## Superconducting properties variation with A15 composition in Nb3Sn

## Yingxu Li a) and Yuanwen Gao

Key Laboratory of Mechanics on Environment and Disaster in Western China, The Ministry of Education of China, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, P. R. China

Department of Mechanics and Engineering Science, College of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Lanzhou University,

Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, P. R. China a)

Corresponding author: liyx2010@lzu.edu.cn; Tel: 0086 931 891 4359; Fax: 0086 931 891 4561.

PACS: 74.70.Ad; 74.25.fc; 74.20.Fg.

Abstract :  We  extend  the  Ginzburg-Landau-Abrikosov-Gor'kov  (GLAG)  theory  to  account  for  the variation of the upper critical field c2 H with Sn content in A15-type Nb3Sn. c2 H at the vicinity of the critical  temperature c T is  related  quantitatively  to  the  electrical  resistivity,  specific  heat  capacity coefficient  and c T ,  with  inclusion  of  the  electron-phonon  coupling  correction,  Pauli  paramagnetic limiting  and  martensitic  phase  transformation  of  A15  lattices. c2 H near c T is  then  extrapolated  to c2 (0)  at temperature 0K, and H c2 (0)  versus tin content agrees well with experiment results. We find H that, as Sn content gradually approaches the stoichiometry, Nb3Sn undergoes a transition from the dirty limit to clean limit, split by the phase transformation boundary. The H T -phase boundary and the pinning force show different behaviors in the cubic and tetragonal phase. Applying the theoretical formulas in technical Nb3Sn wires, we obtain the dependence of the composition gradient on the superconducting properties variation in the A15 layer, as well as the curved tail at vicinity of c2 H in the Kramer plot of the  Nb3Sn  wire.  This  gives  a  better  understanding  of  the  inhomogeneous-composition  inducing discrepancy between the results by the state-of-art scaling laws and experiments.

Keywords: Upper critical field; Composition inhomogeneity; Superconductivity; A15 type Nb3Sn.

## 1. Introduction

At  present,  conventional  low-temperature  superconductors  such  as  Nb3Sn  have  been  extensively  applied  in high-energy and nuclear physics, as well as in magnetic resonance imaging systems [1]. Inhomogeneity of Sn content is inevitable in practical Nb3Sn conductors, due to the high vapor pressure of Sn at the formation temperature of the A15 phase in a solid-state diffusion reaction [2, 3]. The tin variation in a conductor covers nearly the entire A15 phase field of binary  Nb 1 Sn β β -with 0.18 ~ 0.255  [4]. In a Nb3Sn conductor, the Sn gradient across the A15 layer has a β = remarkable impact on the local variation of the superconducting properties. Experiments show that, the upper critical field c2 B varies almost linearly at ~5T per at% between 19.5% and ~24 at% Sn, and the transition temperature c T

versus  tin  concentration β also  exhibits  a  linear  relation  within  nearly  the  entire  A15  phase  field  [3].  When β approaching stoichiometry of Nb3Sn, 24at% , β ≈ c T (or c2 B ) versus β no longer keeps the linear relationship due to the lattice softening (decreasing in phonon frequency) [5], which means the varying Sn content leads to the spontaneous cubic-tetragonal  phase  transformation  of  A15  lattices.  Recent  experiment  [6]  also  investigates  the  stress-induced transformation behaviors at low temperatures for polycrystalline Ti-51.8Ni (at.%) specimens. The alloying addition (Ti and/or Ta), which is introduced in most modern high-field Nb3Sn conductors for increasing the electrical resistivity, suppressing the martensitic phase transformation and thus raising c2 B , also be approximately linear with the Sn content β [7]. As for other additives, the ZrO2 precipitates in Nb3Sn wires could refine Nb3Sn grain size such that change the pinning  behavior  [8].  Recent  experiments  also  demonstrate  a  strong  correlation  between  the  composition  and  the superconducting properties in YBa2Cu3O7-x films [9].

For Nb3Sn wires, the scaling law and the experiment show a disagreement in the field dependence of the pinning force at high reduced fields [10]. One of the reasons could be the inhomogeneity of microstructure and composition [10]. This also explains the observation that the scaling field lies below the experimental c2 B of Nb3Sn wires. In fact, the scaling field for the critical current reflects the average properties over the wire volume; it thus relates to the local variation of the critical field dependent on the composition gradient [11]. Cooley and the coauthors simulate the effect of Sn composition gradients on the superconducting properties of powder-in-tube (PIT) Nb3Sn strand, with an ideal structure  modelled by concentric shells with varying Sn content [7]. They found that different  Sn  profiles  have  a pronounced effect on the irreversibility fields defined by the extrapolation of Kramer plots K H ,  and  also  that  Sn gradients reduce the elementary pinning force, K H and the critical current density c J [7].

The  temperature  dependence  of  the  upper  critical  field c2 ( )  in  inhomogeneous  Nb3Sn  conductors,  as  the H T field-temperature  phase  boundary,  is  comprehensively  investigated  by  Godeke et  al .  [2].  It  is  concluded  that,  the complete field-temperature phase boundary can be described with the simplest form of the Maki-DeGennes (MDG) relation, and independent of compositional variation, measuring technique, criterion for the critical field and strain state [2].

Various experiments have recently been conducted to investigate the dependence of the superconductivity and magnetic  properties  of 3 Nb Sn samples  on  Sn  content  and  disorder  [12-14].  The  underlying  physics  for  the superconducting  properties  variation  with  the  A15  composition  in  Nb3Sn  is  however  still  not  very  clear.  The already-existing physical formulas for this dependence are insufficient for  describing  the  state-of-art  experimental results of binary Nb3Sn samples and practical Nb3Sn wires. As for practical engineering significance, describing the superconducting properties dependence on the A15  composition  in  theory  will  facilitate  the  understanding  of  the optimization for the critical current density c J , since tin composition and possible additives are important for the very high c J now achieved in commercial strands [15, 16].

In  this  paper,  we  extend  the  Ginzburg-Landau-Abrikosov-Gor'kov  (GLAG)  theory  to  account  for  the  A15 composition dependence of the superconducting properties in Nb3Sn. In this theory, the occurrence of c2 H is due to the

breaking of orbital pair and the Pauli paramagnetic limiting. Two scattering mechanisms should be considered in type-II superconductors like Nb3Sn: electron-transport scattering by impurity (disorder) and spin-orbit scattering. As for A15 Nb3Sn, composition inhomogeneity and its deviation from stoichiometry may cause defect and site disorder in Nb3Sn  lattices  [4],  which  contribute  most  to  the  scattering  by  impurity.  Based  on  this  physical  picture, c2 H is correlated to the superconductivity parameters (the coherence length, the London penetration depth and etc.) as well as the scattering characteristics (the mean free path of electron transporting). As for the strong-coupling superconductor like Nb3Sn, one should include the correction for electron-phonon interaction to the weak-coupling BCS value. Since the  microscopic  parameters  mentioned  above  cannot  be  determined  directly,  we  correlate  them  to  the  transition temperature, the normal-state resistivity and the coefficient of electronic heat capacity. The three material parameters have been extensively measured as a function of tin content [3, 4, 17, 18]. In this  manner,  we  can  determine  the superconducting properties variation with composition concentration. The following section will present the detail.

## 2. Upper critical field variation with composition concentration

## 2.1. Upper critical field at vicinity of superconducting transition temperature

The best quality Nb3Sn samples, with highest transition temperature c T 's and resistance ratios ( (300K) / (20K) ), have very narrow resistive transitions [18]. The transitions tend to broaden in high fields. RRR ρ ρ = Measured ternary PIT wire also exhibits a narrow transition at a wide range of fields and temperatures [2]. At the vicinity of c T , the upper critical fields c2 ( )  are thus nearly the same, and independent of the selected critical-state H T criterion. We are then allowed to determine c2 H near c T uniquely. The resistivities ρ near c T are approximated as c ( ) , measured at temperatures just above T ρ c T , and the coefficient of electronic heat capacity γ remains a constant which satisfies the low-temperature heat capacity formula without undergoing a specific heat jump.

In  the  microscopic  physical  concept,  the  scattering  of  impurity  (Appendix  A  and  Fig.  A1)  enters  into  the superconductivity of type II superconductors by changing the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) parameter κ at the vicinity of c T . We have κ in two limiting cases, clean c 1 ( ) ( ) ( )  without scattering effect and T T T κ κ χ = dirty dirty c 2 ( ) ( ) ( ) T T T κ κ χ = relevant  to  scattering,  where clean c L 0 ( ) 0.96 (0) / T κ δ ξ ≈ and dirty c L ( ) 0.72 (0) / T l κ δ = (see  Appendix  B  for  GLAG description of the superconductivity parameters). Here, L (0)  is the London penetration depth of the magnetic field at δ 0K. 0 ξ is the standard coherence length. l is the mean free path of electron transporting. clean κ and dirty κ refer to the clean limit ( 0 l ξ &lt;&lt; ) and dirty limit ( 0 l ξ &gt;&gt; ), respectively. 1 ( )  and T χ 2 ( )  represent the temperature dependence T χ of κ for  the  clean  limit  and  dirty  limit,  respectively;  calculations  show  that  they  vary  little  with T near c T , 1 2 ( ) ( ) 1 [19]. T T χ χ ≈ ≈

In light of the classic proposal [18, 20], the superconductivity parameters L (0) , δ 0 ξ and the scattering parameter l involved in the GL parameter κ can be linked to three independent material parameters, the transport scattering

resistivity ρ ,  the  low-temperature  coefficient  of  electronic  heat  capacity γ and  the  superconducting  transition temperature c T . Assuming a spherical Fermi surface and isotropic metal, we are allowed to use the electron conduction formula Eq. (A1) and the electron heat capacity relation Eq. (C1) in the GLAG description of the superconductivity parameters (Appendix C), and then express l , 0 ξ , L (0) , δ clean κ and dirty κ as a function of ρ , γ and c T , Eqs. (C15) -(C19). Including the correction for the anisotropy in Nb3Sn (Appendix D), one must consider the change of Fermi surface shape from the isotropic model, which leads to the corrected expressions, Eqs. (D3)-(D6).

FIG. 1. Variations of material parameters c T , ρ , γ , D θ and  2 B c (0) / ( )  with Sn content k T ∆ β in the A15 range of binary  Nb 1 Sn β β -.  The  experimental  data  are  extracted  from  [3].  The  solid  lines  represent  the  global  fits  to  the experimental data in the A15 range.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0353v4-figure-cb26a126-63a3-4313-a68a-4856f32a7102.jpg)

Let us consider the dependences of c T , ρ and γ with Sn content β .  Experiments [3] show that c T variation with β is essentially linear up to ~24 at% ; while between 24 and 25 at% Sn content, c T versus β has a saturation, Fig. 1. The A15 type lattice undergoes a spontaneous cubic-tetragonal transformation in this range. The lattice softening, as one of the consequences, implies a decreasing in the lattice stiffness ( D B D k ω θ =  ) such that it reduces c T according to

McMillan c T equation [Eq. (6)]. The normal-state resistivity ρ ,  as  measured just above c T ,  decreases moderately with  increase  of β within  18~24  at%.  Approaching 25 at% , β = ( )  exhibits  an  obviously  stronger  decrease. ρ β Below 24 at%, the coefficient of electronic heat capacity, γ , changes linearly with β by ~1.5mJ -2 1 K mol -⋅ ⋅ per at% Sn. Note that resistivity measurements [21] also show pressure-induced resistivity saturation in Fe17wt%Si. Following the treatment to the experimental data in [3], we use global fits to the experimental c T , γ and ρ versus β in  the entire A15 range (Fig. 1 and Table 1),

$$T _ { c }, \ \gamma \text{ or } \rho = \begin{cases} a _ { 1 } \beta + b _ { 1 }, & \text{ linear fit}, \\ a _ { 2 } \beta ^ { 3 } + b _ { 2 } \beta ^ { 2 } + c _ { 2 } \beta + d _ { 2 }, \text{ cubic fit}. \end{cases}$$

TABLE 1. Material parameters variation with Sn content β [at.%].

|                       | Linear fitting   | ( 1 1 a b χ β = + )                     |         |        |
|-----------------------|------------------|-----------------------------------------|---------|--------|
| χ                     | 1 a              | 1 b                                     |         |        |
| γ                     | 1.3473           | -20.983                                 |         |        |
| D θ                   | -14.018          | 584.94                                  |         |        |
| B c 2 (0) / ( ) k T ∆ | 0.24043          | -1.2087                                 |         |        |
|                       | Cubic fitting    | ( 3 2 2 2 2 2 a b c d χ β β β = + + + ) |         |        |
| χ                     | 2 a              | 2 b                                     | 2 c     | 2 d    |
| c T                   | -0.065923        | 4.3157                                  | -91.612 | 641.31 |
| ρ                     | -0.021449        | 1.2923                                  | -26.735 | 196.6  |

We are now ready to calculate the dependence of the superconducting characteristic lengths L (0) , δ 0 ξ and l with the Sn concentration β , by substituting Eq. (1) into Eqs. (D4), (D5) and (D6). The London penetration depth L (0)  increases with Sn content, while the coherence length δ 0 ξ is reduced, Fig. 2. L (0)  and δ 0 ξ are roughly with the same order of magnitude over the A15 range. By comparing the coherence length 0 ξ and the electronic mean free path l , one may distinguish the clean limit, the dirty limit and the intermediate state at any A15 composition. At lower Sn content, 0 ξ maintains rather high value compared to l ; but this difference is mitigated as 0 ξ continues to decrease and l increase, for rising β until the phase transformation boundary. In the tetragonal phase range, 0 ξ is approximately equal  to  or  even  lower  than l .  This  implies  that,  as  Sn  content  gradually  approaches  the  stoichiometry,  Nb3Sn undergoes a transition from the 'dirty' limit ( 0 l ξ &gt;&gt; )  to the 'clean' limit ( 0 l ξ &lt;&lt; ), and the phase transformation boundary may be taken as the boundary of this transition. In Fig. 2, we also presents the variation of GL parameter κ with tin content, calculated by Eqs. (C19) and (D3). κ in the two limiting cases, clean κ and dirty κ , have the opposite change with Sn content; their change nearly counteract one another in the cubic phase range. While in the tetragonal phase range, dirty κ exhibits a more severe decrease compared to the increase in clean κ .  Thus, clean dirty κ =κ κ + varies little in the cubic phase range, but decreases largely in the tetragonal phase.

FIG. 2. Composition dependence of the London penetration depth L (0) , coherence length δ 0 ξ and electronic mean free path l (Top), and the GL parameter κ (Bottom).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0353v4-figure-dffbb967-28c8-49ee-b64a-cf3f2cf09924.jpg)

The magnetic properties of type II superconductors gives c2 c 2 H H κ = at the vicinity of c T , where c H is the thermodynamic critical field  [22].  Combining  this  with  the  expressions κ and c H ,  Eqs.  (C19),  (C20)  and  (D3), renders the upper critical field c2 H in the clean limit and the dirty limit, Eqs. (C14) and (D7) (see Appendix C and D for detail). Thus, c2 H at the intermediate 0 / l ξ can be obtained by summing c2,clean H and c2,dirty H ,

$$H _ { c 2 } = C _ { 1 } \chi _ { 1 } ( T ) T _ { c } ^ { 2 } ( 1 - T / T _ { c } ) \gamma _ { m j } ^ { 2 } + C _ { 2 } \chi _ { 2 } ( T ) T _ { c } ( 1 - T / T _ { c } ) \gamma _ { m j } \rho _ { \Omega m }.$$

Here, 8 1/3 1 2 2/3 2 1 B F 1.979 10 ( / ) C ce k n S S π ---= ×  and 6 1 1 2 B 1.356 10 C cek π ---= × in  which  the  physical  constants  are listed  in  Table  A1.  The  involved  three  material  parameters c T , mJ γ and Ω m ρ as  well  as  their  variations  with  the composition concentration in A15 Nb3Sn have been widely measured [3], Eq. (1) and Fig. 1. Thus, substituting Eq. (1) into Eq. (2), one finds the dependence of the upper critical field c2 H with Sn content. Note that the above formulas are valid at the vicinity of the superconducting transition temperature c T .

## 2.2. Corrections to upper critical field for electron-phonon interaction

A15  type  Nb3Sn  is  a  strong-coupling  superconductor  such  that  the  corrections  for  electron-phonon  (EP) interaction are required. We obtain the upper critical field, Eq. (2), based on the breaking and scattering of cooper pairs

in a weak-coupled interaction. Equation (2) is corrected for EP interaction in two ways: renormalizing the material parameters, and introducing correction parameters to superconductivity itself [18, 23, 24].

We determine which material parameter should be renormalized in terms of Grimvall principle [23]. Both the density of states and the wave function are renormalized by EP interaction, and the electron mass in the absence of EP interactions  is  replaced  by  a  renormalized  electron  mass b ep (1 ) ,  where  b  refers  to  band  values.  The m m λ = + electronic density of states ( )  at Fermi level is renormalized by an enhancement factor 1 υ µ ep λ + where ep λ is the EP interaction  parameter,  and  thus  the  coefficient  of  the  electronic  heat  capacity mJ γ is  enhanced  by  (1 ep mJ ) λ γ + . However, mJ γ is not changed for EP renormalization in Nb3Sn, since there are no EP renormalization effects in the change of the Fermi surface dimensions on alloy and the change in ( )  always depends on the Fermi level and υ µ follows almost rigidly any shift in Fermi energy. The electrical resistivity Ω m ρ [Eq. (A1)] is not renormalized, since the renormalization of the electron mass m exactly cancels against the renormalization of the scattering matrix element as it enters the averaged time τ between collisions. We find that, these are implicitly followed by Devantay at el. [25], who do not take renormalizations on mJ γ and Ω m ρ . Thus, we take the only EP correction in Nb3Sn by multiplying a factor c2 ( )  for H T η c2 H ,

$$H _ { c 2 } = \eta _ { H _ { c } } ( T ) [ C _ { 1 } \chi _ { 1 } ( T ) T _ { c } ^ { 2 } ( 1 - T / T _ { c } ) \gamma _ { m } ^ { \ 2 } + C _ { 2 } \chi _ { 2 } ( T ) T _ { c } ( 1 - T / T _ { c } ) \gamma _ { m } \rho _ { \Omega m } ] \,.$$

Here, c2 ( )  is the ratio of the strong-coupled magnetic pair-breaking parameter to the weak-coupled BCS value, and H T η can be evaluated by the detailed EP spectrum [26].

If c T and the energy gap (0)  at 0K are determined experimentally, we have the strong-coupling correction ∆ (0) η ∆ to (0) , ∆ 1 (0) B c meas B c BCS B c meas B c meas (2 (0) / ) / (2 (0) / ) (2 / ) (2 (0) / ) 0.283(2 (0) / ) k T k T k T k T η ∆ π η -= ∆ ∆ = ∆ ≈ ∆ in  which the  BCS  equation B c (0) ( / ) k T π η ∆ = with 1.78  has  been  used  for  the  second  equal  sign.  The  characteristic η = (equivalent Einstein) frequency 0 [erg]  is then determined using [18] (Appendix E) ω

$$\eta _ { _ { \Delta ( 0 ) } } = 1 + 5. 3 ( \omega _ { 0 } k _ { _ { B } } ^ { - 1 } T _ { _ { c } } ^ { - 1 } ) ^ { - 2 } \ln ( \omega _ { 0 } k _ { _ { B } } ^ { - 1 } T _ { _ { c } } ^ { - 1 } ) \,.$$

The EP correction to c2 H , c2 c ( ) , can thus be obtained, H T η

$$\eta _ { H _ { c 2 } } ( T _ { c } ) & = 1 + \pi ^ { 2 } ( \omega _ { 0 } k _ { B } ^ { - 1 } T _ { c } ^ { - 1 } ) ^ { - 2 } [ 0. 6 \ln ( \omega _ { 0 } k _ { B } ^ { - 1 } T _ { c } ^ { - 1 } ) - 0. 2 6 ] \,.$$

The another correction parameter (not involved in EP correction for Nb3Sn), the EP interaction parameter ep λ , is determined by the McMillan strong-coupled c T equation [24]

$$T _ { c } = & \frac { \theta _ { \mathfrak { D } } } { 1. 4 5 } \exp [ - \frac { 1. 0 4 ( 1 + \lambda _ { c p } ) } { \lambda _ { c p } - \mu ^ { ^ { * } } ( 1 + 0. 6 2 \lambda _ { c p } ) } ] \,,$$

where D θ is  the  Debye temperature and * µ is  the  pseudo potential parameter for electron Coulomb repulsion (for Nb3Sn * 0.2 ).  Note that to obtain a more accurate µ ≈ ep λ for  Nb3Sn one should use the Allen-Dynes c T formula, which  extends  the  application  range  0 ep 1.5  of  Eq.  (6)  to  a  large λ &lt; &lt; ep λ value.  Experiments  give ep 1.8  for λ ≈

Nb3Sn. However, the available experimental data is D θ and not the characteristic phonon frequency required in the Allen-Dynes c T formula. Thus we still apply Eq. (6) at the cost of some accuracy.

The corrections for EP interaction require the information of the Debye temperature D θ and the energy gap (0) ∆ at 0K, Eq. (3). Unfortunately, the available data are reported at very limited Sn content. We use linear fits to D θ and B c (2 (0) / )  according to the identification [3] of the gradual changes from strong coupling to weak coupling with k T ∆ decreasing β , Fig. 1.

FIG. 3. EP correction parameters, the Debye temperature D θ and energy gap (0) , versus tin content. ∆

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0353v4-figure-9c8d960c-f58b-4d9a-a3f7-fac1fd000c9e.jpg)

Figure 3 presents the calculated EP correction parameters in terms of Eqs. (1), (5) and (6). The result of the strong-coupling correction c2 H η to 2 c H approximately equals to the calculated value [18] of 1.17 at c 17.8K . The T = calculated EP interaction parameter ep λ at the stoichiometry 25at% Sn is slightly lower than the generally accepted value of 1.8 [27]. However, at larger derivation from the stoichiometry, the calculation differs relatively larger from the value of 1.8.

## 2.3. Upper critical field at temperature 0K

In the following we will concern the behavior of c2 H at temperatures far from c T , where the GLAG theory does not apply. This will generalize the above results near c T [e.g. Eq. (3)] to a wide temperature range and up to 0K. The temperature dependence of c2 H in the scaling law for Nb3Sn is determined by the Maki-de Gennes (MDG) relation [28],

$$H _ { c 2 } ( T ) = H _ { c 2 } ( 0 ) [ 1 - ( T / T _ { c } ) ^ { \lambda } ] \,.$$

Recent measurements suggest 1.52 ; this value has a universe applicability to a wide range of off-stoichiometric λ ≈ samples and different methods of determining c2 H [11]. This value of λ is also the power determined from the MDG theory and Eliashberg theory [28, 29]. Godeke et al. demonstrate that the MDG description (7) is universal for c2 ( ) H T relation of Nb3Sn independent of the compositional variation [2, 11]. Recent experiment shows that this relation is applicable  for  Nb3Sn  with  or  without  undergoing  the  cubic-to-tetragonal  transition  [12].  We  are  then  allowed  to

extrapolate c2 H at vicinity of c T to c2 (0)  at temperature 0K for any Sn content. If H c2 0 ( )  with H T 0 c T T → has been obtained using Eq. (3), then one can deduce c2 (0)  as H

$$H _ { c 2 } ( 0 ) = H _ { c 2 } ( T _ { 0 } ) / [ 1 - ( T _ { 0 } / T _ { c } ) ^ { \lambda } ] \,.$$

We assume that EP interaction correction to c2 H far from c T is the same as that for c2 H near c T .

WHH equation, derived from Gor'kov superconductivity theory (Green function method) and taking into account electron spin and spin-orbital scattering [30], is capable of giving rather satisfactory descriptions for c2 H behavior of a wide range of commercial and experimental Nb3Sn wires. This equation can be written as a simple form

$$H _ { c 2 } ( 0 ) = 0. 6 9 H _ { c 2 } ^ { \, ^ { \prime } } T _ { c } \,,$$

where c c2 c2 ( ) T H dH dT ′ = -[14]. Substituting the derivative of Eq. (3) into Eq. (9) and then comparing to Eq. (2), one finds c2 c2 0 0 c (0) 0.69 ( ) / (1 / ) . H H T T T = -It  is  further  shown  that  the  only  difference  between  WHH  equation  and MDG relation is the power of  ( 0 c / ) ; Since T T 0 c / 1 this difference has very limited impact on the T T → c2 (0)  values. H This is consistent with the viewpoint [30, 31] that MDG relation is a good approximation to Werthamer theory.

FIG. 4. Upper critical field c2 B variation as a function of tin content β at: the vicinity of c T (Top) and 0K temperature (Bottom). MDG: extrapolation of c2 c ( )  with MDG relation, Eqs. (1), (2) and (8); EP+MDG: extrapolation of EP H T corrected c2 c ( )  with MDG, Eqs. (1), (2), (3) and (8); PPL: Pauli paramagnetic limit, Eqs. (1)   and (10); EP+PPL: H T EP corrected Pauli paramagnetic limit, Eqs. (1) and (11); □ :  Experiment dataset 1 [3]; △ : Experiment dataset 2 [12].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0353v4-figure-171551d3-e8ac-4aaa-b53c-f441129b88b6.jpg)

We now calculate the upper critical field c2 B near c T using Eqs. (1), (2) and (3), Fig. 4. The temperature 0 T near c T is designated as 0 c 0.9 T T = . One finds the dependence of c2 0 ( )  on Sn content B T β with/without the EP correction. The results of c2 0 ( )  are then substituted into the MDG relation, Eq. (8), to obtain B T c2 B at 0K, c2 (0) . Since the WHH B relation is equivalent to the MDG relation, we do not implement it redundantly. The calculation results are impressive (Fig. 4): c2 (0)  obtained by B c2 0 ( )  with EP correction and then extrapolated by MDG relation (EP+MDG) is in good B T agreement with the experiments. This validates the above GLAG descriptions, and also the MDG description for the temperature dependence of the upper critical field at any composition over the A15 phase field.

We find that, the cubic-tetragonal phase boundary at ~24at% Sn separates the increasing c2 B versus β from the decreasing c2 B versus β . As shown both in the experimental c2 (0)  versus tin content and the EP+MDG curve, the B maximum ~29T of c2 (0)  appears at ~24at% Sn, and at both sides of the peak, B c2 (0)  decreases as tin content deviates B more from 24at% Sn. In the tetragonal phase, c2 (0)  has a more serious reduction; however, at the vicinity of 24at% Sn, B c2 (0)  have nearly the same values at both sides of 24at%Sn, namely in the cubic phase range and the tetragonal phase B range.  This  is  consistent  with  the  experiment  by  Zhou et  al. [12],  their  tetragonal  phase  [ c2 (0.3K) 29.1T  at B = 24.6 0.2 at% ] and cubic phase [ β = ± c2 (0.3K) 29.0T  at B = 23.7 0.4 at% ] samples exhibiting almost identical β = ± c2 (0) 29 0.2 T . We infer that, this coincidence occurs in a limited range, where the tin content deviates small from B ≈ ± the phase transformation boundary; for a large deviation there is a stronger depression of c2 (0)  in the tetragonal phase. B This phenomenon is caused by the underlying relationship between the superconductivity of Nb3Sn and the related material  parameters;  physical  properties  of  the  latter  is  continually  changed  by  the  spontaneous  cubic-tetragonal transformation.

FIG. 5. Upper critical field c2 (0)  in the clean and dirty limit case. B

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0353v4-figure-989df8ca-ce02-4438-afed-9b8379849ac9.jpg)

We now consider the upper critical field c2 (0)  decomposing into the component in the clean limit case [Eqs. B (D7)] and that in the dirty limit case [Eqs. (C14)], c2 c2, clean c2, dirty (0) B B B = + . One finds that c2, clean B increases as β raised, but for contrast the dirty one increases up to 24 at% and then deceases drastically, Fig. 5. As we already know, Nb3Sn undergoes a transition from the 'dirty' limit to 'clean' limit as β increased. By comparing Figs. 5 and 6, we

find that, within 18at%~24at%, the component c2, dirty B dominates in c2 (0)  and determines the trend of B c2 (0)  curve. B Once crossing over the phase transformation boundary, B takes over (0)  variation with B β .

c2, clean c2

## 2.4. Limit for upper critical field: Pauli paramagnetic limit

Preferential Pauli-paramagnetic lowering of normal-state free energy should place a limit on the orbital-pair-breaking c2 H of filamentary high-field superconductor [32],

$$H _ { c 2 } ( 0 ) \leq H _ { p } ( 0 ) \equiv 1. 8 4 \times 1 0 ^ { 4 } T _ { c } \ [ \text{Oe} ] \,.$$

This equation is a rough estimation for the limit field p (0) , since the assumption that the zero temperature difference H between  superconducting  and  normal-state  magnetizations  be  at  least  equal  to  the  Pauli  conduction-electron-spin magnetization, is somewhat  contrary  to  experimental results [33]. The correction to p (0)  for EP interaction is given H by

$$H _ { p } ( 0 ) = 1. 8 4 \times 1 0 ^ { 4 } \eta _ { _ { H _ { c } } } ( 0 ) ( 1 + \lambda _ { _ { \infty p } } ) ^ { 1 / 2 } T _ { _ { c } } \ [ \text{Oe} ] \,,$$

where c 2 1 1 2 1 1 c 0 B c 0 B c ( ) 1 ( ) [1.1ln( ) 0.14]  assuming H T k T k T η π ω ω -----= + + c ( )  is independent with temperature [18]. H T η

In Fig. 4, PPL (Pauli paramagnetic limit), Eqs. (1) and (10), slightly lowers the EP+MDG curve after ~23at% Sn, and it thus provides a good boundary with the experimental data before the phase transformation. This justifies that, PPL is independent with the EP interaction in Nb3Sn. In Fig. 4, EP corrected PPL [Eqs. (1) and (11)] is much higher than the experimental curve and has no restriction to c2 (0) . This is consistent with the view by Orlando B et al. [18], who  demonstrate  that  EP  corrected  PPL  has  nothing  to  do  with  Nb3Sn  superconductivity,  since  the  strong  EP interaction in Nb3Sn increases largely the Pauli limiting field above its BCS value and the spin-orbit scattering is less involved. This explains why we only take the impurity scattering into account while exclude the spin-orbit scattering.

## 3. Temperature dependence of upper critical field

FIG. 6. Temperature dependence c2 ( )  at varying Sn content in the range of the cubic phase at increment of 1at% B T from  18at%  to  24at%  Sn.  The  insert  figure  represents  the  situation  in  the  tetragonal  phase  for  0.2at%  increment between 24.2at% and 25.4at% Sn.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0353v4-figure-60e94d00-cf8b-4b0b-ac46-df3d860c1369.jpg)

TABLE 2. Calculated H-T phase boundary and comparison to experiments.

| Samples                             | [at%] β    | c ( )[ μΩ cm] T ρ ⋅   | 2 [mJ / molK ] γ   | c [K] T   | c2 (0)[T] B   |
|-------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------|--------------------|-----------|---------------|
| Thin films by Orlando et al.        | -/23.59 a) | 35/35.0               | -/10.8             | 16.0/16.4 | 29.5/30.8     |
| [18]                                | -/24.94    | 9/9.1                 | -/12.6             | 17.4/18.2 | 26.3/25.2     |
| Bulk by Godeke et al. [2]           | -/24.33    | 22(50%)/22.0          | -/11.8             | 16.5/17.6 | 27.4/30.1     |
| Bulk by Godeke et al. [2]           | -/24.33    | 22(90%)/22.0          | -/11.8             | 16.6/17.6 | 28.3/30.1     |
| Polycrystal by Guritanu et al. [17] | -/24.46    | -/19.4                | 13.7/11.8          | 17.8/17.8 | 25.0/29.4     |

a) Before the oblique line is the experimental value and after that presents the calculated value.

Now, we focus on the temperature dependence of c2 B at any A15 composition concentration, Eqs. (1), (3), (7) and (8). In Fig. 6, the temperature dependence c2 ( )  increases at any temperature as raising the Sn content B T β within the cubic phase range. The tetragonal phase exhibits a reverse behavior, c2 B at  0K  and  at  most  of  other  temperatures increasing with reduced Sn content. Orlando et al. show that in thin films c2 (0)  is increased with B ρ rising, however c T is suppressed [2, 18]. For c ( ) 35 μΩ cm T ρ = ⋅ , there exists c2 (0) 29.5T B = and c 16.0K T = ; while c ( ) 9 μΩ cm  leads  to T ρ = ⋅ c2 (0) 26.3T  and B = c 17.4K  [18].  This  corresponds  to  the  calculated  composition T = dependence in the tetragonal phase range, Figs. 1 and 6. The measured bulk needle by Godeke et al. exhibits a similar behavior: c ( ) 22 μΩ cm  at T ρ = ⋅ a 50%  normal-state resistance criterion corresponds to c2 (0) 27.4T B = and c 16.5K ,  and  at  a  90%  criterion T = c2 (0) 28.3T  and B = c 16.6K  [2].  A  summary  of  the  calculations  and  the T = comparisons to experiments is given in Table 2. Through the theoretical expressions, we also figure out the material parameter that is undetermined by experiments, Table 2.

FIG. 7. Temperature dependence c2 ( )  for two homogenous off-stoichiometric Nb3Sn samples, and comparison to B T experiments [12].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0353v4-figure-b7c0c884-fd1a-4996-bf8f-b998fa866476.jpg)

We also calculate c2 ( )  for two rather highly homogenous Nb3Sn samples, Fig. 7. Their material parameters, B T reproduced from [12], are listed in the insert of the figure. Note that in the absence of the raw experimental value of γ , we infer it from Eq. (1). Calculations show that, the dirtier sample (25Sn-1800) with the larger resistivity ( 31.3 μΩ cm ) ⋅ always exhibits a higher c2 B at any temperature while c T is suppressed. This follows the above observation by Orlando et al. [18] and Godeke et al. [2]. The little discrepancy from the experiment may be attributed to the absence of the raw data of γ and the greater uncertainty in experimentally determining  the  composition  concentration  (fluctuation  of ±0.7at% Sn for the dirtier sample compared to ±0.2at% for the cleaner one).

## 4. Flux pinning force and Kramer plot

We now extend  the  method  for  the  upper  critical  field c2 B to  account  for  the  pinning  behavior  at  different composition concentrations. Using the flux pinning model proposed by Kramer [34], the pinning force per volume for Nb3Sn conductors, p ( ) , is given by [11] F B

$$F _ { p } ( B ) = J _ { c } B = 1 2. 8 \kappa ^ { - 2 } B _ { c 2 } ^ { \ 2. 5 } ( B / B _ { c 2 } ) ^ { 0. 5 } ( 1 - B / B _ { c 2 } ) ^ { 2 } \ [ \text{GN} \cdot \mathbb { m } ^ { - 3 } ] \,,$$

where c J is the  critical  current  density. p ( ) F B is associated  with  Sn  concentration  through  the  composition dependences c2 ( , )  and B T β ( ) ,  which  are  formulated  by  Eqs.  (1),  (3),  (7),  (8),  (C19)  and  (D3).  The  Kramer κ β function 0.5 0.25 K c ( ) f B J B = is linear with the magnetic induction B and can identify c2 B at which K ( ) 0  [11], f B =

$$f _ { _ { K } } ( B ) = J _ { _ { c } } ^ { 0. 5 } B ^ { 0. 2 5 } = 1. 1 \times 1 0 ^ { 5 } \kappa ^ { - 1 } ( B _ { _ { c 2 } } - B ) \, [ A ^ { 0. 5 } \mathbf m ^ { - 1 } T ^ { 0. 2 5 } ] \,.$$

From Fig. 8 we observe a profound influence of the composition concentration on the field dependent pinning force p ( ) . Within the cubic phase range, the increase of Sn content raises the F B p ( )  remarkably and shifts the peak F B in  each p ( )  curve  to  the  high  field  region.  This  is  associated  with  the  composition  dependent  superconducting F B properties. To be specific, the magnitude of c2 B determines the position of the peak in p ( ) ,  while the height of F B p ( )  is related to both F B c2 B and κ , Eq. (12). c2 B in the cubic phase range increases as β rising (Fig. 4) while κ varies little (Fig. 2), thus resulting in the shift of the peak and the increase in the height of p ( ) . This case differs from F B that for the tetragonal phase range, where rising β leads to a drastic decrease in both c2 B and κ . As in Fig. 8, the peak shifts  to  the  left  and  the  height  is  nearly  the  same  (due  to 2 2.5 p c2 ( ) F B B κ -∝ ).  The  experimental  data  of  a  Nb3Sn conductor locate roughly between the calculated p ( )  curves for different Sn contents. This implies that, to describe F B a real Nb3Sn conductor one may consider the composition gradient in the conductor which results in a weighted average of local homogenous composition properties. For Kramer plot, we find its variation consistent with p ( )  for  the F B similar reasons, Fig. 8.

FIG. 8. Effect of composition concentration on the magnetic field dependence of the flux pinning force (Top) and Kramer plot (Bottom). The experiment data are extracted from [28] [11].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0353v4-figure-5486cc89-c5b2-4026-9c25-9fced5636095.jpg)

## 5. Composition gradient effect on practical Nb3Sn wires

In the following we will apply our descriptions for the superconducting properties variation with tin content in the concentric shells model proposed by Cooley et al. [7], to arrive at the real composition dependent behavior in practical Nb3Sn conductors. In the Nb3Sn filament of PIT wires, the A15 layer exists between a central Sn-rich core and a coaxial Nb tube, Fig. 9. This structure is convenient for using a series of concentric shells with varying Sn concentration to simulate the composition inhomogeneity in the wire. The Sn content β varies with the position in the A15 layer [7],

$$\beta = 1 8 + 3. 5 [ 1 - r ^ { N } + ( 1 - r ) ^ { 1 / N } ] \, \left [ \text{at} \% \right ],$$

where N indicates the severity and steepness of the overall gradient and r is the normalized radius of the filament cross section. The radius r is set to be 0 at the A15/Sn interface and reaches its maximum 1 at the Nb/A15 interface. The actual position in this area is counted as 10 5  [ μ m], indicating that the inner radius of the A15 layer is R r = + min 10 μ m and the outer radius is R = max 15 μ m. R =

For PIT  wires, the prefactor of the flux pinning force differs from  the Kramer  model  [Eq.  (13)], 2 0.5 2 3 p c c2 c2 c2 ( ) 0.35 ( / ) (1 / ) [GN m ] F B J B B B B B B -= = -⋅ and 4 0.25 0.5 1 0.25 K c2 c2 ( ) 1.871 10 ( ) [A m T ] f B B B B --= × -. We  can  then link c2 ( , ) B T β and c J to the radius r , and the local magnetic  moment  is  calculated as

2 2 o c [Am ],  where m R tLJ π = t is  the  thickness  of  each  of  the  100  shells,  i.e. max min ( ) / 100  and t R R = -L is  the sample length.

FIG. 9. Distribution of the Sn content β (Top left), pinning force p F (Top right) and magnetic moment o m (Bottom right) on the cross section of PIT wire filament (Bottom left), at temperature T =4.2K. N indicates the severity of the overall gradient.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0353v4-figure-ca05fe10-5afc-4e0c-a887-5dc9a3d2ef2b.jpg)

Figure 9 presents the Sn content variation with the radius r at  different  gradients N .  It  is  found  that,  larger steepness of the overall gradient N has a more drastic decrease near the outer radius (closer to the real situation). The distribution of the magnetic moment o m along the radius r at different applied magnetic fields is also presented in Fig. 9. At any magnetic field B ,  the regions near the Nb/Nb3Sn ( 1) and/or Nb3Sn/Sn ( r = 0 ) interfaces appear no r = magnetic moment and thus loss of superconductivity. The larger region of the loss occurs for the higher magnetic field, with a suppression in the magnitude of magnetic moment. In fact, the magnetic moment is related to the local critical current density and thus the pinning force p ( ) . One can find the Sn content dependence of F B p ( )  from Fig. 8; in the F B cubic phase range, p ( )  is raised with the Sn content increasing at any field, and F B p F for lower Sn content is more probably turns to disappear at higher fields. These are the underlying reasons for the vanishing of the magnetic moment. The tetragonal phase has a similar corresponding relationship. So, the loss of superconductivity near the boundary of A15 layer is mainly associated with the change of the flux-pinning behavior due to the A15 composition variation.

FIG. 10. Effect of the composition gradient on the critical current density (Left) and Kramer function 0.5 0.25 c J B (Right) of PIT wires. The measurements on SMI ternary PIT wire are duplicated from [2]. The Kramer plot with a composition gradient 20  has a positive curvature approaching the experiment. N =

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0353v4-figure-b20d38de-55b6-45f6-a86b-16de9f3b3070.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0353v4-figure-d57e5654-6e54-4813-aef3-33720cbaf9e7.jpg)

Summing the contributions o m from each shell results in the total magnetic moment ot m , which can be measured by magnetometry. The critical current density c J of the wire is then expressed as 3 3 2 c ot max min 3 / [ ( )] [A/m ]  [7]. In Fig. 10, we present the variation of J m L R R π = -c J as a function of the magnetic field B for  different Sn gradients N .  The homogenous sample results are presented to emphasize the effect of the tin gradient. The results of c ( )  allow one to depict the Kramer plot J B k ( ) . The Kramer plot [2] for the measurements f B on a SMI ternary PIT wire exhibits an anomalous curvature 'tail' at the vicinity of c2 B ,  Fig.  10.  Two  calculated homogenous samples with 21at% and 23at% appear no curvature, however, the inhomogeneous samples have a curved k ( )  when approaching f B c2 B . An acceptable agreement with the experiment is found for the conductor with gradient severity N =20. At this point, we quantitatively predicts the positive curvature in the Kramer plot of the PIT wire, emphasizing the importance of the composition inhomogeneity in the superconducting properties of practical Nb3Sn conductors. The composition dependent pinning force and Kramer function explains the disagreement between the results of the scaling laws and the experiments for practical inhomogeneous conductors.

## 6. Conclusions

Although  Nb3Sn  has  been  extensively  used  in  fusion  engineering  area  like  ITER,  the  dependence  of superconductivity with inhomogeneous composition is established incompletely in theory. Based on the GLAG theory frame, we derive a series of expressions for the superconductivity parameters and the upper critical field as a function of the three material parameters. These relations have a complete self-consistent theory basis describing the variation of superconductivity of Nb3Sn with Sn content. The correction for EP interaction are included. The theoretical estimation of c2 (0)  variation with Sn content, provided with the fits to the material parameters, shows an acceptable agreement H with the experiments.

Nb3Sn undergoes a transition from 'dirty' limit ( 0 l ξ  )    to  'clean'  limit  ( 0 l ξ  )  as  Sn  content  gradually approaches the stoichiometry. The change in superconductivity at the vicinity of the critical temperature and in the related material parameters determines the composition dependence of the upper critical field. The MDG description is universal for describing H-T phase boundary over the A15 phase field.

In the cubic phase range, c2 ( )  increases as raising Sn content. There appears an inverse B T c2 ( )  behavior in the B T tetragonal phase range. A significant influence of the composition concentration on p ( )  curves is observed. Within F B the cubic phase range, the increase of Sn content raises the p ( )  remarkably and shifts the peak in each F B p ( )  curve F B to the right side. The peak shifts to the left and the shape is nearly the same in the tetragonal range. This can be explained by the composition dependencies c2 ( , )  and B T β ( ) . κ β

The effect of composition gradient on the superconducting properties of PIT wires is considered by applying the obtained formulas in Cooley's concentric shells model. The loss of superconductivity near the boundary of A15 layer is mainly  associated  with  the  change  of  the  flux-pinning  behavior  due  to  the  A15  composition  variation.  The inhomogeneous conductor with gradient severity N =20 predicts well the curved 'tail' approaching c2 B in the Kramer plot. This implies that the composition inhomogeneity is an important factor in the unusual phenomenon of the practical Nb3Sn conductors.

However, we cannot yet include the effect of the alloying addition (Ti and/or Ta) and the matrix material in a ternary Nb3Sn wire. The composition gradient is an important factor in the unusual phenomenon of practical Nb3Sn conductors but not the unique determinant. The most possible role of the alloying addition taken in Nb3Sn is the scattering impurity (Appendix A), which changes the electrical resistivity deeply. We will include this effect in the future work to increase the practical value of the present theory.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors appreciate the financial supports from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11372120, 11032006  and  11121202),  National  Key  Project  of  Magneto-Restriction  Fusion  Energy  Development  Program (2013GB110002) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (lzujbky-2014-227).

## Appendix A: Scattering by impurity in normal metal

Let us first introduce the concept of a mean free path l ,  which may be expressed as l v τ = if v signifies the averaged velocity (approximated as Fermi velocity F v ) and τ the averaged time between collisions. For a gas of free electrons, electrical conduction can be regarded as the diffusion of electrons under an external force eE . The mean free path l is a distance travelled by the electrons without undergoing collisions, Fig. A1. The electrical conductivity σ is thus associated with τ in the form of

$$\sigma = e ^ { 2 } D \upsilon ( \mu ) = n _ { \epsilon } e ^ { 2 } \tau / m \,,$$

where D is the diffusion coefficient / 3  and D lv = ( )  is the electronic density of states at the Fermi surface [35]. υ µ m is the electron mass, e is the unit charge  and e n is the number of electrons per unit volume. The collision depends on certain scattering processes. If the scattering is arisen from impurities and this interaction is elastic and weak, one can obtain the scattering possibility of a system of electrons in the field of impurity centers with Born approximation and the collision integral [36]; consequently, the collision time τ is obtained as 1 i n τ λ -= where

$$\lambda = ( 4 \hbar { ) } ^ { - 1 } \upsilon ( \mu ) \oint \left | M _ { \ p p ^ { \prime } } ( \theta ) \right | ^ { 2 } ( 1 - \cos \theta ) d \Omega \,,$$

and i n is the number of impurity atoms per unit volume (i.e. impurity concentration). The integration is taken over the surface of Fermi sphere, Ω is the solid angle and θ is the angle between two momentums 0 p ( 2 0 / 2 p m µ = where 0 p is the Fermi momentum and µ is the Fermi energy) and 0 ′ p on the Fermi surface ( p is fixed and ′ p varies with d Ω during integration). ( )  indicates the matrix element of interaction energy of an electron with the impurity. pp M θ ′

## Appendix B: Coherence length, penetration depth and GL parameter

The coherence length ξ indicates a cooper pair coherence between electrons extending to a certain distance in a pure superconductor. ξ is determined as F ~ / ( )  where v T ξ ∆  ( )  is the energy gap in BCS theory [37]. If T ∆ c T T → , then 2 1/2 B c c 3.06[ ( )] k T T T ∆ ≈ -,  where B k is  Boltzmann  constant  (Table  A1)  [19].  Use  is  commonly  made  of  the standard coherence length,

$$\xi _ { _ { 0 } } = \hbar { v } _ { _ { F } } / \pi \Delta ( 0 ) = ( \eta / \pi ^ { 2 } ) \hbar { v } _ { _ { F } } / k _ { _ { B } } T _ { _ { c } } \,.$$

The second equal sign holds since the BCS theory gives [19]

$$k _ { _ { B } } T _ { _ { c } } & = ( 2 \eta / \pi ) \hbar { \omega } _ { _ { D } } \exp ( - 2 / \ g \upsilon )$$

and

$$\Delta ( 0 ) = ( \pi / \eta ) k _ { _ { B } } T _ { _ { c } } \,,$$

where 1.78 . We clarify that, the BCS theory holds true for traditional lowη = c T superconductors, with the isotropic model  of  metal  and  the  weak  coupling  interaction  (i.e. ( ) 1 with  the  electron-phonon  interaction  constant g υ µ &lt;&lt; 3 0 ~ / g p m  ).  These conditions are not always fulfilled. For Nb3Sn with c 4.2K  and T = D 94.5K , one finds ω =  ( ) 0.62  which  dose  not  fulfill g υ µ = ( ) 1 .  Thus,  the  BCS  theory  and  its  extending  results  differ  from g υ µ &lt;&lt; experiment  at  some  extent.  However,  the  disagreement  of  the  theory  is  remarkably  reduced  after  an  appropriate correction [19]. The merit of this theory is the concise physical concepts and brief mathematical representations. The London  penetration  depth  of  the  magnetic  field  in  a  pure  superconductor  is  formulated  as 2 2 1/2 L s ( / 4 ) mc n e δ π = according  to  the  definition 1 L 0 0 H Hdx δ ∞ -= ∫ .  Here, s n is  known  as  the  number  of  superconducting  electrons  per volume  in  contrast  to  the  total  number e n . At  the  vicinity  of c T , there  exists s e c c / ( ) / n n T T T ≈ -upon  the Ginzburg-Landau equations. From the above discussion, one figures out that both L δ and ξ have a dependence of

1/2 c ( ) T T --at c T T → . Hence, the GL parameter κ , defined as the ratio of δ and ξ , tends to a constant  at c T T → [38]. For this purpose, we introduce the GL description of κ ,

$$\kappa = 2 ^ { 3 / 2 } e H _ { c } \delta ^ { 2 } / \hbar { c } \,,$$

and the microscopic descriptions of L ( )  [38], T δ

$$\delta _ { \L } ( T ) = \delta _ { \L } ( 0 ) [ 1 / 2 ( 1 - T / T _ { \epsilon } ) ] ^ { 1 / 2 } \,,$$

where

$$\delta _ { L } ( 0 ) = ( m c ^ { 2 } / 4 \pi n _ { _ { e } } e ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 1 / 2 } \,.$$

TABLE A1. Dimension, unit and constant value of physical quantities (Gaussian units). a)

| Physical quantities                        | Dimension            | Unit                 | Constant value   |
|--------------------------------------------|----------------------|----------------------|------------------|
| Boltzmann constant B k                     | 2 2 1 E L MT T - -   | erg/K                | 16 1.381 10 - ×  |
| Critical temperature c T                   | E T                  | K                    | -                |
| Coefficient of electronic heat capacity γ  | 1 2 2 E L MT T - - - | 3 2 erg cm K - - ⋅ ⋅ | -                |
| Collision time τ                           | T                    | s                    | -                |
| Density of states at Fermi surface ( ) υ µ | 5 1 2 L M T - -      | 1 3 erg cm - - ⋅     | -                |
| Electron mass m                            | M                    | g                    | 28 9.109 10 - ×  |
| Elementary charge e                        | 3/2 1/2 1 L M T -    | esu                  | 10 4.803 10 - ×  |
| Planck constant                           | 2 1 L MT -           | erg s ⋅              | 27 1.055 10 - ×  |
| Electrons number per unit volume e n       | 3 L -                | -3 cm                | 23 2.59 10 ×     |
| Electrical resistivity ρ                   | T                    | s                    | -                |
| Fermi velocity F v                         | 1 LT -               | cm/s                 | -                |
| Flux quantum 0 Φ                           | 3/2 1/2 1 L M T -    | Maxwell              | / c e π         |
| Light velocity in vacuum c                 | 1 LT -               | cm/s                 | 10 2.998 10 ×    |
| Ratio of Fermi surface F / S S             | Unity                | Unity                | 0.35             |
| Upper critical field c2 H                  | 1/2 1/2 1 L M T - -  | Oe                   | -                |
| Upper magnetic induction intensity c2 B    | 1/2 1/2 1 L M T - -  | Gauss                | -                |

a) All the formula derivations use the Gaussian units except for the unit conversion for practical application. L , M ,

T and E T mean the dimension of length, mass, time and temperature, respectively.

Also the thermodynamic critical field c H near c T is formulated as [39]

$$H _ { c } = ( 1 6 \pi p _ { 0 } m / 7 \zeta _ { 3 } h ^ { 3 } ) ^ { 1 / 2 } k _ { B } T _ { c } ( 1 - T / T _ { c } ) \,,$$

where the Riemann zeta function 3 3 1 1.2 . Using Eqs. (B5) and (B7) in Eq. (B4) one finds n n ζ ∞ -= = ∑ ≈

$$\kappa = ( 3 2 / 7 ) ^ { 1 / 2 } \pi ^ { 1 / 2 } \zeta _ { 3 } ^ { - 1 / 2 } \hbar { ^ { - 5 / 2 } } c ^ { - 1 } e k _ { b } m v _ { F } ^ { 1 / 2 } \delta _ { L } ^ { 2 } ( 0 ) T _ { c } \approx 3. 4 5 9 \hbar { ^ { - 5 / 2 } } c ^ { - 1 } e k _ { b } m v _ { F } ^ { 1 / 2 } \delta _ { L } ^ { 2 } ( 0 ) T _ { c } \ \.$$

Substituting 0 ξ for c T by Eq. (B1), we obtain

$$\kappa = ( 8 / 7 ) ^ { 1 / 2 } \eta \pi ^ { - 2 } \zeta _ { 3 } ^ { - 1 / 2 } h ^ { - 3 / 2 } m ^ { 3 / 2 } v _ { F } ^ { 3 / 2 } n _ { e } ^ { - 1 / 2 } \delta _ { L } ( 0 ) / \xi _ { 0 } \,.$$

Recall that the Fermi momentum 0 p is associated with the number e n of electrons per volume as [35]

$$p _ { 0 } & = \hbar { ( } 3 \pi ^ { 2 } n _ { e } ) ^ { 1 / 3 } \,,$$

then we rewrite Eq. (B9) as

$$\kappa = ( 2 4 / 7 ) ^ { 1 / 2 } \gamma \pi ^ { - 1 } \zeta _ { 3 } ^ { - 1 / 2 } \delta _ { \mathbb { L } } ( 0 ) / \xi _ { 0 } \approx 0. 9 5 8 \delta _ { \mathbb { L } } ( 0 ) / \xi _ { 0 } \,.$$

Lattice distortion under EP interaction

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0353v4-figure-d7630770-d61d-46df-97a6-323ac4053a31.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0353v4-figure-5afe9569-3886-4061-8e05-8527e34a9281.jpg)

A15 type NbsSn, space group Pm3n. Nb atoms occupy 6c positions (chains, in white). Sn atoms take 2a positions (in black).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0353v4-figure-d5aa2508-bc5b-4847-bca2-bf2bb601be08.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0353v4-figure-3f8cb6b4-4e4f-4e68-b454-8f81c69f89f6.jpg)

In normal-state Nb;Sn, collisions between clectrons and ions, viz. scattering by impurity; generate electric resistivity .

In superconducting Nb;Sn;, two electrons are bound to form Cooper due to EP attraction. Scattering vanishes in the cases 5 &lt;&lt;l while exists for pair

FIG. A1. Schematic of the scattering mechanism in normal-state and superconducting A15-type Nb3Sn.

Extending to a wide temperature range, κ is formulated as a temperature-dependent relation c 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ; T T T κ κ χ = calculations show that 1 ( )  varies little with T χ T [19]. For the case l ξ &lt;&lt; , scattering from impurity has little impact on the coherence length and the superconductivity [40]. This implies κ remains Eq. (B11) for this case.

It is natural to address the opposite limiting case l ξ &gt;&gt; . At first sight, the scattering from impurities reduces the coherence length. Indeed, one could use the diffusion process of an electron in the field of impurity (Appendix A and Fig. A1) to justify the speculation. Recall that under the consideration of scattering, D is the diffusion coefficient with / 3  in the diffusion equation D lv = e e j D n = -∇ .  Here, e j is the diffusion flux, i.e. the number of electrons passing through 1m 2 plane in 1s. It follows from the diffusion equation that 1/2 ~ ( ) x Dt where x is the distance travelled by a electron in t . Without scattering and in the same period t , an electron travels a distance of ~ vt ξ . Substituting this into x expression,  we  can  obtain  the  effective  coherence  length ξ ′ as 1/2 1/2 ~ ~ ( ) ~ ( / ) i x l n ξ ′ ξ ξ . This  is  the

justification  of  the  above  speculation.  The  scattering  of  impurity  also  affects  the  penetration  length δ ; the approximation relation is written as 1/2 1/2 L L ~ ( / ) ~ ( ) i l n δ ′ δ ξ δ ξ [19]. Finally, we arrive at the effective GL parameter κ ′ in the impurity field for l ξ &gt;&gt; , L L / ~ / ~ i l n κ ′ = δ ′ ξ ′ δ δ .  Based on a rigorous gauge-invariant solution of the linearized Gor'kov equations [40], one can obtain a precise relation, c L ( ) 0.72 (0) / T l κ ′ δ = and c 2 ( ) ( ) ( ) . T T T κ ′ κ ′ χ = The property of 2 ( )  is similar with T χ 1 ( ) . We are now ready to summary the dependence of GL parameter T χ κ with temperature and impurity concentration i n [with the aid of Eqs. (B8) and (B11)],

$$\kappa ( T ) = \kappa ( T _ { c } ) \chi _ { l } ( T ), \ \xi < < l \ ( \bullet \text{clean} ^ { \bullet } \lim i t ),$$

where c L 0 ( ) 0.96 (0) / T κ δ ξ ≈ or 5/2 1 1/2 2 c B F L c ( ) 3.46 (0) T c ek mv T κ δ --=  .

$$\kappa ( T ) = \kappa ( T _ { c } ) \chi _ { 2 } ( T ), \ \xi > > l \ ( \ell \text{dirty} ^ { \prime \prime } \limit ),$$

where -1 c L i F ( ) 0.72 (0) T n v κ δ λ = or c L ( ) 0.72 (0) / T l κ δ = .  We  have  omitted  the  superscript  of κ ′ in  Eqs.  (B12)  and (B13).

The GL theory of magnetic properties of type II superconductors gives that at the vicinity of c2 H [22],

$$H _ { c 2 } & = \sqrt { 2 } \kappa H _ { c } \,.$$

## Appendix C: Relation with material parameters

Now we correlate the electronic density of states, ( ) , to the coefficient of electronic heat capacity, υ µ γ , upon isotropic model of metal,

$$\gamma = \pi ^ { 2 } k _ { _ { B } } ^ { \ 2 } \upsilon ( \mu ) / 3 \,.$$

The  use  of  isotropic  model  equation  here  is  reasonable  since  the  experiments  do  not  show  evidence  of  a  highly anisotropic  Fermi  surface  for  Nb3Sn  [41].  Note  that  the  anisotropy  of  the  physical  properties  is  experimentally identified in compositionally inhomogeneous single crystals [42], scandium [43] and cuprate superconductors [44]. In fact, the electronic structures of Nb3Sn are very complex, and ( )  exhibits a sharp variation relating to the anomalous υ µ isotope effect in Nb3Sn superconductors [45]. ( )  may be expressed as a function of the Fermi momentum υ µ 0 p :

$$\upsilon ( \mu ) = p _ { 0 } m / ( \pi ^ { 2 } h ^ { 3 } ) \,.$$

Combining Eqs. (C1) and (C2), the Fermi velocity F v is related to γ in a manner of

$$v _ { F } = 3 k _ { B } ^ { - 2 } m ^ { - 2 } \hbar { ^ { 3 } } \gamma \,.$$

Let's consider the electrical resistivity ρ , Eq. (A1), and substituting Eqs. (C1) and (C3) into it, one obtains

$$l = 3 ^ { - 1 } \pi ^ { 2 } e ^ { - 2 } m ^ { 2 } h ^ { - 3 } k _ { \mathrm B } ^ { \, 4 } \gamma ^ { - 2 } \rho ^ { - 1 }.$$

This implies a variation of the electronic average free path l as  a  function of γ and ρ .  We then reformulate the coherence length 0 ξ , the number of electrons per unit volume, e n , and the London penetration depth L (0)  by using δ Eqs. (B1), (B6) and (B10) in Eq. (C3), respectively,

$$\xi _ { 0 } = 5. 3 4 \pi ^ { - 2 } m ^ { - 2 } k _ { \mathrm B } ^ { - 3 } h ^ { 4 } \gamma T _ { c } ^ { - 1 } \,,$$

$$n _ { \mathfrak { e } } = 9 \pi ^ { - 2 } m ^ { - 3 } k _ { \mathfrak { B } } ^ { - 6 } \hbar { ^ { 6 } } \gamma ^ { 3 } \,,$$

$$\delta _ { \L } ( 0 ) = 0. 1 6 7 \pi ^ { 1 / 2 } m ^ { 2 } c e ^ { - 1 } k _ { \text{B} } ^ { \text{3} } h ^ { - 3 } \gamma ^ { - 3 / 2 } \,.$$

Now using Eqs. (B12), (B13), (C3), (C4) and (C7), we are allowed to find the dependence of κ on the three independent material parameters γ , ρ and c T for the dirty limit and clean limit near c T :

$$\kappa _ { \text{clean} } = 9. 4 3 \times 1 0 ^ { - 2 } \pi ^ { 3 / 2 } m ^ { 4 } c e ^ { - 1 } k _ { \mathfrak { B } } ^ { 6 } h ^ { - 7 } \chi _ { 1 } ( T ) \gamma ^ { - 5 / 2 } T _ { c } \,,$$

$$\kappa _ { \text{dinty} } = 0. 3 6 1 \pi ^ { - 3 / 2 } c e k _ { \text{B} } ^ { - 1 } \chi _ { 2 } ( T ) \gamma ^ { 1 / 2 } \rho \,.$$

For a preliminary validation we use the dimensional analysis upon four basic quantities which are length L , mass M , time T and temperature E T (Table A1). The LHS of Eq. (C9), for instance, is dimensionless, and the dimension of the  RHS  is  deduced  as  [RHS] 1 1/2 1 3/2 1/2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1/2 B E E [ ][ ][ ] [ ] [ ] ( )( )( ) ( ) 1 [LHS] . c e k LT L M T L MT T L MT T T γ ρ ---------= = = = Further, using Eq. (C3) in Eq. (B7), we express the thermodynamic critical field c H as

$$H _ { _ { c } } = 2. 3 9 0 5 \pi ^ { 1 / 2 } T _ { _ { c } } ( 1 - T / T _ { _ { c } } ) \gamma ^ { 1 / 2 } \,.$$

Substituting Eqs. (C8)-(C10) into Eq. (B14), one finds the upper critical field c2 H in the two limiting cases,

$$H _ { c 2, \text{clean} } = 0. 3 1 8 8 \pi ^ { 2 } m ^ { 4 } c e ^ { - 1 } k _ { _ { B } } ^ { \ 6 } \hslash ^ { - 7 } \chi _ { _ { 1 } } ( T ) \gamma ^ { - 2 } T _ { c } ^ { \ 2 } ( 1 - T / T _ { c } ) \left [ \text{Oe} \right ],$$

$$H _ { c 2, \text{dirty} } = 1. 2 2 0 4 \pi ^ { - 1 } c e k _ { \i } ^ { - 1 } \chi _ { 2 } ( T ) T _ { c } ( 1 - T / T _ { c } ) \gamma \rho \left [ \text{o} \right ].$$

For application convenience we convert ρ in Gaussian unit [s] into Ω m [ Ω m]  in fashion to experiments, using ρ ⋅ the  unit  conversion  relation 1s=1esu 11 cm=9.0 10 cm and ⋅ × Ω⋅ 1 9 s m 9 10 ρ ρ --Ω = × .  For γ there  is  also  a  conversion relation 4 erg mJ =1.0 10 γ γ × by the relation 1J 3 2 7 3 2 cm K =1.0 10 erg cm K ----⋅ ⋅ × ⋅ ⋅ . As experiments always measure γ in 1 2 [mJ mol K ] , --⋅ ⋅ 3 2 mJ [mJ cm K ]  in  the  formulas  should  be  further  transformed  as γ --⋅ ⋅ mJ mJ mol / V γ γ → (since 3 2 1 2 mol V mJ cm K 1mJ mol K ----⋅ ⋅ = ⋅ ⋅ where mol V is the volume occupied by 1mol atoms).

For Nb3Sn, recent specific heat measurements reveal 1 3 mol 11.085 0.005 mol cm  at 10K temperature [17]. V -= ± Thus, Eqs. (C11) and (C12) are rewritten as

$$H _ { c 2, \text{clean} } = C _ { 1 } \chi _ { 1 } ( T ) T _ { c } ^ { 2 } ( 1 - T / T _ { c } ) \gamma _ { m } ^ { - 2 } \ [ 0 e ] \,,$$

$$H _ { c 2, \text{dirty} } & = C _ { 2 } \chi _ { 2 } ( T ) T _ { c } ( 1 - T / T _ { c } ) \gamma _ { m } \rho _ { \Omega m } \ [ \text{o} ] \,.$$

where 8 2 4 1 6 7 1 B 0.3188 10 C m ce k π ---= ×  and 6 1 1 2 B 1.356 10 C cek π ---= × . We also concern the determination of whether the experimental sample is in dirty limit or not. The same unit conversations are applied to the electronic free path l , the penetration depth L (0) , the coherence length δ 0 ξ and the GL parameter κ , and we rewrite Eqs. (C4), (C7), (C5), (C8), (C9) and (C10) into

$$l = 3 0 \pi ^ { 2 } e ^ { - 2 } m ^ { 2 } h ^ { - 3 } k _ { _ { B } } ^ { 4 } \gamma _ { _ { m J } } ^ { - 2 } \rho _ { _ { \Omega m } } ^ { - 1 },$$

$$\xi _ { 0 } = 5. 3 4 \times 1 0 ^ { 4 } \pi ^ { - 2 } m ^ { - 2 } k _ { \text{B} } ^ { - 3 } h ^ { 4 } \gamma _ { \text{m} } T _ { \text{c} } ^ { - 1 } \,,$$

$$\delta _ { \text{L} } ( 0 ) = 0. 1 6 7 \times 1 0 ^ { - 6 } \pi ^ { 1 / 2 } m ^ { 2 } c e ^ { - 1 } k _ { \text{B} } ^ { \ 3 } \hbar { ^ { - 3 } } \gamma _ { \text{m} } ^ { \ \ - 3 / 2 } \,,$$

$$\kappa _ { \text{clean} } = 3. 1 2 7 \times 1 0 ^ { - 1 2 } \pi ^ { 5 / 2 } m ^ { 4 } c e ^ { - 1 } k _ { \text{B} } ^ { \, 6 } h ^ { - 7 } \chi _ { 1 } ( T ) \gamma _ { m } ^ { \, - 5 / 2 } T _ { c } \,,$$

$$\kappa _ { \text{dirty} } = 4. 0 1 1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 9 } \pi ^ { - 3 / 2 } c e k _ { \text{B} } ^ { - 1 } \chi _ { _ { 2 } } ( T ) \gamma _ { _ { m } } ^ { \quad 1 / 2 } \rho _ { \Omega m } \,,$$

$$H _ { _ { \epsilon } } = 2. 3 9 0 5 \times 1 0 ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 1 / 2 } T _ { _ { \epsilon } } ( 1 - T / T _ { _ { \epsilon } } ) \gamma _ { _ { m } } ^ { \ \ 1 / 2 } \,.$$

If experiments give the magnetic flux density c2 [T]  then it is necessary to implement B 4 c2 c2 =( [Oe] 10 ) [T] B H -× in the above formulas (since c2 0 c2 [T]= [A/m]  and 1A/m=4 B H µ ⋅ 3 10 Oe with π × -7 0 =4 10 T m/A ). µ π × -⋅

## Appendix D: Effective electron mass accounting for anisotropic metal

Accounting  for  the  change  of  Fermi  surface  shape  due  to  the  transition  to  the  anisotropic  model  and/or  the condensed matter from the isotropic metal model, we employ the formulation of wave vector for the anisotropic metal model:

$$k _ { F } = 3 ^ { 1 / 3 } \pi ^ { 2 / 3 } ( n _ { \mathrm e } ^ { 2 / 3 } S / S _ { F } ) ^ { 1 / 2 }$$

with the de Broglie relation * 0 F F p m v k = =  where * m is the effective electron mass. Here, F / S S is the ratio of the free Fermi surface to the Fermi surface of a free-electron gas of density e n . Substituting this into Eq. (C3) leads to

$$m ^ { ^ { * } } & = 3 ^ { 2 / 3 } \pi ^ { - 2 / 3 } k _ { \text{B} } ^ { - 2 } \hslash ^ { 2 } ( n ^ { 2 / 3 } S / S _ { \text{F} } ) ^ { - 1 / 2 } \gamma \\ & = 3 ^ { 2 / 3 } \times 1 0 ^ { 4 } \pi ^ { - 2 / 3 } k _ { \text{B} } ^ { - 2 } \hslash ^ { 2 } ( n ^ { 2 / 3 } S / S _ { \text{F} } ) ^ { - 1 / 2 } \gamma _ { \text{mJ} }.$$

Substituting this equation into Eq. (C18) one may obtain

$$\kappa _ { \text{clean} } = 5. 8 5 4 \times 1 0 ^ { 5 } \pi ^ { - 1 / 6 } c e ^ { - 1 } k _ { \text{B} } ^ { - 2 } \hbar { ( } n ^ { 2 / 3 } S / S _ { \text{F} } ) ^ { - 2 } \chi _ { 1 } ( T ) T _ { c } \gamma _ { m } ^ { - 3 / 2 } \,.$$

The following equations can be obtained in the same way:

$$l = 9 \times 1 0 ^ { 9 } ( 3 \pi ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 1 / 3 } \hbar { e } ^ { - 2 } ( n ^ { 2 / 3 } S / S _ { F } ) ^ { - 1 } \rho _ { \Omega m } ^ { - 1 } \,,$$

$$\xi _ { 0 } = 1. 2 3 4 \times 1 0 ^ { - 4 } \pi ^ { - 2 / 3 } k _ { _ { B } } ( n ^ { 2 / 3 } S / S _ { _ { F } } ) \gamma _ { _ { m } J } ^ { - 1 } T _ { _ { c } } ^ { - 1 } \,,$$

$$\delta _ { \L } ( 0 ) = 7 2. 2 5 7 \pi ^ { - 5 / 6 } c e ^ { - 1 } \hbar { k } _ { \mathfrak { B } } ^ { - 1 } ( n ^ { 2 / 3 } S / S _ { \mathrm F } ) ^ { - 1 } \gamma _ { _ { m } J } ^ { - 1 / 2 } \,,$$

$$H _ { c 2, \text{clean} } = 1. 9 7 9 \times 1 0 ^ { 8 } \pi ^ { 1 / 3 } c e ^ { - 1 } k _ { \i } ^ { - 2 } h ( n ^ { 2 / 3 } S / S _ { F } ) ^ { - 2 } \chi _ { 1 } ( T ) \gamma _ { m } ^ { \ 2 } T _ { c } ^ { 2 } ( 1 - T / T _ { c } ) \,.$$

## Appendix E: Lambert W(X) function

Equation (4) can be solved via the Lambert ( )  function, which is defined as the solution to W X exp( ) W W X = . ( , )  is  the W K X K -th  branch  of  the  multi-valued  function ( ) .  It  follows  that  a  solution  to W X 2 ln y x x -= is exp[ ( , 2 ) / 2] , where x W K y = --K representing the branch of the multivalued W is selected to ensure positive and real x . For 1 1 0 B c k T ω --in question, we arrive at 1 1 0 B c (0) exp{ 0.5 [ , 0.377( 1)]}  with k T W K ω η ∆ --= ---1. K = -

## Reference

- 1 J. V. Minervini, Nature materials 13 , 326 (2014).
- 2 A. Godeke, M. C. Jewell, C. M. Fischer, A. A. Squitieri, P. J. Lee, and D. C. Larbalestier, Journal of Applied Physics 97 , 093909 (2005).

- 3 R. Flükiger, D. Uglietti, C. Senatore, and F. Buta, Cryogenics 48 , 293 (2008).

4

- A. Godeke, Superconductor Science and Technology 19 , R68 (2006).
- 5 L. Vieland, R. W. Cohen, and W. Rehwald, Physical Review Letters 26 , 373 (1971).
- 6 K. Niitsu and R. Kainuma, Phys. Status Solidi B 251 , 2041 (2014).

7

- L. D. Cooley, C. M. Fischer, P. J. Lee, and D. C. Larbalestier, Journal of Applied Physics 96 , 2122 (2004).
- 8 X. Xu, M. Sumption, X. Peng, and E. W. Collings, Applied Physics Letters 104 , 082602 (2014).
- 9 C. A. Reynolds, B. Serin, W. H. Wright, and L. B. Nesbitt, Physical Review 78 , 487 (1950).
- 10 G. D. Marzi, V. Corato, L. Muzzi, A. d. Corte, G. Mondonico, B. Seeber, and C. Senatore, Superconductor Science and Technology 25 , 025015 (2012).
- 11 A. Godeke, B. ten Haken, H. H. J. ten Kate, and D. C. Larbalestier, Superconductor Science and Technology 19 , R100 (2006).
- 12 J. Zhou, Y. Jo, Z. Hawn Sung, H. Zhou, P. J. Lee, and D. C. Larbalestier, Applied Physics Letters 99 , 122507 (2011).

13

C. Senatore and R. Flükiger, Applied Physics Letters

102

, 012601 (2013).

- 14 L. D. Cooley, Y. F. Hu, and A. R. Moodenbaugh, Applied Physics Letters 88 , 142506 (2006).
- 15 P. J. Lee and D. C. Larbalestier, Cryogenics 48 , 283 (2008).
- 16 X. Xu, M. D. Sumption, and X. Peng, Advanced Materials, DOI: http://10.1002/adma.201404335 (2015).
- 17
- V. Guritanu, W. Goldacker, F. Bouquet, Y. Wang, R. Lortz, G. Goll, and A. Junod, Physical Review B 70 , 184526 (2004).
- 18 T. Orlando, E. McNiff, S. Foner, and M. Beasley, Physical Review B 19 , 4545 (1979).

19

- A. A. Abrikosov, Fundamentals of the Theory of Metals (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1988).
- 20 H. Wiesmann, M. Gurvitch, A. Ghosh, H. Lutz, O. Kammerer, and M. Strongin, Physical Review B 17 , 122 (1978).
- 21 S. Kiarasi and R. A. Secco, Phys. Status Solidi B, DOI: http://10.1002/pssb.201552029 (2015).
- 22 A. Abrikosov, Reviews of modern physics 76 , 975 (2004).

23

G. Grimvall, Physica Scripta

14

, 63 (1976).

- 24 W. McMillan, Physical Review 167 , 331 (1968).
- 25 H. Devantay, J. Jorda, M. Decroux, J. Muller, and R. Flükiger, Journal of Materials Science 16 , 2145 (1981).
- 26 N. Werthamer and W. McMillan, Physical Review 158 , 415 (1967).
- 27 D. F. Valentinis, C. Berthod, B. Bordini, and L. Rossi, Superconductor Science and Technology 27 , 025008 (2014).
- 28 J. W. Ekin, Superconductor Science and Technology 23 , 083001 (2010).
- 29 S. Oh and K. Kim, Journal of Applied Physics 99 , 033909 (2006).
- 30 N. R. Werthamer, E. Helfand, and P. C. Hohenberg, Physical Review 147 , 295 (1966).
- 31 D. M. J. Taylor and D. P. Hampshire, Superconductor Science and Technology 18 , S241 (2005).
- 32 A. M. Clogston, Physical Review Letters 9
- , 266 (1962).
- 33 R. R. Hake, Applied Physics Letters 10 , 189 (1967).
- 34 E. J. Kramer, Journal of Applied Physics 44 , 1360 (1973).
- 35 J. Singleton, Band theory and electronic properties of solids (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001).
- 36 E. M. Lifshitz, L. P. Pitaevskii, and L. D. Landau, Physical kinetics (Pergamon press, Oxford, 1981).
- 37 J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Physical Review 108 , 1175 (1957).
- 38 L. P. Gorkov, Sov. Phys. JETP 9 , 1364 (1959).
- 39 A. A. Abrikosov, Sov. Phys.-JETP (Engl. Transl.);(United States) 5 (1957).
- 40 E. Helfand and N. Werthamer, Physical Review 147 , 288 (1966).
- 41 S. Foner and E. McNiff Jr, Physics Letters A 58 , 318 (1976).
- 42 M. Roslova, et al., CrystEngComm 16 , 6919 (2014).
- 43 S. M. Sichkar and V. N. Antonov, Phys. Status Solidi B 249 , 2118 (2012).
- 44 O. M. Auslaender, et al., Nature Physics 5 , 35 (2009).
- 45 G.-L. Zhao, Phys. Status Solidi B 251 , 1531 (2014).
Yingxu Li Yuanwen Gao
Superconducting properties variation with A15 composition in Nb3Sn
We extend the Ginzburg-Landau-Abrikosov-Gor'kov (GLAG) theory to account for
the variation of the upper critical field Hc2 with Sn content in A15-type
Nb3Sn. Hc2 at the vicinity of the critical temperature Tc is related
quantitatively to the electrical resistivity, specific heat capacity
coefficient and Tc, with inclusion of the electron-phonon coupling correction,
Pauli paramagnetic limiting and martensitic phase transformation of A15
lattices. Hc2 near Tc is then extrapolated to Hc2(0) at temperature 0K, and
Hc2(0) versus tin content agrees well with experiments. We find that, as Sn
content gradually approaches the stoichiometry, Nb3Sn undergoes a transition
from the dirty limit to clean limit, split by the phase transformation
boundary. The H-T phase boundary and the pinning force show different behaviors
in the cubic and tetragonal phase. Applying the theoretical formulas in the
technical Nb3Sn wire, we obtain the dependence of the composition gradient on
the superconducting properties variation in the A15 layer, as well as the
curved tail at vicinity of Hc2 in the Kramer plot of the Nb3Sn wire. This gives
a better understanding of the inhomogeneous-composition inducing discrepancy
between the results by the state-of-art scaling laws and experiments.