Simple model for thin ferromagnetic films exchange coupled to an antiferromagnetic substrate

Mauri, D.; Siegmann, H. C.; Bagus, Paul S.; Kay, E.

doi:10.1063/1.339367

Cited by 910 publications

(587 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

550

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…6,7 For example, the original direct coupling mechanism proposed by Meiklejohn and Bean, 1,2 the local interface random exchange model proposed by Malozemoff,8 the AF domain wall formation mechanism proposed by Mauri et al, 9 and the spin-flop mechanism combined with interface defects proposed by Schulthess and Butler 10 all rely on a net uncompensated magnetization ͑even if it is local͒ of the AF at the FM/AF interface. In many models, ͉H E ͉ is proportional to the magnitude of the uncompensated magnetization at the FM/AF interface, and this magnitude scales inversely with the size of the region over which the magnetization is averaged.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antiferromagnetic domain size and exchange bias

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using neutron diffraction, we measured the sizes of antiferromagnetic domains in three ferromagnet/ antiferromagnet bilayer samples as a function of the magnitude and sign of exchange bias, temperature, and antiferromagnet composition. Neutron-scattering techniques were applied to thin films with masses less than 10 g. We found the antiferromagnetic domain size to be consistently small regardless of the exchange bias. For a Co/untwinned single crystalline antiferromagnet ͑AF͒-fluoride bilayer, the antiferromagnetic domain size is comparable to the crystallographic domain size of the AF. For one sample the highest temperature at which the exchange bias was nonzero ͑i.e., the blocking temperature͒ was suppressed by ϳ3 K compared to the Néel temperature of the antiferromagnet.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antiferromagnetic domain size and exchange bias

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2c) to extract the bias field due to interlayer exchange coupling (HEX), which serve as an approximation of the coupling strength [21][22][23] . Figures 4a and b show the temperature-dependent HEX of n-period SLs and the corresponding isotherms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Tailoring exchange couplings in magnetic topological-insulator/antiferromagnet heterostructures

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In view of the hysteretic behavior of the ADEB, we consider samples with t AFM much smaller than the domain wall thickness and thus neglect planar domain wall in the AFM layer [19]. p sw is determined by the intrinsic energy barrier, determined by the local anisotropy energy E anis , and the exchange field from the FM layer.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hysteretic Behavior of Angular Dependence of Exchange Bias inFeNi/FeMnBilayers

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For FeNi/FeMn bilayers, the angular dependence of exchange bias shows hysteresis between clockwise and counterclockwise rotations, as a new signature. The hysteresis decreases for thick antiferromagnet layers. Calculations have clearly shown that the orientation of antiferromagnet spins also exhibits hysteresis between clockwise and counterclockwise rotations. This furnishes an interpretation of the macroscopic behavior of the ferromagnetic layer in terms of the thermally driven evolution of the magnetic state of the antiferromagnet layer. 28 degrees for t AFM =10 nm. As shown in Fig. 1(a), H E has almost the same angular dependence for CW and CCW rotations, which will be analyzed below.As discussed below, the results in Fig. 1 are caused by the hysteresis of ADEB. In order to verify this, firstly another CW rotation was measured directly after one cycling of CW and CCW rotations. It is found that the ADEB for the second CW rotation is almost the same as that of the first. Secondly, ∆φ H is shown to be independent of the increment of φ H between neighboring hysteresis loops. Finally, the ADEB of CW and CCW rotations was measured within different φ H regimes. As shown in Fig. 2(a), the angular dependence of m y−AVE is reversible for CW and CCW rotations for small φ H ranges. However, it is irreversible for larger φ H regimes, as shown in Fig. 2(b). Unambiguously, the hysteretic behavior of the ADEB is demonstrated. The hysteresis of the ADEB can be explained qualitatively. Consider a hysteresis loop for the FM layer, i.e.,Calculations show that the average orien- The discrepancy of H E hysteresis between measured ( Fig. 1(a)) and calculated ( Fig. 4(a)) results can be explained as

show abstract

Simple model for thin ferromagnetic films exchange coupled to an antiferromagnetic substrate

Cited by 910 publications

References 6 publications

Antiferromagnetic domain size and exchange bias

Antiferromagnetic domain size and exchange bias

Tailoring exchange couplings in magnetic topological-insulator/antiferromagnet heterostructures

Hysteretic Behavior of Angular Dependence of Exchange Bias inFeNi/FeMnBilayers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About