| Literature DB >> 35683208 |
Zhicheng Huang1, Yuhang Mao1, Anna Dai1, Mengna Han1, Xingguo Wang1, Fulei Chu2.
Abstract
This paper deals with the active vibration control of piezoelectric sandwich plate. The structure consists of a substrate plate layer sandwiched between two layers of piezoelectric sensor and actuator. Based on laminate theory and constitutive equation of piezoelectric material, the vibration active control dynamic equation of the sandwich structure is established by using hypothetical mode method and Hamilton principle. The Rayleigh-Ritz method is used to solve it. The form of hypothetical solution is used for approximate solution, which is simple and accurate. The method of this paper is verified by several examples. The parametric studies of the sandwich plate structures are carried out. The results show that applying different boundary conditions and piezoelectric patch positions to the structures have a great influence on the natural frequency. When the driving voltage increases, the deflection of the plate structures increase approximately linearly. The active vibration control studies are investigated as well. The results show that within a certain range, the larger the value of the speed feedback coefficient, the better the active control effect. The positions of the piezoelectric patches affect the effectiveness and cost of active control. When the piezoelectric plate is located at the fixed end, the effect and cost of active control are better than that at the midpoint and free end of the plate.Entities:
Keywords: Rayleigh-Ritz method; hypothetical modal method; piezoelectric sandwich structure; speed feedback control; vibration active control
Year: 2022 PMID: 35683208 PMCID: PMC9181849 DOI: 10.3390/ma15113907
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1Piezoelectric active control of cantilever plate.
Figure 2Piezoelectric laminated plate: Before and after deformation.
The material parameters of the substrate and piezoelectric patch.
| Material Properties | Base Plate | Piezoelectric Layer |
|---|---|---|
| Elastic modulus (Gpa) | 70 | 60 |
| Density (kg/m3) | 2700 | 7600 |
| Poisson’s ratio | 0.35 | 0.33 |
| Length (mm) | 280 | 40 |
| Width (mm) | 40 | 40 |
| Thickness (mm) | 2 | 2 |
| Piezoelectricconstant (C/m2) | — | |
| Dielectric Constant (F/m) | — | 15 × 10−9 |
Figure 3Cantilever plate structures with piezoelectric layers arranged in different positions.
Comparison of the first six natural frequencies of plates with piezoelectric patches at different positions.
| Mode | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Hz) | Present | COMSOL | Δ% | Present | COMSOL | Δ% | Present | COMSOL | Δ% | Present | COMSOL | Δ% |
| 1 | 21.4 | 21.6 | 0.9 | 28.4 | 28.8 | 1.3 | 18.6 | 18.1 | 2.3 | 11.2 | 11.5 | 3.1 |
| 2 | 133.7 | 137.0 | 2.4 | 177.8 | 183.9 | 3.4 | 115.7 | 116.3 | 0.6 | 110.4 | 111.1 | 0.6 |
| 3 | 287.1 | 293.4 | 2.2 | 330.3 | 342.7 | 1.8 | 230.2 | 232.4 | 0.9 | 174.7 | 184.0 | 5.3 |
| 4 | 378.9 | 386.1 | 1.9 | 486.1 | 503.1 | 2.5 | 355.2 | 364.1 | 2.5 | 218.6 | 221.3 | 1.2 |
| 5 | 424.3 | 440.4 | 3.8 | 497.1 | 508.1 | 2.2 | 356.6 | 364.3 | 2.2 | 333.5 | 356.5 | 6.9 |
| 6 | 776.5 | 807.3 | 3.9 | 941.9 | 1022 | 8.5 | 776.8 | 801.7 | 3.2 | 676.6 | 686.3 | 1.3 |
| 7 | 901.0 | 870.5 | 3.5 | 1032.6 | 1089.8 | 5.2 | 783.9 | 804.0 | 2.5 | 731.9 | 768.22 | 4.7 |
| 8 | 1231 | 1211 | 1.7 | 1321.7 | 1366.6 | 3.3 | 1110.3 | 1161.4 | 4.4 | 1217.5 | 1259.1 | 3.3 |
Comparison of the first six natural frequencies of the plate under different boundary conditions.
| Mode | CFSF | SFSF | CFFF | CFCF | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Hz) | Present | COMSOL | Δ% | Present | COMSOL | Δ% | Present | COMSOL | Δ% | Present | COMSOL | Δ% |
| 1 | 140.5 | 140.5 | 0.0 | 96.3 | 96.7 | 0.4 | 28.4 | 28.8 | 1.3 | 181.6 | 181.1 | 0.3 |
| 2 | 410.7 | 414.4 | 0.9 | 239.9 | 248.2 | 3.5 | 177.8 | 183.9 | 3.4 | 462.4 | 468.1 | 1.2 |
| 3 | 676.8 | 683.6 | 1.0 | 570.9 | 580.6 | 1.7 | 330.3 | 342.8 | 1.8 | 682.9 | 694.9 | 1.8 |
| 4 | 801.5 | 819.1 | 2.1 | 662.0 | 667.6 | 0.8 | 486.1 | 503.1 | 2.5 | 892.2 | 907.3 | 1.7 |
| 5 | 1213.4 | 1226.7 | 1.1 | 969.8 | 996.8 | 2.8 | 497.1 | 508.1 | 2.3 | 1275.1 | 1324.0 | 3.8 |
| 6 | 1378.9 | 1427.2 | 3.4 | 1342.1 | 1401.3 | 4.4 | 941.9 | 1022.0 | 8.5 | 1386.9 | 1421.4 | 2.5 |
| 7 | 1683.4 | 1754.1 | 4.0 | 1490.8 | 1583.5 | 5.9 | 1032.6 | 1089.8 | 5.2 | 1789.7 | 1839.8 | 2.7 |
| 8 | 2100.5 | 2220.2 | 5.4 | 1989.3 | 2070.7 | 3.9 | 1321.7 | 1366.6 | 3.3 | 2108.5 | 2220.8 | 5.0 |
Figure 4Deflection change of structure (1) under different voltages.
Tip deflection of the piezoelectric bimorph beam with different input voltages ().
| Method | Input Voltage | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 V | 100 V | 150 V | 200 V | |
| DSG3 [ | 1.727 | 3.452 | 5.278 | 6.904 |
| CS-FEM-DSG3 [ | 1.726 | 3.451 | 5.177 | 6.903 |
| Analytical solution [ | 1.725 | 3.451 | 5.175 | 6.900 |
| Present method | 1.725 | 3.450 | 5.171 | 6.899 |
Figure 5Control effect with different velocity feedback control coefficients. (a) Velocity feedback control with ; (b) Velocity feedback control with ; (c) Velocity feedback control with (d) Velocity feedback control with .
Figure 6Comparisons of tip deflection attenuation of different structures with or without active control. (a) Tip deflection attenuation without active control (b) Tip deflection attenuation of structural (1); (c) Tip deflection attenuation of structural (2) (d) Tip deflection attenuation of structural (3).
Figure 7Control voltage of different piezoelectric patch position.
Figure 8Control voltage of different piezoelectric patch position (Low-frequency zoom).