See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/7520302

Design of ultrasonic transmitters with defined frequency characteristics for

wireless pressure sensing in injection molding

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control · September 2005

DOI: 10.1109/TUFFC.2005.1509795 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

13 219

4 authors:

Li Zhang Charles Theurer

General Electric GE
29 PUBLICATIONS   156 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   71 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Robert X. Gao David Kazmer

Case Western Reserve University University of Massachusetts Lowell
359 PUBLICATIONS   4,338 CITATIONS    261 PUBLICATIONS   1,134 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

2018 Polymer Processing Society Meeting (Boston, MA) View project

Rolling Element Bearing Diagnostics and Prognostics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert X. Gao on 12 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1360 ieee transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, vol. 52, no. 8, august 2005

Design of Ultrasonic Transmitters with Defined

Frequency Characteristics for Wireless
Pressure Sensing in Injection Molding
Li Zhang, Charles B. Theurer, Robert X. Gao, Senior Member, IEEE, and David O. Kazmer

Abstract—This paper describes a new mechanical wire-

less data transmission technique using ultrasonic waves as
the information carrier for on-line injection mold cavity
pressure measurement. Ultrasonic transmitters with spe-
cific frequency characteristics were designed, modeled, sim-
ulated, and prototyped for pressure data retrieval from an
enclosed machine environment, as well as for sensor iden-
tification in a sensor matrix configuration. The effects of
the front layer and bonding layer of the transmitter on the
overall sensor frequency characteristics were investigated,
using an equivalent circuit model. The optimal layer thick-
ness was determined for the design of transmitters with spe-
cific dominant resonant frequency and narrow bandwidth.
Experimental results were in good agreement with the anal-
ysis, thus confirming the design approach.
Fig. 1. Installation of a wired pressure sensor in the mold cavity.

I. Introduction
or process monitoring of injection molding, pressure
F measured within the mold cavity has been found to
be a more accurate indicator of product quality than pres-
sures measured elsewhere, e.g., along the hydraulic lines
or at the injection nozzle [1], [2]. Common practice in the
industry uses a single cavity pressure sensor installed near
the injection gate next to the mold cavity, and the per-
formance of the optimal molding parameters is tracked by
the pressure measured at this position. However, a sensor
matrix arrangement often is desirable to measure pressures
at other strategically important locations, e.g., in the mid-
dle and at the end of the melt flow along the mold cavity,
to obtain a comprehensive pressure profile and gain in-
sight into the flow pattern, especially for parts with long
flow distances and complicated geometries. However, for
conventional pressure sensors to be installed in an injec-
tion mold cavity, the mold structure has to be modified to
provide a pathway for wire connections. Due to the com-
plexity of the mold structure (Fig. 1) involving ejection
holes, cooling lines, clamping plates, etc., the number of
wired sensors that can be installed in a mold is severely
limited.
Manuscript received May 14, 2004; accepted January 21, 2005. The
authors gratefully acknowledge funding provided to this research by
the National Science Foundation under award DMI-9988757.
L. Zhang and R. X. Gao are with the Department of Mechanical
and Industrial Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
MA 01003 (e-mail: gao@ecs.umass.edu).
C. B. Theurer is with the Pervasive Decisioning Systems Labora-
tory, GE Global Research, Niskayuna, NY 12309.
D. O. Kazmer is with the Department of Plastics Engineering,
University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA 01854.
In comparison, wireless sensors can be installed in
tapped holes beneath the surface of the mold cavity
(Fig. 2), requiring much less modifications to the mold
structure. Therefore, wireless sensing is physically less in-
vasive and economically more advantageous. Because of
their small sizes (e.g., 16 mm × 28 mm), more sensors can
be installed per mold as compared to the wired sensors,
leading to a more comprehensive spatial coverage of the
pressure profile within the mold, thus improving product
quality control.
Compared to the radio frequency (RF) wave that com-
monly has been used as the information carrier for wireless
communication, ultrasound wave is acoustic in nature and
does not suffer from the electromagnetic shielding effect
prevalent in an injection mold environment, due to the
surrounding steels. Thus, it provides a better-suited alter-
native for transmitting the pressure data out of the mold
cavity, as is experimentally verified [3]. Research has re-
sulted in a wireless, pressure-sensor prototype that consists
of three major components: an energy converter, a thresh-
old modulator, and an ultrasonic transmitter [4]. Through
the threshold modulator, electrical charges generated by
the energy converter due to the polymer melt pressure ex-
ceeding the preset threshold values are applied to the ultra-
sonic transmitter. The transmitter in turn generates a se-
ries of ultrasound pulses, with each pulse corresponding to
a specific pressure threshold value. Reconstruction of the
pressure is achieved by multiplying the number of pulses
received at an ultrasound receiver outside of the mold with
the respective pressure threshold values. This sensing prin-
ciple is illustrated in Fig. 3, where curve 1 represents the

0885–3010/$20.00

c 2005 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIV OF MASS-LOWELL. Downloaded on June 08,2010 at 15:24:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
zhang et al.: new mechanical wireless data transmission technique
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2. Installation of wireless pressure sensors in the mold cavity.
(a) Wireless sensor installation, (b) signal and energy paths.
actual pressure, and curve 2 is the reconstructed pressure
from the ultrasonic pulses. As an example, an ultrasonic
pulse is generated each time the mold cavity pressure in-
creases by 1 MPa, as indicated by curve 3.
To enable multiple-point, in-mold pressure measure-
ment, ultrasonic pulses transmitted from different sensors
in a sensor matrix must have frequency characteristics (i.e.,
center frequency and bandwidth) that are distinctively dif-
ferent from each other, in order for them to be differen-
tiated by the receiver. Because these characteristics are
determined by the combination of the material constants
and geometry of the individual constituent components of
the transmitter (e.g., thickness of the piezoelectric actua-
tor layer and bonding layer), design optimization is needed
to achieve specific target values. This can be achieved
through modeling of the vibration behavior of the trans-
mitter. Among the various modeling techniques investi-
gated, the finite-element (FE) method has been used to
analyze transmitters with complex configurations, such as
ultrasonic arrays [5], [6] and piezoelectric composite trans-
ducers [7], [8]. Given that a piezoelectric element with its
radius much greater than its thickness possesses a domi-
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIV OF MASS-LOWELL. Downloaded on June 08,2010 at 15:24:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1361
Fig. 3. Illustration of the wireless pressure measurement by ultrasonic
pulses.
nant vibration mode (thickness extensional mode), which
produces a greater vibration magnitude than that of any
other modes (e.g., radial or thickness shear modes), the
thickness extensional resonant frequency can be chosen as
the specific frequency characteristic for mold sensor de-
sign. Under this condition, it was shown that the equiva-
lent circuit (EC) technique presents a more flexible, easier
to construct, and computationally more efficient model-
ing approach than the FE method [9]. As an example,
the EC technique has been applied to the design of ul-
trasonic transmitters with broadband frequency response
and high efficiency [10], [11]. Also, the effects of multiple
matching front layers [12], backing layer [13], and bonding
and electrode layers [14] on the performance of piezoelec-
tric transmitters were studied using the equivalent circuit
model. In these studies, the transmitters were designed
to increase the bandwidth and, consequently, the lateral
resolution for enhanced testing and imaging purposes. In
comparison, transmitters with narrow bandwidths are de-
sired for mold cavity pressure sensing, in order for them
to be distinguished in a sensor matrix arrangement.
This paper investigates the use of the equivalent cir-
cuit modeling technique for the parametric design of nar-
row band, ultrasound transmitters. The effects of the front
and bonding layers on the output frequency characteris-
tics were studied to obtain the optimal design parameters.
To investigate the robustness of the design under installed
conditions, the effect of the coupling layer also was stud-
ied. Experimental studies using prototyped transmitters
verified the modeling results with good accuracy and re-
peatability.
II. Modeling of Transmitter
A. Transmitter Configuration
Two types of ultrasound waves can be generated by an
ultrasound transmitter, upon electrical excitation: longitu-
dinal and transverse waves. Longitudinal wave was chosen
for the pressure data transmission in this study, as it is
1362 ieee transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, vol. 52, no. 8, august 2005
Fig. 4. Multiple-layer configuration of the ultrasonic transmitter.
readily generated using a thin piezoelectric disc, simpli-
fying sensor design and packaging. In addition, the longi-
tudinal wave travels twice as fast as the transverse wave
[15], thus causing less temporal delay for data transmis-
sion. This is an important aspect concerning the need for
on-line injection molding process monitoring. The trans-
mitter consists of three elements: a piezoelectric disc with
an aspect ratio (diameter to thickness) larger than 10 to
generate longitudinal ultrasonic wave, a steel front layer to
protect the piezoelectric disc from environmental effects,
and a conductive epoxy bonding layer to glue the piezo-
electric and front layers together. Under installed condi-
tion, a thin grease coupling layer also is needed to couple
the front layer with the steel mold. The electrodes of the
piezoelectric disc are thin (e.g., about 1% of the thickness
of the piezoelectric layer) and their effects are neglected
in the present study. Fig. 4 illustrates the structure of a
multiple-layered, ultrasound transmitter.
Upon electrical excitation, the piezoelectric disc vi-
brates along its axial direction, inducing longitudinal vi-
brations in the adjacent layers, which are subsequently
coupled into the mold steel. Given that the constituent
mechanical elements of the transmitter presents a similar
structure to that of an electrical network [16], the Mason’s
equivalent circuit modeling technique [17] presents a viable
tool for analyzing the dynamic behavior of the transmit-
ter. Such an approach is taken in the present study, and
the constituent equivalent circuit equations were devel-
oped based on the wave equation, the piezoelectric equa-
tion, and the mechanical boundary conditions.
B. Circuit Models of the Transmitter
1. Piezoelectric Layer: The physical model and the
Mason’s equivalent circuit model for a piezoelectric layer
in its thickness extensional vibration mode [14], [17] are
shown in Fig. 5. In these models, Vi and Ii (Table I) are
the voltage and current applied to the piezoelectric layer,
which produces the sound forces (F0 and F0
) and velocities
(u0 and u
0 ) at the two surfaces of the piezoelectric layer.
The sound force is analogous to the voltage, whereas the
velocity is analogous to the current. The transformer in
the circuit represents the conversion that takes place be-
tween the electrical and mechanical energies in the piezo-
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIV OF MASS-LOWELL. Downloaded on June 08,2010 at 15:24:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 5. Physical and equivalent circuit models of the piezoelectric
layer.
electric layer. The electrical impedances Zb and Zl rep-
resent the mechanical impedance of the materials in con-
tact with the back and front surfaces of the piezoelectric
layer, respectively. The symbol Z0 represents the mechan-
ical impedance of the piezoelectric layer and C0 represents
the capacitance measured under zero strain. The symbol
γ0 is the normalized frequency, and φ is the ratio of the
transformer, which characterizes the ratio of electrical and
mechanical energy transformation. These parameters can
be expressed as:
Z0 = ρ0 v0L A0 , (1)
f0r = v0L /(2h0 ), (2)
γ0 = πf /f0r , (3)
C0 = εS A0 /h0 , (4)
2
φ = 2f0r C0 Z0 k 2 , (5)
where f is the frequency in hertz and f0r is the resonant fre-
quency of the piezoelectric layer without bonding to other
layers. The symbols ρ0 , h0 , A0 , v0L , k, and εS , are the mass
density, thickness, cross-sectional area, longitudinal sound
velocity, electromechanical coupling factor, and piezoelec-
tric permittivity of the piezoelectric layer, respectively.
To investigate the mechanism of energy loss due to me-
chanical and electrical dissipations (through heat, friction,
etc.), complex values were used for the coefficients v0L , k,
and εS [18]. Based on the Kirchhoff’s laws, the output volt-
age and current associated with the impedance Zl in Fig. 5
were derived in terms of the input voltage Vi and current
Ii , which were applied to the surfaces of the piezoelectric
layer. The relationship is given in the matrix form as [14]:




Vi A0 B0 F0
Ii
=
C0 D0 u0
, (6)
where the transformation matrix is expressed as shown in
(7) (see next page), with Q = cos γ0 − 1 + jzb sin γ0 and
zb = Zb /Z0 . Expression (6) describes the dynamic behav-
ior of the piezoelectric layer in response to an electrical ex-
zhang et al.: new mechanical wireless data transmission technique 1363

TABLE I
List of Symbols

A0 Cross-sectional area of the piezoelectric layer

C0 Capacitance of the piezoelectric layer measured under zero strain
f Frequency in Hertz
f0 , f0r Resonant frequency of the piezoelectric layer without bonding with other layers
f1 , f2 , f3 First, second, and third resonant frequencies of the transmitter
Fn Output sound force of the transmitter layers (general)
F0 , F0
Output sound forces at the front and back surfaces of the piezoelectric layer
F1 , F2 , F3 Output sound forces of the bonding, front, and coupling layers
h0 Thickness of the piezoelectric layer
Ii Input current of the piezoelectric layer
k Electromechanical coupling factor of the piezoelectric layer
un Output velocity of the transmitter layers (general)
u0 , u
0 Output velocities at the front and back surfaces of the piezoelectric layer
u1 , u2 , u3 Output velocities of the bonding, front, and coupling layers
vnL Longitudinal sound velocity (general)
v0L , v1L , v2L , v3L Longitudinal sound velocities of the piezoelectric, bonding, front, and coupling layers
Vi Input voltage of the piezoelectric layer
Vo Output voltage of the receiver
Z0t Mechanical impedance of the mold steel
Z0 , Z1 , Z2 , Z3 Mechanical impedances of the piezoelectric, bonding, front, and layers
Zb , Zf Electrical impedances of the back and front materials of the piezoelectric layer
Zl , Zs Electrical impedances of the voltage measuring instrument and the signal generation source
Zi Input electrical impedance of the transmitter under installed condition
Zn Mechanical impedance of transmitter layers (general)
εS Piezoelectric permittivity of the piezoelectric layer
φ Transformer ratio
γn Normalized frequency of transmitter layers (general)
γ0 , γ1 , γ2 , γ3 Normalized frequencies of the piezoelectric, bonding, front, and coupling layers
λf , λb Wavelengths of the front and the bonding layers
ρ0 Mass density of the piezoelectric layer




A0 B0 1 1 jφ2 /(2πf C0 ) cos γ0 + jzb sin γ0 Z0 (zb cos γ0 + j sin γ0 )
= , (7)
C0 D0 φQ j2πf C0 0 (j sin γ0 )/Z0 2(cos γ0 − 1) + jzb sin γ0

Fig. 6. Propagation of sound force in a multiple-layer transmitter

configuration. Fig. 7. Physical and equivalent circuit models of the nonpiezoelectric
layers.

citation. However, to obtain the dynamic behavior of the

entire transmitter, the input-output relationships of the
adjacent nonpiezoelectric layers need to be determined.
2. Nonpiezoelectric Layer: Nonpiezoelectric layers such
as the bonding, front, and coupling layers are mechanically
connected with each other, thus the output signals (i.e.,
sound force and velocity) from one layer presents the input
for the immediately adjacent next layer, as illustrated in
Fig. 6.
Similar to the piezoelectric layer, nonpiezoelectric layers
can be modeled using the equivalent circuit models. Fig. 7
illustrates the physical and equivalent circuit models for
the nonpiezoelectric layers [19].
The subscript n of the symbols in Fig. 7 refers to the dif-
ferent layers in the transmitter design. For example, n = 1,
2, and 3 refers to the bonding, front, and coupling layers,
respectively. Using the Kirchhoff’s voltage law, the out-
put voltage (Fn ) and current (un ) were solved in terms

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIV OF MASS-LOWELL. Downloaded on June 08,2010 at 15:24:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1364 ieee transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, vol. 52, no. 8, august 2005
of the input voltage (Fn−1 ) and current (un−1 ), and their
relationship was derived in the matrix form as:




Fn−1 An Bn Fn
= . (8)
un−1 Cn Dn un
The transformation matrix is given as:



An Bn cos γn jZn sin γn
= , n = 1, 2, and 3,
Cn Dn (j sin γn )/Zn cos γn
(9)
where the symbols Zn and γn represent the mechanical
impedance and normalized frequency of the corresponding
layer, respectively. They are obtained by replacing the sub-
script 0 with the corresponding layer subscript 1, 2, or 3, as
defined in (1)–(3). Combining the models for the piezoelec-
tric layer and all nonpiezoelectric layers, the input-output
function for the entire transmitter system was obtained,
as described in the next section.
3. Incorporation of Layers: To model the overall fre-
quency behavior of the physically interconnected multiple
layers of the transmitter, their respective circuit models
were modeled as a serial connection with each other. Mul-
tiplying the matrices for the various layers, the overall ma-
trix that relates the excitation voltage Vi and current Ii
(input to the piezoelectric layer) to the sound force F3 and
velocity u3 (output) to the mold steel was obtained as:

 3
 f1 , f2 , and f3 , respectively.
At Bt An Bn
= ,
Ct Dt Cn Dn
n=0
and:




Vi At Bt F3
= .
Ii Ct Dt u3
The input impedance of the entire transmitter under
installed conditions, which determines the resonant fre-
quencies of the transmitter, was derived as:
At Z0t + Bt
Zi = , (12)
Ct Z0t + Dt
where Z0t is the mechanical impedance of the mold steel.
To evaluate the modeling results, an ultrasonic receiver
that receives the ultrasonic pulses from the transmitter
and converts them into an electrical voltage signal needs
to be modeled as well. Similar to the transmitter modeling,
the governing matrices for the receiver (Ar , Br , Cr , and
Dr ) were derived using (6)–(11), in which the input and
output terms in (11) were interchanged such that the input
for the receiver was the sound force F3 , and the output was
the electrical voltage Vo . For the present study, a reciprocal
approach was taken, by which the receiver and transmitter
were assumed to have the same configuration and, there-
fore, the same matrices. Using the transformation matrices
for the transmitter and receiver, the transfer function re-
lating the input voltage Vi to the transmitter and the out-
put voltage Vo converted by the receiver was determined as
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIV OF MASS-LOWELL. Downloaded on June 08,2010 at 15:24:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
shown in (13) (see next page), where Zl = Rl + jXsl is the
electrical impedance of the voltage measuring instrument
(e.g., an oscilloscope) connected to the ultrasound receiver
and Zs = Rs + jXs represents the electrical impedance of
the signal generation source (i.e., the threshold modulator
within the pressure sensor, as shown in Fig. 2) that excites
the transmitter. By taking the inverse Fourier transform of
(13), the waveform of the ultrasonic signals arriving at the
ultrasound receiver could be obtained. The voltage trans-
fer function expressed in decibel, i.e., the insertion gain
(IG), was determined as:
   
Vo Rs
IG = 20 log + 20 log +1 . (14)
Vi Rl
The insertion gain is a function of the frequency and
characterizes the frequency response of the ultrasonic sig-
nal transmitter. It was used in the present study as a per-
formance measure for the design of individual ultrasonic
transmitters in a multiple-sensor, matrix configuration.
III. Frequency Behavior of the Layers
For a transmitter with an n-layer structure, n resonant
modes exist, resulting in n resonant frequencies [12]. Ac-
cordingly, for the presented transmitter, consisting mainly
of a piezoelectric layer, a bonding layer, and a front layer,
three major resonant frequencies can be found, denoted as
(10) The existence of multiple resonant frequencies in a sin-
gle transmitter is undesirable, when individual sensors in
a sensor matrix need to be distinguished. To enable re-
liable identification, it is required that the transmitter
within each sensor possess a unique and dominant resonant
(11)
frequency with nonoverlapping bandwidth (−6 dB band-
width) such that ultrasonic pulses received by the receiver
clearly can be associated with each transmitter. For a typ-
ical injection mold, four to six sensors may need to be in-
stalled within the mold cavity to provide a comprehensive
profile of the pressure variations during an injection mold-
ing process. Considering that most commercially available
broadband ultrasonic receivers cover a limited frequency
bandwidth of about 2 MHz, the bandwidth of each trans-
mitter needs to be designed as narrow as possible (e.g.,
≤ 300 kHz) such that all the transmitters can be accom-
modated by a single receiver, thus simplifying the hard-
ware requirement of the measurement system. Given this
requirement, a distinctive dominant resonant frequency
and a narrow bandwidth are the main performance mea-
sures for the transmitter design. In addition, high energy
efficiency, characterized by high magnitude for the inser-
tion gain, is needed to allow for maximum electrical-to-
mechanical energy conversion and, consequently, transmis-
sion power. To achieve such a design goal, the effect of the
front, bonding, and coupling layers on the overall transmit-
ter frequency response was investigated, using the equiv-
alent circuit model. In Table II, material properties used
for the study are illustrated.
zhang et al.: new mechanical wireless data transmission technique 1365

Vo 2Rl Z0t
= , (13)
Vi [At Zl + Bt + Zs (Ct Z0t + Dt )] [Ar Zl + Br + Zl (Cr Z0t + Dr )]

TABLE II
Properties of Materials Used in the Design.

Longitudinal
Layer materials sound velocity Density
Piezoelectric (PKI502) 4,559 m/s 7.7 g/cm3
Front (Stainless Steel) 5,660 m/s 8.0 g/cm3
Bonding (E-Solder 3022) 2,110 m/s 2.25 g/cm3
Coupling (Grease) 1,200 m/s 0.95 g/cm3
Coupling
Permittivity factor
Piezoelectric (PKI502) 7.35 × 10−9 F/m 0.47

For ease of evaluation of the transmitter frequency char- (a)

acteristics, the thickness of the front and bonding layers
are expressed in terms of the wavelength of ultrasound
traveling in that layer. Specifically, the thickness is ex-
pressed as a multiple integer of the quarter-wavelength
λ/4. The wavelength of each layer is calculated at the reso-
nant frequency f0 = f0r of a stand-alone piezoelectric layer
(i.e., without bonding to any other layers), which is ob-
tained using the frequency constants supplied by the man-
ufacturer. The quarter-wavelength λf /4 of the front and
λb /4 of the bonding layers were defined respectively as:

λb /4 = v1L /4f0 , (15)

λf /4 = v2L /4f0 , (16)

where the symbols v1L and v2L represent the longitudinal
velocities of the ultrasound in the bonding and front layers,
respectively.
A. Selection of Front Layer Thickness
(b)
Fig. 8. Effect of front layer thickness on transmitter insertion gain
and bandwidth. (a) Magnitude of insertion gains as a function of the
front layer thickness, (b) bandwidth of insertion gains as a function
of the front layer thickness.

To investigate the effect of the front layer thickness

on the transmitter efficiency and bandwidth, the insertion
gains of the transmitter were obtained using (14), for the
front layer thickness varying from 0.1 to 3.0 λf /4, at a
step of 0.1 λf /4. The bandwidth was defined as the width
between two frequency values at which the magnitude of
the insertion gain dropped −6 dB from the peak value.
The magnitude of the insertion gains related to the
three resonant frequencies (f1 , f2 , and f3 ) and their respec-
tive bandwidths are shown in Fig. 8, for the various front
layer thickness values. The optimal front layer thickness is
defined as the thickness by which the insertion gain is the
largest and the bandwidth is the narrowest. If these two
design attributes cannot be satisfied simultaneously by one
single thickness, trade-off must be made. From Fig. 8(a) it
is seen that the f1 frequency reaches its maximum value of
−2.31 dB at the front layer thickness of 0.1 λf /4, whereas
the f2 frequency reaches the maximum of −2.39 dB at the
front layer thickness of 2.0 λf /4. A transmitter designed
using either of these two front layer thickness values would
have relatively larger vibration amplitude and be more
efficient in converting the applied electrical energy into
mechanical (ultrasonic) energy than at other front layer
thicknesses.
To determine if either of these two front layer thick-
ness values also satisfies the design goal of a relatively
narrow bandwidth, further investigation was conducted,
based on the bandwidth plot of Fig. 8(b). It was found that
the bandwidth related to the f1 frequency varied across
a wide range as the front layer thickness increased, first
rapidly increasing from 267 kHz at 0.1 λf /4 to 430 kHz
at 0.5 λf /4, then continually decreased to about 180 kHz
at 3.0 λf /4. In comparison, the bandwidth of the f2 fre-
quency decreased monotonically with an increasing front
layer thickness, and reached 144 kHz at a front layer thick-

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIV OF MASS-LOWELL. Downloaded on June 08,2010 at 15:24:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1366 ieee transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, vol. 52, no. 8, august 2005
Fig. 9. Insertion gains for transmitters with 0.1 λf /4 and 2.0 λf /4
front layer thickness.
ness of 2.0 λf /4. Although the bandwidth continued to
decrease as the front layer thickness further increased, the
change became insignificant (140 kHz at 3.0 λf /4). Be-
cause further increasing the front layer thickness beyond
2.0 λf /4 would cause the insertion gain of the f2 frequency
to decrease, as indicated in Fig. 8(a), 2.0 λf /4 was con-
sidered the optimal front layer thickness. For purpose of
comparison, the insertion gains over the frequency range of
0.3–1.8 f /f0 are shown in Fig. 9, for the transmitter with
0.1 λf /4 and 2.0 λf /4 front layer thickness, respectively.
B. Selection of Bonding Layer Thickness
The objective of the present design is to achieve a dom-
inant resonant frequency for each transmitter to facilitate
differentiation of multiple transmitters in a sensor matrix
arrangement. To achieve this goal, the desired resonant
frequency for each transmitter was set to be at least one
order of magnitude higher in amplitude than those of other
frequency components, corresponding to a 20 dB difference
when converted to decibel scale. The 2.0 λf /4 front layer
thickness, while enabling a relatively narrow bandwidth of
144 kHz and a local insertion gain maxima of −2.39 dB,
did not satisfy the ≥ 20 dB design requirement to pro-
vide a distinctly unique dominant resonant frequency for
the f2 vibration mode. As shown in Fig. 9, the difference
between the insertion gains for the f1 and f2 frequencies
at this layer thickness was only 8 dB, thus not sufficient
for reliable differentiation of different sensors in a sensor
matrix configuration.
To achieve a ≥ 20 dB magnitude difference between the
f1 and f2 frequencies while maintaining the 2.0 λf /4 front
layer thickness as derived above, the effect of the bonding
layer on reducing the f1 insertion gain (and, consequently,
enlarging the difference between the f1 and f2 modes) was
investigated. Specifically, the bonding layer thickness was
varied from 0.1 to 2.0 λb /4, at a step of 0.1 λb /4. Fig. 10(a)
illustrates the magnitude of the insertion gains as a func-
tion of the bonding layer thickness, for the three resonant
frequencies of f1 , f2 , and f3 .
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIV OF MASS-LOWELL. Downloaded on June 08,2010 at 15:24:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 10. Variation of insertion gain as a function of bonding layer
thickness. (a) Magnitude of insertion gains as a function of the bond-
ing layer thickness, (b) bandwidth of insertion gains as a function of
the bonding layer thickness.
As the bonding layer thickness increased from 0.1 to
2.0 λb /4, the magnitude of the insertion gain for the f1
mode decreased from −6.2 dB to −32 dB. In comparison,
the magnitude of the f2 frequency varied only slightly, with
a total drop of less than 3 dB. Instead of a monotonic de-
crease, the insertion gains for the f3 mode first increased
from −15 dB to −3.5 dB as the bonding layer thickness in-
creased from 0.1 to 1.0 λb /4, then decreased to −15 dB by
2.0 λb /4. Within the region of 0.9–1.4 λb /4 bonding layer
thickness, the f3 insertion gains are identical in value as
the f2 insertion gains. The difference between the magni-
tudes of the f1 and f2 frequencies increased to 24.6 dB
when the bonding layer thickness reached 1.0 λb /4. This
thickness satisfies the design requirement for a dominant
f2 mode.
Given that variations of the bonding layer thickness also
will affect the bandwidth of the transmitter, relationship
between the bandwidth of the f2 mode and the bond-
ing layer thickness also was investigated, with the results
shown in Fig. 10(b). It was found that, although an in-
creasing bonding layer thickness increased the difference
between the amplitudes of the f1 and f2 modes, it also
enlarged the bandwidth. As the bonding layer thickness
zhang et al.: new mechanical wireless data transmission technique
Fig. 11. Insertion gains for transmitters with various bonding layer
thickness.
was increased from 0.1 to 0.5 λb /4, the bandwidth grew
from 144 kHz to 246 kHz. It then remained essentially con-
stant until the bonding layer thickness reached 1.0 λb /4,
after which it showed a monotonic increase. As a bonding
layer thickness in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 λb /4 does not
satisfy the ≥ 20 dB requirement, and the bandwidth for
a layer thickness from 0.6 to 1.0 λb /4 remains essentially
unchanged, the bonding layer thickness that enables the
largest magnitude difference between f1 and f2 was cho-
sen as the optimal thickness. As shown in Fig. 10(b), this
thickness is 1.0 λb /4, at which the difference between the
f1 and f2 modes is 24.6 dB, the bandwidth of the f2 mode
is 246 kHz, and the amplitude is −3.5 dB. In Fig. 11,
the effect of the bonding layer thickness of 0.1, 0.5, and
1.0 λb /4 on the insertion gains and the bandwidth is fur-
ther illustrated. The largest magnitude difference between
the f2 and f1 modes is seen at the thickness of 1.0 λb /4.
Based on the above analysis, the combination of
2.0 λf /4 and 1.0 λb /4 presents the optimal thickness for
the front layer and bonding layer, respectively. When ex-
cited, a transmitter with these layer thickness values will
generate ultrasonic pulses centered at its f2 mode with a
relatively large amplitude and narrow bandwidth. Such
a transmitter, as a constituent component of a mold-
embedded pressure sensor, will facilitate signal distinction
in a multiple sensor matrix, which enables in-mold cavity
pressure measurement.
C. Sensitivity to Coupling Layer Thickness
When installed into the steel mold, an air gap exists
between the transmitter and the mold steel. To minimize
the energy loss due to impedance mismatch between the
air (411 kg/m2 ·s) and steel (45.4×106 kg/m2 ·s), a coupling
layer consisting of grease generally is needed. The thick-
ness of the coupling layer can be difficult to control ac-
curately in practical applications, due to the paste nature
of the grease. Realistically, the thickness is determined by
the roughness of the mold and transmitter surfaces, which
ranges from 2 µm (for a ground surface) to about 5 µm
(for a milled surface). This leads to a layer thickness vari-
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIV OF MASS-LOWELL. Downloaded on June 08,2010 at 15:24:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1367
Fig. 12. Investigation of the effect of coupling layer thickness.
ation in the range of 4–10 µm. To investigate the effect of
the coupling layer on the frequency response of a trans-
mitter that incorporates the optimal design (i.e., 2.0 λf /4
front layer and 1.0 λb /4 bonding layer thickness), numer-
ical simulations were conducted, for which the coupling
layer thickness was varied from 4 µm to 10 µm, at a step
of 2 µm.
As shown in Fig. 12, increasing the coupling layer thick-
ness has led to a decrease of the f2 mode magnitude (e.g.,
5 dB reduction as the coupling layer thickness increases
from 4 µm to 10 µm), thus reducing the energy efficiency
of the transmitter. To minimize energy losses, the rough-
ness of both the transmitter and mold surfaces needs to be
minimized, e.g., by means of polishing, which could reduce
the surface roughness down to below 0.5 µm, as has been
practiced in the industry. Furthermore, as the coupling
layer thickness varied from 4 µm to 10 µm, the location of
the f2 center frequency has shifted toward lower frequency
range by about 20 kHz, while the bandwidth also has nar-
rowed by about 30%. This variation needs to be considered
when assigning the frequency band to the transmitters in
a sensor matrix configuration, to minimize frequency band
overlaps.
IV. Frequency Band Assignment
To investigate the performance of the proposed multiple
sensor arrangement, a simulation was conducted on the
frequency band assignment, using transmitters with the
optimal layer thickness (2.0 λf /4 front layer and 1.0 λb /4
bonding layer). The goal was to determine the maximum
number of transmitters that can be accommodated within
a fixed frequency range. Realistically, a frequency range
higher than 500 kHz was needed to minimize the influence
of background noise in an injection mold machine [20]. For
the present work, a frequency band of 2–4 MHz was chosen,
based on the frequency characteristics of the piezoelectric
elements used for the transmitters and the fact that such
a bandwidth is readily covered by commercially available
receivers.
1368 ieee transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, vol. 52, no. 8, august 2005

Fig. 13. Insertion gains of the selected six transmitters with nonover- (a)
lapping bandwidth.

TABLE III
Design Parameters for Six Transmitters with
Nonoverlapping Bandwidths.

Trans- Piezo layer Front layer Lower Center Upper

mitter thickness thickness band frequency band
No. (µm) (µm) (kHz) (kHz) (kHz)
1 1000 1430 2100 2210 2300
2 890 1280 2360 2480 2590
3 790 1140 2650 2785 2915
4 700 1010 2990 3140 3295
5 620 900 3365 3530 3715
6 550 810 3760 3980 4160
(b)

Fig. 14. Identification of multiple transmitters. (a) Six pulses in time

The simulation was conducted first on a transmitter
having the lowest resonant frequency, with a piezoelectric
layer thickness of 1,000 µm. Next, the transmitter with the
second lowest resonant frequency was modeled, which has
a bandwidth that is nonoverlapping with the first trans-
mitter. A 50 kHz safety gap was inserted between the two
adjacent transmitters to compensate for frequency inac-
curacy due to manufacturing tolerances and bandwidth
fluctuations due to coupling layer thickness variation. Re-
peating this procedure, a total of six transmitters were se-
lected for the frequency range of 2–4 MHz. This bandwidth
was considered adequate for presenting a pressure distribu-
tion profile at the front, middle, and end of a typical mold
cavity. The six transmitters can be arranged in a 2 × 3 ma-
trix within the mold. The insertion gains of the selected
transmitters are shown in Fig. 13, with the corresponding
design parameters listed in Table III. The progressively de-
creasing magnitude with increasing frequency (decreasing
piezoelectric layer thickness) resulted from the fact that,
for a piezoelectric element, the converted sound force from
the electrical input is proportional to its thickness.
To simulate signals reaching the receiver’s end, ultra-
sonic pulses generated by the six transmitters were mixed
together. The scenario of all six transmitters transmitting
pulses at the same time is shown in Fig. 14, in both the
time and frequency domains. It is seen that all six ultra-
domain, (b) identification of six pulses in frequency domain.
sonic pulses clearly were able to be separated in the fre-
quency domain. This confirms that the transmitters can
be identified in terms of their center frequencies.
V. Experimental Evaluation
To validate the modeling methods and results exper-
imentally, three ultrasonic transmitters were prototyped
and tested. To verify the optimal layer thickness selection,
a PKI 502 piezoceramic disc (Piezo Kinetics, Bellefonte,
PA) with 970-µm thickness and 2,100 kHz f0 frequency
was selected for the piezoelectric layer. The thickness of
the front and bonding layers was chosen to be 2.0 λf /4
(1,360 µm) and 1.0 λb /4 (250 µm), respectively. For the
two nonoptimal transmitters, the bonding layer thickness
was 0.15 λb /4 (40 µm) for both transmitters, and the front
layers were chosen to be 1.0λf /4 (700 µm) and 1.6 λf /4
(1,100 µm), respectively. The input electrical impedance
of each transmitter was measured using an impedance an-
alyzer (model HP 8753C, Agilent, Palo Alto, CA).
An example of the measured input impedance for the
transmitter with a front layer thickness of 1.0 λf /4 is
shown in Fig. 15. The measured and simulated locations

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIV OF MASS-LOWELL. Downloaded on June 08,2010 at 15:24:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
zhang et al.: new mechanical wireless data transmission technique 1369

(a)

(b)

Fig. 15. Measured and simulated input electric impedance for an

ultrasonic transmitter with a front layer thickness of 1.0 λf /4.
(a) Impedance magnitude, (b) impedance phase.

TABLE IV Fig. 16. Measured and simulated ultrasonic pulses in the time and
frequency domains for transmitters with different front layer thick-
Comparison Between Simulated and Measured Transmitter ness: (a) 1.0 λf /4, (b) 1.6 λf /4, and (c) 2.0 λf /4.
Resonant Frequencies.

Simulated Measured Relative

To evaluate the efficiency and bandwidth, the trans-
(kHz) (kHz) Error
mitters were coupled via grease to a 6-cm thick steel
f1 1130.00 1141.25 1.0% plate, which simulates the installed condition within a
1.0 λf /4
f2 2480.00 2435.00 1.8%
f1 935.00 916.25 2.0%
mold plate. The roughness of the piezoceramic disc and the
1.6 λf /4 steel block surfaces were measured using a Surtronic 3+
f2 2330.00 2255.00 3.3%
f1 — — — roughness checker (Taylor Hobson, Leicester, England),
2.0 λf /4
f2 2260.00 2240.00 1.8% and the average roughness was found to be 1 µm and
5 µm, respectively. Thus, the average coupling layer thick-
ness was estimated to be 6 µm. A PAC C-101-HV elec-
of the resonant frequencies are in very good agreement trical pulser (Physical Acoustics, Princeton Jct., NJ) was
across the entire frequency spectrum of the transmitter used to generate electrical pulses for transmitter excita-
operation, up to 5 MHz. The detailed resonant frequency tion. Ultrasonic pulses generated by the transmitter prop-
values for the three transmitters are listed in Table IV. At agated through the steel block and were received by an
2.0 λf /4 front layer thickness, the f1 resonant frequency ultrasound receiver installed on the other side of the steel
was too weak to be measured. This is expected because block. The received ultrasonic pulses were recorded using
the layer thickness values were chosen such that the mag- a Tektronix TDS 3012B digital oscilloscope (Tektronix,
nitude of the f1 mode is minimized, in order to a domi- Beaverton, OR). The measured and simulated ultrasonic
nant f2 frequency. The maximum error was found to be pulses in the time and frequency domains for three trans-
less than 3.3%, corresponding to a frequency of 60 kHz. mitters are shown in Fig. 16.
This result indicates that the developed equivalent circuit The optimal layer thickness of a 2.0 λf /4 front layer
model was able to predict the resonant frequencies of the and a 1.0 λb /4 bonding layer exhibits the highest efficiency,
transmitters with good accuracy. with a measured peak value of the ultrasonic pulse about

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIV OF MASS-LOWELL. Downloaded on June 08,2010 at 15:24:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1370 ieee transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, vol. 52, no. 8, august 2005
Fig. 17. Separation of three ultrasonic pulses: (a) time domain signal,
and (b) separation in the frequency domain.
3 V. This is about three and six times as large as the peak
values for the other two transmitters, respectively. The
optimal design also has shown a negligible f1 frequency.
As shown in the frequency plot in Fig. 16(c), the ratio be-
tween the magnitudes for the f1 and f2 frequencies was 12,
corresponding to a difference of 22 dB. In comparison, for
the designs with 1.0 λf /4 and 1.6 λf /4 front layer thick-
ness, the magnitude ratios were 1.8 (5.1 dB difference) and
7.0 (17 dB difference), respectively. Therefore, the optimal
design was experimentally verified to produce good fre-
quency characteristics needed for sensor identification and
distinction.
To verify the frequency band assignment, three ad-
ditional transmitters with different resonant frequencies
were prototyped using the developed optimal layer param-
eters. The thickness of the piezoelectric layers was chosen
to be 910, 800, and 710 µm, respectively, corresponding to
transmitter No. 2, 3, and 4 in Table III. The three trans-
mitters were installed on one side of a steel block and had
the same distance to the receiver on the other side. The
three transmitters were excited simultaneously by an elec-
trical pulser. The received ultrasonic signals in the time
domain are shown in Fig. 17(a), which contains the three
ultrasonic pulses. The frequency domain representation is
given in Fig. 17(b). It clearly can be seen that each of the
ultrasonic pulses occupies a different nonoverlapping fre-
quency band. Therefore, all three ultrasonic pulses were
clearly differentiated based on their center frequencies and
bandwidths, which verifies the frequency band assignment
for the sensor matrix arrangement.
VI. Conclusions
To design ultrasonic transmitters with a unique dom-
inant resonant frequency, a high efficiency, and a narrow
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIV OF MASS-LOWELL. Downloaded on June 08,2010 at 15:24:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
bandwidth, an equivalent circuit modeling approach was
taken to investigate the effects of the front and bonding
layers on the overall frequency performance of the trans-
mitter.
It was found that the transmitter design with a front
layer of 2.0 λf /4 thickness has relatively high efficiency
and narrow bandwidth. The analysis on the bonding layer
revealed that a bonding layer thickness of 1.0 λb /4 can
reduce the magnitude of the f1 frequency while still main-
taining a high magnitude and a relatively narrow band-
width of the f2 frequency. Therefore, the combination of
a 2.0 λf /4 front layer and a 1.0 λb /4 bonding layer op-
timizes the transmitter design. Three transmitters with
different configurations then were prototyped to exper-
imentally evaluate the model accuracy and the optimal
design parameters. The measured transmitter frequency
characteristics were found to be in good agreement with
the simulations, with the maximum deviation of 3.3% for
the locations of the resonant frequencies.
Using the optimal design parameters, three transmit-
ters occupying different frequency bands were prototyped
to verify the frequency band assignment. The experiment
results showed that all three transmitters were successfully
differentiated based on their center frequency and band-
widths.
Acknowledgment
Assistance from the Dynisco Inc. in prototyping the
transmitters is sincerely appreciated.
References
[1] B. Watkins, “Five myths about sensing mold pressure,” Sens.
Mag., vol. 14, pp. 73–78, 1997.
[2] F. Manero, W. I. Patterson, and M. R. Kamal, “Cavity temper-
ature profile measurement during injection moulding,” in Proc.
Annu. Techn. Conf., 1997, pp. 577–581.
[3] L. Zhang, C. Theurer, R. Gao, and D. Kazmer, “Development
of a wireless pressure sensor with remote acoustic transmis-
sion,” Trans. North Amer. Manufacturing Res. Inst. SME, vol.
30, pp. 573–580, 2002.
[4] C. Theurer, L. Zhang, D. Kazmer, and R. Gao, “Threshold en-
ergy switching and its application to wireless sensing in high en-
ergy manufacturing process,” ASME Int. Mechan. Eng. Congr.
Exhibition, Symp. Intell. Sens. Sens. Networks, Nov. 2002, pp.
1071–1077.
[5] R. L. Goldberg, M. J. Jurgens, D. M. Mills, C. S. Henriquez, D.
Vaughan, and S. W. Smith, “Modeling of piezoelectric multilayer
ceramics using finite element analysis,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason.,
Ferroelect., Freq. Contr., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 1204–1214, 1997.
[6] G. Wojcik, C. DeSilets, L. Nikodym, D. Vaughan, N. Abboud,
and J. Mould, Jr., “Computer modeling of diced matching lay-
ers,” in Proc. IEEE Ultrason. Symp., 1996, pp. 1503–1508.
[7] J. A. Hossack and G. Hayward, “Finite element analysis of 1-
3 composite transducers,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason., Ferroelect.,
Freq. Contr., vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 618–629, 1991.
[8] W. K. Qi and W. Cao, “Finite element analysis of periodic
and random 2-2 piezocomposite transducers with finite dimen-
sions,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason., Ferroelect., Freq. Contr., vol. 44,
no. 5, pp. 1168–1175, 1997.
[9] W. Cao, “Virtual design of medical transducers,” in Proc. SPIE
Conf. Ultrason. Transducer Eng., Feb. 1998, pp. 56–63.
zhang et al.: new mechanical wireless data transmission technique
[10] C. S. Desilets, J. D. Fraser, and G. S. Kino, “The design of effi-
cient broad-band piezoelectric transducer,” IEEE Trans. Sonics
Ultrason., vol. SU-25, no. 3, pp. 115–125, 1978.
[11] J. H. Goll, “The design of broad-band fluid-loaded ultrasonic
transducers,” IEEE Trans. Sonics Ultrason., vol. SU-26, no. 6,
pp. 385–393, 1979.
[12] T. Inoue, M. Ohta, and S. Takahashi, “Design of ultrasonic
transducers with multiple acoustic matching layers for medical
application,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason., Ferroelect., Freq. Contr.,
vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 8–16, 1987.
[13] G. Kossoff, “The effects of backing and matching on the perfor-
mance of piezoelectric ceramic transducers,” IEEE Trans. Son-
ics Ultrason., vol. SU-13, no. 1, pp. 20–31, 1966.
[14] E. K. Sittig, “Effects of bonding and electrode layers on the
transmission parameters of piezoelectric transducers used in ul-
trasonic digital delay lines,” IEEE Trans. Sonics Ultrason., vol.
SU-16, no. 1, pp. 2–10, 1969.
[15] B. Carlin, Ultrasonics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
[16] L. L. Beranek, Acoustics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.
[17] W. P. Mason, Electro-Mechanical Transducers and Wave Fil-
ters. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1948.
[18] S. Sherrit and B. K. Mukherjee, “The use of complex coeffi-
cients to model piezoelectric materials,” in Proc. IEEE Ultrason.
Symp., 1998, pp. 633–640.
[19] M. Redwood, “Transient performance of a piezoelectric trans-
ducer,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 33, pp. 527–536, 1961.
[20] C. Theurer, L. Zhang, D. Kazmer, and R. Gao, “Acoustic teleme-
try in injection molding,” in Proc. Soc. Plastics Eng. Annu.
Tech. Conf. Process Monitoring Contr. Division, 2001, pp. 208–
213.
Li Zhang received his M.S. degree from the
University of Electronic Science and Technol-
ogy of China, Sichuan, China, in 2000 and
the Ph.D. degree from the University of Mas-
sachusetts, Amherst, MA, (UMass) in 2004.
He is currently a Post-Doctoral research as-
sociate at the Department of Mechanical and
Industrial Engineering of UMass, working on
a collaborative research project with the Na-
tional Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST).
His research interests include electrome-
chanical systems design, smart sensing systems, machine condition
monitoring and health diagnosis, and mechanical signal processing.
Charles B. Theurer received his M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees in mechanical engineering from
the University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
MA. He is currently a research scientist work-
ing in telematics at the GE Global Research
Center in Niskayuna, NY.
His research interests include electrome-
chanical systems design, smart sensors, telem-
atics, and predictive machine diagnostics.
Dr. Theurer has received several design
awards, including the James F. Lincoln Arc
Welding Award, National Merit Award for
Design, and the Joseph Motherway Scholarship for excellence in en-
gineering design.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIV OF MASS-LOWELL. Downloaded on June 08,2010 at 15:24:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
View publication stats
1371
Robert X. Gao (M’91–SM’00) received his
M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the Technical
University of Berlin, Germany, in 1985 and
1991, respectively. He is currently an associate
professor with the Department of Mechanical
and Industrial Engineering at the University
of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
His research focuses on sensing methodolo-
gies for machine health monitoring, diagno-
sis and prognosis, sensor networks, multido-
main signal processing, and wireless commu-
nication.
Dr. Gao received the 1996 National Science Foundation CAREER
Award and the 2000 University of Massachusetts Outstanding Engi-
neering Junior Faculty Award. He was the Guest Editor for a special
section on sensors for the Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measure-
ment, and Control, published by the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers in June 2004. Currently he serves as an Associate Editor
for the IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement,
and chairs the Technical Committee on Built-in-Test and Self-Test
of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Society.
David O. Kazmer, P.E., is a graduate
of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (B.S.,
1989) and Stanford University, Stanford, CA,
(Ph.D., 1995). He is currently an associate
professor with the Department of Plastics En-
gineering at the University of Massachusetts,
Lowell, MA, where he conducts research per-
taining to plastics product and process devel-
opment specializing in design of machinery,
instrumentation, and control systems.
Dr. Kazmer received the 1998 National
Science Foundation CAREER Award, 1998
Young Investigator Award from the Office of Naval Research, and
the 2000 University of Massachusetts Outstanding Engineering Ju-
nior Faculty Award. He currently serves as an associate editor for
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Journal of Mechan-
ical Design, and is Chair of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) Technical Committee for Design for Manufac-
turing.