## Scaled demagnetization models: susceptibility, resonant and relaxation frequency prediction compared to magnetic composite measurements

Dr. Rick L. Moore, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia 30332, USA, rick.moore@gtri.gatech.edu

Abstract - Maxwell-Garnett Theory (MGT), Bruggeman Effective Medium Theory (BEMT), Coherent Model Approximation (CMA), Scaled Effective Medium Theory (ScEMT) and models of Schlomann (E. Schlomann, Phys. Rev. B, 182, 7, 632 (10 June 1969) and E. Schlomann, Conf. on Mag. and Mag. Materials, AIEE Spec. Publ. T-91, 600 (1956)) are applied to predict magnetic susceptibility, resonant and relaxation frequency in polymer-magnetic particle composites. Particulates had aspect ratios near unity; bulk low frequency susceptibilities ranging from approximately 5 to 4000 and particle volume fractions between 1 and 100%. Previous publications demonstrated that ScEMT improved the prediction of DC susceptibility as compared to classical models. This paper first modifies BEMT and ScEMT for volume fractions below about 10%. A ScEMT based model of composite resonant frequency is presented and compared to MGT, CMA models and measurement. Model and measurement comparisons of resonant frequency are followed by modelmeasurement comparisons of relaxation frequency. CMA, MGT, models of Schlomann, and volumetric scaled modifications of Schlomann are tested in the relaxation frequency study. The paper emphasizes the broad application of the models and therefore composite data for a wide range of particulate chemistries are presented ScEMT predictions of susceptibility and resonant frequency continue to show reasonable agreement with measurement and represent improvement over the CMA and MGT models. ScEMT modifications to Schlomann show overall best agreement with relaxation frequency measurement. CMA and MGT are most accurate for modest susceptibility (~ &lt; 100) while ScEMT modified Schlomann models are most accurate for large susceptibility.

## Introduction

Composites formed as mixtures of magnetic and nonmagnetic materials are applied in a wide range of modern RF technologies. New ferrite compositions, many developed for applications in bio-magnetics, and new  particulate  geometries  are  in  constant  development  and  these  provide  new  candidates  for  making improved  composites.  Electromagnetic  interference  (EMI)  suppression  and  antenna  substrates  are  two applications;  additional  applications  are  listed  in  [1]  [2].    Composites  with  desired  electromagnetic constitutive parameters are often developed by experimentation using an iterative process of formulationmeasurement-formulation. This procedure introduces a latency in the design process of making optimized material formulations and experimental approaches can investigate only a limited parameter space.  This lag can be reduced and parameter spaces fully investigated by using accurate predictive models of electromagnetic parameters.

This paper is an extension of the previously developed and experimentally tested volumetrically scaled effective medium theory (ScEMT [3] [4]). ScEMT demonstrated significant improvements in the prediction of low frequency composite magnetic susceptibility as compared to other effective medium models and early results showed promise for predicting composite resonant frequency. In this work, the predictive accuracies of ScEMT, CMA, MGT [5] [6]and Schlomann[7] [8]  models are stressed by comparing to measurement for a very wide range of magnetic particulates, composite volume fractions and frequency.

This paper begins with a short review of the basis for ScEMT and analyzes a low volume fraction correction for  symmetric microstructure models. The correction is for magnetic volume fractions below about 10%.

Though  the  correction  does  bring  measurement,  dispersive  and  symmetric  composite  model  predictions closer, it does not completely reconcile the discrepancies in the data sets.  The corrected model is compared for low and high susceptibility particulate composites.

Next, the ScEMT contribution to prediction of resonant frequency is reviewed and compared to a model selection [9] that builds on MGT[5]  and CMA[6]. All models are compared to a broad selection of resonant frequency measured data and thus expands the analysis of [4]

The  paper  concludes  with  studies  using  CMA,    MGT  and  Schlomann  [7]  [8]models  that  predict  the relaxation frequency in magnetic composites. CMA and MGT are compared to analysis of the 1969 reference1 [8] and ScEMT modifications of [8]. Copies of Schlomann's  1956 paper [7] are somewhat difficult to obtain however Lax and Button, Section 10.3 [10] and R. Krishnan reference [11] each present data supporting both 1956 and 1969 papers. After volumetric scales taken from ScEMT are added to the 1969 analysis, a significant improvement in predictive accuracy is obtained; as compared to measurement, MGT and CMA. Improvement is demonstrated using a wide range of magnetic particulate and composite measured relaxation frequencies.

## ScEMT Review

ScEMT is built upon the Bruggeman effective medium theory, BEMT [12]. The BEMT formulation was modified to include a nonlinear dependence of magnetic demagnetization on volume fraction. The nonlinear approached is supported by publications by Chevalier and Le Floc'h [13],  M. Anhalt, et.al. [14], C. Alvarez and S. H. L. Klapp [15]. J. L.  Mattei and collaborators, [16] [17] [18], also elucidate   the need for nonlinearity to predict susceptibility.

Magnetic constitutive equations for the CMA, BEMT, MGT and ScEMT are found below for two-phase composites.  CMA and MGT equations are simplified  from  the  standard  format  by  specializing  them  for nonmagnetic  matrices.    Subscripts  e,  p  and  m  indicate  composite,  particulate  and  matrix  parameters respectively  with  Pp  being  volume  fraction  of  the  particulate,  and  p as  the  particulate's  magnetic susceptibility. 𝐴𝐵 is demagnetization which is 1/3 for spherical particulates like those assumed in this paper.

$$C M A \colon \chi _ { e } \, = \, \frac { P _ { p } ^ { 1 / 3 } \chi _ { p } } { 1 + ( 1 - P _ { p } ^ { 1 / 3 } ) \chi _ { p } } = \frac { P _ { p } \chi _ { p } } { P _ { p } ^ { 1 / 3 } ( 1 + \chi _ { p } ) - P _ { p } ^ { 1 / 3 } \chi _ { p } }$$

$$M G T \colon \chi _ { e } = \frac { 3 P _ { p } \chi _ { p } } { ( 3 + \chi _ { p } ) - P _ { p } \chi _ { p } }$$

$$\ B E M T \colon P _ { p } \frac { \mu _ { e } - \mu _ { p } } { \mu _ { e } + ( \mu _ { p } - \mu _ { e } ) A _ { B } } + \left ( 1 - P _ { p } \right ) \frac { \mu _ { e } - \mu _ { m } } { \mu _ { e } + ( \mu _ { m } - \mu _ { e } ) A _ { B } } = \ 0$$

The BEMT equation for spherical particulates describes a binary system whose microstructure changes from differentiated to symmetric near a volume fraction of 1/3, the percolation threshold 𝑃𝐶 .  J. P. Clerc, et.al [19]

notes that when 𝐴𝐵 = 1/3 , 𝜇𝑒 in the denominator of Equation 3 becomes multiplied by the  factor 2 .  In general that factor is 𝑑 - 1 where 𝑑 is the system dimensionality ( 𝑑 - 1 = 2 in 3D and 𝑑 - 1 = 1 in 2D) and the factor represents demagnetization in the composite. System dimensionality is connected to  the percolation threshold by 𝑃𝐶 = 𝑑 -1 .

Demagnetization in a composite has a geometrical and internal component. If particulate and matrix have different susceptibilities, magnetic poles are formed at particulate-matrix interfaces and produce an opposing internal demagnetization field within particulates. Formation of poles and demagnetization also changes with particulate shape and magnetic coupling or chaining of magnetic particulates. Thus, demagnetization is a function of particulate susceptibility, particulate cluster sizes and shapes, and the media susceptibility that surrounds the particulate. There is an inherent nonlinearity in the system description since demagnetization is itself a function of composite susceptibility, which changes with particulate volume fraction.

Application  of  percolation  theory  [19]  suggests  insight  into  nonlinear  geometrical  relations  among demagnetization,  volume  fraction,  dimensionality  and  percolation  threshold.  In  a  composite,  the  largest cluster size 𝑆(𝑎, 𝑃 , 𝑃 ) 𝑝 𝑐 is approximately

$$S ( a, P _ { p }, P _ { c } ) = a ( P _ { p } - P _ { c } ) ^ { - \gamma }$$

where 𝑎 is the characteristic dimension of a single particle and 𝛾 is a non-integer exponent that changes with dimension of the composite. Since demagnetization is a function of magnetic cluster size and shape 𝑆(𝑎, 𝑃 , 𝑃 ); 𝑝 𝑐 Equation 4 suggests that demagnetization will have a nonlinear dependence volume fraction.

Numerical simulation, and cluster experiments of [3] were used to identify a nonlinear function, 𝐴𝑝, that relates  demagnetization,  percolation  threshold  and  volume  fraction. 𝐴𝑝 replaces  the  classical  BEMT demagnetization constant, 𝑑 - 1 = 1-𝑃𝑐 𝑃𝑐 , by the ratio 𝐴𝑝 = 1-𝐴𝐶 𝐴𝐶 , i.e.

$$S c E M T \colon P _ { p } \frac { \mu _ { e } - \mu _ { p } } { A _ { p } \mu _ { e } + \mu _ { p } } + ( 1 - P _ { p } ) \frac { \mu _ { e } - \mu _ { m } } { A _ { p } \mu _ { e } + \mu _ { m } } = 0$$

where

$$A _ { c } = A _ { 0 } \Big { \{ } 1. - A _ { 1 } \Big { ( } 1 - P _ { p } \Big { ) } ^ { \gamma } \Big { \} } \, a n d \, A _ { p } = \Big { ( } \frac { 1 - A _ { C } } { A _ { C } } \Big { ) } \,.$$

These  equations  incorporate  the  nonlinear  relationship  between  volume  fraction  or  cluster  shape  and percolation threshold. Magnetic particulate percolation (i.e. clustering) is not random but is biased by internal magnetic fields that couple particulate poles. Strong coupling between particulates increases probability of

particulate chaining to minimize the overall system energy and is believed to contribute to ScEMT accuracy with large susceptibility particulates.

The free parameters, A0, A1 and  were determined by fitting the ScEMT Equation 5 to measurement of non-dispersive, low frequency (&lt; 10 MHz) susceptibilities of composites made from 10  - 40 𝜇𝑚 ,  multidomain Ni 0.31 Zn 0.58 Cu0.08 F2.03 O4. Samples were made with ferrite volume concentrations of 18, 20, 21, 30, 32, 45, 57 and 64 %, [3] [4]. A 100% dense control sample was also measured and found DC susceptibility of 863. The 100% data supplied the base input for model testing. Composite and solid samples were cut to size for a 7 mm coaxial transmission line test fixture. Complex reflection and transmission measurements were measured and from those permittivity and permeability were calculated. Those data were then fit to a Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert resonance equation. DC susceptibility, resonant frequency and relaxation parameters could  be  inferred  from  that  fit.  Details  of  measurement  and  procedures  can  be  found  in  [20]  along  with measured data of the 100% dense ferrite.

The fitted values for the ScEMT scaling function are near unity with numerical values of: A0 = 0.975, A1= 0.923 and  = 1.210, when rounded to the nearest thousandth.  Ideally coefficients would be equal to satisfy the  ScEMT  boundary  prediction  at  unity  volume  fraction.  At  that  fraction  composite  susceptibility  and particulate susceptibility must be equal. This is requires that ( 1-𝐴𝐶 𝐴𝐶 ) goes too zero at unity fraction. In the

ScEMT model with fitted parameters, A0, A1 and  , the ratio approaches 0.025 as concentration goes to unity. At zero volume fraction, the ratio approaches 12.32 whereas it should go to infinity.  The numeric differences indicate  that  small  errors  should  be  expected  at  high  and  low  volume  fractions.  However,  as  [4]  [3] demonstrates the fitted parameter values significantly improved model fit to published measurements for a wide range of magnetic particulate in nonmagnetic matrices for particulate volume fractions above 10 %and particulate susceptibilities of tens to thousands. In discussions of bandwidth, we do find that by forcing A0 and A1 to be equal, fit to measured relaxation bandwidths is improved.

## Small Volume Fraction Correction to BEMT and ScEMT

Due to differences in composite microstructures, predictions of BEMT and ScEMT should be expected to deviate from measurement at volume fractions approaching zero or unity. Each model assumes composites with symmetric microstructure; i.e. under exchange of particulate, matrix and fractional content, the EMT require equivalent results. However, at very low or very high volume fractions the composite microstructure should be dispersive or differentiated. Microstructure geometries are illustrated in Figure 1. Particulates are nearly isolated in the dispersive case and therefore scattering theories like MGT should apply. Differences in symmetric vs. differentiated microstructures are discussed in [21] and [22]. Small volume fraction expansions

of  MGT,  ScEMT  and  BEMT  produce  analytical  solutions  for  a  range  of  particulate  susceptibilities  and expansions are found in [21]. The expansion for ScEMT applies the BEMT expansion but where the constant demagnetization factor of 2 is replaced by 𝐴𝑝, Equation 6.

Symmetric Microstructure

Dispersive Microstructures

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00603v1-figure-24b8be8d-97ad-4e73-8bd6-1204aeed38a6.jpg)

H 2 Hm Hp' Pp)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00603v1-figure-05d53fc5-4d06-47da-9b49-f8c00b409688.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00603v1-figure-81d3065b-c911-4c1e-81c8-cd73f248a5c4.jpg)

Figure 1 The above are graphical representations of symmetric microstructure (for BEMT and ScEMT) and dispersive (for MGT) microstructures.

Equations  7-9  respectively  show  MGT,  BEMT  and  ScEMT  model  expansions  predicting  the  ratio  of effective permeability to host permeability in powers of volume fraction to second order. Subscripts MGT, BEMT and ScEMT indicate the models. Subscripts h and p identify host matrix and particulate and 𝑃 𝑝 is particulate volume fraction. MGT and BEMT equations are the same to first order in volume fraction, Pp. MGT and ScEMT differ in first and second order of volume fraction.

$$\frac { \mu _ { M G T } } { \mu _ { h } } = 1. + 3 \, \frac { \mu _ { p } - \mu _ { h } } { \mu _ { p } + 2 \mu _ { h } } \, P _ { p } + 3 \, \frac { ( \mu _ { p } - \mu _ { h } ) ^ { 2 } } { ( \mu _ { p } + 2 \mu _ { h } ) ^ { 2 } } \, P _ { p } ^ { 2 } \, \dots.$$

$$\frac { \mu _ { B E M T } } { \mu _ { h } } = 1. + 3 \, \frac { \mu _ { p } - \mu _ { h } } { \mu _ { p } + 2 \mu _ { h } } \, P _ { p } + 9 \mu _ { p } \, \frac { ( \mu _ { p } - \mu _ { h } ) ^ { 2 } } { ( \mu _ { p } + 2 \mu _ { h } ) ^ { 3 } } \, P _ { p } ^ { 2 } \, \dots \,. \quad \ \ ( 8 ) \, \text{and}$$

$$\frac { \mu _ { S c E M T } } { \mu _ { h } } = 1. + 3 \, \frac { \mu _ { p } - \mu _ { h } } { \mu _ { p } + A _ { p } \mu _ { h } } \, P _ { p } \, + \, 9 \mu _ { p } \, \frac { ( \mu _ { p } - \mu _ { h } ) ^ { 2 } } { ( \mu _ { p } + A _ { p } \mu _ { h } ) ^ { 3 } } \, P _ { p } ^ { 2 } \, \dots. \quad ( 9 )$$

MGT can be derived from a single particle scattering theory, [22] or [23]. In MGT, neither clustering nor any percolation model physics are included.  That suggests it should be accurate at very low volume fractions where particulates are isolated. Therefore, it is assumed that the MGT is the most accurate at low volume fractions and thus MGT is considered a baseline to which BEMT and ScEMT are compared. Measured data at fractions below about 10% verify that expectation.

A low fraction correction term for BEMT is derived by subtracting Equation 7 from 8. The correction term 𝐵𝑐 is;

$$B _ { c } = \, 6 \mu _ { p } \, \frac { ( 1 - \frac { \mu _ { h } } { \mu _ { p } } ) ^ { 2 } ( 1 - 2 \frac { \mu _ { h } } { \mu _ { p } } ) } { ( 1 + 2 \frac { \mu _ { h } } { \mu _ { p } } ) ^ { 3 } } \, P _ { p } ^ { 2 } + \cdots$$

Most  of  composites  that  are  modeled  in  this  paper  contain  large  susceptibility  particulates.  The  large permeability solution for BEMT reduces to approximately 𝐵 𝑐 = 6𝑃 𝑃 2 for nonmagnetic hosts.

A similar subtraction is  formed  for  ScEMT and  MGT. The first and second order differences between Equations 9 and 7, are:

$$O r d e r P _ { p } \colon \frac { \mu _ { S C E M T } } { \mu _ { h } } = 3 P _ { p } \frac { \mu _ { p } - \mu _ { h } } { \mu _ { p } + A _ { p } \mu _ { h } } \left \{ \frac { 1 } { \mu _ { p } + A _ { p } \mu _ { h } } - \frac { 1 } { \mu _ { p } + 2 \mu _ { h } } \right \} \ a n d$$

$$O r d e r P _ { p } ^ { 2 \colon } \, \frac { \mu _ { S c E M T } } { \mu _ { h } } = \ 3 P _ { p } ^ { 2 } \, ( \mu _ { p } - \mu _ { h } ) ^ { 2 } \left \{ \frac { 3 \mu _ { p } } { ( \mu _ { p } + A _ { p } \mu _ { h } ) ^ { 3 } } - \frac { 1 } { ( \mu _ { p } + 2 \mu _ { h } ) ^ { 2 } } \right \}$$

Figure 2 shows comparison of CMA, MGT, ScEMT and measured data for modest susceptibility iron oxide and larger susceptibility NiFe composites. As previously noted, MGT agrees well with measured data for fractions  below  about  10%  and  for  lower  susceptibilities.  The  corrected  BEMT  prediction  approaches measurement in the same fraction range; however, at higher fractions it incorrectly predicts a sudden increase for  large  susceptibility  particulate  as  the  33%  percolation  threshold  is  approached.  ScEMT  predictions decrease slightly and approach measurement below 10% but in general the ScEMT correction is not sufficient at low volume fractions. In addition, ScEMT predicts an artifact vs. fraction. Since 𝐴𝑝 is a function of volume fraction, the ScEMT correction term can show a sign change near 10% and thus increase rather than decrease the prediction. Such a susceptibility increase is not observed in any measured data that was available to the author.    Therefore,  in  these  discussions,  the  fraction  value  where  the  ScEMT  correction  changes  sign  is considered a limit for accuracy of the model. ScEMT measurement disagreement suggests that it should not be applied at low volume fractions; but electronic applications require higher volume fractions and thus its usefulness is not diminished.

When comparing model accuracy, different measurements sets of the same composite formulations are valuable. However, limited data was found related to formulation-measurement repetition.  The authors of reference [24] formulated and tested composites of two NiFe-polymer composites with 'identical' volume fractions. Data are shown in Figure 2b . Measurements had different particle size distributions 2.5 and &lt; 45 𝜇𝑚 but both are well below the size of skin depth effects in the MHz range.  Note that those measurements differ by 10 % at the duplicated fractions near 60 and 65 %. EMT should not be expected to be more accurate. Duplicate data is also seen in the upcoming Figure 4 that shows Fe particulate data. Again, measurements

differ by 10-20% for the same fractional content. Similar variance is expected for composite measurements for all magnetic particulates.

Figure 2 EMT model predictions with ScEMT corrected by Equations 11-12 and BEMT by Equation 9. (a) Left is a moderate  susceptibility  particulate  (Fe3O4  with  susceptibly  14),  (b)  right  is  for  a  high  permeability  Permalloy  of susceptibility near 10  . 5

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00603v1-figure-8ff4d110-f794-46ab-974e-91f630719f68.jpg)

Table  1  identifies  the  ferrites  and  ferromagnetic  particulates  for  which  composite  data  were  found  in publications. Some data sets (e.g. [28]) were incomplete but valuable for their references. The majority of publications  included  information  on  bulk  susceptibility,  resonant,  relaxation  frequencies  and  composite microstructure.  Figure  2,  Figure  3  and  Figure  4  show  examples  of  ScEMT  predicted  and  measured susceptibility  from  recent  sources  and  are  additions  to  those  shown  in    [4].    These  more  recent  ScEMT susceptibility predictions continue to show better agreement with measurement than BEMT, MGT and CMA models at mid volume fractions (10 - 100%) and large susceptibility particulates.

In the following discussions the relaxation frequency is taken as the frequency difference between upper and lower frequencies at the ½ magnitude of the imaginary part of the susceptibility. Resonant frequency is taken  as  that  frequency  where  the  imaginary  permeability  peaks.  In  most  cases,  particulate  resonant  and relaxation frequency were derived from graphs found in the references. In some cases, the graphical data could be compared and verified by tabulations, e.g. Lax and Button [10]. However, the reader should assume that there is some level of author reading error that is embedded in the data of Table 1. Therefore, the derived data in Table 1 should not be used as 'absolutes' but are representative values that can be used for model

comparisons. A full validation of models must await a series of carefully controlled experiments similar to those summarized in the conclusion. The following sections utilizes composite susceptibility and the tabulated bulk properties in prediction of resonant frequency and relaxation frequency.

Table 1 Table cross referencing reference source and magnetic particulate parameters

| Particle Composition                                                 | DC susceptibility   | Resonant Frequency (GHz)   | Relaxation Frequency (GHz)   | Reference(s)     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|----------------------------|------------------------------|------------------|
| NiZn, MnZn Ferrite industrial powders                                | ~ 3000              | unknown                    | unknown                      | [28]             |
| Mn .53 Zn .41 Fe 2.06 O 4                                            | ~ 4000              | .0008 - .001               | .003 - .004                  | [9], [29]        |
| Ni .24 Zn .65 Fe 2.04 O 4                                            | 1470                | .0015-.0025                | .017                         | [9], [29]        |
| Fe 3 O 4                                                             | ~ 14                | 1.3                        | 1.6                          | [30], [31]       |
| Ni Mn .02 Fe 1.9 O 4                                                 | 27.3                | .1                         | .8                           | [32]             |
| (MnO) .25 (ZnO) .2115 Fe 2 O 3                                       | 1750                | .001-.002                  | .01-.02                      | [33]             |
| BaCoZn Fe 16 O 37                                                    | 11                  | 1.4                        | 1.7                          | [34]             |
| NiFe, e.g. Fe 53 Ni 47                                               | 200-800             | .008                       | ~ .016                       | [35], [40], [24] |
| Fe                                                                   | ~ 40                | 1.3                        | 1.5                          | [36]-[39]        |
| Ni .36 Zn .64 Fe 2 O 4                                               | 1200                | .007 - .009                | .02-.03                      | [39]             |
| Ni .7 Zn .3 Fe 2 O 4                                                 | 20.4                | .62 - .70                  | 1.0                          | [10], [13]       |
| Ni .3 Zn .58 Cu .08 Fe 2.03 O 4 and Ni .24 Zn .65 Cu .07 Fe 2.04 O 4 | 839 and 863         | .009 and .005              | .01 and .02                  | [20], [41]       |

Figure 3  EMT model comparisons to measured datra for a particulate with susceptibility (a) left near 20 and  (b) right 3000

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00603v1-figure-88b77e15-8f9f-4c34-ac28-01a5d3513a05.jpg)

Figure 4 EMT model predictions for (a) left Fe particulate and (b) right Mn.53 Zn.41 Fe 2.06 O4 composites. Fe data were taken from a range of commercial EMC products. The Mn.53 Zn.41 Fe 2.06 O4 has a permeability near 4000.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00603v1-figure-47f81808-e564-4b24-b559-c4366a3ced66.jpg)

## Characteristic Composite Frequencies

Prediction of composite susceptibility is the first step toward calculating frequency dispersive spectra of mixtures. It is assumed that bulk susceptibility, resonant and relaxation frequency will be available as input for any design studies.

The addition of a magnetic particulate to a nonmagnetic matrix produces a material whose resonance is shifted to a higher frequency than that of the particulate.  Reference [9] approached the prediction of composite resonance,  and  relaxation  frequency,  by  inserting  an  analytical  equation  for  composite  susceptibility  (i.e. MGT or CMA) in the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation. The resulting dispersive models take forms that easily identify  equations  for  composite  resonant, 𝑓 𝑟𝑐 and  relaxation  frequencies, 𝑓 𝑑𝑐 . Both 𝑓 𝑟𝑐 and 𝑓 𝑑𝑐 are proportional to particulate bulk resonance 𝑓 𝑟0 and relaxation 𝑓 𝑑0 .MGT and CMA derived relations for the resonance and relaxation parameters are shown below. When expressed as a ratio, the relative composite resonant  frequency  ratio  is  the  square  root  of  the  relaxation  ratio.  The  equations  are  attractive  for  their simplicity  and  intuition.  However,  they  are  found  to  under  predict  the  volume  fraction  induced  shift  in resonant frequency for many magnetic particulates.

$$C M A \ [ 9 ] \colon \frac { f _ { r c } } { f _ { r 0 } } = \{ 1. + \chi _ { p } \left ( 1 - P _ { p ^ { \frac { 1 } { 3 } } } \right ) \} ^ { 1 / 2 } \quad ( 1 3 )$$

$$\Gamma [ 9 ] \colon \frac { f _ { d c } } { f _ { d o } } = \{ 1. + \chi _ { p } \left ( 1 - P _ { p } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 3 } } \right ) \} \quad ( 1 4 )$$

$$C M A \ [ 9 ] \colon \frac { f _ { r c } } { f _ { r o } } = \{ 1. + \chi _ { p } \left ( 1 - P _ { p ^ { 3 } } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 3 } } \right ) \} ^ { 1 / 2 } \quad ( 1 3 ) \\ C M A \ [ 9 ] \colon \frac { f _ { d c } } { f _ { d o } } = \{ 1. + \chi _ { p } \left ( 1 - P _ { p ^ { 3 } } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 3 } } \right ) \} \quad ( 1 4 )$$

And

$$M G T \, [ 9 ] \colon \frac { f _ { r c } } { f _ { r 0 } } = \{ 1. + \chi _ { p } ( 1 - P _ { p } ) \} ^ { 1 / 2 } \quad ( 1 5 )$$

$$M G T \ [ 9 ] \colon \frac { f _ { d c } } { f _ { d o } } = \{ 1. + \chi _ { p } ( 1 - P _ { p } ) / 3 \} \quad ( 1 6 )$$

References [25] and [26] take a different approach to determine resonance. They apply integral relationships that  leverage  Snoek's  law  [27].  A  similar  approach,  which  leverages  the  ScEMT  predictive  model  for susceptibility, is investigated below and compared to Equations 13, 15 and measurement. Equation 14 and 16 will be applied in the next section on relaxation frequency.

The magnetic composites considered in this paper contain single or multidomain particulates  and  their mixture forms a separate material that is effectively multidomain. Therefore, a form of Snoek's law should apply for the isotropic composites that are topics of this of this paper. In Snoek's law the product of particulate bulk susceptibility, 𝜒𝑝 and resonant frequency 𝑓 𝑟𝑝 are related to particulate bulk magnetization, MS, and 𝛾 = 2.8 𝑀𝐻𝑧/𝑂𝑒 i.e.

$$\chi _ { p } f _ { r p } = \frac { 2 } { 3 } \gamma 4 \pi M _ { S }$$

ScEMT is combined with Snoek's law by assuming that the product of composite susceptibility and resonant frequency are equal to a constant multiplied by the bulk material magnetization. We choose a magnetization that is linearly scaled for volume fraction of the particulate.

$$\chi _ { c } f _ { r c } = \gamma P _ { p } \, \frac { 2 } { 3 } \, 4 \pi M _ { s }$$

Simple algebra shows composite susceptibility,  c , will be related to composite relaxation frequency, 𝑓 𝑟𝑐 , bulk susceptibility, 𝜒𝑝 , volume fraction, Pp, and bulk resonance frequency, 𝑓 𝑟𝑝 ,  by  ,

$$f _ { r c } = \frac { P _ { p } f _ { r p _ { r } } } { \chi _ { c } } \ \chi _ { p }$$

Note that this approach requires a model that predicts accurate values for composite susceptibility. Since ScEMT has been found to predict susceptibility better than other EMT for large susceptibility particulates in the in the mid volume fraction range, it is not surprising that improvements are evident for other magnetic parameters like resonance frequency. Examples for EMT model resonant frequency predictions are shown in Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8.  Predictions and measurement are plotted relative to the particulate bulk value.

The trends illustrated in this figure collection are representative of the twelve composites that have been evaluated to date. In general, ScEMT is most accurate in the prediction of resonant frequency for composites using a large susceptibility pigment. As volume fraction decreases CMA, MGT and ScEMT all deviate from measurement. However, this may partially be an artifact due to the broadening and decreased magnitude of the resonance and difficulty in reading precise values. The NiZnCuFerrite plot (Figure 5b) is the only one in which digital data were available and as was previously noted, most data were acquired by reading values from plots. Thus, data should not be taken as absolutes. Even though susceptibility predictions were close, Figure 4,  the resonant frequency data for Fe composites were the  poorest match of  the 12 materials evaluated to date, Figure 7. This may reflect the use of commercial products which use a wide range of Fe particulate compositions. For example,  some  products use coated particulates to change  composite  electrical conductivity. Overall, ScEMT is found to improve prediction of composite resonant frequency as compared to MGT and CMA.

Figure 5 ScEMT, CMA and MGT model predictions for measured resonant frequency of composites. (a) left are composites of Ni .3 Zn .58 Cu .08 Fe 2.03 O 4 with susceptibility of 839 [41] and (b) right is Ni .24 Zn .65 Cu .07 Fe 2.04 O 4 with susceptibility 863 [20]

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00603v1-figure-0192d768-b0ad-4c1a-a131-a704f5d1a666.jpg)

Figure 6 ScEMT, CMA and MGT model predictions compared to measured resonant frequency of composites for high susceptibility particulates: (a) left susceptibility 1467 and (b) right 800 - 4000.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00603v1-figure-4bfe7682-8240-4a4c-8eac-ea3bce9291c3.jpg)

Figure  7  ScEMT,  CMA  and  MGT  model's  prediction  of  resonant  frequency  vs.  fraction  for  high  and  modest susceptibility particulates: (a) left 1200 and (b) right 40.  Figure 7(b) shows the least favorable comparison of model and measurement for composites.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00603v1-figure-6f03eeb5-9b6e-442c-a6e3-1775b02cd402.jpg)

Figure 8 ScEMT, CMA and MGT model's prediction of resonant frequency vs. fraction for the BaCoZn ferrite.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00603v1-figure-12790af6-659b-48bb-b712-22a9532aea87.jpg)

## Relaxation Frequency Model and Measurement

In  1956  E.  Schlomann  [7]  published  a  composite  model  which  approximately  predicted  the  change  in resonance bandwidth (i.e. relaxation frequency) for ferrites which contained nonmagnetic voids with fraction 𝑃 𝑣 and fractions less than about 30%. Schlomann' s equation from[7], is reproduced in Equations 20. Equation 20 is written in terms of void volume fraction ( 𝑃 𝑣 ) and 20b as a function of magnetic material volume fraction, ( 𝑃 𝑝 )

$$\Delta f _ { d c } = \gamma \left \lceil \frac { K _ { 1 } } { M } \right \rceil + 1. 5 \gamma ( 4 \pi M _ { s } ) ( \frac { P _ { \nu } } { 1 + P _ { \nu } } )$$

$$\Delta f _ { d c } = \gamma \left \lceil \frac { K _ { 1 } } { M } \right \rceil + 1. 5 \gamma ( 4 \pi M _ { s } ) ( \frac { 1 - P _ { p } } { 2 - P _ { p } } ) \quad ( 2 0 b )$$

𝐾 1

K1 is the first order anisotropy constant; M is magnetization,  is 2.8 MHz/Oe.  The term 𝑀 represents the contribution from crystalline anisotropy and is equal to 0.5𝐻𝑘 where 𝐻𝑘 is  the  anisotropy  field.  The second term represents the internal induced fields due to magnetic poles that are produced at the interfaces of magnetic and nonmagnetic material and is a function of magnetization and fraction.  The volume fraction dependence shown in 20a and 20b were derived for a simple spherical magnetic particle with a center located void and the equations assumes a small volume fraction of void. Note that Equations 20 a, b represent the additional resonance broadening due to the nature of the mixture. In order to obtain the overall relaxation frequency, the original bulk value for relaxation frequency would be added to Equation 20a or 20b.

In 1969 Schlomann published a more extensive analysis [8] that changed the lead term of Equations 20 for magnetic materials with anisotropy fields smaller than 4𝜋𝑀𝑠 (i.e. large susceptibility),  Large susceptibility ferrites  are  the  emphasis  of  this  paper  and  thus  Equation  21  (from  [8]  and  [41])  will  be  the  choice  for modification  in  this  article. Equation  21  was  compared  to  measurement  and  performed  well  for  ferrites containing void concentrations less than 30%, [8] Obviously the model must be modified for application to the entire volume fraction range from 0 to 100 %.  This article seeks to expand application and thus the volumetric scale of Equation 20b is replaced by a 'volume scale function to be determined' 𝐷(𝑃 𝑝 ).

$$\Delta f _ { d c } = \gamma 2. 0 7 \left \lceil \frac { H _ { k } ^ { 2 } } { 4 \pi M _ { s } } \right \rceil + 1. 5 \gamma ( 4 \pi M _ { s } ) D ( P _ { p } ) \quad ( 2 1 )$$

Not only are Equations 20 and 21 based on the simple model of spherical void inside a spherical volume. But some numerical values may be approximate. For example, the multiplier 1.5 in the second term derives from an approximate contour integral [7].  Subsequent e xperimental research by Pointon and Roberson [42], Gurevich, et. al. [43] and R. Krishnan [44] suggested modifications to this constant. The authors measured both spinel and garnet ferrites which contained pores and they found that the constant 1.5 should be replaced by a parameter (here called 𝐶 ) and that parameter should be close to unity.

With that background, the development of a modified model is begun by inserting Equation 17 into the lead term  of  Equation  21.  This  produces  an  anisotropy  contribution  of ∆𝑓 𝑑𝑘 which  is  a  function  of  ferrite susceptibility and ferrite resonant frequency,

$$\Delta f _ { d k } = \quad 1. 3 8 \ \frac { f _ { r } } { \chi _ { P } } \ \. \quad ( 2 2 )$$

The  second  term  of  Equations  20  or  21  is  a  function  of  magnetization  and  volume  fraction.  It  is  first multiplied  by  unity  in  form  of  (3/2)(2/3)  and  Equation  17  is  again  inserted  to  rewrite  the  magnetization contribution in terms of bulk resonant frequency, 𝑓 𝑟 , and particle susceptibility 𝜒𝑝 ,

$$\Delta f _ { d m s } = 1. 5 \gamma 4 \pi M _ { s } D ( P _ { p } ) = 1. 5 \frac { 3 } { 2 } D ( P _ { p } ) \left ( \frac { 2 } { 3 } \gamma 4 \pi M _ { s } \right ) = C D ( P _ { p } ) \chi _ { p } f _ { r } \ \ ( 2 3 )$$

Numerical factors have been collected into the parameter 𝐶.

Equations 22 and 23 are summed to give the composite relaxation frequency, 𝑓 𝑑𝑐𝑠 as

$$f _ { d c s } = \Delta f _ { 0 } + \Delta f _ { d k } + \Delta f _ { d m s } = \Delta f _ { 0 } + \chi _ { p } f _ { r } \left \{ \frac { 1. 3 8 } { \chi _ { P } ^ { 2 } } + C D ( P _ { p } ) \right \}. \quad ( 2 4 )$$

The second term of Equation 24 must be modified to include a volume scale which is appropriate to a full range of volume fractions. Choices for this function were developed in [3].

As stated in [7],  the second magnetization term contribution originates from inclusions which give rise to free magnetic poles inside the ferrite composite and thus to an additional magnetic field which contributes to demagnetization.  Insertion of magnetic particles in a nonmagnetic matrix produces the same effect. The derivation of the scaled demagnetization coefficient of the effective medium theories (ScEMT)  should be proportional to the density of poles and it is tested as one volumetric scaling function 𝐷(𝑃 𝑝 ) of Equation 24.

That demagnetization coefficient, 𝐴𝑝 , was developed in [3]   and repeated in Equation 25.

$$A _ { c } = A _ { 0 } \Big { \{ } 1. - A _ { 1 } \Big { ( } 1 - P _ { p } \Big { ) } ^ { \gamma } \Big { \} } \, a n d \, A _ { p } = \Big { ( } \frac { 1 - A _ { C } } { A _ { C } } \Big { ) }$$

As noted in the previous ScEMT Review section, the values for the ScEMT scaling function parameters were determined from a fit to measured values of one ferrite-composite susceptibility. The same coefficients

have been applied to all other composites. The derived parameter values are: A0 = 0.975, A1= 0.923 and 𝛾 = 1.210, when rounded to the nearest thousandth. Coefficients are nearly equal but do not quite meet boundary conditions for ScEMT and BEMT equations. If the coefficients were exactly equal; then ( 1-𝐴𝐶 𝐴𝐶 ) is zero at unity volume fraction and ScEMT  would  predict particulate-composite equality at unity volume fraction.

The fitted parameters in the ScEMT model have this ratio approaching 0.025 as concentration goes to unity. At zero concentration the Equation 25 ratio approaches 12.32 whereas it should go to infinity. These small numeric values indicate that small errors should be expected at high and low volume fractions. In the following calculations  the  parameter  values  are  equalized( 𝐴0 = 𝐴1 = 1.0) thus  satisfying  boundary  conditions.  In addition,  the numeric constant 𝐶 is set equal to unity. Figures will compare Schlomann, CMA, MGT and Equation 26 with measurement and the scaled from of Schlomann is referred to as 'Scale Eq. 26, unity'.

$$f _ { d c s } = \Delta f _ { 0 } + \Delta f _ { d k } + \Delta f _ { d m s } = \Delta f _ { 0 } + \chi _ { p } f _ { r } \left \{ \frac { 1. 3 8 } { \chi _ { P } ^ { 2 } } + C A _ { p } \right \}.$$

Reference  [3]  also  described  a  second  scale  for  demagnetization  that  was  an  Anzatz  designed  from micromagnetic simulations of mixtures of particulates with high susceptibility. The volume scale was of the form { 1-𝑃𝑝 } 𝑥 .  Physically this represents the ratio of volume fractions for nonmagnetic to magnetic material.

Simulations indicated that the power, x Predictions using this scaling are referred to in the figures as 'Volume Ratio'.

𝑃𝑝 , was near 3/2. In the following we apply the scaling form but set x=1.

Overall, model and measurement agreement separate into two sets. Relaxation frequencies for composites containing  large  susceptibility  particulate  were  best  predicted  using  Equation  26  with  either  of  the  two volumetric scales. Predictions are consistent with Schlomann's specification that magnetic materials should have  anisotropy  fields  smaller  than 4𝜋𝑀𝑠 (  large  susceptibility[8]). Graphs  of  model  and  measurement comparisons for large susceptibility particulates are shown in Figures 9-11.  Particulate susceptibility assumes values  that  are  taken  from  the  referenced  publication.  Notable  is  data  for  Fe.53  Ni.47  composites.    The susceptibility  of  800  is  smaller  than  expected  but  is  derived  from  a  fit  to  measurement.  Values  of  a  few hundred to a 1000 were found in references [24][40][35].

As figure numbers increase the reader will note a shift in predictive accuracy from Equation 26 to the CMA prediction  and  Equation  14.    For  example,  Figures  12-13  show  measurement-model  comparison  for composites  with  particulates  with  susceptibility  in  the  10  -  30  range.    As  with  resonant  frequency  and susceptibility  predictions,  the  CMA  and  MGT  accuracy  improves  as  particulate  susceptibility  decreases. Particulate coupling decreases with susceptibility and thus 'isolated particle' models like CMA and MGT better represent the microstructure of the composite.

Figure 9 Measurement and EMT predicted relaxation frequency for particulate composites with large permeability. Good fits are found for Coe~1.0. Particulate susceptibilities are: (a) left 800 and (b) right 1470.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00603v1-figure-a548c83b-29ce-41bd-b4a8-8fc777654528.jpg)

Figure  10  Measurement  and  EMT  predicted  relaxation  frequencies  for  the  indicated  particulate.  Particulate susceptibilities are: (a) left 4000 and (b) right 1200.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00603v1-figure-ffe64d03-8d29-4afd-85bb-ac12f7403431.jpg)

Figure  11  Measurement  and  EMT  predicted  relaxation  frequencies  for  the  indicated  particulate.  The  NiZnCu compositions chemistries were  close  but  measured  susceptibilities  differ  by  about  3%.  Thus,  two  comparisons  are shown.  Particulate compositions and susceptibilities are: Ni  Zn .3 .58 Cu .08 Fe 2.03 O 4 , 839 to the right of the vertical line [41]; Ni .24 Zn .65 Cu .07 Fe 2.04 O 4 , 863 to the left of the vertical line[20], On the right is susceptibility is 1750 or the MnOZnO ferrite composite.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00603v1-figure-1a19b665-0f4c-40d1-b1d8-5f7be7e4919f.jpg)

Figure  12  Measurement  and  EMT  predicted  relaxation  frequencies  for  the  indicated  particulate.  Particulate susceptibilities are: (a) on the left 27.3 and (b) on the right 11.0.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00603v1-figure-9384ecff-9991-4a59-ac4f-0d6cc17e2071.jpg)

Figure  13  Measurement  and  EMT  predicted  relaxation  frequencies  for  the  indicated  particulate.  Particulate susceptibility is 20.4

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00603v1-figure-1b866797-ff27-4aca-b8e5-452aca3dc0e0.jpg)

## Conclusions and Path Forward

Maxwell-Garnett  Theory  (MGT),  Bruggeman  Effective  Medium  Theory  (BEMT),  Coherent  Model Approximation  (CMA), and  models  of  Schlomann  and  Scaled  Effective  Medium  Theory  (ScEMT)  were applied  in  this  paper  to  predict  magnetic  susceptibility,  resonant  and  relaxation  frequency  in  polymermagnetic particle composites.  The paper presented a short study of modifications to BEMT and ScEMT that should  correct  the  respective  models  for  volume  fractions  below  about  10%.  A  ScEMT  based  model  of composite resonant frequency was presented and compared to MGT, CMA models and measurement. Model and measurement comparisons of resonant frequency were followed by model and measurement comparisons for relaxation frequency. CMA, MGT and models of Schlomann with various volumetric scales are used in the relaxation frequency study. Though ScEMT susceptibility resonant and Schlomann modified relaxation frequency are not perfect in prediction of measurement, they demonstrate significant improvement over other historical EMT in composites that use particulates with large susceptibility. Measured data for susceptibility, resonant and relaxation frequencies demonstrate a transition from isolated particulate to strongly coupled particulate composite physics. The transition is characteristic of a microstructural change from dispersive to symmetric.  The  better  accuracy  of  ScEMT  for  large  susceptibilities  is  supported  by  numerical  studies [45][46]. The publications suggest that spherical particulates with large magnetization and large susceptibility,

are more likely to attract one another and their attraction will exceed frictional drag of media surrounding the particles. Particles assemble into chains and large structures and therefore volume fraction scaled models are necessary to reflect the fundamental physics.

Over all, models should be supported by additional measurement. They would be applied to predict frequency dispersive susceptibility for a select set of composites and utilize bulk data for a moderate, large and very large susceptibility (e.g. 20, 800 and 4000) non-conducting ferrite. Predictions would be made for particulate sizes (1, 10 and 40 𝜇𝑚 ) and particulate volume fractions of 2, 5, 15, 20 25, 30, 35, 45 55 and 65%. Co-fired bulk samples of the three ferrites would be used as controls.   Dispersive predictions will be compared to measurement over the frequency span of 10 MHz to 40 GHz.

## Acknowledgements:

The editing of this paper by Drs. Kenneth Allen and David Reid significantly improved this text and their assistance is greatly appreciated.

## References

- [1] Bashar Issa, et.al., Int. J. Mol. Sci. 14, 21266, (2013)
- [2] Fadzidah Mohd. Idris, et.al., J. Mag. Mag. Mat., 405, 197, (2016)
- [3] R. Moore, AIP Advances 9, 3, (8 March 2019)
- [4] R. Moore, J. Appl. Phys.,125, 8, 085101 (28 Feb 2019)
- [5] J.C. Maxwell Garnett, Phil. Trans. Royal Soc., 203A, 385, (1904)
- [6] E.G. Visser, M.T. Johnson, J. Mag. Mag. Mat., 101, 143 (1991)
- [7] E. Schlomann, Conf. on Mag. and Mag. Materials, AIEE Spec. Publ. T-91, 600 (1956)
- [8] E. Schlomann, Phys. Rev. B, 182, 7, 632 (10 June 1969)
- [9] T. Tsutaoka, et.al., 2013 IEEE EMC International Symposium Digest,.545, IEEE-978-1-4799-0409-9/13
- [10] B. Lax, K. J. Button, Microwave Ferrites and Ferrimagnetics, 474-477, McGraw Hill, (1962)
- [11] R. Krishnan, IEEE. Trans. Mag., MAG-7, 1, (March 1971)
- [12] D.A.G. Bruggeman, Ann.Phys.24,636 (1935)
- [13] A. Chevalier, M. Le Floc'h, J. Appl. Phys., 90, 7, 3462 (1 Oct. 2001)
- [14] M. Anhalt, et.al., 18 th Soft Magnetic Materials Conference, B-0011 (Sept. 2007)
- [15] C. Alvarez, S. H. L. Klapp, Soft Mater, 8, 7480 (2012)
- [16] J.L. Mattei, D. Bariou, A. Chevalier, M. Le Floc'h, J. Appl. Phys., 87, p4975 (2000)
- [17] J.L. Mattei, M. Le Floc'h ,  J. Mag. Mag. Mat, v357 p335 (2003)
- [18] J.L. Mattei, P. Laurent, A. Chevalier, M. Le Floc'h   J. Physique. IV France 7, C1-547 (1997);
- [19] J.P. Clerc, G. Giraud, J.M. Laugier, J.M. Luck, Advances in Physics, 39, 3, 191-309, (1990)
- [20] Rick. Moore, Electromagnetic Composites Handbook: Models, Measurement and Characterization, Chapter 12, McGraw Hill ISBN: 9781-25-958504-3 2016T.
- [21] V. Markel, J. Opt. Soc. America, 33, 7, 1244 (July 2016)
- [22] I. Webman, J. Jortner, M. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B, 15, 12, 5712 (14 June 1977);
- [23] L. Lewin, Radio Sci., 94, III,65 (1947)

- [24] T. Kasagi, et.al., J. Mag. Soc. Of Japan, v 22, n S1 (1998)
- [25] K.N. Rozanov, et.al., J.Appl.Phys., 97, 013905 (2005)
- [26] K.N. Rozanov, M. Y. Koledintseva, J. Appl. Phys., 119, 073901 (2016);
- [27] J.L. Snoek, Physica, 14, 207 (1948)
- [28] J .J. Fiske, et.al. J.Mat.Sci., 32, 5557 (1997)
- [29] T. Tsutaoka, J. Appl. Phys., 93, 5 2789 (March 2003)
- [30] Zheng Hong, et.al., Chin. Phys. Lett., 26, 1, 017501 (2009)
- [31] S. Liong, PhD Thesis, 'A Multifunctional Approach to Development, Fabrication, and Characterization of Fe3O4 Composites' School of Material Science and Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, (2005);
- [32] J.E. Pippin and C.L. Logan, 'Initial Permeability Spectra of Ferrites and Garnets', Harvard University 1959
- [33] V. Babayan, et.al., Applied Surface Science, 258, 7707 (2012)
- [34] Z. W. Li, Y. B. Gan,  Xu Xin, G. Q. Lin, J. Appl Phys. 103, 073901 (2008)
- [35] H. Massango, T. Tsutaoka, T. Kasagi, Materials  Research Express, 3, 095801 (2016)
- [36] A. Medeiros Gama, et.al., J. Aerospace Tech. and Management, n1, v2, 5a (1 Jan.-April 2010)
- [37] Y. Shimada, M. Yamaguchi, J. Appl. Phys., 101, 09M505 (2007)
- [38] P. Ramprasad, P. Zarcher, M. Petras, M. Millr, P. Renaud, J. Appl. Phys., 96, 1, 529 (1 July 2004)
- [39] J. Slama, A. Gruskova, V. Jancarik, P. Siroky, M. Lehotsky., 'Modification of Frequency Spectra of Ferrite Composites', Sept. 10-12, 2007, Pilsen Czech Republic
- [40] Chih-Wen Chen, Magnetism and Metallurgy of Soft Magnetic Materials, ISBN 13: 9780486649979
- [41] T. Nakamura, T. Tsutaoka, K. Hatakeyama, J. Mag. Mag. Mat., 138, 319 (1994)
- [42] A. J. Pointon, J. M. Robertson, Phil. Mag., 12, 725-733 (1965)
- [43] A.G. Gurevich, I. E. Gubleer,  A. P. Safant Evskii, Sov. Phys. Solid State, 1, 1706-1708 (1960)
- [44] R. Krishnan, IEEE Trans. Magnetics, Mag-7, 202 (1 March 1971)
- [45] Jorge L. C. Domingos, F. M. Peeters and W. P. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. E 96, 012603 (2017)
- [46] Jorge L. C. Domingos, F. M. Peeters and W. P. Ferreira, PloS One 13 (4), e0195552 (2018).
Rick L. Moore
Scaled demagnetization models: susceptibility, resonant and relaxation frequency prediction compared to magnetic composite measurements
Maxwell-Garnett Theory (MGT), Bruggeman Effective Medium Theory (BEMT),
Coherent Model Approximation (CMA), Scaled Effective Medium Theory (ScEMT) and
models of Schlomann (E. Schlomann, Phys. Rev. B, 182, 7, 632 (10 June 1969) and
E. Schlomann, Conf. on Mag. and Mag. Materials, AIEE Spec. Publ. T-91, 600
(1956)) are applied to predict magnetic susceptibility, resonant and relaxation
frequency in polymer-magnetic particle composites. Particulates had aspect
ratios near unity; bulk low frequency susceptibilities ranging from
approximately 5 to 4000 and particle volume fractions between 1 and 100%.
Previous publications demonstrated that ScEMT improved the prediction of DC
susceptibility as compared to classical models. This paper first modifies BEMT
and ScEMT for volume fractions below about 10%. A ScEMT based model of
composite resonant frequency is presented and compared to MGT, CMA models and
measurement. Model and measurement comparisons of resonant frequency are
followed by model-measurement comparisons of relaxation frequency. CMA, MGT,
models of Schlomann, and volumetric scaled modifications of Schlomann are
tested in the relaxation frequency study. The paper emphasizes the broad
application of the models and therefore composite data for a wide range of
particulate chemistries are presented ScEMT predictions of susceptibility and
resonant frequency continue to show reasonable agreement with measurement and
represent improvement over the CMA and MGT models. ScEMT modifications to
Schlomann show overall best agreement with relaxation frequency measurement.
CMA and MGT are most accurate for modest susceptibility (~ < 100) while ScEMT
modified Schlomann models are most accurate for large susceptibility.