Begon Martin Janvier 2007

Ciapala Richard
Deaki Zoltan

Reliability of MEMS : Case Study

Reliability of the
Digital Micromirror Device

Section Microtechnique, Master 1er semestre

Professeur Herbert Shea

Reliability of MEMS : case study

Table of contents

1 Introduction 3

1.1 What is a DMD ?........................................................................................................3

1.2 How does it work ?.....................................................................................................3
1.2.1 The components .................................................................................................3
1.2.2 The motion..........................................................................................................4
1.3 The applications.........................................................................................................4
1.4 Chronology of the development of the DMD..............................................................5

2 Tests on reliability 6

2.1 Failure modes and solutions ......................................................................................6

2.1.1 Hinge Fatigue .....................................................................................................6
2.1.2 Hinge memory ....................................................................................................7
2.1.3 Stiction ..............................................................................................................10
2.1.4 Environmental robustness ................................................................................11

3 Conclusion 12

4 References 13

2
Reliability of MEMS : case study

1 Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to study how the work has been done to assure a good reliability
for a specific MEMS, in our case, the Digital Micromirror Device developed by Texas
Instruments during the last 20 years. We will especially focus on the way problems relative to
the hinge have been dealt with and how it improved the reliability of the device. We will also
discuss briefly other critical topics such as the stiction of the mirror on the landing site and
the environmental robustness of the DMD.

1.1 What is a DMD ?

The DMD chip is a micromirrors matrix. Each micromirror is

16 μm square and there’s a gap of 1 μm between them,
making it a 17 μm pitch. It reacts with a processor that
allows each mirror to move in two directions that could refer
to on or off. With this matrix and the fact that micromirrors
reflect light, the system is able, when illuminated, to reflect
the light and project an image on a screen, depending on
the input signal generated by the electronic and the
synchronization with the colour wheel.
Figure 1: DMD chip [12]

1.2 How does it work ?

Let’s now have a look at how the
system works:

1.2.1 The components

The chip is composed of 4 stages.
The first one contains the CMOS
SRAM memory that will, after
removing or applying the bias
voltage, move the mirror.
The second stage is composed of
the metal address pads and of the
landing sites.
The third one contains the torsion
hinge that will allow the rotation of
the mirror because of its small size
and the address electrodes that
will effectively make the mirror
move.
The final stage is the mirror itself
and allows the reflection to be
effective.
Figure 2: Stages composing a
DMD chip [8]

3
Reliability of MEMS : case study

1.2.2 The motion

As you can see on figure 3, the mirrors can rotate around a unique axis defined by the
torsion hinges from 10° to –10° whether the electrode on the right side or the one on the left
side is engaged.
Each electrode has its controller so that each mirror can be controlled independently.

Figure 3: Motion of the micromirrors [4]

1.3 The applications

The main purpose of this device is to be used in a Digital Light Processing (DLP) system as
the main component.

A DLP system consists in 5 basics elements:

- DMD chip
- Light source
- Colour filter system
- DLP electronics
- Optical projection lens

Figure 4: Digital Light Processing (DLP) system [12]

4
Reliability of MEMS : case study

The light source emits light that goes through the colour filter. The DMD chip then, controlled
by all the electronics, moves the mirrors in order to create an image which is magnified by an
optical system and projected on a screen. In order to get the right image, the movement of
the DMD has to be synchronized with the rotation of the colour wheel. Pixels appear lighter
or darker depending on the frequency which is used to tilt the corresponding mirrors back
and forth.

Other emerging applications for the DMD are 3D metrology, confocal microscopy,
holographic data storage and digital TV [11].

1.4 Chronology of the development of the DMD

1981 - First 128 x 128 digital micromirror device (DMD) developed

1984 - First DMD (digital micromirror device)-based printer produced
1988 - First digital DMD produced
1992 - First large-screen colour DMD projector demonstrated
1993 - First high-resolution DMD projection demonstrated
1995 - Dr. Hornbeck, DMD™ inventor, receives Eduard Rhein Award
1997 - TI inventors Hornbeck, Nelson receive Rank Prize Funds award for DMD™

5
Reliability of MEMS : case study

2 Tests on reliability
After this brief introduction and description of the Digital Micromirror Device, we will now
discuss the reliability of the device.

As you can see in the chronology, this device has been developed for quite a while now and
Texas Instrument has been performing ongoing tests for a long time showing that the DMD is
exceptionally robust and reliable.

In fact, a great number of tests have been performed on this device with the FMEA (Failure
Mode and Effect Analysis) method and a group of experts from various disciplines came
together to identify possible failure modes. We are now going to highlight the different failure
modes and the way their effects on reliability have been considered.

2.1 Failure modes and solutions

Reliability testing mandates that we perform tests at conditions beyond product
specifications. It can apply to various life limiting factors such as stress, temperature, voltage,
mechanical (number of mirror landings, mirror duty cycle), chemical, or light for example. For
the DMD, all of these factors were tested in an attempt to identify potential weaknesses. As
the tests identified weaknesses, a team evaluated the results to determine if the test
conditions were well beyond the specifications or if design/process changes were necessary
[2].

We are now going to describe the potential failure mechanisms of the DMD and the solutions
and tests developed to eliminate them. There are four main domains identified as affecting
the reliability of the DMD [1,2,3]:

- Hinge memory
- Hinge fatigue
- Stiction
- Environmental robustness (includes shock and vibration failure)

2.1.1 Hinge Fatigue

The fatigue is the slow growth of a crack driven by repeated plastic deformation leading to
failure. The start of the crack lies where the concentration of stress is the highest, and so is
often localized at holes, sharp corners, scratches or corrosion.

The fatigue was the first significant identified concern for the DMD for the obvious reason
that the mirror in normal operating mode switches every 200 microseconds and that each
time the hinges are used in torsion.

Simple calculations in operating use shows that for a 5 years use at 1000 operating hours
per year, the mirrors have to switch 90x109 times to ensure reliability [3].

The first finite element analysis using bulk properties of aluminium (initial hinge material)
shows that fatigue should be a great concern. However after leading some experimentations
using an acceleration factor, it has been stated that either on test samples or production
samples, the number of cycles generally exceeds 100 x 109 and on several samples more
than 1012 cycles without any sign of fatigue.

6
Reliability of MEMS : case study

This is due to the thin film properties of the metal and therefore the finite element analysis
should consider these properties instead of bulk properties to establish the model.

The macroscopic model for fatigue is based on dislocations piling up at the surface of the
metal and this way creating stress concentrations at sharp corners, scratches and so on. For
extremely small structures such as the hinges in the DMD (some grain thick) the
accumulation of density of dislocations is not big enough to form fatigue crack.

The fatigue inspection of a used hinge with a transmission electron microscope showed no
evidence of dislocation, grain irregularity, or fatigue, even at the section of the hinge where
the most stress was expected.

2.1.2 Hinge memory

One of the most significant modes of failure is the hinge memory, it is in fact the only known
life limiting failure exhibited by the DMD [2]. It occurs when a mirror operates in the same
direction for a long period of time, for example when the mirror is continually turned off-side
as the corresponding pixel has to appear dark in the projected image.

Hinge memory appears when the bias voltage is removed and the mirrors return to a non-flat
state. This remaining angle is called the residual torque angle. As this angle becomes too
large, approximately 35 to 40 % of the 10 degree rotation angle, the mirror won’t be able to
land to the other side anymore and it will result in a hinge memory failure. In consequence
the pixel will appear non-functional to the observer.

Figure 5: The micromirrors in the back have a

residual tilt angle compared to the ones in the
front, it is due to the hinge fatigue [4]

The main factors that contribute to hinge memory failure are the duty cycle and the operating
temperature. The duty cycle is the percentage of time a mirror is addressed to one side (on
or off), for instance a 95/5 duty cycle means that 95% of the time the mirror is addressed to
one side and the other 5% of the time, the mirror is addressed to the other side. The duty
cycle used for the tests is 95/5 but isn’t representative of home or cinema entertainment
where the duty cycle is more likely to be 15/85 or 25/75 at maximum [3].

7
Reliability of MEMS : case study

Figure 6: Duty cycle effects on hinge memory [5]

To accelerate hinge memory a life test has been created under standard condition of 65°C
and 5/95 duty cycle and it appeared that the more time the system operates the more the
bias voltage had to increase to annihilate the residual tilt angle. The graph below shows the
characteristic between the bias voltages and the number of non functional mirrors through
the time [3].

Figure 7: Evolution of the bias voltage through the time, reported to the number of non
functional micromirros [3]

8
Reliability of MEMS : case study

We can observe the curve shifting to the right as the length of the test increases, indicating
the need for higher bias voltage to operate the mirror properly. By repeating these tests on
many devices (several hundreds) and comparing the results, it has been stated that the
hinge memory phenomenon is predictable and a shortened life test has been elaborated. A
series of tests have then been conducted at different operating temperatures and duty cycles
and the results showed that temperature is the dominant factor for hinge memory lifetime [3].

Hinge memory is caused by metal creep of the hinge material. So in order to minimize it
alternate materials and processes have been evaluated. This led to the selection of a new
material that had a much lower degree of metal creep to replace aluminium. This first
improvement increased lifetime by a factor of 5 but was not sufficient to guarantee a good
enough reliability (only 1000 hours in worst-case).

The second step towards reliability was the implementation of stepped VDD and a “bipolar
reset” which allowed the mirrors to be efficiently controlled over a wider range of hinge
memory. This also increased lifetime by a factor of 5 to about 5000 hours in worst-case
situation.

The thermal management of the DMD device was then addressed as it seems evident it
affects the lifetime of the device. Several sources of heat contribute to hinge memory. The
primary source is radiant energy from the light source because it heats up the entire package
significantly. Heatsinks are in fact attached to the back of most packages in order to keep the
temperature in the device as low as possible. The second significant source of heat is the
rest of the equipment composing the DLP projector and surrounding the DMD. An efficient
thermal management design is required. In most application developed to date, the DMD
operates at temperatures only 7 to 10 °C above the projector ambient. An efficient heat
management added to the previously cited improvements can ensure a lifetime greater than
40000 hours in worst-case scenario [3].

Figure 8: Hinge memory mean lifetime estimates over testing time [4]

9
Reliability of MEMS : case study

2.1.3 Stiction

Stiction failures of the device are

induced by an excessive adhesive
force between the landing tip and its
landing site [7]. This problem occurs
when the stiction force is sufficiently
high to keep the mirror from moving
when the electronic reset sequence
is applied.
Adhesive forces can be induced by
surface contamination, capillary
condensation, CMOS defects and
van der Walls forces.
Surface contamination can be
observed as a result of improper
surface cleaning during the
superstructure processing [3].
Figure 9: Spring tips [9]
A reliability testing can be done to measure the distribution of surface adhesion across the
device to determine the number of operating devices under different switching voltages.
Figure 10 shows that as the magnitude of the voltage is decreased certain mirrors will cease
to function due to adhesion forces. In this particularly figure two devices were taken after
160hours of life test, curve A is the distribution of mirrors from a sample of production
(control devices) and curve B is the distribution of mirrors from a proposed process change
(test devices). It appears that the test devices mirrors exhibit higher surface adhesion than
the control devices, therefore it is clear that test devices (curve B) are not as robust as
control devices (curve A).

Figure 10: Vreset curves indicating qualitative measurement

of surface adhesion [3]

In the early stages of the DMD development it was observed that adhesion forces were too
great to deliver a reliable device, therefore a solution was found to overcome this problem by
implementing springs on the landing tips of the mirror. When the mirror lands on the surface

10
Reliability of MEMS : case study

the spring will bend and store energy that will help the mirror to take off the surface when the
reset pulse is applied and the bias voltage removed, the spring can be observed on Figure 9.
To avoid capillary condensation the device is enclosed in a controlled atmosphere and then
sealed in a robust hermetic package. Van der Walls forces are minimized by the deposition
of a special thin self-limiting anti-stick layer, this layer will help to lower the surface energy of
the contacting parts.

All these methods will help to ensure the reliable reset operation of the DMD.

2.1.4 Environmental robustness

As mentioned in the stiction part for the capillarity forces, a great concern in reliability for all
MEMS devices is the problem of robustness to the environment in which they have to
operate.

The environmental tests on the DMD are based on the standard test requirement for the
semiconductors [2]. The table below shows typical environment tests used for design
specifications and validation.

Table 1 : DMD environmental tests [2]

As one could think and because of its small size, the DMD may appear fragile, but in contrary
its small size is what actually enables its robustness. Because of its small size the DMD may
appear fragile, but it is actually its small size that enables its robustness. The DMD is
impervious to mechanical shocks and vibrations at low frequencies since its lowest resonant
frequency is in the kilohertz. Furthermore, TI has tested the DMD chip through 1500G in
shock and 20G in vibration with no failure due to mirror breaking.

Finally one critical element for the DMD chip is its package. Its robustness has been one of
the main concerns throughout the development of the chip and its reliability. The hermeticity
of the package is one of the most important factors in the high-reliability of the device. The
glass window and its optical properties are also critical in order to obtain the high quality
image inherent to the DMD.

Further information can be found about the significance of the packaging on the reliability of
the Digital Micormirror Device in the paper written by Doncev, Eggenschwiler and Queval.

11
Reliability of MEMS : case study

3 Conclusion
The reliability of the DMD has been one of the main concerns throughout the development of
this device. A lot of time has been put into its improvement and many changes have been
made in order to assure a bigger lifetime for this product. Each problem has been considered
in depth and solutions were found to make its impact on overall reliability minimal. We can
also notice that some apparently important concerns like hinge fatigue turned out to have no
significant effect whereas other problems that could have been considered as secondary at
the first sight have big implications on the reliability.

We can say that the Digital Micromirror Device is today very reliable due to all the work and
improvements that have been done to it. The reliability management of this device is
exemplary and should be considered as a reference for the development of other MEMS
devices.

12
Reliability of MEMS : case study

4 References

Papers:

1. L.A. Yoder, “An introduction to the digital light processing (DLP) technology”, DLP
Technology (22.02.2005)
2. M.R. Douglass, “DMD reliability: a MEMS success story”, SPIE Proceedings Vol.
4980 (2003)
3. M.R. Douglass, “Lifetime Estimates and Unique Failure Mechanisms of the Digital
Micromirror Device (DMD)”, 36th Annual International Reliability Physics Symposium,
Reno, Nevada (1998)
4. A.B. Sontheimer, “Digital Micromirror Device (DMD) Hinge Memory Lifetime Reliability
Modeling”, 40th Annual International Reliability Physics Symposium, Dallas, Texas
(2002)
5. A.B. Sontheimer, “Effects of Operating Conditions on DMD Hinge Memory Lifetime”,
41st Annual International Reliability Physics Symposium, Dallas, Texas (2003)
6. S.J. Jacobs et al., “Hermicity and Stiction in MEMS Packaging”, 40th Annual
International Reliability Physics Symposium, Dallas, Texas (2002)
7. Larry J. Hornbeck, “Digital Light Processing™: A New MEMS-Based Display
Technology.” Texas Instruments (1995)
8. Bharat Bhushan1 and Huiwen Liu, “Characterization of nanomechanical and
nanotribological properties of digital micromirror devices”, The Ohio State University,
Collumbus, USA (2004)
9. Van Kessel, P.F.; Hornbeck, L.J.; Meier, R.E.; Douglass, “A MEMS-based projection
display”, Proc. IEEE , Vol. 86 pp.1687 -1704 1998
10. Reliability of MEMS, Herbert Shea, EPFL 2006-2007

Websites:

11. http://focus.ti.com/dlpdmd/docs/dlpdmdhomepage.tsp?familyId=767&contentType=15
12. http://www.dlp.com/dlp_technology/default.asp
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Micromirror_Device
14. http://www.svconline.com/

13