0
Research Papers

Advanced Methodologies for Developing Improved Potted Smart Munitions for High-G Applications

[+] Author and Article Information
Nien-Hua Chao

U.S. Army, ARDEC,
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806

John A. Dispenza

Design Results, LLC,
Long Valley, NJ 07853

Mario DeAngelis

U.S. Army, ARDEC,
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Electronic and Photonic Packaging Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC PACKAGING. Manuscript received August 20, 2012; final manuscript received April 12, 2013; published online June 4, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Stephen McKeown.This material is declared a work of the US Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

J. Electron. Packag 135(3), 031002 (Jun 04, 2013) (14 pages) Paper No: EP-12-1077; doi: 10.1115/1.4024301 History: Received August 20, 2012; Revised April 12, 2013

Potted electronics are becoming more common in precision-guided smart munitions designs due to the requirements for miniaturization and structural-robustness. In most of these applications, the potted electronics are inactive for most of their lifetime and may be stored without environmental (temperature and humidity) controls for up to 20 yr. The uncontrolled environment for smart munitions however makes the thermal management task especially difficult due to the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) mismatch that can exist between the potting material and the electronic components. In this paper, we will do the following: (1) present a methodology being developed for reducing the thermal stresses to the potted electronics used in uncontrolled environments by encapsulating the circuit board assembly (CBA) with a thin polymer layer which has been precisely formed to conform to the imprecisely shaped, as-populated, CBA. The protective polymer layer will be both flexible and soft enough to protect the CBA components from damage caused by thermal expansion mismatches, but not degrade the structural support that the potting provides during high-g force projectile launches, (2) discuss how the protective polymer layer methodology can also be used to lessen in-circuit board crosstalk, improve shielding from external RF interference, control tin-whisker growth, and enhance moisture barrier properties and thermal management for CBAs, and (3) demonstrate how to improve the smart munitions survivability under extreme high-g applications through the use of syntactic foams and material characterization before and after accelerated temperature-cycling and thermal-aging tests.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Potted munition component and separate housing and CBA before potting and (b) an exploded view of a component

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

A process of forming polymer layer(s) to CBA with vacuum using CBA duplicate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

A process of layering polymer layer(s) to CBA by using conformal mold

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

A CBA production sample fully populated

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

A protective polymer layer tightly fit to CBA

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Soft, synthetic rubber, conformal cavity mold

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

FE model of a MEMS attached to PCB, frame, can, cover, and potting materials [1]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

MEMS device with and without protective polymer (elastomer) layer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

HALT temperature profile 150 °F to −50 °F Δ = 9 °F/min

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Seal maximum principal stress comparison (without and with protective layer). (a) MEMS seal without protective layer (stress range: −12420 psi to 7160 psi) and (b) MEMS seal with protective layer (stress range: −80 psi to 5060 psi).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Seal Tresca stresses comparsion (without and with protective layer)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Temperature cycle profile (°F versus second)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Experiment thermal setup and HALT test recorded data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Alchemix (unfilled versus filled) tensile stress versus strain (nonthermal conditioning)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Alchemix (unfilled versus filled) tensile stress versus strain (after HALT test)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Alchemix (unfilled versus filled) tensile stress versus strain (after HAST test)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

The projectile launch and penetration profiles. (a) Projectile launch profile and (b) projectile penetration profile.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Sensitivity analysis of potting material tensile modulus versus density

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In