An improved small-deflection electromechanical model for piezoelectric bending beam actuators and energy harvesters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The analytical model presented in this paper describes the energy conversion mechanism of a piezoelectric beam (bimorph) under small-deflection static and vibrating conditions. The model provides an improved approach to design and analyze the performance of piezoelectric actuators and energy harvesters (sensors). Conventional models assume a linear voltage distribution over the piezoelectric beam thickness, which is shown here to be invalid. The proposed modeling method improves accuracy by using a quadratic voltage distribution. The equivalent capacitance of a beam shows a 40% discrepancy between a conventional model and the proposed model for PZT5A material. This inaccuracy level is not negligible, especially when the design of micro-power electrical energy harvesting is concerned. The method solves simultaneously the solid mechanics and Maxwell's equations with the constitutive equations for piezoelectric materials. The paper also proposes a phasor-based procedure for measuring the damping of a piezoelectric beam. An experimental setup is developed to verify the validity of the model. The experimental results confirm the accuracy of the improved model and also reveal limitations in using models for small deflections.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".