Presented at the 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural

Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, April 2007.

c




    
   ?

Benjamin O. Gordon1 and William W. Clark2
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15261


  

    

    
 

   
   
  

       
 


 
     
    

  



 
   
 
  
 
     
 
   


  
      

    


 
 
 

   
  
    
  

            



   
       
 

 !    
  


 
  
"
?
!!

  

There are many applications that would benefit from the use of lightweight materials whose physical properties
could be altered in a predictable fashion in real time upon the imposition of a controllable stimulus. Of particular
interest are structures that can exhibit drastic change in stiffness. For example, in an application that requires shape
change in a structure, the typical approach is robotic (actually kinematic) in nature where joints are built into the
structure to allow the desired motion. Alternatively, a ³smart structures´ approach to shape change involves
elastically deforming the structure with embedded actuators, and holding the structure in place. Consequently, this
has generated a great deal of research into the development of high energy-density actuators that can both apply
large forces to overcome the structural stiffness and to apply the large strokes necessary for the required
deformation.
This paper discusses an alternative approach to producing structural shape change. Rather than designing or
developing actuator systems to overcome the high stiffness of a structure in order to produce shape change, an
alternative is to let the structure become ³soft´ to accommodate or ³get out of the way of´ the actuator. Once the
shape change has been completed, the structure would be returned to its stiff state. Pushing or pulling on a soft
structure rather than a stiff structure can produce much greater shape changes, thus reducing the actuator
force/stroke requirements. In fact, by utilizing such a concept, much more radical shape changes could conceivably
be induced in a structure than those produced to date.
The concept of using stiffness variation has been investigated by various researchers. Since active control of
mass parameters can be quite difficult, many researchers have turned towards varying the stiffness parameters of a
structure to modulate its vibration properties1. Modifying the stiffness of composite beams has been used as a
means to dampen vibrations caused by changing excitation frequencies2-3. In addition, varying the stiffness of a
composite beam has been used to manipulate and control its fundamental frequency3. Other researchers have
investigated how the variable stiffness concept can be coupled with smart materials to develop morphing aircraft
wings and helicopter blades4. While each of these applications are interesting uses of stiffness variations, the
underlying problem lies in obtaining a material that can quickly and locally exhibit stiffness (modulus) change with
a reasonable power input. While some works have studied changing material properties by heating, many rely on
changing the macroscopic stiffness properties of a structure. A classic example is a composite beam.
Various methods have been explored with which to modify the stiffness of composite beams. One of these
methods involves changing the geometry of the cross-section of the beam2. Another technique increases the electric
potential across a dielectric core between two substrate layers which causes an increased transfer of high shear
stresses at the substrate-core interface5. Stiffness modulation has also been achieved by changing the orientation of
the cell elements of a core ply3. In other works, heat caused by dc electric current through shape memory alloy
beams was used to change the stiffness of the material5.

________________________________
1
Undergraduate Student, Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science Department, 648 Benedum Hall
2
Professor, Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science Department, 648 Benedum Hall, AIAA Member.
 In this work, we present a method for varying the stiffness of a composite beam that is somewhat a combination
of previous techniques. We work with a laminated composite beam, and manipulate the effective stiffness by
bonding and un-bonding the interfaces between layers. Unlike the work done in Ref. 5 where heat was used to
soften the material of a homogenous beam, here current passing through
a conductive wire will provide thermal energy in the beam that will
debond the layers which leads to a reduction in overall stiffness of the
composite beam, a concept of which will be elaborated on later in this
paper.
A simple explanation for the approach can be given using the
schematics of free-free beams in Fig. 1. In Fig. 1a the structure is a
conventional beam made of solid material, whose bending stiffness
depends on its elastic modulus and moment of inertia. In Fig. 1b, the
beam is made of layers of the same material as in 1a, and each layer is
firmly bonded together. The interlayer bonds can be changed to alter the
stiffness. If the bond strength between layers is high, the structure¶s
bending stiffness in 1b can be similar to that in 1a. The beam in 1c, on
the other hand, is made up of the same layers in which the bonds have
been completely broken. Even though the structure is made up of the
same volume of material, the beams in 1a and 1b are much stiffer than £

%. £



?
?
that in 1c because shearing between layers in 1c drastically reduces the 
????

?
effective moment of inertia. 
?

 ??

?
In this paper we present a simple example of such a structural 

 ???

?

.
system in which the effective stiffness can be varied by at least an order
of magnitude by utilizing a layered structure in which the bonds between
layers are reversibly formed and broken. We present a numerical study
of a simple cantilevered beam made of such a layered system, and
support those findings with an experimental study.

!! #


 
  $ 

This section presents an analytical model of a multi-layered beam, as depicted in Fig. 2. The term ³substrate´ is
used to define the primary structural material in the beam, which is interspersed with adhesive or glue between the
substrate layers. In the ³bonded´ models in this paper it is assumed that the layers are securely bonded so that there
is no slip or shear motion between them. When transverse loads are applied to the beam, the restricted shear motion
between the layers retards the deflection of the beam so that the deflection will be nearly the same as if the beam
were one layer with a thickness equal to the sum of the layers of the bonded structure. In reality the adhesive layer
has a non-negligible thickness, so it is treated as a separate layer in the model, whose modulus may be a unique
modulus value, or the same as that of the substrate.
When the interfaces are un-bonded, there is no adhesive to carry shear stress between the substrate layers,
therefore the beam is much less stiff. In order to simulate the un-bonded scenario, the substrate layers are treated as
individual beams that act in parallel to support the applied load. In this case, their geometric characteristics (namely
distances from the neutral axis) are ignored, and one layer is no more important than another in defining the total
rigidity of the beam.
Each of these scenarios is addressed in the model derivation below.
The effective stiffness of the composite beams can be simply characterized as:

 
>  (1)

where is the transverse concentrated load applied to the free end of the cantilevered beam and Î is the magnitude
of the deflection at the free end of the beam. The deflection of the composite beam is derived from the second order
differential equation describing the elastic curve of a homogeneous beam, as described by Eq. 2.

c




    
   
 
? 2

 ’2

 ( ) >
 2 (2)
’

t where


( ) is the moment of the beam with
respect to the x-axis, is the elastic modulus of
tnet the material,  is the moment of inertia of the
cross-section of the beam and
is the transverse
deflection. The cross-section of the beam is
rectangular; therefore, the equation for the
second moment of area of the beam can be
º&
represented as:

 3
> (3)
12
h = tnet
where  and are the beam¶s width and height,
respectively. The moment can be related to the
applied load by
º&

£

 (. V

?


 
? ? 


? ( )> > 
2

(4)

?

???
?

????

?  2



?
? 
From Eqs. 2-4, the general expression for
deflection of the beam due to an applied tip load is
î
   
3

> >Î  (5)
3


?
Equation 5 is valid for a homogeneous beam, or a
perfectly-bonded multilayer beam (where the bond
layer is assumed to be infinitesimally thin).
We now present an analysis to address the case in
? which the layers are not bonded. In this analysis the
º& force, the length and the elastic modulus are fixed
constants, therefore the moment of inertia equation is
the variable to be examined and manipulated.

? Recall that if the layers in a composite beam are
bonded together, the composite beam can be rendered
Y ? as one beam. Referring to Fig. 2, the sum of the
height of all the layers equals the total height of the
º& composite beam where  is an integer that represents
the number of layers in the beam. Factoring out the
£

 '. 
? 

? 

 ? ?
? 
 ? ? integer  , the area moment of inertia of a bonded



?
? ? 
? 

? 
? º
? ? 
? composite beam (all layers are of rectangular cross-



? ? ? 
? 
?
? 

?
? 
? 

? section) can be written as

?

?? ?
?º
?
3
ƒ
 
 > >  

 3 (6)
12

where represents the thickness of each layer, hence  ?? and  

is the individual moment of inertia for one
layer. By substituting the equation for the net moment of inertia (Eq. 6) into the deflection formula (Eq. 5) gives

c




    
   
 
? 3

 3
Î 
 > (7)
3 

 3

for the bonded beam.
î
    

  For the un-bonded case the absence of shear
stress at the interfaces of the substrate allows each

 layer to be treated as if it shares the load side by side
with the other layers as shown in Figure 3. That is,
the beam layers act as parallel stiffnesses in which
? ? each layer is itself a separate cantilever. Each layer
’ undergoes the same deflection and sees the same
stress. The actual location of any given layer with
? ? respect to the neutral axis of the bonded beam no
longer affects the stress seen by that layer.
Therefore the area moment of inertia for an un-
bonded composite beam can be determined by
  multiplying the moment of inertia by the number of
layers:


  

 ƒ 3
º&  
’ > >  

 (8)
12

î
    

  Substituting the net moment of inertia for the un-

 bonded case (Eq. 8) into the deflection formula (Eq.
5) yields:

? ? 3
Î 
 > (9)
’ 3 


? ? The above derivation is valid if every layer is of
the same thickness, same material and assuming that
’ the thickness of the bonded interface is negligible

 
 compared to the thickness of each substrate layer.
 
 However, the physical structure modeled in this work
will consist of an adhesive layer whose thickness is


 
   negligible in comparison with the substrate layer,
and whose modulus is different from that of the
º& substrate (as depicted by Fig. 4). Therefore a more
general expression must be formulated in order to
£

)
 
?


 
?? ?
?  
 properly determine the deflection of the beam.

?

??
?
? ?  ?
?


?? Since the elastic modulus of the adhesive layer is
?

?
?º
??? 

?
?
?
? significantly smaller than that of the substrate layer, a



? 

?


? ?  
? 

? 
?
? correction factor is be used to transform the beam

 ?

? 
? ?   ? ?
? 
? ?
?

? into a layered beam of a single material. Letting

??
? ?

?º
?

> (10)


where  is the ratio between the elastic modulus of the substrate,
 , and the elastic modulus of the adhesive,
 .
When the ratio in Equation 10 is multiplied by the width  of the adhesive layer where:

c




    
   
 
? 4

 ’
>   (11)
this transforms the cross-section into a composite beam consisting of substrate material in every layer. The
transformed adhesive layers now are modeled as substrate layers with width  as shown in Figure 4b. Summing the
moment of inertias for each layer using the parallel axis theorem7 gives the effective moment of inertia for the entire
transformed composite beam (with all the layers treated as the same material)


 > M 
(12)


Hence the deflection equations used in this work are

ë 3
Î 
 > (13)
3
  3

ë 3
Î 
 > (14)
 

 
 3
 


V
? !!!*
  $
 ? 
For this study, a composite beam was built with
overall dimensions of 140x2.5x7.2 mm. Figure 5
 shows a schematic of the beam, and a photograph is
shown in Fig. 6. This beam consisted of three
º& balsawood substrate layers and two adhesive layers
 made of hot glue. The substrate layers  were each
 22% of the thickness of the beam and each individual
Y
? adhesive layer  consisted of 17% of the thickness of
 ? the beam (Figure 5b). Embedded in each
substrate/adhesive interface is a nichrome wire heating
 element that is driven by a 15V DC power supply as
º& diagrammed in Figure 5c. By heating the adhesive
material with the nichrome wires, the adhesive would


  #

 become soft, thereby releasing the bonds between
substrate layers and weakening the beam.
,î In general, the tests involved applying weights to
- 
 the end of the beam, as shown in Fig. 6, and measuring

 the deflection to quantify the overall stiffness of the
beam in the bonded and un-bonded states.
î 
Y? ? Electrical current was applied to the nichrome wire
º& for a period of time to determine how long it takes to
achieve the maximum deflection when concentrated
£

 + V

?


 
? ?
? loads are applied to the free end of the beam. Figure 7


? 
? 
 ? º ?
? ?  

? outlines the deflection trend of the beam when a 0.92N


? ?
? 



?


?º
? concentrated load was applied to the beam as it is
driven by the 15V power supply. After the beam had
been heated by the nichrome wire for approximately three minutes, the beam reached its maximum deflection. The
decrease in deflection after the plateau in Figure 7 (i.e. six minutes) represents when the power supply was turned
off and the load removed. This was done to determine the time required for the beam to cool off to a temperature
that corresponds to the bonded state. Since maximum deflection was the only concern in this experiment, no
temperature reading device was used to determine the temperature of the adhesive layer.

c




    
   
 
? 5

 !
 , 
 

The test beam was loaded with eight different concentrated loads:
0.0 N, 0.20 N, 0.32 N, 0.46 N, 0.92 N, 1.38 N, 1.54 N and 1.70N. In
addition, DC current was passed through the nichrome wire to modify
the stiffness of the beam. Since three minutes was found to be the
necessary heating time for achieving maximum deflection, the beams
were heated for at least five minutes before measuring the deflection
results. The beam was loaded before current was passed through the
beam (stiff state) and loaded again after driving current through the
nichrome circuit for five minutes (soft state). The corresponding
deflections of the stiff and soft states of the beam were then compared
to the theoretical model. Three different scenarios were used in
calculating the deflection of the beam using the theoretical model, as
described below. The deflections predicted by the theoretical model
and the deflections experienced by the actual beam were recorded,
plotted and a best fit curve was plotted for the empirical data for
comparison. The data is shown in Figs. 8-11. As expected the
empirical data and the theoretical data both exhibited linear
relationships for deflection with respect to force. The effective
stiffness was determined from the slope of the best fit line in the plots, £

 /    ? ?
which represent the inverse of Eq. 1. Therefore, smaller slopes



 ? 
? 
? ? ? 
?
correspond to stiffer beams. 

???
Three different sets of results are discussed, where the differences
lie only in the theoretical comparison.
Figures 8 and 10 show results for the
 
 

bonded beam and Figs. 9 and 11 show
the results for the un-bonded beam. In

each case (as well as a third case whose

plots are very similar to Figs. 10-11) the

experimental data is identical, but the

assumptions used in the theoretical
 
 

 model are changed, as discussed below.



 In all theoretical models, Eq. 13
 was used to determine the deflection of

the bonded beam, and Eq. 14 was used
to determine the deflection of the un-
X bonded beam. What changes in each
X
   X
case are the assumptions used to treat
 the adhesive layer modulus.
In the first scenario, the adhesive
layers were assumed to be part of the
£

 .  


?
? ?
? 

? 
? 
? ? substrate in the theoretical model.



? ? ?

? 
? ?
? 
? 

? 
?

? 

? Specifically, the modulus of the hot

 ?
?
?

?
? glue adhesive layer was assumed to be
the same as that of the wood layers. In
the bonded beam case, (Fig. 8), the
theoretical beam is treated as solid wood, while in the un-bonded beam case (Fig. 9) the beam is treated as three un-
bonded layers that act in parallel (Fig. 3b), with each one accounting for a portion of the adhesive. The slopes of the
two deflection curves indicate beam stiffnesses of 1.66 N/mm (experimental) and 2.87 N/mm (theoretical). The
stiffness predicted by the theoretical model is greater than that of the physical model , as expected, since the
assumption of modulus for the adhesive layer is too high.
Figure 9 shows the results for the un-bonded case, with the same assumptions for the adhesive layer¶s modulus.
In this case the slopes indicate beam stiffnesses of 0.12 N/m (experimental) and 0.21 N/m (theoretical). The primary
information to be obtained from this result is that by heating the adhesive layer to create de-lamination in the beam,
the stiffness of the experimental beam is decreased by 
? ?  
? ? 

. This is the effect that was

c




    
   
 
? 6

desired at the outset of the study, and it is also supported by a similar order of magnitude reduction in the theoretical
results.
The theoretical model once again
‰
 
‰‰
 ‰‰
 yields results that signify a stiffer beam
 !" than what was observed in the
‰01! 
experiment, for the same explanation as
given above. Note that the assumption


!‰01! used here (adhesive modulus equals
 " substrate modulus) can be considered to

 !
! place an upper bound on the calculated
‰‰
00"

 " beam stiffness.

 In order to get a better theoretical
#$%&$$'()$%$**+

 estimate of the beam stiffness, a tensile
,#$%--&&
test was performed on the hot glue (at
#$%*'.*(/$%$$$+ room temperature) and it was found to


  
 
have an elastic modulus of approximately
‰" 15.2 MPa. A second set of theoretical
deflection calculations were carried out
£

0  ??
?


? ??
?
 ?
?

?
?

? using this value for the modulus of the
 ?
?
?
??
?
?

?


 ?
?


? glue layer. The second scenario takes into

? ?
?

?
?
 ?
?
?

??
?

?? account the geometry of the glue layer
??? and substrate layers, but the empirical
value for the elastic modulus was used for the glue layer. In the bonded case, the composite beam was treated as
shown in Fig. 4, where the different moduli were accounted for, while in the un-bonded case the approach of Fig. 3
was used.
Figure 10 once again shows the
experimental data for the bonded beam, ‰
 
‰‰
 ‰‰

this time plotted with the theoretical  !"
results for the revised model using the 
empirical value for glue layer modulus.  ‰12! 
Once again the slope of the theoretical


curve was less than the slope of the best !‰12!
‰‰
11"

fit line for the empirical data in the  "

bonded case, however in this case the 
!
!
"
estimated stiffness for the beam is 2.46

N/mm, which is slightly closer to the #$%&'()*+,%,,'
experimental value. The error was less -#,%..,/
in the second scenario as expected

because the appropriate modulus of the #)%/',0*+,%,,'&


  
adhesive layers were included in the
theoretical model. ‰"
The error may be partly explained £

1.  ??
?


? ??
?
 ?
?

?
?

? ?
by the fact that the numerical value
?
?
??
?
?


 ?


?
? ?
?
used in the model for the elastic 

?
?
 ?
?
?

??
?

?????
modulus of the substrate layers
(balsawood) was found in a table of
material properties to be 3.38 GPa. A simple deflection test was performed on one balsawood layer. Using back
calculation from the deflection, the elastic modulus was estimated to be around 2.87 GPa. The calculated value was
not used in the theoretical model because the degree of its accuracy is unknown, but the data suggest that the model
is using a high estimate of this value, leading to an overestimate of the beam stiffness.

c




    
   
 
? 7

 Figure 11 shows the comparable
results for the un-bonded beam where
‰
 
‰‰
 ‰‰
 once again the experimental results
are compared to the theoretical model

 in which the empirical glue modulus

‰!"#$#%&' ()'(%*#+, is used. The un-bonded case for this
scenario showed a different
‰‰
!!

 #,(&$‰!"#$#%&' ()'(%*#+,
relationship between the empirical

 #,(&$
-(+$(*#%&' data and the theoretical model. The

 ()'(%*#+, theoretical stiffness in this case was

 
found to be only 0.68 N/mm, which is

 

than the experimental result. It
is hypothesized that this discrepancy


  
  ‰ between the theoretical prediction
‰ and physical observation is related to
the presence of residual shear stress
between the substrate layers when the
£

%2  ??
?


? ??
?
 ?
?

?
?

? ? beam is softened. It was observed

? 
? 
? ? 
? 
?


 ?


? 
?  ?
? that the substrate layers did not


?
?
 ?
?


??
??
?
?
??? completely delaminate during the
softening process. Whereas the
theoretical model assumes that the substrate layers are completely delaminated during the un-bonded state.
A third scenario was calculated with the theoretical model, in which the thickness of the adhesive layer was
taken into account, but since the elastic modulus of the adhesive layer is much lower than that of the substrate, the
elastic modulus of the adhesive is assumed to be zero. Interestingly, the theoretical deflection lines for these two
cases (bonded and un-bonded beam)
are almost identical to those of ‰
 
‰‰
 ‰‰

second scenario (Figs. 10 and 11).
The calculations of the mathematical

model in the third scenario differed ‰!"#$#%&' ()'(%*#+,
from the second scenario by less than 
1%. This result indicates that the #,(&$‰!"#$#%&'
modulus of the soft adhesive layer is  ()'(%*#+,
‰‰
!!

indeed much less that of the substrate #,(&$

-(+$(*#%&'
layer. It also further supports the 
()'(%*#+,
concerns that the modulus of the  
balsawood substrate was

overestimated in the model (leading 
to over-prediction of stiffness by the     
model for the bonded case) and that 
there is a residual shear stress in the ‰
experimental beam when heated
(leading to an under-prediction of £

%%  ??
?


? ??
?
 ?
?

?
?

? ?

? 
? 
? ? 
? 
?


 ?


? 
?  ?
?
stiffness by the model in the un-


?
?
 ?
?


??
??
?
?
?
bonded case). These two issues
should be addressed in future work. ?

 î 
 

This paper has presented an approach for varying the stiffness of a cantilever beam by bonding and un-bonding
layers of structural material within the beam. A theoretical model is developed for the beam in which it is shown
that the de-bonding effect is manifested in the effective stiffness by a change in the effective area moment of inertia
of the structure. When the layers are de-bonded, there is no longer a shear stress between them, and they then act as
individual beams acting to support the load in parallel. When bonded, however, the rigidity of the beam is much
higher, due to the cubed effect of the height dimension in the moment of inertia term. An experimental beam was
built to test the concept. The beam was made up of balsawood layers bonded together with hot glue. Nichrome wire

c




    
   
 
? 8

was imbedded in the glue layer so that it could be heated, effectively de-bonding the beam layers. There was some
discrepancy between the experimental and numerical results, which are believed to be due to assumptions made
about the layer moduli and residual shear stresses that may exist in the experimental system when the glue is heated.
The primary result, though, was that over an order of magnitude reduction in beam stiffness was observed when the
layers were de-bonded. This result indicates that the technique shows promise as a means to vary the stiffness of a
structure for morphing applications.


 
1
Krylov, V. and Sorokin, S., V., ³Dynamics of elastic beams with controlled distributed stiffness parameters´, V ?


??V  
, Volume 6, pp. 573-582.
2
Kidner, M., R., F. and Brennan, M., J., "Varying the Stiffness of Beam-Like Neutralizer Under Fuzzy Logic Control",
 ??
 
??
 Volume 124, 2002, pp. 90-99.
3
Sorokin, S., V., Grishina, S., V. and Ershova, O., A., ³Analysis and control of vibrations of honeycomb plates by
parametric stiffness modulation´, V ?

??V  
, Volume 10, 2001, pp. 1031-1045.
4
Loewy, R., G., ³Recent developments in smart structures with aeronautical applications´, V ?

??V  
,
Volume 6, 1997, pp. R11-R42.
5
Williams, K., A., Chiu, G., T., -C. and Bernhard, R., J., ³Dynamic modeling of a shape memory alloy adaptive tuned
vibration absorber´,  ??V??
 
, Volume 280, 2005, pp. 211-234.
6
Bergamini, A., Christen, R. and Motavalli, M., ³Electrostatic tuning of the bending stiffness of simple, slender multilayer
composite structures´, V ?V  
??

, Volume 5760, 2005, pp. 152-163.
7
Riley, W., F., Sturges, L., D., and Morris, D., H., ³The Differential Equation of the Elastic Curve´, V 
??
 
?
?

??
 
?  Volume 2, 2002, pp. 488.

c




    
   
 
? 9