Journal of Engineering Mathematics

, Volume 85, Issue 1, pp 149–177 | Cite as

Mathematical modelling of the effect of surface roughness on magnetic field profiles in type II superconductors



One of the defining characteristics of a superconductor is the Meissner effect, in which an external magnetic field is expelled from the bulk of a sample when cooled below the critical temperature. Although there has been considerable theoretical work on the Ginzburg–Landau theory of superconductors, the effects of interest in this paper can be modelled with the simpler London equation. This equation predicts an exponential decay of the local magnetic field magnitude as a function of the distance into the superconductor from a flat surface in the London limit where \(\kappa =\lambda /\xi \), defined as the ratio between the penetration depth and coherence length, is much greater than 1. However, recent measurements of the field profile in high \(\kappa \) superconductors show that the observed decay is non-exponential near the surface. In particular, the measured field profiles indicate that the decay rate in the field magnitude is smaller than expected from a simple London model on a short length scale \(d\) near the surface. In this paper, we examine the effects of surface roughness on magnetic field penetration into a high \(\kappa \) superconductor. We model the roughness as a sinusoidal perturbation from a flat interface and investigate the effect using both an asymptotic method, based upon a small-amplitude perturbation, and a numerical method, using a finite difference discretization with a coordinate mapping from an underlying rectangular domain. A novel discretization is used in the case of 3D calculations and a fast, preconditioned GMRES solver is developed. A careful comparison of asymptotic and numerical methods validates both approaches for small perturbations, but the numerical approach allows for the investigation of rougher surfaces. Our results show that surface roughness reduces the decay rate in the average magnetic field near the surface relative to a London model. However, the reduction is more gradual than the simple dead layer model currently being used to fit experimental data. In addition, we discover some interesting new phenomena in the 3D case.


Asymptotics Finite differences London equation Superconductor Surface roughness 


  1. 1.
    Poole C, Farach H, Creswick J (1995) Superconductivity. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jackson T, Riseman T, Forgan E, Glückler H, Prokscha T, Morenzoni E, Pleines M, Niedermayer Ch, Schatz G, Luetkens H, Litterst J (2000) Depth-resolved profile of the magnetic field beneath the surface of a superconductor with a few nm resolution. Phys Rev Lett 84(21):49584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Suter A, Morenzoni E, Khasanov R, Luetkins H, Prokscha T, Garifianov N (2004) Direct observation of nonlocal effects in a superconductor. Phys Rev Lett 92(8):087001ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Suter A, Morenzoni E, Garifianov N, Khasanov R, Kirk E, Luetkins H, Prokscha T, Horisberger M (2005) Observation of nonexponential magnetic penetration profiles in Meissner state: a manifestation of nonlocal effects in superconductors. Phys Rev B 72:024506ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kiefl R, Hossain M, Wojek B, Dunsiger S, Morris G, Prokscha T, Salman Z, Baglo J, Bonn D, Liang R, Hardy W, Suter A, Morenzoni E (2010) Direct measurement of the London penetration depth in \(YBa_{2}Cu_{3}O_{6.92}\) using low-energy \(\mu {}SR\). Phys Rev B 81(18):180502ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Du Q, Gunzburger M, Janet S (1992) Analysis and approximation of the Ginzburg-Landau model of superconductivity. SIAM 34(1):54–81Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindstrom M, Wetton B, Kiefl R (2011) Modelling the effects of surface roughness on superconductors. Elsevier Physics ProcediaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ashcroft N, Mermin N (1976) Solid state physics. Saunders College Publishing, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lindstrom M (2010) Asymptotic and numerical modeling of magnetic field profiles in superconductors with rough boundaries and multi-component gas transport in PEM fuel cells. University of British Columbia, Thesis available at
  10. 10.
    Aruliah D, Ascher U (2003) Multigrid preconditioning for Krylov methods for time-harmonic Maxwell’s equations in \(3\)D. SIAM J Sci Comput 24:702–718CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saad Y (2003) Iterative methods for sparse linear systems. SIAM, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nevard J, Keller J (1997) Homogenization of rough boundaries and interfaces. SIAM J Appl Math 57(6):1660–1686CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Niedermayer Ch, Forgan E, Glückler H, Hofer A, Morenzoni E, Pleines M, Prokscha T, Riseman T, Birke M, Jackson T, Litterst J, Long M, Luetkens H, Schatz A, Schatz G (1999) Direct observation of a flux line field distribution across an \(\text{ YBa }_2\text{ Cu }_3\text{ O }_{7-\delta }\)-surface by low energy muons. Phys Rev B Lett 83:3932–3935ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ofer O, Baglo J, Hossain M, Kiefl R, Hardy W, Thaler A, Kim H, Tanatar M, Canfield P, Prozorov R, Luke G, Morenzoni E, Saadaouli H, Suter A, Prokscha T, Wojek B, Salman Z (2012) Absolute value and temperature dependence of the magnetic field penetration depth in Ba(\(\text{ Co }_{0.074}\text{ Fe }_{0.926})_2\text{ As }_2\). Phys Rev B 85:060506ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gordon R, Kim H, Salovich N, Giannetta R, Fernandes R, Kogan V, Prozorov T, Bud’ko S, Canfield P, Tanatar M, Prozorov R (2010) Doping evolution of the absoluve value of the London penetration depth and superfluid density in single crystals of Ba(\(\text{ Fe }_{1-x}\text{ Co }_x)_2\text{ As }_2\). Phys Rev B 82:054507ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Luan L, Lippman T, Hicks C, Bert J, Auslaender O (2011) Local measurement of the superfluid density in the pnictide superconductor Ba(\(\text{ Fe }_{1-x}\text{ Co }_x)_2\text{ As }_2\) across the superconducting dome. Phys Rev B 106:067001Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mathematics DepartmentUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Physics and Astronomy DepartmentUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations