4.6 Article

P-Matrix Analysis of Surface Acoustic Waves in Piezoelectric Phononic Crystals

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TUFFC.2016.2531079

Keywords

Piezoelectric phononic crystals (PnCs); P-matrix; surface acoustic wave (SAW); three-dimensional (3-D) finite-element method (FEM)

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11174318, 11304346]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Program (863 Program) [SS2013AA041103]
  3. Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission [Z141100003814016]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Large time/memory costs have constituted a significant obstacle for accurately analyzing surface acoustic waves (SAWs) in large-sized two-dimensional (2-D) piezoelectric phononic crystals (PnCs). To overcome this obstacle, this study introduces the unit P-matrix and its associated cascading. To obtain an accurate unit P-matrix, the Y parameters of the SAW delay lines were derived using a three-dimensional (3-D) finite-element model (FEM) with and without 2-D piezoelectric PnCs, respectively, on the transmitting path. A time window function was adopted to extract the desired signals from the P-matrix analysis. Then, unit P-matrix cascading was used to obtain SAW propagation parameters for the large-sized piezoelectric PnCs. Using this method, the SAWin aluminum (Al) / 128 degrees -YXLiNbO3 PnCs was analyzed over 150 periods. Experiments were also conducted. To choose the appropriate size of the unit P-matrix, the variance between experimental results and theoretical results, and time/memory cost were compared for different periods. The results indicate that cascading by unit P-matrix of 25 PnCs periods can be appropriately adopted to accurately derive the SAW propagation parameters over 150 periods. This indicates the accuracy of the unit P-matrix derived by 3-D FEM and the effectiveness of P-matrix analysis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available