See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330263910

Gas breakdown and its scaling law in microgaps with multiple concentric
cathode protrusions

Article in Applied Physics Letters · January 2019

DOI: 10.1063/1.5077015

CITATIONS READS

39 401

4 authors, including:

Yangyang Fu Peng Zhang

Tsinghua University Michigan State University
109 PUBLICATIONS 976 CITATIONS 244 PUBLICATIONS 3,421 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Janez Krek
KLA Corporation
28 PUBLICATIONS 246 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yangyang Fu on 13 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Applied Physics Letters ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/apl

Gas breakdown and its scaling law in microgaps

with multiple concentric cathode protrusions
Cite as: Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 014102 (2019); doi: 10.1063/1.5077015
Submitted: 23 October 2018 . Accepted: 26 December 2018 . Published Online:
09 January 2019

Yangyang Fu,1,2,a) Peng Zhang,2 Janez Krek,1 and John P. Verboncoeur1,2

AFFILIATIONS
1
Department of Computational Mathematics, Science and Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824,
USA
2
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA

a)
E-mail: fuyangya@egr.msu.edu

ABSTRACT
This paper reports gas breakdown characteristics in microgaps with multiple concentric protrusions on the cathode in the
transition from the Townsend to the subnormal glow discharge regime, using a two-dimensional hydrodynamic model. The
effects of the protrusion aspect ratio, height, and protrusion spacing on the breakdown voltage are investigated. The results
show that when the protrusion spacing is small, the shielding effect can play a more important role in the breakdown voltage
rather than the protrusion aspect ratio; the breakdown voltage is more sensitive to the protrusion height and can be assessed by
the shortest gap distance. Increasing the protrusion spacing decreases the shielding effect, which lowers the breakdown voltage
in both low- and high-pressure regimes. It is found that the breakdown scaling law still holds in geometrically similar microgaps
with multiple cathode protrusions despite the electric field distortion.
Published under license by AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5077015

Gas breakdown in microscale gaps has become an active studying the gas breakdown characteristics.16 Apparently, a
area of investigation with growing attention on microdischarges designed electrode surface morphology in discharge gaps can
and their applications, including micro-electro-mechanical significantly change electric field distribution with local
systems, plasma display panels, micro-switches, and microelec- enhancements and thus adjust the transport of charged par-
tronic devices.1–4 Even though gas breakdown has been exten- ticles, which greatly impacts the breakdown characteristics. The
sively investigated in gaps between finished planar electrodes, microgap discharge is ignited and maintained by field emission
electrode surface defects cannot be completely avoided and the when the electric field is on the order of 1 V/nm, whereas sec-
discharge properties can be greatly affected by the surface ondary electron emission is more important for weaker electric
defects. As the gap distance shrinks to microscales, the elec- fields.17–23 In recent years, theoretical, numerical, and experi-
trode surface status, such as the surface roughness and the sur- mental works were conducted on microscale breakdown,
face protrusion, becomes more pronounced with respect to the including characterizing the breakdown mode transition,24,25
breakdown processes.5–7 Previously, the effect of the electrode controlling the plasma to microstructure interaction,26,27 and
defects was investigated mostly for streamer and spark break- promoting the microdischarge uniformity.28–30 It can be
downs at high pressures,8–10 assuming the electrode surface expected that with the emerging advances in fabrication tech-
having a single protrusion or randomly generated textures,11 and nologies, microdischarge devices designed with more diverse
it was confirmed that the surface protrusion can cause a signifi- and complicated structures will be a reality for various targets
cant reduction in the voltage threshold.12,13 of controlling discharge behaviors. Understanding the break-
Recent advances in fabrication technologies, such as laser down characteristics with a given electrode morphology, as well
induced forward transfer (LIFT), enable manufacturing microdi- as designing engineered electrode surface structures with
scharge devices with increasingly complicated high-resolution desired breakdown characteristics, is important to achieve tar-
3D structures.14,15 Different morphologies of electrode surfaces geted system variability in microdischarge devices. In our previ-
have been produced by the deposition of dust plasma for ous studies,31,32 microgap breakdowns were investigated with

Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 014102 (2019); doi: 10.1063/1.5077015 114, 014102-1
Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Applied Physics Letters ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/apl

the effects of a single surface protrusion which represents a maximum effective electric field is much smaller than the field
small fraction of the electrode area, while here, the main focus is emission threshold (109 V/m).37,38 The discharge is sustained by
on the coupling effects of a collection of protrusions on the the ion-impact secondary electron emission from the cathode.
breakdown characteristics. The normal flux of electrons emitted by the cathode is related
to the flux of incident ions by an effective secondary emission
In this work, we aim to study the effects of multiple protru-
coefficient ceff, which is fixed at 0.1.39,40 At the side wall (r ¼ R),
sions with mutual interactions (e.g., electric shielding effect) on
the Neumann boundary conditions for species are used and the
microplasma discharge. The breakdown voltages are quantified
electric field is evaluated by Gauss’s law with surface charge
in the Townsend discharge regime based on the voltage-current
accumulation.41 Before gas breakdown, the field distribution is
curves which are obtained by using a two-dimensional hydrody-
close to the Laplace solution since the surface and space charge
namic model. The effects of the protrusion aspect ratio, size,
effects are negligible.42 The mathematical equations of the dis-
and spacing on the breakdown voltage are studied and the
charge model, including species continuity equations, electron
impact of the electric shielding effect on electric potential, ioni-
energy equation, and Poisson’s equation, are solved self-
zation rate, and field enhancement are investigated. The break-
consistently to reach the steady state.43–45
down scaling laws are examined in geometrically similar
microgaps with the distorted and non-uniform electric field due The breakdown voltage in the microgap is identified using
to the cathode protrusions. the voltage-current characteristics. By stepping the applied
A schematic slice of the microgap in the r–z plane is shown voltage Udc with small intervals in a series of simulations, a typi-
cal voltage-current curve, which includes (i) Geiger-Mu € ller
in Fig. 1(a). The microgap consists of two plane-parallel circular
electrodes of radius R. A DC voltage Udc is applied to the anode regime, (ii) Townsend discharge regime, and (iii) subnormal glow
through a ballast resistor Rb ¼ 100 kX and the cathode is discharge regime, is obtained, as shown in Fig. 2(a). In the
grounded. The concentric protrusions are introduced on the Townsend regime, the gap voltage is roughly constant while the
cathode surface with a hemi-elliptical cross-section. A 3D view discharge current varies across orders of magnitude. The break-
of the cathode surface is shown in Fig. 1(b), which can be pro- down point is identified when the discharge enters the subnor-
duced with metal micro-droplets using 3D printings.33 This mal glow regime with a negative differential resistance.46 In Fig.
microstructure incorporates the electric shielding effect among 2(a), for the case p ¼ 500 Torr, a ¼ 50 lm, b ¼ 25 lm, X ¼ 100 lm,
neighboring concentric protrusions, which represents a typical dmax ¼ 200 lm, and R ¼ 500 lm, the breakdown point is reached
electrode surface morphology and is scalable for larger surfaces when Udc ¼ 147 V. Using this method, the breakdown voltage can
to support significant macroscopic current densities that sum be quantified with very small uncertainties and alternative crite-
to large total current. The shape of protrusions and their config- ria avoided. Figure 2(b) shows the cathode current density distri-
uration are defined by protrusion height a, radial dimension bution in the steady state with Udc ¼ 147 V. The current density is
(width) b, and spacing from tip to tip between two neighboring more pronounced on the protrusion tips and is negligible on the
protrusions X  2b. The cathode protrusions result in the mini- substrate between protrusions. The current density distribution
mum gap distance dmin ¼ dmax  a from the anode to the protru- in the radial direction is shown in Fig. 2(c) for different applied
sion tip and the maximum gap distance dmax from the anode to voltages around the breakdown threshold. It is observed that
the cathode substrate. In this model, it is assumed that dmax the current density on the protrusion tip can be more than one
¼ 200 lm and R ¼ 500 lm, unless specified otherwise. With a order of magnitude larger than that on the substrate.
small aspect ratio of the gap (dmax/R < 0.5), the gap sidewall is Meanwhile, the enhanced current density on the protrusion tip
relatively far away from the center and the impact of transverse decreases as the position moves from the center towards the
diffusion on the sidewall of the gap is less important.34–36 sidewall. When the applied voltage is increased above the break-
down threshold, the current density distribution is enhanced
Argon gas at room temperature (300 K) is chosen as the over orders of the magnitude [see plots for Udc ¼ 147 V and 148 V
working gas. The applied voltage ranges from 100 to 200 V, and in Fig. 2(c)]; otherwise, it increases gradually as the voltage
the gap distance is in the range of 100–200 lm. The maximum increases. It should be noted that the breakdown voltage deter-
electric field is on the order of 107 V/m since the space charge is mined here is in the Townsend regime, which is very different
not important and the field enhancement is less than 10 [see from the fast streamer or spark breakdowns, where the space
Figs. 3(c) and 3(d) below]. The field emission is ignored since the charge effect is important.10–12,29
The electric field shielding effect is practically used to block
the electric field with conductive barriers, such as a conductive
shell, inside which the field strength is ideally zero.47 This shield-
ing effect is also pronounced on electrode surfaces with multi-
ple protrusions, as shown in Fig. 3. The normalized electric
potential u(r, z)/umax and the normalized ionization rate a(r, z)/
amax are presented in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b), respectively, with
p ¼ 500 Torr and Udc ¼ 147 V. As shown in Fig. 3(a), the electric
FIG. 1. (a) The schematic of a microgap with concentric protrusions on the cathode potential oscillates along the protrusion surface from the center
surface; (b) a 3D view of the electrode with concentric protrusions. to the sidewall in a nonlinear fashion. The electric potential is

Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 014102 (2019); doi: 10.1063/1.5077015 114, 014102-2
Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Applied Physics Letters ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/apl

FIG. 2. (a) Voltage-current characteristics with the applied voltage increased from
100 to 200 V; (b) the current density distribution on the cathode with multiple con-
centric protrusions (Udc ¼ 147 V); (c) the radial current density distributions with the
applied voltage Udc less (Udc ¼ 145 V and 146 V) and larger (Udc ¼ 147 V and 148
V) than the breakdown threshold. In this case, p ¼ 500 Torr, a ¼ 50 lm, b ¼ 25
lm, and X ¼ 100 lm. The positions of the protrusion tip are at r ¼ 0 lm, 100 lm,
200 lm, 300 lm, 400 lm, and 500 lm.

suppressed on the protrusion tip and becomes equipotential

between adjacent protrusions due to the electric shielding
effect. Away from the cathode region, the effect of surface pro-
trusions on the potential is rapidly smoothed away and the elec-
tric potential increases linearly in the axial direction. The
ionizations shown in Fig. 3(b) more frequently occur on the pro-
trusion tip rather than on the substrate, which is determined by
the geometric electric field enhancement. In Figs. 3(c) and 3(d),
it is observed that the normalized electric field E(z)/Eav is rela- FIG. 4. The calculated breakdown voltage in the microgap (dmax ¼ 200 lm and
R ¼ 500 lm) with multiple concentric cathode protrusions. (a) The breakdown volt-
tively low at the cathode substrate and reaches its maximum on age curve with different protrusion spacings and a ¼ 50 lm and b ¼ 25 lm; (b) the
the protrusion tip, oscillating toward the sidewall roughly as a breakdown voltage curve with different protrusion spacings and a ¼ 100 lm and
constant magnitude sinusoid. Note that the average electric b ¼ 50 lm; (c) the breakdown voltage curve with different protrusion aspect ratios
field Eav is defined as Eav ¼ Ugap/dmax. As the protrusion spacing a/b ¼ 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0; (d) the breakdown curves with cathode protrusions
X increases (X ¼ 2b, 4b, and 8b), the shielding effect decreases, (a ¼ 50 lm and 100 lm, a/b ¼ 2.0, and X ¼ 2b) compared to the plane-parallel
cases (d ¼ 150 lm and 100 lm).
and the electric field becomes larger at both the protrusion tip
and the cathode substrate. As the aspect ratio a/b becomes
smaller, the field enhancement decreases due to flattened pro- protrusion spacing X is set to 2b, 4b, and 8b with a ¼ 50 lm and
trusions, but other variation characteristics in the radial direc- b ¼ 25 lm in Fig. 4(a) and a ¼ 100 lm and b ¼ 50 lm in Fig. 4(b). As
tion are similar. the protrusion spacing X increases, the breakdown voltage
Figure 4 shows the effect of the multiple cathode protru- becomes lower in both low- and high-pressure regimes and
sions on the breakdown voltage in the microgap. Figures 4(a) remains roughly the same near the lowest point. It should be
and 4(b) show the impact of the protrusion spacing on the noted that at low pressures, the breakdown can occur along the
breakdown voltage with different electric shieldings. The longest discharge path in the gap, which was experimentally
confirmed previously.48 At high pressures, the discharge does
not expand into the region between the perturbations and the
breakdown tends to choose the shortest path. When the protru-
sion spacing is small, the diffusion losses to the protrusion side
walls could also prevent the discharge reaching the cathode
substrate and make the long path breakdown ineffective, which
is consistent with the increasing shielding effect. The results in
Fig. 4(b) are consistent with the electric field enhancement [see
Fig. 3(c) above] with larger spacing when the shielding effect
becomes weaker and the electric field enhancement becomes
larger at both the protrusion tip and the cathode substrate.
Therefore, wherever the ionization occurs, on either the protru-
sion tip or the cathode substrate, it will result in lower break-
down voltage. With a smaller protrusion height, shown in Fig
4(a), the breakdown voltage difference is relatively small since
FIG. 3. The spatial distributions of (a) the normalized electric potential u(r, z)/umax
for X ¼ 4b and (b) the normalized ionization rate a(r, z)/amax with p ¼ 500 Torr and the perturbation of the electric field is smoothed away in a short
Udc ¼ 147 V; the normalized electric field (c) with different spacings between the distance across the gap. With a larger protrusion height, as
adjacent protrusions keeping a ¼ 50 lm and b ¼ 50 lm and (d) with different pro- shown in Fig 4(b), the breakdown voltage difference caused by
trusion aspect ratios keeping a ¼ 50 lm and X ¼ 2b. different shielding effects is more pronounced.

Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 014102 (2019); doi: 10.1063/1.5077015 114, 014102-3
Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Applied Physics Letters ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/apl

The impact of the different protrusion aspect ratios a/b on

the breakdown voltage is shown in Fig. 4(c), when the electric
shielding is the most effective (X ¼ 2b). The breakdown curves in
Fig. 4(c) are overlapping, which indicate that the aspect ratio has
little impact on the breakdown voltage. This tells that the break-
down voltage does not change obviously even though the sur-
face protrusions become relatively flat, which inspires us to
compare the breakdown curves to the plane-parallel cases with
the shortest gap distance (d ¼ dmin ¼ dmax  a). In Fig. 4(d), with
a/b ¼ 2.0 and X ¼ 2b, the cases a ¼ 50 lm and a ¼ 100 lm corre-
spond to the plane-parallel cases d ¼ 150 lm and d ¼ 100 lm,
respectively. The aspect ratio d/R of the plane-parallel cases is
FIG. 5. (a) The breakdown curves as a function of gas pressure for geometrically
chosen as d/R ¼ dmax/R ¼ 0.4. In Fig. 4(d), when the protrusion similar gaps; (b) the breakdown curves as a function of the gas pressure scaled
height is smaller (a ¼ 50 lm), the breakdown curve with protru- with the corresponding scaling factor k.
sions overlaps the plane-parallel case. When the protrusion
height is larger (a ¼ 100 lm), the breakdown curve with surface
protrusions still overlaps the plane-parallel case (d ¼ 100 lm) on Breakdown curves are calculated for the cases A1, A2, B1,
the right branch but can be slightly lower on the left branch. and B2 and shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen in Fig. 5(a) that four
Note that the ranges of pdmin in Fig. 4(d) with different protru- breakdown curves versus the gas pressure are separated, while
sion heights are not the same and the separation of the break- in Fig. 5(b), the breakdown curves versus the scaled gas pressure
down curves also occurs for the case of a ¼ 50 lm and the (k  pressure) are overlapping. Even though the gap distance
corresponding plane-parallel case (d ¼ 150 lm) at lower pres- ranges from dmin to dmax due to the surface protrusions, the
sures. Also note that increasing the protrusion height leads to breakdown curve Ub ¼ f (k  pressure) can be referred to a gen-
the intersection of breakdown voltage curves, which results in eral Paschen’s law. The breakdown scaling law still holds for
lower (higher) breakdown voltages on the right (left) branch microgaps with multiple surface protrusions despite the electric
with a larger height. Therefore, the breakdown voltage with field distortion near the cathode, through which the applicability
multiple cathode protrusions is more sensitive to the protrusion of the scaling laws can be extended.
height and can be assessed by the shortest gap distance in
In summary, breakdown characteristics are investigated in
plane-parallel geometry when the electric shielding effect is
microgaps with multiple concentric cathode protrusions. Based
significant.
on the voltage-current characteristics, the breakdown voltages
As is known, scaling laws are essential in understanding are quantified in the Townsend regime when discharges are
breakdown processes at different conditions and predicting dis- dominated by secondary electron emission. The results eluci-
charge properties on different scales.21–23,34,49–55 The break- date the effects of competing factors (i.e., electric shielding and
down scaling law based on Townsend theory is usually field enhancement) on the breakdown characteristics which
investigated in cases with plane-parallel gaps when the electric depend largely on the cathode surface morphology. The break-
field is uniform.56,57 Previous studies indicate that Townsend down can occur along the longest discharge path at low pres-
theory is still valid in microdischarges unless the field emission sures when the protrusion spacing is larger and the shielding
plays a role.17–19 Even though in the secondary electron emission effect is not significant or along the shortest path at high pres-
dominated regime, it is critical to check the validity of the break- sures when the electric field is enhanced on the protrusion tips.
down scaling law while the electric field is distorted and When the protrusion spacing is small, the shielding effect plays
non-uniform due to surface protrusions. In Table I, two pairs of a more important role in the breakdown voltage rather than the
geometrically similar microgaps (cases A1 and A2 and cases B1 protrusion aspect ratio, and the breakdown voltage can be
and B2) with multiple concentric cathode protrusions are con- assessed by the shortest gap distance. As the protrusion spacing
sidered. In geometrically similar microgaps, all linear dimensions increases, the electric shielding effect decreases, and the break-
are proportional via a scaling factor k. Cases A1 and B1 are the down voltage is lower in both low- and high-pressure regimes.
original microgaps with k ¼ 1 and cases A2 and B2 are the corre- The breakdown scaling law still holds in geometrically similar
sponding scaled up microgaps with k ¼ 2. microgaps with surface protrusions even though the electric
field is distorted near the cathode. Although a more accurate
TABLE I. Geometrically similar microgaps with concentric cathode protrusions and k description of the discharge may require kinetic treatment of
is the scaling factor. electrons, the proposed method can capture the transition from
the Townsend to subnormal glow discharge regime, which can
Case no. dmax (lm) R (lm) a (lm) b (lm) X (lm) be employed to understand the qualitative trends of the break-
Case A1: (k ¼ 1) 200 500 50 25 50 down characteristics in microgaps with protrusion geome-
Case A2: (k ¼ 2) 400 1000 100 50 100 tries.58–60 This study provides insight into the design and the
Case B1: (k ¼ 1) 200 500 100 50 100 operation of microdischarge devices for controlling (triggering
Case B2: (k ¼ 2) 400 1000 200 100 200 or suppressing) the breakdown with engineered surface mor-
phologies using emerging fabrication technologies. The possible

Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 014102 (2019); doi: 10.1063/1.5077015 114, 014102-4
Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Applied Physics Letters ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/apl

30
connection of this work to hollow cathode and microcavity dis- A. Semnani, A. Venkattraman, A. A. Alexeenko, and D. Peroulis, Appl. Phys.
charges could be further explored.26,61–64 Further work may also 31
Lett. 103, 063102 (2013).
Y. Fu, P. Zhang, and J. P. Verboncoeur, Appl. Phys. Lett. 112, 254102 (2018).
include the effect of microstructures on field emission, dis- 32
Y. Fu, P. Zhang, and J. P. Verboncoeur, Appl. Phys. Lett. 113, 054102 (2018).
charge stability and variability, and plasma source efficiency in 33
M. Zenou, A. Sa’Ar, and Z. Kotler, Sci. Rep. 5, 17265 (2015).
microdischarge devices, to further extend the relevant 34
V. A. Lisovskiy, S. D. Yakovin, and V. D. Yegorenkov, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
applications. 33, 2722 (2000).
35
V. A. Lisovskiy, N. D. Kharchenko, and V. D. Yegorenkov, J. Phys. D: Appl.
This work was supported by Air Force Office of Scientific Phys. 43, 425202 (2010).
Research (AFOSR) Grant No. FA9550-18-1-0062, and U.S. 36
Y. Fu, H. Luo, X. Zou, and X. Wang, Phys. Plasmas 22, 023502 (2015).
37
Department of Energy Plasma Science Center Grant No. DE- D. Levko and L. L. Raja, Phys. Plasmas 23, 073513 (2016).
38
SC0001939. Peng Zhang was also supported by AFOSR YIP J. Lin, P. Y. Wong, P. Yang, Y. Y. Lau, W. Tang, and P. Zhang, J. Appl. Phys.
Award No. FA9550-18-1-0061. 121, 244301 (2017).
39
A. V. Phelps and Z. Lj Petrović, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 8, R21 (1999).
40
A. V. Phelps and B. M. Jelenković, Phys. Rev. A 38, 2975 (1988).
REFERENCES 41
E. A. Bogdanov, V. I. Demidov, A. A. Kudryavtsev, and A. I. Saifutdinov,
1
A. M. Loveless and A. L. Garner, Appl. Phys. Lett. 108, 234103 (2016). Phys. Plasmas 22, 024501 (2015).
42
2
T. Ito, T. Kanazawa, and S. Hamaguchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 065002 (2011). R. Schnyder, A. A. Howling, D. Bommottet, and C. Hollenstein, J. Phys. D:
3
A. Semnani, A. Venkattraman, A. A. Alexeenko, and D. Peroulis, Appl. Phys. Appl. Phys. 46, 285205 (2013).
43
Lett. 102, 174102 (2013). G. J. M. Hagelaar and L. C. Pitchford, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 14, 722
4
K. H. Schoenbach and K. Becker, Eur. Phys. J. D. 70, 29 (2016). (2005).
44
5
A. Peschot, N. Bonifaci, O. Lesaint, C. Valadares, and C. Poulain, Appl. T. Farouk, B. Farouk1, D. Staack, A. Gutsol, and A. Fridman, Plasma Sources
Phys. Lett. 105, 123109 (2014). Sci. Technol. 15, 676 (2006).
45
6
J. A. Buendia and A. Venkattraman, Europhys. Lett. 112, 55002 (2015). Y. Fu, H. Luo, X. Zou, and X. Wang, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 23,
7
Y. Fu, P. Zhang, J. P. Verboncoeur, A. J. Christlieb, and X. Wang, Phys. 065035 (2014).
46
Plasmas 25, 013530 (2018). J. T. Gudmundsson and A. Hecimovic, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 26,
8
A. Pedersen, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. 94, 1749 (1975). 123001 (2017).
47
9
S. Berger, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. 95, 1073 (1976). J. B. Pendry, D. Schurig, and D. R. Smith, Science 312, 1780 (2006).
10 48 
D. Marić, N. Skoro, P. D. Maguire, C. M. O. Mahony, G. Malović, and Z. L.
Y. Qiu and I. D. Chalmers, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 26, 1928 (1993).
11
A. M. Mahdy, H. I. Anis, and S. A. Ward, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 5, Petrović, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 21, 035016 (2012).
49 
Z. L. Petrović, N. Skoro, D. Marić, C. M. O. Mahony, P. D. Maguire, M.
612 (1998).
12
M. Hikita, S. Ohtsuka, N. Yokoyama, S. Okabe, and S. Kaneko, IEEE Trans. Radmilović-Rad-enović, and G. Malović, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41, 194002
Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 15, 243 (2008). (2008).
13
M. S. M. Saheed, N. M. Mohamed, and Z. A. Burhanudin, Appl. Phys. Lett.
50 
N. Skoro, D. Marić, and Z. L. Petrović, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 36, 994
104, 123105 (2014). (2008).
14 51
U. Zywietz, A. B. Evlyukhin, C. Reinhardt, and B. N. Chichkov, Nat. S. K. Nam and J. P. Verboncoeur, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 628
Commun. 5, 3402 (2014). (2009).
15 52
Y. Kashiwagi, A. Koizumi, Y. Takemura, S. Furuta, M. Yamamoto, M. Saitoh, Y. Fu, Y. Shuo, X. Zou, H. Luo, and X. Wang, Phys. Plasmas 23, 093509
M. Takahashi, T. Ohno, Y. Fujiwara, K. Murahashi, and K. Ohtsuka, Appl. (2016).
53
Phys. Lett. 105, 223509 (2014). Y. Fu, Y. Shuo, X. Zou, H. Luo, and X. Wang, Phys. Plasmas 24, 023508
16 
I. Stefanović, J. Berndt, D. Marić, V. Samara, M. Radmilović-Radjenović, Z. (2017).
54
L. Petrović, E. Kovačević, and J. Winter, Phys. Rev. E 74, 026406 (2006). M. U. Lee, J. Lee, J. K. Lee, and G. S. Yun, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 26,
17
R. Tirumala and D. B. Go, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 151502 (2010). 034003 (2017).
18 55
D. B. Go and D. A. Pohlman, J. Appl. Phys. 107, 103303 (2010). M. U. Lee, J. Lee, G. S. Yun, and J. K. Lee, Eur. Phys. J. D 71, 94 (2017).
19 56
D. B. Go and A. Venkattraman, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 47, 503001 (2014). J. S. Townsend, Electricity in Gases (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1915).
20 57
D. Levko and L. L. Raja, J. Appl. Phys. 117, 173303 (2015). Y. P. Raizer, Gas Discharge Physics (Springer, Berlin, 1991).
21 58
A. Venkattraman and A. A. Alexeenko, Phys. Plasmas 19, 123515 (2012). R. R. Arslanbekov and V. I. Kolobov, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 36, 2986
22
A. M. Loveless and A. L. Garner, Phys. Plasmas 24, 113522 (2017). (2003).
23 59
A. M. Loveless and A. L. Garner, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 45, 574 (2017). E. Arcese, F. Rogier, and J. P. Boeuf, Phys. Plasmas 24, 113517 (2017).
24  Matejčik, M. Klas, and B. Radjenović, J. Phys. 60
M. Radmilović-Radjenović, S. I. Rafatov and C. Yesil, Phys. Plasmas 25, 082107 (2018).
61
D: Appl. Phys. 46, 015302 (2013). K. H. Becker, K. H. Schoenbach, and J. G. Eden, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 39,
25
Y. Fu, J. Krek, P. Zhang, and J. P. Verboncoeur, Plasma Sources Sci. R55 (2006).
Technol. 27, 095014 (2018).
62 
D. Marić, N. Skoro, G. Malović, Z. L. Petrović, V. Mihailov, and R.
26
S. H. Sung, I. C. Hwang, S. J. Park, and J. G. Eden, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, Djulgerova, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 162, 012007 (2009).
63
231502 (2010). J. Greenan, C. M. O. Mahony, D. Mariotti, and P. D. Maguire, Plasma
27
A. Venkattraman, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 47, 425205 (2014). Sources Sci. Technol. 20, 025011 (2011).
28 64
T. Shao, W. Yang, C. Zhang, Z. Niu, P. Yan, and E. Schamiloglu, Appl. Phys. J. G. Eden, S. J. Park, J. H. Cho, M. H. Kim, T. J. Houlahan, B. Li, E. S. Kim, T.
Lett. 105, 071607 (2014). L. Kim, S. K. Lee, K. S. Kim, J. K. Yoon, S. H. Sung, P. Sun, C. M. Herring, and
29
J. Zhang, Y. Wang, and D. Wang, Phys. Plasmas 25, 072101 (2018). C. J. Wagner, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 41, 661 (2013).

Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 014102 (2019); doi: 10.1063/1.5077015 114, 014102-5
Published under license by AIP Publishing

View publication stats