Smart Mater. Struct.

18 (2009) 115012

Y Chen et al

effect. In order to describe the inuence of the strain induced by piezoelectric material on a structure, Crawley and Anderson [24] proposed the BernoulliEuler model. Within this model, it is assumed that the strains are distributed linearly within the cross-section of the beams composite structure. This mechanical model has been successfully applied to analyze the strain distribution of micro-scale smart cantilever beams [11, 14]. Thus, the BernoulliEuler model is adopted here. According to the BernoulliEuler model, the linearly distributed stresses corresponding to the linearly distributed strains result in an equivalent moment on the composite portion, see details in [24]. Thus, a relationship between the induced moment M and the input voltage of the piezoelectric actuator V (t ) is dened in equation (1).

Figure 2. Three-segment representation of the smart micro-cantilever beam and corresponding moment prole.

x = x2:

y2 (x 2 , t ) = y3 (x 2 , t ),

y2 (x 2 , t ) = y3 (x 2 , t ),

M (t ) = C0 V (t ),
where

(1)

E I2 y2 (x 2 , t ) = E I3 y3 (x 2 , t ) M (t ), E I2 y2 (x 2 , t ) = E I3 y3 (x 2 , t ), x = L: E I 3 y3 ( L , t ) = 0, E I 3 y3 ( L , t ) = 0.
(5) The subscript m is used to identify the three different sections of the smart micro-cantilever beam as shown in gure 2. The effective bending stiffness and mass per unit length of the different sections are represented by E Im and Am , respectively. The moment M (t ) produced by the piezoelectric material is calculated with respect to the neutral axis of section two, which differs from the section one and section three due to the presence of the additional layer of piezoelectric material. The initial and terminal position of the piezoelectric actuator are x 1 and x 2 . Furthermore, the governing equation of the second section (m = 2) includes a moment term introduced by the piezoelectric actuator. This moment term is substituted into the square brackets in equation (4) along with the beam bending term. Since the induced moment term is independent of position, the two spatial derivatives applied to the terms in the square brackets result in the removal of this term. From the three governing equations (4) and twelve boundary conditions (5), the resulting system consists of inhomogeneous partial differential equations (PDEs) with inhomogeneous boundary conditions and the inhomogeneous terms are functions of time. In order to solve this type of problem, it is divided into an equivalent set of two problems. One consists of homogeneous PDEs with inhomogeneous boundary conditions and the other consists of inhomogeneous PDEs with homogeneous boundary conditions [16]. The solution is presented and the complete derivation may be found in appendix A. The form of ym (x , t ) is assumed to be that of equation (6).

C0 =

w E p E c h c (h c + h p ) d31 . 2( E c h c + E p h p )

(2)

The transverse electric charge constant of the piezoelectric materials is represented by d31 . The Youngs modulus of the piezoelectric material and the cantilever beam are E p and E c , respectively. Note that for the conguration shown in gure 1, the piezoelectric actuator produces an axial force as well as a bending moment. However, the axial force is negligible for small transverse vibrations of the smart micro-cantilever beam. After the equivalent bending moment is calculated, the nonuniformity of the cantilever beam is considered in order to develop the dynamic model. The piece-wise varying conguration is considered for two stepped variations in both geometry and materials due to comparable thicknesses of the beam and the piezoelectric actuator. This partitioning along with the prole of the induced bending moment is shown in gure 2. A three-segmented continuous EB beam model is combined with the induced moment and the base excitation to develop the dynamic model of the smart micro-cantilever beam. When a base excitation is introduced, as shown in gure 2, the vertical displacement y (x , t ) is modied to represent a moving reference frame [25] as

y (x , t ) = y (x , t ) + Y0 cos(t ),

(3)

where Y0 is the amplitude of the base excitation and is the driving frequency. The additional input from the piezoelectric actuator introduces the moment M from equation (1) into the three-segmented EB governing equation and corresponding boundary conditions, shown in equations (4) and (5).

2 2 ym ( x , t ) 2 ym ( x , t ) E I + A m m x2 x2 t2 = Am Y0 2 cos(t ), x = 0: x = x1: y 1 (0 , t ) = 0 , y 1 (0 , t ) = 0 , y1 (x 1 , t ) = y2 (x 1 , t ), y1 (x 1 , t ) = y2 (x 1 , t ),
(4)

ym (x , t ) = m (x , t ) + wm (x , t ).

(6)

E I1 y1 (x 1 , t ) = E I2 y2 (x 1 , t ) + M (t ), E I1 y1 (x 1 , t ) = E I2 y2 (x 1 , t ),
3

Within this equation, m (x , t ) is a special solution that satisfying the inhomogeneous boundary conditions and wm (x , t ) satises the corresponding homogeneous boundary conditions. By substituting equation (6) into equations (4) and (5), the special solution is determined by solving the