Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T02:25:23.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental Analysis of Smart Structure with Damping Treatment and SMA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

Q. Chen ,
J. Ma  and
C. Levy
Q. Chen
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199.
J. Ma
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199.
C. Levy
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199.
Get access

Abstract

The experimental results of a flexible cantilever beam with constrained viscoelastic layer and shape memory alloy layer called smart damping treatment (SDT) are presented. The upper side of the beam is bonded with a viscoelastic layer and then covered with a constraining layer. The lower side is bonded with a shape memory alloy layer, which is used as an actuator. The elastic modulus and loss factor of damping materials are functions of the temperature. The temperature effects on system frequency and loss factor due to heat cycling of SMA layer are evaluated here. It is found that temperature plays an important role on system frequency and loss factor, and thus the temperature effects must be included when discussing such an structure.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 459: Symposium Y – Materials for Smart Systems II , 1996 , 163
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Kerwin, E. M., J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 31, p. 952–962 (1959).Google Scholar
2. Rao, D. K., J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 20 (5), p. 271–282 (1978).Google Scholar
3. Mead, D. J., J. Sound and Vib., 83 (3), p. 363–377 (1982).Google Scholar
4. Xi, D., Chen, Q. and Cai, G., ASME J. Vib. Acoust. Stress Rel. Des., 108, p. 65–68 (1986).Google Scholar
5. Rao, M. D. and He, S., AIAA Journal, 31 (4), p. 736–745 (1993).Google Scholar
6. Levy, C. and Chen, Q., J. Sound and Vib., 177 (1), p. 15–29 (1994).Google Scholar
7. Zhou, H. and Rao, M. D., Int. J. Sol. Struct., 30 (16), p. 2199–2211 (1993).Google Scholar
8. Chen, Q. and Levy, C., Int. J. Sol. Struct., 31 (17), p. 2377–2391 (1994).Google Scholar
9. Rogers, C. A., J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 88 (6), p. 2803–2811 (1990).Google Scholar
10. Saunders, W. R., Robertshaw, H. H., and Rogers, C. A., Proc. 31st Structures, Structural Dyn. and Mat. Conf., AIAA p. 90–1090, (1990).Google Scholar
11. Rogers, C. A., Liang, C., and Fuller, C.R., J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 89 (1), p. 210–220 (1991).Google Scholar
12. Graesser, E. J. and Cozzarelli, F. A., ASCE J. Eng. Mech., 117 (11), p. 2590–2608 (1991).Google Scholar
13. Brison, L. C., J. Intell. Mat. Sys. Struct., 4, p. 229–242 (1993).Google Scholar
14. Wu, K. H., Liu, Y. Q., Maich, M., and Tseng, H. K., Proc. SPIE - Int. Soc. Optical Eng., 2189, p. 306–313 (1994).Google Scholar
15. Chen, Q. and Levy, C., Proc. SPIE - Int. Soc. Optical Eng., 2443, p. 579–587 (1995).Google Scholar
16. Chen, Q. and Levy, C., J. Smart Mat. Struct., 5, p. 400–406 (1996).Google Scholar