Electromechanical response of a curved piezoelectric nanobeam with the consideration of surface effects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work investigates the electromechanical response of a curved piezoelectric nanobeam with the consideration of surface effects through the surface-layer-based model and the generalized Young–Laplace equations. For nanoscale piezoelectric structures, the surface effects also include surface piezoelectricity in addition to the residual surface stress and surface elasticity for elastic nanomaterials. A Euler–Bernoulli curved beam theory is used to get the explicit solutions for the electroelastic fields of a curved cantilever beam when subjected to mechanical and electrical loads. In order to apply the appropriate boundary conditions on the beam, effective axial force, shear force and moment are derived. The results indicate that the surface effects play a significant role in the electroelastic fields and the piezoelectric response of the curved piezoelectric nanobeam. It is also found that the coupling of the residual surface stress, the surface elasticity and the surface piezoelectricity may be dramatic despite that the influence of the individual one is small under some circumstances. This study is expected to be useful for design and applications of curved beam based piezoelectric nanodevices, such as the curved nanowires/nanobelts or nanorings as nanoswitches or nanoactuators for displacement control purpose.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it