| Literature DB >> 28208779 |
Michaël Hinderdael1, Zoé Jardon2, Margot Lison3, Dieter De Baere4, Wim Devesse5, Maria Strantza6, Patrick Guillaume7.
Abstract
Currently, research on structural health monitoring systems is focused on direct integration of the system into a component or structure. The latter results in a so-called smart structure. One example of a smart structure is a component with integrated strain sensing for continuous load monitoring. Additive manufacturing, or 3D printing, now also enables such integration of functions inside components. As a proof-of-concept, the Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) technique was used to integrate a strain sensing element inside polymer (ABS) tensile test samples. The strain sensing element consisted of a closed capillary filled with a fluid and connected to an externally mounted pressure sensor. The volumetric deformation of the integrated capillary resulted in pressure changes in the fluid. The obtained pressure measurements during tensile testing are reported in this paper and compared to state-of-the-art extensometer measurements. The sensitivity of the 3D printed pressure-based strain sensor is primarily a function of the compressibility of the capillary fluid. Air- and watertightness are of critical importance for the proper functioning of the 3D printed pressure-based strain sensor. Therefore, the best after-treatment procedure was selected on basis of a comparative analysis. The obtained pressure measurements are linear with respect to the extensometer readings, and the uncertainty on the strain measurement of a capillary filled with water (incompressible fluid) is ±3.1 µstrain, which is approximately three times less sensitive than conventional strain gauges (±1 µstrain), but 32 times more sensitive than the same sensor based on air (compressible fluid) (±101 µstrain).Entities:
Keywords: 3D printing; additive manufacturing; embedded capillary; smart structures; strain; tensile
Year: 2017 PMID: 28208779 PMCID: PMC5335953 DOI: 10.3390/s17020328
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Tensile test sample dimensions (in mm).
Figure 23D printed tensile test sample.
Figure 3Optical microscope images of external surface of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) printed tensile test samples for different acetone-based after-treatment processes and layer thickness.
Figure 4Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) images of capillary surface inside ABS printed tensile test samples with layer thickness of 0.250 mm for (a) as built condition (b) cold vapor treatment during 6 h (c) cold vapor treatment during 17 h and with layer thickness of 0.140 mm for (d) as-built condition and (e) cold vapor treatment during 6 h.
Figure 5Comparison of cold acetone vapor after-treatment processes on Young Modulus (top) and strain measurement system performance (bottom) of ABS printed parts.
Figure 6The presented load monitoring system for 3D printed structures.
Figure 7(a) Tensile test setup (b) Detailed view of the two strain measurements: extensometer and pressure sensor connected to integrated capillary.
Figure 8Tensile testing results: Load monitoring system with capillary filled with air is compared to extensometer strain measurements. (a) Capillary pressure is linear with respect to extensometer strain (b) Comparison of Young Modulus and strain sensor sensitivity of four different tests on same tensile test sample. Raw data can be found in Appendix Figure A1.
Figure 9Tensile testing results: Load monitoring system with capillary filled with water is compared to extensometer strain measurements. (a) Capillary pressure is linear with respect to extensometer strain (b) Comparison of Young Modulus and strain sensor sensitivity of two samples and repeated testing on one tensile test sample. Raw data can be found in Appendix Figure A2.