[KSCI] Korea Science Citation Index Service

http://dx.doi.org/10.4283/JMAG.2011.16.4.323

Effect of Interface Roughness on Exchange Bias of an Uncompensated Interface: Monte Carlo Simulation

Li, Ying (Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Korea University)
Moon, Jung-Hwan (Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Korea University)
Lee, Kyung-Jin (Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Korea University)

Publication Information

Journal of Magnetics / v.16, no.4, 2011 , pp. 323-327 More about this Journal

Abstract

By means of Monte Carlo simulation, we investigate the effects of interface roughness and temperature on the exchange bias and coercivity in ferromagnetic (FM)/antiferromagnetic (AFM) bilayers. Both exchange bias and coercivity are strongly dependent on interface roughness. For a perfect uncompensated interface a domain wall is formed in the AFM system during FM reversal, which results in a very small exchange bias. However, a finite interface roughness leads to a finite value of the exchange bias due to the existence of pinned spins at the AFM surface adjacent to the mixed interface. It is observed that the exchange bias decreases with increasing temperature, consistent with the experimental results. It is also observed that a bump in coercivity occurs around the blocking temperature.

Keywords

exchange bias; interface roughness; Monte Carlo simulation;

Citations & Related Records

Times Cited By Web Of Science : 1 (Related Records In Web of Science)
Times Cited By SCOPUS : 1

Reference

1	L. Wee, R. L. Stamps, L. Malkinski, and Z. Celinski, Phys. Rev. B 69, 134426 (2004). DOI
2	J. Nogue, T. J. Moran, D. Lederman, and Ivan K. Schuller, Phys. Rev. B 59, 6984 (1999). DOI ScienceOn
3	J. W. Stout and S. A. Reed, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 76, 5279 (1954). DOI
4	M. Kiwi, J. Mejia-Lopez, R. D. Portugal, and R. Ramirez, Europhys. Lett. 48, 573 (1999). DOI ScienceOn
5	W. H. Meiklejohn and C. P. Bean, Phys. Rev. 102, 1413 (1956) DOI
6	W. H. Meiklejohn and C. P. Bean, Phys. Rev. 104, 904 (1957).
7	W. H. Meiklejohn, J. Appl. Phys. 33, 1328 (1962). DOI
8	B. Beckmann, U. Nowak, and K. D. Usadel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 187201 (2003). DOI ScienceOn
9	M. E. J. Newman and G. T. Barkema, Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Physics, Clarendon Press, Oxford pp. 46-53 (1999).
10	A. S. Carrico, R. E. Camley, and R. L. Stamps, Phys. Rev. B 50, 13453 (1994). DOI ScienceOn
11	H. Fujiwara et al., J. Appl. Phys. 79, 6286 (1996). DOI ScienceOn
12	C. Hou, H. Fujiwara, K. Zhang, A. Tanaka, and Y. Shimizu, Phys. Rev. B 63, 024411 (2000). DOI ScienceOn
13	T. J. Moran, J. Nogues, D. Lederman, and Ivan K. Schuller, Appl. Phys. Lett. 72, 617 (1998). DOI ScienceOn
14	H. Ohldag, H. T. Shi, E. Arenholz, J. Stohr, and D. Lederman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 027203 (2006). DOI ScienceOn
15	D. M. Engebretson, W. A. A. Macedo, Ivan K. Schuller, P. A. Crowell, and C. Leighton, Phys. Rev. B 71, 184412 (2005). DOI ScienceOn
16	T. Hauet, J. A. Borchers, Ph. Mangin, Y. Henry, and S. Mangin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 067207 (2006). DOI ScienceOn
17	A. Deac et al., J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 290-291, 42 (2005). DOI ScienceOn
18	R. L. Stamps, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 33, R247 (2000). DOI ScienceOn
19	J. Nogues et al., Phys. Report. 422, 65 (2005). DOI ScienceOn
20	M. Kiwi, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 234, 584 (2001). DOI ScienceOn
21	K. J. Lee et al., J. Appl. Phys. 95, 7423 (2004). DOI ScienceOn
22	S.-C. Oh et al., Nature Phys. 5, 898 (2009). DOI
23	J. H. Moon, W. J. Kim, T. D. Lee, and K.-J. Lee, Phys. Stat. Sol. (b) 244, 4491 (2007). DOI ScienceOn
24	S.-K. Kim et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 86, 052504 (2005). DOI ScienceOn
25	A. P. Malozemoff, Phys. Rev. B 35, 3679 (1987) DOI ScienceOn
26	A. P. Malozemoff, Phys. Rev. B 37, 7673 (1988). DOI ScienceOn
27	P. Miltenyi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4224 (2000). DOI ScienceOn
28	U. Nowak et al., Phys. Rev. B 66, 014430 (2002). DOI ScienceOn
29	J. Spray and U. Nowak, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 39, 4536 (2006). DOI ScienceOn