Hybrid Modeling of Plasmas

Conference paper

Abstract

Space plasmas are often modeled as a magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) fluid. However, many observed phenomena cannot be captured by fluid models, e.g., non-Maxwellian velocity distributions and finite gyro radius effects. Therefore kinetic models are used, where also the velocity space is resolved. This leads to a six-dimensional problem, making the computational demands of velocity space grids prohibitive. Particle in cell (PIC) methods discretize velocity space by representing the charge distribution as discrete particles, and the electromagnetic fields are stored on a spatial grid. For the study of global problems in space physics, such as the interaction of a planet with the solar wind, it is difficult to resolve the electron spatial and temporal scales. Often a hybrid model is then used, where ions are represented as particles, and electrons are modeled as a fluid. Then the ion motions govern the spatial and temporal scales of the model. Here we present the mathematical and numerical details of a general hybrid model for plasmas. All grid quantities are stored at cell centers on the grid. The most common discretization of the fields in PIC solvers is to have the electric and magnetic fields staggered, introduced by Yee [IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 14:302–307 1966]. This automatically ensures that ∇  ⋅ B = 0, down to round-off errors. Here we instead present a cell centered discretization of the magnetic field. That the standard cell centered second order stencil for ∇  × E in Faraday’s law will preserve ∇  ⋅ B = 0 was noted by Tóth [Journal of Computational Physics 161:605–652 2000]. The advantage of a cell centered discretization is ease of implementation, and the possibility to use available solvers that only handle cell centered variables. We also show that the proposed method has very good energy conservation for a simple test problem in one-, two-, and three dimensions, when compared to a commonly used algorithm.

Keywords

Solar Wind Hybrid Simulation Solar Wind Interaction Hybrid Equation Hybrid Code 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bagdonat, T., Motschmann, U.: 3D hybrid simulation code using curvilinear coordinates. Journal of Computational Physics 183, 470–485 (2002). doi:10.1006/jcph.2002.7203MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bößwetter, A., Bagdonat, T., Motschmann, U., Sauer, K.: Plasma boundaries at Mars: A 3-D simulation study. Annales Geophysicae 22, 4363–4379 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brecht, S.H., Ledvina, S.A.: The solar wind interaction with the martian ionosphere/atmosphere. Space Science Reviews 126, 15–38 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hockney, R., Eastwood, J.: Computer Simulation Using Particles. Adam Hilger, Bristol (1989)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kallio, E., Janhunen, P.: Modelling the solar wind interaction with Mercury by a quasi-neutral hybrid model. Annales Geophysicae 21, 2133–2145 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karimabadi, H., Krauss-Varban, D., Huba, J., Vu, H.: On magnetic reconnection regimes and associated three-dimensional asymmetries: Hybrid, hall-less hybrid, and hall-mhd simulations. Journal of Geophysical Research 109, A09, 205 (2004). doi:10.1029/2004JA010478Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krauss-Varban, D.: From theoretical foundation to invaluable research tool: Modern hybrid simulations. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium for Space Simulations (ISSS-7), pp. 15–18. Kyoto (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lipatov, A.S.: The Hybrid Multiscale Simulation Technology. Springer, Berlin (2002). p. 33MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matthews, A.P.: Current advance method and cyclic leapfrog for 2D multispecies hybrid plasma simulations. Journal of Computational Physics 112, 102–116 (1994)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pritchett, P.L.: Particle-in-cell simulations of magnetosphere electrodynamics. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 28(6), 1976–1990 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Richardson, A., Chapman, S.C.: Self consistent one-dimensional hybrid code simulations of a relaxing field reversal. Journal of Geophysical Research 99(A9), 17391 (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roussos, E., Müller, J., Simon, S., Bößwetter, A., Motschmann, U., Krupp, N., Fränz, M., Woch, J., Khurana, K.K., Dougherty, M.K.: Plasma and fields in the wake of Rhea: 3-D hybrid simulation and comparison with Cassini data. Annales Geophysicae 26, 619–637 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Terada, N., Machida, S., Shinagawa, H.: Global hybrid simulation of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability at the Venus ionopause. Journal of Geophysical Research 107(A12), 1471 (2002). doi:10.1029/2001JA009224Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tóth, G.: The ∇  ⋅B = 0 constraint in shock-capturing magnetohydrodynamics codes. Journal of Computational Physics 161, 605–652 (2000). doi:10.1006/jcph.2000.6519MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winske, D., Quest, K.: Electromagnetic ion beam instabilities: Comparison of one- and two-dimensional simulations. Journal of Geophysical Research 91(A8), 8789–8797 (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Winske, D., Yin, L.: Hybrid codes: Past, present and future. In: Proceedings of ISSS-6, pp. 1–4 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yee, K.: Numerical solution of inital boundary value problems involving Maxwell’s equations in isotropic media. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 14, 302–307 (1966). doi:10.1109/TAP.1966.1138693MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swedish Institute of Space PhysicsKirunaSweden

Personalised recommendations