Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:41:00.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Modeling of a MEMS Floating Element Shear Sensor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2014

Nikolas Kastor
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States.
Zhengxin Zhao
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States.
Robert D. White
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States.
Get access

Abstract

A MEMS floating element shear stress sensor has been developed for flow testing applications, targeted primarily in ground and flight testing of aerospace vehicle and components. However, concerns remain about the interaction of the flow with the mechanical elements of the structure at the micro-scale. In particular, there are concerns about the validity of laminar flow cell calibration to measurement in turbulent flows, and the extent to which pressure gradients may introduce errors into the shear stress measurement. In order to address these concerns, a numerical model of the sensor has been constructed.

In this paper, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model is described. The CFD model directly models a laminar flow cell experiment that is used to calibrate the shear sensor. The computational model allows us to quantify the contributions (e.g. pressure gradient vs. shear, top surface vs. lateral surfaces) to the sensor output in a manner that is difficult by purely experimental means. The results are compared to experimental data, validating the model and resulting in the following: Surface shear stress contributes approximately 40% of the total flow direction force; pressure gradient effects contribute nearly 45% for the textured shuttle described here; lift forces and pitching moments are non-zero. Thus, it is found that flow interactions are complex and that it is insufficient to simply assume that flow forces on the sensor are the top area multiplied by wall shear, as is sometimes done. Pressure gradient effects, at least, must be included for accurate calibration.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Fernholz, H. H., Janke, G., Schober, M., Wagner, P. M. and Warnack, D., “New developments and applications of skin-friction measuring techniques,”Measurement Science and Technology, vol. 7, pp. 13961409, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naughton, J. W. and Sheplak, M., “Modern developments in shear-stress measurement,”Prog. Aerospace Sci., vol. 38, pp. 515570, 0, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Z., Shin, M. and White, R. D., “A MEMS floating element with bump shear stress sensor array on a chip,” 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Grapevine (Dallas/Ft. Worth Region), Texas, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Z., Shin, M., Gallman, J. M. and White, R. D.. “A Microfabricated Shear Sensor Array on a Chip with Pressure Gradient Calibration”, Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, vol. 205, pp. 133142, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar