| ²é¿´: 576 | »Ø¸´: 0 | |||
| ¡¾ÐüÉͽð±Ò¡¿»Ø´ð±¾ÌûÎÊÌ⣬×÷Õßwxmcp3½«ÔùËÍÄú 12 ¸ö½ð±Ò | |||
wxmcp3гæ (³õÈëÎÄ̳)
|
[ÇóÖú]
Éó¸åÒâ¼ûÔõô»Ø¸´
|
||
|
Á½¸öÉó¸åÈË µÚÒ»¸öÈË˵дµÄ¿ÉÒÔ£¬Ð¡ÐÞºó¿ÉÒÔ½ÓÊÜ£»µÚ¶þ¸öÖ±½Ó˵Ҫ¾Ü¾ø£¬±à¼¸øÁË´óÐÞ¡£ µÚ¶þ¸öÉó¸åÈ˵ÄÎÊÌâ¸Ð¾õ²»Ì«Ã÷°×£¬Ï£Íû¶®µÄ´óÉñ¿ÉÒÔ°ï°ïÎÒ°¡ A stochastic optimization procedure applied to ferroelectrics for piezoelectric applications, Ferroelectrics, 427, 63(2012); Stochastic optimization of ferroelectric ceramics for piezoelectric applications, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 44, 199-212 (2011)] except that they chose to use a different optimization algorithm. The reasons for such a selection is not mentioned either. Nevertheless, I would suggest them research on a comparative study of the optimization algorithms (i.e., between simulated annealing used by Jayachandran et al. and differential evolution algorithm employed by the authors) applied to this particular problem of piezoelectric material design. £¨Õâ¸öÊÇ˵ÎÒ¸ú±ðÈ˵ÄÑо¿ÀàËÆ£¬Ö»ÊÇ»»ÁËËã·¨£¬²¢ÇÒûÓиø³öʹÓò»Í¬Ëã·¨µÄÔÒò£© ¸ÃÔõô»Ø´ðÄØ£¿£¿£¿ The single crystal optimization study taken up to validate the procedure reveals a fundamental error in this study that needs to be rectified urgently: The authors claim that "The optimum value d_33=2468.627pC / N obtained here compares exactly well with the experimental value 2411pC / N [28], which showed in figure 4(a)" and the single crystal "optimal solution (?,?,?) is (? = 60.343, ? = 62.920, ? = -2.214) expressed in degrees correspond to one of the [001] directions" found in PMN-PT is wrong.£¨Õâ¸öÖ±½Ó˵ÎÒÓдíÎ󣬰¦ £¬ÎÒ²»ÊÇѧ²ÄÁϵģ¬ËùÒÔ²»ÊǺܶ®£© ¼±Ç󶮵ĴóÉñ°ï°ïæ°¡£¡ |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
271Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ30È˻ظ´
²ÄÁÏÀà284µ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ50È˻ظ´
291·Öµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
µ÷¼ÁÇóÊÕÁô
ÒѾÓÐ34È˻ظ´
291 Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ38È˻ظ´
22408 312Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ17È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸»ªÖÐũҵ071010£¬320Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
290µ÷¼ÁÉúÎï0860
ÒѾÓÐ41È˻ظ´
291Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
211±¾¿Æ²ÄÁÏ»¯¹¤Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ23È˻ظ´














»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