Cell writing selection when using precessional switching in a magnetic random access memory

Journal of Applied Physics

Volumn 95, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 1933-1941

  Devolder, T ^a   Chappert, C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS SACLAY   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HEURISTIC METHODS; INTEGRATION; MAGNETIC ANISOTROPY; MAGNETIC FIELD EFFECTS; MAGNETIC RECORDING; MAGNETIZATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; OPTIMIZATION; VECTORS;

CELL WRITING; INTERCELL DIPOLAR COUPLING; LANDAU LIFSCHITZ EQUATION; MAGNETIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY; MAGNETIZATION VECTOR; PRECESSIONAL SWITCHING;

RANDOM ACCESS STORAGE;

EID: 1542349047     PISSN: 00218979     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.1641145     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. M. Durlam, P.-J. Naji, A. Omair, M. DeHerrera, J. Calder, J. M. Slaughter, B. N. Engel, N. D. Rizzo, G. Grynkewich, B. Butcher, C. Tracy, K. Smith, K. W. Kyler, J. J. Ren, J. A. Molla, W. A. Feil, R. G. Williams, and S. Tehrani, IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 38, 769 (2003).
2. Announcement of 128-Kbit prototype MRAM by the IBM-Infineon alliance at the Symposium on VLSI Technology, Kyoto, 10 June, 2003.
3. Announcement of 256-Kbit MRAM product by Cypress. See, for instance, http://www.cypress.com/cfuploads/img/products/CY9C62256.pdf
4. J. Miltat, G. Abuquerque, and A. Thiaville, in Spin Dynamics in Confined Magnetic Structures, edited by B. Hillebrands and K. Ounadjela (Springer, Berlin, 2001), Vol. I.
5. Th. Gerrits, H. A. M. Van Den Berg, J. Hohlfeld, L. Bär, and Th. Rasing, Nature (London) 418, 6897 (2002).
6. S. Kaka and S. E. Russek, Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 2958 (2002).
7. H. W. Schumacher, C. Chappert, R. C. Sousa, P. P. Freitas, and J. Miltat, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 017204 (2003)
8. H. W. Schumacher, C. Chappert, P. Crozat, R. C. Sousa, P. P. Freitas, J. Miltat, J. Fassbender, and B. Hillebrands, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 017201 (2003).
9. C. H. Back, R. Allenspach, W. Weber, S. S. P. Parkin, D. Weller, E. L. Garwin, and H. C. Siegmann, Science 285, 864 (1999).
10. L. He and W. D. Doyle, J. Appl. Phys. 79, 6489 (1996).
11. E. C. Stoner and E. P. Wohlfarth, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 240, 599 (1948).
12. J. Fassbender, in Spin Dynamics in Confined Magnetic Structures, edited by B. Hillebrands and K. Ounadjela (Springer, Berlin, 2003), Vol. II
13. Phys. Rev. B 61, 3410 (2000).
14. G. M. B. Albuquerque, Ph.D. thesis, Orsay, July 2002: available at http://www.lps.u-psud.fr/Collectif/gr_25/Publications.htm
15. W. K. Hiebert, L. Lagae, and J. De Boeck, Phys. Rev. B 68, 020402(R) (2003).
16. Y. Nozaki and K. Matsuyama, J. Appl. Phys. 93, 7295 (2003).
17. R. P. Cowburn, J. Appl. Phys. 93, 9310 (2003).
18. T. Devolder and C. Chappert, Solid State Commun. 129, 97 (2004)
19. Eur. Phys. J. B 36, 57 (2003).
20. L. Landau, and E. Lifchitz, Phys. Z. Sowjetunion 8, 153 (1935)
21. T. L. Gilbert, Phys. Rev. 100, 1243 (1955).
22. x < 0 above the dynamical astroïd).
23. ΩΔ.
24. These simplifications will make our model overestimate the size of the addressing window (Fig. 4), and thus underestimate the maximum tolerable dipolar coupling. This is in accordance with the spirit of this section, which is to unravel the basic mechanisms and to give an upper limit of the tolerable intercell dipolar coupling.
25. Cédric Maufront and Richard Fournel, S.T. Microelectronics, Crolles, France (private communication). The factor 3 may be understood from the fact that a dipole generates three times more field at a given distance parallel to its spins that at the same distance in the perpendicular direction.