A schematic of an all-electrical piezoelectric cantilever performing a compression test. The cantilever has a top PZT layer for driving, a bottom PZT layer for sensing, and a stainless steel tip that has a square contact area with the sample.
(Color online) (a) Induced piezoelectric voltage vs time at the sensing PZT when a voltage was applied to the driving PZT layer and (b) peak induced voltage vs tip displacement (force on top) of cantilever A.
(Color online) (a) vs of cantilever A without (open circles) and with (open squares) the gelatin sample and (b) vs where is as defined in the text. The slope of vs gave the elastic modulus of the gelatin sample.
A schematic illustrating that for the inclusion of depth , the measured elastic modulus was (a) by cantilever 1 with a depth sensitivity and (b) by cantilever 2 with a depth sensitivity .
(Color online) (a) Elastic modulus of modeling clay inclusions embedded at various depths in a gelatin matrix and (b) depth sensitivity limit vs cantilever width. The elastic modulus of the gelatin matrix was as indicated by the range between the two horizontal dashed lines. The inset in (a) shows the photograph of the nine inclusions of model I.
(Color online) Effective elastic modulus vs the distance from the center of the inclusion obtained with cantilever A (open circles) and cantilever B (open squares).
(Color online) Inclusion elastic modulus vs inclusion depth. Note that for all nine inclusions, the deduced values agree with the known values, indicating that the present approach of using two cantilevers of different widths was indeed capable of determining the inclusion elastic modulus and inclusion depth simultaneously. The inset shows the photograph of the nine inclusions of model II.
Dimensions of cantilevers A, B, and C.
The summary of the known depth and modulus of the inclusions used in models I and II.
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...