A New Approach for Improving Exchange-Spring Magnets (PDF
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS 97, 10K311 ͑2005͒ A new approach for improving exchange-spring magnets J. S. Jiang, J. E. Pearson, Z. Y. Liu, B. Kabius, S. Trasobares, D. J. Miller, and S. D. Bader Materials Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439 D. R. Lee, D. Haskel, and G. Srajer Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439 J. P. Liu Department of Physics, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas 76109 ͑Presented on 11 November 2004; published online 13 May 2005͒ It is demonstrated here that an already ideal exchange–spring magnet can be further improved by intermixing the interface. This is counter-intuitive to the general expectation that optimal exchange– spring magnet behavior requires an ideal, atomically coherent soft–hard interface. Epitaxial Sm– Co/Fe thin-film exchange–spring bilayers are thermally processed, by annealing or high-temperature deposition, to induce interdiffusion. With increasing processing temperature, the hysteresis loop becomes more single-phase-like, yet the magnetization remains fully reversible. The interface is characterized via synchrotron x-ray scattering and electron microscopy elemental mapping. The magnetization behavior is modeled by assuming a graded interface where the material parameters vary continuously. The simulations produce demagnetization curves similar to experimental observations. © 2005 American Institute of Physics. ͓DOI: 10.1063/1.1855032͔ I. INTRODUCTION moting intermixing of Sm–Co with Fe. The graded interface has a fundamentally different magnetization behavior than a The exchange–spring principle1 identifies a route for cre- sharp interface and relaxes the grain size requirement for ating high-performance permanent magnets from existing optimal exchange–spring properties. materials rather than by an Edisonian search for new mag- netic compounds. In an exchange–spring magnet, nano-scale II. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS hard and soft magnetic phases are coupled via interfacial exchange interaction such that the soft phase becomes “hard- The Sm–Co/Fe exchange–spring bilayers were fabri- ened” and its high magnetization enhances the energy prod- cated by dc magnetron sputtering. The nominally Sm2Co7 ͑ ͒ ͑ ͒ uct BH max of the composite. While great efforts have been layer was grown epitaxially at 400 °C onto a Cr 211 - expended towards controlling the grain sizes during magnet buffered single crystal MgO͑110͒ substrate to achieve an in- processing, metallurgical approaches such as using nonmag- plane uniaxial anisotropy, as described in Ref. 10. The thick- netic additives come at the expense of forming grain bound- ness of the Sm–Co layer in all samples was kept at 20 nm. ary phases and reducing the overall magnetization.2–4 Con- Following the deposition of the Sm–Co hard layer, a 10 nm- cerns about reduced interfacial coupling due to the grain or 20 nm-thick Fe layer was either deposited at 70–100 °C, boundary phase also led to the notion that optimal exchange– or immediately at 400 °C. All samples were capped with ͑ ͒ ͑ ͒ spring magnets require ideal, atomically coherent soft–hard 10 nm of Ag or Ag 5nm”Cr 5nm cover layers. Pieces interfaces.1,5 However, the soft phase in exchange-springs were cut from the as-deposited samples and were annealed reverse by nucleating a quasi-Bloch wall, and unlike the for one hour at temperatures ranging from 200 to 400 °C, Stoner–Wohlfarth case, the exchange field Hex does not de- using the same heater inside the deposition chamber in a pend very sensitively on the interfacial exchange constant.6 vacuum of 1ϫ10−8 Torr. We denote a sample by its sub- Furthermore, even for an ideal exchange–spring interface, strate temperature TS or annealing temperature TA, which is Hex is finite, determined by the soft phase exchange constant the highest temperature the soft layer was subjected to during and thickness.7 For an exchange spring with 200 Å of Fe as processing. Х the soft phase, Hex 2 kOe. Thus, there exists a fundamental The crystal structure and interfacial morphology of the limit to exchange hardening, and improving the interfacial samples were characterized by x-ray diffraction using Cu K␣ epitaxy does not overcome the limit. radiation and by cross-sectional energy-filtered transmission This limit can, rather counter-intuitively, be circum- electron microscopy ͑EFTEM͒. EFTEM provides the real- vented by intermixing the interface. In this article, we dem- space mapping of different elements from the electron en- ͑ ͒ onstrate the enhancement of the nucleation field HN, and ergy loss spectra EELS at characteristic absorption ener- ͑ ͒ hence BH max, of epitaxial Sm–Co/Fe bilayers by thermal gies, with a spatial resolution of 0.5 nm. We also extracted processing. In contrast to previous studies aimed at interface the interface width and roughness amplitude parameters by modification,8,9 we start with an exchange spring where the fitting both the specular and off-specular reflectivity mea- interface is already ideal, and create a graded interfacial re- sured using synchrotron radiation. The magnetic properties gion where the material parameters vary gradually by pro- were measured at room temperature by tracing the hysteresis 0021-8979/2005/97͑10͒/10K311/3/$22.5097, 10K311-1 © 2005 American Institute of Physics Downloaded 30 Sep 2005 to 164.54.84.133. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright, see http://jap.aip.org/jap/copyright.jsp 10K311-2 Jiang et al. J. Appl. Phys. 97, 10K311 ͑2005͒ FIG. 2. ͑a͒ The demagnetization and ͑b͒ the dc demagnetization remanence ͑ ͒ ͑ ͒ curves for Sm–Co 20 nm ”Fe 10 nm samples annealed at various tem- peratures. ͑c͒ The demagnetization and ͑d͒ the dc demagnetization rema- ͑ ͒ ͑ ͒ nence curves calculated for Sm–Co 20 nm ”Fe 10 nm bilayers with inter- facial regions of various thickness. TA =400 °C. The images are constructed from the EELS spectra and color-coded to represent the spatial distribution of the elements Fe, Co, and Cr. The Co map ͑red͒ shows the notch in the TS =100 °C sample due to interfacial roughness, whereas the TA =400 °C sample has a diffuse boundary be- tween the Fe ͑green͒ and Co maps and a notch is blurred out. The difference in interdiffusion in the samples can be seen more clearly in the 9 nm-wide line scans. In the TS =100 °C sample the layers are well-defined, but in the TA =400 °C sample Fe is found in the entire Sm–Co layer while the amount of Co entering into the Fe layer decreases with distance from the interface. Synchrotron reflectivity mea- surements show similar total interface width of ϳ2.5 nm for ͑ ͒ ͑ ͒ FIG. 1. EELS elemental maps and line scans of Sm–Co 20 nm ”Fe 20 nm ͑ ͒ ͑ ͒ both samples, but roughness amplitude of 2.0 nm for the samples with a TS =100 °C and b TA =400 °C. The line scans are taken from the 9 nmϫ90 nm area enclosed by the dashes. ͑c͒ Comparison of the TS =100 °C sample and 0.7 nm for the TA =400 °C sample. high-angle x-ray diffraction of the two samples measured around the High angle x-ray diffraction of the TA =400 °C sample ͑ ¯ ͒ Sm–Co 2200 peak. shows a broad shoulder to the right of the Sm–Co͑22¯00͒ peak. The shoulder could not be fitted with a single Gaussian loops and the dc demagnetization remanence ͑DCD͒ curves curve, suggesting a distribution of phases with smaller lattice using an alternating gradient magnetometer with the field constants. While the EELS elemental maps provide the struc- applied along the easy direction of the Sm–Co layer. For the tural characteristics over the limited field-of-view of DCD curves, the samples were saturated with a +1.4 T field EFTEM, the scattering techniques average over the macro- each time before a demagnetizing field was applied, then the scopic area on the samples illuminated by the x-ray. The remanent magnetization was measured and plotted as a func- consistency among the results from the three techniques tion of the demagnetizing field. proves conclusively that the Sm–Co/Fe interface evolves from being sharp but jagged to smoother and interdiffused upon thermal processing at elevated temperatures. III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Shown in Fig. 2͑a͒ are the demagnetization branches of The epitaxial Sm–Co/Fe bilayers are a model exchange– the hysteresis loops for Sm–Co͑20 nm͒ Fe͑10 nm͒ samples 11,12 ” spring system with ideal, coherent interfaces. The with TS =100 °C, TA =300 °C, and 400 °C. At TA =300 °C, Sm–Co layer grows initially in an islanding mode with large the onset of the Fe layer reversal increases to over 4 kOe 10 roughness. When the Fe layer is deposited at a low TS, the from under 3 kOe for the TS =100 °C sample, while the Sm–Co/Fe interface is expected to be sharp but jagged. An- switching field of the hard layer becomes reduced. After an- nealing or depositing the Fe layer at elevated temperatures nealing at 400 °C, the hysteresis becomes single-phase like promotes interdiffusion between the Sm–Co and Fe, blurring with the coercivity greater than 6 kOe. The measured room- ͑ ͒ the interface and reducing the roughness. These microstruc- temperature saturation magnetization Ms for all samples of ϳ 3 ͑ ͒ tural characteristics are immediately evident in the cross- this composition is 930 emu/cm . The BH max value in- sectional EFTEM images shown in Fig. 1 for two creases from 24 MGOe for the TS =100 °C sample to ͑ ͒ ͑ ͒ Sm–Co 20 nm /Fe 20 nm samples with TS =100 °C, and 27.7 MGOe for the TA =300 °C sample, and then decreases Downloaded 30 Sep 2005 to 164.54.84.133.