[go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

A one-third magnetization plateau phase as evidence for the Kitaev interaction in a honeycomb-lattice antiferromagnet

An Author Correction to this article was published on 10 October 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

The magnetization of a quantum magnet can be pinned at a fraction of its saturated value by collective effects. One example of such a plateau phase is found in spin-1/2 triangular-lattice antiferromagnets. They feature strong geometrical frustration and the plateau phase therein is often interpreted as arising from an order-by-disorder mechanism driven by quantum fluctuations. Here we observe a one-third magnetization plateau under an applied magnetic field in the spin-1 antiferromagnet Na3Ni2BiO6 with a honeycomb lattice, which, with conventional magnetic interactions, would not be geometrically frustrated. Based on our elastic neutron scattering measurements, we propose the spin structure of the plateau phase to be an unusual partial spin-flop ferrimagnetic order. Our theoretical calculations indicate that bond-anisotropic Kitaev interactions are the source of frustration that produces the plateau. These results suggest that Kitaev interactions provide a different route to frustration and phases driven by quantum fluctuations in high-spin magnets.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Structure and anisotropic antiferromagnetic order of Na3Ni2BiO6 single crystals.
Fig. 2: One-third magnetization plateau of Na3Ni2BiO6.
Fig. 3: Zigzag magnetic structure in zero field and partial spin-flop structure of the one-third magnetization plateau phase under field.
Fig. 4: Magnetic phase diagram of Na3Ni2BiO6 with field applied perpendicular to the ab plane.
Fig. 5: Magnetization curve of the spin-1 J1-J3-K-D model obtained by the tensor-network calculations.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author J.W. upon reasonable request. Source data are provided with this paper.

Change history

References

  1. Balents, L. Spin liquids in frustrated magnets. Nature 464, 199–208 (2010).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wen, J., Yu, Shun-Li, Li, S., Yu, W. & Li, Jian-Xin Experimental identification of quantum spin liquids. npj Quant. Mater. 4, 12 (2019).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Broholm, C. et al. Quantum spin liquids. Science 367, eaay0668 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chubukov, A. V. & Golosov, D. I. Quantum theory of an antiferromagnet on a triangular lattice in a magnetic field. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 3, 69–82 (1991).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Honecker, A. A comparative study of the magnetization process of two-dimensional antiferromagnets. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 11, 4697–4713 (1999).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Starykh, O. A. Unusual ordered phases of highly frustrated magnets: a review. Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 052502 (2015).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhitomirsky, M. E., Honecker, A. & Petrenko, O. A. Field induced ordering in highly frustrated antiferromagnets. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3269–3272 (2000).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kawamura, H. & Miyashita, S. Phase transition of the Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the triangular lattice in a magnetic field. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 54, 4530–4538 (1985).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Henley, C. L. Ordering due to disorder in a frustrated vector antiferromagnet. Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2056–2059 (1989).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Alicea, J., Chubukov, A. V. & Starykh, O. A. Quantum stabilization of the 1/3-magnetization plateau in Cs2CuBr4. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 137201 (2009).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. Coletta, T., Zhitomirsky, M. E. & Mila, Frédéric Quantum stabilization of classically unstable plateau structures. Phys. Rev. B 87, 060407 (2013).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Yamamoto, D., Marmorini, G. & Danshita, I. Quantum phase diagram of the triangular-lattice XXZ model in a magnetic field. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 127203 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schotte, U. et al. On the field-dependent magnetic structures of CsCuCl3. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 6, 10105–10119 (1994).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ono, T. et al. Magnetization plateau in the frustrated quantum spin system Cs2CuBr4. Phys. Rev. B 67, 104431 (2003).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tsujii, H. et al.Thermodynamics of the up-up-down phase of the \(S=\frac{1}{2}\) triangular-lattice antiferromagnet Cs2CuBr4. Phys. Rev. B 76, 060406 (2007).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fortune, N. A. et al.Cascade of magnetic-field-induced quantum phase transitions in a spin-\(\frac{1}{2}\) triangular-lattice antiferromagnet. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 257201 (2009).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Shirata, Y., Tanaka, H., Matsuo, A. & Kindo, K. Experimental realization of a spin-1/2 triangular-lattice Heisenberg antiferromagnet. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 057205 (2012).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhou, H. D. et al.Successive phase transitions and extended spin-excitation continuum in the \(S=\frac{1}{2}\) triangular-latticeantiferromagnet Ba CoSb O. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 267206 (2012).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Susuki, T., Kurita, N. & Tanaka, T. Magnetization process and collective excitations in the S = 1/2 triangular-lattice Heisenberg antiferromagnet Ba3CoSb2O9. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 267201 (2013).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kamiya, Y. et al. The nature of spin excitations in the one-third magnetization plateau phase of Ba3CoSb2O9. Nat. Commun. 9, 2666 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. Inami, T., Ajiro, Y. & Goto, T. Magnetization process of the triangular lattice antiferromagnets, RbFe(MoO4)2 and CsFe(SO4)2. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn 65, 2374–2376 (1996).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  22. Shirata, Y. & Tanaka Quantum magnetization plateau in spin-1 triangular-lattice antiferromagnet Ba3NiSb2O9. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn 80, 093702 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hwang, J., Choi, E. S. & Ye, F. Successive magnetic phase transitions and multiferroicity in the spin-one triangular-lattice antiferromagnet Ba3NiNb2O9. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 257205 (2012).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhitomirsky, M. E. Field-induced transitions in a kagomé antiferromagnet. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 057204 (2002).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  25. Damle, K. & Senthil, T. Spin nematics and magnetization plateau transition in anisotropic kagome magnets. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 067202 (2006).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Nishimoto, S., Shibata, N. & Hotta, C. Controlling frustrated liquids and solids with an applied field in a kagome Heisenberg antiferromagnet. Nat. Commun. 4, 2287 (2013).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lozovik, Yu. E. & Notych, O. I. Magnetization plateaus of frustrated antiferromagnet and analogy with FQHE. Solid State Commun. 85, 873–877 (1993).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kageyama, H. et al. Exact dimer ground state and quantized magnetization plateaus in the two-dimensional spin system SrCu2(BO3)2. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3168–3171 (1999).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kodama, K. et al. Magnetic superstructure in the two-dimensional quantum antiferromagnet SrCu2(BO3)2. Science 298, 395–399 (2002).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. Chanlert, P. et al. Field-driven successive phase transitions in the quasi-two-dimensional frustrated antiferromagnet Ba2CoTeO6 and highly degenerate classical ground states. Phys. Rev. B 93, 094420 (2016).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  31. Okutani, A. et al. High-field magnetism of the honeycomb-lattice antiferromagnet Cu2(pymca)3(ClO4). J. Phys. Soc. Jpn 88, 013703 (2019).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  32. Seibel, E. M. et al. Structure and magnetic properties of the α-NaFeO2-type honeycomb compound Na3Ni2BiO6. Inorg. Chem. 52, 13605–13611 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Stavropoulos, P. P., Pereira, D. & Kee, Hae-Young Microscopic mechanism for a higher-spin Kitaev model. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 037203 (2019).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  34. Winter, S. M. et al. Models and materials for generalized Kitaev magnetism. J. Phys. Conden. Matter 29, 493002 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Takagi, H., Takayama, T., Jackeli, G., Khaliullin, G. & Nagler, S. E. Concept and realization of Kitaev quantum spin liquids. Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 264–280 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Chaloupka, J. & Khaliullin, G. Magnetic anisotropy in the Kitaev model systems Na2IrO3 and RuCl3. Phys. Rev. B 94, 064435 (2016).

  37. Oshikawa, M., Yamanaka, M. & Affleck, I. Magnetization plateaus in spin chains: “Haldane gap” for half-integer spins. Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1984–1987 (1997).

  38. Bragg, E. E. & Seehra, M. S. Magnetic susceptibility of MnF2 near TN and Fisher’s relation. Phys. Rev. B 7, 4197–4202 (1973).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  39. Smirnova, O. et al. Synthesis, crystal structure, and magnetic properties of Bi3Mn4O12(NO3) oxynitrate comprising S = 3/2 honeycomb lattice. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 8313–8317 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Okumura, S., Kawamura, H., Okubo, T. & Motome, Y. Novel spin-liquid states in the frustrated Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the honeycomb lattice. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn 79, 114705 (2010).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  41. Fouet, J. B., Sindzingre, P. & Lhuillier, C. An investigation of the quantum J1-J2-J3 model on the honeycomb lattice. Euro. Phys. J. B 20, 241–254 (2001).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  42. Yu, D., Mole, R., Noakes, T., Kennedy, S. & Robinson, R. Pelican—a time of flight cold neutron polarization analysis spectrometer at OPAL. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn 82, SA027 (2013).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  43. Nakajima, K. et al. AMATERAS: a cold-neutron disk chopper spectrometer. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn 80, SB028 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Cirac, J. I., Pérez-García, D., Schuch, N. & Verstraete, F. Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states: concepts, symmetries, theorems. Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 045003 (2021).

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by National Key Projects for Research and Development of China with grant no. 2021YFA1400400 (J.W. and J.-X.L.), National Natural Science Foundation of China with grant nos. 12225407 (J.W.), 12074174 (J.W.), 92165205 (J.-X.L.), 12074175 (S.-L.Y.), 11904170 (Z.-Y.D.), 12047503 (W.L.), 11974036 (W.L.), 12222412 (W.L.), 12004191 (W.W.) and 12204160 (Z.M.), Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu province with grant nos. BK20190436 (Z.-Y.D.) and BK20200738 (W.W.), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation with grant nos. 2022M711569 (S.B.) and 2022T150315 (S.B.), Jiangsu Province Excellent Postdoctoral Programme with grant no. 20220ZB5 (S.B.), Hubei Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China with grant no. 2021CFB238 (Z.M.), CAS Project for Young Scientists in Basic Research with grant no. (YSBR-003) (W.L.) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. We acknowledge the neutron beam time from ANSTO with proposal no. P9334 and the support from G. Davidson in setting up and operation of the 7 T superconducting magnet and the beam time from the Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex with proposal no. 2022A0039. We thank Y. Han at High Magnetic Field Laboratory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences for assisting us in measuring the magnetization under high magnetic fields.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

J.W. conceived the project. Y.S. prepared the samples. Y.S. carried out the magnetization and specific heat measurements with assistance from Z.M., Z.H., J.L., X.Z., B.Z., S.C., H.X., S.Z. and F.S. Y.S., S.B., D.Y., R.A.M., N.M., S.O.-K., L.H. and J.H. performed the neutron scattering experiments. Y.S., S.B. and J.W. analysed the experimental data. Z.-Y.D., N.X., Y.-P.G., W.W., Z.Q., Q.-B.Y., W.L., S.-L.Y. and J.-X.L. performed the theoretical calculations and analyses. J.W., Y.S., W.L. and J.-X.L. wrote the paper with inputs from all co-authors.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wei Li, Shun-Li Yu, Jian-Xin Li or Jinsheng Wen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Physics thanks Zenji Hiroi, David Kaib and J. Stewart for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Additional magnetometry data for Na3Ni2BiO6 single crystals and results of tensor-network calculations.

a, Magnetisation as a function of magnetic field applied parallel to the a − b plane for a Na3Ni2BiO6 single crystal. b, Derivative of the magnetization in a. Data are offset vertically for clarity. c, Ground state magnetisation curve of the spin-1 J1-J3-K-D model obtained by iPEPS. The magnetic field H is applied parallel to the a − b plane. The magnetisation increases linearly before it saturates, consistent with the 2-K data shown in a. As the field ramps up, the zigzag order parameter gradually decreases and falls to zero at the field where the magnetisation saturates. d, Derivative of the product χT (magnetic susceptibility times temperature) as a function of temperature under different magnetic fields applied perpendicular to the a − b plane, obtained from Fig. 1e in the main text. Black arrows denote the transition temperatures which form the phase boundary in the magnetic phase diagram in Fig. 4 of the main text.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 2 Additional elastic neutron scattering results.

a and b, Contour maps of elastic scattering in the (H, K, 0) plane measured on PELICAN with Ei = 3.70 meV at 1.5 K (below the TN) under magnetic field of μ0H = 0 and 6.6 T, respectively. c, Contour map of elastic scattering in the (H, K, 0) plane measured at 80 K (well above the TN) under zero field. It is used as the background data for subtraction.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 3 Refinement of the magnetic structure in zero field.

a, The Gaussian distribution simulation of the two characteristic peaks M (0, 1, 0) and \({M}^{{\prime} }\) (1, 2, 0). The results are obtained from AMATERAS. Because of the finer resolution, the two peaks are much sharper than those obtained from PELICAN, which allows us to fit them properly. The intensity of elastic neutron scattering is proportional to \(I(k)\propto | F(k){| }^{2}{\sum }_{\alpha \beta }\,({\delta }_{\alpha \beta }-{\hat{k}}_{\alpha }{\hat{k}}_{\beta }){M}^{\alpha }(k){M}^{\beta }(k)\), where F(k) is the magnetic form factor and Mα(k) is one of the three components of the Fourier transform of the spin distribution. For the zigzag order, there are two characteristic peaks M and \({M}^{{\prime} }\), as marked in Fig. 3a of the main text. The dip angle θ of the magnetic order defined by the angle off from c* can be refined by a simulation of the two peaks, by \(I(M)\propto F{(M)}^{2}({M}^{x}{(M)}^{2}+{M}^{x}\,{(M)}^{2}),I({M}^{{\prime} })\propto \,F{({M}^{{\prime} })}^{2}\)\(({M}^{x}({M}^{{\prime} }),{M}^{y}({M}^{{\prime} }),{M}^{z}({M}^{{\prime} }))\), where \(\left({M}^{x}({M}^{{\prime} }),{M}^{y}({M}^{{\prime} }),{M}^{z}({M}^{{\prime} })\right.=(\sin \theta ,0,\cos \theta )| M(k)|\). The relationship between the ratio of the intensities of the two peaks and the dip angle in the Gaussian simulation is, \(\frac{I({M}^{{\prime} })F\,{\left(M\right)}^{2}}{I(M)F\,{\left({M}^{{\prime} }\right)}^{2}}=(0.7727+0.1814\cos (2\theta )-0.1373\sin (2\theta ))\)\(=\frac{{A}^{{\prime} }{\sigma }^{{\prime} }}{A\sigma }\). Here, A and σ are the amplitude and variance of the Gaussian function, respectively. From the fit, we obtain \(A=37.3\pm 0.4,\sigma =0.0144\pm 0.0002,\)\({A}^{{\prime} }=16.8\pm 0.2,{\sigma }^{{\prime} }=0.0264\pm 0.0003\). So the dip angle is about θ = 19.7 ± 2. 6°. b, DFT calculations on the angle dependence of the energy taking the spin-orbit coupling into account. Zero degree is the direction perpendicular to the a − b plane (c*). The dashed line represents the c axis.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 4 Possible magnetic configurations for the 1/3 plateau phase based on the zigzag ground state.

a and b, Configurations of the honeycomb-lattice clusters with 24 and 6 sites, respectively. c-e, Magnetic structures with a 6-site chain with partial spin flip. These three 6-site chains differ in the position of spins where the spin-flip takes place and c, d, and e can be symbolized as , , and , respectively. f-i Magnetic structures with a 6-site chain with partial spin flop. These four 6-site chains differ in the position of spins where the spin-flop take place, and they can be symbolized as \(\circ\)\(\circ\), \(\circ\)\(\circ\), \(\circ\)\(\circ\), and \(\circ\)\(\circ\), respectively. The up and down spins are aligned along c*, parallel to the magnetic field. The dotted ellipse and circle indicate that the spin at this position has been flipped and flopped, respectively.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Calculations of the magnetic structure factors corresponding to the spin configurations in Extended Data Fig. 4.

a and b, Magnetic structure factors for the honeycomb clusters with 24 and 6 sites, respectively; c-e, for 6-site chain structures with partial spin flip; f and i, for 6-site chain structures with partial spin flop. As shown in a and b, there are major Bragg peaks at the M and K, respectively, which are not present in the experimental results. For c, the strongest peak is located at the \({\Gamma }^{{\prime} }\) point, which contradicts with the experiment. In d, the six peaks around the triangle centres in the second Brillouin zone exhibit comparable intensities, which is quite different from the dramatically different intensities of the two groups of peaks rotated by 180° in the experimental results. In e-g, the stronger peaks in the first Brillouin zone are significantly more intense than those in the second Brillouin zone, which conflicts with the experimental results. The patterns in h and i both appear to closely resemble the experiment. We pick i which corresponds to the spin configuration symbolised as \(\circ\)\(\circ\) depicted in Extended Data Fig. 4i to be the magnetic structure in the plateau phase, according to the least-square criterion as discussed in Extended Data Table 2. The white dotted box contains four distinctive peaks along the [0, K, 0] direction, namely M1, M0, M2 and M3, based on which we are going to determine the magnetic structure.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 6 Tensor-network method used in calculating the spin-1 J1-J3-K-D model.

a, The projected entangled pair states (PEPS) setup on the honeycomb lattice. T and S tensors are placed on the honeycomb sites, and each tensor consists of a physical spin indices i and three auxiliary ones α, β, γ. b, The unit cell setup in the PEPS calculations performed in an infinitely large system, and we adopt a 24-site unit cell as surrounded in the red parallelogram. The zigzag order pattern can be contained in such a unit cell, with S1 to S12 tensors indicated explicitly. c, Flowchart for the simple update scheme for the PEPS using the higher-order singular value decomposition (HOSVD). In practical calculations, the entanglement environment of local tensor cluster consisted of an S tensor and three T tensors around it are approximated by diagonal matrices Λ. We update the tensor cluster through imaginary time evolution, and conduct the decomposition and truncation via HOSVD, optimizing the tensors \(\tilde{S}\) and \({\tilde{T}}_{a,b,c}\) to simulate the ground state of the system.

Extended Data Table 1 Calculations on the energies for common magnetic configurations with both the DFT + U + SOC and DFT +U approaches
Extended Data Table 2 Variances of the relative intensities (Mi/M0) between the calculations and experiment
Extended Data Table 3 Scans for the possible models

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

Source data for Fig. 1.

Source Data Fig. 2

Source data for Fig. 2.

Source Data Fig. 3

Source data for Fig. 3.

Source Data Fig. 4

Source data for Fig. 4.

Source Data Fig. 5

Source data for Fig. 5.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1

Source data for Extended Data Fig. 1.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2

Source data for Extended Data Fig. 2.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3

Source data for Extended Data Fig. 3.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 5

Source data for Extended Data Fig. 5.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shangguan, Y., Bao, S., Dong, ZY. et al. A one-third magnetization plateau phase as evidence for the Kitaev interaction in a honeycomb-lattice antiferromagnet. Nat. Phys. 19, 1883–1889 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02212-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02212-2

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing