banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Magnetic characterization of magnetic tunnel junction devices using circle transfer curves
Rent this article for


Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Schematic showing some details about how the different measurement techniques are conducted in two-dimensional field space. A Stoner-Wohlfarth asteroid curve is also shown, with its origin shifted from the field-space origin due to internal offset fields ( and ).

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

(a) Schematic of the MTJ multilayer showing the relevant physical quantities that dictate the junction behavior. (b) Simplified model of the free layer, where the magnetization is determined by the two offset field components ( and ), the sample’s uniaxial anisotropy, and the external applied field . (c) Model of the pinned layer magnetization, which is assumed to be the vector sum of two forces: the applied field and the exchange biasing field .

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Examples of the raw data from a circle curve (taken at 130 G; dot-dashed line) and a remnant resistance curve (solid line), along with a theoretical remnant resistance curve (dashed line). The two sets of data were taken during the same set of field sweeps.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Experimentally measured angle-dependent asteroid curve of a sample MTJ. Solid circles represent the data, while the solid line represents the best fit to the modified S-W model [Eq. (7)].

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Experimental data (solid lines) and theoretical fitting results (dashed lines) for a set of three circle curves (taken at 40, 70, and 130 G) taken on a representative MTJ element. All fits are made using a single set of junction parameters.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Comparison of the measured anisotropy angles obtained from remnant resistance curves (-axis), asteroid measurements (open diamonds), and circle curve fits (open circles).

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Comparison between measured transfer curves taken at different field sweep angles (solid lines), with simulated transfer curves based on the extracted circle curve parameters (dashed lines). This plot shows that the circle curve results alone can accurately predict junction behavior in arbitrary applied fields.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Plot showing the distribution of junction anisotropy angle and pinned layer direction as a function of wafer position for the twice-annealed sample. The arrows indicate the pinned layer orientation, while the length and orientation of the solid lines indicate the strength and direction of the sample anisotropy, respectively.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

(a) Plot of the positional distribution of junction anisotropy angle and magnitude for the sample with standard annealing. The numbers below each line show the anisotropy angle in degrees, while the length of each line is proportional to the anisotropy strength. (b) Distribution of the extracted pinned layer direction for the same sample, as a function of wafer position.


Generic image for table
Table I.

A summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the different magnetic characterization methods.


Article metrics loading...


Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Magnetic characterization of magnetic tunnel junction devices using circle transfer curves