Experimental evaluation and

comparative
analysis of commercial
variable-capacitance MEMS
accelerometers
Cenk Acar and Andrei M Shkel
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Microsystems Laboratory, University
of California at Irvine, Engineering Gateway 2110, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
E-mail: cacar@uci.edu and ashkel@uci.edu
Received 10 March 2003, in final form 30 April 2003
Published 28 May 2003
Online at stacks.iop.org/JMM/13/634
Abstract
This paper reports the experimental analysis of commercially available
variable-capacitance MEMS accelerometers, characterized under
standardized tests. Capacitive MEMS sensors of the same low-level input
acceleration range with various mechanical sensing element designs,
materials, fabrication technologies and price ranges were selected for
evaluation. The selected sensors were characterized using ANSI and NIST
certified testing equipment and under the same testing conditions; and their
sensitivity, resolution, linearity, frequency response, transverse sensitivity,
temperature response, noise level and long-term stability were tested and
compared. The experimental results are then interpreted to provide an
insight to advantages and disadvantages for using a particular mechanical
design, fabrication technology, sensor material and the techniques for
electronics integration and packaging of each specific sensor design.
(Some figures in this article are in colour only in the electronic version)

1. Introduction
With the continuously maturing micro-fabrication
technologies, micromachined accelerometers have been
successfully commercialized, and attained the second largest
sales volume among MEMS devices after pressure sensors.
Various MEMS accelerometers have been reported and
commercialized employing a wide range of detection schemes,
including piezoelectric, piezoresistive, capacitive, resonance,
optical, magnetic, etc. In the inertial sensing market,
capacitive micromachined accelerometers offer several
benefits when compared to the piezoresistive or piezoelectric
type accelerometers with their good DC response and noise
performance, high sensitivity, low drift and low temperature
sensitivity [1, 2].
While extremely rugged, piezoelectric accelerometers
require a dynamic input of some minimum frequency to
generate a response, and have limited low-frequency response
capabilities. At low-frequency acceleration inputs, they
exhibit significant attenuation and phase shifts, limiting the
applications [3]. For example, in motion measurement (i.e.
inertial navigation, robot control or biomedical applications)
the measured acceleration data must not contain any zero
offset error, since the zero offset in the acceleration output
leads to gross amount of velocity or displacement errors after
numerical integrations.
Piezoresistive MEMS accelerometers are also attractive
for most applications due to their low cost, easy
implementation and simple detection electronics. Even though
micromachined piezoresistive accelerometers are applicable
in low-frequency or steady-state acceleration measurement,
their operation temperature range is substantially limited. The
thermal coefficient of resistivity of doped silicon is over
two orders of magnitude larger than the thermal coefficient
of capacitance attained by a capacitive accelerometer,
in spite of the changes in capacitor geome

Figure 1. Dynamical mass-spring-damper model of an

accelerometer.

accelerometers. More importantly, the frequency response

of piezoresistive accelerometers is inherently temperature

sensitive since the viscosity of the damping fluid used

to eliminate resonant amplification and extend over-range

capability is a strong function of temperature [4, 6]. Since

the gaseous dielectric capacitors are relatively insensitive to

temperature variations, capacitance sensing provides a wider

temperature range of operation, without compensation, than

piezoresistive sensing.

Various commercial capacitive MEMS accelerometers

are available on the market, with similar performance

specifications, but with completely different mechanical

sensing element designs, materials, packaging and fabrication

parameters are not very well comparable from device to device

using only the specifications provided by the manufacturer

[3]. Some important parameters are not presented in

specifications at all. To asses the suitability of a sensor for

a specific application while maximizing the performance/cost

ratio, side-by-side comparison of potential sensor designs is

required. In this paper, we present the experimental results

based on characterization and comparison of commercially

available low-g capacitive MEMS accelerometers under

standardized tests, using testing equipment certified by the

American National Standards Institute and the National

Institute of Standards and Technology. One off-the-shelf

sample of each sensor was tested, which was certified by

their manufacturer (no statistical analysis was performed

in this work). The sensitivity, resolution, linearity,

frequency response, transverse sensitivity, temperature effects,

noise level and long-term stability of the selected sensors

were tested; and the experimental comparison results were

interpreted to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the

mechanical design, fabrication technology, sensormaterial and

the techniques of sensing electronics integration and packaging

of each specific sensor design.

2. Capacitive MEMS accelerometers

Despite the variety of the employed detection schemes,

every accelerometer can be modeled as a mass-spring-damper

system (figure 1), where the proof mass deflects relative to

its supporting frame with the input acceleration, forming a

second-order system:

m¨x + c ˙x + kx = mainput

where x is the displacement of the proof-mass m with respect

to its frame, ainput is the external input acceleration, k is the

suspension stiffness and c is the damping coefficient. With the

k/m, and

the quality factor Q =

km/c; the response can be expressed

in the Laplace domain as

X(s) = mA(s)

ms2 + cs + k

= A(s)

s2 + ωn/Qs + ω2n

For under-damped conditions, exciting the system at or

near the resonance frequency results in very large amplitudes,

while the response to excitations above ωn is highly attenuated.

At frequencies sufficiently lower than ωn, the sensitivity

of the accelerometer becomes independent of the excitation

frequency. This ideal operation frequency band is defined as

the accelerometer passband, usually ranging from 0.2ωn to

0.5ωn depending on the damping ratio [4].

Since the bandwidth of the passband is proportional

to ωn, there is a tradeoff between the dynamic range and

the sensitivity S = xstatic/ainput = m/k = 1ω2

n of an

accelerometer. To achieve an optimally flat passband, the

damping of the system is generally designed to be critically

√damped, by setting the damping ratio ζ = c/2mωn equal to

2/2 [13, 14].

In capacitive accelerometers, the deflection x of the

seismic mass is detected by the change in capacitance of the

parallel-plate formed by the mass and stationary electrodes.

Generally, differential capacitive sensing scheme is employed

interferences in the detection of the very small deflections (as

small as in the order of Angstroms). By forming two variable

capacitors on opposite sides of the seismic mass, a differential

capacitive bridge is formed, where the deflection results

in capacitance increase in one capacitor, and capacitance

decrease in the other.

The damping of the dynamical system is predominantly

determined by the viscous effects of the gas confined between

the seismic mass and the stationary areas. The damping

coefficient is adjusted by the pressure inside the device

package, and the geometry of the seismic mass. Since

the viscosity of air is not a strong function of temperature,

capacitive accelerometers offer a more stable frequency

response compared to devices utilizing viscous oil as a damper

fluid [13]. To achieve high shock survivability, mechanical

over-range stops are incorporated into the supporting frame to

protect the suspension by preventing large deflections.

3. Characterized sensors

Four commercial capacitive MEMS accelerometers with

low-level input acceleration range of ±10g were selected

for evaluation among large-volume manufacturers of

accelerometers (tables 1 and 2). The main selection criterion

was to compare devices with various mechanical sensing

element designs, materials and fabrication technologies that

are designed for the same input acceleration range. It should

also be noted that the price of the selected sensors ranged from

tens of dollars to several hundred dollars.

3.1. Endevco 7290A-10

The Endevco Model 7290A Microtron z-axis accelerometer

line utilizes differential variable capacitance microsensors,