Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Search
Collections
Journals
About
Contact us
My IOPscience
A benchmark for free vibration and effective coupling of thick piezoelectric smart structures
This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.
2008 Smart Mater. Struct. 17 065007
(http://iopscience.iop.org/0964-1726/17/6/065007)
View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more
Download details:
IP Address: 138.100.4.44
This content was downloaded on 26/12/2014 at 09:18
IOP PUBLISHING
doi:10.1088/0964-1726/17/6/065007
1. Introduction
As for classical elastic structures, modal property extraction is
a critical step for the performance evaluation of piezoelectric
adaptive structure applications, either in open loop (shunted
damping, damage identification) or closed loop (active
vibration or noise control). The boundary conditions (BCs)
play here a more crucial role, since modal properties depend
not only on the mechanical but also on the electrical
ones. Hence, electroded vibrating piezoelectric devices can
be electrically connected either in short circuitSC (zero
electric potential across electrodes)or in open circuit
OC (zero flowing electric current). Corresponding modal
frequencies can be extracted from the resonances of voltagedriven (admittance) and charge-driven (impedance) frequency
response functions (FRFs), respectively [1]. They can also
be measured using an impedance analyzer from resonances
and anti-resonances of an electric admittance FRF or antiresonances and resonances of an electric impedance one [2].
1 Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
0964-1726/08/065007+11$30.00
G Chevallier et al
where {T}, {S}, {D} and {E} are the mechanical symmetric Cauchy stress and linear strain vectors and electric
displacement and field ones, respectively. [CE ], [e] and
[S ] are the elastic matrix at constant (SC) electric field,
stress piezoelectric matrix and dielectric permittivity matrix at
constant (clamped) strain, respectively. Superscript t denotes a
transpose operation.
Equation (1) is used for voltage-based FEs. That used for
electric displacement(s) or charge-based FEs is expressed in
terms of the strains and electric displacements; i.e.,
D
T
C
ht
S
(2)
=
E
D
h S
where [CD ], [h] and [ S ] are the elastic matrix at constant (OC)
electric displacement, piezoelectric strain charge matrix and
dielectric impermeability matrix at constant (clamped) strain,
G Chevallier et al
CD = CE + et (S ) e,
h = (S ) e,
S = (S ) .
(3)
The first relation of (3) indicates that the piezoelectric effect
is clearly present for an OC BC. It has a stiffening effect (SE)
that will have an influence on OC natural frequencies, which
are expected to be inherently higher than SC ones.
oc
oc
([Koc
m ] [M]){U } = {0}
oc
{Voc } = [Koc
em ]{U }
with
E
E t
1
E
[Koc
m ] = [Km ] + [Kem ] [Ke ] [Kem ],
S
1
E
[Koc
em ] = [Ke ] [Kem ]
S
where [Km ], [Kem ], [Ke ] and [M] are the mechanical (m),
electromechanical (em) and electrical (e) stiffness and mass
matrices. The stiffness matrix superscripts E and S are used to
emphasize that the constitutive equations (1) are used. {U} and
{V} are the mechanical and electrical potential DOF vectors.
The latter are supposed to be related to the electrodes only and
the EP condition is assumed to be fulfilled; any other internal
electric potential DOFs are supposed to be already condensed.
{Q} is the electric surface charge load vector, where the charge
condition, due to the presence of electrodes, is also assumed to
be fulfilled.
When the electrodes are SC, the electric potential DOF
vector is nil, so that (4) reduces to
2
(8)
=
(9)
S
D
0
0
Q
V
Kem Ke
=
S
0 0
V
Q
KEem Ke
(7)
(5)
(10)
G Chevallier et al
S
[Ke ]{Q}
= { 0}
K2
(11)
2
K exp
with
D
D t
1
D
[Ksc
m ] = [Km ] [Kem ] [Ke ] [Kem ],
(12)
1
D
[Ksc
em ] = [Ke ] [Kem ]
(13)
a2 r2
.
a2
(16)
3. Benchmark experiments
2
K exp
K2
.
K2 + 1
sc
{Qsc } = [Ksc
em ]{U }
(15)
It was also shown [2] that both formulae (14), (15) are in fact
related via the following relation, that has to be considered
when comparing experimental and numerical results although
they should differ only slightly:
2
2
sc
oc
.
2
sc
(14)
4
G Chevallier et al
Resistances (k)
Left patch Right patch Structure Left patch Right patch Structure
50.4
46.74
25.01
1690
3000
5000
Mode
(type)
1 ( x z
flexion)
2 (x y
flexion)
3
(torsion)
4 ( x z
flexion)
f oc (Hz)
oc (%)
f sc (Hz)
sc (%)
K 2 (%)
K (%)
419.85
0.24
417.81
0.26
0.98
9.91
1448
2.4
1448
2.4
0
0
1856.85
1.5
1856.61
1.5
0.03
1.61
2989.8
0.7
2955.43
0.74
2.34
15.3
4. Benchmark simulation
The cantilever adaptive structure shown in figure 1 has been
meshed in ANSYS using quadratic 20-noded-brick FEs as
indicated in table 3 and is illustrated in figure 4. SOLID186
5
G Chevallier et al
Figure 3. SC/OC FRFs of the smart structure first four modes: (a) first x z mode, (b) first x y mode, (c) second x z/x y mode, (d) third x z
mode.
Patch
Parameter
(figure 1)
Dimension
(mm)
Mesh
(FE nb.)
FE size
(mm)
L1
L3
L2
B
H
L2
B
h
18
11
50
25
3.9
50
25
0.3
10
10
50
10
1
50
10
1
1.8
1.1
1
2.5
3.9
1
2.5
0.3
and SOLID226 FEs were selected for the elastic structure and
the piezoceramic patches, respectively. The FE model has
1700 elements and 9667 nodes. For consistency, the reduced
integration (RI) option was activated for the elastic FE since
ANSYS uses the RI by default for its piezoelectric coupled
FEs.
6
G Chevallier et al
Figure 4. Tested structure FE model: (a) X Y in-plane view, (b) X Z transverse view.
Figure 5. Poling orientation modeling: (a) SP; (b) OP via changing signs; (c) OP via rotating axes.
Aluminum
(assumed
properties)
Notations
Permittivity
constants at
constant strain
(nF m1 )
Stress piezoelectric
coupling constants
(C m2 )
SC Youngs moduli
(GN m2 )
SC Poissons ratios
S11 =S22
S33
e31 = e32
e33
e15 = e24
E1 = E2
E3
12
13 = 23
SC shear moduli
G 12
G 13 = G 23
(GN m2 )
Density (kg m3 )
Youngs modulus (GN m2 ) E
Poissons ratio
Mass density (kg m3 )
Values
8.245
7.122
7.25
14.41
11.57
62.1
48.3
0.32
0.44
23.5
21
7800
69
0.3
2700
G Chevallier et al
Figure 6. OC electric potential distribution on the patches electrodes for the first four modal shapes: (a) first transverse ( x z ) bending mode,
(b) first in-plane ( x y ) bending mode, (c) first torsion mode, (d) second transverse ( x z ) bending mode.
1
2
4
( x z
(x y
( x z
3
flexion) flexion) (torsion) flexion)
Mode
(type)
1
2
4
( x z
(x y
( x z
3
flexion) flexion) (torsion) flexion)
f oc (Hz)
f sc (Hz)
K 2 (%)
K (%)
495.61
493.07
1.03
10.16
f oc (Hz)
f sc (Hz)
K 2 (%)
K (%)
453.89
452.05
0.82
9.03
2797.9
2797.9
0
0
3044.1
3044.1
0
0
3317.7
3249.0
4.27
20.67
1448.2
1448.2
0
0
2032.6
2032.6
0
0
2743.7
2699.6
3.29
18.15
Mode
(type)
1
( x z
flexion)
2
(x y
flexion)
3
(torsion)
4
( x z
flexion)
f oc (Hz)
f sc (Hz)
K 2 (%)
K (%)
494.88
493.06
0.74
8.60
2797.9
2797.9
0
0
3044.1
3044.1
0
0
3297.7
3248.9
3.03
17.40
G Chevallier et al
1
( x z
flexion)
2
(x y
flexion)
3
(torsion)
4
( x z
flexion)
f oc (Hz)
f sc (Hz)
K 2 (%)
K (%)
453.36
452.05
0.58
7.62
1448.2
1448.2
0
0
2032.6
2032.6
0
0
2731.0
2699.5
2. 35
15.32
E
s11
sE
12
E E
s
s =
13
0
0
0
E
s12
E
s13
E
s11
E
s13
0
0
0
E
s13
E
s33
0
0
0
0
E
s55
0
0
0
0
E
s55
0
0
0
0
E
E
2(s11
s12
)
d15 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
d31
0
0
0
0
0 d15
[d] =
d31 d33 0
T
11 0
0
T
=
0 T11 0
0
0 T33
(A.1)
From the above known data and (A.1) it appears that only the
compliance data are incomplete; that is, in-plane and transverse
shear constants remain unknown. A simple procedure is here
suggested to get them from the given data only. Hence,
from the definitions of the shear k15 and polar kp material
static coupling factors, the following expressions can be
deduced [28, 30]:
E
s55
=
2
d15
,
2
T11 k15
E
E
s12
= s11
+2
2
d31
.
k 2p T33
(A.2)
Acknowledgment
[cE ] = [sE ]1 ,
The support of the European Commission via contract no FP6
NMP3-CT-13517 (CASSEM) is gratefully acknowledged.
[e] = [d] cE ,
[S ] = [T ] [d] [e]t .
9
(A.4)
G Chevallier et al
SC elastic matrix
0
0
D11 D12 D13
0
0
D12 D22 D23
0
0
D13 D23 D33
0
0
D66
0
0
0
0
0
0
D44
0
0
0
0
0
0
55.4 55.4 85.9
0
0
23.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
stress piezoelectric matrix
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0 e24
e31 e32 e33 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.25 7.25 14.41
References
0
0
0
=
0
0
D55
0
0
0
0
0
0 9
10 N m2
0
0
21.0
0
0
21.0
(A.5)
e15
0 =
0
0
0
11.57
0 11.57
0
C m2
0
0
0
(A.6)
and
relative blocked dielectric permittivity (at constant strains)
matrix
E P 11
0
0
0
E P 22
0
0
0
E P 33
931.22
0
0
0
931.22
0
(A.7)
.
=
0
0
804.38
G Chevallier et al
11