Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

An acceleration switch with a robust latching mechanism and cylindrical contacts

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2010 J. Micromech. Microeng. 20 055006

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0960-1317/20/5/055006)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 132.210.236.20
This content was downloaded on 30/06/2014 at 13:29

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

IOP PUBLISHING JOURNAL OF MICROMECHANICS AND MICROENGINEERING
J. Micromech. Microeng. 20 (2010) 055006 (7pp) doi:10.1088/0960-1317/20/5/055006

An acceleration switch with a robust

latching mechanism and cylindrical
contacts
Z Y Guo1,2 , Q C Zhao1 , L T Lin1 , H T Ding1 , X S Liu1 , J Cui1 , Z C Yang1 ,
Huikai Xie2 and G Z Yan1
1
National Key Laboratory of Micro/Nano Fabrication Technology, Institute of Microelectronics,
Peking University, Beijing 100871, People’s Republic of China
2
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
E-mail: gzyan@pku.edu.cn

Received 13 September 2009, in final form 24 February 2010

Published 23 March 2010
Online at stacks.iop.org/JMM/20/055006

Abstract
A microelectromechanical systems acceleration latching switch with cylindrical contacts and
an easy-latching/difficult-releasing (ELDR) latching mechanism is presented in this paper.
The cylindrical contacts can make the switch immune to fabrication imperfections and off-axis
shocks and can decrease the contact resistance as well. The ELDR latching mechanism can
latch the switch reliably. Moreover, all the contacts and their support beams are separated from
the proof mass so as to prevent the contacts from opening due to the impact resulting from the
rebound or vibration of the proof mass once the switch is latched. The switch has been
fabricated by a two-mask silicon-on-glass process and tested. The measured latching shock is
over 4600 g and the response time is less than 0.2 ms. The total on-resistance is less than 3 
while the insulation resistance is more than 100 G and the maximum allowable current is up
to 130 mA.
(Some figures in this article are in colour only in the electronic version)

1. Introduction Mechanical threshold acceleration switches are immune

Acceleration threshold switches are widely used for safety and
protection in airbags, transportation systems, crash recorders
and arming and firing systems [1, 2]. In addition to low
cost, high robustness and high reliability are essential for an
acceleration threshold switch. The latching mechanism and
the contact are the two key elements that affect the performance
especially the reliability of a switch. Microelectromechanical
systems (MEMS) technology makes it possible to realize low-
cost acceleration switches with small sizes, and many different
MEMS acceleration switches have been reported [1–7]. The
pull-in or snap-through behavior of electrostatic actuation
can be used to realize the needed acceleration thresholds
[4], but such MEMS switches have high failure rates and
may malfunction by an electromagnetic interference (EMI)
[6]. MEMS switches based on permanent magnetic actuation
have also been proposed [8], but the fabrication process is
complicated and EMI is still a concern.
to external disturbances such as EMI and short-duration shocks
[2, 3]. Bistable beams are commonly used as latching
mechanisms but the design flexibility is very limited [3, 9].
Mechanical latching switches and shock sensors have been
reported [2, 10, 11], but the movable side of the contact pairs
is mechanically linked to a proof mass. So the contacts are
inevitably impacted by the rebound or vibration of the proof
mass once the switch is latched, resulting in poor reliability.
In this paper, the contacts and their beams are separated
from the proof mass so as to prevent the contacts from
the impact resulting from the rebound or vibration of the
proof mass once the switch is latched. The contacts include
two planar contact pairs and two cylindrical contact pairs to
increase the effective contact area and thus to lower the contact
resistance and increase the maximum allowable current. The
cylindrical contact pairs are immune to the relative rotation
of the contact parts, which makes the switch less sensitive to
the fabrication imperfections and off-axis shocks. Moreover,

0960-1317/10/055006+07$30.00 1 © 2010 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK & the USA
J. Micromech. Microeng. 20 (2010) 055006 Z Y Guo et al

Contact1 Contact2

(Top Contact5
Stopper1 (Central
Contacts)
contact)
Latching
beam

Sensing Contact3 Contact4

beam
Proof mass Stopper2
Proof mass
anchor movable glass Y

(a) (b) X

Figure 1. Schematic of the switch and a close-up of the contacts.

a unique latching mechanism that can be easily latched but is

difficult to release after latching, named ELDR in this paper, Δx1
α F2 Δx2
is adopted to further improve latching reliability.

2. Device design Δy1

Δy2
F1
2.1. Topology design and working principle l1 l2 y
The schematic diagram of the switch is shown in figure 1(a). x
It consists of five groups of beams and contacts, as shown
in figure 1(b), to realize a multi-point contact that is not (a) (b)
mechanically linked to the proof mass. When the applied Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the latching beam’s deformation
acceleration is greater than the latching threshold, contact 5 under two typical applied forces.
will pass over contacts 3 and 4 and be latched. Once the
acceleration is decreased, the proof mass will be separated
Central contact
from contact 5, so the contacts can be protected from the gct0
oscillation of the proof mass. Contact 5 is designed to contact
with contacts 1, 2, 3 and 4 at the same time so as to improve lc1
the contact reliability, to increase the current handling capacity
and to decrease the contact resistance. Contacts 1, 2 and 5 form gc0
lc2
two cylindrical pairs which can make the switch more immune δcl Y
to fabrication imperfections. gcl0
X
2.2. ELDR latching mechanism
The easy latching/difficult releasing (ELDR) latching Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the overall latching structure,
mechanism is designed in order to ensure that the switch can contacts and beams.
be latched more reliably. In this design, two L-shaped latching
beams are symmetrically located on two sides of contact 5, as And the ratio x/y in figure 2(b) can be described as
shown in figure 1(b). The analysis of the deformation of one
rb = 12 rl . (2)
latching beam under two typical applied forces is illustrated in
figure 2. The deformation of the short part of the latching beam For α = 14 π and rl = 8, ra and rb are 5 and 4, respectively.
is ignored here. Figure 2(a) shows the schematic diagram of According to equations (1) and (2), ra and rb both increase
the beam’s deformation at the time of latching. The force, with rl . However, large rl will lead to a large device size and
F1 , from contact 5 pushes the latching beams to open. When reduced natural frequency of the latching beam, which will
the switch is latched, the latching beams have the tendency decrease the response speed of the latching mechanism and in
to close under the force, F2 , from contact 5, as shown in turn lower the reliability of latching.
figure 2(b).
Furthermore, the displacements, x and y along the x
and y axes in the two states shown in figure 2 must have large 2.3. Contact force
ratios for the purpose of easy opening and difficult releasing. A sufficient amount of contact force is needed to keep the
The ratio x/y in figure 2(a) can be written as contact resistance low [12]. The overall latching structure,
3rl + 2rl2 tan α contacts and the related beams are shown in figure 3. The
ra = , (1)
3rl tan α + 6 contact forces are determined by the stiffnesses of the beams
where rl = l1 / l2 and α is shown in figure 2(b). and the related initial gaps.

2
J. Micromech. Microeng. 20 (2010) 055006 Z Y Guo et al

ltc lt α
F’

θ
l1
Top contact

F F
l2
Figure 4. Stiffness analysis of the top contact beams.

The stiffness of the latching beam in the latching sate as

shown in figure 2(b) can be written as
EIl1
kl = 2 , (3) Figure 5. Stiffness analysis of one of the latching beams under
l2 l1
force from contact 5.
where E = 169 Mpa is Young’s modulus of silicon, Il 1 =
1/12hbl 1 3 and bl 1 is the width of the long beam. The Table 1. Parameters of the beams in the latching state.
deformation of the short part of the latching beam is ignored. Beam b (μm) h (μm) l (μm) k (μN μm−1 )
When the deformation of the trusses is neglected, the
stiffness of the central contact beam, as shown in figure 3, can Latching 8.5 80 70 252.2
be described as 21 560
3EIc 1 Central 14.5 80 1090 43.7
kc = 3     , (4) 757
lc1 1 − 3kmc − 1 1 − lc2 3 + 3 kmc 1 − lc2 2 Top 16.5 80 900 19.3
2 lc1 2 lc1
where Ic = 1/12hbc , bl is the latching beam width and kmc is
3

a dimensionless parameter given by Table 2. Displacements of top and latching contacts and the contact
 lc2 2 forces in the latching state.
1 1 + 2 lc1 − lc1
lc2
kmc = . (5) Displacement Contact
4 1 + llc2c1 Contact (μm) force (μN)
The stiffness of one of the top contact beams, kt , under the
force from the central contact is analyzed. As shown in Latching 3.16 399
Top 9.34 208
figure 4, kt can be written as
3EIt 1
kt = 3 , (6)
lt 1 + 0.75 lltc 2.4. Threshold accelerations
t

where It = 1/12hbt , and bt is the width of the top contact

3
beam.
The initial gap between the central contact and the top
contact, gct 0 , is equal to the initial gap between the central
contact and the latching contact, gcl 0 , to ensure that the central
contact touches the top and latching contacts at the same time.
In the latching state (refer to figure 3), assuming that the
latching beam has a displacement of δ ly along the y-axis in
the negative direction, the central contact beam will have a
displacement of gc0 − δ ly along the y-axis in the positive
direction and the top contact beam will have a displacement of
gc0 − gcl 0 − δ ly along the y-axis in the positive direction. The
total force of the central contact should be zero, so we have
2kt (gc0 − gc10 − δly ) + kc (gc0 − δly ) − 2kl δly = 0 (7)
and
2kt (gc0 − gcl0 ) + kc gc0
δly = . (8)
2kl + kc + 2kt
The contact forces between the central contact and the top
contact and latching contact are Fct = kt (gc0 − gcl 0 − δ ly ) and
Fcl = kl δ ly respectively.
The parameters and stiffness of the beams in the latching
state are listed in table 1. Table 2 shows the displacements
of the top and latching contacts and the contact forces in the
latching state.
The switch is designed to be used in arming and firing systems,
and it must switch when the shock is over 5000 g but must
not switch under any shock less than 1000 g (g refers to the
acceleration of gravity).
For the ELDR latching mechanism adopted in this
paper, there are two accelerations of particular interest: the
acceleration that results in the initial touch of the contacts
but not latching, Athc , and the minimum acceleration that
causes latching, Athl . Considering the desired threshold, we
have 1000 g  Athc  5000 g and Athl  1000 g. The
two accelerations are determined by the stiffnesses of the
beams, the initial gaps and the proof mass. The stiffnesses
of the central and top contact beams in the latching state
are the same kc and kl as given in equations (4) and (6)
while the stiffness of the latching beam at the time of latching
can be evaluated according to figure 5 and can be written as
2EIl
kly = . (9)
l12 l2 + 2l1 l22
The total stiffness of the entire sensing beam, kp , can be given
by
12EIp
kp = , (10)
lp3

3
J. Micromech. Microeng. 20 (2010) 055006 Z Y Guo et al

Table 3. Initial gaps of the contacts.

Top contact
gpc (μm) gc0 (μm) gcl 0 (mm) δ cl (μm)

20 30 17.5 8.5 Central

contact
δ
Table 4. Parameters of the sensing beam and proof mass.
bp (μm) h (μm) lp (μm) kp (μN μm−1 ) mp (μg) Tn (ms) (a)
Top contact
14.5 80 695 122.8 116 0.2
Central
Table 5. Acceleration thresholds (×1000 g). contact
δ
Athc Athl Adthc Adthl

4.718 8.257 2.621 4.587 (b)

Figure 6. Rotation of the central contact resulting from fabrication

where Ip = 1/12hbp3 , bp is the width of the sensing beam and
lp is the length of one meander of the sensing beam.
Then
Athc = [kp (gpc + gcl0 ) + kc gcl0 ]/mp
At hl = {kp [gpc + gcl0 + δcl (1 + 1/Ra )]
+ kc [gcl0 + δcl (1 + 1/ra )] + 2kt δcl (1 + 1/ra )
+ 2kly δcl (1 + 1/ra )}/mp
where gpc is the initial gap between the proof mass and the
central contact, mp is the proof mass and δ cl is the engaged
length of the central contact and contact 4 as shown in
figure 3 .
Equations (11) and (12) give the thresholds under a
static loading. When a dynamic loading such as a shock is
considered, the two equations can be simply modified with
a dynamic coefficient, kd [13]. The modified equations for
dynamic loadings are given by
Adthc = Athc /kd
Adthl = Athl /kd .
For the beam–mass system combined by the sensing beams and
proof mass, kd is determined by the duration of the shock, τ ,
and natural period of the beam–mass system Tn . The durations
of shocks above 5000 g are from 0.12 ms to 0.3 ms [14] and
Tn can be given by
 reduce the effective contact area and lower the maximum
mp
Tn = 2π . (15)
kp
The initial gaps are listed in table 3 and the parameters of the
proof mass and sensing beam are shown in table 4. So kd
ranges from 1.5 to 1.8 [13]. Table 5 shows the acceleration
thresholds when kd = 1.8. From table 5, one can anticipate
that when the shock loading is between 2600 g and 4600 g, the
switch may contact but not be latched while the shock loading
is above 4600 g, the switch will be latched.
After latching, the gap between the proof mass and the
central contact is gpc − δ ly = 16.84 μm. So the contacts can be
protected from the vibration of the proof mass as long as the
displacement of the proof mass is smaller than 16.84 μm,
imperfections.
which corresponds to a shock of kp (gpc − δ ly )/mp /kd =
1000 g.
(11) As the designed thresholds, Athc and Athl , have large
select ranges, the masses of the spring and the contacts,
damping and the friction between the central contact and
contact 4 are neglected. If more accurate designs are required,
these neglected secondary effects may need to be taken into
(12) consideration.
2.5. Contact pairs and displacements limitation
In addition to the ELDR latching mechanism, the proposed
switch has multiple contacts that are detached from the proof
mass to further improve the latching reliability. In the previous
work, three planar contact pairs composed of four independent
contacts were used and it was verified that such contacts are
efficient to provide good reliability [7]. However, fabrication
imperfections, such as those shown in figure 6(a), will cause
some problems to the switch: (a) the misalignment between
(13)
the center of the proof mass and its support center will result
(14) in an in-plane rotational movement of the proof mass under
accelerations and consequently the rotation of the central
contact (contact 5) before latching, and (b) the misalignment
of the contact areas of contacts 3, 4 and 5, and the mismatched
deformation of the two latching beams, y2 , will also result
in the rotation of the central contact after latching. For planar
contact pairs in [7], such rotations of the central contact will
allowable current of the switch.
As is shown in figure 6(b), instead of one planar contact
pair composed of the central contact and the top contact used
in [7], two cylindrical contact pairs are adopted in the proposed
switch design, which makes the switch much less sensitive to
fabrication imperfections and off-axis shocks.
Another merit of the cylindrical contact pairs lies in the
relatively large contact areas which can increase the maximum
allowable current.
Limiting the displacement of the proof mass is also
necessary especially under large accelerations or shocks. This
is realized by the stoppers and anchors in the design as shown
in figure 1(a).

4
J. Micromech. Microeng. 20 (2010) 055006
(a) (d)
(b) (e)
(c) glass Au
Si
Figure 7. Fabrication process of the switch.
The two anchors connected with the beams of contact 4 are
used to limit the open displacements of the latching beams so
as to shorten the time of their repositioning. At the same time,
the vibration of contact 4 and contact 1 under large shocks
can bring adverse effects to the contact reliability though they
have been perforated to reduce their masses. In order to reduce
the effect, stopper 1 is used to limit the displacements of
the latching beams along the y-axis, as shown in figure 1.
Stoppers and anchors are also designed to have the function
of limiting the in-plane rotational movement of the proof
mass.
Moreover, all of the stoppers and anchors except the one
connected with contacts 1 and 2 will limit the displacements
of the proof mass along the x and y axes in order to protect
the switch from transverse impact or over impact under large
shocks. Specially, stopper 2 is used to limit the displacement
of the proof mass in anti-sensing direction along the sensing
axis for the purpose of protecting the switch from large
acceleration or shocks which may destroy the switch or make
the switch latched because of the restoring force of the sensing
beams.
2.6. Response time evaluation
The response time of the switch is mainly determined by
the beam–mass system combined by the sensing beams and
proof mass, which is typically a second-order system. So the
(a)
Figure 9. SEM photo of the contacts: (a) unlatched contacts and (b) latched contacts.
5
Z Y Guo et al
Figure 8. SEM of a fabricated switch.
response time can be evaluated by the rise time of the second-
order system:
Tn
tr = . (16)
4
If the response time is less than 0.1 ms, the natural period will
be more than 0.4 ms. For this switch, Tn = 0.2 ms, so the
response time is expected to be about 0.05 ms.
3. Fabrication
The fabrication process of the switch is shown in figure 7,
which is similar to the ones reported in [7, 15]. It is a two-
mask silicon-on-glass process involving silicon/glass wafer
bonding, DRIE and maskless gold sputtering. Firstly, the
spacers between the substrate and the movable structure are
defined by DRIE (a). After anodic bonding (b) and KOH
thinning (c), the movable structure is released by a second
DRIE (d). At last, a thin titanium film of 200 Å and a gold
film of about 4000 Å are sputtered. The titanium film acts as
the adhesive layer between the silicon structure and the gold
film while the gold film is used as the contact material to lower
the total on-state resistance of the device. Figure 8 shows
a SEM image of a fabricated switch. The die size is 2.3×
2.8 mm. Figure 9 shows the closed-up view of the contacts.
The nominal gap sizes are listed in table 3. The undercut after
the second DRIE is about 30 μm. Also note that the sidewall
(b)
J. Micromech. Microeng. 20 (2010) 055006 Z Y Guo et al

Accelerometer

Packaged Drop table

switch

Figure 10. Photo of the switch mounted on the drop table.

of the proof mass is composed of narrow silicon lines, instead

Figure 12. Output of the switch under the shock of 4000 g.
of a flat surface. This helps to reduce the contact area between
the proof mass and the contacts and thus to avoid electrostatic 6 6
Vout1
stiction problems. 4680g Vout2

Output of the switch (V)

4 4

Shock (×1000g)
4. Device characterization
2 2
The switch was tested on a drop table as shown in figure 10.
Figure 11 shows the schematic of the testing scheme. The
0 0
switch K in the system is used to separate the top and latching
contacts in order to monitor the characteristics of the contact.
Figure 12 shows the output of the switch under a 4000 g -2 -2
shock. The contacts contacted but the switch was not latched. Time (100μs/unit)
Figures 13 and 14 show the outputs of the switch under a Figure 13. Output of the switch under the shock of 5800 g. Vout1
5800 g shock. The contacts contacted at about the same time and Vout2 are separated.
and the response time was less than 0.2 ms, which is larger
6 6
than that estimated by equation (16). Both the neglected
damping and how the switch is mounted on the drop table
are the possible factors that result in the discrepancy. The 4 4
Vout1+Vout2 (×2V)

Shock (×1000g)
method to evaluate the response time for the switch also needs
further investigation. As figure 12 shows, there are at least two 2 2
contacts of different electrodes keeping contacted when the
acceleration is equal to or more than the threshold acceleration.
0 0
The total on-resistance is less than 3 while the maximum
allowable current is up to 130 mA, which is improved by a tr
factor of 40and 30%, respectively, when compared with those -2 -2
Time (100μs/unit)
in [7]. The insulation resistance is more than 100 G. It
can also be seen from figures 13 and 14 that acceleration Figure 14. Output of the switch under the shock of 5800 g. Vout1
shocks of about 1000 g exist after the main peak of 5800 g, and Vout2 are combined.
but there is no change in the outputs of the switch. This about 1000 g will not affect the contacts after the latching of the
demonstrates that the vibration of the proof mass at a shock of switch.

Vout1
Shock K
Vout2
Vin
5Vdc
R1
R2

Y
X

Figure 11. Schematic of the testing scheme.

