Home

Search

Collections

Journals

About

Contact us

My IOPscience

Development of a six-axis force/moment sensor for wind tunnel model test

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.
2013 Meas. Sci. Technol. 24 115101
(http://iopscience.iop.org/0957-0233/24/11/115101)
View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
IP Address: 81.161.248.93
This content was downloaded on 23/07/2015 at 15:56

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

IOP PUBLISHING

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

doi:10.1088/0957-0233/24/11/115101

Meas. Sci. Technol. 24 (2013) 115101 (10pp)

Development of a six-axis force/moment

sensor for wind tunnel model test
Wenjun Wang
State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084,
Peoples Republic of China
E-mail: wangxiaowenjun@tsinghua.edu.cn

Received 25 June 2013, in final form 27 July 2013

Published 1 October 2013
Online at stacks.iop.org/MST/24/115101
Abstract
A novel structure for a six-axis force/moment sensor is proposed in this paper. Parallel plate
structures are combined in the one-block structure of the sensor. A method for estimating the
sensitivity and stiffness is developed by comparing the results of numeric estimations with
those of finite element method (FEM) analyses. A detailed FEM model was used to analyse
the surface strain in the area where the strain gauge was attached. Tests carried out on the
characteristics revealed a sensitivity design error of less than 8.5%, a relative measurement
error of less than 2.13%, and an interference error of less than 9.51%. A performance
enhancement method is also proposed.
Keywords: six-axis force/moment sensor, parallel plate structure, sensitivity design, FEM

(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)

1. Introduction

In this study, we developed a six-axis force/moment

sensor for the simultaneous measurement of all six components
of the aerodynamic force applied to test models in a wind
tunnel. Figure 1 shows a typical application of the sensor
in a wind tunnel study of the non-steady aerodynamic force
acting on the body of a moving vehicle model. Aschwanden
et al [7] performed a wind tunnel experiment using a similar
arrangement and method.
Both high-sensitivity and high-frequency responses are
necessary for this type of application. A method for estimating
the sensitivity of the six-axis force/moment sensor and the
resonance frequency of the sensor-model system is essential to
the design process. The PPS was adopted for the basic sensing
element in the development of our six-axis force/moment
sensor because of its high sensitivity and stiffness. The detailed
design process and characteristic test results are presented
below.

Different structures of six-axis force/moment sensors have

been proposed for specific applications. The parallel plate
structure (PPS) can be used to achieve high sensitivity
and high stiffness simultaneously. The simple deformation
characteristics of the PPS facilitate the estimation of its
sensitivity and stiffness in the design phase. The PPS is adopted
in the design of many six-axis force/moment sensors. Park
and Kim [1] developed a six-axis force/moment sensor for
an intelligent robot gripper. Kim [2] developed a small sixaxis force/moment sensor for the fingers of a robot. Kim et al
[3] also developed the same type of sensor for an intelligent
foot in a humanoid robot. The flexibility of the PPS in real
applications was demonstrated in these studies.
Finite element method (FEM) analysis is widely used
in the design of multi-axis force/moment sensors. Kim [4]
proposed a design process for the wrist force/moment sensor
of an intelligent robot. Chao and Chen [5] put forward
an optimal FEM-based design methodology for a new type
of wrist force sensor. Joo et al [6] designed a six-axis
force/moment sensor using a combination of a PPS and a
ring-type structure. FEM was used to analyse the detailed PPS
deformation and surface strain distribution.
0957-0233/13/115101+10$33.00

2. Basic deformation of PPS

The strain gauge force sensor should produce the largest
possible strain for a unit force input. However, the deflection
produced by the input force should be minimal. The PPS shown
in figure 2(a) was used for the basic force-sensing element
because of its high sensitivity and stiffness. Hatamura et al [8]
1

2013 IOP Publishing Ltd

Printed in the UK & the USA

Meas. Sci. Technol. 24 (2013) 115101

W Wang

(b)

by

41

tz

Y2

Lz

X3

x
y

Ly

Y1

Z3

Y3

Z4

X2

2d M y

bx

(a)

Weight = 2kg
Lx

ty

L
b

X4

Z2

X1
M
2d

Strain gauge

10

bz

Figure 1. Wind tunnel vehicle model test.

Z1

Y4

2w

300
=2l
2d Mz

tx

Figure 3. Structure of proposed six-axis force/moment sensor.

Figure 2. Parallel plate structure.

attached to the points indicated by G, where the letter

subscripts indicate the measured force and moment, and the
number subscripts indicate the location of the gauge on the
full bridge circuit shown in figure 5. The surface strain at
the location of the gauge is also indicated in figure 4, where
C denotes the compression strain and T denotes the tension
strain.
As shown in figures 4(a) and (b), Fx (x-direction force
component) and Fy can be measured using two PPSs connected
in parallel. The four deformable plates connecting parts B
and C were arranged in the same plane. This arrangement
enables the PPS to be used for measuring Fz, Mx (x-direction
moment component) and My. The deformation modes are
shown in figures 4(c)(e), respectively. The compact structure
of the sensor in the z-direction is another advantage of the
arrangement. Figure 4( f ) shows the deformation mode under
Mz.

and Joo et al [6] analysed the deformation behaviour of the

PPS using theoretical equations and FEM, respectively. The
cantilever deformation can be ignored if the load P is close to
the PPS, in which case the parallel plate deformation shown
in figure 2(b) is dominant.
The maximum surface strain occurs at the point of
connection of the deformable plate and the rigid block, where
the strain gauge is attached. The value of this maximum strain
is given by
3PL
=
(1)
2Ebt 2
where L is the length of the plate, b is the width of the plate, t
is the thickness of the plate, and E is the Youngs modulus of
the material. The deflection is given by
PL3
.
(2)
2Ebt 3
These basic equations were used to set the sensitivity and
stiffness of the six-axis force/moment sensor.
=

3.2. Design of sensitivity and stiffness

For a given material, the sensitivity and stiffness of
the proposed six-axis force/moment sensor are primarily
dependent on the size of the deformable plates and their relative
spatial location. These key parameters can be used to estimate
the sensitivity and stiffness of the sensor in the initial design
phase.

3. Design of six-axis force/moment sensor

3.1. Overall design
Considering the space limitation of the application, a flat shape
was preferred for the six-axis force/moment sensor to facilitate
its installation in the narrow space between the shaker and
the bottom of the scaled vehicle model. The novel structure
shown in figure 3 was therefore proposed for the simultaneous
measurement of the six components of the aerodynamic force.
The relatively high-stiffness parts, denoted by AD in
figure 3, were connected by three groups of deformable plates,
denoted by X1X4, Y1Y4 and Z1Z4. The scaled vehicle model
was mounted on part A, and part D was mounted on the strut.
The three dimensions of the deformable plate are denoted by
L, b and t, respectively. The reference coordinate system of the
six-axis force and moment to be measured is also illustrated
in figure 3. The xy plane was set at the same level as the four
deformable plates denoted by Z1Z4.
The deformation modes due to the respective force
components are shown in figure 4. The strain gauges were

3.2.1. Translational deformation mode. As shown in

figures 4(a)(c), the deformations of the plates under Fx, Fy
or Fz are almost the same as those of the PPS previously
mentioned. The gain of the force sensor is defined as
out
(3)
Gf =
Fin
where out is the total output strain of the full bridge circuit,
and Fin is the input force of the sensor. In these cases, the four
deformable plates can be regarded as equivalent to two PPSs.
Moreover, the total output strain of one full bridge circuit is
four times that of one strain gauge attached to the deformable
plates of the PPS. Therefore, from equation (1), the gain of the
force sensor can be obtained as
3L
.
(4)
Gf =
Ebt 2
2

Meas. Sci. Technol. 24 (2013) 115101

W Wang

X1

GFx1:T

X4
GFx4:C

x
y

Y4
GFy4:C

Y2
GFy2:C
x

GFx2:C

GFx3:T

X2

X3

GFy3:T

GFz4:C

Y1 GFy1:T

G :T
Z1 My3

Z2

Z4

Z3

(c) Fz
GMy1:T

GMx2:C
GMy4:C

Z4

x
y

GMz4:C Y4

GMz3:T
Y2

z
x

GMx4:C

GMy2:C
x

Z3

Z3

Z4
(e) My

(d) Mx

GFz3:T
y

(b) Fy

GMx1:T Z
2

Z 1 GMx3:T

z
x

Y3

(a) Fx

Z2
GFz2:C

GFz1:T Z1

GMz2:C
Y3
(f) Mz

Y1
GMz1:T

Figure 4. Deformation modes.

2
C

GMz4: - b - t
GMz3: + b+ t
Y2

C
Output
T

Input

Figure 5. Gauge bridge.

Y3

Furthermore, on the basis of equation (2), the stiffness of the

proposed sensor in the corresponding direction is given by
kf =

4Ebt 3
.
L3

Y4

Y1
GMz1: + b+ t
GMz2: - b - t

Figure 6. Deformation caused by Mz.

(5)

the moment sensor because only the moment arm d needs to

be adjusted.
However, as discussed later, it was confirmed by FEM that
the design error of Mz was extremely large compared to those
of the components about the other axes. A more precise Mz
estimation model is therefore proposed for the sensor design.

3.2.2. Rotational deformation mode.

As shown in
figures 4(d)( f ), the deformations of the plates under Mx, My
or Mz are obviously different from those of the PPS shown
in figure 2. As shown in figure 4(d), Mx twists plates Z1Z4.
As shown in figures 4(e) and ( f ), the tangential directions of
the two ends of each of plates Z1Z4 or plates Y1Y4 are not
parallel under My or Mz. However, to estimate the sensitivity
and stiffness in the initial design phase, a simple method that
ignores the difference between the actual deformation and that
of the PPS shown in figure 2 can be used.
Mx is equal to the moment generated by the reaction forces
of the two equivalent PPSs formed by plates Z1Z4, where the
moment arm dMx is the distance between the PPS and the xaxis. The moment arms dMy and dMz are also defined as shown
in figure 3. The gain of the moment sensor can therefore be
estimated using
3L
Gm =
.
(6)
Ebt 2 d
The stiffness of the moment sensor can be estimated using

3.2.3. Deformation due to Mz. For the measurement of

Mz using plates Y1Y4, as shown in figure 6, the sensitivity
estimation requires the calculation of both b (the strain due
to the y-direction deformation, which is approximately the
PPS deformation) and t (the strain due to the x-direction
deformation). The reason is that both strains contribute to the
output of the bridge circuit, as shown in figure 6, wherein
the tension strain is indicated by + and the compression is
indicated by .
A calculation model is proposed to determine the
quantitative relationship between the sensitivity and the design
parameters. In the model, plates Y1Y4 are replaced by
equivalent springs, as shown in figure 7. The x-direction
stiffness can be calculated using the size of the plate and the
Youngs modulus of the material:

4Ebt 3 d 2
(7)
L3
where d is the moment arm relative to the specific axis. Here,
the advantage of this method is that the sensitivity and stiffness
of the force sensors are not affected by the design process of
km =

Ebt
.
(8)
L
The y-direction stiffness is associated with the bending
deformation, which is regarded in the model as the PPS
kx =

Meas. Sci. Technol. 24 (2013) 115101

W Wang

Table 1. Key parameters.

Mz
Axis

Fx

L (mm)
10
b (mm)
20
t (mm)
1
d (mm)

l (mm)

w (mm)

21
Gf (St N1) or
Gm (St N1 m1)
kf (N m1) or
5.8 106
1
km (N m rad )
m (kg) or I (kg m2) 5.88
f (Hz)
158
P (N) or (N m)
116.1
N (N) or (N m)
1142.9

By equations (6)
and (7)

Fy

Fz

Mx

My

10
20
1

21

10
20
1.2

14

10
20
1.2
40

359

10
20
1.2
100

143

60

344

5.8 106

1.0 107 1.6 104

1.0 105

2.1 104

5.88
158
116.1
1142.9

5.88
208
116.1
1714.3

0.61
64
126.7
167.8

0.17
49
34.8
66.9

By equations (15)
and (18)
10
20
1

60
10
142
7.9 104

0.65
29

56
134.0

69.8

169.0

The reaction force of the equivalent springs and the load Mz are
therefore
fx = kx x

(12)

fy = ky y

(13)

Mz = 4( fx w + fy l).

(14)

The stiffness is given by



Ebt 2 Ebt 3 2
Mz
=4
w + 3 l .
(15)
kMz =

L
L
To design the sensitivity, the strain related to the x-direction
deformation can be obtained using
fx
t =
.
(16)
Ebt
Also, the strain related to the y-direction deformation is given
by
3L fy
.
(17)
b =
Ebt 2
Considering that the strain output of the bridge circuit is four
times the sum of t and b, the gain can be obtained as
4(t + b )
L(3lt + wL)
.
(18)
=
GMz =
Mz
Ebt(L2 w 2 + t 2 l 2 )

Figure 7. Model of Mz sensor.

Figure 8. Geometric constraint.

3.2.4. Key parameters. Following the trade-off between

sensitivity and stiffness, the key parameters (shown in figure 3)
of a specific scaled vehicle model for the wind tunnel test were
set according to the specifications listed in table 1. A material
with Youngs modulus E = 72.6 GPa was used. The stiffness
of the sensor was used to estimate the resonance frequency of
the modelsensor system.
The vehicle model inertial load is vital to the proposed
sensor when applied to a wind tunnel model vibration test.
The maximum inertial load P was calculated to check the
capacity of the sensor under the most severe experimental
conditions expected, which is when the vibration frequency
is 10 Hz and the amplitude is 5 mm or 3 . The load

deformation. From equation (2), the y-direction stiffness can

be obtained as
Ebt 3
.
(9)
L3
Considering the geometric constraint of the structure shown in
figure 8, the deflection of the equivalent springs is given by
ky =

x = sin = w

(10)

y = cos = l.

(11)
4

Meas. Sci. Technol. 24 (2013) 115101

W Wang

Figure 9. FEM model.

Table 2. Estimation by simplified equations versus FEM.
Gain ((m m1) N1 or (m m1) N1 m1)

Eigenfrequency (Hz)

Axis

Equations (4) or (6)

Equation (18)

FEM

Equations (5) or (7)

Equation (15)

FEM

Fx
Fy
Fz
Mx
My
Mz

20.7
20.7
14.3
358.7
143.5
344.4

141.8

14.2
13.6
9.6
287.1
91.3
131.5

158
158
208
49
64
29

56

129
110
126
26
39
38

sensitivity for the FEM validation. Second, barring the thin

plates, the deformation of the rest of the sensor structure
was not considered for the estimation equations, whereas
the deformation of the entire sensor structure was taken into
account for the FEM validation. For example, figure 11 shows
the strain distribution in the direction of L on plate X2 for
Fx = 1000 N.
The FEM gain of My is also approximately 70% of
the estimated gain. However, as shown in figure 12, an
asymmetrical strain distribution in the plates was obtained
in the case of FEM.
The asymmetric strain distribution can be explained by
the specific structure of the sensor. As shown in figure 3, the
stiffness of part C is apparently higher than that of part B, i.e.,
the values of the support stiffness at the two ends of each of
plates Z1Z4 are different. The strain at the end connected to
part C is therefore greater than that at the end connected to
part B.
The FEM gain of Mx was approximately 80% of the
estimated gain. As shown in figure 13, the two-dimensional
surface strain distribution due to the twist deformation and the
attachment of the strain gauge can be studied using FEM.
Owing to space limitation, the strain gauges that make up
the bridge circuit that measures Mx can be attached along
the outer line to the surfaces of plates Z1Z4. The strain
distribution in the direction of L is shown in figure 14. The
gain will be 261 (m m1) N1 m1 if the gauges GMx1
GMx4 are attached along the centre line of the plates, i.e., at the

capacity N was calculated using the gain estimation equations

and the maximum strain in the linear elastic range of the
material (about 6000 m m1) observed during the capacity
test using the early prototype of the sensor. All the values
thus obtained were greater than the expected maximum load,
with the exception of the significantly erroneous value of Mz
calculated using the gain estimation equation (6).
3.3. FEM calculation
An FEM model was built to validate the above sensitivity
and stiffness design method. As shown in figure 9, the detailed
deformation shape and strain distribution can be obtained using
the model, which has a fine mesh of deformable plates. The
attachment point of the strain gauge is shown in red. The details
of the strain gauge attachment point are shown in figure 10.
The average strain of the elements in the attachment area was
used to calculate the gain of the sensor for the FEM validation.
The FEM results and the estimation results obtained by the
simplified equations are compared in table 2.
The FEM gains are approximately 70% of the estimated
values for Fx, Fy and Fz. Considering that the deformations
of the plates are almost the same as the PPS deformation
in these cases, the estimation error might be primarily due
to the following two factors. First, the estimation equations
give the maximum strain at the end of the plates, whereas
the average strain of all the elements in the area where
the strain gauge was attached was used to calculate the
5

Meas. Sci. Technol. 24 (2013) 115101

W Wang

Figure 10. Details of the gauge attachment point.

Figure 11. Strain distribution on X2 (Fx = 1000 N).

Figure 12. Strain distribution on Z4 (My = 100 N m).

attachment points of gauges GMz1GMz4. Similar to the gains

for the other axes, this gain is 73% of the estimated gain, which
was 359 (m m1) N1 m1.
The FEM gain of Mz was only 38% of that estimated by
equation (6), whereas the accuracy of the estimation model in
section 3.2.3 was acceptable. The FEM again was 93% of that

estimated by equation (18). The strain distribution is shown in

figure 15.
Table 3 compares the maximum surface strain of the
elements in the gauge area with the analytically obtained strain
for assumed applied force and moment of 1000 N and 100 N m,
respectively. The difference can be attributed to the effect of
6

Meas. Sci. Technol. 24 (2013) 115101

W Wang

Figure 13. Deformation and strain distribution on Z4 (Mx =

100 N m).

Figure 16. Six-axis force/moment sensor.

Table 3. Maximum strain (FEM versus analytical).

Figure 14. Strain distribution on Z4 (Mx = 100 N m).

Axis

Fx

Fy

Fz

Mx

My

Mz

FEM (m m1)
Analytical
(m m1)
FEM/analytical

4139
5175

3940
5175

3182
3575

7417
8968

2795
3588

3665
3545

80%

76%

89%

83%

78%

103%

This effect of the series connection and the compliance of

the entire structure of the sensor barring the plates contribute
to the lower stiffness of the sensor in the FEM calculation.
Compared to equation (7), equation (15) produces a more
reasonable estimate of Mz-axis, i.e., the stiffness estimated by
the equation is higher than that obtained by FEM.

4. Fabrication and test of characteristics

4.1. Fabrication
The proposed six-axis force/moment sensor shown in figure 16
was produced from a single aluminium alloy (A7075-T6)
block by wire cutting. The Youngs modulus E was 72.6 GPa.
The single-block structure reduces the hysteresis of the sensor
output, which is caused mainly by friction between adjacent
parts.

Figure 15. Strain distribution on Y3 (Mz = 100 N m).

4.2. Test of characteristics

the elastic support of the thin plates, which was considered for
FEM but not in the analytical method.
As regards the eigenfrequency of the model-sensor
system, the FEM results were lower than the estimated
values. Only the deflection of the plates in the direction
of L was considered by the estimation equations (5) and
(7). The deflections of the plates in other directions affect
the compliance of the sensor along the corresponding axes.

A special apparatus was developed for the calibration test of

the proposed six-axis force/moment sensor. The method for
generating the pure force and pure moment is similar to that
of a six-component force/moment sensor testing machine [9].
As shown in figure 17, each axis can be loaded by a
rearrangement of the experimental apparatus. The calibration
results of Fx-axis and Mx-axis are shown in figures 18 and 19,
7

Meas. Sci. Technol. 24 (2013) 115101

W Wang

(a)

(b)

(d)

(c)

(f)

(e)

Figure 17. Characteristic test.

Table 4. Relative errors.
Load direction
+

Hysteresis
+

Max load in calibration (N) or (N m)

Nonlinearity

Fx

Fy

Fz

Mx

My

Mz

0.06%
0.19%
0.11%
0.37%
117.6

0.18%
0.20%
0.21%
0.25%
117.6

0.14%
0.34%
0.27%
0.47%
117.6

1.10%
1.32%
1.70%
2.13%
29.4

0.96%
0.90%
1.66%
1.40%
58.8

0.83%
0.95%
1.29%
1.57%
58.8

Figure 18. Calibration results for Fx input.

Figure 19. Calibration results for Mx input.

respectively. Also, table 4 indicates that the maximum relative

error was less than 2.13%.
Table 5 compares the calibration results and the FEM
gains. The strain that was measured using an assumed gauge
factor of 2 was corrected to the actual strain using the actual
gauge factor of 2.12. The relative errors of the FEM and
calibration results are less than 8.5%.
A hammering test was used to the dynamic characteristics
of the model-sensor system. The lowest resonance frequency
(roll resonance) was about 28 Hz. The experimental result was
almost the same as that obtained in the case of FEM, which
was 26 Hz (see table 2).

The gain matrix C was used to describe the characteristics

of the proposed six-axis force/moment sensor:
61 = C61 F61

(19)

where is the strain output and F is the force/moment input.

In real applications, the inverse matrix of C can be used to
determine the six-axis force/moment. The gain matrix C is
listed in table 6.
To evaluate the interference error of the proposed six-axis
force/moment sensor, a virtual force/moment input vector
8

Meas. Sci. Technol. 24 (2013) 115101

W Wang

Table 5. Gain (FEM versus calibration).

1

Gain (St N ) or (St N

m )

Fx

FEM
Calibration
FEM Calibration
Calibration

Fy

Fz

Mx

14.2
15.5

13.6
14.7

9.6
10.1

8.5%

7.5%

5.2%

My

289.9
306.2

Mz

91.3
91.8

5.3%

0.5%

131.5
140.1
6.1%

Table 6. Gain matrix.

Load input
Fx

Fz
1

Strain output
Fx
Fy
Fz
Mx
My
Mz

Fy

Mx

((m m ) N )
15.496
0.021
0.003
0.023
0.033
0.048

0.014
14.652
0.003
0.541
0.199
0.056

My

Mz
1

((m m ) N
0.056
0.032
10.132
0.448
0.075
0.125

0.301
10.735
0.371
306.190
33.010
2.311

0.176
0.031
0.580
4.353
91.767
1.751

m )
1.401
4.448
3.403
1.184
0.021
140.094

Table 7. Interference error.

Load input
Strain output
Fx
Fy
Fz
Mx
My
Mz

Fx
99.75%
0.13%
0.02%
0.15%
0.21%
0.31%

Fy
0.10%
100.49%
0.02%
3.71%
1.36%
0.38%

Fz

Mx

0.55%
0.31%
98.33%
4.35%
0.72%
1.21%

0.09%
3.09%
0.11%
88.23%
9.51%
0.67%

My
0.18%
0.03%
0.58%
4.38%
92.38%
1.76%

Mz
0.97%
3.08%
2.36%
0.82%
0.01%
97.05%

Figure 20. My bridge circuit under the action of Mx.

was developed using the matrix C1 and uniform strain output

.

1 ..
F61 = C .
(20)

Figure 21. Symmetric arrangement of gauges in the My bridge

circuit.

61

For an input F , the constitution of the strain output relative to

is given in table 7.
All other interference errors were less than 4.38%, with
the exception of the strain output of the My bridge due to the Mx
input, which constituted 9.51% of the total bridge output. This
relatively large interference error is considered to be mainly
due to the asymmetric gauge attachment position of the My
bridge. As shown in figure 10, the strain gauges GMy1GMy4
were arranged along the centre line of plates Z1Z4 on the basis
of the initial design shown in figure 4(e).
The bridge circuit for measuring My is unbalanced because
of the asymmetric strain distribution under Mx. On the basis of
the deformation mode shown in figure 4(d), the strain variation

in the measurements of the strain gauges is shown in figure 20.

The results of the FEM analysis indicate that the absolute value
of the strain on the high-stiffness end is greater than that on
the low-stiffness end. In figure 20, the tension strain TL > TS
and the compression strain CL > CS. The bridge circuit of the
My sensor is therefore unbalanced.
This systematic interference error from the Mx input to
the My bridge output can be eliminated by rearranging the
strain gauges in the My bridge, as shown in figure 21. The
bridge circuit is balanced because all four gauges are attached
to the end connected to part B, i.e., the values of the supporting
stiffness of all four strain gauges of the My bridge are the same.
9

Meas. Sci. Technol. 24 (2013) 115101

W Wang

5. Conclusion

References
[1] Park J J and Kim G S 2005 Development of the 6-axis
force/moment sensor for an intelligent robots gripper
Sensors Actuators A 118 12734
[2] Kim G S 2004 Development of a small 6-axis force/moment
sensor for robots fingers Meas. Sci. Technol. 15 22338
[3] Kim G S et al 2008 Development of 6-axis force/moment
sensor for a humanoid robots intelligent foot Sensors
Actuators A 141 27681
[4] Kim G S 2007 Design of a six-axis wrist force/moment sensor
using FEM and its fabrication for an intelligent robot
Sensors Actuators A 133 2734
[5] Chao L P and Chen K T 1997 Shape optimal design and force
sensitivity evaluation of six-axis force sensors Sensors
Actuators A 63 10512
[6] Joo J W et al 2002 Design and evaluation of a six-component
load cell Measurement 32 12533
[7] Aschwanden P, Muller J and Knornschild U 2006
Experimental study on the influence of model motion on the
aerodynamic performance of a race car SAE Technical
Paper 2006010803
[8] Hatamura Y et al 1988 A trial on a 6-axis force sensor for
robots Japan Soc. Mech. Eng. Trans. C 54 2416
[9] Kim G S 2000 The development of a six-component
force/moment sensor testing machine and evaluation of its
uncertainty Meas. Sci. Technol. 11 137782

We have described our development of a six-axis

force/moment sensor for the simultaneous measurement of
the forces Fx, Fy and Fz and moments Mx, My and Mz when
testing a scaled model in a wind tunnel. The PPS was adopted
for the proposed sensor.
The PPS theory equations and FEM analyses were used to
design the sensor. Equations for estimating the sensitivity and
stiffness were proposed. FEM analysis was used to validate
the estimation method, which is especially useful in the initial
design phase.
The results of the characteristic tests showed that the errors
between the FEM and calibration results were less than 8.5%.
The relative measurement errors of the proposed sensor were
less than 2.13%, and the interference errors were below 4.38%,
with the exception of the MxMy interference, which was
9.51%.
Another gauge attachment position plan was proposed to
reduce the interference error of the sensor. In a future work,
an attempt will be made to enhance the performance of the
sensor, which will also be used to measure the aerodynamic
forces acting on a scaled model in a wind tunnel test.

10