Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 63 references

For accurate streamer simulations, the flux scheme and outer Poisson-transport correctors matter more than Courant or dielectric-relaxation limits alone, and a matrix-level wall condition fixes the drift-dominated failure of mixed boundary

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 08:13 UTC pith:FG2STROD

load-bearing objection Solid open multi-region AMR plasma solver with three transferable numerical results that hold up under the same LFA model used by the community benchmarks. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05137 v1 pith:FG2STROD submitted 2026-07-06 physics.plasm-ph cs.CEphysics.comp-ph

SoPlasmaFoam: an OpenFOAM-based solver for streamer and dielectric barrier discharges with adaptive mesh refinement

R. Pasolari , K. Kourtzanidis This is my paper
classification physics.plasm-ph cs.CEphysics.comp-ph
keywords streamerlow-temperature plasmasdielectric barrier dischargeadaptive mesh refinementflux schemesPoisson-transport couplingOpenFOAMdrift-diffusion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper introduces SoPlasmaFoam, an open-source multi-region plasma-dielectric solver on OpenFOAM, and uses it to settle three practical questions that control streamer and surface-discharge accuracy. First, among common convective schemes, Scharfetter-Gummel is stable but overly diffusive on coarse meshes, while the ROUNDF limiter beats every tested TVD scheme on a stiff advection problem and on the positive-streamer benchmark. Second, the number of fixed-point correction loops that re-couple Poisson and species transport each time step is a first-order accuracy control: a semi-implicit Poisson form does not remove the need for those loops, and even Courant and dielectric-relaxation numbers well below one still require tightening. Third, a wall boundary condition written directly into the discretized matrix coefficients stays accurate when drift dominates, where the usual mixed-boundary mapping drives the face density to zero or produces unphysical overshoots. Validated on a DC glow, free positive streamers, and a nanosecond surface DBD, and competitive in wall time once adaptive mesh refinement is on, the work gives concrete numerical rules other plasma-fluid codes can adopt.

Core claim

The central claim is that three methodological choices dominate streamer and dielectric-barrier accuracy: use ROUNDF for the drift flux rather than Scharfetter-Gummel or standard TVD limiters; keep outer fixed-point Poisson-transport correctors even under semi-implicit Poisson and sub-unity Courant/dielectric-relaxation numbers; and enforce wall fluxes by writing thermal-plus-outward-drift terms into the matrix coefficients instead of mapping them onto a mixed boundary condition that fails at high cell Péclet number.

What carries the argument

Drift-robust wall boundary condition on matrix coefficients: instead of prescribing a face value fraction in a mixed BC, the outward drift and thermal fluxes are inserted as implicit contributions to the boundary-cell diagonal, so the correct wall flux is recovered even when diffusion is negligible relative to drift.

Load-bearing premise

Transport and ionization rates depend only on the local reduced electric field (local-field approximation), with no electron energy equation and no photoionization, so the reported agreement holds only while that local-equilibrium picture remains valid.

What would settle it

Re-run the Bagheri positive-streamer Case A and Case B with the same meshes and time steps but a local-mean-energy model plus photoionization; if maximum field and reduced streamer length then diverge systematically from the ROUNDF multi-corrector results, the local-field plus pure-transport claim is false for those regimes.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Streamer codes should default to ROUNDF (or an equivalent high-resolution ROUND limiter) rather than Scharfetter-Gummel on anything coarser than a few micrometres.
  • Stability criteria based only on Courant and dielectric-relaxation numbers are insufficient; outer Poisson-transport corrector counts must be reported and converged separately.
  • Semi-implicit Poisson formulations still require those outer loops; they buy larger time steps but do not replace tight coupling.
  • Wall BCs for ions and electrons in the drift-dominated sheath should be implemented at matrix-coefficient level, not as mixed face-value maps.
  • With adaptive mesh refinement the same OpenFOAM-based framework reaches wall-clock times competitive with the fastest published streamer codes on the standard benchmark.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same matrix-coefficient wall treatment should transfer to other finite-volume plasma codes that still use mixed BCs and would otherwise under-predict ion collection at high Péclet number.
  • If photoionization and an electron energy equation are added, the paper’s corrector-loop study should be repeated: non-local ionization may change how many outer iterations are needed per time step.
  • The finding that semi-implicit Poisson does not remove outer loops suggests similar fixed-point requirements will appear in multiphysics couplings (plasma-flow, plasma-chemistry) built on the same modular stack.
  • Memory-bound single-node scaling implies that GPU PETSc backends and load-balanced AMR will matter more than raw core count for 3-D streamer trees and surface DBDs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. SoPlasmaFoam is an open-source OpenFOAM multi-region drift-diffusion–Poisson solver for streamers and dielectric-barrier discharges, with PETSc (CPU/GPU), blastAMR (hex/polyhedral, 1D–3D/axisymmetric), ROUND convective schemes, and monolithic plasma–dielectric Poisson coupling. The paper’s three methodological claims are: (i) on a stiff 1D advection problem and the Bagheri et al. positive-streamer benchmark, Scharfetter–Gummel is stable but overly diffusive on coarse meshes while ROUNDF outperforms standard TVD limiters; (ii) outer fixed-point (PIMPLE) Poisson–transport correctors critically control accuracy even when Courant and dielectric-relaxation numbers are well below unity, and a semi-implicit Poisson formulation does not remove that need; (iii) a wall boundary condition that writes thermal/drift fluxes into matrix coefficients remains well-posed in the drift-dominated (high cell-Péclet) limit where the conventional mixed-boundary mapping fails. Validation covers a low-pressure DC glow (Derzsi et al.), the positive-streamer benchmark (Cases A/B), a nanosecond SDBD multi-region demonstration, and single-node strong scaling with and without AMR.

Significance. If the scheme ranking, coupling analysis, and wall-BC formulation hold, the paper supplies transferable numerical guidance for the plasma-fluid community, not only another OpenFOAM solver. The controlled corrector-loop study (explicit and semi-implicit, several Δt and mesh sizes) is particularly useful: it quantifies a practice that is often left as folklore. Open release with modular run-time selection, monolithic multi-region Poisson, and blastAMR on non-Cartesian meshes is a concrete infrastructure contribution for streamer/DBD and multiphysics work (flow control, PAC). Performance with AMR is competitive with the fastest codes reported on the same benchmark. Strengths include external multi-code validation (Bagheri et al., Derzsi et al.), systematic scheme and corrector experiments, and an explicit derivation of the mixed-BC failure mode.

major comments (2)
  1. §3.3 (Eqs. 20–33) and Abstract contribution (iii): the mixed-boundary failure in the drift-dominated limit is derived carefully, and the matrix-coefficient wall BC is well motivated. However, none of the validation cases (§5–7) isolates this BC with a controlled comparison (mixed vs matrix-coefficient) under high cell Péclet number. The DC-glow BCs differ from the thermal-drift wall model; the freestream streamer does not exercise walls; the SDBD uses dielectric surface charging without a side-by-side BC test. Because this is listed as one of three main contributions and the abstract asserts that the BC “remains accurate” where mixed mappings fail, a short 1D or quasi-1D drift-dominated wall test (or a wall-bounded streamer/sheath comparison) is needed to substantiate the claim, not only the algebraic argument.
  2. §6.3.1 / Figs. 11–13: the conclusion that outer correctors remain necessary under semi-implicit Poisson and for Co and Cε well below unity is central and well supported for Case A with ROUNDF. The manuscript should state more explicitly the recommended practical rule (e.g., minimum correctors vs max Co and Cε) and whether the same corrector counts apply under Scharfetter–Gummel or on Case B, where gradients are steeper. Without that, readers may over-generalize the 1–4 corrector findings from a single scheme and background density.
minor comments (8)
  1. Section 4 title: “Assessement” → “Assessment”.
  2. §3.4: typo “assembilng” → “assembling”.
  3. Eq. (40): analytical solution n(x,t)=n0(x e^{At}) e^{At} is hard to parse in the text rendering; clarify the composition (argument of n0 vs multiplicative factor).
  4. Table 2 / §6.3.3: performance comparisons mix different processors, core counts, Δt policies, and corrector counts. A short caveat paragraph (already partly present) should state that wall times are indicative, not a strict ranking.
  5. §7: SDBD surface-charge comparison (SG vs ROUNDF, Fig. 23) is interesting; note briefly whether the same outer-corrector and time-step criteria were used for both schemes so the order-of-magnitude charge difference is not confounded by coupling settings.
  6. Naming: SoPLASMA suite vs SoPlasmaFoam solver is clear in the introduction but could be stated once in the abstract for discoverability.
  7. Photoionization and LMEA are correctly scoped out; a one-sentence forward pointer in §6 that Case B (low background) is the regime where photoionization usually matters most would help non-specialist readers interpret residual mesh sensitivity.
  8. Figure 1 TVD diagram: ensure the blue second-order region and Superbee/ROUNDF loci remain legible in grayscale print.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: scheme rankings, coupling requirements, and wall BC are obtained by direct numerical experiment and first-principles matrix analysis against external analytical/community benchmarks, not by construction from fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The three central claims rest on controlled comparative experiments (stiff 1-D advection with known analytical solution Eq. 40; Bagheri et al. multi-code positive-streamer benchmark [19]; Derzsi glow-discharge data [53]) and an explicit algebraic demonstration that the conventional mixed BC value-fraction fails in the high-Péclet limit while the new matrix-coefficient form recovers the prescribed wall flux by construction. Transport coefficients and source terms are taken from external analytical expressions or BOLSIG+ tables; no free parameters are fitted to the target quantities being ranked or predicted. Self-citations (e.g., prior COPAIER/SDBD work by one co-author) appear only for qualitative consistency of surface-charge magnitudes and are not used to justify uniqueness, force an ansatz, or close any derivation loop. The paper is therefore self-contained against independent external evidence; the minor self-references do not elevate circularity beyond a negligible level.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard plasma-fluid modeling assumptions (drift-diffusion, LFA, continuum Poisson) plus a handful of numerical modeling choices that are conventional in the field. No free parameters are fitted to produce the central claims; the claims are comparative numerical experiments. No new physical entities are postulated.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Drift-diffusion approximation for charged-species transport (Eq. 10–11)
    Standard for collisional atmospheric-pressure plasmas; validity fails at low pressure or strong non-locality.
  • domain assumption Local Field Approximation: transport coefficients and ionization rates are instantaneous functions of local |E|/N only
    Used throughout validation and SDBD cases; electron-energy equation (LMEA) left for future work.
  • domain assumption Ions immobile on streamer time scales (Case A/B)
    Common simplification for positive-streamer benchmarks of nanosecond duration.
  • domain assumption Analytical or BOLSIG+ lookup tables for µ, D, α, η taken from literature without re-fitting
    Coefficients are external inputs; results inherit any inaccuracy in those tables.
  • standard math Finite-volume discretization with second-order backward time and least-squares gradients is adequate
    Standard OpenFOAM practice; convergence under mesh refinement is demonstrated.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 39129 in / 2962 out tokens · 27229 ms · 2026-07-11T08:13:15.500400+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

SoPlasmaFoam is an open-source, multi-region plasma-dielectric solver built on OpenFOAM, integrated with the PETSc linear-algebra suite (CPU and GPU back-ends), the blastAMR adaptive-mesh-refinement library (hexahedral and polyhedral meshes), and the ROUND family of high-resolution convective schemes. It solves drift-diffusion-reaction transport for charged species, coupled self-consistently to Poisson's equation explicitly or semi-implicitly, with plasma and dielectric regions joined by a monolithic multi-domain coupling for arbitrary curved interfaces. This work makes three contributions. First, a systematic assessment of convective schemes on a stiff scalar-advection problem and the positive-streamer benchmark shows that Scharfetter-Gummel is stable but excessively diffusive on coarse meshes, while ROUNDF outperforms all tested TVD limiters and is recommended for streamer transport. Second, an analysis of Poisson-transport coupling shows that fixed-point correction loops critically control accuracy, that a semi-implicit Poisson formulation does not remove this requirement, and that coupling must be tightened even when Courant and dielectric-relaxation numbers are well below unity. Third, a drift-robust wall boundary condition acting on discretized matrix coefficients is introduced, remaining accurate in the drift-dominated limit where conventional mixed-boundary mappings fail. The solver is validated against a low-pressure DC glow discharge and the positive-streamer benchmark, and its multi-region capability is demonstrated on a nanosecond surface dielectric barrier discharge. Performance analysis confirms memory-bound finite-volume scaling and shows that with AMR the solver is competitive with the fastest reported plasma codes. The framework provides a modular foundation for multiphysics simulations in plasma-assisted combustion, plasma processing, and plasma-based flow control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05137 by K. Kourtzanidis, R. Pasolari.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The Total Variation Diminishing (TVD) diagram of the schemes used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Flowchart of the numerical solver. Two coupling strategies are available: an explicit Poisson treatment (left branch) and a semi-implicit treatment (right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Initial distribution and analytical solution for the 1D sti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of numerical flux schemes for the 1D sti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of (a) electron number density, (b) electric field, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Initial configuration for the positive streamer benchmark cases [19]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Electron number density profiles along the symmetry axis ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Electric field magnitude (MV/m) for the positive streamer Case A at t = 4, 12 and 16 ns, with a background ionization of 1013 m−3 for electrons and ions. The axisymmetric slice is mirrored about the symmetry axis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Validation of the high-background ionization streamer (Case A) against reference data from [19] and [27]: (a) maximum absolute electric field, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Convergence study of the outer PIMPLE iterations for the positive streamer Case A: (a) maximum absolute electric field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Convergence study of the outer PIMPLE iterations for the positive streamer Case A: (a) maximum absolute electric field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Convergence study of the outer PIMPLE iterations for the positive streamer Case A using a semi-implicit Poisson scheme: (a) maximum absolute electric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Maximum absolute electric field as a function of streamer length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Electric field magnitude (MV/m) for the AMR case at t = 12 ns. (a) Full streamer structure, mirrored about the symmetry axis. (b) Zoomed view of the highlighted region in (a), showing the electric field together with the adaptive mesh. The mesh is refined to the minimum cell size of 3 µm at the streamer head and edges, while the interior of the channel is unrefined to the base resolution of 24 µm. with So… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Contour plots of the electric field magnitude (V/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Validation of the low-background ionization streamer (Case B) against reference data from [19] and [27]: (a) maximum absolute electric field, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Computational domain of the nanosecond SDBD actuator. The powered electrode (50 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Electron density contours at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Positive ion density contours at t = 3.5, 4.5, 7.5, and 10 ns for the nanosecond SDBD actuator simulation using the Scharfetter-Gummel (SG) scheme. The domain shown spans x ∈ [−1, 4] mm and y ∈ [0, 0.5] mm, re￾stricted to the gas region. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Negative ion density contours at t = 3.5, 4.5, 7.5, and 10 ns for the nanosecond SDBD actuator simulation using the Scharfetter-Gummel (SG) scheme. The domain shown spans x ∈ [−1, 4] mm and y ∈ [0, 0.5] mm, re￾stricted to the gas region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Electric field magnitude contours at t = 3.5, 4.5, 7.5, and 10 ns for the nanosecond SDBD actuator simulation using the Scharfetter-Gummel (SG) scheme. The domain shown spans x ∈ [−1, 4] mm and y ∈ [0, 0.5] mm, restricted to the gas region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Surface charge accumulation on the dielectric surface for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Strong-scaling analysis of the positive streamer Case A for the coarse (449 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: MPI profile statistics on the WS (Ryzen 9 5900X) for the positive streamer Case A: (a) MPI time as a fraction of the average per-rank elapsed time, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_25.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. E. Thomas, K. Stapelmann, Plasma control: A review of developments and applications of plasma medicine con- trol mechanisms, Plasma 7 (2) (2024) 386–426.doi: 10.3390/plasma7020022

    work page doi:10.3390/plasma7020022 2024

  2. [2]

    Sreedevi, K

    P. Sreedevi, K. Suresh, Cold atmospheric plasma me- diated cell membrane permeation and gene delivery- empirical interventions and pertinence, Advances in Col- loid and Interface Science 320 (2023) 102989.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2023.102989

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cis.2023.102989 2023

  3. [3]

    K. Peng, F. Avallone, M. Kotsonis, Plasma-based base flow modification on swept-wing boundary layers: depen- dence on flow parameters, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 997 (2024) A13.doi:10.1017/jfm.2024.714

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2024.714 2024

  4. [4]

    Svarnas, E

    P. Svarnas, E. Giannakopoulos, I. Kalavrouziotis, C. Kro- ntiras, S. Georga, R. Pasolari, P. Papadopoulos, I. Apos- tolou, D. Chrysochoou, Sanitary effect of fe-dbd cold plasma in ambient air on sewage biosolids, Science of The Total Environment 705 (2020) 135940.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135940

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135940 2020

  5. [5]

    Y . Bao, C. Kong, J. Ravelid, J. Sun, S. Nilsson, E. Kris- tensson, A. Ehn, Effect of a single nanosecond pulsed dis- charge on a flat methane–air flame, Applications in En- ergy and Combustion Science 16 (2023) 100198.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaecs.2023.100198

    doi:10.1016/j.jaecs.2023.100198 2023

  6. [6]

    Barléon, B

    N. Barléon, B. Cuenot, O. Vermorel, Large-eddy simu- lation of swirled flame stabilisation using nrp discharges at atmospheric pressure, Applications in Energy and Combustion Science 15 (2023) 100163.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jaecs.2023.100163

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jaecs.2023.100163 2023

  7. [7]

    A. S. Chiper, G. Borcia, Stable surface modification by cold atmospheric-pressure plasma: Comparative study on cellulose-based and synthetic polymers, Polymers 15 (20) (2023).doi:10.3390/polym15204172

    work page doi:10.3390/polym15204172 2023

  8. [8]

    Orlov, T

    D. Orlov, T. Corke, M. Patel, Electric Circuit Model for Aerodynamic Plasma Actuator, 2006.doi:10.2514/ 6.2006-1206

    2006

  9. [9]

    X. Shao, D. A. Lacoste, H. G. Im, Chemplaskin: A general-purpose program for unified gas and plasma ki- netics simulations, Applications in Energy and Combus- tion Science 19 (2024) 100280.doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jaecs.2024.100280

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jaecs.2024.100280 2024

  10. [10]

    Dufour, F

    G. Dufour, F. Rogier, Numerical modeling of dielectric barrier discharge based plasma actuators for flow control : the copaier/cedre example (12 2015).doi:10.12762/ 2015.AL10-05

    2015

  11. [11]

    G. J. M. Hagelaar, G. M. W. Kroesen, A monte carlo modelling study of the electrons in the microdischarges in plasma addressed liquid crystal displays, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 9 (4) (2000) 605–614.doi: 10.1088/0963-0252/9/4/318

    work page doi:10.1088/0963-0252/9/4/318 2000

  12. [12]

    M. Tian, Z. Chen, Z. Chen, Y . Wang, X. Li, Z. Chen, Y . Ding, D. Xia, W. Jiang, Y . Zhang, Two-dimensional pic/mcc modeling of inductively coupled plasma: A benchmark study in the gec configuration, Physics of Plas- mas 33 (1) (2026) 013502.doi:10.1063/5.0285526

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0285526 2026

  13. [13]

    Eylenceo ˘glu, I

    E. Eylenceo ˘glu, I. Rafatov, A. A. Kudryavtsev, Two- dimensional hybrid monte carlo–fluid modelling of dc glow discharges: Comparison with fluid models, relia- bility, and accuracy, Physics of Plasmas 22 (1) (2015) 013509.doi:10.1063/1.4906361. 28

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4906361 2015

  14. [14]

    Crispel, P

    P. Crispel, P. Degond, M.-H. Vignal, An asymptotic pre- serving scheme for the two-fluid euler–poisson model in the quasineutral limit, Journal of Computational Physics 223 (1) (2007) 208–234

    2007

  15. [15]

    Hagelaar, G

    G. Hagelaar, G. Fubiani, J.-P. Boeuf, Model of an induc- tively coupled negative ion source: I. general model de- scription, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 20 (1) (2011) 015001

    2011

  16. [16]

    P. L. Ventzek, T. J. Sommerer, R. J. Hoekstra, M. J. Kush- ner, Two-dimensional hybrid model of inductively cou- pled plasma sources for etching, Applied physics letters 63 (5) (1993) 605–607

    1993

  17. [17]

    Teunissen, U

    J. Teunissen, U. Ebert, Simulating streamer discharges in 3d with the parallel adaptive afivo framework, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 50 (47) (2017) 474001.doi: 10.1088/1361-6463/aa8faf

    doi:10.1088/1361-6463/aa8faf 2017

  18. [18]

    Teunissen, U

    J. Teunissen, U. Ebert, afivo-streamer: A framework for 2d and 3d streamer simulations with adaptive mesh refinement,https://gitlab.com/MD-CWI-NL/afivo- streamer, accessed: 2024-05-22 (2023)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Bagheri, J

    B. Bagheri, J. Teunissen, U. Ebert, M. M. Becker, S. Chen, O. Ducasse, O. Eichwald, D. Loffhagen, A. Luque, D. Mi- hailova, J. M. Plewa, J. V . Dijk, M. Yousfi, Compari- son of six simulation codes for positive streamers in air, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 27 (9 2018). doi:10.1088/1361-6595/aad768

    doi:10.1088/1361-6595/aad768 2018

  20. [20]

    Bouwman, J

    D. Bouwman, J. Teunissen, U. Ebert, 3d particle simula- tions of positive air–methane streamers for combustion, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 31 (4) (2022) 045023.doi:10.1088/1361-6595/ac64bf

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6595/ac64bf 2022

  21. [21]

    Nijdam, J

    S. Nijdam, J. Teunissen, U. Ebert, The physics of streamer discharge phenomena, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 29 (10 2020).doi:10.1088/1361- 6595/abaa05

    doi:10.1088/1361- 2020

  22. [22]

    Marskar, chombo-discharge: An amr code for gas discharge simulations in complex geometries, Journal of Open Source Software 8 (85) (2023) 5335.doi: 10.21105/joss.05335

    R. Marskar, chombo-discharge: An amr code for gas discharge simulations in complex geometries, Journal of Open Source Software 8 (85) (2023) 5335.doi: 10.21105/joss.05335

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.05335 2023

  23. [23]

    R. Marskar, Stochastic and self-consistent 3d modeling of streamer discharge trees with kinetic monte carlo, Jour- nal of Computational Physics 504 (2024) 112858.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2024.112858

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2024.112858 2024

  24. [24]

    A. K. Verma, A. Venkattraman, Somafoam: An open- foam based solver for continuum simulations of low- temperature plasmas, Computer Physics Communications 263 (6 2021).doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2021.107855

    doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2021.107855 2021

  25. [25]

    Sitaraman, N

    H. Sitaraman, N. Deak, T. Taneja, Vidyut3d: A gpu accelerated fluid solver for non-equilibrium plasmas on adaptive grids, Computer Physics Communications 326 (2026) 110236.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cpc.2026.110236

    arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    X. Shao, D. A. Lacoste, H. G. Im, A unified fluid model for nonthermal plasmas and reacting flows, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 34 (8) (2025) 085016. doi:10.1088/1361-6595/adfc0b

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6595/adfc0b 2025

  27. [27]

    Cheng, N

    L. Cheng, N. Barleon, O. Vermorel, B. Cuenot, A. Bour- don, Avip: a low temperature plasma code (9 2022). URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2201.01291

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Y . Zhu, X. Chen, Y . Wu, S. Starikovskaia, PASSKEy code, Science and Technology of Plasma Dynamics Lab- oratory, Xi’an, China and Laboratoire de Physique des Plasmas, Paris, France, software. Available fromhttp: //www.plasma-tech.net/passkey/(2021). URLhttp://www.plasma-tech.net/passkey/

    2021

  29. [29]

    Dufour, F

    G. Dufour, F. Rogier, Numerical Modeling of Dielec- tric Barrier Discharge Based Plasma Actuators for Flow Control : the COPAIER/CEDRE Example, Aerospace Lab (10) (2015).doi:10.12762/2015.AL10-05

    work page doi:10.12762/2015.al10-05 2015

  30. [30]

    Kourtzanidis, G

    K. Kourtzanidis, G. Dufour, F. Rogier, Self-consistent modeling of a surface ac dielectric barrier discharge ac- tuator: in-depth analysis of positive and negative phases, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 54 (4) (2021) 045203

    2021

  31. [31]

    M. J. Kushner, Hybrid modelling of low temperature plas- mas for fundamental investigations and equipment design, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 42 (19) (2009) 194013.doi:10.1088/0022-3727/42/19/194013

    work page doi:10.1088/0022-3727/42/19/194013 2009

  32. [32]

    S. A. Norberg, E. Johnsen, M. J. Kushner, Formation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species by repetitive neg- atively pulsed helium atmospheric pressure plasma jets propagating into humid air, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 24 (3) (2015) 035026.doi:10.1088/0963- 0252/24/3/035026

    work page doi:10.1088/0963- 2015

  33. [33]

    Simonovi ´c, D

    I. Simonovi ´c, D. Bošnjakovi ´c, J. Teunissen, S. Dujko, Axisymmetric fluid streamer model in the amrex library, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 33 (8) (2024) 085012.doi:10.1088/1361-6595/ad6fce

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6595/ad6fce 2024

  34. [34]

    Simonovi ´c, D

    I. Simonovi ´c, D. Bošnjakovi ´c, S. Dujko, Axisymmet- ric fluid simulations of negative streamers in sf6 and in co2–c4f7n mixtures in the pin-to-plane electrode config- uration, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 34 (12) (2025) 125004.doi:10.1088/1361-6595/ae2209

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6595/ae2209 2025

  35. [35]

    Babaeva, G

    N. Babaeva, G. Naidis, Dynamics of positive and nega- tive streamers in air in weak uniform electric fields, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 25 (2) (1997) 375–379. doi:10.1109/27.602514

    work page doi:10.1109/27.602514 1997

  36. [37]

    Komuro, R

    A. Komuro, R. Ono, T. Oda, Behaviour of oh radi- cals in an atmospheric-pressure streamer discharge stud- ied by two-dimensional numerical simulation, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 46 (17) (2013) 175206.doi: 10.1088/0022-3727/46/17/175206

    work page doi:10.1088/0022-3727/46/17/175206 2013

  37. [38]

    Komuro, S

    A. Komuro, S. Matsuyuki, A. Ando, Simulation of pulsed positive streamer discharges in air at high temperatures, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 27 (10) (2018) 105001.doi:10.1088/1361-6595/aadf5c

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6595/aadf5c 2018

  38. [39]

    Nishida, T

    H. Nishida, T. Nonomura, T. Abe, Three-dimensional simulations of discharge plasma evolution on a dielec- tric barrier discharge plasma actuator, Journal of Ap- plied Physics 115 (13) (2014) 133301.doi:10.1063/ 1.4870384

    2014

  39. [40]

    van Dijk, K

    J. van Dijk, K. S. C. Peerenboom, M. Jimenez-Diaz, D. B. Mihailova, J. J. A. M. van der Mullen, The plasma modelling toolkit Plasimo, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 42 (19) (2009) 194012.doi:10.1088/0022- 3727/42/19/194012

    doi:10.1088/0022- 2009

  40. [41]

    URLhttps://www.comsol.com

    COMSOL AB, COMSOL Multiphysics ®, stockholm, Sweden (2025). URLhttps://www.comsol.com

    2025

  41. [42]

    Levko, R

    D. Levko, R. Upadhyay, K. Suzuki, C. Shukla, L. Raja, VizGlow-MPS: a multi-fidelity process simulator for fast, yet accurate, semiconductor process design and optimiza- tion, in: J. Bannister, N. Mohanty (Eds.), Advanced Etch Technology and Process Integration for Nanopatterning XI, V ol. PC12056, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 2022...

    2022

  42. [43]

    S. Bnà, I. Spisso, M. Olesen, G. Rossi, Partnership for ad- vanced computing in europe PETSc4FOAM: A library to plug-in PETSc into the OpenFOAM framework, Techni- cal report, PRACE. URLhttp://www.prace-ri.eu

  43. [44]

    blastAMR: Load-balanced adaptive mesh refinement libraries from blastfoam ported to ESI OpenFOAM, https://github.com/STFS-TUDa/blastAMR, ac- cessed: July 7, 2026(2023)

    2026

  44. [45]

    Deng, A unified framework for non-linear recon- struction schemes in a compact stencil

    X. Deng, A unified framework for non-linear recon- struction schemes in a compact stencil. part 1: Be- yond second order, Journal of Computational Physics 481 (2023) 112052.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jcp.2023.112052

    arXiv 2023

  45. [46]

    X. Deng, A new open-source library based on novel high- resolution structure-preserving convection schemes, Jour- nal of Computational Science 74 (2023) 102150.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2023.102150

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jocs.2023.102150 2023

  46. [47]

    D. L. Scharfetter, H. K. Gummel, Large-signal analysis of a silicon Read diode oscillator, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 16 (1) (1969) 64–77.doi:10.1109/T- ED.1969.16566

    doi:10.1109/t- 1969

  47. [48]

    Chourdakis, D

    G. Chourdakis, D. Schneider, B. Uekermann, OpenFOAM-preCICE: Coupling OpenFOAM with exter- nal solvers for multi-physics simulations, OpenFOAM® Journal 3 (2023) 1–25.doi:10.51560/ofj.v3.88

    work page doi:10.51560/ofj.v3.88 2023

  48. [49]

    Villa, L

    A. Villa, L. Barbieri, M. Gondola, R. Malgesini, An asymptotic preserving scheme for the streamer simula- tion, Journal of Computational Physics 242 (2013) 86– 102.doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2013.02.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2013.02.016 2013

  49. [50]

    G. J. M. Hagelaar, Modelling methods for low- temperature plasmas, Habilitation à diriger des recherches, Université Toulouse III – Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France, hAL Id: tel-02864696 (2008). URLhttps://hal.science/tel-02864696v1

    2008

  50. [51]

    Ferraris, Implicit treatment of coupled boundary conditions, accessed: July 7, 2026(2021)

    S. Ferraris, Implicit treatment of coupled boundary conditions, accessed: July 7, 2026(2021). URLhttps://develop.openfoam.com/ Development/openfoam/-/merge_requests/477

    2026

  51. [52]

    Balay, S

    S. Balay, S. Abhyankar, M. F. Adams, J. Brown, P. Brune, K. Buschelman, L. Dalcin, V . Eijkhout, W. D. Gropp, D. Kaushik, M. G. Knepley, L. C. McInnes, K. Rupp, B. F. Smith, S. Zampini, H. Zhang, PETSc web page, http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc(2015)

    2015

  52. [53]

    Derzsi, P

    A. Derzsi, P. Hartmann, I. Korolov, J. Karácsony, G. Bánó, Z. Donkó, On the accuracy and limitations of fluid models of the cathode region of dc glow discharges, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 42 (22) (2009) 225204.doi: 10.1088/0022-3727/42/22/225204

    work page doi:10.1088/0022-3727/42/22/225204 2009

  53. [54]

    A. V . Phelps, Z. L. Petrovic, Cold-cathode discharges and breakdown in argon: surface and gas phase production of secondary electrons, Plasma Sources Science and Tech- nology 8 (3) (1999) R21.doi:10.1088/0963-0252/8/ 3/201

    work page doi:10.1088/0963-0252/8/ 1999

  54. [55]

    Y . Zhu, S. Shcherbanev, B. Baron, S. Starikovskaia, Nanosecond surface dielectric barrier discharge in atmo- spheric pressure air: I. measurements and 2d modeling of morphology, propagation and hydrodynamic pertur- bations, Plasma sources science and technology 26 (12) (2017) 125004

    2017

  55. [56]

    G. J. M. Hagelaar, L. C. Pitchford, Solving the boltz- mann equation to obtain electron transport coefficients and rate coefficients for fluid models, Plasma Sources Sci- ence and Technology 14 (4) (2005) 722.doi:10.1088/ 0963-0252/14/4/011

    2005

  56. [57]

    Teunissen, Improvements for drift-diffusion plasma fluid models with explicit time integration, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 29 (1) (2020) 015010

    J. Teunissen, Improvements for drift-diffusion plasma fluid models with explicit time integration, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 29 (1) (2020) 015010. doi:10.1088/1361-6595/ab6757. 30

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6595/ab6757 2020

  57. [58]

    Kourtzanidis, L

    K. Kourtzanidis, L. L. Raja, Three-electrode sliding nanosecond dielectric barrier discharge actuator: model- ing and physics, AIAA Journal 55 (4) (2017) 1393–1404

    2017

  58. [59]

    K. Kourtzanidis, Full cycle, self-consistent, two- dimensional analysis of a packed bed dbd reactor for plasma-assisted co 2 splitting: spatiotemporal inhomoge- neous, glow to streamer to surface discharge transitions, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 32 (10) (2023) 105016

    2023

  59. [60]

    Morrow, N

    R. Morrow, N. Sato, The discharge current induced by the motion of charged particles in time-dependent elec- tric fields; sato’s equation extended, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 32 (5) (1999) L20–L22

    1999

  60. [61]

    D. G. Goodwin, H. K. Moffat, I. Schoegl, R. L. Speth, B. W. Weber, Cantera: An object-oriented soft- ware toolkit for chemical kinetics, thermodynamics, and transport processes,https://www.cantera.org, version 3.2.0 (2025).doi:10.5281/zenodo.17620923

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.17620923 2025

  61. [62]

    D. Zhou, H. Zhang, S. Yang, A robust reacting flow solver with computational diagnostics based on openfoam and cantera, Aerospace 9 (2) (2022).doi:10.3390/ aerospace9020102. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/9/2/102

    2022

  62. [63]

    R. Mao, M. Lin, Y . Zhang, T. Zhang, Z.-Q. J. Xu, Z. X. Chen, DeepFlame: A deep learning empowered open-source platform for reacting flow simulations, Com- puter Physics Communications 291 (2023) 108842.doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108842

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108842 2023

  63. [64]

    A. G. Özbay, A. Hamzehloo, S. Laizet, P. Tzirakis, G. Ri- zos, B. Schuller, Poisson CNN: Convolutional neural net- works for the solution of the Poisson equation on a Carte- sian mesh, Data-Centric Engineering 2 (2021) e6.doi: 10.1017/dce.2021.7. 31

    work page doi:10.1017/dce.2021.7 2021