Abstract
Understanding the interplay between nematicity, magnetism and superconductivity is pivotal for elucidating the physics of ironbased superconductors. Here we use neutron scattering to probe magnetic and nematic orders throughout the phase diagram of NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As, finding that while both static antiferromagnetic and nematic orders compete with superconductivity, the onset temperatures for these two orders remain well separated approaching the putative quantum critical points. We uncover local orthorhombic distortions that persist well above the tetragonaltoorthorhombic structural transition temperature T_{s} in underdoped samples and extend well into the overdoped regime that exhibits neither magnetic nor structural phase transitions. These unexpected local orthorhombic distortions display Curie–Weiss temperature dependence and become suppressed below the superconducting transition temperature T_{c}, suggesting that they result from the large nematic susceptibility near optimal superconductivity. Our results account for observations of rotational symmetry breaking above T_{s}, and attest to the presence of significant nematic fluctuations near optimal superconductivity.
Introduction
Iron pnictide superconductors are a large class of materials hosting unconventional superconductivity that emerges from antiferromagnetically ordered parent compounds [Fig. 1a]. Unique to iron pnictides is the tetragonaltoorthorhombic structural transition at T_{s}, where the underlying lattice changes from exhibiting fourfold (C_{4}) above T_{s} to twofold (C_{2}) rotational symmetry below T_{s}, which occurs either simultaneously with or above the antiferromagnetic (AF) phase transition temperature T_{N} [Fig. 1b]^{1,2}. The large electronic anisotropy present in the paramagnetic orthorhombic phase has been ascribed to an electronic nematic state^{3,4,5} that couples with the shear strain of the lattice, the orthorhombicity δ [=(a − b)/(a + b), where a and b are inplane orthorhombic lattice parameters], therefore acts as a proxy for the nematic order parameter. In the paramagnetic tetragonal state, the nematic susceptibility can be measured via determining the resistivity anisotropy induced by anisotropic inplane strain^{6} or by measuring the elastic shear modulus^{7,8}. By fitting temperature dependence of nematic susceptibility with a Curie–Weiss form, a nematic quantum critical point (QCP) with Weiss temperature T^{*} → 0 has been identified near optimal superconductivity for different ironbased superconductors^{6,8}. Theoretically, the proliferation of nematic fluctuations near the nematic QCP can act to enhance Cooper pairing^{9,10,11,12}.
Although C_{4} → C_{2} symmetry breaking is typically associated with the structural transition at T_{s}, there are numerous reports of its observation well above T_{s} and in overdoped compounds^{13,14,15,16,17,18,19}. These observations are either reflective of an intrinsic rotational symmetrybroken phase above T_{s}, which can occur in bulk^{13,14,15} or on the surface of the sample^{16}, or simply a result from a large nematic susceptibility^{17,18,19,20}. In the first case, there is a small, but nonzero nematic order parameter throughout the material above T_{s}, although no additional symmetry breaking occurs below T_{s}, despite the sharp increase of the nematic order parameter. For the latter scenario, only local orthorhombic distortions can be present and the system remains tetragonal on average. One way to differentiate the two scenarios is to directly and quantitatively probe the distribution of the interplanar atomic spacings (dspacings) and its temperature dependence.
Ideally, when the system becomes orthorhombic, two different inplane dspacings, corresponding to different inplane lattice parameters, can be resolved; on the other hand, when there are only local orthorhombic distortions, the dspacing distribution only broadens, while the average structure remains tetragonal [Fig. 1c]. However, experimentally, it can be very difficult to distinguish the two scenarios when δ is too small for a splitting to be resolved, then, a broadening is also seen even when the system goes through a tetragonaltoorthorhombic phase transition. In such cases, it is more instructive to examine the temperature dependence of the experimentally obtained broadening, characterized either by δ or by the width of the dspacing distribution, Δd/d [Fig. 1c]. For a phase transition, the broadening should exhibit a clear order parameterlike onset; for local orthorhombic distortions in an average tetragonal structure, the broadening instead tracks the nematic susceptibility, which exhibits a Curie–Weiss temperature dependence^{4} [Fig. 1c]. An additional complication is that the AF order typically becomes spinglasslike and sometimes incommensurate near the nematic QCP^{21,22,23,24,25}, and given the strong magnetoelastic coupling in iron pnictides^{5,8}, it is unclear how such changes in AF order affect the nematic order.
In this work, we use highresolution neutron diffraction and neutron Larmor diffraction to map out the phase diagram of NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As^{26}, focusing on the interplay between magnetic order, nematic order, and superconductivity near optimal superconductivity. Unlike most other iron pnictide systems, we find T_{N} in NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As to be continuously suppressed toward T_{N} ≈ T_{c} near optimal doping, while the order remains longrange and commensurate. This allows us to demonstrate that T_{s} and T_{N} in NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As remain well separated near optimal superconductivity, indicating distinct QCPs associated with nematic and AF orders, similar to the quantum criticality in electrondoped Ba_{2}Fe_{2−x}Ni_{x}As_{2}^{27}. Utilizing the high resolution provided by neutron Larmor diffraction^{28,29}, we probed the nematic order parameter in underdoped NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As below T_{s} and surprisingly, uncovered local orthorhombic distortions well above T_{s} and in overdoped samples without a structural phase transition. Although the average structure is tetragonal in these regimes, broadening of the dspacing distribution is unambiguously observed. Such local orthorhombic distortions were hinted in previous highresolution neutron powder diffraction measurements on electronoverdoped NaFe_{0.975}Co_{0.025}As, where a small broadening of Bragg peaks at low temperature was observed^{26}. Regardless of whether orthorhombic distortions are longrange due to a structural phase transition or local in nature, resulting from large nematic susceptibility, we find that they become suppressed inside the superconducting state, similar to AF order. Our results, therefore, elucidate the interplay between AF order, nematicity, and superconductivity in NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As; at the same time, our observation of local orthorhombic distortions with a Curie–Weiss temperature dependence across the phase diagram accounts for rotational symmetry breaking seen in nominally tetragonal iron pnictides. In addition, our measurements demonstrate that neutron Larmor diffraction can be used to determine the nematic susceptibility of freestanding iron pnictides without the need to apply external stress or strain. These results should stimulate future highresolution neutron/Xray diffraction work to study orthorhombic lattice distortion and its temperature dependence in the nominally tetragonal phase of ironbased superconductors.
Results
Overall phase diagram of NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As
Our results are reported using the orthorhombic structural unit cell with lattice parameters a ≈ b ≈ 5.56 Å and c ≈ 7.05 Å for NaFeAs^{30,31}. The momentum transfer Q = Ha^{*} + Kb^{*} + Lc^{*} is denoted as Q = (H, K, L) in reciprocal lattice units (r.l.u.), with a^{*} = \(\widehat {\bf{a}}\)2π/a, b^{*} = \(\widehat {\bf{b}}\)2π/b, and c^{*} = \(\widehat {\bf{c}}\)2π/c. In this notation, magnetic Bragg peaks are at Q = (1, 0, L), with L = 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, …. Samples were mostly aligned in the [1, 0, 0] × [0, 0, 1] scattering plane, which allows scans of magnetic peaks along H and L; the x = 0.012 sample was also studied in the [1, 0, 1.5] × [0, 1, 0] plane. We have carried out neutron diffraction, neutron Larmor diffraction, and inelastic neutron scattering experiments on NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As (see Methods section for experimental details).
Figure 1d shows the overall phase diagram determined from our experiments, with T_{s}, T_{N}, and T_{c} marked. Although for optimaldoped and overdoped regimes, the samples on average exhibit a tetragonal structure at all temperatures, there are local orthorhombic distortions resulting in broadening of dspacing distribution that can be characterized by δ or Δd/d. The orthorhombic distortion δ is plotted in a pseudocolor scheme as a function of temperature and doping near optimaldoping in Fig. 1d. Figure 1e shows the Nidoping dependence of the ordered magnetic moment and δ at T = 5 K, and T = T_{c} for superconducting samples. With increasing Nidoping x, the AF ordered moment and T_{N} decrease monotonically, and no magnetic order is detected in the x = 0.015 sample [Fig. 1e]. While the magnetic order parameter for the x = 0.004 sample resembles that of NaFeAs [Fig. 2e, f], the magnetic order becomes strongly suppressed upon entering the superconducting state for x = 0.010 [Fig. 2g], similar to other iron pnictides^{32,33}.
Reentry into the paramagnetic state in NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As with x = 0.012
For the x = 0.012 sample, magnetic order begins at T_{N} ≈ 19 K and becomes strongly suppressed upon entering the superconducting state below T_{c} and reenters into the paramagnetic state without any longrange order below T_{r} ≈ 10 K [Fig. 2h]. Given the sharp superconducting transition at T_{c} (Supplementary Fig. 1 and Methods section), T_{r} is well inside the superconducting state. This is similar to the behavior of nearly optimaldoped Ba(Fe_{0.941}Co_{0.059})_{2}As_{2}^{34}, although AF order in Ba(Fe_{0.941}Co_{0.059})_{2}As_{2} is shortrange and incommensurate^{21}. To confirm that the magnetic order in our x = 0.012 sample is longrange and commensurate, we carried out scans along [H, 0, 1.5], [1, K, 1.5] and [1, 0, L] directions in [1, 0, 1.5] × [0, 1, 0] and [1, 0, 0] × [0, 0, 1] scattering planes [Fig. 2a], with results summarized in Fig. 2b–d. As can be seen, magnetic order remains longrange along all three highsymmetry directions (with spin–spin correlation lengths exceeding 100 Å) for the x = 0.012 sample near optimal superconductivity before disappearing near x = 0.015. These wave–vector scans also confirm the complete disappearance of longrange magnetic order below T_{r}. For comparison, we note that magnetism in electrondoped Ba(Fe_{1−x}Co_{x})_{2}As_{2} (~6%)^{21}, BaFe_{2−x}Ni_{x}As_{2} (~5%)^{22}, and NaFe_{1−x}Co_{x}As (~2.3%)^{25} exhibits cluster spin glass and incommensurate magnetic order near optimal superconductivity likely related to impurity effects^{23,35}. The absence of such behavior in NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As is likely a result of significantly lower dopant concentration in NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As (~1.3%) near optimal doping. Our inelastic neutron scattering measurements on the x = 0.012 sample confirm that the presence of a neutron spin resonance, which can act as a proxy for the superconducting order parameter, is unaffected when cooled below T_{r} (Supplementary Fig. 2 and Methods section).
