Morphotropic Phase Boundary and Related Properties in Relaxor‐Based Piezoelectric Perovskite Solid Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The solid solutions between relaxor ferroelectrics and normal ferroelectric PbTiO3 show extraordinary piezoelectric properties if the composition is close to the phase (MPB). Recent experimental results on the crystal structure of the MPB phases of these materials are reviewed in relation to their electromechanical properties and discussed based on the phenomenological approach. INTRODUCTION For many years lead zirconate-titanate (1-x)PbZrO3 – xPbTiO3 [PZT] was the recognized number one high-performance piezoelectric perovskite material. For this solid solution system, the term morphotropic phase boundary (MPB) was used to designate an almost temperature independent border at x ≈ 0.5, which separates a rhombohedral Zr-rich phase from a tetragonal Ti-rich phase in the temperature (T) – composition (x) phase diagram. Very strong piezoelectric activity of PZT with the composition close to the MPB was discovered about fifty years ago by Jaffe et al. Since then, considerable improvement of the technologically important properties of PZT has been achieved, first of all by means of the substitution of some other metal ions for Pb and/or (Zr, Ti). For example, d33 piezoelectric constant has been increased from ~ 400 pC/N to ~ 800 pC/N. Great opportunities for the development of new piezoelectric materials emerged from the investigation of other perovskite systems with the existence of MPB. Excellent piezoelectric properties were recently found in the solid solutions of PbTiO3 [PT] with the so-called relaxor ferroelectrics, such as (1x)Pb(Zn1/3Nb2/3)O3 – xPbTiO3 [PZN-PT] and (1-x)Pb(Mg1/3Nb2/3)O3 – xPbTiO3
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".