Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-02T09:38:16.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Magnetism in 4d Transition Metal–Ag(001) Sandwiches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Dennis P. Clougherty ,
M. E. Mchenry  and
J. M. Maclaren
Dennis P. Clougherty
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
M. E. Mchenry
Affiliation:
Department of Metallurgical Engineering and Materials Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
J. M. Maclaren
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70018
Get access

Abstract

Using ab-initio spin-polarized layer Korringa-Kohn-Rostoker (LKKR) band structure calculations, we investigated the possibility of having a stable ferromagnetic ground state in 4d transition metal (TM)–Ag(001) sandwiches (TM = Tc, Ru, Rh, and Pd). In contrast to recent calculations performed on systems with TM overlayers on Ag (001), we find that the TM sandwich configuration gives a paramagnetic ground state. While excellent agreement in general is obtained for the layer-projected densities of states (LDOS), the sandwich configuration lowers the densities of states at the Fermi energy (EF) in the case of Rh and Ru by a small amount which seemingly prevents the marginal ferromagnetic instability predicted by Eriksson et. al. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1350 (1991)) from occurring.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 231: Symposium S – Magnetic Surfaces, Thin Films and Multilayers , 1991 , 203
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Eriksson, O., Albers, R.C., and Boring, A.M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1350 (1991).Google Scholar
2. Zhu, M.J., Bylander, D.M., and Kleinman, L., Phys. Rev. B 42, 2874 (1990).Google Scholar
3. MacLaren, J.M., Crampin, S., Vvedensky, D.D., and Pendry, J.B., Phys. Rev. B 40, 12164 (1989).Google Scholar
4. Koelling, D.D. and Harmon, B.N., J. Phys. C 10, 3107 (1977).Google Scholar
5. MacLaren, J. M., Clougherty, D. P., and Albers, R. C., Phys. Rev. B 42, 3206 (1990).Google Scholar
6. Vosko, S.H., Wilk, L., and Nusair, M., Can. J. Phys. 58, 1200 (1980).Google Scholar
7. Janak, J.F., Moruzzi, V.L., and Williams, A.R., Phys. Rev. B 12, 1257 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Janak, J.F., Phys. Rev. B 16, 255 (1977).Google Scholar
9. Liu, R.F., Li, Y.S., Quinn, J., Tian, D., Jona, F., and Marcus, P.M., Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 35, 384 (1990).Google Scholar
10. Fink, R.L., Ballentine, C.A., Erskine, J.L., and Araya-Pochet, J.A., Phys. Rev. B 41, 10175 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar