
anisotropy is ‘‘saturated,’’ it may be concluded that
for pressures larger than 12 mbar the true interface
anisotropy still increases with pressure. Apparently,
this effect dominates the expected reduction of inter-
face anisotropy owing to the presence of (200) grains.
Note that the interface roughness is (at least) around
the thickness of the platinum layer, i.e., 8 A
˚
. There-
fore, the interface anisotropy should also be corrected
for the effective platinum coverage, which would give
an even larger value. The interface roughness may
also explain the apparent decrease of magneto-elastic
anisotropy for larger t
CoNi
. Owing to the large inter-
face roughness and thin platinum layer, the growth of
the Co
50
Ni
50
layer may be inhomogeneous. There-
fore, also strain effects may be inhomogeneous in the
Co
50
Ni
50
layer. Quantification of these effects is very
difficult. The interface structure as a function of
deposition pressure has been further characterized
(Kirilyuk et al. 1998) with magnetization-induced
second harmonic generation (MSHG). In general the
magnitudes of K
v
and K
s
depend on the degree of
(111) f.c.c. texture of the multilayer. This texture is
promoted by using platinum seed layers between the
multilayer and the substrate. The explanation of the
origin of the perpendicular anisotropy in this type of
multilayer is still a matter of debate, although in-
depth discussions have been published (Chappert and
Bruno 1988, Draaisma et al. 1987).
3.3 Coercivity, Nucleation, and Saturation Field
In the case of our multilayers, where the magnetiza-
tion is reversed by domain wall motion, the origin of
coercivity is presumably the imperfection of the lay-
ers (Honda et al. 1991, Suzuki et al. 1992). Magnet-
ically inhomogeneous regions act as pinning centers
for the domain walls and thereby hamper their move-
ment through the layer. Suzuki et al. (1992) estimated
the size of these pinning sites for Co/Pt multilayers
with high coercivity and squareness by measurement
of H
c
, K
u
, and M
s
as function of temperature (T ¼
5–400 K). Using the temperature-dependent data in a
simple model, Kronmu
¨
ller et al. (1986) found a pin-
ning site diameter of 4 A
˚
for a sample with well-
defined [111] orientation and good interfacial sharp-
ness (determined by low- and high-angle XRD) while
this diameter increased to 16 A
˚
and 31 A
˚
for less per-
fect structures. As the magnetic polarization of plat-
inum decays quickly with the distance from the
interface, the pinning sites must be located in and
nearby the cobalt layers. Therefore, the values of 4 A
˚
and 16 A
˚
are not surprising. The 31 A
˚
diameter pin-
ning site estimate might be due to inhomogeneity in
the film plane, in addition to the variation along the
film normal (Suzuki et al. (1992). When the nuclea-
tion field, H
N
, is large it can hide both coercivity, H
C
,
and saturation field, H
S
(Zeper et al. 1991). On the
left-hand side of Fig. 10 the nucleation can be clearly
seen as large shoulders occur. At the shoulders the
nucleation energy delays the creation of reversed do-
mains. At field H
N
a steep transition occurs as here
the field is high (low) enough to create the first do-
mains, which immediately stripe out to achieve the
energy balance between applied field, part of the layer
that is reversed, and the corresponding demagnetiz-
ing field. The dotted lines illustrate that first H
C
and
then H
S
will be increased when the nucleation field
becomes larger. When the perpendicular anisotropy
is high, and the layer is very thin, the hysteresis loop
is almost rectangular, as shown on the right-hand
side of Fig. 10. Here the coercivity is about the same
as the nucleation field. A small tail is found just be-
fore H
S
and therefore it is assumed that H
S
is not
‘‘hidden’’ in this case.
For MO recording, where most of the disk is mag-
netized in one direction, H
N
(not H
C
) has to be larger
than the writing field. The rectangular ratio r ¼H
N
/
H
C
should be as close to unity as possible, while H
C
should be large. The small pinning sites that are re-
sponsible for the coercivity are generated during the
sputtering process. Extensive literature about practi-
cal rules of thumb to control coercivity is available
for Co/Pt multilayers. Initial experiments produced
layers with too low a coercivity (300–500 Oe or
25–40 kA m
1
), but several ways have been found to
enhance coercivity such as by tailoring the argon
pressure during deposition, growing the right seed
layer, optimizing the multilayer thickness, etc. As
mentioned above, the multilayers should have a per-
pendicular anisotropy, which means an easy axis of
magnetization perpendicular to the film surface. The
perpendicular anisotropy only occurs if the cobalt or
CoNi layers are very thin (Carcia 1988, Carcia et al.
1985a, Draaisma et al. 1987, Meng 1996, Van Drent
1995).
Figure 11 shows the Kerr rotation hysteresis loops
of one series of Co/Pt multilayers with varying cobalt
layer thickness, t
Co
, from 2 A
˚
to 12 A
˚
. The platinum
layer thickness and number of bilayers are kept con-
stant, i.e., t
Pt
¼7A
˚
and N ¼9. As shown in the loops,
the magnetic properties of Co/Pt multilayers are very
Figure 10
Kerr hysteresis loops of two multilayer samples. Left:
sputtered Co/Pt multilayer with clear nucleation field,
H
N
, coercivity, H
C
, and saturation field, H
S
. The dotted
lines illustrate how H
C
and H
S
can be hidden when the
nucleation field is higher. Right: sputtered Co
50
Ni
50
/Pt
multilayer with unity squareness, where H
C
is hidden.
787
Magneto-optic Multilayers