1: \documentclass{article}
2: \usepackage{epsfig,a4wide,amsfonts}
3: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
4: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
5:
6:
7: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
8: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
9: \newenvironment{proof}[1][Proof:]{\begin{trivlist}
10: \item[\hskip \labelsep {\bfseries #1}]}{\end{trivlist}}
11: \newcommand{\qed}{\nobreak \ifvmode \relax \else
12: \ifdim\lastskip<1.5em \hskip-\lastskip
13: \hskip1.5em plus0em minus0.5em \fi \nobreak
14: \vrule height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em\fi}
15: \def\proof{\par{\it Proof}. \ignorespaces}
16:
17: \def\endproof{\vbox{\hrule height0.6pt\hbox{%
18: \vrule height1.3ex width0.6pt\hskip0.8ex
19: \vrule width0.6pt}\hrule height0.6pt
20: }}
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: \title{Designing arrays of Josephson junctions for specific static responses}
25: \author{ J.G. Caputo$^{1,2}$ and L. Loukitch$^1$ \\
26: {\normalsize \it 1) Laboratoire de Math\'ematiques, INSA de Rouen} \\
27: {\normalsize \it B.P. 8, 76131 Mont-Saint-Aignan cedex, France } \\
28: {\normalsize \it 2) Laboratoire de Physique th\'eorique et modelisation,} \\
29: {\normalsize \it Universit\'e de Cergy-Pontoise and C.N.R.S., France}
30: \date{\today}}
31:
32: \maketitle
33:
34: \begin{abstract}
35:
36:
37: We consider the inverse problem of designing an array
38: of superconducting Josephson junctions that has a given
39: maximum static current pattern as function of the applied magnetic
40: field. Such devices are used for magnetometry and as
41: Terahertz oscillators. The model is a 2D semilinear elliptic operator
42: with Neuman boundary conditions so the direct problem is
43: difficult to solve because of the multiplicity of solutions.
44: For an array of small junctions in a passive region,
45: the model can be reduced to a 1D linear partial differential equation
46: with Dirac distribution sine nonlinearities. For small junctions
47: and a symmetric device, the maximum current is
48: the absolute value of a cosine Fourier series whose coefficients (resp. frequencies)
49: are proportional to the areas (resp. the positions) of the junctions.
50: The inverse problem is solved by inverse cosine Fourier transform
51: after choosing the area of the central junction.
52: We show several examples using combinations of simple three
53: junction circuits. These new devices could then be tailored to meet
54: specific applications.
55:
56:
57:
58: \end{abstract}
59:
60: \section{Introduction}
61:
62: The coupling of two Type I superconductors across a thin oxide layer is
63: described by the two Josephson equations \cite{josephson},
64: \begin{equation}\label{e1.1}
65: V=\Phi_0\frac{d\phi}{dt},~~~I = s J_c \sin(\phi).
66: \end{equation}
67: where $\phi$ is the phase difference between the two superconductors
68: in units of $\Phi_0=\hbar/2e$ the reduced flux quantum,
69: $V$ and $I$ are respectively, the voltage and current across
70: the layer, $s$ is the contact surface and $J_c$ is the critical current
71: density.
72: The Josephson equations and Maxwell's equations imply
73: the modulation of DC current by an external magnetic field in the static
74: regime (SQUIDs) and the conversion of AC current in microwave radiation
75: \cite{Barone,Likharev}. In all these systems there is a characteristic
76: length which reduces to the Josephson length $\lambda_J$, the
77: ratio of the electromagnetic flux to the quantum flux $\Phi_0$ for standard
78: junctions.
79: The behavior of a Josephson junction depends on its size compared to $\lambda_J$.
80: In small junctions the phase will not vary much except for large magnetic
81: fields. Long junctions on the contrary enable large variations of the phase
82: accommodating so-called "fluxons" or sine-Gordon
83: kinks where the phase varies by $2\pi$
84: \cite{Barone}.
85:
86: For many applications and in order to protect the junction,
87: Josephson junctions are embedded in a so-called
88: microstrip line which is the capacitor made by the
89: overlap of the two superconducting layers.
90: This is the "window geometry" where the phase
91: difference satisfies an inhomogeneous 2D damped
92: driven sine Gordon equation \cite{cfv95} resulting
93: from Maxwell's equations and the Josephson
94: constitutive relations (\ref{e1.1}).
95: For resonator
96: applications this design allows to couple the junctions in an array
97: to increase the
98: output power and adapt impedance for coupling the device to a transmission
99: line. In addition one can select some desirable dynamic features
100: like resonances \cite{cl05} and optimize the frequency response
101: over a given band for wave mixing applications \cite{Salez}.
102:
103:
104: Parallel arrays of Josephson junctions can be used in the
105: static regime as very fine magnetic field detectors.
106: The maximal current $I_{max}$ which can cross the device
107: (see Fig.~\ref{f1}) for a given magnetic field $H$, without any voltage
108: ($V=0$ the static regime) defines the $I_{max}(H)$ curve.
109: The behavior of arrays of identical and equidistant small Josephson junctions
110: has been extensively studied \cite{Barone,Likharev}. The problem of
111: finding $I_{max}$ remains difficult to solve because of the multiplicity
112: of solutions due to the sine nonlinearity and the Neuman boundary conditions.
113:
114:
115:
116: For fundamental reasons and applications it is interesting to work
117: with non-uniform arrays where the junction sizes and their spacings
118: can vary.
119: In \cite{cl05,cl06} we developed a continuous/discrete or long wave
120: model where the phase variation is neglected in the junctions and
121: where the couplings between junction and surrounding microstrip are
122: correctly taken into account. In particular we consider the waves
123: between the junctions that are completely neglected by the classical
124: Resistive Shunted Junction (RSJ) lumped models \cite{Likharev}.
125: Our approach allows to choose the distance between junctions and their
126: area. In the same device we can model junctions with different
127: areas and different current response, in particular
128: $\pi$-junctions. This simple model allows to analyze in depth
129: the statics of the device and this is not possible from
130: the 2D original equations \cite{cl06}.
131: This long wave
132: approximation can be generalized to 2D to explain the behavior of
133: squids \cite{cg04}.
134: In addition we obtain an excellent agreement with the complex
135: experimental $I_{max}(H)$ curves \cite{bcls06} using the very simple
136: magnetic approximation introduced in \cite{cl06}.
137:
138:
139:
140: For experimentalists, it is very useful to extract parameters
141: of the array from the $I_{max}(H)$ curve.
142: For example it gives informations on the quality of the junctions.
143: Recent studies by Itzler and Tinkham examine how defects in the
144: coupling affect this maximum current \cite{it95,it96}. This is
145: important because high $T_c$ superconductors
146: can be described as Josephson junctions where the
147: critical current density is a rapidly varying function of the position,
148: due to grain boundaries. Fehrenbacher et al\cite{fgb92} calculated
149: $I_{\rm max}(H)$ for such disordered long Josephson junctions and
150: for a periodic array of defects. The expressions obtained are
151: complicated so the inverse problem of determining junction parameters
152: from the $I_{\rm max}(H)$ curve is very
153: difficult to solve for arrays or general current densities.
154: However, when the simple magnetic approximation of the
155: $I_{max}(H)$ holds, it allows to extract information
156: on the sizes and positions of the junctions in an array
157: assuming $I_{max}(H)$ is a periodic and even function. This
158: is the purpose of this article. In particular we will
159: show how one can obtain a cosine profile and multi-cosine profile
160: from a combination of simple 3 junction arrays.
161: We will indicate what parameters can be obtained from a general
162: $I_{max}(H)$ profile. After presenting the general model in
163: section 2, we introduce the magnetic approximation and give its
164: properties in section 3. Section 4 discusses the inverse problem
165: for a three junction array. In section 5 we design the device
166: from a general $I_{max}(H)$ and conclude in section 6.
167:
168:
169: \section{The model}
170:
171: The device we model (see Fig.~\ref{f1}) is a so-called microstrip
172: cavity (grey area in Fig.~\ref{f1}) between two superconducting layers
173: containing small regions (junctions) where the oxide layer is
174: very thin ($\sim$ 10 Angstrom) enabling Josephson coupling
175: between the top and bottom superconductors. The dimensions of
176: the microstrip are about
177: 100 $\mu$m length and 20 $\mu$m width and the length and width
178: of the junctions is about $w_j=1$ $\mu$m. In the static regime, the
179: phase difference $\varphi$ between
180: the top and bottom superconducting layers obeys
181: the following semilinear elliptic partial differential equation \cite{cfv95}
182: \begin{equation}\label{2dsg}
183: -\Delta\varphi+g(x;y)\sin\varphi = 0,
184: \end{equation}
185: where $g(x;y)=1$ in the Josephson junctions and 0 outside and where we
186: have neglected the difference in surface inductance between the junction and
187: passive region.
188: This formulation guarantees the continuity of the normal gradient
189: of $\varphi$, the
190: electrical current on the junction interface. The space unit is the
191: Josephson length $\lambda_J$, the ratio of the flux formed with the
192: critical current density and the surface inductance to the flux quantum
193: $\Phi_0$.
194:
195: \begin{figure}
196: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figs/epais_dyn1.eps,height=5cm,width=\linewidth,angle=0}}
197: \caption{The left panel shows the top view of a superconducting
198: microstrip line containing three Josephson junctions,
199: $H,I$ and $\phi$ are respectively the applied magnetic field, current and the
200: phase difference between the two superconducting layers. The phase difference
201: $\phi$ between the two superconducting layers satisfies
202: $-\Delta \phi=0$ in the linear part and
203: $-\Delta \phi+\sin(\phi)=0$ in the Josephson junctions. The right panel
204: shows the associated 2D domain of size $l \times w$ containing $n=3$ junctions
205: placed at the positions $y=w/2$ and $x=a_i,~i=1,n$.}
206: \label{f1}
207: \end{figure}
208: The boundary conditions representing an external current input $I$
209: or an applied magnetic field $H$ (along the y axis) are
210: \begin{equation} \label{bc}
211: \left. \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial y}\right|_{y=0}=-\frac{I }{2l}\nu,~
212: \left. \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial y}\right|_{y=w}=\frac{I }{2l}\nu,~
213: \left. \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial x}\right|_{x=0}=H-\frac{I}{2w}(1-\nu),~
214: \left. \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial x}\right|_{x=l}=H+\frac{I}{2w}(1-\nu)
215: \end{equation}
216: where $0\leq \nu \leq 1$ gives the type of current feed. The case
217: $\nu = 1$ shown in Fig.~\ref{f1} where the current is only applied
218: to the long boundaries $y=0,w$ is called overlap feed while
219: $\nu=0$ corresponds to the inline feed.
220:
221: We consider long and narrow strips containing a few small junctions
222: of area $w_i^2$ placed on the line $y=w/2$ and centered on $x=a_i, ~~i=1,n$
223: as shown in Fig.~\ref{f1}. Then we search $\varphi$ in the form
224: \begin{equation}\label{e2.2.1}
225: \varphi(x;y)=\frac{\nu I }{2L}\left(y-\frac{\omega}{2}\right)^2 +
226: \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}\phi_n(x) \cos\left(\frac{n\pi y}{w}\right),
227: \end{equation}
228: where the first term takes care of the $y$ boundary condition.
229: For narrow strips $w<\pi$, only the first transverse
230: mode needs to be taken into
231: account \cite{cfgv96} because the curvature of $\varphi$ due
232: to current remains small. Inserting (\ref{e2.2.1}) into (\ref{2dsg})
233: and projecting on the zero mode we obtain the following
234: equation for $\phi_0$ where the index $0$ has been dropped for simplicity
235: \begin{equation}\label{e2.3}
236: -\phi^{\prime \prime} + g\left(x,{w\over 2}\right){w_i\over w} \sin \phi =
237: \nu \frac{\gamma}{l},
238: \end{equation}
239: and where $\gamma=I/w$ and the boundary conditions
240: $\phi^{\prime}(0)=H-(1-\nu)\gamma/2$,
241: and $\phi^{\prime}(l)=H+(1-\nu)\gamma/2$. The factor
242: $w_i/w$ is exactly the "rescaling" of $\lambda_J (=1)$ into
243: $\lambda_{eff} = \sqrt{w \over w_j}>1 $ due to the presence of the
244: lateral passive region \cite{cfv96}.
245:
246:
247: As the area of the junction is reduced, the total
248: Josephson current is reduced and tends to zero.
249: To describe small junctions where the phase variation
250: can be neglected but which can carry a significant current,
251: we introduce the following function $g_h$
252: \begin{equation}\label{gh}
253: g_h(x) = {w_i\over 2 h}, ~~~{\rm for}~ a_i-h<x<a_i+h,~~{\rm and}~~g_h(x) =0~~
254: ~~{\rm elsewhere},\end{equation}
255: where $i=1,..n$.
256: In the limit $h\rightarrow 0$ we obtain our final delta function
257: model \cite{cl05}
258: \begin{equation}\label{e3.1}
259: -\phi^{\prime\prime}+\sum_{i=1}^n d_i \delta(x-a_i)\sin\phi = \nu {\gamma \over l} ,
260: \end{equation}
261: where $d_i = w_i^2/w$ and the boundary conditions
262: are $$ \phi^{\prime}(0) = H-(1-\nu)\gamma/2, ~~
263: \phi^{\prime}(l) = H+(1-\nu)\gamma/2. $$
264: Despite its crude character the delta function approximation
265: is a good model for arrays with short junctions as long as the
266: magnetic field is small compared to $1/w_i$ where $w_i$ is the
267: size of the junctions \cite{bcls06}. It allows
268: simple calculations and in depth analysis that are
269: out of reach for the 2D full model.
270: In addition when $d_i<0$ the model can describe so-called
271: $\pi$-junctions. For these, the tunneling current
272: is $\sin(\phi+\pi)= -\sin(\phi)$ instead of the usual sine term
273: in the second Josephson equation (\ref{e1.1}).
274: This new type of coupling occurs in some materials \cite{Kirtley,Razianov}
275: and it is hoped to be incorporated in the design of arrays.
276: It is then natural to associate negative $d_i$ coefficients to
277: $\pi$ junctions in the device.
278:
279:
280: We have the following properties.
281: \begin{enumerate}
282: \item Integrating twice (\ref{e3.1}) shows that the solution
283: $\phi$ is continuous at the junctions $x=a_i, ~i=1,\dots n$.
284: \item Almost everywhere (in the mathematical sense),
285: $-\phi^{\prime\prime}(x)= \nu \gamma/l$,
286: so that outside the junctions, $\phi$ is a piece-wise second degree
287: polynomial,
288: \begin{equation}\label{rem1}
289: \phi(x) = -\frac{\nu \gamma}{2 l}x^2 + B_i x + C_i~,~~ \forall x \in ]a_i;a_{i+1}[.
290: \end{equation}
291: \item At each junction ($x=a_i$), $\phi^{\prime}$ is not defined, but
292: choosing $\epsilon_1 > 0$, and $\epsilon_2 > 0$, we note that
293: $$\lim_{\epsilon_1 \rightarrow 0}\lim_{\epsilon_2 \rightarrow 0}
294: \int_{a_i-\epsilon_1}^{a_i+\epsilon_2} \phi^{\prime\prime}(x) dx =
295: \int_{a_i^-}^{a_i^+}\phi^{\prime\prime}(x)
296: dx= \left[\phi^{\prime}(x)\right]_{a_i^-}^{a_i^+}.$$
297: Since the phase is continuous at the junction $x=a_i$,
298: $\phi_i \equiv \phi(a_i)$ we get
299: \begin{equation}\label{rem2}
300: \left[\phi^{\prime}(x)\right]_{a_i^-}^{a_i^+} = d_i\sin(\phi_i)\;.
301: \end{equation}
302: \item Integrating (\ref{e3.1}) over the whole domain,
303: $$\left[\phi^{\prime}\right]_0^l= \int_0^l \phi^{\prime\prime} dx =
304: \sum_{i=1}^n d_i \sin(\phi_i)-\nu \gamma~,$$ and taking into account the
305: boundary conditions, we obtain
306: \begin{equation}\label{rem3}
307: \gamma = \sum_{i=1}^n d_i\sin(\phi_i),
308: \end{equation}
309: which indicates the conservation of current.
310: \end{enumerate}
311: In \cite{cl06}, we developed two ways to find
312: the $\gamma_{max}(H)$ curve
313: for the device using these properties, see the Appendix
314: "Piece-wise polynomial" for more details on the solution of the problem.
315: The most useful property in \cite{cl06} for this
316: study is the magnetic approximation of the $\gamma_{max}(H)$
317: curve.
318:
319: \section{The magnetic approximation}
320:
321: Since $\left[\phi^{\prime}\right]_{a_i^-}^{a_i^+}=d_i \sin(\phi_i)$
322: (remark \ref{rem2}) and $\gamma \leq \sum_i d_i$, we notice that for small $d_i$,
323: $\phi$ tends to the linear function $\phi(x) = Hx + c$. Starting from
324: $\phi(x) \equiv Hx + c$, it is simple to find the $\gamma_{max}(H)$ curve.
325: This is what we call the magnetic approximation. We generalize here
326: what was done in \cite{mghg} for arrays of equidistant junctions.
327: We have shown in \cite{cl06} that
328: the $\gamma_{max}(H)$ curve of (\ref{e3.1}) tends to it
329: when $d_i$ tends to zero. In experiments the $d_i$ coefficients are small
330: enough so that this approximation is justified and provides
331: a quantitative estimate of the $\gamma_{max}(H)$ curve \cite{bcls06}. For
332: inhomogeneous arrays of many junctions, this curve is complex and
333: even in this case the approximation is very good.
334:
335:
336: Since $\phi(x) = Hx + c$ then $\gamma=\sum_i d_i \sin(Ha_i+c)$.
337: To find the $\gamma_{max}(H)$ curve of the magnetic approximation, we take the
338: derivative of
339: \begin{equation}\label{e3.3.1}
340: \gamma=\left(\sum_{i=1}^n d_i\sin(Ha_i)\right)\cos(c) +
341: \left(\sum_{i=1}^n d_i \cos(Ha_i)\right) \sin(c) \equiv A \cos(c) + B \sin(c),
342: \end{equation}
343: with respect to $c$ where we have isolated the factors $A,B$. The values of $c$
344: such that $\partial \gamma/\partial c = 0$ are
345: \begin{equation}\label{cmax}
346: c_{max}(H) = \arctan\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n d_i \cos(Ha_i)}{\sum_{i=1}^n d_i
347: \sin(Ha_i)}\right)\;,
348: \end{equation}
349: and as we want a maximal (not only an extremal) current
350: we obtain:
351: \begin{equation}\label{magn.app.}
352: \gamma_{max}(H) = \left|\sum_{i=1}^n d_i
353: \sin\left(Ha_i + c_{max}(H)\right)\right|\;.
354: \end{equation}
355: Now, we focus on the case where $c_{max}(H)$ is not defined. In this
356: case, considering previous equation (\ref{cmax}), we obtain
357: $\sum_{i=1}^n d_i \sin(Ha_i)=0=A$. From $A\sin(c)= B \cos(c)$ we obtain
358: $\cos(c)=0$ or $B=0$. Note that $\cos(c)=0$ imply $\gamma = 0$, in the
359: other hand, $B=0$, imply $\partial \gamma/\partial c = 0$ whatever
360: the value of $c$. So, $\gamma$ is constant, and $\gamma_{max}=A=0$.
361: \begin{figure}
362: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figs/gmaxcmax.ps,height=15 cm,width=5 cm,angle=270}}
363: \caption{We plot $\gamma_{max}(H)$ and $c_{max}(H)$ for two four
364: junction devices. In the left panel, we have a circuit with
365: equidistant junctions of equal $d_i=1$.
366: For the right panel, the junctions are such that $l_1 =\frac{5}{2},~ l_2 = \frac{5}{3},
367: ~l_3 = 1$, with $d_1=1.2$, $d_2=1.5$, $d_3=0.5$, $d_4=0.8$.
368: Notice that $c_{max}(H)$ varies in a complicated way for a non
369: uniform device.}
370: \label{f2}
371: \end{figure}
372: We plot $\gamma_{max}(H)$ and $c_{max}(H)$ in Fig.(\ref{f2}),
373: for a uniform device and for a non uniform one. In the second case, we have
374: chosen the position of the junction to have a long
375: period ($H_p=12\pi$).
376: We notice that the length $l$ of the device
377: does not appear in eq. (\ref{magn.app.}).
378:
379: %%\subsection{Properties.}
380: In order to study the function (\ref{magn.app.}), we start with a
381: few definitions.
382: \begin{description}
383: \item[\mbox{\boldmath $l_i$}:]
384: We define the distance between consecutive junctions:
385: $$l_i=a_{i+1}-a_i~.$$
386: \item[Junction unit:] We call a junction unit the set of distances
387: between junctions. We denote it
388: $$\{l_1;l_2;...;l_{n-1}\}~.$$ We define the position of the junction unit as $a_1$,
389: the position of the first junction.
390: \item[\mbox{\boldmath $l_b$}:]
391: For an $n$-junction device, $l_b=a_n-a_1$ is junction unit length.
392: \item[Symmetric unit:] We call a symmetric unit, an $n$-junction circuit
393: such that
394: $$\forall i \in \{1;\dots;n\},~~
395: \frac{l_b}{2} - a_i = a_{n-i} - \frac{l_b}{2}\;,~~
396: {\rm and}~~ d_{i}=d_{n-i}\;.$$
397: \end{description}
398: In the Appendix we prove the following three Propositions
399: \begin{description}
400: \item [Invariance by translation] (\ref{thm1}):
401: $\gamma_{max}(H)$ does not depend on the
402: position of the junction unit.
403: \item [Parity of the $\gamma_{max}$ curve] (\ref{thm2}):
404: $\gamma_{max}(H)$ is an even function of $H$.
405: \item [Solution for a symmetric device] (\ref{thm3}):
406: For a symmetric junction unit such that $a_n = -a_1$, $c_{max}(H)=\pm \pi/2$
407: (this is not obvious from fig.(\ref{f2})).
408: \end{description}
409: In these propositions, we establish the most important result
410: of this article. The $\gamma_{max}$ curve for a symmetric junction unit can
411: be calculated simply by centering the junction unit so that $c_{max}(H)=\pm \pi/2$.
412: More precisely, consider an $n+1$ symmetric junction unit where $n$ is even.
413: We can always choose this by setting the $d$ of the central junction $(a_1+a_n)/2$ to 0.
414: Then we shift the junction unit by $a_{(n+1)/2}$ so that the central junction
415: is placed at $x=0$. We relabel the junctions by setting $i' = i -(n+1)/2$. Then
416: the central one is for
417: $i=0$, the first one to the right is $i=1$,
418: the first one to the left is $i=-1$ \dots so that the equation (\ref{magn.app.})
419: becomes
420: \begin{equation}\label{gamma_sym}
421: \gamma_{max}(H) = \left|d_0+2\sum_{i=1}^{(n+1)/2} d_i\cos(H a_i)
422: \right|\;,
423: \end{equation}
424: where we omitted the primes. In the rest of the article we will
425: consider the array to be symmetric.
426:
427:
428: \section{The direct problem for $\gamma_{max}$}
429: \begin{figure}
430: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figs/evol_sin_d.ps,height=\linewidth,width=5 cm,angle=270}}
431: \caption{Curves $\gamma_{max}$ and $c_{max}$ versus $H$ for three
432: junction devices, from left to right $d_2=0$, $d_2=1$,
433: $d_2=2$ and $d_2=3$. For all panels, $a_1=-1$, $a_2=0$, $a_3=1$ and
434: $d_1=d_3=1$.}
435: \label{f3}
436: \end{figure}
437:
438: \subsection{A device such that $\gamma_{max}(H)=\cos(H)$}
439:
440: In Fig.(\ref{f3}) we present from left to right the $\gamma_{max}(H)$
441: for a SQUID (2 junctions), a uniform 3 junction unit, a $d_1=1=d_3, ~d_2=2$ (termed 1-2-1)
442: junction unit that
443: is discussed in \cite{Likharev} and a 1-3-1 junction unit.
444: In all cases the junctions are equidistant.
445: The first two panels, represent well known devices.
446:
447: Applying eq.(\ref{gamma_sym}) to the following case $d_2=2$, we
448: obtain,
449: \begin{equation}\label{cos}
450: \gamma_{max}(H) = |d_0 + d_1 \cos(H a_1)| = 2 + 2 \cos(H a_1)\;.
451: \end{equation}
452: This is an exact cosine function shifted by a constant.
453: With the last case $d_2=3$, we obtain
454: $\gamma_{max}(H) = 3 + 2 \cos(H a_1)$.
455:
456: Comparing all the panels we understand the role of
457: the central junction. We can have an exact representation
458: of $\gamma_{max}$ for this type of circuit, if we imagine $\gamma_{max}$
459: as an absolute value of a simple $\cos$ function translated by
460: the value $d_0$ (which is equal to zero if there is no junction).
461: Eq.(\ref{gamma_sym}) shows that we can sum cosine functions, with a
462: chosen amplitude and period. Remark that if $d_0=-2$ ($\pi$ junction)
463: then $\gamma_{max}(H) = 2 -2 \cos(H a_1)$.
464:
465: \subsection{A multi-cosine $\gamma_{max}(H)$}
466:
467: For arrays with more than two junctions, experimentalists can play on the set of distances $l_i$ separating the junctions as well as on the
468: strength $d_i$ (proportional to the area) of each junction.
469: We now show the influence of each set of parameters starting from the
470: $d_i$'s. Fig. \ref{f4} presents on the left panel
471: $\gamma_{max}(H)$ for a symmetric set of 5 equidistant
472: junctions $a_1=1,~a_2=2$. The dashed line corresponds
473: to $d_i=1,~i=-2 \dots 2$ giving a maximum current
474: of 5. Here one sees the typical interference pattern
475: between the main bumps. The small oscillations can be eliminated
476: by choosing $d_0=1.82025, ~d_1= d_{-1}=1.25$ and
477: $d_2= d_{-2}=0.3425$ as seen from the continuous line on the
478: left panel of Fig. \ref{f4}. This "pulse" profile could be very useful
479: for specific applications because of the large region where
480: $\gamma_{max}(H)=0$. The right panel of Fig. \ref{f4} presents what
481: would be the device for this set of $a_i$ and $d_i$. We
482: chose a critical current density
483: of $10^4 A~ cm^{-1}$ so that $\lambda_J \approx 10 \mu m$.
484: We chose a transverse width $w=14\mu m$. Assuming the area of
485: the smallest junction to be $1 \mu m^2$, we get the scheme
486: shown, where the central junction has an area 5.32 $\mu m^2$.
487:
488:
489: The second parameter that can be changed is the position $a_i$ of
490: each junction in the array. As an example in Fig. \ref{f5}
491: we show in the left panel the so-called "triangle" $\gamma_{max}(H)$ obtained
492: by setting $a_1=1,~a_2=3$, $d_0=2.4888, ~d_1=1.1234$ and $d_2=0.121$.
493: The dashed line presents $\gamma_{max}(H)$ for equal strengths.
494: Changing the $d_i$'s allows to eliminate the oscillations in the
495: minima of $\gamma_{max}(H)$ and obtain an almost linear behavior. The
496: right panel shows the
497: arrangement of the junctions in the microstrip. We have chosen the
498: same physical parameters as for Fig. \ref{f4}.
499: \begin{figure}
500: \begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
501: \epsfig{file=figs/pulse_vs_uniform.ps,height=\linewidth,angle=270}
502: \end{minipage}
503: \begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
504: \epsfig{file=figs/pulse.eps,width=\linewidth,angle=0}
505: \end{minipage}
506: \caption{Left panel: plot of $\gamma_{max}(H)$ for
507: a symmetric five equidistant
508: junction device. The continuous line corresponds to different $d_i$
509: while the dashed line is for equal $d_i$. See the text for the parameter
510: values. The right panel shows the corresponding device.}
511: \label{f4}
512: \end{figure}
513: Now we can design all devices which have a $\gamma_{max}(H)$ curve as
514: a sum of $d_i \cos(a_i x)$, with $d_i$ positive. We can notice that if
515: $a_i/a_1 \in \mathbb{R\backslash Q}$, we can construct a non
516: periodic $\gamma_{max}(H)$.
517: \begin{figure}
518: \begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
519: \epsfig{file=figs/triangle_vs_uniform.ps,height=\linewidth,angle=270}
520: \end{minipage}
521: \begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
522: \epsfig{file=figs/triangle.eps,width=\linewidth,angle=0}
523: \end{minipage}
524: \caption{Left panel: plot of $\gamma_{max}(H)$ for a symmetric five junction
525: device where the junctions are not equidistant, $a_1=1$ and $a_2=3$.
526: The continuous line corresponds to different $d_i$ while the dashed line
527: is for equal $d_i$. The right panel shows the corresponding device.}
528: \label{f5}
529: \end{figure}
530:
531:
532: \section{The inverse problem for a given $\gamma_{max}(H)=\gamma_g(H)$}
533:
534: We now show how to design an $n+1$ junctions
535: circuit ($n$ is an even integer) to obtain a given $\gamma_g(H)$ curve.
536: The formula (\ref{gamma_sym}) can be used to solve this inverse problem
537: using cosine Fourier transforms. To avoid ambiguities we assume a
538: symmetric array and a positive and periodic $\gamma(H)$.
539:
540: We have the following result.
541: \begin{proposition}[Solution of inverse problem for $\gamma_{max}(H)$]
542: \label{thm4}
543: Assume a $\gamma_g(H)$ even, periodic of period $H_p$ and strictly positive.
544: The array is harmonic and the positions of the junctions
545: are given by $a_i = i 2 \pi /H_p $ where $i$ is an integer.
546: Their strengths $d_i$ are given by
547: \begin{equation}\label{coef_four}
548: %%d_0=\frac{1}{H_p}\int_0^{H_p} \gamma_g(H) dH~,~~
549: d_{-i}=d_i=\frac{1}{H_p}\int_0^{H_p} \gamma_g(H)\cos(H a_i) dH~,~~
550: \forall i \in \{0,\dots,n/2\}~.
551: \end{equation}
552: \end{proposition}
553: This gives the positions $a_i$ and coefficients $d_i$ of an array that
554: will have a $\gamma_{max}(H)$ that is the truncation to order $n$ of
555: the cosine Fourier series of $\gamma_g(H)$.
556:
557:
558: To gain insight into the problem let us first review the "pulse"
559: example studied in the previous section. Assume
560: $\gamma_g(H)$ to be the $2\pi$ periodic extension of $e^{-\alpha H^2}$ where
561: $\alpha $ is large enough. The coefficients $d_i$ are given by
562: \be\label{dkpulse}
563: d_i =
564: {1 \over 2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} e^{-\alpha H^2} \cos (H i)~dH
565: + {1 \over 2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} e^{-\alpha (2\pi-H)^2} \cos (H i)~dH
566: ={1 \over \pi} \int_0^{2\pi} e^{-\alpha H^2} \cos (H i)~dH .
567: \ee
568: These Fourier coefficients decay exponentially as expected \cite{carslaw}
569: because $\gamma_g(H)$ is $C^\infty$ over the interval $[0, 2\pi]$ and
570: satisfies the boundary conditions. This means that $i\le 2$ is enough to
571: get a good approximation of $\gamma_g(H)$. In fact Fig. \ref{f4} corresponds
572: to $\gamma_g(H)\approx 5 e^{-0.6 H^2}$ and the
573: formula (\ref{dkpulse}) gives the values
574: $d_0=1.82025, ~d_1= d_{-1}=1.25$ and
575: $d_2= d_{-2}=0.3425$ that were obtained in the previous section. The
576: next coefficients $d_3=0.043$, $d_4=0.0023$ are very small
577: and can be neglected.
578:
579:
580:
581: Let us now consider a square $\gamma_{max}(H)$ curve which
582: could make a very fine magnetic detector because of its
583: strong response over a given interval and zero response
584: elsewhere. For that we assume the the square profile
585: \begin{equation}\label{creneau}
586: \gamma_g(H)=1 ~~ {\rm for} ~~\pi\left(1-{h_1 \over 2}\right) < H< \pi\left(1-{h_1 \over 2}\right)
587: ~~{\rm and}~~ 0 ~~{\rm elsewhere},
588: \end{equation}
589: and extend it periodically every $2 \pi = H_p$.
590: To compute the parameters $a_i$ and $d_i$, we apply the previous result
591: (see eq.(\ref{coef_four})) to obtain
592: \begin{equation}
593: d_i={1 \over 2 \pi} \int_{0}^{2\pi} \gamma_g(H) \cos\left({i \pi H \over 2 \pi}\right) dH
594: = {2 \over i \pi }\sin \left (i \pi {h_1 + h_2\over 2}\right)
595: \cos \left({i \pi \over 2 } + {h_2-h_1 \over 2 }\right)
596: \end{equation}
597: This gives the following values of $d_i$ for $h_1=h_2=h$
598: $$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
599: i & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & \dots \\ \hline
600: a_i & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & \dots \\ \hline
601: 2 \pi d_i & 2 h & 0 & -{\sin (2 \pi h) \over \pi} & 0 & {\sin (4 \pi h) \over 2 \pi} & \dots \\ \hline
602: \end{array}$$
603: \begin{figure}
604: \centerline{\epsfig{file=figs/sumcos.ps,height=8 cm,width=5 cm,angle=270}}
605: \caption{We compare the $\gamma_{max}(H)$ of the magnetic approximation
606: to the exact solution of equation (\ref{e3.1}) for $\nu=0$ (inline
607: current feed. The parameters are given in the text.}
608: \label{f6}
609: \end{figure}
610: Note the decay in $1 /i$ of $d_i$ because $\gamma_g(H)$ is only
611: continuous. Another interesting fact is that some $d_{i}$ are
612: negative so that some junctions are $\pi$ junctions.
613: So we obtain an array of eleven junctions whose positions are
614: given above together with their strengths $d_i$ (positive for
615: a normal junction and negative for a $\pi$ junction).
616:
617:
618: In Fig. \ref{f6} we plot the magnetic approximation
619: and the exact solution of equation (\ref{e3.1}) for $\nu=0$
620: (this case is called inline current feed, see the section
621: "Piece-wise polynomial"
622: in the Appendix and for more details \cite{cl06}).
623: The values are $l=20$, the junction unit is shifted by $10$, the
624: Josephson characteristic length is $\lambda_J=5.6 \mu m$ so that
625: all $d_i$ are multiplied by $0.035714285$.
626:
627: We see that for this type of junction (about $1 \mu m^2$ of area)
628: inline current feed for (\ref{e3.1}) and magnetic approximation give
629: close results.
630: Differences appear when the maximal current is larger
631: but the Gibbs phenomena is less important in the solution
632: of the equation (\ref{e3.1}) than magnetic approximation.
633:
634: \section{Conclusion}
635:
636: Using a simple approximation, we introduced a method to
637: design a symmetric array of Josephson junctions which has
638: a specific $\gamma_{max}(H)$ static response. The sizes
639: of the junctions are given by the coefficients $d_i$ of the cosine
640: Fourier transform of $\gamma_{max}(H)$. Their position is
641: $a_i= i 2 \pi/H_p$ where $H_p$
642: is the period of $\gamma_{max}(H)$.
643: We use $2n+1$ junctions to obtain a curve formed with
644: $n$ Fourier coefficients.
645:
646: This work follows closely the article \cite{cl06}, where all
647: the mathematical results were established, in particular the convergence
648: of the solutions of the full problem (\ref{e3.1}) to the ones
649: obtained in the magnetic approximation.
650: There we show that the overlap current feed can cause a non even
651: $\gamma_{max}(H)$ (see proposition "Magnetic shift" in \cite{cl06}).
652:
653: If we are in the region of validity of our original model, ie
654: the magnetic field is small and the distance between junctions is
655: larger than their size, then we can design a device for
656: a given static response.
657:
658:
659:
660: {\bf Acknowledgements}
661:
662: The authors thank Faouzi Boussaha and Morvan Salez for useful
663: discussions.
664: L. L. thanks Delphine and Damien Belmessieri for their comments.
665:
666: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
667:
668: \bibitem{josephson}
669: {\sc B. D. Josephson}, {\em Possible new effects in supercondutive tunneling},
670: Phys. Lett. {\bf 1}, 251-253, (1962).
671:
672: \bibitem{Barone} {\sc A. Barone and G. Paterno},
673: {\em Physics and Applications of the Josephson effect}, J. Wiley, (1982).
674:
675: \bibitem{Likharev} {\sc K. Likharev}, {\em Dynamics of Josephson junctions and
676: circuits}, Gordon and Breach, (1986).
677:
678: \bibitem{cfv95} {\sc J. G. Caputo, N. Flytzanis and M. Vavalis},
679: {\em A semi-linear elliptic pde model for the static solution of Josephson
680: junctions}, International Journal of Modern Physics C, vol. 6, No. 2,
681: 241-262, (1995).
682:
683: \bibitem{Salez} {\sc M. H. Chung and M. Salez}, Proc. 4th European
684: Conference on applied superconductivity, EUCAS 99, 651, (1999).
685:
686:
687: \bibitem{cfgv96} {\sc J. G. Caputo, N. Flytzanis, Y. Gaididei and M. Vavalis},
688: {\em Two-dimensional effects in Josephson junctions: I static properties},
689: Phys. Rev. E, 54, No. 2, 2092-2101, (1996).
690:
691: \bibitem{cfv96} {\sc J. G. Caputo, N. Flytzanis and M. Vavalis},
692: {\em Effect of geometry on fluxon width in a Josephson junction},
693: Journal of Modern Physics C, vol. 7, No. 2, 191-216, (1996).
694:
695:
696: %\bibitem{bcf02} {\sc A. Benabdallah, J. G. Caputo and N. Flytzanis},
697: %{\em The window Josephson junction: a coupled linear nonlinear system},
698: %Physica D, 161, 79-101, (2002).
699:
700: %%\bibitem{bc02} {\sc A. Benabdallah and J. G. Caputo},
701: %%{\em Influence of the passive region on Zero Field Steps for window
702: %%Josephson junctions"}, J. of Applied Physics, 92, nb. 7, 3853, (2002).
703:
704:
705: \bibitem{cl05} {\sc J. G. Caputo and L. Loukitch}, {\em Dynamics of
706: point Josephson junctions in microstrip line.}, Physica {\bf 425} (2005)
707: 69-89.
708:
709:
710:
711:
712: \bibitem{cl06} {\sc J. G. Caputo and L. Loukitch}, {\em Statics of
713: point Josephson junctions in a micro strip line.}, SIAM J. Appl. Math.
714: in press.\\
715: http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0607018
716:
717: \bibitem{bcls06} {\sc F. Boussaha, J. G. Caputo, L. Loukitch and M. Salez},
718: {\em SQUID properties of non-uniform, parallel
719: superconducting junction arrays.}, \\
720: http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0609757.
721:
722: \bibitem{Kirtley} J. R. Kirtley et al, Science {\bf 90}, 1373, (1999).
723:
724: \bibitem{Razianov} V. V. Razianov et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 2427, (2001).
725:
726: \bibitem{cg04} {\sc J. G. Caputo and Y. Gaididei},
727: {\em Two point Josephson junctions in a superconducting
728: stripline: static case.}, Physica C, 402, 160-173, (2004).
729:
730: \bibitem{it95} {\sc M. A. Itzler and M. Tinkham}, {\em Flux pinning in large
731: Josephson junctions with columnar defects},
732: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 51}, 435, (1995).
733:
734: \bibitem{it96} {\sc M. A. Itzler and M. Tinkham},
735: {\em Vortex pinning by disordered columnar defects in large
736: Josephson junctions},
737: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 53}, 11949, (1996).
738:
739:
740: \bibitem{fgb92} {\sc R. Fehrenbacher, V. B. Geshkenbein and G. Blatter},
741: {\em Pinning phenomena and critical currents in disordered long Josephson
742: junctions}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 45}, 5450, (1992).
743:
744:
745: \bibitem{carslaw} {\sc H. S. Carslaw},
746: {\em An introduction to the theory of Fourier series and integrals},
747: Dover, (1950).
748:
749: \bibitem{mghg} {\sc J. H. Miller, Jr., G. H. Gunaratne, J. Huang, and
750: T. D. Golding}, {\em Enhanced quantum interference effects in parallel Josephson junction
751: arrays}, Appl. Phys. Lett. 59, (25), 3330 (1991).
752:
753:
754: \end{thebibliography}
755: \section{Appendix}
756: \subsection{Propositions}
757:
758: \begin{proposition}[Invariance by translation]
759: \label{thm1} The $\gamma_{max}(H)$ curve obtained within the
760: magnetic approximation
761: does not depend on the position of the junction unit. \end{proposition}
762:
763: \begin{proof} Let us assume two devices with the same
764: junction unit $\{l_1;l_2;...;l_n\}$ with the first junction
765: placed respectively at $x=a_1$ and $x=a_1+c$.
766: We note $\gamma^1_{max}(H)$
767: (respectively $\gamma^2_{max}(H)$) the $\gamma_{max}(H)$ curve of the
768: first (respectively the second) device. In the same way we note
769: $c_{max}^1(H)$ (respectively $c_{max}^2(H)$) the $c_{max}(H)$
770: function of the first (respectively the second) device.
771: $$\gamma^2_{max}(H) = \left|\sum_{i=1}^n d_i
772: \sin\left(Ha_i+ Hc+c_{max}^2(H)\right)\right|\;,$$
773: we note $c^1(H)=Hc+c_{max}^2(H)$. As we do not know if $c^1(H)=
774: c_{max}^1(H)$, $c_{max}^1(H)$ being the best value (if it exists)
775: to obtain the maximal $\gamma$. Consequently,
776: $\gamma^2_{max}(H)\leq \gamma^1_{max}(H)$.
777:
778: On the other side, considering
779: $$\gamma^1_{max}(H) = \left|\sum_{i=1}^n d_i
780: \sin\left(H(a_i+c)+c_{max}^1(H)-Hc\right)\right|\;,$$
781: noting $c^2(H)=c_{max}^1(H)-Hc$ and using the previous argument, we
782: obtain $\gamma^2_{max}(H)\geq \gamma^1_{max}(H)$.
783: From the two previous inequalities, we obtain:
784: $\gamma^1_{max}(H) = \gamma^2_{max}(H)$.
785: \end{proof}
786:
787: Thus, the $\gamma_{max}(H)$ curve for the magnetic approximation depends only
788: on the junction unit.
789:
790: \begin{proposition}[Parity of the $\gamma_{max}$ curve]\label{thm2}
791: For all devices, $\gamma_{max}(H)=\gamma_{max}(-H)$.
792: \end{proposition}
793: \begin{proof}
794: Since $\sin$ and $\arctan$ are odd functions and $\cos$ is an even function
795: then $c_{max}(-H)=-c_{max}(H)$ (see (\ref{cmax})).
796: Finally,
797: $$\gamma_{max}(-H)=\left|\sum_{i=1}^n d_i \sin\left(-Ha_i - c_{max}(H)
798: \right)\right|=\gamma_{max}(H)\;.$$\end{proof}
799:
800: Notice that $c_{max}$ is an odd function and
801: $\gamma_{max}$ is an even function (see Fig.(\ref{f2}) ).
802:
803: \begin{proposition}[Particular solution for symmetric device] \label{thm3}
804: For all symmetric units such that $a_n = -a_1$, $c_{max}(H)=\pm \pi/2$.
805: \end{proposition}
806: \begin{proof} To see this, relabel the junctions so that the central one
807: corresponds to $i=0$, the 1st on the left to $i=-1$, the 1st on the right to
808: $i=+1$.. Using the first proposition we can shift the junction unit so that
809: $a_0=0$. Then the total current is
810: \begin{eqnarray*}
811: \gamma(H) &=&\sum_{i=-n/2}^{n/2} d_i\sin(Ha_i+c) \\
812: &=& d_0 \sin(c) + 2 \sum_{i=1}^{n/2} d_i\sin(Ha_i+c) \\
813: &=& \sin(c) \left( d_0 + 2 \sum_{i=1}^{n/2} d_i \cos(Ha_i) \right )
814: \end{eqnarray*}
815: Then $c_{max}=\pi/2$ when $d_0 + 2 \sum_{i=1}^{n/2} d_i \cos(Ha_i)
816: \geq 0$ and $c_{max}=-\pi/2$ otherwise. Thus,
817: \begin{equation}\label{sol1}
818: \gamma_{max}(H) = \left|d_0+2\sum_{i=1}^{(n+1)/2} d_i\cos(H a_i)
819: \right|\;.
820: \end{equation}
821: \end{proof}
822:
823: \subsection{Piece-wise polynomial }
824:
825: Let $\phi$ be a solution of (\ref{e3.1}) and $\phi_1=\phi(a_1)$.
826: From remark (\ref{rem1}), $\phi$ is a polynomial by parts. We define
827: $P_{i+1}(x)$ the second degree polynomial such that $P_{i+1}(x)=\phi(x)
828: ~~{\rm for}~~ a_{i} \le x \le a_{i+1}$.
829: Using the left boundary condition we can specify $\phi$ on $[0;a_1]$:
830: \begin{equation}\label{rec1}
831: P_1(x)=-\frac{\nu \gamma}{2 l}\left(x^2-a_1^2\right)
832: + \left(H-\frac{1-\nu}{2}\gamma\right)(x-a_1) + \phi_1
833: \end{equation}
834: At the junctions (\ref{rem2}) tells us that $\forall k \in \{1;\dots;n\}$,
835: \begin{equation}\label{jump_a}
836: P_{k+1}^{\prime}(a_k) - P_k^{\prime}(a_k)= d_k \sin(P_k(a_k)).
837: \end{equation}
838: Considering that $\phi^{\prime \prime}=-\nu \gamma / l$ on each interval,
839: the previous relation and the continuity
840: of the phase at the junction, we can give a first expression for $P_{k+1}$,
841: \begin{equation}\label{recn}
842: P_{k+1}(x)=-\frac{\nu \gamma}{2l}(x-a_k)^2 + \left[P^{\prime}_k(a_k)+d_k \sin
843: P_k(a_k) \right](x-a_k)+P_k(a_k).
844: \end{equation}
845: So, $\phi$ is entirely determined by $\phi_1$, $\gamma$ and $H$.
846:
847: The polynomials (\ref{rec1}) and (\ref{recn}) establish existence and shape
848: of $\phi$ at junctions. Let see boundary conditions. The first,
849: $$\phi^{\prime}(0)=P_1^{\prime}(0)=H-(1-\nu)\gamma/2$$
850: is true by construction; the second (for $n$ junction circuit) is:
851: \begin{equation}\label{rbc}
852: P^{\prime}_{n+1}(l)=H +(1-\nu)\frac{\gamma}{2},
853: \end{equation}
854: is true only for solutions of Eq.(\ref{e3.1}). At $H$ given,
855: solutions of Eq.(\ref{rbc}) define a relation between $\phi_1$
856: and $\gamma$.
857:
858: So, the maximal current solution depend on $\phi_1$ and $\gamma$, and
859: Eq.(\ref{rbc}) is the constraint for search of $\gamma_{max}(H)$.
860: As solutions $\phi$ are defined at $2\pi$ almost (see equation (\ref{e3.1})),
861: we can assume $\phi_1\in[-\pi;\pi]$. In other hand, Rem.(\ref{rem3}) teach us
862: that $\gamma_{max}\in[0;\sum_i d_i]$, so we take
863: $\gamma \in \left[0;\sum_i d_i\right]$. To solve this problem with Maple \copyright,
864: we plot implicit function (the constraint) of two variables $\phi_1$ and
865: $\gamma$, with $H$ and $\nu$ fixed. Let us note all variables:
866: \begin{equation}\label{impli}
867: \left .P^{\prime}_{n+1}\right|_{x=l}
868: (\phi_1,\gamma,\nu,H)-H-\frac{1-\nu}{2}\gamma=0.
869: \end{equation}
870: with $(\phi_1,\gamma)\in[-\pi;\pi]\times\left [ 0;\sum_i d_i \right ]$.
871: Lastly the program search in exhaustive way, the biggest value of
872: $\gamma$ of this implicit curve. Incrementing $H$, we obtain $\gamma_{max}(H)$.
873:
874: This method has the advantage to converge to the global maximal $\gamma_{max}$ \cite{cl06}.
875:
876: \end{document}
877: