• Certification
    ISO9001/ISO14001/IATF16949
    ROHS/UL/REACH/FDA
    Mail Contact
    kennis.zhu@elaplus.cc

    +86 18116225322

    Welcome to be our distributor

Industry Application

Home » Industry Application »

How to Select Potting Compound for Liquid‑Level Sensors? “Water‑Resistant” Does Not Equal “Oil‑Resistant”

2026-09-08

When selecting potting and sealing materials for liquid‑level sensors, the primary question shall be: What medium will the sensor be immersed in long‑term? Instead of simply asking: “Is this adhesive waterproof?” Water, engine oil, fuel, coolant, brake fluid and other industrial media exert completely different effects on polymer materials. ELAPLUS industrial sensor solutions treat oil‑resistant sealing as an independent application category, separate from bulk potting, pin sealing and substrate fixation. Six Conditions to Confirm Before Material Selection for Liquid‑level Sensors Condition Rationale Medium name Determines chemical compatibility of material Medium temperature High temperature accelerates material aging Immersion duration Short‑term exposure ≠ long‑term immersion Presence of pressure Affects medium penetration at interfaces Housing material Influences bonding performance Chip‑to‑adhesive contact status Determines stress‑related material requirements Why 24‑hour Immersion Test Is Not Sufficient for Final Conclusion Materials may suffer liquid absorption, swelling, softening, hardening or bond strength degradation in contact with media. Many of these changes do not fully occur within 24 hours. For long‑service‑life liquid‑level sensors, performance comparison shall cover: before aging → during aging → after aging. Key Inspection Items for Media‑Resistance Test Test Item Observation Points Appearance Cracking, blistering Mass Liquid absorption Volume Swelling Hardness Softening / hardening Bonding Interface degradation Resistance Insulation property shift Sensor output Functional variation Industry Pitfall A typical engineering mistake: passing water‑immersion test and then claiming general media resistance. This is insufficient for real‑world applications. Valid evaluation must adopt customer’s actual working medium and operating temperature. Scenario‑based Adaptation Fuel‑level, engine‑oil‑level, coolant‑level, water‑tank, urea‑level and industrial chemical liquid‑level sensors shall all be validated against real service media. FAQ on Potting Compounds for Liquid‑level Sensors Q1: Does water‑resistant silicone guarantee engine‑oil resistance? A: No direct inference can be drawn. Validation with target medium is mandatory. Q2: Are oil‑resistant materials automatically suitable for fuel exposure? A: Not necessarily. Oil…

More

How to Select Encapsulation Materials for MEMS? Is FSGEL 3200C Fluorosilicone Gel Suitable for MEMS Chip Protection?

2026-09-08

MEMS encapsulation materials shall balance low‑stress performance, environmental protection, media resistance and precision dispensing capability. For pressure sensors, automotive sensors and industrial MEMS devices, soft gel can be adopted for local protection when rigid potting materials may impose mechanical stress on sensitive structures. ELAPLUS FSGEL 3200C is a one‑component thixotropic fluorosilicone gel. It delivers flexible coating for MEMS chips, solder joints and lead areas, and is applicable for sensor encapsulation exposed to harsh media such as oil, fuel, solvents and moisture. This marks one major difference between MEMS encapsulation and ordinary PCB potting: MEMS encapsulation is not merely “sealing the chip”. It aims to provide protection while minimizing material‑induced interference to sensitive structures. Why Low‑stress Materials Are Required for MEMS Encapsulation MEMS stands for Micro‑Electro‑Mechanical System. Such devices integrate micro‑mechanical structures, sensing elements, electrodes, solder joints or gold wires to detect external signals such as pressure, temperature and acceleration. Therefore, MEMS chips are vulnerable not only to moisture and corrosion, but also to mechanical stress originating from encapsulation materials. Taking MEMS pressure sensors as an example, high‑modulus encapsulants or materials with significant shrinkage and expansion during curing and thermal cycling may alter the original stress state of sensitive structures. Potential consequences include: ‑ Zero‑point drift of chips ‑ Deviation of output signals ‑ Shift in sensitivity ‑Long‑term stress applied to gold wires and solder joints ‑ Reliability failures after thermal cycling Accordingly, for certain MEMS applications, encapsulation material evaluation shall not focus solely on hardness or bonding strength. Of greater importance is whether the material can offer environmental protection while mitigating mechanical disturbance to sensitive structures. What Is FSGEL 3200C? FSGEL 3200C is a one‑component thixotropic fluorosilicone gel for flexible protection of sensitive electronic components and sensors. Unlike conventional high‑hardness potting materials, it remains soft after curing and forms cushioning…

More

How to Select Potting Compound for Steering‑Angle Sensors: Positional Accuracy Matters More Than Ultra‑High Bonding Strength

2026-09-03

For adhesives used in steering‑angle, position and magnetic‑encoding sensors, fixation is not the only priority. It is critical to maintain stable relative component positions after curing, vibration exposure and temperature variation. Even if no delamination occurs, large cure shrinkage of potting material may lead to position deviation, zero‑point shift or output errors. Material Requirements for Different Zones of Steering‑Angle Sensors Zone Key Requirements Magnet Stable positioning Hall / magneto‑sensitive component Low‑stress fixation PCB Moisture resistance PIN pins Waterproofing Housing Sealing performance Wiring harness Vibration resistance Why Dimensional Stability Is Critical The theoretical gap between magnet and Hall chip is fixed. A dimension change of 0.X mm in potting layer may be negligible for general mechanical parts, yet it requires thorough validation for precision magnetic‑field measurement applications. Therefore, evaluation criteria shall go beyond bonding strength, and focus on geometric‑position stability after curing. Recommended Comparison Test Items Test Stage Parameters to Record Before potting Initial zero‑point value Post‑curing Cure‑induced offset High‑temperature condition Temperature drift Low‑temperature condition Low‑temperature drift Thermal cycling Offset reversibility Post‑vibration test Positional stability Common Industry Pitfalls Many material validations for position sensors only perform pull‑off, shear and water‑resistance tests, while ignoring sensor output measurement. For precision sensors, the ultimate evaluation target shall be actual product functionality. Application‑Oriented Matching Applicable to steering‑angle sensors, magnetic encoders, Hall position detectors, rotary position sensors and similar precision magneto‑sensitive assemblies. FAQ for Steering‑Angle Sensor Adhesives

More

How to Select Potting Compound for TPMS Tire‑Pressure Sensors: Harsh Operating Conditions Inside Tires Are More Complex Than Expected

2026-09-03

Adhesives for TPMS tire‑pressure sensors must cope with far more than water resistance. They also need to withstand continuous vibration generated by tire rotation, thermal cycling, PCB and chip protection, moisture and long‑term mechanical shock. Therefore, TPMS potting shall prioritize low‑stress performance, electrical insulation, vibration resistance and environmental stability, rather than simply selecting materials with maximum hardness. What Components Need Protection Inside TPMS Component Main Risks Material Requirements MEMS chip Stress, moisture Low‑stress protection PCB Vibration, moisture Potting & moisture‑proofing Solder joints Cyclic loading Stress buffering Battery connections Vibration Mechanical fixation Housing Moisture ingress Sealing Why Polyurethane Deserves Consideration If your TPMS requires moderate mechanical protection while avoiding overly rigid high‑modulus epoxy systems, flexible polyurethane potting materials are worth evaluation. For instance, published product information for PUR 1680 covers potting for electronic modules and sensors, delivering insulation, moisture resistance, cushioning and structural protection. PUR 1680 is listed among polyurethane potting options in our sensor solution matrix. Please note: PUR 1680 can be considered as one candidate for sensor potting, but real‑world structural validation is still required for TPMS applications. It does not mean this single grade fits all tire‑pressure sensor projects. Why Blind Pursuit of High Hardness Is Not Recommended for TPMS Sensing chips, PCBs and solder joints do not require the potting material to form a rigid hard shell. What is truly required: ‑ Cushion vibration loads ‑ Block moisture ingress ‑ Avoid introducing excessive stress onto components during temperature swings Common Industry Pitfalls Common Pitfall Associated Risk Only comparing room‑temperature hardness No guarantee of long‑term vibration performance Over‑hard full potting solution May induce extra stress on solder joints Testing only water‑proof performance Thermal cycling performance ignored No real‑world tire‑condition validation Lab test conditions are overly idealized Application‑Oriented Material Matching For in‑tire TPMS, electronic sensor modules near wheel speed assemblies and small…

More

How to Select Potting Compounds for Temperature Sensors: Poor Thermal Conductivity of Adhesives May Slow Down Sensor Response

2026-09-02

The biggest difference between adhesives for temperature sensors and general‑purpose electronic potting materials lies in that the material not only protects components, but also forms part of the heat transfer path from the measured environment to the sensing element. Therefore, potting compounds for temperature sensors shall balance thermal conductivity, electrical insulation, filling performance, temperature resistance and stress‑relief properties, rather than simply pursuing maximum sealing tightness. Within ELAPLUS existing sensor solutions, thermal greases, potting silicones or thermally conductive silicones can be adopted inside temperature sensors to achieve favorable thermal conductivity and fast response. Quick‑Selection Guide for Temperature‑Sensor Adhesives Epoxy encapsulation for NTC components potting for temperature‑pressure sensors potting for temperature‑sensor wire harnesses Structure Main Challenge Material Key Considerations NTC components & metal probe Thermal response Thermal conductivity, thin bond‑line thickness PCB temperature module Environmental protection Moisture resistance, insulation Filling inside metal housing Air thermal resistance Flowability, thermal conductivity High‑temperature automotive zones Long‑term thermal exposure Thermal aging resistance Vibration‑prone locations Lead‑wire protection Flexibility, vibration resistance Why Excessively Thick Potting Layers Degrade Response Speed Heat transfer path: Measured medium → Metal probe → Potting material → Temperature‑sensing element If the intermediate material delivers excessive thermal resistance, the actual ambient temperature changes, yet heat cannot be rapidly conducted to the sensing element. As a result, the sensor output lags behind real‑world temperature variation. This explains why thicker adhesive layers do not equal higher reliability for temperature sensors. Does Higher Thermal Conductivity Definitely Mean Faster Response? Not necessarily. Other critical factors include: bond‑line thickness, actual interfacial contact, internal air voids, and placement of sensing elements. Noticeable internal air cavities will undermine the performance even of high‑thermal‑conductivity materials. Common Industry Pitfalls Wrong Mindset More Reasonable Evaluation Logic Applying excessive thermally conductive adhesive Minimize the effective heat transfer path Only testing steady‑state final temperature Test response time…

More

How to Select Potting Compounds for Automotive Pressure Sensors: Different Design Philosophies for Core‑Element Protection vs Housing Sealing

2026-09-02

When selecting adhesives for automotive pressure sensors, simply searching for “high‑temperature waterproof potting compound” is not sufficient. You need to break down the structure into sensing core element, PCB/leads, housing, pin terminals and media‑contact zones. For the core element, low‑stress performance and long‑term stability are prioritized. For housing sections, adhesion and sealing stand as key requirements. For full‑cavity potting, flowability, insulation and thermal‑cycle resistance must also be taken into account. ELAPLUS sensor‑oriented solutions separate oil‑resistant sealing, pin‑terminal sealing, FPC fixation, ceramic‑substrate bonding and overall potting, instead of adopting one single material for all positions. Pressure Transmitter Table: Adhesive Selection for Different Zones of Pressure Sensors Application Position Primary Task Key Considerations Selection Direction Pressure‑sensing core Sensitive‑component protection Low stress, electrical insulation Flexible silicone / gel Ceramic substrate Component fixation Adhesion, low shrinkage Silicone / epoxy resin Pin terminals Waterproof sealing Flow property, adhesion Sealant PCB assembly Moisture‑proof protection Insulation, stress relief Potting compound / Conformal coating Aluminum‑plastic hybrid housing Housing sealing Dissimilar‑substrate bonding Sealing silicone Full cavity potting Overall encapsulation Flowability, insulation, temperature resistance Epoxy / Polyurethane / Silicone Temperature‑Pressure Sensor Core: SIPC 1835 SIPC 1835 is specified for temperature‑pressure sensor cores with a mixing ratio of 10:1 and a cure time of approx. 1‑2 hours. The priority here is not excessive potting thickness, but to protect the core element while introducing minimal mechanical constraints to it. Housing Sealing: SIPC 1810 LV SIPC 1810 LV can be evaluated for sensor housing sections, engineered for sealing and bonding between aluminum housings and plastic parts. It clearly illustrates a typical rule for pressure sensors: core‑protection adhesive ≠ housing‑sealing adhesive. Why Are Pressure Sensors Vulnerable to High‑Stress Loads? Differential‑pressure sensor Pressure sensors measure extremely tiny deformation or pressure variations. Large curing shrinkage or excessive hardness from potting materials may introduce extra mechanical load…

More

Why Does Potting Compound Crack in Robot Motors? Higher Strength Does Not Equal Better Reliability

2026-09-01

Cracking of potting compound in robot motors is rarely caused by insufficient material strength. Inspection should focus on CTE (coefficient of thermal expansion), material modulus, Tg, potting volume, structural sharp corners, curing shrinkage, and long‑term internal stress induced by thermal cycling. Motor Potting Compound This is one of the most common misunderstandings regarding epoxy potting: High hardness and high strength do not guarantee superior crack resistance. If the material cannot release stress generated during thermal cycles, higher rigidity may concentrate stress at certain locations. Why Motors Represent Typical CTE‑Mismatched Structures A stator integrates copper wires, silicon steel sheets, aluminum housing, insulating varnish, plastic bobbin and resin. These components expand to different extents under identical temperature rise. Once bonded together by cured potting resin, expansion or contraction of any component will be restrained by adjacent materials, resulting in built‑in internal stress. What Different Crack Locations Indicate Crack Location Primary Suspected Cause Housing edge Interfacial stress / adhesion issue Iron core sharp corner Stress concentration Around windings CTE mismatch / local heat source Full‑thickness crack through compound core Bulk shrinkage / thermal stress Cracking immediately after curing Curing shrinkage Cracking only after thermal cycling CTE mismatch / modulus Cracking under high‑temperature condition Tg / material state change Why Both CTE and Tg Are Critical for EP 1715 (2#) For robot joint motor potting, EP 1715 (2#) delivers thermal conductivity of approx. 1.5 W/m·K, Tg around 95～105℃, and CTE of approx. 25 μm/m·℃ below Tg. These parameters form a complete material evaluation framework: Parameter Significance for Potting Reliability Thermal Conductivity Reduce heat accumulation in windings CTE Determine dimensional mismatch under thermal cycling Tg Define operating temperature margin Modulus / Hardness Govern mechanical restraint level Curing Condition Influence manufacturing‑induced stress Potting Thickness Affect total stress magnitude Therefore simply switching to higher‑strength epoxy seldom solves cracking failures….

More

Why Zero‑point Drift Occurs After Potting Robot Torque Sensors? Protective Adhesives May Also Affect Accuracy

2026-09-01

Zero‑point shift, increased temperature drift or altered output curves after potting robot torque sensors and tactile sensors are not always caused by chip damage. Modulus, curing shrinkage, thermal expansion, potting thickness of encapsulant, as well as contact mode with sensitive areas, may generate extra mechanical loads. Torque Sensor Potting For ordinary PCBs, the priority is robust protection. For torque sensors, the requirement is protection with minimal interference to measurement. How to Judge Different Zero‑point Drift Phenomena Phenomenon Suspected Root Cause Recommended Verification Immediate zero‑point change right after potting Curing shrinkage / mechanical constraint Zero‑point reading before and after potting Significant drift upon temperature rise Thermal expansion stress Temperature‑zero‑point curve Incomplete recovery after cooling Residual stress Thermal cycle test More obvious drift with thicker adhesive Excessive structural coupling Different potting thickness Noticeable variation among batches Process consistency Adhesive dosage / curing condition Drift after medium exposure Material compatibility Immersion test Why Low‑stress Property Outweighs High Strength Torque sensors measure tiny mechanical variations. If the protective material forms a high‑modulus shell after curing, extra constraint will be imposed on the deformation of sensitive structures. Hence evaluation criteria differ greatly from adhesives for magnet steel bonding. Magnet Steel Structural Bonding Torque Sensor Protection High shear strength High priority Normally not the primary factor Low modulus Secondary (design‑dependent) High priority Curing shrinkage Concerned Critical concern Temperature drift impact Indirect Direct verification required Moisture‑proof & insulation Required Required Structural load‑bearing Required Interference shall be avoided FSGEL 3200 Torque Sensor Potting FSGEL 3200 is a one‑component fluoro‑silicone gel for protection of sensors and power modules. It features medium‑resistance encapsulation, insulation and protection for sensitive components. In robot‑related applications, FSGEL 3200 serves low‑stress flexible cushioning and precision electronics protection for torque / tactile sensors. Industry Pitfall The most common mistake: only conducting waterproof test without sensor performance…

More

Why Do Bubbles Occur in Robot Motor Stator Potting? Complete Troubleshooting From Material, Winding to Vacuum Process

2026-09-01

Bubbles or internal voids after potting of robot frameless torque motor stators are usually not simply caused by poor‑quality adhesives. Frequent root causes include air entrapment during A‑B mixing, mismatch between material viscosity and winding gaps, excessively high slot fill factor, improper potting direction, lack of air escape channels, inappropriate vacuum process settings, and residual gas expansion during curing. Robot Joint Motor Potting For robot joint motors, the greatest concern is not several small visible surface bubbles, but hidden voids deep inside windings. Stator potting not only fixes copper wires, but also builds a continuous thermal conduction path from windings to iron core and then to the housing. Potting for frameless torque motor stators requires comprehensive consideration of thermal conductivity, CTE, Tg and curing process. Quick‑judgment Table: Where Do Bubbles Likely Come From? Bubble / Void Location Common Causes Priority Inspection Actions Not Recommended as First Step Large number of fine bubbles on adhesive surface Air entrapment from mixing, overly fast stirring Mixing & degassing Directly change adhesive grade Voids deep inside copper wires Poor wetting, no air escape outlets Viscosity, slot fill factor, flow channel Only inspect surface appearance Gas trapped at stator bottom Improper potting direction Placement angle, vent path Simply increase vacuum level Voids at mold corners Locally enclosed zones Mold & flow channel Fill up rapidly in one shot Bubbles only with automatic dispensing Air entrainment from equipment Pump, pipeline, mixing tube Suspect material batch at first Voids formed after curing Residual gas / curing‑related variation Curing profile Blindly raise curing temperature Why Does Higher Slot Fill Factor Make Potting Harder? Robot Joint Motor Potting To miniaturize size and boost torque density, robot joints adopt compact copper‑wire arrangements. Invisible micro‑gaps between coils serve two opposite purposes: allowing adhesive inflow and air outflow. If adhesive flows in…

More

COPYRIGHT ◎ 2023 Elaplus Functional Materials Co. LTD

Mail Mail
eddie.zhang@elaplus.cc
 WhatsApp WhatsApp
+86 155 1820 1251
WeChat WeChat
WeChat

sample request

We will reply within 24 working hours. If urgent, please help us to contact through email： kennis.zhu@elaplus.cc