Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Correlated electron state in CeCu2Si2 controlled through Si to P substitution

Y. Lai, S. M. Saunders, D. Graf, A. Gallagher, K.-W. Chen, F. Kametani, T. Besara, T. Siegrist, A. Shekhter, and R. E. Baumbach
Phys. Rev. Materials 1, 034801 – Published 18 August 2017

Abstract

CeCu2Si2 is an exemplary correlated electron metal that features two domes of unconventional superconductivity in its temperature-pressure phase diagram. The first dome surrounds an antiferromagnetic quantum critical point, whereas the more exotic second dome may span the termination point of a line of f-electron valence transitions. This behavior has received intense interest, but what has been missing are ways to access the high pressure behavior under milder conditions. Here we study Si P chemical substitution, which compresses the unit cell volume but simultaneously weakens the hybridization between the f- and conduction electron states and encourages complex magnetism. At concentrations that show magnetism, applied pressure suppresses the magnetic ordering temperature and superconductivity is recovered for samples with low disorder. These results reveal that the electronic behavior in this system is controlled by a nontrivial combination of effects from unit cell volume and electronic shell filling. Guided by this topography, we discuss prospects for uncovering a valence fluctuation quantum phase transition in the broader family of Ce-based ThCr2Si2-type materials through chemical substitution.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Received 6 June 2017

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.1.034801

©2017 American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Condensed Matter, Materials & Applied Physics

Authors & Affiliations

Y. Lai1,2, S. M. Saunders3, D. Graf1, A. Gallagher1,2, K.-W. Chen1,2, F. Kametani4, T. Besara1, T. Siegrist1,5, A. Shekhter1, and R. E. Baumbach1,2

  • 1National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA
  • 2Department of Physics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA
  • 3Iowa State University and the Ames Laboratory, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA
  • 4Applied Superconductivity Center, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA
  • 5Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, FAMU-FSU College of Engineering, Tallahassee, Florida 32310, USA

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 1, Iss. 3 — August 2017

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
CHORUS

Article Available via CHORUS

Download Accepted Manuscript
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×

Images

  • Figure 1
    Figure 1

    (a) Comparison between the measured phosphorous concentration xmeas and the nominal concentration xnom, where xmeas was determined using energy dispersive spectrometer analysis. Throughout the paper we use xmeas=x unless otherwise specified. (b) The lattice constants a(x) (left axis) and c(x) (right axis). (c) The unit cell volume V(x) (left axis) and chemical pressure Pch (right axis), calculated using the Burch-Murnaghan equation, where B0=110 GPa [27]. (d) The ratio c/a vs x.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 2
    Figure 2

    (a) Magnetic susceptibility χ=M/H collected in a magnetic field H=5 kOe applied to the c axis of CeCu2(Si1xPx)2 for x=0–0.1. (b) The inverse magnetic susceptibility χ1 vs T for Hc at concentrations x=0, 0.043, and 0.098. The dotted lines are Curie-Weiss fits to the data using the expression χ(T)=C/(Tθ). (c) The Curie-Weiss temperature θ extracted from fits to χ(T) vs x. (d) Magnetic susceptibility χ vs temperature T for CeCu2(Si1xPx)2 at select concentrations x=0 and 0.098 for magnetic fields H applied parallel (solid line) and perpendicular (dotted line) to the c axis. (e) The ratio of the magnetic susceptibilities for H and to the c axis at T=2 and 10 K vs x.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 3
    Figure 3

    (a) Heat capacity C divided by temperature T vs T of CeCu2(Si1xPx)2 for x=0–0.1. (b) C/T vs T for CeCu2Si2 and LaCu2Si2. Also shown is the 4f contribution to the heat capacity of CeCu2Si2 (blue circles) C4f/T, which was acquired by subtracting the La contribution from that of the Ce compound. (c) The 4f contribution to the entropy S4f vs T for CeCu2(Si1xPx)2. S4f was acquired as described in the text. (d) The electrical resistivity ρ vs T for 0<x<0.043. (e) ρ vs T for 0.056<x<0.098. (f) Residual resistivity ρ0 vs x.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 4
    Figure 4

    Summary of electrical resistivity ρ vs temperature T measurements under applied pressure P for CeCu2(Si1xPx)2 at select concentrations x=0.015, 0.043, and 0.098. For clarity, the curves for x=0.015 and 0.043 are offset by constant values Δρ=10 μΩcm. (a) Temperature-pressure (TP) phase diagram for x=0.015 for P<20 kbar showing the suppression of TA, the enhancement of Tcoh,ρ, and the appearance of superconductivity at the extrapolated quantum phase transition. Open circles indicate ambiguity in defining TA. (b) ρ(T) for x=0.015 for P<20 kbar at 0<T<40 K where the Kondo coherence temperature Tcoh,ρ appears as a broad hump. (c) ρ(T) for x=0.015 for pressures P<20 kbar and 0<T<7 K. (d) TP phase diagram for x=0.043 for P<20 kbar. (e) ρ(T) for x=0.043 for P<20 kbar at 0<T<40 K. (f) ρ(T) for x=0.043 for pressures P<20 kbar at 0<T<7 K. (g) TP phase diagram for x=0.098 for several pressures P<20 kbar. (h) ρ(T) for x=0.098 for several pressures P and 0<T<40 K. (i) ρ(T) for x=0.098 at P<20 kbar and 0<T<7 K.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 5
    Figure 5

    Summary of thermodynamic and electrical transport results for CeCu2(Si1xPx)2 at concentrations x=0–0.1. (a) Unit cell volume V (left axis) and chemical pressure Pchem vs x, where x is the measured value. Pchem was obtained using the Birch-Murnaghan equation of state. (b) Temperature-phosphorous concentration (Tx) phase diagram for CeCu2(Si1xPx)2 constructed from magnetic susceptibility χ, heat capacity C, and electrical resistivity ρ vs T measurements. The magnetic ordering temperatures TA,TN, and TC and the Kondo coherence temperature Tcoh,ρ are defined as described in the text.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 6
    Figure 6

    Phase diagram for the compounds CeT2X2 (T = transition metal and X = Si, Ge) that crystallize in the ThCr2Si2-type structure [15, 16]. The axes that define the four quadrants (I–IV) and control the ground state behavior are the difference in unit cell volume (ΔV) from that of CeCu2Si2 and increasing d-shell filling going from the Fe column to the Cu column (x). The white band that traverses the center of the phase diagram approximately separates the magnetic (left-hand side) and intermediate valence examples (right-hand side). The bars labeled SCI (green) and SCII (dark blue) show the regions where superconductivity is observed for CeCu2Si2 along the ΔV axis [17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23]. In parentheses are the maximum superconducting transition temperatures that are observed under applied pressure for those compounds with an antiferromagnetic quantum phase transition [20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32]. In quadrant IV the open circles show the zero temperature magnetic phase boundary resulting from the investigation of the substitution series CeCu2(Si1xPx)2 presented here (see Fig. 5). The closed circles show where applied pressure suppresses magnetic ordering to quantum phase transitions in this series (see Fig. 4).

    Reuse & Permissions
×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review Materials

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×