3.3. Sensing Mechanism of Capacitive Pressure Sensors
A capacitive pressure sensor's capacitance is determined by the effective overlap area of the electrodes and the dielectric layer (A), the relative permittivity of the dielectric layer (), and the distance between the electrode plates (d). Specifically, according to the conventional capacitance formula Equation (2) for a parallel flat capacitor.
In this equation,
represents the dielectric constant of air,
represents the relative dielectric constant of the dielectric layer, and
represents the distance between the two electrode plates. In the case of a porous dielectric layer containing an array of holes, a fraction of the dielectric layer's volume is initially filled with air. Upon application of force, the air-filled pores within the dielectric layer gradually collapse and are substituted with solid PDMS material. This process alters the sensor's geometry, leading to variations in the dielectric constant (
) and thickness (d), consequently impacting the capacitance. The sensor's response to pressure is determined by monitoring the relative changes in capacitance. Additionally, the close and secure attachment of the flexible electrodes to the dielectric layer serves to mitigate noise interference. The electrodes employed in this study exhibit superior conductivity and flexibility, thereby enhancing the precision of data collection within narrow pressure ranges. The sensing mechanism of the sensor we designed is illustrated in
Figure 2a. The dielectric layer's relative dielectric constant is influenced by both air and PDMS due to the presence of microporous pores and holes array. This relationship can be quantitatively determined using Equation (3).
The relative permittivity of air, denoted as and approximately equal to 1, and the relative permittivity of PDMS, denoted as , are key parameters in the analysis of the dielectric layer. The volumes occupied by air () and PDMS () within the dielectric layer play a crucial role in the compression sensing mechanism of the sensor. When the dielectric layer undergoes compression, a portion of the air is displaced by PDMS, resulting in changes to both and , ultimately leading to variations in the relative permittivity ().
The diagram in
Figure 2a depicts the workflow of a porous PDMS dielectric layer containing an array of holes. The initial thickness of the sensor's dielectric layer is denoted as d
0, with a relative dielectric constant of
. The pressure response of the sensor can be categorized into two distinct phases as pressure increases from 0. During the initial phase, the sensor's high density of micropores and holes array results in a significant amount of air being trapped within the sensor, leading to the low Young's modulus of the dielectric layer, facilitates easy compression of the sensor. During the low-pressure phase, there is a rapid increase in
as the relative permittivity of the dielectric layer transitions from
to
due to the partial replacement of air with solid PDMS. This enhanced sensitivity of the sensor is particularly pronounced in the low-pressure regime, contributing to its improved performance in detecting subtle pressure variations. In the subsequent stage, as the pressure increases to a higher level, the microporous pores of the PDMS layer become densified, leading to a less significant change in
. The alteration in the relative dielectric constant
, transitioning from
to
, significantly influences the variation in capacitance value. This shift in relative permittivity primarily correlates with the saturation of microporous pores and laser-ablated holes. In comparison to the porous structure-only sensor depicted in
Figure 2b, our analysis revealed that the compression of the porous dielectric layer with an array of holes illustrated in
Figure 2a exceeded the compression of the porous structure-only dielectric layer shown in
Figure 2b when subjected to identical pressure levels, that is
and
. The notable increase in sensor sensitivity, particularly evident in low-pressure conditions, stems directly from the incorporation of a hole matrix within the porous dielectric layer. This design feature results in a reduced Young's modulus, enabling greater compressibility and subsequently enhancing the sensor's ability to detect even minute pressure fluctuations. The uniformly distributed micropores within the dielectric layer, in conjunction with the array of holes extending to the base of the dielectric layer, function synergistically to enhance pressure sensing across the entire operational range. During the initial phase, when the pressure was applied, the majority of the microporous pores were filled by solid PDMS, whereas only a minor proportion of the air introduced through the array of holes was filled with solid PDMS. At this stage, the microporous pores assume a primary function, while the array of holes assumes a secondary role. In the second stage, when the pressure gradually increased, the air introduced through the array of holes assumes a primary role because it still has a large volume fraction, whereas the residual microporous pores contribute a secondary function because most of the micropores were densified. The synergistic interaction between the microporous pores and the holes array is crucial in ensuring a broad operational range and high sensitivity at low pressures for the sensors. As the pressure on the sensor was gradually released, the densified pores within the dielectric layer were re-established, resulting in the restoration of the holes array to its initial height and the morphology of the dielectric layer. This observation serves as evidence of the sensor's favorable recoverability.
3.4. Sensor Performance Optimization and Improvement
The specific test steps for the performance of capacitive pressure sensors are described in 2.4. Pressure is applied using the HLD pressure testing machine, pressure data is recorded with the HP-200 dynamometer, and capacitance data is collected using the TH2830 LCR meter. The sensitivity equation for the sensor is presented as Equation (2).
Where
is the capacitance value
of the sensor after it has been compressed minus the initial capacitance value
, and
is the pressure loaded on the sensor. It is recognized that the larger the value of
per unit pressure, the higher the sensitivity of the sensor. Based on this theory, five different sample designs were created for comparative analysis. Specifically, the samples can be categorized into five types: bulk PDMS (bPDMS), bulk PDMS with an array of holes (bPDMS-h
2) with a hole depth of 2 mm, porous PDMS (pPDMS), porous PDMS with an array of holes depth of 1 mm (pPDMS-h
1), and porous PDMS with an array of holes depth of 2 mm (pPDMS-h
2). Each sample measures 8mm×8mm×2mm (2mm depth) and features a 6×6 round holes array. The manufacturing procedure entailed the repetitive ablation of bulk PDMS material to a depth of 2 millimeters, accomplished through five sequential cycles using a laser power setting of 30 W and a scanning velocity of 200 mm per second. To achieve porous PDMS with a uniform array of 1 mm deep holes, a singular ablation step was employed, utilizing a laser intensity of 30 W and a scanning velocity of 200 mm/sec. Furthermore, to create porous PDMS featuring 2 mm deep holes, a two-step ablation process was conducted under the same laser conditions, precisely reaching the bottom of the dielectric layer during the second ablation iteration.
Figure S4 illustrates the variation in hole depths resulting from the ablation of the porous PDMS dielectric layer once (
Figure S4a), twice (
Figure S4b), and the bulk PDMS dielectric layer three (
Figure S4d) and five times (
Figure S4c) using a CO
2 laser, as per the specified laser parameters. The data indicates that a greater number of ablations are required for the bulk PDMS in comparison to the porous PDMS to achieve equivalent hole depths. This discrepancy can be attributed to the poor light absorption of the transparent bulk PDMS [
61], necessitating an increased number of ablations for effective ablation.
The performance curves illustrating the relative capacitance versus pressure for the five samples tested are presented in
Figure 3. Specifically,
Figure 3a displays the curves within the pressure range of 0-200 kPa. Analysis of the results indicates that the sensitivity of the sensors, namely pPDMS, pPDMS-h
1, and pPDMS-h
2, can be significantly improved through the incorporation of multiple micropores. This enhancement is attributed to the lower Young's modulus of the porous samples, rendering them more compressible compared to the bulk PDMS. Despite the introduction of an array of holes in the dielectric layer of the bPDMS-h
2 sensor, the lack of a porous structure in the dielectric layer results in all other areas being occupied by PDMS. This limits the presence of air gaps, thus hinders the reduction of the Young's modulus of the dielectric layer. Consequently, the dielectric layer is difficult to compress, leading to a relatively low sensitivity. Regarding the two sensors, pPDMS-h
1 and pPDMS-h
2, which have been modified with an array of holes in addition to the existing porous structure, their porosity is greater and their Young's modulus is lower compared to the pPDMS sensor with only a porous structure. This results in increased compressibility and higher sensitivity of the two sensors compared to the pPDMS sensor.
To better elucidate the operational principles of the sensor, three distinct pressure intervals were selected for individual analysis of the capacitive response. In particular, the sensitivities of pPDMS-h
2, pPDMS-h
1, and pPDMS were determined to be 0.694 kPa
-1, 0.379 kPa
-1, and 0.188 kPa
-1, respectively, within the range of 0-1kPa, as illustrated in
Figure 3b. When the applied pressure falls within the range of 1-10 kPa, the sensitivity of various sensor types diminishes, as shown in
Figure 3c. However, sensors utilizing a dielectric layer with a composite structure of micropores and an array of holes still exhibit a level of sensitivity. Furthermore, the sensitivity of these sensors increases with the depth of the holes within the array. Even under extremely high pressures, pPDMS-h
2 continues to exhibit a certain degree of sensitivity, as depicted in
Figure 3d. In addition, the tests conducted yielded the relationship curves between pressure and strain in the dielectric layer for the five samples within the range of 0-200 kPa, as illustrated in
Figure S5. It is evident that the sample pPDMS-h
2, characterized by high compressibility, exhibited the highest strain of 72% at a pressure of 200 kPa, whereas bulk PDMS displayed the lowest strain of approximately 26% at 200 kPa. Additionally, all samples demonstrated strain-pressure curves that followed an exponential function increase.
The dielectric layer of a capacitive pressure sensor exhibits a capacitive response that is tied to both the material's relative permittivity and the inter-electrode distance between its two conductive plates. Under elevated pressure, the porous structure of the dielectric layer undergoes compression, leading to the infiltration of solid PDMS into the majority of its pores. This mechanism entails a deceleration in the shrinking rate of the gap between the electrode plates, coupled with a diminished rate of growth in the relative permittivity of the dielectric layer, collectively contributing to a decrease in sensor sensitivity as the applied pressure escalates. Introducing an array of holes into the dielectric layer enhances the air content, enabling a more effortless compression response to applied pressure in contrast to a purely porous dielectric layer. This modification leads to an improved compressibility characteristic under pressure. Consequently, the sensitivity is heightened. As pressure levels escalate, the air gap within the porous dielectric layer becomes nearly solidified by the PDMS material, leading to an increase in Young's modulus and rendering compression more challenging. Therefore, the sensitivity of dielectric layers with only microporous structures is relatively low at high pressures. Nevertheless, in the case of a porous dielectric layer containing an array of holes, the presence of a significant volume of air at the location of the holes array allows the dielectric layer to maintain an air gap even when subjected to high levels of compression. This characteristic provides the dielectric layer with the ability to respond to the higher pressures, thereby enabling sensors utilizing such porous dielectric layers to maintain sensitivity even under high pressure conditions.
The impact of the sparsity of an array of holes in porous dielectric layers on the Young's modulus of a sensor and subsequently on its sensitivity was investigated by maintaining a constant individual hole area (1 mm in diameter) and adjusting the laser ablation spacing between neighboring holes in the array. The laser ablation process results in concentrated thermal energy at the location of the holes, leading to over-burning. When the spacing between two holes is too small, the high laser energy causes an increase in material temperature outside the ablation area. This can result in the destruction of the PDMS between neighboring holes, leading to the cross-linking of the holes and compromising the intended structure of the dielectric layer. Considering the above issues and the ablation accuracy (0.06 mm) of the CO
2 laser we used, we set the minimum pitch to 0.4 mm. The spacing was adjusted sequentially to 0.8mm, 1.0mm, 1.2mm. The depth of the holes were all 2mm. The samples of the various classes mentioned above were named pPDMS-w
0.4 (which is the same sample as pPDMS-h
2), pPDMS-w
0.8, pPDMS-w
1.0, pPDMS-w
1.2.
Figure S6(a-c) shows the physical diagrams of pPDMS-w
0.8, pPDMS-w
1.0, pPDMS-w
1.2 dielectric layers, respectively.
The results of their performance are illustrated in
Figure 4. Our investigation revealed that, under identical pressure conditions, sensitivity increases as the spacing of the holes array decreases.
Figure 4a displays the pressure response curves of the four samples within the pressure range of 0-200 kPa. Specifically, the sensor pPDMS-w
0.4 demonstrated the highest sensitivity of 0.694 kPa
-1 within the pressure range of 0-1 kPa as is shown in
Figure 4b. As the spacing between the holes array of various samples increases in a sequential manner, the sensitivity of the sensors decreases correspondingly across the same pressure range. The sensitivity of the sensor pPDMS-w
0.8 is 0.396 kPa
-1 within the pressure range of 0-1 kPa. The sensor pPDMS-w
1.0 exhibits a sensitivity of 0.248 kPa
-1, while the sensor pPDMS-w
1.2 demonstrates a sensitivity of merely 0.197 kPa
-1. It is important to highlight that despite the decrease in sensitivity of a sensor utilizing a porous dielectric layer with an array of holes as the spacing of the array increases over the same pressure range, they will remain superior to pPDMS. This is precisely the result of the increased sensitivity due to the introduction of holes array in the porous dielectric layer thus leading to a further reduction of the Young's modulus of the dielectric layer. In the pressure range of 20-200 kPa (
Figure 4c), the decrease in sensitivity of all four sensors is attributed to the increased density and reduced compressibility of the dielectric layer at higher pressures.
Laser ablation creates a series of perforations that introduce additional air into the porous dielectric layer which has a porosity of approximately 46%. This process lowers the Young's modulus of the material, facilitating compression and ultimately enhancing the sensitivity of the flexible sensor. In a specification-consistent porous dielectric layer, the volume fraction of air introduced by the holes array increases as the holes are closer together. This enhanced porosity facilitates greater compressibility of the dielectric layer, thereby improving the sensitivity of the sensor. Theoretically, the porosity of the samples can be determined by combining the air volume introduced by the sacrificial NaCl template method with the air volume introduced by the pore array created through laser ablation [
45], as shown in
Figure 4d. According to this theory, the porosity values for pPDMS, pPDMS-w
1.2, pPDMS-w
1.0, pPDMS-w
0.8, and pPDMS-w
0.4 are approximately 46%, 56.8%, 58.8%, 61.5%, and 69.3%, respectively. It is important to highlight that the porosity calculated through this method closely aligns with the results obtained from the porosity measurement method for porous dielectric layers discussed in
Section 3.1, with a maximum discrepancy of 1%.
Figure 4d illustrates the variation in relative capacitance of the sensor in relation to the porosity of the dielectric layer under a pressure of 1 kPa. The curve clearly exhibits an exponential transformation as the porosity increases. Therefore, we believe that the holes array provides an effective way to reduce the Young's modulus of the dielectric layer and improve the responsiveness of capacitive sensors in a certain pressure range.
3.5. The Comprehensive Performance of Flexible Capacitive Sensors
Based on the optimization process outlined above, the flexible capacitive sensor pPDMS-h
2 was chosen for further comprehensive performance evaluations in this study. To demonstrate the sensor's minimum detection limit, incremental pressure was applied starting at 1Pa, resulting in a notable change in capacitance value at 3Pa, as illustrated in
Figure 5a. The sensor exhibited a significant response at 3Pa, indicating that its minimum pressure detection threshold is approximately 3Pa. The graphical representation in
Figure 5b showcases three distinct traces, each portraying the sensor's relative capacitance variation
in response to static loads of 5 g, 25 g, and 40 g, respectively. It is evident that
exhibits rapid variation during the loading and unloading, demonstrating consistent responsiveness, effective recovery, and high sensitivity. The sensor's response and recovery times were assessed by swiftly applying and releasing a pressure of 800 Pa. Rapid application and release of pressure can be crucial for ensuring the accuracy of the measurement data. Analysis of
Figure 5c reveals that the sensor achieves a response time of 96 ms when the capacitance value change rate reaches 0.58, and a recovery time of 118 ms when pressure is rapidly released. Based on this observation, the sensor's response time aligns closely with that of human skin's sensitivity to pressure stimuli [
62], suggesting its potential applicability in monitoring human physiological activities, thereby expanding its utilization domain. To evaluate the reproducibility of the sensor's performance, the s was subjected to repetitive loading and unloading cycles at a constant pressure of 150 kPa on a testing platform, totaling 500 iterations. This methodology allowed for an assessment of the sensor's consistency over multiple cycles. The results, depicted in
Figure 5d, indicate that the maximum change in samples exhibited a margin of error of ±14% throughout the cycling process. The observed maximum error value of 14% can be attributed to external interference affecting the testing machine at some point in time. Analysis of the graphical results indicates that the sensor exhibits excellent repeatability across each cycle under stable operating conditions. Consequently, it can be inferred that the sensor demonstrates enhanced durability, an extended service life, consistent responsiveness after multiple uses, and the capacity to endure high pressures. Small errors due to interference with the test equipment do not affect the overall sensing performance. The phenomenon of hysteresis, arising from the cyclic loading and unloading of the sensor within a pressure spectrum spanning 0 to 200 kPa, is visually presented in
Figure 5e. The analysis reveals a maximum delay of approximately 6.8%. This lag level is nearly identical to some previously reported work [
63,
64].This unavoidable hysteresis is due to the fact that polymers show viscoelastic behavior [
65].
Figure 5f demonstrates the sensor's exceptional dynamic pressure response within the 0-70 kPa range.