Exchange bias in a generalized Meiklejohn–Bean approach

Abstract

A generalized Meiklejohn-Bean model is considered in order to derive an analytic expression for the dependence of the exchange bias field on the layer thickness involved in ferromagnetic/antiferromagnetic heterosystems, on the orientation of the applied magnetic field with respect to the magnetic easy axes and on the quenched magnetization M AF of the antiferromagnetic pinning layer. While M AF is a well-known feature of field-cooled dilute antiferromagnets, it seems to occur quite generally also in pure AF pinning substrates. The new analytic expressions are successfully compared with recent experimental results and Monte Carlo investigations. r

Positive exchange-bias and giant vertical hysteretic shift in La0.3Sr0.7FeO3/SrRuO3 bilayers

“…Further, this rare and intriguing observation of vertical shift present in our bilayer system on STO (111) was found to vary with the thickness of AFM LSFO layer [unpublished data]. Thickness variation in AFM or FM phase of a FM/AFM bilayer system is an essential component to control the H EB , H C and can also be used to tune the vertical shift333435. We noted a maximum vertical shift of 35% for our optimized bilayer sample with LSFO(110 nm)/SRO(10 nm) on non-mosaic STO(111) [figure 4(d)].…”

Thickness dependence of exchange coupling in (111)-oriented perovskite oxide superlattices

“…In particular, the AF thickness has been shown to be a key parameter impacting the coercivity, exchange bias field, and the blocking temperature [7,9,10]. A critical AF thickness exists below which exchange bias vanishes, and this thickness is closely related to factors such as the AF anisotropy [7], the nature of the exchange interactions across the FM/AF interface, and the spins of the AF and FM interfacial atoms [11].…”

Interface-induced spontaneous positive and conventional negative exchange bias effects in bilayer La0.7Sr0.3MnO3/Eu0.45Sr0.55MnO3 heterostructures

“…Binek et al . have generalized the MB model and obtained a relation to demonstrate the increase of EB effect with AF layer thickness 42, 43 . However, this model does not explain the inverse proportion of H EB on t AF and the nature of FM/AF interface exchange coupling.…”