| Literature DB >> 35808450 |
Bernd Hähnlein1, Neha Sagar1, Hauke Honig2, Stefan Krischok1, Katja Tonisch1.
Abstract
In recent investigations of magnetoelectric sensors based on microelectromechanical cantilevers made of TiN/AlN/Ni, a complex eigenfrequency behavior arising from the anisotropic ΔE effect was demonstrated. Within this work, a FEM simulation model based on this material system is presented to allow an investigation of the vibrational properties of cantilever-based sensors derived from magnetocrystalline anisotropy while avoiding other anisotropic contributions. Using the magnetocrystalline ΔE effect, a magnetic hardening of Nickel is demonstrated for the (110) as well as the (111) orientation. The sensitivity is extracted from the field-dependent eigenfrequency curves. It is found, that the transitions of the individual magnetic domain states in the magnetization process are the dominant influencing factor on the sensitivity for all crystal orientations. It is shown, that Nickel layers in the sensor aligned along the medium or hard axis yield a higher sensitivity than layers along the easy axis. The peak sensitivity was determined to 41.3 T-1 for (110) in-plane-oriented Nickel at a magnetic bias flux of 1.78 mT. The results achieved by FEM simulations are compared to the results calculated by the Euler-Bernoulli theory.Entities:
Keywords: Nickel; anisotropy; delta E effect; magnetoelectric sensor
Year: 2022 PMID: 35808450 PMCID: PMC9269756 DOI: 10.3390/s22134958
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1(a) SEM images of 4 wide magnetoelectric cantilevers consisting of a TiN( 90 )/ AlN( 450 )/Ni( 100 ) layer stack investigated in recent work [26]. (b) Eigenfrequency characteristics in dependency of the magnetic flux of four 25 long and identically aligned cantilevers as marked in (a). (c) Solution of the 2D model used for the simulation study with the layer configuration from (a). The bending effect due to magnetostrictive strains in the 25 cantilever is upscaled for better visibility.
Figure 2(a) Computed magnetic-field-dependent curves of Young’s modulus for the three principal axes. (b) Eigenfrequencies of the simulated cantilevers in magnetic saturation as a function of the crystalline orientation of the Nickel layer and its thickness.
Figure 3(a) Deflection in magnetic saturation of the simulated cantilever for different thicknesses . (b) Influence of the cantilever curvature on the eigenfrequency. The curvature caused by magnetostriction is derived for comparison from (a).
Figure 4Relative eigenfrequency change (left hand side) and the respective specific sensitivity (right hand side) of the three principal axes (a) (100), (b) (110) and (c) (111) for Nickel layer thicknesses in the range of 50–1000 nm. The point of highest absolute sensitivity as well as the dynamic range is marked by the lines, respectively.
Figure 5(a) Absolute values of the maximum sensitivities derived from Figure 4 (FEM) and from the Euler–Bernoulli theory (EBT) for the three principal axes and at the given offsets of the magnetic flux. The experimentally achieved sensitivity is added for comparison. The value for zero thickness is extrapolated. (b) Extracted dynamic range in dependence of for the three orientations.
Comparison of simulated and experimental sensitivities of the natural frequency of electromechanical system based on magnetoelectric sensors. (Values calculated according to Equation (10) if not given in the reference). * Sensitivity for the second eigenmode.
| Material | Reference | Sensitivity (1/T) |
|---|---|---|
| Ni(100)/AlN/TiN | this work | −14.9 |
| Ni(110)/AlN/TiN | this work | −41.3 |
| Ni(111)/AlN/TiN | this work | 8.8 |
| poly-Ni/AlN/TiN | [ | −0.9 …−1.4 |
| FeCoSiB/poly-Si/AlN | [ | 10 |
| FeCoSiB/poly-Si/AlN | [ | 13 * |
| FeCoSiB/poly-Si/AlN | [ | 48 * |
| FeCoB/Al/AlN/Pt | [ | −0.7 |
| FeGaB/AlN/Pt | [ | −2.2 |
| FeGa/Ti/Diamond | [ | 0.5 |
Fit constants for the magnetostriction and magnetization curves according to Equation (A1).
| Parameter |
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −1.61 | −1.34 | 2.17 | 1.40 | 0 | −22,132 |
|
| −7.95 | −1.27 | −52.4 | 2.80 | 0 | −11,500 |
|
| −2.24 | −7.16 | −26.2 | −5.35 | −200 | −500 |
|
| 260,000 | 276,100 | −2.08 | 9.43 | −5000 | 0 |
|
| 403,234 | 248,314 | 42.8 | −2.50 | 0 | −10,000 |
|
| 10,621 | 483,372 | 8.86 | 37.9 | 0 | 0 |
Summary of the elastic constants of Ni gathered from [32]. * Omitted values due to high deviation.
| Reference | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Honda et al. | 2.52 | 1.51 | 1.04 |
| Bozorth1 et al. | 2.5 | 1.6 | 1.19 |
| Bozorth2 et al. Saturated | 2.52 | 1.57 | 1.23 |
| Neighbours et al. | 2.53 | 1.52 | 1.24 |
| Yamamoto et al. | 2.44 | 1.58 | 1.02 |
| Levy et al. | 2.47 | 1.52 | 1.21 |
| DeKlerk et al. Saturated | 2.46 | 1.47 | 1.24 |
| Shirakawa et al. | 2.55 | 1.69 | 0.90 * |
| DeKlerk2 et al. Saturated | 2.46 | 1.48 | 1.22 |
| Alers et al. | 2.51 | 1.5 | 1.24 |
| Sakurai et al. | 2.51 | 1.53 | 1.24 |
| Epstein et al. Saturated | 2.5 | 1.54 | 1.24 |
| Vintaikin et al. | 2.47 | 1.44 | 1.24 |
| Salama et al. | 2.52 | 1.54 | 1.22 |
| Shirakawa2 et al. | 2.88 | 1.81 | 1.24 |
| Average | 2.52 | 1.55 | 1.2 |