4.6 Article

Study on subsurface damage mechanism of gallium nitride in nano-grinding

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mssp.2021.105760

关键词

Gallium nitride; Nano-grinding; Molecular dynamics; Subsurface damage

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51975095]
  2. Science Fund for Creative Research Groups [51621064]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that the quality of the subsurface layer decreases with increased grinding depths, as indicated by factors such as temperature, dislocation density, and the number of phase transition atoms. Additionally, while the damage layer is more sensitive to changes in grinding depth, increasing the speed from 25 m/s to 50 m/s leads to a slight increase in these parameters, resulting in decreased subsurface quality.
Molecular Dynamics simulations were carried out to study the formation mechanism of subsurface damage during the process of nano-grinding of gallium nitride (GaN). The effects of grinding depths and speeds on the temperature, the radial distribution function, phase transition, dislocation and the damage layer were systematically investigated. The results showed that quantities of interstitial atom, vacancy defects, atomic clusters, ?Ushaped half dislocation loops and Phase transition atoms exist in the subsurface layer. Additionally, the temperature, dislocation density and the number of phase transition atoms are positively related with the grinding depths, and then resulting in the quality of subsurface decreases with the increase of grinding depths. Although the damage layer is more sensitive to the grinding depth, when the speed increases from 25 m/s to 50 m/s, the above parameters also increase slightly, thus the subsurface quality decreases. As the speed continues to grow, these parameters gradually decrease due to the sharp decrease in processing time, and the quality of subsurface layer improves. This study provides an insight into the subsurface damage mechanism for the low-damage processing of GaN.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据