PSI - Issue 52

Donato Perfetto et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 52 (2024) 418–423 Donato Perfetto / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

420

3

a

b

Figure 1. Schematic of the geometry of the panel and the arrangement of PZTs position: (a) top view; (b) detail of the variable section.

Table 1. Material mechanical properties of composite lamina and PZTs. Material Property Symbol Units Lamina PZT Mass density ρ Kg/m 3 1600 7800 Longitudinal Young's modulus E 11 GPa 130 62.1 Transversal Young's modulus E 22 GPa 10 62.1 E 33 10 48.3

4.85 4.85 3.62

23.5

G 12 G 13 G 23

GPa

Shear modulus

21 21

− 0.31 0.32 0.31 0.44 0.52 0.44

ν 12 ν 13 ν 23

Poisson's ratio

The modelling and the analysis of UGW propagation were performed through Abaqus® CAE software by using different explicit approaches whose numerical information, according to the dimension of the elements used to model the plate, are listed in Table 2. The first modelling technique involved the use of continuum shell element (3D-Shell formulation) for the plate and the use of brick elements (3D-Solid formulation) for the sensors. This technique served as benchmark in this study. With the aim of obtaining a computationally cheaper model, a different approach was investigated, using the conventional shell elements for the modelling of the panel. Specifically, three different modelling techniques, represented in Figure 2, have been analysed to find the one that better matches the results obtained from the 3D-Shell approach, serving as a reference according to the literature [15]. In these cases, the variable region of the plate was not modelled and the two dominant regions of the plate share the same bottom surface (Figure 2a), middle surface (Figure 2b) and top surface (Figure 2c). a b

c

Figure 2. Schematic of the different 2D-Shell modelling technique adopted. The red section represents the thick region, the green section represents the thin region, and the blue line represents the plane shared by the two regions.