Validation and benchmarking of two particle-in-cell codes for a glow discharge

Carlsson, J. ; Khrabrov, A. ; Kaganovich, I. ; Sommerer, T.; Keating, D.
Issue date: 2017
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY)
Cite as:
Carlsson, J., Khrabrov, A., Kaganovich, I., Sommerer, T., & Keating, D. (2017). Validation and benchmarking of two particle-in-cell codes for a glow discharge [Data set]. Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University.
  author      = {Carlsson, J. and
                Khrabrov, A. and
                Kaganovich, I. and
                Sommerer, T. and
                Keating, D.},
  title       = {{Validation and benchmarking of two parti
                cle-in-cell codes for a glow discharge}},
  publisher   = {{Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Pri
                nceton University}},
  year        = 2017,
  url         = {}

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 fa ll 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 don e 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.

Show More
# Filename Filesize
1 readme.txt 2.38 KB
2 DenHartogGlowDischargeElectricField.txt 464 Bytes
3 fig05data.txt 20.5 KB
4 1.26 KB
5 fig06data.txt 20.6 KB
6 1.26 KB
7 fig07data.txt 19.8 KB
8 1.24 KB
9 fig09data.txt 28.2 KB
10 906 Bytes
11 fig10data.txt 29.7 KB
12 906 Bytes
13 fig11data.txt 29.7 KB
14 906 Bytes
15 26.2 KB
16 68.4 KB