4.5 Article

Bulk and Interfacial Effects in the Co/NixMn100-x Exchange-Bias System due to Creation of Defects by Ar+ Sputtering

期刊

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/pssr.202100195

关键词

antiferromagnets; epitaxial thin films; exchange bias; NiMn

资金

  1. Freie Universitat Berlin
  2. DAAD (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst) (German Academic Exchange Service) [57068383, 57243485]
  3. Projekt DEAL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The experiments demonstrate that introducing defects in the bulk of the antiferromagnetic layer enhances the exchange bias and blocking temperature, while defects at the interface do not have the same effect. Furthermore, it is observed that deeper insertion of defects results in higher exchange bias field values and larger coercivity.
A series of experiments is carried out to identify the contribution of interface and bulk antiferromagnetic (AFM) spins to exchange bias (EB) in ultrathin epitaxial ferromagnetic (FM)/AFM bilayer samples. These are single-crystalline AFM NixMn100-x and ferromagnetic Co layers on Cu3Au(001), deposited under ultrahigh vacuum conditions, in which structural or chemical defects are deliberately introduced by controlled Ar ion sputtering at the surface of the AFM layer or at a certain depth inside the AFM layer. Comparison of the magnetic properties measured by magneto-optical Kerr effect for sputtered and non-sputtered parts of the same sample then allows a precise determination of the influence of sputtering on the AFM layer during the sample preparation, whereas all other parameters are kept identical. The results show that the creation of defects in the bulk of the AFM layer enhances the magnitude of EB and its blocking temperature, but not the creation of defects at the interface. It is also observed that the deeper the insertion of defects in the AFM layer, the higher the value of the EB field and the larger the coercivity, These findings are discussed as the effect of additional pinning centers in the bulk of the AFM layer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据