Screen‐Printed Soft Capacitive Sensors for Spatial Mapping of Both Positive and Negative Pressures

Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29, 1809116 In the initially published version of this article, the hyperelastic model coefficients of Ecoflex-0030 and PDMS (mixing ratio 10:1) were incorrectly presented due to wrong input in the FEA software. The corrected coefficients will decrease the deformation of the electrodes in the simulation, but this new revision will not change any conclusion made in the previous paper. The corrected coefficients and simulation results are given below: From tensile tests and finite element analysis by data fitting, the Mooney-Rivlin 3 parameter model proves to be the best constitutive model for Ecoflex-0030. The corresponding strain energy density function with the Mooney-Rivlin 3 parameter model is where, C10 = 1620.24 Pa,C01 = 20108.26 Pa,and C11 = 698.74 Pa. The Yeoh 3rd order model proves to be the best model for PDMS, and the corresponding strain energy density function with the Yeoh 3rd order model is where, N = 3,C10 = 117432.54 Pa,C20 = 6808.47 Pa,and C30 = 369.59Pa Figure 3a shows the deformation in a soft pressure sensor without air gap under +20 kPa pressure, in which the distance between the top and bottom electrodes decreases by −0.04 mm. In contrast, as shown in Figure 3b, the total deformation in a sensor with air gap results in the electrode spacing to decrease by −0.17 mm. Similarly, the data in Figure 3c and d show that under a negative pressure of −30 kPa, the sensor with air gap channel exhibits much larger increase in electrode spacing (0.64 mm) compared to the sensor without air gap channel (0.15 mm). The authors apologize for any inconvenience or misunderstanding that this error may have caused.