If we increase the axial force to the medium range of F ¼ 0.1–1.0 MPa, the linear
analytical and nonlinear numerical solutions begin to show small but visible differences [11]. Only the numerical solution by COMSOL is shown below. The homogeneous junction still does not show any visible effects of F. Therefore only the
heterogeneous junction is shown in Fig. 3.30. The potential in (a) is no longer
monotonic, and a potential well begins to form. (b) shows that there are more net
polarization charges near the junction.
If we increase the axial force further to a large F ¼ 3–7 MPa, the differences
between the linear analytical and nonlinear numerical solutions become significant,
and the linear solution is no longer reliable. Figure 3.31 shows the nonlinear
numerical results for the heterogeneous junction only. (a) shows a deep potential
Fig. 3.29 Effects of a small
F ¼ 0–0.2 MPa in the
heterogeneous junction. (a)
Electric potential φ. (b)
Electric field E
82
3 Extension of Rods
analytical and nonlinear numerical solutions begin to show small but visible differences [11]. Only the numerical solution by COMSOL is shown below. The homogeneous junction still does not show any visible effects of F. Therefore only the
heterogeneous junction is shown in Fig. 3.30. The potential in (a) is no longer
monotonic, and a potential well begins to form. (b) shows that there are more net
polarization charges near the junction.
If we increase the axial force further to a large F ¼ 3–7 MPa, the differences
between the linear analytical and nonlinear numerical solutions become significant,
and the linear solution is no longer reliable. Figure 3.31 shows the nonlinear
numerical results for the heterogeneous junction only. (a) shows a deep potential
Fig. 3.29 Effects of a small
F ¼ 0–0.2 MPa in the
heterogeneous junction. (a)
Electric potential φ. (b)
Electric field E
82
3 Extension of Rods