor design and fabrication and have
provided an overview of accelerometer principles, with focus on the design options of the proof
mass, sensing comb elements, fabrication process, and read out circuitry. Research on monolithic
three-axis accelerometer has been on-going since 1996, and one can observe significant progress has
been achieved. From MEMS accelerometers with large footprint, nonlinear, high-noise, and high
cross-axis sensitivity devices, the technology has evolved into devices that are compact, highly linear,
with high sensitivity, low cross-axis sensitivity, and low µg resolution.
Our literature survey has shown that the majority of accelerometers which use a single proof
mass for sensing three-axis acceleration are of very small footprint and are low cost. Unfortunately,
with small size come undesirable effects such as undercut of comb fingers during electrical routing.
However, such effects along with nonlinearity, high cross-axis sensitivity, and noise may be solved
with various innovative techniques already proven to be effective. Maintaining device symmetry was
one of the targets for most of the reported devices to reduce off-axis sensitivity. In addition, to this,
the concept of embedding the Z-axis proof mass in an XY-sensing frame was found to be widely used.
This type of interconnected structures is structurally simpler in terms of suspension design and reduces
the overall complexity. However, the use of small Z-axis proof mass increases the Brownian noise in
the out-of-plane direction, thus lowering overall performance metrics.
On the other end of the design spectrum, the majority of multiple proof-mass, monolithic
accelerometers with large device footprints have superior sensitivity, linearity, and noise floor. The main
problem with multiple proof-mass designs is the large size required to obtain good performance.
Conversely, most devices with small footprint suffer from poor sensitivity and high noise floor.

Funding: This work was funded by the Mubadala Development Company, Abu Dhabi, UAE, the Economic
Development Board, Singapore, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES, Singapore, under the framework of the Twinlab
Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 18 of 20

project with participation of A*STAR Institute of Microelectronics (IME), Singapore, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi,
UAE, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES, Singapore.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Volant Technologies Web Site—Accelerometer and Pressure Sensor MEMS History. Available online:
http://terahz.org/_html/22SensorChronology.html (accessed on 1 August 2018).
2. Luczak, S.; Oleksiuk, W.; Bodnicki, M. Sensing tilt with MEMS accelerometers. IEEE Sens. J. 2006,
6, 1669–1675. [CrossRef]
3. Perez, R.; Costa, Ú.; Torrent, M.; Solana, J.; Opisso, E.; Caceres, C.; Tormos, J.M.; Medina, J.; Gómez, E.J. Upper
Limb Portable Motion Analysis System Based on Inertial Technology for Neurorehabilitation Purposes.
Sensors 2010, 10, 10733–10751. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Qu, H. CMOS MEMS Fabrication Technologies and Devices. Micromachines 2016, 7, 14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Ayazi, F. Multi-DOF Inertial MEMS: From Gaming to Dead Reckoning. In Proceedings of the 16th
International Solid-State Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems Conference (Transducers), Beijing, China,
5–9 June 2011.
6. Honeywell. ASA7000, Micromachined Accelerometer, Data Sheet; Honeywell: Morris Plains, NJ, USA, 2001.
7. I. O. Inc. Si-FlexTM SF3000L Low-Noise Tri-Axial Accelerometer; I. O. Inc.: Palm Bay, FL, USA, 2004.
8. Lemkin, M.; Boser, B.E. A three-axis micromachined accelerometer with a CMOS position-sense interface
and digital offset-trim electronics. IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 1999, 34, 456–468. [CrossRef]
9. Lemkin, M.A.; Ortiz, M.A.; Wongkomet, N.; Boser, B.E.; Smith, J.H. A 3-Axis Surface Micromachined Σ∆
Accelerometer. In Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Solids-State Circuits Conference, San Francisco,
CA, USA, 8 February 1997.
10. Lemkin, M.A.; Boser, B.E.; Auslander, D.; Smith, J.H. A 3-axis force balanced accelerometer using a single
proof-mass. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Solid State Sensors and Actuators Conference,
Chicago, IL, USA, 19 June 1997.
11. “One-Third of Mobile Phones to Use Accelerometers by 2010, Spurred by iPhone and Palm Pre,” News,
iSupply Corp., El Segundo, CA, USA. Available online: http://www.isuppli.com/News/Pages/One-T
hird-of-Mobile-Phonesto-Use-Accelerometers-by-2010-Spurred-by-iPhone-and-Palm-Pre.aspx (accessed on
20 June 2010).
12. “Nexus One the Google Phone Is Coming,” Article, Examiner.com, Denver, CO, USA. Available online:
http://www.examiner.com/x-33316-Boulder-Technology-Examinery2009m12d15-Nexus-OneThe-Googl
e-Phone-is-coming (accessed on 20 June 2010).
13. “Nokia beats Apple to Compass-in-Phone,” Article, MEMS Industry Group, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Available
online: http://memsblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/nokia-beats-apple-to-compassin-phone/ (accessed
on 20 June 2010).
14. “Analog Devices and Nintendo Collaboration Drives Video Game Innovation with iMEMS Motion Signal
Processing Technology,” Press Release, Analog Devices, Inc., Nordwood, MA, USA. Available online:
http://www.analog.com/en/pressrelease/May092006ADINintendoCollaboration/press.html (accessed
on 20 June 2010).
15. Yazdi, N.; Ayazi, F.; Najafi, K. Micromachined Inertial Sensors. Proc. IEEE 1998, 86, 1640–1659. [CrossRef]
16. Yazıcıoğlu, R.F. Surface Micromachined Capacitive Accelerometers Using MEMS Technology. Master’s
Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, 2003.
17. Seshia, A.A.; Palaniapan, M.; Roessing, T.A.; Howe, R.T.; Gooch, R.W.; Schimert, T.R.; Montague, S. A Vacuum
Packaged Surface Micromachined Resonant Accelerometer. J. Microelectromech. Syst. 2002, 11, 784–793. [CrossRef]
18. Baldwin, C.; Niemczuk, J.; Kiddy, J.; Slater, T. Review of fiber optic accelerometers. In Proceedings of the
IMAC XXIII Conference & Exposition on Structural Dynamics, Society for Experimental Mechanics, Orlando,
FL, USA, 31 January–3 February 2005.
19. Milanovi, V.; Bowen, E.; Tea, N.; Suehle, J.; Payne, B.; Zaghloul, M.; Gaitan, M. Convection based
Accelerometer and Tilt Sensor Implemented in Standard CMOS. In Proceedings of the International
Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, San Francisco, CA, USA, 15–20 November 1998.
Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 19 of 20

20. Lui, C.H.; Kenny, T.H. A High-Precision Wide-Bandwidth Micromachined Tunneling Accelerometer.
J. Microelectromech. Syst. 2001, 10, 425–433.
21. Xie, H.; Fedder, G.K. A CMOS Z-Axis Capacitive Accelerometer with Comb-Finger Sensing. In Proceedings
of the IEEE Micro Electro Mechanical Systems Conference, Miyazaki, Japan, 23–27 January 2000.
22. Jiang, X.; Wang, F.; Kraft, M.; Boser, B.E. An Integrated Surface Micromachined Capacitive Lateral
Accelerometer with 2 µG/rt-Hz Resolution. In Proceedings of the Solid State Sensor and Actuator Workshop,
Hilton Head Island, SC, USA, 2–6 June 2002.
23. Puers, R.; Reyntjens, S. Design and Processing Experiments of a new Miniaturized Capacitive Triaxial
Accelerometers. Sens. Actuators A 1998, 68, 324–328. [CrossRef]
24. Qu, W.; Wenzel, C.; Jahn, A. One-mask Procedure for the Fabrication of Movable High-Aspect-Ratio 3d
Microstructures. J. Microelectromech. Syst. 1998, 8, 279–283. [CrossRef]
25. Robin, L.; Mounier, E. Inertial sensor market moves to combo sensors and sensor hubs. MEMS’ Trends Mag.
2013, 16, 16–18.
26. Ocak, I.E.; Cheam, D.D.; Fernando, S.N.; Lin, A.T.; Singh, P.; Sharma, J.; Kwong, D.L. A Monolithic 9 Degree
of Freedom (DOF) Capacitive Inertial MEMS Platform. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Electron
Devices Meeting, San Francisco, CA, USA, 15–17 December 2014.
27. Weigold, J.W.; Najafi, K.; Pang, S.W. Design and Fabrication of Submicrometer, Single Crystal Si
Accelerometer. J. Microelectromech. Syst. 2001, 10, 518–524. [CrossRef]
28. Chau, K.H.L.; Lewis, S.R.; Zhao, Y.; Howe, R.T.; Bart, S.F.; Marcheselli, R.G. An integrated force-balanced
capacitive accelerometer for low-g applications. Sens. Actuators A 1996, 54, 472–476. [CrossRef]
29. Chae, J.; Kulah, H.; Najafi, K. A hybrid Silicon-On-Glass (SOG) lateral micro-accelerometer with CMOS
readout circuitry. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on MEMS, Las Vegas, NV, USA,
24 January 2002.
30. Benmessaoud, M.; Nasreddine, M.M. Optimization of MEMS capacitive accelerometer. Microsyst. Technol.
2013, 19, 713–720. [CrossRef]
31. Aydin, O.; Akin, T. A bulk-micromachined fully-differential MEMS accelerometer with interdigitated fingers.
In Proceedings of the IEEE Sensors Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, 28–32 October 2012.
32. Mohammed, Z.; Gill, W.A.; Rasras, M. Double-Comb-Finger Design to Eliminate Cross-Axis Sensitivity in a
Dual-Axis Accelerometer. IEEE Sens. Lett. 2017, 1, 1–4. [CrossRef]
33. Mohammed, Z.; Dushaq, G.; Chatterjee, A.; Rasras, M. Bi-axial highly sensitive ±5g polysilicon
based differential capacitive accelerometer. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on
Thermal, Mechanical and Multi-Physics Simulation and Experiments in Microelectronics and Microsystems
(EuroSimE), Montpellier, France, 18–20 April 2016.
34. Seidel, H.; Riedel, H.; Kolbeck, R.; Mück, G.; Kupke, W.; Königer, M. Capacitive silicon accelerometer with
highly symmetrical design. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 1990, 21, 312–315. [CrossRef]
35. Matsumoto, Y.; Iwakiri, M.; Tanaka, H.; Ishida, M.; Nakamura, T. A capacitive accelerometer using SDB-SOI
structure. Sens. Actuators A 1996, 53, 267–272. [CrossRef]
36. Chen, W.; Huo, M.; Lin, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhang, R. A novel Zaxis capacitive accelerometer using SOG structure.
In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Electronics Packaging Technology, Shenzhen, China,
30 August–2 September 2005.
37. Lee, I.; Yoon, G.H.; Park, J.; Seok, S.; Chun, K.; Lee, K. Development and analysis of the vertical capacitive
accelerometer. Sens. Actuators A 1996, 119, 8–18. [CrossRef]
38. Mohammed, Z.; Elfadel, I.M.; Rasras, M. High dynamic range Z-axis hybrid spring MEMS capacitive
accelerometer. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Design, Test, Integration & Packaging of MEMS
and MOEMS (DTIP), Rome, Italy, 22–25 May 2018.
39. Matsumoto, Y.; Nishimura, M.; Matsuura, M.; Ishida, M. Three-axis SOI capacitive accelerometer with PLL
C–V converter. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 1999, 75, 77–85. [CrossRef]
40. Matsumoto, Y.; Yoshida, K.; Ishida, M. Fluorocarbon film for protection from alkaline etchant and elimination
of in-use stiction. In Proceedings of the International Solid State Sensors and Actuators, Chicago, IL, USA,
19 June 1997.
41. Butefisch, S.; Schoft, A.; Buttgenbach, S. Three-axes monolithic silicon low-g accelerometer. J. Microelectromech. Syst.
2000, 9, 551–556. [CrossRef]
Micromachines 2018, 9, 602 20 of 20

42. Rodjeg, H.; Andersson, G. Design optimization of three-axis accelerometers based on four seismic masses.
In Proceedings of the IEEE Sensors, Orlando, FL, USA, 12–14 June 2002.
43. Rödjegård, H.; Johansson, C.; Enoksson, P.; Andersson, G. A monolithic three-axis SOI-accelerometer with
uniform sensitivity. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2005, 123–124, 50–53. [CrossRef]
44. Chae, J.; Kulah, H.; Najafi, K. A Monolithic Three-Axis Micro-g Micromachined Silicon Capacitive
Accelerometer. J. Microelectromech. Syst. 2005, 14, 235–242. [CrossRef]
45. Chae, J.; Kulah, H.; Najafi, K. An In-Plane High-Sensitivity, Low-Noise Micro-g Silicon Accelerometer with
CMOS Readout Circuitry. J. Microelectromech. Syst. 2004, 13, 628–635. [CrossRef]
46. Yazdi, N.; Ayazi, F.; Najafi, K. An All-Silicon Single-Wafer Micro-g Accelerometer with a Combined Surface
and Bulk Micromachining Process. J. Microelectromech. Syst. 2000, 9, 1–8. [CrossRef]
47. Liu, Y.C.; Tsai, M.H.; Li, S.S.; Fang, W. A Fully-Differential, Multiplex-Sensing Interface Circuit Monolithically
Integrated with Tri-Axis Pure Oxide Capacitive CMOS-MEMS Accelerometers. In Proceedings of the
17th International Conference on Solid-State Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems, Barcelona, Spain,
16–20 June 2013.
48. Tez, S.; Akin, T. Fabrication of a sandwich type three axis capacitive MEMS accelerometer. In Proceedings of
the IEEE Sensors, Baltomire, MD, USA, 3–6 November 2013.
49. Tez, S.; Aykutlu, U.; Torunbalci, M.M.; Akin, T. A Bulk-Micromachined Three-Axis Capacitive MEMS
Accelerometer on a Single Die. J. Microelectromech. Syst. 2015, 24, 1264–1274. [CrossRef]
50. Aydemir, A.; Terzioglu, Y.; Torunbalci, M.M.; Akin, T. A new design and a fabrication approach to realize a high
performance three axes capacitive MEMS accelerometer. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2016, 244, 324–333. [CrossRef]
51. Mineta, T.; Kobayashi, S.; Watanabe, Y.; Kanauchi, S.; Nakagawa, I.; Suganuma, E.; Esashi, M. Three-axis
capacitive accelerometer with uniform axial sensitivities. J. Micromech. Microeng. 1996, 6, 431–435. [CrossRef]
52. Li, G.; Li, Z.; Wang, C.; Hao, Y.; Li, T.; Zhang, D.; Wu, G. Design and fabrication of a highly symmetrical
capacitive triaxial accelerometer. J. Micromech. Microeng. 2001, 11, 48–54. [CrossRef]
53. Xie, H.; Pan, Z.; Frey, W.; Fedder, G. Design and fabrication of an integrated CMOS-MEMS 3-axis
accelerometer. In Proceedings of the 2003 Nanotechnology Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA,
23–27 February 2003.
54. Mohammed, Z.; Dushaq, G.; Chatterjee, A.; Rasras, M. An optimization technique for performance
improvement of gap-changeable MEMS accelerometers. Mechatronics 2018, 54, 203–216. [CrossRef]
55. Qu, H.; Fang, D.; Xie, H. A Single-Crystal Silicon 3-axis CMOS-MEMS Accelerometer. In Proceedings of the
IEEE Sensors Conference, Vienna, Austria, 24–27 October 2004.
56. Qu, H.; Fang, D.; Xie, H. A Monolithic CMOS-MEMS 3-Axis Accelerometer with a Low-Noise, Low-Power
Dual-Chopper Amplifier. IEEE Sens. J. 2008, 8, 1511–1518.
57. Hollocher, D.; Zhang, X.; Sparks, A.; Bart, S.; Sawyer, W.; Narayanasamy, P.; Mhatre, R. A Very Low Cost,
3-axis, MEMS Accelerometer for Consumer Applications. In Proceedings of the IEEE Sensors, Christchurch,
New Zealand, 25–28 October 2009.
58. Sun, C.M.; Tsai, M.H.; Liu, Y.C.; Fang, W. Implementation of a monolithic single proof-mass tri-axis
accelerometer using CMOS-MEMS technique. IEEE Trans. Electron. Dev. 2010, 57, 1670–1679. [CrossRef]
59. Hsu, Y.W.; Chen, J.Y.; Chien, H.T.; Chen, S.; Lin, S.T.; Liao, L.P. New capacitive low-g triaxial accelerometer
with low cross-axis sensitivity. J. Micromech. Microeng. 2010, 20, 055019. [CrossRef]
60. Tsai, M.H.; Liu, Y.C.; Fang, W. A Three-Axis CMOS-MEMS Accelerometer Structure with Vertically Integrated
Fully Differential Sensing Electrodes. J. Microelectromech. Syst. 2012, 21, 1329–1337. [CrossRef]
61. Lo, S.C.; Chan, C.K.; Lai, W.C.; Wu, M.; Lin, Y.C.; Fang, W. Design and Implementation of A Novel
Poly-Si Single Proof-Mass Differential Capacitive-Sensing 3-Axis Accelerometer. In Proceedings of the
17th International Conference on Solid-State Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems, Barcelona, Spain,
16–20 June 2013.
62. Serrano, D.E.; Jeong, Y.; Keesara, V.; Sung, W.K.; Ayazi, F. Single Proof-Mass Tri-Axial Pendulum
Accelerometers Operating in Vacuum. In Proceedings of the IEEE 27th International Conference on Micro
Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS), San Francisco, CA, USA, 26–30 January 2014.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).