Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T04:26:52.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enhanced Coercivity in BiFeO3/SrRuO3 heterostructures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2016

Srinivasa Rao Singamaneni ,
J. T. Prater  and
J. Narayan
Srinivasa Rao Singamaneni*
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, USA Materials Science Division, Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA
J. T. Prater
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, USA Materials Science Division, Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA
J. Narayan
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, USA
*
*(Email: rao.iisc@gmail.com)
Get access

Abstract

Transition metal oxide thin film heterostructures have garnered increasing research interest in the last decade due to their multifunctional properties, such as ferromagnetism and ferroelectricity, which may be utilized in next generation device applications. Many previous works reported on the deposition of such structures on oxide substrates such as SrTiO3, which are not compatible with CMOS applications where Si(100) is the mainstay substrate material. BiFeO3 (BFO) is a room temperature insulating ferroelectric and antiferromagnet, a well-known multiferroic material. SrRuO3 (SRO) is a ferromagnetic metal with the Curie temperature (TC) of 165K. Unexpected properties emerge when these two dissimilar materials are conjoined. However, there has been no report on exploring the magnetic properties of BFO when it is in contact with SRO, and particularly when they are integrated with Si(100) substrates, which is the subject of present study. BFO/SRO thin films have been epitaxially grown on Si (100) substrates by introducing MgO/TiN epitaxial buffer layers using pulsed laser deposition. BFO thin films show room temperature ferroelectricity as observed from piezo force microscopy (PFM) measurements. The magnetic data collected from BFO thin films show typical antiferromagnetic features as expected. The TC of SRO in all the samples studied was found be ∼ 170K, close to the reported value of 165K. Interestingly, we have noticed that the coercive field of SRO layer increased from 4 kOe to 15 kOe (nearly fourfold) by reducing its thickness from 180 to 23nm, while keeping the thickness of BFO layer constant at 100nm. Pinning of Ru ions by ferroelectric domain walls in BFO, strong interfacial exchange coupling and SRO layer thickness could cause the observed enhancement in coercivity. Our near future work will address the precise underlying mechanisms in greater detail.

Keywords

epitaxyferromagneticoxide
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 1 , Issue 9: Electronics and Photonics , 2016 , pp. 597 - 602
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2016 

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

Yang, J. J., Strukov, D. B. and Stewart, D. R., Nature Nanotech., 8, 13 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsukura, F., Tokura, Y. and Ohno, H., Nature Nanotech., 10, 209 (2015).Google Scholar
Ramesh, R. and Spaldin, Nicola A., Nature Mat., 6, 21–29 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eerenstein, W., Mathur, N. D. and Scott, J. F., Nature Mat., 442, 759 (2007)Google Scholar
Gan, Q., Rao, R. A., Eom, C. B., Garrett, J. L. and Lee, M., Appl. Phys. Lett., 72, 978 (1998)Google Scholar
Hill, N. A., J. Phys. Chem. B 104, 6694 (2000).Google Scholar
Koster, G., Klein, L., Siemons, W., Rijnders, G., Dodge, J. S., Eom, C-B, Blank, D. H. A., Beasley, M. R., Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 253 (2012).Google Scholar
Narayan, J., Larson, B. C., J. Appl. Phys., 93, 278–283 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narayan, J., Acta Materialia, 61, 2703 (2013)Google Scholar
Rao, S. S, Prater, J. T, Wu, Fan, Shelton, C. T, Maria, J.-P, Narayan, J, Nano Lett., 13, 5814 (2013).Google Scholar
Singamaneni, S. R., Prater, J.T., Nori, S., Kumar, D., Lee, B., Misra, V., Narayan, J., Journal of Applied Physics, 117, 17D908 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singamaneni, S. R., Prater, J.T., Narayan, J., Emerging Materials Research, 4, 141–199 (2015).Google Scholar
Williams, A. J., Gillies, A., Attfield, J. P., Heymann, G., Huppertz, H., Martı´nez-Lope, M. J., and Alonso, J. A., Phys. Rev. B 73, 104409 (2006).Google Scholar
Padhan, P. and Prellier, W., Appl. Phys. Lett., 88, 263114 (2006).Google Scholar
Ke, X., Belenky, L. J., Eom, C. B., and Rzchowski, M. S., 97, 10K115 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Z, Liu, J, Qi, Y, Chen, D, Hsu, S-Lin, Damodaran, A R., He, X., N’Diaye, A. T., Rockett, A., and Martin, L.W., Nano Lett., 15, 6506−6513 (2015).Google Scholar
Choi, Y., Yoo, Y. Z., Chmaissem, O., Ullah, A., Kolesnik, S., Kimball, C. W., Haskel, D., Jiang, J. S. and Bader, S. D., Appl. Phys. Lett., 91, 022503 (2007).Google Scholar