Nanocomposite foam (NCF) is a multifunctional material that can be used to measure impact. Interactions between the flexible polymer matrix and conductive particles dispersed throughout it produce a voltage signal under dynamic strain, which correlates to the magnitude of impact. Though promising in applications requiring both impact sensing and energy absorption, NCF’s voltage response has been observed to suffer from significant signal drift. This paper investigates several causes of variance in the response of NCF sensors to consistent impacts. These effects can be classified into three general types: recoverable transient effects (such as those relating to viscoelasticity or capacitive charging), environmental drift (due to humidity and temperature), and permanent signal decay from material degradation. The motivation for the study arises from various potential repeat-impact applications where periodic recalibration of the sensor would be difficult (such as a gait-tracking insole in use for a marathon event). A cyclic drop testing machine was used to apply consistent impacts to NCF, and drift resulting from each factor (in ranges typical of an insole environment) was experimentally isolated. Models representing each factor’s contribution to signal drift are presented. Of the factors investigated, humidity and temperature caused the most significant drift, with permanent material degradation accounting for only minor decay in voltage response. Transient effects were also observed, with a characteristic ‘warm-up’ (or ‘charging’) time required for the NCF to achieve steady-state; this phenomenon, and the related ‘recovery’ time for the material to return to its original state, were determined. The resultant data can be leveraged to implement a correction algorithm or other drift-compensating method to retain an NCF sensor’s accuracy in both long and short data collection scenarios.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bird et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: