Skip to main content

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

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 


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. 


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- 


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. 


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. 



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 


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 




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). 



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 


spin chains in Ref. |32 



CW ~ ^cff- 



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^. 




. .) denotes the thermal average and = 
J is the z-component of the total magnetization. 


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 

dicular to the chains, we define the quantity 


1 ^ / 1 ^ \ 

j=i \ i=i / 


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. 









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 

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. 


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. 


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 


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- 





Y 0.3 




0.005 0.0 1 


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, 










40 80 120 160 

0.6 0.8 





0.6 0.9 



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 

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 


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- 


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). 








O K„ 1 / I J I = 0.1 

□ k,T/IJI = 0.25 

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 


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 


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). 


6 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 


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 

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 

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).