Aviyonik sistemler için 3B baskılı muhafaza çözümü

Öz

Arka Plan—Aviyonik sistemlerde kullanılan Baskılı Devre Kartları (PCB’ler) için muhafaza tasarımlarında geleneksel olarak alüminyum malzemeler tercih edilmektedir. Alüminyum muhafazalar, yüksek ısıl iletkenlikleri ve elektromanyetik girişime (EMI) karşı sağladıkları etkin koruma nedeniyle havacılık ve savunma elektroniğinde güvenilir bir çözüm sunmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, bu muhafazalar genellikle standart geometrilere sahip olup, hacim kısıtı bulunan platformlarda (roketler, füzeler ve insansız hava araçları gibi) tasarım esnekliği ve hacim verimliliği açısından sınırlamalar oluşturmaktadır. Bu durum, PCB geometrisine yüksek uyum sağlayabilen alternatif muhafaza çözümlerine yönelik bir ihtiyaç doğurmaktadır.

Amaç—Bu çalışmanın amacı, aviyonik uygulamalarda kullanılan PCB’ler için 3B baskı tabanlı, dış geometriye uyumlu muhafaza çözümlerinin hacim optimizasyonu ve EMI zırhlama performansı açısından geleneksel alüminyum muhafazalarla karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmesidir. Ayrıca, 3B baskı ile üretilen polimer muhafazalarda alüminyum folyo kullanımıyla EMI koruma seviyesinin artırılabilirliği araştırılmaktadır.

Yöntem—Çalışma kapsamında üç farklı muhafaza yaklaşımı incelenmiştir: Termoplastik Poliüretan (TPU), karbon elyaf takviyeli filament (CFRP) kullanılarak 3B baskı ile üretilen muhafazalar ve geleneksel alüminyum muhafazalar. 3B baskı yöntemi ile PCB dış geometrisine yüksek uyum sağlayan özelleştirilmiş muhafazalar üretilmiş, polimer esaslı muhafazalar alüminyum folyo ile kaplanarak hibrit bir yapı elde edilmiştir. Üretilen muhafazalar hacim verimliliği ve EMI zırhlama performansı açısından test edilmiştir.

Bulgular—Elde edilen sonuçlar, 3B baskı teknolojisi kullanılarak üretilen özelleştirilmiş muhafazaların, geleneksel alüminyum muhafazalara kıyasla önemli ölçüde hacim tasarrufu sağladığını göstermiştir. TPU ve karbon elyaf takviyeli filamentten üretilen muhafazaların tek başına kullanıldığında düşük EMI zırhlama performansı sergilediği belirlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte, 3B baskı ile üretilen muhafazalara alüminyum folyo uygulanması durumunda EMI koruma seviyesinin kabul edilebilir düzeylere yükseltilebildiği gözlemlenmiştir.

Sonuç—Bu çalışma, hacim kısıtı bulunan savunma ve havacılık sistemlerinde 3B baskı tabanlı, geometrik uyumu yüksek muhafaza çözümlerinin önemli bir potansiyel sunduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Polimer esaslı 3B baskı muhafazaların EMI gereksinimlerini tek başına karşılamada yetersiz olduğu, ancak iletken yüzey kaplamalarıyla hibrit çözümler geliştirilmesi durumunda geleneksel metal muhafazalara alternatif olabilecekleri değerlendirilmektedir. Isıl performans bu çalışmanın kapsamı dışında tutulmuştur; ancak ısıl gereksinimlerin kritik olduğu uygulamalarda termal davranışın da ayrıca değerlendirilmesi önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Aviyonikte eklemeli imalat
• Aviyonik muhafazaları
• Karbon elyaf takviyeli filament
• Aviyonikte ölçülen elektromanyetik girişim (EMI) tepkisi
• 3B baskılı PCB muhafazaları
• Termoplastik poliüretan hacim optimizasyonu

3D Printed enclosure solution for avionic systems

Öz

Context—Aluminum materials are traditionally preferred for enclosure designs of Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs) used in avionics systems. Aluminum enclosures provide a reliable solution in aerospace and defense electronics due to their high thermal conductivity and effective protection against electromagnetic interference (EMI). However, these enclosures typically have standard geometries, which impose limitations in terms of design flexibility and volume efficiency in volume-constrained platforms such as rockets, missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles. This situation creates a need for alternative enclosure solutions that can achieve high conformity to PCB geometry.

Objective—The objective of this study is to comparatively evaluate 3D printing–based, geometry-conforming enclosure solutions for PCBs used in avionics applications in terms of volume optimization and measured EMI response against conventional aluminum enclosures. In addition, the study investigates the change in measured EMI levels using aluminum foil in polymer-based enclosures manufactured by 3D printing.

Method—Within the scope of the study, three different enclosure approaches were examined: enclosures produced by 3D printing using Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU), carbon fiber–reinforced filament (CFRF), and conventional aluminum enclosures. Using the 3D printing method, customized enclosures with high conformity to the external geometry of the PCB were manufactured, and polymer-based enclosures were coated with aluminum foil to obtain a hybrid structure. The manufactured enclosures were evaluated in terms of volumetric efficiency and experimentally observed EMI response using a near-field probe measurement setup focused on a previously identified interference frequency.

Results—The results indicate that customized enclosures produced using 3D printing technology provide significant volume savings compared to conventional aluminum enclosures. The results indicate that enclosures manufactured from TPU and CFR exhibit higher measured EMI levels when used alone. However, when aluminum foil was applied to 3D-printed enclosures, the measured EMI level was observed to decrease.

Conclusion—This study demonstrates that 3D printing–based enclosure solutions with high geometric conformity offer significant potential for volume-constrained defense and aerospace systems. While polymer-based 3D-printed enclosures showed higher measured EMI levels, hybrid solutions incorporating conductive surface treatments reduced the measured EMI levels. Thermal performance was excluded from the scope of this study; however, for applications in which thermal requirements are critical, evaluation of the thermal behavior is also recommended.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Additive manufacturing in avionics
• Avionics enclosures
• Carbon fiber reinforced filament
• Measured EMI response in avionics
• 3D printed PCB enclosures
• Volume optimization of thermoplastic polyurethane

Kaynakça

1. C. Spitzer, U. Ferrell, T. Ferrell, Digital Avionics Handbook, 3rd Ed., Boca Raton, USA, CRC Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17545.
2. Y. Lim, A. Gardi, R. Sabatini, S. Ramasamy, T. Kistan, N. Ezer, J. Vince, R. Bolia, “Avionics Human-Machine Interfaces and Interactions for Manned and Unmanned Aircraft”, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 102, 2018, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2018.05.002.
3. D. L. Jones, “PCB Design Tutorial: Revision A - 29 June 2004”, https://www.scs.stanford.edu/~zyedidia/docs/pcb/pcb_tutorial.pdf, (05.02.2026).
4. Generic Standard on Printed Board Design, IPC-2221B, 2012.
5. C. R. Paul, R. C. Scully, M. A. Steffka, Introduction to Electromagnetic Compatibility, 3rd Ed., Hoboken, USA, John Wiley & Sons, 2022.
6. H. W. Ott, Electromagnetic Compatibility Engineering, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA, John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
7. A. K. Shukla, S. Nirmala, “EMI/EMC for military aircraft and its challenges”, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Electromagnetic Interference and Compatibility (INCEMIC 2006), Bangalore, India, 23-24 February 2006, 101-107.
8. T. D. Ngo, A. Kashani, G. Imbalzano, K. T. Q. Nguyen, D. Hui, “Additive manufacturing (3D printing): A review of materials, methods, applications and challenges”, Composites Part B: Engineering, 143, 172–196, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012.

9. S. F. del Toro, J. Crespo-Sanchez, J. Ayllon, A. Rodriguez-Prieto, A. M. Camacho, “Mechanical performance of 3D-printed TPU auxetic structures for energy absorption applications”, Polymer Testing, 143, 108669, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2024.108669.
10. Y. Huang, M. C. Leu, J. Mazumder, A. Donmez, “Additive manufacturing: current state, future potential, gaps and needs, and recommendations”, Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 137(1), 014001, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4028725.
11. D. D. L. Chung, “Carbon materials for structural self-sensing, electromagnetic shielding and thermal interfacing”, Carbon, 50(9), 3342–3353, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2012.01.031.
12. A. Jalali, R. Zhang, R. Rahmati, M. Nofar, M. Sain, C. B. Park, “Recent progress and perspective in additive manufacturing of EMI shielding functional polymer nanocomposites”, Nano Research, 16(1), 1-17, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12274-022-5053-4.
13. G. Rana, R. Verma, A. Elango, S. K. Rao, A. Chauhan, “Review: Next-generation EMI shielding materials”, Journal of Materials Science, 60(44), 21806-21833, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-025-11691-y.
14. R. K. Bheema, J. Gopu, K. Bhaskaran, A. Verma, M. Chavali, K. C. Etika, “A review on recent progress in polymer composites for effective electromagnetic interference shielding properties–structures, process, and sustainability approaches”, Nanoscale Advances, 6(23), 5773-5802, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1039/d4na00572d.
15. H. Bamufleh, U. Saeed, A. Alzahrani, A. A. Taimoor, S. U. Rather, H. Alhumade, W. M. Alalayah, H. AlTuraif, “Enhanced absorption dominated electromagnetic interference shielding enabled by carbon nanotube and graphene reinforced electrospun pvdf nanocomposite”, Polymers, 18(7), 789, 2026. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18070789.
16. D. D. L. Chung, “Materials for electromagnetic interference shielding”, Materials Chemistry and Physics, 255, 123587, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2020.123587.
17. G. M. Mamatha, P. Dixit, R. H. Krishna, G. Kumar, “Polymer based composites for electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding: The role of magnetic fillers in effective attenuation of microwaves, a review”, Hybrid Advances, 6, 100200, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hybadv.2024.100200.
18. B. N. Turner, B. Strong, S. A. Gold, “A review of melt extrusion additive manufacturing processes: I. Process design and modeling”, Rapid Prototyping Journal, 20(3), 192–204, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-01-2013-0012.
19. I. Gibson, D. W. Rosen, B. Stucker, M. Khorasani, Additive Manufacturing Technologies, 3rd ed., Switzerland, Springer, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56127-7.
20. M. K. Thompson et al., “Design for additive manufacturing: Trends, opportunities, considerations, and constraints”, CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 65(2), 2016, 737–760, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2016.05.004.
21. D. D. L. Chung, “Electromagnetic interference shielding effectiveness of carbon materials”, Carbon, 39(2), 2001, 279–285, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-6223(00)00184-6.
22. H. K. Sürmen, “Eklemeli İmalat (3B Baskı): Teknolojiler ve Uygulamalar”, Uludağ Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(2), 373–392, 2019. https://doi.org/10.17482/uumfd.519147.
23. M. Khorasani, A. Ghasemi, B. Rolfe, I. Gibson, “Additive manufacturing a powerful tool for the aerospace industry”, Rapid Prototyping Journal, 28(1), 87–100, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-01-2021-0009.
24. R. Huang, M. Riddle, D. Graziano, J. Warren, S. Das, S. Nimbalkar, J. Cresko, E. Masanet, “Energy and emissions saving potential of additive manufacturing: the case of lightweight aircraft components”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1559–1570, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.109.
25. K. V. Wong, A. Hernandez, “A review of additive manufacturing”, International Scholarly Research Notices, 208760, 2012. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/208760.
26. E. Rauch, P. Dallasega, D. T. Matt, “Sustainable production in emerging markets through Distributed Manufacturing Systems (DMS)”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 127–138, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.106.
27. M. Üstündağ, “The transformative role of additive manufacturing: Current innovations, applications, and future directions across industries”, Duzce University Journal of Science and Technology, 13(2), 942–963, 2025. https://doi.org/10.29130/dubited.1591082.