Closed cracks in piezoelectric media subjected to electric field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conventional traction-free models for insulating and conducting cracks in piezoelectrics predict that an electric field induces zero stress intensity factors at the crack tip. This fails to explain the experimentally observed growth of both insulating and conducting cracks under electric field. To remove the discrepancy between theory and experiments, electric field induced crack closure is considered in this study. Conditions for crack closure are derived by using the solutions for traction-free models. Mixed boundary value problems for closed cracks (insulating and conducting) are formulated using the extended Lekhnitskii's formalism for piezoelectric solids. Analytical solutions are derived for both cases of closed cracks. The present solution predicts that electric loading can induce non-zero (positive) mode-I stress intensity factor at an insulating or conducting crack. The intensified tensile stress directly ahead of the tip of a closed crack can give rise to crack growth. This offers a possible explanation for the experimental observations. Additionally, the effect of polarization switching on the crack tip behavior of both insulating and conducting closed cracks is investigated. Numerical studies show that polarization switching may enhance or decrease the intensity of tensile stress ahead of a closed crack.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".