Josephson effect in graphene SNS junction with a single localized defect

Dima Bolmatov
a,b,
, Chung-Yu Mou
a,b
a
Department of Physics, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan
b
National Center for Theoretical Sciences, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 24 August 2009
Received in revised form
1 February 2010
Accepted 11 April 2010
Keywords:
Electronic transport in nanoscale materials
and structures
Electronic structure of nanoscale materials
Localization effects
a b s t r a c t
Imperfections change essentially the electronic transport properties of graphene. Motivated by a recent
experiment reporting on the possible application of graphene as junctions, we study transport
properties in graphene-based junctions with single localized defect. We solve the DiracBogoliubov
de-Gennes equation with a single localized defect superconductornormal(graphene)superconductor
(SNS) junction. We consider the properties of tunneling conductance and Josephson current through an
undoped strip of graphene with heavily doped s-wave superconducting electrodes in the limit
l
def
5L5x. We nd that spectrum of Andreev bound states are modied in the presence of single
localized defect in the bulk and the minimum tunneling conductance remains the same. The Josephson
junction exhibits sign oscillations.
& 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Recent exciting developments in transport experiments on
graphene have stimulated theoretical studies of superconductiv-
ity phenomena in this material, which has been recently
fabricated [1,2]. A number of unusual features [3] of super-
conducting state have been predicted [4,5] which are closely
related to the Dirac-like spectrum of normal state excitation [69].
In particular, the unconventional normal electron dispersion [10]
has been shown to result in a nontrivial modication of Andreev
reection and Andreev bound states in Josephson junctions [11]
with superconducting graphene electrodes [12,13].
Other interesting consequences of the existence of Dirac-like
quasiparticles can be understood by studying superconductivity
[14] in graphene [1519]. It has been suggested that super-
conductivity can be induced in graphene layer in the presence of a
superconducting electrode near it via proximity effect [2022].
In this work, we study Josephson effect and nd bound state in
graphene [23] for tunneling SNS junction with the presence of a
single localized defect [24]. In this study, we shall concentrate on
SNS junction with normal region thickness L5x, where x is the
superconducting coherence length, and width W which has an
applied gate voltage U across the normal region [25,26]. In the
frame of the limit l
def
5L5x considered by Kulik we investigate
tunneling conductance in SNS junctions with the presence of a
single localized defect and nd that Andreev levels are modied,
the minimum tunneling conductance remains the same [2729].
2. Josephson effect in superconductor/normal(graphene)/
superconductor junctions with a single localized defect
We consider a SNS junction with a single localized defect
which is involved in a graphene sheet of width W lying in the xy
plane extends from x=L/2 to L/2 while the superconducting
region occupies [x[ 4L=2 (see Fig. 1). The SNS junctions can then
be described by the DiracBogoliubovde-Gennes (DBdG)
equations [30]
H
s
E
F
U D
D
+
E
F
UH
s
_ _
c
s
=ec
s
:
Here, c
s
=(c
As
,c
Bs
,c
+
As
,c
+
Bs
), c=(u
1
,u
2
,v
1
,v
2
) are the four
component wave functions for the electron and hole spinors,
the index s denote K or K
/
for electrons or holes near K and K
/
points, s takes values K(K
/
) for s=K(K
/
), E
F
denotes the Fermi
energy, A and B denote the two inequivalent sites in the hexagonal
lattice of graphene, and the Hamiltonian H
s
is given by
H
s
=iv
F
[s
x
@
x
sgn(s)s
y
@
y
]: (1)
In Eq. (1), v
F
denotes the Fermi velocity of the quasiparticles in
graphene and sgn(s) takes values 7 for s=K(K
/
). The 22 Pauli
matrices s
i
act on the sublattice index. The excitation energy e40
is measured relative to the Fermi level (set at zero). The
electrostatic potential U and pair potential D have step function
proles, as in the case of a semiconductor two-dimensional
electron gas [3133]: D(r)-D
0
exp
8if=2
, U for x-7o. We
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/physb
Physica B
0921-4526/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.physb.2010.04.015

Corresponding author at: Department of Physics, National Tsing Hua

University, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan.
E-mail address: bolmat@phys.nthu.edu.tw (D. Bolmatov).
Physica B 405 (2010) 28962899
ARTICLE IN PRESS
assume non-interacting electrons in the normal region, therefore,
D(r) 0, U=0 for [x[ oL=2. The reduction of the order parameter
D(x) in the superconducting region on approaching the SN
interface is neglected; i.e., we approximate parameter D(x) as
we have done it above. As discussed by Likharev [34], this
approximation is justied if the weak link has length and width
much smaller than x. There is no lattice mismatch at the NS
interface, so the honeycomb lattice of graphene is unperturbed at
the boundary, the interface is smooth and impurity free. Zero
magnetic eld is assumed.
Solving the DBdG equations, we gain the wave-functions in the
superconducting and the normal regions. In region I(III), for the
DBdG quasiparticles moving along the 7x direction with a
transverse momentum k
y
=q and energy e, the wave-functions are
given by
C

=exp(iqyik
s
xkmx)
exp(imb)
exp(igimb)
exp(imf=2)
exp(igimf=2)
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
C

=exp(iqyik
s
xkmx)
exp(imb)
exp(igimb)
exp(imf=2)
exp(igimf=2)
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
:
The parameters b, g, k
0
, k are dened by b =arccos(e=D
0
),
g =arcsin[v
F
q=(U
0
E
F
)], k
s
=

(U
0
E
F
)
2
=(v
F
)
2
q
2
_
, k =(U
0

E
F
)D
0
sin(b)=(
2
v
2
F
k
s
) and m=7 denotes region I(III), m=+ for
I and m= for III correspondingly. Further we assumed that the
Fermi wave length l
/
F
in the superconducting region much smaller
than the wave length l
F
in the normal region and U
0
bE
F
,e. Since
[q[ rE
F
=v
F
, this regime of a heavily doped superconductor
corresponds to the limits g-0, k
s
-U
0
=v
F
, k-(D
0
=v
F
)sin(b).
Now we analyze the spectral properties of a graphene ring.
Formally we nd solutions for graphene ring and then extending
ring in the scale, match external boarder of ring with super-
conducting regions of junction and x internal part implying
which as defect. For that we divide the region II into three areas:
a,b,c (see Fig. 2). We solve the DBdG equations for the area b,
while area c is the area where placed defect and area a would be
extended and matched with superconducting regions. The two
valleys s7 decouple, and we can solve equations separately for
each valley, H
s
c
s
=(esE
F
)c
s
, H
s
=H
0
sV(r)s
z
. The term
proportional to s
z
in Hamiltonian is a mass term conning the
Dirac electrons in the area b. Rewrite the Hamiltonian in the
cylindrical coordinates and since H
s
commutes with J
z
=l
z

1
2
s
z
,
its electron-eigenspinors c
e
are eigenstates of J
z
[35]
C
e
(r,a) =
exp(id(n1=2)a)J
d(n1=2)
(k(e)r)
exp(id(n1=2)a)J
d(n1=2)
(k(e)r)
_ _
,
with eigenvalues n, where n is a half-odd integer, n =d
1
2
,d
3
2
, . . .
and J
d(n1=2)
(k(e)r) is the Bessel function of (n1/2) order. In the
xy plane d denotes the moving direction of the correspondent
quasiparticle, d=+ for the quasiparticle moving toward x=L/2
and d=for the quasiparticle moving toward x=L/2 direction
correspondingly. Further we are interested in to nd zero energy
states [22]. In this case the DBdG equations posses a general
symmetry with respect to the change in the sign of energy [36]
e-e, i ^ s
y
^ u
+
-^ v, i ^ s
y
^ v
+
-^ u, (2)
where we denote ^ u =(u
1
,u
2
) and ^ v =(v
1
,v
2
). Thus, for a set of zero
modes ( ^ u
i
, ^ v
i
) enumerated by a certain index i we have
^ v
i
=i ^ s
y
^ u
+
j
, ^ u
i
=i ^ s
y
^ v
+
j
: (3)
In the same manner for electron hole-spinors we have the view
C
h
(r,a) =
exp(id(n1=2)a
/
)J
d(n1=2)
(k
/
(e)r)
exp(id(n1=2)a
/
)J
d(n1=2)
(k
/
(e)r)
_ _
,
with the denitions
a(e) =arcsin[v
F
q=(eE
F
)], (4)
a
/
(e) =arcsin[v
F
q=(eE
F
)], (5)
k(e) =(v
F
)
1
(eE
F
)cos(a), (6)
k
/
(e) =(v
F
)
1
(eE
F
)cos(a): (7)
The angle aA(p=2,p=2) is the angle of incidence of the
electron (having longitudinal wave vector k), and a
/
is the
reection angle of the hole (having longitudinal wave vector k
/
)
[37,38]. To obtain an analytical approximation of the spectrum,
we use the asymptotic form of the Bessel functions for large r. This
indeed is the desired limit as rk(e) -r
def
k(e)pr
def
=L51, where r
def
is the defect radius (the radius of the area c) and determine for all
eigenvalues n =d
1
2
. In this limit we impose the innite mass
boundary conditions at y=0,W, for which q
n
=(n1=2)p=W in
the area b with V(r)-o in the a and c areas consequently (see
Fig. 3). Half-odd integer values n reect the p Berrys phase of
closed size of a single localized defect in graphene.
To obtain the subgap (eoD
0
) Andreev bound states, we now
impose the boundary conditions at the graphene. The wave-
functions in the superconducting and normal regions can be
Fig. 1. A graphene undoped ribbon is contacted by two superconducting leads.
The charge carriers tunnel from one lead to another via multiple tunneling states
formed in the graphene strip. A defect placed inside the strip.
Fig. 2. The normal region II is divided by three areas a, b, c. The DBdG equations
are solved for area b and determined by the innite mass boundary conditions
induced by V(r)-o in a and c areas correspondingly.
D. Bolmatov, C.-Y. Mou / Physica B 405 (2010) 28962899 2897
ARTICLE IN PRESS
constructed as
C
I
=a
1
c

I
b
1
c

I
, C
III
=a
2
c

I
b
2
c

I
, (8)
C
II
=ac
e
II
bc
e
II
cc
h
II
dc
h
II
, (9)
where a
1
(b
1
), a
2
(b
2
) are the amplitudes of right and left moving
DBdG quasiparticles in region I(III) and a(b) and c(d) are the
amplitudes of right(left) moving electrons and holes, respectively,
in the normal region [12]. These wave functions must satisfy the
boundary conditions
C
I
[
x = L=2
=C
II
[
x = L=2
, C
II
[
x = L=2
=C
III
[
x = L=2
: (10)
Since the wave vector k
y
parallel to the NS interface and different
wave vectors in the y-direction are not coupled, we may solve the
problem for a given k
y
=q and we can consider each transverse
mode separately. To leading order in the small parameter D
0
L=v
F
we may substitute a(a
/
)-a(0), k(e)(k
/
(e))-k(0). After some
algebra we obtain equation
cos(2b)
sin
2
(kL)cos
2
(kL)sin
2
(a)
cos
2
(kL)cos
2
(a)1
_ _
,
sin(2b)
cos(kL)sin(kL)sin(a)
cos
2
(kL)cos
2
(a)1
_ _
=cos(f): (11)
Eq. (11) differs from equation obtained for SNS junction without a
single defect. Eliminating second term in Eq. (11) we could
immediately yield reduction of the equation and it earns an
essential form for weak SNS junctions [22]. The solution of
Eq. (11) is a single bound state per mode
e
n
=D
0

2
A
2
B
2
(2CA
2
B
2
B

14CA
2
(C1)
_
_
),
where
A =
sin
2
(k
n
L)cos
2
(k
n
L)sin
2
(a)
cos
2
(k
n
L)cos
2
(a)1
, (12)
B =
cos(k
n
L)sin(k
n
L)sin(a)
cos
2
(k
n
L)cos
2
(a)1
, (13)
C =
1
2

1
D
1
2
sin
2
f
2
_ _ _ _
, (14)
D=
cos
2
(k
n
L)cos
2
(a)1
cos
2
(k
n
L)cos
2
(a)cos(2k
n
L)
: (15)
We do not have a simple analytic expression for the f-
dependance but we obtained modied Andreev levels with the
presence of a single localized defect in the bulk. The conductance
of the graphene strip is expressed through the transmission
probability by the Landauer formula
G =g
0

n(m)
n = 0
t
n
, g
0
=4e
2
=h, (16)
where n(m)b1 is given by n(m) =Int(k
n
W=p1=2). Substitution
transmission probability into Eq. (16) gives the conductance
(normalized per mode) versus Fermi energy (see Fig. 3).
3. Josephson current
The Josephson current at zero temperature is given by
I(f) =
4e

d
df
_
o
0
de

o
n = 0
r
n
(e,f)e, (17)
where the factor of 4 accounts for the twofold spin and valley
degeneracies. Substitution of r
n
(e,f) =d[ee
n
(f)] into Eq. (17)
gives the supercurrent due to the discrete spectrum
I(f) =
eD
0

o
n = 0
(3A
2
n
B
2
n
)sin2f
8(A
2
n
B
2
n
)

(3A
2
n
B
2
n
)cosf
2
(A
2
n
B
2
n
)B
2
n
_

A
n
sinf
2(A
2
n
B
2
n
)
: (18)
Contributions to the supercurrent from the continuous spectrum
are smaller by a factor L=x and may be neglected in the short-
junction regime [6]. For L5W the summation over n may be
replaced by an integration. The resulting Josephson current I
c
upon substitution f-p=2 is plotted as a function of m in Fig. 4.
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, we have shown that a Josephson junction in
graphene can carry a nonzero supercurrent even if the Fermi level
is tuned to the point of zero carrier concentration. At this Dirac
point, the current-phase relationship has a resonant behaviour
due to single localized defect. This unusual quasidiffusive
behaviour of the Josephson effect in undoped graphene should
be observable in submicrometer scale junctions. It is found that
the current has a peak-like structure, with alternating signs of the
Fig. 3. Tunneling conductance (normalized per mode) of the graphene SNS
junctions with a single localized defect versus Fermi energy, calculated from
Eq. (14). The tunneling conductance exhibits oscillatory behaviour.
Fig. 4. Josephson current I
c
of graphene-based SNS junction with single localized
defect (length L short compared to the width W and superconducting coherence
length x), as a function of the Fermi energy m in the normal region.
D. Bolmatov, C.-Y. Mou / Physica B 405 (2010) 28962899 2898
ARTICLE IN PRESS
peaks. The resulting nonequilibrium Josephson current for a given
phase difference thus oscillates as a function of chemical
potential, i.e. the junction displays the so-called p- behaviour.
Acknowledgments
Authors thank Prof. H.H. Lin for fruitful discussions and an
anonymous referee for interesting comments and suggestions
which allowed us to improve this work. We acknowledge support
from the National Center for Theoretical Sciences in Taiwan.
References
[1] K.S. Novoselov, A.K. Geim, S.V. Morozov, D. Jiang, M.I. Katsnelson, I.V.
Grigorieva, S.V. Dubonos, A.A. Firsov, Nature 438 (2005) 197.
[2] Y. Zhang, Y.-W. Tan, H.L. Stormer, P. Kim, Nature 438 (2005) 201.
[3] P. Kleinert, Phys. B: Condens. Matter 404 (2009) 4015;
P. Kleinert, epriint: arXiv:0802.1271v1.
[4] D.A. Abanin, S.A. Parameswaran, S.L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009)
076802;
B. O

zyilmaz1, P. Jarillo-Herrero1, D. Efetov, D.A. Abanin, L.S. Levitov, P. Kim,

Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 166804;
D.A. Abanin, P.A. Lee, L.S. Levitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 176803.
[5] P. Ghaemi, F. Wilczek, arXiv:070 9.2626v1.
[6] C.W.J. Beenakker, H. van Houten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 3056.
[7] Q.-H. Wang, D.-H. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 67 (2003) 20511.
[8] S. Saito, A. Zettl, Carbon Nanotubes: Quantum Cylinders of Graphene,
Elsevier, Oxford, 2008.
[9] D.V. Kolesnikov, V.A. Osipov, JETP Lett. 87 (2008) 419.
[10] H. Kawai, Y. Yoshimoto, O. Narikiyo, Y. Hanawa, A. Imamura, Surface Sci. 602
(2008) 3010.
[11] J. Koch, V. Manucharyan, M.H. Devoret, L.I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103
(2009) 217004.
[12] M. Maiti, K. Sengupta, Phys. Rev. B 76 (2007) 054513.
[13] P. Ghaemi, F. Wang, A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 157002.
[14] P.M. Shirage, K. Kihou, K. Miyazawa, C.-H. Lee, H. Kito1, H. Eisaki, T.
Yanagisawa, Y. Tanaka, A. Iyo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 257003.
[15] H.H. Lin, T. Hikihara, H.T. Jeng, B.L. Huang, C.Y. Mou, X. Hu, Phys. Rev. B 79
(2009) 035405.
[16] D.V. Khveshchenko, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 21 (2009) 075303.
[17] I.L. Aleiner, D.E. Kharzeev, A.M. Tsvelik, Phys. Rev. B 76 (2007) 195415.
[18] A.F. Morpurgo, F. Guinea, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 196804.
[19] M.M. Fogler, D.S. Novikov, B.I. Shklovskii, Phys. Rev. B 76 (2007) 233402.
[20] C.V.J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 067007.
[21] A.F. Volkov, P.H.C. Magnee, B.J. van Wees, T.M. Klapwijk, Physica C 242 (1995)
261.
[22] M. Titov, C.W.J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. B 74 (2006) 041401(R).
[23] M. Zarea, N. Sandler, Phys. B Condens. Matter 404 (2009) 2694.
[24] B.L. Huang, C.Y. Mou, EPL 88 (2009) 68005.
[25] S.T. Wu, C.Y. Mou, Phys. Rev. B 67 (2003) 024503.
[26] E. Zhao, J.A. Sauls, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 206601.
[27] I.O. Kulik, A. Omelyanchuk, JETP Lett. 21 (1975) 96;
I.O. Kulik, A. Omelyanchuk, Sov. Phys. JETP 41 (1975) 1071.
[28] A.F. Andreev, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 46 (1964) 1823.
[29] P.A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 1887.
[30] C.W.J. Beenakker, cond-mat/0604594.
[31] A.F. Volkov, P.H.C. Magnee, B.J. van Wees, T.M. Klapwijk, Physica C 242 (2006)
261.
[32] G. Fagas, G. Tkachov, A. Pfund, K. Richter, Phys. Rev. B 71 (2005) 224510.
[33] M.G. Vavilov, I.L. Aleiner, L.I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. B 76 (2007) 115331.
[34] K.K. Likharev, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51 (1979) 101.
[35] P. Recher, B. Trauzettel, A. Rycerz, Ya.M. Blanter, C.W.J. Beenakker, A.F.
Morpurgo, Phys. Rev. B 76 (2007) 235404.
[36] A.P. Isaev, O.V. Ogievetsky, J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 42 (2009) 304017;
S.I. Bastrukov, P.-Y. Lai, I.V. Molodtsova, H.-K. Chang, D.V. Podgainy, SRL 16
(2009) 5.
[37] Y. Asano, T. Yoshida, Y. Tanaka, A.A. Golubov, Phys. Rev. B 78 (2008) 014514.
[38] S. Bhattacharjee, K. Sengupta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 217001.
D. Bolmatov, C.-Y. Mou / Physica B 405 (2010) 28962899 2899