Sensors and Actuators A 100 (2002) 223230

A novel six-component force sensor of good

measurement isotropy and sensitivities
Sheng A. Liu*, Hung L. Tzo
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dayeh University, No. 112, Shan-Jean Road, Da-Tsuen, Chang-Hwa, Taiwan
Received 3 October 2001; received in revised form 19 March 2002; accepted 25 March 2002

Abstract

In this work, a novel six-component force sensor with its force-sensing member in the form of four identical T-shaped bars is presented. The
force-sensing member is subjected to finite element analysis in conjunction with a design optimization for high measurement sensitivities.
Although significant measurement couplings exist in this six-component force sensor, however, they distribute only in a few sparse places in
the calibration matrix, making the calculations for the force components relatively easy and quick. The condition number under the full rated
loading conditions for this sensor is 1.543, which represents a rather good measurement isotropy, as compared to approximately 24 for a
Maltese crossbar sensor under similar conditions. In addition, only 20 strain gauges are required in the design, which is less than that used in a
Maltese crossbar type sensor, in which at least 24 strain gauges are used.
# 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Six-component force sensor; Measurement isotropy; Condition number; Finite element analysis; Design optimization

1. Introduction sensor of this kind, the elastic force-sensing member in it

Force sensors, which serve to measure the external forces,
are widely used in both industries and research as well.
These range from load cells and torque sensors to six-
component force sensors. A six-component force sensor is
an unit which functions to simultaneously measure six forces,
three orthogonal forces and three orthogonal moments, and is
used for wind-tunnel balances, thrust stand testing of rocket
engines, automobiles, shipbuilding, and particularly quite
common for adaptive real-time control purpose of machines
such as robotic systems. The trend of industrial automation
increasingly requires the use of robotic manipulators to serve
works such as installation, welding, grinding, deburring,
object gripping/moving, etc. The need for flexibility in
operation and for effective control makes it a must to detect
the interaction forces of robotic manipulator with its envir-
onment. The measured forces are constantly fed into the
control unit of the robotic system, and necessary actions by
relevant actuators are taken to optimize the performance.
A six-component force sensor may be a base, a table, or a
wrist type according to its location of application, although
the force-sensing principles are basically the same. In a
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: 886-4-8511888x2105;
fax: 886-4-8537852.
E-mail address: saliu@mail.dyu.edu.tw (S.A. Liu).
plays a key role. Strains gauges bonded securely as a whole to
appropriate locations in this member forms at least six bridge
circuits, from the voltage outputs of which the magnitudes
and directions of three forces and three moments are deter-
mined by matrix calculation. A six-component force sensor
may be a coupled or decoupled one in terms of the relation
between the outputs from the various bridge circuits and the
applications of the six force components. For the former, the
existence of any force component generally produces outputs
in more than one bridge. Cross sensitivities thus exist in such
a sensor, ensuing a relatively complex calibration matrix. As
for the later, the output of a bridge corresponding to a specific
force component is not affected by any of the other force
components. If this is the case, the calibration matrix for the
computation of the six force components is diagonal, with
only nonzero elements in its diagonal. This situation ensures
that only a relatively short time is needed for obtaining the
forces. Of course, since the force-sensing member is gen-
erally monolithic, a completely decoupled sensor is not
obtainable in reality. Every sensor is coupled to some extent.
Nevertheless, in a case where the cross sensitivities are not
significant (e.g., below 2%) and are all neglected, the sensor
may be treated as a decoupled one with acceptable accuracies.
Depending on the applications, three considerations are
generally involved and emphasized in the design of a six-
component force sensor for a particular application. These

0924-4247/02/$ see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 4 - 4 2 4 7 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 3 5 - 8
224 S.A. Liu, H.L. Tzo / Sensors and Actuators A 100 (2002) 223230
are the sensitivity of measurement, the isotropy of measure-
ment, and the decoupling of measurement. For example, if
the sensor is to be equipped in a robotic wrist, which is being
under a constant control to perform variable and flexible
tasks, it then requires that the decoupling be one of the
important factors. Furthermore, since there have six force
components to be measured, it is generally hoped that all
these components can be determined with approximately
equal measurement sensitivity. A sensor of best measure-
ment isotropy is one in which the maximum possible
measurement error due to matrix calculation is minimized.
In all cases, the measurement sensitivities should be max-
imized to give high measurement accuracies.
A Maltese crossbar seems to be the earliest elastic struc-
ture developed [1] for a six-component force sensor. It
responds to some force components with relatively higher
stiffness than to others, ensuing a poor measurement iso-
tropy. In addition to this particular structural deficiency,
the measurements based on this bar present a high degree
of coupling. For improvements on these deficiencies, it
requires that more strain gauges be imposed in the sensing
bridges. This inevitably introduces error sources. In contrast
to the crossbar, various types of force-sensing structure had
also been proposed [214], some are modified crossbars
[2,4,9,12] and some are new ones [3,7,8,10,11,13,14].
Among them, Bayo and Stubbe [7] proposed a frame/truss
type and employed its axial deformation behavior to elim-
inate disadvantages of the crossbar, and obtained better
measurement isotropy and decoupling. Quinn and Mote
[8] designed an uncoupled six-degree-of-freedom dynam-
ometer with a new type of force-sensing member made of six
T-sections with thin webs and flanges called shear panel
elements. Chao and Chen [12] modified the Maltese crossbar
by using ball bearings on the outer sides of the four spokes to
allow sliding and rotating at the rims. Although such an idea
is quite novel and attractive, it may introduce behavior
deficiencies such as nonlinearity, nonrepeatability, and hys-
teresis. Huang et al. [11] consulted an original design due to
Kassi et al. [2], and proposed a design based on a light and
simple thin cross beam structure. Kim et al. [13] designed a
sensing structure composed of 16 plate-beams, and claimed
a maximum interference errors to be below 3%. Recently, a
six-axis force transducer based on the Stewart platform was
also proposed [14], and a maximum measurement accuracy
within 7.5% was claimed to have been obtained.
This study proposes a novel six-component force sensor
with its force-sensing member in the form of four identical
T-shaped bars, which is one that can react to each individual
force component with the required specific deformations.
Good isotropy of measurement, large measurement sensi-
tivities, and easy calculations for the force components are
obtained in such a sensor. Although large cross sensitivities
exist, they distribute only in a few sparse places in the
calibration matrix. The condition number [4,9], which is
an index of indicating the isotropy of measurement with
respect to a specific rated loading condition, is quite good, as
compared to those based on a Maltese crossbar. The force-
sensing member is subjected to finite element analysis in
conjunction with a design optimization to maximize the
measurement sensitivities. The final results offer design
sizes, strains, etc., from which the various theoretical mea-
surement characteristics of this six-component force sensor
can be evaluated before a real sensor is made.
2. The sensing principle of a six-component force sensor
In general, a strain-gauged force sensor utilizes the linear
elastic behavior of structures generally made of metallic
alloys. Consider a structure which is loaded (input) at a
particular point of it by an unknown force vector,
~
F Fx ; Fy ; Fz ; Mx ; My ; Mz in its linear range. Then, on
the surface of the structure there must produce (output)
a vector of n strain signals, ~ S S1 ; S2 ; S3 ; . . . ; Sn , in the
prescribed measurement locations. The superposition prin-
ciple of linear elasticity then provides the following linear
relationship:
~
S C  ~
F (1)
where [C] is an n  6 strain compliance matrix, with its
entries in each column being the strains induced by a unit
force for each corresponding force component in the strain
measurement locations. A particular entry cij then denotes
the strain contribution in the ith strain measurement location
due to the application of a unit magnitude of the jth force
component. Provided now that there are six strain measure-
ment locations (i.e., n 6), [C] is a 6  6 diagonal matrix
and the solution for the force vector is directly obtained by a
matrix inversion operation on Eq. (1):
F C 1  ~
~ S A  ~
S (2)
The matrix [A] here is the calibration matrix of the sensor,
which represents a matrix that directly multiplies the strain
signal vector (output) to obtain the to-be-measured force
vector (input). For the case of n > 6, the direct inversion
cannot be performed and the force vector can then be
evaluated using a pseudo-inverse technique [15] for matrix
operation, giving the to-be-measured force vector as
F CT C 1 CT~
~ S (3)
The constant proportional matrix [C] can be obtained, either
analytically using a method in structural analysis or experi-
mentally using actual calibration, by applying a unit mag-
nitude for each force component individually and then
arranging the strains obtained in the n strain signal measure-
ment locations in the corresponding column. Since the
components of the force vector ~ F are either forces or
moments, the values in the first three columns and those
in the last three columns thus are, respectively, the induced
strains per unit force and per unit moment. This makes [C]
 S.A. Liu, H.L. Tzo / Sensors and Actuators A 100 (2002) 223230 225

depend on the units. To eliminate such an undesirable may be evaluated according to the form of the calibration
situation, [C] may be subjected to normalization with matrix (or the strain compliance matrix). If the calibration
respect to the prescribed maximum rated forces and matrix is diagonal, then the sensor is decoupled, which
moments. That is, by applying individually the maximum means that the output of a particular strain signal corre-
rated magnitudes instead of unit magnitudes for the six force sponding to a specific force component is not affected by the
components, a normalized [C], denoting now as [Cn], can be application of any of the other force components. If this is
obtained. Such a normalization scheme compensates for the the case, then
difference in units between force and moment, and makes
the normalized [Cn] being independent of the loading. The Fi aii Si ; i 1; 6; aij 0; i 6 j (5)
ijth elements of this normalized matrix then record the strain Since the sensor body is normally monolithic, a completely
responses of the sensor under the three maximum rated diagonal calibration matrix is never obtainable in practice,
forces and the three maximum rated moments, and the and therefore various cross sensitivities exist. The cross
sum of the elements of a particular row i is the superposed sensitivities may be defined by the cross sensitivities (CS)ij
strain measured in the ith strain measurement location under coefficients [5]:
the simultaneous effect of the six maximum rated force
cij
components. CSij P6 (6)
Since a six-component force sensor is designed particu- j1 jcij j
larly for measuring the specified rated magnitudes for all
where cijs denote the elements of the above-described
components, it is hoped that the sensor itself should provide
normalized strain compliance matrix [Cn].
the same measurement sensitivities for these six components
The elements of the strain signal vector ~S are not directly
in their rated magnitudes in order to give approximately
obtainable, and therefore have to be measured through the
uniform measurement accuracies for all components. The
application of electrical circuits. The commonly used circuit
condition of such isotropy of measurement can be evaluated
is the full Wheatstone bridge, as shown in Fig. 1. It is
by an index called the condition number C0 [4,9], which is
composed of four active strain gauges bonded to the appro-
a measure of relative sensitivity and provides a means of
priate locations of the elastic sensor body. In practice,
comparison of force sensors. Such a number is defined out
gauges 1 and 3 serve to sense the tensile strain pair, whereas
of the normalized strain compliance matrix [Cn] as
gauges 2 and 4 are for the compressive strain pair. Provided
s1 that all four gauges have the same magnitude of strain e, then
C0 (4)
s6 e may be computed via [16]
where s1 and s6 denote, respectively, the maximum and the V0
e (7)
minimum nonzero singular values [4,9] of this normalized KVi
matrix. It has been shown [7] that the condition number is
Here K is the gauge factor normally ranging from 2 to 4 for
also an influencing factor that effects the transmission of the
metal-based gauges. If the strain magnitudes in the two
errors from the measured strains to forces. For the case
tensile and compressive gauge pairs are only approximately
of n 6, the singular values are the same as the characteristic
equal, then the strain evaluated by Eq. (7) can be considered
values. The value of C0 represents the degree of the measure-
as the average value. The measurement sensitivity corre-
ment isotropy for the prescribed maximum rated force set.
sponding to a bridge for a particular force component may be
The condition number depends not only on the structural
defined as the ratio of the output voltage to the input voltage
configuration of the sensor body, the locations of the mea-
under the application of the maximum rated force value.
suring strain gauges, and the total number of strain gauge
This measurement sensitivity may then be calculated as
measurements, but also on the ratio of maximum moment
V0 =Vi Ke. For a bridge composed of metal-based strain
to maximum force rather than the absolute values of the
gauges, a ratio that is greater than 1.0 mV/V is considered
maximum rated force components. When the condition
good enough, and a ratio greater than 1.5 mV/V is usually
number has a value of unity, the measurement isotropy is
difficult to achieve. A full bridge circuit has the property of
considered to be perfect. It is possible to choose a rated set
of forces to be measured that will minimize the condition
number, but unless this set corresponds to the specified set of
a particular moment to force ratio, a comparison of perfor-
mance as based on the condition numbers of various designs
is not appropriate or has no meaning. One of the objectives
in the design of a particular sensor is to pursue a value of C0
as close as possible to a value of unity under a prescribed
rated set of forces.
In addition to the measurement isotropy described above, Fig. 1. A full bridge composed of identical gauges with equal resistance
another major characteristic of a six-component force sensor changes.
226 S.A. Liu, H.L. Tzo / Sensors and Actuators A 100 (2002) 223230
particular symmetry, so it can to a great extent eliminate the
effect due to temperature change. For a six-component force
sensor, at least six bridge circuits are required.
3. Finite element analysis and shape optimal design
A number of design factors should be considered in the
design of a six-component force sensor. These include the
specific geometry of the force-sensing member, material,
design of sensing bridges, stress and strain limits, size
limitation, etc. In general, the design of a force sensor is
expected to come out with high measurement sensitivities.
Since the sensing member of a six-component force sensor is
generally monolithic and geometrically complicated, its
analysis as based on a pure theory of solid mechanics is
generally difficult. To overcome this problem, the numerical
analysis as based on the commercial finite element package
can then be implemented to obtain quite accurate results and
implies that maximum strains are being pursued. However,
the maximum normal strains produced in the member at
the locations of bonded strain gauges ought not to exceed
a maximum value as appropriate to the capability of the
strain gauges intended for use. In general, for strain gauges
commonly used, the maximum strain allowed is 500
1500 mm. In addition to such a strain constraint, the elastic
member must also not be overstressed to avoid permanent
damage to this member. As have been noted, one of the
major design goals is to maximize the strains in the member,
so that large measurement sensitivity may be obtained to
ensue high measurement accuracies. Such a design goal
may best be achieved by finding the minimum volume of
the sensing member, since lower volume generally implies
smaller sectional sizes and thus larger strains. The optimiza-
tion problems thus involved may be defined as
Minimize Vd1 ; d2 ; d3 ; . . . ; dp (8a)
subject to
serve as one of the necessary steps before a real sensor is e  eallow (8b)
made. Based on the numerical analysis, the structural beha-
vior of the sensing member can be totally realized and the sY
se  (8c)
locations of appropriate strain gauge bonding can be deter- N
mined. In particular, the elastic force-sensing member under
the simultaneous effect of the full rated force set must be
capable of being strained sufficiently to give large strains,
while at the same time not subject to overstressing to cause
any permanent damage to this member. One of the design
goals is then to maximize the strains in the member, so that
large measurement sensitivity may be obtained to ensue high
measurement accuracies. Such a design goal may be accom-
plished by resorting to the finite element analysis technique in
conjunction with the shape optimal design algorithm, which
can offer the best one among many design candidates and
has nowadays become a usual practice in mechanical design.
The power of optimization methods to determine the best
case without actually testing all possible cases comes
through the use of a modest level of mathematics and at
the cost of performing iterative numerical calculations using
clearly defined logical procedures implemented by the use of
computer. In order to apply the numerical techniques of
optimization theory to concrete engineering problems it is
necessary to clearly delineate the boundaries of the problem
to be optimized, to define the quantitative criterion on which
the best is assumed to base, to select the system variables
that characterize the problem, and to define a model where
the variables are related. In general, three clearly differenti-
able portions are involved in a typical optimization problem.
These are defining the objective function to be optimized,
identifying the independent design variables that explicitly
or implicitly form the objective function, and giving the
various constraints associated with both the design variables
and the structural behavior.
The measurement sensitivity of a strain-gauged force
sensor under full rated force set depends mainly on the
amount of strains produced in the elastic member. This
dil  di  diu ; i 1; . . . ; p (8d)
where V; e; eallow ; se ; sY ; N represent, respectively, the
volume designated as the objective function, the maximum
normal strain, the maximum strain that the strain gauge can
tolerate before failure, the effective stress, the yield stress,
and the factor of safety in stress, whereas di ; dil ; diu are the
independent design variables (sensor body sizes) and their
appropriate geometric limitations.
4. Design of a six-component force sensor
4.1. A novel elastic force-sensing member
A novel force-sensing member for a six-component force
sensor is designed and shown in Fig. 2. Four square-sec-
tioned T-shaped bars compose the main part of the member.
A force transmitting thick plate sits on the four bars as a
monolithic whole. This particular design utilizes the defor-
mation of the vertical and horizontal beams of the T-shaped
bars. The design with undetermined sizes designated as
B1 ; B2 ; L1 ; L2 is shown in Fig. 3.
4.2. Conditions of design
The full rated force set for this sensor are specified to be
Fx Fy 20 kgf; Fz 40 kgf;
Mx My Mz 100 kgf cm 1 kgf m 1000 kgf mm
which correspond to a medium-size six-component force
sensor. The sensor body is assumed to be made of aluminum
alloy 7075T6. The factor of safety in stress design based on
 S.A. Liu, H.L. Tzo / Sensors and Actuators A 100 (2002) 223230
Fig. 2. The novel force-sensing member.
the yield stress is taken to be N 2, which is quite appro-
priate. The modulus of elasticity, the Poissons ratio, and the
yield stress required in the analysis are, respectively,
E 7:342 kgf=mm2 ; n 0:33;
2
sY 51:5 kgf=mm
4.3. Design optimization
Considering the capability of the strain gauges, the max-
imum allowable normal strain is assumed to be 800 mm
(0.0008). Also, taking into account the size requirement for
Fig. 3. The configuration of the force-sensing member with undetermined
sizes.
227
bonding the strain gauges, the following constraints for size,
stress, and strain are imposed on the design optimization:
B0 4; 3:3 < B1 < 5:0; 3:3 < B2 < 5:0;
26 < L1 < 32; 21 < L2 < 27 mm;
se < 25:5 kgf=mm2 ; e < 0:0008
By employing COSMOS/M2.0 software [17] with the
volume of the force-sensing member as the objective func-
tion, the design optimization iteration gives the final sizes for
B1 ; B2 ; L1 ; L2 :
B1 3:45; B2 3:68; L1 26;
L2 21 mm
4.4. The deformed shapes
The finite element model is one that uses solid elements
of eight nodes, and is bisected and trisected, respectively, in
the height and width of the sections of the T-shaped bars. To
analyze this force-sensing member, the full rated capacity of
each individual force component is separately applied to the
model. Based on the final results of the design optimization
as stated above, the deformed shapes can be plotted to
provide demonstration of the specific deformations corre-
sponding to each individual force component, and also to
provide a comprehension of the interaction of different force
components.
Fig. 5 shows the exaggerated deformed shape of the finite
element model subjected to the force component Fx or Fy.
From the figure, it is clear that for the vertical beams, in
addition to the usual bending, tension and compression also
occur. As for the horizontal beams, two of them are in bending
and the other two are in torsion. The exaggerated deformed
shape for the force component Fx is shown in Fig. 6, where it is
obvious that the vertical beams are in tension, whereas the
horizontal ones are in bending. Fig. 7 is the exaggerated
deformed shape under Mx or My. It appears that two T-shaped
bars are severely strained, whereas the other two are not.
Finally, the exaggerated deformed shape for Mz is shown in
Fig. 8. For this case, both the vertical beams and the horizontal
beams of the T-shaped bars are in a condition of bending.
The normal strains from the results of the finite element
analysis associated with the last iteration of the design
optimization are listed in Table 1. Note here that the values
listed have been taken as the averages of the four nodes on
the surfaces of the second elements from the ends, and the
elements are about 1.5 mm in length. From the values in the
table, the measurement characteristics can be evaluated.
4.5. Building the bridges
Considering the space requirement for the strain gauge
bonding, the locations for applying the gauges are assumed
to be centered at those surfaces of the second elements from
the ends as just stated above. Fig. 4 illustrates the bonding
228 S.A. Liu, H.L. Tzo / Sensors and Actuators A 100 (2002) 223230

Table 1
Normal strains in the locations of strain measurement gauges

Gauge Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz
4 5 5 4 4
2 4.843  10 4.431  10 9.221  10 1.335  10 1.26  10 5.617  10 4
1 4.843  10 4 4.431  10 5 9.221  10 5 1.335  10 4 1.26  10 4 5.617  10 4
6 4.843  10 4 4.431  10 5 9.221  10 5 1.335  10 4 1.26  10 4 5.617  10 4
5 4.843  10 4 4.431  10 5 9.221  10 5 1.335  10 4 1.26  10 4 5.617  10 4
4 4.431  10 5 4.843  10 4 9.221  10 5 1.26  10 4 1.335  10 4 5.617  10 4
3 4.431  10 5 4.843  10 4 9.221  10 5 1.26  10 4 1.335  10 4 5.617  10 4
8 4.431  10 5 4.843  10 4 9.221  10 5 1.26  10 4 1.335  10 4 5.617  10 4
7 4.431  10 5 4.843  10 4 9.221  10 5 1.26  10 4 1.335  10 4 5.617  10 4
11 8.944  10 5 2.279  10 4 4.609  10 4 6.599  10 4 3.619  10 5 7.981  10 5
12 2.489  10 4 1.577  10 4 5.026  10 4 3.963  10 5 7.194  10 4 1.52  10 4
18 2.489  10 4 1.577  10 4 5.026  10 4 3.963  10 5 7.194  10 4 1.52  10 4
17 8.944  10 5 2.279  10 4 4.609  10 4 6.599  10 4 3.619  10 5 7.981  10 5
9 3.191  10 4 2.402  10 4 4.848  10 4 6.957  10 4 8.384  10 5 3.087  10 4
10 3.191  10 4 2.402  10 4 4.848  10 4 6.957  10 4 8.384  10 5 3.087  10 4
15 3.568  10 4 2.402  10 4 4.848  10 4 6.957  10 4 8.384  10 5 3.087  10 4
16 3.191  10 4 2.402  10 4 4.848  10 4 6.957  10 4 8.384  10 5 3.087  10 4
13 2402.  10 4 3.191  10 4 4.848  10 4 8.384  10 5 6.957  10 4 3.087  10 4
19 2.402  10 4 3.191  10 4 4.848  10 4 8.384  10 5 6.957  10 4 3.087  10 4
14 2402.  10 4 3.191  10 4 4.848  10 4 8.384  10 5 6.957  10 4 3.087  10 4
20 2.402  10 4 3.191  10 4 4.848  10 4 8.384  10 5 6.957  10 4 3.087  10 4

locations of the gauges and are numbered, respectively, from 1 obtained from the strain results of applying each individual
to 20 (the numbers in parentheses represent those that are loca- force component in its full rated magnitude separately. The
ted in the other sides). The six bridges for the six force com- entries of [Cn] in each column can be evaluated as the
ponents are each composed of four active gauges. These are averages of the strains in the measurement locations of
Fx : 2; 5; 1; 6; Fy : 4; 7; 3; 8; the strain gauge bonding:
Fz : 12; 18; 11; 17; Mx : 9; 10; 15; 16; c1j 14 e2 e5 e1 e6 j ; j 1; 6 (9a)
My : 13; 14; 19; 20; Mz : 1; 5; 4; 8 c2j 14 e4 e7 e3 e8 j ; j 1; 6 (9b)
The compositions of these bridges are based on the specific
deformations that occur under each individual force com-
ponent, as may be seen in Figs. 58.

4.6. Strain compliance matrix and measurement isotropy

Using the bridges described above, the normalized strain

compliance matrix [Cn] described previously can be

Fig. 5. Exaggerated deformed shape under the force Fx (or Fy).

Fig. 4. Bonding locations and numbering for the strain gauges. Fig. 6. Exaggerated deformed shape under the force Fz.
 S.A. Liu, H.L. Tzo / Sensors and Actuators A 100 (2002) 223230 229

strain measurement locations corresponding to each basic

loading condition (i.e., unit force). Doing so gives [C] as
2 3
2:422 0 0 0 0:126 0
6 0 2:422 0 0:126 0 0 7
6 7
6 7
6 0 0 1:205 0 0 0:0361 7
6
C 6 7
6 0 1:201 0 0:6957 0 0 7 7
6 7
4 1:201 0 0 0 0:6957 0 5
0 0 0 0 0 0:5617
5
 10 (11)
Fig. 7. Exaggerated deformed shape under the force Mx (or My). The singular values for the normalized strain compliance
matrix [Cn] are s1 ; s2 ; s3 ; s4 ; s5 ; s6 7:379; 7:379;
5:659; 4:976; 4:976; 4:782, giving a condition number of
C0 s1 =s6 1:543 which represents a rather good mea-
surement isotropy for the specified rated loading condition,
as compared to approximately 24 for a Maltese crossbar
sensor under a similar loading condition.

4.7. Calculation of the force components

With [C] being now available, the force vector ~

F can be
calculated by matrix inversion in accordance with

Fig. 8. Exaggerated deformed shape under the force Mz. F C 1 ~

~ S A ~
S
2 32 3
37890 0 0 0 6860 0 S1
6 0 37890 0 6860 0 0 76 S2 7
76
6 7
c3j 14 e12 e18 e11 e17 j ; j 1; 6 (9c) 6 76 7
6 0 0 82990 0 0 5330 76 S3 7
66 0
76 7
c4j 14 e9 e10 e15 e16 j ; j 1; 6 (9d) 6 65400 0 131890 0 0 7 6 7
76 S4 7
6 76 7
4 65400 0 0 0 131890 0 54 S5 5
c5j 14 e13 e14 e19 e20 j ; j 1; 6 (9e) 0 0 0 0 0 178030 S6
(12)
c6j 14 e1 e5 e4 e8 j ; j 1; 6 (9f)
where the matrix [A] is the calibration matrix of the sensor.
where the strains with index j denote those corresponding to In expanded scalar forms, the forces are
the application of each individual force component. Com-
pleting the calculations from the numerical results for the Fx 37 890S1 6860S5 (13a)
strains of the last iteration loop of finite element analysis in
the design optimization, the normalized strain compliance Fy 37 890S2 6860S4 (13b)
matrix [Cn] appears to be
Fz 82 990S3 5330S6 (13c)
2 3
4:843 0 0 0 1:26 0
6 0 Mx 65 400S2 131 890S4 (13d)
6 4:843 0 1:26 0 0 7 7
6 7
6 0 0 4:818 0 0 0:361 7 My 65 400S1 131 890S5 (13e)
6
Cn  6 7
6 0 2:402 0 6:957 0 0 7 7
6 7 Mz 178 030S6 (13f)
4 2:402 0 0 0 6:957 0 5
0 0 0 0 0 5:617 The strain signals S1 ; S2 ; . . . ; S6 may be calculated from the
outputs of the corresponding bridges using Eq. (7).
 10 4 (10)
The entries of the strain compliance matrix [C] in Eq. (1) 4.8. The measurement sensitivities
may now be obtained by dividing each column of the above
normalized strain compliance matrix [Cn] by the full rated Using the strain results listed in Table 1, and selecting
magnitude of each corresponding force/moment component. commonly used strain gauges with a gauge factor of
The values in each column then denote the strains at the six K 2:1, the measurement sensitivities, defined as the ratios
230 S.A. Liu, H.L. Tzo / Sensors and Actuators A 100 (2002) 223230
Table 2
Measurement sensitivities of the novel force sensor
Gauge factor K 2:1 V0/Vi (mV/V)
Measurement sensitivities
Fx, Fy 1.12
Fz 1.15
Mx, My 1.57
Mz 1.36
of the output voltages to the input voltages, can be calculated
accordingly. These are listed in Table 2.
4.9. Remarks
From the above expressions, it is seen that, strain signals
designed for sensing Fx and My interact each other, i.e., Fx
sensor influences My sensor, and vice versa. Similarly, strain
signals designed for sensing Fy and Mx also interact each
other in the same manner. It is quite particular that Mz sensor
influences Fz sensor, but Fz sensor does not influence Mz
sensor. For this six-component force sensor, only Fz sensor is
completely independent of the other sensors.
5. Conclusion
This study has endeavored in designing a novel six-
component force sensor, and has obtained good results in
terms of the measurement isotropy and measurement sensi-
tivity. By performing the design optimization in conjunction
with the finite element analysis, the optimal sizes of the
force-sensing member were determined.
Although high degrees of coupling exist in such a six-
component force sensor, however, they distribute sparsely
only in a few places in the calibration matrix, making the
calculations for the force components reasonably easy and
quick. The condition number for this sensor is 1.543, which
represents a rather good measurement isotropy, as compared
to approximately 24 for a Maltese crossbar type sensor
under a similar loading condition. In addition, only 20 strain
gauges are used, less than that used in a Maltese crossbar
type sensor, in which at least 24 strain gauges must be used.
The results presented in this study are based purely on a
theoretical study. For a real sensor that is made according to
the design, the measurement characteristics should be close
to what have been predicted. However, due to various error
sources such as strain gauge variation, bonding inaccuracy,
material in-homogeneity, etc., the sensor must be subjected
to characteristic test using suitable calibration apparatus
of known uncertainty in order to obtain the actual calibra-
tion matrix and also to evaluate the overall measurement
characteristics.
References
[1] V.D. Scheiman, A preliminary work on implementing a manipulator
force sensing, Wrist, AI Laboratory Report, Stanford University,
1971.
[2] M. Kassi, K. Takeyasu, M. Uno, K. Murakaoka, Trainable assembly
system with an active sensory table possessing six axes, in:
Proceedings of the 11th International Industrial Robots, Tokyo,
Japan, 1981, pp. 393404.
[3] H. Van Brussel, H. Berlien, H. Thielemans, Force sensing for
advanced robot control, Robotics 2 (1986) 139148.
[4] M. Uchiyama, Y. Nakamura, K. Hakomori, Evaluation of robot force
sensor structure using singular value decomposition, J. Robot Soc.
Jpn. 5 (1) (1987) 410, (in Japanese).
[5] M. Uchiyama, K. Hakomori, A few considerations on structure
design of force sensors, in: Proceedings of the Third Annual
Conference of Robotics Society of Japan, 1985, pp. 1718.
[6] Y. Nakamura, et al., Design and signal processing of six-axis force
sensors, in: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on
Robotics Research, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988, pp. 7581.
[7] E. Bayo, J. Stubbe, Six axis force sensor evaluation and a new type of
optimal frame/truss design for robotics applications, J. Robotic Syst.
6 (2) (1989) 191208.
[8] T.P. Quinn, C.D. Mote Jr., Optimal design of an uncoupled six degree
of freedom dynamometer, Exp. Mech. 30 (1990) 4048.
[9] M. Uchiyama, E. Bayo, E. Palma-Villalon, A systematic design
procedure to minimize a performance index for robot force sensors, J.
Dyn. Syst. Measur. Contr. 113 (1991) 388394.
[10] A. Bicchi, A criterion for optimal design of multi-axis force sensors,
Robotics Auton. Syst. 10 (1993) 169286.
[11] W. Huang, H. Jiang, H. Zhou, Mechanical analysis of a novel six-
degree-of-freedom wrist force sensor, Sens. Actuat. 35 (1993) 203
208.
[12] L.P. Chao, K.T. Chen, Shape optimal design and force sensitivity
evaluation of six-axis force sensors, Sens. Actuat. A 63 (1997) 105
112.
[13] G.S. Kim, D.-I. Kang, S.-H. Rhee, Design and fabrication of a
six-component force/moment sensor, Sens. Actuat. 77 (1999) 209
220.
[14] C.G. Kang, Closed-form force sensing of a 6-axis force transducer
based on the Stewart platform, Sens. Actuat. A 90 (2001) 3137.
[15] R.D. Cook, W.C. Young, Advanced Mechanics of Materials, Wiley,
New York, 1989.
[16] D.K. Alexander, Transducers and their Elements, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994.
[17] COSMOS/M 2.0, Users Manuals, 1997.
Biographies
Sheng A. Liu received his PhD degree in mechanical and aerospace
engineering of State University of New York at Buffalo in 1990. Since
then, he has been working as an Associate Professor in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering at Dayeh University. His research interest
includes design of force sensors and pressure transducers, computer-aided
engineering analysis, and design optimization.
Hung L. Tzo is a former graduate student in the Department of Mechanical
Engineering at Dayeh University, and received his MEng in 2001. He has
been working as an Associate Engineer in the engineering division of
Taiwan Railway Administration.