4.6 Article

Laser direct Cu patterning utilizing a commercially available low-cost 3D printer

期刊

JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
卷 84, 期 -, 页码 531-538

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmapro.2022.10.021

关键词

3D printer; Laser direct writing; Copper electrode; Metal-organic decomposition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the use of a low-cost 3D printer as a laser direct writing machine for copper electrodes. The study characterized the performance of the printer and found that laser power stability, pattern width, and position precision were dependent on the laser power.
This study evaluated an inexpensive 3D printer (below 1000 USD) as a cost effective laser direct writing machine. This printer was applied to patterning copper (Cu) electrodes along with characterizing laser modules, such as the power stability of the laser, scan speed, pattern width against laser power, and position precision of the pattern. The laser power, controlled by a pulse width modulation signal, fluctuated by approximately 7 % and decreased by 2.1 % during the measurement period. After multiple laser scanning, the positional stability according to the thickness of the patterned Cu line showed a difference of up to 3.5 mu m at the center of the line pattern. Depending on the laser power, line defects appearing at the center of the Cu patterns were observed at the focal length of the laser and disappeared at longer or shorter focal lengths. As the laser power was increased from 6.3 % to 100 %, the width of the patterned Cu lines increased from 22 to 246 mu m. This appears to be due to the light scattering of the Cu crystals that form early when the laser is incident. A 143 nm thick 1 cm(2) Cu pattern exhibited a resistance of 2.6 x 10(-5) Omega.cm. Because this method uses a 3D printer that can control the z-height during laser processing, a Cu pattern-actuated LED on a three-dimensional glass surface was demonstrated using a set of experimental conditions based on the results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据