Rhombohedral magnetostriction in dilute iron (Co) alloys

Abstract

Iron is a well-utilized material in structural and magnetic applications. This does not mean, however, that it is well understood, especially in the field of magnetostriction. In particular, the rhombohedral magnetostriction of iron, λ111 , is anomalous in two respects: it is negative in sign, in disagreement with the prediction of first principles theory, and its magnitude decreases with increasing temperature much too rapidly to be explained by a power law dependence on magnetization. These behaviors could arise from the location of the Fermi level, which leaves a small region of the majority 3d t2g states unfilled, possibly favoring small internal displacements that split these states. If this view is correct, adding small amounts of Co to Fe fills some of these states, and the value of λ111 should increase toward a positive value, as predicted for perfect bcc Fe. We have measured the magnetostriction coefficients (λ111 and λ100) of pure Fe, Fe97Co3, and Fe94Co6 single crystals from 77 K to 450 K. Resonant ultrasound spectroscopy has been used to check for anomalies in the associated elastic constants, c 44 and c′. The additional electrons provided by the cobalt atoms indeed produced positive contributions to bothmagnetostriction constants, λ111 and λ100, exhibiting an increase of 2.8 × 10 −6 per at. % Co for λ111 and 3.8 × 10 −6 per at. % Co for λ100. Iron is a well-utilized material in structural and magnetic applications. This does not mean, however, that it is well understood, especially in the field of magnetostriction. In particular, the rhombohedral magnetostriction of iron, k 111 , is anomalous in two respects: it is negative in sign, in disagreement with the prediction of first principles theory, and its magnitude decreases with increasing temperature much too rapidly to be explained by a power law dependence on magnetization. These behaviors could arise from the location of the Fermi level, which leaves a small region of the majority 3d t 2g states unfilled, possibly favoring small internal displacements that split these states. If this view is correct, adding small amounts of Co to Fe fills some of these states, and the value of k 111 should increase toward a positive value, as predicted for perfect bcc Fe. We have measured the magnetostriction coefficients (k 111 and k 100 ) of pure Fe, Fe 97 Co 3 , and Fe 94 Co 6 single crystals from 77 K to 450 K. Resonant ultrasound spectroscopy has been used to check for anomalies in the associated elastic constants, c 44 and c 0 . The additional electrons provided by the cobalt atoms indeed produced positive contributions to both magnetostriction constants, k 111 and k 100 , exhibiting an increase of 2.8 Â 10 À6 per at. % Co for k 111 and 3.8 Â 10 À6 per at. % Co for k 100 . V C 2015 AIP Publishing LLC. [http://dx

MAELAS 2.0: A new version of a computer program for the calculation of magneto-elastic properties

“…We see that both b 1 and b 2 converge well above 5 × 10 4 k-points. While b 1 is in good agreement with experiment, b 2 has the opposite sign to experiment due to a possible failure of DFT [11,12]. In Fig.…”

Thermal and magnetic anomalies ofα-iron: an exploration by extended x-ray absorption fine structure spectroscopy and synchrotron x-ray diffraction

“…Including fully relativistic or spinorbit coupling terms allows LSDA calculations of both magneto crystalline anisotropy and magnetoelastic coupling (and mag netostriction). Although results for cubic nickel and for the b 1 (λ 1 0 0 ) coupling in iron and ironcobalt alloys are close to experimental values [25][26][27][28][29], the sign of the b 1 (λ 1 1 1 ) cou pling for iron is wrong: positive λ 1 1 1 from theory but negative λ 1 1 1 from experiment as measured by many researchers over many years [12][13][14]30]. It is hard to see how this problem in calculated anisotropic properties could arise from the (scalar) LSDA potential.…”

Magnetostrictive performance of additively manufactured CoFe rods using the LENSTM system

“…(Note: λ is the magnetostriction coefficient, whereas (3/2) λ is the saturation magnetostriction, as described in Ref. 14). These results were not form effect corrected.…”