---
abstract: 'We present a thermal expansion and magnetostriction study of <span>TlCuCl$_3$</span>, which shows a magnetic-field induced transition from a spin gap phase to a Néel ordered phase. Using Ehrenfest relations we derive huge and strongly anisotropic uniaxial pressure dependencies of the respective phase boundary, e.g. the transition field changes by about $\pm 185$ %/GPa depending on the direction of uniaxial pressure.'
address:
- 'II.Physikalisches Institut, Universität zu Köln,Zülpicher Str. 77, 50937 Köln, Germany'
- 'Advanced Science Research Center, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, Tokai, Ibaraki 319-1195, Japan'
- 'Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Oh-okayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan'
- 'Department of Low Temperature Physics, Moscow State University, Moscow 119992, Russia'
author:
- 'N. Johannsen'
- 'A. Oosawa'
- 'H. Tanaka'
- 'A. Vasiliev'
- 'T. Lorenz'
title: 'Uniaxial pressure dependencies of the phase boundary of <span>TlCuCl$_3$</span>'
---

,

,

,

, and

magnetoelastic coupling ,low-dimensional magnets ,Bose-Einstein condensation 75.30.Kz,75.80.+q,65.40.De

The magnetic subsystem of <span>TlCuCl$_3$</span> may be viewed as a set of three-dimensionally coupled spin dimers with a singlet ground state. Due to the rather strong interdimer couplings the first excited triplet state has a pronounced dispersion and as a consequence the minimum spin gap $\Delta \simeq 8$K is significantly smaller than the intradimer coupling $J\simeq
64$K.@Nikuni2000matsumoto2002ruegg03 Thus a magnetic field of about 6T is sufficient to close $\Delta$. Above 6T a field-induced Néel order with transverse staggered magnetization is observed,@tanaka2001Oosawa2002d which has been described by a Bose-Einstein condensation of magnons.@Nikuni2000matsumoto2002ruegg03 The ground state of <span>TlCuCl$_3$</span> is very sensitive to pressure, hydrostatic pressure of order 0.5GPa is sufficient to induce the Néel order already in zero magnetic field.@Oosawa2003atanaka2003a In order to obtain more information about this drastic influence of pressure we performed high-resolution measurements of the thermal expansion $\alpha_i=\partial \ln L_i/\partial T$ and the magnetostriction $\epsilon_i = (L_i(H)-L_i(0))/L_i(0)$ and derive the uniaxial pressure dependencies of the transition temperatures and fields.

![Thermal expansion $\alpha_i$ perpendicular to the $(010)$ and the $(10\overline{2})$ cleavage planes of <span>TlCuCl$_3$</span> for different magnetic fields ($H||\alpha_i$). <span data-label="fig1"></span>](johannsen_165_f1){width="31.00000%"}

![Left: Longitudinal magnetostriction $\epsilon_i$ ($H||\epsilon_i$) perpendicular to the $(010)$ and the $(10\overline{2})$ cleavage planes of <span>TlCuCl$_3$</span> at different temperatures. Right: Field derivatives $\partial \epsilon_i
/\partial H$ from the measurements with increasing (—) and decreasing ($\circ$) field.<span data-label="fig2"></span>](johannsen_165_f2){width="37.00000%"}

Fig.\[fig1\] shows $\alpha_i$ perpendicular to the $(010)$ and $(10\overline{2})$ cleavage planes of <span>TlCuCl$_3$</span> measured for different magnetic fields. In zero field $\alpha_{010}$ ($\alpha_{10\overline{2}}$) shows a broad maximum (minimum) around 18K. This anomalous temperature dependence can be traced back to a Schottky anomaly of $\alpha_i$ due to the thermal population of the triplet state with $\Delta$ depending on uniaxial pressure $p_i$. The opposite signs signal that $\partial \Delta/\partial
p_{010}>0$ and $\partial \Delta/\partial p_{10\overline{2}} <0$. A magnetic field hardly changes $\alpha_i$ above about 10K, but for lower $T$ well-defined anomalies develop for $H> 6$T, which arise from the above-mentioned Néel order. The anomalies are of opposite signs for both directions. Fig.\[fig2\] displays representative magnetostriction measurements. The field-induced Néel order causes a kink in $\epsilon_i$ leading to a jump-like change of $\partial
\epsilon_i/\partial H$ (again of opposite signs). The $\partial
\epsilon_i/\partial H$ curves obtained with increasing and decreasing field hardly differ from each other and we do not detect a hysteresis of $H_c$. Thus, our data agree with the expected behavior of a second-order phase transition and disagree with an ultrasound study showing a large hysteresis of order 0.5T for $H_c$.@Sherman2003

The phase diagram obtained from our data (Fig.\[fig3\]) well agrees with previous results.@Oosawa2001 A power-law fit of the form $(g/2)[H_c(T)-H_c(0)]\propto T^\Phi$ yields $\Phi=2.6$ and $H_c(0)=5.6$T (with the $g$ factor for the respective field direction@Oosawa2001). The value of $\Phi$ agrees with that obtained by Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations. @wessel2001nohadani2004 The QMC studies also reveal that $\Phi $ sensitively depends on the temperature range of the fit, what may explain why the experimental $\Phi$ obtained at finite $T$ is much larger than the expected critical exponent $\Phi=1.5$ at $T \rightarrow 0$K for a Bose-Einstein condensation.

Using Ehrenfest relations our data together with specific heat ($C_p$) and magnetization ($M$) data allow to calculate the uniaxial pressure dependencies $$\frac{\partial T_c}{\partial
p_{i}}=V_{m}\,T_c\,\frac{\Delta\alpha_{i}}{\Delta C_p}\,\, \mbox{
and }\,\,
 \frac{\partial H_c}{\partial p_{i}}
 = V_{m}\frac{\Delta \frac{\partial \epsilon_i}{\partial
H}}{\Delta \frac{\partial M}{\partial H}}\,. \label{ehrenfest}$$ Here, $V_m$ is the molar volume, $\Delta \alpha_{i}$ is the anomaly size of $\alpha_i$ (see Fig. \[fig1\]) and ${\Delta
C_p}$ that of $C_p$@Oosawa2001, $\Delta \frac{\partial
\epsilon_i}{\partial H}$ is the slope change of $\epsilon_i$ at $H_c$ (see Fig. \[fig2\]) and $\Delta \frac{\partial
M}{\partial H}$ that of $weaverwilliam@example.net. In Fig.\[fig3\] we show some expected $T_c$ and $H_c$ values for a hypothetical uniaxial pressure $p_i = 0.1$GPa with $p_i$ perpendicular to the $(010)$ ($\blacktriangle$) and $(10\overline{2})$ ($\blacktriangledown$) planes. The Néel phase is strongly destabilized by $p_{010}$ and stabilized by $p_{10\overline{2}}$. The dashed lines represent power-law fits of the pressure-shifted phase boundaries. Their extrapolations to $T=0$K yield for the ambient-pressure spin gap $\Delta=g\mu_BH/k_B\simeq 7.5$K and huge values for its uniaxial pressure dependencies: $\partial \ln\Delta /\partial
p_{10\overline{2}}\simeq -180$%/GPa and $\partial \ln\Delta
/\partial p_{010}\simeq +190$%/GPa. The respective signs of $\partial \ln\Delta /\partial p_i$ agree to those of the Schottky anomalies of $\alpha_i$. Hydrostatic pressure also strongly stabilizes the Néel phase,@Oosawa2003atanaka2003a but due to the opposite signs the $\partial \ln\Delta /\partial p_i$ nearly cancel each other. Thus we conclude that uniaxial pressure parallel to the $[201]$ direction, which is perpendicular to both of our measurement directions, will also strongly decrease $\Delta$. Analyzing the relation between the uniaxial pressure dependencies of $\Delta$ and of the magnetic susceptibility around 30K yields that both arise from a pressure-dependent intradimer coupling.@niko

![Phase diagram of <span>TlCuCl$_3$</span> from the magnetostriction and thermal expansion measurements perpendicular to the $(010)$ ($\circ$) and $(10\overline{2})$ ($\bullet$) planes. The triangles display the calculated shift of $T_c$ and $H_c$ values for a uniaxial pressure of 0.1GPa perpendicular to $(010)$ ($\blacktriangle$) and $(10\overline{2})$ ($\blacktriangledown$). The lines are power-law fits of the phase boundaries.<span data-label="fig3"></span>](johannsen_165_f3){width="32.00000%"}

In summary, the field- and temperature-dependent changes of different lattice constants yield huge and strongly anisotropic uniaxial pressure dependencies of the spin gap leading to drastic changes of the phase diagram of <span>TlCuCl$_3$</span>.

This work was supported by the DFG via SFB 608.

<span>99</span>

T. Nikuni et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**84**</span> (2000) 5868; M. Matsumoto et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**89**</span> (2002) 077203; Ch. Rüegg et al, Nature <span>**423**</span> (2003) 62.

H. Tanaka et al, J. Phys. Soc. Japan <span>**70**</span> (2001) 939; A.Oosawa et al, Phys. Rev. B <span>**66**</span> (2002) 104405.

A. Oosawa et al, J. Phys. Soc. Japan <span>**72**</span>, (2003) 1026; H. Tanaka et al, Physica B <span>**329**</span> (2003) 697.

E. Ya. Sherman et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**91**</span> (2003) 057201.

A. Oosawa et al, Phys. Rev. B <span>**63**</span>, 134416 (2001).

S. Wessel et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**87**</span> (2001) 206407; O. Nohadani et al, Phys. Rev. B <span>**69**</span> (2004) 220402(R).

W. Shiramura et al, J. Phys. Soc. Japan <span>**66**</span> (1997) 1900.

N. Johannsen et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**95**</span> (2005) 017205.

{'source': 'arXiv_out/cond-mat0507582_extract_johannsen_revised_165'}