Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of Microfluidic System Testability using Fault Simulation and Test Metrics

  • Published:
Journal of Electronic Testing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we introduce a Microfluidic Fault Simulator, MFS, which uses a novel method of fault modeling and injection, the Fault Block, a generic and low abstraction fault modeling technique. This technique has been utilized over a wide range of fault conditions, in this paper we present a trapped bubble condition. In conjunction with injecting fault conditions, we can apply test methods. Two methods proving sensitive to microfluidic faults are; impedance spectroscopy and Levich electro-chemical sensors, illustrated here by a diffusional “Y” channel mixing system case study. Data from the MFS is analyzed using a Neyman-Pearson probabilistic approach, providing information on each sensor’s test capability. Overall fault coverage for a given test is determined. This approach allows the analysis of fault coverage offered by functional-test orientated sensors to be compared to alternative approaches, which potentially offer increased coverage at lower cost.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Functional Sensors refers to the use of sensors which measure a functional parameter of the system, for example, flow. Therefore, Functional Test refers to the use of this parameter to gauge whether the system is fault-free or faulty.

  2. Workstation having XP Professional Service Pack 3, AMD Phenom Quad Core 2.2 GHz Processor, 3.25 GB RAM.

References

  1. Abderrahman A, Kaminska B, Cerny E (1996) Optimization-based multifrequency test generation for analog circuits. J Electron Test 9(1):59–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abderrahman A et al (2007) New analog test metrics based on probabilistic and deterministic combination approaches. In: Electronics, circuits and systems, 2007. ICECS 2007. 14th IEEE International Conference on. pp 82–85

  3. Ayliffe HE, Rabbit RD (2003) An electric impedance based microelectromechanical system flow sensor for ionic solutions. J Meas Sci Technol 14:1321–1327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Becker H (2009) Hype, hope and hubris: the quest for the killer application in microfluidics. Lab Chip 9:2119–2122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Becker H (2010) Mind the gap! Lab Chip 10:271–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bittanti S, Lovera M, Moiraghi L (1998) Assessment of Microfluidic System Testability using Fault Simulation and Test Metrics. IEEE Trans Semiconductor Manuf 11(2):296–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boy DA, Gibou F, Pennathur S (2008) Simulation tools for lab on a chip research: advantages, challenges, and thoughts for the future. Lab Chip 8(9):1424–1431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chatterjee AN, Aluru NR (2005) Combined circuit / device modelling and simulation of integrated microfluidic systems. J Microelectromechanical Syst 14(1):81–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Collins J, Lee AP (2004) Microfluidic flow transducer based on the measurement of electrical admittance. Lab Chip 4(1):7–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Compton RG et al (1993) Hydrodynamic voltammetry with microelectrodes: channel microband electrodes; theory and experiment. J Phys Chem 97(40):10410–10415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fei S, Ozev S, Chakrabarty K (2005) Ensuring the operational health of droplet-based microelectrofluidic biosensor systems. Sensors J IEEE 5(4):763–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gawad S, Schild L, Renaud P (2001) Micromachined impedance spectroscopy flow cytometer for cell analysis and particle sizing. Lab Chip 1(1):76–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ghafar-Zadeh E, Sawan M (2007) A hybrid microfluidic/CMOS capacitive sensor dedicated to lab-on-chip applications. IEEE Trans Biomed Circuits Syst 1(4):270–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hywel M et al (2007) Single cell dielectric spectroscopy. J Phys D Appl Phys 40(1):61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (2007) [cited 2008 November]; Test and Test Equipment: [Available from: http://www.itrs.net/]

  16. Karim A, Bozena K (1997) Parametric and catastrophic fault coverage of analog circuits in oscillation-test methodology. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE VLSI Test Symposium (VTS“97). IEEE Computer Society

  17. Kerkhoff HG (2007) Testing microelectronic biofluidic systems. IEEE Des Test 24(1):72–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kerkhoff HG, Zhang X (2009) Fault co-simulation for test evaluation of heterogeneous integrated biological systems. Microelectron J 40(7):1048–1053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kerkhoff HG et al (2005) Determining DfT hardware by VHDL-AMS fault simulation for biological micro-electronic fluidic arrays. In: ProRISC 2005, 16th Workshop on Circuits, Systems and Signal Processing. Veldhoven, pp 17–18 November 2005

  20. Kerkhoff HG et al (2005) VHDL-AMS fault simulation for testing DNA bio-sensing arrays. In: IEEE Sensors 2005. IEEE

  21. Kerkhoff HG et al (2006) Fault modelling and co-simulation in FlowFET-based biological array systems. In: Third IEEE International Workshop on Electronic Design, Test & Applications, DELTA, IEEE, Editor. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

  22. Khouas A, Derieux A (2000) Fault simulation for analog circuits under parameter variations. J Electron Test 16(3):269–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Khouas A, Derieux A (2001) FDP: fault detection probability function for analog circuits. In: IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems. pp 17–20

  24. Levich VG (1962) Physicochemical hydrodynamics. The physical and chemical engineering sciences, ed. P.-H. Inc.

  25. Liu Q et al (2009) Impedance studies of bio-behavior and chemosensitivity of cancer cells by micro-electrode arrays. Biosens Bioelectron 24(5):1305–1310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Milor LS (1998) A tutorial introduction to research on analog and mixed-signal circuit testing. Circ Syst II Analog Digit Signal Process IEEE Trans 45(10):1389–1407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Myers TO, Bell IM (2008) Fault modelling and test development for continuous flow microchemical sensor systems. In: Mixed-signals, sensors, and systems test workshop, 2008. IMS3TW 2008. IEEE 14th International, IEEE, Editor. IEEE: Vancouver, BC, pp 1–6

  28. Sapuppo F et al (2009) Microfluidic circuits and systems. In: IEEE circuits and systems magazine, pp 6–19

  29. Scott C (2004) The Neyman-Pearson criterion. [cited; Available from: http://cnx.org/content/m11548/1.2/]

  30. Singh H et al (2001) A Bayesian approach to reliability prediction and assessment of component based systems. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering. IEEE Computer Society

  31. Stratigopoulos H, Mir S, Bounceur A (2009) Evaluation of analog/RF test measurements at the design stage. IEEE Trans Comput Aided Des 28(4):p582–p590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sun Y et al (2007) Design, simulation and experiment of electroosmotic microfluidic chip for cell sorting. Sens Actuators A 133:340–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tao X, Chakrabarty K (2009) Fault modeling and functional test methods for digital microfluidic biochips. Biomed Circ Syst IEEE Trans 3(4):241–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Venuto DD, Laterza D (2007) Layout based fault list generation and fault simulation for DNA sensor arrays testing. In: International Mixed Signal Test Workshop. IEEE

  35. Walraven JA (2003) Future challenges for MEMS failure analysis. In: ITC International Test Conference. IEEE, pp 850–855

  36. Wu J, Chang H-C (2004) Micro-electrical impedance spectroscopy for particle detection. In: Second International Conference on Microchannels and Minichannels (ICMM 2004). Rochester, New York, ASME

  37. Zhang T, Chakrabarty K, Fair RB (2002) Integrated hierarchical design of microelectrofluidic systems using SystemC. Microelectron J 33(5–6):459–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang T, Chakrabarty K, Fair RB (2004) Behavioral modelling and performance evaluation of microelectrofluidics—based PCR systems using systemC. In: IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems

  39. Zjajo A, Gyvez JP, Gronthoud G (2006) Structural fault modeling and fault detection through Neyman-Pearson decision criteria for analog integrated circuits. J Electron Test 22(4–6):399–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the support given by colleagues in the Chemistry Department at the University of Hull, in particular Prof. Steve Haswell and Jane Woods.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering, University of Hull, Hull, UK

    Thomas O. Myers & Ian M. Bell

Authors
  1. Thomas O. Myers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ian M. Bell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas O. Myers.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: H. Stratigopoulos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Myers, T.O., Bell, I.M. Assessment of Microfluidic System Testability using Fault Simulation and Test Metrics. J Electron Test 27, 363–373 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10836-011-5202-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10836-011-5202-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation