Is interface as a function of $d_{F}$. The solid lines in Fig.\[Ic\_ds\] give the shape of $J_{C}(d_{F})$ and $\delta _{0}(-d_{s})$ calculated from (\[SISIotFI3\])-(\[SInFSotFI\]). These equations are valid in the limit $d_{s}\gg d_{sc}$ and do not take into account possible suppression of superconductivity in a vicinity of tunnel barrier due to proximity with FS part of the device. The dashed lines are the result of calculations using analytical expressions (\[JatIS1\])-(\[EqDsmall1\]) for the thickness of the s-layer $d_{s}=2\xi _{s}(T),$ which slightly exceeds the critical one, $d_{sc}=(\pi /2)\xi _{s}(T).$ These analytical dependencies are calculated at $T=0.9~T_{C}$ for $H=10\pi T_{C},$ $\Gamma _{BI}=200,~\Gamma =5,$ $\gamma
_{B}=0.$ The short-dashed curves are the results of numerical calculations performed selfconsistently in the frame of the Usadel equations (2)-(11) for corresponding set of the parameters $T=0.9~T_{C}$ for $H=10\pi T_{C},$ $\gamma _{BI}=1000,$ $\gamma =1,$ $\gamma _{B}=0.3$ and the same thickness of the s layer $d_{sc}=(\pi /2)\xi _{s}(T)$. Interface parameters $\gamma
_{BI}=1000,$ $\gamma =1$ are chosen the same as for the analytical case. The choice of $\gamma _{B}=0.3$ allows one to take into account the influence of mismatch which generally occurs at the sF and FS boundaries.

It can be seen that there is a qualitative agreement between the shapes of 