Page 144 - MSAM-4-3
P. 144

Materials Science in Additive Manufacturing               Sunflower-inspired microwave-absorbing metastructure




                         A





                         B






                         C






                         D





            Figure 12. Simulated electric field (|E|, left) and magnetic field (|H|, right) distributions of the sunflower-inspired metastructure at absorption peak
            frequencies: (A) 4.66 GHz, (B) 8.80 GHz, (C) 13.25 GHz, and (D) 17.04 GHz, illustrating the evolution of the field localization and resonance behavior

             A                                                 The simulated  and experimentally measured  RL curves
                                                               at  the  incident  angle  of  0°  under  TE  polarization  are
                                                               compared  in  Figure  14.  Overall,  the  measured  results
                                                               exhibit a trend consistent with the simulations, confirming
                                                               the validity of the electromagnetic modeling approach.
             B                                                 However, minor discrepancies are observed between
                                                               the measured and simulated data. These deviations are
                                                               primarily attributed to several factors: the small unit size,
                                                               dimensional inaccuracies, slight warping at the base of the
                                                               printed sample, and surface roughness caused by the step

             C                                                 effect inherent to the FDM process. These imperfections
                                                               can lead to additional electromagnetic wave scattering and,
                                                               consequently, diminished absorption efficiency.
                                                                 The measured EAB (12.13 GHz) spans from 5.87 to
                                                               18 GHz, which is slightly narrower than the simulated
             D                                                 bandwidth. In the 2 – 5.87 GHz range, the measured RL
                                                               does not reach −10 dB, unlike in simulations (Figure 14).
                                                               This discrepancy is potentially due to differences in
                                                               the incident angle. While simulations assumed normal
                                                               incidence, the experimental setup employed side-by-side
            Figure 13. Simulated power loss density distributions of the metastructure   horn antennas, resulting in a non-zero incident angle and
            at varying absorption peak frequencies: (A) 4.66 GHz, (B) 8.80 GHz,
            (C) 13.25 GHz, and (D) 17.04 GHz, showing the shift of energy dissipation   reduced absorption. Nonetheless, the metastructure still
            from the structure’s center to its top edge at higher frequencies  demonstrates strong performance, maintaining over 80%
                                                               absorptivity (i.e., RL < −7 dB) in the 3.16 – 5.87 GHz band.
            3.4. Experimental verification                       In summary, the experimental findings validated the

            To validate the accuracy and reliability of the simulation   sunflower-inspired metastructure’s excellent broadband
            results, the sunflower-inspired metastructure was   microwave absorption performance. In addition, Table 2
            fabricated using FDM 3D printing, as shown in Figure 3.   compares the performance of this metastructure with

            Volume 4 Issue 3 (2025)                         10                        doi: 10.36922/MSAM025220048
   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149