arxiv: v1 [cond-mat.supr-con] 5 Jun 2011

Transcription

1 The Novel Magnetism in K.8 Fe 1.6 Se 2 Explained in the Unified Picture arxiv: v1 [cond-mat.supr-con] 5 Jun 211 Wei-Guo Yin ( 尹卫国 ), 1, Chia-Hui Lin ( 林佳輝 ), 1, 2 and Wei Ku ( 顧威 ) 1, 2 1 Condensed Matter Physics and Materials Science Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA 2 Physics Department, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 1179, USA (Dated: June 7, 211) The block checkerboard antiferromagnetism in insulating K.8Fe 1.6Se 2 is investigated theoretically. Neither the Fermi surface nesting nor Mott insulator scenario is supported by our first-principles analysis of the unfolded Fermi surface, band gap, and orbital polarization. Instead, the orbitaldegenerate double-exchange model, previously proposed to unify known magnetic structures of ironbased superconductors, is found sufficient to explain this novel spin order as well as associated quantum magnetic transition induced by tetramer lattice distortion. Our findings reinforce the notion that the iron-based superconductors be universally described in the framework of coexisting itinerant and localized electronic states. PACS numbers: 74.7.Xa,75.1.-b, a,75.25.Dk The current understanding of iron-based high-t c superconductors (Fe-SCs) has been developed from extensive investigation of the materials without Fe vacancies in the conduction layers [1]. Introducing a considerable amount of Fe vacancies, as realized in the newly synthesized A 1 y Fe 2 x Se 2 family, substantially modifies the electronic structure [2] yet enhances T c to above 3 K from 9 K in FeSe [3, 4]. Thus, the A 1 y Fe 2 x Se 2 family would offer unique clues to the essential physics of Fe-SCs and serve as a benchmark against the existing theories. This is particularly true in the vacancy ordered 245 system, K.8 Fe 1.6 Se 2, as it introduces a novel magnetic structure [5, 6] into the already rich magnetism of Fe- SCs. The generally known phase diagram of Fe-SCs appears quite similar to that of copper-oxide superconductors, namely superconductivity emerges upon suppression of a long-range antiferromagnetic (AF) order by doping. Naturally, a proper understanding of the electronic structures of parent undoped compounds, especially the broken symmetry in spin/orbital channels, is the essential first step. Intriguingly, in contrast to the universal insulating checkerboard AF order in undoped copper oxides, the AF orders in undoped Fe-SCs are material dependent [7]: metallic (π, ) collinear C -type (Fig. 1a) in LaOFeAs and BaFe2As2 and metallic (π/2, π/2) bicollinear E-type (Fig. 1b) in FeTe. These rich magnetic structures were initially studied within the picture of Fermi surface nesting [8] or proximity to Mott insulator [9], and more recently in view of coexisting itinerant and localized electronic states [1, 11]. As for K.8 Fe 1.6 Se 2, arguably the parent compound of the A 1 y Fe 2 x Se 2 family, it exhibits a (3π/5, π/5) block checkerboard AF order (Fig. 1f, referred to as X - type from now on) below T N = 559 K with large magnetic moment 3.3µ B and a 5 5 Fe vacancy order below T S = 578 K [5, 6]. The structure refinement also showed tetramer lattice distortion (TLD), namely the distances among four closest Fe atoms (i.e., a 2 2 block) are reduced [5, 6]. First-principles band calculations [12, 13] showed that the X type is indeed the ground state and has a band gap of about.6 ev, while the nonmagnetic state is metallic. The calculations also revealed that the C type (Fig. 1d) is highly competitive; it would even have become the ground state if TLD were vanishing [12]. These findings immediately caught attention to the following critical questions: (i) Does the (3π/5, π/5) or (π, ) Fermi surface nesting exist in the nonmagnetic metallic state? (ii) Does the gap opening in the X type signal the return of the Mott insulator, just like undoped cuprates? (iii) Does the magnetism in K.8 Fe 1.6 Se 2, including the TLD-induced C X quantum transition, have the same origin as in the other parent (a) C-type (d) C-type (b) E-type (e) E-type (c) X-type (f) X-type FIG. 1. The in-plane patterns of the spin-up (blue balls) and spin-down (red balls) iron atoms in (a) collinear C -type, (b) bicollinear E-type, and (c) block checkerboard X -type AF states. Their counterparts in the presence of 5 5 Fe vacancy ordering are (d)-(f), respectively. Patterned horizontal and vertical solid lines represent d yz and d xz bonds, respectively; dashed lines denote the Fe vacancy broken bonds.

2 2 1 k z = 1 k z = 1. (a) LDA+U.2 (b) DE model k y k x k x Gap (ev).5 J= J=.8 ev U (ev) KS (ev) FIG. 2. LDA Fermi surface of K.8Fe 1.6Se 2 plotted in the one-fe unit cell notation. High intensity means high spectral weight. Shadow bands appear as shifting the main bands by ±(3π/5, π/5, π), ±( π/5, 3π/5, π), and (π, π, π). Color coded for d xz (red), d yz (blue), and the rest 3d orbitals (green). Dashed lines are the folded Brillouin zone boundary in the in-plane 8-Fe unit cell notation. compounds? In this paper, we address these questions by both firstprinciples calculations and model analysis. Our firstprinciples analysis of the unfolded Fermi surface, band gap, and orbital polarization supports neither Fermi surface nesting nor the Mott insulator. Instead, we show that the novel insulating antiferromagnetism in K.8 Fe 1.6 Se 2 can be unified with the metallic antiferromagnetism in LaOFeAs, BaFe 2 As 2, and FeTe in our previously proposed orbital-degenerate double-exchange (DE) model [1]. First, the electronic structure of K.8 Fe 1.6 Se 2 at the experimental crystal structure [5, 6] was calculated within local density approximation (LDA) and its local interaction extension (LDA+U) of density functional theory, implemented via full potential, all-electron, linearized augmented plane wave basis [14]. The resulting Fermi surface of the nonmagnetic state (more precisely the intensity of the one-particle propagator at Fermi level) is presented in Fig. 2 in the one-fe unit cell notation by using a newly developed unfolding technique [15]. The Fermi surface displays neither (3π/5, π/5) nor (π, ) nesting. In addition, no electron pockets show up around (π, ) and (, π). (This suggests that the Fe vacancies in the samples having the observed electron pockets [2] are not 5 5 ordered.) Hence, Fermi surface nesting is unlikely to account for the instability of either the X type or the C type. Next, to test for the validity of the Mott insulator, we performed a series of LDA+U calculations. As shown in Fig. 3, the gap size of the X type is rather insensitive to the value of Hubbard interaction U on the Fe atoms, which is abnormal for a Mott gap. In addition, the orbital polarization P (i.e., the difference in the onsite occupation numbers) of the Fe d xz and d yz orbitals is expected to be significantly enhanced in a Mott insula- FIG. 3. Band gap size of the X -type AF ordered K.8Fe 1.6Se 2 (a) as a function of U in the first-principles LDA+U method with two inputs for J, and (b) as a function of KS in the orbital-degenerate DE model. tor. However, our Wannier function analysis of LDA+U (U=2 ev, J=.8 ev) results for the X type unveils a negligible P.6, much weaker than P.37 in the ferro-orbital ordered LaOFeAs [16]. We thus conclude that K.8 Fe 1.6 Se 2 is not a Mott insulator. We then proceed to show that the magnetism in K.8 Fe 1.6 Se 2 shares the same origin with the other parent compounds. Recently, attributing the bad-metal nature of LaOFeAs, BaFe 2 As 2, and FeTe to the near degeneracy of different metallic AF orders, we proposed a minimum orbital-degenerate DE model where the d xz and d yz states (c.f. Fig. 2 for high d xz and d yz intensities near the Fermi level) were treated to host itinerant electrons and the rest Fe 3d orbitals as a whole were treated as an effective localized spin [1]: H = (t γγ ij C iγµ C jγ µ + h.c.) K 2 ijγγ µ C iγµ σ µµ C iγµ S i + J ijsi S j, (1) iγµµ ij where C iγµ denotes the annihilation operator of an itinerant electron with spin µ = or in the γ = d xz or d yz orbital on site i. t γγ ij s are the electron hopping parameters. σ µµ is the Pauli matrix and S i is the localized spin whose magnitude is S. K is the effective Hund s rule coupling. J ij is the AF superexchange couplings between the localized spins; in particular, J and J are respectively the nearest-neighbor (NN) and next-nearestneighbor (NNN) ones. A key physical effect contained in this model is the DE ferromagnetism, introduced by the kinetic energy of the itinerant electrons and their Hund s rule coupling to the localized spins, in direct competition with the superexchange antiferromagnetism between localized spins. This model was demonstrated to provide a unified picture for the varying metallic AF correlations in LaOFeAs, BaFe 2 As 2, and FeTe; in particular, quantum transitions among them can be triggered by structural perturbation,

3 3 e.g., modulation of the anion height from the Fe plane [1]. Here for K.8 Fe 1.6 Se 2 a transparent understanding of the TLD-driven C X transition is needed. To show the unifying capability of the model, we use the same set of parameters and the same analysis method as used for the other parent compounds [1]. That is, to the y direction, the d xz -d xz NN hopping integral t.4 ev and the d yz -d yz NN hopping integral t.13 ev; they are swapped to the x direction; by symmetry the NN interorbital hoppings are zero; the NNN intraorbital hopping integral t.25 ev for both d xz and d yz orbitals, and the NNN interorbital hopping is ±.7 ev. KS.8 ev. JS 2 and J S 2 are of the same order of 1 mev. Since the Se anion is located above the center of the Fe plaquette, hybridizations via the Fe-As-Fe path are likely to give rise to comparable NN and NNN parameters. The electron filling is on-average one itinerant electron (or hole) per site. The magnetic landscaping is then studied by comparing a variety of static spin orders with the localized spins treated as Ising spins. Note that the ordered vacancies tend to lift the degeneracy of Fe d xz and d yz orbitals [17]. Nonetheless, our first-principles analysis unveiled a vanishingly small on-site orbital polarization P =.2 in the nonmagnetic state. It is thus appropriate to start with the minimum orbital-degenerate DE model. Also, to mimic the effect of TLD in K.8 Fe 1.6 Se 2, the intrablock (and interblock) hopping parameters are multiplied by 1 + α (and 1 α), corresponding to the shrinking (and elongation) of the Fe-Fe bonds. The results are shown in Figs. 4a-4d for the FM state and the AF states of C -type (Fig. 1d), E-type (Fig. 1e), X -type (Fig. 1f), and G-type (i.e., the Néel state where all NN spins are antiparallel) with the FM state as the energy reference. Obviously from Fig. 4a (α = ) and Fig. 4b (α =.2), the X type (red line), which was unstable against the C type (green line) for J S 2 = 25 mev in the absence of TLD α =, becomes the ground state upon TLD α =.2, in agreement with the first-principles observation of the TLD-driven C X magnetic transition [12]. The TLD s preference of the X type magnetism is driven by the energy involving the itinerant electrons, plotted in Fig. 4c as a function of α for KS =.8 ev. Clearly, the X type gains energy considerably from strong bonding within the 2 2 FM block. To show the FM block is of DE nature, the itinerant energy per Fe atom as a function of KS for α = is presented in Fig. 4d. Note that the larger KS, the stronger the DE ferromagnetism, because the energy barrier for an electron to hop between two sites with antiparallel spins is KS. As expected, the DE effect ultimately favors the FM state for large KS. Meanwhile, the X type stays lower than the other AF states for KS >.4 ev because the Fe vacancy blockade effect is much weaker for the X type thanks to its local (very confined) FM structure. For moderate KS.8 ev, the itinerant energy of the X Total Energy (mev) Itinerant Energy (mev) (a) (c) J'S 2 (mev) P.1 FM G X C E Total Energy (mev) Itinerant Energy (mev) (b) (d) J'S 2 (mev) KS (ev) FIG. 4. (a) Total energy per Fe as a function of J S 2 for KS =.8 ev, JS 2 = J S 2, and α =. The FM state is taken as the energy reference thoroughly. (b) The same as (a) except for α =.2. (c) Itinerant energy per Fe as a function of α for KS =.8 ev. Inset: Orbital polarization versus α. (d) Itinerant energy per Fe as a function of KS for α =. type is even lower than the FM state thanks to the large bonding-antibonding splitting in the 2 2 block, which leads to the band gap opening as shown in Fig. 3b. Moreover, the itinerant energy of the C type is considerably higher. A straightforward understanding can be achieved by comparing Fig. 1d and Fig. 1f in the large KS limit: The problem is reduced to four FM sites with the open (periodic) boundary condition for the C (X ) type the X type can simply win over the C type by having one more bond. Compared with the E and G types, the C type suffers from the reduced contribution from t, which cannot connect two sites with the same spin orientation in the C type. On the other hand, the C type benefits from the localized spins for comparable J and J. For example, the pure contribution of the localized spins to the total energy per iron is 1.5S 2 J for the C type and.5s 2 (J J ) for the X type. As shown in Figs. 4a and 4b, with J = J and KS =.8 ev, the total energy of the C type becomes lower than that of the X type when J S 2 > 22 mev for α = and when J S 2 > 3 mev for α =.2. This implies that the C type is incipient and is likely to manifest itself upon perturbations in structure (e.g., by pressure), doping level, etc. For example, FeTe is of E-type, but superconducting FeTe 1 x Se x exhibits the C - type spin resonance [18]. Here the C -type K.8 Fe 1.6 Se 2 can be obtained when the tetramer distortion is switched off. It remains to be seen if the C -type spin resonance exists in superconducting A 1 y Fe 2 x Se 2. Furthermore, as shown in the inset of Fig. 4c, the orbital polarization P in the X type is rather weak, in agreement with our first-principles results. It is further suppressed upon TLD, implying that the bonding nature

4 4 prevails. Therefore, the magnetism in K.8 Fe 1.6 Se 2, like in FeTe, is not driven by orbital polarization/ordering. The negligible P in K.8 Fe 1.6 Se 2 is reminiscent of the E-type FeTe, for which a negligible P was also found in both first-principles calculations and model analysis [1]. We suggested that the E type be better viewed as alternating d xz and d yz bonds along the zigzag FM chain (c.f., Fig. 1b) due to the highly anisotropic shapes of the two orbitals, leading to a pattern of every Fe atom being attached to one d xz bond and one d yz bond [1]. Such a pattern was also realized in the 2 2 block checkerboard state shown in Fig. 1c [19]. This is the X type in the absence of Fe vacancies, being only 7 mev/fe higher than the E type in our ab initio calculations for FeTe. Interestingly, while the added Fe vacancies block electron propagation along the FM chains in the C type (Fig. 1d) and the E type (Fig. 1e), the X type (Fig. 1f) is immune from the vacancy blockade. This means that the X type, already highly competitive in the complete Fe plane, can emerge as the ground state upon introduction of Fe vacancies, no matter whether the Fe vacancies are ordered or not. This agrees with recent neutron data on KFe 1.5 Se 2 where the Fe vacancy ordering is significantly weakened but the X -type AF order remains [6]. The nature of the gap opening in K.8 Fe 1.6 Se 2 is also reminiscent of FeTe, since we predicted [1] that the E type (Fig. 1b) or likewise the X type (Fig. 1c) would be insulating if the NNN hoppings t is suppressed. As shown in Figs. 1b and 1c, t connects the Fe atoms of parallel spins to form bands, broadening the bonding and antibonding levels of the d xz and d yz bonds. FeTe is metallic because the bonding and antibonding bands overlap due to large t. On the other hand, for the X type in the presence of the Fe vacancy ordering (Fig. 1f): t no longer connects the Fe atoms of parallel spins beyond a block and is in effect suppressed by the DE mechanism, leading to a band gap of the (spin-polarized) bondingantibonding splitting nature in the X -type K.8 Fe 1.6 Se 2. Finally, it is noteworthy that as shown in Figs. 4a and 4b, the FM state in our model is a rather high-energy and irrelevant state, in agreement with the first-principles results [12, 13]. Hence, the two-orbital DE model with moderate KS warrants the overall AF correlations in the Fe plane, providing a necessary environment for pairing electrons with opposite spins. In contrast, to realize the X type in (spin-only) Heisenberg models, the intrablock NN exchange constants were shown to be strongly FM [13, 2]. While this result appears not inconsistent with the DE ferromagnetism, it however implies that the FM state would be much lower in energy than the G-type AF state and thus artificially interfere with the landscape of the AF correlations. This highlights the importance of the orbital degree of freedom: It would offer not only more pairing channels [21] but also more opportunities for a number of AF states to stay nearly degenerate. The resulting large normal-state resistivity is expected to be welcomed by high T c, according to Homes s law [22]. In summary, we have presented a theoretical investigation of the X -type antiferromagnetism in insulating K.8 Fe 1.6 Se 2. Our first-principles analysis of the unfolded Fermi surface, band gap, and orbital polarization does not support the scenario of Fermi surface nesting or the picture of the Mott insulator. Instead, we have shown that this novel magnetic order and the TLD-driven C X quantum transition in K.8 Fe 1.6 Se 2 can be unified with the metallic C -type or E-type antiferromagnetism in LaOFeAs, BaFe 2 As 2, and FeTe in our previously proposed orbital-degenerate DE model. We found that the X type gains energy considerably from the gap opening due to strong bonding within the local 2 2 FM block and is thus immune to the Fe vacancy blockade effect on electron propagation. Our findings reinforce the notion that Fe-SCs be universally described in the framework of coexisting itinerant and localized electronic states. We thank Z.-Y. Lu for sharing his unpublished firstprinciples data. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Basic Energy Science, under Contract No. DE-AC2-98CH1886. Corresponding author; wyin@bnl.gov [1] For review, see J. Paglione and R. L. Greene, Nature Phys. 6, 645 (21); I. I. Mazin, Nature 464, 183 (21). [2] Y. Zhang, L. X. Yang, M. Xu, Z. R. Ye, F. Chen, C. He, H. C. Xu, J. Jiang, B. P. Xie, J. J. Ying, X. F.Wang, X. H. Chen, J. P. Hu, M. Matsunami, S. Kimura, and D. L. Feng, Nature Materials 1, 273 (211). [3] J. Guo, S. Jin, G. Wang, S. Wang, K. Zhu, T. Zhou, M. He, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 82, 1852(R) (21). [4] M. Fang, H. Wang, C. Dong, Z. Li, C. Feng, J. Chen, and H. Q. Yuan, Europhys. Lett. 94, 279 (211). [5] W. Bao, Q. Huang, G. F. Chen, M. A. Green, D. M. Wang, J. B. He, X. Q. Wang, and Y. Qiu, arxiv: (211). [6] W. Bao, G. N. Li, Q. Huang, G. F. Chen, J. B. He, M. A. Green, Y. Qiu, D. M. Wang, J. L. Luo, and M. M. Wu, arxiv: (211). [7] For review, see J. W. Lynn and P. Dai, Physica C 469, 469 (29). [8] J. Dong, H. J. Zhang, G. Xu, Z. Li, G. Li, W. Z. Hu, D. Wu, G. F. Chen, X. Dai, J. L. Luo, Z. Fang, and N. L. Wang, Europhys. Lett. 83, 276 (28). [9] Q. Si and E. Abrahams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 7641 (28). [1] W.-G. Yin, C.-C. Lee, and W. Ku, Phys. Rev. Lett. 15, 174 (21). [11] S. P. Kou, T. Li, and Z. Y. Weng, Europhys. Lett. 88, 171 (29). [12] X.-W. Yan, M. Gao, Z.-Y. Lu, and T. Xiang, arxiv: (211). [13] C. Cao and J. Dai, arxiv: (211). [14] K. Schwarz, P. Blaha, and G. K. H. Madsen, Comput. Phys. Commun. 147, 71 (22). [15] W. Ku, T. Berlijn, and C.-C. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14,

5 (21). [16] C.-C. Lee, W.-G. Yin, and W. Ku, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 2671 (29). [17] W. Lv, W.-C. Lee, and P. W. Phillips, arxiv: (211). [18] Y. Qiu, W. Bao, Y. Zhao, C. Broholm, V. Stanev, Z. Tesanovic, Y. C. Gasparovic, S. Chang, J. Hu, B. Qian, M. Fang, and Z. Mao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 678 (29). [19] I. A. Zaliznyak, Z. Xu, J. M. Tranquada, G. Gu, A. M. Tsvelik, and M. B. Stone, arxiv: (211). [2] C. Fang, B. Xu, P. Dai, T. Xiang, and J. Hu, arxiv: (211). [21] A. Nicholson, W. Ge, X. Zhang, J. Riera, M. Daghofer, A. M. Oleś, G. B. Martins, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 2172 (211). [22] C. C. Homes, S. V. Dordevic, M. Strongin, D. A. Bonn, R. Liang, W. N. Hardy, S. Komiya, Y. Ando, G. Yu, N. Kaneko, X. Zhao, M. Greven, D. N. Basov, and T. Timusk, Nature 43, 54 (24).