Skip to main content

Full text of "Andreev Reflection In Ferromagnet-Superconductor Junctions"

See other formats


Andreev reflection in ferromagnet— superconductor junctions 



M. J. M. de Jong'^'* and C. W. J. Beenakker^ 
(a) Philips Research Laboratories, 5656 A A Eindhoven, The Netherlands 
(h) Instituut-Lorentz, University of Leiden, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands 
(Submitted September 12, 1994 — |cond-mat/9410014| ) 



Abstract 

The transport properties of a ferromagnet-super conductor (FS) junction are 
studied in a scattering formulation. Andreev reflection at the FS interface is 
strongly affected by the exchange interaction in the ferromagnet. The con- 
ductance Gps of a ballistic point contact between F and S can be both larger 
or smaller than the value Gfn with the superconductor in the normal state, 
depending on the ratio of the exchange and Fermi energies. If the ferromagnet 
contains a tunnel barrier (I) , the conductance Gfifs exhibits resonances which 
do not vanish in linear response — in contrast to the Tomasch oscillations for 
non- ferromagnetic materials. 

PACS numbers: 74.80.Fp, 72.10.Bg, 74.50.+r 



1 



Typeset using REVT^ 



Electrons in a metal can not penetrate into a superconductor if their excitation energy 
with respect to the Fermi level is below the superconducting gap A. Still, a current may flow 
through a normal-metal-superconductor (NS) junction in response to a small applied voltage 
V < A/e, by means of a scattering process known as Andreev reflection |l|]: An electron in 
the normal metal is retroreflected at the NS interface as a hole and a Cooper pair is carried 
away in the superconductor. Andreev reflection near the Fermi level conserves energy and 
momentum but does not conserve spin — in the sense that the incoming electron and the 
Andreev reflected hole occupy opposite spin bands. This is irrelevant for materials with 
spin-rotation symmetry, as is the case for normal metals. However, the change in spin band 
associated with Andreev reflection may cause an anomaly in the conductance of (metallic) 
ferromagnet-superconductor (FS) junctions, because the spin-up and the spin-down band in 
the ferromagnet are different. This paper contains a theoretical study of Andreev reflection 
in FS junctions. We use a scattering approach based on the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation 
to study the transport properties for zero temperature and small V {eV -C A). We will 
concentrate on two distinct effects, which we think are experimentally observable. First, 
due to the change in spin band there is no complete Andreev reflection at the FS interface. 
This has a clear influence on the conductance and the shot-noise power of clean FS point 
contacts. Second, the different spin-up and spin-down wavevector at the Fermi level may 
lead to quantum-interference effects. This shows up in the linear-response conductance of 
FIFS junctions, where the ferromagnet contains an insulating tunnel barrier (I). 

In the past, FS junctions with an insulating layer between the ferromagnet and the 
superconductor have been used in spin-dependent tunneling experiments 0. There the 
emphasis was on the voltage scale eV ^ A and Andreev reflection did not play a role. 
Tunneling through S-Fi-S junctions, where Fi is a magnetic insulator, has been studied 
both experimentally and theoretically [^Q. In addition, there has been theoretical work 
on the Josephson effect in SFS junctions An experimental investigation of the boundary 
resistance of sputtered SFS sandwiches has also been reported j^. The importance of phase 
coherence was demonstrated in a recent experiment ||^, in which the effect of a remote 
superconducting island on the conductance of a ferromagnet was observed. We do not 
know of any previous theoretical work on the influence of Andreev reflection on the sub-gap 
conductance of an FS junction. 

In order to clarify the effects we are aiming at, let us flrst give an intuitive and sim- 
ple description of the conductance through a ballistic FS point contact. A ferromagnet is 
contacted through a small area with a superconductor. The transverse dimensions of the 
contact area are much smaller than the mean free path and the interface is clean, so that 
the conductance is completely determined by the scattering processes that are intrinsic to 
the FS interface. In a semiclassical approximation all scattering channels (transverse modes 
in the point contact at the Fermi level) are fully transmitted, when the superconductor is in 
the normal state. Let N^{Nf^) be the number of up(down)-spin channels, so that N-^ > N^. 
At zero temperature, the spin channels do not mix and the conductance is given by the 
Landauer formula 

Gfn = jiNi + iVr) • (1) 

In the superconducting state, the spin-down electrons of all the A^^ channels are Andreev 
reflected into spin-up holes. They give a double contribution to the conductance since 2e is 



2 



transferred at each Andreev reflection. However, only a fraction Ni/N^ of the channels 
can be Andreev reflected, because the density of states in the spin-down band is smaller 
than in the spin-up band. Therefore, the resulting conductance is 



G^s = j{2N^ + 2j;^N^)=4-N^. (2) 



Comparison of Eqs. (|1|) and shows that Gps may be either larger or smaller than Gfn 
depending on the ratio N^/N^. If A^|/A^| < 1/3 then G-ps < Gfn, and vice versa. This 
qualitative argument can be substantiated by an explicit calculation, as we now show. 

For the conduction electrons inside the ferromagnet we apply the Stoner model, using 
an effective one-electron Hamiltonian with an exchange interaction. The effect of the fer- 
romagnet on the superconductor is twofold. First, there is the influence of the exchange 
interaction on states near the interface. This will be fully taken into account. Second, there 
is the effect of the magnetic field due to the magnetization of the ferromagnet. Since this 
field — which is typically a factor thousand smaller than the exchange field — does not 
break spin-rotation symmetry it will be neglected for simplicity. Note that in typical layered 
structures the magnetization is parallel to the FS interface, so that it has no influence on 
the superconductor at all. 

Transport through NS junctions has successfully been investigated through the 
Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation |TD|-0. Here, we adopt this approach for an FS junc- 
tion. In the absence of spin-flip scattering in the ferromagnet, the Bogoliubov-de Gennes 
equation breaks up into two independent matrix equations, one for the up-electron, down- 
hole quasiparticle wavefunction {u^,vi) and another one for {ui,v^). Each matrix equation 



has the form 14 



Ho-h A 

A* -{Ho + h) 





(3) 



Here, e is the quasiparticle energy measured from the Fermi energy 

p^/2m + V — Ep is the single-particle Hamiltonian, with V^(r) the potential energy, /i(r) is 
the exchange energy, and A(r) is the pair potential. For simplicity, it is assumed that the 
ferromagnet and the superconductor have identical T^o- For comparison with experiment, 
our model can easily be extended to include differences in effective mass and band bottom. 
We adopt the usual step-function model for the pair potential |1T0|-[13| and do the same for 



the exchange energy Defining the FS interface at x = with S at a; > 0, we have 

A(r) = /\Q{x) and /i(r) = hQQ{—x), with Q{x) the unit step-function. 

A scattering formula for the linear-response conductance of an NS junction is given by 
Takane and Ebisawa [|12[. Application to the FS case is straightforward. 



Gfs = 2- ^ Trr^^^r,,^,,, (4) 



where the matrix v^^^f.^ contains the reflection amplitudes from incoming electron modes 
with spin a to outgoing hole modes with spin a (opposite to a) evaluated at the Fermi 
level (e = 0). We first consider a ballistic point contact. We assume that the dimensions 
of the contact are much greater than the Fermi wavelength, as is appropriate for a metal. 



3 



so that quantization effects can be neglected. The number Ni of minority spin modes in 
the point contact (with area fl) is = Nq{1 — ho/Ep), with Nq = kpfl/An the number 
of modes per spin for a non-ferromagnetic {ho = 0) contact of equal area. The reflection 
matrices for this case can be evaluated by matching the bulk solutions for the ferromagnet 
and for the superconductor at the interface. An incoming electron from the ferromagnet is 
either normally reflected as an electron of the same spin or Andreev reflected as a hole with 
the opposite spin. (Transmission into the superconductor is not possible at e = 0.) The 
reflection matrices are diagonal, with elements 

^ _ _ k^ki - 



_-2iq^Jk^ 
k'\ki + q^ 

where the longitudinal wavevectors km) in the ferromagnet and q in the superconductor are 
defined in terms of the energy En of the n-th transverse mode by 



q=^{2m/h^){EF-En), (6a) 
= ^{2m/h^){EF-En + ho) , (6b) 
ki = ^{2m/n^){EF-En-ho) . (6c) 



In the above expressions terms of order A/Ep are neglected ||T5[. Note that |reeP+|r/ieP = 1 



as required from quasiparticle conservation. It follows from Eq. (|g) that a clean FS junction 
does not exhibit complete Andreev reflection, in contrast to the NS case. This is due to the 
potential step the particle passes when being Andreev reflected to the opposite spin band. 

Because of the large number of modes the trace in Eq. (^) can be replaced by an inte- 
gration, which can be evaluated analytically. The result is 

4 

Gfs = 4: — No 



h 15?7 



4 



where t] = ho/Ep. The conductance is plotted in Fig. |l], and compared with the semiclassical 
estimate from Eq. (|), which turns out to be quite accurate. Since + N'^ = 2Nq one has 
from Eq. (|I|) Gfn > Gps if ho > 0A7Ep, or equivalently NjNi^ < 0.36. 

Further information on the Andreev reflection at the FS interface can be obtained from 
the shot-noise power P of the junction. Shot noise is the time-dependent fluctuation in the 
current due to the discreteness of the charges. For uncorrelated electron transmission, one 
has the maximal noise power of a Poisson process Ppoisson = 2eJ, with / the mean current. 



On the one hand, correlations due to the Pauli principle reduce P below Ppoisson [16,17]. On 



the other hand. Cooper-pair transport across an NS junction has been shown to manifest 



itself as a doubling of the maximal noise power [16,18]. We apply the general result of Ref. 
]|T8| to the FS junction 



8eV 



4 



Substitution of Eq. (|5bD into Eq. (H) yields the shot-noise power of a balhstic point contact, 
plotted in Fig. 0. The shot noise increases from complete suppression for a non-ferromagnetic 
{Hq = 0) junction to twice the Poisson noise for a half-metallic ferromagnet {Hq = Ep). The 
initial increase is slow, indicating that the modes undergo nearly complete Andreev re- 
flection. However, for higher exchange energies the Andreev reflection probability decreases 
in favour of the normal reflection probability. This is manifested by the increase in the 
shot-noise power. 

The second system we consider is an FIFS junction which contains a planar tunnel barrier 
(I) at X = —L. The barrier is modeled by a channel- and spin-independent transmission 
probability F G [0, 1]. The matrix r[- ^^r^- in Eq. (||) is diagonal, with elements 



|2 



.(T,ecr 



F^lr^el' { l + 2p2cos(xT-Xi)+p' 

+ 2reep(l + p^) (cos XT + COS Xl) 

+ 2r,V[l + cos(xT + Xi)]}"\ (9) 



where p = a/1 — F and Xu = '^k^^L. Eq. describes resonant Andreev reflection: Due 
to the different wavevector of up electrons and down holes, | function 
of Xt S'lid Xl between F^, the value for a two-particle tunneling process, and 1 for full 
resonance. The conductance Gfifs is evaluated by substitution of Eq. into Eq. (^). It 
is depicted in Fig. |^ as a function of L for = 0.2Ep and F = 0.1. The resonances have 
a dominant period 5L = 7ihvF/2hQ{= biikp^ in Fig. 0), which is caused by the simplest 
round-trip containing two Andreev reflections and two barrier reflections. Superimposed 
one sees oscillations with smaller period, caused by longer trajectories in which also normal 
reflections at the FS interface occur. This becomes clear when we calculate Gps with ree set 
to zero, which is also shown in Fig. |^. For large L, Gfifs approaches the classical (i.e. all 
interferences are neglected) value 4(e^//i)A^|F/(2 — F). The oscillations in Fig. |^ are distinct 
from the Tomasch oscillations known to occur in the non-linear differential conductance of 



NINS junctions |T^. There, quasi-bound states arise because electron and hole wavevectors 
disperse if e > 0. However, in linear response Gnins = 4(e^//i)Ai'oF^/(2 — F)^, independent 
of L In the ferromagnetic junction the resonances do not vanish in linear response, in 
contrast to the Tomasch oscillations. The quasi-bound states at the Fermi level are a direct 
consequence of the change in spin band upon Andreev reflection. 

We believe that both phenomena are experimentally accessible. The FS point contact can 
be constructed according to the nanofabrication technique of Ref. [^. The FIFS junction 
can be made by growing a wedge-shaped layer of ferromagnet on a superconducting substrate 
and then depositing a thin oxide layer. This allows a measurement of Gfifs for different 
values of L. It is not necessary for the contact area to be small, so that no nanofabrication 
techniques are needed. (Note, that in order to observe the resonances due to the quasi- 
bound states it is not essential that the contact on top of the barrier is a ferromagnet.) 
To estimate the effect of disorder (growth imperfections and impurities) on the resonances, 
we have numerically calculated Gfifs for a disordered ferromagnet between the barrier and 



the FS interface. The computations are similar to the NS case treated in Ref. I^ll. The 
disordered region is modeled by a tight-binding Hamiltonian on a square lattice with a 
random impurity potential at each site. (For computational efficiency the geometry is two- 
dimensional, but this makes no qualitative difference.) The matrix r/i^eo- is obtained by 



5 



combining the scattering matrix of the disordered region with the reflection coefficients for 
the FS interface (|]). We then calculate Gps through Eq. (^. The result for various disorder 
strengths is shown in Fig. ^ For the clean case we recognize a behavior similar to Fig. 
H. Adding some disorder removes the small-period oscillations but preserves the dominant 
oscillations. Only quite a strong disorder (for the top curve kp x bulk mean free path ^ 9) 
is able to smooth away the resonances. 

In summary, we have shown that the transport properties of ferromagnet-superconductor 
junctions are qualitatively different from the non-ferromagnetic case, because the Andreev 
reflection is modified by the exchange interaction in the ferromagnet. Two illustrative exam- 
ples have been given: For a ballistic FS point contact it is found that the conductance can 
be both larger or smaller than the normal-state value and for an FIFS junction containing 
a tunnel barrier conductance resonances are predicted to occur in linear response. 

We are especially grateful to H. van Houten for suggesting the problem treated in this 
paper. Furthermore, we thank P. J. Kelly and C. M. Schep for useful discussions. This 
research was supported by the Dutch Science Foundation NWO/FOM. 



6 



REFERENCES 



[1] A. F. Andreev, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 46, 1823 (1964) [Sov. Phys. JETP 19, 1228 (1964)]. 
[2] A recent review is: R. Meservey and P. M. Tedrow, Phys. Rep. 238, 173 (1994). 
[3] F. Stageberg, R. Cantor, A. M. Goldman, and G. B. Arnold, Phys. Rev. B 32, 3292 
(1985). 

[4] M. J. DeWeert and G. B. Arnold, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1522 (1985); Phys. Rev. B 39, 
11307 (1989). 

[5] S. V. Kuplevakhskii and I. I. Fal'ko, Fiz. Met. Metalloved. 71, 68 (1991) [Phys. Met. 

Metallogr. 71, 65 (1991)]. 
[6] L. N. Bulaevskii, A. I. Buzdin, and S. V. Panjukov, Solid State Commun. 44, 539 (1982). 
[7] S. V. Kuplevakhskii and I. I. Fal'ko, Fiz. Met. Metalloved. 62, 13 (1986) [Phys. Met. 

Metallogr. 62, 8 (1986)]; Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 52, 957 (1990) [JETP Lett. 52, 

340 (1990)]. 

[8] C. Fierz, S.-F. Lee, J. Bass, W. P. Pratt, Jr., and P. A. Schroeder, J. Phys. Condens. 

Matter 2, 9701 (1990). 
[9] V. T. Petrashov, V. N. Antonov, S. V. Maksimov, and R. Sh. Shaikhaidarov, Pis'ma 
Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 59, 523 (1994) [JETP Lett. 59, 551 (1994)]. 
[10] G. E. Blonder, M. Tinkham, and T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. B 25, 4515 (1982). 
[11] C. J. Lambert, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 3, 6579 (1991). 
[12] Y. Takane and H. Ebisawa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 61, 1685 (1992). 
[13] C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. B 46, 12841 (1992). 

[14] P. G. de Gennes, Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys (Benjamin, New York, 1966). 
[15] This is the Andreev approximation One can easily go beyond it by including terms of 

order A/Ep in Eqs. (|^) and (^. We have checked that this has only a small influence on 

our final results. In fact, the larger ho, the more accurate is the Andreev approximation. 
[16] V. A. Khlus, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 93, 2179 (1987) [Sov. Phys. JETP 66, 1243 (1987)]. 
[17] G. B. Lesovik, Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 49, 513 (1989) [JETP Lett. 49, 592 (1989)]; 

M. Biittiker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2901 (1990). 
[18] M. J. M. de Jong and C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. B 49, 16070 (1994). 
[19] W. J. Tomasch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 15, 672 (1965); 16, 16 (1966); W. L. McMillan and P. 

W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 85 (1966); A. Hahn, Phys. Rev. B 31, 2816 (1985). 
[20] P. A. M. Holweg, J. A. Kokkedee, J. Caro, A. H. Verbruggen, S. Radelaar, A. G. M. 

Jansen, and P. Wyder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2549 (1991). 
[21] I. K. Marmorkos, C. W. J. Beenakker, and R. A. Jalabert, Phys. Rev. B 48, 2811 (1993). 



7 



FIGURES 



FIG. 1. The conductance Gps (full curves) and the shot-noise power Pfs (dashed) of a ballistic 
point contact in a ferromagnet-superconductor junction (see inset), as a function of the exchange 
energy /iq. The thick line represents the exact result (^) for Gpsi the thin line the estimation (^). 

FIG. 2. The conductance Gfifs of a clean FIFS junction containing a planar tunnel barrier 
(transparency F) on the ferromagnetic side, as a function of the separation L from the interface 
(see inset). The thick solid line is computed from Eq. (^) for F = 0.1, /iq = Q.2Ep. For the thin 
line normal reflection at the FS interface is neglected {r^e = 0). The dashed line is the classical 
large- -L limit. 

FIG. 3. Numerical calculation of the effect of disorder in the ferromagnet on the oscillations 
shown in Fig. |2| for a clean junction. The disordered region is modeled by a L x IF square lattice 
(lattice constant o) with random on-site disorder (uniformly distributed between ±[7/2). The 
width W = 101a is fixed and the length L is varied on the horizontal axis. The results shown are 
for Ep = fi^ /2'mo? , /iq = 0.2Ef, F = 0.1, and for various U. For each disorder strength U the bulk 
mean free path i is given. Thick lines belong to one realization of disorder, thin to an average over 
20 realizations. 



8