Nematic order and local orthorhombic distortions in NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As
Having established the evolution of AF order and its interplay with superconductivity in NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As, we examined the Nidoping evolution of the nematic order in NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As. To precisely determine the evolution of orthorhombic distortion, we used highresolution neutron diffraction and neutron Larmor diffraction to investigate the temperature evolution of the orthorhombic lattice distortion (Supplementary Figs. 3 and 4 and Methods section). For NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As with x ≤ 0.013, we can see clear orthorhombic lattice distortion below T_{s}, also confirmed by the anomalies in temperature dependence of electrical resistivity measurements (Supplementary Fig. 5 and Methods section). Figure 3a–c shows temperature and Nidoping dependence of the orthorhombic distortion δ. For NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As with x ≤ 0.013 at temperatures above T_{s}, and for x ≥ 0.015 at all temperatures, the system is on an average tetragonal and should in principle have δ = 0. Surprisingly, we see clear temperaturedependent δ. Moreover, while δ below T_{s} behaves as expected for an order parameter associated with phase transition, δ in temperature regimes with an average tetragonal structure exhibits a Curie–Weiss temperature dependence, suggesting that it arises from local orthorhombic distortions. In all cases, we find that δ decreases dramatically below T_{c}, indicating that orthorhombic distortion, whether longrange or local, competes with superconductivity. The competition between superconductivity and longrange nematic order is similar to Ba(Fe_{1−x}Co_{x})_{2}As_{2}^{36} and can be captured by a phenomenological Landau theory, based on an effective action in terms of the corresponding order parameters (see Methods section):
where, the last term describes the competition between nematicity and superconductivity. As a result, the nematic order parameter is noticeably suppressed inside the superconducting phase, compared with its value (δ_{0}) in the normal phase, so that (see Methods section for the derivation)
whereas the superconducting order parameter itself remains essentially unchanged due to tiny values of δ_{0} (see Eq. (8) in Methods section). In the tetragonal phase (δ = 0), the competition between local orthorhombic distortions and superconductivity is reflective of the suppression of nematic susceptibility below T_{c}^{37}.
We emphasize that the local orthorhombic distortions we uncovered in the tetragonal phase of NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As are distinct from the phase separation into superconducting tetragonal and AF orthorhombic regions found in Ca(Fe\(_{1  x}\)Co_{x})_{2}As_{2} under biaxial strain^{38,39}. In the latter compound, the quantum phase transition between the superconducting tetragonal and AF orthorhombic phases is of first order, and the resulting phase separation into these two phases with different inplane lattice parameters allows the material to respond to biaxial strain in a continuous fashion; this would occur even if there were no quenched disorder. In NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As, the quantum phase transition is of second order and, therefore an analogous phase separation does not occur. Instead, the local orthorhombic distortions we observe in NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As likely result from large nematic susceptibility near optimal superconductivity pinned by quenched disorder.
Given that the orthorhombic distortion with Curie–Weiss temperature dependence arises from local orthorhombic distortions, an alternative way to characterize such distortion is broadening of dspacing distribution width, Δd/d (see Methods section). In Fig. 4a–d, we show Δd/d in NaFe_{1x}Ni_{x}As, obtained from our neutron Larmor diffraction measurements. Given that the local orthorhombic distortions arise from quenched disorder coupled with large nematic susceptibility near a nematic QCP, it should track the temperature dependence of nematic susceptibility, since the quenched disorder should depend weakly on temperature. Therefore, we have fitted Δd/d in Fig. 4a–d with the Curie–Weiss form Δd/d ∝ 1/(T − T^{*}) and extracted the Weiss temperature T^{*} as a function of doping, as shown in Fig. 4e. Our Δd/d results are well described by the Curie–Weiss form, with T^{*} changing from positive in underdoped to negative in overdoped regime [Fig. 4e], suggesting a nematic QCP near optimal superconductivity. These results are reminiscent of temperature and doping dependence of nematic susceptibility from elastoresistance^{6} and shear modulus measurements^{8}, suggesting that temperature dependence of Δd/d is a direct measure of the nematic susceptibility without the need to apply external stress.
Discussion
In NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As, the orthorhombic distortion and the structural phase transition temperature are δ ≈ 1.7 × 10^{−3} and T_{s} ≈ 58 K for x = 0^{25,31}; for x = = 0.012, they become δ ≈ 7 × 10^{−4} and T_{s} ≈ 33 K. We find no evidence of structural phase transitions for samples with x ≥ 0.015, suggesting the presence of a putative nematic QCP at x = x_{c}, where x_{c} ≳ 0.015. These results are consistent with recent Muon spin rotation and relaxation study of the magnetic phase diagram of NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As^{40}. The dopingdependence of T_{s} and δ are also consistent with the Nidoping dependence of T^{*} determined from Curie–Weiss fits to temperature dependence of Δd/d, which changes from positive to negative near x ≈ 0.015 [Fig. 4e]. Since our neutron Larmor diffraction measurements were carried out using polarized neutron beam produced by an Heusler monochromator, which has an energy resolution of about ΔE ≈ 1.0 meV^{28,29}, the local orthorhombic distortions captured in our measurements are either static or fluctuating slower than a time scale of \(\tau \sim \hbar {\mathrm{/}}2{\mathrm{\Delta }}E\sim 0.3\) ps, where ħ is the reduced Planck's constant^{41,42}. One possible origin of such slow fluctuations may be the inplane transverse acoustic phonons that exhibit significant softening in the paramagnetic tetragonal phase when approaching a nematic instability^{43}. Future neutron scattering experiments with energy resolutions much better than ΔE ≈ 1 meV are desirable to separate the static and slowly fluctuating contributions. Our results also indicate that the nematic QCP would occur at a x value that is distinctively larger than that of the magnetic QCP in the absence of superconductivity. In the phase diagram of iron pnictides with decoupled T_{s} and T_{N}, due to the competition between superconductivity with both nematic and magnetic orders, magnetic order forms a hump peaked at T_{c} near optimal doping [Fig. 1d], and the structural phase transition disappears in a similar fashion at a larger x.
Theoretically, a determinantal quantum Monte Carlo study of a twodimensional signproblemfree lattice model reveals an Ising nematic QCP in a metal at finite fermion density^{44}. In the nematic phase, the discrete lattice rotational symmetry is spontaneously broken from fourfold to twofold, and there are also nematic quantum critical fluctuations above the nematic ordering temperature. Within the numerical accuracy of the determinantal quantum Monte Carlo study, the uniform nematic susceptibility above the nematic ordering temperature has Curie–Weiss temperature dependence, signaling an asymptotic quantum critical scaling regime consistent with our observation^{44}. Alternatively, the observed Curie–Weiss temperaturedependent behavior of nematic susceptibility can be understood from spindriven nematic order theory, where magnetic fluctuations associated with static AF order induce formation of the nematic state^{45}. In this picture, the effect of lattice strain coupled to the nematic order parameter produces a meanfield Curie–Weisslike behavior, arising from the nematoelastic coupling which has directiondependent terms in the propagator for nematic fluctuations. The Curie–Weiss temperaturedependent nematic susceptibility should occur in the entire phase diagram, where there is a significant softening of the elastic modulus^{45}. This means that Curie–Weiss temperature dependence of local orthorhombic distortions that we observe is a signature of nematoelastic coupling, which does not suppress the magnetic fluctuations that cause the nematic order, but transforms the Ising nematic transition into a meanfield transition^{45}.
Our discovery of local orthorhombic distortions exhibiting Curie–Weiss temperature dependence across the phase diagram of NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As results from the proliferation of nematic fluctuations and large nematic susceptibility near the nematic QCP. Quenched disorder that are always present in such doped materials act to pin the otherwise fluctuating local nematic domains, resulting in static (or quasistatic) local orthorhombic distortions that can lead to observations of rotational symmetry breaking seen with multiple probes^{13,14,15,16,17,18,19}. We have definitively observed local nematic distortions in NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As that are static or quasistatic, in contrast to local distortions seen in Sr_{1−x}Na_{x}Fe_{2}As_{2}, using pair distribution function analysis that contain significantly more dynamic contributions^{46} and which would not cause rotational symmetry breaking seen by static probes. Our observation of local nematic distortions highlights the presence of nematic fluctuations near the nematic QCP, which can play an important role in enhancing superconductivity of iron pnictides^{9,10,11,12}, while the intense Ising nematic spin correlations near the nematic QCP may be the dominant pairing interaction^{47,48,49}.
Methods
Elastic neutron scattering experimental details
Elastic neutron experiments were carried out on the Spin Polarized Inelastic Neutron Spectrometer (SPINS) at the NIST Center for Neutron Research, United States and the HB1A tripleaxis spectrometer at the HighFluxIsotope Reactor (HFIR), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), United States. We used pyrolytic graphite [PG(002)] monochromators and analyzers in these measurements. At HB1A, the monochromator is vertically focused with fixedincident neutron energy E_{i} = 14.6 meV and the analyzer is flat. At SPINS, the monochromator is vertically focused and the analyzer is flat with fixedscattered neutron energy E_{f} = 5 meV. A PG filter was used at HB1A and a Be filter was used at SPINS to avoid contamination from higherorder neutrons. Collimations of 40′–40′sample40′–80′ and guide40′sample40′open were used on HB1A and SPINS, respectively.
To measure the structural distortion in NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As (x = 0.012) at SPINS, we changed the collimation to guide20′sample20′open to improve the resolution and removed the Be filter. Our measurement was carried out nominally around a weak nuclear Bragg peak Q = (2, 0, 0), but the measured intensity at this position mostly come from higherorder neutrons [Q = (4, 0, 0) for λ/2 neutrons and Q = (6, 0, 0) for λ/3 neutrons]. While we do not resolve two split peaks in the orthorhombic state, clear broadening can be observed. Typical scans along the [H, 0, 0] direction centered at Q = (2, 0, 0) are shown in Supplementary Fig. 3. δ in Fig. 3b is obtained by assuming δ = 0 at T = 50 K and fitting broadening at lower temperatures as two split peaks with fixed widths of the peak at T = 50 K.
Inelastic neutron scattering experimental details
Our inelastic neutron scattering experiment was carried out on the HB3 tripleaxis spectrometer at HFIR, ORNL, United States. Vertically focused pyrolytic graphite [PG(002)] monochromator and analyzer with fixedscattered neutron energy E_{f} = 14.7 meV were used. A PG filter was used to avoid higherorder neutron contaminations. The collimation used was 48′40′sample40′120′.
Using inelastic neutron scattering, we studied the neutron spin resonance mode^{2,50} in NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As, with x = 0.012. Energy scans at Q = (1, 0, 0.5) above (T = 35 K) and below T_{c} (T = 1.5 and 9 K) are compared in Supplementary Fig. 2a. The scans below T_{c} after subtracting the T = 35 K scan are compared in Supplementary Fig. 2b. A clear resonance mode at E_{r} = 7 meV similar to optimaldoped NaFe_{1−x}Co_{x}As^{51} is observed, with almost identical intensities at T = 1.5 and 9 K. Constant energy scans along [H,0,0.5] at different temperatures are compared in Supplementary Fig. 2c, confirming the results in Supplementary Figs. 2a, b. Temperature dependence of the resonance mode is shown in Supplementary Fig. 2d, overplotted with temperature dependence of orthorhombicity and AF order parameter. Intensity of the resonance mode increases smoothly below T_{c} and T_{r}, displaying no response when AF order is completely suppressed below T_{r}. These results demonstrate the coexistence of robust superconductivity and nematic order without AF order in NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As (x = 0.012) below T_{r}.
Larmor diffraction experimental details
Our neutron Larmor diffraction measurements were carried out at the three axes spinecho spectrometer at ForschungsNeutronenquelle Heinz MaierLeibnitz (MLZ), Garching, Germany. Neutrons are polarized by a supermirror bender, and higherorder neutrons are eliminated using a velocity selector. We used doublefocused PG(002) monochromator and horizontalfocused Heusler (Cu_{2}MnAl) analyzer in these measurements. Incident and scattered neutron energies are fixed at E_{i} = E_{f} = 15.67 meV (k_{i} = k_{f} = 2.750 Å^{−1}).
The detailed principles of neutron Larmor diffraction has been described in detail elsewhere^{29,52}. In such experiments, polarization of the scattered neutrons P is measured as a function of the total Larmor precession phase ϕ_{tot}. By analyzing the measured P(ϕ_{tot}), information about the sample’s dspacing distribution can be obtained.
For an ideal crystal with dspacing described by a δ function, P is independent of ϕ_{tot}, with P(ϕ_{tot}) = P_{0}. P_{0} accounts for the nonideal polarization of neutrons and can be corrected for by Ge crystal calibration measurements. In real materials, due to internal strain and sample inhomogeneity, or in the case of iron pnictides, a twinned orthorhombic phase, the dspacing should instead be described by a distribution f(\(\epsilon\)), with \(\epsilon\) = δd/d. δd is the deviation from the average dspacing d. P(ϕ_{tot}) is then described by
Thus, P(ϕ_{tot}) can be regarded as the Fourier transform of the lattice dspacing distribution f(\(\epsilon\)). By measuring P(ϕ_{tot}), it is possible to resolve features with a resolution better than 10^{−5} in terms of \(\epsilon\), limited by the range of accessible ϕ_{tot}.
The distribution of dspacing f(\(\epsilon\)) is commonly described as a Gaussian function with fullwidthathalfmaximum (FWHM) \(\epsilon _{{\mathrm{FWHM}}}\), also denoted as Δd/d in the rest of the paper. Eq. (3) then becomes
In iron pnictides with a nonzero nematic order parameter, due to twinning, f(\(\epsilon\)) becomes the sum of two Gaussian functions. Assuming that the two Gaussian peaks have identical FWHM \(\epsilon _{{\mathrm{FWHM}}}\), Eq. (4) becomes
where, r and (1 − r) denotes the relative populations of the two lattice dspacings a and b, and Δ\(\epsilon\) = 2(a − b)/(a + b) = 2δ^{53}. Therefore, the nematic order parameter can be extracted by fitting P(ϕ_{tot}) using Eq. (5).
When δ is too small to be directly resolved by Larmor diffraction, P(ϕ_{tot}) can be well described by either Eq. (4) or (5). In such cases, we either extract Δd/d from Eq. (4) (Fig. 4) or extract δ by assuming at T = 50 K, δ = 0 and extract \(\epsilon _{{\mathrm{FWHM}}}\), then fit to Eq. (5) by fixing \(\epsilon _{{\mathrm{FWHM}}}\) to this value (Figs. 1e, 3). Measurements of P(ϕ_{tot}) at several different temperatures for NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As (x = 0.013) are shown in Supplementary Fig. 4, and fit to Eq. (5) as described.
A key feature of Eq. (5) is an oscillation in P(ϕ_{tot}), which can be seen in raw data in Supplementary Fig. 4d–i (open symbols in Fig. 3c); in these cases, the measurement provides definitive evidence of an orthorhombic state. For other panels in Supplementary Fig. 4, due to limited range of ϕ_{tot}, P(ϕ_{tot}) can be equally well described by Eq. (4) (solid symbols in Fig. 3c); for such data, we cannot differentiate between a true splitting and a broadening from measurements done at a single temperature.
Magnetic susceptibility and electrical resistivity measurements
To ensure that T_{r} for NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As (x = 0.012) is well inside the superconducting state, we show in Supplementary Fig. 1 its magnetic susceptibility as a function of temperature. As can be seen, the sample displays a sharp superconducting transition at T_{c} ≈ 17 K, with a width ΔT_{c} ≈ 2 K. T_{r} is well inside the superconducting state, unaffected by the width of the superconducting transition.
The temperature and doping dependence of the inplane electrical resistivity ρ(T) were measured using the standard fourprobe method, the results are normalized to ρ(200 K) and summarized in Supplementary Fig. 5. The superconducting transitions for all measured samples are sharp. The kinks associated with the structural transition at T_{s} can be clearly identified in underdoped samples (Supplementary Fig. 5a–d), similar to NaFe_{1−x}Cu_{x}As^{54}. These kinks are progressively suppressed with increasing Ni concentration and disappear in overdoped samples. T_{s} determined from electrical resistivity measurements are in good agreement with those obtained from Larmor diffraction.
Coexistence of superconductivity with lattice nematicity
Here, we first consider the case without any longrange magnetic order, as is realized in NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As for x > 0.012. In that case, the effective Landau free energy can be written in terms of only the superconducting order parameter Δ and the orthorhombicity δ≡(a − b)/(a + b):
Here, we assume that the superconducting order parameter transforms under the tetragonal point symmetry, i.e., it does not break the C_{4} rotational symmetry of the lattice. Since the latticenematic order parameter breaks this symmetry, the coupling to superconductivity is quadratic in δ. Above, the coefficient C is in fact the elastic shear modulus C_{66}, which is the inverse of the nematic susceptibility. The latter has a Curie–Weiss behavior (see Fig. 4 in the main text):
Here, \(C_{66}^{(0)}\) is the “bare” value of shear modulus in the absence of nematic transition. Note that, the above formula can been derived rigorously from an effective model of lattice orthorombicity δ coupled with an electronic nematic order parameter^{29}. Here, we simply take T^{*} to be the phenomenological Curie–Weiss temperature extracted from fitting the dspacing in Fig. 4e. Note that, if T^{*} is positive (for x < 0.016), we identify it with the nematic transition temperature T_{s} such that 0 > C = −\(\left C \right\) is below T_{s}.
