1: \documentclass[twocolumn,prb]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{epsfig,amssymb,amsmath}
3: \begin{document}
4: \title{Influence of coupling between junctions on breakpoint current in intrinsic Josephson junctions}
5:
6: \author{ Yu.M.Shukrinov~$^{1,2}$}
7: \author{F.Mahfouzi~$^{2}$ }
8:
9:
10: \address{$^{1}$ BLTP, JINR, Dubna, Moscow Region, 141980, Russia \\
11: $^{2}$Institute for Advanced Studies in Basic Sciences, P.O.Box 45195-1159, Zanjan, Iran}
12:
13:
14: \begin{abstract}
15: We study theoretically the current voltage characteristics of intrinsic Josephson junctions in high-$T_c$
16: superconductors. An oscillation of the breakpoint current on the outermost branch as a function of coupling
17: $\alpha$ and dissipation $\beta$ parameters is found. We explain this oscillation as a result of the creation of
18: longitudinal plasma waves at the breakpoint with different wave numbers. We demonstrate the commensurability
19: effect and predict a group behavior of the current-voltage characteristics for the stacks with a different
20: number of junctions. A method to determine the wave number of longitudinal plasma waves from $\alpha$- and
21: $\beta$-dependence of the breakpoint current is suggested. We model the $\alpha$- and $\beta$-dependence of the
22: breakpoint current and obtain good agreement with the results of simulation.
23: \end{abstract}
24:
25: \maketitle Creating new materials with given properties is an actual problem of physics, chemistry, and material
26: science. This is related to the system of Josephson junctions, too, which is a perspective object for
27: superconducting electronics and is being investigated intensively now. A simulation of the current-voltage
28: characteristics (IVC) of a stacks of intrinsic Josephson junctions (IJJ)\cite{muller} at different values of the
29: model parameters such as the coupling and dissipation parameters is a way to predict the properties of the IJJ.
30: McCumber and Steward have investigated the return current as a function of dissipation parameter in a single
31: Josephson junction a long time ago.\cite{schmidt} In the case of the system of junctions, the situation is
32: cardinally different. The IVC of IJJ is characterized by a multiple branch structure and branches have a
33: breakpoint region with its breakpoint current (BPC) and transition current to another branch.
34: \cite{sm-sust1,prb} The BPC is determined by the creation of the longitudinal plasma waves (LPW) with a definite
35: wave number $k$, which depends on the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$, the number of junctions in the stack, and
36: boundary conditions. If we neglect the coupling between junctions, the branch structure disappears, and the BPC
37: coincides with the return current. As we know, an investigation of the McCumber-Steward dependence for the
38: different branches of IVC for IJJ has not been done yet. Machida and Koyama\cite{machida04} have stressed that
39: capacitive coupling takes various values in HTSC and layered organic superconductors and they presented a
40: systematic study for the capacitively coupled Josephson junctions (CCJJ) model, focusing on the dependence of
41: phase dynamics on the strength of the capacitive coupling constant from weak to strong coupling regimes. But
42: they did not investgate the breakpoint region in the simulated IVC.
43:
44: In this Letter, we generalized the McCumber-Steward dependence of the return current for the case of IJJ in the
45: HTSC. We investigate the BPC $I_{bp}$ on the outermost branch as a function of the coupling $\alpha$ and
46: dissipation $\beta$ parameters for the stacks with a different number of IJJ and demonstrate a plateau with BPC
47: oscillation. Based on the idea of the parametric resonance in the stack of IJJ, a modeling of the
48: $\alpha\beta$-dependence of the BPC has been done, and good qualitative agreement with the results of simulation
49: has been obtained. We show that the $\alpha\beta$-dependence of the BPC is an instrument to determine the mode
50: of LPW created at the breakpoint in the stacks with a different number of junctions.
51:
52: A system of dynamical equations in the capacitively coupled Josephson junctions model with diffusion current
53: (CCJJ+DC model)\cite{machida00,sm-physC2}
54: \begin{eqnarray}
55: \frac{d^2}{dt^2}\varphi_{l}=(I-\sin \varphi_{l} -\beta\frac{d\varphi_{l}}{dt})+ \alpha
56: (\sin \varphi_{l+1}+ \sin\varphi_{l-1} \nonumber \\- 2\sin\varphi_{l})+ \alpha
57: \beta(\frac{d\varphi_{l+1}}{dt}+\frac{d\varphi_{l-1}}{dt}-2\frac{d\varphi_{l}}{dt})
58: \label{d-phi-dif}
59: \end{eqnarray}
60: for the gauge-invariant phase differences $\varphi_l(t)=
61: \theta_{l+1}(t)-\theta_{l}(t)-\frac{2e}{\hbar}\int^{l+1}_{l}dz A_{z}(z,t)$ between superconducting layers
62: ($S$-layers) for the stacks with a different number of intrinsic junctions has been numerically solved. Here
63: $\theta_{l}$ is the phase of the order parameter in S-layer $l$, $A_z$ is the vector potential in the barrier.
64:
65: The CCJJ+DC model is different from the CCJJ model\cite{koyama96,matsumoto99,sm-physC1} by the last term on the
66: right hand side. This coupled Ohmic dissipation term might be derived by the microscopic theory\cite{machida00}
67: or phenomenologically by the inclusion of the diffusion current between S-layers and leads to the equidistant
68: branch structure in the IVC.\cite{sm-physC2} The details concerning the system ~(\ref{d-phi-dif}) are presented
69: in Ref.\cite{sm-physC2} Here we use the periodic boundary conditions considering the first S-layer as a neighbor
70: of the last one.
71:
72: The simulated IVC have the breakpoint on their outermost branches. We have calculated the $\beta$-dependence of
73: the BPC $I_{bp}$ at fixed value of $\alpha$, changing $\beta$ in the interval (0,1) by step 0.005. The result of
74: the calculation at $\alpha = 0, 1 $ and 5 is presented in Fig.~\ref{1}a.
75: \begin{figure}[!ht]
76: \centering
77: \includegraphics[height=40mm]{1a.eps}
78: \includegraphics[height=40mm]{1b.eps}
79: \caption{(Color online) (a) - The $\beta$-dependence of the BPC $I_{bp}$ of the outermost branch in the IVC at
80: different values of coupling parameter $\alpha$; b) - The $\alpha \beta$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ for a stack
81: of 10 IJJ.}
82: \label{1}
83: \end{figure}
84: At $\alpha = 0$, the IVC does not manifest the multibranch structure, and the breakpoint coincides with the
85: return current. The curves at $\alpha \neq 0$ have new features in comparison with the case without coupling.
86: Particularly, they show a stronger increase of the $I_{bp}$ at small $\beta$, a plateau at $I_{bp} \simeq 0.83$
87: and the oscillation of the $I_{bp}$ on this plateau, and a transition to the non-hysteretic regime ( second
88: plateau) at smaller $\beta$. These features are discussed below. We change the coupling parameter $\alpha$ in
89: the interval (0,8) by step 0.1 and repeat the calculations of the $\beta$-dependence of $I_{bp}$. By this
90: method, we build the three-dimensional picture of the $\alpha\beta$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ for a stack with
91: 10 IJJ, which is shown in Fig.~\ref{1}b. We see two plateaus on this dependence and the oscillations of the
92: $I_{bp}$ on the first one as a function of $\alpha$ and $\beta$.
93: We note the next features for the $\beta$-dependence : i) At $\alpha$ equal to
94: zero, our results for $\beta$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ coincide with the previous simulation of the
95: $\beta$-dependence of the return current\cite{schmidt}; ii) at small $\beta$, the $\beta$-dependence is getting
96: sharper with the increase in $\alpha$; iii) the oscillations of the $I_{bp}$ are getting stronger at larger
97: $\alpha$; iiii) with the increase in $\alpha$, the transition to the non-hysteretic regime (to the second
98: plateau) is approached at smaller $\beta$ . For the $\alpha$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ we may note: i) At
99: small $\beta$, the $\alpha$-dependence is monotonic, and $I_{bp}$ is increasing with $\alpha$; ii) at some
100: $\beta$, the oscillations of $I_{bp}$ appear, iii) with the increase in $\beta$, the transition to the
101: non-hysteretic regime is observed at smaller $\alpha$. The value of the $I_{bp}$ changes strongly at small
102: $\alpha$ and $\beta$. On the first plateau, the variation of the $I_{bp}$ consists of $\simeq 3\div 4 $ percent
103: of the value of $I_{c}$ for $N=10$. As we can see below, it depends on the number of junctions in the stack and
104: decreases with N.
105: \begin{figure}[!ht]
106: \centering
107: \includegraphics[height=60mm]{2.eps}
108: \caption{(Color online) a) - The $\beta$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ for a stack with 10 IJJ at $\alpha = 3$; b)
109: - The $\alpha$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ at $\beta = 0.3$; c) - The charge distribution among the layers
110: corresponding to the different plasma modes in the stack of 10 IJJ at $\alpha = 3$ and $\beta = 0.24, 0.27,
111: 0.3, 0.4$.}
112: \label{2}
113: \end{figure}
114:
115: Let us analyze in more detail the $\alpha$- and $\beta$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$. Fig.~\ref{1}a demonstrates
116: the general features of $\beta$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ at different values of the coupling parameter. To
117: clearly show these features, we demonstrate in Fig.~\ref{2}a in an increased scale the $\beta$-dependence of
118: the $I_{bp}$ at $\alpha = 3$. We can see clearly four maximums of $I_{bp}$ on this curve. Using the Maxwell
119: equation $div (E/d) =4\pi \rho$, we express the charge $\rho_i$ on the superconducting layer $i$ by the
120: voltages $V_{i,i-1}$ and $V_{i,i+1}$ in the neighbor insulating layers $\rho_i=\frac{\epsilon_0}{4\pi
121: d_0d}(V_{i, i+1}-V_{i-1 ,i})$. Solution of the system of equations ~(\ref{d-phi-dif}) gives us the voltages
122: $V_{i,i+1}$ in all junctions in the stack, and it allows us to investigate the time dependence of the charge on
123: each S-layer. We analyze the time dependence of the charge oscillations on S-layers at $\beta$ equal to 0.24,
124: 0.27, 0.3 and 0.4 (around each maxima). The charge distributions among the S-layers in the stack at a fixed time
125: moment at the breakpoint of the outermost branch are presented in Fig.~\ref{2}c. The charge oscillations on
126: S-layers correspond to standing LPW with $k$ equal to $\pi$, $4\pi/5$, $3\pi/5$ and $2\pi/5$, relating to the
127: four different intervals of the $\beta$ with four maximums in this region. Fig.~\ref{2}b shows the
128: $\alpha$-dependence of $I_{bp}$ at $\beta = 0.3$, and it demonstrates four regions corresponding to the
129: different modes of LPW.
130:
131: To prove our results and test the idea that at the breakpoint a parametric resonance is approached and plasma
132: mode is excited by Josephson oscillations, we have modeled the $\alpha\beta$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ in the
133: CCJJ+DC model. The equation for the Fourier component of the difference of phase differences $\delta \varphi_{l}
134: = \varphi_{l+1,l}-\varphi_{l,l-1} $ between neighbor junctions is\cite{sm-sust1}
135: $\ddot{\delta_k}+\beta(k)\dot{\delta_k}+ \cos(\Omega(k)\tau)\delta_k=0$, where $\tau=\omega_p(k)t$,
136: $\omega_p(k)=\omega_p C$, $\beta(k)=\beta C$, $\Omega(k)=\Omega/C$ and $C = \sqrt{1+2\alpha(1-\cos(k))}$. This
137: equation shows a resonance with changing its parameters $\beta(k)$ and $\Omega(k)$.
138: \begin{figure}
139: \centering
140: \includegraphics[height=35mm]{3a.eps}\includegraphics[height=35mm]{3b.eps}
141: \includegraphics[height=35mm]{3c.eps}\includegraphics[height=35mm]{3d.eps}
142: \caption{ (Color online) a) - Parametric resonance region in $\Omega(k)-\beta(k)$ diagram. The value
143: $\Omega(k) = \Omega _{bp}(k)$ corresponds to the breakpoint voltage on the outermost branch; b) - Result of
144: modeling of the $\alpha\beta$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ for plasma modes with $k=\pi$ and $k=2\pi/5$ for a
145: stack of 10 IJJ; c) - The modeled $\alpha$-dependence of $I_{bp}$ for stack with 10 IJJ at $\beta = 0.3$
146: corresponding to the creation of the LPW with different $k$; d) - The modeled $\beta$-dependence of $I_{bp}$ at
147: $\alpha = 3$.}
148: \label{3}
149: \end{figure}
150: In Fig.~\ref{3}a, we have plotted the parametric resonance region for this equation on the diagram
151: $\beta(k)-\Omega(k)$. Using this diagram, we determine the curve which corresponds to the edge of the resonance
152: region. This curve is shown in Fig.~\ref{3}a by dots. We consider that the point on this curve corresponding to
153: $max \Omega (k)$ at a fixed value of $\beta (k)$ gives us the value of the $\Omega_{bp} (k)$ which corresponds
154: to the breakpoint voltage. Taking into account the relations for the outermost branch $\Omega_{bp} (k)=
155: V_{bp}/(N \sqrt{1+2\alpha(1-\cos k)})$ and $V_{bp}/N = I_{bp}/\beta$, we get
156: \begin{equation}
157: I_{bp}(\alpha, \beta, k)=\beta \sqrt{1+2\alpha(1-\cos k)}\Omega_{bp} (k,\beta).
158: \label{i-bp}
159: \end{equation}
160: As an example, using the expression ~(\ref{i-bp}) for $I_{bp}$, we have plotted in Fig.\ref{3}b the
161: three-dimensional $\alpha\beta$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ for two plasma modes with $k=\pi$ and $k=2\pi/5$ for
162: a stack with 10 IJJ. Comparing Fig.\ref{3}b with Fig.\ref{1}b, we note that the main features of the simulated
163: and modeled $\alpha \beta$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ are in agreement. Using the formulas ~(\ref{i-bp}), we
164: have calculated the $\alpha$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ at $\beta = 0.3$ for plasma modes with different wave
165: numbers $k$. The corresponding curves are presented in Fig.~\ref{3}c. We see that these results of modeling
166: coincide as well qualitatively with the results of simulation presented Fig.\ref{1}b. Both kinds of curves show
167: the same behavior. We can see the increase in the distance between the maximums of $I_{bp}$ and their sloping
168: with increase in $k$ in simulated and modeled curves. Fig.~\ref{3}d shows the modeled $\beta$-dependence of
169: $I_{bp}$ at $\alpha = 3$, which is obtained from the resonance region data. This dependence is in agreement with
170: the results of simulation as well, and it demonstrates the oscillations of the $I_{bp}$, but it does not reflect
171: the decrease in the values of $I_{bp}$ maximums which is shown in Fig.~\ref{2}a. This is a result of the
172: approximations we have used to obtain the linearized equation for the Fourier component of the difference of
173: phase differences for neighbor junctions.\cite{sm-sust1} The theoretical considerations which we use to model
174: the $\alpha\beta$- dependence of the $I_{bp}$ lead to the conclusion that there are regions on the $\alpha
175: \beta$-dependence of $I_{bp}$ which correspond to the creation of the LPW with a different wave number $k$ and
176: explain the origin of the $I_{bp}$ oscillations.
177: \begin{figure}[!ht]
178: \centering
179: \includegraphics[height=60mm]{4.eps}
180: \caption{(Color online) The simulated IVC of the outermost branch in the stacks with a different number of
181: junctions at $\alpha=3$, $\beta=0.3$. }
182: \label{4}
183: \end{figure}
184: \begin{figure}[!ht]
185: \centering
186: \includegraphics[height=60mm]{5.eps}
187: \caption{(Color online) a) - The simulated $\beta$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ for the stacks with 3, 6, 9 and 12
188: IJJ at $\alpha = 3$. The region corresponding to the creation of the LPW mode with wave number $k = 5\pi/6$ is
189: shown by arrows . b) - The simulated $\alpha$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ for the stacks with 5, 10 and 15 IJJ
190: at $\beta = 0.3$.}
191: \label{5}
192: \end{figure}
193: The ideas and results presented above have strong support from the results of investigation of the $\alpha$- and
194: $\beta$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ in the case of a different number of IJJ in the stack. The minimal wavelength
195: $\lambda$ which might be realized in the discrete lattice at periodic boundary conditions is two lattice units.
196: So, in the stack with N junctions, the LPW with $k = 2\pi n/N$ may exist, where n is an integer from 1 to $N/2$
197: for even N and from 1 to $(N-1)/2$ for odd N. Because of the term $(1-\cos k)$ in ~(\ref{i-bp}), the LPW with
198: $k$ corresponding to the highest $I_{bp}$ in the decreasing current process is created. In
199: Ref.\onlinecite{prb}, we showed that, at small values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ at periodic boundary conditions
200: for stacks with even N, the $\pi$-mode of LPW is created, but for stacks with odd N the LPW with $k=(N-1)\pi/N$
201: is observed. Here we consider a case of strong coupling between junctions, and the results are different from
202: the previous consideration.
203:
204: Fig.~\ref{4} shows the result of simulation of the outermost branch in the IVC near the breakpoint for a stack
205: with $\alpha=3$, $\beta=0.3$ and N from $N=3$ to $N=15$. We can see that the value of $I_{bp}$ depends on the
206: number N of IJJ in the stack, excluding the stack with $N = 3n$, where $n$ is an integer number. Time dependence
207: analysis of the charge oscillations on the S-layers shows that, at the breakpoint in the stacks with $N = 3n$,
208: the LPW with $k = 2\pi/3$ is created. In the stack with $N = 4$, we observe the LPW with $\lambda = 4$. We will
209: not touch the question concerning the breakpoint region in the IVC presented in Fig.~\ref{4}. It will be
210: considered in detail somewhere else. We may note another interesting group behavior of the IVC, presented in
211: Fig.~\ref{4}. There is a monotonic increase of the $I_{bp}$ with $N$ for stacks with $N = 3n+1, n\geq1$. The
212: same monotonic behavior was observed for stacks with $N = 3n+2$. Below, we explain these results using the idea
213: of LPW creation at the breakpoint.
214:
215: Comparison of the $\alpha$- or $\beta$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ for stacks with a different number of IJJ give
216: us a simple method to determine the wave numbers $k$ of the LPW. Fig.~\ref{5}a shows the $\beta$-dependence of
217: the $I_{bp}$ at $\alpha = 3$ for the stacks with 3,6,9 and 12 IJJ. It demonstrates that, in some intervals of
218: $\beta$, the stacks with different N have the equal value of the $I_{bp}$. Particularly, all stacks have the
219: equal values of the $I_{bp}$ in some interval around $\beta = 0.3$. According to the results of modeling, for
220: the stack with given N, the intervals on the the curves of the $\alpha$- and $\beta$-dependence, corresponding
221: to the different modes of the LPW, follow in decreasing order in $k$. Because this interval around $\beta =
222: 0.3$ corresponds to the region around the maximum on the $\beta$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ for stack with $N =
223: 3$, the second maximum for the stacks with $N = 6$ and $N = 9$, and the third maximum for the stack with $N =
224: 12$, we may conclude that in this interval the LPW with $k = 2\pi/3$ is created. For stacks with $N =6$ this
225: interval is continued until $\beta = 0.365$. Using this method of the wave number determination, which we call
226: $k-\alpha\beta$-method, we can determine all modes of LPW which might be created in stacks with different
227: parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and a different number of IJJ. Particularly, we find that, on the
228: $\beta$-dependence, the interval (0, 0.27) and the region $\beta > 0.41$ correspond to the creation of the
229: $\pi$- and $ \pi/3$- modes of LPW, respectively. From the $\alpha$-dependence of the $I_{bp}$ which is presented
230: in Fig.~\ref{5}b for stacks with 5, 10 and 15 IJJ, we find that the interval around the maximum with $2.35$ and
231: the region $\alpha > 4.82$ correspond to the creation of the $4\pi/5$- and $ \pi/5$- modes of LPW,
232: respectively.
233:
234: Using the $k-\alpha\beta$-method, we find the values of $k$ for IVC presented in Fig.~\ref{4}. In the stacks
235: with $N = 3n$ (dash-dotted curves in Fig.~\ref{4}), the LPW with the same wave number $k = 2\pi/3$ are created.
236: For the stacks with $N = 3n+1$ (solid curves), we obtain $k = 2(N-1)\pi/3N$. This value limits to $2\pi/3$ with
237: an increase in $N$ from the side of smaller values of $k$. In the stacks with $N = 3n+2$ (dash curves), we get
238: $k = 2(N+1)\pi/3N$, which limits to $2\pi/3$ from the side of bigger values of $k$. So the idea of the LPW
239: creation at the breakpoint explains the group behavior of IVC in Fig.~\ref{4}. The value of $I_{bp}$ depends on
240: $k$ but does not depend on $N$ at chosen parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$; i.e., the creation of the same mode in
241: the stacks with different $N$ leads to the same value of $I_{bp}$. So we may predict a different
242: commensurability manifestation in the IVC of stacks with a different number of IJJ. This is a generalization of
243: the commensurability effect we have observed in Ref.\onlinecite{prb} at small $\alpha$ and $\beta$.
244:
245: As summary, we showed that coupling between junctions changes crucially the dependence of the return current on
246: a dissipation parameter. Particularly, it leads to the appearance of the plateau on the $\beta$-dependence of
247: the BPC on the outermost branch and the oscillation of the BPC as a function of $\beta$. Using the idea that at
248: the breakpoint the parametric resonance is approached and a longitudinal plasma wave is created, we modeled the
249: $\alpha$- and $\beta$-dependence of the BPC and obtained good agreement with the results of the numerical
250: simulation. We demonstrated that the study of the $\alpha$- and $\beta$-dependence of the BPC for the stacks
251: with a different number of IJJ gives us the instrument to determine the wave number of the LPW.
252:
253: We thank N.M.Plakida, Y.Sobouti, M.R.H.Khajehpour for support of this work.
254:
255:
256:
257: \section*{References}
258: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
259:
260: \bibitem{muller} R. Kleiner, F. Steimmeyer, G. Kunkel and P. Muller, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf68}, 2394 (1992); G. Oya, N. Aoyama, A. Irie, S. Kishida, and H. Tokutaka, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., {\bf31}, L829 (1992).
261: \bibitem{schmidt}D. E. McCumber, J.Appl.Phys. 39, 3113 (1968); W. C. Steward, Appl.Phys.Lett. {\bf12}, 277 (1968).
262: \bibitem{sm-sust1}Yu. M. Shukrinov, F.Mahfouzi, Supercond. Sci.Technol., {\bf19}, S38-S42 (2007).
263: \bibitem{prb}Yu. M. Shukrinov, F.Mahfouzi, N. F. Pedersen, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 75}, 104508 (2007).
264: \bibitem{machida04} M. Machida, T. Koyama, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 70}, 024523 (2004).
265: \bibitem{machida00} M. Machida, T. Koyama, A. Tanaka and M. Tachiki, Physica {\bf C330}, 85 (2000)
266: \bibitem{sm-physC2}Yu. M. Shukrinov, F. Mahfouzi, P. Seidel. Physica {\bf C449}, 62 (2006).
267: \bibitem{koyama96} T. Koyama and M. Tachiki, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 54}, 16183 (1996)
268: \bibitem{matsumoto99}H. Matsumoto, S. Sakamoto, F. Wajima, T. Koyama, M. Machida, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 60}, 3666 (1999)
269: \bibitem{sm-physC1}Yu. M. Shukrinov and F. Mahfouzi, Physica {\bf C434}, 6 (2006).
270:
271:
272: \end{thebibliography}
273:
274:
275:
276: \end{document}
277: