Anisotropic exchange in LiCuVO4 probed by ESR

Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics

Volumn 65, Issue 13, 2002, Pages 1344451-1344457

  Krug von Nidda, H A ^a   Svistov, L E ^a,b   Eremin, M V ^a,c   Eremina, R M ^a,d   Loidl, A ^a   Kataev, V ^d,e   Validov, A ^d   Prokofiev, A ^f   Assmus W ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUGSBURG   (Germany)

^b SHUBNIKOV INSTITUTE OF CRYSTALLOGRAPHY   (Russian Federation)

^c KAZAN FEDERAL UNIVERSITY   (Russian Federation)

^d ZAVOISKY PHYSICAL TECHNICAL INSTITUTE   (Russian Federation)

^e UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^f GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85074803337     PISSN: 10980121     EISSN: 1550235X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.65.134445     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. M. Hase, I. Terasaki, and K. Uchinokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3651 (1993).
2. P. Thalmeier and P. Fulde, Europhys. Lett. 44, 242 (1998).
3. M. Boehm, S. Coad, B. Roessli, A. Zheludev, M. Zolliker, P. Böni, D. McK. Paul, H. Eisaki, N. Motoyama, and S. Uchida Europhys. Lett. 43, 77 (1998).
4. H. F. Fong, B. Keimer, J. W. Lynn, A. Hayashi, and R. J. Cava, Phys. Rev. B 59, 6873 (1999).
5. U. Ammerahl, B. Büchner, C. Kerpen, R. Gross, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. B 62, R3592 (2000).
6. V. Kataev, K.-Y. Choi, M. Grüninger, U. Ammerahl, B. Büchner, A. Freimuth, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2882 (2001).
7. J. B. Goodenough, Phys. Rev. 100, 564 (1955);
8. J. Kanamori, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 10, 87 (1959);
9. P. W. Anderson, Solid State Phys. 14, 99 (1963).
10. C. Gonzalez, M. Gaitan, M. L. Lopez, M. L. Veiga, R. Saez-Puche, and C. Pico, J. Mater. Sci. 29, 3458 (1994).
11. M. Yamaguchi, T. Furuta, and M. Ishikawa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 65, 2998 (1996).
12. G. Blasse, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 27, 612 (1965).
13. M. O’Keefe and S. Andersson, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Cryst. Phys., Diffr., Theor. Gen. Crystallogr. 33, 914 (1977).
14. M. A. Lafontaine, M. Leblanc, and G. Ferey, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. C: Cryst. Struct. Commun. 45, 1205 (1989).
15. W. Geertsma and D. Khomskii, Phys. Rev. B 54, 3011 (1996).
16. A. N. Vasil’ev, JETP Lett. 69, 876 (1999).
17. A. N. Vasil’ev, L. A. Ponomarenko, H. Manaka, I. Yamada, M. Isobe, and Y. Ueda, Phys. Rev. B 64, 024419 (2001).
18. Ch. Kegler, N. Büttgen, H.-A. Krug von Nidda, A. Krimmel, L. Svistov, B. I. Kochelaev, A. Loidl, A. Prokofiev, and W. Aßmus, Eur. Phys. J. B 22, 321 (2001).
19. I. Yamada, M. Nishi, and J. Akimitsu, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 8, 2625 (1996).
20. J. Choukroun, J.-L. Richard, and A. Stepanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 127207 (2001).
21. We neglect the next-nearest neighbor (NNN) exchange interaction for the sake of simplicity, since it does not affect the conclusions of our qualitative discussion. In principal, it may be noticeable in (formula presented) as in (formula presented). At least, the microscopic calculations in Ref. 29 suggest that, in general, the NNN exchange in the edge sharing Cu-O chain may be appreciable.
22. P. W. Anderson and P. R. Weiss, Rev. Mod. Phys. 25, 269 (1953).
23. Z. G. Soos, K. T. McGregor, T. T. P. Cheung, and A. J. Silverstein, Phys. Rev. B 16, 3036 (1977).
24. B. Pilawa, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 9, 3779 (1997).
25. K. Nagata and Y Tazuke, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 32, 337 (1972).
26. B. Bleaney and K. D. Bowers, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 214, 451 (1952).
27. K. Yosida, Theory of Magnetism (Springer, Berlin, 1996).
28. M. V. Eremin and Yu. V. Rakitin, J. Phys. C 15, L258 (1982).
29. V. K. Voronkova, M. V. Eremin, L. V. Mosina, and Yu. V. Yablokov, Mol. Phys. 50, 379 (1983).
30. V. Yushankhai and R. Hayn, Europhys. Lett. 47, 116 (1999).
31. S. Tornow, O. Entin-Wohlman, and A. Aharony, Phys. Rev. B 60, 10 206 (1999).
32. A. V. Prokofiev, D. Wichert, and W. Assmus, J. Cryst. Growth 229, 345 (2000).
33. S. E. Barnes, Adv. Phys. 30, 801 (1981).
34. H. Benner, M. Brodehl, H. Seitz, and J. Wiese, J. Phys. C 16, 6011 (1983).
35. It is important to note that the best fit to the data was achieved choosing the spectral functions (formula presented), where (formula presented). In this case the angular dependence contains not only terms (formula presented), which would be the case only, if (formula presented) is fulfilled, but also a modulation (formula presented). Hence, the nonsecular part is slightly suppressed with respect to the secular. Obviously this effect should be interesting for a thermodynamic description.
36. As one can see from the theoretical expressions, we really have only two fitting parameters, because the isotropic part (formula presented) does not contribute to linewidth and shift.
37. T. Moriya, Phys. Rev. 120, 91 (1960).
38. In principle one could also expect an anisotropic Curie-Weiss temperature due to the estimated anisotropic exchange. However, 6% anisotropic contribution to the exchange is still too small to give a measurable effect. For (formula presented) this is approximately 1 K, which is smaller than the experimental error.
39. M. Oshikawa and I. Affleck, (unpublished).
40. In spite of a comparable anisotropy of g value and high-temperature linewidth, in (formula presented) the situation seems to be more difficult, as the isotropic antiferromagnetic intrachain exchange is about 4 times larger than in (formula presented) indicating a substantial deviation from (formula presented) Cu-O-Cu bonding geometry. As it was shown by Tornow et al. (Ref. 29), in this case the anisotropic correction to the superexchange is significantly reduced as compared to the rectangular bond. Due to this fact one may expect a weaker magnetic anisotropy in (formula presented). In addition, the next-nearest neighbor contribution is more important.