DOE Center for Predictive Control of Plasma Kinetics: Multi-Phase And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOE Center for Predictive Control of Plasma Kinetics: Multi‐Phase and Bounded Systems 10th Annual Meeting May 30‐31, 2019 Edward St. John Learning & Teaching Center, University of Maryland College Park, MD Participating Institutions We gratefully acknowledge the funding from The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Fusion Energy Sciences Program Grant # DE‐SC0001939 2 Schedule Thursday, May 30, 2019 7:45 – 8:00 am Registration 8:00 – 8:15 Mark J. Kushner (University of Michigan) Introduction to Annual Meeting 8:15 –10:45 am Session I. Low Pressure and Dusty Plasmas Moderator: Yangyang Fu Page 8:15 – 8:45 Vincent Donnelly (University of Houston) Ubiquitous Ignition Delays in Power-Modulated and Spatially Separated Electronegative Plasmas 9 8:45 – 9:15 Steven Girshick (University of Minnesota) Numerical Modeling of Nanodusty Plasmas 10 9:15 – 9:45 Uwe Kortshagen (University of Minnesota) Particle Dynamics in Pulsed Dusty RF Plasmas 11 9:45 – 10:15 Edward Thomas (Auburn University) Modification of Nanoparticle Formation in a Strongly Magnetized Plasma 12 10:15 – 10:45 Valery Godyak (University of Michigan) Volt-Ampere Characteristics of Capacitively Coupled Plasma 13 10:45 – 11:00 am Coffee break 3 Thursday, May 30, 2019 11:00 am – 1:00 Session II. Fundamental Properties of Plasma pm Diagnostics Moderator: Alexander Khrabrov Page 11:00 – 11:30 Igor Adamovich (Ohio State University) Laser Diagnostics for Measurements of Electric Field and Excited Metastable Species in Nonequilibrium Plasmas 14 11:30 – 12:00 Ed Barnat (Sandia National Labs) Advancing Diagnostics to Interrogate Dynamic and Structured Plasma 15 12:00 – 12:30 Peter Bruggeman (University of Minnesota) Ions and Reactive Species Measurements in Time- modulated RF Driven Atmospheric Pressure Plasma Jets by Molecular Beam Mass Spectrometry 16 12:30 – 1:00 Marien Simeni Simeni (University of Minnesota) Measurements of Electric Field in Ns Pulse Discharges in Helium by Stark Splitting Polarization Spectroscopy 17 1:00 – 2:00 pm Lunch 4 Thursday, May 30, 2019 2:00 – 4:00 pm Session III. Fundamental Properties of Plasma Modeling Moderator: Yashuang Zheng Page 2:00 – 2:30 Igor Kaganovich (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory) Update on PPPL Modeling Efforts 18-19 2:30 – 3:00 Vladimir Kolobov (CFDRC/University of Alabama at Huntsville) Electron Kinetics in Low Temperature Plasma 20 3:00 – 3:30 Michael Lieberman (University of California-Berkeley) Striations in Atmospheric Pressure He/2%H2O Plasma Discharges 21 3:30 – 4:00 Savio Poovathingal (University of Michigan) Characterization of Non-Equilibrium Flow in Inductively Coupled Plasma Torches 22 4:00 – 4:30 pm Group photo Coffee break Poster setup 4:30 – 5:15 pm Poster session I 5:15 – 6:00 pm Poster session II 5 Friday, May 31, 2019 8:00 – 10:30 am Session IV. Plasma Surface Interactions and Sources Moderator: Janis Lai Page 8:00 – 8:30 Yevgeny Raitses (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory) Generation of Non-thermal Plasmas at Moderate and Atmospheric Pressures 23 8:30 – 9:00 John Foster (University of Michigan) Self-Organization in 1 ATM DC Glows: Current Understanding and Potential Applications 24 9:00 – 9:30 Gottlieb Oehrlein (University of Maryland) Studies of Plasma Surface Interactions of Plasma 25 Catalysis 9:30 – 10:00 John Verboncoeur (Michigan State University) Controlling Micro-gap Breakdown with Engineered Surface Morphology 26 10:00 – 10:30 Mark Kushner (University of Michigan) What Have We Learned About Controlling Atmospheric Pressure Plasmas? 27 10:30 – 10:45 am Coffee break 10:45 am – noon Group Discussion. What Have We Accomplished - What Are Next Steps? Moderator: Mark J. Kushner 6 Poster Session I Page 1 Yangyang Fu (Michigan State University) Low Temperature Plasma Similarities from Low to High Ionization Regimes 28 2 Keegan Orr (Ohio State University) Electric Field Distribution in an Atmospheric Pressure, Ns Pulse, Helium Plasma Jet Measured by Ps Second Harmonic Generation 29 3 Sophia Gershman (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory) Electrical Discharge in Gas Bubbles in Gel 30 4 Marien Simeni Simeni (University of Minnesota) Electron Densities and Temperatures Measurements in Atmospheric Pressure Nanosecond Pulse Helium Discharges 31 5 Yudong Li (University of Maryland) Infrared Studies of Catalyst Surface During Plasma-Catalysis: CHn Groups 32 6 Juliusz Kruszelnicki (University of Michigan) Modeling Interactions Between Artificial Bone Scaffolding and Atmospheric Pressure Plasmas 33 7 Chenhui Qu (University of Michigan) Optimizing Power Delivery using Impedance Matching Networks with Set-Point and Frequency Tuning for Pulsed Inductively Coupled Plasmas 34 8 Toshisato Ono (University of Minnesota) Particle Decharging and Agglomeration in Pulsed, Particle Dense Dusty RF Plasmas 35 9 Yashuang Zheng (University of Minnesota) The Etching Probability of Polystyrene by H, OH and O Radicals in an RF Driven Atmospheric Pressure Plasma Jet 36 7 Poster Session II Page 1 Janez Krek (Michigan State University) Benchmark of EEDF Evaluations in Global Modeling of Low Temperature Plasmas 37 2 Jian Chen (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory) Two Dimensional Simulations of Carbon Arc 38 3 Alexander Khrabrov (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory) Convenient Analytical Solution for Vibrational Spectrum of H2 39 4 Demetre Economou (University of Houston) In-Plasma Photo-Assisted Etching of Silicon 40 5 Shiqiang Zhang (University of Maryland) DRIFTS Study of the Enhancement of Catalytic Partial Oxidation of Methane by Cold Atmospheric Plasma 41 6 Janis Lai (University of Michigan) Mapping of 2-D Plasma-induced Fluid Flow Using Particle Image Velocimetry 42 7 Sai Ranjeet Narayanan (University of Minnesota) Hybrid Method of Moments to Predict Nanoparticle Nucleation, Growth and Charging in Dusty Plasmas 43 8 Yuanfu Yue (University of Minnesota) Atomic Hydrogen Generation in the Ionizing Plasma Region and Effluent of a Helium-Water Atmospheric Pressure Plasma Jet by Two- Photon Absorption Laser Induced Fluorescence (TALIF) 44 8 Abstracts - Oral Presentations Ubiquitous Ignition Delays in Power-Modulated and Spatially Separated Electronegative Plasmas Vincent M. Donnelly and Demetre J. Economou University of Houston ([email protected]) This talk will summarize our studies a) of pulsed inductively-coupled plasmas in 12 electronegative gases, and will focus on 10 28 Power ON Cl2. Pulsed plasmas offer added control of Power 24 ) 11 OFF average electron energy and number -3 10 20 density, and can achieve some level of 16 selectivity in the production of radical 1010 species. Pulsed plasma can also allow 12 more control of ion energy distributions 9 8 (IEDs). To achieve low energy and nearly 10 4 monoenergetic IEDs in pulsed ICPs it is (cm Number Density T n+ ne e (eV) Temperature Electron advantageous to suppress capacitive 108 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 coupling. Time (s) Similar, anomalous ignition delays were found in three very different pulsed b) ICP plasma configurations. In Fig. 1(a), a 1012 8 High Power Low Power Faraday shielded, purely inductive pulsed ) -3 7 11 cm Cl2 ICP with solenoidal coil was “seeded” ( 10 6 with a tandem plasma that continuously + ni 5 supplied a low density background 10 ne 4 plasma. [1] Rather than promptly igniting, 10 T 3 delays of 10s to 100s of s were found e 9 (yellow shaded region). In a flat coil ICP 10 2 Number Densities Number Densities system, power was modulated between a 1 Electron Temperature (eV) Temperature Electron high and low level. [2] Long ignition 108 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 delays could be produced (such as the Time s) yellow shaded region of Fig. 1b), depending on subtle details of the Figure 1 - Positive ion and electron densities and electron impedance matching. Both these cases are temperature as a function of time in pulsed 13 MHz Cl2 ICPs. P = 5 mTorr. a) Tandem configuration with CW similar to previous studies in a pulsed flat seed ICP and pulsed downstream Faraday-shielded ICP, coil ICP, with continuous bias power separated by a grid. b) Power-modulated, unshielded flat supplied to a substrate electrode in the coil ICP. plasma. [3] In all cases, ne drops rapidly as power is reduced or turned off, due to dissociative attachment by Cl2, while (+) and (-) ion densities decay at a much slower rate. It is not until the ion number density decays to a critical level that re- ignition is possible. The ignition delays can be explained by power balance arguments. Delays will occur if power gain and loss curves do not initially cross when dropping to the low power state, or at the beginning of the power-on state. References [1] L. Liu, S. Sridhar, V. M. Donnelly and D. J. Economou, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 48 (48), 485201 (2015). [2] T. List, T. Ma, P. Arora, V. M. Donnelly, and S. Shannon, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 28, 025005 (2019). [3] M. Malyshev and V. Donnelly, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 9, 353 (2000). 9 Numerical Modeling of Nanodusty Plasmas Steven L. Girshick Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN ([email protected]) Numerical models of nanodusty plasmas have been developed under Center support. These models provide numerical simulations of particle nucleation, surface growth, coagulation, charging and transport, self-consistently coupled to plasma behavior. Both 1-D [1-2] and 2-D [3] models have been developed, with a focus on formation of silicon particles in silane-containing RF plasmas. Additionally we have conducted numerical simulations of pulsed RF plasmas for producing controlled fluxes of nanoparticles to a substrate [4], have developed an analytical expression for particle charge distributions that accounts for single-particle charge limits [5], and have conducted Monte Carlo simulations to explore the combined effects of electron tunneling from nanoparticles and departures from orbital-motion-limited theory caused by charge-exchange collisions that occur close to the particle [6]. In recent work, we are developing a nanodusty plasma model based on the hybrid method of moments, which while being more approximate than sectional methods used in [1-4] will afford considerable reductions in computational expense.