6
J. Micromech. Microeng. 20 (2010) 055006
As can be seen from figure 13, the top contacts depart from
the central contact for about 0.04 ms. This may be caused by
the vibration of the top contacts during the shock. In this
design, there are no stoppers to limit the upward displacement
of the top contacts as is shown in figure 1. The sudden
force from the central contact, together with the acceleration-
induced force from their own masses, will result in a large
upward displacement of the top contacts and make them
separated from the central contact. So, additional stoppers
such as the curved stopper to limit the displacement of the top
contacts may solve the problem [16].
5. Conclusion
A latching shock switch with cylindrical contacts is
implemented successfully. The cylindrical contacts make
the switch more immune to fabrication imperfections and
less sensitive to off-axis shocks while the ELDR latching
mechanism can latch the switch reliably. All the contacts and
their beams are not mechanically linked to the proof mass, so
the contact performance will not be affected by the rebounding
or vibration of the proof mass when the switch is latched. The
switch has been fabricated by a low-cost process. Experiments
show that the latching shock is over 4600 g and the response
time is less than 0.2 ms. The total on-resistance is less than
3 while the insulation resistance is more than 100 G and
the maximum allowable current is up to 130 mA.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the technical staff at
the National Key Laboratory of Science and Technology
on Micro/Nano Fabrication for the support with device
fabrication. This work is partly supported by the Chinese
Government Scholarships for Postgraduates.
References
[1] Michaelis S, Timme H J, Wycisk M and Binder J 2000
Acceleration threshold switches from an additive
electroplating MEMS process Sensors Actuators A
85 418–23
[2] Ciarlo D R 1992 A latching accelerometer fabricated by the
anisotropic etching of (110) oriented silicon wafers
J. Micromech. Microeng. 2 10–3
Z Y Guo et al
[3] Zhao J, Jia J Y and Chen G Y 2006 A novel MEMS
parallel-beam acceleration switch Proc. 2nd IEEE/ASME
Int. Conf. Mechatronic and Embedded Systems and
Applications (Beijing, China)
[4] Go J S, Cho Y-H, Kwak B M and Park K 1996 Snapping
microswitches with adjustable acceleration threshold
Sensors Actuators A 54 579–83
[5] Ma W, Li G, Zohar Y and Wong M 2004 Fabrication and
packaging of inertia micro-switch using low-temperature
photo-resist molded metal-electroplating technology
Sensors Actuators A 111 63–70
[6] Yang Z Q, Ding G F, Chen W Q, Fu S, Sun X F and
Zhao X L 2007 Design, simulation and characterization of
an inertia micro-switch fabricated by non-silicon surface
micromachining J. Micromech. Microeng. 17 1598–604
[7] Guo Z Y, Yang Z C, Lin L T, Zhao Q C, Ding H T, Liu X S,
Chi X Z, Cui J and Yan G Z 2009 An acceleration latching
switch with multi-contacts independent to the proof-mass
Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. Microelectromechanical Systems
(Sorrento, Italy) pp 813–16
[8] Zhu Y M, Jia J Y and Fan K Q 2006 Design of a micro
magnetic acceleration switch Proc. 2nd IEEE/ASME Int.
Conf. on Mechatronic and Embedded Systems and
Applications (Beijing, China)
[9] Hansen B J, Carron C J, Jensen B D, Hawkins A R and
Schultz S M 2007 Plastic latching accelerometer based on
bistable compliant mechanisms Smart Mater. Struct.
16 1967–72
[10] Whitley M R, Kranz M, Kesmodel R and Burgett S 2004
Latching shock sensors for health monitoring and quality
control Proc. MEMS/MOEMS Components and Their
Applications (Bellingham, WA) p 185
[11] Currano L J, Bauman S, Churaman W, Peckerar M, Wienke J,
Kim S, Yu M and Balachandran B 2008 Latching ultra-low
power MEMS shock sensors for acceleration monitoring
Sensors Actuators A 147 490–97
[12] Rebeiz G M 2002 RF MEMS Theory, Design, and Technology
(Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience) pp 192–8
[13] Younis M I, Jordy D and Pitarresi J M 2007 Computationally
efficient approaches to characterize the dynamic response of
microstructures under mechanical shock
J. Microelectromech. Syst. 16 628–38
[14] Test Method Standard Microcircuits (MIL-STD-883E)
available at: http://www.dscc.dla.mil/v/va/docs/
mil-std-883/
[15] Li Z H, Zhang D C, Li T, Wang W and Wu G Y 2000 Bulk
micromachined relay with lateral contact J. Micromech.
Microeng. 10 329–33
[16] Dong J, Li X, Wang Y, Lu D and Ahat S 2002 Silicon
micromachined high-shock accelerometers with a
curved-surface application structure for over-range stop
protection and free-mode-resonance depression
J. Micromech. Microeng. 12 742–46