Comparison of Two Experiments Based on a Physical and a Torsion Pendulum to Determine the Mass Moment of Inertia Including Measurement Uncertainties

Open access

Abstract

To determine the mass-moment-of-inertia properties of devices under test with particularly small mass moments of inertia (some 10−4 kg m2), two measurement set-ups based on different measurement principles were developed. One set-up is based on a physical pendulum, the second set-up incorporates a torsion pendulum. Both measurement set-ups and their measurement principles are described in detail, including the chosen data acquisition and analysis. Measurement uncertainty estimations according to the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) were carried out for both set-ups by applying Monte Carlo simulations. Both set-ups were compared using the same three devices under test. For each measurement result, the measurement uncertainties were estimated. The measurement results are compared in terms of consistency and the resulting measurement uncertainties. For the given devices under test, the torsion pendulum set-up gave results with smaller measurement uncertainties compared to the set-up incorporating a physical pendulum.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Genta G. Delprete C. (1994). Some considerations on the experimental determination of moments of inertia. Meccanica 29 (2) 125–141. doi: 10.1007/BF01007497.

  • [2] Soulé K.A. Miller M.P. (1933). The experimental determination of the moments of inertia of airplanes. NACA Technical Report 467 National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Langley Field USA.

  • [3] Gracey W. (1948). The experimental determination of the moments of inertia of airplanes by a simplified compound-pendulum method. NACA Technical Note 1629 National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Langley Field USA.

  • [4] Jardin M. Mueller E. (2007). Optimized Measurements of UAV Mass Moment of inertia with a bifilar pendulum. In AIAA Guidance Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit 20-23 August 2007 Hilton Head USA. doi: 10.2514/6.2007-6822.

  • [5] Swank A.J. (2012). Precision mass property measurements using a five-wire torsion pendulum. In 27th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Precision Engineering 21-26 October 2012 San Diego USA.

  • [6] Kooijman J.D.G. Schwab A.L. Meijaard J.P. (2008). Experimental validation of a model of an uncontrolled bicycle. Multibody System Dynamics 19 (1-2) 115–132. doi: 10.1007/s11044-007-9050-x.

  • [7] Pedersen N.F. Sørensen O.H. (1977). The compound pendulum in intermediate laboratories and demonstrations. American Journal of Physics 45 (10) 994–998. doi: 10.1119/1.10867.

  • [8] Robertson R.L. Harris E.C. (1962). A simplified technique for precision measurement of moment of inertia. In 21st National Conference of the SAWE 14-17 May 1962 Seattle USA. Society of Allied Weight Engineer.

  • [9] Klaus L. (2015). Dynamic torque calibration. PTB Mitteilungen 125 (2) 12–17. doi: 10.7795/310.20150203.

  • [10] Bruns T. Wedmann A. (2006). Experimentelle Bestimmung von Massenträgheitsmomenten als Ruckfuhrungsgroße fur die dynamische Drehmomentkalibrierung (Experimental determination of moments of inertia for traceability in dynamic torque calibration). tm – Technisches Messen 73 (12) 692–697. doi: 10.1524/teme.2006.73.12.692.

  • [11] Klaus L. Bruns T. Kobusch M. (2014). Modelling of a dynamic torque calibration device and determination of model parameters. Acta IMEKO 3 (2) 14–18. doi: 10.21014/acta_imeko.v3i2.79.

  • [12] Peschel D. Mauersberger D. (1994). Determination of the friction of aerostatic radial bearings for the levermass system of torque standard machines. In XIII IMEKO World Congress 5-9 September 1994 Turin Italy. IMEKO 216-220.

  • [13] Beléndez A. Pascual C. Méndez D.I. Beléndez T. Neipp C. (2007). Exact solution for the nonlinear pendulum. Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física 29 (4) 645–648. doi: 10.1590/S1806-11172007000400024.

  • [14] Baker G.L. Blackburn J.A. (2005). The Pendulum. Oxford University Press.

  • [15] Ochs K. (2011). A comprehensive analytical solution of the nonlinear pendulum. European Journal of Physics 32 (2) 479–490. doi: 10.1088/0143-0807/32/2/019.

  • [16] Abramowitz M. Stegun I.A. (eds.) (1964; 1972 – 10th printing with corrections). Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas Graphs and Mathematical Tables. United States Department of Commerce.

  • [17] Symon K.R. (1960). Mechanics. 2nd edition. Addison-Wesley.

  • [18] Endevco Meggit Sensing Systems (2006). Guide to adhesively mounting accelerometers. Technical Report.

  • [19] Joint Committee for Guides in Meteorology. (2008). Evaluation of measurement data —- Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. JCGM 100:2008.

  • [20] Joint Committee for Guides in Meteorology. (2008). Evaluation of measurement data —- Supplement 1 to the “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement” – Propagation of distributions using a Monte Carlo method. JCGM 101:2008.

  • [21] Wübbeler G. Harris P.M. Cox M.G. Elster C. (2010). A Two-stage procedure for determining the number of trials in the application of a Monte Carlo method for uncertainty evaluation. Metrologia 47 (3) 317–325. doi: 10.1088/0026-1394/47/3/023.

  • [22] Free Software Foundation Inc. GNU Octave. http://www.octave.org/.

  • [23] Lindau A. Kumme R. Heiker A. (2002). Investigation in the local gravity field of a force laboratory of PTB. In Joint International Conference IMEKO TC3/TC5/TC20: Proceedings of the International Conference on Force Mass Torque Hardness and Civil Engineering Metrology in the Age Globalization 24-26 September 2002 Celle Germany. VDI-Berichte Nr. 1685.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.122
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.157

CiteScore 2018: 1.39

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.325
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.881

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 217 75 6
PDF Downloads 154 74 7