Sensors 15 23205 PDF
Sensors 15 23205 PDF
Sensors 15 23205 PDF
3390/s150923205
OPEN ACCESS
sensors
ISSN 1424-8220
www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors
Article
1
Key Laboratory of Instrumentation Science & Dynamic Measurement, Ministry of Education,
North University of China, Taiyuan 030051, China; E-Mails: [email protected] (J.S.);
[email protected] (C.H.); [email protected] (R.Z.); [email protected] (L.M.);
[email protected] (J.C.); [email protected] (J.M.); [email protected] (Y.L.)
2
Key Laboratory of Science and Technology on Electronic Test & Measurement,
North University of China, Taiyuan 030051, China
Keywords: CMUT; C-V characteristic curve; sound pressure; bandwidth; ultrasonic imaging
Sensors 2015, 15 23206
1. Introduction
2. Structural Design
The frequency, which is closely related to the radius and the thickness of a vibration, is a vital
transducer parameter. Because ultrasonic waves can propagate over greater distances at lower
frequencies [22] and because the frequency of the underwater acoustic imaging system is in the
100 kHz–2 MHz range [2], the frequency of a transducer designed for underwater performance is
Sensors 2015, 15 23207
determined to be about 300 kHz. Based on our previous study and the process conditions [23], the radius
and the thickness of the membrane are determined to be 90 μm and 2.8 μm, respectively.
A transducer operating in transmitting mode requires a high cavity height to obtain high output
pressure, while a transducer working in receiving mode requires only a low cavity height to attain high
sensitivity [24]. The optimum cavity height is confirmed to be 0.65 μm after balanced consideration of
these requirements. When the size of the top electrode is 40% to 50% of the size of the membrane, the
transducer can have a large bandwidth [25]. As a result, the top electrode radius is determined to be 45 μm.
A highly-doped silicon wafer is used as the vibration membrane [19]. Unfortunately, this could easily
result in ohmic contact between the top electrodes and the membrane, making the membrane become the
top electrode. Therefore, a silicon dioxide insulation layer is added between the top electrodes and the
membrane. A cross-sectional schematic of a sensitive cell is shown in Figure 1a and the plan form of the
element is shown in Figure 1b. The specific parameters of a designed structural element are listed in Table 1.
ti1
tm
d0
ti 2
(a) (b)
Figure 1. (a) The cross-section of a sensitive cell; (b) The planform of an element.
The axial resolution (∆x) is defined as the minimum distance that can be distinguished between two
echo sources in the direction of propagation. The axial resolution can be expressed as:
λ
∆x = (1)
2
where n is the number of scanning lines, λ is the wavelength and nλ is the pulse width.
Sensors 2015, 15 23208
Increasing the operating frequency and reducing the number of scanning lines can improve the
axial resolution of the transducer. For the CMUTs designed in this paper, the axial resolution is
approximately 5.55 mm when the number of scanning lines is 3.
The lateral resolution (∆y) is defined as the minimum distance that can be distinguished in the
vertical direction of propagation. The lateral resolution can be expressed as:
1.22λ
∆y = ×S (2)
D
where D is the aperture size of the probe and S is the distance between the focus and the CMUT.
The lateral resolution at a specific focus can be improved by reducing the operating wavelength and
increasing the aperture size of the probe. The probe aperture size for our designed CMUT is 6 mm,
and the lateral resolution is approximately 6.78 mm when the distance between the focus and the
CMUT is 50 mm.
3. Fabrication Process
Like other MEMS transducers, the transducer presented in this paper can be fabricated by the
MEMS sacrificial technique [26]. A detailed description of this fabrication process can be found in the
literature [8]; however, the required fabrication processes have been summarized briefly in this paper.
Before the fabrication process begins, a silicon wafer and a silicon-on-insulator (SOI) wafer should
first be prepared. The requirements of the silicon wafer and the SOI wafer are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. The detailed parameters of the silicon wafer and SOI wafer.
Parameter SOI Wafer Silicon Wafer
Size (inches) 6 6
Device layer P
Conductive type P
Handle wafer N
Device layer 0.01–0.08
Resistivity (ohm·cm) 0.01–0.02
Handle wafer 0.01–0.02
Orientation (100) (100)
Device layer 2.8 ± 0.1
Thickness (μm) Box layer 0.8 ± 0.08 400 ± 10
Handle wafer 430 ±15
The main fabrication flow-chart is illustrated in Figure 2. The fabricated transducers on a 150 mm
wafer are shown in Figure 3.
Step 1 Standard RCA cleaning is performed on both the silicon wafer and the SOI wafer to remove
organic matter, dust and oxide layers.
Step 2 The silicon wafer is then oxidized to form a 0.8-μm oxide layer, which will be part-etched to
form cavities, as shown in Figure 2a.
Step 3 Gluing and exposure processes are performed on the front area of the silicon wafer; a 0.65-μm
oxide layer is etched to form the cavities and a 0.15-μm oxide layer is left behind to prevent
membrane contact with the substrate, as shown in Figure 2b.
Sensors 2015, 15 23209
Step 4 The silicon wafer and the SOI wafer are bonded together at low temperature [27,28] and in a
vacuum environment [3], as shown in Figure 2c.
Step 5 The handle layer of the SOI wafer, the buried oxide (BOX) layer of the SOI wafer and the
oxide layer are etched to produce the basic transducer structure, as shown in Figure 2d.
Step 6 A silicon dioxide layer is deposited on the vibration membrane to prevent the formation of an
ohmic contact between the top electrodes and the vibration membrane, as shown in Figure 2e.
Step 7 A metal layer is sputtered on the vibration membrane by the evaporation method, and the top
electrodes and pads are formed by the peeling method, as shown in Figure 2f.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
SiO2
In this process, low temperature wafer bonding technology is vital. Low temperature processing
can effectively avoid problems such as introduction of thermal stress, possible contamination, defect
generation and doping profile broadening, and also increases the bond strength [27]. Sealed cavities
can prevent the hydrolysis of water under high electric fields, thus reducing the energy losses and
effectively averting electric breakdown [28].
Sensors 2015, 15 23210
4. Experimental Results
The Agilent 4284A PRECISION LCR METER is used to analyze the effects of the DC bias voltage
on the transducer capacitance. The oscillation frequency range of the LCR meter is from 20 Hz to
1 MHz. The DC bias voltage ranges from 0 V to 45 V and then from 45 V back to 0.0 V in a cycle.
When the scan cycle number is two, the voltage step length is 0.5 V and the operating frequency is 1 MHz,
the C-V characteristic curve is plotted as shown in Figure 4. The black curve and the green curve
represent the first and second cycles, respectively. The red curve and the disperse points represent the
average capacitance under different bias voltages.
-9
x 10
1.25
1.2
1.15
Capacitance/F
1.1
1.05
0.95
first cycle
second cycle
0.9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Bias Voltage/V
The capacitance basically remains unchanged when the DC bias voltage ranges from 40 V to 45 V.
This phenomenon can be accounted for by the reason that the membrane has collapsed. As a result,
the collapsed voltage is 40 V. Additionally, the deviation between the output capacitance values is small
when the DC bias voltage is increasing and when the DC bias voltage is decreasing. This indicates that
the transducer has a fine hysteresis performance. Moreover, the consistency between the output
Sensors 2015, 15 23211
capacitance values of the first and second cycles is also fine. This implies that the transducer has
excellent repeatability performance.
Under the hypothesis that V (V) is the collected voltage and S (dB) is the sensitivity of the standard
hydrophone, the sound pressure level (SPL) can be expressed as:
SPL = 20 log ( ) − (3)
The pressure can then be expressed as:
P = 10 ∙ (4)
where = 1 μPa.
The experimental schematic diagram and configuration are shown in Figure 5a,b, respectively. The
left CMUT is driven by multiple cyclical bursts of sinusoids from the signal generator (Agilent 33521A)
amplified by a high voltage amplifier (HA-205) at 250 kHz. The bias and excitation voltages are 20 V
and 20 , respectively.
(a) (b)
900
0
measurement value
throretical value
800
-1
700
Normalized Magnitude/dB
-2
Pressure/Pa
600
-3
500
-4
400
-5
300
200 -6
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance/cm Frequency/kHz
(c) (d)
Figure 5. (a) The experimental schematic diagram (b) The experimental configuration
(c) the measurement and theoretical pressures at different distances (d) The −6 dB bandwidth.
Sensors 2015, 15 23212
The −6 dB bandwidth of the hydrophone is 31% and the sensitivity is −199.8 dB @ 250 kHz (0 dB re
1 V/μPa). Based on Equations (3) and (4), the measurement pressures at different distances away from
the CMUT are obtained and are plotted in Figure 5c and listed in Table 3.
If the pressure at the sound source is P0, the distance between the sound source and a point on the
sound source axis is x and the attenuation coefficient is α, the pressure (P) at the point can be expressed
as [29]:
P=P (5)
The pressure at the sound source (983.9 Pa) and attenuation coefficient (0.01946) are obtained
from the measurement pressure and distance data. Equation (5) can then be written as:
.
P = 978.3 (6)
The theoretical and measured sound pressures at various distances are plotted in Figure 5a and listed
in Table 3. The average error between the theoretical and measured values is only 4.5%. Additionally,
143.43 Pa pressure is achieved underwater at a distance of 1 m from the CMUT under 20 V excitation.
A frequency domain plot of the signal received by the hydrophone is shown in Figure 5b. The −6 dB
center frequency is 540 kHz and the transducer has a bandwidth of 840 kHz for a relative bandwidth
of 155%. This bandwidth implies that the designed structure achieves the intended aim of increasing
the bandwidth.
The hydrophone is then replaced by a CMUT; an experiment schematic is shown in Figure 6a.
When the distance between the two CMUTs is 30 cm, then the filtered signal is as shown in Figure 6a.
The first signal is the transmitting signal and the second signal is the receiving signal.
Sensors 2015, 15 23213
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 6. (a) Schematic diagram of the distance testing experiment; (b) The transmitting
and receiving signal when the distance between the two CMUTs; The frequency of
the transmitting signal is 250 kHz; (c) The measurement and real distances between the
two transducers.
Table 4. The real and measurement distances between the two CMUTs.
Real Distance/cm Measurement Distance/cm Deviation/cm
1 5 5.65 0.65
2 10 11.46 1.46
3 15 15.22 0.22
4 20 21.72 1.72
5 25 26.45 1.45
6 30 31.67 1.67
7 35 36.37 1.37
8 40 41.25 1.25
9 45 46.30 1.3
10 50 51.31 1.31
11 55 55.85 0.85
12 60 61.23 1.23
13 65 65.83 0.83
14 70 70.67 0.67
Sensors 2015, 15 23214
The measured distance (31.67 cm) between the two CMUTs can be obtained from the speed of
ultrasonic propagation underwater (1480 m/s) by multiplying the time that the signal takes to travel from
the transmitting CMUT to the receiving CMUT (2.14 × 10−4 s). Similarly, measured distances at actual
distances of 10–70 cm at 5 cm step increments are plotted in Figure 6b and listed in Table 4.
The results show that the measured distances are greater than the real distances by around 1 cm.
The distance between the transducers and the packaging is not considered and the deviation related to
the CMUT moving from one location to another can account for this result. In addition, the actual
speed of ultrasonic propagation underwater of less than 1480 m/s may also contribute to the result.
However, this experiment does demonstrate that the designed CMUT operates well underwater.
The experimental underwater imaging configuration is shown in Figure 7a. The imaging target is
placed at a specified distance from the transducer. The transducers, of which one is used to transmit
ultrasonic waves and the other is used to receive these ultrasonic waves, are moved from the left side to
the right side of the imaging target. The initial 2D ultrasonic imaging result is obtained through bandpass
filtering, envelope detection, logarithmic compression and image processing, with results as shown
in Figure 7b.
-150
-100
Lateral distance [mm]
-50
50
100
150
(a) (b)
Figure 7. (a) The underwater imaging experiment configuration; (b) The imaging result of
the target.
While the edge of the target imaging result is fuzzy, we can see that the target is obviously there.
Therefore, this experiment has basically demonstrated that the designed transducer can be used for
underwater imaging. 1D arrays and 2D arrays will be studied in the future, and a pronounced increase
in the imaging results will be obtained.
5. Conclusions
A CMUT with an insulation layer appended between its top electrodes and vibration membrane for
underwater imaging is designed, fabricated and tested in this paper. The CMUT shows fine hysteresis
and repeatability performances. The 155% bandwidth of the transducer proves that the designed
Sensors 2015, 15 23215
structure is beneficial for increasing transducer bandwidth. Distance and imaging experiments
demonstrate that the designed transducer shows promise for applications in the underwater field.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61127008,
and the “863” program of China under Grant 2013AA09A412.
Author Contributions
The author Jinlong Song designed the structure, organized the experiments and drafted the
manuscript. Chenyang Xue provided with the funding support. Wendong Zhang and Changde He
designed the fabrication process. Jing Miao completed the processing of the transducer. Rui Zhang and
Yuan Liu performed the data collection and analysis. Linfeng Mu and Juan Cui reviewed and edited
the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
References
1. Oralkan, O.; Ergun, A.S.; Cheng, C.H.; Johnson, J.A.; Karaman, M.; Khuri-Yakub, B.T.
Underwater acoustic imaging using capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducer arrays.
In Proceedings of the OCEANS’02 MTS/IEEE, Biloxi, MI, USA, 29–31 October 2002;
pp. 2354–2360.
2. Sutton, J.L. Underwater acoustic imaging. IEEE Proc. 1979, 67, 554–566.
3. Oralkan, O.; Ergun, A.S.; Johnson, J.A.; Karaman, M.; Demirci, U.; Kaviani, K.; Lee, T.H.;
Khuri-Yakub, B.T. Capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducers: Next-generation arrays for
acoustic imaging? IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 2002, 49, 1596–1610.
4. Ito, S.; Suzuki, T.; Ito, T.; Katoh, O.; Ojio, S.; Sato, H.; Ehara, M.; Suzuki, T.; Kawase, Y.;
Myoishi, M.; et al. Novel Technique Using Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Guidewire Cross in
Coronary Intervention for Uncrossable Chronic Total Occlusions. Circ. J. 2004, 68, 1088–1092.
5. Courtney, B.K.; Munce, N.R.; Anderson, K.J.; Thind, A.S.; Leung, G.; Radau, P.E.; Foster, F.S.;
Vitkin, I.A.; Schwartz, R.S.; Dick, A.J.; et al. Innovations in imaging for chronic total occlusions:
A glimpse into the future of angiography’s blind-spot. Eur. Heart J. 2008, 29, 583–593.
6. Park, K.K.; Lee, H.; Kupnik, M.; Khuri-Yakub, B.T. Fabrication of Capacitive Micromachined
Ultrasonic Transducers via Local Oxidation and Direct Wafer Bonding. J. Microelectromech. Syst.
2011, 20, 95–103.
7. Ladabaum, I.; Khuri-Yakub, B.T.; Spoliansky, D.; Haller, M.I. Micromachined ultrasonic
transducers (MUTs). In Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium, Seattle, WA,
USA, 7–10 November 1995; Volume 1, pp. 501–504.
8. Jeong, B.; Kim, D.; Hong, S.; Chung, S.; Shin, H. Performance and reliability of new CMUT
design with improved efficiency. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2013, 199, 325–333.
Sensors 2015, 15 23216
9. Emadi, T.A.; Buchanan, D.A. Multiple moving membrane CMUT with enlarged membrane
displacement and low pull-down voltage. IEEE Electron Device Lett. 2013, 34, 1578–1580.
10. Ergun, A.S.; Yaralioglu, G.G.; Khuri-Yakub, B.T. Capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducers:
Theory and technology. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 2014, 16, 76–84.
11. Jin, X.; Ladabaum, I.; Khuri-Yakub, B.T. The microfabrication of capacitive ultrasonic transducers.
J. Microelectromech. Syst. 1998, 7, 295–302.
12. Salim, M.S.; Malek, M.F.A.; Heng, R.B.W.; Juni, K.M.; Sabri, N. Capacitive Micromachined
Ultrasonic Transducers: Technology and Application. J. Med. Ultrasound 2012, 20, 8–31.
13. Cianci, E.; Foglietti, V.; Caliano, G.; Pappalardo, M. Micromachined capacitive ultrasonic
transducers fabricated using silicon on insulator wafers. Microelectron. Eng. 2002, 61–62,
1025–1029.
14. Suo, X. Simulation and Deformation Analysis of CMUT Membrane; South China University of
Technology: Guangzhou, China, 2013.
15. Chen, J.; Cheng, X.; Chen, C.; Li, P. A Capacitive Micromachined Ultrasonic Transducer Array
for Minimally Invasive Medical Diagnosis. J. Microelectromech. Syst. 2008, 17, 599–610.
16. Liu, J.; Oakley, C.; Shandas, R. Capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducers using commercial
multi-user MUMPs process: Capability and limitations. Ultrasonics 2009, 49, 765–773.
17. Doody, B.C.; Cheng, X.; Rich, A.C.; Lemmerhirt, D.F.; White, R.D. Modeling and Characterization
of CMOS-Fabricated Capacitive Micromachined Ultrasound Transducers. J. Microelectromech. Syst.
2011, 20, 104–118.
18. Helin, P.; Czarnecki, P.; Verbist, A.; Bryce, G.; Rottenberg, X. Severi S: Poly-SiGe-based CMUT
array with high acoustical pressure. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 25th International Conference
on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS), Paris, France, 29 January–2 February 2012;
pp. 305–308.
19. Olcum, S.; Oguz, K.; Senlik, M.N.; Yamaner, F.Y.; Bozkurt, A.; Atalar, A.; Koymen, H. Wafer
bonded capacitive micromachined underwater transducers. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE
International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS), Rome, Italy, 20–23 September 2009; pp. 976–979.
20. Jin, X.; Ladabaum, I.; Degertekin, F.; Calmes, S.; Khuri-Yakub, B.T. Fabrication and
characterization of surface micromachined capacitive ultrasonic immersion transducers.
J. Microelectromech. Syst. 1999, 8, 100–114.
21. Wong, S.H.; Kupnik, M.; Watkins, R.D.; Butts-Pauly, K.; Khuri-Yakub, B.T. Capacitive
Micromachined Ultrasonic Transducers for Therapeutic Ultrasound Applications. IEEE Trans.
Biom. Eng. 2010, 57, 114–123.
22. Logan, A.S. The Design, Fabrication and Characterization of Capacitive Micromachined Ultrasonic
Transducers for Imaing Applications. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON,
Canada, 2010.
23. Li, Y.; He, C.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, H.; Song, J.; Xue, C. Design and analysis of MEMS capacitive
ultrasonic transducer. Transducer Microsyst. Technol. 2014, 33, 73–75.
24. Zhuang, X. Capacitive Micromachined Ultrasonic Transducers with Through-Wafer Interconnects.
Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, 2008.
Sensors 2015, 15 23217
25. Bozkurt, A.; Ladabaum, I.; Atalar, A.; Khuri-Yakub, B.T. Theory and analysis of electrode size
optimization for capacitive microfabricated ultrasonic transducers. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr.
Freq. Control 1999, 46, 1364–1374.
26. Emadi, T.A.; Buchanan, D.A. Development of a novel configuration for a MEMS transducer for low
bias and high resolution imaging applications. Proc. SPIE 2014, 8976, doi:10.1117/12.2037840.
27. Tong, Q.Y.; Cha, G.; Gafiteanu, R.; Gosele, U. Low temperature wafer direct bonding.
J. Microelectromech. Syst. 1994, 3, 29–35.
28. Tsuji, Y.; Kupnik, M.; Khuri-Yakub, B.T. Low temperature process for CMUT fabrication with
wafer bonding technique. In Proceedings of the Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS), San Diego, CA,
USA, 11–14 October 2010; pp. 551–554.
29. Feng, N. Ultrasonics Handbook; Nanjing University Press: Nanjing, China, 2006; pp. 16–31.
© 2015 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 license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).