Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Physics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rinp

Two dimensional landscape of ferromagnetic domains and the resulting

magnetization curves
Cristian M. Teodorescu
National Institute of Materials Physics, Atomiștilor 405A, 077125 Măgurele–Ilfov, Romania

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Recently, Kittel’s theory of ferromagnetic domains in thin films in one dimension, i. e. with the domains extended
Ferromagnetic domains infinitely over one in-plane direction and with the anisotropy axis oriented perpendicular to the film was
Domain walls revisited by considering the film thickness and unbalanced domains with up and down magnetization, yielding to
Hysteresis
the computation of magnetic hysteresis [C. M. Teodorescu, Res. Phys. 46 (2023) 106287]. In this work, the above
Coercive field
Demagnetization factor
study is extended to samples featuring two-dimensional domain landscapes, for materials with strong magnetic
anisotropy, typically characterized by a superunitary ratio between the anisotropy energy and the stray field
energy densities. This allows one to compute the most stable structures for vanishing average magnetization 〈M〉
together with hysteresis curves for thin films with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy and two-dimensional
rectangular domains and also for thin films with in-plane magnetic anisotropy. For two-dimensional films
with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy, the most stable structure for 〈M〉 = 0 is found to be that with domains
infinitely elongated along one in-plane direction, i. e. the one-dimensional case treated in the preceding work.
For thin stripes with in-plane magnetization, the domain size l is approximately linear with the stripe lateral size
d for low film thickness, while for large film thicknesses it follows a Kittel-like law, but as function of the stripe
size l ~ d1/2. For in-plane magnetized thin films of infinite lateral extent, the most stable structure is the single
domain. As for hysteresis curves, the two-dimensional case with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy is shown to
evolve from a 2D landscape derived from the checkerboard structure, but with unbalanced domains for
magnetization near saturation, towards one-dimensional domain structures for lower magnetization. In some
cases and depending also on the demagnetization factor, the one-dimensional case is not reached, and the film
exhibit 2D structures on the whole range of the magnetization curve. The hysteresis obtained for thin magnetic
stripes with in-plane magnetization also can exhibit a rich structure, with minor cycles on the wings of the
magnetization curves evolving towards „normal” hysteresis (again, depending on the film thickness, stripe lateral
size and demagnetization factor). An infinite thin film with in-plane anisotropy features a steplike magnetization
dependence on the applied field.

Introduction
The seminal Kittel’s work in the area of ferromagnetic domains [1,2]
is a well-defined advance, enabling the onset of micromagnetism [3]. As
discussed extensively in Ref. [3], the domain structure is an extremely
rich area, sometimes very demanding in computational work and there
are serious needs for simplified approaches, pushing analytical compu­
tations as far as possible. This was the main merit of Kittel’s model,
amongst others. Starting with very basic considerations on magneto­
static and wall energy, a very simple formula is derived for the total
energy, and its minimization yields the well-known law of scaling of the
domain width with the sample thickness l∝d1/2 . The mathematical
derivations in the original Kittel’s work were somehow lacunar and this
stimulated the analytical re-evaluation of all the relevant steps in
Ref. [4], together with the extension of Kittel’s work in the case of finite
film thickness d and for domains with alterating magnetization and
unbalanced widths, yielding a non-vanishing average magnetization 〈M〉
= αM0 , where M0 is the saturation magnetization.
The problem treated by Kittel and in Ref. [4] was that of a film with
perpendicular magnetic anisotropy and 180◦ domains, extending to in­
finity along one of the in-plane axis, which will be denoted in the
following as the „one-dimensional” (1D) domain structure. The main
steps of the derivation of domain size from Ref. [4] are given in Ap­
pendix A. One starts with solving the Laplace equation for the intensity

E-mail address: teodorescu@infim.ro.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2023.107109
Received 22 June 2023; Received in revised form 19 October 2023; Accepted 20 October 2023
Available online 29 October 2023
2211-3797/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
C.M. Teodorescu Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109

Fig. 1. Sketch of cases investigated in this study. (a) A perspective view of a film with thickness d and with a two-dimensional domain structure, the magnetization
being oriented along the z axis. (b) The top view of the same case. The extension of the sample over the x axis is infinite and over the y axis is Δy→∞. (c) The
adaptation of the 2D problem to the case of in-plane magnetization. The thickness of the film is Δy in this case and d will be considered the lateral size of the magnetic
stripe. The magnetization of the film is considered uniform along the y coordinate. (d) The case of non-vanishing net magnetization of a two-dimensional sample with
perpendicular magnetic anisotropy. The situation of (b) is adapted by considering domains with unbalanced opposed magnetization about both x and y axes.

of the magnetic field, adjust the solutions such as to match the magne­
tization at the extremity of the film, then compute the magnetostatic and
the wall energy density and minimize it as function of the domain width.
The total energy density obtained is written as:
{ }
4μ0 M0 2 1 ∑ ∞
1 − exp{ − (2m + 1)π d′ } d0
wtot. = + d′ (1)
π3 d′ m=0 (2m + 1)3 d {
where μ0 is the permeability of vacuum, d′ = d/l and
π3 wwall
d0 ≡
4μ0 M0 2
where wwall the energy density per unit area of the domain wall (see
eq. (A.11)). In Ref. [4] it is shown also how this typical distance can be
connected to the “exchange length”. For usual magnetic materials
(interatomic distance a ≈ 0.25nm, exchange integral J ≈ 10 meV,
anisotropy energy density Kv ≈ 4 × 105 erg cm− 3 ≈ 2μeV/atom, atomic
spin S ≈ 1), d0 has values in the range of 10 nm [4]. Later on in this
( )
work, we will use the factor Q = 2Kv / μ0 M0 2 (the ratio between the
anisotropy and the stray field energy densities) and argue that the model
for thin films with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy holds for Q ≈ 1, i.
e. for a similar value of the saturation magnetization, the anisotropy
energy density should be about 20 times larger, Kv ≈ 9 × 106 erg cm− 3 .
In this case, d0 has values in the range of 40–50 nm. For materials with
high uniaxial magnetic anisotropy Eq. (1) is then minimized with
respect to the width of the domain walls and for large film thickness d
one retrieves, as expected, the Kittel scaling law l = (d0 d/S3 )1/2 , where
S3 =
∑∞ − 3
m=0 (2m + 1) ≈ 1.0518. For lower d/d0 there are serious
deviations from this law, ending up with infinite size of the domains for
d→0.
The next step was to introduce an unbalanced domain structure,
where domains of majority magnetization +M0 and width l(1 +α)
alternate with domains of minority magnetization − M0 and width
l(1 − α). The energy density is given by:
2μ M0 2 ∑ ∞
1 − ( − 1)n cos(nπα) (
wm = 03 1
π d′ n=1
n3
}
) 2d0 μ M0 2 α2
(2) − e− nπd′ + d′ + (D) 0 (3)
d 2
then the applied magnetic field Be is found by deriving this energy
density with respect to 〈M〉 = αM0 , which is equivalent to the minimi­
zation of the total energy in presence of the applied magnetic field
w′tot. = wtot. − Be 〈M〉. In the above formula D is the demagnetization
factor, which is unity for a thin film when the applied field is in the
perpendicular direction, and may be below unity for films with finite
lateral extent. The aim of this procedure is to obtain the hysteresis
curves, αM0 vs. Be . At this point, two „scenarios” may be proposed, and
will be used also in this work. The first scenario supposes that the sum of
widths of two neighboring domains with opposed magnetization is
constant and is equal to 2l, where l is the value by minimizing the energy
for α = 0, eq. (1). This was considered the case of “pinned” domain walls
(although the pinning occurs only for half of the domain walls). The
second scenario considers the total energy (magnetostatic + domain
walls) in presence of a non-vanishing average magnetization and mini­
mizes the total energy for each value of α, yielding a dependence of the

2
C.M. Teodorescu
domain width on the net magnetization l(α). This value is then intro­
duced in eq. (3), then the derivative of the energy with respect to α is
evaluated numerically to yield Be and then the magnetization curves.
The second “scenario” seems to be physically more acceptable, since
with the applied field the average domain size (of +M0 and − M0 re­
gions) increases, and the system evolves gradually towards a single
domain state at saturation. The first “scenario” supposes that gradually
the contribution of +M0 regions increases only on the expense of the
decrease of − M0 regions, and half of the walls are fixed, the total
number of walls (or the wall linear density) being unchanged until
saturation. Therefore, the wall energy is constant no matter which is the
applied field until saturation is reached. At saturation, all walls are
‘dissolved’ and this yields to a sudden decrease of the total energy,
which is not that physically acceptable. However, the consideration of
both “scenarios” was needed by the simplified model presented in
Ref. [4], for the reasons discussed below.
The result was that for D = 1 no hysteresis, i. e. no region with
negative differential susceptibility μ0 − 1 ∂〈M〉/∂Be was obtained. By
introducing different demagnetization factors D < 1 which take into
account the finite size of the film, i. e. by correcting the obtained result
for the magnetic field for D = 1 by (D − 1)μ0 M0 α, one can then “tilt”
counter-clockwise the magnetization curves up to the moment when
regions of negative susceptibility show up, then one may suppose the
occurence of magnetic hysteresis. Now, the demagnetization factors
needed to induce hysteresis in the first scenario were much closer to
unity than in the second scenario. The conclusion was that in the first
scenario, with the domain walls “pinned” (two by two) the situation is
closer to the experimental observations, although it is a common sense
supposition that the domain width vary with the applied magnetic field
[3]. This finding will also be revised in this work.
Note that a similar model was discussed more than six decades ago
by Kooy and Enz [5], however the actual computation facilities are
considerable better than in 1960.
Once more, it should be emphasized that the model discussed so far is
valid only for 1D domains (infinitely long along one direction) in films
with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy. This case clearly needs to be
generalized.
Kittel in Ref. [2] sketched the main ideas for two-dimensional (2D)
computations, however by providing only some approximate results for
a checkerboard structure, without any demonstration. Also, it is not
clear if and when the 1D structure is energetically more favorable than a
2D structure. This poses the main premises of the present work, which
are sketched in Fig. 1. Periodic domain structures (but with different
periodicities along the two in-plane x and y axes) will be examined, see
Fig. 1(a, b). One particular case of this problem is represented by thin
films or stripes with in-plane magnetization, as sketched in Fig. 1(c). The
cases of null average magnetization will be treated in Section 2. Then, in
Section 3, cases with unbalanced domain widths, as sketched in Fig. 1(d)
will be analyzed, together with cases of thin films with non-vanishing
net magnetization (not represented in Fig. 1, but easily to be imagined
from Fig. 1(c) by allowing domains with the magnetization pointing in
the +z direction to be larger than domains with opposite magnetiza­
tion). As in Ref. [4], two scenarios will be examined in all cases with
non-vanishing average magnetization.
The ‘gold standard’ in evaluating domain walls and domain struc­
tures is provided by micromagnetic computations [6–19], which were
earlier recognized as time consuming, but nowadays become more
tractable thanks to the advancement of computing power and to the
availability of commercial software. However, more analytical ap­
proaches are still needed in order to derive the main features of domain
structures and of their evolution with applied field, mechanical stress
(etc.). This work concentrates on such and approach. In many cases, the
observed domain structure features complicated, maze or labyrinth-type
patterns [19–22]. The main limitation of the approach sketched so far
for 1D domain structures and which will be developed for 2D structures
3
Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109
is connected to the hypothesis of constant wall energy per unit area
wwall , together with the assumption that domain are separated by sym­
metric and straight Bloch walls (although the derivation sketched in the
Appendix 1 of Ref. [4] is applicable also to Néel walls). This is equivalent
to a ratio between anisotropy and stray field energy densities Q = 2Kv /
( )
μ0 M0 2 on the order of unity or even larger, according to domain phase
diagrams presented e. g. in Ref. [11]. At the same time, the film thick­
[ ( ) ]1/2
ness should be of several units (about 4.5) of 2A/ μ0 M0 2 , where
A J/a is the exchange stiffness, J being the exchange interaction and a
the interatomic distance. This typical dimension is in the range of 10 nm
or slightly more for usual systems. For ultrathin films, or for cases with
Q < 1 domain walls are bent in the depth of the film, forming asym­
metric Bloch walls with Néel caps [6,10,13,14,17,19,23], up to stray
field free configurations [7], although these configurations do not satisfy
generally Brown’s equations. Another effect of these ‘bent’ domain walls
with twisted spins (between Bloch and Néel configurations) is the gen­
eral variation of their energy per unit area with the film thickness
[6,8,9]. In this work, wwall will be considered constant, as resulting for
thicknesses larger than ~200 nm in early simulations for rather soft
materials [8], and confirmed more recently e. g. in magnetite [10,23] of
in films with noticeable perpendicular anisotropy [19]. Another way to
circumvent magnetic poles is to adapt (Landau-like) closure domains
[16,17,18,24], and experimentally their thickness was found in the
range of 9 nm for metallic films with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy
[24], therefore closer to the characteristic distance introduced above by
eq. (2). Note also that in the case of large platelets (typical size in the
range of 1 μm) with lower symmetry multi-domain configurations with
closure domains are observed [25]. Therefore, as soon as the film
thickness in the following derivations approaches d0 , the results dis­
cussed below should be regarded with some precaution, and the same
seems to be the case when the magnetic samples approach macroscopic
dimensions.
Null average magnetization
Domains in two dimensions with perpendicular anisotropy
Suppose their width is lx and ly along each of the x and y axis,
respectively. Applying the variable separation, the solution of the Lap­
lace equation can be written as:
Hz (x, y, z) = X(x)Y(y)Z(z) (4)
where:
X″(x) + km 2 X(x) = 0 (5)
Y″(y) + kn 2 Y(y) = 0 (6)
Z ’’ (z) −
( )
km 2 + kn 2 Z(z) = 0 (7)
Taking into account the same considerations as the 1D case (Ap­
pendix A), it follows that:
(2m + 1)π (2n + 1)π
km = ; kn = (8)
lx ly
with n, m ≥ 0. The general solution is written starting with the
Fourier series along x and y of the regular dependence of the magneti­
zation, supplementing with an exponential decay dependence on z, such
as to ensure that the laplacian of the field is zero:
{ ( )1/2 }
8M0 ∑∞ sin(km x)sin(kn y)exp − km 2 + kn 2 z
Hz (x, y, z) = − (9)
π n,m=0
2 (2m + 1)(2n + 1)
for 0 < z < d. Next, one computes the magnetostatic energy:
C.M. Teodorescu Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109

Fig. 2. Dependence of the energy (in logarithmic scale) given by eq. (14) in the plane of reduced sizes of domains along x and y axes, with the maximum values
ξmax. = ηmax. = 2.0. The values of d/d1 are specified on each of the graphs (a–e). (f) represens a surface plot for the case d/d1 = 10.

∫
μ0 ( )
Wm = − H • Md3 r( × 2) Ww 1 1
2 ww = = wwall + (13)
∫ ∫ lx ly d lx ly
8μ0 M0 2 ∑
∞
1 lx ly
= sin(km x)dx sin(kn y)dy
π2 n,m=0
(2m + 1)(2n + 1) 0 0 With the notation w1 = 32μ0 M0 2 /π5 , ξ = lx /d, η = ly /d, d1 = wwall /
∫ d{ ( )1 } w1 and considering the total energy the sum of the magnetostatic energy
× exp − km 2 + kn 2 2 z dz density, eq. (11) with the energy density corresponding to walls. eq.
0
⎧ [( ⎫ (13):
⎨ )2 ( )2 ]1/2 ⎬
2m+1 2n+1 { }
1 − exp − πd lx
+ ly π [(2m+1)2 η2 +(2n+1)2 ξ2 ]
1/2
⎩ ⎭
32μ0 M0 2 lx 2 ly 2 ∑ ∞
∑∞
1 − exp − ξη ( )
= { wtot. d1 1 1
π 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 }1/2 = ξη + +
n,m=0 (2m + 1) (2n + 1) (2m + 1) ly + (2n + 1) lx
w1 2 2{ 2 2 2 }1/2 d ξ η
n,m=0 (2m + 1) (2n + 1) (2m + 1) η2 + (2n + 1) ξ
(10)
(14)
and the magnetostatic energy per unit volume of the domain:
As pointed out in Ref. [4], one should also add the anisotropy energy,
Wm but this is a constant and does not interfere with the minimization
wm =
lx ly d procedure. Dependencies extracted from eq. (14) are represented in
⎧ ⎫
⎨
[( )2 ( )2 ]1/2 ⎬ Figs. 2 and 3, for different ranges of (ξ, η) and different values of d/d1 . It
1 − exp − πd 2m+1
lx
2n+1
+ ly seems that the absolute minimum of this function is realized when one of
⎩ ⎭
32μ0 M0 2 lx ly ∑ ∞
the two parameters (ξ, η) has a very large value. This means that the 2D
=
πd5 2 2{ 2 2 2 2 }1/2
n,m=0 (2m + 1) (2n + 1) (2m + 1) ly + (2n + 1) lx
domain structure evolves towards a 1D structure with domains
extending to infinity along one of the axis. This will be analyzed in the
(11)
following.
The wall energy is written as: In the case η→∞, eq. (14) is written as:
( ) { }
1 1 ( )
Ww = wwall 2lx + 2ly d = wwall lx + ly d (12) 2 ∑ ∞ ∑∞ 1 − exp − π (2m+1)
2 2 32μ0 M0 1 ξ wwall
wtot. ≈ ξ 2 3
+ (15)
π5 1) 1) ξd
where, as mentioned before, wwall is the energy divided by the unit n=0 (2n + m=0 (2m +
lateral area of the domain and the contribution of domain walls and this is the same as eq. (A.17) after the identification ξ = 1/d′ and
belonging to two neighboring domains were divided by 2. The energy ∑ − 2
taking into account that ∞ n=0 (2n + 1) = π2 /8, as it can be demon­
density corresponding to walls:
strated by Fourier series development of the function f(x) = x2 for

4
C.M. Teodorescu Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109

Fig. 3. Same as Fig. 2, but for a different range ξmax. = ηmax. = 20. (f) represens a surface plot for the case d/d1 = 1.

− π < x < π, then by subtracting the development for x = π/2 from that Ref. [4] can be applied in this more general case. The minimum of eq.
for x = π. (18) can be found by solving the following equation (analogous to eq.
In the case ξ = η (i. e. lx = ly , checkerboard domain structure), eq. (A.19) for the 1D case):
(14) is written as (again, by putting d′ = 1/ξ): { [ ]1/2 }
{ [ d0 4 ∑ ∞ 1 − exp − π (2m + 1)2 + (2n + 1)2 d′
⎧ ]1/2 } ⎫ =
1− exp − π (2m+1)2 +(2n+1)2 d′ { }
32μ0 M0 2 ⎨ 1 ∑ 2d1 ⎬
2
∞ d π2 d′ n,m=0 (2m + 1)2 (2n + 1)2 (2m + 1)2 + (2n + 1)2 1/2
wtot. = +
π5 d′ ⎩d′ n,m=0 (2m+1)2 (2n+1)2 {(2m+1)2 +(2n+1)2 }1/2 d ⎭
d′ { [ } (19)
2 2 ]1/2
4 ∑ ∞ exp − π (2m + 1) + (2n + 1) d′
(16) −
πd′ n,m=0 (2m + 1)2 (2n + 1)2
Putting eqs. (A.17) and (16) with similar parameters
The situation of thin films with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy
wtot. 1 ∑ can be traced from the above case: for small sample thickness, the
∞
1 − exp{ − (2m + 1)πd′ } d0
= + d′ (17)
w0 d′ m=0 (2m + 1)3 d minimal energy is the lowest for the 1D case, then one can apply the
formalism for the 1D case (see Ref. [4]) and one obtains the fact that the
for 1D domain structure, and domain size increases towards infinity for small sample thickness. It is
{ [ ]1/2 } difficult to trace an approximate dependence by series development of
8 ∑ ∞ 1 − exp − π (2m + 1)2 + (2n + 1)2 d′
wtot.
= 2 +
2d0
d′ eq. (A.19) but numerically one obtains that for d/d0 ≈ 0.1, l ≈ 50d and
w0 π d′ n,m=0 (2m + 1)2 (2n + 1)2 {(2m + 1)2 + (2n + 1)2 }1/2 d for d/d0 ≈ 0.05, l ≈ 1000d. Remind that the order of magnitude of d0 is
(18) 10 nm.

for the checkerboard structure. Tests for several values of d0 /d are

presented in Fig. 4 and one can conjecture that in all cases eq. (17) is
providing a minimum of lower value than eq. (18). Intuitively, for a
given domain width l0 , the 1D domain structure has lower energy than
any 2D domain structure with at least one of the domain edges equal to
l0 , just because the domain walls have larger total areas, but there is no
demonstration that the minimal value of the energy given by eq. (14) or
(16) is lower than the minimal value of the energy given by the 1D
model, eq. (17). We have then to rely on the numerical demonstrations
outlined in Figs. 2–4. Therefore, numerically we found that the 1D
domain structure is the most stable and, then, all considerations from
Thin films and ribbons with in-plane magnetization
We investigate now the case of a film or a ribbon with in-plane
magnetization, see Fig. 1(c). According to the previous Section, the
most favorable configuration in all cases is that where the domains are
elongated over the y coordinate and have a finite size on the x coordi­
nate. Then, along the y axis one should suppose that there is no struc­
ture. Now, we will suppose that this y axis is the axis oriented normal to
the surface of the film and that Δy is the film thickness this time. d,
which formerly was designated to be the film thickness, will be in this

5
C.M. Teodorescu Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109

Fig. 4. Energy dependencies on d′ = d/l for the one dimensional case (eq. (17)) and for the checkerboard domain structure, i. e. the two-dimensional case with lx =
ly = l (eq. (18)), for several values of the sample thickness in terms of the ‘typical’ dimension d0 , defined by eq. (2).

case the size of the ribbon in the direction of the in-plane magnetization. The next step is to compute the magnetostatic energy
∫
In this case one has to introduce the fact that Hz = − M0 /2 at the
(0) Wm = − μ0 H • Md3 r (the summation over the two faces z = 0, d is
extremities of the ribbon z = 0, d, for − Δy/2 < y < Δy/2. One can ex­ included) and its energy density wm = Wm /(ldΔy). After some algebra,
press the dependence over y of the intensity of the magnetic field by the result is:
using the Fourier transform: ⎧ [
( )2 ]1/2 ⎫
⎨ ⎬
⎧ 2t (2m+1)2 π2
∫∞ ⎨ 1, for − Δy < y < Δy 1 − exp − + l2 d
∫ ⎩ Δy ⎭
Y(y) = iky
h(k)e dk = 2 2 (20) 8μ M0 2 ∑ ∞
1 ∞

⎩ wm = 03 sinc 2
t [ ( )2 ] dt
− ∞
0, otherwise π d m=0 (2m + 1)2 0 1/2
2t (2m+1)2 π 2
+ l2
where
Δy

∫ ∞ (24)
1 1 kΔy
h(k) = Y(y)e− iky
dy = ⋯ = sin (21) 2
( 2
)
2π − ∞ πk 2 by using the variable t = kΔy/2. Now, sinc t ≡ sin t /t is a very 2

In this case one may show easily that the imaginary part of the sharp function and its integral from 0 to ∞ is π /2. A sketch of the
Fourier transform (20) vanishes, the field is symmetric with respect to demonstration follows. By integration by parts, it can be related to the
the y axis (Y(y) = Y( − y)). Then: Dirichlet integral, whose value is π /2.
∫ ∫ ∫ ∫∞ ( )′
1 ∞ kΔy dk
∞
sin2 t∞
1
Y(y) = sin cos(ky) (22) sinc2 tdt = 2
dt = − sin2 t dt
π −∞ 2 k 0 0 t 0 t
2 ⃒∞
⃒ ∫∞
For the other two factors from the field capturing the dependence = −
sin t⃒
+
sin(2t)
d(2t)
along the other axes x and z we will use, as in the previous cases, the t ⃒0 0 2t
components occurring in eq. (9). The only major difference with the ∫∞
Also, the Dirichlet integral 0 sinctdt can be computed by putting:
previous case is that the sum over n will be replaced by the integral over
∫ ∞ − at
k. In total, the intensity of the magnetic field along the magnetization e sint
J(a) = dt
axis may be written as: 0 t
∫ { ( One applies “Feynman’s trick”, i. e. one takes the derivation with
2M0 ∑
∞
sin(km x) ∞ kΔy )1/2 } dk
Hz (x, y,z) = − sin cos(ky)exp − km 2 + k2 z respect to a and one obtains a solvable integral, such that dJ/da =
π m=0 2m + 1 − ∞
2 2 k
− 1
(23) − (1 + a2 ) , hence J(a) = π/2 − tan− 1 a, where the integration constant
was chosen such as J(∞) = 0. Therefore, the Dirichlet integral is J(0) =
with km given by eq. (8). π/2.

6
C.M. Teodorescu Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109

Fig. 5. (a–e) Dependences of the energies on the domain size for the case of in-plane magnetization (in units of d0 ) obtained by numerical computing using eq. (30)’),
for different values of the lateral size of the ribbon (on the same graph), and for different sample thickness (on different graphs), both lateral size and thickness being
given also in units of d0 . (f) The value of the domain zize l/d0 corresponding to the minimum of the energy represented as function of the lateral size of the ribbon, for
different sample thickness (in d0 units, blue curves). The square root function obtained by the approximation given by eq. (26) is represented with black curve. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

If the sample thickness is larger than the typical domain size Δy≫l, When Δy≪l:
then the above equation can be simplified by neglecting the dependence ∫∞ { ( )}
4μ0 M0 2 Δy ∑∞
1 sinc2 t 2td
on t from the fraction and one obtains: wm = 2
1 − exp − dt (28)
{ } πd3
m=0 (2m + 1) 0 t Δy
(2m+1)π
( )∑ ∞ 1 − exp − d ( )
2
4μ M0 l l 4μ0 M0 2 l We mentioned that sinc2 t is a function with a sharp maximum,
wm ≈ 0 3 → S 3 for d≫l therefore one may approximate the rest of the integrand nearly t ≈ 0.
π d m=0 (2m + 1)3 ππ3 d
Using:
(25)
( )
More details about this demonstration and a numerical proof of the 1 − exp − 2td
Δy
validity of these approximations are given in Appendix B. lim =
2d
This is quite similar to the 1D case, see eqs. (A.9) and (A.14). The t→0 t Δy
wall energy will be similar in this case. and
Ww wwall ∫ ∞
ww = = (26) sinc2 tdt =
π
ldΔy l 0 2
Therefore, the basic Kittel’s theory may be applied: one obtains wm = μ0 M0 2 /2. In Appendix B it is shown that these
( )1/2 ( )1/2 considerations are, however, valid only for Δy≫d, i. e. the strip width
wwall π3 d d0 d
l= ≡ (27) should be much smaller than the film thickness, which in turn is
4μ0 M0 2 S3 S3
considered much smaller than the domain size. In fact, for ultrathin films
by keeping the same definition of d0 as in the 1D case, eq. (2). Note or large strip width, Δy≪d, another dependence is derived in Appendix
that in this case Kittel’s scaling law is written with the lateral size of the B, i. e.
ribbons (their size in the direction of the in-plane magnetization) and
μ0 M0 2 (Δy)0.855
not with the film thickness. wm ≈ (29)
2 d

7
C.M. Teodorescu Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109

This goes towards zero for strips of low thickness and/or high lateral thicknesses, the dependence is almost linear. For large thicknesses, the
dimension. Anyway, the magnetostatic energy does not depend on the dependence is ∝d1/2 , as it was derived analytically by eq. (27). This
domain width in this extremal case. Thus, adding the wall energy implies that for a sample with infinite extension over the x,y axes the
(density) wwall /l, eq. (29) means that the minimum energy is realized for domain size is infinite, i. e. the sample evolves towards a single domain
infinitely large domains, i. e. for the sample in a single domain state. state (in fact, two joined infinite half samples, each with uniform in-
Then, for low sample thickness, it becomes single domain. plane magnetization and compensating each other).
Using:
Non vanishing average magnetization
4μ0 M0 2
w0 =
π3
The case of two-dimensional domains with perpendicular anisotropy
and d0 = wwall /w0 , d′ = d/l and y′ = Δy/l, the total energy based on
the magnetostatic energy given by eq. (24) and on the wall energy, eq. Starting with the Fourier transform of the function q(x’ , α) =
(26) can be written as: (1 for 0 < x′ < 1 + α; − 1 for 1 + α < x′ < 2), see also Ref. [4]:
⎧ [ ]12 ⎫
⎨ ( )2 ⎬ [ ] [ ( )]
2 2 sin nπ
(1 + α) cos nπ x′ − α+1
1 − exp − 2t
y′
+ (2m + 1) π d′ 4∑ ∞ 2 2
wtot. 2 ∑ ∞
1
∫ ∞ ⎩ ⎭ q(x′, α) = α + (31)
= sinc2 t [( ) ]1/2 dt π n=1 n
w0 d′ m=0 (2m + 1) 0 2
2
one can construct the Fourier series of the function where domains
2t 2 2
y′
+ (2m + 1) π
with positive and negative magnetization are unbalanced, with the
+
d0
d′ asymmetry αx over the x axis (along which the domains have the size lx )
d and αy over the y axis (along which the domains have the size ly ), see
(30) Fig. 1(d). The magnetic field at the surface (z = 0) will be given by:
The integral and hence the sum are always positive. Thus, for d→∞, ⎧ [ ] [ ( ) ] ⎫⎧
the energy is minimal for d′→∞, which could imply that the domains ⎪
⎪
⎨
nπ
∞ sin 2 (1 + αx ) cos nπ lx −
∑
x α+1
2
⎪
⎪
⎬⎪
⎪
⎨
M0 4
have a finite size. Hz (x, y, 0) = − αx + α
⎪
2 ⎪ π n=1 n ⎪ ⎪ y
The integral from eq. (30) can be transformed into an integral over a ⎩ ⎪
⎭⎪⎩
finite domain by introducing a new variable t = tanz with 0 ≤ z < π/2. [ ( )]
[ ( )]⎫
This is more practical for numerical integration. sin nπ
1 + αy cos nπ x
− α+1 ⎪
⎪
⎬
4∑ ∞ 2 ly 2
⎧ [ ]12 ⎫ +
⎨ ( )2 ⎬ π n=1 n ⎪
⎪
2 2 ⎭
1− exp − 2tanz
′ +(2m+1) π d′
∫ π2 2 ⎩ y ⎭
wm 2 ∑ (32)
∞
1 sin (tanz)
= [( ) ]1/2 dz
w0 d′ m=0 (2m+1) 0 sin z
2 2
The average sample magnetization can be computed immediately
2
2tanz 2 2
+(2m+1) π
y′
from Fig. 1(d) and it yields:
d0 〈M〉 = M0 αx αy (33)
+ d′
d
(30′) The next step is to introduce the exponential decays over the z axis in
eq. (32), by taking care that the laplacian of the intensity of the magnetic
The dependencies of the energy density obtained for several thick­
field should vanish. The net result is:
nesses expressed in d0 units (Δy/d0 ) and for several lateral sizes of the

⎧ ] [ ( )] [ ( [ ( )]
⎪
[ )]
⎪
⎨ ∑
nπ x
∞ sin 2 (1 + αx ) cos nπ lx −
α+1 ( ) ∞ sin
nπ
1 + αy cos nπ lyy − α+1 (
M0 4α 2 nπz 4αx ∑ 2 2
Hz (x, y, z) = − αx αy + y exp − + exp
2 ⎪⎪
⎩
π n=1 n lx π n=1
n

[ ] [ ( [ ( )] [ ( )] ⎫
)] ⎡ ( )1/2 ⎤⎪
) sin nπ
(1 + α x ) sin mπ
1 + αy cos nπ lxx − α+1
cos mπ lyy − α+1 ⎪
⎬
nπz 16 ∑∞ 2 2 2 2
n2
m 2
− + 2 × exp⎣ − + πz ⎦ (34)
ly π n,m=1 nm lx 2 ly 2 ⎪
⎪
⎭

magnetic strips are given in Fig. 5(a–e). Prominent minima can be evi­
denced in all investigated cases, therefore well-defined domain widths
are derived. Fig. 5(f) represents probably the most important result of
this Subsection, namely the dependence of the domain widths on the
lateral size of the stripes, for several film thicknesses. For low
One has now to compute the total magnetostatic energy
∫
− μ0 M • Hd3 r, with M = M0 ̂z for 0 < x < lx (1 +αx ), M = − M0 ̂z for
lx (1 +αx ) < x < 2lx (and similarly for the y axis). For the integration, one
uses:

8
C.M. Teodorescu Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109

Fig. 6. (a) Dependences of energy density on the reduced magnetization α for the one-dimensional and for the symmetric (checkerboard) cases, in the “second
scenario”, obtained by summing eqs. (36) or (37) for the corresponding magnetostatic energy densities with the corresponding eq. (39) for the domain walls. For each
value of α, these total energy desities are computed for a wide range of d′ = d/l, then the value of d′ corresponding to the minimum of the energy is derived and
plugged into the expression of the energy. Energy density are computed for 0 ≤ α ≤ 1 in steps of 0.05, then the resulting curves are fitted with polynomials of fourth
degree. These polynomial fits are used for the subsequent evaluations (see the next figure). The computations are performed for several values of the film width,
expressed in d0 units and represented on the graph. (b) The difference between the energy density corresponding to the symmetric (checkerboard) case and the one-
dimensional case, as function on the reduced magnetization α (for several values of d/d0 ). The insert (i) represents an enlargement of the region where the
checkerboard situation is the most stable one.

∫ { (
1+α )} ∫2 { ( )}
α+1 α+1 { (
cos nπ x′ − dx′ − cos nπ x′ − dx′ wm π 3 2 2 λ x ∑ ∞
1 − ( − 1)n cos(nπαx )
0 2 1+α 2 = αx αy + 1 − exp
⎧ w0 8 2 n=1 n3
⎪
⎪ 2( − 1)m )} ( ){ (
⎪
⎨ sin(mπα), n = 2m, m ≥ 1 nπ λy ∑∞
1 − ( − 1)n cos nπαy
mπ − ++ 1 − exp
= ( ) λx 2 n=1 n3
⎪
⎪
⎪ 4( − 1)m 2m + 1 { ( )}
⎩ cos πα , n = 2m + 1, m ≥ 0 )} n m
(2m + 1)π 2 nπ 4 ∑ {1 − ( − 1) cos(nπαx ) } 1 − ( − 1) cos mπαy
∞
− + 2 ( )1/2
[ ] λy π n,m=1
Later on, one has to multiply by sin n2π (1 + α) . For n = 2m, 2 2
n2 m2 λnx 2 + λmy 2
sin[mπ(1 + α) ] = ( − 1)m sin(mπα) and forn = 2m + 1,
[ ] [ ] ⎧ ⎡ ( )1/2 ⎤ ⎫
m
sin (2m+1)
2
π
(1 + α ) = ( − 1) cos (2m+1)π
2
α . Take into account also that ⎨ n2 m2 ⎬
⎣
× 1 − exp − + π⎦
∫ d′
⎩ λx 2 λy 2 ⎭
nπ z′ 1 − e− nπd′
e− dz = (35)
0 nπ
The sum involved in the last three terms of eq. (34) will contain: The 1D case can be obtained by putting αy = 1 or λy →∞, then the
( ) third and the fourth term from the above equation vanish, also the
cos 2 2m+1
πα (1 − e− 2mπd′) reduced magnetization is α = αx and with d′ = d/lx = 1/λx , one obtains:
∑ sin (mπα)(1 − e− 2mπd′) ∑
∞ 2 ∞ 2
+
(2m)3 (2m + 1)3 w(1D) π3 1 ∑ ∞
1 − ( − 1)n cos(nπαx ) ( )
m=1 m=0 m
= α2 + 1 − e− nπ d′
(36)
∑ w0 8 2d′ n=1 n3
∞
1 − ( − 1)n cos(nπα) ( )
= 1 − e− nπd′
which is formally the same as eq. (3).
n 3
n=1
Another case of interest is the symmetric (or checkerboard) case,
The net result for the energy density, obtained by dividing the total
since there is no preference in treating the x and y coordinates, the
energy by the volume investigated 4lx ly d is as follows, where λx,y ≡ lx,y /d:
sample being infinite in both directions. Here one may put that the
domain have the same width l, then λ = λx = λy = l/d = 1/d′ and the
domain asymmetry over each axis is connected with the reduced
magnetization by αx = αy = α1/2 . The magnetostatic energy density is
given by:

9
C.M. Teodorescu Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109

Fig. 7. Magnetization curves obtained by derivation of the energy density for d/d0 = 1, for different values of the demagnetization factors. The curves for D = 1 from
(a) are directly derived from the sums of eqs. (35), 36) and (38), while the others are obtained by eq. (40). The energy density used is the one obtained from the
curves representing the minimum energy between the one-dimensional and the checkerboard cases from Fig. 6. The arrows describe the sense of description of the
hysteresis curves. The squares represent schemes of the domain topography corresponding to each branch of the hysteresis curve.

( )
w(sym.) π3 2 1 ∑ ∞
1 − ( − 1)n cos nπα1/2 ( ) by minimizing eq. (14), and replace them in the actual values for the
m
= α + 1 − e− nπd′ energy. For the 2D domains with perpendicular anisotropy, remember
w0 8 d′ n=1 n3
{ ( ) }{ ( )} that the result for α = 0 was that the most stable structure was that of
4 ∑ ∞
1 − ( − 1)n cos nπα1/2 1 − ( − 1)m cos mπα1/2
+ 2 stripe domains, therefore the 1D case. The case with α ∕ = 0 and the 1D
π d′ n,m=1 n2 m2 (n2 + m2 )1/2
{ [ ( ]} structure, with d′ = d/l replaced from the equilibrium value for α = 0
)
was treated extensively in Ref. [4]. As described in the Introduction, the
1/2
× 1 − exp − n2 + m2 πd′
result was that Be (α) feature a monotonous increase, therefore the
(37)
magnetization curve does not show hysteresis. By introducing a non-
The energy density corresponding to domain walls is given, in the unity demagnetization factor, one can obtain regions with negative
general case for λx ∕
= λy , when the magnetostatic energy is given by eq. susceptibility and therefore some hysteresis. The maximum demagne­
(35), by: tization factor yielding hysteresis is (see eq. (86) from Ref. [4]) is
( ) Dmax. ≈ 0.44(l/d) and hence hysteresis is obtained only for thin samples,
ww d0 1 1
= + (38) d/d0 ≲0.5 according to Fig. 4(i1) from Ref. [4], or from samples with
w0 d λx λy
quite limited spatial extent over the x, y axes. Obviously, such a result is
and, more specifically, for the two particular cases analyzed above: not in line with experimental observations.
Scenario 2. From the total energy densities obtained in the two
w(1D) d0 ′ w(sym.) 2d0 ′ extremal cases, 1D and symmetric checkerboard structure, obtained by
w
= d or w = d (39)
w0 d w0 d summing eqs. (36),37) with the corresponding energy density due to
From here, one builds up w(sym.) and w(1D) + w(1D) domain walls, given by the relevant eq. (39), one derives the domain size
m +w(sym.)
w m w .
As discussed in the Introduction, one will take into considerations (in fact the parameter d′ = d/l) corresponding to the minimum energy,
two scenarios for the evaluation of the energy density dependence on the for each value of α, then computes the dependences of energies vs. α.
( )
reduced magnetization α. Note that for α = 1, wm
(sym.)
= wm = π3 /8 w0 , therefore the minimum
(1D)

Scenario 1. Take the value of the domain sizes resulting from Sec. 2.1,

10
C.M. Teodorescu
Fig. 8. Energy densities obtained in the “first scenario” (sum of widths of alternating domains constant) for Δy = d0 (a), 2d0 (b), 5d0 (c), 10d0 (d), 20d0 (e), and very
large (f), in the latter case eq. (26) was used for the domain width. For each graph, computations corresponding to several in-plane size of stripes are represented and
labelled on the graphs.
of the total energy is satisfied for d′ = 0 (the divergence before the sums
is eliminated for d′→0, and 1 − ( − 1)n cos(nπ) = 0. Owing to the
considerable computational effort of this procedure, the computations
are performed for α = 0.0,0.05,0.1,⋯,1.0, i. e. in steps of 0.05. Then, the
obtained data points are found to be reasonably fitted with polynomials
of fourth degree, which might indicate an ordering prone to yield a
second order phase transition. However, thermal effects are beyond the
aims of this work. The fitted curves are then used later, for computing
the derivatives and plotting the magnetization curves.
The results for the energy densities are represented in Fig. 6. The
most important result is that for small values of α, the 1D case is the most
stable one, whereas when α approaches unity, the checkerboard case is
the most stable. The differences of energy density corresponding to the
two extremal cases (symmetric, or checkerboard-like state and 1D state)
are represented in Fig. 6(b). This suggests that starting with the situation
where the film is saturated in one direction and reducing the applied
field, at first the film exhibits a checkerboard-like situation, then, for
lower values of the average magnetization, it switches into a state where
1D stripes are formed. The stability of these situations will be com­
mented in the following.
The applied magnetic field is computed as [4]:
( ) ( )
Be 4 ∂ wtot. 4 ∂ wm + ww
b≡ = 3• = 3• (40)
μ0 M0 π ∂α w0 π ∂α w0
In computing these fields, in eq. (40) the energy before derivation
was adjusted to be the minimal of the 1D and checkerboard energies.
This implies a jump in the derivative and hence in the value of the
11
Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109
derived applied field. Then, the demagnetization factor different from
unity was introduced as follows:
μ M0 2 α2
{
wtot. π3
}
w′tot. = wtot. − (1 − D) 0 = w0 − (1 − D)α2 (41)
2 w0 8
The introduction of the demagnetization factor is justified as follows:
for a uniformly magnetized thin film with infinite lateral extension
whose magnetization 〈M〉 = αM0 is oriented out-of plane, the demag­
netization field is Bdemag. = − μ0 〈M〉 and the corresponding energy den­
(∞)
sity is w(∞)
∫
Bdemag. d〈M〉 = μ0 M0 2 α2 /2. This corresponds to
demag. = −
D = 1 and this terms occurs implicitely in the computation of the energy
density for an infinite film, see e.g. eq. (29). Now, for a laterally finite
film whose demagnetization factor D < 1, Bdemag. = − Dμ0 〈M〉 by defini­
tion and hence wdemag. = Dμ0 M0 2 α2 /2 = wdemag. − (1 − D)μ0 M0 2 α2 /2.
(∞)
Although this is trivial for a uniformly magnetized thin film, the
correction factor − (1 − D)μ0 M0 2 α2 /2 is important to be applied such as
to adapt magnetostatic energy densities computed exactly for the case of
infinite films to the case of films with demagnetization factor lower than
unity, without dealing with complicated border problems (yielding e. g.
to limitations in using the Fourier series analysis).
The obtained magnetization curves α(b) are represented in Fig. 7.
The full magnetization curves are represented with red lines, and the
occurrence of hysteresis cycles is outlined by dashing the corresponding
area. Also, sketches of the most favorable situation between 1D and
checkerboard were added on different regions of the magnetization
curves. As opposed to the case treated in Ref. [4]. which investigated
solely the 1D case, here even for D = 1 one obtains minor hysteresis
C.M. Teodorescu
Fig. 9. Magnetization curves obtained by derivation from the energy densities represented in Fig. 8, for for Δy = d0 (a), 2d0 (b), 5d0 (c), 10d0 (d), 20d0 (e), and very
large (f), when l = (d0 d)1/2 . The inserts in each graph show with blue symbols the inverse of the susceptibility in the origin χ 0 − 1 = (∂b/∂α)0 , together with the
computed demagnetization factor in the center of the sample, eq. (44), full red line. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
loops on the two branches. Decreasing the demagnetization factor, but
not dramatically, the minor hysteresis loops on the branches are
extending and eventually merging into a ‘normal’ hysteresis cycle. Note
that in Ref. [4], even in the first scenario, for d = d0 one obtains d′ ≈ 0.9
and then Dmax. ≈ 0.5. In the second scenario, no hysteresis was obtained
for physically reasonable values of the demagnetization factor. Hence,
the result outlined in Fig. 7 and which can be easily computed for several
values of d/d0 yield results in much better agreeent with experiments.
Also, checkerboard domain structures are often evidenced in thin films
with perpendicular magnetic anisotropies [26]. Note also that the aspect
of the magnetization curve with minor hysteresis on branches also often
occurs [3,5]. The general 2D aspect of domains near saturation evolving
towards 1D structures near zero magnetization seems in fact to be well
established by earlier works [15,19,21]. In some cases, isolated stripes
are reported [21], which can also be simulated by the actual model.
“Bubble” domains would require a different analytical approach, but
one may conjecture that the comparison of their energies with energies
of 1D patterns would yield a similar result, as will be commented in the
following Section.
There should be no surprise between the finding of Section 2.1 that
1D structures are more stable than checkerboard structures, while near
saturation the situation is reversed. This can be easily understood by
looking at Figs. 6 and 7(a). Near α = 0 the 1D energy curve is the most
stable, and near α = 1 the situation is reversed. Introducing the devia­
tion of the demagnetization factor from unity will affect also the energy
curves, by the subtraction a quadratic term (see eq. (41)) up to the
12
Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109
situation where the 1D curve, although with positive susceptibility in
the origin, is completely included into the hysteresis defined by the
jumps associated to the checkerboard curve, see Fig. 7(c, d). Then,
although investigated solely, the 1D structure is still stable, by saturating
the sample in one direction and then reducing the applied field, this
minor magnetization curve will be only partly browsed (Fig. 7(c)) or
totally avoided (Fig. 7(d)). Facts as represented by Fig. 7 are particularly
interesting, especially for low sample thickness. For larger sample
thicknesses, again, the influence of the demagnetization field is very
strong and the extent of the minor hysteresis loops on the wings de­
creases; also, larger deviations from unity of the demagnetization factor
are needed to yield a ‘normal’ hysteresis.
In-plane, non vanishing average magnetization
The situation is similar to that of Fig. 1(c), but with alternating do­
mains along the x axis with widths l(1 +α) and l(1 − α). The intensity of
the magnetic field in z = 0 will be ( − M0 /2)Y(y)q(x/l, α), where the
functions Y(y) and q(x′, α) are given by eqs. (22) and (31), respectively.
For the complete H(r) dependence, one has to introduce exponential
dependences on z, such that the laplacian of the field is zero. The net
result is:
C.M. Teodorescu Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109

⎧
All results feature a monotonous dependence α(b). This is the case for
( )⎪
⎪ ∫
M0 ⎨2α ∞ kΔy dk D = D0 , where D0 is the demagnetization factor of the stripe. For an
H(x, y, z) = − sin cos(ky)e− ky
2 ⎪⎪ π 0 2 k infinite stripe along the x axis it is easy to compute the demagnetization
⎩
factor in the center of the sample by integrating the contributions due to
[ ] [ ( )]
the ‘magnetic charge densities’ ±〈M〉 on the faces at z = 0, d (see also the
nπ ′ α+1
∞ sin 2 (1 + α) cos nπ x −
8 ∑ 2
(42) Appendix 3 of Ref. [4]), the result being:
+ 2
π n=1 n 2 Δy
⎫ D0 = tan− 1 (44)
∫ [ ( ) ] ⎪
⎪ π d
∞
kΔy 2 2 1/2
nπ dk ⎬
× sin cos(ky)exp − k2 + 2 z As expected D0 →0 when Δy/d→0 i. e. for infinitely extended 2D
2 l k ⎪
0 ⎪
⎭ films or ultralow film thicknesses, and D0 →1 when Δy/d→∞, which
formally is the case of a film with magnetization perpendicular to it, and
Computing the magnetostatic energy density wm = where d is, again, the film thickness (the 1D case). The occurrence of the
∫
− μ0 M • Hd3 r/(2ldΔy), using the computation artifacts biefly hysteresis can then be traced by comparing the inverse of the suscepti­
described in the above Subsection, after some algebra, yields: bility in the origin χ 0 − 1 = (∂b/∂α)0 with D0 − D. Namely, when
{ } D < D0 − χ 0 − 1 one obtains hysteresis. For this reason, in Fig. 9 are
2 2 ∫∞ 1 − exp − 2td inserted also the computed inverse susceptibilities in the origin,
wtot. π α Δy Δy
= sinc2 t dt compared with the demagnetization factor D0 . One notices, for instance,
w0 8d t
0
⎧ [ ]12 ⎫ that for ultrathin films Δy = d0 and large lateral sizes of the stripes one
( )2
⎨
2tl
⎬ needs quite low deviations of the demagnetization factor from D0 to
1 − exp − + n π dl
2 2
∫ ⎩ Δy ⎭ obtain hysteresis. The situation worsens with increasing film thickness.
l ∑ 1 − ( − 1) cos(nπα)
∞ n ∞
+ sinc2 t [ ] dt Interestingly, at intermediate film thicknesses, the computed inverse of
d m=0 n 2 ( )2 1

the susceptibility features a maximum. Also, it seems that, for films with
0 2
2tl
+n π2 2
Δy thickness larger than about 5d0 , starting with a critical size of the stripes,
d0 D0 < χ 0 − 1 , therefore there is no chance for these films to exhibit hys­
+
l teresis (in the center of the sample) since the demagnetization factor
(43) cannot be negative. There are not that much experimental evidence for
such a behavior: it would imply that at thicknesses exceeding about 50
or, more practical for numerical integration: nm, films of large lateral extent, in the range of 100 nm to 1 μm do not

⎧ [( ]12 ⎫
⎨ )2 ⎬
2l
1 − exp − tanz + n2 π 2 d
∫ π { [ ]} ∫π ⎩ Δy l⎭
wtot. π 2 α2 Δy 2 sin2 (tanz) 2dtanz l ∑∞
1 − ( − 1)n cos(nπα) 2 sin2 (tanz) d0
= • 1 − exp − cotzdz + [( ]12 dz + (43′)
w0 8d 0
2
sin z Δy d m=0 n 2
0 sin2 z )2 l
2l 2 π2
Δy
tanz + n

where the wall energy was also introduced (it does not depend on the
average reduced magnetization α). One can easily check that for α = 0
the case treated in Subsec. 2.2 is obtained, i. e. the total energy will be
given by eq. (30). The applied magnetic field is written as Be =
( )
M0 − 1 ∂wtot. /∂α, or its ‘reduced value’ b = 4/π3 ∂(wtot. /w0 )/∂α and, as in
the previous Subsection, one can trace the magnetization curves α(b).
For the case of an infinite 2D system with in-plane magnetization, i.
e. when d→∞, one uses
∫ ∫∞
1 ∞ 1 − e− 2ηt
lim sinc2 t dt = 2lim sinc2 te− 2ηt dt = 0
η→∞η 0 t η→∞ 0
(after applying l’Hopital’s rule) and supposes also that l/Δy≫1 for
evaluating the integral from the second term of eq. (43), owing to the
results obtained in Subsec. 2.2. Then, globally, wm →0. The wall energy
also is minimized for l→∞, then at the end it follows wtot. →0 and hence
the applied field Be →0. This can be interpreted as a magnetization curve
M(Be ) with a stepwise dependence from − M0 for Be < 0 towards +M0
for Be > 0, with zero coercitivity. The same happens also for an ultrathin
film, when its thickness Δy→0.
Then the first scenario is to compute the energies using eq. (43)’) and
replacing the domain widths obtained in Subsection 2.2 to minimize the
total energy for null average magnetization, for each value of d and Δy,
see Fig. 5(f). The result for the energy density is given in Fig. 8. After
this, one takes the derivative of these energies and compute the reduced
field dependence b(α), see Fig. 9.
show hysteresis nor remnant magnetization, while films of lower spatial
extent would exhibit coercitivity.
We investigate now the second scenario for the magnetization of thin
films with in-plane anisotropy. The procedure is to minimize eq. (43)’)
with respect to l/d0 for given values of α, d/d0 and Δy/d0 , then to replace
(l/d0 )(α) in the equation for the energy density and operate numerically
the derivative with respect to α. Since the procedure is time-consuming,
the computations were performed (as in Subsection 3.1) for 0 ≤ α ≤ 1 in
steps of 0.05, then the obtained points were fitted with polynomials of
sixth degree (emulating a system that could exhibit first order transi­
tions). The fitted curves, represented with full lines in Fig. 10 with a
reasonable number of points were used for derivation and deriving the
applied field, then the magnetization curves. These are represented in
Fig. 11.
Non-monotonous dependences of the field on the reduced magneti­
zation (or vice versa) are obtained, especially for low thicknesses. In
particular, for Δy = d0 one obtains a non-zero remnant magnetization
together with minor hysteresis loops on the branches of the magneti­
zation curves, see Fig. 12(a). Introducing a demagnetization factor
slightly different from D0 increases the extent of both the hysteresis area
centred in the origin and of the minor hysteresis loops on the branches,
up to their merging into a ‘normal’ hysteresis, as represented in Fig. 12.
What is remarkable in this model is that the coercive fields obtained are
in the range of 5 × 10− 3 μ0 M0 or even below, which is a result that could
not be obtained with the 1D model from Ref. [4] or with the 2D model

13
C.M. Teodorescu Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109

Fig. 10. Total energies (magnetostatic + walls) obtained in the “second scenario” (domain width depending on the magnetization) for thin films of thickness Δy = d0
(a), 2d0 (b), 5d0 (c),10d0 (d),20d0 (e), and 50d0 (f), each graph representing several values of the stripe size, from d = d0 to d = 100d0 , as mentioned on each graph.
The energies are obtained for each value of the reduced magnetization α by minimizing eq. (41) as function of the domain width l, then plugging this domain width in
the expression of the energy. Red dots are computed values and the black curves are fits with polynomials of sith degree. These fitted curves are used afterwards for
computing the applied magnetic field in the following graphs.

with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy, discussed in Subsection 2.1.
Discussions
The main findings of this work are as follows:
(1) For the 2D case with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy, the
most stable state with 〈M〉 = 0 is found to be the 1D structure,
that of infinite, parallel domains with identical width and
opposed magnetization.
(2) For the 2D case with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy, states
with 〈M〉 ∕ = 0 feature the checkerboard structure for high values
of the magnetization, and 1D structures for low magnetization
values. Satellite minor hysteresis loops occur on the branches.
These minor loops increase their extent as soon as demagnetiza­
tion factors lower than unity are considered, ending up with their
merging into a quasi-‘normal’ hysteresis. The region where the
situation switches from checkerboard to 1D state deserves some
more detailed calculations. Reasonably, one might suppose that
in this region, progressively the dimension of domains along one
direction starts to increase with respect to the other, i. e. a situ­
ation with lx ∕ = ly might become more stable in energy. However,
the complete solving of this problem requires the minimization of
the energy given by the sum of eqs. (35) and (38) with respect to
λx,y = lx,y /d and αx , knowing that αy = α/αx . This minimization
with respect to three variables has to be performed for any value
of the reduced magnetization α, in order to determine λx,y (α) and
αx (α). These dependencies have to be then plugged into the total
energy, ending up with a complete dependence of the energy on
α, then one can operate its derivative and find the magnetization
curves. The extent of this work deserves a further publication.
(3) For the case of thin stripes with in-plane magnetization and 〈M〉
= 0, the size of the domains increases with the lateral dimension
of the stripe. This increase is linear for ultrathin films and evolves
towards a dependence similar to the Kittel’s law l = (d0 d/S3 )1/2
for thicker films (with respect ro d0 ) but the scaling is dependent
on the lateral size of the stripes and not on the film thickness. In
any case, domain wall bending, occurrence of Néel caps or
closure domains can reasonably be neglected in the limit of
extended thin films, the result being mostly the single domain
state.
(4) Thin stripes with in-plane magnetization, for 〈M〉 ∕ = 0, feature a
rich structure, with minor hysteresis loops on branches and also a
hysteresis centered around the origin, evolving towards ‘normal’
hysteresis for slightly different demagnetization factors with
respect to the case of an infinite film along one direction. A
wealth of experimental data (see e. g. Ref. [3]) are in line with
this supposition.
As a general remark, for the cases (2) and (4) the second scenario,
where the size of the domains depends on the applied field and hence on

14
C.M. Teodorescu Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109

Fig. 11. Magnetization curves obtained in the “second scenario” (domain width depending on the magnetization) for thin films of thickness Δy = d0 (a), 2d0 (b), 5d0
(c),10d0 (d),20d0 (e), and 50d0 (f), each graph representing several values of the stripe size, from d = d0 to d = 100d0 , as mentioned on each graph. When needed,
colors are used to discriminate between curves. The magnetic fields derived are derivatives of the total energy density, according to eq. (39).

Fig. 12. Examples of complete magnetization curves (for positive and negative branches) together with the derivation of the hysteretic behavior for Δy = d0 and d =
10d0 , by introducing demagnetization factors slightly different from unity. The reduced fields are expressed as b′ = b − (D − 1)α, where b are computed according to
eq. (39).

the net average magnetization, gives results in better agreement with
experiments, in particular one can obtain coercive field intensities in the
range of 10− 3 M0 , hence in the range of 103 Am− 1. As commented in
Ref. [4], the usual Weiss theory of ferromagnetism or the Stoner-
Wohlfarth theory cannot provide such low coercive fields. Lower
coercive fields can be proposed, for instance, by band ferromagnetism
models, without taking into account the formation of domains [27].
Near saturation, some samples exhibit also other patterns, for
instance “bubbles” where the magnetization is oriented opposite to the
majority magnetization. Kittel in Ref. [2] provided a formula for a

15
C.M. Teodorescu
Fig. B1. Computations of the magnetostatic energy for a thin ribbon, by using
the ‘exact’ equation (B.1) and the two approximations from eq. (B.2).
Fig. B2. Dependence of y1 of the magnetostatic energy for a thin ribbon, in the
case y2 = 0, shown in logarithmic scale. Red curve: numerical computation,
black curve: linear fit for small values of y1 .
regular array of squares with a circle embedded inside, the magnetiza­
tion inside the circle being opposite to that of the rest of the area of the
square (excepting the circle), and the area of the circle being half of that
of the square. This model clearly needs to be refined for unbalanced
areas of different magnetization. The basic ingredients for treating this
problem are discussed in this work: one needs to start with a Fourier
Appendix A. . Ferromagnetic domains in one dimension, recall of the main findings of Ref. [4]
The sample is a film of thickness d, infinite extension over the x axis and very large (Δy≫d) extension over the y axis. The domain size is l. The rest
of notations are defined in the main text.
The Laplace equation is solved by variable separation:
ΔHz = 0; Hz (x, z) = X(x)Z(z)
16
Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109
image of the decorated surface, then introduce exponential decaying z
factors, such that the laplacian of the intensity of the magnetic field
vanishes, then compute the magnetostatic energy, add the wall energy,
minimize the total energy wtot. for each value of the net average
magnetization, extract the dependence of the geometric parameters on
〈M〉, replace in the total energy, perform the derivative and finally one
can obtain the magnetization curves 〈M〉 = f(dwtot. /d〈M〉).
A further development of the actual theory can be suggested also in
the case of curved surfaces, such as of arrays of nanowires with cylin­
drical geometries, which are important for sensing and memory appli­
cations [28]. Such approaches would require, however, a different
Fourier representation of the magnetostatic problem.
Last but not least, the transition from 1D landscaped to 2D ones (and
back) in applied magnetic field, as represented in Fig. 7(a) may have
some applications in computing technologies.
Conclusion
With the points outlined in the preceding Section, this work intends
to be a relevant continuation and to provide some valid corrections to
the work presented in Ref. [4] for infinite domains, altering in only one
dimension. For perpendicular magnetic anisotropy, the transition from
2D patterns for magnetization near saturation to 1D patterns for lower
magnetization is often observed experimentally. Note that the model is
valid for materials exhibiting strong magnetic anisotropy, characterized
by Q>1 and for film thicknesses exceeding about
[ ( 2
) ]1/2
4.5 × 2A/ μ0 M0 . Also, reasonable results are obtained for thin
films with in-plane magnetization, in particular for an infinite thin film
theoretically the magnetization curve becomes a steplike function with
sudden switch from − M0 to + M0 , while for large stripes the curve
starts to be ‘rounded’. For stripes of lower lateral extent, a rich structure
with many hysteretic areas is derived. The introduction of demagneti­
zation factors slightly different from the theoretical ones for infinite
systems yield to the strengthening of the hysteresis. The better agree­
ment of the coercive fields estimated by all models presented in this
work with experimental values than the Stoner-Wohlfarth model, the
Weiss molecular field model, or even the simplified 1D theory from
Ref. [4] is a a posteriori confirmation of the validity of the suppositions
that generated this approach.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
This work was funded by the Core Program of the National Institute
of Materials Physics under the Project PC2– PN23080202.
(A.1)
C.M. Teodorescu Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109

X″(x) Z″(z)
= − = − k2 (A.2)
X(x) Z(z)

X(x) = Asin(kx) + Bcos(kx)⇒Asin(kx) (A.3)

since X(0) = 0. Using X(l) = 0 this yields k ≡ kn = nπ /l. Considering a positive value of n, one may then group in the forthcoming sum (the general
solution) the terms with n and − n such that An sin(kn x)exp( − kn z) + A− n sin(k− n x)exp(k− n z) = (An − A− n )sin(kn x)exp( − kn z), therefore by a re-notation of
the front factors the sum is restricted to positive n values.
On the other hand, using the fact that X(l/2) ∕ = 0, n = 2m + 1, then k ≡ km = (2m +1)π/l. The equation over the z axis:

Z″(z) − km 2 Z(z) = 0 (A.4)

has a single acceptable solution for large z value Z(z) = Cm exp( − km z). By renaming the fore coefficient, the general solution is:
∑
∞
Hz (x, z) = Am sin(km x)exp( − km z) (A.5)
m=0

In z = 0:
∑
∞
2M0 ∑
∞
sin(km x)
Hz (x, 0) = Am sin(km x) = − (A.6)
m=0
π m=0 2m + 1

from the Fourier transform of the rectangular wave with amplitude M0 /2 and period 2l. From here, the coefficients Am are readily identified and the
result for the z component of the field is:
2M0 ∑
∞
sin(km x)exp( − km z)
Hz (x, z) = − (A.7)
π m=0 2m + 1

In computing the total energy, one should multiply by 2, since contributions from both surfaces z = 0 and z = d have to be taken into account. In
Ref. [4], this is demonstrated by introducing a more complete z dependence, accounting for charges located on both the upper and the lower surface.
The magnetostatic energy of the domain is given by:
∫ ∫l ∫d ( ) ∞ ∫l ∫d
μ μ 2M0 2 ∑ sin(km x)exp( − km z) 2μ M0 2 Δy ∑∞
1
Wm = − 0 H • Md3 r( × 2) = − 0 Δy dx dz − ( × 2) = 0 sin(km x)dx exp( − km z)dz
2 2 0 0 π m=0
2m + 1 π m=0
2m + 1 0 0

4μ0 M0 2 Δyl2 ∑∞
1 − exp( − km d) (2m + 1)π
= 3
, taking into account that ​ km =
π 3
m=0 (2m + 1) l
(A.8)
The corresponding energy volume density:
Wm 4μ M0 2 l ∑
∞
1 − exp( − km d)
wm = = 03 (A.9)
ldΔy π d m=0 (2m + 1)3

The total wall energy is written as:

( )
2Δy
Ww = wwall d 2l + (A.10)
2
where
( )1
2JKv 2
wwall = πS (A.11)
a
is the wall energy per unit are of the wall. S is the atomic spin, J the exchange integral between neighboring spins in the wall, Kv the volume
anisotropy constant and a the nearest-neighbor distance in the direction perpendicular to the domain wall. The ‘long’ edge Δy belongs to two adjacent
domains, therefore only one half of both edges has to be taken into account. The energy density corresponding to walls:
Ww wwall
ww = ≈ (A.12)
ldΔy l
Total energy density:
4μ0 M0 2 l ∑
∞
1 − exp( − km d) wwall
wtot. = wm + ww = + (A.13)
π3 d m=0 (2m + 1)3 l
∑∞ 3
Large thicknesses: consider exp( − km d) ≈ 0 and m=0 (2m + 1)− ≡ S3
2
4μ0 M0 l wwall
wtot. ≈ S + (A.14)
π3 d 3 l
Minimizing this energy with respect to the domain thickness ∂wtot. /∂l = 0 yields:
( )1/2
wwall π3 d
l= 2
≡ (d0 d)1/2 (A.15)
4μ0 M0
( )
i e. Kittel’s scaling law, with d0 ≡ π3 wwall / 4μ0 M0 2 .

17
C.M. Teodorescu Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109

Small thickness 1 − exp( − km d) ≈ km d

4μ0 M0 2 ∑
∞
1 wwall μ0 M0 2 wwall
wtot. ≈ 2
+ ≡ + (A.16)
π2 m=0 (2m + 1) l 2 l
∑∞ 2
using the fact that n=0 (2n + 1)− = π2 /8. The above function doesn’t have a prononced minimum, but it is minimal when l→∞.
For the general case, one introduces d′ = d/l, then eq. (13) becomes:
4μ0 M0 2 ∑
∞
1 − exp{ − (2m + 1)π d′ } wwall
wtot. = + d′ (A.17)
π d′ m=0
3
(2m + 1)3 d

One minimizes the function obtained by dividing by the front factor from the sum (without d′):
( 3 ) ( ) { }
∂ π wtot. ∂ wtot. ∂ 1∑ ∞
1 − exp{ − (2m + 1)πd′ } d0
≡ = + d′ = 0 (A.18)
∂d′ 4μ0 M0 2 ∂d′ w0 ∂d′ d′ m=0 (2m + 1)3 d

This yields the following equation:

d0 1 ∑∞
1 − exp{ − (2m + 1)πd′ } π ∑ ∞
exp{ − (2m + 1)π d′ }
= 2 − (A.19)
d d′ m=0 (2m + 1) 3
d′ m=0 (2m + 1)2

whose solutions are analyzed in Ref. [4].

Appendix B. . Analysis of the magnetostatic energy given by eq. (24) in the extremal cases

By putting y1 ≡ Δy/d and y2 ≡ Δy/l, together with the variable change t = tanz, eq. (24) can be written as:
{ }
1/2
[(2tanz)2 +(2m+1)2 π2 y2 2 ]
∫ π/2 2 1 − exp − y1
wm 8y1 ∑∞
1 sin (tanz)
2
= 3 2 2
• [ ]1/2 dz (B.1)
μ0 M0 π m=0 (2m + 1) 0 sin z (2tanz)2 + (2m + 1)2 π 2 y2 2
∫∞
When Δy≫l, i. e. for y2 →∞, using also 0 sinc2 tdt = π/2 and neglecting the first term in the right parenthesis, eq. (25) is obtained, written with the
new variables as:
{ }
(2m+1)y2
1 − exp −
wm 8y1 ∑ ∞ y1 8y1 S3
≈ ≈ 3 for y1 ≪y2 (B.2)
μ0 M0 2 π3 y2 m=0 (2m + 1)3 π y2

Fig. B1 shows the numeric results obtained by calculating using the ‘exact’ formula (B.1) and as well the results of the two approximations
contained in (B.2). One may derive that the agreement is very good, especially, for large values of y2 .
The situation when Δy≪l, i. e. for y2 →0 is more tricky, although the formulas involved are simpler. Indeed, putting y2 = 0 in eq. (B.1) and going
back to the variable t = tanz, one obtains:
( )
2t
∫ 1 − exp −
wm 8y1 ∑
∞
1 ∞ y1
= sinc2 t • dz (B.3)
μ0 M0 2 π3 m=0 (2m + 1)2 0 2t

For small values of y1 , the integral is divergent in the origin, but then gets multiplied with the small y1 , so the result is indefinite. With a new
variable change t = (y1 tanu)/2:
( )
∫ π/2 sin2 y1 tanu
wm 2 2 1 − exp( − tanu)
= • du (B.4)
μ0 M0 2 πy1 0 sin2 u tanu
{ ( )}
The integral is no longer divergent in u = 0, so this expression may be easily computed numerically. In Fig. B2 one presents log10 2wm / y1 μ0 M0 2
vs. log10 y1 together with a fit for small values of y1 . A reasonable fit is obtained with a straight line with a slope – 0.145 and null offset. Therefore, one
may infer the following dependence of the magnetostatic energy for small values of y1 :
wm (Δy)0.845
1 2
≈ y1 0.845 ≡ (B.5)
μ M
2 0 0
d

For large values of y1 , one may demonstrate numerically by using eq. (B.4) that wm ≈ 12μ0 M0 2 .

References
[1] Kittel C. Theory of the structure of ferromagnetic domains in films and small
particles. Phys Rev 1946;70:965–71. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.70.965.
[2] Kittel C. Physical theory of ferromagnetic domains. Rev Mod Phys 1949;21:
541–83. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.21.541.
[3] Hubert A, Schäfer R. Magnetic Domains. Springer, Berlin: The Analysis of Magentic
Microsctructures; 2009.
[4] Teodorescu CM. Kittel’s model for ferromagnetic domains, revised and completed,
including the derivation of the magnetic hysteresis. Res Phys 2023;46:106287.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2023.106287.
[5] Kooy C, Enz U. Experimental and theoretical study of the domain configuration in
thin layers of BaFe12O19. Philips Res Rep 1960;15:7–29.
[6] LaBonte AE. Two-dimensional Bloch type domain walls in ferromagnetic films.
J Appl Phys 1969;40:2450–8. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1658014.
[7] Hubert A. Stray-field-free magnetization configurations. Phys Stat Sol 1969;32:
519–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/pssb.19690320204.

18
C.M. Teodorescu
[8] Aharoni A. Two-dimensional domain walls in ferromagnetic films. II. Cubic
anisotropy. J Appl Phys 1975;46:914–6. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.321614.
[9] Aharoni A. Two-dimensional domain walls in ferromagnetic films. III. Uniaxial
anisotropy. J Appl Phys 1975;46:1783–6. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.321783.
[10] Xu S, Dunlop DJ. Micromagnetic modeling of Bloch walls with Néel caps in
magnetite. Geophys Res Lett 1996;23:2819–22. https://doi.org/10.1029/
96GL01568.
[11] Ramstöck K, Hartung W, Hubert A. The phase diagram of domain walls in narrow
magnetic strips. Phys Stat Sol (a) 1996;155:505–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/
pssa.2211550225.
[12] Rave W, Fabian K, Hubert A. Magnetic states of small cubic particles with uniaxial
anisotropy. J Magn Magn Mater 1998;190:332–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0304-8853(98)00328-X.
[13] Hertel R, Kronmüller H. Computation of the magnetic domain structure in bulk
permalloy. Phys Rev B 1999;60:7366–78. https://doi.org/10.1103/
PhysRevB.60.7366.
[14] Lu M, Leonard PJ. Micromagnetic simulation of thickness variation of Néel cap in
hybrid Bloch-Néel domain wall. Phys B 2005;365:82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.physb.2005.04.040.
[15] Jagla EA. Hysteresis loops of magnetic thin films with perpendicular anisotropy.
Phys Rev B 2005;72:094406. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.094406.
[16] Hertel R, Fruchart O, Cherifi S, Jubert P-O, Heun S, Locatelli A, Kirschner J. Three-
dimensional magnetic-flux-closure patterns in mesoscopic Fe islands. Phys Rev B
2005;72:214409. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.214409.
[17] Cheynis F, Masseboeuf A, Fruchart O, Rougemaille N, Toussaint JC, Belkhou R,
et al. Controlled switching of Néel caps in flux-closure magnetic dots. Phys Rev Lett
2009;102:107201. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.107201.
[18] Dubovik M, Zverev VV, Filipov BN. Two-dimensional micromagnetic simulation of
domain structures in films with combined anisotropy. Phys Sol State 2013;55:
2057–64. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063783413100119.
[19] Navas D, Redondo C, Badini Confalonieri GA, Batallan F, Devishvili A, Iglesias-
Freire Ó, et al. Domain-wall structure in thin films with perpendicular anisotropy:
Magnetic force microscopy and polarized neutron reflectometry study. Phys Rev B
2014;90:054425. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.054425.
19
Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107109
[20] Seul M, Wolfe R. Evolution of disorder in magnetic stripe domains. I. Transverse
instabilities and disclination unbinding in lamellar patterns. Phys Rev A 1992;46:
7519–33. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.46.7519.
[21] Davies JE, Hellwig O, Fullerton EE, Denbeaux G, Kortright JB, Liu K. Magnetization
reversal of Co/Pt multilayers: Microscopic origin of high-field magnetic
irreversibility. Phys Rev B 2004;70:224434. https://doi.org/10.1103/
PhysRevB.70.224434.
[22] Hsieh CT, Liu JQ, Lue JT. Magnetic force microscopy studies of domain walls in
nickel and cobalt films. Appl Surf Sci 2005;252:1899–909. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apsusc.2005.05.041.
[23] de la Figuera J, Vergara L, N’Diaye AT, Quesada A, Schmid AK. Micromagnetism in
(001) magnetite by spin-polarized low-energy electron microscopy.
Ultramicroscopy 2013;130:77–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ultramic.2013.02.020.
[24] Dudzik E, Dhesi SS, Dürr HA, Collins SP, Ropper MD, van der Laan G, et al.
Influence of perpendicular magnetic anisotropy on closure domains studied with X-
ray resonant magnetic scattering. Phys Rev B 2000;62:5779–85. https://doi.org/
10.1103/PhysRevB.62.5779.
[25] Huang WT, Gatel C, Li Z-A, Richter G. Synthesis of magnetic Fe and Co nano-
whiskers and platelets via physical vapor deposition. Mater & Design 2021;208:
109914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109914.
[26] Görnert P, Šimša Z, Šimšova J, Tomáš I, Hergt R, Kub J. Growth and properties of
Y3–uFe5–x–y–zCozTiyGazO12 LPE films. Phys Stat Sol (a) 1986;95:613–9. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pssa.2210950231.
[27] Teodorescu CM. Spin asymmetry originating from densities of states: Criterion for
ferromagnetism, structures and magnetic properties of 3d metals from crystal field
based DOSs. Res Phys 2021;25:104241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rinp.2021.104241.
[28] Cabria I, Prida VM. Magnetostatic dipolar anisotropy energy and anisotropy
constants in arrays of ferromagnetic nanowires as a function of their radius and
interwall distance. J Phys Commun 2020;4:035015. https://doi.org/10.1088/
2399-6528/ab8179.