Measurement 218 (2023) 113109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Synchronous dynamic calibration of triaxial high-g accelerometers using a

modified Hopkinson bar method: Theory, principle and experiment
Meng Gao a, Kangbo Yuan b, *, Yang Zhang c, Longyang Chen a, Weiguo Guo a
a
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China
b
Department of Engineering Mechanics, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, China
c
Aircraft Strength Research Institute, Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), Xi’an 710065, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Because the inter-axis coupling effect and nonlinearity of triaxial high-g accelerometers (3-Axis-Gs) are signifi­
Triaxial high-g accelerometer cant under high-g and high-frequency loads, calibrating the sensitivity characteristics using a triaxial synchro­
Cross-sensitivity nous method is necessary but experimentally difficult. This study focused on the physics-based sensitivity model
Hopkinson bar
of 3-Axis-Gs, as well as the principle and experimental method of triaxial synchronous calibration. First, a
Dynamic calibration
Triaxial synchronous calibration
sensitivity model of 3-Axis-Gs was established based on the physical source of cross-sensitivity. Then, a new
triaxial synchronous calibration method was proposed using the modified Hopkinson pressure bar, which can
simultaneously apply excitation accelerations with amplitudes greater than 100,000 g and frequencies greater
than 50 kHz along the three axes of 3-Axis-Gs. Finally, a 3-Axis-G was calibrated using both triaxial synchronous
and uniaxial calibration methods. Compared with uniaxial calibration, triaxial synchronous calibration can cover
the entire test range, whose results can reflect the actual cross-sensitivity characteristics of 3-Axis-Gs in a three-
dimensional loading environment.

1. Introduction input–output (sensitivity) model for triaxial accelerometers, which re­

Triaxial high-g accelerometers (3-Axis-Gs) in many current applica­
tions can simultaneously measure three-dimensional acceleration vec­
tors with amplitudes up to 105 g (g = 9.81 m/s2) and frequencies up to
104 Hz, which are widely used in intelligent fuzing for penetrating
munitions [1,2] and high acceleration pulse detection [3]. However,
owing to machining and assembly errors, the three sensitive axes of 3-
Axis-Gs are not completely orthogonal to each other (non-orthogonal
error) and perfectly coincident with the orthogonal coordinate system
marked on the accelerometer housing (misalignment error). Non-
orthogonal and misalignment errors lead to coupling between the
axes, known as cross-sensitivity. Therefore, it is necessary to accurately
and periodically calibrate the cross-sensitivity of 3-Axis-Gs in an appli­
cation. In addition, owing to the nonlinearity of the material and
structural properties of the accelerometer, the nonlinearity of sensitivity
cannot be ignored, especially under dynamic loads with high frequency
and amplitude [4,5]. Thus, the calibration of 3-Axis-Gs must cover their
full amplitude and entire frequency domain.
A critical step before calibration is to establish an accurate
lates the input acceleration to the output voltage of the accelerometers.
The simplest triaxial accelerometer model usually has two parameters: a
scale factor and a bias [6,7]. The model is based on the fact that the three
axes of the accelerometer are independent of each other and have the
same input–output characteristics. It is a simplified method and
convenient to use when the precision requirement is low. To further
describe the input–output relationship of triaxial accelerometers, a six-
parameter model was developed [8], which includes three scale fac­
tors and three biases. In this model, the three axes of the accelerometer
are assumed to be perfectly orthogonal and completely coincide with the
orthogonal coordinate system marked on the accelerometer housing.
Such a sensitivity matrix is diagonal. In high-precision applications, a
nine-parameter model is usually adopted [3,4], and the sensitivity ma­
trix is symmetric [3] or triangular [9,10], which enables a description of
the non-orthogonal error between the sensitive axes but not the
misalignment error. At present, the maximum number of parameters for
the proposed model is twelve, including nine independent sensitivity
coefficients and three biases [11]. Although the model can describe the
input–output relationship of the accelerometer relatively completely,

* Corresponding author at: Department of Engineering Mechanics, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, China.
E-mail addresses: gaomeng891023@163.com (M. Gao), kangboyuan0528@scut.edu.cn (K. Yuan), zhangyang3320@163.com (Y. Zhang), yang218cly@aliyun.com
(L. Chen), weiguo@nwpu.edu.cn (W. Guo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2023.113109
Received 13 November 2022; Received in revised form 24 May 2023; Accepted 26 May 2023
Available online 20 June 2023
0263-2241/© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
M. Gao et al.
the sensitivity matrix has no clear physical meaning. In view of the
deficiencies of the above models, based on the physical source of
cross–sensitivity (namely, non–orthogonal and misalignment errors),
this study proposed a new mathematical model and gave the sensitivity
matrix expression with nine parameters, including three main sensitiv­
ities and six cross-sensitivities.
Calibration is an important means to identifying model parameters.
In the past, there have been different methods reported in literature for
synchronously calibrating triaxial accelerometers. Some calibration
methods are based on the fact that the vector sum measured by the
triaxial accelerometers should theoretically be equal to the local gravity
vector in the static state. In these methods, the accelerometer is rotated
to different static positions via a turntable [12–14] or rotational-tilt
platform [15–17]. The maximum calibration range is ±1 g, and the
frequency is 0 Hz. This type of method mainly calibrates the acceler­
ometers in a static environment and cannot reflect the dynamic char­
acteristics of sensitivity. To provide acceleration excitation that is
considerably greater than 1 g, a precision centrifuge [18–20], three-axis
vibration generator [21–23], single-axis vibration generator [5], and
rate table [11,24,25] have been introduced. A centrifuge and rate tables
can provide input excitation with amplitude and frequency ranges of
10− 2–102 g and 0–80 Hz, respectively. A three-axis vibration generator
can simultaneously apply loads to the accelerometers in three orthog­
onal directions, which can generate acceleration with amplitude and
frequency ranges of 0–102 g and 10 Hz–1 kHz, respectively. Previously,
to avoid the difficulty of decoupling between the three single-axis
vibrating tables, acceleration signals in the three axes were generated
synchronously by a single-axis vibrating table with the inclined planes,
as shown in reference [5]. The frequency range of calibration was 0–3
kHz. Overall, current triaxial synchronous calibration methods mainly
focus on low-frequency and low-g triaxial accelerometers. These
methods cannot meet the high-amplitude and wide–frequency re­
quirements of 3-Axis-G calibration.
The excitation pulse of high-g accelerometers is generally of the
order of microseconds, therefore, it is difficult to realize the synchronous
loading of three-axis measurement pulses in calibration. The existing
method for 3-Axis-G calibration mainly involves calibrating each axis of
the accelerometer separately (uniaxial calibration) [26,27], and a
commonly used calibration device is the Hopkinson pressure bar [27].
The Hopkinson pressure bar can provide frequency domain information
with a sufficiently wide bandwidth at shock peak amplitudes and reveal
realistic predictions of accelerometer response in actual use [28]. In
1996, Togami et al. [29] developed a Hopkinson bar system to evaluate
the performance of accelerometers that measure pulses with peak am­
plitudes between 2 × 104 g and 1.2 × 105 g, rise times as short as 20 μs,
and pulse durations between 40 and 70 μs. Foster et al. [30] modified the
conventional Hopkinson bar system to produce relatively long–duration
pulses and obtained acceleration pulses with amplitudes up to 104 g and
durations up to 0.5 ms. Zhao et al. [31] designed the Hopkinson bar
calibration system with a narrow pulse excitation signal, which realized
the verification and compensation of a dynamic model of the acceler­
ometer. In the research of Yuan et al. [32], a modified Hopkinson bar
system was developed to calibrate the dynamic linearity of high-g ac­
celerometers with a calibration range from 5 × 103 to 20 × 104 g. The
authors replaced the double-barrel-double-projectile loading device
[33,34] with a single-barrel-double-projectile device, which solved the
problem of asynchronous impact between inner and outer projectiles.
However, uniaxial dynamic calibration cannot cover the simultaneous
triaxial loading conditions in practical engineering applications, and the
essential difference between uniaxial dynamic calibration and triaxial
synchronous calibration has not been clarified. Therefore, in this study,
we extensively analyzed the limitations of the uniaxial calibration
method and highlighted the necessity of triaxial synchronous calibration
for 3-Axis-Gs.
An ideal triaxial synchronous calibration method for 3-Axis-Gs must
satisfy the following requirements:
2
Measurement 218 (2023) 113109
(1) The shock pulses on the three axes should be decoupled from each
other.
(2) The shock pulses should be synchronously applied on the 3-Axis-
G, and the pulse duration and amplitude should be controllable.
(3) Three components of the shock pulse applied on the 3-Axis-G
should be directly measurable.
A loading method that can satisfy the above requirements is difficult
to achieve because the calibration of 3-Axis-Gs requires a pulse signal
with high amplitude (>104 g) and narrow pulse width (<102 μs).
Therefore, this study adopted an improved Hopkinson bar method to
generate the ideal three-component synchronous pulse by decomposing
the one-dimensional load vector into three orthogonal components.
In this study, considering non-orthogonal errors, misalignment er­
rors, and scale factor nonlinearity, we established a mathematical
sensitivity model with nine parameters for 3-Aaxis-Gs and clarified the
necessity of triaxial synchronous calibration. Then, a new experimental
method for triaxial synchronous calibration was developed, and the key
technical design details of the method were discussed. Finally, a 3-Axis-
G was selected for verification experiments, and the test results were
analyzed in detail.
2. Sensitivity characterization of 3-Axis-Gs
2.1. Sources and mathematical model of cross-sensitivity for 3-Axis-Gs
Owing to machining and assembly errors in practice, the coordinate
system marked on the accelerometer housing often does not absolutely
coincide with the three sensitive axes of the 3-Axis-G (known as
misalignment), and the three sensitive axes are also not absolutely
orthogonal to each other (known as non-orthogonality) [35,36]. These
two types of errors result in a deviation between the ideal orthogonal
coordinate system marked on the housing (o − x1 x2 x3 ) and the actual
non-orthogonal coordinate system (o − x′1 x′2 x′3 ) consisting of the three
sensitive axes of a 3-Axis-G, as shown in Fig. 1. The two coordinate
systems are set as follows: The origins of the two coordinate systems
coincide, and β represents the error angle matrix containing nine error
angles (βij represents the error angle between the x′i -axis and the xj -axis).
In fact, it is the existence of the error angles that causes the coupling
effect between the accelerometer axes, thus producing the cross-
sensitivity.
The output accelerations of the 3-Axis-G are the accelerations
detected by the three sensitive axes in the coordinate system o − x′1 x′2 x′3 .
Neglecting other errors, the input acceleration of the 3-Axis-G is along
the orthogonal coordinate system o − x1 x2 x3 . Therefore, the key to
sensitivity calibration is to establish a relation between the input and
output, that is, to establish a mathematical model between the two co­
ordinate systems. An arbitrary acceleration vector a = [a1 , a2 , a3 ]T is
defined, which is projected in the orthogonal coordinate system
o − x1 x2 x3 , as shown in Fig. 1. [e1 , e2 , e3 ] is the unit vector along the
[ ]
o − x1 x2 x3 coordinate system, and g1 , g2 , g3 is the covariant vector
along the o − x′1 x′2 x′3 coordinate system (oblique coordinate system),
[ ]
[ ]
which can be normalized as e′1 , e′2 , e′3 = |gg11 |, |gg22 |, gg3 .
| 3|
The transformation matrix from o − x′1 x′2 x′3 to o − x1 x2 x3 can be
expressed as.
Q = αij e′i ⊗ ej (1)
( )
where αij = cos βij . In general, Q is asymmetric and has nine inde­
pendent components. Considering the deviation between the two coor­
dinate systems, the sensitivity model of the 3-Axis-G can be established
as.
U = K a Qa = Sa (2)
M. Gao et al. Measurement 218 (2023) 113109

Fig. 1. Relationship between the ideal orthogonal coordinate system (o − x1 x2 x3 ) and the actual non-orthogonal coordinate system (o − x′1 x′2 x′3 ).

where U = [UX , UY , UZ ]T represents the vector formed by the output ⎡ ⎤

voltage of the 3-Axis-G in o − x′1 x′2 x′3 , and a represents the vector formed αa1 KXa1 αa122 KXa2 αa133 KXa3
( ) ⎢ 11 ⎥
by the input data of the 3-Axis-G in o − x1 x2 x3 .
′ a1 T a2 T a3 T
S = (S ) , (S ) , (S ) = ⎣ αa211 KYa1
⎢ αa222 KYa2 αa233 KYa3 ⎥
⎦ = Sij
′
(4)
( )
S = Ka Q is the sensitivity matrix, K a = diag KaX , KaY , KaZ , and the el­
a3 a3
αa311 KZa1 αa322 KZa2 α33 KZ
a a a
ements KX , KY and KZ are the scale factors of the three sensitive axes of a
where αijj denotes the angle between the x′i -axis and xj -axis when the
the 3-Axis-G in o − x′1 x′2 x′3 . Their values vary with the different ampli­
tudes and frequencies of the accelerations sensed by each sensitive axis, applied acceleration aj is along the xj -axis. In practice, the three columns
T T T
which corresponds to the nonlinearity of the accelerometers in the full of S′ (namely (Sa1 ) , (Sa2 ) and (Sa3 ) ) can be obtained by separately
scale and full frequency domain. Owing to the introduction of Q, S loading the 3-Axis-G along the three orthogonal axes via the classic one-
contains nine parameters that can adequately describe the non- dimensional Hopkinson bar method. Owing to the simple testing and
orthogonality and misalignment errors of the axes. Here, the effect of calculation process, this method has been widely used for 3-Axis-G
noise and the offset of the accelerometers are negligible compared to the calibration.
dynamic loads with high frequency and high amplitude.
2.2.2. Triaxial synchronous calibration
Triaxial synchronous calibration involves loading the three axes of
2.2. Calibration principles of sensitivity for 3-Axis-Gs
the 3-Axis-G simultaneously in one test. As shown in Fig. 1, the three
axes of the 3-Axis-G are loaded simultaneously when the applied ac­
The purpose of sensitivity calibration is to identify model parameters
celeration a is not parallel to any axis of the 3-Axis-G in o − x1 x2 x3 .
in S through precise testing, thereby ensuring the measurement accu­
Compared with the traditional uniaxial calibration, triaxial synchronous
racy of the 3-Axis-G. Herein, two calibration principles are introduced,
calibration is more coincident with the actual loading conditions of 3-
namely, the traditional uniaxial calibration principle, which has been
Axis-Gs in service. Based on the sensitivity model of the 3-Axis-G in
widely used in applications, and the triaxial synchronous calibration
Eq. (2), S can be derived as.
principle proposed in this study. The difference between the two prin­
⎡ ⎤
ciples intuitively reflects the limitation of the traditional uniaxial cali­ αa11 KXa αa12 KXa αa13 KXa
bration method and the necessity of triaxial synchronous calibration. ⎢ a a ⎥
S=⎢ a a a a ⎥
⎣ α21 KY α22 KY α23 KY ⎦ = Sij (5)
αa31 KZa αa32 KZa αa33 KZa
2.2.1. Traditional uniaxial calibration
Uniaxial calibration is performed by applying the input acceleration
where αaij denotes the angle between the x′i -axis and xj -axis when the
aj along the three axes one by one in o − x1 x2 x3 , where aj is parallel to the
specified axis, the xj -axis. According to Eq. (2), the relationship between applied acceleration a is not parallel to any axis of the 3-Axis-G. KaX , KaY
and KaZ are the scale factors of the three sensitive axes of the 3-Axis-G
the input acceleration aj and the output voltage Uaj can be expressed as.
when the applied acceleration is a.
Uaj = aj (Saj )T , j = 1, 2, 3 (3) To obtain the nine unknown parameters Sij in S, more than three
[ a a a ]T [ ] groups of experimental data (including the input accelerations a and
where U = UXj , UYj , UZj , Saj = Qj K aj and Qj = ei′⋅ej , ej′⋅ej , ek′⋅ej .
aj
output voltages U of the 3-Axis-G) are required for fitting. For an
( a a a ) a a a
K aj = diag KXj , KYj , KZj , the elements KXj , KYj and KZj denote the scale overdetermined problem with more experimental data than unknowns,
factors of the three sensitive axes when the applied acceleration aj is the most widely used method is the Moore–Penrose inversion method.
along the xj -axis, and their values are related to the decomposition of aj Assuming that (ai , Ui ) is the i-th group of experimental data, Eq. (6) can
along the three sensitive axes in o − x′1 x′2 x′3 . be constructed to include all experimental data used for calibration.
When a 3-Axis-G is sequentially loaded with three applied acceler­
ations input along the three orthogonal axes in o − x1 x2 x3 , the sensitivity
matrix of the 3-Axis-G can be derived as.

3
M. Gao et al. Measurement 218 (2023) 113109

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the calibration ranges that can be achieved using the uniaxial and triaxial synchronous calibration methods.

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the newly developed experimental apparatus for triaxial synchronous calibration of 3-Axis-Gs.

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ T⎤
U1 T a1 sensitivity matrix of the 3-Axis-G. Therefore, the equation S = S′ holds
⎢ U2 ⎥ ⎢ a2 T ⎥ T
T a
⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥ (6) only if the following two conditions are satisfied: 1) αaij = αijj , and 2)
⎣ ⋮ ⎦ ⎣ ⋮ ⎦S
T T Ka = Kaj , where i, j = 1, 2, 3; the superscripts represent the load states
Up ap
applied to the 3-Axis-G. The former requires that the angles between oxi
By minimizing the least-squares errors, the nine parameters Sij in S and ox′j remain the same whether the 3-Axis-G is loaded simultaneously
can be calculated using. along the three orthogonal axes (synchronous calibration) or sequen­
⎛ ⎡ T ⎤ ⎞− 1 ⎡ T⎤ tially along a single axis (uniaxial calibration). The latter requires that
a1 U1
⎜[ T ]⎢ T ⎥ ⎟ [ T ]⎢ T ⎥ the scale factors of the three sensitivity axes are strictly constant over the
T ⎜ T ⎢ a2 ⎥ ⎟ T T ⎢ U2 ⎥
full amplitude and entire frequency domain of the 3-Axis-G.
T
S = ⎝ a1 a2 ⋯ ap ⎣ a1 a2 ⋯ ap ⎣
⋮ ⎦⎠ ⋮ ⎦
ap T Up T Because the applied load deforms the accelerometer structure, the
(7) angle errors between the two coordinate systems (o − x1 x2 x3 and
o − x′1 x′2 x′3 ) vary with the state of the load applied to the 3-Axis-G.
2.2.3. Significance of triaxial synchronous calibration Moreover, the studies of Wei et al. [37] and Andrea et al. [5] showed
To clarify the significance of triaxial synchronous calibration, the that the scale factor is a nonlinear parameter due to the material prop­
sensitivity matrices of triaxial synchronous calibration and traditional erties and the construction of the 3-Axis-G. Especially for high-
uniaxial calibration should be compared. Eqs. (4) and (5) show that the amplitude and high-frequency loads, the nonlinearity of the scale fac­
transformation matrix Q and scale factor K together determine the tor is more pronounced [38]. Therefore, both the transformation matrix
Q and scale factor K depend on the load state (amplitude and frequency)

4
M. Gao et al.
5 4
Laser interferometer
Strain gauge
Laser interferometer
4 Two strain gauges were glued on diametrically opposite sides of the bar
Strain gauge 3 to detect the strain pulses. The strain gauges used in the experiment
Acceleration (×104g)
Velocity (m/s)
3 struments, Type BE120-3AA), with a gauge length of 2.8 mm, a gauge
2
2 surement by resistance strain gauges can be found in [39], that is, ξ =
1 pulse, and L is the sensitive grid length of the strain gauge. This shows
1 that when the ratio of b to L is sufficiently large, the amplitude error is
0 0
120 130 140 150 160 170
Time (μs)
Fig. 4. Comparison of signals detected by the resistance strain gauge and laser
interferometer.
of the 3-Axis-G. That is, if the two calibration principles can cover the
same loading range (including the amplitude and frequency ranges), the
same set of values for Q and K can be obtained using these two methods,
and the two principles can be considered to have the same calibration
capability.
However, as shown in Fig. 2, the load amplitude ranges that can be
achieved by the two methods are represented in a normalized three-
dimensional coordinate space o − x′1 x′2 x′3 . When the three axes of the
3-Axis-G are loaded by an acceleration vector a = (a1 , a2 , a3 ), this load
can be represented as a = (a1 , a2 , a3 ) in the defined coordinate space,
where ak = |aamax
k
| (k = 1, 2, 3) and amax is the one with the maximum
module among a1 , a2 and a3 . This space definition method allows the
loading range of the 3-Axis-G to be completely defined on the three
surfaces of an equilateral cube with side length 1, as shown in Fig. 2. The
calibration range of traditional uniaxial calibration is clearly limited in
three small regions, whereas the calibration range of triaxial synchro­
nous calibration covers the entire amplitude range of the 3-Axis-G. This
schematic diagram intuitively reflects the significance and necessity of
triaxial synchronous calibration, which can obtain sensitivity charac­
teristics in the entire range of amplitudes.
3. Experimental method of triaxial synchronized calibration
Owing to the difficulty encountered in existing methods in ensuring
synchronization loading along the three axes and achieving measurable
and controllable pulses with high amplitude and a wide frequency band,
an improved Hopkinson bar method was proposed in this study. This
method realizes the triaxial synchronous calibration of 3-Axis-Gs by
decomposing the one-dimensional pulse vector into the three axes of the
accelerometer. The specific technical details are presented below.
3.1. Experimental method and device
A schematic of the newly developed experimental apparatus for
triaxial synchronous calibration of 3-Axis-Gs is shown in Fig. 3. A 3-Axis-
G was fixed to the inclined plane using 495 Super Glue and was not
allowed to move relative to the inclined plane during calibration. A steel
projectile with a conical tip and an aluminum shaper 14 mm in diameter
and 10 mm in thickness were employed to produce the appropriate
incident waves. The aluminum shaper was attached to the impact end of
the bar with molybdenum disulfide lubricant and a sliding sleeve to
prevent the shaper from deflecting during impact. Through plastic
deformation of the shaper, almost half-sine strain pulses were generated
along the axis of the bar. Variations in the projectile’s tip shape, mass,
5
Measurement 218 (2023) 113109
impact velocity, and shaper material enabled the generation of pulses
with different amplitudes and widths. The calibration bar was made of
7075-T651 aluminum alloy, 1.5 m in length and 14 mm in diameter.
were of the foil type (AVIC Zhonghang Electronic Measuring In­
factor of 2.22, a strain limit of 2 %, and a resistivity of 120 Ω. For the
half-sine pulse, the expression of amplitude errors ξ in the strain mea­
1/2 − b/(πL)sin(πL/2b), where b is the leading front width of the strain
small. In this study, the rise time of the strain pulse was approximately
100 μs, hence, b was approximately 500 mm, and L was approximately
2.8 mm. Therefore, the calculated amplitude error ξ was small, at
approximately 6.45 × 10− 6. Moreover, the dynamic response of the foil
strain gauges was investigated in [40], and it was shown that the dy­
namic gauge factor of a 3-mm gauge does not drop by 5 % from the static
value, even at 290 kHz, and the shorter the gauge length, the higher the
frequency response. This type of strain gauges has been used to inves­
tigate the dynamic characteristics and calibration of high-g accelerom­
eters by many researchers [30,32,41], indicating that the accuracy of
such strain gauges has been widely recognized in the high-g acceler­
ometer calibration. To further verify the reliability of the strain gauges,
the signals detected by the resistance strain gauge were compared with
those detected by the laser interferometer, and the results are shown in
Fig. 4. The acceleration signal calculated from the signal detected by the
strain gauge was highly consistent with that of the laser interferometer.
For an acceleration signal with an amplitude of 3 × 104 g and a pulse
width of 30 μs, the relative error at the amplitude was only 0.3 %.
Therefore, 2.8-mm foil strain gauges can be used as the reference for
accelerometer calibration. Two strain gauges and the accelerometer
were connected to the Wheatstone bridge via half-bridge and full-bridge
connections, respectively.
When a projectile impinges on the end of the bar, an axial approxi­
mate half-sine shock wave is generated and propagates along the bar to
the other end. The strain history is measured by the two sets of foil strain
gauges affixed to the bar surface. According to the one-dimensionality of
elastic shock waves propagating in a slender bar, the reference accel­
eration aref (t) can be expressed as.
dv(t) dε(t)
aref (t) = =C (8)
dt dt
where aref (t) is the acceleration history of the particles in the bar at
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
the points where the strain gauges are attached, C = E/ρ is the ve­
locity of the longitudinal elastic wave in the bar, E and ρ are Young’s
modulus and the density of the bar, and ε(t) is the strain history
measured by the strain gauges. The shock wave propagates down the bar
and reflects off the other end. According to the principle that the stress at
the free end of the bar is zero, the particle acceleration at the free end
doubles during the reflection of the pulse. Therefore, the excitation ac­
celeration aexc (t) for 3-Axis-Gs along the calibration bar can be expressed
as.
aexc (t) = 2aref (t) (9)
As shown in Fig. 3, owing to the inclination of the inclined plane θ
and the mounting angle of the accelerometer on the inclined plane ω,
aexc (t) can be simultaneously decomposed along the three axes on the
inclined plane at the end of the bar. Here, O − Xg Y g Zg represents the
coordinate system in which the OXg -axis is along the calibration bar, and
the Y-axis and Z-axis represent two other orthogonal axes perpendicular
to the bar; O − XYZ represents the coordinate system that is consistent
with the three-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system marked on the
accelerometer housing. Then, the transformation matrix from O − Xg Y g Zg
M. Gao et al. Measurement 218 (2023) 113109

Fig. 5. Method for determining the major and minor axes of an elliptical surface.

to O − XYZ can be represented by two Euler angle rotations as follows: single-axis accelerometer chips inside, manufactured via silicon micro­
⎡ ⎤ machining. The single-axis sensitive structure employs a four-beam
cos(θ) 0 sin(θ)
single-mass type, and the piezoresistance produces an electrical signal
RY g (θ) = ⎣ 0 1 0 ⎦ (10a)
under shock excitation. The shape and dimensions of this accelerometer
− sin(θ) 0 cos(θ)
are shown in Fig. 6, and it has one installed base.
⎡
cos(ω) − sin(ω) 0
⎤ The initial performance parameters of this 3-Axis-G are shown in
R (ω) = sin(ω) cos(ω) 0 ⎦
⎣ (10b) Table 1. These parameters are usually measured with a uniaxial impact
Zg
0 0 1 vibrator according to relative standards such as ISO 16063-13. Because
these parameters are only measured via uniaxial excitation, the inter­
Therefore, the input acceleration of the 3-Axis-G a(t) can be axial cross-sensitivity (coupling coefficient) was not available (NA).
expressed as.
a(t) = RZ g (ω)RY g (θ)ag (t) (11)
3.2. Discussions on experimental details
Here, a(t) = (aX (t), aY (t), aZ (t) ) and a (t) = (aexc (t), 0, 0 ), where
g

aX (t), aY (t) and aZ (t) are the input acceleration components along the X-, 3.2.1. Configuration of data acquisition system
Y- and Z- axis of the 3-Axis-G, respectively.
In the experiment, a key step was to determine the installation
Table 1
location of the accelerometer on the elliptical surface, that is, the Parameters of the CA-YZ-100K-T 3-Axis-G.
centroid of the elliptical. To this end, as shown in Fig. 5, the calibration
Specification X-, Y-, Z- axis
bar was placed on a flat platform, and a square was used to make the
ellipse inclined plane perpendicular to the platform. The measuring Maximum acceleration (g) 1 × 105
Mass (g) 45
height of the height gauge was then set to half the diameter of the bar,
Sensitivity (μV/g) 0.732
the height gauge was moved along the bar, and the major axis was Linearity (%) ≤2
marked on the elliptical surface. The minor axis of the ellipse can be Frequency band (kHz) (± 3 dB) 20
determined by the major axis. Natural frequency (kHz) 108
In this study, a 3-Axis-G (Model, CA-YZ-100K-T) provided by the Offset (mV) ± 100
Impact resistance (g) 2 × 105
Peking University of China was used to verify the effectiveness and Temperature range (℃) − 40–85
feasibility of the newly developed method. This precision accelerometer Cross-sensitivity N/A
uses a piezoresistance detection technique and has three orthogonal

The data acquisition system consisted of an ultra-high dynamic

strainometer (SDY-2107B), a transient wave recorder (USB-12047) and
a computer. The amplifier for the strain gauges and accelerometer

Table 2
Data acquisition system setup.
Descriptions Strain gauge 3-Axis-G

Gain 100 10
Calibration × 100 με 10 10
Upper frequency. limit (kHz) 100 F (2.5 × 103)
Bridge voltage excitation (V) 2 8
DAQ resolution (bits) 12 12
Sample interval (μs) 0.1 0.1
Fig. 6. Appearance of the triaxial high-g accelerometer (Model, CA-YZ-
Sample rate (MHz) 10 10
100K-T).

6
M. Gao et al. Measurement 218 (2023) 113109

0.65
Oscilloscope 0.00
Strain gauge channel (1#)
0.52 Accelerometer channel
-0.02 28mm

0.6
30mm
0.39 T=181 s (2#)

Voltage (V)
0.5 -0.04
Voltage (V)

28mm
0.4
Voltage (V)

0.26
-0.06 (3#)
30mm 5mm
0.3
T=331 s
28mm
0.2
0.13 -0.08
30mm 10mm
0.1 (4#)
1#
0.00 0.0 -0.10 28mm
2#
52 54 56 58 60
3# 30mm 25mm
Time ( s) T=112 s T=136 s 4#
-0.13 -0.12
0 70 140 210 280 350 420 490 560 630 0 100 200 300 400 500

Time ( s) Time ( s)
(a) (a)
0.30 0.06
0.006
Oscilloscope 1# (1#)

Strain gauge channel 0.05 2# 28mm

0.25
Accelerometer channel 3#
0.004 2.78 kHz 4# (2#)
30mm
Amplitude (V)

0.04
0.20
Amplitude (V)
Amplitude (V)

5.26 kHz 28mm

0.03 7.19 kHz 11.06 kHz (3#)

30mm 5mm

0.15 0.002
19.25 kHz 28mm

0.02 8.66 kHz

0.10 25.53 kHz (4#)
30mm 10mm

0.000 0.01 46.51 kHz 28mm

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0.05 Frequency (kHz) 30mm 25mm

0.00

0.00 1 10 100 1000

1 10 100 1000
Frequency (kHz)
Frequency (kHz)
(b)
(b)
Fig. 8. Pulses generated by projectiles with different geometries in the (a) time
Fig. 7. Calibration results of the data acquisition system: (a) time domain domain and (b) frequency domain.
signals and (b) frequency domain signals.

exhibited a flat response, ranging from +0.5 dB to − 3 dB, in the fre­ Table 3
Material parameters of 7075-T651 aluminum alloy.
quency band from DC to 300 kHz. No low-pass filter was used to detect
the full frequency response when connecting the accelerometer channel. Yield stress Young’s modulus Density Poisson’s ratio
(MPa) (GPa) (kg/m3)
Signals from the strain gauges and 3-Axis-G were recorded by a transient
recorder. The details of the instrumentation and data acquisition are 501 71.7 2810 0.306
listed in Table 2.
To ensure that the system can fully record the signals of the strain
respectively. In addition, the results of the fast Fourier transform (FFT)
gauge and 3-Axis-G, the data acquisition system should be calibrated.
of the two sets of signals are shown in Fig. 7(b). The settings of sampling
This was conducted by inputting a standard square wave with an
rate and upper-frequency limit mainly filtered out the high-frequency
amplitude of 0.5 V and a frequency of 1 kHz into the data acquisition
components with small amplitudes. Although some high-frequency
system using an oscilloscope (Tektronix TDS-540A). The connection
components of the signal were lost, the frequency bandwidth of the
method was the same as the actual measurement. Compared with the
system was still greater than 100 kHz, which was sufficient to collect a
sine (or cosine) wave, the frequency component of the square wave is
similar sine (or cosine) wave signal with a wide frequency bandwidth.
more complicated and hence can test the performance of the data
The main purpose of setting the upper-frequency limit of the strain
acquisition system rigorously. When the data acquisition system was set
gauge channel to 100 kHz was to preliminarily filter out the high-
according to the parameters in Table 2, the calibration results of the
frequency noise produced by calculating the first derivative of the
strain gauge and accelerometer channels were as shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 7
strain signal (Eq. (8). The above analysis shows that the settings in
(a) shows that the rising time of the pulse was affected by the upper-
Table 2 can reduce the measurement errors of strain and acceleration
frequency limit of the channel. The rising times of the pulse from the
signals and achieve good measurement results.
strain gauge channel and accelerometer channel were 6.61 μs and 0.67
μs, respectively, which are 1.32 % and 0.13 % of the total pulse width,

7
M. Gao et al. Measurement 218 (2023) 113109

90 0.05
Impact velocity: 15m/s Pulse width
75
30 s
0.04 80 s
Limit acceleration (104 g)

130 s

(deg)
60 180 s
0.03
(20 s, 41.4 104 g) 230 s

Maximum
45
0.02

30

0.01
15 (220 s, 3.76 104 g)

0.00
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 110 220 330 440 550
0 (deg)
Pulse width ( s)
Fig. 12. Relationship between the initial angle and maximum angle change
Fig. 9. Acceleration amplitude and pulse width range that can be achieved by
under different pulse widths.
this calibration system.

rising time increased as the projectile’s taper decreased. When the angle
7.5 3.0 of the projectile’s taper was from 180◦ to 58.5◦ , the pulse width and
Impactor velocity: 15.2 m/s θ0 =26.6 rising time of the pulse ranged from 112 to 331 μs and 31 to 223 μs,
respectively. The FFT results of the pulse signals are shown in Fig. 8(b).
vI(t) The bandwidth increased with a decrease in the projectile’s taper. The
5.0 2.0
vR(t) frequency corresponding to 5 % of the maximum amplitude could be
Acceleration ( 104g)

aI(t) regarded as the maximum frequency component excited by the projec­

Velocity (m/s)

aR(t) tile. Considering that the frequency band of the accelerometer was
2.5 vI(t)-vR(t) 1.0 approximately 20 kHz, it is most appropriate to choose projectile #3,
whose maximum frequency component was 19.25 kHz.

3.2.3. Calibration ability

0.0 0.0 Limited by the impact energy that can be achieved in tests, the
amplitude and pulse width of excitation acceleration are usually con­
tradictory. One increases, and the other decreases. The calibration range
of the system mainly depends on the impact energy of the projectile, the
-2.5 -1.0
780 810 840 870 900 930 960 990 1020 elastic deformation limit of the bar, and the strain limit measured by the
Time ( s) strain gauge. Suppose the reference acceleration pulse is an ideal half-
sine pulse, as follows:
Fig. 10. Comparison of the incident and reflected waves and the corresponding
A (π t )
acceleration signals. aref (t) = sin (12)
2 T
where A and T are the peak amplitude and pulse width of the particle
τ (Z)
acceleration at the end of the bar, respectively. Then, the velocity of
particles in the bar can be calculated as.
∫
A (πt) AT (π t )
vref (t) = sin dt = − cos +k (13)
a c' 2 T 2π T

c o' where k is the integral constant. According to the initial condition

o d' v| t=0 = 0, k can be expressed as.
d
AT
Impedance mismatch area θ0 θ(t) k= (14)
e r 2π
b
Thus, Eq. (13) can be rewritten as.
Fig. 11. Schematic diagram of accelerometer motion during calibration.
AT ( (πt) )
vref (t) = 1 − cos (15)
2π T
3.2.2. Projectile selection
To excite all modal frequencies of the accelerometer without causing The maximum velocity in the interval (0, T) is.
resonance during calibration, it is necessary to select an appropriate ⃒ AT
excitation signal. In previous studies, the geometry of the projectile was vmax = vref ⃒ t=T = (16)
π
found to have an influence on the excitation waveform [32]. As
described in this section, four projectiles with different geometries were According to one-dimensional elastic wave theory, the maximum
selected, and the experimental results of the pulses excited by the pro­ velocity of the particles in the bar is.
jectiles are shown in Fig. 8. Fig. 8(a) shows that the pulse width and

8
M. Gao et al. Measurement 218 (2023) 113109

Table 4
Simulation results under different conditions.
Pulse width of acceleration T/2 (μs) θ0 (deg) Δθmax (deg) (aexc )max (×104g) (aX )max (×104g) (aZ )max (×104g) (ar )max (g) (aτ )max (×103g) Δt±5%
(μs)

26 10 0.0141 25.69 25.30 4.46 0.031 7.08 0

48 10 0.0095 11.92 11.74 2.07 0.016 2.86 3
74 10 0.0055 7.26 7.15 1.26 0.0074 1.18 8
100 10 0.0043 5.26 5.18 0.91 0.004 0.60 62
124 10 0.0048 4.27 4.21 0.74 0.0024 0.31 91
26 30 0.0348 25.69 22.25 12.85 0.0084 4.63 20
48 30 0.0328 11.92 10.32 5.96 0.0053 2.48 42
74 30 0.0255 7.26 6.29 3.63 0.0028 1.05 70
100 30 0.0216 5.26 4.56 2.63 0.0017 0.49 96
124 30 0.0192 4.27 3.70 2.14 0.0011 0.28 121
26 50 0.0455 25.69 16.51 19.68 0.0047 4.26 24
48 50 0.0375 11.92 7.66 9.13 0.0027 1.91 45
74 50 0.0289 7.26 4.67 5.56 0.0013 0.76 72
100 50 0.0246 5.26 3.38 4.03 0.00081 0.34 97
124 50 0.0218 4.27 2.74 3.27 0.00055 0.21 123
26 70 0.0315 25.69 8.79 24.14 0.0023 2.79 25
48 70 0.0241 11.92 4.08 11.20 0.0013 1.18 48
74 70 0.019 7.26 2.48 6.82 0.00058 0.34 74
100 70 0.0164 5.26 1.80 4.94 0.00037 0.19 100
124 70 0.0146 4.27 1.46 4.01 0.00025 0.099 124
26 90 0 25.69 0 25.69 0 0 26
48 90 0 11.92 0 11.92 0 0 48
74 90 0 7.26 0 7.26 0 0 74
100 90 0 5.26 0 5.26 0 0 100
124 90 0 4.27 0 4.27 0 0 124

acceleration pulse width produced by the Hopkinson bar usually ranges

5 10.0
aZ from 20 to 220 μs, hence, the calibration range of the system can be
4 represented by the shaded area in Fig. 9. As long as the projectile has
a 7.5
sufficient kinetic energy, a reference acceleration pulse can be generated
3 Z at the limit represented by the upper edge of the shaded area.
5.0
Taking the acceleration amplitude of 80 × 104 g as an example, it can
Acceleration ( 104g)

2
be seen from Eq. (18) and Fig. 9 that the acceleration pulse width should
5% line 2.5
1 be less than 10 μs without causing the plastic deformation of the cali­
Error (%)

0 0.0 bration bar. It is widely proved that when using a flat-headed projectile
without a shaper, an acceleration pulse with a narrow pulse width can be
-1
-2.5 generated, and the smaller the diameter of the loading bar, the narrower
-5% line
the pulse width. Therefore, the acceleration pulse with 10 μs in width
-2 t 5%
-5.0 requires the use of a calibration bar with small diameters, a flat-headed
-3 projectile, and the absence of shapers. Moreover, according to Eq. (16),
-7.5 to achieve the acceleration amplitude of 80 × 104 g, the particle velocity
-4
on the calibration bar needs to be 25.5 m/s. If the diameter and material
-5 -10.0 of the projectile are the same as the calibration bar, the velocity of the
100 150 200 250 300 350
projectile should be greater than 51 m/s.
Time ( s)
3.2.4. Evaluation of systematic effects
Fig. 13. Acceleration error along the Z-axis caused by rotation of the inclined
As described in Section 3.1, the accelerations in the three axes of the
plane with T = 200 μs and θ0 = 50◦ .
3-Axis-G are given by Eqs. (8), (9) and (11) using one-dimensional
elastic stress wave theory and rotation transformation. Generally, the
σs
v′max = C (17) lateral inertia of the thin circular bar can be ignored, and Eq. (8) is al­
E
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ways valid. Eq. (9) is based on the assumption that the stress wave is
where C = E/ρ is the velocity of the longitudinal elastic wave, and completely reflected on the mounting surface of the accelerometer.
E, ρ and σs are the elastic modulus, density and elastic limit of the bar, Incident and reflected waves have the same magnitude and profile but
respectively. are in opposite directions. Therefore, it is necessary to satisfy the
Let vmax ≤ v′max . The relationship between the amplitude and pulse following two conditions:
width of the reference acceleration pulse can then be derived as Eq. (18),
where ζ = 0.75 is a safety factor to ensure that the calibration bar can be 1) The calibration bar has a higher characteristic impedance than the
reused. calibrated accelerometer.
2) The wavelength of the incident wave is considerably larger than the
ζσ s π C length of the accelerometer. Thus, the time during which the wave
A≤ (18)
ET propagates in the accelerometer is significantly less than the incident
Taking the 7075-T651 aluminum alloy bar as an example, the elastic wave width. The stress rapidly reaches equilibrium on the mounting
material parameters summarized in Table 3 were taken from the surface of the accelerometer.
experimental results in [42]. Fig. 9 shows the relationship between the
acceleration amplitude and pulse width. As shown in Fig. 8(a), the Compared with Condition (1), Condition (2) is more important for

9
M. Gao et al. Measurement 218 (2023) 113109

Table 5
Experimental conditions in triaxial synchronous and uniaxial calibrations.
Calibration methods Sketch of the load applied to the accelerometer Impact velocity θ0 (deg) ω(deg)
(m/s)

Synchronous calibration 8.16 45 30

8.01 45 45
8.11 45 60
8.15 26.6 30
8.21 26.6 45
8.05 26.6 60
21.69 45 30
22.21 45 45
21.82 45 60
21.28 26.6 30
22.51 26.6 45
22.26 26.6 60
32.81 45 30
32.02 45 45
33.59 45 60
32.46 26.6 30
32.74 26.6 45
32.98 26.6 60
Uniaxial calibration 8.37 90 0
8.13 90 90
8.32 0 0
22.02 90 0
22.35 90 90
23.05 0 0
32.56 90 0
32.38 90 90
33.42 0 0

where (aI )max , (aR )max are the maximum acceleration derived from the
Table 6 incident and reflected waves, respectively. The calculated η from the
Results of uniaxial calibration for each axis of the 3-Axis-G. data in Fig. 10 was 0.97 %, which means that Eq. (9) is valid.
Impact Acceleration Loading Sensitivity (μv/g) A key factor in ensuring the accuracy of this calibration method is
velocity amplitude direction making sure that the accelerations of all particles on the contact inter­
(m/s) (×104 g) face of the accelerometer and bar-end are synchronized in time and
8.37 0.6320 X [ SXX SYX SZX ]→[ 0.752 0.038 0.008 ] amplitude, that is, the lateral effects caused by the inclined plane are
8.13 0.5980 Y [ SXY SYY SZY ]→[ 0.042 0.773 0.009 ] negligible. However, particle velocities at different locations on the
8.32 0.6245 Z [ SXZ SYZ SZZ ]→[ 0.010 0.011 0.761 ] accelerometer cannot be precisely synchronized when the wave reaches
22.02 3.5450 X [ SXX SYX SZX ]→[ 0.731 0.057 0.024 ]
22.35 3.6204 Y [ SXY SYY SZY ]→[ 0.063 0.746 0.028 ]
the inclined plane at the end of the bar. Meanwhile, because the char­
23.05 3.7562 Z [ SXZ SYZ SZZ ]→[ 0.031 0.032 0.739 ] acteristic impedance of the cross-section on the inclined plane is not
32.56 5.7320 X [ SXX SYX SZX ]→[ 0.724 0.066 0.033 ] constant (known as impedance mismatch), the velocity value of each
32.38 5.6543 Y [ SXY SYY SZY ]→[ 0.071 0.738 0.038 ] particle is also different. As a result, the actual motion of the acceler­
33.42 5.9230 Z [ SXZ SYZ SZZ ]→[ 0.039 0.041 0.731 ]
ometer is not absolute planar motion, but rotates with the inclined
plane, as shown in Fig. 11, where θ0 is the initial inclination angle before
the establishment of Eq. (9). Fig. 10 shows the incident and reflected loading, and θ(t) is the real-time inclination angle during loading.
waves on the calibration bar with θ = 26.6◦ , when the pulse width was The additional acceleration applied to the accelerometer due to
approximately 220 μs and the impact velocity of the projectile was 15.2 rotation can be expressed as follows:
m/s. It shows that the maximum difference in velocity between the
aτ (t) = ρθ̈(t) (20)
incident and reflected waves was 0.26 m/s, which means that the inci­
dent wave was almost completely reflected at the end of the bar. In
ar (t) = ρ2 θ̇(t) (21)
addition, the acceleration signals derived from the incident and reflected
waves are also shown in Fig. 10. To evaluate the validity of Eq. (9), the where aτ (t) and ar (t) are the additional tangential acceleration and
error equation is defined as. radial acceleration along the Z- and X- axis of the accelerometer,
⃒ ( )⃒ respectively, θ(t) is the inclination angle, and ρ is the radius of rotation.
⃒2(aI )max − (aI )max + (aR )max ⃒
η=⃒ ⃒ ⃒ × 100% (19) Therefore, the corrected acceleration model can be expressed as.
(aI )max + (aR )max ⃒
ac (t) = a(t) + as (t) (22)

10
M. Gao et al. Measurement 218 (2023) 113109

0.78
SXX
0.77 SYY
SZZ
Sensitivity ( v/g)

0.76

0.75

0.74

0.73

0.72
0.0 1.3 2.6 3.9 5.2 6.5
4
Acceleration ( 10 g)

(a) Fig. 15. Estimate of the positions of the accelerometer’s sensitive axes based on
the sensitivity calibration results.
0.075
SYX
0.16
SZX Original Low-pass filtering with cutoff frequency 80kHz
0.060 X-axis
SXY X-axis
0.12 Y-axis Y-axis
SZY Z-axis
Sensitivity ( v/g)

Z-axis
0.045 SXZ 0.08
SYZ
Voltage (V)

0.04
0.030
0.00

0.015 -0.04

-0.08
0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 t=52.4 s
-0.12
Acceleration ( 104g) 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time ( s)
(b)
Fig. 14. Uniaxial calibration results of sensitivity: (a) main sensitivities and (b)
(a)
cross-sensitivities. 0.030
X- axis
where ac (t) and a(t) are the accelerations with and without consid­ Y- axis
0.025 Z- axis
ering the effect of the rotation of the inclined plane, and as (t) is the
acceleration caused by the rotation of the inclined plane, which is. Resonance frequency: 133.39kHz
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ 0.020
Amplitude (V)

as,X (t) ar (t)sin(ω(t) ) 5.23kHz

as (t) = ⎣ as,Y (t) ⎦ = ⎣ ar (t)cos(ω(t) ) ⎦ (23)
as,Z (t) aτ (t) 0.015

The finite element method (Ansys/LS-DYNA) was adopted to study

the influence of the loading pulse width T and initial inclination angle θ0 0.010
on the rotation of the inclined plane. Cosine velocity pulses with an
amplitude of 15 m/s and a pulse width ranging from 30 to 230 μs were
0.005
input into the 7075 aluminum alloy bar. The initial angle θ0 varied from
10 to 90◦ . Fig. 12 shows the relationship between the initial angle and
maximum angle change under pulse loading of different widths. Under 0.000
1 10 100 1000
all conditions, the angle changes were small, and their maximum value
did not exceed 0.15 % of the initial angle. The wider the pulse width of Frequency (kHz)
the impact wave, the smaller the angle change, which means that the
velocity of each particle on the inclined plane tended to be identical.
(b)
Because the angle changes were small, the radial acceleration related to Fig. 16. (a) Typical output signals of the 3-Axis-G before and after low-pass
the first derivative of the angle did not need to be considered, but the filtering with a cutoff frequency of 80 kHz; (b) fast Fourier transform (FFT)
tangential acceleration related to the second derivative could not be results of the original output signals.

11
M. Gao et al. Measurement 218 (2023) 113109

Table 7
Results of triaxial synchronous calibration.
Initial angle θ0 Mounting Impact velocity Amplitude of aX Amplitude of aY Amplitude of aZ Sensitivity matrix (μv/g)
⎡ ⎤
(deg) angle ω (m/s) (×104 g) (×104 g) (×104 g) SXX SXY SXZ
(deg) ⎣ SYX SYY SYZ ⎦
SZX SZY SZZ
⎡ ⎤
45 30 8.16 0.2131 0.3691 0.4262 0.775 0.059 0.022
45 8.01 0.2901 0.2901 0.4103 ⎣ 0.055 0.794 0.019 ⎦
60 8.11 0.3620 0.2090 0.4180 0.016 0.014 0.778
⎡ ⎤
45 30 21.69 1.2349 2.1388 2.4697 0.756 0.076 0.032
45 22.21 1.7933 1.7933 2.5361 ⎣ 0.078 0.771 0.033 ⎦
60 21.82 2.1408 1.2360 2.4720 0.028 0.026 0.768
⎡ ⎤
45 30 32.81 2.0380 3.5298 4.0759 0.751 0.081 0.036
45 32.02 2.8699 2.8699 4.0586 ⎣ 0.086 0.764 0.041 ⎦
60 33.59 3.5677 2.0598 4.1196 0.034 0.031 0.765
⎡ ⎤
26.6 30 8.15 0.2656 0.4601 0.2660 0.772 0.065 0.017
45 8.21 0.3857 0.3857 0.2732 ⎣ 0.062 0.791 0.015 ⎦
60 8.05 0.4456 0.2573 0.2577 0.021 0.018 0.781
⎡ ⎤
26.6 30 21.28 1.5287 2.6477 1.5310 0.753 0.082 0.027
45 22.51 2.3088 2.3088 1.6350 ⎣ 0.084 0.767 0.030 ⎦
60 22.26 2.8050 1.6194 1.6219 0.035 0.030 0.771
⎡ ⎤
26.6 30 32.46 2.5597 4.4335 2.5636 0.747 0.089 0.034
45 32.74 3.6407 3.6407 2.5783 ⎣ 0.091 0.758 0.037 ⎦
60 32.98 4.4932 2.5941 2.5981 0.042 0.034 0.767

ignored. The simulation results are shown in Table 4. With an increase in mounting support was fixed on the end face of the traditional Hopkinson
the pulse width, the tangential acceleration aτ (t) decreased. Under the bar, and the pre-calibration axis of the accelerometer was installed along
same impact conditions, the tangential acceleration aτ (t) decreased with the bar axis to realize uniaxial calibration. Both triaxial synchronous
increasing initial angle θ0 . Next, only considering the effect of tangential calibration and uniaxial calibration were carried out at different pro­
acceleration, the input acceleration error along the Z-axis of the accel­ jectile velocities. Table 5 shows the experimental configurations of the
erometer is given by Eq. (24). calibrations.
{ }
a(t)sin(θ(t) ) + ρθ̈(t)
δZ (t) = − 1 × 100% (24) 4.2. Uniaxial calibration results
a(t)sin(θ0 )

Compared with the initial angle θ0 , the angle changes caused by
rotation were negligible. The acceleration error along the Z-axis can
then be rewritten as.
δZ (t) =
as,Z (t)
× 100% =
ρθ̈(t)
× 100% (25)
aZ (t) a(t)sin(θ0 )
Fig. 13 shows a typical acceleration error history along the Z-axis.
Note that the error corresponding to the beginning of the rising edge and
the end of the falling edge of the acceleration history was relatively
large. This conclusion is reasonable because aZ (t) in these two stages is
relatively small (according to Eq. (25)). Δt±0.5% represents the time when
δZ (t) is between − 5 % and +5 %. When Δt±0.5% is close to T/2, the effect
of aτ (t) can be ignored. The data from the simulation are summarized in
Table 4. When θ0 = 10◦ , for any T from 52 to 248 μs, the tangential
acceleration could not be ignored. When θ0 = 30◦ and T greater than
148 μs, or θ0 ≥ 50◦ and T greater than 52 μs, the tangential acceleration
was negligible.
4. Calibration results and analyses
As shown in this section, the effectiveness of the developed triaxial
synchronous calibration method was evaluated by determining the
sensitivity parameters of the 3-Axis-G (Model, CA-YZ-100K-T). First, the
calibration results in both uniaxial and triaxial synchronous calibrations
are presented. Next, the effect of loading amplitude on the sensitivity of
the 3-Axis-G is revealed. Finally, a preliminary evaluation of the
installation error and coupling relationship between the three axes of
the 3-Axis-G is discussed.
4.1. Experimental conditions
Triaxial synchronous calibration was performed at three different
mounting angles ω (namely, 30◦ , 45◦ and 60◦ ) and two different incli­
nation angles θ0 (namely, 26.6◦ and 45◦ ). In uniaxial calibration, the
The sensitivity results calibrated using the uniaxial method were
calculated based on Eq. (3) and are listed in Table 6. For a more intuitive
analysis of the calibration results, the sensitivity values were also shown
in Fig. 14. The main sensitivities along the three axes were found to
decrease with increasing acceleration and exhibit nonlinear character­
istics. This behavior is related to the dynamic characteristics of the
sensitive element structure and internal circuit of the sensor under an
impact load. In addition, the cross-sensitivities of the accelerometer
shown in Fig. 14(b) were approximately proportional to the accelera­
tion. The reason for this phenomenon may be that the non-orthogonal
angle increased with the impact load, which made the inter-axis
coupling effect more obvious. Fig. 14(b) also shows that SYX and SXY
were significantly larger than the other cross-sensitivities, which means
that the coupling effect between the X- and Y- axis was more obvious
than those between the other axes. Meanwhile, all cross-sensitivities
were found to have positive values. This means that the acceleration
input of one axis of this 3-Axis-G will increase the voltage output of the
other two axes. The angles between the sensitive axes were less than 90◦ .
It was preliminarily inferred that the three sensitive axes were in the first
quadrant of the space coordinate system marked on the accelerometer
housing, as shown in Fig. 15.
4.3. Triaxial synchronous calibration results
Fig. 16 shows the typical output history curves of the 3-Axis-G in
triaxial synchronous calibration. The original output signals shown by
the broken lines in Fig. 16(a) had periodic oscillations. The oscillation
period was obtained by calculating the average width of seven complete
oscillation waves, and the oscillation frequency was calculated to be
approximately ~ 132.83 kHz. To verify the accuracy of the accelerom­
eter output, FFT was performed on the original signals from the three
axes, as shown in Fig. 16(b). It is clear that the original signals mainly
contained two frequency components, namely, 5.23 kHz and 133.39
kHz. The first frequency component (5.23 kHz) was essentially

12
M. Gao et al. Measurement 218 (2023) 113109

0.10 consistent with the dominant frequency (5.26 kHz) of the impact signal
Synchronous calibration obtained by the projectile #3 in Fig. 8(b). That is, this 3-Axis-G can
SYX (Exp)
detect the input signal completely and output it at that frequency.
SZX (Exp)
0.08 Furthermore, the second frequency component (133.39 kHz) was
Fitting curve determined as the periodic oscillation frequency (132.83 kHz) of the
Fitting curve
original output signal (time domain) of the 3-Axis-G in Fig. 16(a), which
Sensitivity ( v/g)

0.06 was the mounted resonant frequency of the accelerometer. This mainly
Uniaxial calibration
SYX (Exp)
depends on the installation environment of the accelerometer [43,44],
such as the installation base and connection form. When the frequency
SZX (Exp)
0.04 component of the excitation signal contains the mounted resonance
Fitting curve
frequency, it will cause the accelerometer to resonate, even if the ac­
Fitting curve
celeration amplitude corresponding to this frequency in the excitation
signal is small. When the cutoff frequency of the low-pass filter was set to
0.02
80 kHz, there was no significant attenuation in the acceleration signals,
and the duration and shape of the filtered voltage curves were highly
similar to the original signals, as shown in Fig. 16(a). This shows that
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 this method effectively eliminates high-frequency resonance without
4 distorting the original signals.
Acceleration X-axis aX ( 10 g)
The different sensitivity matrices in Table 7 are calibrated at
(a) different impact speeds and mounting angles. Our previous research
0.10 [32] found that the pulse signals generated by the same projectile
Synchronous calibration impacted at different speeds have the same width and shape, and
SXY (Exp)
contain the same frequency components. The calibration results of the
SZY (Exp) sensitivity matrix S were calculated according to Eq. (7). aX , aY and aZ in
0.08
Fitting curve Table 7 are the maximum values of the input acceleration signal in the
Fitting curve
time domain.
Sensitivity ( v/g)

Fig. 17 presents the calibration results of the cross-sensitivities from

0.06 Uniaxial calibration
both the triaxial synchronous and uniaxial methods. The synchronous
SXY (Exp)
calibration results also prove that the coupling effect between the X- and
SZY (Exp)
Y- axis is the most obvious. The cross-sensitivities of synchronous cali­
0.04 Fitting curve
bration were all larger than those of uniaxial calibration. According to
Fitting curve
the above analysis of the sources of cross-sensitivity (Section 2.1) and
the differences between uniaxial and triaxial synchronous calibration
0.02 (Section 2.2), a reasonable explanation for this conclusion is that
compared to uniaxial calibration, triaxial synchronous calibration ap­
plies larger acceleration loads simultaneously on all three axes of the
0.00 accelerometer, resulting in greater non-orthogonal misalignment angles
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
between the axes. This leads to an increase in coupling effects between
4
Acceleration of Y-axis aY ( 10 g) axes and thus greater cross sensitivity. Furthermore, the nonlinearity of
the cross-sensitivity measured using triaxial synchronous calibration is
(b) more obvious than that measured using uniaxial calibration.
0.045 Through the preliminary analysis of the calibration system, the
sources of uncertainty of the developed method are as follows: 1) the
uncertainty in the reference acceleration uaref mainly originates from
0.036 strain measurements (strain gauges, ultrahigh dynamic strainometer
Synchronous calibration and transient wave recorder) and the dispersion effect of stress wave
SXZ (Exp) propagation; 2) the uncertainty of the excitation acceleration uaexc
Sensitivity ( v/g)

0.027 SYZ (Exp) mainly originates from the difference between the reflected and incident
Fitting curve waves after the stress wave is reflected by the inclined plane; 3) the
Fitting curve uncertainty of the incline angle uθ0 and rotation angle uω ; 4) the un­
0.018 certainty caused by the rotation of the inclined plane during loading ur .
Uniaxial calibration
Each uncertainty must be evaluated via rigorous measurement or
SXZ (Exp)
calculation.
SYZ (Exp)
0.009
Fitting curve
5. Conclusions
Fitting curve

0.000 This study aimed to calibrate the complete sensitivity characteristics of

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
a 3-Axis-G over the entire ranges of amplitude and frequency bandwidth.
Acceleration of Z-axis aZ ( 104 g) To this end, a mathematical sensitivity model considering the non-
orthogonal and misalignment errors was established, and a triaxial syn­
(c) chronous calibration method that can simultaneously apply excitation
signals to the three axes of the 3-Axis-G was proposed to identify the model
Fig. 17. Comparison of cross-sensitivities calibrated using the triaxial syn­
parameters. The effectiveness of the developed method was evaluated via
chronous and uniaxial methods in the (a) X-axis, (b) Y-axis and (c) Z-axis.
experiments and numerical simulations. The coupling effect between the
accelerometer axes was analyzed based on the experimental results. The
conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows:

13
M. Gao et al.
(1) The coupling effect between the axes of 3-Axis-Gs is attributed to
non-orthogonality and misalignment errors. On this physical
basis, a sensitivity model consisting of three main sensitivities
and six cross-sensitivities was proposed for the first time.
(2) Triaxial synchronous calibration of 3-Axis-Gs was realized using a
modified Hopkinson bar with an inclined plane at the bar end and
by decomposing the excitation signals along the three axes of 3-
Axis-Gs.
(3) By reasonably designing the projectile’s geometry (large taper)
and selecting the calibration bar’s material (high yield stress),
acceleration pulse signals with an amplitude greater than
100,000 g and a frequency bandwidth greater than 50 kHz can be
obtained. This enables calibration of 3-Axis-Gs over the entire
ranges of amplitude and frequency bandwidth.
(4) According to the results of the numerical simulation, the radial
acceleration caused by rotation of the inclined plane can be
neglected. The larger initial inclination angle and wider loading
pulse width result in smaller angle changes and tangential ac­
celeration, thus ensuring the accuracy of the calibration results.
(5) Calibration experiments were performed on a typical 3-Axis-G
using both the triaxial synchronous and uniaxial methods. The
results showed that as the acceleration increased, the cross-
sensitivity increased, indicating that the inter-axis coupling ef­
fect became more pronounced. The cross-sensitivity and non-
linearity obtained via triaxial synchronous calibration were
more significant than those obtained via uniaxial calibration.
According to the experimental results, the three sensitive axes of
this 3-Axis-G were determined to be in the first quadrant of the
space coordinate system marked on the accelerometer housing.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Meng Gao: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing
– original draft, Writing – review & editing. Kangbo Yuan: Validation,
Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Funding acqui­
sition. Yang Zhang: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Long­
yang Chen: Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Weiguo Guo:
Resources, Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration,
Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
This research work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (grant numbers 11872051, 12202149 and
12072287), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (grant number
2022M711198), the Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou
(grant number 2023A04J1564), and the Fundamental Research Funds
for the Central Universities (grant number 2022ZYGXZR057).
References
[1] J. Fan, Y. Wang, J. Zu, et al., Triaxial acceleration measurement for oblique
penetration into concrete target, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 59 (11) (2010)
2907–2913, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2009.2027767.
14
Measurement 218 (2023) 113109
[2] J. M. Sibeaud, Intelligent fuzing for penetrating munitions: experiments and
analysis of representative configurations, in: Proceedings of the 53th Annual Fuze
Conference, Florida, USA, 2009, pp. 321-328.
[3] I. Frosio, F. Pedersini, N.A. Borghese, Autocalibration of MEMS accelerometers,
IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 58 (6) (2008) 2034–2041, https://doi.org/10.1109/
TIM.2008.2006137.
[4] P. Gao, K. Li, L. Wang, et al., A self-calibration method for accelerometer
nonlinearity errors in triaxis rotational inertial navigation system, IEEE Trans.
Instrum. Meas. 66 (2) (2016) 243–253, https://doi.org/10.1109/
TIM.2016.2625958.
[5] A. Prato, F. Mazzoleni, A. Schiavi, Traceability of digital 3-axis MEMS
accelerometer: simultaneous determination of main and transverse sensitivities in
the frequency domain, Metrologia 57 (3) (2020), 035013, https://doi.org/
10.1088/1681-7575/ab79be.
[6] A.J. Wixted, D.V. Thiel, A.G. Hahn, et al., Measurement of energy expenditure in
elite athletes using MEMS-based triaxial accelerometers, IEEE Sens. J. 7 (4) (2007)
481–488, https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2007.891947.
[7] D. Curone, G.M. Bertolotti, A. Cristiani, et al., A real-time and self-calibrating
algorithm based on triaxial accelerometer signals for the detection of human
posture and activity, IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 14 (4) (2010) 1098–1105,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TITB.2010.2050696.
[8] J.C. Lotters, J. Schipper, P.H. Veltink, et al., Procedure for in-use calibration of
triaxial accelerometers in medical applications, Sens. Actuators, A 68 (1–3) (1998)
221–228, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-4247(98)00049-1.
[9] Z.F. Syed, P. Aggarwal, C. Goodall, et al., A new multi-position calibration method
for MEMS inertial navigation systems, Meas. Sci. Technol. 18 (7) (2007)
1897–1907, https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/18/7/016.
[10] S. Khankalantary, S. Ranjbaran, S. Ebadollahi, Simplification of calibration of low-
cost MEMS accelerometer and its temperature compensation without accurate
laboratory equipment, Meas. Sci. Technol. 32 (4) (2021), 045102, https://doi.org/
10.1088/1361-6501/abd0bf.
[11] G. D’Emilia, A. Gaspari, E. Natale, Evaluation of aspects affecting measurement of
three-axis accelerometers, Measurement 77 (2016) 95–104, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.measurement.2015.08.031.
[12] X. Li, B. Song, Y. Wang, et al., Calibration and alignment of triaxial magnetometers
for attitude determination, IEEE Sens. J. 18 (18) (2018) 7399–7406, https://doi.
org/10.1109/JSEN.2018.2859832.
[13] P. Schopp, H. Graf, W. Burgard, et al., Self-calibration of accelerometer arrays,
IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 65 (8) (2016) 1913–1925, https://doi.org/10.1109/
TIM.2016.2549758.
[14] L. Ye, Y. Guo, S.W. Su, An efficient autocalibration method for triaxial
accelerometer, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 66 (9) (2017) 2380–2390, https://doi.
org/10.1109/TIM.2017.2706479.
[15] M. Sipos, P. Paces, J. Rohac, et al., Analyses of triaxial accelerometer calibration
algorithms, IEEE Sens. J. 12 (5) (2011) 1157–1165, https://doi.org/10.1109/
JSEN.2011.2167319.
[16] L. Yukuan, L. Chuanjun, W. Jiangxiong, A practical and lowcost calibration method
for MIMU, in, in: Proceedings of the 2017 3rd IEEE International Conference on
Control Science and Systems Engineering, 2017, pp. 359–363.
[17] J. Cheng, P. Liu, Z. Wei, et al., A novel MEMS-RIMU self-calibration method based
on gravity vector observation, Meas. Sci. Technol. 32 (5) (2021), 055108, https://
doi.org/10.1088/1361-6501/abd798.
[18] C. Sun, S.Q. Ren, M. Zeng, et al., Sequential Calibration Method of Nonlinear Errors
of PIGA on Counter-Rotating Platform Centrifuge, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 70
(2020) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2020.3022441.
[19] S.Q. Ren, Q.B. Liu, M. Zeng, et al., Calibration method of accelerometer’s high-
order error model coefficients on precision centrifuge, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas.
69 (5) (2019) 2277–2286, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2019.2923828.
[20] H. Sohrabi, S. Ebadollahi, Accuracy enhancement of MEMS accelerometer by
determining its nonlinear coefficients using centrifuge test, Measurement 112
(2017) 29–37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.08.010.
[21] A. Umeda, M. Onoe M, K. Sakata, et al, Calibration of three-axis accelerometers
using a three-dimensional vibration generator and three laser interferometers,
Sens. Actuators, A 114(1) (2004), 93-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sna.2004.03.011.
[22] Z. Liu, C. Cai, M. Yang, et al., Development of a tri-axial primary vibration
calibration system, Acta IMEKO 8 (1) (2019) 33–39, https://doi.org/10.21014/
acta_imeko.v8i1.662.
[23] L Klaus, M. Kobusch, Seismometer calibration using a multi-component
acceleration exciter, in: Proceedings of Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP
Publishing. 1065(22) (2018), 222014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1065/
22/222014.
[24] F. Ghanipoor, M. Hashemi, H. Salarieh, Toward calibration of low-precision MEMS
IMU using a nonlinear model and TUKF, IEEE Sens. J. 20 (8) (2020) 4131–4138,
https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2019.2963538.
[25] M. Gaitan, J. Geist, Calibration of triaxial accelerometers by constant rotation rate
in the gravitational field, Measurement 189 (2022), 110528, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.measurement.2021.110528.
[26] P. Dong, X. Li, H. Yang, et al., High-performance monolithic triaxial piezoresistive
shock accelerometers, Sens. Actuators, A 141 (2) (2008) 339–346, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.sna.2007.10.032.
[27] W. Yan, J. Fan, X. Peng, et al., Shock Calibration of the High-g Triaxial
Accelerometer, in: Proceedings of Instrumentation & Measurement Technology
Conference. IEEE, 2008.
[28] V.I. Bateman, J. Letterneau, Proven Sensor Performance for Emerging Shock
Environments, Sound Vib. 48 (9) (2014) 14–19.
M. Gao et al.
[29] T. C. Togami, W. E. Baker, M. J. Forrestal, A split Hopkinson bar technique to
evaluate the performance of accelerometers, 63 (1996) 353-356. https://doi.org/
10.1115/1.2788872.
[30] J.T. Foster, D.J. Frew, M.J. Forrestal, et al., Shock testing accelerometers with a
Hopkinson pressure bar, Int. J. Impact Eng. 46 (2012) 56–61, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2012.02.006.
[31] Z. Yang, Q. Wang, H. Du, et al., Dynamic characterization method of
accelerometers based on the Hopkinson bar calibration system[J], Sens. Actuators,
A 293 (2019) 21–28, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2019.03.035.
[32] K. Yuan, W. Guo, Y. Su, et al., Study on several key problems in shock calibration of
high-g accelerometers using Hopkinson bar, Sens. Actuators, A 258 (2017) 1–13,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2017.02.017.
[33] Y. Shi, Y. Zhao, H. Feng, et al., Design, fabrication and calibration of a high-G
MEMS accelerometer, Sens. Actuators, A 279 (2018) 733–742, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.sna.2018.07.010.
[34] A. Umeda. Method and device for measuring dynamic linearity of acceleration
sensor, US7343776 (2008).
[35] M. Sipos, P. Paces, J. Rohac, et al., Analyses of triaxial accelerometer calibration
algorithms, IEEE Sens. J.12(5) (2011) 1157–1165, https://doi.org/10.1109/
JSEN.2011.2167319.
[36] U. Qureshi, F. Golnaraghi, An algorithm for the in-field calibration of a MEMS IMU,
IEEE Sens. J. 17 (22) (2017) 7479–7486, https://doi.org/10.1109/
JSEN.2017.2751572.
15
Measurement 218 (2023) 113109
[37] W.T. Ang, P.K. Khosla, C.N. Riviere, Nonlinear regression model of a low-g MEMS
accelerometer, IEEE Sens. J. 7 (1) (2006) 81–88, https://doi.org/10.1109/
JSEN.2006.886995.
[38] X. Zhang, C. Zhou, F. Chao, et al., Low-cost inertial measurement unit calibration
with nonlinear scale factors[J], IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 18 (2) (2021) 1028–1038,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2021.3077296.
[39] D.A.W. Taylor, Time and amplitude errors in the measurement of dynamic strain
pulses by resistance strain gauges, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 8 (3) (1966) 193–212, https://
doi.org/10.1016/0020-7403(66)90036-1.
[40] K. Ueda, A. Umeda, Dynamic response of strain gages up to 300 kHz, Exp. Mech. 38
(2) (1998) 93–98, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02321650.
[41] M.J. Forrestal, T.C. Togami, W.E. Baker, et al., Performance evaluation of
accelerometers used for penetration experiments[J], Exp. Mech. 43 (2003) 90–96,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0014485103043001012.
[42] T. Zhao, Y. Jiang, Fatigue of 7075–T651 aluminum alloy, Int. J. Fatigue. 30 (5)
(2008) 834–849, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2007.07.005.
[43] M. Dumont, D. Kuntz, T. Petzsche, in: Testing Methods for Verification of a
Mounted Accelerometer Frequency Response[C]//Special Topics in Structural
Dynamics, Volume 6, Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 53–66, https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53841-9_5.
[44] Z. Liu, C. Cai, M. Yu, et al., Analysis on the Resonance Frequency of Comparison
Calibration of the Piezoelectric Accelerometer[C]//2016, in: 3rd International
Conference on Information Science and Control Engineering (ICISCE), 2016,
pp. 862–866, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICISCE.2016.188.