An In-Situ Technique for Measuring the Individual Contact Resistance between the Pins of an IC Package and the Board of a Flexible Hybrid Electronic System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An in-situ technique is presented for measuring the individual contact resistance between the pins of an IC package and a flexible substrate used in hybrid electronic systems. As the substrate flexes, the forces that adhere the IC to the substrate change and cause increase to the series contact resistance; sometimes catastrophically. Tracking this resistance is seen to be fundamental to the success of electronic systems mounted on a flexible substrate subjected to various levels of bending throughout its life cycle. The measurement technique exploits the electrostatic discharge protection circuitry in an IC chip to create a circuit loop involving the contact resistance and the series incremental resistance of the ESD circuit via two IC pins, one being the GND or VDD pin. While the series contact resistance between the pins of the IC package and the board can be measured with a four-point Kelvin measurement, it is extremely difficult to perform with small surface-mount IC package devices. The experimental results pertaining to Kapton polyimide substrate subjected to a controlled bending process will be described. The method proposed here will determine the contact resistance with a relative accuracy error of less than 1%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".