Minimizing this effective action with respect to the twoorder parameters ∂F/∂Δ = 0 = ∂F/∂δ we obtain in the mixed state with T < {T_{s}, T_{c}} nonzero values of both parameters:
where, Δ_{0} = \(\sqrt {\alpha {\mathrm{/}}\beta }\) and δ_{0} = \(\sqrt {\left C \right{\mathrm{/}}D}\) are the values of the order parameters in the absence of coupling between them. In the coexistence phase, the free energy becomes:
where, \(F_{\mathrm{SC}}^{(0)} =  \alpha \left {{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0} \right^2{\mathrm{/}}4\). Note that, for the coexistence phase to be stable, the last term in the above expression must be positive, which is only possible if \({\textstyle{{4\gamma ^2} \over {\beta D}}} < 1\), or equivalently, βD > 4γ^{2}.
There is no perceptible change in the superconducting transition temperature below T_{s}, implying \(\left {\mathrm{\Delta }} \right \simeq \left {{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{0}}} \right\). Substituting this into Eq. (8), we obtain:
By contrast, the suppression of the orthorhombicity below T_{c} is substantial, δ ≈ 0.5δ_{0} (see Fig. 3b, c), meaning that \(\left( {\frac{{2\gamma }}{D}} \right)\left {{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0} \right^2 \approx \delta _0^2\) from Eq. (9). Substituting this into Eq. (11), we obtain:
in other words, we can approximate the denominator in Eqs. (8) and (9) to be 1. This is also consistent with the requirement from Eq. (10) for the coexistence phase to be stable.
In summary, the phenomenological Landau free energy explains qualitatively the experimental data in the coexistence phase of superconductivity and nematicity. Furthermore, comparison with the experiment allows us to impose strong condition on the smallness of the coupling constant γ in terms of inequality (12).
Coexistence of three phases
Below x > 0.012, NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As has a longrange AF order, and the free energy in Eq. (10) has to be modified to include the magnetic order parameter M:
where, we have included phenomenological coupling constants μ and w. The sign of w is positive, in accord with our experimental observation that AF order and superconductivity compete with each other (see Fig. 2g, h in the main text). The sign in front of μ on the other hand is negative, indicating magnetoelastic coupling that favors the coexistence of magnetism and orthorhombic distortion. Because of this coupling, it is clear that δ will acquire an additional component proportional to M^{2} inside the AF phase:
because M^{2} and \(\left {\mathrm{\Delta }} \right^2\) repel each other via the last term in Eq. (13), this implies, in view of Eq. (14), that a new term proportional to \({\mathrm{\Delta }}F \propto \left \delta \right\left {\mathrm{\Delta }} \right^2\) will be generated in the action, coupling the square of the superconducting order parameter linearly to the lattice orthorhombicity.
Working with full free energy in Eq. (13) is impractical because of the large number of phenomenological parameters that are difficult to determine experimentally. Nevertheless, it offers a qualitative insight into the coexistence between AF, lattice nematicity, and superconductivity, as the above discussion shows.
As a parenthetical remark, we note that the term \( \mu \left \delta \right \cdot M^2\) in free energy may appear surprising at first sight, as one might have expected that lattice distortion and magnetization should couple biquadratically. The reason for linear coupling is because the stripe AF order in iron pnictides breaks the lattice C_{4} symmetry, as does the shear strain δ^{29,55,56,57}. Note that this conclusion holds independently of whether the microscopic origin of nematicity is purely magnetic^{55,56} or due to orbital ordering of Fe d_{xz}/d_{yz} orbitals^{57,58,59,60}.
Data availability
All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper and/or the Supplementary Materials. Additional data related to this paper may be requested from the authors.
Change history
05 September 2018
This Article was originally published without the accompanying Peer Review File. This file is now available in the HTML version of the Article; the PDF was correct from the time of publication.
References
 1.
Stewart, G. R. Superconductivity in iron compounds. Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1589–1652 (2011).
 2.
Dai, P. C. Antiferromagnetic order and spin dynamics in ironbased superconductors. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 855–896 (2015).
 3.
Chu, J.H. et al. Inplane resistivity anisotropy in an underdoped ironarsenide superconductor. Science 329, 824–826 (2010).
 4.
Chu, J.H., Kuo, H.H., Analytis, J. G. & Fisher, I. R. Divergent nematic susceptibility in an ironarsenide superconductor. Science 337, 710 (2012).
 5.
Fernandes, R. M., Chubukov, A. V. & Schmalian, J. What drives nematic order in ironbased superconductors? Nat. Phys. 10, 97–104 (2014).
 6.
Kuo, H. H., Chu, J.H., Palmstrom, J. C., Kivelson, S. A. & Fisher, I. R. Ubiquitous signatures of nematic quantum criticality in optimally doped Febased superconductors. Science 352, 958–962 (2016).
 7.
Yoshizawa, M. et al. Structural quantum criticality and superconductivity in ironbased superconductor Ba(Fe_{1−x}Co_{x})_{2}As_{2}. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 81, 024604 (2012).
 8.
Böhmer, A. E. & Meingast, C. Electronic nematic susceptibility of ironbased superconductors. C. R. Phys. 17, 90–112 (2016).
 9.
Maier, T. A. & Scalapino, D. J. Pairing interaction near a nematic quantum critical point of a threeband CuO_{2} model. Phys. Rev. B 90, 174510 (2014).
 10.
Metlitski, M. A., Mross, D. F., Sachdev, S. & Senthil, T. Cooper pairing in nonFermi liquids. Phys. Rev. B 91, 115111 (2015).
 11.
Lederer, S., Schattner, Y., Berg, E. & Kivelson, S. A. Enhancement of superconductivity near a nematic quantum critical point. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 097001 (2015).
 12.
Lederer, S., Schattner, Y., Berg, E. & Kivelson, S. A. Superconductivity and nonFermi liquid behavior near a nematic quantum critical point. PNAS 114, 4905–4910 (2017).
 13.
Kasahara, S. et al. Electronic nematicity above the structural and superconducting transition in BaFe_{2}(As_{1−x}P_{x})_{2}. Nature 486, 382 (2012).
 14.
Sonobe, T. et al. Orbitalanisotropic electronic structure in the nonmagnetic state of BaFe_{2}(As_{1−x}P_{x})_{2} superconductors. Sci. Rep. 8, 2169 (2018).
 15.
Zhou, R., Xing, L. Y., Wang, X. C., Jin, C. Q. & Zheng, G.Q. Orbital order and spin nematicity in the tetragonal phase of the electrondoped iron pnictides NaFe_{1−x}Co_{x}As. Phys. Rev. B 93, 060502 (2016).
 16.
Thewalt, E. et al. Imaging anomalous nematic order and strain in optimally doped BaFe_{2}(As,P)_{2}. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 027001 (2018).
 17.
Ren, X. et al. Nematic crossover in BaFe_{2}As_{2} under uniaxial stress. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 197002 (2015).
 18.
Rosenthal, E. P. et al. Visualization of electron nematicity and unidirectional antiferroic fluctuations at high temperatures in NaFeAs. Nat. Phys. 10, 225–232 (2014).
 19.
Liu, S. et al. Transient electronic anisotropy in overdoped NaFe_{1−x}Co_{x}As superconductors. Phys. Rev. B 97, 020505 (2018).
 20.
Kuo, H.H., Shapiro, M. C., Riggs, S. C. & Fisher, I. R. Measurement of the elastoresistivity coefficients of the underdoped ironarsenide Ba(Fe_{0.975}Co_{0.025})_{2}As_{2}. Phys. Rev. B 88, 085113 (2013).
 21.
Pratt, D. K. et al. Incommensurate spindensity wave order in electrondoped BaFe_{2}As_{2} superconductors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 257001 (2011).
 22.
Lu, X. et al. Avoided quantum criticality and magnetoelastic coupling in BaFe_{2−x}Ni_{x}As_{2}. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 257001 (2013).
 23.
Dioguardi, A. P. et al. Coexistence of cluster spin glass and superconductivity in Ba(Fe_{1−x}Co_{x})_{2}As_{2} for 0.060 ≤ x ≤ 0.071. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 207201 (2013).
 24.
Hu, D. et al. Structural and magnetic phase transitions near optimal superconductivity in BaFe_{2}(As_{1−x}P_{x})_{2}. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 157002 (2015).
 25.
Tan, G. et al. Electron doping evolution of structural and antiferromagnetic phase transitions in NaFe_{1−x}Co_{x}As iron pnictides. Phys. Rev. B 94, 014509 (2016).
 26.
Parker, D. R. et al. Control of the competition between a magnetic phase and a superconducting phase in cobaltdoped and nickeldoped NaFeAs using electron count. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 057007 (2010).
 27.
Zhou, R., Li, Z., Yang, J., Lin, C. T. & Zheng, G. Q. Quantum criticality in electrondoped BaFe_{2−x}Ni_{x}As_{2}. Nat. Commun. 4, 2265 (2013).
 28.
Martin, N., Regnault, L.P., Slimko, S., Lorenzo, J. E. & Gähler, R. Larmor diffraction measurement of the temperature dependence of lattice constants in CuGeO_{3}. Physica B 406, 2333–2336 (2011).
 29.
Lu, X. et al. Impact of uniaxial pressure on structural and magnetic phase transitions in electrondoped iron pnictides. Phys. Rev. B 93, 134519 (2016).
 30.
Parker, D. R. et al. Structure, antiferromagnetism and superconductivity of the layered ironarsenide NaFeAs. Chem. Commun. 16, 2189–2191 (2009).
 31.
Li, S. et al. Structural and magnetic phase transitions in Na_{1−δ}FeAs. Phys. Rev. B 80, 020504(R) (2009).
 32.
Pratt, D. K. et al. Coexistence of competing antiferromagnetic and superconducting phases in the underdoped Ba(Fe_{0.953}Co_{0.047})_{2}As_{2} compound using Xray and neutron scattering techniques. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 087001 (2009).
 33.
Christianson, A. D. et al. Static and dynamics magnetism in underdoped superconductor BaFe_{1.92}Co_{0.08}As_{2}. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 087002 (2009).
 34.
Fernandes, R. M. et al. Unconventional pairing in the ironarsenide superconductors. Phys. Rev. B 81, 140501(R) (2010).
 35.
Kim, M. G. et al. Effects of transition metal substitutions on the incommensurability and spin fluctuations in BaFe_{2}As_{2} by elastic and inelastic neutron scattering. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 167003 (2012).
 36.
Nandi, S. et al. Anomalous suppression of the orthorhombic lattice distortion in superconducting Ba(Fe_{1−x}Co_{x})_{2}As_{2} single crystals. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 057006 (2010).
 37.
Fernandes, R. M. et al. Effects of nematic fluctuations on the elastic properties of ironarsenide superconductors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 157003 (2010).
 38.
Böhmer, A. E. et al. Effect of biaxial strain on the phase transitions of Ca(Fe_{1−x}Co_{x})_{2}As_{2}. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 107002 (2017).
 39.
Fente, A. et al. Direct visualization of phase separation between superconducting and nematic domains in Codoped CaFe_{2}As_{2} close to a firstorder phase transition. Phys. Rev. B 97, 014505 (2018).
 40.
Cheung, S. C. et al. Disentangling superconducting and magnetic orders in NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As using muon spin rotation. Phys. Rev. B 97, 224508 (2018).
 41.
VasiliuDoloc, L. et al. Charge melting and polaron collapse in La_{1.2}Sr_{1.8}Mn_{2}O_{7}. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4393–4396 (1999).
 42.
Dai, P. C. et al. Shortrange polaron correlations in the ferromagnetic La_{1−x}Ca_{x}MnO_{3}. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2553–2556 (2000).
 43.
Li, Y. et al. Dynamic spinlattice coupling and nematic fluctuations in NaFeAs. Phys. Rev. X 8, 021056 (2018).
 44.
Schattner, Y., Lederer, S., Kivelson, S. A. & Berg, E. Isingnematic quantum critical point in a metal: a Monte Carlo study. Phys. Rev. X 6, 031028 (2016).
 45.
Karahasanovic, U. & Schmalian, J. Elastic coupling and spindriven nematicity in ironbased superconductors. Phys. Rev. B 93, 064520 (2016).
 46.
Frandsen, B. A. et al. Local orthorhombicity in the magnetic C _{4} phase of the holedoped ironarsenide superconductor Sr_{1x}Na_{x}Fe_{2}As_{2}. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 187001 (2017).
 47.
Scalapino, D. J. A common thread: the pairing interaction for unconventional superconductors. Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1383–1417 (2012).
 48.
Si, Q., Yu, R. & Abrahams, E. High temperature superconductivity in iron pnictides and chalcogenides. Nat. Rev. Mater. 1, 16017 (2016).
 49.
Song, Y. et al. Energy dependence of the spin excitation anisotropy in uniaxialstrained BaFe_{1.9}Ni_{0.1}As_{2}. Phys. Rev. B 92, 180504 (2015).
 50.
Wang, M. et al. Doping dependence of spin excitations and its correlations with hightemperature superconductivity in iron pnictides. Nat. Commun. 4, 2874 (2013).
 51.
Zhang, C. et al. Electron doping evolution of the neutron spin resonance in NaFe_{1−x}Co_{x}As. Phys. Rev. B 93, 174522 (2016).
 52.
Keller, T., Rekveldt, M. Th & Habicht, K. Neutron Larmor diffraction measurement of the latticespacing spread of pyrolytic graphite. Appl. Phys. A 74, s127 (2002).
 53.
Kim, M. G. et al. Character of the structural and magnetic phase transitions in the parent and electrondoped BaFe_{2}As_{2} compounds. Phys. Rev. B 83, 134522 (2011).
 54.
Wang, A. F. et al. Phase diagram and physical properties of NaFe_{1−x}Cu_{x}As single crystals. Phys. Rev. B 88, 094516 (2013).
 55.
Fang, C., Yao, H., Tsai, W.F., Hu, J. P. & Kivelson, S. A. Theory of electron nematic order in LaFeAsO. Phys. Rev. B 77, 224509 (2008).
 56.
Fernandes, R. M., Abrahams, E. & Schmalian, J. Anisotropic inplane resistivity in the nematic phase of the iron pnictides. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 217002 (2011).
 57.
Wang, Z. & Nevidomskyy, A. H. Orbital nematic order and interplay with magnetism in the twoorbital Hubbard model. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 27, 225602 (2015).
 58.
Lee, C. C., Yin, W. G. & Ku, W. Ferroorbital order and strong magnetic anisotropy in the parent compounds of ironpnictide superconductors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 267001 (2009).
 59.
Kruüger, F., Kumar, S., Zaanen, J. & Van Den Brink, J. Spin–orbital frustrations and anomalous metallic state in ironpnictide superconductors. Phys. Rev. B 79, 054504 (2009).
 60.
Lv, W. C., Wu, J. S. & Phillips, P. Orbital ordering induces structural phase transition and the resistivity anomaly in iron pnictides. Phys. Rev. B 80, 224506 (2009).
Acknowledgments
The single crystal growth and neutron scattering work at Rice is supported by the U.S. DOE, BES under contract no. DESC0012311 (P.D.). A part of the material’s synthesis and characterization work at Rice is supported by the Robert A. Welch Foundation Grant Nos. C1839 (P.D.) and C1818 (A.H.N.). A.H.N. also acknowledges the support of the US National Science Foundation Grant No. DMR1350237. C.D.C. acknowledges the financial support by the NSFC (51471135), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFB1100101), Shenzhen Science and Technology Program (JCYJ20170815162201821), and Shaanxi International Cooperation Program (2017KWZD07). We acknowledge the support of the High Flux Isotope Reactor, a DOE Office of Science User Facility operated by ORNL in providing the neutron research facilities used in this work.
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
Single crystal growth and neutron scattering experiments were carried out by W.W., Y.S., C.C., and Y.L. with assistance from K.F.T., T.K., L.W.H., W.T., S.C., and P.D. Theoretical understandings were performed by R.Y. and A.H.N. The entire project is overseen by P.D and C.C. The paper was written by P.D., W.W., Y.S., and A.H.N. and all authors made comments.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, W., Song, Y., Cao, C. et al. Local orthorhombic lattice distortions in the paramagnetic tetragonal phase of superconducting NaFe_{1−x}Ni_{x}As. Nat Commun 9, 3128 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467018055292
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Further reading

Evolution of the Nematic Susceptibility in LaFe1−xCoxAsO
Physical Review Letters (2020)

Neutron Larmor diffraction on powder samples
Journal of Applied Crystallography (2020)

Weaker nematic phase connected to the first order antiferromagnetic phase transition in SrFe2As2 compared to BaFe2As2
Physical Review B (2019)

Quantitative characterization of shortrange orthorhombic fluctuations in FeSe through pair distribution function analysis
Physical Review B (2019)

Disorderinduced electronic nematicity
Physical Review B (2019)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.