MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
To optimize the electric field and the average stress of the piezoelectric cantilever beam while minimizing the volume of the piezoelectric beam, a finite element model was developed by using the commercial package ANSYS® in conjunction with optimization method-based direct search. The initial geometry and finite element mesh of the model used is depicted in Figure 5.13.
Grid-independence results analysis was carried out in this investigation, and it was deduced that a total number of 13,104 elements and 60,961 nodes were sufficient to produce mesh-independence results. The cantilever beam that was used in this study is composed of two layers: the top layer is a piezoelectric material and the bottom layer is an elastic material. The polarization (P) of the piezoelectric material is assumed along the у-direction. The interface between the two layers is grounded (voltage equals zero). A tip load boundary condition of 6 N was applied in the negative у-direction at the free end of the cantilever. The initial dimensions of the piezoelectric and substrate layers are listed in Table 5.1.
The mechanical and electrical properties of the piezoelectric material and the elastic substrate are given as follows [42]:
Elastic Bottom Layer: The material properties of the bottom layer are:
£ = 90 GPa, and a = 0.3
FIGURE 5.13 Geometry and mesh of the model used in the present investigation.
TABLE 5.1
Dimensions of the Initial Design
Parameters |
Initial Value (mm) |
Thickness of PZT material |
1 |
Thickness of elastic substrate |
4 |
Length of elastic material |
100 |
Width of PZT material 0.5 mm < L_{ra} < 10 mm |
10 |
Piezoelectric Layer: Assuming anisotropic materials of the piezoelectric beam, the anisotropic elastic properties used in this investigation can be given in a matrix form as follows [42]:
The piezoelectric coefficients in the strain form used in this investigation are also given in a matrix form as follows [42]:
FORMULATION OF THE OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM
In this investigation, the optimal geometry of the piezoelectric cantilever is determined by direct search based optimization, which is used in conjunction with the ANSYS finite element software. The design problem is therefore to maximize the output electric field and simultaneously to minimize the structural volume of the piezoelectric beam, subject to the design constraints. The formulation of the optimization problem can be outlined as follows:
where X is the design variable, V_{m} is the volume of the piezoelectric beam to be minimized, E_{nT} is the electric field, cr_{max} is the maximum stress (i.e., maximum Von Mises stress), and cr_{y} is the yield strength of 25 MPa [43]. The subscript “initial” indicates the initial value that corresponds to the initial iteration. x‘"'^{n} and x,^{max} are the lower and upper limits of the design variables of .^respectively. There was one geometrical design variable in the structural model, which represented the free end width of the piezoelectric beam. The lower and upper bounds are set to 0.5 mm and 10 mm, respectively. The optimization process starts with an initial geometry in Ansys. Each iteration, the geometry will be changed and results are obtained until maximum electric field and minimum volume are achieved.
CODE VALIDATION
The initial model is validated against analytical results reported in the literature by Smits et al. [45]. Smits et al. [45] developed a relationship between the deflection of the beam and the applied voltage using the energy density as follows:
where V is the applied voltage, and t_{p} is the thickness of piezoelectric beam. Figure 5.14 demonstrates an excellent comparison of the deflection along the beam between the present results and the analytical results of Smits et al. [45].
FIGURE 5.14 Comparison of the deflection along the beam between the present results and the analytical results of Smits et al. [45]. (V = 100 volt. t_{r} = 1 mm, d_{M} = 2.3 x 10~^{M} C/N). (From Smits, J.G., et al.. Sen. Actuators A, 28, 781-784, 1991. With permission.)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The direct optimization of the piezoelectric beam length required 20 trials to optimize the electric field of the piezoelectric beam. Figure 5.15 illustrates the optimized geometry and mesh of the model. The width of the free end was reduced to very small value of 0.5 mm compared the initial value of 10 mm, the same as at the fixed end of the beam. Table 5.2 summarizes the initial and optimized volumes of the substrate and the piezoelectric layers. This table illustrated that the structural volume of both piezoelectric and the substrate decreased considerably from 5 x 10'' mm^{3} to 2.62 x 10^{3} mm^{3}, representing a 47.6% saving in materials.
The effect of varying the geometry on the area normalized quantities, voltage, electric field, and normal strain (ej distribution along the length of the piezoelectric beam is depicted in Figure 5.16. For the studied designs, the trapezoidal beam geometry was found to produce the improved results. Figure 5.16 clearly shows that in the case of the trapezoidal geometry, the deformation increases because of the beam stiffness reduction. Consequently, the voltage, electric field, and the normal strain (e_{A}) distribution along the center line of the piezoelectric beam rise significantly compared with the rectangular geometry. Figure 5.16a illustrates a comparison of the voltage/area distribution along the centerline length of the piezoelectric layer between the optimum and initial designs. The maximum voltage for both designs was found to occur in the vicinity of the fixed end due to maximum bending moment location. Moreover, optimum design was found to exhibit higher voltage/area distribution compared wfith the initial design as depicted in Figure 5.16a. The maximum value of
FIGURE 5.15 Optimized geometry and Finite Element Mesh.
TABLE 5.2
Volumes of the Initial and Optimized Geometries of the Substrate and Piezoelectric Layers
Parameters |
Initial Geometry (mm^{3}) |
Optimized Geometry (mm^{3}) |
Volume of the substrate |
4 x 10' |
2.09 x 10^{3} |
Volume of the piezoelectric |
1 x 10' |
5.23 x 10^{1} |
Total volume |
5 x 10^{3} |
2.62 x Ю^{3} |
FIGURE 5.16 Comparison of the area normalized quantities (a) voltage, (b) electric field, and (c) normal strain (t) distribution along the center length of the piezoelectric beam between the rectangular design and the trapezoidal design for the same tip force.
the voltage/area was found to increase by 96.4%. Figure 5.16b demonstrates that the maximum electric field per unit area was also found to increase from 5.87 x 10^{8} V/m^{3 }for the initial design to 1.14 x 10^{9} V/m^{3} for the optimum design, which represents an increase of 94.2%. As can be seen from Figure 5.16c, the trapezoidal shape exhibits higher strain than the rectangular shape for identical load.
FIGURE 5.17 Comparison of the electric field distribution in у-direction between the rectangular design and the trapezoidal design of the piezoelectric beam (tip force of the beam = 6 N).
Figure 5.17 shows the contour plots for the comparison of the electric field distribution in у-direction between the initial rectangular design and the optimized geometry (trapezoidal design) of the piezoelectric beam (tip force of the beam = 6 N). The electric field is found maximum in the vicinity of the fixed end for both designs, and this is associated with maximum bending moment location. Furthermore, the trapezoidal design shows a more even distribution than the rectangular design.
A similar behavior is also observed, when the voltage distribution is considered, as depicted in Figure 5.18. The von Mises stress fields in both designs are compared, under the same tip load of 6 N, applied downward as shown in Figure 5.19. Although the structural volume of the optimized trapezoidal design reduced by 47.6% from its initial volume, the maximum values of the induced stresses in both designs are approximately of the same order (about 17 MPa), and they occur at the constrained
FIGURE 5.18 Comparison of the voltage distribution between the rectangular design and the trapezoidal design of the piezoelectric beam (tip force of the beam = 6 N).
end of each beam. The stress distribution in the trapezoidal beam shows less variation along the beam axis. The minimum stress value occurs in both cases at the free beam end, whereas a much higher value arises at the tip of the trapezoidal beam due to the very small cross-sectional area (0.25 MPa vs. 0.02 MPa).
Modal analysis was carried out on both beam designs to calculate the first four natural frequencies, given in Table 5.3. Figure 5.20 displays the resulting frequencies compared with the number of vibration mode for both beams. At all calculated modes, the trapezoidal cantilever design has higher natural frequency values than the rectangular design. The increased sensitivity of the trapezoidal design leads to higher power output.
FIGURE 5.19 Comparison of the von Mises stress between the rectangular and the trapezoidal designs.
TABLE 5.3
The First Four Natural Frequencies for Rectangular and Trapezoidal Cantilever Beam Designs
Mode |
Rectangular Geometry f[Hz] |
Trapezoidal Geometry f[Hz] |
1 |
331.07 |
619.12 |
2 |
2046.7 |
2669.6 |
3 |
5594.8 |
6388.5 |
4 |
9830.1 |
11509 |
FIGURE 5.20 Comparison of the natural frequency between the rectangular design and the trapezoidal design for different modes.
CONCLUSIONS
Finite element method in conjunction with direct optimization was conducted in this review to maximize the output electric field of the piezoelectric beam while minimizing the structural volume. The present numerical method was validated against theoretical studies reported in the literature and excellent agreement was found between both results. The results of this review indicated that the structural volume of both piezoelectric and the substrate reduced significantly from 5 x 10^{3} mm^{3} to 2.62 x 10^{3} mm^{3}, representing a 47.6% saving in materials. The maximum Von Mises stress results showed insignificant increase from 16.8 MPa to 17 MPa, respectively. These results are well within the strength constrains (р_{уШ} = 24 MPa). The maximum electric field per unit area was found to increase from 5.87 x 10^{s} V/m^{3} for the initial design to 1.14 x 10^{9} V/m^{3} for the optimum design, which represents an increase of 94.2%. The modal analysis illustrated that the optimum design (trapezoidal cantilever) exhibited higher natural frequencies at all calculated modes, which may lead to higher power output. The preliminary results presented in this review revealed that varying the geometry of the piezoelectric layer may have a significant effect on the characteristics of piezoelectric beam. Therefore, the future work will focus on maximizing the output power by seeking optimum topology of the cantilever beam.
REFERENCES
- 1. Sonar HA. Paik J. Soft pneumatic actuator skin with piezoelectric sensors for vibrotac- tile feedback. Frontiers in Robotics andAI. 2016;2(38): 1—11.
- 2. Cook-Chennault K, Thambi N, Sastry AM. Powering MEMS portable devices- A review of non-regenerative and regenerative power supply systems with special emphasis on piezoelectric energy harvesting systems. Smart Materials and Structures. 2008:17:043001.
- 3. Ghosh SK, Mandal D. Bio-assembled, piezoelectric prawn shell made self-powered wearable sensor for noninvasive physiological signal monitoring. Applied Physics Letters. 2017;110:123701.
- 4. Liu Z, Zhang S, Jin YM, Ouyang H, Zou Y, Wang XX, et al. Flexible piezoelectric nanogenerator in wearable self-powered active sensor for respiration and healthcare monitoring. Semiconductor Science and Technology. 2017;32:064004.
- 5. Ghosh SK, Adhikary P, Jana S, Biswas A, Sencadas V, Gupta SD, et al. Electrospun gelatin nanofiber based self-powered bio-e-skin for health care monitoring. Nano Energy. 2017;36:166-175.
- 6. Lu C, Wu S, Lu B, Zhang Y, Du Y, Feng X. Ultrathin flexible piezoelectric sensors for monitoring eye fatigue. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering. 2018:28:025010.
- 7. Curry EJ, Ke K, Chorsi M. Worbel KS. Miller AN. Patel A, et al. Biodegradable piezoelectric force sensor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018:115(5):909-914.
- 8. Markus DT, Hayes MC, inventors. Piezoelectric sensor for vision correction. US patent 20160030160A1. April 25. 2017.
- 9. Chiu Y, Lin W, Wang H, Huang SB, Wu M. Development of a piezoelectric polyvi- nylidene fluoride (PVDF) polymer-based sensor patch for simultaneous heartbeat and respiration monitoring. Sensors and Actuators. A. 2013:189:328-334.
- 10. Sonar HA, Paik J. Soft pneumatic actuator skin with piezoelectric sensors for vibrotac- tile feedback. Frontiers in Robotics andAI. 2016:2(38): 1—11.
- 11. Khanafer K, Vafai K. Analysis of heat transfer and flow characteristics of a microcantilever beam for piezoelectric energy harvesting. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer. 2018:98:265-272.
- 12. Khanafer K, Vafai K, Gaith M. Fluid-structure interaction analysis of flow and heat transfer characteristics around a flexible microcantilever in a fluidic cell. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer. 2016;75:315-322.
- 13. Khaled ARA, Vafai K. Analysis of detection enhancement using microcantilevers with long-slit-based sensors. Sensors. 2013;13(1):681—702.
- 14. Khanafer K, Vafai K. Geometrical and flow configurations for enhanced microcantilever detection within a fluidic cell. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer. 2005;48( 14):2886-2895.
- 15. Khanafer K, Khaled ARA, Vafai K. Spatial optimization of an array of aligned microcantilever based sensors. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering. 2004; 14(10): 132.
- 16. Khaled ARA, Vafai K, Yang M, Zhang X, Ozkan CS. Analysis, control and augmentation of microcantilever deflections in bio-sensing systems. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical. 2003;94(1):103-115.
- 17. Park G, Rosing T, Todd MD, Farrar CR, Hodgkiss W. Energy harvesting for structural health monitoring sensor networks. Journal of Infrastructure Systems. 2008; 14( 1 ):64—79.
- 18. Garcia LR, Lunadei L, Barreiro P, Robla JI. A review of wireless sensor technologies and applications in agriculture and food industry: State of the art and current trends. Sensors. 2009:9(6):4728-4750.
- 19. Ко J, Lu C, Srivastava MB, Stankovic JA, Terzis A, Welsh M. Wireless sensor networks for healthcare. Proceedings of the IEEE. 2010;98( 11): 1947—1960.
- 20. Liao WH, Wang DH, Huang SL. Wireless monitoring of cable tension of cable-stayed bridges using PVDF piezoelectric films. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures. 2001; 12(5):331 -339.
- 21. Chalard L, Helal D, Verbaere L. Wellig A, Zory J. Wireless sensor networks devices: Overview, issues, state-of-the-art and promising technologies. ST Journal of Research. 2007;4(1 ):4-8.
- 22. Carlos FG, Pablo HI, Joaquin GH, Jesus AP. Wireless sensor networks and applications: A survey. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security. 2007;7(3):264-273.
- 23. Akyildiz I, Su W, Sankarasubramaniam Y, Cayirci E. Wireless sensor networks: A survey. Computer Networks. 2002;38(4):393-422.
- 24. Raghunathan V, Schurgers C, Park S, Srivastava MB. Energy-aware wireless microsensor networks. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine. 2002; 19(2):40—50.
- 25. Roundy S, Wright PK, Rabaey J. A study of low level vibrations as a power source for wireless sensor nodes. Computer Communications. 2003;26(11):1131—1144.
- 26. Jiang X, Polastre J, Culler D. Perpetual environmentally powered sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN'05). pp. 463-468, April 2005.
- 27. Hausler E, Stein E. Implantable physiological power supply with PVDF film. Ferroelectrics 1984;60:277-282.
- 28. Umeda M, Nakamura K, Ueha S. Analysis of the transformation of mechanical impact energy to electric energy using piezoelectric vibrator. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics. 1996;35:3267-3273.
- 29. Ramsey MJ, Clark WW. Piezoelectric energy harvesting for bio MEMS applications. In: Proceedings of SPIE’s 8th Annual Smart Materials and Structures Conference, Vol. 4332, Newport Beach. CA, pp. 429-438, 2001.
- 30. Kymissis J, Kendall C, Paradiso J, Gershenfeld N. Parasitic power harvesting in shoes. In: Second International Symposium on Wearable Computers, pp. 132-139, 1998.
- 31. Starner T. Human-powered wearable computing. IBM Systems Journal. 1996; 35(3—4):618—629.
- 32. Qian F, Xu T-B, Zuo L. Design, optimization, modeling and testing of a piezoelectric footwear energy harvester. Energy Conversion and Management. 2018;171:1352-1364.
- 33. Hwang GT. Park H, Lee JH, Oh S. Park KI, Byun M, et al. Self-powered cardiac pacemaker enabled by flexible single crystalline PMN-PT piezoelectric energy harvester. Advanced Materials. 2014;23:4880-4887.
- 34. Yang H, Wang L, Zhou B, Wei Y, Zhao Q. A preliminary study on the highway piezoelectric power supply system. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology. 2018:11:168-175.
- 35. Jiang X, Li Y, Li J, Wang J, Yao J. Piezoelectric energy harvesting from traffic-induced pavement vibrations. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 2014;6:043110.
- 36. Khanafer K, Vafai K. Analysis of heat transfer and flow characteristics of a microcantilever beam for piezoelectric energy harvesting. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer. 2018:98:265-272.
- 37. Gong JJ, Xu YY, Ruan ZL, Bian YX. Simulation on generating capacity for energy harvesting device with piezoelectric bimorph cantilever. Journal of Vibration, Measurement and Diagnosis. 2014;14:658-663.
- 38. Goldschmidtboeing F, Woias P. Characterization of different beam shapes for piezoelectric energy harvesting. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering. 2008; 18( 10): 1—7.
- 39. Benasciutti D, Moro L, Zelenika S. Vibration energy scavenging via piezoelectric bimorphs of optimized shapes. Microsystem Technologies. 2010;16(5):657—668.
- 40. Dietl JM, Garcia E. Beam shape optimization for power harvesting. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures. 2010;21(6):633—646.
- 41. Simon P, Yves SA. Electromechanical Performances of Different Shapes of Piezoelectric Energy Harvesters. International Workshop Smart Materials and Structures, Montreal, Canada, October 22-23, 2009.
- 42. Roundy S. On the effectiveness of vibration-based energy harvesting. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems Structures. 2005;16:809-823.
- 43. Lange R, Scampoli S, Ansari N, Shaw D. Piezoelectric Fan Modeling FSI Analysis using ANSYS and CFX. International ANSYS Conference, Pittsburgh, USA, 2008.
- 44. Bert CW, Birman V. Effects of stress and electric field on the coefficients of piezoelectric materials: One-dimensional formulation. Mechanics Research Communications. 1998:25(2): 165-169.
- 45. Smits JG, Dalke SI, Cooney TK. The constituent equations of piezoelectric bimorphs. Sensors and Actuators A. 1991;28:781-784.