Nonmonotonic residual entropy in diluted spin ice: A comparison between Monte Carlo simulations of diluted dipolar spin ice models and experimental results

T. Lin, X. Ke, M. Thesberg, P. Schiffer, R. G. Melko, and M. J. P. Gingras
Phys. Rev. B 90, 214433 – Published 19 December 2014

Abstract

Spin ice materials, such as Dy2Ti2O7 and Ho2Ti2O7, are highly frustrated magnetic systems. Their low-temperature strongly correlated state can be mapped onto the proton disordered state of common water ice. As a result, spin ices display the same low-temperature residual Pauling entropy as water ice, at least in calorimetric experiments that are equilibrated over moderately long-time scales. It was found in a previous study [X. Ke et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 137203 (2007)] that, upon dilution of the magnetic rare-earth ions (Dy3+ and Ho3+) by nonmagnetic yttrium (Y3+) ions, the residual entropy depends nonmonotonically on the concentration of Y3+ ions. A quantitative description of the magnetic specific heat of site-diluted spin ice materials can be viewed as a further test aimed at validating the microscopic Hamiltonian description of these systems. In this work, we report results from Monte Carlo simulations of site-diluted microscopic dipolar spin ice models (DSIM) that account quantitatively for the experimental specific-heat measurements, and thus also for the residual entropy, as a function of dilution, for both Dy2xYxTi2O7 and Ho2xYxTi2O7. The main features of the dilution physics displayed by the magnetic specific-heat data are quantitatively captured by the diluted DSIM up to 85% of the magnetic ions diluted (x=1.7). The previously reported departures in the residual entropy between Dy2xYxTi2O7 versus Ho2xYxTi2O7, as well as with a site-dilution variant of Pauling's approximation, are thus rationalized through the site-diluted DSIM. We find for 90% (x=1.8) and 95% (x=1.9) of the magnetic ions diluted in Dy2xYxTi2O7 a significant discrepancy between the experimental and Monte Carlo specific-heat results. We discuss possible reasons for this disagreement.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Received 25 March 2013
  • Revised 15 November 2014

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.214433

©2014 American Physical Society

Authors & Affiliations

T. Lin1, X. Ke2,3,4, M. Thesberg1,5, P. Schiffer2,6, R. G. Melko1,7, and M. J. P. Gingras1,7,8

  • 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
  • 2Department of Physics and Materials Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
  • 3Quantum Condensed Matter Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831, USA
  • 4Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA
  • 5Department of Physics and Astronomy, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4M1
  • 6Department of Physics and Frederick Seitz Materials Research Laboratory, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1110 West Green Street, Urbana, Illinois 61801-3080, USA
  • 7Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, 31 Caroline North, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L-2Y5
  • 8Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, 180 Dundas Street West, Suite 1400, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1Z8

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 90, Iss. 21 — 1 December 2014

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
CHORUS

Article Available via CHORUS

Download Accepted Manuscript
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×
×

Images

×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review B

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×