Measuring Magnetoelectric and Magnetopiezoelectric
Effects
J.T. Evans, S.P. Chapman, S.T. Smith, B.C. Howard, A. Gallegos
Radiant Technologies, Inc.
Albuquerque, NM 87107 USA
radiant@ferrodevices.com
The authors have developed a test procedure and circuits for
characterizing the charge generation of a magnetoelectric device
when stimulated with a magnetic field. The magnetoelectric
effect comes in two physical forms. The first is from a ferroic
material such as Bismuth Iron Oxide (BFO) which exhibits
internal coupling between its magnetic properties and its
ferroelectric properties. The second is from composite devices
which are constructed by mechanically coupling a magnetic
material to a piezoelectric material. A magnetic field applied to a
composite device creates stress in the magnetic material which
transfers the stress to the piezoelectric material. The traditional
method for measuring magnetoelectric effect is to stimulate the
sample with a magnetic field while measuring the voltage
generated across the sample. These voltages can be so small that
a lock-in amplifier is required to pull the signal out of ambient
noise. Charge measurement under the same circumstances
produces a much larger signal and can be related to the voltage
response using the dielectric constant of the material [1]. The
charge test is an exact analog to the traditional electrical
hysteresis test with the exception that the test instrument applies
a magnetic field to the sample instead of an electric field. The
presenter will describe the test procedure as presently used and
outline future objectives for improving the accuracy and
sensitivity of the results.
I. INTRODUCTION
A capacitor with a nonzero magnetoelectric coupling
coefficient will generate charge, voltage, or a combination of
both when exposed to a magnetic field. The ratio of charge to
voltage generated by the capacitor as a result of a change in an
applied magnetic field is determined by 1) the impedance
across the terminals of the capacitor and 2) the frequency at
which the magnetic field is changing. The capacitor will
generate voltage if the meter across capacitor has a high-
impedance input. This arrangement is the traditional method of
characterizing the magnetoelectric coefficient using a lock-in
amplifier as the meter. The coefficient measured in this
manner is ME, defined as
ME = E / H (1)
If a virtual ground is connected across the capacitor, the device
will not be allowed to generate a voltage so the magnetoelectric
response will appear as charge. The coefficient measured at
zero electric field is , defined as
 = P/H (2)
Ferroelectric hysteresis testers use virtual ground measurement
circuits so they are naturally configured to determine the
magnetoelectric coefficient according to (2). The relationship
between  and ME may be algebraically derived as
ME =  / 0r (3)
Equation (2) is defined using fundamental thermodynamic
units. The equation means that the capacitor has a unique
polarization state for each magnetic field state. Changing the
magnetic field forces the sample to a new polarization state.
The change in polarization will result in charge flowing out of
or into the sample under test provided there is a low impedance
current path available between the plates of the capacitor. If
there is no current path between the plates, the magnetically
generated charge will remain in the capacitor, generating a
voltage by its action across the dielectric constant of the
material.
The goal of this experiment was to identify the issues
associated with executing a charge based magnetoelectric
measurement, minimizing any negative effects, determining the
accuracy of the measurement sensors, and executing the
measurement on a composite magnetoelectric device.
II. SAMPLE
A. Multiferroic vs Composite Magnetoelectrics
Devices with magnetoelectric properties come in two
flavors. The first has a multiferroic material as the capacitor
dielectric layer. A multiferroic material has multiple
properties, in this case ferromagnetism together with remanent
polarization or piezoelectricity. If the two properties are
coupled in the same device, a change in polarization state could
be forced by a magnetic field or a change in polarization could
be detected by a magnetic sensor. The second type of
magnetoelectric device is a composite made by laminating a
pure ferromagnetic material with a pure piezoelectric or
ferroelectric material. The coupling between the magnetic and
electric properties is through the mechanical interface between
the layers. For instance, a magnetic field will distort the
ferromagnetic material. That distortion will in turn activate the
piezoelectric material to create charge or voltage.
B. Sample Preparation
The sample used for this experiment was fabricated at
Virginia Tech by Su Chul Yang under the auspices of the
Center for Energy Harvesting Materials and Systems
(CEHMS). It consisted of KNNLS-NZF cut into disks with a
diameter of 0.785 cm2 with a thickness of 0.05 cm. The disks
were laminated to a nickel foil. The maximum response for
this sample occurred at 460 Oersted: 12.5mV/cm/Oe. At 43
Oersted, the sample generated an ME response of
2.1mV/cm/Oe [2] using the voltage measurement technique.
III. TEST CONFIGURATION
The test is executed by substituting a magnetic waveform
for the traditional voltage stimulus in a polarization hysteresis
test. The substitution is accomplished by placing a current
amplifier on the voltage output of the hysteresis tester to drive
a Helmholtz coil. Either a current sensor in line with the
Helmholtz coil or a Hall Effect sensor placed at the sample
location can capture the magnetic field during the stimulus
waveform.
Magnetoelectric measurement conducted in this manner is
subject to a variety of limitations and parasitics.
A. Frequency Limitations
The inductance of the Helmholtz coil limits the maximum
frequency that may be applied to the sample.
VCoil = L I/t (4)
The voltage limit of the current amplifier used by the authors in
Fig. 1 becomes Vcoil in (4). Combined with inductance L of the
coil used by the authors, it limited the maximum frequency to
20 Hz. Distortion of the stimulus waveform sets in at
frequencies below the limit, the reason why 1 Hz was used as
the test frequency for this experiment.
B. Charge Loss
The most sensitive charge measurement requires an
electrometer for the RETURN channel in Fig. 1. Electrometers
leak and this leakage limits the minimum frequency at which
the test may be run. The Radiant Technologies Precision
Multiferroic nonlinear materials tester used for the experiment
in Fig. 1 was characterized for charge loss by executing a
traditional voltage-driven hysteresis test on a calibrated 10pF
reference capacitor. At one volt, the capacitor should generate
10pC of charge plus or minus the precision of the reference
capacitor, in this case a NIST-traceable 0.1%. The tester
retained 99% of the charge during a 10 Hz test and 98.1% of
the charge during a 1 Hz test.
C. Ambient Electrical Noise
The charge measured during the experiment was so small it
was easily swamped by ambient electric noise in the room.
Polarization hysteresis systems measure absolute charge so
ambient noise cannot be eliminated by lock-in techniques. The
ambient noise was eliminated by placing the sample inside an
aluminum electrical shield box grounded to the tester. The box
fit inside the Helmholtz coil and coaxial cables were used to
connect the sample inside the shield box to the tester.
Figure 1. Magnetoelectric test configuration.
D. Measuring the Magnetic Field
Due to the presence of the electrical shield box, a Hall Effect
sensor could not be placed in the vicinity of the sample to
collect magnetic field strength during stimulus. The authors
used a high speed current sensor in line with the Helmholtz coil
to determine the magnetic field at the sample while in the
central cylinder of uniformity of the Helmholtz coil.
Comparison of the current sensor to a calibrated gaussmeter
indicated an accuracy of 97.5% for the current sensor at 1 Hz.
E. DC Field Bias
Many magnetoelectric devices exhibit higher coefficients
when exposed to a DC magnetic bias field. A uniform DC bias
field can be achieved by placing the sample and the Helmholtz
coil at the center of a much larger field coil driven by its own
high power amplifier. For this experiment, the authors applied
a small DC field bias by placing a permanent magnet at a set
distance from the sample. The field was reversed by flipping
the polarity of the magnet.
F. Small Signal Capacitance
The mathematical steps to convert the  coefficient to the
ME coefficient requires the use of the small signal capacitance
of the device under test. Multiplying the magnetoelectric
charge measured under zero impedance by the sample’s small
signal capacitance should predict the voltage the sample would
generate under open circuit conditions. Most magnetoelectric
devices have nonlinear small signal capacitance as a function
of magnetic field. The composite device under test exhibited a
1% variance in its small signal capacitance as a function of a
magnetic field varied over ±50 gauss. The small signal
capacitance as a function of magnetic field is measured by
executing the classic small signal capacitance electrical test on
the sample as it rests inside the Helmholtz coil while the
surrounding magnetic coil generates an adjustable DC
magnetic field.

Figure 2. Magnetoelectric charge response of the CEHMS composite laminated sample.
G. Parasitic Cable Capacitance
A major advantage of the charge-based measurement approach
is the use of the virtual ground across the sample. With zero
volts across the coaxial cables connecting the sample to the
tester, the parasitic capacitance of the cable cannot affect the
test. The same is not true for the volt-based measurement
using a lock-in amplifier. The voltage generated by the sample
must also charge the cables and the input capacitance of the
lock-in amplifier, reducing the value of the measured voltage
from the value the sample would generate if it were truly
isolated. This parasitic effect can be subtracted out by
characterizing the cables and test fixture for capacitance but the
compensation must be adjusted for every sample and every set
of cables.
H. Induced Charge
The cables connecting the sample to the test must intrude
inside the AC magnetic field generated by the Helmholtz coil.
The AC magnetic field will induce current in the cables as it
varies amplitude. This charge will add to the charge generated
by the sample in the charge-based measurement or the voltage
generated by the sample in the voltage-based measurement.
The induced charge is linearly related to the test frequency,
meaning that a 1Hz test will have 0.1% of the induced charge
as a 1 kHz test. The geometric relationship of the cables to the
AC magnetic field will also have a dramatic effect on the
magnitude of the induced current. In this case, the DRIVE and
RETURN cables were parallel to the AC H-field axis and
displaced from the axis by approximately the diameter of the
coils. Shielded coax connected to a differential input on the
test equipment should further reduce the impact of induced
charge since the induced charge will move in the same
Q/H
direction on both the center conductor and the metal shield
braid. The parasitic contribution can be measured by running
the test without the sample present and then subtracting that
measurement from the one with the sample present. That
parasitic subtraction was not performed on the data below as
the test was executed at only 1 Hz.
I. Voltage Bias
It is possible with the test configuration used for this
experiment to apply a voltage bias to the sample during
magnetic field AC actuation. That was not done for this
experiment. The sample electrodes were shorted with zero
volts on one plate and the virtual ground on the other.
IV. RESULTS
Three tests were executed on the sample at different DC
field biases:
 ±45G with 0G bias
 ±45G with +56G bias
 ±45G with -56G bias
The bias fields were created by a nearby permanent magnet,
meaning that the DC bias field was not uniform across the
diameter of the sample. The ±56G value used for plotting the
results was measured with a gaussmeter at the location of the
center of the sample. The three measurements are plotted in
Fig. 2.
Since the charge plotted in Fig. 2 is an absolute response of
the sample to the applied magnetic field, its  coefficient at
each magnetic field value is the slope of the polarization
generated at that field. The zero bias charge generation result
in Fig. 2 was fit with a polynomial resulting in (5) having an R2
value of 0.9664.
Q = 0.0012x2 + 0.006x -0.2126 pC(Oe) (5)
The derivative of (5) gives the equation that calculates the
slope of the zero bias charge response in Fig. 2 at a specified
magnetic field.
Q′ = 0.0024x + 0.006 pC/Oe (6)
Dividing (6) by the area of the sample results in the equation
that calculates the  coefficient of the sample at the specified
magnetic field.
 = 0.00306x + 0.0076 pC/cm2/Oe (7)
2
At 43G,  equals 0.139pC/cm /Oe.
The ME coefficient is calculated from (6) by dividing that
charge value by the small signal capacitance of the sample at
the magnetic field strength of interest (761pF) to convert to
units of volts and then again by the sample thickness (0.05cm)
to convert to electric field.
ME = 6.31x10-5 x + 1.58x10-4 mV/cm/Oe (8)
At 43G, ME equals 2.87mV/cm/Oe.
ANALYSIS
The error in the charge measurement consists of the 0.5%
specification provided by the manufacturer for the Precision
Multiferroic tester used in the test plus the charge leakage from
its electrometer circuit, measured at 1.9%. Thus, the charge
measurement error for this experiment extends from -2.4% to
+0.5%. The magnetic field measurement error was measured
to be ±2.5%. The  coefficient is found by dividing the charge
by the magnetic field. Using the maximum charge uncertainty
against the minimum magnetic uncertainty and vice versa
yields a maximum error range of +3.1% to -4.8%, ignoring
induced current. Therefore there is a reasonable expectation
that the  of 0.139pC/cm2/Oe and the ME of 2.87mV/cm/Oe
calculated for this sample at 43 Oersted are accurate to within
±5%. The next step in our research will be to correlate these
results with those produced by the traditional voltage-based
measurement technique for the same sample.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable assistance
of Dr. Shashank Priya, Su Chul Yang, and Shashaank Gupta
from CEHMS at Virginia Tech.
REFERENCES
[1] C. S. Park, J. Evans, and S. Priya, “Quantitative understanding of the
elastic coupling in magnetoelectric laminate composites through the
nonlinear polarization-magnetic (P-H) response,” Smart Mater. Struct.,
vol. 20, 6pp., 2011.
[2] Sample synthesized by Su Chul Yang of the Center for Energy
Harvesting Material and Systems. All data rights are retained by
CEHMS.