= Solution
The <secondary pyroelectric effect> is the change of <polarization density> produced when thermal strain acts through <piezoelectricity>. It is additional to the primary change at fixed strain. A linear constitutive description along the polar axis is
$$
\Delta P_3=p_3^{\varepsilon}\Delta T+\sum_j e_{3j}\varepsilon_j,
\qquad
p_3^{\rm free}=p_3^{\varepsilon}+\sum_j e_{3j}\alpha_j,
$$
where $e_{3j}$ are piezoelectric stress coefficients and $\alpha_j$ the freely developing thermal strains per kelvin. Thermal-expansion mismatch with a support or a deliberately chosen compliant structure can change the secondary contribution. It enhances the total response only if its sign reinforces the primary response; mechanical boundary conditions and thermal cycling must be characterized rather than assuming every restraint is beneficial.
\b[Preventing axial expansion removes the free axial-strain contribution, but does not automatically eliminate every secondary contribution.] In a one-dimensional idealization with only $\varepsilon_3$ coupling and perfect axial clamping, that strain-mediated term vanishes. A real rod may still expand transversely, and nonzero $e_{31}$ or $e_{32}$ can change $P_3$ through those strains. In a stress-based constitutive equation, the same restraint appears as thermal stress and a piezoelectric term; do not add it a second time to a coefficient already specified for the constrained condition. Full suppression of all relevant thermal strains leaves the primary coefficient at fixed strain. The answer therefore depends on which degrees of freedom are constrained, not simply on the word “nanorod”.
Back to article page
