Comparison of the Capacitance of a Cyclically Fatigued Stretch Sensor to a Non-Fatigued Stretch Sensor When Performing Static and Dynamic Foot-Ankle Motions.

Motion capture is the current gold standard for assessing movement of the human body, but laboratory settings do not always mimic the natural terrains and movements encountered by humans. To overcome such limitations, a smart sock that is equipped with stretch sensors is being developed to record movement data outside of the laboratory. For the smart sock stretch sensors to provide valuable feedback, the sensors should have durability of both materials and signal. To test the durability of the stretch sensors, the sensors were exposed to high-cycle fatigue testing with simultaneous capture of the capacitance. Following randomization, either the fatigued sensor or an unfatigued sensor was placed in the plantarflexion position on the smart sock, and participants were asked to complete the following static movements: dorsiflexion, inversion, eversion, and plantarflexion. Participants were then asked to complete gait trials. The sensor was then exchanged for either an unfatigued or fatigued plantarflexion sensor, depending upon which sensor the trials began with, and each trial was repeated by the participant using the opposite sensor. Results of the tests show that for both the static and dynamic movements, the capacitive output of the fatigued sensor was consistently higher than that of the unfatigued sensor suggesting that an upwards drift of the capacitance was occurring in the fatigued sensors. More research is needed to determine whether stretch sensors should be pre-stretched prior to data collection, and to also determine whether the drift stabilizes once the cyclic softening of the materials comprising the sensor has stabilized.

Fatigue Testing of Wearable Sensing Technologies: Issues and Opportunities.

Standards for the fatigue testing of wearable sensing technologies are lacking. The majority of published fatigue tests for wearable sensors are performed on proof-of-concept stretch sensors fabricated from a variety of materials. Due to their flexibility and stretchability, polymers are often used in the fabrication of wearable sensors. Other materials, including textiles, carbon nanotubes, graphene, and conductive metals or inks, may be used in conjunction with polymers to fabricate wearable sensors. Depending on the combination of the materials used, the fatigue behaviors of wearable sensors can vary. Additionally, fatigue testing methodologies for the sensors also vary, with most tests focusing only on the low-cycle fatigue (LCF) regime, and few sensors are cycled until failure or runout are achieved. Fatigue life predictions of wearable sensors are also lacking. These issues make direct comparisons of wearable sensors difficult. To facilitate direct comparisons of wearable sensors and to move proof-of-concept sensors from "bench to bedside", fatigue testing standards should be established. Further, both high-cycle fatigue (HCF) and failure data are needed to determine the appropriateness in the use, modification, development, and validation of fatigue life prediction models and to further the understanding of how cracks initiate and propagate in wearable sensing technologies.