MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134261346 · doi:10.11159/jffhmt.2021.015

Characterization and Modeling of Surface Roughness on a Silicon/PZT Unimorph Cantilever using Finite Element Method

2021· article· en· W3134261346 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean Marriz Manzano, Magdaleno R. Vasquez, Marc Rosales, Maria Theresa G. de Leon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Flow Heat and Mass Transfer · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep reactive-ion etchingMaterials scienceCantileverMultiphysicsSurface roughnessSurface finishFinite element methodSiliconUnimorphFabricationComposite materialEtching (microfabrication)AcousticsOptoelectronicsStructural engineeringReactive-ion etchingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Silicon etching using deep reactive ion etching (DRIE) at large etch depth results in rougher surfaces due to increased response in process pressure, amount of coil power, increased amount of helium leak at the backside, and even post process handling. To account for the effects of surface roughness on the characteristics of a silicon cantilever beam, a numerical model based on the finite element method (FEM) modeling was developed using actual roughness data from fabricated samples. The acquired roughness data was integrated to the silicon cantilever beam model coupled with multiphysics to simulate a piezoelectric energy harvester. Simulation result shows that roughness parameter ranging from 1.488-3.138 m can shift the resonant frequency by 5.53% to 9.48% or 308.31 Hz to 551.21 Hz of the device but does not have significant effect on the output power. The significant shift in the resonant frequency implies that careful consideration of surface roughness from fabrication processes must be considered when designing energy harvesters.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid Flow Heat and Mass TransferSame topicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting MaterialsFrench-language works237,207