Calibrating Accelerometers Using An Electromagnetic Launcher - Erik Timpson
Calibrating Accelerometers Using An Electromagnetic Launcher - Erik Timpson
Calibrating Accelerometers Using An Electromagnetic Launcher - Erik Timpson
\
|
=
2
2
V
V
AVG
=
2
2
1
V T S
X X
=
(16)
Substitute Equation (10) into Equation (8) and solve for
V
2
.
(17)
Using the quadratic formula and that the negative solution
is less than zero and V
2
cannot be less than zero, the V
2
solution is as follows:
(18)
Equation (18) is in the calibration software. The
calibration software also talks to the counter and oscilloscope
using GPIB.
The experiment was to calibrate the same accelerometer
using the bungee cord and, bow release method, and compare
that to the new Electromagnetic Launcher Method.
B. Uncertainty Evaluation
We used the NIST GUM method to construct the
Uncertainty Analysis [11]. We shall start by defining all
uncertainties in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Uncertainty Definitions
After defining all uncertainties, one must use partial
differentials to determine the magnitude each has on the
overall system. Equation (19) is the system equation (7)
including the mathematical progress thus far.
(19)
In the interest of simplifying the differentials, new terms
represent the numerator and the components of the
denominator.
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
Now the Partial differentials follow:
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
2 3 1
2
1
V T S S
X
=
( ) 0
2
1
2
2
2 1
2
2
3 1 2 1
2
2
=
(
(
|
|
\
|
+ + T g
T
S
S g V T g V
X
2
2
2
1
2 2
1 2 1 3 1 2
2
2
2
1 2
4
1
4
1
2
2
1
T g T g S g S g
T
S
T g V
X X
+ + + =
2
2
2
1
2 2
1 2 1 3 1 2
2
2
2
1
1
4
1
4
1
2
2
1
1
T g T g S g S g
T
S
T g
T V g
SC
X X
S S
+ + +
=
S S
T V g N =
1 1
X
T g D =
1 1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2 2
1 2 1 3 1 2
2
2
2
2
4
1
4
1
2 T g T g S g S g
T
S
D
X
+ + =
2 1
1
D D
N
SC
+
=
1
1
1
1
g
N
T V
g
N
S S
= =
S
S
S
V
N
T g
V
N
1
1
1
= =
S
S
S
T
N
V g
T
N
1
1
1
= =
1
1
1
1
2
1
g
D
T
g
D
X
= =
X X
T
D
g
T
D
1
1
1
2
1
= =
2
2 2
2
2 1 2
2
2
2
2
T D
T g S
S
D
=
2
1
3
2
D
g
S
D
=
2
2
1 2
4 D
T g
T
D
X
X
(32)
(33)
(34)
(35)
(36)
Now we can combine using the RSS method.
(37)
(38)
(39)
(40)
III. RESULTS
A. Calibration Results
Using the calibration procedure explained in Section I and
II we calibrated an accelerometer using the old method and
the new method. The accelerometer was a Kistler 8044 using
a signal conditioner. The same sensitivity was determined
using both methods. The sensitivity was 0.1016 mV/g
2.13%. Figure 9 shows the shock pulse obtained with the
new system. The amplitude was 11,432 g with a duration of
0.120 ms. The maximum bungee cord acceleration was
18,000 g at a pulse width of 0.100 ms. The highest
acceleration recorded on the HEML system was 22,441 g at a
pulse width of 0.1 ms. This was only operating at 400 volts
or 3.08 kJ (not even 10% of the maximum capacity). The
bungee cord method requires 42 centimeters of travel
distance before hitting that target to get an acceleration of
18kg. The HEML operates at 2.54 cm independent of
acceleration.
Figure 9. Calibration shock pulse
B. Comparison to other methods
The bungee cord method does have advantages. The
largest advantage is simplicity; and because of that,
timesaving (pull-it-back-and-let-it-go). Disadvantages to a
bungee cord and bow release are operator dependence, large
tower requirement for large amplitudes, and limitation on
maximum acceleration. The HEML system has clear
advantages over the bungee cord method in that it has no
operator dependence; there is a considerable travel distance
reduction, and no theoretical limit on velocity. The clear
downside to the HEML launcher, because no PFN
optimization has been done is the increased time to operate.
Pneumatics also has advantages; in fact, the most popular
actuation for High Amplitude and frequency shock pulses is
an Air gun [8-9]. Air guns maximum velocity is limited by
the speed of sound, whereas an Electromagnetic launcher
(EML) is not. It would be a wonderful future work to see a
Hopkinson Bar operated with an electromagnetic Launcher.
Further one could research from an energy storage
perspective the cost of using an electric generator to fill up a
tank (pneumatics) vs. the cost of directly charging the
capacitors. In the case of power tools, especially ones used
infrequently there is a clear energy savings of electrics over
pneumatics.
Chemicals propellants have some advantages also. This
work did not explore what specifically they would be;
however, the clear downside to chemicals in comparison to
electromagnetic launchers is the ease of repeatability with
less cost in expendable materials.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
An Electromagnetic Launcher given the right setup can
calibrate an accelerometer. The HEML setup resulted in the
same sensitivity as the bungee cord method. The HEML
setup exceeded the maximum acceleration of the old system
operating at 16% of the maximum energy. This work also
suggests the exploration of Electromagnetic Launchers in a
wide range of industry applications specifically the
calibration of accelerometers.
3
2 2
4
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
4
4
T D
T g S
T
D
+
=
2
2
2 1
2
1 2 3
1
2
4
2 4
D
T g T g S S
g
D
X
+ +
=
1 2 1 1
1
N
SC
D D N
SC
=
+
=
( )
2
2 1
1
1
D D
N
D
SC
+
( )
2
2 1
1
2
D D
N
D
SC
+
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
|
|
\
|
+
|
|
\
|
+
|
|
\
|
=
S
S
S
S
dT
T
N
dV
V
N
dg
g
N
dN
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
|
|
\
|
+
|
|
\
|
=
X
X
dT
T
D
dg
g
D
dD
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 |
|
\
|
+
|
|
\
|
+
|
|
\
|
+
|
|
\
|
+
|
|
\
|
=
X
X
dT
T
D
dS
S
D
dg
g
D
dT
T
D
dS
S
D
dD
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
|
|
\
|
+
|
|
\
|
+
|
|
\
|
= dD
D
SC
dD
D
SC
dN
N
SC
dSC
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Gratitude is extended toward Matthew Clewell and Randy
Herder for providing valuable contributions in many aspects
of this work.
REFERENCES
[1] Scanlon, J.J., III; Batteh, J.H.; Chryssomallis, G.; , "Tactical
applications for electromagnetic launchers," Magnetics, IEEE
Transactions on , vol.31, no.1, pp.552-557, Jan 1995
doi: 10.1109/20.364634
URL:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=364634&isn
umber=8355
[2] McNab, I.R.; , "Launch to space with an electromagnetic railgun,"
Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on , vol.39, no.1, pp. 295- 304, Jan 2003
doi: 10.1109/TMAG.2002.805923
URL:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1179826&is
number=26497
[3] Engel, T.G.; Nunnally, W.C.; Gahl, J.M.; , "Efficiency and Scaling in
DC Electromagnetic Launchers," Pulsed Power Conference, 2005
IEEE , vol., no., pp.249-252, 13-17 June 2005
doi: 10.1109/PPC.2005.300589
URL:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.proxy.mul.missouri.edu/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=
&arnumber=4084199&isnumber=4084141
[4] Engel, T.G.; Neri, J.M.; Nunnally, W.C.; , "A Same-Scale Comparison
of Electromagnetic Launchers," Power Modulator Symposium, 2006.
Conference Record of the 2006 Twenty-Seventh International , vol.,
no., pp.405-410, 14-18 May 2006
doi: 10.1109/MODSYM.2006.365270
URL:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.proxy.mul.missouri.edu/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=
&arnumber=4216222&isnumber=4216116
[5] Engel, T.G.; Veracka, M.J.; Neri, J.M.; , "The Specific-Force
Performance Parameter for Electromagnetic Launchers," Plasma
Science, IEEE Transactions on , vol.38, no.2, pp.194-198, Feb. 2010
doi: 10.1109/TPS.2009.2036260
URL:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.proxy.mul.missouri.edu/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=
&arnumber=5342526&isnumber=5410033
[6] Engel, T.G.; Neri, J.M.; Veracka, M.J.; , "Solid-Projectile Helical
Electromagnetic Launcher," Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on ,
vol.37, no.4, pp.603-607, April 2009
doi: 10.1109/TPS.2009.2012714
URL:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.proxy.mul.missouri.edu/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=
&arnumber=4776443&isnumber=4812340
[7] Engel, T.G.; Veracka, M.J.; , "Solid-Projectile Helical Electromagnetic
Launcher With Variable Gradient Stator and Magnetically Levitated
Armature," Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on , vol.39, no.12,
pp.3371-3377, Dec. 2011
doi: 10.1109/TPS.2011.2168570
URL:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.proxy.mul.missouri.edu/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=
&arnumber=6036183&isnumber=6086645
[8] Bateman, V.I.; Leisher, W.B.; Brown, F.A.; Davie, N.T., Calibration
of a Hopkinson bar with a transfer standard, Presented at the 62
nd
Shock and Vibration Symposium, Springfield, VA, Oct. 1991
[9] Bateman, V.I.; Brown F.A.; Davie N.T., Use of a Beryllium
Hopkinson Bar To Characterize a Piezoresistive Accelerometer In
Shock Environments, Journal of the Institute of Environmental
Sciences, vol. 39, no. Nov. 1996
[10] Bouche, R.R., Calibration of Shock and Vibration Measuring
Transducers, Navel Research Laboratory, 1979, pp. 12 & 144-151,
1979
[11] Kuyatt, C.E.; Taylor, B.N., Guide for Evaluating and Expressing the
uncertainty of NIST Measuremet Results NIST Technical Note 1297,
1994