micromachines

Article
Advanced Modeling and Simulation of Multilayer Spin–Transfer
Torque Magnetoresistive Random Access Memory with Interface
Exchange Coupling
Mario Bendra 1,2, * , Roberto Lacerda de Orio 2 , Siegfried Selberherr 2 , Wolfgang Goes 3
and Viktor Sverdlov 1,2, *

1 Christian Doppler Laboratory for Nonvolatile Magnetoresistive Memory and Logic at the Institute for
Microelectronics, TU Wien, Gußhausstraße 27-29/E360, 1040 Vienna, Austria
2 Institute for Microelectronics, TU Wien, Gußhausstraße 27-29/E360, 1040 Vienna, Austria;
orio@iue.tuwien.ac.at (R.L.d.O.); selberherr@tuwien.ac.at (S.S.)
3 Silvaco Europe Ltd., Compass Point, St Ives, Cambridge PE27 5JL, UK; wolfgang.goes@silvaco.com
* Correspondence: bendra@iue.tuwien.ac.at (M.B.); sverdlov@iue.tuwien.ac.at (V.S.)

Abstract: In advancing the study of magnetization dynamics in STT-MRAM devices, we employ the
spin drift–diffusion model to address the back-hopping effect. This issue manifests as unwanted
switching either in the composite free layer or in the reference layer in synthetic antiferromagnets—a
challenge that becomes more pronounced with device miniaturization. Although this miniaturization
aims to enhance memory density, it inadvertently compromises data integrity. Parallel to this
examination, our investigation of the interface exchange coupling within multilayer structures unveils
critical insights into the efficacy and dependability of spintronic devices. We particularly scrutinize
how exchange coupling, mediated by non-magnetic layers, influences the magnetic interplay between
adjacent ferromagnetic layers, thereby affecting their magnetic stability and domain wall movements.
This investigation is crucial for understanding the switching behavior in multi-layered structures. Our
integrated methodology, which uses both charge and spin currents, demonstrates a comprehensive
understanding of MRAM dynamics. It emphasizes the strategic optimization of exchange coupling
to improve the performance of multi-layered spintronic devices. Such enhancements are anticipated
Citation: Bendra, M.; Orio, R.L.d.;
to encourage improvements in data retention and the write/read speeds of memory devices. This
Selberherr, S.; Goes, W.; Sverdlov, V.
research, thus, marks a significant leap forward in the refinement of high-capacity, high-performance
Advanced Modeling and Simulation
memory technologies.
of Multilayer Spin–Transfer Torque
Magnetoresistive Random Access
Keywords: spintronic devices; back-hopping; spin–transfer torques; interlayer exchange coupling;
Memory with Interface Exchange
Coupling. Micromachines 2024, 15, 568.
micromagnetics; MRAM; synthetic antiferromagnetic
https://doi.org/10.3390/mi15050568

Academic Editor: Zhongrui Wang

Received: 28 March 2024 1. Introduction

Revised: 23 April 2024 Spin–transfer torque magnetoresistive random access memory (STT-MRAM) is distin-
Accepted: 24 April 2024 guished by its revolutionary potential in the realm of nonvolatile memory technologies,
Published: 26 April 2024 manifesting its versatility across various domains including computing-in-memory architec-
tures [1], automotive systems [2], real-time industrial environments [3], advanced caching
mechanisms [4], and dense memory configurations [5,6]. This wide-ranging applicability
underscores the adaptive capacity and technological promise of STT-MRAM in meeting
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
diverse and evolving technical demands.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
At the core of an STT-MRAM lies the magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ), character-
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
ized by its intricate multilayer structure. This structure typically includes a CoFeB ref-
conditions of the Creative Commons
erence layer (RL) and a free layer (FL), separated by a MgO tunnel barrier (TB) or a
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
non-magnetic spacer (NMS). These components are instrumental in achieving high-density
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ memory cells through enhanced perpendicular magnetic anisotropy [7,8] and reduced cell
4.0/). diameters [9,10]. Such advancements are pivotal in the miniaturization of memory cells,

Micromachines 2024, 15, 568. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi15050568 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/micromachines

Micromachines 2024, 15, 568 2 of 14

aligning with the trend toward higher density and efficiency in memory technologies. In
particular, the utilization of both interfacial and shape anisotropies within a single ferro-
magnetic structure, exemplified by a thick (Co)FeB layer sandwiched by MgO layers [11],
provides a route to scale beyond 10 nm into the single-digit nm or X nm regime. This
approach not only enhances scalability but also allows for the use of a variety of materials
and stack configurations for the free layer at small dimensions while maintaining a perpen-
dicular easy axis. This flexibility in the material and stack choice helps suppress potential
detrimental effects, such as the formation of domain walls along the vertical direction,
thereby contributing to the overall robustness and functionality of the device.
However, the drive toward cell size reduction and the consequent increase in cur-
rent densities introduces significant reliability challenges, notably the back-hopping phe-
nomenon, which poses a threat to memory stability [12,13]. To counteract these challenges,
there has been a focused shift toward leveraging the interlayer exchange coupling (IEC)
phenomenon, a critical factor in the performance and stability of memory cells, particularly
in the context of complex MTJ stacks aimed at enhancing memory density [14].
In response to the demand for high-density MRAM, researchers have turned to ma-
terials with high-bulk perpendicular magnetic anisotropy to enhance stability and data
retention capabilities. Among the candidate materials, L10 -ordered alloys like FePt and
FePd, known for their high magnetocrystalline anisotropy, have shown promise in sim-
plifying the stacking structure of recording layers compared to traditional CoFeB/MgO
multilayer systems [15].
Furthermore, tetragonal phases D022 -Mn3Ga and D022 -Mn3Ge have recently received
attention as potential materials for the FL in MRAM applications due to their combination
of high magnetocrystalline anisotropy, low magnetic damping, and favorable thermal
stability [16,17]. These attributes make D022 -Mn3Ga especially suitable for spin–orbit
torque MRAM applications, offering pathways to enhance energy efficiency and reduce
the critical current required for switching [16]. Despite these advantages, integrating D022 -
Mn3 Ga into existing MTJ structures poses significant challenges that need to be addressed
to fully capitalize on the material’s potential in future MRAM technologies [18].
IEC, which governs the magnetic alignment between ferromagnetic layers separated
by a non-magnetic spacer, has emerged as a key mechanism in spintronic devices, influ-
encing the overall performance of STT-MRAM. The exploration and optimization of IEC
are essential for advancing the stability and efficiency of MTJ-based memory technolo-
gies, providing a pathway for the development of more reliable higher-capacity memory
solutions [19,20].
Furthermore, the evolution of MTJ technology, particularly within the CoFeB/MgO
system, which is known for its perpendicular magnetic anisotropy, has been characterized
by efforts to enhance interfacial anisotropy. This has been achieved through strategic
modifications, such as adding a capping MgO layer on the CoFeB FL or integrating a MgO
or NMS layer in the FL. These advancements have facilitated the scaling down of MTJs to
sub-10 nm dimensions, contributing to their commercialization at nanoscale diameters by
semiconductor foundries [21,22].
In light of these developments, understanding the magnetization dynamics and the
role of IEC in magnetic materials becomes paramount for the precise design and opti-
mization of STT-MRAM technologies. This knowledge is not only crucial for the accurate
conceptualization of multi-layered MRAM cells, but also for enhancing the data retention
and write/read speeds in memory devices, potentially enabling STT-MRAM to replace
traditional memory systems like SRAM, DRAM, and flash memory in a wide area of appli-
cations, from the buffer memory to IoT/AI, automotive, and space technologies [23,24].

2. Micromagnetics Model
For an accurate representation of multi-layered MRAM cells, it is imperative to pre-
cisely evaluate the spin–transfer torques, which are fundamental to the memory’s function-
Micromachines 2024, 15, 568 3 of 14

ality. Our research introduces a comprehensive modeling methodology that captures the
vital physical phenomena defining the spin–transfer torques.
Figure 1 depicts three schematic illustrations of multi-layered MRAM cells, each
with a unique structural composition, hereby referred to as Stack A, Stack B, and Stack C,
respectively. In Figure 1a, representing Stack A, an ultra-scaled MRAM configuration is
shown, comprising a sequential arrangement of CoFeB and MgO layers, specifically, CoFeB
RL (5 nm) |MgO (0.9 nm) |CoFeB first free layer (FL1 ) (3 nm) |MgO (0.9 nm) |CoFeB second
free layer (FL2 ) (3 nm) and |MgO (0.9 nm) all of which are interconnected to normal metal
(NM) contacts (50 nm). The overall diameter of this configuration is 2.3 nm, highlighting
the intricate layering and miniaturization achieved in this ultra-scaled design.
In Figure 1b, representing Stack B, a composite MRAM cell is depicted, featuring a
layered assembly of a CoPt hard layer (HL), Ru NMS, CoFeB RL, MgO TB, and a CoFeB FL,
with layer thicknesses denoted as HL (5.3 nm) |NMSRu (0.85 nm) |RL (1.1 nm) |TB (0.9 nm)
and |FL (1.4 nm) respectively, linked to NM contacts (50 nm).
Figure 1c, representing Stack C, illustrates a more intricate MRAM structure, incorpo-
rating CoPt in the hard and reference layers, Ru and Ta as NMS, a CoFeB spin–polarization
layer (PL), a MgO TB, and a CoFeB FL, with the sequence specified as HL (5.3 nm)|NMSRu
(0.85 nm)|RL (3.2 nm)|NMSTa (0.4 nm)|PL (1.3 nm)|TB (0.9 nm)|FL (1.4 nm) again conclud-
ing in NM contacts (50 nm). The overall diameter for Stack B and Stack C is 70 nm. The
simulation parameters applied across the various MRAM configurations illustrated in
Figure 1 are comprehensively detailed in Table 1, with appropriate references provided
in [25–28].This range aligns with the experimental values documented in NMS [29,30].
Remarkably, instances of coupling strengths over ±2 mJ/m2 have been recorded [31].

(a) (b) (c)

NM NM

MgO NM FL
FL2 MgO
FL PL
MgO Ta
MgO
FL1 RL RL
Ru Ru
MgO
RL HL HL

NM NM NM

z y

Figure 1. Schematic illustration to provide a clear understanding of multi-layered MRAM cell

structures, each representing a distinct structural configuration, labeled as (a) Stack A, (b) Stack B,
and (c) Stack C. To aid in distinguishing between the different components, color coding is applied.
The regions where interfacial engineering is performed are denoted by black zigzag lines.

Within this framework, the Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert (LLG) Equation (1) is numerically

solved to evaluate the normalized magnetization dynamics. We utilize the finite element
method (FEM) for the numerical solution. The implementation can be accessed as reported
in [32]. This computational procedure is implemented in C++, taking advantage of the
open-source FEM library MFEM [33].

∂m ∂m 1
= −γm × Heff + αm × + T (1)
∂t ∂t MS S
The effective magnetic field, denoted as Heff , is a crucial part of this equation, as
well as a summation of the magnetic anisotropy field, the exchange field, and the demag-
netization field. To compute the demagnetization field across discontinuous magnetic
domains, a hybrid method combining both the boundary element method (BEM) and FEM
Micromachines 2024, 15, 568 4 of 14

is utilized [34]. Such a methodology offers applicability to intricate discontinuous magnetic

topologies, encompassing synthetic antiferromagnets.

Table 1. Simulation Parameters.

LLG Parameters Stack A Stack B Stack C

Saturation magnetization (MS , HL) 0.73 × 106 A/m 0.85 × 106 A/m
Saturation magnetization (MS , RL) 0.81 × 106 A/m 1.1 × 106 A/m 0.8 × 106 A/m
Saturation magnetization (MS , PL) 1.1 × 106 A/m
Saturation magnetization (MS , FL) 0.81 × 106 A/m 1.1 × 106 A/m 1.1 × 106 A/m
Exchange constant (Aexc , HL) 1.0 × 10−11 J/m 1.0 × 10−11 J/m
Exchange constant (Aexc , RL) 2.0 × 10−11 J/m 2.0 × 10−11 J/m 1.0 × 10−11 J/m
Exchange constant (Aexc , PL) 2.0 × 10−11 J/m
Exchange constant (Aexc , FL) 2.0 × 10−11 J/m 2.0 × 10−11 J/m 2.0 × 10−11 J/m
Shape anisotropy (Ku , HL) 7.843 × 105 J/m3 7.843 × 105 J/m3
Shape anisotropy (Ku , RL) 2.593 × 105 J/m3 8.501 × 105 J/m3 8.318 × 105 J/m3
Shape anisotropy (Ku , PL) 9.974 × 105 J/m3
Shape anisotropy (Ku , FL) 4.322 × 105 J/m3 9.261 × 105 J/m3 9.261 × 105 J/m3
Gilbert damping constant (α, HL) 0.02 0.02
Gilbert damping constant (α, RL) 0.02 0.01 0.02
Gilbert damping constant (α, PL) 0.015
Gilbert damping constant (α, FL) 0.015 0.005 0.01
IEC (Jiec , Ru) −1.32 mJ/m2 −1.5 mJ/m2
IEC (Jiec , Ta) 0.8 mJ/m2
Resistance parallel (R P ) 4.1 × 103 kΩ 1.68 kΩ 1.68 kΩ
Resistance parallel (R AP ) 7.5 × 103 kΩ 4.22 kΩ 4.22 kΩ

The respective computational implementation can be accessed as reported in [35].

Parameters are defined as follows: γ stands for the gyromagnetic ratio, µ0 signifies the vac-
uum permeability, α represents the Gilbert damping constant, M denotes the magnetization
vector, which is a function of both the time and spatial position, m is the normalized magne-
tization vector given by m = M/MS , and MS corresponds to the saturation magnetization
value. The first term on the right-hand side of the LLG equation, Equation (1), expresses the
precessional dynamics, wherein the magnetization vector undergoes a precessional motion
around the Heff . The subsequent term characterizes a damping mechanism, which aims to
orient the magnetization in congruence with the Heff . The final term is representative of
the spin–transfer torque contributions.
While simulating switching dynamics in multi-layered MRAM cells, we delve into
the formulation of the spin–transfer torque, denoted as TS and given by Equation (2). This
torque arises when an electric current flows through the MTJ, undergoing polarization by
its magnetic layers and becoming spin-polarized [36,37].

De De
TS = − m × S − 2 m × (m × S) (2)
λ2J λφ

Here, λ J represents the exchange length, λ φ denotes the spin dephasing length, De is
the electron diffusion constant, and S symbolizes the spin accumulation.
To determine the spin accumulation, we utilize a spin and charge drift–diffusion
framework, as detailed in Equation (3) through (5) [38–40]. This approach provides a
precise description of the charge and spin transport processes within nanoscale magnetic
tunnel junctions.
!
S S × m m × (S × m)
De + + = −∇ · JS (3)
λ2s f λ2J λ2φ
Micromachines 2024, 15, 568 5 of 14

 
µB e
JS = − β σ JC ⊗ m + β D De [(∇S)m] ⊗ m − De ∇S (4)
e µB
e
JC = σE − β D De [(∇S)m] (5)
µB
JC defines the flow of electric charge, ⊗ is the outer product, λs f denotes the spin–flip
length, σ represents the electrical conductivity, E stands for the electric field, β D and β σ
are coefficients related to the polarization, e corresponds to the elementary charge of an
electron, µ B is the Bohr magneton, and JS is the spin polarization current density tensor.
Additionally, the adjustment of the charge current density is influenced by the con-
ceptualization of the TB acts as a poor conductor, as indicated by Equation (6). The
resistance of the TB varies based on the relative alignment between the adjacent layer’s
magnetization [39].
σP + σAP
σ(θ ) = (1 + ( PRL PFL ) cos θ ) (6)
2
(σP + σAP )/2 is the angle-dependent portion of the conductivity, σAP( P) is the conduc-
tivity in the anti-parallel (parallel) state, PRL and PFL are RL and FL in-plane Slonczewski
polarization parameters [41], and θ is the angle between the unit magnetization vectors
mRL(FL) . Computing the tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR) from (6) gives the Julliere ex-
pression [42], as follows:

2PRL PFL
TMR = (7)
1 − PRL PFL
In the conventional FEM applied to the drift–diffusion equations, continuity is enforced
for both the spin current and spin accumulation across all interfaces. To incorporate the
spin current from Equation (4) into this model, we consider a low diffusion coefficient for
the TB, scaled in proportion to its conductivity. We then employ this specific expression as
a boundary condition at both the RL|TB and TB|FL interfaces.

JTB
C = J0 (V )(1 + PRL PFL · cos θ ) (8)

µB JTB
C ·n
JTB
S =− · [ PRL mRL +
e 1 + PRL PFL mRL · mFL (9)
η η
+ PFL mFL + 1/2( PRL PRL − PFL PFL )mRL × mFL ]

Equation (8) describes the relationship between the density of charge current through
the TB, represented as the JTBC interface current, and the RL and FL in-plane Slonczewski
polarization parameters, PRL and PFL , as well as the angle θ between their magnetiza-
tion vectors [43]. This equation states that the charge current density through the TB is
proportional to a voltage-dependent component, J0 (V ). Additionally, the relationship is
modulated by the cosine of the angle between the magnetization of the RL and the FL.
Establishing the correct boundary conditions for the density of the spin current, JTB
S , at
the TB interfaces is of utmost importance. Equation (9) represents the boundary condition
for the spin current density at the TB interfaces and is essential for accurately determining
the spin current and spin accumulation in the ferromagnetic layers [39]. In this context, n
refers to the normal of the interface, while mRL(FL) denotes the magnetization of the RL and
the FL close to the interface. The terms PRL( FL) are the in-plane Slonczewski polarization
η η
parameters [41]. Additionally, PRL and PFL denote the parameters linked with out-of-plane
polarization [38,39].
Utilizing the boundary condition (9), we delve into the interplay of spin and charge
transport and the magnetization in diverse stacks of MTJs and metallic spin valves using
a comprehensive drift–diffusion methodology [38]. This method provides an in-depth
Micromachines 2024, 15, 568 6 of 14

analysis of the spin torques during the switching of complex multi-layered structures. An
accessible computational model [44] is also available to compute spin–transfer torques in
magnetic multi-layered configurations.

Interlayer Exchange Coupling

In the exploration of layered magnetic structures, particularly those comprising multi-
ple magnetic layers separated by NMS or TB layers, the phenomenon of IEC emerges as a
pivotal factor. This magnetic interaction, pivotal in determining the magnetic orientations
within such structures, is profoundly influenced by the thickness and material composi-
tion of the intervening layers. The oscillatory behavior and rapid decay of the IEC with
increasing spacer thickness in metallic spacers are theoretically grounded in the Ruderman–
Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) theory, as detailed in [45]. This theory explains the indirect
interaction between localized electrons in d- or f -orbitals mediated by conduction electrons.
Conversely, in semiconducting spacers, the exchange coupling phenomena are ex-
plained by theories encompassing variable-range hopping and resonant tunneling, which
are facilitated through localized electronic states within the barrier’s band gap. In the
context of insulating spacers, the observed IEC, characterized by significant strengths and a
lack of oscillatory behavior, is attributed to spin-dependent tunneling mechanisms [46,47].
The formulation of the free-energy density coming from IEC, as proposed by
Bruno [48], is defined as follows:

E = − J1 cos(∆ϕ) − J2 cos2 (∆ϕ) (10)

∆ϕ signifies the angle between the magnetization of adjacent magnetic layers, and
J1 and J2 represent coefficients characterizing the nature and magnitude of the coupling.
The term J1 , causing an oscillatory dependence on the spacer thickness of the RKKY
interaction [49,50], determines whether the coupling is ferromagnetic (FM) or antiferro-
magnetic (AFM). For TBs such as MgO, a predominantly FM coupling is observed, which
diminishes exponentially with the TB’s thickness, mirroring the decay in the tunneling
electron wave function’s amplitude.
J1 > 0 is of FM coupling, favoring a parallel (P) alignment of the magnetizations
(∆ϕ = 0), whereas J1 < 0 implies AFM coupling, favoring an anti-parallel (AP) alignment
(∆ϕ = π). The term J2 , while often small and, therefore, negligible, encapsulates bi-
quadratic coupling terms that induce non-collinear alignment in the magnetizations [51].
Such terms are typically attributed to non-intrinsic factors, like structural defects or surface
roughness [48]. When the influence of J2 is neglected, the energy expression simplifies,
solely emphasizing the bilinear coupling component:

E = − J1 cos(∆ϕ) (11)
In traditional models, IEC is often simplified as a bias field influencing the magnetic
layers, an approach that facilitates a straightforward representation of its impact on the
magnetization states within the layers [26,52]. However, this model’s limitation lies in its
neglect of the angular variation ∆ϕ between the magnetizations of coupled layers, a factor
that can significantly affect the IEC’s intensity during the switching processes.
To address these issues, the IEC’s boundary condition in the framework of FEM
simulations can be expressed as follows, as well as enter the weak formulation of (1) on the
right-hand side:

Jiec γ Jiec γ
Z Z
mL · wdx + mR · wdx (12)
µ0 MS,L R|spacer µ0 MS,R spacer | L

Jiec represents the coupling’s strength, µ0 represents the vacuum permeability, and
MS,L/R represent the saturation magnetizations of the left/right layers, respectively. This
formulation encapsulates the coupling across the interfaces, incorporating the effects medi-
ated through the NMS or TB layers. The interactions, represented through the normalized
Micromachines 2024, 15, 568 7 of 14

magnetization vectors mL and mR for the left and right layers, are visualized in Figure 2,
showcasing a trilayer structure with the respective magnetizations and the interfacing
angle ∆ϕ.
Ensuring the precision of our simulations, particularly when evaluating the boundary
terms in the MFEM implementation, requires special care. This precision hinges on our
knowledge of the magnetization vectors at the interfaces directly across from the calculation
points. We initiate this process by establishing the coefficients for the boundary integrals,
mirroring the approach used for setting up tunneling charge currents, as detailed in [40]. In
scenarios involving NMS or TB coupled with IEC, our model implementation systematically
evaluates each crucial location, known as the integration point. It assesses the integration
points for the magnetization vectors mL and mR , located on opposing sides of the spacer
or barrier, selecting those that are closest to both the interface and each other.

mR
x
z
mL ∆ϕ
FM FM
NMS/TB
Figure 2. Schematic depiction of a trilayer structure composed of left and right semi-infinite ferromag-
netic (FM) regions, separated by an NMS layer. The interface magnetization on the left FM interface
points in an arbitrary direction, whereas the interface magnetization in the right FM forms an angle
∆ϕ relative to the magnetization of the left FM.

3. Results and Discussion

The following sections report the results of switching simulations performed on the
structures depicted in Figure 1. Due to the capability of computing the torque acting in all
layers with a unified expression, the presented FE solver is suitable for the simulation of
such structures.

3.1. Stack A
The stability of the FL can be enhanced by incorporating additional tunneling layers,
making use of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy at the interfaces with the ferromag-
netic layers. Furthermore, the use of elongated layers with smaller diameters contributes
to stability through shape anisotropy, as depicted in Figure 1a. The reduction of the FL
diameter also improves device scalability.
Figure 3a presents the magnetization trajectories during the transition from P to AP
alignments under a bias of 2 V. The initial magnetization set at m x = 1 represents the
average magnetization direction of both FL1 and FL2 , oriented positively along the x-axis.
The magnetization reversal from P to AP is computed, highlighting the back-hopping
phenomenon. Although typically undesirable in a composite FL, we demonstrated cyclic
switching between four distinct states of the FL using the same current direction. This
finding challenges the traditional binary perspective of the MRAM operation, offering a
new multi-level functionality in ultra-scaled MRAM cells [53].
Micromachines 2024, 15, 568 8 of 14

1.0

(a)
0.5

0.0

−0.5 Jiec = 0.01mJ/m²

Jiec = 0.mJ/m²
−1.0
Magnetization mx
1.0

(b)
0.5

0.0

−0.5 Jiec = −1.32mJ/m²

Jiec = −0.5mJ/m²
−1.0

1.0
(c)
0.5

0.0

−0.5 Jiec/T a = 0.8mJ/m²

Jiec/T a = 0.2mJ/m²
−1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Time [ns]
Figure 3. Magnetization trajectories for P to AP switching, labeled as (a) Stack A, (b) Stack B, and
(c) Stack C.

While our study confirmed that a minor FM coupling of 0.01 mJ/m2 at the MgO TB
effectively suppresses back-hopping between FL1 and FL2 , and is significantly influenced
by the crystalline quality, thickness, and stoichiometry of the MgO layers [54,55], it is
crucial to note that our findings focused specifically on the IEC between these two layers.
The potential for a similar FM coupling between the RL and FL1 , through a MgO layer
of the same thickness as that between FL1 and FL2 , requires separate consideration. The
presence of FM coupling between FL1 and FL2 does not automatically suggest a comparable
interaction between the RL and FL1 .
To further clarify, the mechanisms of exchange coupling through insulating layers such
as MgO can be complex and depend significantly on the properties of the material. Theories
such as variable-range hopping [47] and resonant tunneling through defect-generated
localized electronic states in the gap of the barrier [56] have been developed to explain the
exchange coupling through semiconducting spacers. This coupling through MgO notably
depends on the crystalline quality of the oxide layers. Recent experimental findings,
such as the sequential magnetic switching of Fe layers in interlayer exchange-coupled
Fe/MgO(001) superlattices [57], continue to challenge and expand our understanding of
the fundamental principles governing interlayer exchange coupling. Thus, whether similar
interactions occur between the RL and FL1 would require specific investigation, focusing
on the magnetic properties and structural details of the MgO layers involved.
Micromachines 2024, 15, 568 9 of 14

3.2. Stack B
An alternative approach to enhancing the stability of layered structures involves
incorporating synthetic antiferromagnets (SAFs) into MTJs. The depicted SAF, shown
in Figure 1b, consists of a CoFeB RL, which is AFM coupled to a CoPt HL. The chosen
structure, with its reduced energy barrier due to its small thickness, served as the focus for
our examination of the back-hopping effect, as discussed in Hamid’s work [26].
In Figure 3b, we present the process of magnetization switching from P to AP under a
bias of 2 V. The initial magnetization set at m x = 1 represents the average magnetization
direction of both the RL and the FL, oriented positively along the x-axis. At a coupling
force of −1.32 mJ/m2 , typically indicative of strong AFM coupling due to the simplified
IEC [26], our observations did not align with the expected back-hopping behavior. Instead,
they led to an equilibrium magnetization state of m x = 0, representing an AP configuration
between the RL and the FL. This state represents the mean magnetization of the FL and
the RL. Conversely, a reduced AFM coupling strength of −0.5 mJ/m2 results in partial
back-hopping within the RL, hindered by the emergence of domain walls within both the
FL and RL. This phenomenon occurs as the applied bias is insufficient at entirely inverting
the magnetization.

3.3. Stack C
In this configuration, similar to Stack B, the inclusion of a SAF layer, complemented by
a PL, aims to elevate the spin polarization. Illustrated in Figure 1c, the architecture features
a CoPt RL, which is AFM-linked with a CoPt HL through a Ru NMSRu . Additionally, a
CoFeB PL is connected to the RL via FM coupling through Ta NMSTa . The AFM bond
facilitated by NMSRu exhibits a notable coupling force of −1.5 mJ/m2 , indicative of a
robust AFM connection. Conversely, the initial FM connection through NMSTa , proposed
at 0.8 mJ/m2 by Devolder et al. [27], represents a substantial FM coupling. However,
subsequent works by Devolder et al. [58] and Goff et al. [59] revised this FM coupling
strength to 0.21 mJ/m2 , which is weaker compared to the initial FM coupling estimate.
Figure 3c depicts the transition from P to AP magnetization under a bias of 2 V. The
initial magnetization set at m x = 1 represents the average magnetization direction of
both the PL and FL, oriented positively along the x-axis. With the stronger FM coupling,
back-hopping is absent, suggesting that the coupling is sufficiently robust to prevent
magnetization reversal in the PL. However, with the weaker FM coupling strength as
later proposed, the PL’s alignment with the RL is compromised, allowing for observable
magnetization reversal, with the magnetization state reaching m x = −1.
In Figure 4, we illustrate the spin torque calculation with Equation (4) including the
spin current boundary condition Equation (9), for the scenario transitioning from P to AP
as the magnetization in the FL2 in panel (a), the RL in panel (b), and the PL in panel (c)
undergo reversal due to back-hopping.
Figure 4a shows that the torque configuration acting after the transition from P to
AP is nearly obtained in Stack A. In this phase, FL1 and FL2 are slightly tilted toward the
negative and positive z-axis, respectively. When the applied bias remains constant for
an extended period or is increased, the magnetization in FL2 undergoes a magnetization
reversal. Torques from RL and FL2 stabilize FL1 . The torque contributions from FL1 initiate
the magnetization reversal in FL2 and overcome the interface-induced uniaxial anisotropy
contribution. This initiates the so-called back-hopping effect in FL2 . As displayed in
Figure 3a, even a weak FM coupling between FL1 and FL2 is sufficient to improve the
switching speed, as the magnetization reversal begins more uniformly when FL1 and FL2
are coupled. Moreover, the FM coupling prevents the field-like torque from inverse FL2
magnetization, leading to the higher stability of the structure.
Micromachines 2024, 15, 568 10 of 14

Icurrent
(a) ×1015

]
TS,x

Torque [ m∗s
5.0

A
m TS,z
2.5

0.0

−2.5 RL TB FL1 TB FL2 TB

5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2
×10−8
(b)
×1015
Torque [ m∗s
A
]

5
m

−5
HL NMS RL TB FL
5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
×10−8
(c)
×1016
Torque [ m∗s ]

1
A

−1 HL NMS RL NMS PL TB FL
5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2
z ×10−8
y
Length [m]
x
Figure 4. The computation of spin torque is based on the spin current boundary condition, as
outlined in Equation (9). It is applied to three different configurations: Stack A (illustrated in
panel (a)), Stack B (shown in panel (b)), and Stack C (depicted in panel (c)). These figures demon-
strate the torque patterns as magnetization in FL2 in panel (a), the RL in panel (b), and the PL in
panel (c) approach reversal due to back-hopping. In these diagrams, the direction of magnetization
within the ferromagnetic sections is indicated by black arrows. The graphical representation reveals
that TS,x acts as a field-like component of the spin torque along the central axis of the structure,
whereas TS,z serves as a damping-like component. The notation Icurrent is used to represent the
direction of electron flow.

Figure 4b displays the torques after near completion of the transition from P to AP.
In this setup, the torques from the HL try to keep the magnetization of the RL in the AP
state. In the case of the stronger AFM coupling, the torques and the IEC are sufficient to
prevent the torques from the free layer (FL) from reversing the magnetization in the RL. As
seen in Figure 3b, the weaker AFM coupling is no longer strong enough to prevent the RL
from reversing. As long as the bias is applied, there is a continuous interplay between the
torques from the HL to keep the RL in the AP state, whereas the torques from the FL try to
align it in a P orientation, leading to back-and-forth switching.
Figure 4c displays the configuration before reaching the final position in the transition
from P to AP. A similar behavior as before can be observed where the FL, near complete
magnetization reversal, destabilizing PL and initiating the back-hopping. Depending on
the FM coupling strength between the RL and the PL, the torques are sufficient to overcome
the IEC and reverse the magnetization in the PL.
Micromachines 2024, 15, 568 11 of 14

4. Conclusions
The integration of additional tunneling layers has been shown to significantly enhance
the stability of the FL by leveraging the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy at the interfaces
with ferromagnetic layers. The employment of elongated layers with reduced diameters
further contributes to this stability via shape anisotropy, while concurrently facilitating
device scalability. The investigation of magnetization trajectories under a bias of 2 V not
only explains the back-hopping phenomenon but also unveils the potential for multi-level
functionality in MRAM cells, challenging the conventional binary operational paradigm.
In general, stronger IEC often results in a more robust alignment of magnetic moments
across the layers involved, which in turn can lead to a reduction in back-hopping. Back-
hopping refers to the undesirable reversal of magnetization states in magnetic storage
and sensor devices. When the IEC is strong, the magnetic moments in different layers
are more tightly coupled, making it energetically unfavorable for individual layers to
flip their magnetic orientation independently of the others. This increased energy barrier
can suppress back-hopping by stabilizing the magnetization states that would otherwise
cause these reversals. However, the correlation is not necessarily linear or straightforward.
The effectiveness of IEC in suppressing back-hopping also depends on factors such as
the symmetry and quality of the magnetic and non-magnetic layers, the thickness of the
coupling medium, and the specific magnetic materials used. Variations in the crystalline
structure or defects within the non-magnetic spacer layers can significantly affect the
strength of the IEC strength, the type of coupling (FM or AFM), and, consequently, its
ability to suppress or even induce back-hopping.
The subtle introduction of minor FM coupling between the FLs effectively mitigates
back-hopping, as shown in our studies, with the IEC’s role being critically dependent on the
MgO layer’s properties. The exploration of SAF structures within MTJs introduces a novel
approach toward stability enhancement, although the expected back-hopping phenomena
are not observed under strong AFM coupling, leading to an equilibrium state.
A stack configuration, featuring a SAF layer coupled with a PL, further emphasizes
the importance of coupling strengths in dictating magnetization behavior, with variations
in FM coupling strengths leading to differing magnetization states. The comprehensive
torque analysis across various stacks underscores the intricate balance of forces at play,
with the FL, the RL, and the PL experiencing varying degrees of stability and reversal
tendencies based on the interplay of FM and AFM coupling strengths.
Our work not only contributes to a deeper understanding of the underlying mecha-
nisms governing the stability and dynamics of magnetization in layered structures but also
opens up avenues for the development of advanced MRAM technologies with enhanced
performance and multi-level data storage capabilities.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.B. and V.S.; software, M.B., R.L.d.O. and W.G.; investi-
gation, M.B.; resources, S.S. and W.G.; data curation, M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B.;
writing—review and editing, M.B., R.L.d.O., S.S., W.G. and V.S.; supervision, V.S., S.S. and W.G.;
project administration, V.S.; funding acquisition, V.S. and S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Christian Doppler Research Association, grant number
1558669. The APC was funded by the TU Wien Library through its Open Access Funding Program.
Data Availability Statement: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments: Financial support was provided by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Econ-
omy, the National Foundation for Research, Technology, and Development, the Christian Doppler
Research Association, and the TU Wien Bibliothek for financial support through its Open Access
Funding Program.
Micromachines 2024, 15, 568 12 of 14

Conflicts of Interest: Wolfgang Goes is an employee of Silvaco Europe, Ltd., United Kingdom. The
remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or
financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

STT-MRAM spin–transfer torque magnetoresistive random access memory

MTJ magnetic tunnel junction
SRAM static random-access memory
DRAM dynamic random-access memory
RL reference layer
FL free layer
TB tunnel barrier
NMS non-magnetic spacer
NM normal metal
IEC interlayer exchange coupling
HL hard layer
PL spin–polarization layer
LLG Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert
FEM finite element method
BEM boundary element method
TMR tunnel magnetoresistance
RKKY Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida
FM ferromagnetic
AFM antiferromagnetic
SAF synthetic antiferromagnetic

References
1. Jung, S.; Lee, H.; Myung, S.; Kim, H.; Yoon, S.K.; Kwon, S.-W.; Ju, Y.; Kim, M.; Yi, W.; Han, S.; et al. A Crossbar Array of
Magnetoresistive Memory Devices for In-Memory Computing. Nature 2022, 601, 211–216. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Naik, V.B.; Yamane, K.; Lee, T.; Kwon, J.; Chao, R.; Lim, J.H.; Chung, N.L.; Behin-Aein, B.; Hau, L.Y.; Zeng, D.; et al. JEDEC-
Qualified Highly Reliable 22 nm FD-SOI Embedded MRAM For Low-Power Industrial-Grade, and Extended Performance
Towards Automotive-Grade-1 Applications. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM), San
Francisco, CA, USA, 12–18 December 2020; pp. 11.3.1–11.3.4. [CrossRef]
3. Ikegawa, S.; Nagel, K.; Mancoff, F.B.; Alam, S.M.; Arora, M.; DeHerrera, M.; Lee, H.K.; Mukherjee, S.; Shimon, G.; Sun, J.J.;
et al. High-Speed (400MB/s) and Low-BER STT-MRAM Technology for Industrial Applications. In Proceedings of the IEEE
International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM), San Francisco, CA, USA, 3–7 December 2022; pp. 10.4.1–10.4.4. [CrossRef]
4. Hu, G.; Safranski, C.; Sun, J.Z.; Hashemi, P.; Brown, S.L.; Bruley, J.; Buzi, L.; D’Emic, C.P.; Galligan, E.; Gottwald, M.G.;
et al. Double Spin-Torque Magnetic Tunnel Junction Devices for Last-Level Cache Applications. In Proceedings of the IEEE
International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM), San Francisco, CA, USA, 3–7 December 2022; pp. 10.2.1–10.2.4. [CrossRef]
5. Seo, S.M.; Aikawa, H.; Kim, S.G.; Nagase, T.; Ito, Y.; Ha, T.J.; Yoshino, K.; Jung, B.K.; Oikawa, T.; Jung, K.Y.; et al. First Demonstra-
tion of Full Integration and Characterization of 4F² 1S1M Cells with 45 nm of pitch and 20 nm of MTJ Size. In Proceedings of the
IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM), San Francisco, CA, USA, 3–7 December 2022; pp. 10.1.1–10.1.4. [CrossRef]
6. Gebregiorgis, A.; Wu, L.; Münch, C.; Rao, S.; Tahoori, M.B.; Hamdioui, S. Special Session: STT-MRAMs: Technology, Design
and Test. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 40th VLSI Test Symposium (VTS), San Diego, CA, USA, 25–27 April 2022; pp. 1–10.
[CrossRef]
7. Jinnai, B.; Igarashi, J.; Watanabe, K.; Funatsu, T.; Sato, H.; Fukami, S.; Ohno, H. High-Performance Shape-Anisotropy Magnetic
Tunnel Junctions Down to 2.3 nm. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM), San Francisco, CA,
USA, 12–18 December 2020; pp. 24.6.1–24.6.4. [CrossRef]
8. Nishioka, K.; Honjo, H.; Ikeda, S.; Watanabe, T.; Miura, S.; Inoue, H.; Tanigawa, T.; Noguchi, Y.; Yasuhira, M.; Sato, H.; et al.
Novel Quad Interface MTJ Technology and its First Demonstration with High Thermal Stability and Switching Efficiency for
STT-MRAM Beyond 2Xnm. In Proceedings of the Symposium on VLSI Technology, Kyoto, Japan, 9–14 June 2019; pp. T120–T121.
[CrossRef]
9. Sato, H.; Yamanouchi, M.; Ikeda, S.; Fukami, S.; Matsukura, F.; Ohno, H. MgO/CoFeB/Ta/CoFeB/MgO Recording Structure in
Magnetic Tunnel Junctions With Perpendicular Easy Axis. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2013, 49, 4437–4440. [CrossRef]
10. Igarashi, J.; Jinnai, B.; Watanabe, K.; Shinoda, T.; Funatsu, T.; Sato, H.; Fukami, S.; Ohno, H. Single-Nanometer CoFeB/MgO
Magnetic Tunnel Junctions with High-Retention and High-Speed Capabilities. Npj Spintron. 2024, 2, 211–216. [CrossRef]
Micromachines 2024, 15, 568 13 of 14

11. Watanabe, K.; Jinnai, B.; ukami, S.; Sato, H.; Ohno, H. Shape Anisotropy Revisited in Single-Digit Nanometer Magnetic Tunnel
Junctions. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 663. [CrossRef]
12. Phoomatna, R.; a pai, S.S.; Meo, A.; Chantrell, R.W.; Chureemart, J.; Chureemart, P. Dimensional Scaling Effects on Critical
Current Density and Magnetization Switching in CoFeB-Based Magnetic Tunnel Junction. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 2024, 57, 185002.
[CrossRef]
13. Abert, C.; Sepehri-Amin, H.; Bruckner, F.; Vogler, C.; Hayashi, M.; Suess, D. Back-Hopping in Spin-Transfer-Torque Devices:
Possible Origin and Countermeasures. Phys. Rev. Appl. 2018, 9, 054010. [CrossRef]
14. Ahn, S. Antiferromagnetically Coupled CoFe/MgO/CoFe Stacks. Phys. Scr. 2023, 98, 105948. [CrossRef]
15. Yoshikawa, M.; Kitagawa, E.; Nagase, T.; Daibou, T.; Nagamine, M.; Nishiyama, K.; Kishi, T.; Yoda, H. Tunnel Magnetoresistance
Over 100% in MgO-Based Magnetic Tunnel Junction Films With Perpendicular Magnetic L10 -FePt Electrodes. IEEE Trans. Magn.
2008, 44, 2573–2576. [CrossRef]
16. Zhao, X.P.; Lu, J.; Mao, S.W.; Yu, Z.F.; Wei, D.H.; Zhao, J.H. Spin-Orbit Torque Induced Magnetization Switching in Ferrimagnetic
Heusler Alloy D22 -Mn3 Ga with Large Perpendicular Magnetic Anisotropy. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2019, 115, 142405. [CrossRef]
17. Ren, L.; Liu, L.; Shu, X.; Lin, W.; Yang, P.; Chen, J.; Teo, K.L. Spin Orbit Torque Switching of a High-Quality Perpendicularly
Magnetized Ferrimagnetic Heusler Mn3Ge Film. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13, 18294–18300. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Balluff, J.; Schmalhorst, J.M.; Arenholz, E.; Meinert, M.; Reiss, G. Enhancing magnetic properties in Mn3 Ge thin films by doping.
Phys. Rev. B 2018, 97, 014403. [CrossRef]
19. Chiu, Y.C.; Yang, C.S.; Teng, S.H.; Huang, H.Y.; Chang, F.C.; Wu, Y.; Chien, Y.A.; Hsieh, F.L.; Li, C.Y.; Lin, G.Y.; et al. A 22 nm
4 Mb STT-MRAM Data-Encrypted Near-Memory Computation Macro with a 192 GB/s Read-and-Decryption Bandwidth and
25.1-55.1TOPS/W 8b MAC for AI Operations. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Solid- State Circuits Conference (ISSCC),
San Francisco, CA, USA, 20–26 February 2022; Volume 65, pp. 178–180. [CrossRef]
20. Cai, W.; Wang, M.; Cao, K.; Yang, H.; Peng, S.; Li, H. Stateful Implication Logic Based on Perpendicular Magnetic Tunnel
Junctions. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 2022, 65, 122406. [CrossRef]
21. Shinoda, T.; Igarashi, J.; Jinnai, B.; Fukami, S.; Ohno, H. Pitch Scaling Prospect of Ultra-Small Magnetic Tunnel Junctions
for High-Density STT-MRAM: Effects of Magnetostatic Interference From Neighboring Bits. IEEE Electron Device Lett. 2024,
45, 184–187. [CrossRef]
22. Naganuma, H. Spintronics Memory Using Magnetic Tunnel Junction for X nm-Generation. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 2023, 62, SG0811.
[CrossRef]
23. Kumar Yadav, M.; Kumar, R.; Kumar Ratnesh, R.; Singh, J.; Chandra, R.; Kumar, A.; Vishnoi, V.; Singh, G.; Kumar Singh,
A. Revolutionizing Technology with Spintronics: Devices and Their Transformative Applications. Mater. Sci. Eng. B 2024,
303, 117293. : 10.1016/j.mseb.2024.117293 [CrossRef]
24. Garzón, E.; Lanuzza, M.; Teman, A.; Yavits, L. AM4: MRAM Crossbar Based CAM/TCAM/ACAM/AP for In-Memory
Computing. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Circuits Syst. 2023, 13, 408–421. [CrossRef]
25. Ikeda, S.; Miura, K.; Yamamoto, H.; Mizunuma, K.; Gan, H.D.; Endo, M.; Hayakawa, L.; Matsukura, F. A Perpendicular-Anisotropy
CoFeB–MgO Magnetic Tunnel Junction. Nat. Mater. 2010, 9, 721–724. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Bin Hamid, S.; Dutta, R.; Hassan, O.; Baten, M.Z. Implementing Bidirectional Logic with Backhopping in Magnetic Tunnel
Junctions. AIP Adv. 2024, 14, 025224. [CrossRef]
27. Devolder, T.; Kim, J.V.; Garcia-Sanchez, F.; Swerts, J.; Kim, W.; Couet, S.; Kar, G.; Furnemont, A. Time-Resolved Spin-Torque
Switching in MgO-Based Perpendicularly Magnetized Tunnel Junctions. Phys. Rev. B 2016, 93, 024420. [CrossRef]
28. Lepadatu, S. Boris Computational Spintronics Online Materials Database. Available online: http://www.boris-spintronics.uk/
online-materials-database/ (accessed on 24 March 2024).
29. Khodadadi, B.; Mohammadi, J.B.; Jones, J.M.; Srivastava, A.; Mewes, C.; Mewes, T.; Kaiser, C. Interlayer Exchange Coupling in
Asymmetric Co-Fe/Ru/Co-Fe Trilayers Investigated with Broadband Temperature-Dependent Ferromagnetic Resonance. Phys.
Rev. Appl. 2017, 8, 014024. [CrossRef]
30. Mouhoub, A.; Millo, F.; Chappert, C.; Kim, J.V.; Létang, J.; Solignac, A.; Devolder, T. Exchange Energies in CoFeB/Ru/CoFeB
Synthetic Antiferromagnets. Phys. Rev. Mater. 2023, 7, 044404. [CrossRef]
31. Katayama, T.; Yuasa, S.; Velev, J.; Zhuravlev, M.Y.; Jaswal, S.S.; Tsymbal, E.Y. Interlayer Exchange Coupling in Fe/MgO/Fe
Magnetic Tunnel Junctions. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2006, 89, 112503. [CrossRef]
32. ViennaSpinMag. An Open Access Finite Element-Based Application for Calculating the Magnetization Dynamics of Multi-
Layered Structures Composed of Ferromagnets, Metal Spacers and Tunnel Barriers. Available online: https://www.iue.tuwien.
ac.at/viennaspinmag/ (accessed on 24 March 2024).
33. Kolev, T.; Dobrev, V. MFEM: Modular Finite Element Methods Library. Available online: http://mfem.org (accessed on 24 March
2024).
34. Ender, J.; Mohamedou, M.; Fiorentini, S.; de Orio, R.L.; Selberherr, S.; Goes, W.; Sverdlov, V. Efficient Demagnetizing Field
Calculation for Disconnected Complex Geometries in STT-MRAM Cells. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices (SISPAD), Piscataway, NJ, USA, 23 September 2020; pp. 213–216. [CrossRef]
35. ViennaDemag. An Open Access Demagnetization Field Solver. Available online: https://www.iue.tuwien.ac.at/viennademag/
(accessed on 24 March 2024).
Micromachines 2024, 15, 568 14 of 14

36. Petitjean, C.; Luc, D.; Waintal, X. Unified Drift-Diffusion Theory for Transverse Spin Currents in Spin Valves, Domain Walls, and
Other Textured Magnets. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012, 109, 117204. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Abert, C.; Ruggeri, M.; Bruckner, F.; Vogler, C.; Manchon, A.; Praetorius, D.; Suess, D. A Self-Consistent Spin-Diffusion Model for
Micromagnetics. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 16. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Valet, T.; Fert, A. Theory of the Perpendicular Magnetoresistance in Magnetic Multilayers. Phys. Rev. B 1993, 48, 7099–7113.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Fiorentini, S.; Bendra, M.; Ender, J.; de Orio, R.L.; Goes, W.; Selberherr, S.; Sverdlov, V. Spin and Charge Drift-Diffusion in
Ultra-Scaled MRAM Cells. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 20958. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Fiorentini, S.; Jørstad, N.P.; Ender, J.; de Orio, R.L.; Selberherr, S.; Bendra, M.; Goes, W.; Sverdlov, V. Finite Element Approach for
the Simulation of Modern MRAM Devices. Micromachines 2023, 14, 898. [CrossRef]
41. Slonczewski, J.C. Currents, torques, and polarization factors in magnetic tunnel junctions. Phys. Rev. B 2005, 71, 024411.
[CrossRef]
42. Julliere, M. Tunneling between Ferromagnetic Films. Phys. Lett. A 1975, 54, 225–226. [CrossRef]
43. Chshiev, M.; Manchon, A.; Kalitsov, A.; Ryzhanova, N.; Vedyayev, A.; Strelkov, N.; Butler, W.H.; Dieny, B. Analytical Description
of Ballistic Spin Currents and Torques in Magnetic Tunnel Junctions. Phys. Rev. B 2015, 92, 104422. [CrossRef]
44. ViennaSCDD. An Open Access Spin-Charge Drift-Diffusion Solver. Available online: https://www.iue.tuwien.ac.at/viennascdd/
(accessed on 24 March 2024).
45. Ruderman, M.A.; Kittel, C. Indirect Exchange Coupling of Nuclear Magnetic Moments by Conduction Electrons. Phys. Rev. 1954,
96, 99–102. [CrossRef]
46. Inomata, K.; Yusu, K.; Saito, Y. Magnetoresistance Associated with Antiferromagnetic Interlayer Coupling Spaced by a Semicon-
ductor in Fe/Si Multilayers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1995, 74, 1863–1866. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Fan, X.; Wei, G.; Lin, X.; Wang, X.; Si, Z.; Zhang, X.; Shao, Q.; Mangin, S.; Fullerton, E.; Jiang, L.; et al. Reversible Switching
of Interlayer Exchange Coupling through Atomically Thin VO2 via Electronic State Modulation. Matter 2020, 2, 1582–1593. :
10.1016/j.matt.2020.04.001 [CrossRef]
48. Bruno, P. Theory of Interlayer Exchange Interactions in Magnetic Multilayers. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 1999, 11, 9403–9419.
[CrossRef]
49. Xu, T.; Liu, J.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Q.; Zhou, H.A.; Dong, Y.; Gargiani, P.; Valvidares, S.; Zhou, Y.; Jiang, W. Systematic Control of
the Interlayer Exchange Coupling in Perpendicularly Magnetized Synthetic Antiferromagnets. Phys. Rev. Appl. 2022, 18, 054051.
[CrossRef]
50. McKinnon, T.; Heinrich, B.; Girt, E. Spacer Layer Thickness and Temperature Dependence of Interlayer Exchange Coupling in
Co/Ru/Co Trilayer Structures. Phys. Rev. B 2021, 104, 024422. [CrossRef]
51. Nunn, Z.R.; Abert, C.; Suess, D.; Girt, E. Control of the Noncollinear Interlayer Exchange Coupling. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eabd8861.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Flauger, P.; Abert, C.; Suess, D. Computational Assessment of Possible Origins of the Back-Hopping Effect in Magnetic Tunnel
Junctions. Phys. Rev. B 2023, 108, 014430. [CrossRef]
53. Bendra, M.; Orio, d.L.R.; Goes, W.; Sverdlov, V.; Selberherr, S. Modeling of Ultra-Scaled Magnetoresistive Random Access Memory.
Microelectron. Devices Technol. 2023, 12, 28–30. [CrossRef]
54. Weng, Y.C.; Cheng, C.W.; Chern, G. Interlayer Exchange Coupling and Perpendicular Magnetic Anisotropy in Co40 Fe40 B20 /MgO/
Co20 Fe60 B20 Tunnel Junction Structures. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2013, 49, 4425–4428. [CrossRef]
55. Warnatz, T.; Skovdal, B.E.; Magnus, F.; Stopfel, H.; Primetzhofer, D.; Stein, A.; Brucas, R.; Hjörvarsson, B. The Influence of
Diameter on the magnetic Saturation in Fe84 Cu16 /MgO [001] multilayered islands. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2020, 496, 165864. :
10.1016/j.jmmm.2019.165864 [CrossRef]
56. Faure-Vincent, J.; Tiusan, C.; Bellouard, C.; Popova, E.; Hehn, M.; Montaigne, F.; Schuhl, A. Interlayer Magnetic Coupling
Interactions of Two Ferromagnetic Layers by Spin Polarized Tunneling. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 89, 107206. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Warnatz, T.; Magnus, F.; Strandqvist, N.; Sanz, S.; Ali, H.; Leifer, K.; Vorobiev, A.; Hjörvarsson, B. The Impact of Number of
Repeats N on the Interlayer Exchange in [Fe/MgO] N (001) Superlattices. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1942. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Devolder, T.; Bultynck, O.; Bouquin, P.; Nguyen, V.D.; Rao, S.; Wan, D.; Sorée, B.; Radu, I.P.; Kar, G.S.; Couet, S. Back Hopping in
Spin Transfer Torque Switching of Perpendicularly Magnetized Tunnel Junctions. Phys. Rev. B 2020, 102, 184406. [CrossRef]
59. Le Goff, A.; Garcia, K.; Vernier, N.; Tahmasebi, T.; Cornelissen, S.; Min, T.; Devolder, T. Effect of Ta Insertion in Reference Layers
of MTJs With Perpendicular Anisotropy. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2014, 50, 1–4. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.