Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:00:37.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fabrication and Characterization of Two Compliant Electrical Contacts for MEMS: Gallium Microdroplets and Carbon Nanotube Turfs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2011

Y. Kim ,
A. Qiu ,
J. A. Reid ,
R.D. Johnson  and
D. F. Bahr
Y. Kim
Affiliation:
Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman WA USA
A. Qiu
Affiliation:
Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman WA USA
J. A. Reid
Affiliation:
Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman WA USA
R.D. Johnson
Affiliation:
Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman WA USA
D. F. Bahr
Affiliation:
Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman WA USA
Get access

Abstract

Because of their high mechanical compliance and electrical properties, the idea of using Ga and CNTs for micro electrical relay contacts has been investigated to minimize damage from switching and make good electrical contacts. Ga was electroplated into droplets on the order of 50 µm in radius on single crystal Si to create a contact for a switch that can be annealed to recover its original electrical properties after mechanical damage. CNTs were grown on Si substrates, coated with a thin Au layer, and transferred to other Si or Kapton substrates through thermocompression bonding. In the case of the Ga contact, repeated switching led to an increase in the resistance, but the resistance recovered after a thermal reflow process at 120 °C. Longer term and larger area contacts were used to measure the contact behavior under switching conditions of up to 200 A/cm2. At moderate cycling conditions (on the order of 200 cycles) the adhesion began to significantly degrade the switch. The oxidation behavior of the Ga droplets was characterized for thermal reflow, suggesting a passivating 30 nm oxide forms at 100 °C. The oxide formed by the Ga is thin and fragile as demonstrated by its use in a switch. The Ga droplets were examined with electrical contact resistance nanoindentation and the loads at fracture and the onset of electrical contact were identified. CNT turfs were also tested for making patterned electrical contacts; turfs of lateral dimensions similar to the Ga droplets were tested using electrical resistance testing during nanoindentation and as macroscopic contacts, and shown to be able to carry similar current densities. The results will be compared between the two systems, and benefits and challenges of each will be highlighted for creating compliant electrical switches and contacts.

Keywords

Gaelectrodepositionmicroelectro-mechanical (MEMS)
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1299: Symposium S – Microelectromechanical Systems—Materials and Devices IV , 2011 , mrsf10-1299-s10-03
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Witvrouw, A., Tilmans, H.A.C., and De Wolf, I., Microelectron. Eng. 76, 245 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Petersen, K., Proc. of the IEEE 70, 420 (1982).Google Scholar
3. Roy, S., and Mehregany, M., IEEE MEMS Workshop, 353 (January-February 1995).Google Scholar
4. Hashimoto, E., Uenishi, Y., and Watabe, A., Proc. Int. Solid-State Sensor Actuator, 361 (June 1995).Google Scholar
5. Kim, J., Shen, W., Latorre, L., and Kim, C.J., Sensor Actuator A 97-98, 672 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Simon, J., Saffer, S., and Kim, C.J., IEEE MEMS’96 Proc., 515 (1996).Google Scholar
7. Treacy, M.M.J., Ebbesen, T.W., and Gibson, J.M., Nature 381, 678–680 (1996).Google Scholar
8. Kim, P., Shi, L., Majumdar, A., and McEuen, P.L., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 215502 (2001).Google Scholar
9. Huang, J. B., Fei, G. T., Shui, J. P., Cui, P., and Wang, Y. Z., Phys. Status. Solidi. A 194, 167 (2002).Google Scholar
10. Kreupl, F., Graham, A.P., Duesberg, G.S., Steinhögl, W., Liebau, M., Unger, E., and Hönlein, W., Microelecron. Eng. 64, 349–408 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Terrones, M., Grobert, N., Olivares, J., Zhang, J.P., Terrones, H., Kordatos, K., Hsu, W.K., Hare, J.P., Townsend, P.D., Prassides, K., Cheetham, A. K., Kroto, H.W., and Walton, D.R.M., Nature 388, 52–55 (1997).Google Scholar
12. Sundararajan, S. and Bhat, T.R., J. Less-common Met., 11, 360–364 (1966).Google Scholar
13. McCarter, C.M., Richards, R.F., Mesarovic, S., Richards, C.D., Bahr, D.F., McClain, D., Jiao, J., J. Mater. Sci., 41, 7872–7878 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Johnson, R.D., Bahr, D.F., Richards, C.D., Richards, R.F., McClain, D., Green, J., and Jiao, J., Nanotechnology, 20, 065703, 6 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Kim, Y. and Bahr, D.F., Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 1139, (Boston, MA, 2008) GG03-05.Google Scholar
16. Dickrell, D.J., and Dugger, M.T., IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag. Technol. 30, 75 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar