Cotton Comprehensive Equilibrium Transport Model and the Algorithm Analysis

Sun, Lei; Sun, Benxiu; Li, Bingbing; Li, Zhengye; Zheng, Lihua

doi:10.1166/sl.2013.2879

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[ 119 ] After the formation, the mold is removed. Common 3D shapes molded for sensors include pyramid, [ 21,115,120,121 ] bump, [ 61,122 ] dome, [ 118,123 ] cone, [ 124 ] pillar, [ 125 ] needle, [ 126 ] and interlocking structures. [ 26,127 ] With these shapes, sensors display high sensitivity owing to easy deformation.…”

Section: Moldingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Adapted under the terms of the CC‐BY 4.0 Creative Commons Attribution License. [ 61 ] Copyright 2019, The Authors, published by Springer Nature. c) Interlocking‐shape tactile sensors: i) schematic and ii) temporal resistance response curves of the sensors under pressure, shear and torsion loads.…”

Section: Moldingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, this is important to consider while fabricating tactile sensors. A bump‐shaped tactile sensor demonstrated 3D force detection, [ 61 ] as shown in Figure 6b(i), the tactile sensor had a PDMS bump fabricated by molding. There is a sandwiched structure underneath: two copper (Cu)/polyimide (PI) electrodes and a CNT‐PDMS composite intermediate layer.…”

Section: Moldingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nitrate sensors [58] Channel Glucose sensors [59] Channel Tactile sensors [60] Molding Traditional molding Simple process; low cost Limited structures; difficult to remove the templates Pyramid Tactile sensors [21] Bump Tactile sensors [61] Interlocking Tactile sensors [62] Templating Simple process; low cost Limited structures; difficult to remove the templates Porous structure Gas sensors [63] Porous structure Pressure sensors [64] Conformal additive stamp printing Transferability Complicated operation Hemisphere Smart contact lenses [65] Hemisphere Artificial eyes [66] Stress-induced assembly Pre-stored stress Simple process Limited structures; irreversibility…”

Section: Channelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…b) Bump-shape tactile sensors; schematic of i) the device structure of the sensors and ii) the working mechanism under normal and tangential forces, iii) resistance response curves of the four cells under tangential forces in 45° direction, iv) detection of human wrist pulses. Adapted under the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 Creative Commons Attribution License [61]. Copyright 2019, The Authors, published by Springer Nature.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Review on Microscale Sensors with 3D Engineered Structures: Fabrication and Applications

Zhang

et al. 2022

Small Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

they can only perceive portion, along one or two axes, of a stimulus which is normally full of 3D space surrounding the sensors. [10,11] Another limitation is the deficient interface between the 2D sensors and target objects. For instance, health monitoring could be realized by attaching or implanting biomedical sensors to target organs or tissues of the human body. [12] However, it is difficult for traditional 2D sensors to collect accurate vital signals because they cannot conform to the 3D structure of organs or tissues. [13,14] Although this problem can be partially relieved by using flexible 2D sensors, [15] passive adaptation to target objects inevitably results in gaps. [16] Sensors with 3D structures have been developed to overcome these limitations. A 3D cubic sensor generated by selffolding has the ability to gain concentration as well as spatial information (i.e., direction and orientation) of target analytes surrounding the device. [17][18][19] Moreover, a 3D strain sensor fabricated by in situ 3D printing was observed to be compliant with the surface of a breathing porcine lung for continuous mapping of respiration-induced deformation with high 3D spatial resolution. [20] Besides full-space sensing and conformity to targets, compared to 2D counterparts, 3D sensors also possess advantages such as high sensitivity, [21] large specific surface area, [22] multimodal sensing, [23] and so forth.Despite their superiority to 2D sensors, it is challenging to fabricate a sensor with a delicate 3D configuration on a small scale because current micro-nano fabrication technologies are typically performed on planar silicon wafers. [35] Considerable efforts have been made to develop new fabrication methods for 3D sensors, which will be reviewed in this paper. According to the criterion of material quantity change, [36] these fabrication methods are divided into four categories: bulk chemical etching (subtractive manufacturing), 3D printing (additive manufacturing), molding (formative manufacturing), and stress-induced assembly (formative manufacturing), as shown in Figure 1. Basic applications or sensing functions (e.g., light, force, electricity, and chemical/gas), advanced applications (e.g., robotics, HMI, health monitoring, and tissue engineering), and strengths over 2D counterparts (high spatial resolution, multimodality, conformity, and high sensitivity) are illustrated for relevant 3D sensors. The fabrication methods and their pros and cons in generating 3D structures for various applications are summarized in Table 1. The discussions are concluded by outlining current challenges and future opportunities for 3D sensors.The intelligence of modern technologies relies on perceptual systems based on microscale sensors. However, because of the traditional top-down fabrication approaches performed on planar silicon wafers, a large proportion of existing microscale sensors have 2D structures, which severely restricts their sensing capabilities. To overcome these restrictions, over the past few decades, increasing e...

show abstract