Smart Mater. Struct.

18 (2009) 115012

Y Chen et al

Figure 8. The semiminor axis (solid line) and semimajor axis (dashed line) as a function of the magnitude of the input voltage to the piezoelectric actuator for constant magnitude values of the base excitation. Table 2. The changes of the rotation angle ( ) of tip trajectories corresponding to trends in gure 6. Trend lines E I A B, C, D F, G, H Inputs
0 V0 , Y0 , Y =0 V0 V0 , Y0 = 0 Y0 , V0 = 0 Y0 , V0 = 0

Figure 9. Elliptical tip trajectory predicted with nite element analysis for base excitation amplitude of 2.24 nm and an applied voltage amplitude of 1.6 V.

Table 3. The changes of the semiminor axis (a ) of tip trajectories corresponding to trends in gure 6. Trend lines E I A B, C, D F, G, H Inputs

Remain the same Remain the same Remain the same Decrease to minimums on E then increase to maximums Decrease to minimums on E then increase to maximums

a
Y0 V0

V0 , Y0 , =0 V0 , Y0 = 0 Y0 , V0 = 0 Y0 , V0 = 0 V0 , Y0 = 0

V0 ,

Y0 = 0

Increase proportional to V0 Increase slowly a0 Decrease to minimums on E then increase to maximums Increase from zero, decrease to minimums on E then increase again

As before, these trends are explored quantitatively in gure 8. The lengths of the semiminor and semimajor axes are again observed to achieve minimum values at the same value of V0 for a given Y0 , corresponding to the amplitude ratio from gure 5. The difference between the trends of the semiminor axis is observed by comparing gures 7 and 8. Through this comparison, differences in the inuence of Y0 and V0 on the tip trajectories of the smart micro-cantilever beam are identied. The qualitative trends of the elliptical and linear trajectories are summarized in tables 24. The rst column identies the trend line or lines in gure 6. The second column describes how the two independent inputs vary along the corresponding trend line(s). The nal column of each table describes how the characteristic of the tip trajectories change along the trend lines. In order to verify the results predicted within the analytical study, a brief nite element study is performed. A smart beam model is prepared by using ANSYS Multiphysics software with two-dimensional plate elements. A modal analysis is performed in order to identify the second natural frequency. A harmonic analysis is then performed in order to calculate the response at the end of the probe tip for combination excitation. The amplitude and phase of the response in the X - and Y directions are then used to plot the predicted trajectory. 7

Table 4. The changes of the semimajor axis (b) of tip trajectories corresponding to trends in gure 6. Trend lines E I A B, C, D F, G, H Inputs
0 V0 , Y0 , Y =0 V0 V0 , Y0 = 0 Y0 , V0 = 0 Y0 , V0 = 0

b
Increase proportional to V0 Increase dramatically Increase dramatically Decrease to minimums on E then increase extensively Decrease to minimums on E then increase extensively

V0 ,

Y0 = 0

Representative results of the tip trajectories predicted by the nite element analysis are presented in gure 9. In this case, a base excitation is applied to the system with an amplitude of 2.24 nm and the signal applied to the piezoelectric material has an amplitude of 1.4 V. Both inputs are applied at the same frequency, which is equal to the systems second natural frequency. The results of the preliminary nite element analysis display strong qualitative agreement with the elliptical trajectories predicted within the analytical study.