Rapid Communications
biaxially textured Ni and Ni–alloy substrates. Although
YBCO films on both buffers have good crystalline struc-
ture, the Tc and Jc of the YBCO on LMO layers have
shown significantly higher values than those of the
YBCO films grown on LSMO layers. These results are
observed to be in accordance with the low-level Sr con-
tamination of the YBCO originating from the LSMO
layers. Our results also indicated that the LMO layer
thicknesses in the range of 60–300 nm do not signifi-
cantly effect the superconducting properties of the
YBCO coatings. For epitaxial YBCO films on LMO/Ni–
(Ni–alloy) tapes, typical self-field Jc(77 K) values of
1 × 106 A/cm2 have been achieved. The present results
provide initial support for implementation of LMO
buffer layers in the development of second-generation
HTS wires on the basis of the RABiTS approach to
YBCO-coated conductors.
FIG. 4. Magnetic field dependence of Jc, measured at 77 K, for the
YBCO films on LMO-buffered Ni and Ni–alloy substrates. Also
shown for comparison are typical Jc (H, 77 K) data for YBCO/LSMO/
Ni and YBCO/LSMO/Ni–alloy tapes. The inset shows the resistive
superconducting transition region of the same YBCO/LMO/Ni and
YBCO/LSMO/Ni structures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the United States Depart-
ment of Energy, Division of Materials Sciences,
Office of Science, Office of Power Technologies-
Superconductivity Program, and Office of Energy Effi-
ciency and Renewable Energy. The research was
performed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, man-
aged by U.T.-Battelle, LLC, for the United States
Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-
00OR22725.
properties of YBCO layers, we also present the Jc–H
behavior of two samples having 60- and 300-nm-thick
LMO layers. At zero applied field, YBCO films of thick-
ness approximately 200 nm grown on LMO support
high-Jc Ն1.0 × 106 A/cm2, whereas the YBCO films on
1
LSMO show approximately ⁄
2
that value. The transport
properties are largely independent of LMO thickness
in the range of 60–300 nm. Specifically, the self-field
Jc of the YBCO/LMO(60 nm)/Ni–alloy is above 1.2 ×
106 A/cm2, which is comparable to the best Jc values
obtained on RABiTS having both the “standard trilayer
insulating” buffer architecture, CeO2/YSZ/CeO2–
(or Y2O3)/Ni, and “bilayer conductive” architecture,
SrRuO3/LaNiO3. The present results establish a new
benchmark for performance since they were attained on
a RABiTS structure having a single buffer layer. The
inset of Fig. 4 shows the superconducting transition re-
gion of the temperature-dependent resistivity curves for
the same YBCO/LMO/Ni and YBCO/LSMO/Ni sam-
ples. Differences in the net resistivity values between two
samples are due to the electrical coupling between
the HTS layer and the metal substrate through the con-
ductive LSMO layer, providing an overall reduced resis-
tivity. While the YBCO/LSMO/Ni exhibits a Tc of only
82 K, that of the YBCO/LMO/Ni structure is 90 K, fur-
ther supporting a low-level of Sr contamination from the
LSMO layer. It is well documented that Sr impurities in
the superconducting structure can significantly reduce
Tc.10,11 This conclusion is also consistent with the lower Jc
values observed for the YBCO films on LSMO layers.9
In summary, we have made a comparative study of the
chemical compatibility and superconducting properties
(Tc, Jc) of YBCO films grown on single layers of
La0.7Sr0.3MnO3(LSMO) and LaMnO3(LMO) buffered
REFERENCES
1. D.P. Norton, A. Goyal, J.D. Budai, D.K. Christen, D.M. Kroeger,
E.D. Specht, Q. He, B. Saffian, M. Paranthaman, C.E. Kalbunde,
D.F. Lee, B.C. Sales, and F.A. List, Science 274, 755 (1996).
2. A. Goyal, R. Feenstra, F.A. List, M. Paranthaman, D.F. Lee,
D.M. Kroeger, D.B. Beach, J.S. Morell, T.G. Chirayil,
D.T. Verebelyi, X. Cui, E.D. Specht, D.K. Christen, and
P.M. Martin, J. Met. 19 (July 1999).
3. D. Dimos, P. Chaudari, J. Mannhart, and F.K. Legoues, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 61, 219 (1988).
4. D.T. Verebelyi, D.K. Christen, R. Feenstra, C. Cantoni, D.F. Lee,
M. Paranthaman, P.N. Arendt, R.F. DePaula, J.R. Groves, and
C. Prouteau, App. Phys. Lett. 76, 1755 (2000).
5. M. Paranthaman, A. Goyal, F.A. List, E.D. Specht, D.F. Lee,
P.M. Martin, Q. He, D.K. Christen, D.P. Norton, J.D. Budai, and
D.M. Kroeger, Physica C 275, 266 (1997).
6. F.A. List, A. Goyal, M. Paranthaman, D.P. Norton, E.D. Specht,
D.F. Lee, and D.M. Kroeger, Physica C 302, 87 (1998).
7. Q. He, D.K. Christen, R. Feenstra, D.P. Norton, M. Paranthaman,
E.D. Specht, D.F. Lee, A. Goyal, and D.M. Kroeger, Physica C
314, 105 (1999).
8. T. Aytug, B.W. Kang, C. Cantoni, E.D. Specht, M. Paranthaman,
A. Goyal, D.T. Verebelyi, D.K. Christen, J.Z. Wu, R.E. Ericson,
C.L. Thomas, C-Y. Yang, and S.E. Babcock, J. Mater. Res. 16,
2661 (2001).
9. T. Aytug, M. Paranthaman, B.W. Kang, S. Sathyamurthy,
A. Goyal, and D.K. Christen. Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 2205 (2001).
10. M. Oda, T. Murakami, Y. Enomoto, and M. Suziki, Jpn. J. Appl.
Phys. 26, L804 (1987).
11. T. Wada, S. Adachi, T. Mihara, and R. Inaba, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.
26, L706 (1987).
2196
J. Mater. Res., Vol. 17, No. 9, Sep 2002
Downloaded: 13 Apr 2015
IP address: 137.222.24.34