sensors

Article
Characterization of a Piezoelectric Acoustic Sensor Fabricated
for Low-Frequency Applications: A Comparative Study of
Three Methods
María Campo-Valera 1, * , Rafael Asorey-Cacheda 1 , Ignacio Rodríguez-Rodríguez 2 and Isidro Villó-Pérez 3

1 Department of Information and Communication Technologies, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena (UPCT),

30202 Cartagena, Spain
2 Department of Communications Engineering, Universidad de Málaga, 29010 Málaga, Spain
3 Department of Electronics and Computer Technology and Projects, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena
(UPCT), 30202 Cartagena, Spain
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Piezoelectric transducers are widely used for generating acoustic energy, and choosing the
right radiating element is crucial for efficient energy conversion. In recent decades, numerous studies
have been conducted to characterize ceramics based on their elastic, dielectric, and electromechanical
properties, which have improved our understanding of their vibrational behavior and aided in
the manufacturing of piezoelectric transducers for ultrasonic applications. However, most of these
studies have focused on the characterization of ceramics and transducers using electrical impedance
to obtain resonance and anti-resonance frequencies. Few studies have explored other important
quantities such as acoustic sensitivity using the direct comparison method. In this work, we present
a comprehensive study that covers the design, manufacturing, and experimental validation of a
small-sized, easy-to-assemble piezoelectric acoustic sensor for low-frequency applications, using a
soft ceramic PIC255 from PI Ceramic with a diameter of 10 mm and a thickness of 5 mm. We present
two methods, analytical and numerical, for sensor design, followed by experimental validation,
Citation: Campo-Valera, allowing for a direct comparison of measurements with simulated results. This work provides a
M.; Asorey-Cacheda, R.; Rodríguez- useful evaluation and characterization tool for future applications of ultrasonic measurement systems.
Rodríguez I.; Villó-Pérez, I.
Characterization of a Piezoelectric Keywords: ultrasound; piezoelectric ceramics; sensors characterization; acoustic sensitivity; electrical
Acoustic Sensor Fabricated for impedance
Low-Frequency Applications: A
Comparative Study of Three
Methods. Sensors 2023, 23, 2742.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s23052742
1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Mayorkinos Ultrasound measurement systems have gained significant popularity over the last few
Papaelias and Vassilios Kappatos decades, and their applications span across several industries, including non-destructive
Received: 16 January 2023
testing (NDT) for predictive maintenance and fault detection [1–7] medical acoustics for
Revised: 22 February 2023
diagnosis and ultrasound scans [8–10], and communication and monitoring of marine envi-
Accepted: 28 February 2023 ronments [11–16]. Piezoelectric transducers are the primary means of generating acoustic
Published: 2 March 2023 energy in most of these systems. As they possess the unique ability to convert electrical
energy into mechanical energy and vice versa through the inverse and direct piezoelectric
effect, choosing the appropriate ceramic element is crucial for efficient energy conversion.
Generally, the ceramic comprises a piezoelectric disk, PZT (lead zirconate titanate), polar-
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. ized in the thickness direction, with its thickness determining the resonance frequency of
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
the ceramic. Transducers made of this material are widely used for non-destructive testing
This article is an open access article
due to their small size and low cost [17,18]. However, with advancements in technology, re-
distributed under the terms and
searchers are focusing on developing new transduction devices using composite materials,
conditions of the Creative Commons
leading to a significant increase in research activities in this field [9,19].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
The transducer design comprises the piezoceramic element, a matching layer to
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
enhance the transmission of acoustic energy to the medium, and a protective housing
4.0/).

Sensors 2023, 23, 2742. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23052742 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2023, 23, 2742 2 of 17

to prevent damage to the active element. Therefore, designing an efficient transducer

requires a careful selection of each of these components [20–22]. Ensuring compatibility
between these components is particularly important to enhance the frequency bandwidth
of the transducer, and even though the manufacturing process of a transducer may appear
straightforward, a lack of attention to these design details can quickly make it complex.
Recent advances in piezoelectric transducer technology have led to the manufacturing
of transducers in different geometries, including plate type, rod type, ring type, and
cylinder type [17,23–25], and with varying vibration modes such as transverse, tangential,
radial, and others [26–30]. Analytical models have been developed to study the resonance
frequencies of these modes in ceramics with different geometries, based on their elastic,
dielectric, and electromechanical properties [28,31,32]. Some studies have also employed
numerical methods, such as the finite element method (FEM), to obtain accurate modes [33],
while others have combined analytical and numerical methods to optimize the vibrations
of the ceramic and validate the design [18,34,35]. Recent works [35,36] have studied
the vibration characteristics of transducers using disks of different thicknesses to obtain
the electrical impedance and natural frequency of the ceramic. Other studies, such as
those in [16,23,37], have used optical systems to measure the resonance frequencies of
ceramics with free boundary conditions and have compared their results with experimental
laboratory measurements.
Although several recent studies have explored the dynamics of piezoelectric trans-
ducers, a direct comparison method for characterizing a ceramic/transducer based on its
acoustic sensitivity is not currently available in the literature. The only analytical approach
described thus far is the use of reciprocity and the pulse-echo method, as discussed in [38].
This characteristic is vital in determining the radiated acoustic power and the received
electrical power and is therefore essential to the design and manufacture of effective ultra-
sonic measurement systems. In this paper, we propose a complete study that utilizes an
easy-to-manufacture/assemble piezoelectric acoustic sensor based on the known electrical
impedance [34,39] and acoustic sensitivity of a soft ceramic PIC 255 vibrating at low-
frequencies. We compare the results using analytical, numerical, and experimental methods
to analyze the transient signal received by the acoustic sensor in the low-frequency range of
up to ∼170 kHz. This study is intended to serve as a useful evaluation and characterization
tool for future ultrasonic measurement system applications.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we introduce the architecture of
the transducer and discuss the analytical and numerical methods used to design the
sensor, as well as the fabrication process of the final design. In Section 3, we discuss the
characterization methods of the electrical impedance and receiving voltage response (RVR)
for both the free ceramic and the sensor, as measured in water. Section 4 presents the
experimental results obtained and compares them with the theoretical results. Finally, in
Section 5, we offer concluding remarks.

2. Design of a Piezoelectric Acoustic Sensor

Traditionally, the design of a piezoelectric ultrasonic transducer is performed following a
methodology based on experimental knowledge combined with a theoretical understanding.
After an initial design, the configuration of the transducer or its parts is analyzed using sim-
ple 1D analytical models or more powerful numerical simulation tools, such as COMSOL
Multiphysics, which allows 3D simulations.
Since it is desired to fabricate an ultrasonic transducer for low-frequency applications
for transient signals (broadband), which is easy to manufacture, assemble, and small in size,
the design aspects (active element, matching layer, and housing) to be taken into account
to meet these criteria will be addressed throughout this section.
The main components of a sensor are [15,18]:
1. Active element (ceramic): This is a piezoelectric material with a given geometry
depending on the required use, and very thin electrodes in the whole area perpendicular
to the surface that receives the acoustic wave to be recorded.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2742 3 of 17

2. Matching layer (ML): They can be one or more layers bonded to the front face of the
active element in order to optimize the transmission of acoustic energy between the
load and the ceramic, i.e., to adapt the acoustic impedances between the two through
the different intermediate layers.
3. Housing: This is the component that closes the whole sensor assembly. To avoid
electrical ground differential effects as well as the influence of possible electromagnetic
waves, it is usually designed with an electrically conductive material.

2.1. Importance of the Ceramic

Piezoelectric ceramics, specifically lead zirconate titanate (PZT), are currently the
most widely used in the market due to their low-cost and high electromechanical coupling
coefficient and dielectric constant. These ceramics can be classified into two types: soft and
hard ceramics. Soft ceramics, known for their ferroelectric behavior and high mobility [40],
are often used in piezoelectric sensors due to their ease of polarization and high coupling
factors. They find applications in vibration sensors, ultrasonic flow transmitters and
receivers, as well as micro- and nanopositioning and electroacoustics [41,42]. On the other
hand, hard ceramics can withstand high levels of electrical excitation and are typically used
in high-power transducers.
After careful consideration, a soft PZT piezoceramic PIC255 from PI ceramic [43] was
chosen as the ideal candidate for low-frequency applications due to its excellent acoustic
sensitivity in the desired frequency range (up to ∼170 kHz), and its small size, with a
diameter of ∼10 mm and a thickness of ∼5 mm. In designing and applying piezoelectric
transducers, the vibration characteristics of the ceramics are important, and it should be
noted that piezoelectric disks have three different oscillation modes: transverse, tangential,
and radial extensional. However, as described in [37], only the resonance frequencies of
the radial extensional modes can be measured in an impedance analysis. Therefore, this
paper focuses solely on the analysis of the radial extensional mode (low-frequency), which
is sufficient for the proposed application as demonstrated below.
As the piezoelectric transducers are usually circular, the vibration characteristics of
the ceramics are important in the design and application of transducers. It is important to
highlight that there are three different oscillation modes of piezoelectric disks: transverse,
tangential, and radial extensional. However, a theoretical and experimental analysis of
these modes, described in [37], shows that only the resonance frequencies of the radial
extensional modes can be measured in an impedance analysis. Consequently, in this paper,
we only analyze the radial extensional mode (low frequency). This mode is enough for the
proposed application as is demonstrated below.

2.2. Analytical Method: Design for Circular Piezoelectric Ceramics

It is common practice to analyze the vibration characteristics of piezoelectric ceramics
using 1D (one-dimensional) analytical models as they help to give an approximation of
the response of a transducer, are computationally very inexpensive and help to speed up
product design cycles [23,28,33,44]. According to this, the vibrational behavior of a circular
ceramic can be obtained from the constitutive equations.
Figure 1 shows the geometrical scheme of the piezoelectric ceramic of thickness h and
radius R. The ceramic is polarized along the thickness (Z-axis), and the two opposite planar
faces are covered with full electrodes.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2742 4 of 17

Figure 1. Piezoelectric ceramic with axial polarization, thickness h, and radio R. The coordinates
(r, θ, z) are cylindrical coordinates with the origin in the center of the ceramic.

In the following, the cylindrical coordinates (r, θ, z) will be used. If the radial exten-
sional oscillation is assumed to be axisymmetric and harmonic in time, t, with a known
angular frequency ω, the displacement of the middle plane along the radius R of the ceramic,
ur (r, t), can be expressed as a function of the radial component, U (r ), as ur (r, t) = U (r ) e j ω t .
In this case, the dynamic behavior is given by the common equation for radial mode analysis
in two dimensions [28] whose general solution is:

U (r ) = C J1 ( β r ), (1)
where Jα ( β r ) is the Bessel function of the first kind and order α, and the parameters C and
β are defined as:

2 V d31 (1 + v p ) R
C= · , (2)
( 1 − v p ) J1 ( β R ) − β R J0 ( β R ) h
q
β = ω ρ s11 E (1 − v2 ), (3)
p

where v p = s12E /s E is the planar Poisson’s ratio, ρ is the density of ceramic material, V is
11
E and s E are the mechanical and piezoelectric coefficients
the electrical potential, and d31 , s12 11
of the ceramic PIC255 used in this work (Appendix A).
Applying a potential difference V between the ceramic electrodes, the electric current
I for radial extensional oscillation is expressed as [37]:

k2p
" #
1 − v p + (1 + v p ) 2 J1 ( β R) − β R J0 ( β R)
2 π R2 V ε T33 kp − 1
I = jω · (4)
h (1 − v p )J1 ( β R) − β R J0 ( β R)
Resonance and antiresonance frequencies in radial oscillation are important characteristics
of a piezoelectric ceramic. When a resonance frequency is applied, intensity approaches
infinity. On the other hand, an antiresonance frequency makes intensity disappear in the
piezoelectric element. Thus, resonance and antiresonance frequencies can be derived from
Expression (4), respectively, as follows:

β R J0 ( β R ) = ( 1 − v p ) J1 ( β R ) , (5)

k2p
" #
β R J0 ( β R ) = 1 − v p + ( 1 + v p ) J1 ( β R ) , (6)
k2p − 1

Thus, this analytical method serves as a basis for comparing the results obtained
with both the numeral method and electrical impedance experiments, considering that the
impedance reaches a local minimum when the ceramic oscillates at the resonance frequency
and a local maximum at the antiresonance frequency.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2742 5 of 17

The particularities of the numerical model are presented below.

2.3. Numerical Method: Design for Circular Piezoelectric Ceramics

The finite element method (FEM) is a numerical technique used to find approximate
solutions for the equations governing the piezoelectric effect and acoustic wave propaga-
tion, involving partial differential equations. Commercial programs, such as COMSOL
Multiphysics [45], are commonly used for this purpose, which allows obtaining the vibra-
tional behavior of ceramic in a more realistic way. However, it is crucial to have a strong
understanding of the relevant physics, proper mesh resolution to solve the waves, and
appropriate boundary conditions to accurately model piezoelectric ceramics.
In this section, we will discuss key considerations for modeling latent piezoelectric
ceramics using the FEM.
The preprocessing, processing, and post-processing used in the simulation of the
piezoelectric ceramic to obtain the impedance electric and RVR was implemented as follows:
1. Preprocessing: The simulations are performed in the structural mechanics module in
combination with the piezoelectric devices interface.
• Geometry: Geometries with a ratio R ≥ h can be approximated by a disk. The
piezoelectric ceramic cylinder type PIC255 is simulated and dimensioned in
3D. It has a radius R = 5 mm, and a thickness of h = 5 mm polarized in the
longitudinal axis.
• Frequencies of interest and meshing: In the sizing of the tetrahedral mesh ele-
ments, it was taken into account that the minor wavelength (maximum frequency,
250 kHz) was discretized in 16 parts. Thus, the number of mesh elements with
tetrahedral structure was 4318. Figure 2 shows the mesh used to discretize the
solutions.

Figure 2. (a) PIC 255 ceramic; (b) Geometry and 3D finite element meshing of piezoelectric ceramic
in COMSOL Multiphysics with radio R = 5 mm and thickness h = 5 mm.

• Boundary conditions:
– Free: This is the mechanical boundary condition, which applies to all ceramic
domain boundaries when the ceramic is free-form.
– Null charge: Default electrostatic boundary condition, which has no electri-
cal charge on the boundary and therefore applies to the non-electrode side
surface of the ceramics.
– Initial values: These introduce an initial shift of the acoustic field, electric
potential, or their derivatives. All initial values are set to 0 and apply to the
entire geometry.
– Axial symmetry: This is a default boundary condition used to obtain such
symmetry. It is set on the longitudinal axis of the ceramic.
– Electric potential: Sets the electric potential to a value of 1 V at one of the
electrodes.
– Ground: Sets the electric potential to zero at the boundary applied to the
other electrode surface.
2. Processing: The input parameters are the coefficients of the elasticity matrix, the
coupling matrix, the permittivity matrix, the density, and the mechanical and dielectric
Sensors 2023, 23, 2742 6 of 17

losses, respectively. For the development of this numerical model the Frequency
Domain study is used, where the displacement field and the electric potential can be
obtained from u(r, t) = ut (r )e j ω t and V (r, t) = Vt (r )e j ω t .
3. Post-processing: Two quantities are used to characterize the sensor: electrical impedance
and RVR.
• Electrical impedance: The impedance, Z, is obtained from the inward surface
charge density at one of the electrodes, σn , and the potential difference. The
electrical impedance can be obtained as follows [39]:

V V
Z= = R , (7)
I S σn dS
where I is the current intensity across the electrode, being the integral of the
inward surface density along the entire surface, S, of the electrode.
Deriving the admittance from the impedance is straightforward (Expression (7)).
Its calculation allows us to compare the behavior of the ceramic at the resonance
frequency with that of the experimental results.
• Receiving Voltage Response: In a linear regime, a ceramic radiates an acous-
tic wave with an amplitude proportional to its emission sensitivity. Moreover,
during the acquisition of acoustic waves, it generates an electrical signal propor-
tional to its reception sensitivity.
During transmission, the ceramic voltage sensitivity, STx,v , is used to express the
pressure P, in Pascals, generated in the medium at a distance of 1 m in free field
conditions as a function of the input voltage. Thus, given an input voltage, Vin ,
STx,v = P/Vin . This parameter is usually expressed in dB, taking as a reference
sensitivity 1 µPa/V.
The relationship between the voltage and intensity sensitivities is defined as
STx,i = STx,v · | ZT |, where ZT is the electrical input impedance of the ceramic.
During the reception of acoustic signals, the relationship between the voltage
generated in the ceramic when its terminals are in open circuit, Vout , and the
reception of an incident acoustic pressure P in Pascals, in a free field, is defined
as SRx = Vout /P. This parameter is usually expressed in dB, taking as a reference
sensitivity 1 µPa/V.
The reciprocity principle, Rcp (denoted in this paper as Rcp instead of J to avoid
confusion), is defined as the relation between the ceramic reception and trans-
mission intensity sensitivities [46]. Moreover, the following must hold:

SRx 2λx
Rcp = = −j , (8)
STx,i ρc
where λ = c/ f is the wavelength, x is a reference distance of 1 m, ρ the water
density, 1000 kg/m3 , and c is the sound’s propagation velocity in water 1480 m/s.
From previous expressions, when the type of waves radiated by the transducer
and the sensitivity in one of the two directions are known, the sensitivity in
the other direction can be derived from the reciprocity principle. For spherical
waves, the relationship between the two sensitivities is given by [46] as:

SRx STx,i
20 log = 20 log − 354 − 20 log f (kHz) (9)
1 V/µPa 1 µPa/V
From expression (9), it is straightforward to obtain the RVR using the transmis-
sion sensitivity of each of the simulated frequency steps. Thus, the numerical
model consists of exciting a point sufficiently far away from the ceramic from the
calculation of the sensitivity in emission by applying the reciprocity principle.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2742 7 of 17

Analysis and Numerical Results

Figure 3 compares the results obtained with both the analytical and numerical models.
As can be seen, the resonance frequency obtained in the radial oscillation mode with the
analytical model, proposed by [37], is f r = 176 kHz, and the one provided by COMSOL
Multiphysics is f r = 174 kHz with an error of ±1 with respect to the analytical method.
From these results, it can be concluded that both models provide similar resonance frequen-
cies, validating each other.

10−1

10−2
Admittance, Z −1 (S)

10−3

10−4
Analytical radial mode 3D – fr = 176 kHz
Numerical radial mode – fr = 174 kHz
10−5
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Frequency (kHz)

Figure 3. Electrical admittance of the analytical and numerical models for PIC 255 ceramic, R = 5 mm
and h = 5 mm.

Regarding the RVR, Figure 4 obtained with COMSOL Multiphysics, shows an approx-
imation to the experimental measurements. The plot presents an almost homogeneous
behavior in amplitude, with ∼−205 dB re V/µPa starting at 90 kHz.

−200
RVR (dB re V/µPa)

−210

−220

−230
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Frequency (kHz)

Figure 4. RVR simulated in COMSOL Multiphysics for PIC 255 ceramic, R = 5 mm and h = 5 mm.

The similarities of both analytical and simulated models allow us to move closer to
the design and manufacturing of the sensor.

2.4. Importance of the Matching Layer

The acoustic matching layer is used to increase the efficiency in coupling acoustic
energy from the incident medium (water) to the transmission medium (ceramic). It is
Sensors 2023, 23, 2742 8 of 17

commonly built with a material that has an acoustic impedance between the incident one
of the water, Zi(water) , and the transmission one of the ceramic, Zt(ceramic) [21].
In most cases, piezoelectric ceramics have a higher impedance in relation to the
acoustic loads (water, tissue, etc.). Thus, much of the ultrasonic energy is reflected back
to the load/ceramic interface. This is why acoustic impedance matching layers are used,
to achieve better results in the bandwidth response of the designed sensor. To this end, a
layer is added between the receiving face of the ceramic and the acoustic load, allowing to
increase the mechanical load of the interface.

Analysis
1. Zero-layer model: Considering a simple model in which the transmission of an
acoustic wave that is generated in a medium and is received by the ceramic is studied
(where the electrical signal is recorded), the expected signal loss can be estimated if
only the free ceramics are in the water.
The sound intensity transmission coefficient, Ti , is derived from the following known
expression [47]:

4Zt / Zi
Ti = (10)
( Zt / Zi + 1)2
In this case, the acoustic wave is generated in the water with Zi(water) = 1.48 MRayl
and received by the ceramic with Zt(ceramic) = 31.2 MRayl, as depicted in Table 1.
From Expression (10), i.e., when there is no matching layer, Ti = 0.17. This means
only 17% of the signal generated in the medium is finally transmitted to the ceramic.
2. One-layer model: Understanding the importance of using a matching layer to maxi-
mize the acoustic transmission between the water and the ceramic, it is necessary to
use an intermediate layer that makes the impedance matching progressive.
√ case Zi < Z1 < Zt , the best impedance optimizing the transmission is
For the
Z1 = Zi Zt [18]. Thus, Z1 = 6.8 MRayl.

Table 1. Velocity, density, and acoustic impedance values of the elements tested in the experiment.

Velocity Density Acoustic Impedance

Element
m/s kg/m3 Z ac (MRayl)
Water 1480 1000 1.48
Methacrylate 2700 119 3.21
Ceramic 4000 7800 31.2

Although it was not the best option, we chose methacrylate as the matching layer with
two different thicknesses (5 mm and 10 mm) because it presents an increase in acoustic
sensitivity at certain frequencies, as will be explained below.
Regarding methacrylate, it has an acoustic impedance of 3.21 MRayl. This means that
optimal transmission cannot be achieved. However, the resulting transmission curves are
calculated by attaching the sensors to the methacrylate layer and predicting the increasing
sensitivity of the frequencies.
Figure 5 shows the transmission curves obtained for a matching layer thickness of
5 mm and 10 mm. It can be observed two transmission maxima at 67 kHz and 202 kHz
for a thickness of 10 mm of methacrylate, and another maximum of 134 kHz for the thick-
ness of 5 mm. This optimizes the sensor behavior for low frequencies and can provide a
transmission coefficient Ti =∼ 70%.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2742 9 of 17

0.8

0.7

Transmission coefficient, Ti
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3 Methacrylate, thickness 5 mm

Methacrylate, thickness 10 mm
0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Frequency (kHz)
Figure 5. Acoustic transmission coefficient with a methacrylate matching layer.

2.5. Importance of the Housing

During acoustic calibration of piezoelectric ceramics measured free in the water, both
acoustic and electromagnetic waves can be observed as a result of transmission or reception
processes. Figure 6a shows an example of one of the calibration signals. In it, the acoustic
wave appears after the reception of the electromagnetic wave. Figure 6b shows an example
of what can be observed when the ceramic is covered with housing. The electromagnetic
wave disappears, since the housing functions as a Faraday chamber [48] without the Hall
effect and the amplitude of this received wave is reduced.
In addition, the housing is used for ease of use of the transducer and mechanical
protection of the transducer’s design elements, such as the piezoelectric ceramic and the
electrical connections [20].
The design of the housing is carried out using AutoCAD software as an initial ap-
proximation, which is then machined using a milling machine to create a physical model.
The housing consists of two parts, namely the back and front parts. The back part of the
housing serves as a support for the piezoelectric ceramic while the front part is responsible
for screwing and safeguarding the interior of the housing against potential leaks. For the
manufacturing of the housing, aluminum is chosen as the material of construction due to
its various desirable properties, including good thermal and electrical conductivity, light
weight, high-temperature resistance, mechanical strength, and corrosion resistance. The
use of aluminum also provides a cost-effective solution for housing construction.

10 10
Received signal (no housing) Received signal (housing)
Filtered AW
5 5
Amplitude (mV)

Amplitude (mV)

Filtered EMW

0 0

−5 −5

−10 −10
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Time (s) Time (s)

(a) (b)
Figure 6. (a) Signal received in the process of emission-reception in the piezoelectric ceramic free in
water (electromagnetic wave (EMW) in red, acoustic wave (AW) in blue); (b) example of the acoustic
signal received by housing ceramic.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2742 10 of 17

2.6. Sensor Manufacturing

Once the aluminum housing is designed as depicted in Figure 7a, the sensor is assem-
bled as illustrated in Figure 7. The first step is to pass a coaxial cable through the hole that
closes the transducer and glue what will be the positive pole to the center of one of the
faces of the ceramic with conductive epoxy. Then, it is left to dry completely for 24 h as
seen in Figure 7b. The other side of the ceramic is glued to the back part of the housing
with conductive epoxy, and again left to dry for 24 h, as shown in Figure 7c. The shield
of the cable will make contact with the housing. A BNC connector will be used at the end
of the cable, (Figure 7d). Finally, the sensor is screwed on and the outer joints are sealed
with Weicon Lock Pen Sistem AN 302-43 insulating glue to prevent leakage. The hole that
closes the sensor is sealed with Sikaflex, which is a permanently elastic polyurethane-based
adhesive material with high water resistance (Figure 7e) and again left to dry for 24 h.
Subsequently, experimental measurements in water are carried out with this sensor.

Figure 7. Sensor manufacturing process. (a) Design of the housing, measures in millimeters; (b) Coax-
ial cable attached to the positive pole of the ceramics; (c) Ceramic bonding to the housing; (d) Shielding
of the cable with housing; (e) Sealed sensor.

3. Experimental Methods Characterization: Ceramic and Sensor

The measurements were conducted using equipment provided by the Escuela Politéc-
nica Superior de Gandía at the Universitat Politècnica de València. Appendix B presents a
detailed list of the devices used in the measurements.
Electrical admittance and RVR are fundamental features that define piezoelectric
sensors. This section describes the processes for the characterization of this sensor, and the
experimental setups consisting of measurements with free ceramic and sensor in water, as
shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Experimental measurements. (a) Free ceramic in water; (b) Sensor in water.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2742 11 of 17

3.1. Electrical Admittance

To measure the electrical admittance, we use the Wayne Kerr Electronics WK6500P
high-frequency impedance analyzer Signals are transmitted using a frequency sweep from
10 to 250 kHz in 0.1 kHz steps and a homogeneous amplitude voltage of 500 mV. The
response provided by the transducer is characterized by measuring the potential difference.
The experimental setup and scheme are shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Experimental setup and schematic diagram for impedance measurement.

3.2. Receiving Voltage Response

To obtain the RVR, the direct comparison method was used, with which the receiving
response of the designed sensor is obtained based on the known emission response (as
discussed in Section 2.3) of a reference transducer. The RVR measurement scheme is shown
in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Schematic of the RVR measurement setup.

The measurements were configured using a National Instruments PXI 1031-DC gener-
ation and acquisition system, connected to a computer. The signal generates tones ranging
from 10 to 250 kHz in steps of 0.1 kHz, is amplified by an E&I 2100L RF, and sent to the
transducer SX60-FR with a Transmission Voltage Response (TVR) of 134 dB re Pa/V @
1 m, located in a water tank with dimensions of 1.20 × 0.80 × 0.60 m3 and at a distance
of 23 cm from the sensor. On the other hand, the propagated signals are received by the
sensor, converting them into electrical voltage, as depicted in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Experimental setup and schematic diagram for measuring the RVR of the piezoelectric sensor.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2742 12 of 17

4. Results and Discussion

This section compares the experiments with the analytical and numerical studies for
the free ceramic, the in-water sensor of electrical admittance and RVR, as well as the sensor
attached to the matching layer.
Regarding the electrical admittance, Figure 12 demonstrates that the ceramic’s reso-
nance frequency, f r = 177 kHz, is close to the one provided by the numerical simulation,
f r = 174 kHz. For the sensor, there is a decrease of 4 kHz in the resonance frequency,
f r = 173 kHz, compared to the free ceramic measured in water. This is due to the increase
in mass and thickness caused by the housing. In addition, the measurement of the free
ceramic shows the first four vibration modes at low frequency (radial mode) in 177, 270, 353,
and 425 kHz. The different radial modes of oscillation are observed in Figure 13, calculated
from the simulations with the commercial software COMSOL Multiphysics.

10−2

10−3
Admittance, Z −1 (S)

10−4

10−5
Numerical analysis – fr = 174 kHz
Measured - ceramic – fr = 177 kHz
10−6 Measured - sensor – fr = 173 kHz

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Frequency (kHz)

Figure 12. Simulated and measured electrical admittance obtained for the ceramic and sensor in
water.

Figure 13. Radial extensional oscillation for PIC ceramic 255. (a) first mode 177 kHz; (b) second mode
270 kHz; (c) third mode 353 kHz; and (d) fourth mode 425 kHz.

The first mode in the ceramic presents a slight maximum radial deformation in the
central axis and, in turn, another deformation in the longitudinal axis with an elongation of
the ceramic (thickness). In the next three modes, the deformations in the radial plane are
more evident, with a larger deformation in thickness for the third mode.
Housing the ceramic improves the RVR, with a flatter response over the entire fre-
quency sweep from 50 to 200 kHz, with a value of ∼−200 dB re V/µPa. From 174 kHz, the
sensitivity is higher with a value of ∼−197 dB re V/µPa, as depicted in Figure 14. Taking
into account the systematic uncertainties of the measurement, this result should be taken
with caution. In these cases, the estimated systematic uncertainties due to reproducibility
are 3 dB.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2742 13 of 17

−190

RVR (dB re V/µPa)

−195

−200

−205

−210
Numerical
−215 Measured - ceramic
Measured - sensor
−220
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Frequency (kHz)

Figure 14. Simulated and measured RVR for ceramic and sensor in water.

Regarding the sensors attached in different thicknesses of methacrylate as a matching

layer, ML, the electrical admittance curve is presented in Figure 15 and compared with
the free sensors measured in water. As can be observed, sensor 1 (ML—5 mm) and sensor
2 (ML—10 mm) produce a slight shift towards high frequencies in the admittance peak,
f r = 181 kHz, and 177 kHz, respectively, compared to the free sensors, 173 kHz. This
increase in the resonance frequency is due to the influence that the methacrylate exerts as a
matching layer of the sensors, allowing for improvement in the impedance matching of
the media.

×10−3
1
Sensor free – 173 kHz
0.8 Sensor 1, ML 5 mm – 181 kHz
Sensor 2, ML 10 mm – 177 kHz
Admittance, Z −1 (S)

0.6

0.4

0.2

−0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Frequency (kHz)

Figure 15. Electrical admittance measurement with the sensors attached to the matching layer
compared to free sensors.

In relation to the RVR of the sensors when using a matching layer, Figure 16 shows
that in sensor 1 (ML—5 mm) there is an increase of the RVR at 124 kHz (except for the
lowest frequency values). This value is close to the analytical one-layer model at 134 kHz.
For sensor 2 (ML—10 mm), there is a higher sensitivity at the frequency of 82 kHz, which is
close to the analytical one-layer model at 67 kHz. Therefore, for these frequencies, there is a
higher acoustic sensitivity.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2742 14 of 17

−200
Sensor 1, ML 5 mm
Sensor 2, ML 10 mm
−205

RVR (dB re V/µPa)

−210

−215

−220

−225

−230

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Frequency (kHz)

Figure 16. RVR curve for sensors with ML compared to sensors free in the water.

Below, Table 2 shows the obtained results for different studies of electrical admittance.

Table 2. Experimental results obtained from electrical admittance for analytical, numerical, and
experimental studies.

Z −1 Analytical Numerical Experimental

ceramic 176 kHz 174 kHz 177 kHz ± 0.0011
sensor - - 173 kHz ± 4.6942 · 10−5
sensor (ML—5 mm) 134 kHz - 181 kHz ± 2.6456 · 10−5
67 kHz
sensor (ML—10 mm) - 177 kHz ± 7.1218 · 10−6
202 kHz

5. Conclusions
While many previous studies have focused on characterizing piezoelectric acous-
tic transducers based on their various vibration modes and corresponding electrical
impedance, the approach presented in this work goes beyond that. Specifically, we propose
a novel method for characterizing a piezoelectric sensor based on its acoustic sensitivity,
which is a crucial characteristic that defines the sensor’s performance. To this end, we not
only design and manufacture the sensor, but also perform a comprehensive analysis of its
acoustic sensitivity, which provides valuable insights for future applications of ultrasonic
measurement systems.
This work proposed a comparison of three methods for designing and characterizing
low-frequency piezoelectric transducers. An ultrasonic measurement system was devel-
oped to study sound propagation in the fluid medium, starting with a 1D analytical model
of a ceramic vibrating in its radial mode. A second method using FEM was then applied to
obtain a more realistic response of the designed sensor, with the analysis of its electrical
impedance and RVR. Finally, an easy-to-manufacture and assemble sensor was constructed
and characterized through experimental testing, with results compared against the first
two methods. The influence of the matching layer and housing design on the sensor per-
formance was also studied. This paper not only proposed the characterization of a sensor
based on its acoustic sensitivity but also designed and manufactured such a sensor based
on this important characteristic, which defines piezoelectric sensors.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2742 15 of 17

The three methods proposed in this work have enabled the design and full characteri-
zation of a sensor’s role in an ultrasonic measurement system. The results obtained provide
a powerful tool to analyze and optimize ultrasonic measurement systems at various levels,
which can have significant practical implications.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.C.-V.; methodology, M.C.-V.; validation, R.A.-C.; formal

analysis, M.C.-V.; investigation, M.C.-V.; writing—original draft preparation, M.C.-V.; writing—
review and editing, M.C.-V., R.A.-C., I.V.-P. and I.R.-R.; supervision, R.A.-C., I.V.-P. and I.R.-R. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This workwas supported by the grants PID2020-116329GB-C22 and TED2021-129336B-I00
funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by the European Union NextGenerationEU/PRTR.
This work is also a result of an internship funded by the Autonomous Community of the Región of
Murcia through the Fundación Séneca—Agencia de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Región de Murcia
(Seneca Foundation—Agency for Science and Technology in the Region of Murcia) and the European
Union’s NextGenerationEU program.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available upon request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: María Campo-Valera is grateful for the postdoctoral program Margarita Salas—
Spanish Ministry of Universities (financed by the European Union’s NextGenerationEU). Ignacio
Rodríguez-Rodríguez would like to thank Plan Andaluz de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación
(PAIDI), Junta de Andalucía, Spain.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Matrices describing the piezoelectric constants for the ceramic PIC 225.

1.59 −0.57 −0.74 0 0 0

 
−0.57 1.59 −0.74 0 0 0 
 
−0.74 −0.74 −2.10 0 0 0  · 10−11 (1/Pa)
SE = 

 0 (A1)
 0 0 4.50 0 0 

 0 0 0 0 4.50 0 
0 0 0 0 0 4.32
 
0 0 0 0 535 0
d= 0 0 0 535 0 0 · 10−12 (C/N ) (A2)
−174 −174 394 0 0 0
 
1649 0 0
εT =  0 1649 0  (A3)
0 0 1750

Appendix B
Table A1 summarizes the devices employed for the characterization of measurements.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2742 16 of 17

Table A1. Devices employed for the characterization of measurements.

Name/Brand Serial Description

Frequency range: 10 kHz to 12 MHz, Gain: 50 ± 1.5, Nominal output
Power amplifier 2100L
power: 100 W
The PXI platform utilized in this study was a 7-slot chassis that
Generation and acquisition, accommodated both DC and AC inputs. Its main purpose is to transmit
NI PXI-1031
National Instruments a sequence of signals through channel 0, as determined by the
LabVIEW software, and to receive other signals via channel 1.
The ExpressCard-8360 is connected to a laptop computer and serves to
NI PXI card ExpressCard-8360
control the PXI platform.
48 V DC 3.1 A, which allows millimeter-precision steps. It is used to
EvoDrive ST-23 control the sweep in measurements requiring emitter displacements.
Motor EVA ROBOTICS
FW-A201 Position resolution: ±0.044°. Control resolution: ±2.5% on a 1.8°
motor.
Impedance analyzer Wayne Frequency range: 20 Hz–5 MHz, Dissipation factor: ±0.0005, Quality
WK6500P
Kerr Electronics factor: ±0.05%, Capacitance / Inductance / Impedance: ±0.05%
Transducer SX60-FR TVR: 134 dB re µPa/V @ 1 m, Capacitance: 3.6 nF ± 15% @ 20 °C
Sensor Design - RVR: −205 dB ± 3 dB re V/µPa

References
1. Duquennoy, M.; Smagin, N.; Kadi, T.; Ouaftouh, M.; Jenot, F. Development of a Broadband (100–240 MHz) Surface Acoustic
Wave Emitter Devoted to the Non-Destructive Characterization of Sub-Micrometric Thin Films. Sensors 2022, 22, 7464. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
2. Le, T.C.; Phan, T.T.V.; Nguyen, T.H.; Ho, D.D.; Huynh, T.C. A low-cost prestress monitoring method for post-tensioned RC beam
using piezoelectric-based smart strand. Buildings 2021, 11, 431. [CrossRef]
3. Andreades, C.; Mahmoodi, P.; Ciampa, F. Characterisation of smart CFRP composites with embedded PZT transducers for
nonlinear ultrasonic applications. Compos. Struct. 2018, 206, 456–466. [CrossRef]
4. Reddy, K.A. Non-destructive testing, evaluation of stainless steel materials. Mater. Today Proc. 2017, 4, 7302–7312. [CrossRef]
5. Raine, A.B.; Aslam, N.; Underwood, C.P.; Danaher, S. Development of an ultrasonic airflow measurement device for ducted air.
Sensors 2015, 15, 10705–10722. [CrossRef]
6. Yamamoto, S.; Hoshi, T.; Miura, T.; Semboshi, J.; Ochiai, M.; Fujita, Y.; Ogawa, T.; Asai, S. Defect detection in thick weld structure
using welding in-process laser ultrasonic testing system. Mater. Trans. 2014, 55, 998–1002. [CrossRef]
7. Kotze, R.; Wiklund, J.; Haldenwang, R. Optimisation of Pulsed Ultrasonic Velocimetry system and transducer technology for
industrial applications. Ultrasonics 2013, 53, 459–469. [CrossRef]
8. Iglesias, E.; de Frutos, J.; de Espinosa, F.M. Modelado de transductores ultrasónicos piezoeléctricos para fisioterapia. BoletÍN Soc.
Espa NOla CerÁMica Vidr. 2015, 54, 231–235. [CrossRef]
9. Qiu, Y.; Gigliotti, J.; Wallace, M.; Griggio, F.; Demore, C.; Cochran, S.; Trolier-McKinstry, S. Piezoelectric micromachined
ultrasound transducer (PMUT) arrays for integrated sensing, actuation and imaging. Sensors 2015, 15, 8020–8041. [CrossRef]
10. Ter Haar, G.R. High intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of tumors. Echocardiography 2001, 18, 317–322. [CrossRef]
11. Khazaee, M.; Rosendahl, L.A.; Rezania, A. Online Condition Monitoring of Rotating Machines by Self-Powered Piezoelectric
Transducer from Real-Time Experimental Investigations. Sensors 2022, 22, 3395. [CrossRef]
12. Villó-Pérez, I.; Alcover-Garau, P.M.; Campo-Valera, M.; Toledo-Moreo, R. A novel 1D-FDTD scheme to solve the nonlinear
second-order thermoviscous hydrodynamic model. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 2022, 118, 107015. [CrossRef]
13. Zhang, Y.; Wang, L.; Qin, L.; Zhong, C. Wideband and wide beam piezoelectric composite spherical cap transducer for underwater
acoustics. Ferroelectrics 2021, 583, 295–305. [CrossRef]
14. Shi, S.; Geng, W.; Bi, K.; He, J.; Hou, X.; Mu, J.; Li, F.; Chou, X. Design and fabrication of a novel MEMS piezoelectric hydrophone.
Sens. Actuators Phys. 2020, 313, 112203. [CrossRef]
15. Suñol, F.; Ochoa, D.A.; Suñé, L.R.; García, J.E. Design and characterization of immersion ultrasonic transducers for pulsed regime
applications. Instrum. Sci. Technol. 2018, 47, 213–232. [CrossRef]
16. Martins, M.; Correia, V.; Cabral, J.; Lanceros-Mendez, S.; Rocha, J.G. Optimization of piezoelectric ultrasound emitter transducers
for underwater communications. Sens. Actuators Phys. 2012, 184, 141–148. [CrossRef]
17. Sharapov, V. Piezoceramic Sensors; Springer Science & Business Media: Heidelberg, Germany; Dordrecht, The Netherlands;
London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2011. [CrossRef]
18. Arnau Vives, A. Piezoelectric Transducers and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; Volume 2008. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2023, 23, 2742 17 of 17

19. Lin, P.; Zhang, L.; Fei, C.; Li, D.; Wu, R.; Chen, Q.; Hou, C.; Yang, Y. Novel multi-layer-composites design for ultrasonic transducer
applications. Compos. Struct. 2020, 245, 112364. [CrossRef]
20. Pershevska, L.; Drozdenko, O.; Drozdenko, K.; Leiko, O. Study of the influence of the housing on the cooling efficiency of the
piezoceramic electroacoustic Langevin-type transducer. Technol. Audit. Prod. Reserv. 2021, 3, 50–55. [CrossRef]
21. do Nascimento, V.M.; da S. Nantes Button, V.L.; Maia, J.M.; Tabares Costa, E.; Valadares Oliveira, E.J. Influence of backing and
matching layers in ultrasound transducer performance. In Proceedings of the SPIE Proceedings; Walker, W.F., Insana, M.F., Eds.;
Medical Imaging 2003; SPIE: San Diego, CA, USA, 2003. [CrossRef]
22. Nguyen, N.T.; Lethiecq, M.; Karlsson, B.; Patat, F. Highly attenuative rubber modified epoxy for ultrasonic transducer backing
applications. Ultrasonics 1996, 34, 669–675. [CrossRef]
23. Sun, D.; Wang, S.; Hata, S.; Shimokohbe, A. Axial vibration characteristics of a cylindrical, radially polarized piezoelectric
transducer with different electrode patterns. Ultrasonics 2010, 50, 403–410. [CrossRef]
24. Dong, S.; Uchino, K.; Li, L.; Viehland, D. Analytical solutions for the transverse deflection of a piezoelectric circular axisymmetric
unimorph actuator. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control. 2007, 54, 1240–1249. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Ivina, N. Analysis of the natural vibrations of circular piezoceramic plates with partial electrodes. Acoust. Phys. 2001, 47, 714–720.
[CrossRef]
26. Predoi, M.V.; Petre, C.C.; Vasile, O.; Boiangiu, M. High frequency longitudinal damped vibrations of a cylindrical ultrasonic
transducer. Shock Vib. 2014, 2014. [CrossRef]
27. Wauer, J. Vibrations of Piezoceramic Rods. PAMM 2004, 4, 121–122. [CrossRef]
28. Rogacheva, N.N. The Theory of Piezoelectric Shells and Plates; CRC Press: Boca Ratón, FL, USA, 1994. [CrossRef]
29. Suhir, E.; Birman, V. Effect of temperature on vibrations of physically nonlinear piezoelectric rods. In Proceedings of the 11th
International Workshop on Thermal Investigation of ICs and Systems, THERMINIC 2005, Belgirate Italy, 27–30 September 2005.
30. Adelman, N.T.; Stavsky, Y.; Segal, E. Radial vibrations of axially polarized piezoelectric ceramic cylinders. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
1975, 57, 356–360. [CrossRef]
31. Jordan, T.L.; Ounaies, Z. Piezoelectric ceramics characterization. In Techreport ICASE No. 2001-28; Institute For Computer
Applications in Science and Engineering: Hampton, VA, USA, 2001.
32. Sherrit, S.; Mukherjee, B.K. Characterization of piezoelectric materials for transducers. arXiv 2007, arXiv:0711.2657.
33. Kunkel, H.; Locke, S.; Pikeroen, B. Finite-Element Analysis of Vibrational Modes in Piezoelectric Ceramic Disks. IEEE Trans.
Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 1990, 37, 316–328. [CrossRef]
34. Zalazar, M.A.; Guarnieri, F.A. Análisis y evaluación del comportamiento de sensores piezoeléctricos. MecÁnica Comput. 2010, 29,
6665–6684.
35. Melchor, J.; Muñoz, R.; Rus, G. Torsional ultrasound sensor optimization for soft tissue characterization. Sensors 2017, 17, 1402.
[CrossRef]
36. Piao, C.; Kim, J.O. Vibration characteristics of an ultrasonic transducer of two piezoelectric discs. Ultrasonics 2017, 74, 72–80.
[CrossRef]
37. Huang, C.H.; Lin, Y.C.; Ma, C.C. Theoretical analysis and experimental measurement for resonant vibration of piezoceramic
circular plates. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 2004, 51, 12–24. [CrossRef]
38. Li, X.; Lyu, D.; Song, Y.; Zhang, S.; Hu, P.; Jeong, H. Simultaneously determining sensitivity and effective geometrical parameters
of ultrasonic piezoelectric transducers using a self-reciprocity method. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 2019, 66,
1649–1657. [CrossRef]
39. San Emeterio, J.L.; Ramos, A.; Sanz Sánchez, P.T. La impedancia eléctrica normalizada de transductores cerámicos piezoeléctricos
como herramiento de evaluación y caracterización. Bol. Soc. Esp. Cerám. Vidr. 1999, 38, 518–521. [CrossRef]
40. Shahab, S.; Zhao, S.; Erturk, A. Soft and hard piezoelectric ceramics and single crystals for random vibration energy harvesting.
Energy Technol. 2018, 6, 935–942. [CrossRef]
41. Chen, J.; Panda, R. Commercialization of piezoelectric single crystals for medical imaging applications. In Proceedings of the IEEE
Ultrasonics Symposium; IEEE: Rotterdam, The Netherlands 2005; Volume 1, pp. 235–240. [CrossRef]
42. Berlincourt, D. Piezoelectric ceramics: Characteristics and applications. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1981, 70, 1586–1595. [CrossRef]
43. PI-Ceramic. Piezoelectric Ceramic Products; PI Ceramic: Lederhose, Germany, 2003.
44. INSPEC 3237638; IEEE Standard on Piezoelectricity. Technical Report; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1987. [CrossRef]
45. Comsol. Guide COMSOL Multiphysics User’s; Inc.-2006.-708; Comsol: Burlington, MA, USA, 2012.
46. Urick, R.J. Principles of Underwater Sound, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill Book: New York, NY, USA, 1975.
47. Kinsler, L.E.; Frey, A.R.; Coppens, A.B.; Sanders, J.V. Fundamentals of Acoustics; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2000.
48. Faraday, M. XLIX. Experimental researches in electricity—Nineteenth series. Lond. Edinb. Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci. 1846, 28,
294–317. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.