RAPID COMMUNICATIONS
PRB 61
FINITE-SIZE EFFECTS IN NICKEL NANOWIRE ARRAYS
R6465
3
D Heisenberg model (ϭ1.4) and the 3D Ising model (
2
7,28
ϭ1.58),
however both models assume nearest neighbor
interactions whereas nickel is a ferromagnet that exhibits
longer range interactions. Spin-wave studies of Ni indicate
that the magnetic interactions extend beyond the fourth
neighbors.30 For the same reason the critical exponent  for
the magnetization of Ni is 0.4, much larger than 0.36 for a
3
D Heisenberg system with nearest-neighbor interactions.31
It may be noted that Eq. ͑1͒, from which Eq. ͑3͒ is de-
rived, is valid for T close to T (ϱ), i.e., in the critical region
C
where T (d) is close to T (ϱ) for systems with relatively
C
C
large d. Thus for the relatively large diameters of the nickel
nanowires, as required by the scaling law, the extrapolated
correlation length carries a larger uncertainty. However,
0
the extrapolated correlation length ϭ22 Å is close to the
0
6
value of 20 Å reported for polycrystalline nickel thin films,
although it is somewhat larger than the values of 4–10 Å
obtained for epitaxial single-crystal nickel films.4
,5
Finally, we comment on the possible effects on T due to
strain. Large strains are known to exist in thin films, how-
C
FIG. 4. ͑a͒ Curie temperature T (d) of nickel nanowire arrays
vs wire diameter d. ͑b͒ The log-log plot showing the reduced tem-
C
ever, the effects on T from mismatch in lattice and thermal
C
perature ͓T (ϱ)ϪT (d)͔/T (ϱ) normalized to the Curie tempera-
C
C
C
expansion are rarely incorporated. This is because of the dif-
ficulty in quantifying strain and the lack of simple relation
ture for bulk Ni ͓T (ϱ)ϭ631 K͔ vs wire diameter. The solid line
C
in ͑b͒ corresponds to ϭ0.94 and ϭ22 Å.
0
between strain and the resultant T . In thin films, the prob-
C
lem is further compounded by the variation of strain with
film thickness. As a result, practically all finite-size scaling
studies in thin films, including all the results mentioned
above, neglect any effects due to strain. In the nanowire ge-
ometry, as long as the volume fraction of nickel is constant
and sufficiently small that all of the strain occurs in the nano-
wires, the lateral strain is expected to be independent of wire
diameter. Thus, an upper limit for such an effect is 4 K,
ture will be constrained by the wire diameter d, resulting in a
reduced Curie temperature defined by
0
T ͑d͒ϭT ͑ϱ͒
ͫ
1Ϫͩ ͪ
ͬ
͑2͒
͑3͒
C
C
d
or
T ͑ϱ͒ϪT ͑d͒
0
C
C
corresponding to the shift in T for the largest wire diameter
C
ϭ
ͩ ͪ
,
T ͑ϱ͒
C
d
of 500 nm. However, as can be seen from Figure 4͑b͒, since
all the data, including that of dϭ500 nm, follow the finite-
size scaling relation, the actual contribution due to strain is
likely to be negligible.
In summary, we have measured the reduction of Curie
temperature of Ni nanowires as a function of the nanowire
diameter from 30 nm to 500 nm. The mica templates in
which nickel nanowires are imbedded enable such measure-
ments for nanowires. The TC reduction follows a finite-size
scaling relationship.
where T (d) is the Curie temperature for nanowires with
diameter d, and ϭ1/ is the shift exponent.
C
Due to the relatively large diameters, the nanowires are
2
6
expected to behave as a constrained 3D system ͓Eq. ͑3͔͒,
without the complexity of 3D to 1D crossover.29 Figure 4͑b͒
shows a log-log plot of the reduced temperature ͓T (ϱ)
C
ϪT (d)͔/T (ϱ) versus wire diameter d, illustrating that the
C
C
measured values for T (d) follow the finite-size scaling re-
C
lation of ͓Eq. ͑3͔͒. From this figure we obtain ϭ0.94 and an
extrapolated value of ϭ22 Å. The observed exponent of
This work was supported by NSF Grant No. DMR-96-
32526.
0
ϭ0.94 is lower than the theoretical values predicted by the
1
7
Y. Li and K. Baberschke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1208 ͑1992͒.
C. A. Ballentine, R. L. Fink, J. Araya-Pochet, and J. L. Erskine,
Phys. Rev. B 41, 2631 ͑1990͒.
N. C. Koon, B. T. Jonker, F. A. Volkening, J. J. Krebs, and G. A.
Prinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2463 ͑1987͒.
H. J. Elmers, J. Hauschild, H. Hoche, U. Gradmann, H. Bethge,
D. Heuer, and U. Kohler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 898 ͑1994͒.
C. M. Schneider, P. Bressler, P. Schuster, J. Kirschner, J. J. de
Miguel, and R. Miranda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1059 ͑1990͒.
M. Farle and K. Baberschke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 511 ͑1987͒.
M. Farle, K. Baberschke, U. Stetter, A. Aspelmeier, and F. Ger-
hardter, Phys. Rev. B 47, 11 571 ͑1993͒.
E. D. Tober, F. J. Palomares, R. X. Ynzunza, R. Denecke, J.
Morais, Z. Wang, G. Bino, J. Liesegang, Z. Hussain, and C. S.
2
3
4
5
6
8
J. R. Childress, C. L. Chien, and A. F. Jankowski, Phys. Rev. B
9
4
5, 2855 ͑1992͒.
R. Bergholz and V. Gradmann, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 45, 389
1984͒.
1
0
͑
11
F. Huang, G. J. Mankey, M. T. Kief, and R. F. Willis, J. Appl.
Phys. 73, 6760 ͑1993͒.
H. Lutz, J. D. Gunton, H. J. K. Schurmann, J. E. Crow, and T.
Mihalisin, Solid State Commun. 14, 1075 ͑1974͒.
12