1: \documentclass[]{article}
2: \usepackage {graphicx}
3: %\usepackage[T2A]{fontenc}
4: %\usepackage[cp866nav]{inputenc}
5: %\hyphenation{Post-Script}
6: %\usepackage{icmpprep}
7: \usepackage{amssymb}
8: \usepackage[english]{babel}
9: \voffset -1in \hoffset -1in \oddsidemargin 25mm \topmargin 15mm
10: \textwidth 170mm \textheight 245mm
11: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
12: %\renewcommand{\thefigure}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{figure}}
13: %\renewcommand{\thetable}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{table}}
14: \newcommand{\dekdp}{KD$_2$PO$_4$}
15: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
16: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
17: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
18: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
19: \newcommand{\beaa}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
20: \newcommand{\eeaa}{\end{eqnarray*}}
21: \newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon}
22:
23:
24: \begin{document}
25: \sloppy
26:
27: \title{Influence of external factors on dielectric permittivity of
28: Rochelle salt: humidity, annealing, stresses, electric field}
29: \author{A.G.Slivka$^*$, V.M.Kedyulich$^*$,
30: R.R.Levitskii$^{**}$, \\
31: A.P.Moina$^{**}$,
32: M.O.Romanyuk$^{***}$, A.M. Guivan$^*$\\
33: $^*$ Uzhgorod National University, 54 Voloshin Street, Uzhgorod,
34: Ukraine\\
35: $^{**}$ Institute for Condensed Matter Physics, 1 Svientsitskii
36: Street, Lviv, Ukraine\\
37: $^{***}$Ivan Franko Lviv National University, 8 Kyryla and
38: Mefodiya Street, Lviv,
39: Ukraine}
40: \date{}
41: \maketitle
42:
43: \begin{abstract}
44: The present work contains results of experimental
45: investigation of external factors, such as dessicating/wetting,
46: thermal annealing, uniaxial and hydrostatic pressures on
47: dielectric permittivity of Rochelle salt crystals. The obtained
48: results are compared with available literature data. A conslusion
49: is made that the dispersion of experimental data can be
50: attributed to internal polar point defects in crystals and to
51: influence of storage conditions. The obtained results are analyzed within the phenomenological Landau
52: approach.
53:
54: \end{abstract}
55:
56: \section{Introduction}
57: An important information about the transition mechanism in ferroelectric
58: crystals can be given by exploring their behavior under influence of various
59: external factors, such as high pressure or electric field.
60: For hydrogen bonded crystals the external pressures are the only way to
61: continuously vary geometric parameters of bonds, break their equivalence,
62: etc, which permits to investigate role of hydrogen bonds and their parameters and symmetry
63: in mechanisms of the phase transition and dielectric response of the crystals.
64: Many of ferroelectrics are piezoelectric in the paraelectric phase; application of
65: shear stresses and the conjugate electric fields provides a possibility to explore
66: the role of piezoelectric interactions in the phase transitions and in formation
67: of the physical characteristics of the crystals.
68:
69: The above mentioned possibilities were fully used for investigation of the
70: KH$_2$PO$_4$ family crystals. Theoretical description of pressure and field
71: effects in these crystals are usually performed within the proton ordering model
72: (see e.g. \cite{our!,our!!,duda,Slivka,our13,ferro} and references therein) and a
73: quantitative agreement with experiment is obtained. It was shown, in
74: particular, that pressures of different symmetries can produce
75: qualitatively different changes in the phase transition: lower its
76: temperature down (hydrostatic), raise it up and smear out the
77: transition (as shear stress $\sigma_6$), induce a new phase of
78: monoclinic symmetry (as $\sigma_1-\sigma_2$).
79:
80: In contrast to the KH$_2$PO$_4$ family crystals, the data for
81: external factors influence on Rochelle salt crystals are less
82: extensive. In literature, only a few papers are available on
83: hydrostatic pressure \cite{slivka8,slivka11,slivka12} and
84: electric field \cite{slivka10,slivka6,slivka13} effects on the
85: dielectric permittivity of the crystals. Uniaxial stresses effects
86: on the phase transitions in Rochelle salt were explored in in
87: \cite{imai} from the measurements of thermoelastic effect.
88: Theoretically influence of the shear stress $\sigma_4$ was studied
89: in \cite{sigma4} within the modified Mitsui model.
90:
91: Usually, peculiarities of the physical characteristics of ferroelectric crystals
92: in the vicinity of the phase transitions (especially of the second order ones) are affected by crystal
93: defects and internal bias electric fields and mechanical stresses,
94: which act as the external ones. The role of such factors, as
95: crystal defectness and the processes in the sample prehistory, that may affect
96: the physical properties of the crystals via relaxation of the defects: thermal annealing, previous
97: influence of electromagnetic fields and mechanical stresses, must
98: be explored. High pressure and electric
99: field studies allow to explore the intrinsic field and pressure
100: dependences of the crystal properties, reveal the internal bias fields and stresses, and study
101: the residual effects of the internal defects.
102:
103: For Rochelle salt, whose chemical instability (loss of crystallization
104: water at slightly elevated temperatures) and water absorbency are well
105: known, other factors such as air humidity, storage conditions, etc are
106: important and should be monitored during measurements. For instance,
107: a significant dispersion of experimental data for the dielectric
108: permittivity of Rochelle salt (see the systematization in \cite{slivka1}),
109: exceeding the measurement error, takes place. Apparently, the
110: dispersion is due to the different internal states of the samples,
111: not controlled during measurements.
112:
113:
114: In the present work the results of experimental studies of the
115: mentioned above external factors (pressure, electric field, humidity, thermal annealing)
116: influence on dielectric permittivity of Rochelle salt crystals in
117: the vicinity of the structural phase transitions are reported.
118:
119: \section{Experimental setup}
120: Dielectric permittivity of the crystals $\varepsilon_{11}$ was
121: determined by measuring the samples capacity with the help of an
122: a.c. bridge at fixed frequency of 1 kHz. Measurement error was
123: $0.2\div0.4$\%.
124:
125:
126: Samples were prepared in a form of parallellepipeds, with faces
127: perpendicular to crystallographic axes of an orthorhombic
128: (paraelectric) unit cell. Silver paste and copper wires,
129: $0.08\div 0.12$~mm diameter, were used as electric contacts.
130: After partial drying of the paste, the contacts were covered by an alcohol solution
131: of a glue with addition of silver paste. This method provided a
132: necessary mechanical stability of the contacts and allowed a free deformation of the crystals.
133:
134:
135: A uniaxial pressure was created by a spring dynamometer and
136: transmitted to samples via a punch with floating heads, thus securing a uniform pressure even
137: at possibly non-parallel faces of the sample. The pressure was fixed with an accuracy of $\pm5$\%. The samples were placed in a thermostate, allowing smooth adjustment
138: of temperature. Temperature was measured by a copper-constantan
139: thermocouple with an accuracy $\pm 0.1$ К. Samples with the thermocouple were covered with silicone oil, in
140: order to enhance heat transmission and prevent direct contact with air.
141:
142:
143: \section{Model approach}
144: Theoretical description of the physical properties of Rochelle
145: salt is usually performed within a two-sublattice Ising model with
146: asymmetry double well potential (Mitsui model). Below we present
147: the expression for the dielectric permittivity of Rochelle salt
148: obtained within the modified Mitsui model with taking into account
149: the piezoelectric coupling \cite{slivka1}
150: with the Hamiltonian
151: \bea &&\hat H = \frac{N}{2} {v}
152: c_{44}^{E0}\varepsilon_4^2 - N{v}e_{14}^0\varepsilon_4 E_1 -
153: \frac{N}{2} {v}\chi_{11}^0E_1^2- \frac12 \sum\limits_{qq'}\sum\limits_{ff'=1}^2
154: R_{qq'}(ff') \frac{\sigma_{qf}}{2}\frac{\sigma_{q'f'}}{2}
155: \nonumber\\
156: && \label{2.1}
157: \quad -\Delta \sum\limits_q \left(\frac{\sigma_{q_1}}{2}
158: -\frac{\sigma_{q_2}}{2} \right)- (\mu_1E_1-2\psi_4\varepsilon_4)
159: \sum\limits_q\sum\limits_{f=1}^2 \frac{\sigma_{qf}}{2}.
160: \nonumber
161: \eea
162: Three first terms in (\ref{2.1}) correspond to a `seed'' energy of the
163: crystal lattice which forms the asymmetric double-well potential
164: for the pseudospins. $R_{qq'}(11) = R_{qq'}(22) = J_{qq'}$ and
165: $R_{qq'}(12) = R_{qq'}(21) = K_{qq'}$ are constants of interaction
166: between pseudospins belonging to the same and to different
167: sublattices, respectively. The parameter $\Delta$ describes the
168: asymmetry of the double well potential; $\mu_1$ is the effective
169: dipole moment. The last term is the internal field created by the
170: piezoelectric coupling with the shear strain $\eps_4$.
171:
172: Within a mean field approximation the static dielectric permittivity of a free
173: crystal is obtained in the form \cite{slivka1}
174: \be \label{2.43}
175: \chi_{11}^{\sigma} = \chi_{11}^{\sigma 0} +
176: \frac{\beta(\mu_1')^2}{2v}
177: F_2(0),
178: \ee where $\xi$, $\sigma$ are the parameters of ferroelectric and antiferroelectric ordering.
179: The following notations are used
180: \beaa
181: & F_2(0)=\frac{\displaystyle
182: \varphi_3}
183: {\displaystyle\varphi_2- \Lambda \varphi_3},&\\
184: &\varphi_2=1-\frac{\beta J}{2}\lambda_1- \beta^2\frac{K^2-
185: J^2}{16}(\lambda_1^2-\lambda_2^2),\quad
186: \varphi_3=\lambda_1+\beta\frac{K-J}{4}(\lambda_1^2-\lambda_2^2),\quad
187: \Lambda=\frac{\displaystyle2\beta\psi_4^2}{\displaystyle
188: vc_{44}^{E0}},&\\
189: & \lambda_1=1-\xi^2-\sigma^2, \qquad \lambda_2=2\xi\sigma,&
190: \\& d_{14}^0 = \frac{\displaystyle e_{14}^0}{\displaystyle c_{44}^{E0}},\quad \chi_{11}^{\sigma
191: 0} = \chi_{11}^{\varepsilon 0} + e_{14}^0d_{14}^0, \quad {\mu_1'}
192: = {\mu_1} - {2} \psi_4 d_{14}^0 .
193: &\eeaa
194: Values of the model parameters providing the best fit to the permittivity are given in Table~\ref{table}.
195:
196: \begin{table}[tbh]
197: \caption{Model parameters for Rochelle salt
198: \protect\cite{slivka1}.}
199: \begin{center}
200: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
201: \hline
202: $J/k_B$ & $K/k_B$ & $
203: \Delta/k_B$ & $\psi_4/k_B$ & $c_{44}^{E0}$ & $d_{14}^0$ & $\chi^{\sigma0}_{11}$
204: \\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{K} & dyn/cm$^2$ & esu/dyn &
205: \\
206: \hline 797.36 & 1468.83 & 737.33 & -760 &
207: $12.8\cdot 10^{10}$ & $1.9\cdot10^{-8}$ &0.363 \\
208: \hline \end{tabular}
209: \end{center}
210: $v=0.5219 [1+ 0.00013(T-190)]\cdot 10^{-21}~{\rm cm}^{3}$
211: \label{table}
212: \end{table}
213:
214:
215: %\section{Температурна залежнўсть дўелектрично∙ проникностў}
216: %
217: %
218: %
219: %
220: %%\begin{figure}[htbp]
221: %%\centerline{\includegraphics[angle=270,width=4in]{1Mhz-width1.eps}}
222: %%\vspace{0.5cm}
223: %%\centerline{\includegraphics[angle=270,width=4in]{1Mhz-width2.eps}}
224: %% \caption{\small Температурнў залежностў дўелектрично∙
225: %%проникностў $\varepsilon $ кристала сегнетово∙ солў на частотў
226: %%вимўрювального поля 1 МГц для зразкўв рўзно∙ {\bf товщини???}}
227: %%\label{slivka1a}
228: %%\end{figure}
229: %
230: %
231: %
232: %Як видно з рис.~\ref{slivka1}, величини проникностў
233: %$\varepsilon_{11}$ в точках фазових переходўв ї рўзними. Вони
234: %також змўнюються вўд зразка до зразка. Рўзнў значення
235: %дўелектрично∙ проникностў при температурах двох фазових переходўв
236: %спостерўгалися також ў в ўнших роботах, зокрема в \cite{slivka2}.
237:
238:
239:
240: \section{Influence of sample prehistory on dielectric permittivity of Rochelle salt}
241:
242:
243: \subsection{Humidity}
244:
245: In \cite{slivka4} it was found that crystals of Rochelle salt at 25$^\circ$С
246: and relative humidity below 40\% lose the crystallization water, whereas at relative
247: humidity above 85\% they absorb water from air. Experimentally,
248: significant changes of the piezoelectric properties of Rochelle
249: salt were observed, when samples are kept in air with high
250: concentration of ethanol vapor \cite{slivka3}.
251:
252:
253: Experimental data for the susceptibility of Rochelle salt of different sources
254: (see fig.~\ref{slivka3}) show an essential dispersion, even in the paraelectric
255: phases, which cannot be accounted for by the changes in the
256: measurements regimes. Of interest was thus to explore the
257: temperature dependences of Rochelle salt crystals with different
258: water content, in order to verify whether this dispersion can be attributed, at least partially,
259: to it.
260:
261:
262: \begin{figure}[hbtp]
263: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.7in]{slivka3.eps}\hspace{2em}
264: \includegraphics[width=2.7in]{theory1.eps}}
265: \caption{\small Temperature dependences of inverse susceptibility of Rochelle salt.
266: Left: solid lines -- experimental data, this work, obtained for 1
267: -- dessicated sample; 2 -- wet sample. Right: solid line -- theoretical
268: curve, calculated with (\ref{2.43}). $\blacksquare$ -- \cite{15};
269: $\blacktriangle$ -- \cite{29}; $\blacklozenge$ -- \cite{24};
270: $\bullet$ -- \cite{27}; $\blacktriangledown$ -- \cite{28}; $+$ --
271: \cite{30}.} \label{slivka3}
272: \end{figure}
273:
274:
275:
276:
277: The obtained results are presented in fig.~\ref{slivka3} (left). Apart from the literature
278: data, we show here the temperature dependences of the inverse dielectric susceptibility
279: $\chi_{11}^{-1}$ (solid curves 1 and 2), obtained in this work for the same sample
280: with different water content. The curve~1 is obtained for a sample, kept for
281: a long time (2--3 days) at room temperature in a closed volume, filled with a dessicator (silicagel). The curve~2
282: corresponds to the same sample, kept for 10 hours in air with
283: relative humidity $\sim $90{\%}. As one can see, keeping the
284: sample in a wet air decreases the dielectric susceptibility in the entire
285: studied temperature range. The changes are particularly prominent in the middle of the
286: ferroelectric phase $T\sim 275$~K and in the high-temperature paraelectric phase.
287:
288:
289:
290: Comparison of the obtained results with literature data shows that the dispersion in the values of the susceptibility
291: indeed can be caused by a different water content in the samples
292: used in different experiments. It should be also noted that for a
293: wet sample (curve 2, fig.~\ref{slivka3}), a linear temperature dependence of inverse susceptibility
294: $\chi^{-1}(T)$ with the Curie-Weiss constant $C_{W} =
295: 1.95\cdot 10^3$ K. For a dessicated sample, the dependence $\chi^{-1}(T)$
296: is non-linear in both paraelectric phases.
297:
298:
299: Comparison of literature experimental data with the theoretical ones, obtained in \cite{slivka1}
300: from the formula (\ref{2.43}), is given in fig.~\ref{slivka3} (right). Theoretical absolute values of the permittivity are
301: adjusted by the choice of the value of the effective dipole moment $\mu_1$. In \cite{slivka1}
302: $\mu_1$ was chosen such as the best agreement with the data of \cite{28} as well as of
303: the dynamic microwave permittivity is obtained. On this, we, however, failed to get an adequate
304: agreement with experiment for susceptibility in the low-temperature paraelectric phase \cite{slivka1}.
305:
306:
307:
308: \subsection{Influence of thermal annealing}
309:
310:
311: Fit.~\ref{slivka4} illustrates the temperature dependences of dielectric permittivity
312: of Rochelle salt near the upper Curie point for samples annealed
313: at 308 K. On increasing the annealing time, the value
314: of the dielectric permittivity at the transition point increases, and the maximum temperature decreases.
315: Such changes are apparently caused by internal
316: electrical bias fields, which magnitude is decreased with increasing annealing time.
317:
318: \begin{figure}[htb]
319: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=270,width=3.in]{slivka1p.eps}}
320: \caption{Temperature dependences of the dielectric permittivity of
321: Rochelle salt near the upper transition point at different times
322: of annealing in the paraelectric phase at 308 K (min): 1 -- 0, 2
323: -- 5, 3 -- 20, 4 -- 60. Inset: dependences of the maximal value of
324: permittivity and maximum temperature on annealing time.}
325: \label{slivka4}
326: \end{figure}
327:
328:
329: The internal bias fields are created by polar defects
330: \cite{Lines}, which at long-term keeping samples in the
331: ferroelectric phase participate in screening of spontaneous polarization and reflect the
332: corresponding domain structure. Action of the internal bias field is analogous to the action of external field, that is,
333: the temperature of the upper maximum of permittivity is increased, and the maximum magnitude is
334: decreased. In the next section we shall estimate the magnitudes of
335: the internal bias fields in the non-annealed and annealed samples.
336:
337: %%Важливим ї просторовий розподўл
338: %%внутрўшнього електричного поля та час релаксацў∙ при перебуваннў
339: %%кристала в параелектричнўй фазў.
340: %{\it Наявнўсть внутрўшнўх електричних полўв та ∙х релаксацўя в
341: %параелектричнўй фазў може зумовлювати появу температурного
342: %гўстерезису фазових переходўв, що спостерўгаїться ў для кристалўв
343: %сегнетово∙ солў при проведеннў вимўрювань дўелектрично∙
344: %проникностў в режимах нагрўву та охолодження.}
345: %
346: %Hence, existence of polar point defects in Rochelle crystals gives rise to internal
347: %bias electric fields and is one of the internal factors that can influence
348: %the values of the dielectric permittivity in the nearest vicinity of the transition points.
349: %Changes in the permittivity maximum temperature are less essential.
350:
351:
352:
353:
354:
355: \section{Influence of external electric field}
356:
357: In fig.~\ref{slivka5} we show the measured temperature dependences of dielectric permittivity $\varepsilon_{11}$
358: of Rochelle salt crystals near the upper and lower transition points at different
359: values of external d.c. electric field $E=E_1$ applied along the ferroelectric axis (conjugate to polarization).
360: The insets contain the field dependences of the dielectric permittivity maxima
361: $\varepsilon_{m}$ and their temperatures $\Delta
362: T_{m}=T_{m}(E)-T_{m}(0)$. The data are obtained by cooling samples for the upper maximum and
363: by heating for the lower one (from the corresponding paraelectric phase towards the ferroelectric phase).
364: As expected, the external field, conjugate to polarization, decreases the $\varepsilon_m$
365: and shifts the maxima temperatures $\Delta T_{m}$ in a non-linear way. For the upper maximum
366: $\Delta T_{m2} >0$, whereas for the lower one $\Delta T_{m1}<0$.
367:
368: \begin{figure}[tbph]
369: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.in,angle=270]{slivka5.eps}\hspace{2em}
370: \includegraphics[width=2.in,angle=270]{slivka6.eps}}
371: \caption{\small Temperature dependences of the dielectric permittivity of Rochelle
372: salt crystals near upper and lower transition points at different values of
373: external electric field $E_1$ (kV/cm): 1 --
374: 0, 2 -- 0.05, 3 -- 0.1, 4 -- 0.2, 5 -- 0.3, 6 -- 0.5, 7 -- 0.75, 8
375: -- 1. Lines are guide to the eyes.} \label{slivka5}
376:
377: \end{figure}
378:
379: These results are compared in fig.~\ref{slivka6b} with literature data obtained from the
380: field dependences of permittivity \cite{slivka2} and elastic compliance $s_{44}^E$
381: \cite{slivka6}. The obtained in this work field dependences of the
382: permittivity maxima magnitudes $\varepsilon_m^{-1}$ are the same for the two maxima (see fig.~\ref{slivka6b})
383: and well accord with the data of \cite{slivka2}. However, a perceptible disagreement is observed for
384: the shift of the permittivity maxima temperatures. Our data
385: yield very close changes of $|\Delta T_{m}|$ with field for
386: the two maxima. On the contrast, the obtained in \cite{slivka2}
387: field dependence of the upper maximum temperature is much stronger that
388: of the lower one.
389:
390:
391:
392:
393: For Rochelle salt the phenomenological Landau expansion of the thermodynamic potential
394: can be presented as
395: \begin{equation}
396: \label{eq1} \Phi(P_1) = \Phi_0 + \frac{\alpha }{2}P_1^2 + \frac{\beta
397: }{4}P_1^4,
398: \end{equation}
399: where $P_1$ is the crystal polarization, $\alpha ,\beta $
400: are the expansion coefficients. The electric field $E_1$ is applied along the axis of spontaneous polarization [100].
401:
402: \begin{figure}[hptb]
403: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.in,angle=270]{emaxe-diff.eps}
404: \hspace{2em}\includegraphics[width=2.in,angle=270]{tce-diff.eps}}
405: \caption{Field dependences of the permittivity maxima magnitudes
406: (left) and temperature shifts (right). Upper maximum: curve 1 and
407: $\bullet$ -- this work, curve 3 and $\blacktriangledown$ --
408: \cite{slivka3}, curve 5 -- \cite{slivka6}. Lower maximum -- curve
409: 2 and $\circ$ -- this work, curve 4 and $\vartriangle$ --
410: \cite{slivka3}. } \label{slivka6b}
411: \end{figure}
412:
413:
414: \begin{figure}[htb]
415: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.in,angle=270]{tce-phen.eps}}
416: \caption{Field dependence of the upper permittivity maximum temperature shift.
417: Line is calculated with (\ref{eq2}). Symbols are experimental data of this work.} \label{slivka6c}
418: \end{figure}
419:
420:
421: For Rochelle salt there are two possible ways to model the temperature dependence of the
422: coefficient $\alpha$.
423:
424:
425: 1) The expansion (\ref{eq1}) is performed near each of the two transitions separately, assuming
426: a linear temperature dependence $\alpha = \alpha_{T1} (T_{\rm C1}-T)$ for the lower transition and
427: $\alpha = \alpha_{T2} (T-T_{\rm C2})$ for the upper one. Then the field dependences of $\varepsilon_m(E_1) $
428: and $\Delta T_{m}(E_1)$ can be presented as
429: \begin{equation}
430: \label{eq3} \varepsilon_m^{ - 1} = \frac32\frac{(4\beta)^{1/3}}{4}\varepsilon_0 E_1^{2 / 3}=k_1E_1^{2 / 3}.
431: \end{equation}
432: \begin{equation}
433: \label{eq2} |\Delta T_{mi}| = \frac34\frac{(4\beta)^{1/3}}{\alpha_{Ti}}E_1^{2 / 3}= k_2E_1^{2 / 3}, \quad i=1,2
434: \end{equation}
435:
436:
437: 2) Within the second approach, the coefficent
438: $\alpha $ is chosen in the form
439: \begin{equation}
440: \label{eq5} \alpha = \alpha_{1} + \alpha_{2} (T - T_0 )^2,
441: \end{equation}
442: where $T_0 = \frac{T_{\rm C1} + T_{\rm C2}}{2}$, and $T_{\rm C1,2} =
443: T_0 \mp \sqrt{ - \frac{\alpha_{1} }{\alpha_{2} }}$. Such a choice is validated by the fact that
444: the phase transitions in Rochelle salt are closed to a double critical point \cite{slivka5,slivka6},
445: realized at partial substitution of potassium atoms with ammonia NH$_{4}$
446: \cite{slivka9,slivka10}. In \cite{slivka5,slivka6} the temperature dependences of several
447: physical characteristics of Rochelle salt were successfully described within the Landau approach with (\ref{eq5}).
448:
449:
450: In this case, the field dependences of $\Delta T_{m}(E_1)$ are
451: \begin{equation}
452: \label{eq6} \Delta T_{m1,2} = \pm A \mp \sqrt{\frac34\frac{(4\beta)^{1/3}}{\alpha_{T2}}E_1^{2 / 3} + A^2},
453: \end{equation}
454: where $A^2 = - \alpha_{1} /\alpha_{2}$. The field dependence of $\varepsilon_m(E_1) $
455: in this case is the same as in the first approach and described by (\ref{eq3}).
456:
457: The experimental dependences of $\varepsilon_m^{ - 1} (E_1)$ of this work are well described by equation (\ref{eq3})
458: with $k_1 = 10.2 \cdot 10^{ -7}$(m/V)$^{2 / 3}$ and $\beta =11.34\cdot 10^{13}$ V$\cdot
459: $m$^{5}$/C$^{3}$. Fitting to the experimental data for $\Delta
460: T_{m} (E_1)$ with eq.~(\ref{eq2}), shown in Fig.~{slivka6c}, yields the values of $k_2 $ and $\alpha_{T1}$, $\alpha_{T2}$
461: for the upper and lower maxima:
462:
463: \[
464: \noindent {\rm for~~} T_{\rm{C}1}:~~k_{2}=9.9\cdot 10^{ - 4}~{\rm (m/V)^{2
465: / 3}~~and~}\alpha_{T1}=5.82\cdot 10^{7}~{\rm V\cdot m\cdot (K\cdot
466: C)^{ - 1}};
467: \]
468: \[
469: \noindent {\rm for~~} T_{\rm{C}2}:~~k_{2}=10.5\cdot 10^{ -
470: 4}~{\rm (m/V)^{2 / 3}~and~}\alpha_{T2}=5.49\cdot 10^{7}{\rm V\cdot
471: m\cdot (K\cdot C)^{ - 1}}.
472: \]
473:
474: Agreement with experiment for $\Delta T_{m}(E_1)$, obtained with formulas
475: (\ref{eq6}) is not any better than with (\ref{eq2}). We found that
476:
477:
478: $\alpha_{1} = -5.82\cdot10^8$~V$\cdot $m$\cdot $C$^{ - 1}$,~~
479: $\alpha_{2} = 1.32 \cdot 10^6$~V$\cdot $m$\cdot $C$^{ - 1}\cdot
480: $К$^{ - 2}$.
481:
482: Advantages of this approach are visible only at description of the
483: physical characteristics of Rochelle salt in a sufficiently wide temperature range in the paraelectric phases, where
484: the non-linear temperature dependence of the inverse permittivity should be essential. However, for description
485: of the field dependences of $\Delta T_{m}(E_1)$ the non-linearity of the coefficient
486: $\alpha$ within a few Kelvins near the transition points does not play any significant role.
487:
488: Description of the field dependences of the dielectric permittivity of Rochelle
489: salt within a modified Mitsui model with piezoeffect
490: will be given in another publication.
491:
492:
493: Using the above results, we can estimate the magnitude of internal
494: bias fields, existing in crystals without annealing and
495: after 60 min of annealing. In the former and latter cases, the values
496: of the permittivity at the upper transition point are about
497: 3500 and 5100 (see fig.~\ref{slivka4}). Therefore, using (\ref{eq3}) and the found values of $k_2$, we get
498: that at the upper Curie point $E_{bias}=0.055$~kV/cm for a non-annealed sample and
499: $E_{bias}=0.027$~kV/cm for the sample annealed for 60 min.
500:
501: %Спробуїмо теоретично описати вплив зовнўшнього електричного поля
502: %на фазовў переходи ў дўелектричну проникнўсть сегнетово∙ солў в
503: %рамках модифўковано∙ моделў Мўцу∙ з врахуванням п'їзоелектрично∙
504: %взаїмодў∙ з гамўльтонўаном (\ref{2.1}) ў дўелектричною
505: %проникнўстю, знайденою у виглядў (\ref{2.43}).
506: %
507: %Розрахунки показують (див. рис.~\ref{slivka12}), що теоретичнў
508: %польовў залежностў проникностў ў зсуву температури максимуму
509: %проникностў $\Delta T_{m1}$ приблизно узгоджуються з
510: %експериментальними. Однак для $\Delta T_{m2}$, теоретичнў значення
511: %значно перевищують експериментальнў, причому чим вище поле, тим
512: %значнўше ця розбўжнўсть. Оскўльки опис температурних залежностей
513: %усўх фўзичних характеристик сегнетово∙ солў, отриманий в
514: %\cite{ourrs}, ї бўльш-менш задовўльним, таке значне розходження
515: %теорў∙ з експериментом для польових залежностей проникностў навряд
516: %чи можна пояснити простою недосконалўстю теорў∙. Бўльш вўрогўдним
517: %видаїться таке пояснення. Як вўдомо, сегнетова сўль не ї добрим
518: %ўзолятором, тому при високих температурах суттїву роль у
519: %дослўджуваних тут процесах може вўдўгравати ∙∙ помўтна
520: %провўднўсть. Очўкуїться, що наявнўсть провўдностў створюї в
521: %кристалў внутрўшнї електричне поле, яке частково компенсуї
522: %зовнўшнї. Тому ефективно елементи структури, що впорядковуються, ў
523: %зазнають дў∙ електричного поля, що ї нижчим вўд зовнўшнього, в той
524: %час як теорўя оперуї лише ўз зовнўшнўм полем. Вивчення цього
525: %питання, зокрема визначення спўввўдношення мўж ефективним ў
526: %зовнўшнўм полем ї предметом наших подальших дослўджень.
527:
528:
529:
530: %\begin{figure}[htb]
531: %\centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.7in,angle=270]{Slivka12.eps}}
532: %\centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.7in,angle=270]{Slivka13.eps}}
533: %\caption{Температурнў залежностў дўелектрично∙ проникностў
534: %кристалўв сегнетово∙ солў в околах верхньо∙ ў нижньо∙ точок Кюрў
535: %при рўзних величинах зовнўшнього електричного поля. Символи --
536: %експериментальнў данў, лўнў∙ -- теорўя. На вставцў: штриховў лўнў∙
537: %-- теорўя, суцўльнў лўнў∙ -- ўнтерполяцўя експериментальних
538: %даних.} \label{slivka12}
539: %\end{figure}
540:
541:
542: \section{External pressures}
543: \subsection{Uniaxial stresses}
544:
545: \setcounter{equation}{0}
546: The temperature dependences of dielectric permittivity $\varepsilon_{11}$ of Rochelle
547: salt were measured at 1 kHz and different values of mechanical
548: stresses applied along the main crystallographic directions of
549: unit cell: [100] -- $\sigma_1$, [010] -- $\sigma_2$,
550: [001] -- $\sigma_3$ and along [011] -- $\tilde\sigma_{4}$. In the reference system with
551: axes along the main crystallographic directions, the stress $\tilde\sigma_{4}$ can be presented as
552: \begin{equation}
553: \label{s4}
554: \tilde\sigma_{4}=\sigma_{4}+\frac12(\sigma_2+\sigma_3),
555: \end{equation}
556: where $\sigma_{4}$ is the shear strain, which for the Rochelle salt symmetry
557: is the external field conjugate to the order parameter and acts similarly to the electric field $E_1$.
558:
559:
560: Figs.~\ref{slivka7}-\ref{slivka8c} contain the obtained temperature dependences of dielectric permittivites
561: at different values of the uniaxial pressures and the corresponding stress dependences of the
562: permittivity maxima temperatures. The data, as in the case of electric field study, were obtained at cooling for
563: the upper maximum and at heating for the lower maximum (on going from the corresponding paraelectric phase towards
564: the ferroelectric phase).
565:
566:
567:
568: \begin{figure}[htbp]
569: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=\textwidth,angle=270]{sigma1-p.eps}}
570: \caption{Temperature dependences of the dielectric permittivities of Rochelle salt at different
571: values of mechanical stress
572: $\sigma_{1}$ and the stress dependences of the permittivity maxima temperatures.}
573: \label{slivka7}
574:
575: \vspace{2em}
576: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=\textwidth,angle=270]{sigma4-p.eps}}
577: \caption{Same for the stress
578: $\tilde\sigma_{4}$. } \label{slivka8}
579: \end{figure}
580:
581:
582: \begin{figure}[htbp]
583: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=\textwidth,angle=270]{sigma2-p.eps}}
584: \caption{Same for the stress $\sigma_{2}$.}\label{slivka8b}
585:
586:
587: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=\textwidth,angle=270]{sigma3-p.eps}}
588: \caption{Same for the stress $\sigma_{3}$. } \label{slivka8c}
589: \end{figure}
590:
591: %Маї мўсце помўтний гўстерезис залежностей $T_{m1}(\sigma_i)$ ў
592: %$T_{m2}(\sigma_j)$, аж до змўни знакўв $\partial
593: %T_{mj}/\partial\sigma_i$ при нагрўваннў/охолодженнў, особливо для
594: %напруг $\sigma_2$ ў $\sigma_3$. Цей гўстерезис, очевидно, слўд
595: %приписати наявностў в зразку внутрўшнўх електричних полўв,
596: %пов'язаних ўз зарядженими дефектами. Зробити якў-небудь
597: %обєрунтованў висновки, щодо характеру залежностей
598: %$T_{m1}(\sigma_i)$ ў $T_{m2}(\sigma_i)$ для напруг $\sigma_2$ ў
599: %$\sigma_3$ не видаїться можливим.
600:
601:
602: Similarly to the electric field $E_1$, all explored uniaxial stresses decrease the maximal
603: values of the dielectric permittivity and change their temperatures $T_{m1}$ and $T_{m2}$.
604: Action of the stresses $\sigma_1$ and $\tilde
605: \sigma_4$ on $T_{m1}$ and $T_{m2}$ is non-linear and similar to the action of the electric field
606: $E_1$: $dT_{m1}/d\sigma_i<0$;
607: $dT_{m2}/d\sigma_i>0$ ($i=1$ and $\tilde4$). It should be noted that the change of the upper maximum temperature
608: with the stress $\tilde\sigma_{4}$ is much larger than of the
609: lower maximum. Let us remind that the obtained in this work
610: changes of the maxima temperatures with the electric field $E_1$ are almost the same for the two
611: maxima (see figs.~\ref{slivka6b}, \ref{slivka6c}).
612:
613:
614:
615: %Знайденў залежностў $T_{m1}$ ў $T_{m2}$ вўд одновўсно∙ напруги
616: %$\tilde\sigma_4$ узгоджуються якўсно, однак, чисельно значно
617: %вўдрўзняються вўд теоретичних залежностей $T_{m1}$ ў $T_{m2}$ вўд
618: %чисто зсувно∙ напруги $\sigma_4$, якў зображено на
619: %рис.~\ref{theory3}.
620: %
621: %\begin{figure}[htb]
622: %\centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.in]{tmax.eps}}
623: %\caption{Теоретична залежнўсть величин змўщення температури
624: %верхнього та нижнього максимумўв дўелектрично∙ проникностў
625: %сегнетово∙ солў вўд зсувно∙ напруги $\sigma_4$. Рисунок взято з
626: %\cite{sigma4}.} \label{theory3}
627: %\end{figure}
628:
629: The experimental data for the shifts of the transition temperature with
630: the uniaxial stresses (per 100 bar) are systemized in Table~\ref{table2}.
631: For comparison, we present here the corresponding literature data
632: obtained in \cite{imai} on the basis of thermoelastic effect. Overall, the obtained in this work
633: data qualitatively agree with the literature data, except for the case of stress
634: $\sigma_3$. However, the quantitative agreement is rather poor,
635: our data for $|\Delta T_{Ci}|$ being a few times smaller.
636:
637:
638: \subsection{Hydrostatic pressure}
639:
640: Fig.~\ref{slivka11} contains the temperature dependences of the dielectric
641: permittivity of Rochelle salt at different hydrostatic pressures. In contrast
642: to electric field or uniaxial stresses, the hydrostatic pressure increases both
643: transition temperatures (see the inset with the $p,T$-diagram). The pressure coefficients
644: of the transition temperatures are
645: $dT_{\rm C1}/dp=3.54$ K/kbar and $dT_{\rm C2}/dp=10.92$ K/kbar, in a perfect agreement
646: with the data of \cite{slivka8, slivka11}. On increasing the hydrostatic pressure, the value of
647: $\varepsilon_{m}$ at the lower transition point $T_{C1}$ monotonously decreases and
648: remains unchanged at $T_{C2}$.
649:
650: %Таким чином, для кристалўв сегнетово∙
651: %солў роль вўд'їмного гўдростатичного тиску може виконати ўзоморфне
652: %замўщення атомўв K на NH$_{4}$.
653:
654:
655:
656:
657:
658: \begin{figure}[htb]
659: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.4in,angle=270]{slivka11.eps}}
660: \caption{Temperature dependence of the dielectric permittivity of
661: Rochelle salt at different values of hydrostatic pressure $p$,
662: MPa: 1 -- 0; 2 -- 50; 3 -- 120; 4 -- 200; 5 -- 320. Inset: the
663: $p,T$ phase diagram. Dashed lines and $\circ$ -- data of
664: \protect\cite{slivka8}. } \label{slivka11}
665: \end{figure}
666:
667:
668: \subsection{Phenomenological description of pressure effects}
669: For phenomenological description of external pressure influence on
670: the phase transitions in Rochelle salt, let us modify the
671: expansion (\ref{eq1}) in the following way
672: \begin{equation}
673: \label{eq1m} \Phi(P_1, \sigma_i) = \Phi_0 + \frac{\alpha }{2}P_1^2 + \frac{\beta
674: }{4}P_1^4 + \sum_{i=1}^3q_{i1}\sigma_iP_1^2 + g_{14}P_1\sigma_4-\frac12\sum_{ij=1}^4s^P_{ij}\sigma_i
675: \sigma_j
676: \end{equation}
677: (for the sake of simplicity we changed here the signs the stresses $\sigma_i$,
678: in comparison with the standard notations,
679: so that the uniaxial compression stresses are positive, and for the hydrostatic
680: pressure we have $p=\sigma_1=\sigma_2=\sigma_3$. In standard notations $-p=\sigma_1=\sigma_2=\sigma_3$
681: and values of the compression stress are negative.)
682: The quantities $q_{i1}$ have a meaning of electrostriction coefficients,
683: $s^P_{ij}$ are the elastic compliances at constant polarization. Let us note that
684: $s^P_{ij}$ for $i=1,2,3$ and $s^P_{44}$ are practically temperature independent, whereas
685: $s^P_{i4} \sim P_1$, that is, they are different from zero only
686: in the ferroelectric phase or in presence of electric field (possibly internal bias field $E_{bias}$ due to
687: polar defects) or stress $\sigma_4$.
688:
689: From (\ref{eq1m}) the equations for polarization and lattice strains follow
690: \begin{eqnarray}
691: &&E_1=g_{14}\sigma_4+(\alpha+2\sum_{i=1}^3q_{i1}\sigma_i)P_1+\beta
692: P_1^3-\sum_{i=1}^3\frac{s^P_{i4}}{P_1}\sigma_i\sigma_4\\
693: && u_i=\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial\sigma_i}=-\sum_{j=1}^4s_{ij}^P\sigma_j+q_{i1}P_1^2, \quad i=1,2,3 \\
694: && u_4=g_{14}P_1-\sum_{j=1}^4s_{ij}^P\sigma_j.
695: \end{eqnarray}
696: Assuming a linear dependence of the coefficient
697: $\alpha = \alpha_{T1} (T_{\rm C1}-T)$ for the lower transition and
698: $\alpha = \alpha_{T2} (T-T_{\rm C2})$ for the upper one, we get
699: for the transition temperatures shift and the inverse values of
700: the permittivity of a free crystal (at constant stress)
701: \begin{eqnarray}
702: &&\Delta
703: T_{C1,2}=\pm\frac{2}{\alpha_{T1,2}}\sum_{i=1}^3q_{i1}\sigma_i\mp
704: {k_1}(E_{bias}-g_{14}\sigma_4)^{2/3}\\
705: && \label{aa} \varepsilon_{m1,2}^{-1}=k_2(E_{bias}-g_{14}\sigma_4+
706: \sum_{i=1}^3\frac{s^P_{i4}}{P_1}\sigma_i\sigma_4)^{2/3}.
707: \end{eqnarray}
708:
709: Experimental data for $g_{14}$ are rather dispersive (see the systematization in
710: \cite{slivka1}). We used here the theoretical data for $g_{14}$ of
711: \cite{slivka1}, agreeing overall with experiment.
712: The electrostriction coefficients have been determined in \cite{61s5}. We use adjusted here their values,
713: in order to get a good fit to the hydrostatic pressure dependences
714: of transition temperatures. The used values of $q_{i1}$, $g_{14}$ at lower and upper
715: transition points are given in table~\ref{table3}.
716:
717: \begin{table}[hbt]
718: \caption{The used data for $q_{i1}$ (in m$^4$/C$^2$) and $g_{14}$ (in m$^2$/C).}
719: \begin{center}
720: \small
721: \begin{tabular}{c|ccc|c}
722: \hline
723: & $q_{11}$ & $q_{21}$ & $q_{31}$ & $g_{14}$
724: \\\hline
725: $T_{\rm C1}$ & -7.5 & 4 & 4.5 & $0.174$\\
726: $T_{\rm C2}$ & -10 & 4.3 & 2.5 & $0.195$\\
727: \hline
728: \end{tabular}
729: \end{center}
730: \label{table3}
731: \end{table}
732:
733:
734: We consider first the case of a perfect crystal ($E_{bias}=0$).
735: The calculated shifts of the transition temperatures (permittivity
736: maxima temperatures) with uniaxial and hydrostatic pressures are
737: presented in table~\ref{table2}. As one can see, a very good
738: agreement is obtained with the hydrostatic pressure data, as well
739: as the data of \cite{imai} for the uniaxial stresses. Agreement
740: with the calculation data for $\tilde\sigma_4$ is completely
741: unsatisfactory. Here we used an assumption that, according to
742: (\ref{s4}), $\tilde \sigma_4=100$~bar corresponds to a sum of
743: $\sigma_4=50$~bar, $\sigma_2=50$~bar, $\sigma_3=50$~bar. Our data
744: for the uniaxial stresses are also in a poor agreement with the
745: phenomenology and with the literature data; however, the data
746: calculations and of \cite{imai} agree fairly well.
747:
748:
749:
750: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
751:
752: \begin{table}[hbt]
753: \caption{Shifts of the transition temperatures with uniaxial stresses (per 100 bar)
754: and with hydrostatic pressure (per 1 kbar).}
755: \begin{center}
756: \small
757: \begin{tabular}{c|ccc|ccc|ccc|cc|cc}
758: \hline
759: & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\sigma_1$} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\sigma_2$} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\sigma_3$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\tilde \sigma_4$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ hydrostatic} \\
760: & exp. & \cite{imai} & calc. & exp. & \cite{imai} & calc. &
761: exp. & \cite{imai} & calc. & exp. & calc. & exp.& calc.\\
762: % after \\: \hline or \cline{col1-col2} \cline{col3-col4} ...
763: \hline
764: $T_{\rm C1}$ & {\bf -1.2} & -2.9 & -2.73 & {\bf 0.4}& 1.5& 1.46 & {\bf 0} & 1.7 & 1.63 & {\bf -1.0} & -8.8 & {\bf 3.43}& 3.64\\
765: $T_{\rm C2}$ & {\bf 2.0} & 3.5 & 3.44 & {\bf -0.6} & -1.6 & -1.48 & {\bf 0.5} &-0.8 & -0.86 & {\bf 2.2} & 9.1 & {\bf 10.92} & 10.99 \\
766: \hline
767: \end{tabular}
768: \end{center}
769: \label{table2}
770: \end{table}
771:
772:
773: It seems likely that the disagreement between the experimental data of this work and of \cite{imai} should be
774: attributed to the influence of sample defects. We recalculated the shifts of the maxima temperature with uniaxial pressure with
775: taking into account also the role of internal bias field, determining them from (\ref{aa}).
776: A much better agreement was obtained for the stresses $\sigma_2$ and $\sigma_3$:
777: $|\Delta T_{Ci}|$ decrease by several times with increasing $E_{bias}=0$. However,
778: for the stress $\sigma_1$, the presence of the bias field
779: has further enhanced the theoretical values $|\Delta T_{Ci}|$,
780: only worsening an agreement with the experimental data of this work.
781: At the moment, we have no complete explanation of the disagreement
782: between our experimental data and the data of \cite{imai} and of
783: the calculations, especially in a view of the fact that for
784: the hydrostatic pressure a complete coincidence with the literature
785: data and with phenomenology is obtained.
786:
787:
788: The reasons for the strong decrease of permittivity maxima magnitude with
789: diagonal stresses $\sigma_i$, $i=1,2,3$ is not quite clear either.
790: As follows from (\ref{aa}), such a decrease can be accounted for by the increase of
791: the internal bias field $E_{bias}$ or of the coefficient
792: $k_2 \sim \beta ^{1/3}$. Such an increase of $k_2$ can be obtained if we take into account the
793: terms of the fourth order of the $\sum_{i=1}^3q_{i1}^{(4)}\sigma_iP_1^4$ type in the expansion (\ref{eq1m}). Effectively
794: it would lead to renormalization of the coefficient $\beta\to\beta+4\sum_{i=1}^3q_{i1}^{(4)}\sigma_i$.
795:
796: %На рис.\ref{slivka9} та \ref{slivka10} наведено баричнў залежностў
797: %змўни температур нижнього ў верхнього максимумўв $\Delta T_{m}$, а
798: %також вўдносного значення верхнього максимуму дўелектрично∙
799: %проникностў $\varepsilon_{max} (\sigma ) / \varepsilon_{max} (0)$.
800: %Видно, що найбўльша змўна цих параметрўв маї мўсце при дў∙ напруги
801: %$\tilde\sigma_{4}$.
802:
803:
804:
805:
806: %\begin{figure}[htb]
807: %\centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.in]{Slivka9.eps}}
808: %\caption{Залежнўсть величин змўщення температури верхнього
809: %($\bullet$) та нижнього ($\circ$) максимумўв дўелектрично∙
810: %проникностў сегнетово∙ солў вўд механўчних напружень рўзно∙
811: %симетрў∙.} \label{slivka9}
812: %
813: %\vspace*{0.5cm}
814: %\centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.in]{Slivka10.eps}}
815: %\caption{Залежнўсть вўдносного значення верхнього максимуму
816: %дўелектрично∙ проникностў сегнетово∙ солў вўд механўчних напружень
817: %рўзно∙ симетрў∙.} \label{slivka10}
818: %\end{figure}
819:
820:
821:
822:
823:
824:
825: \section{Conclusions}
826:
827: \begin{itemize}
828: \item[-] Strong dependence of the dielectric permittivity of Rochelle salt
829: on humidity of the storage air is shown. We believe that the
830: dispersion of experimental data of different literature sources
831: can be caused by uncontrolled water content during and previously
832: to the measurements.
833:
834: \item[-] Dependence of the permittivity value at the transition
835: points
836: on duration of thermal annealing in high-temperature paraelectric phase
837: indicate the existence of internal electric bias fields in the crystals due to point polar defects.
838:
839: \item[-] Influence of external electric field, uniaxial stresses, and hydrostatic
840: pressure on the dielectric permittivity is studied. The results are compared with
841: available literature data. Analysis of the obtained
842: results is performed within the phenomenological Landau approach.
843: Possible reasons for discrepancies in the data are discussed.
844:
845: \end{itemize}
846:
847:
848: \subsection*{Acknowledgement}
849:
850: The authors acknowledge support of State Foundation for
851: Fundamental Studies of Ukraine, project No~02.07/00310.
852:
853:
854: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
855:
856: \bibitem{our!}
857: Stasyuk~I.V., Levitskii~I.V., Moina~A.P., Phys. Rev. B.,
858: 1999, {\bf 59}, 8530.
859:
860: \bibitem{our!!}
861: Stasyuk~I.V. Levitskii~R.R., Zachek~I.R., Moina~A.P.,
862: Phys.~Rev~B., 2000, {\bf 62}, 6198.
863:
864: \bibitem{duda}
865: Stasyuk~I.V., Levitskii~R.R., Zachek~I.R., Duda~A.S., Condens. Matter Phys.,
866: 2001, {\bf 4}, 553.
867:
868: \bibitem{Slivka}
869: Levitskii~R.R., Slivka~A.G., Moina~A.P. et al, Journ. Phys.
870: Studies., 2002, {\bf 6}, No.~2, 197.
871:
872: \bibitem{our13}
873: Stasyuk~I.V., Levitskii~R.R. {\it et al}, Journ. Phys.
874: Studies, 1999, {\bf 3}, 502.
875:
876: \bibitem{ferro}
877: Stasyuk~I.V., Levitskii~R.R., Moina~A.P., Velychko~O.V.,
878: Ferroelectrics, 2003, {\textbf 288}, 133.
879:
880: \bibitem{slivka8} Bancroft~D., Phys.Rev., 1938, \textbf{53}, 587.
881:
882:
883: \bibitem{slivka11} Samara~G.A., J. Chem. Solids, 1965, {\bf 26}, 121.
884:
885: \bibitem{slivka12} Samara G.A., J. Chem. Solids, 1969, {\bf 29}, 870.
886:
887: \bibitem{slivka6} Serdobolskaya~O.Yu., Sol. Stat. Phys., 1996 {\bf 38},
888: 1529.
889:
890: \bibitem{slivka10} Gesi~K., Ozawa~K., J. Phys. Soc. Japan, 1992, \textbf{48}, 2003.
891:
892: \bibitem{slivka13} Ismailzade~I.H., Samedov~O.A., Alekberov~A.I.,
893: phys. stat. sol.(a), 1986, {\bf 94}, K17.
894:
895: \bibitem{imai}
896: Imai~K., Journ. Phys. Soc. Japan, 1975, {\bf 39}, 868.
897:
898: \bibitem{sigma4}
899: Levitskii~R. R., Zachek~I. R., Moina~A.P., Verkholyak~T.M., J. Phys.
900: Studies, 2003, {\bf 7}, 106.
901:
902: \bibitem{slivka1} Levitskii~R.R., Zachek~I.R., Verkholyak~T.M., Moina~A.P.,
903: Phys.Rev.B., 2003, \textbf{67}, 174112.
904:
905:
906: \bibitem{slivka3} Valasek~J., Phys. Rev., 1922, \textbf{20}, 639.
907:
908: \bibitem{slivka4} W.P.~Mason, {\it Piezoelectric Crystals and Their Application to
909: Ultrasonics} (Van Nostrand, New York, 1950).
910:
911: \bibitem{15}
912: Habl\"utzel~J., Helv. Phys. Acta,1939, {\bf 12}, 489.
913:
914: \bibitem{29}
915: Taylor~W., Lockwood~D.J., Labbe~H.J., J. Phys. C.: Solid State
916: Phys., 1984, {\bf 17}, 3685.
917:
918: \bibitem{24}
919: Mueller~H., Phys. Rev., 1935, {\bf 47}, 175.
920:
921: \bibitem{27}
922: Mason~W.P., Phys. Rev., 1939, {\bf 55}, 775.
923:
924: \bibitem{28}
925: Petrov~V.M., Kristallografiya (Sov. Phys.--- Crystallogr.), 1962,
926: {\bf 7}, 403.
927:
928: \bibitem{30}
929: Yurin~V.A., Bull. Ac. Sci USSR, Phys. Ser. , 1965, {\bf 29} 2001.
930:
931: \bibitem{Lines}
932: Lines~M., Glass~A. Principles and application of ferroelectrics and related materials,
933: Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1977.
934:
935: \bibitem{slivka2} Akishige~Y., Kamishina~Y., J. Phys. Soc. Japan, 1992, \textbf{61},
936: 4589.
937:
938: \bibitem{slivka5}
939: Kryukova~E.B., Sobyanin~A.A.,Bull. Ac. Sci USSR, Phys. Ser. , 1987, {\bf 51}
940: 2090.
941:
942: \bibitem{slivka9} Makita~Y., Takagi~Y., J. Phys. Soc. Japan, 1958, \textbf{13}, 367.
943:
944: \bibitem{61s5} Schmidt~G., Z. Phys., 1961, {\textbf 164}, 579.
945:
946:
947:
948: \end{thebibliography}
949:
950:
951: \end{document}
952: