• Skip to main content
  • LOG IN
  • REGISTER
Coventor_New_LogoCoventor_New_LogoCoventor_New_LogoCoventor_New_Logo
  • COMPANY
    • ABOUT
    • CAREERS
    • PRESS RELEASE
    • PRESS COVERAGE
    • EVENTS
  • PRODUCTS
    • SEMulator3D®
      Semiconductor Process Modeling
    • CoventorMP®
      MEMS Design Automation
      • CoventorWare®
      • MEMS+®
  • SOLUTIONS
    • SEMICONDUCTOR SOLUTIONS
    • MEMS SOLUTIONS
  • RESOURCES
    • CASE STUDIES
    • BLOG
    • VIDEOS
  • CONTACT
  • SUPPORT
Contact Us
✕
  • Home
  • Coventor Blog
  • Standardization plays an important role in MEMS integration
MEMS integration: A Matter of Perspective
May 24, 2012
Pure play foundries like TSMC are transforming the MEMS landscape
Latest foundry results underscore the change in MEMS ecosystem
July 27, 2012

Standardization plays an important role in MEMS integration

Published by Coventor at July 1, 2012
Categories
  • Coventor Blog
Tags
  • MEMS
  • Technology Reviews
The stack of software and hardware layers in a sensor-enabled smart phone or tablet

Figure 1: The stack of software and hardware layers in a sensor-enabled smart phone or tablet

Easier integration through standards

In a previous post, I discussed the challenges of MEMS integration and primarily looked at design methodology improvements that could help address the issues engineers face. But there is also the issue of how to standardize the process of designing – and more importantly, integrating – the various elements of a MEMS-based system.

Most industry observers suggest that the way forward is through standardization of hardware and software interfaces. On the hardware side, the system companies would like to see standardization at the digital interface level, such as compatibility with I2C bus. To address this requirement, MEMS-based sensors are such as microphones, accelerometers and gyroscopes are increasingly being labeled as digital, meaning they have a digital rather than an analog hardware interface. Thus, a MEMS component may actually be a sub-system that combines a microcontroller, an A/MS ASIC, and the MEMS sensing element in a single package. A 10 degree-of-freedom motion sensor component, for example, includes a 3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis gyro (usually 2 or 3 separate MEMS), a 3-axis magnetometer (compass), and a barometric pressure sensor, all packaged together with A/MS circuits and a microcontroller. But there are opportunities for standardization of higher-level software layers as well. For instance, combining the output from 10 sensors into the position and orientation information that’s needed by application developers is a nontrivial task that is now handled by “sensor fusion” software. Leading vendors of motion sensors such as ST Microelectronics and Invensense, as well as a number of software startups, are providing sensor fusion software to make it easier for application developers to utilize input from motion sensors.

The standardization of software and hardware interfaces to MEMS components will surely happen, either as a result of industry standardization efforts or de facto standards imposed by a dominant component supplier. At the physical level, perhaps interfacing with I2C bus will become mandatory for market success. At the application level, the programming interfaces to sensor fusion software will no doubt converge. The crucial question, for both system integrators and MEMS component suppliers, is “When?” The standardization and/or convergence of interfaces will undoubtedly take a number of years. In the interim, both MEMS component suppliers and system integrators will continue to face substantial integration costs, both in engineering effort and time to market.

Abstraction shields complexity

As usually occurs when systems get more complex, higher-level layers of MEMS-enabled systems are being shielded from lower levels by interfaces that abstract details of the lower layers. The emerging stack of software and hardware layers for sensor-enabled smart phones is illustrated in Fig. 1. At the highest level are sensor-enabled apps such as augmented reality apps that use knowledge of the phone’s position and orientation to annotate the camera output with useful information. The augmented reality app in turn makes use of the sensor fusion software, which runs as a service provided by the phone’s operating system. The operating system requires generic or vendor-specific software drivers to interface with the sensor components via a hardware bus such as I2C. And the sensor components include their own stack, from firmware, to microcontroller to A/MS circuitry and finally the MEMS sensing elements themselves.

We are in a transitional period in which the dominant MEMS suppliers are racing to provide vertical integration across the stack. For instance, a MEMS supplier that also supplies sensor fusion software (with a proprietary interface) hopes to gain competitive advantage by locking in apps developers. Once an app is developed to one vendor’s motion interface, porting to another vendor’s interface may require a considerable effort. Meanwhile, system integrators, app developers and operating system vendors would prefer a sensor fusion layer that’s independent of the underlying sensing components, allowing them more choices of MEMS component suppliers. Recognizing this need, startups such as Movea and Sensor Platforms offer sensor fusion interfaces that are hardware independent. Under the covers, these startups have to do the integration with different hardware, and that’s part of their value add. The competition between vertically integrated suppliers and new entrants who offer value by isolating systems integrators from vendor-specific interfaces will continue at all levels of the sensor stack. Over time, the market momentum could shift from vertically integrated MEMS suppliers to companies that specialize in horizontal layers, as it has in other, more mature sectors of the technology industry.

The stack of software and hardware layers in a sensor-enabled smart phone or tablet
Figure 1: The stack of software and hardware layers in a sensor-enabled smart phone or tablet
Share
Coventor
Coventor

Related posts

Figure 1 displays a single cell of a conventional DRAM that consists of 2 Word Lines (WLs), a Bit Line (BL) and 2 Storage Node Contacts (SNC) in Figure 1(a). There are 3 images in the figure. The Saddle Fin is produced during the WL etch step (prior to WL metal deposition) and is located below the cell wordline (Figure 1(b), right center inside a yellow dotted circle). The Saddle Fin structure can be seen in detail by making a vertical cut in the wordline direction (Fig.1(b), right). During device simulation, the Saddle Fin performance can be measured by virtually cropping a transistor and adding ports at the Gate, Source and Drain after an SNC Process (Fig.1(c), showing the gate, source and drain).
May 30, 2023

Improving DRAM Device Performance Through Saddle Fin Process Optimization


Read more - Improving DRAM Device Performance Through Saddle Fin Process Optimization
Figure 6 (left to right): Different profiles using pattern dependence for the antenna and sharp head shapes. a) Antenna shape with POR flow (b) Antenna profile with a gate CD of 26nm (c) Sharp head profile with a gate CD of 28nm (d) Sharp head profile with an etch.

Figure 6 (left to right): Different profiles using pattern dependence for the antenna and sharp head shapes. a) Antenna shape with POR flow (b) Antenna profile with a gate CD of 26nm (c) Sharp head profile with a gate CD of 28nm (d) Sharp head profile with an etch.

April 13, 2023

The Impact of Metal Gate Recess Profile on Transistor Resistance and Capacitance


Read more - The Impact of Metal Gate Recess Profile on Transistor Resistance and Capacitance
Figure 1a (left) displays the process of performing Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD), including Cu bombardment and filling of voids. Figure 1b (right) displays the process of performing Ion Beam Etch (IBE), including ion beam bombardment, mask shadowing and etch regions.

Fig 1a Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD); Fig 1b Ion Beam Etch (IBE)

March 22, 2023

A Deposition and Etch Technique to Lower Resistance of Semiconductor Metal Lines


Read more - A Deposition and Etch Technique to Lower Resistance of Semiconductor Metal Lines
Left to right: SEMulator3D virtual structures of NON, Low K and Airgap spacers for a DRAM cell, with highlighted SiO2, Polysilicon, Silicon, Si3N4, TIN and W layers

Fig. 1: (a) NON, (b) Low k and (c) Airgap spacer

February 28, 2023

A Comparative Evaluation of DRAM bit-line spacer integration schemes


Read more - A Comparative Evaluation of DRAM bit-line spacer integration schemes

Comments are closed.

Product Information

  • Product Offerings
  • Technical Support & Training
  • Licensing
  • System Requirements

Resources

  • Blog
  • Case Studies
  • Videos
  • 2018 MEMS Design Contest

Company

  • About
  • Press
  • Partners & Programs
  • Contact
© Copyright Coventor Inc., A Lam Research Company, All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy • Terms of Use
Contact Us
  • LOG IN
  • REGISTER