4.7 Article

Determination of the displacement energies of O, Si and Zr under electron beam irradiation

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS
Volume 422, Issue 1-3, Pages 86-91

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnucmat.2011.12.021

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Energy Frontier Research Center
  2. US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Sciences and Engineering Division
  3. Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research, located at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The response of nanocrystalline, stabilizer-free cubic zirconia thin films on a Si substrate to electron beam irradiation with energies of 4, 110 and 200 keV and fluences up to similar to 1.5 x 10(22) e m(-2) has been studied to determine the displacement energies. The 110 and 200 keV irradiations were performed in situ using a transmission electron microscope: the 4 keV irradiations were performed ex situ using an electron gun. In all three irradiations. no structural modification of the zirconia was observed. despite the high fluxes and fluences. However the Si substrate on which the zirconia film was deposited was amorphized under the 200 keV electron irradiation. Examination of the electron-solid interactions reveals that the kinetic energy transfer from the 200 keV electrons to the silicon lattice is sufficient to cause atomic displacements, resulting in amorphization. The kinetic energy transfer from the 200 keV electrons to the oxygen sub-lattice of the zirconia may be sufficient to induce defect production, however, no evidence of defect production was observed. The displacement cross-section value of Zr was found to be similar to 400 times greater than that of O indicating that the O atoms are effectively screened from the electrons by the Zr atoms, and, therefore, the displacement of O is inefficient. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available