# Buckling instability in type-II superconductors with strong pinning

## Abstract

We predict a novel buckling instability in the critical state of thin type-II superconductors with strong pinning. This elastic instability appears in high perpendicular magnetic fields and may cause an almost periodic series of flux jumps visible in the magnetization curve. As an illustration we apply the obtained criteria to a long rectangular strip.

In high magnetic fields a noticeable deformation of superconductors occurs in the critical state because of the magnetic force density $`𝐟=𝐣\times 𝐁`$, where $`𝐣`$ is the current density and $`𝐁`$ is the magnetic field. This results in an anomalous irreversible magnetostriction (“suprastriction”) and shape distortion of type-II superconductors with strong pinning. Similar as in magnetic fluid dynamics the stress tensor of a superconductor in a magnetic field includes an additional term, the Maxwell stress tensor of the magnetic field with components of order $`B^2/\mu _0`$. Since this is quadratic in $`B`$, the Maxwell stress tensor in the critical state can be important for elasticity in strong magnetic field . However, even in a field of $`10\mathrm{T}`$ the value of $`B^2/\mu _0`$ is small compared to the Young modulus $`E`$ of the material. We estimate the ratio $`B^2/\mu _0E10^3`$ for $`B10`$T and $`E100`$GPa which is a typical value for YBa<sub>2</sub>Cu<sub>3</sub>O<sub>7-x</sub> high-temperature superconductors .

The effect of the magnetic field on the elastic behavior may be much higher if one considers bending of thin samples since the effective elastic modulus for bending $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is much less than the Young modulus. In particular, for a long rectangular strip of extension $`l\times w\times d`$ ($`lwd`$) one has $`\stackrel{~}{E}E(d/l)^2E`$. If for instance $`d/l10^2`$ and $`E100`$GPa, then $`B^2/\mu _0`$ is of the order of the effective bending modulus $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ at $`B3.5\mathrm{T}`$.

An important consequence of a small value of the effective elastic modulus for bending $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is the classical Euler buckling instability . This elastic instability occurs for rods and thin strips when the longitudinal compression force $`F`$ at the edges of the sample exceeds a critical value $`F_b\stackrel{~}{E}`$. In particular, one has $`F_b=\pi ^2Ewd^3/48l^2`$ for a long rectangular strip with one edge clamped and the other edge free as shown in Fig. 1 . The buckling instability manifests itself at $`FF_b`$ by a sudden bending with amplitude $`s\sqrt{FF_b}`$.

The magnetization of type-II superconductors with strong pinning and the associated magnetic forces are successfully described by the Bean critical state model using a critical current density $`j_c`$ which decreases with increasing temperature and magnetic field. In the transverse geometry of a thin strip in a perpendicular field one has $`j=j_c`$ in the region where the magnetic flux has penetrated and screening sheet currents $`J`$ with $`0<J<j_cd`$ in the flux-free region . This nonuniform flux distribution is not in equilibrium and under certain conditions a thermomagnetic flux-jump instability may occur producing a sudden intensive heat release. This heat pulse decreases the critical current density and drives the system towards the equilibrium state with a uniform flux. A sudden buckling of a superconductor in the critical state may also lead to a heat pulse and thus to a sudden flux penetration into the sample, which shows as a flux jump instability in the magnetization curve.

In this letter we predict a novel Euler buckling instability caused by the longitudinal magnetic compression force acting in the critical state of a thin superconducting strip in a strong transverse magnetic field. We discuss several scenarios how the buckling instability develops, including the cases when a sudden buckling shows as a flux jump instability in the magnetization curve. A series of buckling induced flux jumps almost periodic in an increasing applied magnetic field is predicted.

We consider first the elastic stability of a long rectangular strip $`l\times w\times d`$ ($`lwd`$) in an increasing transverse magnetic field $`𝐁_a\widehat{𝐳}`$, assuming that the strip is glued to the substrate at the left edge ($`y=0`$) as shown in Fig. 1. A longitudinal compression force $`F`$ acts near the right edge of the strip ($`y=l`$) in the area where the electromagnetic force density $`𝐟=𝐣\times 𝐁`$ has a $`y`$-component due to the U-turning current, thus

$$F=F_y=B_adj_x𝑑x𝑑y,$$
(1)   
where the integral is over the U-turn area. As shown in Fig. 2, in the fully penetrated critical state this area is a triangle where $`j_y=j_c`$, but in general the integral is over the right half of the strip ($`y>l/2`$). If $`wl`$ the deformation of the strip can be obtained assuming that $`F`$ is applied to the very end of the strip at $`y=l`$. For such narrow strips one can show that exactly $`F=B_aM`$, where $`M`$ is the total magnetic moment of the strip divided by its length $`l`$.

Depending on the magnetic prehistory of the sample the dependence of the longitudinal compression force $`F`$ on $`B_a`$ is described by the following three formulas.

(a) For a zero-field cooled straight strip (Fig. 1a) with $`B_a`$ increasing from zero one has

$$F=j_cB_ada^2\mathrm{tanh}\frac{B_a}{B_c},$$
(2)   
where we introduce $`a=w/2`$ and $`B_c=\mu _0j_cd/\pi `$. The longitudinal force $`F(B_a)`$, Eq. (2), has the limits $`F\pi B_a^2a^2/\mu _0`$ ($`B_aB_c`$, Meissner state) and $`Fj_cB_ada^2`$ ($`B_aB_c`$, fully penetrated critical state).

(b) For $`B_a`$ increasing from a field-cooled value $`B_0`$, one has the force

$$F=j_cB_ada^2\mathrm{tanh}\frac{B_aB_0}{B_c}.$$
(3)   
(c) For $`B_a`$ decreasing from a fully penetrated critical state with $`B_a=B_0`$, the force $`F=B_aM`$ decreases as

$$F=j_cB_ada^2\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}2\mathrm{tanh}\frac{B_0B_a}{2B_c}\right],$$
(4)   
going through $`F=0`$ at $`B_aB_01.1B_c`$. For a narrow strip the field of full penetration is 

$$B_p=B_c\left(1+\mathrm{ln}\frac{w}{d}\right).$$
(5)   
In the case of a curved strip (Fig. 1b) in the formulae (2-4) for $`F`$ the factor $`B_a=F/M`$ means the $`z`$ component of $`B_a`$, while in the argument of $`\mathrm{tanh}(\mathrm{})`$ the $`B_a`$ should be replaced by the component $`B_{}`$ of $`B_a`$ perpendicular to the strip near its right end (where the U-turning currents flow). In general, the magnetic moment $`M`$ and the force $`F=B_aM`$ depend on the prehistory of $`B_{}(t)`$ and may relax with time $`t`$.

If the buckling instability for a zero-field cooled strip occurs at a field $`B_b>B_p`$, the force is

$$F=j_cda^2B_b.$$
(6)   
The critical force $`F_b`$ for the buckling instability of a strip with one edge clamped and the other edge free is 

$$F_b=\frac{\pi ^2ad^3E}{24l^2}.$$
(7)   
Equating the forces $`F`$ and $`F_b`$ we find that the magnetic field $`B_b`$ at which the first buckling instability occurs is

$$B_b=\frac{F_b}{j_cda^2}=\frac{\pi ^2}{24}\frac{E}{j_ca}\left(\frac{d}{l}\right)^2.$$
(8)   
We estimate the fields $`B_c0.04`$T, $`B_p0.15`$T, and $`B_b4`$T using the data for YBa<sub>2</sub>Cu<sub>3</sub>O<sub>7-x</sub> superconductors $`E10^2`$GPa , and assuming that $`j_c10^9`$A/m <sup>2</sup>, $`w10^3`$m, $`d10^4`$m, and $`d/l10^2`$. This estimate verifies our initial suggestion that $`B_pB_b`$.

The height $`s`$ of the right end of the buckled strip (see Fig. 1b) can be found analytically if the maximum angle $`\theta _m`$ between the tangent to the buckled strip and the substrate is small . Assuming that the force $`F`$ slightly exceeds the critical value $`F_b`$ we obtain a sinusoidal bending with the amplitude

$$\frac{s}{l}\frac{4\sqrt{2}}{\pi }\sqrt{\frac{F}{F_b}1}1.8\sqrt{\frac{F}{F_b}1}$$
(9)   
and

$$\theta _m2\sqrt{2}\sqrt{\frac{F}{F_b}1}=\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{s}{l}.$$
(10)   
Now assume that the external magnetic field is increased with constant ramp rate $`\dot{B}_a`$ and the threshold of the buckling instability is reached when $`F=F_b`$. One can consider several scenarios how the buckling evolves, depending on the value of $`\dot{B}_a`$ and on the ratio of the time constants for bending of the strip, $`\tau _b`$, for magnetic flux diffusion, $`\tau _m`$, and for heat diffusion, $`\tau _h`$, see Ref.  for details.

The first scenario applies to a very low ramp rate $`\dot{B}_aB_a/\tau _m`$, where the current and magnetic field distributions inside the strip, and thus the magnetic forces, follow the increasing field $`B_a`$ without delay. In this case the strip starts to bend as soon as the magnetic compression force $`F`$ reaches the critical value $`F_b`$. The force $`F=B_aM`$ via the magnetic moment $`M`$ depends on the perpendicular field component near the tilted tip of the long strip, $`B_{}=B_a\mathrm{cos}\theta _m`$. This means that in $`\theta _m(F)`$, Eq. (10), $`F`$ depends on $`\theta _m`$ and one has to find the value of $`\theta _m`$ self-consistently. To do this we need the appropriate dependence $`M(B_{})`$. We shall see that the resulting $`B_{}`$ decreases with increasing $`B_a`$ (or time); thus we have to use Eq. (4) with $`B_0=B_b`$ (the field where buckling starts) and with $`B_a`$ replaced by $`B_{}`$ in $`\mathrm{tanh}(\mathrm{})`$. Expanding the hyperbolic tangent we thus find for $`B_bB_aB_c`$,

$$FF_b\frac{B_a}{B_b}\left(1\frac{B_bB_{}}{B_c}\right).$$
(11)   
Inserting this force into Eq. (10), $`\theta _m^2=8(F/F_b1)`$, and solving for $`\theta _m`$ using $`B_{}B_a(1\theta _m^2/2)`$ and $`B_aB_c`$ we obtain

$$\theta _m\sqrt{2}\sqrt{\frac{B_a}{B_b}1}.$$
(12)   
This self-consistent tilt angle $`\theta _m`$ is two times less than the tilt angle Eq. (10) for constant compression force $`F`$. The physical origin of this negative feedback is the reduction of the total U-turning current and thus of the force $`F`$, caused by the decrease of $`B_{}`$ when the end of the strip tilts, compare the current distributions in Fig. 2.

A different scenario appears when the buckling occurs with a delay at a force $`F_d`$ slightly above $`F_b`$ (“overheating”). Several reasons for such a delay are conceivable, e.g., sticking of the strip to the substrate by adhesion, or a misalignment of the perpendicular applied magnetic field $`𝐁_a`$ such that the force $`𝐅`$ in Fig. 1 points slightly downward to the substrate. A small misalignment is probably inevitable for a typical experiment.

When after zero-field cooling $`F=F_d=j_cB_dda^2`$ is reached at $`B_a=B_d`$, the buckling amplitude jumps almost instantly to a finite value $`s\sqrt{F_d/F_b1}`$. To obtain this amplitude self-consistently one may combine Eq. (10) for $`\theta _m(F)`$ with Eq. (4) for $`F(\theta _m)`$, like in the first scenario, noting that $`M`$ and thus the force $`F=B_aM`$ depend on $`B_{}=B_a\mathrm{cos}\theta _m`$. The sudden jump of $`\theta _m`$ at $`B_a=B_d`$ means that $`B_{}`$ is reduced from $`B_d`$ to $`B_d(1\theta _m^2/2)`$ (if $`\theta _m^21`$) and thus Eq. (4) is required yielding

$$F=F_d\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}2\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\theta _m^2B_d}{4B_c}\right]$$
(13)   
with $`F_d=j_cB_dda^2`$. Inserting this into Eq. (10) and solving for $`\theta _m^24B_c/B_d`$ one obtains for $`B_dB_c`$:

$$\theta _m^2=\frac{2B_c}{B_d}\left(\frac{F_d}{F_b}1\right).$$
(14)   
Equation (14) differs from Eq. (12) because of the different history of the perpendicular field $`B_{}(t)`$ and thus of the magnetic moment: In the first scenario $`B_{}`$ started to decrease from the lower threshold $`B_b`$ and the decrease occurs since the rising $`B_a`$ is overcompensated by the growing $`\theta _m`$. In the present scenario, $`B_{}`$ has reached the higher threshold $`B_d>B_b`$ before it drops down, and this drop is solely due to the growing tilt angle $`\theta _m`$ while $`B_a=B_d`$ is constant in this approximation. As a consequence, the self-consistent tilt angle $`\theta _m`$ is reduced much more in this case, by a factor $`\sqrt{B_c/4B_d}1`$.

This strong feedback mechanism requires that the change of the current density occurs instantaneously, much faster than the mechanical buckling, $`\tau _m\tau _b`$. In reality the redistribution of the currents will lag behind the buckling. In the extreme limit $`\tau _m\tau _b`$, the tilt angle would first jump to its original large value $`\theta _d^2=8(F_d/F_b1)`$, Eq. (10), and then relax to the small value of Eq. (14), or to zero, or to some other value. The theoretical problem is intricate since a quantitative treatment requires the self-consistent time dependent solution of the equations for $`B_{}(t)`$ with a relaxing, history dependent magnetic moment $`M\{B_{}(t)\}`$, using $`B_{}=B_a(t)(1\theta _m^2/2)`$ and $`\theta _m^2=8(F/F_b1)`$ with $`F=B_aM`$. This yields the implicit equation for $`B_{}(t)`$,

$$B_{}(t)=B_a(t)[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}4B_a(t)M\{B_{}(t)\}/F_b],$$
(15)   
from which the tilt angle $`\theta _m^2(t)=2(B_{}/B_a1)`$ is obtained. To solve this one requires a realistic model for the relaxing history dependent magnetization.

From our numerical work we expect the magnetic relaxation to be very fast and non-exponential when $`B_{}/t`$ changes sign , as it is the case during buckling. During very fast switching of $`B_{}(t)`$, the electric field is so large that, irrespective of pinning, the vortices exhibit usual flux-flow behavior, with flux-flow resistivity $`\rho _f(B/B_{c2})\rho _n`$, where $`B_{c2}`$ is the upper critical field and $`\rho _n`$ is the resistivity in the normal state. In this case the magnetic relaxation time of an Ohmic strip applies, $`\tau _m\tau _0=0.249ad\mu _0/\rho _f`$ . This time has to be compared with the buckling time $`\tau _b`$, which we estimate from the lowest resonance frequency $`\omega _1`$ of the strip (a cantilevered reed ), $`\tau _b\omega _1^1`$, $`\omega _1^21.03Ed^2/(\rho l^4)`$ where $`\rho `$ is the specific weight. Inserting here numbers for YBa<sub>2</sub>Cu<sub>3</sub>O<sub>7-x</sub> at $`B_a=4`$ T, we estimate $`\tau _m\tau _b`$, i.e., the magnetic relaxation initially is instantaneous. With proceeding relaxation, the electric field and the effective resistivity decrease, and thus the magnetic relaxation time increases. We thus expect that the real behavior of the strip is somewhere between the two considered limits $`\tau _m\tau _b`$ and $`\tau _m\tau _b`$.

Therefore, if buckling starts delayed at a force $`F_d`$ and disappears at a smaller force $`F_b<F_d`$, the tilt angle at the tip of the strip may oscillate between a maximum value $`\theta _{\mathrm{max}}\theta _d`$ and zero. Such oscillation may occur since at $`\theta _d`$ the reduction of $`B_{}`$ is so large that the currents tend to change sign and thus the force $`F`$ rapidly decreases. The tilt angle then may drop to zero, undershooting the small equilibrium value, Eq. (14). With continuously increasing applied field $`B_a(t)`$, the tilt angle $`\theta _m`$ thus makes a sudden jump from zero to $`\theta _{\mathrm{max}}`$, then drops rapidly back to zero, where it remains until the next excursion occurs when $`F`$ again reaches $`F_d`$. These buckling instabilities should occur at nearly equidistant field values with period of the order of the penetration field $`B_p`$, Eq. (5), and they will show up in the magnetization curve as a periodic set of flux jumps.

So far we assumed that the temperature $`T`$ of the strip stays constant, $`T=T_0`$. However, buckling of a strip in the critical state causes some heat release which increases the temperature and decreases the force $`F(T)j_c(T)`$. A complete solution of the buckling instability in type-II superconductors with high critical current density should therefore include a self-consistent treatment of the magnetic field and temperature variations.

For a rough estimate of the decrease of the force $`F(T)`$ we assume here that $`j_c(T)(T_cT)`$, the critical temperature is $`T_cT_0`$, and the heating of the strip is adiabatic. In this case we find that a sudden tilt to an angle $`\theta _m`$ leads to

$$\frac{F(T)F(T_0)}{F(T_0)}\frac{j_cwB_d}{C(T_0)T_c}\frac{\theta _m^2}{2}.$$
(16)   
Combining Eqs. (10), (13), and (16) we find that self-heating affects the buckling instability threshold if $`C(T_0)T_cj_cwB_c`$, which results in $`T_03`$K for a heat capacity $`C(T)7\times T^3`$J/Km<sup>3</sup> .

The temperature dependence of $`F(T)`$ may cause oscillations of the strip. Indeed, a sudden buckling leads to a heat pulse increasing the temperature $`T`$ and decreasing the force $`F(T)`$. If because of the temperature increase the force $`F(T)`$ falls below the buckling threshold $`F_b`$ then the strip straightens and the next instability occurs after the strip has cooled down.

In summary, we have shown that a strong magnetic field applied perpendicular to a cantilevered superconductor strip will lead to Euler buckling of this strip. We give the threshold field at which this elastic instability occurs. During buckling, the effective applied field at the tip of the strip decreases due to tilting. As a consequence, the buckling force is reduced. This feedback mechanism may lead to mechanical oscillations of the strip and its magnetization, which depend on the magnetic and thermal relaxation times of the specific experiment. At sufficiently low temperatures this sudden buckling may trigger a periodic series of flux-jump instabilities which should show in the magnetization curve.

R.G.M. acknowledges numerous stimulating discussions with Dr. A. Gerber and support from the Max-Planck-Institut für Metallforschung.