A Comparative Analysis of Capacitive Based Flexible Pressure Sensors
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Comparative Analysis of Capacitive Based Flexible Pressure Sensors Julia Pignanelli1, Dr. Simon Rondeau-Gagne2 and Dr. Jalal Ahamed3 Department of Biology, University of Windsor Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, University of Windsor Mechanical, Automotive and Materials Engineering Department, University of Windsor This paper presents the material characterization of a flexible polymer for potential biomedical pressure sensing applications. The emergence of flexible, capacitive based pressure sensors with similar tactile sensing properties as human skin are highly desirable in many applications such as continuous cardiovascular monitoring, electronic skin and rehabilitation technologies [2,3]. Most of these sensors require high sensitivity, fast response time, flexibility and low cost. Due to flexible and foldable nature of the sensor, it can be integrated to artificial skin or imposed on the body surface. Among different sensing technologies, one promising method is through the use of micro-structured, flexible, dielectric polymers, for example PDMS (Polydimethylsiloxane). Micro-structures increase the sensitivity of the device. Current methods for constructing micro-patterns into the PDMS requires expensive and labor intensive methods such as photolithographic techniques and chemical etching, which lack low-cost and large-area compatible alternatives. The objective of this work is to construct and characterize a flexible capacitor pressure sensing device by using a simple, cost effective method of PDMS microstructuring as described by previously by Grzybowki et al. [1]. The PDMS was prepared by mixing 20 parts elastomer and 1 part curing agent. The rough structured PDMS is prepared by simply curing the polymer within an epoxy mold that incorporates a micro – pattern like design found within a commercially available tape [1]. The sample was placed in a vacuum for one hour at room temperature and then cured for another 24 hours at room temperature. Flexibility of the sensors is a key parameter related to sensor sensitivity. Flexibility can be measured by measuring the modulus of elasticity. Our test reveals the rough structured 20:1 PDMS modulus to be 1.29 MPa whereas the non-structured 20:1 PDMS modulus was found to be 2.90 MPa. The difference in moduli was not determined to be significant as expected since the structures are not changing the material property of PDMS. Through characterization and preparation of rough structured capacitive based PDMS pressure sensors, we hope to produce a capacitive sensing device with excellent detection sensitivity at a low cost and with a simple method of production. Refrences: Grzybowski, B., Qin, D., Haag, R., & Whitesides, G. (2000). Elastomeric optical elements with deformable surface topographies: applications to force measurements, tunable light transmission and light focusing. Sensors And Actuators A: Physical, 86(1-2), 81-85. Boutry, C., Nguyen, A., Lawal, Q., Chortos, A., Rondeau-Gagné, S., & Bao, Z. (2015). A Sensitive and Biodegradable Pressure Sensor Array for Cardiovascular Monitoring. Advanced Materials, 27(43), 6954-6961. Mannsfeld, S., Tee, B., Sltengerg, R, Chen, C.,,, Barman, S., Muir, B., Sokiloy, A., Reese, C. and Bao, Z. (2010). Highly sensitive flexible pressure sensors with microstrucutred rubber dielectric layers. Nature Materials, 9(10), 859-864.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».