# Full text of "Quenched charge disorder in CuO2 spin chains: Experimental and numerical studies"

## See other formats

Quenched charge disorder in Cu02 spin chains: Experimental and numerical studies R. Leidl,^ R. Klingeler,^'^ B. Buchner,^ M. Holtschneider/ and W. Selke^ ^ Institut fiir Theoretische Physik, Rheinisch- Westfdlische Technische Hochschule Aachen, 52056 Aachen, Germany ^ Laboratoire National des Champs Magnetiques Pulses, 31432 Toulouse, France ' Leihmz Institute for Solid State and Materials Research IFW Dresden, 01171 Dresden, Germany (Dated: May 8, 2006) We report on measurements of the magnetic response of the anisotropic Cu02 spin chains in lightly hole-doped Lai,(Ca,Sr)i4_i,Cu2404i, x > 5. The experimental data suggest that in magnetic fields B > 4T (applied along the easy axis) the system is characterized by short-range spin order and quasi-static (quenched) charge disorder. The magnetic susceptibility x{B) shows a broad anomaly, which we interpret as the remnant of a spin-flop transition. To corroborate this idea, we present Monte Carlo simulations of a classical, anisotropic Heisenberg model with randomly distributed, static holes. Our numerical results clearly show that the spin-flop transition of the pure model (without holes) is destroyed and smeared out due to the disorder introduced by the quasi-static holes. Both the numerically calculated susceptibility curves x{B) and the temperature dependence of the position of the anomaly are in qualitative agreement with the experimental data. PACS numbers: 74.72.Dn, 75.25.-fz, 75.10.Hk, 05.10.Ln I. INTRODUCTION The tendency of charge carriers for self-organization seems to be an intrinsic property of hole-doped transi- tion metal oxides. One remarkable example which em- phasizes the interplay of charge order and antiferromag- netism is the formation of spatial spin and charge modu- lations in the high- Tc cuprates.^ Other examples for self- organization of holes in low-dimensional magnets include the layered nickelates^^ and manganites^, and the doped Cu02 spin chain systems such as Sri4_a;Caa;Cu2404i and Nai+a;Cu02i^'S^ On the other hand, these observa- tions also suggest that quenched disorder plays an im- portant role in such systems. In the case of the half- doped manganites, the quenched structural A-site dis- order was found to enhance the fluctuation of the com- peting order parameters, i.e., between the charge /orbital order and the metallic ferromagnetism.^ The example of the manganites shows that, in the case of competing phases, quenched disorder can lead to properties that are very different from those of a slightly impure mate- rial.^'' Quenched disorder can also significantly affect the properties of hole-doped layered cupratesi^i E.g., recent numerical results suggest that disorder effects are impor- tant to describe the underdoped regime of the layered cuprates and the pseudogap in these compounds In this paper, we report on experimental and numeri- cal studies of the magnetic response of a cuprate model system, i.e. the lightly hole-doped Cu02 spin chains in Laa;(Ca,Sr)i4_2.Cu2404i, with a; > 5. In these com- pounds, two quasi-one-dimensional (ID) magnetic struc- tures are realized: CU2O3 spin ladders and Cu02 spin chains. The former exhibit a large spin gap of Agap ^ 400K^ Hence the magnetic response at low tempera- ture, which is the subject of our study, is due to the chains. The chains consist of edge-sharing CUO4 plaquet- tes containing Cu^+ ions with spin 5* = 1/2 and non- magnetic Zhang-Rice singlets. The concentration of holes in the spin chains amounts to less than 10% and the Cu spins in the hole-free chain segments form predominantly FM fragments since the nearest-neighbor (NN) cou- pling is ferromagnetic. The NN coupling is anisotropic, thereby causing an uniaxial anisotropy perpendicular to the Cu04-plaquettes, i.e. along the crystallographic b axisii^^i^ In contrast, the magnetic coupling of Cu spins via a hole is antiferromagnetic (AFM) , as is known from a comparison with the strongly (i.e., 60%) hole-doped spin chains of the mother compound Sri4Cu2404iiiSiii Moreover, there is a finite interchain coupling causing 3D AFM spin order below Tn ~ lOKiiSiia In previous papers we have argued that the spin ordered phase at zero magnetic field is presumably also characterized by a (short-range) charge order External magnetic fields of the order of a few Tesla suppress the long-range spin order when applied along the easy axis and cause a short- range antiferromagnetically spin ordered and charge dis- ordered phase In the present paper we concentrate on the properties of the intermediate field phase at sev- eral Tesla, which is characterized by (i) short-range AFM spin order, and (ii) quasi-static charge disorder. II. MOTIVATION OF THE MODEL As was shown previously, the melting of long-range AFM spin order at a field B = Bi (depending on temperature) causes an anomaly in the magnetization M{B)m^^ This is demonstrated by Fig.QjL, which shows the magnetization M{B), at fixed temperature T = 2.5K, of La5.2Ca8.8Cu2404i. If the magnetic field is oriented parallel to the chain direction, i.e. B\\c, the magnetization depends linearly on B, except for a small contribution of free spins. In contrast, two anomalies are observed in M{B\\b), which become clearly visible if the susceptibility X = dM/dB in Fig.Hb is considered. At Bi = 3.75T one recognizes a sharp peak which is attributed to the melt- 2 ing of the long-range spin order. Hence, this anomaly signals a transition from a spin and (probably short- ranged) charge ordered phase for low fields B\\b < Bi into a charge disordered state for B > Bi. Based on the suggestions described in Ref. various theoretical studies have been devoted to the phenomena at B = Bi ,20,23^24,25 ^herc the magnetic degrees of free- dom were described by Ising spins and the holes were assumed to move either freely along the chains or under the influence of a periodic pinning potential stabilizing a striped structure. These models predict a breakdown of the striped (charge ordered) phase and may thus explain the transition a,t B = Bi. Our present study, however, focuses on the proper- ties for B > Bi. Previous numerical and experimen- tal work^SiSLSS implies that this phase is characterized by short-range AFM spin correlations, and quasi-static (quenched) charge disorder. The data in Fig. ^ display an additional broad peak in X: at i?2 = 6.9T > Bi, which was not captured by the previous theoretical stud- ies. We attribute this anomaly to the reorientation of the Cu spins. The idea that the anomaly at B2 is in fact a "smoothened out" spin-flop transition will be explored in greater detail in the next section, where we present the results of our Monte Carlo simulations. We propose that the anomaly at B = B2 is the relic of a spin-flop tran- sition, which is smeared out due to the strong disorder induced by the quasi-static holes. In this sense one may call the anomaly a "pseudo" spin-flop peak. In the scenario of the "pseudo" spin-flop transition, the magnetic field overcomes, for B > B2, the uniaxial anisotropy whic h is du e to the nearly 90° Cu-O-Cu ex- change (cf. Refs. ll4ll5|) . Quantitatively, the experimental value of B2 is consistent with a recent inelastic neutron scattering study on La5Ca9Cu2404ir& which reported a spin gap of Agap/ (g/^s) = (7 ± 0.5)T. III. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS A. Definition of the model, choice of interaction parameters, and simulation method Taking the scenario of quenched charge disorder and short-range AFM spin order for B > Bi as our start- ing point, we adopt a complementary view to the previ- ous studies which considered mobile charge carriers and study the influence of quenched charge disorder on the magnetic properties of the system, ignoring the mobility of the holes altogether. We consider a LxL square lattice consisting of L rows, which we identify with the chains, and L sites per chain. This choice of lattice geometry is motivated by neutron scattering experiments indicating that the copper ions in the Cu02 planes of La5Cai4Cu2404i form a rectangular arrayiSi We conveniently set the lattice constants along and perpendicular to the chains equal to unity. Periodic boundary conditions are employed throughout. 3 B(T) FIG. 1: Magnetization M (a), and susceptibility % ~ dM/dB (b), of La5.2Cag.8Cu2404i, at T = 2.5K, vs. magnetic field B parallel to the 6- and to the c-axis, respectively.™ The data are corrected by the (/-factor taken from Ref. Ha. In (a), the small, isotropic contribution due to free defect spins (dashed curve) has been subtracted, see Ref. 22;, The vertical dashed line shows the phase boundary between long-range and short- range antiferromagnetic spin order. Each site (?, j), where i is the chain index and j labels the sites along the chain, is either occupied by a spin (representing a magnetic Cu^^ ion), or a non-magnetic hole (Zhang- Rice singlet). To describe the hole distribu- tion, we introduce random variables pij taking the values Pij = 1 if a spin resides at lattice site (i, j) and pi^j = if it is occupied by a hole. The spins are modeled by (classi- cal) three-component vectors Sij = {Sfj,Sfj,Sfj) with \Sij \ = 1. As discussed in Ref. I2M we expect our results to remain qualitatively correct if one took the quantum character of the spins properly into account (although there would be, of course, quantitative deviations). This is basically a consequence of the Ising-like anisotropy of the model which tends to suppress quantum fluctuations, in particular in the presence of a field applied along the easy axis as in our case. If a hole is at site (i,j), we set Si,j — 0. We simulate either the pure system without holes {pij — 1 for all or employ a fixed hole con- centration of 10% within each chain. The latter should resemble the situation in the lightly hole-doped chain sys- tems of La2;Cai4_2:Cu2404i with cc ~ 5. Moreover, we 3 disallow nearest-neighbor pairs of holes within the same chain, since such configurations are energetically unfa- vorable due to the strong Coulomb repulsion. Thus con- secutive holes along the chains are always separated by at least one spin. The configurational energy depends both on the spin variables {Sij} and the hole distribution described by the occupation variables {pi,j}- In a field H applied along the z-axis, the Hamiltonian of our model reads: Ti. — — Jci (Sij ■ Sij+i + A S^ jSi j^i ] — Jc2 Sij ■ Sij+2 — Jo ^^(1 ~ Pij+i)Sij ■ Sij+2 1,3 hJ (1) The interactions of this model are shown schematically in Fig. [3 The Cu-O-Cu bonding angle of nearly 90° sug- gests that the nearest-neighbor (NN) intrachain coupling Jci is ferromagnetic (Jci > 0). Moreover, this coupfing is anisotropic favoring the alignment of the spins along an easy axis (the crystallographic 6-axis), which we take to be the z-axis. The anisotropy parameter is A > 0, where A = corresponds to the isotropic case. In Cu02 spin chains one expects next-nearest-neighbor (NNN) spins to be coupled antiferromagneticallyiSS The coupling between NNN spins is Jc2 < if they are sepa- rated by a spin and Jq < if a hole resides between them, where \Jq\ > \ Jc2 \ ■ The difference is mainly caused by the smaller size of the Cu'^'*' ions leading to a stronger overlap of the p-orbitals of the involved oxygen ions. Finally, in accordance with the experimentally observed long-range AFM ordering, we assume an interchain coupling < between NN spins on adjacent chains. In the following, we turn to the values of the interac- tion parameters of Eq. To the best of our knowledge, no direct information on the magnetic coupling param- eters is available which agrees with our thermodynamic studies;^ Thus, for the numerical simulations we indi- rectly estimate the interaction parameters. First, we ad- dress the NNN interaction across a hole. This parameter has been determined to be Jo/fcs = — 130K from neu- tron diffraction studies of the stoichiometric compound Sri4Cu2404iiiSi^ In contrast to Jq, only little is known about Jci and Jc2- Qualitatively, the bonding geometry suggests Jci > and Jc2 < oMi^Si^ In addition, the presence of ferromagnetic spin order along the chains in the weakly hole-doped compounds implies |Jci| > |Jc2|- In order to get a quantitative estimation, we apply the ex- change parameters which have been extracted for the un- doped Cu02 spin chains in Li2Cu02. In this compound, the Cu-O-Cu bonding angles in the Cu02 spin chains are very similar to those of (Ca,Sr)i4_a;La2:Cu2404i. Thus, we take Jci/ks = lOOKMiMi^ Moreover, we assume Jc2/kB — — 35K, which is again estimated from a com- parison with Li2Cu02 by applying the bond- valence sum rule and the pressure dependence of Jq in Sri4Cu2404i. For Sri4Cu2404i, the latter amounts to dJo/dpc — FIG. 2: Schematic representation of the interactions of our model Hamiltonian, Eq. Q. Full and open circles denote Cu and O atoms, respectively. Nearest-neighbor (NN) spins along the Cu02 chains (c direction) interact via an anisotropic ferromagnetic exchange (Jci, Jci = (1 + A) Jd), whereas next- nearest-neighbor (NNN) spins are coupled antiferromagneti- cally. The strength of the antiferromagnetic coupling depends on whether the NNN spins are separated by a hole (Jo) or by another spin (Jc2). Finally, neighboring chains have an AFM interaction (Ja). 4.2K/GPa, 17 The magnitude of Ja significantly affects the zero-field ordering temperature of the model (without holes). In Sri4Cu2404i, the coupling between Cu spins in adjacent chains amounts to Jq ~ — 20K.^» However, preliminary diffraction experiments^^ suggest changes of the relative positions of neighboring Cu02 chains upon La-doping, which are supposed to strongly affect the interchain cou- pling constant. According to a recent result on undoped 4 spin chains in Ref. |32 {=)3D eiD CW ~ ^cff- Ja (2) where the 3D Curie- Weiss temperature may be estimated as 6cw — ~8K from a fit to high-temperature suscep- tibihty dataj?^ while for the ID Curie- Weiss tempera- ture one has 6cw — 0.23Jci = — 23K from a cluster calculationiS Using the (approximate) effective number Zeti = 2 of nearest neighbors at surrounding chains, one gets a slightly larger value Ja — — 30K as compared to Sri4Cu2404i. This estimate, however, intimately de- pends on Zoff, which might be different. In the following, we set Ja/fcs = — 25K, since this gives rise to a zero-field ordering temperature which appears to be quite reason- able as compared to the experiments (see the discussion in Sec HTTBl . From the interaction parameters Jd, Jc2j f^nd J^, and a fit to the experimentally determined spin-wave gap of Ref. 13 we can calculate the anisotropy parameter A. This yields A = 0.0255. The model is simulated employing a single-spin Met- ropolis algorithm. System sizes range from L = 20 to L = 240. To obtain good equilibrium data, up to 2 x lO*" Monte Carlo steps per site are needed for the largest sys- tems. At the beginning of each run, 20% of the steps are discarded for thermalization. For the system with holes, we average over up to 300 randomly generated realiza- tions of the disorder. A quantity of primary concern due to its relation to the experiments is the magnetic susceptibility x^. 1 ksTL^ (3) . .) denotes the thermal average and = J is the z-component of the total magnetization. where Other observables of interest include the specific heat and the staggered magnetization. We also record typical spin configurations generated during the Monte Carlo runs in order to monitor directly microscopic properties of the system. dicular to the chains, we define the quantity 2 1 ^ / 1 ^ \ j=i \ i=i / (4) Note that the expression within the parentheses is the staggered magnetization (per spin) of one column of the square lattice. We cannot simply take the difference be- tween the total magnetizations of even and odd rows, which would be a natural candidate for the AFM order parameter, since the usual AFM structure is modified by a helical ordering of the spins along the chains, as explained below. Thus the total magnetization of each chain vanishes for H = 0. In the fully (antifcrromagnct- ically) ordered state, one has = 1. From our simulational data (Fig. (S} we infer that a phase with long-range AFM order exists at low temper- atures. The interchain order parameter seems to vanish continuously at a Neel temperature T/v , which we estimate as fcsT/v/l Ja| ~ 0.61 by finite-size extrapolation of our data. This value is also obtained by analyzing the peak positions of the specific heat. 0-0L= :10 L= :20 :40 :80 L= :160 k„T / 1 J I B a B. Pure (undoped) system FIG. 3: Interchain order parameter, Eq. JIJ, of the pure model vs. temperature (at _ff = 0), for different system sizes L. Before studying the infiuence of the disorder, it is in- structive to review some basic properties of the pure sys- tem without holes. In the present context, the most rele- vant features of the pure model are (i) the existence, for low temperatures and fields, of a phase with long-range AFM order perpendicular to the chains, as well as (ii) the occurrence of a spin-flop transition upon applying a magnetic field along the easy axis (i.e., the z-axis). Let us first discuss the model in zero magnetic field {H = 0). To measure the long-range AFM order perpen- Taking the spin S = 1/2 of the Cu^+ ions into account we obtain an estimate of T/v — 13K for the Neel tem- perature at zero field, which is reasonably close to the experimental value for La5Ca9Cu2404i (T/v = 10.5K).i^ However, this result has to be taken with care and should only be regarded as a rough consistency check. To men- tion just two points, the real system is not hole-free and quantum fluctuations (absent in our classical spin model) certainly alter the value of the ordering temperature (cf. Ref.EF 5 Whereas neighboring spins on adjacent chains are aligned antiferromagnetically for T < T/v, the spins within the chains exhibit a more compHcated structure due to the competing intrachain interactions Jd > and Jc2 < 0. At T = 0, this structure can be found by a ground-state analysis using (and slightly generaliz- ing) the methods described in Refs. and W?. With- out anisotropy (A = 0), one would obtain a simple he- lical ordering within each chain. In that case the spins rotate, with a constant angle a between two consecu- tive spins, within a plane whose orientation is fixed in space. A straightforward calculation yields a ~ 44°, cor- responding to a wavelength of the helix of approximately eight lattice constants. The finite exchange anisotropy A > 0, however, modifies this structure. In order to minimize the anisotropy energy, the spins rotate in a plane that contains the z-axis (without anisotropy the orientation of the plane is arbitrary). Moreover, the ro- tation angle is not a constant, but somewhat smaller for spins in the vicinity of the z-axis. The wavelength of the modified helix, though, changes only little as compared to the isotropic case. Such a configuration is depicted schematically in Fig.^. The results of the ground-state analysis are corroborated by inspection of typical low- temperature Monte Carlo configurations. We can unam- biguously identify the type of helical order shown in Fig. The wavelength of the helix turns out to depend only weakly on temperature. FIG. 4: Schematic representation of the (intrachain) spin configurations for (a) H = 0, (b) < H < H^i, and (c) Hsf < H < //pm, where Haf is the spin-flop field and -ffpm the field of the spin-fiop to paramagnetic transition. A magnetic field H > along the easy axis lifts the symmetry between the positive and negative z-direction and the system develops a finite total magnetization along the z-axis. At T = 0, one can again find the cor- responding spin configurations by a ground-state analy- sis. For small fields H < iJgf, where Hgi is the spin-flop field (see below), the analysis yields a fan- like structure (Fig. 2)3). At H — Hsi, this structure becomes unstable against a spin-fiop phase where the spins make a finite angle with the z axis and rotate on the surface of a cone (see Fig.^J;). All spins now have the same z-component, but the X- and y-components are reversed for nearest- neighbor spins on adjacent chains. This justifies calling the structure a "spin-flop phase". At H = Hsf, the z- component of the magnetization (and various other quan- tities) exhibit a discontinuity. For the parameters of our model, the value of the zero-temperature spin-fiop field is given by Hsf/\Ja\ — 0.70. Upon further increasing the field the opening angle of the cone continuously shrinks to zero until ai H = iJpm all spins point along the z-axis. However, this transition from the spin-flop to the param- agnetic phase occurs at values of the magnetic field much larger than the highest fields used in the experiments and will therefore be disregarded in the following. The above spin structures in a magnetic field H > can again be found in our finite-temperature Monte Carlo configurations. Moreover, we observe a sharp peak in the susceptibility (Fig- Eld which occurs at a field quite close to the value of the spin-flop field at T = 0, Hsf/\Ja\ = 0.70 (see above). Apparently, the peak signals the (presumably first-order) transition towards the spin- fiop phase. Similar anomalies are found in other quanti- ties. The spin-flop field Hgf is only weakly temperature- dependent (for low temperatures). FIG. 5: Magnetic susceptibility of the pure model at fixed temperature kBT/\Ja\ = 0.25 for a system of size L = 80. Note the sharp spin-flop peak at Hsi/\Ja\ — 0.72. A more detailed investigation of the phase diagram of the pure model, the nature of the various transition lines, and the behavior near possible critical and multicritical points, where the different phases eventually meet, would certainly be of interest by its own but is beyond the scope of the present paper. C. Influence of random, immobile holes The introduction of randomly distributed, immobile holes has a drastic impact on the properties of the model. Any long-range spin order (including the AFM ordering perpendicular to the chains) gets destroyed, which leads to a smearing out of all phase transitions discussed in the previous section. 6 The loss of long-range order already appears in the ground-state (T = 0). Within a modeling in terms of Ising rather than Heisenberg spins, it can be shown analytically that at T = the spin correlation func- tion within the chains decays exponentially for large dis- tancesiSi This is intuitively clear since the strong AFM coupling Jo enforces an antiparallel alignment of two spins on the left and right sides of a hole. Thus the chain splits up into (ferromagnetic) fragments separated by an- tiphase boundaries. If the holes are distributed randomly, all long-range spin correlations along the chain are thus destroyed. For the spin correlations perpendicular to the chains an analytic treatment is much more complicated due to the frustration of the interchain interactions. The latter occurs since fragments of neighboring chains will generally be displaced against each other. In order to minimize its total energy the system will thus form ad- ditional antiphase boundaries within the chains in order to balance the competing intrachain and interchain in- teraction energies. In any event, one again expects an exponential decay of the spin correlations. This has been confirmed numerically. The above mechanism for the destruction of long-range correlations may equally well apply if the Ising spins are replaced by Heisenberg spins. We have checked this by analyzing low-temperature Monte Carlo data of the AFM interchain order parameter, Eq. Q, for varying system sizes L (Fig.EJ. The order parameter seems to extrapo- late to zero for L — > oo, indicating the absence of long- range AFM interchain order in the thermodynamic limit, as expected from the above arguments. One should keep in mind that despite the lack of long- range order, the spins will in general still exhibit some degree of short-range ordering, which reflects the proper- ties of the corresponding pure phases (without holes) in the various regions of the T, _ff-plane. The smearing out of the phase transitions due to the presence of the randomly distributed holes can be in- ferred from our simulational data. E.g., for H = the specific heat of the pure model exhibits a peak whose height increases with the system size L and whose po- sition approaches the Neel temperature Tn as L — *■ oo. For the disordered system, on the other hand, we observe a non-critical maximum, being almost size-independent for sufficiently large systems, which occurs at a "pseudo" Neel temperature ksT^ /\Ja\ — 0.58, as compared to ksTN/lJal 0.61 for the pure model (see Sec. IIIIBII . Thus the Neel transition is not only smeared out but also slightly shifted towards lower temperature. In addition, the specific heat shows a small anomaly at lower temper- atures, which is probably due to the incommensurability of the wavelength of the helical structures with the sys- tem size. The same conclusions are found by analyzing other quantities, such as the magnetic susceptibility. Turning now to the (in our context) more interesting case of a non- vanishing magnetic field ^ 0, we examine how the spin-flop transition of the pure system is affected by the quenched holes. Again, we flnd that the transi- 0.6 0.5 0.4 A Y 0.3 V 0.2 O.I 0.005 0.0 1 0.015 1/L I , \ 0.02 0.025 0.03 FIG. 6: Interchain order parameter, Eq. 0, for various sys- tem sizes (L — 40,80,240) at fixed temperature kBT/\Ja\ = 0.1. For 1/L the order parameter seems to extrapolate to zero (dashed line), indicating the destruction of the long- range AFM order due to the quenched holes. tion is transformed into a smooth anomaly. Whereas for the pure system the susceptibility exhibits a sharp peak at H = Hsf (cf. Fig. O , we now observe a broad (and much smaller) maximum at a "pseudo" spin-fiop field H^^ (depending on system size), see Fig. [7| The curves display some finite-size dependence for small sys- tems. E.g., the strong increase, for small system sizes, of as ^ is weakened significantly for larger systems. For systems larger than L — 80 the curves change only little. The inset of Fig. [7| illustrates this for the posi- tion of the maximum, which approaches H^f/\Ja\ ~ 0.5. Analogous conclusions apply to the height of the maxi- mum, which quickly saturates if L > 80. Thus, in the disordered case, it seems to be sufficient to simulate sys- tems of size L = 80 to capture the relevant properties holding in the thermodynamic limit. A closer look at the Monte Carlo configurations re- veals local spin-flop structures for H > H^^, while for H < H^f domains showing helically modified antiferro- magnetic structures can be identified. In this sense, H^^ marks a smooth crossover from the AFM phase to the spin-flop state. This qualitative picture can be corrob- orated by examining a suitable quantity measuring the local AFM order (see below). For magnetic flelds smaller than the spin-flop fleld H < H^f, the disorder fluctuations due to different real- izations of the hole distribution are signiflcantly larger than for H > H^^. To reduce the disorder fluctua- tions one therefore has to average over many realizations. Since simulating many different hole distributions for all values of the field requires too much computational time, 7 o L=20 □ L=40 0.6 o L=80 0.5 40 80 120 160 L 0.6 0.8 H/IJ I 0.1 G-OL=20 □-OL=40 a^L=80 0.8P^ 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.9 H/IJ I 1.2 1.5 FIG. 7; Susceptibility vs. magnetic field at constant tem- perature kBT/\Ja\ ~ 0.25. The solid lines are guides to the eye. Up to 300 disorder realizations were used to generate the data. The error bars are smaller than the symbol sizes to the right of the maxima and are thus not shown there. The inset shows the position of the maximum as a function of system size. FIG. 8: Square of the z-component of the local staggered magnetization, Eq. vs. magnetic field at constant tem- perature kBT/\Ja\ = 0.25, indicating a smooth transition be- tween the AFM and the spin-flop phase. For the pure model, the same quantity appears to behave discontinuously at the spin-flop field (see inset). In all cases, the error bars are much smaller than the symbol size. we generated a large number of up to 300 disorder realiza- tions for lower fields only {H < H^D- For higher fields, 100 realizations usually turned out to be sufficient. In this way we obtained a reasonably good statistics for all data points. To provide further evidence that the broad suscepti- bility maximum is indeed the remnant of a smeared- out spin-flop transition, we study the square of the z- component of the local staggered magnetization, which is a measure of the degree of local AFM order perpendic- ular to the chains: mocf - E E [SI, - {su, + sui,)/2] ' ■ i=i j=i (5) Note that the expression under the double sum is (up to a factor of 1/4) the square of the z-component of the local AFM order parameter at site (i,j). This lo- cal quantity is then averaged over the whole lattice. As exemplified in Fig.|Hl ((^^s^ioc)^) drops down smoothly as one increases the magnetic field, i.e. the local AFM order along the z-direction decreases, as one expects for a tran- sition between an AFM and a spin- flop phase. Moreover, the slope of the curve is maximal at the same field H^^ where the susceptibility has its maximum (cf. Fig.[7J). Note that H^^ is somewhat lower than the spin-flop field Hsf/\Ja\ — 0.70 of the pure model. For the pure system, ((MjfjQ^)^) appears to jump at H — iJgf (see the inset of Fig. Ell. We would like to stress that many of the above conclu- sions are qualitatively insensitive to details of the model like the precise values of the interaction parameters, pro- vided that the system exhibits randomly distributed, im- mobile holes. In fact, we have also carried out simula- tions using the model proposed in Ref. which was based on an interpretation of inelastic neutron scatter- ing data for La5Ca9Cu2404i (an analysis of this model, with and without mobile holes, may be found in Ref. |2^ . This model has a different lattice geometry, a single- ion instead of an exchange anisotropy and quite distinct values of the interaction parameters. Moreover, we con- sidered a simplified model with vanishing NNN coupling within the chains and a ferromagnetic NN interaction (i.e., Jc2 = and Jd > 0). Essentially all of our con- clusions concerning the smearing out of the phase tran- sitions, which transform into (smooth) anomalies when introducing quenched holes, also hold for these modified models. On the other hand, when comparing the results of the simulations with the experimental data, the quan- titative agreement seems to be most satisfying for our present model. However, the choice of the interaction parameters cer- tainly has an effect on the typical spin configurations within the chains. E.g., for the simplified model with Jc2 — 0, Jci > mentioned above the chains order ferro- magnetically (this also applies to the model of Ref. I2B). Thus in the disordered system each chain splits up into ferromagnetic fragments separated by the holes which in- 8 duce antiphase boundaries. But for the present model the spins form "hehcal" chain fragments due to the com- peting intrachain interactions (see Sec. IIII B)| . and again reverse their direction across a hole. In diffraction ex- periments, no indications of such a residual helical or- dering in La5Ca9Cu2404i have been found so far. One should note, however, that hints at incommensurate or- dered spin structures, which could in principle be ex- plained by the presence of a (modified) helical phase, have been reported in LagCagCu2404i^ Note also that in the closely-related spin-chain system Li2Cu02 the he- lical ordering is destroyed due to the anisotropy and the finite interchain coupling according to theoretical calcu- lationsi2^ Thus the existence or non-existence of helical structures appears to be a delicate question which de- pends sensitively on details of the interaction and the lat- tice geometry (i.e., the coordination number of the inter- chain interaction, which is different for La5Ca9Cu2404i and Li2Cu02). 0.33 0.29 0.25 N 0.21 0.171 0.13 O K„ 1 / I J I = 0.1 □ k,T/IJI = 0.25 0.35 0.6 0.9 H/l J I FIG. 9: Susceptibility curves for different temperatures (and system size L = 80) . As in Fig. 13 we used a varying number of up to 300 disorder realizations (depending on the value of the field) to generate the data points. The solid lines are guides to the eye. k„T / 1 J I B a FIG. 10: Magnetic phase diagram of the model with quenched disorder. The curve shows the temperature depen- dence of the "pseudo" spin-flop field where the susceptibility maximum occurs (cf. Fig. |^. All data were obtained using systems of size L = 80. theoretical values for H^^^ into physical units, taking the spin value S" = 1/2 of the Cu^+ ions and the correct g-factors^ properly into account, we obtain a "pseudo" spin-flop field of approximately 9T for a temperature of ksT/lJal = 0.1. This compares reasonably well with the experimental values. An even better agreement may be reached by fine-tuning of the interaction parameters (whose precise values are not known yet), taking into ac- count quantum effects, or allowing for a (partial) mobility of the holes. Summarizing, the above findings corroborate the idea that the experimentally observed broad anomaly in the susceptibility curves can indeed be understood as a dis- order phenomenon due to randomly distributed, quasi- static holes, which lead to a destruction of the long-range AFM order and, correspondingly, to a smearing-out of the spin-fiop transition. Plotting the susceptibility curves for various tempera- tures (Fig. inj allows us to draw a more detailed compari- son with the experimental magnetization measurements. The temperature dependence of both the position and the height of the spin-fiop anomaly resemble the experi- mental data which will be presented in Sec. IIVI (Fig. Illll quite well. Finally, we depict the "magnetic phase diagram" of our model in Fig. ^| i.e., the dependence of the "pseudo" spin-flop field H^f on temperature. Again, we find qual- itative agreement with the upper line B2 of the exper- imental phase diagram (Fig. Ill|l . If one converts the IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ON THE "PSEUDO SPIN-FLOP PEAK" In order to test the numerical predictions of the pre- ceding section, we here present some of our experimen- tal data on the magnetic properties of the lightly hole- doped spin chains in Laa;(Ca,Sr)i4_a;Cu2404i. We stud- ied single crystals of approximately 0.2cm'^, grown by the floating zone technique?2£ For the magnetization mea- surements a vibrating sample magnetometer (VSM) was used. The measurements were performed in magnetic 9 fields up to 16T. The fields were applied either parallel to the chain direction (c axis) or perpendicular to the CUO4 plaquettes of the Cu02 chains, i.e. along the easy magnetic axis {b axis). B(T) 6 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 T(K) FIG. 11: Susceptibility of La5.2Ca8.8Cu24 04i vs. magnetic field B\\b parallel to the easy axis for different temperatures, (a), and position of the maximum in (a) vs. temperature, (b). Fig.lTTk shows the susceptibility of La5.2Ca8.8Cu2404i vs. magnetic field along the 6-axis, at different temper- atures up to 15K > T/v = 10. 5K. The sharp anomaly at Bi, which signals the melting of the long-range spin order, is visible for all temperatures below T^r. In con- trast to the melting of the spin order, the anomaly at B2 is still present for T > T/v, where only short-range spin correlations exist. This fact agrees with the observation that at r = 2.5K the anomaly occurs at fields B > Bi, where also only short-range spin order does exist. Upon heating, the anomaly is shifted to higher fields. More- over, the peak both shrinks and broadens drastically at higher temperatures. Comparing the data in Fig. Illb with those in Fig. illustrates the similarities between the experimental data and the numerical results. The broad peak at B2 is well described by the model calcula- tions, which strongly reinforces the approach presented in Sec. cm The temperature dependence of the " pseudo" spin-flop transition in La5.2Ca8.8Cu2404i is summarized in Fig. Illb . Qualitatively, the presence of the broad anomaly B2 indicates short-range spin correlations up to 15K. The temperature dependence of the peak maximum depends roughly linearly on the temperature, in agreement with the numerical findings fFig. I10|l . At (7±1)K, the curva- ture of B2{T) slightly changes, which again resembles the numerical results. V. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK We have presented measurements of the magnetic properties of the anisotropic spin chains in lightly hole- doped Lax(Ca,Sr)i4_a;Cu2404i, x > 5. The experiments suggest that for fields B > 4T the system is charac- terized by short-range AFM spin order and quasi-static charge disorder. The susceptibility as a function of the magnetic field B (applied along the easy axis) shows a broad anomaly instead of a sharp peak, as one would have expected if the system underwent a spin-flop transition (and as one indeed observes in the related, but hole-free spin chain compound Li2Cu02, see Ref . 123) . In order to understand these findings theoretically, we have carried out Monte Carlo simulations of an anisotropic classical Heisenberg model with quenched holes. Our numerical data show that the spin-flop transition of the pure model is smeared out upon introducing quenched holes. The susceptibility curves at flxed temperature exibit broad peaks and resemble the experimental data quite well. At low temperatures, the peak occurs at a field value slightly below the corresponding spin-flop field of the pure sys- tem. Furthermore, the peak position increases with tem- perature, similarly as it is observed in the experiments. Taken together, our numerical studies corroborate the idea that the broad anomaly in the experimental suscep- tibility curves is essentially a signature of the disorder due to quasi-static holes. Nonetheless, there remain several challenging ques- tions for future (experimental and theoretical) work. One of them concerns the possible mechanisms for the pinning of the holes, which would explain the occurrence of quasi- static (quenched) charge disorder. While the destruction of the stripe-ordered phase by an effective, fleld-induccd attraction of the holes (as proposed in Ref. 22) obviously requires a certain mobility of the holes, the existence of the broad anomaly in the susceptibility seems to sug- gest that pinning might play an important role to under- stand the high-field behavior {B > Bi). If one assumes the holes to move freely along the chains, the theoretical models predict a clustering of the holes upon increasing the field and no broad anomal y in the susceptibility oc- curs (see the discussion in Ref. l28j) . Thus one may spec- ulate that as the field becomes large enough {B > Bi) and the holes start to move around, they get trapped 10 at (randomly distributed) pinning centers and then stay more or less immobile. Closely related to the pinning of the holes is the possi- ble influence of the Coulomb interaction, which has been neglected in the theoretical models so far. The Coulomb repulsion of the holes destabilizes the above-mentioned clustered structures and would tend to distribute the holes more uniformly across the system. It is unclear, however, whether inclusion of the Coulomb interaction between the holes alone would suffice to predict the ex- istence of quasi-static disorder for fields B > Bi. It might also be necessary to take the interaction with the La'^"'" and Ca^+ ions into account. Due to their different charges and ionic radii, these might introduce additional disorder into the system which may turn out to be im- portant for an understanding of the pinning of the holes. Acknowledgments Wc thank J. M. Tranquada for a useful discussion. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsge- meinschaft (DFG) within SPP 1073 (BU 887/1-3). W.S., M.H., and R.K. gratefully acknowledge financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under Grants No. SE 324/4 and KL 1824/1-1, respectively. ^ S. Kivelson, I. Bindloss, E. Fradkin, V. Ogancsyan, J. Tranquada, A. Kapitulnik, and C. Howald, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 1201 (2003). ^ J. M. Tranquada, D. J. Buttrcy, V. Sachan, and J. E. Lorenzo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1003 (1994). ^ P. Wochner, J. M. Tranquada, D. J. Buttrey, and V. Sachan, Phys. Rev. B 57, 1066 (1998). B. J. Sternlieb, J. P. Hill, U. C. Wildgruber, G. M. Luke, B. Nachumi, Y. Moritomo, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 2169 (1996). ^ M. Takigawa, N. Motoyama, H. Eisaki, and S. Uchida, Phys. Rev. B 57, 1124 (1998). ® C. Hess, H. ElHaes, B. Biichner, U. Ammerahl, M. Hiickcr, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 027005 (2004). ^ R. KUngeler, N. Tristan, B. Biichner, M. Hiicker, U. Am- merahl, A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. B 72, 184406 (2005) * P. Horsch, M. Sofin, M. Mayr, and M. Jansen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 076403 (2005). ^ D. Akahoshi, M. Uchida, Y. Tomioka, T. Arima, Y. Mat- sui, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 177203 (2003). ^° J. Burgy, M. Mayr, V. Martin-Mayor, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 277202 (2001). " E. Dagotto, Science 309, 257 (2005). G. Alvarez, M. Mayr, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B 71, 014514 (2005). R. S. Eccleston, M. Uehara, J. Akimitsu, H. Eisaki, N. Mo- toyama, and S. Uchida, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1702 (1998). V. Yu. Yushankhai and R. Hayn, Europhys. Lett. 47, 116 (1999). V. Kataev, K.-Y. Choi, M. Griiningcr, U. Ammerahl, B. Biichner, A. Freimuth, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2882 (2001). L. P. Regnault, J. P. Boucher, H. Moudden, J. E. Lorenzo, A. Hiess, U. Ammerahl, G. Dhalenne, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1055 (1999). ^"^ U. Ammerahl, B. Biichner, L. Colonescu, R. Gross, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. B 62, 8630 (2000). ^® M. Matsuda, K. M. Kojima, Y. J. Uemura, J. L. Zarestky, K. Nakajima, K. Kakurai, T. Yokoo, S. M. Shapiro, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. B 57, 11467 (1998). ^® U. Ammerahl, B. Biichner, C. Kerpen, R. Gross, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. B 62, R3592 (2000). ^° W. Selke, V. L. Pokrovsky, B. Biichner, and T. KroU, Eur. Phys. J. B 30, 83 (2002). 21 T. Kroll, R. Klingcler, ,J. Geek, B. Biichner, W. Selke, M. Hiicker, and A. Gukasov, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 290-291, 306 (2005). 22 R. Klingeler, PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen (2003). 23 M. Holtschneider and W. Selke, Phys. Rev. E 68, 026120 (2003). 2* M. Holtschneider, W. Selke, and R. Leidl, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 290-291, 326 (2005). 25 W. Selke, M. Holtschneider, and R. Leidl, Cond. Matter Physics 8, 15 (2005). 2® M. Matsuda, K. Kakurai, J. E. Lorenzo, L. P. Regnault, A. Hiess, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. B 68, 060406(R) (2003). 2^ A. Gukasov, unpublished. 2* R. Leidl and W. Seiko, Phys. Rev. B 70, 174425 (2004). Y. Mizuno, T. Toliyama, S. Maekawa, T. Osafune, N. Mo- toyama, H. Eisaki, and S. Uchida, Phys. Rev. B 57, 5326 (1998). 3° R. Leidl and W. Selke, Phys. Rev. B 69, 056401 (2004). 31 M. Matsuda, T. Yosihama, K. Kakurai, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1060 (1999) 32 S.-L. Drcchsler, J. Richter, J. Malek, A.S. Moskvin, R. Khngcler, and H. Rosner, J. Magn. Magn. Mat. 290-291, 345 (2005). 33 R. KUngeler, B. Biichner, K.-Y. Choi, V. Kataev, U. Am- merahl, A. Revcolevschi, and J. Schnack, Phys. Rev. B 73, 014426 (2006). 3* Y. Mizuno, T. Tohyama, and S. Maekawa Phys. Rev. B 60, 6230 (1999). 35 C. de Graaf, 1. de P. R. Moreira, F. lUas, 6. Iglesias, and A. Labarta, Phys. Rev. B 66, 014448 (2002). 3® T. Nagamiya, K. Nagata, and Y. Kitano, Prog. Theor. Phys. 27, 1253 (1962). J. M. Robinson and P. Erdos, Phys. Rev. B 2, 2642 (1970). 38 M. Matsuda, K. Katsumata, T. Yokoo, S. M. Shapiro, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. B 54, R15626 (1996). 3® U. Ammerahl and A. Revcolevschi, J. Cryst. Growth 197, 825 (1999).