4.4 Article

Simulation benchmarks for low-pressure plasmas: Capacitive discharges

期刊

PHYSICS OF PLASMAS
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/1.4775084

关键词

-

资金

  1. Science Foundation Ireland [07/IN.1/I907, 08/SRC/I1411]
  2. Hungarian Fund for Scientific Research [K77653, K105476]
  3. German Research Foundation DFG [TRR 87]
  4. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (CANASTA Project) [ANR-10-HABISOL-002]
  5. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) [07/IN.1/I907] Funding Source: Science Foundation Ireland (SFI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Benchmarking is generally accepted as an important element in demonstrating the correctness of computer simulations. In the modern sense, a benchmark is a computer simulation result that has evidence of correctness, is accompanied by estimates of relevant errors, and which can thus be used as a basis for judging the accuracy and efficiency of other codes. In this paper, we present four benchmark cases related to capacitively coupled discharges. These benchmarks prescribe all relevant physical and numerical parameters. We have simulated the benchmark conditions using five independently developed particle-in-cell codes. We show that the results of these simulations are statistically indistinguishable, within bounds of uncertainty that we define. We, therefore, claim that the results of these simulations represent strong benchmarks, which can be used as a basis for evaluating the accuracy of other codes. These other codes could include other approaches than particle-in-cell simulations, where benchmarking could examine not just implementation accuracy and efficiency, but also the fidelity of different physical models, such as moment or hybrid models. We discuss an example of this kind in the Appendix. Of course, the methodology that we have developed can also be readily extended to a suite of benchmarks with coverage of a wider range of physical and chemical phenomena. (C) 2013 American Institute of Physics. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4775084]

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据