June 22, 2018 at 3:40 pmRaphaelRSubscriber
I have been modeling piezoelectric acoustic transducers to determine the frequency response spectrum in water.
The specific transducer types I am modeling are monopole ring and dipole bender bar transducers. They are to be operated in a pulse mode: a single sine differential voltage pulse is applied. The frequencies I am modeling are between 500 Hz and 20 kHz.
I have been using a harmonic analysis in workbench 19.1 with both the acoustic and piezoelectric extensions. Materials are modeled as isotropic as a simplification.
My models (for both ring and bender transducers) all suffer from the same issues:
(1) The model shows a much higher response than the experiment at resonance
(2) The model shows a lower response than the experiment at both higher and lower frequencies than resonance
(3) The location of the peaks in the model vs. experiment is substantially different
(4) Typically the difference in response for the model between two designs is much greater than reality
I have attached the response of two different ring transducers for the model vs. experiment to illustrate the problem.
What's wrong and what could be used to improve the fidelity of the model (and be able to use it to predict the behavior of the actual part)?
Much higher mesh densities?
Adding damping to the transducer? If so what is the best method?
Modeling via fluent rather the acoustic extension?
Doing a transient analysis rather than a harmonic analysis to more closely match the experiment?
Or am I expecting too much from this type of model?
Any help or insights would be much appreciated as I have very little experience with Ansys and acoustic/piezoelectric modeling and don't know where to start.
June 24, 2018 at 5:45 pmpeteroznewmanSubscriber
June 25, 2018 at 8:59 pmRaphaelRSubscriber
Thank you for looking into this. My max element size is around 18 mm, this is probably leading to some error, but we should see more error at higher frequencies than lower frequencies which is not the case. I will be reducing the element size, but I agree that the biggest issue is likely inadequate damping.
What is strange however is that the response is too low at both low and high frequencies. Wouldn't adding damping resolve the issue at resonance but result in an even bigger error at low and high frequencies?
Do you think most of the damping is coming from the piezo material? What would be the best damping model that would allow me to approach experimental data?
June 25, 2018 at 11:55 pmpeteroznewmanSubscriber
What does "pulse mode" mean? I read that it might not be a continuous sine wave that would match what a harmonic analysis is assuming. Therefore, if you apply the real pulse train to the piezo material in a Transient Dynamics analysis, that might give you a closer agreement to experimental data.
How is the experimental data measured?
I expect the water will provide much more damping than the piezo material itself.
If you can share your Project Archive, that would help me understand your model.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Boost Ansys Fluent Simulations with AWS
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) helps engineers design products in which the flow of fluid components is a significant challenge. These different use cases often require large complex models to solve on a traditional workstation. Click here to join this event to learn how to leverage Ansys Fluids on the cloud, thanks to Ansys Gateway powered by AWS.
Earth Rescue – An Ansys Online Series
The climate crisis is here. But so is the human ingenuity to fight it. Earth Rescue reveals what visionary companies are doing today to engineer radical new ideas in the fight against climate change. Click here to watch the first episode.
Subscribe to the Ansys Blog to get great new content about the power of simulation delivered right to your email on a weekly basis. With content from Ansys experts, partners and customers you will learn about product development advances, thought leadership and trends and tips to better use Ansys tools. Sign up here.
- Saving & sharing of Working project files in .wbpz format
- Solver Pivot Warning in Beam Element Model
- Understanding Force Convergence Solution Output
- An Unknown error occurred during solution. Check the Solver Output…..
- What is the difference between bonded contact region and fixed joint
- The solver engine was unable to converge on a solution for the nonlinear problem as constrained.
- whether have the difference between using contact and target bodies
- Defining rigid body and contact
- Colors and Mesh Display
- A solver pivot warning or error has been detected
© 2023 Copyright ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved.