## Multiferroic Microstructure Created from Invariant Line Constraint

Satyakam Kar a ,b,c , Yuki Ikeda d , Kornelius Nielsch a,b , Heiko Reith a , Robert Maaß d,e,f , and Sebastian Fähler c*

a Leibniz IFW Dresden, Institute for Metallic Materials, 01069 Dresden, Germany b TU Dresden, Institute of Materials Science, 01062 Dresden, Germany

c

Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, 01328 Dresden, Germany

- d Federal Institute of Materials Research and Testing (BAM), 12205 Berlin, Germany
- e Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Illinois UrbanaChampaign, 61801 Illinois, USA

f Department of Materials Engineering, Technical University of Munich, 85748 Garching, Germany

*Corresponding author, Tel.: +493512602775, e-mail: s.faehler@hzdr.de , Postal address: Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Bautzner Landstraße 400, 01328 Dresden, Germany

## Abstract

Ferroic  materials  enable  a  multitude  of  emerging  applications,  and  optimum  functional properties are achieved when ferromagnetic and ferroelectric properties are coupled to a firstorder ferroelastic transition. In bulk materials, this first-order transition involves an invariant habit plane, connecting coexisting phases: austenite and martensite. Theory predicts that this plane should converge to a line in thin films, but experimental evidence is missing. Here, we analyze the martensitic and magnetic microstructure of a freestanding epitaxial magnetic shape memory film. We show that the martensite microstructure is determined by an invariant line constraint using lattice parameters of both phases as the only input. This line constraint explains most of the observable features, which differ fundamentally from bulk and constrained films. Furthermore, this finite-size effect creates a remarkable checkerboard magnetic domain pattern through multiferroic coupling. Our findings highlight the decisive role of finite-size effects in multiferroics.

Keywords: Multiferroics, Martensite, Magnetic shape memory alloys, Ni-Mn-Ga-based alloys, Epitaxial films, Finite-size effects

## 1. Introduction

Ferroic materials comprise ferromagnetic, ferroelectric, and ferroelastic materials, as well as combinations  thereof,  called  multiferroics 1,2 .  While  the  influence  of  finite  sample  size  on ferromagnetic properties already fills several textbooks, finite-size effects in ferroelectrics 3,4 and multiferroics 5-7 are of current interest due to their high potential for miniaturized electronic devices. Of emerging interest are ferroelastic materials, which enable high-stroke high-force actuation 8-10 . They follow 'the material is the machine' principle 11 , which permits miniaturization  due  to  a  simple  device  design.  However,  further  downscaling  requires understanding finite-size effects during ferroelastic transitions.

Ni-Mn-based magnetic shape memory alloys are a promising multiferroic system exhibiting ferroelastic  and  ferromagnetic  properties 12 .  Coupling  these  two  ferroic  properties  enables multifunctional applications suitable for microsystems like magnetic field-induced actuation 9,13,14 , thermomagnetic waste heat harvesting 15,16 , and multicaloric cooling 17 . Outstanding properties  are  obtained,  when  the  first-order  ferroelastic  transition  results  in  a steep, discontinuous change of magnetic order 12 . This ferroelastic transition is governed by a reversible martensitic transformation from a high-temperature austenite phase to a martensite phase at lower temperature. As this structural transformation is of first-order, lattice symmetry and  parameters  change  discontinuously.  At  the  transformation  temperature,  both  phases coexist, and accordingly a compatible interface must form. This so-called 'habit plane' is nearly strain-free, which in most cases requires twinning of martensite 18 . In bulk, the crystallographic orientations  of  possible  habit  planes  can  be  predicted  just  from  lattice  symmetries  and parameters, as formulated first in 1950s 19,20 and further refined by Ball and James 21 . However, for freestanding thin films, Bhattacharya and James 22 proposed a theory different from bulk. As  film  thickness  is  much  smaller  than  the  film's  lateral  dimensions,  the  crystallographic

compatibility  conditions  become  more  relaxed.  Consequently,  an  'invariant  line'  condition arises in thin films, which can allow the formation of an exact interface between (a) austenite and a single variant of martensite, and (b) two martensitic variants incompatible in bulk 23 . Thus, martensite  microstructure  in  thin  films  should  be  fundamentally  different  from  bulk,  and deformation  of  films  to  tent  and  tunnel-like  shapes  were  predicted 24,25 . Indeed,  such  a deformation has been shown experimentally in a single crystalline Cu-Al-Ni shape memory foil 11 . However, in all experiments on much thinner (500 - 2000 nm) constrained epitaxial NiMn-Ga  films 26-28 ,  the  habit  plane  concept  known  from  bulk  could  explain  the  observed microstructure. To understand this discrepancy, we take a brief look at the few finite-size effects reported for epitaxial films. For films on substrates, the substrate is a rigid constraint for the martensite microstructure. To minimize the sum of twin boundary and elastic energies at this constraint,  the  twin  boundary  period  scales  as  the  square  root  of  the  film  thickness 29 .  For ultrathin films below 40 nm, this energy sum can even suppress the martensitic transformation completely 30 .  Both  examples  illustrate  that  films  on  substrates  are  a  particular  case  and significant  differences  are  expected  in  freestanding  films.  Microstructure  investigations  of freestanding epitaxial films are sparse and do not provide a clear picture. They report slight 31 or no 32 changes after releasing the films. We attribute these ambiguous reports to the challenge of preparing and manually handling fragile freestanding films. This challenge has been solved recently by monolithic processing of epitaxially grown shape memory films on silicon, which utilizes standard silicon microtechnology to prepare partly freestanding films and patterns 33,34 .

Using this approach here, we examine the martensite microstructure of a freestanding 500 nm thick  epitaxial  Ni52Mn18Ga25Cu5  film.  Our  analyses  of  complementary  cross-sections  by transmission  electron  microscopy  (TEM)  give  a  comprehensive  3D  picture  of  the  nested arrangement of different types of twin boundaries. Though these twin boundaries are planes , an invariant line constraint equation governs the key features of this complex microstructure.

Furthermore, this martensitic microstructure creates a unique checkerboard magnetic microstructure through multiferroic coupling. Our demonstration and analysis of the invariant line constraint enable understanding the finite-size effects in ferroelastic materials, which is critical for their applications in microsystems.

## 2. Results and discussion

## 2.1. From cross sections to the martensite microstructure in 3D

A  martensitic  microstructure  is  characterized  by  twin  boundaries,  which  connect  different orientations of martensite variants. Indeed, various types of twin boundaries are possible 35,36 , and the resulting twin-within-twins hierarchy in constrained epitaxial Ni-Mn-Ga-based films has  been  explained  recently 28 . In  the  present  work,  the  as-deposited  film  exhibits  this microstructure with an average mesoscopic twin boundary period of 117 ± 9 nm, as depicted in Supplementary Figure S1a. This microstructure changes fundamentally when the martensitic film  is  partially  released  from  the  substrate.  As  observed  in  Figure  1a,  the  surface  of freestanding film exhibits two sets of orthogonal, parallel stripe-like features. A striking change in the scale of features is apparent in Figure 1b at the interface of freestanding and constrained portions of the film. The average period of features (  ) increases about eight-fold to 994 ± 12 nm in the freestanding film.

To  investigate  this  unique  microstructure  further,  we  prepared  a  TEM  lamella  across  the interface, indicated by the white dashed line (CS1) in Figure 1b. We also introduce a (x, y, z) coordinate system aligned with [100]A, [010]A, and [001]A directions (A- austenite) to assign the features in 3D. An overview of the prepared cross-section TEM lamella is shown in Figure 1c, which highlights the constrained and freestanding regions, the silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrate architecture, and three particular regions of interest in the film: freestanding (blue square),  interface  (red  square),  and  constrained  (green  square).  The  freestanding  region

(Figure 1d)  exhibits  an  unusual  periodic  array  of  triangle-shaped  features  arranged  in  an hourglass pattern, separated by rhombus-shaped features. These features contain a finer internal microstructure,  analyzed  in  detail  later.  The  rhombus  features occur  in  two  different thicknesses, alternating along the x-axis. These thickness variations are fundamentally different compared to the sawtooth surface topography of constrained films 31 . The cross-section of the constrained-freestanding interface in Figure 1e displays a sharp transition in microstructure, followed by the characteristic Type X martensite microstructure 26-28 in the constrained region (Figure 1f). Already at this rough scale, the cross-section images confirm the fundamentally different  microstructure  arrangement  in  the  freestanding  film,  urging  for  a  more  in-depth investigation.

Figure 1 . Comparison between the freestanding and constrained martensite microstructure. (a) Secondary electron image of the freestanding film surface shows parallel stripes aligned at 45  to substrate edges. Two equivalent stripe orientation (dark and light brown °

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00364v1-figure-bc43b1b3-abce-4b98-bbc1-6d87bef686ec.jpg)

lines)  regions  are  observed,  separated  by  a  boundary  (purple  dotted  line).  (b)  Secondary electron image of the freestanding-constrained interface reveals a sharp feature change at the interface  (yellow  dotted  line). The  stripes  with  a  period  of  about  1000  nm  transition  to features much smaller on the constrained side (see Supplementary Figure S1a). To examine this transition, FIB was used to prepare a film cross-section along the white dashed line (CS1). Its overview bright-field TEM image is shown in (c). Three key regions, marked by blue, green, and red squares, were investigated by bright-field TEM. (d) In the freestanding part, a periodic array of hourglass and rhombus features is observed - which is unique and further investigated in this paper. At the interface region in (e), this pattern transitions sharply to the well-known hierarchical martensite microstructure, which continues in the constrained region (f). The (x, y,  z)  coordinate  system  introduced here is used throughout the paper to  assign the features within freestanding film. Note that etching by FIB redeposits SiOx below the freestanding part, an artifact analyzed in Supplementary Figure S2.

Therefore, we pursue a detailed TEM analysis of the unique hourglass and rhombus features in the x - z plane (Figure 2a). Locations A and B are marked inside the triangular features and differ in the orientation of boundaries visible inside. Nanobeam diffraction patterns of regions A  and  B  reveal orthorhombic  14M  martensite  with  [010]14M along the y-axis (see Supplementary Figure S3a for the exact location of diffraction). Two crystal orientations are visible in each diffraction pattern: one with [100]14M and the other with [001]14M aligned along the z-axis. This is the characteristic a -c twinning of 14M martensite 37 . Hence, the parallel boundaries inside the triangular features are mesoscopic twin boundaries 28 . Locations marked C and D denote the thick and thin rhombuses in the film, with an average thickness of 523 nm and 461 nm, respectively. Additionally, a distinctly larger width of rhombus D than rhombus C is  noticed  along  the  x-axis.  Each  rhombus  contains  faint  finely-spaced  horizontal  (C)  and

vertical  (D)  lines,  indicating  nano-twin  boundaries. The  selected  area  diffraction  pattern  of rhombus C reveals 14M martensite with [010]14M along the y-axis, while that of rhombus D reveals tetragonal NM  martensite  with  [010]NM  along  the  y-axis  (see  Supplementary Figure S3b  for  the  exact  location  of  diffraction). As  per  the  adaptive  concept 38 ,  the  14M martensite  can  be  described  by  a  tetragonal  NM  martensite  building  block  and  periodic twinning at the nanoscale. Therefore, we stick to NM martensite to describe the rhombuses.

Using the obtained crystallographic information, we draw a simplified sketch in Figure 2b to mark the crystal orientations and label the identified boundaries in the x - z plane using the nomenclature from existing studies on bulk and constrained epitaxial films. The significant boundaries in this sketch include macroscopic boundary (separating triangular and rhombus regions), mesoscopic twin boundaries (inside the triangles), and nano-twin boundaries (inside the rhombuses). The mesoscopic twin orientations are close to ( 101 )A and ( 1 ̅ 01 )A planes and conjugately related to each other 27,39 . Hence, the boundary separating the two conjugate twin orientations inside the triangles is called a conjugation boundary. The nano-twin boundaries observed in the rhombuses are close to {110}A orientation 39,40 , and the four possible {110}A orientations (based on the observed traces in the x - z plane) are indicated by light and dark shades of green and blue dotted lines. This coloring scheme becomes more apparent in later investigations. The crystal orientation in the triangles alternates between c 14M and a 14M across the mesoscopic twin boundary and in case of the rhombuses, it switches between a NM and c NM across  the  nano-twin  boundary.  Although  this  schematic  representation  provides  a  good overview  of  the  complex  arrangement  of  boundaries  in  the  martensite  microstructure  of freestanding film, their relative arrangement along the y-axis still remains to be explained.

b

Figure 2. Arrangement of martensitic variants and twin boundaries in cross-section CS1 across the stripe pattern. (a)  Bright-field TEM image reveals a periodic array of triangles (marked with A and B) arranged in hourglass feature. The hourglass features are separated by two types of rhombuses (marked C and D), which differ in thickness, width, and their internal finer features. Electron diffraction patterns, shown above the image, are used to identify crystal structure,  their  orientation  (marked  by  their  zone  axis),  and  twin  boundaries  within  these features. Triangles A and B consist of two 14M martensite variants (marked in blue and yellow),

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00364v1-figure-9b2b093d-6afb-4965-b437-6a2a27d5e0eb.jpg)

which classifies the internal boundaries as a -c mesoscopic twin boundaries. Rhombus C is indexed 14M martensite, whereas rhombus D is indexed NM martensite. The original lamella orientation used for these diffraction patterns is given in Supplementary Figure S3a,b. To obtain a  3D  understanding  of  the  microstructure  in  rhombuses,  two  additional  cross-sections  on positions  equivalent  to  CS2  and  CS3  are  analyzed  in  Figure  3.  (b)  Sketch  illustrating  the boundaries and the crystal orientations observed in the microstructure. These intricate features are described in the main text.

To understand the microstructure  within  the  rhombuses  along  the  y-axis,  we  prepared  two additional cross-section lamellae, CS2 and CS3, as indicated by white dashed lines in Figure 2a. Figure 3a shows the TEM analysis of CS2 cross-section in the y - z plane. In the brightfield STEM image, we observe dark (E) and bright (F) regions, separated by boundaries. Both regions exhibit finely-spaced vertical lines similar to  those observed in  rhombus D in CS1 cross-section. The selected area diffraction patterns of regions E and F reveal 14M martensite with  [100]14M  along  the  x-axis  (see  Supplementary  Figure  S3c  for  the  exact  location  of diffraction). Interestingly, another  diffraction pattern in this cross-section  reveals NM martensite with [001]NM along the x-axis (Supplementary Figure S4). Hence, these diffraction patterns indicate that the nano-twin boundaries have coarsened in some parts of the rhombus, leading to the coexistence of 14M and NM martensite 37 . Based on these observations in CS2 cross-section, we sketched the microstructural features and crystal orientations in Figure 3b. The nano-twin boundaries fill most of the cross-section and are oriented vertically, both in CS1 (rhombus D) and CS2 cross-sections. From the two traces of each twin plane, we derive their orientations as (110)A and ( 1 ̅ 10 )A. Although these twins are crystallographically equivalent, their orientation difference causes a slight contrast between regions E and F. The orientations are conjugately related, and hence, the two regions are separated by a conjugation boundary.

The  crystal  orientations  in  both  regions  alternate  between  short a NM  and  long c NM  lattice parameters across the nano-twin boundary.  Thus, rhombus  D  contains  two  different orientations of nano-twin boundaries along the y-axis, which make vertical traces in crosssections CS2 and CS1.

Figure 3. Martensite microstructure within cross-sections CS2 and CS3 along the stripe

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00364v1-figure-9fc99f3c-d6c2-474a-90ad-86b542279946.jpg)

pattern. (a)  Bright-field STEM image of a CS2 cross-section (rhombus D) exhibits finelyspaced vertical lines and two unique regions (marked E and F) with a contrast. Selected area diffraction patterns from E and F, shown above the image, agree with 14M martensite. The original lamella orientation used for these diffraction patterns is given in Supplementary Figure S3c. (b) Sketch illustrating the boundaries and crystal orientations observed in (a). (c) Brightfield TEM images of a CS3 cross-section (rhombus C) show two regions (marked G and H) containing  finely-spaced  diagonal  lines  oriented  at  about  45   to  the  z-axis.  Selected  area °

diffraction patterns from the two regions, shown above the image, agree with NM martensite in [100]NM zone-axis. In addition, satellite spots along the 𝑔022 vector in the diffraction pattern G and 𝑔02 ̅ 2 vector  in  the  diffraction  pattern  H  are  noticed,  indicating  the  presence  of  14M martensite as well. (d) Sketch illustrating the boundaries and crystal orientations observed in (c).

The same analysis is repeated for rhombus C by analyzing CS3 cross-section in the y - z plane (Figure 3c). The microstructure in the bright-field TEM images  reveals finely-spaced lines aligned at 45 . Two different alignments with respect to the z-axis are possible, and accordingly, ° one can separate the two regions (marked G and H) on either side of a wiggly boundary. The selected area diffraction patterns of the regions G and H reveal NM martensite with [100]NM along the x-axis.  Furthermore, these diffraction patterns contain satellite spots  spaced with ( 1 7 ) 𝑔022 between the main spots 41 . This implies that in regions G and H, 14M martensite is also present, similar to the cross-section CS2. Based on the observed features, the CS3 cross-section is sketched in Figure 3d. The nano-twin boundaries fill regions G and H, and the trace analysis in CS1 (rhombus C) and CS3 cross-sections identify their orientations as (011)A and ( 01 ̅ 1 )A. As  both  twin  orientations  are  also  conjugately  related,  we  separate  the  two  regions  by  a conjugation boundary. The crystal orientation is similar to CS2 cross-section, with alternating short a NM and long c NM lattice parameters across the nano-twin boundary. Thus, rhombus C also contains two different orientations nano-twin boundaries along the y-axis separated by conjugation  boundaries.  Furthermore,  14M  and  NM  martensite  coexist  in  both  rhombuses, which indicates a coarsening of the nano-twin boundaries. A coarsening of the constrained martensite microstructure is also noticed at the interface between constrained and freestanding portions in the y - z plane, analyzed in Supplementary Figure S5.

The  complete  martensitic  microstructure  is  summarized  as  a  3D  sketch  in  Figure  4. What appears as a simple stripe pattern at the surface (Figure 1a) is indeed much more complex below the  surface.  Although  these  boundaries  are  known  from  bulk,  the  origin  for  their  nested arrangement remains to be explained.

Figure 4. 3D sketch of the martensite microstructure in freestanding film. The combination of  different  cross-sections  allows  assembling  the  nested  arrangement  of  different  types  of boundaries. We explain in Section 2.2 that the observed unique microstructure is a consequence of an invariant line constraint along the y-axis.

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00364v1-figure-3af87d64-cc67-49c2-860e-277557e7bb59.jpg)

## 2.2. Explaining the microstructure by a line constraint

To understand the origin of this peculiar martensite microstructure, we consider the general concept that a martensite microstructure is guided by minimizing elastic energy through the

introduction of compatible twin boundaries. In bulk continuum theory, this constraint results in two matrix equations, which use the lattice parameters of austenite and martensite as input and  define  the  possible  orientations  of  habit  and  twin  planes 19,20 .  For  the  present  case  of freestanding film with a finite thickness, we will show now that this plane constraint reduces to a line constraint along the stripe features, and accordingly we obtain a simple linear equation.

We start with the key experimental observation that no macroscopic strain occurs in the x - y plane  of  the  freestanding  film  and  at  the  connection  to  the  constrained  part  of  the  film (Figure 1b).  Consequently,  the  in-plane  film  dimensions,  determined  by  the  austenite  state during film deposition, remain invariant during the martensitic transformation and subsequent film release process. To fulfill this invariant constraint along the y-axis in the rhombus features, an alternating arrangement of tetragonal NM martensite unit cells, with short ( a NM) and long ( c NM) lattice parameters, is needed to match the length of the same number of austenite unit cells with lattice parameter a A. This alternating arrangement must occur in a fine mixture ( 𝜆𝑌 ), such that:

$$a _ { \text{A} } & = \lambda _ { Y } \times c _ { \text{NM} } + ( 1 - \lambda _ { Y } ) \times a _ { \text{NM} }$$

Using the particular lattice parameters for our film characterized by XRD (see supplementary Figure S1b, Table S1), we obtain 𝜆𝑌 = 0.313 .  This  alternating  arrangement of unit cells  is realized by nano-twin boundaries known from bulk. As these boundaries have a very low twin boundary energy 38 , they can be introduced at spacings much shorter than film thickness. This microstructure with twin planes is observed within the rhombuses and highlighted in the sketch (Figure 4) by shades of green and blue dotted lines.

An  invariant  line  constraint  along  the  y-axis  has  consequences  on  the  extension  of  the rhombuses along the z- and x- axes. For instance, all unit cells in rhombus D are aligned with a NM  along  the  z-axis  (see  Figure  2). As a NM  is  shorter  than a A,  rhombus  D  decreases  in

thickness, in agreement with experimental observation. To make up for volume conservation, the rhombus expands along the x-axis. This modified length ( ) relative to 𝑙 a A along the x-axis is also determined by 𝜆𝑌 , as per the equation given in Table 1 for 𝑙 𝑋(D) .

As the overall film extension along the x-axis remains invariant, the neighboring  rhombus (rhombus C) must have a shorter extension along x-axis and consequently elongate along the z-axis to conserve volume. This explains the experimentally observed alternating arrangement of  thick  rhombus  C  and  thin  rhombus  D  along  the  x-axis. Additionally,  we  performed  a quantitative comparison of the calculated thickness and width ratios of the rhombuses with that observed in cross-section CS1. These values along with the used equations are summarized in Table 1. The good agreement between calculated and experimentally measured values strongly supports the invariant line constraint concept. It is worth mentioning that our equations neglect tilting of lattice, which additionally occurs at a twin boundary. As worked out in Supplementary Table S2, it has little effect on the calculated values. Tilting also causes a shear stress, which is not incorporated within our model. Following the work of Roytburd 36 , this shear deformation is diminished at a larger length scale by conjugation boundaries, which connect two conjugate orientations of nano-twin boundary along the y-axis (Figure 4).

To understand the origin of triangles forming the hourglass feature, we assume in a thought experiment that they are absent. Thus, at the connection between thick rhombus C and thin rhombus D, a step would appear at the surface. To avoid this step, a huge elastic deformation within both rhombuses would be required. Instead of a step, it is energetically more favorable to introduce triangles as connectors, which consist of a martensitic microstructure well known from constrained films 26-28 . The triangles are slightly rotated by 3  with respect to the average ° film surface to compensate for the different thicknesses of rhombuses C and D. Triangles also fulfill  the  invariant  line  constraint  by  aligning b 14M  along  the  y-axis  as  per  the  adaptive concept 38 .

Finally, we consider the consequences of the invariant line constraint at much larger length scales. A line constraint acts ad-infinitum, which explains the long parallel stripes on the film surface, reaching several tens of micrometers. The parallel stripes end when they meet the other orthogonal stripe orientation (Figure 1a), which is crystallographically equivalent due to the four-fold in-plane symmetry of the epitaxial film. In summary, the invariant line constraint uses twin planes known from bulk to successfully explain most features observed in the martensite microstructure of freestanding films.

Table  1 .  Comparison  between  the  experimentally  measured  and  calculated  values  of  the rhombus  features  in  the  freestanding  film  microstructure.  The  equations  used  for  the calculations are included here and described in the main text.

| Rhombus feature            | Measured value   |   Calculated value | Equations used                                                              |
|----------------------------|------------------|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Ratio of thickness (C : D) | 1.133 ± 0.0063   |               1.14 | 𝑙 𝑍 (C) = λ 𝑌 ×𝑎 NM +(1 -λ 𝑌 ) ×𝑐 NM 𝑙 𝑍 (D) = 𝑎 NM Ratio = 𝑙 𝑍 (C)⁄𝑙 𝑍 (D) |
| Ratio of width (D : C)     | 1.136 ± 0.0071   |               1.14 | 𝑙 𝑋 (D) = λ 𝑌 ×𝑎 NM +(1 -λ 𝑌 ) ×𝑐 NM 𝑙 𝑋 (C) = 𝑎 NM Ratio = 𝑙 𝑋 (D)⁄𝑙 𝑋 (C) |

## 2.3. Anisotropic checkerboard magnetic microstructure

Magnetic shape memory alloys are multiferroic in nature, where the magnetic and martensitic microstructures are coupled 12 . Hence, we use magnetic force microscopy (MFM) to analyze the  domain  pattern  of  the  freestanding  film  (Figure  5). The  simultaneously  probed  surface topography allows for a correlation with the features of martensite microstructure, consisting of alternating thick and thin rhombuses (Figure 5a). Its corresponding magnetic microstructure

reveals a peculiar checkerboard-like pattern (Figure 5b). This pattern is fundamentally different from  the  characteristic  band  domain  pattern  of  constrained  films 42 ,  seen  in  Supplementary Figure S6. The observed pattern is also anisotropic as it differs along the x- and y-axes. The average domain width is 357 ± 39 nm along the y-axis and 275 ± 17 nm along the x-axis. Further differences are best visible from two perpendicular line profiles, LX and LY, marked in Figure 5a, b. The extracted line profile LY from the phase signal shows an irregular peak to peak  spacing  (Figure  5c),  with  no  correlation  to  the  surface  topography.  In  contrast, perpendicular to the stripes along LX (Figure 5d), the phase signal appears strongly correlated with the periodic peak and valley topography. The phase contrast inverts from bright to dark (or  vice-versa)  across  a  peak  and  about  midway  between  each  peak  and  valley  (where  the triangles  are  located)  but  remains  unaffected  across  a  valley. This  is  also  evident  from  the overlay  of  magnetic  microstructure  on  topography  of  the  scanned  region  (Supplementary Figure  S7).  The  coupling  of  magnetic  and  martensite  microstructure  along  the  x-axis  is sketched in Figure 5e, which highlights the locations of contrast inversion and mirroring with respect to the surface topography.

Figure 5. Anisotropic checkerboard magnetic microstructure on the surface of freestanding film. (a) Surface topography of the freestanding film and its (b) corresponding magnetic  microstructure  obtained  by  magnetic  force  microscopy.  Line  profiles  LX  and  LY (marked in white) are extracted perpendicular and parallel to the stripe pattern, respectively. (c) Parallel to the stripes (LY), changes of phase contrast are irregular (c) Perpendicular to the stripes (LX), a complex coupling occurs between phase contrast and topography. The phase contrast changes from dark to bright (or vice-versa) at the peaks and mid-way between peak and valley but remains unchanged across a valley. (e) Sketch illustrating the observed coupling along  the  x-axis.  The  locations  of  contrast  inversion  are  highlighted  (peaks  and  midway between peaks and valleys). In addition, the sequence of contrast is mirrored at valleys.

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00364v1-figure-dd0d1ad1-80ef-43d8-b46f-b9966c7ffa50.jpg)

We  can  derive  all  features  of  this  unique  magnetic  microstructure  by  considering  the multiferroic  coupling,  given  by  magnetocrystalline  anisotropy  and  magnetostatic  energy minimization, essential for films with finite thickness. Using the crystallographic information

from  Figure  2b,  the  magnetic  easy-axis  orientations  are  sketched  for  CS1  cross-section  in Figure  6a.  We  use  the  easy-axes  known  from  bulk,  which  differ  for  orthorhombic  14M martensite, having a magnetic easy-axis along c 14M 43 , and tetragonal NM martensite, having an easy plane of magnetization with two easy-axes along a NM 44 . The solution for the magnetization directions  must  consider  that  magnetization  follows  the  easy-axis  to  minimize  anisotropy energy, and charged domain boundaries are avoided to minimize magnetostatic energy. One solution of the magnetic domain configuration, which fulfills these conditions everywhere, is sketched  in  Figure 6b.  As  each  easyaxis allows  for  two  alignments  of  the  magnetization directions ,  another  equivalent solution is the domain arrangement, where all magnetization directions are reversed. We consider these two solutions optimum, as they completely avoid charged  domain  boundaries  within  the  complex  hourglass  feature  and  require  just  one horizontal 180  domain wall in the center of the thick rhombus. Furthermore, these solutions ° explain the experimentally observed occurrences of contrast inversion and mirroring along the x-axis  sketched  in  Figure  5e.  This  contrast  inversion  originates  from  the  arrangement  of mesoscopic twin boundaries, which act like mirrors for the magnetic domains. This effect is known from previous experiments in Ni-Mn-Ga bulk single crystal 45 and constrained epitaxial films 32,42 .

In the proposed solutions, some regions do have magnetization components along the z-axis, which  results  in  an  unfavorable  stray  field  coming  out  of  the  sample  surface.  In  order  to minimize this magnetostatic energy, an alternating arrangement of both solutions occurs along the  y-axis,  connected  by  additional  180   domain  walls.  The  balance  of  magnetostatic  and ° domain wall energy is a common mechanism for domain formation in films with out-of-plane easy-axis. The resulting magnetic microstructure in the x - y plane is sketched in Figure 6c, with yellow and brown shades for the out-of-plane component, which is probed by MFM. This coloring scheme assumes that due to the small twinning period in the film, magnetic exchange

energy tends to align magnetization in parallel and thus short alternations of easy-axis are not resolvable  by  MFM.  To  sum  up,  our  phenomenological  model  explains  all  features  of  the peculiar magnetic microstructure based on the underlying martensite microstructure. Moreover,  this  line  of  reasoning  illustrates  that  at  these  length  scales,  the  martensite microstructure governs the magnetic one, and not vice-versa. We attribute this to the relevant interfacial  (twin  boundaries / domain  walls)  and  volume  energies  (elastic / magnetostatic), which are much higher for the ferroelastic than the ferromagnetic subsystem 29,42 and thus must be minimized first.

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00364v1-figure-240de287-2a3b-478d-b914-189e1504cd82.jpg)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00364v1-figure-6cf55fa1-f8c7-4aef-ac7d-1dc59022bd2b.jpg)

1805

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00364v1-figure-0649afd3-0c68-42c7-a1b3-b0f84e7e901f.jpg)

Figure  6. Phenomenological  explanation  of  the  anisotropic  checkerboard  magnetic microstructure. (a)  Starting  point  is  the  crystal  orientation  shown  in  Figure  2b,  which determines  the magnetic  easy-axis orientations, sketched here for CS1  cross-section. (b) Magnetization direction must follow these easy-axis orientations and magnetically charged interfaces must be avoided, which is achieved by the sketched magnetic domain configuration, requiring just one 180 ° domain wall in the center of each thick rhombus. Another equivalent solution is reversing magnetization directions of domains altogether. The domain configuration within the film determines the magnetic domain arrangement on the film surface, sketched in (c). Along the y-axis, the alternating arrangement of both equivalent solutions minimizes the magnetostatic energy. Yellow and brown colored regions mimic the magnetic microstructure. Key features of the martensite microstructure are overlaid to illustrate that the unique features of this domain pattern are determined by the line constraint.

In  summary,  a  size  reduction  from  bulk  to  films  changes  the  constraint  of  a  martensitic transformation from an invariant plane to an invariant line. The line constraint gives rise to simple linear equations that quantitatively explain most of the observed features of the twinned martensite  microstructure.  This  microstructure  is  unique  for  freestanding  films,  as  other geometries do not fulfill the required preconditions. For films on substrates, the rigid constraint inhibits the formation of the rhombus feature, and in bulk, no dimension is thin enough to allow for  the  thickness  variation  associated  with  the  rhombus  feature.  In  ultrathin  films,  twin boundaries are finally expected to converge to a twin line; thus, the twin boundaries required here  cannot  exist.  Hence,  the  line  constraint  is  decisive  in  freestanding  films  with  finite thickness - the geometry favorable for most applications described in the introduction. This line constraint  also  determines  the  magnetic  microstructure  of  our  multiferroic  films.

Therefore, we anticipate that the finite-size effect uncovered here will be of high relevance for a variety of emerging multiferroic membranes with reduced dimensionality 46,47 .

## 3. Methods

## 3.1. Film deposition

A 500  nm  thick  epitaxial  Ni-Mn-Ga-Cu  film  was  grown  on  commercially  available  4  nm SrTiO3 (STO) buffered silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrates by DC magnetron sputtering. This approach was demonstrated in our previous work 33 . The film was prepared by co-sputtering a Ni48Mn22Ga30 alloy target and an elemental Cu target on substrates heated to 673 K.

## 3.2. Film release process

The deposited film was partly released from the substrate by selectively etching parts of the film, followed by under-etching the top Si layer of the SOI substrate. The film was patterned by laser photolithography and Ar ion beam etching. The top Si layer of the SOI substrate was selectively under-etched by XeF2 gas etching. The process details of lithography, Ar ion beam etching, and XeF2 etching are mentioned in our previous work 34 .

## 3.3. Film Characterization

The crystal structure of the as-deposited film was analyzed using a Bruker AXS D8 Advance X-ray diffractometer with Co-radiation (  = 0.178897 nm). A  - 2  scan in Bragg-Brentano geometry with sample tilt offsets (  ) from 0  to 10  (step size = 1 ) was used to account for ° ° ° the  slight  tilt  of  crystal  planes  of  martensite 48 .  The  film  contains  both  14M  martensite  and NM martensite  at  room  temperature.  (Supplementary  Figure  S1b).  Iso-field  magnetization measurement  as  a  function  of  temperature  was  performed  on  the  as-deposited  film  in  a vibrating sample magnetometer (Quantum Design-Versalab) with an applied field of 0.1 T inplane along the [110]A direction and in the temperature range of 150 - 400 K and scan rate of 0.033 K s -1 . The Curie transition temperature is measured to be 347 K (Supplementary Figure S1c). The film microstructure and composition were analyzed in a ZEISS Sigma 300 scanning

electron microscope fitted with a SmartEDX detector. Using a bulk Ni2MnGa standard, the composition of the films was determined with 1 at. % accuracy to be Ni52Mn18Ga25Cu5. An FEI Quanta 3D FEG device and an FEI Helios Nanolab 600i were used to prepare freestanding film  cross-section  lamellae  by  focused  ion  beam  (FIB)  etching  technique.  The  TEM investigations on the lamellae were carried out in an FEI Talos F200S and a JEM-2200FS transmission electron microscopes operated at 200 kV. The electron diffraction patterns were analyzed using the CrysTBox software 49 . All electron diffraction patterns from TEM analyses are indexed using the L21 convention 50 . Magnetic force microscopy of the films was performed on a Bruker Dimension Icon atomic force microscope with a two-pass LiftMode™ technique. An MESP-V2 tip magnetized along its axis was used with a lift height of 100 nm. The obtained height sensor data were used to image the surface topography and the phase data to image the magnetic stray field of the sample.

## Acknowledgements

This research was performed under a BAM-IFW tandem project. The authors acknowledge Almut Pöhl (IFW) for preparing a TEM lamella and Carsten Prinz (BAM) for support with TEM investigation. The authors acknowledge Adnan Fareed (BAM), Klara Lünser (UB), and Volker Neu (IFW) for discussion. The TEM investigations were carried out at the electron microscopy center at BAM.

## Author contributions

S.F. and S.K. designed the study. H.R., K.N., and R.M. provided the resources. Y.I. performed the TEM observations. S.F. proposed the line constraint concept. S.K. performed the remaining experiments, analyses, and wrote the first version of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the final version.

Competing interests. The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information. Supplementary  information  is  linked  to  the  online  version  of  the paper.

Data  and  materials  availability. Raw  data  of  all  experiments  supporting  this  study  are available at RODARE (DOI:10.14278/rodare.2889)

## References

- 1. Schmid, H. Multi-ferroic magnetoelectrics. Ferroelectrics 162 , 317-338 (1994).
- 2. Eerenstein, W., Mathur, N. D. &amp; Scott, J. F. Multiferroic and magnetoelectric materials. Nature 442 , 759-765 (2006).
- 3. Fernandez, A. et al. Thin-Film Ferroelectrics. Adv. Mater. 34 , 2108841 (2022).
- 4. Xu, R. et al. Size-Induced Ferroelectricity in Antiferroelectric Oxide Membranes. Adv. Mater. 35 , 2210562 (2023).
- 5. Zheng, H. et al. Multiferroic BaTiO3-CoFe2O4 Nanostructures. Science 303 , 661-663 (2004).
- 6. Ramesh, R. &amp; Spaldin, N. A. Multiferroics: progress and prospects in thin films. Nat. Mater. 6 , 21-29 (2007).
- 7. Ma, J., Hu, J., Li, Z. &amp; Nan, C.-W. Recent Progress in Multiferroic Magnetoelectric Composites: from Bulk to Thin Films. Adv. Mater. 23 , 1062-1087 (2011).
- 8. Salje, E. K. H. Ferroelastic Materials. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 42 , 265-283 (2012).
- 9. Sozinov, A., Lanska, N., Soroka, A. &amp; Zou, W. 12% magnetic field-induced strain in NiMn-Ga-based non-modulated martensite. Appl. Phys. Lett. 102 , 021902 (2013).
- 10. Hu, Y. et al. Ferroelastic-switching-driven large shear strain and piezoelectricity in a hybrid ferroelectric. Nat. Mater. 20 , 612-617 (2021).
- 11.  Bhattacharya, K. &amp; James, R. D. The Material Is the Machine. Science 307 , 53-54 (2005).

- 12. Heczko, O., Seiner, H. &amp; Fähler, S. Coupling between ferromagnetic and ferroelastic transitions and ordering in Heusler alloys produces new multifunctionality. MRS Bull. 47 , 618-627 (2022).
- 13. Ullakko, K., Huang, J. K., Kantner, C., O'Handley, R. C. &amp; Kokorin, V. V. Large magnetic-field-induced strains in Ni2MnGa single crystals. Appl. Phys. Lett. 69 , 19661968 (1996).
- 14. Musiienko, D. et al. Ultrafast actuation of Ni-Mn-Ga micropillars by pulsed magnetic field. Scr. Mater. 162 , 482-485 (2019).
- 15. Gueltig, M. et al. High Frequency Thermal Energy Harvesting Using Magnetic Shape Memory Films. Adv. Energy Mater. 4 , 1400751 (2014).
- 16. Gueltig, M. et al. High-Performance Thermomagnetic Generators Based on Heusler Alloy Films. Adv. Energy Mater. 7 , 1601879 (2017).
- 17. Gottschall, T. et al. A multicaloric cooling cycle that exploits thermal hysteresis. Nat. Mater. 17 , 929-934 (2018).
- 18. Otsuka, K. &amp; Wayman, C. M. Shape Memory Materials . (Cambridge university press, 1999).
- 19. Wechsler, M. S., Lieberman, D. S. &amp; Read, T. A. On the theory of the formation of martensite. Trans. Aime 197 , 1503-1515 (1953).
- 20. Bowles, J. S. &amp; Mackenzie, J. K. The crystallography of martensite transformations I. Acta Metall. 2 , 129-137 (1954).
- 21. Ball, J. M. &amp; James, R. D. Proposed experimental tests of a theory of fine microstructure and the two-well problem. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A: Phys. Eng. Sci. 338 , 389-450 (1997).
- 22. Bhattacharya, K. &amp; James, R. D. A theory of thin films of martensitic materials with applications to Microactuators Dedicated to the memory of Juan Simo. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 47 , 531-576 (1999).

- 23. Bhattacharya, K. Thin Films. in Microstructure of Martensite: Why it forms and how it gives rise to the shape-memory effect (Oxford University Press, 2003).
- 24. Bhattacharya, K., DeSimone, A., Hane, K. F., James, R. D. &amp; Palmstrøm, C. J. Tents and tunnels on martensitic films. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 273-275 , 685-689 (1999).
- 25. Lei, C. H., Liu, Y . &amp; Chen, W. Formations and evolutions of martensitic tents and tunnels in shape memory alloy thin films. Mech. Mater. 134 , 9-17 (2019).
- 26. Niemann, R. et al. Nucleation and growth of hierarchical martensite in epitaxial shape memory films. Acta Mater. 132 , 327-334 (2017).
- 27. Takhsha Ghahfarokhi, M. et al. Following the Martensitic Configuration Footprints in the Transition Route of Ni-Mn-Ga Magnetic Shape Memory Films: Insight into the Role of Twin Boundaries and Interfaces. Materials 13 , 2103 (2020).
- 28. Schwabe, S. et al. Building Hierarchical Martensite. Adv. Funct. Mater. 31 , 2005715 (2021).
- 29. Diestel, A., Backen, A., Rößler, U. K., Schultz, L. &amp; Fähler, S. Twin boundary energy of hierarchically twinned magnetic shape memory alloys. Appl. Phys. Lett. 99 , 092512 (2011).
- 30. Ranzieri, P. et al. Epitaxial Ni-Mn-Ga/MgO(100) thin films ranging in thickness from 10 to 100nm. Acta Mater. 61 , 263-272 (2013).
- 31. Backen, A. et al. Comparing properties of substrate-constrained and freestanding epitaxial Ni-Mn-Ga films. Acta Mater. 58 , 3415-3421 (2010).
- 32. Ranzieri, P. et al. Achieving Giant Magnetically Induced Reorientation of Martensitic Variants in Magnetic Shape-Memory Ni-Mn-Ga Films by Microstructure Engineering. Adv. Mater. 27 , 4760-4766 (2015).
- 33. Fink, L. et al. Integration of Multifunctional Epitaxial (Magnetic) Shape Memory Films in Silicon Microtechnology. Adv. Funct. Mater. 33 , 2305273 (2023).

- 34. Kar, S., Nielsch, K., Fähler, S. &amp; Reith, H. Microfabrication Approaches on Magnetic Shape Memory Films. Adv. Eng. Mater. 25 , 2301133 (2023).
- 35. Straka, L. et al. Highly mobile twinned interface in 10M modulated Ni-Mn-Ga martensite: Analysis beyond the tetragonal approximation of lattice. Acta Mater. 59 , 7450-7463 (2011).
- 36. Roytburd, A. L. Elastic domains and polydomain phases in solids. Ph. Transit. 45 , 1-34 (1993).
- 37. Kaufmann, S. et al. Modulated martensite: why it forms and why it deforms easily. New J. Phys. 13 , 053029 (2011).
- 38. Kaufmann, S. et al. Adaptive Modulations of Martensites. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 , 145702 (2010).
- 39. Muntifering, B., Pond, R. C., Kovarik, L., Browning, N. D. &amp; Müllner, P. Intra-variant substructure in Ni-Mn-Ga martensite: Conjugation boundaries. Acta Mater. 71 , 255-263 (2014).
- 40. Szczerba, M. J. &amp; Chulist, R. Detwinning of a non-modulated Ni-Mn-Ga martensite: From self-accommodated microstructure to single crystal. Acta Mater. 85 , 67-73 (2015).
- 41. Zhou, L., Schneider, M. M., Giri, A., Cho, K. &amp; Sohn, Y. Microstructural and crystallographic characteristics of modulated martensite, non-modulated martensite, and pre-martensitic tweed austenite in Ni-Mn-Ga alloys. Acta Mater. 134 , 93-103 (2017).
- 42. Diestel, A., Neu, V., Backen, A., Schultz, L. &amp; Fähler, S. Magnetic domain pattern in hierarchically twinned epitaxial Ni-Mn-Ga films. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 25 , 266002 (2013).
- 43. Straka, L., Heczko, O. &amp; Ullakko, K. Investigation of magnetic anisotropy of Ni-Mn-Ga seven-layered orthorhombic martensite. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 272-276 , 2049-2050 (2004).

- 44. Heczko, O., Straka, L., Novak, V. &amp; Fähler, S. Magnetic anisotropy of non modulated Ni-Mn-Ga martensite revisited. J. Appl. Phys. 107 , 09A914 (2010).
- 45. Lai, Y.-W., Schäfer, R., Schultz, L. &amp; McCord, J. Volume magnetic domain mirroring in magnetic shape memory crystals. Appl. Phys. Lett. 96 , 022507 (2010).
- 46. Lu, D. et al. Synthesis of freestanding single-crystal perovskite films and heterostructures by etching of sacrificial water-soluble layers. Nat. Mater. 15 , 1255-1260 (2016).
- 47. Ji, D. et al. Freestanding crystalline oxide perovskites down to the monolayer limit. Nature 570 , 87-90 (2019).
- 48. Thomas, M. et al. Magnetically induced reorientation of martensite variants in constrained epitaxial Ni-Mn-Ga films grown on MgO(001). New J. Phys. 10 , 023040 (2008).
- 49. Klinger, M. &amp; Jäger, A. Crystallographic Tool Box (CrysTBox): automated tools for transmission electron microscopists and crystallographers. J. App.l Cryst. 48 , 2012-2018 (2015).
- 50. Niemann, R. &amp; Fähler, S. Geometry of adaptive martensite in Ni-Mn-based Heusler alloys. J. Alloys Compd. 703 , 280-288 (2017).
Satyakam Kar Yuki Ikeda Kornelius Nielsch Heiko Reith Robert Maaß Sebastian Fähler
Multiferroic Microstructure Created from Invariant Line Constraint
Ferroic materials enable a multitude of emerging applications, and optimum
functional properties are achieved when ferromagnetic and ferroelectric
properties are coupled to a first-order ferroelastic transition. In bulk
materials, this first-order transition involves an invariant habit plane,
connecting coexisting phases: austenite and martensite. Theory predicts that
this plane should converge to a line in thin films, but experimental evidence
is missing. Here, we analyze the martensitic and magnetic microstructure of a
freestanding epitaxial magnetic shape memory film. We show that the martensite
microstructure is determined by an invariant line constraint using lattice
parameters of both phases as the only input. This line constraint explains most
of the observable features, which differ fundamentally from bulk and
constrained films. Furthermore, this finite-size effect creates a remarkable
checkerboard magnetic domain pattern through multiferroic coupling. Our
findings highlight the decisive role of finite-size effects in multiferroics.