This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2017.2784341, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
The Development of a New Piezoresistive
Pressure Sensor for Low Pressures
Anh Vang Tran, Xianmin Zhang, Benliang Zhu
 among other types [8]. Among them, piezoresistive pressure
Abstract—This paper presents the design methodology
and fabrication process of a novel piezoresistive pressure
sensor with a combined cross-beam membrane and
peninsula (CBMP) diaphragm structure for micropressure
measurements. The sensor is then analysed through
various experiments. The sensor is primarily designed
based on the optimized sensitivity, and a finite element
method is used to predict the stresses that are induced in
the piezoresistors and the deflection of the membrane
under different pressures. Compared to other traditional
diaphragm types, a significant increase in sensitivity can
be achieved by the proposed sensor, and the membrane
deflection and nonlinearity error considerably decrease.
The sensor fabrication process is performed on an n-type
single-crystal silicon wafer, and photolithography is used
with five masks to fabricate the sensing elements.
Additionally, piezoresistors are formed by boron
implantation. The experimental results indicate that the
fabricated sensor with the CBMP membrane yields a high
sensitivity of 25.7 mV/kPa and a low nonlinearity of -0.28%
FSS (full-scale span) for a pressure range of 0-5 kPa at
room temperature.
Index Terms—MEMS, Piezoresistive pressure sensor,
Sensor fabrication, FEM
I. INTRODUCTION
M ICROELECTROMECHANICAL systems (MEMS)
pressure sensor provide the ability to measure the
low-pressure range and have the advantages of a small
size, low power requirements, good performance and the ability
to be mass produced in the micromachining process [1].
Pressure sensors are among the most widely used MEMS
products in the market. Notably, the sensors have a variety of
applications, such as microscale mechatronic systems [2]-[4],
automobiles [5], aerodynamics [6], [7], process control [8], [9]
and biomedical equipment [10]. According to sensing
principles, MEMS pressure sensors can be divided into
piezoresistive, capacitive, optical, and resonance sensors,
This research is supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant Nos. U1501247, U1609206, 51605166), the
Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (Grant Nos.
S2013030013355. The authors gratefully acknowledge these support
agencies (Corresponding author: Benliang Zhu).
Anh Vang Tran, Xianmin Zhang and Benliang Zhu are with the
Guangdong Key Laboratory of Precision Equipment and Manufacturing
Technology, School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, South
China University of Technology, Guangzhou, 510640, P.R. China,
(e-mail: vangtrananh@gmail.com, zhangxm@scut.edu.cn,
meblzhu@scut.edu.cn).
0278-0046 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
sensors are the most frequently applied because they have
significant advantages over other sensors, such as good
linearity, high pressure sensitivity, small size, high
performance, and low cost, and they are easy to fabricate [11].
A piezoresistive pressure sensor consists of a diaphragm and
four piezoresistors in a Wheatstone bridge. The diaphragm is
subjected to pressure loading by the transformation of the input
pressure into a stress field. The piezoresistors are placed on top
of the diaphragm in high-stress regions to maximize the
piezoresistive effect and the sensitivity of the sensor [3], [12].
During the design process of a pressure sensor, the
diaphragm thickness, dimensions and structure, as well as the
placement, size, and shape of the piezoresistors, are the primary
factors considered [11], [13]. A decrease in the diaphragm
thickness can increase sensitivity, increase mechanical
nonlinearity, and decreases the resonant frequency. To
overcome this limitation and improve the sensitivity and
linearity of the sensor, numerous studies have been conducted.
The proposed methods can be mainly classified into the
following three categories: discoveries of new materials,
compensation methods, and designs of new structures.
First, the discovery of new materials originally involved
pressure sensor optimization based on a multilayered
diaphragm, and silicon nanowires were applied as
piezoresistive sensing elements [14]. The sensor with silicon
nanowire piezoresistors was also improved by Zhang to
achieve a high sensitivity of 2.475 mV/kPa in the range of
0-100 kPa [15]. In other reports, this approach was discovered
to improve sensor sensitivity [16]-[18]. Although though these
sensors benefit from improved sensitivity, difficulties
associated with high costs and applications in industrial
fabrication processes remain.
Second, compensation methods have been presented to make
accurate measurements. As a result, various
temperature-dependent zero-offset compensation algorithms
and circuits have been developed [19]-[21]. However, this
method not only increases the device cost but also reduces the
sensor reliability [22].
Third, the design of new structures aims to design and
optimize a structure and the dimensions of the diaphragm,
shapes of components, and locations of resistors [1], [11].
Several diaphragms have been established using this approach.
For example, Sandmaier reported a square diaphragm with a
rectangular central boss. Although the nonlinearity decreased
within ±0.05% full-scale span (FSS), the sensitivity was only
17.5 mV/ kPa at a pressure of 10 kPa [3]. Tian introduced a
pressure sensor with a novel cross-beam membrane structure.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2017.2784341, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
The nonlinearity of 0.09% FSS was acceptable; however, the
sensitivity of 7.018 mV/kPa was relatively low [23], [24]. Yu
presented an absolute micropressure sensor that incorporated
beams into the bossed diaphragm with a high sensitivity of
11.098 µV/V/Pa [25], nonlinearity of 3.046% FSS and large
chip size of 7000x7000 µm2. Yu also improved the sensor
sensitivity to 17.795 µV/V/Pa by introducing beams and
islands; however, the chip size remained large [26]. Huang
proposed a peninsula structure by introducing peninsulas on the
flat membrane. The nonlinearity of 0.36% FSS initially seemed
promising; however, the sensitivity of 18.4 mV/kPa was
slightly low for an operating pressure of 5 kPa [27]. Xu
designed a bossed diaphragm combined with a peninsula island
structure that yielded a sensitivity of 0.066 mV/V/Pa and
nonlinearity of 0.33% FSS; however, the diaphragm size was
3500x3500 µm2 [28]. Additionally, Meng developed a
beam-membrane dual-island structure for micropressure
monitoring, and the sensor had a sensitivity of 17.339 µV/V/Pa
and nonlinearity of 2.559% FSS; however, the dimensions of
the sensor were 7000x7000 µm2 [29]. Guang presented a novel
0-3 kPa pressure sensor with a shuriken-structured diaphragm,
a sensitivity of 23.6 mV/kPa and a nonlinearity of 0.18% FSS
[30].
Although many diaphragm structures have been proposed in
recent years, the sensitivity and linearity trade-off problem
remains important in pressure sensor design. Therefore,
significant attention has been paid to the selection of new
structures based on technical methodologies to improve
pressure sensor performance. Such methods include increasing
the sensor output and decreasing the nonlinearity error, chip
size and fabrication costs. In this paper, a novel high-sensitivity
and low-nonlinearity pressure sensor structure based on the
combination of a cross-beam membrane and peninsula (CBMP)
structure is proposed for low-pressure ranges. A finite element
method (FEM) is used to calculate the stress distributions and
analyse the deflection of the inherent structure for different
parameters. This method requires the use of COMSOL
Multiphysics software. According to the analysis results, the
proposed structure is compared with other structures based on
the optimized dimensions of the proposed sensor. Based on the
optimization results, the proposed sensor with the CBMP
structure is fabricated and packaged. Many experiments were
performed to verify the simulation results and the performance
of the sensors.
II. DESIGN OF THE NOVEL PRESSURE SENSOR
A. Sensor output
In typical applications, the piezoresistors in a pressure sensor
are arranged in a Wheatstone bridge configuration of two
longitudinal piezoresistors (R1 and R3) and two transverse
piezoresistors (R2 and R4). In short, it is assumed that the
diaphragm is designed on n-type silicon and that all the
resistors are p-type silicon with long axes in the (110) direction.
With the pressure load being applied to the diaphragm, the
piezoresistors are subjected to the following stresses: the
average longitudinal stress on R1 and R3 is σx1, and the average
transverse stress is σy1. The average longitudinal stress on R2
and R4 is σy2, and the average transverse stress is σx2. These
stresses will change the piezoresistor resistances. Notably,
0278-0046 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
resistors R1 - R3 will have the same positive increment ∆R1, and
resistors R2 - R4 will have the same negative increment ∆R2. The
fractional changes in resistance are represented by the
following equations [31]:
 R1 / R1  R3 / R3  ( 44 / 2)  x1   y1   ( 44 / 2) lt 1
(1)
 R2 / R2   R4 / R4  ( 44 / 2)  x 2   y 2   ( 44 / 2) lt 2
where π44 is the piezoresistive coefficient. Based on the
Wheatstone bridge circuit, the equations of the output voltage
Vout and the input voltage Vin can be expressed as follows.
( R1 / R1 )  ( R2 / R2 )  lt1   lt 2
Vout  Vin  Vin (2)
2  ( R1 / R1 )  ( R2 / R2 ) (4 /  44 )   lt1   lt 2
To estimate the performance of a sensor, the most important
parameter is sensitivity. Defined as the relative change in output
voltage per unit of applied pressure, the pressure sensor
sensitivity (S) can be expressed in the following form [31]:
S  [Vout ( pm )  Vout ( p1 )] /  pm  p1   VFS /  pm  p1  (3)
where pm and p1 are the maximum and minimum operating
pressures, respectively; Vout(pm) and Vout(p1) are the output
voltages measured for pm and p1, respectively; and VFS = Vout(pm)
- Vout(p1) is the full-scale output (FSO). The units of sensitivity
are mV/ kPa.
Another important parameter used to evaluate a pressure
sensor is the nonlinearity error. The nonlinearity error at each
calibration point is defined as follows [31]:
V (p )
NL  100%  [V ( p )  out max ( p )] / V ( p ) (4)
i out i
pmax
i out max
where NLi and pi are the nonlinearity error and the pressure at
the calibration points, respectively. The maximum error value is
called the nonlinearity of the sensor. In this study, the
membrane structure design is estimated based on the optimized
sensitivity and nonlinearity error.
Fig. 1. View of the CBMP structure with dimension parameters
B. Novel membrane structure design
For developing piezoresistive pressure sensor, one of the
most important considerations is the structure of the diaphragm.
Therefore, the main contribution of the proposed work is that
we have developed a novel CBMP structure for piezoresistive
pressure sensor and experimentally demonstrated its validity.
Fig. 1 illustrates the proposed pressure sensor, which consists of
a novel combined CBMP structure with four piezoresistors on
top. These resistors are connected by a Wheatstone bridge. The
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2017.2784341, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
main design parameters include the membrane dimensions
(membrane width L and thickness D), the cross-beam
dimensions (beam height H and beam width W) and the
dimensions of the peninsula (R, P, T, and B correspond to the
radius of the fillet, peninsula distance, peninsula length, and
peninsula width, respectively). The sensor design requirements
under consideration include the measurement pressure range of
0-5 kPa, sensitivity of S ≥ 20 mV/kPa, nonlinearity error of NL
≤ 1% FSS, input voltage of Vin =5 V and piezoresistor resistance
of R = 4.5 kΩ. The proposed sensor is primarily designed based
on the sensitivity optimization. The output voltage, sensitivity
and nonlinearity error of the sensor are calculated using
equations (2), (3) and (4), respectively.
Fig. 2. Mesh model of the proposed sensor
Fig. 3. Simulated stress distribution of the proposed membrane
1) The CBMP structure analysis
Fig. 2 shows a simplified 3D FEM model of the proposed
sensor. The material properties used in the simulations are as
follows: A Young’s modulus of 160 GPa and a Poisson’s ratio
of 0.22 for both the membrane and piezoresistors. For the
boundary conditions, uniform pressure loading is applied to the
top of the membrane with a fixed substrate. From these
simulations, the deflection of both the membrane and the
stresses, which affect the piezoresistors, can be obtained. Fig. 3
shows the simulated normal stresses of the proposed structure
applied at a loading pressure of 5 kPa. Moreover, this figure
shows that the stress is high in the cross-beam region and near
the edge of the membrane. In all cases, the piezoresistors are
located on top of the cross beam, which has a length of 200 µm
and a width of 12 µm and can be divided into three sections.
It is difficult to derive the theoretical formulas of the
mechanical stress and maximum deflection for the CBMP
structure, although the approximate values can be determined
0278-0046 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
by combining FEM calculations and the curve fitting method.
The mechanical stress and the maximum deflection of the
typical traditional C-type and other reported cross-beam
membrane structures are power functions of structural variables
[24], [25]. Similarly, the functional form of the proposed
diaphragm can be approximated as power functions of each
structural dimension:
umax  K1.Ln1.Dn2 .H n3.W n4 .Bn5.T n6 .Pn7 .Rn8. pn9 .En10 (5)
 max  K 2 .Lm1 .D m 2 .H m 3 .W m 4 .B m 5 .T m 6 .P m 7 .R m 8 . p m 9 (6)
where umax and σmax are the maximum deflection and maximum
stress, respectively. Additionally, Ki, nj, and mj (i=1, 2 and j=1,
2…,10) are undetermined coefficients, p is the loading pressure
and E is the elastic modulus.
To determine these constants in equations (5) and (6), each
variable should be analysed while others are held constant. For
example, when the influence of the membrane thickness D is
studied, the value of D is changed in the range of the actual
demand, and other variables are assumed to be constant and
arbitrary. Consequently, equations (5) and (6) can be rewritten
as follows:
umax  K1D .Dn2 (7)
 max  K 2 D .D m 2 (8)
With the variation in the membrane thickness D, a series of
umax and max values obtained by FEM simulation. Based on
these results, the approximate power functions of umax and max
can be derived with the curve fitting method in MATLAB®
software. Via comparison with equations (7) and (8), the
constants K1D, K2D, n2, and m2 can be determined. The
correlation between the membrane thickness D and the
performance of the structure is given in (9) and (10).
umax  2399.D2.19 (9)
 max  12343.D 1.92 (10)
In the same manner, the functional relationships can be
established for other variables. After obtaining all the
relationship functions, the equations are combined in (5) and (6)
to derive the equations of the CBMP structure.
pL3.9056 P 0.0532T 0.0246 (11)
umax  K1 2.19 0.152 2.584 0.033 0.017
D W H R B E
pL2.4142 R 0.0069T 0.0593 B0.1065 (12)
 max  K2
D1.92W 0.398 H 2.013 P 0.104
It is assumed that the values in (11) and (12) are L=2900,
W=180, H=12, R=500, T=400, P=100, B=550, D=18, p=5000
Pa, and E=1.60x1011 Pa. The simulation results of the
maximum stress and maximum deflection are 52 MPa and 3.5
µm, respectively. The constant coefficients K1 and K2 can be
determined after substituting these values into equations (11)
and (12). Finally, the equations of the CBMP structure can be
expressed as follows.
pL3.9056 P0.0532T 0.0246 (13)
umax  2.3657 2.219 0.152 2.584 0.033 0.017
D W H R B E
pL2.4142 R0.0069T 0.0593 B0.1065 (14)
 max  7.6112
D1.92W 0.398 H 2.013 P 0.104
The stresses affect the sensor sensitivity. Notably, equations
(13) and (14) show that the sensitivity and membrane deflection
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2017.2784341, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

Fig. 4. (a) Sensor sensitivity as a function of membrane thickness, (b) Simulated sensor output with Vin = 5 V,
(c) Nonlinearity error for different membrane widths

Fig. 5. (a) Maximum deflection in the center of the membrane, (b) Sensor sensitivity as a function of beam height,
(c) Sensor sensitivity as a function of beam width and peninsula dimensions

are largely dependent on the membrane width L, membrane
thickness D, and cross-beam height H. However, the
dimensions of the peninsula have a smaller influence than these
parameters.
2) Membrane dimension design
The sensor design was primarily based on optimized
sensitivity and nonlinearity. First, the sensor output of the
different designs can be calculated from the stresses and
piezoresistive coefficients of silicon by applying equation (2).
The stresses on the piezoresistors at different pressures can be
predicted by the FEM, and the piezoresistive coefficient of each
resistor π44 is set to 138.1E-11 Pa-1. The sensor sensitivity and
nonlinearity can be obtained from equations (3) and (4). The
simulated sensor performance is illustrated in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5.
The membrane area and thickness are the parameters that
most influence the sensor sensitivity and deflection. As shown
in Fig. 4(a), the simulated sensitivity values of the sensor vary
with the thickness of the membrane and the membrane area
(from 2500x2500 to 3100x3100 µm2). Normally, a larger
membrane will lead to higher sensitivity but also larger
deflections and nonlinearity errors. Additionally, a thin
membrane increases sensitivity. In this study, the thickness of
the membrane is fixed to 18 µm. Fig. 4(b, c) illustrates the
sensor output voltage and nonlinearity error versus the applied
pressure and membrane width, respectively. The sensor output
voltage and nonlinearity error increase as the membrane width
increases. According to the sensor design requirements
discussed above, when the sensitivity S ≥ 20 mV/kPa, the
membrane area ranged from 2700x2700 to 3100x3100 µm2.
The membrane width limits the largest displacement of the
membrane. Based on small deflection theory, the maximum
displacement should be less than 1/5 of the membrane thickness
umax ≤ 0.2D [23]. Therefore, when the fixed membrane
thickness is D = 18 µm, the permitted maximum displacement
of the membrane is 3.6 µm. Fig. 5(a) shows the maximum
deflection at the membrane centre for different areas. The red
line in the graph shows the permitted maximum deflection at
3.6 µm. The graph indicates that a large membrane leads to an
increase in deflection and an area of 3100x3100 µm2 yields the
maximum defection. Based on this analysis, the final
membrane area is fixed at 2900x2900 µm2.
3) Cross beam and peninsula design
The dimensions of the CBMP structure should be optimized
to reach the proposed maximum sensitivity. In Fig. 5(b, c), the
sensitivity of the sensor and deflection of the membrane are
affected by dimensions of the cross beam. Fig. 5(b) includes
two Y-axes. The left Y-axis displays the sensitivity of the
sensor, the right Y-axis shows the maximum deflection of the
membrane. Additionally, the X-axis represents the variation in
the beam height, and the red line displays the maximum
permitted deflection. When the cross-beam height increases
from zero to 12 µm, the sensor sensitivity increases from 25
mV/kPa to the maximum value of 28.3 mV/kPa. However, the
sensor sensitivity decreases gradually as the cross-beam height
increases. Additionally, the maximum deflection of the
membrane sharply decreases from approximately 6.6 µm to 1.3
µm. As shown in the graph, the red line displays the maximum
permitted deflection at 3.6 µm. Therefore, the cross-beam
height should be fixed at 12 µm.
In Fig. 5(c), the sensor sensitivity increases as the
cross-beam width decreases. However, the cross-beam width is
also determined based on the piezoresistor placements. As a
result, in this study, the width is selected as 180 µm.
Additionally, in Fig. 5(c), the sensor sensitivity is plotted as a
function of the peninsula dimensions. For the fixed membrane
and cross beam, the sensor sensitivity increases with an
increase in the peninsula dimensions. Specifically, the
sensitivity increases to the maximum value at a peninsula width

0278-0046 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2017.2784341, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

of 550 µm. The sensor sensitivity slightly increases during the
period when the peninsula length dramatically increases.
According to the simulated results, the peninsula length and
width are fixed at 550 µm. Both the cross beam and peninsula
parameters slightly influence membrane deflection; therefore,
they are not considered. Finally, the selected dimensions of the
proposed sensor are summarized in Table I.
TABLE I
SELECTED DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPOSED SENSOR
Parameter L D H W B T
Dimension 2900 18 12 180 550 450
(µm)
C.Piezoresistor design
1) Piezoresistor placement
The piezoresistors are placed at the middle of the beam and
have a distance to the membrane edge known as the edge offset.
Fig. 6 illustrates the effect of different edge offsets on the
sensor sensitivity. When the edge offset increases from zero to
4 µm, the sensor sensitivity peaks at a maximum value, and as
the edge offset continues to increase, the sensitivity will
decrease. Per the simulated results, the edge offset of the
resistors is fixed at 4 µm for all future calculations.
final design, a fixed resistor with a 200-µm length and a 12-µm
width is used for all resistors.
3) Piezoresistor configuration
After optimization of the piezoresistor dimensions and
placement, the resistor configuration must be considered. Four
possible resistor configurations exist: zero, one (design 1), two
(design 2) and three (design 3) turns with the same total length.
In this study, the resistors must be placed on the cross beam;
P R therefore, the zero-turn configuration is ignored because of the
100 500 limitation of the beam width. The piezoresistor candidates are
arranged at the centre of the beam in different configurations, as
shown in Fig. 8(a). The relationships between the loading
pressure and the output voltage and nonlinearity error are
represented in Fig. 8(b, c). Notably, the sensitivity and
nonlinearity gradually change for different configurations of
resistors. Design 2 yields the maximum sensitivity of 27
mV/kPa, and the other designs produce sensitivities of 26 and
26.5 mV/kPa. Designs 2 and 3 have a low nonlinearity error of
approximately -0.23% FSS, and design 1 has the worst
nonlinearity error of -0.26% FSS. According to the results,
design 2 is the best choice for the proposed sensor.

Fig. 6. Sensor sensitivity as a function of resistor edge offset

2) Piezoresistor dimensions
The effect of the piezoresistor dimensions on the resistance
behaviour should also be considered. The resistance variation is
highly dependent on the length of the resistors, while the effect
of width is extremely small (see Fig. 7). The dimensions of
resistors also consider the total resistance. In this study, the
total resistance of each piezoresistor is taken as 4.5 kΩ. In the

Fig. 7. Relative resistance variation as a function of the piezoresistor

length and width Fig. 8. Comparison of three piezoresistor configurations

0278-0046 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2017.2784341, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

Fig. 9. Comparison of flat, cross-beam membrane, peninsula, and CBMP diaphragm structures
compared with that of the CBMP membrane. Additionally, this
D. Comparison with other sensor types value exceeds the maximum permitted deflection based on
Compared to the traditional flat diaphragm structure, the membrane thickness (20% of the membrane thickness).
CBM structure [24] and the peninsula structure [27], the Moreover, the maximum nonlinearity error of the CBMP
optimized CBMP structure is proposed in this study. These structure decreases by approximately 42% when compared
membranes are redesigned to have the same main dimensions with that of the peninsula structure. Based on this comparison,
[see Fig. 9(a)]. In terms of the sensors, piezoresistor design 2 is the CBMP structure exhibits outstanding deflection and
applied for large sensor outputs. Fig. 9(b-d) shows the linearity performance.
simulated performance of these sensor outputs versus different In micro-sensor design, the dynamic performance of
loading pressures from 0-5 kPa for a 5 V DC power supply. structures should also be evaluated. The dynamic performance
Compared to that of the flat membrane, the sensitivity of the of the diaphragm can be evaluated based on the first natural
proposed sensor increases by nearly 50%, the maximum frequency [27]. Fig. 10 presents a dynamic behaviour analysis
deflection decreases by approximately 32% and the of the different structures. The natural frequency of the CBMP
nonlinearity of the two sensors is equal. These results indicate structure is 36 kHz, which is 3.5 kHz higher than that of the flat
that the CBMP structure yields high sensitivity when compared structure and almost equal to those of the other structures.
with the traditional flat membrane. After adding a cross beam to
the membrane, the sensitivity and deflection of the CBM sensor
significantly improve. However, the graph illustrates that the
sensitivity of the CBMP sensor (27 mV/kPa) increases by
approximately 16.4% compared to that of the CBM structure
(23.2 mV/kPa). Additionally, by combining the peninsula
structure and the cross-beam membrane, the maximum
deflection of the CBMP sensor is reduced by approximately
12% compared with that of the CBM structure. These
simulation results suggest that the CBMP diaphragm is more
sensitive than the CBM diaphragm.
When compared with Huang’s peninsula structure [27], the
main difference of the proposed structure and the peninsula
structure is the addition of the cross-beam and the fillet island
on the membrane, it is shown in the results that the nonlinearity Fig. 10. The dynamic performance of different structures
error and membrane deflection of the sensor are improved
significantly. Although the sensitivity of the two sensors is III. FABRICATION OF THE PRESSURE SENSOR
nearly equal, the peninsula sensor exhibits larger deflection and
nonlinearity error than the CBMP sensor. Under 0-5 kPa The bulk micromachining technology is applied to fabricate
pressure loading, the maximum deflection of the peninsula a sensor chip from a standard n-type (100) and 380-µm-thick
membrane is 4.3 µm, which is increase of approximately 26% silicon wafer. Photolithography and five masks are employed
for the sensing elements to form the p-type silicon

0278-0046 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2017.2784341, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
piezoresistors using boron implantation. An overview of the
fabrication process of the sensor is shown in Fig. 11.
1) In the first step, SiO2 layers are grown on both sides of the
substrate by thermal oxidization [Fig. 11(a)].
2) When the process of thermal oxidization is finished, the
boron ions are implanted on part of the cross-beam
peninsula to form the piezoresistors. As a result, a sheet
resistance of 252 Ω/square for the piezoresistors is
achieved, with a concentration of 3.5E17 cm-3 [Fig. 11(b)].
3) Next, more boron ions are implanted to form a heavily
doped section for ohmic contact [Fig. 11(c)].
4) Then, films of SiO2 (0.6 µm) and Si3N4 (0.1 µm) are
deposited via the LPCVD process to protect the sensor
surface and act as electrical insulation [Fig. 11(d)].
5) The films are lithographed and etched to expose the
connecting pad [Fig. 11(e)].
6) The 1.0 µm thick aluminium is deposited and patterned on
the top of the membrane to create the electrical connection
areas and lines of the Wheatstone bridge [Fig. 11(f)].
7) Anisotropic dry etching of the silicon is used to form the
silicon CBMP structure with a total etched thickness of 12
µm [Fig. 11(g)].
Fig. 11. The sensor chip fabrication process
Fig. 12. The SEM and micrograph of the final sensor chip
0278-0046 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
8) The next step is an operation on the back side of the sensor
chip [see Fig. 11(h)]. Silicon etching occurs at the bottom
of the sensor to form a deep cavity with 54.70° inclined
walls.
9) In the final step, the back side of the sensor chip is attached
to Pyrex 7740 glass [Fig. 11(i)], and Fig. 12 shows a
schematic diagram of the fabricated sensor.
Fig. 13. Schematic diagram and package of the proposed sensor
IV. PACKAGE AND EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
As shown in Fig. 13, the fabricated pressure sensor is simply
packaged for experimental testing. With the sensor die
assembled on the metal base, the electrical connections
between the pads on the sensor chip and the pins are
implemented using gold wires. A metal shell is used to protect
the sensor chip, and the through hole is located in the middle of
the metal base to load the different reference pressures. The
tested sensor is mounted on the special fixed-screw part of the
structure. Furthermore, the sensor is assembled in the fixed part
of the structure, and the pins of the sensor connect to the signal
wire from the back side of the part. The application of anti-leak
rubber prevents air leakage. When screwing together the fixed
part, the packaged sensor and the screw part, the pressure can
be applied to the tested sensor through the pressure port.
Fig. 14. Static experimental setup for testing at room temperature
As shown in Fig. 14, the static experimental setup is
established. The tested sensor and reference sensor are mounted
at the output pressure ports of the pressure pump. The pressure
pump and a reference pressure sensor, which includes a
precision digital pressure calibrator to calibrate the tested
sensor, are used control the pressure applied on the sensor chip
from 0 to 5 kPa. A constant voltage bias of 5 V is provided to
the Wheatstone bridge with DC power. At different pressure
loads, the output of the sensor is measured using a digital
multimeter.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2017.2784341, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS effect and achieves a balance between sensitivity and linearity.
The experiments were conducted at a room temperature of 25° However, the fabricated sensor may not be suitable for
C. The sensitivity and nonlinearity of the tested sensor are operations in high-temperature environments because of the NP
plotted in Fig. 15 for this condition. The experiments include a junctions of resistors. This issue is a limitation of this study. To
forward process, in which the pressure increases from 0 to 5 achieve high-temperature resistance, the sensor chip should be
kPa, and a reverse process, in which the pressure decreases fabricated using a silicon on insulator (SOI) wafer. In addition,
from 5 to 0 kPa. The step size in both processes is 0.5 kPa. The the proposed sensor should use a silicon piezoresistive
average output voltage, which is measured and simulated as a nanowire as a piezoresistive sensing element to increase
function of the applied pressure, is illustrated in Fig. 15(a). The sensitivity.
TABLE III
average measured sensitivity of the sensor is 25.8 mV/kPa, and
COMPARISONS WITH DIFFERENT FABRICATED SENSORS
the simulated value is 27 mV/kPa. The measured nonlinearity
errors were determined by the end-point straight-line method. Diaphragm type Sensitivity Nonlinearity
The maximum measured nonlinearity error was -0.28% FSS, (mV/kPa) (%FSS)
and the maximum simulated error was -0.23% FSS, as shown in CBMP 25.7 -0.28
Fig. 15(b). Finally, the detailed technical characteristics of the CBM in [2] 7.081 0.09
fabricated sensor at 25° C are listed in Table II. Peninsula in [27] 18.4 0.36
Flat in [1] 1.15 0.57

VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper, based on the objective of optimizing sensitivity,
a novel piezoresistive pressure sensor is proposed. Due to the
deflection of the membrane under pressure, the stresses induced
in the piezoresistors are predicted with the FEM. Then, a sensor
is proposed based on an analysis and comparison of the flat
diaphragm, CBM, peninsula and CBMP structures. The FEM
simulation results show that the proposed structure not only
generates high maximum stresses that increase the sensor
sensitivity but also stiffens the diaphragm to decrease
membrane deflection, reduces the nonlinearity errors and
maintains a high first natural frequency. Additionally, these
results indicate that the CBMP sensor exhibits the best overall
performance among the tested sensors. Finally, the proposed
sensor is fabricated on an n-type single-crystal silicon wafer.
Photolithography is used to fabricate the sensing elements, and
boron implantation is employed to form the piezoresistors. The
experimental results at room temperature illustrate that the
sensor has a sensitivity of 25.7 mV/kPa and a nonlinearity of
-0.28% FSS for the pressure range of 0-5 kPa. These results
suggest that the CBMP structure is suitable for micropressure
Fig. 15. Comparison of measured and simulated values: (a) Measured sensor sensors in the field of MEMS application.
outputs and (b) nonlinearity errors
TABLE II REFERENCES
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SENSOR AT 250 C
[1] C. Shuang, Z. Ming-quan, M. Bing-he, and Y. Wei-zheng, "Design and
Parameter Value optimization of a micro piezoresistive pressure sensor," in Proceedings
Maximum pressure (kPa) 5.0 of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Nano/Micro Engineered
Supply voltage (V) 5.0 and Molecular Systems, pp. 351-356, 2008.
[2] L. Lin and W. Yun, "Design, optimization and fabrication of surface
Zero offset (mV) 7.9 micromachined pressure sensors," Mechatronics, vol. 8, pp. 505-519,
Full-scale span (mV) 128.5 1998.
Sensitivity (mV/kPa) 25.7 [3] H. Sandmaier and K. Kuhl, "A square-diaphragm piezoresistive pressure
Nonlinearity error (%FSS) -0.28 sensor with a rectangular central boss for low-pressure ranges," IEEE
Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 1754-1759, 1993.
Hysteresis (%FSS) 0.26 [4] T. Chen, L. Chen, L. Sun, and X. Li, "Design and Fabrication of a
Repeatability (%FSS) 0.53 Four-Arm-Structure MEMS Gripper," IEEE Transactions on Industrial
The experimental sensitivity and nonlinearity of the Electronics, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 996-1004, 2009.
[5] W. J. Fleming, "Overview of automotive sensors," IEEE Sensors
fabricated sensor are compared with those of other sensors Journal, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 296-308, 2001.
under a 5 kPa pressure load, and the results are summarized in [6] J. Hurault, S. Kouidri, and F. Bakir, "Experimental investigations on the
Table III. Notably, for both the same and different diaphragm wall pressure measurement on the blade of axial flow fans,"
dimensions, the fabricated pressure sensor with the CBMP Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, vol. 40, pp. 29-37, 2012.
[7] Y. Guo et al., "Stand-Alone Stretchable Absolute Pressure Sensing
structure exhibited high sensitivity and low nonlinearity. System for Industrial Applications," IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Therefore, the proposed method maximizes the piezoresistive Electronics, vol. 64, Issue: 11, pp. 8739-8746, 2017.

0278-0046 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2017.2784341, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

[8] W. P. Eaton and J. H. Smith, "Micromachined pressure sensors: review [30] T. Guan, F. Yang, W. Wang, X. Huang, B. Jiang, and D. Zhang, "The
and recent developments," Smart Materials and Structures, vol. 6, no. 5, Design and Analysis of Piezoresistive Shuriken-Structured Diaphragm
pp. 530-540, 1997. Micro-Pressure Sensors," Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems,
[9] R. N. DeanJr and A. Luque, "Applications of Microelectromechanical vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 206-214, 2017.
Systems in Industrial Processes and Services," IEEE Transactions on [31] M. Bao, Analysis and Design Principles of MEMS Devices. Amsterdam:
Industrial Electronics, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 913-925, 2009. Elsevier Science, ch. 6, pp. 260-300, 2005.
[10] E. Cibula, D. Donlagic, and C. Stropnik, "Miniature fiber optic pressure
sensor for medical applications," in Proceedings of IEEE Sensors, vol. 1, Anh Vang Tran received B.S degree from the
pp. 711-714, 2002. Hanoi University of Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam,
[11] S. S. Kumar and B. D. Pant, "Design principles and considerations for in 2004 and received the M.S. degree from Xi’an
the ‘ideal’ silicon piezoresistive pressure sensor: a focused review," Jiao tong University, Xi’an, China, in 2012, all in
Microsystem Technologies, journal article vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 1213-1247, mechanical engineering. He is currently pursuing
2014. the Ph.D. degree in the
[12] B. Zhu, X. Zhang, Y. Zhang, and S. Fatikow, "Design of diaphragm micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) in the
structure for piezoresistive pressure sensor using topology Guangdong Key Laboratory of Precision
optimization," Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, journal Equipment and Manufacturing Technology,
article pp. 1-13, 2016. South China University of Technology,
[13] P. Mackowiak, M. Schiffer, X. Xu, E. Obermeier, and H. D. Ngo, Guangdong, China.
"Design and simulation of ultra high sensitive piezoresistive MEMS From 2012 to 2014, he was a lecturer with the Le Quy Don University
sensor with structured membrane for low pressure applications," in 2010 of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam. His research interest
12th Electronics Packaging Technology Conference (EPTC), pp. includes the MEMS, micro sensors, design and micro/nanofabrication.
757-761, 2010.
[14] L. Liang, Z. Songsong, P. Woo-Tae, J. M. Tsai, K. Dim-Lee, and L. Xianmin Zhang received the Ph.D. degree in
Chengkuo, "Optimization of NEMS pressure sensors with a multilayered mechanical engineering from Beihang University
diaphragm using silicon nanowires as piezoresistive sensing elements," in 1993, and now working at South China
Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, vol. 22, no. 5, p. University of Technology as a Professor. He is
055012, 2012. the Dean of School of Mechanical and
[15] J. Zhang, Y. Zhao, Y. Ge, M. Li, L. Yang, and X. Mao, "Design Automotive Engineering in the South China
Optimization and Fabrication of High-Sensitivity SOI Pressure Sensors University of Technology and the Director of
with High Signal-to-Noise Ratios Based on Silicon Nanowire Guangdong Key Laboratory of Precision
Piezoresistors," Micromachines, vol. 7, no. 10, p. 187, 2016. Equipment and Manufacturing Technology. His
[16] R. He and P. Yang, "Giant piezoresistance effect in silicon nanowires," research interests include MEMS, Precision
Nat Nano, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 42-46, 2006. Equipment, Compliant Mechanisms, and
[17] C. Stampfer et al., "Fabrication of Single-Walled Advanced Manufacturing.
Carbon-Nanotube-Based Pressure Sensors," Nano Letters, vol. 6, no. 2,
pp. 233-237, 2006. Benliang Zhu received the Ph.D. degree in
[18] L. Pan et al., "An ultra-sensitive resistive pressure sensor based on mechanical engineering from the South China
hollow-sphere microstructure induced elasticity in conducting polymer University of Technology in 2014, and now
film," Nature Communications, Article vol. 5, p. 3002, 2014. working in South China University of Technology
[19] T. Islam, C. Pramanik, and H. Saha, "Modeling, simulation and as a lecturer. His research interests involve
temperature compensation of porous polysilicon capacitive humidity MEMS technique, Precision positioning,
sensor using ANN technique," Microelectronics Reliability, vol. 45, no. Manipulation in the Micro- and Nanoscale.
3–4, pp. 697-703, 2005.
[20] C. Pramanik, T. Islam, and H. Saha, "Temperature compensation of
piezoresistive micro-machined porous silicon pressure sensor by ANN,"
Microelectronics Reliability, vol. 46, no. 2–4, pp. 343-351, 2006.
[21] J. X. Wan, L. Y. Tang, W. J. Chen, and M. S. Tong, "A digital
compensation method for piezoresistive pressure sensor," in 2016
Progress in Electromagnetic Research Symposium (PIERS), pp.
654-657, 2016.
[22] C. Li, F. Cordovilla, and J. L. Ocaña, "The design and analysis of a novel
structural piezoresistive pressure sensor for low pressure measurement,"
Microsystem Technologies, journal article pp. 1-11, 2017.
[23] B. Tian, Y. Zhao, and Z. Jiang, "The novel structural design for pressure
sensors," Sensor Review, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 305-313, 2010.
[24] B. Tian, Y. Zhao, Z. Jiang, and B. Hu, "The design and analysis of
beam-membrane structure sensors for micro-pressure measurement,"
Review of Scientific Instruments, vol. 83, no. 4, p. 045003, 2012.
[25] Z. Yu, Y. Zhao, L. Sun, B. Tian, and Z. Jiang, "Incorporation of beams
into bossed diaphragm for a high sensitivity and overload micro pressure
sensor," Review of Scientific Instruments, vol. 84, no. 1, p. 015004, 2013.
[26] Z. Yu, Y. Zhao, L. Li, C. Li, Y. Liu, and B. Tian, "Realization of a micro
pressure sensor with high sensitivity and overload by introducing beams
and Islands," Microsystem Technologies, journal article vol. 21, no. 4, pp.
739-747, 2015.
[27] X. Huang and D. Zhang, "A high sensitivity and high linearity pressure
sensor based on a peninsula-structured diaphragm for low-pressure
ranges," Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, vol. 216, pp. 176-189,
2014.
[28] T. Xu et al., "A high sensitive pressure sensor with the novel bossed
diaphragm combined with peninsula-island structure," Sensors and
Actuators A: Physical, vol. 244, pp. 66-76, 2016.
[29] X. M. a. Y. Zhao, "The Design and Optimization of a Highly Sensitive
and Overload-Resistant Piezoresistive Pressure Sensor," sensors, 2016.

0278-0046 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.