AN-000221

CH201 and ICU-20201 Mechanical Integration
Guide

Chirp Microsystems reserves the right to change
specifications and information herein without notice.

InvenSense, a TDK Group Company
2560 Ninth Street, Ste 220, Berkeley, CA 94710 U.S.A+1(510) 640–8155
www.chirpmicro.com

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2
Release Date: 10/06/2021

AN-000221
1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to provide recommendations and guidance on the mechanical integration of Chirp CH201 and ICU20201 ultrasonic sensors in device enclosures. This document will cover the mechanical design, geometry, part and assembly
tolerances, material considerations, testing and best practices for mechanical integration. All dimensions mentioned in thisdocument are in mm, unless otherwise specified.
The information in this guide only covers information related specifically to Chirp Microsystems’ CH201 and ICU-20201 sensors, andnot other sensors, such as the CH101 and ICU-10201. If you are integrating other Chirp Microsystems sensors, please consult theappropriate Mechanical Integration Guide for that product.

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 2 of 23

AN-000221
2 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Some commonly used acronyms and abbreviations in this document are listed in Table 1.
Acronym or Abbreviation

Definition

ASIC

Application-specific integrated circuit

FoV

Field-of-View

FPC

Flexible printed circuit

FWHM

Full-width half-maximum

IC

Integrated circuit

IR

Infrared

LSB

Least significant bit (ADC counts)

MEMS

Micro-electro-mechanical system

PSA

Pressure-sensitive adhesive

PCB

Printed circuit board

PCBA

Printed circuit board assembly

PIF

Particle ingress filter

PMUT

Piezoelectric micromachined ultrasonic transducer

ToF

Time-of-Flight
Table 1. Acronyms and Abbreviations

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 3 of 23

AN-000221
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1

Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................................22

Acronyms and Abbreviations .....................................................................................................................................................3

3

Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................................5
3.1
3.2

4

Acoustic Interfaces.....................................................................................................................................................................7
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7

5

THEORY OF OPERATION ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
PACKAGE DIMENSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................. 5

TUBES .................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
HORNS ................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
DEFINITION OF FIELD-OF-VIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 9
SEPARATE VS INTEGRATED ACOUSTIC INTERFACE ............................................................................................................................. 9
ANGLED/CURVED DEVICE ENCLOSURE EXTERIOR SURFACE ............................................................................................................... 10
MATERIALS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 11
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN, TOLERANCES, AND MANUFACTURING GUIDELINES .............................................................................................. 11

Particle Ingress Filters .............................................................................................................................................................. 13
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5

MESHES AND MEMBRANES ...................................................................................................................................................... 13
PIF ACOUSTIC PERFORMANCE IMPACT AND INSERTION LOSSES ......................................................................................................... 14
PIF PLACEMENT .................................................................................................................................................................... 14
PIF INTEGRATION AND OPTIMIZATION ........................................................................................................................................ 15
SPECIAL CASES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15

5.5.1 Wire Grilles/Meshes .............................................................................................................................................................................15

6

Assembly Guidelines, Tolerances, and Requirements .............................................................................................................. 17
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6

7

Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................. 21
7.1
7.2

8

CH201 AND ICU-20201 MOUNTING ........................................................................................................................................ 17
RECOMMENDED METHOD FOR SENSOR ASSEMBLY AND ATTACHMENT................................................................................................ 17
MAXIMUM RESIDUAL ASSEMBLY FORCE ...................................................................................................................................... 17
SENSOR-TO-ACOUSTIC INTERFACE ASSEMBLY TOLERANCES .............................................................................................................. 18
ACOUSTIC INTERFACE-TO-DEVICE ENCLOSURE ASSEMBLY TOLERANCES ............................................................................................... 19
ASSEMBLY INSPECTION AND QUALITY CONTROL CHECKLIST .............................................................................................................. 20

DESIGN TRADEOFF CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 21
MECHANICAL DESIGN AND INTEGRATION STEPS CHECKLIST .............................................................................................................. 22

Revision History ....................................................................................................................................................................... 23

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 4 of 23

AN-000221
3 OVERVIEW
3.1

THEORY OF OPERATIONThe CH201 and ICU-20201 are ultrasonic transceiver rangefinders that use a piezoelectric micromachined ultrasonic transducer(PMUT) to send out short pulses of sound waves into the air. These waves, upon hitting an object, reflect back towards the PMUT,
causing it to vibrate and generate an electrical signal. The time for the sound waves to travel from and back to the PMUT, known as
the Time-of-Flight (ToF), is measured by the built-in application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC). (Using the speed of sound (343 m/s
at room temperature), the system can determine the distance to the object.
Unlike other types of ToF rangefinders, such as infrared (IR) sensors, the CH201 and ICU-20201 sensors are not affected by the color
or transparency of objects and works in all lighting conditions. It also uses significantly less power than comparable IR sensors andthe sensor’s Field-of-View (FoV) can be customized by using different acoustic housings.

Figure 1. Sensor operation

3.2 PACKAGE DIMENSIONS

Figure 2. Package dimensions of the CH201.

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 5 of 23

AN-000221

Figure 3. Package dimensions of the ICU-20201.

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 6 of 23

AN-000221
4 ACOUSTIC INTERFACES
Without an Acoustic Interface, the CH201 and ICU-20201 have poor sound output performance. This is due to the large acoustic
impedance difference between the PMUT (the source) and the air (the load) resulting in the energy from the PMUT not beingtransferred efficiently to the air. In this regard, acoustic impedance can be thought of as analogous to electrical impedance. To
improve the transfer of sound energy to the air, an Acoustic Interface is required in front of the sensor port hole to better match the
impedance. In addition, the dimensions and geometry of the Acoustic Interface dictate the FoV of the sensor. Two broad categoriesof Acoustic Interface are used with the CH201 and ICU-20201: tubes and horns.

4.1

TUBES

Tubes are holes of a specific length and diameter. For the CH201, the optimal tube length is 2.0 mm with a diameter of 1.0 mm. A
straight tube is the Acoustic Interface of choice for applications that require the smallest opening possible. Straight tubes are always
omnidirectional (~180 degree FoV).

4.2

HORNS

An acoustic horn focuses the acoustic beam, making the FoV narrower. The terminology used to describe horns is shown in Figure 4
below.

Figure 4. Terminology for acoustic horns.

The process of calculating and determining the required dimensions for different horns is complex and beyond the scope of thisdocument. However, in general, the following statements hold true.
••

The larger the mouth of the horn, the smaller the FoV, everything else being equal
The longer the horn (up to a limit), the higher the output pressure, everything else being equal

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 7 of 23

AN-000221
Acoustic Interface Part
Number

AH-20166-045045

AH-20129-160040

AH20111-180180

Type

Horn

Horn

Tube

Overall Length (mm)

2.9

5

2.0

Throat Diameter (mm)

1.1

1.1

1.0

Mouth Diameter(s) (mm)6.0

9.0 (Horizontal)/2.0(Vertical)

1.0

Field-of-View (Horizontal)(Degrees)

45

50

180

Field-of-View (Vertical)(Degrees)

45

160

180

On-Axis Amplitude(Typ. Relative to CH20166045045)

1x

0.6x

0.25x

Comments

Narrow FoVAsymmetric FoV

Omnidirectional FoVTable 2. Summary of common CH201 and ICU-20201 Acoustic Interfaces

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 8 of 23

AN-000221
4.3

DEFINITION OF FIELD-OF-VIEW

The FoV of the CH201 and ICU-20201 can be set to meet the application requirements by designing the appropriate Acoustic
Interface. It should be noted that, unlike the FoV of IR sensors, it is still possible to detect objects beyond the acoustic FoV. This isbecause the acoustic FoV is defined as the full-width half-maximum (FWHM) of the round-trip beam pattern. If the reflected echo off
an object outside the FoV has an amplitude greater than the minimum amplitude threshold, it is still possible to detect such targets.

Figure 5. A beam pattern of a 45-degree FoV horn measured against a large flat target.
Note how the amplitude does not fall abruptly to zero (absolute units) and that depending on the target and the distance, it will still be possible
to detect targets outside the rated FoV.

4.4

SEPARATE VS INTEGRATED ACOUSTIC INTERFACEThe Acoustic Interface can either be standalone, separate part or it can be integrated into the device enclosure. The choice between
a separate or integrated Acoustic Interface depends on many factors. Some major tradeoffs of each approach are highlighted inTable 3.

Figure 6. Separate Acoustic Interface (left) and integrated Acoustic Interface (right).

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 9 of 23

AN-000221
Separate Acoustic Interface
Pros

Cons

Integrated Acoustic Interface• More control over critical Acoustic Interface dimensions
and surfaces, which may lead to more consistent results• Easier to ensure good and consistent contact withsensor.
• Requires at least one extra part in the BOM and extra
assembly step(s) to assemble the device• Removes potential gaps/flushness issues caused by assembly
variation. This is especially beneficial for wide or omnidirectional
FoV Acoustic Interfaces.
• May require tighter tolerances and/or more Design for Assembly
considerations

Table 3. Tradeoffs of separate and integrated Acoustic Interfaces.

4.5

ANGLED/CURVED DEVICE ENCLOSURE EXTERIOR SURFACE

Chirp does not recommend having the external device enclosure be at an angle relative to the top of the sensor package. Chirp
cannot guarantee the performance of an Acoustic Interface modified to fit on an angled surface.

Figure 7. Cross-section views showing how to mount the sensor on an angled device enclosure surface.
The overall goal is to ensure that the dimension and design of the Acoustic Interface is unaltered in order to maintain acoustic performance. The
end requirement is that the top of the sensor must be parallel with the exterior device enclosure surface.

Concave exterior enclosure surfaces should generally be avoided, because of the potential for ultrasound to reflect and cause signal
interference. Convex exterior enclosure surfaces are okay. However, for maximum acoustic performance, the curvature on theexterior surface cannot “cut-off” or otherwise change the dimensions of the intended Acoustic Interface. Similar to device
enclosures with angled surfaces, the opening of the Acoustic Interface should remain parallel with the top of the sensor.

Figure 8. Types of device enclosure surface curvature.
Concave surfaces should be avoided. Convex surfaces are acceptable as long as the Acoustic Interface dimensions are not affected.

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 10 of 23

AN-000221
4.6

MATERIALS

Any material that does not absorb ultrasound (~80 kHz for CH201 and ICU-20201) is suitable for use as the Acoustic Interface. This
includes most plastics (PC, ABS, Delrin, etc.), metals, and composite materials. Materials NOT recommended for use include all
foams, fabrics and textiles.
For the most consistent acoustic performance, it is also recommended to use materials that can achieve surface finish/roughness of
1.6 μm Ra or better.

4.7

INDUSTRIAL DESIGN, TOLERANCES, AND MANUFACTURING GUIDELINES

For prototyping different Acoustic Interface designs, 3D printing can be a fast and economical way to create a proof-of-concept
design. For 3D printing, the following guidelines are recommended for best performance:••

Printer type: Stereolithography (SLA)
Layer thickness of 0.025 mm (0.001”)

For critical dimensions, the tolerance of printed samples should be within 0.1 mm of nominal. Chirp DOES NOT recommend using
FDM (filament based) 3D printers for making horn Acoustic Interfaces. FDM 3D printing does not have the required resolution,accuracy, and surface finish to produce Acoustic Interfaces with good acoustic performance.
For mass production, Chirp has the following recommendations for the tooling of Acoustic Interfaces:•••

Unless specified otherwise, the tolerance of critical dimensions should be ± 0.05 mm or better. Critical dimensions include
the internal geometry of the Acoustic Interface and the alignment features that will align it to the sensor’s port hole. For
non-critical dimensions, a tolerance of ± 0.1 mm is acceptable.
The sensor-contacting surface of the Acoustic Interface should be flat to 0.025 mm or better.
The minimum surface finish for all critical Acoustic Interface surfaces (sensor contact surface, tube/horn internal profile
surface, exterior top surface) should be equivalent to SPI-B2 or better, with SPI-A3 or better recommended.

Figure 9. Critical surfaces on Acoustic Interfaces are highlighted in red.
The inside pocket surface of the Acoustic Interface needs to be smooth to ensure good and gapless contact with the sensor. The highlighted
exterior-facing surfaces (in red) interact with the ultrasound wave. To minimize unwanted interference (constructive or destructive), thesesurfaces should also be tightly controlled to ensure a smooth finish.

•

For straight tubes, the tube interior edges must be as sharp as possible for optimal acoustic performance. The maximum
allowable edge fillet radius is 0.025 mm.

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 11 of 23

AN-000221

Figure 10. The exterior edge of a tube Acoustic Interface (highlighted blue) should be as sharp as possible to maintain a wide FoV.

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 12 of 23

AN-000221
5 PARTICLE INGRESS FILTERS
Using a protective covering or Particle Ingress Filter (PIF) over the sensor is recommended if dust, liquid, or other contaminants arepresent in the application environment.

5.1

MESHES AND MEMBRANES

There are two broad categories of PIF materials: meshes and membranes. Meshes are primarily woven material (like fabric), andthus its structure is 2-dimensional and very regular throughout the material. On the other hand, membranes are often nonwoven
material, so they inherently have a randomness in their structure. An example of a nonwoven membrane material would be
expanded PTFE. Membranes can also be solid, thin barriers, like polyester or mylar films.

Figure 11. Representative close-up images of the structure of woven meshes (left) and nonwoven membranes (right).

A natural consequence of the difference in meshes vs membranes is that meshes generally have a smaller acoustic performance
impact and reduced ingress protection capability compared to membranes.
•
•
•
•

Mesh
Often woven, fabric-like material with a grid-like, regular,“2D” structure.
Simpler, more predictable structure generally allows forbetter airflow, sound transmission and less acoustic
performance impact
Good for IP5X and brief liquid splash or shallow
submersion when coated with a hydrophobic coating
Dust protection is dictated by mesh opening size. Liquid
protection is dependent on acoustic path geometry anddesign.

•••Membrane
Either nonwoven, random structure, or a thin solid film
The random structure or solid film aspects of membranes
generally result in higher acoustic performance impact
Materials rated up to IP68 and generally independent of the
Acoustic Interface design and placement of the membrane.

Table 4. Summary table of properties of meshes and membranes.

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 13 of 23

AN-000221
5.2

PIF ACOUSTIC PERFORMANCE IMPACT AND INSERTION LOSSES

Table 5 lists the materials Chirp has tested with the sensor. The insertion loss is the total round-trip loss from both transmit andreceive.

PIF Material

Material Type

IP RatingInsertion Loss (Round-trip)

SAATI Acoustex B042HY

Mesh

IP5X

0.5 dB

Gore GAW337

Membrane

IP68 (2hrs @ 2m)

3 dB

Microvent MV-2FW-01 (100)Membrane

IP67 (30min @ 1m)

5 dB

Table 5. Acoustic insertion loss of PIF materials on sensor.

5.3

PIF PLACEMENT

For the PIF materials Chirp has validated to work with the sensor, the PIF can either be placed at the top of the Acoustic Interface or
the bottom of the Acoustic Interface. For PIF materials not validated by Chirp, the placement and corresponding acoustic
performance will need to be tested independently by the user.

Figure 12. Examples of possible PIF placements for both tubes and horns.
The PIF can either be placed at the bottom of the Acoustic Interface (left) or the top of the Acoustic Interface (right).

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 14 of 23

AN-000221
5.4

PIF INTEGRATION AND OPTIMIZATION

The addition of a PIF can potentially change the acoustic properties of the Acoustic Interface and is likely to negatively impact
acoustic performance. The severity of the change will vary from material to material, with membranes generally having a larger
negative impact than meshes. Some of this performance impact can be mitigated by changing the dimensions of the Acoustic
Interface to accommodate the addition of the PIF.
For tube Acoustic Interfaces, adding a PIF often changes its resonance characteristics. To get optimal acoustic performance with agiven PIF, the length/thickness of the tube may need to be changed to re-optimize it for the PIF.
For horn Acoustic Interfaces, the approach is not as predictable. Though in general, horns are less sensitive to the impact from small
dimension changes caused by the addition of a PIF and the performance may be acceptable without modifications.
If you are having issues with integrating PIFs in your design, please contact Chirp for assistance.

5.5

SPECIAL CASESThis section details special PIF materials, use cases, and how to integrate them into a design.

5.5.1 Wire Grilles/Meshes
For protection against larger objects, Chirp has tested some wire grilles/meshes that can be used to provide both damage resistanceand to help conceal the sensor or Acoustic Interface. When designed correctly, these larger opening meshes incur a minimal acoustic
performance impact. The figure below shows the appropriate integration dimensions and placement for use with an AH-20166045045 horn Acoustic Interface. Please note that in general, wire meshes will not provide as much dust or ingress protection
compared to woven meshes or membranes because of the larger hole openings in wire meshes.
Conductive wire grilles or meshes also increase the durability of the sensor from electrostatic air discharge. The protective
grille/mesh should be electrically grounded to the device ground.

Figure 13. Example of wire grille/mesh integration with the AH-20166-045045 horn Acoustic Interface.
The wire mesh should be placed 1.7 mm above the horn. There should be a resulting 9mm diameter by 1.7 mm tall air gap between the top of
the horn and the wire mesh.

Some considerations when selecting a wire mesh:•••

Wire material: Non-oxidizing materials (such as stainless steel) should be used to prevent buildup of oxides such as rustOpen area: The open area (as a percentage of the material’s overall area) is critical to prevent excessive attenuation. 50%
open area is ideal, with 30% open area being the minimum.
Wire gauge: Thicker wires will increase the strength and stiffness of the wire mesh, providing extra protection. However, athicker wire will require a larger pore size to maintain the same amount of open area.

Figure 14 provides some wire mesh material recommendations:
Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 15 of 23

AN-000221

Figure 14. Examples of wire mesh materials.

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 16 of 23

AN-000221
6 ASSEMBLY GUIDELINES, TOLERANCES, AND REQUIREMENTS
6.1

CH201 AND ICU-20201 MOUNTING

The recommended method of placing the CH201 or ICU-20201 in a device is to mount and solder it on its own PCB (FPC, rigid flex or
rigid PCB). This PCBA makes it much easier to control the mounting and assembly of the sensor onto the Acoustic Interface, thereby
decreasing the chances of poor assembly accuracy and reduced acoustic performance.

6.2

RECOMMENDED METHOD FOR SENSOR ASSEMBLY AND ATTACHMENT

The assembly method recommended by Chirp for securing the sensor PCBA to the Acoustic Interface is to use liquid adhesive (glue),
because liquid adhesive does not impart additional stress onto the sensor. For all other assembly methods, it is important to verify
that the maximum assembly force is not exceeded post-assembly. For example, while gluing the sensor PCBA to the Acoustic
Interface, an operator may temporarily exceed the maximum assembly force, but before the adhesive finishes curing, this excess
force must be removed. This can be checked by testing the sensor’s operating frequency before and after assembly. The sensor’s
post-assembly operating frequency should not shift beyond a given amount compared to the pre-assembly operating frequency (seeTable 6).
The following is a list of adhesives recommended by Chirp for assembling the PCBA onto the Acoustic Interface:•

Dymax 9-911 REV A Ultra-light Weld (UV Cure)

For designs using an Acoustic Interface that is separate from the device enclosure, it is also recommended to use glue to assemble
the Acoustic Interface and sensor PCBA subassembly to the device enclosure, because the maximum assembly force requirement
still applies. This method avoids assembly force/stress that can be transferred from the Acoustic Interface and onto the sensor
package.
During the assembly gluing process, care should be taken to dispense adhesive in such a way that the adhesive does not flow or wick
into the port hole of the sensor. Therefore, it is recommended to apply the adhesive between the Acoustic Interface and the PCB(not between the Acoustic Interface and the sensor). A post-cure visual inspection should be conducted to verify that no adhesive
has flowed or wicked into the sensor port hole.

Figure 15. Cross-sectional picture showing where glue should be dispensed for attaching the Acoustic Interface.
The glue should be dispensed between the Acoustic Interface and the PCB and not between the Acoustic Interface and sensor.

6.3

MAXIMUM RESIDUAL ASSEMBLY FORCETo effectively radiate ultrasound into the air, the CH201 and ICU-20201 are manufactured in such a way that the PMUT is notcompletely stress-isolated from the package. One integration requirement arising from this feature is that there is a limit to theamount of residual force that can be applied to the sensor before it results in excessive change in the PMUT’s acoustic
characteristics. The maximum allowable residual force during operation is 150 grams-force. It is acceptable to temporarily exceed
this value when the sensor is not in operation, such as during assembly, if the excess force is reduced or removed afterwards (i.e.
there are no excess residual stresses/forces on the sensor after assembly). It is critical that there is no excess residual assembly force
above the maximum allowable value on the sensor once assembly is complete.
Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 17 of 23

AN-000221
Max Assembly Force (grams-force)

Max Allowable Frequency Shift Due toAssembly (Hz)
1500

150

Table 6. Summary of maximum allowable residual assembly force.
The easiest way to detect when this force is exceeded is to measure the frequency shift from before and after assembly.

One method of holding the module against the device enclosure while avoiding applying excessive force on the module is to use abackplate to transfer the force applied to the module to the Acoustic Interface instead of the sensor (see Figure 16).

Figure 16. Example of a backplate-based module design to avoid applying excessive force on the sensor.

6.4

SENSOR-TO-ACOUSTIC INTERFACE ASSEMBLY TOLERANCES

When assembling the sensor and Acoustic Interface together, Chirp recommends the sensor port hole be concentrically aligned to
Acoustic Interface to within 0.1 mm or better. The sensor port should not be blocked or occluded by the Acoustic Interface (seeFigure 17).
For the Z-dimension assembly tolerance, the only requirement is that there is no gap between the sensor and the Acoustic Interface
and that their mating surfaces are parallel (see Figure 18). Any gap between the sensor and Acoustic Interface will result in
unpredictable acoustic performance. In addition, while ensuring no gap between the sensor and Acoustic Interface, the assembly
force must be below the maximum force limit as discussed in Section 6.3.

Figure 17. Examples of various degrees of sensor port alignment with the Acoustic Interface, from perfect concentric alignment (left), maximum
acceptable limit tangent alignment (middle), to bad occluded alignment (right).

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 18 of 23

AN-000221

Figure 18. Examples of what good and bad assembly of the Acoustic Interface look like.
There must be no gap between the Acoustic Interface and the sensor for optimal acoustic performance.

6.5

ACOUSTIC INTERFACE-TO-DEVICE ENCLOSURE ASSEMBLY TOLERANCES

For applications using a separate Acoustic Interface from the overall device enclosure, there are additional considerations for theassembly and associated tolerances of the Acoustic Interface to the device enclosure. They primarily address the potential impact tothe beam pattern caused by obstructions and reflections from undesired features, such as edges and gaps (see Figure 19 and Figure20). Because of this, wider FoV Acoustic Interfaces are more susceptible to these effects and steps should be taken during assembly
to ensure good beam pattern and overall acoustic performance.

Figure 19. Bad assemblies create edges for ultrasound to reflect off from and affect the beam pattern.
A good assembly has no gaps/steps, resulting in a smooth, consistent beam pattern.

Figure 20. Effect of edges on the beam pattern.
Edges created from gaps or steps in the assembly process reflect ultrasound, causing interference (red dashed lines) and results in inconsistent
beam patterns.

Ideally, the Acoustic Interface is mounted flush to the device enclosure. In general, Chirp recommends the Acoustic Interface bemounted flush to the device enclosure to within 0.2 mm.
Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 19 of 23

AN-000221

Figure 21. The Acoustic Interface should be mounted flush to the device enclosure to within 0.2 mm.

There should also be minimal diametrical/clearance gap between the Acoustic Interface and the device enclosure. Chirp
recommends no more than 0.1 mm clearance gap between the device enclosure and Acoustic interface.

Figure 22. The clearance gap between the device enclosure and Acoustic Interface should be 0.1 mm or less.

6.6

ASSEMBLY INSPECTION AND QUALITY CONTROL CHECKLISTThe following is a list of items to check to ensure that the sensor is correctly assembled and integrated into the overall device:
1.

2.

3.

4.

Sensor port is not blocked or occluded. If the sensor port is blocked or occluded, whether by the Acoustic Interface, glue or
foreign contaminants, the acoustic performance will be negatively affected. One simple method for checking that the sensor
port is not blocked or occluded is to visually inspect that the annular gold plating on the port hole is visible and is not “cutoff” (see Figure 17).
The assembly process does not impart excessive residual stress on the sensor. This can be verified by checking the sensor’s
frequency before the sensor is securely attached to the Acoustic Interface (e.g. Acoustic Interface sits on top of the sensor
with only gravity) and after the sensor is fixed to the Acoustic Interface (such as with glue). Residual stress on the sensor will
shift its operating frequency.
No gap between Acoustic Interface and top of the sensor. Gaps between the Acoustic Interface and sensor will reduce
performance. This can be (indirectly) checked by measuring the gap between the bottom of the Acoustic Interface and the
PCB or measuring the top of the Acoustic Interface to the top of the PCB. It is also important to check that the Acoustic
Interface is not mounted crooked or at an angle by checking that the Acoustic Interface top/bottom is parallel to the PCB (seeFigure 18).
If a separate Acoustic Interface is being used, check that it meets the assembly requirements highlighted in Figure 21 andFigure 22

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 20 of 23

AN-000221
7 SUMMARY
7.1

DESIGN TRADEOFF CONSIDERATIONS

As with any engineering design, there are always design tradeoffs. When integrating the CH201 or ICU-20201, the top tradeoff
considerations are:
•

•
•
•
•

FoV vs max range: The amount of energy being emitted from the PMUT is finite. To focus the ultrasound beam in a narrow
FoV requires taking energy from the sides of the beam pattern. Conversely, to make a wide FoV beam, the sound energy
cannot be focused and must be spread out more equally in all directions. Consequently, narrow FoV designs have longer
maximum operating range.
Horn size vs performance: If the application requires a horn (e.g. for increased maximum range or a narrower FoV), theoverall acoustic performance can be improved or limited by the size of the horn. In particular, the larger the size of the hornmouth, the smaller the FoV. Generally, a longer horn has more sound output (up to a limit).
Level of ingress protection vs acoustic performance impact: The more demanding an application’s ingress protection
requirement, the more an appropriate PIF material will restrict airflow. The more restrictive material will necessarily reduce
the amount of sound output into the air, thus reducing maximum range.
Assembly tolerance vs acoustic performance consistency: The acoustic performance is the highest when the alignment of
all parts in the acoustic path are perfectly concentric with the sensor port hole. The more the assembly deviates from thisideal alignment, the more the acoustic performance is impacted.
Separate vs integrated Acoustic Interface: A separate Acoustic Interface will make tighter tolerances possible on criticaldimensions, everything else being equal. However, this will result in an additional part in the BOM and assembly andintroduce another contribution towards the overall tolerance stackup. In comparison, an integrated Acoustic Interface has
the opposite characteristics and may require tighter tolerances and/or additional Design for Assembly considerations tostay below the allowable maximum residual assembly force.

When working through these considerations for mechanical integration design, keep in mind the overall requirements of theapplication and device. Depending on the application, one or possibly even all the negative performance tradeoffs may ultimately be
inconsequential, because the sensor still performs sufficiently for the application’s needs. As a result, it is worthwhile to test the“worst-case” design and to see how far off it is from meeting the application’s performance requirements.

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 21 of 23

AN-000221
7.2

MECHANICAL DESIGN AND INTEGRATION STEPS CHECKLIST
1.

Estimate the maximum range (distance) required in your application to detect objects of interest. The Acoustic Interface (Step2) and PIF (Step 5) will affect your range from the baseline case.

2.

Estimate the FoV needed for your application. Note that Chirp defines the FoV of a sensor at FWHM, essentially the width of
the beam pattern at half amplitude. Because of this, it is possible to still detect objects beyond this FoV.

3.

Determine your Acoustic Interface design. The combination of Steps 1 and 2 will dictate the Acoustic Interface design for yourapplication. Please consult Table 2 for common Acoustic Interface designs. Note that a wide FoV design will have less range
than a narrow FoV design, since the sound energy is being spread over a larger area. For reference, a sensor with a 45-degree
FoV Acoustic Interface will have a 5m maximum range to a large flat target. Because it is not possible to have a very wide
FoV with long range, design tradeoffs in your application may be required.

4.

Decide whether the Acoustic Interface will be a stand-alone part or integrated into the device enclosure.

5.

Select a PIF that meets your ingress protection requirements, if any. All PIFs will reduce the ultrasound output from the sensor
and reduce maximum range. The choice of PIF can dramatically impact the acoustic performance of the sensor (see Table 5).
It is very important to test and verify the acoustic performance when using a PIF.

6.

Determine the sensor and Acoustic Interface assembly method based on Step 4. Chirp recommends a zero-force assembly
method such as gluing to assemble the sensor to your device. Both assembly tolerance and assembly force can impact thesensor acoustic performance, so it is important to verify and compare acoustic performance before and after final assembly.

Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 22 of 23

AN-000221
8 REVISION HISTORY
Revision Date

Revision

Description

5/12/2020

1.0

Initial release.

9/29/2020

1.1

Updated PIF information and assembly inspection information. Reorganized sections. Minor
corrections and clarifications.

10/6/2021

1.2

Updated document scope to include ICU-20201.

This information furnished by InvenSense, Inc. (“InvenSense”) is believed to be accurate and reliable. However, no responsibility is assumed by InvenSense for its use,or for any infringements of patents or other rights of third parties that may result from its use. Specifications are subject to change without notice. InvenSense reserves
the right to make changes to this product, including its circuits and software, in order to improve its design and/or performance, without prior notice. InvenSense makes
no warranties, neither expressed nor implied, regarding the information and specifications contained in this document. InvenSense assumes no responsibility for any
claims or damages arising from information contained in this document, or from the use of products and services detailed ther ein. This includes, but is not limited to,claims or damages based on the infringement of patents, copyrights, mask work and/or other intellectual property rights.
Certain intellectual property owned by InvenSense and described in this document is patent protected. No license is granted by implication or otherwise under any
patent or patent rights of InvenSense. This publication supersedes and replaces all information previously supplied. Trademarks that are registered trademarks are theproperty of their respective companies. InvenSense sensors should not be used or sold in the development, storage, production or utilization of any conventional or
mass-destructive weapons or for any other weapons or life threatening applications, as well as in any other life critical applicat ions such as medical equipment,
transportation, aerospace and nuclear instruments, undersea equipment, power plant equipment, disaster prevention and crime prevention equipment.
©2021 Chirp Microsystems. All rights reserved. InvenSense, MotionTracking, MotionProcessing, MotionProcessor, MotionFusion, MotionApps, DMP, AAR, and theInvenSense logo are trademarks of InvenSense, Inc. The TDK logo is a trademark of TDK Corporation. Other company and product names may be trademarks of therespective companies with which they are associated.

©2021 Chirp Microsystems. All rights reserved.
Document Number: AN-000221
Revision: 1.2

Page 23 of 23