CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Plasma Diagnostics and ApplicationsMagnetic confinement fusion researchAtomic and Molecular Physics

Anisotropic angular scattering models of elastic electron-neutral collisions for Monte Carlo plasma simulations

Open access
Park, Ryan M, Kupets, Willem, Zammit, Mark C, Colgan, James, Fontes, Christopher J, Scheiner, Brett S, Timmermans, Eddy, Tang, Xian-Zhu +4 more·2022·Plasma Sources Science and Technology
DOI 10.1088/1361-6595/ac781f
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract Many laboratory and industrial plasma applications require accurate modeling techniques to understand the interplay between microscopic and macroscopic processes. A prime example of this interplay is how particle and Monte Carlo (MC) simulation codes describe angular scattering of electrons following elastic scattering events. The forward peaked nature of high energy electron elastic scattering is relatively trivial to accurately describe in plasma simulations. However, for lower energy collisions, which produce near isotropic or backward peaked differential cross sections, there is not a strong consensus among the plasma modeling community on how to best describe these angular scattering trends. In this study, we propose a systematic method to approximate the aforementioned non-trivial angular scattering behavior with a formula that can be readily implemented in particle-in-cell (PIC) and/or MC plasma simulation codes. The present approach is specifically applied to fusion relevant atomic hydrogen and helium, as well as for molecular hydrogen, and results are also applicable to the atomic isotopes and homonuclear molecular isotopologues of these species. Comparisons between the present angular distribution function and benchmark scattering data were used to validate the proposed models. In addition, two-term Boltzmann calculations and PIC direct simulation MC simulations revealed that the proposed angular distribution function is accurate, agreeing very well with benchmark convergent close-coupling scattering calculations, and electron transport measurements. These studies confirmed that the present angular distribution function model can be utilized without the need of renormalization to the momentum transfer cross section (as opposed to using the elastic scattering integrated cross section), which has been suggested by several studies in order to correct for deficient angular scattering models, and to agree with transport measurements. Hence, the present anisotropic angular scattering model can be utilized to accurately model the momentum transfer as well as the electron trajectories of elastic collisions.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1361-6595/ac781f

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • By diminishing the total number of particles, both the resources for memory storage and computational time are reduced.

    “By diminishing the total number of particles, both the resources for memory storage and computational time are reduced (see Refs. 306 and 307 for efficient parallelization of SG PIC algorithms on CPU and GPU shared memory architectures, respectively).”

    From Plasma propulsion modeling with particle-based algorithms (2023) · cites this paper as [307]

    The PIC-DSMC Simulations section gives the numbers of macroparticles used, but does not discuss whether reducing particle counts lowers memory use or computation time. Searches for that relationship and for the cited CPU/GPU shared-memory parallelization found no passage addressing either point in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. M. Surendra, D. B. Graves, and G. M. Jellum, Phys. Rev. A 41, 1112 (1990).
  2. J. Chew, P. Gibbon, D. Brömmel, T. Wauters, Y. Gribov, and P. d. Vries, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 63, 045012 (2021).
  3. V. Vahedi and M. Surendra, Comp. Phys. Comm. 87, 179 (1995).
  4. W. J. Tattersall, D. G. Cocks, G. J. Boyle, S. J. Buckman, and R. D. White, Phys. Rev. E 91, 043304 (2015).
  5. C. K. Birdsall, in Plasma Processing of Semiconductors, edited by P. F. Williams (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1997), pp. 277-289.
  6. G. D. Moss, V. P. Pasko, N. Liu, and G. Veronis, J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 111, A02307 (2006).
  7. G. J. Boyle, W. J. Tattersall, D. G. Cocks, R. P. McEachran, and R. D. White, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 26, 024007 (2017).
  8. G. J. M. Hagelaar and L. C. Pitchford, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 14, 722 (2005).
  9. R. D. White, R. E. Robson, S. Dujko, P. Nicoletopoulos, and B. Li, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 42, 194001 (2009).
  10. I. Simonović, N. A. Garland, D. Bošnjaković, Z. L. Petrović, R. D. White, and S. Dujko, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 28, 015006 (2019).
  11. M. M. Becker, H. Kählert, A. Sun, M. Bonitz, and D. Loffhagen, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 26, 044001 (2017).
  12. N. A. Garland, D. G. Cocks, G. J. Boyle, S. Dujko, and R. D. White, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 26, 075003 (2017).
  13. N. A. Garland, I. Simonović, G. J. Boyle, D. G. Cocks, S. Dujko, and R. D. White, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 27, 105004 (2018).
  14. K. J. Bowers, B. J. Albright, L. Yin, W. Daughton, V. Roytershteyn, B. Bergen, and T. J. T. Kwan, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 180, 012055 (2009).
  15. A. V. Khrabrov and I. D. Kaganovich, Phys. Plasmas 19, 093511 (2012).
  16. A. Okhrimovskyy, A. Bogaerts, and R. Gijbels, Phys. Rev. E 65, 037402 (2002).
  17. J. F. J. Janssen, L. C. Pitchford, G. J. M. Hagelaar, and J. v. Dijk, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 25, 055026 (2016).
  18. A. Okhrimovskyy, A. Bogaerts, and R. Gijbels, Phys. Rev. E 65, 037402 (2002).
  19. P. Belenguer and L. C. Pitchford, J. Appl. Phys. 86, 4780 (1999).
  20. H. Sato, M. Kimura, and K. Fujima, Chem. Phys. Lett. 145, 21 (1988).
  21. A. V. Khrabrov and I. D. Kaganovich, Phys. Plasmas 19, 093511 (2012).
  22. A. Kallenbach, M. Bernert, R. Dux, L. Casali, T. Eich, L. Giannone, A. Herrmann, R. McDermott, A. Mlynek, H. W. Müller, et al., Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 55, 124041 (2013).
  23. M. J. E. Casey, J. de Urquijo, L. N. Serkovic Loli, D. G. Cocks, G. J. Boyle, D. B. Jones, M. J. Brunger, and R. D. White, J. Chem. Phys. 147, 195103 (2017).
  24. Z. L. Petrović, M. Šuvakov, v. Nikitović, S. Dujko, O. Šašić, J. Jovanović, G. Malović, and V. Stojanović, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 16, S1 (2007).
  25. I. Bray and A. T. Stelbovics, Phys. Rev. A 46, 6995 (1992).
  26. I. Bray and A. T. Stelbovics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 53 (1992).
  27. I. Bray, Phys. Rev. A 49, 1066 (1994).
  28. D. V. Fursa and I. Bray, Phys. Rev. A 52, 1279 (1995).
  29. I. Bray and D. V. Fursa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 2674 (1996).
  30. D. V. Fursa and I. Bray, J. Phys. B 30, 5895 (1997).
  31. I. Bray, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 273201 (2002).
  32. I. Bray, D. V. Fursa, A. S. Kheifets, and A. T. Stelbovics, J. Phys. B 35, R117 (2002).
  33. I. Bray, I. B. Abdurakhmanov, J. J. Bailey, A. W. Bray, D. V. Fursa, A. S. Kadyrov, C. M. Rawlins, J. S. Savage, A. T. Stelbovics, and M. C. Zam- mit, J. Phys. B 50, 202001 (2017).
  34. M. C. Zammit, D. V. Fursa, J. S. Savage, and I. Bray, J. Phys. B 50, 123001 (2017).
  35. K. Bartschat, I. Bray, P. G. Burke, and M. P. Scott, J. Phys. B 29, 5493 (1996).
  36. M. C. Zammit, J. S. Savage, D. V. Fursa, and I. Bray, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 233201 (2016).
  37. M. C. Zammit, J. S. Savage, D. V. Fursa, and I. Bray, Phys. Rev. A 95, 022708 (2017).
  38. L. H. Scarlett, J. S. Savage, D. V. Fursa, I. Bray, and M. C. Zammit, Eur. Phys. J. D 74, 36 (2020).
  39. J. Röder, H. Ehrhardt, I. Bray, and D. V. Fursa, J. Phys. B 30, 1309 (1997).
  40. X. Ren, I. Bray, D. V. Fursa, J. Colgan, M. S. Pindzola, T. Pflüger, A. Sen- ftleben, S. Xu, A. Dorn, and J. Ullrich, Phys. Rev. A 83, 052711 (2011).
  41. L. R. Hargreaves, S. Bhari, B. Adjari, X. Liu, R. Laher, M. Zammit, J. S. Savage, D. V. Fursa, I. Bray, and M. A. Khakoo, J. Phys. B 50, 225203 (2017).
  42. M. Zawadzki, R. Wright, G. Dolmat, M. F. Martin, L. Hargreaves, D. V. Fursa, M. C. Zammit, L. H. Scarlett, J. K. Tapley, J. S. Savage, et al., Phys. Rev. A 97, 050702 (2018).
  43. C. Jackman and A. Green, J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 84, 2715 (1979).
  44. N. F. Mott and H. S. W. Massey, Theory of atomic Collisions (Oxford University Press, London, 1965).
  45. M. Adibzadeh and C. E. Theodosiou, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Ta- bles 91, 8 (2005).
  46. H. Timko, P. S. Crozier, M. M. Hopkins, K. Matyash, and R. Schneider, Contrib. Plasma Phys. 52, 295 (2012).
  47. A. Fierro, C. Moore, B. Yee, and M. Hopkins, Plasma Sources Sci. Tech- nol. 27, 105008 (2018).
  48. L. L. Alves, K. Bartschat, S. F. Biagi, M. C. Bordage, L. C. Pitchford, C. M. Ferreira, G. J. M. Hagelaar, W. L. Morgan, S. Pancheshnyi, A. V. Phelps, et al., J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46, 334002 (2013).
  49. L. C. Pitchford, L. L. Alves, K. Bartschat, S. F. Biagi, M.-C. Bordage, I. Bray, C. E. Brion, M. J. Brunger, L. Campbell, A. Chachereau, et al., Plasma Process. Polym. 14, 1600098 (2017).
  50. L. C. Pitchford, L. L. Alves, K. Bartschat, S. F. Biagi, M. C. Bor- dage, A. V. Phelps, C. M. Ferreira, G. J. M. Hagelaar, W. L. Morgan, S. Pancheshnyi, et al., J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46, 334001 (2013).
  51. S. A. J. Al-Amin and J. Lucas, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 20, 1590 (1987).
  52. H. N. Kücükarpaci and J. Lucas, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 14, 2001 (1981).
  53. R. W. Crompton, M. T. Elfor, and R. L. Jory, Aust. J. Phys. 20, 369 (1967).
  54. R. W. Crompton, M. T. Elfor, and A. G. Robertson, Aust. J. Phys. 23, 667 (1970).
  55. H. B. Milloy and R. W. Crompton, Phys. Rev. A 15, 1847 (1977).
  56. D. K. Davies, F. L. Jones, and C. G. Morgan, Proc. Phys. Soc. 83, 137 (1964).
  57. M. T. Elford, Aust. J. Phys. 27, 235 (1974).
  58. J. Pack, R. Voshall, A. Phelps, and L. Kline, J. Appl. Phys. 71, 5363 (1992).
  59. C. S. Lakshminarasimha and J. Lucas, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 10, 313 (1977).
  60. G. Dall'Armi, P. Purdie, and J. Fletcher, Aust. J. Phys. 45, 185 (1992).
  61. R. W. Warren and J. H. Parker, Phys. Rev. 128, 2661 (1962).
  62. G. Cavalleri, Phys. Rev. 179, 186 (1969).
  63. L. M. Chanin and G. D. Rork, Phys. Rev. 133, 1005 (1964).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Park, R. M., Kupets, W., Zammit, M. C., Colgan, J., Fontes, C. J., Scheiner, B. S., Timmermans, E., Tang, X.-Z., Scarlett, L. H., Fursa, D. V., Bray, I., & Garland, N. A.
Affiliations
  • Tulane University (US)
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory (US)
  • Curtin University (AU)
  • Griffith University (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Plasma Sources Science and Technology
Publisher
IOP Publishing
Published
2022-06-01
Volume
31
Issue
6
Pages
065013
ISSN
  • 0963-0252 (ISSN-L)
  • 1361-6595
DOI
10.1088/1361-6595/ac781f
OpenAlex
W4282834549
Cited by
6
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Plasma Sources Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • Cross Connect (Southern Cross University) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Australian Government
  • National Nuclear Security Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy (89233218NCA000001)
  • LANL’s ASC PEM Atomic Physics Project
  • Laboratory Directed Research and Development (20200356ER)
  • Curtin University
  • United States Air Force
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Plasma Diagnostics and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Magnetic confinement fusion research
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Atomic and Molecular Physics
Keywords
angular distribution function, particle-in-cell simulation, momentum transfer cross sections, electron transport, atomic hydrogen, helium, molecular hydrogen, isotopologues, fusion plasma

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