Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T08:33:49.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The primary damage in Fe revisited by Molecular Dynamics and its binary collision approximation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2011

C.S. Becquart,
M. Hou and
A. Souidi
C.S. Becquart
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Métallurgie Physique et Génie des Matériaux, UMR 8517, Université de Lille I, 59655 Villeneuve d'Ascq Cédex, France
M. Hou
Affiliation:
Physique des Solides Irradiés, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bd du Triomphe, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
A. Souidi
Affiliation:
Centre Universitaire de Saida, BP138, EN-NASR, Saida 2000, Algeria
Get access

Abstract

Molecular Dynamics (MD) is a very powerful tool for studying displacement cascades initiated by the neutrons when they interact with matter and thus evaluate the primary damage. The mean number of point defects created can be obtained with a fair standard error with a reasonable number of cascade simulations (10 to 20 [1]), however other cascades characteristics (spatial distribution, size and amount of defect clusters …) display a huge variability. Therefore, they may need to be studied using faster methods such as the Binary Collision Approximation (BCA) which is several order of magnitude less time consuming. We have investigated the point defect distributions subsequent to atomic collision cascades by both MD (using EAM potentials for Fe) and its BCA. MD and its BCA lead to comparable point defect predictions. The significant similarities and differences are discussed.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1 Stoller, R., J. Nucl. Mat., vol. 283–287 (2000) in press.Google Scholar
2 Ludwig, S. M., Farkas, D., Pedraza, D. and Schmauder, S., Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng., 6 19 (1998).Google Scholar
3 Becquart, C.S., Decker, K.M., Domain, C., Ruste, J., Souffez, Y., Turbatte, J.C. and Duysen, J.C. Van, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Simulation of Radiation Effects in Solids (COSIRES 1996), Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids, 142, 9 (1997).Google Scholar
4 Becquart, C.S., Domain, C., Legris, A. and Duysen, J.C. Van, J. Nucl. Mater 280, 73 (2000).Google Scholar
5 Robinson, M.T.; Phys Rev. B 40, 10717 (1989).Google Scholar
6 Robinson, M.T.; Rad. Effects 141, 1 (1997).Google Scholar
7 Nakagawa, S.T. and Yamamura, Y., Radiation Eff. 116, 21(1991).Google Scholar
8 Molière, G., Z. Naturforsch A2, 133 (1947).Google Scholar
9 Scholtz, A. and Lehmann, C.; Phys. Rev. B 6 (1972) 813.Google Scholar
10 Souidi, A., Hou, M., Becquart, C.S. and Domain, C., submitted to J. Nucl. Mat.Google Scholar
11 Hou, M., Phys. Rev. B31, 7 (1985) 4178; ibid. Phys. Rev. B39, 2817 (1989).Google Scholar
12 Brinkman, J.A., Amer. J. Phys. 24, 246 (1956).Google Scholar
13 Souidi, A., Hou, M. and Becquart, C.S., submitted to J. Phys.: Cond. MatterGoogle Scholar
14 Becquart, C.S., Domain, C. and Legris, A., this conference.Google Scholar