Environmental Performance of Re-Sized Commercially Available AMLCD Panels

摘要

The testing resulted in the following conclusions. ① The potential to use resized AMLCD panels in ruggedized avionics and ground based (simulator) applications is favorable. This conclusion is based on the positive performance associated with NEC panels and the panels tested at BAE. ② The resizing process involves some critical seal processing steps that must be tightly controlled, or the resized AMLCDs will not survive humidity and temperature extremes. ③ The ability to use non-ruggedized commercial AMLCDs (and their driver boards) does not seem possible. Multiple driver failures (or contact failures) are the basis for this statement. BAE analyzed the line failures on the NEC panels, and discovered that the "mechanical" Tape Automated Bond was separating from the glass. It appears that the driver printed circuit board was bending slightly, stressing the TAB and causing it to break away from the AMLCD panel. The reader should be reminded that these panels were not ruggedized, and packaging related failures were not a total surprise. ④ The AMLCDs cells have stable optical performance when subjected to extreme temperature, humidity, and pressure tests. ⑤ Further tests need to be conducted to unequivocally state that the resizing process is ready for development for an aircraft platform. Although two panels have passed testing with BAE's new sealing process, the corrective action must be further validated, and the source of the visual anomalies identified in the Phase n testing must be identified and corrected. The driver failure issue has been resolved in other instances, and is not considered a risk. ⑥ The exhibited seal failure modes exhibited appear very quickly when subjected to thermal and humidity extremes. The same was true for the "voids" which appeared in a few of the panels. Therefore, these tests can be used as an effective screen during production operations. ⑦ Finally, the effectiveness of the pressure cooker test must be established. No seal failures occurred in the pressure cooker test, while multiple seal failures occurred in the more apparently more benign temperature - humidity cycling test.