Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Physics Procedia 63 (2015) 11 – 20

43rd Annual Symposium of the Ultrasonic Industry Association, UIA Symposium 2014

Optimizing piezoelectric stack preload bolts in ultrasonic transducers

D. A. DeAngelis, G. W. Schulze and K. S. Wong
Mechanical Engineering, Ultrasonics Group, Kulicke & Soffa Industries, 1005 Virginia Drive, Fort Washington, PA 19034, USA

Abstract
The selection of the preload bolt is often an afterthought in the design of Langevin type “sandwich” transducers, but quite often it
is the root cause of failure for power ultrasonic applications. The main role of the preload bolt is to provide a “prestress” in the
piezo stack to prevent interface “gapping” or tension in glued joints which can result in delamination. But as an integral part of a
highly tuned dynamic system, the resulting parasitic resonances in these preload bolts, such as bending or longitudinal modes, are
often difficult to predict and control. This research investigates many aspects of preload bolt design for achieving optimal
transducer performance, including basic size and strength determination based on drive amplitude, as well as ensuring adequate
thread engagement to the mating horn. Other aspects such as rule-of-thumb configuration and length guidelines to reduce
parasitic resonances are also investigated. Optimizing the uniformity of stress in the piezoceramics is also considered, which is
affected by end mass length, counterbores and proximity to threading. The selection of the bolt material based on stiffness is also
investigated as related to electromechanical coupling. The investigation focuses solely on Langevin type transducers used for
semiconductor wire bonding, and which are comprised of the common Navy Types I and III (PZT4 and PZT8) piezoelectric
materials. Several metrics are investigated such as impedance, displacement gain, and electromechanical coupling factor. The
experimental and theoretical research methods include Bode plots, scanning laser vibrometry and finite element analysis.

© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the Ultrasonic Industry Association.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Ultrasonic Industry Association
Keywords: Ultrasonic transducer; Preload bolts; Prestress; Piezoceramic; PZT8; Power ultrasonics; Langevin; Wire bonding

1. Introduction

The selection of the preload bolt is often an afterthought in the design of Langevin type “sandwich” transducers.
Even within transducer design companies such as Kulicke & Soffa Industries, there is no consistent methodology for
design or configuration of preload bolts. Quite often the preload bolt is the root cause of failure for power ultrasonic
transducers (e.g., yield/breakage, preload loss, parasitic mode). The main role of the preload bolt is to provide a
“prestress” in the piezo stack to prevent interface “gapping” or tension in glue joints (delamination). Preload bolts

1875-3892 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the Ultrasonic Industry Association
doi:10.1016/j.phpro.2015.03.003
12 D.A. DeAngelis et al. / Physics Procedia 63 (2015) 11 – 20

are an integral part of the highly tuned dynamic system. Resulting parasitic resonances in preload bolts such as
bending or longitudinal modes are often difficult to predict and control. Some rule-of-thumb design and
configuration guidelines for preload bolts are needed.

2. Specific transducer application

Kulicke & Soffa Industries is the leading manufacturer of semiconductor wire bonding equipment. This “back-
end” type of equipment provides ultrasonically welded interconnect wires or ribbons between the wafer level
semiconductor circuitry and the mounting package as shown in Fig. 1. The ultrasonic transducer delivers energy to
a wedge or capillary tool for welding wire or ribbons (typically aluminum or copper) (DeAngelis et al., 2006, 2011,
2012). As is easily seen in Fig. 1, many different preload bolt configurations have been used for the various
transducer designs.
(b) Piezo Stack #1 Piezo Stack #2 (c)

Horn
Horn (Threaded) Piezo SHCS
(Threaded) Piezo Bolt
Stack
Stack End Mass Front Mass
(Clearance Horn Center Mass End Mass End Mass
Front Mass (Clearance
Hole) (Threaded) (Clearance (Clearance (Clearance
(Clearance Hole) Hole) Hole)
Hole)
Hole) SHCS Bolt SHCS
(Counterbore) Bolt Wedge
Tool
Wedge Wedge
Tool K&S 60kHz Large Wire Tool K&S 80kHz Large Wire or
(1 Wave) (a) K&S 80kHz High Power Ribbon (1 Wave)
Ribbon (1.5 Waves)
Mount Septum (node)
(e) (f)

End Mass
Horn Piezo (Clearance
(Threaded) Stack Hole)
SHCS
Bolt

(d)
Wedge
Tool K&S 40kHz Large Wire Die Heavy Wire Die Heavy Ribbon
(Half Wave)

Wedge (g) (h)

Tool
End Mass
K&S 60kHz Wire (Ball Bonder) SHCS Bolt
(Clearance (1.5 Waves) (Counterbore)
Horn Hole) SHCS Bolt
(Threaded) (Shallow
Piezo Counterbore)
Stack

Capillary
Tool Horn Front Mass Piezo End Mass
K&S 120kHz Fine Wire (Threaded) (Threaded) Stack (Clearance
(1 Wave) Hole)
Fig. 1. (a) K&S 60kHz large wire transducer, (b) K&S 80kHz high power ribbon transducer, (c) K&S 80kHz large wire or ribbon, (d) K&S
40kHz large wire, (e) Heavy wire device, (f) Heavy ribbon device, (g) K&S 120kHz fine wire, (h) K&S 60kHz wire (ball bonder).

3. Common preload bolt configurations

Figs. 2 through 6 show the pros and cons of common preload bolt configurations (Wilson, 1991, Sherman et al.,
2007, Stansfield, 1991). From a dynamic standpoint, the preload screw should be fairly well behaved at the
operating mode of the transducer, such that there are no parasitic resonances in the preload screw near the operating
mode. Also, absent of parasitic modes the symmetry of the free length of the preload screw relative to the piezo
 D.A. DeAngelis et al. / Physics Procedia 63 (2015) 11 – 20 13

stack will determine if the operating node in the stack and screw are co-located: this can be important for aging
considerations and for glue filling due to relative motions; it should also be noted that the location of parasitic screw
modes can be inconsistent with glued piezo stack designs when considering dry versus glued designs. From a static
standpoint, the preload screw configuration should provide a uniform stress distribution over the piezoceramics to
utilize this active material most efficiently; both the electromechanical coupling and maximum drive level are
degraded with non-uniform stress (Woollett, 1957).

4. Failure modes in preload screws

Fig. 7 shows the finite element model for analyzing failure modes in the preload screw for the 80kHz large wire
transducer shown in Fig. 1(c). Fig. 8 shows actual screw failures with an assessment overview including effects
from glue bridging (can move parasitic screw mode frequencies), and static finite element modeling to illustrate the
degree of non-uniform stress in the piezo stack due to preload bolt loading. As shown in Fig 7(b), the screw
resonance mode here may be described as “slinky-like” (i.e., longitudinal mode), since the screw mode has “one
end” out of phase with the natural driver motion. This situation has the potential to exert very high loads at the
preload screw threads, as shown by the breakage in Fig. 8. It should be noted that alternate axisymmetric FEA
models would have predicted this slinky mode, but will have missed all the bending modes in screw (common
mistake).

Mount Thread Free Length of Bolt

P P Bolt Head
Horn Front Mass Z Z End Mass
T T
Full Wave
Langevin
Preload Bolt
Type
Transducer
P P
Horn Front Mass Z Z End Mass
Nodal T T
Plane Counterbore Bolt Head
Higher
Piezoceramics Stress Pros:
Displacement Counterbore Less interaction with
Here
(One Wave) parasitic bolt modes
P P (shorter free length)
Horn Front Mass Z Z End Mass
T T Cons:
Less uniform stress in
piezos (45º stress cone)
Preload Bolt
Worse e-mech coupling
(shorter bolt stiffer, more
P P stress variation)
Horn Front Mass Z Z End Mass
T T Free length of bolt not
symmetric to piezo stack
Free Length of Bolt
45º Stress Cone

Fig. 2 Pros and cons of a counterbore bolt head configuration for preload screw.
14 D.A. DeAngelis et al. / Physics Procedia 63 (2015) 11 – 20

Mount Thread Free Length of Bolt

P P Bolt Head
Horn Front Mass Z Z End Mass
T T

Preload Bolt

P P
Horn Front Mass Z Z End Mass
Nodal T T
Plane Threaded Front Mass
Higher
Stress Pros:
Here Counterbore Less interaction with
parasitic bolt modes
P P (shorter free length)
Horn Front Mass Z Z End Mass
T T Cons:
Less uniform stress in
piezos (thread on PZT)
Preload Bolt
Worse e-mech coupling
(shorter bolt stiffer, more
P P
stress variation)
Horn Front Mass Z Z End Mass
T T Free length of bolt not
symmetric to piezo stack
Free Length
of Bolt

Fig. 3 Pros and cons of a threaded front mass configuration for preload screw.
Mount Thread Free Length of Bolt

P P Bolt Head
Horn Front Mass Z Z End Mass
T T

Preload Bolt

P P
Z Z End Mass
Horn Front Mass
Nodal T T
Plane Counterbore Front Mass

Pros:
Counterbore Counterbore More uniform stress in
piezos
P P
Horn Front Mass Z Z End Mass Better e-mech (k)
T T coupling (longer bolt less
stiff, uniform stress)

Preload Bolt Cons:

More interaction with
parasitic bolt modes
P P
(longer free length of bolt)
Horn Front Mass Z Z End Mass
T T Free length of bolt not
symmetric to piezo stack
Free Length of Bolt
(Symmetric w/ C’bores)

Fig. 4 Pros and cons of a counterbore front mass configuration for preload screw.
Mount Thread Free Length of Bolt

P P
Horn Front Mass Z Z End Mass Thread
T T

Preload Bolt

P P Threaded End Mass

Horn Front Mass Z Z End Mass
Nodal T T Pros:
Plane Higher Less interaction with
Stress Here parasitic bolt modes
(shorter free length)
Counterbore Counterbore
Cons:
P P Less uniform stress in
Horn Front Mass Z Z End Mass piezos
T T
Worse elec-mech (k)
coupling (shorter bolt
Preload Bolt stiffer, stress variation)

Free length of bolt not

P P symmetric to piezo stack
Horn Front Mass Z Z End Mass
T T Rotational rubbing against
piezos with assembly
Free Length of Bolt
(Symmetric w/ C’bores)

Fig. 5 Pros and cons of a threaded end mass configuration for preload screw.
 D.A. DeAngelis et al. / Physics Procedia 63 (2015) 11 – 20 15

Free Length of Bolt

Mount Displacement
P P (Half Wave)
Thread
Z Z End Mass Bolt Head
Horn T T

Preload Bolt
Half Wave Transducer Design

P P Same configurations with pros/cons from

Z Z previous full wave transducers also apply to
End Mass
T T this one.
Nodal
Plane Pros:
No nodal planes in piezos so operating stress
is lower in PZT (piezo material usually has
Free Length of Bolt Counterbore lowest strength) and current gain is higher
Mount
P P Smaller transducer size for lower frequencies
Z Z End Mass
Horn T T Cons:
Threaded regions lie in nodal plane where
highest stress occurs
Preload Bolt
No nodal planes in piezos so driver is less
P P efficient (higher impedance, lower e-mech
coupling)
Z Z End Mass
Nodal
T T
Thread
Plane

Fig. 6 Pros and cons of a half wave transducer design for preload screw.

Screw Resonance
Mode

Node in Screw at Anti-

Node of Driver (Bad)
Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
Model
Transducer Operating Mode

(a)

Node in Piezo Stack

-18-

Fig. 7 (a) Finite element model of K&S 80kHz large wire transducer, (b) Preload screw resonance analysis
(b)results.
Screw Bonded to ID of Piezo Ring (Front
Ring) Via Uncontrolled Glue Bridge Magnified
View 2X
Modal FEA Results of 80kHz Transducer with Glue
Bridging to Screw (Display of Piezo Stack Hidden)

Screw Failed in Resonance Due to

Boundary Condition Change Caused
by Uncontrolled Glue Bridge
Magnified
View 4X

Glue
Max Stress Bridge to
Screw
with Screw
Resonance

PZT Max Stress Min Stress

Ring Static FEA of
Ductile Failure
Piezo Stack
(After Loosening to Under
Remove) Prestress

Screw
Head Too
Small
Relative
Evidence of Front to End
Beech Marks Mass Mass
(i.e., Fatigue) Length

Crack Max/Min Stress Ratio is 6 at this Interface. Bad End

Magnified Since Tension in Glue Joint Can Lead to PZT
Initiation Mass
View
Delamination. Lower E-Mech Coupling (k) Too in Ring
Point at
Rust Spot PZT. This design does not work without a glued
stack (i.e., massive gapping with dry stack).
Fig. 8 Preload screw resonance analysis with description of actual failure modes.
16 D.A. DeAngelis et al. / Physics Procedia 63 (2015) 11 – 20

5. Selection of preload bolt material and sizing of preload bolts

Always use the yield stress, not the tensile strength, when sizing bolts since loss of preload occurs during
yielding prior to the bolt breaking. When optimizing for bolt strength, higher strength materials allow the smallest
diameter screw, which maximizes volume of the piezo material for a given stack diameter (lower impedance, higher
e-mech coupling). Higher strength materials allow for less thread engagement, which minimizes frictional losses
(threads can be lossy with higher impedance). When optimizing for transducer electromechanical coupling factor
(k), it should be noted that the coupling is proportional to the transducer “phase window” difference of the
antiresonance fa and resonance fr from the Bode plot (i.e. k (fa-fr)/fr) (DeAngelis et al., 2010, Uchino et al., 2003,
Woollett, 1957). The phase window or coupling k is maximized when the bolt stiffness is minimized relative to
piezo stack (i.e., least amount of stack energy absorbed by preload screw) (Sherman et al., 2007, Stansfield, 1991).
For example, if the preload bolt stiffness is the same as the stack stiffness, then k will be reduced by at least 50%
from the max possible k33 for the piezo material. The best bolt material is the one with the highest yield strength σy
and the lowest stiffness or elastic modulus E, i.e., maximize the ratio σy /E. The highest yield stress material allows
the use of the smallest diameter screw (less stiff). The lowest modulus results in the lowest stiffness for a given
diameter. For example, beryllium copper (BeCu, C17300) screws are better than alloy steel screws for maximizing
k (i.e., 160/18.5 = 9 versus 170/30 = 6). The coupling k is maximized when the stress in piezo stack is most
uniform. Custom screws can be advantageous with necking down in unthreaded areas (reduces stiffness) and flared
heads for more uniform stress in piezos; especially with end masses that have poor length/diameter (i.e. L/D) ratios
in an attempt to maximize piezo volume. The wave speed (c=sqrt(E/ρ)) is also a consideration for screw design
(phasing, node placement, etc.); steel, Ti and Al are about the same, whereas BeCu is 20% less. The uniformity of
piezo stress is very important when sizing preload bolts. Nonunifom piezo prestress ultimately results in two
simultaneous problems: some volume of the piezo material is insufficiently loaded (i.e. outer diameter of stack)
resulting in either tension/delamination in glue joints (for glued stacks) or dynamic gapping at interfaces for dry
stacks, and some volume of the piezo material will be overloaded (i.e. inner diameter of stack) resulting in severe
depoling (i.e. little or no output). For example, with near uniform prestress in piezo stack (i.e., max/min stress ratio
≈ 1.0) PZT8 materials can withstand 90 MPa of prestress (DeAngelis et al., 2009). However, with max/min stress
ratios in the 1.5-3 range, the prestress for PZT8 materials should be reduced to the 30-60 MPa range. For sizing
common alloy steel bolts under static prestress, the catalog recommended seating stress of 120 ksi (e.g. Unbrako) is
a good guideline. This allows sufficient margin for torqueing and dynamic loading up to 170 ksi yield. The
dynamic loading in the bolt is typically less than 10% of prestress levels without resonances. Prestress of 150 ksi
can be used for more aggressive designs with a compression load fixture. Figs. 9 and 10 provide guidelines for
determining proper thread engagement based on common materials for bolt and internal threads (Walsh, 1990).
Goal: To ensure the length of thread engagement is sufficient to carry the full load
necessary to yield the screw without the internal or external threads stripping*
rà 0.9743 Ô
¬ Tensile Stressed Area of Screw: Ats ? 4 ÄÅ D / Õ
2
Common design mistake is to
n Ö use tensile strength for
à 1 P / Dm Ô
¬ Shear Area of External Thread per Unit Length: Ase ? r nDm ÄÄ - d Õ
determining minimum thread

Å 2n 3 ÕÖ
engagement.

à 1 D /D Ô
Ä pÕ
Failure for a transducer must be
¬ Shear Area of Internal Thread per Unit Length: Asi ? r nDM Ä 2n - Õ
M defined by the yielding of threads
Å Ö
3 where preload is lost.

where D = major diameter, n = number of threads per inch, Dm = max minor diameter of internal thread,
Dp = max pitch diameter of internal thread, Pd = min pitch diameter of external thread,
and DM = min major diameter of external thread Goal: Bolt Breaks
Before Thread
Strips
Horn

¬ To Determine Minimum Thread Engagement Length, EL: Preload Bolt

¬ A. For same materials for both internal and external threads use: EL ? ts
2A
A
¬ B. For different materials for internal and external threads, first determine Relative Strength (R), R ? se e
se Thread
A S
A S
si i

u piezos Apiezos
where Se = yield strength of external thread material, Si = yield strength of internal thread material

1, use the same equation as A: EL ?

u seating (bolt ) ? ? 120 ksi
2A
if R ts
A
se
if R > 1, use: EL ? ts R ? ts e
2A 2A S Astressed (bolt )
A A S
se si i
*Ref. Walsh or FED-STD-H28/2B

Fig. 9 Preload bolt thread engagement analysis.

 D.A. DeAngelis et al. / Physics Procedia 63 (2015) 11 – 20 17

¬For example,
with Se = 170 ksi yield tensile strength for alloy steel screw (class 3A), and Si = 30 ksi yield tensile strength
for annealed 316 stainless steel horn (class 2B), the thread engagement of 8 common UNC screws are:
D n Ase Asi R Ats EL EL(D)
#2 0.086 56 0.109 0.168 3.683 0.004 0.250 2.9 Tensile strength for annealed 316
#4 0.112 40 0.147 0.228 3.659 0.006 0.299 2.7 stainless is 80 ksi, but yield
#6 0.138 32 0.190 0.289 3.724 0.009 0.357 2.6 strength is only 30 ksi. Elongation
#8 0.164 32 0.239 0.344 3.924 0.014 0.461 2.8
at failure is a whopping 40%, so if
tensile strength is used for the
#10 0.19 24 0.275 0.411 3.788 0.018 0.483 2.5
thread engagement length
1/4" 0.25 20 0.383 0.552 3.932 0.032 0.653 2.6
the preload will be long gone
5/16" 0.3125 18 0.489 0.696 3.978 0.052 0.853 2.7
before the material can work
3/8" 0.375 16 0.598 0.845 4.013 0.077 1.040 2.8 hardened
Avg 2.7

Plot of Tensile Stress in

Bolt vs Minimum Thread
Engagement for:
316 Stainless Steel
(annealed), 7075-T6
Aluminum Alloy, and YTS = Yield Stress
Titanium 6-4 (annealed)
UTS = Tensile Strength
(Class 3A Bolt Threaded
in Class 2B Horn)

Fig. 10 Preload bolt thread engagement example for various materials.

u * x+ One-Dimensional Piezo Stack Model for Predicting 1-D Wave Equation
• 2u 1 • 2u f * t + ? f0 exp * iyt +
x Longitudinal Mode Screw Resonances
?
0 ls
•x 2 c 2 •t 2
Es, ρs, As Add another rod

y
segment here for m Solution to Forced Response
U * x, t + ? u * x + exp * iyt + d ? c?
Screw shanked screws

‹ t
E

fi fi ‹ u * x + ? C1 sin * d x + - C2 cos * d x +
› l
c

0 › lf1 0 lc 0 e2
E: Modulus of Elasticity
ρ: Mass Density
A: Area or Thread Pitch Area
Ef1,ρf1,Af1 Ef2,ρf2,Af2 Ec,ρc,Ac Ee1,ρe1,Ae1 Ee2,ρe2,Ae2 c: Bar Velocity Use Short Circuit Ec
Front Front Ceramics End End l: Length for Resonance and
Open Circuit Ec for
Mass Mass Mass Mass f: Force Antiresonance
u: Displacement
ω: Angular Frequency
f *t +
0 lf2 0 le1
t: Time m: Mass (Screw head)
Boundary Conditions (Case ‹, Screw Attached to Ends of Stack) Continuity of Force…&…Displacement
us(0) = uf1(0)
f ? EA
du
fs = - ff1
fs fs ff1 = ff2 uf1(l.f1) = uf2(0)
dx
ff2 = fc uf2(l.f2) = uc(0)
ff1 ff2 ff2 fc fc fe1 fe1 fe2 fm f0 = fc - fe1 uc(l.c) = ue1(0)
fe1 = fe2 ue1(l.e1) = ue2(0)
• 2U s
ff1 fm ? m ? / my 2us * ls + fe2 fs = - fe2 - fm ue2(l.e2) = us(0)
•t 2 x ?l s f0

Fig. 11 1D modeling for predicting longitudinal mode bolt resonances.

6. Prediction of parasitic bolt resonances

FEA is an excellent method for analyzing existing transducer designs, but it is often not convenient during the
initial phases of the transducer design for preload bolts. As shown in Figs 11-17, one dimensional analysis can
provide a very accurate, yet fast and simple method for predicting parasitic bolt resonances.
18 D.A. DeAngelis et al. / Physics Procedia 63 (2015) 11 – 20

Boundary Conditions Assembled in Matrix Q(ω) for Case ‹ to solve for constants C in Mathcad ([Q]*[C] = [B])
à /1 Ô
Ä Õ
* + * de2( y) ©le2+ * + * ds( y) ©ls+ Õ
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Ä /cos de2( y) ©le2 /sin cos ds( y) ©ls
Ä Õ
cos* df1( y) ©lf1+ * df1( y) ©lf1+
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sin

Ä /1 Õ
* + * df2( y) ©lf2+
Ä Õ
sin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
cos df2( y) ©lf2
Ä /1
Õ
* + * dc( y) ©lc+
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ä Õ
sin

cos dc( y) ©lc /1

Ä Õ
* + * de1( y) ©le1+
0 0 0 0 sin 0 0 0 0 0
Ä cos de1( y) ©le1 /1 Õ
Q( y) < ? Ä Õ
0 0 0 0 0 0 sin 0 0 0
Ä Ef1©Af1©df1( y) Es ©As ©ds( y) Õ
Ä Õ
* dc( y) ©lc+ * +
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ä /Ec ©Ac ©dc( y) ©sin Ec ©Ac ©dc( y) ©cos dc( y) ©lc /Ee1©Ae1©de1( y) Õ
Ä Õ
* de2( y) ©le2+ * +
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ä /Ee2©Ae2©de2( y) ©sin Ee2©Ae2©de2( y) ©cos de2( y) ©le2 M1( y) M2( y) Õ

Ä Õ
Ä /Ef1©Af1©df1( y) ©sin* df1( y) ©lf1+ * +
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ef1©Af1©df1( y) ©cos df1( y) ©lf1 /Ef2©Af2©df2( y) Õ
Ä
* df2( y) ©lf2+ * + Õ
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
/Ef2©Af2©df2( y) ©sin Ef2©Af2©df2( y) ©cos df2( y) ©lf2 /Ec ©Ac ©dc( y)
Ä Õ
* de1( y) ©le1+ * +
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ä /Ee1©Ae1©de1( y) ©sin Ee1©Ae1©de1( y) ©cos de1( y) ©le1 /Ee2©Ae2©de2( y)
Õ
Å 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ö

* + * +
Invert Q to Solve for C

* y."f0 + <? Q( y) * +
Forcing Function Matrix M1( y) < ? /Es ©As ©ds( y) ©sin ds( y) ©ls / m ©y ©cos ds( y) ©ls
/1
2

ÃÄ 0 ÔÕ
Ä0Õ C ©B f0 *
M2( y) < ? Es ©As ©ds( y) ©cos ds( y) ©ls / m ©y ©sin ds( y) ©ls +
2
* +
Ä Õ
Ä0Õ
Ä0Õ

* + * y."f0 + 1 ©cos* df1( y) x+ - C* y."f0 + 2 ©sin* df1( y) ©x+ * +

* y."f0 + 7 ©cos* de1( y) x+ - C* y."f0 + 8 ©sin* de1( y) ©x+
Assemble Equations for Displacement Mode Shapes Using Constants
Ä Õ
Ä0Õ uf1 x ."y."f0 <? C ue1 x ."y."f0 <? C
Ä Õ
B * f0 + <? Ä Õ
* + * y."f0 + 3 ©cos* df2( y) x+ - C* y."f0 + 4 ©sin* df2( y) ©x+
uf2 x ."y."f0 <? C *
ue2 x ."y."f0 <? C +
* y."f0 + 9 ©cos* de2( y) x+ - C* y."f0 + 10 ©sin* de2( y) ©x+
0
Ä0Õ

uc * x ."y."f0 + <? C* y."f0 + 5 ©cos* dc( y) x+ - C* y."f0 + 6 ©sin* dc( y) ©x+ us * x ."y."f0 + <? C* y."f0 + 11 ©cos* ds( y) x+ - C* y."f0 + 12 ©sin* ds( y) ©x+
Ä Õ
Ä f0 Õ
Ä Õ
Ä0Õ
Ä0Õ
Ä Õ For Spring-Mass Boundary Condition
Ä0Õ fs

* 0."y."f0 + *0."y."f0 + * 0."y."f0 +

Ä Õ
Compute Transfer Functions Versus Frequency
Å0Ö k
T f1( y) <? T c( y) <? T e1( y) <?
uf1 uc ue1
fm fm m

*0."y."f0 + * + * 0."y."f0 +
f0 f0 f0

us ls ."y."f0 Ã k2 Ô
T f2( y) <? T s( y) <? T e2( y) <? f m ? u s * ls + Ä k / Õ M1( y) ." M2( y)
uf2 ue2

Å k / my 2 Ö
f0 f0 f0
fe2

Fig. 12 Solving 1-D model for longitudinal mode bolt resonances using matrices.

Transfer Function Versus Frequency 40kHz Half Wave

* +
Langevin Stack
T f1 y
0.01 Operating Screw Example

* +
i
Resonance
T f2 y /4
Resonance
1·10

T c* y +
(46.4kHz)
Displacement/f0

i (40.2kHz)
/6
Good guideline is
T e1* y +
1·10
i
>10% frequency

T e2* y +
/8
i separation for dry
1·10 stacks and >20%
T s* y +
i

/ 10
frequency separation
i 1·10 for glued stacks
/ 12
1·10
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
y

u ?E
©
1
2 ©r 1000
i
du Stress ( Increases with Slope)
Frequency (kHz) dx
Displacement Vs. Position
/3
Displacement Vs. Position
/4 6·10
6·10 Large Screw
/4 Stack Displacement
4·10

* + * +
uf1 xf1 ." W ." f0
Operating uf1 xf1 ." W ." f0
4·10
/3

uf2* xf2 ." W ." f0 + uf2* xf2 ." W ." f0 +

/4
i i
2·10 Resonance Screw
Displacement (in)

uc * xc ." W ." f0 +
Displacement (in)

uc * xc ." W ." f0 +
i i

(40.2kHz) Screw
ue1 * xe1 ." W ." f0 + ue1 * xe1 ." W ." f0 +
i
0
i
2·10
/3 Resonance
ue2 * xe2 ." W ." f0 + ue2 * xe2 ." W ." f0 +
i i

Stack (46.4kHz)
us * xs ." W ." f0 + us * xs ." W ." f0 +
/4
i i
/ 2·10
i i
0
/4
/ 4·10

/4 /3
/ 6·10 / 2·10

* +* +* +* + * +* +* +* +
0 0.21 0.42 0.63 0.84 1.05 1.26 1.47 1.68 1.89 2.1 0 0.21 0.42 0.63 0.84 1.05 1.26 1.47 1.68 1.89 2.1
xf1 ." lf1- xf2 ." lf1- lf2- xc ." lf1- lf2- lc- xe1 ." lf1- lf2- lc- le1- xe2 ." xs xf1 ." lf1- xf2 ." lf1- lf2- xc ." lf1- lf2- lc- xe1 ." lf1- lf2- lc- le1- xe2 ." xs
i i i i i i i i i i i i

Position (in)
High Dynamic Stress in Position (in)

Screw. Failure Eminent

Due to Yielding

Fig. 13 Example of 1-D model results for longitudinal mode bolt resonance prediction.
 D.A. DeAngelis et al. / Physics Procedia 63 (2015) 11 – 20 19

y * x+
f *t +
One-Dimensional Model for Predicting Bending Mode Screw Resonances
1-D Flexural Wave Equation
• 4 y 1 • 2u f * t + ? f0 exp * iyt +
x
?
0 le •x 4 c 2 •t 2

y
Assume Solution
Y * x, t + ? y * x + exp * iyt + a ?
Ef, If, ρf, Af Ee, Ie, ρe, Ae d?
tA
EI
Screw Thread Screw Shank a

0 lf
Solution to Forced Response y * x + ? C1 sin * d x + - C2 cos * d x + - C3 sinh * d x + - C4 cosh * d x +
E: Modulus of Elasticity
ρ: Mass Density
Common Boundary Conditions (‹ & ›) A: Area or Thread Pitch Area
y f * 0+ ? 0 ye * le + ? 0
I: Inertia
‹ ‹
Displacement
a: Beam Constant
?0
Shank
?0
dy f dye l: Length
Slope
dx x ?le Thread
x ?0
dx V: Shear

y f * 0+ ? 0 ye * le + ? 0
M: Moment
Displacement
› ›
y: Displacement
?0 ?0 ω: Angular Frequency
d2yf Moment
d 2 ye

f *t +
dx 2 dx 2 x ?le
x ?0 t: Time

Mf Me
Shear Force Continuity Moment Continuity
f 0 ? Ve / V f M f ? Me
Slope Continuity

? e
dy f dy
f 0 ? Ee I e / Ef I f
Ve Ve
? Ee I e
Vf Vf 3
d 3 ye d yf d2yf d 2 ye
dx x ?l f
dx x ?0 Ef I f
dx 3 x ?0
dx 3
x ?l f
dx 2 dx 2 x ?0
x ?l f
Mf Me

Fig. 14 1-D modeling for predicting bending mode bolt resonances.

Boundary Conditions Assembled in Matrix Q(ω) for Case ‹ to solve for constants C in Mathcad ([Q]*[C] = [B])
à Ô
Ä sin * d f( y) © lf+ cos * d f( y) © lf+ sinh * d f( y) © lf+ cosh * d f( y) © lf+ Õ
0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
/1 /1
Ä Õ
sin * d e( y) © le+ cos * d e( y) © le+ sinh * d e( y) © le+ cosh * d e( y) © le+ Õ
0 0

Ä
Ä Õ
0 0 0 0
d f( y) d f( y)
Ä Õ
d e( y) cos * d e( y) © le+ /d e( y) sin * d e( y) © le+ d e( y) cosh * d e( y) © le+ d e( y) sinh * d e( y) © le+ Õ
0 0 0 0 0 0
Q( y) <? Ä
Ä Õ
Ä d f( y) cos * d f( y) © lf+ /d f( y) sin * d f( y) © lf+ d f( y) cosh * d f( y) © lf+ d f( y) sinh * d f( y) © lf+
0 0 0 0
/d e( y) /d e( y)
Õ
Ä Õ
0 0

Ä Ef© If© d f( y) © cos * d f( y) © lf+ /Ef© If© d f( y) © sin * d f( y) © lf+ /Ef© If© d f( y) © cosh * d f( y) © lf+ /Ef© If© d f( y) © sinh * d f( y) © lf+ /Ee© Ie© d e( y) Ee© Ie© d e( y) Õ
3 3 3 3 3 3

Ä Õ
0 0

Å /Ef© If© d f( y) © sin * d f( y) © lf+ /Ef© If© d f( y) © cos * d f( y) © lf+ Ef© If© d f( y) © sinh * d f( y) © lf+ Ef© If© d f( y) © cosh * d f( y) © lf+ Ee© Ie© d e( y) /Ee© Ie© d e( y) Ö
2 2 2 2 2 2
0 0

Invert Q to Solve for C

* y."f0 + <? Q( y) * +
Forcing Function Matrix
à 0Ô /1
Ä0Õ ©B f0
Ä Õ
C

Ä0Õ
Ä0Õ
b * f0+ <? Ä Õ
Assemble Equations for Displacement Mode Shapes Using Constants
Ä0Õ y f* x."y ."f0+ <? c* y ."f0+ 1© sin * d f( y) © x+ - c* y ."f0+ 2© cos * d f( y) © x+ - c* y ."f0+ 3© sinh * d f( y) x+ - c* y ."f0+ 4© cosh * d f( y) © x+
Ä0Õ y e* x."y ."f0+ <? c* y ."f0+ 5© sin * d e( y) © x+ - c* y ."f0+ 6© cos * d e( y) © x+ - c* y ."f0+ 7© sinh * d e( y) x+ - c* y ."f0+ 8© cosh * d e( y) © x+
Ä f0 Õ
Ä Õ
Å0Ö
Warning!: Solution above ignores shear deformations
and rotary inertia effects making it less accurate for
Compute Transfer Functions Versus Frequency higher order modes. See Graff reference for solution to

yf* lf ."y ."f0+ ye*0."y ."f0+

equations below to include these effects:
Tf( y) <? Te( y) <?
à •l • 2 y Ô •2 y à •y • 2l • 2l
/ 2 Õ - t A 2 ? q * x, t + , GAm Ä / l Õ - EI 2 ? t I 2
Ô
GAm Ä
Å •x •x Ö Å •x Ö
f0 f0
dt dx dt

Fig. 15 Solving 1-D model for bending mode bolt resonances using matrices.

Transfer Function Versus Frequency

40kHz Half Wave
0.1 Bending Mode Langevin Stack
Screw Resonance
/3
Example
1·10
T f* y i+
(41.0kHz)
Dis placement/f0

Good guideline is

T e* y i+
/5
1·10 >10% frequency
separation for dry
/7
1·10
Operating stacks and >20%
Resonance frequency separation
for glued stacks
/9
(40.2kHz)
1·10
Shear Force 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Moment
yi
© Mf* x."y ."f0+ <? /Ef© If© * + Me* x."y ."f0+ <? /Ee© Ie© * +
Vf* x."y ."f0+ <? /Ef© If© * + Ve* x."y ."f0+ <? /Ee© Ie© * +
y x."y ."f0 y x."y ."f0
1 2 2

y x."y ."f0 y x."y ."f0 2© r 1000

3 3 d d
d d 2 f 2 e
3 f 3 e dx dx
dx dx

uf*x."y ."f0+ <? Mf*x."y ."f0+ © ue*x."y ."f0+ <? Me*x."y ."f0+ ©
( ) Frequency (kHz) df de
2© If 2© Ie
Displacement Versus Position
0.008 Stress
0.0064

* +
Dis placement (in)

0.0048

y f xf i ."y ."f0 0.0016

0.0032 Shank

*
y e xei ."y ."f0
/ 0.0016
+
0 Thread

/ 0.0032
Mode Shape

/ 0.0048
of Screw

/ 0.0064
(41.0kHz)

/ 0.008
0 0.21 0.42 0.63 0.84 1.05 1.26 1.47 1.68 1.89 2.1
xf i ."lf- xei

P osition (in)

Fig. 16 Example of 1-D model results for bending mode bolt resonance prediction.
20 D.A. DeAngelis et al. / Physics Procedia 63 (2015) 11 – 20

FEA Model
Operating Mode
Front
40.3kHz (1D 40.2kHz)
Mass

End
Mass

Preload PZT Stack

Bolt in
Clearance
Hole
Screw Longitudinal Mode
43.9kHz (1D 46.4kHz)

Operating Mode
1.5
FEA Predicted Mode Shapes
Screw Bending
(Nearly identical to 1D Model
Screw Axial
1
Normalized Displacement

0.5
Screw Bending Mode
38.7kHz (1D 41.0kHz)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2

-0.5

-1

-1.5
Position Along Driver Axis, in

Fig. 17 Comparison of 1-D model of the 40kHz half wave Langevin stack solution to FEA model.

7. Conclusions

The preload screw configuration and design requires a detailed trade-off analysis to optimize stress uniformity, e-
mech coupling and stack symmetry, while minimizing interaction of parasitic screw modes. Screw resonances can
manifest as both longitudinal and bending modes. Actual boundary conditions can be tricky to model in FEA
making prediction difficult. Commonly used axisymmetric FEA models cannot predict screw bending modes.
Screw boundary conditions can especially vary with glued piezo stack designs, so greater separation with parasitic
screw modes is required compared to dry stacks. Uncontrolled screw resonances often lead to preload loss and
screw failure, but at the very least they can negatively affect transducer performance. The best bolt material is the
one with the highest yield strength σy and the lowest stiffness or elastic modulus E, i.e., maximize the ratio σy /E.
The phase window or coupling k is maximized when the bolt stiffness is minimized relative to piezo stack. The
sizing of preload screws and determination of minimum thread engagement should always be done based on yield
strength (yielding = preload loss). An adequate thread engagement length based on yield stress is critical for both
the preload screw and internal threads of horn to prevent preload loss under dynamics. Uniformity of prestress
effects both bolt sizing and e-mech coupling. Simple 1-D wave equation models can be a fast and effective way to
identify locations of parasitic screw resonance for many piezo stack configurations. For parasitic bolt resonances,
use 10% frequency separation for dry stacks and 20% frequency separation for glued stacks.

References

C. H. Sherman and J. L. Butler, Transducers and Arrays for Underwater Sound. New York, NY: Springer Science, 2007.
D. A. DeAngelis and D. C. Schalcosky, “The Effect of PZT8 Piezoelectric Crystal Aging on Mechanical and Electrical Resonances in Ultrasonic
Transducers,” 2006 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium, Session P2O-10.
D. A. DeAngelis and G. W. Schulze, “Advanced Bode Plot Techniques for Ultrasonic Transducers,” 2011 UIA Symposium Proceedings, Physics
Procedia.
D. A. DeAngelis and G. W. Schulze, “Optimizing Piezoelectric Ceramic Thickness in Ultrasonic Transducers,” 2010 UIA Symposium
Proceedings, IEEE XPlore.
D. A. DeAngelis and G. W. Schulze, “Optimizing Piezoelectric Crystal Preload in Ultrasonic Transducers,” 2009 UIA Symposium Proceedings,
IEEE XPlore.
D. A. DeAngelis and G. W. Schulze, “The Effects of Piezoelectric Ceramic Dissipation Factor on the Performance of Ultrasonic Transducers,”
2012 UIA Symposium Proceedings, Physics Procedia.
D. Stansfield, Underwater Electroacoustic Transducers. Los Altos, CA: Peninsula Publishing, 1991.
K. F. Graff, Wave Motion in Elastic Solids. New York, NY: Dover Publications, 1991.
K. Uchino and J. R. Giniewicz, Micromechatronics. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, 2003.
K. Uchino, Ferroelectric Devices. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, 2010.
O. B. Wilson, Introduction to Theory and Design of Sonar Transducers. Los Altos, CA: Peninsula Publishing, 1991.
R. A. Walsh, Electromechanical Design Handbook. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: TAB Books, 1990.
R. S. Woollett, “Transducer Comparison Methods Based on the Electromechanical Coupling-Coefficient Concept,” 1957 IRE National
Convention, p. 23-27, IEEE Xplore.