The methods and tools used to measure the dynamic forces

Abstract: We present an introductory overview aimed at readers new to the field

of dynamic force metrology. We use exemplary systems to describe some of the
difficulties in making accurate dynamic force measurements, as well as some of
the approaches used to address these challenges. The introductory dynamic force
concepts covered here serve as a foundation for designing engineering systems
with the intent of measuring time-varying forces. At the 2018 NCSLI (National
Conference of Standards Laboratories International) Workshop & Symposium, we
will additionally discuss some of the methods for dynamically calibrating force
transducers.

Introduction: The ability to traceably measure rapidly time-varying quantities

with low uncertainty has been an area of increasing interest in the metrological
community, which has recently been driven, in part, by the need to more-
accurately measure dynamic mechanical quantities (e.g., force, pressure,
acceleration). Within the mechanical measurement domain, force-indicating
instruments are different from most other types of sensors, as the force
measurement instrument becomes part of the engineering structure or measurement
system. While this integration of sensor into the system typically does not pose
many metrological challenges for static or stationary force measurements, the
implications for dynamic measurements can be drastic. For example, while certain
force transducers can be statically calibrated with less than 10 × 10−6 uncertainty
[1], the dynamic sensitivity can deviate by several orders of magnitude from the
static sensitivity for certain rates of dynamic forces [2]. We start this paper with a
simple thought experiment to elucidate the physical difference between static and
dynamic force metrology. Although this is an elementary example, the same
principles apply in more complex real-world dynamic force measurements. We
follow this with an example that is closer to the real world to illustrate some
additional core aspects of dynamic force measurements. We then state some of the
proposed solutions to address the difficulties in making accurate dynamic force
measurements, and conclude with a short discussion of the prime signal
processing challenge in dynamic metrology.

Challenges in Dynamic Force Measurements: Illustrative Example

Transitioning from Static to Dynamic Measurements NCSL International
Workshop & Symposium | Measurements of Tomorrow August 27-30, 2018 |
Portland, Oregon 2 We start with a simple example to illustrate the fundamental
differences between static and dynamic force measurements. Before understanding
the underlying phenomena that make accurate dynamic force measurements
challenging, we must first understand how force sensors operate. Most force
transducers work by measuring the deformation of a flexible element under an
applied force. Imagine that we fix a spring to a top support and attach a pan at the
bottom end, as shown in Figure 1(a), with the intent of measuring forces that are
applied to the pan. While holding the pan in place, we align a ruler with the edge (0
position) at the base, and release the pan. Because the pan has mass, the spring will
stretch and the ruler will indicate some nominal position, which we refer to as 𝑥 ,
which is depicted in Figure 1(b). For the sake of simplicity, assume the spring
stretches and the pan moves to the 2 cm position. As forces are applied to the pan,
the spring will stretch even further, and the difference of the ruler reading 𝑥 from
the 2 cm mark will give an indication of the deflection of the spring, which we will
correlate to an applied force through a calibration. This can be written ∆𝑥 = 𝑥 − 𝑥𝑜
where ∆𝑥 is the difference between the ruler reading 𝑥 and the nominal position 𝑥 .
Although in practice force transducers are made of stiff materials (e.g., metals or
piezoelectric ceramics) and their deflections are on the order of micrometers, the
device we have mentally constructed here will operate on length and time scales
that we can easily see and appreciate. The next step in the process is to statically
calibrate the device. If we take a series of identical balls that generate 1 N of force
each (corresponding to a mass of a little more than 100 g with local gravity being
close to 9.81 m/s 2 ), we can calibrate the force sensor by placing the balls on the
pan one at a time and measuring the deflection using the ruler. After gently placing
the first ball on the pan, we see that the pointer indicates a deflection of 𝑥 = 3 cm,
so that ∆𝑥 = 3 cm − 2 cm = 1 cm, as shown in Figure 1(c). Placing two balls on the
pan moves the pan down to the 𝑥 = 4 cm, so that ∆𝑥 = 4 cm − 2 cm = 2 cm. We
observe that for every ball we place on the pan, the pan moves down 1 cm.
Eventually all 10 balls, corresponding to a force of 10 N, move the pan down to the
12 cm location, corresponding to ∆𝑥 = 10 cm, as shown in Figure 1(d). Plotting the
change in position ∆𝑥 vs. applied force 𝐹, and connecting the points, we see that
there is a linear relationship, which can be described by Hooke’s Law 𝐹 = 𝑘 ∆𝑥,
(1) where 𝐹 is the force applied to the pan from the balls, 𝑘 is the stiffness (or
spring constant) of the spring, and ∆𝑥 is the displacement or distance that the pan
moves from the nominal position 𝑥o . The reciprocal of the slope of this line gives
our force sensor static sensitivity 𝑆 = 1/𝑘. If we want to know the force applied to
the pan, all we need to do is to divide the ruler change in position ∆𝑥 by the
sensitivity 𝑆 to get the static force 𝐹1. 1 Defining the reciprocal of the slope as the
sensitivity, and dividing the measure ∆𝑥 by the sensitivity to yield the force (as
opposed to defining 𝑘 as the sensitivity and multiplying by the measurement ∆𝑥) is
done for historical reasons. If the deflection is large for a small force, achieved by
using a weak spring (𝑘 is small), then the device is “sensitive” to the force and is
said to have a large sensitivity (𝑆 is large)). Now that the device has been
calibrated, we wish to use it to make a force measurement. The goal is to determine
the force exerted on the pan from an object, an apple for visualization purposes, of
unknown mass (the force will be 𝐹𝑎 = 𝑚𝑎𝑔 where 𝑔 is the local gravity and 𝑚𝑎 is
the mass of the apple). If we hold onto the apple, place it so that it touches the pan,
and slowly release it while moving our hand down as the spring stretches, the pan
will slowly move down to a final value. For an apple that will exert 3 N
(corresponding to a mass of a little more than 300 g), the pan will move down to
the 5 cm mark. If we repeat the measurement, but now – instead of slowly
releasing the apple – we rapidly let it go, the pan will move quickly to the 5 cm
mark, and may overshoot to 6 cm or 7 cm, then slowly oscillate over a few seconds
until it final comes to a rest at 5 cm. In both instances, we applied the same apple
to the pan, but saw drastically different responses. The difference between the two
scenarios is the rate at which the apple was applied – this is the heart of errors in
dynamic force measurements (and dynamic measurements in general). A
measurement is considered dynamic if the rate of application of the force (or
measure) is close to or faster than a characteristic time-scale of the measurement
system. What is meant by a “characteristic time-scale” of the measurement system
will be discussed further in the next section. A more comprehensive discussion of
the definition of a dynamic measurement was given by Edward. Although we can
intuitively visualize the above experiment, we would like to use physics to achieve
a better understanding of the mechanisms at play. By employing Newton’s 2nd
Law and drawing a free body diagram of the apple and the pan, we can write the
following force balance equations

𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑥 (𝑡) = 𝑚𝑎𝑔 − 𝐹(𝑡), (2) 𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑥 (𝑡) = −𝑘𝑥(𝑡) + 𝑚𝑝𝑔 + 𝐹(𝑡) (3)