QUICK FACTS
Created Jan 0001
Status Verified Sarcastic
Type Existential Dread
Keywords
materials science, solid, defect, crystal, crystallographic, amorphous, electronvolts, particle radiation, binary collision, relativistic

Threshold Displacement Energy

“In the arcane realm of materials science, a concept of paramount, if grim, significance is the threshold displacement energy, denoted as $Td$. This isn't some...”

Contents
  • 1. Overview
  • 2. Etymology
  • 3. Cultural Impact

Threshold Displacement Energy

In the arcane realm of materials science , a concept of paramount, if grim, significance is the threshold displacement energy, denoted as $T_d$. This isn’t some abstract theoretical construct; it’s the minimum kinetic energy, a precise amount of jolt, that an atom within the rigid embrace of a solid lattice must absorb to be irrevocably ejected from its designated position. It’s forced out, you see, permanently displaced to a defect site, a place where it unequivocally does not belong. This energy threshold is also known, with perhaps a touch more dramatic flair, as the “displacement threshold energy” or simply the “displacement energy.” Within the ordered perfection of a crystal , this energy isn’t a monolithic entity. Instead, a distinct threshold displacement energy exists for each and every crystallographic direction. This means that depending on the path an atom is nudged, the energy required to dislodge it can vary. Consequently, it’s imperative to distinguish between the absolute minimum, the $T_{d,\text{min}}$, and the average, $T_{d,\text{ave}}$, values, the latter being an averaged quantity across all possible lattice directions. For those materials that eschew the ordered beauty of crystals and exist in a more chaotic, amorphous state, defining a single, precise threshold can be elusive. In such cases, an “effective displacement energy” might be employed to characterize some other, more generalized, average quantity of interest. Typically, for most common solids, these threshold displacement energies reside in the range of 10 to 50 electronvolts (eV). It’s a small number, perhaps, but enough to unravel the very fabric of atomic order.

Theory and Simulation

The threshold displacement energy is a material property that becomes critically important when we subject materials to the harsh reality of high-energy particle radiation . When a particle, charged with immense energy, slams into a material, it can impart a significant portion of its kinetic energy to the atoms within the lattice. The maximum energy, denoted as $T_{\text{max}}$, that an incoming particle can transfer to a target atom in a single binary collision is governed by a rather specific formula. This equation, which accounts for even the subtle nuances of relativistic effects, is given by:

$$ T_{\text{max}} = \frac{2ME(E+2mc^2)}{(m+M)^2c^2+2ME} $$

Here, $E$ represents the kinetic energy of the incoming particle, and $m$ is its mass. $M$, on the other hand, is the mass of the atom within the material that receives the impact, and $c$ is the ubiquitous speed of light. However, in many practical scenarios, the kinetic energy of the incoming particle, $E$, is vastly smaller than its rest mass energy, $mc^2$. In such cases, the equation simplifies considerably to:

$$ T_{\text{max}} = E\frac{4Mm}{(m+M)^2} $$

Now, for a permanent defect to manifest itself in an otherwise perfect crystal lattice, the kinetic energy transferred to the atom, $T_{\text{max}}$, must exceed a certain critical value. This value is the energy required for the formation of a Frenkel pair , which consists of an interstitial atom and a vacancy. While the energies required to form these Frenkel pairs in crystals are typically in the ballpark of 5–10 eV, the actual average threshold displacement energies are often substantially higher, ranging from 20 to 50 eV. This apparent discrepancy arises because the process of defect formation is far from a simple, isolated event. It’s a complex dance of multi-body collisions, a miniature collision cascade , where the initial atom receiving the recoil energy might rebound, or in its chaotic trajectory, might even knock another atom back into its rightful place in the lattice. This intricate interplay of forces means that even the minimum threshold displacement energy is generally higher than the mere energy needed to create a Frenkel pair.

As mentioned, the threshold displacement energy isn’t uniform across a crystal. Each specific crystallographic direction possesses its own unique threshold displacement energy. Thus, a complete and thorough description necessitates understanding the entire “threshold displacement surface,” a concept represented by $T_d(\theta, \phi) = T_d([hkl])$. This surface maps the threshold energy as a function of direction, often denoted by the Miller indices $[hkl]$. From this surface, we can then derive the minimum threshold displacement energy, $T_{d,\text{min}} = \min(T_d(\theta, \phi))$, and the average threshold displacement energy, $T_{d,\text{ave}} = \text{ave}(T_d(\theta, \phi))$, by considering all possible angles in three-dimensional space.

The situation becomes even more nuanced because the threshold displacement energy for a given direction isn’t always a sharp, abrupt transition, akin to a step function . Instead, there can exist an intermediate energy region where the formation of a defect is not a certainty. Whether a defect actually materializes in this range can depend on the precise, often random, displacements of atoms during the collision. In such cases, it becomes necessary to define two thresholds: a lower threshold, $T_d^l$, below which a defect might be formed, and an upper threshold, $T_d^u$, above which defect formation is virtually guaranteed. The difference between these two thresholds can, surprisingly, be quite substantial. Whether or not this subtle distinction is taken into account can significantly influence the calculated average threshold displacement energy.

Unfortunately, there isn’t a single, elegant analytical equation that can directly link macroscopic properties like elastic moduli or defect formation energies to the threshold displacement energy. Consequently, theoretical investigations into this property are conventionally undertaken using sophisticated computer simulations. These simulations employ either classical or quantum mechanical approaches, often within the framework of molecular dynamics . While a direct analytical solution remains elusive, the “sudden approximation” can provide reasonably accurate estimates for threshold displacement energies, particularly in covalent materials and for crystal directions with low indices.

To illustrate, consider an example molecular dynamics simulation depicted in the animation 100_20eV.avi. This visual representation shows the genesis of a defect – a Frenkel pair , comprising an interstitial atom and a vacancy – within a silicon crystal. This event is triggered when a lattice atom is subjected to a recoil energy of 20 eV along the [100] direction. The data used to generate this animation was derived from density functional theory based molecular dynamics simulations.

These simulations have undeniably provided profound qualitative insights into the complex dynamics of the threshold displacement energy. However, their quantitative results should be approached with a degree of circumspection. The classical interatomic potentials used in these simulations are often calibrated against equilibrium properties of the material. This means their predictive power for dynamic, non-equilibrium events like atomic displacement might be limited. Even in the most extensively studied materials, such as silicon (Si) and iron (Fe), the predicted threshold displacement energies can vary by more than a factor of two between different simulation studies. Quantum mechanical simulations, particularly those grounded in density functional theory (DFT), are generally considered more accurate. Nevertheless, a scarcity of comparative studies across different DFT methodologies means that their precise quantitative reliability is still an area of ongoing assessment.

Experimental Studies

The threshold displacement energies have been a subject of extensive experimental scrutiny, primarily through electron irradiation experiments. Electrons possessing kinetic energies in the range of hundreds of kiloelectronvolts (keV) or a few megaelectronvolts (MeV) can be approximated, with remarkable accuracy, as colliding with individual lattice atoms. Since the initial energy of electrons emitted from a particle accelerator is known with high precision, it is possible, in principle, to determine the lowest minimum threshold displacement energy, $T_{d,\text{min}}^l$. This is achieved by irradiating a crystal with electrons of incrementally increasing energy until the first signs of defect formation are observed. Using the aforementioned equations, the electron energy $E$ can then be directly translated into the threshold energy $T$. If this irradiation is conducted on a single crystal and meticulously aligned along specific crystallographic directions , it becomes feasible to ascertain direction-specific thresholds, $T_d^l(\theta, \phi)$.

However, the interpretation of these experimental results is fraught with several subtle complications. For instance, in experiments involving thick samples, the electron beam can spread, meaning that measurements on single crystals might not exclusively probe a single, well-defined crystallographic direction. Furthermore, the presence of impurities within the material can sometimes artificially lower the observed threshold, making it appear as if less energy is required for displacement than would be the case in a perfectly pure substance.

Temperature Dependence

A particularly thorny issue arises when interpreting threshold displacement energies at temperatures where the created defects are mobile and capable of recombining. At such elevated temperatures, we must consider two distinct temporal phases: the initial creation of the defect by the high-energy particle impact (stage A), followed by subsequent thermal recombination processes (stage B).

Stage A, the initial phase of defect creation, where all excess kinetic energy dissipates within the lattice and it returns to its original temperature $T_0$, is remarkably brief, typically lasting less than 5 picoseconds (ps). This stage represents the fundamental, or “primary damage,” threshold displacement energy, and it’s precisely this energy that is usually the target of molecular dynamics simulations. However, after this rapid event, especially if close Frenkel pairs have been formed, recombination can occur through thermal processes. Low-energy recoils, those that have just barely exceeded the threshold energy, tend to produce Frenkel pairs that are in close proximity. This proximity significantly increases the likelihood of recombination.

Consequently, when observed on experimental timescales and at temperatures above the initial recombination temperature (often referred to as “stage I”), what the experiment actually registers is the combined outcome of both stage A and stage B. The net effect is often that the threshold energy appears to increase with rising temperature. This is because the defects created by the lowest-energy recoils just above the threshold are all annihilated through recombination, leaving only those defects produced by higher-energy recoils intact. Since thermal recombination is intrinsically time-dependent, any form of stage B recombination also implies that the experimental results can be influenced by the flux of the incident ions.

Across a wide spectrum of materials, defect recombination begins to occur even below room temperature . For instance, in metals, the initial recombination of close Frenkel pairs and the migration of interstitials (stage I) can commence as low as 10–20 Kelvin (K). Similarly, in silicon (Si), significant recombination of radiation-induced damage is observed around 100 K during ion irradiation and as low as 4 K during electron irradiation.

Even the stage A threshold displacement energy itself can be influenced by temperature. Effects such as thermal expansion, temperature-dependent elastic constants, and an increased probability of recombination before the lattice has fully cooled back to the ambient temperature $T_0$ can play a role. However, these stage A temperature effects are generally considered to be considerably weaker than the more pronounced thermal recombination effects observed in stage B.

Relation to Higher-Energy Damage Production

The threshold displacement energy serves as a crucial parameter in estimating the total amount of defects produced by higher-energy irradiation. This estimation is often performed using established models like the Kinchin-Pease or NRT equations. These models propose that the number of Frenkel pairs produced, $N_{FP}$, for a given nuclear deposited energy, $F_{Dn}$, can be approximated by:

$$ N_{FP} = 0.8 \frac{F_{Dn}}{2T_{d,\text{ave}}} $$

This relationship holds for any nuclear deposited energy exceeding $2T_{d,\text{ave}}/0.8$. However, it is imperative to exercise considerable caution when applying this equation. It fails to account for several critical factors. For example, it completely ignores any thermally activated recombination of the created damage. Furthermore, it’s a well-documented phenomenon that in metals, the actual damage production at high energies is often only about 20% of the value predicted by the Kinchin-Pease model.

The threshold displacement energy also finds application in binary collision approximation computer codes, such as SRIM (Stopping and Range of Ions in Matter). These codes utilize $T_d$ to estimate the extent of radiation damage. However, the same caveats that apply to the Kinchin-Pease equation are also relevant to these codes, unless they have been augmented with sophisticated damage recombination models.

Moreover, neither the Kinchin-Pease equation nor SRIM adequately address the phenomenon of [ion channeling]. In crystalline or polycrystalline materials, ion channeling can dramatically reduce the nuclear deposited energy and, consequently, the damage production for specific ion-target combinations. For instance, keV ion implantation into the [110] crystal direction of silicon can lead to extensive channeling, resulting in significant reductions in stopping power. Similarly, the irradiation of a body-centered cubic (BCC) metal like iron (Fe) with light ions such as helium (He) can induce substantial channeling, even when the crystal is oriented in a randomly selected direction.

See Also

References

  • ^ a b c Andersen, H. H. (1979). “The depth resolution of sputter profiling”. Applied Physics. 18 (2). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 131–140. Bibcode :1979ApPhy..18..131A. doi :10.1007/bf00934407. ISSN 0340-3793. S2CID 54858884.
  • ^ M. Nastasi, J. Mayer, and J. Hirvonen, Ion-Solid Interactions - Fundamentals and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain, 1996
  • ^ a b P. Lucasson, The production of Frenkel defects in metals, in Fundamental Aspects of Radiation Damage in Metals, edited by M. T. Robinson and F. N. Young Jr., pages 42–65, Springfield, 1975, ORNL
  • ^ a b c R. S. Averback and T. Diaz de la Rubia, Displacement damage in irradiated metals and semiconductors, in Solid State Physics, edited by H. Ehrenfest and F. Spaepen, volume 51, pages 281–402, Academic Press, New York, 1998.
  • ^ R. Smith (ed.), Atomic & ion collisions in solids and at surfaces: theory, simulation and applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997
  • ^ a b Malerba, L.; Perlado, J. M. (2 January 2002). “Basic mechanisms of atomic displacement production in cubic silicon carbide: A molecular dynamics study”. Physical Review B. 65 (4) 045202. American Physical Society (APS). Bibcode :2002PhRvB..65d5202M. doi :10.1103/physrevb.65.045202. ISSN 0163-1829.
  • ^ a b Nordlund, K.; Wallenius, J.; Malerba, L. (2006). “Molecular dynamics simulations of threshold displacement energies in Fe”. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms. 246 (2). Elsevier BV: 322–332. Bibcode :2006NIMPB.246..322N. doi :10.1016/j.nimb.2006.01.003. ISSN 0168-583X.
  • ^ Gibson, J. B.; Goland, A. N.; Milgram, M.; Vineyard, G. H. (15 November 1960). “Dynamics of Radiation Damage”. Physical Review. 120 (4). American Physical Society (APS): 1229–1253. Bibcode :1960PhRv..120.1229G. doi :10.1103/physrev.120.1229. ISSN 0031-899X.
  • ^ Erginsoy, C.; Vineyard, G. H.; Englert, A. (20 January 1964). “Dynamics of Radiation Damage in a Body-Centered Cubic Lattice”. Physical Review. 133 (2A). American Physical Society (APS): A595–A606. Bibcode :1964PhRv..133..595E. doi :10.1103/physrev.133.a595. ISSN 0031-899X. OSTI 4127582.
  • ^ Caturla, M.-J.; De La Rubia, T. Diaz; Gilmer, G.H. (1993). “Point defect Production, Geometry and Stability in Silicon: a Molecular Dynamics Simulation Study”. MRS Proceedings. 316. Cambridge University Press (CUP): 141. doi :10.1557/proc-316-141. ISSN 1946-4274.
  • ^ Park, Byeongwon; Weber, William J.; Corrales, L. René (16 October 2001). “Molecular-dynamics simulation study of threshold displacements and defect formation in zircon”. Physical Review B. 64 (17) 174108. American Physical Society (APS). Bibcode :2001PhRvB..64q4108P. doi :10.1103/physrevb.64.174108. ISSN 0163-1829.
  • ^ Uhlmann, S.; Frauenheim, Th.; Boyd, K. J.; Marton, D.; Rabalais, J. W. (1997). “Elementary processes during low-energy self-bombardment of Si(100) 2 × 2 a molecular dynamics study”. Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids. 141 (1–4). Informa UK Limited: 185–198. Bibcode :1997REDS..141..185U. doi :10.1080/10420159708211569. ISSN 1042-0150.
  • ^ a b Windl, Wolfgang; Lenosky, Thomas J; Kress, Joel D; Voter, Arthur F (1998). “First-principles investigation of radiation induced defects in Si and SiC”. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms. 141 (1–4). Elsevier BV: 61–65. Bibcode :1998NIMPB.141…61W. doi :10.1016/s0168-583x(98)00082-2. ISSN 0168-583X.
  • ^ Mazzarolo, Massimiliano; Colombo, Luciano; Lulli, Giorgio; Albertazzi, Eros (26 April 2001). “Low-energy recoils in crystalline silicon: Quantum simulations”. Physical Review B. 63 (19) 195207. American Physical Society (APS). Bibcode :2001PhRvB..63s5207M. doi :10.1103/physrevb.63.195207. ISSN 0163-1829.
  • ^ a b c Holmström, E.; Kuronen, A.; Nordlund, K. (9 July 2008). “Threshold defect production in silicon determined by density functional theory molecular dynamics simulations” (PDF). Physical Review B. 78 (4) 045202. American Physical Society (APS). Bibcode :2008PhRvB..78d5202H. doi :10.1103/physrevb.78.045202. ISSN 1098-0121.
  • ^ Loferski, J. J.; Rappaport, P. (15 July 1958). “Radiation Damage in Ge and Si Detected by Carrier Lifetime Changes: Damage Thresholds”. Physical Review. 111 (2). American Physical Society (APS): 432–439. Bibcode :1958PhRv..111..432L. doi :10.1103/physrev.111.432. ISSN 0031-899X.
  • ^ Banhart, Florian (30 July 1999). “Irradiation effects in carbon nanostructures”. Reports on Progress in Physics. 62 (8). IOP Publishing: 1181–1221. Bibcode :1999RPPh…62.1181B. doi :10.1088/0034-4885/62/8/201. ISSN 0034-4885. S2CID 250834423.
  • ^ P. Ehrhart, Properties and interactions of atomic defects in metals and alloys, volume 25 of Landolt-Börnstein, New Series III, chapter 2, page 88, Springer, Berlin, 1991
  • ^ a b Partyka, P.; Zhong, Y.; Nordlund, K.; Averback, R. S.; Robinson, I. M.; Ehrhart, P. (27 November 2001). “Grazing incidence diffuse x-ray scattering investigation of the properties of irradiation-induced point defects in silicon”. Physical Review B. 64 (23) 235207. American Physical Society (APS). Bibcode :2001PhRvB..64w5207P. doi :10.1103/physrevb.64.235207. ISSN 0163-1829. S2CID 16857480.
  • ^ Norgett, M.J.; Robinson, M.T.; Torrens, I.M. (1975). “A proposed method of calculating displacement dose rates”. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 33 (1). Elsevier BV: 50–54. Bibcode :1975NuEnD..33…50N. doi :10.1016/0029-5493(75)90035-7. ISSN 0029-5493.
  • ^ ASTM Standard E693-94, Standard practice for characterising neutron exposure in iron and low alloy steels in terms of displacements per atom (dpa), 1994
  • ^ “James Ziegler - SRIM & TRIM”. www.srim.org .
  • ^ Sillanpää, J.; Nordlund, K.; Keinonen, J. (1 July 2000). “Electronic stopping of Si from a three-dimensional charge distribution”. Physical Review B. 62 (5). American Physical Society (APS): 3109–3116. Bibcode :2000PhRvB..62.3109S. doi :10.1103/physrevb.62.3109. ISSN 0163-1829.
  • ^ K. Nordlund, MDRANGE range calculations of He in Fe (2009), public presentation at the EFDA MATREMEV meeting, Alicante 19.11.2009