← Back to search

Hall-effect in LuNi_2B_2C and YNi_2B_2C borocarbides: a comparative study

V. N. Narozhnyi, J. Freudenberger, V. N. Kochetkov, K. A. Nenkov, G. Fuchs, A. Handstein, K. -H. Müller

arXiv:cond-mat/9902299 · DOI 10.1103/PhysRevB.59.14762 · 1999-02-22 · Physical Review B

T2theoretical15 citations

Active bibliographic source — not scientific approval

Bibliographic access preserves source history; it does not approve extracted materials or validate reported claims. Review warnings on each occurrence separately.

Abstract

The Hall effect in LuNi_2B_2C and YNi_2B_2C borocarbides has been investigated in normal and superconducting mixed states. The Hall resistivity rho_{xy} for both compounds is negative in the normal as well as in the mixed state and has no sign reversal below T_c typical for high-T_c superconductors. In the mixed state the behavior of both systems is quite similar. The scaling relation rho_{xy}\simρ_{xx}^β(ρ_{xx} is the longitudinal resistivity) was found with β=2.0 and 2.1 for annealed Lu- and Y-based compounds, respectively. The scaling exponent βdecreases with increasing degree of disorder and can be varied by annealing. This is attributed to a variation of the strength of flux pinning. In the normal state weakly temperature dependent Hall coefficients were observed for both compounds. A distinct nonlinearity in the ρ_{xy} dependence on field H was found for LuNi_2B_2C in the normal state below 40K, accompanied by a large magnetoresistance (MR) reaching +90% for H=160kOe at T=20K. At the same time for YNi_2B_2C only linear ρ_{xy}(H) dependences were observed in the normal state with an approximately three times lower MR value. This difference in the normal state behavior of the very similar Lu- and Y-based borocarbides seems to be connected with the difference in the topology of the Fermi surface of these compounds.

Source-reported materials — not catalogue approval

FormulaReported Tc (K)Pressure (GPa)Type
LuNi2B2C

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

16.7Pressure not reportedunknown
LuNi2B2C

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

14.7Pressure not reportedunknown
LuNi2B2C

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

16.5Pressure not reportedunknown
LuNi2B2C

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

16.1Pressure not reportedunknown
LuNi2B2C

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

16Pressure not reportedunknown
LuNi2B2C

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

15.8Pressure not reportedunknown
YNi2B2C

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

15.5Pressure not reportedunknown
YNi2B2C

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

15.7Pressure not reportedunknown
YNi2B2C

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

15.6Pressure not reportedunknown
YNi2B2C

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

15.7Pressure not reportedunknown

Similar papers