Design and Fabrication of Ultrafine Piezoelectric Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Making fine scale (< 20 microm) piezoelectric composites for high frequency (> 50 MHz) ultrasound transducers remains challenging. Interdigital phase bonding (IPhB), described in this paper, presents a new technique developed to make piezoelectric composites at the ultrafine scale using a conventional dicing saw. Using the IPhB technique, a composite structure with a pitch that is less than the dicing saw blade thickness can be created. The approach is flexible enough to make composites of different combination of pitch and volume ratio. Using a conventional dicing saw with a 50 microm thick blade, composite with a 25 microm pitch and a volume ratio of 61 percent are fabricated. Such a composite is suitable for fabrication of ultrasonic transducers and arrays with central frequencies of up to 85 MHz. Single element transducers working at central frequencies of 50-60 MHz were made of these composites as a mean to characterize the acoustic performance. Measurement results of the transducers show that the longitudinal electromechanical coupling coefficient is greater than 0.6 and that there are no noticeable lateral resonances in the frequency range of 55-150 MHz. Design criteria for fine scale elements are also discussed based on theoretical results from finite element analysis (FEA).
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) | 0.001 | 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".