Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T10:40:53.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Domain structure in LaFeO3 thin films and its role on exchange coupling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2011

Jin Won Seo ,
Jean Fompeyrine ,
Heinz Siegwart  and
Jean-Pierre Locquet
Jin Won Seo
Affiliation:
Institut de Physique, Université de Neuchatel, CH-2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland IBM Research, Zurich Research Laboratory, CH-8803 Rüschlikon, Switzerland
Jean Fompeyrine
Affiliation:
IBM Research, Zurich Research Laboratory, CH-8803 Rüschlikon, Switzerland
Heinz Siegwart
Affiliation:
IBM Research, Zurich Research Laboratory, CH-8803 Rüschlikon, Switzerland
Jean-Pierre Locquet
Affiliation:
IBM Research, Zurich Research Laboratory, CH-8803 Rüschlikon, Switzerland
Get access

Abstract

The origin of the exchange bias between a ferro- and an antiferromagnet still is not fully resolved. Many structural parameters such as film thickness, roughness, domain size, domain walls, strain, dislocations, and surface defects play a role. To disentangle their individual contributions, one must correlate each of these structural effects with the exchange bias. Here we report our first such attempts using thin films of the antiferromagnetic orthoferrite LaFeO3 grown by molecular beam epitaxy. We investigate how the epitaxial relationship and strain affect the domain configuration as well as their size and orientation. Next, we explore how these different domains can pin ferromagnetic domains in exchange-coupled systems. We conclude that decreasing the domain size of the antiferromagnet leads to a higher exchange bias. The highest exchange bias was obtained for LaFeO3 films on MgO substrates.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 666: Symposium F – Transport and Microstructural Phenomena , 2001 , F8.8
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Mieklejohn, W. H. and Bean, C. P., Phys. Rev. 102, 1413 (1956).Google Scholar
2. Nogues, J. and Schuller, I. K., J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 192, 203 (1999).Google Scholar
3. Berkowitz, A. E. and Takano, K., J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 200, 552 (1999).Google Scholar
4. Scholl, A., Stöhr, J., Lüning, J., Seo, J. W., Fompeyrine, J., Siegwart, H., J.-P. Locquet, Nolting, F., Anders, S., Fullerton, E. E., Scheinfein, M. R., and Padmore, H. A., Science 287, 1014 (2000).Google Scholar
5. Nolting, F., Scholl, A., Stöhr, J., Seo, J. W., Fompeyrine, J., Siegwart, H., Locquet, J.-P., Anders, S., Lüning, J., Fullerton, E. E., Toney, M. F., Scheinfein, R., and Padmore, H. A., Nature 405, 767 (2000).Google Scholar
6. Locquet, J.-P., Catana, A., Mächler, E., Gerber, C. and Bednorz, J. G., Appl. Phys. Lett. 64, 372 (1994).Google Scholar
7. Stöhr, J., Padmore, H. A., Anders, S., Stammler, T., and Scheinfein, M. R., Surface Rev. Lett. 5, 1297 (1998).Google Scholar