Next Article in Journal
Accurate Measurements of Wall Shear Stress on a Plate with Elliptic Leading Edge
Previous Article in Journal
Generalized Optical Design of the Double-Row Circular Multi-Pass Cell
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sensors
Volume 18
Issue 8
10.3390/s18082681
sensors-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Comparative Study of Three Types Shear Mode Piezoelectric Wafers in Shear Horizontal Wave Generation and Reception

by
Qiang Huan
1,2,
Mingtong Chen
1 and
Faxin Li
1,2,3,*
1
LTCS and College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
2
Center for Applied Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
3
Beijing Key Laboratory of Magnetoelectric Materials and Devices, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2018, 18(8), 2681; https://doi.org/10.3390/s18082681
Submission received: 3 July 2018 / Revised: 7 August 2018 / Accepted: 13 August 2018 / Published: 15 August 2018
(This article belongs to the Section Physical Sensors)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Guided wave-based inspection has emerged as a promising tool to evaluate the reliability of key components in modern industries. The fundamental shear horizontal (SH0) wave is always of great interests for plate-like structures because of its non-dispersion characteristics. However, the generation and reception of SH0 wave using piezoelectric wafers is not straightforward. In this paper, we firstly define three types shear mode piezoelectric wafers, i.e., the conventional in-plane poled thickness-shear (d15) mode, the thickness-poled thickness-shear (d15) mode, and the face-shear (d24) mode. Then, finite element simulations were conducted to demonstrate their performance in SH wave generation and reception. The results indicated that the face shear d24 wafer can generate almost single mode SH0 wave, while both types of d15 wafers would generate Lamb waves and SH0 wave simultaneously. Finally, experiments were carried out to check the efficiency of different shear mode piezoelectric wafers in SH0 wave generation and reception. The results indicated that the d24 wafer can generate and receive SH0 wave of high signal to noise ratio (SNR) with high energy conversion efficiency, while the in-plane poled d15 wafer would generate SH0 wave of high amplitude and acceptable SNR but with relatively low energy conversion efficiency. The performances of thickness-poled d15 wafer was not as good as the other two in both SH wave generation and reception. This work will be helpful for the applications of SH waves in plate-like structures.

1. Introduction

Nondestructive testing (NDT) and structural health monitoring (SHM) are of great importance in modern industries to improve the reliability of structures and components [1,2]. Guided wave- based techniques have attracted special attention for their rapid and wide range of inspection applications [3,4,5]. For plate-like structures, there exist two types of guided waves: Lamb waves and shear horizontal (SH) waves. In the past two decades, Lamb wave-based inspections had been extensively studied and applied due to the easy excitation and reception by thickness-poled piezoelectric (PZT) wafers [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. However, the inherent multi-modal and dispersive characteristics of Lamb waves have seriously restricted their further development.
In comparison, the fundamental shear horizontal (SH0) wave in plates is completely non-dispersive. Because of its uncoupled displacements with Lamb waves, in theory it is possible to generate single mode SH0 wave. Besides, it exhibits some other attractive feathers such as less mode conversion and low attenuation in fluid-loaded plates [15,16,17]. Unfortunately, the generation and reception of SH0 wave is not as convenient as that of Lamb waves. Although in the late 1970s, Thompson had successfully excited SH0 wave in metal plates by using electromagnetic acoustic transducers (EMATs) [18,19], SH wave-based inspection has not been widely used yet because of the rather low efficiency of EMATs. Actually, SH waves can be excited by using the conventional in-plane poled thickness-shear (d15) piezoelectric wafers [20]. However, Lamb waves will be excited simultaneously [21]. The conventional d15 wafers can also be assembled to be a ring or a planar array to act as the fundamental torsional (T(0,1) ) wave transducers in pipes [22,23,24] or omnidirectional SH wave transducers in plates [25]. Recently, another two types of shear mode piezoelectric wafers have been developed in our group for generation/reception of SH waves, i.e., the face-shear d24 wafer and the thickness-poled d15 wafer [26,27,28]. The d24 wafer can excite single-mode SH wave and receive SH wave only by filtering Lamb waves [26]. It can also form a ring to generate single-mode T(0,1) [29] wave in pipes and form a circular array to generate SH wave omni-directionally in plates [30]. The advantage of the thickness-poled d15 wafer is that it can easily form a uniform-sensitivity omni-directional SH wave transducer based on the thickness-poled PZT ring [27,28].
Now we can see that all the above mentioned three types of shear mode piezoelectric wafers can be used to generate/receive SH waves in plates and torsional waves in pipes. However, the efficiencies of these shear mode piezoelectric wafers were not compared yet. Thus, in this work, we conducted a comparative study on the performances of these three types of shear mode piezoelectric wafers in excitation and reception of SH waves in plates. Firstly, the definitions of these three types of shear mode piezoelectric wafers were presented. Then the wave patterns generated by different shear mode piezoelectric wafers were investigated by using finite element simulations. Finally, experiments were carried out to examine the efficiency of different shear mode piezoelectric wafers in SH0 wave generation and reception.

2. Definition of Three Types Shear Modes in Piezoelectric Wafers

When we talk about the shear mode in piezoelectric ceramics, we usually denote the conventional thickness-shear (d15) mode. That is, a conventional d15 mode piezoelectric wafer is in-plane poled and the electric field is applied along the thickness direction, as shown in Figure 1a. Actually, for wafer-shaped piezoelectric ceramics used for guided wave generation/reception, there also exist another two shear modes, i.e., the thickness-poled thickness-shear (d15) mode as shown in Figure 1b and the in-plane poled face-shear (d24) mode as shown in Figure 1c. From the material point of view, these three types of shear modes are equivalent since in all of them the electric field is applied perpendicularly to the poling direction. However, for wafer-shaped samples, they are different. Note that the thickness-poled d15 mode and the face-shear d24 mode have special advantages when used for SH wave excitation/reception [26,27].
In order for the convenience of analysis, Figure 2 presented the group velocity of guided waves for a 2 mm-thick aluminum plate. It can be found that before the cut-off frequency, there only exist three wave modes, i.e., the A0 wave, S0 wave and SH0 wave. However, both the S0 wave and A0 wave are dispersive, which would lead signal distortion after wave propagation since the signal is excited in a certain bandwidth. In comparison, SH0 wave is totally non-dispersive.

3. Finite Element Simulations

Time-transient finite element (FEM) simulations were firstly performed using ANSYS to investigate the wave radiation patterns generated by different shear mode piezoelectric wafers. The dimensions of the three types shear mode piezoelectric wafers used here were all 8 mm × 8 mm × 1 mm. The material was PZT-5H whose parameters can be found in [31].
The waveguide was selected to be a 400 mm × 400 mm × 2 mm aluminum plate with the PZT wafer bonded on the center of it. The largest size of elements is set to be less than 1/20 the shortest wavelength, and the time step was set to be less than 1/20 of the central frequency. Figure 3 presented the FEM simulated results of wave patterns generated by the three types shear mode piezoelectric wafers at 150 kHz and 205 kHz. In cylindrical coordinates, the radial displacement component ur, tangential displacement component uθ, and out-of-plane displacements component uz are dominated by the S0 wave, SH0 wave, and A0 wave, respectively [32]. Hence, we can verify that ur, uθ, and uz were associated with the S0 wave, SH0 wave and A0 wave, respectively. It can be seen from Figure 3a,b,d,e that both the in-plane poled and thickness-poled d15 piezoelectric wafers can generate SH0 wave along the bi-directions (90° and 270°) perpendicular to both the poling direction and the field direction, and simultaneously generate Lamb waves along the orthogonal in-plane directions (0° and 180°). At multiple frequencies, for both d15 mode wafers, the maximum amplitudes of the generated Lamb waves were always comparable to that of the SH0 wave. The decreased amplitude of the A0 wave at 150 kHz was mainly caused by the effect of turning frequency [33]. Moreover, the radiation angle of the generated A0 wave is always significantly smaller than that of the generated S0 wave and SH0 wave. These results were in agreement with those reported in [21]. Note that the wave radiation patterns generated by using these two types d15 piezoelectric wafers are exactly the same since they are both thickness shear modes.
In comparison, the generated wave pattern by the face shear d24 piezoelectric wafer was quite different, as shown in Figure 3c,f. The SH0 wave was generated along four main directions (0°, 90°, 180° and 270°) with four-fold rotational symmetry. When deviating from the main directions, its amplitude decreased quickly and vanished at the wafer’s diagonals (45°, 135°, 225° and 315°) where Lamb waves including the A0 wave and S0 wave were generated with much smaller amplitudes. This phenomenon is not difficult to understand. Because of the pure face-shear deformation of the d24 wafer, shear stress would be generated along the four sides of the wafer with the same amplitude, resulting in the generated four-fold rotational symmetric SH0 wave. Meanwhile, the shear stress would synthesize tensile/compressive stresses along the wafer’s diagonals, leading to the generation of Lamb waves. It should be noted that at multiple frequencies, the wave field generated by the d24 wafer was always dominated by the SH0 wave. These results were in good agreement with those reported in [26].

4. Experiments

Experiments were then carried out to examine the efficiencies of different shear mode piezoelectric wafers in SH0 wave generation and reception. The experimental setup was shown in Figure 4.
A 1000 mm × 1000 mm × 2 mm aluminum plate was used as the waveguide. The size of all three types of piezoelectric wafers was 8 mm × 8 mm × 1 mm. The distance between the actuator and sensor was fixed at 360 mm so that the wave package can be separated in the time domain. When checking the wave generation performance, the different shear mode piezoelectric wafers served as actuators and the d36 type PMN-PT wafer (5 mm × 5 mm × 1 mm) was used as a sensor. Since the d36 type PMN-PT wafer can generate and receive both SH0 wave and Lamb waves, the wave velocity and purity can be examined at the same time [32]. When examining their performances in wave reception, the d36 type PMN-PT wafer served as the actuator and the piezoelectric wafers were used as sensors. Finally, the same shear mode piezoelectric wafers were used as both actuator and sensor to further investigate its performance. During testing, a five-cycle sinusoid tone-burst modulated into the Hanning window was used as the exciting signal. The signal was generated by a function generator (3320A, Agilent, Palo Alto, CA, USA) and amplified by a power amplifier (Model 7602M, KROHN-HITE, Brockton, MA, USA). An oscilloscope (Agilent DSO-X 3024A) was used to record the signals received by the sensors with a tracing average of 128 times.
Before formal testing, the impedance of these three types shear mode piezoelectric wafers bonded on an aluminum plate were measured by using an impedance analyzer (Agilent 4294A), and the results from 90 kHz to 300 kHz were shown in Figure 5. It can be seen in Figure 5a that the impedances (including resistance and reactance) of the face-shear d24 mode wafer and the thickness-poled d15 mode were close to each other at most frequencies, and both are much larger than that of the conventional in-plane poled d15 wafer. This is easy to understand because the in-plane poled d15 wafer has larger electrodes and smaller distances between the electrodes. Therefore, it is expected that the normal drive voltage of the in-plane poled d15 wafer should be lower than the other two. The non-monotonic of the impedance for the d24 wafer near 200 kHz was because there exists a resonance peak. Figure 5b,c presented the real image part i.e., resistance and imaginary part i.e., reactance of the impedance respectively. As shown in Figure 5b, for both two types d15 wafer, the resistance decreased firstly and then increased slightly with the increasing frequency. However, the changes in amplitude for the in-plane poled d15 wafer was much smaller than that of thickness-poled d15 wafer. In comparison, the resistance of the d24 wafer increased firstly and then decreased quickly with the increasing frequency. The inflection point of its curves was near its resonance frequency i.e., 200 kHz. Regarding the reactance shown in Figure 5c, for both two types d15 wafer, it decreased continuously with frequency increasing. One thing should be noted that for both two types d15 wafer, the amplitudes’ change in reactance was much larger than that of resistance, resulting in continue decreasing of their impedance with the increasing frequency, as shown in Figure 5a. For the reactance of the d24 wafer, there appeared slight increase in a small frequency range near 200 kHz. The changes in the resistance and reactance for the d24 wafer near 200 kHz codetermined its non-monotonic in impedance. It should be noted that the impedance of the wafers was dependent on their size, material and deformation mode.

4.1. Performance of Different Shear Mode Piezoelectric Wafers in SH Wave Generation

Firstly, the performance of different shear mode piezoelectric wafers in SH0 wave generation was compared. The signals were generated by different shear mode wafers and received by the d36 type PMN-PT wafer. For all three types of wafer of 8 mm × 8 mm × 1 mm size, according to our previous work, the SH0 wave can be effectively generated from 90 kHz to 270 kHz in the 2 mm-thick aluminum plate. Hence the testing frequency was set in this range. During experiments, all wafers were excited by using a fixed voltage of 20 V firstly and then using a fixed power consumption of 0.08 W.
In order to verify the wave velocity generated by the different types wafers, the continuous wavelet transform (CWT) was adopted to analyze the signals. Due to the space limitations, only the wave generated by the d24 wafer with drive voltage of 20 V at 200 kHz was presented as an example. It can be seen in Figure 6a that only one wave package appeared in the received signal. After applying the CWT to the signals, the time internal between the drive signal and the received signal was recognized to be 116.8 μs, as shown in Figure 6b. The corresponding group wave velocity was calculated to be 3082 mm·s−1, which was agreement with the theoretical value of SH0 wave in an aluminum plate, i.e., 3099 mm·s−1. The group velocity of the waves generated by different shear mode piezoelectric wafers verses frequency was plotted in Figure 6c. It can be found that within the testing frequency range, the experimental results for all three types wafers was agreement with theoretical value of SH0 wave within error less than 2.5%. Figure 7 presents the results at 150 kHz and 200 kHz, respectively for all the three wafers with drive voltage of 20 V, from which it can be found that the SH0 wave can be generated successfully for all three types of wafers.
The amplitude of the SH0 wave versus frequency was plotted in Figure 8. It can be seen from Figure 8a that for all the three types wafers, with the increasing frequency, the amplitudes of the generated SH0 wave increase first and then decrease gradually under the drive voltage of 20 V. Furthermore, the SH0 wave amplitude generated by the in-plane poled d15 wafer is always the maximum and that by the thickness-poled d15 wafer is always the minimum. The SH0 wave amplitude generated by the face-shear d24 wafer is always between the former two. Then, the three types shear mode wafers were excited by fixing the power consumption of 0.08 W, and the corresponding drive voltage for each wafer at different frequencies was calculated based on the Ohm’s law using the measured impedance spectrum in Figure 5. The obtained SH0 wave amplitude versus frequency was plotted in Figure 8b, which is quite different from Figure 8a. The thickness-poled d15 wafer still generates the minimum amplitude of SH0 wave. The face-shear d24 wafer generates SH0 wave with the same amplitude as that by the in-plane poled d15 wafer below 130 kHz. While above 130 kHz, the SH0 wave amplitude generated by the d24 wafer increased much quickly than that by the in-plane poled d15 wafer. These results indicated that the energy conversion efficiency of the face shear d24 wafer is better than that of the in-plane poled d15 wafer, and much better than that of the thickness-poled d15 wafer.
The testing results in Figure 8 can be explained as follows. When fixing the drive voltage, the energy consumption by the in-plane poled d15 wafer is the maximum because its impedance is the minimum, thus it always generated the maximum SH0 wave amplitude, as shown in Figure 8a. The other factor that can affect the generated wave amplitude is the deformation mechanism of the wafers. For the thickness shear d15 mode (both in-plane poled and thickness-poled), its deformation was actually the simple shear which was not self-balancing, which means the deformation cannot be transferred from the wafer to the waveguide in quasi-static case and can only be transferred in dynamic case via the inertial effect. This is why some researchers believe that the external constraint was needed for the thickness shear d15 wafers [34]. Figure 8b also showed that the wave driving efficiency of the in-plane poled d15 wafer was actually acceptable, even without any external constraint. In comparison, the face-shear deformation mode is self-balancing. Thus, the deformation could effectively be transferred to the hosting structure even in the quasi-static case without the inertial effect. Hence, when fixing the power consumption, the amplitude of SH0 wave generated by the face shear d24 wafer was maximum, as plotted in Figure 8b. The lowest amplitude of SH0 wave generated by the thickness-poled d15 wafer in Figure 8b indicated that although the thickness-poled d15 mode was equivalent to the in-plane poled d15 mode in deformation, its deformation which could propagate from the transducer to the waveguide was considerably lower.

4.2. Performances of Different Shear Mode Piezoelectric Wafers in SH Wave Reception

Next the performance of different shear mode piezoelectric wafers in SH0 wave reception was compared. The signals were generated by the d36 type PMN-PT wafer under 20 V and received by different shear mode piezoelectric wafers. The testing results were shown in Figure 9. It can be seen that within the testing frequency from 90 kHz to 270 kHz, the SH0 wave amplitude received by the face shear d24 wafer was always larger than that by the other two wafers. Above 160 kHz, the SH0 wave amplitude received by the face shear d24 wafer was about three times of that received by the in-plane poled d15 wafer and more than four times of that received by the thickness-poled d15 wafer. The excellent reception performance of the face-shear d24 wafer should be attributed to its in-plane shear deformation mechanism which is self-balancing. This result indicated that the face shear d24 wafer was much more suitable to act as an SH wave sensor than both types thickness shear d15 wafers.

4.3. Signals Generated and Received by the Same Shear Mode Piezoelectric Wafers

In practical applications, wave signals are usually generated and received by the same type of transducers. Hence it is necessary to test wave signals generated and received by the same shear mode piezoelectric wafers. Figure 10a presented the results with the drive voltage of 20 V. It can be seen that in the whole testing frequency range from 90 kHz to 270 kHz, the SH0 wave amplitude generated and received by the thickness-poled d15 wafer was always the minimum. When the operating frequency was below 175 kHz, the SH0 wave amplitude generated and received by the in-plane poled d15 wafers was larger than that by the face shear d24 wafer. While above 175 kHz, the tendency was totally reversed.
When the PZT wafers were excited under the same power consumption, the results were quite different. As plotted in Figure 10b where all wafers were excited with the same power consumption of 0.08 W, the SH0 wave amplitude generated and received by the face shear d24 wafers was the maximum above 110 kHz. In most frequency ranges, its amplitude was over five times greater than that by the in-plane poled d15 wafer and more than ten times greater than that by the thickness-poled d15 wafer. These results were also in agreement with that plotted in Figure 8 and Figure 9. From these results, it can be inferred that the in-plane poled d15 wafer was more suitable to act as a SH wave transducer at low frequencies (below 175 kHz) but with large power consumption, while the face shear d24 wafer was more suitable to act as a SH wave transducer with high energy conversion efficiency within all the testing frequencies.
In practical applications, besides the wave amplitude, the signal to noise ratio (SNR) is another important parameter to evaluate a transducer. Thus, the SNR of SH0 wave generated and received by the same shear mode piezoelectric wafer with drive voltage of 20 V was plotted in Figure 11a. It can be found that the SNR of the SH0 wave generated/received by the face shear d24 wafer was more than 20 dB above 130 kHz, and can even reach 26 dB around 200 kHz. In comparison, the SNR of the SH0 wave by the in-plane poled d15 wafer was almost constant at around 16 dB above 110 kHz. The SNR of the SH0 wave by the thickness-poled d15 wafer was very small in most frequencies, while in a narrow band from 150 kHz to 180 kHz, it is slightly better than that by the in-plane poled d15 wafer, i.e., above 16 dB.
To explain this, the wave signals generated by different types of wafers at 165 kHz were plotted in Figure 11b–d. It can be seen that the SNR for the face shear d24 wafer was maximum and that for the in-plane poled d15 wafer is minimum, which is in agreement with that in Figure 11a. Although the SH0 wave amplitude generated by the thickness-poled d15 wafer was much lower than that by the in-plane d15 wafer, its SNR was still slightly higher because of the much lower noise. It should be noted that the SNR of different types of wafers in SH0 wave generation is almost independent of the drive voltage. From the results in Figure 11, it can be concluded that the face shear d24 wafer was considerably better than the in-plane poled d15 wafer and much better than the thickness-poled d15 wafer in SH0 wave generation and reception.
Finally, in order to compare the performances of different shear mode piezoelectric wafers in a more intuitive manner, all the results presented above were summarized and listed in Table 1. It can be clearly seen that overall the face shear d24 wafer was considerably superior to the in-plane poled d15 wafers and much better than the thickness-poled d15 wafer when used as SH wave transducers.

5. Conclusions

In summary, we presented a systematic comparison of three types of shear mode piezoelectric wafers in SH wave generation and reception. The results indicated the face shear d24 wafer can generate almost single mode SH wave while the in-plane poled d15 wafer and the thickness-poled d15 wafer will generate both Lamb waves and SH wave. When served as an actuator, the in-plane poled d15 wafer can generate SH0 wave in high amplitude but with large power consumption, while the face shear d24 wafer can generate SH0 wave with high energy conversion efficiency. When served as a sensor, the face shear d24 wafer was obviously superior to the other two types of thickness shear d15 wafers. Besides, in most testing frequencies, the signal to noise ratio of the face shear d24 wafer was also the best in self-generation/reception. It should be mentioned that although the performances of the thickness-poled d15 wafer was not very good in SH0 wave generation and reception, it is very suitable for omni-directional SH wave piezoelectric transducers because of its unique configuration [27]. This work may provide useful guidance for SHM-based SH wave generation/reception.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.L.; Methodology, F.L. and Q.H.; Software, Q.H.; Validation, Q.H. and M.C.; Formal Analysis, Q.H., M.C. and F.L.; Investigation, Q.H. and M.C.; Resources, Q.H. and M.C.; Data Curation, Q.H.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, Q.H.; Writing-Review & Editing, Q.H., M.C. and F.L.; Visualization, Q.H. and M.C.; Supervision, F.L.; Project Administration, F.L.; Funding Acquisition, F.L.

Funding

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No.11672003 and by the National Key Research and Development Program under Grant No. 2016YFF0203002.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chang, F.K. Structural Health Monitoring 2000; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  2. Balageas, D.; Fritzen, C.P.; Güemes, A. Structural Health Monitoring; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  3. Raghavan, A.; Cesnik, C.E. Review of Guided-Wave Structural Health Monitoring. Available online: http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b29f/c5dafcc2108693e985c0d69b3c99c3d40c62.pdf (accessed on 14 August 2018).
  4. Croxford, A.J.; Wilcox, P.D.; Drinkwater, B.W.; Konstantinidis, G. Strategies for guided-wave structural health monitoring. Proc. R. Soc. A 2007, 463, 2961–2981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Giurgiutiu, V. Structural Health Monitoring with Piezoelectric Wafer Active Sensors; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  6. Alleyne, D.N.; Cawley, P. Optimization of Lamb wave inspection techniques. NDT E Int. 1992, 25, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kessler, S.S.; Spearing, S.M.; Soutis, C. Damage detection in composite materials using Lamb wave methods. Smart Mater. Struct. 2002, 11, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ebrahimkhanlou, A.; Salamone, S. Single-Sensor Acoustic Emission Source Localization in Plate-Like Structures Using Deep Learning. Aerospace 2018, 5, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ebrahimkhanlou, A.; Salamone, S. A probabilistic framework for single-sensor acoustic emission source localization in thin metallic plates. Smart Mater. Struct. 2017, 26, 095026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ebrahimkhanlou, A.; Dubuc, B.; Salamone, S. Damage localization in metallic plate structures using edge-reflected lamb waves. Smart Mater. Struct. 2016, 25, 085035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Kundu, T. Acoustic source localization. Ultrasonics 2014, 54, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kabir, M.; Kazari, H.; Ozevin, D. Piezoelectric MEMS Acoustic Emission Sensors. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2018, 279, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Park, H.W.; Kim, S.B.; Sohn, H. Understanding a time reversal process in Lamb wave propagation. Wave Motion 2009, 46, 451–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Su, Z.; Ye, L. Selective generation of Lamb wave modes and their propagation characteristics in defective composite laminates. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 2004, 218, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nakamura, N.; Ogi, H.; Hirao, M.; Nakahata, K. Mode conversion behavior of SH guided wave in a tapered plate. NDT E Int. 2012, 45, 156–161. [Google Scholar]
  16. Petcher, P.; Burrows, S.; Dixon, S. Shear horizontal (SH) ultrasound wave propagation around smooth corners. Ultrasonics 2014, 54, 997–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Martin, S.; Ricco, A.; Niemczyk, T.; Frye, G. Characterization of SH acoustic plate mode liquid. Sens. Actuators 1989, 20, 253–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Thompson, R.B. Generation of horizontally polarized shear waves in ferromagnetic materials using magnetostrictively coupled meander-coil electromagnetic transducers. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1979, 34, 175–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vasile, C.; Thompson, R. Excitation of horizontally polarized shear elastic waves by electromagnetic transducers with periodic permanent magnets. J. Appl. Phys. 1979, 50, 2583–2588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wilcox, P.; Lowe, M.; Cawley, P. Lamb and SH wave transducer arrays for the inspection of large areas of thick plates. In Proceedings of the AIP Conference, Montreal, QC, Canada, 25–30 July 1999. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kamal, A.; Giurgiutiu, V. Shear horizontal wave excitation and reception with shear horizontal piezoelectric wafer active sensor (SH-PWAS). Smart Mater. Struct. 2014, 23, 085019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Alleyne, D.; Cawley, P. The excitation of Lamb waves in pipes using dry-coupled piezoelectric transducers. J. Nondestr. Eval. 1996, 15, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Alleyne, D.N.; Pavlakovic, B.; Lowe, M.J.S.; Cawley, P. Rapid, long range inspection of chemical plant pipework using guided waves. In Proceedings of the AIP Conference, Ames, IA, USA, 16–20 July 2000. [Google Scholar]
  24. Liu, Z.; He, C.; Wu, B.; Wang, X.; Yang, S. Circumferential and longitudinal defect detection using T (0,1) mode excited by thickness shear mode piezoelectric elements. Ultrasonics 2006, 44, 1135–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Belanger, P.; Boivin, G. Development of a low frequency omnidirectional piezoelectric shear horizontal wave transducer. Smart Mater. Struct. 2016, 25, 045024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Miao, H.; Huan, Q.; Li, F. Excitation and reception of pure shear horizontal waves by using face-shear d24 mode piezoelectric wafers. Smart Mater. Struct. 2016, 25, 11LT01. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Huan, Q.; Miao, H.; Li, F. A uniform-sensitivity omnidirectional shear-horizontal (SH) wave transducer based on a thickness poled, thickness-shear (d15) piezoelectric ring. Smart Mater. Struct. 2017, 26, 08LT01. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Huan, Q.; Miao, H.; Li, F. A variable-frequency structural health monitoring system based on omnidirectional shear horizontal wave piezoelectric transducers. Smart Mater. Struct. 2018, 27, 025008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Miao, H.; Huan, Q.; Wang, Q.; Li, F. Excitation and reception of single torsional wave T (0,1) mode in pipes using face-shear d24 piezoelectric ring array. Smart Mater. Struct. 2017, 26, 025021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Miao, H.; Huan, Q.; Wang, Q.; Li, F. A new omnidirectional shear horizontal wave transducer using face-shear (d 24) piezoelectric ring array. Ultrasonics 2017, 74, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Miao, H.; Dong, S.; Li, F. Excitation of fundamental shear horizontal wave by using face-shear (d36) piezoelectric ceramics. J. Appl. Phys. 2016, 119, 174101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Zhou, W.; Li, H.; Yuan, F.G. Fundamental understanding of wave generation and reception using d 36 type piezoelectric transducers. Ultrasonics 2015, 57, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Giurgiutiu, V. Tuned Lamb wave excitation and detection with piezoelectric wafer active sensors for structural health monitoring. J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 2005, 16, 291–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Köhler, B.; Gaul, T.; Lieske, U.; Schubert, F. Shear horizontal piezoelectric fiber patch transducers (SH-PFP) for guided elastic wave applications. NDT E Int. 2016, 82, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sensors 18 02681 g001 550
Figure 1. Definition of different shear mode piezoelectric wafers: (a) conventional in-plane poled thickness-shear d15 mode; (b) thickness-poled thickness-shear d15 mode; (c) face shear d24 mode.
Figure 1. Definition of different shear mode piezoelectric wafers: (a) conventional in-plane poled thickness-shear d15 mode; (b) thickness-poled thickness-shear d15 mode; (c) face shear d24 mode.
Sensors 18 02681 g001
Sensors 18 02681 g002 550
Figure 2. Group velocity verse frequency for SH0 wave and Lamb waves in a 2 mm-thick aluminum plate.
Figure 2. Group velocity verse frequency for SH0 wave and Lamb waves in a 2 mm-thick aluminum plate.
Sensors 18 02681 g002
Sensors 18 02681 g003 550
Figure 3. Illustration (up) and simulated results (bottom) of wave radiation patterns generated by using different shear modes piezoelectric wafers at 150 kHz and 205 kHz. (a,d): in-plane poled d15 mode; (b,e): thickness-poled d15 mode; (c,f): face shear d24 mode.
Figure 3. Illustration (up) and simulated results (bottom) of wave radiation patterns generated by using different shear modes piezoelectric wafers at 150 kHz and 205 kHz. (a,d): in-plane poled d15 mode; (b,e): thickness-poled d15 mode; (c,f): face shear d24 mode.
Sensors 18 02681 g003
Sensors 18 02681 g004 550
Figure 4. The schematic of experimental setup.
Figure 4. The schematic of experimental setup.
Sensors 18 02681 g004
Sensors 18 02681 g005 550
Figure 5. The impedance spectrum of three types shear mode piezoelectric wafers with the same dimensions of 8 mm × 8 mm × 1 mm bonded on the aluminum plate: (a) impedance; (b) resistance; (c) reactance.
Figure 5. The impedance spectrum of three types shear mode piezoelectric wafers with the same dimensions of 8 mm × 8 mm × 1 mm bonded on the aluminum plate: (a) impedance; (b) resistance; (c) reactance.
Sensors 18 02681 g005
Sensors 18 02681 g006 550
Figure 6. (a) Wave signals generated by the d24 piezoelectric wafer and received by the d36 type PMN-PT wafer with drive voltage of 20 V at 200 kHz; (b) continue wavelet transform (CWT) of the drive signal and receive signal in (a); (c) Frequency dependent relative errors of the measured group velocity of the SH0 waves generated by different shear mode piezoelectric wafers.
Figure 6. (a) Wave signals generated by the d24 piezoelectric wafer and received by the d36 type PMN-PT wafer with drive voltage of 20 V at 200 kHz; (b) continue wavelet transform (CWT) of the drive signal and receive signal in (a); (c) Frequency dependent relative errors of the measured group velocity of the SH0 waves generated by different shear mode piezoelectric wafers.
Sensors 18 02681 g006
Sensors 18 02681 g007 550
Figure 7. Wave signals generated by different shear mode piezoelectric wafers and received by the d36 type PMN-PT wafer with drive voltage of 20 V at 150 kHz (left) and 200kHz (right). (a,b): in-plane poled d15 mode; (c,d): face shear d24 mode; (e,f): thickness-poled d15 mode.
Figure 7. Wave signals generated by different shear mode piezoelectric wafers and received by the d36 type PMN-PT wafer with drive voltage of 20 V at 150 kHz (left) and 200kHz (right). (a,b): in-plane poled d15 mode; (c,d): face shear d24 mode; (e,f): thickness-poled d15 mode.
Sensors 18 02681 g007
Sensors 18 02681 g008 550
Figure 8. The amplitude of generated SH0 wave versus frequency. Signals were generated by different shear mode piezoelectric wafers and received by the d36 type PMN-PT wafer under (a) fixed drive voltage of 20 V and (b) fixed power consumption of 0.08 W.
Figure 8. The amplitude of generated SH0 wave versus frequency. Signals were generated by different shear mode piezoelectric wafers and received by the d36 type PMN-PT wafer under (a) fixed drive voltage of 20 V and (b) fixed power consumption of 0.08 W.
Sensors 18 02681 g008
Sensors 18 02681 g009 550
Figure 9. The amplitude of received SH0 wave versus frequency. Signals were generated by the d36 type PMN-PT wafer under 20 V and received by different shear mode piezoelectric wafers.
Figure 9. The amplitude of received SH0 wave versus frequency. Signals were generated by the d36 type PMN-PT wafer under 20 V and received by different shear mode piezoelectric wafers.
Sensors 18 02681 g009
Sensors 18 02681 g010 550
Figure 10. The SH0 wave amplitude versus frequency. Signals were generated and received by the same type shear mode piezoelectric wafer under (a) fixed drive voltage of 20 V, (b) fixed power consumption of 0.08 W.
Figure 10. The SH0 wave amplitude versus frequency. Signals were generated and received by the same type shear mode piezoelectric wafer under (a) fixed drive voltage of 20 V, (b) fixed power consumption of 0.08 W.
Sensors 18 02681 g010
Sensors 18 02681 g011 550
Figure 11. The signal to noise ratio (SNR) of SH0 wave generated and received by the same type shear mode piezoelectric wafers. (a) SNR verses frequency. Wave signals generated by (b) in-plane poled d15 wafer; (c) face shear d24 mode wafer and (d) thickness-poled d15 mode wafer under the drive voltage of 20 V at 165 kHz.
Figure 11. The signal to noise ratio (SNR) of SH0 wave generated and received by the same type shear mode piezoelectric wafers. (a) SNR verses frequency. Wave signals generated by (b) in-plane poled d15 wafer; (c) face shear d24 mode wafer and (d) thickness-poled d15 mode wafer under the drive voltage of 20 V at 165 kHz.
Sensors 18 02681 g011
Table
Table 1. The performances of different shear mode piezoelectric wafers in SH0 wave generation and reception.
Table 1. The performances of different shear mode piezoelectric wafers in SH0 wave generation and reception.
ModesAmplitude in GenerationAmplitude in ReceptionAmplitude in Self-Generation/ReceptionSignal to Noise Ratio (SNR)
Fixed VoltageFixed Power ConsumptionFixed VoltageFixed Power ConsumptionFixed Voltage
In-plane poled d15highmoderatemoderateHigh below 175 kHz
moderate above 175 kHz		moderate~16 dB
Face shear d24moderatehighhighmoderate below 175 kHz
High above 175 kHz		hightypically above 20 dB
Thickness-poled d15lowlowlowlowlowtypically below 12 dB

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Huan, Q.; Chen, M.; Li, F. A Comparative Study of Three Types Shear Mode Piezoelectric Wafers in Shear Horizontal Wave Generation and Reception. Sensors 2018, 18, 2681. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18082681

AMA Style

Huan Q, Chen M, Li F. A Comparative Study of Three Types Shear Mode Piezoelectric Wafers in Shear Horizontal Wave Generation and Reception. Sensors. 2018; 18(8):2681. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18082681

Chicago/Turabian Style

Huan, Qiang, Mingtong Chen, and Faxin Li. 2018. "A Comparative Study of Three Types Shear Mode Piezoelectric Wafers in Shear Horizontal Wave Generation and Reception" Sensors 18, no. 8: 2681. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18082681

APA Style

Huan, Q., Chen, M., & Li, F. (2018). A Comparative Study of Three Types Shear Mode Piezoelectric Wafers in Shear Horizontal Wave Generation and Reception. Sensors, 18(8), 2681. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18082681

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop