Angular distribution of energy release rates and fracture of piezoelectric solids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Applicability of energy release rate criteria to piezoelectric materials is examined in this paper. The angular distribution of strain and total energy release rates at a crack tip in a plane piezoelectric medium is first formulated by using a branched crack model. By relaxing the commonly held assumption of self-similar crack propagation and incorporating in the fracture toughness anisotropy, the criteria of modified strain energy release rate and modified total energy release rate are applied to discuss the propagation path of an impermeable crack. Numerical results indicate that the predictions based on the criterion of modified total energy release rate do not show qualitative agreement with experimental observations, whereas the predictions based on the criterion of modified strain energy release rate appear more promising. Based on the criterion of modified strain energy release rate, a crack tends to branch off from a straight path under a positive electric loading, regardless of crack orientation. An applied electric field can either promote or retard crack propagation depending on the direction of electric field, crack orientation and crack extension direction. The predictions made by the energy-based criteria are compared with those corresponding to a recently reported stress-based criterion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".