journal article·2016-12-01Open access

A comparison study of solving diffusion equations with different algorithm methods

Houbing Huang, Xueyun Wang, Xingqiao Ma

AIP Advances· Volume 6· Issue 12

Abstract

A comparison study for solving diffusion equations with different algorithm methods is studied to understand the oxygen vacancy defect transport under the electric field. We compare computational efficiency and numerical accuracy with different algorithm methods, including finite difference, finite element (COMSOL), and Fourier-Chebysev spectral methods. All the results of oxygen vacancy distribution under an electric field from different algorithm methods are compared with the analytical solution results. Two kinds of boundary conditions are used in solving diffusion equations and the absolute error of different methods are discussed. The main purpose of these results is to provide guidance for studying the role of point defect transport in the degradation and breakdown of devices.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Semiconductor materials and devices · Advanced Memory and Neural Computing · Advancements in Semiconductor Devices and Circuit Design

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

University of Science and Technology Beijing Department of Physics, , Beijing 100083, China

References (32)

Show source-provided references
1. Nature Materials · 2007 · 6 · 83310.1038/nmat2023 ↗
2. Materials Today · 2008 · 11 · 2810.1016/S1369-7021(08)70119-6 ↗
3. Advanced Materials · 2009 · 21 · 263210.1002/adma.200900375 ↗
4. Reports on Progress in Physics · 2012 · 75 · 07650210.1088/0034-4885/75/7/076502 ↗
5. Journal of the American Ceramic Society · 1980 · 63 · 8310.1111/j.1151-2916.1980.tb10654.x ↗
6. IEEE Electron Device Letters · 2002 · 23 · 18510.1109/55.992833 ↗
7. J Appl Phys · 1997 · 81 · 691110.1063/1.365252 ↗
8. J Appl Phys · 2013 · 113 · 08371310.1063/1.4793632 ↗
9. J Appl Phys · 2011 · 110 · 03450910.1063/1.3622623 ↗
10. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · 2011 · 13 · 2077910.1039/c1cp21973a ↗
11. Physical Review B · 2010 · 81 · 15511010.1103/PhysRevB.81.155110 ↗
12. Angewandte Chemie International Edition · 2008 · 47 · 387410.1002/anie.200700987 ↗
13. Acta Materialia · 2016 · 117 · 25210.1016/j.actamat.2016.07.024 ↗
14. Applied Physics Letters · 2016 · 109 · 03160210.1063/1.4959178 ↗
15. Acta Materialia · 2016 · 108 · 22910.1016/j.actamat.2016.02.022 ↗
16. Journal of the American Ceramic Society · 1990 · 73 · 164510.1111/j.1151-2916.1990.tb09809.x ↗
17. Journal of the American Ceramic Society · 1990 · 73 · 165410.1111/j.1151-2916.1990.tb09810.x ↗
18. J Appl Phys · 2004 · 96 · 750010.1063/1.1809268 ↗
19. Acta Materialia · 2015 · 86 · 35210.1016/j.actamat.2014.11.032 ↗
20. Applied Physics Letters · 2005 · 86 · 11290410.1063/1.1874313 ↗
21. Journal of the American Ceramic Society · 1990 · 73 · 166310.1111/j.1151-2916.1990.tb09811.x ↗
22. J Appl Phys · 2013 · 114 · 22410210.1063/1.4842836 ↗
23. Applied Physics Letters · 2014 · 104 · 18290510.1063/1.4875902 ↗
24. Physical Review Letters · 2007 · 98 · 14640310.1103/PhysRevLett.98.146403 ↗
25. Small · 2009 · 5 · 105810.1002/smll.200801323 ↗
26. Physical Review B · 2009 · 79 · 19531710.1103/PhysRevB.79.195317 ↗
27. Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering · 2012 · 20 · 07500810.1088/0965-0393/20/7/075008 ↗
28. Journal of the American Ceramic Society · 2014 · 97 · 356810.1111/jace.13162 ↗
29. Acta Materialia · 2016 · 112 · 22410.1016/j.actamat.2016.04.027 ↗
30. Journal of Alloys and Compounds · 2014 · 597 · 23010.1016/j.jallcom.2014.01.235 ↗
31. J Appl Phys · 2014 · 115 · 13390510.1063/1.4870291 ↗
32. Computer Physics Communications · 1998 · 108 · 14710.1016/S0010-4655(97)00115-X ↗