The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Radiation hardness of gallium nitride
Abstract
Gallium nitride (GaN) light emitting diodes (LEDs) were irradiated at room temperature with electrons in the range 300-1400 keV. A threshold energy of 440 keV was observed, corresponding to a gallium atom displacement energy of 19/spl plusmn/2 eV. This value of the displacement energy compares with that of silicon carbide but is smaller than that of diamond and larger than that of gallium arsenide (GaAs). No threshold energy for the nitrogen atom was observed. It is concluded that the nitrogen sublattice repairs itself through annealing. The measured displacement energy is used to determine the Rutherford cross section, which permits a theoretical comparison of electron and proton irradiation damage in GaN. The effects of 2.5 MeV electrons on gallium nitride films have been studied by photoluminescence (PL), and according to the literature, they introduce transitions in the near infrared part of the spectrum. Experiments on gallium nitride films using 2 MeV protons are reported in this work. The same transitions in the near infrared part of the spectrum are observed by PL. It is deduced that 2 MeV protons are about 1000 times more damaging than 2.5 MeV electrons. The Rutherford cross section predicts a value of 214. The difference is attributed to the defect recombination rate which depends on the particle type. The nature of the transitions in the near infrared part of the spectrum is reviewed. The GaN films were annealed at 400/spl deg/C for 30 min. As a result of annealing, another transition appears in the green part of the spectrum. Transitions involving the gallium vacancy in irradiated GaN are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Classical Theory of Fields
Landau, L., Lifshitz, E., & Rarita, W. (1952) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3067575 · Cited by 5,740
The Classical Theory of Fields
(2013) · A Course in Theoretical Physics · doi:10.1002/9781118516911.ch17 · Cited by 991
Point Defects in Solids: Volume 2 Semiconductors and Molecular Crystals
(1975) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-0904-8 · Cited by 682
The Classical Theory of Fields
Landau, L., Lifschitz, E., & Kikuchi, C. (1953) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.1933467 · Cited by 557
Agulló-López, F., Catlow, C. R. A., & Townsend, P. D. (1988) · Cited by 378
Cited by
Review—Ionizing Radiation Damage Effects on GaN Devices
Pearton, S. J., Ren, F., Patrick, E., Law, M. E., & Polyakov, A. Y. (2016) · ECS Journal of Solid State Science and Technology · doi:10.1149/2.0251602jss · Cited by 384
Discussion on Electric Power Supply Systems for All Electric Aircraft
Schefer, H., Fauth, L., Kopp, T. H., Mallwitz, R., Friebe, J., & Kurrat, M. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2991804 · Cited by 217
“than silicon counterparts, as stated before [55].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Ionascut-Nedelcescu, A., Carlone, C., Houdayer, A., von Bardeleben, H. J., Cantin, J.-L., & Raymond, S.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2733-2738
- ISSN
- 0018-9499 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-1578
- OpenAlex
- W2136033905
- Cited by
- 346
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 4.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Radiation hardness of gallium nitride. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tns.2002.805363
- The paper
- Ionascut-Nedelcescu, A., Carlone, C., Houdayer, A., von Bardeleben, H. J., Cantin, J.-L., & Raymond, S. (2002). Radiation hardness of gallium nitride. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science. https://doi.org/10.1109/tns.2002.805363
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.