Table 6.

Comparison of different designs

Property	FD	ID	OD	CD	ZD	IFI (%)	IFD (%)	IFC (%)	IFZ (%)
Output displacement (μm)	1.01	0.149	0.412	0.273	0.300	578	145	270	237
Sensing mode (kHz)	0.705	1.624	0.943	0.952	1.007	−57	−25	−26	−30
SBWP	0.712	0.245	0.389	0.260	0.302	191	83	174	136
Chip size (mm2)	39.3	39.3	39.3	39.3	39.3	0	0	0	0
Spurious mode (Hz)	0.852	1.807	1.108	3.754	1.159	−53	−23	−77	−26
fsu/fse	1.208	1.113	1.174	3.943	1.151	9	3	−69	5
FOM	0.860	0.273	0.457	1.025	0.348	215	88	−16	147
Proof mass displacement (μm)	0.096	0.009	0.014	0.273	0.010	967	586	−65	860
Amplification ratio	10.5	16.5	29.4	1.0	30.0	−36	−64	950	−65
Proof mass (mg)	2.125	2.125	2.125	1.858	1.205	0	0	14	76

FD optimal freeform design, ID initial design given to the optimization process, OD optimal orthogonal design, CD conventional MEMS accelerometer design²⁶ scaled up to the same chip size as ZD: Zeimpekis et al. design²⁰ scaled down to the same chip size as FD

IFI = (FD − ID)/ID; IFD = (FD − OD)/OD; IFC = (FD − CD)/CD; IFZ = (FD − ZD)/ZD