2018 12 Bursi

POLITECNICO DI MILANO
SCUOLA DI INGEGNERIA INDUSTRIALE

E DELL’INFORMAZIONE
MASTER DEGREE IN ENGINEERING PHYSICS
Development of an electronic
system for the
characterization of MEMS
automotive gyroscopes
under vibrations
Candidate: Supervisor:
Giulio Bursi Prof. Giacomo
Matr. 882770 Langfelder
Tutor:
Ing. Leonardo Gaffuri
Academic Year 2017 - 2018

Contents
1 Introduction 8
2 The gyroscope 10
2.1 Physical principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2 Mechanical structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.1 Electrodes configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.5 Common problems and solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.6 Quadrature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.7 Resonator model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.8 The gyroscope under exam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.8.1 Multisim model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.8.2 Simulink model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3 Electronic board 38
3.1 Chosen implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2 Charge amplifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.3 Phase shifter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.4 Saturator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.5 Divider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.6 Variable Gain Amplifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.6.1 AGC control loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.7 Driving buffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.8 Loop gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.9 Electronic quadrature compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4 Characterization procedures and results 54

4.1 Clean room measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.1.1 Ringdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.2 Drive frame test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
1
4.2.1 Drive displacement vs Reference voltage . . . . . . . . 57
4.2.2 Mismatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.2.3 Drive resonance frequency variation . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.3 Rate table measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.3.1 Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.3.2 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5 Vibrations rejection 70
5.1 Vibrations model and results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5.1.1 Vibes along drive direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5.1.2 Vibes along sense direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.1.3 Vibes along rate direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6 Conclusion 79
2
List of Figures
1 Gyroscope under exam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2 Damped spring system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3 Drive frame scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4 Sense frame scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5 Force diagram for dual gyroscopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6 Parallel plates configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7 Comb fingers configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8 Scheme of the sense frame voltages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9 Sense frame read-out chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10 Transfer functions of different MEMS families . . . . . . . . . 22
11 Sensitivity vs Mismatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12 Tatar quadrature compensation scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
13 Representation of the impedance of the MEMS . . . . . . . . 28
14 Detailed image of the yaw axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
15 Detailed image of the pitch axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
16 Sense mode for the yaw axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
17 Sense mode for the pitch axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
18 Equivalent electrical model for the gyroscope . . . . . . . . . . 34
19 Simulation of the transfer function of the drive loop, with Mul-
tisim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
20 Simulink model of the gyroscope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
21 Simulation of the transfer function of the drive loop, with
Simulink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
22 Basic electronics in the drive loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
23 Simulink diagram of our whole system . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
24 Differential charge amplifier, INA and variable gain stage . . . 41
25 Phase shifter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
26 Saturator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
27 Buffered voltage divider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
28 VGA stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3
29 Double half-wave rectifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
30 Double 2-poles Sallen-Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
31 INA comparing the rectified signal with the reference voltage . 48
32 Driving buffers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
33 Board picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
34 Simulated Gloop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
35 Gloop graph with feedthrough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
36 Photo of the board mounted on the shaker, with both mother
and daughter boards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
37 Tips apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
38 Ringdown example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
39 Resonance peaks vs Rotor voltage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
40 Resonance peaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
41 Drive frequency vs Reference voltage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
42 Rate table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
43 Yaw, sensitivity measured data and offset . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
44 Yaw, sensitivity values and non linearity . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
45 Pitch, sensitivity measured data and offset . . . . . . . . . . . 65
46 Pitch, sensitivity values and non linearity . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
47 Sensitivity general situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
48 Allan variance for both axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
49 Shaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
50 The three alignments of the board placed on the shaker . . . . 71
51 Vibes along drive direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
52 Vibes along sense direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
53 Vibes along rate direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
54 Conclusive vibration data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4
List of Tables
1 Equivalent electrical parameters for the drive frame . . . . . . 33
2 Yaw ringdown measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3 Pitch ringdown measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5
Sunto
MEMS è acronimo di Micro Electro Mechanical Systems, definizione che
viene dedicata alla famiglia di dispositivi con componenti elettro-meccaniche,
le cui dimensioni caratteristiche sono tipicamente inferiori al millimetro. La
principale funzione svolta da questi dispositivi è la trasduzione della natura
del segnale, solitamente da meccanica ad elettrica: considerato l’attuale stato
tecnologico, risulta molto piú semplice trattare una grandezza elettrica pi-
uttosto che una meccanica, sia per quanto riguarda la sua misura, che per
la sua digitalizzazione ed elaborazione. Fra gli esempi più celebri di dispos-
itivi MEMS si possono citare accelerometri e giroscopi: entrambe le cate-
gorie trasformano una grandezza meccanica, rispettivamente accelerazione
e velocità angolare, in segnali di corrente. Dal punto di vista commer-
ciale, di solito i dispositivi vengono realizzati sotto forma di integrati insieme
all’elettronica necessaria al loro funzionamento.
La tesi è stato svolta presso il laboratorio “Sensors and Detectors” (SanD-
Lab) interno al Dipartimento di Elettronica. Il lavoro verterà sulla carat-
terizzazione di un giroscopio per automotive, progettato per avere ottima
reiezione delle vibrazioni (Figura 1).
La parte principale del lavoro sarà il design di una scheda elettronica,
che dovrà contenere gli elementi necessari per la creazione dell’anello riso-
nante e per la lettura del segnale di uscita. Una volta messo in operazione
il giroscopio, verrà sottoposto a diversi tipi di test. In particolare, vogliamo
verificare le proprietà di reiezione delle vibrazioni esterne, tramite misure
su shaker ; e sperimentare due diverse metodologie di compensazione della
quadratura: una elettro-meccanica, secondo lo schema proposto da Tatar, ed
una puramente elettronica, di nostra ideazione.
6
Abstract
MEMS stands for Micro Electro Mechanical Systems, a definition dedicated
to the family of devices with electro-mechanical components, whose charac-
teristic dimensions are typically less than one millimeter. The main function
performed by these devices is the transduction of the nature of the signal,
usually from mechanical to electrical: considering the current technological
state, it is much easier to treat an electrical quantity rather than a me-
chanical one, in regard to both its measurement and its digitalization and
processing. Among the most famous examples of MEMS devices we can men-
tion accelerometers and gyroscopes: both categories transform a mechanical
quantity, respectively acceleration and angular velocity, into current signals.
From a commercial point of view, usually the devices are made in the inte-
grated form, together with the electronics necessary for their operation.
The thesis work was carried out at the “Sensors and Detectors” laboratory
(SanDLab) within the Electronics Department. The thesis work will focus on
the characterization of an automotive gyroscope, designed to have excellent
vibration rejection performance (Figure 1).
The main part of the work will be the design of an electronic board,
which will contain the elements necessary to create the resonant ring and
to read the output signal. Once the gyroscope is put into operation, it will
be subjected to different types of tests. In particular, we want to verify the
vibration rejection properties, with a measure on shaker ; and try two different
quadrature compensation techniques: one electro-mechanical, following the
Tatar scheme, and the other purely electronic, of our design.
7
1 Introduction
The technological interest in MEMS devices derives from the ubiquitous diffu-
sion of electronics in every field of technology, for example Internet of Things:
the growth of the smartphone market is not stopping in the near future, both
in terms of monetary volume and as requested performance; in the automo-
tive sector, the new trend is all about Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems,
for which extremely rigorous motion sensors are needed. In the medical field,
on the other hand, pressure sensors are mostly used, for example to monitor
bodily fluids. Another high-end sector is the aerospace sector, where the
capability of these devices to operate in vacuum makes them particularly
suitable. In the entertainment world, MEMS can now be found in many
video game consoles, inside the controllers, to detect their movement; or in
photography, as part of the electromechanical stabilization systems.
Most MEMS gyroscopes show two modes, a drive and a sense one, and a
range of higher-order ones. These modes usually lie in the 20 - 50 kHz spectral
range and are characterized by high quality factors (up to ten thousand). The
effect of vibrations is to generate unwanted displacements that should be
compensated by the differential design. Electro-mechanical non idealities, on
the other hand, let some of this signal slip through to the output, especially
disturbances located around resonance modes. This leads to noise and poor
stability of the performance of the device, and motivates the study of novel
gyroscope geometries for improved vibration rejection.
In chapter 2 and 3 we will describe the gyroscope mechanical structure

and the electronics needed to close the loop. In chapter 4 and 5 we will
discuss the experimental results that we obtained, for the characterization
and the vibration rejection.
8
Figure 1 – Structure of the device object of the thesis work. It is a two-axis gyroscope
for automotive, designed to have high vibration rejection performance.
9
2 The gyroscope
This chapter will describe the mechanical structure of the gyroscope, including
those parts necessary for electronic interfacing. Furthermore, the simulation
models used, both Multisim and Simulink, will be discussed.
References: [1], [2], [3], [5]
2.1 Physical principles

Gyroscopes are devices developed to measure angular velocity. The physical
phenomenon that most simply depends on it is the Coriolis force. As known,
this follows the law
F~cor = −2m · Ω
~ × ~v (2.1)
~ it would be necessary
It is clear that if the objective is to measure Ω,
to keep the structure in motion with a known speed. For this reason, as we
will see in detail, the standard structure provides two frames, one inside the
other: the external one, called drive frame, is kept in motion as part of an
oscillatory ring, thus creating the necessary sinusoidal speed ~v ; the internal
frame, known as sense, is coherent with the drive along the direction of its
motion, but is free to move along the perpendicular direction, under the
effect of the Coriolis force, and allowing the measurement of the velocity Ω.~
In order to write the equation of motion of the device it is necessary to
formalize its model from the mechanical point of view. Inside the package
the structure is kept suspended by springs, and immersed in gas, typically
with a prevalence of nitrogen, at pressures in the order of mbar. For these
reasons we use a classic model with damped springs, in this way the forces
which the structure is subjected to are (Figure 2):
Elastic force: Felastic = −kx
Damping force: Fdamping = −bẋ
The formulas are written for the 1-dimensional case.
10
Figure 2 – Scheme of the spring-mass-damper system, in which the mass is subjected
to the inertial forces. Both the elastic term, k, and the damping term, b, appear in the
model.
We can therefore write the equation of motion of the structure, consider-

ing only the rotation along the axis of interest:
FCoriolis = mẍ + bẋ + kx (2.2)
From the solution of the problem, substituting 2.1 in 2.2, we can observe
a resonant behavior, in which two characteristic quantities can be defined:
-Resonance frequency:
r
ω0 1 k
f0 = =
2π 2π m
-Quality factor:
ω0 m
Q=
b
The frequency is usually chosen above 20kHz to stay out of the audio
band; in general, the greater this becomes, the more complex the system is
to realize, therefore in consumer devices it usually remains between 20 and
30 kHz.
The Q modifies the Hooke law, amplifying the displacement at resonance,
at fixed strength and elastic stiffness.
11
2.2 Mechanical structure
As previously introduced, the basic structure of the gyroscope has two parts:
-Drive frame: it is the external part, connected to the substrate through
the springs and the anchor points at the ends of these. These springs are
designed to allow displacements only along one direction, in fact the problems
resulting from the coupling of motions along different axes will be described
later. The voltages necessary to maintain motion are applied through the
electrodes on both the sides along the movement axis. These electrodes are
realized in this application in the form of comb fingers, as they allow larger
displacements than the parallel plates configuration (see subsection 2.2.1 for a
brief description of the two alternatives). The purpose of the drive frame is to
generate the rectilinear velocity ~v from which the Coriolis force is generated.
Figure 3 – The structure of the drive is highlighted in blue. On the opposing sides, the
springs and the comb finger electrodes can be seen.
-Sense frame: This is the central part of the structure, connected to the
drive frame by springs similar to the previous ones, but which allow move-
ment only along the direction orthogonal to the drive one. This is another
precaution necessary to make the motions of the two frames as independent
as possible. Since these springs are rigid along the drive direction, the sense
frame is dragged into the oscillatory motion together with the drive, thus
gaining the speed ~v . The Coriolis force generates a displacement of the sense
frame, from which derives a capacitive variation of a second group of elec-
12
trodes, here implemented in parallel plate configuration, since the movement
is typically limited to a few tens of nm at most. This capacitive change gen-
erates a current signal, which is converted by the electronics into the voltage
that the device presents as output.
Figure 4 – The structure of the sense is highlighted in red. In this case the electrodes are
parallel plates, and consist of the rectangular holes in the center, in which their comple-
mentary elements, anchored to the package, will be found. The sense springs are connected
only to the drive frame.
By construction, in the implementation shown here, only the angular

velocity with the axis orthogonal to the plane of the device is recorded. It
follows that in order to have a gyroscope sensitive to the 3 axes, it is necessary
to replicate the entire structure three times, with appropriate modifications.
Both the drive and sense frames are described by the damped spring
model, so each one will be characterized by its resonant frequency and its
own Q. The choice, during the design phase, of each of the four parameters
is a crucial point for the performance of the device; the problem will be
discussed later, once the sensitivity has been introduced.
Since the sense frame looks exactly like an accelerometer, it is also sen-
sitive to inertial accelerations. Since these are several orders of magnitude
more intense than the Coriolis acceleration, it is a relevant problem to be
addressed, in order to avoid misinterpretation of acceleration signals as sig-
nals induced by Coriolis force. The most implemented solution consists in
realizing the device with two twin gyroscopes, in which the movement of the
13
two drives is in counter-phase. The two output signals will be acquired from
a differential stage, so that the linear accelerations, which are concordant
in the two, are eliminated. It also has the extra advantage of doubling the
sensitivity, to the detriment of a doubling of the device area.
Figure 5 – The figure shows the effect of the two types of acceleration on the two frames,
while in anti-phase drive motion: the Coriolis accelerations are opposite, while the inertial
ones are in agreement, so that the latter are elided by a differential stage.
To make sure that the frequencies of the two frames are exactly the same,
a configuration called tuning fork is adopted, in which the central springs,
instead of being independently fixed to the package, are connected one an-
other. This creates a sort of dynamic equilibrium between the two frames,
making the two resonant frequencies equal.
14
2.2.1 Electrodes configurations
There are two possible configurations for the capacitive electrodes:
-Parallel plates
Figure 6 – Parallel plates configuration.
This configuration consists of a pair of complementary parallel flat face

capacitors, in which the gap varies, following the displacement of the central
rotor electrode. The structure thus realized is differential, since the capacitive
variation on the two sides has a discordant sign.
Mathematically, we have:
0 AN
dC = dx
(g − x)2
where A is the area of the plates, N their number and g the gap at rest.
We see that the relation is not linear with x, for this reason we use this
type of configuration only in cases where the displacements are extremely
small, in the order of few nanometers, compared to typical gaps of few µm,
so that we can approximate the equation to the first order.
Compared to the comb finger case, this one has the advantage of obtain-
ing a greater variation in capacity with the same physical area used, which
corresponds to a greater sensitivity.
15
-Comb fingers
Figure 7 – Comb fingers configuration.
This configuration is carried out in the form of two “combs” in which

the fingers of one are inserted between those of the other. This situation
too, as the previous one, is usually designed as differential, in which the
central structure is mobile relative to the external ones. The displacement
of the rotor changes the area of overlap between the fingers, obtaining an
effect similar to the previous case. The difference is found by analyzing the
equations that rule this geometry:
20 hN
dC = dx
g
where h is the thickness of the structure.
In this case the relation is linear with x, independently of the displace-
ment amplitude. For this reason, this configuration is preferred where large
displacements are required, as in the case of the oscillation of the drive frame.
16
2.3 Sensitivity
The term sensitivity describes the constant of proportionality between the
input and output signal. In our case, this is the quantity that binds the
output voltage to the incoming angular velocity.
To determine the final equation of the sensitivity, we divide the calculation
into two parts: first we look for the value of the displacement of the sense
frame as a function of the angular velocity, and then the output voltage from
the sense frame as a function of its displacement.
Suppose that the situation is the one described in Figure 8, with the
VDC being applied through the springs to both frames; and the signal is
oscillating at the resonance frequency (this is generated by the MEMS itself,
as a processing of its output signal, since we remember that the device is
closed in a resonant ring. The electronics composing the circuit has the task
to enforce the Barkhausen criterion).
Figure 8 – The voltages applied to the different parts of the structure are highlighted.
VDC is direct, and is called rotor voltage, while va is the oscillating signal.
17
In such way we have:
-Electrostatic force generated by comb fingers:
0 hNCF
Felec = 2VDC va sin(ω0 t)
g
-Drive frame displacement:
QD
xD = Felec
kD
-Drive frame velocity, as derivative of the displacement
QD
vD = Felec ω0
kD
-Coriolis force:
FCoriolis = −2mS · vD · Ω
In the next equations the sinusoidal term will be omitted

-Sense frame displacement:
QS
yS = FCoriolis
kS
The general equation of sensitivity is derived by substitution:
yS xD m S kD
= ·
Ω ∆ωBW m kS
in which ∆ωBW = b/2m = ω0 /2Q, represents the bandwidth at reso-
nance. Assuming the case of perfect mode-matching (with the same resonant
frequency for both frames):
r r
kD kS mS kD
ω0 = = → =1
m mS m kS
we get at the end:
yS xD
= (2.3)
Ω ∆ωBW
18
Contemplating the result, some considerations can be immediately made:
-the sensitivity depends linearly on the displacement, and therefore on
the velocity, of the drive frame;
-you see a trade-off between sensitivity and bandwidth, which is in turn
inversely proportional to Q. For these reasons we design the drive frame
to have very high Q, in the order of thousands, to be able to have large
displacements (∼ 5µm); while the sense frame with relatively low Q, in the
hundreds, to keep a band adequately wide. One of the parameters on which
we can act to modify Q is b, and as we will see when discussing noise, this
relationship is a source of problems.
The DC voltage applied to the whole structure historically takes the name
of rotor voltage, as it is the moving mechanical part. The comparison of the
two voltages, the DC and the oscillating signal, in addition to generating
the force that pushes the drive, has as a secondary effect of modifying the
effective elastic constant that the structure perceives (electrical softening,
since k can only be reduced). With the variation in amplitude of one of the
two voltages, both for different movements and for different polarization of
the rotor, it results in a change in the resonance frequency. This effect is very
useful for controlling this value, for example to counteract the variability of
the etching process.
Now let’s talk about the second part of the total sensitivity calculation.
We have obtained the displacement of the sense frame as a function of the
external angular velocity, so it remains to convert this displacement into a
voltage value.
This operation is carried out by capacitive variation of the parallel-plates
electrodes present on the sense frame. The yS shift of one the plates of
this variable capacitor generates a charge flow, that is a current, which is
integrated by a charge amplifier stage into a voltage.
The final equation of the sensitivity then results:
∆Vout VDC CS xD
=2 (2.4)
Ω CF S g ∆ωBW
19
in which CF S is the PP rest capacitance and g (gap) is their distance.
It is important to underline how the output signal is still modulated at the
drive frequency, so to extract the information it is necessary to demodulate
with the same frequency, for example through a lock-in amplifier.
Figure 9 – Scheme for the voltage conversion of the sense frame displacement. The
configuration is differential.
20
2.4 Noise
Let us now discuss the noise, which we call thermo-mechanical, generated by
the interaction of the structure with the surrounding fluid.
The motion of thermal agitation of the gas molecules, in which the device
is immersed, causes a myriad of collisions of these against the frame. The
energy that is exchanged can be interpreted as a spectral density of force
noise, similar to the case of noise in the resistor.
You can then write:
N2

SFn = 4kB T b
Hz
Or in displacement:
2
m2

Q
SYn = 4kB T b
k Hz
It is evident that in order to minimize this noise contribution it would be
necessary to minimize the pressure at which the device operates, in order to
reduce the number of particles with which the structure incurs impact, but
this would lead to extremely high Q values, to the detriment of bandwidth.
In order to better understand the effective contribution of the thermo-
mechanical noise, it is usually referred to the input, and expressed as angular
√
velocity, in degrees per second over square root of Hertz (dps/ Hz). Such
quantity is called NERD (brownian limited Noise Equivalent Rate Density):
180 1 p
N ERD = k B T bS (2.5)
π xD mS ω0
The dependence on b is still valid, as expected, and in addition we see
some new parameters. At the denominator now we find xD mS ω0 , and their
presence is easily understandable. The greater the displacement xD , the
greater the output signal is, so t-m noise becomes, accordingly, relatively
smaller, being independent from that quantity. Regarding ms instead, we
have to remember that we are dealing with an inertial sensor, so with a
bigger mass the frame is less sensible to external mechanical disturbance.
21
2.5 Common problems and solutions
A device that operates in the so-called mode-match, suffers, as we have seen,
of several problems:
-The band is too narrow, and depends on the damping coefficient b, which
also appears in the noise equations. As a consequence there is a trade-off
between the lowest noise and the maximum band that can be achieved.
-The assumption that the resonance frequencies are perfectly identical
can not be respected in practice, due to process defects. This difference
can be attenuated by means of suitable tuning electrodes, which due to the
electrostatic force modify the effective elastic constant, thereby modifying the
resonance frequency. The problem reoccurs, however, due to the variation in
temperature, since the sensitivity varies with temperature together with the
variation in pressure, which influences b, Q and therefore ∆BW (eq. 2.4).
Figure 10 – Transfer functions of some types of MEMS. In particular, the working band
of each one is highlighted.
22
The solution is to establish a priori the two frequencies at different values
(mismatch), usually with a distance in the order of 1 kHz. Referring to the
graph of the transfer function, this implies that the new working point is
in a lower amplitude (sensitivity) zone, as it is no longer at the top of the
resonance peak, but on the other hand it gains in bandwidth, as the width
of the area at -3dB increases accordingly. As the mismatch increases, the
band increases and sensitivity decreases, whose new equation is similar to
the previous one:
yS xD
= (2.6)
Ω ∆ωM S
but with the big difference that ∆ω is now the mismatch value.
Figure 11 – The different sensitivity curves are shown in the figure for mismatch changes.
The relationship between band and sensitivity can be observed.
With this expedient the problems previously described have been resolved
or reduced. The term b no longer appears in the sensitivity formula, making it
independent of the lowest noise obtainable and temperature variations. How-
ever, although this can be reduced by acting on b, the contribution from the
electronics remains unchanged, and by decreasing the sensitivity, its weight
23
will increase proportionally.
With regard to the variability of the resonant frequency and of Q as a
function of temperature, the situation is greatly improved, since it operates
in a much less steep transfer region and a variation of one of the parameters
has much less impact compared to the previous case.
2.6 Quadrature
Describing the mechanical structure, we have emphasized several times the
importance of maintaining the movement of the two frames decoupled. If this
requirement were to fail, we would incur in a problem defined quadrature.
Suppose that the drive frame, due to process imperfection, oscillates along
a direction that has a small angle with respect to the designed one. The
component of this motion along the direction of the sense will be perceived
by the latter, with an amplitude that depends on the displacement shift
of the drive frame. Since the intensity of the disturbance depends on the
displacement instead of on the velocity, which we recall being the key quantity
for the Coriolis force, and given the differential relationship between the two
quantities, the signal is said to be paired in quadrature.
To describe the phenomenon mathematically, the quadrature can be seen
as an angular velocity referred to the input, in dps, Bq .
The output voltage before demodulation will have the form:
Vout = S[Ω cos(ωD t) + Bq sin(ωD t)]
in which S is the sensitivity.

In order to demodulate, the signal is multiplied for cos(ωD t) and fed to a
low pass filter.
Vdem = S[Ω cos(ωD t) + Bq sin(ωD t)] cos(ωD t) · LP F

GLP F · S
= [Ω cos(0) + Bq sin(0)] = S · Ω
2
As can be seen, in the case of perfect demodulation the quadrature is
24
completely eliminated. It is necessary to take into account the amplitude
of the disturbance before demodulation by appropriately adjusting the full
scale range, to avoid saturation, since Bq is much larger than usual angular
rates.
However, on a practical level, it is impossible to demodulate perfectly,
but the output is multiplied by a signal of the form:
cos(ωD t + φerr + φnoise )
where φerr and φnoise represent an offset and a phase noise. For small
values of such quantities, the demodulated signal results:
Vdem = SΩ + SBq φerr + SBq φnoise
in which we see that the signal is added to both the offset term and the
noise term.
The value of Bq can be estimated using
k× α
Bq = ≈ ωD
2mS ωD 2
where k× is the elastic constant that couples the two frames, and α is the
angle of the drive frame with respect to the ideal case.
One of the most used techniques to compensate for this disturbance was
developed by Tatar ([3]). It is based on the correction of the oscillation axis
of the frame by applying an electrostatic force, through dedicated electrodes.
Figure 12 clarifies the model:
The equation to obtain the quadrature nulling force is as follows:
0 · h
FQC = −4 2
VDC NQC ∆V x
DQ
where x is the drive motion amplitude, VDC is the polarization of the
frame, NQC is the number of plates and DQ the distance between them. The
correcting voltage ∆V sets the sign of the force.
25
Figure 12 – Tatar quadrature compensation scheme. Applying the ∆V voltage to the
electrodes, it generates an electrostatic force in the normal direction of the motion axis,
because it tends to rotate the structure. This force corrects the direction of oscillation,
compensating for the original imbalance.
26
2.7 Resonator model
To conclude the description of the mechanical structure, all that remains is
to discuss the model considered for the MEMS resonator.
The relationship that exists between the voltage at the input of the drive
and the electrostatic force that it generates, is expressed through a constant,
said electromechanical transduction factor
Felec (s)
ηDA =
VDA (s)
where the voltage, which had previously been indicated with a generic va ,
will now be called for clarity VDA (Drive Actuation).
In the same way, we can define the relationship between the speed of the
frame and the current (Drive Detection) that this generates at the output:
iDD (s)
ηDD =
sX(s)
Both factors depend on the mechanical characteristics of the device, es-
pecially from the dimensions and the number of the comb fingers. In case
the drive detection and drive actuation are equal, the η would also be the
same.
Recalling the equation for the dampened springs:
X(s) 1
=
Felec (s) ms2 + bs + k
which, replacing the expressions of η, is equivalent to:
iDD 1/m 1/m

= η2s 2 = η2s (2.7)
VDA s + mb s + k
m
s2 + ωQ0 s + ω02
and for the three ranges of frequency:
iDD η2
ω ω0 −→ = s = sCeq
VDA k
iDD η2 1
ω = ω0 −→ = =
VDA b Req
27
iDD η2 1 1
ω ω0 −→ = =
VDA ms sLeq
From this result we see that the resonator finds its equivalent electric
model in an RLC circuit, where the dissipative term, Req , relates to the
damping coefficient b. It follows that, in order to maintain the oscillation,
according to the Barkhausen criteria the total gain of the ring must be exactly
1 with 0° phase, so the gain of the remaining part of the circuit has to have
gain equal to 1/Req .
Figure 13 – Representation of the impedance of the MEMS. At the resonance frequency,

as in the electric case, the behavior is purely resistive.
28
2.8 The gyroscope under exam
After the description of the main principles of the operation of a gyroscope,
we are finally able to describe our device.
At first, we look at SEM images of the device, starting with the yaw axis:
Figure 14 – Colorized image of the yaw axis.

1. Sense frame
2. Quadrature compensation electrodes
3. Drive decoupling frame (or Coriolis frame)
4. External drive frame
5. Drive actuation electrodes
6. Drive detection electrodes
7. Tuning fork springs
29
The structure is symmetrical with respect to the horizontal axis to reject
linear accelerations, the area highlighted in light and dark blue is the drive
frame, divided into an external and an internal part, for additional decou-
pling. The arrangement of the comb finger electrodes is push-pull; in each
corner, the wider series, in purple, are dedicated to drive detection, while
the smaller ones, in pink, are for drive actuation. The frame also contains
quadrature compensation electrodes, colored green. At the center is the sense
frame, in red, that in this axis rotates within the plane of the device. The
tuning fork springs, that connect the upper and lower twin drive frames, are
highlighted in yellow.
As for the pitch axis, the drive frame is almost identical, apart from
the quadrature compensation electrodes, that in this configuration have to
correct the oscillation along the out of plane direction, which is the one to
which the sense frame is susceptible. The sense frame, on the other hand,
oscillates out of plane, so it must be analyzed using rotational mechanics.
Since the angles of rotation are minimal, analogous to the shifts of a few
nanometers of the yaw sense, the equations can be approximated as linear,
keeping the same shape.
Both these gyroscopes show many advanced design solutions.

-The drive frame is divided in two parts, as we previously underlined, in
order to better decouple drive and sense motion;
-A lot of area is dedicated to quadrature compensation electrodes, thus
giving the possibility to correct even the largest quadrature disturbance;
-Highest symmetry possible, to avoid (non considering process defects)
common mode interference;
-All the springs are drawn with round edges, to reduce mechanical stress;
To enhance the vibration rejection capability of the device the most im-
portant detail, together with all of the listed ones, is the lever design for the
sense frame. In this way both the senses, of the two anti-phase twin gyros,
are connected and share the same resonance frequency. Moreover, being the
30
lever centered around a fixed turning point, all the common mode distur-
bances, like vibrations, result applied on the fulcrum, and then have little
effect on the differential readout. Quadrature disrupts such equilibrium, giv-
ing rise to many problems, as we have already seen, and as we will also see
in section 5.
Figure 15 – Colorized image of the pitch axis.

1. Sense frame
2. Quadrature compensation electrodes
3. Drive decoupling frame (or Coriolis frame)
4. External drive frame
5. Drive actuation electrodes
6. Drive detection electrodes
7. Tuning fork springs
31
To better understand the modes of oscillation of the two different sense
frames, we report two images from the finite elements simulations used in
the design phase of the gyro:
Figure 16 – Sense mode for the yaw axis.
Figure 17 – Sense mode for the pitch axis.
32
2.8.1 Multisim model
We now discuss the models used to simulate the system. Simulations are
essential, because of the complexity of the circuit that we have to realize.
Moreover, we need an idea of what to expect from our device. Even if we
already had theoretical values for the electro-mechanical properties of our
gyro, we still need a solid platform onto which experiment with different
solutions for the electronics. Multisim is an electronic simulator, so the
mechanical structure is implemented through its equivalent circuit (see [2]).
We report in Figure 18 the scheme used.
There are four sections because our gyro has push-pull drive actuation
and differential drive detection. Looking closely at the schematic, subscripts
‘d’ and ‘a’ can be seen, which stand for detection and actuation respectively.
The resonant characteristic originates from the RLC series, according to the
theory discussed above. The capacitances C0d and C0a represent the admit-
tance at rest of the system, while the current-controlled current generators
simulate the different internal couplings once the system is in motion. The
Cf t capacitances represent feedthrough. The signs of the currents depend on
the arrangement of the electrodes.
The following table lists the electrical parameters:
Quantity Value Units

Req actuation 3.66 MΩ
Leq actuation 256 kH
Ceq actuation 130 aF
Req detection 9.28 MΩ
Leq detection 650 kH
Ceq detection 52 aF
C0 actuation 400 fF
C0 detection 270 fF
Cfeedthrough 300 fF
η DA 3.2 · 10−7 As/m
η DD 2 · 10−7 As/m
Table 1 – The table contains the equivalent electrical parameters for the drive frame of
the gyroscope model.
33
Figure 18 – Equivalent electrical model for the gyroscope, drawn in Multisim.
34
The transfer function generated from this model is represented in Figure 19:
Figure 19 – Simulation of the transfer function of the drive loop, with Multisim.
The graph adequately reflects the expectations, with the resonance peak
around 27KHz, even if the Q is not perfectly generated, since the maximum
should be about 3 orders of magnitude higher. The problem may lie in one
of the many setting of the software, resulting in its difficulties in following
such an intense resonant phenomenon. The main suspect is the equivalent
inductance of the MEMS, of kH, while typical values stay around the mH,
which reflects on a huge impedance for the simulator to solve. In order to
be able to make a comparison, we also use Simulink, in which we can create
the model starting only from its equations, without going through electrical
equivalences.
35
2.8.2 Simulink model
Our Simulink model is built like in Figure 20:
Figure 20 – Simulink model of the gyroscope.
The signal enters through the etada*2 block, which represents the push-
pull comb finger configuration, and acquires the size of a force. It is now
added to the damping force (bd), proportional to the velocity, and to the
elastic force (kd), proportional to the displacement. These through the block
1/mass become an acceleration, which closes the ring. The speed signal,
obtained as an integration of the acceleration through block 1/s, is multiplied
by etadd, again in differential configuration, becoming the current signal that
reaches the first electronic stage. The feedthrough is generated from the
voltage entering the stage and added to the speed signal.
Looking at Figure 21 you immediately notice the difference in height of
the peak compared to the Multisim simulation, which in this case reflects
expectations.
36
Figure 21 – Simulation of the transfer function of the drive loop, with Simulink.
37
3 Electronic board
This chapter will be dedicated to the description of the electronics. The gen-
eral scheme will initially be presented as a block diagram, and we will describe
its main working principle. Subsequently each stage will be analyzed in detail,
including the schematic that we decided to use and the reasoning behind each
one of them. As usual, simulations have been carried out in both Multisim
and Simulink.
References: [1], [2], [3]
The natural continuation of the previous chapter, in which the mechanical

structure of the device has been illustrated, is found in the description of the
electronics. This was a second focus of the thesis work, targeting the family
of gyroscopes previously described, but at the same time trying, wherever
possible, to create an adaptable circuit, leaving ample margin of control
over key parameters. This gives the board a large degree of versatility and
usefulness for several other MEMS gyroscopes.
We shall begin with the description of the drive resonant loop. The main
scheme is represented in Figure 22:
Figure 22 – Basic electronics in the drive loop.
The output signal from the device is a current, originating from the comb
finger electrodes of the drive detection. The current, proportional to the
velocity, is integrated into a voltage -now proportional to the displacement-
by the first stage of the charge amplifier. The phase shift of π/2 is recovered
from a subsequent dedicated stage, realized as an integrator or a derivator,
38
according to needs. The signal is then squared (not in all applications) by a
saturator. The ring is closed by a variable gain amplifier (VGA), which has
to trigger the oscillation when the device turns on, by raising the loop gain
above 1, and to keep it constant at the correct value once fully operational.
The relative control voltage is set externally (AGC) and is compared to the
output signal from the first stage, once the latter has been rectified.
As for the sense electronics, this has the sole task of converting the ca-
pacitive variation into a voltage, it is therefore analogous to the first stage
of the drive ring.
3.1 Chosen implementation

We can see in Figure 23 our Simulink diagram.
With respect to the general case, we can see some differences.
The structure is differential, therefore we need two charge amplifiers (CA),
whose output signal is added by an INA (as a difference between the two
counter-phase signals). We decided to insert an adjustable gain between the
CAs and the phase shifter, because it can be useful in the case of a MEMS
with low ηDD , in the perspective of a versatile board.
The saturator is realized as a selectable gain stage, that lets the system
operate either in square or sinusoidal wave, depending on the regulation.
The control loop of the VGA is composed of a rectifier, a 4-pole Sallen-
Key low-pass filter, and an instrumentation amplifier (INA) that compares
this value with the one set externally (Vref).
39
Figure 23 – Simulink diagram of our whole system. In gray, respectively dark and light,
the drive and sense frames equivalent models; in cyan the elements of the main loop;
in blue the elements of the sense chain; in orange the VGA control loop; in green the
calculation of the Coriolis force.
40
3.2 Charge amplifier
The first stage of the circuit performs the conversion from current to voltage.
The scheme that we chose is represented in Figure 24.
Figure 24 – Differential charge amplifier, INA and variable gain stage.
Depending on the relative resistance and capacitance values, the stage

can operate as charge amplifier or trans-impedance amplifier.
-Trans-impedance: in this version the resistance dominates at the op-
erative frequency. Since the current-voltage conversion is performed, the gain
has the dimensions of a resistor, which in this case corresponds exactly to the
value of the feedback resistor. This involves that the output signal is phased
of π with respect to the input due to the inverting nature of the stage.
In order to optimize the noise of the whole circuit, it is known that it
is convenient to provide the first stage with the highest possible gain, in or-
der to make all the noise contributions deriving from the subsequent stages
negligible. Consequently, a resistance of high value must be chosen for the
feedback of the TIA, in the order of hundreds of M Ω. Resistors of this mag-
41
nitude are generally characterized by high variability of the value, worsening
the repeatibility of the circuit. The problem is even worse when the resis-
tance is implemented through a transistor in off state. The solution is found
by implementing a different architecture, described just below.
-Charge amplifier: in the second configuration the capacitance dom-
inates, at the operative frequency; the working point is then in the region
of the Bode diagram with negative slope. The advantage, compared to the
previous case, is the dependence of the gain on the value of the resistor,
which becomes negligible, unless effects of the second order. In addition,
since the stage works as an integrator, the output is a voltage proportional
to the displacement of the drive frame (remember that the input current
is proportional to the velocity), a detail that we will find convenient when
we’ll have to realize the VGA control, since the displacement is one of the
parameters on which we want to have direct control.
In our case the mechanical structure is differential, consequently we need
two CAs and an INA to subtract the two signals in counter-phase. The CA
is designed to have the pole at the frequency of:
1
fp = = 99Hz
2π · 10pF · 160M Ω
and a gain of
1
GCA = ≈ 800kΩ
2π · 10pF · 20kHz
The INA has a gain of 8. AGC start (Figure 24) is the node from which
we take the signal that goes to the rectification chain.
After the INA we placed a standard non-inverting stage, with adjustable
gain, varying between ∼ 1.1 − ∞. This can be used while analyzing a MEMS
with very low ηDD . Apparently, in order to have the same functionality, a
dedicated stage could be avoided by implementing the gain resistance of the
INA as variable. However, the modification of the gains along the control
loop of the VGA results in a consequent variation in the relationship between
control voltage and drive displacement. For this reason all the settings are
placed in the primary ring after the node AGC start.
42
3.3 Phase shifter
It is a standard 1-zero 2-poles filter, with the task to compensate for the CA
phase shift.
Figure 25 – Implementation of the phase shifter as an inverting stage.
It is possible to operate before or after the poles (in derivation or inte-

gration) with consequent phase change of ±π/2 (on top of the π from the
inverting stage). The main difference between the two possibilities is the
frequency range of noise which gets amplified.
We decided to place the poles at:
1
fp = = 637Hz
2π · 100nF · 2.5kΩ
We decided to have the poles so low with respect to the working frequency,
in order to reach the full phase shift at such frequency.
43
3.4 Saturator
This stage has the task of saturating the incoming sine wave to square it; in
many integrated applications the gyroscopes are piloted, for convenience, in
square wave, so it is necessary to characterize them in this condition.
It is usually realized with an open loop amplifier. In our circuit we prefer
to have the possibility to operate both in sinusoid and in square wave instead,
for this reason the gain of the stage is controlled by a resistance, selected by
a switch between two values.
Figure 26 – Adjustable saturator, in which the switch allows to choose between an

approximately unitary gain and a very high gain, suitable for squaring the signal.
44
3.5 Divider
The saturation amplitude of 5V is too great to drive a standard gyro, so
the signal must get smaller, for example through a voltage divider, before
reaching the VGA.
Figure 27 – Buffered voltage divider.
The divider is realized with a potentiometer, and is part of a high-pass

filter to decouple the previous stage. The position of the pole obviously
depends on the variable resistance value, but it is sufficiently low in order
not to make any difference at our working frequency.
45
3.6 Variable Gain Amplifier
The need to have a variable loop gain is clear, if we think about the working
conditions of the device. First of all, the gyroscope oscillation is usually
triggered by the white noise, so in the first phase of build-up a high loop
gain speeds up the reaching of the regime. Secondly, since the target of
application of the devices is extremely wide, the temperatures of use can be
the most varied and variable over time, and consequently all the components
of the ring will be affected, altering their performance. Since these devices
require high precision, a form of control is required, which is implemented via
a VGA. As previously introduced, the relative control voltage derives from
a comparison (INA) between the reference value set externally, previously
computed through simulations, and the value of the rectified voltage taken
after the first stage; since after the CA integration, the voltage at that point
is proportional to the displacement of the drive frame.
Figure 28 – VGA stage with gain proportional to Rf .
The VGA that we chose has gain proportional to Rf · Vcontrol

2
+1
. Rf is
implemented with a potentiometer, while the control signal derives from the
loop described just below. The VGA that we chose accepts a maximum
control voltage of ±1V , that we managed to control with a buffer saturated
at this value.
46
3.6.1 AGC control loop
The signal is taken after the first stage, where the voltage is proportional
to the drive displacement. This is a fundamental point, since, starting from
the equations of the MEMS model, we are able to link the displacement
to the reference voltage that we set from the outside. With our settings a
displacement of 10µm corresponds to a reference voltage of about 2V.
The first stage of this loop is a double half-wave rectifier, as shown in
Figure 29.
Figure 29 – Double half-wave rectifier.
After this we placed a double 2-poles Sallen-Key, for a total of 4 poles

(Figure 30).
Figure 30 – Double 2-poles Sallen-Key.
47
The signal, now DC, is compared by an INA with the reference voltage.
The INA output is limited to ±1V thanks to a saturating buffer, as required
by the VGA.
Figure 31 – The INA comparing the rectified signal (SK out) with the reference external
voltage (Vref control). Its output is saturated by a buffer at ±1V , as the VGA requires.
3.7 Driving buffer

The last stage of our circuit is composed by two buffers, in parallel, having
inverse phases. These are used to pilot the drive frame, which in our device
has push-pull actuation: the electrodes are doubled and placed on opposite
sides, so that the structure is pushed and pulled at the same time.
Figure 32 – The two driving buffers, one in counter-phase with the other.
48
Figure 33 – Image of the completed board. In the center lays the MEMS, inside his
socket; the two 15-pin connectors are used to power the board and read the signals while
on the rate table; the most critical ones can also be accessed through LEMO connectors.
Each stage is highlighted and named thanks to the silks writings. The top face, here
shown, contains the sense electronics, while the bottom all the drive loop elements.
49
3.8 Loop gain
Now that the description of the drive loop is complete, we can discuss the
result of its simulation.
Figure 34 – Simulated Gloop.
The gain is greater than one only on the resonance peak, exactly as it
needs to be in order to respect the Barkhausen criteria only at one frequency.
It is time to introduce a new concept, which represents, to all effects, a
problem. This is the feedthrough: with such definition we mean the direct
coupling between drive actuation and drive detection, which occurs by elec-
tromagnetic interaction between two points of the circuit that are physically
close. The main responsible for this disturbance usually is the MEMS car-
rier socket, since the pins are very close and are not shielded inside. As we
have seen from the tests, in our case the feedthrough effect is equivalent to
a parasitic capacitance of around 300fF, which changes the Gloop as we can
see in Figure 35.
The low frequency zone with positive gain makes it possible to start the
oscillation at the point with zero phase shift. This disturbance is the single
main problem of the board, as it makes it difficult to trigger the correct
oscillation. It can be solved by not using the socket and welding the device
directly on the board, but doing so would remove all the versatility from our
50
Figure 35 – Gloop graph with feedthrough. The issue is the low frequency zone with
gain greater than 1 and phase 0, which could trigger the oscillation at a wrong frequency.
system, which had been one of the initial objectives. Alternatively, as it was
our choice, we can increase the value of the rotor voltage, so as to maintain
the same amplitude of oscillation by reducing the VDA , and thus decreasing
proportionately the weight of the feedthrough effect.
3.9 Electronic quadrature compensation

The problem of quadrature requires undisputed attention, since it introduces
offsets that can even be some orders of magnitude greater than the amplitude
of the signal. As discussed above, the standard solution is found in the scheme
of Tatar, in which the axis of oscillation of the drive frame is corrected by
electrostatic force, generated by its dedicated electrodes.
Since our device is equipped with this apparatus, we have designed, for
our test board, an alternative method of compensation, entirely electronic.
This let us test both compensation systems, changing from one to the other
with just the pressure of a switch. The idea is to sum to the signal, at the
end of the sense chain, a second contribution inversely proportional to the
quadrature signal. Since the quadrature depends on the displacement, it is
taken after the first stage of the drive chain, at the output of the INA. In
51
this node the phase is well known, and close to the one that we need, so we
just have to make fine regulations on the board.
In the design phase of the board, we opted to leave this functionality
out of the main PCB, in order to save space, given the already considerable
number of components. The solution adopted is shown in Figure 36, in
which a second ring-shaped PCB (daughterboard ) is connected through 4
SMAs connectors to the mother. These connectors (2 per axis) correspond
to the points where the signal is picked up and poured in once it has been
processed by the electronics. To perform this function, the daughter includes
an adjustable gain stage and a variable phase shifter stage.
Figure 36 – Photo of the board mounted on the shaker, with both mother and daughter
boards.
52
In practice, by acting on the daughter’s controls, a signal of the same
amplitude and phase of the quadrature disturbance must be generated. To
succeed in this operation, the lock-in already present among the acquisition
instrumentation is used. After the demodulation performed by the LIA, the
quadrature component is what we try to make zero.
While in the case of Tatar there is only one parameter to act on, that is
the voltage applied to the compensation electrodes, in our system there are
two, amplitude and phase. We have found that better results are obtained
by first proceeding with the phase, modifying it until a minimum is reached,
and then continuing with the gain until zeroing.
The methodology has been put into practice in vibration rejection mea-
sures, so please refer to the section dedicated to numerical results (5.1).
53
4 Characterization procedures
and results
In this section we will describe in detail all the tests that we performed on the
gyro and board together, with the device characterization as our objective.
References: [1], [2], [3], [6], [7], [8]
4.1 Clean room measurements

The first test session was performed on the MEMS device only, before start-
ing the design of the electronic board, to determine its electromechanical
characteristics.
In these measurements the device is subjected to an external stimulus,
since it is disconnected from the electronics necessary for its autonomous op-
eration. It is therefore essential to pay attention to the relationship between
the signals that are sent to the MEMS and the quantities that you want to
measure, as there is the risk of altering the result. We have discussed in
Section 2.3 the effect of electrical softening due to any voltage applied to the
device, so we have to make sure that this kind of effects doesn’t alter the
values that we are trying to measure.
The measurements were carried out in a clean room, on several samples
belonging to the same wafer. The micrometric pads of the MEMS have been
connected to a dedicated interface through a micro-tip apparatus, as shown
in Figure 37.
This interface, called MCP, is dedicated to the characterization of MEMS,
and among the tests that it allows to perform, the following one is the one
that gave us the most useful numerical results.
54
Figure 37 – Apparatus for measurements on devices still on the wafer. The wafer and
the manipulators are fixed to the stand by negative pressure, generated by a pump. The
tips are made of conductive material and are used to create contacts on the MEMS pads.
4.1.1 Ringdown
The test was repeated for both drive and sense. In this test the frame is
excited by a square wave with low frequency, in order to study its response
to the step. What we obtain is a sinusoid, at the resonance frequency, of
decreasing amplitude, according to the time constant τ of the device. By
suitably fitting the curve, both values are obtained, f0 and τ , from which
you can calculate Q (Q = τ ω0 /2).
Figure 38 – Example of a ringdown measue. The oscillating signal is modulated by the

decreasing exponential. The red line is the fitting used to obtain Q and f0 .
55
We performed repeated measurements of different samples, and we ob-
tained the following mean values:
Yaw
Drive f0 [Hz] Drive Q Sense f0 [Hz] Sense Q Mismatch [Hz]

x 27310 12000 28300 3300 1000
σ 70 1100 110 200 90
Table 2 – Yaw ringdown measurements.
Pitch
Drive f0 [Hz] Drive Q Sense f0 [Hz] Sense Q Mismatch [Hz]

x 27190 11000 29360 1310 2000
σ 70 700 70 70 100
Table 3 – Pitch ringdown measurements.
The values were used as the basis for the development of the boards
described in the previous sections, as the drive parameters are essential for
the oscillator design, while the sensitivity value is necessary in choosing the
sense chain gain.
56
4.2 Drive frame test
Once the board has been assembled with the gyroscope, we started testing
it from the drive frame, because is more complex than the sense as it has a
lot of selectable parameters. The sense frame instead, once the drive values
are known, is fully described by just the sensitivity and its related noise.
4.2.1 Drive displacement vs Reference voltage

A fundamental measure is the verification of the relationship between the
reference voltage of the VGA and the amplitude of oscillation of the frame,
which is, in other words, the correct operation of the AGC. In order to obtain
reliable numerical values from the device as a whole, it is mandatory to know
the relationships between the electrical settings and the mechanical behavior
of the structure. It is even more relevant in this very case because there
is no way to measure the drive displacement, apart from observing when it
runs the full travel range available and bumps against the stoppers of the
structure.
From simulations we expected that a displacement of 10µm would corre-
spond to a voltage of about 2.1V, while the maximum should be found, due
to mechanical construction, at 13µm. This can be verified by raising the con-
trol voltage, up to the point where the oscillating signal loses the sinusoidal
shape for a clearly distorted one, sign of an obstacle in the movement of the
structure. The corresponding voltage is about 2.5V, in line with what is ex-
pected from the numerical predictions. A further proof of the phenomenon
will be seen from the sensitivity graphs as a function of the control voltage
(Section 4.3.1).
4.2.2 Mismatch
Dealing with the sensitivity, we have seen how important it is to keep the
resonance frequencies of the two frames under control, and in particular
their mismatch, since the value of the sensitivity itself derives directly from
it. Figure 39 shows the positions of the two resonance peaks when the rotor
57
voltage changes. The data were acquired as transfer functions of the system,
with repeated measures for different frame polarizations.
Figure 39 – Position of the resonance peaks with varying rotor voltage, respectively for
yaw and pitch. The higher peak that also remains still corresponds to the drive, the
smaller one, which moves, to the sense.
The value of the rotor voltage linearly influences the sensitivity, according
to equation 2.4, but at the same time if the mismatch were to grow too much,
it would have the opposite effect of decreasing the sensitivity. In order to have
both high sensitivity and controlled mismatch, we exploited the quadrature
compensation electrodes. We applied to both of them (on the same frame),
on top of the differential voltage necessary to compensate the quadrature,
another voltage, with the same sign, to change the relative resonance fre-
quency thanks to electrical softening. Figure 40 summarizes the situation
after this procedure, highlighting the work points we have established and
the situation as a whole.
58
Figure 40 – Resonance peaks position. .
4.2.3 Drive resonance frequency variation

The whole operation of the gyroscope is based on the force of mutual elec-
trostatic polarization, between the electrodes’ armatures; consequently, it
should not be surprising that the intensity of the oscillatory signal of the
drive ring will affect the value of the resonance frequency, according to the
principle of the electric softening discussed before.
We report this dependence as a function of the reference voltage, since it
is the quantity on which we have direct control (Figure 41).
From the data we see a shift of the resonance frequency of about 30Hz
for the yaw, and 50Hz for the pitch, changing from minimum to maximum
signal amplitude.
59
Figure 41 – Variation of the drive frequency as a function of the reference voltage of the
VGA, and consequently of the amplitude of the drive displacement. Respectively yaw and
pitch.
60
4.3 Rate table measurements
To characterize the system in its entirety, we need to provide a precisely
known angular velocity, and to measure its response. To do this we use a
dedicated instrument, called rate table, designed to allow the extraction of
signals from the boards that are mounted on it, through two standard 15-pin
connectors and an internal contact system to prevent the cables from twisting
during the rotation.
Figure 42 – Photo of the rate table. The top part is the rotating one, so there are screw
holes to fix the device under test, and two 15-pin connectors that are internally connected
to the bottom ones in order to extract the signals.
61
4.3.1 Sensitivity
To acquire the system output we used a National Instrument Data Acquisi-
tion Board (DAQ), after the demodulation performed by a lock-in amplifier,
placed at the output of the sense chain. The measure consists in relating the
output signal amplitude to the angular velocity applied by the rate table. We
arbitrarily chose 0.2V intervals for the reference AGC voltage, with a sweep
in angular rate spanning between ±1500 dps at most.
In the following graphs we report the results, first for yaw and then for
pitch. The first graph (Figure 43 and 45) of each axis represents the collected
points, we note the excellent linearity of the system as the rate varies, even
at the highest voltages. There is an evident offset, different in the two axes,
quantified in the second graph.
The third (Figure 44 and 46) illustrates the numerical values of the sen-
sitivity for the different reference voltages. In this case the linearity depends
strongly on this second parameter: looking at the next graph we see that it
starts to get worse from 0.6V, corresponding to a displacement of about 4µm,
while at 1V (about 7µm) the non linearity becomes quite strong. Since these
devices are subjected to very wide oscillations, it is reasonable to expect such
behavior.
62
Figure 43 – Yaw axis. The first graph shows the output voltage, demodulated, function
of the applied angular rate, for different reference voltages. In the second, we see the value
of the offset referred to the input.
63
Figure 44 – Yaw axis. In the first graph we see the sensitivity values, corresponding to the
slope in the previous diagram. In the second, the non-linearity is highlighted accordingly
to the control voltage variation.
64
Figure 45 – Pitch axis. The first graph shows the output voltage, demodulated, function
of the applied angular rate, for different reference voltages. In the second, we see the value
of the offset referred to the input.
65
Figure 46 – Pitch axis. In the first graph we see the sensitivity values, corresponding
to the slope in the previous diagram. In the second, the non-linearity is highlighted
accordingly to the control voltage variation.
66
All of these data are summarized into Figure 47, in which we see the
trend for the scale factor as a function of the control voltage. We report the
linearity error too, as a function of the applied angular rate. It is especially
noteworthy this very small value of just 0.2%, even at high rates.
Figure 47 – General situation of the sensitivity for the two axis. Respectively, yaw and
pitch.
67
4.3.2 Noise
To characterize noise in MEMS the root Allan variance procedure is used.
It is a measurement of variability on repeated acquisitions. The sequence of
operations is the following one:
-The total measure has duration ttot ;
-Total time is divided in M interval, each one of duration τ ;
-You calculate the mean Ωk of the signal inside each interval;
-You calculate the difference between repeated acquisitions;
-The Allan variance is defined as:
M −1
2 1 X
σAV,Ω (τ )
= (Ωk+1 − Ωk )2
2(M − 1) k=1
q
2
The graph is constructed as σAV,Ω (τ ) vs τ . The points are obtained by
repeating the whole procedure with different τ , but with the other parameters
fixed.
We obtain the following graphs for our gyro, Figure 48.
The graph region with slope -1/2 describes white noise. It is intuitive
to understand that this decreases in an averaged measure, increasing the
integration time, as it happens by increasing τ . The consecutive flat region,
on the other hand, describes flicker noise, for which an increase in the average
time is compensated by the increase in its value, which results in a null slope.
The last region, of slightly rising behavior, is linked to the drift, and is in
fact detected with very long times.
In both axes electronic noise is dominant, and the curves are similar.
The difference is obtained by referring the noise to the input, since the two
sensitivities are different.
68
Figure 48 – Graphs of the Allan variance for both axes.
Standard automotive gyroscopes usually operate at a displacement of

around one half with respect to the device we are investigating, with a con-
sequent input referred noise greater of about two times.
69
5 Vibrations rejection
This section is dedicated to the discussion of the measures under vibrations.
We’ll see the theoretical model used and the graphical results we obtained.
References: [1], [2], [3], [6], [7], [8]
The measurements carried out up to this point represent the standard

procedure used for the characterization of a MEMS gyroscope. Our particular
device, as previously mentioned, was designed to operate in the automotive
environment, characterized by very intense stresses, even of many g (gravity
units), in a range of frequencies that typically includes the resonance modes
of the gyroscopes. For this reason, devices for this sector are designed in such
a way as to reject as much as possible vibrations coming from the outside.
Figure 49 – Photo of the shaker. The tiny cilinder on top is the reference accelerometer,
which operates in closed loop with the instrument to provide a well controlled acceleration.
70
To test the effectiveness of this property in our device we use an instru-
ment called shaker : this excites the board -with the MEMS installed- with
an oscillating acceleration, of controlled frequency and amplitude. Given the
considerable weight of the board, and its shape, which generates resonant
modes at frequencies close to those of interest, we were only able to apply
only a few g of intensity to avoid saturation of the instrument.
The measurements were carried out by mounting the board on the shaker
in three different orientations (figure 50), so as to excite the oscillation along
the three different orthogonal axes. A frequency sweep is then applied around
the drive resonance frequency f0 . The signal is taken from the usual output
of the circuit, at the end of the sense chain; for this reason, in the ideal
case of total rejection of the vibration, a null value or an offset is expected.
Of course this is not possible, so what we see from the graphs is a peak at
the value of f0 . Data were collected for both axes of the device, with the
quadrature compensation methods alternately active.
Now we will describe the theoretical model for vibrations in the gyroscope,
and then we will try to explain our experimental results within this paradigm.
(a) Yaw rate-axis, pitch (b) Yaw drive-axis, pitch (c) Yaw sense-axis, pitch
sense-axis. drive-axis. rate-axis.
Figure 50 – The three alignments of the board placed on the shaker.
71
5.1 Vibrations model and results
If we think about the vectorial properties of the Coriolis force and the con-
sequent construction of a gyroscope, we realize that each one of the three
axes in space is related to one of the gyro critical directions: in fact drive
direction, sense direction and rate direction are all orthogonal. With this
consideration in mind, we can model vibrations acting on a gyro through
their relation with each one of those directions.
5.1.1 Vibes along drive direction


m ẍ + b ẋ − 2m Ω ẏ + k x + k y = 0 hNCF 4V v sin(ω t) + F
x x x z x xy g DC a 0 vib,d (ω)
m ÿ + b ẏ + 2m Ω ẋ + k y + k x = 0
y y y z y xy
-Vibes at drive resonance:

due to non-idealities, the in-phase vibration induces an anti-phase ex-
citation which sums to the main drive motion. This induces a quadrature
change at the drive frequency, and thus a change in the output. Tatar tech-
nique should compensate this effect while electronic compensation leaves it
as is.
-Vibes at sense resonance:
due to non-idealities, the in-phase excitation induces anti-phase drive
motion. Motion corresponds to a quadrature component vibrating at the
sense mode, whose output is amplified by the sense Q. This may become
visible even if filtered by the LPF. Tatar should compensate it.
Experimental results
In Figure 51 we can see the effect of vibrations applied along the drive
direction.
We decided to show only the data for 10µm displacement, to avoid clut-
tering the graph, because are the most significant ones: it is intuitive that
with an ample oscillation the vibration rejection is better, and all experimen-
tal results confirm that. So this leaves us with 3 series of measurements, one
without quadrature compensation, one with the Tatar system and one with
72
our purely electronic one.
The yaw axis seems nicely aligned, because the quadrature is quite small
and the compensation techniques make little difference. We see no resonance
at all at the sense frequency, while there are other peaks instead, due to some
modes of the board.
For the pitch axis we can’t really say the same, because we see a strong
peak at the sense resonance, but it is quite usual for the out-of-plane devices
to have worse performance than the in-plane ones. Accordingly with the
model just discussed, the Tatar method cancel the peak, while electronic
compensation doesn’t make much difference. At drive resonance instead,
we can see a relatively small peak, and both compensations have almost no
effect.
73
Figure 51 – Vibrations along drive direction.
74
5.1.2 Vibes along sense direction

m ẍ + b ẋ − 2m Ω ẏ + k x + k y = 0 hNCF 4V v sin(ω t)
x x x z x xy g DC a 0
m ÿ + b ẏ + 2m Ω ẋ + k y + k x = F (ω)
y y y z y xy vib,s
-Vibes at drive resonance:

due to non-idealities, the in-phase vibration induces an anti-phase ex-
citation which sums to the main sense motion (quadrature). This induces
an output change at the drive frequency, thus visible at the output. A bal-
anced, levered sense mode should reject this effect better than non-levered
structures. Tatar should make no difference.
-Vibes at sense resonance:
due to non-idealities, in-phase sense excitation induces anti-phase sense
motion. This is amplified by the sense mode Q and becomes visible after
demodulation even if filtered. Similarly, this effect is best rejected by levered
sense modes. Tatar minimizes non-idealities and is thus beneficial.
In Figure 52 we can see the effect of vibrations applied along the sense
direction.
In the yaw axis we see a small effect of the vibrations at drive frequency,
in good consistence with the theory, because our gyro has a levered styled
sense frame. Both compensation techniques make almost no difference. The
sense peak is totally absent.
In the pitch axis the behavior is similar to the drive direction case, with a
strong sense frequency peak, even if this time it is much smaller than before (2
dps versus 16 dps). This is again due to the levered design. Tatar completely
compensates for it. We are not showing the electronic compensation data
because in this case were very noisy, to the point that they made no sense
at all. The drive frequency peak is again relatively small, and the Tatar
compensation makes no difference.
75
Figure 52 – Vibrations along sense direction.
76
5.1.3 Vibes along rate direction

m ẍ + b ẋ − 2m Ω ẏ + k x + k y = 0 hNCF 4V v sin(ω t) + α F
x x x z x xy g DC a 0 x vib,Ω (ω)
m ÿ + b ẏ + 2m Ω ẋ + k y + k x = α F (ω)
y y y z y xy y vib,Ω
-Yaw sensors are very robust in the z-direction. Effects should be

minimum;
-Pitch sensors are not as robust in the y-direction as the yaw sensors
are in the z-direction. Effects may be slightly more visible:
non-idealities may turn part of the common mode z-axis motion into dif-
ferential motion along the drive or sense directions (indicated by the coupling
factor αi above), generating then the same effects seen so far, but to a much
lower extent.
In Figure 53 we can see the effect of vibrations applied along the rate
direction.
In the yaw axis we see a small peak at drive frequency, and none at the
sense one. The compensation techniques have little effect.
In pitch axis there is a lot of noise due to the non compensated and
electronic cases, but we can see the peak at drive frequency. Tatar smooths
the behavior, but has no effect on the peak. It should be noted that the top
value is small (1 dps) anyway.
77
Figure 53 – Vibrations along rate direction.
78
6 Conclusion
The thesis work had two main targets: the realization of a versatile electronic
board dedicated to the operation of MEMS gyroscopes, and the characteriza-
tion of an automotive device, using such board, in order to verify its proper-
ties under vibrations. Our board design even allowed us to perform an inter-
esting test on an alternative quadrature compensation technique, fully elec-
tronic, and to immediately compare its results with the Tatar-methodology
ones.
Our design for the board is satisfying in its core functionalities, because
all of the stages work as intended and allow good control on the behavior
of the MEMS. On the other hand, the feedthrough represents a serious is-
sue, which makes the utilization of some features, for example the switch
from sinusoidal to square wave, cumbersome, beacause of the spurious stable
oscillating frequencies. The feedthrough problematic has been solved with
a revision of the project, taking good care of the choice of the MEMS car-
rier and of the drawing of the critical signal paths, and by implementing a
compensating stage.
The tests on the automotive gyroscope gave results in good agreement
with the ideas used for its design, as the large displacement of the drive
frame (∼ 12µm) reflects on a big sensitivity (∼ 7mV /dps) and a small noise
√
(∼ 4mdps/ Hz). If we compare these values with the ones from a device
actually on the market, for example [4], we understand the quality of the
new design.
The electronic quadrature compensation works nicely while in absence of
vibrations, along the lines of the Tatar scheme. Under vibrations instead,
mainly due to instability and noise, the performance achieved with the Tatar
technique is not totally reached with our alternative implementation; but
the behavior was expected from models and considerations. Further, refined
schemes could be tried in order to avoid the placement of Tatar electrodes,
which represent a waste of device area.
79
In conclusion, the thesis work shows an improved architecture for capaci-
tive MEMS gyroscopes with enhanced vibration rejection, targeting automo-
tive applications. The proposed innovative design is conceived through three
major system-level considerations:
-large drive displacement;
-levered sense mode;
-complete quadrature compensation.
The target is reached by avoiding upscaling of operational frequencies
and/or increased process complexity, thus also avoiding disadvantages in
terms of quadrature signal magnitude.
Indeed, Figure 54 shows that a sub 0.7g/dps vibration sensitivity is
achieved for both devices along all excitation directions.
Figure 54 – Conclusive graph of vibration data, showing good performance of the device,
accordingly to the design.
Further improvements include deep tests on alternatives on quadrature

compensation, both in open and closed loop, and a study on temperature
stability.
The work has been featured in a scientific paper that will be presented
at IEEE MEMS 2019, whose proceeding is attached in appendix.
80
References
[1] Giacomo Langfelder, Slides of the MEMS course, 2018
[2] Clark T.-C. Nguyen, Roger T. Howe, An Integrated CMOS Microme-

chanical Resonator High-Q Oscillator, IEEE Journal of solid-state cir-
cuits, Vol. 34, No. 4, April 1999
[3] E. Tatar, S. E. Alper, T. Akin, Quadrature-Error Compensation and

Corresponding Effects on the Performance of Fully Decoupled MEMS
Gyroscopes, Journal of microelectromechanical systems, Vol.21, No. 3,
June 2012
[4] A3G4250D Datasheet,

https://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/a3g4250d.pdf
[5] H. Weinberg, “Gyro Mechanical Performance: The Most Important Pa-

rameter”, Technical Article MS-2158, Analog Devices, Inc, 2011
[6] S. Dellea, P. Rey and G. Langfelder, “MEMS Gyroscopes Based on

Piezoresistive NEMS Detection of Drive and Sense Motion”, in Journal
of Microelectromechanical Systems, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1389-1399, Dec.
2017.
[7] S. Facchinetti, L. Guerinoni, L. G. Falorni, A. Donadel and C. Valzasina,

“Development of a complete model to evaluate the Zero Rate Level drift
over temperature in MEMS Coriolis Vibrating Gyroscopes”, 2017 IEEE
International Symposium on Inertial Sensors and Systems (INERTIAL),
Kauai, HI, pp. 125-128, 2017.
[8] F. Giacci, S. Dellea, G. Langfelder, “Signal integrity in capacitive and

piezoresistive single- and multi-axis MEMS gyroscopes under vibra-
tions”, Microelectronics Reliability, vol. 75, pp. 59-68, 2017.
81
ENHANCING VIBRATION ROBUSTNESS AND NOISE
IN AUTOMOTIVE GYROSCOPE WITH LARGE
DRIVE MOTION AND LEVERED SENSE MODE
Leonardo Gaffuri Pagani1, Stefano Dellea1, Giulio Bursi1, Matteo Brunetto2,
Luca Falorni2 and Giacomo Langfelder1
1
Politecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Elettronica Informazione e Bioingegneria, Milano, ITALY
2
ST Microelectronics, Analog and MEMS Group, Cornaredo (MI), ITALY
ABSTRACT
The work presents a new geometry of amplitude-
modulated in-plane and out-of-plane gyroscopes for
improved vibration rejection in automotive applications.
To this purpose, the design embeds a levered sense mode,
enables to reach drive displacements as large as 13 μm
and allows complete electromechanical quadrature
compensation. Under the effect of 10 g (gravity units)
peak-to-peak vibrations, the sensors demonstrate 10- to
100-fold improved vibration rejection compared to
previous yaw-rate geometries, holding similar
characteristics for pitch-rate sensing. At the same time,
noise and stability performance are 2-fold better than best-
in-class automotive gyroscopes.
INTRODUCTION
MEMS devices keep permeating various
technological fields, and several new applications can
expand the market even further. The path towards next-
generation automotive gyroscopes is being spurred on by
Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems (e.g.: lane keep
assist, dead-reckoning, autonomous driving and more),
thus it mandatorily requires sensors robustness to Figure 1: Gyroscopes top view and finite element
environmental disturbances, including vibrations up to simulations. (a) Drive-, Coriolis- and Sense-frame
several tens of kHz. It is known that most common have been highlighted for easier understanding. The
MEMS-based gyroscopes rely on a drive mode, a sense in-plane and the out-of-plane structures have a
mode, and show a range of higher-order modes. These similar light-mass drive topology. Most of the mass
modes lie often in the 20 kHz – 50 kHz spectral region has been shifted to the Coriolis-frame in order to
and are characterized by high quality factors (up to ten boost the inertial measurement; (b-e) finite element
thousand). By design, displacements induced by simulations of the antiphase drive and sense modes,
vibrations are compensated by differential architectures. for both pitch/roll (left) and yaw (right) gyroscopes.
Nevertheless, due to unavoidable electromechanical
nonidealities, part of these signals can manifest as gaps and remains well proved only for yaw-rate sensing.
unwanted output changes. Especially vibrations at the With no need to increase the operating frequencies,
eigenfrequencies can therefore produce spurious signals, benefits of structurally balanced designs, with sense
since unwanted displacements are amplified by the large levered modes, were addressed in [4], but only for a
quality factors. This undermines both the short-term resistive sensing characterized by high linearity.
(noise) and long-term (stability) performance, and This work proposes an innovative geometry for
motivates the study of novel gyroscope geometries for amplitude-modulated, mode-split yaw and pitch/roll
improved vibration rejection. automotive gyroscopes, with improved robustness to
Even though previous works theorized effects of vibrations along all spatial directions.
vibrations combined to the inherent nonlinear response of
parallel-plate capacitive sensing [1], the meaningful METHODOLOGY
literature on specific design topologies for improved The proposed geometry relies on three major design
robustness to such critical disturbances remains limited to and system-level considerations:
few works. The shift of all modes to high frequencies, (i) vibrations generate displacements: their input-
which could be the most straightforward approach, is referred effect is thus lowered if the scale-factor
constrained by growing quadrature and reduced drive is increased by boosting the drive motion
motion amplitude, as discussed e.g. in [2]. Consistent amplitude. The option of reducing the mode split
improvements were shown through the use of bulk- to increase the scale-factor cannot be pursued as
acoustic wave topologies (with resonant frequencies in the it is detrimental for temperature stability;
MHz range, [3]), but this approach requires ultra-narrow (ii) the anti-phase operational modes are kept at
978-1-4799-7955-4/15/$31.00 ©MEMS 2019 MEMS 2019, Seoul, KOREA, 27 - 31 January, 2019

relatively low frequencies (around 27 kHz), but
the sense mode topology, based on a centered,
balanced, light-mass lever, shifts the in-phase
sense mode to high frequencies; this approach
remains compatible with drive displacements
larger than 10 µm, and mitigates maximum
quadrature [5];
(iii) even worst-case quadrature can be nulled via
electromechanical action [6], thus nulling drive-
mode related imperfections and consequent
vibration-induced effects. Figure 2: Electromechanical Characterization
Fig. 1a shows the conceived yaw and pitch results. Results showing drive quality factors larger
gyroscopes, where the three doubly-decoupled frames are than 10000 at 0.7 mbar nominal pressure.
highlighted, implementing a light-mass drive actuation, a Operation at 700Hz-900Hz split value is chosen for
Coriolis proof mass with nested quadrature compensation improved robustness to vibrations.
electrodes, and a light-mass levered sense unit with keep high quality factors, so to lower thermomechanical
capacitive readout plates. noise, as detailed in the modal characterization (Fig. 2).
In details, each half of both devices is suspended by The obtained sensors parameters after an
four folded drive springs, with the two halves coupled by experimental electro-mechanical characterization are
two tuning forks. The Coriolis frame is connected to the displayed in Table 1. Drive-mode quality factors exceed
drive frame through decoupling springs, whose battens are 104 on both the sensors. The mode-split value is kept
optimized to minimize rotations around Coriolis-lever larger than 600 Hz.
decoupling springs. Nested within the Coriolis frame lie
the quadrature compensation electrodes. The mass of the
levered sense frames is minimized [7], except in the
DRIVING AND SENSING LINEARITY
pitch/roll sensor in the region above the vertical sensing The sensors are coupled to a custom circuit through
electrodes. All the springs edges are rounded to minimize a ceramic carrier and first mounted on a rate table
residual process stresses, and are designed with long, (Acutronic AC1120S) for scale-factor characterization.
folded beams to maximize their linear travel range. The circuit includes a primary drive loop and a low-noise
Electrostatic shields between the rotor and the substrate capacitive sensing interface of the Coriolis motion.
are also designed to minimize spurious current flows Additionally, an Automatic Gain Control functionality
induced by undesired motion. (AGC) can be exploited to verify the driving linearity at
Drive and sense modal simulations (Ansys software) large displacements: setting the control loop reference
are shown in Fig. 1b-d, where the deformation of springs voltage to increasing values, the scale-factor at growing
for high-linearity at large displacements can be drive oscillation amplitudes is analyzed.
appreciated. The optimized vibration rejection enables to Fig. 3 reports on the y-axis the measured scale-
factor, as a function of the AGC control voltage, reported
Yaw device characteristics on the x-axis: one can note that the linearity between drive
Parameter Value displacement and scale-factor starts to decrease at a travel
Drive resonant freq. f0d 27400 Hz range of 13 μm, which is thus considered the maximum
Drive quality factor Qd 12310
Drive elastic stiffness kd 740 N/m
Drive displacement xd 13 µm
Sense resonant freq. f0s 28100 Hz
Sense quality factor Qs 3270
Sense elastic stiffness ks 405 N/m
Rotor voltage Vrot 20 V
Pitch/Roll device characteristics

Parameter Value
Drive resonant freq. f0d 27390 Hz
Drive quality factor Qd 10960
Drive elastic stiffness kd 740 N/m
Drive displacement xd 13 µm
Sense resonant freq. f0s 28300 Hz
Sense quality factor Qs 1310 Figure 3: Scale factor and linearity. measured
scale factor for yaw (a) and pitch (b) gyroscopes,
Sense elastic stiffness ks 411
as a function of the controlled drive motion. The
Rotor voltage Vrot 20 V
insets show the gyroscopes response under ±500
Table 1: Summary of gyroscopes electromechanical dps rate ramp when actuated at the maximum
characteristics. (Top) Yaw device parameters. drive motion: the linearity error remains below
(Bottom) Pitch/Roll device parameters. 0.2% at 13 μm drive.
motion amplitude. In this situation, the scale-factor (about
7 mV/dps) holds sub-0.2% sensing linearity error versus
applied rate up to 500 dps (as shown by the insets).
NOISE DENSITY, BIAS STABILITY AND

VIBRATION REJECTION
The achieved large drive displacement has a first
benefit in lowering noise down to 4 mdps/√Hz, roughly
half of state-of-the-art automotive gyroscopes. This result
is obtained while nulling quadrature via electromechanical
compensation through an ancillary board (maximum
applied voltage at the quadrature electrodes is < 10 V).
Additionally, stability is also decreased down to 9 °/hr at
more than 10 s observation interval, as shown by the Figure 5: Vibration rejection experimental setup.
Allan graph of Fig. 4. Note how the performance are very The sensors under vibration tests mounted along
well matched for the in-plane and out-of-plane gyroscope the three axial directions, with the developed
geometries. electronics, the shaker, a coupling rigid frame, and
Next, as shown by Fig. 5, the custom board with the the reference accelerometer.
gyroscopes is mounted on a vibratory shaker (Bruel and
Kjaer 4810, with Spider motion controller from Belotti
Systems). This system, accounting for the board payload,
is capable to apply vibrations of 5-g (10-gpk-pk) up to 40
kHz. The sweeping range for the measurements is chosen
between 18 kHz and 36 kHz, where all the gyroscopes
modes under 50 kHz lie by design, with a sweep duration
of about 200 s. The measurement is repeated three times,
by mounting the board on the shaker along the three
different axes. For each gyroscope, these will be named
the drive-mode direction (when the vibration stimulus is
aligned with the drive axis), the sense-mode direction
(when the vibration stimulus is aligned with the Coriolis
displacement), and the rate direction (when the vibration
stimulus is along the remaining spatial direction). During
the measurements, quadrature is kept compensated as for
noise measurements. The true applied acceleration is Figure 6: Vibration sensitivity. sensitivity to
monitored by a piezoelectric reference accelerometer vibrations sweeping in the frequency region where
(DeltaTron 4533-B-001), which in turn controls in closed all modes beneath 50 kHz are expected. Vibrations
loop the power amplifier that drives the shaker. effects are observed only around the drive mode
Fig. 6 reports the vibration rejection results, (see the inset), and decrease linearly with drive
showing the spurious output sensitivity (expressed in amplitude, remaining below 0.2 dps/g and 0.7 dps/g
dps/g) as a function of the drive amplitude (the lower x- for yaw and pitch devices at the largest drive
axis refers to the yaw sensor, the upper drive axis to the displacement.
pitch sensor). As expected, input-referred effects of

vibrations decrease with increasing motion amplitude.
This is verified for all vibration directions and on both the
sensors. Overall, yaw gyroscopes show less than 0.2 dps/g
vibration sensitivity at the maximum drive motion; pitch
gyroscopes, though their inherently more complex
geometry (to allow out-of-plane motion), have
comparable values, lower than 0.7 dps/g. For both
sensors, the worst-case vibration corresponds to the drive-
mode direction. The inset is a detail of the time trace of
the outputs across the whole span: for both the
geometries, the only noticeable peak lies close to the
drive-mode resonant frequency.
For comparison with previous works, it is worth
Figure 4: Root Allan Variance. root Allan noting that there are mostly three approaches to apply
variance under large-displacement drive actuation. vibrations: the sweep at constant vibration amplitude in
Noise of about 4 mdps/√Hz and 9°/hr stability the resonant modes range, as described above; the
overcome state-of-the-art automotive gyroscopes. stimulus with continuous tones at a given frequency
(much lower than resonance), as e.g. used in [8]; the [2] J. Liewald, B. Kuhlmann, T. Balslink, M. Trächtler, M.
application of a vibration noise with known rms value and Dienger and Y. Manoli, “100 kHz MEMS Vibratory
bandwidth (see e.g. [9]). Gyroscope,” Journal of Microelectromechanical
Once the data taken from the literature are made Systems, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1115-1125, 2013.
comparable to the used approach, the results of this work [3] D. E. Serrano et al., “Environmentally-robust high-
outperform previous works by 10-100 times for the yaw performance tri-axial bulk acoustic wave gyroscopes,”
sensor, this factor being even larger for the pitch 2016 IEEE/ION Position, Location and Navigation
gyroscope (for which the literature still remains Symposium (PLANS), Savannah, GA, pp. 5-8, 2016.
considerably poorer than for yaw sensors). These [4] F. Giacci, S. Dellea, A. F. Longoni and G. Langfelder,
performances are achieved in compact dimensions, in a “Vibrations rejection in gyroscopes based on
standard ceramic assembling, and with no anti-vibration piezoresistive nanogauges,” TRANSDUCERS 2015,
mounts. Anchorage, AK, pp. 780-783, 2015.
[5] M. S. Weinberg and A. Kourepenis, “Error sources in
CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES in-plane silicon tuning-fork MEMS gyroscopes,”
The presented work demonstrates an improved Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, vol. 15,
architecture for amplitude-modulated capacitive MEMS no. 3, pp. 479-491, 2006.
gyroscopes with enhanced vibration rejection, targeting [6] E. Tatar, S. E. Alper and T. Akin, “Quadrature-Error
automotive applications. Compensation and Corresponding Effects on the
The proposed innovative design is conceived Performance of Fully Decoupled MEMS Gyroscopes,”
through three major system-level considerations: Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, vol. 21,
(i) large drive displacement; no. 3, pp. 656-667, 2012.
(ii) levered sense mode; [7] F. Giacci, S. Dellea, G. Langfelder, “Signal integrity
(iii) complete quadrature compensation. in capacitive and piezoresistive single- and multi-axis
The target is reached by avoiding upscaling of MEMS gyroscopes under vibrations,”
operational frequencies [2] and/or increased process Microelectronics Reliability, vol. 75, pp. 59-68, 2017.
complexity [3], thus also avoiding disadvantages in terms [8] H. Weinberg, “Gyro Mechanical Performance: The
of quadrature signal magnitude. Most Important Parameter,” Technical Article MS-
The shown measurements demonstrate how both in 2158, Analog Devices, Inc, 2011.
plane and out of plane devices have ultra-low input- [9] A. Rahafrooz, D. E. Serrano, D. Younkin, S. Nagpal, I.
referred vibration sensitivity (worst case value is 0.7 dps/g Jafri and F. Ayazi, “A 0.5 mm2 7-MHz capacitive bulk
for vibrations frequency matching the drive-mode acoustic wave gyroscope in (100) silicon with large
resonance), while maintaining low noise and bias drift (4 dynamic range,” proc. MEMS 2017, Las Vegas, NV,
mpds/√Hz and 9°/hr, respectively). pp. 25-28, 2017.
Further analyses envision a comparison between [10] S. Dellea, P. Rey and G. Langfelder, "MEMS
different quadrature compensation methods: electronic Gyroscopes Based on Piezoresistive NEMS Detection
and electromechanical, in open- and closed-loop of Drive and Sense Motion," in Journal of
configurations. At the same time, increasing the vibrations Microelectromechanical Systems, vol. 26, no. 6, pp.
frequency range beyond 50 kHz would qualify the 1389-1399, Dec. 2017.
proposed sensors for even tighter customer requirements. [11] S. Facchinetti, L. Guerinoni, L. G. Falorni, A.
Additional qualifications are foreseen in terms of Donadel and C. Valzasina, "Development of a
temperature stability [10]. In particular, a deep complete model to evaluate the Zero Rate Level drift
characterization of gyroscopes phase-shift dependence over temperature in MEMS Coriolis Vibrating
from temperature variations [11] is a topic of interest for Gyroscopes," 2017 IEEE International Symposium on
optimized electronics design. Inertial Sensors and Systems (INERTIAL), Kauai, HI,
pp. 125-128, 2017.
REFERENCES
[1] S. W. Yoon, S. Lee, K. Najafi, “Vibration-induced CONTACT
errors in MEMS tuning fork gyroscopes,” Sensors and L. Gaffuri: +39-02-2399-3744; leonardo.gaffuri@polimi.it
Actuators A: Physical, vol. 180, pp. 32-44, 2012.

2018 12 Bursi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018 12 Bursi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLITECNICO DI MILANO

SCUOLA DI INGEGNERIA INDUSTRIALE

MASTER DEGREE IN ENGINEERING PHYSICS

Academic Year 2017 - 2018

4 Characterization procedures and results 54

In chapter 2 and 3 we will describe the gyroscope mechanical structure

2.1 Physical principles

We can therefore write the equation of motion of the structure, consider-

FCoriolis = mẍ + bẋ + kx (2.2)

By construction, in the implementation shown here, only the angular

Figure 6 – Parallel plates configuration.

This configuration consists of a pair of complementary parallel flat face

Figure 7 – Comb fingers configuration.

This configuration is carried out in the form of two “combs” in which

In the next equations the sinusoidal term will be omitted

Vout = S[Ω cos(ωD t) + Bq sin(ωD t)]

in which S is the sensitivity.

Vdem = S[Ω cos(ωD t) + Bq sin(ωD t)] cos(ωD t) · LP F

cos(ωD t + φerr + φnoise )

Vdem = SΩ + SBq φerr + SBq φnoise

iDD 1/m 1/m

Figure 13 – Representation of the impedance of the MEMS. At the resonance frequency,

Figure 14 – Colorized image of the yaw axis.

Both these gyroscopes show many advanced design solutions.

Figure 15 – Colorized image of the pitch axis.

Figure 16 – Sense mode for the yaw axis.

Figure 17 – Sense mode for the pitch axis.

Quantity Value Units

Figure 20 – Simulink model of the gyroscope.

The natural continuation of the previous chapter, in which the mechanical

Figure 22 – Basic electronics in the drive loop.

3.1 Chosen implementation

Figure 24 – Differential charge amplifier, INA and variable gain stage.

Depending on the relative resistance and capacitance values, the stage

Figure 25 – Implementation of the phase shifter as an inverting stage.

It is possible to operate before or after the poles (in derivation or inte-

Figure 26 – Adjustable saturator, in which the switch allows to choose between an

Figure 27 – Buffered voltage divider.

The divider is realized with a potentiometer, and is part of a high-pass

Figure 28 – VGA stage with gain proportional to Rf .

The VGA that we chose has gain proportional to Rf · Vcontrol

Figure 29 – Double half-wave rectifier.

After this we placed a double 2-poles Sallen-Key, for a total of 4 poles

Figure 30 – Double 2-poles Sallen-Key.

3.7 Driving buffer

Figure 34 – Simulated Gloop.

3.9 Electronic quadrature compensation

4.1 Clean room measurements

Figure 38 – Example of a ringdown measue. The oscillating signal is modulated by the

Drive f0 [Hz] Drive Q Sense f0 [Hz] Sense Q Mismatch [Hz]

Table 2 – Yaw ringdown measurements.

Drive f0 [Hz] Drive Q Sense f0 [Hz] Sense Q Mismatch [Hz]

Table 3 – Pitch ringdown measurements.

4.2.1 Drive displacement vs Reference voltage

4.2.3 Drive resonance frequency variation

Standard automotive gyroscopes usually operate at a displacement of

The measurements carried out up to this point represent the standard

Figure 50 – The three alignments of the board placed on the shaker.

5.1.1 Vibes along drive direction

-Vibes at drive resonance:

-Vibes at drive resonance:

-Yaw sensors are very robust in the z-direction. Effects should be

Further improvements include deep tests on alternatives on quadrature