Flexoelectric effect on the electroelastic responses of bending piezoelectric nanobeams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flexoelectricity, referring to a spontaneous electric polarization induced by strain gradient in dielectrics, presents a strong size dependency at the nanoscale. In the current work, the influence of the flexoelectric effect on the mechanical and electrical properties of bending piezoelectric nanobeams with different boundary conditions is investigated. Based on the extended linear piezoelectricity theory and the Euler beam model, analytical solutions of the electroelastic fields in the piezoelectric nanobeams subjected to both electrical and mechanical loads are obtained with the inclusion of the flexoelectric effect. Simulation results show that the flexoelectric effect on the elastic behavior of bending beams is sensitive to the beam boundary conditions and the applied electrical load. In addition, for a cantilever piezoelectric nanobeam, an axial relaxation strain is induced from the piezoelectric and flexoelectric effects, while these effects induce a resultant axial force in both the clamped-clamped and simply supported piezoelectric nanobeams. Results also indicate that the flexoelectric effect plays a significant role in the contact stiffness and electric polarization of piezoelectric beams when their thickness is at the nanoscale. It is found that the flexoelectric effect on the electroelastic responses of piezoelectric nanobeams is more pronounced for the beams with smaller thickness. These results are useful for understanding the fundamental mechanical and physical properties of bending piezoelectric nanobeams.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".