Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Geometrical optimization of dual octal ring force sensor for wide range
loading using GRA
Vijay A. Kamble a,⇑, Jayant K. Kittur b, Vasudev D. Shinde c
a
Research scholar, VTU, Belagavi and Department of Mechanical Engineering, Textile and Engineering Institute, Ichalkaranji, India
b
Departmentof Mechanical Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology,Belagavi, India
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Textile and Engineering Institute, Ichalkaranji, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the design of a force sensor, capacity of strain gauge plays an important role. Force sensor capacity
Available online xxxx depends on the deformation limit of strain gauge. Normally, force sensors are built as per specific range
of load capacity. An optimal dual octal ring force sensor was developed for the measurement of wider
Keywords: ranges of loading. This force sensor had two limbs with gaps which distinguish light or heavy load in a
Multi capacity dual octal ring. It gives low stiffness for light load causing high sensitivity, while high stiffness for heavy
Dual octal ring loading prevents over-straining. In the shape optimization process, displacements at certain points were
GRA
maximized without violating stress constraints. The top octagon height, top octagon thickness, bottom
Optimization
Force sensor
octagon height, and bottom octagon thickness were treated as design variables. The use of Grey regres-
sion analysis (GRA) multi-optimization technique proposed reduction in mass by 12% with increase in
deflection by 27%.It is a one-step, two-range weighing system, which could prove beneficial to the agri-
cultural products sorting process.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 3rd International e-Con-
ference on Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering and nanoTechnology.

1. Introduction
To enhance the quality and productivity, industries are opting for
computerized mass measuring instruments. The automated data is
utilized for inspections and comprehensive calculation. In the mass
measurement system, force sensors convert force into electrical sig-
nals. It is made up of elastic element and strain gauges mounted on
the surface of the elastic element at proper location. The applied
force on the elastic element will be measured in terms of resistance
and voltage of strain gauge, which is measured using Wheatstone
bridge circuit. The value of the force applied can be obtained from
the value of change in voltage [1]. Different types of force sensors
in practice are S shape, Pan Cake and Beam type force sensor, which
deflect linearly. Force sensors are used in various measuring instru-
ments such as electronic balances, testing machines, flow meters,
industrial scales, and in automation as force sensors [2]. More num-
ber of force sensors is required to cover different load ranges, these
increase handling efforts, in addition to increase the cost of purchas-
ing force sensors. This work concerns the introduction of dual octal
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vakamble@dkte.ac.in (V.A. Kamble).
ring force sensors for wide-range loading. In some cases, use of multi
component stiffening flexures are used for varying sensitivity which
increases weight and not frugal and will pose accuracy as single
monolithic parts are not used. Chang and Lin designed a G-
shapedforce sensor to measure two force ranges [3].
The G-shaped force sensor has mechanical points which can
distinguish light and heavy loads. During shape optimization, the
displacement at a particular region is maximized without violating
stress constraint. The coefficients of the elliptic curve function
were treated as design variables. The slope of the stress response
is increased by approximately 20%, which enhances the sensitivity
of the force sensor. The relationship between e.m.f. and load
applied is generated. Osman et al. illustrated Multicapacity force
sensors for force measurement. It gives spot on the design, manu-
facturing and development of force transducer with multi- capac-
ity [4]. Kluger et al. demonstrated the nonlinear flexures used in
force sensors to enlarge force range and resolution. [5]. Theforce
sensor having low stiffness offers high sensitivity for small forces
whereas force sensors with high stiffness opposes over-straining
at high forces [6]. Uchimura and Masuyama patented multi-
range force sensor scale used for heavy and light range load capac-
ities. It used two different output signals based on predetermined

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.03.745
2214-7853/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 3rd International e-Conference on Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering and nanoTechnology.

Please cite this article as: V.A. Kamble, J.K. Kittur and V.D. Shinde, Geometrical optimization of dual octal ring force sensor for wide range loading using
GRA, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.03.745
V.A. Kamble, J.K. Kittur and V.D. Shinde
values of the light-range and heavy- range force sensor [7] and
claimed improved version with use of number of force sensors
[8] and varying range weighing applications [9]. Yalof and Doren
proposed adjusting the sensitivity of the force sensor will provide
an accurate measurement over a wide range of pressures [10].
Suzuki et al. [11] patented a multi-range force sensor weighing
scale which includes low and high range force sensors for weight
determination. Stratana et al. developed a ring type mechanical
force transducer considering shape optimization, modification
and characterization with different optimization codes [12] Sta-
noetal have done additive manufacturing and characterization of
a force sensor with embedded strain gauges. [13] Singh et al. devel-
oped and metrologically evaluated an Industrial Force Transducer
[14]. Mole patented variable force sensor arrangement operative
for precisely measuring loads [15].
Force sensors can measure forces with high accuracy and min-
imum possible uncertainties, but they have some issues that
restrict their usage, the first issue is; each force sensor has a unique
capacity that cannot be exceeded and if this happens it may lead to
its collapse or at least change in its performance perhaps signifi-
cantly worse. The manufacturers of these devices recommend
not using their devices to measure forces at a range of less than
10% of their rated capacities. To cover the traceability within the
wide range of force measurement, maybe from milli-Newton
(mN) up to several Mega-Newton (MN) many force sensors of dif-
ferent capacities must be available. These reference transducers
are very costly devices. Hence the concept of a single force sensor
capable of operating at different capacities was proposed (multi-
capacity concept). To avoid the confusion between two technical
terms, it is important to clarify the difference between the multi-
capacity force transducer and a multi-component or a multi-axis
force sensor. The multi-capacity is a force transducer capable of
measuring the force in uniaxial direction at a wide force measure-
ment range or multi-force measurement ranges, while the multi-
component is a sensor that measures forces, torque and moments
occurring in more than one direction as the one used to evaluate
the PTB 2 kN
m torque standard machine. [16]. Based on the liter-
ature cited, a greater number of traditional force sensors were
assembled together to use as multi capacity force sensors. This cre-
ates a bulky and costlier force sensor. In some cases, multi compo-
nent stiffening flexures were used for varying sensitivity which
increases weight and non-frugal solution. This will create accuracy
problems; as multiple components are used. Also, it creates com-
plex design issues in the context of strength of mechanics. In some
cases, a greater number of spring elements is assembled instead of
a single piece product which creates a question mark to certainty.
Fig. 1. Dual octal ring force sensor and its 2D, 3D model.
2
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
This paper deals with wide range loading capacity force sensor, in
two stages with higher sensitivity forfirst stage (for light load) and
higher stiffness for second stage (heavy load)It is a one-step, two-
range weighing system, which could prove beneficial to the agri-
cultural products sorting process.
In section 2, model of a single piece dual octal ring force sensor
isdescribed which is used to measure a wide range of load. Sec-
tion 3 describes finite element analysis which is used to evaluate
the displacement and strain induced in the structural member.
Section 4 describes Grey Relational analysis (GRA) which is used
to optimize the dimensions of elastic elements to minimize the
volume of the structural elements and to increase the sensitivity
to light load. Section 5 describe analysis of variance (ANOVA).
2. Dual octal ring force sensor
For the design of force sensors, a dual octal ring is used as a
spring element. Dual octal ring force sensors are designed as
shown in Fig. 1. Two vertical limbs are provided in the top ring,
separated with a small gap portion at the center. For light loading
in first range, there is no contact between the two special limbs of
the force sensor. In the second range for heavy loading, contact
between the two components occurs. Stiffness of the spring ele-
ment is varied to differentiate the sensitivity, as the stiffness of
the force sensor element for the second range is increased. And
for the first range, the stiffness of the spring element will be less
as compared to the second stage. Thus, the sensitivity dual octal
ring will be improved for light loading conditions [17].
2.1. Design methodology
To analyze the strain of a dual octal ring 3D model is prepared
using Ansys software as shown in Fig. 1. The selected variable
design parameters are top octagon height (HU), bottom octagon
height (HL), top octagon thickness (TU), bottom octagon thickness
(TL). The thickness of the middle limb is kept constant as 10 mm.
Middle gap in the limb is kept equal to maximum deflection
occurred in the top ring after application of maximum light load
i.e., 294 N. Displacement and strain values at the inner surface of
octal rings are considered as the constraints [18]. The overall
height and thicknesses are considered as design variables for the
dual octal ring force sensor as shown in Fig. 1.
V.A. Kamble, J.K. Kittur and V.D. Shinde Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

3. Finite element analysis array is selected so as to perform nine different combinations of

For the finite element analysis brick elements having 20 nodes
(solid 95) are used for meshing the model because it can tolerate
irregular shapes without as much loss of accuracy. SOLID95 ele-
ments have compatible displacement shapes and are well suited
to model curved boundaries. The element is defined by twenty
nodes having three degrees of freedom per node: translations in
the nodal x, y and z directions. The element may have any spatial
orientation. The element has plasticity, creep, stress stiffening,
large deflection, and large strain capabilities. [19]. The material
of the force sensor is selected as aluminum alloy (AL1060). As
limbs are only contacting after increased load, so non-
penetration condition is assigned in the finite element analysis
[20]. For analysis, modulus of elasticity assigned to 70 GPa, and
Poisson ratio to 0.3. Force sensor is fixed at the bottom surface.
The magnitudes of forces were found to be 294 N for light load
and 500 N for heavy load respectively.
3.1. Design of simulation experiments
Orthogonal arrays are designed using theories from the Taguchi
method for conducting simulation trials on dual octal ring force
sensors. To study the performance of force sensors, geometrical
parameters, especially heights of two rings and thicknesses of octal
rings with three different levels are considered as variable param-
eters. The Taguchi method is used to study a large number of vari-
ables using a minimal number of experiments [21]. L9 orthogonal
design parameters for performing simulations as shown in Table 1.
3.2. Structural analysis of force sensor
For structural analysis, meshed finite element models of dual
octal ring with parameters as per L9 array are loaded under light
and heavy load. The simulations are performed and analyzed.
Gap value for each model is decided from maximum deflection
value in the top ring under light load condition in dual octal ring.
The meshed model and simulation contour plot of dual octal ring
force sensors are as shown Fig. 2.
In order to study the effect of the dimensional parameters on
performance parameters structural analysis is carried out. Results
from these structural analyses like maximum deflection in top ring
under light load, volume of each model, maximum strain value in
top ring and bottom ring under light load (et1, eb1), maximum
strain value in top ring and bottom under heavy load (et2, eb2)
are observed as shown in Table 2.
4. Grey RelationalAnalysis
To optimize dual octal ring force sensors, GRA is used. It is used
to solve the complicated interrelationships among the various
multiple performance characteristics effectively [22]. Grey Rela-
tional Analysis (GRA) method is used for multi response optimiza-
tion. The multi response optimization first converts multiple
objectives into a single objective. From the GRA, a grey relational

Table 1
Taguchi L9 orthogonal array.

Sr. No. Height of top octagon (mm) Thickness of top octagon (mm) Height of bottom octagon (mm) Thickness of bottom octagon (mm)
1 90 4 90 4
2 90 6 100 6
3 90 8 110 8
4 100 4 100 8
5 100 6 110 4
6 100 8 90 6
7 110 4 110 6
8 110 6 100 8
9 110 8 90 4

Fig. 2. Meshed models and strain contour plots of single and dual octal ring force sensors.

3
V.A. Kamble, J.K. Kittur and V.D. Shinde Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2
Structural analysis of dual octal ring element.

Expt. Volume Deflection et1 eb1 et2 eb2

No. mm3 mm mstrain mstrain mstrain mstrain
1 36,730 0.375 875.190 737.750 1366.000 1247.000
2 49,110 0.016 408.460 386.480 682.000 646.000
3 62,310 0.088 231.790 249.200 396.150 415.240
4 52,940 0.361 981.620 217.900 1123.000 376.000
5 49,300 0.349 455.450 909.080 761.440 1533.000
6 55,120 0.011 265.830 346.620 1117.000 589.050
7 53,470 0.511 1080.000 406.640 1336.000 697.630
8 58,670 0.192 516.537 196.840 611.100 345.360
9 56,570 0.254 294.740 820.790 497.770 1384.000

Fig. 3. Flow chart showing steps in Grey relational analysis.

grade (GRG) is obtained to evaluate the multiple performance
Characteristics.[23] As a result, conversion of complicated multiple
performance characteristics can be a single performance character-
istic. The various steps in GRA include normalization of process
parameters for calculating grey relational coefficient (GRC). In
order to optimize volume and sensitivity simultaneously, grey
relational analysis (GRA) has been utilized. For multi response
optimization using GRA, the steps used for analysis are as shown
in the flow chart in Fig. 3. [24]
4.1. signal-to-noise ratio (S/N)
The simulation results were then converted to signal-to-noise
ratio (S/N) to measure the quality characteristics deviating from or
near the desired value using Eqs. (1) and (2). For volume, strain under
light load in bottom ring (eb1) and strain under heavy load in top ring
(et2) - smaller the better criterion is used. Whereas for deflection,
strain under light load in top ring (et1) and strain under heavy load
in bottom ring (eb2), the bigger the better criteria are used.

4
V.A. Kamble, J.K. Kittur and V.D. Shinde Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

!
1X R Table 4
S=N ¼ 10  log10 y2 ð1Þ Analysis of Grey relational coefficient for Deflection.
R j¼1 j
Deflection S/N Normalised Deviation GRC
! 0.375 8.518 0.919 0.081 0.861
1X R
1 36.053
S=N ¼ 10  log10 ð2Þ 0.016 0.092 0.908 0.355
R j¼1 y2j 0.088 21.125 0.541 0.459 0.521
0.361 8.856 0.909 0.091 0.846
0.349 9.148 0.900 0.100 0.834
0.011 39.114 0.000 1.000 0.333
4.2. Normalization
0.511 5.836 1.000 0.000 1.000
0.192 14.339 0.744 0.256 0.662
Normalization of simulation data is done in the range of 0 to 1. 0.254 11.906 0.818 0.182 0.733
The obtained S/N ratio data are converted to normalized values
using Eqs. (3) and (4) for smaller the better criterion and bigger
the better criterion respectively.
Table 5
maxx0i ðkÞ  x0i ðkÞ Analysis of Grey relational coefficient for strain under heavy load in top ring (et2).
xi ðkÞ ¼ ð3Þ
maxx0i ðkÞ  minx0i ðkÞ et2 S/N Normalised Deviation GRC
1366.000 62.709 1.000 0.000 1.000
x0i ðkÞ  minx0i ðkÞ 682.000 56.676 0.439 0.561 0.471
xi ðkÞ ¼ ð4Þ 51.957
maxx0i ðkÞ  minx0i ðkÞ 396.150 0.000 1.000 0.333
1123.000 61.008 0.842 0.158 0.760
761.440 57.633 0.528 0.472 0.514
1117.000 60.961 0.837 0.163 0.755
4.3. Deviation sequence
1336.000 62.516 0.982 0.018 0.965
611.100 55.722 0.350 0.650 0.435
Deviation sequence is calculated using Eq. (5) 497.770 53.941 0.184 0.816 0.380
 
Doi k ¼ x0 ðkÞ  xi ðkÞ ð5Þ

4.4. Grey relational coefficients Table 6

Analysis of Grey relational coefficient for strain under heavy load in top ring (et2).

Grey relational coefficients are calculated based on deviation et2 S/N Normalised Deviation GRC
sequence and S/N ratio normalization values following Eq. (6) 1247.000 61.917 0.861 0.139 0.783
646.000 56.205 0.420 0.580 0.463
Dmin þ fDmax
cðx0 ðkÞ; xi ðkÞ ¼ Þ ð6Þ 415.240 52.366 0.124 0.876 0.363
Dmin þ fDmax 376.000 51.504 0.057 0.943 0.347
1533.000 63.711 1.000 0.000 1.000
Were, 589.050 55.403 0.358 0.642 0.438
Dmin = min. min D0, (k) 697.630 56.873 0.472 0.528 0.486
Dmax = max. max D0, (k) 345.360 50.765 0.000 1.000 0.333
D0 (k) is the deviation sequence & 1384.000 62.823 0.931 0.069 0.879

n = distinguishing coefficient, n2 (0, 1) generally it is considered

as 0.5
S/N ratio, Values for normalization, deviation sequence, Grey Table 7
relational coefficient of volume, strain under light load in bottom Analysis of Grey relational coefficient for strain under light load in top ring (et1).
ring (eb1) and strain under heavy load in top ring (et2), deflection, et1 S/N Normalization Deviation GRC
strain under light load in top ring (et1) and strain under heavy load
875.190 58.842 0.863 0.137 0.785
in bottom ring (eb2) for each experiment are obtained as shown in 408.460 52.223 0.368 0.632 0.442
Tables 3–8. 231.790 47.302 0.000 1.000 0.333
981.620 59.839 0.938 0.062 0.890
4.5. Grey relational grade 455.450 53.169 0.439 0.561 0.471
265.830 48.492 0.089 0.911 0.354
1080.000 60.668 1.000 0.000 1.000
Grey relational grade is calculated from grey relational coeffi- 516.537 54.262 0.521 0.479 0.511
cients of volume, strains (et2,eb2,et1, eb1) and rank is calculated 294.740 49.389 0.156 0.844 0.372
following Eq. (7)

Table 3 Table 8
Analysis of Grey relational coefficient for Volume. Analysis of Grey relational coefficient for strainunder light load in bottom ring (eb1).

Volume S/N Normalised deviation GRC eb1 S/N Normalization deviation GRC
36,730 91.300 0.000 1.000 0.333 737.750 57.3582 0.864 0.136 0.786
49,110 93.823 0.550 0.450 0.526 386.480 51.7425 0.441 0.559 0.472
62,310 95.891 1.000 0.000 1.000 249.200 47.931 0.154 0.846 0.372
52,940 94.476 0.692 0.308 0.619 217.900 46.7651 0.066 0.934 0.349
49,300 93.857 0.557 0.443 0.530 909.080 59.172 1.000 0.000 1.000
55,120 94.826 0.768 0.232 0.683 346.620 50.7971 0.370 0.630 0.442
53,470 94.562 0.711 0.289 0.633 406.640 52.1842 0.474 0.526 0.487
58,670 95.368 0.886 0.114 0.815 196.840 45.8823 0.000 1.000 0.333
56,570 95.052 0.817 0.183 0.732 820.790 58.2846 0.933 0.067 0.882

5
V.A. Kamble, J.K. Kittur and V.D. Shinde Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 9
Ranking the performance parameters of force sensor.

Expt. Volume Deflection GRC GRG Rank

et2 eb2 et1 eb1
1 0.333 0.861 1.000 0.783 0.785 0.786
2 0.526 0.355 0.471 0.463 0.442 0.472 0.455 9
3 1.000 0.521 0.333 0.363 0.333 0.372 0.487 8
4 0.619 0.846 0.760 0.347 0.890 0.349 0.635 5
5 0.530 0.834 0.514 1.000 0.471 1.000 0.725 3
6 0.683 0.333 0.755 0.438 0.354 0.442 0.501 7
7 0.633 1.000 0.965 0.486 1.000 0.487 0.762 1
8 0.815 0.662 0.435 0.333 0.511 0.333 0.515 6
9 0.732 0.733 0.380 0.879 0.372 0.882 0.663 4

Table 12
Analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS % contribution

HU 2 0.009957 0.004979 8.17
TU 2 0.051985 0.025992 42.67
HL 2 0.009947 0.004974 8.16
TL 2 0.049938 0.024969 40.99
Total 8 0.121828 0.060914 99.99

process parameters. From mean sensitivity for GRG, from which

we get optimal parameter combinations needs to be validated
further.

4.6. Weighted grey relational grade

Fig. 4. Variations in grade values of designed experiments.
Weighted grey relational grade is determined using Eq. (8).
     

Table 10
gopt ¼ T þðAð1=2=3Þ  TÞ þ ðBð1=2=3Þ  T þ ðCð1=2=3Þ  TÞÞ ð8Þ
Ranking of Grey relational grade of predicted model. 
T = overall mean of the response
HU(A) TU(B) HL(C) TL(D)   
Að1=2=3Þ ; Bð1=2=3Þ ; Cð1=2=3Þ = average values of response at the first or
L1 0.567 0.718 0.591 0.715
L2 0.620 0.565 0.584 0.573 second or third levels of parameters A, B and C respectively.
L3 0.647 0.550 0.658 0.546 The best combination of the process parameter is set with
Max 0.647 0.718 0.658 0.715 A3B1C3D1 from the response table for grey relational grade as
Min 0.567 0.550 0.584 0.546
shown in Table 10.
Delta 0.080 0.168 0.074 0.170
Rank 3 2 4 1
Simulation is carried out again based on predicted model
dimensions. Predicted validation grey relational grades are calcu-
lated using Eq. (7). The predicted and experimental values of opti-
mal process parameters are tabulated in Table 11.
1 Xm
cðx0 ; xi Þ ¼ cðx0 ðkÞ; xi ðkÞÞÞ ð7Þ
m i¼1
5. Analysis of variance
Grey relational grades are obtained as shown in Table 9 and
variations in grade values are as shown in Fig. 4.From table 9, it The maximum deflection in top ring under light load, volume of
is seen that experiment 7 showing the best response values each model, maximum strain value in top ring and bottom ring
amongst all experiments, as larger the grey relational grade; so, under light load (et1, eb1), maximum strain value in top ring and
ranked one as the corresponding characteristics is the better. bottom under heavy load (et2, eb2) are considered as responses
After calculating grey relational coefficients, it is required to for designed experiments and analysis of variance (ANOVA) is car-
predict the value of grey relational grade and also to find optimal ried out for each to find most significant parameters which affect

Table 11
Predicted and experimental values of optimal parameters.

Sr. No. Process Parameters Initial Setting Predicted Value FEA Validation
1 Optimal Parameters A3B1C3D2 A3B1C3D1 A3B1C3D1
2 Volume (mm3) 53,470 47,170
3 Deflection (mm) 0.511 0.65075
4 HSU 1336 1647
5 HSL 697.630 1515
6 LSU 1080 1082
7 LSL 406.640 893
8 Grey Relational Grade 0.762 0.905 0.911

6
V.A. Kamble, J.K. Kittur and V.D. Shinde
the response which is a statistical technique. In the present
research work ANOVA is carried out on Minitab 17. In ANOVA anal-
ysis, after calculating percentage contribution for all control fac-
tors, it is found that as per the Table 12, top octagon height (HU),
,bottom octagon height (HL), bottom octagon thickness (TL) affect
GRGby 8.17%,42.67%,8.16% and40.99% respectively. This analysis
shows thattop octagon thickness (TU) followed by bottom octagon
thickness (TL) are most significant control factor for surface
roughness.
6. Conclusions
The conclusions based on multi-objective optimization of dual
octal ring force sensor using Taguchi with GRA and experimental
performance evaluation is summarized as follows:
1. The newly developed Dual capacity force sensor found to
increase the stiffness of the force sensor element with applied
load.
2. The performance evaluation test showed an increase in sensi-
tivity by 15.88% for light loads (0 to 294 N) as compared to
heavy load condition, which is very essential to have high pre-
cision measurements.
3. The stiffening nature of the force sensor causes its deflection
and strain to be very sensitive to small forces up to 294 N.
The 0.3 mm gap is maintained in the limbs.
4. Grey Relational analysis optimization technique indicated
decrease in mass by 12% with 27% increase in deflection.
5. Using Grey Relational analysis, Initial setting A3B1C3D2 grade
i.e., 0.762 increases by using new optimum combination
A3B1C3D1 up to 0.911, means there is increment in the grade
by 16.36%.
6. ANOVA shows that top octagon thickness (TU) followed by bot-
tom octagon thickness (TL) are most significant control factor
for surface roughness.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Vijay A. Kamble: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Data curation, Writing - original draft, Validation. Jayant K. Kittur:
Writing - review & editing. Vasudev D. Shinde: Supervision, Visu-
alization, Investigation, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
References
[1] M Kuhnel, F. Hilbrunner, H. Buchner, G. Jager, E. Manske, Frohlich T. ‘‘Traceable
measurement of mechanical parameters of double bending beam force
transducers according to EN ISO 376” Measurement 51 (2014) 336-342.
[2] D.M. Stefanescu, A. Stefanescu, ‘‘Criteria for Choosing the Elastic Elements of
Force Transducers”, Proceedings of the 17th International conference IMEKO
TC3. (2001) 134-140.
[3] Y.S. Chang, T.C. Lin, An optimal G-shaped load cell for two-range loading, Eng.
Agric. Environ. Food 6 (4) (2013) 172–176.
[4] S.M. Osman, E.H. Hasan, H.M. El-Hakeem, R.M. Rashad, F. Kouta, Multi-
Capacity Load Cell Concept, Sensors & Transducers 179 (9) (2014) 229–233.
[5] J.M. Kluger, T.P. Sapsis, A.H. Slocum, A high-resolution and large force-range
load cell by means of nonlinear cantilever beams, Precis. Eng. 43 (2016) 241–
256.
[6] J. Kluger, A. Slocum, T. Sapsis, ‘‘Ring-Based Stiffening Flexure Applied as a Load
Cell with High Resolution and Large Force Range”, Mechanical design, 139/10
(2017).
[7] M. Uchimura, T. Masuyama, ‘‘Multi-range load cell scales‘‘ United States Patent
number 4,660,667 (1987).
[8] M. Uchimura, ‘‘Multi-range load cell weighing instrument” United States
Patent number 4,632,198 (1986).
[9] M. Uchimura, T. Masuyama, ‘‘Multi-range load cell weighing instrument”
United States Patent number 4,690,230 (1987).
[10] S. Yalof, L. Doren, ‘‘Wide range load cell”, United States Patent number
4,491,027 (1985).
[11] Suzuki S., Nishiyama Y., Kitagawaet T. ‘‘Multi-range load cell weighing scale”,
United-States Patent number 4,711,314 (1987).
[12] G. Stratana, N. Khandokera, S. Islama, On development of a ring type
mechanical force transducer: shape optimization, modification and
characterization with different optimization codes, Measurement 171 (2021).
[13] Nisio A D StanoG, A. Lanzolla, G. Percoco, Additive manufacturing and
characterization of a load cell with embedded strain gauges, Precis. Eng. 62
(2020) 113–120.
[14] A.P. Singh, A.S. Ghoshal, H. Kumar, Development and Metrological Evaluation
of an Industrial Force Transducer, MAPAN 35 (2020) 165–176.
[15] P. Mole, ‘‘Variable range load cell system and method of application”, United
States Patent number 5,257,549 (1993).
[16] M. Abdulhakima, R. Hegazya, A.E. Abuelezza Hany, M. Abdelhakeema, A.M.
Gafferb, H.M. Zakariab, ‘‘Novel design of a multi-capacity force measurement
instrument”, Measurement, 173, (2021)
[17] A. Khaled, S. Essam, Regression Analysis of Octal Rings as Mechanical Force
Transducers, WSEAS Transactions on Mathematics 15 (2016) 398–406.
[18] S. Karabay, Analysis of drill dynamometer with octagonal ring type
transducers for monitoring of cutting forces in drilling and allied process,
Journal of Materials and Design. 28 (2) (2007) 673–685.
[19] S.M. Osman, R. Kumme, M. Hakeem, E. Hasan, M. Rashad, F. Kouta, ‘‘Force
transducer with different capacities”, XXI IMEKO World Congress
‘‘Measurement in Research and Industry Prague, Czech Republic (2015).
[20] P. Yasniy, S. Glado, V. Iasnii, Lifetime of aircraft alloy plates with cold expanded
holes, Inter. J. Fatigue 104 (2017) 112–119.
[21] S. Pandit, V.A. Kamble, Finite element analysis for stress analysis and Non-
linear contact analysis of Multi range load cell in ANSYS software, Int. Res. J.
Eng. Technol. 5 (6) (2018) 283–287.
[22] B.B. Kabnure, V.D. Shinde, R.R. Kolhapure, Optimization to Develop Multiple
Response Microstructure and Hardness of Ductile Iron Casting by using GRA, J.
Instit. Eng., Series D 99 (2018) 235–243.
[23] R.R. Kolhapure, D. ShindeV, V.A. Kamble, Geometrical optimization of strain
gauge force transducer using GRA Method, Measurement 101 (2017) 111–117.
[24] S. ShivadeA, V.D. Shinde, Multi-objective optimization in WEDM of D3 tool
steel using integrated approach of Taguchi method and grey relation analysis,
Jo. Ind. Eng. Int. 10 (4) (2014) 149–162.