Design and Fabrication of a Strain-Powered 

Microelectromechanical System (MEMS) Switch

by Cory R Knick and Christopher J Morris

ARL-TR-7095 September 2014

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 
NOTICES

Disclaimers

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position 

unless so designated by other authorized documents.

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or 

approval of the use thereof.

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator.
Army Research Laboratory

Adelphi, MD 20783-1138

ARL-TR-7095 September 2014

Design and Fabrication of a Strain-Powered 

Microelectromechanical System (MEMS) Switch

Cory R Knick and Christopher J Morris

Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate, ARL

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 
ii

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently 

valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

September 2014

2. REPORT TYPE

Final

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

11/2013 to 08/2014

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Design and Fabrication of a Strain-Powered Microelectromechanical System 

(MEMS) Switch

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Cory R Knick and Christopher J Morris

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Research Laboratory

ATTN: RDRL-SES-L

2800 Powder Mill Road

Adelphi, MD 20783-1138

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

ARL-TR-7095

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) switches, while having the potential to function under ultra low power constraints, 

still require onboard power sources. Strain-powered actuators can be triggered with off-board power sources such as laser 

irradiation. In this report, we discuss the design and fabrication of a microswitch that could eventually be optically triggered to 

fold using the heat generated from a laser. These switches were fabricated on a silicon wafer using standard microfabrication 

techniques. We discuss in detail switch design and fabrication process as well as the evolution of design changes implemented

to overcome process and design issues. We have taken an initially rather complex, process-intensive design and reduced it to a 

process requiring only lift-off for patterning. We show that an actuated switch would have a resistance of 40 ohms with 

10 mA applied across the contacts.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

MEMS, optical actuation, microelectromechanical system, micro-switch, microfabrication

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

17. LIMITATION

 OF 

 ABSTRACT

UU

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

34

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Cory R Knick

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

301-394-1147

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii

Contents

List of Figures iv

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Design..............................................................................................................................1

1.2 Fabrication.......................................................................................................................2

1.3 Electrical Characterization Methods...............................................................................4

2. Results and Discussion 4

2.1 Electrical Characterization ..............................................................................................4

2.2 Fabrication Challenges....................................................................................................6

3. Conclusions 13

4. References 14

Appendix A. Process Sheet for Lift-Off Only Process (Wafers # 25, 26) 17

Appendix B. Process Sheet for Ion Mill and Electroplating Process 21

List of Symbols, Abbreviations, and Acronyms 24

Distribution List 25
iv

List of Figures

Fig. 1 Calculated fold angles for a fold-up stack of 10/120/50/10 nm Cr/Au/Cr/Au (blue) 

and a fold-down stack of 10/120 nm Cr/Au (red). This stack is advantageous for at least 

two considerations; 1) a common base layer of Cr/Au is shared among fold-up and folddown hinges and 2) significant folding is predicted for relatively short hinges (i.e., 45° at 

25 μm)........................................................................................................................................2

Fig. 2 Process flow for MEMS switch version 1 with electroplated Au frames; a) lift-off 

contacts, b) lift-off sacrificial Si, c) blanket evaporate Cr/Au fold-down layer, d) lift-off 

Cr/Au fold-up layer, e) electroplate Au frames, f) wet etch or ion mill, g) develop 1827 

resist hinge, and h) XeF2 dry etch Si to release the switch........................................................3

Fig. 3 Process flow for MEMS switch version 2 without electroplated Au frames; a) lift-off 

contacts, b) lift-off sacrificial Si, c) lift-off Cr/Au fold-down layer, d) lift-off Cr fold-up 

layer, e) develop resist, and f) dry etch release..........................................................................3

Fig. 4 Switch resistance vs. number of cycles of the XeF2 etch from devices corresponding 

to a fabrication run carried out using the ion mill patterning steps and electroplating..............5

Fig. 5 SEM of a dry etched switch device corresponding to resistance measurements 

presented in Fig. 4......................................................................................................................6

Fig. 6 Switch after Cr/Au wet-etch process step. Wet etching undercut the switch features, 

removing significant amounts of the thin films required to actuate the switch. Wet etching 

also showed poor selectivity, resulting in etching of the Au electrical contacts that were 

lifted off in the previous step. ....................................................................................................7

Fig. 7 SEM images of a wet-etched device after XeF2 dry etch, (left) Au frame is attacked 

from wet etch at sidewalls and the Au contact is mostly etched away; (right) side view, 

unclear whether Si is completely undercut from the dry etch ...................................................7

Fig. 8 SEM of switch patterned by ion milling, showing cleaner sidewalls and a welldefined switch geometry. Au contact lines are still intact, further demonstrating that ion 

milling is superior to wet etching. Right: switch folding after dry etch release. .......................8

Fig. 9 Array of test cantilevers on Au contacts after dry etch release showing uniform 

folding upwards; the top edge appears to be anchored to the substrate, which necessitated 

a mask rewrite after reducing dimensions of the second PVD step...........................................8

Fig. 10 Problems encountered during the lift-off process run; underdeveloped resist causing 

the switch to be anchored (left), thin-film shearing at the contact edge (right), and thinfilm edge anchoring (right). Geometry design changes were made to correct for these

issues in subsequent process runs. .............................................................................................9

Fig. 11 SEM array of dry etch released cantilevers and test structures minus the Au contact 

line showing that hinges do not shear without the Au contact underneath. a) 60-μm 

released cantilevers of 10/120/50/10 nm Cr/Au/Cr/Au, b) 40-μm released cantilevers with 

0.25-μm electroplated Au, c) and d) dry etch released test switches without a contact line 

underneath................................................................................................................................10
v

Fig. 12 Switch after dry etching for 60 cycles. The thin film has sheared at the Au contact 

edge. Future process runs include a combination of thinner contacts, and a thicker 

sacrificial Si layer to reduce the abrupt step height at the contact edge to combat this 

issue..........................................................................................................................................10

Fig. 13 Switch patterned using only lift-off after dry etch release ..............................................11

Fig. 14 SEM of released Cr/Au/Cr/Au cantilevers from the lift-off only fabrication run. 

Cantilever lengths of a) 10 μm, b) 30 μm, and c) 60 μm. ......................................................12

Fig. 15 SEM of fully released switches from the lift-off only process, demonstrating fold-up 

and fold-down joints................................................................................................................13
vi

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
1

1. Introduction

Actuation in microscale devices has been demonstrated in our group and by collaborators using 

heat and chemical stimuli.1–3 Optical actuation, unlike electrical,

4,5 pneumatic,6,7 or fluidic 

actuation8, circumvents the requirements for wires, pneumatic lines, or various complex tethers, 

and does not require bulky onboard power systems.

Current optical actuation methods9–17 suffer from one or more of the following limitations: 

requiring high irradiance intensity (>1 W/cm2

), long actuation times (>10’s to 100’s of seconds),

or bulk materials not easily amenable to lithographic patterning or other standard 

microfabrication techniques. Optical actuation based on residually stressed thin-film metal 

actuators like those reported here can overcome the above limitations, making this a practical 

and relevant actuation mechanism. Previous work18 has demonstrated optical actuation with 

532-nm laser irradiance as low as 0.6 W/cm2. The microswitch device discussed in this report is 

currently single use, but shape memory alloys like those based on titanium nickel (TiNi)

19,20 or 

other materials could allow for the design of reversible or multi-use actuators. 

The following sections describe the design and fabrication of our strain-powered 

microelectromechanical system (MEMS) switch. Section 1.1 covers the switch design and 

functionality, and introduces a stress model used to design the residually stressed thin-film 

hinges. Section 1.2 details the fabrication process and Section 1.3 covers the electrical 

characterization methods used to probe the devices. Section 2.1 describes the results obtained for 

device electrical characterization. Section 2.2 details the fabrication challenges encountered and 

the design and process changes that resulted. We draw conclusions in Section 3 and include two 

process sheets to describe our two main fabrication approaches in the Appendices. 

1.1 Design

The switch devices were designed in AutoCAD with variations in hinge length and width. Each 

switch contained three hinges based on thermally evaporated, residually stressed films. Two 

hinges were designed to fold up—at a “hip” joint and an “ankle” joint—while a center hinge was 

designed to fold down at a “knee” joint and make electrical contact with an electrical line. The 

folding up of the “ankle” was designed to insure good contact over the entire area of the switch 

“foot.” The switches were fabricated on a silicon (Si) wafer using microfabrication techniques. 

A final polymer layer was designed to prevent the switch from triggering until activated by an 

optical source. As covered in past reports,

21,22 a laser could heat the polymer to a critical 

temperature of 60 °C, soften the polymer layer, and in this design allow the pre-stressed layer to 

electrically connect two electrical traces and close the circuit. The “hip” joint was not covered 

with the polymer trigger layer, so that the switch would release upward after a Si dry etch with 
2

xenon difluoride (XeF2). This release step allowed a physical clearance between the switch and 

electrode line, which could be maintained until activated.

In order to determine suitable switch dimensions, thin-film thicknesses, and deposition sequence, 

we used a previous multilayer beam bending model23,24 to predict fold angles given a choice of 

practical switch dimensions and layer thicknesses. Figure 1 shows the calculated fold angles for 

the “fold-up” stack of 10/120/50/10 nm chromium (Cr)/gold (Au)/Cr/Au (blue); and “fold-down” 

stack of 10/120 nm Cr/Au (red). This stack is advantageous for at least two considerations:

1) a common base layer of Cr/Au is shared among the fold-up and fold-down hinges; and 

2) sufficient folding is predicted for relatively short hinges (e.g., 45° at a 25-μm hinge length). 

The Au layer was used in initial process runs involving an electroplating process step in which a 

conductive Au base layer was required. Process runs using only lift-off and no Au plating did not 

require this Au layer. Figure 1 shows a predicted fold angle between 20° and 50° for hinges 

ranging between 10 and 40 μm in length. Three design knobs used for obtaining desired folding 

are thus film thickness, deposition sequence, and hinge length. 

Fig. 1 Calculated fold angles for a fold-up stack of 10/120/50/10 nm Cr/Au/Cr/Au (blue) 

and a fold-down stack of 10/120 nm Cr/Au (red). This stack is advantageous for at 

least two considerations; 1) a common base layer of Cr/Au is shared among fold-up 

and fold-down hinges and 2) significant folding is predicted for relatively short 

hinges (i.e., 45° at 25 μm).

1.2 Fabrication

We fabricated devices over 10 process iterations resulting in 26 wafers in total, characterized by 

two general fabrication approaches. In the first fabrication approach, depicted in Fig. 2, due to 

the use of multiple evaporation layers and the use of Au plating to define rigid segments between 

each hinge section, we used ion milling to pattern many of the features. The second approach,

shown in Fig. 3, simplified the fabrication process by removing the Au plating steps, and 
3

replacing the ion mill steps with acetone-based lift-off. We were able to perform lift-off since an

Au base layer was no longer required for the Au electroplate step. 

Fig. 2 Process flow for MEMS switch version 1 with electroplated Au frames; a) lift-off 

contacts, b) lift-off sacrificial Si, c) blanket evaporate Cr/Au fold-down layer, 

d) lift-off Cr/Au fold-up layer, e) electroplate Au frames, f) wet etch or ion mill, 

g) develop 1827 resist hinge, and h) XeF2 dry etch Si to release the switch

Fig. 3 Process flow for MEMS switch version 2 

without electroplated Au frames; a) lift-off 

contacts, b) lift-off sacrificial Si, c) lift-off 

Cr/Au fold-down layer, d) lift-off Cr fold-up 

layer, e) develop resist, and f) dry etch release
4

In Fig. 2a, we deposited 100–200 nm Au contacts using the Evatec evaporator and patterned the 

Au contacts through lift-off. In Fig. 2b, we deposited 200–400 nm of sacrificial Si using the 

Evatec evaporator and patterned the sacrificial layer with lift-off. In Fig. 2c, we used the physical 

vapor deposition (PVD) evaporator to blanket deposit 70 nm of Cr and 150 nm of Au nominally 

as the fold-down layer. In Fig. 2d, we evaporated 200 nm of Cr and 50 nm of Au nominally as 

the fold-up layer and patterned through wet etching or ion milling. In Fig. 2e, we electroplated 

Au rigid sections or frames ranging in thickness from 0.25–4 μm through patterned photoresist. 

In Fig. 2f, we used wet etching or ion milling to pattern the switch. In Fig. 2g, we spin coated 

and developed 1827 photoresist over the hinges. In Fig. 2h, we performed XeF2 dry etch of the 

sacrificial Si to release the switch at the hip joint.

The MEMS switch shown in Fig. 3 was fabricated using fewer steps. In Fig. 3a, we deposited 

100–200 nm Au contacts using the Evatec evaporator and patterned the Au contacts through liftoff method. In Fig. 3b, we deposited 200–400 nm of sacrificial Si using the Evatec evaporator 

and patterned the sacrificial layer with lift-off. In Fig. 3c, we evaporated 200 nm of Cr and 

50 nm of Au nominally and patterned it through lift-off as the fold-down layer. In Fig. 3d, we 

evaporated 200 nm of Cr and 50 nm of Au nominally as the fold-up layer and patterned it 

through lift-off. In Fig. 3e, we spin coated and developed 1827 photoresist over the hinges. In 

Fig. 3f, we performed XeF2 dry etch of the sacrificial Si to release the switch.

1.3 Electrical Characterization Methods

Device characterization was performed with a 4-point probe station, using a Keithly power 

supply in 4-sense configuration mode. A current was supplied across the microswitch and

voltage was probed, which allowed the Keithly unit to simultaneously record a reading for 

resistance. Probing was performed at 10–100 mA DC, with voltage threshold set to 2 V max. In 

characterizing the switches, an infinite resistance indicated an open circuit, which was the case 

for released devices. 

2. Results and Discussion

2.1 Electrical Characterization

As shown in Fig. 4, the resistance of as-fabricated devices ranged from 100–170 ohms and 

between 20–60 ohms after 30, 60, and 90 cycles of dry etch. Switch resistance dropped to 

approximately 40 ohms after 30 cycles of XeF2 etching and remained unchanged after 60 and 

90 cycles. This measurement, in conjunction with visual observation that the test cantilevers 

released, confirmed that the sacrificial Si was etched away after 30–60 cycles. In each process 

run, we used a 10-nm Ti adhesion layer prior to evaporating the 400-nm sacrificial Si layer. After 

dry etching, the 10-nm Ti adhesion layer remained over the Au contact, which likely contributed
5

to the higher resistances measured for these devices. In future processes, we could most likely 

reduce this adhesion layer thickness to achieve smaller resistances for switched devices.

Fig. 4 Switch resistance vs. number of cycles of the XeF2 etch from devices corresponding to a fabrication run 

carried out using the ion mill patterning steps and electroplating

Switch resistance never indicated an open circuit in these tests, because, as suggested by Fig. 5, 

fully open switches were prevented by an edge anchoring problem due to insufficient tolerance 

between designed layer features. Figure 5 shows a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image 

of a switch after dry etching for 60 cycles corresponding to the measurements reported in Fig. 4 

and a fabrication run carried out using the ion mill patterning steps and electroplating. This SEM 

shows that although the switches being probed appeared to be released in the region between the 

electrical contacts, as indicating by slight bending in the upward and downward directions in the 

hinge regions designed to bend in those directions, the rightmost contacts were anchored 

throughout the electrical measurements. This problem and its remedy are discussed in the next 

section. Still, we used these results as a quantitative method to verify that the sacrificial Si layer 

was removed and the switches were released, despite the fact that they were partially anchored in 

the wrong place. 
6

Fig. 5 SEM of a dry etched switch device corresponding to resistance 

measurements presented in Fig. 4.

2.2 Fabrication Challenges

Each fabrication run revealed problems that ultimately required both major and minor design 

changes for subsequent process runs. Sacrificial Si adhesion issues early on allowed us to 

determine that a 10-nm Ti adhesion layer was necessary prior to Si evaporation in the Evatec 

evaporator. Hinge anchoring after dry etching required an extension of the sacrificial Si layer 

through AutoCAD redesign and mask rewrites. Both of these are examples of minor process 

changes that we initiated throughout the switch development. More significant process changes 

implemented were described previously in Figs. 2 and 3, and included complete removal of some 

process steps such as ion milling and wet etching and replacing them with lift-off patterning. In 

the paragraphs that follow, we detail the process evolution that ensued from the discovery of 

design or fabrication challenges from each fabrication run.

Our initial process iterations involved a blanket metal evaporation of residually stressed Cr/Au 

films, followed by photoresist patterning and wet etching using dilute 4:1 deionized (DI)

water:CR-9 for Cr, and dilute 4:1 DI water:GE-8148 with KI surfactant for Au. Wet etching 

undercut the switch features, removing significant amounts of the thin films required to actuate 

the switches. Multi-step wet etching also showed poor selectivity, resulting in non-selective 

etching of the Au electrical contacts that were lifted off in the previous step. Figures 6 and 7

show optical microscope and SEM images of a switch after wet-etching, where wet etch 

undercutting and non-selective etching is apparent. The SEM image makes it very apparent that 

in the worst case, Au contacts can be etched away almost completely. The electroplated Au 

frames were also attacked at the edges from the wet etching.
7

Fig. 6 Switch after Cr/Au wet-etch process step. Wet etching undercut the switch features, 

removing significant amounts of the thin films required to actuate the switch. Wet 

etching also showed poor selectivity, resulting in etching of the Au electrical contacts 

that were lifted off in the previous step.

Fig. 7 SEM images of a wet-etched device after XeF2 dry etch, (left) Au frame is attacked from wet etch at 

sidewalls and the Au contact is mostly etched away; (right) side view, unclear whether Si is completely 

undercut from the dry etch

After demonstrating that wet etching was not a suitable process step, we investigated ion milling 

as an alternative for patterning the switch features. Therefore, in successive process iterations,

we patterned the Cr and Au films through ion milling using the 4-wave 4W-PSIBE Ion Beam 

Etch System. Figure 8 shows an SEM of a switch patterned by ion milling. The ion milling step 

was superior to wet etching in several ways: 1) switch feature undercutting was not observed, 

2) the Au contacts were left intact, and 3) a precise switch geometry remained after the milling. 

After we were able to achieve successful patterning of the switch features through ion milling, 

the next process step was patterning and electroplating Au frames. For this, we included an 

electroplate step in which a rigid Au frame between 0.25 and 4 μm thick was patterned between 

the hinges. 

Ti Au
8

Fig. 8 SEM of switch patterned by ion milling, showing cleaner sidewalls and a well-defined switch 

geometry. Au contact lines are still intact, further demonstrating that ion milling is superior to wet 

etching. Right: switch folding after dry etch release.

Figure 9 shows another processing challenge that we encountered. Here, test cantilevers designed 

to release upward after a dry etch were only partially released along the topmost edge. We 

determined that the second PVD evaporated layer overshot the first due to registration error, 

causing the cantilever to be partially anchored along this top edge. This required us to make an 

AutoCAD and mask design revision reducing the dimension of the second PVD step so that it 

did not overlap the underlying structure even with some level of error in registration between 

layers. 

Fig. 9 Array of test cantilevers on Au contacts after dry etch release showing uniform folding 

upwards; the top edge appears to be anchored to the substrate, which necessitated a mask 

rewrite after reducing dimensions of the second PVD step
9

Another fabrication challenge was thin-film hinge shearing at the contact edge due to an abrupt 

sacrificial Si layer edge. Figure 10 shows an example of a test switch that was sheared upon dry 

etch release. Figure 11 shows that this shearing is not observed when Au contacts are not 

patterned directly beneath the switch for an array of test structures without such Au contacts

since there is no longer an abrupt step height in this case. Figure 11a shows an SEM array of 

60-μm cantilevers with uniform release corresponding to a metal stack of 10/120/50/10 nm 

Cr/Au/Cr/Au. Figure 11b shows uniform dry etch release of 40-μm cantilevers with Au 

electroplated on the end. The inset shows a magnified view representing the array of released 

switches without Au contact underneath. Figure 11c shows released SEM array of test devices 

without the Au contact underneath. The inset shows a higher magnification view representative 

of the test structure array. Figure 11d shows a single dry etch released test device exhibiting the 

desired folding for our residually stressed switch from the ion milling and electroplating process.

Figure 12 shows a full switch that sheared upon dry etch release from the electroplating and ion 

milling process. To attempt to overcome this shearing issue, we reduced the Au contact thickness

from 200 to 100 nm, and increased the sacrificial layer thickness to 400 nm in order to smooth 

out the step height profile. We also introduced quality checks to ensure that resist is developed in 

these regions. 

Fig. 10 Problems encountered during the lift-off process run; underdeveloped resist causing the switch to be 

anchored (left), thin-film shearing at the contact edge (right), and thin-film edge anchoring (right). 

Geometry design changes were made to correct for these issues in subsequent process runs.
10

Fig. 11 SEM array of dry etch released cantilevers and test structures minus the Au contact line showing that 

hinges do not shear without the Au contact underneath. a) 60-μm released cantilevers of 10/120/50/10 nm 

Cr/Au/Cr/Au, b) 40-μm released cantilevers with 0.25-μm electroplated Au, c) and d) dry etch released 

test switches without a contact line underneath. 

Fig. 12 Switch after dry etching for 60 cycles. The thin film has sheared at the Au contact edge. Future process 

runs include a combination of thinner contacts, and a thicker sacrificial Si layer to reduce the abrupt step 

height at the contact edge to combat this issue.
11

We eventually realized that the electroplated rigid segments between hinges may not be 

essential, and therefore, we did not need Au electroplate steps in subsequent process iterations. 

Without Au electroplating, the evaporation of a base Au layer also became unnecessary. Without 

this requirement, we determined that lift-off could then be used for all patterning steps in 

microfabricating the switch. The latest switch process as depicted in Fig. 3 was much simpler to 

fabricate, resulting in quicker fabrication turnaround while eliminating steps prone to causing 

issues. Figure 13 shows a fabricated switch patterned using only lift-off following the process 

depicted in Fig. 3, although the shearing problem was still evident. For this particular fabrication 

run we reverted to thinner hinges to obtain better folding. Hinges here were 190 nm thick in the

fold-up hinge. The Au contacts were 120 nm and Si was 400 nm. As a result of a reduction in 

film thickness, we run into the shearing problem again. 

A good result with the devices in Fig. 13 was that hinge folding angles were relatively close to 

those predicted by the model. For a hinge length of 20 μm for this particular film stack, a 25°

fold-up angle is predicted by the model. In reality, the actual fold appears to be 45°, which is 

somewhat near the prediction. The predicted fold down for a 20-μm hinge is 35°, which is also 

somewhat near the actual fold down of 45° here. One key model input over which we have less 

control is the actual film residual stress, which may account for some of the discrepancy here. 

However, it does appear that the switch needs a larger folding radius in the fold-down ankle 

region in order to make contact with the line out. This will be addressed in future process 

iterations.

Fig. 13 Switch patterned using only lift-off after dry etch release

Figure 14 shows released Cr/Au cantilevers from the lift-off only process, corresponding to a 

fabrication run using the 10/120/50/10 nm Cr/Au/Cr/Au deposition sequence reported above. 

Cantilevers of 10, 30, and 60 μm are shown, demonstrating folding angles of 20°, 90°, and 180°, 

respectively, where the 60-μm cantilevers have curled back on themselves. This is in comparison 

to the model, which predicts folding angles of 20°, 40°, and 60° for the Cr/Au/Cr/Au stack of 

10/120/50/10 nm and given hinge lengths. Therefore, we see good agreement between the 
12

predicted fold and actual fold for this particular stack for hinges that are 20 μm or less. The 

agreement becomes considerably worse for hinges longer than 20 μm, with actual cantilevers 

folding more than predicted by the model. However, since we obtain practical folding angles 

with just 10–20 μm hinge lengths, there is no requirement for hinges longer than this; especially 

since these longer hinges have been shown to curl back onto themselves.

Fig. 14 SEM of released Cr/Au/Cr/Au cantilevers from the lift-off only fabrication run. Cantilever lengths of 

a) 10 μm, b) 30 μm, and c) 60 μm.

Figure 15 shows SEM images for fully released switches from the lift-off only process. Here, we 

were able to demonstrate both fold-up and fold-down joints, as well as a full switch with 

complete release. The fold-up stack for these devices is 10/120/50/10 nm Cr/Au/Cr/Au 

corresponding to a thin-film thickness of about 200 nm. For this process run, Au contacts were 

reduced from 200 nm to 100 nm and the sacrificial Si layer was 400 nm from the previous runs. 

This adjustment appears to have smoothed out the contact edge enough to allow for complete 

release of the switch. However, the fully released switch does not make contact with the line out. 

This switch’s 15-μm fold-up hinge creates more than enough clearance, but the 15-μm folddown hinge does not provide enough folding to contact the line out. A longer fold-down joint or 

a shorter fold-up joint is likely necessary in order to close the switch. Future process runs will 

include fold-down hinges longer than 15 μm to obtain a larger folding radius or shorter fold-up 

hinges. 

We also observe that when folded, switches from the lift-off only process exhibit some degree of 

twisting. Twisted switches were not observed for the electroplated switches, since the rigid frame 

only allowed the hinges to bend in one direction. In order to address the switch twisting in future 

process runs, we will evaporate thicker rigid Au frames in place of the electroplating step and 

pattern them with lift-off. We will also investigate different switch widths to help ensure that the 

boundary condition along the fixed edge constrains bending in one direction, rather than 

allowing bending in multiple directions as shown. These improvements should result in switches 

that fold more characteristically like those in Fig. 12, as desired.
13

Fig. 15 SEM of fully released switches from the lift-off only process, demonstrating fold-up and fold-down 

joints

3. Conclusions

We have reported on the evolution of roughly 10 fabrication runs for a residually stressed 

MEMS switch using standard microfabrication methods, which collectively involved the 

processing of 26 wafers. We discovered process steps that had detrimental effects to the switch’s 

operation and have implemented design changes to account for factors affecting the switch’s 

operation. We have taken an initially rather complex, process-intensive design involving six 

photo masks, lift-off, electroplating, and ion milling and reduced it to a process requiring only 

five photo masks and lift-off as the only patterning method. Through a more simplistic 

fabrication approach, we reduce the amount of issue-laden processing steps and ultimately 

demonstrate a fully released switch with folding in reasonable agreement to a thin-film bending 

model. 

We will continue development on the switch and ultimately plan to demonstrate optical 

actuation. Upon successful demonstration of optical actuation of our thin-film, residually 

stressed MEMS switch, we also plan to demonstrate wavelength specific actuation by using 

photo-selective photoresists from Fujifilm. Thus, the choice of resist will determine the 

wavelength selectivity and sensitivity to illumination levels of the switch. Simultaneous efforts 

will involve the development of a thin-film SMA co-sputtering process, which will be used as a 

switch biasing mechanism to demonstrate reversible actuation of our MEMS switch.
14

4. References

1. Randhawa JS, Leong TG, Bassik N, Benson BR, Jochmans M. Pick-and-place using 

chemically actuated microgrippers. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008;130(51):17238–17239. 

2. Morris CJ, Laflin KE, Churaman WA, Becker CR, Currano LJ, Gracias DH. Initiation of 

nanoporous energetic silicon by optically-triggered, residual stress powered microactuators.

in Proc. 25th IEEE International Conference on MEMS, Paris, France, 2012. 

3. Laflin K, Morris CJ, Bassik N, Jamal M, Gracias DH. Tetherless microgrippers with 

transponder tags. J. Microelectromechanical Sys. 2011;20(2):505–511. 

4. Bell DJ, Lu TJ, Fleck NA, Spearing SM. MEMS actuators and sensors: observations on their 

performance and selection for purpose. J. MicroMech. Microeng. 2005;7(15):S153. 

5. Hawkes E, An B, Benbernou NM, Tanaka H, Kim S, Demaine ED, Rus D. Programmable 

matter by folding. 2010;107(28):12441–12445. 

6. Butefisch S, Seidemann V, Buttgenbach S. Novel micro-pneumatic Actuator for MEMS.

Sens. Actuators A. 2002;97-98:638-645. 

7. Hubschman J, Bourges JL, Choi W, Mozayan A, Tsirbas A, Kim CJ, Schwartz SD. A new 

concept of micro-forcepts for ocular robotic surgery. 2009;24:364. 

8. Ninomiya T, Okayama Y, Matsumoto Y, Arouette X, Osawa K, Miki N. MEMS-based 

hydraulic displacement amplification mechanism with completely encapsulated liquid.

2011;166(2):277–282. 

9. Ahir SV, Squires AM, Tajbakhsh AR, Terentjev EM. Infrared actuation in aligned polymernanotube composites. 2006;73:085420. 

10. Yang L, Setyawati K, Li A, Gong S, Chen J. Reversible infrared actuation of carbon 

nanotube-liquid crystalline elastomer nanocomposites. Adv. Mater. 2008;20(12):2271–2275. 

11. Lu S, Panchapakesan B. Nanotube micro-optomechanical actuators. Appl. Phys. Lett. 

2006;88(25):253107.

12. Ikeda T, Nakano M, Yu Y, Tsutsumi O, Kanazawa A. Anisotropic bending and unbending 

behavior of azobenzene liquid-crystalline gels by light exposure. Avd. Mater.

2003;15(3):201–205.

13. Yu Y, Nakano M, Ikeda T. Directed bending of a polymer film by light. Nature. 

2003;425:145. 
15

14. Ikeda T, Mimiya J, Yu Y. Photomechanics of liquid-crystalline elastomers and other 

polymers. Ang. Chem. Int. Ed. 2007;46(4):506–528. 

15. Liu Y, Boyles J, Genzer J, Dickey MD. Self-folding of polymer sheets using local light 

absorption. Soft Matter. 2012;8:1764–1769. 

16. Birnbaum AJ, Pique A. Laser Induced extraplanar propulsion for three-dimensional 

microfabrication. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2011;98(13):134101. 

17. Pique A, Mathews S, Birnbaum A, Charipar N. Microfabricating 3D structures by laser 

origami. SPIE Newsroom, Nov 2011. 

18. Laflin K, Morris CJ, Muqeem T, Gracias DH. Laser triggered sequential folding of

microstructures. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2012;101:131901. 

19. Fu Y, Du H, Huang W, Zhang S, Hu M. TiNi-based thin films in MEMS applications: a 

review. Sens. Actuators A. 2004;112(2–3):395. 

20. Gill J, Ho K, Carman G. Three-dimensional thin-film shape memory alloy microactuator 

with two-way effect. J. Microelectromech. Sys. 2002;11:68–77.

21. Laflin KE, Morris CJ, Muqeem T, Gracias DH. Laser triggered sequential folding of 

microstructures. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2012;101(131901):4.

22. Morris CJ. Modeling optical absorption for heat-induced actuation of single-use 

microgrippers. Adelphi (MD): US Army Research Laboratory (US); July 2012. Report No.:

ARL-TR-6063.

23. Leong TG, Randall CL, Benson BR, Bassik NG, Stern M, Gracias DH. Proc. Natl. Acad. 

Sci. USA. 2009;106:703.

24. Nikishkov CP. J. Appl. Phys. 2003;94:5333.
16

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
17

Appendix A. Process Sheet for Lift-Off Only Process (Wafers # 25, 26)
18

Passivate Backside

1. Acquire SSP wafers

2. VLR, PM2_ARL_SiN_ 1000A_Silane (806s) or 790

Frontside Passivation Layer

3. Deposit 200 nm SiO2

(note tool, process details)

Make sure top side (without nitride) is facing up from this point forward 

Contacts 

4. Photo 1 “Au contact v11”

a. EVG 5214 2 μm recipe (Rev)

b. MA-6 Hard Contact, 20 μm gap, align to wafer

_______ s exposure

c. Post-Exposure Bake

d. Flood expose _____ s

e. Develop _______ min:s

f. Rinse 

Make sure thin contact lines are fully developed out at this point (left contact on each device)

5. Metroline O2 descum 2 min

6. Evatec/CHA (circle tool used)

a. Ti, 200 Å ______Å/s

b. Au 1000 Å ______Å/s

7. Lift off

a. acetone with light sonication 

b. Rinse with methanol/water

Sacrificial Si

8. Photo 2 “Sac Si v11_rev1”

a. EVG 5214 2 μm recipe (Rev)

b. MA-6 Hard Contact, 20 μm gap, align to “3”

_______ s exposure

c. Post-Exposure Bake

d. Flood expose _____ s

e. Develop _______ min:s

f. Rinse 

g. Metroline O2 descum 2 min

8. Evatec Evaporator

a. 100 Å Ti

b. 4000 Å Si @ 2 Å/s

(Collin Becker’s recipe should be on there)

9. Lift off

a. acetone with light sonication 

b. Rinse with methanol/water

Evaporate stress layers

10. Photo “Mill v11” 

a. EVG 5214 2 μm recipe (Rev)

b. MA-6 Hard Contact, 20 μm gap, align to “6”

_______ s exposure
19

c. Post-Exposure Bake

d. Flood expose _____ s

e. Develop _______ min:s

f. Rinse 

11. Metroline O2 Descum 2-3 min

12. PVD evaporator (fold-down layer)

a. Cr, 100 Å @ 2 Å/s, 30% PWR

b. Au, 1200 Å @ 4 Å/s

c. Pump to at least 5e-6 Torr, and evaporate Au from source #4.

13. Lift-off

a. Acetone + light sonication

b. Methanol/water rinse

14. Photo 3 ”Fold Up v11”

a. EVG 5214 2 um recipe 

b. MA-hard contact, 20 μm gap, align to “4”

c. ____s expose

d. Develop_____s

e. Rinse

f. Metroline O2 descum 2 min

15. PVD evaporator (fold-up layer)

a. 500 Å Cr @ 2 Å/s, 30% PWR

b. 100 Å Au @ 4 Å/s

16. Lift-off

a. Acetone + light sonication

b. Methanol/water rinse

Release

17. Mount wafer fragment on dicing tape to protect backside

18. Anatec asher CF4 etch to remove native silicon oxide (~15 s?)

19. XeF2, Process – STD_2t_20t_20s, 20+ cycles. Need to undercut ~20 μm

20. SEM inspection
20

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
21

Appendix B. Process Sheet for Ion Mill and Electroplating Process
22

Passivate Backside

1. Acquire SSP wafers

2. VLR, PM2_ARL_SiN_ 1000 A _Silane (806s) or 790

Frontside Passivation Layer

3. Deposit 200 nm SiO2 (note tool, process details)

Make sure top side (without nitride) is facing up from this point forward 

Contacts 

4. Photo 1 “Au contact v11”

a. EVG 5214 2 μm recipe (Rev)

b. MA-6 Hard Contact, 20 μm gap, align to wafer

_______ s exposure

c. Post-Exposure Bake

d. Flood expose _____ s

e. Develop _______ min:s

f. Rinse 

Make sure thin contact lines are fully developed out at this point (left contact on each device)

5. Metroline O2 descum 2 min

6. Evatec/CHA (circle tool used)

a. Ti, 200 Å ______Å/s

b. Au 1000 Å ______ Å/s

7. Lift off

a. acetone with light sonication 

b. Rinse with methanol/water

Sacrificial Si

8. Photo 2 “Sac Si v11_rev1”

a. EVG 5214 2 μm recipe (Rev)

b. MA-6 Hard Contact, 20 μm gap, align to “3”

_______ s exposure

c. Post-Exposure Bake

d. Flood expose _____ s

e. Develop _______ min:s

f. Rinse 

g. Metroline O2 descum 2 min

9. Evatec Evaporator

a. 100 Å Ti

b. 4000 Å Si @ 2 Å/s

10. Lift off

a. acetone with light sonication 

b. Rinse with methanol/water

Evaporate stress layers

11. Photo “Mill v11” 

a. EVG 5214 2 μm recipe (Rev)

b. MA-6 Hard Contact, 20 μm gap, align to “6”

_______ s exposure

c. Post-Exposure Bake

d. Flood expose _____ s
23

e. Develop _______ min:s

f. Rinse 

12. Metroline O2 Descum 2-3 min

13. PVD evaporator (fold-down layer)

a. Cr, 100 Å @ 2 Å/s, 30% PWR

b. Au, 1200 Å @ 4 Å/s

c. Pump to at least 5e-6 Torr, and evaporate Au from source #4.

14. Lift-off

a. Acetone + light sonication

b. Methanol/water rinse

15. Photo 3 ”Fold Up v11”

a. EVG 5214 2 μm recipe 

b. MA-hard contact, 20um

gap, align to “4”

c. ____s expose

d. Develop_____sec

e. Rinse

f. Metroline O2 descum 2 min

16. PVD evaporator (fold-up layer)

a. 500 Å Cr @ 2 Å/s, 30% PWR

b. 100 Å Au @ 4 Å/s

17. Lift-off

a. Acetone + light sonication

b. Methanol/water rinse

Release

18. Mount wafer fragment on dicing tape to protect backside

19. Anatec asher CF4 etch to remove native silicon oxide (~15 s?)

20. XeF2, Process – STD_2t_20t_20s, 20+ cycles. Need to undercut ~20 um

21. SEM inspection
24

List of Symbols, Abbreviations, and Acronyms

Au gold

Cr chromium

DI deionized 

MEMS microelectromechanical system 

PVD physical vapor deposition 

SEM scanning electron microscopy

Si silicon

TiNi titanium nickel 

XeF2 xenon difluoride 
25

1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL

(PDF) INFORMATION CTR

DTIC OCA

2 DIRECTOR

(PDF) US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

RDRL CIO LL

IMAL HRA

1 GOVT PRNTG OFC

(PDF) A MALHOTRA

2 DIRECTOR

(PDF) US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

RDRL SES L

CORY R KNICK 

CHRISTOPHER J MORRIS
26

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.