Material Design of a Functionally

Graded Piezoelectric Composite Disk
for Control of Thermal Stress
The Third Asian Conference on Mechanics of Functional Materials and Structures
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, December 5-8, 2012
Fumihiro ASHIDA, Shimane University, Japan
Sei-ichiro SAKATA, Kinki University, Japan
Hikaru SUZUKI, Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Japan
D1-S1.2: Mechanics of Functional Structures-1, Bharti Building, Room 101
11:10-12:50, Tuesday, December 6
The vision of the Japan Aerospace
Exploration Agency for next 20 years
includes a project for demonstrating a
hypersonic aircraft with the cruising
speed at Mach 5.
It is considered that a body surface of the hypersonic aircraft will be exposed
to a severe thermal environment.
A safety system that controls the maximum thermal stress is required, because
a thermal load beyond the allowable limit may act on a structural member.
1.1 Background
1. Introduction
Fig. 1 Analytical model of the previous works
1.2 Previous works (1)
The performance of the stress control was evaluated by the suppression ratio.

R = 1÷
o
0max
o
0max
T
|
\

|
.
|
×100[%]
1.2 Previous works (2)
F. Ashida, S. Sakata, K. Matsumoto,
Control of Thermal Stress in a Piezo-composite Disk,
Journal of Thermal Stresses, Vol. 30, No.9-10, pp.1025-1040, 2007.

• Piezoelectric layers of equal thicknesses had same electrode arrangements.
• Electrodes of same widths were arranged at equal intervals.
• A nonlinear optimization problem was solved using the BFGS quasi-Newton
method.
• The highest suppression ratio was 15.98%.
F. Ashida, S. Sakata, K. Matsumoto,
Structure Design of a Piezoceramic Composite Disk for Control of Thermal Stress,
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 75, No.6, CID 61009, 2008.

• Piezoelectric layers of equal thicknesses had a same electrode arrangement.
• Electrodes of various widths were arranged at different intervals
• A linear programming problem transformed from the nonlinear optimization
problem was solved using the Simplex method.
• The highest suppression ratio was 33.70%.
A. Elsawaf, F. Ashida, S. Sakata,
Optimum Structure Design of a Multilayer Piezo-composite Disk for Control of
Thermal Stress, Journal of Thermal Stresses, Vol. 35, No. 9, pp. 805-819, 2012.

• Piezoelectric layers of various thicknesses had different electrode arrangements.
• Electrodes of various widths were arranged at different intervals
• The nonlinear design problem was solved using a hybrid optimization technique
combining the PSO and Simplex method.
• The highest suppression ratio was 40.83% and almost saturated.
In order to increase the suppression ratio substantially, a new structure of a
composite disk should be investigated.
1.2 Previous works (3)
2. A New Analytical Model
Let us consider a composite disk consisting of a transversely isotropic structural
layer and a functionally graded piezoelectric material (FGPM) layer.
Fig.2 Geometry of a functionally graded piezoelectric composite disk
It is assumed that the FGPM layer consists of homogeneous piezoelectric layers
of class 6mm and the material constants vary gradually in the axial direction.
N
T
0
f (r)
Number of electrodes

V
0
v(r) = V
k
{H(r ÷ r
k
) ÷ H(r ÷ r
k
÷ w
k
)}
k=1
M
¿
Applied Voltages
3. Flow Chart of Analysis
• Analysis of the temperature field
• Analysis of the elastic and electric fields
Thermoelastic problem
• Analysis of the elastic and
electric fields
Electro-elastic problem
Superposition
Response due to a thermal load:
, , , ,
T T T T
i i i i i
T u D
µ µ, µ
o u
Response due to an electric load:
, , ,
E E E E
i i i i
u D
µ µ, µ
o u
Resultant response due to both loads:
, , , ,
i i i i i
T u D
µ µ, µ
o u
Solution Techniques Proposed by F. Ashida, et al.
• Potential function method for transversely isotropic solids
• Potential function method for piezoelectric solids of class 6mm
4. Variations of FGPM Properties
: piezoelectric constants,
e
ij

_
m
o
:coefficients to be determined,
n : order of the polynomial,
Fig. 3 Variation of material constants
of the FGPM layer

i
:position of the th piezoelectric layer
i z
i
where

Y
ij
: Young’s modulus,

ì
ij
: thermal conductivities,

o
ij
: coefficients of linear thermal expansion,
It is assumed that ratios of the material constants of the th constituent piezoelectric
layer to those of the first constituent piezoelectric layer are expressed by

( ' e
ij
, ' Y
ij
, ' o
ij
, ' ì
ij
) =
e
ij
e
1 j
,
Y
ij
Y
1 j
,
o
ij
o
1 j
,
ì
ij
ì
1 j
|
\

|
.
|
=1+ (_
m
e
j
i=1
n
¿
, _
m
Y
j
, _
m
o
j
, _
m
ì
j
)z
i
m
(i = 2,3,···, N)
5. Optimum Design Problem of FGPM Layer
The optimization design problem of minimizing the maximum thermal stress in
the structural layer is defined by

find ì
r
={_
1
ì
r
, _
2
ì
r
,· · ·, _
n
ì
r
}, ì
z
={_
1
ì
z
, _
2
ì
z
,· · ·, _
n
ì
z
},
o
r
={_
1
o
r
, _
2
o
r
,· · ·, _
n
o
r
},o
z
={_
1
o
z
, _
2
o
z
,· · ·, _
n
o
z
},
Y
r
={_
1
Y
r
, _
2
Y
r
,· · ·, _
n
Y
r
}, Y
z
={_
1
Y
z
, _
2
Y
z
,· · ·, _
n
Y
z
},
e
1
={_
1
e
1
, _
2
e
1
,· · ·, _
n
e
1
}, e
3
={_
1
e
3
, _
2
e
3
,· · ·, _
n
e
3
}, e
4
={_
1
e
4
, _
2
e
4
,· · ·, _
n
e
4
},
V={V
1
,V
2
,· · ·,V
M
}
to minimize f
obj

r
, ì
z
,o
r
, o
z
, Y
r
, Y
z
, e
1
, e
3
, e
4
, V) = o
0max
subject to ( ' ì
ij
, ' o
ij
, ' Y
ij
, ' e
ij
) =1+ (_
m
ì
j
, _
m
o
j
, _
m
Y
j
, _
m
e
j
)z
i
m
m=1
n
¿ (i = 2,3,· · ·, N),
{0.5 s ( ' ì
ir
, ' ì
iz
, ' o
ir
, ' o
iz
) s 2.0, 1.0 s ( ' Y
ir
, ' Y
iz
) s 2.0,
0.5 s ( ' e
i1
, ' e
i3
, ' e
i4
) s1.2,


o
pc
A
s
(
o
irr
,o
iuu
,o
izz
)
s o
pt
A
,
o
irz
s o
ps
A
} (
i =1, 2,· · ·, N)
where , and are allowable tensile, compressive, and shear stresses.

o
pt

o
pc

o
ps
5.1 Definition of optimization problem
• The optimization variables have strong dependence on each other, namely the
optimum variations of FGPM properties can be obtained only when the
optimum voltages are determined accurately.
• It is hard to obtain the optimum solution, because there are many optimization
variables.
Points at issues
Development of hybrid optimization technique
5.2 Issues to be solved
• The nonlinear optimization problem for determining the applied voltages can
be transformed into a linear programming problem and then the optimum
solution is successfully obtained.
• The optimum variations of FGPM properties can be determined using PSO
(Particle Swarm Optimization) which is suitable for solving multimodal
optimization problems.
5.3 Linearization of the optimization problem

u

E
,o
iµ,
E
,u
i
E
, D

E
{ }
= P
k
(Au

E
)
k
,(Ao
iµ,
E
)
k
,(Au
i
E
)
k
,(AD

E
)
k
{ }
k=1
M
¿
in which is the magnification factor. P
k

V
k
= P
k
V
u
When a voltage of arbitrary magnitude is applied to the th electrode, it is
expressed as

V
k
Let the discrete response quantities in the th layer be , ,
and , when the unit voltage is applied to the th electrode only.

V
u

k
(Au

E
)
k

(Ao
iµ,
E
)
k

(Au
i
E
)
k

(A D

E
)
k

i
The nonlinear optimization problem for determining the applied voltages can
be transformed into the linear programming problem for determining the
magnification factors .
In the case where an arbitrary voltage is applied to every electrode, the response
quantities are given by

k

V
k

P
k
Sub-problem (1) for determining the variations of FGPM properties
Sub-problem (2) for determining the applied voltages
6. Hybrid Optimization Technique

find ì
r
={_
1
ì
r
, _
2
ì
r
,· · ·, _
n
ì
r
}, ì
z
={_
1
ì
z
, _
2
ì
z
,· · ·, _
n
ì
z
}
o
r
={_
1
o
r
, _
2
o
r
,· · ·, _
n
o
r
},o
z
={_
1
o
z
, _
2
o
z
,· · ·, _
n
o
z
},
Y
r
={_
1
Y
r
, _
2
Y
r
,· · ·, _
n
Y
r
}, Y
z
={_
1
Y
z
, _
2
Y
z
,· · ·, _
n
Y
z
},
e
1
={_
1
e
1
, _
2
e
1
,· · ·, _
n
e
1
}, e
3
={_
1
e
3
, _
2
e
3
,· · ·, _
n
e
3
}, e
4
={_
1
e
4
, _
2
e
4
,· · ·, _
n
e
4
},
to minimize f
obj

r
, ì
z
,o
r
, o
z
, Y
r
, Y
z
, e
1
, e
3
, e
4
, P
*
) = o
0max
subject to ( ' ì
ij
, ' o
ij
, ' Y
ij
, ' e
ij
) =1+ (_
m
ì
j
, _
m
o
j
, _
m
Y
j
, _
m
e
j
)z
i
m
m=1
n
¿ (i = 2,3,· · ·, N),
{0.5 s ( ' ì
ir
, ' ì
iz
, ' o
ir
, ' o
iz
) s 2.0, 1.0 s ( ' Y
ir
, ' Y
iz
) s 2.0,
0.5 s ( ' e
i1
, ' e
i3
, ' e
i4
) s1.2} (
i =1, 2,· · ·, N)

find P
*
={P
1
*
, P
2
*
,· · ·, P
M
*
}
to minimize f
obj
(P
*
) = Max
r, z
o
0rr
, o
0uu
, o
0zz
, o
0rz
{ }
subject to
o
pc
A
s
(
o
irr
,o
iuu
,o
izz
)
s o
pt
A
,
o
irz
s o
ps
A
(
i =1, 2,· · ·, N)
7. Conditions for Numerical Results
7.1 Material constants and dimensionless quantities
Material of the first piezoelectric layer: CdSe

ì
r
= ì
z
= 9 Wm
÷1
K
÷1
, (|
1
, |
3
) = (0.621, 0.551) ×10
6
NK
÷1
m
÷2
,
(c
11
, c
12
, c
13
, c
33
, c
44
) = (74.1, 45.2, 39.3, 83.6, 13.2) ×10
9
Nm
÷2
,
(e
1
, e
3
, e
4
) = (÷0.160, 0.347, ÷ 0.138) Cm
÷2
, p
3
= ÷2.94 ×10
÷6
CK
÷1
m
÷2
,
(q
1
, q
3
) = (82.6, 90.3) ×10
÷12
C
2
N
÷1
m
÷2
, d
1
= ÷3.92×10
÷12
CN
÷1
1
0 0
( , , , , , )
( , , , , , ) , , ,
i i k
i i k k
i i k k k k i ik
r r r
d V
r z b c q w
r z b c q w B ah V
a Y T a T
µ,
µ,
o
o
o o
= = = =
Dimensionless quantities

(
˜
ì
r
,
˜
ì
z
) = (1, 0.5)Wm
÷1
K
÷1
, (
˜
|
1
,
˜
|
3
) = (1.84, 0.40) ×10
6
NK
÷1
m
÷2
,
( ˜ c
11
, ˜ c
12
, ˜ c
13
, ˜ c
33
, ˜ c
44
) = (100.2, 49.8, 6.86, 10.9, 2.87) ×10
9
Nm
÷2
,
˜
Y
r
= 74.3×10
9
Nm
÷2
, ˜ o
r
=11.3×10
÷6
K
÷1
Material of the transversely isotropic structural layer: CFRP
Bottom surface:
Top surface:
Biot’s numbers
B
b
= 1
B
t
= 0.1
Layers
Thicknesses:
Number of constituent
piezoelectric layers:

c
0
= c
1
~ c
10
= 0.002
N = 10
7.2 Parameter settings
Fig. 4 Heating temperature distribution

r
o
= 0.5
2 4
2 4
( ) ( ) 1 2
o
o o
r r
f r H r r
r r
| |
= ÷ ÷ +
|
\ .
Heating temperature

r
o
: Radius of heating region

o
pt
A
= 0.004
Allowable stresses

o
pc
A
= ÷0.04

o
ps
A
= 0.002
Tensile stress:
Compressive stress:
Shear stress:

w
1
~ w
5
= 0.1
Number:

M = 5
Widths:
Intervals:

q
1
= 0, q
2
~ q
5
= 0.1
Electrodes

(o
0max
T
)
HPM
: Maximum thermal stress in the case of the homogeneous
piezoelectric layer

R
DV
= 1÷
(o
0max
)
FGPM
(o
0max
T
)
HPM
|
\

|
.
|
|
×100[%]
Suppression ratio due to FGPM
design and piezoelectric actuation

(o
0max
T
)
FGPM
: Maximum thermal stress in the case of the designed
FGPM layer

R
V
= 1÷
(o
0max
)
FGPM
(o
0max
T
)
FGPM
|
\

|
.
|
|
×100[%]
Suppression ratio due to
piezoelectric actuation
8. Performance of Stress Control
The control performance of the maximum thermal stress in the structural layer is
evaluated by the two suppression ratios.

(o
0max
)
FGPM
: Maximum resultant stress in the case of the designed
FGPM layer subject to the determined applied voltages
where
(a) Variation of
ir
ì
' (b) Variation of
iz
ì
'
Fig. 5 Design results for coefficients of thermal conductivity
9. Presentation of Numerical Results
9.1 Thermal conductivities
(a) Variation of
ir
o
'
(b) Variation of
iz
o
'
Fig. 6 Design results for coefficients of linear thermal expansion
9.2 Coefficients of thermal expansion
(a) Variation of
ir
Y
'
Fig. 7 Design results for Young's moduli
(b) Variation of
iz
Y
'
9.3 Young’s moduli
Fig. 8 Design results for piezoelectric coefficients
1
(a) Variation of
i
e
'
3
(b) Variation of
i
e
'
4
(c) Variation of
i
e
'
9.4 Piezoelectric coefficients

R
V
[%]
o
0max

o
0max
T

n

V
1
×10
3

V
2
×10
3

V
3
×10
3

V
4
×10
3

V
5
×10
3
Designed FGPM layer
Homogeneous
CdSe layer
1 2 3
0.0868 0.0824 0.0699 0.4662
-0.1291 -0.0622 -0.0370 -0.1811
-0.1618 -0.1367 -0.1227 -0.3537
-0.1993 -0.2018 -0.1994 -0.2950
-0.2278 -0.2436 -0.2449 -0.2759
0.0820 0.0720 0.0694 0.1298
0.0749 0.0652 0.0633 0.1202
8.66 9.44 8.89 7.42
42.30 49.80 51.26
Table 1 Numerical results for designs of FGPM layer

R
DV
[%]
Note: The layer thicknesses and the electrode dimensions have not been designed.
9.5 Comparison of numerical results
10. Concluding Remarks
For a two layer composite disk consisting of a structural layer and a FGPM
layer when five electrodes of the same widths are arranged at the equal
intervals, the variations of FGPM properties and the applied voltages have
been determined by employing the hybrid optimization technique so that the
maximum thermal stresses in the structural layer is minimized.
Comparing the maximum stresses before and after applying the determined
voltages for the case of the designed FGPM layer, the maximum suppression
ratio is 9.44%.
There may be possibility of obtaining a higher suppression ratio, when
combined with the optimum designs of the electrodes and layer thicknesses.
Comparing the maximum thermal stress for the case of the homogeneous
piezoelectric layer with the maximum resultant stress for the case of the
designed FGPM layer subject to the determined applied voltages, the maximum
suppression ratio is 51.23%.
Thank you very much for your kind attention!
- 0.1073 -0.0968 - 0.1182 - 0.1297
- 0.0990 - 0.0895 - 0.1112 - 0.1201
7.73 7.56 5.93 7.41
23.76 31.06 14.35 7.48

' ì
z
' ì
r

' o
z
' o
r

(o
0max
T
)
FGM

(o
0max
)
FGM

R
V
[%]

R
DV
[%]
- 0.1305 - 0.1298 - 0.1299 - 0.1298 - 0.1298
- 0.1197 - 0.1201 - 0.1193 - 0.1192 - 0.1201
8.29 7.48 8.11 8.19 7.54
7.84 7.48 8.09 8.20 7.53

' Y
z
' Y
r

' e
1

' e
3

' e
4
Table 2 Suppression ratios obtained for each material constant
Fig. 9 Comparison of radial stress distributions before and after applying
the determined voltages in the case of the homogeneous CdSe layer
Fig. 10 Comparison of radial stress distributions before and after applying
the determined voltages in the case of the designed FGPM layer
Fig. 9 Comparison between radial thermal stress distributions in the case of
the homogeneous CdSe layer and radial resultant stress distributions
in the case of the designed FGPM layer

u
0r
T
= ÷ o
l
÷1
J
1
(o
l
r)
l=1
·
¿ (
˜
F
1
+
˜
F
2
) A
0l
T
cosh
o
l
z
˜
ì
+ B
0l
T
sinh
o
l
z
˜
ì
¦
´
¹
¹
`
)

¸

+ D
0jl
T
cosh
o
l
z
˜ µ
j
+ E
0jl
T
sinh
o
l
z
˜ µ
j
¦
´
¹
¹
`
)
j=1
2
¿
(
¸
(

u
0z
E
= C
00
E
+ o
l
÷1
J
0
(o
l
r)
l=1
·
¿
˜
k
j
˜ µ
j
j=1
2
¿ D
0jl
E
sinh
o
l
z
˜ µ
j
+ E
0jl
E
cosh
o
l
z
˜ µ
j
¦
´
¹
¹
`
)

u
0z
T
= ˜ ¸
1
A
00
T
z + B
00
T
z
2
2
|
\
|
.
+C
00
T
+ o
l
÷1
J
0
(o
l
r)
l=1
·
¿
˜
k
1
˜
F
1
+
˜
k
2
˜
F
2
˜
ì

¸

× A
0l
T
sinh
o
l
z
˜
ì
+ B
0l
T
cosh
o
l
z
˜
ì
¦
´
¹
¹
`
)
+
˜
k
j
˜ µ
j
j=1
2
¿ D
0jl
T
sinh
o
l
z
˜ µ
j
+ E
0jl
T
cosh
o
l
z
˜ µ
j
¦
´
¹
¹
`
)
(
¸
(

u
0r
E
= ÷ o
l
÷1
J
1
(o
l
r)
l=1
·
¿ D
0jl
E
cosh
o
l
z
˜ µ
j
+ E
0jl
E
sinh
o
l
z
˜ µ
j
¦
´
¹
¹
`
)
j=1
2
¿
The displacements induced by a thermal load are
The displacements induced by an electric load are
Response in the structural layer

u
i
E
= C
i0
E
z +G
i 0
E
+ o
l
÷1
J
0
(o
l
r)
n
j
µ
j
j=1
3
¿
l=1
·
¿ D
ijl
E
sinh
o
l
z
µ
j
+ E
ijl
E
cosh
o
l
z
µ
j
¦
´
¹
¹
`
)

u
i
T
= ¸
2
A
i 0
T
z + B
i 0
T
z
2
2
|
\
|
.
+ C
i 0
T
z +G
i 0
T
+ o
l
÷1
J
0
(o
l
r) F
3
A
il
T
sinh
o
l
z
ì
+ B
il
T
cosh
o
l
z
ì
¦
´
¹
¹
`
)

¸

l =1
·
¿
+
n
j
µ
j
D
ijl
T
sinh
o
l
z
µ
j
+ E
ijl
T
cosh
o
l
z
µ
j
¦
´
¹
¹
`
)
j=1
3
¿
(
¸
(

u
ir
T
= ÷ o
l
÷1
J
1
(o
l
r)
l=1
·
¿ (F
1
+ F
2
) A
il
T
cosh
o
l
z
ì
+ B
il
T
sinh
o
l
z
ì
¦
´
¹
¹
`
)

¸

+
j
D
ijl
T
cosh
o
l
z
µ
j
+ E
ijl
T
sinh
o
l
z
µ
j
¦
´
¹
¹
`
)
j=1
3
¿
(
¸
(

u
ir
E
= ÷ o
l
÷1
J
1
(o
l
r)
l=1
·
¿
j
D
ijl
E
cosh
o
l
z
µ
j
+ E
ijl
E
sinh
o
l
z
µ
j
¦
´
¹
¹
`
)
j=1
3
¿
The radial displacement and electric potential induced by a thermal load are
The radial displacement and electric potential induced by an electric load are
Response in the th constituent piezoelectric layer i
1 2 3
Particle number 400 400 400
Iteration number 100 600 800

n
Table 3 Parameters for PSO

co
1rr
cr
+
co
1rz
cz
+
(o
1rr
÷o
1uu
)
r
= 0,
co
1rz
cr
+
co
1zz
cz
+
o
1rz
r
= 0
Equation of equilibrium
c
1rr
=
cu
1r
cr
, c
1uu
=
u
1r
r
, c
1zz
=
cu
1z
cz
, c
1rz
=
cu
1z
cr
+
cu
1r
cz
Relations between the strains and the displacements
E
1r
= ÷
cu
1
cr
, E
1z
= ÷
cu
1
cz
1 1 1
0
r z r
D D D
r z r
c c
+ + =
c c
Relations between the electric field intensities and the electric potential
Equation of electrostatics
Basic equations for a piezoelectric solid of crystal class 6mm (2/2)

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful