1 / 32

Current Bearing Lightning Return Strokes with Low Wave Speeds

Current Bearing Lightning Return Strokes with Low Wave Speeds. Preston B. Galla Mentor: Dr. Mostafa Hemmati Department of Physical Sciences Arkansas Tech University Russellville, AR, 72801 Phone: (479)-747-8710 E-mail: pgalla@atu.edu. Objectives.

kevlyn
Download Presentation

Current Bearing Lightning Return Strokes with Low Wave Speeds

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Current Bearing Lightning Return Strokes with Low Wave Speeds Preston B. Galla Mentor: Dr. Mostafa Hemmati Department of Physical Sciences Arkansas Tech University Russellville, AR, 72801 Phone: (479)-747-8710 E-mail: pgalla@atu.edu

  2. Objectives • Introduction of Breakdown Current Bearing Waves • Introduction of the completed set of Electron Fluid Dynamical Equations • Successful integration of the Electron Fluid Dynamical (EFD) Equations through the transition region. • Presentation of the low speed wave profile of electron number density, electron gas temperature, ionization rate, electric field, and electron velocity within the “sheath” region.

  3. Background • Francis Hauksbee– In 1705 was the first to pay detailed attention to luminous pulses in evacuated chambers. Experimental evidence consistently showed propagation speeds approaching the speed of light. The speeds were shown to be supersonic even in comparison with electron acoustic speeds and thus, were called shock waves. The phenomenon involving no mass motion was concluded to be from electron fluid action alone. Therefore they were referred to as EFD equations. • Charles Wheatstone – In 1835 first speculated that the pulses observed from the discharge tube subjected to high potential differences were actually ionizing potential waves traveling down the tube.

  4. Background • J.J. Thompson – In 1893 conducted numerous experiments of the luminous pulses in an improved apparatus of a 15 m long evacuated discharge tube. He observed the speed of the pulse to be in the order of 108 m/s • J.W. Beams – In 1930 confirmed Thompson’s observations of the speed of the pulse and had a qualitative explanation for it. He stated that the gas behind the pulse was electrically conducting so the pulse carried the potential of the discharge electrode where the potential was applied. He theorized that electrons were the main source in the wave propagation and that high ionization occurred at the electrode to which the potential was applied.

  5. Electron Fluid Dynamical Equations • R.G. Fowler and Paxton (1962) - under the assumption that the electron gas pressure is much greater than that of the other species, successfully derived approximate equations of conservation of mass, energy, and momentum. • Fowler and Shelton (1968) –Following the previous work of Paxton (1962) furthered the EFD equations. Considering no time variation, Maxwell’s equation reduced to Poisson’s equation.

  6. Background • R.G. Fowler and Shelton – Formulated energy and momentum loss terms from the collision between heavy particles and electrons. They also were able to derive boundary conditions at the shock front. • Fowler et al.– Completed Shelton’s earlier set of equations representing a one-dimensional, three-component (electrons, ions, and neutral particles) fluid model to describe a steady-state, ionizing electron fluid-dynamical wave propagating in the same direction as the electric field force on electrons (lightning step leader).

  7. Electron Shockwaves • Pro-force waves – Shockwaves propagating in the same direction as the direction of electric field force on electrons. • Anti-force waves – Shockwaves propagating in the opposite direction of the electric field force on electrons.

  8. Electron Fluid Dynamical Equations • Fowler et al. (1984) – Completed the EFD equations and added two noteworthy correction terms to them. They allowed for a strong discontinuity in electron gas temperature at the shock front and added a heat conduction term in the conservation of energy equation.

  9. Wave Components • Shock Front – The beginning portion of the wave followed by the transition or sheath region. • Sheath Region -Thin dynamical region in which the electric field starts from its maximum value at the shock front then reduces to a negligible value at the trailing edge of the wave and the electrons slow down to speeds comparable to the heavier ions.

  10. Equations of Conservation of Mass, Momentum, Energy and Poisson’s Equations for Pro-force Waves (1) (2) = (3) (4)

  11. Variable Description • E = Electric field. • x = position in the wave profile. • β= Ionization frequency. • K = Elastic collision frequency. • V = Wave velocity. • M = Neutral particle mass • E0= Electric field at the wave front. • Φ= Ionization potential. • e = Electron charge. • Te= Electron Temperature. • n = Electron Number Density • v = Electron Velocity. • m = Electron Mass.

  12. Dimensionless Variables for Pro-force Waves

  13. Dimensionless Equations for Pro-Force Waves

  14. Dimensionless Variables for Antiforce Waves • Hemmati (1999) - was able to successfully change the fluid dynamical equations and derive a new set of dimensionless variables representing anti-force waves.

  15. Dimensionless Variables for Anti-force Waves

  16. Description of Dimensionless Variables • ν = Electron concentration. • ψ = Electron velocity. • θ= Electron Temperature. • κ = Wave Parameter. • η= Electric field. • μ= Ionization rate. • ξ = Position inside the wave. • ι = Current

  17. Inclusion of Current Behind the Shock Front • Including the current behind the shock front in the set of EFD equations alters the equation of conservation of energy and Poisson’s equation. • Defining the dimensionless current as , the dimensionless EFD equations with current included become:

  18. Dimensionless Equations for Antiforce Current Bearing Waves (5) (6) (7) (8)

  19. Numerical Solution Method • Select values for α, ι, κ, ψ1 , ν1. • Integrate the EFD equations, changing the values of κ, ψ, and ν until the conclusion agrees with expected conditions at the end of the dynamic transition region of the wave.

  20. Figure 1. Electric field, η, as a function of electron velocity, Ψ, within the sheath region of current bearing antiforce waves for a wave speed value of α=0.25 and for current values 0, 0.5, 1 and 2.

  21. Experimental References • Initial conditions:Ƞ1= 1; ψ1 < 1 • Final conditions required: η2= 0; ψ2 → 1 • α =0.25 corresponds to a wave speed of 5.93*106m/s • ι = 1 corresponds to approximately 10 kA current • Rakov (2000) observed 10 kA currents • Wang et all (1999) observed a range of 12kA – 21 kA • Nakahori et al observed a return stroke current pulse with a peak of 31 kA.

  22. Figure 2. Electric field, η, as a function of position, ξ, within the sheath region of current bearing antiforce waves for a wave speed value of α=0.25 and for current values 0, 0.5, 1 and 2.

  23. Figure 3. Electron velocity, Ψ, as a function of position, ξ, within the sheath region of current bearing antiforce waves for a wave speed value of α=0.25 and for current values 0, 0.5, 1 and 2.

  24. Experimental References • ξ = 1 corresponds to a sheath thickness of 2mm. • Sanmann and Fowler reported a total sheath thickness of 5 cm. • Fujita et al. report a wave thickness of approximately 5 cm.

  25. Figure 4. Electron number density, ν, as a function of position, ξ, within the sheath region of current bearing antiforce waves for a wave speed value of α=0.25 and for current values 0, 0.5, 1 and 2.

  26. Experimental References • Our average non-dimensional electron number density of 0.7 represents an electron number density of 7.7*1015 / m^3. • Hagelaar and Kroesen report an average electron number density of 7*1015 / m^3. • David Graves reports electron number density values between 5*1015 /m^3 and 2*1016 / m^3.

  27. Figure 6. Electron temperature, θ, as a function of position, ξ, within the sheath region of current bearing antiforce waves for a wave speed value of α=0.25 and for current values 0, 0.5, 1 and 2.

  28. Experimental References • Sanmann and Fowler reported that the electron temperature increases rapidly away from the wave front until it reaches a peak value of about 3.17*107 K at a distance of 5.4cm behind the wave front.

  29. Figure 5. Ionization rate, µ, as a function of position, ξ, within the sheath region of current bearing antiforce waves for a wave speed value of α=0.25 and for current values 0, 0.5, 1 and 2.

  30. Conclusions • For current values for which solutions were possible, the electric field and electron velocity values met the expected conditions at the end of the sheath region. • Our results are in agreement with previous experimental and theoretical work done on anti-force waves.

  31. Acknowledgements • Arkansas Space Grant Consortium • Dr. Hemmati

  32. References • Fujita K, Sato S, and Abe T.: Journal of Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer 17, (2003) • Graves DB.: J. Appl Phys. 62, 1 (1987) • Hemmati, M. et al. “Antiforce Current Bearing Waves” • Hagelaar GJM and Kroesen GMW: Journal of Computational Physics 159, (2000) • Sanmann E and RG Fowler: The Physics of Fluids 18 11 (1975) • K Nakahori, T Egawa, H Mitani: “Characteristics of winter lightning currents in Hokuriku district” IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus System, vol. 101, 4407-4412, 1982. • Rakov VA. 2000. Positive and bipolar lightning discharges: a review. In: Proceedings of the 25nd International Conference on Lightning Protection. Pp 103-108. • Wang D, VA Rakov, MA Uman, N Takagi, T Watanabe, DE Crawford, KJ Rambo, GH Schnetzer, RJ Fisher and ZI Kawasaki. 1999. J. Geophys. Res. 104(D2).

More Related