Contrib. Plasma Phys.

34 (1994) 2/3, 127-132

Theory of the plasma-sheath transition

in an oblique magnetic field
K.-U.Riemann
Institut fur Theoretische Physik, Ruhr-Universitat Bochum
D-44780 Boehum, Germany

Abstract
Bohm’s criterion for the formation of a thin (AD 4 0) sheath requires that the ions are
pre-accelerated in a quasineutral ”presheath”. Usually the presheath mechanism is based
on geometric ion current concentration, on ion friction (collisions), or on ionization. The
present paper considers a presheath which depends essentially on magnetic deflection of the
ion orbits. To this end a hydrodynamic model of the presheath accounting for an oblique
magnetic field as well as for collisions and ionization is investigated. It is shown that the
magnetic field alone is not sufficient to provide a presheath mechanism. The ”magnetic
presheath” is intrinsically controlled by elementary processes, and “compressed” by a strong
magnetic field into a thin layer with a characteristic extension of the ion gyroradius p ; .

1. Introduction

In typical boundary layer problems a quasineutral plasma is shielded from a negative absorb-
ing wall by a ”thin” positive space charge region (”sheath”) extended over several electron
Debye lengths AD. In the usual case AD < L -where L is the characteristic extension
of the boundary layer - the sheath formation is subject to the Bohm criterion [l, 21. In
hydrodynamic approximation, it requires that the ions enter the sheath with a velocity

where cs is the speed of ion acoustic waves. (k = Bolzmann’s constant, T, = electron tem-
perature, 2’; = ion temperature, mi = ion mass. 7 = 1 for isothermal ion Aow, 7 = 5 / 3 for
adibatic flow with isotropic pressure, q d 7 = 3 for one-dimensional adiabatic flow.) Conse-
quently, the ions must be pre-accelerated by a non-shielded residual field in the quasineutral
”presheath” region (extension L > AD). The presheath ends at the ”sheath edge” which is
usually defined by aformalfield singularity (AD/L 4 0) . The general problem of the plasma
sheath transition is discussed in great detail in the review paper [2].
Apart from ion inertia, the presheath is usually dominated by geometric current concen-
tration ( L = curvature radius), by collisional ion friction ( L = ion mean free path), or by
ionization ( L = plasma extension) [2]. In this paper we investigate the mechanism of a mag-
netic presheath, which is dominated by magnetic deflection of the ion orbits ( L = p i ) . This
problem is of particular interest for the theory of the boundary layer in controlled fusion
devices [3, 41. Unfortunately, the few papers investigating the plasma sheath transition in a
magnetic field give no coherent picture.
128

Daybelge and Bein [5] start from Maxwellian distributions with loss regions where all orbits
intersecting the wall are completely depleted and all others are fully occupied. Obviously,
this model cannot describes the presheath ion acceleration because there is no transport to
the wall. Chodura [6] considers field lines intersecting the wall at an angel (Y # 0. Beyond
the Bohm criterion (vz 1 v,) at the sheath edge, he finds a second condition of (super)sonic
ion flow along the field lines ("1 = v,/sin a 2 c,) at the "entrance" of the magnetic presheath
and postulates an additional "plasma presheath"t0 accelerate the ions. In contrast, Behnel
[7] assumes (Y = 0 and considers an ion transport by (charge exchange) collisions ( A B p i ) .
This model requires no additional presheath condition.
Both models [6] and [7] represent somewhat singular cases and show quite different results.
Recently, we have investigated the presheath accounting for an oblique magnetic field and
for collisions [8,9].The analysis showed that ion friction is always decisive for the presheath
mechanism. The collisional presheath model considered suffers from the drawback that -
due to the neclect of ionization - it cannot describe the relaxation to an un'disturbed plasma
with zero electric field and that it is restricted to collision dominated plasmas. In the present
paper we therefore extend the previous investigation accounting for ionization.

2. Model and basic equations

We consider a one-dimensional plane symmetric plasma between two parallel walls at z = -!
and r=L in a constant magnetic field B (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1:
Geometry of the model considered.
The plasma extends from z = -t
to z = t, the magnetic field vector .------
is in the 1-2 - plane

I
The ion motion is described by the set of fluid equations
V . ( n ; v ) = nevi
m ; v - V v = e(E + v x B ) - -Vpi
1

ni
- vtmiv
where n; and v are the density and the flow velocity of the ions, E = -VU is the electric
field, and nevi designates 'the electron impact ionization rate. The effective transport collision
frequency vt = vc+v; represents ion momentum exchange (friction) by collisions (vc) and by
ionization (vi). The variation of the ion pressure pi is described by an adiabatic law

Vpi = ykT;Vn; (4)

(for 7 see Eq. (1)). Assuming finally quasineutrality (presheath analysis, AD + 0) and
Boltzmann distributed electrons, the ion density is given by
eU
n, = n, = nc exp - (5)
kT,'
where n, is the charged particle density in the center (z=O, U =0) of the plasma.
 129

We refer to the geometry sketched in Fig. 1 (with V = dldze,) and consider the half-space
z 1 0. For the sake of convenience we refer the ion cyclotron frequency w, = eB, J m ;and
gyroradius p; = cs/w,, and define dimensionless variables and parameters

6 = -B=zt m a , v = -4 , y*=--.
Vi

B, w, wz
In these quantities we obtain from Eqs. (1)-(5) the system of differential equations
uw' = 6v-uw
uv' = u-6w-uv

U'pl = u'- V* (with ' = d/dC)

for the Mach numers u , v, w of the ion flow and for the electric potential 'p. The corresponding
boundary conditions and the eigenvalue problem involved are analoguous t o the well known
Tonks-Langmuir model [lo]. The obvious singularity of Eq. (10) at u = 1 (v, = c,) defines
the sheath edge [2]. Because the sheath is infinitely thin, this gives the boundary condition

u ( t / p i )= ~ ( C O =
) 1. (12)

Together with the boundary conditions

u(0) = v(0) = w ( 0 ) = 'p(0) = 0 (13)

of the plasma center the system is overdetermined, and v* = u;/w, must be calculated as
an eigenvalue (plasma balance). We prefer the equivalent way [lo] to prescribe u* and to
determine L = copi from Eq. (12).

3. Expansions and approximations

Eqs. (8)-(11) show a singularity (u=O) at <=O. Consequently, we need an expansion in the
plasma centre before we can start a numerical integration. Introducing the ansatz

-where q represents u, v, or w- we find successively the coefficients

(VtU*)Y* 6
u1 = U*, v1 =
(U+V')Z f 62 '
w1= -
u + u* v1 '

211 t 6Wl
(l-V1)(u+3~1) 6vz - U Z W l
u2 = ~ ( Y u 1 + u : t v 1 ) , v2 = =
(v+3u1)2 62
u2,
+ WZ
f 3Ui
and the corresponding potential
 130

Starting with this expansion, there is no principal diffuculty to integrate Eqs. (8)-(11) numer-
ically. For u< 6, however, this is not very economical. We therefore present a supplementary
approximation which will simultaneously be useful to understand the results. Following the
analysis of the collision dominated presheath [9], we neglect for v < 6 inertia (uv')and
friction (uv) in ExB-direction within the plasma body and obtain from Eq. (9)

u = 6w, (17)
i.e. the flow is separated into a motion along the magnetic field lines (u,w ) and into an
ExB-drift (v). In this approximation the system can be integrated analytically yielding

'p' vtv'
+ --
U
and v=--
1 62 62 1- u2/ sin2 a '
Eq. (18) exhibits a singularity a t the sonic point u/sin a = 1 of the flow along the magnetic
field lines. Only the subsonic range ulsin a < 1 yields a reasonable physical approximation.
For a = 9 0 ° , Eq. (18) describes the entire presheath [ll],and the sonic point u = l indicates
the sheath edge. This results in the formulas
vtu' V+Y* Y+V*
VCO = - arctan - 1 and 'po = -1n-
&F 2u Y*

for the plasma extension C = p& and the potential drop UO = -'pokT, across the presheath.
Naturally, the same is true for v , u* >> 1 when the magnetic field is unimportant.

4. Results and discussion

To solve Eqs. (8)-(11) we choose parameters 6, u, and u* and utilize the expansion of Sec. 3
to find suitable starting values for a Runge-Kutta integration. The integration is continued
until we run into the singularity u = 1 determining the plasma extension C (see Eq. (12).
Results for Y = Y * (ut=wi), 6=0.1 (az5.7'), and four different ratios u/6 are shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2: Spatial profiles of the density n = n i , e / n eand of the Mach numbers u = v,/c,, v = v,,/c,,
w = vZ/cj for 6 = B,/B, = 0.1 ( a m 5.7O) and ut = ui; parameter: u = ut/w,.
 132

detail [9], we find that the decisive dynamic process controlling the presheath mechanism is
the friction force in B-direction for 2111 < c , and the acceleration in ExB-direction for vl1> c,.
Consequently, in the "limiting case" u = 0 the ion acceleration cannot be described and a
(super)sonic flow must be assumed as boundary condition. The intrinsic mechanism of the
presheath acceleration depends on ionization and/or collisions, and the main effect of the
magnetic field is to deflect the ion orbits so that the Bohm criterion is fulfilled.
The numerical results presented so far refer t o the ionization dominated case vt = v; ( v = u * ) .
To demonstrate the additional effect of collisions, we present in Fig. 4 profiles (6 = u = 0.1)
for various values of Y * / U = u i / u t . The curves show that ion generation has little influence
on the "deflection zone" 2-1 = O ( p i ) near the sheath edge. In contrast, the plasma region
depends strongly on u;, and the plasma balance is reflected by the different positions of the
plasma centre (horizontal ends of the curves). With decreasing vi/ut, this center moves to
the left, and for vi = O we obtain the collisional presheath analysed in [9].

Fig. 4: Transition from ionization- to collision dominated plasmas: Spatial profiles of the potential
1p = -eU/kT, and of the Mach numbers u = v,/c,, v =vy/c,, w = vz/cs for 6 = B,/B, = 0.1
(ax 5.7') and Y = ut/w, = 0.1; parameter: ui/vt = u * / u .

References
[I) D. Bohm, in The Chamcteristics of Electrical Discharges in Magnetic Fields,
eds. A. Guthry and R.K. Wakerling (Mc Graw-Hill, New York 1949), ch.3, p.77
[2] K.-U. Riemann, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 24,493 (1991)
[3] P.C. Stangeby, in Physics of Plasma- Wall Intemction in Controlled Fusion,
eds. D.E. Post and R. Behrisch (Plenum, New York 1986), p. 41
[4] R. Chodura, ibd. p. 99
[5] U. Daybelge and B. Bein, Phys. Fluids 24, 1190 (1981)
(61 R. Chodura, Phys. Fluids 25, 1628 (1.982)
[7] J. Behnel, Report 85-02-118 SFB 162 Bochum/Jiilich 1985
[8] K.-U. Riemann, Contrib. Plasma Phys. 32, 231 (1992)
[9] K.-U. Riemann, Report 31-A1-93 SFB 191, Bochum 1993,
t o be published in Phys. Fluids B (Physics of Plasmas)
[lo] E.R. Harrison and W.B. Thompson, Proc. Phys. SOC. 74, 145 (1959)
[ll]S.A, Self and H.N. Ewald, Phys. Fluids 9,2486 (1966)
[la] R. Chodura, Contrib. Plasma Phys. 28, 303 (1988)
Acknowledgement: This investigation w s performed under the auspices of the Sonder-
forschungsbereich 191 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.