TY - JOUR
T1 - Validation and benchmarking of two particle-in-cell codes for a glow discharge
AU - Carlsson, Johan
AU - Khrabrov, Alexander
AU - Kaganovich, Igor
AU - Sommerer, Timothy
AU - Keating, David
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
� 2016 IOP Publishing Ltd.
PY - 2017/1
Y1 - 2017/1
N2 - The two particle-in-cell codes EDIPIC and LSP are benchmarked and validated for a parallel-plate glow discharge in helium, in which the axial electric field had been carefully measured, primarily to investigate and improve the fidelity of their collision models. The scattering anisotropy of electron-impact ionization, as well as the value of the secondary-electron emission yield, are not well known in this case. The experimental uncertainty for the emission yield corresponds to a factor of two variation in the cathode current. If the emission yield is tuned to make the cathode current computed by each code match the experiment, the computed electric fields are in excellent agreement with each other, and within about 10% of the experimental value. The non-monotonic variation of the width of the cathode fall with the applied voltage seen in the experiment is reproduced by both codes. The electron temperature in the negative glow is within experimental error bars for both codes, but the density of slow trapped electrons is underestimated. A more detailed code comparison done for several synthetic cases of electron-beam injection into helium gas shows that the codes are in excellent agreement for ionization rate, as well as for elastic and excitation collisions with isotropic scattering pattern. The remaining significant discrepancies between the two codes are due to differences in their electron binary-collision models, and for anisotropic scattering due to elastic and excitation collisions.
AB - The two particle-in-cell codes EDIPIC and LSP are benchmarked and validated for a parallel-plate glow discharge in helium, in which the axial electric field had been carefully measured, primarily to investigate and improve the fidelity of their collision models. The scattering anisotropy of electron-impact ionization, as well as the value of the secondary-electron emission yield, are not well known in this case. The experimental uncertainty for the emission yield corresponds to a factor of two variation in the cathode current. If the emission yield is tuned to make the cathode current computed by each code match the experiment, the computed electric fields are in excellent agreement with each other, and within about 10% of the experimental value. The non-monotonic variation of the width of the cathode fall with the applied voltage seen in the experiment is reproduced by both codes. The electron temperature in the negative glow is within experimental error bars for both codes, but the density of slow trapped electrons is underestimated. A more detailed code comparison done for several synthetic cases of electron-beam injection into helium gas shows that the codes are in excellent agreement for ionization rate, as well as for elastic and excitation collisions with isotropic scattering pattern. The remaining significant discrepancies between the two codes are due to differences in their electron binary-collision models, and for anisotropic scattering due to elastic and excitation collisions.
KW - anisotropic scattering
KW - benchmarking
KW - glow discharge
KW - Monte-Carlo collision model
KW - particle-in-cell method
KW - uncertainty quantification
KW - validation
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85007426170
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85007426170&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1088/0963-0252/26/1/014003
DO - 10.1088/0963-0252/26/1/014003
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85007426170
SN - 0963-0252
VL - 26
JO - Plasma Sources Science and Technology
JF - Plasma Sources Science and Technology
IS - 1
M1 - 014003
ER -