Failure analysis of a dielectric elastomer plate actuator considering boundary constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dielectric elastomer actuators, a promising transducer technology, have received much attention due to their high efficiency and large deformation. However, in addition to electrical breakdown, dielectric elastomer actuators may also be easily affected by electromechanical instability. These failure modes inhibit the full potential actuation of dielectric elastomers. This study examines the parametric range for which electromechanical instability can be avoided for a dielectric elastomer plate actuator while achieving large actuation. It is found that the electromechanical instability can altogether be eliminated by boundary constraints. With control of the boundary conditions, consideration should also be given to the possible mechanical buckling failure that may occur. Simulation results based on Gent constitutive model are presented to show how these failure modes can be controlled and to what extent the performance of the dielectric elastomer actuator can be improved. This work should provide a better understanding on how to achieve the desired actuation performance of dielectric elastomers, thus leading to a better and controlled design for the applications of these smart materials in transduction technologies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".