Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The temperature dependence of piezoelectric properties (direct piezoelectric coefficient d 33 , converse piezoelectric coefficient d 33 ( E = 0), strain S and electromechanical coupling coefficient k p ) for two niobate‐based lead‐free piezoceramics have been contrasted. 0.92(Na 0.5 K 0.5 )NbO 3 –0.02(Bi 1/2 Li 1/2 )TiO 3 –0.06BaZrO 3 (6 BZ /2 BLT /92 NKN ) has a morphotropic phase boundary ( MPB ) between rhombohedral and tetragonal at room temperature and 0.92(Na 0.5 K 0.5 )NbO 3 –0.03(Bi 1/2 Li 1/2 )TiO 3 –0.05BaZrO 3 (5 BZ /3 BLT /92 NKN ) features an MPB engineered to be located below room temperature. At 30°C, d 33 , d 33 ( E = 0), S (at 2 kV/mm), and k p are 252 pC/N, 230 pm/V, 0.069%, 0.51 for 5 BZ /3 BLT /92 NKN ; and 348 pC/N, 380 pm/V, 0.106%, 0.57 for 6 BZ /2 BLT /92 NKN , respectively. With increasing temperature, the piezoelectric properties decrease. At 200°C, d 33 , d 33 ( E = 0), S (at 2 kV/mm), and k p are 170 pC/N, 160 pm/V, 0.059%, 0.36 for 5 BZ /3 BLT /92 NKN ; and 181 pC/N, 190 pm/V, 0.061%, 0.39 for 6 BZ /2 BLT /92 NKN . It is found that the electromechanical coupling coefficient has a better temperature stability than the piezoelectric coefficient in the studied system due to a large temperature‐dependent compliance change. The results demonstrate that engineering an MPB is highly effective in tailoring temperature stability of piezoceramics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: