Simulation research on FIB processing: A comparison between silicon and diamond

Z. Tong, X. C. Luo, Y. C. Liang, Q. S. Bai, J. N. Sun

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


The interactions between energetic gallium ion with silicon and diamond have been studied using Large-Scale Molecular Dynamics simulation method. In order to reveal the dependence of implantation depth and damage upon the beam voltage, a serial of simulations have been performed under impact energy of 2, 5, 8, 12, and 16 kev respectively for the Ga ions. The results indicate that both the normalized implantation depth D and the peak temperature (T max) during the collision process are increased with the increase of the impact beam voltage. With the same lattice crystal structure and collision energy, the silicon contains a higher Tmax and a smaller D compared with diamond under all impact energy tested. Further damage evolution analysis and lattice structure changes reflected by radius distribution function (RDF) indicate that the damage of silicon caused by ion bombardment is worse than diamond, which is mainly related to the higher collision temperature and lateral recrystallization process.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationICAC 12 - Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Automation and Computing
Subtitle of host publicationIntegration of Design and Engineering
Number of pages5
Publication statusPublished - 2012
Event18th International Conference on Automation and Computing: Integration of Design and Engineering - Loughborough University, Leicestershire, United Kingdom
Duration: 7 Sep 20128 Sep 2012
Conference number: 18 (Link to Conference Website)


Conference18th International Conference on Automation and Computing
Abbreviated titleICAC 2012
Country/TerritoryUnited Kingdom
Internet address


Dive into the research topics of 'Simulation research on FIB processing: A comparison between silicon and diamond'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this