Physica C 408–410 (2004) 585–586

www.elsevier.com/locate/physc

Transport properties of YBCO, HBCCO, TBCCO and

BSCCO superconducting polycrystals
a,b,*
A.J. Batista-Leyva , M.T.D. Orlando c, E. Altshuler a

a
Superconductivity Laboratory, IMRE––Physics Faculty, University of Havana, 10400 Havana, Cuba
b
Department of Physics, Faculty of Engineering, University of Holgu
ın, Holgu
ın 80100, Cuba
c
Department of Physics, Universidade Federal do Esp
ıritu Santo, Vitoria ES 29060-900, Brazil

Abstract
Hysteresis and relaxation of transport critical current density for several superconducting polycrystals are studied,
interpreting the results in the frame of the intragranular flux trapped model. From the measurement of the flux trapping
curves, magnetic parameters of superconducting grains were obtained. These values are compared with those obtained
by magnetometric measurements, agreeing in the margins of experimental error. The model qualitatively describes the
relaxation in all superconducting systems
Ó 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Flux trapping; Transport current hysteresis; Transport current relaxation

1. Introduction BSCCO, HBCCO and TBCCO respectively). The model

The irreversibility of intergranular properties has
proven to be a powerful tool for understanding the
overall behavior of superconducting polycrystals. In
Refs. [1,2] is formulated a model that considers the effect
on the weak links of an effective field. This field results
from the combined effect of the applied field and the flux
trapped inside the grains:
Heff ¼ Happ  GMðHeff Þ ð1Þ
In Eq. (1), G is a geometrical factor, which is statistically
distributed in the sample. As the magnetization of the
grains is hysteretic, so will be Heff and the current car-
rying capabilities of the ceramic.
This model has been used to study YBa2 Cu3 O7x ,
(Bi,Pb)2 Sr2 Ca2 Cu3 O10x , (Hg,Re)Ba2 Ca2 Cu3 O8þx [2,3]
and TlBa2 Ca2 Cu3 Oy [4] ceramics (called YBCO,
*
Corresponding author. Address: Department of Physics,
Faculty of Engineering, University of Holgu
ın, Holgu
ın 80100,
Cuba.
E-mail address: jea@informed.sld.cu (A.J. Batista-Leyva).
also explains the relaxation of transport properties in
HTS, ascribing it as a resulting effect of flux creep. In
Refs. [4,5] this approach was used to explain the relax-
ation of the transport critical current density (Jc ) in
YBCO, HBCCO and TBCCO HTS. In most previous
papers several parameters, such as the first critical field
(Hc1g ) and the saturation field of the grain (H  ), are ex-
tracted from the so called ‘flux trapping’ curve [6]. In the
present paper we compare the hysteretical behavior of
transport critical current density, and the relaxation of
this magnitude in the four above mentioned HTS,
regarding the characteristics of the phenomena and the
agreement with the model.
2. Experimental
The samples were prepared through the techniques
described in Refs. [3,4]. BSCCO sample received uni-
axial pressure of 217 MPa prior the final sintering.
Measurement techniques and installations were pub-
lished elsewhere [3,5]. Two measurements were per-
formed: flux trapping curve [6] and relaxation curves [5].

0921-4534/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.physc.2004.03.038
586 A.J. Batista-Leyva et al. / Physica C 408–410 (2004) 585–586

3. Results and discussion 1.2

In Fig. 1, the flux trapping curves for YBCO and 1.0

BSCCO, as well as their fit to the model, are shown. It is
easy to see the good agreement achieved for YBCO and 0.8

S/ S max
the poor quality of the fit for BSCCO. For HBCCO, the
quality of the fit is similar to that of YBCO, while the 0.6
YBCO
curves for TBCCO resembles those obtained for TBCCO
BSCCO. From these curves, the values of Hc1g and H  0.4
BSCCO
were extracted, and their values were compared with Theo
those measured via isothermal hysteresis loop. 0.2
In Table 1 are shown these values for HBCCO and
0.0
TBCCO. It is easy to see the good correspondence ob- 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
tained, in the limits of experimental error, which gives an
µ 0H app (mT)
assurance of the utility of ‘transport magnetometry’ in
determining intragranular magnetic magnitudes. Similar Fig. 2. Dependence of the relaxation rate of Jc with Hm . In solid
results were obtained for BSCCO and YBCO. lines the prediction of the model.
In Fig. 2, the dependence of the relaxation rate of Jc
with the maximum applied field (Hm ) is represented. In
solid lines the prediction of the model. Graphics were relaxation rate. The curve for HBCCO, similar to that of
normalized in each case to the maximum theoretical YBCO, is not shown for clarity. We can see again the
differences between YBCO (and HBCCO) in one hand
and BSCCO and TBCCO in the other. The model does
not achieve a good quantitative description, especially
1.0
for the two last mentioned ceramics, but qualitatively
describe the different behaviors shown by the HTS. This
0.8 YBCO Exp is done, basically, by changing one parameter: the mean
) / J cv(0)

BSCCO Exp value of the geometrical factor of the grains, which

Theo
0.6 determines the effective field acting upon the grains.
Further improvements of the model must include the
J c(0,hH
m

0.4
determination of the distribution of geometrical factors
based on microstructural measurements, and the
accounting of the intergranular flux trapping.
0.2

0.0
0 10 20 30 40
Acknowledgements
µ 0H m (mT)
This work was partially supported by TWAS grant
Fig. 1. Flux trapping curves for YBCO and BSCCO, as well as
no. 95-124 RG/PHYS/LA and by the University of
a fit to the model.
Havana’s ‘Alma Mater’ grant. We acknowledge biblio-
graphical support from the ACLS/SSRC Working
Group on Cuba.
Table 1
Comparison of magnetometric and transport ‘magnetometry’
measurements
References
Compound Magnetometry Transport
l0 Hc1g (mT) [1] K.H. M€ uller, D.N. Mathews, Physica C 206 (1993) 275.
HBCCO (120 K) 6±2 8±2 [2] E. Altshuler et al., Cryogenics 33 (1993) 308.
TBCCO (118 K) 5±1 5±1 [3] A.J. Batista-Leyva et al., Physica C 331 (2000) 57.
[4] A.J. Batista-Leyva et al., Supercond. Sci. Technol. 16 (2003)
l0 H  (mT)
857.
HBCCO (120 K) 14 ± 2 13 ± 3
[5] E. Altshuler et al., Phys. Rev. B 60 (1999) 3673.
TBCCO (118 K) 4±1 6±2
[6] E. Altshuler et al., Physica C 177 (1991) 61.