Power Transfer in Magnetoelectric Resonators: a Combined Analytical and Finite Element Study

Raw data from the paper Power Transfer in Magnetoelectric Resonators: a Combined Analytical and Finite Element Study.

Fig3: . Shear strain dynamics in a ScAlN/CoFeB magnetoelectric resonator under varying mechanical Q-factors and excitation voltages. (a) Time evolution of the shear strain for Q = 100and excitation voltage V0 = 1 V, illustrating the transient buildup and saturation of the shearstrain amplitude. (b) Magnified view of the shear strain waveform from 14 to 15 ns in (a), highlighting steady-state oscillations. (c) Strain dynamics for Q = 1000 and V0 = 1 mV, showing anextended transient regime and lower strain amplitude due to reduced excitation. (d) Fast Fouriertransform (FFT) spectrum of the steady-state regime in (a), revealing a single dominant frequencycomponent. (e) Shear strain profiles across the resonator thickness at selected time instances forthe parameters in (a), illustrating the spatial mode profile of the elastic resonance. Excitationfrequency and magnetic bias field used in the simulations are summarized in Table II.

Fig4:  Magnetization dynamics in a ScAlN/CoFeB-based magnetoelectric resonator with a mechanical quality factor Q = 100 and excitation amplitude V0 = 1 V. (a) Time evolution of thespatially averaged out-of-plane magnetization component mz. (b) Spatial profiles of mz across themagnetostrictive layer thickness at selected time instants, highlighting the spatial uniformity ofthe magnetic response under shear strain excitation. Excitation frequency and magnetic bias fieldused in the simulations are summarized in Table II

Fig5: Magnetic transduction efficiency η as a function of the magnetostrictive layer thickness tfor ScAlN resonators incorporating CoFeB, Ni, and Terfenol-D material parameters, evaluated for(a) Q = 100 and (b) Q = 1000. In each case, the externally applied magnetic field was tuned toensure frequency matching between the elastic and ferromagnetic resonances.

Fig6: 6. (a) Magnetic power absorption Pm, (b) elastic power loss Pe, and (c) magnetic transduction efficiency η as functions of the magnetoelastic coupling constant B, evaluated for materialparameter sets corresponding to CoFeB, Ni, and Terfenol-D. All results are computed for a ScAlNresonator with mechanical quality factor Q = 1000. Analytical model predictions are shown assolid lines, while corresponding FEM results are indicated by squares. The comparison highlightsgood agreement between the two approaches. 

Fig7: (a) Magnetic power absorption Pm, (b) elastic power loss Pe, and (c) magnetic transductionefficiency η as functions of the Gilbert damping constant α, evaluated for material parameterscorresponding to CoFeB, Ni, and Terfenol-D. All results are computed for a ScAlN resonatorwith mechanical quality factor Q = 1000. Results from the analytical model are shown as solidlines, while corresponding FEM results are represented by squares. Again, good overall agreementbetween the two approaches is observed.

Fig8: (a) Magnetic power absorption Pm, (b) elastic power loss Pe, and (c) magnetic transduction efficiency η as functions of the mechanical Q-factor for material parameters correspondingto CoFeB, Ni, and Terfenol-D. Results from the analytical model are shown as solid lines, whilecorresponding FEM results are represented by squares.

 Fig9: Magnetization gradient ∆M/M as a function of magnetostrictive layer thickness fordifferent magnetic materials, obtained from micromagnetic simulations performed in MuMax3.

Fig10:  Magnetic transduction efficiency η as a function of the magnetostrictive (Terfenol-D) layerthickness t for ScAlN resonators. Calculations assume Q = 1000 and are shown for two modelingapproaches: spatially uniform magnetization approximation (see Sec. II) and local magnetizationresponse model (see App. C).