A Comparison of 90° Bending for Foldable Electronics

In order to assess the longevity of foldable electronics, folding or bending tests on model systems need to be performed. However, not all bending tests are created equal in that different configurations lead to different amounts of mechanical damage and thus different electrical responses. Two 90°...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Coatings (Basel) 2024-01, Vol.14 (1), p.98
Hauptverfasser: Cordill, Megan J., Kreiml, Patrice, Köstenbauer, Harald, Mitterer, Christian
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 1
container_start_page 98
container_title Coatings (Basel)
container_volume 14
creator Cordill, Megan J.
Kreiml, Patrice
Köstenbauer, Harald
Mitterer, Christian
description In order to assess the longevity of foldable electronics, folding or bending tests on model systems need to be performed. However, not all bending tests are created equal in that different configurations lead to different amounts of mechanical damage and thus different electrical responses. Two 90° bending instruments were compared using two model metallic thin film systems on polyimide to establish if the two seemingly similar bending tests yield the same results. The two film systems, namely 300 nm Mo and 130 nm Al on 50 nm Mo, were magnetron-sputtered on polyimide substrates and tested in the custom-built FLEX-E-TEST and the commercially available YUASA test that is capable of in situ resistance measurements. For statistics, 10–12 samples were tested of each film system on each folding device using the same applied bending strain and number of cycles. Samples were intermittently characterized with confocal laser scanning microscopy and electrical resistance to correlate the amount of mechanical damage (crack density) with the electrical normalized resistance ratio of the damaged area. The results show that even with the same bending radius, a similar but not identical amount of mechanical damage forms for both bending devices. Additionally, the resistance as a function of cycles also differs after 10,000 cycles. A closer examination of the damage, especially in the Al/Mo film system, indicates that the speed of the bending, and if the samples experience spring back, can alter the received mechanical damage. The in situ resistance data of the YUASA test were further examined and a suggestion of standardizing how folding or bending test results are reported is provided.
doi_str_mv 10.3390/coatings14010098
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2918570133</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A780873744</galeid><sourcerecordid>A780873744</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-ae40a06a5a53c6eeac5a979becc54507253d14f80adc3127cef61b873dfca0703</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkMFKAzEQhoMoWGrvHgOet042yWZzrKVVoeBFz2GaTUrKdlOT7cG38hl8MiP1IM4cZhj-_xv4CbllMOdcw72NOIZhl5kABqDbCzKpQemqEay-_LNfk1nOeyilGW-ZnhC5oMt4OGIKOQ40eqrh65M-uKErPOpjouvYd7jtHV31zo4pDsHmG3Llsc9u9jun5G29el0-VZuXx-flYlNZLuuxQicAoUGJktvGObQStdJbZ60UElQteceEbwE7y1mtrPMN27aKd94iKOBTcnfmHlN8P7k8mn08paG8NLVmrVTAOC-q-Vm1w96ZMPg4JrSlO3cINg7Oh3JfqBYKWglRDHA22BRzTs6bYwoHTB-GgfkJ1PwPlH8DRAhpTQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2918570133</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Comparison of 90° Bending for Foldable Electronics</title><source>MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Cordill, Megan J. ; Kreiml, Patrice ; Köstenbauer, Harald ; Mitterer, Christian</creator><creatorcontrib>Cordill, Megan J. ; Kreiml, Patrice ; Köstenbauer, Harald ; Mitterer, Christian</creatorcontrib><description>In order to assess the longevity of foldable electronics, folding or bending tests on model systems need to be performed. However, not all bending tests are created equal in that different configurations lead to different amounts of mechanical damage and thus different electrical responses. Two 90° bending instruments were compared using two model metallic thin film systems on polyimide to establish if the two seemingly similar bending tests yield the same results. The two film systems, namely 300 nm Mo and 130 nm Al on 50 nm Mo, were magnetron-sputtered on polyimide substrates and tested in the custom-built FLEX-E-TEST and the commercially available YUASA test that is capable of in situ resistance measurements. For statistics, 10–12 samples were tested of each film system on each folding device using the same applied bending strain and number of cycles. Samples were intermittently characterized with confocal laser scanning microscopy and electrical resistance to correlate the amount of mechanical damage (crack density) with the electrical normalized resistance ratio of the damaged area. The results show that even with the same bending radius, a similar but not identical amount of mechanical damage forms for both bending devices. Additionally, the resistance as a function of cycles also differs after 10,000 cycles. A closer examination of the damage, especially in the Al/Mo film system, indicates that the speed of the bending, and if the samples experience spring back, can alter the received mechanical damage. The in situ resistance data of the YUASA test were further examined and a suggestion of standardizing how folding or bending test results are reported is provided.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2079-6412</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2079-6412</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/coatings14010098</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Bend radius ; Bend tests ; Bending ; Bending machines ; Composition ; Consumer electronics ; Cracks ; Damage ; Dielectric films ; Electrical resistance ; Electronics ; Folding ; Innovations ; Mechanical properties ; Model testing ; Molybdenum ; Polyimides ; Scanning microscopy ; Statistical analysis ; Substrates ; Thin films</subject><ispartof>Coatings (Basel), 2024-01, Vol.14 (1), p.98</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2024 MDPI AG</rights><rights>2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-ae40a06a5a53c6eeac5a979becc54507253d14f80adc3127cef61b873dfca0703</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-ae40a06a5a53c6eeac5a979becc54507253d14f80adc3127cef61b873dfca0703</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7768-7926 ; 0000-0003-1142-8312</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cordill, Megan J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kreiml, Patrice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Köstenbauer, Harald</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitterer, Christian</creatorcontrib><title>A Comparison of 90° Bending for Foldable Electronics</title><title>Coatings (Basel)</title><description>In order to assess the longevity of foldable electronics, folding or bending tests on model systems need to be performed. However, not all bending tests are created equal in that different configurations lead to different amounts of mechanical damage and thus different electrical responses. Two 90° bending instruments were compared using two model metallic thin film systems on polyimide to establish if the two seemingly similar bending tests yield the same results. The two film systems, namely 300 nm Mo and 130 nm Al on 50 nm Mo, were magnetron-sputtered on polyimide substrates and tested in the custom-built FLEX-E-TEST and the commercially available YUASA test that is capable of in situ resistance measurements. For statistics, 10–12 samples were tested of each film system on each folding device using the same applied bending strain and number of cycles. Samples were intermittently characterized with confocal laser scanning microscopy and electrical resistance to correlate the amount of mechanical damage (crack density) with the electrical normalized resistance ratio of the damaged area. The results show that even with the same bending radius, a similar but not identical amount of mechanical damage forms for both bending devices. Additionally, the resistance as a function of cycles also differs after 10,000 cycles. A closer examination of the damage, especially in the Al/Mo film system, indicates that the speed of the bending, and if the samples experience spring back, can alter the received mechanical damage. The in situ resistance data of the YUASA test were further examined and a suggestion of standardizing how folding or bending test results are reported is provided.</description><subject>Bend radius</subject><subject>Bend tests</subject><subject>Bending</subject><subject>Bending machines</subject><subject>Composition</subject><subject>Consumer electronics</subject><subject>Cracks</subject><subject>Damage</subject><subject>Dielectric films</subject><subject>Electrical resistance</subject><subject>Electronics</subject><subject>Folding</subject><subject>Innovations</subject><subject>Mechanical properties</subject><subject>Model testing</subject><subject>Molybdenum</subject><subject>Polyimides</subject><subject>Scanning microscopy</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Substrates</subject><subject>Thin films</subject><issn>2079-6412</issn><issn>2079-6412</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkMFKAzEQhoMoWGrvHgOet042yWZzrKVVoeBFz2GaTUrKdlOT7cG38hl8MiP1IM4cZhj-_xv4CbllMOdcw72NOIZhl5kABqDbCzKpQemqEay-_LNfk1nOeyilGW-ZnhC5oMt4OGIKOQ40eqrh65M-uKErPOpjouvYd7jtHV31zo4pDsHmG3Llsc9u9jun5G29el0-VZuXx-flYlNZLuuxQicAoUGJktvGObQStdJbZ60UElQteceEbwE7y1mtrPMN27aKd94iKOBTcnfmHlN8P7k8mn08paG8NLVmrVTAOC-q-Vm1w96ZMPg4JrSlO3cINg7Oh3JfqBYKWglRDHA22BRzTs6bYwoHTB-GgfkJ1PwPlH8DRAhpTQ</recordid><startdate>20240101</startdate><enddate>20240101</enddate><creator>Cordill, Megan J.</creator><creator>Kreiml, Patrice</creator><creator>Köstenbauer, Harald</creator><creator>Mitterer, Christian</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7768-7926</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1142-8312</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240101</creationdate><title>A Comparison of 90° Bending for Foldable Electronics</title><author>Cordill, Megan J. ; Kreiml, Patrice ; Köstenbauer, Harald ; Mitterer, Christian</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-ae40a06a5a53c6eeac5a979becc54507253d14f80adc3127cef61b873dfca0703</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Bend radius</topic><topic>Bend tests</topic><topic>Bending</topic><topic>Bending machines</topic><topic>Composition</topic><topic>Consumer electronics</topic><topic>Cracks</topic><topic>Damage</topic><topic>Dielectric films</topic><topic>Electrical resistance</topic><topic>Electronics</topic><topic>Folding</topic><topic>Innovations</topic><topic>Mechanical properties</topic><topic>Model testing</topic><topic>Molybdenum</topic><topic>Polyimides</topic><topic>Scanning microscopy</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Substrates</topic><topic>Thin films</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cordill, Megan J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kreiml, Patrice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Köstenbauer, Harald</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitterer, Christian</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><jtitle>Coatings (Basel)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cordill, Megan J.</au><au>Kreiml, Patrice</au><au>Köstenbauer, Harald</au><au>Mitterer, Christian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Comparison of 90° Bending for Foldable Electronics</atitle><jtitle>Coatings (Basel)</jtitle><date>2024-01-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>98</spage><pages>98-</pages><issn>2079-6412</issn><eissn>2079-6412</eissn><abstract>In order to assess the longevity of foldable electronics, folding or bending tests on model systems need to be performed. However, not all bending tests are created equal in that different configurations lead to different amounts of mechanical damage and thus different electrical responses. Two 90° bending instruments were compared using two model metallic thin film systems on polyimide to establish if the two seemingly similar bending tests yield the same results. The two film systems, namely 300 nm Mo and 130 nm Al on 50 nm Mo, were magnetron-sputtered on polyimide substrates and tested in the custom-built FLEX-E-TEST and the commercially available YUASA test that is capable of in situ resistance measurements. For statistics, 10–12 samples were tested of each film system on each folding device using the same applied bending strain and number of cycles. Samples were intermittently characterized with confocal laser scanning microscopy and electrical resistance to correlate the amount of mechanical damage (crack density) with the electrical normalized resistance ratio of the damaged area. The results show that even with the same bending radius, a similar but not identical amount of mechanical damage forms for both bending devices. Additionally, the resistance as a function of cycles also differs after 10,000 cycles. A closer examination of the damage, especially in the Al/Mo film system, indicates that the speed of the bending, and if the samples experience spring back, can alter the received mechanical damage. The in situ resistance data of the YUASA test were further examined and a suggestion of standardizing how folding or bending test results are reported is provided.</abstract><cop>Basel</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><doi>10.3390/coatings14010098</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7768-7926</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1142-8312</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2079-6412
ispartof Coatings (Basel), 2024-01, Vol.14 (1), p.98
issn 2079-6412
2079-6412
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2918570133
source MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Bend radius
Bend tests
Bending
Bending machines
Composition
Consumer electronics
Cracks
Damage
Dielectric films
Electrical resistance
Electronics
Folding
Innovations
Mechanical properties
Model testing
Molybdenum
Polyimides
Scanning microscopy
Statistical analysis
Substrates
Thin films
title A Comparison of 90° Bending for Foldable Electronics
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T23%3A06%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Comparison%20of%2090%C2%B0%20Bending%20for%20Foldable%20Electronics&rft.jtitle=Coatings%20(Basel)&rft.au=Cordill,%20Megan%20J.&rft.date=2024-01-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=98&rft.pages=98-&rft.issn=2079-6412&rft.eissn=2079-6412&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/coatings14010098&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA780873744%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2918570133&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A780873744&rfr_iscdi=true