Bangladesh Journal of Physics, 16, 103-111, 2014

CHARACTERISTIC PINNING POTENTIAL AND ITS DEPENDENCE ON

TEMPERATURE AND MAGNETIC FIELD FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE
SUPERCONDUCTORS

M. R. ISLAM

Department of Physics, University of Chittagong, Chittagong-4331, Bangladesh

Received on 19.06.2014, Accepted for Publication on 24.12.2014

ABSTRACT

The vortex motion induced energy loss in the mixed state of high-temperature superconductors. It
raises the technical problem for future power applications of superconductivity. Here, we have
studied the evaluation of U 0 , the characteristic pinning potential related to the vortex motion. Its
dependence on temperature and magnetic field, especially, for high temperature superconductors is
also included. The numerical result for melt-textured YBa2Cu3O7- sample indicates that the peak
temperature T p , above which U 0 decrease is around 40-50K.

1. INTRODUCTION

Control of energy losses in high-temperature superconductors is essential for technological

applications, especially, for high power application of superconductivity. That is why researchers
are very much interested in order to understand the mechanism of the energy losses in vortex
matter. It is, indeed a scientific interest. In most power applications the magnitude of the transport
current density J will be quite close to the critical current density J c . In the vicinity of J c , the
losses due to flux creep and flux flow are important. A combination of Andersion phase-slip
theory [1,2], Ginzburg-Landau theory and London theory [3,4 ] gives a reasonable interpretation
of the energy loss induced by vortex motion. The straight forward equation [5,6] for energy
dissipation of vortex motion is written as

 U eff 
E   0 L 0 H exp  , (1)
 k BT 
where  0 is an attempt frequency, L the average distance of flux jumping,  0 H( Ba ) is an
applied magnetic field, U eff is the effective activation energy for flux motion which depends on
current density J and is written as
U eff ( J )  U 0 ln J c / J . (2)
 
The equation (2) is the exact solution of the flux conservation equation B / t    D ,
originally proposed by Anderson and Kim [7]. U 0 is a unique parameter characterizing
superconductivity and its dependence on temperature and magnetic field is a crucial issue to be
determined.
104 M. R. ISLAM

E-mail: islammohammed7@gmail.com
In general, the effective activation energy U eff is a function of the current density J,
temperature T and magnetic field H : U eff  U J , T , H  .
Now, if we consider the flux creep in a narrow cone-like potential well proposed by Zeldov et al.
[8], the effective activation energy U eff is written as

 J T , H 
U eff J , T , H   U 0 T , H  ln  c , (3)
 J 
where U 0 T , H  is assume to be J-independent activation energy.
Inserting Eq.(3) into Eq.(1), we have

 J 
E  Ec 
J  , (4)
 c 
where
U 0 T , H 
 T , H   . (5)
k BT
The Eq.(4) is called the empirical material power law (MPL). The power law is observed in
 
numerous experiments [6,9-12] and the power  T, H control the current voltage
characteristics of the superconductor. In Eq.(4), Ec   0 L 0 H is defined as the electric field
criterion at the current density J  J c , where J c is the critical current density without flux
 
creep. For particular field and temperature  T, H is a constant and is obtained from the slope
of the Eq.(4) as follows
ln E   T , H  ln J  C, (6)
where,
C  ln Ec   T , H  ln J c . (7)
So, we are able to determine U 0 T , H  from the slope of  T, H  using the relation
U 0 T , H    T , H k BT , provided that  T, H  being a constant. Thus, the  T, H 
values determine the E  J characteristics of superconductor.

2. MODEL FOR U 0 AND ITS DEPENDENCE ON TEMPERATURE AND FIELD

Most experiment [13-15] suggests that U 0 is a function of temperature and magnetic field,
written as
U 0  U 0 (T , H ). (8)

What will be the exact form of U 0 T , H  and how to evaluate U 0 T , H  for a specific
superconducting sample is our main task. The question is what will be the exact form of
U 0 (T ) ~ 1  T / Tc 
m
U 0 (T , H ) ? Many researchers [13-15] assume that and
CHARACTERISTIC PINNING POTENTIAL AND ITS DEPENDENCE 105

U 0 ( H ) ~ H  n , where m and n are exponent constants and formulated U 0 as the product of

the two, i.e., U 0 (T , H )  U 0 (T )U 0 ( H ) . The exact form of U 0 (T , H ) is still controversial.
We have developed a method of evaluating U 0 (T , H ) , using a simple method based on the
temperature and field dependence of J c (T , H ) discussed below. The activation energy U
depends on J , the current density that a superconductor can carry over J c J  J c  and
different U  J relationship were published in [16]. In a previous study [17], we have proposed
a model of U J  , using the concept of critical state model and self-organized criticality (SOC)
of vortex motion. The effective activation energy for thermal avalanche is written as
 
 J   J 
U eff J   U0 
1  J   k B T ln 
1  J  , (9)
 c   c 
where the parameters  and  are exponent constant, related to each other by the relation
    1 and U 0 is the characteristic pinning potential or barrier in absent of transport current
related to the material of the superconductors. Most of the magnetic relaxation data [17,18] can
be well explained with the help of the model described above treating U 0 as the only fitting
parameter. We would like to evaluate U 0 and its related parameters for specific materials,
especially, for HTSCs. We start with a linear U  J model, given by Anderson and Kim with the
following assumptions
 J 
U eff ( J )  U 0 (T ) 1  , (10)
 J c (T ) 

If J c is the function of temperature only.

 J 
U eff ( J )  U 0 ( H ) 1  , (11)
 J c (H ) 
if J c is the function of magnetic field only.
By analogy, we have
 J 
U eff ( J , T , H )  U 0 (T , H ) 1  . (12)
 J c (T , H ) 
Putting the value of Eq.(12) in energy dissipation equation [ i.e., in Eq.(1)], we have
 U0  J 
E   0 L 0 H exp  
1  . (13)

 KT  Jc 

Taking logarithm on both sides of equation (13) implies
U0  J 
ln E  ln  0 L 0 H   
1 . (14)
k BT  Jc 

106 M. R. ISLAM

Taking the derivative of Eqn. (14) with respect to ln J , we have

d ln E U0  J 
 
 J . (15)
d ln J k BT  c 
Taking the same derivative of Eq.(4) and compare with Eq.(15), we have

d ln E U 0
  J / J c  
d ln J k BT
 J T , H  
U 0 T , H    T , H k B T  c . (16)
 J 
This is a new result for U 0 . To evaluate U 0 at a particular temperature and field, we have to
know the other parameters, viz., the values of  T, H  , J and J c at the same temperature and
field.
If we use Eq.(9), effective activation energy [19] for thermal avalanche in Eq.(1) implies
U 0  k B T  J c / J , (17)
for which [17]   0,   1 , corresponds to the A-K model for linear U  J .
Similar result hold for the universal equation for activation energy suggested by Malozemoff [20]
and Griessen et al.[21];
 T , H 
U T , H   J c T , H   
U eff T , H , J   0    1, (18)
 T , H   J  

where  T, H  is a characteristic exponent corresponding to different models with different
values. For example,  T , H   1 , corresponding to the A-K model for linear U  J .
3. NUMERICAL RESULT

To evaluate U 0 , we have to know the other parameters, viz., J c , J ,  T, H  and their
dependence on temperature and field. There are several ways of calculating J c and J based on
the magnetization measurement data [21-24] and their dependence on temperature and magnetic
 
field. Now we consider the evaluation of  T, H , which is equal to the slope of ln E versus
ln J and is independent of J . This method can only be used to treat straight lines of ln E vs
ln J , one of the experimental result given in [6] for the sample melt-textured YBa2Cu3O7-. We
took one particular example of extracting  from the experimental curves obtained in [6],
treating ln E vs ln J is a straight line. For the curve designated in [6] as No.5, in which
 0 H  0.75 Tesla and T  73 K has been used; we have   3.48 , shown in Figure 1.
CHARACTERISTIC PINNING POTENTIAL AND ITS DEPENDENCE 107

Note that  T, H  values differ at different applied magnetic fields at the measured temperature.

-8

-10

-12
ln [ E(V/m)]

-14

-16

-18 ln(E) versus ln(J)

-20
17.4 17.6 17.8 18.0 18.2 18.4 18.6 18.8
2
ln [ J (A/m )]

   
Fig. 1. Method of extracting  T, H , the slope of ln E versus ln J [for the curve No.5,  
Figure 1(b) in Ref. 6]. The black circles indicate the experimental result of melt-textured
YBa2Cu3O7-.

Finally, based on the temperature and magnetic field dependence of J c , we have

n
J  m H 
U 0 T , H    T , H k B T  c 0 1  T / Tc    , (19)
 J   H0 

where J c 0 is the maximum critical current density independent of field and temperature and ,
H 0  0 ab /  2 s 2 c is a constant field characterizing layered superconductor [25] introduced
here for numerical analysis. The values of m and n may differ for different superconducting
samples. U 0 T , H  now become the material dependent parameter for superconductivity.
Numerical result is given [using Eq.(19)] in favour of the sample YBaCuO for comparison with
other observations [6,14,24], shown in Figures 2-5.
108 M. R. ISLAM

Fig. 2. Temperature dependence of U0 , at constant magnetic field

( H  0.75T , H 0  0.045T ) with m  1 and 1.5 , n  0.5 , using  T , H   3.48 ,
J c 0 / J  100 and Tc  93K for YBa2Cu3O7-d.

Fig. 3. Temperature and magnetic field (marked in the respective figure) dependence of U0 ,
using m  1 and n  0.5.
CHARACTERISTIC PINNING POTENTIAL AND ITS DEPENDENCE 109

U 0 (same as in figure 8.5), using

Fig. 4. Temperature and magnetic field dependence of
m  1.5 and n  0.5.

Fig. 5. Magnetic field dependence of U 0 , at constant temperature.

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Recently, the researchers [6,12-15,24-28] are very much interested to evaluate the parameters
U 0 , J c and U eff as they are related to the energy loss-mechanism of superconductivity. We
have developed a method for calculating U 0 , the characteristic pinning potential for
superconducting materials. The recent progress of theoretical research is based on the material
110 M. R. ISLAM

E  Ec J / J c  , where   U 0 / k BT , from which one can assume that


power law (MPL):
U 0  T for constant  . In general,  values vary with temperature and applied magnetic field.
On the other hand, experimental results [6,14] show that U 0 increases with the increase of
temperature until T p , called peak temperature above which U 0 decreases. Our numerical result
indicate that the peak temperature T p is around 40  50K and U 0 is almost constant within
the indicated field (shown in Figure 5) and is consistent with the result obtained in [6,14].


We follow the E-J characteristics of superconductor ( E  J ), assuming that ln( E) depends
on ln( J) almost linear and found that the slope  is related to not only on U 0 but also on the
other parameters, viz., J c and J . So, the related parameters are responsible for the temperature
and magnetic field dependence of U 0 . We start with the Anderson and Kim (A-K) model [1,7]
for linear U  J and establish the new relation [i.e., equation (16)]. This relation also holds for
the other U  J models, in special cases discussed before. We have parameterized U 0 by the
characteristic parameters of a superconductor having unique properties:
U 0  0; J  J c , H  H 0  0.
 (20)
 0, T  Tc . 
The theoretical result that we have found is comparable with other observations [12-15].

For numerical analysis, we have calculated the parameters for specific sample using the formula
mentioned in [26]. For example, the maximum value of J is found to be
J max T , B   2.35  105 A / m 2 for melt-textured YBa2Cu3O7- sample reported by Wang et
al.[25]. In general, the transport current J lies in the order of 10  10 A / m while the
4 5 2

maximum critical current density J c 0 lies in the order of 10  10 A / m even more. We took
5 8 2

J c 0 / J  100 for numerical analysis. The characteristic field H 0 [  0 ab /  2 s 2 c  ] is

estimated [26] to be 0.045T for the sample of the type YBaCuO. We have fixed
 T , H   3.48 as because of only one calculation is done. Moreover, our estimation
  3.48 is very similar ( n  3.00 and 2.95 ) to the other observations [20,29] for the
YBa2Cu3O7 system. For fixed temperature and field, U 0 is different for different high-Tc
materials and depends not only on temperature and field but also on the other parameters
characterizing superconductivity.
On the basis of the study, we have concluded that (i) a suitable (direct) method to determine
 
 T, H is suggested, (ii) U 0 exhibits distinct behaviour below and above the peak temperature
T p , lies between 40  50K and (iii) U 0 is a unique parameter characterizing
superconductivity and is different for different high-Tc materials.
CHARACTERISTIC PINNING POTENTIAL AND ITS DEPENDENCE 111

REFERENCES

[1] P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, pp 309 (1962).

[2] D. R. Tilley and J. Tilley, Superfluidity & Superconductivity (Bristal: Adam Hilger Ltd.)
1986).
[3] M. Tinkham, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, pp 1658 (1988).
[4] M. Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity (USA: McGraw-Hill Inc.) (1975).
[5] L. K. Xu, L. Shan, Y. L. Tang, F. Wang, X. N. Xu and X. Jin, Phys. Stat. sol. B 225(1), pp
123 (2001).
[6] L. Shan, A. M. Sun, X. N. Xu, Y. L. Tang, D. W. Lu, X. Jin, L. J. Shen, C. C. Lam and Y.
S. Chen, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 12, pp 1138 (1999).
[7] Y. B. Kim and P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, pp 306 (1962).
[8] E. Zeldov, N. M. Amer, G. Koren, A. Gupta, M. W. McElfresh and R. J. Gambino, Appl.
Phys. Lett. 56, pp 680 (1990).
[9] T. Schuster, H. Kuhn and E. H. Brandt, Phys. Rev. B51, pp 697 (1995).
[10] E. H. Brandt, Rep. Prog. Phys. 58, pp 1465 (1995).
[11] J. Gilchrist and C. J. Van Der Beek, Physica C, 231, pp 147 (1994).
[12] Y. H. Zhang et al., Supercond. Sci. Technol. 14, pp 346 (2001).
[13] V. M. Vinokur, M. V. Feigelman and V. B. Geshkenbein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, pp 915
(1991).
[14] S. S. Sugue and K. C. Goretta, Journal of Superconductivity, 12, pp 661 (1999).
[15] M. M. A. Samreh and A. M. Saleh, Journal of Superconductivity: Incorporating Novel
Magnetism, 16, pp 923 (2003).
[16] M. J. Qin, X. Jin, H. L. Ji, Z. X. Shi, X. X. Yao, Z. G. Fan and Y. Q. Shan, J. Appl. Phys.
77, pp 2618 (1995).
[17] M. R. Islam, Indian J. Phys. 78, pp 951 (2004).
[18] Z. H. Wang, K. B. Li, J. Fang, J. L. Chen and X. W. Cao, Z. Phys. B104, pp 445 (1997).
[19] Z. Wang and D. Shi, Phys. Rev. B48, pp 4208 (1993).
[20] A. P. Malozemoff, Physica C, 185-189, pp 264 (1991).
[21] R. Griessen, A. F. T. Hoekstra, H. H. Wen, G. Doornbos and H. G. Schnack, Physica C,
282-287, pp 347 (1997).
[22] C. P. Bean, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, pp 250 (1963).
[23] E. M. Gyorgy, R. B. V. Dover, K. A. Jackson, L. F. Schneemeyer and J. V. Waszczak, Appl.
Phys. Lett. 55, pp 283 (1989).
[24] S. Keshavarzi, Physica C, 399, pp 15 (2003).
[25] Y. I. Latyshev, J. E. Nevelskaya and P. Monceau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, pp 932 (1996).
[26] M. R. Islam, Ph. D. Thesis (University of Chittagong, Bangladesh) ( 2002).
[27] H. Yamasaki and Y. Mawatari, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 13, pp 202 (2000).
[28] S. L. Liu, G. J. Wu, X. B. Xu, J. Wu and H. M. Shao, Solid state Communications. 133, pp
615 (2005).
[29] R. H. Koch, V. Foglietti, W. J. Gallagher, G. Koren, A. Gupta and M. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 63, pp 1511 (1989).