Tag Archives: measurements

Going against the flow

Decorative photograph of a mountain riverLast week I wrote about research we have been carrying out over the last decade that is being applied to large scale structures in the aerospace industry (see ‘Slowly crossing the valley of death‘ on January 27th, 2021). I also work on very much smaller ‘structures’ that are only tens of nanometers in diameter, or about a billion times smaller than the test samples in last week’s post (see ‘Toxic nanoparticles?‘ on November 13th, 2013). The connection is the use of light to measure shape, deformation and motion; and then utilising the measurements to validate predictions from theoretical or computational models. About three years ago, we published research which demonstrated that the motion of very small particles (less than about 300 nanometres) at low concentrations (less than about a billion per millilitre) in a fluid was dominated by the molecules of the fluid rather than interactions between the particles (see Coglitore et al, 2017 and ‘Slow moving nanoparticles‘ on December 13th, 2017). This data confirmed results from earlier molecular dynamic simulations that contradicted predictions using the Stokes-Einstein equation, which was derived by Einstein in his PhD thesis for a ‘Stokes’ particle undergoing Brownian motion. The Stokes-Einstein equation works well for large particles but the physics of motion changes when the particles are very small and far apart so that Van der Waals forces and electrostatic forces play a dominant role, as we have shown in a more recent paper (see Giorgi et al, 2019).  This becomes relevant when evaluating nanoparticles as potential drug delivery systems or assessing the toxicological impact of nanoparticles.  We have shown recently that instruments based on dynamic scattering of light from nanoparticles are likely to be inaccurate because they are based on fitting measurement data to the Stokes-Einstein equation.  In a paper published last month, we found that asymmetric flow field flow fractionation (or AF4)  in combination with dynamic light scattering when used to detect the size of nanoparticles in suspension, tended to over-estimate the diameter of particles smaller than 60 nanometres at low concentrations by upto a factor of two (see Giorgi et al, 2021).  Someone commented recently that our work in this area was not highly cited but perhaps this is unsurprising when it undermines a current paradigm.  We have certainly learnt to handle rejection letters, to redouble our efforts to demonstrate the rigor in our research and to present conclusions in a manner that appears to build on existing knowledge rather than demolishing it.

Sources:

Coglitore, D., Edwardson, S.P., Macko, P., Patterson, E.A. and Whelan, M., 2017. Transition from fractional to classical Stokes–Einstein behaviour in simple fluids. Royal Society open science, 4(12), p.170507.

Giorgi, F., Coglitore, D., Curran, J.M., Gilliland, D., Macko, P., Whelan, M., Worth, A. and Patterson, E.A., 2019. The influence of inter-particle forces on diffusion at the nanoscale. Scientific reports, 9(1), pp.1-6.

Giorgi, F., Curran, J.M., Gilliland, D., La Spina, R., Whelan, M.P. & Patterson, E.A. 2021, Limitations of nanoparticles size characterization by asymmetric flow field-fractionation coupled with online dynamic light scattering, Chromatographia, doi.org/10/1007/s10337-020-03997-7.

Image is a photograph of a fast flowing mountain river taken in Yellowstone National Park during a roadtrip across the USA in 2006.

Slowly crossing the valley of death

A view of a valleyThe valley of death in technology development is well-known amongst research engineers and their sponsors. It is the gap between discovery and application, or between realization of an idea in a laboratory and its implementation in the real-world. Some of my research has made it across the valley of death, for example the poleidoscope about 15 years ago (see ‘Poleidoscope (=polariscope+kaleidoscope)‘ on October 14th, 2020).  Our work on quantitative comparisons of data fields from physical measurements and computer predictions is about three-quarters of the way across the valley.  We published a paper in December (see Dvurecenska et al, 2020) on its application to a large panel from the fuselage of an aircraft based on work we completed as part of the MOTIVATE project.  I reported the application of the research in almost real-time in a post in December 2018 (see ‘Industrial Uncertainty‘ on December 12th, 2018) and in further detail in May 2020 as we submitted the manuscript for publication (‘Alleviating industrial uncertainty‘ on May 13th, 2020).  However, the realization in the laboratory occurred nearly a decade ago when teams from Michigan State University and the University of Liverpool came together in the ADVISE project funded by EU Framework 7 programme (see Wang et al, 2011). Subsequently, the team at Michigan State University moved to the University of Liverpool and in collaboration with researchers at Empa developed the technique that was applied in the MOTIVATE project (see Sebastian et al 2013). The work published in December represents a step into the valley of death; from a university environment into a full-scale test laboratory at Empa using a real piece of aircraft.  The MOTIVATE project involved a further step to a demonstration on an on-going test of a cockpit at Airbus which was also reported in a post last May (see ‘The blind leading the blind‘ on May 27th, 2020).  We are now working with Airbus in a new programme to embed the process of quantitative comparison of fields of measurements and predictions into their routine test procedures for aerospace structures.  So, I would like to think we are climbing out of the valley.

Image: not Death Valley but taken on a road trip in 2008 somewhere between Moab, UT and Kanab, UT while living in Okemos, MI.

Sources:

Dvurecenska, K., Diamantakos, I., Hack, E., Lampeas, G., Patterson, E.A. and Siebert, T., 2020. The validation of a full-field deformation analysis of an aircraft panel: A case study. The Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design, p.0309324720971140.

Sebastian, C., Hack, E. and Patterson, E., 2013. An approach to the validation of computational solid mechanics models for strain analysis. The Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design, 48(1), pp.36-47.

Wang, W., Mottershead, J.E., Sebastian, C.M. and Patterson, E.A., 2011. Shape features and finite element model updating from full-field strain data. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 48(11-12), pp.1644-1657.

For more posts on the MOTIVATE project: https://realizeengineering.blog/category/myresearch/motivate-project/

The MOTIVATE project has received funding from the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 754660 and the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation under contract number 17.00064.

The opinions expressed in this blog post reflect only the author’s view and the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Turning the screw in dentistry

Dental implant surgery showing implant being screwed into placeTwo weeks ago, I wrote about supervising PhD students and my own PhD thesis [‘35 years later and still working on a PhD thesis‘ on September 16th, 2020].  The tedium of collecting data as a PhD student without digital instrumentation stimulated me to work subsequently on automation in experimental mechanics which ultimately led to projects like INSTRUCTIVE and DIMES.  In INSTRUCTIVE we developed  low-cost digital sensors for tracking damage in components; while in DIMES we are transitioning the technology into the industrial environment using tests on full-scale aircraft systems as demonstrators.  However, my research in automating and digitising measurements in experimental mechanics has not generated my most cited publications; instead, my two most cited papers describe the development and application of results in my PhD thesis to osseointegrated dental implants.  One, published in 1994, describes the ‘Tightening characteristics for screwed joints in osseointegrated dental implants‘; while, the other published two years earlier provides a ‘Theoretical analysis of the fatigue life of fixture screws in osseointegrated dental implants‘.  In other words, the former tells you how to tighten the screws so that the implants do not come loose and the latter how long the screws will survive before they need to be replaced – both quite useful pieces of information for dentists which perhaps explains their continued popularity.

Statistics footnote: my two most cited papers received five times as many citations in the last 18 months and also since publication than the most popular paper from my PhD thesis. The details of the three papers are given below:

Burguete, R.L., Johns, R.B., King, T. and Patterson, E.A., 1994. Tightening characteristics for screwed joints in osseointegrated dental implants. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 71(6), pp.592-599.

Patterson, E.A. and Johns, R.B., 1992. Theoretical analysis of the fatigue life of fixture screws in osseointegrated dental implants. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, 7(1), p.26.

Kenny, B. and Patterson, E.A., 1985. Load and stress distribution in screw threads. Experimental Mechanics, 25(3), pp.208-213.

Logos of Clean Sky 2 and EUThe INSTRUCTIVE and DIMES projects have received funding from the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreements No. 685777 and No. 820951 respectively.

The opinions expressed in this blog post reflect only the author’s view and the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Image by володимир волощак from Pixabay.

Alleviating industrial uncertainty

Want to know how to assess the quality of predictions of structural deformation from a computational model and how to diagnose the causes of differences between measurements and predictions?  The MOTIVATE project has the answers; that might seem like an over-assertive claim but read on and make your own judgment.  Eighteen months ago, I reported on a new method for quantifying the uncertainty present in measurements of deformation made in an industrial environment [see ‘Industrial uncertainty’ on December 12th, 2018] that we were trialling on a 1 m square panel of an aircraft fuselage.  Recently, we have used the measurement uncertainty we found to make judgments about the quality of predictions from computer models of the panel under compressive loading.  The top graphic shows the outside surface of the panel (left) with a speckle pattern to allow measurements of its deformation using digital image correlation (DIC) [see ‘256 shades of grey‘ on January 22, 2014 for a brief explanation of DIC]; and the inside surface (right) with stringers and ribs.  The bottom graphic shows our results for two load cases: a 50 kN compression (top row) and a 50 kN compression and 1 degree of torsion (bottom row).  The left column shows the out-of-plane deformation measured using a stereoscopic DIC system and the middle row shows the corresponding predictions from a computational model using finite element analysis [see ‘Did cubism inspire engineering analysis?’ on January 25th, 2017].  We have described these deformation fields in a reduced form using feature vectors by applying image decomposition [see ‘Recognizing strain’ on October 28th, 2015 for a brief explanation of image decomposition].  The elements of the feature vectors are known as shape descriptors and corresponding pairs of them, from the measurements and predictions, are plotted in the graphs on the right in the bottom graphic for each load case.  If the predictions were in perfect agreement with measurements then all of the points on these graphs would lie on the line equality [y=x] which is the solid line on each graph.  However, perfect agreement is unobtainable because there will always be uncertainty present; so, the question arises, how much deviation from the solid line is acceptable?  One answer is that the deviation should be less than the uncertainty present in the measurements that we evaluated with our new method and is shown by the dashed lines.  Hence, when all of the points fall inside the dashed lines then the predictions are at least as good as the measurements.  If some points lie outside of the dashed lines, then we can look at the form of the corresponding shape descriptors to start diagnosing why we have significant differences between our model and experiment.  The forms of these outlying shape descriptors are shown as insets on the plots.  However, busy, or non-technical decision-makers are often not interested in this level of detailed analysis and instead just want to know how good the predictions are.  To answer this question, we have implemented a validation metric (VM) that we developed [see ‘Million to one’ on November 21st, 2018] which allows us to state the probability that the predictions and measurements are from the same population given the known uncertainty in the measurements – these probabilities are shown in the black boxes superimposed on the graphs.

These novel methods create a toolbox for alleviating uncertainty about predictions of structural behaviour in industrial contexts.  Please get in touch if you want more information in order to test these tools yourself.

The MOTIVATE project has received funding from the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 754660 and the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation under contract number 17.00064.

The opinions expressed in this blog post reflect only the author’s view and the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.