Journals / Turkish Journal of Physics / 2018 / Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 2

Monte Carlo simulation of dynamic phase transition properties of core-shell magnetic nanoparticles with similar volumes

Pages
210–222
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Our simulation results suggest that the sphericalparticle has almost the same coercivity behavior as the cubic one for some considered system parameters.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:We implement Monte Carlo simulations to determine dynamic phase transition features of both cubical and spherical nanoparticles composed of spin-1/2 cores surrounded by a spin-1 shell layer.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The particles are subjected toan oscillating magnetic field.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Our simulation results suggest that the sphericalparticle has almost the same coercivity behavior as the cubic one for some considered system parameters.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

We implement Monte Carlo simulations to determine dynamic phase transition features of both cubical and spherical nanoparticles composed of spin-1/2 cores surrounded by a spin-1 shell layer. The particles are subjected toan oscillating magnetic field. We plan these particles such that they have similar volumes. It is observed that the nonequilibrium magnetic phase transition temperatures of the particles with similar volumes explicitly depend on theirgeometrical shapes as well as the system parameters. The cubic one has a higher transition temperature than the spherical one for the small interface coupling, whereas the transition temperature of the spherical particle becomes higher thanthat of the cubic one with further increment in antiferromagnetic coupling. We also analyze the magnetic features of the particles, such as dynamic remanence and coercivity treatments. Our simulation results suggest that the sphericalparticle has almost the same coercivity behavior as the cubic one for some considered system parameters. However, there are some differences in the context of remanence behaviors between spherical and cubic core-shell nanoparticles.

🔖

Cite This Article

VATANSEVER, E. (2022). Monte Carlo simulation of dynamic phase transition properties of core-shell magnetic nanoparticles with similar volumes. Turkish Journal of Physics, Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 2, 210–222. https://ajindex.com/articles/613985

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (26)

  1. Ruhrig, M.; Khamsehpour, K. J.; Kirk, J. N.; Chapman, P.; Aitchison, M.; McVitie, S.; Wilkinsons, C. D. W. IEEE T. Magn. 1996, 32, 4452-4457
  2. Schrefl, T.; Fidler, J.; Kirk, K. J.; Chapman, J. N. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 1997, 175, 193-204
  3. Fan, Z.; Lu, J. G. International Journal of High Speed Electronics and Systems 2006, 16, 883-896
  4. Su, Y. C.; Skomski, R.; Sorge, K. D.; Sellmyer, D. J. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2004, 84, 1525-1527
  5. Margeat, O.; Tran, M.; Spasova, M.; Farle, M. Phys. Rev. B 2007, 75, 134610
  6. Puntes, V.; Krishnan, K.; Alivisatos, A. Science 2001, 291, 2115-2117
  7. Park, J.; An, K.; Hwang, Y.; Park, J. G.; Noh, H. J.; Kim, Y. J.; Park, J. H.; Hwang, N. M.; Hyeon, T. Nat. Mater. 2004, 3, 891-895
  8. Niu, X.; Stagon, S. P.; Huang, H.; Baldwin, J. K.; Misra, A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2013, 110, 136102
  9. Cozzoli, P.; Snoeck, E.; Garcia, M.; Giannini, C.; Guagliardi, A.; Cervellino, A.; Gozzo, F.; Hernando, A.; Achterhold, K.; Ciobanu, N. et al. Nano Lett. 2006, 6, 1966-1972
  10. Roca, A.; Morales, M.; O’Grady, K.; Serna, C. Nanotechnology 2006, 17, 2783-2788
  11. Berkowitz, A. E.; Kodama, R. H.; Makhlouf, S. A.; Parker, F. T.; Spada, F. E.; McNiff, E. J. Jr.; Foner, S. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 1999, 196, 591-594
  12. Pankhurst, Q. A.; Connolly, J.; Jones, S. K.; Dobson, J. J. Phys. D 2003, 36, R167-R181
  13. Rivas, J.; Bonobre-Lopez, M.; Pineiro-Redondo, Y.; Rivas, B.; Lopez-Quintela, M. A. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2012, 324, 3499-3502
  14. Ivanov, Y. P.; Alfadhel, A.; Alnassar, M.; Perez, J. E.; Vazquez, M.; Chuvilin, A.; Kosel, J. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 24189
  15. Bader, S. D. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2006, 78, 1
  16. Kittel, C. Phys. Rev. 1946, 70, 965-971
  17. Chudnovsky, E. M.; Gunther, L. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1988, 60, 661-664
  18. Kneller, E. F.; Luborsky, F. E. J. Appl. Phys. 1963, 34, 656-658
  19. Nogues, J.; Sort, J.; Langlais, V.; Skumryev, V.; Surinach, S.; Munoz, J. S.; Baro, M. D. Phys. Rep. 2005, 422, 65-117
  20. Iglesias, O.; Labarta, A.; Batlle, X. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2008, 8, 2761-2780
  21. Leite, V. S.; Figueiredo, W. Physica A 2005, 350, 379-392
  22. Leite, V. S.; Figueiredo, W. Phys. Lett. A 2008, 372, 898-903
  23. Kaneyoshi, T. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2009, 321, 3430-3435
  24. Kaneyoshi, T. Phys. Stat. Sol. B 2005, 242, 2938-2948
  25. Wang, C. D.; Lu, Z. Z.; Yuan, W. X.; Kwok, S. Y.; Teng, B. H. Phys. Lett. A 2011, 375, 3405-3409
  26. Keskin, M.; Sarli, N.; Deviren, B. Sol. Stat. Commun. 2011, 151, 1025-1030. [2