ReviewMicromachines2021
Reliability of MEMS in Shock Environments: 2000-2020.
Review in Micromachines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamic Self-Healing Polymer Architectures for High-Performance Flexible Sensing.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Review
- Reliability of MEMS inertial devices in mechanical and thermal environments: A review.Heliyon · 2024Review
- Design of a Shock-Protected Structure for MEMS Gyroscopes over a Full Temperature Range.Micromachines · 2024Article
- Experimental Investigation of Vibration Isolator for Large Aperture Electromagnetic MEMS Micromirror.Micromachines · 2023Article
- Design of a Biaxial High-G Piezoresistive Accelerometer with a Tension-Compression Structure.Micromachines · 2023Article
- Mechanical Response of MEMS Suspended Inductors under Shock Using the Transfer Matrix Method.Micromachines · 2023Article
- MEMS Reliability: On-Chip Testing for the Characterization of the Out-of-Plane Polysilicon Strength.Micromachines · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reliability of MEMS in shock environments is a complex area which involves structural dynamics, fracture mechanics, and system reliability theory etc. With growth in the use of MEMS in automotive, IoT, aerospace and other harsh environments, there is a need for an in-depth understanding of the reliability of MEMS in shock environments. Despite the contributions of many articles that have overviewed the reliability of MEMS panoramically, a review paper that specifically focuses on the reliability research of MEMS in shock environments is, to date, absent. This paper reviews studies which examine the reliability of MEMS in shock environments from 2000 to 2020 in six sub-areas, which are: (i) response model of microstructure, (ii) shock experimental progresses, (iii) shock resistant microstructures, (iv) reliability quantification models of microstructure, (v) electronics-system-level reliability, and (vi) the coupling phenomenon of shock with other factors. This paper fills the gap around overviews of MEMS reliability in shock environments. Through the framework of these six sub-areas, we propose some directions potentially worthy of attention for future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.