Magnetic Force Microscopy-2 - Cópia

P1: SAT/tah/spd P2: KKK/vks QC: KKK/arun T1: KKK
May 18, 1999 15:45 Annual Reviews AR086-03
Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 1999. 29:53–87

Copyright °c 1999 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
Access provided by b-on: INL - International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory on 07/19/16. For personal use only.
MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY

U. Hartmann
Institute of Experimental Physics, University of Saarbrücken, P.O. Box 151150,
Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 1999.29:53-87. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
D-66041 Saarbrücken, Germany; e-mail: u.hartmann@rz.uni-sb.de
KEY WORDS: magnetic domains, magnetic domain walls, magnetic materials, magnetic
recording components
ABSTRACT
This review on magnetic force microscopy does not provide an exhaustive over-
view of the past accomplishments of the method but rather discusses the present
state of the art. Magnetic force microscopy is a special mode of noncontact op-
eration of the scanning force microscope. This mode is realized by employing
suitable probes and utilizing their specific dynamic properties. The particular
material composition of the probes and the dynamic mode of their operation
are discussed in detail. The interpretation of images acquired by magnetic force
microscopy requires some basic knowledge about the specific near-field mag-
netostatic interaction between probe and sample. The general magnetostatics as
well as convenient simplifications of the general theory, which often can be used
in practice, are summarized. Applications of magnetic force microscopy in the
magnetic recording industry and in the fundamental research on magnetic mate-
rials are discussed in terms of representative examples. An important aspect for
any kind of microscopy is the ultimately achievable spatial resolution and inher-
ent restrictions in the application of the method. Both aspects are considered, and
resulting prospects for future methodical improvements are given.
INTRODUCTION
Magnetic force microscopy (MFM) is a straightforward special mode of opera-
tion of the noncontact scanning force microscope. Shortly after the invention of
the atomic force microscope it was recognized that detection of magnetostatic
interactions at a local scale was possible by equipping the force microscope
with a ferromagnetic probe, which then could be raster-scanned across any
ferromagnetic sample. The near-field magnetostatic interaction for a typical
probe-sample configuration turns out to be fairly strong and largely independent
53
0084-6600/99/0801-0053$08.00
54 HARTMANN
of surface contamination. Consequently, MFM is quite easy to perform and

applicable under various environmental conditions, in most cases even without
any special sample preparation.
MFM is an important analytical tool whenever the near-surface stray-field
variation of a magnetic sample is of interest. This is certainly the case for
the development and application of magnetic recording components. It is thus

not surprising that MFM was first demonstrated on a microfabricated magnetic
recording head (1). A big breakthrough occurred when it was demonstrated
that even individual interdomain boundaries (2) and in some cases part of their
internal fine structure (3) could be analyzed at high-spatial resolution. This
resolution is comparable to that so far only obtained by electron microscope-

based instrumentation.
At the beginning of the 1990s MFM started to become a widely used method
in magnetic materials research and in the development of magnetic devices. The
recording industry became an important field of industrial application (4), and
the number of reported MFM results in basic research, especially on magnetic
thin film arrangements, soon became vast (5). The era of method development
in the field of MFM changed more and more toward an era of various dedi-
cated applications of a standard scanning probe method. However, this does
not imply that there have been no method breakthroughs during the past few
years. One recent breakthrough is certainly the demonstration that MFM can be
used to image flux lines in low- and high-Tc superconductors (6). MFMs have
even extended local detection of magnetic interactions to eddy currents (7) and
magnetic dissipation phenomena (8).
Reviews on past accomplishments can be found in References 5 and 9 and in
the various proceedings of conferences dedicated to scanning probe microscopy
or to magnetic materials research. It is not the main goal of this work to add
another review on past achievements by presenting an exhaustive list of ref-
erences to the vast original literature. Rather, the purpose of the present work
is to analyze the field of MFM by emphasizing the state of the art, the main
applications in basic research and in the magnetic recording industry, and by
looking into the future from a general viewpoint, which is based on more than
ten years of experience with a powerful magnetic imaging method.
FUNDAMENTALS OF NONCONTACT FORCE

MICROSCOPY
The simplest mode of operation of a noncontact scanning force microscope
consists in lifting the cantilever probe up to a certain distance from the sample
surface to measure a long-range interaction in terms of a static force exerted on
MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY 55
the probe. This approach is, however, not preferred in reality, because a far more
sensitive detection can be realized by utilizing the dynamic properties of the
probe. An obvious characteristic describing part of these dynamic properties
is the resonant frequency of the cantilever given by
r
c
ω0 = , 1.
m
with its spring constant c and its effective mass m. In order to vibrate the probe,
the cantilever may be attached to a bimorph piezoelectric plate. Alternatively,
a piezoelectric actuator can be used to excite the sample. In some applications
it is possible to externally modulate the long-range probe-sample interaction,

which also results in cantilever oscillation. The latter possibility is particu-
larly relevant if magnetic interactions are caused by electrical driving currents.
The noncontact mode of operation involving sinusoidal excitation is frequently
called the dynamic or ac mode.
In contrast to the detection of quasistatic forces, the response of the can-
tilever in the dynamic mode is more complex and deserves some discussion.
If the cantilever is excited sinusoidally at its clamped end with a frequency
ω and an amplitude δ0 , the probe tip likewise oscillates sinusoidally with a
certain amplitude δ, exhibiting a phase shift α with respect to the drive signal
applied to the piezoelectric actuator. The deflection sensor of the force micro-
scope monitors the motion of the probe tip provided that its bandwidth is large
enough. The latter requirement clearly favors optical deflection sensors. The
equation of motion describing the output from the cantilever sensor is given
by
∂ 2d ω0 ∂d
+ + ω02 (d − d0 ) = δ0 ω0 cos(ωt), 2.
∂t 2 Q ∂t
where d0 is the probe-sample distance at zero oscillation amplitude and d(t) the
instantaneous probe-sample separation. Q, apart from the intrinsic properties of
the cantilever, which are the lumped effective mass and the resonant frequency,
is determined by the damping factor γ :
mω0
Q= , 3.
2γ
with ω0 from Equation 1. γ introduces the influence of the environmental
medium, which could be ambient air, a liquid, or ultrahigh vacuum (UHV).
Q thus ranges from values below 100 for liquids, air, or other gases at an
appropriate pressure, to more than 100,000 which is sometimes obtained in
56 HARTMANN
UHV. After the usual building-up, Equation 2 leads to the steady-state solution
d(t) = d0 + δ cos(ωt + α) 4.
for the forced oscillator. The amplitude of the probe’s oscillation is given by
δ0 ω02
δ = q¡ ¢2 . 5.
ω2 − ω02 + 4γ 2 ω2
The phase shift between this oscillation and the excitation signal amounts to
2γ ω
α = arctan . 6.
ω2 − ω02
The above simplified formalism is based on the assumption that the oscillation
amplitude δ is sufficiently small in comparison with the length of the cantilever.
Obviously, the results derived so far describe only free cantilever oscillations,
e.g. oscillations at the absence of any probe-sample interaction. This means d0
is still so large that no influence of the sample on the probe’s oscillation can be
detected. If d0 is now decreased such that a force F affects the motion of the
cantilever then a term F/m has to be added to the left-hand side of Equation 2.
In order to consider almost all interactions that could be relevant in MFM, one
has to assume
µ ¶
∂d
F = F d, , 7.
∂t
which, apart from the static interaction, also accounts for dynamic forces. An
example of the dynamic forces is eddy currents (7). Because F covers probe-
sample interactions of various types, in particular spatially nonlinear ones; the
d(t) curves monitored by the deflection sensor and found according to Equation
2 may represent anharmonic oscillations. If, however, F(d ) can be substituted
by a first-order Taylor series approximation for δ0 ¿ d0 , then the force micro-
scope detects the compliance or vertical component of the force gradient ∂ F/∂z.
On the basis of this approximation, the cantilever behaves under the influence
of the probe-sample interaction as if it had a modified spring constant
∂F
cF = c − , 8.
∂z
where c is the intrinsic spring constant entering Equation 1. An attractive
probe-sample interaction with ∂ F/∂z > 0 will effectively soften the cantilever
spring, while a repulsive interaction with ∂ F/∂z < 0 will make it effectively
stiffer. According to Equation 1, the change of the apparent spring constant

will modify the cantilever’s resonant frequency to
r
1 ∂F
ω = ω0 1 − . 9.
c ∂z
Provided that ∂ F/∂z ¿ c, the shift in resonant frequency is given by
1 ∂F
1ω ≈ − . 10.
2c ∂z
According to Equations 5 and 6, a shift in the resonant frequency will result
in a change of the probe’s oscillation amplitude δ and of the phase shift α be-
tween probe oscillation and driving signal. 1ω, δ, and α are experimentally
measurable quantities that can be used to map the lateral variation of ∂ F/∂z.
Phase and amplitude additionally contain information about the damping coef-
ficient γ . Thus a local variation of this quantity can be separated from the local
variation of the compliance by measuring the frequency shift and the change
in amplitude or the phase shift. The simple harmonic solution in Equation 4
evidently shows that the dynamic mode of operation can be based on the em-
ployment of lock-in signal detection methods. The additional use of suitable
feedback mechanisms opens up different variants of operation.
The most commonly used detection method, generally referred to as slope
detection, involves driving the cantilever at a fixed frequency ω slightly off
resonance. According to Equation 9, a change in ∂ F/∂z gives rise to a shift in
the resonant frequency of 1ω and, according to Equation 5, to a corresponding
shift 1δ in the amplitude of the cantilever vibration. 1δ is maximum at that
point of the amplitude-versus-frequency curve where the slope is maximum.
The sensitivity is ultimately determined by thermal noise. Careful analysis (10)
shows that the minimum detectable compliance is given by
µ ¶ s
∂F 1 2kTβ
= , 11.
∂z min δrms ω0 Q
where δrms is the root-mean-square amplitude of the driven cantilever vibration
and β is the measurement bandwidth. High Q values can be obtained by
operation in vacuum, reducing air damping (<10−3 mbar). It might appear
advantageous to maximize sensitivity by obtaining the highest possible Q. With
slope detection, however, increasing the Q restricts the bandwidth of the sys-
tem. If ∂ F/∂z changes during scanning, the vibration amplitude settles to a
new steady-state value after a sufficient length of time given by
2Q
τ= . 12.
ω0
58 HARTMANN
Thus for a high-Q cantilever in vacuum (Q = 50,000) and a typical resonant

frequency of 50 kHz, the maximum available bandwidth would be only 0.5 Hz,
which is unusable for most applications. The dynamic range of the system
would be similarly restricted. Because of these restrictions it is not useful to
try to increase sensitivity by raising the Q to such high values. Moreover, if the
experiments have to be performed in vacuum to prevent sample contamination,

it may not be possible to obtain low enough Q for an acceptable bandwidth
and dynamic range. Therefore, slope detection is unsuitable for most vacuum
applications.
An alternative to slope detection is frequency modulation (FM). In the FM
detection system, a high-Q cantilever vibrating at resonance serves as the

frequency-determining component of an oscillator. Changes in ∂ F/∂z cause
instantaneous changes in the oscillator frequency, which are detected by an FM
demodulator. The cantilever is kept oscillating at its resonant frequency by
utilizing positive feedback. The vibration amplitude is likewise maintained at a
constant level. A variety of methods, including digital frequency counters and
phase-locked loops, can be used to measure the oscillator frequency with very
high precision.
In the case of FM detection, a careful analysis (11) shows that the minimum√
detectable force gradient is given by that of Equation 11 multiplied by 2.
However, in contrast to slope detection, Q and β are absolutely independent in
FM detection. Q depends on only the damping of the cantilever and β is set by
only the characteristics of the FM demodulator. Therefore, the FM detection
method shows the sensitivity to be greatly increased by using a very high Q
without sacrificing bandwidth or dynamic range.
BASICS OF MAGNETIC CONTRAST FORMATION

If the probe and sample in a scanning force microscope exhibit a magnetostatic
coupling, the major requirement to perform MFM is fulfilled. The manifes-
tation of magnetostatic interactions is obvious if a sharp ferromagnetic tip
is brought into close proximity with the surface of a ferromagnetic sample.
Raster-scanning of the tip across the surface then allows the detection of spatial
variations of the probe-sample magnetic interaction. The long-range magneto-
static coupling is not directly determined by the mesoscopic probe geometry,
as for other near-field methods, but rather by the internal magnetic structure of
the ferromagnetic probe. As shown in the following, this greatly complicates
matters and requires a detailed discussion of contrast formation.
For simplicity’s sake, it is easiest to consider the probe as a needle consisting
of bulk material. A sharp ferromagnetic needle naturally exhibits considerable
magnetic shape anisotropy, which forces the magnetization vector field near the
probe’s apex to predominantly align with the axis of symmetry of the probe.
On the other hand, sufficiently far away from the apex region, where the probe’s
cross-sectional area is almost constant, the more or less complex natural domain
structure obtained in a ferromagnetic wire is established. This domain struc-
ture depends on the detailed material properties represented by the exchange,

magnetocrystalline anisotropy, and magnetostriction energies. Lattice defects,
stresses, and the surface topology exhibit an additional influence on the do-
main structure. Because of this complicated situation, it is necessary to de-
velop reasonably simplified magnetic models to describe the experimentally
observed features of magnetostatic probe-sample interaction as accurately as

possible.
Since it is generally hopelessly complicated to derive the actual magnetiza-
tion vector field of the aforementioned type of probe from first principles, it
is reasonable to apply the following model (12). The unknown magnetization
vector field near the probe’s apex, with all its surface and volume charges, is
modeled by a homogeneously magnetized prolate spheroid of suitable dimen-
sion, while the magnetic response of the probe outside this fictitious domain
is completely neglected. The second assumption is that the dimensions and
the magnitude of the homogeneous magnetization of the ellipsoidal domain are
both completely rigid, i.e. independent of external stray fields produced by the
sample. In this way the micromagnetic problem is simplified to a magnetostatic
one.
The model allows interpretation of almost all experimental results obtained
by MFM on the basis of bulk probes. Moreover, the concept of assuming a
single prolate spheroidal domain that is magnetically effective for bulk fer-
romagnetic probes approaches reality surprisingly well (12). Using this pseu-
dodomain model, the problem is now to determine the probe’s magnetic prop-
erties and the probe-sample magnetostatic interaction for a given experimental
situation.
The magnetostatic potential created by any ferromagnetic sample is given
by
µZ Z ¶
1 d 2 s0 · Ms (r0 ) ∇ · Ms (r0 )
φs (r) = − d 3 r0 , 13.
4π |r − r0 | |r − r0 |
where Ms (r0 ) is the sample magnetization vector field and s0 an outward nor-
mal vector from the sample surface. The first two-dimensional integral covers
all surface charges created by magnetization components perpendicular to the
bounding surface, whereas the latter three-dimensional integral contains the
60 HARTMANN
volume magnetic charges resulting from interior divergences of the magneti-

zation vector field. The stray field is then given by Hs (r) = −∇φs (r). The
magnetostatic free energy of a microprobe exposed to this stray field is
µZ Z ¶
2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
ψ(r) = µ0 d s · Mp (r )φs (r ) + d r ∇r · [φs (r )Mp (r )] ,
0 14.
where φs (r0 ) is given by Equation 13, and Mp (r0 ) is the magnetization vector
field of the probe. The resulting force is then given by F(r) = −∇ψ(r). This
ansatz is rigorously valid for any probe involving an arbitrary magnetization
field Mp (r). The first integral, taken over the complete surface of the probe,
covers the interaction of the stray field with free surface charges, whereas the
latter volume integral involves the probe’s dipole moment, as well as possible
volume divergences. According to the pseudodomain model, Mp (r) is diver-
gence free, and the latter integral in Equation 14 reduces to the dipole response
exhibited by the probe.
In many cases of contrast interpretation, even further simplification of the
probe’s magnetic behavior yields satisfactory results. The effective monopole
and dipole moments of the probe, resulting from a multipole expansion of
Equation 14, are projected into a fictitious probe of infinitesimal size that is
located an appropriate distance away from the sample surface. The a priori
unknown magnetic moments as well as the effective probe-sample separation
are treated as free parameters to be fitted to the experimental data. This is
known as the point-probe approximation. The force acting on the probe, which
is immersed into the near-surface sample microfield, is given by
F = µ0 (q + m · ∇)H, 15.
which implicitly involves the condition ∇ × H = 0. q and m are the probe’s
effective monopole and dipole moments. However, this force is generally not
directly detected by MFM. Usually the instrument detects the vertical compo-
nent of the cantilever deflection. The detected force component is thus given
by Fd = n · F, where n is the outward unit normal from the cantilever surface.
Well-defined different orientations of the probe with respect to the sample then
allow the successive detection of lateral as well as vertical field components.
When Equation 15 is put into component form, one gets the more illustrative
result
Ã !
X 3 X3
∂ Hk
Fd (r) = µ0 n j q Hj + mk , 16.
j=1 k=1
∂x j
which is the basis for contrast modeling if the MFM is operated in the static
mode. However, the instruments are usually operated in the dynamic mode,
where the probe-sample separation is periodically modulated with an oscillation

amplitude, which is small compared with the average probe-sample distance.
In this case, the compliance component Fd0 (r) = (n · ∇)(n · F(r)), with F(r)
according to Equation 15, is detected. Contrast modeling is then based on
"µ ¶
X 3 X 3
∂q ∂
0
Fd (r) = µ0 ni n j +q H j (r)
i=1 j=1
∂ xi ∂ xi
3 µ ¶ #
X ∂m k ∂ ∂2
+ + mk Hk (r) , 17.
∂ xi ∂ x j ∂ xi ∂ x j
k=1
which involves, apart from monopole and dipole moment components, pseu-
p p
dopotentials φ j = ∂q/∂ x j and pseudocharges qki = ∂m k /∂ xi . ∇q = I could,
of course, also be associated with a pseudocurrent and ∇ · m = V ∇ · M with
a pseudodivergence of the probe magnetization within the volume V. How-
ever, in the context of Equation 17, the component form is emphasized, and
the denotations pseudopotential and pseudocharge are thus preferred. These
pseudocontributions result from the fact that the actual magnetic response of
a real probe of finite size clearly depends on its position with respect to the
sample surface (12). This aspect has often been completely neglected in the
interpretation of MFM results. In the present context the most important con-
sequence is that in dynamic mode MFM, it is not only the second derivatives
of the field components that contribute to the ultimately observed contrast but,
according to Equation 17, also the first derivatives, as well as the field compo-
nents themselves. The number of field derivatives entering Equations 16 and
17 is reduced by ∇ × H(r) = 0, leading to
∂ Hj ∂ Hi ∂ 2 H j ∂ 2 Hi
= , = . 18.
∂ xi ∂ x j ∂ xi2 ∂ xi ∂ x j
The most serious limitation of the point-probe approximation is, of course,

that low-pass filtering of the sample’s stray-field configuration due to the finite
probe size is completely neglected (13). This latter effect can be accounted for
by applying a low-pass filter of type
Z 2π Z 1/2
4
Hx,y,z (ρ, d) → dθ dρ 0 ρ 0 Hx,y,z (ρ + ρ 0 , d), 19.
π12 0 0
where r = (ρ, d) determines that geometric center of the probe, which is at a

height d above the sample surface. ρ0 is a cross-sectional radial vector whose
range is determined by a certain effective probe diameter 1 (12).
62 HARTMANN
STANDARD AND ADVANCED PROBES

AND THEIR MAGNETIC PROPERTIES
In the force microscope the force-sensing spring consists of a miniaturized
cantilever beam clamped at one end, with the probe tip mounted at the other
end. Originally, electrochemically etched metal wires were used as cantilevers.
The increasing demand for cantilevers with integrated sharp tips, manufactured
reproducibly and available in large numbers led to the development of micro-
fabrication techniques based on the machining of Si-related materials. Today,
a variety of cantilevers with different geometries, mainly finger- and V-shaped,
and with pyramidal or conical tips, are commercially available. In order to

sensitively measure forces, it is, according to Hooke’s law, desirable to have a
low spring constant. However, this is contradicted by three aspects: First, the
spring constant should be maximum in order to achieve a maximum resonant
frequency, and thus minimum vibrational sensitivity and maximum scan rate
of the instrument. Second, the ultimate sensitivity of the force measurement is
restricted by thermal excitation of the cantilever. A minimum rms displacement
amplitude due to thermal excitation requires a maximum force constant. Third,
if the cantilever is subject to long-range attractive forces, which for MFM ap-
plications is frequently the case, its position becomes unstable if the magnitude
of the force gradient equals the cantilever’s spring constant. Thus a certain
minimum spring constant is needed in order for the cantilever to approach the
sample sufficiently closely without a jump to contact. Today, commercial can-
tilevers have a typical spring constant in the range of 10−2 N/m ≤ c ≤ 102 N/m,
typical resonant frequencies in the range of 10 kHz ≤ ω0 ≤ 500 kHz, a radius
of curvature of the probe tip as low as 10 nm, and are usually fabricated of Si,
SiO2 or Si3N4.
MFM requires ferromagnetic probes that interact with the near-surface stray
field of the sample. In order to equip microfabricated cantilevers with some
magnetic sensitivity, they have to be coated with magnetic thin films. This is
usually done by thermal evaporation or sputter deposition of suitable ferromag-
netic metals or metal compounds. In practice, the sputter deposition of standard
compounds used on magnetic hard disks as recording media has proven suit-
able for many standard applications of MFM. In order to ensure a predominant
orientation of the probe’s magnetic vector field along the major probe axis, the
thin film is usually magnetized in an electromagnet after deposition.
Unfortunately, the detailed magnetic configuration of the thin film probes is
in most cases unknown. Although the general theory of contrast formation still
holds, it is not possible to perform a real modeling of contrast formation from
first principles for an unknown domain configuration of the magnetic probe.
In particular, it is not possible to simply attribute some well-defined monopole

and dipole moments to the probe because the complicated distribution of the
inner and outer magnetic charges of the probe is not known. As a consequence,
it is generally not possible to perform MFM in a quantitative way, e.g. in the
sense that a stray field is detected in absolute units. Furthermore, even a qualita-
tive interpretation of a magnetic contrast obtained by MFM requires minimum

knowledge about the probe’s magnetization. The most detailed information
about the probe could of course be obtained from a magnetic analysis of the
probe based on a spatial resolution, which is comparable with or even exceed-
ing that of MFM. Such resolution makes electron-beam methods promising.
For instance, electron holography offers the possibility to obtain some quan-
titative information about the magnetic stray field produced by MFM probes
(14). Figure 1 gives two examples of electron holograms acquired near the apex
of probes of different geometries and magnetic coatings, respectively. The in-
formation is displayed as a set of lines, where two successive black or white
ones enclose a magnetic flux quantum h/e. It is obvious that the total magnetic
flux generated by the probes can be obtained quantitatively from the holograms.
Furthermore, by comparing the experimental holograms with modeled ones it is
possible to obtain some information about the local stray-field variation close
to the probe’s apex and thus ultimately about local variations in the probe’s
magnetization (14, 15).
The spatial resolution obtained by MFM is clearly related to both the mag-
netized part of the probe, which is actually exposed to the sample stray field,
and to the probe-sample distance. Thus in order to improve lateral resolution,
it is necessary to decrease the magnetically sensitive part of the probe to the
smallest possible size and to operate the probe at close proximity to the sample
surface. This can be realized if the effective volume of the probe is restricted
to a very small particle of magnetic material located at the probe apex. The
fabrication of such a probe is schematically depicted in Figure 2. A standard
cantilever is coated from the front with a 50–100-nm thick magnetic film of a
suitable material (Figure 2a–c). At this point, a conventional thin film MFM
probe is achieved. In the next step the cantilever is transferred into a scanning
electron microscope and the electron beam is focused onto the tip apex for a
duration of 10–15 min. Due to cracking of residual hydrocarbons by the elec-
tron beam, a tiny carbon tip is deposited right at the apex of the cantilever’s tip
(Figure 2d ). In a further processing step, the carbon tip is used as an etch mask
during Ar+ iron milling of the cantilever’s front side. The etching time and
the ion flux are adjusted such that the exposed magnetic material is completely
removed from the cantilever while the carbon tip is not completely etched away
(Figure 2e). This prevents the magnetic coating underneath the cap from being
64 HARTMANN
Figure 1 Electron holograms of thin film MFM probes. The scale of the images is 2.35 × 1.5 µm.
(a) Equiphase lines for a conical probe covered by a 30-nm thick Co film; (b) a corresponding result
for a pyramidal tip covered by a 16-nm thick CoCrPt film (sample preparation, Univ. Saarbrücken;
holograms, G Matteucci, Univ. Bologna).

Figure 2 Scheme for the electron-beam-

assisted fabrication of magnetic supertips.
(a,b) A standard cantilever with integrated
pyramidal tip. In the first step tip and can-
tilever are completely covered with a mag-
netic thin film, as shown in (c). A focused
electron beam is used to grow a tiny carbon
whisker on top of the probe’s apex, as shown
in (d ). Subsequent Ar+ ion-etching removes
the magnetic thin film except underneath the
carbon cap, which serves as an etch mask (e).
attacked. The result of the whole procedure is a cantilever that exposes a tiny
magnetic particle at the probe’s apex rather than the complete magnetic coating
(16). Scanning electron microscope images of such a cantilever are displayed
in Figure 3. The carbon tip visible there has a diameter of approximately 50 nm
and a length of 100 nm.
The advanced magnetic probes have the potential to produce a much im-
proved lateral resolution in comparison with conventional MFM probes.
66 HARTMANN
Figure 3 SEM micrographs showing the characteristic dimensions of electron-beam–deposited

supertips: (a) shows a standard cantilever with integrated pyramidal tip; (b) visualizes the supertip
in comparison with the original tip of the cantilever; (c) shows the arrangement prior to Ar+
ion-etching. The bright surface contour corresponds to the magnetic thin film.
Figure 4 shows results acquired in the dynamic mode of MFM operation with
conventional CoCrPt thin film probes and with the advanced probes consisting
of the same magnetic coating. A standard longitudinal recording medium with
two tracks of bit patterns (periodicities 1 and 2 µm, respectively) was used as
a test sample. From both the appearance of the MFM images and the detailed
cross-sectional profiles, it is obvious that the advanced probes produce a much
improved lateral resolution. Not only the bit transition zones but also the grainy
structure of the recording medium are visible in great detail.
Electron-beam–produced magnetic supertips represent the state of the art.
The ultimately obtainable lateral resolution depends on the dimensions of the

Figure 4 MFM images taken on standard hard disk recording tracks of 1 and 2 µm periodicity.
Image (a) was recorded with a standard MFM probe, (b) was obtained with a magnetic supertip,
and (c) and (d ) represent experimental cross-sectional profiles along the 2 µm track. Panels (e) and
( f ) represent results of model calculations that account for the varying sharpness of the probes. It
is obvious that the supertips produce a much better lateral resolution, which permits resolution of
the grainy structure of the recording medium.
residual magnetic particle at the probe’s apex. A physical lower limit for its
dimensions arises because an ultra-small particle becomes superparamagnetic.
Technical limitations result from the resolution of the lithographic process and
from the signal-to-noise ratio that clearly drops for decreasing magnetic dimen-
sions of the probe.
ANALYSIS OF MAGNETIC RECORDING

COMPONENTS
The magnetic recording industry is the most important for industrial application
of MFM. Most notably, analytical requirements resulting from the tendency to
68 HARTMANN
continuously increase the areal bit density of recording devices have made MFM
the industry’s most powerful method. Technical breakthroughs such as the em-
ployment of giant magnetoresistance (GMR) reading heads in hard disk drives
or the use of blue lasers in magneto-optical recording dramatically decrease
the size needed to store one bit of information. Chraracteristic dimensions are
already far below 1 µm.
The employment of MFM to analyze media used for longitudinal magnetic

recording has obvious advantages. MFM detects that quantity, namely the
magnetic stray field produced by the magnetized medium, which is of ma-
jor importance for the recording process. Figure 5 shows that the detailed
shape of the magnetization transitions resulting from the pole-piece geometry

of the writing head can be obtained at fairly high spatial resolution. In particu-
lar, no sample preparation is necessary, and the nonmagnetic surface-protection
coating does not affect the magnetic contrast by any means. Figure 6 shows
analogous data for high-density digital audio tapes.
Figure 5 Standard MFM image of recorded tracks on a hard disk. With MFM it is possible to
analyze the sharpness of the transitions and the characteristic track profile, which are the result of
the pole-piece geometry of the writing head. The image size is 12 × 12 µm.

Figure 6 MFM image of written tracks on a digital audio tape (DAT). The image size is 120 ×
120 µm. Even for the relatively high areal bit densities achieved, standard MFM is capable of
visualizing the most important characteristics of the recorded pattern.
Other investigations in which MFM is a useful tool include disk-failure anal-

ysis, in particular, the destructive results of head-on-crashes, which can be
investigated in great detail. Dedicated investigations also concern the read-
ing part of the recording head. In order to detect local variations in the sen-
sitivity of anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) or GMR heads, the stray
field of the MFM probe itself is used to produce a resistance change in the
read head. While the probe is raster-scanned across the sensitive area of the
head, the global resistance change is monitored as a function of the probe
position. The procedure allows precise optimization of the measuring cur-
rent through the head and its polarity. In general, systematic shortcomings
occurring during head production can be detected with minimal quality control
measurements.
70 HARTMANN
The techniques used to characterize longitudinal recording media MFM can

also be used to analyze magneto-optical media and corresponding read/write
processes. At present there is a strong tendency in the recording industry to
replace costly read/write quality-control experiments, usually performed on
completely assembled disk drive systems, with selected MFM experiments in
an early stage of the production process.
MICROMAGNETIC INVESTIGATIONS
Macroscopic magnetic phenomena, usually detected by magnetometers, have
their origin in the actual topology of the involved magnetic domains and its
modification under the influence of an externally applied magnetic field. The
domains are subdivided by interdomain boundaries of a certain finite width. In
most cases this width ranges between 1 and 100 nm. For in-plane magnetized
samples, the interdomain boundaries are the only sources of the magnetic stray
field that could be externally detected by MFM, provided that the sample does
not contain inner and surface defects that usually also produce stray-field varia-
tions. In the vicinity of the interdomain boundaries, the interplay of the material-
dependent energy contributions usually causes interior divergences of the mag-
netization vector field. Additionally, surface magnetic charges can be pro-
duced at the intersection between interdomain boundaries and sample surfaces.
In turn, if the domain magnetization has a considerable component oriented
perpendicular to the sample surface, extended surface charges determine the
exterior stray field of the sample. Numerous methods have been developed for
the analysis of magnetic microstructures (17). The advantages of MFM are that
magnetic microstructures can be imaged at fairly high lateral resolution with
a minimum amount of preparation and a maximum variety of environmental
conditions.
Samples with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy produce extended surface
charges that correspond to the upward and downward pointing domain mag-
netization. In this case, the near-surface stray field of the sample is directly
related to the domain topology, as shown for the example of a 500-nm thick
Tb30 Fe62Co8 film in Figure 7.
Although interdomain boundaries produce a much less extended stray field
due to their small size compared with that within domains, it is nevertheless
possible to image their topology in a routine way with state-of-the-art instru-
ments. Figure 8 shows the example of an intersection of two 90◦ Bloch-type
walls with a 180◦ Bloch wall in an Fe bulk single crystal. Apart from the over-
all wall topology, even fine structures of the walls become apparent owing to
distinct differences in their stray fields. These fine structures have their origin
in the underlying global flux-closure behavior. Another interesting example

Figure 7 A 5 × 5 µm MFM image of the natural domain arrangement in a Tb30 Fe62Co8 film with
perpendicular magnetic anisotropy. The 500-nm thick film was deposited on a glass substrate and
coated with a 100-nm thick Si3N4 film for surface protection. The surface coating does not affect
the MFM measurement but restricts the probe-sample separation.
for an internal Bloch wall structure is the subdivision of 180◦ walls into tilted
segments of opposite magnetization rotation. For a wall in an Fe bulk crystal
(Figure 9), the opposite chirality of the successive segments can be imaged by
MFM through the alternating positive and negative surface charges.
Numerous important applications of magnetic materials depend on device
configurations involving lithographically structured magnetic thin films. In
this field the main task is to image the domain topology at a particularly
small scale given by the dimensions of the respective thin film elements. An
example of such an application is given in Figure 10. Arrays of polycrys-
talline Permalloy dots deposited on Si/SiO2 substrates were prepared by X-ray
lithography. The diameter of the dots is 1 µm and the thickness 50 nm. The
nearest-neighbor distance (Figure 10a) is 1 µm and is decreased to 100 nm
72 HARTMANN
Figure 8 Flux-closure domain pattern observed on an Fe single crystal. The 20 × 20 µm MFM

image shows the intersection of two 90◦ Bloch walls with one 180◦ wall. Distinct differences in
the stray field of the three walls are clearly visible.
(Figure 10b). The respective MFM images show that the dots obviously exhibit
a heterogeneous magnetic structure. However, that structure is totally disor-
dered for the larger interdot separation (Figure 10a), whereas for the smaller
lattice constant (Figure 10b), a magnetic superlattice is clearly visible (18). The
MFM analysis clarifies the manifestation of the interdot magnetostatic coupling
and the resulting domain closure configuration.
In general, the inverse problem of deducing a concrete arrangement of inner
and surface magnetic charges from the overall stray field they produce is not
solvable. MFM can, however, be used to compare the experimentally detected
stray-field variation of a micromagnetic object with that obtained from certain
model calculations. Thus it is frequently possible to at least classify the mag-
netic object under investigation. One such example is the analysis of different

Figure 9 A 20 × 20 µm MFM image of a subdivided 180◦ Bloch wall in an Fe single crystal.

Adjacent and mutually tilted wall segments exhibit different wall chirality.
types of interdomain boundaries, as shown in Figure 11. Fe thin films with

varying film thicknesses have been produced under ultrahigh vacuum (UHV)
conditions. Subsequently, in situ MFM images have been taken from selected
interdomain boundaries. Figure 11a shows an image of a domain boundary in
a 10-nm thick film. The experimentally recorded and the micromagnetically
modeled cross-sectional profiles are displayed in Figure 11b,c. The model
calculations have been performed on the basis of a 90◦ Néel wall (19). The
appearance of a 90◦ Bloch-type wall in an 80-nm thick Fe film is shown in
Figure 11d–f. Both wall types can clearly be distinguished by MFM, and their
identification in conjunction with micromagnetic modeling is straightforward.
Another phenomenon causing only very tiny stray-field variations is the mag-
netic ripple structure, which has its origin in wavy deviations from the major
magnetization orientation in the domains (17). The ripple structure is generally
74 HARTMANN
Figure 10 Arrays of 50-nm thick Permalloy dots of 1 µm diameter. The nearest-neighbor spacing
is 1 µm in (a) and 100 nm in (b). Although the domain walls within the dots are randomly oriented
for the larger dot spacing (a), all walls are aligned for the smaller one in (b).

Figure 11 MFM results and model calculations for domain boundaries in Fe films for two film
thicknesses. The experimental results have been obtained under UHV conditions. Comparison
between experimental and theoretical results clearly confirms that a 90◦ Néel wall is present for
the 10-nm film, whereas a 90◦ Bloch wall is present for the 80-nm film.
accessible only to transmission electron Lorentz microscopy (17). Figure 12

shows an MFM image of a ripple pattern close to a 90◦ Néel wall in a 10-nm
thick Fe film observed under UHV conditions. The wavy magnetization pat-
tern, which can be deduced from the MFM image, is schematically shown in
the lower part of the image (20).
Because MFM is sensitive only to the amount and polarity of near-surface
stray fields produced by ferromagnetic samples rather than to the magnetization
76 HARTMANN
Figure 12 MFM image displaying the ripple structure in a 10-nm thick Fe film close to a 90◦ Néel-
type boundary observed under UHV conditions. The deduced wavy alignment of the magnetization
is indicated in the bottom of the image.
itself, it is not always straightforward to deduce the overall domain topology

from an MFM image. Such a deduction requires a very detailed interpretation
of the experimental data (19). Figure 13 shows the complex domain pattern
observed under UHV conditions on a 10 nm-thick Fe film. The experimental
result shown in Figure 13a is composed of several small-scale MFM images
carefully matched to each other. The overview thus involves extremely high
spatial resolution and allows for zooming in at any location. From a careful

Figure 13 Complex domain arrangement in a 10-nm thick Fe film observed by MFM under UHV
conditions: (a) shows the experimental result, which is composed of numerous high-resolution
images; the deduced magnetization orientations are shown in (b); (c) shows the modeled wall
contrast, which is constructed from the magnetic charge of the individual walls.
78 HARTMANN
analysis of locally appearing ripple patterns and stray-field variations caused

by morphological defects in the film, as well as from the Néel wall contrast,
it is possible to deduce the domain configuration shown in Figure 13b. Given
this domain configuration, modeling of the magnetic charge of the individual
interdomain boundaries allows one to reconstruct the MFM contrast, as shown
in Figure 13c.
OBSERVATION OF MAGNETIZATION REVERSAL

PROCESSES
Raster-scanning a sample in order to obtain an MFM image is a very slow

process compared with the time scale on which processes occur during mag-
netization reversal. Dynamic processes that involve the motion of domain
boundaries can be observed only stroboscopically or by quasistatic analysis.
Thus a Barkhausen jump, for example, cannot be monitored directly but rather
by observing respective wall positions prior and subsequent to the jump if
the external field driving the jump is varied sufficiently slowly or maintained
for a sufficient period at a given level. Actually, the latter strategy turns out
to be capable of providing useful information regarding microscopic details
of magnetization reversal processes. A technical problem in monitoring these
processes by MFM is that the microscope head or part of it has to be exposed
to an external magnetic field of sufficient strength. Commercial instruments,
especially, are frequently not very well suited for this purpose because they
contain a variety of ferromagnetic components. Furthermore, a general prob-
lem is that the magnetic probe itself is also subjected to the external field. This
may cause an unwanted response of the cantilever to the varying external field,
which is superimposed on the probe-induced excitation. However, if the whole
setup is carefully optimized (Figure 14), it is possible to observe quasistatic
magnetization reversal processes by MFM at high spatial resolution. The ex-
ample shows part of the magnetization cycle of a 4.5-nm thick YSmBiGaFe
garnet film with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy. The distinct variation of
the domain topology with varying external field can be clearly deduced. Trac-
ing the whole magnetization cycle, MFM hysteresis loops can be obtained at a
local scale.
Magnetization reversal processes in technical materials are frequently deter-
mined by pinning of domain walls at structural defects. The MFM observation
of such a pinning event is shown in Figure 15. The circle in the center of the
image marks a pronounced defect in a Co/Pt multilayer film of perpendicular
anisotropy. Upon expanding or shrinking domains in the vicinity of this defect
under the influence of a varying external field, the strongly hysteretic behavior
becomes obvious from the MFM images.
P1: SAT/tah/spd
May 18, 1999
15:45
P2: KKK/vks
QC: KKK/arun
Annual Reviews
T1: KKK
AR086-03
MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY

79
Figure 14 A sequence of 100 × 100 -µm MFM images taken on YSmBiGaFe garnet film of 4.5 µm thickness in a varying
external field. The soft magnetic film has perpendicular anisotropy. A complete series of images can be used to obtain a local
hysteresis loop of the sample.
80 HARTMANN
Figure 15 Sequence of MFM images showing the pinning and nucleation of domains at a structural
defect in a 5 × (4 Å Co + 15 Å Pt) multilayer film with perpendicular anisotropy. The image size
is 7 × 7 µm. The structural defect is marked and the sequence starts with the upper left image and
is terminated with the lower right image.
A subtle phenomenon occurring during magnetization reversal processes

is the field-induced modification of the internal structure of interdomain
boundaries. Figure 16 gives the example of a subdivided 180◦ Bloch wall
in a bulk Fe crystal. The upper image has been taken at zero external field,
whereas in the lower image a downward-oriented external field causes the wall
to move to the left. This global wall motion, however, is accompanied by
the local expansion of the upper wall segment downward along the wall di-
rection. It is expected that such internal restructurings of domain boundaries
Figure 16 7.5 × 7.5 µm MFM images showing the internal reconstruction of a subdivided 180◦
Bloch wall in an Fe single crystal upon the application of an in-plane field. The magnetization
component perpendicular to the sample surface in the individual wall segments is indicated. The
external field causes motion of the wall to the left and, at the same time, a downward motion of the
transition between the adjacent wall segments.
82 HARTMANN
and the related motion of Bloch lines can be an important contribution to the
coercivity of certain materials (17). However, microscopic processes at this
scale are not well understood.
LIMITS OF THE METHOD

A most essential question concerning any microscopic method is that of the

achievable spatial resolution. The lateral resolution, which can be obtained by
MFM, cannot simply be quantified in terms of a precisely defined characteristic
length. It is important to keep in mind that MFM is sensitive to the near-surface
variation of the stray field produced by certain magnetic objects. In general,

the magnetic object with all its stray-field sources cannot be reconstructed by
detecting the resulting stray-field variation. In many experiments, however, one
is interested in the magnetic object rather than its stray field. In particular, the
detailed internal structure and even the lateral extent of interdomain boundaries
can a priori not be deduced from MFM images. An example that illustrates this
aspect is shown in Figure 17. The MFM image in Figure 17a shows two domain
walls in a 10-nm thick Fe film observed under UHV conditions. At a certain
location indicated in the image, cross-sectional profiles have been taken while
continuously varying the probe-sample distances between 50 and 250 nm. The
result is shown in Figure 17b,c, where the latter representation (c) displays line
scans at selected probe-sample spacings. The line-scan analysis clearly shows
that upon retracting the probe from the sample surface the stray-field variation
related to the two walls becomes more and more smeared out. This is a natural
consequence of the increasing broadening and decreasing strength of the stray
field when moving away from its source. It is thus obvious that, in principle,
a high resolution can be obtained in operating the probe as close as possible
to the sample surface. However, even in contact with the sample surface, the
lateral extent of the domain wall cannot be determined because the probe has
finite horizontal and vertical dimensions leading to some averaging over the
local stray-field variation.
Unfortunately, there is an aspect that limits the minimum possible probe-
sample separation in many experiments. MFM relies on the magnetostatic
interaction between probe and sample. Interaction means that the probe some-
how acts on the sample and vice versa. The interaction consists in a modified
magnetostatic energy balance with respect to an arrangement where probe and
sample are completely separated. Whether the perturbed energy balance has
an influence on the magnetization of probe or sample depends only on the sig-
nificance of the magnetostatic contributions to the total energy balance. The
latter is, apart from magnetostatic contributions, determined by the exchange
and magnetocrystalline anisotropy energies. For soft magnetic samples, the

Figure 17 UHV MFM data obtained for two adjacent domain boundaries in a 10-nm thick Fe
film: (a) shows the wall topology; (b) represents the cross-sectional variation of the wall stray field
at the indicated position when increasing the probe-sample separation from 50 to 250 nm; (c) dis-
plays some selected cross-sectional profiles at five different values of probe-sample separation.
magnetostatic contribution can become the most important part in determining

the overall domain and wall configurations. In such a situation, magnetostatic
perturbation caused by the MFM probe can have a very destructive influence
on the sample’s domain configuration. Figure 18 shows the example of a
very soft magnetic garnet film with perpendicular anisotropy. Figure 18a–c
shows a sequence of images taken upon successively decreasing the probe-
sample separation. The destructive influence of the probe in terms of domain
84 HARTMANN
Figure 18 A sequence of 25 × 25 µm MFM images obtained on a YSmBiGaFe garnet film of

4.5 µm thickness at probe-sample separations of (a) 910 nm, (b) 520 nm, (c) 390 nm, and (d )
910 nm. It is obvious that the domain configuration of the film with perpendicular anisotropy is
perturbed if the probe-sample separation becomes too small. If, after such a destructive probe-
sample interaction, the probe is retracted to the original working distance, the sample magnetization
has completely changed to a new remanent state. The images have been taken with a standard MFM
probe.
instabilities caused by the scanning process is clearly obvious. If the probe

is again retracted from the sample surface (Figure 18d ), it becomes apparent
that the initial domain configuration has completely changed to a new remanent
state.
Much smaller probe-sample distances are possible with the magnetic su-
pertips, as shown in Figure 3. This is shown again in Figure 19, where an
MFM image of the soft garnet film has been taken by continuously decreasing
the probe-sample separation, starting at the bottom of the image with some
finite value to zero at the top. The probe now permits MFM imaging without

Figure 19 A 25 × 25 µm MFM image obtained with a magnetic supertip on the garnet film
shown in Figure 18. The image has been taken at continuously decreasing probe-sample separation,
starting with 200 nm at the bottom of the image. At the top of the image a mechanical contact
between probe and sample had been obtained. The supertip does not cause any perturbation of the
sample magnetization.
any sample perturbation until mechanical contact between probe and sample is
achieved.
CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

Since its invention, MFM has become a veritable work horse in research on
magnetic materials, device development, and quality control in the magnetic
recording industry. The main strength of the method is to achieve a fairly high
resolution in magnetic imaging without special sample preparation and under
various environmental conditions. The lateral resolution, which can be ob-
tained routinely with probes commonly used today, amounts to below 100 nm
86 HARTMANN
for sufficiently strong field variations. Individual flux quanta have been detected
on superconductors. The spatial resolution is, however, not sufficient to detect
details of the magnetization rotation within interdomain boundaries. On the
basis of adequate model calculations, it is at least possible to distinguish be-
tween different wall types and to deduce other micromagnetic features hardly
accessible to many analysis methods. The stray field produced at a local scale
by MFM probes can be used to induce magnetoresistance on suitable devices.
It can, on the other hand, seriously perturb the magnetization of a sample.
MFM is a well-established method with well-known limitations and short-
comings. For the future it cannot be expected that dramatic breakthroughs will
happen, e.g. in improving the resolution or sensitivity by an order of magnitude

or more. However, special areas of application, such as low-temperature MFM
and/or MFM under UHV conditions, will become further developed and easier
to perform. Even in these exotic fields commercial instruments will be avail-
able. For standard applications under ambient conditions, technical improve-
ments will allow MFM to be used under fairly high externally applied magnetic
fields. An increasing availability of easy-to-use dedicated commercial instru-
ments will ultimately make MFM a widely distributed standard method acces-
sible to anyone involved in the research and technical application of magnetic
phenomena.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author thanks U Memmert and AN Müller (University of Saarbrücken) for
supplying most of the beautiful images. Part of the work presented here has
been supported by the German Research Association (SFB 277).
Visit the Annual Reviews home page at

http://www.AnnualReviews.org
Literature Cited
1. Martin Y, Wickramasinghe HK. 1987. 6. Moser A, Hug HJ, Parashikov I, Stiefel B,

Appl. Phys. Lett. 50:1455–57 Fritz O. 1995. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74:1847–
2. Göddenhenrich T, Hartmann U, Anders 50
M, Heiden C. 1988. J. Microsc. 152:527– 7. Hoffmann B, Houbertz R, Hartmann U.
36 1998. Appl. Phys. A 66:S409–13
3. Göddenhenrich T, Lemke H, Hartmann U, 8. Lin Y, Grütter P. 1998. J. Appl. Phys.
Heiden C. 1990. Appl. Phys. Lett. 56:2578– 83:7333–38
80 9. Wadas A. 1997. In Handbook of Mi-
4. Rugar D, Mamin HJ, Guethner P, Lambert croscopy. Methods II, ed. S Amelinckx, D
SE, Stern JE, et al. 1990. J. Appl. Phys. van Dyck, J van Landhuyt, G van Tendeloo.
68:1169–83 pp. 845–53. Weinheim: VCH
5. Grütter P, Mamin HJ, Rugar D. 1992. In 10. Dürig U, Gimzewski JK, Pohl DW, Schlit-
Scanning Tunneling Microscopy II, ed. R ter R. 1986. IBM Res. Rep. RZ1513
Wiesendanger, HJ Güntherodt, pp. 151– 11. Albrech TR, Grütter P, Horne D, Rugar D.
207. Heidelberg: Springer 1990. IBM Res. Rep. RJ7681
12. Hartmann U. 1994. Adv. Electr. Electron 17. Hubert A, Schäfer R. 1998. Magnetic Do-
Phys. 87:49–200 mains. Heidelberg: Springer
13. Schönenberger C, Alvarado SF. 1990. 18. Mathieu C, Hartmann C, Bauer M, Buett-
Phys. B 80:373–78 ner O, Riedling S, et al. 1997. Appl. Phys.
14. Matteucci G, Muccini M, Hartmann U. Lett. 70:2912–14
1993. Appl. Phys. Lett. 62:1839–41 19. Memmert U, Leinenbach P, Lösch J, Hart-
15. Matteucci G, Maccini M, Hartmann U. mann U. 1998. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 190:
1994. Phys. Rev. B 50:6823–27 124–29
16. Leinenbach P, Memmert U, Schelten J, 20. Leinenbach P, Lösch J, Memmert U, Hart-

Hartmann U. 1999. Appl. Surf. Sci. In press mann U. 1998. Appl. Phys. A 66:S1191–94
Annual Review of Materials Science
Volume 29, 1999
CONTENTS
What Next for Departments of Materials Science and Engineering? M. C.
1
Flemings
Modern Resonant X-Ray Studies of Alloys: Local Order and
25
Displacements, G. E. Ice, C. J. Sparks
Magnetic Force Microscopy, U. Hartmann 53
Skutterudites: A Phonon-Glass-Electron-Crystal Approach to Advanced
Thermoelectric Materials Research, G. S. Nolas, D. T. Morelli, Terry M. 89
Tritt
Scanning SQUID Microscopy, John R. Kirtley, John P. Wikswo Jr. 117
COMBINATORIAL MATERIALS SYNTHESIS AND SCREENING:
An Integrated Materials Chip Approach to Discovery and Optimization of 149
Functional Materials, X.-D. Xiang
Surface Roughening of Heteroepitaxial Thin Films, Huajian Gao,

173
William D. Nix
Nanocrystalline Diamond Films, Dieter M. Gruen 211
Heat Conduction in Novel Electronic Films, Kenneth E. Goodson, Y.
261
Sungtaek Ju
Applications of Ultrasound to Materials Chemistry, Kenneth S. Suslick,
295
Gareth J. Price
Electrophoretic Deposition of Materials, Omer O. Van der Biest, Luc J.
327
Vandeperre
Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy of Molecular Surfaces, Masamichi
353
Fujihira
Spin-Tunneling in Ferromagnetic Junctions, Jagadeesh S. Moodera,
381
Joaquim Nassar, George Mathon
Characterization of Organic Thin Film Materials with Near-Field
Scanning Optical Microscopy (NSOM), P. F. Barbara, D. M. Adams, D. 433
B. O'Connor
Two-Dimensional Dopant Profiling by Scanning Capacitance Microscopy,
471
C. C. Williams
Scanning Thermal Microscopy, A. Majumdar 505

Magnetic Force Microscopy-2 - Cópia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Magnetic Force Microscopy-2 - Cópia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P1: SAT/tah/spd P2: KKK/vks QC: KKK/arun T1: KKK

May 18, 1999 15:45 Annual Reviews AR086-03

Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 1999. 29:53–87

MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY

D-66041 Saarbrücken, Germany; e-mail: u.hartmann@rz.uni-sb.de

of surface contamination. Consequently, MFM is quite easy to perform and

the development and application of magnetic recording components. It is thus

resolution is comparable to that so far only obtained by electron microscope-

FUNDAMENTALS OF NONCONTACT FORCE

MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY 55

it is possible to externally modulate the long-range probe-sample interaction,

MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY 57

stiffer. According to Equation 1, the change of the apparent spring constant

Thus for a high-Q cantilever in vacuum (Q = 50,000) and a typical resonant

experiments have to be performed in vacuum to prevent sample contamination,

detection system, a high-Q cantilever vibrating at resonance serves as the

BASICS OF MAGNETIC CONTRAST FORMATION

MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY 59

ture depends on the detailed material properties represented by the exchange,

observed features of magnetostatic probe-sample interaction as accurately as

volume magnetic charges resulting from interior divergences of the magneti-

MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY 61

where the probe-sample separation is periodically modulated with an oscillation

The most serious limitation of the point-probe approximation is, of course,

where r = (ρ, d) determines that geometric center of the probe, which is at a

STANDARD AND ADVANCED PROBES

and with pyramidal or conical tips, are commercially available. In order to

MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY 63

In particular, it is not possible to simply attribute some well-defined monopole

tive interpretation of a magnetic contrast obtained by MFM requires minimum

MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY 65

Figure 2 Scheme for the electron-beam-

Figure 3 SEM micrographs showing the characteristic dimensions of electron-beam–deposited

MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY 67

ANALYSIS OF MAGNETIC RECORDING

The employment of MFM to analyze media used for longitudinal magnetic

shape of the magnetization transitions resulting from the pole-piece geometry

MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY 69

Other investigations in which MFM is a useful tool include disk-failure anal-

The techniques used to characterize longitudinal recording media MFM can

an early stage of the production process.

MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY 71

Figure 8 Flux-closure domain pattern observed on an Fe single crystal. The 20 × 20 µm MFM

MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY 73

Figure 9 A 20 × 20 µm MFM image of a subdivided 180◦ Bloch wall in an Fe single crystal.

types of interdomain boundaries, as shown in Figure 11. Fe thin films with

MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY 75

accessible only to transmission electron Lorentz microscopy (17). Figure 12

itself, it is not always straightforward to deduce the overall domain topology

MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY 77

analysis of locally appearing ripple patterns and stray-field variations caused

OBSERVATION OF MAGNETIZATION REVERSAL

Raster-scanning a sample in order to obtain an MFM image is a very slow

MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY

A subtle phenomenon occurring during magnetization reversal processes

LIMITS OF THE METHOD

A most essential question concerning any microscopic method is that of the

variation of the stray field produced by certain magnetic objects. In general,

MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY 83

magnetostatic contribution can become the most important part in determining

Figure 18 A sequence of 25 × 25 µm MFM images obtained on a YSmBiGaFe garnet film of

instabilities caused by the scanning process is clearly obvious. If the probe

MAGNETIC FORCE MICROSCOPY 85