Relative-thickness dependence of exchange bias in bilayers and trilayers

Large exchange bias effect in LaCr0.9Ru0.1O3

“…Among various tuning parameters, the AFM to FM volume ratio in magnetic heterostructures plays a crucial role to influence the magnitude of EB effect. Computer simulation based on Monte-Carlo method, it is predicted that significant exchange bias field occurs in systems with small fraction of FM phase [22]. A smaller fraction of FM phase as estimated from the saturation magnetization gives rise to large exchange bias effect.…”

Particle Size Effects on Charge Ordering and Exchange Bias in Nanosized Sm0.43Ca0.57MnO3

“…In particular, for t AFM /t FM > 1.0 the value of H EB is influenced by variations of both FM and AFM thickness as H EB = γ(t AFM /t FM ), where γ is a parameter related to the FM saturated magnetization and FM/AFM interfacial coupling energy and has the dimension of magnetic field. 32 Figure 11 confronts the temperature dependence of H EB and M EB for the smallest, SCMO15, and the largest, SCMO60, NPs. The temperature variation of H EB (T) and the vertical shift of M EB can be well-approximated 34,35 by an exponential decay of the following form:…”

“…30 Qualitatively it could be understood on the basis of the classic Meiklejohn−Bean (MB) model, 31 which predicts for systems with FM/AFM interfaces that H EB is inversely proportional to the thickness of the FM layer, t FM , and depends on AFM anisotropy and thickness of the AFM layers, t AFM . 12,32 The expression for H EB reads as follows:…”

“…Recent Monte Carlo simulations of the EB effect in FM/AFM bilayers and trilayers support this interpretation. 32 Hu et al have showed that the values of H EB are small and weakly depend on the layer thickness when t AFM /t FM < 1.0, while H EB increases steeply with increasing t AFM and a concurrent decrease of t FM . In particular, for t AFM /t FM > 1.0 the value of H EB is influenced by variations of both FM and AFM thickness as H EB = γ(t AFM /t FM ), where γ is a parameter related to the FM saturated magnetization and FM/AFM interfacial coupling energy and has the dimension of magnetic field.…”

Monte-Carlo modeling of exchange bias properties in amorphous magnets

“…At every step of T and H, 5 10 3 × MCSs per spin are performed to equilibrate the system, succeeded by a run of 5 10 3 × MCSs per spin for averaging the magnetization. The sweep rate is slow enough to guarantee the quasiequilibrium state, and the final magnetization is configurationally averaged over ten independent realizations of the initial spin configurations and sets of the unit vectors of the easy axes in the AM or AFM layer to reduce the statistical errors [13][14][15]. , where H L and H R denote the coercive fields at the decreasing and increasing branches of FM hysteresis loops.…”