0
Special Section: Micromanufacturing

A Submicron Multiaxis Positioning Stage for Micro- and Nanoscale Manufacturing Processes

[+] Author and Article Information
Ashwin Balasubramanian, Richard E. DeVor, Shiv G. Kapoor

Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801

Martin B. Jun

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8W 3P6, Canada

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 130(3), 031112 (May 16, 2008) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2917315 History: Received July 01, 2007; Revised February 06, 2008; Published May 16, 2008

A piezoelectrically driven, submicron XY-positioning stage with multiprocess capability is developed and then integrated into two micro∕nanoscale manufacturing processes to improve their performance. The design is based on the HexFlex™ mechanism but is modified to improve structural robustness using a combination of factorial design, linear programming, and finite element analysis. Performance analysis reveals travel ranges of 16μm (X-axis) and 8μm (Y-axis), positioning accuracies of 87nm (X-axis) and 92nm (Y-axis), and overall stiffnesses of 32Nμm (X-axis) and 36Nμm (Y-axis). A comparison of microfluidic channels manufactured with a micromachine tool (mMT) alone and with the stage stacked on the mMT shows an improvement in feature accuracy from 870nmto170nm. The stage is integrated with an electrochemical deposition setup. Nanowire structures with sharp angles are fabricated. The diameter of these nanowires shows an improvement in uniformity by decreasing the standard deviation of diameter variation from 2.088μmto0.009μm.

Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

FEA simulation showing actuation and stage platform displacement directions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Positional accuracy and repeatability data (X-axis)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Comparison of the accuracy of microfluidic channels manufactured with the mMT alone and with the submicron stage stacked on the mMT

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Effects of material and tool geometry on feature accuracy

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

3D interconnect deposited without the submicron stage

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Submicron stage integrated with the probe-based electrochemical deposition setup

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Angled nanowire deposited using the submicron stage

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

3D interconnect deposited using the submicron stage

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Comparison of the diameter of wires deposited using the inchworm stage and those deposited using the submicron XY-stage

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Comparison of the resistance of wires deposited using the inchworm stage and those deposited using the submicron XY-stage

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Critical design variables, actuator locations, and axis conventions of the submicron stage

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Test setup for evaluating the accuracy of machined microfluidic channels

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Submicron stage mounted on the XY-table of the Microlution, Inc. 310-S mMT

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Validation of interpolated hysteresis curves

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Kinematic ball and vee-groove system

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Piezoelectrically driven submicron XY-positioning stage

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In