text:
# A new mechanism of hypersensitive transport in tilted sharp ratchets induced by noise flatness

\[

## Abstract

The noise-flatness-induced hypersensitive transport of overdamped Brownian particles in a tilted ratchet system driven by multiplicative nonequilibrium three-level Markovian noise and additive white noise is considered. At low temperatures the enhancement of current is very sensitive to the applied small static tilting force. It is established that the enhancement of mobility depends non-monotonically on the parameters (flatness, correlation time) of multiplicative noise. The optimal values of noise parameters maximizing the mobility are found.

\]

Recently, noise-induced hypersensitivity to small time-dependent signals in nonlinear systems with multiplicative noise has been the topic of a number of physical investigations . A motivation in this field has come from numerical, analytical, and experimental studies of a nonlinear Kramers oscillator with multiplicative white noise . Under the effect of intense multiplicative noise, the system is able to amplify an ultrasmall deterministic ac signal (of the order of, e.g., $`10^{20}`$) up to the value of the order of unity . Afterwards, a related phenomenon such as noise-induced hypersensitive transport was found in some other systems with multiplicative dichotomous noise . Noise-induced hypersensitive transport was also established in a phase model, i.e., $`d\phi /dt=ab\mathrm{sin}\phi `$, with a strong symmetric multiplicative colored noise. It was shown that in such a system a macroscopic flux (current) of matter appears under the effect of ultrasmall dc driving . It is important to notice that the physical mechanism underlying the phenomenon of hypersensitive transport presented in Refs.  is based on the assumption that the periodic potential is smooth. It is easy to see that in the case of a periodic sharp potential the above mechanism cannot bring forth any hypersensitive transport.

Theoretical investigations  indicate that noise-induced nonequilibrium effects are sensitive to noise flatness, which is defined as the ratio of the fourth moment to the square of the second moment of the noise process. Although its significance is obvious, the role of the flatness of fluctuations has not been researched to any significant degree to-date. In the present paper we assume the multiplicative noise to be a zero-mean trichotomous Markovian stochastic process . It is remarkable that for trichotomous noises the flatness parameter $`\phi `$, contrary to the cases of the Gaussian colored noise $`(\phi =3)`$ and symmetric dichotomous noise $`(\phi =1)`$, can have any value from 1 to $`\mathrm{}`$. The flatness as an extra degree of freedom (in comparison with dichotomous noise) can prove useful when modelling actual fluctuations, e.g., thermal transitions between three configurations or states. This is the reason why we choose in the phase space of possible non-equilibrium models the trichotomous noise. Although both dichotomous and trichotomous processes may be too rough approximations of the actual non-equilibrium fluctuations, the latter is more flexible, including all cases of dichotomous processes and, as such, revealing the essence of its peculiarities. A further virtue of the models with trichotomous noise is that they constitute a case admitting exact analytical solutions for some nonlinear stochastic problems, such as colored-noise-induced transitions  and reversals of noise-induced flow .

The main purpose of this paper is to establish a new mechanism of hypersensitive transport, demonstrating that the flatness of multiplicative noise can generate hypersensitive response to the small external static force in a tilted sharp ratchet system. We will show that in the region of hypersensitive response the value of mobility can be controlled by means of thermal noise. For low temperatures, we find that the mobility exhibits resonant behavior at intermediate values of the parameters of the multiplicative noise (flatness, correlation time).

We consider an overdamped multinoise tilted ratchet, where particles move in a one-dimensional spatially periodic potential of the form $`V(x,t)=V(x)Z(t)`$, where $`Z(t)`$ is a trichotomous process  and $`V(x)`$ is a piecewise linear function, which has one maximum per period. The additional force consists of thermal noise with temperature $`D`$, and an external static force $`F`$. The system is described by the dimensionless Langevin equation

$$\frac{dX}{dt}=Z(t)h(X)+F+\xi (t),h(x)\frac{dV(x)}{dx},$$
(1)
where $`V(x)=\stackrel{~}{V}(\stackrel{~}{x})/\stackrel{~}{V}_0,\stackrel{~}{V}(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ is a spatially periodic function with period $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_0=\stackrel{~}{V}_{max}\stackrel{~}{V}_{min}`$. The usual dimensionalized physical variables are indicated by tildes and the space and time coordinates read $`X=\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{L}`$ and $`t=\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{V}_0/\kappa \stackrel{~}{L}^2`$ with $`\kappa `$ being the friction coefficient; $`\stackrel{~}{F}=\stackrel{~}{V}_0F/\stackrel{~}{L}`$ is a constant external force. The thermal noise satisfies $`\xi (t)=0`$ and $`\xi (t_1)\xi (t_2)=2D\delta (t_1t_2)`$. Regarding the random function $`Z(t)`$, we assume it to be a zero-mean trichotomous Markovian stochastic process  which consists of jumps among three values $`z=\{1,0,1\}`$. The jumps follow in time according to a Poisson process, while the values occur with the stationary probabilities $`P_s(1)=P_s(1)=q`$ and $`P_s(0)=12q`$. In a stationary state, the fluctuation process statisfies $`Z(t)=0`$ and $`Z(t+\tau )Z(t)=2q\mathrm{exp}(\nu \tau )`$, where the switching rate $`\nu `$ is the reciprocal of the noise correlation time $`\tau _c=1/\nu `$. The trichotomous process is a special case of the kangaroo process  with a flatness parameter $`\phi =Z^4(t)/Z(t)^2=1/(2q)`$. At large flatnesses our trichotomous noise essentially coincides with the three-level noise used by Bier  and Elston and Doering .

The master equation corresponding to Eq. (1) reads

$$\frac{}{t}P_n(x,t)=\frac{}{x}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_nP_n(x,t)]+\underset{m}{}U_{nm}P_m(x,t),$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=z_nh(x)+FD_x`$ and $`P_n(x,t)`$ is the probability density for the combined process $`(x,z_n,t)`$, $`n,m=1,2,3,`$ $`z_1=1,z_2=0,z_3=1`$, and $`U_{ik}=\nu [q+(13q)\delta _{i2}\delta _{ik}]`$. The stationary current $`J=_nj_n(x)`$ is then evaluated via the current densities $`j_n(x)=(z_nh(x)+FD_x)P_n^s(x)`$, where $`P_n^s(x)`$ is the stationary probability density in the state $`(x,z_n)`$. To calculate the stationary probability density in the $`x`$ space, $`P(x)=_nP_n^s(x)`$, and the stationary current, $`J=\text{const}`$, six conditions are imposed on the solutions of Eq. (2), namely, the conditions of periodicity $`P_n^s(x)=P_n^s(x+1),n=1,2,3,`$ and normalization of $`P_n^s(x)`$ over the period interval $`L=1`$ of the ratchet potential $`Z(t)V(x)`$, which read $`_0^1P_1^s(x)𝑑x=_0^1P_3^s(x)𝑑x=q`$ and $`_0^1P_2^s(x)𝑑x=12q`$.

To derive an exact formula for $`J`$, we assume that the potential $`Z(t)V(x)=Z(t)V(x1)`$ in Eq. (1) is piecewise linear (sawtoothlike) and its asymmetry is determined by a parameter $`d(0,1)`$, with $`V(x)`$ being symmetric when $`d=1/2`$. A schematic representation of the three configurations assumed by the ”net potentials” $`V_n(x)=z_nV(x)Fx`$ associated with the right hand side of Eq. (1) is shown in Fig. 1. Regarding the symmetry of the dynamic system (1), we notice that $`J(F)=J(F)`$ and $`J(F,d)=J(F,1d)`$. Thus we may confine ourselves to the case $`d1/2`$ and $`F0`$. Obviously, for $`F=0`$, the system is effectively isotropic and no current can occur. In the case of zero temperature the both noise levels $`z_{n=1,3}=\pm 1`$ in Eq. (1), where $`F\mathrm{min}\{1/d,1/(1d)\}`$, give zero flux. However, if one allows switching between the three dynamic laws $`V_n(x)`$, $`n=1,2,3,`$ the resulting motion will have a net flux which can be much greater that the flux by the dynamic law $`V_2=Fx`$. If the rate of reaching the minimal energy in each well considerably exceeds the switching rate $`\nu `$, the leading part of the net flux is achieved in the following way: a particle locked in the potential minimum 1 switches to point 2, then slowly moves to point 3, switches to point 4 (or to 5 with equal probability), and rapidly slides down to point 6 (or from 5 back to 1), etc (see Fig. 1 and cf Ref. ).

In this case hypersensitive transport is possible and can be intuitively understood. The described scheme is valid only in the absence of thermal noise. Otherwise, a particle is able to pass by a thermally activated escape across the potential barriers in both directions. However, it predominantly moves to the right and hypersensitive transport still occurs (at least at sufficiently low temperatures). As the ”force” $`h(x)=dV(x)/dx`$ is piecewisely constant, $`h(x)=h_1=1/d`$ for $`x(0,d)(\text{mod1})`$ and $`h(x)=h_2=1/(1d)`$ for $`x(d,1)(\text{mod1})`$, Eq. (2) splits up into two linear differential equations with constant coefficients for the two vector functions $`𝐏_𝐢^𝐬(𝐱)=(P_{1i}^s,P_{2i}^s,P_{3i}^s)`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ defined on the intervals $`(0,d)`$ and $`(d,1)`$, respectively. The solution reads

$$P_{ni}^s(x)=JA_n+\underset{k=1}{\overset{5}{}}C_{ik}A_{nik}e^{\lambda _{ik}x},$$
(3)
where $`C_{ik}`$ are constants of integration, the constants $`A_n`$ and $`A_{nik}`$ are given by $`A_1=A_3=qJ/F`$, $`A_2=(12q)J/F`$, $`A_{nik}=(D\lambda _{ik}F)[D\lambda _{ik}^2(Fz_nh_i)\lambda _{ik}\nu ]`$ for $`n=1,3`$, $`A_{2ik}=2h_i^2\lambda _{ik}(A_{1ik}+A_{3ik})`$, and $`\{\lambda _{ik},k=1,\mathrm{},5\}`$ is the set of roots of the algebraic equation

$`D^3\lambda _i^53D^2F\lambda _i^4+D(3F^22D\nu h_i^2)\lambda _i^3`$ (4)
$`+F(4D\nu F^2+h_i^2)\lambda _i^2+\nu (D\nu 2F^2+2qh_i^2)\lambda _i`$ (5)
$`\nu ^2F=0.`$ (6)
Eleven conditions for the ten constants of integration of Eq. (3) and for the probability current $`J`$ can be determined at the points of discontinuity, by requiring continuity, periodicity, and normalization of $`𝐏_𝐢^𝐬(𝐱)`$. This procedure leads to an inhomogeneous set of eleven linear algebraic equations. Now, an exact formula for the current $`J`$ can be obtained as a quotient of two determinants of the eleventh degree. The exact formula, being complex and cumbersome, will not be presented here, however, it will be used to find (i) the dependence of the current $`J`$ on the tilting force $`F`$ and the dependence of the mobility $`m=J/F`$ on the flatness $`\phi =1/(2q)`$, which are displayed in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively, and (ii) the asymptotic limits of the current $`J`$ at low temperature and small external force.

Figure 2 shows the induced current $`J`$ as a function of the external force $`F`$ for two different values of temperature and for three different values of $`d`$ with fixed $`\phi =2.5`$ and $`\nu =8`$. In this figure, one also observes the hypersensitive response at very low forcing, which apparently gets more and more pronounced as the thermal noise strength $`D`$ decreases. For the case $`D=0,d=0.5`$, the results of Monte Carlo simulations of the current $`J=J(F)`$ are also presented. The tendency apparent in Fig. 2, namely a decrease in the mobility for very low forcing as the asymmetry of the potential grows, is also valid for large asymmetries, e.g., when $`d<0.05`$.

To obtain more insight, we shall now study some asymptotic limits of the current.

At the fast-noise limit, we allow $`\nu `$ to become large, holding all the other parameters fixed. Thus, at very high frequencies of colored fluctuations, the system is under the influence of the average fluctuating potential. In the $`\nu \mathrm{}`$ limit, the current is then given by

$`J=F+O(\nu ^{\frac{1}{2}}).`$

The form of the leading term of the current $`J`$ is not confined to the fast-noise limit. It is also valid for the asymptotic limit of a high temperature, $`D>>1`$, and in the case of a large ”load” force $`F`$ ($`F\mathrm{}`$, all the other parameters fixed).

At the long-correlation-time limit $`\nu 0`$, the equations (2) for $`P_1^s(x),P_2^s(x)`$, and $`P_3^s(x)`$ are decoupled and the total current is given by the average of each current for the corresponding potential configurations. In the case of the symmetric potential, $`d=1/2`$, the current $`J`$ saturates at the value

$`J`$ $`=`$ $`(12q)F`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2q(4F^2)^2\text{sh }(F/2D)}{16D[\text{ch }\frac{1}{D}\text{ch }\frac{F}{2D}]F(4F^2)\text{sh }\frac{F}{2D}}}.`$ (8)
For $`F<2`$, we can see that the current $`J`$ tends to $`(12q)F`$ as $`D0`$. This result is consistent with the physical intuition that the probability densities $`P_1^s(x)`$ and $`P_3^s(x)`$ are $`\delta `$-distributed at deterministic stationary states (minimums of potentials): the random variable $`Z`$ takes values $`\pm 1`$ for a sufficiently long time to allow the deterministic stationary state to be formed.

In the case of zero temperature, $`D=0`$, and symmetric potential, $`d=1/2`$, one finds from the exact formula that on the assumption $`F<2`$ the current equals

$$J=\nu F\frac{A_1C_2C_1A_2}{B_1C_2B_2C_1},$$
(9)
where $`A_i=F\{\alpha _i[F(4F^2)\eta _i]2(12q)\}`$, $`B_i=(\nu +16q)A_i+32q(12q)(2\alpha _i+F)`$, $`C_i=qA_i+2(12q)[4\eta _i+Fq+2\alpha _i(1+F\eta _i)]`$, $`\eta _i=F^1(4F^2)^1[F^24q2\epsilon _i(4q^2+F^2(12q))^{1/2}]`$, $`\alpha _i=\text{th}(\nu \eta _i/4)`$, $`i=1,2`$, $`\epsilon _1=1`$, $`\epsilon _2=1`$.

Thus, at the low-force limit, $`F0`$, the current will saturate at the finite value

$$\underset{F0}{lim}J=J_a=\frac{32\nu q(12q)}{(\nu +8)^2}.$$
(10)
As $`J(F=0)=0`$, the hypersensitive response is extremely pronounced in this case, with the current picking up with an infinite derivative at $`F=0`$ (see also Fig. 2). The asymptotic current $`J_a`$ exhibits a bell-shaped (resonance) form as $`\nu `$ or $`q`$ are varied. The optimal correlation time $`\tau _m`$ that maximizes the current equals $`1/8`$, and the optimal flatness $`\phi _m=1/(2q_m)=2`$. It is remarkable that in the case of a dichotomous noise $`q=1/2`$, the hypersensitive response disappears and in the low forcing limit the leading-order term of the current is proportional to $`F:J\nu F(\nu +12)/(\nu +8)^2`$.

At the low forcing limit, $`F1`$, a natural way to investigate the behaviour of $`J`$ is to apply small-$`F`$ perturbation expansions. A stationary solution of Eqs. (3) and (6) with $`D0`$, $`d=1/2`$ is constructed in terms of integer powers of $`F`$. The current can be expressed as $`J=Fm_1+F^2m_2+\mathrm{}`$. We shall calculate the leading term of the current $`Fm_1`$. Notably, the analysis of this section is valid for the values of parameters satisfying the condition $`F<(2q\nu D)^{1/2}`$. This condition results from the assumption that the higher-order terms in the expansion of the roots of Eq. (6) are asymptotically smaller than the lower-order terms held in the calculation. At sufficiently small temperature, $`D\mathrm{min}\{1,2q\nu ,8q/\nu \}`$, the formula for the leading-order term $`Fm_1`$ of the current is

$$JFm_1=\frac{8(12q)F}{(\nu +8)^2}\sqrt{\frac{2q\nu }{D}}+FG.$$
(11)
Here the symbol $`G`$ stands for the terms which do not increase as $`D0`$. An extreme sensitivity of the mobility $`m`$ to thermal noise can be seen from the factor $`D^{1/2}`$ in Eq. (11) that increases unboundedly as $`D0`$. It can be seen easily that the functional dependence of the mobility on the flatness $`\phi `$ and on the correlation time $`\tau _c`$ is of a bell-shaped form. The mobility $`m_1`$ reaches a maximum at the flatness $`\phi _m=3`$ and at the correlation time $`\tau _m=3/8`$. The dependence of the mobility $`m=J/F`$ on the parameters $`q`$ and $`\nu `$ for a fixed force value $`F=10^5`$ and for a fixed temperature $`D=4\times 10^8`$ is shown in Fig. 3. We can see that the asymptotic formula (11) is in excellent agreement with the exact results.

Let us note that the sufficient condition, $`F<\sqrt{2q\nu D}`$, has a distinct physical meaning: the characteristic distance of thermal diffusion $`\sqrt{D/\nu }`$ is larger than the typical distance $`F/\nu `$ for the particle driven by the deterministic force $`F`$ in the state $`z=0`$ of the trichotomous noise. Let us look at the latter statement more closely on the assumption that $`\nu 1`$. For this assumption within the interval $`(0,1)`$, the probability distributions $`P_n^s(x)`$, $`n=1,3`$, are, evidently, concentrated at $`x=0`$ (or $`x=1/2`$). Next, we shall consider the trajectory ($`1:2:3:4:6`$) in Fig. 1. The particles locked at the potential minimum $`1`$ ($`x=d=1/2`$) will go at the initial time $`t=0`$ to point $`2`$, where $`z=0`$. The first time when the noise turns to either $`z=1`$ or $`z=1`$ is denoted by $`t_0`$. As the time of movement from $`4`$ to $`6`$ is much less than $`t_0`$, it is easy to find that during the time interval $`(0,t_0)`$ the center of mass has shifted by

$$x\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi Dt_0}}_0^{Ft_0}\text{exp}\left\{\frac{(xFt_0)^2}{4Dt_0}\right\}𝑑x\frac{F\sqrt{t_0}}{2\sqrt{D\pi }}.$$

In the case of a trichotomous noise the probability $`W(t)`$ that in a certain time interval $`(0,t)`$ the transitions $`z=0z=\pm 1`$ do not occur, is given by $`W(t)=\mathrm{exp}(2q\nu t)`$. The probability that the transition $`z=0z=1`$ occurs within the time interval $`(t,t+dt)`$ is $`q\nu dt`$. Consequently,

$$x=q\nu _0^{\mathrm{}}\text{e}^{2q\nu t_0}xdt_0\frac{F}{8\sqrt{2q\nu D}}.$$

Considering that the average number of transitions per unit of time into the state $`z=0`$ is $`2q\nu (12q)`$, we obtain $`J=2q\nu (12q)xF(12q)\sqrt{2q\nu }/8\sqrt{D}`$. Thus, we have obtained an earlier result, namely, Eq. (11) for $`\nu 1`$. Formula (11) is one of our main results. Note that the above procedure can be repeated in a straightforward but tedious way for more complicated cases involving asymmetric potentials and potentials with several extrema per period. The phenomen is robust enough to survive a modification of the multiplicative noise. The key-factor is the noise flatness, indicating how long the noise level dwells on the state $`z=0`$. If the flatness parameter is greater than $`1`$, the effect does exist. For example, the multiplicative noise can also be a Gaussian stationary process.

It is quite remarkable that the above results are also applicable for amplifying adiabatic time-dependent signals, i.e., signals of much greater periods than the characteristic time of establishing a stationary distribution, even in the case of a small input signal-to-noise ratio $`F/\sqrt{D}1`$.

We emphasize that our mechanism of hypersensitive transport is of a qualitatively different nature from a recently found effect, where a noise-induced enhancement of the current of Brownian particles in a tilted ratchet system has also been established . In the latter scenario, a system with a periodic smooth potential exhibits hypersensitivity under the effect of multiplicative dichotomous noise because of noise-induced escape through fixed points of the dynamics. This occurs because the stable and unstable fixed points of the alternative dynamics, which coincide in the absence of the tilt $`F`$, are shifted apart by a small force (see also Ref. ). In the mechanism reported here, we have a sharp periodic potential: the stable and unstable fixed points of the dynamics coincide also for any small tilt. The crossing of the location of the fixed points is achieved by a combined influence of the flatness of the multiplicative noise and a small tilt-forcing.

In a general case, if the potential is smooth and the flatness of multiplicative noise is greater than $`1`$, both mechanisms play an important role and should be taken into account. Our calculations show that the factor $`F\sqrt{\nu /D}`$ in Eq. (11) is generated by thermal diffusion in the state $`z=0`$, while the circumstance that the potential is sharp has no effect on this factor. On the other hand, for adiabatic switching, the mechanism described in Ref.  generates the current $`J\nu F/\sqrt{D}`$. Consequently, our mechanism for sufficiently small switching rates induces hypersensitive transport more effectively than the one proposed by Ginzburg and Pustovoit. This conclusion is in agreement with the results of Ref., presenting numerical simulations of the phenomenon of hypersensitive transport based on a phase model with the multiplicative colored Gaussian noise ($`\phi =3`$). It is established that in the case of low switching rates the transport for the Gaussian noise appears to be more effective than for dichotomous stimuli. Regrettably, the authors of Ref. did not consider the role of noise flatness and the physics of this discrepancy.

In conclusion, the reported mechanism of generating hypersensitive transport by the flatness of multiplicative noise is of general relevance for many physical, biological, and chemical systems, and may provide another possibility to control signal amplification. The sensitivity of system response to small input signals can be either enhanced or suppressed by changing the noise parameters (flatness, correlation time, temperature). In agreement with Ref., we believe that the phenomenon proposed may also shed some light on the ability of biological systems to detect weak signals in a noisy environment.

We acknowledge partial support by the Estonian Science Foundation Grant Nos. 4042 and 5662 and by the International Atomic Energy Agency Grant No.12062.


format: text

text:
# Elasticity-driven interaction between vortices in type-II superconductors

## I Introduction

Since long time ago, much attention has been paid to the role of long-range strain fields in the vortex state of type-II superconductors. It is well known, for instance, that interaction between defect-induced strains and vortices causes pinning phenomena. These phenomena have been extensively studied almost since Abrikosov predicted the superconducting vortices (see, e.g., Refs.Anderson62 ; Kramer67 ; Galaiko68 ; Labush68 ; Miyahara69 ; Campbell72 ; Kronmuller73 ; Chudnovsky01 ). It is also known that vortex-induced strains give a contribution to the energies of the vortex lattices (VL). This contribution proves to be essential when discussing the observed correlationsobserved\_correlation  between VL’s and crystal lattices in anisotropic superconductors.Ullmaier73 ; Kogan95 ; Miranovic95  The vortex-induced strains might be important in vortex inertia also, because they contribute to the effective masses of vortices.Simanek91

In this paper, we calculate the contribution to the VL energy which is due to the vortex-induced strains. Comparison with the previously reported calculationsUllmaier73 ; Kogan95 ; Miranovic95  shows that, for magnetic fields not so close to the upper critical field $`H_{c2}`$, this contribution has been notably underestimated until now. The reason of such underestimation is connected with the fact that, contrary to what is assumed in many occasions, the vortex core is not the primary source of strain when the Ginzburg-Landau parameter $`\kappa `$ of the superconductor is large.

To clarify this point we shall revise, first of all, the strain induced by a single vortex. This strain is due to all the spatial variations of the density of superconducting electrons that the vortex provokes. The vortex core is a region of strong variations, but is not the only one. There also exist a region of smooth variations which is associated with the presence of superconducting currents. In high-$`\kappa `$ superconductors, the size of the latter region is much larger than that of the core. Just because of this greater extension, the non-core variations of the density of superconducting electrons are what finally emerge as the main sources of strains.

Previous calculationsUllmaier73 ; Kogan95 ; Miranovic95  of the elasticity-driven interaction between vortices was based on models that assume, from the beginning, that only the vortex cores induce strains. So an important source of strains in high-$`\kappa `$ superconductors is overlooked in all these works. But note that, even doing so, it was shown that this interaction was strong enough to explain the observed correlations between VL’s and crystal lattices in $`\mathrm{NbSe}_2`$. We revise this elasticity-driven interaction showing that the proper inclusion of all the sources of strain increases its importance in the corresponding problems.

Let us mention that we evaluate this interaction taking into account all the elastic degrees of freedom of free samples of finite size, i.e. taking into account that both homogeneous and inhomogeneous deformations are possible. In a general case, the elasticity-driven interaction between vortices include contributions due to both homogeneous and inhomogeneous deformations. In the elastically isotropic case the contribution due to the inhomogeneous deformations vanishes. But in any case, the order of magnitude of the total interaction coincides with that of the contribution which is due to the homogeneous deformations.

The consideration of homogeneous deformations provides us, in addition, an useful technical trick. It is based on to evaluate first the VL energy in the case in which the superconductor is elastically isotropic and its shear modulus $`\mu `$ is infinite. In this case, the calculations are free of approximations and are almost trivial. If $`\mu =\mathrm{}`$, the only elastic degree of freedom of the sample is its homogeneous dilatation. Therefore, using already known formulas for the VL energy and taking into account the dependence on the dilatation of the corresponding coefficients, the elastic contribution can be easily computed. As we shall see, any isotropic case can be reproduced from this $`\mu =\mathrm{}`$ one. Moreover, the previously reported results can be easily checked by evaluating them for $`\mu =\mathrm{}`$ and comparing them with those obtained considering this case from the beginning.

Let us mention also that we use the Fourier method when computing the VL energy in the elastically anisotropic case. This method permits to satisfy quite easily the boundary conditions of the elastic problem which correspond with those that take place in real experiments. Thus, one avoids to reproduce spurious effects that a lack of attention to these conditions might give. One of such effect is, for instance, the sample form dependence of the elasticity-driven interaction between vortices (the same group of authors reported this dependence in Ref.Kogan95  but not in Ref.Miranovic95 ).

## II On the elastic effects within the London limit

When studying the influence of the elasticity on the vortex properties, many authors use an assumption which might seem quite natural (see, e.g., Refs.Kramer67 ; Miyahara69 ; Ullmaier73 ; Kogan95 ; Miranovic95 ). It consists of using the “London approximation” introduced by Abrikosov in Ref. Abrikosov57  (see also Ref. Abrikosov ). However, the essence of this approximation could easily be misinterpreted. As it is frequently commented, within the London approximation the order parameter modulus varies significantly inside of the vortex cores only. Since the spontaneous deformation associated with the superconductivity is proportional to square of the order parameter modulus, it seemed natural that only the core regions ($`\rho \xi `$) are essential sources of stresses. It is just what is assumed in Refs. Kramer67 ; Miyahara69 ; Ullmaier73 ; Kogan95 ; Miranovic95 . However, one has to bear in mind that supercurrents also produce an elastic effect because they diminish the value of the order parameter modulus. Locally this diminishing is small. But since the supercurrents occupy a very broad region ($`\rho \lambda _L`$), their effect might be comparable and even more important, as virtually proves to be, than that of the cores.

To make this point more clear, let us recall how the vortex self-energy per unit length $`\epsilon _0`$ is calculated within the London limit.Abrikosov57 ; Abrikosov  Within this limit one assumes that, when calculating the supervelocity $`v_s`$ from the Ginzburg-Landau equations, the density of superconducting electrons (the square of the order parameter modulus $`f^2`$) is constant in the corresponding equation. This makes it possible to find out explicitly the spatial distribution of the supervelocity. After doing so, one can follow two different ways:

* Following de Gennes,de Gennes64  the vortex self-energy is presented as a sum of the magnetic field energy and the kinetic energy of the superconducting electrons:

$`\epsilon _0={\displaystyle \left(H^2+f^2v_s^2\right)d^2𝝆}`$ (1)
\[we use here the reduced units, see Ref. Abrikosov57 ; Abrikosov , which are analogous of those defined in Eqs. (10) (see below)\]. Integration is carried out taking into account the already found supervelocity, and considering that the density of superconducting electrons is constant. This approximation is justified by virtue of the high value of $`\kappa `$: $`f^2`$ diminishes significantly only at $`\rho \xi `$, whereas $`v_s^2`$ does at $`\rho \lambda _L`$.
* Following Abrikosov,Abrikosov57 ; Abrikosov  the vortex self energy is calculated from the exact formula

$`\epsilon _0={\displaystyle \left[H^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(1f^4\right)\right]d^2𝝆}`$ (2)
(as before, we use here dimensionless quantities). The principal part of this integral arises from the second term, and it is associated with distances much larger than $`\xi `$. In other words, those variations of $`f`$ that takes place out of the vortex core are now essential.

As we see, to assume that within the London approximation $`f`$ is constant out of the vortex cores is not always correct. But, as we have pointed out, this is just the assumption that unfortunately many authors made. For example, when studying the interaction between vortices and lattice defects, Miyahara et al.Miyahara69  considered integrals which are similar to Eq. (2) but, at the same time, neglected all the spatial variations of $`f`$ at $`\rho \xi `$.

It is quite surprising that this assumption has not been critically revised up to now, especially by noting that, in principle, the importance of the out-of-core region for the elastic effects could be understood since long ago. GalaikoGalaiko68  considered the interaction between vortices and dislocation-induced strains. He found that this interaction depends not only on $`\xi `$, but also on $`\lambda _L`$. However, he did not comment Ref. Kramer67  and discussed neither the vortex-induced strain nor the strain-induced interaction between vortices. Ref. Chudnovsky01  is a recent example in which the out-of-core region is taken into account when studying an elasticity related problem: the structure of a superconducting vortex pinned by a screw dislocation.

## III One Single Vortex

### III.1 Vortex-induced strain

Let us proceed with the calculation of the strain field induced by one single vortex. When doing so, we shall account for all the spatial variations, core and non-core ones, that are associated with the vortex.

The free energy can be presented as

$`F=F_1+F_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}{\displaystyle (_1+_2)𝑑v},`$ (3)
where $`v`$ is the volume of the system, and

$`_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{8\pi }}+a\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m}}\left|\left(i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{2e}{c}}𝐀\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2,`$ (4a)
$`_2`$ $`=\alpha _{ij}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2u_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _{ijkl}u_{ij}u_{kl}.`$ (4b)
Here and below, summation over double indices is implied.

The equations of equilibrium readAbrikosov ; Landau

$$\left[a+b|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2+\alpha _{ij}u_{ij}+\frac{1}{4m}\left(i\mathrm{}\frac{2e}{c}𝐀\right)^2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$
(5a)
$$\times 𝐇=\frac{4\pi e}{mc}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{})\frac{2e}{c}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2𝐀\right],$$
(5b)
$$\lambda _{ijkl}u_{kl}+\alpha _{ij}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2=0,$$
(5c)
$$\frac{}{x_j}\left(\lambda _{ijkl}u_{kl}+\alpha _{ij}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2\right)=0,$$
(5d)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ means volume average. We shall look for the solution of these equations for the case of a single vortex. The $`z`$-axis of the coordinate frame we choose is parallel to the vortex. The crystal frame is obtained from this coordinate frame by rotation.

It is clear that far enough from the vortex both the order parameter and the strain tensor tend to constant values; say $`\mathrm{\Psi }_s`$ and $`u_{ij}^s`$ respectively. Assuming that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_s|^2`$, the equations of equilibrium reduce to

$$a+b|\mathrm{\Psi }_s|^2+\alpha _{ij}u_{ij}^s=0,$$
(6a)
$$\lambda _{ijkl}u_{kl}^s+\alpha _{ij}|\mathrm{\Psi }_s|^2=0.$$
(6b)
In consequence:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_s|^2=a/b^{},$$
(7)
$$u_{ij}^s=a\alpha _{kl}\lambda _{ijkl}^1/b^{},$$
(8)
where $`b^{}=b\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{kl}\lambda _{ijkl}^1`$ ($`\lambda _{ijkl}^1`$ is given by $`\lambda _{ijkl}^1\lambda _{ijk^{}l^{}}=\delta _{kk^{}}\delta _{ll^{}}`$). These values are just what one obtains in the superconducting phase.

Putting $`u_{ij}=u_{ij}^s+u_{ij}^v`$, we can rewrite the equation of equilibrium (5a) as

$`\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2}{|\mathrm{\Psi }_s|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{ij}u_{ij}^v}{|\mathrm{\Psi }_s|^2b}}+\xi ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2ie}{\mathrm{}c}}𝐀\right)^2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }=0,`$ (9)
where $`\xi ^2=\mathrm{}^2/(4m|\mathrm{\Psi }_s|^2b)`$. It is convenient to introduce the following notation:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _L=\sqrt{\frac{mc^2}{8\pi e\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_s\right|^2}},& & H_c=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{2\sqrt{2}e\xi \lambda _L}\\ \\ \mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }_s},& & 𝐫^{}=\frac{𝐫}{\lambda _L},\\ \\ 𝐇^{}=\frac{𝐇}{\sqrt{2}H_c},& & 𝐀^{}=\frac{𝐀}{\sqrt{2}H_c\lambda _L},\\ \\ \widehat{\alpha }^{}=\frac{\widehat{\alpha }}{\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_s\right|^2b},& & \widehat{\lambda }^{}=\frac{\widehat{\lambda }}{\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_s\right|^4b}.\end{array}`$ (10)
Thus, the equations of equilibrium can be written as (we omit primes in the new quantities)

$$(1v_s^2\alpha _{ij}u_{ij}^v)ff^3=\kappa ^2\mathrm{}f,$$
(11a)
$$\times 𝐇=𝐯_sf^2,$$
(11b)
$$\lambda _{ijkl}u_{kl}+\alpha _{ij}f^2=0,$$
(11c)
$$\frac{}{x_j}\left(\lambda _{ijkl}u_{kl}+\alpha _{ij}f^2\right)=0,$$
(11d)
where the order parameter has been expressed as $`\mathrm{\Psi }=fe^{i\chi }`$, with $`𝐯_s=\kappa ^1\chi 𝐀`$ the above mentioned supervelocity. Here $`\kappa =\lambda _L/\xi `$ represents the Ginzburg-Landau parameter in our case, which does not differ substantially from the conventional one ($`b^{}b`$).

The spatial distribution of the supervelocity $`𝐯_s`$ can be obtained from Eq. (11b) by assuming that $`f`$ is constant there, i.e. within the London limit. Thus one finds that $`v_s=\kappa ^1K_1(\rho )`$, where $`K_1`$ is the MacDonald function (see, e.g., Ref.Abrikosov ).

In Eq. (11a), the term with $`u_{ij}^v`$ results to be of order $`\widehat{\alpha }^2`$ because of Eqs. (11c) and (11d). Since $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ is small,nota1  the vortex-induced strain can be calculated to the lowest order in $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ neglecting the changes in $`f`$ that the term $`u_{ij}^v`$ in Eq. (11a) induces. In other words, $`f^2`$ in Eqs. (11c) and (11d) can be taken as the solution of Eq. (11a) with $`\widehat{\alpha }=0`$. This solution can be written as $`f^2=1h`$, where $`h`$ represents the vortex contribution. Using the same approximation that in Ref. Abrikosov  we have

$`h(𝝆)=\{\begin{array}{cc}v_s^2(\rho )\hfill & \rho \kappa ^1,\hfill \\ 1C(\kappa \rho )^2,\hfill & \rho \kappa ^1,\hfill \end{array}`$ (12)
where $`C`$ is a constant of order unity.

We present the vortex induced strain asLarkin\_Pikin

$`u_{ij}^v`$ $`=ϵ_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪0}{}}\left[q_iu_j(𝐪)+q_ju_i(𝐪)\right]e^{i𝐪𝝆}`$
$`ϵ_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{iA}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐪\left[q_iu_j(𝐪)+q_ju_i(𝐪)\right]e^{i𝐪𝝆}},`$ (13)
where $`A`$ represents the section of the sample in perpendicular to the vortex (recall that we have split the total strain into $`u_{ij}^s+u_{ij}^v`$). Here $`ϵ_{ij}`$ accounts for the homogeneous deformations that the vortex induces, and $`u_i(𝐪)`$ is the $`i`$-th component of the displacement vector in Fourier space. Thus, Eqs. (11c) and (11d) can be written as

$$\lambda _{ijkl}ϵ_{kl}\alpha _{ij}h=0,$$
(14a)
$$G_{ik}^1(𝐪)u_k(𝐪)+iS_i(𝐪)h(𝐪)=0.$$
(14b)
where $`S_i(𝐪)=\alpha _{ij}q_j`$, $`G_{ik}^1(𝐪)=\lambda _{ijkl}q_jq_l`$, and $`h(𝐪)`$ is the Fourier transform of the function (12). For the strain field we have:

$`ϵ_{ij}`$ $`=\alpha _{kl}\lambda _{ijkl}^1h,`$ (15a)
$`u_i(𝐪)`$ $`=iS_k(𝐪)G_{ki}(𝐪)h(𝐪).`$ (15b)
When calculating the strain tensor at a fixed distance $`\rho `$ from the vortex \[see Eq. (13)\], the inhomogeneous deformations are mainly given by those terms with $`q\rho ^1`$. So the main contribution at $`\rho 1`$ arises from $`q1`$. For these small $`𝐪`$’s, the function $`h(𝐪)`$ can be split into core and non-core contributions:

$`h_{\mathrm{core}}(𝐪)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}{\displaystyle _0^{\kappa ^1}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}(\rho \kappa ^2\rho ^3)e^{iq\rho \mathrm{cos}\theta }𝑑\rho 𝑑\theta `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{A}}{\displaystyle _0^{\kappa ^1}}(\rho \kappa ^2\rho ^3)J_0(q\rho )𝑑\rho \underset{q1}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2A\kappa ^2}},`$ (16a)
$`h_{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{core}}(𝐪)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\kappa ^1}^1}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\rho ^1e^{iq\rho \mathrm{cos}\theta }𝑑\rho 𝑑\theta `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{A\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\kappa ^1}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{J_0(q\rho )}{\rho }}𝑑\rho \underset{q1}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{A\kappa ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\kappa `$ (16b)
(here we have used the asymptotic form of $`v_s1/(\kappa \rho )`$ for $`\kappa ^1\rho 1`$, see Ref. Abrikosov ).

As a result, at $`\rho 1`$ the strain tensor can be written as

$`u_{ij}^v(𝝆)`$ $`=\eta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{kl}\lambda _{ijkl}^1}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐪}{(2\pi )^2}q_iS_k(𝐪)G_{kj}(𝐪)e^{i𝐪𝝆}}\right]`$
$`=\eta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{kl}\lambda _{ijkl}^1}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}(\theta _𝐪)𝑑\theta _𝐪\right],`$ (17)
where $`\eta =h(\rho )d^2𝝆=\pi (1+4\mathrm{ln}\kappa )/(2\kappa ^2)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}`$ is a tensor which depends only on the angle $`\theta _𝐪`$ ( $`𝐪𝝆=q\rho \mathrm{cos}\theta _𝐪`$). If the sample is large enough the first term in Eq. (17) can be neglected. But we retain it because, when dealing with the strain-induced interaction (see below), its contribution becomes significant (this fact is well known in the theory of point defects, see e.g. Refs. Khachaturyan ). Note that the non-core contribution to $`\eta `$, i.e. the logarithmic term, could also be obtained from the well known expression of the vortex self-energy: according to Abrikosov,Abrikosov  $`\epsilon _0\frac{1}{2}(1f^4)d^2𝝆2\pi _{\kappa ^1}^1h(\rho )\rho 𝑑\rho =2\pi \kappa ^2\mathrm{ln}\kappa `$.

Kogan et al.Kogan95  obtained a similar expression for vortex-induced strain considering an infinite medium. In such a case, the first term of Eq.(17) vanishes at all. But the main difference between Eq. (17) and the expression reported by Kogan et al.Kogan95  resides in the corresponding values of $`\eta `$. Assuming that only the vortex core induces strain, Kogan et al. reported a value $`\pi /\kappa ^2`$. So they overlooked the logarithmic term in $`\eta =\pi (1+4\mathrm{ln}\kappa )/(2\kappa ^2)`$ that arises because of non-core contributions. This implies that in the case of high-$`\kappa `$ superconductors, Kogan et al. strongly underestimated the vortex-induced strain.

### III.2 Elasticity-driven interaction between vortices: Qualitative estimations

Let us now estimate the interaction energy of a VL which is associated with the strains that the vortices induce. As we have pointed out before, the inhomogeneous part of these strains have been previously reported but neglecting non-core contributions (see, e.g., Ref. Kogan95 ). If the distance between vortices is much longer than $`\lambda _L`$, to take into account these non-core contributions reduces to modify the strains by a factor. In consequence, the interaction energy one obtains by taking into account both core and non-core contributions coincides, up to the corresponding factor, with previously reported ones. Kogan et al.,Kogan95  for instance, evaluated the interaction energy of a VL by summing up all pairwise contributions. Modifying this interaction energy by including the non-core contributions, one can see that

$`F_{\mathrm{int}}^{(\mathrm{nh})}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+4\mathrm{ln}\kappa )^2}{\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }K}{K}}B^2.`$ (18)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }K/K`$ stands for the order of magnitude of the relative change in the elastic moduli due to the normal-superconducting transition, and $`B`$ represents the magnetic induction.

The interaction between vortices that arise due to the homogeneous strains can be easily estimated as follows. It is clear that $`N`$ vortices will induce a total (homogeneous) strain $`Nϵ`$, where $`ϵ`$ is given by Eq. (15a), if the distance between them is large enough. When substituting this strain in the corresponding terms of VL energy: $`\alpha (Nϵ)(Nh)+\lambda (Nϵ)^2/2`$, one obtains $`n^2\eta ^2\alpha ^2/(2\lambda )`$, where $`n=N/A`$ is the vortex density. This is precisely the interaction term that we are looking for. Taking into account that the vortex density is $`n=\kappa B/(2\pi )`$, and $`\alpha ^2/\lambda =\mathrm{\Delta }K/K`$ \[recall that we are using the dimensionless units defined in Eq. (10)\]; this interaction can be estimated as

$`F_{\mathrm{int}}^{(\mathrm{h})}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+4\mathrm{ln}\kappa )^2}{\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }K}{K}}B^2.`$ (19)
As we see, the order of magnitude of both interaction terms Eqs. (18) and (19) coincide. Consequently, either of them give us an estimate of the order of magnitude of the total interaction energy.

## IV Vortex lattice: Elastically isotropic medium

It is convenient to begin the treatment of VL’s considering the case elastically isotropic superconductors. In this case, the elastic contribution to the VL energy can be obtained, without any new approximation, from already known formulas for this VL energy. Such formulas are available for the regions $`HH_{c1}`$, $`HH_{c2}`$ (Refs. Abrikosov57 ; Abrikosov ) and for intermediate fields $`H_{c1}HH_{c2}`$ (Refs.Friedel63 ; de Gennes64 ). They reasonably match at the boundaries of the corresponding regions. This permits us to study the elastic effects in isotropic superconductors with the same accuracy. We begin with the case $`\mu =\mathrm{}`$ where the calculations are elemental.

### IV.1 Infinite shear modulus

The only elastic degree of freedom of a system which shear modulus is infinite is its homogeneous dilatation. If the system is not clamped this homogeneous dilatation, say $`u`$, must be understood as a variational parameter. In the free energy (3), this variational parameter modifies the coefficient of the term $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$, which can be rewritten as $`a(u)=a+\alpha u`$.

Let us fix the parameter $`u`$ for a while, i.e., let us consider momentaneously a clamped sample. Thus, after minimizing with respect to all degrees of freedom excepting $`u`$, the free energy of the VL with respect to that of the superconducting state can be written as a sum of two terms: a $`u`$-dependent VL energy via the coefficient $`a(u)`$, and the elastic energy. It is (see, e.g., Ref.Fetter69  and the references therein)

$`F=F_{\mathrm{VL}}(u)+{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2}}u^2,`$ (20)
where the $`F_{\mathrm{VL}}`$ has the form

$`F_{\mathrm{VL}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{BH_{c1}}{4\pi }\hfill & \text{(I)},\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{1}{8\pi }\left[B^2+BH_{c1}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(\nu d/\xi )^2}{\mathrm{ln}\kappa }\right]\hfill & \text{(I–II)},\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{1}{8\pi }\left[B^2\frac{\left(H_{c2}B\right)^2}{1+\left(2\kappa ^21\right)\beta _A}\right]\hfill & \text{(II)},\hfill \end{array}`$ (21)
in the corresponding regions of magnetic fields defined as (I): $`HH_{c1}`$, (I–II): $`H_{c1}HH_{c2}`$, and (II): $`HH_{c2}`$. Here $`\beta _A=\mathrm{\Psi }^4/\mathrm{\Psi }^2^2=1.16`$ for a triangular VL, and $`2\mathrm{ln}\nu =2(\gamma 1)+\mathrm{ln}[\sqrt{3}/(8\pi )]`$, where $`\gamma (=0.57772\mathrm{})`$ is the Euler’s constant. The magnetic induction $`B`$ and the distance between vortices $`d`$ are such that $`B=2\varphi _0/(\sqrt{3}d^2)`$ in a triangular VL, where $`\varphi _0`$ is the flux quantum.

The magnetic induction as a function of the magnetic field is given by:Fetter69

$`B=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2\varphi _0}{\sqrt{3}\lambda _L^2}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{3\varphi _0}{4\pi \lambda _L^2(HH_{c1})}\right]\right\}^2\hfill & \text{(I)},\hfill \\ & \\ HH_{c1}+\frac{\varphi _0}{8\pi \lambda _L^2}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{4\pi \lambda _L^2(HH_{c1})}{\varphi _0}\right]+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\right\}\hfill & \text{(I–II)},\hfill \\ & \\ H\frac{H_{c2}H}{(2\kappa ^21)\beta _A}\hfill & \text{(II)},\hfill \end{array}`$ (22)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=2(1\gamma )`$. Let us recall that in high-$`\kappa `$ superconductors one has the following relationships (see, e.g. Refs. Abrikosov ; Fetter69 ):

$`H_{c1}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\kappa }{2\kappa ^2}}H_{c2},`$ (23)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{\xi }}\right)^2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_{c2}}{B}}={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{\mathrm{ln}\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{H_{c1}}{B}}.`$ (24)
One can check that at the boundaries of the magnetic field regions, the expressions in Eq. (21) match one each other with a reasonably accuracy:

* For $`H\zeta _1H_{c1}`$ ($`\zeta _11`$) one has $`B\zeta _1H_{c1}`$ according to the expressions (I–II) and (II) in Eq. (22). Therefore, taking into account the relationship (24), one can obtain the free energy as

$`F_{\mathrm{VL}}\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\zeta _1H_{c1}^2}{4\pi }\hfill & \text{(I)},\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{\zeta _1H_{c1}^2}{8\pi }\left(\zeta _1+\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left[8\pi \left(\nu \kappa \right)^2/\left(\sqrt{3}\zeta _1\mathrm{ln}\kappa \right)\right]}{\mathrm{ln}\kappa }\right)\hfill & \text{(I–II)}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (25)
* For $`H=\zeta _2H_{c2}`$ ($`\zeta _21`$) one has $`B\zeta _2H_{c2}`$ according to the expressions (I–II) and (II) in Eq. (22) and the relationship (23). Therefore, taking into account the relationship (24), one can obtain the free energy as

$`F_{\mathrm{VL}}`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\zeta _2H_{c2}^2}{8\pi }\left(\zeta _2+\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left[4\pi \nu ^2/\left(\sqrt{3}\zeta _2\right)\right]}{2\kappa ^2}\right)\hfill & \text{(I–II)},\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{H_{c2}^2}{8\pi }\left(\zeta _2^2\frac{\left(1\zeta _2\right)^2}{2\kappa ^2}\right)\hfill & \text{(II)}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (26)

The critical magnetic fields entering all above expressions are $`u`$-dependent magnitudes:

$$H_{c1}(u)=\frac{\mathrm{ln}\kappa }{\sqrt{2}\kappa }H_c(u)=H_{c1}^{}+H_{c1}^{}u,$$
(27)
$$H_{c2}(u)=\sqrt{2}\kappa H_c(u)=H_{c2}^{}+H_{c2}^{}u,$$
(28)
where $`H_c(u)=2a(u)\sqrt{\pi /b}=H_c^{}+H_c^{}u`$ (with $`H_c^{}=2a\sqrt{\pi /b}`$ and $`H_c^{}=2\alpha \sqrt{\pi /b}`$). In consequence, the ratio $`d/\xi `$ is also a $`u`$-dependent magnitude \[see Eq.(24)\], from which one can write the coherence length $`\xi `$ as $`\xi =\xi ^{}+\xi ^{}u`$. Mention that the Ginzburg-Landau parameter $`\kappa `$ is independent of $`u`$ because it does not depend explicitly on the coefficient $`a(u)`$.

Let us now proceed to minimize the free energy (20) with respect to $`u`$, i.e., to take into account that the sample is in fact unclamped. After doing so, we obtain

$`F=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{8\pi }\left(2BH_{c1}^{}\delta _\mathrm{I}B^2\right),\hfill & \text{(I)},\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{1}{8\pi }\left[B^2+BH_{c1}^{}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(\nu d/\xi ^{})^2}{\mathrm{ln}\kappa }\delta _{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{II}}B^2\right]\hfill & \text{(I–II)},\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{1}{8\pi }\left[B^2\frac{\left(H_{c2}^{}B\right)^2}{1+\left(2\kappa ^21\right)\beta _A\beta _e}\right]\hfill & \text{(II)},\hfill \end{array}`$ (29)
where

$`\delta _\mathrm{I}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2\kappa }{2\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }K}{K}},`$ (30)
$`\delta _{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{II}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\left[1+2\mathrm{ln}(\nu d/\xi ^{})\right]^2}{16\pi K+\frac{2\sqrt{2}H_c^2B}{\kappa H_c^{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_c^2}{\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2(d/\xi ^{})}{4\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }K}{K}}`$ (31)
$`\beta _e`$ $`=2\kappa ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }K}{K}}.`$ (32)
Here it has been taken into account that $`H_c^2/(4\pi K)=\mathrm{\Delta }K/K`$ is the relative change in the bulk modulus due to the normal-superconducting transition. Because this relative change is usually $`\mathrm{\Delta }K/K1`$, the expression for the region (II) in Eq. (29) can be written as

$`F{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\left[B^2{\displaystyle \frac{(H_{c2}^{}B)^2}{1+(2\kappa ^21)\beta _A}}\delta _{\mathrm{II}}(H_{c2}^{}B)^2\right],`$ (33)
where

$`\delta _{\mathrm{II}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _e}{[1+(2\kappa ^21)\beta _A]^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }K}{K}}.`$ (34)
In all above expressions for the free energy, one can identify a term

$`F_{\mathrm{int}}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta B^2}{8\pi }},`$ (35)
which describes an attractive interaction between vortices. The coefficient $`\delta `$ is given by Eq. (30), (31) or (34), depending on the magnetic field region one considers. It can be presented as

$`\delta {\displaystyle \frac{[\zeta +\mathrm{ln}(d/\xi ^{})]^2}{2\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }K}{K}}`$ (36)
taking into account that the ratio $`d/\xi ^{}`$ must be replaced by $`\kappa `$ if $`d\lambda _L`$, and $`\zeta `$ is a constant of order of unity (see Fig. 1).

According to what we have seen in the preceding section, the logarithmic contribution to the coefficient $`\delta `$ is due to non-core effects. These effects have been overlooked until now. As we show in Fig.1, the neglection of these non-core effects leads to underestimate the elasticity-driven interaction between vortices. And by virtue of the high value of $`\kappa `$, such a underestimation is quite significant in almost all the mixed state.

### IV.2 Finite shear moduli

It is quite straightforward to extend the results that we have obtained for the $`\mu =\mathrm{}`$ case, to the most general isotropic one. Note that minimizing the free energy (3) with respect to all elastic degrees of freedom one obtains

$`F_2={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{2K_{4/3}}}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^4{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{2K}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu }{3K_{4/3}}}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2^2,`$ (37)
where $`K_{4/3}=K+4\mu /3`$. The first term of this expression renormalizes the coefficient $`b`$ of Eq. (1). This renormalization disappears in the limit $`\mu \mathrm{}`$. The second term makes that the free energy becomes into a non-local functional. This non-locality remains as long as the shear modulus does not vanish.

Working out from this functional one could recover the free energy (29) by ascribing the coefficients in Eq. (37) the values they assume in the case $`\mu =\mathrm{}`$, i.e. $`\alpha ^2/(2K_{4/3})=0`$ and $`4\mu /(3K_{4/3})=1`$. This consideration does not change the functional form of Eq. (37) (only coefficients change). So one concludes that the free energy density of any isotropic type-II superconductor has the form of Eq. (29) with the corresponding renormalized constants:

$`b`$ $`b\alpha ^2/K_{4/3}`$ (38)
$`(\alpha ^2/K)`$ $`(\alpha ^2/K)[4\mu /(3K_{4/3})].`$ (39)
Note that, because the resulting coefficient $`\delta `$ in Eq. (35) vanishes if $`\mu =0`$, it can be said that the elasticity-driven interaction between vortices is associated with the solid-state elasticity.

### IV.3 Comparison with previously reported results

Let us start this section by comparing our results with those reported in Refs. Ullmaier73 ; Kogan95 . In these references, intermediate fields far from $`T_c`$ are considered. Mention that although strictly speaking the Ginzburg-Landau approach that we use is not valid far from $`T_c`$, it still gives correctly the orders of magnitude. So the comparison still makes sense. Mention also that in Refs.Ullmaier73 ; Kogan95  the homogeneous part of the strains are omitted. In Ref. Ullmaier73  this omission is mentioned explicitly, while in Ref. Kogan95  it follows from the fact that they consider infinite samples when calculating the interaction between vortex pairs. Therefore, as we argued in Sec. III.2, we can only compare the order of magnitude (see below for a more detailed comparison). Such a comparison reveals that, as a result of the neglection of the non-core contributions to the interaction energy, this energy is notably underestimated in Refs.Ullmaier73 ; Kogan95  through the most part of the mixed state (see Fig. 1). Such a underestimation is at least by factor $`\mathrm{ln}^2\kappa `$ close to $`H_{c1}`$.

In Ref. Miranovic95 , treating the case $`HH_{c2}`$, both homogenous and inhomogeneous strains are seemingly taken into account. In accordance with Eq. (28) of this reference, the free energy in the isotropic case should be of the form

$`F={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\left[B^2{\displaystyle \frac{1+(2\kappa ^21)\beta _A4\kappa ^2\beta _2}{[1+(2\kappa ^21)\beta _A+4\kappa ^2\beta _2]^2}}(H_{c2}^{}B)^2\right],`$ (40)
where

$`\beta _2={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{(K+\frac{4}{3}\mu )b}}\beta _A.`$ (41)
Because of the smallness of $`\beta _2`$, this expression can be approximated to

$`F{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\left[B^2{\displaystyle \frac{(H_{c2}^{}B)^2}{1+(2\kappa ^21)\beta _A}}\delta _2(H_{c2}^{}B)^2\right],`$ (42)
where $`\delta _2=12\kappa ^2\beta _2/[1+(2\kappa ^21)\beta _A]^2`$.

At first glance, one could think that the last term of this expression and the last one of Eq. (33) differ only in a numerical factor. So the elasticity-driven interaction between vortices are reasonably well reproduced by either of them. However, a deeper inspection of Eq. (42) reveals that it is erroneous: the coefficient $`\delta _2`$ (i) vanishes if $`\mu =\mathrm{}`$ and (ii) remains finite if $`\mu =0`$. Being the strain-driven interaction between vortices due to the specific features of the solid-state elasticity, the results one obtains from Ref. Miranovic95  in the above mentioned limiting cases cannot be correct. This motivates us to reconsider the problem treated in Ref. Miranovic95  (Sec. V.2 below).

## V Vortex lattice: Elastically anisotropic medium

Let us reconsider the free energy (3) and, as usual (see Ref. Abrikosov ), integrate by parts term with $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$. Thus, after using the Gauss’ theorem and the boundary condition $`𝐧\left(i\mathrm{}\frac{2e}{c}𝐀\right)\mathrm{\Psi }|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$ ($`𝐧`$ is the unit vector of the normal to the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$), one finds that:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m}}{\displaystyle }`$ $`\left|\left(i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{2e}{c}}𝐀\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2dv`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Psi }^{}\left(i\mathrm{}\frac{2e}{c}𝐀\right)^2\mathrm{\Psi }𝑑v}.`$ (43)
Because $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ satisfies the equation (5a), this expression can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m}}{\displaystyle }`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\left(i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{2e}{c}}𝐀\right)^2\mathrm{\Psi }dv`$
$`={\displaystyle \left(a|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2+b|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4+\alpha _{ij}u_{ij}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2\right)𝑑v}.`$ (44)
As a result, the free energy (3) can be presented as

$`F={\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}{\displaystyle \left(\frac{H^2}{8\pi }\frac{b}{2}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4+\frac{1}{2}\lambda _{ijkl}u_{ij}u_{kl}\right)𝑑v}.`$ (45)
This expression generalizes the Abrikosov’ one \[see Eq. (2)\] by taking into account the elastic degrees of freedom. In Ref. Miranovic95  it has been reported a similar expression that, however, is erroneous (see Sec. V.2 below).

### V.1 $`𝑯\mathbf{}𝑯_{𝒄\mathrm{𝟐}}`$

When treating the fields far from $`H_{c2}`$, it is convenient to express $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2=|\mathrm{\Psi }_s|^2h`$, where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_s|^2=a/b^{}`$ \[see Eq. (7)\] and $`h`$ now represents the VL contribution. In addition, we express the strain tensor as $`u_{ij}=u_{ij}^s+u_{ij}^v`$, where $`u_{ij}^s=\alpha _{kl}\lambda _{ijkl}^1|\mathrm{\Psi }_s|^2`$ and

$`u_{ij}^v=`$ $`\alpha _{kl}\lambda _{ijkl}^1h`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪0}{}}\left[q_iS_k(𝐪)G_{kj}(𝐪)+q_jS_k(𝐪)G_{ki}(𝐪)\right]h(𝐪)e^{i𝐪𝐫}.`$ (46)
Thus, the equations of equilibrium (14a) and (14b) are satisfied. Substituting these expressions for $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ and $`u_{ij}`$ into Eq. (45), one finds that

$`F=`$ $`F_s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}{\displaystyle \left(\frac{H^2}{8\pi }+b^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_s|^2h\frac{b}{2}h^2\right)𝑑v}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}b^{}(𝐪)|h(𝐪)|^2,`$ (47)
where $`F_s=b^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_s|^4/2`$ and

$`b^{}(𝐪)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{kl}\lambda _{ijkl}^1\hfill & (𝐪=0),\hfill \\ S_i(𝐪)S_j(𝐪)G_{ji}(𝐪)\hfill & (𝐪0).\hfill \end{array}`$ (48)
Note that, for $`𝐪0`$, the function $`b^{}(𝐪)`$ only depends on the angle.

When calculating $`h`$, we can retain the lowest order terms in $`\widehat{\alpha }`$, i.e. we can take $`hh_0+h_1`$ where $`h_0`$ is given by solving Eq. (5a) with $`\widehat{\alpha }=0`$, and $`h_1`$ represents the correction to this solution due to the term $`\alpha _{ij}u_{ij}^v`$ in Eq. (5a):

$`bh_1\{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _{ij}u_{ij}^v\hfill & \text{(out of cores)},\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{(inside cores)}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (49)
The absence of correction inside the cores follows from the fact that, in these regions, Eq. (5a) can be linearized because of the smallness of the order parameter modulus (see, e.g., Ref. Abrikosov ). Let us remark, even doing so, the vortex cores are taken into account: they act as strain sources.

Substituting these expressions in Eq. (47), and retaining the lowest order terms, we obtain

$`F=`$ $`F_s+b^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_s|^2\zeta h_0+{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}h_0^2`$
$`b{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}h_0(𝐪)h_1(𝐪)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}b^{}(𝐪)|h_0(𝐪)|^2,`$ (50)
where $`\zeta =1+b_0^{}/b`$.

The most important contribution to the two last terms in Eq. (50) arises from $`q<\xi ^1`$.nota2  At these $`𝐪`$’s, the function $`h_1(𝐪)`$ can be calculated by taking $`bh_1\alpha _{ij}u_{ij}^v`$ in all the regions \[see Eq. (49)\], so

$`b{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}h_0(𝐪)h_1(𝐪){\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}b^{}(𝐪)|h_0(𝐪)|^2.`$ (51)
As a result, the free energy (50) is

$`F`$ $`F_s+b^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_s|^2\zeta h_0+{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}h_0^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}b^{}(𝐪)|h_0(𝐪)|^2.`$ (52)
The last term of this expression represents the strain-induced contribution to the VL energy. The term with $`𝐪=0`$ is associated with the homogeneous strains. The elastic constants enter this term through an invariant combination \[see Eq. (48)\], so it does not depend on the orientation of the VL with respect to the crystal axes. This dependence arises from the terms with $`𝐪0`$.

Let us mention that this formula demonstrates that the elasticity-driven interaction between vortices does not depend on the sample form, unlike to the statement made in Ref. Kogan95 . Indeed, such a dependence would mean that contribution to the sum from the region of small $`q`$’s is essential and comparable with the contribution of the rest of the sum. But the function $`h_0\left(\rho \right)h_0`$ is a periodic function defined in a finite volume (neglecting the near-of-the surface distortions). Its Fourier spectrum does not contain small $`q`$’s but has maxima at the non-zero reciprocal lattice vectors. The form and the size of the sample is reflected in the form and the width of these maxima and nowhere else. In fact, the sums over $`𝐪`$’s can be replaced by sums over the reciprocal lattice vectors of the VL $`𝐐`$. Putting

$`h_0(𝝆)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\stackrel{~}{h}_0(𝝆𝝆_i)`$ (53)
where $`𝝆_i`$ represent the vortex positions, one finds that

$`h_0(𝐪)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{h}_0(𝝆𝝆_i)e^{i𝐪𝝆}d^2𝝆}=n\stackrel{~}{h}_0(𝐪),`$ (54)
where $`n`$ is the vortex density, $`A`$ represents the section of the sample in perpendicular to the VL, and

$`\stackrel{~}{h}_0(𝐪)\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{h}_0(𝝆)e^{i𝐪𝝆_i}d^2𝝆\hfill & \text{(}𝐪=𝐐\text{)},\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{(otherwise)},\hfill \end{array}`$ (55)
with $`𝐐`$ any of the reciprocal lattice vectors (note that $`A^1_ie^{i𝐪𝝆_i}=n\delta _{\mathrm{𝐪𝐐}}`$). As a result, the last term in Eq. (52) can be written as

$`F_{\mathrm{el}}={\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{2}}\left[b^{}(0)\stackrel{~}{h}_0^2(0)+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐐0}{}}b^{}(𝐐)|\stackrel{~}{h}_0(𝐐)|^2\right].`$ (56)
Let us emphasize that with this expression, one takes into account that both core and non-core regions act as strain sources. It can be straightforwardly illustrated close to $`H_{c1}`$. Here, due to the large separation between vortices, the function $`\stackrel{~}{h}_0`$ in Eq. (53) practically coincides with that associated with one single vortex \[see Eq. (12)\]. In consequence the function $`\stackrel{~}{h}_0(𝐐)`$ varies slowly up to $`Q\xi ^1`$ and then rapidly drops to zero. So in Eq. (56) it can be taken as $`\stackrel{~}{h}_0(𝐐)\stackrel{~}{h}_0(0)`$, which naturally split into core and non-core contributions \[see Eqs. (16)\]:

$`\stackrel{~}{h}_0(0)=\pi (1+4\mathrm{ln}\kappa )|\mathrm{\Psi }_s|^2\xi ^2/2,`$ (57)
limiting the sum over $`𝐐`$’s up to $`Q_{\mathrm{max}}\xi ^1`$.

Let us calculate $`F_{\mathrm{el}}`$ explicitly in the isotropic case. In this case one has $`\alpha _{ij}=\alpha \delta _{ij}`$ and $`\lambda _{ijkl}=(K\frac{2}{3}\mu )\delta _{ij}\delta _{kl}+\mu (\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}+\delta _{il}\delta _{jk})`$, where $`K`$ and $`\mu `$ are the bulk and the shear modulus respectively. In consequence,

$`b^{}(𝐐)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha ^2/K\hfill & (𝐐=0),\hfill \\ \alpha ^2/(K+4\mu /3)\hfill & (𝐐0),\hfill \end{array}`$ (58)
and Eq. (56) yields

$`F_{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{2}}\stackrel{~}{h}_0^2(0)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{K}}+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐐0}{\overset{𝐐_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{K+\frac{4}{3}\mu }}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{2}}\stackrel{~}{h}_0^2(0)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha ^2\mu }{3K(K+\frac{4}{3}\mu )}}+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐐=0}{\overset{𝐐_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{K+\frac{4}{3}\mu }}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{h}_0^2(0)}{2(K+\frac{4}{3}\mu )}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\mu n^2}{3K}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{\xi ^2}}\right),`$ (59)
where the sum over discrete $`𝐐`$’s has been replaced by integration ($`_𝐐n^1d^2𝐐`$). The term $`n`$ represents a renormalization of the vortex self-energy, while the term $`n^2`$ is the elasticity-driven interaction.

In the anisotropic case the sum over $`𝐐`$’s in Eq. (56) also yields a term $`n`$, which renormalizes the vortex self-energy, and a term $`n^2`$ which contributes to the elasticity-driven interaction between vortices. In this case, a dependence on the orientation of the VL with respect to the crystal axes is implicit in these two terms.

Taking into account that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_s|^4b^{}H_c^2(\mathrm{\Delta }K/K)`$ and $`nH_c\xi ^2B/\kappa `$, the elasticity-driven interaction can be estimated as

$`F_{\mathrm{int}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+4\mathrm{ln}\kappa )^2}{\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }K}{K}}B^2.`$ (60)
As we see, its order of magnitude coincides with that we obtained in Sec. III.2 from qualitative estimations, as well as with that of the exact results that we obtained in Sec. IV for the isotropic case. Let us mention that omitting $`\mathrm{ln}\kappa `$ in these expressions, i.e. omitting the non-core contribution to the vortex-induced strain, they reproduce the previously reported results.Kogan95

### V.2 $`𝑯\mathbf{}𝑯_{𝒄\mathrm{𝟐}}`$

Let us now consider the VL’s near $`H_{c2}`$. When doing so, it is convenient to use the conventional dimensionless units instead of those defined in Eqs. (10). These conventional units can be obtained from Eqs. (10) by replacing $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_s|^2`$ with $`a/b`$.

Following Kogan Kogan75  one can easily obtain, now from the equations of equilibrium (5), the so-called Abrikosov identities (see also Ref. Abrikosov57 ; Kogan81 ; Abrikosov ). In presence of strain they read

$$H_z=H_0\frac{\omega }{2\kappa },$$
(61a)
$$\frac{\kappa H_0}{\kappa }\omega +\frac{12\kappa ^2}{2\kappa ^2}\omega ^2\alpha _{ij}u_{ij}\omega =0.$$
(61b)
Here $`H_0`$ is a constant and $`\omega `$ is the squared modulus of the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, which is solution of the linearized equations (5a) and (5b) ($`\mathrm{\Psi }=\sqrt{\omega }e^{i\chi }`$). Bearing in mind that the magnetic induction is $`B=H_z=H_0\omega /(2\kappa )`$, from Eqs. (61) one can also obtain the following relationship:

$`\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa (\kappa B)}{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_A\beta _e}},`$ (62)
where $`\beta _e=2\kappa ^2\alpha _{ij}u_{ij}\omega /\omega ^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_A=1+(2\kappa ^21)\beta _A`$, with $`\beta _A=\omega ^2/\omega ^2`$.

Bearing in mind that from the Abrikosov identity (61a) it follows that $`H^2=B^2+(\omega ^2\omega ^2)/(4\kappa ^2)`$, the free energy (45) can be rewritten as

$`F`$ $`=B^2{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_A}{4\kappa ^2}}\omega ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _{ijkl}u_{ij}u_{kl}.`$ (63)
When calculating the strain tensor $`u_{ij}`$ (now the total strain), we must take into account that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2=\omega `$. Thus, expressing $`u_{ij}`$ in the form (13), one finds that

$`ϵ_{ij}`$ $`=\alpha _{kl}\lambda _{ijkl}^1\omega ,`$
$`u_i(𝐪)`$ $`=iS_j(𝐪)G_{ji}(𝐪)\omega (𝐪),`$ (64a)
where $`\omega (𝐪)`$ represents the Fourier transform of the function $`\omega `$. In consequence, the last term of Eq. (63) is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _{ijkl}u_{ij}u_{kl}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\lambda _{ijkl}ϵ_{ij}ϵ_{kl}+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪0}{}}G_{ij}^1(𝐪)u_i(𝐪)u_j(𝐪)\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\lambda _{ijkl}\lambda _{mnkl}^1\alpha _{mn}ϵ_{ij}\omega +i{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪0}{}}G_{ij}^1(𝐪)G_{kj}(𝐪)S_k(𝐪)u_i(𝐪)\omega (𝐪)\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\alpha _{ij}ϵ_{ij}\omega +i{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪0}{}}S_i(𝐪)u_i(𝐪)\omega (𝐪)\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _{ij}u_{ij}\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _e}{4\kappa ^2}}\omega ^2.`$ (65)
As a result, the free energy (63) is

$`F=B^2{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_A\beta _e}{4\kappa ^2}}\omega ^2=B^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\kappa B)^2}{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_A\beta _e}}.`$ (66)
Let us mention that the form of this expression for the free energy differs substantially from that reported by Miranović et al. in Ref. Miranovic95 . The elasticity-driven interaction term that one obtains from Eq. (66) is several times smaller than the corresponding one in Ref. Miranovic95 . The validity of Eq. (66) can be checked by noting that it reproduces the isotropic case \[see expression (II) in Eq. (29)\]. In contrast, the expression reported in Ref. Miranovic95  does not (see Sec. IV.3). The reason is that is it obtained from an expression analogous to Eq. (45), but erroneous \[Eq. (20) of Ref. Miranovic95 \]. It reads

$`F={\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}{\displaystyle \left(\frac{H^2}{8\pi }\frac{b}{2}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4+\alpha _{ij}u_{ij}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2+\frac{1}{2}\lambda _{ijkl}u_{ij}u_{kl}\right)𝑑v},`$ (67)
One can see here that the term $`\alpha _{ij}u_{ij}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ is taken into account twice: one explicitly and another implicitly in the term $`b|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2/2`$ which arises as result of the integration by parts showed at the beginning of this Section.

## VI Concluding remarks

We have revised the contribution to the VL energy which is due to the vortex-induced strains, showing that essential corrections in the previous calculations are needed. The most important one is connected with the fact that, in high-$`\kappa `$ superconductors, not only the vortex cores induce strains in a significant way. There also exists a significant contribution associated with the non-core regions which, in fact, the most important ones for the VL energies at low fields ($`HH_{c2}`$). As a result of the proper inclusion of all strain sources, the strength of the elasticity-driven interaction between vortices increases by a factor up to $`\mathrm{ln}^2\kappa `$ compared with the previously reported ones.

It is known since long ago that the observed correlations between VL’s and crystal lattices in dirty superconductors cannot be explained without the elasticity-driven interaction between vortices.Ullmaier73  This interaction has been proved to be important in clean superconductors also. For example, the VL’s observed in $`\mathrm{NbSe}_2`$ do not correspond to the minimum of the London energy. In Ref.Kogan95  Kogan et al. showed that, however, the difference in the London energies of the two possible competing structures is smaller than the difference in the energies of the corresponding elasticity-driven interactions. As we have mentioned, Kogan et al. underestimated the elasticity-driven interaction between vortices because they assumed that only the vortex cores induce strain but, even doing so, they pointed out the importance of this interaction in $`\mathrm{NbSe}_2`$. This importance is increased as a result of the present work, what should be taken into account especially in those cases in which previous estimates of the above mentioned differences concluded that it was that of the London energy the most important one.

$`\mathrm{V}_3\mathrm{Si}`$ might provide an example in which the latter case takes place. In Ref.Kogan97  it was claimed that in $`\mathrm{V}_3\mathrm{Si}`$ the contribution to the VL energy which is due to the (underestimated) elasticity-driven interactions between vortices can be neglected compared to that contribution due to the nonlocal corrections to the London energy. But bear in mind that (i) the order of magnitude of these two contributions is the same, as it was shown in Ref. Kogan95  considering the vortex cores as the only sources of strains, and (ii) the strength of the elasticity-driven interaction is considerably stronger than it was reported, as we have shown in this paper. So it is quite probable that in $`\mathrm{V}_3\mathrm{Si}`$, as well as in other superconductors with large $`\kappa `$, this elasticity-driven interaction between vortices is not only comparable, but even more important than the nonlocal corrections to the London energy.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge L.S. Froufe for useful discussions. A.P.L. was supported from the ESF programme Vortex Matter in Superconductors at Extreme Scales and Conditions (VORTEX) and by Comunidad de Madrid (07N/005/2002). S.A.M. was supported from the Russian Fund for Fundamental Research (Grant No. 00-02-17746).