1984
DOI: 10.1016/0022-3115(84)90062-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Suppression of void nucleation by injected interstitials during heavy ion bombardment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
16
0

Year Published

1985
1985
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
1
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Figure 2 clearly shows that the depth dependence of α/α decomposition is correlated with the evolution of the injected Fe concentration rather than the damage profile. This behaviour is similar to that observed in the case of void formation [23,24,26,27]. When the contribution of injected Fe becomes more significant, the decomposition decreases.…”
supporting
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Figure 2 clearly shows that the depth dependence of α/α decomposition is correlated with the evolution of the injected Fe concentration rather than the damage profile. This behaviour is similar to that observed in the case of void formation [23,24,26,27]. When the contribution of injected Fe becomes more significant, the decomposition decreases.…”
supporting
confidence: 85%
“…Indeed, ions used to irradiate a thick target come to rest at the end of time range in the material as interstitials atoms and could impact diffusion process or the creation of point defect clusters, for example. Prior studies have demonstrated the significant influence of the injected Fe atoms on ion-induced swelling [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. Both experimental and theoretical works showed that injected ions suppress void swelling.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gas implantation profiles were calculated using the method explained previously [23], taking into account the ion beam divergence induced by the energy degraders. We have limited our study to the zone situated between 500 and 700 nm, in order to avoid surface effects and the injected interstitial [24,25]. Mean damage doses and gas contents for this socalled "analysed zone" between 500 and 700 nm are given in Table 2.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The dose in this region is 80% above the nominal dose measured at 600 nm, which should result in increased void swelling. The decrease is likely due to the presence of injected interstitials, which have been shown extensively throughout the literature [20][21][22] to suppress swelling. A similar decrease in number density at increasing depth/dose was seen by Yamamoto et al [23] in irradiations performed with 6.4 MeV Fe 3+ ions.…”
Section: Determination Of Valid Region For Void Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%