1: %\documentclass[prl,aps,showpacs,twocolumn]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[prl,aps,preprint,showpacs]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[prl,aps,preprint,showpacs,endfloats]{revtex}
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7: \title{Thermal expansion of Josephson junctions as an
8: elastic response to an effective stress field}
9: \author{S. Sergeenkov$^{1,2}$, G. Rotoli$^{3}$, G. Filatrella$^{4}$, and F.M. Araujo-Moreira$^{1}$}
10: \affiliation{$^{1}$Grupo de Materiais e Dispositivos, Centro
11: Multidisciplinar para o Desenvolvimento de Materiais Ceramicos,
12: Departamento de F\'{i}sica, Universidade Federal de S\~{a}o
13: Carlos, Caixa Postal 676 - 13565-905 S\~{a}o Carlos, SP, Brazil\\
14: $^{2}$Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Joint
15: Institute for Nuclear Research, 141980 Dubna, Moscow Region, Russia\\
16: $^{3}$CNISM and DIMEG, Universit\`{a} di L'Aquila,
17: Localit\'{a} Monteluco, I-67040 L'Aquila, Italy \\
18: $^{4}$Laboratorio Regionale SuperMat CNR-INFM Salerno and
19: Dipartimento di Scienze Biologiche ed Ambientali, Universit\`{a}
20: del Sannio, Via Port'Arsa, 11, I-82100 Benevento, Italy}
21:
22: %\preprint
23:
24: \date{\today}
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27: By introducing a concept of thermal expansion (TE) of a Josephson
28: junction as an elastic response to an effective stress field, we
29: study (both analytically and numerically) the temperature and
30: magnetic field dependence of TE coefficient $\alpha $ in a single
31: small junction and in a square array. In particular, we found that
32: in addition to {\it field} oscillations due to Fraunhofer-like
33: dependence of the critical current, $\alpha $ of a small single
34: junction also exhibits strong flux driven {\it temperature}
35: oscillations near $T_C$. We also numerically simulated stress
36: induced response of a closed loop with finite self-inductance (a
37: prototype of an array) and found that $\alpha $ of a $5\times 5$
38: array may still exhibit temperature oscillations provided the
39: applied magnetic field is strong enough to compensate for the
40: screening induced effects.
41: \end{abstract}
42:
43: \pacs{74.50.+r, 74.62.Fj, 81.40.Jj}
44:
45: \maketitle
46:
47: \section{I. Introduction}
48:
49: Inspired by new possibilities offered by the cutting-edge
50: nanotechnologies, the experimental and theoretical physics of
51: increasingly sophisticated mesoscopic quantum devices (heavily
52: based on Josephson junctions and their arrays) is becoming one of
53: the most exciting and rapidly growing areas of modern science
54: (see, e.g.,~\cite{a1,a2,a3,a4} for the recent reviews on charge
55: and spin effects in mesoscopic 2D Josephson junctions and
56: quantum-state engineering with Josephson-junction devices). In
57: particular, a remarkable increase of the measurements technique
58: resolution made it possible to experimentally detect such
59: interesting phenomena as flux avalanches~\cite{a5} and geometric
60: quantization~\cite{a6} as well as flux dominated behavior of heat
61: capacity~\cite{a7} in Josephson junctions (JJs) and their arrays
62: (JJAs).
63:
64: At the same time, given a rather specific
65: magnetostrictive~\cite{a8} and piezomagnetic~\cite{a9} response of
66: Josephson systems, one can expect some nontrivial behavior of the
67: thermal expansion (TE) coefficient in JJs as well. Of special
68: interest are the properties of TE in applied magnetic field. For
69: example, some superconductors like $Ba_{1-x}K_xBiO_3$,
70: $BaPb_xBi_{1-x}O_3$ and $La_{2-x}Sr_xCuO_4$ were found~\cite{a10}
71: to exhibit anomalous temperature behavior of both magnetostriction
72: and TE which were attributed to the field-induced suppression of
73: the superstructural ordering in the oxygen sublattices of these
74: systems.
75:
76: By introducing a concept of TE of Josephson contact (as an elastic
77: response of JJ to an effective stress field), in the present paper
78: we consider the temperature and magnetic field dependence of TE
79: coefficient $\alpha (T,H)$ in a small single JJ and in a single
80: plaquette (a prototype of the simplest JJA). In a short contact,
81: the field-induced $\alpha (T,H)$ is found to exhibit strong
82: temperature oscillations near $T_C$. At the same time, in an array
83: (described via a closed loop with finite self-inductance) for
84: these oscillations to manifest themselves, the applied field
85: should be strong enough to overcome the screening induced
86: self-field effects.
87:
88:
89: \section{II. Thermal expansion of a small Josephson contact}
90:
91: Since thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha (T,H)$ is usually
92: measured using mechanical dilatometers~\cite{1}, it is natural to
93: introduce TE as an elastic response of the Josephson contact to an
94: effective stress field $\sigma $~\cite{a9,2}. Namely, we define
95: the TE coefficient (TEC) $\alpha (T,H)$ as follows:
96: % 1
97: \begin{equation}
98: \alpha (T,H)=\frac{d \epsilon }{dT}
99: \label{alphadefinition}
100: \end{equation}
101: where an appropriate strain field $\epsilon$ in the contact area
102: is related to the Josephson energy $E_J$ as follows ($V$ is the
103: volume of the sample):
104: % 2
105: \begin{equation}
106: \epsilon =-\frac{1}{V}\left [\frac{dE_J}{d\sigma}\right ]_{\sigma
107: =0}
108: \end{equation}
109: For simplicity and to avoid self-field effects, we start with a
110: small Josephson contact of length $w<\lambda _J$ ($\lambda
111: _J=\sqrt{\Phi _0/\mu _0dj_{c}}$ is the Josephson penetration
112: depth) placed in a strong enough magnetic field (which is applied
113: normally to the contact area) such that $H>\Phi _0/2\pi \lambda
114: _Jd$, where $d=2\lambda _{L}+t$, $\lambda _{L}$ is the London
115: penetration depth, and $t$ is an insulator thickness.
116:
117: The Josephson energy of such a contact in applied magnetic field
118: is governed by a Fraunhofer-like dependence of the critical
119: current~\cite{orlando}:
120: \begin{equation}
121: E_J=J\left (1-\frac{\sin \varphi}{\varphi}\cos \varphi _0\right ),
122: \label{Josenergy}
123: \end{equation}
124: where $\varphi =\pi \Phi /\Phi _0$ is the frustration parameter
125: with $\Phi =Hwd$ being the flux through the contact area, $\varphi
126: _0$ is the initial phase difference through the contact, and
127: $J\propto e^{-t/\xi}$ is the zero-field tunneling Josephson energy
128: with $\xi$ being a characteristic (decaying) length and $t$ the
129: thickness of the insulating layer. The neglected here self-field
130: effects (screening) will be treated in the next Section for an
131: array.
132:
133: Notice that in non-zero applied magnetic field $H$, there are two
134: stress-induced contributions to the Josephson energy $E_J$, both
135: related to decreasing of the insulator thickness under pressure.
136: Indeed, according to the experimental data~\cite{2}, the tunneling
137: dominated critical current $I_c$ in granular high-$T_C$
138: superconductors was found to exponentially increase under
139: compressive stress, viz. $I_c(\sigma )=I_c(0)e^{\kappa \sigma }$.
140: More specifically, the critical current at $\sigma =9 kbar$ was
141: found to be three times higher its value at $\sigma =1.5 kbar$,
142: clearly indicating a weak-links-mediated origin of the phenomenon.
143: Hence, for small enough $\sigma $ we can safely assume
144: that~\cite{a9} $t(\sigma )\simeq t(0)(1-\beta \sigma/\sigma_0)$
145: with $\sigma _0$ being some characteristic value (the parameter
146: $\beta $ is related to the so-called ultimate stress $\sigma _m$
147: as $\beta =\sigma _0/\sigma _m$). As a result, we have the
148: following two stress-induced effects in Josephson contacts:
149:
150: (I) amplitude modulation leading to the explicit stress dependence
151: of the zero-field energy
152: \begin{equation}
153: J(T,\sigma )=J(T,0)e^{\gamma \sigma/\sigma_0}
154: \end{equation}
155: with $\gamma =\beta t(0)/\xi$, and\\
156:
157: (II) phase modulation leading to the explicit stress dependence of
158: the flux
159: \begin{equation}
160: \Phi (T,H,\sigma )=Hwd(T,\sigma )
161: \end{equation}
162: with
163: \begin{equation}
164: d(T,\sigma )=2\lambda _{L}(T)+t(0)(1-\beta \sigma/\sigma_0 )
165: \end{equation}
166:
167: Finally, in view of Eqs.(1)-(6), the temperature and field
168: dependence of the small single junction TEC reads (the initial
169: phase difference is conveniently fixed at $\varphi _0=\pi$):
170: \begin{equation}
171: \alpha (T,H)=\alpha (T,0)\left [1+F(T,H)\right ]+\epsilon
172: (T,0)\frac{dF(T,H)}{dT}, \label{TEcoefficient}
173: \end{equation}
174: where
175: \begin{equation}
176: F(T,H)=\left [\frac{\sin \varphi}{\varphi}+\frac{\xi}{d(T,0)}
177: \left (\frac{\sin \varphi}{\varphi}-\cos \varphi \right )\right ],
178: \end{equation}
179: with
180: \begin{equation}
181: \varphi(T,H)=\frac{\pi \Phi (T,H,0)}{\Phi _0}=\frac{H}{H_0(T)},
182: \end{equation}
183: \begin{equation}
184: \alpha (T,0)=\frac{d\epsilon (T,0)}{dT},
185: \end{equation}
186: and
187: \begin{equation}
188: \epsilon (T,0)=-\left (\frac{\Phi _0}{2\pi}\right )\left
189: (\frac{2\gamma}{V \sigma_0}\right )I_C(T).
190: \end{equation}
191: Here, $H_0(T)=\Phi _0/\pi wd(T,0)$ with $d(T,0)=2\lambda
192: _{L}(T)+t(0)$.
193: \begin{figure*}
194: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig1.eps}
195: \caption{\label{fig:1} (Color online) Temperature dependence of
196: the normalized flux driven strain field $\epsilon (T,f)/\epsilon
197: (0,0)$ in a single short contact for different values of the
198: frustration parameter $f=H/H_0(0)$ according to Eqs.(1)-(13).}
199: \end{figure*}
200: For the explicit temperature dependence of $J(T,0)=\Phi
201: _0I_C(T)/2\pi$ we use the well-known~\cite{3} analytical
202: approximation of the BCS gap parameter (valid for all
203: temperatures), $\Delta (T)=\Delta (0)\tanh
204: \left(2.2\sqrt{\frac{T_{C}-T}{T}}\right)$ with $\Delta
205: (0)=1.76k_BT_C$ which governs the temperature dependence of the
206: Josephson critical current
207: \begin{equation}
208: I_C(T)=I_C(0)\left[ \frac{\Delta (T)}{\Delta (0)}\right] \tanh
209: \left[ \frac{\Delta (T)}{2k_{B}T}\right]
210: \end{equation}
211: while the temperature dependence of the London penetration depth
212: is governed by the two-fluid model:
213: \begin{equation}
214: \lambda _{L}(T)=\frac{\lambda _{L}(0)}{\sqrt{1-(T/T_C)^2}}
215: \end{equation}
216:
217: \begin{figure*}
218: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig2.eps}
219: \caption{\label{fig:2} (Color online) Temperature dependence of
220: flux driven normalized TEC $\alpha (T,f)T_C/|\epsilon (0,0)|$ in a
221: single small contact for different values of the frustration
222: parameter $f=H/H_0(0)$ (for the same set of parameters as in
223: Fig.1) according to Eqs.(1)-(13).}
224: \end{figure*}
225: From the very structure of Eqs.(1)-(9) it is obvious that TEC of a
226: single contact will exhibit {\it field} oscillations imposed by
227: the Fraunhofer dependence of the critical current $I_C$. Much less
228: obvious is its temperature dependence. Indeed, Fig.~\ref{fig:1}
229: presents the temperature behavior of the contact area strain field
230: $\epsilon (T,f)$ (with $t(0)/\xi = 1$, $\xi /\lambda _L(0)=0.02$
231: and $\beta =0.1$) for different values of the frustration
232: parameter $f=H/H_0(0)$. Notice characteristic flux driven
233: temperature oscillations near $T_C$ which are better seen on a
234: semi-log plot shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2} which depicts the
235: dependence of the properly normalized field-induced TEC $\alpha
236: (T,f)$ as a function of $1-T/T_C$ for the same set of parameters.
237:
238:
239: \section{III. Thermal expansion in the presence of screening currents}
240:
241: To answer an important question how the neglected in the previous
242: Section screening effects will affect the above-predicted
243: oscillating behavior of the field-induced TEC, let us consider a
244: more realistic situation with a junction embedded into an array
245: (rather than an isolated contact) which is realized in
246: artificially prepared arrays using photolithographic technique
247: (that nowadays allow for controlled manipulations of the junctions
248: parameters~\cite{array-artificial}). Besides, this is also a good
249: approximation for a granular superconductor (if we consider it as
250: a network of superconducting islands connected with each other via
251: Josephson links~\cite{orlando}). Our goal is to model and simulate
252: the elastic response of such systems to an effective stress
253: $\sigma$ (described in the previous Section for an isolated
254: contact). For simplicity, we will consider an array with a regular
255: topology and uniform parameters (such approximation already proved
256: useful for describing high-quality artificially prepared
257: structures~\cite{a6}).
258:
259: \subsection{A. Model equations for a planar square array}
260:
261: Let us consider a planar square array as shown in
262: Fig.~\ref{fig:3}. The total current includes the bias current
263: (flowing through the vertical junctions) and the induced screening
264: currents (circulating in the plaquette~\cite{nakajima}). This
265: situation corresponds to the inclusion of screening currents only
266: into the nearest neighbors, neglecting thus the mutual inductance
267: terms~\cite{phillips}. Therefore, the equation for the vertical
268: contacts will read (horizontal and vertical junctions are denoted
269: by superscripts $h$ and $v$, respectively):
270: \begin{figure*}
271: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=90]{fig3.eps} \vskip 1cm
272: \caption{\label{fig:3} Sketch of an array. The junctions
273: perpendicular (parallel) to the bias are called horizontal
274: (vertical). (a) The node $(i,j)$ is shown as a circle in the left
275: bottom corner of a plaquette; (b) a single plaquette (the
276: elementary unit of the circuit) along with the circulating
277: current; and (c) the lumped elements circuit for a small
278: junction.}
279: \end{figure*}
280: \begin{equation}
281: \frac{\hbar C}{2e}\frac{d^2\phi_{i,j}^v}{dt^2} + \frac{\hbar}{2eR}
282: \frac{d\phi_{i,j}^v}{dt} +
283: I_c \sin \phi_{i,j}^v = \Delta I^s_{i,j} + I_b,
284: \label{currentcons-nostress}
285: \end{equation}
286: where $\Delta I^s_{i,j}=I^s_{i,j}-I^s_{i-1,j}$ and the screening
287: currents $I^s$ obey the fluxoid conservation condition:
288: \begin{equation}
289: -\phi^v_{i,j}+\phi^v_{i,j+1} - \phi^h_{i,j} + \phi^h_{i+1,j} =
290: 2\pi \frac{\Phi^{ext}}{\Phi_0} - \frac{2\pi L I^s_{i,j}}{\Phi_0}.
291: \label{fluxoid}
292: \end{equation}
293:
294: Recall that the total flux has two components (an external
295: contribution and the contribution due to the screening currents in
296: the closed loop) and it is equal to the sum of the phase
297: differences describing the array. It is important to underline
298: that the external flux in Eq.(\ref{fluxoid}), $\eta = 2\pi
299: \Phi^{ext}/\Phi_ 0$, is related to the frustration of the whole
300: array (i.e., this is the flux across the void of the
301: network~\cite{fernando,grimaldi}), and it should be distinguished
302: from the previously introduced applied magnetic field $H$ across
303: the junction barrier which is related to the frustration of a
304: single contact $f=2\pi Hdw/\Phi _0$ and which only modulates the
305: critical current $I_C(T,H,\sigma )$ of a single junction while
306: inducing a negligible flux into the void area of the array.
307:
308:
309: \subsection{B. Stress induced effects}
310:
311: For simplicity, in what follows we will consider the elastic
312: effects due to a uniform (homogeneous) stress imposed on the
313: array. With regard to the geometry of the array, the deformation
314: of the loop is the dominant effect with its radius $a$ deforming
315: as follows:
316: \begin{equation}
317: a(\sigma)=a_0(1-\chi \sigma/\sigma_0).
318: \end{equation}
319: As a result, the self-inductance of the loop $L(a)=\mu_0 a F(a)$
320: (with $F(a)$ being a geometry dependent factor) will change
321: accordingly:
322: \begin{equation}
323: L(a)=L_0(1-\chi_g \sigma/\sigma_0).
324: \label{induct-dep}
325: \end{equation}
326: The relationship between the coefficients $\chi$ and $\chi_g$ is
327: given by
328: \begin{equation}
329: \chi_g = \left( 1+a_0 B_g \right)\chi
330: \label{chirelation}
331: \end{equation}
332: where $B_g=\frac{1}{F(a)}\left(\frac{dF}{da}\right)_{a_0}$.
333:
334: It is also reasonable to assume that in addition to the critical
335: current, the external stress will modify the resistance of the
336: contact:
337: \begin{equation}
338: R(\sigma ) =\frac{\pi \Delta(0)}{2 e I_C(\sigma )}=R_0 e^{-\chi
339: \sigma/\sigma_0} \label{resistance}
340: \end{equation}
341: as well as capacitance (due to the change in the distance between
342: the superconductors):
343:
344: \begin{equation}
345: C(\sigma )=\frac{C_0}{1-\chi \sigma/\sigma_0}\simeq C_0 (1+\chi\sigma/\sigma_0).
346: \label{capacitance}
347: \end{equation}
348: To simplify the treatment of the dynamic equations of the array,
349: it is convenient to introduce the standard normalization
350: parameters such as the Josephson frequency:
351:
352: \begin{equation}
353: \omega_J = \sqrt{\frac{2\pi I_C(0)}{C_0 \Phi_0}}, \label{omegaj}
354: \end{equation}
355: the analog of the SQUID parameter:
356:
357: \begin{equation}
358: \beta_L = \frac{2\pi I_C(0)L_0}{\Phi_0},
359: \label{squidpar}
360: \end{equation}
361: and the dissipation parameter:
362:
363: \begin{equation}
364: \beta_C = \frac{2\pi I_C(0)C_0R_0^2}{\Phi_0}.
365: \label{betac}
366: \end{equation}
367: Combining Eqs.(\ref{currentcons-nostress}) and (\ref{fluxoid})
368: with the stress-induced effects described by Eqs.
369: (\ref{resistance}) and (\ref{capacitance}) and using the
370: normalization parameters given by
371: Eqs.(\ref{omegaj})-(\ref{betac}), we can rewrite the equations for
372: an array in a rather compact form. Namely, the equations for
373: vertical junctions read:
374: \begin{eqnarray}
375: \frac{1}{1-\chi \sigma/\sigma_0} \ddot{\phi}_{i,j}^v + \frac{e^{-\chi
376: \sigma/\sigma_0}}{\sqrt{\beta_C}} \dot{\phi}_{i,j}^v +
377: e^{\chi \sigma/\sigma_0} \sin \phi_{i,j}^v = \hspace{6cm} \nonumber \\
378: \frac{1}{\beta_L \left( 1 -\chi_g \sigma/\sigma_0 \right) }
379: \left[ \phi^v_{i,j-1} - 2\phi^v_{i,j} + \phi^v_{i,j+1} + \phi^h_{i,j} - \phi^h_{i-1,j} +
380: \phi^h_{i+1,j-1} - \phi^h_{i,j-1} \right] + \gamma_b.
381: \label{arr-eq-vert}
382: \end{eqnarray}
383: Here an overdot denotes the time derivative with respect to the
384: normalized time (inverse Josephson frequency), and the bias
385: current is normalized to the critical current without stress,
386: $\gamma_b = I_b/I_C(0)$.
387:
388: The equations for the horizontal junctions will have the same
389: structure safe for the explicit bias related terms:
390: \begin{eqnarray}
391: \frac{1}{1-\chi \sigma/\sigma_0} \ddot{\phi}_{i,j}^h + \frac{e^{-\chi
392: \sigma/\sigma_0}}{\sqrt{\beta_C}} \dot{\phi}_{i,j}^h +
393: e^{\chi \sigma/\sigma_0} \sin \phi_{i,j}^h = \hspace{6cm} \nonumber \\
394: \frac{1}{\beta_L \left( 1 -\chi_g \sigma/\sigma_0 \right) } \left[
395: \phi^h_{i,j-1} -2\phi^h_{i,j}+\phi^h_{i,j+1} + \phi^v_{i,j} -
396: \phi^v_{i-1,j} + \phi^v_{i+1,j-1} - \phi^v_{i,j-1} \right].
397: \label{arr-eq-hor}
398: \end{eqnarray}
399: Finally, Eqs.(\ref{arr-eq-vert}) and (\ref{arr-eq-hor}) should be
400: complemented with the appropriate boundary
401: conditions~\cite{binder} which will include the normalized
402: contribution of the external flux through the plaquette area $\eta
403: = 2\pi \frac{\Phi^{ext}}{\Phi_0}$.
404:
405: It is interesting to notice that Eqs.(\ref{arr-eq-vert}) and
406: (\ref{arr-eq-hor}) will coincide with their stress-free
407: counterparts if we introduce the stress-dependent re-normalization
408: of the parameters:
409:
410: \begin{equation}
411: \tilde{\omega}_J = \omega_J e^{\chi \sigma /2\sigma_0}, \label{omegajren}
412: \end{equation}
413:
414: \begin{equation}
415: \tilde{ \beta}_C = \beta_C e^{- 3 \chi \sigma/\sigma_0}, \label{betacren}
416: \end{equation}
417:
418: \begin{equation}
419: \tilde{\beta}_L = \beta_L (1-\chi_g \sigma/\sigma_0) e^{\chi \sigma/\sigma_0 },
420: \label{squidparren}
421: \end{equation}
422:
423: \begin{equation}
424: \tilde{\eta} = \eta (1- 2 \chi \sigma/\sigma_0 ), \label{etaren}
425: \end{equation}
426:
427: \begin{equation}
428: \tilde{\gamma}_b = \gamma_b e^{-\chi \sigma/\sigma_0 }.
429: \label{gammaren}
430: \end{equation}
431:
432: \subsection{C. Numerical results and discussion}
433:
434: Turning to the discussion of the obtained numerical simulation
435: results, it should be stressed that the main problem in dealing
436: with an array is that the total current through the junction
437: should be retrieved by solving self-consistently the array
438: equations in the presence of screening currents.
439: Recall~\cite{orlando} that the Josephson energy of a single
440: junction for an arbitrary current $I$ through the contact reads:
441:
442: \begin{equation}
443: E_J(T,f,I)=E_J(T,f,I_C)\left[1-\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{I}{I_C}\right)^2}
444: \right]. \label{Josenergybias}
445: \end{equation}
446:
447: \noindent The important consequence of Eq.(\ref{Josenergybias}) is
448: that if no current flows in the array's junction, such junction
449: will not contribute to the TEC (simply because a junction
450: disconnected from the current generator will not contribute to the
451: energy of the system).
452:
453: \noindent Below we sketch the main steps of the numerical
454: procedure used to simulate the stress-induced effects in the
455: array:
456:
457: \begin{itemize}
458: \item[1)] a bias point $I_b$ is selected for the whole array;
459: \item[2)] the parameters of the array (screening, Josephson frequency,
460: dissipation, etc) are selected and modified according to the
461: intensity of the applied stress $\sigma$;
462: \item[3)] the array equations are simulated to retrieve the static configuration of
463: the phase differences for the parameters selected in step $2$;
464: \item[4)] the total current flowing through the individual junctions is
465: retrieved as:
466:
467: \begin{equation}
468: I^{v,h}_{i,j} = I_C\sin \phi^{v,h}_{i,j}; \label{totalcurrent}
469: \end{equation}
470:
471: \item[5)] the energy dependence upon stress is numerically estimated using
472: the value of the total current $I^{v,h}_{i,j}$ (which is not
473: necessarily identical for all junctions) found in step $4$ via
474: Eq.(\ref{totalcurrent});
475: \item[6)] the array energy $E_J^A$ is obtained by summing up the contributions of
476: all junctions with the above-found phase differences
477: $\phi^{v,h}_{i,j}$;
478: \item[7)] the stress-modified screening currents $I^s_{i,j}(T,H,\sigma )$
479: are computed by means of Eq.(\ref{fluxoid}) and inserted into the
480: magnetic energy of the array $E_M^A = \frac{1}{2L}
481: \Sigma_{i,j}(I^s_{i,j})^2$;
482: \item[8)] the resulting strain field and TE coefficient of the array are
483: computed using numerical derivatives
484: based on the finite differences:
485:
486: \begin{equation}
487: \epsilon^A \simeq \frac{1}{V} \left[
488: \frac{\Delta\left(E_M^A+E_J^A\right)}{\Delta
489: \sigma}\right]_{\Delta\sigma \rightarrow 0},
490: \label{estimstrain}
491: \end{equation}
492:
493: \begin{equation}
494: \alpha (T,H) \simeq \frac{ \Delta\epsilon^A}{ \Delta T}.
495: \label{estimalpha}
496: \end{equation}
497: \end{itemize}
498: \begin{figure*}
499: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig4.eps}
500: \caption{\label{fig:4} (Color online) Numerical simulation results
501: for an array $5 \times 5$ (black solid line) and a small single
502: contact (red dashed line). The dependence of the normalized TEC
503: $\alpha (T,f)T_C/|\epsilon (0,0)|$ on the frustration parameter
504: $f$ (applied magnetic field $H$ across the barrier) for the
505: reduced temperature $T/T_C=0.95$. The parameters used for the
506: simulations: $\eta =0$, $\beta = 0.1$, $t(0)/\xi = 1$,
507: $\xi/\lambda_L=0.02$, $\beta_L=10$, $\gamma_b=0.95$, and
508: $\chi_g=\chi=0.01$.}
509: \end{figure*}
510: The numerical simulation results show that the overall behavior of
511: the strain field and TE coefficient in the array is qualitatively
512: similar to the behavior of the single contact. In Fig.~\ref{fig:4}
513: we have simulated the behavior of both the small junction and the
514: array as a function of the field across the barrier of the
515: individual junctions in the presence of bias and screening
516: currents. As is seen, the dependence of $\alpha (T,f)$ is very
517: weak up to $f\simeq 0.5$, showing a strong decrease of about $50
518: \%$ when the frustration approaches $f=1$.
519: \begin{figure*}
520: \includegraphics[width=7.2cm]{fig5a.eps}
521: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig5b.eps}
522: \includegraphics[width=7.8cm]{fig5c.eps}
523: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig5d.eps}
524: \caption{\label{fig:5} (Color online) Numerical simulation results
525: for an array $5 \times 5$. The influence of the flux across the
526: void of the network $\eta$ frustrating the whole array on the
527: temperature dependence of the normalized TEC $\alpha
528: (T,f)T_C/|\epsilon (0,0)|$ for different values of the barrier
529: field $f$ frustrating a single junction for $\gamma_b=0.5$ and the
530: rest of parameters same as in Fig.4.}
531: \end{figure*}
532: A much more profound change is obtained by varying the temperature
533: for the fixed value of applied magnetic field. Fig.~\ref{fig:5}
534: depicts the temperature behavior of $\alpha (T,f)$ (on semi-log
535: scale) for different field configurations which include barrier
536: field $f$ frustrating a single junction and the flux across the
537: void of the network $\eta$ frustrating the whole array. First of
538: all, comparing Fig.~\ref{fig:5}(a) and Fig.~\ref{fig:2} we notice
539: that, due to substantial modulation of the Josephson critical
540: current $I_C(T,H)$ given by Eq.(\ref{Josenergy}), the barrier
541: field $f$ has similar effects on the TE coefficient of both the
542: array and the single contact including temperature oscillations.
543: However, finite screening effects in the array result in the
544: appearance of oscillations at higher values of the frustration $f$
545: (in comparison with a single contact). On the other hand,
546: Fig.~\ref{fig:5}(b-d) represent the influence of the external
547: field across the void $\eta$ on the evolution of $\alpha (T,f)$
548: (recall that in the absence of stress this field produces a
549: well-defined magnetic pattern~\cite{fernando,grimaldi,binder}). As
550: is seen, in comparison with a field-free configuration (shown in
551: Fig.~\ref{fig:5}(a)), the presence of external field $\eta$
552: substantially reduces the magnitude of the TE coefficient of the
553: array. Besides, with $\eta$ increasing, the onset of temperature
554: oscillations markedly shifts closer to $T_C$.
555:
556: \section{IV. Conclusion}
557:
558: We have investigated the influence of a homogeneous mechanical
559: stress on a small single Josephson junction and on a plaquette
560: (array of $5\times 5$ junctions). We have shown how the
561: stress-induced modulation of the parameters describing the
562: junctions (as well as the connecting circuits) produces such an
563: interesting phenomenon as a thermal expansion (TE) in a single
564: contact and two-dimensional array (plaquette). We also studied the
565: variation of the TE coefficient with an external magnetic field
566: and temperature. In particular, near $T_C$ (due to some tremendous
567: increase of the effective "sandwich" thickness of the contact) the
568: field-induced TE coefficient of a small junction exhibits clear
569: {\it temperature} oscillations scaled with the number of flux
570: quanta crossing the contact area. Our numerical simulations
571: revealed that these oscillations may actually still survive in an
572: array if the applied field is strong enough to compensate for
573: finite screening induced self-field effects. And finally, it is
574: important to emphasize that our analysis refers to regular arrays
575: with square geometry (similar to already existing artificially
576: prepared arrays~\cite{a6,fernando}). However, we can argue that
577: the predicted here effects should manifest themselves also in
578: granular superconductors which exhibit quite pronounced stress
579: dependent behavior upon mechanical loading~\cite{a9,2}.
580:
581: \begin{acknowledgments}
582: We are thankful to the Referee for very useful comments which
583: helped improve the presentation of this paper and better
584: understand the obtained here results. SS and FMAM gratefully
585: acknowledge financial support from the Brazilian agency FAPESP
586: (Projeto 2006/51897-7). GF and GR wish to acknowledge financial
587: support from the CNISM-INFM-CNR Progetto Supercalcolo 2006 and by
588: ESF in the framework of the network-programme: Arrays of Quantum
589: Dots and Josephson Junctions.
590: \end{acknowledgments}
591:
592: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
593: \bibitem{a1} {\em New Directions in Mesoscopic Physics: Towards
594: Nanoscience}, Eds. R. Fazio, V.F. Gantmakher, and Y. Imry (Kluwer
595: Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2003).
596: \bibitem{a2} I.V. Krive, S.I. Kulinich, R.I. Shekhter, and M. Jonson,
597: Low Temp. Phys. {\bf 30}, 554 (2004).
598: \bibitem{a3} S. Sergeenkov, in {\it Studies of High Temperature Superconductors}, Ed. A.
599: Narlikar (Nova Science Publishers, New York, 2006), vol. 50,
600: pp.80-96.
601: \bibitem{a4} Yu. Makhlin, G. Schon, and A. Shnirman, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 73}, 357 (2001).
602: \bibitem{a5} E. Altshuler and T.H. Johansen, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 76}, 471 (2004).
603: \bibitem{a6} S. Sergeenkov and F.M. Araujo-Moreira, JETP Lett. {\bf 80}, 580 (2004).
604: \bibitem{a7} O. Bourgeois, S. E. Skipetrov, F. Ong, and J. Chaussy, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 057007 (2005).
605: \bibitem{a8} S. Sergeenkov and M. Ausloos, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 48}, 604
606: (1993).
607: \bibitem{a9} S. Sergeenkov, J. of Phys.: Cond. Matter {\bf 10}, L265 (1998);
608: S. Sergeenkov, JETP Lett. {\bf 70}, 36 (1999).
609: \bibitem{a10} N. V. Anshukova, B. M. Bulychev, A. I. Golovashkin, L. I. Ivanova, A. A. Minakov,
610: and A. P. Rusakov, JETP Lett. {\bf 71}, 377 (2000).
611: \bibitem{1} P. Nagel, V. Pasler, C. Meingast, A. I. Rykov, and S. Tajima, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 2376 (2000).
612: \bibitem{2} A.I. D'yachenko, V.Y. Tarenkov, A.V. Abalioshev, R.V. Lutciv, Y.N. Myasoedov, and Y.V. Boiko,
613: Physica C {\bf 251}, 207 (1995).
614: \bibitem{orlando} T.P. Orlando and K.A. Delin, {\it Foundations of Applied Superconductivity}
615: (Addison, 1991).
616: \bibitem{3} R. Meservey and B.B. Schwartz, in {\em Superconductivity}, vol.1, ed. by R.D. Parks
617: (M. Dekker, New York, 1969), p.117.
618: \bibitem{array-artificial} R.S. Newrock, C.J. Lobb, U. Geigenmuller, M. Octavio, Sol. State Phys. {\bf 54}, 263 (2000).
619: %\bibitem{array-granular} M. Tinkham, {\it Introduction to Superconductivity},
620: %2nd edition (McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1997).
621: \bibitem{nakajima} K. Nakajima and Y. Sawada, J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 52},
622: 5732 (1981).
623: \bibitem{phillips} J.R. Phillips, R.S.J. van der Zant, J. White, and T.P.
624: Orlando, Phys. Rev. {\bf B47}, 5219 (1993).
625: \bibitem{fernando} F.M. Araujo-Moreira, P. Barbara, A.B. Cawthorne, and C.J.
626: Lobb, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 4625 (1997); F.M. Araujo-Moreira,
627: W. Maluf, and S. Sergeenkov, Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 44}, 33 (2005).
628: \bibitem{grimaldi}G. Grimaldi, G. Filatrella, S. Pace, and U. Gambardella, Phys. Lett. A {\bf 223}, 463 (1996).
629: \bibitem{binder} P. Binder, P. Caputo, M. V. Fistul, A. V. Ustinov and G. Filatrella, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 8679 (2000).
630: \end{thebibliography}
631:
632:
633: \end{document}
634: