QUESTION:
Do you have an example showing the difference in natural frequency of a piezoelectric transducer when the electrodes are (a) shorted and (b) open?
ANSWER:
Look at VM175 or the attached input file.
Please copy the attached files to a working directory and solve in an interactive ANSYS session. The attached png files will be created. You can see that, as with VM175 in our online documentation, electrical boundary conditions affect natural frequencies. In this case, the lower electrode (z=0) is grounded. Two separate modal analyses are performed:
1) upper electrode grounded (V=0 @ z=dz)
2) upper electrode open circuited (nodes coupled so that the solved-for nonzero voltage is uniform over the electrode surface)
In neither my test model nor VM175 in the online documentation, no prestress steady state analysis was performed prior to the modal analysis. I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to do so, since VOLT and UX/Y/Z are matrix coupled in this element.
|
QUESTION: Do you have an example showing the difference in natural frequency of a piezoelectric transducer when the electrodes are (a) shorted and (b) open? ANSWER: Look at VM175 or the attached input file. Please copy the attached files to a working directory and solve in an interactive ANSYS session. The attached png files will be created. You can see that, as with VM175 in our online documentation, electrical boundary conditions affect natural frequencies. In this case, the lower electrode (z=0) is grounded. Two separate modal analyses are performed: 1) upper electrode grounded (V=0 @ z=dz) 2) upper electrode open circuited (nodes coupled so that the solved-for nonzero voltage is uniform over the electrode surface) In neither my test model nor VM175 in the online documentation, no prestress steady state analysis was performed prior to the modal analysis. I don`t think it`s necessary or appropriate to do so, since VOLT and UX/Y/Z are matrix coupled in this element. |
||
|