Additive Manufacturing 73 (2023) 103674

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Additive Manufacturing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/addma

Research paper

Novel 3D printed capacitive shear stress sensor

Jens Oprel ∗, Gerjan Wolterink, Jurnan Schilder, Gijs Krijnen
University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper describes the research into 3D printed capacitive shear stress sensors. The context is the development
3D printed sensor of a technology that can potentially be used in shoe insoles. This is interesting in medical applications, such
Capacitive sensor as prevention of diabetic foot ulcers. The base geometry consists of a capacitive layout with parallel wire
Shear stress
structures and has two flexible elements on two sides. Experimental devices are optimized using electrostatic
Mechanical beam modeling
and mechanical models and printed using material extrusion additive manufacturing (AM) with a flexible
Electrostatic modeling
thermoplastic polymer (TPU). Two geometries with different sizes are designed and tested. The smallest design
is 8.75 × 8.75 × 11 mm and its responsivity is measured to be 0.9 pF∕MPa for a measurement range of ±140 kPa.
The design can easily be altered to meet specifications for a variety of other applications. The realized sensors
show some hysteresis, which we attribute primarily to the mechanical behavior. The capacitive measurement
of the displacement is quite linear. The mechanical hysteresis can partially be explained by the properties
of the printed material. The results are promising for application in shoe insoles and can relatively easily be
adapted to meet requirements for other applications.

1. Introduction of capacitive sensing, compared to piezoresistive sensing, is that the

Measurements of shear stresses are interesting for a range of ap-
plications, mainly in the field of medicine and (bio)robotics [1–4].
In medicine, examples where shear stresses are relevant include tight
fitted and limitedly compliant prostheses and orthoses. Also, moni-
toring of (shear) stresses at the human foot can be useful, especially
for persons with diabetes mellitus, who have an increased risk of
developing diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) [5–8]. Shear stresses are a risk
indicator for the development of these DFUs [8].
Production of sensors using additive manufacturing has various
advantages compared to other manufacturing techniques [9,10]: the
(initial) production costs are low, the sensor can be customized easily
and sensors and electrical interfacing can be integrated into a single
part. For application of sensors in shoe insoles, additive manufacturing
has the advantage that sensors can be integrated in a flexible shoe
insole. For persons with diabetes, a good shoe fit can help to reduce
the chances of DFU development [11]. Customized shoe insoles can
help to improve the shoe fit by lowering the peak stresses [11]. Additive
manufacturing can be used to effectively manufacture these customized
insoles [12]. The development of printed sensors will allow for a
flexible embedding in these insoles.
Capacitive and piezoresistive sensing are the two sensing methods
that are most suitable for application in 3D printed stress sensors [9].
In this research capacitive sensing is investigated. The main advantage
sensing behavior can be expected to be more linear. Common printable
conductive plastics suffer from non-linearities in the piezoresistive
behavior [9]. The associated disadvantage of capacitive sensing, the
effect of electromagnetic interference, will be reduced by applying a
differential measurement method.
The focus of this research is on potential application of fully 3D
printed shear stress sensors in shoe insoles for the monitoring of shear
stresses at the feet of persons with diabetes. In this application the
advantage of integration and customizability has a high added value.
This application poses certain requirements and objectives for the
sensor design, most importantly:
• The measurement range for shear stresses at the human foot
should be at least ±140 kPa [13].
• To judge the risk of DFU development associated with measured
shear stress value, the accuracy of especially peak levels of stress
should be as high as possible.
• A bandwidth of at least 10 Hz is needed to measure the stresses on
the foot whilst walking. According to Antonsson and Mann [14]
this frequency range contains 98% of the spectral power. Zhu
et al. [15] found that time domain signals sampled at 20 Hz were
not significantly different than those sampled at 200 Hz. In current
measurement systems used in research to measure forces on the

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: j.oprel@alumnus.utwente.nl (J. Oprel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2023.103674
Received 13 June 2022; Received in revised form 23 June 2023; Accepted 25 June 2023
Available online 4 July 2023
2214-8604/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
J. Oprel et al.
human foot the bandwidth is in a similar order of magnitude,
typically 30–50 Hz [16–18].
• Influences of other factors such as humidity changes, normal
forces and other conductors in the near field should influence the
measurement to a minimum.
• The surface area of the sensor should be small enough to prevent
underestimation of the peak shear stress [13], due to integration
and averaging of stress over a larger area. For this reason a surface
area smaller than 10 × 10 mm2 [13] is desired.
• The sensor design should pose no restrictions on the surface of
the sole. Bumps or other irregular shapes required by some sensor
designs are not acceptable for the application, as these irregular
shapes can form an additional risk factor for development of
DFUs.
In literature, numerous examples of printed capacitive sensors can
be found [19]. In research, printing techniques have been utilized for
development of a variety of sensors [19,20]. The printing is often
limited to printing conductive materials on a substrate. For example,
Albrecht et al. [21] developed a force sensor for shear and normal
force measurement in three directions using inkjet printing. When
3D printing is used, conductive parts are often fabricated using other
fabrication techniques than other parts of the sensor. For example using
wet-metalization [22] or using the printed substrate as a mould [23].
The research into fully 3D printed sensors is still limited compared
to these other printing and more traditional sensor manufacturing
techniques [19]. For normal force measurements, multiple examples
of fully 3D printed sensors have been developed and studied in other
research [24–26]. The research into capacitive 3D printed shear sensors
is very limited: Schouten et al. [27] have recently developed a fully 3D
printed force sensor that is able to measure shear and normal forces,
but their design uses a bump on which forces need to be applied,
making the design less suitable for application in shoe insoles. Also
with piezoresistive sensing, fully 3D printed force sensors have been
developed [28,29]. For the application in shoe insoles, Mertodikromo
et al. [30] designed and measured a partially 3D printed, capacitive
shear stress sensor with a cylindrical layout. The electrodes of this
design were not printed. This design has a surface area of 3 cm2 and
Fig. 1. Sketch of the sensor design, with indication of the mechanical variables and parameters. The capacitive sensing structure is depicted in more detail in Fig. 2.
2
Additive Manufacturing 73 (2023) 103674
a responsivity of 0.18 pF∕MPa and is able to measure shear forces in
two directions [30].
This research aims to provide a proof of principle, showing that
shear stresses can be measured using a fully 3D printed capacitive
sensor. In Section 2, electrostatic and mechanical models are discussed
to study trends that can be expected for the behavior of such sensors.
These models are used to guide the design of the sensing structures and
do not aim to describe the sensor behavior with high accuracy. The
models help to choose an optimal design based upon requirements of
the sensor. In this research, two sensors are presented which have dif-
ferent sensitivities and measurement ranges. The experimental methods
used for printing and characterization are discussed in Section 3 and the
obtained results are presented and discussed in Section 4.
2. Modeling and optimization
2.1. General design
The mechanical design of the sensor consists of a relatively stiff
structure with a flexible element on each side, see Fig. 1 for a sketch.
This allows for a relatively high flexibility in one shear direction (𝑦),
resulting in higher displacements for a given stress and thus a higher
responsivity whereas the flexibility in the other shear direction (𝑧) is
much smaller due to the large width of the structure in the 𝑧-direction.
The capacitive sensing structures are placed in between the beams
and are positioned relatively close together (see Fig. 1), such that the
displacement results in a relatively large capacitance change.
For manufacturing of the sensor, material extrusion (MEX) is se-
lected as printing technique. In MEX AM the structure is built up from
lines of material (traxels, sometimes referred to as traces). Traxels of
conductive material are initially wire shaped and have a relatively
high contact resistance [31]. Therefore, the electrodes are modeled
as parallel wires. The electrode layout consists of one top electrode
structure (ground) and two bottom electrode structures to measure
differentially, see Fig. 2.
J. Oprel et al. Additive Manufacturing 73 (2023) 103674

Fig. 2. Sketch of the wire structure design of the sensor, with relevant parameters.

2.2. Electrostatic modeling

To investigate the capacitive sensing operation the first objective is

to model the mutual capacitances between the multiple sets of wires,
as function of spacing and position. Two methods are used to model
the capacitive behavior; an analytical approximation technique and
application of a finite element (FE) model. Both methods are used
to find the capacitance between structures of parallel circular wires
of infinite length. An FE model is also used to find the capacitance
between wire structures of finite length and between plate structures.
The approximation technique relies on the assumption that charge is
approximately uniformly distributed over the surface of the conducting
wires. This allows for a relatively quick estimation of the capacitance
Fig. 4. Comparison of the center wire approximation to an FE wire model and plate
of wire structures. This approximation is derived and compared to
models. The legend order corresponds to the colors in the plot from top to bottom.
the FE models and alternative methods in Appendix A. Numerical
implementations of these models in Matlab (Mathworks Inc., Natick,
® this approximation is closer than estimation using the infinite plate
MA, USA) and COMSOL-Multiphysics (Comsol Inc, Burlington, MA,
USA) are made available [32]. capacitance. This is because the center-wire approximation takes the
fringe fields at the sides of the plate into account. These fringe fields are
2.2.1. Comparison of plate and wire structures also clearly visible in Fig. 6, which resemble the fringe fields expected
Due to the nature of MEX AM it is challenging to create a ho- for a plate structure.
mogeneous conductive plate [31]. Therefore, it was investigated how
the capacitance of a wire structure compares to the capacitance of 2.3. Mechanical modeling
a rounded parallel plate and how well the model for wires approx-
imates this value with (dense) wire structures. The structure that is
To model the mechanics, a hyperelastic beam model for incom-
studied here consists of two parallel rounded plates and similar wire
structures with 𝑛 wires as shown in Fig. 3. The wire approximation is pressible materials is used. The hyperelastic model is suitable to use
compared to the capacitance of a plate, approximated using the infinite for rubber like polymeric materials [33], such as the thermoplastic
parallel plate capacitance and to finite element methods. With use of polyurethane (TPU) printing materials used in this research. One of
® the simplest hyperelastic material models is the Neo-Hookean material
COMSOL-Multiphysics , FE simulations are performed to determine
the capacitance of both wire structures and plate structures more model, which only depends on one parameter: the initial shear modulus
accurately. (𝜇). Reppel and Weinberg [34] found that this material model matched
The wire approximation and FE models are compared relative to experiments with a flexible printed TPU (Ninjaflex) for strains up to
the infinitely long plate capacitance for different relative wire densities 70%, which is well above the expected strain levels in the presented
𝑛𝑑∕𝑊 and widths. The results are shown in Fig. 4 for a separation over sensor concept. Two methods are used to estimate the deformation from
diameter ratio (𝑆𝑥 ∕𝑑) of 5. Due to the fact that an integer number of the material model: one uses a beam model, the other relies on an FE
wires is used, the density and width cannot both be chosen exactly, method.
that is why the width varies slightly. This causes the jumps that can
clearly be seen for small widths. Up to a relative wire density of 0.5,
the deviations between the approximation technique and FE model are
5% or lower. Fig. 4, clarifies that already at these lower wire densities,
the approximation is within 15% of the value of a plate found using
an FE method. This indicates that the capacitance of a 50% dense
wire structure is relatively close to the capacitance of a plate with
finite width and that the center-wire approximation could be used to
give a rough estimate of this capacitance. Note that for small widths,

Fig. 5. Deviation of the hyperelastic beam model compared to a 3D FE model for the
Fig. 3. The rounded plate and wire structure of which the capacitances are compared. horizontal deformation at the end of a beam, for different beam thickness to height
ratios.

3
J. Oprel et al. Additive Manufacturing 73 (2023) 103674

33

2
³ responsivity
L d y in pF/m
32
´
1 dC
Electrostatic
per length

31

30
−1.6 −1.5 −1.4 −1.3 −1.2 −1.1 −1
y 0 = −1.246 Initial displacement y 0 in mm

1
x in mm

−1
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
y in mm

Fig. 6. Top: responsivity-displacement behaviour of a wire structure (with parameters as in the large sensor design: 𝑆𝑦, in groups = 0.6 mm, 𝑆𝑦, groups = 4 mm, 𝑆𝑥 = 1.2 mm, 𝑑 = 0.4 mm).
The dashed line indicates which situation is plotted in the bottom graph. Bottom: top and bottom electrode structure with equipotential lines. (For an animated version of this
figure, the reader is referred to the web version of this article. The animation of this figure can also be seen digitally in some pdf-readers, such as Adobe Acrobat Reader DC.)

The beam model is based on the equilibrium equations derived
by He et al. [35], in Appendix B. Suitable boundary conditions are
substituted for our specific design.
Alternatively, an FE method can be used to find the deformation of
beams or other structures. For this, the Neo-Hookean material model in
®
COMSOL-Multiphysics is used. The materials are again modeled using
their initial shear modulus (𝜇) and incompressibility is assumed.
One of the advantages of the FE model is that the deformation
in the 𝑧-direction can be modeled, such that beams with a specific
width 𝐿 in the 𝑧 direction can be studied. This is in contrast to the
beam model, where only 2-dimensional deformations are considered.
The influence of this assumption can be studied by comparing the two
models. The results of this comparison are shown in Fig. 5. From the
Figure, it is clear that the beam model is only suitable for application
in certain ranges of beam widths 𝐿. For example, for thin beams with
a thickness to length ratio (𝐻∕𝑆b ) of 0.05, the deviation between the
FE and the beam model is less than 5% if the beam width 𝐿 is at least
half the beam length 𝑆𝑏 . Especially for beams with a very small
( width)
or a combination of large width and large thickness to length 𝐻∕𝑆𝑏
ratio, the beam model does not provide an accurate description of the
deformation. In certain ranges (as depicted in Fig. 5), the hyperelastic
beam model is useful to find an estimate for the deformation, especially
since computation times are substantially lower than for FE models.
2.4. Optimization
Using the models established in the previous sections, the parame-
ters of the design as shown in Figs. 1 and 2 can be optimized to achieve
a large capacitance change per area of the sensor, whilst satisfying the
requirements as listed in Section 1. Whilst keeping all other parameters
fixed, optimal values for the initial displacement (𝑦0 ) in the electrical
design and the beam thickness (𝐻) in the mechanical design can be
selected in order to maximize the responsivity. As the dependencies
of the remaining parameters are unknown, they are further optimized
concurrently. This is discussed in Section 2.4.3.
2.4.1. Optimization of the initial displacement in the electrical design
Given a wire structure like sketched in Fig. 2, the initial dis-
placement (𝑦0 ) is optimized. Using the center-wire approximation, the
displacement-capacitance behavior is studied. The main objective here
is to maximize the mechanical responsivity, that is the capacitance
change per unit of relative movement of the bottom electrodes in the
𝑦-direction. This responsivity is plotted for different values of the initial
displacement 𝑦0 in Fig. 6. It can be seen that there is an optimum for
the responsivity.
2.4.2. Optimization of the beam width
In the optimization of the beam width there is a trade off be-
tween responsivity and influence of normal stress: a smaller beam
width increases the displacement due to shear stress and, hence, the
responsivity is increased. However, this increased displacement results
in more influence of the normal force on both horizontal and vertical
displacement of the structure.
The maximum normal and shear stress levels expected in this appli-
cation are 740 kPa and 140 kPa respectively [13]. That means that, with
the stress distributed over multiple beams, the normal and shear forces
on one beam (𝑃max and 𝑄max ) can be expressed as:
𝑃max 𝑊tot
= ⋅ 740 kPa
𝐴c 𝑛beams 𝐻
(1)
𝑄max 𝑊tot
= ⋅ 140 kPa
𝐴c 𝑛beams 𝐻
where 𝐴𝑐 is the cross-sectional area of a beam and 𝑛beams is the number
of beams, which is 2 in the proposed design.
For a beam with a given width, the hyperelastic beam model can
predict the deformation when the beam is subjected to these forces,

4
J. Oprel et al. Additive Manufacturing 73 (2023) 103674

Table 1
Parameters for the design, resulting from the optimization.
Parameter Description Value large Value small
design design
𝜇 Shear modulus 132 MPa 132 MPa
(Armadillo)a (Armadillo)a
(𝜇)2 Shear modulus in design for 4 MPa
experiments (Ninjaflex)a
𝐷max Design error due to normal 20% 20%
force
𝑆b Beam length 15 mm 5 mm
𝐻 Beam thickness 2.81 mm 0.98 mm
𝑊tot Total width 22.22 mm 8.75 mm
𝑊open Width open space 0.90 mm 0.32 mm
Fig. 7. Beam width to length (𝐻∕𝑆𝑏 ) ratio as a function of the width of the electrical 𝑊elect. Width electric layout 14.7 mm 6.2 mm
structure with the acceptable relative deviation in the horizontal displacement (due to 𝐿 Length of wires, width of 22 mm 8.75 mm
normal stresses) as parameter. beams in 𝑧 direction
𝑆𝑦, in groups Horizontal wire separation in 0.6 mm 0.6 mm
groups
with and without normal stress. Using a numerical solver in Matlab, 𝑆𝑦, groups Separation between groups 4 mm 3 mm
𝑆𝑥 Vertical separation 1.2 mm 0.7 mm
based upon the Trust-Region-Dogleg Algorithm (fsolve()), an in-
𝑑 Wire diameter 0.4 mm 0.4 mm
verse problem can be solved: finding the beam width for which the 𝑛groups Number of groups 3 2
difference between the situation with and without normal stress is a 𝑛wires Number of wires per group 3 2
given an allowed deviation 𝐷max defined as: 𝑦0 Initial horizontal displacement 0.8 mm 1.35 mm
of wires
𝛥𝑦|𝑃 =0,𝑄=𝑄max − 𝛥𝑦|𝑃 =𝑃max ,𝑄=𝑄max
𝐷max ∶= (2) a
Value based on the Young’s modulus from the manufacturers datasheets [36,37] and
𝛥𝑦|𝑃 =0,𝑄=𝑄max a Poisson ratio of 0.5 determined for generic TPUs [38].
where, 𝛥𝑦 is the deflection of the beam in the 𝑦 direction (for different
load cases). This is an estimate for the maximum deviation that can
be expected in the capacitance difference that is measured due to the
normal stress. However, the deviation of the capacitance change is also
influenced by the electrodes moving closer together in the 𝑥 direction.
Nevertheless, the modeling results indicate that the horizontal devia-
tion is the dominant cause for the deviation because the capacitance
is measured differentially. By solving the described inverse problem,
Fig. 7 is obtained. Notice that a higher accepted deviation results in
a smaller beam width, as more flexibility is accepted. The results from
Fig. 7 are used to obtain the appropriate beam width after the electrical
layout has been determined.

2.4.3. Optimization of remaining parameters

In contrast to the initial displacement and the beam width discussed
in previous subsections, for the remaining parameters no straightfor-
ward method to determine the optimum could be found. Therefore,
each combination of two parameters are swept. For each combination
the optimal beam width and initial displacement are determined using
the methods described in the previous subsections. For these structures,
the responsivity is determined and compared. A custom tool made in
Matlab is used to study these parameter sweeps and verify the results
from the approximation methods with FE methods for selected designs.
This tool is made available online [32]. After multiple iterations this
method resulted in an optimized design with dimensions 22 × 22 ×
25 mm3 . The expected shear modulus normalized responsivity (𝜇 d𝐶 d𝜏
) the print, as this can be manufactured most reliably. Due to the chosen
is 330–673 pF (approximation–FE model). The normalization by shear
modulus results in a single measure for the sensor design, independent
of the material choice. From this it is also clear that the material choice
can be used to achieve a higher responsivity, at the cost of measurement
range. A second iteration of the sensor is smaller and has dimensions
of 8.8 × 8.8 × 11 mm3 , at the cost of a decreased responsivity. The
parameters for the designs are shown in Table 1.
Figs. 8 and 9 show two parameter sweeps on the large design.
Fig. 8 shows the variation of the number of wires in a group and their
separation. Some combinations are missing, because they correspond
to non-physical layouts. This is caused by the fact that the two bottom
electrode structures do not fit between each other. It can be seen that a
relatively small separation is favorable, for a structure with a separation
of 0.6 mm, using 3 wires is favorable. From the FE models it is found that
using plates of the same width improves these results slightly. As shown
Fig. 8. Influence of the number of wires in a group and their separation on the
capacitance change. The other parameter are as in Table 1. The selected design is
shown as a black dot.
in Fig. 8, when the wire separation is decreased and the number of
wires is increased correspondingly, the resulting responsivity remains
similar. This can be explained by the fact that these structures have a
similar width and a capacitance close to that of a plate, as shown in
Section 2.2.1. Therefore, a 100% dense wire structure was chosen for
layer height and nozzle diameter, some parameters are rounded slightly
to the nearest multiple in the printed sensor geometries.
Fig. 9 shows the influence of the number of groups and their
separation on the capacitance change. From the Figure, it can be seen
that using 1 group would result in a larger capacitance change to
area than using multiple groups. However, to be able to measure this
capacitance change it is also important that this capacitance is large
enough. For this reason there is more than one group in the design. For
more than 1 group, there is a clear optimum for the separation between
groups slightly below 4 mm. For a smaller separation the capacitance
change decreases because the groups are closer together and start to act
more like a single plate capacitor. For larger separations, the increase
in capacitance change does not weigh up to the increased width of the
structure. Instead of increasing the separation it would be more efficient
to add an extra group in this case, especially since the number of groups

5
J. Oprel et al.
Fig. 9. Influence of the number of groups and their separation on the capacitance
change. The other parameter are as in Table 1. The selected design is shown as a
black dot.
does not have a large influence on the capacitance change per area.
Adding more groups is thus an easy and efficient way to increase the
responsivity of the sensor, at the cost of larger dimensions. A slightly
larger separation than optimal is chosen in the design. This is easier
in manufacturing, because the two bottom electrodes are very close to
each other in the optimal situation.
3. Experimental methods
3.1. Printing and post-printing steps
The sensor design from the previous section is printed at once,
without need for further assembly. The design parameters shown in
Table 1 are used to construct a CAD model of the sensor, which is
shown in Fig. 10 and made available online [32]. Figs. 10(a) and 10(b)
show the cross section of the model. Fig. 10(c) shows the 3D CAD
model. In the CAD model it is not visible that the printed structure
is built up of traxels (as can be seen in Fig. 11). This is still important,
especially for the conductive parts, because the electrical conductance
between the individual traxels is low. For this reason, each traxel of
conductive material ends in a bond pad on the side of the sensor. This
thicker part of conductive material is used to melt copper wires into
the material for electrical connections. A Diabase H-series 3D printer
(Diabase Engineering, Longmont, CO, USA) is used to print the sensor.
Different TPU (thermoplastic polyurethane) based materials are used:
Ninjaflex or Armadillo (Fenner, Manheim, PA, USA) is used as insu-
lating material for the largest part of the sensors. The main difference
is that the Armadillo material has a Young’s modulus that is 33 times
higher than that of Ninjaflex. For conductive parts a conductive TPU
material, PI-ETPU, is used (Palmiga Innovation, Jonstorp, Sweden). A
butene-diol vinyl alcohol copolymer, BVOH (Fiberlab, Poland) is used
as water dissoluble support material to create the gaps between the
flexible elements and the part with the capacitive structure. The model
is sliced (Simplify3D, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, USA) with a layer thickness
of 0.2 mm and nozzle diameter of 0.4 mm. The sensor is printed on its
side: As indicated in Fig. 10(c), the layers are stacked from left to right.
The slicing and printing settings are quite standard for the materials
used, and are shown in Appendix C.
After printing, the prints were first left in water until the support
material was dissolved. It is known that the resistance of the conductive
ETPU material decreases over time [39]. This process can be sped up by
annealing the print. Therefore, the prints were heated for 10 hours in
an oven at 80 °C. After this, fine stranded copper wires were melted into
the bond pads using a soldering iron to make an electrical connection
to the measurement setup. Photos of the fabricated sensors are shown
in Fig. 11.
6
Additive Manufacturing 73 (2023) 103674
3.2. Measurement setup for sensor characterization
The sensor is characterized by exerting periodically varying forces
and measuring the capacitance and position. The sensor is positioned
in a vise on one side, see Fig. 12. The other side of the sensor is
connected to a linear actuator (SMAC LCA25-050-15F, SMAC, Carlsbad,
CA, USA) by means of two plates and a screw. To prevent rotation of
the plates, an additional sensor was placed on the other side of the
screw. This has no other use than to have the mechanical loads on the
top and bottom of the plates balanced. The linear actuator is used to
exert forces and measure displacements and is controlled using Matlab.
Two different force excitation signals are used subsequently: a sine
with a frequency of 0.5 Hz, and a trapezium-shaped wave (see Fig. 13)
with a repetition frequency of 0.125 Hz. The ideal amplitude for the
input is the maximum in the measurement range (see Eq. (1)), however
this is outside the range of the force actuator for the large sensors
printed with Armadillo as main material. For this reason the larger
sensor is also printed with a more flexible material (Ninjaflex) and the
applied force is reduced by a factor of 33 because the material has a
lower Young’s modulus. For the small sensors, the entire measurement
range can be measured within the range of the actuator, because the
surface area of this sensor is smaller. A load cell (LCMFD-50N, Omega
Engineering, Norwalk, CT, USA) is used to measure the applied force.
This data is captured by a data logger (Handyscope HS5-540, TiePie
Engineering, Sneek, The Netherlands) and is synchronized at a later
stage using the position measurement. The position data is stored
during the measurement in Matlab as it can be directly read from the
linear actuator and simultaneously stored on the datalogger. The sensor
itself is connected to a capacitance to digital converter (CDC), which is
used to measure the differential capacitance. An AD7747 [40] (Analog
Devices, Norwood, MA, USA) is used as CDC, which is controlled
and read out using an Arduino Pro Micro (Arduino, Somerville, MA,
USA). The capacitance, force and position measurements are filtered
using a (Butterworth) low-pass filter with a cut-off frequency of 10 Hz
(capacitance) or 30 Hz (force, position).
4. Results and discussion
In this section, relevant results are presented. The majority of the
measurements focused on the large sensor design printed with the
flexible material (Ninjaflex), which requires a smaller force range in the
measurements. This is advantageous because the linear actuator that is
used has a limited force range.
Fig. 13 shows the capacitance over time as a result of the force
input. It is clear that there is a zero offset force. This can potentially
be caused by a slight asymmetry in the printed sensor. This issue can
relatively easily be fixed by calibrating a sensor before use. The shape of
the plateaus suggests that there is a relaxation effect. Furthermore the
measured capacitance difference at the offset input force at the upwards
and downward slopes are not at the same level.
To find the cause of this effect the mechanical and electrical be-
havior of the sensor are studied separately. In Fig. 14 the mechanical
behavior of the sensor is shown, i.e. the horizontal displacement versus
force behavior. Fig. 15 shows the electrical behavior, i.e. the differential
capacitance versus horizontal displacement. From these figures it is
clear that there is some mechanical hysteresis. The electrical behavior
is quite linear: for a linear fit an 𝑅2 of 0.992 was obtained. This is
in line with the expectations for capacitive sensing, which is chosen
in this design because of its high linearity compared to piezoresistive
sensing. Also in the modeling it was found that the capacitive behavior
should remain within 5% of a linear fit for displacements in the range
±0.6 mm for all models used (see Appendix A.4 for the detailed results).
This range is large enough for the desired measurement range.
In an attempt to find a cause for the hysteresis in the mechanical
domain, the material characteristics were studied in more detail. A dy-
namic mechanical analysis (DMA) was performed to find the damping
J. Oprel et al.
factor (tan 𝛿) of the flexible Ninjaflex material. The DMA experiment
is executed with similar strain levels and at the same frequency of
0.5 Hz as the sine wave input used for the experiments with the
sensor. The damping factor that resulted from the DMA analysis was
approximately 0.6. For the same sine wave input, the experiments with
the sensor show a damping factor that is on average twice as high. For
a detailed description of the methods and results used in this analysis,
see Appendix D. The cause of the mechanical hysteresis of the sensor
can thus only partially be explained by the internal hysteresis of the
material. Additional losses are potentially caused at the interfaces, such
as the flexibility in the connection of the force actuator or the clamping
in the vise.
For the results in Figs. 14 and 15, a linear least squares fit is made.
The slope of this fit can be compared to the modeling results. The re-
sults are shown in Table 2. There are substantial discrepancies between
the analytical and the FE models. For the mechanical model, this can
be explained by the fact that the FE model simulates the flexibility
of the complete 3D structure of the sensor, whilst the beam model
assumes that only the elements on the sides of the sensor are flexible.
The extra flexibility in the top and bottom structure of the sensor is
not taken into account in the beam models, which leads to smaller
expected deviations. The difference between electrostatic models is
partially caused by the more plate like geometry of the electrodes.
The difference between the different electrostatic models is shown in
more detail in Appendix A.4. The deviations between the models and
Fig. 10. Geometry as in the CAD model with dimensions in mm.
7
Additive Manufacturing 73 (2023) 103674
experimental results are also quite large. This could be caused by
the anisotropic properties of printed materials and inaccuracies in the
printed structures, for example additional material deposition caused
by oozing which can be seen in Fig. 11. The models are thus not suitable
to predict measurement outcomes precisely, but the models can be used
for optimization of the sensor design.
The two materials have very similar shear ( modulus
) normalized
responsivities in the total sensor behavior 𝜇 d𝐶 . Because the Ar-
d𝜏
madillo material has a higher Young’s modulus, the measurement range
of this sensor is larger, whilst the (non-normalized) responsivity is
reduced by the same factor. For the sensors printed with the stiffer
Armadillo material, the mechanical behavior shows a substantially
more flexible behavior than expected, whilst the electrostatic behavior
seems substantially less sensitive. These values should be similar to
the values for the sensors printed with the Ninjaflex material. Because
the total behavior is as expected, it is likely that the deviations are
caused by some flexibility in the measurement setup. It is expected
that this only influences the separate results with the stiffer material,
as the forces are a factor of 6 larger than in the measurements with
the flexible Ninjaflex material. The responsivity of the large sensors
(Armadillo) is 2.3 pF∕MPa. The responsivity of the small sensor design
8.75 × 8.75 × 11 mm is 0.9 pF∕MPa.
Compared to the sensor by Mertodikromo et al. [30] which is
designed for the same application and measurement range, the main
J. Oprel et al. Additive Manufacturing 73 (2023) 103674

Fig. 11. Fabricated sensors.

Fig. 12. Sensor positioning and parts of the measurement setup for sensor characterization.

advantages of the smallest sensor reported in this work is a lower sur-
face area (0.77 cm2 compared to 3 cm2 ) and a factor 5 improvement in
the responsivity (0.9 pF∕MPa compared to 0.18 pF∕MPa). Furthermore,
the sensor is fully printed, whilst the conductive parts are not printed
in the sensor developed by Mertodikromo et al. The sensor presented in
this work is limited to capture the shear force in one direction, whilst
the sensor reported by Mertodikromo et al. can measure in both shear
dimensions. Also, the sensor reported here is thicker (11 mm compared
to 3 mm). This could be improved in a later iteration, at the cost of
responsivity.
For the analysis of the bandwidth of the sensor some additional
measurements were done with a square-wave signal. The bandwidth of
the mechanical behavior is at least 10 Hz as required for the application
in shoe insoles. The capacitance was read out at only 8 Hz in this work,
but the sample frequency can be increased using different settings in
the hardware at the expense of a lower signal to noise ratio. As for the
electrical dynamics these are not expected to limit the bandwidth as
the excitation frequency is at 16 kHz [40].
These first results are promising: the printed sensors seem to be
applicable as shear stress sensor for measurement on the human foot.

8
J. Oprel et al. Additive Manufacturing 73 (2023) 103674

The design can relatively easily be adjusted to other requirements: the Table 2
Fitted slope of the measurement results for the large and small sensor design made
responsivity can be improved by reducing the measurement range or
from Ninjaflex and Armadillo, compared to the model predictions (only for the large
vice versa. This can be done by modifying the width of the beams in the sensor design). The two numbers correspond to two input signals: sine and trapezium.
design, or by using a different material. E.g. in this research Ninjaflex The letters (a, b) are used to distinguish two printed sensors that ideally would be
is used in one of the designs to reduce the force measurement range of identical. A measurement error has likely influenced the measurements for the sensor
printed with the stiffer Armadillo TPU, these measurement results are put in brackets.
the sensor by a factor of 33 and improve the responsivity by the same
The small sensor design cannot be compared to the model prediction shown here.
factor. Also, one design is smaller, at the cost of having a decreased ( ) ( )
Sensor Total 𝜇 d𝐶 Mechanic
( ) Electrostatic d𝐶
responsivity. With (one of) these slight modifications, the sensor design d𝜏
d𝑦
𝜇 d𝜏 in mm
d𝑦
in pF in pF/mm
could be made suitable for shear force measurements in a variety
Model prediction 344 478 0.72
of other applications. Further, future research into the application of (approximation)
model based hysteresis compensation may improve the accuracy of the Model prediction 711 773 0.92 (finite length,
measurements [41]. Improving the accuracy of the printing process (FE model) rounded plate)
Large design 309–363 451–585 0.69–0.61
may improve repeatability and accuracy of the measurements. Addi-
(Ninjaflex) a
tionally, further research is needed to solve the challenge of interfacing Large design 243–261 374–396 0.66–0.67
larger sensing structures, consisting of multiple sensors. (Ninjaflex) b
Large design 247–275 (1525–1572) (0.16–0.18)
(Armadillo) a
Large design 268–304 (1372–1435) (0.20–0.21)
(Armadillo) b
Small design 119
(Armadillo)

5. Conclusion

In this research, a modeling based design is presented for a capaci-

Fig. 13. Force and (differential) capacitance measurements of the sensor (large
Ninjaflex a) with a trapezium-shaped force input.
Fig. 14. Mechanical behavior of the large Ninjaflex sensor a: displacement versus shear
stress measurements for a trapezium-shaped force input, with a linear least squares fit.
tive shear stress sensor. The electrostatic model to find the capacitance
of the wire structures is based upon a homogeneous charge distribution.
By using multiple match-points, the model is sufficiently accurate for
wire structures with a density up to 50%. The capacitance of wire
structures with this density is still relatively close (within 15%) to
the capacitance of plate structures that would correspond to a 100%
dense wire structure. Because fringe fields are considered, the proposed
modeling approach is often more accurate than a simple plate model.
The mechanical model is based upon a hyperelastic beam model. Both
models are verified using FE methods. The approximate modeling ap-
proaches are used to optimize the sensor design. The advantage of these
approximate models is that they are relatively fast. FE methods require
too much computation time to be effective in use for optimization. The
optimization resulted in two sensor designs, which were subsequently
fabricated using material extrusion AM.
With the capacitive readout, using a capacitance to digital con-
verter, it was possible to measure shear stresses. The smallest design is
8.8 × 8.8 × 11 mm3 and its responsivity is measured to be 0.9 pF∕MPa for
a measurement range of ±140 kPa. The larger design (22 × 22 × 25 mm3 )
has a sensitivity of 2.1 pF∕MPa for the same measurement range. With
a more flexible material the responsivity is increased by a factor of 30,
whilst the measurement range reduces by the same factor. This shows
that it is relatively easy to adapt the sensitivity, measurement range
and size of the design for other applications.
The capacitive behavior (displacement–capacitance) is sufficiently
linear to allow for a linear fit (𝑅2 = 0.992), which is as expected
for capacitive sensing. There is hysteresis in the mechanical behavior
(stress–displacement), which can only partially be explained by the
material properties of the printing material.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Jens Oprel: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Software,

Fig. 15. Electrical behavior of the large Ninjaflex sensor a: capacitance versus
displacement for a trapezium-shaped force input, with a linear least squares fit.
Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization. Gerjan Wolterink:
Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation,
Conceptualization. Jurnan Schilder: Writing – review & editing,
Supervision, Methodology. Gijs Krijnen: Writing – review & editing,
Supervision, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.

9
J. Oprel et al.
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
Models and optimization tools are made available [32]
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank ir. Dimitris Kosmas for helping with
the capacitance measurements using the AD7747 and ing. Andries van
Swaaij from the Elastomer Technology and Engineering group (Univer-
sity of Twente) for facilitation and assistance with DMA. This work was
financially supported by the 4TU Dutch Soft Robotics Consortium.
Appendix A. Derivation and discussion on the center charge ap-
proximation for the capacitance of conductive wire structures
In this appendix, the center charge approximation is derived and
discussed. This method provides a quick way to approximate the capac-
itance of conductive wire structures that is useful to optimize sensing
structures. In Appendix A.1, the approximation method is derived. In
Appendices A.2 and A.3 the method is compared to similar numerical
methods and an analytical result.
A.1. Derivation of the center charge approximation
To find the capacitance of conductive wire structures, the charge
distribution should be found in a situation where there is a given
potential difference between the wires. Analytic solutions to this prob-
lem only exist for simple structures. In more general cases, numerical
techniques are needed to arrive at an estimate for the charge distri-
bution. One way to achieve this is to make an assumption on the
charge distribution on the wires. Such approaches have been studied
before [42–45]. The differences with these method will be elaborated
at the end of this subsection.
In the approximation technique used in this work, it is assumed that
the charge on the wire is homogeneously distributed on the surface of
the wires. This is the simplest assumption one can make for the charge
distribution: It is impossible to assume that the charge is situated at
Fig. A.16. Sketch of the determination of the contribution of the charge on wire 𝑖 to
the potential difference between wires 𝑗 and 𝑘 (𝛥𝜙̃(𝑗,𝑘),𝑖 ).
10
Additive Manufacturing 73 (2023) 103674
individual points on the surface, as this would make infinitely large
potentials [46]. Furthermore, calculations are simplified substantially
by assuming a homogeneous charge distribution: For the fields outside
the wire, this is equivalent to having a line charge in the center of the
wire. The effect of this approximation is that the surface of the wires are
not necessarily equipotentials, which is non-physical for conductors. In
Appendix A.3 it will be shown that the effect of this approximation
is small if the wires have a large separation. However, there is not
one single value for the potential difference between two wires: this
depends on which points on the wires are used to define the potential.
To reduce the dependency on the choice of these match-points, the
average of multiple (𝑛p ) points is used (see Fig. 3). With this, it is
possible to analytically express the contribution of a wire (𝑖) on the
potential difference between two wires (𝑗 and 𝑘). This can be done
easily by integrating the electric field along the orange dashed path
in Fig. A.16: only radially outwards and along an equipotential (shown
in light gray thin lines):
| |
𝜆𝑖 1 ∑ ⎛⎜ ||𝑟⃗𝑖,𝑗,𝑚 || ⎞⎟
𝑛p
𝛥𝜙̃(𝑗,𝑘),𝑖 = ln (A.1)
2𝜋𝜖0 𝑛p 𝑚=1 ⎜ ||𝑟⃗𝑖,𝑘,𝑚 || ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Here 𝜆𝑖 is the line charge on wire 𝑖. 𝑟⃗𝑖,𝑗,𝑚 denotes the distance from
wire 𝑖 to the 𝑚-th match-point on wire 𝑗 as in Fig. A.16 and 𝜖0 is the
permittivity. The term in the sum (that is being averaged) is the natural
logarithm of the distance to the point on wire 𝑗 minus the natural
logarithm of the distance to the point on wire 𝑘. This is proportional to
the potential difference between these points caused by charge on wire
𝑖.
From Eq. (A.1), it can be noted that the contribution of wire 𝑖 to
the potential difference is linear in the line charge on wire 𝑖 (𝜆𝑖 ). As
wire 𝑖 is an arbitrary wire, this also holds for any other wire. Adding
these contributions yields an expression for the potential difference
which is linear in all (𝑛) line charges. For 𝑛 wires, 𝑛 − 1 independent
linear equations for the potential difference can be made in the same
manner. By requiring a net charge of 0, it is ensured that the potential
infinitely far away is 0 (even in this model where the wires are
infinitely long). In this way, an invertible linear system of equations is
obtained. This allows to calculate the charge on each wire for a given
potential difference. By summation of these charges, the capacitance
between two wire structures can be determined from the definition
of capacitance (𝐶 = 𝑉𝑄 ). If it is assumed that the potential of the
two (bottom) electrodes for differential measurement is equal (which
it is with the measurement equipment used in this research [40]), this
relation can also be used for a case with 3 electrodes: Because the
potential difference is the same, the capacitance will be proportional
to the charge on each structure.
A.2. Comparison with alternative methods
Comparing to alternative methods [42–45], the method described
here is rather simple. Especially for relatively dense wire structures
better approximations can be made. For example by allowing non-
constant charge distribution functions [43–45]. A difference with the
alternative methods is that in the method described here, the average
of multiple match-points is used. It will be shown that this provides
enough accuracy for the estimation of the capacitance of the sensor
design. The advantage of using a relatively simple method, is that
calculations can be done relatively fast. This allows to optimize the
design using techniques described in Section 2.4.3.
A.3. Comparison of the approximation with an analytic method
To assess the accuracy of the approximation, a simple structure is
considered, consisting of two oppositely charged wires with diameter
𝑑 and a center-to-center separation 𝑆. For this simple structure, the
J. Oprel et al.
Fig. A.17. The deviations between the center wire approximation and the analytical
capacitance value by Green [47], as a function of wire separation and the number of
match-points.
approximation is compared to an analytical expression for the capac-
𝜋𝜖0
itance per unit length, which is given by 𝐶𝐿 = −1 [47]. The
cosh (𝑆∕𝑑)
approximation error depends on the separation between the wires. In
Fig. A.17, the approximation error is shown for a range of separations
and different numbers of match-points. For a low number of points
(1 or 2), there is a large variation in error values. This is because
for each number of match-points, all combinations of equally spaced
positions on the surface of the wires are studied. This results in a
range of possible deviations. It is clear that the uncertainty due to this
positioning reduces quickly as more match-points are used. Also, the
maximum error decreases as the number of match point increases. For
𝑛𝑝 ≥ 4, the error in the approximation is 5% or lower if the (center-to-
center) separation over diameter ratio (𝑆∕𝑑) is larger than 2. This is in
line with the result found in Section 2.2.1, because a separation of 2𝑑
corresponds to a relative wire density of 50%.
A.4. Comparison with 2D and 3D FE models
The modeling result of the center charge and FE methods are com-
pared for a structure as in Fig. 2. Three FE models are used: The first is
Fig. A.18. Comparison of the center-charge approximation with FE models for a wire
structure as in Fig. 2.
11
Additive Manufacturing 73 (2023) 103674
similar in setting to the center charge approximation, as it uses wires
of infinite length and is thus a 2D model. The second model instead
uses wires of finite length. Here a length of 22 mm is used, which is the
length of the wires in the large fabricated sensor. Finally, the models
are also compared to an FE model which uses rounded rectangles. Each
electrode group is represented by a rounded plate. These plates are
formed by the convex hull of the wires in a group. The results are shown
in Fig. A.18. It can be noted that there is a discrepancy between the
center charge approximation and the infinite length FE model, this is
due to the assumption made in the approximation that the charge is
in the center as explored in the previous subsection. The discrepancy
between the finite and infinite length models is much smaller. Because
the length of the wires used in the sensor is large compared to their
separations the additional fringe fields do not contribute much to the
capacitance. The modeling of plates instead of wires does add some
error, as expected from the discussion in Section 2.2.1 of the main
text. The linearity of the different models is similar: The results of each
model can be estimated with a linear relation for displacements smaller
than 0.6 mm with a tolerance of ±5%.
Appendix B. Timoshenko beam model for the required boundary
conditions
To model the beam structures of the sensor design, the beam model
developed by He et al. [35] is used to predict the deformation of a beam
which is fixed on the bottom and is loaded on its end by a normal force
𝑃 and a shear force 𝑄, see Fig. B.19. This is a model of a Timoshenko
beam with an incompressible Neo-Hookean material. Deformation is
modeled in two dimensions: deformations in the out of plane direction
in Fig. 1 are not considered. Modeling a Timoshenko beam means
that the angle of the normal of the deformed cross-sections 𝜑 is not
necessarily equal to the angle of the mid-plane of the beam 𝜃 (see
Fig. B.19(b)). The difference between these angles is the shear angle
𝛼. Because this shear is taken into account in the model, the model
is suitable to apply for relatively thick beams. The deformation of the
cross-section is taken in account to the extent that the cross-sections
are still planar, but the thickness of the beam can vary depending on
the stresses on the material. With this the incompressibility is modeled.
This thickness stretching effect is only taken into account for one
direction. The length of the beam in the 𝑧-direction of Fig. B.19 is
assumed to remain constant.
With these assumptions, He et al. [35] derived the following expres-
sions for the equilibrium of beams:
( ( ) )′
1 (𝜑′ )2 𝐻 2 𝑝
𝛬 cos 𝜃 − + 7 cos 𝜑 + =0 (B.1a)
𝛬3 cos3 𝛼 𝛬 cos7 𝛼 𝜇𝐴c
Fig. B.19. Sketches of a deformed beam with fixed rotation and external forces at
𝑥 = 𝑆b , with relevant parameters and loads.
J. Oprel et al. Additive Manufacturing 73 (2023) 103674
( ( ) )′
1 (𝜑′ )2 𝐻 2 𝑞
𝛬 sin 𝜃 − + 7 sin 𝜑 + =0 (B.1b)
𝛬3 cos3 𝛼 𝛬 cos7 𝛼 𝜇𝐴c
( ) ′ ( )
1 (𝜑′ )2 𝐻 1 (𝜑′ )2 𝐻 2 𝑚
− tan 𝛼 + + =0 (B.1c)
3 𝛬6 cos6 𝛼 𝛬2 cos2 𝛼 𝛬6 cos6 𝛼 𝜇𝐴c
A prime (′ ) denotes a derivative with respect to 𝑥. 𝑥 is not explicitly
part of Eq. (B.1), but 𝛬, 𝜃, 𝜑, 𝛼, 𝑝, 𝑞 and 𝑚 can depend on 𝑥. 𝑝,
𝑞 and 𝑚 denote the distributed horizontal force, vertical force and
bending moment per unit length respectively, and 𝛬 is the stretch of
the mid-plane element (the length of the deformed element divided by
its original length).
In the cited work by He et al. the model is derived and example
applications are presented for some load cases. However, the load case
needed to model the sensing structure is not included. In this appendix
Fig. D.20. Mechanical behavior of the large Ninjaflex sensor a (of the fifth and last
the boundary conditions for this load case are applied: It is assumed iteration): force and position over time for the last two periods of a 0.5 Hz sine wave
that the bottom of the beam is clamped and the top of the beam remains input. A scaled version of the output is fitted to the input to estimate the damping
horizontal, that is: factor.

• At 𝑥 = 0, 𝑢0 = 𝑣0 = 𝜑 = 0.
• At 𝑥 = 𝑆b , the applied force in negative 𝑥 and 𝑦 directions are 𝑃 D.1. Analysis of delay in the sensor measurements
and 𝑄 respectively and 𝜑 = 0

With these boundary conditions, the equations for equilibrium (B.1) can The delay between force and position is determined for measure-
be rewritten to: ments with a sine force input of 0.5 Hz. This is done for 7 sensors
( ) printed with Ninjaflex TPU. This includes the two sensors of the fi-
1 (𝜑′ )2 𝐻 2 𝑃 cos 𝜑 + 𝑄 sin 𝜑
𝛬 cos 𝛼 − + 7 =− (B.2a) nalized design, of which results are reported in Section 4, but also
𝛬3 cos3 𝛼 𝛬 cos7 𝛼 𝜇𝐴c
5 sensors from previous iterations. In these iterations the mechanical
𝑃 sin 𝜑 − 𝑄 cos 𝜑
𝛬 sin (𝛼) = (B.2b) design is identical, only the connections to the capacitive layout are
𝜇𝐴c slightly different between iterations.
( ) ′
1 (𝜑′ )2 𝐻 𝑃 sin 𝜃 − 𝑄 cos 𝜃 To determine the delay in these measurements, the input 𝐹 (force)
=𝛬 (B.2c)
6
3 𝛬 cos 𝛼 6 𝜇𝐴c is compared to a scaled and shifted output 𝑥 (position):

The remaining boundary conditions for this reduced problem are
𝜑(0) = 𝜑(𝑆b ) = 0. A numerical approach is used to solve this sys-
tem of equations, similar to the numerical approach described by
He et al. [35]. The implementation of this model in Matlab is made
available online [32].
Appendix C. Slicing and printing settings
The settings for printing of the different materials as configured in
the slicer (Simplify3D) can be found in Table C.3. The cooling is turned
off for the first layer and for the layers at which the support material
is first printed to improve adhesion.
̃ = 𝑎𝑥(𝑡 − 𝑑) + 𝑏
𝑥(𝑡) (D.1)
Here, 𝑎, 𝑏, and 𝑑 are parameters. An estimate for these parame-
∑
̃ 2 using a simplex method
ters is found by minimizing 𝑡 (𝐹 (𝑡) − 𝑥(𝑡))
(fminsolve() in Matlab). An example of such a fit is shown in
Fig. D.20.
The delay is used to calculate the damping factor tan(𝛿) that one
expects based on these measurements (assuming all damping can be
attributed to the material properties), this can be compared to the value
found from DMA, see Appendix D.2. The phase shift (𝛿) is found by
multiplying the delay with the angular frequency, 𝜋 in case of the
0.5 Hz sine wave input. The value of tan(𝛿) for the 7 sensors is shown
in Table D.4.

Table C.3
Printing settings as configured in the slicer.
D.2. Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) of Ninjaflex TPU
Ninjaflex/Armadillo PI-ETPU (conductive) BVOH (support)
In dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA), the goal is to determine
Nozzle number 2 3 5
Nozzle temperature 235 °C 225 °C 210 °C the damping factor (tan(𝛿)) of the flexible material (Ninjaflex). For
Nozzle diameter 0.4 mm 0.4 mm 0.4 mm the DMA, a sample of 2 × 6 × 50 mm is printed flat on the build-
Extrusion multiplier 1.3 1.15 0.75 plate with the same printer settings as the sensor (with 3 wall layers
Coast at end 1 mm 0 0 and a diagonal infill of 100%). The dynamic behavior of materials
Bed temperature 60 °C is potentially dependent on the loading: especially the frequency of
Layer height 0.2 mm
the loading, dynamic strain (magnitude) and static strain (offset) can
Cooling 0% for layers 1, 15 and 93 100% for other layers
influence the behavior. Therefore, these parameters should be chosen
such that the DMA experiment is similar, or at least relevant, to the
Appendix D. Characterization of the mechanical behavior of Nin- characterization of the sensor. For this reason, the experiments are
jaflex TPU using DMA executed with a frequency of 0.5 Hz. From analytic estimations and FE
simulations, it is expected that the maximum strain that occurs in the
In this Appendix, it is investigated to what extent the material sensor is around 4%. Therefore, DMA experiments are executed with
properties of Ninjaflex TPU can explain the hysteresis that is present in 3, 4 and 5% dynamic strain. In the main experiments with the sensor
the mechanical behavior of the printed sensors, see Section 4, Fig. 14. the excitations have a relatively small offset: shear forces are applied
In Appendix D.1, the delay in the sensor response is analyzed. From in two directions with little static strain. This is not possible in DMA:
the delay between force and position, the phase shift 𝛿 is found. In Ap- the nature of these experiments requires that the static strain is larger
pendix D.2, it is described how a dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) than the dynamic strain such that there is no buckling. Multiple static
was performed to find the damping factor tan(𝛿) of printed Ninjaflex strains are analyzed, such that the results can be used to extrapolate to
TPU. The results are summarized and discussed in Appendix D.3. zero static strain. Measurements are performed using a Netzsch Gabo

12
J. Oprel et al. Additive Manufacturing 73 (2023) 103674

[2] J. Bessler, G.B. Prange-Lasonder, L. Schaake, J.F. Saenz, C. Bidard, I. Fassi, M.

Valori, A.B. Lassen, J.H. Buurke, Safety assessment of rehabilitation robots: A
review identifying safety skills and current knowledge gaps, Front. Robot. AI 8
(2021) http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.602878.
[3] H. Yousef, M. Boukallel, K. Althoefer, Tactile sensing for dexterous in-hand ma-
nipulation in robotics—A review, Sensors Actuators A 167 (2) (2011) 171–187,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2011.02.038.
[4] S. Gupta, K.J. Loh, A. Pedtke, Sensing and actuation technologies for smart
socket prostheses, Biomed. Eng. Lett. 10 (1) (2020) 103–118, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s13534-019-00137-5.
[5] N.C. Schaper, J.J. Van Netten, J. Apelqvist, B.A. Lipsky, K. Bakker, on behalf
of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF), Prevention
and management of foot problems in diabetes: a summary Guidance for Daily
Practice 2015, based on the IWGDF Guidance Documents, Diabetes/Metab. Res.
Rev. 32 (S1) (2016) 7–15, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.2695.
[6] R. Waaijman, M. de Haart, M.L. Arts, D. Wever, A.J. Verlouw, F. Nollet, S.A. Bus,
Risk Factors for Plantar Foot Ulcer Recurrence in Neuropathic Diabetic Patients,
Diabetes Care 37 (6) (2014) 1697–1705, http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc13-2470.
[7] C.-W. Lung, F.-L. Wu, F. Liao, F. Pu, Y. Fan, Y.-K. Jan, Emerging technologies
for the prevention and management of diabetic foot ulcers, J. Tissue Viability
29 (2) (2020) 61–68, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtv.2020.03.003.
[8] M. Yavuz, H. Master, A. Garrett, L.A. Lavery, L.S. Adams, Peak plantar shear and
pressure and foot ulcer locations: A call to revisit ulceration pathomechanics,
Diabetes Care 38 (11) (2015) e184–e185, http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc15-1596.
[9] M. Schouten, G. Wolterink, A. Dijkshoorn, D. Kosmas, S. Stramigioli, G. Krijnen,
A review of extrusion-based 3D printing for the fabrication of electro- and
Fig. D.21. Measurement results from the DMA, together with a linear fit on the 5
biomechanical sensors, IEEE Sens. J. 21 (11) (2021) 12900–12912, http://dx.
points with the lowest static strain.
doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2020.3042436.
[10] A. Dijkshoorn, P. Werkman, M. Welleweerd, G. Wolterink, B. Eijking, J. Dela-
mare, R. Sanders, G.J.M. Krijnen, Embedded sensing: integrating sensors in 3-D
DMA EPLEXOR® 2000N (Netzsch, Selb, Germany). The measurement printed structures, J. Sens. Sens. Syst. 7 (1) (2018) 169–181, http://dx.doi.org/
10.5194/jsss-7-169-2018.
results are shown in Fig. D.21. In the figure, a linear fit is made on the 5
[11] D.J. Janisse, E.J. Janisse, Shoes, orthoses, and prostheses for partial foot
points with the lowest static strain in each set. The intersection with the
amputation and diabetic foot infection, Foot Ankle Clin. 15 (3) (2010) 509–523,
vertical axis provides an estimate of the damping factor at zero static http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcl.2010.04.004.
strain. The experiment is executed twice, the measurement results are [12] Z. Ma, J. Lin, X. Xu, Z. Ma, L. Tang, C. Sun, D. Li, C. Liu, Y. Zhong, L. Wang,
summarized in the next subsection. Design and 3D printing of adjustable modulus porous structures for customized
diabetic foot insoles, Int. J. Lightweight Mater. Manuf. 2 (1) (2019) 57–63,
D.3. Results and discussion of the damping factor http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlmm.2018.10.003.
[13] L. Wang, D. Jones, G.J. Chapman, H.J. Siddle, D.A. Russell, A. Alazmani, P.
Table D.4 summarizes the estimated damping factors resulting from Culmer, A review of wearable sensor systems to monitor plantar loading in
the assessment of diabetic foot ulcers, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 67 (7) (2020)
the experiments with the sensor Appendix D.1 and DMA Appendix D.2.
1989–2004, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2019.2953630.
It should be noted that the results from DMA are not very accurate; in [14] E.K. Antonsson, R.W. Mann, The frequency content of gait, J. Biomech. 18 (1)
the two measurements a substantial difference in damping factor can (1985) 39–47, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(85)90043-0.
be seen. Furthermore, from Fig. D.21 it seems that the relation between [15] H. Zhu, G. Harris, J. Wertsch, W. Tompkins, J. Webster, A microprocessor-
static strain and the damping factor is sub-linear. Therefore, the fit is based data-acquisition system for measuring plantar pressures from ambulatory
likely overestimating the damping factor if extrapolated. subjects, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 38 (7) (1991) 710–714, http://dx.doi.org/10.
From Table D.4, it can therefore be concluded that the mechanic 1109/10.83573.
behavior of the printed material can only partially explain the delay [16] M. Yavuz, G. Botek, B.L. Davis, Plantar shear stress distributions: Comparing
actual and predicted frictional forces at the foot–ground interface, J. Biomech.
that is found in the measurements on the sensor. Other potential causes
40 (13) (2007) 3045–3049, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.02.006.
that could contribute to the delay are discussed in Section 4 of the main [17] L.P. Goss, J.W. Crafton, B.L. Davis, G.R. McMillan, V. Berki, A.E. Howe, M.
text. Papp, Plantar pressure and shear measurement using surface stress-sensitive
film, Meas. Sci. Technol. 31 (2) (2019) 025701, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-
Table D.4 6501/ab4453.
Damping factor estimated from the delay with a sine wave input experiments on the [18] A. Karatsidis, R.E. Richards, J.M. Konrath, J.C. van den Noort, H.M. Schepers,
shear force sensor, compared to the damping factor found from the DMA. G. Bellusci, J. Harlaar, P.H. Veltink, Validation of wearable visual feedback for
Damping factor tan(𝛿) retraining foot progression angle using inertial sensors and an augmented reality
headset, J. NeuroEng. Rehabil. 15 (1) (2018) 78, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/
Sensor 1 0.0690
s12984-018-0419-2.
Sensor 2 0.1370
[19] A. Rivadeneyra, J.A. López-Villanueva, Recent advances in printed capacitive
Sensor 3a 0.1628
sensors, Micromachines 11 (4) (2020) http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mi11040367.
Sensor 3b 0.1412
[20] S. Smocot, Z. Zhang, L. Zhang, S. Guo, C. Cao, Printed flexible mechanical
Sensor 3c 0.1436
sensors, Nanoscale (2022) http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D2NR04015H, –.
Sensor 5a 0.0799
Sensor 5b 0.1772 [21] A. Albrecht, M. Trautmann, M. Becherer, P. Lugli, A. Rivadeneyra, Shear-force
sensors on flexible substrates using inkjet printing, J. Sens. 2019 (2019) 1864239,
DMA 1 0.0585 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/1864239.
DMA 2 0.0667
[22] V. Zega, M. Invernizzi, R. Bernasconi, F. Cuneo, G. Langfelder, L. Magagnin,
M. Levi, A. Corigliano, The first 3D-printed and wet-metallized three-axis
accelerometer with differential capacitive sensing, IEEE Sens. J. 19 (20) (2019)
9131–9138, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2019.2924473.
[23] A. Nag, S. Feng, S. Mukhopadhyay, J. Kosel, D. Inglis, 3D printed mould-based
References graphite/PDMS sensor for low-force applications, Sensors Actuators A 280 (2018)
525–534, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2018.08.028.
[1] L.A. de Wert, D.L. Bader, C.W.J. Oomens, L. Schoonhoven, M. Poeze, N.D. Bouvy, [24] M. Schouten, R. Sanders, G. Krijnen, 3D printed flexible capacitive force sensor
A new method to evaluate the effects of shear on the skin, Wound Repair with a simple micro-controller based readout, in: 2017 IEEE SENSORS, 2017,
Regener. 23 (6) (2015) 885–890, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12368. pp. 1–3, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICSENS.2017.8233949.

13
J. Oprel et al.
[25] X. Aeby, R.v. Dommelen, D. Briand, Fully FDM 3D printed flexible capacitive
and resistive transducers, in: 2019 20th International Conference on Solid-
State Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems & Eurosensors XXXIII (TRANSDUCERS
& EUROSENSORS XXXIII), 2019, pp. 2440–2443, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
TRANSDUCERS.2019.8808268.
[26] L.Y.W. Loh, U. Gupta, Y. Wang, C.C. Foo, J. Zhu, W.F. Lu, 3D printed
metamaterial capacitive sensing array for universal jamming gripper and human
joint wearables, Adv. Eng. Mater. 23 (5) (2021) 2001082, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1002/adem.202001082.
[27] M. Schouten, C. Spaan, D. Kosmas, R. Sanders, G. Krijnen, 3D printed capacitive
shear and normal force sensor using a highly flexible dielectric, in: 2021 IEEE
Sensors Applications Symposium (SAS), 2021, pp. 1–6, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1109/SAS51076.2021.9530032.
[28] G. Wolterink, R. Sanders, B.-J. van Beijnum, P. Veltink, G. Krijnen, A 3D-
printed soft fingertip sensor for providing information about normal and shear
components of interaction forces, Sensors 21 (13) (2021) 4271, http://dx.doi.
org/10.3390/s21134271.
[29] K. Kim, J. Park, J. hoon Suh, M. Kim, Y. Jeong, I. Park, 3D printing of multiaxial
force sensors using carbon nanotube (CNT)/thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)
filaments, Sensors Actuators A 263 (2017) 493–500, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.sna.2017.07.020.
[30] J. Mertodikromo, F. Zorin, C.J. Lee, A low-profile shear force sensor for wearable
applications, IEEE Sens. J. 20 (18) (2020) 10453–10459, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1109/JSEN.2020.2985396.
[31] A. Dijkshoorn, M. Schouten, G. Wolterink, R. Sanders, S. Stramigioli, G. Krijnen,
Characterizing the electrical properties of anisotropic, 3D-printed conductive
sheets for sensor applications, IEEE Sens. J. 20 (23) (2020) 14218–14227,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2020.3007249.
[32] J. Oprel, G. Krijnen, G. Wolterink, J. Schilder, Models and optimization tools
for a novel 3d printed capacitive shear stress sensor, 4TU.ResearchData (2023)
http://dx.doi.org/10.4121/19188098.
[33] A. Bower, Applied Mechanics of Solids, CRC Press, 2009.
[34] T. Reppel, K. Weinberg, Experimental determination of elastic and rupture
properties of printed Ninjaflex, Tech. Mech.-Eur. J. Eng. Mech. 38 (1) (2018)
104–112, http://dx.doi.org/10.24352/UB.OVGU-2018-010.
[35] L. He, J. Lou, Y. Dong, S. Kitipornchai, J. Yang, A shearable and thickness
stretchable finite strain beam model for soft structures, Meccanica 53 (15) (2018)
3759–3777, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11012-018-0905-4.
14
Additive Manufacturing 73 (2023) 103674
[36] Armadillo 3D Printing Fillament: Semi-rigid Polyurethane Material for FDM
printers (Technical Specifications), NinjaTek, Manheim, USA, 2017, Available
online: https://ninjatek.com/armadillo/ [Accessed: 10-03-2021].
[37] NinjaFlex 3D Printing Fillament: Flexible Polyurethane Material for FDM printers
(Technical Specifications), NinjaTek, Manheim, USA, 2016, Available online:
https://ninjatek.com/ninjaflex/ [Accessed: 23-02-2021].
[38] H.J. Qi, M.C. Boyce, Stress–strain behavior of thermoplastic polyurethanes, Mech.
Mater. 37 (8) (2005) 817–839.
[39] G. Wolterink, A. Umrani, M. Schouten, R. Sanders, G. Krijnen, 3D-printed
calorimetric flow sensor, in: 2020 IEEE SENSORS, 2020, pp. 1–4, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1109/SENSORS47125.2020.9278640.
[40] 24-Bit Capacitance-to-Digital Converter with Temperature Sensor: AD7747, Ana-
log Devices, Norwood USA, 2007, Available online: https://www.analog.com/
en/products/ad7747.html#product-overview [Accessed: 15-4-2020].
[41] D. Kosmas, M. Schouten, G. Krijnen, Hysteresis compensation of 3D printed sen-
sors by a power law model with reduced parameters, in: 2020 IEEE International
Conference on Flexible and Printable Sensors and Systems (FLEPS), 2020, pp.
1–4, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FLEPS49123.2020.9239580.
[42] C.R. Paul, Analysis of Multiconductor Transmission Lines, Wiley-IEEE Press,
2008, pp. 160–239, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/9780470547212.ch5, Ch. The
PerUnitLength Parameters for Multiconductor Lines.
[43] J.C. Clements, C.R. Paul, A.T. Adams, Computation of the capacitance matrix
for systems of dielectric-coated cylindrical conductors, IEEE Trans. Electromagn.
Compat. EMC-17 (4) (1975) 238–248, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.1975.
303430.
[44] J. Savage, W. Smith, C. Paul, Moment method calculation of the per-unit-
length parameters of cable bundles, in: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1994, pp. 441–446, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
ISEMC.1994.385608.
[45] M. Saih, H. Rouijaa, A. Ghammaz, Computation of multiconductor transmission
line capacitance using method of moment, in: Proceedings of 2014 Mediterranean
Microwave Symposium (MMS2014), 2014, pp. 1–6, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
MMS.2014.7088781.
[46] M.A. Gottlieb, R. Pfeiffer, The Feynmann Lectures on Physics, Vol. II, California
Institute of Technology, 1965, Ch. 5 Application of Gauss Law..
[47] H.E. Green, A simplified derivation of the capacitance of a two-wire transmission
line, IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 47 (3) (1999) 365–366, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1109/22.750243.