Suppression of ferromagnetism governed by a critical lattice parameter in CeTiGe$\_3$ with hydrostatic pressure or V substitution

TL;DR

This study compares how hydrostatic pressure and V substitution suppress ferromagnetism in CeTiGe3, revealing a common critical lattice parameter where magnetic order vanishes, and highlighting differences in their effects on electronic and structural properties.

Contribution

It provides a detailed comparison of pressure versus chemical substitution effects on CeTiGe3's magnetic phase diagram, identifying a shared critical lattice constant for ferromagnetism suppression.

Findings

Ferromagnetism is suppressed near x=0.45 in V-doped CeTiGe3.

A common critical lattice constant c=5.78 Å suppresses ferromagnetism in both methods.

Different effects on CEF splitting and lattice constants between pressure and substitution.

Abstract

We combine structural and magnetic measurements to compare the different magnetic phase diagrams between the pressure and substitution studies in CeTiGe3. We report on the structural, magnetic, and electrical transport properties of single crystals of CeTi1-xVxGe3 (x = 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.9, and 1), and of polycrystalline samples (x = 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8), as well as structural properties of CeTiGe3 under pressure up to 9 GPa. The ferromagnetic ordering in CeTiGe3 is suppressed with V doping in CeTi1-xVxGe3, and suggests a possible ferromagnetic quantum critical point near x = 0.45. We perform a detailed crystalline electric field (CEF) analysis, and the magnetic susceptibility data in pure CeTiGe3 and CeVGe3 can be well explained by the CEF model. The proposed CEF energy levels suggest that there is a gradual change of the ground state from 5/2 state in CeTiGe3 to 1/2 state in CeVGe3, and a suppression of CEF splitting energies near the quantum critical region. When hydrostatic pressure is used instead of chemical substitution, the quantum critical point is avoided by the appearance of magnetic phases above around 4.1 GPa. In the substitution study, the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic regions are well separated, whereas they touch in the pressure study. We observe a different trend in the temperature dependence of the resistivity maximum in both studies, suggesting that the CEF splitting energy is suppressed by V substitution but enhanced by pressure. We also observe different responses in lattice constants between the two studies, highlighting the fact that substitution effects cannot be reduced to chemical pressure effects only. Nevertheless, when the magnetic phase diagrams of both hydrostatic pressure and substitution are compared, we find a common critical lattice constant c = 5.78 A where the ferromagnetic ordering is suppressed in both studies.