arXiv:cond-mat/0511362v1 [cond-mat.other] 15 Nov 2005
M agnetism in reduced dim ensions
M agnetism e en dim ensionsreduites
O livier Frucharta A ndre T hiavilleb
a
Laboratoire Louis N eel (C N R S) { 25, avenue des M artyrs { B P 166 { F -38042 G renoble C edex 9 { France
b
Laboratoire de P hysique des Solides { U niversite P aris-Sud, B ^
at.510 { 91405 O rsay C edex { France
A bstract
W e propose a short overview of a few selected issues of m agnetism in reduced dim ensions, w hich are the m ost
relevantto setthe background form ore specialized contributionsto the presentSpecialIssue. M agnetic anisotropy
in reduced dim ensions is discussed,on a theoreticalbasis,then w ith experim entalreports and view s from surface
to single-atom anisotropy. T hen conventional m agnetization states are review ed, including m acrospins, single
dom ains, m ultidom ains, and dom ain w alls in stripes. D ipolar coupling is exam ined for lateral interactions in
arrays, and for interlayer interactions in lm s and dots. Finally therm ally-assisted m agnetization reversal and
superparam agnetism are presented. For each topic w e sought a balance betw een w ellestablished know ledge and
recent developm ents.
To cite this article: O .Fruchart, A .T hiaville,C .R .Physique X (y) (2005).
R esum e
N ousproposons un panoram a de quelquesaspects du m agnetism e en dim ensions reduites,appropries com m e toile
de fond pour les articles plus specialises de ce num ero special.L’anisotropie m agnetique en dim ensions reduites
est discutee,sur le plan theorique,puis appuyee par des exem ples,allant des surfaces aux atom es individuels.Les
con gurationsd’aim antation lespluscourantessontensuite decrites:m acrospins,m onodom aines,m ultidom aines,
paroisdansdesbandes.Lescouplagesm agnetiques,essentiellem entdipolaires,sontdecritpourdesreseaux etpour
desbi-couches.En n nouspresentonslese etsdel’activation therm ique,dela baisse decoercitivite jusqu’au superparam agnetism e.Pour chaque aspect nous avons recherche un equilibre entre resultats etablis et developpem ents
recents.
Pour citer cet article :O .Fruchart, A .T hiaville,C .R .Physique X (y) (2005).
K ey w ords: N anom agnetism ,M icrom agnetism ,M agnetic anisotropy, Superparam agnetism ,R educed dim ensions
M ots-cles : N anom agnetism e, M icrom agnetism e, A nisotropie m agnetique, Superparam agnetism e, D im ension reduite
E m ail addresses: Olivier.Fruchart@grenoble.cnrs.fr (O livier Fruchart),thiaville@lps.u-psud.fr (A ndre T hiaville).
P reprint subm itted to E lsevier Science
17th A ugust 2016
1. Introduction
M agnetism in reduced dim ensions has been an active topic in the last tw o decades. M uch progress,stillunder
w ay,has been m ade possible by the conjunction of three aspects. First, the progress of fabrication techniques,
both deposition and lithography. Second,the progress of m agnetic characterization techniques like X M C D and
X M LD ,Lorentz m icroscopy,SEM PA ,X M C D /X M LD -PEEM ,SPLEEM ,sp-ST M ,m agnetic scattering and surface
di raction etc. T hird,the considerable increase ofcom puting pow er. Today allthree aspects overlap in the range
20nm 1 m ,w hich m akesourera very productive. T hislength scale could de ne nanom agnetism . A betterterm
m ight have been m esom agnetism , i.e. at the cross-over from m acroscopic behaviors to uniform m agnetization,
although the term ’m eso’has not been considered by the com m unity ofm agnetism .
T he interestin nanom agnetism hasalso been boosted by the discovery ofnew (orrevisiting of)phenom ena that
arise ow ing to the fabrication of heterostructures at the nanoscale, and that underlie m ost of the topics of the
SpecialIssue: giant m agnetoresistance,tunneling m agnetoresistance,exchange anisotropy and bias,spin torque.
In this contribution w e review som e basic aspects ofm agnetism in reduced dim ensions for m ostly single system s,
that are usefulto consider before im plem enting som e ofthe above-m entioned e ects in com plex heterostructures,
m ay it be for realizing functional devices or structures for fundam entalinvestigations. T he topics covered are
m agnetic anisotropy,m agnetization states,interactions (m ostly dipolar) and therm alactivation.
2. M agnetic anisotropy in low dim ensions
H ere w e discuss m icroscopic m agnetic anisotropy energy (M A E), a eld subject to breaking discoveries in
the recent years. D ipolar anisotropy w illbe treated in sec.3. O ther low -dim ensional e ects are excluded from
the discussion, such as m agnetic m om ents at interfaces or the reduction of ordering tem perature. See [1{3] for
review s. T he form er is relevant to spintronics e.g. for the T M R e ects,see R ef.[4]. T he latter is often screened
by superparam agnetism ,treated in sec.5.2.
2.1. T heoreticaldescriptions
M A E resultsfrom theinteraction ofm agnetization w ith thelocalenvironnem entofatom s,via thecrystalelectric
eld [5]. In bulk m aterials at equilibrium this is the m agnetocrystalline anisotropy E m c. W hen any dim ension of
a system is reduced corrections to E m c arise,due to interface or strain (deform ation ofthe structure).
Long before thin lm s could be grow n epitaxially and at the nanom eter scale, N eel foresaw that the local
breaking of sym m etry at surfaces should induce a correction to E m c, w hich he nam ed surface anisotropy (E s,
an energy per unit area) [6]. E s is now adays often referred to as N eel surface anisotropy [7]. H e used a pair
m odelto predict the angular variation ofE s,the sum m ation being restricted to m agnetic neighbors. E s could be
expanded in sphericalharm onics,although sim ple polynom ialexpansions are m ore popular,w ith the m ost sim ple
form being uniaxial anisotropy: E s = K s cos2 . In a crude approxim ation num erical coe cients w ere derived
from m agnetoelastic coupling coe cients,yielding values around 0:1 1m J=m 2 0:1 1m eV =atom ,surprisingly
ofthe correct experim entalorderofm agnitude,0:1m J=m 2 as revealed experim entally m uch later. Itis com m only
acknow ledged today that this m odelfails to predict exact gures,even their sign,w hich can only be derived from
experim ents or ab initio calculations.
A m ore rigorous view ofsurface anisotropy than N eel’s w as given by B runo,w ho predicted the proportionality
of surface anisotropy constants w ith the anisotropy of the angular m om entum [8]. To understand this fact,
it should be recalled rst that in a bulk 3d solid the orbital m om entum is very nearly zero, as the electron
w avefunctions loose the rotation invariance that exists in the atom ,because ofthe crystalline electric eld. A s a
result,the angular m om entum in bulk 3d is very sm allcom pared to the spin m om ent,and in fact appears only as
a perturbation w hen including the spin-orbit term . A t a surface or interface how ever,the crystalline electric eld
looses sym m etry and becom es com patible w ith a perpendicular orbitalm om ent. T his induces,via the spin-orbit
coupling,an extra M A E.T he initialm odelofB runo [8]w as based on a tight binding approach ofthe electronic
structure in a 3d transition m etal atom ic layer (A L), and has been re ned later [9]. M ore realistic ab initio
calculations have revealed som e departures from this generaltrend [10].
2
2.2. T hin lm s,a m odelfor surface anisotropy
T hin epitaxial lm sare m odelsystem s. T he translation sym m etry in-the-plane yieldsa laterally-sm allunitcell,
at reach to ab initio com putation,and easing experim entalanalysis. C lose-to-ideal lm s are now adays routinely
fabricated for m any system s,w hich can be controlled dow n to the single A L.
T he rst clear con rm ation ofthe existence ofE s w as given by G radm ann et al. in the late sixties [11]. T he
totaluniaxialM A E E = K tot(t)cos2 of Fe52 N i48 =C u(111) lm s of thickness t follow ed a 1=t dependence,the
slope being ascribed to E s: K tott= K bulk t+ 2K s. N otice that K bulk includes both m agnetocrystalline anisotropy
and shape anisotropy K d = 21 0 M s2 , being the angle ofm agnetization w ith the norm alto the lm plane. T hese
experim ents, perform ed dow n to a few A Ls, rst suggested the possibility to attain an e ective perpendicular
anisotropy,provided that K s is negative and su ciently large to overcom e K d for a few atom ic layers. Exam ples
ofperpendicular anisotropy are A u/C o/A u,Pt/C o/Pt and Pd/C o/Pd (m ulti)layers,w ith criticalthicknesses for
spin reorientation transition in the range 1-2nm .
Itw asthen realized [12]that1=tplotsm ix surface K s and m agnetoelastic K m el contributions. Indeed structural
m odels predict at equilibrium a 1=t relaxation ofstrain in heteroepitaxialgrow th [13,14]so that K m el 1=t.
T hus true K s values could only be extracted after substraction ofK m el w hen is m easured and m agnetoelastic
coe cients B m el are know n,or in the m ore rare case ofpseudom orphic grow th over a range ofm any A Ls,like for
N i/C u(001) [15]. K s values obtained in this fashion are review ed in R ef.[1].
M ore recently the direct m easurem ent ofE m el in lm s using bending cantilevers,and the revisiting ofprevious
data, revealed that E m el is no m ore linear w ith
in ultrathin lm s [16{19]. H igher order term s in
need to
be considered, w hich e.g. for Fe can reverse the sign of B m el at less than 1% of strain [17]. T his had been
overlooked in bulk sam ples because plastic deform ation occurs w ellbelow the strain values com m only observed in
heteroepitaxial lm s. T he reentrant in-plane m agnetization ofN i/C u(001) in the ultrathin range [18,20],is now
explained by non-linear m agnetoelastic e ects. T he strain dependance ofK s itself w as also postulated,initially
on N i/C u(001) [21],how ever ofpuzzlingly high m agnitude,and could never be con rm ed unam biguously. From
allthisit m ust be concluded thatm agnetoelastic and true N eel-type anisotropy are entangled in thin lm s. T heir
clear separation, even conceptually, is im possible in m ost system s, w here only an e ective K s can be deduced
from 1=t plots.
O n the m icroscopic level several experim ents (see [22] for the pioneering w ork) have con rm ed the link betw een M A E and the anisotropy ofthe orbitalm om entum ,using m agnetic circular dichroism e ects w ith soft X
rays(X M C D ).T he anisotropy ofthe orbitalm om entum for 3d elem entsatsurfaces is ofthe orderof0:1 B =atom .
2.3. Surface anisotropy in nanostructures
B eyond the m odel case of thin lm s, surface anisotropy applies to all atom s located at the surface of any
nanostructure. T he length scales ofthe physicale ects giving rise to E s are in the low nanom eter range. T hus
the atom ic arrangem ent close to the interface is crucial,so that nanostructures fabricated by lithography or by
any other arti cialm ean are not adequate to evidence E s in reduced lateraldim ensions. Instead,w hen this eld
has been explored in the last decade,one used e.g. clusters fabricated by physicalm eans [23],or epitaxialselforganization (SO ) at surfaces [24,25]. T he disentanglem ent of m agnetoelastic and true N eelanisotropy is even
m ore di cult than for thin lm s,given the com plexity ofgeom etry and strain,and in m ost cases because ofthe
distribution oflocalenvironm ents (loss ofthe sm allunit cell). T herefore,in the follow ing w e should consider E s
as an e ective surface anisotropy,w ithout trying to discuss its physicalorigin.
N otice that in nanostructures like those discussed above, the local reduction of dim ensionality can be m ore
severe than atthe 2D surface ofthin lm s,i.e. w ith a higherloss ofcoordination. Epitaxialgrow th w as then used
for its ability to produce nanostructures w ith a m ore m onodisperse type of interfacial atom s than for clusters,
to analyze quantitatively the concepts of edge anisotropy for a 1D interface (e.g. an atom ic edge, or the edge
of a m onolayer-high island), or even kink anisotropy for a 0D defect along such a 1D interface, or an isolated
m agnetic atom on a surface,as w e w illsee. Pioneering w ork w as perform ed on ultrathin lm s grow n on vicinal
surfaces,giving rise to a regular array ofstepped sites [26,27]. A ftercorrection for the tiltofcrystalaxes for E m c,
a clear linear variation ofanisotropy w ith the m iscut angle can be evidenced,and interpreted as a step anisotropy
w ith a m agnitude of the order of 1m J=m 2 . Later SO nanostructures have been used to further decrease the
dim ensionality,that w ere m ainly studied w ith X -ray m agnetic circular dichroism (X M C D ),for its sensitivity and
ability to yield the orbitalm om entum and its anisotropy. U pon sub-A L deposition on the vicinalsurface Pt(997),
1A L -high C o stripes ofadjustable w idth w ere fabricated by step decoration [28](Figure 1a). A surface-R K K Y 3
T able 1
O rbital m om entum and m agnetic anisotropy energy (M A E ) of C o atom s on P t as a function of coordination (after [31,32]).
O rbital
( B =at)
m om entum
M A E (m eV =at)
bulk
m ono-layer
bi-atom ic
w ire
0.14
0.31
0.37
0.04
0.14
0.34
m ono-atom ic
w ire
tw o atom s
single atom
0.68
0.78
1.13
2.0
3.4
9.2
type of variation of the M A E w as evidenced, oscillating w ith the w idth of the stripes [29,30] and culm inating
for m onoatom ic w ires to 2m eV =atom [31]. M inute am ounts ofC o w ere also deposited around 15K on Pt(111),
rem aining as individualatom s because surface di usion is frozen at this tem perature (Figure 1b). A giant M A E
of 9m eV =atom w as m easured. U pon annealing O stw ald ripening sets in,yielding islands of w ell-controlled size
and narrow size distribution. T hus,forC o in contactw ith Ptthe variation ofM A E from single atom sto bulk w as
fully spanned for the rst tim e [32,33](Figure 1c) [34]. T hese studies con rm that the m agnitude ofE s increases
dram atically from surfaces,to steps,then to kinksoratom s. B esides,w hile the M A E w asderived directly from the
t ofX M C D hysteresis curves,the orbitalm om ent w as also m easured,show ing a sim ilar increase for decreasing
dim ensionality. A reasonable linear variation of M A E w ith the anisotropy of the orbital m om entum is found
follow ing the sim ple argum ents from B runo [8]. A b initio calculations ofclusters have also show n this trend [35].
Finally,notice the sharp decrease asa function ofsize concerning orbitalm om entum and M A E:a bi-atom ic island
behaves closer to an in nite m onoatom ic-w ide w ire than to a single atom , and bi-atom ic w ires are closer to a
m onolayer lm than to a m ono-atom ic w ire (Table 1). For 3D clusters ( 3 nm ) elaborated in the gas phase and
m easured individually (see Sec.3.2),the carefulanalysis ofthe m easured M A E has show n that surface term s also
dom inate [36].
3. M agnetization states and m agnetization processes in single system s
3.1. B asics ofm icrom agnetism
A general introduction to the m icrom agnetic theory should be sought elsew here [37]. H ere w e discuss a few
selected issues only.
D em agnetizing coe cients and m agnetic length scales are usefulparam eters to discuss m agnetization patterns.
It can be show n [38]that a dem agnetizing tensor N can be de ned for a sam ple ofarbitrary shape assum ed to be
uniform ly m agnetized:
< H d (r)> =
N :M
(1)
w ith M the m agnetization vectorand < H d (r)> the dem agnetizing eld averaged overthe sam ple. T he density
1
< H d (r) > M . N is positive and sym m etric, thus can be
of dem agnetizing energy is im m ediately E d =
2 0
F igure 1. (a) M onoatom ic C o w ires decorating steps of P t(997) [31] (b) Single C o atom s on P t(111) [32] (c) perpendicular M A E
for C o/P t(111) as a function of the cluster size.
4
di
ized,so that along any m ain axis i,one has < H d (r)> = N iM . It can be show n that TrN = 1,so that
P agonal
3
N
= 1. T he em phasisisoften puton sam plesbounded by surfacesofpolynom ialequationsnotgreaterthan
i
i= 1
tw o (ofpracticalinterest are thin lm s{also called slabs,ellipsoids,in nite cylinders w ith ellipticalcross-section).
O nly in these is H d uniform ifM (r) M ,so that Eq.(1) is valid at any point and the uniform ity ofM (r) can
be practically achieved along the m ain axes for jH extj & N iM . A nalytical form ulas for N i’s can be found for
revolution ellipsoids [39], prism s [40,41] (Figure 2), cylinders of nite length [42{44], and tetrahedrons [38,45].
For other geom etries m icrom agnetic codes or Fourier-space com putations [38]can be used.
C haracteristic m agnetic length scales arise in non-hom ogeneous m agnetization structures resulting from the
com petition betw een tw o (or m ore)
p types ofenergy. T he com petition ofexchange A and anisotropy K yields the
A =K for the case ofuniaxialanisotropy. is relevant to describe the w idth of
so-called B loch w allw idth =
w alls w hen E d is negligible, e.g. in the bulk or in ultrathin lm s of high anisotropy. T he various de nitions of
the w allw idth are revi
he com petition ofexchange and dipolar energy yields the so-called
pew ed in [37],p.219. T
exchange length =
A =K d w ith K d = 12 0 M s2 . is for instance a m easure of the diam eter of the core of
m agnetic vortices in ux-closure patterns. O ne also de nes the dim ensionless quality factor Q = K =K d . T his
lm s of m aterials w ith perpendicular m agnetocrystalline anisotropy support fully perpendicular dom ains under
zero external elds for Q > 1 (stripes and bubbles for low coercivity,up to fully rem anent for coercive m aterials),
and continuously rotating structures for Q < 1 (w eak,strong stripes).
3.2. M acrospins
In particles of extrem ely sm all size the exchange energy dom inates over all other energy term s so that the
m agnetization state is alw ays nearly uniform even during m agnetization reversal, w hich proceeds by coherent
rotation of all m agnetic m om ents. T his occurs for dim ensions of the order or below , ’ 10nm for com m on
m aterials like 3d m agnetic m etals. T he particle can then be reasonably described by a single m agnetic m om ent,
the so-called m acrospin, subjected to an e ective M A E that gathers the contributions from crystalline, surface
and shape anisotropies. T he sem inalpaper investigating the m agnetization reversalofm acrospins [46],stillused
intensely,predicts that m agnetization reverses by reversible rotation and irreversible jum ps,the latter occurring
at eld values thatdepend strongly on the eld angle w ith respectto that(those)ofthe e ective anisotropy. T his
m odel,initially developed for a uniaxialanisotropy ofdegree 2,w as recently generalized to arbitrary anisotropy
[47].
Experim ents on individualnanoparticles ofdecreasing size,m ainly perform ed by W .W ernsdorfer w ith a technique called m icro-SQ U ID [48],have beautifully show n thisbehavior. T he anisotropy w asrevealed by the surfaces
(in the space ofthe applied elds) w here a jum p occurs,know n generally as astroid [49]. T he m easurem ents have
been extended to dynam ics. In the slow regim e dom inated by therm al agitation, the m agnetic relaxation w as
show n to involve only one tim e constant at sm allsizes,w hereas at larger sizes a non-exponentialrelaxation had
been observed [50]. T he form er corresponds to the therm odynam ic m odelofa particle in the m acrospin approxim ation,called N eel-B row n m odel[51], see sec.5.1. In the fastest regim es in w hich m agnetization precession is
y
z
1
1
Nz
p=¥
b
0.8
c
x
a
0.6
p=b/a
¥ (cylinder)
5
2
1/1
1/2
1/5
1/20
0.4
0.2
Nx
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.12
0.8
0.1
0.7 p=1/20
0.08
0.6
0.06
0.5
0.4
0.04
p=¥
0.02
p=1/20
0.02
1
x=c/a
(a)
0.04
0.06
0.08
(b)
F igure 2. D em agnetizing coe cients of prism s: (a) arbitrary shape (b) close-up view for at prism s
5
0.1
x=c/a
F igure 3. T he m ost com m on single dom ain states (schem atic). From left to right: ow er, leaf,S and C states
im portant,i.e. t. 1ns,it w as show n that the application ofpulses ofradio-frequency (rf) elds could decrease
the sw itching eld ofthe particle ifofthe right frequency [52],pointing to a non-linear resonance e ect,i.e. the
precession ofthe m acrospin driven by the rf eld.
3.3. Single dom ain states
In-betw een the m acrospin state and a m acroscopic state w here m agnetic dom ains separated by dom ain w alls
occur,lies the so-called single-dom ain state. A single-dom ain state m ay be de ned by a state close to uniform ly
m agnetized ’on the average’, i.e. displaying no m agnetic w all not vortex. T he m ultidom ain-to-single-dom ain
transition w aspredicted long ago [53]through a com parison ofthe m agnetostatic energy ofa uniform ly m agnetized
particle(proportionalto itsvolum e)to thew allenergy ofa m ultidom ain state(proportionalto theparticlesurface).
T he distinction betw een m acrospin and single dom ain w as introduced early, and som e analytical estim ates of
both sizes obtained [54]. For nite size and de nite shapes,a num ber of‘phase diagram s’have been com puted,
that predict the m agnetic structure of m inim um energy as a function of sam ple dim ensions or anisotropy, for
cubes [55,56], disks [57], squares [58], rectangles [59]. T hey allshow that the single dom ain state is reached at
sm allsizes and large anisotropy,as expected.
T he term ‘single dom ain state’should not be confused w ith ‘uniform m agnetization’. In single dom ain states,
although w alls and vortices are not found at equilibrium ,they m ay occur during m agnetization reversalthrough
com plex nucleation-propagation m echanism s. T he criticalsizes for single-dom ain and m acrospin are com parable
for 3D com pact particles,how ever the form er m ay by far exceed for high aspect ratios,like for thin at dots.
T hese dotscorrespond to the m ajority ofthe sm allm agnetic sam plesproduced by the ‘top-dow n’approach,hence
their detailed study in the recent years. W e m entioned in sec. 3.1 that only for sam ples shaped as surfaces of
degree 2 is H d (r) uniform w hen the m agnetization distribution is so. For any other shape H d (r) is in general
not uniform ,so that strictly speaking uniform m agnetization cannot be achieved for w hatever high value ofthe
applied eld. T he non-uniform ity isespecially strong forthe case ofthin and atelem ents(including w ith in-plane
ellipticalshape),w ith a localm agnitude that can be considerably higher than the average value,especially close
to the edges. T he deviations rem ain dow n to in nitely sm all sam ples [60], w here they scale as (size= ) 2 [61].
T he deform ations ofm agnetization linked w ith the sam ple shape have been transcribed in the nam es given to the
con gurations (Figure 3).
T hesedeform ationsarevery im portantasthey controltheorientation oftheaveragem agnetization form agneticallysoft m aterials,through w hat has been called the con gurationalanisotropy [62]. T his energy describes the tendency for the m agnetization to becom e non uniform w ithin the sam ple so as to decrease m agnetostatic energy at
the m inim um cost in exchange energy. T he rigorous com putation ofthisenergy requires a specialm icrom agnetics
technique called path m ethod [63]. Spectacularly enough,this energy explains how apparent anisotropies ofhigh
degree can develop and be m easured in triangles, pentagons etc. w hereas the conventionalshape M A E is only
ofsecond degree in m agnetization [64]. T he m agnetization non-uniform ity a ects also greatly the m agnetization
reversal. Indeed,the deviations are am pli ed w hen a eld antiparallel to the average m om ent is applied. T his
results in increased sw itching eld and tim e for sw itching [65,66]as w ellas non coherent reversalprocesses that
m ay involve vortices [67]. A s a consequence,the sw itching eld ofeven very sm allsam ples m ay di er from the
prediction of the m acrospin m odel. Som e analytical m odels have been developed for soft [68] of hard [69,70]
m agnetic m aterials. It is m oreover very likely that these e ects are am pli ed by the surface anisotropy term and
the exchange reduction at the surfaces [71,72].
T hese considerationsw ere lim ited to perfectsam ples. T he presence ofsom e roughness,especially atthe edgesof
sm allelem entspatterned from thin lm s,w asshow n to havea big in uenceon thesw itching properties[73]. From a
m agnetostatic pointofview ,edge roughnessincreasesthe energy ofa con guration w ith tangentialm agnetization.
6
T his energy contribution reduces the shape anisotropy,and has been called lateralinterface anisotropy [73]. It
generally reduces sw itching elds com pared to perfect shapes.
3.4. C on ned m ultidom ain states
M ultidom ain states,also called ux-closure-dom ain states,have been m uch studied in the technologically relevant case of thin at dots m ade of soft m agnetic m aterial like Perm alloy. In the lim it of vanishing thickness,
in nite lateralsize and zero M A E,the shape of ux-closure dom ains is predicted by the Van den B erg’s (V dB )
construction [74,75],w hich exhibits charge-free states (notice that,ow ing to the in nite lateralsize,exchange in
the dom ains and the energy ofdom ain walls are neglected): m agnetic w alls are located at the lociiofthe centers
ofalldisks tangentto the edge ofthe structure on atleast tw o points. T he m agnetization vectorthen lies perpendicular to their radii,i.e. rem ains parallelto the closest edge (Figure 4a-b). C on gurations ofhigher ordercan be
obtained by dividing the shape in severalequalparts and applying the construction to each ofthem (Figure 4c).
H igher order patterns can result from m agnetic history,or arise in the case of m oderate in-plane anisotropy to
favor dom ains along easy axis directions. T he V dB m odelw as extended under in-plane eld [76{78]. A llthese
features w ere checked experim entally in dots (tens of) m icrons w ide [37]. Surprisingly these m odels also w ork
reasonably w ellbeyond their theoreticalrange ofvalidity,i.e. for sub-m icron-size,non-soft and rather thick dots,
as far as the center ofthe w alls is concerned [79{81]. H ow ever,a m ore detailed description at this scale requires
the use ofm icrom agnetic theory. T his w as done analytically e.g. for describing the vortex state in disks [82{84].
M icrom agnetic sim ulations m ust be used to tackle m ore com plex situations, like the energetics of ux-closure
patterns ofdi erent orders (see Fig.4),w hose degeneracy in the sim ple V dB ’s approach is lifted w hen the energy
ofdom ains w alls is rigourously com puted [59,85]. Finally,w hen the thickness ofa dot exceeds by far and/or
signi cant variations ofm agnetization are allow ed along the thickness. Such situations provide an interesting interm ediate situation betw een bulk m aterials that m ust be described phenom enologically,and thinner and sm aller
sam ples that are now understood m icroscopically. R eports in this eld are less com m on, and include con ned
stripe dom ains in perpendicular m edia [86,87],distorted V dB patterns [88],3D ux-closure in m agnetically-soft
cubes [56].
M any experim ental, sim ulation and theoretical reports can also be found on the hysteresis of ux-closure
m esoscopic patterns,see e.g. [81{83,89{91]. Starting from saturation, ux-closure dom ains are form ed through
the nucleation of vortices at the edges. T hus, like for bulk m aterials, the m icroscopic details of nucleation
rem ain unaccessible especially because lithography processes often alter the edges in an ill-characterized w ay.
A lso,sim ulated features m ay sensitively depend on the m esh used (size,tetrahedrons in nite elem ents or prism s
in nite di erences m ethods, w ith som etim es spurious e ects on tilted edges [84,92]), the order of polynom ial
interpolation ofthe various m icrom agnetic quantities betw een the nodes ofthe m esh,the m inim isation algorithm
used (energy m inim ization or precessional dynam ics w ith dam ping). T hus, great care is needed in analyzing
and com paring nucleation results, because di erent nucleation events can lead through bifurcation to di erent
ux-closure patterns at zero eld [81].
O ne fundam ental interest of con ned ux-closure patterns is to bene t from the internal dipolar eld of a
nanostructure that traps rigidly one or a few vortices and/or w all, and consider these as m agnetic objects.
T hese objects can be better studied and m anipulated through the application of(possibly strong) external elds
w hile m agnetic dom ains rem ain una ected. In thin lm s such elds often m ove these objects out ofthe eld of
im aging and only lim ited experim ents have been reported [93,94]. T his includes the stabilization ofasym m etric
N eelw alls at thicknesses w ellbeyond those found in thin lm s [88], the topological identity of a vortex w ith a
B loch w allof nite length [79],the com pression/expansion [95]and m agnetization reversalthrough B loch point
nucleation [96,97]ofvortex’cores under the application ofa longitudinal eld. T he follow ing section reports on
further exam ples ofthe m anipulation ofm agnetic w alls as individualobjects,in a sem i-con ned geom etry.
F igure 4. E xam ples of (a-b) rst order and (c) higher order V an den B erg’s constructions for ux-closure m agnetic states.
7
3.5. M agnetic walls in stripes
Sam ples very long in one dim ension but ofnanom etric size transversally (nanow ires,nanostripes,nanotubes)
are being intensively studied, both as a challenge to nanofabrication [98{101] as for their properties [102] and
applications. Indeed,such structures sw itch by the m otion ofone dom ain w all(D W ) w ith a w ell-de ned velocity.
Phase diagram s for the D W structures w ere also com puted and m easured [103{105]. For sm all enough w ire
transverse dim ensions,it w as show n that the B loch w allm odel[106]could be adapted to these structures,even if
they are not at allB loch w alls [102]. O ne ofthe spectacular consequences ofthese various D W structures is the
predicted hugevelocity di erencebetw een tw o D W structuresin cylindricalw ires,nam ely thetransverse and B loch
point w alls [107]. T he dynam ics ofa D W under a strong current ow ing along the w ire,due to the spin transfer
e ect,is now an active subject,both experim entally [108{110]and theoretically [111,112]. D om ain w alls can also
be trapped w hen the cross-sectionalarea decreases,a so-called geom etricalconstriction. W hen thisarea decreases
steeply enough in the core ofthe constriction the w allis com pressed. Itsw idth is then predicted to be determ ined
solely by the geom etry of the constriction, independently from m aterials’ param eters like exchange [113]. T he
com pression in nanom eter-sized constrictions has been con rm ed experim entally [114].
4. D ipolar interactions
4.1. C oupled layers
T w o m agnetic layers F 1 and F 2 separated by a non-m agnetic layer N w ith rough interfaces are coupled
through dipolar elds. T his situation w as rst described by N eel,and nam ed O range peelcoupling [115]. It w as
later pointed out that N eel’s m odelw as developed for sem i-in nite F i’s,w hereas for the really thin lm s studied
now adays a di erent form ula is m ore adequate [116],predicting a m uch reduced coupling eld H N . T his fact is
stilltoo often ignored. Forvertically-correlated roughnessthe coupling ispositive forin-plane m agnetization [116],
w hile for perpendicular m agnetization the sign ofthe coupling depends on geom etricaland m aterialparam eters
[117]. In allcases the coupling decays exponentially w ith the thickness ofthe spacer layer.
B i-(or m ulti-)layers of nite lateralsize,i.e. in the form ofdots,are subject to a negative coupling arising from
the m agnetic poles at the edges of the dot for in-plane m agnetization, and a positive coupling for out-of-plane
m agnetization. For both cases an upper bound for H N arising from F 1 or F 2 is N 1 M s;1 w ith N 1 and M s;1 the
in-plane dem agnetizing factor and the m agnetization ofF 1,respectively.
Let us exam ine the consequences of coupling in bilayers [118]. N otice that the physics described below m ay
arise from other types ofcoupling,like R K K Y [119]. T he lim it ofw eak coupling is w hen H N is sm aller than H c;1
or H c;2 . In such a case the coupling results in shifted (biased) m inor hysteresis loops. N otice how ever,that even
in this w eak coupling lim it dipolar elds m ay be locally m uch m ore intense than H N w hen dom ain w alls occur,
like during m agnetization reversal[120]. T his m ay lead to progressive dem agnetization ofthe hard layer ofspin
valves[121]ornucleation ofreversed dom ainsin the vicinity ofdom ain w alls[122]. In the strong coupling lim itH N
is larger than both coercive elds,resulting in rigidly coupled layers. T he single-dom ain lim it is shifted upw ards
for in-plane m agnetization in dots because dem agnetizing elds are reduced, w hile it is shifted dow nw ards for
out-of-plane m agnetized dots. M ultidom ain states are also a ected as the ux m ight be partly closed from one
layer to the other,yielding m agnetization vectors locally perpendicular to lateraledges.
4.2. D ipole-dipole lateralinteractions
N anostructuresare often found in planarnetw orks,see R ef.[123]fora review . In the pointdipole approxim ation
an upper bound for the stray eld acting at a given si
from neighbors closer than radius R and of arbitrary
Rte
R
direction of m agnetization is proportional to ( 0 =4 ) 0 r23 2 rdr ! C te + O (1=R ). T hus dipolar elds are
shortranged in 2D ,contrary to the 3D case. To go beyond the point-dipole approxim ation one can use analytical
form ula in the case ofspheres or prism s [37], and for m ore com plex shapes m icrom agnetic codes or a m ultipole
approach [124]. In practice, for a regular netw ork the range of dipolar elds scales w ith the thickness of the
nanostructures,w hich m eans rst neighbors for e.g. at dots [125],or m any neighbors e.g. in the case ofa dense
array of elongated cylinders [99]. For perpendicular anisotropy dipolar elds favor checkerboard [126] or stripe
patterns[99]depending on the m esh sym m etry,e.g. square and hexagonal,respectively. Forplanarm agnetization
8
alternating row s ofdots w ith paralleland antiparallelm agnetization directions are favored along an easy axis of
the nanostructures in the presence of m agnetic anisotropy, or along certain row s of the netw ork in the case of
nanostructuresm agnetically isotropic in-the-plane [127]. Even forw eak interactionssuch statescan be approached
e.g. through dem agnetization procedures. Form alism s and techniques used to characterize couplings include the
Preisach m odel[128],H enkelplots [129,130],or sim ply shifted m inor loops.
5. T herm al e ects
5.1. T herm ally activated m agnetization reversal
O n tim e scales larger than approx.1ns the e ect oftem perature on m agnetization processes can be fairly w ell
described by an A rrhenius law proposed by B row n [51]and checked recently against LLG m acrospin sim ulations
in the range oftensofnanoseconds [131]: therm alenergy allow s to overcom e an energy barrier E aftera w aiting
tim e = 0 exp( E =k B T ) w ith 0 10 10 s. T he non-trivialissue is to estim ate E .
Itoccursthatforsingle-dom ain nanostructuresnotlargerthan the dom ain w allw idth W (e.g. nanom eter-sized
clusters [132]and m ade ofsoft m agnetic m aterial,the m acrospin approxim ation and the Stoner-W ohlfarth m odel
roughly hold during m agnetization reversal [133]. In the case ofuniaxialanisotropy and a eld applied along the
easy axis w e have
E = K V (1
H =H
2
a)
(2)
w ith H a = 2K = 0 M s is the anisotropy eld and V the volum e of the nanostructure. For a m easurem ent
perform ed over a tim e duration the expected coercivity is
!
r
kB T
H c(T; )= H c(T = 0K ) 1
(3)
ln
KV
0
Such and otherpredictionsw ere rstcon rm ed experim entally using single-particle m easurem ents[134]. N otice
that in generalw hen H is applied in an arbitrary direction, even close to an easy axis, the dependance of E
w ith H is non polynom ial. T he rst-order expansion ofthis dependence de nes a generalized exponent : E =
K V (1 H =H a ) ,w ith = 1:5 in m ost cases [135,136].
For nanostructures larger than W Eq. (2) is not valid, because m agnetization reversal if not uniform . O ne
approach consists in replacing V w ith a so-called nucleation volum e Vn and consider a phenom enologicalgeneralized exponent . Vn and m ay be determ ined experim entally w ith tem perature- or tim e-dependent m agnetization reversal,the form er being som etim es am biguous because K m ay vary w ith T . B esides,tim e-dependent
m easurem ents m ay be perform ed at constant eld (gate functions w ith variable duration) or at constant eld
variation (triangle functions). T he latter procedure is easier to im plem ent experim entally,how ever the analysis
is m ore tedious requiring the use of m odels like K urkijarvi’s [137], w hich predicts a linear variation of H c w ith
dH =dt. Experim entally Vn is often found of size sim ilar to W ( 3W for bulk, t 2W for structures of thickness
t < W etc), and is generally in the range 1 2 [125]. = 1 is often found in thin lm s w hen dom ain-w all
propagation events determ ine coercivity, see R ef. [138] for a review . Finally notice that deviations from these
sim ple law sare observed w hen the dynam icsare probed overm any ordersofm agnitude. T hism ay arise because of
a cross-over,e.g. from propagation-to nucleation-lim ited coercivity [139]. It has also been proposed that in som e
cases this m ay reveala m ore com plex equation than Eq.(2) w ith a 1=H dependence,explained by the so-called
droplet m odel [140]. G eneralized (1=H ) law s w ere also reported [141] and explained by collective e ects. In
alltheses phenom enologicalapproaches the details ofthe inhom ogeneous m agnetization reversalprocess rem ain
hidden. W hen fullm icrom agnetic m odels are available [69,142,143]then Vn and can be evaluated directly,and
it is often found that results from a t to a non-polynom ialvariation,so that is in fact dependent on T and
.
5.2. Superparam agnetism
Eq. (3) predicts that, for a xed tim e scale , H c vanishes for T > TB , w ith TB = (K V =kB )ln( = 0 ) being
called the blocking tem perature. T his phenom enon is called superparam agnetism ,in analogy w ith param agnetism
9
how everconsidering m acro-(orsuper)spins. T he variation ofthetim e-averaged M w ith H isgenerally described by
statisticalphysics using a B oltzm ann occupancy law ,w ith the m agnetic energy including Zeem an and anisotropy
energies. Experim entaldata in the superparam agnetic regim e therefore potentially contain inform ation on the
m agnetic m om ent and the anisotropy ofthe system . H ow ever in m ost system s,e.g. assem blies ofnanoparticles,
other param eters interfere like easy axis orientation, interparticle dipolar interactions, and distributions of all
these param eters. It is then tricky,or even im possible,to perform a reliable analysis. See [144]for a review .
Q uantitative analysis is reliable only w hen m ost param eters are know n. Let us concentrate on cases w ith
negligible interactions and the external eld applied along an easy axis direction. For vanishing anisotropy it is
readily derived that the norm alized average m om ent is m = L (h) w ith L (h) = 1=tanh(h) 1=h the Langevin
function w ith h = 0 M H =kB T and M the m agnetic m om ent of the system . H ow ever anisotropy cannot be
neglected until T & 20TB , w hich is seldom the case in experim ents, so that L should be used w ith care. For
in nite uniaxial anisotropy the Ising case is retrieved: m = B 1=2 (h) w ith B 1=2 (h) = tanh(h) the B rillouin 1=2
function. T his case is relevant for self-organized system s w ith perpendicular anisotropy,w hich received recently
a considerable interest [145{147]. For the real case of nite anisotropy the agreem ent w ith the Ising case is
satisfactory forTB < T . 5TB . A n exactexpression spansallcasesfrom in nite to vanishing anisotropy [148,149].
O fparticular interest for tting experim entaldata are the rst order expansions ofthe zero eld susceptibility in
the low -tem perature range (
1=3 + 4d=45) and high tem perature range (
1 1=d) w ith d = K V =kB T w ith
a cross-over around T = 5TB , w hich m atch nearly perfectly the analytical expression [150] (Figure 5). N otice
that w e considered tem perature-independent m aterialparam eters,w hereas m agnetization,and even m ore M A E,
are expected to decays signi cantly w ith tem perature in reduced dim ensions. T his m ay play a signi cant or even
dom inant role, w hich w as not considered here. D ipolar and other interactions can be revealed by an o set in
1= (T ) plots [145]. T he peak in susceptibility m easurem ents can also be used to determ ine TB [147].
Letusconcludew ith com m ents. First,thevolum erelevantforsuperparam agnetism isalw aysthetotalvolum e of
thesystem ,nota phenom enologicalactivation volum e. Second,superparam agnetism isa draw back forapplications
in m agnetic m em ory,how everitisan advantage fordeterm ining param etersofthe system ,provided thata relevant
and robust tting procedure is used,as explained above. Superparam agnetism is also an advantage to prevent
aggregation offerrom agnetic nanoparticles in m icro uidic or biom edicine [151]. It has also been used in m agnetic
logic schem es [152].
A cknow ledgem ents
F igure 5. E xact result and asym ptotic expansions for the initialsusceptibility of system s w ith uniaxialsecond order anisotropy and
external eld applied along the easy axis direction.
10
R eferences
[1]
U .G radm ann,M agnetism in ultrathin transition m etal lm s, in: K .H . J.B uschow (E d.),H andbook of m agnetic m aterials,
V ol.7, E lsevier Science P ublishers B . V ., N orth H olland, 1993, C h. 1, pp.1{96.
[2]
H . C .Siegm ann,Surface and 2D m agnetism , J. P ys. C ondens.M atter 4, 8395 (1992).
[3]
P .P oulopoulos,K .B aberschke, M agnetism in thin
[4]
A . Schuhl,Spin-dependent transport, C . R . P hysique X X , yy{zz (2005).
lm s, J. P hys.: C ond. M at. 11, 9495{9515 (1999).
[5]
D . Sander, T he m agnetic anisotropy and spin reorientation of nanostructures and nanoscale
16, R 603{R 636 (2004).
lm s, J. P hys.: C ond. M at.
[6]
L.N eel, A nisotropie m agnetique super cielle et surstructures d’orientation, J. P hys. R ad. 15, 225{239 (1954).
[7]
Notice that this pioneering approach [6] already included the dipolar contribution to E s , arising from the the
discrete location of magnetic moments. This effect is covered and extended in Ref. [153].
[8]
P . B runo, T ight-binding approach to the orbital m agnetic m om ent and m agnetocrystalline anisotropy of transition-m etal
m onolayers, P hys. R ev. B 39, 865{868 (1989).
[9]
G . van der Laan, M icroscopic origin of m agnetocrystalline anisotropy in transition m etal thin
M atter 10, 3239{3253 (1998).
lm s, J. P hys. C ondensed
[10] P . R avindran, A . K jekshus, H . F jellv ag, P . Jam es, L. N ordstr om , B . Johansson, O . E riksson, Large m agnetocrystalline
anisotropy in bilayer transition m etalphases from rst-principles full-potentialcalculations,P hys.R ev.B 63,144409 (2001).
[11] U . G radm ann, J. M uller, F lat ferrom agnetic exitaxial 48N i/52Fe(111)
313 (1968).
[12] C . C happert, P . B runo, M agnetic anisotropy in m etallic ultrathin
P hys. 64 (10), 5336{5341 (1988).
lm s of few atom ic layers, P hys. Stat. Sol. 27,
lm s and related experim ents ion cobalt lm s, J. A ppl.
[13] W . A .Jesser, D . K uhlm ann-W ilsdorf,P hys. Stat.Sol. 19, 65 (1967).
[14] U . G radm ann,Ferrom agnetism near surfaces and in thin
lm s, A ppl.P hys. 3, 161 (1974).
[15] R .Jungblut,M .T .Johnson,J.A nn de Stegge,F .J.A .den B roeder,O rientational and structuraldependance of m agnetic
anisotropy of C u/N i/C u sandw iches: M is t interface anisotropy, J. A ppl.P hys. 75, 6424 (1994).
[16] D . Sander, T he correlation betw een m echanical stress and m agnetic anisotropy in ultrathin
809{858 (1999).
lm s, R ev. P rog. P hys. 62,
[17] D .Sander, Stress, strain and m agnetostriction in epitaxial lm s, J. P hys.: C ond. M at. 14, 4165{4176 (2002).
[18] K . H a, R . C . O ’H andley, N onlinear m agnetoelastic anisotropy in C u/N i/C u/Si(001)
5284 (1999).
lm s, J. A ppl. P hys. 85 (8), 5282{
[19] M . K om elj, M . F ahnle, M agnetoelastic e ects in ultrathin epitaxial N i lm s: an ab initio study, J. M agn. M agn. M ater.
222, L 245{250 (2000).
[20] T .G utjahr-L oser,D .Sander,J.K irschner,M agnetoelastic coupling in N i and Fe m onolayers on C u(001), J.A ppl.P hys.
87 (9), 5920{5922 (2000).
[21] G .B ochi,C .A .B allentine,H .E .Inglefield,C .V .T hom pson,R .C .O H andley,E vidence for strong surface m agnetoelastic
anisotropy in epitaxial C u/N i/C u(001) sandw iches, P hys. R ev. B 53, R 1729 (1996).
[22] D .W eller, J.Stohr,R .N akajim a,A . C arl,M . G .Sam ant,C .C happert, R . M egy, P .B eauvillain,P .V eillet, G . A .H eld,
M icroscopic origin of m agnetic anisotropy in A u/C o/A u probed w ith X -ray m agnetic circular dichroism ,P hys. R ev.L ett.
75 (20), 3753{3755 (1995).
[23] J. B ansm ann, S. B aker, C . B inns, J. B lackm an, J.-P . B ucher, J. D orantes-D avila, V . D upuis, L. Favre, D . K echrakos,
A .K leibert,K .-H .M eiw es-B roer,G .M . Pastor,A . P erez, O .T oulem onde,K .N .T rohidou,J.T uaillon,Y .X ie, M agnetic
and structural properties of isolated and assem bled clusters, Surf.Sci.R ep.56, 189{275 (2005).
[24] O .F ruchart, E pitaxial self-organization: from surfaces to m agnetic m aterials, C . R . P hysique 6 (1), 61{73 (2005).
[25] O .F ruchart, Self-organization on surfaces: forew ord, C . R . P hysique 6 (1), 3{9 (2005).
[26] M . A lbrecht, U . G radm ann, T . F urubayashi, W . A . H arrison, M agnetic m om ents in rough Fe surfaces, E urophys. L ett.
20 (1), 65{70 (1992).
[27] W .W eber,C .H .B ack,A .B ischof,C .W ursch,R .A llenspach,M orphology-Induced O scillations of the M agnetic A nisotropy
in U ltrathin C o F ilm s, P hys. R ev.L ett. 76, 1940{1943 (1996).
[28] A . D allm eyer, C .C arbone,W .E berhardt, C .Pam puch, O . R ader, W . G udat,P . G am bardella, K .K ern, E lectronic states
and m agnetism of m onoatom ic C o and C u w ires, P hys. R ev.B 61 (8), R 5133{R 5136 (2000).
[29] P . G am bardella,A . D allm eyer, K . M aiti, M . C .M alagoli,S.R usponi, P . O hresser, W . E berhardt, C .C arbone,K . K ern,
O scillatory m agnetic anisotropy in one-dim ensional atom ic w ires, P hys. R ev. L ett. 93 (7), 077203{1/4 (2004).
11
[30] P .G am bardella, M agnetism in m onatom ic m etal w ires, J. P hys.: C ond. M at. 15 (S2533-2546).
[31] P . G am bardella, A . D allm eyer, K . M aiti, M . C . M alagoli, W . E berhardt, K . K ern, C . C arbone, Ferrom agnetism in
one-dim ensional m onoatom ic m etal chains, N ature 416, 301{304 (2002).
[32] P . G am bardella, S. R usponi, M . V eronese, S. S. D hesi, C . G razioli, A . D allm eyer, I. C abria, R . Zeller, P . H . D ederichs,
K . K ern, C . C arbone, H . B rune, G iant m agnetic anisotropy of single cobalt atom s and nanoparticles, Science 300 (5622),
1130{1133 (2003).
[33] P . G am bardella, S. R usponi, T . C ren, H . B rune, M agnetic anisotropy from single atom s to large m onodom ain islands on
a m etal surface,C . R . P hysique 6 (1), 75{87 (2005).
[34] Previous pioneering studides were reported, although incomplete in terms of spanning of dimensionnality, see
e.g. [146,154--156].
[35] R . G uirado-L opez, J. D orantes-D avila, G . Pastor, O rbital M agnetism in T ransition-M etal C lusters: From H und’s R ules
to B ulk Q uenching, P hys. R ev. L ett.90, 226402 (2003).
[36] M .Jam et,W .W ernsdorfer,C .T hirion,D .M ailly,V .D upuis,P .M elinon,A .P erez,P hys.R ev.L ett.86,4676{4679 (2001).
[37] A . H ubert, R . Schafer, M agnetic dom ains. T he analysis of m agnetic m icrostructures,Springer,B erlin,1999.
[38] M . B eleggia, M . D e G raef, O n the com putation of the dem agnetization tensor eld for an arbitrary particle shape using
a Fourier space approach, J. M agn. M agn.M ater. 263, L 1{9 (2003).
[39] E .C . Stoner, P hil.M ag. 36, 803 (1945).
[40] P .R hodes,G .R ow lands,D em agnetizing energies of uniform ly m agnetized rectangular blocks,P roc.L eeds P hil.L iter.Soc.
6, 191 (1954).
[41] A . A haroni,D em agnetizing factors for rectangular ferrom agnetic prism s, J. A ppl.P hys. 83 (6), 3432{3434 (1998).
[42] G . R ow lands,P h.D .thesis, U niversity of L eeds, L eeds (1956).
[43] P .R hodes, G . R ow lands,D . R . B irchall,J. P hys. Soc.Jap. 17, 543 (1956).
[44] D .A .G oode, G . R ow lands,T he dem agnetizing energies of a uniform ly m agnetized cylinder w ith an elliptic cross-section,
J. M agn. M agn.M ater. 267, 373{385 (2003).
[45] G .R ow lands,O n the calculation of acoustic radiation im pedance of polygonal-shaped apertures,J.A coust.Soc.A m .92 (5),
2961{2963 (1992).
[46] E .C .Stoner,E .P .W ohlfarth,A M echanism of M agnetic H ysteresis in H eterogeneous A lloys,P hil.T rans.R oy.Soc.L ond.
A 240, 599{642 (1948).
[47] A . T hiaville, C oherent rotation of m agnetization in three dim ensions: A geom etrical approach, P hys. R ev. B 61 (18),
12221{12232 (2000).
[48] W .W ernsdorfer, C lassical and Q uantum M agnetization R eversalStudies in N anom eter-Sized P articles and C lusters, in:
I.P rigogine,S.A . R ice (E ds.), A dvances in C hem icalP hysics,V ol. 118, W iley,2001, pp. 99{190.
[49] J.C .Slonczew ski,T heory ofm agnetic hysteresis in lm s and its applications to com puters,R esearch M em o R M 003.111.224,
IB M R esearch C enter,P oughkeepsie,N Y (1956).
[50] M . Lederm an, S. Schultz, M . O zaki, M easurem ent of the D ynam ics of the M agnetization R eversal in Individual SingleD om ain Ferrom agnetic P articles, P hys. R ev.L ett. 73, 1986{1989 (1994).
[51] W . F .B row n,Jr., T herm al F luctuations of a Single-D om ain P article, P hys. R ev. 130, 1677{1686 (1963).
[52] C .T hirion,W .W ernsdorfer,D .M ailly,Sw itching ofm agnetization by nonlinear resonance studied in single nanoparticles,
N ature M ater. 2, 524{527 (2003).
[53] C .K ittel,T heory of the Structure of Ferrom agnetic D om ains in F ilm s and Sm allP articles,P hys.R ev.70,965{971 (1946).
[54] A . A haroni,Introduction to the theory of ferrom agnetism ,C larendon P ress, O xford,1996.
[55] M . A . Schabes,H . N . B ertram , M agnetization processes in ferrom agnetic cubes,J. A ppl. P hys. 64 (3), 1347{1357 (1988).
[56] W . R ave, K . Fabian,A . H ubert, M agnetic states of sm all cubic particles w ith uniaxial anisotropy, J. M agn. M agn. M ater.
190, 332{348 (1998).
[57] R . C ow burn, D . K oltsov, A . A deyeye, M . W elland, D . T ricker, Single-D om ain C ircular N anom agnets, P hys. R ev. L ett.
83, 1042{1045 (1999).
[58] R . P . C ow burn, M . E . W elland, P hase transitions in planar m agnetic nanostructures, A ppl. P hys. L ett. 72 (16), 2041{
2043 (1998).
[59] W . R ave,A . H ubert, M agnetic ground state of a thin- lm elem ent,IE E E T rans. M agn.36 (6), 3886 (2001).
[60] A . A haroni,T he concept of a single-dom ain particle,IE E E T rans. M agn. 27, 4775{4777 (1991).
[61] A . T hiaville,D .T om as,J. M iltat, O n corner singularities in m icrom agnetics,phys. stat. sol. (a) 170, 125{135 (1998).
[62] R . P . C ow burn, A . O . A deyeye, M . E . W elland, C on gurational anisotropy in nanom agnets, P hys. R ev. L ett. 81 (24),
5414{5417 (1998).
12
[63] R . D ittrich, A . T hiaville, J. M iltat, T . Schrefl, R igorous m icrom agnetic com putation of con gurational anisotropy
energies in nanoelem ents, J. A ppl.P hys. 93, 7891{7893 (2003).
[64] R . P .C ow burn,P roperty variation w ith shape in m agnetic nanoelem ents, J. P hys. D : A ppl.P hys. 33, R 1{R 16 (2000).
[65] Y . N akatani, Y . U esaka, N . H ayashi, D irect solution of the Landau-L ifshitz-G ilbert equation for m icrom agnetics, Jpn. J.
A ppl.P hys. 28, 2485{2507 (1989).
[66] B . Y ang, D . F redkin, D ynam ical m icrom agnetics of a ferrom agnetic particle: N um erical studies, J. A ppl. P hys. 79, 5755{
5757 (1996).
[67] K .K irk,M .Scheinfein,J.C hapm an,S.M cV itie,M .G illies,B .W ard,J.T ennant,R ole of vortices in m agnetization reversal
of rectangular N iFe elem ents,J. P hys. D : A ppl. P hys. 34, 160{166 (2001).
[68] M . G rim sditch, A . B erger, J. Johnson, V . M etlushko, B . Ilic, P . N euzil, R . K um ar, M agnetic stability of nano-particles:
T he role of dipolar instability pockets,E urophys.L ett. 54 (6), 813{819 (2001).
[69] O . F ruchart, J.-C . T oussaint, B . K evorkian, M icrom agnetic m odel of non-collective m agnetization reversal in ultrathin
m agnetic dots w ith in-plane uniaxial anisotropy, P hys. R ev. B 63 (17), 174418 (2001).
[70] M .E leoui, O . F ruchart, J. C . T oussaint, M icrom agnetic m odel of m agnetization reversal of m agnetically hard ultrathin
dots and stripes, J. M agn. M agn.M ater. In press.
[71] M . D im ian, H . K achkachi, E ect of surface anisotropy on the hysteretic properties of a m agnetic particle, J. A ppl. P hys.
91, 7625{7627 (2002).
[72] In preparation.
[73] R .C ow burn,D .K oltsov,A .A deyeye, M .W elland, Lateral interface anisotropy in nanom agnets, J. A ppl.P hys.87, 7067{
7069 (2000).
[74] H . A . M . Van den B erg, A m icrom agnetic approach to the constitutive equation of soft-ferrom agnetic m edia, J. M agn.
M agn. M ater.44 (1-2), 207{215 (1984).
[75] H .A .M .Van den B erg,Self-consistent dom ain theory in soft-ferrom agnetic m edia. II. B asic dom ain structures in thin- lm
objects,J. A ppl. P hys.60, 1104 (1986).
[76] P .B ryant,H . Suhl,T hin- lm m agnetic patterns in an external eld, A ppl.P hys. L ett. 54, 78 (1989).
[77] P .B ryant,H . Suhl,M icrom agnetic below saturation, J. A ppl.P hys. 66, 4329 (1989).
[78] A . D eSim one, R . V . K ohn, S. M uller, F . O tto, R . Schafer, T w o-dim ensional m odelling of soft ferrom agnetic
R oy. Soc.L ond. A 457, 2983{2991 (2001).
lm s, P roc.
[79] R .H ertel, H .K ronm uller,C om putation of the m agnetic dom ain structure in bulk perm alloy,P hys.R ev.B 60 (10),7366{
7378 (1999).
[80] P . O . Jubert, J. C . T oussaint, O . F ruchart, C . M eyer, Y . Sam son, F lux-closure-dom ain states and dem agnetizing energy
determ ination in sub-m icron size m agnetic dots, E urophys.L ett.63 (1), 135{141 (2003).
[81] O .F ruchart, J.C .T oussaint,P .-O .Jubert, W .W ernsdorfer, R . H ertel, J.K irschner,D . M ailly,A ngular-dependence of
m agnetization sw itching for a m ulti-dom ain dot: experim ent and sim ulation, P hys. R ev. B 70, 172409{1{4 (2004), brief
Report.
[82] K .Y .G uslienko,V .N ovosad,Y .O tani,H .Shim a,K .F ukam ichi,F ield evolution of m agnetic vortex state in ferrom agnetic
disks, A ppl. P hys. L ett.78 (24), 3848 (2001).
[83] K . Y . G uslienko,K . L. M etlov, E volution and stability of a m agnetic vortex in a sm all cylindrical ferrom agnetic particle
under applied eld, P hys. R ev. B 63, 100403(R ) (2001).
[84] P .-O .Jubert,R .A llenspach,A nalytical approach to the single-dom ain-to-vortex transition in sm all m agnetic disks, P hys.
R ev. B 70, 144402/1{5 (2004).
[85] S.C herifi, R . H ertel, J. K irschner,H . W ang, R . B elkhou, A . Locatelli, S. H eun, A . Pavlovska,E . B auer, V irgin dom ain
structures in m esoscopic C o patterns: C om parison betw een sim ulation and experim ent,J. A ppl.P hys. 98, 043901 (2005).
[86] M .H ehn,K .O unadjela,J.P .B ucher,F .R ousseaux,D .D ecanini,B .B artenlian,C .C happert,N anoscale M agnetic D om ains
in M esoscopic M agnets, Science 272, 1782{1785 (1996).
[87] J. K . H a, R . H ertel, J. K irschner, C oncentric dom ains in patterned thin
E urophys.L ett. 64 (6), 810815 (2003).
lm s w ith perpendicular m agnetic anisotropy,
[88] R . H ertel, O . F ruchart, S. C herifi, P .-O . Jubert, S. H eun, A . Locatelli, J. K irschner, T hree-dim ensional m agnetic uxclosure patterns in m esoscopic Fe islands, P hys.R ev. B In press.
[89] M .Schneider,H .H offm ann,J.Zw eck,Lorentz m icroscopy of circular ferrom agnetic perm alloy nanodisks,A ppl.P hys.L ett.
77 (18), 2909{2911 (2000).
[90] Z.H .W ei,C .R .C hang,N .A .U sov,M .F .Lai,J.C .W u,E volution of vortex states under externalm agnetic eld,J.M agn.
M agn. M ater.239, 1{4 (2002).
[91] M . R ahm , M . Schneider, J. B iberger, R . P ulw ey, J. Zw eck, D . W eiss, V . U m ansky, V ortex nucleation in subm icrom eter
ferrom agnetic disks, A ppl.P hys. L ett.82 (23), 4110{4112 (2003).
13
[92] C . J. G arc a-C ervera, Z. G im butas, W . E ., A ccurate num erical m ethods for m icrom agnetics sim ulations w ith general
geom etries,J. C om put.P hys 184, 37{52 (2003).
[93] U .H artm ann,H .H .M ende, H ysteresis of N eel line m otion and e ective w idth of 180 B loch w alls in bulk iron,P hys.R ev.
B 33 (7), 4777{4781 (1986).
[94] A . T hiaville, J. M iltat, C ontrolled injection of a singular point along a linear m agnetic structure, E urophys. J. D 26,
57 (1994).
[95] A . W achow iak, J. W iebe, M . B ode, O . P ietzsch, M . M orgenstern, R . W iesendanger, D irect O bservation of Internal Spin
Structure of M agnetic V ortex C ores,Science 298, 577{580 (2002).
[96] T .O kuno,K .Shigeto,T .O no,K .M ibu,T .Shinjo,M F M study of m agnetic vortex cores in circular perm alloy dots: behavior
in external eld, J. M agn. M agn. M ater.240, 1{6 (2002).
[97] A . T hiaville, J. M . G arc a, R . D ittrich, J. M iltat, T . Schrefl, M icrom agnetic study of B loch-point-m ediated vortex core
reversal,P hys. R ev. B 67, 094410 (2003).
[98] L. P iraux, J. G eorge, J. D espres, C . Leroy, E . F erain, R . Legras, K . O unadjela, A . F ert, G iant m agnetoresistance in
m agnetic m ultilayered nanow ires, A ppl.P hys. L ett. 65, 2484{2486 (1994).
[99] K . N ielsch, R . W ehrspohn, J. B arthel, J. K irschner, U . G osele, S. F ischer, H . K ronm uller, H exagonally ordered 100 nm
period nickel nanow ire arrays, A ppl.P hys. L ett. 79, 1360{1362 (2001).
[100] E .Snoeck,R .D unin-B orkow ski,F .D um estre,P .R enaud,C .A m iens,B .C haudret,P .Zurcher,Q uantitative m agnetization
m easurem ents on nanom eter ferrom agnetic cobalt w ires using electron holography, A ppl.P hys. L ett. 82, 88{90 (2003).
[101] E . Saitoh,H . M iyajim a,T .Y am aoka,G . T atara, C urrent-induced resonance and m ass determ ination of a single m agnetic
dom ain w all, N ature 432, 203{206 (2004).
[102] A . T hiaville,Y . N akatani,Spin D ynam ics in C on ned M agnetic Structures III, Springer,B erlin, to appear.
[103] R . M cM ichael, M . D onahue, H ead to head dom ain w all structures in thin m agnetic strips, IE E E T rans. M agn. 33, 4167{
4169 (1997).
[104] Y . N akatani, A . T hiaville, J. M iltat, H ead-to-head dom ain w alls in soft nano-strips: a re ned phase diagram , J. M agn.
M agn. M ater.290-291, 750{753 (2005).
[105] M . K laui, C . Vaz, J. B land, L. H eyderm an, F . N olting, A . Pavlovska, E . B auer, S. C herifi, S. H eun, A . Locatelli, H eadto-head dom ain-w all phase diagram in m esoscopic ring m agnets, A ppl.P hys. L ett. 85, 5637{5639 (2004).
[106] N .Schryer,L.W alker,T he m otion of180 dom ain w alls in uniform dc m agnetic elds,J.A ppl.P hys.45,5406{5421 (1974).
[107] H .Forster, T .Schrefl,W . Scholz,D .Suess,V .T siantos,J.F idler, M icrom agnetic sim ulation of dom ain w all m otion in
m agnetic nano-w ires, J. M agn. M agn. M ater.249, 181{186 (2002).
[108] N . V ernier, D . A llw ood, D . A tkinson, M . C ooke, R . C ow burn, D om ain w all propagation in m agnetic nanow ires by spinpolarized current injection, E urophys.L ett. 65, 526{532 (2004).
[109] A . Y am aguchi, T . O no, S. N asu, K . M iyake, K . M ibu, T . Shinjo, R eal-Space O bservation of C urrent-D riven D om ain W all
M otion in Subm icron M agnetic W ires, P hys. R ev. L ett.92, 077205 (2004).
[110] M .K laui,P .Jubert,R .A llenspach,A .B ischof,J.B land,G .Faini,U .R udiger,C .Vaz,L.V ila,C .V ouille,C ontrolled and
R eproducible D om ain W all D isplacem ent by C urrent P ulses Injected into Ferrom agnetic R ing Structures,P hys.R ev.L ett.
94, 106601 (2005).
[111] S.Zhang,Z. Li,P hys. R ev. L ett. 93, 127204 (2005).
[112] A . T hiaville, Y . N akatani, J. M iltat, Y . Suzuki, M icrom agnetic understanding of current-driven dom ain w all m otion in
patterned nanow ires, E urophys. L ett.69, 990{996 (2005).
[113] P .B runo,G eom etrically C onstrained M agnetic W all, P hys. R ev. L ett. 83 (12), 2425 (1999).
[114] O .P ietzsch,A .K ubetzka,M .B ode,R .W iesendanger,R eal-Space O bservation of D ipolar A ntiferrom agnetism in M agnetic
N anow ires by Spin-P olarized Scanning T unneling Spectroscopy,P hys. R ev.L ett. 84 (22), 5212{5215 (2000).
[115] L.N eel, Sur un nouveau m ode de couplage entre les aim antations de deux couches m inces ferrom agnetiques,C . R . A cad.
Sci.255, 1676{1681 (1962).
[116] J.C .S.K ools,W .C ula,D .M auri,T .Lin,E ect of nite m agnetic lm thickness on N eel coupling in spin valves,J.A ppl.
P hys. 85 (8), 4466{4468 (1999).
[117] J. M oritz, F . G arcia, J. C . T oussaint, B . D ieny, J. P . N ozieres, O range peel coupling in m ultilayers w ith perpendicular
m agnetic anisotropy: A pplication to (C o/P t)-based exchange-biased spin-valves, E urophys.L ett. 65 (1), 123{129 (2004).
[118] H .A .M .Van den B erg,M agnetic m ultilayers and giant m agneto-resistance { Fundam entals and Industrialapplications,no.37
in Springer series in surface science, Springer, H eidelberg, 2000, C h. P hysics and m ethods for studying m etallic m ultilayers
w ith interlayer exchange coupling and G M R response,pp.179{262.
[119] P .B runo,T heory of interlayer exchange interactions in m agnetic m ultilayers, J.P hys.: C ond.M at. 11, 9403{9419 (1999).
[120] L.T hom as,M .G .Sam ant,S.S.P .Parkin,D om ain-W all Induced C oupling betw een Ferrom agnetic Layers,P hys.R ev.L ett.
84 (8), 1816{1819 (2000).
14
[121] L. T hom as, J. L uning, A . Scholl, F . N olting, S. A nders, J. Stohr, S. S. P . Parkin, O scillatory D ecay of M agnetization
Induced by D om ain-W all Stray F ields, P hys. R ev. L ett.84 (15), 3462{3465 (2000).
[122] J. V ogel, W . K uch, R . H ertel, J. C am arero, K . F ukum oto, F . R om anens, S. P izzini, M . B onfim , F . P etroff,
A . Fontaine, J. K irschner, In uence of dom ain w all interactions on nanosecond sw itching in m agnetic tunnel junctions
cond-mat/0509029.
[123] J.I.M artin,J.N ogues,K .Liu,J.L.V icent,I.K .Schuller,O rdered m agnetic nanostructures: fabrication and properties,
J. M agn. M agn.M ater. 256, 449{501 (2003).
[124] N . M ikuszeit, E . Y . V edm edenko, H . P . O epen, M ultipole interaction of polarized single-dom ain particles, J. P hys.: C ond.
M at. 16, 9037{9045 (2005).
[125] O . F ruchart, J.-P . N ozieres, W . W ernsdorfer, D . G ivord, F . R ousseaux, D . D ecanini, E nhanced coercivity in subm icrom eter-sized ultrathin epitaxial dots w ith in-plane m agnetization, P hys. R ev. L ett. 82 (6), 1305{1308 (1999).
[126] T .A ign,P .M eyer,S.Lem erle,J.P .Jam et,J.F erre,V .M athet,C .C happert,J.G ierak,C .V ieu,F .R ousseaux,H .Launois,
H . B ernas, M agnetization reversal in arrays of perpendicularly m agnetized ultrathin dots coupled by dipolar interaction,
P hys. R ev.L ett. 81 (25), 5656{5659 (1998).
[127] J.I.M artin,J.N ogues,I.K .Schuller,M .J.V .B ael,K .T em st,C .V .H aesendonck,V .V .M oshchalkov,Y .B ruynseraede,
M agnetization reversal in long chains of subm icrom etric C o dots, A ppl. P hys. L ett.72 (2), 225{257 (1998).
[128] I.D . M ayergoyz,M athem aticalM odels of H ysteresis, Springer-V erlag,N ew -Y ork, 1991.
[129] O .H enkel, P hys. Stat. Sol., 7919 (1964).
[130] S.T ham m ,J.H esse,T he rem anence of a Stoner-W ohlfarth particle ensem ble as a function of the dem agnetisation process,
J. M agn. M agn.M ater. 184, 245{255 (1998).
[131] C . V ouille, A . T hiaville, J. M iltat, T herm ally activated sw itching of nanoparticles: a num erical study, J. M agn. M agn.
M ater.272-276, e1237{e1238 (2004).
[132] E . B onet-O rozco, W . W ernsdorfer, B . B arbara, A . B enoit, D . M ailly, A . T hiaville, T hree-D im ensional M agnetization
R eversal M easurem ents in N anoparticles, P hys. R ev. L ett. 83 (20), 4188{4191 (1999).
[133] Y .Lu,P .L.T rouilloud,D .W .A braham ,R .K och,J.Slonczew ski,S.B row n,J.B ucchignano,E .O Sullivan,R .A .W anner,
W . J. G allagher, O bservation of m agnetic sw itching in subm icron m agnetic-tunnel junctions at low frequency, J. A ppl.
P hys. 85 (8), 5267 (1999).
[134] W .W ernsdorfer,E .B onet-O rozco,K .H asselbach,A .B enoit,B .B arbara,N .D em oncy,A .Loiseau,H .Pascard,D .M ailly,
E xperim ental E vidence of the N eel-B row n M odel of M agnetization R eversal,P hys. R ev.L ett. 78 (9), 1791{1794 (1997).
[135] R . H . V ictoria, P redicted T im e D ependence of the Sw itching F ield for M agnetic M aterials, P hys. R ev. L ett. 63, 457{
460 (1989).
[136] A .T hiaville,E xtensions of the geom etric solution of the tw o dim ensional coherent m agnetization rotation m odel,J.M agn.
M agn. M ater.182, 5{18 (1998).
[137] J. K urkijarvi, Intrinsic F luctuations in a Superconducting R ing C losed w ith a Josephson Junction, P hys. R ev. B 6,
832 (1972).
[138] J. F erre, Spin dynam ics in con ned m agnetic structures, Springer, H eidelberg, 2001, C h. D ynam ics of the m agnetization
reversal: from continuous to patterned ferrom agnetic lm s, pp.127{160.
[139] J.C am arero,Y .P ennec,J.V ogel,M .B onfim ,S.P izzini,M .C artier,F .E rnult,F .F ettar,B .D ieny,D ynam icalproperties
of m agnetization reversal in exchange-coupled N iO /C o bilayers, P hys. R ev. B 64, 172402 (2001).
[140] J.M oritz, B . D ieny,J. P . N ozieres,Y . P ennec, J. C am arero,S.P izzini,E xperim ental evidence of a 1=H activation law in
nanostructures w ith perpendicular m agnetic anisotropy, P hys. R ev. B 71, 100402{5(R ) (2005).
[141] S. Lem erle, J. F erre, C . C happert, V . M athet, T . G iam archi, P . L. D oussal, D om ain W all C reep in an Ising U ltrathin
M agnetic F ilm , P hys.R ev. L ett. 80, 849{842 (1998).
[142] H .-B .B raun,T herm ally A ctivated M agnetization R eversalin E longated Ferrom agnetic P articles, P hys.R ev.L ett.71 (21),
3557{3560 (1993).
[143] H .B .B raun,N ucleation in ferrom agnetic nanow ires - m agnetostatics and topology,J.A ppl.P hys.85 (8),6172{6174 (1999).
[144] W .T .C offey,P .J.C regg,Y .P .K alm ykov,O n the T heory of D ebye and N eelR elaxation of Single D om ain Ferrom agnetic
P articles, A dv. C hem .P hys. 83, 263 (1993).
[145] O .F ruchart,M .K laua,J.B arthel,J.K irschner,Self-organized grow th of nanosized verticalm agnetic pillars on A u(111),
P hys. R ev.L ett. 83 (14), 2769{2772 (1999).
[146] P . O hresser, N . B . B rookes, S. Padovani, F . Scheurer, H . B ulou, M agnetism of sm all Fe clusters on A u(111) studied by
X -ray m agnetic circular dichroism , P hys. R ev. B 64, 104429 (2001).
[147] S. R usponi, T . C ren, N . W eiss, M . E pple, L. C laude, P . B uluschek, H . B rune, T he rem arkable di erence betw een surface
and step atom s in the m agnetic anisotropy of 2D nanostructures, N at. M ater.2, 546 (2003).
[148] R . W . C hantrell, N . Y . A youb, J. P opplew ell, T he low
M agn. M agn.M ater. 53, 199{207 (1985).
15
eld susceptibility of a textured superparam agnetic system , J.
[149] O .F ruchart,P .-O .Jubert,C .M eyer,M .K laua,J.B arthel,J.K irschner,V ertical self-organization of epitaxial m agnetic
nanostructures, J. M agn. M agn. M ater.239, 224{227 (2002).
[150] O . F ruchart, A uto-organisation epitaxiale: des surfaces aux m ateriaux m agnetiques, H abilitation, Institut N ational
P olytechnique de G renoble (2003).
[151] Q . Pankhurst, J. C onnolly, S. K . Jones, J. D obson, A pplications of m agnetic nanoparticles in biom edicine, J. P hys. D :
A ppl.P hys. 36, R 167{R 181 (2003).
[152] R . P .C ow burn,M . E .W elland, R oom tem perature m agnetic quantum cellular autom ata, Science 287, 1466{1468 (2000).
[153] H . J. G . D raaism a, W . J. M . de Jonge, Surface and volum e anisotropy from
ferrom agnetic lm s, J. A ppl. P hys.64 (7), 3610{3613 (1988).
dipole-dipolar interactions in ultrathin
[154] H . D urr, S. D hesi, E . D udzik, D .K nabben,G . van der Laan, J. G oedkoop, F . H illebrecht, Spin and orbital m agnetization
in self-assem bled C o clusters on A u(111), P hys.R ev. B 59 (2), R 701{R 704 (1999).
[155] T .K oide,H .M iyauchi,J.O kam oto,T .Shidara,A .F ujim ori,H .F ukutani,K .A m em iya,H .T akeshita,S.Y uasa,T .K atayam a,
Y . Suzuki,D irect D eterm ination of Interfacial M agnetic M om ents w ith a M agnetic P hase T ransition in C o N anoclusters
on A u(111), P hys. R ev. L ett. 87, 257201 (2001).
[156] P .G am bardella,S.S.D hesi,S.G ardonio,C .G razioli,P .O hresser,C .C arbone,Localized M agnetic States of Fe, C o, and
N i Im purities on A lkali M etal F ilm s, P hys. R ev. L ett. 88 (4), 047202{1{4 (2002).
16