INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING JOURNAL OF PHYSICS D: APPLIED PHYSICS

J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 35 (2002) 1362–1372 PII: S0022-3727(02)32856-0

Stationary supersonic plasma expansion:

continuum fluid mechanics versus direct
simulation Monte Carlo method
S E Selezneva1,3 , M I Boulos1 , M C M van de Sanden2 , R Engeln2
and D C Schram2
1
CRTP, Université de Sherbrooke, Chemical Engineering Department, Sherbrooke, Qc,
Canada J1K 2R1
2
Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Applied Physics, PO Box 513, 5600
MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
E-mail: Svetlana2@hermes.usherb.ca

Received 18 January 2002

Published 31 May 2002
Online at stacks.iop.org/JPhysD/35/1362

Abstract
Supersonically expanding stationary thermal plasma, formed by a thermal
cascaded arc is studied. Due to the low chamber pressure (20–100 Pa) the
results of continuum mechanics model can be doubtful. This is why these
results are validated against kinetic Monte Carlo simulation and
experimental data obtained by means of laser induced fluorescence. The
analysis proves that continuum mechanics is still applicable for the velocity
and temperature field predictions downstream of the shock region. However,
the shock formation and some non-equilibrium effects typical for supersonic
flow can be correctly studied only with the help of kinetic simulations. We
show that the errors in the results using continuum mechanics can be
attributed to the presence of flow gradients. These errors diminish when the
shock regions are thickened due to rarefaction, viscosity and heat
conductivity. Besides, both methods show that the effect of the chamber
geometry on the plasma flow field is important.

1. Introduction understanding of the processes governing the flow has not

Supersonic plasma expansion from a high-pressure discharge
tube to a low-pressure chamber is an interesting problem for
both academic and applied research [1–4]. This sort of plasma
flows can be encountered in plasma processing, experimental
physics and in aerospace industry. One application of these
flows is the remote expanding thermal plasma (ETP) deposition
[5–17]. This technique has been successfully applied for the
deposition of various new materials, such as, hydrogenated
amorphous carbon [5] and silicon [6]. These materials are
parts of thin film transistor and solar cell construction. In order
to optimize the deposition processes one needs the information
about the gas dynamic properties of the expanding flow.
Although there have been several researches devoted
to the study of supersonic plasma expansion [1–4], full
3 Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
been reached yet. This slow progress can be explained by
several facts. First, supersonic plasma expansion is a very
complicated type of gas dynamic flow. An important parameter
describing this kind of flows is the degree of underexpansion
that can be defined as the ratio of the pressures in the discharge
tube and in the expansion chamber. The initial region of the
supersonically expanding jet can have one or several barrels
depending on the degree of underexpansion, Mach number
at the chamber inlet and flow rarefaction degree. In these
barrels there are stationary expansion and shock waves, where
the profiles of all gas dynamic parameters are very non-
uniform. Second, due to the very high flow velocity and
low pressure there are substantial deviations from the local
thermodynamic equilibrium, i.e. deviations from the thermal,
chemical and Boltzmann equilibrium. It was shown also
[18] that both in plasma expansion and in shock waves the
breakdown of the continuum fluid dynamics (CFD) could be

0022-3727/02/121362+11$30.00 © 2002 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK 1362


observed. This breakdown results in the deviation from the
Maxwellian distribution characterized by a single translational
temperature [10].
The description of gas motion using CFD approach
implies solving the system of Navier–Stokes equations
[19]. These equations represent the laws of conservation
of mass, momentum and energy with addition of the
constitutive relationships between the pressure tensor and
velocity gradients and between the heat flux and temperature
gradients. Using the appropriate equation of state and transport
coefficients, we can apply this system of equations to describe
the whole supersonic flow. However, the reliability of the
results of such calculations can be doubtful for several reasons.
First, the linear relationships in the constitutive equations are
inadequate for strong gradients that are present in the expansion
and compression waves. Even though in a plasma these
gradients can be less pronounced than in a cold gas due to
the increased role of thermal conductivity and viscosity at
high temperatures [20], the applicability of CFD still needs
validation. Second, the continuum approach assumes that the
molecular velocity distribution is close to Maxwellian. This
assumption certainly results in some errors of CFD simulations
of the flows containing a strong expansion and shock waves.
Finally, in terms of CFD applicability, the rarefaction effect
on the supersonic jet flow is not so obvious [21]. On the one
hand, this effect results in the deviation from a Maxwellian
distribution, but on the other hand, the rarefaction broadens
the shock waves and diminishes the gradients. To sum up,
the applicability of the continuum mechanics approach to
supersonic plasma modelling should be analysed and validated
by the comparison with experimental data and with the results
of kinetic models. Another solution could be the use of the
improved CFD approach, which is the Burnett formulation
[22]. Unfortunately, this formulation is too complicated to be
applied in most of the practical problems.
The recent development of kinetic gas models such as
direct simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) [18] and molecular
dynamics (MD) [23] methods has progressed quickly due to
the improvement of computer hardware capabilities. These
methods have been tested on shock wave problems and
both of them have demonstrated excellent agreement with
experiments. This observation can be explained by the fact
that both methods simulate the solution of the Boltzmann
equation and are based on the microscopic representation of
a gas. The difference between the two methods lies in the
calculations of the dynamics of the system. In DSMC methods,
unlike the MD method, the trajectories of particles are not
computed exactly. This method uses instead a discretization
of time and space and a description of the evolution of an
ensemble of particles according to the stochastic rules. The
DSMC method has become a widespread modelling tool to
describe gases in the transition regime between the continuum
and the free-molecular flow [18, 23–27]. However the time
required for DSMC calculations is inversely proportional to
the Knudsen number. Because of this fact, the method can
be ineffective to describe the full nozzle-jet flow. Besides,
unlike the continuum mechanics approach, there have been
only a few attempts to apply the DSMC method to supersonic
flows taking into account the plasma effects. Due to the large
discrepancy between the plasma and the collision length scales,
Stationary supersonic plasma expansion
the application of the method to describe plasma flows is not
straightforward. The standard approach to add particle-in–
cell procedures to DSMC algorithms fails at high ionization
degree [24]. At the same time quite simple multi-temperature
continuum model can be easily applied for the description of
non-equilibrium plasma flows [28].
A hybrid numerical technique that can switch from CFD
to DSMC techniques when it is physically needed would be a
perfect solution to the problems mentioned, but to develop this
technique one needs some good criteria of CFD failure.
The facts mentioned above have motivated us to
investigate the applicability of the continuum mechanics
approach to study supersonic cascaded arc plasma expansions.
This kind of plasma is very well studied experimentally [5–9],
while a model for the whole two-dimensional axi-symmetric
supersonic–subsonic gas flow has not been presented yet.
Previously published results contain only one-dimensional
continuum models for supersonic expansions [5, 13, 14],
or two-dimensional models, where the calculations were
performed with the help of PLASIMO [16] and PHOENICS
[17] codes for only the subsonic part of the expansion.
In this paper, we report the results of supersonic
cascaded arc plasma expansion modelling and compare two
computational approaches: the CFD and DSMC methods. For
CFD calculations we utilize the commercially available code
FLUENT (FLUENT is a registered trademark of FLUENT
Inc. Ceterra Resource Park, 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon,
NH 03766 USA) [19]. For the DSMC method we apply a
standard procedure developed by Bird [18]. We show that
both of these approaches can give two-dimensional solutions
for the whole region of supersonic cascaded arc expansions.
In the literature, the DSMC method is often applied to
simulate the gas flows when experimental validation is a rather
difficult task. As an example of this situation one can mention
non-stationary plasma expansion encountered in pulsed laser
deposition [29]. From the physical point of view, stationary
plasma expansion is a similar problem [30], but it facilitates the
experimental validation. This is why such flows can be used to
check the feasibility of the method to simulate the expanding
gas flow in general. With this in mind, here we validate
the modelling results on the stationary gas temperature and
velocity profiles against the experimental data obtained with
the help of a laser-induced fluorescence technique described
in detail elsewhere [10–12].
In this paper, we restrict ourselves to the case where the
static pressure in the plasma formation source, i.e. Pin =
0.2 atm is 200–1000 times higher than the static pressure
in the expanding chamber, i.e. Pch = 100–20 Pa. It was
proved that the character of the very first region of the
supersonic expansion is similar to the adiabatic expansion
of a gas from a high-pressure reservoir through an orifice
into vacuum [7, 10–12]. The expansion into a low-pressure
(not vacuum) atmosphere, however, consists of the region of
adiabatic expansion followed by a stationary normal shock
wave and a subsonic relaxation zone (figure 1). We can
conclude that the supersonic plasma expansion into low-
pressure atmosphere represents a combination of three sorts
of flows: a plasma expansion into vacuum [31–34], a shock
wave formation [20, 35, 36] and a subsonic plasma jet [37–41].
In our simulations, however, we do not separate the regions
1363
S E Selezneva et al

Figure 2. Schematic view of the cascaded arc.

added by means of an injection ring placed downstream of

Figure 1. Structure of strongly underexpanded supersonic jet. (a)
Schematic of the initial region of ideal gas jet (borrowed from [2])
showing AA—nozzle outlet, I, II and III—regions of free expansion,
IV—compressed layer between the barrel shock and the jet
boundary, CC—normal shock, V—region of subsonic flow. (b)
Schematic of the gas temperature axial profile in a plasma jet where
the normal shock is thickened over the distance dx.
of these flows. We obtain instead the solution for the whole
flow pattern in the expansion chamber. The shock-capturing
technique is used in CFD calculations.
In the models we assume that the gas is composed only
of argon atoms, neglecting the presence of electrons and ions.
In the thermodynamic and transport properties, however, we
take into account the effect of ionization. This approximation
is possible, because it was revealed that in a plasma with
low ionization degree (<10%) the dynamic properties of the
expansion are governed by the heavy particles [5, 6].
2. Experimental set-up
In the experiments, the plasma is formed by means of a
cascaded arc. As shown schematically in figure 2, the cascaded
arc consists of three doped tungsten cathodes and an anode
plate. Between the cathodes and the anode there is a stack
of several water-cooled copper plates electrically insulated
from each other. The copper plates and the anode form a
4 mm diameter channel, where the carrier gas flows and the
arc discharge takes place. The discharge produces a thermal
the vacuum chamber inlet. Usually this admixture does not
change much the dynamic properties of the plasma expansion,
however, it can diminish significantly the ionization degree. In
the experimental measurements of velocity and temperature
profiles [10] a small admixture (0.12 slm) of hydrogen is
added to the plasma to diminish the ionization degree. The
transport of neutral argon atoms is studied by means of laser-
induced fluorescence spectroscopy around 811 nm, on the
living Ar[4s] atoms. It is assumed that due to the relatively
large mass of argon atoms as compared with hydrogen atoms,
the velocity with which the plasma expands will to a large
extent be determined by the argon velocity. Although the
Doppler shifted laser-induced fluorescence measurements are
performed on argon atoms in the metastable Ar*(3 P2 ) and
resonant Ar*(3 P1 ) states, it is argued [10] that the plasma
jet velocity distribution function of these Ar[4s] atoms reflects
the velocity distribution functions of the ground state atoms.
The velocity behavior of the supersonically expanding argon
gas is predicted from the moment balance, and the temperature
from the adiabatic relation between density and temperature.
The errors of the resulting velocity and temperature profiles
are evaluated to be less that 10%. A detailed description of the
laser-induced fluorescence technique is given elsewhere [10].
3. Models
3.1. Aspects of continuum mechanics simulations
For continuum mechanics simulations we use a commercially
available code FLUENT, capable of resolving both subsonic
and supersonic problems. The system of governing Navier–
Stokes equations, written to describe the mean flow properties,
is cast in integral, Cartesian form for an arbitrary control
volume V with differential surface area dA as follows [19]:

 

∂ 
W dV +  · dA = S dV ,
F − G
∂t
V V

plasma with a gas temperature T ≈ 1 eV. The pressure in  , F and G are defined as
where the vectors W
the arc channel is slightly sub-atmospheric (∼0.1–0.5 atm).
     
The total power given to the arc varies from 2 to 5 kW. The
 ρ  
 ρ V 
  0 
plasma expands supersonically into the low pressure (∼20 Pa) 
 
 
 
 
 


ρu   ρ V u + P î 
  
τxi 

chamber. The last plate, where the nozzle is placed, acts    ˆ 
W = ρυ , F = ρ V υ + P j , G = τyi
as an anode. The nozzle has a straight channel with a 
     
ρw 
  
ρ V w + P k̂  
 τzi 

diameter of 6 mm and a length of 10 mm. The last part of    

 




 

ρE ρV E + P V  τ V
ij j + q
the nozzle (5 mm) makes an angle of 45˚ with the channel.
The deposition chamber is a cylindrical stainless steel vessel 
with an inner diameter of 32 cm. During the deposition, and S vector can contain source terms such as body forces
an admixture of molecular gas (e.g. silane or acetylene) is and energy sources. Here ρ, V , E and P are the density,

1364

velocity, total energy per unit mass, and static pressure of
the fluid, respectively; u, υ, ω and x, y, z are the velocity
components and the coordinates in the directions of î, jˆ, k̂
coordinate vectors. τ is the viscous stress tensor and q is the
heat flux. Total energy E is related to the total enthalpy H , or
to the static enthalpy h by the following expressions:
p |V |2
E=H− , where H =h+
ρ 2
Perfect gas law state equation is added to the system.
We study the axi-symmetric flow. The considered flow
is mostly supersonic and the coupling between momentum
and energy equations of a Navier–Stokes system is very
strong. This is why we choose a coupled technique solving
simultaneously the equations written in matrix form. The
Navier–Stokes equations become numerically very stiff at
low Mach number due to the disparity between the fluid
velocity and the speed of sound. The numerical stiffness
of the system of equations under these conditions results
in poor convergence rates. This difficulty is overcome in
FLUENT’s coupled solver by employing a technique called
time-derivative preconditioning [19]. A k–ε model [42]
modified by renormalization group method (RNG) is applied
for turbulence simulation because it predicts the properties
of axisymmetric jet better than a usual k–ε model. For
thermodynamic and transport properties of hot argon we
use simple expressions valid for gas temperatures T

12 000 K. The power-law temperature dependence is used for
the viscosity, µ, approximation:
Stationary supersonic plasma expansion
The computational domain used for the modelling is
demonstrated in figure 3. This domain consists of two
cylinders. The first cylinder represents a part of the arc flow
channel with the diameter of 4 mm and the length of 10 mm.
The second cylinder represents the expansion chamber. The
radius of the chamber is 162.25 mm, its length is 800 mm. We
neglect the presence of the divergent part of the nozzle. This
simplification is due to the fact that in reality the nozzle walls
.
work as anode and the plasma dissipating some Ohmic power
is not quenched much in the divergent part. In the model, we
do not take into account the Ohmic heating, hence the plasma
quenching can be unrealistically high if we take into account
the presence of the divergent part of the nozzle. However, note
that this simplification can cause some errors in the results of
both kinetic and continuum models.
The boundary conditions are as follows: the temperature is
12 000 K at the inlet. At the wall we use a constant condition
for the temperature (300 K) and non-slip velocity boundary
condition. In this paper we do not study in detail the near-wall
flow, and so we do not set at the walls physically more correct
conditions of temperature jump and velocity slip. The param-
eters defining the supersonic jet structure are the nozzle Mach
number M and the ratio of the static pressure at the chamber
inlet Pin to the ambient chamber pressure Pch . For the jets
exhausting into the low pressure chamber from a straight noz-
zle the condition M ≈1 is valid. During the experiments the
static pressures of the jets were between 0.1 and 0.2 atm, while
the pressure in the chamber was 20 or 100 Pa. All experiments
were performed at a flow rate through the arc of 3 standard
litres per minute (SLM). At the inlet boundary we set the mass

0.72 flow rate corresponding to the given volume flow rate and we
T
µ = µ0 , (1) assume that the temperature and velocity profiles are radially
T0 uniform. This approximation is possible, because we do not
where the reference temperature T0 = 273.11 K, the focus our attention on the flow inside the arc channel. We uti-
corresponding reference viscosity of argon is µ0 = 2.125 × lize a part of this channel to obtain more realistic profiles at the
10−5 kg m−1 s−1 . expansion chamber inlet. The exact value of turbulence inten-
The thermal conductivity λ is calculated as follows: sity is unknown at the arc inlet boundary. Despite the high flow
velocity in the arc channel (1500 m s−1 ) the Reynolds number
µCp is moderate due to the high temperature and small radius of the
λ= , (2)
Pr channel. This is why the intensity of turbulence is supposed
to be 1% at the inlet boundary. The pumping exit, which is in
where Pr = 0.7, the Prandtl number and Cp is the heat reality a circular hole, in two-dimensional model can be repre-
capacity. The heat capacity is modelled as a piecewise linear sented as a slit with a width of 20 mm at a distance of 600 mm
function of static temperature using the tables in [43]. We
repeated the calculations using more accurate expressions for
viscosity and thermal conductivity obtained from the kinetic
theory [44, 19]. The difference in the temperature profiles
never exceeded 2% everywhere, however, the computational
time increased. This is why we utilize the expressions (1) and
(2) in all the calculations presented in this article.
In our models we assume that the gas is composed only of
argon atoms, neglecting the presence of electrons and ions. We
also neglect the effect of ionization and recombination on the
flow field. Because of the fact that the plasma is quenched in
the expansion, the ionization is practically absent in this flow.
The recombination however can be significant. We studied
the effect of recombination by repeating the calculations
using a two-temperature model described in [28]. It was
found that recombination affects significantly only the electron
temperature field, not the gas temperature and velocity fields. Figure 3. Contours of the translational temperature predicted by
The detailed results of this study will be reported later. DSMC for 20 and 100 Pa chamber pressures.

1365
S E Selezneva et al

from the nozzle (figure 3). The substrate is situated 350 mm performed for two chamber pressures: Pch = 20 and 100 Pa.
from the chamber inlet. The radius of the substrate is 50 mm. Because of the fact that the uncertainty of most experimental
The computations start on a rather coarse non-structural measurements for such flows is ∼10%, we will consider the
grid using the first-order upwind scheme. The computational agreement between the results of the two models to be good if
grid contains 231 quadrilateral cells in the first cylinder and the difference does not exceed 10%. Both models show that
1720 non-structural cells in the second cylinder. The cell size because of the low chamber pressures compared to the pressure
depends on the position in the chamber: this size is small in the discharge tube, the plasma strongly expands. This strong
in the supersonic part of the expansion and within the high- expansion leads to the formation of the jet structure with a
velocity jet region. The cell size is increased far from the supersonic barrel (figures 3, 4 and 5), ended by a stationary
axis. After performing several hundreds of iterations, the grid normal shock wave (Mach disk), which is followed by a
is adapted (120 child cells are added in the supersonic region) subsonic mixing and relaxing region. Figure 5 shows that in the
and the calculations proceed using the second-order scheme expansion, the axial Mach number rises till the value of ∼3.5
until the residuals of all the equations become less than 10−4 . if Pch = 100 Pa and till the value of ∼4.5 if Pch = 20 Pa. Then
The computations were repeated for the grid containing twice the Mach number drops in the compression region. Figure 6
as much cells in the expansion chamber. The difference in the demonstrates that in the expansion, the static pressure at the
results was never more than 5%. axis drops from 0.15 atm till the chamber pressure values. This
static pressure stays almost constant in the subsonic region.
As it is known [45], in the continuum regime the axial shock
3.2. Aspects of kinetic simulations position, xc can be evaluated by the expression
In a direct simulation Monte Carlo method [18], a gas is

composed by a number of model particles, each of them xc Pstagn
representing the average movement of much bigger number ≈ 0.67 ,
d Pch
of real particles (atoms, ions, electrons). The following two
steps model the evolution of a system:
(i) collisions of particles (elastic or inelastic),
(ii) translational movement.
Each of the model particles has coordinates in physical space,
three velocity components, and internal energy. The physical
space is discretized so that the computational grid groups
together the particles that are likely to collide. The kinetic
theory of gases is applied to calculate the probability of the
collision selection. Collision probability is calculated based
on the collision frequency and pairs are selected based on the
product of relative velocity and collision cross section.
Only elastic collisions are considered in this paper; the
gas consists only of argon atoms. Variable hard sphere (VHS)
collision model [18] is applied to simulate the collisions.
The modelling domain is the same as described in the
previous section. The quadrilateral grid containing 80 cells
in x-direction and 60 cells in y-direction is used. In both
Figure 4. Contours of the translational temperature predicted by
directions the cells contain two sub-cells. Near the inlet the FLUENT for 20 and 100 Pa chamber pressures.
cell size should be very small to capture the phenomena when
the Knudsen number is small. In this paper, however, our
purpose is to predict correctly the flow downstream of the
nozzle. The cell spacing is made progressively larger in the
direction of expansion. The geometric progression coefficients
are as follows: seven in x-direction and four in y-direction.
The number of model molecules is 106 . The time step is
made less than the residence time of the particle in the smallest
cell. At the walls we set the condition of diffusive reflection.
At the nozzle inlet plane the flow conditions are the axial
velocity 2000 m s−1 , the number density 1023 m−3 and the gas
temperature 12 000 K.

4. Results and discussion

In figures 3 and 4 the results of Monte Carlo simulations Figure 5. Local Mach number axial profile predicted by FLUENT
on the gas temperature field are compared with the results for chamber pressures of 20 and 100 Pa. Here and in figures 5, 6 and
of continuum mechanics. The model calculations are 9 the coordinate x = 0 corresponds to the nozzle outlet.

1366

Figure 6. Static pressure axial profile predicted by FLUENT for
chamber pressures of 20 and 100 Pa.
where Pstagn is the stagnation pressure at the chamber inlet with
the diameter d. However, this expression cannot be applied
when the flow regime is approaching the scattering regime, in
which any shocks disappear [21, 25].
There have been several researches showing that the
continuum approach underestimates the shock wave thickness
in ideal (non-viscous and non-thermal conductive) gases [18].
Physically, it is clear that this thickness cannot be smaller than
a mean free path because the atoms have to perform at least
several collisions to scatter the momentum in the direction
of the flow and transfer the kinetic energy of macroscopic
movement into the kinetic energy of chaotic microscopic
movement, i.e. into the thermal energy. Many authors have
shown [18] that the continuum approach cannot take into
account these effects correctly. In plasma, however, due to the
high temperatures, the values of the thermal conductivity and
viscosity coefficients are large as compared with these values
in a cold gas, for which the theory of ideal gas works well.
Because of the fact that thermal conductivity and viscosity act
as shock-broadening mechanisms, the shock wave thickness is
higher in plasma than in ideal gasses. This is why we can
expect better performance of methods based on continuum
approach when they are applied for plasma than for ideal
gasses. Moreover, in a rarefied plasma flow, the normal shock
region is also thickened due to the rarefaction effects. Besides,
in a rarefied flow the barrel shock is not so strong as in a
dense gas, it does not protect the supersonic gas from mixing
with the ambient gas and causes the diminishing of the flow
gradients. It was demonstrated [11, 12] that this effect is
especially pronounced for the light gases, e.g. hydrogen.
In figure 7 the results of modelling on axial temperature
and velocity profiles are validated against experimental data
obtained with the help of laser-induced fluorescence. We see
that in both cases the models predict the expansion and shock
wave regions with some error: FLUENT overestimates the
expansion rate, DSMC slightly underestimates the velocity
in the shock region. Besides, FLUENT underestimates the
temperature shock jump in the case of Pch = 100 Pa. Both
methods give comparable results on the shock thickness,
however, FLUENT predicts the temperature shock slightly
shifted upstream as comparedto DSMC and experimental
results. Comparison of the axial profiles of translational
temperature for the two background pressures presented in
figure 7 supports the statement that the shock is thickened more
Stationary supersonic plasma expansion
in the case of Pch = 20 Pa than in the case of Pch = 100 Pa.
Furthermore, it can be shown that for low chamber pressure
values (Pch < 20 Pa), the temperature gradient in the shock
wave is not so large as it could be in an ideal gas shock
wave with the same Mach number M ≈ 4. To connect the
temperatures T ahead and behind the shock in ideal gas, the
following Rankine–Hugoniot relationship [46] can be deduced
from the conservation of mass, momentum and energy:
  
T2 2γ M12 − (γ − 1) (γ − 1) M12 + 2
= ,
T1 (γ + 1)2 M12
where the subscripts 1 and 2 denote the quantities ahead and
behind the shock, respectively. For an ideal gas the adiabatic
constant is γ = Cp /Cv = 5/3, and we obtain
 2  
T2 5M1 − 1 M12 + 3
= .
T1 16M12
In the cascaded arc plasma expansion the adiabatic
constant rises from the value of γ ∼ 1.2 till the value that
is close to 5/3 in the region of the shock wave. Thus the
previous equation can be used to evaluate the deviation of the
temperature jump from that predicted by the ideal gas theory.
For Mach number value M1 = 4.5 (corresponding to Pch =
20 Pa) the previous equation gives T2 /T1 = 7.19; for M1 = 3.5
(corresponding to Pch = 100 Pa) this equation gives T2 /T1 =
4.07. Contrary to the theoretical predictions, the results of
the simulations and experiments agree that the maximal value
of the temperature jump is ∼3.5 when the chamber pressure
is equal to 20 Pa and this jump is thickened over a length of
∼25 mm. When the chamber pressure is equal to 100 Pa the
ideal gas theory is in much better agreement with the kinetic
simulations and experiments: they show that the temperature
jump is about fourfold and this jump is thickened over a length
of ∼10 mm. Therefore, it is the rarefaction effect that is
responsible for the deviation of the shock temperature jump
from the one predicted by the Rankine–Hugoniot relationship.
Because of the rarefaction, the supersonic flow is not protected
from the ambient flow by the barrel shock. This shock becomes
transparent and the mixing with the ambient gas takes place
ahead of the shock disturbing the usual ‘zone of silence’ and
diminishing the flow gradients.
Note that the CFD model underpredicts the magnitude
of the temperature jump and, quite surprisingly, the errors
on shock strength and position of CFD approach seem to
be larger in the case of Pch = 100 Pa than when Pch =
20 Pa. To explain this result, one has to remember that in
a collisional regime, strong flow gradients are the reasons
for errors in Navier–Stokes system’s solution. According
to the experimental findings and kinetic simulation results,
the gradients of temperature and density are higher in the
expansion and in the normal shock wave in the case of Pch =
100 Pa than when Pch = 20 Pa.
Another reason for CFD failure can be found in high-
velocity jet flow where there is a spatial coordinate along
which the flow velocity is much higher than in other directions.
This preferential flow direction can cause some deviations
from translational equilibrium, i.e. the deviations from the
Maxwellian distribution characterized by a single translational
1367
S E Selezneva et al

Figure 7. Comparison of various axial profiles. (a) Translational temperature T predicted by FLUENT, DSMC and experimentally
measured [10] for the Pch = 20 Pa. (b) Predicted by DSMC translational temperature in the axial direction, Tx , and in normal to the axis
direction, Tn , and experimentally measured temperature [10] for Pch = 20 Pa. (c) Velocity U predicted by FLUENT, DSMC, and
experimentally measured velocity [10] for Pch = 20 Pa. (d) Translational temperature T predicted by FLUENT, DSMC and experimentally
measured velocity for Pch = 100 Pa. (e) Predicted by DSMC translational temperature in the axial direction, Tx , and in normal to the axis
direction, Tn , and experimentally measured temperature [10] for Pch = 100 Pa. (f ) Velocity U predicted by FLUENT, DSMC, and
experimentally measured velocity [10] for Pch = 100 Pa.

 2
temperature. The overall translational temperature T in this component u in the x-direction, Tn = u) du is
v f (
flow can be defined as the normal or circumferential temperature based on the
T = 1
(Tx + 2Tn ) , microscopic velocity component v that is normal to the
3
 x-direction, U is the macroscopic flow velocity, f (u) is
where Tx = u) du is the axial or parallel
(u − U ) f ( 2
the velocity distribution function. Unlike the continuum
translational temperature based on the microscopic velocity model, the DSMC method indicates the deviations from

1368

translational equilibrium. The results of calculations presented
in figure 7 show that along the axis in the expansion the axial
temperature Tx does not drop so fast as the normal temperature
Tn does. As a result, at the end of the expansion region, the
temperature Tx is larger than the temperature Tn . In the normal
shock (figure 7), the rise of Tx precedes the shock rise of Tn and
in the shock region the overshoot of Tx over Tn takes place. The
Stationary supersonic plasma expansion
of random movement parallel to the flow direction and then
to the one normal to the flow direction. At the same time,
in expanding flow the collision rate becomes so low that
thermal equilibrium between these energy modes cannot be
maintained. It was found [2] that the velocity distribution
function at the axis of the expansion is well described by the
ellipsoidal distribution function
ratio Tx /Tn reaches its maximum at a distance of x ≈ 50 mm
1/2  
from the nozzle when Pch = 20 Pa and at a distance of
x ≈ 25 mm when Pch = 100 Pa. Radial profiles of the
temperatures Tx , Tn and T demonstrated in figure 8 for the case
of the chamber pressure Pch = 20 Pa, show that translational
non-equilibrium can be found within the whole supersonic
region of the jet. Immediately after the shock, where the flow
velocity is subsonic, the temperatures Tx and Tn become equal
to each other. In the subsonic region, the velocity distribution
equilibrates and becomes close to Maxwellian. The radial
profiles of temperature and velocity (figure 9) illustrate rather
satisfactory agreement between DSMC and FLUENT models
for Pch = 20 Pa.
There are several reasons for the observed breakdown of
translational equilibrium in supersonic expansion. First, this
phenomenon can be explained by the fact that in supersonic
jets, the kinetic energy of the macroscopic movement parallel
to the flow direction transfers first to the microscopic energy
  
m mv 2 m mu2
u) = n
f ( exp − × exp − ,
2π kTn 2kTn 2π kTx 2kTx
where n is the number density, m is the mass of the particle,
k is the Bolzmann constant. Second, in the shock wave, due
to the steep gradients the equilibrium cannot be established.
In fact, in the shock region, the velocity distribution may be
strongly bimodal [47], i.e. this distribution may be close to a
sum of two parts representing the velocity distributions ahead
and behind the shock wave. Moreover, as mentioned earlier,
in the rarefied flow the normal shocks and barrel shocks are
thickened and their thickness is comparable with the mean free
path. This fact leads to the possibility of the background gas
invasion in the supersonic region, [8, 10, 48] which can also
drive the flow from equilibrium.
However, the FLUENT model cannot take into account
the translational non-equilibrium. This is the second reason

Figure 8. Radial profiles of temperatures in the axial direction, Tx , and in normal to the axis direction, Tn , and total translational
temperature, T , predicted by DSMC for a chamber pressure of 20 Pa for the axial positions (a) x = 3 cm, (b) 5 cm, (c) 7 cm, (d) 20 cm.

1369
S E Selezneva et al
Figure 9. Radial profiles for a chamber pressure of 20 Pa for the axial positions x = 3, 5, 7 and 20 cm: (a) temperature (FLUENT),
(b) velocity (FLUENT), (c) temperature (DSMC) and (d) velocity (DSMC).
why this method predicts the shock strength and position with
a bigger error than the kinetic DSMC method.
To find the criteria of CFD failure we should evaluate the
Knudsen number. At the axis of supersonically expanding
flow, we can define the local Knudsen number as follows [25]:
 
l  ∂Q 
Kn =  , pre-shock region, and the local Knudsen numbers decrease
Q ∂x 
where l is the local mean free path, Q is a flow property
(density or temperature). Figure 10 shows the axial profile of
Knudsen numbers Kn T and Kn D, calculated by FLUENT
using as a flow property Q the translational temperature and
density, respectively. The Knudsen numbers defined in this
way reflect the fact that this number can be increased not only
due to the pressure decrease, i.e. an increase of the mean free
path l, but also due to the increase of the flow gradients. For
example, it can be expected that the maximal Knudsen number
Pch = 20 Pa is five times as much that when Pch = 100 Pa.
FLUENT calculations show, however, that due to the larger
flow gradients in the case of Pch = 100 Pa compared with
Pch = 20 Pa, the difference in the maximal Knudsen number
between these flow regimes is reduced. The maximal Knudsen
number Kn D in the case of chamber pressure Pch = 20 Pa is
only twice as much as that when Pch = 100 Pa. The results
of our calculations support the conclusion that the breakdown
of continuum takes place when the Knudsen number Kn D
exceeds 0.05. The Knudsen number Kn D does not contain
1370
any discontinuities in the supersonic region, therefore this
number can be recommended as a criterion of continuum
failure.
Downstream of the normal shock region, the jet flow
velocity decreases and becomes subsonic. The subsonic flow
no longer contain gradients as strong as one can find in the
in this flow. Besides, as it can be seen from figure 11,
the flow does not expand much in the subsonic region.
The facts mentioned lead to the equilibration of the velocity
distributions. The axial velocity and temperature profiles are
very well predicted by both models downstream of the shock
region when Pch = 20 Pa. These profiles are in excellent
agreement with the measured data. When Pch = 100 Pa, due
to the larger FLUENT errors in the shock region, downstream
of the shock the FLUENT performance is not as good as the
DSMC performance.
From the analysis of the stream function fields it is
obvious that the chamber geometry plays an important role
in flow pattern formation: there is a big recirculation zone
that compresses the jet and prevents it from expanding in
subsonic region. Both models prove that in the subsonic region
the plasma column is almost straight (figures 3 and 4). We
note that the results of the present models for subsonic region
are in good agreement with the flow pattern predicted by the
previously reported simulations performed with the help of
PHOENICS [17].

Figure 10. Axial profiles of Knudsen numbers Kn T and Kn D: as
predicted by the FLUENT model for a chamber pressure of
(a) 20 Pa, (b) 100 Pa.
Figure 11. Contours of the stream functions predicted by FLUENT
for chamber pressures 20 and 100 Pa
5. Summary and conclusions
Plasma generated in a cascaded arc and supersonically
expanding into low-pressure (20–100 Pa) chamber is studied
by means of continuum mechanics modelling and Monte
Carlo simulations. The results prove that the dynamics of
heavy-particle expansion describes the flow pattern of plasma
expansion very well. Both models and the experiments show
that the flow consists of a supersonic barrel followed by a
subsonic jet.
In the supersonic barrel, the kinetic model predicts the
expansion rate correctly. The continuum model slightly
overpredicts the expansion rate. Both models capture
Stationary supersonic plasma expansion
the normal shock wave; however, the position of the
temperature jump predicted by the continuum model is shifted
upstream as compared with experimental data and Monte
Carlo simulations. Both models give comparable results on
the shock thickness, but the continuum model underpredicts
the magnitude of the axial temperature jump in the shock. The
errors of the continuum mechanics results can be attributed to
the presence of flow gradients. Besides, this model cannot take
into account the translational non-equilibrium effects common
for the supersonic part of the flow. Note that the gradients of
the flow parameters in the plasma shock wave are not so strong
as in the ideal gas case due to shock broadening mechanisms
like thermal conductivity, viscosity and rarefaction.
The results of the kinetic model show that downstream
of the normal shock wave the velocity distribution function
becomes Maxwellian. For 20 Pa chamber pressure and
downstream of the shock region the FLUENT results are in
excellent agreement with experimental data and Monte Carlo
simulation results. This agreement deteriorates for the Pch =
100 Pa because of the errors in the pre-shock region. Both
models prove that an intensive recirculation zone exists in the
working chamber. This zone compresses the subsonic jet and
prevents the plasma flow from expanding.
In general, the results of the simulations of supersonic
plasma expansion in non-vacuum atmosphere have demon-
strated that the errors of continuum approach are less signifi-
cant in the case of 20 Pa background pressure than in the case of
100 Pa background pressure. This result is peculiar to the given
flow and can be explained by the fact that in this flow, the mag-
nitude of the gradients in the shock wave is lower when the
flow regime is closer to a scattering regime but is still a colli-
sional one. We argue that these gradients play a crucial role in
the breakdown of the continuum approach.
To sum up, for the rarefied expanding plasma flow, where
the shock regions are thickened, the results of continuum
mechanics are in satisfactory agreement with the kinetic
simulations and experimental results. We can conclude that,
the models based on the continuum approach can serve the
engineering purposes of evaluating the dynamical properties
of supersonically expanding plasma. The performance of
the kinetic model, however, looks more promising and
incorporation of plasma effects into this model should be a
subject of future work.
Acknowledgments
Financial support from the National Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada and the Ministry of Education
of the Province of Quebec is gratefully acknowledged. The
authors would also like to thank N Sadeghi, S Mazouffne and
P Vankan for their contribution during the LIF experiments.
References
[1] Schram D C, Mazouffre S, Engeln R and
van de Sanden M C M 2001 Atomic and Molecular Beams
ed R Campargue (Berlin: Springer)
[2] Lukyanov G A 1985 Supersonic plasma jets, Leningrad,
Mashinostroenie, 269p (in Russian)
[3] Hargus W A Jr and Cappelli M A 2001 Appl. Phys. B 72 961
1371
S E Selezneva et al
[4] Juchmann W, Luque L and Jeffries J B 2000 Appl. Opt. 39
3704
[5] Kroesen G M W 1988 PhD Thesis University of Technology,
Eindhoven, The Netherlands
[6] Kessels W M M 2000 PhD Thesis University of Technology,
Eindhoven, The Netherlands
[7] van de Sanden M C M, de Regt J M and Schram, D C 1994
Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 3 501
[8] van de Sanden M C M, van den Bercken R and Schram D C
1994 Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 3 511
[9] Meulenbroeks R F G, Engeln R A H, Beurskens M N A,
Paffen R M J, van de Sanden M C M, van der Mullen J A M
and Schram D C 1995 Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 4 74
[10] Engeln R, Mazouffre S, Vankan P, Schram D C and Sadeghi N
2001 Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 10 595
[11] Mazouffre S, Boogaarts M G H, Bakker I S J, Vankan P,
Engeln R and Schram D C 2001 Phys. Rev. E 64 2 16411
[12] Mazouffre S, Boogaarts M G H, van der Mullen J A M and
Schram D C 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 2622
[13] Beulens J J, Kroesen G M W, Vallinga P M and Schram D C
1989 Proc. Int. Symp. on Plasma Chemistry (ISPC-9)
(Pugnochiuso, Italy)
[14] Beulens J J, Milojevic D, Schram D C and Vallinga P M 1991
Phys. Fluids B 3 2548
[15] Burm K T A L, Goedheer W J and Schram D C 1999 Phys.
Plasmas 6 2622
[16] Janssen G M 2000 PhD Thesis University of Technology,
Eindhoven, The Netherlands
[17] Kessels W M M, Leroux A, Bogaarts M G H,
Hoefnalels J P M, Van de Sanden M C M and Schram D C
2001 J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 19 467
[18] Bird G A 1994 Molecular Gas Dynamics and the Direct
Simulation of Gas Flows (Oxford: Clarendon)
[19] FLUENT 5 Users Guide, 1995 Fluent Incorporated
[20] Zeldovich Ya B and Raizer Yu P 1967 Physics of Shock Waves
and High-Temperature Hydrodynamic Phenomena
(New York: Academic) p 515
[21] Muntz E P, Hamel B B and Maguire B L 1970 AIAA J. 8 1651
[22] Burnett D 1934 Proc. London Math. Soc. 40 382
[23] Mareschal M and Salomons E 1994 Transport Theory and
Statistical Phys. 23 281
[24] Boyd I D 1997 Phys. Fluids 9 3086
[25] Usami M and Teshima K 1999 JSME Int. J. B 42 369
[26] Kannenberg K C and Boyd I 2000 Strategies for efficient
particle resolution in the direct simulation Monte Carlo
method J. Comput. Phys. 157 727–45
1372
[27] Boyd I D and Chen G 1995 Prediction failure of the continuum
fluid equations in the transitional hypersonic flows Phys.
Fluids 7 210
[28] Selezneva S E, Rajabian M, Gravelle D and Boulos M I 2001
J. Phys. D 34 3862
[29] Urbassek H M and Sibold D 1993 Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 1886
[30] Bulgakov A V and Bulgakova N M 1998 J. Phys. D: Appl.
Phys. 31 693–703
[31] Ashkenas H and Sherman F S 1966 Rarefied Gasdynamics
vol 4 (New York: Academic)
[32] Ashkenas H and Sherman F S 1966 The structure and
utilisation of free jets in low density wind tunnel: Int. Symp.
on Rarefied Gas Dynamics vol 2 (suppl 3) p 84
[33] Chou Y S and Talbot L 1967 AIAA J. 5 2166
[34] Fraser R B, Robben F and Talbot L 1971 Phys. Fluids 14 2317
[35] Shanmugasundaram V and Murty S S R 1978 J. Plasma Phys.
20 419
[36] Liberman M A and Velikhovich A L 1985 Physics of Shock
Waves in Gases and Plasmas, Springer Series in
Electrodynamics vol 19 (Berlin: Springer)
[37] Chang C H and Pfender E 1990 Plasma Chem. Plasma
Process. 10 473
[38] Chang C H and Pfender E 1990 Plasma Chem. Plasma
Process. 10 493
[39] Chang C H and Ramshaw J D 1994 Phys. Plasmas 1 3698
[40] Diliwari A H, Szekely J and Westhoff R 1990 Plasma Chem.
Plasma Process. 10 501
[41] McKelliget J, Szekely J, Vardelle M and Fauchais P 1982
Plasma Chem. Plasma Process. 2 317
[42] Choudhury D 1993 Introduction to the renormalization group
method and turbulence modeling Fluent Inc. Technical
Memorandum TM-107
[43] Boulos M I, Fauchais P and Pfender E 1994 Thermal Plasma
Fundamentals and Applications (New York: Plenum) vol 1
[44] Hirschfelder J O, Curtiss C F and Bird R B 1964 Molecular
Theory of Gases and Liquids (New York: Wiley)
[45] Luis K and Carlson D 1964 Normal shock position in under
expanded and two-phase jet Rocket Techniques and
Cosmonautics 2 239
[46] Landau L D and Lifshitz E M 1987 Fluid Mechanics 2nd
edn (London: Pergamon)
[47] Mott-Smith H M 1951 Phys. Rev. 82 885
[48] Mazouffne S, Vankan P, Engeln R and Schram D C 2001
Behaviour of the H atom velocity distribution function
within the shock wave of a hydrogen plasma jet Phys. Rev.
E 64 066405