arxiv: v1 [cond-mat.supr-con] 2 Mar 2018

Transcription

1 Interplay between nematic fluctuations and superconductivity in BaFe 2 x Ni x As 2 Zhaoyu Liu, 1, 2 Tao Xie, 1, 2 Dongliang Gong, 1, 2 Xiaoyan Ma, 1, 2 R. M. Fernandes, 3 Yi-feng Yang, 1, 2, 4 Huiqian Luo, 1 1, 2, 4, and Shiliang Li 1 Beijing National Laboratory for Condensed Matter Physics, Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing , China 2 School of Physical Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing , China 3 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455, USA 4 Collaborative Innovation Center of Quantum Matter, Beijing , China arxiv: v1 [cond-mat.supr-con] 2 Mar 2018 We have systematically studied uniaxial pressure dependence of the superconducting transition temperature T c along both the Fe-Fe and Fe-As-Fe directions in BaFe 2 xni xas 2. Our analysis identifies two mechanisms by which uniaxial pressure p affects T c: one arising from an isotropic (i.e. non-nematic) lattice mode, manifested as a linear dependence of T c on p, and one arising from a shear lattice mode that couples to nematic fluctuations, manifested as a non-linear dependence of T c on p. While the latter effect leads to a nearly doping-independent suppression of T c, signaling the competition between nematicity and superconductivity, the former effect leads to a continuous change of dt c/dp with doping, resulting in an enhancement of T c in the overdoped side, but a suppression in the underdoped side. Surprisingly, the sign change of dt c/dp in the isotropic channel coincides with the putative nematic quantum critical point, whose soft mode is in the anisotropic channel. Our results provide important insight into the interplay between nematic fluctuations and superconductivity in iron-based superconductors. PACS numbers: Nematicity has been found in both cuprates and ironbased superconductors, consisting of an electronic state that breaks the in-plane C 4 rotational symmetry of the underlying lattice. In the former, nematic order seems associated with the pseudogap state [1, 2], where many other types of orders are also found, such as stripes and charge density waves [3]. The scenario is simpler in ironbased superconductors, where nematicity typically appears together with antiferromagnetism and superconductivity in the phase diagram [4]. In several materials, a putative nematic quantum critical point has been proposed to exist around the optimal doping levels [5 8], suggesting a close interplay between nematicity and superconductivity. Interestingly, two-fold anisotropy in the magnetoresistivity has been reported in the vicinity of the superconducting transition of slightly overdoped Ba 1 x K x Fe 2 As 2, which suggests the formation of a nematic superconductor [9]. Theoretically, it has been proposed that nematic fluctuations induce attractive pairing interaction that can enhance or even lead to superconductivity [10 16]. However, direct experimental evidence for the interplay between superconductivity and nematic fluctuations in iron-based superconductors is scarce. To shed light on this issue, here we study how the superconducting transition temperature T c changes with uniaxial pressure. It has already been shown that uniaxial pressure p acts as an external field that couples to nematic order [5, 8]. On the other hand, previous thermal expansion measurements have shown that dt c /dp strongly depends on the direction of the pressure and doping [17 21]. One of the difficulties to single out the nematic contribution to the observed behavior of dt c /dp arises from the fact that, due to the Poisson ratio, p induces not only the shear lattice distortion that couples to nematicity, but also other isotropic lattice distortions that do not couple linearly to the nematic order parameter [22]. To disentangle these contributions, our strategy here is to compare T c (p) for pressures applied along the (110), i.e. Fe-Fe direction, and along the (100), i.e. Fe- As-Fe direction, focusing on overdoped samples, where antiferromagnetic order is absent. The system studied here is BaFe 2 x Ni x As 2, where both the nematic and antiferromagnetic (AF) orders disappear at the optimal doping level x c 0.11 [23 25] as shown in Fig. 1. Single crystals of BaFe 2 x Ni x As 2 were grown by self-flux method as reported previously [23]. The samples were cut into thin rectangular plates by a diamond saw along either (110) (Fe-Fe) or (100) (Fe- As-Fe) directions in the tetragonal notation determined by an x-ray Laue diffractometer. The elastoresistivity was measured by a home-made uniaxial pressure device based on the piezo-bender as described previously [8, 26]. The piezobender of the uniaxial pressure device results in a slight hysteresis behavior between the processes of increasing and decreasing pressure due to its intrinsic properties, which is removed by averaging the pressures with the same resistance. The positive and negative values of pressure correspond to compressing and tensiling the samples, respectively. Figures 2(a) and 2(b) show the results of the overdoped x = 0.13 sample for pressure along the (100) and (110) directions, respectively. For p // (100), the resistance R is nearly linear with p for the whole temperature range ( right panel of Fig. 2(a) ). Taking the values of R at the same p, we can plot the temperature dependence of R as shown in the left panel of Fig. 2(a). Accordingly,

2 s ±. Importantly, because T c changes linearly as function of the isotropic strain ε A1g, T c acquires also a linear dependence on pressure p. As a result, the most general form for T c (p) is: T c (p) = T 0 c + Bp + Cp 2 (1 + Dp 2 ) (1) 2 FIG. 1: Doping dependence of T s, T and T c in BaFe 2 xni xas 2, represented by the green, blue and orange dashed lines [23 25], respectively. The red arrows indicate the samples studied in this work except for the one at x c 0.11, around which we have measured a series of samples. The inset gives a tetragonal in-plane Fe-As block, showing the (100) and (010) directions. The (110) is along the diagonal direction. the uniaxial pressure dependence of T c can be derived as shown in Fig. 2(c), where an almost linear relationship is observed. When the pressure is along the (110) direction, which is the direction associated with nematic order in the underdoped samples [8, 26], deviations from a linear behavior of R(p) are observed around the superconducting transition ( right panel of Fig. 2(b)). Consequently, a non-linear pressure dependence of T c is observed, as shown in Fig. 2(d). Here T c is determined as where R becomes zero by the linear extrapolation of R T during the transition. We have also tried to determine the value of T c by the onset (the cross temperature of linear extrapolations of R T in the normal state and during the transition) or the middle temperature of the transition. The results are similar but with less certainty since the normal-state resistance is also affected by the uniaxial pressure [8]. A phenomenological symmetry analysis sheds important light on the behaviors observed here [27, 28]. Consider first the case of pressure applied along the (110) direction: it induces not only shear strain with B 2g symmetry, ε B2g = x u y + y u x, but also strain in the other symmetry channels including the isotropic strain ε A1g = x u x + y u y. Here, u is the displacement vector. This happens because, due to the Poisson ratio, the tensile (compressive) strain induced in the direction perpendicular to the applied stress does not have the same magnitude as the compressive (tensile) strain induced in the longitudinal direction [22]. This is directly manifested in the data: if only ε B2g was induced, symmetry would restrict T c to be an even function of p, which is clearly not the case in Fig. 2(d). For this analysis to hold, we assume that the superconducting state is s-wave, such as where Tc 0, B, C and D are all constants. The fact that we keep terms to forth-order in p is because of the relatively large pressures applied experimentally. The reason that no third-order term presents is due to the biquadratic coupling between nematic and superconducting order parameters [27, 28]. The solid line in Fig. 2(d) shows the fitting result, which correctly captures the non-linear behavior of T c (p). Thus, while the constant B contains information about the coupling between superconductivity and isotropic strain modes, the constants C and D encode the coupling between superconductivity and nematicity as the nematic order parameter couples linearly with the shear strain ε B2g. To further validate this analysis, we repeat the procedure for pressures applied along the (100) direction. The same equation (1) applies in this case, but now the constants C and D refer to the coupling between superconductivity and the transverse B 1g nematic order parameter, which never condenses in the iron pnictides. Importantly, assuming that the Poisson ratio is similar in both cases, the constant B should be very similar in both cases. Moreover, the fact that T c (p) is much more linear for pressures along the (100) direction than pressures along the (110) direction, indicate that transverse B 1g nematic fluctuations are much weaker than the B 2g nematic fluctuations. Figure 2(e) shows the doping dependence of B in the overdoped regime (x 0.13), where the values of B between the (110) and (100) directions are the same and linearly increase with increasing x. On the other hand, the value of C for p // (110) changes little with doping and is always much larger than that for p // (100), as shown in Fig. 2(f). This confirms the above analysis that the coefficient B refers to the coupling between isotropic strain and superconductivity, whereas C encodes the nematicsuperconductivity coupling. After showing the direct effect of nematic fluctuations on superconductivity in the x = 0.13 sample, we further study the samples around the putative nematic QCP. The pressure effect on T c is significantly sample-dependent in this regime, even for samples from the same batch. Yet, we find that the T c (p) behavior is well correlated with the mean-field nematic transition temperature T extracted from the nematic susceptibility χ n. The latter, as shown in [5, 8, 26, 29], is proportional to d( R/R 0 )/dp, where R 0 is the resistance at zero pressure and R = R(p) - R 0. The value of T is obtained from a Curie-Weisslike fit of χ n, i.e., χ 1 n T T. The position of the putative nematic QCP is thus defined by T = 0, with T > 0 and T < 0 corresponding to underdoped and

3 3 overdoped regions of the phase diagram, respectively. Figure 3(a) shows the temperature dependence of χ 1 n around the optimal doping level, illustrating how we determined the values of T. Interestingly, as shown in Figs. 3(b) and 3(d), far away from T = 0, T c changes monotonically with pressure but with different signs of dt c /dp. In other words, while T c increases with increasing p for T < 0 (overdoped), T c decreases with increasing p for T > 0 (underdoped). When T is close to zero, T c shows a marked non-monotonic dependence on pressure (Fig. 3(c)). All these behaviors can be well described by Eq. (1), as shown by the solid lines in Fig. 3(b)-3(d). It is important to note that Eq. (1) is valid when stress is applied in the tetragonal phase. In the orthorhombic phase, domains strongly affect the behavior of the elastoresistance. The fact that Eq. (1) describes relatively well the data near but below optimal doping, suggests that the nematic order parameter is presumably very small in this region. Figures 3(e) and 3(f) show the doping dependence of B and C around the optimal doping level, respectively. Similar to those in the overdoped regime, B changes linearly with T while C seems to remain the same. Especially, we emphasize that B changes sign exactly at T = 0 within the error of our analysis. It is also worth noting that D also shows sign-change behavior around the optimal doping level but we will not give any further discussion here due to large uncertainty in determining its value, especially when the absolute value of B is large. In Fig. 4(a), we plot the color map of dt c /dp around the putative nematic QCP of p // (110), illustrating the fact that the linear slope dt c /dp at p = 0 tends to vanish near T = 0. For p // (100), we cannot provide such information due to the inability in determining T along this direction [8]. However, as shown Fig. 2, dt c /dp along the (100) direction should not change significantly with pressure and be equal to dt c /dp along the (110) direction at zero pressure. Therefore, we propose that dt c /dp along the (100) direction is nearly independent of p and changes sign in underdoped and overdoped regimes, as shown in Fig. 4(b) and 4(c). For pressures along the (110) direction, dt c /dp is not constant due to the negative contribution arising from the p 2 term in Eq. (1). Our results demonstrate that the in-plane uniaxial pressure dependence of T c can be separated into two parts: one arising from nematic order induced by shear strain (coefficient C), and the other arising from isotropic strain (coefficient B). The negative value of C reveals the competition between the nematic and superconducting order parameters in the BaFe 2 x Ni x As 2 system [27, 28]. In many systems, the high-temperature orthorhombic structure is observed to be suppressed when the temperature is lowered below T c [30, 31], but the presence of AF order in these systems makes it hard to attribute the effect solely to the competition between superconductivity and nematicity. In fact, the orthorhombic distortion is enhanced below the superconducting transition in the FeSe 1 x S x system, where no AF order presents [21]. In our case, the results were obtained up to very overdoped regime and by directly analyzing the coupling between nematicity and superconductivity, avoiding thus the interference from the AF order. The linear T dependence of the parameter B is consistent with previous results based on thermal expansion measurements showing that dt c /dp changes sign around optimal doping [17, 18, 20]. We further show that B smoothly changes sign across T = 0. In the heavy fermion compound CeCoIn 5, for hydrostatic pressure, dt c /dp continuously changes sign with field at the AF QCP [32], which suggests that in our case, the sign change of B may also be related to a QCP beneath the superconducting dome. We note that there is no true AF QCP in BaFe 2 x Ni x As 2 since the AF transition becomes first-order before the system reaches optimal doping level [24, 25]. It is surprising, though, that B seems to vanish at T = 0, since the latter indicates a putative nematic QCP, where the soft strain mode is the shear mode, and not the isotropic one. This cannot be explained by the non-linear coupling between the isotropic and anisotropic modes [22], since the latter will be only observed for p // (110). Rather, this is consistent with what observed in FeSe where T c is affected by the in-plane area [19]. Our results suggest that the isotropic response of T c to the in-plane pressure is sensitive to the ground states at zero temperature, which could have important implications for pairing near the putative nematic QCP. It is interesting to note that the signs of dt c /dp in the underdoped and overdoped regimes are negative and positive, respectively, in electron-doped BaFe 2 x Ni x As 2, Ba(Fe 1 x Co x ) 2 As 2 [17] and isovalentdoped BaFe 2 (As 1 x P x ) 2 [18], but it is reversed in holedoped Ba 1 x K x Fe 2 As 2 (except in the so-called C 4 magnetic phase) [20] and positive in FeSe 1 x S x within the nematic order regime [21]. These differences seem to be consistent with different signs of the nematic contribution to the elasto-resistance in these systems [8, 26, 33]. Whether this behavior is a coincidence or reflects the nature of the coupling between nematicity and superconductivity needs to be further investigated. In conclusion, our results establish a unique method to disentangle isotropic and anisotropic strain effects on the superconductivity, providing direct evidence for the interplay between nematicity and superconductivity. The fact that the response of T c to uniaxial pressure extends deep into the overdoped regime indicates the importance of nematic fluctuations for superconductivity in iron-based superconductors. Moreover, although the isotropic strain should have little influence on nematic fluctuations, its effect on T c is correlated with the putative nematic QCP, whose origin needs to be further investigated. This work is supported by the Ministry of Sci-

4 4 ence and Technology of China (No. 2017YFA , No. 2016YFA , No. 2017YFA , No. 2015CB921302, No. 2015CB921303), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No , No , No , No , No ) and the Strategic Priority Research Program(B) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDB , XDB ). H. L. and Y. Y. are supported by the Youth Innovation Promotion Association of CAS. R.M.F was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences, under Award number de-sc Electronic address: [1] R. Daou, J. Chang, D. LeBoeuf, O. Cyr-Choinire, F. Lalibert, N. Doiron-Leyraud, B. J. Ramshaw, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, et al., Nature 463, 519 (2010). [2] Y. Sato, S. Kasahara, H. Murayama, Y. Kasahara, E.- G. Moon, T. Nishizaki, T. Loew, J. Porras, B. Keimer, T. Shibauchi, et al., Nat. Phys. 13, 1074 (2017). [3] B. Keimer, S. A. Kivelson, M. R. Norman, S. Uchida, and J. Zaanen, Nature 518, 179 (2015). [4] R. M. Fernandes, A. V. Chubukov, and J. Schmalian, Nat. Phys. 10, 97 (2014). [5] H.-H. Kuo, J.-H. Chu, S. A. Kivelson, and I. R. Fisher, Science 352, 958 (2016). [6] S. Hosoi, K. Matsuura, K. Ishida, H. Wang, Y. Mizukami, T. Watashige, S. Kasahara, Y. Matsuda, and T. Shibauchi, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 8139 (2016). [7] V. K. Thorsmølle, M. Khodas, Z. P. Yin, C. Zhang, S. V. Carr, P. Dai, and G. Blumberg, Phys. Rev. B 93, (2016). [8] Z. Liu, Y. Gu, W. Zhang, D. Gong, W. Zhang, T. Xie, X. Lu, X. Ma, X. Zhang, R. Zhang, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, (2016). [9] J. Li, P. J. Pereira, J. Yuan, Y.-Y. Lv, M.-P. Jiang, D. Lu, Z.-Q. Lin, Y.-J. Liu, J.-F. Wang, L. Li, et al., Nat. Commun. 8, 1880 (2017). [10] H. Yamase and R. Zeyher, Phys. Rev. B 88, (2013). [11] S. Lederer, Y. Schattner, E. Berg, and S. A. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, (2015). [12] M. A. Metlitski, D. F. Mross, S. Sachdev, and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. B 91, (2015). [13] Y. Schattner, S. Lederer, S. A. Kivelson, and E. Berg, Phys. Rev. X 6, (2016). [14] P. T. Dumitrescu, M. Serbyn, R. T. Scalettar, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. B 94, (2016). [15] S. Lederer, Y. Schattner, E. Berg, and S. A. Kivelson, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 4905 (2017). [16] J. Kang and R. M. Fernandes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, (2016). [17] C. Meingast, F. Hardy, R. Heid, P. Adelmann, A. Böhmer, P. Burger, D. Ernst, R. Fromknecht, P. Schweiss, and T. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, (2012). [18] A. E. Böhmer, P. Burger, F. Hardy, T. Wolf, P. Schweiss, R. Fromknecht, H. v. Löhneysen, C. Meingast, H. K. Mak, R. Lortz, et al., Phys. Rev. B 86, (2012). [19] A. E. Böhmer, F. Hardy, F. Eilers, D. Ernst, P. Adelmann, P. Schweiss, T. Wolf, and C. Meingast, Phys. Rev. B 87, (2013). [20] A. E. Böhmer, F. Hardy, L. Wang, T. Wolf, P. Schweiss, and C. Meingast, Nat. Commun. 6, 7911 (2015). [21] L. Wang, F. Hardy, T. Wolf, P. Adelmann, R. Fromknecht, P. Schweiss, and C. Meingast, Phys. Status Solidi B 254, (2017). [22] J. C. Palmstrom, A. T. Hristov, S. A. Kivelson, J.-H. Chu, and I. R. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 96, (2017). [23] Y. Chen, X. Lu, M. Wang, H. Luo, and S. Li, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 24, (2011). [24] H. Luo, R. Zhang, M. Laver, Z. Yamani, M. Wang, X. Lu, M. Wang, Y. Chen, S. Li, S. Chang, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, (2012). [25] X. Lu, H. Gretarsson, R. Zhang, X. Liu, H. Luo, W. Tian, M. Laver, Z. Yamani, Y.-J. Kim, A. H. Nevidomskyy, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, (2013). [26] Y. Gu, Z. Liu, T. Xie, W. Zhang, D. Gong, D. Hu, X. Ma, C. Li, L. Zhao, L. Lin, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, (2017). [27] R. M. Fernandes, S. Maiti, P. Wölfle, and A. V. Chubukov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, (2013). [28] R. M. Fernandes and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, (2013). [29] J.-H. Chu, H.-H. Kuo, J. G. Analytis, and I. R. Fisher, Science 337, 710 (2012). [30] S. Nandi, M. G. Kim, A. Kreyssig, R. M. Fernandes, D. K. Pratt, A. Thaler, N. Ni, S. L. Bud ko, P. C. Canfield, J. Schmalian, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, (2010). [31] D. Hu, X. Lu, W. Zhang, H. Luo, S. Li, P. Wang, G. Chen, F. Han, S. R. Banjara, A. Sapkota, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, (2015). [32] S. Zaum, K. Grube, R. Schäfer, E. D. Bauer, J. D. Thompson, and H. v. Löhneysen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, (2011). [33] M. Schütt, J. Schmalian, and R. M. Fernandes, Phys. Rev. B 94, (2016).

5 5 FIG. 2: (a) Colormap of uniaxial pressure and temperature dependence of resistance for the x = 0.13 sample with p along the (100) direction. The right and left panels show the raw data of R p and the converted R T, respectively. (b) Similar to (a) but with p along the (110) direction. (c & d) Pressure dependence of Tc along the (100) and (110) directions, respectively, where Tc = Tc (p) - Tc (0). (e & f) Doping dependence of B and C as defined in the main text.

6 6 FIG. 3: (a) Temperature dependence of χ 1 n, which is the nematic susceptibility as defined in the text. The data for each sample have been shifted by the values as indicated by the horizontal lines in the left vertical axis. The solid lines are linear fits to determine the values of T. (b-d) Pressure dependence of T c of selected samples along the (110) direction. (e & f) T dependence of B and C for p // (110), respectively. The positive and negative values of T correspond to x < x c and x > x c, respectively. The solid line in (e) is a linear fit.

7 7 FIG. 4: (a) Colormap of dt c/dp around T = 0 for the pressure along the (110) direction. (b & c), Schematic diagrams of the pressure dependence of dt c/dp in the underdoped and overdoped regimes, respectively. The blue and magenta lines are for the pressure along the (110) and (100) directions, respectively.