Alois Friedberger | Airbus: Additive Manufacturing Electronics (AME) promises rapid prototyping, but how do these 3D-printed circuits hold up in harsh aerospace environments?
15:31.665 - 16:57.285
Other snippets from this talk
Summary of the clip:
Additive Manufacturing Electronics (AME) promises rapid prototyping, but how do these 3D-printed circuits hold up in harsh aerospace environments?
This segment details the environmental reliability testing of Additively Manufactured Electronics (AME) intended for harsh aerospace use cases. The test samples, fabricated using a Nano Dimension Dragonfly system with printed silver conductors and dielectric, underwent fluid immersion for 14 days in kerosene, Skydrol, and anti-icing fluid. The core AME material system demonstrated excellent chemical stability, showing no optical degradation and maintaining electrical integrity, proving its potential for use in chemically aggressive environments.
Performance under thermal and climatic stress revealed a clear distinction based on the component assembly method. Standard Surface-Mount Devices (SMDs) that were soldered onto the printed pads proved to be very robust. They remained stable throughout temperature cycling from -55Ā°C to +85Ā°C and in damp heat aging conditions (70Ā°C at high humidity), passing all electrical tests.
However, a significant challenge was identified with the hybrid integration of bare silicon die. These chips, attached using an Anisotropic Conductive Adhesive (ACA), exhibited reliability issues and failures during both the temperature cycling and damp heat tests. This indicates that while the fundamental AME printed material system is highly promising, the process of integrating sensitive components like bare die via ACA requires further development to achieve the stability needed for demanding aerospace applications.
In this short video, you can learn:
* The chemical resistance of additively manufactured electronics (AME) to common aerospace fluids.
* The reliability difference between soldered SMDs and ACA-bonded bare die on AME substrates.
* Why the hybrid integration process, particularly adhesive choice for bare die, is a critical challenge for AME.
š **Clip Abstract** This clip details the environmental test results for 3D-printed electronics, revealing a promising chemical resistance for the core material system. However, a key challenge was identified in the hybrid integration, as ACA-bonded bare die showed failures under thermal and humidity stress, unlike their robust soldered SMD counterparts.
š Link in comments š
#AMEReliability, #PrintedElectronics, #ACABonding, #BareDieIntegration, #AdditiveElectronics, #3DElectronics
This is a highlight of the presentation:
3D printed and hybrid electronics durability under aeronautic conditions
More Highlights from the same talk.
06:01.985 - 08:32.725
Can flexible electronics survive a direct impact that destroys the underlying aircraft composite structure?
Can flexible electronics survive a direct impact that destroys the underlying aircraft composite structure?
Airbus conducted a series of demanding mechanical tests to evaluate the robustness of flexible electronics mounted on carbon-fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) plates, simulating real-world aircraft structures. The test setup involved both quasi-static and dynamic impacts. In the dynamic test, a weighted cylinder was dropped from heights of up to three meters to deliver impact energies ranging from 35 to 60 Joules, directly onto or near the electronic components.
The results were unexpectedly positive, demonstrating a remarkable level of durability. During quasi-static loading, the flexible electronics, located just three millimeters from the impact point, remained fully functional even after the underlying CFRP structure catastrophically failed at 12 kilonewtons. In the high-energy dynamic impact tests, most of the devices, including QFN and SMD packages, survived impacts of up to 60 Joules, significantly exceeding the typical requirements for such structures.
A counter-intuitive discovery was made regarding protective layers. While a rigid Glass-Fiber Reinforced Plastic (GFRP) layer provided excellent protection, a soft EPDM rubber damping layer, initially hypothesized to improve survivability, actually worsened the results. It is believed that the soft layer allowed for excessive local displacement during impact, leading to stress concentrations and subsequent failure of the electrical interconnections. For impact-prone applications, a rigid protective layer is therefore favored over a soft, damping one.
In this short video, you can learn:
* How Airbus tests the impact resistance of flexible electronics on composite structures.
* The surprising finding that a soft damping layer can be detrimental to impact survival.
* Why a rigid GFRP layer is the preferred protection method for this type of loading.
š **Clip Abstract** Airbus reveals the surprising durability of flexible electronics, which survived direct impacts that fractured the underlying composite aircraft structure. Counter-intuitively, a soft damping layer worsened performance, while a rigid GFRP layer proved to be the superior protection strategy.
š Link in comments š
#FlexibleElectronics, #ImpactDurability, #CompositeIntegration, #RigidProtection, #StructuralElectronics, #PrintedElectronics
10:31.425 - 11:54.325
Your flexible electronics survived mechanical stress, but can they withstand the chemical cocktail of an aircraft environment?
Your flexible electronics survived mechanical stress, but can they withstand the chemical cocktail of an aircraft environment?
To qualify flexible electronics for aeronautic applications, a comprehensive testing regime far beyond simple mechanical stress is required. Airbus subjected its test samples, which consisted of electronic components on a flexible TPU foil, to a full suite of environmental and operational challenges. This included tensile tests (static and dynamic), four-point bending, vibration tests, and aggressive temperature cycling to simulate the extreme conditions experienced during flight.
A critical part of the evaluation involved prolonged exposure to harsh chemicals and environmental factors unique to aviation. The samples were immersed for up to six weeks in key aeronautic fluids, including Skydrol (a phosphate-ester hydraulic fluid), kerosene (jet fuel), and various de-icing fluids. In parallel, other samples were placed in a UVB chamber for six weeks to assess their resistance to ultraviolet radiation degradation, a significant concern at high altitudes.
The overall results were very promising, with the electronics surviving most tests, but one critical material vulnerability was exposed. The Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU) used for the foil substrate and encapsulation was found to be completely dissolved by Skydrol. This highlights a crucial material incompatibility. To mitigate this, Airbus identified two viable solutions: either replacing TPU with a more chemically resistant polymer like Polyimide (Kapton), or protecting the existing TPU-based system with standard, Skydrol-resistant aircraft paint.
In this short video, you can learn:
* The wide range of mechanical, chemical, and environmental tests required for aerospace qualification.
* The critical vulnerability of TPU-based flexible electronics to Skydrol hydraulic fluid.
* Practical mitigation strategies, like material substitution or protective coatings, to overcome chemical compatibility issues.
š **Clip Abstract** Airbus presents a comprehensive overview of the harsh environmental testing required for aeronautics, from fluid immersion to UV exposure. A critical material vulnerability was discovered: the common flexible substrate TPU is dissolved by Skydrol hydraulic fluid, necessitating specific material selection or protection strategies.
š Link in comments š
#FlexibleElectronics, #TPUSubstrate, #SkydrolResistance, #AerospaceQualification, #PrintedElectronics, #AdditiveElectronics