In Situ Characterization and Modeling of Strains near Embedded Electronic Components During Processing and Break-in for Multifunctional Polymer Structures

  • Alan L. Gershon
  • Lawrence S. GygerJr.
  • Hugh A. BruckEmail author
  • Satyandra K. Gupta
Part of the Solid Mechanics and Its Applications book series (SMIA, volume 168)


Emerging molding concepts, such as in-mold assembly, are enabling electronic structures to be directly embedded in thermoplastic polymers to provide integrated packaging for better protection and a more multifunctional structure in “in-mold assembly processes”. During the molding process, stress can develop at the interface of the polymer and embedded electronic component due to shrinkage of the polymer that precipitates fracture or fatigue during the life cycle of the product. Additionally, the interaction between a mold and the polymer melt is altered in a multi-stage molding process where a polymer for superior impact protection can be molded over another polymer that is more compatible with the embedded electronic component. Currently, we do not fully understand the impact of various parameters governing the in-mold assembly process on the residual strains that develop in polymers around embedded electronic components in order to develop process models. Therefore, in this chapter experiments are presented that are designed and executed to measure the strains involved and the manner in which they develop. An in situ open mold experiment is employed using the full-field deformation technique of Digital Image Correlation (DIC) to characterize the displacement and corresponding strain fields that evolve near embedded electronic elements as the polymer shrinks from the molten to the solid state during processes and during break-in of the electronic component. It was determined that the use of multi-stage molding may reduce the residual stresses in addition to providing superior impact protection. However, there was a higher concentration of strain near the polymer-component interface during break-due to lower thermal conductivity. Experimental data was consistent with a thermomechanical model up until the point of failure.


Axial Strain Digital Image Correlation Electronic Component Residual Strain Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was supported by NSF grants EEC0315425 and DMI0457058, and by ONR award number N000140710391. Opinions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsors.


  1. 1.
    Ananthanarayanan A, Gupta SK, Bruck HA, Yu ZX, Rajurkar KP (2007) N Am Manuf Res Conf 1–8Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ananthanarayanan A, Thamire C, Gupta SK (2007) IEEE Int Symp Assem Manuf 26–134Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banerjee AG, Li X, Fowler G, Gupta SK (2007) Res Eng Des 17:207–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruck HA, Fowler G, Gupta SK, Valentine T (2004) Exp Mech 44:261–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruck HA, McNeill SR, Sutton MA, Peters WH, III (1989) Exp Mech 29:261–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruck HA, Schreier HW, Sutton MA, Chao YJ (1998) Proc Taiwan Int Weld Conf Tech Advan New Ind Appl Weld 523–526Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delaunay D, Le Bot P (2000) Poly Eng Sci 40:1682–1691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Egan E, Amon CH (2000) J Elec Packaging 122:98–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gershon AL, Gyger LS, Jr., Gupta SK, Bruck HA (2008) Exp Mech 48:789–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodship V, Love JC (2002) Multi-material injection molding. ChemTec Publishing, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gouker RM, Gupta SK, Bruck HA, Holzschuh T (2006) Int J Adv Manuf Tech 28:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Han S, Wang KK (1997) Int Poly Proc 12:228–237Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jansen KMB, Titomanlio G (1996) Poly Eng Sci 36:1537–1550Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jansen KMB, Van Dijk DJ, Husselman MH (1998) Poly Eng Sci 38:838–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kramschuster A, Cavitt, R, Ermer D, Chen Z, Turng LS (2005) Poly Eng Sci 45:1408–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liao SJ, Chang DY, Chen HJ, Tsou LS, Ho JR, Yau HT, Hsieh WH (2004) Poly Eng Sci 44:917–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pontes AJ, Pouzada AS (2004) Poly Eng Sci 44:891–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sarvar F, Teh NJ, Whalley DC, Hunt DC, Palmer DA, Wolfson PJ (2004) IEEE Inter Conf on Therm Phenom 2:465–472Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schreier HW, Braasch JR, Sutton MA (2000) Opt Eng 39:2915–2921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sutton MA, Turner JL, Bruck HA, Chae TL (1991) Exp Mech 31:168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thomas J, Qidwai M (2004) Acta Mat 52:2155–2164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Titomanlio G, Jansen KMB (1996) Poly Eng Sci 36:2041–2049CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan L. Gershon
  • Lawrence S. GygerJr.
  • Hugh A. Bruck
    • 1
    Email author
  • Satyandra K. Gupta
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations